ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors]

5. "Hart." (See Gen. xlix. 21. For animals not mentioned in the following notes, turn to Levit. xi.) "Fallow-deer," in, yachmor), Cervus dama.--Originally a native of Barbary, where it is still found wild; and known in this country as an ornament to our parks and country villas. It is smaller than the stag: in winter, of a darkish brown; but in summer, bay, spotted with white. The horns are flattened, and toothed behind; whence, by the ancients, it was called platyceros, or the flat-horned deer.

"Wild goat," P, akko), Capra ibex.-The ibex is remarkable for its sweeping pair of horns, and an additional coat of long, shaggy hair, which forms its winter suit. Like the goat, of which it is a species, it frequents the highest ridges of the mountainous regions throughout Europe and Asia, especially in the western parts of the latter. The horns sometimes measure more than four feet in length, and are knotted in a series of elevated rings. Its colour is a greyish yellow above, a dull white below, with a black stripe upon the ridge of the back, and a brown band along the flanks.

[graphic]

66

Pygarg," , dishon).-This name occurs nowhere but here; and this, with other causes, renders it difficult to understand what animal is intended. The marginal reading, "bison," has not the least authority except the resemblance of name. The Septuagint, which the Vulgate and our own, in common with most other versions, follow, renders it by ruyagyos, which, assuming it to be correct, throws a little, and but little, light on the matter; for what the pygargus is, and what are its distinct characteristics, remain undetermined. Several of the ancient writers mention a quadruped of this name. Herodotus names it in his list of Libyan quadrupeds; Pliny mentions it as a species of antelope; and Elian notices it as a quadruped of timid character. The Greek name seems to denote an animal having its hinder parts white, and might be rendered "white buttocks." These are the only facts known to us which might serve as data in determining the species. Some few writers have looked for it in the spring-bok, which abounds

WILD GOAT (IBEX).

near the Cape of Good Hope. But as we are quite averse to seek, at such a distance, for an animal once common enough in or near Palestine to be mentioned as fit for food, while a much nearer region continues to furnish an animal to which the denomination may, with at least equal probability, be applied, we seem to prefer the following indication, faint as it is, offered by Dr. Shaw: "Besides the common gazelle or antelope (which is well known in Europe), this country likewise produces another species of the same shape and colour, though of the bigness of our roebuck, and with horns sometimes two feet long. This the Africans call lidmee, and may, I presume, be the strepsicorus and addace of the ancients. Bochart, from the supposed whiteness of the buttocks, finds a great affinity between the addace I have mentioned and the dishon, which our translators render 'pygarg,' after the Septuagint and Vulgate." (Travels,' p. 171.) In a subsequent page, the learned Doctor says more distinctly, that the lidmee has the white buttocks which the name pygarg requires; the other name, strepsicorus, it may have derived "from the wreathed fashion of its horns;" and that addace has, in the radical consonants, some resemblance to the Hebrew name. These conjectures are as good as any that have been brought to bear on the subject. Dr. Shaw brought home a skin of this animal, and deposited it in the museum of the Royal Society.

"Wild ox," NA, Teo, gu)-Taking a hint from the Septuagint, we suppose the feo was the Antilope gazella of Linnæus, a species distinguished for the length and straightness of their horns, a circumstance which seems to be pointed at in the etymology of the Greek name. It is a native of Northern Africa, from Nubia to Senegal. It is often represented upon the monuments of Nubia and Egypt. It is a most beautiful animal, its hair being white, spotted with yellow and red. The horns are long and slender.

[graphic]

"Chamois," (i, Zemer.)-The Arabic version understood that the giraffe was meant here, which is very likely to have been the case: for the chamois is not met so far to the southward as Egypt and Palestine. The giraffe or cameleopard (Camelopardalis giraffa) is a singular as well as beautiful creature found in the central parts of Africa. The Jews had probably many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the animal while in Egypt, as had also the Seventy, who resided there, and who indicate it in their translation of the Hebrew name. It belongs to that order of animals which chew the cud. It is furnished with a neck of extraordinary length, which at the first view seems to give a disproportionate appearance to its figure; but we perceive the necessity for this structure, when we find that by this means it is enabled to crop the young shoots from the trees, which constitute the main part of its fare. The giraffe is generally about eighteen feet from the fore hoofs

WILD OX (ORYX).

to the head; its colour is a light fawn, varied with three-cornered brown spots. The first run of the giraffe exceeds the speed of the fleetest horse; but as they are not equally capable of sustaining exertion, well-trained horses are often

able to overtake them after a long chase. The animal is of a timid and gentle character, and the recent arrival of seven specimens in this country afford a valuable opportunity of becoming acquainted with its habits and appearance.

