most holy: (13) and ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons' due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded. (14) And a the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons' due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel. (15) The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the

sons immediately after the calamity that had befallen them. As Aaron lost his two eldest sons in consequence of their having violated the sacrificial regulations, Moses is most anxious to guard him and his two younger sons against transgressing any other part of the ritual connected with the same sacrifices, lest they also should incur a similar punishment.

Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings.-The meat offering which was offered by the nation the day after the consecration, when the calamity happened (see chap. ix. 17), and which was not as yet eaten. With the exception of the handful which was burnt on the altar, all belonged to the priests. (See chaps. ii. 1-3, vi. 14-18.)

And eat it without leaven beside the altar. -That is, in the court of the tent of meeting, where the altar of burnt offering stood. (See chap. vi. 16.)

For it is most holy.-Hence it could only be eaten by the male members of the families of the priests within the court of the sanctuary. (See chap. vi. 18.) (13) And ye shall eat it in the holy place.— Better, and ye shall eat it in a holy place, that is, in any part of the holy court; it was not to be taken out of the precincts of the sanctuary.

(14) And the wave breast and heave shoulder. -That is, of the peace offering which was offered by the nation. (See chap. ix. 18-21.) As they were given to the priests for the maintenance of their families (see chap. vii. 34), these portions might be eaten anywhere within the camp, provided the place was not defiled by ceremonial uncleanness.

(15) The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring. That is, the offerers who devoted these portions of the peace offering to the Lord, are to bring them to the officiating priests. (See chap. vii. 29, 30.)

(16) And Moses diligently sought the goat.That is, the flesh of the goat of the sin offering which was offered by the nation on the eighth day. (See chap. ix. 15.)

And, behold, it was burnt.-Being overwhelmed with grief at the loss of their brothers, Eleazar and Ithamar could not eat, and as none but priests were allowed to partake of the flesh of the sin offering, they burnt it on the altar, to prevent its corruption. They did this all the more readily since the flesh of Aaron's sin offering was just before burnt without the camp. (See chap. ix. 11.)

And he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar. -As it was Aaron's duty quite as much as his two

the Holy Things.

LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded.

(16) And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, (17) Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD ? (18) Behold, the blood of it was not brought in

To bear the iniquity of the congregation.— Better, to remove the iniquity of the congregation, which the priests did by making atonement for them before the Lord, as is explained in the next clause. Accordingly the flesh of the sin offering is given to the priests, that by the act of eating it they may visibly show the offerer that God has graciously accepted the expiatory sacrifice, and that it is a most holy thing. The phrase "to bear iniquity" often signifies "to bear away, to remove, to forgive iniquity." (Comp. Gen. 1. 17; Exod. xxxii. 32; Ps. xxxii. 1, 5, &c.) Hence the most ancient Versions translate it here, "that ye may take away or remove (LXX., the Chaldee, the Syriac, &c.). The rendering of the Authorised Version, however, is that of the Vulgate, which has been followed by the Reformers both in England and on the continent, as well as by several modern expositors. This is supported by the meaning of the phrase "to bear the iniquity" in Exod. xxviii. 38; Num. xviii. 1; Ezek. iv. 4-6. Those who follow this rendering take the passage to mean that the priest, by eating or incorporating the victim on which the offerer had laid his guilt, actually took away the sin, or neutralised it in a mysterious way, by virtue of the sanctifying power belonging to the sacerdotal office. Others, again, who also take the phrase to mean that the priest literally takes the sin upon himself, do not explain it, but simply say, that by eating the sin-laden victim the sins of the offerer were, in some sort, laid upon the priest to be taken away by him, thus prefiguring Christ, who should be both priest and sacrifice.

(18) Behold, the blood of it.-According to the sacrificial law, the flesh of the sin offerings (the blood of which was not carried into the sanctuary) had to be eaten by the priests alone, in a holy place, as a part of the expiatory rites. (See chaps. vi. 25, 26, x. 17.) It was the flesh of those sin offerings, the blood of which was carried into the sanctuary, which had to be burnt. (See chaps. iv. 5, 16, vi. 23, 30.) Now the blood of the people's sin-offering which was offered on this occasion was not carried into the sanctuary. (See chap. ix. 9.) Ye should indeed have eaten it.-Hence its flesh should have been eaten by Aaron and his two sons

in the court-yard of the sanctuary, as Moses commanded in chap. vi. 26.

