1 /S' ^

cS/ >

SANATOEY JNSTITUTIONS

OF THE

HEBREWS,

AS EXniEITED IX THE

SCEIPTUKES AND RABBINICAL WRITINGS,

AND AS BEAHIXCt TPOX

p MODERN SANATORY REGULATIONS, f

I5Y

ABRAHAM DE SOLA, LL.D.

PAET L

^loutcfal :

PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, AT HIS STEAM PRINTING- ESTABLISH 51 ENT

ST. NICHOLAS STREET,

1861.

-qp-

™ P<Lir7'c./ .

, T> ?' ^ ■

SANATOEY INSTITUTIONS

THE HEBEE¥S.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

One of the strangest of all moral phenomena in (he present day, is
perhaps, presented in the comparatively trifling, nay, almost impercep-
tible, eflects which the experience and teachings of ages have had in the
legislative enactments and individual efforts of modern nations with re-
ference to the all-important subject of health. Strange also is the fact,
that although the principle of self-preservation, even in itself, should na-
turally incite communities, as well as individuals, to endeavour to profit
by, and to act upon, teachings, always plentifully attainable, if duly sought,
yet, by a most culpable negligence and apathy, more especially visible
in large cities, have miasma and plague, malaria and consumption, been
permitted to generate, and death to run riot, amongst those, who, but for
the carelessness and cupidity of their fellow-men, might have attained an
age almost reaching that of the patriarchs of old. Such procedure
must not only be highly condemnable in the eyes of man, but
necessarily sinful in the sight of God. For, as is his wont, the all-
merciful and all-wise Creator has not left us without guidance in a
matter which, next to the due care and health of our souls, it is most
necessary for us to know. Thus, it never has been, as indeed it never
can be, questioned, that the most ancient and, at the same time, most
sacred treatises on the subject of a national and individual hygiene — the
legislation of Moses son of Amram — contains the wisest and most valu-
able principles, recommendations, and enactments on the subject of health,
which, though thousands of years have elapsed since their enunciation,
do yet remain, like “ all which proceedeth out of the mouth of theEternal,”^

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

just as valuable and just as wise as when first revealed for the edifica-
tion of the Hebrew people, and are, therefore, now, as then, fully worthy
our most attentive and reverent consideration.

Among the Hebrews, who, under God, have preserved these enact-
ments to the present day, it has ever been a golden maxim, ^ there are
no riches can compare with health and this principle is equally de-
veloped in their Post Biblical, as well as in their Biblical, jurisprudence,
as it will be our endeavour to show in the following pages. The
maxim appears also to have been in no small degree appreciated and
acted upon by the ancient heathen nations, for, as we all know, their
legislators not only passed laws calculated to secure an athletic, healthy
race of men, who would best serve their respective states, but also for
the healthfulness of these states themselves ; and their orators and poets,
as is also well-known, frequently called the attention of the people to
the subject, in order that, being reminded in the words of Virgil,

Noctes atque dies patet atri janua Ditis,

Sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras,

Hoc opus, hie labor estf

they might thereby accord an universal and cheerful obedience to the
laws. And even with respect to Christian nations, it is a question which,
we think, cannot be so immediately decided in the affirmative, whether,
in the first century of Christianity, they were less appreciative than their
descendants are, in the nineteenth, of the truth conveyed in the saying
of the old English moralists, that there is but one way of coming into
the world, but a thousand to go out of it,” or whether they could
parallel the atrocities which are daily revealed to us with reference to
the impurity and adulteration of food, the state of city grave-yards, the
noxious manufacturing processes carried on in densely populated
neighbourhoods, and a thousand other evils ^calculated to undermine the
public health. These, however, are questions we do not attempt to de-
cide, but, leaving them for the consideration of others more competent to
do so, we proceed to examine that branch of the general topic which
we have selected as our own, and will endeavour to show what are the
ideas and practice of that people to whom a code of sanatory laws was
first revealed.

But it is proper to premise, that the Sanatory Institutions of the
Hebrews are not to be looked for in the Bible only, though the grand
principles, upon which they are based, have undoubtedly been borrowed

* "inno • niKnaD pK

■|iEneid lib. vi. (127) Thus rendered by Davidson, “Grim Pluto's gate stands

OF THE HEBREWS.

by them from, and credited by them to, the sacred volume. It is to that
vast repertory of the national traditions, that well-known, but little under-
stood, compilation, the Talmud, and to their later casuists, that we must
turn, would we find and correctly estimate the multifarious, important>
and highly interesting sanatory constitutions of a people who honoured
these constitutions with a most scrupulous observance, not merely be-
cause they regarded them as mere matters of expediency, utility, or pro-
fit, but as the strict, unavoidable, and uncompromising requirements of
their heaven-born religion. The pains and penalties following derilec-
tion or neglect — in some cases amounting even to excision — also tended,
both in Biblical and Post Biblical times, to secure from the Hebrews a
scrupulous observance of their sanatory laws. We are well aware, that
some few, writing in an unfriendly spirit of the book in which they are
contained, have condemned them as overloading men with useless
ceremonies, which enter into every hour of his existence and make him
the mere creature of ablutions and precautions. But it is very evident,
that this objection must be pronounced quite futile, until it can be shown
that a careful and strict attention to the promotion of health is at all con-
demnable, pernicious or unwise. By another class a further objection has
been made to them, that, although their tendency may be good, yet is
the minuteness of detail employed in the books of Hebrew jurisprudence
highly objectionable, and not to be tolerated in the present refined state
of society. But here it is also evident, that such an objection is utterly
groundless, and could only be adduced but for a sinister purpose. For
if they become objectionable and intolerable on this account, then
equally objectionable and intolerable must we pronounce every medical
book, tract, or treatise, from the days of Galen downwards ; since it
needs no very extensive knowledge of both classes of authors to
decide that the former are clearly and indisputably more measured
in their modus scribendi than the latter ; notwithstanding which but
few would recommend the suppression of valuable medical trea-
tises on this account. The truth is, that, equally with any modern
casuistic or scientific writers, the Jewish Doctors or Rabbis wrote for
intelligent, considerate, truth-seeking men. They wrote neither for
children, for fools, nor for blind zealots. And when they entered into
details designed to promote the bodily, and consequently the mental, health
of their people, they knew that they addressed men who would only
consider themselves a wise and discerning nation ” accordingly as they
respected the ^ statutes and judgments so righteous,’’ upon which their
teachers amplified — men, who, whatever their faults otherwise, could
yet duly appreciate recommendations to purity, chastity, and sobriety,
and could not only ostensibly, but actually and in reality, act up to them.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

— men, whose cheeks would not mantle with the deceitful hues of a false
modesty when particularization of wholesome, sanatory and moral laws
were addressed to them in public, while, in private, they would, with brazen
brow and unblushing face, outrage everyone of these laws, and yet loudly
proclaim a refined state of society, as, perhaps, is but too much the case
in our day. And that the Hebrew Sanatory Institutions, despite their
minuteness of detail, have proved to the nation neither hurtful to body
nor baneful to mind, is, we think, evident from various considerations. In
the first place, although there now flows in the veins of the Hebrews the
blood of the most ancient nation remaining on earth — the same blood which
once animated Abraham, Moses, David, and Isaiah, — although the stake
has destroyed of them its thousands, and the sword its tens of thousands —
although monarchs and legislators, from the days of Pharaoh downwards,
have passed enactments for their extermination, forbidding, as is the case
even in the present day, their obedience to one of the first laws of
nature* — although found in every country and clime, amidst the snows
and ice of a northern, and the burning sun of a southern, latitude, — and
although, at all periods of their history, subject to a thousand adverse and
destructive influences, yet do they remain a wondrous living problem,
the same undeteriorated ^ indestructible race, with the same characteristics
everywhere traceable among them, with an eye not less bright than
when it was called to witness the lightnings of Sinai’s mount, and with
a step not less elastic than when it repaired to the Holy Temple which
God vouchsafed to make the place of His especial residence ; in short,
with the same favourable, energetic, and high organization among the
men, and with the same instances of rare attractive beauty among the
women. Nor do we find them, in consequence of their sanatory regula-
tions, more subject to diseases, or obnoxious to epidemics of all descriptions,
^ut the contrary ; for it is undeniable that the mass of the nation, who are
duly observant of their dietary laws, are remarkably free from certain
.dasses of diseases, particularly those of the skin and the hypochondriac
regions ; while, ever since attention has been given to the statistics of
epiderriics, both in Europe and America, it has been announced as an
extraordinary fact, especially during the ravages of Asiatic cholera, that
proportionably, the Jewish community have remained in a remarkable
degree unscathed under these awful visitations.!

• In some parts of northern Europe the laws of the State permit only a certain
number of Jews to marry.

t During the fatal prevalence of Cholera in London, in 1849, the editor of a leading
paper thus writes : “ It is a singular circumstance, that throughout the late awful
visitation, so few, if any Jews, died of the Cholera in London, although the majority
of them reside in districts where it committed great ravages,^^ See also Thanksgiving
Sermon of the Rev. D. A. De Sola, of London, for 15th November, 1849. We
believe that the authenticated cases did not exceed two, and one of these, personally

OF THE HEBREWS.

These laws, too, have evidently not unfavourably affected their moral
organization, for, let us search the calendar of crime of every country,
and we shall be led to the conclusion that these same dietary and sana-
tary laws have had the effect of exempting them in a remarkable degree
from that, to speak technically, plus-animalism, or preponderance of the
animal organs and instincts, which has led in others to the commission of
the most awful crimes. In vain we seek their names in the long list of
those convicted of inveterate drunkenness, of midnight plundering and as-
sassination, of foeticide, infanticide, of murder, and of other revolting and
abominable crimes, which one dares not even think of or allude to. Of the
correctness of this assertion it is easy to adduce evidence, but upon those
who may feel disposed to doubt it, rests, as we imagine, the burden of
proof to the contrarj^.

It would appear also that these laws have not had the effect of
investing them with an inferior mental organization, for the atten-
tive reader of history and observer of events, cannot but remain
astonished at tlie immense, wondrous, influence they have exercised, and
do even yet exercise upon the destinies of the world,* — in the present day,

known to us, was a gentleman of opulent circumstances, at Brighton, where he had
gone for the advantages of sea-air.

♦Although we might adduce abundant proof of the correctness of this statement also,
yet do we attempt to satisfy our readers and ourself by simply quoting from one of the
productions of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of England. Mr. D’Israeli, in
his Coningsby, thus writes : The Saracen kingdoms were established. That fair and
unrivalled civilization arose which preserved for Europe arts and letters, when Christ-
endom was plunged in darkness. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ During these halcyon centuries,
it is difficult to distinguish the follower of Moses from the votary of Mahomet.
Both alike of equally built palaces, gardens, and fountains ; filled equally the highest
offices of the btate; contested in an extensive and enb'ghtened commerce; and
rivalled each other in renowned universities.” Sidonia, as a type, was lord and
master of the money market of the world, and of course virtually lord and master of
everything else, and monarchs and ministers of all countries courted his advice, and
were guided by his suggestions.” ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ a j^^d visited and
examined the Hebrew communities of the world, * ♦ * ♦ * qjjJ perceived

that the intellectual development was unimpaired.” And at this

moment, in spite of centuries, and tens of centuries of degradation, the Jewish
mind exercises a vast influence on the aflfairs of Europe. I speak not of their laws
which you still obey ; of the literature with which your minds are saturated ; but of
the living Hebrew intellect. You never observe a great intellectual movement in
Europe in which the Jew^s do not greatly participate.” Mr. D’Israeli then, at
length, shews how mighty revolutions are entirely developed under the auspices
of Jew’s,” and mentions, as Jews, those who are or were professing Christians — at
excelling in theology, Neandcr, Senary, Wehl ; in diplomacy, Arnim, Cancrin,
Mendizabel ; in war, Soult, Massena. “ What are all the schoolmen, Aquinas him-
self, to Maimonides ; and as Ibr modern philosophy, all springs from Spinoza.” In
music, “ the catalogue is too vast to enumerate; enough for us that the three great
creative minds, to whose exquisite inventions all nations at this moment yield —
Rossini, Meyerbeer and Mendelsohn — are of Hebrew race.” Pasta and Grisi also!
We cannot deny ourself the pleasure of quoting also from a lecture on the “ Unity of
the Races,” delivered by our learned and esteemed friend, T. S. Hunt, Esq., of the
Canada Geologiojal Survey, as further evidencing the fact under notice, and as an
excellent resum6 of the above.

Mr. Hunt says : We see the Children of Israel scattered over the face of the

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

more especially in the commercial and political world, though theirinflueoce
and importance, religiously, as the ancient, preserved, and living witnesses
of the Sinaic revelation, is by no means to be underrated. On this sub-
ject, however, it is not our province to dwell here, but we hasten to
assure our readers that, in all we have said, we have not sought to
assert that it is to their Sanatory Institution solely, that the Hebrews
owe their preservation as a people. Far from this. In common with
all believers in the Sacred volume, whether Christians or Jews, we wit-
ness the existence and preservation of Abraham’s sons, and exclaim the
hand of the Eternal hath done this thing.” Yes, we behold in it but the
fulfilment of the predictions of their own lawgiver and prophets, the ful-
filment of God’s threats and promises to them. But in common with
those believers, we are also impressed with the conviction that God fre-
quently permits us to perceive and appreciate the means whereby He
works out the end He proposes : — that He as frequently prefers simple
and natural means for the accomplishment of His behests ; and that it is
therefore quite permissible, after due inquiry to maintain, that the
Sanatory Institutions of the Hebrews, have, under God, tended in a
great measure to secure the present preserved and undeteriorated exis-
tence of the nation. To what extent they have done so it will of course
be for the reader hereafter to decide. Believing, as we have already
affirmed, that it is to a very great and important extent, we think no fur-
ther introduction or apology necessary, ere we introduce them, as we
proceed now to do, to these sanatory laws and constitutions themselves.

CHAPTER II.

THE PROHIBITION OF BLOOD.

The Sanatory Institutions of the Hebrews may be considered as re-
garding— First, Persons; — Secondly, Places ; and Thirdly, Things. Our
remarks will have reference to them under these three heads ; but we
have considered it advisable to follow, as closely as possible, the order of

earth since eighteen centuries, without a country, yet finding a home in all ; scorned
and trampled upon, yet often the power behind the throne directing the destinies
of kings; poor and abject, yet holding the golden keys of war and peace in Europe:
excelling in philosophy and in theology, in music and in art, in war and in states-
manship ; despised, yet ever powerful ; counted as aliens, yet, with their gene-
ologies of forty centuries, looking down with scorn upon the aristocracy of Europe
which is but as of yesterday, when compared with their own proud lineage. The
Hebrew people still preserves all its natural characteristics, and stands proiid and
imperishable before us to-day, the representative of the earliest ages of tne world’s
history, and the evidence of the undying vigor of the pure Caucasian race.”

OF THC HEBREWS.

the sacred volume, and, after due attention to its teachings, shall offer
such illustrations afforded both by Christian and Jewish writers, as may
be within our reach or memory, and necessary to do full justice to our
subject. And first — of the prohibition of blood.

The first law best calculated to promote man’s physical, as well as
moral, perfection, is contained in the 28th verse of the first chapter of
Genesis, and further expounded in the second chapter of the same book and
in subsequent portions of the Sacred Writings. But we defer our re-
marks upon this law, until we reach the subsequent legislation of Moses
thereon. In the seventh chapter of Genesis, we find the distinction
made between beasts that are clean ” and beasts that are unclean.’^
This subject we also defer for after-notice, and proceed to examine the
prohibition to eat blood, first expressed in the ninth chapter, third and
fourth verses, of the book of Genesis, in the following terms, “ Every
moving thing that liveth shall be food for you, even as the green herb
have I given you all. But flesh with the life (nefesh) thereof, which is
the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” Such is the translation and inter-
pretation given to this passage by the English authorised version, — an
interpretation which we believe to be in strict accordance with its gram-
matical construction ; and such also is the interpretation of the great
majority of commentators of all ages and countries. Here, it may, per-
haps, be only necessary to cite those not generally attainable. The
prince of Jewish commentators,” R. Solomon Jarchi, commonly known
as Rashi, on the words with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof,”
remarks, God here prohibits to them (the tearing off and eating) the
members of a living animal, and saith, as it were, to them, ‘ So long as the
life (nefesh) is in the blood, thou shalt not eat the flesh.’ ” R. Abraham
Aben Ezra on the same passage says, The meaning of these words is
this, — but the flesh with its life, which is its blood, shalt thou not eat,
and this is in accordance with the reason (subsequently) given in Holy
Writ, ^ Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh, for the life of all flesh
is its blood, &c.” ’ Don Isaac Abarbanel has the following observations
on this passage, he says : And because in slaughtering animals for food,
they might acquire cruel habits, God prohibited to them the eating of
the members of a living animal — a custom which is certainly the height
of cruelty. Therefore saith the text The

2 (beth) in wdji (benafsho) is used for o]; (ngim — with) just as it is
in vir^lDlT (berichbo oobpharashav Ex. xv. 19,) &c. The text

meaneth, therefore, And the flesh while yet its life (nefesh) is in it, the
blood ye shall not eat of that flesh. Such is, doubtless, the right and
proper exposition of this passage.” Agreeably with his usual custom,
before he proceeds to his exposition, Abarbanel states those questions he

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

deems requiring particular notice, and here he seems ironically to ask,
whether the blood be dependent upon the life, or the life upon the blood 1
Surely,” he exclaims, the exposition of Haramban (i. e. R. Moses ben
Nachman) which is ' but the flesh with its life which is its blood, SfC.J
and which opinion makes the life (nefesh) to be identical with the blood,
is a very erroneous one, and not for a moment to be entertained.” It is
with regret that we find ourselves unable to subjoin the exact language of
Nachmanides, but must reserve our quotation from him, for an appendix.
It seems, however, from Arbarbanel’s own words, that he merely asserts
what Rashi and Aben Ezra, nay, the sacred penman himself, seems to
assert, viz., the vitaiity of the blood; and in such case, his opinion does
not deserve censure, since it has met, during the last two centuries, with
many deeply learned advocates, who, however, merely reiterate to a
great extent, what Jewish exposition and tradition have maintained cen-
turies before them.*

The learned Dr. Townley in his translation of a portion of the Moreh
Nebuchim” (Guide of the Perplexed) of Maimonides, says : —

The doctrine of the vitality of the Blood, thus suggested by the Laws
of Moses^ does not appear to have been avowed by Medical Writers
before A. D. 1628, the time of the celebrated Harvey, the discoverer,
or the reviver, of the doctrine of the circulation of the blood, who, in his
writings, maintained the opinion, but was never much followed, till Mr.
Hunter, Professor of Anatomy in London, defended the hypothesis
with much acuteness and strength of argument in his Treatise on the
Bloody Inflammation y ^c., London, 1794, The arguments of

Hunter were vigorously attacked by Professor Blumenbach, of Gottingen,
who fancied he had gained a complete victory over the defenders of the
vitality of the Blood. But his translator, Dr. Elliolson, in the notes he
has added to the Professor’s Institutions of Physiology (^Sect. vi. p. p.
43, 44, London, 1817, 2nd ed, 8't;o.,) thus sums up what he regards as
the true state of the question : — ‘ The great asserter of the life of the

* Hence the groundlessness of the following remarks in Wood's Mosaic History.
It would appear that Mr. Wood had never studied the Talmud, or read Jewi^
commentators. We will not dwell here on the incongruity of his assertion that
Paul (and therefore no doubt the Hebrews of that day) knew well and taught this
doctrine, and yet, that (a somewhat gratuitous assumption we conceive) “ it was
8600 years before it arrested the attention of any philosopher.” Mr, Wood, perhaps,
forgot that even before Paul, and long before Harvey or John Hunter, there were
philosophers among the Jews who did direct attention to it. And yet Mr. Wood
continues: “This is more surprising, as the nations in which philosophy flourished,
were those which especially enjoyed the divine oracles in their respective languages.”
B *9 yfl more surprising that Mr. Wood at “one fell swoop” taketh from Caesar
what belongeth to Caesar and by this ipse facto assertion sliows his utter want of
information on the subject. We repeat, it would appear that Jewish tradition and
commentary, like other small mattei*s, had not troubled much the, in other respects,
learned Mr. Wood. This, however, is no/ surprising.

OF THE HEBREWS.

blood is iTr. Hunter; and the mere adoption of the opinion by Mr.
Hunter, would entitle it to the utmost respect from me, who find tho
most ardent and independent love of truth, and the genuine stamp of
profound genius in every passage of his works. The freedom of the
blood from putrefaction while circulating, and its inability to coagulate
after death from arsenic, electricity, and lightning, may, like its inability
to coagulate when mixed with bile, be simply chemical phenomena, in-
dependent of vitality. But its inability to coagulate after death from
anger or a blow on the stomach, which deprive the muscles likewise of
their usual stiflTness ; its accelerated coagulation by means of heat, per-
haps its diminished coagulation by the admixture of opium ; its earlier
putridity when drawn from old, than from young, persons ; its freezing
like eggs, frogs, snails, &c., more readily when once previously frozen
(which may be supposed to have exhausted its powers) ; its directly be-
coming the solid organised substance of our bodies, while the food re-
quires various intermediate changes, before it is capable of alTording nu-
triment ; the organisation (probably to a great degree independent of
the neighbouring parts) of lymph effused from the blood; and, finally,
the formation of the genital fluids, one, at least, of wlfich must be allow-
ed by all, to be alive, from the blood itself, do appear to me, very strong
arguments in favour of the life of the blood.”*

Let us now see whether the sacred volume itself does not further
support this doctrine of the vitality of the blood. With reference to the
passage before us, in which, for the first time, it is apparently taught,^.
we have already stated that we do not think the correctness of the
rendering we have adopted can be disputed on grammatical grounds,
and Abarbanel has, here, evidently, adopted his interpretation, an er-
roneous one as we conceive, from not having paid due attention to the
accentuation and division of the proposition ; but to which, on other oc-
casions, he attaches great importance.! Were there a disjunctive ac-
cent after the words benafsho” (with its life,) then his interpretation'
would hold good ; but, as it is a connective, it is, so far as accentuation
has weight, plainly untenable ; while the commentaries above referred
to, and to whicli vve may also add the Targum of Orikelos, are clearly
correct. But prior to entering upon an examination of the other passages

* “ Blunienbnch’s Institutions of Physiolgoy ” translated by Dr. Elliotson, ?ect. vi.
Notes p. p., 43, 44. Dr. Hunter's arguments may be found in an abridged firm in
Dr. A. Clark’s Commentary on Levit, xvii. ii., and Encyc. Perth, art. Blood.

I It may be known to most of our readers that the Hebrew language possesses
an all bul perfect system of rhetorical accentuation, known as the Slasoreiic. The
accents which are also musical, are capable of dividing a sentence into the smallest
propositions, and may be considered as consisting of two classes, disjunctives
and connectives. W ith the system, however, as presented in the Psalms and some
other of the sacred writings, no one is fully conversant

SANATORY rNSTITUTlONS

of Scripture bearing upon our subject, it maybe proper to ascertain
whether the word “ nefesh,” which is translated above, “ life” has
really such a signification. And this we can only ascertain by inquir-
ing what are the meanings which some of the most eminent lexicogra-
phers have attached to the word.*

R. David Kinchi, in the first place, applies in his SepherHashora sh-
im,” (Book of Roots), all the various significations, to nefe^ \y\\\c\\ we
find given, secondly, by Gesenius, which are : 1, breath ; 2, life, the vital
principal in animal bodies, anima, which was supposed to reside in the
breath j 3, a living being, that which has life : 4, the soul, spirit, as the seat
of the volitions and affections, (the reader will be pleased, however, to
compare what Parkhurst says, lower down, on this subject, under No. 4);
5, desire ; also, the object of desire ; 6, scent, fragrancy, odour. Buxtorf,
Furst, David Levy, and Newman, give nearly all the same significations.
Parkhurst has the following: — As a noun, it means, 1. A breathing frame,
the body, which, by breathing, is sustained in life. See Gen. ix. 4, 5 •
Lev. xvii. 10 — 14, xxiv. 17, 18 ; Deut. xii. 23. From the above pass-
ages, he continues, it seems sufficiently evident not only that the animal
body is called nefesh, but that this name is in a peculiar manner applied
to that wonderful fluid, the blood, (Comp. Ps. cxli. 8., Isa. liii. 12,)
whence we may safely conclude that the blood is that by which the
animal doth in some sense breathe', that, agreeably to the opinion of many
eminent naturalists,! it requires a constant refreshment or reanimation
from the external air; and that this is one of the great ends of respi-
ration. Aristophanes, Nub. lin. 711, in like manner calls the blood
"tpvxv rat rrjv ipvxvf (KfrivH-Tt And they drink up my soul or life, i. e.,
my blood.” And Virgil applies the Latin animaio the same sense ^En.
ix.,lin. 349. “ Purpuream vomit ille animam, he vomits forth his pur-

ple soul or life.”! word means, 2ndly, adds Parkhurst, a living crea-
ture ; 3, the affections, desires, or appetites ; 4, nefesh has been supposed
to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul.

I must for myself confess that I can find no passage where it hath un-
doubtedly this meaning. Gen. xxxv. 18 ; 1 Kings xvii. 21,22 ; Ps. xvi.

1 however, here (Gen. ix. 4.) render “nefesh"

m" K it we mistake not, always corresponds with “ soul.” Thus

K Menasseh ben Israel {Hamas; Amst. A M. 5416) translates Empero came eon-
M 'i'lZ cmnrncreffs. So also Dias and Fernandes (Bib. Ksp A

M. 6486, Amst.) Cassiodoro de Reynii, the earliest Christian Spanish translato'
renders It aau/ia, also meaning soul, but adds in a note, “Za sanqre sc dize ser el
anima de la came porquc en ella rcsedcn los espirUus vitales sensitiLs.” ‘

t See Tho, Bartholin. Anatom, p. 285 ; the Rev. William Jones’ Phvsioloo-ieal
Di^quisiuons, p. 163 ; Dr Crawford on Animal Heat, <fec., p. 354 2nd^edit.'’and
Encyclopmdia Br.ttanica in Aerology No. 89, Ac., and in Blwd No. 22 ^

t See the Encyclopoedia Brittanica in Blood No. 19, Ac.

OP THE HEBREWS.

