How Many Clean Animals And How Many Unclean Were In The Ark
Bible Encyclopedias
The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia
Additional Links
Stardom Between "Clean" and "Unclean."
—Animals ceremonially pure and fit for nutrient, and such as are non.
Biblical Data:
The distinction between make clean and unclean animals appears offset in Genesis 7:two-iii,8, where it is said that Noah took into the ark 7 and 7, male and female person, of all kinds of make clean beasts and fowls, and 2 and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. Once more, Genesis 8:20 says that after the inundation Noah "took of every make clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the chantry that he had built to the Lord." It seems that in the listen of this author the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices just; for in the following affiliate he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall exist nutrient for you" (Genesis 9:3). In Leviticus (11:ane-47) and Deuteronomy (14:1-20), nonetheless, the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" is made the foundation of a food-law: "This is the constabulary . . . to make a difference betwixt the clean and the unclean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten" (Leviticus xi:46-47). The permitted food is chosen "make clean," "pure" (
, ṭahor): the forbidden food is not simply not clean, merely is positively unclean, polluted, impure (
, ṭame), "an abominanation" (
, sheḳeẓ). The terminology "clean and unclean" in the food-law has to a certain extent a different implication from that borne past the same terms as used in the sacrificial constabulary (see See Cede).
The make clean animals were:
- All quadrupeds that chew the cud and also divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:iii; Deuteronomy fourteen:6); for example, the ox, the sheep, the goat (e., the sacrificial animals), the hart and the gazel, the roebuck, the wild goat, the pygarg, the antelope, and the chamois(Deuteronomy 14:4-5). Among other forbidden animals, the camel, the rock-badger (see Coney), the hare, and the swine were excluded by proper noun (Leviticus 11:4-seven; Deuteronomy 14:vii-viii), probably because used as food or for sacrifice by the neighboring tribes.
- Fish proper; e., "whatsoever hath fins and scales . . . in the seas and in the rivers" (Leviticus xi:ix; compare Deuteronomy 14:ix).
- Birds. Here the Law proceeds by manner of elimination. From the rather lengthy list of forbidden birds (Leviticus 11:xiii-19; Deuteronomy 14:eleven-18) it may be concluded that all the birds of prey and most of the water-fowl were considered unclean. The bat closes the list.
- The winged creeping things "that become upon all iv" which "accept legs above their feet to leap withal," of which iv kinds of locusts are named (Leviticus 11:21-22). All the other creeping things (meet Animals) are almost emphatically and repeatedly forbidden and held upward as the greatest abomination (Leviticus 11:20,31-38,42-43). A list of creeping things to be avoided includes the weasel, the mouse, four kinds of lizards, and the chameleon (Leviticus 11:29-30).
Restrictions were besides placed on the apply of the mankind of clean animals: it was forbidden to eat it when the animal had been torn in the field past a carnivorous beast (Exodus 22:30), or when it had died a natural death, or had been carried off by disease (Deuteronomy 14:21). Although, notwithstanding, the use of such meats rendered people unclean, strictly speaking, their prohibition belongs to the law concerning BLOOD.
Theories of Distinction.
—Ethnological View:
For the distinction between clean and unclean animals various origins have been suggested; though few of them seem to have fully satisfied any one but their own originators. Omitting the well-nigh ancient ones (Origen, "Contra Celsum," 4:93; ed. Migne, , col. 1171; Theodoret, on Leviticus 9:1, ed. Migne, , col. 299, and others, analyzed in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible," ane:615 et seq.), only the well-nigh popular ones in our ain day need be mentioned. According to Grotius, on Leviticus 11:3; Spencer, "De Leg. Hebr. Rit." 1:7,2; S. D. Michaelis, "Mosaisches Recht," , § 220, etc., the distinction betwixt make clean and unclean animals is based on hygiene: it is a sanitary constabulary. Co-ordinate to others, the law was a national one, intended to divide Israel from the neighboring nations, Arabians, Canaanites, and Egyptians (Ewald, "Antiq. of State of israel," pp. 144 et seq.), and partly a sanitary one (Rosenmüller, "Scholia in Vetus Testamentum"—Leviticus). According to Keil, "Handbuch der Biblischen Archäologie," pp. 492 et seq., the law is a religious one, intended to deter men from the vices and sins of which certain animals are the symbols, which view is a mere variation of the allegorical interpretation proposed by Philo ("De Concupiscentia," 5-10).
