Moses, mediating Yahweh's covenant instruction to Israel within the Torah.
Clean and Unclean Creatures: Holiness in Daily Life
The holy Lord trains His redeemed people to distinguish clean from unclean in daily life so that their ordinary existence reflects His holy claim upon them.
Reading a chapter
What this page is: Each chapter page shows the big idea, the argument flow, key original-language terms, doctrine connections, and passage units, all in one place.
How to use it: Start with the Overview tab to get the chapter's main point. Then move to Passages to study individual units, or Language to trace key terms.
Going deeper: The Doctrines and Motifs tabs show how this chapter connects to the broader biblical story.
The holy Lord trains His redeemed people to distinguish clean from unclean in daily life so that their ordinary existence reflects His holy claim upon them.
Leviticus 11 teaches that holiness is learned through distinction. After the priests are commanded to distinguish holy from common and clean from unclean, the Lord gives Israel concrete categories for animals, food, carcasses, household objects, and bodily contact. These distinctions are not detached ritual details; they train Israel to live as the people of the holy Lord who brought them up out of Egypt. The chapter's theological center is the Lord's own declaration: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'
Israel's covenant community, especially the priests who must distinguish clean from unclean and teach Israel the Lord's decrees, and the people who must live as a holy nation in ordinary patterns of eating, touching, and household life.
Leviticus 11 follows immediately after the priestly crisis of Leviticus 10, where the Lord commanded the priests to distinguish between holy and common, clean and unclean, and to teach Israel His decrees. Chapter 11 begins the extended clean and unclean instruction that runs through Leviticus 11-15.
The holy Lord trains His redeemed people to distinguish clean from unclean in daily life so that their ordinary existence reflects His holy claim upon them.
Moses, mediating Yahweh's covenant instruction to Israel within the Torah.
Israel's covenant community, especially the priests who must distinguish clean from unclean and teach Israel the Lord's decrees, and the people who must live as a holy nation in ordinary patterns of eating, touching, and household life.
Leviticus 11 follows immediately after the priestly crisis of Leviticus 10, where the Lord commanded the priests to distinguish between holy and common, clean and unclean, and to teach Israel His decrees. Chapter 11 begins the extended clean and unclean instruction that runs through Leviticus 11-15.
- Israel must learn that holiness is not limited to altar service. The Lord's holiness reaches into the kitchen, the field, the household vessel, the carcass, the diet, and daily contact with the created order. Israel is being trained to live as a distinct covenant people whose ordinary life is shaped by the Lord's command.
Ancient peoples often observed food customs, purity boundaries, and animal classifications. Leviticus grounds Israel's distinctions not in superstition or mere health practice but in covenant holiness: Israel belongs to the Lord, who brought them up out of Egypt and calls them to be holy because He is holy.
After Israel's redemption from Egypt, covenant formation at Sinai, tabernacle completion, sacrificial instruction, priestly ordination, and priestly warning, Leviticus 11 trains Israel in covenant distinction. The holy God who dwells among them requires His people to distinguish clean from unclean in daily life.
The Lord instructs Moses and Aaron concerning clean and unclean land animals, water creatures, birds, flying insects, swarming creatures, carcass contamination, household impurity, and the theological purpose of these distinctions: Israel must be holy because the Lord is holy.
Theological exposition and fulfillment
Leviticus 11 clarifies the gospel by showing that God's redeemed people must be holy because He is holy, yet external distinctions cannot finally cleanse the heart. Christ fulfills the clean and unclean system by cleansing sinners, declaring foods clean, removing Jew-Gentile boundary markers, and creating a holy people through His blood and Spirit. The gospel does not erase holiness; it establishes true holiness in Christ.
The Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron, placing the clean and unclean instructions under priestly responsibility.
Clean land animals must both chew the cud and have split hooves.
Clean water creatures must have fins and scales.
Specific birds and winged creatures are named as detestable and forbidden.
Most winged insects are detestable, but certain hopping insects are permitted.
Touching or carrying carcasses brings temporary uncleanness and requires washing.
Small ground creatures defile people and objects through carcass contact.
Even edible animals can defile if they die apart from proper slaughter, and swarming creatures are forbidden.
Israel must be holy because the Lord is holy and must distinguish between unclean and clean.
- 11:1-8: Israel may eat land animals that chew the cud and have divided hooves, but must avoid animals that fail one or both criteria.
- 11:9-12: Israel may eat water creatures with fins and scales, but creatures lacking them are detestable.
- 11:13-23: The Lord lists forbidden birds and allows only certain hopping insects among winged insects.
- 11:24-40: Contact with carcasses can make people, objects, vessels, ovens, food, and water-related items unclean.
- 11:41-43: Israel must not eat or defile themselves with creatures that swarm on the ground.
- 11:44-47: The Lord anchors the clean and unclean laws in His redemptive claim and holy character.
Pastoral Entry
דָּבַר is the primary Hebrew verb for speaking and it generates the most theologically important noun in the OT: דָּבָר (dābar), the word. The verb and noun together form the backbone of the OT's theology of divine communication. When God dābars, things happen: the creation narratives are structured by divine speech ('God said... and there was'); the covenant is founded on divine words (the Ten Words, ʿăśeret haddĕbārîm, the Decalogue); and the prophets speak as dābar YHWH came to me — the formula that opens the major and minor prophets dozens of times.
The noun dābar (H1697) carries an enormous semantic range: it means word, thing, event, matter, affair, and promise. The overlap between 'word' and 'event' is theologically crucial — in Hebrew thought, the divine word is not merely informational but performative and effective. 'The word that goes forth from my mouth shall not return to me empty, but shall accomplish that which I purpose' (Isa 55:11).
The dābar YHWH does not merely describe reality; it creates it. The dābar YHWH as the technical formula for prophetic reception occurs over 240 times in the OT. The prophet who speaks is not giving an opinion; they have received a dābar — a specific, authorized, effective word from the divine Speaker. The NT's 'the Word became flesh' (John 1:14) is the climactic dābar event: the divine speech that has been going forth since creation becomes incarnate in a person.
Sense to speak
Definition to speak
References 11:1
Why it matters The Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron, grounding the clean and unclean laws in divine revelation.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Sense Aaron
Definition Aaron
References 11:1
Why it matters Aaron is addressed with Moses because priests are responsible to distinguish and teach clean and unclean categories.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Pastoral Entry
The Hebrew verb אָמַר (ʾāmar) is the ordinary and highly frequent verb for saying or telling. Depending on its construction and setting, it can introduce a statement, question, command, promise, response, reported speech, or inward deliberation. The verb identifies an act of speech or thought; it does not establish that the statement is true, wise, divine, or effective. Readers must ask who speaks, to whom, about what, with what authority, and how the surrounding narrative evaluates the words.
Genesis 1:3 uses ʾāmar with God as subject: God says, “Let there be light,” and light appears. The passage reveals the Creator’s sovereign authority, but the same verb in Genesis 3:1 introduces the serpent’s distortion of God’s command. The contrast shows why the speaker and content matter more than the lexical form alone. Exodus 3:14 places the verb in God’s self-identification and His instruction to Moses. Jeremiah 1:7 likewise joins divine speech to prophetic commission: Jeremiah must not define his calling by his youth but must speak what the Lord commands.
Human speech uses the verb without acquiring divine authority. First Samuel 27:1 says that David spoke to himself while reasoning about Saul’s threat. His conclusion belongs to the narrative’s human deliberation, not to a prophetic formula. Psalm 2:7 reports the Lord’s decree to the king, and the New Testament later receives that royal statement in its testimony to Christ. That canonical significance comes from the psalm and its inspired reuse, not from ʾāmar functioning as a hidden messianic code.
Faithful teaching therefore treats speech according to source, content, and setting. God’s word is trustworthy because God is truthful and sovereign. A prophet’s authority is borrowed from the command received. Human speakers can tell truth, ask honestly, deliberate fearfully, or deceive. The verb should never be used to imply that believers create reality by speaking, that every inward sentence is divine guidance, or that a modern teacher may claim prophetic authority merely by saying, “The Lord told me.”
Sense to say
Definition to say
References 11:2
Why it matters Moses and Aaron are to speak the Lord's instruction to the Israelites.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Pastoral Entry
בֵּן is the most common Hebrew word for son, and its very frequency is a pastoral warning: familiarity can blunt the word's force before we ever read the passage. At its most basic, בֵּן names a male child born into a family — a biological heir, the one who carries the family name forward, who stands in a line of descent and inheritance. But the word extends far beyond that, and the extension is not a distortion; it is baked into the Hebrew idiom from the earliest texts. Grandson, descendant, member of a tribe or nation, member of a particular class or guild, an animal of a certain age or kind, even a quality of character — all of these can be expressed by בֵּן in a construct relationship. 'Sons of the prophets' names an apprentice community. 'Son of man' is a phrase for human creatureliness. 'Sons of Israel' names a covenant nation. 'Sons of God' raises a set of interpretive questions all its own.
The pastoral depth of this word is not primarily in its range of idiomatic uses, though that range is genuinely wide. The depth comes from what the word carries relationally. A son in the ancient world was not merely a biological fact but a relational reality: he was the one loved, shaped, trained, corrected, named, blessed, and sent. The father who had a son had a future. The son who had a father had an identity.
This means that when the Old Testament speaks of God's relationship to Israel, to the king, and to the people He forms and calls — and does so using בֵּן language — something is at stake beyond family metaphor. God is not borrowing a warm human image to soften His theology. He is making a claim about the nature of the relationship itself: that it involves origination, love, inheritance, discipline, and belonging. 'Out of Egypt I called my son' (Hosea 11:1) is a covenant confession, not a sentimental comparison.
For the preacher, בֵּן is one of those words that can be passed over because it feels obvious. Slow down. The sonship language of the Old Testament is doing heavy theological lifting, and it carries load that runs all the way into the New Testament's confession that the Father sent His Son.
Sense son
Definition son
References 11:2
Why it matters The instruction is addressed to the sons of Israel, the covenant people.
Pastoral Entry
חַי describes what is living or alive and can also mark what is fresh, flowing, or vigorous. Its wide range includes living creatures, raw flesh, running water, continuing life, and the covenant title “the living God.” The local index currently counts about 503 occurrences, so no single theological gloss governs every use. Context determines whether the adjective identifies biological life, freshness, duration, or a title for God.
When Scripture calls the Lord “the living God,” the title often carries covenantal or polemical force. Deuteronomy 5:26 emphasizes that Israel heard the living God speak; Joshua 3:10 grounds confidence in God’s active presence; Jeremiah 10:10 contrasts the Lord with manufactured idols; and Daniel 6:20 asks whether Daniel’s God can deliver. These passages reveal the God who speaks and acts, but that force arises from each context rather than from an expanded dictionary definition of the adjective.
The phrase “living water” likewise depends on context. In ritual texts it commonly means fresh or running water. Jeremiah 2:13 applies the image to the Lord as the fountain his people forsook for broken cisterns. Teachers can trace that prophetic image toward the New Testament’s living-water language while preserving Jeremiah’s covenant indictment and distinguishing it from ordinary or ritual uses.
Pastorally, חַי helps teachers contrast trust in the living God with dependence on powerless substitutes and helps lamenting believers voice their thirst for God, as in Psalms 42 and 84. The application should arise from those passages without implying that every H2416 occurrence carries the full theology of divine life.
Sense living thing, living creature
Definition living thing, living creature
References 11:2, 11:10, 11:46-47
Why it matters The chapter classifies living creatures that may or may not be eaten.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Pastoral Entry
H929 broadly names animals, especially larger land animals or livestock, and can function collectively. It appears in creation, agriculture, offerings, travel, judgment, wisdom, and care. In Gen. 1. 24, God commands the earth to bring forth livestock and wild animals according to their kinds, locating them within the Creator's good order. In Prov. 12. 10, a righteous person knows or cares for the life of an animal, while even wicked compassion proves cruel.
In Hab. 2. 17, violence against Lebanon and destruction of animals return upon an empire guilty of bloodshed against people, land, and cities. H929 opens teaching on creaturely goodness, responsible husbandry, ecological consequence, and shared vulnerability. It does not erase the distinct dignity of humans made in God's image, romanticize wild nature, or permit cruelty because animals serve food, labor, or sacrifice.
Sense animal, beast
Definition animal, beast
References 11:2-3, 11:26-27, 11:39
Why it matters Land animals are classified according to clean and unclean criteria.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Pastoral Entry
אָכַל (akal) is the Hebrew verb for eating — one of the most theologically freighted acts in Scripture, appearing 815 times. The first prohibition in the Bible concerns akal (Gen 2:17: do not eat from that tree). The first sin in the Bible is akal (Gen 3:6: she took and ate). The covenant meals of the OT involve akal before YHWH. The fire that consumes sacrifices is akal. And the eschatological vision of Isaiah 25 is a great meal — akal at the table of YHWH on his holy mountain. In many of Scripture's theologically significant meals, eating is more than biological; it carries relational, moral, or covenantal weight.
Genesis 2:16-17 sets the akal frame for all of human history: 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat (akal tokhal), but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat (lo tokhal).' The permission is vast (every tree, freely); the prohibition is single and specific. Genesis 3:6 then gives the transgression: 'She took of its fruit and ate (vatokhal), and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate (vayokhal).' The entire fall narrative is concentrated in two instances of akal. What was eaten with permission (vayokhal, Gen 2:16) becomes the pattern for the one act of eating done without permission (vatokhal, Gen 3:6).
Deuteronomy 12 develops the theology of sacral akal — eating in the presence of YHWH at the chosen place: 'There you shall eat (akaltem) before YHWH your God, and you shall rejoice in all that you put your hand to, you and your households, in which YHWH your God has blessed you' (Deut 12:7). The meal at the sanctuary is the redemptive reversal of the meal in the garden: eating with YHWH in the right place, of the right food, with joy — a re-ordered akal in the presence of the one who set the original akal-boundaries.
Exodus 3:2 uses akal for the fire that consumes without destroying: the bush burned with fire but 'the bush was not consumed' (lo ukal). The same verb governs the fire of holiness that purifies rather than annihilates. The Levitical fire that akal the sacrifice (Lev 9:24, fire from before YHWH came out and consumed/akal the burnt offering) is the holy akal that transforms the offering into acceptable worship.
Isaiah 25:6-8 is the eschatological akal: 'On this mountain YHWH of hosts will make for all peoples a feast (mishteh) of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine.' The akal of the end is the meal that reverses all the wrong eating of history — communion with YHWH at his table, on his mountain, for all peoples.
For the preacher, אָכַל (akal) asks: what are you eating and with whom? Every akal in the OT maps onto the primal distinction between eating in the right place, of the right thing, before YHWH, and eating the forbidden thing apart from YHWH.
Sense to eat
Definition to eat
References 11:2-4, 11:8-13, 11:21-22, 11:34, 11:39-42, 11:47
Why it matters Eating is the primary practical concern of the clean and unclean animal distinctions.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Sense to divide, split
Definition to divide, split
References 11:3-7, 11:26
Why it matters A divided hoof is one of the required marks of clean land animals.
Sense hoof
Definition hoof
References 11:3-7, 11:26
Why it matters The hoof criterion helps distinguish edible from forbidden land animals.
Sense to split, cleave
Definition to split, cleave
References 11:3, 11:7, 11:26
Why it matters The hoof must be split as part of the clean land animal criteria.
Sense cud
Definition cud
References 11:3-7, 11:26
Why it matters Chewing the cud is the second required criterion for clean land animals.
Pastoral Entry
עָלָה (ʿālāh) is a frequent Hebrew verb for going up, ascending, rising, or causing something to go up. Genesis 2:6 says moisture rose from the earth, Genesis 13:1 says Abram went up from Egypt, and Numbers 13:17 commands the spies to go up through the Negev. Geography and ordinary motion explain many occurrences. Upward movement is not automatically spiritual progress, moral superiority, or entry into God's presence.
The verb also marks significant journeys and worship. Moses goes up to God in Exodus 19:3 and ascends the mountain with Joshua in Exodus 24:13. First Samuel 1:3 says Elkanah went up yearly to worship and sacrifice, Psalm 24:3 asks who may ascend the Lord's hill, and Isaiah 2:3 pictures nations going up to the mountain of the Lord for instruction. These passages connect ascent with encounter and worship because of their destinations and purposes, not because higher elevation is inherently holier.
Causative uses include bringing Israel up from Egypt and offering sacrifice. Exodus 32:1 recalls Moses as the man who brought Israel up from Egypt, Genesis 8:20 says Noah offered burnt offerings, and Deuteronomy 12:13 restricts where burnt offerings may be offered. Second Kings 2:11 says Elijah went up in a whirlwind, a distinctive narrative event. Psalm 68:18's ascent language is later taken up in Ephesians 4:8, while Isaiah 40:31 pictures those waiting for the Lord rising on wings like eagles. These connections deserve close reading but do not make every H5927 ascent a prediction of Christ's ascension or a promise of constant emotional and physical elevation.
Sense to bring up
Definition to bring up
References 11:3-6, 11:45
Why it matters Used for bringing up the cud and for the Lord bringing Israel up from Egypt, linking creature description and redemption language in the chapter.