10, seem fairest for this signification. But may not nefesh in the three
former passages be most properly rendered breathy and in the last a
breathing or animal frame.” Thus far Parkhurst; and we think we
need now but look at the significations of nefe^i as defined by the high
authorities just quoted, to decide that we must translate it in Gen. ix. 4,
as we have done, viz : — life.

We proceed to enumerate all other passages having reference to the
prohibition of blood, or to its vitality. In Leviticus, ch. iii., v. 17,
blood is coupled with the clieleb (sacrificial fat or suet) as being ever-
lastingly prohibited to the Israelites. In the 7th chapter of the same
book, 26lh and 27th verses, eoxision is denounced against the eater of
blood ; Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl
or of beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be^ that eateth
any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.”
At the 17th chapter, verse 10 — 15, the prohibition of blood is again
repeated, and its vitality, apparently again taught. Verse 10, And
whatsoever man, &c.,* I will even set my face against that soul that
eateth blood, &c. Verse 11, For the life of the flesh is in the
blood, &:c. ; Again in verse 12. In verse 14, For it is the life of all
flesh, the blood of it is for the life thereof, therefore I said unto the child-
ren of Israel, ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh, for the life of
all flesh is the blood thereof, whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.”

Rashi remarks on this verse, Its blood is here in place of its life, for
the latter is dependent on the former.” Again, Life is the blood.” And
Aben Ezra says, It has reference to the life, for it is known that the
veins which proceed from the left side of the heart, are divided into two
kinds, those of the bloofl, and those of the air, and these are (depend-
ent upon each other) like the oil and flame of the lamp.”f And
here it becomes us to quote also what A barbanel has written on this
passage, in his elegant and elaborate commentary, since it will best serve
to show our readers how the doctrine of the vitality of the blood long
ago engaged the attention of the old Hebrew commentators, who, by the
way, merely wrote in accordance with the received traditions of the
Jewish Church.J

Abarbanel says, The illustrious Maimonides writes in his Moreh
Nebuchim that the Chaldeans (Zabii and others,) although as a rule

*Mendelsobn says that tlie stranger or proselyte referred to in this verse, is the
proselyte of righteousness, p-i:^ notwithstanding which the Talmud, Treat. San-
dlin, he affirms that the prohibition applies to others than the Israelites.

+ From this passage it would appear Aben Ezra entertained an opinion, univer-
sally prevailing among the learned of his time, but which modern science and inves-
tigation have since exploded.

X See remarks on Woods’ Mosaic History, note p. 10,

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

they rejected the use of blood as unclean, would yet eat of it when
desirous of holding communion with evil spirits in order to know of
matters future,” (compare this remark of Maimonides with an illustra-
tion from Horace, w^hich w-^e shall have occasion presently to quote.)
And therefore doth the law prohibit the eating of blood, and devote it to
be poured out and sprinkled upon the altar. And therefore, too, doth
the law proclaim, ^ I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood,
as it does with reference to the giving of seed to Moloch, but which is
not said with reference to any other precept. But Ramban objects to
Maimonides, that the Scripture doth not so teach, but that the reason
always assigned for the prohibition of blood, is that the life of all flesh is
in the blood, &c., and that consequently, the prohibition is here on
account of the life (of the blood,) and not because it was used for con-
verse with evil spirits. Now, I cannot but be surprised that Maimo-
nides doth not refer to the texts quoted by Ramban, teaching the vitality
of the blood, as above, nor take notice of them, and that Ramban him-
self doth not refer to the passages Levit xvii.7. ^ And they shall no
more offer their sacrifices unto devils, &c.,’ which supports the opinion
of Maimonides.” It were needless to notice here the discussion into
which Abarbanel enters on this subject, after these introductory re-
marks. Sufficient be it to state, that, with the Hebrew commentators,
he, here, also maintains the life of the blood.

Thus far then we have three reasons assigned by the Jewdsh com-
mentators for the prohibition of blood. The first is, that an end might
be put to a kind of cannibalism, which obtained,” says the learned
Dr. Townley, even in the time of Noah, viz: — eating raw' flesh, and
especially eating the flesh of living animals, cut or torn from them, and
devoured whilst reeking with the warm blood.” Plutarch, in his Dis-
course of eating fle^i, informs us, that it was customary in his time to
run red-hot spits through the bodies of swine, and to stamp upon the
udders of sows ready to farrow, to make their flesh more delicious ; and
Herodotus (1. iv.) assures us, that the Scythians, from drinking the blood
of their cattle, proceeded to drink the blood of their enemies. It is even
affirmed that both in Ireland and the Islands and Highlands of Scotland,
the drinking of the blood of live cattle is still continued, or has but
recently been relinguished. Dr. Patrick Delaney says, “ There is a
practice sufficiently known to obtain among the poor of the kingdom of
Ireland. It is customary with them to bleed their cattle for food in
years of scarcity and the Analytical Reviewers observe : ‘‘ It will
scarcely appear credible at a future time, that at this day, towards the

♦The Doctrine of Abstinence from Blood defended p. 124., note, London 1734.
See also “ Revelation examined with candour/* vol. 2, p. 2U, London 1732, 8vo.

OP THE HEBREWS.

close of the eighteenth century, in the Islands, and some parts of the
Highlands [of Scotland,] the natives every spring or summer attack the
bullocks with lances, that they may eat their blood, but prepared by
fire.”*' The celebrated traveller, Bruce, relates with minuteness the
scene which he witnessed near Axum, the ancient capital of Abyssinia,
when the Abyssinian travellers, whom he overtook, seized the cow
they were driving, threw it down, and cutting steaks from it, ate them
raw, and then drove on the poor sufferer before them.f Sir John Carr
states that the natives of the sandy desert [between Memel and Kon-
ingsberg,] eat live eels dipped in salt, which they devour as they writhe
with anguish round their hands. ’’J Major Denham also says that an
old haclgi named El Raschid, a native of Medina,” who at different
periods of his life ‘Miad been at Waday, and at Sennaar, described
to him a people east of Waday, whose greatest luxury was feeding on
raw meats cut from the animal while warm and full of blood. § And it
is a well known fact, that the savage natives of New Zealand con-
tinue to quaff the blood of their enemies when taken in battle.”

A second reason for the prohibition of blood is that assigned by
Maimonides as referred to by Abarbanel as above, an authority respect-
ed as the highest in these matters by all theologians and bibical critics
of all creeds. II We quote here, the passage in his Moreh Ne-
buchim,” to which Abarbanel apparently alludes, ^‘Yet excision was
denounced against some of them ; as the eating of bloody because in
those times men were too apt to be led into a desire and precipitancy of
eating it by a certain kind of idolatry, which was the chief cause why it
was so strictly forbidden.” And although Nachmanides, as noticed in
our quotation from Abarbanel, refers the prohibition of blood to its vital-
ity, yet is he also of opinion that its prohibition was grounded on the
intent and design to suppress idolatrous customs and practices. He
thus comments on Deut xii. 23. '‘They gathered together blood for
the devils, their idol gods, and then came themselves and ate of that blood
with them as being the devil’s guests, and invited to eat at the table of
devils, and so were joined in federal society with them, and by this kind
of communion with devils, they were able to prophesy and foretel things

* Analytical Review, vol. 28, July. 1789. Retrospect of the Active World, p. 105.

\ Bruce’s Travels, vol. 3. p. 832 — 884, 8vo. See also some learned remarks by
him on the present subject, vol. 4, p. 477—481, in which he designates Maimonides as
^•one of the most learned and sensible men that ever wrote up<ni the Scriptures,” and
ill) able defence of the statement of our author in Murray’s Life of Bruee, p. 74.

^^^J^Oarr's Northewi Summer, or Travels round the Baltic in the year 1804, p. 43h

London. 1805. • • i i

§ Denham and Clapperton’s Travels and Discoveries in Northern and Central

Africa, vol. 2, p. 36, note, London, 2nd edition, 1826, Svo.

U See Bruce as quoted above.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

to come.’’ These last words of R. Moses bar Nachman lead us to the
illustration from the writings of Horace, already referred to, when quot-
ing a similar passage from Maimonides. It occurs in his Satires, 1st
book, Sat. 8.

Vidi egomct nigra succinctam vadere palla
Canidiam, pedibus nudis pa^soque capillo,

Cum Sagana majore ululantern. Pallor utrasque
Fecerat liorrendas aspectu. Scalpere terrain
Unguibus, et pullam divellere mordicus agnam
Cceperunt : cruor in fossam confusu?, ut inde
Maries elicerent, animas responsa daturas. *

Dr. Townley affords us further support and interesting illustration of
the assertion of Maimonides. He says the sacred books of the Hin-
doos exhibit traces of the same kind of worship formerly prevailing
amongst them. In the Asiatic Researches, vol. v., is a translation of
the Rudhiradhyaya or Sanguinary Chapter” of the Calica Puran, by
W. C. Blaquiere, Esq., from which the following are extracts: —

“ Birds, tortoises, alligators, fish, nine species of wild animals, buf-
falos, bulls, he’-goats, ichneumons, wild boars, rhinoceroses, antelopes,
guanas, reindeer, lions, tigers, men, and blood drawn from the offerer’s
own body, are looked upon as proper oblations to the goddess Chandicaj
the Bhairdvas, &c. The pleasure which the goddess receives from an
oblation of blood of fish and tortoise, is of one month’s duration, and
three, from that of a crocodile. By the blood of the nine species of wild
animals, the goddess is satisfied nine months, and for that space of time
continues propitious to the offerer’s welfare. — That of the lion, reindeer,
and the human species, produces pleasure which lasts a thousand years.
— The vessel in which the blood is to be presented, is to be according
to the circumstances of the offerer, of gold, silver, copper, brass, or
leaves sewed together, or of earth or of tutenague, or of any of the
species of wood used in sacrifices. Let it not be presented in an iron
vessel, nor in one made of the hide of the animal, or of the bark of the
tree, nor in a pewter, tin, or leaden vessel. Let it not be presented by

* Tlius elegantly rendererl by Francis: —

Caniclia with disheveU’d hair,

(Black was her robe, her feet were bare)

With Sagana, infernal dame!

Her (ddor sister, hilher came,

With veilings dire they till'd the place,

And hideous pale was either s face.

So»)n with their nails they scrap’d the ground.
And fill’ll a magic trench profound,

With a black lamb’s thick streaudng gore.
Whose membeis with their teeth they tore„
1’hat they may charm the spi ights to tell
Some curious anecdotes from LelL

OF THE HEBREWS*

pouring it on the ground,"' or into any of the vessels used at other times
for offering food to the deity. Human blood must always be presented
in a metallic or earthen vessel, and never on any account in a vessel
made of leaves, or similar substances.” Thus far Mr. Blaquiere.

Further illustration is supplied by the profound Spencer, in his
most valuable work, De Legibus llebrceorum Ritualibus et
Earum Rationabus,”f where he shows us how the lieathen used
blood, and sometimes, even human blood, by-way of lustration. They
imagined that the blood of their sacrifices was the favourite food of
their demons. For this reason they were at the greatest pains to pre-
serve it for them in some vessel, or when this was not at hand, in some
hole in the ground. And then, while they ate the flesh, and the demon,
as they imagined, drank the blood, they hereby not only declared them-
selves his votaries, and professed to hold communion with him, but
considered themselves as having become purified.

Moses Lowman, in his Rational of the Ritual of the Hebrew wor-
ship,” well remarks on Leviticus xix, 26, ‘ Ye shall not eat anything
idth the hlocd^ ought to be rendered at or before blood, and is an allu-
sion to the idolatrous worship of demons by gathering blood together for
them, as supposed their food, and coming themselves and eating part of it,
whereby they were esteemed the demon's guests, and by this kind of
communion with them, were supposed enabled to prophecy and foretell
things to come — to have familiarity with these spirits, as to receive
revelations and be inspired with the knowledge of secret things.”

On an attentive and dispassionate J perusal of the 17th chapter of Le-
viticus, already referred to, we think further strong support will be found

♦The very opposite, it will be perceived, of the Mosaic Institution.

f Ed. Cantab. 16S5. See also Shaw’s History and Philosophy of Judaism,
Part 1, ch. 1. Sec. 6.

[JThe following note was puMidied i n the Canada Medical Journal, in accordance
with the opinion and desire of some valued friends, and was intended as a reply to
some criticisms on a former portion of our remarks. In deference to the
same opinion and desire, and tlie note having been deemed of suffi-
cient general interest and inipi'rtance, it is now^ retained here.] V/e ad-
visedly say “dispassionate,” and assure our readers that here, as well as
in every line we have yet written, we have earnestly souglit to divest ourselves of
all theological bias, being fully conscious that the char<icterof out subject deroauded
this from us, and being quite mindful that our interpretation of the sacred volume
would materially differ from that of many of our readers. And we do theiefore
humbly hope, that having seduhmsly endeavoured to avoid all of a dogmatic
character in whit we have hitherto advanced, we shall not be suspected of seek-
ing covertly to propagate our peculiar views. We further liope, and indeed, aio in
the happy belief, that we are not living in a day when a believer in the divine
inspiration and authority of the Holy b(»ok — a descendant of those who, at the
rifck and expense of their lives, have preserved and tiansmitted this book to us —

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

for the opinion of Maimonides, that one of the reasons for the prohibition
of blood was to pul an end to idolatrous practices. The chapter com-
mences with the command to both priests and people, that any making a
meat sacrifice or killing an ox, lamb, or goat, in or without the camp,

that we are not living in a day, when, because our interpretation of some portions of
it may not be identical with that of the majority of our fellow-men. we therefore, may
not open this blessed volume, to direct their attention, not to a matter of a dogmatic
theological, or controversial ttwidency, but to examine with them wiiat light it throws
on a scientific question, which, though it has but for a comparatively recent
period engaged men’s attention, is t)everthelcss of the last moment to them. Nor
are we willing to believe that we cannot occupy common ground, an.l that we have not
been warrantc 1 in seeking to defend the .«acred page from the in-idious attacks of
the scoffing and ignorant unbeliever, as we have endeavoured to do by adducing testi-
mony of the highe4 order to the truth of the Scriptural teaching of the vitality of
the blood. And although we may be charged with dwelling too long on a topic,
not indispensable to onr main subject, yet do we trust that our reason for so doing
will be our excuse. 'Idie idea with us lias been, who shall say that there are not those
to-day, and that there will not be those to-morrow, ready to deny the fScriptural
teaching on this point? Tt is reasonable to suppose that there are to be found those,
less qualified to give an opinion than the learned Blumenbach, ready to do so. These
remarks we have considered as bei?ig called for, by some of the review.s of our humble
endeavours, which have appeared in the public press. And although we are of
opinion that, as a rule, it is neither necessary nor wise to notice such, — we speak with
all due respect, and with friendly and grateful feeling for the fl ittering manner in
which all have spoken of us — yet, as they may convey the sentiments of some of our
readers, we shall beg leave to take notice of some few. For the reasons already
assigned in this note, more especially in that we have avoided all of a dogmatic
character, we cannot agree with one writer, that any objection can attach to what
we have advanced, because “it cannot be discussed in opposition to the writer’s
views, without raising theological questions which have nothing to do with science
proper.” We beg leave to repeat that we have avoided, and shall continue to avoid,
all theology that is not common to Jew and Christian. If defence of a Scriptural
assertion, bearing on a matter exclusively scientific, be likely to raise the theological
questions to which this writer objects, then, avc fear, that in opposition to his views,
and at the risk of his future censure, we must persist in our past course. We cannot
admit that the Scriptures, even if we do that theological questions, have nothing to
do with science proper, for we believe that much valuable scientific information has
originated from the Scriptures. On reference to what we have already wiitten, we
think we cannot be charged with obtru.ling our own views on the subject ; we have
merely, as a matter of information, shown our renders what has been advanced in
sources, some attainable, some not generally attainable, to them. We of course feel
incompetent to decide, as does our critic, whether we be a better pathologist or
theologian. But we do feel ourself called upon to dissent entirely from his asser-
tion, that “ the human constitution must have changed very much in the course of
the last few thousand years, if the rules of Leviticus arc at all applicable now,”
We must not anticipitcMHir subject, but we would a-'k, under what general heads
may the laws ol Leviticus be comprised ? We can but answer, under those of caution
abstinence, moderation, cleanliness, and purity ; and therefore we can but add that
tlie human constitution must have changed very much in tlie cour.>e of the last few
thousand years, if the rules of Leviticus are not quite applicable now. We do not
wish to speak disrespectfully of, or to underrate at all, the learned and accomplisherl
Meade; but we do think that some further support and better illustrai ions of our critic’s
assertion should have been given, and is called for, than that atltluced by him ; which is
fiimply, that “ Meade (Medica Sacra, Lepra Morbus, p 12) says that no trace is to be
lound in either Greek or Arabian authors, of leprosy in walls or garments; that the
Hebrew doctors themselves admit that no sueh disease was knoAvn -in universo
Tnundo,’ excepting ‘ Sola Judea et solo populo Israelitico.’ ” We must remind the
writer that others besiiies Meade have written on the leprosy ; but adniiltinir, to the

OF THE HEBREWS.

and not brinmns: them unto the door of the tahernade of the con^rega-
tion, to offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the
Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man, * he hath shed blood, and
that man shall be cut off f;om among his people. V. 5. To the end
that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they offer
in the open field unto the Lord unto the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, unto the priest, &c. V. 6. And the priest shall sprinkle
the blood X upon the altar of the Lord, &c. V. 7* That they may no
more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whotn they have gone a
whoring. § This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their

fuUe??t extent, the correctness of Meade’s assertion, does it follow bccanse the disease
has disappeared, that, therefore, the principles of treatment hiiil down in Levilicr.s are
wrong and inapplicable now. We think the contrary to be the case, and that
the disappearance of the disease, so to admit, speaks tnimpet-tongued in favor
of such principles of treatment. And if right ami applicable then, why not now,
when, as the wi iter himself admits, diseases are disappearing and reappearing? But
further let us ask, whether the treatment prescribed in the case of contagious leprosy
(fur that the leprosy spf)ken of in Leviticus wascontagious. there can be no doubt.) is not
even now adopted in treating contagious diseases ; and whether in sinall-pc'X, measles,
putrid fevers and the like, separation and cleanliness, which is mainly the treatment
prescribed in Leviticus, is not now, after an experience of thousands of years, pre-
scribed in such cases of contagion. We are fullv prepared to admit with the writer
that “ the nature of disease is continually changing, old diseases wearing out, and
new ones springing up;” but as we have seen, from the example he himself adduces, an
admission of tliis fact is not necessarily an admission that the principles of treatment
which were efficient in preventing or removing diseases once, must be wnmgor inap-
plicable now. In our introduciary remarks, we observed that “the legislation of Moses,
son of Amrani, contains the wisest and most valuable [>rinciples, recommendations and
enactments on the subject of health, which, though thousands of years have elapsed
since their enunciation, do yet remain like ‘ all which proceedeth cut of the mouth of
the Eternal,' just as valuable, and just as wise, as wlien first revealed for the edifi-
cation of the Hebrew pc(»ple; and are therefore, now, as then, fully worthy our most
attentive and reverent consideration.’” Now, although we cannot flatter ourself
that we have already “ made our case good,” as another critic has been pleased to
say we have, yet do we not withdraw one iota of our expressions just quoted, and
in taking leave of our critic, which we do with all kindly consideration and respect, we
cannot but think, that after clue consideration of the very little he has advanced in
support of hi.s position, the hygienic laws of Leviticus are good, are wise, are valu-
able, and are quite applicable to the human constitution even now.

* According to Rashi, he shall be considered as a man-slayer, and be responsible
for the life of the animal sacrificed, contained in the blood which flawed in an improper
place.

f This repetition Rashi thinks is intended to convey, that lie who does not sprinlde
the blood in the proper place is included in the condemnation of the text.

\ “The bloi d of the victim was received by the priest in a vessel for that purpose
called p-.TO and was scattered at the foot, and on the sides of tlie altar, d be blood of
sin offerings was likewise placed upon the horns of the altar, and if they were
offered for the whole people or for the liigh prie4, it was sprinkled towards the veil
of the Holy of Holies; and on tlie day of propitiation on the lid of the ark, and
likewise on the fl.tor before the ark. The blood was also placed on the horns of the
altar of incense; a ceremony which was termed by the more ancient Jews
expiation, but by those of later times nrnD a gift. Lev. 4, 7. 8 ; 15, 16. Zech 8, 15 ;
Num. 18. 17.’^ Jahyi,

§ A ben Ezra well remarks, that all who seek and serve the devil -gods or idols
may mo.st fitly be said to be faithless to the true God to whom they are betrothed
by covenant. Can any one suppose, he asks, that there can exist any other cause of
good or evil, but the Holy One, blessed be He I

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

generations.’’ The intention of these words, we think, cannot be mis-
taken. It is evidently to secure the direction of divine worship to its
proper object, and to put an end to idolatrous practices. In verses
8 and 9, the same directions and penalties are laid down with reference
to burnt offerings or sacrifices. And then (v. 10) evidently and unques-
tionably, in the same connexion, follows the prohibition and penalty
against eating blood ; all blood is the expression used by the text, because,
as Eashi aptly remarks, the principle being laid down in verse 11, that
it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the life (nefesh,) and as
the Israelites might conclude that reference here was only made to the
blood of animals consecrated for sacrifice, therefore the text explicitly
states a// Next follows as we conceive another reason why blood
should not be eaten, viz. ; for the life of the flesh is in the blood,” V. 11.
And 1 have given it you upon the altar to make atonement for your life,
(nefesh,) for the blood maketh an atonement for the life,* (nefesh.) V.12.
Therefore have I said unto the children of Israel, no soul of you shall
eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you f eat
blood, &c. In verse 13 ,the blood of beasts or fowl that may be eaten, is
directed to he poured on the ground and to be covered with dust ; another
preventitive of idolatrous practices. In verse 16, we are again told that
blood is the life of the flesh, the blood of it is for the nefesh” or life
thereof, and that hence is the prohibition.

» Further support to the opinion of Maimonides may be deduced from
Levil. xix. 26 — ‘‘Ye shall not eat anything with the blood, neither shall ye
use enchantments nor observe times.” The connexion of the one prohibi-
tion with the latter having reference to idolatrous practices, we take to
be very significant, especially as the following verse has evident reference
to the same subject. In Duet. ch. xii, v. 16, the prohibition to eat
blood is repeated, and the command to “ pour it upon the ground like
water and at verse 27, the blood of sacrifices is to be poured upon the
altar of God. Again at chap, x v, v. 23. The incident in the first book of
Samuel, cb. 14, v. 32-34, would tend to show’that the people of Israel con-
sidered the majesty of heaven peculiarly outraged by the eating of blood

* On this passage Ra.-hi remarks, F(»r all heultrifulness of life depends on the
blood, theref(»re, saith God, I have anpointeJ that ye pour the blood on uiy altar,
since by bringing me the life-blood of beasts, you shi)W you have considered your
own life has been forfeited by you, atid you bring one life, which I have already
permitted you to take, in place of another.” We dv» not use the exact words
Uashi. but endeavour biiefly to give his meaning.

f Since we fiii)! here tlie prohibition is extended to proselytes also, we may
perhaps see an additional reason in favour of the opiniim of Maimonides. d'he prose-
ly tes were forbidden it, as they were idolatry, since their example might prove conta-
gious. Hence, as Aben Ezra remark-^, the command to cover the blood in v. 13, also
applies to them.

OF THE HEBREWS.

there spoken of. King David appears clearly to point out .the connex-
ion between the prohibition of blood-eating and the idolatrous practices
of the heathen. He says in the 16th Psalm, v. 4, their sorrows shall
be multiplied that hasten after another god, their drink offerings of
blood will I not ofler, &.c.” We will not seek for further illustrations,
but trust thatsulTicient have been adduced to show that the opinion enter-
tained by Maimonides is not without scriptural warrant.

The third reason for the prohibition of blood, viz, because of its
vitality, must hav^e been anticipated by a perusal of the scripture
passages already quoted. There is but one passage more, to which we
would more fully refer here. It is Deut., ch. 12., v. 23, “ Only
be sure (Ileb. Be strong) that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is the
life (nefesh)*; and thou mayest not eat the life (nefesh) with the flesh.

