The distinction of clean and unclean animals.
The distinction of cleane and vncleane in beastes, fish, birdes, and other things. 43. With commandment to be holie, and impolluted.
1And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying:E il Signore parlò a Mosè, ed Aronne, e disse:AND our Lord spake to Moyses and Aaron, saying:Locutusque est Dominus ad Moysen et Aaron, dicens: 2Say to the children of Israel: These are the animals which you are to eat of all the living things of the earth.Dite a' figliuoli d'Israele: Tra tutti gli animali della terra questi son quelli che voi mangerete:Say to the children of Israel: These are the beasts which you ought to eate of al the liuing things of the earthDicite filiis Israël: Hæc sunt animalia quæ comedere debetis de cunctis animantibus terræ: 3Whatsoever hath the hoof divided, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, you shall eat.De' quadrupedi mangerete tutti quelli che hanno lo zoccolo fesso, e ruminano:Euerie one that hath the hoofe diuided, and cheweth the cudde among the cattel, you shal eate.omne quod habet divisam ungulam, et ruminat in pecoribus, comedetis. 4But whatsoever cheweth indeed the cud, and hath a hoof, but divideth it not, as the camel, and others: that you shall not eat, but shall reckon it among the unclean.Di tutti quelli che ruminano, e han lo zoccolo, ma non fesso, come il cammello, e gli altri, voi non ne mangerete, e li conterete tra gl'immondi.But whatsoeuer in dede cheweth the cudde, and hath an hoofe, but diuideth it not, as the camel, and others, that you shal not eate, and among the vncleane you shal repute it.Quidquid autem ruminat quidem, et habet ungulam, sed non dividit eam, sicut camelus et cetera, non comedetis illud, et inter immunda reputabitis. 5The cherogrillus which cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, is unclean.Il porcospino, il quale rumina, ma non ha lo zoccolo fesso, è immondo:Cherogril which cheweth the cudde, and diuideth not the hoofe, is vncleane.Chœrogryllus qui ruminat, ungulamque non dividit, immundus est. 6The hare also: for that too cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof.Parimente la lepre, perché ella pure rumina; ma non ha fesso lo zoccolo:The hare also: for that also cheweth the cudde, but diuideth not the hoofe.Lepus quoque: nam et ipse ruminat, sed ungulam non dividit. 7And the swine, which, though it divideth the hoof, cheweth not the cud.E il porco, il quale ha fesso lo zoccolo, ma non rumina.And the swine: which though it diuideth the hoofe, cheweth not the cudde.Et sus: qui cum ungulam dividat, non ruminat. 8The flesh of these you shall not eat, nor shall you touch their carcasses, because they are unclean to you.Delle carni di questi animali non vi ciberete, e non toccherete i loro corpi morti; perocché sono immondi per voi.The flesh of these you shal not eate, nor touch their carcasses, because they are vncleane to you.Horum carnibus non vescemini, nec cadavera contingetis, quia immunda sunt vobis.
9These are the things that breed in the waters, and which it is lawful to eat. All that hath fins, and scales, as well in the sea, as in the rivers, and the pools, you shall eat.Ecco gli animali acquatici, de' quali è lecito mangiare: tutti quelli che hanno le ali, e le squame tanto nel mare come ne' fiumi, e negli stagni, voi li mangerete:These are the thinges that brede in the waters, and which it is lawful to eate. Al that hath finnes, and scales, aswel in the sea, as in the riuers, and the pooles, you shal eate.Hæc sunt quæ gignuntur in aquis, et vesci licitum est: omne quod habet pinnulas et squamas, tam in mari quam in fluminibus et stagnis, comedetis. 10But whatsoever hath not fins and scales, of those things that move and live in the waters, shall be an abomination to you,Ma tutto quel che si muove, e ha vita nell'acque, e non ha ali, né squame, lo avrete in abominazione, ed esecrazione.But whatsoeuer hath not finnes and scales, of those that moue and liue in the waters, shalbe vnto you abhominable,Quidquid autem pinnulas et squamas non habet, eorum quæ in aquis moventur et vivunt, abominabile vobis, 11And detestable. Their flesh you shall not eat: and their carcasses you shall avoid.Non vi ciberete di essi, e schiverete di toccarli morti.and execrable, their flesh you shal not eate, and their carcasses you shal avoide.execrandumque erit: carnes eorum non comedetis, et morticina vitabitis. 12All that have not fins and scales, in the waters, shall be unclean.Saranno impuri tutti gli acquatici, che non hanno ale, o squame.Al that haue not finnes and scales in the waters, shal be polluted.Cuncta quæ non habent pinnulas et squamas in aquis, polluta erunt. 13Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey.Degli uccelli non dovete mangiare, ma lasciar da parte i seguenti: l'aquila, il grifone, e l'aquila di mare,Of birdes these are they which you must not eate, and are to be auoided of you: The Eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey,Hæc sunt quæ de avibus comedere non debetis, et vitanda sunt vobis: aquilam, et gryphem, et haliæetum, 14And the kite, and the vulture, according to their kind.E il falcone, e l'avoltoio colle sue specie,and the kite, and the vulture according to his kinde,et milvum ac vulturem juxta genus suum, 15And all that is of the raven kind, according to their likeness.E il corvo, e tutte le specie simili al corvo,and euerie one of the rauens kinde, according to their similitude,et omne corvini generis in similitudinem suam,
16The ostrich, and the owl, and the larus, and the hawk according to its kind.Lo struzzolo, e la civetta, il laro e l'avoltoio con tutte le sue specie,the ostrich, and the owle, and the sterne, and the hauke according to his kinde.struthionem, et noctuam, et larum, et accipitrem juxta genus suum: 17The screech owl, and the cormorant, and the ibis.Il gufo, il mergo, e l'ibi,the scritchowle, and the diuer, and the storke,bubonem, et mergulum, et ibin, 18And the swan, and the bittern, and the porphyrion.E il cigno, e l'onocrotalo, e il porfirione,and the swanne, and the onocratal, and the porphirion,et cygnum, et onocrotalum, et porphyrionem, 19The heron, and the charadroin according to its kind, the houp also, and the bat.La cicogna, e il caradrio colle sue specie, l'upupa, e il pipistrello.the herodian, and the charadrion according to his kind, the lapwing also, and the batte.herodionem, et charadrion juxta genus suum, upupam quoque, et vespertilionem. 20Of things that fly, whatsoever goeth upon four feet, shall be abominable to you.Tutti gli animali che volano e camminano a quattro gambe, gli avrete in abbominazione:Of foules euerie one that goeth vpon foure feete, shal be abhominable to you.Omne de volucribus quod graditur super quatuor pedes, abominabile erit vobis. 21But whatsoever walketh upon four feet, but hath the legs behind longer, wherewith it hoppeth upon the earth,Ma tutti quelli che camminano a quattro piedi, ma hanno gli stinchi di dietro più lunghi, co' quali saltano sopra la terra,And whatsoeuer walketh vpon foure feete, but hath the legges behind longer, wherwith he hoppeth vpon the earth,Quidquid autem ambulat quidem super quatuor pedes, sed habet longiora retro crura, per quæ salit super terram, 22That you shall eat: as the bruchus in its kind, the attacus, and ophimachus, and the locust, every one according to their kind.Li potete mangiare: e tale è il bruco colle sue specie, l'attaco, e l'ophiomaco, e la cavalletta, ognuno colle sue specie.that you shal eate, as is the bruke in his kind, the attake, and the ophiomach, and the locust, euerie one according to their kinde.comedere debetis, ut est bruchus in genere suo, et attacus atque ophiomachus, ac locusta, singula juxta genus suum. 23But of flying things whatsoever hath four feet only, shall be an abomination to you.Ma tutti i volatili, che hanno quattro piedi, gli avrete in esecrazione:But of foule whatsoeuer hath foure feete onlie, shal be execrable to you:Quidquid autem ex volucribus quatuor tantum habet pedes, execrabile erit vobis:
24And whosoever shall touch the carcasses of them, shall be defiled: and shall be unclean until the evening:E chiunque li toccherà morti, contrarrà impurità, e sarà immondo fino alla sera:and whatsoeuer shal touch the carcasses of them, shal be polluted, and shal be vncleane vntil euen:et quicumque morticina eorum tetigerit, polluetur, et erit immundus usque ad vesperum: 25And if it be necessary that he carry any of these things when they are dead: he shall wash his clothes, and shall be unclean until the sun set.E se sarà necessario, ch'ei porti alcuno di tali animali morto, laverà le sue vesti, e sarà immondo fino al tramontar del sole.and if it be necessarie that he carie anie of these that be dead, he shal wash his clothes, and shal be vncleane vntil sunne sette.et si necesse fuerit ut portet quippiam horum mortuum, lavabit vestimenta sua, et immundus erit usque ad occasum solis. 26Every beast that hath a hoof, but divideth it not, nor cheweth the cud shall be unclean: and he that toucheth it, shall be defiled.Qualunque animale, che ha lo zoccolo, ma non lo ha fesso, e non rumina, sarà immondo, e chi lo toccherà contrarrà immondezza.Euerie beast that hath a hoofe, but diuideth it not, neither cheweth the cudde, shal be vncleane: and whatsoeuer toucheth it, shal be defiled.Omne animal quod habet quidem ungulam, sed non dividit eam, nec ruminat, immundum erit: et qui tetigerit illud, contaminabitur. 27That which walketh upon hands of all animals which go on all four, shall be unclean: he that shall touch their carcasses shall be defiled until evening.Tra gli animali quadrupedi quelli che hanno mani, sulle quali camminano, saranno immondi: chi toccherà i corpi loro morti, sarà impuro fino alla sera.That which walketh vpon hands of al beasts, which goe on foure feete, shal be vncleane: he that toucheth their carcasses, shal be polluted vntil euen.Quod ambulat super manus ex cunctis animantibus, quæ incedunt quadrupedia, immundum erit: qui tetigerit morticina eorum, polluetur usque ad vesperum. 28And he that shall carry such carcasses, shall wash his clothes, and shall be unclean until evening: because all these things are unclean to you.E chi porterà simili cadaveri, laverà le sue vesti, e sarà immondo fino alla sera; perché tutti questi (animali) sono immondi per voi.And he that carieth such carcasses, shal wash his clothes, and shal be vncleane vntil euen: because these thinges are vncleane to you.Et qui portaverit hujuscemodi cadavera, lavabit vestimenta sua, et immundus erit usque ad vesperum: quia omnia hæc immunda sunt vobis.
29These also shall be reckoned among unclean things, of all that move upon the earth. The weasel, and the mouse, and the crocodile, every one according to their kind:Degli animali, che si muovono sopra la terra, questi ancora si conteranno tra gl'immondi: lo scoiattolo, e il topo, e il coccodrillo, ciascuno secondo la sua specie,These also shal be reputed among polluted thinges, of al that moue vpon the earth, the weesel and the mouse and the crocadile, euerie one according to their kinde,Hæc quoque inter polluta reputabuntur de his quæ moventur in terra, mustela et mus et crocodilus, singula juxta genus suum, 30The shrew, and the chameleon, and the stellio, and the lizard, and the mole.Il migale, il camaleonte, lo stellione, la lucertola, la talpa:the migale, and the camelean, and the stellion, and the lizard, and the moule:mygale, et chamæleon, et stellio, et lacerta, et talpa. 31All these are unclean. He that toucheth their carcasses shall be unclean until the evening.Tutti questi sono immondi: chi li toccherà morti, sarà immondo fino alla sera:al these are vncleane. He that toucheth their carcasses, shal be vncleane vntil euen:Omnia hæc immunda sunt. Qui tetigerit morticina eorum, immundus erit usque ad vesperum: 32And upon what thing soever any of their carcasses shall fall, it shall be defiled, whether it be a vessel of wood, or a garment, or skins or haircloths: or any thing in which work is done. They shall be dipped in water, and shall be unclean until the evening, and so afterwards shall be clean.E se da' loro corpi morti alcuna cosa venga a cadere sopra qualsivoglia altra, questa sarà immonda, sia ella o un vaso di legno, o una veste, o una pelle, o un panno di Cilicia, e ogni arnese, che serve a far qualche cosa, tuttociò si laverà nell'acqua, e sarà immondo fino alla sera, e così sarà di poi purificato.and that wherupon anie thing of their carcasses falleth, shal be polluted aswel vessel of wood and rayment, as skinnes and haire clothes: and in whatsoeuer vessel anie worke is done, they shal be dipped in water, and shal be polluted vntil euen, and so afterward shal be cleane.et super quod ceciderit quidquam de morticinis eorum, polluetur, tam vas ligneum et vestimentum, quam pelles et cilicia: et in quocumque fit opus, tingentur aqua, et polluta erunt usque ad vesperum, et sic postea mundabuntur. 33But an earthen vessel, into which any of these shall fall, shall be defiled: and therefore is to be broken.Ma il vaso di terra, dentro del quale sia caduta alcuna di tali cose, contrae immondezza, e perciò dee spezzarsi.But the earthen vessel, wherinto anie of these falleth within it, shal be polluted, and therfore is to be broken.Vas autem fictile, in quod horum quidquam intro cecidit, polluetur, et idcirco frangendum est.
34Any meat which you eat, if water from such a vessel be poured upon it, shall be unclean; and every liquor that is drunk out of any such vessel, shall be unclean.Qualunque cibo, di cui voi vi nudrite, se viene a versarvisi sopra dell'acqua, sarà immondo: e ogni liquore, che può beversi, se viene da qualsisia vaso (immondo) sarà immondo.Al meate, which you shal eate, if the water be poured vpon it, shal be vncleane; and al liquor that is dronke of al vessel, shal be vncleane.Omnis cibus, quem comedetis, si fusa fuerit super eum aqua, immundus erit: et omne liquens quod bibitur de universo vase, immundum erit. 35And upon whatsoever thing any of these dead beasts shall fall, it shall be unclean. Whether it be oven, or pots with feet, they shall be destroyed, and shall be unclean.E se di tali bestie morte alcuna cosa viene a cadere sopra un vaso, questo sarà immondo: sieno forni, sieno pignatte co' piedi, contrarranno immondezza, e si distruggeranno.And vpon whatsoeuer ought of such carcasses falleth, it shal be vncleane: whether ouens, o• pottes with feete, they shal be distroyed, and shal be vncleane.Et quidquid de morticinis hujuscemodi ceciderit super illud, immundum erit: sive clibani, sive chytropodes, destruentur, et immundi erunt. 36But fountains and cisterns, and all gatherings together of waters shall be clean. He that toucheth their carcasses shall be defiled.Le fontane, le cisterne, e tutti i serbatoi d'acque non contrarranno immondezza. Chi toccherà un corpo morto in esse acque sarà immondo.But the fountaines and the cesternes, and al collection of waters shal be cleane. He that toucheth their carcasse, shal be polluted.Fontes vero et cisternæ, et omnis aquarum congregatio munda erit. Qui morticinum eorum tetigerit, polluetur. 37If it fall upon seed corn, it shall not defile it.Se cade sopra il grano da seminare, non lo farà immondo.If it fal vpon seede corne it shal not pollute it.Si ceciderit super sementem, non polluet eam. 38But if any man pour water upon the seed, and afterwards it be touched by the carcasses, it shall be forthwith defiled.Ma ove uno abbia bagnato nell'acqua il seme, se questo poi sarà toccato da un corpo d'animale morto, immediatamente sarà impuro.But if any man poure water vpon the seede, and afterward it be touched with the carcasses, it shal be forthwith polluted.Si autem quispiam aqua sementem perfuderit, et postea morticinis tacta fuerit, illico polluetur. 39If any beast die, of which it is lawful for you to eat, he that toucheth the carcass thereof, shall be unclean until the evening.Se morrà da sé un animale di quelli che è permesso a voi di mangiare, chi lo toccherà, sarà immondo fino alla sera:If a beast be dead, of which it is lawful for you to eate, he that toucheth the carcasse therof, shal be vncleane vntil euen:Si mortuum fuerit animal, quod licet vobis comedere, qui cadaver ejus tetigerit, immundus erit usque ad vesperum:
40And he that eateth or carrieth any thing thereof, shall wash his clothes, and shall be unclean until the evening.E chi n'avrà mangiato, o n'avrà portata qualche parte, laverà le sue vesti, e sarà immondo fino alla sera.and he that eateth or carieth anie thing therof; shal wash his clothes, and shal be vncleane vntil euen.et qui comederit ex eo quippiam, sive portaverit, lavabit vestimenta sua, et immundus erit usque ad vesperum. 41All that creepeth upon the earth shall be abominable: neither shall it be taken for meat.Tutto quello che si strascina sopra la terra, sarà abbominevole, e non sarà usato per nudrimento.Al that creepeth vpon the earth, shal be abhominable, neither shal it be taken for meate.Omne quod reptat super terram, abominabile erit, nec assumetur in cibum. 42Whatsoever goeth upon the breast on four feet, or hath many feet, or traileth on the earth, you shall not eat, because it is abominable.Voi non mangerete d'alcun di quegli animali, che avendo quattro piedi, cammina sul suo petto, o ha molti piedi, o si strascina per terra, perocché sono cose abbominevoli.Whatsoeuer goeth vpon the brest on foure feete, and hath manie feete, or traileth on the earth, you shal not eate, because it is abhominable.Quidquid super pectus quadrupes graditur, et multos habet pedes, sive per humum trahitur, non comedetis, quia abominabile est. 43Do not defile your souls, nor touch aught thereof, lest you be unclean,Non vogliate contaminare le anime vostre, e non toccate alcuna di queste cose per non diventar immondi.Doe not contaminate your soules, not touch ought therof, lest you be vncleane.Nolite contaminare animas vestras, nec tangatis quidquam eorum, ne immundi sitis. 44For I am the Lord your God. Be holy because I am holy. Defile not your souls by any creeping thing, that moveth upon the earth.Perocché io sono il Signore Dio vostro: siate santi, perché santo son io: non contaminate le anime vostre per ragion di alcuno de' rettili, che si muovono sulla terra.For I am the Lord your God: be holie, because I am holie. Pollute not your soules in anie creeping beast, that moueth vpon the earth.Ego enim sum Dominus Deus vester: sancti estote, quia ego sanctus sum. Ne polluatis animas vestras in omni reptili quod movetur super terram. 45For I am the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that I might be your God.Perocché io sono il Signore, che vi ho tratti dalla terra d'Egitto per essere vostro Dio. Voi sarete santi, perocché io son santo.For I am the Lord, that brought you out of the Land of Aegypt, that I might be your God. You shal be holie because I am holie.Ego enim sum Dominus, qui eduxi vos de terra Ægypti, ut essem vobis in Deum. Sancti eritis, quia ego sanctus sum. 46You shall be holy, because I am holy. This is the law of beasts and fowls, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and creepeth on the earth:Questa è la legge riguardante le bestie, e i volatili, e tutti gli animali viventi, che guizzano nell'acqua, o strisciano sulla terra,This is the lawe of beasts and foules, and of euerie liuing soule, that moueth in the waters, and creepeth on the earth,Ista est lex animantium ac volucrum, et omnis animæ viventis, quæ movetur in aqua, et reptat in terra,
47That you may know the differences of the clean, and unclean, and know what you ought to eat, and what to refuse.Affinché conosciate la differenza tra il mondo, e l'immondo, e sappiate quel che abbiate a mangiare, o rifiutare.that you may know the differences of the cleane, and the vncleane, and know what you ought to eate, and what to refuse.ut differentias noveritis mundi et immundi, et sciatis quid comedere et quid respuere debeatis.