[graphic][merged small]

13. "Glede," N, Raah.)-As the name contains an allusion to the extraordinarily keen and piercing sight of the vulture, we shall not perhaps be greatly mistaken in supposing that a species of that remarkable family was meant. It was perhaps the Neophron percnopterus or Pharaoh's chicken, one of the smallest of the vultures, and very common in all the warmer portions of the old world. It resembles the turkey-buzzard of North and South America in its habit of assembling in large flocks to perform the necessary and important office of clearing away the filth and offal, which would otherwise decompose and render the air putrid and pernicious. Its plumage is white, excepting the quill feathers, which are black: the naked skin of the face and throat is a livid yellow. The Egyptians attributed to their sense of the useful services of this bird the undue veneration in which they held it.

21. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."-This remarkable law is here repeated for the third time; and perhaps there is not one in all the Pentateuch which has been so variously understood. We may state the principal of these various interpretations. 1. That it prohibits the eating of the foetus of the goat as a delicacy. But there is not the least evidence in Scripture that the Jews had any knowledge of or attachment to this disgusting luxury. 2. That a kid should not be killed till it was eight days old, when, as is said, it might subsist without the milk of its dam. This conjecture is derived from the supposition of an analogy between this injunction and that which forbids a kid to be offered (3.) before the eighth day in sacrifice.-But there is no good reason why a kid should be said to be more in its mother's milk in the first eight days than during all the time it is suckled: and this is admitted by those who (4.) think that the interdiction is altogether against the eating of a sucking kid.-But as a goat suckles its kid for three months, it is not likely that the Jews were for so long a time forbidden to use it for food. No food is forbidden but as unclean; and a kid ceased to be unclean on the eighth day, for then it might be sacrificed; and what was fit for sacrifice might surely, therefore, be fit for food. 5. That the dam and kid might not be slain at the same time. But this is elsewhere forbidden in direct terms, not only with regard to the goat, but also the cow and the sheep: and there seems no possible reason why it should be repeated in this remarkable form of expression, with reference to the goat only. 6. It is understood literally, as a precept encouraging humane feelings, that a kid should not be dressed in the milk of its dam. But then occurs the question asked by Michaelis, "How came the Israelites to hit upon the strange whim of boiling a kid in milk, and just in the milk of its own mother?" 7. Still understanding it literally, it is possible that this was not as a common act of cookery, but as an idolatrous or magical rite. This is the opinion of some of the most judicious Hebrew expositors, though they have not been able to cite any instance of such a practice. This however has been done by Cudworth, who states that in an old Karaite comment on the Pentateuch, he met with the statement that it was a custom of the ancient idolaters at the ingathering of their fruits to take a kid and seethe it in the milk of its dam; and then to go about and sprinkle with the broth their trees, fields, and gardens, in a magical

manner, under the impression that by this process they ensured their fruitfulness in the ensuing year. Spencer also mentions a similar rite as in use among the Zabians. It is a remarkable corroboration of this view, which seems more probable than any of the others, that this command is first mentioned (Exod. xxix. 19) in immediate, but otherwise unintelligible, connection with the laws concerning the season of ingathering, and the bringing of the first fruits to the house of the Lord.