[For the origin and appearance of tlie following note, see page 17. note.]
* As involving a question of general interest, and bearing immediately on our
subject, we would, briefly as possible, notice here some remarks made by a critic in
a sister city on our ob ervations on the Hebrew word nefesh. The writer says that we
endeavour to show that the Hebrew word “ nefeslC signifies not so much the spirit,
or seat of the volitions and affections, as life, mere animal life, and that the name is
in a peculiar manner applied to that wonderful fluid, the blood, <fec.” Now, “ with
the utmost deference to the learned writer we beg to be permitted to state, that’^
after reading over our observations, we cannot find that w e have written what he
thinks we have. We gave no opinion as to what is always the meaning of “ nefesK'
but simply quoted from authorities of the very highest order, to show that we were
quite warranted in translating it life in the ninth chapter ^th verse of Genesis,
We did not think it at all necessary to enter too fully into the vast field of philolo-
gic il di.ssertation, especially, too, when it might lead us into the still vaster neld of
theological disputation. But as our attention has been railed to the matter, we
think it right to say that our opinion really is that ir3D (nefesh) never means soul, as
our critic seems to think, but that the word nou'D (neshama) does. And tliis conclusion
we form from no theological leaning. That great Chri-^tian Hebrew scholar, Parkhurst,
who can by no means be accused of liaving or showing any great respect fur Rabbinical
or Jewish interpretation, bears us out in our conviction, that “ there is no passage
in which it hath undoubtedly this meaning, but in those which seem fairest for this
interpretation, it means a breathing, or animal frame,” See our quotation from him.
There is nothing at all spiritual in the root which is (n.afash) to respire, take
breath, without reference to the soul. A sufficient confutation of contrary opinion is
contained in the very passage quoted in support by our critic. “ The Lord God
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed (nsn vayipach) into his nostrils
a living soul, D'‘n (nishmat chayim) in regimen, literally, a soul of life, just

as the law is elsewhere said to be a □"n yy (a tree of life, ngets chayirn ) or living
tree. Observe the word employed in this p.assage, which in common with most
Jewish and Chi istian commentators, we understand as teaching the infii'-ion by God
in man, not only of his life, animal life, but his spiritual life, too, indicated by tlie word
“ne.'^liamah.” We particularly observe that ‘ neferh” is nut here used, but “ne-diamah ”
'I’he text concludes, “ and Man became n-'n (lenefesh chaya.) a living being ; i e.,
the dust shaped by the hand of Omnipotence, became by the divine agency, a man. a
living being; a rational one, too, the text teaches u.s, since w'e find the ju5t-sha|)ed
earthly mass received a “ neshamah”or .soul. We presume none will venture to deny
t.liat *• nefe.-h” does not very frequently signify in the Scriptures, a person, an individual.
If there should be any, notwntlistanding that every Hebrew lexicon of any character
would prr>ve their error, w'e will refer them to a dozen passages occuiring in Leviticus
alone, where it can mean nothing else, to wit, ch., 4, v., 2 ; 4, 27 ; 5, 2 ; 5,
4; 5, 1.5 ; 5, 17 ; 6, 21 ; 7, 27 ; 17, 12 ; 17, 15 ; 22. 6 ; 22, 1 1. Nevertheless upon the
strength of the passage from Genesis just quoted, the assertion is made that “nefesh**

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

Thou shall not eat ity thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. Thou
shall not eat that it may go well with thee and with thy children after
ihee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord. ’
The most emphatic form of expression, it will be perceived, is here used
with reference to the prohibition ; the reason of it again assigned, being
because of its vitality.

docs not pignify life, and is not therefore identical with the blocd. TYe never said,
as our critic appears to lia ve understood us, tliat “ nef-ish’* life is identical with dam
blood. We t in Ilk, on the contraiy, the words convey two very distinct idea®, notwith-
standing our belief, that life has connection with the blood ; therefore, he has formed Lis
conclusion ratlier hastily and unwarrantably. We concur with the following passage
from the writer, except in one small, but important, particular, upon which we shall
remark within brackets. “Until the breath of life was breatlied into man’s face,
the nefesh” was dead. [We would rather say it was the body that was dead
especially since tlie writer joins with us in the belief that the animating principle
was diretttly bestowed by God, and that then man became a living being : he adds] the
soul wanted animation. [To say the least of it. we think that this expression of our
critic involves some little self-contradiction. We again repeat it was the
body that wanted animation, not the soul ; and the contradictoriness of our critic's
assertion is shown in this ; he first asserts that “nefesh” means soul, and then that the
soul warded animationl Now to find such an assertion as the latter made
by a religionist, a reverent Scripture reader, and a scholar, all which our critic
evidently is, we think an amazing thing. Surely he shares the belief that man’s soul
is an emanation from God, is immortal, and consequently, that it never was dead in
Adam, but that from the moment it was breathed in him, from that moment it lived
— ay — and lives even now, while we write, and while he reads. The writer continues,
“True, Mr. De Sola may allege that this breathing into the face or nostrils h^
reference to the first circulating of the blood, and suggested the practice adopted in
cases of suspended animation from drowning, or other modes of suffocation. [We have
already given our ideas on this subject.] JVrhaps so, but it shows that there are
in the Hebrew, distinct words .signifying the life, the soul, and the blood, things quite
distinct, however closely related to each other they may be. [We agree here iutoto
with the writer, and hence our humble attempt above to show that what meant soul
did not mean life, as accoiding to his views of “nefesh,” it must needs do.] — And
more that witli respc'ct to the reason for the prohibition of the eating of blood,
Mr. De Sola is labouring under a mistake. [We can scarcely consider this remark
written witli that fairness which' it is due to state, our criiic has throughout displayed.
We have as yet, merely given, not as our own opinion, but ns the opinion of cele-
brated Christian and Jewidi authorities, soineoi the reasons assigned fur the prohibi-
tion. Had our remarks on the prohibition of blood been at end, we might then be
justly charged with overlooking those reasons of most import, and more immediately
having reference to the Sanatory Institutions of the Hebrews. As will be presently
seen, we have by no means overlooked these reasons. Our critic continues,] David
did not, when lie said, “elecha adonai nafshi essa,” unto Thee, 0 Lord I lift my ‘ nefesh,’*
surely intimate that he offered only his life’s blood as a sacrifice to the Lord.”
Thus far our critic. We think that David as an Israelite might, and really did, use
the word as signifying life. And without refeience to that theological dogma in-
volved by raising this question, and upon whieh the writer and ourself necessarily
differ, we may be permitted to say that David may convey that in this word he
offers to God all he could, and which we should all offer him — the undivided earnest
devotion ofour “nefesh,” that is of our life — a mode of expression, as common to the He-
brew, as to the English, language, conveying all the functions, the source, and energies
of life. But as we are disqualified here, from entering into questions of a dogmatic
controversial character, we must beg to take a friendly leave of our critic, and
in so doing, must apologise to our readers for detaining them so long from our
main subject, which we have done only because we have been assured they were
ooncerned in the important questions this note involves.

OF THE HEBREWS.

The foregoing reasons assigned for tlie prohibition of l)lood-eating may
be considered as the moral. But it has been (radilionally held
by the Hebrew people that the prohibition of blood is also a Sanatory laWj
in other words that blood-eating is forbidden on account of the baneful
effects of the practice, physically. And we hold that sufficient intima-
tion of this is given in the sacred volume itself, irrespective of what may
be contained on the subject in the Talmud and other authoritative sour-
ces. That the practice is really a bad one in a sanatory point of
view, we think is shown, 1st, by the Scriptures 5 2ndly, by the com-
mentators; and, 3rdly, by other authorities.

1. The effects of blood eating are sliown to he •physically had by the
Scriptures. We shall quote a few passages only, thinking they are suffi-
cient to show that the fact is clearly intimated by inspiration. It is
clearly conveyed in tlce ivhole of the ceremonial laiv^ which, we presume
it will not be denied, was intended to promote the physical as well as
the moral well-being of the Hebrews. The practice is spoken of as one
that defilelh. And in the prophets it is also spoken of as a practice of
baneful effects ; one passage will perhaps suffice. In the book of the
prophet Isaiah ch. 49, v. 26, God in denouncing his heavy judg-
ments against those who oppress Israel, proclaims the following as their
awful punishment, And I will feed them that oppress thee with their
own flesh [what would be the fearful effects of eating their own flesh”
must be known to all ; in the same connexion the text immediately adds]
and they shall be drunken with their own blood as with sweet (or new)
wine.” Here the text we think clearly and aptly illustrates the effects
of blood eating, which, as has been indisputably shown by experience,
has really the same effect, when taken in quantity, as wine ; for it both
maddens and stupifies, and this, whether human blood, or the blood of
beasts. In the same way speak Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the other prophets.
And with inclination and opportunity, it would perhaps be no difficult
matter to show that among the earliest Christian churches they abstained
as “ necessary things” from ‘‘things strangled and from blood,” because
they considered the command, tending not only to promote the health
of their soul, but of their body too.

2. The ejffecU of blood eating are shown to be physically had by the

commentators. The Hebrew writers constantly and earnestly inculcate
a loathing, we might rather sa> an abhorrence, of the practice, which
they regard as destructive both to body and mind. They regard blood
as a most unwholesome article of diet, and as inducing a gross, plethoric,
and vitiated state of body Some fifteen centuries back, the Talmud,
in its concise but emphatic manner, proclaimed — and it then merely re-
peated old teachings in Israel DT u;nn — (the main cause

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

of all disease is blood.) • Again, in the same passage m
— (the main cause of all death is blood.) And again nan pnti^ nm Di
— (much blood, much scurvy.)| But as we shall presently have
occasion to call the reader’s attention to those constitutions of the Jevyish
ritual having especial reference to this subject, and as our limits therefore
will forbid our multiplying quotations, here we think it proper to state a^
once those objections with which Christian commentators hav^e supplied
us. Our limits will compel us to brevity here also, wherefore we can do no
better than to [)resent what we may regard as a digest of Christian com-
mentary supplied us by the learned Dr. Townley. A further reason we
have for doing this is to show that in the three positions he, we think
very correctly, assumes, and advances as the results of modern investiga-
tion and science, Dr. T. has been anticipated by Hebrew writers at
an age almost as early as the introduction of Christianity.J This we
may see by comparing the Talmudic quotations above with Dr. Town-
ley’s three propositions.

The first Talmudic axiom quoted, was, that the main cause of all
disease is blood,” and we maintain that is to the eating of blood this
remark refers. The observations of Dr. Townley will appear to the
candid reader to be nothing more than illustration and commentary on
these axioms, though doubtless involuntarily so on his part, for we may
be permitted to suppose that the Doctor, without any imputation on his
Rabbinical learning, which seems to be of no mean order, did not know,
or perhaps did not recollect, these Talmudic passages. We say, then, that
Dr. Townley observes — and no( with reference to the first of the Tal-
mudic axioms we have quoted, though we request the reader to compare *,

the blood being highly alkalescent^ especially in hot climates, is sub-
ject to speedy putrefaction ; and, consequently, that flesh will be most
wholesome and best answer the purposes of life and health, from which
the blood has been drained, and will preserve its suitableness for food
the longest.

Our second Talmudic quotation was, the main cause of all disease
is blood,” Dr. Townley remarks : “ 2nd. Blood affords a very gross nu-
triment, and is very difficult of digestion, and in some cases it is actually
dangerous to drink it: for if taken warm and in large quantities, it may

* Batra f. 58. b. j* Bechor. f. 44:. b.

X It may be known to the reader that there are two Talmuds in use among the
Jews. The 1st, the Talmood Yerushahni or Jerusalem Talmud, was compiled in the
year 230, according to some in the year 300, of the Christian era. This, however, is
not bo much in use, and does not contain so many legal decisions as the 2nd, the Tal-
mood Babli or Babylonian Talmud, completed about the year 500. It need scarcely
be remarked that the J alinud contains traditions which were generally acknowledged
by Jews, and were ancient even at the time of their compilation.

OF THE HEBREWS,

prove fatal, particularly bull’s blood, which was given, with this view, to
criminals by the Greeks, “ its extreme viscidity rendering it totally indi-
gestible by the powers of the human stomach.” Valerius Maximus (lib. v.
c. 6.) ascribes the death of Themistocles to his having purposely drunk
a bowl of ox blood during a sacrifice, in order to avoid subjecting his
country, Greece, to the King of Persia. It is true, the blood ot animals
does not always produce similar efiects, but this may be owing rather to
the smallness of the quantity taken, than to its not being injurious in its
nature ; or its malignity may be partially counteracted by the other diet-
etic substances with which it may be eaten.*

The third Talmudic axiom was, Much blood, much scurvy”. Dr.
Townley says 3rd. Those nations which feed largely upon flesh, are ob-
served to be remarkably subject to scorbutic diseases ; and if physicians be
right in ascribing such tendency to animal food in general when freely
eaten, especially in the hotter climates, it must be acknowledged that the
grosser and more indigestible juices of such food must have the greatest
tendency to produce such injurious consequences ; and blood as the gros-
sest of all animal juices, be the most inimical to health and soundness.!
To abstain therefore from all meat, from which the blood has not
been drained, from whatever cause the blood has been retained in the
animal, whether purposely, by strangling or otherwise, must be much
more conducive to health then by yielding to a luxurious and vitiated
taste, and adopting a contrary practice.

3. The effects of blood eating are shown to be physically bad by other
authorities. The Abbe Fleury (Moeurs des Israelites) says, the Hebrews

were forbidden to eat blood or fat, both are hard of digestion : and though
strong working people, as the Israelites, might find less inconvenience
from it than others, it was better to provide wholesome food for them,
since it was a matter of option.” Dr. Townley says, “ the divine Being
enjoined that animals destined for food should be killed with the greatest
possible despatch, their blood be poured upon the ground, and the eating
of blood religiously avoided ; and still more deservedly prohibits such
sanguinary food from its baneful influence upon the dispodtiojis of those
whose vitiated appetites or brutal superstitions led them to indulge in
gross and bloody repasts.” For as has been remarked all animals
that feed upon blood, are observed to be much more furious than
others. X Bryson (Voyage, p. 77.) tells us that the men by eating what

* Dr, A. Clarke’s commentary on Levit.xvii.il. — Michaelis’s Commentaries on
the Laws of Moses, vol. 3. art. 206, p. 262. — Revelation examined with Candour
vol .2. 23. Encyc. Perth., article Blood,

I Revelation examined with Candour,” ut sup.

X Delaney’s ‘‘ Revelation examined with Candour,” vol. ii., p. 21.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

they found raw, became tittle better than cannibah. * Further illustra-
tion of this fact we think may be found in Alexander Henry’s Travels
through Canada and the Indian Territories. In that work it is slated that

nian-eating vvaiiJ then, and always had been, practised among the Indian
nations, for the purpose of giving them courage to attack, (in other words
iosJied blood) and resolution to die, (in other words a hrutidi indifference
to death, f This extract (for which we are indebted to Priest’s Amer-
ican Antiquities,) shows us that savages at least could estimate the value
of blood eating. That ultimately it may insidiously gain ground, and
advance until men indeed become little better than cannibals^ we think
is shown in the case referred to by Baron Humboldt in his personal
narrative, he says that ‘‘ in Egypt” once, as our readers will please re-
collect, the centre of refinement; here, ‘‘in the iSlh century, five
or six hundred years ago, the habit of eating human flesh pervaded
all classes of society. Extraordinary snares were spread, for physicians
in particular. They were called to attend persons who pretended to be
sick, but who were only hungry, and it was not in order to be consulted,
but to be devoured.” Michaelis says, “ drinking of blood is certainly
not a becoming ceremony in religious worship. It \snot a very refined
custom^ and if often repeated, it might probably habituate a peoiAe to
cruelty and make litem unfeeling with regard to blood ; and certainly
religion should not give, nor even have the appearance of giving, any
such direction to the manners of a nation.”J

Having thus seen that the practice of blood-eating is one by no
means commendable, or conducive to mens sana in corpora sano we
proceed now to detail the various requirements and enactments laid
down in the Jewish ritual code — the Talmud, Maimonides and otlier
rabbinical authorities — having reference to the slaughtering of animals,
and abstinence from bU)od ; since they will best show with what reli-
gious strictness and sedulous care Israelites are required to (and in fact
do now really) exhibit to remove the possibility of their eating pro-
hibited blood. We ask the reader’s indulgence in that, hereby, we shall
have to extend considerably our remarks on this one sanatory Insti-
tution of the Hebrews ; but we think it right so to do, and shall, on
other occasions when we may have to elaborate, inasmuch as in our
introductory remarks we said that after due attention to the sacred

♦ Fergus’s Short Account of the Laws and Institutions of Moses, p. 99. note. Dun-
1^76 *4^ Marshanii, Chrouicon, sec ix, p. 185. Lipsi®,

t Medical Repository, vol. 14, pp. 261, 262.

t Michaelis 3 Com nentaiies on the Laws of Moses ; vol. iii., p. 252.

OF THE HEBREWS.

text we should ‘‘ offer such illustrations afforded both by Christian
and Jewish writers as may be within our reach or memory, and ne-
cessary to do full justice to our subject/' And since we consider that
the enactments alluded to above, should be noticed as being intimately
connected therewith : and that to the inquiring English reader
they would prove neither uninteresting nor unacceptable, we venture
DOW to exhibit what have been thought by many to demonstrate the
superstition of the rabbinical Jew, and the trifling of the Talmud, but
which, we honestly confess, we are blind enough not to perceive in
any such light. And we think that even the scientific reader, whose
religious convictions may be opposed to those of the people to whom
these enactments are addressed, will candidly assert that they are by
no means of a bad, but of a good, healthy tendency, and are not to be
despised. Indeed, many authorities high in the scientific world have
already so pronounced, as we may perhaps have occasion to show
hereafter. At present we would proceed with the task immediately
before us.

In the Mishna which is the text of the Talmud, there is a treatise
called Cholin i. e. of profane (slaughtering) thus styled in con-
tradistinction to that treatise which discourses of a’trip Kadashim^
i. e. of sacred (slaughtering) the former, with which we have now to
do, treating of the slaughtering of animals required for domestic or
secular purposes — the latter, of those devoted to sacrifice. In our ex-
tracts from this Mishnic treatise, we shall avail ourselves of the
translations and notes of the Rev. Messrs. D. A. De Sola, and Dr. M.
J. Raphall, of Dr. dost, and of the excellent Hebrew commentaries of
R. Obadiah Bartenora, and Tosephet Yom Tob and also of the Meloh
Caph Nachat appended to the Berlin edition of the Mishna, (A. M.
5593.)

The first chapter of the treatise Cholin treats of the persons qualified, the
instruments used, and the mode and place of slaughtering. We shall add a
few explanatory words within brackets. §1. All [who are well acquainted
with the laws respecting slaughtering] are permitted to slaughter [animals
allowed to be eaten, — no priest is required as in the case of sacrifices,]
and their slaughtering is ca^er. [To convey what has been properly
slaughtered, and may be lawfully eaten, we retain this rabbinical term, or
use the English word proper.’’] Deaf and dumb or demented per-
sons, or little [young] ones are, however, excepted ; because
they are liable to make mistakes in slaughtering, &c.* * < ♦
[The appointment in Jewish communities of a Shochet, or quali-

♦ The asterisks denote the omission of passages we have considered not immedi-
ately connected with our subject.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

fied slaughterer is a consequence of the requirements of the
Mishna, and where private individuals do not perform the func-
tions of the Shochet, he becomes a salaried officer of the congrega-
tion. This is almost universally the case, since the due discharge of his
duties requires much time, he having not only to see that the animal or
fowl be slain so that the blood flow from it in a proper manner, but hav-
ing carefully to exaiTiine the beasts to ascertain that their internal state
and conformation be perfectly healthy, ere he can pronounce them fit for
food ; but of this more hereafter. The second section of this chapter
directs that the slaughtering shall be performed with sharp instruments
only, prohibiting those which are at all blunt or jagged, because these
do not cut but strangle,” and they therefore not only inflict great and
unnecessary pain upon the animal, but prevent the free flow of bloody
and consequently, as is known, even affect the state of the fledi. Testimony
to the propriety and value of this enactment of the Mishna,
and proof that it, as well as those presently noticed, are good and
well calculated to secure wholesome, healthy meaty more especially with
reference to the flowing of the blood from the animal we find supplied not
only by Dr. Townley, as quoted above, but by that high authority, the
celebrated Dr. Andrew Duncan, late Professor of Medical Jurisprudence
in the University of Edinburgh. He says, The mode of killing has
considerable effect on the flesh of the animal. * * The common

mode of killing animals in this kingdom is by striking them on the fore-
head with a pole-axe, and then cutting their throats to bleed tliem. But
this method is cruel and not free from danger. The animal is not always
brought down by the first blow, and the repetition is difficult and uncer-
tain , and if the animal be not very well secured, accidents may happen*
Lord Somerville* therefore endeavoured to introduce the method of
pithing or laying cattle by dividing the spinal marrow above the origin
of the phrenic nerves, as is commonly practised in Barbary and Spain,
Portugal, Jamaica, and in some parts of England ; and Mr. Jackson
says that ‘‘ the best method of killing a bullock is by the thrusting a
sharp pointed knife into the spinal marrow when the bullock will im-
mediately fall without a struggle ; then cut the arteries above the heart.f
Although the operation of pithing is not so difficult, but that it may after
some practice be performed with tolerable certainty, and although Lord
Somerville took a man with him to Portugal to be instructed in the me-
thod, and made it a condition that the prize cattle should be pithed instead

* General Survey of the Agriculture of Shropshire. By Joseph Plymley, M. A.

8 VO., London, 1803, p. 243.

t Reflections on the Commerce of the Mediterranean. By John Jackson, Esq., F.

S. A., 8vo., London, 1804, p. 91.

OF THE HEBREWS.

of being knocked down, still pithing is not becoming general in Eng-
land. This may be partly owing to prejudice ; but we have been told
that the flesh of the cattle killed in this way in Portugal is very dark, and
becomes soon putrid, probably from the animal not bleeding well, in con-
sequence of the action of the heart being interrupted before the vessels
of the neck are divided. It therefore becomes preferable to bleed the
animal to dealh directly, as is practised by the Jewish butchers. The
Mosaic law so strictly prohibits the eating of blood that the Talmud con-
tains a body of regulations concerning the killing of animals ; and the
Jews as a point of religion will not eat the flesh of any animal not killed
by a butcher of their own persuasion. Their method is to tie all the
four feet of the animal together, bring it to the ground, nnd turning its
head back, to cut the throat at once down l o the bone with a long, very
sharp, but not pointed knife, dividing all the large vessels of the neck.
In this way the blood is discharged quickly and completely. The efiect
is indeed said to be so very obvious, that some Christians will eat no meat
but what has been killed by a Jew butcher.” Dr. Duncan further
remarks, “ Domestic birds in general are killed in a very unskilful and
barbarous manner,” and after detailing those methods, his further remarks
tend to show that those laid down and required by the Mishna is
the most merciful, and in every way the best. But for these details we
must refer the reader to the learned writer himself.* We have made
the above lengthy extract from him because it conveys our own
convictions, and in language preferable to our own, since it furnishes the
unbiassed testimony to the wisdom and principles of the directions for
slaughtering given by the Mishna of one highly esteemed in the scienti-
fic world ; one, also, who, if he have a religious leaning at all in what he
writes, cannot certainly be suspected of its being towards the ritual of
the Jews. Founded upon the same reasons, and having the same
object are the following five traditional rules which are to be
strictly observed in killing cattle or fowl, or they become Pasool,
i. e., unlawful to be used for food. In slaughtering there must not
be 1st, n”niy i. e. delay — as when a person cuts a little of the throat of the
animal, then stops, and cuts again, and continues in the same manner till
the act of killing is completed. 2nd. non i. e. pressure, — when the cut-
ting was effected by pressure only, without passing the knife to and fro
on the animals throat; or cutting oflf the head or tubes by a single stroke,
using the knife like a hatchet or sword. 3rd. mVn i. e. concealment,

vvhen the knife was covered with any thing ; for instance, if it was

covered or hidden by the wool of the animal, or by a cloth, or that it

See Encyclopoedia Brittanica Art. Food.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

was passed between the tubes, and the killing completed by cutting the
tubes either upwards or downwards. 4th. noun i> e, deviation^ — when
the cutting has been beyond the bounds or limits on the throat of the
animal, and it was made either above or below these limits indicated by
the Mishna. 5th. nipr L e. tearing^ — when the tubes of any of them had
been forcibly torn away before the act of killing was completed. (For
more detailed particulars the Hebrew reader is referred to the Talmud,
Treatise Cholin p. 9., and Maimonides chap. iii. of Hilchoth Shechitdhy
in vol. ii. of Yad Hachazakah. Grounded upon these reason also are the
immediately following directions in §3 and in the following Mishnic sec-
tions.] §4. An animal which was slaughtered by being cut at either side of
the throat is Cashfer. ♦ * If an animal was cut from the neck downwards,
[that is, if the incision was made on the top of the neck, through the
vertebra before the knife reached the oesophagus and trachea,] it becomes
unlawful for use. * * An animal which is cut below the throat is

Cash6r. * * Chapter ii., § 1. When one of the pipes [i. e. the

trachea] has been cut through in killing fowl, and both [the trachea and
oesophagus] in killing cattle they are Casher, [but are only so when it has
thus happened unpremeditatedly, for it is necessary to commence the
act of slaughtering with the intention of cutting through both tubes. For
the purpose of securing a perfect flow of blood, the following remark of
R. Yehudah is directed.] It is necessary that in killing fowl the veins
at the sides of the throat should also be cut through. [With the same intent,
come the concluding requirements of this section.] If but one half [of
the trachea] is cut through in fowl, and one and a-half [i. e. the trachea,
and half of the oesophagus] in cattle, it is unfit ; but if the greater part
of one tube is cut through in fowl and the greater part of the two, in cat-
tle, it is Cashfer.”

Here we conclude, for the present, our quotations from the treatise

Cholin, ’’ having exhibited in them the principal directions and re-
quirements of the Mishna, concerning that part of slaughtering which
has reference to the extraction of the animals blood, and which as we
have before seen, has so much to do with the healthiness of the meat.
We shall have occasion again to refer to this treatise when examining
other matters connected with our main subject. And now in accord-
ance with the plan laid down, * we will endeavor to supply a synopsis
of those further rabbinical regulations and directions for the avoid-
ance of blood-eating, and stale the penalties resulting from infringe-
ment or neglect of this sanatory law. The Yad Hachazakah of Mai-
monides contains such a synopsis,! and we will now endeavor briefly
to scan it.

♦Vide page 26.

fVide vol. 2, Book 5, ch. 6. Trtaii^t oti Forbidden Food.