11:1
Year of the World 2514, Year before Christ 1490.
11:2
Challoner
Animals which you are to eat, etc. The prohibition of so many kinds of beasts, birds, and fishes, in the law, was ordered, 1. to exercise the people in obedience and temperance; 2. to restrain them from the vices of which these animals were symbols; 3. because the things here forbidden were for the most part unwholesome, and not proper to be eaten; 4. that the people of God, by being obliged to abstain from things corporally unclean, might be trained up to seek a spiritual cleanness. (Challoner)
Worthington
These animals had no natural uncleanness: for all things are clean to the clean, Titus 1:15. But they were looked upon as such by the prejudice of the people, and many of them possessed noxious qualities. If they had been the most excellent, the will of God is a sufficient reason to enforce the duty of abstinence; (Calmet) as it was in the case of Adam and Eve. As some animals were adored, and others were deemed unclean by the Gentiles, the Hebrews were commanded to sacrifice some of the former description, and to abhor also the latter, that they might never be so foolish, as to imitate the perversity of the nations, in looking upon any animal as a god. (Theod., q. 11.) St. Thomas Aquinas (I. 2. q. 102. a. 6,) explains at large, out of the holy fathers, the different vices, which the unclean animals represent. (Worthington)
Haydock
By the distinction of these creatures, God would have his people known, Leviticus 20:24, 26. Those who chose rather to die than to transgress in this point, are justly honoured by the Church as martyrs, 2 Machabees 6. and 7. (St. Gregory, or. 20.) (Haydock)
11:3
Worthington
Hoof divided, and cheweth the cud. The dividing the hoof, and chewing the cud, signify discretion between good and evil, and meditating on the law of God: and where either of these is wanting, a man is unclean. In like manner, fishes were reputed unclean that had not fins and scales: that is, souls that did not raise themselves up by prayer, and cover themselves with the scales of virtues, (Challoner) particularly of mortification and penance. (Worthington)
11:4
Calmet
Camel, which hath a hard skin connecting its hoof below. The Arabs and Persians eat its flesh. God will have his people keep at a distance from imitating them; and that is one of the reasons for this and similar precepts. (Calmet)
11:5
Challoner
The cherogrillus. Some suppose it to be the rabbit, others the hedgehog: St. Jerome intimates that it is another kind of animal common in Palestine, which lives in the holes of rocks, or in the earth. We choose here, as also in the names of several other creatures that follow, (which are little known in this part of the world) to keep the Greek or Latin names. (Challoner)
Calmet
Bochart (Hierozoicon) may be consulted on this subject. He supposes, that the Hebrew shaphan, denotes the Arabian rat called aliarbuho. But the Jews themselves are ignorant of many of these animals. (Calmet)
Menochius
Both choiros and grullos, signify swine. The porcupine, or the bear-mouse of Palestine, may be meant. (Menochius)
11:6
Cheweth. Some copies of the Septuagint add not, which agrees with the nature of the hare; though the people to whom Moses addresses himself were of a different persuasion. Its hoof is not divided into two parts only, and therefore it is accounted unclean.
11:7
Calmet
Swine. This animal was abhorred by many other nations. If an Egyptian happened to touch one, he plunged into the Nile. (Herodotus 2:47.) Few are to be seen in the East. Yet the people of Crete and of Samos held swine in veneration; and they were offered in sacrifice to Venus, by the Cyprians. They seem designed for slaughter, as they are good for nothing alive. They are very subject to leprosy. (Calmet)
Haydock
The Jews would hardly name them, but called them "the beast." Old Eleazer was strongly instigated to pretend at least to eat swine's flesh, but preferred a painful death before the transgression of God's law, 2 Machabees 6:18. (Haydock)
11:8
Carcasses. They might be touched while alive, ver. 24.
11:9
Eat. The Egyptians, and the priests of the Syrian goddess, abstained from fish.
Calmet
Pools. Hebrew and Septuagint torrents. (Calmet)
Menochius
Eels are prohibited, etc. (Menochius)
11:10
Pliny
Scales. Numa forbade fish without scales to be used in the sacred feasts. (Pliny, [Natural History?] 32:2.)
11:13
Challoner
The griffon. Not the monster which the painters represent, which has no being upon earth; but a bird of the eagle kind, larger than the common. (Challoner)
Osprey. The sea or black eagle, which is very clear-sighted, and expert in catching fish. Pliny relates, (B. 10:3,) that it tries its young by making them look at the sun, and hurls them down if they refuse. But this seems fabulous.
11:16
Ostrich; which was served up at the tables of the Persian kings. Hebrew, "the daughter of the hiena;" (both êiáne) or the swan, Isaias 13:21.
Owl, or perhaps the male ostrich, which cruelly abandons its young.
Calmet
Larus, the water-hen. (Calmet)
Haydock
Some have the cuckow. (Haydock)
11:17
Owl, or the onocrotalus, which makes a hideous noise like an assibis, a bird adored in Egypt. Bochart takes the Hebrew to mean an owl, as well as the following term, swan, (Calmet) which is not probable.
11:18
Haydock
Bittern, onocrotalum. See ver. 17. Protestant version has "pelican and the gier-eagle," for porphyrion. (Haydock)
Its beak and long legs are red. (Pliny, [Natural History?] 10:46.) Bochart understands the vulture, and the Samaritan version the pelican; both of which are remarkable for the care they take of their young. Reme may be derived from rem, "mercy."
11:19
Heron, or "stork," noted for the same quality: chasida, means "piety."
Menochius
Charadrion, a kind of heron, (Calmet) mentioned by Aristotle, 8:3. It is found in deep holes and rocks. (Menochius)
Calmet
Some translate parrot, peacock, kite, etc. Anapha,may denote a bird easily vexed. (Calmet)
Haydock
Houp, or lapwing. (Haydock)
Bat. Strabo (xvii.) speaks of some very large, which were salted and eaten at Borsippe.
11:20
Menochius
Feet. Such as bees, (Calmet) and other insects of which he speaks. (Menochius)
11:21
Calmet
Walketh. Hebrew adds lo, "not." But the Massorets read lu, "to it," agreeably to the Vulgate. (Calmet)
Protestant version, "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."
11:22
Calmet
Locust. The three former are species of the same kind. The bruchus is a young locust, without wings, (St. Augustine in Psal. civ.,) and the attachus the least of all. (Pliny, 29:5.) The ophiomachus is large, "encounters serpents," and is destitute of wings. The nations called Acridophagi, received their name from their feeding upon locusts, which are the food of the common people in Syria and Africa. See Pliny, 11:29, etc. Clenard, in 1541, wrote from Fez, that he had seen the sky darkened with clouds of locusts, which the people endeavoured presently to destroy, and filled waggons with their bodies, for food. Kirsten says, they are very delicious. Arnulph assures us, that they are a finger's breadth, and are fried in oil by the poor. (Raban. in Matthew 3:4.) See Joel 2:(Calmet)
11:23
Menochius
Only. Equal in length, ver. 20-21. (Menochius)
11:24
Worthington
Evening. If he were guilty of sin in so doing, contrition would be necessary to regain God's favour. (Worthington)
Haydock
But the legal uncleanness would not be removed till the evening; as the one might subsist while the other was remitted. (Haydock)
11:25
Menochius
Necessary. To prevent the obstruction of the road, or the infection of the air. (Menochius)
Estius
When any person touched these carcasses, he was obliged to wash his clothes immediately, and still to refrain from touching any thing sacred till sun-set. (Estius)
If a dog chanced to die in the house of an Egyptian, all the family shaved their hair and began to mourn. The food and wine in the house could no longer be used. (Eusebius, praep. 2:1.) They adored the dog. But other nations, which did not adore animals, esteemed those unworthy of sacred things who had touched a carcass, though they invoked their gods by slaying beasts, as Porphyrius remarks. (Eusebius, praep. 5:10.) They put off their shoes when they enter certain temples, for the same reason. Scortea non ulli fas est inferre sacello---ne violent puros exanimata Deos.
11:26
It. When dead. It was lawful to ride on a camel, but not to eat its flesh.
11:27
Hands. Like a monkey, frog, etc., the fore-feet of which rather resemble hands.
11:29
Calmet
Weasel. Bochart understands the mole, in opposition to all the versions: choled, means indeed "to root up the earth." (Calmet)
11:30
Chameleon, feeds upon air, and assumes various colours. (Pliny 8:33.) It resembles a lizard, as does the stellio, Pliny 29:4.
Haydock
Lizard. Protestants, "snail." (Haydock)
[31.?] Unclean, either to eat or touch, ver. 41-43. (Chap. 5:2.)
11:33
Menochius
Broken. See Leviticus 6:28, where a similar injunction is given. (Menochius)
Tirinus
And (ver. 35,) ovens and pots, made of earthenware, according to Pollux, are to be destroyed. (Tirinus)
11:34
Water, unclean, or in a polluted vessel.
11:36
Clean. They would be so difficult to purify, and water is so necessary.
11:38
Menochius
Defiled, and given to the beasts. (Menochius)
11:39
Calmet
Beast die a natural death, or be suffocated, or be slain by a wild beast. (Calmet)
11:40
Calmet
Clothes, and his whole body, either together or separate, as the Rabbins explain the law. (Selden, syn. 1:3.) If any one eat or touch these things, on purpose, he was liable to a more severe punishment, (Menochius) and his soul was defiled by disobedience, ver. 43. (Calmet)
11:42
Menochius
Abominable. Serpents, worms, and reptiles are proscribed. (Menochius)
11:44
St. Augustine
Holy, and detest the uncleanness of the Gentiles, in their sacrifices and feasts. (St. Augustine, City of God 6:7.)
11:45
Haydock
Your God. By these laws, the Jews were to be distinguished from other nations. (Haydock)
Calmet
They were also to be reminded, that God was very jealous of their interior sanctity, since he required so great a legal purity. Without the former, they might easily conclude that the latter would not please him. (Calmet)
11:2
Animals which you are to eat, etc.... The prohibition of so many kinds of beasts, birds, and fishes, in the law, was ordered, 1st, to exercise the people in obedience, and temperance; 2ndly, to restrain them from the vices of which these animals were symbols; 3rdly, because the things here forbidden were for the most part unwholesome, and not proper to be eaten; 4thly, that the people of God, by being obliged to abstain from things corporally unclean, might be trained up to seek a spiritual cleanness.
11:3
Hoof divided, and cheweth the cud.... The dividing of the hoof and chewing of the cud, signify discretion between good and evil, and meditating on the law of God; and where either of these is wanting a man is unclean. In like manner fishes were reputed unclean that had not fins and scales: that is, souls that did not raise themselves up by prayer and cover themselves with the scales of virtue.
11:5
The cherogrillus.... Some suppose it to be the rabbit, others the hedgehog. St. Jerome intimates that it is another kind of animal common in Palestine, which lives in the holes of rocks or in the earth. We choose here, as also in the names of several other creatures that follow (which are little known in this part of the world,) to keep the Greek or Latin names.
11:13
The griffon.... Not the monster which the painter represent, which hath no being upon earth; but a bird of the eagle kind, larger than the common.
11:1
Hitherto God reueled his Law to Moyses onlie, and by him to the people. Now also to Aaron after he was cōsecrated high Priest: yet not alwayes, for Moyses was stil superior. chap. 12. 14. 16. 17. &c.
11:4
4. Vncleane you shal repute it.] In the first age of the world, before Noes Gen. 7. 〈◊〉. 8. Some things connted vncleane in the law of nature & of Moyses. Three causes of this obseruance. 1. For instruction. 2. For exercise of obedience. floud, and so forward by tradition; and after by the written Law, some liuing creatures were reputed vncleane, and forbid to be eaten or offered in sacrifice. Not as euel of themselues, for euerie creature of God is good, by nature 1. Tim. 4. and creation: but this distinction and prohibition was made in the old Testament, for iust causes, as the ancient fathers note specially three. First, for instruction of the people much inclined to idolatrie, God distinguished al beastes, birdes, and fishes into cleane and vncleane, wherby al men might know, that none of them is God. For hovv can anie man of reason (saieth lerned Theodoret. q. 11. in Leuit.) thinck that to be God, vvhich either he abhorreth as vncleane, or offereth in sacrifice to the true God, and eateth therof himself? Secondly, God commanded this obseruance to exercise his people in obedience, with precepts not otherwise necessarie, but because he so commanded. As at first he commanded Adam not to eate of the tree of knowledge of good and euel. The transgression wherof brought al mankind into miserie. From which againe Christ by his Rom. 5. 2. Mach. 6. & 7. obedience redemed vs. For obseruation of this law old Eleazarus, and the seuen bretheren with their mother, did geue their liues, rather then they would eate swines flesh, and for the same are glorious Martyrs, as testifie S. Cyprian Epist 56. ad Thibaritanos. & li. de exhort. Mart. c 11. S. Gregorie Nazianzen, orat. 20. de Machab. S. Chrysostom. de natiuitate septem Machab. S. Ambrose. li. 1. de officijs. c. 4. & li. 2. de Iacob. c. 10. & 11. and the whole Church 3. For signification. celebrating their feast, the first day of August. Thirdly and most specially these obseruations were commanded for signification of vertues to be embraced, and of vices or sinnes to be auoided. Such beastes therfore were holden for cleane, and allowed for mans foode, as diuide the hoofe, and ruminate, or chew the cudde, signifying discretion betwixt good and euel; and diligent The things holden for cleane signified vertues. consideration, or meditation of Gods law: and the beastes which lack those two properties of diuiding the hoofe, and chewing the cudde, or either of them, were reputed vncleane, signifying such men as care not whether they do wel or euel, or do not ruminate, and meditate good things, which they heare or read, forgetting or neglecting, what is taught them. Likewise the The vncleane signified vices. fishes that haue finnes and scales, which signifie eleuating of the mind, and austeritie of life, were counted cleane: but these that want either of the same were vncleane and prohibited. Also certaine birdes were estemed cleane and allowed to be eaten: others vncleane and forbid As the Eagle, signifying pride: the griffon, tyrannie; the osprey, oppression; the kire, fraud; the vultare, sedition; al kindes of rauens, carnal voluptousnes; the ostrich, worldlie cares; the owle, slouth, or dulnes in spiritual things; the sterne, duble dealing; al kindes of haukes, crueltie; the schritch owle, luxnrie; the diuer, gluttonie; the storke, enuie; the swanne, hypocrisie; the onocratal, auarice; the porphirion, selfe wil; the herodian, a bloudie mind; the caladrion, much babling; the lapwing, desolation of mind, or desperation; the batte, earthlie policie; and the like in other birdes, beastes, and fishes. Al agreable to that time, in which (saieth S. Augustin. li. 6 c 7. cont. Faust.) those things were to be foreshewed, not Christians are not bound to the obseruances of the old law, but to that which they signified. only in wordes, but also in factes, which should be reueled in latter time; and being now reueled by Christ, and in Christ, the burdenous obseruances are not imposed to the faithful gentiles, to whom yet the authoritie of the prophecie is commended. To the same effect. li. cont. Adimant, c. 15. & li 50. homil. ho. 45. S Hicrom. in Matt. 15 Origenes, ho. 7. S. Cyril. li. 7. in Leuit. S. Gregorie, in Cant. 7. Procopius in Leuit. 11. Out of whom and others S. Thomas explicateth at large, that which we haue here briefly noted. 1. 2. q. 102. 2. 6.
11:24
If in dede this vncleānes were a sinne, it should be clensed by contritiō, and neither necessarily remaine til night, nor thē be taken away without other meanes.
11:2
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.8.4
4. Now the law has figuratively predicted all these, delineating man by the [various] animals:
11:4
Novatian † AD 258 On the Jewish Meats 3
… rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean; because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it says, “Thou shalt not eat the camel?”
11:13
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.1.17
… of Scripture now is, “The uncircumcised male, i.e., who shall not have been circumcised, shall be cut off from his people.” And if we are to inquire regarding the impossibilities of the law, we find an animal called the goat-stag, which cannot possibly exist, but which, as being in the number of clean beasts, Moses commands to be eaten; and a griffin,
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 7
… But it is the soul which they bury in sins and follies, drawing near to the dead, and satisfying it with dead nourishment; like young eagles which, from high places, fly upon the carcases of the dead, and which the law prohibited, commanding figuratively, ‘Thou shalt not eat the eagle, nor any other bird that feedeth on a dead carcase
11:20
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 11.10
… and because we have seen both, we remember both. Neither do I remember a bird with four feet, because I never saw one; but I contemplate such a phantasy very easily, by adding to some winged shape such as I have seen, two other feet, such as I have likewise seen.
11:24
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 51
And one may remark, that because of this the lawgiver allows just so much time, as it may be remaining within one, but when it is gone forth, no longer. For instance, at evening He bids you wash yourself, and so be clean; measuring the time of the digestion, and of the excretion.
11:29
St Methodius † AD 311 The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 5.6
… on this account it is ordered that she do not give herself up to womanish weaknesses and laughter, exciting herself to wiles and foolish talking, which whirl the mind around and confuse it; as it is indicated in another place,
11:44
Tertullian † AD 220 On Exhortation to Chastity 1
… No one deserves (favour) by availing himself of the indulgence, but by rendering a prompt obedience to the will, (of his master). The will of God is our sanctification, for He wishes His “image”—us—to become likewise His “likeness;” that we may be “holy” just as Himself is “holy.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Exhortation to Chastity 10
… It is the spirit which conducts prayer to God. If the spirit be self-accused of a blushing conscience, how will it have the hardihood to conduct prayer to the altar; seeing that, if prayer blush, the holy minister (of prayer) itself is suffused too? For there is a prophetic utterance of the Old Testament: “Holy shall ye be, because God is holy;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.63
… It remains, therefore, that that which is “after the image of God” must be understood to be in our “inner man,” which is also renewed, and whose nature it is to be “after the image of Him who created it,” when a man becomes “perfect,” as “our Father in heaven is perfect,” and hears the command, “Be ye holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,”
Pseudo-Clement The First Epistle of the Blessed Clement, the Disciple of Peter the Apostle 7
… She who is such does not withdraw from our Lord, but in spirit is ever with her Lord: as it is written, “Be ye holy, as I am holy, saith the Lord.”