But there is still another interpretation which has the very strong support of Michaelis. It may be thought indeed that this is one of the instances in which, according to Heeren's sarcastic remark (Manual of History,' 36.) "Not unfrequently the commentator has seen more than the lawgiver;" but certainly his opinion is entitled to attention when, as in this instance, it is supported by the general opinion and actual practice of the Jews-it is, that an, chalab, rendered "milk," here means "butter,"-at least figuratively, as made from milk; and that the literal force of the command is, "thou shalt not dress meat with butter." He observes, justly, that the Orientals have a great number. of words or circumlocutions arising from composition with the words son, daughter, sister, brother, mother; and that in Arabic, for instance, a kid's mother means nothing more than a goat-any goat-that has yeaned. Moses also frequently gives his laws in special examples, without directly mentioning all those of a like description to which they are applicable; so that what he enjoins with respect to goat's milk must be understood also of that of cow's. And all butter is originally milk, so that we can dress no victuals with butter without dressing it with milk. This is certainly the opinion which the Jews themselves entertain; and to this day they do not use butter combined in any way with meat, employing animal fat in its stead. But why should butter be interdicted? The answer is, that the interdiction of butter is one of the body of regulations, the combined operation of which was calculated to make their new country necessary to the Israelites, so as to render it impossible for them to abandon it for any other, or to resume their former mode of life. Two objects which we discover in many of the laws are, for instance, to prevent their return to Egypt on the one hand, and, on the other, to change their character from that of wandering shepherds to that of a settled agricultural people. The interdiction of butter would contribute to both these objects. It would oblige them to turn to oil as a substitute, and therefore not to neglect the cultivation of the excellent olive trees in which their new country abounded. And when the habit of using oil was once formed, that habit would combine with the necessity created by this law, to weaken their attachment to a nomade life, in which of course oil-a result of cultivation-could not be obtained; nor would it less bar their return to Egypt, since in that country the olive-tree was but very partially cultivated, and only in one nome yielded olives from which oil could be made. In this view, therefore, the law was well calculated to attach the people to their country, and to compel them to its improvement in a most essential point-the culture of the olive. Whether oil be preferable to butter is another question, which we, with our habits, should perhaps decide in the negative; but it is certain that butter is despised or unknown in countries the inhabitants of which possess an adequate supply of good oil.

CHAPTER XV.

1 The seventh year a year of release for the poor. 7 It must be no let of lending or giving. 12 An Hebrew servant, 16 except he will not depart, must in the seventh year go forth free and well furnished. 19 All firstling males of the cattle are to be sanctified unto the Lord.

AT the end of 'every seven years thou shalt make a release.

2 And this is the manner of the release: Every 'creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD's release.

3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;

4 'Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it:

5 Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day.

6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not bor

1 Levit. 25. 2, 4.

2 Heb. master of the lending of his hand.
5 Matth. 5, 42, Luke 6, 34. 6 Heb, word.

row; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:

8 'But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.

9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee.

10 Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.

11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

12 ¶ And if thy brother, an Hebrew man,

8 Or, to the end that there be no poor among you.
7 Heb. Beliah 8 Exod. 21. 2. Jer. 34, 14.

4 Chap. 28. 12.

or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty :

14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;

17 "Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his car unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.

19 "All the firstling males that come of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thy bullock, nor shear the firstling of thy sheep.

20 Thou shalt eat it before the LORD thy God year by year in the place which the LORD shall choose, thou and thy houshold

21 "And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the LORD thy God.

22 Thou shalt eat it within thy gates: the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike, as the roebuck, and as the hart.

23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground

as water.

Chap. 17. 1. Ecclus. 35. 12. 12 Chap. 12. 16, 23.

18 It shall not seem hard unto thee, when 9 Exod. 21. 6. 10 Exod. 34. 19. 11 Levit. 22. 20. Verse 2. "Every creditor that lendeth." &c.-The Hebrew laws concerning debt were remarkably different, in many respects, from those which prevail in European countries. This difference probably arose in a great degree from the peculiarities in the condition of the people; but, however this be, their singularity, their high antiquity, and the sanetion under which they come to us, recommend them to greater attention than they seem generally to have received. It will be recollected, that it was provided that, as soon as Palestine was conquered, there should not be one individual without property. Every one had his hereditary land, which he might alienate until the fiftieth year, but not for ever. Poverty, therefore, could rarely prevent the ultimate safety of what was advanced in loan: and of an insolvent debtor, destitute of property on which execution could be made, the Hebrew could scarcely have an idea. The following useful summary of these laws is from T. H. Horne, who seems to have condensed it from Michaelis. It will serve as an index to the various details which we shall consider separately, as they hereafter come under our notice. The debt which remained unpaid until the seventh or sabbatic year (during which the soil remained without cultivation, and, consequently, a person was supposed not to be in a condition to make payments) could not be exacted during that period (Deut. xv. 1-11). But, at other times, in case the debt was not paid, the creditor might seize, first, the heredi ary land of the debtor, and enjoy its produce till the debt was paid, or at least until the year of jubilee; or, secondly, his houses. These might be sold in perpetuity, except those belonging to the Levites (Lev. xxv. 14—32). Thirdly, in case the house or land was not sufficient to cancel the debt, or if it so happened that the debtor had none, the person of the debtor might be sold, together with his wife and children, if he had any. This is implied in Lev. xxv. 39; and this custom is alluded to in Job xxiv. 9. It existed in the time of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 1); and on the return of the Jews from their Babylonish captivity, some rich persons exercised this right over their poor debtors (Nehem. v. 1-13). Our Lord alludes to the same custom in Matt. xviii. 25. As the person of the debtor might thus be seized and sold, his cattle and furniture might consequently be liable for his debts. This is alluded to by Solomon, in Prov. xxii. 27. It does not appear that imprisonment for debt existed in the age of Moses, but it seems to have prevailed in the time of Jesus Christ."-(Introduction,' vol. iii. p. 141.)