OF THE HEBREWS,

Maimonides writes, § 1 — He who wilfully eats of blood of [the
quantity of] an olive, incurs the penalty of excision, [Lev. vii. 26-27]
but if through error, he becomes liable to the bringing of an appointed
sin offering. The law explains that he becomes not liable but for all
blood of beasts [ wild and domestic] and of fowl, whether clean or un-
clean, as it is said, “And all blood shall you not eat in all your
habitations, whether of fowl or of beast (behemah). Wild animals are
included here in the term ^ behemah,’ for we find it elsewhere said
[Deut. xiv. 4-5] These are the beasts (habehemah) which ye may eat,
the ox, &c., the hart and the roebuck &c., but to the blood of fish, locusts,
insects and the like, the above law applies not ; wherefore the blood
of fish locusts, &c., which are clean is permitted. * * * But of those

which are unclean it is forbidden, because it forms the main substance of
their body ; and it is with their flesh as with the fat of the unclean
beast. § 2. Human blood is prohibited from the authority of the
Scribes ; an infringement of this prohibition subjects the offender to
the flogging of rebellion*. § 3. The penalty of excision applies only
to that blood which issues at the time of slaughtering, or drawn while
it yet retains its red particles ; to that blood which has entered the
heart, and to that which results from phlebotomy, and yet issues forth ;
but that which issues at the beginning of the bleeding, and that which
appears when the flow begins to cease, these do not cause the penalty
of excision, but are in this respect like the blood of members, since
that which flowed through the bleeding, was the vital blood. § 4. The
substantial blood and blood of the members, such as of the spleen,
kidneys, &c., of eggs, and that found in the heart at the
time of slaughtering, as also blood found in the liver, does not create
the penalty of excision, and he who eats thereof, even a quantity equal
to an olive, incurs according to the divine law the penalty of castigation,

*As emphatically exhibiting the extreme care and scrupulousness to be em-
ployed by Jews in refraining from blood-eating, we might have quoted above,
the following words of Maimonides in the same paragraph, — ^‘but to eat the
blood from the teeth (gums,) is of course not preventible ; thus, if he bites into a
piece of bread and observes there blood (from the gums) he cuts away that part
and afterwards eats.” Thus writes Maimonides. Another celebrated Jewish Doctor
Menasseh Ben Israel, whilst engaged in the days of Cromwell to secure the return
of his people to England, in adverting to the ignorant and fanatic prejudice which
had been raised against them for using human blood to make their Passover
cakes,” says, ( Vindicioe J udoeorum sec.l. See Samuels, J erusalem,” by Mendelsohn,
vol. 1. p. 5.) ‘‘ And more than this, if they find one drop of blood in an egg, they
(the Jews) cast it away as prohibited; and if in eating a piece of bread, it happens
to touch any blood drawn from the teeth or gums, it must be pared and cleansed
from the said blood, as it evidently appears from Shulchan Aruch and our ritual
book, <fec.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

for it is said ^ ye shall eat no blood.’ Aad with reference to the penalty
of excision, the text saith, ‘ for the life of the flesh is in the blood,’ im-
plying that excision is only incurred by eating of that blood with
which the life went forth. The blood of a foetus found in the uterus
of any animal is to be accounted as the blood of one born, therefore
the blood found in its heart causes the penalty of excision, but the
rest of its blood is to be accounted as the blood of members. In § 6
particular directions are laid down for extracting the blood from the
heart, which, being so to speak, the blood-pump of the wondrous
mansion in which it resides, requires such particular directions. In § 7
are given directions for extracting the blood from the liver, so that
it may escape freely and not be retained by anything. In § 9 we
find that if the neck of a beast become broken, before it dies the blood
becomes unduly absorbed in the members, and then it is prohibited ;
if, however, in killing (healthy) animals or fowl, no blood issues, they
are lawful for food. The following directions are worthy of note, as
being now actually observed by the great body of Jews in every part
of the world, even by that comparatively small portion of them who
do not generally guide themselves by rabbinical teachings, but who
yet observe these we are about to mention, as good, propm:, and whole-
some practices. How far they are calculated to procure to these ob-
servers good, wholesome meat, may be decided by reference to Doctor
Duncan above quoted, and to other writers. § 10. Meat cannot be
considered as free from blood unless it have been duly salted and ex-
pressed after the following manner. The blood must first be drawn
from the meat, which is then to be carefully salted, and is to remain in
salt for a time (not less) than that consumed in walking a mile, [half
an hour to an hour is the time observed by Jewish families] after-
wards it is to be drained until the water which runs from it is clear,
when it is to be placed in water before using. § 11. The salting
process should only be carried on in a perforated vessel [cullender,] so
that the blood escape, and then with coarse salt, since fine becomes
imbibed in the flesh, but does not extract the blood.”

Were it consistent with our limits, and necessary to our subject,
we might by further quotations shew even more clearly the scrupu-
lousness of the Hebrews in abstaining from blood. We might de-
scribe the diligence and care employed by them in purging from their
meat, before eating, all veins and arteries, without which process, the
meat would be considered as improper for food, and as so much car-
rion. But we tliink it enough to inform the reader of these facts, and
to refer him to the books already mentioned for further details. For
now we would bring our remarks on the prohibition of blood to a

OF THE HEBREWS.

close. These few considerations however, we would urge in conclu-
sion — The Hebrew people for thousands of years, even before those
glorious days when their great Moses lived and moved among Ihera
have been in a most remarkably scrupulous manner observant of this
prohibition. They have regarded the eating of blood as an abomination,
and as a loathsome practice; as a practice, which, if much indulged in,
would cause them to think lightly even of the blood of their fellow-men.
And what, to them, have been the results of this, nationally ^ and after
so very long a space of time ? — for it is only by referring to them as a
nation, and to the longest period to which we can look back, that the
question ought to refer, and that we ought to judge it. In the re-
marks we have made upon this sanatory law, as it undoubtedly is, of
the Hebrews, we have deemed it proper briefly to show that scientific
writers of the highest reputation have proved, that the wholesomeness
of animal food has much to do with the extraction or non-extraction of
the vital stream, and that, as a consequence, our own health is, in no
inconsiderable degree, dependant thereupon. Let us now ask, whether
their abstinence from blood through ages has at all made the Hebrews
physically speaking, a less healthy or favored people than those who
do not so abstain, and whether they do not rather present the most
powerful and conclusive testimony in support of those writers who
contend for the utility and importance of the prohibition — writers
whose humble disciple, apart from our peculiar religious convictions,
we profess to be. These queries we make without stopping to insist
upon their comparative exemption from that class of diseases from
which, they ought, as a consequence of their abstinence, to be free,
but to which those who unreservedly indulge in such gross indigesti-
ble nutriment should be subject; nor do we stop to insist upon the
probability of their being less likely to become legitimate objects for
the attacks of epidemics, &c., than those who are less careful than
they in this regard, and in the general healthiness of their animal food;
but we go on to remark, that although our limits as well as our in-
clination, have caused us to confine the number of our references and
authorities, still, we think we have adduced sufiicient respectable testi-
mony to show, that blood-eating exercises a decidedly baneful in-
fluence on the disposition’’ and minds of men. Christian writers
have uniformly endeavored to show — with what success we need not
here inquire, that the rabbinical traditions are but little older than
Christianity. Supposing this to be the case, and confining our re-
trospective view of the mental condition of the Hebrew people
to nineteen centuries, let us ask, and let the reader decide in all
candor, whether that, by all acknowledged, wondrous activity and

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

elasticity of intellect which has ever characterised them; which has
enabled them, under God, to bear up against persecution the most in-
tense, and slaughter the most bloody ; to withstand like an impreg-
nable fortress, those destructive causes and events which have swept
away nations more numerous, more powerful, and in every way more
prosperous than they — have swept them away so that scarcely a ves-
tige remains of them;- — let us ask, whether this, and their equally ac-
knowledged exemption from the commission of those fearful deeds of
violence and bloodshed, which are but too frequently the result of an
artificially-formed brutish organisation and instincts; of a superinduced
animalism, which is but too surely the offspring of unrestrained indul-
gence in matters dietetic; whether these facts prove that the prohi-
bition of blood and other articles of diet has acted injuriously to
them, or whether they do not present testimony valuable and con-
clusive for those advocates of total abstinence from blood-eating who
show that the mind, equally with the body, must at last suffer from
the practice. We humbly claim for these questions the same indulgent
and serious consideration^ which thinking and good men who are well-
wishers of their fellows have very properly extended to that great moral
movement — the total abstinence from intoxicating drinks. The percep-
tive faculties may become clouded, men may become drunken with
blood-drinking” also, sailh the prophet ; and were the ill effects of the
latter so immediately perceivable, and its opponents as numerous, and as
zealous, as are the advocates of the former movement, then would there

♦ We have seen with as much surprise as regret, that an able writer should des-
cend to treat lightly a question which has had for its supporters so many master
minds — advocates as pious and amiable as they were learned ; of course we can
have but little to say to remarks conceived in such a spirit, but this much we would
observe. To select the Canadian habitants with whose unrestrained addiction to
blood-eating we are sufficiently acquainted, as a proof of the non -injuriousness of the
practice, we deem singularly unfortunate, though not for our assertion above made
with reference to its effects, mentally. We only speak, as we can only speak, be it
remembered, of the testimony afforded by nations after the lapse of a long period of
time, say of centuries, and thus it will be perceived that we only speak of blood-
eating as being an element — how powerful, who shall say when it is so announced
and condemned by inspiration — of decay and destruction in a nation. With indi-
vidual cases the question has nothing to do — we will not, nor did we ever maintain
that with reference to these, the practice is a bad one; but to return. The Canadian
habitants are doubtless, a worthy, happy, contented, and so far as creature com-
forts, and, perhaps, business transactions, are concerned, an acute people, yet
few would charge them with too much intellectuality, enterprise, or with a too
free spirit of inquiry either in matters spiritual or secular. Of course with other
nations there may be, and indeed are, other causes and agencies, educational espe-
cially, to counteract this serious error in diet ; just as it has been shown other dietetic
substances may counteract the ill effects of eating blood, in the individual system.

OF THE HEBREWS.

doubtlessly exist in many men’s minds the same antipathy against the one
usage, as for the abuse of the other. But be this as it may, this much ap-
pearsevident and sure to us with reference to the ideas and sentiments of
the people whom tlie question at present most concerns. We believe it
unquestionable that irrespective of the in>uperable religious objections
they have to blood eating, the conviction is deeply rooted and generally
felt among all Israelites, that would they not snap asunder one of the most
powerful links in their national union and preservation, but would they
maintain the undying vigor of their race — would they exempt their
bodies from gross scorbutic humors and affections, and their minds
from those passions and tendencies which weaken what is strong, de-
press what is exalted, degrade what is elevated, and brutalise what is
divine, — then they must not lightlj^ esteem, but strictly and religiously
observe and respect the Prohibition of Blood.

CHAPTER III.

OF BEASTS CLEAN AND UNCLEAN.

What has just been remarked as to the convictions and usages of
the Hebrew people with reference to the Prohibition of Blood, mainly
applies to their abstinence from the flesh of such animals as are pro-
nounced by the Scriptures and their ritual code to be «dio (tameh)
unclean, (assur) prohibited, or nsiiD (terefa) torn. As will be

presently seen, their traditions and authoritative writings ascribe moral,
as well as hygienic, reasons for the Mosaic distinction of animals, and
for the institution of those directions and enactments which lead them
to reject as impure and unhealthy, such species of animal food as are
comn^only and unhesitatingly received by other nations, as ordinary
and acceptable articles of diet. We have already made slight allusion
to the fact, that as early as the days of Noah, a distinction of ‘‘ clean
beasts” and beasts which are not clean”* was made and known. But

* “ A remarkable instance of circumlocution,” says Raphall, “ cited as a proof of
the extreme purity of mind of the sacred author, who uses these three words to
avoid saying (temeah) which in the Hebrew, does not simply express the negation
of clean, as do the corresponding negatives in other language, viz : the Greek
aJeathartos, the Latin impurus, the French immonde^ the Spanish hnmundoy tho
Italian immondoy the German unreiny the Sweedish oreeUy the Danish oreliny the
English uncleauy the Polish eniezgote, <fcc., but has a positive meaning, the counter-
sense of n'T'nD (teliorah) cleany and the extreme counter-sense of wnp (kadosh) holy ;
and denotes a moral as well as physical state, which in any other language, we
want an analogous single word to express.”

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

we shall not stop now to discuss at all that very debatable question,
whether the distinction of animals here referred to, is identical with that
made in Leviticus,* and if so, being known and observed, equally
with the prohibition to eat blood, by the Noachidoe, — whether these two
laws can now lay claim to other than Jewish attention and observance;
— whether the terms clean”and “ unclean” refer simply and respective-
ly to those animals which were used or rejected for sacrifices, or
whether, as Jahn seems to thinkf the distinction only conveys that
before the deluge, the flesh of animals was converted into food ; — these
being perhaps purely theological questions, which, however interesting,
we may not stop here, to entertain.^ We merely remind our readers that
in addition to this distinction, a further one is made (ch. viii, v. 20,) with
reference to fowls, and will proceed with them to the eleventh chapter
of Leviticus where we find not only general rules of discrimination laid
down, but also a catalogue given of various oviparous and viviparous
creatures, forbidden to Israel throughout their generations. This chap-
ter we propose to examine at length, availing ourself of such expositions
and illustrations as, in the first place, the Hebrews themselves afford us ;
and secondly, of such as are supplied us by Christian commentators.
And in this course, our attention will be necessarily directed among
others to the following important points: —

First, The general directions for discrimination supplied ;

Secondly, The nomenclature of the animals and their nature; and

Thirdly, Their prohibition ; having reference to authority and reason.

The chapter commences with the law of discrimination respecting

* We learn that Noah “ took of every clean beast and of every clean
fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar ” This circumstance has much to do
with the origin of the opinion respecting the use and meaning of the term “ clean, ^
as applied thus early to animals, though it would seem to furnish a powerful argu-
ment against the assumption that it refers to such animals only as were used for
sacrifices ; since from this passage we are almost obliged to conclude that the dis-
tinction was known to Noah, before he made his sacrifice, for whieh he selected,
Philipson (A pud De Sola and Raphall’s Translation of the Scriptures) seems
to incline to tliis opinion, when he says : “ It is natural to make a distinction between
animals proper to be offered as a sacrifice to the Deity, and such as are improper
for that purpose, including all that are carnivorous. This distinction we find esta-
bli shed among all ancient nations.”

f See his “ Biblical Archceology” § 136, p. 147, Ed. Andover, 1827.

Perhaps Rashi’s gloss on Gen. vii, 2, may be considered as encmciatory of
Jewish tradition and opinion on this question. On the words “ of all clean beasts,”
he says, n-nn m mrs'? Vxiir'b mino nrnb m'nyn “ That is, which are

hereafter to be considered clean by all Israel. Hence we learn, that the Eternal taught
the law to Noah.” i. e. anticipated to him a subsequent revelation to Moses.

Ot tHD HEBREWS.

beasts. (Verse 1) ‘‘ The Eternal spake unto Moses and unto Aaron,
saying unto them, V. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel saying, These
are the beasts * which ye may eat from [among] all the beasts that are
on the earth. V. 3. Whatever parteth the hoof and is cloven footed
and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that may ye eat. V. 4. Never-
theless these may ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or of them
that divide the hoof ; the camel, ^c.” Here follows an enumeration of
various beasts to be noticed hereafter ; we proceed to the 9th verse
which contains the distinctive signs of permitted fishes. These may
ye eat of all that are in the waters ; whatsoever hath fins and scales
in the waters, in the sea and in the rivers, them may ye eat. V. 10.
And all that have not fins not scales in the seas and in the rivers, of all
that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters;
they shall be an abomination unto you.’’ This much of the distinctive
signs of permitted and prohibited fishes. For birds there are no distinctive
signs given ; but we are told, V. 20, all fowls that creep going upon all
four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet, these may ye eat, of every
flying, creeping thing that goeth upon all four which have legs above
their feet to leap withal upon the earth ; even these of them ye may eat,
the locust, &c., V. 23. But all other flying, creeping things, which have
four feet shall be an abomination unto you.’^ In verse 27, we find
further that, whosoever goeth upon his paws among all manner of
beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you, &c.” Such are
the general rules for discrimination, supplied us by the Scriptures, And
before giving a closer attention to them, it becomes us to admit with
Fleury, that it was not pecuHar to the Hebrews, to abstain from certain
animals cut of a religious prir.ciple, for the neighbouring people did the
same. Neither the Syrians nor the Egyptians eat any fish ; and some
have thought it was superstition, that made the ancient Greeks not eat it.
The Egyptians of Thebes, would eat no mutton, because they worshipped
Ammon under the shape of a ram,t but they killed goafs. In other
places, they abstained from goats flesh, and sacrificed sheep. The Egyp-
tian priests used no meat nor drink imported from foreign countries, f
and as to the product of their own, besides fish, they abstained from
beasts that have a round foot, or divided into several toes, or that have
no horns, and birds that live upon flesh. Many would eat nothing that
had life ; and in the times of their purification, they would not touch so
much as eggs, herbs, or garden stuff. None of the Egyptians would eat

* From the wording of this text, which is strictly in the present tense, sin-
gular number, and means literally, This is the living creature’’ or beast, Rashi
says that Moses exhibited to the people all the various creatures he mentions.

f Herod* ii. t Porphyr. Abstin. iv.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

beans/ They accounted swine unclean ; whoe\^er touched one,
though in passing by, washed himself and his clothes. Socrates, in hi&
commonwealth, reckons eating swine’s fle.-h among the superfluous
things introduced by luxury.f Every one knows that the Indian
Brahmins, still, neither eat nor kill any sort of animal ; and it is certain
they have not done it for more than two thousand years.

But if there be nothing peculiar in the Israelites, at the command of
Moses, abstaining from the flesh of certain animals from religious motives
there is yet that which we shall find original, wise and salutary in this
Mosaic prohibition. We ought not to commence any such investigation,
however, until, in accordance with the advice which the learned
Mendelssohn gives, we first fix the coirect sense of some of the most
important terms connected with our present subject, and which to avoid
misconception and confusion, we shall endeavor to ascertain ; yet, as
some may regard such inquiries, which will be almost exclusively philo-
logical, as neither necessary nor interesting ; we will present them in the
form of notes, to be read or to be passed over at pleasure, for tliat which
they may regard as having more to do with the main subject..*

• Herod, ii.

f Plato ii Rep

X n'n and nnnn Behemahj In verse 2 of the 11th chapter of Leviticu^r
the Anglican translation renders Zot hachayah by “ These are the beasts,’^
Behemahj in the same verse, is also translated, beasts.” The Spanish Jewish
translators, Menasseh Ben Israel, Serrano, Fernandes and Diaz, translate hachayah j
we think with better taste, by animales and behemah by quadropea. De Reyna,
however, generally so correct, here renders both by animales. ^Mendelssohn’s Ger-
man Jewish translation has respectively ihiere and thiercn, which, according to
Weber, may mean either animal^ beast j or quadruped; and so has the German
Christian translators. But the Targum of Onkelos has for the first ND'n ; (chayta)
for the second (bengira.) All leixicographers of note agree in deriving it

from the root n'n (chayoh) to live. Among them, R. David Kim chi (Shorashim),
So also Furst, who says it means quidquid vivitj animal, de feris potUsimum;
so too, Gesenius, who explains it as implying the beasts of the field, often opposed
to tame animals (behemah) Gen. 1.24, but sometimes including them, Lev. 11. 2-
So Newman. Leigh, in his learned Critica Sacra” and his French translator
DeWolzogue, are of the same opinion. But Parkhurst, perhaps more correctly^
thinks the primary meaning of the root to denote vigor, power ; he says as the
noun it includes birds, beasts and reptiles, Gen. viii. 17, exclusive oJ‘ fish and
fowl, Gen, 1. 28, but frequently a wild beast as being more vigorous and lively
than the tame species, Gen. i. 25. The Aruch from the Gemara of Cholin
shows us (as did Maimonidcs in the extract elsewhere taken from him) that
chayah is sometimes included in the term behemah and vice versa, behemah in
the term chayah. And Rashi, in his comment on this verse, calls our attention
to the same lact. In the Hebrew commentary to that edition of the Pentateuch,
known as Mendlessohn’s* we find the following remarks by that able gramr

•Ed. Berlin, 1832.

OF THE HEBREWS.

The result of such a critical examination of the text would be to
establish, first, as regards beasts, that all which possess hoofs that are
cloven or bifurcated, that is, which are clearly and unmistakably divided
into two parts or hoofs, and which also and at the same time, chew
the cud, or ruminate, are to be accounted as clean and proper for food ;

marion Herts Wessely. The word cJiaya includes all species (genera) man,
beast, fowl and reptile ; since all tJiese possess a living being (ncfesh cliaya). In proof
of this we find Gem i. ‘ Let the earth bring forth every living creature (nefesh
ohaya) after its kind, beasts, reptiles and the beasts of the earth, after its kind.’
The first {nefesh chaya) is the general expression ; ^ beasts, reptiles, and beasts of
the earth’ is the particularisation thereof. The meaning of the text here, then, is
^ This is the living creature which you may eat of all creatures having a living being
or ^ existence.^ In the derivation of behcinahj tlie Hebrew grammarians concur, also
referring it to the Arabic, or rather Ethiopic bahm, which means to be silent, dumb.
It occurs not as a verb in Hebrew*. As a noun Furst says it means bestia domestica
quae opponitur ferce chd,y ^ijuinentay greges et omne omnino domesticum pp.cus,’^ Ac-
cording to David Levy, Gesenius and Newman, it denotes tame cattle if in opposition
to chaya ; and large cattle when in opposition to mikneh, (small cattle) ; Parkhurst
gives its meanings 1. — Any brute, opposed to man. 2. — Any terrestrial quadruped,
viviparous and of some size. 3. — A tame animal. Eaphall says “ In the Hebrew^,
beheraah” is used for domestic animal, and chayah” wild animal. Some,
however, are of opinion that all herbivorous animals, whether domestic or wild, are
called ‘‘behemah,’’and that all carnivorous animals are designated by ^^chaytih,” Men-
delssohn. We give the comment in Mendlessohn’s Pentateuch (by Herts Wessely)
on the w^ord occurring Lev. xi., All living creatures are included in the term
nefesh chaya, even man, since it is said man became a nefesh chaya or living
being. Wherefore, in speaking of the w'ild beasts of the forest, &c., an adjective,
predicate or attribute is to be used. Thus we say, chaya rangah evil or ferocious
beast, as Jacob in Gen. 37, so chayat hasadeh field-beast. Lev. xxvi . ; so too chayat
haarets, beasts of the earth Gen. i. ; chayat yangar forest-beasts, Isa. 26. The
term is especially applied to ferocious predatory creatures because of their e.xtreme
strength and vigor, while domestic animals are termed “ behemah.” Be it known
also that “ behemaJi” (is a common noun, and) includes all the species of animals
walking earth, man excepted ; as we find in Psalm xxxvL, “ Man and beasts (be-
hemah) wilt thou save, O, Lord,” where it includes wild and domestic creatures ; so
also in 1 Samuel, ch. xvii. the fowl of heaven, and beasts (behemah) of the field,
&c., &:e.” The above shows us, as would also some slight acquaintance with Hebrew
writers, that chaya means generally, though not always, wild beasts, and behemah,
domestic

Maphreset and nDn3 Par salt correctly rendered in the Anglican version,
divide th the hoof.” All grammarians refer the root of these two words to
(Paros) or with a u' (seen) W"iS), meaning to break or to divide. Thus we have
Furst and Buxtorf, giving the significations of the verb. \.f ranger e. 2. dividere\
and of the noun, pars fvndem, acuta ad scindendum et effodienduin (syn. ungula)
nueus, unguis, ungula (Klaue Huf) non de fissa solum quee nD*)So nD'iS) nominatur
^ed utraque utpote ad inuncandum destinata, As a noun, the hoof of such

animals whether divided before, as the ox, sheep, goat, hog, Dent. xiv. 4-8, or
^Sivided only belimd as the horse,” — Paxkliurst Mem ben Israel and Fernandee

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

and as such, may be used by the Hebrews. This will be further seen
by the examination following of some of their most eminent and
authoritative writers. We commence by translating from the commen-
tary of the learned and elegant Abarbanel on the 11th chapter of
Leviticus.

translate unan una ; De Reyna — animal de pemno ; Serrano — qui tiene pesano.
The German translators, — Klaaen Spaltct. Herts Wessely makes on these words
the following remarks : “ Rashi maintains that the meaning of Maphreset is as
given in the Targum of Onkelos, viz : np-’TD (sedica) dividing^ that Parsah is syno-
nimous with Plante (in French) and that Shossangat Shessang means the hoof
being divided above and beneath into two claws or nails — as the Targum has it,
ocantalpha teelpeen^ [cloven footed] for that there are some animals
having their hoofs divided above, but not completely divided, being joined be-
neath.” According to this explanation of Rashi, Maphreset and Parsah have not
the same meaning ; since Maphreset implies division, as in Danl. v., and Parsah
means the sole of the foot. If it be affirmed, that according to the opinion of our
Rabbi, that every hand or foot having divided fingers or claws be called Parsa,
then should the human hand also be so called. Rashbam, however, explains the
terms as implying one perfect hoof, like a shoe, and not as conveying nails or claws
upon each finger like the shafan and arnebet have, and Shossanget Shessang implies
the division of the hoof into two, and its not being one, as in the case of the horse and ass.
According to this explanation, which I adopt, the text teaches what here follows : —

* Every beast which, from its birth, divideth the hoof, having on its foot a shoe-like
hoof covering the foot, and is fm ther divided in such a manner as to present the ap-
pearance of two hoofs, may be regarded as clean fur food ; and I am of opinion that
the foot having a shoe-like hoof, is what is called in the sacred tongue Pa r^a, because
it (the hoot) covers the foot, and is synonimous with oopharesu in the passage
oopharesu hasimlah (they shall spread the garment), Deut. xx 2. Nuna. iv. <fcc. So
when the word Paras occurs either with sheen or samech it means to spread^
since these letters [being included by Hebrew grammarians in one class] fre-
quently interchange with each other. But Radak in his Shorashim Radix Paras
says, that even if written with a seen the word Paros has always for its radical mean-
ing to ait, and it is thus used metaphorically to express pangs of the body through
sorrow, (Jer. xiv, Sam. 1.) This, however, is not my opinion ; but I believe they all
convey the idea of spreading. See 2nd Chr. vi. Ex. 37 ; and with reference to all the
passages cited by Kimchi, 1 remark that in cases of deep grief, it occurs that the
•ufferers spread forth their hands ; so the cloth is spread on the table for food in the
case of the mourner. Perusa and Paros, (with Samech) is Chaldaic, as in Daniel
(loc. cit.) According to my explanation, then, it is not propter to apply the term
P arsah to the sole of the foot, generally, but to those animals only which have a
shoe-like hoof covering the foot, as in the case of the ox, ass, horse, <!:c. But the
sole of the foot of other animals which liave toes or claws, and upon every toe a
nail, is not called Parsa in the scriptures on any one occasion. See Isa. v. 28^
Jer. xlvii. Ex. xxii <kc.” The learned Mendelssohn in a note to this comment of
Wessely adopts his ideas, and changes his German translation in accordance there-
with. We are bold enough, however, to dissent from such high authorities, and
after deliberation are yet of opiinion that ihe primary idea of the word Paros is to
divide, as it has been given by almost all lexicographers, and by the ancient He-

OF THE HEBREWS.

