can

Luther "denn des Leibes Leben ist in diesem Blute, so lange es lebt", and probably De Wette, denn das Leben alles Fleisches ist sein Blut in seinem Leben"): but it is doubtful whether the suffix in be referred to the subordinate noun ; and still more so, whether can be paraphrased, “as long as it lives" or "during its life-time". Equally questionable seems Rashi's exposition, which, being ren

dered "instead of its life" ( opaa), almost produces a tautology, "for the life of all flesh is its blood, which is instead of its life". Ebn Ezra explains, "its blood that is united with its life", which is neither quite distinct as regards the construction nor as regards the sense. Nachmanides and others render "in its body" (Luzzatto: la vita d'ogni animale è il sangue ch'esso ha nel corpo), and Ewald (Alterth. p. 39), as doubtfully, "its blood itself", and so z in ver. 11. The Chaldean translators literally reproduce the Hebrew text, and offer, therefore, no assistance; and the Septuagint and Vulgate entirely leave out the embarrassing word (ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ πάσης σαρκὸς αἷμα αὐτοῦ sti, and anima enim omnis carnis in sanguine est). We might well adopt the translation "as regards the life of all flesh, its blood forms its soul" (, so Keil), if such a free application of a essentiae were warranted by usage. Other versions are vague or mystical (f. i. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. p. 196, "sein in seiner Seele wesendes Blut"; Baumgarten, Comm.

p. 198, "das Blut ist in der Seele, insofern das Blut als die Erscheinung in der Seele sein Wesen hat"; Oehler in Herz. Real-Encycl. X. 630, "sein beseeltes Blut", a. o.). The legis lator commands the covering of blood spilt in chasing animals, or in killing such as have been chased(ver.13): but this does not prove that the Hebrews were, at the author's time, accustomed "to suck at once the warm blood of hunted animals" (Ghillany, Menschenopfer, p. 608); our passage implies merely what is elsewhere explicitly stated, that they ate the flesh"with the blood"(), and that they did so even in very late periods, as in the time of Ezekiel and afterwards (1 Sam.XIV. 32; Ezek. XXXIII. 25; etc.; see supra p. 3). - We must

-ver.12) "there) על־כן אָמַרְתִּיוכ' translate

fore I say to the children of Israel", not "I said"; for in no previous "Sinaitic" law is the prohibition of blood extended to the stranger as well as to the Hebrews (comp. III. 17; VII. 26, 27); our chapter bases that prohibition on entirely new grounds, and its unity and harmony with preceding sections cannot be upheld (see, f. i., the apologetic remarks of Ranke, Untersuch. II. 81).

15, 16. The transition from blood to the flesh of animals that have died of themselves (), or have been torn by wild beasts () is natural and intelligible, as such flesh was partially, if not chiefly, interdicted, because it allowed but an imperfect removal of its blood (see pp. 15, 20). And this law also tends

to prove the advanced date of our chapter. The strangers living among the Hebrews are included in nearly all the enactments in the command permitting sacrifices at the common Sanctuary only, in the prohibition of blood, and in the ordinances concerning and ; the idea of a holy and united community, protected against all dangers of idolatry, had at last been deeply rooted, and was striving after complete realisation. In the first law only-that which converts the slaughter of every beast into a sacrifice - the stranger is not mentioned; for though non-] n-Hebrews, forming part of Hebrew settlements, could be compelled to abstain from pagan worship, they could not be compelled to revere the God of the Hebrews; therefore, whenever they were inclined to offer a sacrifice to Jehovah, they were commanded, like the Israelites, to offer it at the national Sanctuary; but whenever they simply desired to kill an animal for food, they were free to do so at any place they chose. As regards, the earlier Deuteronomist, less strict in ritual matters, expressly allows it as food to the stranger (Deut. XIV.21); and even a preceding portion of our Book (XI. 40) prescribes, in cases of transgression, only washing of garments and uncleanness till the evening; but our section adds, besides, bathing in water, which it enjoins whenever has been eaten; and another law ordains the same lustration for priests who have merely touched such flesh (XXII. 5,6; see supra p.181). If we, moreover, consider that our author treats, which had long been more leniently viewed, with exactly the same rigour as, and that, with respect to both, he warns tres

16. But if he does not

passers to dread the consequences of their "iniquity": it will be admitted that this section breathes the most thorough and most developed levitism.

We must, however, in conclusion, allude with a few words to a remarkable discrepancy. A previous law enforces a sin-offering for the inadvertent touch of ; (V. 2, 5, 6); while our verses demand merely bathing and washing of garments for the intentional eating of. It is not impossible that the former passage treats of the carcass of unclean, ours of clean animals (like XI. 39, 40), though there is nothing in the wording of our verses which claims, or even favours, this restriction; but it is more probable to suppose that at the date of this chapter the principle had fully prevailed that sin-offerings should only be presented for undesigned trespasses, and not, as had before been usual, for intentional offences also; therefore, the legislator could treat the voluntary eating of

only as an ordinary defilement, but he took care to brand this defilement with unusual severity. Thus the gradual growth of the levitical system inevitably engendered many incongruities.