Postponing, for the present, the consideration of these various points, except one or two which are adverted to in the immediately following notes, it is yet desirable to warn the reader, that, in the laws of Moses on the subject of debt, he is not to expect to find any regulations directed or modified by a regard to the interests of commerce. It does not appear to have been by any means a part of the Divine plan concerning the Israelites, that they should become in any way a commercial people. We seem to discover everywhere the intention that the people should subsist chiefly by agriculture. Agriculture was, indeed, the foundation of the Mosaic polity; as distinguished from commerce, on the one hand, and, on the other, from that pastoral life which they had hitherto led, and to which they appear to have been much attached.

"He shall not exact it."-It has occasioned considerable discussion whether, by this release every seventh year, we are to understand that all debts were then to be completely and for ever extinguished, or only that creditors were not this year to sue for their debts, or take any measures to enforce their claim; considering that the debtor did not this year derive any profit from his land. Le Clerc, Michaelis, and others, warmly protest against the former interpretation, as not only unwarranted by the text, but as in the highest degree improbable in itself. The latter writer observes, That every seventh year all debts should be extinguished, is a law so absurd, so unjust, and so destructive to the interests of all classes of the community, that we are not warranted to ascribe it to a legislator, unless he has enacted it in terms the most express, and such as leave not a shadow of doubt as to his meaning." His objections, it will be observed, apply not merely to the periodical cancelment of debts, but to its being repeated within so short a period as seven years. History affords no example of such an expedient; and although an extinction of debts with Nove Tubula were sometimes talked of by the tribunes of the people at Rome, such measures were dreaded by every good citizen,

and even by many who were themselves debtors, as a very great evil, on account of the confusion which it must have made in the commonwealth. It is true that the Talmudists did understand the extinction as septennial and perpetual; but their unsupported authority is of very little weight; and even they except some kinds of debts and debtors from the operation of this privilege. Josephus, who must have well known what was considered the law on this point while the Jews had yet a political existence in Palestine, says that the law directed this extinction of debts every fifneth yearthat is, the year of jubilee. But whether this was actually the intention of Moses, or whether the Jews, after their return from the Babylonish captivity, misunderstood his meaning, seems uncertain. He certainly does not mention that claims were to be cancelled in that year; but it might seem to follow, from the analogy of his laws concerning the sale of lands and slavery; and it is certain that a creditor would not be able, after the jubilee, to seize the land or person of the debtor, or even the persons of his children; but we are not equally certain that other descriptions of property might not remain open to his claims. Upon the whole, when we consider the entire passage to verse 12, we cannot help thinking that the relief spoken of is a final remission; but as it is also mentioned as an act of kindness and mercy to the poor, and that in the strongest manner possible, we have little hesitation in so restricting it, and understanding, with Bishop Patrick, that the "release" was "an entire acquittance, not of debts contracted by sale of land or goods to those who were able to pay, but of money lent to a neighbour or friend merely to relieve his poverty, not to carry on trade or make a purchase. For nothing could be more absurd than to extinguish such debts whereby the borrower was enriched." This explanation seems to obviate all the difficulties of the subject. It does not preclude the supposition that other debts, not perpetually extinguished, were not sued for during the sabbatic year; and this is the more probable as it would be obviously very inconvenient for all but very wealthy persons to make payments during this year, in which no returns were obtained from land.

