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
אָמַר is the most common Hebrew verb for speech, indexed at more than five thousand OT occurrences in the local Hebrew artifact. It carries the basic sense of uttering, declaring, or commanding — but what matters most pastorally is not the breadth of its semantic range. What matters is who is speaking, to whom, and with what authority. The word itself is ordinary; the speakers who use it are not.
When God is the subject of אָמַר, the word does not merely describe communication. It describes creation, covenant, and commissioning. 'And God said' in Genesis 1 does not report an exchange of information — it names the event by which reality comes into being. Divine speech in the Old Testament is performative: what God says, happens. The word that proceeds from God does not return empty. To understand אָמַר as it appears throughout the Psalms, the Prophets, and the Torah is to encounter a God whose speech is itself an act.
The prophetic formula 'thus says the Lord' — built on the Qal perfect of אָמַר — carries the same weight. When Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Malachi speaks under this formula, it is not their own authority on offer. The messenger formula anchors the prophetic word in the character and will of the God who spoke at Sinai, who called Abraham, who declared his own name to Moses.
But אָמַר is also used of human speech, interior reflection, and ordinary declaration. Its breadth is not a weakness in the word; it is part of its pastoral usefulness. The God who speaks with world-creating power also invites his people to speak to him in prayer, to speak faithfully to one another, and to declare his name among the nations. Speech in the Old Testament is never ethically neutral — what is said, how it is said, and who says it to whom all carry moral and covenantal weight.
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 is the Hebrew word the Old Testament reaches for when it wants to say that something — or Someone — pulses with genuine, active, self-sustaining life. Its range runs from the raw vitality of flesh still on the bone, to the freshness of flowing spring water, to the solemn declaration that the God of Israel is not an artifact but a living, acting, speaking, and intervening Person. The word does not simply mean 'not dead.' It asserts positive vitality, the quality of being animated from within.
When חַי is applied to Israel's God — as it regularly is — it carries a polemical edge the congregation must feel. Every surrounding culture stocked its shrines with images that could be decorated, carried, and consulted, but that could not speak, act, defend, or save. The God who spoke from Sinai (Deut 5:26), who stopped the Jordan (Josh 3:10), who answered in the lion's den (Dan 6:20) — this God is not managed. He is living. He is the source of life, not one more object within the created order seeking to be served.
The related image of 'living water' (מַיִם חַיִּים) presses the same truth into the domain of the human heart's thirst. Jeremiah grieves that Israel has traded the fountain of living water — the spring that never runs dry, the source that replenishes from within — for broken cisterns that hold nothing (Jer 2:13). The contrast is not merely metaphorical. It is a diagnosis: the people have exchanged a living God for constructed alternatives that cannot sustain life.
Pastorally, חַי calls the congregation to account about where they expect life to actually come from. The living God is not a background assumption or a theological category. He is the one who opens and closes wombs, who holds back rivers, who shuts the mouths of lions, and who alone satisfies the soul that thirsts.
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
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. Eating in Scripture is never merely biological; it is always relational, moral, and covenantal.
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 is the Hebrew verb for ascent — for going up, climbing, rising, mounting, and being lifted. Its range is vast: it describes a man climbing a mountain, a people going up to worship, a king marching out to war, smoke rising from an altar, a nation coming up out of Egypt, the sun breaking over the horizon, a thought coming up in the heart, and a burnt offering being presented before God. In 894 occurrences it moves through nearly every terrain of Israelite life, which means that when the Old Testament thinks about movement, orientation, or direction toward God, this verb is almost always present.
What makes עָלָה theologically rich is that spatial ascent in the Old Testament is rarely only spatial. To go up is to draw near to God. The sanctuary sits on the mountain. Jerusalem is always approached from below. The temple mount is elevated. To ascend is to move toward the Holy — not as an abstract spiritual exercise, but as an embodied, directional act of worship. Israel went up to the three great festivals. The Psalms of Ascent (מַעֲלוֹת, Psalms 120–134) gave the pilgrim people words for the journey. Ascent was not merely geography; it was theology made physical.