11:2
2. THESE ARE THE ANIMALS WHICH YOU SHALL EAT, — which it is lawful to eat, is evident from the Hebrew, Chaldean, and Septuagint. You may ask, why did God here establish and command this observance of foods and this distinction of clean animals from unclean? I answer: The first reason was, that this rude people might have a continual exercise, both of temperance, of obedience, and of religion and worship of God, by eating clean animals and abstaining from unclean ones out of honor and reverence for God commanding thus, and thus always worship God: for, as Tertullian says, in his book On Jewish Foods, chapter IV: "Many kinds of foods were taken away from the Jews, not that they themselves might be condemned, but that these people might be restrained, serving one God; for frugality befitted those assumed for this purpose, and temperance of gluttony, which is always found to be near to religion, or rather (so to speak) more truly akin and related to it; for luxury is the enemy of holiness." Second, that this people, becoming accustomed to bodily cleanliness, might be drawn far away from the uncleanness of idolaters and their unclean sacrifices and feasts. Third, that being stirred up through these to cleanliness of mind, it might rise up and prepare itself most purely for Christ about to be born from it. Fourth, because these unclean things were tropologically symbols of vices, from which we ought to beware. This reason was given by Eleazar the high priest to the envoys of Ptolemy Philadelphia, who requested that seventy-two Interpreters be sent to him to translate the sacred Scripture from Hebrew into Greek, as I said at Canon 27. This reason the Fathers also assign throughout, such as Tertullian or rather Novatianus, in his book On Jewish Foods, which he wrote while still existing as a Catholic, in which he explains at length and in detail the animals here forbidden, through the vices signified by them: I shall bring his words at verse 30; Clement of Alexandria, in book II of the Pedagogue, chapter x; Cyril, in book IX Against Julian, near the end; Origen here, homily 7; Eusebius, in book VIII of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter III, and St. Augustine, in his book Against Adimantus, chapter xv. For when Adimantus, being a Manichaean, attacked the Old Testament as given by an evil god, and specifically challenged this law of abstinence from Matthew chapter xv: "That which entereth into the mouth, defileth not the man," St. Augustine responds that these foods were not forbidden to the Jews because they defile the mind in themselves; but these precepts concerning them were laid down for a carnal people, for the signification of human morals, and that they might prophesy the future discipline of the spiritual people of Christ. Hence also, as St. Cyril notes, in book XIV On Worship, certain things are here forbidden which are not usually eaten, and which we all naturally reject and abhor, such as the lizard, the weasel, the mouse, etc. Moreover, all these things have been appropriately established and distinguished according to nature; for animals are here reckoned unclean and forbidden to be eaten, which by their nature are either poisonous, such as all reptiles, which always creep on the ground, and thus imbibe from the earth a viscous, foul and harmful moisture, which they display in their skin; or which feed on unclean foods, such as swine and hoopoes, which live among dung, and storks, which eat serpents: thus also bats, owls, and horned owls, which are all nourished by unclean foods; or which are of distempered complexion, such as the fish here forbidden, which are all of poor nourishment; or which are wild and rapacious, such as griffins, kites, vultures. Thus Pythagoras forbade his followers to eat beans, because that food has great flatulence, and therefore distends the stomach and head, and disturbs the tranquility of mind, as Cicero says, in book 1 of On Divination. This uncleanness of these animals therefore is twofold: namely, formal, as already stated, by which the animals themselves contain in themselves something unclean and distempered; the other causal, by which they cause similar uncleanness in man, because since they are of bad complexion in themselves, and of bad and harmful nourishment, hence if eaten, they generate intemperance of humors in man, create diseases, and sometimes even kill. The most important reason, however, was symbolic, namely that these unclean animals might signify the uncleanness of sins and vices, of which they are appropriately symbols, as I said. Note: This uncleanness of animals was bodily and legal, which did not defile the soul (unless someone through disobedience, knowingly against the law, ate them), but only kept the Jews away from the ministry and offering of sacrifices, and from entrance into the Sanctuary: for from these one ought to abstain, if one had eaten foods here forbidden even unknowingly, until one had purified oneself: just as leprosy kept lepers away from the company of men, and from the whole camp.
11:3
3. EVERY ANIMAL THAT HATH A DIVIDED HOOF, AND CHEWETH THE CUD AMONG BEASTS, YOU SHALL EAT. — Therefore, in order that an animal be clean, which the Jews were permitted to eat, it ought to have these two things: First, a hoof, and that divided and cloven; for those which do not have a hoof are of too moist a temperament: those which have a hoof, but do not have it cloven, such as horses, asses, camels, are of too dry and hard a temperament and diet, and are not suited to nourish the human body: but those which have a hoof and divide it, such as sheep, cattle, goats, are suited to nourish man, because they are of temperate complexion: and therefore they are reckoned clean. Thus Abulensis. Second, it ought to chew the cud; for those which chew the cud are of better digestion, and therefore also of better complexion: but if one of these be lacking, namely if an animal do not have a cloven hoof, or do not chew the cud, it is reckoned unclean. Whence he subjoins examples of unclean animals, the camel, the hare, the swine, etc. Tropologically, holy animals chew the cud, namely holy men, who the word of God which they perceive with the ear they store in the belly of memory, and frequently recalling it as it were to the mouth of the heart, they break it down by frequent meditation. Thus St. Gregory in chapter seven of the Canticles. But St. Cyril, in book IX Against Julian, teaches that chewing the cud is a symbol of prudence. They divide the hoof, who in action distinguish good from evil. Both therefore are required for cleanness and holiness, namely both to chew the words of God, and to fulfill them in deed. Thus Radulphus, Isychius, Eusebius, book VIII of the Preparation, chapter III. Cyril, book XIV of Adoration, who also adds another tropology: the cloven hoof, he says, is a clear figure by which it is signified that we can walk rightly in both directions, namely as regards ourselves and as regards others. To chew the cud therefore is a symbol of prudence: for the prudent man is thoughtful, and ruminating each thing in his mind, sees what in each matter is expedient, how he may satisfy both God and men, even the impious. Plutarch relates in the Laconic Tales concerning Acrotatus, a prudent man, that when his parents demanded his assistance in an unjust matter, he refused; and when they pressed him, he said: "You have educated me to justice, and delivered me to the laws of the fatherland; I shall therefore endeavor to obey these rather than you; and since you wish me to do what is best, and what is best is for a private man, and much more for a ruler, to do what is just, I shall do what you wish; but what you say, I shall refuse." Thus prudently and gently he refused the unlawful thing, and at the same time satisfied the intention and will of his parents. For rumination suggests a thousand modes and means to anything, and especially to declining hatreds and conciliating the favor of men. The same author relates that Aristo, hearing the saying of Cleomenes, when asked what was the duty of a good king, had said: To do well to friends, ill to enemies; meditating on that, corrected it saying: "How much more rightly, my man, would it be to do well to friends, and to make enemies into friends!" AMONG BEASTS, — among four-footed animals.
11:4
4. AS THE CAMEL, — the camel is unclean, because it has a hoof, but does not divide it. Moses, says Cyril, in book XIV of Adoration, sets forth examples the camel and the hare, that is the greatest and the least, so that we may understand that things between these which do not chew the cud, or do not divide the hoof, are unclean and forbidden.
11:5
5. CHOEROGRYLLUS. — What and what kind of animal is the Choerogryllus? First, Clement of Alexandria, book II of the Paedagogus, chapter x, understands it to be a hyena. Second, Abulensis, Lyra, Cajetan, Oleaster and other more recent interpreters understand it to be a rabbit. Note: The Hebrew word saphan signifies three things: first, the choerogryllus; second, the hare; third, the hedgehog: thus from Philo, St. Jerome in the Hebrew Names, in Jeremiah, for saphan means either covered, hidden and lurking. Whence saphan is a general name, and common to many fleeing animals, and those dwelling in hiding places: just as also most other Hebrew animal words apply to many, as Ribera demonstrates in chapter v of Zechariah, number 21. And this is evident from the fact that the same name is translated variously by different translators, namely by the Septuagint, the Chaldean, and Our translator, indeed even by Our translator differently here and elsewhere: thus saphan here and in Deuteronomy xiv, 7, Our translator renders as choerogryllus, as also the Septuagint renders it; elsewhere he renders it as hare, as in Proverbs xxx, 26; elsewhere he renders it as hedgehog, as in Psalm ciii, 18. The Choerogryllus therefore, or hedgehog, is an animal of moderate size compared to rabbits, proceeding in groups from rocky caverns, and feeding in Palestine near the Dead Sea, says Eucherius, in the book On Hebrew Names, chapter xii, and from there perhaps it was called in Greek chaerogryllus from choiros, that is rock, and gryllos, that is pig, as if you were to say the little pig of the rocks. Thus almost also St. Jerome, or whoever is the author of the commentaries on Proverbs chapter xxx, for these commentaries are not shown to be by St. Jerome from the fact that the author cites St. Jerome at this very place. They seem rather to be by the Venerable Bede, to whom Trithemius attributes them. This author therefore speaks thus: "In place of the little hare, the ancient translation put chaerogryllus. But this animal is not larger than a hedgehog, having the likeness of a mouse and a bear, of which there is great abundance in the regions of Palestine, and it is always accustomed to dwell in rocky caverns and earth holes." Whence also Origen here renders choerogryllus as hedgehog. The Chaerogryllus therefore is a distinct animal from the rabbit and the hedgehog, although Peter Serrano denies this: for why would the Septuagint and Our translator call it choerogryllus with such an obscure and unknown word, if it were a rabbit or a hedgehog? For these names and animals are most well known to us. Whence also Eucherius and St. Jerome distinguish hedgehogs or choerogrylls from hedgehogs or echini, which have spiny quills everywhere so that they can scarcely be touched, which they extend or retract and draw in at will, and with these they load themselves with apples in gardens, which they carry to their lairs.
11:6
6. THE HARE ALSO (is unclean), FOR IT ALSO RUMINATES, BUT DOES NOT DIVIDE THE HOOF. — For the hare does not have a hoof, or the bony and continuous base of the feet which it divides, but in place of this it has various and pointed claws. Under the hare understand the rabbit: for the rabbit is a small hare, as Pliny says, book VIII, chapter LXXXV; Clement of Alexandria thinks the hare is forbidden on account of lust, to which this animal is very prone. Whence also it conceives and brings forth so many offspring at once. For this reason also many hares have both sexes in themselves. Hear Gesner collecting various things from various sources in his manner in the volume On Quadrupeds, in the hare: "The hare, a quadruped, is called in Hebrew arnebet, a word of the feminine gender, because all hares (as most learned men testify) have both sexes. Archelaus writes concerning hares, that both powers and both sexes are in each one, and they generate equally without a male. That the same hare is sometimes male, sometimes female, and changes natures, and sometimes generates as it were as a male, sometimes brings forth as it were as a female, Democritus relates as manifest in the Geoponics xix, 4." And therefore by the physicists, says Donatus, the hare is said to be of uncertain sex, and to be sometimes male, sometimes female. The Fathers teach the same, whom I shall cite verse 30, at the end. These things justly and according to the custom of the Jews. For among the Gentiles the hare was a delicacy and the ornament of the table. Hear Martial, book XIII of the Epigrams: Among birds the thrush, if anyone contend with me, Among quadrupeds the hare holds first glory.
Tropology of Four Animals and Four Cardinal Vices Tropologically, by these four animals are signified four vices, contrary to four cardinal virtues. First, the humped camel is a symbol of the proud man and of pride, which is contrary to prudence and wisdom. For true wisdom is humble; conversely the humped camel is also stupid. The fable is well known: the camel asked Jupiter that he be armed with horns, whose foolish prayers Jupiter mocked, and even cut off his ears, so that he would be not only unarmed but also deformed thereafter. Second, the timid hare signifies sloth and pusillanimity, which opposes fortitude and constancy. Third, the choerogryllus, which lays waste and feeds on the fields of others, signifies injustice contrary to justice. Fourth, the filthy pig signifies gluttony and lust, which opposes temperance: it is not permitted to have communion with even the dead bodies of these, that is, their evil external actions. Thus Isychius.
11:7
7. AND THE SWINE (which is unclean), WHICH DIVIDETH THE HOOF, BUT CHEWETH NOT THE CUD. — By swine understand the pig, both male and female; for this is the Hebrew chasir: for all pork was forbidden to the Jews, whence even now all Jews abstain from pork. In like manner swine among Priscian and the Latins is of common gender, and signifies both boar and sow; hence that passage of Virgil, lib. III of the Georgics: Himself he rushes forth, and the Sabellian boar sharpened his teeth. Ridiculous it is that some, in St. Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, thought that the eating of swine is forbidden here, because the swine when it eats devours so that it does not recognize its master, and because when it hungers it grunts at its master: for this is the nature and natural music of swine. A truer cause is given by Cicero, lib. II On the Nature of the Gods: "The swine," he says, "what has it besides food?" "to which indeed lest it putrefy, Chrysippus says a soul was given in place of salt." Hence that holy Abbot, in the Lives of the Fathers, lib. VI, cap. 1, num. 8: "Just as," he says, "the eyes of the pig always look toward the earth, so a soul fallen into pleasure and the mire of luxury can scarcely look up to heaven, or understand anything worthy of God." Furthermore Plutarch errs, lib. V of the Symposiacs, Question V, where he teaches that the Jews abstain from pork out of reverence; for he says they revere the swine, because the swine was the teacher of sowing and plowing, especially in Egypt: for the swine by rooting up the earth with its snout impressed the mark of plowing, and showed forth the work of the plow. Similarly he errs, when he says the Jews abstain from hare, "because led by emulation of the Egyptians, they consider the swiftness of the hare divine, and likewise the subtlety of the instruments of sense. For the eyes of hares are so unwearied, that they sleep even with them open. But by swiftness of seeing they seem to surpass others; led by admiration of this the Egyptians in their sacred writings, by a painted hare signify hearing." A more probable cause is what he adds: "The Jews abominate pork, because they shrink from vitiligo and leprosy, which they think are contracted by eating these meats." Others thought the pig unclean, from the fact that it digs up the earth, and thus overturns seeds and harvest; for which reason the Romans sacrificed a pig to Ceres in the month of April, with lamps and torches lit in white garments. Hear Ovid: First the pig deserved to die as a victim to Ceres, because with bent snout it rooted up the seeds, and cut off the hope of the year. And elsewhere: First Ceres rejoiced in the blood of a pregnant sow, avenging her merits by the slaughter of the guilty one. Finally, the Emperor Hadrian, in order to drive the Jews from his city, carved a pig in Jerusalem, and named it Aelia after his own name. Hear Eusebius in the Chronology: "Aelia was founded by Aelius Hadrian, and on the front of its gate by which we go out to Bethlehem, a pig was carved in marble, signifying that the Jews were subject to Roman power;" so that by this image as it were by a title he might signify that the Jews were barred from their own city and native soil, and that Jerusalem was no longer Jewish, but Gentile and Roman: for the Romans carried the pig in their standards on account of the unbroken strength of spirit, as Festus testifies in the word porcus. Wherefore the Jews besought Vitellius, as he was going against the Arabs, not to lead through Judaea camps and standards marked with the image of a pig, as Josephus testifies, lib. V of the War, cap. 1. Finally, by this carving of the pig he signified that the Jews were the most wicked of men. For, as Florus says, and from him Pierius, Hieroglyphics 9, the pig is a symbol of men who spurn the truth, of the profane, of the pernicious, and of those who are utterly turned away from God. Thus Baronius in the year of Christ 137.
11:8
8. OF THEIR FLESH YE SHALL NOT EAT, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH THEIR CARCASSES. — Whence neither could they take out their fat, nor use it: it was otherwise with clean animals; for it was lawful to slay those, and when slain to touch them, and to take out their fat and use it, unless they were carcasses that died of themselves, or were long dead, or were torn by a beast: then indeed even these were unclean and forbidden.
11:9
9. EVERYTHING THAT HAS FINS AND SCALES, WHETHER IN THE SEA OR IN RIVERS AND POOLS, YOU SHALL EAT. — For fins, the Royal Bible reads feathers; whence also the Septuagint translates pterygia, that is, wings; Tertullian, in the book On Jewish Foods, reads oars; all these come to the same thing: for fish which have fins, bear them as it were feathers and wings, so that by them they may swim and balance themselves in the waters, just as birds in the air. So that fish may be clean and lawful to eat, they ought to have two things: first fins, secondly scales, which cover almost the whole body; but if either one be lacking, they are reckoned unclean: for fish lacking fins or scales, such as eels, are too moist, slimy and unhealthy; for scales and fins are indices of dryness. Whence the flesh of such fish is denser, whiter and healthier, and therefore such are reckoned clean: for fish abound in moisture, and this easily harms the stomach and the human body, whence when salted or dried they are healthier than when fresh. Tropologically, scales signify gravity of morals and firmness of good conduct in the midst of the world; fins signify senses thinking on things above. For fish which have fins are wont to leap above the waters, says St. Gregory. Therefore they have scales, who, armed with the rigour of virtue, do not admit the appetite of worldly occupation; but they have fins, who from time to time seek the secret of contemplation, and swim above the waves of worldly cares, and who know how to ascend to things above by the leaps of the mind, so that they may be touched by the breeze of the highest love, as it were of free air, says St. Gregory, book V of the Morals, chapter vi, and Radulphus, Bede, Cyril, book IX Against Julian, near the end, and Tertullian or rather Novatian, in the book On Jewish Foods.
11:10
10 and 11. BUT WHATEVER HAS NO FINS AND SCALES SHALL BE ABOMINABLE TO YOU AND ACCURSED, — that is to say, You shall abhor and flee from them, as from something unclean and foul. Wherefore the Jews sinned if they acted otherwise, not because the animal was unclean, but because disobedience would pollute the mind, which fault was not expiated by eternal lustration: for by that only legal and bodily uncleanness was washed away, but by contrition and penance. Hence the Maccabees preferred to suffer the most dreadful things and to undergo the gravest martyrdom, rather than eat the flesh of swine here forbidden, II Maccabees vii. Hence also St. Peter so abhorred the same, that he said, Acts x, 10: "I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean."