11. “For the poor sha'l never cease out of the land.”—We thus see, that although Moses had, by his statutes respecting the division of the land, studied to prevent any Israelite from being born poor, yet he nowhere indulges the expectation that there would be no poor persons in the land. But it is important to know that by the poor he did not mean mendicants; nor can we gather from his writings that there were such persons, or that he expected there would be such. The plan of earning bread by begging as a profession does not appear to have been known in those early times; at least not to the Israelites. If it had been so, we should probably have seen laws against mend.city and idleness, as well as exhortations to charity. "The word beggar," says Michaelis, "nowhere occurs in his writings, nor indeed in the whole Old Testament; and I should not so much as,know how to express it in Hebrew, unless I was to frame a word by the analogy of the language. The verb to beg ), likewise, is not to be found in all the Pentateuch; and but once in the Psalms, among the curses which David's enemies imprecate upon him (Psl. cix. 10). It is in the New Testament that we first find mention of beggars; not, however, strolling beggars, and such as are able to work, but blind, diseased, and maimed poor people, who lay by the way-side, before the gate of the Temple, and also at the doors of the rich." It is evident, indeed, that many of the Mosaical statutes in favour of the poor are wholly inapplicable to mendicants.

12. “If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee.”—The following are the circumstances under which a native Hebrew might become a slave. He might, if pressed by poverty, sell himself, and that not only to an Israelite, but even to a stranger that lived among the Israelites. The person who had contracted debts which he had no means of paying, was sold for the benefit of his creditor, or was delivered into the hands of his creditor to reimburse him by his services as a slave. So also, a person who committed a theft, was sold for a slave, if he had not the means of making restitution for what he had stolen, according to the proportion required by the laws, which was double the amount, and in some cases four or five times as much (Exod. xxii. 3). And it was not only the person of the debtor that was liable to the claims of the creditor, but his right extended also to the wife and children. It seems also that children might be enslaved for the debt of a deceased father (2 Kings iv. 1), and that the parent sometimes satisfied his creditors not in his own person, but by giving his children to them for slaves (Isa. 1. 1). Some of these cases are not mentioned in the law; and those that are, seem to have been ancient usages which the law did not abolish, rather than usages originated by the law. The only regulation that looks like positive law is that concerning the thief, and those which provide for the safety, kind treatment, and, ultimately, liberty of the slave. The condition of the native slaves, under the law, seems to have been far from severe or degrading; and a few verses on we see it assumed that their state might often be such as to make them desire its continuance when the period of emancipation arrived. "In the seventh year.”—This is mentioned as the period of emancipation also in Exod. xxi.; but in Lev. xxv., the fiftieth year-the jubilee, is named. It would he..ce appear, and is indeed reasonable, that the period depended on circumstances, that for which the slave was sold or sold himself, depending upon the amount of the claims upon him, or the extent of his necessity. The period was however never longer than the fift eth year, when a general emancipation took place. Probably the term of seven years gave occasion to a sim lar term being adopted for apprenticeships among ourselves. When the slave went out, the wife he previously had, and his children by her, went out with him; but if his master had given him a wife, a slave like himself, he went out alone, the woman and children remaining with the master. (Exod. xxi.) In that chapter, the man's reluctance to be thus separated from his family is mentioned as possibly inducing him to wish to remain a slave, and here we find a further inducement mentioned: Because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee," verse 16.

17. "Thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door."-We see from Exod. xxi. 5, 6, that this transaction took place with the cognizance of the magistrates. Whatever was the precise meaning of the ceremony, we find that it was usual in the East to bore the ear of a slave. Bochart and Calmet quote allusions to this custom from Juvenal, Petronius Arbiter, and Cicero. The former makes a Syrian freedman (Natus ad Euphratem) say:— "The freedman bustling through, replies, First come is still First served; and I may claim my right, and will,

Though born a slave-(twere bootless to deny

What these bored ears betray to every eye).'"-Gifford.

Cicero also rallies a Libyan who pretended not to hear him by saying, "Is it not because your ears are not sufficiently bored?" It is possible that they wore ear-rings as a mark of their condition: slaves are still thus distinguished in some eastern nations. We can easily see the importance of some such regulation. It prevented a master from detaining a slave beyond the year of release, under pretence that he had promised to remain, when he had not; and on the other hand, it prevented a slave who had agreed to remain, from being turned off at some year of re.ease which might occur when he became old and unable to support himself. The Rabbins say that this engagement, formed in the seventh year, only lasted till the jubilee; but the term "for ever," more probably means "for ine. The same authorities add that the engagement being personal terminated with the life of the master, whose heirs had no power over the slave.

« 前へ次へ »