At the same time, the verb carries genuine cultic weight through its use in sacrificial contexts. When עָלָה describes the burnt offering (עֹלָה), it points to what goes up completely — the whole animal consumed, ascending in smoke, rising toward God. The same verbal root underlies both the pilgrimage and the offering. Both involve movement upward, both involve cost, and both involve coming before the living God.
Pastorally, עָלָה is a word that refuses to let Israel — or the church — treat nearness to God as a passive, horizontal, or costless thing. There is a direction to worship, a journey to approach, an orientation to holiness. The preacher who sits with this verb long enough will find it challenging cheap familiarity with God while also welcoming the weary traveler who is still on the road, still ascending, still on their way to the mountain.
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.
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.
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 Hebrew word for water — one of the most basic and theologically layered words in the OT. The local Hebrew index currently counts about 582 occurrences; the form is plural in Hebrew, and it covers the full range from ordinary drinking water to the primordial waters of creation, from the flood of judgment to the river of life that flows from the temple in Ezekiel 47. Water in the OT is never merely water; it is the created medium through which God creates, judges, delivers, and promises life.
Isaiah 55:1 is the OT's most inviting use of mayim: 'Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the mayim! And he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.' The mayim here is not physical water but the fullness of God's provision — connected to wine and milk, symbols of covenant abundance. The invitation is universal and unconditioned: 'everyone who thirsts,' 'he who has no money.' The free offer of the mayim of divine abundance is the OT's most direct anticipation of John 4 (the living water) and Revelation 22:17 (the water of life given freely).
Psalm 23:2 gives mayim its most beloved pastoral shape: 'He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still mayim (mei menuchot — waters of rest, of quietness).' The still waters are not the raging flood or the chaos-waters of Genesis 1:2 but the settled, peaceful water beside which the shepherd leads the flock. The image captures the contrast between the mayim of chaos (which threatens) and the mayim of the shepherd's provision (which restores). 'He restores my soul' (v. 3) is the consequence of the still-water leading.
Ezekiel 47:1-12 gives mayim its most spectacular eschatological form: a river flowing from the threshold of the temple, getting deeper with every measurement — ankle, knee, waist, deep enough to swim — and everywhere the river flows, life proliferates: 'everything will live where the river goes' (47:9). This is the water of the Spirit flowing from the place of God's presence, giving life to what was dead. The NT culminates this imagery in Revelation 22:1-2 — 'the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.'
For the preacher, מַיִם (mayim) is the word that spans the whole of the biblical narrative: chaos waters tamed at creation, flood waters of judgment that become the waters of new beginning, the wilderness thirst met from the rock, and the river of life that flows from the throne in the new creation.
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 (yam) is the Hebrew word for sea — the primordial waters, the Red Sea of the Exodus, the Mediterranean horizon, and the raging deep that threatens to swallow. The local index currently counts about 396 occurrences, and yam is one of the OT's most theologically laden words because in the ancient Near Eastern worldview the sea was not merely a geographic feature but the symbol of chaos, threat, and the uncreated powers that oppose order and life. YHWH's dominion over the yam is therefore a sovereignty claim over the deepest human fears.
Genesis 1:10 gives yam its ordered beginning: 'God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas (yammim). And God saw that it was good.' The yam does not exist independently of God's creative word — it is called, named, and bounded by divine command. The boundary that YHWH places on the yam (Job 38:8-11, 'who shut in the sea with doors?... Here shall your proud waves be stayed') is the act that makes creation habitable. The yam is real and powerful, but it is bounded.
Exodus 14 gives the yam its most dramatic redemptive appearance: the Red Sea (Yam Suph, sea of reeds) parted, walled on both sides (Exod 14:22), and then returned to swallow the Egyptian army (14:27-28). The yam that threatened Israel became the instrument of Egypt's defeat — the same water that posed the barrier became the judgment. The Exodus through the yam is the OT's central act of salvation, and it is reenacted in prophetic visions of future redemption: Isaiah 11:15-16 ('there will be a highway for the remnant... as there was for Israel when they came up from Egypt') and Revelation 15:2-3 (the overcomers standing beside the sea of glass, singing the song of Moses).
