Leviticus 11:19 Kommentar

The ceremonial law is described by the apostle (Heb 9:9, Heb 9:10) to consist, not only "in gifts and sacrifices," which hitherto have been treated of in this book, but "in meats, and drinks, and divers washings" from ceremonial uncleanness, the laws concerning which begin with this chapter, which puts a difference between some sorts of flesh-meat and others, allowing some to be eaten as clean and forbidding others as unclean. "There is one kind of flesh of men." Nature startles at the thought of eating this, and none do it but such as have arrived at the highest degree of barbarity, and become but one remove from brutes; therefore there needed no law against it. But there is "another kind of flesh of beasts," concerning which the law directs here (Lev 11:1-8), "another of fishes" (Lev 11:9-12), "another of birds" (Lev 11:13-19), and "another of creeping things," which are distinguished into two sorts, flying creeping things (Lev 11:20-28) and creeping things upon the earth (Lev 11:29-43). And the law concludes with the general rule of holiness, and reasons for it (Lev 11:44, etc.).

INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS 11 This chapter treats of creatures clean and unclean, as fit or not fit to be eaten; and first of beasts, whose signs are given, Lev 11:1 then of fishes, which are likewise described, Lev 11:9 after that of fowls, and those that are not to be eaten are particularly named, Lev 11:13 next of creeping things, which are distinguished into two sorts, as flying creeping things, of which those that are unclean, their carcasses are not even to be touched, as neither the carcasses of unclean beasts, Lev 11:20 and creeping things on the earth, which defile by touching, as well as eating, and make everything unclean, upon which, being dead, they fall, Lev 11:29 and these laws are enforced from the holiness and goodness of God, Lev 11:44 and the chapter is concluded with a recapitulation of them, Lev 11:46.