Pastoral Entry
H2931, ṭāmēʾ, is a Hebrew adjective for what is unclean or defiled within a defined covenantal relation. It describes animals not permitted as food, objects affected by contact, people in temporary bodily or corpse-related states, skin-disease status, land associated with exile, lips confessed as unclean, and moral or cultic defilement denounced by prophets. The same English word unclean can therefore name ritual ineligibility, prohibited food, contaminated holy space, or moral pollution. Context must decide which domain is present.
Torah's ritual categories protect Israel's worship and teach distinctions around holy space, food, bodies, death, and communal access. Many unclean states arise without a person's deliberate sin and can change through time, washing, examination, or prescribed restoration. Leviticus 5 gives responsibility after unknowing contact becomes known, but the adjective itself is not a character verdict. Skin-disease and bodily-discharge instructions can involve painful separation; they must be studied historically and cannot be copied into modern congregational exclusion, disability stigma, or public-health claims.
Prophets use the vocabulary more directly for corrupted worship, violence, idolatry, speech, and covenant betrayal. Isaiah confesses unclean lips in the presence of the Holy One; Ezekiel condemns priests who erase the clean/unclean distinction; Haggai uses priestly instruction to expose a people's defiled work. That moral extension does not make every ritual state sinful. Pastoral use should name restoration, refuse to call persons dirty, avoid anti-Jewish caricature, and distinguish medical conditions, ordinary bodily processes, ritual status, and moral wrongdoing with disciplined care.
Sense unclean
Definition unclean
References 11:4-8, 11:24-31, 11:35-40, 11:43-47
Why it matters A central term marking creatures, carcasses, persons, and objects as ritually unclean.
Cross-language bridge 2 links · View in lexicon
Sense camel
Definition camel
References 11:4
Why it matters The camel chews the cud but does not have a divided hoof, so it is unclean for Israel.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Sense hyrax, rock badger
Definition hyrax, rock badger
References 11:5
Why it matters Listed as unclean because it does not have the required divided hoof.
Sense hare, rabbit
Definition hare, rabbit
References 11:6
Why it matters Listed as unclean because it lacks the required hoof criterion.
Sense pig, swine
Definition pig, swine
References 11:7
Why it matters The pig has a divided hoof but does not chew the cud, so it is unclean for Israel.
Pastoral Entry
בָּשָׂר in the OT is not a problem to be escaped — it is the creaturely substance of real human life. Gen 2:23-24 uses it for the profound union of marriage ('bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'; 'they shall become one flesh'); Isa 40:5-6 uses it for the transience of all human glory ('all flesh is grass'); Gen 6:3 uses it for the creaturely limitation that makes humans dependent on God ('my Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh').
The word's range from kinship warmth to creaturely frailty makes it the OT's most human word. The theological weight comes from what it stands against: YHWH is not flesh (Isa 31:3), and 'all flesh' standing before YHWH is the posture of creatures before the Creator. The NT's escalation — 'the Word became flesh' (John 1:14) — is the most radical possible statement about the incarnation: the eternal Son entered the full creaturely condition that בָּשָׂר names, took on its transience and dependence, and did not thereby cease to be God.
Sense flesh, meat
Definition flesh, meat
References 11:8, 11:11
Why it matters Israel must not eat the flesh of unclean creatures.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Sense carcass, dead body
Definition carcass, dead body
References 11:8, 11:11, 11:24-40
Why it matters Carcasses transmit uncleanness through touch, carrying, or contact with objects.
Pastoral Entry
H5060, nāḡaʿ, is a Hebrew verb whose basic contact language develops several context-governed senses. It can describe ordinary physical touch, contact prohibited at a sacred or ritual boundary, reaching a place or extent, the arrival of an event, harmful contact, affliction, or a context-specific euphemism for sexual contact. These passages use Qal and Hiphil forms, including a Qal passive participle in Isaiah 53:4, but no stem supplies a complete interpretation by itself.
Subject, object, setting, and stated result determine whether the action is contact, arrival, cleansing, violation, injury, or judgment. At Sinai, touching the mountain crosses a boundary established for Israel's approach to God. Haggai contrasts consecrated meat, whose holiness does not automatically pass to other food, with corpse-related defilement that does.
Those texts concern covenant holiness and ritual status; they do not teach that illness, disability, bodily processes, social class, or personal contact make someone morally inferior. Isaiah's coal touches the prophet's lips as a messenger announces removed guilt, while the Lord touches Jeremiah's mouth and declares His words placed there. Neither scene turns touch into a repeatable technique controlled by a leader.
Genesis 20 uses touch in a sexual context when God says He restrained Abimelech from sinning. Psalm 105 uses touch as an idiom for harming the vulnerable patriarchal family. Isaiah 53:4 reports the speakers' former estimation that the servant was stricken by God, then redirects attention to his bearing of their griefs and transgressions. These texts do not permit coercion to be hidden under euphemism, make ritual impurity equivalent to guilt, or turn the slogan “Do not touch My anointed” into immunity from accountability.
Sense to touch
Definition to touch
References 11:8, 11:24, 11:26-27, 11:31, 11:36-39
Why it matters Touching carcasses or contaminated objects can make a person unclean.
Pastoral Entry
מַיִם (mayim) is the ordinary Hebrew noun for water or waters. Its grammatical form is plural, while context determines whether English uses a singular mass noun or a plural expression. Scripture uses the same word for creation's waters, drinking water, wells, rivers, floodwaters, and water supplied in the wilderness.
Because water is necessary for life, biblical writers also use it in images of provision, cleansing, danger, judgment, and renewed creation. Isaiah 55:1 invites the thirsty to the waters as part of a free summons to receive God's covenant provision. Isaiah 44:3 places poured water beside the promise that God will pour out his Spirit, making the comparison explicit without making every occurrence of mayim a reference to the Spirit.
The canonical pattern is broad rather than mechanically symbolic. The sea can become the setting of deliverance in Exodus 14, water from the rock sustains Israel in Numbers 20, quiet waters picture the shepherd's care in Psalm 23, and Ezekiel 47 describes life spreading wherever the temple river goes. These passages should be read in their own settings before their themes are brought together.
Sense water
Definition water
References 11:9-12, 11:32, 11:34, 11:36, 11:46
Why it matters Water creatures are classified by fins and scales, and water is also involved in impurity handling.
Pastoral Entry
יָם is the common Hebrew noun for sea, a large body of water, or, in geographical usage, the west. The local index currently counts about 396 occurrences. It can name the seas in creation, the Sea of Reeds in the Exodus, the Mediterranean, inland bodies of water, and poetic waters that threaten or praise. Not every occurrence symbolizes chaos, and the sea in Genesis 1 is part of the created order rather than an uncreated power.
Genesis 1:10 says God names the gathered waters Seas and sees the ordered creation as good. Job 38:8-11 poetically depicts God bounding the sea. Exodus 14 narrates Israel’s passage through the Sea of Reeds and the destruction of Pharaoh’s pursuing force. These texts establish God’s sovereignty over waters and his saving judgment without requiring a reconstruction of a hidden battle with a Canaanite sea deity.
Psalm 107:23-30 describes sailors in a real storm who cry to the Lord and are brought to their desired haven. The scene can wisely illuminate other crises, but the sailors do not lexically represent all people in distress, and the passage is not a promise that every present storm will be stilled on demand. Psalm 89:9 praises the Lord’s rule over the raging sea within a psalm wrestling with the Davidic covenant.
For teaching, יָם offers concrete and poetic settings for creation, geography, threat, deliverance, and divine rule. New Testament sea scenes and Revelation’s sea imagery continue these themes, but each must be interpreted in its own narrative or vision rather than placed into one inevitable sequence from chaos to removal.
Sense sea
Definition sea
References 11:9-10, 11:46
Why it matters Sea creatures are included among animals classified as clean or unclean.
Pastoral Entry
H5158, naḥal, is a Hebrew noun for a watercourse and, in many settings, the channel or valley through which water runs. Depending on place, season, and literary setting, it can refer to a brook, a torrent that swells with rain, a streambed that may later be dry, or the ravine shaped by that flow. A rare mining context extends the channel idea to a shaft, but that use should not control ordinary landscape passages.
The word's range is concrete before it becomes poetic: terrain can carry water, fail travelers, mark a boundary, nourish creatures, or threaten people in flood. Deuteronomy 8:7 names brooks among the Lord's gifts in the good land, placing water within covenant provision rather than human entitlement. Job 6:15 compares unreliable friends to seasonal wadis that overflow and then disappoint travelers when heat arrives.
Psalm 124:4 recalls a torrent as an image of danger from which the Lord preserved His people. The same landscape term can therefore serve accounts of abundance, absence, betrayal, boundary, and peril without making water itself a fixed sign of blessing or judgment. Proverbs 18:4 compares wise speech to a bubbling brook, while Amos 5:24 calls for justice and righteousness to roll like enduring water.
Neither image permits a teacher to substitute eloquence, activism, or institutional visibility for the moral demands of its context. Isaiah 35:6 and Ezekiel 47:9 portray life-giving streams within larger prophetic visions of restoration and God's renewing presence. Those promises deserve their canonical hope, but they should not be reduced to personal prosperity or treated as predictions about every drought, river project, or environmental crisis.
H5158 gives teachers a precise way to speak about provision and vulnerability together. A stream may sustain a community, a seasonal channel may expose dependence, and a flood may exceed human strength. Faithful application listens to the passage's actual landscape, honors people who lack safe water, and recognizes stewardship of waterways as neighbor care without claiming that one Hebrew noun supplies a complete environmental ethic.
Sense stream, river, wadi
Definition stream, river, wadi
References 11:9-10
Why it matters Creatures in streams are classified by the same fins and scales criteria.
Sense fin
Definition fin
References 11:9-10, 11:12
Why it matters Fins are one required mark for clean water creatures.
Sense scale
Definition scale
References 11:9-10, 11:12
Why it matters Scales are one required mark for clean water creatures.
Sense detestable thing
Definition detestable thing
References 11:10-13, 11:20, 11:23, 11:41-42
Why it matters A strong designation for creatures that Israel must not eat.
Pastoral Entry
H5775 is a Hebrew collective noun for birds, flying creatures, or winged life. Genesis 1:21 places winged creatures within God's ordered creation and declares them good according to their kinds. Psalm 50:11 says that God knows every bird of the mountains, locating their lives within His knowledge and ownership rather than merely within human usefulness. Hosea 2:18 includes the birds of the air in a covenant picture of peace, while other texts place birds in human stewardship, wisdom gained from creation, provision, sacrificial practice, or the severe imagery of judgment.
The noun is broad and does not make every bird reference symbolic. Nor does humanity's rule over birds permit careless destruction; Genesis presents delegated responsibility beneath the Creator's blessing and command. H5775 opens teaching on created goodness, biodiversity, providence, accountable stewardship, and creation's participation in biblical images of peace and judgment.
It corrects interpretations that treat nonhuman life as spiritually irrelevant or that assign a hidden omen to every appearance of a bird.
Sense bird, flying creature
Definition bird, flying creature
References 11:13, 11:20-21, 11:23, 11:46
Why it matters Birds and winged creatures are regulated as part of the clean and unclean system.
Sense eagle, vulture
Definition eagle, vulture
References 11:13
Why it matters Listed among birds forbidden as detestable.
Sense bearded vulture
Definition bearded vulture
References 11:13
Why it matters A forbidden bird listed among detestable creatures.
Sense black vulture, osprey
Definition black vulture, osprey
References 11:13
Why it matters A forbidden bird listed among detestable creatures.
Sense kite, falcon
Definition kite, falcon
References 11:14
Why it matters A forbidden bird or bird of prey in the list.
Sense kite, falcon
Definition kite, falcon
References 11:14
Why it matters A forbidden bird named according to its kind.
Pastoral Entry
עֹרֵב ('ōrēb) is the Hebrew noun for a raven. Genesis 8:7 sends a raven from the ark, Leviticus 11:15 and Deuteronomy 14:14 include ravens among birds Israel must not eat, and First Kings 17:4 and 17:6 name ravens as the creatures God commands to supply Elijah. These uses refer to actual birds in distinct narrative and covenant settings; the noun itself does not assign one fixed symbolic meaning.
Job 38:41 and Psalm 147:9 place young ravens within God's care for creation. Their cries and need are known to God within passages that emphasize divine wisdom, governance, and provision. This supports confidence in God's attentive providence, but it is not a guarantee that every need will be met in the timing, form, or amount a person expects. The texts direct trust toward God rather than providing a formula for controlling outcomes.
Other contexts shift the image. Isaiah 34:11 includes ravens in a judgment landscape, Proverbs 30:17 uses them in severe wisdom imagery, and Song 5:11 compares dark hair to a raven. These occurrences prevent a universal symbolism. The raven can be a creature sent, prohibited as food, providentially used, cared for, or used in poetic comparison according to the passage.
Sense raven
Definition raven
References 11:15
Why it matters The raven and its kinds are forbidden.
Sense ostrich
Definition ostrich
References 11:16
Why it matters The ostrich is included among forbidden birds.
Sense owl, short-eared owl
Definition owl, short-eared owl
References 11:16
Why it matters A forbidden bird in the list.
Sense gull
Definition gull
References 11:16
Why it matters The gull is included among forbidden birds.
Sense hawk
Definition hawk
References 11:16
Why it matters The hawk and its kinds are forbidden.
Sense little owl
Definition little owl
References 11:17
Why it matters A forbidden bird listed among unclean flying creatures.
Sense cormorant
Definition cormorant
References 11:17
Why it matters A forbidden bird listed among unclean creatures.
Sense great owl
Definition great owl
References 11:17
Why it matters A forbidden bird listed among unclean creatures.
Sense owl, swan, chameleon
Definition owl, swan, chameleon
References 11:18, 11:30
Why it matters A creature name used in forbidden animal lists; exact identification is debated.
Sense pelican
Definition pelican
References 11:18
Why it matters A forbidden bird listed among unclean creatures.
Sense carrion vulture
Definition carrion vulture
References 11:18
Why it matters A forbidden bird listed among unclean creatures.
Sense stork
Definition stork
References 11:19
Why it matters The stork is included among forbidden birds.
Sense heron
Definition heron
References 11:19
Why it matters The heron and its kinds are forbidden.
Sense hoopoe
Definition hoopoe
References 11:19
Why it matters The hoopoe is included among forbidden birds.
Sense bat
Definition bat
References 11:19
Why it matters The bat is included in the forbidden winged-creature list.
Sense swarming thing, teeming creature
Definition swarming thing, teeming creature
References 11:20-21, 11:23, 11:29, 11:31, 11:41-44, 11:46
Why it matters Swarming creatures are a major category of unclean and forbidden creatures in the chapter.
Pastoral Entry
הָלַךְ (halak) is the Hebrew verb of walking — and in its most theologically charged uses, walking is not locomotion but a life. The local Hebrew index currently counts about 511 occurrences, spanning the range from physical movement (Gen 12:1, 'go from your country') to the great summary of the covenant life (Mic 6:8, 'to walk humbly with your God').
Micah 6:8 gives halak its most compact covenantal use: 'He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does YHWH require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk (halok) humbly with your God?' The three requirements of Micah 6:8 — doing, loving, and walking — move from public ethics (justice) to inward disposition (loving kindness) to relational posture (walking humbly with your God). The halak here is the whole life oriented toward YHWH: not just worship attendance or covenant ceremony but the continual halak of a humble person beside a holy God.
Genesis 17:1 gives halak its covenantal-command form: 'I am God Almighty; walk (hithalekh) before me, and be blameless, and I will make my covenant between me and you.' The command to walk (in the Hithpael, hithalekh, which emphasizes the continuous habitual walking) before YHWH is paired with being blameless (tamim, whole, undivided) and is the condition under which YHWH reaffirms the covenant with Abraham. To halak before YHWH is not to perform a single act but to arrange one's whole life in YHWH's presence: to live consciously before his face.
Genesis 5:22 and 6:9 give halak its Enoch-and-Noah form: 'Enoch walked (vayithalekh) with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years...' and 'Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked (hithalekh) with God.' The Hithpael hithalekh here is the same form as Genesis 17:1's covenantal command: walking with God as the defining characteristic of a life. Enoch and Noah are set before Israel as the paradigm of what covenantal walking looks like — and Enoch's translation ('he was not, for God took him,' Gen 5:24) is the eschatological promise within the halak: the one who walks with God walks with him ultimately into life beyond death.
Psalm 1:1 gives halak its diagnostic form: 'Blessed is the man who does not walk (halak) in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers.' Psalm 1 opens the entire Psalter with the halak-question: which way are you walking? The contrast between the man who halaks in the counsel of the wicked and the man who meditates on YHWH's Torah day and night (v. 2) is the diagnostic of the covenant life. Where one's halak goes reveals one's heart.
Isaiah 2:5 gives halak its prophetic-invitation form: 'O house of Jacob, come, let us walk (venelkhah) in the light of YHWH.' The invitation to walk in the light of YHWH is Isaiah's summation of the covenant life in a world that has gone dark. The plural cohortative (let us walk together) makes the halak communal: the covenant people walks together in YHWH's light.
For the preacher, הָלַךְ (halak) gives the congregation the covenant life in motion. The faith is not a position but a walk — continuous, directional, with YHWH. And Micah 6:8 is the sermon that YHWH himself preaches on the halak: the question is not what rituals you perform but how you walk.