Psalm 107:23-30 gives yam its most pastoral face: 'those who go down to the sea (yam) in ships, doing business on the great waters — they saw the deeds of YHWH, his wondrous works in the deep. For he commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the yam. They mounted up to heaven; they went down to the depths; their courage melted away in their evil plight.' The sailors at sea represent all people in crisis — the yam of overwhelming circumstances. And the psalm's turn: 'He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea (yam) were hushed. Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.' The stilling of the yam is salvation.
Psalm 89:9 makes the sovereignty claim direct: 'You rule the raging yam (yam); when its waves rise, you still them.' The YHWH who rules the yam is the YHWH who is covenant-faithful (Ps 89's subject is the Davidic covenant's permanence even in apparent failure). The yam-sovereignty assures: if YHWH can quiet the sea, he can sustain the covenant.
For the preacher, יָם (yam) is the image Scripture uses for every overwhelming, threatening, boundary-breaking force — and the answer is always YHWH's sovereignty over the sea.
Sense sea
Definition sea
References 11:9-10, 11:46
Why it matters Sea creatures are included among animals classified as clean or unclean.
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.
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 is the Hebrew word for a raven, the large corvid bird of dark plumage that is governed here through representative morphology anchors in the Hebrew Bible: the unclean bird lists (Leviticus 11:15, Deuteronomy 14:14), the wisdom saying about filial duty (Proverbs 30:17), and the hymn of divine providence (Psalm 147:9). The BDB notes the name derives from the bird's dusky hue. The raven is a bird of the wilderness margins — dark, opportunistic, scavenging, not a domesticated creature. In the ancient Israelite purity system it was unclean.
The theological center of עֹרֵב in Scripture is not the purity code but Psalm 147:9 and its NT parallel in Luke 12:24 (where the ravens appear as Jesus's own example). In Psalm 147:9, the raven becomes the paradigm case of God's providential care for the most unlikely creature: 'He gives to the beasts their food, and to the young ravens (לִבְנֵי עֹרֵב) that cry out.' The psalm is a hymn of restoration and praise, celebrating God who heals the brokenhearted, counts the stars, and feeds the ravens. The young ravens that cry out are a marginal, ritually unclean bird — not a symbol of Israel's covenant relationship, not a sacrificial animal, not a clean creature with any claim on the priestly system. They are simply creatures that cry, and God hears and provides for them.
This is the theological force: the raven's ritual status (unclean, marginal) makes it the strongest possible example of the breadth of divine providence. If God provides for the young ravens in their hunger, he provides for creatures at every point on the spectrum of creation — including those who have no claim within the covenant system, no ritual standing, no special access.
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 the verb 'to be unclean' or 'to become defiled,' the antonym of טָהוֹר (clean) and the opposite of the domain of קָדוֹשׁ (holy). With about 162 occurrences in the local index, concentrated heavily in Leviticus and Numbers, the word is foundational to the OT's purity system, but it extends far beyond ritual categories into moral and covenantal ones. To be טָמֵא is to be in a state that excludes one from the holy — from the sanctuary, from the covenant assembly, from access to God's presence.
The purity system in Leviticus and Numbers identifies several categories of uncleanness: contact with death (a corpse, Numbers 19), bodily conditions (Leviticus 12-15), contact with certain animals (Leviticus 11), and sexual violation (Leviticus 18, 20). In each case, the uncleanness is not primarily moral guilt — it is a state that separates the person or object from the holy. The system of purification (washing, waiting, sacrifice) provides the way back. The theological logic is: the holy God is present in the sanctuary; what is unclean cannot approach.
Isaiah 6:5 uses the root in a different register: 'Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips (שְׂפָתַיִם טְמֵא), and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!' The word moves here from ritual category to moral and relational one: Isaiah's uncleanness is his speech — what he has said, the context of defilement in which his entire life has been embedded. The encounter with holiness (קָדוֹשׁ) reveals the depth of uncleanness (טָמֵא).
