takes of death; and when it expires, it may be considered in a state of unnatural decay. Eating of such flesh was, therefore, nothing less than contamination, sinful for a people which owes allegiance to the God of eternal life. "That which dies of itself... the priest shall not eat to defile himself therewith; I am the Lord". It was deemed so utterly incompatible with the character of the "kingdom of priests", that the commands were step by step made more stringent and more universal. In Deuteronomy, the law is still limited to the Israelites; and these were permitted to sell the meat of b, nay to offer it for food, to the strangers living within the Hebrew communities themselves. But in Leviticus, the prohibition appears in an infinitely more decided form: it was extended to the stranger, and in every respect equalised with regard to the Hebrew and the non-Hebrew; both were, in cases of transgression, subjected to the same rules of purification and the same penalty. "And every soul that eats that which died of itself,... whether it be one of your own people or a stranger (N), he shall both wash his garments and bathe himself in water, and be unclean till the evening; then he shall be clean; but if he does not wash them nor bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his iniquity". This was the case even if the beast was by the Law permitted for consumption'. Then such meat was regarded as inherently unclean; its very touch caused defilement, which did not cease before the end of the day, whether the animal belonged to a lawful species or to the prohibited kinds; and carrying the carcase engendered a higher degree of uncleanness, to be removed by washing of the garments. With regard to certain pre-eminently loathsome animals, the Law ordained even more rigorous rules: all objects upon which their dead bodies fell as vessels of wood or metal, skins, textures of wool or goats' hair were declared unclean, they were for purification to be placed in water till the evening; 5 1 Lev. XXII. 8, b; comp. Ezek. IV. 14. Pseudo-Phocylides introduces our command (Μὴ κτήνους θνητοῖο βορὴν κατὰ λίτραν ἕληαι, where Bernays 1. c. p. XXVIII proposes to read κατὰ μέτρον) by the solemn warning Εγκρατὲς ἦτορ ἔχειν, τῶν λωβητῶν δ' ἀπέχεσθαι (ver. 145). Whether the words 8 n in the 17th line of the sacrificial tablet of Marseilles, imply a similar interdiction with respect to the Carthagenian priests, is more than doubtful (comp. Movers, Opferwesen der Karthager, p. 117). 2 Deut. XIV. 21, a un S ; comp. Talm. Pesach. 21b; Chull. 114b. 3 Lev. XVII. 15, 16. 4 Lev. XI. 40; see notes in loc. 6 Lev. XI. 8, 24, 26, 27, 31, 36; Deut. XIV. 8. 7 Lev. XI, 25, 28. but if they fell into an unglazed earthen vessel, which, from its porous nature, easily absorbs fluids, not only the whole contents of that vessel became unclean, but the vessel itself was to be broken in pieces, lest it be again used; and if by chance a liquid had come into any such utensil, whether earthenware or not, or if moist food had been put into such earthen utensil, the liquid and the food became unclean and unlawful. Ovens or stoves, because made of earthenware, were subjected to injunctions of similar severity; they were to be broken if any part of a carcase had fallen upon them; while other and scrupulously minute ordinances prove the punctilious care with which the matter was treated. Thus any food, though permitted in itself, might be rendered unlawful by contact with impure objects; and the same was the case, if a vessel without lid or covering was allowed to stand in a room in which a man had died within seven days. And as a last step, rigorous Levitism enforced a sinoffering, when unclean carcases had even accidentally and unwittingly been touched, which, in cases of intentional contact, implies the penalty of spiritual excision an enactment excessive in severity and all but impracticable 10. That the law concerning b was, not even in the time of the Deuteronomist, prompted by merely sanitary considerations, is evident from the permission granted to sell such meat to the stranger "that he might eat it" 11: a code evidencing the most considerate humanity towards strangers, and enjoining Thou shalt love the stranger as thyself" 12, would not have assigned to him food injurious to health, and for this reason to be shunned Lev. XI. 29-38; see notes in loc. 9 Num. XIX. 14, 15. The food thus contingently disqualified is by the -in contra ,אוכלין טמאין Talmud called or food מאכלות אסורות distinction to unconditionally forbidden; comp. the analogous laws of the Hindoos (Yajnavalkya I. 167-169; Manu IV. 207-211): the Brahmin is to abstain from food that has turned sour, has been touched by a dog, looked at by a fallen beast, or approached by a woman during her menstruation. 