(19) And Aaron said.-Though, according to verse 16, Moses only blamed Eleazar and Ithamar for this transgression of the law, yet there can hardly be any doubt that Aaron was included in this censure, and that the lawgiver abstained from expressing his anger against the pontiff because of the supreme dignity of his office, which he would not lower in the sight of the people. Aaron, however, was fully sensible of this, and hence replies to the charge brought against his

sons.

They offered their sin offering. Before proceeding to the transgression with which they are thus charged, Aaron adverts to the fact that all the other sacrificial duties in which he and his sons were engaged on the same day, prior to the great calamity, were performed in strict accordance with the prescribed ritual. His sons assisting him had offered their "-i.e., the people's-sin and burnt offerings (see chap. ix. 15, 16) thus far in due compliance with the requirements of the law, and hence could never have meant to transgress intentionally.

And such things have befallen me.-But whilst he, Eleazar, and Ithamar were thus duly performing the sacrificial rites, Nadab and Abihu, his other two sons, transgressed, and were suddenly struck down dead, thus overwhelming the survivors with sorrow, and rendering them unfit to partake of the sacrifices.

And if I had eaten.-Aaron submits that, unfitted as they thus were by mourning and the sense of their own sinfulness, if they had partaken of this solemn meal it would not have been acceptable to the Lord. In consequence of this declaration, the rule obtained during the second Temple, that when an ordinary priest heard of the death of a relative whilst on duty in the sanc tuary, he had to cease from service, though he could not leave the precincts of the Temple otherwise he defiled the sacrifice; whilst the high priest, who could continue his sacred ministrations, was not allowed to partake of the sacrificial meal.

(20) And... he was content. He acknowledged Aaron's plea to be just, and that he had himself spoken hastily. This is a remarkable instance of Moses' humility, and of the human side of his nature as a lawgiver. (See also Num. xxxii. 6, &c.) Hence Jewish

tradition from time immemorial ascribes the mistake to Moses, and not to Aaron. The paraphrase of this verse in the Palestine Chaldee Version, which embodies the ancient opinions, is very instructive. It is as follows: "And when Moses heard it, he approved of this explanation. Whereupon he sent a herald through the whole camp of Israel, saying, It is I from whom the law had been hid, and my brother Aaron brought it to my remembrance."

in the Holy Things.

when Moses heard that, he was content.

CHAPTER XI.-(1) And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, (2) Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. (3) Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is

XI.

(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron.-Lest the rebuke which Moses publicly administered to the priests (see chap. x. 16) should diminish their influence with the people, whom they had to teach the laws of clean and unclean things (see chap. x. 10, 11) laid down in the following chapters, the Lord here honours Aaron, as well as Moses, by making this communication to them conjointly. Besides, Aaron as minister was as much concerned in these laws as Moses the legislator. Hence, when a question of defilement had afterwards to be decided, it was brought for judgment before Moses and Aaron conjointly. (See Num. ix. 6.)

(2) These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all . . .-Better, These are the animals which ye may eat of all . . . The dietary laws, which stand first in the general precepts about clean and unclean things, begin with the quadrupeds, or land animals, both domesticated and wild. This is in accordance with the Hebrew division of the animal kingdom into four principal classes:-(1) the land animals, (2) the water animals, (3) the birds of the air, and (4) the swarming animals. Though not specified here by name, yet the parallel regulations in Deut. xiv. 4, 5 enumerate the following ten animals :-the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hart, the roebuck, the fallow deer, the wild goat, the pygang, the wild ox, and the chamois, with their various kindred species, which are not mentioned. From the expression, "These are the animals," the opinion obtained during the second Temple that God actually caused specimens of every animal to pass before Moses and Aaron, in order to show them the veritable creatures which are clean and unclean, just as the Lord caused every species to come to Noah into the ark.