He writes — “Every animal having hoofs, and this hoof split or
divided into two, possesses the first requisite of the text ; the second
requisite is, that the animal chew the cud, or ruminate. Poss-
essing these two conditions, it is clean, and permitted to be eaten. It
is not, however, the intention of the text to imply that these requisites
render the animal, clean per se^ or their absence, unclean se\ but it

brew Commentators. R. Wesselj’s idea of “ the cloth” in the passage

referred to, we cannot but think exceedingly fanciful, and not warranted by a
knowledge of Eastern customs ; besides spreading, especially in the case par-
ticularly mentioned, is only dividing the folds, and placing flat, the garment pre-
served in a folded form by the wifes parents. So the hands being held out in grief
is merely an elaboration of the primary meaning of the root, since they then
become divided from the body, as compared to their position, or separated, when
in a state of rest. But we must not continue longer this inquiry. We will only
say that Serrano in his Spanish Jewish version, (A. M. 5465) which it is probable
Wessely follows, already translates in accordance with such an opinion, since he
has — “qui tiene pesuno y este pesuno hendido en diffcrcntes”

Shossangat and Skessang. These words are by all referred to the
root Shassong which means to cleave or divide. ^^Incidere, discindere velut de ungulix
animalium divisis quae a pedis parte posterior e connexoe sunt — Furst. Finder e.
Diffiud. Discind, Bijldum, Bijidatum esse^ — Buxt. “ This word is applied to those
animals that are cloven footed, i e. whose hoofs are not only divided into two parts
or claws, but those two claws cleft from each other without any connecting mem-
brane — Park. It is rendered by the Spanish Jewish translators — y hendien hcndedura
de unas, or, qui tiene lospesunos hedidos.

nbgo Mangalat and Gerah. The root of the first word all agree to be
ngaloh, to ascend ; in Hiphil, ascendere faciens ; Gerah is also generally admitted to
mean the cud, rumen, the contents of the stomach which the animal chews again.
In opposition to many, Furst derives it from Gerar, “ significatio — ruminatio
pabulum Tuminatum in phrasi, Gerah Gerar de cibi retractione atque reciproca-
tioner So also Gesenius who makes it (Lev. xi. 7) to be the future tense NiphaL
It means strictly, says Parkhurst, to stir or raise up the cud from the rumen or
first stomach, Deut. xiv. 8. Veloh Gerah., according to either translation the n (he)
in gerah agreeing with chazeer., masc must here be radical — Parkhurst. The fol-
lowing, cited by the Moosaph Hearuch, furnishes additional Talmudic exposition,
The references are to Mish. ch. 2 of Yomah, andch. 3 of Tamid. nn'inu^ mpoD

. inK OIK ^^K "Ok Kim ninn "tjdd Kim K“»p3 ig Wessely in

his comment, after explaining the term to be chewing the cud, calls attention
to the remark of Kimchi, who says the root of Gerah is probably identical
with the noun, but refers it to the Kephulim, or verbs having a duplicate radical,
from its aflSnity to Garon and Gargeret, After quoting Kashi’s Gloss on these
words, he approves the opinion which refers it to the root Gerar, the Gimmel re-
ceiving Tsere to compensate for the omission of Dagesh in the Resh, Then, after dissent-
ing from Rashi’s views respecting the word Gerirah, he adds, Mangaleh Gerah
means the reascension of the rumen and its remastication and deglutition, accord-
ing to the translation of Onkelos who renders it by K"iws KpDD [Maska Phishrah]
Pishra being the Chaldaic for cud, as Gerah is the term applied to the ascending
rumen in animals which are clean.”

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

teaches us, that these are the signs by which we are to pronounce the
animal clean for man’s food, or the reverse ; that is, that the flesh of
the animals possessing these requisites, is, for the most part, proper and
good for man’s diet. Thus, the reason why animals chew the cud, is,
that they have no grinders [incisor.sj in the upper jaw, wherewith duly
to grind or masticate their food ; and on which account they are unable
to eat any hard substance but vegetable matter which they swallow
whole, and which, when softened in the stomach through the natural
heat, &c., is regurgitated into the throat again, for further mastication
and deglutition. Animals of this order are mostly obese and best
adapted to become food for man, since they can find their food at all
times and in all places ; their fat also, is, comparatively speaking,
better distributed than with other classes of animals, because they feed
upon vegataiion, both green and dry, which does not yield gross
nutriment; — such animals are not ferocious nor predaceous. In addition
to this, they possess a broad and divided hoof; wherefore they do not
require claws like those beasts which prey upon human beings or other
animals; which kind of food produces in these latter, a hot dry tempera-
ment and cruel disposition: * but the former ‘ walk the earth’ eating the
produce of the field. In this connexion we have to remark that the
prophet Isaiah (upon whom be peace) shows us that at the time of
the future redemption, “ the lion shall eat straw like the oa:,” on which
account “ they shall not hurt nor destroy,” and that ‘‘ the wolf shall
dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
and the cow and the bear shall feed together because the preying on
flesh and blood is [both] the cause [and effect] of their objectionable
temperament, and of their trampling upon and seizing what they
require. Nature, on this account, has prepared for them claws and
fitting grinders to tear their food; but for the clean animals, whose
food is the grass of the field, she has prepared divided and broad
hoofs, as their manner of walking on the earth to gather their food
therefrom requires; nor has she bestow^ed on them grinders or incisors
since these are not required for vegetable food.” Abarbanel next
proceeds to remark on some of the beasts mentioned in the sacred text,
which will be herealter noticed. We will continue some further
observations of this celebrated Jewish commentator, having a closer
connexion with those just quoted: thinking that our readers will not
be uninterested to see, for the first time in an English dress, the contin-
uation of what we may regard as a brief Hebrew treatise on Zoology,

* Compare this remark of Abarbanel with what has been advanced by modern
scientific writers as to the effects of blood-eating. See also p 26.

OF THE HEBREWS.

which, although republished b 3 '’ Don Isaac Abarbanel some three
centuries and a half past only, was actually taught in the schools of the
Hebrews some fifteen centuries back ; for our author advances nothing
that is not to be found in the Talmud, and as we have elsewhere said,
the Talmud is a mere compilation of ancient teachings in Israel. But
prior to continuing the Rabbi’s remarks, let us make a few of our own
on what has been already advanced from him. The reader will, doubt-
less, readily perceive their pertinency to the main question, since they
involve inquiries elucidatory of the nature of the clean and unclean
animals.

We observe, in the first place, a remarkable identity in the
definitions of the ruminating animals as given by Aharbanel and the
Talmud, and by modern naturalists. Let us compare his definitions
with those of the illustrious and world-renowned Cuvier. In his
Regne Animal, he gives the following definition of the. Ruminantia,
which he says may be considered as an order very distinct of the
Mammalia — the first class into which vertebrate animals are divided.

The order of the Rurainantia is characterized by its cloven feet, by
the absence of the incisors to the upper jaw, and by having four
stomachs.” The identity of definition is immediately perceived ; for
though in the quotation we have just made, Abarbanel only indirectly
refers to the four stomachs of the ruminants, yet in other passages
of his writings they are specially referred to as characteristics, just
as they are in the Talmud. See in particular the Treatise Cholin, Per eh
Elu Terephot, p. 42. The absence of such reference, however,
in the above passage from Abarbanel, leads us to observe that the names
given in the Talmud show how intimate the ancient Hebrews were,
even before the destruction of the second temple, with the mechanism
and philosophy of rumination. In the first place, we remark that
with reference both to position and functions, the first and second
stomachs have much in common. Thus, though at first sight, the
second stomach would seem to be merely an appendage to the third,
in front of which it is; yet, it may, with greater propriety, be
regarded as rather a prolongation of the first. This first stomach, which
is the largest, is named the paunch (magnus venter rumen, aut, pennla)
is covered with papillae and is lined by a layer of the epidermis ; and
the second which is called the honeycomb [reiiculum arsineum] from
the mucous membrane which lines its interier, forming a multitude
of folds so arranged as to constitute polygonal cells, like those of a
bees comb. And with reference to their functions, recent investigation
has shown these to be identical in respect to the regurgitation by which
the food contained in them returns into the mouth. For this has mostly

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

been attributed to the second stomach only, whereas it is now established
especially by the experiments of M. Flourens, that both the first and
second stomachs are instrumental therein. * Moreover food remains
in both, until after a second maceration, when it passes on to the thiid
and fourth stomachs. From all this is very apparent the propriety of
the Hebrew term which is one and the same for both stomachs, viz.:
mDon D’l Beth hakossoih the cup-like or celular regions f the word
DID generally tram^lated cup, referring either to the stomach being a
hollow vessel to receive matter, to be poured therefrom again, as is
certainly the office of the cup, more especially when, as of yore, the
grape (vegetable matter) was pressed into it for the refreshment of
the guests at the wine feasts ; or else referring to the papillae of the
internal surface of the first, as of the polygonal cells of the second.
The third stomach called many plies^ on account of its large loii-
gitinlinal leave-like folds, in Hebrew, receives the names of DDDn
Harnesses^ from which the Latin name for the third stomach omasutn^
we think is unquestionably derived, wherefore it needs to make no
further remark thereon. | The fourth stomach is called reed (aboma-
sum faliscus ventriculus intestinalis) and in Hebrew nn’p (Kebab)
which is derived from the root ipj (Nakob. See Parkhurst thereon)
meaning to perforate, and conveying, as will be seen, the same idea
as the English term. From this brief analysis is evident, as we imagine,
that the ancient Hebrews were well acquainted with the mechanism
of rumination, and, it would be reasonable to conclude, as a conse-

♦ “ By their contraction,” Dr. W. B. Carpenter informs us, “ the paunch and honey-
comb force the alimentary mass which they contain between the borders of the farrow
of the oesophagus, and this contracting in its turn, takes up a portion of it, separates it,
and forms it into the ball which is destined to return along the oesophagus.

I Kos in Talmudical Hebrew also means a pore. Vide Lingua Sacra, Rad. Kos.

X Save that the Aruch in a comment on the word as occurring in the Talmud has the
following remarks “mD'iDn n'n'i ddd Atesses and Beth Hakossoth signify the stomach, be-
cause the concoction of the food therein, is called Jlcsses like the passage dD3 dd: 3D n'm
[This passage Isaiah x. 18, is translated in the English version, ** and they shall be as
when a standard bearer fainteth”. W'ithout examining the correctness of this rendering,
we state that the root 77iassos means to melt, and the connexion between this idea, and
that of the functions of the omasum is very clear.] The Aruch tlien shows how the word
has been explained by others, which, as not immediately concerning us, we pass
over. The following note to the Aruch, added by R. Benjamin Musapbia, an author of
the highest order, we give m full, as it confirms what has been advanced above
with reference to the terms applied to tlie stomach — 'mp p nnx "D'ii D'lDD'in

inbir D'D"iD 3 nb tr' nmnian mr^nnn bD nbv' ni bbDi mbyjsn ruTsnDn
K DID -D mxnon mr:nnn )d Kb non^nD Dnbi:» m'bDm m^iK pbu^ iDDb d 3 m3tK
d: nvTinDn monnb D'D^d in ono k bD k nD'nn ri'bDm naDn pT nKnm onb

: o'DiD omniDn o'inb oi nap k iDpnpi pD? mmnia niS^yb d'Did a

OF THE HEBREWS.

quence, with the phenomena and process thereof also. Continuing now
our comparison between the definitions of Abarbanel and Cuvier,
let us premise this single remark. It is not to be forgotten that neither
the Talmud nor Abarbanel are writing medical or physiological treatises,
yet, the latter gives what none can consider a contemptible account of
the process of rumination as compared with those of modern writers.
A further remarkable identity in Abarbanel’s and Cuvier’s definitions
is easily and clearly perceivable by comparing the last two paragraphs
of the quoted comment with the following postulates of the renowned
naturalist in his formal and learned treatise : — ‘‘ A hoof which envelopes
all that portion of the toe which touches the ground, blunts its sensi-
bility, and renders the foot incapable of seizing.” ‘^For cutting flesh,
grinders are required as trenchant as a saw, and jaws fitted like
scissors which have no other motion than a vertical one.” Hoofed
animals are all necessarily herbivorous, and have flat crooked grinders,
inasmuch as their feet preclude the possibility of their seizing a living
prey, &c., &c.”

We continue Abarbanel’s remarks having reference to the general
directions for discrimination laid down by the Levitical law. “Our
pious sages have traditionally supplied us with the signs whereby vve
may distinguish the clean from the unclean of those ruminant animals
possessing horns. Beasts which ruminate, having no giinders or
incisors on the upper jaw are supplied by nature with horns ; the matter
which should form these teeth being compensated by her with horns,
which renew after their birth, at which time they do not possess any.”
This teaching is thus verified in one of the most recent and popular
works on Zoology, that of Dr. Carpenter. “ Horns are found on the
heads of all the other animals of the order, in the males at least.
The horns essentially consist of prominences of the frontal bone. *
The Mammalia which are furnished with bony branching horns, all
belong to the order of the Ruminants.” f Abarbanel continues,
“ The use of these horns to such animals is that they may defend
themselves therewith against casualties and attack, since they cannot
fall back upon their teeth and claws like the predaceous animals.”
Our commentator then proceeds to discour^se of the distinguishing signs
of birds and fishes, which we must omit for the present, while we see
what further has been advanced by Hebrews respecting the clean
animals.

Maimonides in his Yad Hachasakah, at the first chapter of his
Treatise on l^rbidden Meats, which contains the Hebrew traditional
signs of discrimination, &c., writes as follows :

^ Sec. 269. t f2.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

§ 1. It is an affirmative precept [obligatory on Israelites] to become
acquainted with the signs which distinguish between beasts, domestic
and wild, birds, fishes and locusts. [The word employed by Maimon-
des is D’lJin (Chagabim) which, though we translate locusts, rather
means the Orthoptera and Saltaioria of modern naturalists] permitted
or prohibited for food, as it is said, ‘ ye shall make a distinction between
the beast which is clean and that which is unclean, and between the
fowl which is unclean and that which is clean.’ It is also said, ^ make
a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast
that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten, (Lev. xi. 47.

§ 2. The distinguishing signs of domestic and wild animals are
explained in the Levitical law, and are two, both ‘dividing the hoof’
and ‘chewing the cud;’ every ruminant animal hath no teeth or incisors
in the upper jaw ; and every ruminant beast also divideth the hoof,
the camel excepted ; and every beast which divideth the hoof cheweth
the cud, the swine excepted. ^ § 3. Therefore, he who finds

* The great Cabballist, Harabad (R. Abm. ben David) attacks this definition of
Maimonides, briefly referring to the cases of the Shafan * and the Arnehet. The
attack is, however, groundless and unjust, as it would appear, since Maimonides,
though writing in the 12th century, writes like the great philosopher he was, just,
as we have seen above, Cuvier in our age writes when discoursing of the Ruminantia
of which animals as an order or class, Maimonides correctly speaks. He is ably
defended, however, by the author of the Magid Mishneh who says : “ From what
our teacher (Maimonides) himself writes elsewhere, as well as from the explanations
of Holy Writ, we know that iheShafan and Arnehet ruminate, but divide not the hoof.
It is also known that it (the Arnehet) hath teeth, incisors, in the upper jaw, as the
Talmud informs us, but with this our Rabbi was of a verity well acquainted, the
proper interpretation of his words being this. Having already explained that
clean beasts require both signs, his expression * every beast which ruminates,
dec.,’ refers to the clean animals, which is indeed the case, as is shown in the
Talmud which affirms — ‘You cannot find any of the clean animals which
are ruminant that have incisors in their upper jaw.’ Our author then explains
that every ruminant animal, i. e., that also does not possess incisors on the
upper jaw, divideth the hoof, the camel excepted, as is further explained in the
Talmud, which says, ‘ The camel approximates to the clean animals in respect to
its ruminating and in its want of the regular number of upper grinders. * * It is
also stated in the Talmud, that the camel has O': (niboe) on the upper jaw, meaning
two teeth, proceeding different ways at the extremities of the cheeks. The same
authority also informs us that the young of the camel have not their teeth developed
but are like the clean animals in this respect. It would appear then, that our author
writes in a manner having reference to these ancient Talmudic teachings, intimating
that the camel, which is ruminant, is at the same time peculiar sui generis. None
ruminating is unclean, like the camel, [there being also a peculiarity of hoof in its
case] therefore is it particularly mentioned in the text. Harabad thought, however^
that our teacher intended to assert, that all ruminant animals had no incisors on their
^ The nomenclature of these animals is a subject for after consideration.

OF THE HEBREWS.

a beast in the wilderness and is ignorant of its nature, but finds its hoofs
divided ; he examines its mouth, and if it has no teetli above, then it
is undoubtedly clean ; and thus is the camel distinguishable. If he find
a beast with incised or fissured mouth, he examines its hoofs, if they be
divided, it is clean ; and thus is the swine distinguishable. If he finds
both mouth and feet cut, he examines it, after it is slaughtered, beneath
the backbone. [On tearing the flesh, in this part of the female camel,
some of it will rend woofwise, and some warp wise: — Rashi,] if he
find its flesh proceed [or tear] warpwise and woofwise it is clean, and
so is the ngarood distinguishable, for such is the nature of its flesh. [The
“ngarood” is generally translated ass. Job xxxix. 5.1t denotes the same

in Chaldee with some variation in the form, as it is used in the plural,
which is not the case in the Hebrew. It is also so understood in Talmudic
Hebrew. See Keleem ch. viii., the Aruch, and Ling. Sac. rad. Arod.
In Shemoth Rabba, sec. 1, fob 149, it denotes a species of serpent.]
§ 4. A clean beast that begot young having the appearance of an
unclean animal, although it divides not the hoof, and chews not the cud,
but is like the horse or ass in every respect, this young is permitted
for food, that is, when born in the Israelite’s presence ; but if he should
set apart in his flock a cow which is with young, and after an absence,
finds a young one like the swine, even if it suckle it, it is yet doubt-
ful and prohibited for food, for possibly it may have been born of an
unclean animal, though attaching itself afterwards to the clean.
§ 5. An apparently clean beast, begotten of an unclean beast,
although it divide the hoof and chew the cud, and is even in all respects
like an ox or like a sheep, is yet unlawful food ; since a preponderance
of the unclean, we must pronounce as unclean, and of the clean, we
must consider as clean 5 wherefore an unclean fish, found within one
clean, is prohibited ; and a clean fish found in one unclean, is for the
stated reason, permitted. § 6. A clean beast that begot, or that contain-
ed, a creature [monstrosity] having two backs, and also a double back
bone is prohibited food ; this is the nriDu; [Shessungha, cloven, or
divided] to which holy writ refers, when it declares, [Deut, xiv. 7.]

‘ Nevertheless, these ye shall not eat, of them that chew the cud or of
them that divide the hdid [Parsah Hassesbungha, cloven hoof,’]

implying a creature that was born, being divided or parted, as it were,
into two animals. § 7. And so with respect to any beast in which

upper jaw, hence his correction ; the result, however, is to show that all animals pos-
sessing regular incisive teeth are unclean. He (Harabad) further thought, that it
was the intention of Maimonides when he wrote that ‘ every ruminant animal
divided the hoof’ to convey, that this is so in respect both to those who do and do
not possess such teeth ; but I have already explained his opinion.”

SANATORT INSTITUTIONS

was found a creature, having the form of a fowl ; although it may prove
one of the clean species of fowl, yet must it be accounted as unlawful
food. It is not proper to regard as clean, any creature found in any
animal but such as possess hoofs. § 8. Of all beasts, wild and dom-es-
tic, which the world affords, none arc permitted for food except the ten
kinds specified in the law.* Three are of the domestic kind, viz. : 1.
TUT [shor, ox ; we retain, for the present, the translation of the Anglican
version,] 2. nty [seh, sheep] 3. tj/ [ngez, goat] ; and seven are included
among the wild beasts, viz: 1. b'H [ayal, hart] 2. *ay ["tsebi, roe-
buck] 3. mon’ [yachmur, fallow deer] 4?. ipw [ako, wild goaf] 5.
[dishon, pygarg] 6. i«n [teo, wild ox] 7. mi [zemer, chamois] these
and their various genera, such as the Tiiy ^shor abar, according to
•some the wood-ox. Compare Targ. Jer. Ps. 1. 10. Treat Peah ch.
8, Rashi, Ps. 1. 10, according to others the n^nn Tarbelali vald ox
or buffalo ; Targ. Onk. Deut. xiv. 5. Cholin fo. 80, a.] and of the ’no
[merie, translated by some, fatted ox] which are of the ox kind. All
these ten species and their genera, are ruminant, and of bifurcated hoof;
therefore, he who [at first sight] knows them, need not examine either
their mouth or feet, [to ascertain their lawfulness for food.] § 9. Al-
though they are all permitted for food, yet do we require to discrimi-
nate between the clean among domestic, and the clean among wild ani-
mals ; for the fat of the wild animal is permitted, and its blood, [issuing
at the time it is slaughtered] must be covered ; whereas with respect to

* “ It was well kDown and manifest before him, who * said and the world was’ that
the unclean animals exceed the number of the clean ; therefore doth holy writ enu-
merate the clean ; and also that the clean fowl exceed in number the unclean, there-
fore doth the text enumerate the unclean” — Talmud, Treat. ChoUn, Petek Elu
Terephot, P. 63., b. See the Magid Mishneh, which cites this passage, and one further
(page 80, of the same treatise,) to show that Maimonides is correct in the traditional
rule he lays down as to the number and division of the enumerated animals. There
is a discussion — particularly interesting with reference to the knowledge of natural
history displayed — as to the correctness of Maimonides’ classing the shot habaty (ge-
nerally understood as the wood-ox) among the wild beasts, upon which subject
there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud ; but it is too lengthy, for more than
a passing notice. Its importance in fixing a charge of apparent self-contradiction
on Maimonides, is but very small, since it can with truth be asserted, that he writes
with reference to the opinions contained in the Talmud, as indeed the Magid 3Iishneh
gives us good grounds for believing ; — besides modern naturalists have disputed upon
similar points, and it is not always profitable or necessary, to repeat the grounds of
their opinions. The inquiring reader, will find this discussion on reference to the
Magid Mishnehy the Keseph Mishneh, and other commentaries, published with the
Yad of Maimonides, also to the Talmud, Treatise Kilainiy Petek Oto Veet BenOy <fec.
We learn however, that the shot habaty is, according to some, identical with the
nblin Tarbelahy Wild ox, or Bufhilo, (see Targ. Onk. Deut. xiv, 6, Cholin fOy 80, a.)
while according to others, it is of the goat kind

OP THE HEBREWS.

the domestic animals, the sacrificial suet is prohibited under pain of ex-
cision, and its blood does not require to be covered. § 10. The dis-
tinguishing signs of the wild beasts, are supplied to us by tradition.
Thus, every animal dividing the hoof, and chewing the cud, and possess-
ing divided horns like the (ayal? stag,) is to be considered as unques-
tionably clean ; but with reference to all, not having their horns divided,
if their horns be covered or encased, like the horns of the ox, incised like
the horns of the goat, and the incision erased, and crooked like the horns
of the tsebi [roebuck,] these are wild animals which are clean, provided
always that the horns possess these requisites, being encased, incised, and
crooked. § 11. This applies, however, only to such kinds of animals as are
not known j but as to the seven species of wild beast mentioned in the law,
if one be well acquainted with these, even if he find that they possess
not horns, he may eat its fat, and is obliged to cover its blood in slaugh-
tering it. § 12. The shor habar is of the domestic species, and the
keresh, [by some translated, unicorn] although it possess but one horn
it is accounted as a wild animal. All, respecting which, there may be a
doubt as to whether it be of the wild or domestic class of animals, the
fat of such is prohibited, the scriptural penalty of stripes is not incurred,
and the blood thereof is to be covered at the time of slaughtering.
§ 13. A beast of mixed breed produced from a domestic animal that is
clean and a wild beast that is clean is called nD (kooi) its fat is prohib-
ited, the penalty of stripes is not incurred, and they cover its blood.”
Thus far Maimonides as to the distinctive signs of beasts.

A further result of a critical examination of the text would be to
establish, secondly, as regards fishes^ that “ whatever hath fins and scales
in the waters, in the seas and in the rivers,” are to be accounted clean
and proper for food, and as such, may be used by the Hebrews; whereas
all that have not fins nor scales in the seas, and in the rivers,” adds
the text, V. 10, “ of all that move in the waters, and of any living
thing which is in the waters, they ^hall he an abomination unto you.
V. 11. They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat
of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination, v. 12.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall he
an abomination unto you.” This is further shown by the Hebrew
writers, to whom we have just referred. Abarbanel’s remarks are as
follow — ‘‘Just as two conditions characterise the clean beasts, and
two, the clean fowl, [Abarbanel refers here to his comment, respect-
ing the clean birds which we omit till hereafter] so doth the text lay
down two conditions which must be possessed by the clean fishes. Its
expression, therefore, is, these may you eat of all that are in the
waters, all that have fins and scales in the waters, &c.,” but those

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

which are not so characterised “ shall be an abomination unto you.”
Some have thought to assign as a reason for these directions, that
fishes that possess fins and scales, are enabled to swim to and fro
wherever and whenever they desire ; whereas those who do not possess
fins and scales, are not so able; wherefore they [the latter] remain con-
tinually in muddy places in the water, and become earthy and of
unvvholsome nature. But this is in reality not the case, for fins and
scales are engendered in fish, in consequence of a superflux of nature
which they possess, and therefore doth their body become clean and
good for food, which is not the case with those not posses.sing fins and
scales. These latter are of an exceedingly moist nature, and have not
the advantage of getting rid of this natural superflux, which is, as it
were, shut up with them, and therefore is it that they are pronounced
unclean. The text adds with reference to these fishes the expression
“ in the seas and in the rivers,” because there is a vast difierence
between those found in salt water and those in rivers of fresh water,
and therefore doth it lay down one general rule for all, and establisheth
one law for all that move in the waters, and for all living things in the
water, whether you conclude them to be of the reptile or fish species.
The word [shekets, an abomination] is employed three times in
the text, and the expression “ all that have no fins nor scales ” twice,
because there are some fish which possess scales while they are iu the
water, but leave them there when taken forth from the water. The text
therefore says explicitly, “all that have fins and scales in the waters,
both in the seas and rivers, these may you eat, but those which have
no fins nor scales while they are in the seas and rivers, you of your
own accord shall loath and abominate as things to be rejected of men ;
and even as they are abomination unto you because of your natural
antipathy to them, so shall they become one in consequence of this
command. Ye shall then not eat of their flesh, nor touch their carcase
for they shall be an abomination [shekets]. The word ypty [shekets],
is derived from and compounded of [asher, which] and yp [kats, to
vex or fret] as in Genesis xxvii, 46, >»na ’nyp, I am vexed or fretted
[Ang. vers, weary] with my life.” Now because some might peradven-
ture say, ‘ Not to eat of them is, doubtless, proper, since their
flesh is bad ; but as to the penalty attached to touching them, why
should their carcase be pronounced an abomination ?’ on this account
saith the text for the second time, ‘ all that have no flns nor scales in
the waters shall be an abomination unto you’; as if it were giving us
the Talmudic caution trmn [Investigate not matters

above your comprehension] and seek not of yourselves to assign reasons
for my commandments. As sum of all, take tliis general rule, — All

OF THE HEBREWS.

aquatic and marine creatures which do not possess fins and scales, shall
be an abomination unto you, and this, whether in respect of eating or
touching them. ”

The very important caution which Abarbanel cites as to subjecting
any of the precepts of holy writ to a presumptuous system of ratiocina-
tion, he most certainly does not mean to apply to any inquiries into
the nature of the animals permitted or prohibited, since we have seen,
and shall yet further see that he himself enters deeply and ably into this
subject ; and, moreover, particularises the how and where such an inves-
tigation becomes improper or reprehensible. In proceeding, then, to ex-
amine presently, the directions of the Levitical law with reference to the
birds, we shall dwell for some time upon the analogy existing between
the clean birds and the clean quadrupeds, which we think well worthy
of notice, and intimately connected with our subject. At present we
have to inquire what the other eminent Jewish authority, already
quoted, teaches with respect to the permitted and forbidden fishes,
Maimonides devotes one paragraph (the twenty-fourth) of the chapter
from which we have before translated, to a notice of the distinctive signs
of fishes 5 it is as follows: — Two signs distinguish the clean fishes, fins*
and scales ; the former enable them to swim, and the latter cleave all

• It may be necessary here to continue our examination of the text. We notice
first, D'D Mayiiii and d'D' Yamirrij the waters, from the root yam, tumult. As a
N. masc, plur ; (it has a dual termination,) thus denominated from their being so sus-
ceptible of, and frequently agitated by, tumultuous motions,” — Parkhurst. Wessely
in his comment on the 11th chap, of Leviticus, says The word mayim applies to
all waters, those of seas, rivers, ponds, and of pits, caves, &c,, and even those which
are contained in utensils of any sort ; for fish can multiply in all, therefore is the
word mayim used here indefinitely, so as to imply all fish that breed in the water.
Yamim means the oceans, as it is said ‘ the gathering together of the waters, God
called yamim,^ * * * Nechalim means those streams (rivers) which are the

products of the rains and springs, alluded to in Ecclesiastes i, Ps. 104.”