Of these explanations the beginning two have been refuted by Sommer in his "Biblische Abhandlungen," 1:187-193; Keil's opinion has been opposed by Nowack, "Lehrbuch der Biblischen Archäologie," 1:117, and others. The almost popular theory at the present solar day is perhaps that offered by the late W. Robertson Smith, in his article "Animal Worship and Animal Tribes Amongst the Ancient Arabs" ("Journal of Philology," 1880), according to which the unclean animals were forbidden because they were totems of the primitive clans of Israel. This theory has been accustomed past Cheyne ("Isaiah," 1:99; 2:123-124,303) and Stade ("Gesch. Israels," 1:408), but past Dillmann is either entirely and without give-and-take rejected ("Genesis," p. 382), or restricted to the prehistoric times of State of israel, as being a survival of the former totem-worship and totem-clan organization, resembling in historic times the case of the horse in England, which anthropologists say is not eaten because it was once sacred to Odin, and thus tabooed (Joseph Jacobs in his "Studies in Biblical Archeol." p. 89, and similarly Salomon Reinach, "Les Interdictions Alimentaires et la Loi Mosaïque," in "Rev. Etudes Juives," 41:144). Blood; see FOOD; and Totemism.
Bibliography:
- Zapletal, Der Totemismus und die Religion Israels, in Jew. Quart. Rev.April. 1902;
- idem, Der Totemismus, 1900;
- Levy, Du Totémisme chez les Hebreux, in Rev. Et. Juives, 89:21-24;
- Cheyne, The Prophecies of Isaiah, 1880-81.
E. Grand. H.
H. H.
Quadrupeds.
—In Rabbinical and Hellenistic Literature:
The distinctions between clean and unclean animals, as described in the Scriptures, are more fully drawn in the Halakah. To chew the cud and to have split hoofs (Leviticus 11:3) are the marks of the clean tame quadruped ("behemah"), and the Talmudic traditions add that an animal without upper teeth always chews the cud and has split hoofs (see Aristotle, "Natural History," 9:l), the only exceptions existence the hare and the rabbit, which, in spite of having upper teeth, chew the cud and take split hoofs, and the camel, which has, in identify of upper teeth, an incisor on each side (
). Fifty-fifty the meat of the clean and the unclean animals tin be distinguished. The meat of the one-time below the hipbones tin can exist torn lengthwise equally well as across, which, among unclean animals, is merely possible with the mankind of the wild ass. These differences utilize also to make clean wild animals (
) equally against unclean wild animals (
). In order, yet, to distinguish clean wild from make clean tame animals attention must particularly be paid to the horns. The horns of the old must be forked, or, if not forked, they must be clear of splinters, notched with scales, and exist 
("round"), or, as others read, 
("pointed"). It is important to distinguish the clean wildlife from the clean tame animals, because the tallow of the onetime may be used, while that of the latter is forbidden, and the claret of the clean wild animate being must be covered upward (Leviticus 17:xiii), which is not the case with that of other animals (Ḥul. 59a, b).
Birds.
It was difficult for the rabbinical authorities to distinguish clean from unclean birds, as the Scripture (Leviticus 11:13-nineteen) enumerates only the birds which shall non be eaten, without giving whatever of the marks which distinguish them from the clean birds. This is all the more than important as the names of some of the birds mentioned in the Scriptures are followed by the word "lemino" or "leminehu"—e., "after its kind"—and it is therefore necessary to recognize certain fixed distinguishing characteristics. The post-obit rules are fixed past the Talmud, by which a clean bird may be distinguished. It must not be a bird of prey; it must have a front toe, if that exist the meaning of 
; but co-ordinate to most explanations the hind toe is meant. Although most birds of prey have the hind toe, the toes of the make clean bird are then divided that the three front toes are on i side and the hind toes on the other, while the unclean bird spreads his toes and then that two toes are on each side; or if information technology has v toes, iii will exist on ane side and two on the other (compare Rashi to Ḥul. 59a, and Nissim b. Reuben on the Mishnah to this passage).
The clean birds, furthermore, have craws, and their stomachs have a double skin which tin easily be separated. They grab nutrient thrown into the air, but will lay it upon the ground and tear it with their bills before eating it. If a morsel be thrown to an unclean bird it will catch it in the air and swallow it, or information technology volition concord information technology on the ground with one foot, while fierce off pieces with its neb (Ḥul. 59a, 61a, 63a). Equally this distinction is non constitute in Scripture, opinions differedgreatly during and since Talmudic times. According to the Talmud (Ḥul. 62a, 63b), simply the xx-four kinds of birds mentioned in Scripture are actually forbidden. If certain birds are positively known equally non belonging to these, no further investigation equally to feature signs is necessary, and they may exist eaten. The marks of distinction are laid down just for cases in which at that place is doubtfulness whether the species is make clean or unclean. Government, particularly in Frg, would merely permit the eating of such kinds equally have e'er been eaten (
). Accordingly some birds are permitted to be eaten in certain countries, but not in others. There are many controversies in the illogical literature concerning this matter. Menahem Mendel Krochmal ("Ẓemaḥ Ẓedeḳ," No. 29), for example, declares the wild goose forbidden, while Eybeschütz ("Kereti u-Peleti," § 82) permits it. When the turkey was brought to Europe Isaiah Horwitz forbade it to exist eaten; and although his opinion did not prevail, his descendants refrain from eating it even to-day.