(3) Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted.-Better, Whatsoever is clovenfooted, and entirely separateth the hoofs. The first rule laid down by which the clean quadruped is to be distinguished is that the hoofs must be completely cloven or divided above as well as below, or, as the parallel passage in Deut. xiv. 6 has it, "and cleaveth the cleft into two claws." Such is the case in the foot of the ox, the sheep, and the goat, where the hoof is wholly divided below as much as above. The foot of the dog, the cat, and the lion, though exhibiting a division into several distinct toes or claws, is contrary to the regula tion here laid down, inasmuch as the division is simply on the upper side, the lower side being united by a membrane, and hence the hoof is not entirely separated."

66

And cheweth the cud.-In addition to the foot being perfectly cloven, the quadruped to be clean is to be ruminating. The canon which obtained during the second Temple is thus formulated: "Every quadruped

which has no upper teeth is known to be ruminant, and when it is also clovenfooted is clean." According to the law of Manu the highest Hindoo castes were also forbidden to eat the flesh or drink the milk of quadrupeds with uncloven hoof. The same was the case with the Egyptian priests: they abstained from eating the flesh of any animal which had uncloven hoofs or many claws.

(4) Nevertheless these shall ye not eat.As there are some quadrupeds which comply with only one of the two above-named conditions-i.e., which ruminate but have not their hoofs perfectly parted in two, or, vice versa, are bisulcous and not ruminant-it is here declared that such animals must not be eaten. As the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not. -Better, though he cheweth the cud, yet he divideth not, as the same phrase is properly rendered in the Authorised Version in verse 7. The first animal adduced to illustrate this fact is the indispensable camel, or "the ship of the desert," as it is aptly called. Though cloven-footed above, the toes of the camel are united below in a large elastic pad on which the camel treads, and which is like the sole of a shoe. Hence it does not come within the category of those animals which are thoroughly bisulcate. The Egyptians, the Zebii, and the Hindus, too, did not eat camel's flesh, because they supposed it to be heating, and to engender cruelty and revenge; whilst the Persians, the ancient Arabians, and the Moslems feasted upon its milk and flesh.

(5) And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not -Better, though he cheweth the cud, yet he divideth not. (See verse 4.) The coney, which is the old English name for rabbit, is the meaning of the Hebrew expression shaphan, according to the definition of those who had to explain and administer this law at the time of Christ. As these interpreters lived in Palestine, where they saw the animals in question, the objection that the rabbit is not indigenous in Palestine falls to the ground. These shrewd administrators of the law must also have noticed that it was the habit of the feeble conies to seek refuge and build in the fissures of the rocks, which not unfrequently are on a level with the ground. The rabbit, moreover, well suits the hare, by which it is immediately followed. Modern expositors, however, identify it with the Syrian hyrax, or rock-badger, which is about the size of a well-grown rabbit. It resembles the guinea-pig or the Alpine marmot, has long hair of a brownish grey or brownish-yellow colour on the back, but white on the belly, a very short tail, and short round ears. The action of its jaws when it is at rest resembles that of the ruminants.

(6) And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but.-Better, though he cheweth the cud, yet. Other nations, too, shunned the flesh of hares. The Parsees considered the hare as the most unclean of all animals, and the ancient Britons abstained from eating it because of the loathsome disorders to which the

and that may not, be Eaten.

he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (6) And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (7) And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

a

hare is subject. Like the rabbit, or the hyrax, the hare has not the peculiar stomach of the true ruminant; but, like the rabbit, the hare, when sitting at rest, so moves its jaws that it appears to masticate. As the object of the legislator was to furnish the people with marks by which they were to distinguish the clean from the unclean animals, he necessarily adopted those which were in common vogue, and which alone were intelligible in those days.