Seiiaphir means, according to all, /in, and is therefore correctly rendered in
the Ang. version and by the Spanish translators as ala, by the GeimdiU, flostfedern,
cauda pinna piscis. Targ. tsits. The lxx. have Pterugia, wings, probably from
the resemblance maintained between it and the wing of a fowl.

Kasskeset scales; escama, “literally, a little piece, so called from its rigidity,” —
Park. ^^Kasskesset means the skinny portion fixed to the fish, as in 1 Sam. xvii. ‘ with
a coat of mail (shiryon kasskassim) he was clad so writes Rashi, but Nachman-
ides remarks that these scales cannot be said properly to be fixed to the fishes’ skin,
but are round integuments which can be removed with the hand or knife, where-
fore it is said in the Talmud that kasskesset is a dress, • • for as a dress it

quickly put off, so may these scales be eeisily removed with the hand ; but this it
not so with those which cleave to the skin, [and which circumstance establishet
such fishes to be unclean].” — Wess.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

over their bodies. All possessing fins, possess scales. If they do not
possess these in the first instance,* but they afterwards grow with them,
or if they have scales whilst in the water, but when drawn forth, they
leave them in the water, they are permitted. Those which have not
scales covering the whole of their bodies are permitted ; indeed, though
they had only one fin and one scale, they are permitted.” To these
remarks it may, perhaps, be added as worthy of note, that fish with fins
being only permitted, there is, so to speak, a connecting analogy herein
exhibited between these and the just mentioned superior animals
(quadrupeds) which those fishes not possesing fins, most certainly do not
exhibit ; and whereby, it is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose an
inferiority in these finless and scaleless fishes, in respect to their approach-
ing to aquatic or marine reptiles/\^ implied by the sacred penman. This
opinion may be considered as deriving some support from the circum-
stance that naturalists have uniformly remarked upon the analogy exist-
ing between the organs of locomotion of fishes, and those of quadrupeds ;
thus, the fins of the former, called X\\epectaral or thoracic, from their
situation, have been considered as correspondent with the fore feet of
the latter ; and those placed farther back called ventral or abdominal
fins, have been conceived to represent the hind feet of the first class of
vertebrated animals. The vertical fins on the back are termed dorsal
fins, and those on the under surface of the body anal fins ; the fin by
which the tail is terminated being termed the caudal fin. The mem-
branes of these fins are supported by rays or bands more or less numer-
ous, and those of the pectoral and ventral fins, according to the represented
analogy between the organs of fishes and quadrupeds, have been supposed

Vpw skekets an abomination, particularly what is ceremonially unclean ; specially
applied to reptiles.

yiir sherets a reptile, worm ; sherets hangoff winged reptile, lesser fishes. The
Paraphrast must have concluded this word to mean, particularly, movement, for he
trarislates it — Kimchi. Abarbanel says it is compounded of asher

W'hich, and rots runneth. Reptile, ovine animal quod supra terrain non eininet,
terrestre out aquatile ut sunt ranee, locustoe formicce, crabrones, vermes et pisces, Gen.
20.’’ << jhe moving things, or as the Greek translateth creeping things. But the He-
brew sherets is more large than that which we call the creeping thing, for it con-
taineth things moving sw'iftly in the waters as smimming fishes, and the earth, as
running weazels, mice, ^-c. R. Salomon on Exod i., saith that they did bring forth
six at one birth. [Rashi says this because of the extraordinarily rapid increase of
the Israelites in Egypt, the w^ord in the text being vayishretsu^, and Aben Ezra,
that the women brought forth twins and more.’* Critica Sacra.

• The Yoreh Deah explains ( ch. 83, §1, comment) that if the scales cannot be
removed readily with the hand or any other instrument, they are not to be accounted
as such, and the fishes are to be pronounced, in consequence, unclean.

OF THE HEBREWS.

to represent the toes of the feet. From hence, also, is apparent the
expressiveness and propriety of the Hebrew term for Jin which is “i'qjd a
pluriliteral, compounded of (Seneh) a thorny and na (Par) to breaks
and of Parkhurst’s remark that the frame or texture thereof gives the
reason of the Hebrew name,” since the fin of a fish consists of rajrs, or
according to the Hebrew phrase, of thorns i. e., little bo 7 ies or cartilagi-
nous ossicles supporting a membrane or divided into several par-

titions. Those who would see the analogy ably carried out would do
well to refer to Professor Stark’s valuable Natural History,” (Ed.
Edinb., 1828, v. 1., p. 377,) from which we cannot refrain transcribing
his folIo\ving brief, but flattering, panegyric of our learned co-religion-
ist Bloch. ‘‘ Among those who contributed to that progress, (of
Ichthyology, or study of fishes) by accurate representations of the animals,
Mark Eleazar Bloch, a Jewish physician at Berlin, deserves to be
noticed. His Ichthyologie ou Histoire Naturelle des Poissons^ \n six
volumes folio, was published in 1785-9&5 with 452 colored plates, the
greater part of which are accurately drawn and described from nature ;
and the facts connected with the history, specific differences, and uses of
fishes detailed with equal accuracy, have furnished most subsequent
writers with a storehouse of information on the subject of the European
species. The original edition being difficult to be procured, a small
copy in ten volumes, 18 mo, was published at Paris in 1801.”

The distinctive signs of birds are not supplied us by the Scriptures,
though they are by ancient Jewish tradition. In the Talmud, Treat.
Cholin (Mish. ch. 3, § 6) we learn that every [predaceous] bird
which strikes its talons into its prey* is unclean: every bird which has
an additional claw,t a crop, and of which the internal coat of the stom-
ach may be peeled off [with the hand] is of the clean species. Every
bird which [when placed on a perch] divides its toes equally, is an
unclean one.” Abarbanel when pointing out the means of compen-
sation exhibited in the cases of the wild and domestic quadrupeds, which
we have already quoted, thus continues his remarks which have refer-

♦ DiVT Doressj according to some, such as do not wait Ibr the death of their victim
but eat it alive, and although the common fowl eats worms and reptiles while they
yet have life, yet could not the Hebrew term derisah be properly applied to this,

\ Placed behind and above the front ones ; the toes are usually in number four,
and never more numerous, sometimes of the external or internal finger one or both dis-
appear, so that only three, as in the case of the Bustard or even two, as in the Ostrich
remain. Three of the four toes are generally directed in front, while the fourth is
turned backwards. In the family Phasianidce or Pheasant tribe, the hind toe is
placed higher on the tarsus than the front ones, so that only the tip touches the
ground, and the tarsus of the male is generally furnished with one or more spurs; so
in the common fowl.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

ence to birds. There are some of the predaceous birds having sharp
claws, [talons] but not having an additional claw above their feet,
whereas the feet of clean birds are extended according to the require-
ment of their manner of walking to gather their food in the fields. They
have, in consequence, an additional toe above their foot, that their pro-
gress may be not impeded, just like those beasts which have their hoofs
fully divided [are disfmgnished from the beasts of prey]. The clean
birds have also a crop [pDT zephec] and a stomach, the internal coat
of which may be peeled off [with the hand] for the re-grinding of their
food. In this [preparing their food in the crop and gizzanl] they are
like unto those which ruminate among beasts, [who also require more
than one stomach for the maceration of their food] The ngorth [raven]
is [an exception to the rule among birds] as the swine [is among beasts]
having only one of the necessary conditions, vizi an additional claw, and
not being properly a predaceous bird, but it does not conform to the rule
with reference to its digestive apparatus and the peeling of the stomach
above mentioned. There are also of the unclean birds [presenting this
contradictoriness] like the camel, sJiafan and arnebet [among beasts,]
since if they exhibit one of the signs of the clean birds, they do not pos*
sess the other; hence the rule ‘ eveiy predaceous bird is unclean.’ Their
nature is fierce and intractable, their temperament bad, being nou-
rished by such food only as they hastily tear and swallow, and therefore
are they prohibited.”

The learned Abarbanel, whose elegant and valuable commen-
tary we continue to select as the able expositor of Jewish tra-
dition affecting the points we are discussing, in the just com-
pleted extract, continues to show the remarkably correct acquaintance
which the ancient Hebrews had with natural history, more than twice
ten centuries since. The admirable adaptation of the feet to the nature
and wants of each of the two classes of birds, is, evidently, insisted upon
by our author with singular propriety. The reader will please compare
his remarks with those in the note on p. 53. He states that an iden-
tity exists in the ruminating and digestive apparatus of the clean beasts
and the clean birds. For that general reader who may not have paid
gpecial attention to the fact, we venture to exhibit the following com-
parison. The (Esophagus in birds beginning at the inferior part of the neck
communicates with the first digestive cavity named the crop. This first
stomach corresponds to the first and second in the Ruminantia^ viz;
the paunch and honeycomb, (we have shown that for good reasons these
receive only one name in Hebrew, and are in more than one respect, iden-
tical, even if the second be not a mere appen<lage of the third stomach,
as some have thought). The food remains for a time in this crop.

OP THE HEBREWS.

Below it, the oesophngus is again contracted, and presents further down
a second dilatation, called the ventricalus succenturiatus, whose internal
surface is perforated by a considerable number of small pores. This
again corresponds with the many 'plies of the ruminating beasts, and
opens below into the gizzard, in which the process of chymification is
completed. This corresponds with the reed of ruminant beasts, and
in birds that feed on flesh only, its sides are thin and membranous, but
in those that swallow food which is harder and more diflicult to digest, it
is furnished with strong muscles intended to compress and to grind down
its contents. Its inner surface is covered with a sort of almost cartila-
ginous epithelium. Our commentator refers to certain exceptions to the
rule, but to these remarks, pertinent and correct as they are, it will be
proper to refer, when considering the nomenclature of the animals.
The following observations of Dr. Carpenter in his interesting work on
Zoology, will, however, be in itself confirmation sufficiently strong of
Abarbanel remarks. It is impossible not to recognise the obvious
analogies between the different groups of Carnivorous Mammalia, and
those of the predaceous birds. The bold and powerful eagles obviously
resemble the lion and other large felines ; the smaller and yet more
sanguinary falcons correspond with the smaller felines and with the
mustelidoe ; the cowardly carrion-feeding vultures resemble the hyoena
and wild dog; whilst the owls may be likened to nocturnal viverridoe;
we shall find that there are certain species, aquatic in their habits, and
which are parallel, therefore, to the otters and seals.”* Abarbanel
thus continues his comment, Fishes are mentioned by the sacred pen-
man after beasts, because like the latter, they have assigned them two
distinctive signs of legality, but which birds have not ; those to which I
have already alluded, being according to the tradition of our pious sages,
upon whom be peace. These signs of the clean birds are, moreover,

* We are forcibly reminded here of Dr. Paley’s remarks in his chapter on com-
pensation. It has been proved by the most correct experiments that the gastric
juice of these birds (granivorous and herbivorous) will not operate upon the entire
grain, not even when softened by water or macerated in the crop. Therefore with-
out a grinding machine within its body, without the trituration of the gizzard, a
chicken would have starved upon a heap of corn, yet, why should a bill and a giz-
zard go together '? Why should a gizzard never be found where there are teeth t
Nor does the gizzard belong to birds as such. A gizzard is not found in birds of
prey. Their food requires not to be ground down in a mill. The compensatory
contrivance goes no farther than the necessity. In both classes of birds, however,
the digestive organ within the body beat a strict and mechanical relation to the ex-
ternal instruments for procuring food. The soft membranous stomach accompaniet
a hooked, notched beak : short muscular legs ; strong sharp crooked talons ; the
Cartilaginous stomach attends that conformation of bill and toes, which restraine
the bird to the picking of seeds or the cropping of plants.*’

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

internal, whereas [to correspond with the cases of beasts and fishes],
they should be external, so as immediately to be recognized. The law
therefore does not refer to these signs, but mentions the unclean species
of birds, the clean being the most numerous. Those birds which are
not specified in the text as prohibited, rank under the category of the
permitted. In Dueteronomy, Moses, we find, particularises the clean
beasts permitted for food, while of fowl he says, ^ all clean fowl ye may
eat,’ in general terms.”

The following is the Jewish law of discrimination for birds according
to Maimonides in the 1st chapter of his Treatise on Forbidden Meats
already referred to. § 14. The signs of the clean birds are not ex-
plained in the law , but it lays down the number of unclean birds, and all
others are permitted. The prohibited are twenty-four in number, and
may thus be enumerated. 1. [nesher, generally translated as in the
Anglican version, eagle]. 2. d")D [peres, ossifrage]. 3. n’lTi; [agos-
niyah, ospray]. 4. [daah, vulture], which is identical with the
[raah, Ang. vers, glede] of Deuteronomy. 5. [ayah, kite]
identical with the run [dayah Ang. vers, vulture] of Deuteronomy. 6.
A species or order of the ayah ; for it is written in the text ‘ its kind,’
also, from which is established that there are two kinds. 7.
[ngoreb, raven]. 8. [zarzir, generally understood as a stare or

starling. Baba Kama fol. xcii. 2] for it is said, ^the raven after its kind,’ to
include hereby the zarzir. 9. (ni) [yanganah, owl]. 10. ddhji
[ tachmass, nighthawk]. 11. [shachaf, cuckow]. 12. [nets,
hawk]. 13. [sharneka,] a species of hawk, as the text shows,

from its employing the term, ‘after its kind,’ to the hawk. 14. did [kos,
little owl]. 15. [shalach, cormorant]. 16 [yanshuff, great

owl]. 17. riDtrin [tinshemet, swan]. IS. [kaat, pelican]. 19.
nom [rachama, gier-eagle]. 20. m»Dn (chasidah, stork]. 21.
[anafah, heron]. 22. A species of the anafah as stated in the text. 23.
ns'DlT [doochifat, lapwing]. 24. [ngatalef, bat), § 15. Every

one who is well acquainted with these various species and their nomen-
clature, may eat of every bird not included in this list, and without ex-
amination. Clean birds are eaten on the strength of tradition, it being
of course a well established thing in the place where the bird is eaten,
that such is a clean bird, and one experienced in hunting [and the names]
of these birds gives his testimony to their being clean. § 16. He who
cannot readily distinguish them, but is intimately acquainted with their
nomenclature can examine them by these signs with which our sages have
iupplied us ; to wit, every bird that strikes its talons in its prey and then
eats it, such, it is clear, is of the enumerated species, and is unclean ; if
it does not this, however, it is yet clean, provided it possess one of these

OF THE HEBREWS.

three signs, an additional toe or claw, or it possess a crop, or that the
internal coat of the stomach can be peeled off with the hand. § 17,
There is not among all these prohibited species any one that is not pre-
daceous, and having one of these three signs, except the peres and
ngosnhjolij and the peres and ngosniyah are not found in inhabited
places, but in deserts and very distant places, and at the utmost verge of
civilization. § 18. If the skin of the stomach is removeable with a
knife but not with the hand, and the bird [in such a case] has no other
sign [of being unclean], although it may not strike its claws in its prey,
yet is it a doubtful case. If the stomach be tough, and [the skin] cleave
closely to it, but by being exposed to the sun, it becomes soft and
easily peeled by the hand, then it is permitted. § 19. The Gaonim,
[eminent Rabbis who flourished just after the completion of the Talmud]
have declared that they have been traditionally cautioned against
teaching the legality of a bird possessing only one sign of its being clean,
unless that one sign were that the skin of its stomach was readily peeled
with the hand ; but if this one sign obtain not, although the bird possess
a crop or an additional claw, yet can they never permit it to be consi-
dered as clean. § 20. Every bird which divides [equally] its paws
when placed on a perch, two one way, and two another ; or that he
seizes [his food] in the air and there eats it, is undoubtedly of the pre-
daceous kind and unclean; and all which associate with the unclean, and
approximate to them [in nature and habits] are unclean.” To this the
Yoreh Deah adds, (ch. 82, §3), Some assert that every fowl with
broad beak and expanded, [palmated or webbed] feet like those of the
goose, is well known to be non-predaceous, and is lawful food, provi-
ded it have the three signs. § 4. A person who happens to be
from a place where they are accustomed to account as prohibited a
certain fowl because they have no tradition, that it is clean, and he goes
to a place where they have a tradition that it is of the clean species, he
may eat thereof in that place, even if his intention be to return to the
other place ; and if he went from a place where they pronounce it to
be traditionally clean, and go to another place where they have no such
tradition, he can yet eat thereof. § 5. Places having no tradition re-
specting the character of the birds, depend upon those which have, to
eat thereof. Some prohibit and some allow, but it is preferable to abide
by the decision of those who prohibit.” Thus particular are the direc-
tions of the Jewish canon, respecting the means of discriminating the
clean and unclean birds.

With respect to and ^V^5fc^s, the law thus directs, 20.

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto
you. V. 21. Yet these may ye eat, of every flying, creeping thing, that

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

goeth upon all four, which have legs above fheir feet, to leap withal
upon the earth. V. 22. Even these of them ye may eat, the locust af-
ter his kind, &c. V. 23. But all other flying, creeping things, which have
four feet Hiall be an abomination unto you. V. 27. And whatsoever
goeth upon his paws , [kapav] among all manner of beasts, that go on
all four, these are unclean unto you ; whosoever toucheth their carcase,
shall be unclean until the even. V. 29. These also shall be unclean
unto you, among the creeping things that creep upon the earth, the
weasel, <Scc. V. 4'2. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever
goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping
things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat for they are an
abomination. V. 43. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with
any creeping thing, that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves un-
clean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.” We cite Don
Isaac Abarbanel’s comment upon this ; be writes — “ In addition to its
first stated instructions respecting birds, the text adds : ‘ all fowls that
creep going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you,’ because
there are creatures which now creep the earth like reptiles, and anon
fly in the air. All such, the text pronounces an abomination ; except the
mentioned four kinds of locusts [chagabim] which are permitted. —
These go on all four, and have legs above their feet, — feet higher than
the ordinary ones which they require to leap withal upon the earth ;
when they desire to jump, they effect it by these feet, raising their wings,
which cover the greater portion of their body. The distinguishing
signs of these locusts (chagabim) are, that they possess [extra] legs for
jumping [pedes saltaioria] four feet and four wings, which cover the
greater part of the body, and with a long head — to such is the term
chagab properly applied. It becomes us to ask here, why is it said
‘ and ALL fowls that go on all four, &c.’ ? because, the text gives a general
rule with respect to all such, and would add, ‘ these species which I men-
tion, ye may eat, and they do not come within the category of reptiles
and so afler specifying these, it adds, ‘ all the rest which go on all four,
shall be an abomination unto you, and shall not by any means be ac-
counted among those of which I have said, even these of them ye may eat’.
After mentioning the creatures which may legally be eaten, and those
also which are unclean and are to be abominated, the text informs us of
those which render unclean all who touch them. When it says therefore,

* for these ye shall be unclean’ (v. 24) it means for these which will
now be mentioned ; again the text saith, ‘ and whatsoever goeth upon
his paws, and every beast that goeth upon all four,’ and not on his hoofs,
like the dog, bear, and cat, &c. * • * • It would seem that the

caution [repeated in the 41st verse] that every ‘ creeping thing, is an

OF THE HEBREWS.

abomination and must not be eaten,’ is unnecessary, since it is already
given, in a former part of the chapter, but its intent is to show that
every reptile besides the eight mentioned above, are unclean and must
not be eaten.”

Rashi says, ‘‘all fowl that creep,” [sherets hangoHT, v. 20] alludes to
those of the smaller and lower order of animals moving upon the earth,
such as flies, gnats, locusts, &c. After giving the old Jewish traditional
signs of those animals, which may be considered ^%c}iagahim^ and which
are quite identical with those given by modern naturalists to the mlta-
toria^ Rashi adds “ all these signs are to be found in those which come
among us, but there are some having an extended head, but not possess-
ing a tail, and yet belong to the species chagab [saltatoria] but thus, are
we unable to discriminate correctly concerning them. In the -ilst verse,
there occurs the repetition, [to which Abarbanel also refers] because it
implies as exceptions to the prohibition, such insects as are found in
kalidn^ [according to some a species of cedar-fruit or fig; according to
others, pulse, Ter. fob lix. Choi. fol. xvii. 2,] and the maggots in lentiles,
which only when creeping upon the ground are prohibited. The expres-
sion ‘ whatsoever goeth upon the belly,’ in verse 42, refers to the serpent. —
The reduplication of the words ‘ that goeth, &c.,’ in the same verse,
shows that the are tobe here included. [This remark of

Rashi, it should be observed, is like all we have quoted above as his
comment, nothing more than national, traditionary teachings which we
may find in the Talmud, chiefly in the treatise Choliu. This last of his
remarks, is from this treatise.* R.Benj. Musaphia,in the M. Hearuch,
show us that ^lihhulin^ means a kind of worm ] “ Going upon all

four” adds Rashi, “ refers here to the scorpion, and the repetition of the
word ‘ all,’ shows that the cheepu^ieet [black-beetle, Choi. fol. 67] called
in French escarhot, is included, ‘what hath more feet’ alludes to the
nadoL [a reptile having many feet, Choi. fol. Ixv., and Erub. fol. viii.
2, according to Mendelssohn, it is identical with the lulu^ of Linnoeus,
of which more presently] and the word sherets again repeated here, we
know to allude to a reptile which have feet [in equal succession] from
head to tail, and, which is called centpied [centipede.]” Such is the
explication of Rashi. In the Beraytah of Torath Cohanim, a very
ancient commentary on Leviticus, it is explained, that the first “ what-
soever goeth,” in verse 27, refers to the monkey tribe, and its redu-
plication includes the kofed (bittern,) choled (weasels of the bushes,)
and the adnarj hasadeh [as some understand, wild men ; others
baboons, &c.] and the keleb Jiayhamy sea dog, &c.,” all of which are
subjects for after remark.

nxt bwbwn riK n? pm tbtn pan msio ihn piaimoa cjiDa*

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

Maimonides after numerating the eight species of chagatdm or locusts,
proceeds to give the traditional signs, which establish them as such.
§ 22. He who is well acquainted with these and their names may eat
of them, but he who is not, examines the three distinguishing signs,
which they possess. All which have four legs and four wings, extending
the greater part of the length and breadth of their body, and having more-
over, two springing legs, is of the clean species; although its head might
be long, and it had a tail, it is clean, so long as it is known to be of the
species § 23. Such as have not yet wings or springing feet,*
or wings covering the greater part of their body, but [it is known] that
they will obtain them hereafter when they are grown, then, even at
such early state, they are permitted.”

We have now shown the reader, perhaps at greater length than his
patience might require, — but not more so, than was deemed necessary
for a proper appreciation of the subject, what are the rules for discri-
minating the clean and unclean of beasts, fishes, birds and reptiles,
deemed authoritative by the Hebrevy people ; and it becomes us now
to pay some attention to the second point we have to discuss ; to wit, —
the nomenclature and nature of the enumerated animals. For such of our
readers, who may be interested in the subject, we shall take the pains
to exhibit a large number of the very highest authorities, both ancient
and modern, Jewish and Christian, because, necessarily a more correct
opinion is thereby to be formed, and because they will establish one
very important fact, with reference to the birds especially, which we
cannot pass over. Our examination commences with the quadrupeds.

1. (gamal) camel* v. 4. T. 0. (Gamala,) “he cheweth the cud but di-
vide th not the hoof.” S. J. T. and de R , camelloj G. T. Kameel ; M. id. ; B. camelus;
D. L. and G. camel; F. camelus; K. id. ; C. S. id., M. A. id. “The root denotes
retribution or return. As a N. a camel from the revengeful temper of that

* In the examination about to be made, the rendering of the English
version will immediately follow the Hebrew name, while other authorities, for the
sake of brevity will be expressed by the following initial letters. S. J. T. will
mean Spanish Jewish Translators, de R. de Reyna, G. T. German (Christian)
•Translators, M. Mendelsohn, B. Buxtovf, F. Furst, D. L. David Levy, F. Parkhurst,
G. Gesenius, M. A. Moosaph Hearuch, K. Kimchi, R. Rashi, Ab. Kz. Aben Ezra,
Ab. Abarbanel, T. 0. Targum Onkelos, W. Wessely, S. Serrano, C. S. Critica
Sacra, Linn. Linnoeus, Cuv. Cuvier, Carp. Carpenter : and so with other authorities
already referred to. Where no translation of the foreign names are given, they are
the same as the Ang. Vers., so also, when they are omitted.