Ezekiel 36:17-25 moves the word into covenantal and eschatological territory: 'When the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it (טִמְּאוּ אֹתָה) by their ways and their deeds... therefore I poured out my wrath on them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it (טִמְּאוּהָ). I scattered them among the nations... I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean (טְהוֹרִים) from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.' God's promise to cleanse Israel uses the opposite of this word (clean, טָהוֹר) — but the defilement that the promise reverses is named with טָמֵא throughout.
Leviticus 15:31 is the pastoral summary statement of why the system matters: 'Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst.' The purpose of the purity system is not punishment — it is protection. The holy God is present in the tabernacle; uncleanness in the presence of holiness is catastrophic. The system exists to preserve the community's capacity to continue in the presence of the Holy One.
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.
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 is one of the most load-bearing verbs in the Hebrew Bible. Its root action is the physical act of lifting — raising something from the ground, hoisting it onto the shoulder, carrying it forward — but the word spreads far beyond that simple gesture into nearly every domain of Israelite life and theology. A porter carries a load. An army raises a banner. A priest bears the iniquity of the people. A king lifts the head of a servant in honor. A people receive the name of their God. A worshipper lifts his hands or voice toward heaven. All of this is נָשָׂא.
The pastoral weight of this word concentrates most powerfully in two directions that pull against each other and together reveal the character of God. The first is the burden-bearing use: נָשָׂא describes what a servant does when he takes up something that is not originally his own and carries it on behalf of another. Israel's priests bore the guilt of the congregation before God. The Servant in Isaiah bears the sins and sorrows of others with deliberate, suffering solidarity. This is not an incidental metaphor — it is the whole structure of atonement pressed into a single word.
The second is the forgiveness use: נָשָׂא means to lift sin away, to take it up and remove it. When the psalmist declares his iniquity forgiven and his sin covered, he uses this verb. When Micah celebrates a God who pardons iniquity and passes over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance, he asks: who is a God like this, who lifts iniquity? The answer is always the same: only the God of Israel, whose mercy is not a policy but a Person.
For the preacher, נָשָׂא is a word that refuses to stay abstract. It asks you to imagine weight, posture, movement, and relief. Forgiveness is not merely a verdict; it is the act of lifting what was crushing you and carrying it somewhere else. And the gospel names precisely who has done that lifting and at what cost.
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.
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.
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 the Hebrew word for tree and wood — one of Scripture's most theologically loaded images, locally indexed at about 330 occurrences from Genesis to the edge of the canon. Two trees stand at the center of the Garden: the ets hayyim (tree of life, H6086 + H2416) and the ets hada'at tov vara (tree of the knowledge of good and evil). The history of humanity turns on what was done with those two trees, and the entire arc of Scripture can be traced through the ets: from the garden ets to the wooden ark to the acacia-wood tabernacle to the cursed tree of Deuteronomy 21 to the tree on which the Son of God hung — and finally to the ets hayyim restored in Revelation 22.
Genesis 2:9 introduces both trees: 'And out of the ground YHWH God made to spring up every tree (ets) that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life (ets hayyim) was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (ets hada'at).' The ets hayyim is the gift — sustained life in the presence of God. The ets hada'at is the test — the boundary of human knowledge set by divine command. Chapter 3's entire drama happens around the ets: seeing the fruit, taking the fruit, eating the fruit (akal, H398), and the consequence of exile from the ets hayyim.
Psalm 1:3 uses the ets as the primary image for the blessed man: 'He shall be like a tree (ets) planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.' The righteous person is the ets that was designed to be in the garden: rooted, nourished, fruitful, and unwithering. The ungodly, by contrast, are like chaff — no root, no fruit, no standing. The two trees of Genesis 2 become the two destinies of Psalm 1.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 introduces the cursed ets: 'If a man has committed a crime punishable by death... and you hang him on a tree (ets), his body shall not remain all night on the tree, for a hanged man is cursed by God (qillat Elohim).' The ets of execution is the ets of curse — and Paul makes the connection in Galatians 3:13: 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree (ets)."' The cross is the cursed ets of Deuteronomy 21 on which the curse was absorbed and reversed.