And the stork,..... A bird of passage, Jer 8:7 it has its name from kindness, which it exercises both to its dam, and to its young. Various writers (b) speak of the kindness of these birds to their dams, which when they are old they take care of and feed them, to which the apostle is thought to allude, Ti1 5:4 and its tenderness to its young is no less manifest: when the city of Delf in Holland was on fire, the storks were seen very busy to save their young from the flames, and which when they could not do, threw themselves into the midst of them, and perished with them, as Drusius from the Dutch historians relates. It is said to feed upon serpents; and hence by Virgil (c) to be "invisa colubris"; and Juvenal (d) says, it nourishes its young with them; and which may be a reason of its being forbid to be eaten, and is the reason given by the Mahometans (e) for the prohibition of it; though on this account it was in great honour in Thessaly, that country being freed from serpents by it, and therefore they made it a capital crime to kill them, as Pliny (f) relates; formerly people would not eat the stork, but at present it is much esteemed for the deliciousness of its flesh (g). the heron after her kind; this bird has its name in Hebrew from its being soon angry, as Aben Ezra observes; and Jarchi calls it the angry vulture or kite, as it is in the Talmud (h); and adds, and it appears to me to be what they call the "heron", one sort of which named "asterias", as there is one sort so called by Pliny (i); it becomes tame in Egypt, and so well understands the voice of a man, as Aelianus (k) reports, that if anyone by way of reproach calls it a servant or slothful, it is immediately exceeding angry. There are three kinds of herons, as both Aristotle (l) and Pliny (m); and by a learned man of ours (n), their names are thus given, the criel or dwarf heron, the blue heron, and the bittour; some reckon nineteen: and the lapwing; the upupa or hoopoe; it has its name in Hebrew, according to Jarchi, from its having a double crest; and so Pliny (o) ascribes to it a double or folded crest, and speaks of it as a filthy bird; and, according to Aristotle (p) and Aelian (q), its nest is chiefly made of human dung, that by the ill smell of it men may be kept from taking its young; and therefore may well be reckoned among impure fowl. Calmet (r) says, there is no such thing as a lapwing to be seen in any part of England; but there are such as we call so, whether the same bird with this I cannot say: and the bat; a little bird which flies in the night, Aben Ezra says; Kimchi (s) describes it a mouse with wings, which flies in the night, and we sometimes call it the "flitter mouse"; it is a creature between a fowl and a beast; and, as Aristotle says (t), it partakes of both, and is of neither; and it is the only fowl, as Pliny (u) observes, that has teeth and teats, that brings forth animals, and nourishes them with milk. It is a creature so very disagreeable, that one would think almost there was no need of a law to forbid the eating of it; and yet it is said by some to be eatable, and to be eaten, as Strabo (w) affirms, yea, to be delicious food. It is asserted (x), that there is a sort of them in the east, larger than ordinary, and is salted and eaten--that there are bats in China as large as pullets, and are as delicate eating. Of these several fowls before mentioned, some are of the ravenous kind, and are an emblem of persecutors and covetous persons, and such as live by rapine and violence; others are of a lustful nature, and are an emblem of those who serve various lusts and pleasures, and give up themselves to uncleanness; others are night birds, and are a proper emblem of them whose works are works of darkness, and love darkness rather than the light; and others never rise higher than the earth, and so may denote earthly minded persons; and others live on impure things, and so fitly represent such who live an impure life; with all such the people of God are to have no fellowship. (b) Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 13. Aelian. de Animal. l. 3. c. 23. & l. 10. c. 16. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23. (c) Georgic. l. 2. (d) Satyr. 14. (e) Apud Bochart. ut supra, (Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 29. col. 329. (f) Ut supra. (Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23.) (g) Calmet in the word "Stork". (h) T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 63. 1. (i) Ut supra, (f)) c. 60. so Aristot. l. 9. c. 1. (k) De Animal. l. 5. c. 36. (l) Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 1. (m) Ut supra. (Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23.) (n) Ainsworth's Dictionary, in voce "Ardea". (o) Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 29. (p) Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 15. (q) De Animal. l. 3. c. 26. (r) Dictionary, in the word "Lapwing". (s) Sepher Shorash. in voc. (t) De Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 13. (u) Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 61. l. 11. c. 37. (w) Geograph. l. 16. (x) Calmet's Dictionary in the word "Bat".

Fish with rough scales are considered clean, just as persons with austere, rough, unpolished, steadfast and grave traits are commended. Fish without scales are considered unclean, just as loose, fickle, insincere and effeminate traits are censured. What does the law mean when it states, "You shall not eat the camel"? From the example of an animal, it censures an unruly life and one distorted by unpleasantness. What does the law mean when it forbids one to partake of the flesh of swine? It condemns, you can be sure, a foul and filthy life—one that delights in sordid vices by placing its supreme good not in nobility of spirit but in the flesh alone. What does the law want to indicate when it forbids the hare? It denounces nervous, effeminate men. Who would use as food the flesh of the weasel? In it the law condemns theft.Who would dare partake of the skink? The law abhors a capricious and fickle life. Who would eat the newt? The law detests aberrations of the mind. Who would dare partake of the hawk, the kite or the eagle? The law hates marauders and those who live by violence. Who does not loathe the vulture? The law execrates those who look for booty in someone else's death. Who would eat the crow? The law detests immoral and shady intentions. When the law prohibits ostrich, it disapproves of intemperance. When it condemns the nightjar, it hates those who shun the light of truth. When it bans the swan, it loathes stiff-necked pride. When it excludes the heron, it dislikes a garrulous and undisciplined tongue. When it detests the bat, it condemns those who seek out the darkness of error that is like night. The law execrates these and similar characteristics in animals. Since the animals, however, are born with such characteristics, they are without reproach. Conversely such qualities are reprehensible in humanity, which was not created with them but learns from them by comparison with contrary nature, through the exercise of their own error.

