DISSERTATION IV. ON THE MOSAIC DISTINCTION OF ANIMALS. THE HE Jewish Legislator, in the eleventh chapter of Leviticus, specifies various Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Reptiles, which he distinguishes by the terms CLEAN and UNCLEAN: the "clean" are permitted to be eaten, but the "unclean" are forbidden. He also lays down certain rules for distinguishing, generally, those that are "clean" from those that are "unclean."-According to the position so ably defended by Maimonides, these distinctions are not arbitrarily marked, or causelessly enjoined, but originate in sacred wisdom, and are designed to promote the welfare of the nation on whom they are enforced.-It may therefore increase our conviction of the wise and salutary tendency of the Mosaic economy, to glance at the nature of the tests established for ascertaining the legal purity or impurity of animals in general; and to enquire into the reasons for adopting the distinction. I. THE SYSTEM OF DISCRIMINATION. 1. WITH respect to Quadrupeds, Moses reduces the rules of distinction to the natural and simple ones of the form of the foot and the chewing of the cud. All beasts that have their feet completely cloven, above as well as below, and at the same time ruminate or chew the cud, are MOSAIC DISTINCTION OF ANIMALS. 63 "clean:" those which have neither, or want one of these distinguishing marks, are "unclean."-But as there are some cases in which doubt may arise whether they do fully divide the hoof, or ruminate, as in the case of the hare, &c., the legislator, in order to prevent difficulties, authoritatively decides the point, by distinctly specifying which of such animals shall be eaten, and which shall be forbidden.On this system of distinction, Michaelis, in his Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, observes, "That, in so early an age of the world, we should find a systematic division of quadrupeds so excellent as never yet, after all the improvements in natural history, to have become obsolete, but, on on the contrary, to be still considered as useful by the greatest masters of the science, cannot but be looked upon as truly wonderful."* 2. The systematic distinction of Fishes, is equally clear and simple as the former. All that have scales and fins are "clean" or lawful to be eaten, all others "unclean" or forbidden. 3. With regard to Birds, no particular characters are given for dividing them into classes, as "clean," or "unclean;" but judging from those which are specified, so far as the obsolete nature of the Hebrew names will permit, it will be found, that those which live on grain are not prohibited; and as these are the domesticated kinds, we might almost express it in other words-that birds of prey, generally, are rejected, that is, those with crooked beaks and strong talons; whether they prey on lesser fowls or animals, or on fish: while those which eat vegetables are admitted as lawful. So that the same principle is maintained to a certain degree, among birds as among beasts."+ * Michaelis's Commentaries, translated by Dr. A. Smith, vol. iii. Art. 204, p. 233. London, 1814, 8vo. + Scripture Illustrated, by C. Taylor: cited by Harris, in Natural History of the Bible, Dissert. iii. London, 1824, 8vo. 4. With respect to Serpents, Worms, Insects, &c., it is declared, that "all creatures that creep, going upon all four; and whatsoever goeth upon the belly; or whatsoever hath more feet than four among creeping things, are an abomination." An exception, however, is made with respect to those winged insects, which besides four walking legs, have also two longer springing legs, (pedes saltatorii,) and under the denomination of locusts are accounted clean. 5. Besides the general distinctions already noticed, another is made relating to whatsoever goeth upon his paws among all manner of beasts that go upon all four; being therefore pronounced unclean. The literal translation of the Hebrew would be palms or hands, and therefore probably refers to those animals whose feet resemble the hands or feet of the human being, such as apes, monkeys, &c., and all creatures of that genus; together with bears, lions, cats, dogs, and frogs, &c. &c.* II. REASONS OF THE DISTINCTION OF "CLEAN" AND "UNCLEAN." VARIOUS reasons have been adduced for the legal distinction betwixt clean and unclean animals, by those learned men, who have made this part of the Jewish polity their peculiar study; and although it must be acknowledged that some of them have been too fanciful in some of the positions which they have advocated, and that others have ramified their enquiries into unnecessary minuteness, and have even weakened their arguments by attempting to prove too much, still it will be found by the candid investigator that there are some great and leading reasons for these dietetic distinctions, in which all the best writers are agreed, and which we may therefore safely consider as sound and * See Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary: in loc.-Lewis's Antiquities of the Heb. Republic, vol. iii. c. 19. p. 211. scriptural, as well as rational. The sum of these is, that these distinctions were intended to prevent idolatry,-to promote the health and comfort of the people,-and to influence the moral character of the nation. 1.—TO PREVENT IDOLATRY. THE Israelites having sojourned in Egypt amongst gross idolaters for several ages, had become so deeply imbued with the idolatrous principles of the people, and so habituated to their practices, that it required the most solemn and reiterated injunctions and threatenings to check their strong propensity to adopt the idolatrous manners of the Egyp tians and other surrounding nations. The distinction of animals into "clean" and " unclean," aided the accomplishment of this great and desirable object, since it took away the very foundation of all commerce with other people: For those who can neither eat nor drink together, are never likely to contract an intimacy; nor was it probable that the Israelites would look upon those animals as deities worthy of being worshipped, upon which they fed daily. But not only were they permitted to eat such as were usually adored by the Egyptians, they were also taught to look upon others with religious detestation, which were accounted sacred and held in the highest veneration by them. "Most of the creatures," says the erudite Lewis, "which are pronounced unclean, were such as were in high esteem and sacred among the heathen; as a swine was to Venus, the owl to Minerva, the hawk to Apollo, the eagle to Jupiter, and even the dog to Hecate; which gave occasion to Origen justly to fall into admiration of the wisdom of Moses, who so perfectly understood the nature of all animals, and what relation they had to demons, that he declared all those to be unclean which were esteemed by the Egyptians and other nations to be the instruments of divination, and those to be clean which were not so: (Origen contra Celsum, lib. iv.) and if in the time of Moses such creatures were not sacred to demons, it is a greater wonder that he should mark out those as impure, which proved to be so sacred to after ages; as a great number of birds mentioned in Porphyry, who says, The gods used them as heralds to declare their mind to men, and several other creatures mentioned by other authors, as peculiarly appropriated to other deities."* It is well known, that the lion, wolf, dog, cat, ape, and even frogs, otters, rats, beetles, and flies, as well as serpents and fishes, were held in idolatrous veneration by the Egyptians and other nations,† and for which they were thus satyrized by Juvenal, a Pagan Roman himself: How Egypt, mad with superstition grown, Where, Thebes, thy hundred gates lie unrepair'd, Fish-gods you'll meet with fins and scales o'ergrown ; Her dogs have temples, but the goddess none : 'Tis mortal sin an onion to devour, Each clove of garlic is a sacred pow'r. Religious nations sure and blest abodes, Where ev'ry orchard is o'er-run with gods. To kill is murder, sacrilege to eat The restrictions, therefore, which were made with respect to diet, especially by the division of animals into Lewis's Antiq. of Heb. Republic, vol. iii. b. 6, p. 203. See also Bruce's Travels, vol. v. Appendix pp. 163–167, 4to. Marshami Chronicon, sec. ix. p. 162, Lipsiæ, 1676, 4to.-Bryant's Observations upon the Plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians, passim.-Beloe's Herodotus, Euterpe, vol. i. p. 300. Dryden's Juvenal, Sat. xv. |