For the preacher, עֵץ (ets) traces the whole gospel: from the tree of life lost to the cursed tree borne to the tree of life restored.
Sense wood
Definition wood
References 11:32
Why it matters Wooden objects are included among items that may become unclean.
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 coarse cloth, typically woven from dark goat or camel hair, that was worn as a garment of mourning, grief, or penitence in the ancient Semitic world. The physical quality of the material is theologically significant: rough against the skin, uncomfortable, visually distinctive — sackcloth was chosen precisely because it was not normal clothing.
Wearing it was a public statement that the wearer's inner condition was not normal. In Jonah 3:5-8, śaq appears repeatedly in rapid succession: the people of Nineveh put on sackcloth, from greatest to least; the king rose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes; he then decreed that both humans and animals should be covered with sackcloth and cry out to God.
The intensity and totality of the śaq response — even the animals — is the narrative's way of signaling that Nineveh's repentance was complete in expression, not superficial. The OT is consistent in pairing śaq with prayer, fasting, lamentation, and ash. Together these form a cluster of embodied practices that express the total orientation of a person or community toward God in a moment of crisis, grief, or urgent repentance.
The key theological point is that repentance in the OT is never only an interior event — the body participates. Śaq is the body saying 'I am not well; something has broken or needs to break; I am not going about my ordinary life while this stands.' The prophets repeatedly challenge śaq that is merely external (Isa 58:5; Joel 2:13 — 'rend your heart and not your garments'), but they do so within a tradition that takes the external expression seriously, not one that dismisses it.
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.
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.
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 Hebrew verb and its noun form מָוֶת (mavet) the word for death — one of the most frequent theological realities in the OT, indexed in the local Hebrew artifact at about 839 occurrences. Mut enters the story at the point of the first prohibition: 'In the day that you eat of it you shall surely mut' (Gen 2:17 — mot tamut, the emphatic infinitive absolute construction: dying you shall die). Death is not a natural feature of the created order but the consequence of disobedience, which makes its pervasiveness in the OT both an indictment and a problem to be solved. The OT does not settle for death as the final word.
Genesis 2:17 introduces the emphatic form mot tamut (dying you shall die) as the warning attached to the forbidden tree. The doubling of the root (infinitive absolute + finite verb) is the Hebrew way of expressing absolute certainty and intensity — 'you will certainly die.' When the serpent says 'you will not certainly die' (lo mot temutun, Gen 3:4), he uses the same construction to deny it. The tension between the divine mot tamut and the serpent's lo mot temutun is the first theological conflict in Scripture — a conflict about whether death is YHWH's word or can be circumvented.
Psalm 116:15 gives mut its most counterintuitive use: 'Precious in the sight of YHWH is the mut of his hasidim (faithful ones).' The death of YHWH's people is not beneath his notice or outside his concern — it is yakar (precious, costly, weighty) to him. This verse does not sentimentalize death but insists that YHWH values his people's deaths: no mut of a covenant person goes unnoticed or unmeasured.
Isaiah 25:8 announces the eschatological defeat of mavet: 'He will swallow up mavet (death) forever.' The same power of death (swallowing) is turned against death itself — YHWH swallows the swallower. Hosea 13:14 takes this further: 'O mavet, where are your plagues? O sheol, where is your sting?' — the taunt song over defeated death. Paul quotes this text in 1 Corinthians 15:55, applying it to the resurrection of Christ as the event that enacts the defeat.
For the preacher, מוּת (mut) is the word that names the enemy that Christ has defeated, that defines the stakes of every human life, and that makes the resurrection the most important announcement in the world.
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 is one of the most far-reaching words in the Hebrew Bible, and one of the most consistently misread by people formed on later Greek or Cartesian categories. It does not name a separate, immortal, non-material part of a human being that is imprisoned in a body and awaits release at death. That reading reflects later Greek or Cartesian categories being imported back into Hebrew Scripture. נֶפֶשׁ names the whole animated person — the living creature in the fullness of its creaturely existence, moved by breath, desire, hunger, grief, longing, and love. When God breathes into the man and he becomes a living נֶפֶשׁ (Gen. 2:7), the word is not naming something inserted into the body; it is naming what the body-plus-breath-of-God becomes: a living being.