Serrano observes that the Spanish names by which he translates the text, are,
except in such cases where tradition has decided, only applied because of their
composition and roots representing the characteristics and qualities of the animals
whose names he employs. The same is remarked by Wessely before giving a
translation to the birds. “We are not familiar and cannot be assured of their names,
80 I follow the old commentators, some of whom were also in doubt on the matter.
Thus I do not lay down the law as a decided thing ; but it was necessary to translate
them.”

OF THE HEBREWS.

animal, ■which Bochart shows to be so remarkable as even to become a proverb
among those nations who are best acquainted with its nature. Among other
passages from ancient writers, he cites from Basil. ‘ But what marine animal
can emulate the camel’s resentment of injuries, and his steady and unrelenting
anger ?’ The reader will be well entertained by consulting the excellent
and learned Bochart himself on this animal, v. ii. <tc.” — P. “ It is not the
case with the camel that his foot is covered with a shoe-like hoof, and so
with the shafan and arnehet, and therefore the text cannot and does not add
the words ‘ and is cloven footed but in the case of the swine who does possess
fiuch cloven foot the words are used,”* Compare v. 7. — W. “ The camel’s foot is divided
into two distinctly marked toes, although not positively cloven, which are fastened to>
and rest upon, the elastic pad or cushion at the end of the foot. From this circumstance,
it has been a nicely balanced question wliether the camel, which chews the cud,
can be reckoned among the species called cloven-footed. It seems to be a connect-
ing link between those that are and those that are not.’’ — Piet. Illus. Bib. A pecu-
liarity of stomach is also noticed by Buffon, “ Independent of the four stomachs
which are commonly found in ruminating animals, the camel is possessed of a fifth
bag which serves him as a reservoir to retain the water. The fifth stomach is pe-
culiar to the camel, <fec.” “ Water is constantly retained from the great masses of
cells which cover the sides of their paunch, the other ruminants have nothing of the
kind — Cuv. Order vi. Bisulca (Pecora Lin) Gen. xxix. — Stewart. It is without
horns and of the order Ruminantia.” — Stark, <fec. R. Ab. Ez. and Ab. — the same.
Where such unanimity of opinion exists we cannot but see the correctness of the
Aglican version..

2. (shafan) coney, “he cheweth the cud but divideth not the hoof;^
T. 0. KT310 (tapza) ; S. J. T. de R., conejo, which also means rabbit.

G. T. (fe M. Kaninchen ; B. cuniculus, mus montanus ; D. L. G. coney ; F. mus
jaculus Linn. ; Sept. Choirogrullios. K. id. C. S. id. “ The dry, hot nature of
the Shafan is well known,” Ab. “ It is accustomed to resort to concealment in
rocks, as it is said, * the Shefanim are but a feeble folk, yet they make their houses in
the rock.* Again in Ps. 104, 18. The word ‘divideth’ is in the Hiphil form, parti-
ciple when applied to the camel, in the future tense to the coney, and to the hare in
the preterite, which may be meant to teach this. Do not ihink that those born
without dividing the hoof will hereafter do so, for the text couples the ‘not’ with
the future tense ; or that it may have had a divided hoof which is now not distin-
guishable, for the text joins another ‘ not’ with the past tense.” — W. “ The
meaning of the root Shafan is to cover in, conceal. As a noun Shafan
means a kind of unclean animal, so called from hiding itself in holes or clefts of

* R. Wessely, fi om whose Hebrew comment this is an extract, next condemns the
learned Rashi for his translation of Parsah, We do not think that it is at all neces
eary to prolong such an inquiry, having already fairly given Wessely’s reasons tor
dissent. For our part we do not think the great Rashi’s remarkable acuteness and
research has at all failed him. He can in this matter be very easily defended, and
were this the place, even we would make an humble attempt so to do. We respect
Wessely as a classical Hebrew scholar and able grammarian, but we cannot help
feeling that in common with but too many modern Jewish critics, especially with
his countrymen— while they display much ingenuity— they are but too apt to for-
get that if difLu ent premises are set up, in criticising some of the old Mephara^him
very different conclusions will be arrived at. We repeat that the translation of
Rashi, we think, every way correct and every way defensible by a mere tyro.
But nothing is more r>»obable than that an expression should be differently under-
Btood by different parties.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

•

rockfl. Ps. civ, 18, Prov. xxx. 26. In the second edition of this work, I followed
Bochart’s interpretation of Shafanh^ the Jerboa, i, e. the Mus JacaluH or jumping
Mouse; but I am now inclined to embrace Dr. Shaw’s opinion, that it signifies the
Daman hraeU or Israel's Lamb, ‘ an animal, says he (Travels, p.^ 348), of Mount
Libanus, though common in other parts of this country [namely Syiia and 1 ales*
tine]. It is a harmless creature, of the same size and quality as the rabbit, and
with the like, incurvating posture, and disposition of the fore-teeth. But it is of a
browner colour, with smaller eyes, and a head more p inted, like the marmot s. As
*ts usual residence and refuge is in the holes and clefts of the rocks, we have so far
a more presumptive proof that this creature may be the Shapan of the Scriptures,
than the .lerboa, which latter he says, p. 177, he had never seen burrow among
the rocks, but either in a stiff loamy earth, or else in the loose land of the Sahara,
especially where it is supported by the spreading roots of spartum, spurge laurel,
or other the like plants. Mr. Bruce likewise opposes the Jerboa’s (of which he has
given a curious prin^ and a particular descnptioif in his Travels, vol. v. p 121), being
the Shafan of the Scriptures, and thus sums up his observations on this subject, p.
127. ' It is the character of the Saphan given in the Scripture, that he is gregarious,
that he lives in houses made in the rock, that he is distinguished for hi-* feebleness,
which he supplies with his wisdom. (See Prov. xxx. 24,26, and Ps. civ. 18 in Heb).
None of those characteristics agree with the Jerboa; and, therefore, though he
chews the cud in common with some others, and was in great plenty in Judea so
as to be known to Solomon, yet he cannot be the Saphan of the Scripture. And in
a following section Mr. Bruce contends that this is no other than what is called in
Arabia and Syria, Israel’s Sheep [the Daman Israel of Shaw] and in Amhara,
Ashkoko, of which animal also he has given a print, p. 139, and a minute descrip-
tion, and thus applies to him, p. 144, the characters just mentioned. ‘ He is above
all other animals so much attached to the rock, that I never once saw him on the
ground and from among large stones in the mouth of caves, where is his constant
residence: he is gregarious, and lives in families. He is in Judea, Palestine and
Arabia, and consequently must have been familiar to Solomon. — Prov. xxx. 24, 26,
very obviously fix the Ashkoks to be the Saphan, for the weakness here mentioned
seems to allude to his feet, and how inadequate these are to dig holes in the rock,
where yet, however, he lodges. These are perfectly round : very pulpy or fleshy,
60 liable to be excoriated or hurt, and of a soft fleshy substance. Notwithstanding
which they build houses in the very hardest rocks, more inaccessible than those of
the rabbit, and in which they abide in greater safely, not by exertion of strength,
for they have it not, (f r they are truly as Solomon says feeble folk) but by their
own sagacity and judgment, and therefore are justly described as wise. Lastly,
what leaves the thing without doubt is, that some of the Arabs particularly Damir
Bay, that the Saphan had no tail : that it is less than a cat and lives in houses, that
is, not houses with men, as there are few of these in tlie country where the Saphan
is : but that he builds houses, or nests of straw, as Solomon has said of him, in con-
tradistinction to the rabbit, and rat, and those other animals that burrow in the
ground who cannot be said to build houses, as is expressly said of him.’ Thus Mr.
Bruce : and for farther satisfaction I refer the reader to his account of the Jerboa,
and Ashkoko. I add that Jerome, in his epistle to Sunia and Fretcla, oited by Boeb-
mrt, says the Shefanim are a kind of ‘ animal not longer than a hedge-hog, resemb*
ling a mouse and a bear.’ (The latter, I suppose, in the clumsiness of its feet).
Whence in Palestine it is called arktomus q. d. the bear-mouse ; and that there i»

OP THE HEBREWS.

great abundance of this genus in those countries, and that they are always wont
to dwell in the * caverns of the rocks, and caves of the earth.’ This description
well agrees with Mr. Bruce’s account of the Ashkoko. And as this animal bears a
very considerable resemblance to the rabbit, with which Spain anciently abounded,
it is not improbible, but the Plienicians miglit, from Saplian, call that country
Saphania. Hence are derived its Greek, Latin and more modern names : and ac-
cordingly, on the reverse of a medal of the Emperor Adrian, (given by Scheuchzer,
tab ccxxxv.) Spain is represented as a woman sitting on the ground witli a rabbit
squatting on her robe.” — P. That the shafan cannot be identified with the coney

or rabbit is very plain. The rabbit is not an Asiatic animal, and it is very far from
being solicitious of a rocky habitation, which is the distinguishing characteristic of
the Shafan mentumed in Prov. xxx. 26. Some, therefore, suppose the Jerboa to
be intended. * * The general accuracy of Bruce’s account has been attested by

more recent observations. It is so much an animal of the rock that Bruce says he
never saw one on the ground or from among the large stones at the mouths of the
caves, (fee., in which it resides. * * They certainly chew the cud as the Sliafan is

said to do in Lev. xi. 5.” “ They are wise in their choice of habitations peculiarly suit-
ed to their condition, and they might be particularly mentioned in this view from the
fact that animals of the class to which they belong, are usually inhabitants of the
plains. The flesh of the Shaphan was forbidden to the Hebrews ; and in like manner
the Mahometans and Christians of the East equally abstain from the flesh of the
Daman'* Piet. Ulus. Bib. “ There is a curious genus of small animals inhabitiag the
rocky districts of Africa and Syria which is intermediate in its character between the
Tapir and Rhinoceros, but presents several points of resemblance to tlie Rodentia.
This is the Daman or Hyrax, an active fur-covered little animal ; something called
the Rock-Rabbit, and probably the Cony referred to in the Book of Proverbs. Its
skeleton closely resembles that of a Rhinoceros in miniature, and its molar teeth are
formed in the same manner : the feet have four toes, which are tipped with hoof-
like nails, whilst the hind feet have three ; of which the innermost is furnished with
a long claw-like nail. The best brown species are the Cape Hyrax, whicli inhabits
Southern Africa: and the Syrian Hyrax of Syria, Arabia, and Abyssinia. Both
these are active, hairy animals, somewhat larger than Rabbits, living in families, and
taking up their abode intiaves or crevices in the sides of rocks; they live upon the
young shoots of shrubs and upon herbs and grass, and they are playful in their
habits, and docile and familiar in captivity.” According to the same authority the
Jerboa is an intermediate link between the Squirrels and Rats, it is distinguished by
the enormous developement of its hind legs and tail, resembling the kangaroo. It is a
native of Syria, <fec., known to the ancients under the name of Dipus. Stewart ranks
the Jerboa among the Digitata, and says it burrows in the ground. We have, however,
made this investigation much longer than proper for the limits we should set down.
The result of an extended inquiry, has led us to adopt the opinion that the ahafan is
identical with the Daman or Hyrax, and although this is now classed by the most
respectable naturalists, among the order Pachydermata, which as an order of the
Mammalia do not ruminate, yet is it to be remembered that the same authorities
■how us that the ordinary Fachydermata (under which the Daman is classed)

“ approximate the Ruminants in various parts of the skeleton, and even in the com-
plication of the stomach” and “ the stomach of the Damans is divided into two sacs;
their coecum is very large, and the colon has several dilatations, and is also furnished
with two appendages about the middle analogous to the two cceca of birds,” see
Cuvier, Rlgne Animal*

SANATORT INSTITUTIONS

3. (arnebet) hare, v. 6, *‘he cheweththe cud, but divideth not the hoof.

0. (arneba). S. J. T. and de R. liebre ; G. T. and M. haase ; F. lepua ;
Sept, dasipous ; all hare. “ From n"’K (arah) to crop, and n'D (nib) the produce
of the ground— the, hare— these animals being very remarkable for destroying the
fruits of the earth. Rochart who gives this interpretation of the word, excellently
defends it by showing from history that hares have at different times desolated the
islands Leros, Astypaloea and Carpathus. See his works, vol. ii. 63 and 995.

P. “ The hares,” says Cuvier, ‘ have a very distinctive character in their superior
incisors being double ; that is to say, there is another of small size behind each of
them.”— This is identical with the old Talmudic definition to which we have already
referred, on p. 46. Although placed among the Rodentia by modem naturalists, it
is to be observed that the partial division in its stomach (see Carpenter’s Zoology, v.

1, p. 268) would well warrant its classification among the Ruminantia where the text
places it.

4. -i‘Tn(chazir) swine, v. 7. “ he divideth the hoof and is cloven footed, yet he
cheweth not the cud.” T. O. Ni'Tn (chazayra) S. J. T. and de R. puerco; G. T.
and M. schwein ; B. and F. porcus. The root means to encompass. As a N., a hog
or boar, so called, perhaps, from his round shape when fat, which is his natural state ;
Totus teres atque rotundisT — P. Order Pachydennata. We shall have reason to
speak of the nature and habits of the swine, when inquiring into the third point of
discussion laid down. We now pass on to the birds.*

1. nwD (nesher) eagle, V. 13. T. 0. Kiir: (nishra) S. J. T. and de R. aguila;
G. T. and M. adler ; B. and F. aguila ; D. L. and G. eagle. “The root means to lace-
rate, tear in pieces. Tlie eagle species is eminent for rapacity and tearing their prey
in pieces, for which purpose they are furnished with beaks or talons remarkably
strong.” — P. “ The assertion of our sages that the eagle has no additional claw, has
been attacked, but I, myself, have examined one, found in my native place, and found

*In Leviticus, twenty species of unclean birds are ennumerated, while Deuteronorny
specifies twenty one. We cite the following reconcilement of the apparent contradic-
tion from the “ Conciliator” of R. Menasseh ben Israel, Mr. E. H. Lindo’s transla-
tion. In biphr^ (which is adopted by Rashi) it says, in solution of this doubt, that
the difference between Leviticus and Deuteronomy consists in the former saying
n'KH* nKT ‘ And the vulture and the kite and their^pecies,’ whereas Deute-
ronomy has it nnm h'Kh nxi Here the raah is named, which is not in

Leviticus ; there is also another difference in Deuteronomy, saying, dayah instead of
daa/i as in Leviticus, the yod being in place of the aleph which being considered, it says
that n'l n'K nn Raya, Jlya, Daya, are all the same species of bird, but having
various appellations from their different properties ; so that there is no difference
between the two passages, one only having an additional name, although of the
same species. The difference between the words dahh and raah is nothing, for the
Hebrew language admits this change of letter. (See note on question, 132.)
The learned Aben Ezra says, that raah is the denomination of the genus which
includes the different birds mentioned, whereby the objection is also answered, for
the raah mentioned in Deuteronomy, is not a distinct species, but the name of the
genus. This author avails himself of what is said of the patriarch Abraham, when,
by the command of God, he took ^ a young heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtle dove,
and pigeon.’ The scripture relates that he divided all in two, except the bird
called nay (which is applied to birds generally) and in that place, it is used instead
of n'Ui (a turtle dove,) wliich was mentioned before. R. Levi Ben Gershon holds
that daah and raah is the same bird which from being sharp sighted and flying quickly,
had both names given it in Hebrew, signifying those two properties, raah being
derived from the verb raah ^ to see,’ and dacdi from the verb daah^Xo fly,’ and Deutero-
nomy, to avoid error, and for greater perspecuity ennumerates both, without,
however, adding another species, and he understands dayah and ayah to be the same,
being commonly called by both names : so the verses thereby agree.”

OP THE HEBREWS,

that it had no such additional claw."*— W. The eagle is classed by Cuvier among
the Acdpitres or birds of prey, which are, be says, like the Carnivora among
quadrupeds. “ They are pre-eminent for their strength,” adds Carpenter, “ and attack
not only birds for their pfey, but the smaller quadrupeds also, such as the hare,
sheep, fawns, roebucks, &c.”

2. DID (peres) ossifrage. T. O. (ngar) S. J. T. and de R. azor ; G. T. habicht
(hawk or goss hawk, also of the order Accipitres) Al. beinbrecher and small black
eagle ; B. and F. ossifraga. “ Peres is a large bird found rather in deserts than in-
habited places, and R. Yonah, saith that it is identical with the Arabic AkabP^K,
The root means to break, hence the remark of the Critica Sacra “withstrength of beak
or talons she breaketh her prey ; noinen est avismagna qucedeserta incolit^ inquit
R. Davidy ah ungulis Jissis dictcB. Alii accipitrerriy vel aquilce genus putant. Alii
Crryphum malunt, Ita Bepiuaginta Chald, §• Vulgat, vertunV “ As a noun a
species of eagle called by the Romans ossifraga or hone breaker y because be not only
devours the flesh, but even breaks and swallows the bones of his prey. Comp.
Alic. iii. 3; and see Bochart, vol. iii. 186, Ac.” — P. “According to most of tho
translators, it means a kind of eagle.” — W. Order Accipitres, Cuv.

3. n'Diy (ngosniyah) ospray; T. O. K'Ty (ngasya) S. J. T. esmerejon (martin,

also the yellow-legged falcon, Falco Elesalon Linn. Order Accipitres) G. T. fischaar,
fischadler (sea eagle) M. schwarzen adler (black eagle) B. Halioeetiis, (species
aquiloe). F. aquilce species, a visus perspicacitate (Job 30;29). Crit. Sac. hali-
ccetus, a marine eagle, so called from its sharp vision, quia adversus solis radios in-
tueri potest y Plin. 1. 10. c. 3, “ called the black eagle, according to Bochart, from its
great strength in proportion to its size. * * The Targum renders it ngasya
[strong one] and so preserves the idea. * * Bate, Crit. Heb. explains it
by the whining kite, from H'D neyah its noise and Ty nges impudent, strong and
bold disposition and in his note on Lev. xi. 13, he says they have on the South
Downs in Sussex, a whining kite which may be heard when very high in the air.
• ♦ Whatever bird was intended, I think it was so named from nges its strength,

andmyaAits moaning.” — P. “ Pandion halioeetus. Some think the black eagle is
here intended, but the probabilities are at least equally in favor of our version.” —
Piet. Ulus. Bib. Order Accipitres, Cuv.

4. HKi (daah) vulture, v. 14, T. O, Nn"! (dita) S. J. T. milano (glead kite) falco

miloris Linn. G. T. Geier ; M. Weissen habicht (white hawk) B. milvus.
“ Vulture, changed in Deuteronomy into hk") probably through an error of the copy-
ists ” — F. Primary meaning flight, the bird is so called from the extreme rapidity
of its flight’^ — K. “The kite is called in Hebrew, Lev. 11, 14, Daah of flying,
Deut. 14, 13, Raah of seeing, for the kite flieth with violence, and espieth her prey
from farre.’^ — Crit. Sac. “ A kite or glead, so Vulg. milvus, which is remarkable
for flying, or, as it were, sailing in the air with expanded wings. Thus our English
glead is from the v. to glide, — P. Order Accipitres, Cuv.

5. n'K (ayah) kite; v. 14., T. O. Kn-anio (tarapheta) S. J. T. bueytre, G. T. meihe
M. Schwarzen habicht (black hawk) B. carnix (crow, rook.) “ An unclean pre-
daceous bird of the vulture species, probably so called from its cry,’’ — F. Crit.
Sac. cornix. “ A species of unclean bird, remarkable for its sharp sight. See
Job xxviii. Lev. xi, 14, Deut. xiv, 13. In the first passage, the English translation
renders it a vulture, in the two latter, a kite, I should rather think it means a vulture
and that this bird was so called either from its ravenousness, or, from the cry it
makes,” — P. “In Deuteronomy, the text has ^ the raah, and the ayah and the
dayah after its kind.’ Our sages aflirm (in Cholin, folio 63. that the raah and daah

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

are identical, as are the ayah and dayah ; and according to R. Abuah (loc. cit) the
daah, raah, ayah and dayah, are naerely different names ibr the one bird, ♦ which is
called raah, which in Hebrew means to see, because of its quick sightedness ; daah
from its rapid movement, the expression moving, ^ as the eagle,’ being proverbial
and the ayah may also be thus called, [for the word ayeh means where in Hebrew]
and the exclamation ayeh is the most likely to rise to the lips when this bird is in
flight, since it is so soon lost in view. These qualities are more particularly found
in that bird which in German is called habicht (haw'k)” — W. “It is so called
because it is accustomed to frequent known places (eyim)” — Ab. Ez.; Milvus, Order,
Accipitres, Cuv.

6. miy (ngoreb) raven, v. 15, T. 0. Kn"ny (ngoorba) S, J. T. cuervo ; G. T. and
M. raben ; B. and F. corvus. The root means to mix, hence the following remarks
of Bochart and Aben Ezra. “ The color of a crow or raven is not a dead, but a
glossy shining black like silk, and so is properly a mixture of darkness and splendour.”
“ It is of the same signification as ngereb, i.e., evening, implying mixture,” “ Order
Fasserince “ it scents carrion at the distance of a league, and also feeds upon fruit
and small animals, even carrying off poultry,” Cuv.

7. n:y'n nn (bat hayanganah) owl, v. 16, T. O. Kn'r^yD ni (bat nanga-
ineta, S. J. T. hyja del autillo, Ser. and Cass, de R. abestruz (Strix Aluco, Linn.)
G. T. Strauss (ostrich) B. ulula. “ It resides chiefly in desert places, and has a
lugubrious cry” — K. “ Ostrich, so called fiom their loud crying to each other. ‘ In
the lonesomest part of the night,’ says Dr. Shaw, ^ they frequently made a very
doleful and hideous noise w^hich w’ould sometimes be like the roaring of a lion ; at
other times it w^ould bear a near resemblance to the hoarse voices of other quad-
rupeds, particularly of the bull and ox. I have often heard them groan as if in the
greatest agonies, &c. &c. &c. See the continuation of Parkhurst’s interesting
remarks on Lam. iv. 3, etc. Rad. my “ Aben Ezra on Exodus xxiii, 19, writes,
that the flesh of the yanganah is dry as wood, that men eat it not, because of its
lack of moisture, but the young female’s is eatable as possessing some. The
additional word bat, our sages say, refers to the egg of the yanganah.” “ Some
say that the bat [meaning daughter or young female] hayanganah present
a species in which there is no male found that the word in the plural has a mas-
culine termination, is nothing, since we find it frequently applied tofemenine nouns,
e. g. yangalim, rechalim,”— Ab. Ez. There is certainly a female Ostrich, wherefore
Ab. Ez. cannot refer to them. Cuvier classes the owls among the Accipitres and
the ostriches among the Gralloe or stilt birds, which “ feed upon fish, reptiles, worms
and insects.”

8. Dann(tacLraass) night hawk; T. 0. Krv (tsitsa) S. J. T. mochuelo (hom-owl)
•trix otus, Lino. G. 1. nachtcule; M . schwalbe ; “ So called because he violently
pursues other birds seizing them for his prey, thus the Targum Yerushalmi trans-
lates it chatoofitii’ — K. The root means violence, rapine. “ The lxx. render it
glauka and Vulg. noctuam. 1 think, therefore, it was some kind of owl, and consider-
ing the radical import of its Hebrew name, it might not improbably be that which
Hasselquist, Travels, p 196, describes as “ of the size of the common owl, and beino'
very ravenous in Syria, and in the evenings, if the windows are left open flying into
houses and killing infmts, unless tliey are carefully watched, wherefore the women
are much afraid of it.”— P. “ Some say it is the male of the bat hayanganah.”— M.

" Schwalbe, it is of the predaceous kind ; some consider it to be the faclon, aud this

• 8ee note. p. 64.

OF THE HEBREWS,

name well becomes it, from its comparative fierceness among birds.'’ — W. “ From
the root chamas violence.” — Ab. Ez. Order Accipitres, Cuv.

9. (shacbaf)cuckow; T. 0., (tsippor shachafa) S.J. T., cerceta (or gar-

ceta, like Cass, de R. and Ser. widgeon, a kind of small wild duck Anas qnerqxcedula
Linn). G. T., kukuk ; B., larus (sea mew). “ Larus ; according to Kimchi, a bird
laboring under phthisis.” So Furst translates shachafat. “ (Esalon Jun. accipitris
species, circulus, rather the cuckow. Pagnine rendereth it Phthitica.” — Grit. Sac.

** The sea gull or mew, thus called on account of its leanness, slenderness or small
quantity of flesh, in proportion to its apparent size, lxx caron, Vulg. earns. It is
of the same signification as shachafat and implies atrophy, consumption ; the bird is
an exceedingly thin one.” — Ab. Ez. Cuvier places the cuckoos among the Scan-
sores (climbers). “ The cuckoos have a lax stomach, coeca like those of the owls
and no gall bladder.”

10. p (nets) hawk ; T. O., K'n (natsa) S. J. T., gavilan (sparrow hawk, Mdeo

MsnsLinu.) G. T. and M., sperber (sparrow hawk). B., accipiter. “ From the root
Yy: (nitsats) to fly, so called, according to Aben Ezra, the Baal haturim and Shelomoh
Yitschaki, from its being so constantly on the wing . ” — F. It is a bird with which

men hunt, and it will return to the hand of its master.” — K. Crit. Sac. Accipiter ;

“ It occurs in Cholin Per. El. Ter. where it is translated like Rashi by the French
wordaw^oi^r (gashawk).” — M. H. “Tliehawk, from his rapid flight, or shooting
away in flying ; occ. Lev. xi. 16, Deut. xiv. 15, Job. xxxix. 26, which last passage
seems to refer to the migration of the hawk towards the south, for most of the genus
of hawks are birds of passage.” — P. “ When its plumage is ample, it is constantly
on the wing, and flies southward for heat.” — Ab. Ez. Order Accipitres, Cuv.

