John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

Leviticus 11:1



INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS 11



This chapter treats of creatures clean and unclean, as fit or not fit to be eaten; and first of beasts, whose signs are given, Le 11:1 then of fishes, which are likewise described, Le 11:9 after that of fowls, and those that are not to be eaten are particularly named, Le 11:13 next of creeping things, which are distinguished into two sorts, as flying creeping things, of which those that are unclean, their carcasses are not even to be touched, as neither the carcasses of unclean beasts, Le 11:20 and creeping things on the earth, which defile by touching, as well as eating, and make everything unclean, upon which, being dead, they fall,

Le 11:29 and these laws are enforced from the holiness and goodness of God, Le 11:44 and the chapter is concluded with a recapitulation of them, Le 11:46.



Ver. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, and unto Aaron,.... The one being the chief magistrate, and the other the high priest, and both concerned to see the following laws put into execution; according to Jarchi, the Lord spoke to Moses that he might speak to Aaron; but being now in office, and one part of his office being to distinguish between clean and unclean, the following discourse is directed equally to him as to Moses:



saying unto them; as follows.





Leviticus 11:2



Ver. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying,.... For to them only belong the following laws, and not unto the Gentiles, as Jarchi rightly observes; these were parts of the ceremonial law, which was peculiarly given to them, and lay, among other things, in meats and drinks, and now abolished; for it is not what goes into a man that defiles him; nor is anything common or unclean of itself, but every creature of God is good if received with thanksgiving. The sons of Noah had free liberty, without any restraint or limitation, of using for food any living creature that moved upon the face of the earth; in the choice of which they were left to exercise their reason and judgment, and is the case with us now; but as men have not so nice a smell as some animals have, and cannot distinguish by their senses so well as they what food is most wholesome, which makes the exercise of their reason and judgment necessary, and the people of the Jews being a special people, and for whom the Lord had a peculiar regard; for the sake of their health, and to preserve them from diseases they were subject to, such as the leprosy and others, and to direct them to what was most salubrious and healthful, gave them the following laws; and which, though they are not obligatory upon us, yet may be a direction to us, in the use of what may be most suitable and proper food for us, the difference of climates, and of the constitutions of men's bodies, being considered: not that we are to suppose, that the case of health was the only reason of delivering out these laws to the children of Israel, for other ends, besides that, may be thought to be had in view; as to assert his sovereign right to the creatures, and his disposal of them to them according to his will and pleasure; to lay a restraint on their appetites, to prevent luxury, and to teach them self denial, and compliance with his will; as also to keep them the more from the company and conversation of the Gentiles, by whom they otherwise might be led into idolatry; and to give them an aversion to their idols, to whom the creatures forbidden them to eat, many of them were either now or would be sacred to them; and chiefly to excite to a care for purity, both inward and outward, and create in the man abhorrence of those vices which may be signified by the ill qualities of several of the creatures; and to instruct them in the difference between holy and unholy persons, with whom they should or should not have communion; see

Ac 10:11



these are the beasts that ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth; they are not particularly mentioned here, but they are in De 14:4 and they are these ten; the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois; of all which, See Gill on "De 14:4" see Gill on "De 14:5": here only some general things are observed to describe them by, as follow.





Leviticus 11:3



Ver. 3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is cloven footed,.... That is, whose hoof is parted and cloven quite through; for there are some creatures that have partitions in their feet, but not quite through, they are parted above, but underneath are joined together by a skin; wherefore both these phrases are used to describe the beasts lawful to be eaten: the Egyptians seem to have borrowed this law from the Jews, for Chaeremon says {x}, that they abstain from such four footed beasts that have only one hoof, or have many partitions, or have no horns: and so the Targum of Jonathan adds here,



"which have horns,''



which, though not in the text, agrees well with the creatures allowed by this law to be eaten, see De 14:4 for such are all horned cattle; nor are there any cattle horned forbid to be eaten:



and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that shall ye eat: who having no upper teeth cannot thoroughly chew their food at once, and therefore bring it up again out of their stomachs into their mouths and chew it over again, that it may be better prepared for digestion in the stomach, and so yield better nourishment; and this makes the flesh of such creatures fitter for food: and these creatures have more stomachs than one; the ventricles for rumination are four; the first is the paunch, which in oxen is so big as to hold food of fifty pound weight, the second the honeycomb, the third the tripe, the fourth the honey tripe, and to which are helpful the pectoral muscle, the abdomen, with the diaphragm {y}: all this might have a moral and spiritual meaning in it, and may be applied either to ministers of the word; who ought rightly to divide the word of truth, and give to everyone their part, and who should walk uprightly according to it, and who should give themselves up wholly to the meditation of it, and thoroughly digest it; and study to show themselves workmen, that need not to be ashamed; or to private Christians, who have a discerning spirit in spiritual things, and can distinguish not only morality from immorality, but spiritual things from carnal, heavenly things from earthly, the voice of Christ from the voice of a stranger, and the doctrines of Christ from the doctrines of men; and who also walk as they should do, by faith on Christ, in the ways of God, and according to the Gospel; these chew the cud, meditate on the word, feed upon it while delivered, recall it, and have it brought to their remembrance by the divine Spirit, and ponder it in their hearts; see Ps 1:1.



{x} Apud Porphyr. de Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 7. {y} Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 278, 279.





Leviticus 11:4



Ver. 4. Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat,.... To whom one of these descriptive characters may agree but not the other:



of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: there being some that chewed the cud but did not divide the hoof; others that divided the hoof but did not chew the cud, of which instances are given as follow:



[as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you; and not to be eaten, whether male or female; or rather, "though he cheweth the cud"; and this account agrees with what naturalists give of it; so Aristotle {z} says it has not both rows of teeth, but wants its upper teeth, and chews as horned cattle do, and has bellies like theirs; for they have more bellies than one, as the sheep, and goat, and hart, and others; since the service of the mouth is not sufficient to grind the food for want of teeth, this is supplied by the bellies, which receive the food one after another; in the first it is undigested, in the second somewhat more digested, in the third more fully, in the fourth completely: and so many bellies the camel has, as a very learned searcher {a} into these things observes; the first is the biggest, the second very small, the third much greater than the second, and the fourth equal to the second; in the second belly between the tunics, he says, seem to be the hydrophylacia, in which the water they drink is kept, very commodious for these animals passing through sandy deserts, so that they can long bear thirst: Pliny {b} says four days: Leo Africanus {c} relates a method used by travellers in the deserts of Lybia, who being in extreme want of water kill one of their camels, out of whose intestines they press out water; this they drink, this they carry about till they find a well, or must die with thirst: and the account also which is given of the feet of these creatures agrees; it parts the hoof, but not thoroughly, it is not cleft quite through, and so comes not up to Moses's descriptive character of clean creatures; its hoof is divided in two, but so divided, as Aristotle {d} observes, that it is but little divided on the back part unto the second joint of the toes; the fore part is very little divided, to the first joint of the toes, and there is something between the parts, as in the feet of geese: and so Pliny says {e} it has two hoofs, but the lower part of the foot is but very little divided, so that it is not thoroughly cleft: but though the flesh of these creatures was forbidden the Jews, it was eaten by people of other nations; both Aristotle {f} and Pliny {g} commend the milk of camels; and by the former the flesh of them is said to be exceeding sweet; and Diodorus Siculus relates {h}, that what with their milk and their flesh, which is eaten, as well as on account of their carrying burdens, they are very profitable unto men; and Strabo {i} says, the Nomades eat the flesh and milk of camels; and so the Africans, according to Leo Africanus {k}; and a countryman of ours {l}, who lived some time in Arabia, relates, that when a camel falls they kill it, and the poorer sort of the company eat it; and he says that he himself ate of camel's flesh, and that it was very sweet and nourishing: these creatures, in the mystic sense, may be an emblem of such persons, that carry their heads high, are proud and haughty, that boast of their riches, or trust in their righteousness.



{z} De Part. Animal. l. 3. c. 14. {a} Scheuchzer. ib. p. 280. {b} Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 18. {c} Descriptio Africae, l. 1. p. 75. {d} Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 1. {e} L. 11. c. 45. {f} Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 26. {g} Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 41. {h} Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 137. {i} Geograph. l. 16. p. 535. {k} Descriptio Africae, l. 1. p. 48. l. 6. 617, 620. Arab. Geogr. Clim. 1. par. 1. 3. {l} Pitts's Account of the Mahometans, c. 8. p. 106. Vid. Hieron, adv. Jovinian. l. 2.





Leviticus 11:5



Ver. 5. And the coney,.... Or rabbit:



because he cheweth the cud; or "though he cheweth"; which yet, some observe, the coney or rabbit does not, it having upper teeth, and therefore they think some other creature is meant by Shaphan, the word here used; and Bochart {m} is of opinion, that the Aljarbuo of the Arabians, a sort of mountain mouse, is meant, which chews the cud and divides not the hoof, and resides in rocks, which agrees with the account of the Shaphan in Pr 30:26 but this is rejected by Dr. Shaw {n}, who takes the creature here to be the Daman Israel, or Israel's lamb, an animal of Mount Lebanon, a harmless creature of the same size and quality with the rabbit, and with the like incurvating posture, and disposition or the fore teeth, but is of a browner colour, with smaller eyes, and a head more pointed, like the marmots; the fore feet likewise are short, and the hinder are nearly as long in proportion as those of the jerboa; and though this animal is known to burrow sometimes in the ground, yet its usual residence and refuge is in the holes and clifts of the rocks; but a learned man {o}, and very inquisitive in the things of nature, tells us, that the "cuniculus", coney, or rabbit, this sort of animals do chew half an hour after eating:



but divideth not the hoof; which is well known of this creature:



he [is] unclean unto you; not fit or proper to be eaten of, but to be abstained from as an unclean animal; and may be an emblem of timorous persons, as these creatures by Aristotle {p} are observed to be, and it is well known they are; even of the fearful and unbelieving, reckoned among the impure, who will have their portion in the lake of fire, Re 21:8.



{m} Hierozoic par. 1. l. 3. c. 33. col. 1015, 1016. {n} Travels, p. 177, 348. Ed. 2. {o} Scheuchzer. ut supra, (Physic. Sacr. vol. 2.) p. 281. {p} Hist. Animal. l. 1. c. 1.





Leviticus 11:6



Ver. 6. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud,.... Or, "though he chews" it:



but divideth not the hoof, he [is] unclean to you; and so not to be eaten; so Plutarch {q} says, that the Jews are said to abstain from the hare, disdaining it as a filthy and unclean animal, and yet was in the greatest esteem with the Romans of any four footed beast, as Martial says {r}: Moses, as Bochart {s} and other learned men observe, is the only writer that speaks of the hare as chewing the cud; though they also observe, that Aristotle {t} makes mention of that in common with those that do chew the cud, namely a "coagulum" or "runnet" in its stomach; his words are,



"all that have many bellies have what is called puetia, a coagulum or runnet, and of them that have but one belly, the hare;''



only that: this creature being prone to lust, may be an emblem of lustful persons, who give up themselves to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness, Eph 4:19.



(The "hare" is this verse may be an animal that is now is extinct but was alive at the time of Moses. It is only other mentioned in De 14:7. Editor.)



{q} Sympos. l. 9. c. 5. {r} L. 13. Epigr. 87. {s} Ut supra, (Hierozoic par. 1. l. 3.) c. 31. col. 977. {t} De Part. Animal. l. 3. c. 15. & Hist. Animal. l. 3. c. 21.





Leviticus 11:7



Ver. 7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed,.... Not only its hoofs are parted, but cloven quite through, and so in this respect answers Moses's first descriptive character of clean creatures; though Aristotle {u} and Pliny {w} speak of some kind of swine in Illyricum, Paeonia, and other places, which have solid hoofs; but perhaps these were not properly swine, though so called:



yet he cheweth not the cud; and a learned physician observes {x}, that such creatures that chew not the cud, so perfect a chyle cannot be elaborated by them as is by those that chew the cud, and therefore their flesh must be less wholesome; and of the swine, he says {y}, they have but one belly, and so there is no rumination or chewing the cud by them; wherefore they are to be placed, and are in a lower degree than the camel, the coney, and the hare; and as they cannot digest the chyle so well as those that chew the cud, and also live upon most sordid and filthy food, the eating of swine's flesh, he observes, must produce many inconveniences to the body, as especially scorbutic, arthritic, scabious, and leprous disorders: so Manetho the Egyptian says {z}, that he that eats swine's milk is liable to be filled with the leprosy; and Maimonides {a} gives it as the principal reason of its being forbid the Jews, because it is such a filthy creature, and eats such filthy things:



he [is] unclean to you: and so it has always been accounted by the Jews, and nothing is more abominable to them, as is even testified by Heathen {b} writers; and in this they have been imitated by many nations, particularly the Egyptians, who, as Herodotus says {c}, reckon swine a very filthy creature; so that if anyone does but touch it passing by, he is obliged to plunge himself into a river with his clothes on; and keepers of them may not go into any of their temples, nor do the rest of the Egyptians intermarry with them, but they marry among themselves; the reason of this their abhorrence of swine, Aelianus says {d}, is because they are so gluttonous that they will not spare their own young, nor abstain from human flesh; and this, says he, is the reason why the Egyptians hate it as an impure and voracious animal: likewise the Arabians entirely abstain from swine's flesh, as Solinus says {e}, who adds, that if any of this sort of creatures is carried into Arabia, it immediately dies; and the same Pliny {f} attests: and so the Phoenicians, the near neighbours of the Jews, would not eat the flesh of them; hence Antoninus is said to abstain from it after the manner of the Phoenicians {g}, unless the historian should mean the Jews; also the Gallo-Grecians or Galatians {h}; nay, even the Indians have such an abhorrence of it, that they would as soon taste of human flesh as taste of that {i}, and it is well known that the Mahometans abstain from it; and they have such an aversion to it, that if any chance to kill a wild pig, for tame they have none, they look on the merit of it to be almost equivalent to the killing a Christian in fight {k}: now these creatures may be an emblem of filthy and impure sinners, especially apostates, who return to their former impurities and wallow in them, 2Pe 2:22.



{u} Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 1. {w} Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 46. {x} Scheuchzer. ut supra, (Physic. Sacr. vol. 2.) p. 282. {y} Ib. p. 284. {z} Apud Aelian. de Animal. l. 10. c. 16. {a} Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 48. {b} "Et vetus indulget", &c. Juvenal. Satyr. 6. "nec distare putant", &c. Ib. Satyr. 14. Vid. Porphyr. de Abstinentia, l. 4. sect. 11, 12. {c} Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 47. {d} Ut supra. (Apud Aelian. de Animal. l. 10. c. 16.) {e} Polyhistor. c. 46. {f} Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 52. {g} Herodian. Hist. l. 5. c. 16. {h} Pausan. Achaica, sive, l. 7. p. 430. {i} Ctesias apud Aelian. de Animal. l. 16. c. 37. {k} Pitts's Account of the Mahometans, p. 163.





Leviticus 11:8



Ver. 8. Of their flesh shall ye not eat,.... Meaning, not of swine only, but of the camel, coney, and hare:



and their carcass shall ye not touch; which must not be understood of touching them in any sense; for then it would have been unlawful for a Jew to have rode upon a camel, or to take out and make use of hog's lard in medicine; but of touching them in order to kill them, and prepare them for food, and eat them; and indeed all unnecessary touching of them is forbidden, lest it should bring them to the eating of them; though perhaps it may chiefly respect the touching of them dead:



they [are] unclean to you: one and all of them; for as this was said of each of them in particular, so now of all of them together; and which holds good of all wild creatures not named, to whom the description above belongs, and which used to be eaten by other nations; some of which were called Pamphagi, from eating all sorts, and others Agriophagi, from eating wild creatures, as lions, panthers, elephants {l}, &c.



{l} Plin. l. 6. c. 30. Solinus, c. 43.





Leviticus 11:9



Ver. 9. These shall ye eat of all that [are] in the waters,.... In the waters of the sea, or in rivers, pools, and ponds; meaning fishes; for though some persons abstain from eating them entirely, as the Egyptian priests, as Herodotus {m} relates; and it was a part of religion and holiness, not with the Egyptians only, but with the Syrians and Greeks, to forbear eating them {n}; and Julian {o} gives two reasons why men should abstain from fishes; the one because what is not sacrificed to the gods ought not to be used for food; and the other is, because these being immersed in the deep waters, look not up to heaven; but God gave the people of Israel liberty of eating them, under certain limitations:



whatsoever hath fins and scales, in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat; some render it disjunctively, "fins or scales" {p}; but as Maimonides {q} observes, whatsoever has scales has fins; and who also says, if a fish has but one fin and one scale, it was lawful to eat: fins to fishes are like wings to birds, and oars to boats, with which they swim and move swiftly from place to place; and scales are a covering and a protection of them; and such fishes being much in motion, and so well covered, are less humid and more solid and substantial, and more wholesome: in a spiritual sense, fins may denote the exercise of grace, in which there is a motion of the soul, Godward, Christward, and heavenward; and scales may signify good works, which adorn believers, and protect them from the reproaches and calumnies of men.