Sense to walk, go
Definition to walk, go
References 11:20-21, 11:27, 11:42
Why it matters Movement patterns help classify certain insects and swarming creatures.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Sense four
Definition four
References 11:20-21, 11:23, 11:27, 11:42
Why it matters Walking on all fours is part of the classification language for insects and creatures.
Sense leg, jointed leg
Definition leg, jointed leg
References 11:21
Why it matters Certain insects with jointed legs for hopping may be eaten.
Sense locust
Definition locust
References 11:22
Why it matters Locusts are among the permitted hopping insects.
Sense katydid, bald locust
Definition katydid, bald locust
References 11:22
Why it matters One of the permitted hopping insects; exact identification is debated.
Sense cricket
Definition cricket
References 11:22
Why it matters One of the permitted hopping insects; exact identification is debated.
Sense grasshopper
Definition grasshopper
References 11:22
Why it matters Grasshoppers are among the permitted hopping insects.
Pastoral Entry
טָמֵא is a verb meaning to become unclean or to defile a person, object, sanctuary, or land. The local Hebrew index currently counts about 162 occurrences, with major concentrations in Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel. The related adjective טָמֵא (H2931) means unclean. The shared spelling and root require careful Strong’s identity handling: an adjectival occurrence should not be presented as a direct use of this verb.
Priestly texts distinguish clean from unclean and holy from common as related but not identical classifications. Some ritual impurities arise from bodily processes, skin conditions, childbirth, corpse contact, or animals and do not imply that the affected person committed a sin. Their restrictions, duration, and purification procedures vary. Uncleanness can restrict sanctuary access or require separation for a time, but it does not automatically expel an Israelite from covenant membership.
Other passages use the verb for culpable defilement through idolatry, bloodshed, sexual sin, or other covenant violations. Ezekiel 36:17-25 says Israel defiled the land by its ways and idols, then promises that the Lord will cleanse the people in restoration. This moral and covenantal use must be distinguished from ordinary ritual impurity even though the same word family allows the prophet to draw on purity language.
Isaiah 6:5 calls the prophet a man of unclean lips using H2931, the adjective, not a direct H2930 verbal occurrence. It remains a valuable related-word example of uncleanness exposed before the Holy One, provided the identity distinction is stated.
For teaching, טָמֵא helps readers respect the purity system’s categories, recognize the seriousness of moral defilement, and attend to God’s promised cleansing. Christian application should follow the New Testament’s explicit teaching about purity, conscience, holiness, and access rather than declaring all ritual categories simply abolished or unchanged.
Sense to become unclean, defile
Definition to become unclean, defile
References 11:24-25, 11:27-28, 11:31-32, 11:39-40, 11:43-44
Why it matters The verb describes becoming unclean through contact with carcasses or forbidden creatures.
Pastoral Entry
H6153 names evening, dusk, or the transition from daylight toward night. It can mark ordinary time, the boundary of a day, scheduled worship, travel, mourning, labor, danger, or prophetic imagery. In Gen. 1. 5, evening and morning mark the first day within God's ordered creation. In Exod. 12. 6, the Passover animals are slaughtered at twilight on the appointed day, placing evening within Israel's remembered deliverance.
In Ruth. 2. 17, Ruth gleans until evening and then threshes what she has gathered, showing sustained, vulnerable labor met by providential kindness. H6153 opens teaching on daily rhythms, remembrance, perseverance, and human limits. It does not establish one universal biblical method for calculating dates, make evening inherently ominous, or promise that every night of sorrow will end according to a preferred timetable.
Sense evening
Definition evening
References 11:24-25, 11:27-28, 11:31-32, 11:39-40
Why it matters Many impurity conditions last until evening.
Pastoral Entry
נָשָׂא (nāśāʾ) is a high-frequency Hebrew verb built around lifting, carrying, or bearing. Floodwaters lift the ark in Genesis 7:17, Hagar is told to lift up Ishmael in Genesis 21:18, and Aaron bears Israel's tribal names before the Lord in Exodus 28:12. Exodus 20:7 uses the same verb in the command not to take or bear the Lord's name falsely or in vain. The object and construction determine whether the action is physical, representative, ethical, or relational.
The verb also enters guilt and forgiveness language. Numbers 14:18 confesses that the Lord bears or forgives iniquity and transgression while not simply clearing guilt. Psalm 32:1 calls blessed the person whose transgression is forgiven or lifted, and Micah 7:18 praises God as the one who forgives iniquity and passes over transgression. These uses portray forgiveness as a real dealing with wrongdoing, but the lexical image alone does not supply a complete mechanism or imply that consequences, justice, confession, and repair are irrelevant.
Cultic and servant passages add representative burden-bearing. Leviticus 10:17 speaks of priests bearing the congregation's iniquity in relation to making atonement, and Leviticus 16:22 says the live goat bears Israel's iniquities to a remote land. Isaiah 53:4 says the servant bears the people's sicknesses or griefs, while the song continues with wounds, iniquity, and representative suffering. Isaiah 46 contrasts idols that must be carried with the Lord who has carried and will continue to bear his people. These texts can inform a theology of atonement and sustaining grace, but their different agents, objects, and ritual or poetic settings must remain visible.
Sense to carry, bear
Definition to carry, bear
References 11:25, 11:28, 11:40
Why it matters Carrying a carcass makes a person unclean and requires washing clothes.
Cross-language bridge 2 links · View in lexicon
Sense to wash
Definition to wash
References 11:25, 11:28, 11:40
Why it matters Washing clothes is required after carrying certain carcasses or eating from an animal that died.
Pastoral Entry
H899 commonly names a garment or item of clothing, but a small set of poetic contexts renders the same lexical form with the sense of treachery. Genesis 39:12 identifies Joseph's cloak when he escapes a sexual demand; the abandoned garment is later manipulated in a false accusation. Deuteronomy 24:17 forbids taking a widow's cloak as security, protecting essential clothing from economic exploitation.
Isaiah 61:10 uses garments of salvation and a robe of righteousness as images of God's gracious action. Isaiah 24:16 uses H899 within repeated language of betrayal and treachery. The context must determine whether material clothing or treacherous dealing is meant; an interpreter should not derive moral symbolism from the garment sense merely because the forms are related.
H899 opens a concrete biblical world in which clothing provides covering, warmth, dignity, social visibility, ritual function, evidence, and metaphor. It also warns that garments can be seized, misread, or used to construct a lie. Teachers should protect bodily dignity, resist victim-blaming, and distinguish a text's explicit symbolism from assumptions about appearance, wealth, gender, or purity.
Sense garment
Definition garment
References 11:25, 11:28, 11:32, 11:40
Why it matters Garments can become associated with impurity and require washing.
Sense paw, palm, sole
Definition paw, palm, sole
References 11:27
Why it matters Animals that walk on paws are unclean for Israel.
Sense weasel, mole
Definition weasel, mole
References 11:29
Why it matters One of the small ground creatures listed as unclean.
Sense mouse
Definition mouse
References 11:29
Why it matters A small ground creature listed as unclean.
Sense lizard, great lizard
Definition lizard, great lizard
References 11:29
Why it matters A ground creature listed as unclean; exact identification varies.
Sense gecko
Definition gecko
References 11:30
Why it matters A small creature listed among the unclean ground creatures.
Pastoral Entry
H3581, kōaḥ, is a Hebrew noun for strength, power, ability, or effective capacity. It can describe the force of a body, the means to produce wealth, the ability to endure a journey, the power to act, or the capacity that has reached its limit. Deuteronomy says God gives Israel power to gain wealth. Elijah walks in the strength supplied by food. Job asks what strength remains for continued hope. The word is concrete enough to include muscles, meals, resources, and stamina, yet broad enough to name moral or Spirit-enabled capacity.
Scripture refuses both self-sufficiency and contempt for weakness. Hannah sings that no one prevails by his own strength. Isaiah announces that God gives power to the faint and increases the strength of the weak. Job is not rebuked in chapter 6 merely for naming his exhausted capacity; his lament exposes how shallow counsel can burden a sufferer further. Bodily limits, sleep, food, grief, illness, disability, and trauma are not proof of spiritual failure. God's strengthening may arrive through ordinary provision, faithful companionship, renewed hope, or direct enablement.
Power also carries responsibility. Micah is filled with power by the Spirit of the Lord, together with justice and courage, to confront covenant wrongdoing. Zechariah denies that rebuilding rests ultimately on might or power, placing confidence in God's Spirit. Neither passage authorizes unchecked prophetic intensity. Spirit-enabled strength remains aligned with truth, justice, courage, and God's commission. H3581 helps ministry name capacity honestly: receive it as gift, use it for faithful service, respect its creaturely limits, strengthen the weary without blaming them, and refuse every theology that treats force, productivity, or charismatic confidence as proof of God's approval.
Sense monitor lizard
Definition monitor lizard
References 11:30
Why it matters A creature listed among the unclean ground creatures.
Sense lizard
Definition lizard
References 11:30
Why it matters A creature listed among the unclean ground creatures.
Sense skink, sand lizard
Definition skink, sand lizard
References 11:30
Why it matters A creature listed among the unclean ground creatures.
Sense vessel, article, object
Definition vessel, article, object
References 11:32-34
Why it matters Objects can become unclean through carcass contact and require washing or destruction.
Pastoral Entry
עֵץ (ets) is a common Hebrew noun for a living tree and for wood or timber taken from a tree. Genesis 1:11 uses it for fruit trees, Genesis 6:14 for the wood of the ark, Exodus 25:10 for acacia wood in the ark of the covenant, and Ezekiel 37:16 for a piece of wood used as a prophetic sign. The gloss must follow the object and setting; the word itself does not make every wooden item a symbol or every tree part of one continuous allegory.
Trees carry major literary and theological roles. Genesis 2:9 names the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Psalm 1:3 compares the person shaped by the Lord's instruction to a tree planted by streams, Proverbs 3:18 calls wisdom a tree of life to those who grasp her, and Jeremiah 17:8 uses a watered tree for the one who trusts the Lord. These images draw on rootedness, nourishment, fruit, and life while each passage retains its own argument.
Wood can also expose violence, judgment, and idolatry. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 regulates the body of an executed person hung on a tree, a text explicitly cited in Galatians 3:13. Isaiah 44:13-20 mocks the maker who burns part of a tree and fashions the rest into an idol. Ezekiel 47:12 envisions fruit trees nourished by the temple river, and Revelation 22 develops tree-of-life imagery in the new creation. The canonical connections are real, but they do not authorize treating every H6086 occurrence as a prediction of the cross or the final restoration.
Sense wood
Definition wood
References 11:32
Why it matters Wooden objects are included among items that may become unclean.
Pastoral Entry
H5785 names human or animal skin and also a hide or leather made from it. Its uses are physical and varied, including clothing, sanctuary coverings, disease, bodily suffering, and violent metaphor. In Gen. 3. 21, the Lord makes garments of skin for the man and woman and clothes them after their disobedience and shame. In Exod. 22. 27, a poor person's garment is the only covering for the skin, so a creditor must return the pledged cloak and heed God's compassion.
In Ezek. 37. 6, skin covers restored bones, but life still depends on God's breath. H5785 opens teaching on embodied care, protection, poverty, and restoration. It does not settle questions about the garment's animal source, justify racial readings of skin, or reduce human life to outward bodily condition.
Sense skin, leather
Definition skin, leather
References 11:32
Why it matters Leather objects can become unclean through contact with carcasses.
Pastoral Entry
שַׂק (śaq) is the Hebrew noun for a sack or coarse cloth. Leviticus can refer to an ordinary sack-like object, while narratives, poetry, and prophecy describe people wearing or spreading the material in grief, distress, humiliation, repentance, or a prophetic sign. Its precise fiber, color, and manufacture should not be asserted uniformly from the lexeme alone.
Jacob wears sackcloth while mourning Joseph; communities use it under threat; Isaiah performs a prophetic sign; Rizpah spreads it during a long vigil over exposed bodies; and Psalm 30 remembers sackcloth being replaced by joy. Nineveh's people and ruler wear it while calling for a turn from violence. Jonah says that God sees what they do, that they turn from their evil way, so the cloth is a sign within the response rather than a mechanism that compels mercy.
Isaiah 58 directly challenges a fast marked by sackcloth while exploitation continues. Outward lament or penitence can be sincere, partial, politically staged, or empty, and only its context and fruit permit responsible assessment. Scripture does not require a contemporary mourner or penitent to wear rough cloth, fast, harm the body, involve animals, or display grief publicly. Communities should make room for culturally varied, voluntary expressions without policing emotion or replacing repair, restitution, justice, nutrition, hygiene, medication, or clinical care.
Sense sackcloth, sack
Definition sackcloth, sack
References 11:32
Why it matters Sackcloth or fabric objects can become unclean through carcass contact.
Cross-language bridge 2 links · View in lexicon
Sense earthenware
Definition earthenware
References 11:33
Why it matters Earthenware vessels contaminated by carcass contact must be broken.
Pastoral Entry
H7665 is a Hebrew verb with a broad breaking range: to fracture, shatter, smash, wreck, breach, or break down, with extended uses for broken strength, brokenheartedness, ruined objects, defeated power, and interrupted provision. Psalm 34 speaks of broken hearts, Jeremiah of useless broken cisterns, Leviticus of God breaking an enslaving yoke, and Isaiah of the servant refusing to break a bruised reed.
The verb therefore does not make breaking inherently good or bad. The object, agent, means, and outcome govern the sense. H7665 can help teachers name trauma, repentance, liberation, judgment, fragile people, failed systems, and repair. It must not romanticize abuse as God's method, command victims to remain where they are being broken, equate emotional collapse with holiness, or use brokenness language to avoid medical care, protection, justice, restitution, and patient rebuilding.
Sense to break
Definition to break
References 11:33, 11:35
Why it matters Earthenware vessels and contaminated ovens may require breaking.
Sense food
Definition food
References 11:34
Why it matters Food touched by contaminated water becomes unclean.
Sense drink
Definition drink
References 11:34
Why it matters Drink in contaminated vessels becomes unclean.
Sense oven
Definition oven
References 11:35
Why it matters Ovens contaminated by carcasses must be broken.
Sense stove, cooking hearth
Definition stove, cooking hearth
References 11:35
Why it matters Cooking hearths can become unclean and require destruction.
Sense spring
Definition spring
References 11:36
Why it matters Springs remain clean despite carcass contact, though touching the carcass remains defiling.
Pastoral Entry
H953 is a Hebrew noun for a dug pit and can designate a cistern or well, a dungeon or place of confinement, a trap, or figuratively the depths associated with death. Genesis 37:20 records Joseph's brothers planning to kill him and throw him into a pit, later using the empty cistern to confine him before sale. Exodus 21:33-34 requires restitution when someone opens or digs a pit, fails to cover it, and an animal falls in, making hazard ownership explicit.
Zechariah 9:11 promises release of prisoners from a waterless pit because of covenant blood. Other passages describe stored water, imprisonment, massacre sites, self-made traps, lament, and nations descending to the Pit. H953 opens provision, danger, captivity, negligence, death, and rescue. It corrects romantic pit-to-palace preaching that rushes past betrayal and trauma, as well as careless systems that leave foreseeable hazards uncovered and shift the cost to those who fall.
Sense cistern, pit
Definition cistern, pit
References 11:36
Why it matters Cisterns or water collections remain clean in specified cases, though carcass contact remains defiling.
Sense collection, gathering of water
Definition collection, gathering of water
References 11:36
Why it matters A collection of water remains clean under the stated conditions.
Pastoral Entry
זֶרַע is one of the most structurally important words in the entire Hebrew Bible. At its simplest it means seed — the agricultural stuff that is planted and produces a harvest. But from the beginning of Genesis, the word carries a weight that transcends horticulture. When God promises in Genesis 3:15 that the woman's זֶרַע will crush the serpent's head, he is setting in motion a narrative thread that will run through every book of the Bible until it reaches its resolution in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the first gospel promise, and it is spoken in terms of seed.
The covenant trajectory of זֶרַע is the backbone of biblical theology. God promises Abraham that through his זֶרַע all the nations of the earth will be blessed (Gen 22:18). He makes the same covenant with Isaac and Jacob. He narrows the promise through Judah and then David: the covenant seed will come from David's line, and his throne will endure forever (2 Sam 7:12). Isaiah 53 reaches an extraordinary moment when the servant of Yahweh — who has died as a guilt offering — 'sees his offspring' (zeraʿ) and prolongs his days. Death and seed in the same verse: the seed that falls into the ground and dies still brings forth fruit.
Paul's argument in Galatians 3 is the canonical resolution: the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring, and the Greek singular — not 'seeds, as of many, but as of one, to your offspring, which is Christ' (Gal 3:16). The entire trajectory of the זֶרַע converges on Jesus. Every Abrahamic covenant, every Davidic promise, every seed image in the prophets finds its 'yes' in him (2 Cor 1:20). For the preacher, זֶרַע is the word that places every passage about offspring, descendants, and promise inside the one story that culminates in Christ.
Sense seed
Definition seed
References 11:37-38
Why it matters Seed for sowing is treated differently depending on whether water has been placed on it.
Pastoral Entry
מוּת (mut) is the common Hebrew verb for dying. In causative forms it can describe causing death or putting someone to death. Its high-frequency uses include warnings, narrative reports of death, legal penalties, threats, prayers, and appeals to choose life rather than die. The related noun מָוֶת (māwet, H4194) means death and is a separate lexical identity.
