DIETARY LAWS OF THE HEBREWS.
Animals Allowed and Prohibited as Food (§ 1).
Origin and Significance of the Distinction (§ 2).
Contributory Factors (§3).
The Prohibition of Blood (§ 4).
The Prohibition of Fat (§ 5).
Two Additional Restrictions (§ 6).
The Christian Usage and Attitude (§ 7).
As with the symbolically elaborated religions of antiquity in general, the sacred laws of the Old Testament include prescriptions restricting the choice of meats and rules for preparing the same.
Many animals are described as unclean, neither to be sacrificed nor eaten by man, nor to be touched as carcasses; whereas, of those designated as clean for food, not all are allowed in sacri- I. Animals fice (Lev. xL; Deut. xiv. 3-21). Ani- Allowed mals appear to be grouped, in this and Pro- connection, according to the primihibited as tive Hebrew arrangement, in four or Food. five classes; and in several classes the enumeration of particular species is precluded by the expedient of general marks of distinction. Among quadrupeds, for instance, those are accounted clean which, in the first place, " part the hoof," and, in the second place, chew the cud. There are thus mentioned as edible in Deut. xiv. 4-5, the ox, sheep, goat, hart, gazel, roebuck, and certain species of antelope. On the other hand, those which lack one or both of these
Dietary Laws of the Hebrews
THE NEW SCHAFP-HERZOG
distinguishing marks are unclean; such as the camel, rock-badger, hare, swine, together with " whatsoever goctli upon its paws " (Lev. xi. 27). Among aquatic animals, those are edible which have fins and scales; not those, however, which (like the eel) resemble the reptile family and exhibit no marked fish type at all. Among birds about nineteen to twenty-one species are prohibited as food; for the most part, birds of prey, such as the eagle, ^'ultu^e, raven, owl, etc., which feed on carrion and filthy substances; marsh birds and water-fowls also, such as the stork, heron, pelican, and others, are proliibited; likewise the ostrich, or " desert bird." The bat is classed with birds, as the Arabs still class it. There is an additional prescription with reference to " winged creeping things " (insects), which are summarily prohibited with but one general exception (stated only in Lev.); namely, those are permitted as food " which have legs above their feet, to leap withal"; so that grasshoppers are thus allowed, together with three simOar species (Lev. xi. 22). Among the " creeping things " which are unclean according to Lev. xi. 41, 42 special mention is made of the mole, mouse, lizard, and some similar but not certainly definable animals; together with the chameleon (Lev. xi. 29-30). It is also observed of these, in Lev. xi. 32-33, that they defile vessels, raiment, etc., as well as food, by contact when dead. Among " creeping things " which are an " abomination " mention is made (verse 42) of "whatsoever goeth upon the belly"; that is to say, snakes and worms. Mere touching of live " unclean " animals does not defile, but only to eat of them defiles; as is also true of touching or carrying their carcass; while, finally (on the ground adduced below), there is defilement in touching the dead body of clean creatures (see Defilement AND Purification, Ceremonial, L, 1, § 5), and in eating or carrying such creatures when fallen dead without being slaughtered (Lev. xi. 39). The consequences of transgressing these prescriptions and the necessary purifications are simple and not unduly oppressive. Whoever touches the carcass of unclean or clean beasts shall be unclean till evening; whoever carries such dead body, or even eats of it, and this of edible, or clean beasts as well, must furthermore wash his clothes (Lev. xi. 24-25, 28, 31, 39-40). With reference to polluted objects cf. Lev. xi. 32-33.
The fact that the distinction between clean and unclean beasts extends as far back as the memories
of the Hebrews is attested by the 2. Origin Jehovistic passages, wherein the disand Signifi- tinction is traced to the deluge canoe of the (Gen. vii. 2, viii. 20). The distinction Distinction, was not first introduced by the Mosaic
legislation, but was already at hand in popular usage; which, like all tribal customs, had religious authority. Moses simply imparted a morg definite legal form to this usage, and brought it into relation with the worship of Yahweh. The dominating motive herein was not so much mere expediency, well adapted though these prescriptions were to exert a wholesome physical effect, as the feeling that a natural uncleanness pervaded the
prohibited animals, from which the members of Yahweh's consecrated people should be kept clean (cf. Lev. xi. 44-45; Deut. xiv. 2-3). The people of the covenant are to keep themselves clean bodily, out of regard to the God who dwells in their midst, unto whom everything unclean is abhorrent. In the matter of practical determination of what was clean or unclean the law adjusted itself to the sentiment already operative among the people. It took account first of all of the natural aversion among them toward certain kinds of food and of the disgust for certain animals. This factor is more primitive than the superstition attached to it. Totemism and taboo have been advanced as hypotheses to explain the origin of this distinction (W Robertson Smith). But totemism would lead merely to prohibition of some particular animal or animals, but by no means explain the separation of the animal world into two classes, of which the greater is accounted unclean. Moreover, the dietary regulation of the Israelites is very different from ethnic taboo regulations, whereby certain foods, animals, and fruits, consecrated to some divinity, are forbidden either entirely or at stated times to specified persons or classes. With the Israelites the distinction is easy to understand, because objectively grounded, in the light of the common human desire for cleanliness (see Defilement and Purification, Ceremonial, I., 5).
Nor was the popular intuition, prompted by sound natural sentiment, unworthy to be adopted by the Mosaic religion, to be more 3. Contrib- definitely regulated and made servutory iceable to the same. What at first
Factors, glance appear to be surprising marks of distinction for the mammals are to be explained as follows: those quadrupeds which, being herbivorous, furnish the cleanest and most savory meat (hence meat appropriate for sacrifice as well, such as beef animals, sheep, etc.) have also supplied, as customary slaughter animals, the distinguishing marks for discrimination of doubtful animals (for example, game). So the real significance of the distinction is not to be sought in the marks, but in the qualities, just mentioned, which are associated therewith. Beasts " that go on their paws," however, are carnivorous, being chiefly beasts of prey and such aa live on carrion, for which reasons they are much more liable to be characterized by offensiveness of every description than the standard animals; and they must have seemed especially unclean to the Israelites, to whom it was extremely offensive to swallow carrion, lacerated or strangled flesh, and the like. Neither is the motive to be disregarded that what is edible shall belong to some pronounced species of animal. This becomes apparent in the distinguishing marks of fishes; perhaps also in case of the bat, which, furthermore, makes its haunt in filthy holes; and in case of the ostrich, whose peculiar characteristics are enhanced by its singular mode of life. But Philo and other Jews of an allegorical bent, and after them the Church Fathers, sought some immediate moral basis or symbolic significance in all these prescriptions with an all too mystical refinement.