{m} Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 37. {n} Plutarch. Sympos. p. 730. {o} Orat. 5. p. 330. {p} So Bootius. {q} Hilchot Maacolot Asurot, l. 1. sect. 24.





Leviticus 11:10



Ver. 10. And all that have not fins nor scales in the seas, and in the rivers,.... Such as eels, lampreys, &c.



of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters; the former of these are interpreted by Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom of little fishes that have but a small body, and such as are created out of the waters; and the latter, of such as are produced of a male and female; or, as Maimonides {r} explains it, the one signifies the lesser creatures, such as worms and horse leeches; the other greater ones, sea beasts, as sea dogs, &c.



they shall be an abomination to you; not only unclean, and so unfit to eat, but to be had in abhorrence and detestation, as being exceeding disagreeable and unwholesome; and, as a learned man observes {s}, to these prohibited in general belong all those animals in lakes, rivers, or seas, which are of a slow motion, and which, because of the slow motion of their bodies, do not so well digest their food; and for that may be compared with four footed beasts that have but one belly, and so unwholesome as they.



{r} Hilchot Maacolot Asuret, l. 1. c. 2. sect. 12. {s} Scheuchzer. ut supra, (Physic. Sacr. vol. 2.) p. 287.





Leviticus 11:11



Ver. 11. They shall be even an abomination to you,.... This is repeated again and again, to deter from the eating of such fishes, lest there should be any desire after them:



ye shall not eat of their flesh, here mention is made of the flesh of fishes, as is by the apostle, 1Co 15:39. Aben Ezra observes, that their wise men say, this is according to the usage of words in those ages:



but you shall have their carcasses in abomination; not only abstain from eating them and touching them, but to express the utmost aversion to them.





Leviticus 11:12



Ver. 12. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters,.... Which is repeated that they might take particular notice of this law, and be careful to observe it, this being the only sign given:



that [shall be] an abomination unto you; the Targum of Jonathan says, that not only the flesh of such fish, but the broth, and pickles made of them, were to be an abomination; which contradicts what Pliny {t} relates, that the Jews made a pickle of fishes that lacked scales; so Grotius understands him: this law of the Jews is taken notice of by Porphyry {u}, who says, it is forbidden all the Jews to eat horse flesh, or fishes that lack scales, or any animal that has but one hoof: and Pliny {w}, from an ancient author, Cassius Hemina, makes mention of a law of Numa, forbidding the use of fish that had not scales, in feasts made for the gods.



{t} Nat. Hist. l. 31. c. 8. {u} De Abstinentia, l. 4. c. 14. {w} Nat. Hist. l. 32. c. 2.





Leviticus 11:13



Ver. 13. And these [are they which] ye shall have in abomination among the fowls,.... No description or sign is given of fowls, as of beasts and fishes, only the names of those not to be eaten; which, according to Maimonides, are twenty four; so that all the rest but these are clean fowls, and might be eaten; wherefore the same writer observes {x}, that,



"whoever was expert in these kinds, and in their names, might eat of every fowl which was not of them, and there was no need of an inquiry:''



but what creatures are intended by these is not now easy to know; very different are the sentiments both of the Jews and Christians concerning them; and indeed it does not much concern us Christians to know what are meant by them, but as curiosity may lead us to such an inquiry, not thinking ourselves bound by these laws; but it is of moment with the Jews to know them, who think they are; wherefore, to supply this deficiency, they venture to give some signs by which clean and unclean fowls may be known, and they are three; such are clean who have a superfluous claw, and also a craw, and a crop that is uncovered by the hand {y}; and on the contrary they are unclean, and not to be eaten, as says the Targum of Jonathan, which have no superfluous talon, or no craw, or a crop not uncovered:



they shall not be eaten, they [are] an abomination; and they are those that follow:



the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray; about the first of these there is no difficulty, all agree the eagle is intended; which has its name either from the nature of its sight, or from the casting of its feathers, or from its tearing with its bill: it is a bird of prey, a very rapacious creature, and sometimes called the bird of Jupiter, and sacred to the gods; and these may be the reasons why forbid to be eaten, as well as because its flesh is hard, and not fit for food, and unwholesome; "the ossifrage" or "bone breaker" has its name from its tearing its prey and breaking its bones for the marrow, as the word "peres" here used signifies, Mic 3:3 it is said to dig up bodies in burying places to eat what it finds in the bones {z}: this is thought to be of the eagle kind, as it is reckoned by Pliny {a}, though Aristotle {b} speaks of it as very different from the eagle, as larger than that, and of an ash colour; and is so kind to the eagle's young, that when they are cast out by that, it takes them and brings them up: the "ospray" is the "halioeetus", or sea eagle, as the Septuagint version and several others render it; which Aristotle {c} describes as having a large and thick neck, crooked wings, and a broad tail, and resides about the sea and shores: Pliny {d} speaks of it as having a very clear sight, and, poising itself on high, having sight of a fish in the sea, will rush down at once and fetch it out of the water; and he also reports that she will take her young before they are fledged, and oblige them to look directly against the rays of the sun, and if any of them wink, or their eyes water, she casts them out of her nest as a spurious brood. Aristotle {e}, who relates the same, says she kills them. The name of this creature, in the Hebrew text, seems to be taken from its strength; wherefore Bochart {f} is of opinion, that the "melanoeetos", or black eagle, which, though the least of eagles as to its size, exceeds all others in strength, as both Aristotle {g} and Pliny {h} say; and therefore, as the latter observes, is called by the Romans "valeria", from its strength. Maimonides {i} says of these two last fowls, which we render the ossifrage and the ospray, that they are not to be found on the continent, but in the desert places of the isles of the sea very far off, even those which are at the end of the habitable world.



{x} Maacolot Asurot, c. 1. sect. 14, 15. {y} T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 75. 1. Maimon. ib. sect. 15. {z} Calmet's Dictionary in the word "Ossifraga". {a} Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3. {b} Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 6. l. 8. c. 3. & l. 9. c. 34. {c} Ib. l. 9. c. 32. {d} Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3.) {e} Ib. c. 34. {f} Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2. c. 6. col. 188. {g} Ut supra, (Hist. Animal. l. 9.) c. 32. {h} Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3.) {i} Maacolot Asurot, c. 1. sect. 17.





Leviticus 11:14



Ver. 14. And the vulture, and the kite after his kind. Perhaps it might be better if the version was inverted, and the words be read, "and the kite, and the vulture, after his kind"; and the last word is by us rendered the vulture in Job 28:7 and very rightly, since the kite is not remarkable for its sight, any other than all rapacious creatures are, whereas the vulture is to a proverb; and besides, of the vulture there are two sorts, as Aristotle says {k}, the one lesser and whiter, the other larger and more of an ash colour; and there are some that are of the eagle kind {l}, whereas there is but one sort of kites; though Ainsworth makes mention of two, the greater of a ruddy colour, common in England, and the lesser of a blacker colour, known in Germany, but produces no authority for it; however, these are both ravenous creatures: of the kite, Aelianus says {m}, it is very rapacious, and will take meat out of the meat market, but not touch any sacrificed to Jupiter; the truth of which may well be questioned; and of vultures he reports {n}, that they will watch a dying man, and follow armies going to battle, expecting prey; See Gill on "Mt 24:28".



{k} Hist. Animal. l. 8. c. 3. {l} Aristot. ib. l. 9. c. 32. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3. Aelian. de Animal. l. 2. c. 46. {m} De Animal. l. 2. c. 42. {n} Ib. c. 46.





Leviticus 11:15



Ver. 15. Every raven after his kind. The red raven, night raven, the water raven, river raven, wood raven, &c. this also includes crows, rooks, pies, jays, and jackdaws, &c. The raven was with the Heathens sacred to Apollo {o}, is a voracious creature, and so reckoned among unclean ones, and unfit for food; nor does the care that God takes of these creatures, or the use he has made of them, contradict this; see

Job 38:41.



{o} Aelian. De Animal. l. 1. c. 48. & l. 7. c. 18.





Leviticus 11:16



Ver. 16. And the owl,.... The great and little owls being after mentioned, it seems best, by the word here used, to understand the "ostrich" with the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, the Oriental versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan: the account which Pliny {p} gives of the African and Ethiopic ostriches is this; that they are the largest of birds, and almost of the kind of beasts; that they exceed the height of a horseman on horseback, and are swifter than the horses; that their wings are given them to help them in their running, otherwise they are not flying fowls, nor are they lifted up from the earth. Their hoofs are like to those of harts, with which they fight, and are cloven, and serve to gather up stones, which in their flight they throw with their feet against them that follow them; they have a wonderful concoction, digesting whatever is swallowed down; and, according to Galen {q}, all the parts of them, their flesh and their eggs, are hard and difficult of digestion, and excermentitious: Aben Ezra says {r}, their flesh is as dry as a stick, and it is not usual to eat it, for there is no moisture in it; and therefore nothing can be eaten of the whole species, but the daughter or young one, for that being a female and little, there is some moisture in it; but not so the male when little; wherefore as the flesh of this creature is always reckoned by the Jews as unlawful to be eaten, it may the rather be supposed to be intended here, since if not here, it cannot be thought to be any where observed; and yet we find that both the eggs and the flesh of this creature have been eaten by some people: their eggs with the Indians were reckoned delicate eating, as Aelianus {s} reports; and near the Arabians and Ethiopians were a people, as both Diodorus Siculus {t} and Strabo {u} relate, who were called Struthophagi, from their living on ostriches; and they eat them in Peru, where they are common {w}; and in several parts of Africa, as Nubia, Numidia, and Lybia, as Leo Africanus {x} relates:



and the night hawk; which, according to Pliny {y}, is sometimes called "cymindis", and is seldom to be found in woods, sees not so well in the day time, and wages a deadly war with the eagle, and they are often found joined together: Bochart {z} who thinks that the female ostrich is meant by the preceding bird, is of opinion that the male ostrich is meant here, there being no general name in the Hebrew language to comprehend both sexes:



and the cuckoo; a bird well known by its voice at least: some have thought it to be the same with the hawk, changing its figure and voice; but this has been refuted by naturalists {a}: but though it is here forbidden to be eaten, yet its young, when fat, are said to be of a grateful savour by Aristotle: and Pliny {b} says, no bird is to be compared to it for the sweetness of its flesh, though perhaps it may not be here intended: the word is by the Septuagint rendered a "sea gull", and so it is by Ainsworth, and which is approved of by Bochart {c}:



and the hawk after his kind; a well known bird, of which, according to Aristotle {d}, there are not less than ten sorts: Pliny {e} says sixteen; it has its name in Hebrew from flying, it being a bird that flies very swiftly; see Job 39:26 the hawk was a symbol of deity with the Egyptians, and was reverenced and worshipped by them {f}.



{p} Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 1. Vid. Aristot. de Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 14. {q} Apud Bochart. Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2. c. 14. col. 226. {r} Pirush in Exod. xxiii. 19. {s} De Animal. l. 14. c. 13. {t} Bibliothec. l. 3. p. 162. {u} Geograph. l. 16. p. 531. {w} Calmet's Dictionary in the word "Ostrich". {x} Descriptio Africae, l. 6. p. 601, 605, 613. l. 9. p. 766. {y} Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 8. {z} Ut supra, (Apud Bochart. Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 15. col. 235. {a} Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 6. c. 7. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 9. {b} Ibid. {c} Ut supra, (Apud Bochart. Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2. c. 15.) col. 26. {d} Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 36. {e} Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 8. {f} Plutarch. de Iside & Osyr. Strabo. Geograph. l. 17. p. 559, 562. Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. p. 78. Clement. Alex. Stromat. l. 5. p. 566.





Leviticus 11:17



Ver. 17. And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl. Ainsworth translates the words just the reverse, and takes the first word to signify the great owl, and the last the little one; the great owl may intend the great horn owl, called sometimes the eagle owl, which is thus described; it is of the size of a goose, and has large wings, capable of extending to a surprising breadth: its head is much of the size and figure of that of a cat, and has clusters of black feathers over the ears, rising to three fingers' height; its eyes are very large, and the feathers of its rump long, and extremely soft; its eyes have yellow irises, and its beak black and crooked: it is all over mottled with white, reddish, and black spots; its legs are very strong, and are hairy down to the very ends of the toes, their covering being of a whitish brown {g}: and as this is called the great horn owl, others, in comparison of it, may be called the little owl. Some reckon several species of owls--there are of three sizes; the large ones are as big as a capon, the middle sized are as big as a wood pigeon, the smaller sort about the size of an ordinary pigeon--the horned owl is of two kinds, a larger and a smaller--the great owl is also of two sorts, that is, of a larger and a smaller kind {h}; it is a bird sacred to Minerva: but though it is pretty plain that the last of the words used signifies a bird that flies in the twilight of the evening, from whence it seems to have its name, as Aben Ezra, Ben Gersom, and other Jewish writers observe, and fitly agrees with the owl which is not seen in the day, but appears about that time; yet the first is thought by Bochart {i} to be the "onocrotalus" or "pelican", which has under its bill a bag or sack, which will hold a large quantity of anything; and the word here used has the signification of a cup or vessel, see

Ps 102:6. The word we render "cormorant", the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan paraphrase it, a drawer of fish out of the sea, so Baal Hatturim; and thus it is interpreted in the Talmud {k}; and the gloss upon it says, this is the water raven, which is the same with the cormorant; for the cormorant is no other than "corvus aquaticus", or water raven; See Gill on "Zep 2:14". The Septuagint render it by "catarrhactes", which, according to the description of it {l}, resides by rocks and shores that hang over water; and when it sees fishes swimming in it, it will fly on high, and contract its feathers, and flounce into the water, and fetch out the fish; and so is of the same nature, though not the same creature with the cormorant. Aben Ezra observes, that some say this is a bird which casts its young as soon as born; and this is said of the "catarrhactes", that it lets down its young into the sea, and draws them out again, and hereby inures them to this exercise {m}.



{g} Ray's Ornithol. p. 63. apud Supplement to Chambers's Dictionary in the word "Bubo". {h} Calmet's Dictionary in the word "Owl". {i} Ut supra, (Apud Bochard. Heirozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 20. col. 275. {k} Bab. Cholin, fol. 63. 1. {l} Gesner. apud Bochart. ut supra, ({i}) c. 21. col. 278. {m} Ibid.





Leviticus 11:18



Ver. 18. And the swan,.... This is a bird well known to us, but it is a question whether it is intended by the word here used; for though it is so rendered in the Vulgate Latin, it is differently rendered by many others: the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem call it "otia", which seems to be the same with the "otus" of Aristotle {n}, who says it is like an owl, having a tuft of feathers about its ears (from whence it has its name); and some call it "nycticorax", or the owl; and here, by Bochart {o}, and others, the owl called "noctua" is thought to be meant; and with which agrees the account some Jewish writers give of it, as Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim, who say it is a bird, which every one that sees is astonished at it, as other birds are at the owl, are frightened at the sight of it, and stupefied. But as the same word is used Le 11:30 among the creeping things, for a mole, what Jarchi observes is worthy of consideration, that this is "calve (chauve) souris" (the French word for a bat), and is like unto a mouse, and flies in the night; and that which is spoken of among the creeping things is like unto it, which hath no eyes, and they call it "talpa", a mole. The Septuagint version renders it by "porphyrion", the redshank; and so Ainsworth; and is thought to be called by the Hebrew name in the text, from the blowing of its breath in drinking; for it drinks biting, as Aristotle says {p}:



and the pelican; which has its name in Hebrew from vomiting; being said by Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim to be a bird that vomits its food; and it is observed by several naturalists {q}, of the pelican, that it swallows down shellfish, and after they have lain some time in its stomach, it vomits them up again; where having been heated, the shells open, and it picks out the meat:



and the gier eagle; or vulture eagle, the "gypoeetos" of Aristotle {r}, and who says it is called also "oripelargos", or the mountain stork; and which Pliny {s} also makes to be an eagle of the vulture kind. Dr. Shaw says {t}, that near Cairo there are several flocks of the "ach bobba" (white father, differing little from the stork but in its colour), the "percnopterus" or "oripelargos", which like the ravens about London feed upon carrion, and nastiness that is thrown without the city; this the Arabs call "rachama", the same with Mxr,

Le 11:18 and hmxr in De 14:17 and whatever bird is here meant, it must be one that is tender toward its young, as its name signifies, as Aben Ezra and Baal Hatturim observe; and though both the eagle and the vulture are rapacious birds, yet have a great regard to their young; of the eagle see De 32:11 and the vulture, with the Egyptians, was an "hieroglyphic" of a tender mother, or any merciful person; it being reported of it, that during the one hundred twenty days its young are under its care, it very rarely flies from them, being so solicitous of nourishing them; and that by making incisions in its thigh, it lets out a bloody flow of milk, when it has nothing else to support them {u}. The Talmudists {w} say, that the bird "racham", as it is here called, is the same with "serakrak", and is by the Targum of Jonathan, and in the Syriac version, here rendered "serakraka", so called from qrv, which signifies to "squall"; and, according to Munster {x}, is thought by some to be the "pica", magpie, or rather the jay; and Dr. Shaw {y} observes, that by a small transmutation of letters, that and the "shagarag" of the Arabs are the same; which he says is of the size and shape of a jay, though with a smaller bill, and shorter legs; the back is brownish; the head, neck, and belly, of a light green; and upon the wings and tail there are several spots or ringlets of a deep blue; it makes a "squalling" noise; and, he adds, it has no small affinity both in voice and plumage with the jay. The Septuagint version renders the word by the "swan"; which if not intended by the first word in this text, may by this, being kind to its young, though otherwise reckoned a cruel and unmerciful bird, as Bochart {z} observes; some think the woodpecker is meant, so called from its love to its parents {a}.