Laws concerning clean and unclean animals, Lev 11:1, Lev 11:2. Of Quadrupeds, those are clean which divide the hoof and chew the cud, Lev 11:3. Those to be reputed unclean which do not divide the hoof, though they chew the cud, Lev 11:4-6. Those to be reputed unclean also which, though they divide the hoof, do not chew the cud, Lev 11:7. Whosoever eats their flesh, or touches their carcasses, shall be reputed unclean, Lev 11:8. Of Fish, those are clean, and may be eaten which have fins and scales, Lev 11:9. Those which have not fins and scales to be reputed unclean, Lev 11:10-12. Of Fowls, those which are unclean, Lev 11:13-21. Of Insects, the following may be eaten: the bald locust, beetle, and grasshopper, Lev 11:22. All others are unclean and abominable, their flesh not to be eaten, nor their bodies touched, Lev 11:23-25. Farther directions relative to unclean beasts, Lev 11:26-28. Of Reptiles, and some small quadrupeds, those which are unclean, Lev 11:29, Lev 11:39. All that touch them shall be unclean, Lev 11:31; and the things touched by their dead carcasses are unclean also, Lev 11:32-35. Large fountains, or pits of water, are not defiled by their carcasses, provided a part of the water be drawn out, Lev 11:36. Nor do they defile seed by accidentally touching it, provided the water which has touched their flesh do not touch or moisten the seed, Lev 11:37, Lev 11:38. A beast that dieth of itself is unclean, and may not be touched or eaten, Lev 11:39, Lev 11:40. All creeping things are abominable, Lev 11:41-44. The reason given for these laws, Lev 11:45-47.

The stork - חסידה chasidah, from חסד chasad, which signifies to be abundant in kindness, or exuberant in acts of beneficence; hence applied to the stork, because of its affection to its young, and its kindness in tending and feeding its parents when old; facts attested by the best informed and most judicious of the Greek and Latin natural historians. See Bochart, Scheuchzer, and Parkhurst, under the word חסד chasad. It is remarkable for destroying and eating serpents, and on this account might be reckoned by Moses among unclean birds. The heron - אנפה anaphah. This word has been variously understood: some have rendered it the kite, others the woodcock, others the curlew, some the peacock, others the parrot, and others the crane. The root אנף anaph, signifies to breathe short through the nostrils, to snuff, as in anger; hence to be angry: and it is supposed that the word is sufficiently descriptive of the heron, from its very irritable disposition. It will attack even a man in defense of its nest; and I have known a case where a man was in danger of losing his life by the stroke of a heron's bill, near the eye, who had climbed up into a high tree to take its nest. Bochart supposes a species of the eagle to be meant, vol. iii., col. 335. The lapwing - דוכיפת duchiphath, the upupa, hoopoe, or hoop, a crested bird, with beautiful plumage, but very unclean. See Bochart, and Scheuchzer. Concerning the genuine meaning of the original, there is little agreement among interpreters. The bat - עטלף atalleph, so called, according to Parkhurst, from עט at, to fly, and עלף alaph, darkness or obscurity, because it flies about in the dusk of the evening, and in the night: so the Septuagint νυκτερις, from νυξ, the night; and the Vulgate vespertilio, from vesper, the evening. This being a sort of monster partaking of the nature of both a bird and beast, it might well be classed among unclean animals, or animals the use of which in food should be avoided.

BEASTS THAT MAY AND MAY NOT BE EATEN. (Lev. 11:1-47) the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron--These laws, being addressed to both the civil and ecclesiastical rulers in Israel, may serve to indicate the twofold view that is to be taken of them. Undoubtedly the first and strongest reason for instituting a distinction among meats was to discourage the Israelites from spreading into other countries, and from general intercourse with the world--to prevent them acquiring familiarity with the inhabitants of the countries bordering on Canaan, so as to fall into their idolatries or be contaminated with their vices: in short, to keep them a distinct and peculiar people. To this purpose, no difference of creed, no system of polity, no diversity of language or manner, was so subservient as a distinction of meats founded on religion; and hence the Jews, who were taught by education to abhor many articles of food freely partaken of by other people, never, even during periods of great degeneracy, could amalgamate with the nations among which they were dispersed. But although this was the principal foundation of these laws, dietetic reasons also had weight; for there is no doubt that the flesh of many of the animals here ranked as unclean, is everywhere, but especially in warm climates, less wholesome and adapted for food than those which were allowed to be eaten. These laws, therefore, being subservient to sanitary as well as religious ends, were addressed both to Moses and Aaron.