11:13
Vers. 12. 13. THESE ARE THE THINGS WHICH YOU SHALL NOT EAT OF THE FOWLS, AND THEY SHALL BE DETESTABLE TO YOU: THE EAGLE, AND THE GRIFFON, AND THE SEA-EAGLE. — Moses dealt first with clean and unclean quadrupeds, vers. 3; secondly, with fishes, vers. 9; thirdly, he deals with birds here. These species of birds the Hebrews translate variously and differently from the Hebrew; yet our Interpreter agrees in all respects both here and in Deut. xiv, 12, with the Chaldean and the Septuagint, except that the Septuagint substitutes the pelican for the onocrotalus, concerning which vers. 18. The eagle is unclean, because it is a bird fierce and rapacious toward other birds. Whence Cicero, hearing in the Pharsalian battle that Pompey had fled, when Nonius said that seven eagles still remained, and therefore there was good reason to hope: "You would be right," he said, "if we had to fight against jackdaws; but now Caesar is the enemy and victor." Thus Plutarch in his Life of Cicero. The eagle therefore is forbidden to the Jews, because, as Isidore says, "he who hates the eagle, the kite and the hawk, hates robbers and those who live by crime." Whence St. Augustine in Psalm. cxxxii, teaches that the eagle is a symbol of the demon: for he is a plunderer of souls, who goes about seeking whom he may devour. Again the eagle is called Nebuchadnezzar, and similar tyrants, as I shall say in Deuter. xxviii, 49. AND THE GRIFFON. — You will ask whether the griffon or gryphus exists and what it is. That griffons exist is taught by the Greeks Herodotus, Pausanias, Ctesias, Aelianus; by the Latins Mela, Solinus, Apuleius and others, and they place them in Scythian Asia, or in the Riphaean mountains. Ctesias says griffons are four-footed birds the size of a wolf, with the legs and claws of a lion, with feathers red on the breast, blue on the neck, black on the rest of the body, and fiery eyes. Leonicenus adds that the bird is similar to a horse; Volaterran, that its face does not differ much from the human. Abulensis here and John of Mandeville say that the griffon presents the appearance of an eagle in front, of a lion behind; in size equal to eight lions; of such strength that it can carry two oxen, or a horse with a rider, into the air. And this is the common opinion of many. On the contrary, Pliny contends that griffons do not exist, but are fabulous, and calls almost frenzied those who assert that such birds exist. Likewise Origen, who too rashly reproves Moses for forbidding the Hebrews to eat griffons. Likewise Matthias Michonius and Perotti Decembrius in Sarmatian Asia, who say that experience establishes that neither such a bird is found in the north, nor in the Riphaean mountains. I say first: It is of faith that griffons exist, and are birds, which is evident from this place of Scripture; for the Hebrew peres signifies a griffon, as the Septuagint, the Chaldean and our Interpreter translate it. For peres signifies a bird having curved and great talons (from parsa, that is, a talon), as also a beak. Such therefore is the griffon, and hence griffon in Greek and Latin signifies hooked, curved, taloned. Hence Antiochus Gryphus, and others were called gryphi from a hooked and aquiline nose. I say secondly: Griffons as they are described by the ancients already mentioned are fabulous; for experience establishes that no bird is found which is partly a bird, partly a lion or horse: hence also the ancients in painting griffons joined them to the sphinx: but it is established that the sphinx is a fable. I say thirdly: What griffons are cannot be defined with certainty. Yet the opinion of Ulysses Aldrovandi, lib. X, cap. 1, and Goropius is probable, that Moses by griffon here signifies birds, and, as it appears, the largest kind of eagle, which has the most hooked beak and talons, and is the strongest and most rapacious, whose size, strength and rapacity seem to have given occasion for the fable to the ancients. This is proved first, because that is what peres signifies in Hebrew; again, because the griffon is placed here after the eagle, before the sea-eagle; just as therefore the sea-eagle is a species of eagle, so the griffon also appears to be. Secondly, because Aristophanes places the griffon as a species of eagle, and calls it grypaieton, as if you were to say griffon-eagle; just as the sea-eagle is called, as if you were to say sea-eagle. The griffon therefore is grypaeetos, that is, the most rapacious eagle, which has the most hooked beak and talons, that is, grypho. Thirdly, because Sigismund Heberslain, legate of the Caesar to the Duke of Muscovy, writes that among the Muscovites there are birds similar to eagles, but much larger, which the Muscovites call kreutzet. Fourthly, because certain eagles grow to the greatest size. George Fabricius relates that in the year 1350 between Misnia and Dresden, cities of Germany, an eagle's nest was found extending through three oak trees, in which were found the hides of calves and sheep, and a recently brought fawn. One chick had wings seven cubits long when they were spread out crosswise; its talons were equal to the fingers of a large man, its legs larger than a lion's. Aldrovandus relates that in Ethiopia there are eagles so large and strong that they snatch away and carry off a whole ox or horse with their feet. Paul the Venetian writes that beyond Madagascar he frequently heard from the inhabitants of a bird called rue, which had wings so large that twelve paces long were its feathers; and it itself was so strong that it could lift and carry away an elephant, and he says he thought it was a griffin: but he heard that it was two-footed, and similar to no beast: although a griffin truly, if it is a bird and an eagle, is two-footed. Tropologically, griffins are avaricious, unjust and rapacious princes. "When justice is removed," says St. Augustine, book IV of the City of God, chapter iv, "what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies but small kingdoms? This evil grows so much that it even holds places, establishes seats, occupies cities, subjugates peoples, and more evidently assumes the name of kingdom. Which also in manifest fashion contributes not with cupidity removed, but with impunity added. In place elegantly and truly to Alexander the Great a certain pirate when captured responded, when he was asked by him, what was it to him, that he had the sea infested? He with free voice: What is it to you, he said, that you have the whole world? But I, because I do it with a small ship, am called a robber: because you, with a great fleet, are called emperor." Nero never delegated an office to anyone unless he added this: "You know what I have need of, and let us do this, so that no one has anything." A voice more worthy of a robber than of a prince. Flavius Vespasian, because he was accustomed to promote the most rapacious men, so that he might soon condemn them when enriched, was commonly said to have his officials as sponges: which (like sponges) he would both wet when dry and wring out when wet. Thus Suetonius. Batto the Dalmatian, when asked by Tiberius why he had so often defected from the Romans with his men and inflicted such great slaughter upon them, responded: "You are the cause, who to guard your flocks, gave not dogs or shepherds, but wolves." Thus Dion in Augustus. C. Caligula, when Antonia his grandmother warned him that he should do certain things otherwise: "Remember," he said, "that all things are permitted to me over all." Louis XII, king of France, was accustomed to say, as the Annals have it, "The common people and rustics are pastures of tyrants and soldiers, but tyrants and soldiers are pastures of devils." Phalaris was accustomed to say: "I who have experienced both, would prefer to be subject to tyranny than to preside over it. For a subject, secure from other evils, fears one tyrant; but a tyrant fears both those who lie in wait from without, and those by whom he is guarded."
Sea-Eagle SEA-EAGLE. — In Greek haliaietos, which is the same as sea eagle, so called by the sea and fishermen; for hals is sea, and halieuo is to fish, and aetos is eagle: concerning which Pliny, book X, chapter iii: "The sea-eagle," he says, "is a most distinguished species of eagle in keenness of sight, poising itself from on high, and when a fish is seen in the sea rushing headlong upon it, and snatching it after scattering the waters with its breast."
11:14
14. ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, — according to its species, by its species: for there are many species of vultures and kites. 15. IN ITS LIKENESS, — that is according to its likeness, as if to say: All birds similar to the raven or raven-like, as unclean I have and I judge, and I forbid to eat. This will be clear in verse 19.
11:16
16. GULL. — The gull, or sea-mew, as Aristotle calls it, swims in the waters and flies in the air, says Isychius, and is a predator of fish. Thus Oppianus, in his book On Fowling, that is in the Ixeutics, that is in the art of catching birds with birdlime. Whence the proverb: "a gaping gull," for a rapacious and thievish creature. Hence also arose the fable that gulls were once men who first practiced hunting and sea-plunder; then were changed by the gods into birds, flying about cities and harbors, still mindful of their former art and predation. Thus Oppianus. Moreover, the gull is a symbol of gluttony, whence Alciatus in his emblem of gluttony depicts the glutton thus: With the gullet of a crane, a man is painted with a swollen belly, who carries a gull or an onocrotalus in his hands. Truly Juvenal, Satires 1: There are those for whom the sole reason for living is the palate. And Socrates: "Others," he says, "live to eat; I eat to live." And Seneca, book X of the Rhetoricians: "Whatever," he says, "of birds flies, whatever of fish swims, whatever of beasts runs about, is buried in our bellies: ask now why we suddenly die? because we live by deaths." Hear St. Jerome Against Jovinianus and in his epistle: "Gluttony is always joined with lasciviousness: the belly and the genitals are neighbors, and as there is an order of members, so there is an order of vices." And again: "The glutton has his heart in his belly, the lustful in lust, the covetous in gain." And again: "Hippocrates in the Aphorisms teaches that thick and obese bodies, which have filled the measure of growth, unless quickly reduced by bloodletting, break out into paralysis and the worst kinds of diseases. For the nature of bodies does not remain in one state, but either grows or diminishes; it cannot live otherwise unless it is capable of growth. And Galen says that those whose life and art is fattening cannot live long nor be healthy, and their souls, thus wrapped in excessive blood and fat as in mud, have nothing thin, nothing heavenly, but always belch forth carnal things, and think of the belly's gluttony." Hugo of St. Victor, in his tract On the Cloister of the Soul: "Some," he says, "employ excessive superstition in preparing their foods, devising infinite kinds of cookings, fryings and seasonings; now soft, now hard, now cold, now hot, now cooked, now roasted, now seasoned with pepper, now with garlic, now with cumin, according to the custom of pregnant women's cravings; so that the cooks' arts, questions and solicitude sweat over them. These seem to worship the belly as a God." And again: "Temples are wont to be built for the gods, altars erected, ministers appointed to serve, beasts sacrificed, incense burned: thus for God the belly has a temple in the kitchen, an altar in the table, ministers in the cooks, sacrificed beasts in cooked meats, the smoke of incenses in the order of flavors." Hear also Alanus, in his tract On the Complaint of Nature: "This," he says, "pestilence, not content with common humility, extends itself more deeply into Prelates, who salmon, pike and other fish tortured by various cookings, adulterating the office of baptism, baptize with the sacred font of pepper, so that from such a baptism they may obtain manifold grace of flavor. At the same table the terrestrial animal is submerged by an inundation of pepper, the fish swims in pepper, the bird is bound by its viscosity; and while so many kinds of animals are enslaved in the prison of one belly's workshop, the aquatic animal wonders that it is entombed in the same sepulcher with the terrestrial and aerial kind, to which if permission to depart were given, the gates would scarcely suffice in width for those departing." Another: He is the rower of goblets, and the sailor of drinking parties.
11:17
17. IBIS. — The ibis is an Egyptian bird, hostile to serpents and scorpions, and feeding on them, which by the crookedness of its beak applies salt water, by which part it cleanses itself, where the discharge of food is most healthfully expelled, which the Egyptians observing imitated by the clyster: the ibis therefore taught men the clyster. Thus Pliny, book VIII, chapter xxvii, and Plutarch in the dialogue, Whether beasts have any share of reason? rightly therefore the ibis was an unclean bird according to the law. Solinus relates that the ibis conceives and generates by the mouth. Some have thought and think the same of the raven. But this is a fable, which Aristotle powerfully refutes, book III On the Generation of Animals vi: for how would seed pass from the mouth into the womb? for it would first have to pass through the stomach: but there it would be digested. The fable arose from this, that ravens are rarely seen to use copulation, but often to join with their beaks.
11:18
ONOCROTALUM. — The Septuagint translates it as pelican. Perhaps they understand the same bird. For Oppianus also in the Ixeutics calls the onocrotalus the same as the pelican; and Gesnerus, in his book On Birds, in the section on onocrotalus, lists a species of onocrotalus as related to the pelican; because St. Jerome also, in Psalm 101:7, with the Septuagint, translates the Hebrew qa'ath as pelican, and in the commentary on the same passage, asserts that the pelican is called onocrotalus. Furthermore, onocrotalus is said to be derived from onos, that is, ass, and krotalou, that is, rattle, because with an unpleasant voice it makes a rattling sound like a braying ass. It is called by some gutturous, from the crop, which hangs in its throat like a goiter; and in some it is so large that they devour five-pound living fish in a single gulp; indeed, Aldrovandus relates from Francis Sanctius, in book XIX, chapter 11 of the Ornithology, that in a certain onocrotalus, when it had fallen from heaviness and was captured, a small Ethiopian boy was found inside. In Hebrew it is called qa'ath, from vomiting, both because it regurgitates the water which that crop contains, so that it may select and eat its prey from it, as Pliny testifies, book X, chapter 47; and because it regurgitates swallowed shells, which are opened by the heat of its gullet or stomach, so that it may select and devour the flesh from the oysters. Deservedly therefore this bird was unclean to the Jews: and indeed Christians abstain from it, because it has hard flesh, excremental, and of scarcely tolerable odor, especially when it is older, says Aldrovandus. On account of other properties of it, however, this bird is taken for good: for on account of its rude and mournful voice, the penitent and groaning are compared to the pelican, or onocrotalus, Psalm 101:7. Thus also eagles, herons, kites are taken now for good, now for evil according to the diverse qualities of each. Thus the lion is compared both to Christ, on account of strength, Apocalypse 5:5, and to the devil, on account of cruelty, 1 Peter 5:8. Thus Radulphus and Isychius.
Porphyrio PORPHYRIONEM. — Porphyrio is a bird having in its head as it were a crest, in size equal to hens, but with longer legs; it took its name from its color: for it has a reddish beak, as also reddish legs. Hence in Greek porphyrio, that is, purple. Thus Oppianus in the Ixeutics, Gesnerus and Aldrovandus. It hungers after the prey of fish, says Procopius, and drinks by bite alone, dipping all food in water in turn, then bringing it to its beak with its foot as with a hand. Thus Pliny, book X, chapter 46, and Aristotle, book VIII of the History of Animals, chapter 6. Aldrovandus adds from Polemon that the porphyrio is unteachable, and never becomes tame; and from Aelian and Callimachus, that it tolerates the sight of no one while eating, and therefore withdraws and eats in secret. For these reasons it was held to be unclean. On the other hand, its modesty is wonderfully praised in another respect. Athenaeus relates from Polemon, book IX of Learned Banquets, chapter 12, that the porphyrio, when reared in houses, is a guardian of the modesty of women, and most keenly detecting their adultery, reveals and exposes it by its own hanging and death. But how can a bird by itself hang itself with a noose? Therefore more correctly Polemon said it does this by abstaining from food and killing itself by starvation, and Aldrovandus, who also adds from Tzetzes that it is so modest that upon seeing a harlot it expires.
11:19
19. HERODIONEM. — Aristotle, Pliny, Oppianus and others made no mention of this bird: who then is the herodius or herodion? First, St. Augustine in Psalm 103:18, understands it as a coot. Second, Albert the Great, in his tract On Birds, thinks it is a most noble species of eagle, which is called chrysaëtos and stellaris, as if herodius were heros, that is, king and leader of birds, as it is called in Psalm 103:18. Third, Radulphus, Lyra, Gesnerus and many others think the herodium is a falcon, and indeed the most excellent species of it, which is called hierofalco, commonly girfalco. Whence also St. Jerome in Psalm 103 says the herodium surpasses eagles and rules over them: thus also the Gloss there. Fourth, Theodore Gaza in book IX of Aristotle's History of Animals, chapter 1 and 18, and others hold it to be a heron. For the same things which Aristotle there writes about the herodius, Pliny writes about the heron, book X, chapter 60. Fifth, it seems more probable that the herodium is a stork. Thus Suidas, R. David, and the Hebrews everywhere. It is proved first, because the herodius in Hebrew is called chasida, from piety: for chesed is piety; and the piety of storks toward their parents is celebrated everywhere. You will say: Chasida also signifies a kite. I answer: The kite is called chasida by antiphrasis, as if least pious, but rapacious and voracious. Second, because Suidas says the herodium is called as it were heleion, that is, marshy (for hele is a marsh); and the stork dwells in marshes, and there feeds on frogs and serpents. Third, because in Psalm 103, the herodium is called the leader of birds, namely of tame ones: such is the stork; for although eagles and falcons surpass the stork, nevertheless their nests (of which Psalm 103:17 speaks) are unknown both to men and to other birds. You will say: Stork also signifies a vulture or a falcon. I answer: Vultures and falcons are called herodii in some respect, because they are strong as heroes, or because like heroes they rule over and command others.
Charadrius CHARADRIUS. — Charadrius is said to be derived from charadris, that is, from the steep and cavernous places of riverbanks, in which it dwells. Thus Aristotle, lib. IX of the History of Animals cap. xi. This bird is a stupid one which hunts mice, and is a friend of the night like the owl. Whence the proverb "imitating the charadrius," concerning one who hides and flees the light; hence it was held unclean by the Hebrews: indeed Aristotle himself calls it a depraved bird.
Note on Twenty Unclean Birds Note: Twenty species of birds are here named as it were unclean, and are forbidden to be eaten, because almost all of them are rapacious; some also because they are light-fleeing and nocturnal, such as the owl, charadrius, and bat; some because they are amphibious, such as the gull and the diver; some because they are filthy, such as the hoopoe, ibis, and owl; some because they are beasts rather than birds, such as the ostrich; some because they are melancholic, such as the heron or stork; many also are gluttonous, whence they have a longer neck, and seek out and fish for food from the deep mud of waters; some finally because they are of excessive heat, such as the raven and the swan, whose feathers although white and soft, yet the flesh is hard, sinewy and black: whence also it has whiter excrement. For warm birds expel their phlegm through white dung; but they retain the bile. The opposite do those which are cold. From which it is clear that these birds are little suited for food, and deservedly are reckoned unclean by the law.
Tropology: Twenty Birds and Twenty Vices of the Powerful Tropologically Radulphus: These twenty birds, he says, denote twenty vices of the powerful, and of those who have lofty spirits: first, the eagle denotes the pride of the powerful. Whence Ezech. cap. xvii, vers. 7, Nebuchadnezzar is compared to a great eagle of great wings; second, griffins signify the cruelty of the powerful; third, the sea-eagle, which does not have such great strength, but is nevertheless a predator, signifies those violent toward the poor; fourth, the kite signifies the snares of the powerful; fifth, the vulture following camps and carcasses, signifies those who, like vultures, are followers of princes and courts, for this reason that by their aid they may despoil others, whom Alphonsus, king of Aragon, was wont to call Harpies of his court. Thus also Seneca, epist. 96: "He who," he says, "sits by a sick friend for the sake of inheritance, is a vulture, awaiting a corpse." Again, vultures are voracious and gluttonous; for, as Epiphanius writes in the Physiologus: "The vulture is more voracious than all birds: for it abstains from food for forty days, which when it finds, it gorges itself freely from it for the same number of days; thus it compensates a forty-day abstinence with forty-day gluttony." Vultures therefore are those who, after the fast of Lent from Easter to Pentecost, stuff and gorge themselves; sixth, ravens are those who feed on the deaths of others; seventh, the ostrich, which is similar to the heron in feathers, but not in flight, Job xxxix, 16, denotes hypocrites, who under the guise of religion harm others. He who is Nero within, Cato without, says St. Jerome; it is a monster similar to that poetic one: First a lion, last a dragon, in the middle the chimaera itself. Such are those Who simulate Curii, and live like Bacchants. Diogenes in Laertius, lib. VI, cap. ii, to someone pleased with himself because he walked clothed in a lion's skin: "Will you not cease," he said, "to disgrace the trappings of virtue?" For he deemed it unseemly that a soft man should claim for himself the garment of Hercules. Alexander, when some were praising Antipater's frugality, because he led an austere life: "Outwardly," he said, "Antipater is white, but inwardly he is entirely purple;" noting his feigned parsimony, when he was otherwise most ambitious. Thus Plutarch in the Apophthegms of Kings. Achilles in Homer, Iliad I, thus speaks: He is to me as hateful as the dark threshold of Dis, Who utters in words something other than what he thinks in his mind. The Trojan horse, fashioned by the Greeks, deceived the Trojans, because it falsely assumed the form of Minerva, Diogenes used to say: thus the hypocrite also acts. Those who carry about fragrant musk have a foul soul: thus also hypocrites who, exhibiting a great show of piety, are inwardly most foully filthy. Rightly therefore are they compared to the ostrich. For, as St. Gregory says, lib. VII of the Morals cap. i: "The ostrich has the appearance of flying, but not the use of flying: thus hypocrisy insinuates to all who behold it an image of sanctity from itself, but knows not how to maintain the way of sanctity." Eighth, the owl, seeing sharply by night, denotes those wise in evil. Whence St. Ambrose, serm. in the prophet Malachi, at the end of tom. II: "I do not wish," he says, "you to be an imitator of the owl, which although it keeps vigil through the night, is sluggish or blind by day, which with great eyes loves the darkness of shadows, dreads the splendor of the sun: it is illuminated by obscurity, blinded by light. That animal is a figure of heretics and Gentiles, who embrace the darkness of the devil, dread the light of the Savior, and with great eyes of disputation perceive vain things, do not regard eternal things. Concerning these the Lord says, Psalm. cxiii: They have eyes, and shall not see. And Psalm. lxxxi: In darkness they walk: for they are acute in superstitions, dull in divine things." Ninth, the amphibious gull signifies soldiers, who on land are as it were dry and celibate, lacking a wife, yet roll themselves in the waters and flux of vagrant lust; tenth, the rapacious hawk, which, when tamed, serves its possessors for plundering and robbery, signifies servants who at their masters' nod despoil the poor; eleventh, the owl signifies those who, filled with the foulest crimes, flee the light and men; twelfth, the cormorant signifies those who are absorbed in the pleasures of the flesh; thirteenth, the ibis signifies those who are unjust and cruel toward themselves, toward their own bodies and souls; fourteenth, the swan signifies those who glory in clothing alone and earthly abundance; fifteenth, the pelican signifies insatiable avarice; sixteenth, the porphyrio signifies the obstinate, who accept nothing except what is tinged with the water of their own will and pleasure; seventeenth, the stork signifies dullness in grasping heavenly things; eighteenth, the plover, a garrulous bird, signifies talkativeness; nineteenth, the hoopoe, feigning lamentation in its song amid dung, signifies worldly sadness; for into this, and into the filth and sorrows of the world, worldly delights and joy end; twentieth, the bat signifies secular knowledge, knowing only natural and earthly things. Thus Radulphus and St. Thomas, I-II, Question cii, article 6, to 1. ACCORDING TO ITS KIND,—according to its species, as if to say: I forbid all species of these birds; for there are many species of hawks, as also of other birds. The Septuagint translates, and things similar to these. For the Hebrew min also signifies likeness, and thus our translator renders it in verse 15; for one species of hawk, for example, is similar to another species of hawk.