{n} Hist. Animal. l. 8. c. 12. Vid. Plin. l. 10. c. 23. {o} Ut supra, (Apud Bochard Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 23. {p} Ut supra, (Hist. Animal. l. 8.) c. 6. so Plin. l. 10. c. 46. {q} Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 10. Aelian. de Animal. l. 3. c. 20, Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 40. {r} Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 32. {s} Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 3. {t} Travels, p. 449. Ed. 2. {u} Horns Apollo & Pisidas apud Bochart. ut supra, ({o}) c. 27. col. 388. {w} T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 63. 1. {x} Dictionar. Chald. p. 4. 18. {y} Travels, p. 183. {z} Ut supra ({o}), c. 25. col. 300. {a} Plin. l. 10. c. 33.





Leviticus 11:19



Ver. 19. And the stork,..... A bird of passage, Jer 8:7 it has its name from kindness, which it exercises both to its dam, and to its young. Various writers {b} speak of the kindness of these birds to their dams, which when they are old they take care of and feed them, to which the apostle is thought to allude, 1Ti 5:4 and its tenderness to its young is no less manifest: when the city of Delf in Holland was on fire, the storks were seen very busy to save their young from the flames, and which when they could not do, threw themselves into the midst of them, and perished with them, as Drusius from the Dutch historians relates. It is said to feed upon serpents; and hence by Virgil {c} to be "invisa colubris"; and Juvenal {d} says, it nourishes its young with them; and which may be a reason of its being forbid to be eaten, and is the reason given by the Mahometans {e} for the prohibition of it; though on this account it was in great honour in Thessaly, that country being freed from serpents by it, and therefore they made it a capital crime to kill them, as Pliny {f} relates; formerly people would not eat the stork, but at present it is much esteemed for the deliciousness of its flesh {g}



the heron after her kind; this bird has its name in Hebrew from its being soon angry, as Aben Ezra observes; and Jarchi calls it the angry vulture or kite, as it is in the Talmud {h}; and adds, and it appears to me to be what they call the "heron", one sort of which named "asterias", as there is one sort so called by Pliny {i}; it becomes tame in Egypt, and so well understands the voice of a man, as Aelianus {k} reports, that if anyone by way of reproach calls it a servant or slothful, it is immediately exceeding angry. There are three kinds of herons, as both Aristotle {l} and Pliny {m}; and by a learned man of ours {n}, their names are thus given, the criel or dwarf heron, the blue heron, and the bittour; some reckon nineteen:



and the lapwing; the upupa or hoopoe; it has its name in Hebrew, according to Jarchi, from its having a double crest; and so Pliny {o} ascribes to it a double or folded crest, and speaks of it as a filthy bird; and, according to Aristotle {p} and Aelian {q}, its nest is chiefly made of human dung, that by the ill smell of it men may be kept from taking its young; and therefore may well be reckoned among impure fowl. Calmet {r} says, there is no such thing as a lapwing to be seen in any part of England; but there are such as we call so, whether the same bird with this I cannot say:



and the bat; a little bird which flies in the night, Aben Ezra says; Kimchi {s} describes it a mouse with wings, which flies in the night, and we sometimes call it the "flitter mouse"; it is a creature between a fowl and a beast; and, as Aristotle says {t}, it partakes of both, and is of neither; and it is the only fowl, as Pliny {u} observes, that has teeth and teats, that brings forth animals, and nourishes them with milk. It is a creature so very disagreeable, that one would think almost there was no need of a law to forbid the eating of it; and yet it is said by some to be eatable, and to be eaten, as Strabo {w} affirms, yea, to be delicious food. It is asserted {x}, that there is a sort of them in the east, larger than ordinary, and is salted and eaten--that there are bats in China as large as pullets, and are as delicate eating. Of these several fowls before mentioned, some are of the ravenous kind, and are an emblem of persecutors and covetous persons, and such as live by rapine and violence; others are of a lustful nature, and are an emblem of those who serve various lusts and pleasures, and give up themselves to uncleanness; others are night birds, and are a proper emblem of them whose works are works of darkness, and love darkness rather than the light; and others never rise higher than the earth, and so may denote earthly minded persons; and others live on impure things, and so fitly represent such who live an impure life; with all such the people of God are to have no fellowship.



{b} Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 13. Aelian. de Animal. l. 3. c. 23. & l. 10. c. 16. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23. {c} Georgic. l. 2. {d} Satyr. 14. {e} Apud Bochart. ut supra, (Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 2.) c. 29. col. 329. {f} Ut supra. (Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23.) {g} Calmet in the word "Stork". {h} T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 63. 1. {i} Ut supra, ({f}) c. 60. so Aristot. l. 9. c. 1. {k} De Animal. l. 5. c. 36. {l} Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 1. {m} Ut supra. (Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 23.) {n} Ainsworth's Dictionary, in voce "Ardea". {o} Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 29. {p} Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 15. {q} De Animal. l. 3. c. 26. {r} Dictionary, in the word "Lapwing". {s} Sepher Shorash. in voc. Plje. {t} De Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 13. {u} Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 61. l. 11. c. 37. {w} Geograph. l. 16. {x} Calmet's Dictionary in the word "Bat".





Leviticus 11:20



Ver. 20. All fowls that creep,.... Or rather "every creeping thing that flies"; for what are designed are not properly fowls, but, as the Jewish writers interpret them, flies, fleas, bees, wasps, hornets, locusts, &c. so the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, Ben Gersom, and Maimonides {y}:



going upon [all] four; that is, upon their four feet, when they walk or creep:



[these shall be] an abomination to you; not used as food, but detested as such.



{y} Maacolot Asurot, c. 2. l. 5.





Leviticus 11:21



Ver. 21. Yet these may ye eat,.... Which are after described and named:



of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four; even though it is a creeping thing that flies and goes upon four feet, provided they be such,



which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; there is a double reading of this clause; the textual reading is, "which have not legs", and is followed by several interpreters and translators; and the marginal reading, which we follow, is, "which have legs"; and both are to be regarded as true, and written by Moses, as Ainsworth observes; for locusts are born without legs, and yet creep low, as Pliny asserts {z}, and they have them afterwards; and it is a canon of the Jews, that what have not legs or wings now, or have not wings to cover the greatest part of them, but shall have after a time when grown up, these are as free (to eat) now, as when grown up {a}. Dr. Shaw thinks {b} the words may bear this construction, "which have knees upon" or "above their [hinder] legs, to leap withal upon the earth"; and applying this to the locust afterwards, and only instanced in, he observes, that this has the two hindermost of its legs and feet much stronger, larger, and longer than any of the foremost. In them the knee, or the articulation of the leg and thigh, is distinguished by a remarkable bending or curvature, whereby it is able, whenever prepared, to jump, to spring, or raise itself up with great force and activity. And these Aristotle {c} calls the leaping parts; and though he attributes to the locust six feet, as does also Pliny {d}, yet he takes the two leaping parts into the account; whereas Moses distinguishes those two from the four feet; and so Austin {e} observes, that Moses does not reckon among the feet the two hinder thighs with which locusts leap, which he calls clean, and thereby distinguishes them from such unclean flying creatures which do not leap with their thighs, such as beetles; and so the Jewish writers always describe a clean locust as having four feet, and two legs, thighs, or knees. Maimonides {f} gives three signs of them, which are these, whatsoever has four feet and four wings, which cover the greatest part of its body in length, and the greatest part of the compass of it, and has two thighs or knees to leap with, they are of the clean kind; and although its head is long, and it hath a tail, if its name is "chagob" (a locust) it is clean.



{z} Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 29. {a} Maimon. ib. c. 1. sect. 23. {b} Travels, p. 420. {c} De Part. Animal. l. 4. c. 6. {d} Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 48. {e} Retract. l. 2. c. 15. {f} Maacolot Asurot, c. 1. sect. 22.





Leviticus 11:22



Ver. 22. [Even] these of them ye may eat, &c] The four following ones, which seem to be no other than four sorts of locusts:



the locust after his kind; this is the common locust, called by the name of Arbeh, from the great multiplication and vast multitudes of them; the phrase, "after his kind", and which also is used in all the following instances, signifies the whole entire species of them, which might be eaten:



and the bald locust after his kind; which in the Hebrew text is Soleam, and has its name, as Aben Ezra suggests, from its ascending rocks: but since locusts do not climb rocks, or have any peculiar regard for them, rather this kind of locust may be so called, from their devouring and consuming all that come in their way {g}, from the Chaldee word Melo, which signifies to swallow, devour, and consume; but why we should call it the bald locust is not so clear, though it seems there were such, since the Jews describe some that have no baldness, which the gloss explains, whose head is not bald {h}, which shows that some are bald; and so, this is described by Kimchi {i}, it has an eminence, a rising, or bunch upon it; some render it baldness, and it hath no tail, and its head is long; and so Ben Melech:



and the beetle after his kind; which is another sort of locust called Chargol, and should not be rendered a beetle, for no sort of beetles are eatable, nor have legs to leap withal, and so come not under the general description given of such flying, creeping things, fit to eat: Kimchi says it is one kind of a locust {k}, and Hiscuni derives its name from dxt and lgr, because it strives to leap with its feet, which answers to the above descriptive character: the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions, and some others, render it by Ophiomachus, a fighter with serpents, to which the locust is an enemy, and kills them, taking fast hold of their jaws, as Pliny says {l}, and so Aristotle {m}:



and the grasshopper after his kind; this is another, and the fourth kind of the locust that might be eaten; its name is Chagab, from the Arabic word Chaguba, "to vail", locusts vailing the light of the sun: and according to the Jewish doctors, it is a name which every locust fit to eat should have;



"among the locusts (fit for food) are these, who have four feet, and four wings and thighs, and wings covering the greatest part of them, and whose name is Chagab {n};''



and commentators say {o}, it must be called by this name, as well as have those signs: the difference between these several sorts is with them this; the Chagab has a tail, but no bunch; Arbeh neither bunch nor tail; and Soleam has a bunch, but not a tail; and Chargol has both bunch and tail {p}: Maimonides {q} reckons up eight sorts of them fit to eat; and these creatures were not only eaten by the Jews, but by several other nations: with the Parthians they were very agreeable and grateful food, as Pliny {r} relates; who also says {s}, that some part of the Ethiopians live only upon them all the year, hardened in smoke, and with salt: Diodorus Siculus {t} makes mention of the same, and calls them Acridophagi, locust eaters, and gives a particular account of their hunting and taking them, and preserving them for food; and so does Strabo {u}; and the same Solinus {w} relates of those that border on Mauritania; and they are still eaten in Barbary, where they dry them in ovens to preserve them, and then either eat them alone, or pounded and mixed with milk: their taste is said to be like shrimps {x}; and Bochart {y} has shown, from various writers, that they were a delicious food with the Greeks, especially among the common people; and so they are with the Indians {z}.



{g} So R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 88. 1. {h} T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 65. 2. {i} Sepher Shorash. in voc. Melo. {k} Ib. in voc. lwgrx. {l} Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 29.) {m} Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 6. {n} Misn. Cholin, c. 3. sect. 7. {o} Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. {p} Vid. T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 65. 2. {q} Maacolot Asurot, c. 1. sect. 21. {r} Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 29. {s} Ib. l. 6. c. 30. {t} Bibliothec. l. 3. p. 162, 163. {u} Geograph. l. 16. p. 531. {w} Polyhistor. c. 43. {x} Sir Hans Sloane's Natural History of Jamaica, vol. 1. p. 29. {y} Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 4. c. 7. col. 490, 491. {z} Agreement of Customs of the East Indians and Jews, art. 12. p. 60.





Leviticus 11:23



Ver. 23. But all [other] flying creeping things,.... Excepting the four sorts before mentioned, wherefore we rightly supply the word "other":



which have four feet; or more; the Vulgate Latin version adds, "only", but wrongly; for those that have more are unclean, and forbidden to be eaten, excepting those in the preceding verse; and most creeping things that fly have six feet, as the locusts themselves, reckoning their leaping legs into the number; though it may be observed, that those creatures that have six feet have but four equal ones, on which they walk or creep; and the two foremost, which are longer, are as hands to them to wipe their eyes with, and protect them from anything that may fall into them and hurt them; they not being able to see clearly because of the hardness of their eyes, as Aristotle {a} observes, and particularly it may be remarked of the fly, as it is by Lucian {b}, that though it has six feet it only goes on four, using the other two foremost as hands; and therefore you may see it walking on four feet, with something eatable in its hands, lifting them up on high, just after the manner of men: now all such creatures that have four feet or more, excepting the above,



[shall be] an abomination unto you; abhorred as food, and abstained from.



{a} Ut supra. (Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 6.) {b} De Musca.





Leviticus 11:24



Ver. 24. And for these ye shalt be unclean,.... That is, for eating them; or should they eat them they would be unclean:



whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until the even; not only he was unclean that ate them, but he that even touched their dead bodies was reckoned unclean; might not go into the tabernacle, nor have conversation with men, nor eat of the holy things, which were forbid men in any uncleanness; and though there is no mention of his washing himself, it may be understood, this being a short or concise way of speaking, as Aben Ezra observes; who adds, that it was necessary that he should wash himself in water; which was typical of washing and cleansing by the grace and blood of Christ, without which a man cannot be cleansed from the least sin, and pollution by it; and may signify that during the legal dispensation there was no proper cleansing from sin, until the evening of the world, when Christ came and shed his blood for the cleansing of it.





Leviticus 11:25



Ver. 25. And whosoever beareth [ought] of the carcass of them,.... That carries them from one place to another, out of the camp, city, village, or house or field where they may lie; and though this is done with a good design, as being offensive or infectious, yet such an one



shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; from whence both Jarchi and Aben Ezra infer, that the pollution by hearing or carrying is greater than that by touching; since such a man, so defiled, was obliged to wash his clothes as well as his body; so saints, that have contracted pollution by any manner of sin, are to wash their garments and make them white in the blood of the Lamb, Re 7:14.





Leviticus 11:26



Ver. 26. [The carcasses] of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven footed,.... As the camel:



nor cheweth the cud; though it may divide the hoof, as the swine; and on the other hand, such as may chew the cud, and yet not dividing the hoof, as the coney and hare; for the Scripture here, as Aben Ezra observes again, uses a short and concise way of speaking: these



[are] unclean unto you; to be reckoned by them such, and neither to be eaten nor touched:



everyone that toucheth them shall be unclean; until the evening; and obliged to washing, though not expressed: this is not to be understood of touching them while alive, as some Sadducees or Karaites understand it, according to Aben Ezra; for camels, horses, mules, &c. might be, and were rode upon, and so touched; but of them when dead, or their carcases, as is rightly supplied in the beginning of the verse; and the Jewish writers {c} understand this of the flesh of the carcass only, not of the bones, horns, and hoofs, which, they say, do not defile, only the flesh: this is repeated from Le 11:8.



{c} Misn. Edaiot, c. 6. sect. 3. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.





Leviticus 11:27



Ver. 27. Whatsoever goeth upon his paws,.... Or "the palms" {d} of his hands; meaning such creatures, whose feet are not divided into two parts, but into many, like the fingers of an hand, as apes, lions, bears, wolves, foxes, dogs, cats, &c.



among all manner of beasts that go on [all] four; this is added, to distinguish them from fowl, such as are clean; who walk but on two feet, though their feet are divided into fingers or talons, and may be called hands on which they walk:



these [are] unclean unto you: and as they might not be eaten, so neither touched, as follows:



whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the even;

See Gill on "Le 11:24".



{d} wypk le "super volas suas", Pagninus, Montanus, "super manus suas", Munster, Tigurine version, Drusius.





Leviticus 11:28



Ver. 28. And he that beareth the carcass of them,.... Carries it upon any account, from place to place:



shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; as he that bore the carcasses of any of the flying creeping things, Le 11:25



they are unclean to you; even the carcasses of the one and of the other; and to all the Israelites, men, women, and children, as Aben Ezra observes.