10 See Lev. V. 2, and notes in loc.; also Comm. on Lev. I. 41, 42. It is, therefore, difficult to see how the laws of Leviticus concerning can be understood as "more lenient" than those of Deuteronomy (Graf, Gesch. Büch. des A. T. p. 67; comp. Riehm in Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 360). Some Karaite authorities, as Anan, taking the term to mean a complete carcase, but not parts of it, consider defilement to be wrought only by touching the former, but not by touching the latter: otherwise the Karaites are particularly strict with respect to (see infra). 11 Deut. XIV. 21, N. by the Israelites. All who lived in the Promised Land were more and more decidedly included in the holy community, and made to share its attributes and its duties. The "perfect" life in God demanded perfection in every creature that helped to support that life. The prohibition of b was, therefore, repeated by Ezekiel, especially with reference to the priests 2; it was, by apostolic council, retained in the early Christian Church, and adopted by the second "Trullian" synod'; it was enforced by Mohammed", and laboriously developed by Jewish tradition. The Sadducees, and like them the Samaritans and the Karaites, were particularly scrupulous in neither touching nor applying to useful purposes any kind or part of band, such as skins or bones; whence they shrank even from taking up Greek books, because the parchments were made from the skins of unlawfully killed animals. The Pharisees, less strict on these points, limited the interdiction, as a rule, to the flesh only, and like the Koran, permitted even the flesh of animals killed when near their natural death, though they indeed considered it meritorious not to hasten the slaughter of such suspected beasts. But they fixed "beasts in dan 7 That is, of ger", also called - "kill, kill!” 8 Talm. Chull. 37, 44b; Syr. Vers. in Ezek. IV. 14 (N7, a sick or weak animal) and XLIV. 31 (su id.); Maimon. De Cib. vet. IV. 12. Later Rabbins specified fearful punishments sure to befall the person eating, such as the banishment of his soul into the body of a dog or other animals; for they considered both and as "stricken by the power of destruction" (un ma), or Satan (Bechai on Ex. XI. 7, fol. 31b ed. 1864; comp. Eisenmenger, Entd. Judenth. II. 617, 638-640). See Koran V. 4 ("except what you kill yourselves", i. e. if the beast was duly killed while still alive"); Lane, Mod. Egypt. I. 132 ("when game has been struck down by any weapon, but not killed, its throat must be immediately cut; otherwise it is unlawful food"); Nieb. Beschr. v. Arab. p. 180 (fishes also are usually killed by cutting them near the head, before they die of themselves); comp. Geiger, Jüd. Zeit (בית הכוסות) stomach -- eighteen defects which were alleged to have been pointed out by God to Moses, and which, if discovered at the examination of the slaughtered animal, were supposed to bring it under the category of ba, and to render it unlawful for food, in as much as they were deemed sure to cause its death within one year. Those defects are If the gullet () is perforated, however small the hole, or the wind-pipe () is torn crossways for the greater part; if the membranes (the dura mater or pia mater) of the brain (2) or the ventricle (b) of the heart is pierced; if the spine (2) is broken or its ligaments are torn; if the liver (7) is entirely or nearly wanting; if the lungs () are perforated or defective in the lobes; if the stomach, or the gall-bladder (7), or any part of the viscera (1), or the abdomen, is perforated, or the