Genesis 2:17 uses the infinitive absolute with a finite verb, mot tamut, to emphasize the certainty of the warning: the man will surely die if he eats from the prohibited tree. Genesis 3:4 directly negates the same construction in the serpent's response. The narrative later describes exile from the tree of life and eventual human death. Questions about whether the warning includes immediate judgment, mortality, spiritual alienation, or more than one dimension require contextual and theological argument beyond the grammar alone.
Genesis 5 repeatedly uses the verb in the mortality refrain, and Deuteronomy 34:5 reports the death of Moses. Exodus 21:12 uses the verb in a legal statement about a fatal assault and a death penalty. These contexts show why H4191 cannot be reduced to one doctrine: ordinary mortality, narrated death, killing, and judicial language all occur.
Ezekiel 18:4 says that the person who sins will die, while Ezekiel 33:11 records the Lord's declaration that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and calls the house of Israel to turn and live. Those direct verbal occurrences belong to prophetic arguments about accountability, repentance, and covenant judgment. Isaiah 25:8, Psalm 116:15, Isaiah 53:9, and Hosea 13:14 use the H4194 noun rather than H4191 and must be treated as sibling-lexeme parallels.
Sense to die
Definition to die
References 11:39
Why it matters Even an animal otherwise permitted for food can cause impurity if it dies apart from proper slaughter.
Sense to detest, make detestable
Definition to detest, make detestable
References 11:43
Why it matters Israel must not make themselves detestable by swarming creatures.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Pastoral Entry
נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh) is a wide-ranging Hebrew noun that may refer to a living creature, a person or self, life, desire, appetite, or, in some bodily settings, the throat or neck. English “soul” is sometimes a fitting translation, but it becomes misleading when readers import one fixed philosophical definition into every occurrence. The immediate subject, verb, bodily image, and literary setting determine whether a passage speaks of a creature, a life at risk, a whole person, an inward longing, or another part of the range.
Genesis establishes the word's embodied breadth. The waters teem with living nephesh in Genesis 1:20, so the noun is not reserved for humans. In Genesis 2:7, the ground-formed human receives the breath of life and becomes a living nephesh. The verse does not depict a completed body receiving nephesh as an independent object; it describes the human becoming a living being by God's gift. Shared creature-language does not erase the distinct image-bearing vocation that Genesis assigns to humanity elsewhere.
Torah also uses nephesh where life and blood are at issue. Genesis 9:4 prohibits eating flesh with its lifeblood, and Leviticus 17:11 places the life of the flesh and atonement language within sacrificial instruction. These verses should not be converted into modern physiology or made to settle every question about body and soul. Deuteronomy 6:5 uses nephesh in Israel's comprehensive call to love the Lord, not as a diagram dividing a person into separable components. The word can gather the living self in worship and covenant allegiance.
Poetry, prophecy, and servant texts extend that personal range. The nephesh longs for God in Psalm 42, the servant pours out His life to death in Isaiah 53, and Ezekiel 18 uses the noun for persons who belong to God and answer for their own sin. Christian readers may compare the New Testament's varied psychē language and its teaching about life, death, Christ, and resurrection, but no one-word equation supplies a complete anthropology. Nephesh corrects contempt for embodied life while leaving the wider canon to teach personal continuity, judgment, resurrection, and the believer's final hope in Christ.
Sense person, life, self
Definition person, life, self
References 11:43-44, 11:46
Why it matters The chapter addresses the whole person and living creatures in relation to holiness and uncleanness.
Cross-language bridge 1 link · View in lexicon
Pastoral Entry
קָדַשׁ (qādaš) means to be holy, sanctify, consecrate, set apart, prepare, or treat as holy. God sanctifies the seventh day in Genesis 2:3, claims Israel's firstborn, consecrates priests and sanctuary objects, and gives the Sabbath as a sign that he sanctifies his people. People may consecrate themselves, dedicate property, observe holy time, or acknowledge God as holy. Agent, object, and verbal stem determine who acts and what changes.
Consecration does not mean that every object becomes morally virtuous or every appointed person becomes sinless. Exodus and Leviticus set apart priests, garments, altars, food, and time for defined purposes. Numbers 20:12 says Moses and Aaron failed to uphold God as holy before Israel, showing that office and prior consecration do not remove accountability. Ezekiel 36:23 promises that God will vindicate the holiness of his profaned name among the nations through his own action.
Some prophetic texts use the same verb idiomatically for preparing war: Jeremiah 6:4 and Joel 3:9 call armies to consecrate or prepare battle. The wording reports mobilization and does not make the violence morally sacred. Other texts consecrate a fast or assembly, emphasizing preparation for communal worship and repentance. Modern claims of holy war, holy leadership, or consecrated bodies require independent moral and textual warrant; H6942 cannot supply it by itself.
Sense to consecrate, be holy
Definition to consecrate, be holy
References 11:44
Why it matters Israel must consecrate themselves and be holy because the Lord is holy.
Pastoral Entry
קָדוֹשׁ (qadosh) means holy, sacred, or set apart and can function as a title, the Holy One. Isaiah 6:3 declares the Lord holy before describing creation filled with his glory. Isaiah also calls God the Holy One of Israel while joining holiness to justice, redemption, judgment, and mercy. God's holiness is not mere distance or ceremonial status; it names his incomparable identity and the moral faithfulness of his rule.
People and communities are also called holy. Exodus 19:6 names Israel a holy nation within its covenant vocation, Leviticus 19:2 summons the whole congregation to holiness because the Lord is holy, and Numbers 15:40 joins holiness to remembering and doing God's commands. Priests, Nazirites, food, and sacred service receive the adjective in particular settings. Being set apart assigns responsibility; it does not make a person sinless, omniscient, or exempt from correction.
Holiness claims can be contested or misused. In Numbers 16:3 Korah's group appeals to the holiness of the congregation while challenging Moses and Aaron; the narrative requires more than repeating the adjective to decide the dispute. Joshua 24:19 warns that the holy God will not be domesticated by casual covenant promises, while Hosea 11:9 places divine holiness within restrained compassion. Teaching should preserve awe, obedience, mercy, and accountability without turning holiness into elitism, isolation, purity culture, or institutional immunity.
Sense holy
Definition holy
References 11:44-45
Why it matters The Lord's holiness is the basis for Israel's holiness.
Pastoral Entry
The Hebrew name יהוה identifies the God of Israel throughout the Old Testament. The Berean Standard Bible, like many English translations, represents the name as “Lord” in capital letters. That convention signals a personal name in the Hebrew text; it should not be confused with every ordinary occurrence of the title “lord.” The Masoretic pointing reflects a received reading practice and does not by itself settle the name’s ancient pronunciation. Teachers should therefore acknowledge that pronunciation remains debated instead of presenting one reconstruction as certain.
Exodus 3:15 places the name within God’s commission of Moses: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sends him and declares how He is to be remembered. The nearby statement “I AM WHO I AM” in Exodus 3:14 is important for reading the scene, but the relationship between the forms should be handled with lexical care. A proposed derivation cannot carry a complete doctrine of God by itself. Exodus 6:6 and 34:6 show the name in promises and self-declaration: the Lord redeems Israel and makes His compassion, grace, patience, loving devotion, and faithfulness known.
Genesis 2:4 joins “the Lord God” to the making of heaven and earth, while Deuteronomy 6:4 confesses that the Lord is Israel’s God and is one. Joel 2:32 promises deliverance to those who call on the name of the Lord. These passages support worship, trust, obedience, and covenant remembrance, but the name must not be reduced to a slogan that guarantees a preferred outcome.
The New Testament often uses the Greek title kyrios when quoting Old Testament passages that contain יהוה. Romans 10 draws Joel 2:32 into a Christ-centered confession, which is a weighty canonical connection. Even so, teachers should establish such links passage by passage. The divine name does not license speculative pronunciation claims, secret-name spirituality, or the assertion that every New Testament use of “Lord” directly represents H3068.
Sense the LORD
Definition the LORD
References 11:44-45
Why it matters The covenant name of God grounds the chapter's call to holiness and obedience.
Pastoral Entry
The Hebrew noun אֱלֹהִים (ʾĕlōhîm) has a morphologically plural form, but its number and referent must be determined from grammar and context. When it identifies the God of Israel, it commonly takes singular verbal action, as in Genesis 1:1: God “created.” The same lexical form can refer to other gods, as in Exodus 20:3, and can appear in passages about heavenly or divine beings, as Psalm 82 illustrates. Translators therefore use “God,” “gods,” or another contextual expression rather than assigning one English gloss mechanically.
Genesis 1 presents ʾĕlōhîm as the sovereign Creator who speaks, orders, blesses, and makes humanity in His image. Deuteronomy 6:4 identifies the Lord as “our God” and confesses that the Lord is one. Isaiah 45:5 explicitly denies any rival God. These claims arise from the sentences and arguments of Scripture. The plural shape of the noun should not be treated as a standalone proof of either polytheism or the Trinity, and “plural of majesty” should not be presented as though it settles every historical and grammatical question.
Exodus 20:3 shows that the word itself does not always name the true God: Israel must have no other gods before the Lord. Psalm 82:1 uses ʾĕlōhîm for the presiding God and also for those judged in the assembly. Interpreters differ on how best to identify those addressed, including heavenly beings or rulers represented in divine-council imagery. The verse’s distinction between the sovereign Judge and the judged assembly must be preserved even when that debate remains open.
For Christian teaching, the Bible’s fuller revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should be established from explicit canonical testimony. H430 contributes to that theology by naming God in many foundational texts, but its plural morphology is not a shortcut around careful exegesis. Faithful use follows syntax, identifies the referent, and lets each passage state whether the word points to Israel’s God, false gods, or beings addressed within a particular scene.
Sense God
Definition God
References 11:44-45
Why it matters The Lord identifies Himself as Israel's God, grounding their obligation to holiness.
Pastoral Entry
The Hebrew noun אֶרֶץ (ʾereṣ) can name the earth as a whole, a particular land or region, a territory, or the ground considered within a local setting. Scale is therefore part of interpretation. Genesis 1:1 speaks of the heavens and the earth in the opening declaration of creation. Genesis 2:11, however, identifies the land of Havilah, and Genesis 12:1 speaks of the land the Lord will show Abram. The same familiar noun moves from the created world to a named region and a promised territory because the surrounding clauses set its range.
The land promise to Abraham is concrete and covenantal. Genesis 13:17 directs Abram to walk through the land God promises to give. Leviticus 25:23 later says that the land belongs to the Lord and that Israel lives before Him as foreigners and residents. That instruction governs Israel’s tenure, stewardship, and economic life within the covenant. The lexical item by itself does not settle every theological question about inheritance, modern borders, private property, or national policy. Those questions require attention to covenant, historical setting, genre, and the rest of Scripture.
Psalm 24:1 returns to the widest scale: the earth and all who dwell in it belong to the Lord. This universal confession prevents land theology from becoming a claim that God rules only one territory or people. Isaiah 65:17 then places a new earth within prophetic hope. The New Testament develops creation and inheritance through its own wording, including Jesus’ promise that the meek will inherit the earth and Revelation’s vision of a new heaven and new earth. Those canonical connections are real, but they arise through whole passages and explicit scriptural reuse rather than through a claim that every occurrence of ʾereṣ carries the entire biblical theology of creation, covenant, and renewal.
Faithful teaching begins by asking how large the referent is in the sentence. Is the writer speaking of the world, one region, a promised territory, or the land under cultivation and tenure? Only after that work should the interpreter trace creation, covenant, stewardship, exile, mission, or new-creation themes. The word honors the physical world God made while also requiring disciplined attention to the particular land being discussed.
Sense land, earth
Definition land, earth
References 11:45
Why it matters The Lord brought Israel up from the land of Egypt to be their God.
Sense Egypt
Definition Egypt
References 11:45
Why it matters Egypt is the place from which the Lord redeemed Israel, forming the basis for their holy identity.
Pastoral Entry
תּוֹרָה (torah) can name instruction, a particular ruling, priestly teaching, the law associated with Moses, or the Torah as a recognized body of Scripture. Context determines the scope. The noun should not be defined only from a proposed connection with the verb 'to instruct' and then made to mean whatever a teacher prefers. In Deuteronomy, torah shapes Israel's covenant life.
Psalm 119 delights in God's instruction as trustworthy guidance. Isaiah envisions instruction going out from Zion, Ezra devotes himself to studying, practicing, and teaching the Torah, and Jeremiah 31 promises God's torah written within. These passages resist two opposite reductions. Torah is not a ladder by which sinners earn God's favor, but neither is it an obsolete burden with nothing to teach.
The New Testament presents Jesus as fulfilling the Law and Prophets and teaches believers to read Israel's Scriptures through His person and work. Responsible application distinguishes Israel's covenant setting, enduring revelation of God's character and purposes, and the commands' fulfillment in Christ rather than forcing every statute directly onto the church.
Sense instruction, law
Definition instruction, law
References 11:46
Why it matters The chapter concludes as instruction concerning animals, birds, living creatures in water, and creatures that move along the ground.
Sense to separate, distinguish
Definition to separate, distinguish
References 11:47
Why it matters The purpose of the law is to distinguish between unclean and clean and between creatures that may and may not be eaten.
Lexicon data: MorphGNT Strong's Dictionary XML (CC0) · Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible (CC BY 4.0) · Open Scriptures Hebrew Lexicon (CC BY 4.0) · STEPBible Data (CC BY 4.0) · Full details
| v.11 | H1961הָיָהQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH8262שָׁקַץPiel · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.13 | H8262שָׁקַץPiel · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH398אָכַלNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.2 | H1696דָבַרPiel · Imperative · ImperativeH398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.21 | H398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.22 | H398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.24 | H2930טָמֵאHithpael · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.25 | H3526כָּבַסPiel · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.26 | H6536פָּרַסHiphil · ParticipleH8157שֶׁסַעQal · ParticipleH5927עָלָהHiphil · ParticipleH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.27 | H1980הָלַךְQal · ParticipleH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.28 | H3526כָּבַסPiel · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.3 | H6536פָּרַסHiphil · ParticipleH5927עָלָהHiphil · ParticipleH398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.31 | H2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.32 | H5307נָפַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH6213עָשָׂהNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH935בּוֹאHophal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.33 | H5307נָפַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH7665שָׁבַרQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.34 | H398אָכַלNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH935בּוֹאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH8354שָׁתָהNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.35 | H5307נָפַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH5422נָתַץHophal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH1961הָיָהQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.36 | H1961הָיָהQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.37 | H5307נָפַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2232זָרַעNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.38 | H5414נָתַןHophal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.39 | H4191מוּתQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH2930טָמֵאQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.4 | H398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH5927עָלָהHiphil · ParticipleH6536פָּרַסHiphil · Participle |
| v.40 | H3526כָּבַסPiel · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH3526כָּבַסPiel · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.41 | H398אָכַלNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.42 | H1980הָלַךְQal · ParticipleH1980הָלַךְQal · ParticipleH7235רָבָהHiphil · Participle |
| v.43 | H8262שָׁקַץPiel · Imperfect · JussiveH2930טָמֵאHithpael · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.44 | H2930טָמֵאPiel · Imperfect · Jussive |
| v.47 | H398אָכַלNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.5 | H5927עָלָהHiphil · ParticipleH6536פָּרַסHiphil · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.6 | H5927עָלָהHiphil · ParticipleH6536פָּרַסHiphil · Perfect · Indicative |
| v.7 | H6536פָּרַסHiphil · ParticipleH1641גָּרַרNiphal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.8 | H398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH5060נָגַעQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
| v.9 | H398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussiveH398אָכַלQal · Imperfect · Indicative/jussive |
Aspect in Hebrew is grammatical form, not tense. Perfect = completed action; Imperfect = incomplete/ongoing. Stem modifies action type (Qal=simple, Niphal=passive, Piel=intensive).
Morphology: OSHB WLC (Open Scriptures, CC BY 4.0) · STEPBible TEHMC (Tyndale House, CC BY 4.0)
Theological Argument
Leviticus 11 teaches that holiness is learned through distinction. After the priests are commanded to distinguish holy from common and clean from unclean, the Lord gives Israel concrete categories for animals, food, carcasses, household objects, and bodily contact. These distinctions are not detached ritual details; they train Israel to live as the people of the holy Lord who brought them up out of Egypt. The chapter's theological center is the Lord's own declaration: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'
From dietary classification to carcass impurity, from household contamination to personal responsibility, and from creature distinctions to the LORD's holy identity and redemptive claim.
- 1.The LORD speaks to both Moses and Aaron, linking the instruction to priestly teaching responsibility after Leviticus 10.
- 2.Israel's eating is brought under divine authority because daily life belongs to the LORD.
- 3.Land animals are distinguished by chewing the cud and divided hoof, forming a visible classification system.
- 4.Water creatures are distinguished by fins and scales, marking acceptable food from detestable creatures.
- 5.Birds and winged creatures are regulated through a forbidden list, preventing indiscriminate eating.
- 6.Certain insects are permitted while most winged insects are detestable, showing that classification requires careful attention.
- 7.Carcasses transmit uncleanness, teaching Israel to distinguish life, death, purity, and contamination.
- 8.Household objects can become unclean, showing that impurity affects ordinary domestic life.
