1 /S' ^ 
 
 cS/ > 
 
 SANATOEY JNSTITUTIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HEBREWS, 
 
 0 
 
 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 
 
 i\ 
 
 
 ^loutcfal : 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, AT HIS STEAM PRINTING- ESTABLISH 51 ENT 
 
 ST. NICHOLAS STREET, 
 
 1861. 
 
 
 
 
 
 :) 
 
 D 
 
 -qp- 
 
 I 
 
 

™ P<Lir7'c./ . 
 
 , T> ?' ^ ■ 
 
 
 SANATOEY INSTITUTIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 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,”^ 
 
4 
 
 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. 
 
 5 
 
 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. 
 
6 
 
 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. 
 
 7 
 
 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 
 
s 
 
 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. 
 
 9 
 
 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 
 
10 
 
 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. 
 
 11 
 
 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 
 
12 
 
 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. 
 
 13 
 
 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, 
 
u 
 
 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. 
 
 15 
 
 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. 
 
16 
 
 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* 
 
 17 
 
 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 — 
 
18 
 
 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. 
 
 19 
 
 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 
 
20 
 
 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. 
 
 21 
 
 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** 
 
22 
 
 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. 
 
 23 
 
 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 
 
24 
 
 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, 
 
 25 
 
 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. 
 
26 
 
 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. 
 
 27 
 
 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. 
 
 C 
 
28 
 
 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. 
 
 29 
 
 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. 
 
30 
 
 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, 
 
 31 
 
 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. 
 
32 
 
 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. 
 
 33 
 
 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 
 
u 
 
 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. 
 
 35 
 
 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.” 
 
 D 
 
36 
 
 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. 
 
 37 
 
 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. 
 
38 
 
 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. 
 
 39 
 
 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 
 
40 
 
 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. 
 
 il 
 
 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.” 
 
42 
 
 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. 
 
 43 
 
 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 
 
44 
 
 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. 
 
 45 
 
 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. 
 
46 
 
 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. 
 
 47 
 
 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 
 
 iS 
 
 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. 
 
 49 
 
 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 
 
50 
 
 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. 
 
 51 
 
 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. 
 
 E 
 
52 
 
 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. 
 
 53 
 
 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. 
 
54 
 
 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. 
 
 55 
 
 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.*’ 
 
56 
 
 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. 
 
 57 
 
 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 
 
58 
 
 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. 
 
 59 
 
 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* 
 
60 
 
 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. 
 
 61 
 
 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. 
 
62 
 
 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. 
 
 63 
 
 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* 
 
64 
 
 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, 
 
 65 
 
 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 
 
66 
 
 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, 
 
 67 
 
 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 
 
68 
 
 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. 
 
 69 
 
 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 
 
70 
 
 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. 
 
 71 
 
 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. 
 
72 
 
 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. 
 
 73 
 
 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. 
 
74 
 
 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.