Leviticus 11:29



Ver. 29. These also [shall be] unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth,.... As distinguished from those creeping things that fly, these having no wings as they; and which were equally unclean, neither to be eaten nor touched, neither their blood, their skin, nor their flesh, as the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases it: and the Misnic doctors say {d} that the blood of a creeping thing and its flesh are joined together: and Maimonides {e} observes, that this is a fundamental thing with them, that the blood of a creeping thing is like its flesh; which in Siphre (an ancient book of theirs) is gathered from what is said in Le 11:29 "these shall be unclean", &c. hence the wise men say, the blood of a creeping thing pollutes as its flesh: the creeping things intended are as follow:



the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind; the first of these, "the weasel", a creature well known; there are two sorts of it, as Pliny {f} says, the field weasel, and the house weasel; the former are called by the Jewish writers the weasel of the bushes {g}, and the latter the weasel that dwells in the foundations of houses {h}; and of the former there was a doubt among some of them whether it was a species of the eight reptiles in Le 11:29 or whether it was a species of animals {i}; and which, Maimonides says, is a species of foxes like to weasels: Bochart {k} thinks the mole is intended; but the generality of interpreters understand it of the weasel; and so Jarchi and Kimchi, and Philip Aquinas {l}, interpret it by "mustela", the weasel: however, all agree the second is rightly interpreted "the mouse"; which has its name in Hebrew from its being a waster and destroyer of fields; an instance of which we have in 1Sa 6:5

See Gill on "1Sa 6:5"; so that this sort may be chiefly intended, though it includes all others, who are distinguished by their colours, the black, the red, and the white, which are all mentioned by Jonathan in his paraphrase of the text: this animal, as a learned physician {m} expresses it, eats almost everything, gnaws whatever it meets with, and, among other things, is a great lover of swine's flesh, which was an abomination to the Jews; nor does it abstain from dung, and therefore it is no wonder it should be reckoned among impure creatures; and yet we find they were eaten by some people, see Isa 66:17 especially the dormouse; for which the old Romans made conveniences to keep them in, and feed them, and breed them for the table {n}: so rats in the West Indies are brought to market and sold for food, as a learned author {o} of undoubted credit assures us, who was an eyewitness of it: the last in this text, "the tortoise", means the land tortoise; it has its name from the shell with which it is covered, this word being sometimes used for a covered wagon, Nu 7:3 there are various kinds of them, as Pliny {p} and other writers observe, and who, as Strabo {q} and Mela {r} also, speak of a people they call Chelonophagi, or tortoise eaters: a tortoise of the land kind is esteemed a very delicate dish: Dr. Shaw {s}, speaking of the land and water tortoises in Barbary, says, the former, which hides itself during the winter months, is very palatable food, but the latter is very unwholesome: the Septuagint version renders it, the "land crocodile", which, is approved of by Bochart {t}: and Leo Africanus says {u}, that many in Egypt eat the flesh of the crocodile, and affirm it to be of good savour; and so Benzon {w} says, its flesh is white and tender, and tastes like veal; though some among them, as Strabo {x} asserts, have a great antipathy and hatred to them; and others worship them as gods, and neither can be supposed to eat them; the land crocodiles are eaten by the Syrians, as Jerom {y} affirms, for those feeding on the sweetest flowers, as is said, their entrails are highly valued for their agreeable odour: Jarchi says, it is a creature like a frog; he means a toad; so Philip Aquinas and many render the word: Dr. Shaw takes the creature designed to be the sharp-scaled tailed lizard {z}.



{d} Misn. Meilah, c. 4. sect. 3. {e} Pirush. in ib. {f} Nat. Hist. l. 29. c. 4. {g} Misn. Celaim, c. 8. sect. 5. {h} T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 20. 2. {i} Maimon. in Misn. ib. {k} Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 3. c. 95. col. 1022. {l} Sepher Shorash. & Aquinas in rad. dlx. {m} Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 307. {n} Varro de re Rustic. l. 3. c. 14. apud Sir Hans Sloane's History of Jamaica, vol. 1. Introduct. p. 24. {o} Sir Hans Sloane, ib. p. 25. {p} Nat. Hist. l. 9. c. 10. & l. 32. c. 4. {q} Geograph. l. 16. p. 532. {r} De Situ Orbis, l. 3. c. 8. {s} Travels, p. 178. {t} Ut supra, (Hierozoic. par. 1.) l. 4. c. 1. {u} Descriptio Africae, l. 9. p. 762. {w} Nov. Orb. Hist. c. 3. {x} Geograph. l. 17. p. 558, 560, 561, 563. {y} Adv. Jovin. l. 2. {z} Ut supra. (Travels, p. 178.)





Leviticus 11:30



Ver. 30. And the ferret,.... Whatever creature is here meant, it has its name in Hebrew from the cry it makes; and so the ferret has but one note in its voice, which is a shrill, but small, whining cry: it is used to drive rabbits out of their holes: the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions render the word by "mygale", the weasel mouse, or "mus areneus" of the Latins, the shrew or shrew mouse: it has something of the mouse and weasel, from whence it has its name in Greek, being of the size of the one, and the colour of the other: but Bochart {b} is of opinion, that a sort of lizard called "stellio", an evet or newt, is meant; one sort of which, according to Pliny {c}, makes a bitter noise and screaking:



and [the] chameleon; this is a little creature like a lizard, but with a larger and longer head; it has four feet, and on each foot three claws; its tail is long; with this, as well as with its feet, it fastens itself to the branches of trees; its tail is flat, its nose long, and made in an obtuse point; its back is sharp, its skin plaited and jagged like a saw, from the neck to the last joint of the tail, and upon its head it hath something like a comb; in other respects it is made like a fish; that is to say, it has no neck {d}; what is said of its living on air, and changing colour according to what it is applied, are now reckoned vulgar mistakes: but whatever creature is here meant, it seems to have its name in Hebrew from its strength, wherefore Bochart {e} takes the "guaril" or "alwarlo" of the Arabs to be meant; which is the stoutest and strongest sort of lizard, and is superior in strength to serpents, and the land tortoise, with which it often contends:



and the lizard; so Jarchi interprets the word by a "lizard"; it has a larger letter than usual in it, that this creature might be taken notice of, and guarded against as very pernicious, and yet with some people it is eaten: Calmet says {f}, there are several sorts of lizards, which are well known: there are some in Arabia of a cubit long, but in the Indies there are some, they say, of twenty four feet in length: in America, where they are very good, they eat them: one lizard is enough to satisfy four men: and so in the West Indies, says Sir Hans Sloane {g}, I was somewhat surprised to see serpents, rats, and lizards sold for food, and that to understanding people, and of a very good and nice palate; and elsewhere {h}, he says, all nations inhabiting these parts of the world (the West Indies) do the same: "Guanes" or "lizards" are very common in Jamaica, and eaten there, and were of great use when the English first took this island, being, as I was assured, says he, commonly sold by the first planters for half a crown apiece: Dr. Shaw {i} says, that he was informed that more than 40,000 persons in Cairo, and in the neighbourhood, live upon no other food than lizards and serpents, though he thinks {k}, because the chameleon is called by the Arabs "taitah", which differs little in name from hajl, "letaah", here; that therefore that, which is indeed a species of the lizard, might, with more propriety, be substituted for it:



and the snail; so the word is rendered by Jarchi, on the place, and by Kimchi, and Philip Aquinas, and David de Pomis, in their lexicons; and these creatures, though forbid to the Jews, yet are not only used for medicine, but also for food by many: snails of several kinds, we are told, are eaten with much satisfaction in Italy and France: in Silesia they make places for the breeding of them at this day, where they are fed with turnip tops, &c. and carefully preserved for the market; and the Romans took care of them in the same manner {l}: Bochart {m} thinks a kind of lizard is meant, which lies in sand, called by the Arabs "chulaca", or "luchaca", because the word here used signifies, in the Talmudic {n} language, sandy ground:



and the mole; and so it is interpreted by Onkelos and Jarchi here, and by David de Pomis, and Philip Aquinas, in their lexicons: the same word is used for a certain sort of fowl, which we translate the "swan";

Le 11:18 but here of a creeping thing: whatever is intended by it, it seems to have its name from its breath; either in a contrary signification, if understood of the mole, which either holds its breath, or breathes not while under ground; or from its breathing more freely, wherefore Bochart {o} takes it to be the "chameleon"; which, as Pliny {p} says, is always gaping with its mouth for air; and it has been a vulgar notion, though a wrong one, that it lives upon it: the Targum of Jonathan interprets it by the "salamander"; now whoever ate any of the above eight creeping things, according to the Jewish canons, was to be beaten {q}.



{b} Ut supra, (Hierozoic. par. 1.) l. 4. c. 2. {c} Nat. Hist. l. 29. c. 4. {d} Calmet, in the word "Chameleon". {e} Ut supra, (Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 4.) c. 3. {f} Dictionary, in the word "Lizard", Vid. Hieron. adv. Jovinian. l. 2. {g} Natural History of Jamaica, vol. 1. Introduct. p. 25. {h} Ibid. vol. 2. p. 333. {i} Travels, p. 412. {k} Ibid. p. 178. {l} Sir Hans Sloane's Nat. Hist. ib. p. 23, 24. {m} Ut supra, ({e}) c. 5. {n} T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 31. 1. Gloss. in fol. 54. 1. {o} Ut supra, (Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 4.) c. 6. {p} Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 33. {q} Maimon. Maacolot Asurot, c. 2. sect. 7.





Leviticus 11:31



Ver. 31. These are unclean to you of all that creep,.... Unfit for food, and not to be touched, at least when dead, as in the next clause, that is, these eight sorts of creeping things before mentioned, as the Targum of Jonathan expresses it, and these only, as Maimonides says {r}:



whosoever doth touch them when they are dead shall be unclean until the even; for touching them while alive did not defile, only when dead; and this the Jews interpret, while they are in the case in which they died, that is, while they are moist; for, as Ben Gersom says, if they are so dry, as that they cannot return to their moisture, they do not defile; for which reason, neither the bones, nor nails, nor nerves, nor skin of these creeping things, defile; but, they say {s}, while the back bone is whole, and the bones cleave to it, then a creeping thing is reckoned moist, and while it is so it defiles.



{r} Hilchot, Abot Hatumaot, c. 4. sect. 14. {s} Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Niddah, c. 7. sect. 1.





Leviticus 11:32



Ver. 32. And upon whatsoever [any] of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean,.... Any of the above eight creeping things, that is, of their flesh, for as for their bones, nails, nerves, and skin, as before observed, being separated from them and dry, they do not defile:



whether [it be] any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack; every wooden vessel, as the Targum of Jonathan; and all sorts of clothes, of woollen, linen, or silk, and all sorts of skins, excepting skins of sea beasts; for these, according to the Jews {t}, received no pollution; and also sacks or sackcloth, made of goats' hair, and the like:



whatsoever vessel [it be], wherein any work is done; any tool or instrument made use of by any artificer in his trade, or any vessel wrought by him:



it must be put into water; dipped into it, even into forty seahs of water, according to the Targum of Jonathan; and which is to be understood, not of any working tool, or finished vessel only, but of any vessel of wood, raiment, skin, or sack, before mentioned:



it shall be unclean until the even; even though put into water and washed:



so it shall be cleansed; in the above manner, by being put or dipped into water; or "afterwards", as the Septuagint, when it has been dipped and the even is come, and not before.



{t} Bartenora in Misn. Celaim, c. 17. sect. 13.





Leviticus 11:33



Ver. 33. And every earthen vessel, whereinto [any] of them falleth,.... Any of the above eight reptiles, should they by chance fall into the midst an earthen vessel:



whatsoever [is] in it shall be unclean; if it only by falling touched the outside of it, it was not unclean; but if it fell into it, then whatever was contained in it was unclean; for, as Jarchi says, an earthen vessel does not pollute or receive pollution, but from the air of it {u}, from its inside:



and ye shall break it; other vessels might be put into water and rinsed, and so be cleansed, but earthen vessels, being of no great value, were to be broken in pieces: an emblem this, as Ainsworth suggests, of the dissolution of our bodies, which are as earthen vessels, and of the destruction of sin thereby, and of the entire removal of it by death.



{u} Vid. Misn. Celaim, c. 2. sect. 1. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.





Leviticus 11:34



Ver. 34. Of all meat which may be eaten,.... Which otherwise is lawful to eat and fit for food, whether herbs, or whether the flesh of clean creatures:



[that] on which [such] water cometh shall be unclean; that is, such water as is put into an unclean vessel, become so by the fall of any unclean reptile into it; wherefore such water poured out upon any sort of food, clean and fit to eat, or that is put into such water, to be dressed, it becomes unclean and unfit to eat; for the vessel, being unclean, defiles the water, and the water defiles the food: Jarchi interprets this of water in general, which coming upon anything eatable, prepares it for uncleanness;



"we learn (says he) that no food is fit and prepared to receive defilement until water comes upon it once; and after it is come upon it once, it receives defilement for ever, even though it becomes dry;''



but the former seems to be the true sense:



and all drink that may be drank in every such vessel shall be unclean; whatever otherwise might be lawfully drank, yet being put into such a vessel, into which any unclean reptile was fallen, or being in it when it fell into it, became unclean and not fit to be drank; and those liquors which receive uncleanness, and make meats unclean by coming on them, according to the Misnic doctors {w}, are these seven, dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, and honey.



{w} Misn. Machshirin, c. 6. sect. 4.





Leviticus 11:35



Ver. 35. And everything whereupon [any part] of their carcass falleth shall be unclean,.... Before the Scripture seems to speak of anyone of the reptiles perfect, that falling upon anything should pollute it; but here of any part of them, though ever so small, which should, through any accident, fall and light upon anything, even that would render it unclean and unfit for use:



[whether it be] oven, [or] ranges of pots; the one to bake bread in, and the other to boil flesh in, as Aben Ezra observes:



they shall be broken down; and no more made use of for baking and boiling:



[for] they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you; were made hereby unfit for use, and should not be used: the Jewish writers {x} explain the phrase, "to you", to your necessity, that which they had need of, but now should not use nor receive advantage from; even "to you"; all men, women, and children, as Hiskuni interprets it: all this was ordered to create in them an abhorrence of these creatures, and to make them cautious of eating and touching them, and careful that they come not nigh, or touched, or fell upon anything, since it would give them so much trouble, as well as occasion loss.



{x} Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Edaiot, c. 7. sect. 8.





Leviticus 11:36



Ver. 36. Nevertheless, a fountain or pit, [wherein there is] plenty of water,.... Or, "a fountain or pit, a collection of waters", the copulative being wanting, as some observe, Aben Ezra takes notice of; or it may be by way of apposition, and so may explain what fountain or pit is meant, even such an one where there is a large continence of water, into which, if any carcass of a creeping thing fell, or any part of it, yet it



shall be clean: and fit for use, either because of the abundance of water in it, which could not be affected with the fall of such a creature into it as where there is but a small quantity; or rather this exception was made, because pools of water were of considerable value in these countries, and frequently in use for bathings, &c. and therefore for the good of men, and that they might not suffer so great a loss by such an accident, they are declared notwithstanding to be clean and free for use: hence you may learn, says Jarchi, that he that dips in them is pure from his uncleanness; that a man might lawfully make use of them for a bath on account of any uncleanness, notwithstanding the carcass of a creeping thing had fallen into it; as a mouse, or rat, or any such creature:



but that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean; not the waters which touch the carcass, as Aben Ezra interprets it, for then the whole would be defiled, and unfit for use; but either the man that touched the carcass, laid hold upon it to pluck it out of the fountain or pit, or that which he made use of to get it out, or both these, were unclean in a ceremonial sense: the Targum of Jonathan is,



"but he that toucheth their carcasses in the midst of these waters shall be unclean.''





Leviticus 11:37



Ver. 37. And if [any part] of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed that is to be sown,.... That which is selected from the other seed in order to be sown, and which is laid by and laid up for that purpose; should the carcass, or any part of the carcass of a creeping thing fall upon an heap of it, into a vessel in which it was put, as a dead mouse or the like:



[yet] it shall be clean; be fit for use and sown in the earth; because being cast into the earth, and dying and quickening there, and then springing up again in stalk and ear, it would go through various changes before it became the food of man: the Targum of Jonathan describes it, such as is sown in its dryness, or being dry; for if it was wetted it was unfit for use, as follows.





Leviticus 11:38



Ver. 38. But if [any] water be put upon the seed,.... Either accidentally or on purpose; whether on sowing seed, and with water with which they water the field, as Aben Ezra interprets it; or on seed used for food, by steeping it in water, as sometimes wheat is, and boiled; and whether it is water or the rest of the liquors, and whether they are put on the seed, or the seed falls into them, it matters not, as Jarchi says:



and [any part] of their carcass fall thereon; that is, on the seed, though Aben Ezra observes, some say upon the water: the Targum of Jonathan adds, in its moisture, or while it is wet; and so may be thought to be more susceptible of impurity from the touch of a dead reptile, or any part of it, and which would render it unfit for sowing or eating, until it was dried and cleansed; yea, Jarchi says, if it falls thereon, even after it is dried:



it [shall be] unclean unto you; unfit for use.