(7) And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted.-Better, And the swine, though he is clovenfooted, and entirely separateth the hoofs. (See verse 3.) Having given these illustrations of animals which comply with the first condition onlyi.e., which are ruminant but not bisulcous-and hence must not be eaten, the lawgiver now concludes the list of prohibited quadrupeds with an illustration of a contrary nature-viz., the swine, which comply with the second condition only, but not with the first. Here, too, the description is according to appearance. The feet of the pig tribe generally have four toes enclosed in separate hoofs. The two middle hoofs, however, are much larger, and are divided by a deep cleft, and hence to all appearances the swine is bisulcous. Though the law before us simply describes the swine as wanting in one of the two criteria, like the camel, the coney, and the hare, yet the abhorrence which the Jews, as a nation, have always had of this animal, and the impurity which they have ascribed to it infinitely surpass their repulsion of any other unclean beast. For this reason it became the symbol of defilement and the badge of insult (Pss. lxv. 4, lxvi. 3, 17; Prov. xi. 22). The eating of pork was regarded as renounc ing the Law, and as a sign of apostasy. Hence Antiochus Epiphanes adopted it as a test that those Jews who ate it had forsaken their religion and submitted to his rule. Hence we read that when swine's flesh was forced into the mouth of Eleazar, the aged scribe, he "spit it forth, choosing rather to die gloriously than to live stained with such an abomination (2 Macc.

vi. 18, 19). During the time of the commonwealth there were no swine in Judea. Hence it was in a "far country "that the prodigal son was sent into the field to feed the swine (Luke xv. 13-15). The swine in Galilee in our Lord's time (Matt. viii. 30) were undoubtedly kept by Gentiles for the Roman legion. The very name of swine (chazir) was discarded, and the animal was designated by the euphemistic expression, "the other thing." This brutish of all animals" was, moreover, regarded as propagating cutaneous and many other disorders. The Talmud declares that "ten measures of pestilential diseases were spread over the earth, and nine of them fell to the share of pigs." On the other hand, many of the Pagan nations regarded the swine as an emblem of the productive power of nature. Hence they sacrificed them to those deities to whom they ascribed the fertility of the soil, and the fruitfulness of cattle. Thus, the Egyptians offered them in honour of Isis and Osiris once

(8) Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

(9) These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. (10) And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the

a year at the festival of the full moon. The Athenians, too, offered the swine in their mysteries; so did the Boetians and the early Romans.

(8) Of their flesh ye shall not eat.-During the second Temple the prohibition was defined to extend to the smallest quantity. If any one ate a piece of flesh less even than the size of an olive he was chastised with stripes.

And their carcase shall ye not touch.-As contact with a human dead body, which was regarded as the most defiling of all, was only forbidden to the priests (see chap. xxi. 1-3), hence the prohibition here addressed to the whole nation was interpreted during the second Temple to apply simply to the occasions when the Israelites came to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festivals. Contact with a carcase of an unclean animal on these visits precluded the worshipper from entering the sanctuary, from touching sacred things, and from partaking of the sacrificial meats.

(9) These shall ye eat.-The water animals, which, as we have seen, constitute the second division of the animal kingdom, now follow the land animals. They are discussed in verses 9-12. Like the clean quadrupeds, the salt-water and the fresh-water fish must comply with two conditions to bring them within the class of clean. They must have both scales and fins. It will be seen that in the case of the quadrupeds, not only are two criteria given by which the clean animals may be distinguished from the unclean, but that the law is illustrated by adducing ten land animals of the former kind (see verse 2), and four of the latter (see verses 4 -7). In the case before us, however, not a single typical fish is given by name, and the law itself is expressed in the briefest and most generic manner possible. It was evidently left to those upon whom the administration of the law devolved to define it more minutely in order that it may be observed in practical life. Hence the following expanded definitions obtained during the second Temple:-(1) All fishes with scales have invariably also fins, but fishes which have fins have not always scales. Any fish, therefore, or even a piece of one exposed by itself for sale in the market, which exhibits scales may be eaten, for it is to be taken for granted that it had fins, or that the fins cannot be seen because of their extraordinary smallness. But, on the other hand, a fish with fins may exist without scales, and hence is unclean; (2) Clean fishes have a complete vertebral column, but the unclean have simply single joints, united by a gelatinous cord. To the former class belong, (a) “the soft fins," or the salmon and trout, the capellan and grayling, the herring, the anchovy and the sardine, the pike and carp families, the cod, the hake and the haddock, the sole, the turbot, and the plaice; (b)" the spiny fins," as the perch, the mackerel, and the tunny.

and that may not, be Eaten.

waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: (11) they shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. (12) Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