11:20
20. EVERYTHING AMONG BIRDS THAT WALKS UPON FOUR FEET SHALL BE ABOMINABLE TO YOU,—because four feet are a sign that it is not so much a bird as it degenerates into a terrestrial animal: and therefore I will have it held unclean.
11:21
21. IT HAS LONGER HIND LEGS BY WHICH IT LEAPS.—Because such a creature is not entirely earthly, but shows itself to have something of fire through its leap. Whence I will have it deemed clean. Tropologically, these are Saints who, though placed in the flesh and worldly pomp, do not wage war according to those things, but leap away from the filth of the world, and spring forth into the thought and desire of eternity. Thus Isychius and Radulphus.
11:22
22. SUCH AS THE BRUCHUS IN ITS KIND (these are clean because they leap), AND THE ATTACUS, AND THE OPHIOMACHUS, AND THE LOCUST.—It is probable that these four are species of locusts, as the Rabbis and most Catholics agree; Abulensis thus distinguishes them, saying that the locust is called and is a bruchus when it is born; an attacus when it begins to have wings; a locust when it is already completely perfect. Hence also the ophiomachus is not a stork, or a pelican, or any other bird, since here it is said to be a quadruped; but it is a certain species of locust, as are the preceding ones. For the Hebrew word hargol seems to signify this. Thus Vatablus, Oleaster and others: otherwise a lizard is called by the Greeks ophiomachus, because it fights with serpents; but a lizard is named and forbidden in verse 30. Moreover, that the ophiomachus is a species of locust, equally as the bruchus and attacus (or attelabum), is expressly asserted by Suidas and Isychius. Isychius in the Lexicons, and Aldrovandus, in his work On Insects, chapter On Locusts, page 408, who also adds from Aristotle, Pliny and another eyewitness, that certain locusts fight with serpents, and from this are called ophiomaches. Thus also Isychius here, who adds tropologically that the ophiomachus signifies valiant men, who leap over the hedges of difficulties, lifting their mind to heavenly things, and fight with the infernal serpent, thinking on that saying of Paul: "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." Hence the Egyptians, says Pierius, in the Hieroglyphics 28, by the ophiomachus denoted modesty, temperance and continence: for these virtues are opposed to wickedness. For they fight against the serpent, while they dash down pleasure creeping toward the earth, by leaping through meditation to divine things, and tasting them through affection and desire. Note: The Jews ate locusts, as also many other peoples, such as the Ethiopians, Libyans, Parthians and other Orientals, who from this are called akridophagoi, that is, locust-eaters, as testified by Diodorus Siculus, book III, chapter iii, and Pliny, book VI, chapter xxx, and Jerome, book II Against Jovinian. Thus St. John the Baptist ate locusts. Moreover, they ate locusts either boiled, or roasted and reduced to powder, and indeed they even preserved them salted and smoked for the whole year. How and what kind of food the locust is for man, Jerome Mercurialis teaches, book II of Miscellaneous Readings, chapter xx, where among other things he teaches that locusts are a dry food, which shortens life, generates lice, and creates diseases.
11:23
23. WHATSOEVER OF FOWLS HATH ONLY FOUR FEET, SHALL BE ABOMINABLE TO YOU. — Understand feet as equal: for if it has hind legs longer, by which it leaps, it will be clean, as was said in verse 21.
11:24
24 and 25. And whosoever shall touch the carcasses thereof, shall be defiled, etc.; AND IF IT BE NECESSARY THAT HE CARRY ANY OF THESE DEAD (for example, that he should carry it out of the city or way, lest it infect the air), HE SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS, etc.
11:26
26. EVERY BEAST THAT HATH A HOOF. — This is a recapitulation and repetition of the preceding. Whence he adds: "Whosoever shall touch it," the carcass, or the dead body thereof, as was explained in verses 24, 25, 27, "shall be defiled:" for the Hebrews were able to touch living unclean animals, such as horses, camels, asses, and to ride upon them. Thus Vatablus, Abulensis and others.
11:27
27. THAT GOETH UPON HANDS (that is to say, an animal whose front feet are as it were hands, such as an ape and a bear), SHALL BE UNCLEAN. Tropologically, those are noted here who, for the sake of gain, quickly lay hands upon others, even the unworthy. Thus Isychius. WHOSOEVER SHALL TOUCH THE CARCASSES THEREOF, SHALL BE DEFILED UNTIL THE EVENING. — For the evening is the most fitting time to distinguish and blot out, as it were, uncleanness. Tropologically, evening signifies penance: "For weeping may endure for a night, and joy cometh in the morning." Thus Isychius. Allegorically, evening or the setting of the sun signifies the death of Christ, by which all sin and all uncleanness was taken away in the evening of the world, that is, in the last age of the world. Thus Abulensis in chapter xxii, Question viii.
11:29
29 and 30. THESE ALSO SHALL BE RECKONED AMONG THE UNCLEAN, THE WEASEL, AND THE MOUSE, AND THE CROCODILE, THE MYGALE, AND THE CHAMELEON, AND THE STELLIO, AND THE LIZARD, AND THE MOLE. — These are forbidden here to the Jews, because certain nations and barbarians fed upon these and similar creatures. Thus Stuckius, in book II of Convivials, chapter ix, teaches that German soldiers once ate fried silkworms, Italians weasels, Spaniards land tortoises; and even today many eat mushrooms, oysters and shellfish, even raw, which we know are produced from putrefaction. The weasel is therefore forbidden to the Jews, because it is thievish, and has the nature of a mouse, and appears to be a long mouse; but the mouse is unclean, because it is earthy and foul-smelling. Tropologically, the mouse and weasel signify the frauds of the poor, and fraudulent poor. Thus Radulphus; whence also Cyril, in book IX Against Julian: "The weasel," he says, "and the mouse designate timid and less manly, and clamorous kinds of thieves." Why Brasidas, having caught a mouse in the sedge, let it go after being bitten by it, adding: "Nothing is so small that it cannot be saved, if it dares to defend itself, or to avenge those who attack it;" Plutarch testifies in the Laconic Sayings. The crocodile is unclean, because it is amphibious, hard and rapacious. Tropologically, the crocodile signifies public robbers. Thus Radulphus. 30. MYGALE — is a shrew-mouse, which is of the size of a mouse, of weasel-like appearance, with an oblong mouth, a slender tail, as Aetius says. The island of Britain abounds in these; it is called mygale, as it were from mys, that is, mouse; and gale, that is, weasel: because the mygale participates in and is as it were composed of both animals, from which it equally draws the vice of greediness and theft. Thus Isychius and Radulphus. Demochares, seeing a thief being led away by eleven men: "Alas, wretch," he said, "why did you steal such small things, and not rather great ones, so that you yourself might have led away others?" indicating that we ought to be deterred from small thefts by the smallness and worthlessness of the thing, to which such great infamy is attached; for from great crimes both the crime itself and the gallows sufficiently deter. It was asked of Socrates, "why did he laugh?" He answered: "I see great robbers leading a small one to hanging, who are more worthy of hanging. Sacrilege," he says, "the smallest is punished, but the greatest is carried in triumphs." Thus Valerius Maximus, book VII. Zeno ordered a slave caught in theft to be beaten; and when he excused himself, saying that "it was fated for him to steal:" "And to be beaten," he said, "was fated." Thus Laertius, book VII, chapter 1.
Chamaeleon In Greek chamaeleon is said, as it were, humble, or small lion; it is an animal in figure and size like a lizard, often changing color throughout its whole body: for it is varied most easily by conversion to the colors which it sees, except for red and white. Hence the proverb: "More changeable than a chamaeleon," signifying one who is two-faced, inconstant, and turning himself according to the time into every manner. Hence symbolically chamaeleons are those who feed themselves on the wind of honor and on the flies of delights. The emperor Domitian, as Suetonius testifies, was accustomed daily for two hours to delight himself in catching flies; so that it became a proverb: "Not even a fly," because he himself alone would not leave even a fly. Domitian, you govern and rule the affairs of the whole world, why therefore do you catch flies? How many Christians are more foolish than Domitian, who, when they ought to procure their own salvation and eternity, daily not for two hours but for all hours catch flies! You desire riches, you desire a fly. You desire a rich and beautiful bride, you desire a fly. You desire wines and delights, you desire flies, which tickle the flesh, which tickle the palate, do not satisfy, which shortly turned into filth and carcasses, will produce stench and nausea. You desire a benefice, you desire an office, you desire a fly, you desire a paltry thing, which shortly will fly away from you to your successor. You wish to be honored, you wish to excel, you wish to be loved, you wish to be worshipped, you desire a fly; as a chamaeleon you catch the breath of the people, you draw in wind, you live by wind, you delight in wind. O cares of men, O how much emptiness is in things! Wretched, blind mortals, you run like headless hens, without brain toward food, toward worms, toward butterflies, toward flies; you run toward benefices, toward dignities; you run toward tables, toward banquets, toward cups; you run toward merchandise and riches, and not once do you think: And what then? whither all these things? what will be after these things? why am I here? why have I received from God a rational and immortal soul? why do I gaze upon the sun and heaven? what place, what state will receive my soul, after all these things shortly to be ended? Go now, young man, leap, rejoice, become drunk, indulge the belly and lust; but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment, that you will go into the house of your eternity. Live therefore, not as a chamaeleon on flies, but as a lion on solid food, live for God, live for ETERNITY; be an eagle: "An eagle does not catch flies; do not desire to be first among jackdaws, when you are able to be an eagle." Where note first: Abulensis in chapter XIV of Deuteronomy, holds that the chamaeleon properly does not change color, but appearance; for the color of an object cannot produce in it color, but its appearance: and so the chamaeleon emits color from itself in appearance, but weak and thin; yet it receives in itself a stronger appearance of color from the object, and reflects it as if it were a mirror, so that its own color appears to be that. More truly others hold that the chamaeleon changes color, through contraction of blood and spirits: whence Aristotle says that when inflated it changes color, as we change color in shame, fear, or joy; for when the chamaeleon sees the color of the object, it so impresses it upon its imagination, that through the dilation or contraction of blood and spirits already mentioned, it expresses the same in its body. See Simon Portius, book On Colors, which exists among the works of Aristotle. Note secondly, that Pliny and others relate that the chamaeleon lives without food from air alone; this is not absolutely true: for there is no animal which lives without food from air. Whence Theophrastus teaches that the chamaeleon lives from dew, and has often been found eating flies; and hence perhaps that common opinion arose, that it lives from air, namely from the fact that the chamaeleon, since it is of slow digestion, lives long without food, and when it takes food, it takes thin and light food, such as dew, flies, etc. Thus Augustine Niphus, Gesner and others. In like manner that which was falsely boasted concerning the salamander, that it lives in fire, and is not burned by it, had its origin from the fact that the salamander, on account of the coldness and thickness of its skin, is not consumed so quickly by fire, but even sometimes, if it is small, extinguishes it. Tropologically, the chamaeleon signifies parasites, who accommodate their mouth and words to every wind, as Radulphus says. Hence Gregory Nazianzen, writing against Julian the Apostate, compares him to a chamaeleon; for just as the chamaeleon, he says, is easily varied, and assumes all colors except white, so also he from a Christian became a pagan; and there was in him humanity, but inhuman, and his persuasion was nothing other than violence, and the excuse of savagery as probity, so that it might seem that he rightly had recourse to violence, when he could accomplish nothing by persuading. Rightly Seneca in the Proverbs: "The greatest sign of an evil mind," he says, "is fluctuation, and constant tossing between the simulation of virtues and the love of vices." Again, the chamaeleon has a snout like a pig's, its tail is very long, it has hooked claws, movement slower than a tortoise, body rough like a crocodile, itself lofty, always with gaping mouth, alone among animals it is nourished neither by food nor by drink, nor by any other than the nourishment of air, says Pliny, book XXVIII, chapter VIII, Aristotle, book II On Animals chapter II, Solinus and others.
Stellio It is an animal not unlike a lizard, but much smaller, having a back depicted with certain shining spots in the manner of stars; it feeds on dew and spiders; its bite makes a man half-stupefied and affects him in various ways; no animal envies man more fraudulently than the stellion: for the skin which it sheds every year, it immediately devours, so that it may snatch away from man a most effective remedy for the falling sickness. Whence the stellion signifies a fraudulent person, and the crime of stellionage is called a crime of deceit and imposture. Thus Pliny, lib. XXX, cap. X. That was the voice of Lysander the stellion, who, when he was blamed because he did many things through deceit, answered: "Where the lion's skin is not sufficient, there the fox's skin must be sewn on." Plutarch is witness in the Apophthegmata. Seven reptiles are enumerated here, because although all reptiles are unclean, as is evident from verse 41, these nevertheless are so more than the rest. Thus Isychius.
Novatianus on the Symbolism of Unclean Animals But why does this law forbid eating these? Besides the literal reason given in verse 29, there is a symbolic one which Novatianus assigns, lib. On Jewish Foods, cap. III, where he speaks thus: "Who would make the body of a weasel food? but it reproves thefts; who the lizard? but it hates the uncertain variety of life; who the stellion? but it execrates the spots, prey sought from another's death; who the raven? but it execrates cunning desires; who the sparrow (for thus he himself translates what the Septuagint have koliphas, but wrongly: for it is established from the Hebrew, Chaldean and our translation that it should be rendered ostrich; for the sparrow was not an unclean but a clean animal, and was also suitable for expiation, as is evident here, cap. XV, 5)? when he forbids it, he reproves intemperance; when the owl, he hates those who flee the light of truth; when the swan, the proud of high neck; when the plover, excessive garrulity of the tongue; when the bat, those seeking the darkness of night together with error: thus in the camel he condemns an enervated life and one twisted by crimes; when the pig, he reproves a life placing its good in flesh alone; when the hare, he accuses men reformed into a female." For the Physicists relate that the hare has both sexes in itself, as also the hyena. Thus also Cyril, lib. IX Against Julian, Ralph and Isychius already cited many times. Moreover, the hare can be a symbol of the usurer; for, as Plutarch says, the hare gives birth at the same time and nourishes another, and again becomes pregnant: thus the money-lender produces borrowed money before he has conceived it. For he who gives a loan immediately demands interest, and taking that, again lends out what he received for interest. The sins and vices of beasts are therefore, and they transform man as it were into a beast. Most excellently Boethius, lib. IV, prosa 3: "Whom, he says, do you see transformed by vices, you cannot esteem as a man; but that he was a man, the very human form of body left behind still shows. Does avarice burn, a violent robber of others' wealth? You would call him like a wolf. Fierce and restless, does he exercise his tongue in quarrels? You will compare him to a dog. A hidden schemer, does he rejoice to have stolen by frauds? He will be equated with foxes. Intemperate in anger, does he rage? Let him be believed to bear the spirit of a lion. Fearful and fleeing, does he fear things not to be feared? Let him be held similar to a deer. Sluggish and stupid, does he grow torpid? He lives as a donkey. Light and inconstant, does he change pursuits? He differs nothing from birds. Does he immerse himself in foul and unclean lusts? He is held by the pleasure of a filthy pig. Thus man, abandoning probity, is turned into a beast."
11:31
31. ALL THESE REPTILES ARE UNCLEAN, — not only as to eating, but also as to touch, so that it is not permitted to touch them, as is evident from verse 41 and 43, and cap. V, 2, where a reptile is equated with a carcass, because both are venomous.
11:32
32. CILICIA. — In Hebrew it is sac, that is, a sack, by which the Hebrews signify garments of hair, hard, such as those of rustics, beggars, penitents. IN WHATSOEVER WORK IT IS MADE, — that is to say, Any vessel whatsoever by which we use it for some work. AND AFTERWARDS THEY SHALL BE MADE CLEAN, — that is, they will be clean; for no other washing or cleansing was needed, but when evening came this legal uncleanness expired, so that they were again reckoned clean. It is evident from the Hebrew, Chaldean, Septuagint.
11:33
33. BUT AN EARTHEN VESSEL, INTO WHICH ANY OF THESE SHALL FALL, SHALL BE DEFILED. — In Hebrew, everything that is in it, namely in such a vessel, shall be defiled, and for this reason it must be broken, because namely it is earthen: for if it were wooden or metallic, it would not be broken, but washed, as was said in the preceding verse. We have heard something similar about an earthen vessel in which the flesh of the sacrifice for sin is cooked, cap. VI, 28.
11:34
34. EVERY FOOD, etc., IF WATER BE POURED UPON IT, IT SHALL BE UNCLEAN. — By "water," understand unclean water or water flowing from an unclean vessel; whence the Chaldean translator renders it, water with which any of these things, namely those already mentioned as polluted, has come into contact. Tropologically, unclean water signifies softness of mind; for this water of desire infects that with which it is mixed. Just as therefore unclean temptation with such water kills the clean but soft and languid, so it exercises, strengthens and crowns the dry and strong. Thus Radulphus. AND EVERY LIQUID THAT IS DRUNK OUT OF ANY SUCH VESSEL, SHALL BE UNCLEAN. — By "vessel," understand an unclean one. Note: it is said only of liquids that they are polluted; whence it appears that dry things, for example bread placed in such an unclean vessel, were not polluted: and the reason is just and fitting, that dry things do not so easily receive filth as do moist things.