Leviticus 11:39



Ver. 39. And if any beast of which ye may eat die,.... Any clean beast, as the ox, sheep, goat, deer, &c. what, if rightly killed, is very lawful to eat of; but if it died of itself through any distemper, or was torn by the wild beasts, so the Targum of Jonathan:



he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even; not the bones, nerves, horns, hoofs, or skin, as Jarchi observes; these might be handled, because some of them, at least, were wrought up into one instrument or another, by artificers, for use and service, but the flesh of them might not be touched; whoever did touch it was ceremonially unclean, and might not go into the sanctuary, or have conversation with men, until the evening of the day in which this was done.





Leviticus 11:40



Ver. 40. And he that eateth of the carcass of it,.... For though it might be eaten, if rightly killed, yet not if it died of itself, or was strangled, or torn to pieces by wild beasts:



shall wash his clothes; besides his body, which even he that touched it was obliged to:



and be unclean until the even; though he and his clothes were washed, and he might not go into the court of the tabernacle, or have any concern with holy things, or conversation with men:



he also that beareth the carcass of it; removes it from one place to another, carries it to the dunghill, or a ditch, and there lays it, or buries it in the earth:



shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; from whence, as before observed by the Jewish writers, uncleanness by bearing is greater than uncleanness by touching, since the former obliged to washing of clothes, not so the latter; so Jarchi here; and yet still was unclean until the evening, though he had washed himself in water, as Aben Ezra notes; and so says Jarchi, though he dips himself, he has need of the evening of the sun.





Leviticus 11:41



Ver. 41. And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,.... Nothing is called a creeping thing, as Jarchi says, but what is low, has short feet, and is not seen unless it creeps and moves: and "every creeping thing" comprehends, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom observe, the eight creeping things before mentioned, Le 11:29 and mention is made of them here, that they might not be eaten, which is not expressed before; and being described as creeping things "on the earth", is, according to Jarchi, an exception of worms in pease, beans, and lentiles; and, as others observe, in figs and dates, and other fruit; for they do not creep upon the earth, but are within the food; but if they go out into the air, and creep, they are forbidden:



[shall be] an abomination; detested and abhorred as food:



it shall not be eaten; it shall not be lawful to eat such a creature. This, as Jarchi, is binding upon him that causes another to eat, as well as he that eats, the one is guilty as the other. And indeed such are not fit to eat, and cannot be wholesome and nourishing; for, as a learned physician observes {y}, insects consist of particles exceeding small, volatile, unfit for nourishment, most of them live on unclean food, and delight in dung, and in the putrid flesh of other animals, and by laying their little eggs or excrements, corrupt honey, syrups, &c. see Ec 10:1 and yet some sorts of them are eaten by some people. Sir Hans Sloane, after having spoken of serpents, rats, and lizards, sold for food to his great surprise at Jamaica, adds {z}, but what of all things most unusual, and to my great admiration, was the great esteem set on a sort of "cossi" or timber worms, called cotton tree worms by the negroes and the Indians, the one the original inhabitants of Africa, and the other of America; these, he says {a}, are sought after by them, and boiled in their soups, pottages, olios, pepper pots, and are accounted of admirable taste, like to, but much beyond marrow; yea, he observes {b}, that not they only, but the most polite people in the world, the Romans, accounted them so great a dainty, as to feed them with meal, and endeavour breeding them up. He speaks {c} also of ants, so large as to be sold in the markets in New Granada, where they are carefully looked after, and bought up for food; and says, the negroes feed on the abdomen of these creatures: he observes {d}, that field crickets were found in baskets among other provisions of the Indians.



{y} Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 302. {z} Nat. Hist. of Jamaica, vol. 1. Introduct. p. 25. {a} Ib. vol. 2. p. 193. {b} Introduct. ut supra. ({a}) Vid. Plin. l. 17. c. 24. & Aelian. de Animal. l. 14. c. 13. {c} Ib. vol. 2. p. 221, 223. {d} Ib. p. 204. Vid. Aristotel. Hist. Animal. l. 5. c. 30.





Leviticus 11:42



Ver. 42. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly,.... Jarchi's paraphrase is, "whatsoever goeth", as worms and beetles, and the like to them, "upon the belly", this is the serpent; and to go upon the belly is the curse denounced upon it, Ge 3:14 this and every such creature are forbidden to be eaten; as there are others who either have no feet, or what they have so short, that they seem to go upon their belly; and yet, as horrible and detestable as the serpent is, it has been the food of some, and accounted very delicious, as by a people mentioned by the Arabic geographer {e}. Mela {f} speaks of a people, who, from their eating serpents, were called Ophiophagi, serpent eaters; and Pliny {g} says of the Troglodytes, that the flesh of serpents was their food. The Spaniards, when they first found out the West Indies, going ashore on the isle of Cuba, found certain spits of wood lying at the fire, having fish on them, about one hundred pound weight, and two serpents of eight feet long, differing nothing from the crocodiles in Egypt, but not so big; there is nothing, says my author {h}, among the delicate dishes (of the natives of that place), they esteem so much as these serpents, insomuch that it is no more lawful for the common people to eat of them, than of peacocks and pheasants among us; the Spaniards at first durst not venture to taste of them, because of their horrible deformity and loathsomeness; but the brother of Columbus being allured by a sister of one of the kings of the country to taste of them, found them very delicious, on which he and his men fell to, and ate freely of them, affirming them to be of more pleasant taste than either our pheasants or partridges; and that there is no meat to be compared with the eggs of these serpents {i}. Diodorus Siculus {k} speaks of serpents in the island of Taprobane of great size, harmless to men, and whose flesh is eaten, and of a sweet savour:



and whatsoever goeth upon [all] four; that is, whatsoever creeping thing; for otherwise there are beasts that go upon all four that are clean and fit to eat; but this is observed to distinguish this sort of creeping things from those that go upon their belly, and from those that have more feet, as in the next clause; Jarchi particularly instances in the scorpion:



or whatsoever hath mere feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth; such as caterpillars, and particularly the Scolopendra, which the eastern people call Nedal; so Jarchi says, this is Nedal, a reptile which hath feet from its head to its tail, called Centipeda; and the Targum of Jonathan is,



"from the serpent, to the Nedal or Scolopendra, which has many feet.''



Some of then, have seventy two, thirty six on a side, and others eighty four; some fewer, but all have many:



them ye shall not eat, for they [are] an abomination; abominable for food, and to be had in the utmost aversion.



{e} Clim. 1. par. 6. {f} De Situ Orbis, l. 3. c. 8. {g} Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 8. {h} Peter Martyr de Angleria, Decad. 1. l. 3. {i} Ib. l. 5. {k} Bibliothec. l. 3. p. 141.





Leviticus 11:43



Ver. 43. Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth,.... With any creeping thing that flies in the air, excepting the four sorts of locusts, Le 11:22 and with any creeping thing in the waters, Le 11:10 or with anything that creeps on the land, by eating any of them; which being abominable for food, would make the eater of them so to God, he thereby breaking a command of his:



neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them; by touching and bearing them, as with dead beasts, so with dead flies and the like:



that ye should be defiled thereby; in a ceremonial sense.





Leviticus 11:44



Ver. 44. For I [am] the Lord your God,.... Their Lord, and therefore had a right to enjoin them what laws he pleased concerning their food; and their God, their covenant God, and therefore would consult their good, and direct them to what was most proper, convenient, and wholesome for them:



ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy, for I [am] holy; that is, separate themselves from all other people, and be distinct from them, by using a different diet from theirs, as their Lord and God was different from all others, so called; and thus by observing his commands, and living according to his will, and to his glory, they would be holy in a moral sense, as they ought to be, who were under the peculiar care and notice of a holy God, and so highly favoured by him; and particularly by attending to the above laws concerning food, they would be kept from mixing with, and having conversation with the Gentiles, and so be preserved from falling into idolatry, and continue a holy people, serving and worshipping the Lord their God, and him only; and which seems to be a principal view as to religion, in delivering out the above commands:



neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; which is repeated to keep them at the utmost distance from these things, and to fill them with an aversion to them, that they might be careful to avoid them. There is no penalty annexed to these laws, but the breach of them making them unclean, thereby they were debarred the use of the sanctuary, and of holy things, and of the conversation of men, for that day; but, according to the Jewish writers, such transgressions were punishable with stripes. Jarchi observes out of the Talmud {l}, that he that eateth "putitha" (a small water reptile) was to be beaten four times, and if an ant or pismire five times, and if a wasp or hornet six times.



{l} T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 28. 1. Pesachim, fol. 24. 1. Maccot, fol. 16. 2.





Leviticus 11:45



Ver. 45. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt,.... He had brought them out of it, and was now bringing them on in the wilderness towards Canaan's land, in order to settle them there; and this is observed, to show what obligations they lay under to him to observe his commands; for since he had done such great things for them, it became them to be obedient to him in all things: and the more, since his end herein was, as he observes to them,



to be your God; to make it appear that he was their God, and they were his special people, whom he had chosen for himself above all people upon the earth; that he was their King and their God, to protect and defend them, to provide for them, and take care of them, and bestow all good things on them proper for them:



ye shall therefore be holy, for I [am] holy; separate from all others as he was, living holy lives and conversations, agreeably to his will made known to them, in imitation or him who had chosen and called them to be his people; for, since holiness is his nature, it becomes them who are his house and family, his subjects and people.





Leviticus 11:46



Ver. 46. This [is] the law of the beasts,.... Clean and unclean, what were to be eaten, and what not,



and of the fowl; Le 11:2 the unclean ones, which are particularly mentioned that they might be avoided, all others excepting them being allowed, Le 11:13:



and of every living creature that moveth in the waters; all sorts of fish in the sea, rivers, ponds, and pools, such as have fins and scales, these were to be eaten, but, if they had neither, were forbidden, Le 11:9:



and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth; eight of which are mentioned particularly, which, when dead, defiled by touching; and all others are forbidden to be eaten, Le 11:29 together with such creeping things that fly, excepting those that had legs above their feet to leap with, Le 11:20. This is a recapitulation of the several laws respecting them, though not in the exact order in which they are delivered in this chapter.





Leviticus 11:47



Ver. 47. To make a difference between the unclean and the clean,.... Whether of beasts, fish, fowl, and flying creeping things:



and between the beast that may be eaten, and the beast that may not be eaten; the former clause takes in all in general, this instances in a particular sort of creatures; and the first mentioned of which, that might be eaten, are, that part the hoof, are cloven footed, and chew the cud; and that might not, that chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, or divide the hoof, but chew not the cud; and now, by such like descriptions and distinctions of the creatures treated of, the Israelites would be able to make a difference between the one and the other, and know what was to be eaten, and what not.

 

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

Leviticus 12:1



INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS 12



This chapter treats of the purification of a new mother, the time of whose purification for a man child was forty days, and for a maid child eighty, Le 12:1 at the close of which she was to bring her offerings to the priests, to make atonement for her, Le 12:6.



Ver. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... The laws in the preceding chapter were delivered both to Moses and Aaron, but what follows in this only to Moses; but inasmuch as the priest had a concern in it, it being his business to offer the sacrifices required by the following law, it was no doubt given to Moses, to be delivered to Aaron, as well as to the people. R. Semlai remarks, that as the creation of man was after that of the beasts, fowls, fishes, &c. so the laws concerning the uncleanness of men are after those relating to beasts, &c, and they begin with the uncleanness of a new mother, because, as Aben Ezra observes, the birth is the beginning of man:



saying: as follows.





Leviticus 12:2



Ver. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel,.... For this law only concerned them, and not other nations of the world:



if a woman have conceived seed; by lying with a man, and so becomes pregnant, and goes on with her pregnancy until she brings forth a child. The Jews from hence gather, that this law respects abortions; that if a woman has conceived and miscarries, eighty one days after the birth of a female, and forty one after a male, she must bring her offering {m}; but the law seems only to regard such as are with child, and proceed to the due time of childbirth, whether then the child is born alive or dead:



and born a man child; which is, generally speaking, not only matter of joy to the mother, but to the whole family, see Joh 16:21: then she shall be unclean seven days; be separate from all company, except those whose presence is necessary to take care of her in her circumstances, and do what is proper for her, and even these became ceremonially unclean thereby; yea, her husband was not permitted to sit near her, nor to eat and drink with her:



according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean; the same number of days, even seven, she was unclean on account of childbirth, as she was for her monthly courses, called here an infirmity or sickness, incident to all females when grown up, at which time they were separate from all persons; and the case was the same with a new mother; see Le 15:14.



{m} Misn. Ceritot, c. 1. sect. 6. Maimon. & Bartenora, in ib.





Leviticus 12:3



Ver. 3. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Or the foreskin of his flesh, that is, of the man child born according to the law, Ge 17:12 and this seems to furnish out a reason why a male child was not circumcised before the eighth day, and why it was then, because before that its mother was in her separation and uncleanness, and then was freed from it; and so the Targum of Jonathan. The circumcision of a male child on the eighth day was religiously observed, and even was not omitted on account of the sabbath, when the eighth day happened to be on that,

See Gill on "Joh 7:22" see Gill on "Joh 7:23". It is an observation of Aben Ezra on this place, that the wise men say "in the day", and not in the night, lo, he that is born half an hour before the setting of the sun is circumcised after six days and a half, for the day of the law is not from time to time.





Leviticus 12:4



Ver. 4. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days,.... That is, so many more, in all forty; for though at the end of seven days she was in some respects free from her uncleanness, yet not altogether, but remained in the blood of her purifying, or in the purifying of her blood, which was more and more purified, and completely at the end of forty days: so with the Persians it is said, a new mother must avoid everything for forty days; when that time is passed, she may wash and be purified {n}; and which perhaps Zoroastres, the founder of the Persian religion, at least the reformer of it, being a Jew, as is by some supposed, he might take it from hence:



she shall touch no hallowed thing; as the tithe, the heave offering, the flesh of the peace offerings, as Aben Ezra explains it, if she was a priest's wife:



nor come into the sanctuary; the court of the tabernacle of the congregation, or the court of the temple, as the same writer observes; and so with the Greeks, a pregnant woman might not come into a temple before the fortieth day {o}, that is, of her delivery:



until the days of her purifying be fulfilled; until the setting of the sun of the fortieth day; on the morrow of that she was to bring the atonement of her purification, as Jarchi observes;

See Gill on "Le 12:6".



{n} Lib. Shad-der, port. 86. apud Hyde Hist. Relig. Vet. Pers. p. 478. {o} Censorinus apud Grotium in loc.





Leviticus 12:5



Ver. 5. But if she bear a maid child,.... A daughter, whether born alive or dead, if she goes with it her full time:



then she shall be unclean two weeks; or fourteen days running; and on the fifteenth day be free or loosed, as the Targum of Jonathan, just as long again as for a man child:



as in her separation; on account of her monthly courses; the sense is, that she should be fourteen days, to all intents and purposes, as unclean as when these are upon her:



and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying sixty and six days; which being added to the fourteen make eighty days, just as many more as in the case of a male child; the reason of which, as given by some Jewish writers, is, because of the greater flow of humours, and the corruption of the blood through the birth of a female than of a male: but perhaps the truer reason may be, what a learned man {p} suggests, that a male infant circumcised on the eighth day, by the profusion of its own blood, bears part of the purgation; wherefore the mother, for the birth of a female, must suffer twice the time of separation; the separation is finished within two weeks, but the purgation continues sixty six days; a male child satisfies the law together, and at once, by circumcision; but an adult female bears both the purgation and separation every month. According to Hippocrates {q}, the purgation of a new mother, after the birth of a female, is forty two days, and after the birth of a male thirty days; so that it should seem there is something in nature which requires a longer time for purifying after the one than after the other, and which may in part be regarded by this law; but it chiefly depends upon the sovereign will of the lawgiver. The Jews do not now strictly observe this. Buxtorf {r} says, the custom prevails now with them, that whether a woman bears a male or a female, at the end of forty days she leaves her bed, and returns to her husband; but Leo of Modena relates {s}, that if she bears a male child, her husband may not touch her for the space of seven weeks; and if a female, the space of three months; though he allows, in some places, they continue separated a less while, according as the custom of the place is.



{p} Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 2. p. 314, 315. {q} Apud Grotium in loc. {r} Synagog. Jud. c. 5. p. 120. {s} History of Rites, Customs, &c. of the Jews, par. 4. c. 5. sect. 3.





Leviticus 12:6



Ver. 6. And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter,.... For a son forty days, and for a daughter eighty; but the ancient Jews formerly, that they might not break it, ordered, that the offering enjoined as follows should not be brought until the next day after the time was up: their canon runs thus {t},



"a new mother does not bring her offering on the fortieth day for a male, nor on the eightieth day for a female, but after her sun is set; and she brings her offering on the morrow, which is the forty first for a male, and the eighty first for a female; and this is the day of which it is said, "when the days", &c. Le 12:6.''