- 9.Uncleanness is often temporary but real, requiring waiting, washing, breaking, or other prescribed responses.
- 10.Israel must not make themselves detestable through what they eat or touch.
- 11.The command to consecrate themselves grounds outward distinctions in covenant identity.
- 12.The LORD's redemption from Egypt forms the basis for Israel's holy life.
- 13.The chapter concludes by stating its purpose: to distinguish unclean from clean and creatures that may be eaten from those that may not.
Theological Focus
- Clean and unclean
- Holiness
- Covenant distinction
- Dietary boundaries
- Carcass impurity
- Daily-life obedience
- Priestly teaching
- Creation categories
- Death and contamination
- Consecration
- Redemption from Egypt
- Be holy because I am holy
- Holiness Enters Ordinary Life
- The Lord Teaches His People to Distinguish
- Redemption Creates Obligation
- God's Character Grounds Israel's Conduct
- Death Defiles in the Realm of the Holy God
- Priestly Discernment Becomes Communal Practice
- Holiness Requires Both Refusal and Consecration
- Clean and Unclean
- Redemption
- Covenant Identity
- Priestly Teaching
- Creation Order
- Impurity
- Consecration and Sanctification
- Christ Fulfills the Purity Laws
- New Covenant Holiness
Theological Themes
The chapter shows that Israel's holiness is not restricted to sacrifice or sanctuary. Eating, touching, washing, vessels, ovens, and household objects are all brought under God's Word.
Clean and unclean categories train Israel to discern difference, boundaries, order, and covenant identity before God.
The Lord brought Israel up out of Egypt to be their God. Their deliverance obligates them to live as His holy people.
The central rationale is not health, ethnicity, or social superiority, but God's holiness: Israel must be holy because the Lord is holy.
Carcass impurity highlights the connection between death, uncleanness, and the need for separation from contamination.
Leviticus 10 commanded priests to distinguish clean from unclean and teach Israel. Leviticus 11 begins that teaching in concrete form.
Israel must refuse detestable creatures and consecrate themselves positively to the Lord.
Covenant Significance
Leviticus 11 gives Israel covenant identity markers that shape daily life under the Lord's holiness. These laws separate Israel from surrounding peoples, train discernment, and teach that the redeemed community belongs wholly to the Lord. The chapter also establishes priestly responsibility to teach clean and unclean distinctions to the people.
- Israel's diet is governed by the Lord's covenant command.
- Clean and unclean distinctions make holiness visible in daily practice.
- The priesthood must teach Israel how to distinguish clean from unclean.
- Contact with death creates real but often temporary impurity.
- Household life is not outside the scope of holiness.
- Israel must not make themselves detestable through forbidden creatures.
- The Lord's holiness is the pattern for Israel's holiness.
- The exodus grounds Israel's obligation to live as the Lord's holy people.
- The chapter prepares the broader purity section of Leviticus 11-15.
- Genesis 1 presents ordered creature categories that stand behind later creature distinctions.
- Genesis 7:2 already distinguishes clean and unclean animals before Sinai.
- Leviticus 10:10-11 commands priests to distinguish holy/common and clean/unclean and teach Israel.
- Leviticus 20:24-26 later repeats clean/unclean distinction in relation to Israel's separation from the nations.
- Deuteronomy 14:3-21 parallels the clean and unclean food laws.
- Daniel 1 shows faithful concern for food and covenant identity in exile.
- Ezekiel 22:26 rebukes priests who fail to distinguish holy from common and clean from unclean.
Canonical Connections
Leviticus 11 assumes an ordered creation in which creatures are distinguishable by kinds, realms, and bodily features.
Noah distinguishes clean and unclean animals before the flood, showing that such categories have pre-Sinai background.
Leviticus 10 commands priests to distinguish clean from unclean; Leviticus 11 begins the concrete instruction.
Leviticus later connects clean/unclean distinctions with Israel being separated from the nations for the Lord.
Deuteronomy repeats the clean and unclean food laws for Israel's life in the land.
Ezekiel condemns priests for failing in the very task Leviticus 11 trains them to perform.
Jesus teaches that defilement proceeds from the heart, not merely from food entering the body.
Clean and unclean food imagery is used to teach that God has cleansed Gentiles in Christ.
Paul teaches that food regulations are not to be used to judge believers in Christ.
Peter quotes the holiness command for New Covenant believers, showing continuity of the holiness call in Christ.
Cross References
Canon-Wide Connections
Cross-reference data: OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Leviticus 11 clarifies the gospel by showing that God's redeemed people must be holy because He is holy, yet external distinctions cannot finally cleanse the heart. Christ fulfills the clean and unclean system by cleansing sinners, declaring foods clean, removing Jew-Gentile boundary markers, and creating a holy people through His blood and Spirit. The gospel does not erase holiness; it establishes true holiness in Christ.
- The food laws taught Israel to live as a distinct people belonging to the Lord.
- The holiness command is grounded in redemption: the Lord brought Israel up out of Egypt.
- Clean and unclean distinctions reveal that God's people must learn discernment.
- Carcass impurity shows that death and uncleanness are incompatible with God's holy presence.
- The law could classify and regulate uncleanness, but it could not finally cleanse the conscience.
- Jesus fulfills the purity laws by cleansing the unclean and addressing the heart.
- Christ removes food-law boundary markers as covenant identifiers for the people of God.
- The church is still called to holiness, but holiness is now defined through Christ, the Spirit, and apostolic teaching.
- Do not bind Christians to Mosaic food laws as though they define New Covenant holiness.
- Do not dismiss Leviticus 11 as irrelevant · it teaches holiness, discernment, redemption, and God's claim on daily life.
- Do not confuse ritual uncleanness with moral guilt in every case.
- Do not use Christ's declaration of foods clean to imply that purity and holiness no longer matter.
- Do not preach the clean and unclean laws as mere hygiene, ethnic identity, or arbitrary taboo.
- Do not ignore the redemptive-historical movement from Israel's food boundaries to Jew-Gentile unity in Christ.
- Do not let application become external rule-keeping detached from Christ's cleansing work.
Primary Emphasis
Leviticus 11 prepares for Christ by showing that God's people need holiness that reaches beyond external classification into the whole person. The clean and unclean laws trained Israel in separation, holiness, and discernment until the fulfillment brought by Christ. In the New Testament, Christ declares foods clean, cleanses the unclean, and forms a holy people whose purity is grounded not in the Mosaic food laws but in His saving work and the sanctifying power of the Spirit.
Chapter Contribution
Leviticus 11 teaches that holiness is learned through distinction. After the priests are commanded to distinguish holy from common and clean from unclean, the Lord gives Israel concrete categories for animals, food, carcasses, household objects, and bodily contact. These distinctions are not detached ritual details; they train Israel to live as the people of the holy Lord who brought them up out of Egypt. The chapter's theological center is the Lord's own declaration: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'
Study holiness as divine character, covenant identity, and sanctified life across Scripture.
Study temple presence, worship, corruption, judgment, and renewal across Scripture.
Contact with death produces impurity that must be addressed within Israel's purity system.
The dietary laws reinforce Israel's identity as a people set apart to the Lord.
God's commands structure the life of His redeemed people.
God establishes structured practices that govern Israel's interaction with food, objects, and environment.
Israel's obedience flows from the Lord's act of delivering them from Egypt.
God determines the standards by which His people order their lives.
God determines the boundaries governing Israel's daily conduct.
God's covenant people must practice obedience even in ordinary activities such as eating.
God's covenant people are called to express obedience in ordinary practices such as food consumption.
God's holiness shapes even ordinary aspects of Israel's household and work life.
God's own holiness establishes the standard for the life of His covenant people.
The purity laws remind Israel that they are called to live in awareness of God's holiness.
Israel's daily practices reflect their calling to live before the holy presence of God.
Israel's daily conduct must align with the Lord's revealed instructions.
The covenant community must observe distinctions governing states of ceremonial purity and impurity.
Certain conditions produce ritual impurity that is resolved through time and prescribed practices.
Death is treated within the covenant system as a condition that disrupts purity.
The Lord's holiness grounds Israel's call to be holy in daily life.
The chapter defines clean and unclean creatures and carcass contamination as part of Israel's covenant life.
The Lord's act of bringing Israel up out of Egypt grounds His claim over their holiness.
The food laws mark Israel as a people distinctively ordered under the Lord's command.
The chapter fulfills the priestly responsibility to distinguish clean from unclean and teach Israel.
The classification of creatures reflects ordered distinctions within the created world under God's rule.
Carcass contact creates uncleanness that must be handled according to the Lord's instruction.
Israel is called to consecrate themselves and live as holy because the Lord is holy.
Christ fulfills the clean and unclean system by bringing true cleansing and redefining covenant holiness around Himself.
Believers are still called to be holy, but not through Mosaic food-law boundary markers.
Theological exposition and fulfillment
- Leviticus 11 clarifies the gospel by showing that God's redeemed people must be holy because He is holy, yet external distinctions cannot finally cleanse the heart. Christ fulfills the clean and unclean system by cleansing sinners, declaring foods clean, removing Jew-Gentile boundary markers, and creating a holy people through His blood and Spirit. The gospel does not erase holiness; it establishes true holiness in Christ.
The Lord who redeemed Israel is holy, and His people must learn to distinguish clean from unclean in ordinary life as an expression of belonging to Him.
God's people must not reduce holiness to worship moments, external labels, or human traditions. Holiness must be received through Christ and practiced in whole-life obedience.
Scripture-formed discernment, redeemed identity, daily consecration, and Christ-centered holiness.
- Submit daily habits to the Lord's authority.
- Let God's Word train categories of clean and unclean, holy and common.
- Reject externalism that mistakes boundary markers for heart holiness.
- Reject carelessness that treats Christ's fulfillment as permission for impurity.
- Remember that redemption creates a holy calling.
- Look to Christ for cleansing that reaches the heart and conscience.
- Practice holiness in eating, speaking, touching, working, resting, and belonging.
- The chapter warns Israel not to make themselves detestable or unclean by disregarding the Lord's distinctions. Holiness requires attention to God's Word even in ordinary routines.
- Leviticus 11 is only ancient dietary health advice. - Health may be discussed secondarily, but the chapter itself grounds the laws in holiness, covenant identity, and the Lord's redemptive claim.
- Clean animals are morally good and unclean animals are morally evil. - The categories concern ritual cleanness and covenant suitability for Israel's diet, not moral guilt in animals.
- Uncleanness always means personal sin. - Uncleanness is not identical to moral sin. Contact with carcasses can make a person unclean without implying deliberate rebellion.
- The food laws were arbitrary and meaningless. - The chapter gives a clear theological rationale: Israel must distinguish clean from unclean and be holy because the Lord is holy.
- Christians must keep Leviticus 11 food laws to be holy. - The New Testament teaches that the Mosaic food laws are fulfilled in Christ and no longer define covenant membership, though the call to holiness remains.
- Jesus' fulfillment of the food laws means holiness no longer matters. - Christ fulfills the purity system, but He intensifies the call to true holiness of heart, body, conduct, and worship.
- Peter's vision in Acts 10 was only about diet. - The vision includes food imagery, but its direct redemptive-historical point is that God has cleansed Gentiles and removed the old boundary marker separating Jew and Gentile in Christ.
- Do I treat ordinary routines as belonging to the Lord?
- What does this chapter teach me about learning discernment through God's Word?
- Where do I resist God's right to define boundaries in daily life?
- How does redemption from bondage create obligation to holiness?
- Do I confuse external religious markers with true holiness of heart?
- How does Christ fulfill and transform the clean and unclean categories?
- What unclean patterns of heart, speech, desire, or conduct must I reject today?
- How should the church teach holiness without returning believers to the Mosaic food laws?
- Teach holiness as whole-life discipleship.
- Distinguish ritual uncleanness from moral sin.
- Show the continuity and discontinuity in Christ.
- Train discernment rather than mere rule-keeping.
- Preach redemption as the root of holiness.
- Connect purity laws to Christ's cleansing ministry.
- Guard against legalism and lawlessness.
Leviticus 10 commands priests to distinguish clean and unclean; Leviticus 11 teaches the community those distinctions.
The holiness of God reaches from altar and priesthood into food, vessels, ovens, seeds, water, and daily contact.
The food laws are grounded in the Lord's claim: He brought Israel up out of Egypt to be their God.
The clean and unclean system prepares for Christ, who cleanses people at the heart and covenant level.
Israel's distinct food laws marked covenant separation; in Christ, holiness continues without those food laws defining Jew-Gentile separation.
C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–91) — public domain
The Biblical World
Chapter At A Glance
The Lord instructs Moses and Aaron concerning clean and unclean land animals, water creatures, birds, flying insects, swarming creatures, carcass contamination, household impurity, and the theological purpose of these distinctions: Israel must be holy because the Lord is holy.
Leviticus 11 gives Israel covenant identity markers that shape daily life under the Lord's holiness. These laws separate Israel from surrounding peoples, train discernment, and teach that the redeemed community belongs wholly to the Lord. The chapter also establishes priestly responsibility to teach clean and unclean distinctions to the people.
Leviticus 11 clarifies the gospel by showing that God's redeemed people must be holy because He is holy, yet external distinctions cannot finally cleanse the heart. Christ fulfills the clean and unclean system by cleansing sinners, declaring foods clean, removing Jew-Gentile boundary markers, and creating a holy people through His blood and Spirit. The gospel does not erase holiness; it establishes true holiness in Christ.
Scripture-formed discernment, redeemed identity, daily consecration, and Christ-centered holiness.
Focus Points
- Clean and unclean
- Holiness
- Covenant distinction
- Dietary boundaries
- Carcass impurity
- Daily-life obedience
- Priestly teaching
- Creation categories
- Death and contamination
- Consecration
- Redemption from Egypt
- Be holy because I am holy
- Holiness Enters Ordinary Life
- The Lord Teaches His People to Distinguish
- Redemption Creates Obligation
- God's Character Grounds Israel's Conduct
- Death Defiles in the Realm of the Holy God
- Priestly Discernment Becomes Communal Practice
- Holiness Requires Both Refusal and Consecration
- Redemption
- Covenant Identity
- Creation Order
- Impurity
- Consecration and Sanctification
- Christ Fulfills the Purity Laws
- New Covenant Holiness
The regulation of the sacrifices and institution of the priesthood, by which Jehovah opened up to His people the way of access to His grace and the way to sanctification of life in fellowship with Him, were followed by instructions concerning the various things which hindered and disturbed this living fellowship with God the Holy One, as being manifestations and results of sin, and by certain rules for avoiding and removing these obstructions. For example, although sin has its origin and proper seat in the soul, it pervades the whole body as the organ of the soul, and shatters the life of the body, even to its complete dissolution in death and decomposition; whilst its effects have spread from man to the whole of the earthly creation, inasmuch as not only did man draw nature with him into the service of sin, in consequence of the dominion over it which was given him by God, but God Himself, according to a holy law of His wise and equitable government, made the irrational creature subject to “vanity” and “corruption” on account of the sin of man (Rom 8:20-21), so that not only did the field bring forth thorns and thistles, and the earth produce injurious and poisonous plants (see at Gen 3:18), but the animal kingdom in many of its forms and creatures bears the image of sin and death, and is constantly reminding man of the evil fruit of his fall from God.
It is in this penetration of sin into the material creation that we may find the explanation of the fact, that from the very earliest times men have neither used every kind of herb nor every kind of animal as food; but that, whilst they have, as it were, instinctively avoided certain plants as injurious to health or destructive to life, they have also had a horror naturalis , i. e.
, an inexplicable disgust, at many of the animals, and have avoided their flesh as unclean. A similar horror must have been produced upon man from the very first, before his heart was altogether hardened, by death as the wages of sin, or rather by the effects of death, viz. , the decomposition of the body; and different diseases and states of the body, that were connected with symptoms of corruption and decomposition, may also have been regarded as rendering unclean.
Hence in all the nations and all the religions of antiquity we find that contrast between clean and unclean, which was developed in a dualistic form, it is true, in many of the religious systems, but had its primary root in the corruption that had entered the world through sin. This contrast was limited in the Mosaic law to the animal food of the Israelites, to contact with dead animals and human corpses, and to certain bodily conditions and diseases that are associated with the decomposition, pointing out most minutely the unclean objects and various defilements within these spheres, and prescribing the means for avoiding or removing them.
The instructions in the chapter before us, concerning the clean and unclean animals, are introduced in the first place as laws of food (Lev 11:2); but they pass beyond these bounds by prohibiting at the same time all contact with animal carrion (Lev 11:8, Lev 11:11, Lev 11:24.) , and show thereby that they are connected in principle and object with the subsequent laws of purification (ch.
12-15), to which they are to be regarded as a preparatory introduction. Lev 11:1 The laws which follow were given to Moses and Aaron (Lev 11:1; Lev 13:1; Lev 15:1), as Aaron had been sanctified through the anointing to expiate the sins and uncleannesses of the children of Israel.
Lev 11:2-3 (cf. Deu 14:4-8). Of the larger quadrupeds, which are divided in Gen 1:24-25 into beasts of the earth (living wild) and tame cattle, only the cattle (behemah) are mentioned here, as denoting the larger land animals, some of which were reared by man as domesticated animals, and others used as food. Of these the Israelites might eat “ whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud among the cattle .