Fishes.
In regard to make clean and unclean fishes the regime of the Talmud have likewise made some additions to the regulations in the Scriptures. While it is stated in Leviticus 11:9 that only those fishes are to be considered clean which take scales and fins, the Mishnah (Niddah vi:9) declares that all fishes with scales have, doubtless, fins also. According to this all fishes having scales but no fins may be eaten, every bit under that stance it may be taken for granted that all scaly fishes have fins; apparent exceptions are deemed for by the supposition that sometimes fins are so small-scale or rudimentary that they tin can not exist distinguished. On the other mitt, a fish with fins may be without scales and thus be unclean. The formation of the spinal cord and head also affords means of stardom. The make clean fishes (
) have a perfect spinal column, and a head of a more or less flat projection; the unclean fishes take no spinal os, and their heads end in a point ('Ab. Zarah 39b, 40a). In that location is a departure in the course of the bladder and roe in clean and unclean fishes. In clean fishes the bladder is blunt at one stop and pointed at the other; while the unclean accept the ends either both blunt or both pointed. Whether these marks can exist depended on when the scales and fins are absent-minded, or when the bodily status tin no longer be positively ascertained, has been much discussed past onetime government (compare Jacob b. Asher, Ṭur Yoreh De'ah, 83). Equally a "cause célèbre" of mod times may be mentioned the controversy of Aaron Chorin with many Orthodox rabbis apropos the eating of sturgeon, which Chorin declared permissible, contrary to all quondam usage.
Insects.
Concerning the use of the iv kinds of locust permitted in the Scriptures (Leviticus 11:21-22) the Mishnah (Ḥul. iii:8) says that a clean locust must have four anxiety, two of which are for jumping, and four wings, which must exist long and broad enough to comprehend the whole body. But information technology is still subject to the restriction that, to be eaten, it must belong to the species 
, and there must exist a reliable tradition recognizing it as eatable. Later on authorities (compare Samuel b. David ha-Levi on Yoreh De'ah, 85) forbid its utilize entirely. Very rigorous are the rules set down by the Rabbis apropos the eating of "creeping things which crawl upon the ground" (Leviticus 11:41). According to the Rabbis only such "worms" are permitted for food as exercise not alive in an isolated condition, merely are found just in other substances; for instance, the maggots in meat, fruit, fish, drinkingwater, etc. But even in such cases the eating is forbidden if the worms have been removed from the place in which they originated, or if they accept left that place and returned to it, thereby practically excluding all worm-eaten food (Ḥul. 67a, b). The conditions concerning the enforcement of these rules are very complicated (compare Yoreh De'ah, 84), but it may suffice to point out the following: Fruit and vegetables must be thoroughly examined earlier apply to see whether they contain worms, and Orthodox families pay strict attention to the fact that should the food, after cooking, be shown to have been worm-eaten, it is non fit for consumption (compare Danzig, "Ḥokmat Adam," pp. 35, 22).
Reasons for Stardom.
There was much speculation as to the reasons why sure species of animals should be allowed every bit food and others forbidden. In the Letter of the alphabet of Aristeas (lines 144-154) information technology is explained at length that "these laws have been given for justice' sake to awake pious thoughts and to form the graphic symbol." It is especially emphasized that birds of prey have been forbidden, to teach that man shall practice justice; and non, depending upon his own strength, do injury to others. The marks which distinguish the clean animal are allegorically explained, as shown in the following example: To take two feet and split hoofs signifies that all actions shall be taken with consideration of the correct and wrong (compare Allegorical Estimation). The martyr Eleazar, in Four Macc. 5:25, answers the king, who ridicules the laws forbidding unclean animals, "Whatever is congenial to our soul He permits us to eat; the use of obnoxious meats He forbade united states." In this is plain expressed the aforementioned thought which is stated later on by Ẓarẓa in the words: "All these things are forbidden, because they bastardize the blood and arrive susceptible to many diseases; they pollute the torso and the soul" (Meḳor Ḥayyim, "Tazria'," outset).