11. DO (kos) little owl ; T. 0. Knp (karya) S. J. T. halcon, (falcon hawk. Falco

Linn.) G. T. kauzlein ; M. huhu ; B. bubo ; F. pelican ; a bird having a cup-like
appendage to the craw.” “ R. Selomoh explains it by the foreign word, falcon,
which resides with men, and is employed by them in hunting.” — K. “Targ. and
in Mas. Nidah it is translated karia and kephupa, and Rashi explains it as a bird .
which cries during the night, and having something human about the appearance of
its face. Compare Ps. cii. 6.” — W. Perhaps the Kos is identical with the

Lilith (Isa. xxxiv. 14) which is no doubt the huho maxhnns or eagle owl. In the
travels of Cap tains Irby and Mangles, the following observation occurs in their ac-
count of Petra. “ The screaming of eagles, hawks, and owls which were soaring
above our heads in considerable numbers, seemingly annoyed at any one approach-
ing their lonely habitation, added much to the singularity of the scene.” Order Ac-
cipitres, Cuv.

12. (shelach) cormorant; T. O. (shaliluna) S.J. T. and de R. gavista,

gavia, (sea-gull, gull, larus Linn.) G. T. schwan ; M. fischreiher (heron) B. mergus.
“According to the Gemara, a bird that draws up fish from the water [Choi. fol.
hriii, 1,] LXX, katarraktes ; Yulg., mergulus,”— F. « Cormorant is so named in Hebrew
of shalach, of casting itself down into the water” — Ainsw. ap. Crit. Sac. Root
means to cast ; as a N. a kind of sea fowl, the cataract or plungeon. Its Heb. and
Greek names are taken from a very remarkable quality, which is, that when it sees
in the water, the fish on which it preys, it flies to a considerable height, then collects
its wings close to its sides, and darts down like an arrow, on its prey. See Bochart
Tol. iii, p. 278, and Johnston Nat. Hist, de Avibus p. 94, who adds that by thus
darting down it plunges a cubit depth into the water whence evidently, its English
name plungeon f — P. “ Under the common appelation shalach the shag and some
other species of Phalacrocarax or cormorant were included.’ Piet. Blust. Bib. where

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

fiee a most interesting account of them. “As conveyed by the Targumist, a bird
drawing fish from the water” — R. “ Some say a bird that is accustomed to cast
its young” — Ab. Ez. “ Order Palmipedes (having webbed toes) their voracity is
proverbial,” Cuv.

13. (yanshoof) great owl ; T. O., (kifufa) S. J. T., lechuza (stiriz
passenina Linn.) G. T., huhu ; M., nachteule ; B., noctua ; “ According to
Kimchi, a bird that flies or cries at night only (nachteule) so also the Targu-
miflt ; according to Aben Ezra a bird only flying at evening because it cannot bear
the light of the sun” — F. “ An owl or bat, because it flieth at twilight.^' — Grit
Sac. Parkhurst, however, says that this interpretation, so generally accepted among
Jews and Christians, is very forced, and endeavours to show at length that the Ibis
is meant ; but we think his position quite untenable, and this for the reasons he him-
self states. “ Rashi says that the kos (little owl) and the yanshoof are called in
French, chouette (screech — owl) and there is another species like it which is called
hibou^ (owl). Rashi does not mean to say here that the Kos and Yanshoof are one
and the same species, but they are placed together in one verse because they are
alike in respect to crying out at night.” — W. Order Accipitres, Cuv.

14. (tinshemet)swan ; v. 18, T. O., Kma (bavta) S.J.T., calamon(purple water
hen) G. T., and M., fledermaus (bat) B., mouedula. “Yitschaki understands it
f>€spertilioniSy like the mouse that flies at nights (bats), and AbenEzra adds it is so
called from the exclamation (shorn) there ! made on beholding it, and thus does
the Targumist render it bavta (and not cavta as in many readings). Nevertheless
it appears to be a kind of marine bird, and so the Seventy render it ibis^ porphurioa
sea fowl or swan, it is also the name of a four footed reptile, <fcc.” — F. “ Perhaps a
species of owl so called from its breathing in a strong and audible manner, as if
snoring. But as in both these passages, particularly in the former, it is mentioned
among the water fowls, and as the lxx in the latter, appear to have rendered it by
the Ibis (a species of bird not unlike the heron) and the Vulg., in the former by
cygnum the swan ; it should rather seem to denote some water fowl, and that (ac-
cording to its derivation) remarkable for its manner of breathing. And therefore I
think the conjecture of the learned Michaelis (whom see, Recueil de Questions p.
221) that it may mean the goose which every one knows is remarkable for its

manner of breathing out, or hissing when provoked, deserves consideration.” P.

[according to our opinion, bnt very little] “It is the French ehauve scmris, and like the
mouse that flies at night ; and the tinshemet which is mentioned among reptiles is
similar, and has no eyes, it is called talpa'^—R, “Swan, order Palmipedes, Ibis
order Gralloe. The sacred Ibis, was adored by the Egyptians because it devoured
serpents, &c.” — Cuv.

15. nKp (kaat) pelican ; T. O., Knxp (kata) S. J. T., cemicolo, Cass de R., cione
(Falco Tinunculus Linn.) G. T., rohrdommel (bittern) M., pelican ; B., platea, peli-
canus. A bird of the waters or desert w'hich regurgitates what it swallows in its
hunger (pelican). R. Judah saith in the Tahnud that the kaat is identical with
the keek, and in the Jerusalem Talmud R. Ishmael teaches the same. In the
Mishna there occurs the expression < and not with the oil of keek? (See Section
Bam^ Madlikin). And in the Gemaia the question is put as to what is meant
by the oil of keek ? which Shemuel answers by saying it is a water bird of that
name.” — K. Platea avis, pelecanus, a vomitu. Conchas enim calore ventris
coctas, rursus e vomit, ut testis rejectis esculenta seligat ut scribit Plin. Lib. 10,
cap. 40, et Aristol. lib. 9, cap. 10, de Histor. Animal, &c.”— Crit. Sac. Root
ka to vomit ; — the pelican ; the principal food of the pelican or onocrotabus is

OP THE HEBREWS.

shell fish, which it is said to swallow, shells and all, and afterwards, when by the
heat of its stomach, the shells begin to open, to vomit them up again and pick out the
fish. See the continuation of Parkhurst’s lengthy and interesting remarks under
the cited root- This just quoted remark is verified, and we might say the very ex-
pressions found, perhaps unknown to him, in the Talmud Treat. Choi. p. 73, refer-
red to by Aben Ezra and Wessely, in their comments. Order Palmipedes, Cuv.

16. Dm (racham) gier eagle ; T. O., xpnp-) (rakrayka) S. .T. T., pelicano (Pole-
eanus onocrotalus Linn.) M., specht; B., merops (bee catcher). A bird of the
vulture kind, so called from its love to its young, [its root means to have compas-
sion, like chasidahy a stork from chesed mercy] vultur perenopterus Linn. The
word used by the Targum has reference to its green color.” — F. The remarks of
Kimchi are embraced in the foregoing quotation from Furst. Bochart, vol. iii. has
taken great pains to prove that it means a kind of vulture which the Arabs call by
the same names. So Dr. Shaw’s Travels, p. 449, takes it for the Perenopteros or
Oripelargos called by the Turks Ach Bobba, which signifies white father y a name
given it, partly out of the reverence they have for it, partly from the color of its
plumage : though in the other (latter) respect it differs little from the stork, being
black in several places. It is as big as a large capon, and exactly like the figure
which Gesner, lib. iii. De. Avib. hath given us of it. These birds, like the ravens
about London, feed upon the carrion and nastiness that is thrown without the city
of Cairo, in Egypt. In Lev. racham is placed between kaat the pelican and
chasidah the stork, and in Deut. rachama between kaat the pelican and shelach the
cataract, which positions would incline one to think it meant some kind of water
fowl. But, however this be, this bird seems to be denominated from its remarkable
tender affection to its young. Com. Ps, ciii. 13, Isa. Ixiii. 15, 1 King’s iii., 26.”
— ^P. Order Accipitres, Cuv.

17. HTDn (chasidah) stork v. 19 ; T. O., Knmn (chavarita) S. J. T., ciguena (Ardea

ciconia Linn.) G. T., andM., storch ; B., ciconia. A bird exhibiting special com-
passion towards its young, [^chesed means mercy or compassion] ciconia.” — F.
*‘We learn from Scripture that it is a periodical bird, or bird of passage, (Jer. viii. 7)
that it has large wings (Zech. v. 9) and that it rests in berushim fir or cedar trees
(Ps. civ. 17). All these circumstances agree to the stork which appears to have
had the name chasidah from its remarkable affection to its young, and from its kind-
ness or piety in tending and feeding its parents when growm old [the same deriva-
tion is given, in nearly the same words, by Kashi. See his comment.] I am aware
that by some, this latter fact is treated as a fable, but I must confess when I find
it asserted by a whole cloud of Roman and Greek writers, who had abundant oppor-
tunity to ascertain the truth or falsehood of it, and especially by Aristotle and Pliny,
and that among the Greeks in particular, it passed into a kind of proverb in their
application of the V. antipelargein and of the names antipelargia and antipelargesis
for requiting ones parents, and in their calling laws enforcing this duty pelargikoi
fiomoi— on these authorities. I say, I cannot help giving credit to the fact just men-
tioned. * * * Chasidah cannot mean the heron for the common heron is not a

bird of passage. It has, however, so great a resemblance to the stork that it is
ranged by naturalists under the same genus. * * * They will feed upon frogs,

carefully selecting the toads, w^hich they will not touch.”— P. But for its extreme
length we would produce the whole of Parkhurst’s learned and interesting article
“—we recommend the attention of the critical reader to it, Aben Ezra says that it
appears at regular periodical intervals, as it is written Jer. viii. 7. Yea, the stork
in the heavens knoweth her appointed times, &c.” “ So punctual are they in their

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

comings and goings, that, from the most remote times they have been considered as
gifted with reasoning powers. * • The coming of the storks was the period of

another Persian festival, announcing their joy at the departure of winter. The ex-
pression ^ the storks in the heavens’ is more applicable than at first appears, for
even when out of sight, its path may be traced by the loud and piercing cries peculiar
to those of the new as well as of the old world. • * Besides the Jews, other

nations held this bird in veneration.”— Piet. Ulus. Bib. ‘‘ Their gizzard is slightly
muscular and their two coeea so small as to be barely perceptible. Order Grallce,”
-pCuv.

18. (anafah) heron ; T. O., 'inK (eboo) S. J. T., ensanadera; Cass, de R. and
Serr., cuervo marine ; G. T. and M., reiher ; B., milvus (kite). “ According to the
Talmudic doctors, the angry dayah or vulture, the root being ana/ to be angry.” — F.

In Latin Ardea of ardeo to burn, chiefly because she is an angry creature.” Crit.
Sac. Heron, so named from its angry disposition, as the stork is called chasidah
from its kindness. Bochart, vol. iii. 337, takes anafah for a kind of eagle or hawk,
but if this were the true meaning of the w’ord, I think it would have been reckoned
with one or the other of those species in the preceding verses.” — P. As in
Cholin the angry Dayah; to me it appears to be the heron.” — R. Anafah be-
cause it becomes quickly incensed.” — Ab. Ez. Their stomach is a very
large sac, but slightly muscular, and they have only one minute ccecum. Order
Grallce, Cuv.

19. naovi (doochifhat) lapwing ; T O., kivj -id 3 (neigar toora, cock of the moun-
tains.” Elias in Methurgaman observes that it is called in German an awrhane, D.
L.) S. J. T., gallo montes ; Serr. and de R., aborilla ; G. T., miedehopf ; B. upupa
picus “ According to another opinion it is derived from duch (gallus) and kef a
(mons).” — F. “ Rab. Sherira the Gaon, explains it also, to mean tarnegol hahar
(wood cock). The lapwing is so called of the double combe that it hath, Gallic
aylvestris diMt Gallina sylvestrisd^ — Crit. Sac. The upupa, hoopoe, or hoop a very
beautiful, but most unclean and filthy species of bird which is, however, sometimes
eaten. So the lxx, Epophj and Vulgate Upupa. (See Boch. v. iil Brookes Nat.
Hist. V. ii. p. 123.) It may have its Hebrew name as it plainly has its Latin and
English one, from the noise or cry it makes.” — P. Wood-cock, its comb is double
in French hupe^ called nagar toora, because of its acts, as our sages explain in
Masechet Gittin (p. 63).’’ — R. The Sadduces say this is the cock, but they are
the fools of the world [most irrational,] for who told them % [since they reject tradi-
tionary teachings.]” — Ab. Ez. Lapw’ing Order Grallce, Cuv.

20. (ngataleO bat ; T. O., (ngatalepha) S. J. T., morciegalo ; G. T.,
Schwalbe, B., vespertilio. According to Aben Ezra, a small bird flying at night,
derived according to Kimchi, from ngatal (darkness) and ngef (to fly). This, how-
ever, does not seem a proper explanation to me. I consider it to be a reptile which
is like a mouse (bat) thus we find in Isaiah it is joined to chefor perot (ch. ii. v. 20).
( Ang. Vers, moles,) its root ngatalef , as in Latin talpa ; if so the ngain becomes para-
gogic, whence is derivable the bird’s name which is like it.”— F. ‘‘ The w'inged
mouse which flies at night.”— K. Vespertilio quoe in caligine volitat. et interdiu
se velat. ’ C lit. Sac. “Perhaps from ngat to fly and ngalaf obscurity. A bat,
which flies abroad only in the dusk of the evening and in the night, according to
Ovid, Metam. lib. iv. fab. 10, lin. 415. Nocte volant, seroque trah^t,
a vespere nomen’ P. “R. David Kimchi writes that it means the winged mouse
that flies at nights. If so, we find that the sacred book commences its enumeration
with the king among birds, viz : the eagle, and finishes with that which is intermediate

OF THE HEBREWS.

between a bird and a reptile’’ — W. Cuvier places the bats among the Camaria, the
third order of Mammalia.

Of flying reptiles (sherets hangof) we have mentioned 1. nmx (arbeh) rendered by
the Anglican version, locust; 2. (soln gam) bald locust; 3, (chargole)

beetle ; 4. (chagab) grasshopper. This first is translated locust^ but

the other three are left untranslated by the Spanish Jewish Translators, Cas-
siodoro de Reyna, most of the German translators and Mendelssohn. They are
rendered by Buxtorf, respectively, locusta; species attelabum; cantharus; and locusta;
by Furst, locusta ; species locustce a ijorad^a/e nominatoe ; genus locustce, a saliendo,
&c. ; locusta gregaria. According to Kimchi, 1. locust; 2, one of the species of
locusts, the rashon (bald locust) of our sages [see Choi. fol. 65 a, and Vayikra
Rabba, sec. 14] it has a bald forehead, no tail, but elongated head. 3. Species of
locust ; 4, the same. Parkhurst thus renders them, with the following remarks : 1,
a locust ; some place the word under this root, (arab) to lie in wait, because these
insects suddenly and unexpectedly come forth upon countries as from lurking places
plundering and destroying, &c., 2. from salang to cut, &c., a kind of locust, prob-
ably so called from its rugged craggy form as represented in Scheuchzer’s Physica
Sacra tab. ccl, fig. 1 which see, &c., 3. a kinH of locust ; it appears to be derived from
charagy to shake, and regel, the foot, and so to denote the nimbleness of its motions.
Thus, in English w^e call an animal of the locust kind, a grasshopper, the French
name of which is likewise sauierelle from the V. sauter to leap. 4, * * I should

rather think that chagab denotes the cucullated spicies of locust, so denominated by
naturalists from the cucullusy cowl or hood with which they are naturally furnished,
and which serves to distinguish them from the other birds, dec.” P. The Arabs eat
them in a fried state with salt and butter ; and the writer of this has seen several
Jews from Barbary eat the locust with much apparent gusto in the city of London,
evidently considering it a great luxury, and themselves, much favored in
being able to procure these native delicacies where the public taste has not yet
called for them, though it requires, in abundance, creatures of most loathsome
appearance and character, which it cannot, in justice, be said, the locusts present,
The locusts are classed by Cuvier among the Insecta, 2nd family of the Orthoptera,
viz : the Saltatoria.

With respect to reptiles, it will be seen from an examination of the word
(sherets) on page 52, to which the reader is referred, that in Hebrew this word
has a much wider acceptation than in English, and includes things moving swiftly
in the waters, as swirnTning fishes, or on the earth, as weazels, mice, &c. This
premised, the scriptural classification will be better appreciated.

1. ibn (choled) weasel v. 29, T. O., Kibin (choolda,) S. J. T., comadreja, (mus-
tela vulgaris, Linn.) G. T. and M., wiesel; B., mustela ; F., talpa, called so in the
Talmud, because of its digging or scooping ; we find '' the Eternal hollowed for
them (machlid) the earth.”--F. K. mustela, “ The weasel is called in Hebrew
choled, of cheled time, not because it liveth long as oleaster, but because it soon
waxeth old and so giveth way to time.”--Crit. Sac. '' It seems to have its Hebrew
name from its insidious creeping manner.” P. “ Order Carnaria (being very
sanguinary, and living almost entirely upon flesh.) The true weasels are the most
sanguinary of any” — Cuv.

2. niDy (ngachbar) mouse ; T. 0., (ngachbera) S. J. T., raton; G. T. and
M., maus; B. and F., mus. Harmer shows that in latter days mice have been
sometimes most destructive, to Palestine in particular”— P. Order Rodentia, Cuv.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

3. nv (tsab) tortoise; T. O., (tsaba) S. J. T.^sapo; G. T.,krote (toad,) M.,
•childkrote ; B. testudo ; ** Bufo, 4 tumescendo, testudo,” — Grit. Sac. The toad,
from his swelling (the root means to swell) or rather because there seems no occa-
sion to forbid eating the toad, the tortoise^ from the turgid form of his shell’’ — P .

R. Eliau Bachur translates it schildfrote identical with schildkrote^^ — W.
“ verdierf approaching the frog’’, R. — Reptilia — Order Chelonia, Cuv.

4. KpDK (anakah) ferret, v. 30, T. O., Kb' (yala) S. J. T., erizo (hedgehog) G. T.
and M., igel ; F., stellio, a sono, ** So called perhaps from its continued ciy” — K.
“ A kind of lizard or newt, so called from its moan or doleful cry” — P. herisson
according to Rashi. Cuvier places the lizards among the Reptilia, second family of
the Saurians. The lizards are distinguished by their forked tongue, &c. Those
called the monitors frequent the vicinity of the haunts of crocodiles and alligators, it
is said that they give warning, by a whistling sound, of the approach of these danger-
ous reptiles, and hence probably their names of sauvegarde and monitor^^ — Cuv.
This is certainly intimated in the Hebrew name.

5. HD (koach) chameleon ; T. O., KmD (kocha) S. J. T., lagartija; G. T., molch
(salamander) B., lacerta, ‘‘genus lacertoe, non a robore nominatum, sed ab humare
vel sputo quod emittit” — F. “ R. Yonah writes that it is called hardouj it is a
species of the (tsab,) and R. Solomon writes that in the vernacular it is called
lizard.” — K. “ A species of lizard well known in the east, and called by the Arabs
alwarlOf or, corruptedly from them, warral or guaril, and so remarkable for its vigor
in destroying serpents and dhabs, (another species of the lizards) that the Arabs
have many proverbs taken from these its qualities, &c.” — P. “ Rashi, Onkelos and
Jonathan Ben Uziel and Mendelssohn do not translate this w'ord at all; but it
appears to me to be identical with the Arabic guaril known for its great strength.”
— W. Cuvier places the chameleons among the Reptilia, 5th family of the Saurians,

6. HKiob (letaah) lizard, T. 0., riKob (letaah,) S. J. T., caracol (snail) G.T., eider;
B. stellio, lacertas, “ lacertce species, sic dicta quod terrce adhaereat (1)” — F. “ A
species of poisonous lizard called in Arabic waehra, and remarkable for adhering
closely to the ground. Vulg, stellio, a newly which may confirm the interpretation
here given” — P. “ The lacerta gecko is a species of lizard found in countries bor-
dering on the Mediteranean, it is of a reddish grey, spotted with brown. It is thought
at Cairo to poison the victuals over which it passes, and especially salt provisions,
of which it is very fond It has a voice resembling somewhat that of a frog, which
is intimated by the Hebrew name, importing a sigh ora groan.” Piet. Illus. Bib. — R.
lizard. Reptilia, 2nd family of Saurians, Cuv.

7. laon (chomet) snail, T. 0., kdd'ih (choomta) S. J. T., babosa (Umax, Linn,)
G. T. and M., blindschleich (slow worm or snail) B., Umax ; F., Umax ut plurimi
vertunt. “ Lacerta, secundum divum Hieron. vel Umax. Testudo, cochlea terrea-
tris secundum R. David.” — Grit Sac. “ A kind of lizard. In Chaldee the Y. sigm-
fies to bow down, depress, postrate ; and the animal might be called by this name
from its being (by reason of the shortness of its legs) always prostrate, as it w^ere. In
Josh. XV. 54, we have Chamta, the name of a town in Canaan, perhaps so caUed

rom the emblematic reptile there worshipped. Comp. Deut iv. 8” — P. “ Umace”

R. Mollusca, Gasteropoda Pulmonea, Cuv. ,

8. (tinshemet) mole ; T. O., khwk (ashota) S. J. T., topo, (talpa, Linn.)
G.T. and M., mauhvurf, B. and F., and K., talpa. “ Root means to breathe as a N., a
•pecies of animal enumerated among the lizards. The learned Bochart hath plainly
proved that it was no other than the chaineleony an animal of the lizard kind, fur-
nished with lungs remarkably large, and so observable for its manner of breathing

OF THE HEBREWS.

or perpetually gasping eis it were for breath, that the ancients feigned it to live only
on the air. Thus Ovid, Met. lib. xv, fab. iv, lin. 411. * Id quoque quod ventU
animal nutrilur et aura,^ (The creature nourished by the wind and air)” — P. Thit
applies equally to the mole, since while employed throwing up those little domes
which are called mole hills, he is said to pant and blow as if overcome with the
exertion’’ — Piet. lUus. Bib. Yet the context would show that he is right in placing
the tinshemet among the lizard species. Cuvier places the mole among the Car-
naria of Mammalia.

From the foregoing analysis, vie may consider the following as legiti-
mate deductions. First, as regards beasts^ we find that even such of
them as approximate so closely to those which ruminate and divide the
hoof, that the most able of modern naturalists have been in doubt as to
their classification (e. g. the camel, see p. 61) are pronounced, as of the
prohibited species by the text, which rigidly and unqualifiedly demands
the two requisites mentioned. We further find, that hy this requirement
the law selects as the proper food of the Hebrews, those beasts which
possess the most perfect digestive apparatus^ and whose flesh, therefore,
would be, according to principles laid down by eminent scientific authori-
ties, of the most healthy description. By this dictum, also, the law
includes as permitted, that large and most valuable class of domestic
animals (the Ruminantid) which best minister to the dietary and other
wants of men. As a further consequence we find that the remaining
order of animals, which present, almost without exception, a catalogue
of wild, carnivorous, rapacious, sanguinary and, but for their skins,
chiefly useless, animals, whose digestive apparatus is of a plainer and less
perfect character, and who possess, for the most part, a single stomach and
claws to tear their prey,— that such form the prohibited class. And
with respect to birds we find further that quite an identity exists in their
chararacter, both with the permitted and prohibited ; for the examination
we have made shows us, that although there be some difference of opinion
among Hebrew authorities themselves, respecting the enumerated
species,* yet do they all agree, as do Christian critics, in referring an
overwhelming proportion of them to the Accipitres or RaptoreSy which
are birds of prey. Now, while these, like the beasts of prey, possess a
less perfect digestive apparatus than that of the permitted birds, which
include chiefly, though not exclusively, that valuable class known as the
domestic, — theirs, as we have before shown, is of a more complicated
and perfect character, establishing thus the referred to analogy in so far as
concerns digestion, and, perhaps, the nature of their flesh. It is further
established by the text objecting to those wild, carnivorous, rapacious and
sanguinary birds possessing, like the prohibited beasts, a single stomach

* The number of species of birds known to naturalists is about 6000.

SANATORY INSTITUTIONS

and claws to tear their prey. And it is further established in that
there are instances of doubtful species among the enumerated birds,
(e. g. the raven) just as there are among the enumerated beasts, which
are, however, determined by the sacred text.* This premised, we
may proceed to the consideration of the third point of inquiry, viz.,
the prohibition of the clean and unclean animals having reference to
authority and reason.

As with the prohibition of blood, Hebrew authorities have
assigned both religious or moral, and hygienic, reasons for the
institution of such law ; and as in the former case, we shall select
the most valued of these authorities, and present them in an English
dress to the reader, in conjunction with the illustrations afforded by
other authors. We regard that most valuable and interesting — we
believe, now very scarce, Spanish Jewish work, Las Excelencias delos
Heh'eos^ as containing the most comprehensive digest of Jewish opinion
on the matter. From it, therefore, shall we prefer to translate, com-
mencing at the third division, {Tercera Excelenda; Separados de todajs
las naciones) at the 39th page.

“Three opinions are offered respecting this prohibition. The first is,
that all the meats condemned by the law afford an objectionable and im-
proper nourishment, deteriorating from the health and good temperament
of the body, and embarassing the devotion of the soul. In this way
speaks the great R. Moses, of Egypt (Maimonides, Mor. Neb. c. 3)
when discoursing concerning the reasons of the precepts, referring,
among other matters, to the swine, which he says is of a very humid
nature, and that the principal cause of its prohibition is its extreme
filthiness, — that had it been permitted to become a staple article of food,
[its evils would have predominated over its advantages] for the streets
and habitations would become as filthy as so many dirt receptacles,
(muladares) as we find is the case with those uncleanly cities where
the injurious practice of permitting these animals to congregate in
public places [to collect their noisome food] obtains. [Could our
author have seen some of the poorer Irish neighbourhoods and cabins,
as we have seen them, both in Britain and America, presenting so
many revolting sties where man and hog assist each other to engender
and diffuse fever and pestilence, he would have found powerful and
fearful testimony to the truth of the idea of which he writes.] The
fat of the swine is, in itself, sufficient to impede the circulation, [and,
we take leave to add, is one of the chief reasons why such fearfully
vast quantities of intoxicating liquors are consumed in those countries

* See commentary of Abarbanel quoted on p. 64.