She shall bring a lamb of the first year; the Septuagint adds, without blemish, as all sacrifices should be, if not expressed; "or the son of his year" {u}; some distinguish between "the son of a year", as the phrase sometimes is, and "the son of his year", as here; the latter denoting a lamb in its first year, though something wanting of it, the former a full year old, neither more nor less:



for a burnt offering; in gratitude, and by way of thanksgiving for the mercies she had received in childbearing:



and a young pigeon, [or] a turtledove, for a sin [offering]; either the one or the other. With the Persians {w}, it is incumbent on a new mother, in Abam (the twelfth month), to bring twelve oblations for the sin which proceedeth from childbirth, that so she might be purified from her sins. It is an observation of the Misnic doctors {x}, that turtles precede pigeons in all places; upon which they ask this question, is it because they are choicer or more excellent than they? observe what is said, Le 12:6 from whence may be learned, that they are both alike, or of equal value. But why a sin offering for childbearing? is it sinful to bear and bring forth children in lawful marriage, where the bed is undefiled? The Jews commonly refer this to some sin or another, that the childbearing woman has been guilty of in relation to childbirth, or while in her labour; and it is not unlikely that she may sometimes be guilty of sin in some way or other, either through an immoderate desire after children, or through impatience and breaking out into rash expressions in the midst of her pains; so Aben Ezra suggests, perhaps some thought rose up in her mind in the hour of childbirth because of pain, or perhaps spoke with her mouth; meaning what was unbecoming, rash, and sinful. Some take the sin to be a rash and false oath: but there seems to be something more than all this, because though one or other of these might be the case of some women, yet not all; whereas this law is general, and reached every new mother, and has respect not so much to any particular sin of her's, as of her first parent Eve, who was first in the transgression; and on account of which transgression pains are endured by every childbearing woman; and who also conceives in sin, and is the instrument of propagating the corruption of nature to her offspring; and therefore was to bring a sin offering typical of the sin offering Christ is made to take away that, and all other sin; whereby she shall be saved, even in childbearing, and that by the birth of a child, the child Jesus, if she continues in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety, 1Ti 2:15 these offerings were to be brought



unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest; to offer them up for her. When the temple was built, these were brought to the eastern gate, the gate Nicanor, where the lepers were cleansed, and new mothers purified {y}.



{t} Maimon. Mechosre Capparah, c. 1. sect. 5. {u} wtnv Nb "filium sui anni", Montanus, Piscator, Drusius. {w} Lib. Shad-der, port. 73. apud Hyde, ut supra, (Hist. Relig. Vet. Pers.) p. 473. {x} Misn. Ceritot. c. 6. sect. 9. {y} Misn. Sotah, c. 1. sect. 5.





Leviticus 12:7



Ver. 7. Who shall offer it before the Lord,.... Upon the altar of burnt offering:



and make an atonement for her; for whatsoever sin in connection with or that attended childbearing; as typical of the atonement by Christ both for sin original and actual:



and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood; in a ceremonial sense, and according to that law be pure and clean:



this [is] the law for her that hath born a male or a female; enjoined her, and to be observed by her; and though now with the rest of the ceremonial law it is abolished, yet it has this instruction in it; that it becomes women in such circumstances to bring the freewill offerings of their lips, their sacrifices of praise, and in a public manner signify their gratitude and thankfulness for the mercy and goodness of God vouchsafed to them, in carrying them through the whole time of childbearing, and saving them in the perilous hour.





Leviticus 12:8



Ver. 8. And if she be not able to bring a lamb,.... As everyone was not in circumstances sufficient to be at the expense of buying a lamb for this purpose, having none of their own:



then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; which was a kind and merciful provision for the poorer sort; since it was necessary that by them the favour received should be acknowledged, as well as the sin attending them in such circumstances should be atoned for. This being the offering brought by the mother of our Lord, shows the state of poverty in which she was; and by this, and the circumcision of her child, and the presentation of it before the Lord at the time of her purification, it appears that they were both under the law, and obedient to it:



the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin [offering]; Jarchi observes, that in oblations the sin offering goes before the burnt offering, for sin being atoned for, the gift was accepted; but here the burnt offering went first, the reason is not very apparent:



and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean; equally the same as if she had brought a lamb, instead of young pigeons, or turtledoves.

 

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.

Leviticus 13:1



INTRODUCTION TO LEVITICUS 13



In this chapter an account is given of the various sorts of leprosy, and the rules by which they were to be judged of, Le 13:1 of the bright spot and scab, Le 13:4 of the rising or swelling,

Le 13:9 of the bile or hot ulcer, Le 13:18 of the hot burning or inflammation, Le 13:24 of the plague of the scall,

Le 13:29 of bright spots or blisters, Le 13:38 and of shedding the hair, and baldness, Le 13:40 of what the leper was to do, and to be done unto, Le 13:45 of the leprosy in garments made of linen, woollen, or of skin, Le 13:47.



Ver. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron,.... Aaron is addressed again, though left out in the preceding law, because the laws concerning leprosy chiefly concerned the priests, whose business it was to judge of it, and cleanse from it; and so Ben Gersom observes, mention is made of Aaron here, because to him and his sons belonged the affair of leprosies, to pronounce unclean or clean, to shut up or set free, and, as Aben Ezra says, according to his determination were all the plagues or strokes of a man, who should be declared clean or unclean:



saying; as follows.





Leviticus 13:2



Ver. 2. When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh,.... Rules are here given, by which a leprosy might be judged of; which, as a disease, was frequent in Egypt, where the Israelites had dwelt a long time, and from whence they were just come; and is doubtless the reason, as learned men have observed, that several Heathen writers make the cause of their expulsion from Egypt, as they choose to call it, though wrongly, their being infected with this distemper; whereas it was the reverse, not they, but the Egyptians, were incident to it {z}. Moreover, the leprosy here spoken of seems not to be the same with that disease, or what we now call so, though some have thought otherwise; it being rather an uncleanness than a disease, and the business of a priest, and not a physician to attend unto; and did not arise from natural causes, but was from the immediate hand of God, and was inflicted on men for their sins, as the cases of Miriam, Gehazi, and Uzziah show; and who by complying with the rites and ceremonies hereafter enjoined, their sins were pardoned, and they were cleansed; so that as their case was extraordinary and supernatural, their cure and cleansing were as remarkable: besides, this impurity being in garments and houses, shows it to be something out of the ordinary way. And this law concerning it did not extend to all men, only to the Israelites, and such as were in connection with them, such as proselytes. It is said {a}, all are defiled with the plague (of leprosy) except an idolater and a proselyte of the gate; and the commentators say {b}, even servants, and little ones though but a day old; that is, they are polluted with it, and so come under this law. Now the place where this disorder appears is "in the skin of the flesh"; that is, where there is a skin, and that is seen; for there are some places, the Jewish writers {c} say, are not reckoned the skin of the flesh, or where that is not seen, and such places are excepted, and they are these; the inside of the eye, of the ear, and of the nose: wrinkles in the neck, under the pap, and under the arm hole; the sole of the foot, the nail, the head and beard: and this phrase, "in the skin of his flesh", is always particularly mentioned; and when there appeared in it



a rising, scab, or bright spot; the scab that is placed between the rising or swelling, and the bright spot, belongs to them both, and is a kind of an accessory, or second to each of them: hence the Jews distinguish the scab of the swelling, and the scab of the bright spot; so that these make four in all, as they observe {d}. And to this agrees what Ben Gersom on this text remarks; the bright spot is, whose whiteness is as the snow; the rising or swelling is what is white, as the pure wool of a lamb of a day old; the scab is what is inferior in whiteness to the rising, and is as in the degree of the whiteness of the shell or film of an egg; and this is the order of these appearances, the most white is the bright spot, after that the rising, and after that the scab of the bright spot, and after that the scab of the rising or swelling; and, lo, what is in whiteness below the whiteness of this (the last) is not the plague of leprosy:



and it be in the skin of his flesh [like] the plague of leprosy; either of the above appearances in the skin, having somewhat in them similar to the leprosy, or which may justly raise a suspicion of it, though it is not clear and manifest;



then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests; for, as Jarchi notes, there was no pollution nor purification of the leprosy, but by the mouth or determination of a priest. And a good man that was desirous, and made conscience of observing the laws of God, when he observed anything of the above in him, and had any suspicion of his case, would of himself go, and show himself to the priest; but if a man did not do this, and any of his neighbours observed the appearances on him, brought him to the priest whether he would or not, according to the text,



he shall be brought: that is, as Aben Ezra explains it, whether with or without his will; for he that sees in him one of the signs, shall oblige him to come to the priest; and who observes, that by Aaron the priest is meant, the priest anointed in his room; and by his sons the priests, the common priests, who are found without the sanctuary; such as the priests of Anathoth, but who were not of those that were rejected.



{z} Est elephas morbus-----gignitur Aegypto. Lucret. l. 6. ver. 1112. {a} Misn. Negaim, c. 3. sect. 1. {b} Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. {c} Misn. Negaim. c. 6. sect. 8. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. {d} Misn. ib. c. 1. sect. 1.





Leviticus 13:3



Ver. 3. And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh,.... Whether it be a swelling, scab, or a bright spot that appears, and judge of it by the following rules, and none but a priest might do this:



and [when] the hair in the plague is turned white; it arising in a place where hair grows, and which hair is not naturally white, but of another colour, but changed through the force of the plague; and there were to be two hairs at least, which were at first black, but turned white; so Jarchi and Ben Gersom: and these hairs, according to the Misnah {e}, must be white at bottom; if the root (or bottom) is black, and the head (or top) white, he is clean; if the root white, and the head black, he is defiled; for hairs turning white is a sign of a disorder, of weakness, of a decay of nature, as may be observed in ancient persons:



and the plague in sight [be] deeper than the skin of his flesh; appears plainly to view to be more than skin deep, to have corroded and eat into the flesh below the skin:



it [is] a plague of leprosy; when these two signs were observed, hair turned white, and the plague was more than skin deep, then it was a plain case that it was the leprosy of which See Gill on "Mt 8:2" see Gill on "Mt 8:3" see Gill on "Lu 5:12". This was an emblem of sin, and the corruption of nature, which is an uncleanness, and with which every man is defiled, and which renders him infectious, nauseous, and abominable; and of which he is only to be cured and cleansed by Christ, the great High Priest, through his blood, which cleanses from all sin. The above signs and marks of leprosy may be observed in this; the white hair denoting a decay of strength, see Ho 7:9 may be seen in sinners, as in the leper, who are without moral and spiritual strength to keep the law of God, to do anything that is spiritually good, to regenerate, renew, convert, and sanctify themselves, or to bring themselves out of the state of pollution, bondage, and misery, in which they are; and, like the leprosy, sin lies deep in man; it is in his flesh, in which dwells no good thing, and in which there is no soundness; it does not lie merely in outward actions, but it is in the heart, which is desperately wicked; for the inward part of man is very wicked:



and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean; and so should be obliged to rend his clothes, make bare his head, put a covering on his upper lip, and cry, unclean, unclean; dwell alone without the camp, and at a proper time bring the offering for his cleansing, and submit to the several rites and ceremonies prescribed,

Le 13:45.



{e} Negaim, c. 4. sect. 4.





Leviticus 13:4



Ver. 4. If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh,.... The Targum of Jonathan is, white as chalk in the skin of his flesh; but other Jewish writers make the whiteness of the bright spot to be the greatest of all, like that of snow; See Gill on "Le 13:2":



and in sight [be] not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; though it be a bright spot, and be very white, yet these two marks not appearing, it cannot be judged a leprosy, at most it is only suspicious: wherefore



then the priest, shall shut up [him that hath] the plague seven days; in whom the bright spot is, and of whom there is a suspicion of the plague of leprosy, but it is not certain; and therefore, in order to take time, and get further knowledge, the person was to be shut up from all company and conversation for the space of seven days; by which time it might be supposed, as Ben Gersom observes, that the case and state of the leprosy (if it was one) would be altered; and Aben Ezra remarks, that most diseases change or alter on the seventh day.





Leviticus 13:5



Ver. 5. And the priest shall look on him the seventh day,.... In the day, and not in the night, as Maimonides, but not on the seventh day, if it happened to be on the sabbath {f}, then it was put off till after it; and, according to the Jewish canons {g}, they do not look upon plagues in the morning, nor in the evening, nor in the middle of a house, nor on a cloudy day, nor at noon, but at the fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth hours:



and, behold, [if] the plague in his sight be at a stay; it appears to the priest, according to the strictest view he can take of it, that it is in the same state and condition it was, neither better nor worse:



[and] the plague spread not in the skin: is not greater or larger than it was, though not less:



then the priest shall shut him up seven days more; such abundant care was taken, lest after all it should prove a leprosy.



{f} Misn. Negaim, c. 1. sect. 4. {g} Misn. ib. c. 2. sect. 2.





Leviticus 13:6



Ver. 6. And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day,.... On the second seventh day, at the end of a fortnight from his being first presented to him, and shut up:



and, behold, [if] the plague [be] somewhat dark; the spot be not so bright, or so white as it was at first; though Aben Ezra observes, that indeed many wise men say, that hhk is as Kvx, signifying dark, and the testimony or proof they bring is Ge 27:1 but according to my opinion, adds he, the word is the reverse of hvp, to spread; and the sense is, if the plague does not spread itself in another place; and so some translators render it "contracted", or "contracts itself" {h}: and this seems best to agree with what follows:



and the plague spread not in the skin; but is as it was when first viewed, after waiting fourteen days, and making observations on it:



the priest shall pronounce him clean; that is, from leprosy, otherwise there was an impure disorder on him, a scabious one:



it [is] but a scab; which is the name, Jarchi says, of a clean plague or stroke, that is, in comparison of the leprosy, otherwise such cannot be said with any propriety to be clean. Ben Gersom better explains it, it is a white scab, but not of the kind of leprosy, although it is found as the whiteness of the bright spot; but there are not seen in it the signs of leprosy, the hair is not turned white, nor has the plague increased:



and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean; for seeing he was obliged to be shut up, as Jarchi observes, he is called unclean, and stood in need of dipping, that is, his body and his clothes into water; so the people of God, though they are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and are pronounced clean through it, yet since they have their spots and scabs, they have need to have their conversation garments continually washed in the blood of the Lamb.



{h} hhk "contracta est", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "contraxerit sese", some in Vatablus.





Leviticus 13:7



Ver. 7. But if the scab spread much abroad in the skin,.... Or "in spreading spread" {k}; spreads, and proceeds to spread more and more:



after that he hath been seen of the priest for his cleansing: even after he had been viewed upon the first presentation of him to him, and after he had been twice seen by him by the end of two weeks, in which he was shut up, and after he had been pronounced clean, and had washed his clothes for his purification:



he shall be seen of the priest again; either he shall go to him of himself, or be brought to him, to be reviewed and pass under afresh examination.



{k} hvpt hvp "diffundendo diffuderit se", Montanus, Drusius, Piscator.





Leviticus 13:8



Ver. 8. And [if] the priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin,.... Is not at a stay, as when he looked at it a second and third time:



then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; a leprous person; to be absolutely so, as Jarchi expresses it; and so obliged to the birds (to bring birds for his cleansing), and to shaving, and to the offering spoken of in this section, as the same writer observes:



it [is] a leprosy: it is a clear and plain case that it was one, and no doubt is to be made of it, it is a spreading leprosy: as sin is; it spreads itself over all the powers and faculties of the soul, and over all the members of the body; and it spreads more and more in every stage of life, unless and until grace puts a stop to it.





Leviticus 13:9



Ver. 9. When the plague of leprosy is in a man,.... He has all the signs of it, and it is pretty manifest both to himself and others that it is upon him;



then he shall be brought unto the priest; by his friends and neighbours, if he is not willing to come of himself: a sinner insensible of the leprosy of sin, and of his unclean and miserable state through it, has no will to come to Christ the great High Priest for cleansing; but one that is sensible of it, and of Christ's ability to help and cleanse him, will come freely and gladly, and importunately seek to him for it; though indeed such an one is brought by powerful and efficacious grace to him, yet not against, but with his full will; see Joh 5:40; compare with this Mt 8:1.





Leviticus 13:10



Ver. 10. And the priest shall see [him],.... Look at him, and closely and narrowly inspect and examine his case:



and, behold, [if] the rising [be] white in the skin; this is another appearance of the leprosy; the preceding were a bright spot, and the scab of it; but this a rising or white swelling in the skin, as white as pure wool, as the Targum of Jonathan:



and it have turned the hair white; to the whiteness of an egg shell, or the film of it, as the same Targum; that is, hath turned the hair of another colour, into white which was before black;



and [there be] quick raw flesh in the rising, or swelling; or "the quickening" or "quickness of live flesh" {l} either such as we call proud flesh, which looks raw and red; or sound flesh, live flesh being opposed to that which is mortified and putrid; and so Jarchi renders it by "saniment", a French word for "soundness": and the Septuagint version, in this and all other places where the word is used, renders it "sound": this clause may be considered disjunctively, as by Gersom, "or there be quick raw flesh"; for either the hair turning white, or quick raw flesh, one or the other, and one without the other was a sign of leprosy, so Jarchi observes; even this is a sign of uncleanness, the white hair without the quick flesh, and the quick flesh without the white hair: this may seem strange that quick and sound flesh should be a sign of the leprosy and its uncleanness; though it should be observed, it is such as is in the rising or swelling: and in things spiritual, it is a bad sign when men are proud of themselves and have confidence in the flesh; when in their own opinion they are whole and sound, and need no physician; when they trust in themselves that they are righteous, and boast of and have their dependence on their own works; he appears to be in the best state and frame that cried out as David did, that there is "no soundness in his flesh", Ps 38:3.