The word carries a remarkable semantic range. It can denote a person's physical life — the life that can be lost, threatened, or redeemed. It can name the seat of appetite, longing, and desire — the place in a person that hungers, thirsts, and craves. It can serve as a reflexive pronoun for the self: 'my nephesh' often means simply 'I' or 'me' in my whole personhood. It can describe creatures beyond humans — animals too are nephesh. And in its most elevated uses, it names the inner person in its relationship to God: the self that praises, the self that thirsts, the self that is restored.
The theological weight of נֶפֶשׁ is that it keeps humanity whole. There is no biblical anthropology here that despises the body or treats physicality as the soul's burden. The whole person — embodied, breathing, desiring, relating, worshipping — is what God made, sustains, addresses, redeems, and will raise. A soul in Scripture is not a ghost in a machine; it is a living being whose every dimension belongs to God.
Pastorally, this word calls the preacher to resist both the dualism that dismisses the body and the materialism that dismisses the inner person. To love God with all your nephesh (Deut. 6:5) is to love Him with everything you are and everything you feel and everything you want — not with a detached spiritual faculty while the rest of you belongs to yourself.
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 is the verb at the heart of the Bible's holiness vocabulary. It names the act — and sometimes the state — of being set apart from the common for the holy: drawn out of ordinary use, ordinary life, or ordinary status and placed under the claim and character of God. BDB reaches for the phrase 'clean ceremonially or morally,' but that framing undersells the word. Cleanness is what sin removes; קָדַשׁ is what God enacts. The two senses must be held together without collapsing into each other.
The verb moves in multiple directions. In its simple stem, it can describe something or someone becoming holy — acquiring the status of what is set apart. In its causative forms, it is usually God who does the setting apart: He sanctifies the Sabbath, the firstborn, the priests, the tabernacle, his Name, his people. But Israel is also called to sanctify themselves, to consecrate others for service, to treat God as holy in their midst. The same root drives both the divine action and the human response.
This is pastorally significant. קָדַשׁ is not primarily a moral achievement word. It is a separation and consecration word. Before the Israelite was required to behave differently, they were declared to belong differently. God sets apart before He commands. The Sabbath is sanctified at creation before Israel exists. The firstborn are claimed at the exodus before the law is given at Sinai. The priests are consecrated before they can offer. This ordering — belonging before obedience, consecration before conduct — runs through the whole verbal pattern and gives the pastoral teacher something essential to say: holiness begins with God's act of setting apart, not with the creature's act of cleaning up.
The word is also relational. When God sanctifies his Name before the nations (Ezek.36.23), it is not a private divine transaction. It is God's public vindication of who He is in the world. When Isaiah calls Israel to sanctify the Lord of hosts (Isa.8.13), he is calling them to treat God as what He actually is — the holy One — in the way they fear, trust, and orient their lives. קָדַשׁ therefore describes movement: the movement of a person, a day, a name, or a community into the sphere where God's holiness defines everything.
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 is derived from the root קָדַשׁ, which means to be set apart, to be separated from the common and dedicated to the divine. As an adjective, it names what has that quality — what is holy. As a noun (הַקָּדוֹשׁ, 'the Holy One'), it becomes one of the most theologically significant titles for God in the Hebrew Bible, especially in Isaiah. The local Hebrew index currently counts about 119 occurrences, and the word is foundational to Israel's understanding of God's character, Israel's identity as a covenant people, and the entire sacrificial and purity system.
The fundamental theological claim is that holiness belongs to God first and then to everything else derivatively. God is the Holy One; everything else is holy insofar as it participates in or is set apart for that holiness. The three-fold declaration of the seraphim in Isaiah 6:3 — 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory' — is the canonical apex of the word's theological use: the repetition (rare in Hebrew for emphasis) marks this as the defining attribute of the God of Israel, and the declaration that his glory fills the earth means that his holiness is not confined to the heavens but touches everything.