The prolix allegories of Philo apropos the clean and unclean animals (compare "De Agricultura Noe," -) have been far surpassed past the Church Fathers (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," v:viii; Clemens Alexandrinus, "Pædagogus,"; Origen, Hom. seven in Lev.; and many others), and for this reason in many Jewish circles no exposition of the constabulary whatever would exist heard. One should not say "The meat of the hog is obnoxious to me," simply "I would and could eat information technology had not my Heavenly Father forbidden it" (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, terminate). In Talmudic-Midrashic literature no attempt is made to bring these laws nearer to human understanding. It was feared that much defining would endanger the observance of them, and all were satisfied "that they are things the use of which the Torah forbids" (Tanḥuma, Lev. ed. Buber, Shemini, 3:29), although they were not capable of explanation.Kickoff with Saadia, the Jewish commentators started to explicate the Biblical laws either rationalistically or mystically. It is remarkable that Saadia's theory bears great resemblance to the modern theory of totemism. He asserts, namely, that some animals which were worshiped every bit divine were declared eatable every bit a protest confronting that worship, and for the same reason others were alleged unclean ("Kitab al-Amanat Wal-I'tiḳadat," 117, bottom; Hebrew translation, three:ii; ed. Slucki, p. 61). Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that the mankind of unclean animals has been forbidden because it is impure and obnoxious, and the substance swallowed and digested goes into the flesh and claret of those who have eaten information technology (commentary to Leviticus xi:93; concerning other passages of lbn Ezra compare Ẓarẓa, c.).
Maimonides ("Moreh Nebukim," 3:48) finds in these ordinances mainly germ-free, and partly esthetic, principles. Similar is the opinion of the great French exegete Samuel b. Meïr, in his commentary on Leviticus. Naḥmanides agrees only partly with these theories, and mentions but one germ-free reason concerning fishes. The clean, he argues, get nearer the surface of the water, and therefore possess a degree of heat which drives away likewise much humidity; while the fishes without fins and scales, which stay in the deep water, and specially those in swampy water, possess a degree of common cold and humidity which acts mortally. It is different with the birds, which, with exception of the "peres" and "'ozniyyah," two species of eagles, are all birds of prey, the black and thick blood of which causes a marked inclination to cruelty. Concerning the quadrupeds, Naḥmanides wavers between ethical and sanitary reasons, and refers to non-Jewish physicians to maintain the objections to the flesh of the grunter (commentary on Leviticus nine:xiii; compare his "Derasha," ed. Jellinek, p. 29). The explanations which Baḥya b. Asher (on Leviticus 11) gives apropos the forbidden animals are mainly taken from Naḥmanides. He adds the new explanation that this police is merely an expansion of the rules of the cult of cede, and so that many animals which can non be used for sacrifice shall not be eaten (idem, 163d. ed. Riva di Trento). Isaac Arama is especially opposed to sanitary reasons ("'Aḳedat Yiẓḥaḳ," role 60, ed. Pollak, 3:33b), and acknowledges psychological and ethical motives only. "The unclean animals," says Arama, "cause coarseness and dulness of the soul." Arama, evidently referring to Abravanel, but without mentioning his proper noun, gives other theories of Jewish scholars. In his remarkable polemic confronting the rationalistic caption past Maimonides of the laws regulating nutrient, Viterbo tries to bear witness the untenableness of the germ-free grounds ("Ta'am Zeḳenim," ed. El. Ashkenazi, pp. 42-43).
Like the Jewish religious philosophers, the mystics have stated their speculations concerning the grounds of these laws. According to the cabalistic theory which makes the negative Sefirot the cause of the existence of evil in the world, the Zohar (Shemini, three:41b) explains that the unclean animals originate from some of these negative Sefirot, and therefore they are forbidden equally food; merely as with the arrival of the Messiah all will become purer and nobler, these animals will then be permitted equally nutrient (Yalḳ. Ḥadash, Liḳḳutim, 36, 79). In this manner the mystics explained the idea, expressed in Midrash Tehillim to , that in the hereafter God will declare the unclean animals clean. This Midrash caused Abravanel and other Jewish scholars much embarrassment (run across Buber, advertisement loc.), so that several of them did not hesitate to declare it a Christian interpolation; but without reason, as similar opinions have been held and expressed in the remotest time (compare Antinomianism), and probably had their origin in pre-Christian times. Regarding the view taken by Reform rabbis and past modern Bible exegetes of clean and unclean animals, DIETARY LAWS; Purity; Reform; TOTEMISM.
Bibliography:
- Ḥullin, 59a, 66b;
- for the old Halakah, Torat Kohanim, Shemini;
- Sifre, Deut., 100-104;
- Caro, Shulḥan Aruk, Yoreh De'ah, 79-86;
- idem, Bet Yosef, Yoreh De'ah, 79-86;
- Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, pp. 14-eighteen;
- Wiener, Speisegesetze, pp. 298-328.
E. C.
L. K.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography Information
Singer, Isidore, Ph.D, Projector and Managing Editor. Entry for 'Clean and Unclean Animals'. 1901 The Jewish Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tje/c/clean-and-unclean-animals.html. 1901.
Source: https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tje/c/clean-and-unclean-animals.html
Posted by: alvarezralmy1981.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Many Clean Animals And How Many Unclean Were In The Ark"
Post a Comment