{l} yx rvb tyhm "vivacitas carnis vivae", Montanus, Vatablus





Leviticus 13:11



Ver. 11. It [is] an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh,.... An inveterate one, of long standing and continuance, an obstinate one, not to be cured by medicine; as this sort of leprosy was, and therefore the person was sent not to a physician, but to the priest: the leprosy of sin is an old disease, brought by man into the world with him, and continues with him from his youth upwards, and nothing but the grace of God and blood of Christ can remove it:



and the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not shut him up; there being no doubt at all of it being a leprosy, and of his uncleanness, and therefore no need to shut him up for further examination, but to turn him out of the camp till his purification was over:



for he [is] unclean; in a ceremonial sense, and was obliged to the law for cleansing, such as after given.





Leviticus 13:12



Ver. 12. And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin,.... Or, if flowering it flowers {m}; the man that has it on him looks like a plant or tree covered with white flowers, being spread all over him in white swellings, bright spots or scabs, as it follows:



and the leprosy cover all the skin of [him that hath] the plague, from his head even to his foot; such an one as the leper was that came to Christ for healing, said to be full of leprosy, Lu 5:12; and such in a mystical sense is every sinner, whether sensible of it or not, even from the Crown of the head to the sole of the foot, full of the wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores of sin, Isa 1:6;



wheresoever the priest looketh; that is, he cannot look any where upon any part of him but he sees the signs of the leprosy on him; and from whence the Jewish writers gather, that a priest that inspects leprous persons ought to have a clear sight, and to have both his eyes, and that the inspection should not be made in a dark house.



{m} xrpt xwrp anyousa exanyhsh, Sept. "florendo floruerit", Montanus; so Drusius & Tigurine version.





Leviticus 13:13



Ver. 13. Then the priest shall consider,.... Look wistly upon it, and well weigh the matter in his own mind, that he may make a true judgment and pronounce a right sentence:



and, behold, [if] the leprosy have covered all his flesh; from head to foot, so that no quick, raw, or sound flesh appear in him:



he shall pronounce [him] clean [that hath] the plague; not clean from a leprosy he is covered with; but that he is free from pollution by it, and under no obligation to bring his offering, or to perform, or have performed on him any of the rites and ceremonies used in cleansing of the leper:



it is all turned white; his skin and flesh with white bright spots, scabs and swellings, and no raw and red flesh appears:



he [is] clean; in a ceremonial sense: this may seem strange, that one that had a bright spot, or a white swelling, or a scab that spreads, a single one of these, or here and there one, should be unclean, and yet, if covered over with them, should be clean; the reason in nature is, because this shows a good healthful inward constitution, which throws out all its ill humours externally, whereby health is preserved; as we see in persons that have the measles or smallpox, or such like distempers, if they stick in the skin, and only here and there one rises up in a tumour, and to an head, it is a bad sign; but if they come out kindly and well, though they cover the whole body, things are very promising: the mystical or spiritual meaning of this is, that when a man sees himself to be a sinful creature, all over covered with sin, and no part free, and disclaims all righteousness of his own to justify him before God, but wholly trusts to, and depends upon the grace of God for salvation, and the righteousness of Christ for his acceptance with God; he becomes clean through the grace of God and the blood and righteousness of Christ.





Leviticus 13:14



Ver. 14. But when raw flesh appeareth in him,.... Between the white spots, scabs, or swellings, or in the midst of them:



he shall be unclean; be pronounced unclean, and be subject to all the prescriptions of the law concerning lepers.





Leviticus 13:15



Ver. 15. And the priest shall see the raw flesh,.... Or when he sees it, the person being brought to him to be viewed:



and pronounce him to be unclean; or shall pronounce him to be unclean:



[for] the raw flesh [is] unclean; made a man so in a ceremonial sense;

See Gill on "Le 13:10";



it [is] a leprosy; wherever any quick raw flesh appears in a swelling.





Leviticus 13:16



Ver. 16. Or if the raw flesh turn again,.... Changes its colour, from redness, which is in raw flesh:



and be changed unto white: and does not look ruddy as flesh in common does, nor red and fiery, as raw and proud flesh, but is white, of the same colour with the swelling or scab:



he shall come unto the priest; again, and show himself, even though he was before by him pronounced clean.





Leviticus 13:17



Ver. 17. And the priest shall see him,.... Review him, and examine him thoroughly:



and, behold, [if] the plague be turned into white; the raw flesh in the swelling, which looked red, is become white:



then the priest shall pronounce [him] clean [that hath] the plague; that was supposed to have the plague of leprosy; but upon a review, and on this change of things, has not, he shall declare him free from it,



he [is] clean; and under no obligation to the laws and rites concerning it.





Leviticus 13:18



Ver. 18. The flesh also, in which, [even] in the skin thereof, was a boil,.... Or hot ulcer, by which, says Maimonides {n} you may understand any stroke by a stone, stick, or iron, or any other thing: and in the Misnah {o}, it is asked, what is an ulcer (or boil)? a stroke by wood, stone, pitch, or hot water; all that is from the force of fire is an ulcer:



and is healed; by the use of medicine, and the part, in all appearance, as well and as sound as ever.



{n} In Misn. Negaim, c. 6. sect. 8. {o} Ib. c. 9. sect. 1.





Leviticus 13:19



Ver. 19. And in the place of the boil there be a white rising,.... In the place where the boil was, a white swelling appears:



or a bright spot, white, and somewhat reddish; white and red mixed, as the Targum of Jonathan; and so Aben Ezra interprets the word "reddish", of the bright spot being mixed of two colours, or part of it so; and such a mixed colour of white and red, Gersom observes, is usual in a swelling, and adds, we are taught how to judge of these appearances, according to a tradition from Moses, which is this: take a cup full of milk, and put in it two drops of blood, and the colour of it will be as the colour of the bright spot, white and reddish; and if you put into it four drops, its colour will be as the colour of the rising (or swelling) reddish; and if you put into it eight drops, its colour will be as the colour of the scab of the bright spot, more reddish; and if you put into it sixteen drops, its colour will be as the colour of the scab of the swelling, very red: hence it appears, says he, that the bright spot is whitest with its redness, and after that the swelling, and next the scab of the bright spot, and then the scab of the swelling; but Bochart {p} is of opinion that the word is wrongly rendered "reddish", which, he thinks, contradicts the account of the bright spot being white, and especially as the word for "reddish" has its radicals doubled, which always increase the signification; and therefore if the word bears the sense of redness, it should be rendered "exceeding red", which would be quite contrary to the spot being white at all; wherefore from the use of the word in the Arabic language, which signifies white, bright, and glittering; See Gill on "La 4:7"; he chooses to read the words, "or a bright spot, white and exceeding glittering": but this word we render reddish and white, being read disjunctively, Le 13:24; seems to contradict this observation of his:



and it be shewed to the priest; to look upon and pass his judgment on it.



{p} Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 5. c. 6. col. 689.





Leviticus 13:20



Ver. 20. And if, when the priest seeth it,.... And has thoroughly viewed it and considered it:



behold, it [be] in sight lower than the skin; having eaten into and taken root in the flesh under the skin:



and the hair thereof be turned white; which are the signs of leprosy before given, Le 13:3;



the priest shall pronounce him unclean; not fit for company and conversation, but obliged to conform to the laws concerning leprosy:



it is a plague of leprosy broken out of the boil; which was there before: this is an emblem of apostates and apostasy, who having been seemingly healed and cleansed, return to their former course of life, and to all the impurity of it, like the dog to its vomit, and the swine to its wallowing in the mire, Pr 26:11; and so their last state is worse than the first, Mt 12:45, as in this case; at first it was a boil, and then thought to be cured, and afterwards arises out of it a plague of leprosy.





Leviticus 13:21



Ver. 21. But if the priest look on it,.... Upon a person in a like case as first described, having had a boil, and that healed, and afterwards a white swelling, or a bright spot in the place of it:



and, behold, [there be] no white hairs therein; not two hairs turned white, as Gersom interprets it:



and [if] it [be] not lower than the skin; the bright spot not lower than the skin; not having got into the flesh, only skin deep: the Targum of Jonathan is, not lower in whiteness than the skin; for the bright spot is described as white, and so the rising or swelling,

Le 13:19;



but [be] somewhat dark; or rather "contracted"; to which spreading is opposed in the next verse; See Gill on "Le 13:6";



then the priest shall shut him up seven days; to wait and see whether it will spread or not: a boil and burning, the Jews say, make a man unclean in one week, and by two signs, the white hair, and the spreading; by the white hair, both at the beginning and at the end of the week after dismission, and by spreading at the end of the week after it {q}.



{q} Misn. Negaim, c. 3. sect. 4.





Leviticus 13:22



Ver. 22. And if it spread much abroad in the skin,.... Upon viewing it on the seventh day, though it is not expressed, the swelling or bright spot; or "in spreading spread"; See Gill on "Le 13:7"; which Ben Gersom interprets, not of the skin of the flesh, but of the ulcer:



then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; even though there are no white hairs in it, nor is it lower than the skin, yet is not at a stand or contracted, but spreading:



it [is] a plague; or stroke; it is one sort of a leprosy, and such an one as makes a man unclean in a ceremonial sense.





Leviticus 13:23



Ver. 23. But if the bright spot stay in his place, [and] spread not,.... Continues as it was when first viewed:



it [is] a burning boil; but not a plague of leprosy:



and the priest shall pronounce him clean; as clear of a leprosy, and so not bound by the law of it, though attended with an inflammation or burning ulcer.





Leviticus 13:24



Ver. 24. Or if there be [any] flesh, in the skin whereof [there is] a hot burning,.... Or "a burning of fire" {r}: it is asked, what is a burning? that which is burnt with a coal or with hot ashes; all that is from the force of fire is burning {s}; that is, whatever sore, pustule, or blister, is occasioned by fire touching the part, or by anything heated by fire:



and the quick [flesh] that burneth have a white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white; the Targum of Jonathan is, a white spot mixed with red, or only white; and so Aben Ezra interprets the last clause: this seems to set aside Bochart's interpretation of the word "adamdemeth", which we render "somewhat reddish", and be, very white, bright, and glittering since white is here opposed unto it; though it may be, the sense is, that the flesh burnt has a bright white spot in it, exceeding glittering; or however, at least, a white one: by the "quick flesh" that burneth, Gersom says, is meant the weak, the tender flesh which is renewed there, after it is healed from the purulent matter in it.



{r} va twkm "adustio ignis", Pagninus, Montanus, Junius & Termellius, Piscator. {s} Misn. Negaim, c. 9. sect. 1. & Maimon. in ib. c. 6. sect. 8.





Leviticus 13:25



Ver. 25. Then the priest shall look upon it,.... And examine it, whether it has the marks and signs of a leprosy or not, such as follow:



behold, [if] the hair in the bright spot be turned white; which before was black, or of another colour from white, and is now, turned into the whiteness of chalk, as the Targum of Jonathan:



and it [be in] sight deeper than the skin; the same Targum is,



"and its sight or colour is deeper in being white like snow, more than the skin;''



but this respects not the colour of it, as appearing to the sight, but the depth of the spot, going below the skin into the flesh, which, with the change of hair, are the two signs of leprosy, Le 13:3;



it [is] a leprosy broken out of the burning; which sprung from thence, and what that had issued in:



wherefore the priest shall pronounce him unclean; a leper, and to be treated as such:



it [is] the plague of leprosy; being a plain case, according to the rules by which it was to be judged of.





Leviticus 13:26



Ver. 26. But if the priest look on it,.... On the hot burning and bright spot in it, in another person:



and, behold, [there be] no white hair on the white spot, and it be no lower than the [other] skin; why the word "other" should be supplied I know not, any more than in Le 13:21;



but be somewhat dark; or "contracted", See Gill on "Le 13:21";



then the priest shall shut him up seven days; as in the case of the burning boil or hot ulcer, as in Le 13:21.





Leviticus 13:27



Ver. 27. And the priest shall look upon him the seventh day,.... When that is come, any time on that day; not needing to wait until the end of it, or till, the seven days are precisely up; the same is to be understood in all places in this chapter where the like is used:



[and] if it be spread much abroad in the skin; in the space of seven days:



then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it [is] the plague of leprosy: according to the law; so that it was necessary, in such a case for him to conform to it in order to his cleansing.





Leviticus 13:28



Ver. 28. And if the bright spot stay in his place, [and] spread not in the skin,.... If, after being shut up, seven days, it appears that the spot is no larger than, when it was first viewed, but is as it was, and not at all increased:



but it [be] somewhat dark; either not so bright as it was, or more contracted:



it [is] a rising of the burning; or a swelling of it, a swelling which sprung from it, and nothing else:



the priest shall pronounce him clean; from the leprosy, and so set him at liberty to go where he will, and dwell and converse with men as usual:



for it [is] an inflammation of the burning; or an inflammation or blister occasioned by the burning, and no leprosy.





Leviticus 13:29



Ver. 29. If a man or a woman hath a plague upon the head or the beard. Any breaking out in those parts a swelling, scab, or spot, on a man's beard or on a woman's head; or on the head of either man or woman; or on a woman's beard, if she had any, as some have had though not common.





Leviticus 13:30



Ver. 30. Then the priest shall see the plague,.... The person on whom it is shall come or be brought unto him; and he shall look upon it and examine it:



and, behold, if it [be] in sight deeper than the skin; which is always one sign of leprosy;



[and there be] in it a yellow thin hair; like the appearance of thin gold, as the Targum of Jonathan; for, as Ben Gersom says, its colour is the colour of gold; and it is called thin in this place, because short and soft, and not when it is long and small; and so it is said, scabs make unclean in two weeks, and by two signs, by thin yellow hair, and by spreading, by yellow hair, small, soft, and short {t}: now this is to be understood, not of hair that is naturally of a yellow or gold colour, as is the hair of the head and beard of some persons, but of hair changed into this colour through the force of the disease; and so Jarchi interprets it, black hair turned yellow; in other parts of the body, hair turned white was a sign of leprosy, but here that which was turned yellow or golden coloured: Aben Ezra observes, that the colour expressed by this word is, in the Ishmaelitish or Arabic language, the next to the white colour:



then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; declare him a leper, and unfit for company, and order him to do and have done for him the things after expressed, as required in such a case:



it [is] a dry scall; or "wound", as the Septuagint version; "nethek", which is the word here used, Jarchi says, is the name of a plague that is in the place of hair, or where that grows; it has its name from plucking up; for there the hair is plucked away, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom note:



[even] a leprosy upon the head or beard; as the head is the seat of knowledge, and the beard a sign of manhood, and of a man's being arrived to years of discretion; when wisdom and prudence are expected in him; this sort of leprosy may be an emblem of errors in judgment, of false doctrines and heresies imbibed by persons, which eat as doth a canker, and are in themselves damnable, and bring ruin and destruction on teachers and hearers, unless recovered from them by the grace of God.



{t} Negaim, c. 10. sect. 1.





Leviticus 13:31



Ver. 31. And if the priest look on the plague of the scall,.... As it may appear in another person, brought to him for inspection and examination:



and, behold, it [be] not in the sight deeper than the skin; it do not seem to be got into the flesh, or lower than the skin:



and [that there is] no black hair in it; or, "but no black hair in it"; for, as Jarchi says, if there was a black hair in it, he would be clean, and there would be no need of shutting up; for black hair in scalls is a sign of cleanness, as it is said, Le 13:37; it would be a clear case that such a man had no leprosy on him; for black hair is a token of a strong and healthful constitution; and there could remain no doubt about it, and it would require no further trial and examination: Ben Gersom says it means two black hairs; and further observes, that black hair in the midst of a scall is a sign of cleanness; but this being wanting,



then the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the plague of the scall seven days; from the time of his viewing the scall; and so Ben Gersom, this is the seventh day from the time of looking upon the scall.





Leviticus 13:32



Ver. 32. And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague,.... To see whether it has got any deeper, or spread any further, and has any hair growing in it, and of what colour, that he might be also able to judge whether it was a leprosy or not:



and, behold, [if] the scall spread not; was neither got into the flesh, nor larger in the skin;



and there be in it no yellow hair; that is, a thin yellow hair, for such only, as Ben Gersom observes, was a sign of leprosy in scalls, as in Le 13:30; and the same writer observes, that "and" is here instead of "or", and to be read, "or there be in it no yellow hair"; since a scall was pronounced unclean, either on account of thin yellow hair, or on account of spreading:



and the scall [be] not in sight deeper than the skin; but be just as it was when first looked upon.