the stork--a bird of benevolent temper and held in the highest estimation in all Eastern countries; it was declared unclean, probably, from its feeding on serpents and other venomous reptiles, as well as rearing its young on the same food. the heron--The word so translated only occurs in the prohibited list of food and has been variously rendered--the crane, the plover, the woodcock, the parrot. In this great diversity of opinion nothing certain can be affirmed regarding it. Judging from the group with which it is classified, it must be an aquatic bird that is meant. It may as well be the heron as any other bird, the more especially as herons abound in Egypt and in the Hauran of Palestine. the lapwing--or hoopoe; found in warm regions, a very pretty but filthy species of bird. It was considered unclean, probably from its feeding on insects, worms, and snails. the bat--the great or Ternat bat, known in the East, noted for its voracity and filthiness.

Laws Relating to Clean and Unclean Animals - Leviticus 11 The regulation of the sacrifices and institution of the priesthood, by which Jehovah opened up to His people the way of access to His grace and the way to sanctification of life in fellowship with Him, were followed by instructions concerning the various things which hindered and disturbed this living fellowship with God the Holy One, as being manifestations and results of sin, and by certain rules for avoiding and removing these obstructions. For example, although sin has its origin and proper seat in the soul, it pervades the whole body as the organ of the soul, and shatters the life of the body, even to its complete dissolution in death and decomposition; whilst its effects have spread from man to the whole of the earthly creation, inasmuch as not only did man draw nature with him into the service of sin, in consequence of the dominion over it which was given him by God, but God Himself, according to a holy law of His wise and equitable government, made the irrational creature subject to "vanity" and "corruption" on account of the sin of man (Rom 8:20-21), so that not only did the field bring forth thorns and thistles, and the earth produce injurious and poisonous plants (see at Gen 3:18), but the animal kingdom in many of its forms and creatures bears the image of sin and death, and is constantly reminding man of the evil fruit of his fall from God. It is in this penetration of sin into the material creation that we may find the explanation of the fact, that from the very earliest times men have neither used every kind of herb nor every kind of animal as food; but that, whilst they have, as it were, instinctively avoided certain plants as injurious to health or destructive to life, they have also had a horror naturalis, i.e., an inexplicable disgust, at many of the animals, and have avoided their flesh as unclean. A similar horror must have been produced upon man from the very first, before his heart was altogether hardened, by death as the wages of sin, or rather by the effects of death, viz., the decomposition of the body; and different diseases and states of the body, that were connected with symptoms of corruption and decomposition, may also have been regarded as rendering unclean. Hence in all the nations and all the religions of antiquity we find that contrast between clean and unclean, which was developed in a dualistic form, it is true, in many of the religious systems, but had its primary root in the corruption that had entered the world through sin. This contrast was limited in the Mosaic law to the animal food of the Israelites, to contact with dead animals and human corpses, and to certain bodily conditions and diseases that are associated with the decomposition, pointing out most minutely the unclean objects and various defilements within these spheres, and prescribing the means for avoiding or removing them. The instructions in the chapter before us, concerning the clean and unclean animals, are introduced in the first place as laws of food (Lev 11:2); but they pass beyond these bounds by prohibiting at the same time all contact with animal carrion (Lev 11:8, Lev 11:11, Lev 11:24.), and show thereby that they are connected in principle and object with the subsequent laws of purification (ch. 12-15), to which they are to be regarded as a preparatory introduction.