” פּרסת שׁסע שׁסעת, literally “tearing (having) a rent in the hoofs,” according to Deu 14:5 into “two claws,” i. e. , with a hoof completely severed in two. גּרה, rumination, μηρυκισμός (lxx), from גּרר (cf. יגּר Lev 11:7), to draw (Hab 1:15), to draw to and fro; hence to bring up the food again, to ruminate. גּרה מעלת is connected with the preceding words with vav cop .
to indicate the close connection of the two regulations, viz. , that there was to be the perfectly cloven foot as well as the rumination (cf. Lev 11:4.) These marks are combined in the oxen, sheep, and goats, and also in the stag and gazelle. The latter are expressly mentioned in Deu 14:4-5, where - in addition to the common stag (איּל) and gazelle (צבי, δορκάς, lxx), or dorcas-antelope , which is most frequently met with in Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, of the size of a roebuck, with a reddish brown back and white body, horns sixteen inches long, and fine dark eyes, and the flesh of which, according to Avicenna , is the best of all the wild game-the following five are also selected, viz.
: (1) יחמוּר, not βούβαλος, the buffalo (lxx, and Luther ), but Damhirsch , a stag which is still much more common in Asia than in Europe and Palestine (see v. Schubert, R. iii. p. 118); (2) אקּו, probably, according to the Chaldee, Syriac , etc. , the capricorn ( Steinbock ), which is very common in Palestine, not τραγέλαφος (lxx, Vulg.) , the buck-stag ( Bockhirsch ), an animal lately discovered in Nubia (cf.
Leyrer in Herzog's Cycl. vi. p. 143); (3) דּישׁן, according to the lxx and Vulg . πύραργος, a kind of antelope resembling the stag, which is met with in Africa (Herod. 4, 192), - according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the buffalo-antelope , - according to the Samar. and Arabic, the mountain-stag; (4) תּאו, according to the Chaldee the wild ox, which is also met with in Egypt and Arabia, probably the oryx (lxx, Vulg.)
, a species of antelope as large as a stag; and (5) זמר, according to the lxx and most of the ancient versions, the giraffe , but this is only found in the deserts of Africa, and would hardly be met with even in Egypt-it is more probably capreae sylvestris species , according to the Chaldee.
Lev 11:2-3 (cf. Deu 14:4-8). Of the larger quadrupeds, which are divided in Gen 1:24-25 into beasts of the earth (living wild) and tame cattle, only the cattle (behemah) are mentioned here, as denoting the larger land animals, some of which were reared by man as domesticated animals, and others used as food. Of these the Israelites might eat “ whatsoever parteth the hoof and is cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud among the cattle .
” פּרסת שׁסע שׁסעת, literally “tearing (having) a rent in the hoofs,” according to Deu 14:5 into “two claws,” i. e. , with a hoof completely severed in two. גּרה, rumination, μηρυκισμός (lxx), from גּרר (cf. יגּר Lev 11:7), to draw (Hab 1:15), to draw to and fro; hence to bring up the food again, to ruminate. גּרה מעלת is connected with the preceding words with vav cop .
to indicate the close connection of the two regulations, viz. , that there was to be the perfectly cloven foot as well as the rumination (cf. Lev 11:4.) These marks are combined in the oxen, sheep, and goats, and also in the stag and gazelle. The latter are expressly mentioned in Deu 14:4-5, where - in addition to the common stag (איּל) and gazelle (צבי, δορκάς, lxx), or dorcas-antelope , which is most frequently met with in Palestine, Syria, and Arabia, of the size of a roebuck, with a reddish brown back and white body, horns sixteen inches long, and fine dark eyes, and the flesh of which, according to Avicenna , is the best of all the wild game-the following five are also selected, viz.
: (1) יחמוּר, not βούβαλος, the buffalo (lxx, and Luther ), but Damhirsch , a stag which is still much more common in Asia than in Europe and Palestine (see v. Schubert, R. iii. p. 118); (2) אקּו, probably, according to the Chaldee, Syriac , etc. , the capricorn ( Steinbock ), which is very common in Palestine, not τραγέλαφος (lxx, Vulg.) , the buck-stag ( Bockhirsch ), an animal lately discovered in Nubia (cf.
Leyrer in Herzog's Cycl. vi. p. 143); (3) דּישׁן, according to the lxx and Vulg . πύραργος, a kind of antelope resembling the stag, which is met with in Africa (Herod. 4, 192), - according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the buffalo-antelope , - according to the Samar. and Arabic, the mountain-stag; (4) תּאו, according to the Chaldee the wild ox, which is also met with in Egypt and Arabia, probably the oryx (lxx, Vulg.)
, a species of antelope as large as a stag; and (5) זמר, according to the lxx and most of the ancient versions, the giraffe , but this is only found in the deserts of Africa, and would hardly be met with even in Egypt-it is more probably capreae sylvestris species , according to the Chaldee.
Lev 11:4-6 Any animal which was wanting in either of these marks was to be unclean, or not to be eaten. This is the case with the camel , whose flesh is eaten by the Arabs; it ruminates, but it has not cloven hoofs. Its foot is severed, it is true, but not thoroughly cloven, as there is a ball behind, upon which it treads. The hare and hyrax ( Klippdachs ) were also unclean, because, although they ruminate, they have not cloven hoofs.
It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter do not ruminate at all, as they have not the four stomachs that are common to ruminant animals; but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating, so that even Linnaeus affirmed that the hare chewed the cud, and Moses followed the popular opinion. According to Bochart , Oedmann , and others, the shaphan is the jerboa , and according to the Rabbins and Luther, the rabbit or coney.
But the more correct view is, that it is the wabr of the Arabs, which is still called tsofun in Southern Arabia ( hyrax Syriacus ), an animal which feeds on plants, a native of the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan, also of Arabia and Africa. They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa 104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings to their caves, and extremely timid as they are quite defenceless (Pro 30:26).
They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish grey or brownish yellow colour, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests.
Lev 11:4-6 Any animal which was wanting in either of these marks was to be unclean, or not to be eaten. This is the case with the camel , whose flesh is eaten by the Arabs; it ruminates, but it has not cloven hoofs. Its foot is severed, it is true, but not thoroughly cloven, as there is a ball behind, upon which it treads. The hare and hyrax ( Klippdachs ) were also unclean, because, although they ruminate, they have not cloven hoofs.
It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter do not ruminate at all, as they have not the four stomachs that are common to ruminant animals; but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating, so that even Linnaeus affirmed that the hare chewed the cud, and Moses followed the popular opinion. According to Bochart , Oedmann , and others, the shaphan is the jerboa , and according to the Rabbins and Luther, the rabbit or coney.
But the more correct view is, that it is the wabr of the Arabs, which is still called tsofun in Southern Arabia ( hyrax Syriacus ), an animal which feeds on plants, a native of the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan, also of Arabia and Africa. They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa 104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings to their caves, and extremely timid as they are quite defenceless (Pro 30:26).
They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish grey or brownish yellow colour, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests.
Lev 11:4-6 Any animal which was wanting in either of these marks was to be unclean, or not to be eaten. This is the case with the camel , whose flesh is eaten by the Arabs; it ruminates, but it has not cloven hoofs. Its foot is severed, it is true, but not thoroughly cloven, as there is a ball behind, upon which it treads. The hare and hyrax ( Klippdachs ) were also unclean, because, although they ruminate, they have not cloven hoofs.
It is true that modern naturalists affirm that the two latter do not ruminate at all, as they have not the four stomachs that are common to ruminant animals; but they move the jaw sometimes in a manner which looks like ruminating, so that even Linnaeus affirmed that the hare chewed the cud, and Moses followed the popular opinion. According to Bochart , Oedmann , and others, the shaphan is the jerboa , and according to the Rabbins and Luther, the rabbit or coney.
But the more correct view is, that it is the wabr of the Arabs, which is still called tsofun in Southern Arabia ( hyrax Syriacus ), an animal which feeds on plants, a native of the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan, also of Arabia and Africa. They live in the natural caves and clefts of the rocks (Psa 104:18), are very gregarious, being often seen seated in troops before the openings to their caves, and extremely timid as they are quite defenceless (Pro 30:26).
They are about the size of rabbits, of a brownish grey or brownish yellow colour, but white under the belly; they have bright eyes, round ears, and no tail. The Arabs eat them, but do not place them before their guests.
Lev 11:7 The swine has cloven hoofs, but does not ruminate; and many of the tribes of antiquity abstained from eating it, partly on account of its uncleanliness, and partly from fear of skin-diseases.
Lev 11:8 “ Of their flesh shall ye not eat (i.e., not slay these animals as food), and their carcase (animals that had died) shall ye not touch .” The latter applied to the clean or edible animals also, when they had died a natural death (Lev 11:39).
Lev 11:9-12 (cf. Deu 14:9 and Deu 14:10). Of water animals , everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided with abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc.
, forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui sqamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin. h. n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome ( Lane , Manners and Customs).
Lev 11:9-12 (cf. Deu 14:9 and Deu 14:10). Of water animals , everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided with abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc.
, forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui sqamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin. h. n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome ( Lane , Manners and Customs).
Lev 11:9-12 (cf. Deu 14:9 and Deu 14:10). Of water animals , everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided with abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc.
, forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui sqamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin. h. n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome ( Lane , Manners and Customs).
Lev 11:9-12 (cf. Deu 14:9 and Deu 14:10). Of water animals , everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided with abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc.
, forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui sqamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin. h. n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome ( Lane , Manners and Customs).
Lev 11:13-14 (cf. Deu 14:11-18). Of birds , twenty varieties are prohibited, including the bat , but without any common mark being given; though they consist almost exclusively of birds which live upon flesh or carrion, and are most of them natives of Western Asia. The list commences with the eagle , as the king of the birds. Nesher embraces all the species of eagles proper.
The idea that the eagle will not touch carrion is erroneous. According to the testimony of Arabian writers ( Damiri in Bochart , ii. p. 577), and several naturalists who have travelled (e. g. , Forskal . l. c. p. 12, and Seetzen , 1, p. 379), they will eat carrion if it is still fresh and not decomposed; so that the eating of carrion could very properly be attributed to them in such passages as Job 39:30; Pro 30:17, and Mat 24:28.
But the bald-headedness mentioned in Mic 1:16 applies, not to the true eagle, but to the carrion-kite, which is reckoned, however, among the different species of eagles, as well as the bearded or golden vulture. The next in the list is peres , from paras = parash to break, ossifragus , i. e. , wither the bearded or golden vulture, gypaetos barbatus , or more probably, as Schultz supposes, the sea-eagle , which may have been the species intended in the γρύψ = γρυπαίετος of the lxx and gryphus of the Vulgate, and to which the ancients seem sometimes to have applied the name ossifraga ( Lucret .
v. 1079). By the next, עזניּה, we are very probably to understand the bearded or golden vulture . For this word is no doubt connected with the Arabic word for beard, and therefore points to the golden vulture, which has a tuft of hair or feathers on the lower beak, and which might very well be associated with the eagles so far as the size is concerned, having wings that measure 10 feet from tip to tip.
As it really belongs to the family of cultures, it forms a very fitting link of transition to the other species of vulture and falcon (Lev 11:14). דּאה ( Deut . דּיּה, according to a change which is by no means rare when the aleph stands between two vowels: cf. דּואג in 1Sa 21:8; 1Sa 22:9, and דּויג in 1Sa 22:18, 1Sa 22:22), from דּאה to fly, is either the kite , or the glede , which is very common in Palestine ( v.
Schubert, Reise iii. p. 120), and lives on carrion. It is a gregarious bird (cf. Isa 34:15), which other birds of prey are not, and is used by many different tribes as food ( Oedmann , iii. p. 120). The conjecture that the black glede-kite is meant, - a bird which is particularly common in the East, - and that the name is derived from דּאה to be dark, is overthrown by the use of the word למינהּ in Deuteronomy, which shows that דאה is intended to denote the whole genus.
איּה, which is referred to in Job 28:7 as sharp-sighted, is either the falcon, several species of which are natives of Syria and Arabia, and which is noted for its keen sight and the rapidity of its flight, or according to the Vulgate , Schultz , etc. , vultur , the true vulture (the lxx have Ἰκτίν, the kite, here, and γρύψ, the griffin, in Deut. and Job), of which there are three species in Palestine ( Lynch , p.
229). In Deu 14:13 הראה is also mentioned, from ראה to see. Judging from the name, it was a keen-sighted bird, either a falcon or another species of vulture ( Vulg . ixion ).
Lev 11:13-14 (cf. Deu 14:11-18). Of birds , twenty varieties are prohibited, including the bat , but without any common mark being given; though they consist almost exclusively of birds which live upon flesh or carrion, and are most of them natives of Western Asia. The list commences with the eagle , as the king of the birds. Nesher embraces all the species of eagles proper.
The idea that the eagle will not touch carrion is erroneous. According to the testimony of Arabian writers ( Damiri in Bochart , ii. p. 577), and several naturalists who have travelled (e. g. , Forskal . l. c. p. 12, and Seetzen , 1, p. 379), they will eat carrion if it is still fresh and not decomposed; so that the eating of carrion could very properly be attributed to them in such passages as Job 39:30; Pro 30:17, and Mat 24:28.
But the bald-headedness mentioned in Mic 1:16 applies, not to the true eagle, but to the carrion-kite, which is reckoned, however, among the different species of eagles, as well as the bearded or golden vulture. The next in the list is peres , from paras = parash to break, ossifragus , i. e. , wither the bearded or golden vulture, gypaetos barbatus , or more probably, as Schultz supposes, the sea-eagle , which may have been the species intended in the γρύψ = γρυπαίετος of the lxx and gryphus of the Vulgate, and to which the ancients seem sometimes to have applied the name ossifraga ( Lucret .
v. 1079). By the next, עזניּה, we are very probably to understand the bearded or golden vulture . For this word is no doubt connected with the Arabic word for beard, and therefore points to the golden vulture, which has a tuft of hair or feathers on the lower beak, and which might very well be associated with the eagles so far as the size is concerned, having wings that measure 10 feet from tip to tip.
As it really belongs to the family of cultures, it forms a very fitting link of transition to the other species of vulture and falcon (Lev 11:14). דּאה ( Deut . דּיּה, according to a change which is by no means rare when the aleph stands between two vowels: cf. דּואג in 1Sa 21:8; 1Sa 22:9, and דּויג in 1Sa 22:18, 1Sa 22:22), from דּאה to fly, is either the kite , or the glede , which is very common in Palestine ( v.
Schubert, Reise iii. p. 120), and lives on carrion. It is a gregarious bird (cf. Isa 34:15), which other birds of prey are not, and is used by many different tribes as food ( Oedmann , iii. p. 120). The conjecture that the black glede-kite is meant, - a bird which is particularly common in the East, - and that the name is derived from דּאה to be dark, is overthrown by the use of the word למינהּ in Deuteronomy, which shows that דאה is intended to denote the whole genus.
איּה, which is referred to in Job 28:7 as sharp-sighted, is either the falcon, several species of which are natives of Syria and Arabia, and which is noted for its keen sight and the rapidity of its flight, or according to the Vulgate , Schultz , etc. , vultur , the true vulture (the lxx have Ἰκτίν, the kite, here, and γρύψ, the griffin, in Deut. and Job), of which there are three species in Palestine ( Lynch , p.
229). In Deu 14:13 הראה is also mentioned, from ראה to see. Judging from the name, it was a keen-sighted bird, either a falcon or another species of vulture ( Vulg . ixion ).
Lev 11:15 “ Every raven after his kind, ” i.e., the whole genus of ravens, with the rest of the raven-like birds, such as crows, jackdaws, and jays, which are all of them natives of Syria and Palestine. The omission of ו before את, which is found in several MSS and editions, is probably to be regarded as the true reading, as it is not wanting before any of the other names.
Lev 11:16-19 היּענה בּת, i. e. , either daughter of screaming ( Bochart ), or daughter of greediness ( Gesenius , etc.) , is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13, etc.) , or as the mournful screamer (Mic 1:8; Job 30:29), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally.
It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka ( Seetzen and Burckhardt ), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia ( Diod. Sic. 3, 27; Strabo , xvi. 772) and Numidia ( Leo Afric .
p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also ( Seetzen , iii. p. 20; Burckhardt , p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. תּחמס, according to Bochart, Gesenius, and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, it is the owl ( Oedmann , iii. pp. 45ff.) ; but this is mentioned later under another name.
According to Saad. Ar. Erp. it is the swallow ; but this is called סיס in Jer 8:7. Knobel supposes it to be the cuckoo , which is met with in Palestine ( Seetzen , 1, p. 78), and derives the name from חמס, violenter egit , supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for the purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest ( Aristot.
hist. an. 6, 7; 9, 29; Ael. nat. an. 6, 7). שׁחף is the λάρος, or slender gull , according to the lxx and Vulg . Knobel follows the Arabic, however, and supposes it to be a species of hawk , which is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc. ; but this is certainly included in the genus נץ. נץ, from נצץ to fly, is the hawk , which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job 39:26).
It stands in fact, as למינהוּ shows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the ἱέραξ, accipiter , of which the ancients enumerate many different species. כּוס, which is mentioned in Psa 102:7 as dwelling in ruins, is an owl according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel's opinion it is either the screech-owl , which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screech-owl , which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury.