Leviticus 19:2 contains the Holiness Code's foundational imperative: 'You shall be holy (קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ), for I the Lord your God am holy.' The people's holiness is derived from and patterned after God's own holiness — 'for I am holy' is both the source and the standard. Israel is to be holy because God is holy. What follows in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26) is the extended elaboration of what that derived holiness looks like in practice: how you treat the poor, how you conduct business, how you keep the Sabbath, what you eat, how you relate to the land. The word 'holy' in Leviticus is not spiritualized or confined to worship — it pervades the entire social, economic, and cultic life of the community.
Isaiah's characteristic title for God is 'the Holy One of Israel' (קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל) — a distinctive repeated feature of the book. This title does two things simultaneously: it names the infinite transcendence of God (the Holy One, set apart beyond all creation) and his covenantal particularity (of Israel, bound to this people). The Holy One is not a remote, unapproachable absolute — he is the Holy One who has bound himself to a particular people and whose holiness is therefore both exalted above them and engaged with them.
Hosea 11:9 gives the most unexpected pastoral use of the word: 'I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.' God's holiness here is the reason he will not destroy — the Holy One is not like a human being whose anger leads to destruction. His holiness defines a different kind of being, a different kind of love, a different capacity for mercy.
Sense holy
Definition holy
References 11:44-45
Why it matters The Lord's holiness is the basis for Israel's holiness.
Pastoral Entry
יְהֹוָה is the personal name of the God of Israel — the name He chose for Himself and by which He chose to be known, remembered, and called upon. It is not a title, not a category, and not an office. Every other word for God in the Hebrew scriptures — Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai — describes what God is or what He does. This name announces who He is. The difference matters enormously. Titles can be shared; names belong to persons.
The name comes into focus at the burning bush in Exodus 3, where God says to Moses: I am who I am. This is not evasion. It is the most concentrated statement of divine self-existence ever given. God's being depends on nothing outside Himself. He was before anything else was. He will be when everything else has ceased. He does not become; He simply is. This is the God who gives this name — and gives it not to a philosopher searching for first causes, but to a trembling fugitive shepherd standing before a fire that does not consume.
But יְהֹוָה is not simply the name for transcendent being. It is the name bound to covenant. From Exodus onward, this name marks the God who makes and keeps promises, who rescues enslaved people from Egypt, who walks with Israel through the wilderness, who gives the law and forgives the breaking of it, who speaks through the prophets, who calls a people back when they wander and disciplines them when they rebel. The name does not stand above the story of redemption — it is the name that drives the story forward.
The ancient Israelites read this name with such reverence that in public reading they substituted Adonai — Lord — in its place. This is the origin of the convention in most English translations of rendering יְהֹוָה as Lord in small capitals. That tradition preserves genuine reverence, but it can obscure for modern readers that what they are reading is not a title but a name. The people of God did not simply trust in a Lord. They trusted in this Lord — the one who told Abraham to leave Ur, who heard slaves crying in Egypt, who made Himself known at Sinai, who promised David a throne that would not end, who spoke through Isaiah and Jeremiah and Hosea. The name gathers all of that history into itself.
Pastorally, יְהֹוָה is the anchor for everything. The God who saves is not an unnamed force or a generic divine principle. He has a name. He has a history with His people. He has made promises. He keeps them. The gospel does not invent a new God; it reveals that this covenant God, the Lord, has sent His Son so that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.
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
אֱלֹהִים is the most frequently occurring divine title in the Hebrew Bible, the local index currently counts about 2,600 occurrences from Genesis to Malachi. Its grammatical form is plural — built from a root related to power, might, or strength — yet in the vast majority of its uses it takes singular verbs and carries singular referential force. This is not a theological accident. It is one of the most significant grammatical facts in all of Scripture: the fullness, majesty, and comprehensive supremacy of the one God exceeds anything that singular human categories can contain. The plural form is not a polytheistic residue. It is the language of transcendence — what older exegetes called a plural of majesty or plural of fullness, a form that stretches to hold the inexhaustible reality of the divine Being.