(13) And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an

To the latter class belong the shark tribe, the sturgeons with their caviare, the lamprey, and the nine-eyed eel; (3) The head of clean fishes is more or less broad, whilst that of the unclean kinds is more or less pointed at the end, as the eel, the mammalian species, &c.; (4) The swimming bladder of clean fishes is rounded at one end, and pointed at the other, whilst that of the unclean fishes is either rounded or pointed at both extremities alike. It is in allusion to this law that we are told in the parable of the fisherman, which is taken from Jewish life, that when they drew to shore the net with every kind of fishes, the fishermen sat down (i.e., to examine the clean and the unclean), and gathered the good (i.e., the clean), into the vessels, but cast the bad (i.e., the unclean) away (Matt. xiii. 48). The orthodox Jews to this day strictly observe these regulations, and abhor eating those fishes which are enumerated under the four above-named criteria of not clean. It is moreover to be remarked that fishes without scales are also still regarded in Egypt as unwholesome, and that the Romans would not permit them to be offered in sacrifice.

(10) Of all that move in the waters.-That is, apart from the fishes exhibiting the above-named signs, all other inhabitants of the water are forbidden. Hence all shell-fish, whether molluscs or crustaceans, and cetaceous animals, are unclean.

(13) Ye shall have in abomination among the fowls.-The third of the four great divisions of the animal kingdom-viz., the birds of the air, in accordance with their proper sequence is discussed in verses 13-19. It will be seen that, whilst in the case of the two preceding divisions of the animal kingdom certain signs are given by which to distinguish the clean from the unclean animals, in the division before us a list is simply given of the birds which are unclean and prohibited. This absence of all criteria is all the more remarkable, since after some of the birds mentioned it is added "after his kind," or "after her kind" (see verses 14-16, 19), thus showing that kindred species were included in the prohibition, and that it was left to those who had to administer this law, to lay down some general signs by which the proscribed species are to be known. Hence the following rules obtained during the second Temple. Those birds are unclean (1) which snatch their food in the air, and devour it without first dropping it on the ground; (2) which strike with their talons and press down with their foot the prey to the ground, and then tear off pieces with their beak for consumption; (3) which "divide their feet" when standing on an extended rope or branch, placing two toes on the one side and two on the other, and not three in front and one behind; and (4) whose eggs are equally narrow or equally round at both ends, and have the white in the middle and the yolk around it.

The eagle. As the king of the birds, the eagle stands first in the list. It denotes here all the species

of the eagle proper. Arabian writers, scientific travel

lers, and the most distinguished naturalists, concur in their testimony that the eagle eats carrion when it is still fresh, thus harmonizing with the description in Job xxxix. 10; Prov. xxx. 17; Matt. xxiv. 28, &c. The assertion, therefore, that the bird here meant is the Egyptian vulture, because the eagle disdains dead bodies and feeds only on what it kills itself, is erroneous. Besides the kindred dialects, all the ancient versions and the best Hebrew scholars place it beyond a doubt that Nesher here denotes eagle. Afterwards, however, the carrion-kite and the golden vulture were also reckoned among the different species of eagles. Hence the allusion in Micah i. 16.

The ossifrage.-That is, the bone-breaker, or simply the breaker, is the literal translation of the expression here used in the original, which only occurs again in the parallel passage in Deut. xiv. 12. It is most probably the bearded griffin or lammergeier, which unites in itself the eagle and the vulture, and is therefore aptly called gypaëtus or vulture-eagle, and appropriately stands in the list here between the eagle and the vulture. The fitness of its name may be seen from its habits. It takes the bones of animals, which other birds of prey have denuded of the flesh, up into the air and then lets them fall upon a well-selected projecting rock, and thus literally breaks them in order to get at their marrow, or to render the fragments of the bones more digestible.

And the ospray, or sea-eagle. It is about the size of the golden-eagle, and preys principally upon fish, but also occasionally on birds and other animals, and when its extreme voracity is not satisfied, will devour the most putrid carrion. Hence its place in the catalogue of unclean birds. The word only occurs again in the parallel passage, Deut. xiv. 12.