שׁלך, according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the lxx καταῤῥάκτης; in the Targ . and Syr . נוּנא שׁלי, extrahens pisces . It is not the gull , however ( larus catarractes ), which plunges with violence, for according to Oken this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican , to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water.
The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that. ינשׁוּף: from נשׁף to snort, according to Isa 34:11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl ; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu , which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu . תּנשׁמת, which occurs again in Lev 11:30 among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri , a bird resembling the uhu , but smaller.
Jonathan calls it uthya = ὠτός, a night-owl . The primary meaning of the word נשׁם is essentially the same as that of נשׁף, to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea , a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl ( strix stridula ), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu , at other times bane , a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence.
קאת, which also lived in desolate places (Isa 34:11; Zep 2:14), or in the desert itself (Psa 102:7), was not the katà , a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14, but the pelican (πελεκάν, lxx), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num 14:17) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry.
It is the true pelican of the ancients ( pelecanus graculus ), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from קוא to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). רחם, in Deut. רחמה, is κυκνός, the swan, according to the Septuagint; porphyrio , the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus ( Saad.
Ar. Erp. ), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles ( Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called ὀρειπέλαργος, the mountain-stork ( Arist. h. an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white.
It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs ( Burckhardt, Syr. p. 1046). It received its name of “ tenderly loving ” from the tenderness with which it watches over its young ( Bochart , iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, חסידה, avis pia , a bird of passage according to Jer 8:7, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Psa 104:17, cf.
Bochart , iii. pp. 85ff.) In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well. אנפה, according to the lxx and Vulgate χαραδριός, a marsh-bird of the snipe kind, of which there are several species in Egypt ( Hasselquist , p. 308).
This is quite in accordance with the expression “after her kind,” which points to a numerous genus. The omission of ואת before האנפה, whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the ו before את in Lev 11:15.
דּוּכיפת: according to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, the lapwing , which is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt ( Forsk, Russel, Sonnini ), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn ( Sonn . 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung.
Lastly, העטלּף is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also classified among the birds.
Lev 11:16-19 היּענה בּת, i. e. , either daughter of screaming ( Bochart ), or daughter of greediness ( Gesenius , etc.) , is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13, etc.) , or as the mournful screamer (Mic 1:8; Job 30:29), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally.
It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka ( Seetzen and Burckhardt ), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia ( Diod. Sic. 3, 27; Strabo , xvi. 772) and Numidia ( Leo Afric .
p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also ( Seetzen , iii. p. 20; Burckhardt , p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. תּחמס, according to Bochart, Gesenius, and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, it is the owl ( Oedmann , iii. pp. 45ff.) ; but this is mentioned later under another name.
According to Saad. Ar. Erp. it is the swallow ; but this is called סיס in Jer 8:7. Knobel supposes it to be the cuckoo , which is met with in Palestine ( Seetzen , 1, p. 78), and derives the name from חמס, violenter egit , supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for the purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest ( Aristot.
hist. an. 6, 7; 9, 29; Ael. nat. an. 6, 7). שׁחף is the λάρος, or slender gull , according to the lxx and Vulg . Knobel follows the Arabic, however, and supposes it to be a species of hawk , which is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc. ; but this is certainly included in the genus נץ. נץ, from נצץ to fly, is the hawk , which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job 39:26).
It stands in fact, as למינהוּ shows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the ἱέραξ, accipiter , of which the ancients enumerate many different species. כּוס, which is mentioned in Psa 102:7 as dwelling in ruins, is an owl according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel's opinion it is either the screech-owl , which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screech-owl , which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury.
שׁלך, according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the lxx καταῤῥάκτης; in the Targ . and Syr . נוּנא שׁלי, extrahens pisces . It is not the gull , however ( larus catarractes ), which plunges with violence, for according to Oken this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican , to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water.
The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that. ינשׁוּף: from נשׁף to snort, according to Isa 34:11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl ; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu , which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu . תּנשׁמת, which occurs again in Lev 11:30 among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri , a bird resembling the uhu , but smaller.
Jonathan calls it uthya = ὠτός, a night-owl . The primary meaning of the word נשׁם is essentially the same as that of נשׁף, to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea , a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl ( strix stridula ), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu , at other times bane , a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence.
קאת, which also lived in desolate places (Isa 34:11; Zep 2:14), or in the desert itself (Psa 102:7), was not the katà , a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14, but the pelican (πελεκάν, lxx), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num 14:17) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry.
It is the true pelican of the ancients ( pelecanus graculus ), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from קוא to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). רחם, in Deut. רחמה, is κυκνός, the swan, according to the Septuagint; porphyrio , the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus ( Saad.
Ar. Erp. ), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles ( Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called ὀρειπέλαργος, the mountain-stork ( Arist. h. an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white.
It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs ( Burckhardt, Syr. p. 1046). It received its name of “ tenderly loving ” from the tenderness with which it watches over its young ( Bochart , iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, חסידה, avis pia , a bird of passage according to Jer 8:7, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Psa 104:17, cf.
Bochart , iii. pp. 85ff.) In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well. אנפה, according to the lxx and Vulgate χαραδριός, a marsh-bird of the snipe kind, of which there are several species in Egypt ( Hasselquist , p. 308).
This is quite in accordance with the expression “after her kind,” which points to a numerous genus. The omission of ואת before האנפה, whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the ו before את in Lev 11:15.
דּוּכיפת: according to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, the lapwing , which is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt ( Forsk, Russel, Sonnini ), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn ( Sonn . 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung.
Lastly, העטלּף is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also classified among the birds.
Lev 11:16-19 היּענה בּת, i. e. , either daughter of screaming ( Bochart ), or daughter of greediness ( Gesenius , etc.) , is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13, etc.) , or as the mournful screamer (Mic 1:8; Job 30:29), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally.
It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka ( Seetzen and Burckhardt ), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia ( Diod. Sic. 3, 27; Strabo , xvi. 772) and Numidia ( Leo Afric .
p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also ( Seetzen , iii. p. 20; Burckhardt , p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. תּחמס, according to Bochart, Gesenius, and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, it is the owl ( Oedmann , iii. pp. 45ff.) ; but this is mentioned later under another name.
According to Saad. Ar. Erp. it is the swallow ; but this is called סיס in Jer 8:7. Knobel supposes it to be the cuckoo , which is met with in Palestine ( Seetzen , 1, p. 78), and derives the name from חמס, violenter egit , supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for the purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest ( Aristot.
hist. an. 6, 7; 9, 29; Ael. nat. an. 6, 7). שׁחף is the λάρος, or slender gull , according to the lxx and Vulg . Knobel follows the Arabic, however, and supposes it to be a species of hawk , which is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc. ; but this is certainly included in the genus נץ. נץ, from נצץ to fly, is the hawk , which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job 39:26).
It stands in fact, as למינהוּ shows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the ἱέραξ, accipiter , of which the ancients enumerate many different species. כּוס, which is mentioned in Psa 102:7 as dwelling in ruins, is an owl according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel's opinion it is either the screech-owl , which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screech-owl , which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury.
שׁלך, according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the lxx καταῤῥάκτης; in the Targ . and Syr . נוּנא שׁלי, extrahens pisces . It is not the gull , however ( larus catarractes ), which plunges with violence, for according to Oken this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican , to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water.
The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that. ינשׁוּף: from נשׁף to snort, according to Isa 34:11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl ; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu , which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu . תּנשׁמת, which occurs again in Lev 11:30 among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri , a bird resembling the uhu , but smaller.
Jonathan calls it uthya = ὠτός, a night-owl . The primary meaning of the word נשׁם is essentially the same as that of נשׁף, to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea , a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl ( strix stridula ), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu , at other times bane , a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence.
קאת, which also lived in desolate places (Isa 34:11; Zep 2:14), or in the desert itself (Psa 102:7), was not the katà , a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14, but the pelican (πελεκάν, lxx), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num 14:17) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry.
It is the true pelican of the ancients ( pelecanus graculus ), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from קוא to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). רחם, in Deut. רחמה, is κυκνός, the swan, according to the Septuagint; porphyrio , the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus ( Saad.
Ar. Erp. ), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles ( Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called ὀρειπέλαργος, the mountain-stork ( Arist. h. an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white.
It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs ( Burckhardt, Syr. p. 1046). It received its name of “ tenderly loving ” from the tenderness with which it watches over its young ( Bochart , iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, חסידה, avis pia , a bird of passage according to Jer 8:7, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Psa 104:17, cf.
Bochart , iii. pp. 85ff.) In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well. אנפה, according to the lxx and Vulgate χαραδριός, a marsh-bird of the snipe kind, of which there are several species in Egypt ( Hasselquist , p. 308).
This is quite in accordance with the expression “after her kind,” which points to a numerous genus. The omission of ואת before האנפה, whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the ו before את in Lev 11:15.
דּוּכיפת: according to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, the lapwing , which is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt ( Forsk, Russel, Sonnini ), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn ( Sonn . 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung.
Lastly, העטלּף is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also classified among the birds.
Lev 11:16-19 היּענה בּת, i. e. , either daughter of screaming ( Bochart ), or daughter of greediness ( Gesenius , etc.) , is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13, etc.) , or as the mournful screamer (Mic 1:8; Job 30:29), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally.
It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka ( Seetzen and Burckhardt ), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia ( Diod. Sic. 3, 27; Strabo , xvi. 772) and Numidia ( Leo Afric .
p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also ( Seetzen , iii. p. 20; Burckhardt , p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. תּחמס, according to Bochart, Gesenius, and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, it is the owl ( Oedmann , iii. pp. 45ff.) ; but this is mentioned later under another name.
According to Saad. Ar. Erp. it is the swallow ; but this is called סיס in Jer 8:7. Knobel supposes it to be the cuckoo , which is met with in Palestine ( Seetzen , 1, p. 78), and derives the name from חמס, violenter egit , supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for the purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest ( Aristot.
hist. an. 6, 7; 9, 29; Ael. nat. an. 6, 7). שׁחף is the λάρος, or slender gull , according to the lxx and Vulg . Knobel follows the Arabic, however, and supposes it to be a species of hawk , which is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc. ; but this is certainly included in the genus נץ. נץ, from נצץ to fly, is the hawk , which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job 39:26).
It stands in fact, as למינהוּ shows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the ἱέραξ, accipiter , of which the ancients enumerate many different species. כּוס, which is mentioned in Psa 102:7 as dwelling in ruins, is an owl according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel's opinion it is either the screech-owl , which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screech-owl , which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury.
שׁלך, according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the lxx καταῤῥάκτης; in the Targ . and Syr . נוּנא שׁלי, extrahens pisces . It is not the gull , however ( larus catarractes ), which plunges with violence, for according to Oken this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican , to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water.
The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that. ינשׁוּף: from נשׁף to snort, according to Isa 34:11, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl ; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu , which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu . תּנשׁמת, which occurs again in Lev 11:30 among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri , a bird resembling the uhu , but smaller.
Jonathan calls it uthya = ὠτός, a night-owl . The primary meaning of the word נשׁם is essentially the same as that of נשׁף, to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea , a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl ( strix stridula ), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu , at other times bane , a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence.
קאת, which also lived in desolate places (Isa 34:11; Zep 2:14), or in the desert itself (Psa 102:7), was not the katà , a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa 34:11 and Zep 2:14, but the pelican (πελεκάν, lxx), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num 14:17) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry.
It is the true pelican of the ancients ( pelecanus graculus ), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from קוא to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). רחם, in Deut. רחמה, is κυκνός, the swan, according to the Septuagint; porphyrio , the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus ( Saad.
Ar. Erp. ), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles ( Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called ὀρειπέλαργος, the mountain-stork ( Arist. h. an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white.
It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs ( Burckhardt, Syr. p. 1046). It received its name of “ tenderly loving ” from the tenderness with which it watches over its young ( Bochart , iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, חסידה, avis pia , a bird of passage according to Jer 8:7, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Psa 104:17, cf.
Bochart , iii. pp. 85ff.) In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well. אנפה, according to the lxx and Vulgate χαραδριός, a marsh-bird of the snipe kind, of which there are several species in Egypt ( Hasselquist , p. 308).
This is quite in accordance with the expression “after her kind,” which points to a numerous genus. The omission of ואת before האנפה, whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the ו before את in Lev 11:15.
דּוּכיפת: according to the lxx, Vulg . , and others, the lapwing , which is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt ( Forsk, Russel, Sonnini ), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn ( Sonn . 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung.
Lastly, העטלּף is the bat (Isa 2:20), which the Arabs also classified among the birds.
Lev 11:20-23 (cf. Deu 14:19). To the birds there are appended flying animals of other kinds: “ all swarms of fowl that go upon fours, ” i. e. , the smaller winged animals with four feet, which are called sherez , “swarms,” on account of their multitude. These were not to be eaten, as they were all abominations, with the exception of those “ which have two shank-feet above their feet (i.
e. , springing feet) to leap with ” (לא for לו as in Exo 21:8). Locusts are the animals referred to, four varieties being mentioned with their different species (“ after his kind ”); but these cannot be identified with exactness, as there is still a dearth of information as to the natural history of the oriental locust. It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greeks thought the Cicades very agreeable in flavour ( Arist.
h. an. 5, 30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure; and they are also dried, and kept in bags for winter use. For the most part, however, it is only by the poorer classes that they are eaten, and many of the tribes of Arabia abhor them (Robinson, ii. p. 628); and those who use them as food do not eat all the species indiscriminately.
They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal and make cakes of them. The Israelites were allowed to eat the arbeh , i.
e. , according to Exo 10:13, Exo 10:19; Nah 3:17, etc. , the flying migratory locust, gryllus migratorius , which still bears this name, according to Niebuhr , in Maskat and Bagdad, and is poetically designated in Psa 78:46; Psa 105:34, as חסיל, the devourer , and ילק, the eater-up; but Knobel is mistaken in supposing that these names are applied to certain species of the arbeh .
סלעם, according to the Chaldee, deglutivit , absorpsit , is unquestionably a larger and peculiarly voracious species of locust. This is all that can be inferred from the rashon of the Targums and Talmud, whilst the ἀττάκης and attacus of the lxx and Vulg. are altogether unexplained. חרגּל: according to the Arabic, a galloping, i. e. , a hopping, not a flying species of locust.
This is supported by the Samaritan, also by the lxx and Vulg . , ὀφιομάχης, ophiomachus . According to Hesychius and Suidas , it was a species of locust without wings, probably a very large kind; as it is stated in Mishnah , Shabb . vi. 10, that an egg of the chargol was sometimes suspended in the ear, as a remedy for earache. Among the different species of locusts in Mesopotamia, Niebuhr (Arab.
p. 170) saw two of a very large size with springing feet, but without wings. חגב, a word of uncertain etymology, occurs in Num 13:33, where the spies are described as being like chagabim by the side of the inhabitants of the country, and in 2Ch 7:13, where the chagab devours the land. From these passages we may infer that it was a species of locust without wings, small but very numerous, probably the ἀττέλαβος, which is often mentioned along with the ἀκρίς, but as a distinct species, locustarum minima sine pennis ( Plin.
h. n. 29, c . 4, s . 29), or parva locusta modicis pennis reptans potius quam volitans semperque subsiliens ( Jerome (on Nah 3:17).
Lev 11:20-23 (cf. Deu 14:19). To the birds there are appended flying animals of other kinds: “ all swarms of fowl that go upon fours, ” i. e. , the smaller winged animals with four feet, which are called sherez , “swarms,” on account of their multitude. These were not to be eaten, as they were all abominations, with the exception of those “ which have two shank-feet above their feet (i.
e. , springing feet) to leap with ” (לא for לו as in Exo 21:8). Locusts are the animals referred to, four varieties being mentioned with their different species (“ after his kind ”); but these cannot be identified with exactness, as there is still a dearth of information as to the natural history of the oriental locust. It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greeks thought the Cicades very agreeable in flavour ( Arist.
h. an. 5, 30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure; and they are also dried, and kept in bags for winter use. For the most part, however, it is only by the poorer classes that they are eaten, and many of the tribes of Arabia abhor them (Robinson, ii. p. 628); and those who use them as food do not eat all the species indiscriminately.
They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal and make cakes of them. The Israelites were allowed to eat the arbeh , i.
e. , according to Exo 10:13, Exo 10:19; Nah 3:17, etc. , the flying migratory locust, gryllus migratorius , which still bears this name, according to Niebuhr , in Maskat and Bagdad, and is poetically designated in Psa 78:46; Psa 105:34, as חסיל, the devourer , and ילק, the eater-up; but Knobel is mistaken in supposing that these names are applied to certain species of the arbeh .
סלעם, according to the Chaldee, deglutivit , absorpsit , is unquestionably a larger and peculiarly voracious species of locust. This is all that can be inferred from the rashon of the Targums and Talmud, whilst the ἀττάκης and attacus of the lxx and Vulg. are altogether unexplained. חרגּל: according to the Arabic, a galloping, i. e. , a hopping, not a flying species of locust.