11:35
35. AND WHATSOEVER OF THESE CARCASSES SHALL FALL UPON IT (A VESSEL), SHALL BE UNCLEAN, — namely that vessel upon which something of the carcasses has fallen. WHETHER IT BE AN OVEN (in which bread is baked), OR A POT WITH FEET, — that is, pots having feet, such as are two-footed, three-footed, etc., because they are earthen and made of clay, according to what was said in verse 33. Tropologically, the oven is the patience of Martyrs, the pots with feet are Doctors, in whom the foods of sound doctrine, with the fire of the operation of the Holy Spirit being supposed, are cooked; because these profit nothing unless all unclean things are avoided. Thus Isychius and Radulphus.
11:36
36. BUT FOUNTAINS, AND CISTERNS, AND ALL THE GATHERING TOGETHER OF WATERS SHALL BE CLEAN. — Understand, even if something unclean has fallen into it: thus God ordained on account of the necessity of waters, which man cannot do without. The same reason applies to seed, as follows in verse 37, unless it had been sprinkled with water; for then, because it is moist, it more easily contracted filth, and therefore was deemed unclean, and was to be given to beasts, because no mention of expiation is made here. Tropologically, by fountain and seed is signified the doctrine of truth, which even when disputing or discoursing about carcasses, that is vices, is not polluted, nor does it pollute, unless the soul be watery and soft, which attracts and imbibes foul things through consent. Thus Radulphus.
11:40
40. HE THAT SHALL EAT OF IT (A CARCASS) ANY THING, OR SHALL CARRY (understand unknowingly), SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING; — for if anyone had eaten it knowingly, he would have sinned gravely, and would have been worthy of punishment.
11:41
41. EVERY THING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH, SHALL BE ABOMINABLE, — because it is earthly, foul and venomous, as I said in verse 31. Tropologically, creeping things are those who creep, who neglect heaven and heavenly things, who drag body and mind through the earth; all whose desires are earthly, whose mind is not in the aether, but in the air, whose God is their belly, or mammon, or ambition. A similar tropology applies to what follows.
11:42
42. WHATSOEVER GOETH UPON THE BREAST ON FOUR FEET (because it has short feet: whence it is necessary that in moving it lean upon the belly and the earth, as serpents do. Tropologically they signify those given to gluttony or greed: thus Isychius), AND HATH MANY FEET (as worms), OR THAT TRAILETH UPON THE GROUND (as are creeping things), YOU SHALL NOT EAT, BECAUSE IT IS ABOMINABLE.
11:43
43. DO NOT DEFILE YOUR SOULS, — that is yourselves, by contracting legal uncleanness through eating the animals here forbidden; although they could also defile the soul by sin, if namely they had knowingly eaten them against this precept. NEITHER TOUCH ANY OF THEM, — which especially preceded: for it was lawful to touch others at least, for example they could ride upon camels, as I said in verse 26. Hence it is clear from this law that it was not lawful for the Jews to touch creeping things, so that if they knowingly touched them, they would sin. The Jews therefore by the contact of creeping things incurred not only legal uncleanness, as Abulensis wishes, but also spiritual uncleanness, namely sin. For they violated this precept of God: "Neither shall you touch any of them;" and again: "Do not defile your souls in every creeping thing." For God here commands that they be neither eaten nor touched as most unclean: "Be not," He says, "unclean," namely both legally and spiritually. The reason is what follows.
11:44
44. BE HOLY (that is, clean; thus holy is taken for clean, Deut. XXIII, 14, where it is said: "That thy camp may be holy," that is, clean), BECAUSE I AM HOLY (that is, clean), — who abhor the uncleanness of the Gentiles in sacrifices and feasts, concerning which St. Augustine, book VI and VII of The City of God, and who wish you to imitate and represent my spiritual holiness by your bodily holiness. Note: Temperance and abstinence from forbidden foods is called here holiness, that is, purity, because forbidden foods were reckoned unclean, polluted and abominable, and eating them would pollute and contaminate the eater, as God often inculcates here. Hear St. Bernard, sermon 22 in the Canticles: "It is customary," he says, "in Scripture for sanctification to be put for continence, or purity. Finally, what were those frequent sanctifications in Moses other than certain purifications of men tempering themselves from food, from drink, from intercourse, and similar things? But hear the Apostle: This is, he says, the will of God, your sanctification, that each one of you know how to possess his vessel in sanctification, and not in the passion of desire. Likewise: For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto sanctification. It is clear that he puts sanctification for temperance." Let heretics note this, and learn here that fastings and abstinence sanctioned by the law of God and the Church are called and are holiness. DO NOT DEFILE YOUR SOULS IN EVERY CREEPING THING. — Let Christians hear and understand this tropologically, that they do not defile themselves with those who creep on the ground and seek the goods of the lowest earth, but preserve their soul holy for God and heaven.
11:45
45. FOR I AM THE LORD (in Hebrew I am Jehova, namely in myself by essence, and Elohim, namely to you by providence, dominion and governance), WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, THAT I MIGHT BE YOUR GOD, — that is to say, I brought you out that you might be a people separated from other nations and their rites, and devoted particularly to my worship. This benefit, because it is the first, greatest and foundation of all others, God inculcates everywhere.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
11:1
v. 14 « Locutusque est. Dominus ad Moysen et Aaron dicens » ; — ad Aaron etiam Dei dirigitur alloquium, quia ad sacerdotes pertinet his legibus invigilare et quae munda immundave sint, iudicare (Tost.) —
Huic schemati conformatur tota pericope v. 1-43 b. de lepra carnis capillatae Lev. 13,29-97 | v. 99 *9 UN TN VN E $ de CHAM Lev. 13,38 sq. v.38 2 WWUNCTN VN UMS Tas aea eio ov 040419 ON.ÀA0 002 TN rtbeeseeeenteeeeeeeeenteeten enel dertnteene tetti POR OH So MAR AS VL HCM PON CORUM RS UNSITODALN- JEN OE APA TOR ML UR EDU OREILLE NeNOXALAR UG TRUE AUR ERE | 2. De observandis a leproso Lev. 13,&4-A6 TTE OPNEMEYTSEEEVRI TIR VET A C SUPRA REA S. damp Te Ferr a mr TU ARCA RS Ope ate 117, 0 SERRURN lex positiva — generalis v. 3 : quod dividit ungulam et ruminat, comedendum. particularis : [Deut. 14,4 sq. : 10 sPEGrEs comedendae]. lex negativa — generalis v. 4 : quod non simul et ruminat et ungulam habens dividit, non comedendum. particularis v. 4-7 : GAMELUS, GHOEROGRYLLUS, LEPUS, SUS. quater. vejA- Do So EOS n25 N' N'OD legis negativae explicatio v. 8 : neque carnes comedendae , neque cadavera tangenda, X MS nebid eire Ub e e de p25 mn a"w2v B. Aquatilia v. 9-12 : : lex positiva — generalis v. 9 : quod habet pinnulas et squamas comedendum. lex negativa — generalis v. 10 : quod non habet, non comedendum. legis negativae explicatio v. 11 : neque carnes comedendae, neque cadavera tangénda. v. 10 sq. n3 wn ypv n25 an vYEV legis negativae repetitio v. 12. velo)4rs Pie karvE x vrPV C. Altliia v. 13-20 : lex positiva — generalis : [Deut. 14,11 : « omnes aves mundas comedite »]. lex negativa — particularis quoad aves maiores v. 13-19 : 20 SPEGIES AVIUM RAPACIUM non comedendarum. vod ts M ncc C vp generalis quoad alites minores v. 20 : alites quadrupedes non comedendi. v. 20:5 x Jupe cim SEM YPV mE KRECEEEcecrececre eri Eme e uuu eR T Altilia minora — additamentum v. 21-25 : lex positiva — generalis v. 21 : quadrupes habens longiora retro crura comedatur. particularis v. 22 : 4 sPEGIES LOGUSTARUM comedendae. lex negativa — generalis v. 23 : reliqua non comedenda. X599 717 Cons ng MAE vEPV legis negativae explicatio v. 24 sq. : neque tangenda, neque portanda. : | ISTE AROERNCOERARELNCEERME Er MUNI RE IUD te RE OE EL LANI ALLEE: lex negativa — generalis : 1) v. 26 animal habens ungulam, sed non dividens neque rumi- ; - nans , non comedendum. ) Eoo ML ny m DN | 2) v. 27 quadrupes ambulans super manus mon 1 comedendum. NSPATI WE tus Rrmea aet SP TAS 025 on mwoo | legis negativae explicatio v. 21 sq. : neque tangendum cadaver neque portandum. Nba c ee EE 025 mn mwoo | 3b DYNT S NT Dnn5 SUBSCRIPTIO v. 59 : rn DN7, recensens vestium genera legisque finem practicum 3. De legali mundatione leprosi Lev. 1&,1-90 veles num | NT) nNDOO nyos v. 48 DN! Nm bobo ebbe AED LLL ELLE ELLE EE NEEDS ELLOS ELEC LETT EPLELLTELCLCHELL TTE TD DLUHT————————————n SuBscRIPTIOtotius legis v. 54-57 : v. 54 nl nN7,recensens omnia leprae genera legisque finem practicum; et v. 57 extremo rursum adscribitur n n nw5 . IV. LEX DE IMPURITATE SEXUALI LEV. 15 4. De fluxu seminis nimio vel impedito Lev. 15,1-15 v. 2 *2 Q'N V"N | Membra subordinata órdiuntur a Bst, 52» vel qàN v 9. De seminis effusione non morbida Lev. 15,16-18 v. 16 E UM | 3. De menstruatione Lev. 15,19-2^ y.19 Y» nwuwi &. De fluxu sanguinis praeter menstruationem Lev. 15,25-30 v. 25 *'2 nu N Pericope sez divina elogwuta complectitur, e quibus cap. 11. 12. 15 explieite « ad filios Israel » diriguntur. Ad eosdem dirigi censenda sunt cap. 13 et 15,1-32. 33-53, quae sunt delepra, quod ea res omnes respiciat, et ab omnibus aeque fuerit noscenda, atque statuta de puerpera, de fluxu seminis ete. Loquitur ea autem Deus « ad Moysen et Aaron »; facetur quidem 15,1 « Aaron », sed facile e v. 2 suppletur. Cum tres de lepra leges communi subscriptione 14,54-57 in unam legem sint coniunctae, sex eloquiis respondent /eges quatuor - cap. 11 de animalibus mundis et immundis, cap. 12 de immunditia mulieris puerperae, cap. 13 sq. de lepra, cap. 15 de fluxu seminis et sanguinis. Hae leges legum Lev. 1,1-6,7 sunt affines. Lex cap. 12 orditur v. 2 vocibus *» nvsw; etlex cap. 13 vocibus ^» 2*5, distinguitque articulos expressionibus *2 (ZN *N v*x (v. 29. 38), *2 v*N (v. 40) et*2 132n (v. 7); et lex cap. 15 orditur v. 2 vocibus *2 V^N v"N, et pergit v. 16 ^2 v^w, v. 19. 95 *» nux. Id per se non demonstrat , eas leges uti Lev. 1,1-6,7 esse Moyse antiquiores, cum leges recentiores haud raro antiquiorum loquendi rationem imitentur. Verum antiquissima certeest lex Lev. 12, cuius similia apud alias gentes antiquas deprehenduntur, et lex Lev. 15 legi Lev. 19 perquam affinis : perpende, quam sollicite a primordiis stirps electa omnibus invigilaverit, quae hominis generationem attingerent. — Recentiores suspicetur quis esse leges de lepra Lev. 13 sq., quod « sacerdotes » constanter efferantur, itemque 15,11 « ostium tabernaculi testimonii » : nota tamen. etiam in Aegypto habuisse Hebraeos et sacerdotes et testimonium et tabernaculum. Indulgentia item 15,91-31 pauperibus concessa , ut aliae eiusmodi indulgentiae, videatur recentius, imo ab ipso Moyse esse inducta. Ex alia parte ritus, qui 15,4-7 describitur, ex iis est quae non recens affinguntur, sed venerabili traditione sacra habentur. Debuere apud Hebraeos ante Moysen exstitisse quaedam de leprosis leges, cum lepra in Aegypto plurimum semper sit grassata (cf. Jos. c. Apion. I. 26; Friedreich 1. 207 sqq.; G. Ebers, Gosen p. 155 sqq.), ut dixerit P/zn. (Nat. Hist. XXVI. 5; cf. Lucret. : De rerum natura VI. 1113 sq.) : « Aegypti peculiare hoc malum ». Lepram interpretantur eam, quae Deut. 28,27 Longe rarius autem in deserto nascitur lepra. Tandem leges Lev. 13 sq. qualis longiore tempore multisque examinatis aegrotis fier] consuevit. Neque cogimur supponere Deum, qui tot antiquas leges per Moysen suo nomine promulgaverit, eidem revelasse morbi symptomata , igitur, quae dicebamus, facile compones, si leges adstruas Moyse quidem exstitisse antiquiores, sed ab eo novis institutis in pluribus esse adaptatas. — Lex Lev. 11 de animalibus mundis et immundis sine dubio antiquissima est atque paulatim, uti infra ostendemus, variis incrementis augebatur. Verba mnn nw v. 2 sane non sunt idem atque formula nn nw, qua. 6,8-7,38 leges ab ipso Moyse cusas insigniri comperimus; neque si idem essent, efficerent legem esse recentiorem. Cur non adhibuerit Moyses EAS ante ipsum iam adhiberi solitam, cuius vim ommes illico indubie perspicerent? Animalia munda atque E iam diluvii aevo distinguebantur, licet numero fortasse pauciora lis, quae Lev. 11 recensentur. V. infra. Clauduntur leges singulae formula n»n nw5, « haec est lex » : 11, 46; 12,7; 15,54. 57 (quo versu Vulg. verba omittit); 15,32; item 13, 59 lex de lepra vestium , quae pars evasit legis de lepra; et 14,39 additamentum de indulgentia pauperibus concedenda. Uti 7,37, ita etiam 11,46; 12,7; 13,59; 154,54 sqq. ; 15,32 sqq. illa formula adseriptam habet cuiusque legis partium enumerationem. Uti 7,38 adscribitur thorae sacrificalis usus principalis « ad offerendas oblationes et immundum, et inter animal quod comedere fas est, et inter animal quod comedere nefas »; 13,59 « quomodo mundetur (vestis) et quomodo contaminetur »; 14,57 « ad eruditionem in die mundi et in die immundi » (ubi conferas triplex « in die » 7,35. 36-38). Crediderim igitur unum harum subscriptionum et subseriptionis 7,37 et inscriptionum 6,9. 1*. 20. 25; 7,1. 11 esse auctorem, eumque probabilius ipsum exstitisse Moysen. I. LEX ANIMALIUM. MUNDORUM ET IMMUNDORUM Lev. 11. Titulum habes v. 2, clausulam v. 46 sq. Ipsa lex per quatuor animalium classes discurrit; pecora v. 2-8, i. e. quadrupedia maiora; aquatilia v. 9-12; altila v. 13-25; reptilia v. 29-38 et 41-45. Quod vero Dillm. p. 481 ex v. 46 infert, egisse legem primitus post pecora de alitibus, ae demum de universo y?v tam aquarum quam terrae, id refutatur cum e Deut. 14 aquatilia item inter pecora et alites collocante, tum exinde quod immerito e solo verborum v. 46 ordine tanti momenti illatio derivetur. De pecoribus traditur primum v. 3 regula. generalis positiva, nullis v. 8 resumitur regula negativa, prohibens tam esum carnis quam contaetum cadaveris, et eadem illa pro clausula adscribitur ratio. Eiusdem formae lex v. 9-129 de aquatilibus traditur. Species nominatim profertur nulla. Statuitur regula generalis tam positiva v. 9 quam negativa v. 10, cui ratio adscribitur « abominatio est vobis »; « abominatio » (Vpv) v. 11 explieatur tam esum quam contactum prohibere; post quam explicationem v. 12 repetitur regula negativa. Quoad ates v. 13-25 regula generalis positiva (cf. Deut. 15,11) tacite supponitur; regula generalis negativa non traditur sed v. 13-19 viginti avium rapacium species prohibentur. Dein pro alitibus quadrupedibus vel polypodis (325 y^v) traditur v. 20-25 regula generalis primum negativa, dein positiva adiectis exemplis, et post haec repetitur regula negativa, doceturque ea prohibere praeter esum et contactum etiam gestationem. Alites immundi v. 13. 920. 93 item scribuntur esse vpv, « abominatio ». De reptilibus v. 29-38 regula generalis neque positiva neque negativa traditur. Aliqua tamen primitus non fuisse penitus immunda, docet sensus obvius v. 29 : « Et haec erunt vobis immunda de reptilibus etc. ». v. 29 sq. recensentur octo species, quibus recensitis v. 31 rursum (ef. v. 8. 12. 93) repetitur prohibitio. Dicuntur vero illae species v. 29. 