outer skin which covers the latter is torn for the greater part; if the paunch (on) and the "fourth 10 are damaged so that they are visible from without; if the beast has fallen from the roof of a house; if the greater part of its (twenty-two) ribs are broken; and if it has been struck by the claws of a wolf or lion, or, in the case of a fowl, by a bird of prey 11. In fact, the general rule was established, that "Every animal is unlawful, which is afflicted with a defect of such a nature, that no beast of the same species could live under similar circumstances" 12. We have enumerated the cases which of course require revision and correction as the science of pathology advances because they convey a good notion of the anxious attention bestowed upon this matter by the Jews a scrupulousness highly laudable in so far as it ensures wholesome meat, and commendable by its undeniable and excellent results in times of epidemics 13, but exaggerated especially by the Talmudical and Rabbinical additions, which increase the number of fatal blemishes to seventy 14, and are practically oppressive by their excess 15: those who read, for instance, the complicated rules setting forth, how the slaughtered animal must kick and palpitate in order to be lawful 16, will admit that here again schrift II. 21-24; IV. 54; Hechaluz IV. 18 sqq.; Zeitschr. der Deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. XVI. 717 sqq. * Talm. Chull. 42a; see infra p. 23. 10"Hvustpov; comp. Aristot.De Part, Anim. III. 14; Aristoph. Equit. 356, 1179. - 13 Comp. Kayserling, Die rituale Schlachtfrage, pp. 18, 19. 14 See the overwhelming details in Yoreh Deah §§. 29-60. 15 Comp. Comm. on Lev. I. p. 188. 16 Maim. De Cib. vet. IV. 13, 14: "The kicking must take place at the 11 Mishn. Chull. III. 1; comp. Siphra end of the slaughtering; at the befol. 48" ed. Schlossb. זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה היה טיפה 12 ginning, it is of no value. Now, of what nature must the palpitation Jewish tradition defeated a valuable principle by frivolous playfulness 1. V. MEAT OF ANIMALS TORN BY WILD BEASTS (77¤). In nearly every respect analogous to the meat of animals that have died of themselves () is, with regard to motive, law, and history, the meat of animals, whether quadrupeds or birds2, torn by beasts of prey (). Both therefore are repeatedly mentioned and treated of together; for both were primitively avoided partly from an instinctive feeling of disgust, partly from fear of unwholesomeness, men naturally recoiling from "sharing a feast with untameable beasts, and thus becoming almost fellow-revellers in their carnivorous festivals". Both were proscribed by the religious legislators of the Hebrews with a consistency attempted by no other nation; for the also was probably rejected because the animal's death was attended with an imperfect efflux of blood; it was, in the Levitical code, likewise regarded as causing defilement and hence deserving detestation from the people of God, "You shall be holy men to Me, and you shall eat no flesh that is torn by beasts in the field, you shall cast it to the dogs"7; it was equally prohibited to the native Israe be? If a small domestic quadruped, or a larger or smaller beast of the forest, stretches a fore-foot forward and draws it back, or if it stretches a hind-foot forward, though it does not draw it back, or if it merely bends a hind-foot, it has kicked in the lawful way, and is permitted for food: but if it only stretches a fore-foot forward and does not draw it back, it is forbidden"; etc. etc. 1 Comp. Talm. Chull. 32b; Zevach. 69; Maim. De Cib. vet. IV. 1—5, Hotting. Jus Hebr. pp. 99-103. 4 Lev. XVII. 15; XXII. 8; comp. Ezek. IV. 14; XLIV. 31. 5 Comp. Philo De Concupisc. c. 10: τὸ μὲν ὡς οὐ δέον κοινωνεῖν τραπέζας ἀνθρώπων ἀτιθάσσοις θηρίοις, μόνον οὐ συνευωχούμενον ταῖς σαρκοφαγίαις· τὸ δὲ ὡς τάχα μὲν βλαβερὸν καὶ νοσῶδες, ἐναποτεθνηκότος τοῦ ἐχῶρος μetà toυ aïμatos xtλ. 6 Lev. XXII. 8; comp. Ezek. IV. 14. 7 Exod. XXII. 30. This is expressed by Pseudo-Phocylides (vers. 147, 148), Μηδέ τι θηρόβορον δαίσῃ κρέας, ἀργί ποσιν δὲ Λείψανα λεῖπε κυσίν, after which he emphatically adds pov ἄπο θῆρες ἔδονται. |