This is supported by the Samaritan, also by the lxx and Vulg . , ὀφιομάχης, ophiomachus . According to Hesychius and Suidas , it was a species of locust without wings, probably a very large kind; as it is stated in Mishnah , Shabb . vi. 10, that an egg of the chargol was sometimes suspended in the ear, as a remedy for earache. Among the different species of locusts in Mesopotamia, Niebuhr (Arab.
p. 170) saw two of a very large size with springing feet, but without wings. חגב, a word of uncertain etymology, occurs in Num 13:33, where the spies are described as being like chagabim by the side of the inhabitants of the country, and in 2Ch 7:13, where the chagab devours the land. From these passages we may infer that it was a species of locust without wings, small but very numerous, probably the ἀττέλαβος, which is often mentioned along with the ἀκρίς, but as a distinct species, locustarum minima sine pennis ( Plin.
h. n. 29, c . 4, s . 29), or parva locusta modicis pennis reptans potius quam volitans semperque subsiliens ( Jerome (on Nah 3:17).
Lev 11:20-23 (cf. Deu 14:19). To the birds there are appended flying animals of other kinds: “ all swarms of fowl that go upon fours, ” i. e. , the smaller winged animals with four feet, which are called sherez , “swarms,” on account of their multitude. These were not to be eaten, as they were all abominations, with the exception of those “ which have two shank-feet above their feet (i.
e. , springing feet) to leap with ” (לא for לו as in Exo 21:8). Locusts are the animals referred to, four varieties being mentioned with their different species (“ after his kind ”); but these cannot be identified with exactness, as there is still a dearth of information as to the natural history of the oriental locust. It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greeks thought the Cicades very agreeable in flavour ( Arist.
h. an. 5, 30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure; and they are also dried, and kept in bags for winter use. For the most part, however, it is only by the poorer classes that they are eaten, and many of the tribes of Arabia abhor them (Robinson, ii. p. 628); and those who use them as food do not eat all the species indiscriminately.
They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal and make cakes of them. The Israelites were allowed to eat the arbeh , i.
e. , according to Exo 10:13, Exo 10:19; Nah 3:17, etc. , the flying migratory locust, gryllus migratorius , which still bears this name, according to Niebuhr , in Maskat and Bagdad, and is poetically designated in Psa 78:46; Psa 105:34, as חסיל, the devourer , and ילק, the eater-up; but Knobel is mistaken in supposing that these names are applied to certain species of the arbeh .
סלעם, according to the Chaldee, deglutivit , absorpsit , is unquestionably a larger and peculiarly voracious species of locust. This is all that can be inferred from the rashon of the Targums and Talmud, whilst the ἀττάκης and attacus of the lxx and Vulg. are altogether unexplained. חרגּל: according to the Arabic, a galloping, i. e. , a hopping, not a flying species of locust.
This is supported by the Samaritan, also by the lxx and Vulg . , ὀφιομάχης, ophiomachus . According to Hesychius and Suidas , it was a species of locust without wings, probably a very large kind; as it is stated in Mishnah , Shabb . vi. 10, that an egg of the chargol was sometimes suspended in the ear, as a remedy for earache. Among the different species of locusts in Mesopotamia, Niebuhr (Arab.
p. 170) saw two of a very large size with springing feet, but without wings. חגב, a word of uncertain etymology, occurs in Num 13:33, where the spies are described as being like chagabim by the side of the inhabitants of the country, and in 2Ch 7:13, where the chagab devours the land. From these passages we may infer that it was a species of locust without wings, small but very numerous, probably the ἀττέλαβος, which is often mentioned along with the ἀκρίς, but as a distinct species, locustarum minima sine pennis ( Plin.
h. n. 29, c . 4, s . 29), or parva locusta modicis pennis reptans potius quam volitans semperque subsiliens ( Jerome (on Nah 3:17).
Lev 11:20-23 (cf. Deu 14:19). To the birds there are appended flying animals of other kinds: “ all swarms of fowl that go upon fours, ” i. e. , the smaller winged animals with four feet, which are called sherez , “swarms,” on account of their multitude. These were not to be eaten, as they were all abominations, with the exception of those “ which have two shank-feet above their feet (i.
e. , springing feet) to leap with ” (לא for לו as in Exo 21:8). Locusts are the animals referred to, four varieties being mentioned with their different species (“ after his kind ”); but these cannot be identified with exactness, as there is still a dearth of information as to the natural history of the oriental locust. It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greeks thought the Cicades very agreeable in flavour ( Arist.
h. an. 5, 30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, sometimes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure; and they are also dried, and kept in bags for winter use. For the most part, however, it is only by the poorer classes that they are eaten, and many of the tribes of Arabia abhor them (Robinson, ii. p. 628); and those who use them as food do not eat all the species indiscriminately.
They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, and then grind them into meal and make cakes of them. The Israelites were allowed to eat the arbeh , i.
e. , according to Exo 10:13, Exo 10:19; Nah 3:17, etc. , the flying migratory locust, gryllus migratorius , which still bears this name, according to Niebuhr , in Maskat and Bagdad, and is poetically designated in Psa 78:46; Psa 105:34, as חסיל, the devourer , and ילק, the eater-up; but Knobel is mistaken in supposing that these names are applied to certain species of the arbeh .
סלעם, according to the Chaldee, deglutivit , absorpsit , is unquestionably a larger and peculiarly voracious species of locust. This is all that can be inferred from the rashon of the Targums and Talmud, whilst the ἀττάκης and attacus of the lxx and Vulg. are altogether unexplained. חרגּל: according to the Arabic, a galloping, i. e. , a hopping, not a flying species of locust.
This is supported by the Samaritan, also by the lxx and Vulg . , ὀφιομάχης, ophiomachus . According to Hesychius and Suidas , it was a species of locust without wings, probably a very large kind; as it is stated in Mishnah , Shabb . vi. 10, that an egg of the chargol was sometimes suspended in the ear, as a remedy for earache. Among the different species of locusts in Mesopotamia, Niebuhr (Arab.
p. 170) saw two of a very large size with springing feet, but without wings. חגב, a word of uncertain etymology, occurs in Num 13:33, where the spies are described as being like chagabim by the side of the inhabitants of the country, and in 2Ch 7:13, where the chagab devours the land. From these passages we may infer that it was a species of locust without wings, small but very numerous, probably the ἀττέλαβος, which is often mentioned along with the ἀκρίς, but as a distinct species, locustarum minima sine pennis ( Plin.
h. n. 29, c . 4, s . 29), or parva locusta modicis pennis reptans potius quam volitans semperque subsiliens ( Jerome (on Nah 3:17).
Lev 11:24-26 In Lev 11:24-28 there follow still further and more precise instructions, concerning defilement through contact with the carcases (i. e. , the carrion) of the animals already mentioned. These instructions relate first of all (Lev 11:24 and Lev 11:25) to aquatic and winged animals, which were not to be eaten because they were unclean (the expression “ for these ” in Lev 11:24 relates to them); and then (Lev 11:26-28) to quadrupeds, both cattle that have not the hoof thoroughly divided and do not ruminate (Lev 11:26), and animals that go upon their hands, i.
e. , upon paws, and have no hoofs, such as cats, dogs, bears, etc.
Lev 11:24-26 In Lev 11:24-28 there follow still further and more precise instructions, concerning defilement through contact with the carcases (i. e. , the carrion) of the animals already mentioned. These instructions relate first of all (Lev 11:24 and Lev 11:25) to aquatic and winged animals, which were not to be eaten because they were unclean (the expression “ for these ” in Lev 11:24 relates to them); and then (Lev 11:26-28) to quadrupeds, both cattle that have not the hoof thoroughly divided and do not ruminate (Lev 11:26), and animals that go upon their hands, i.
e. , upon paws, and have no hoofs, such as cats, dogs, bears, etc.
Lev 11:24-26 In Lev 11:24-28 there follow still further and more precise instructions, concerning defilement through contact with the carcases (i. e. , the carrion) of the animals already mentioned. These instructions relate first of all (Lev 11:24 and Lev 11:25) to aquatic and winged animals, which were not to be eaten because they were unclean (the expression “ for these ” in Lev 11:24 relates to them); and then (Lev 11:26-28) to quadrupeds, both cattle that have not the hoof thoroughly divided and do not ruminate (Lev 11:26), and animals that go upon their hands, i.
e. , upon paws, and have no hoofs, such as cats, dogs, bears, etc.
Lev 11:27-28 The same rule was applicable to all these animals: “ whoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even, ” i.e., for the rest of the day; he was then of course to wash himself. Whoever carried their carrion, viz., to take it away, was also unclean till the evening, and being still more deeply affected by the defilement, he was to wash his clothes as well.
Lev 11:27-28 The same rule was applicable to all these animals: “ whoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even, ” i.e., for the rest of the day; he was then of course to wash himself. Whoever carried their carrion, viz., to take it away, was also unclean till the evening, and being still more deeply affected by the defilement, he was to wash his clothes as well.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:29-38 To these there are attached analogous instructions concerning defilement through contact with the smaller creeping animals ( Sherez ), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till Lev 11:41, Lev 11:42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez , the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen 1:21), and is synonymous with remes (cf.
Gen 7:14 and Gen 7:21), “the creeping;” it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen 1:24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men.
חלד is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar. Abys. , etc.) , although the Arabs still call this chuld , but the weasel (lxx, Onk . , etc.) , which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form חוּלדה, as an animal which caught birds ( Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth ( Mishn.
Tohor . iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel ( Mishn. Para ix. 3). עכבּר is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1Sa 6:5 the field-mouse , the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here.
צב is a kind of lizard, but whether the thav or dsabb , a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen , iii. pp. 436ff. , also by Hasselquist under the name of lacerta Aegyptia , or the waral , as Knobel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Robinson, ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen , cannot be determined.
Lev 11:39-45 Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly, as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc.
, or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).
Lev 11:39-45 Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly, as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc.
, or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).
Lev 11:39-45 Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly, as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc.
, or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).
Lev 11:39-45 Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly, as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc.
, or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).
Lev 11:39-45 Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly, as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc.
, or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).
Lev 11:39-45 Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly, as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc.
, or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).
Lev 11:39-45 Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40 with Lev 11:24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly, as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc.
, or upon many feet, like the insects (Lev 11:41-43). Lastly (Lev 11:44, Lev 11:45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Exo 6:7; Exo 29:45-46).
Lev 11:46-47 Lev 11:46, Lev 11:47 contain the concluding formula to the whole of this law. If we take a survey, in closing, of the animals that are enumerated as unclean and not suitable for food, we shall find that among the larger land animals they were chiefly beasts of prey, that seize upon other living creatures and devour them in their blood; among the water animals, all snake-like fishes and slimy shell-fish; among birds, the birds of prey, which watch for the life of other animals and kill them, the marsh-birds, which live on worms, carrion, and all kinds of impurities, and such mongrel creatures as the ostrich, which lives in the desert, and the bat, which flies about in the dark; and lastly, all the smaller animals, with the exception of a few graminivorous locusts, but more especially the snake-like lizards, - partly because they called to mind the old serpent, partly because they crawled in the dust, seeking their food in mire and filth, and suggested the thought of corruption by the slimy nature of their bodies.
They comprised, in fact, all such animals as exhibited more or less the darker type of sin, death, and corruption; and it was on this ethical ground alone, and not for all kinds of sanitary reasons, or even from political motives, that the nation of Israel, which was called to sanctification, was forbidden to eat them. It is true there are several animals mentioned as unclean, e.
g. , the ass, the camel, and others, in which we can no longer recognise this type. But we must bear in mind, that the distinction between clean animals and unclean goes back to the very earliest times (Gen 7:2-3), and that in relation to the large land animals, as well as to the fishes, the Mosaic law followed the marks laid down by tradition, which took its rise in the primeval age, whose childlike mind, acute perception, and deep intuitive insight into nature generally, discerned more truly and essentially the real nature of the animal creation than we shall ever be able to do, with thoughts and perceptions disturbed as ours are by the influences of unnatural and ungodly culture.
Laws of Purification - Leviticus 12-15 The laws concerning defilement through eating unclean animals, or through contact with those that had died a natural death, are followed by rules relating to defilements proceeding from the human body, in consequence of which persons contaminated by them were excluded for a longer or shorter period from the fellowship of the sanctuary, and sometimes even from intercourse with their fellow-countrymen, and which had to be removed by washing, by significant lustrations, and by expiatory sacrifices. They comprised the uncleanness of a woman in consequence of child-bearing (Lev 12:1-8), leprosy (ch.
13 and 14), and both natural and diseased secretions from the sexual organs of either male or female ( emissio seminis and gonorrhaea, also menses and flux: ch. 15); and to these there is added in Num 19:11-22, defilement proceeding from a human corpse. Involuntary emission defiled the man; voluntary emission, in sexual intercourse, both the man and the woman and any clothes upon which it might come, for an entire day, and this defilement was to be removed in the evening by bathing the body, and by washing the clothes, etc.
(Lev 15:16-18). Secretions from the sexual organs, whether of a normal kind, such as the menses and those connected with child-birth, or the result of disease, rendered not only the persons affected with them unclean, but even their couches and seats, and any persons who might sit down upon them; and this uncleanness was even communicated to persons who touched those who were diseased, or to anything with which they had come in contact (Lev 15:3-12, Lev 15:19-27).
In the case of the menses, the uncleanness lasted seven days (Lev 15:19, Lev 15:24); in that of child-birth, either seven or fourteen days, and then still further thirty-three or sixty-six, according to circumstances (Lev 12:2, Lev 12:4-5); and in that of a diseased flux, as long as the disease itself lasted, and seven days afterwards (Lev 15:13, Lev 15:28); but the uncleanness communicated to others only lasted till the evening. In all these cases the purification consisted in the bathing of the body and washing of the clothes and other objects.
But if the uncleanness lasted more than seven days, on the day after the purification with water a sin-offering and a burnt-offering were to be offered, that the priest might pronounce the person clean, or receive him once more into the fellowship of the holy God (Lev 12:6, Lev 12:8; Lev 15:14-15, Lev 15:29-30). Leprosy made those who were affected with it so unclean, that they were excluded from all intercourse with the clean (Lev 13:45-46): and on their recovery they were to be cleansed by a solemn lustration, and received again with sacrifices into the congregation of the Lord (Lev 14:1-32).
There are no express instructions as to the communicability of leprosy; but this is implied in the separation of the leper from the clean (Lev 13:45-46), as well as from the fact that a house affected by the leprosy rendered all who entered it, or slept in it, unclean (Lev 14:46-47). The defilement caused by a death was apparently greater still. Not only the corpse of a person who had died a natural death, as well as of one who had been killed by violence, but a dead body or grave defiled, for a period of seven days, both those who touched them, and (in the case of the corpse) the house in which the man had died, all the persons who were in it or might enter it, and all the open vessels that were there (Num 19:11, Num 19:14-16).
Uncleanness of this kind could only be removed by sprinkling water prepared from running water and the ashes of a sin-offering (Num 19:12, Num 19:17.) , and would even spread from the persons defiled to persons and things with which they came in contact, so as to render them unclean till the evening (Num 19:22); whereas the defilement caused by contact with a dead animal lasted only a day, and then, like every other kind of uncleanness that only lasted till the evening, could be removed by bathing the persons or washing the things (Lev 11:25.)
But whilst, according to this, generation and birth as well as death were affected with uncleanness; generation and death, the coming into being and the going out of being, were not defiling in themselves, or regarded as the two poles which bound, determine, and enclose the finite existence, so as to warrant us in tracing the principle which lay at the foundation of the laws of purification, as Bähr supposes, “to the antithesis between the infinite and the finite being, which falls into the sphere of the sinful when regarded ethically as the opposite to the absolutely holy. ” Finite existence was created by God, quite as much as the corporeality of man; and both came forth from His hand pure and good.
Moreover it is not begetting, giving birth, and dying, that are said to defile; but the secretions connected with generation and child-bearing, and the corpses of those who had died. In the decomposition which follows death, the effect of sin, of which death is the wages, is made manifest in the body. Decomposition, as the embodiment of the unholy nature of sin, is uncleanness κατ ̓ ἐξοχξήν; and this the Israelite, who was called to sanctification in fellowship with God, was to avoid and abhor.
Hence the human corpse produced the greatest amount of defilement; so great, in fact, that to remove it a sprinkling water was necessary, which had been strengthened by the ashes of a sin-offering into a kind of sacred alkali. Next to the corpse, there came on the one hand leprosy , that bodily image of death which produced all the symptoms of decomposition even in the living body, and on the other hand the offensive secretions from the organs of generation, which resemble the putrid secretions that are the signs in the corpse of the internal dissolution of the bodily organs and the commencement of decomposition.
From the fact that the impurities, for which special rites of purification were enjoined, are restricted to these three forms of manifestation in the human body, it is very evident that the laws of purification laid down in the O. T. were not regulations for the promotion of cleanliness or of good morals and decency, that is to say, were not police regulations for the protection of the life of the body from contagious diseases and other things injurious to health; but that their simple object was “to impress upon the mind a deep horror of everything that is and is called death in the creature, and thereby to foster an utter abhorrence of everything that is or is called sin, and also, to the constant humiliation of fallen man, to remind him in all the leading processes of the natural life-generation, birth, eating, disease, death - how everything, even his own bodily nature, lies under the curse of sin (Gen 3:14-19), that so the law might become a 'schoolmaster to bring unto Christ,' and awaken and sustain the longing for a Redeemer from the curse which had fallen upon his body also (see Gal 3:24; Rom 7:24; Rom 8:19.
; Phi 3:21). ” Leyrer .