אֱלֹהִים names God as the one who creates, commands, covenants, and rules. When Genesis 1 opens with אֱלֹהִים as its subject, the text is not introducing one deity among many. It is presenting the sovereign source of all reality, the one whose word brings light out of darkness, order out of chaos, and life out of nothing. Every subsequent use of the word in Scripture inherits this inaugural weight. To invoke אֱלֹהִים is to stand before the Creator.
The word also has range. It occasionally describes the gods of the nations — the powers Israel was commanded not to follow. It is used at times for magistrates or judges, beings who exercise a derived, delegated authority under God's own governance. It appears in Psalm 82 as a stark address to those who hold power and have abused it. That range does not dilute the word's primary force; it heightens it. Every other use of אֱלֹהִים is defined in relation to the one true God who created, sustains, redeems, and judges.
Where YHWH is the covenant name — the personal, particular, redemptive identity God revealed to Israel — אֱלֹהִים is the universal title. It is the name by which every nation can encounter the claim of the one God. It is the title that stands over creation before a single covenant is formed, over all human history before Israel existed, and over every power that presumes authority not received from above. The pastoral weight of אֱלֹהִים is immense: this God is not domesticated, not tribal, not regional. He is the one before whom all things exist, to whom all things answer, and in whom all meaning is grounded.
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
אֶרֶץ is the Hebrew word that carries one of the broadest freight-loads in all of Scripture. It can mean the earth in its totality — the physical cosmos as created and upheld by God — and it can mean a particular land, a defined territory, a region, or even the ground beneath one's feet. The range is not a weakness. It is a strength, because it means that אֶרֶץ holds together what we tend to separate: cosmic theology and local address, creation and covenant, universal sovereignty and particular promise.
In its widest sense, אֶרֶץ names the created order as the domain of God's lordship. The opening movement of Genesis does not merely describe origins; it establishes ownership. The earth belongs to its Maker. What fills it, what is drawn from it, what walks upon it — all of it exists under the governance of the One who spoke it into being. The earth is not a neutral stage for human history. It is the theater of God's redemptive purposes, and those purposes are inseparable from the ground itself.
In its narrower, partitive sense, אֶרֶץ becomes one of the most theologically loaded terms in the Hebrew Bible. The land — the particular territory sworn to Abraham, promised to his descendants, given to Israel, lost in exile, and longed for in return — is not simply geography. Land in Israel's story is the embodiment of covenant relationship. To be in the land is to dwell under God's blessing. To be cast out of the land is to experience the weight of covenant failure. To return to the land is to taste the mercy of God who keeps his promises beyond the reach of human faithlessness.
For the pastor and teacher, the word does something that no English gloss fully achieves. It holds cosmic and covenantal together in a single term. When the Psalms invite all the earth to worship, and when Deuteronomy warns Israel about the land they are about to enter, the same word is doing both kinds of work. Recognizing this prevents the common error of flattening every אֶרֶץ into either pure cosmology or pure geography. Context must govern. But both dimensions belong to the theology the word carries.
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 is not a burden — at least, not in its own self-understanding. Ps 119:97 ('Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day') and Ps 1:2 ('his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night') describe תּוֹרָה as the object of love and delight, not merely obligation. The root meaning — direction, instruction, what is pointed out — frames it as the gift of a teacher to a student, not the edict of a tyrant to a subject.
YHWH gives תּוֹרָה as the covenant people's guide for life in the land; it is the shape of covenant loyalty. Deut 33:4 ('Moses commanded us a law') names it as Israel's possession — תּוֹרָה is part of what Israel is given when it is constituted as YHWH's people. The prophets' critique (Isa 1:10; Hos 4:6: 'my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me; and since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children') is not of תּוֹרָה itself but of Israel's abandonment of it.
The NT's relationship to תּוֹרָה is not simple abolition: Matt 5:17-18 ('I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them') is Jesus' direct address to the question, and the answer is fulfillment.
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 .