The general distinction of clean and tmclean is rightly observed l)y Michaelis {iSmit/i'f: Tiand. art.ccii, etc.) to have its parallel among all nations, there being univer- sally certain creatures regarded as clean, i. e. fit for food, and the rest as the opposite (comp. Lev. xi, 47). With the greater number of nations, however, this is only a traditional usage based merely, perhaps, either on an instinct relating to health, or on a repugnance which is to be regarded as an ultimate fact in itself, and of which no further account is to be given. Thus iMiehaelis (as above) remarks that in a certain part of (iermany rab- bits are vieMed as unclean, i. e. are advisedly excluded from diet. English feelings as regards the (nig and the snail, contrasted with those of Continentals, supply an- other close parallel. Now, it is not unlikely that nothing more than this is intended in the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" in the directions given to Noah. The intention seems to have been that creatures recog- nised, ou whatever ground, as unfit for human food.
should not be preserved in so large a proportion as those whose number might be diminished by that con- sumption. The dietary code of the Egy|)tians, and the traditions which have descended among the Arabs, un- fortified, certaiidy down to the time of Mohammed, and in some cases later, by any legislation whatever, so far as we know, may illustrate the probable' slate of the Israelites. If the law seized upon such habits as were current among the peo])le, perhaps eidarging their sco])e and range, the whole scheme of tradition, instinct, and usage so eidarged might become a ceremonial barrier, having a relation at once to the tlieocratic idea, to the general health of the people, and to their separateness as a nation.
The same personal interest taken by Jehovah in his sid)jects, which is expressed by the demand for a cere- monially ])ure state on the part of every Israelite as in covenant with him, regarded also tiiis particular detail of that |)urity, viz. diet. Thus the prophet (Isa. Ixvi, 17), speaking in his name, denounces those that "sanc- tify themselves (consecrate themselves to itlolalry), eat- ing swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse," and those "which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels" (Ixv, 4). It remained for a higher lawgiver to announce that '• there is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him" (Mark vii, 15). The fat was claimed as a burnt-offering, and the blood enjoyed the highest sacrificial esteem. In the tAvo combined, the entire vic- tim was by representation ottered, aiui to transfer either to human use was to deal presumptuously with the most holy things. But, besides this, the blood was es- teemed as '• the life'' of the creature, and a mysterious sanctity beyond the sacrificial relation thereby attached to it. Hence we read, " whatsoever soul it be that eat- eth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his ])eople" (Lev. vii, 27; comp. xvii, 10, 14); whereas the offender in other dietary respects was merely "unclean until even" (xi, 40; xvii, 15). Blood was certainly druidi in certain heathen rituals, especially those which related to the solemnization of a covenant, but also as a pledge of idolatrous worship (Psa. xvi, 4; Ezek. xxxiii, 25). Still there is no reason to think that blood has ever been a common article of food, and any lawgiver might probably reckon on a natural aversion ett'ectually fortifying his prohibition in this respect, un- less under some bewildering influence of superstition. Whether animal qualities, grosser appetites, and inhu- man tendencies might be supposed bj' the Hebrews transmitted into the partaker of the blood of animals, we have nothing to show : see, however, Josephus, Ant. iii, 11, 2. See Bi.ood.
It is noteworthy that the practical effect of the rule laid down is to exclude all the curnii-ora among quad- rupeds, and, so far as we can interpret the nomenclature, the 1-aptores among birds. This suggests the question whether they were excluded as being not averse to hu- man carcasses, and in most Eastern countries acting as the servitors of the battle-field and the gibbet. Even swine have been known so to feed; and. further, by their constant runcation among whatever lies on the ground, suggest impurity, even if they were not generally foul feeders. Among fish, those which were allowed con- tain, unquestionably, the most wholesome varieties, save that they exclude the oyster. Probably, however, sea- fishing was little [jracticed by the Israelites; and the Levitical rules must be understooil as referring back- ward to their experience of the produce of the Nile, and forward to their enjoyment of the Jordan and its upper lakes. The exclusion of the camel and the hare from allowable meats is less easy to account for, save that the former never was in common use, and is gen- erally spoken of in reference to the semi-barbarous des- ert tribes on the eastern or southern border-land, some of whom certainly had no insuperable repugnance to his fiesh ; although it is so imiiossible to subsliiute any other
UNCLEAN
633
UNCLEAN