31. .35 non « abominatio », sed « immundae ». Porro reptilium ubique se ingerentium , non quidem edendorum aut studiose deportandorum, at certe attingendorum multiplex erat oecasio. Quare v. 31-35 exponicibi inficiantur. Concluditurque v. 35 solemniori formula : « immunda sunt haec, eruntque vobis immunda ». Verum doctrina v. 31-35 proposifa ortum dedit quaestionibus casuistieis, quarum duae v. 36-38 resolutae clausulae v. 35 appenduntur. Tandem v. 41-45 adscribitur epilogus tractatus de reptilibus, quo severissime reptilia quaelibet comedi prohibentur. Quem si cum v. 29 conferas, oportebit dicere aut ibi concessam. quorumdam reptilium comestionem recentiore lege revocari, aut quoad solas v. 29 sq. octo species indici purificationés v. 32-38, esum vero et attactum (v. 43) quorumvis reptilium prohiberi. Quae altera solutio praeplacet, imprimis ob naturalem et universalem non Iudaeorum tantum, sed plurimarum item nationum a quibusvis reptilibus comedendis aversionem. v. 41 sq. bis nomen VpU. itemque v. ^3 verbum vpv scribitur. Mic igitur est nostrae legis contextus. At eidem inseruntur addita duo, utique praeter intimiorem contextum, quaeque ambo ad pecora (an3) referuntur. Extremae de alitibus paragrapho adscribitur v. 26- 28. Agebatur v. 3sq. de ruminantibus habentibus ungulam vel divisam ANIMALIA MUNDA ET IMMUNDA LEV. 44. | A494 vel indivisam : verum quid dicendum de pecoribus, quae ungulam non dividunt neque ruminant? quid de carnivoris iis, quae ungulis carentia manibus (ga//. patte, germ. Tatze) incedunt? Sunt hae rursum quaestiones casulsticae, quae legi pridem natae accrevere. Occasio aliqua h. l. adseribendarum potuit esse portandi verbum , quod v. 25 primum occurrit et v. 28 repetitur. — Rursum v. 39 sq. sermoni de reptilibus inseritur quaestio de pecoribus mundis, quae forte perierint iamque immundis aequiparentur. Si disquiras, cur ea praecise h. l. inseratur, aliam rationem suggerere nequeo nisi hanc : postquam scriptor aliquis v. 37 sq. duas de reptilibus solutiones casuisticas aut ipse aut alius adnexuit. Non enim aeque logice in sermonibus contexendis procedebant Hebraei, atque nostrarum universitatum professores. Fortasse, quo tempore adnectebat, nondum adscriptus erat sermoni de reptilibus epilogus v. 41 sqq. Antequam in huius legis indolem inquiramus, conferenda ea est cum altera Deut. 14,3-20 lege, quae, dum in plerisque verbotenus consonat,in aliquibus divergit. Inscriptio v. 3 « Ne comedatis, quae immunda sunt » conferri potest cum ea, quae Lev. 11,2 habetur, v. 4-8 agit de pecoribus. Quorum v. 4 sq. enumerantur decem species mundae; inde v. 6 sq., iisdem atque Lev. 11,3 sq. verbis, traditur regula generalis tam positiva quam negativa. v. 7 sq. eo fere solo differt a Lev. 11,4-8, quod « immunditiae » nota non singulis quatuor pecorum speciebus, sed semel tantum affigatur, extremo autem v. 8 omittatur, quae Lev. 11,8 prostat formula, « immunda sunt vobis ». — Pro aquatilibus eadem v. 9 sq., atque Lev. 11,9-11, regula positiva et negativa traditur, sed longe breviori forma. — De alitibus primum habetur v. 11, quae Lev. 11 desideratur, regula generalis positiva : « omnes aves minores (MX). eomedatis »; quibus eae aves opponuntur rapacibus, quae v. 12-18 (ef. Lev. 11,13-19) enumerantur. v. 19 universum nn vv proscribitur, uti Lev. 11,20, brevius tamen neque recensita locustarum exoceptione,quae tamen apud Hebraeos post Moysen nullo non tempore vigebat. Pro clausula adscribitur sententia v. 20 : « omnem alitem mundum comedite ». Porro Deut. 14 cum Lev. 11 comparantes perspicimus, eundem utrobique textum substantialiter haberi, sed Deut. 14 totum de reptilibus sermonem desiderari; stilum Deut. 14 generatim esse pressiorem, Lev. 11 e contra prolixiorem; tamen Deut. 14 supplere aliqua perquam utiliter, sc. v. 4 sq. species pecorum mundorum, v. 11 classem avium mundarum ; Deut. 14 non uti pro aquatilibus et alitibus voce VpPV. sed pro omnibus pariter animalium ordinibus voce N'2UC. In sola inscriptione v. 3 utitur voce efficaciore, non vp sed nay"n, « abominatio » (cf. Gen. 43,32; 46,34). VPV autem praeter Deut. 7,26; Ps. 21 (22), 25; Is. 66,17 in solo Lev. legitur, et adverte in seriore additamento Lev. 11,41-43 eam radicem legi ter. Quibus praemissis, patet primum legem Lev. 11 et Deut. 1^4 potissimum esse ciborum legem : « Haec sunt animalia, quae comedere debetis », « Ne comedatis, quae immunda sunt », « ut discernatis inter mundum et immundum, et inter animal quod comedi potest , et animal quod come? nequit » (v. 1). Ipsa tangend:? prohibitio a eibi ratione proficiscitur. Non proseribitur contactus animalium 2mmundorum vivorum, v. g. cameli equitem gestantis; non mwundorum occisorum ad usus sive sacros sive profanos : sed »uundorum forte interemptorum x. 39 sq., quorum carnes non ita deceret in cibum assumi humanum, et 2mmundorum mortuorum, « cadaverum », « morticinorum », quorum pro cibo adhibendorum suboriri poterat cogitatio. Eam ciborum legem ante Moysen exstitisse coniicies e Lev. 20,95, ubi mundorum ab immundis separatio dicitur invecta ad Israelis e populis electionem figurandam, quae erat Moyse longe antiquior, et e Gen. 7,2 sqq., ubi ea diluvii iam tempore viguisse cernitur; confirmabis e plurium nationum, v. g. Persarum, legibus. Eandem ante Moysen exstitisse legem d?vinam, nulla est ratio affirmandi (cf. Rom. - 5,13). Rationis lumine acti et amica Dei providentia adiuti antiqui homines sacra omnia et profana sapientibus primum 7?0ribus definivere, quae postea transiere 1n /eges. Nonne nos quoque multiplici in re ciborum more cireumseribimur, ut quorumdam animalium carnibus vescamur, aliorum abstineamus? | Legis ciborum simplieissima fuere initia, ut quaedam animalia in cibum assumi consueverint, quod essent eorum carnes salutares, sapidae adhiberenturque sacrificiis; alia repudiarentur ob rationes oppositas. Erant et aliae repudiandi rationes. Uti dies et nox boni malique moralis discrimen adumbrabant, ita animalia, quae noctu prodibant ad praedam, immunda habebantur; item quidquid in reptilibus vel aquatilibus forma serpentem imitabatur; quidquid esset spurcum , uti sus, aut minorum animalium ritu omnibus se immisceret, omnia foedaret. Hac igitur ratione animalia quaedam adhibebantur, alia repudiabantur; illa munda, haec immunda habebantur; longe tamen plura neutri ordini attributa incerta fluctuabant. Qui 70s in /egem aliquando transit. At mox homines pios torquebat dubitatio, illa neutrius ordinis animalia essentne mundis an immundis adnumeranda; vel stirpe electa in novas aliquando sedes commigrante, novae comparebant animalium species, quas loci antiqui incolae comederent, recens advecti, essentne comedere fas, incerti haererent. Hinc, uti sapienter monet mundorum et mmundorum ^e/encho constaret (cf. Deut. 15,4 sq.; Lev. 11,h-7. 13-19), abstrahebantur quaedam regulae generales , quibus animalia quaelibet mundane essent an immunda definirentur : ef. regulam de ruminantibus ungulam dividentibus vel non dividentibus, etc. Elenchus exstitit regulis antiquior, regulae rursus gem eo ambitu, ad quem in duabus recensionibus Deut. 1 et Lev. 11 Moysis aevo excreverat, sua auctoritate sancivit, stabilivit, limitavit. Quo licentia legis extendendae et complicandae aliquantum coercebatur, non tamen penitus, uii posteriora studia rabbinica demonstrant. | Ex dictis coniecerim Deut. 14 esse antiquius quam Lex. 11 : 1) quod careat reptilium lege, de quibus comedendis nemini antiquitus in mentem veniebat; 2) quod locustas reticeat, quas nemo tum sane non manducabat, at essentne alites an reptilia, munda an immunda, ambigebatur; 3) quod enumeret pecora munda avesque comedi licitas (v. 4 sq. 11), quae in antiquioribus elenchis absque dubio enumerabantur; 4) quod stilo fluat pressiore, distinctionem inter N!J2u et VP ignoret. Ex dictis item intelliges, huius legis elenchum necessario fuisse mutabilem. Rationem, cur tot elenchi nomina sint nobis &xz&£ Aeyóusvx, auctores inde repetunt, quod ea, cum perantiqua sint, mox evaserint obsoleta. At eiusmodi, quae nemo iam satis miretur? Ita Syr. alitum bipedum quinque, quadrupedum duas species ignorat. At facile etiam crescebat elenchus. Oportuit non paucas decursu temporum praeferri quaestiones de animalibus in elencho non recensitis, mundane essent an immunda. Eae quaestiones ab eius temporis prophetis vel senioribus solvebantur, solutiones tamquam lex recipiebantur et observabantur; neque creditu diffücile est, earum solIutionum unam alteramve in ipsum s. textum irrepsisse. Ita v. g. fieri potuit, ut ipse ille famosus « lepus biblicus » serius et furtim in textum irrepserit. Ceterum, qua ratione intraverit, nihil omnino refert. Deus sc. elenchum, qualis Moysis tempore a maioribus traditus exstabat, approbavit. Eam, quae secundum externam speciem omnino vera est, rationem ruminare leporem, non ipse primus protulit, sed ante prolatam immutatam retinuit. An Dei erat,quo tempore nondum nata erat zoologia, antiquae legis verba zoologicis rationibus conformare? | - Quo certius a comedendis immundis retraherentur Hebraei, vetabantur iidem immundorum vel a£fingere cadavera. Exinde, quod v. 2- 23, M sq. potissimum de comedendo, v. 24-40 de attingendo agat, inferebat Kalisch 1. c. II 19^ sqq. nostram legem coaluisse e duabus confusis, una comedendi et altera attingendi prohibitione. Ratio est perquam infirma. Deut. 14,8 tactus prohibetur, ubi tamen omnia ea desiderantur, quae Lev. 11,24-^0 habet. Ergo una primitus lex et esum et contactum proscribebat. Ea vero contactus prohibitio casuistis latiorem etiam quaestionum campum aperuit. Quid, si quis cadaver portaret , non manibus utique, quod erat attactus, sed feretro impositum vel veste prehensum? Polluebatur ille (v. 25.28; cf. v. 40). Graviunr disputationum ansam praebuere reptilium illae species octo (v. 99 sq.), de quibus comedendis nullus quidem cogitabat, at quae vivae ubique se ingerebant, exanimatae omnia spurcabant. Pollue- batne earum contactus med?atus? Quid tenendum de vasis et vestibus, quae illa animalia contigissent? quid de cibo potuque, quae infecis- | sent? Hae omnes quaestiones definiuntur v. 25-35, adscripta v. 35 disquisitionis clausula : « immunda sunt haec, eruntque vobis immunda ». Ast non clausula moratur casuistam. Quid si eiusmodi reptile in aquam inciderit non vasis cuiuslibet, sed cisternae aut fontis? Quid si in frumenti acervum? Quod vix ullo anno non fiebat. Intolerabilis evadebat agricolarum civiumque vita, si continuo in acervis et cisternis immunditiem aliquam subodorari cogerentur. Hinc appensae solutiones v. 36-38. Manebat quaestio de animali mundo mortuo, sed ad vescendum inepto : id quoque v. 39 sq. definitum. Non vero audebat casuista legem, qualem a maioribus acceperat, recudere aut discindere , sed appendieulis sua placita adnectebat. At, en tibi novum scrupulum. Omnes illae v. 29-38 regulae, quae de reptilium mortuorum contactu erant, ne verbulo quidem eadem comedi prohibebant; poterat hinc aliquis, argumento a silentio petito, sibi ius arrogare comedendae talpae, lacertae etc. Quod ne quis attentaret, gravis extremo sermoni ipsique de pecoribus ad vescendum ineptis appendiculo adseripta est v. 41-43 reptilium comedendorum prohibitio, ter etiam ingeminata voce vpv', quae inde a v. 29 non adhibebatur. | v. 4^ Dillm. ad priora trahit, quod idem enuntiet atque v. 45* ideoque sit diversi auctoris. Infirma conclusio. Ut 1n fine tam longi gravisque sermonis Deus 5?s affirmet « Ego sum lahve » et 57s suam sanctitatem tamquam motivum humanae legalis sanctitatis demonstret, stilo horum librorum omnino consonat. Vocem vpv' v. 4^ sq. ignorat, licet eius inserendae v. 4^4 fuerit occasio. Sunt vero hi duo versus Moyse haud antiquiores, quod exodum aegyptiacam commemorent. Cap. XI
11:2
v. 2 « Dicite filiis Israel », ad omnes enim et singulos sequentia spectant : — non multo ante saeculum decimum in pluribus Vulg. codicibus hiec irrepsere verba ommino confodienda : « Custodite omnia , quae scripsi vobis, ut sim Deus vester » (cf. Verc.) — « Haec sunt animalia, quae comedere debetis ». Arg. — Permittuntur ruminantia ungulam dividentia. Prohibentur ruminantia ungulam non dividentia, et non ruminantia ungulam dividentia. Quorum nec carnibus vesci nec cadavera attingere fas est. « De cunctis animantibus terrae » — haec est prima classis, m2n3. Statuitur regula generalis
11:3
v. 3 : — « omne, quod habet divisam ungulam et ruminat in pecoribus , comedetis ». Omne, quod. dividit unqulam, no^ nb»25; et haec expressio accuratius circumscribitur per npó5 vov nyov , ubi Sam. LXX Syr., uti Deut. 15,6, addunt *nv : ergo quod findit fissuram, duas ungulas, quod ita. dividit ungulam, ut reapse sint duae ungulae. Deut. 14,4sq. enumerantur animalia, quae his conditionibus satisfaciunt. Eadem regula mox v. ^-8 negative proponitur et quibusdam eorum animalium, quae edere nefas sit, exemtur completus animalium catalogus.
11:4
v. & « Quidquid autem rumnat quidem et [habet] ungulam, |sed] non dividit |eam], sicut. camelus [e£ cetera , non comedetis illud , et| tnter immunda reputabitis ». Camelus dividit ungulas imperfecte tantum.
11:5
v. 5 « Choerogryllus, gui ruminat ungulamque non dividit , immundus est ».
11:6
v. 6 « Lepus quoque, nam et ipse ruminat, sed ungulam non dividit »;
11:7
v. 1 « et sus, qui cum ungulam dividat » et findat. fissuram ungulae , « non ruminat ».
11:8
v. 8 « Horum carnibus non vescemini , nec cadavera contingelis, quia immunda sunt vobis ». veis habitare consueverunt ». Est hyrax syriacus, quem Arabes «abr wocant et com-. edunt, dum in Abyssinia tam Iudaei quam Christiani eius carnes abhorrent. Tantus est, quantus cuniculus, habet similitudinem quamdam eum lepore et urso, gestatque setas aliquas pellis crinibus intermixtas ad instar setarum herinacei. Unde non sibi contradicit Vulg. Ps. 103,18 vertens herinaceis et Prov. 30,96 lepusculus (ef. Theod. Ps. 103,18 Acvootz). Quid sibi velit Targ. N32'2 (a 39'C, salire), aut Syr. ND3n; non liquet. Cum igitur LXX Vulg. indubie hyracem seu choerogryllum exprimant, isque in Palaestina et Arabia abundet, non est cur alia animalia in medium proferentes meris coniecturis involvamur. — Ex hoc textu nata est, quae interpretes torquebat quondam, sed iam paucis dimitti potest, difficultas de lepore biblico (itemque choerogryllo). Textus quippe haec animalia ruminantibus accenset, zoologi iisdem minime accensent, cum stomachi dentesque nequaquam ruminantium sint similia. At Moyses non zoologum agit. Gentem alloquitur anatomiae misere ignaram (de anatomiae vel apud Aegyptios miserrima ignorantia cf. Erman p. 477 sqq.). Ergo res secundum externam speciem describit : leporem ruminantium instar maxillas movere, quis ignorat? ei motui secus ruminatio respondet : hinc dicit Moyses ruminat, ruminalionem ascendere facit, sc. quoad speciem externam, quantum ex solo externo motu interna actio definiri potest. Moysis certe non erat Hebraeos anatomiam edocere, stomachos dissecare. Animalium classes ipse enumerabat pecora, volucres, aquatilia et minora animalia : ruminantia idem a non ruminantibus maxillarum motu discernebat. Arg. — Permittuntur comedi, quae habent pinnulas et squamas. Non habentia prohibentur CULA NE et cadavera attingi. Arg. — E bipedibus proseribuntur viginti species avium rapacium. Quadrupedes et multipedes prohibentur omnes. Contactus cadaverum, quod non ita facile occurrat, siletur.
11:13
13 « Haec sunt, quae de avibus » — 1. e. alitibus, nam alites etiam quadrupedes v. 20 eo nomine veniunt — « comedere non debelis et vitanda sunt vobis : aquilam , et gryphem, et haliaeetum » , v. 18 « et omne corvani generis [in similitudinem suam] » ,
11:16
v. 16 « strutAzonem, et noctuam , et larum, et accipitrem iuxta genus suum »,
11:17
v. 11 « bubonem , et. mergwulum, et ibin »,
11:18
v. 48 « et cygnum , et onocrotanus suum, upupam quoque, et vespertilionem ».
11:20
v. 20 « Omne de volucribus », de minoribus alitibus za v?v, « quod. graditur super quatuor [pedes] , abomtnabile erit vobis ». Obiieit Dil[m., quadrupedes alatos dari nullos praeter vespertiliones v. 19 iam recensitos; adesse errorem in s. textu, qui interpretes plerosque fugerit. Respondeo primo, v. 20 statui principium generale, v. 19 enumerari casus particulares, nihil obstare, quomodo horum casuum unus, sc. vespertilio, sub illo principio subsumatur. Respondeo secundo, quadrupedes h. l. seribi in oppositione ad bipedes v. 13 sqq., et includere animalia alata illa omnia, quae pedes habeant aut quatuor aut quatuor plures; quod patet e v. 21 sq. quadrupedibus adnumerante locustam , quam sex pedes habere Hebraei oppido norant. De his valet imprimis illud, quod Calm. ad v. 5 affirmat, « nonnisi divinando ple- LEV. 11,19 soo. 499 2. Ad legem v. 1-20 additamenta Lev. 11,21-^7. a. Appendicula ad legem de alitibus multipedibus Lev. 11,21-25 Arg. — Generalis alitum. plus quam duos pedes habentium v. 20 prohibitio ita v. 21 cireumscribitur, ut locustarum esus lege sanciatur. Reliquorum , quae mortua fuerint, prohibetur contactus tam mediatus quam immediatus.
11:21
v. 94 « Quidquid autem ambulat quidem super quatuor | pedes], sed - habet longiora retro crura, per quae salit super terram » ,
11:22
v. 92 « comedere debetis, ut est bruchus in genere suo, et attacus atque ophiomachus , ac locusta, singula iuxta. genus suum ». v. 93 « Quidquid autem » , praeter has quatuor species, « ex volucribus quatuor [tantum] » — delenda ea vox; includuntur multipedes quilibet — « Aabet pedes, exsecrabile erit vobis », v. 9& et in his polluemini, quod incisum aptissime ad praecedentia trahitur; Vulg. trahit ad sequentia (polluetur). Porro v. 2^ sq. est de solis *y5 vov, volucribus sc. iis, quae plures duobus habent pedes, à quorum, uti ab octo v. 29 sq. reptilium speciebus, contactu Hebraei videntur penitius abhorruisse. Non tamen ad has volucres extenduntur ea, quae v. 32-38 sanciuntur. Cum vero, quod de his volucribus multipedibus por/andis statuitur, mox (v. 28. 40) ad pecora item extendatur, haud dubium est idipsum brevi etiam volucribus bipedibus esse applicitum. « E£ quicunque morticina eorum tetigerit, polluetur et erit immundus usque ad vesperum ». « Tenebatur abstinere se ab actibus mundorum usque ad solis occasum. Postea mundus erat : lapsus enim temporis reverenter servati reddebat eum mundum » (Caz.).
11:25
v. 25 « Et sí [necesse fuerit, ut| portet quippiam horum mortuum , lavabit vestimenta sua, et tmmundus erit usque ad occasum solis ». Sam. h. l. et LXX v. ^0 additum habent et lavabitur aquis, quo plena cernitur cum 17,15 concordia, ubi immundus et vestes et seipsum lavare iubetur. Si additum repudietur, dicendum erit h. l. supponi tamquam rem evidentem, ut, qui vestes lavare obligetur, a fortiori teneatur lavari 1pse. et 53an (Hebr. Chald. Syr.), ophiomachus , óotopcyc, Ps. Ion. N515*:. Quod secus in V. T. non citantur, coniiciunt non ita agris nocuisse. Plura vide apud Dillm. Arg. — Non omnes v. 3 sq. pecorum species exhauserat : lege 1lla reperta sunt non attingi non ruminantia habentia ungulam indivisam, itemque animalia ungulis carentia manibusque incedentia. Haec v. 96 sq. immunda declarantur. Ad quae etiam extenduntur illa tria, quae v. 94 sq. quoad alites multipedes impuras nova statuerat : pollui item portantem, teneri ad /avandas vestes, manere uti attingentem immundum «usque ad vesperum. Eadem 1lla tria sine dubio brevi ad pecora etiam v. 4-8 (cf. v. 40) extendit Hebraeorum pietas.