(14) And the vulture.-Rather, the kite. Its name in the original (dââh), which literally denotes the swift, majestic and gliding flier, appropriately describes this bird, which sails with its expanded wings through the air, where it often pauses as if suspended, watching for its prey. Kites are very plentiful in Syria, and are frequently seen hovering over the plains, the villages, and the outskirts of towns, and looking out for garbage and offal, and hence are often seen in company with the vulture at their useful task of devouring the carrion. Their gregarious habits are referred to by Isaiah (xxxiv. 15), where they are mentioned in company with other raptatores as suitable inhabitants of devastated Edom. The kite is used by different Eastern tribes as food.

66

And the kite.-Rather, the falcon. The greedy one" (ayah), as it is called in the original, fitly describes this most sagacious, sanguinary, and rapacious robber. Its piercing sight is referred to by Job (xxviii. 7), where it is translated vulture in the Authorised Version, though in the passage before us and in the parallel passage in Deut. xiv. 13, it is rendered kite. It exists in Syria in a great variety of species, for which reason the text adds "after his kind." The falcon is eaten in the Levant, and is considered rather delicate. (15) And every raven.-The raven or the blackbird (Song of Songs v. 11), the bird of the night, as its name denotes in Heb., like the eagle, occurs frequently

may, and that (15) every raven after his kind; (16) and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

in the Bible. It preys upon putrid corpses (Prov. xxx. 17), and is especially eager to pick out the eyes of the dead, and sometimes even attacks the eyes of the living. So great is its gluttony that it fills the air with its wild shrieks when searching for food (Ps. cxlvii. 9; Job xxxviii. 41). Its rapacity makes the raven expel its own offspring from their nest and from the surrounding places as soon as they are able to fly, and before they are quite able to procure their own food. Indeed, the ancients believed that it forsook its young immediately after they were hatched. It was in consequence of their excessive greed and known aversion to part with anything, even for their own offspring, that the ravens were chosen to carry food to the prophet (1 Kings xvii. 4, 6), thus to make the miracle all the more striking. The phrase, “every raven after his kind," clearly shows that the whole genus of ravens is intended, with all the raven-like birds, such as the rook, the crow, the jackdaw, the jay, &c., which abound in Syria and Palestine.

(16) And the owl.-Better, and the ostrich, as the Authorised Version rightly renders it in the margin in three out of the eight passages in which it occurs, viz., Job xxx. 29, Isa. xxxiv. 13, xliii. 20; literally, the daughter or inhabitant of the desert. The ostrich, which is the largest bird and the swiftest of all cursorial animals, was associated by the Hebrews with the terrors of the wilderness, and was regarded by the ancients as an unnatural hybrid, as a kind of half bird and half quadruped. It dwells amongst desolated places (Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 13; Jerem. 1. 39), fills the air with its doleful and hideous wails (Micah i. 8) and cruelly neglects its eggs to be hatched by the sun or trodden down under foot (Lam. iv. 3; Job xxxix. 17, 18). Owing to its proverbial stupidity, this hybrid is selected with another monster to illustrate the abundant goodness of the Lord, by showing that even this creature will become sensible of gratitude and break forth into thanksgiving and praise (Isa. xliii. 20). The flesh of the ostrich was eaten by the ancient Ethiopians, Indians, and other nations. The Romans regarded ostrich brains as a great delicacy. The ostrich occasionally devours fowls and other small vertebrates like a bird of prey, and tradition assures us that ostriches consumed the body of Agag.

And the night hawk.-Of all the unclean birds constituting this list, the one here rendered night hawk is the most difficult to identify. The name in the original (tachmás) simply describes the bird as "the violent" one, or the rapacious, or the cruel," and this designation would apply to any bird of prey not already specified in this catalogue. Hence it has alternately been taken for the owl, the night hawk, the male ostrich, the falcon, the seabird gannet, the cuckoo, and the swallow. It will, however, be seen that all the large birds of prey which are here hazarded, have either already been mentioned or are mentioned in the sequel of this list, whilst the small birds, viz., the cuckoo and the swallow, are too insignificant and too harmless to be placed between the large raptorial companions. In this uncertainty of opinion it is best to leave the Authorised Version alone. The name only occurs again in the parallel passage in Deut. xiv. 15.

And the cuckow.-Rather, and the sea-gull. Like the foregoing bird of prey, the shachaph here