11:26
v. 26 « Omne animal , quod habet quidem ungulam, sed non dividit eam, nec rumznat , immundum erit » vobis ; « et qui tetigerit illud. » mortuum, « nam viva tangi poterant, ut equitando 1n asinis et mulis » (ans.), « contaminabitur ».
11:27
v. 91 « Quod ambulat super manus », 1. e. pedes ungulis carentes, « ex cunctis animantibus, quae incedunt quadrupedia , àmmundum erit » vobis. Statuitur haec lex 1mprimis de feris et carnivoris. Sequentia tam v. 27 quam
11:29
v. 29 « Haec quoque inter polluta reputabuntur de his, quae moventur in lerra » ;: — eum v. &1 sq. omne omnino y?v immundum dicaimpurae (47w., Dillm.) : atn quo maior haec legalis impuritas consis- lat, haud perspicitur, maxime cum nulli speciales purificationis ritus praeseribantur; aut quod visae sint specialius efferendae, sive quod frequentiores cum essent omnia inficerent, sive praeterea quod a nationibus circum incolentibus aliqua eorum comederentur, sive ob alias aliquas rationes — « mustela, et mus, et crocodilus, singula iuxta genus suum »,
11:30
v. 30 « mygale , et chamaeleon , et stellio, et lacerta, et talpa ».
11:31
v. 26 respiciunt : « Qui tetigerit morticina eorum, polluetur usque ad vesperum » ; v. 98 « et qui portaverit. huiuscemodi cadavera, lavabit. vestimenta. sua, et immundus erit usque ad vesperum : quia omnia haec immunda sunt vobis ». v. 26 Hebr. Sam. Chald. 525 (cf. 5,3), quae constructio cum 5 evidentius etiam ex- Arg. — Reptilia homines communiter abhorrent, eorum esum fastidiunt. At lex de contactu immundorum visa est ad octo praeprimis reptilium species extendenda, quae ubique domi et in agris obviae haberentur. Quorum cadaverum contactus proscribitur longe severius inficeret. v. 91 « Omnia haec immunda sunt ». Hebr. : Haec sunt, quae àámmunda sunt vobis de omni vo. « Qui tetigerit morticina eorum. immundus erit usque ad vesperum ». "T9 &xa& Ac[Óópsvov, non est talpa, cum Chald. N95 designet animal, quod in fundamento domorum et inter spinas habitet (Levy). Id non facit talpa, bene vero mustela, LXX xaX, Syr. NDW322, Ps. Ion. NDW3232. — ?33Y est mus : cf. 1 Reg. 6,4 sqq.; Is. 66,17. — 2X, &xo5 Aeyóusvov, Chald. N3X; ubi Syr. et Ps. Ion. NY19 rl. Iam chardona non est species, sed genus; distinguitur N*2*? N27 et NUA2'7. NT, chardona aequoris et chardona aridae. Illa utique est crocodilus (Vulg. LXX), pro quo tamen designando plures alias Hebraeus habet voces : cf. Iob 40,20 (25) sqq.; Is. 51,9; Ez. 29,3 ete. Ergo N21? et AY videntur designare classem aliquam lacer- Arabes norunt lacertam dhab longitudinis octodecim digitorum, flavam, veneno carentem. — iTpzN &rat Aeyóusvov. Syr. NIpON, quam vocem tamen ipse Prov. 30,28 pro nv2:X2V scribit. LYX Vulg. mygale, i. e. mus araneus. Sed Chald. x5, sanguisuga (Levy) : itemque Ps. Ion. N'YY1 np3v2, serpens sugens. — Wi2, &za& Aeyóusvov, Targ. NT». Syr. Non, quo tamen mustelam designari monuimus. LXX Vulg. chamaeleon. — nNU, &xa5 Asvopsvov, ubi Chald. habet Nno5n vel NTYa5n, item &nza$ Aevópsvov, quod designare videtur lacertae speciem , cum cauda a corpore abscissa adhuc moveri dicatur (Levy). Syr. ND, i. e. salamandra. Ps. Ion. NDWYAaYOV, quod animal scorpioni timorem incutere dicitur (Levy) : vox est eadem atque hebraea n", de quo animali Prov. 30,28 scribitur « moratur in aedibus regis ». LYX ;aAa6o7s videtur idem esse alque &cxaXa60z5;, genus quoddam lacertae. Vulg. stellio, i. e. lacerta gecko. Textus omnes in lacertam conspirant. — vn, &xa£ Aeqóusvov, Chald. NY, Syr. NOD. LXX Vulg. lacerta. Ps. Iom. NX"N"D, cuius vocis sensus ignoratur. — mowin habebatur 11,18 tamquam nomen alicuius avis. LXX Vulg. vertunt talpam , item Chald., cum NTWWVN sit animal coecum (Levy). Syr. N1YT^, scolopendra seu cen- In reptilibus fieri poterat, quod in pecoribus aut avibus aut piscibus haud fiebat, ut domos ingressa morerentur. Hine
11:32
v. 32 : « E/ super quod ceciderit quidquam de morticinis eorum, polluetur tam vas » — i. e. euiusvis generis supellex — « /igneum et vestimentum, quam pelles et cilicia : [et] àin quocumque fit opus, tingentur aqua, et polluta erunt usque ad vesperum, et [sic postea] mundabuntur ». Copulam dele cum Hebr. Sam. Chald. LXX Syr. : omne vas, in quo fit opus, in aquam immittetur etc. Agitur de sola supellectili. 81 v. g. reptile mortuum in tectum decideret, non erat opus ulla ablutione.
11:33
v. 33 « Vas autem fictile, in quod horum quidquam introceciderit, polluetur. et [idcirco] frangendum. est ». Cf. 6,98 (21). Erant quippe minoris pretii (Sylv.). Sed aliter Hebr. : omne, quod £n ipso erit, polluetur; in vase. autem illo supponitur esse aut aqua ad coquendum cibum (Aug.), aut potus, de quibus agit
11:34
v. 3& : « Omnis cibus, quem comedetis , si fusa fuerit super eum aqua » Ma illapso morticino spurcata, « emmundus erit ; et omne liquens, quod bibitur de universo » illo « vase, immundum erit ». Dicitur de universo, i. e. fictili, ligneo etc.
11:35
v. 35 « Et quidquid de morticinis huiuscemodi ceciderit super illud », — clarius : et omne, super quod, ceciderit etc. — « aàmmundum erit » sive clibani sive chytropodes, destruentur et immundi erunt ». Cf. v. 32. Distinctius huius membri elausulam effert Hebr. : immunda sunt haec, eruntque vobis immunda. — Clibanus est olla coquinaria. 2» ob formam dualem putabat Cal. designare « vas duabus partibus constans », ergo operculum habens. Fleischer (ap. Levy 11 581 sq.) e lingua arabica efficere conatur exprimi vas tripodis simile, cui clibanus subiecto igne imponeretur : adverte, agi de vase fietili. Ps. Jon. eandem, atque 10,1 pro nnmn2, vocem seribit, sc. 12. |
11:36
Arg. — Lex modo tradita quibusdam patebat dubiis, quorum solutio appenditur. Vasorum nomine, quod patet, non veniunt fontes et cisternae. Semen seminandum contactu non polluitur, neque enim illud impune aqua infunditur, et vix unquam res ipso die « usque ad vesperum » detegitur. Semen, quod cibo comparando adhibetur, utique polluitur. v.36 « Fontes vero et cisternae, letomnis] aquarum congregatio munda erit ». « Ratio fuit harum aquarum necessitas, quae si alicuius muris, limacis mortui delapsu polluerentur, ingens et intolerabile incommodum vita humana pateretur » (Bonfr.). « S1aquarum collectiones pollutiones nostras diluunt, quomodo pollui possunt? » (Hesych.). Copulam ignorant Hebr. Sam. Chald., ut aquarum congregatio sit appositio , sensusque fere sit causalis : « cum sint congr. aq. »; et erit supplendum à fortiori, maiora receptacula aquarum, uti lacus et flumina, mansura esse munda. LXX Vulg. Syr. copulam habent et demonstrant reliqua praeter fontes et cisternas aquarum receptacula. « Qu? » vero « morlicinum eorum » « in medio aquarum istarum », fontis etc. (Ps. Ion.), « tetigerit, polluetur ». Aquae fontis contactus non foedat, foedat autem contactus cadaveris animalis immundi, quod in aqua versatur (Bonfr.). v. 31 « Si ceciderit » aliquod eorum cadaver « super semenlem », quae seminanda est, « non polluet eam ». Agitur de « semine "up Mas soo. 200g o Thddaag tio est eadem atque v. 36, intolerabile sc. incommodum, si agricolae seminis seminandi contactu interdicerentur, ob murem aliquem etc. ibi exanimatum repertum. Sed quid, inquit Bonfr., si pars tantum acervi pro semente adhiberetur, reliqua pars pro cibo? an haec altera tum pars polluta fuisset? Respondet
11:38
v. 38 : « S? autem quispiam. » — recte passivum hoc pronomine reddit Vw/g.; falso autem. putabat Tost., agi etiam de pluvia segetes in campis irrigante. — « aqua, sementem perfudertt, et [postea] morticinis tacta fuerit , [illico] polluetur ». Nt N'2'5, correspondens v. 37 expressioni N' "7, prodit agi utrobique de eadem re, sc. de semine. Ibi agebatur de semine iamiam seminando, hic non item : nam semen seminandum non solet aqua infundi. Aqua v. 38 infundi intelligitur ad usus domesticos, imprimis sane ad eoquendum semen, sive illud fuerit integrum sive in farinam comminutum. Sed quid sibi vult incisum : s2 2ncidertt aliquod eorum. morticinum n illud , seu in semen? Vu/g. supplens postea affirmat, siin aliquod vas, ubi esset semen aqua infusum, incideret omnino verum est, at v. 32 sq. iam erat explicite affirmatum, neque. semine, in quod, cum in acervo esset, morticinum immundum incidisset. Illud primum erat immundum veluti in potentia; si ad usus agrestes convertebatur, immunditie carebat; at ubi primum usibus domesticis adhibebatur, prorumpebat veluti immundites in. actum. Quomodo illud semen purificabatur? Relinquebatur usque ad vesperum. | [. Legis de reptilibus additamentum alterum Lev. 11,89 sq. Arg. — Quando lex de reptilibus iam ad. v. 38, addita clausula post v. 38 et ante illam clausulam. Quorum primum illud erat , nihil in tota inde a v. 2 lege haberi de pecoribus specie quidem mundis, sed propter necis rationem humano cibo minus decenter adhibendis. Haec porro immunda declarantur aliisque immundis aequiparantur. v. 39 sq. agit de animali (2n2) mundo quidem, at non legitime mactato, sed « mortuo naturali morte vel aliter quomodocumque, reArg. — Cum v. 29 sq. octo tantu m reptilium species attigisset et de solo cadaverum coníactu egisset, manebat dubium, essetne fas aliis reptilibus vesci. Quod severe, nulla admissa exceptione prohibetur. sumetur in cibum ». v. A9 « Quidquid super pectus quadrupes graditur, et multos habet pedes, sive per humum trahitur, non. comedetis, quia abominabile est ». Clarius tres. classes Hebr. distinguit : apoda, quadrupedia reptantia, polypoda. Ita quippe habet : Quidquid super. ventrem graditur, et quidquid graditur super quatuor (pedes), usque ad quidquid habet plures pedes, e& nune summum genus exprimitur : quoad universa reptilia reptantia super terram , non comedetis etc. v. h3 « Nolite contaminare animas vestras », i. e. vos ipsos (Bonfr.), agitur quippe immediate de macula reali, non morali, « nec tangatis quidquam eorum, ne immundi sitis ». Videtur Vulg. correctionem adhibuisse textui impeditiori. Hebr. : Nolite contaminare animas vestras in omni reptili reptante, neque immundos vos reddatis in ipsis, ne (Ps. Ion.) immundi efficiam ini in ets. Potuere eadem repeti ad augendam gravitatem sermonis. Praeterea D2 Dnu2:521 potuit corruptione oriri e 2a *N'2on x5. Omnis haec munditia et immunditia proxime erat legalis : « verum ea quam Deus praecipue sanctitatem exigebat, mystica erat et in animo, quam praefigurabat externa illa et legalis sanctitas » (Bonfr.). Ceterum, cum legalis illa munditia tota esset Hebraeis a Deo praecepta, eius etiam observatio homines efficaciter manuducebat ad moralem munditiem et sanctitatem. Eius servandae iam Deus subnectit potissimam rationem
11:44
v. 41 : « Ego enim sum Dominus Deus vester ». Quae verba Dei quoque in memoriam revocant auctoritatem, qua sanetitatem lege praecipere valeat : tamen non hanc potissimum auctoritatem Deus appellat, sed honestatem quae in eo deprehenditur, ut cultores sinf ad instar eius, quod colunt, numinis. « Sancti estote, quia ego sanctus sum ». Et illico fit principii applicatio ad eam materiam , quae modo tractabatur :.« Ne polluatis animas vestras », vosipsos, « n omni reptili, quod movetur super terram ». Repetit porro v. 5 Deus argumentum v. ^* prolatum, ita tamen, ut honestatis addat grati animi motivum : « £go enim sum Dominus, qui eduxi vos de terra Aegypli, ut essem vobis in Deum : sancti eritis », seu estote, « quia ego sanctus sum ». | V. A6 : « Ista est lex animantium, ac volucrum, et omnis animae viventis, quae movetur in aqua, et » omnis animae viventis, quae « replat in terra ». Ita Hebr. clarius quam Vulg. exprimit quatuor classes supra, uti et Gen. 1, statutas : pecora, altilia, aquatilia, reptilia, v. AY « wt differentias noveritis mundi et immundi, et sciatis, quid comedere et quid respuere debeatis ». C£. 10,10. Hanc thoram (v. 7) erediderim Moyse antiquiorem, per ipsum a Deo esse approbatam. Id intulerim ex eo, quod succincte tamquam res nota proferatur, nulla rei assignata ratione; maxime vero, quod apud ethnicos quoque non paucos similis ritus deprehendatur. Moyses vero non est censendus ethnicorum ritus suis antehac ignotos apud Iudaeos invexisse; sed plures sancivit ritus suis cum ethnicis communes, et e religione primitiva derivatos. Igitur partu infantis apud Indos reddebantur immundi parentes et cognati; mater decem diebus immunda manebat, pater balneo purificabatur. Similis lex apud Persas vigebat. Apud Arabes mulier quadraginta post partum diebus immunda est. Graeci cavebant, ne ad puerperam accederent (Theophr. Char. 16); ipsa non permittebatur altari appropinquare (Eurip. Iphig. Taur. 383), sed nonnisi post. quadraginta dies accedebat ad templum (Censor. De die nat. 11,7). Mater et proles lavabantur (Ca//?m. Hymn. in Del. 193 sq., in Iov. 16 sq.), proles post quinque dies lustrabatur, decimo die nomine appellabatur (Sw?das s. v. &poiieopíx). A Romanis quoque puerpera impura habebatur, lavabatur (Terent. Andr. 3,2,3). Puer nono, puella octavo die lustrabatur et nomine appellabatur (P/ut. Qu. Rom. 102; Pers. 9,81 sqq.), isque dies vocabatur « lustricus, quo infantes lustrantur et nomina accipiunt » (Macrob. Sat. 1,16; Festus s. v. Lustrieci dies). Similia apud barbaras etiam quasdam gentes observabantur. Cf. Kn. Eiusmodi ritus naturalis aliqua ratio assignari potest: certe plurimum immunditiei est in puerperis. Praeterea legem 1n favorem puerperae latam esse suggerit TAeodoret. : « Arbitror igitur, legem iubere illam requiescere, u£ quae admodum laboraverit, et acerbos dolores pertulerit. Verum si hoc lex simpliciter enuntiasset , libidinem nequaquam continuissent viri : at immundam illam esse audientes, societate abstinent, ne contrahant immunditiam ». Notant etiam medicarum rerum periti, summam munditiem observari oportere in personis re-. busque omnibus, quae puerperam contingant, ne immunditia aliqua febres excitentur puerperales. Tempus vero , donec a partu plene convalescat mulier, sex hebdomadarum esse affirmant, seu dierum circiter quadraginta. At ratio etiam nobis est indaganda, cur post puellae partum duplex quam post pueri tempus purificationi attribuerit Moyses : 14 4- 66 — 80 loco 7 4- 33 — 5^0. Rationem suggerit 7Zeodoret., « quod eravius laborent mulieres, dum feminam pariunt ». Rabbinorum aliquas explicationes vide apud Friedreich 1 150 sq. Tamen illam Theodoreti rationem non admittunt medici nostri (ib.). Quare discriminis ratio erit sane assignanda ea, Hebraeos mulierem minoris aestimasse quam virum , habuisse peculiari ratione impuram; impuram, inquam, non propter solum sanguinem menstruum, quem pubes facta effundit, sed propter peccatum, quod ipsa prima in mundum seductione invexit (Or. ; M. 12. 495). Cernitur igitur in eo ritu vestigium fidei peccati originalis. Cap. XII v. « Locutus est Dominus ad Moysen dicens » :
11:10
… A person can become impure for physical reasons (leprosy: Lev. 13:3; Num. 5:2), for natural necessities (childbirth: Lev. 12:2-5), independent of his will (ibid. 15:25) or through necessary and undesired contacts (e.g., with a dead person: Num. 6:7; 9:6). Certain animals are impure by nature (Lev. 11:10 ff.). …
11:18
… In Sacred Scripture it is an unclean bird (Lev. 11:18 Hebrew text = onocrotalus of the Vulgate; see also the pellicanus of Ps. 101:7), but its identification with our pelican is uncertain.
11:22
… His food consisted of locusts (a lawful food: Lev. 11:22) and wild honey (from bees, and not vegetable, exuded from the tamarix: μέλι ἄγριον), that is, of chance foods, on which the Bedouins also feed. …
11:32
… It contains the treatises: a) Kēlim "vessels" (of the most varied kinds): their Levitical impurity (Lev. 6, 20 f.; 11, 32 f.; Num. 19, 14 f.; 31, 20 f.); the 10 degrees of impurity that start from man and the 10 degrees of holiness that go from the Holy Land to the sanctum sanctorum of the Temple (30 chapters). …
11:34
ritually impure (Lev. 11:34, 37 f.). i) Zābhīm "those afflicted with gonorrhea" (Lev. 15), in 15 chapters. l) Tēbhūl jōm "the one immersed on the day," that is, the state of impurity of one who has performed the purification …
11:36
… The use of water in cathartic rites is constant; water is by nature an element antithetical to impurity, so much so that in Lev. 11:36 we read that fountains, cisterns and reservoirs shall not contract uncleanness. …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Douay 1609-10), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.