Leviticus 13:33



Ver. 33. He shall be shaven,.... His head or beard, where the scall was, as Aben Ezra; and so Ben Gersom, who adds, the law is not solicitous whether this shaving is by a priest or not; so it seems any one might shave him:



but the scall shall he not shave; that is, the hair that is in it, but that was to continue and grow, that the colour of it might be easily discerned at the end of seven other days; according to the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, he was to shave round about it, but not that itself; Jarchi says, he was to leave two hairs near it {u}, that he might know whether it spread; for if it spread it would go over the hairs, and into the part that was shaven; when it would be a clear case it was a spreading leprosy: now, that there might be an opportunity of observing this, whether it would or not, the following method was to be taken:



and the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the scall seven days more; by which time it would be seen whether there was any increase or decrease, or whether at a stand, and of what colour the hair was, by which judgment might be made of the case.



{u} Misn. Negaim, c. 10. sect. 5.





Leviticus 13:34



Ver. 34. And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall,.... That is, according to Ben Gersom, on the thirteenth day from the first inspection of him by the priest:



and, behold, [if] the scall be not spread in the skin, nor [be] in sight deeper than the skin; neither appears spread on the surface of the skin, nor to have eaten into the flesh under it; also no thin yellow hair, though it is not expressed, for that made a person unclean, though there was no spreading:



then the priest shall pronounce him clean; free from a leprosy:



and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean; there was no need to say he shall wash them in water, as Aben Ezra observes, that is supposed; and then he was looked upon as a clean person, and might go into the sanctuary, and have conversation with men, both in a civil and religious way, and not defile anything he sat upon.





Leviticus 13:35



Ver. 35. But if the scall spread much in his skin after cleansing. After he has been declared clean by the priest; for it was possible that it might spread after this, though so much precaution had been used, and so much time taken to observe it: with this compare 2Pe 1:9.





Leviticus 13:36



Ver. 36. Then the priest shall look on him,.... Again, and which is no less than the fourth time; for notwithstanding his being pronounced clean, he was still subject to the inspection of the priest, if any alteration appeared:



and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin; which was a certain sign of a leprosy:



the priest shall not seek for yellow hair; or be solicitous about that, whether there is any or not, for either one or the other of these signs were sufficient to determine the case:



he [is] unclean; and so to be pronounced.





Leviticus 13:37



Ver. 37. But if the scall be in his sight at a stay,.... If in a few days, or in a short space of time after this, it should appear that the scall is at a full stop, and does not spread any further at all:



and [that] there is black hair grown up therein; which is a sign of health and soundness, and so of purity; yea, if it was green or red, so be it, it was not yellow, according to Jarchi, it was sufficient:



the scall is healed; from whence it appears that it had been a leprous scall, but was now healed, an entire stop being put to the spread of it; and though yellow hairs might have appeared in it, yet, as Gersom observes, two black hairs having grown up in it, it was a clear case that the corruption of the blood had departed, and it had returned to its former state:



he [is] clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; he was clean before, and is the reason why he pronounces him so; wherefore it is not the sentence of the priest, but the truth of his case that makes him clean; teaching, as Ainsworth observes, that the truth of a man's estate, discerned by the word and law of God, made the man clean or unclean, and not the sentence of the priest, if it swerved from the law.





Leviticus 13:38



Ver. 38. If a man also, or a woman,.... One or the other, for the law concerning leprosy respecteth both:



have in the skin of their flesh bright spots; and them only; not any rising or swelling, nor scab, nor scall, nor boil, nor burning, only bright spots, a sort of freckles or morphew:



[even] white bright spots; these, Ben Gersom observes, are white spots, but not plagues; and which were in whiteness inferior to the four species of the plague of leprosy, the white spot, the white swelling, and the scab of each.





Leviticus 13:39



Ver. 39. Then the priest shall look,.... Upon the man or woman that has these spots, and upon the spots themselves, and examine them of what kind they are:



and, behold, [if] the bright spots in the skin of their flesh [be] darkish white; their whiteness is not strong, as Jarchi observes; but dusky and obscure, or "contracted" {w}; small white spots, not large and spreading:



it [is] a freckled spot [that] grows in the skin; a kind of morphew, which the above writer describes as a sort of whiteness which appears in the flesh of a ruddy man:



he [is] clean; from leprosy; this is observed, lest a person that is freckled and has a morphew should be mistaken for a leprous person; as every man that has some spots, failings, and infirmities, is not to be reckoned a wicked man.



{w} twhk "costractae", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.





Leviticus 13:40



Ver. 40. And the man whose hair is fallen off his head,.... That is, from the back part of his head, from the crown of his head toward his neck behind:



he [is] bald; in that spot of the head where the hair is fallen off; and it denotes such a baldness as is occasioned by that, for it signifies one that had hair, but it is fallen off; whereas the baldness after spoken of is thought by some to be of such who never had any hair; though others will have it, that this intends a person bald all over; but it seems plain from what follows, that it designs one whose hair was fallen off behind, and was bald on that part only; and it may be observed, that this is only said of a man, not of a woman, because, as Aben Ezra remarks, she has much moisture in her, and therefore her head does not become bald; hair being like to grass, which flourishes in moist places:



[yet is] he clean; from the leprosy, or from the scalls, as Jarchi observes, because he is not judged by the signs of the head and beard, which are the place of hair, but by the signs of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, i.e. by the raw flesh and spreading.





Leviticus 13:41



Ver. 41. And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head towards his face,.... That is, from the crown of his head towards his forehead and temples, the fore part of his head; and so the Misnic doctors distinguish baldness, which is from the crown of the head descending behind to the channel of the neck; and that here mentioned, which is from the crown of the head descending to his face and forehead, over against the hair above {x}:



he [is] forehead bald; to distinguish him from him that is bald behind:



[yet is] he clean; as the other: these cases are observed, that it might not be concluded that every man that shed his hair or was bald either before or behind was a leper, because the hair of a leper used to fall off from him; if he had not the other signs of leprosy, and which were the sure and true signs of it before mentioned.



{x} Misn. Negaim, c. 10. sect. 10.





Leviticus 13:42



Ver. 42. And if there be,.... Or, "but if there be", or, "when there shall be" {y}, or shall appear to be:



in the bald head, or in the bald forehead, a white reddish sore; white and red mixed, as the Targum of Jonathan, having something of both colours, neither a clear white nor thorough red; though, according to Bochart, it should be rendered "a white sore exceeding bright";

See Gill on "Le 13:19";



it [is] a leprosy sprung up in his bald head, or in his bald forehead; the signs of which were raw flesh and spreading; so it is said in the Misnah {z},



"those two sorts of baldness defile in two weeks, by two signs, by quick raw flesh and by spreading;''



if there was the bright spot and no quick flesh, then he was to be shut up seven days, and looked upon at the end of them; and if there was either quick flesh or a spreading, he was pronounced unclean, but if neither, he was shut up seven days more; and if either of the above signs appeared he was pronounced unclean, if not he was set free.



{y} ykw "sin autem", V. L. "quum autem", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator Drusius. {z} Ut supra. (Misn. Negaim, c. 10. sect. 10.)





Leviticus 13:43



Ver. 43. Then the priest shall look upon it,.... The white reddish sore:



and, behold, [if] the rising of the sore; or the swelling of it:



[be] white reddish in his bald head, or in his bald forehead;

See Gill on "Le 13:42":



as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh; as in Le 13:2; having the signs of the leprosy there given; anyone of them, excepting the white hair, which in this case could be no sign, there being none: Jarchi's note is, according to the appearance of the leprosy, said in

Le 13:2; and what is said in it is, it defiles by four appearances, and is judged in two weeks; but not according to the appearance of the leprosy said of the boil, and burning, which were judged in one week; nor according to the appearance of the scalls, of the place of hair, which do not defile by the four appearances, the rising or swelling, and the scab of it, the bright spot, and the scab of that.





Leviticus 13:44



Ver. 44. He is a leprous man, he [is] unclean,.... And so to be pronounced and accounted; only a leprous man is mentioned, there being no leprous women, having this sort of leprosy, their hair not falling off, or they becoming bald, usually; unless, as Ben Gersom observes, in a manner strange and wonderful:



the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; as in any other case of leprosy:



his plague [is] in his head; an emblem of such who have imbibed bad notions and erroneous principles, and are therefore, like the leper, to be avoided and rejected from the communion of the saints, Tit 3:10; and shows that men are accountable for their principles as well as practices, and liable to be punished for them.





Leviticus 13:45



Ver. 45. And the leper in whom the plague [is],.... Meaning not he only that has the plague of leprosy in his head, but every sort of leper before mentioned in this chapter:



his clothes shall be rent; not that he might the more easily put on his clothes without hurting him, as some have thought; or that the corrupt humours might evaporate more freely, for evaporation would rather be hindered than promoted by being exposed to cold; nor that he might be known and better avoided, for his cry after mentioned was sufficient for that; but as a token of mourning: and so Aben Ezra having mentioned the former reason, that he might be known by going in a different habit, adds, or the sense is, as a token of mourning; for he was to mourn for the wickedness of his actions; for, for his works came this plague of leprosy upon him; and so the Jews in common understand it, not as a disease arising from natural causes, but as a punishment inflicted by God for sin; wherefore this rite of rending the garments was an emblem of contrition of heart, and of sorrow and humiliation for sin, see Joe 1:13:



and his head bare; or "free" from cutting or shaving, but shall let his hair grow; and so the Targum of Jonathan and Jarchi interpret it; or free from any covering upon it, hat, or cap, or turban: Ben Gersom observes, that the making bare the head, or freeing it, is taken different ways; sometimes it is used of not shaving the head for thirty days, and sometimes for the removal of the vail, or covering of the head it has been used to; but in this place it cannot signify the nourishing of the hair, but that his head ought to be covered: and so Maimonides {a} observes, that a leper should cover his head all the days he is excluded, and this was a token of mourning also; see

2Sa 15:30:



and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip; as a mourner, see

Eze 24:17. Jarchi interprets it of both lips, upper and under, which were covered with a linen cloth or vail thrown over the shoulder, and with which the mouth was covered; and this was done, as Aben Ezra says, that the leper might not hurt any with the breath of his mouth;



and shall cry, Unclean, unclean; as he passed along in any public place, that everyone might avoid him, and not be polluted by him: the Targum of Jonathan is,



"a herald shall proclaim and say, Depart, depart from the unclean.''



So every sinner sensible of the leprosy of sin in his nature, and which appears in his actions, should freely confess and acknowledge his uncleanness, original and actual, the impurity of his heart and life, and even of his own righteousness in the sight of God, and have recourse to Christ, and to his blood, for the cleansing him from it.



{a} Hilchot Tumaat Tzarat, c. 10. sect. 6.





Leviticus 13:46



Ver. 46. All the days wherein the plague [shall be] in him he shall be defiled,.... Reckoned an unclean person, and avoided as such:



he [is] unclean; in a ceremonial sense, and pronounced as such by the priest, and was to be looked upon as such by others during the time of his exclusion and separation, until he was shown to the priest and cleansed, and his offering offered;



he shall dwell alone; in a separate house or apartment, as Uzziah did,

2Ch 26:21; none were allowed to come near him, nor he to come near to any; yea, according to Jarchi, other unclean persons might not dwell with him:



without the camp [shall] his habitation [be]; without the three camps, as the same Jewish writer interprets it, the camp of God, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of Israel: so Miriam, when she was stricken with leprosy, was shut out of the camp seven days, Nu 12:14. This was observed while in the wilderness, but when the Israelites came to inhabit towns and cities, then lepers were excluded from thence; for they defiled, in a ceremonial sense, every person and thing in a house they came into, whether touched by them or not. So Bartenora {b} observes, that if a leprous person goes into any house, all that is in the house is defiled, even what he does not touch; and that if he sits under a tree, and a clean person passes by, the clean person is defiled; and if he comes into a synagogue, they make a separate place for him ten hands high, and four cubits broad, and the leper goes in first, and comes out last. The Persians, according to Herodotus {c}, had a custom much like this; he says, that if any of the citizens had a leprosy or a morphew, he might not come into the city, nor be mixed with other Persians (or have any conversation with them), for they say he has them because he has sinned against the sun: and there was with us an ancient writ, called "leproso amovendo" {d}, that lay to remove a leper who thrust himself into the company of his neighbours in any parish, either in the church, or at other public meetings, to their annoyance. This law concerning lepers shows that impure and profane sinners are not to be admitted into the church of God; and that such who are in it, who appear to be so, are to be excluded from it, communion is not to be had with them; and that such, unless they are cleansed by the grace of God, and the blood of Christ, shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven; for into that shall nothing enter that defiles, or makes an abomination, or a lie; see 1Co 5:7

Re 21:27.



{b} In Misn. Celim, c. 1. sect. 4. so in Misn. Negaim, c. 13. sect. 7, 11, 12. {c} Clio, sive, l. 1. c. 138. {d} See the Supplement to Chambers's Dictionary, in the word "Leprosy".





Leviticus 13:47



Ver. 47. The garments also, that the plague of leprosy is in,.... Whether this sort of leprosy proceeded from natural causes, or was extraordinary and miraculous, and came immediately from the hand of God, and was peculiar to the Jews, and unknown to other nations, is a matter of question; the latter is generally asserted by the Hebrew writers, as Maimonides {e}, Abraham Seba {f}, and others {g}; but others are of opinion, and Abarbinel among the Jews, that it might be by the contact or touch of a leprous person. Indeed it must be owned, as a learned man {h} observes, that the shirts and clothes of a leper must be equally infectious, and more so than any other communication with him; and the purulent matter which adheres thereunto must needs infect; such who put on their clothes; for it may be observed, that it will get between the threads of garments, and stick like glue, and fill them up, and by the acrimony of it corrode the texture itself; so that experience shows that it is very difficult to wash such a garment without a rupture, and the stains are not easily got out: and it must be allowed that garments may be scented by diseases, and become infectious, and carry a disease from place to place, as the plague oftentimes is carried in wool, cotton, silk, or any bale goods; but whether all this amounts to the case before us is still a question. Some indeed have endeavoured to account for it by observing, that wool ill scoured, stuffs kept too long, and some particular tapestries, are subject to worms and moths which eat them, and from hence think it credible, that the leprosy in clothes, and in skins here mentioned, was caused by this sort of vermin; to which, stuffs and works, wrought in wool in hot countries, and in times when arts and manufactures were not carried to the height of perfection as now, might probably be more exposed {i}; but this seems not to agree with this leprosy of Moses, which lay not in the garment being eaten, but in the colour and spread of it:



[whether it be] a woollen garment or a linen garment: and, according to the Misnic doctors {k}, only wool and linen were defiled by leprosy; Aben Ezra indeed says, that the reason why no mention is made of silk and cotton is because the Scripture speaks of what was found (then in use), as in Ex 23:5; wherefore, according to him, woollen and linen are put for all other garments; though, he adds, or it may be the leprosy does not happen to anything but wool and linen; however, it is allowed, as Ben Gersom observes, that when the greatest part of the cloth is made of wool or linen, it was defiled by it: the Jewish canon is, if the greatest part is of camels hair, it is not defiled; but if the greatest part is of sheep, it is; and if half to half (or equal) it is defiled; and so flax, and hemp mixed together {l}; the same rule is to be observed concerning them.



{e} Hilchot Tumaat Tzarat, c. 16. sect. 10. {f} Tzeror Hammor, fol. 99. 3. {g} Ramban, Bechai, Isaac Arama, & alii, apud Muisium in loc. {h} Scheuchzer. Physica Sacra, vol. 2. p. 326. {i} Calmet's Dictionary, in the word "Leper". {k} Misn. Celaim, c. 9. sect, 1. {l} Ib. Negaim, c. 11. sect. 2.





Leviticus 13:48



Ver. 48. Whether [it be] in the warp, or woof, of linen, or of woollen,.... When these are woven and mixed together, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to judge whether the plague of leprosy was in the one or in the other; one would think it should be unavoidably in both; wherefore Castalio renders the words, whether "in the outer part of it, or in the inner"; in the outside or inside, or what we call the right side or the wrong side of the cloth: but to me it seems that the warp and woof, whether of linen or woollen, are here distinguished not only from garments made of them, but from the cloth itself, of which they are made, and even to be considered before they are wrought together in the loom; and, according to the Jews, when upon the spindle {m}:



whether in a skin, or anything made of skin; that is, whether in unwrought skin, which is not made up in anything, or in anything that is made of skins, as tents, bottles, &c. but skins of fishes, according to the Jewish traditions, are excepted; for so they say {n}, sea skins, i.e. skins of fishes, are not defiled by plagues (of leprosy); for which the commentators {o} give this reason, that as wool and linen are of things which grow out of the earth, so must the skins be; that is, of such animals as live by grass, that springs out of the earth; but if anything was joined unto them, which grew out of the earth, though but a thread, that received uncleanness, it was defiled.



{m} Misn. Negaim, c. 11. sect. 8. {n} Misn. Negaim, c. 11. sect. 1. {o} Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Edait, c. 7. sect. 8.





Leviticus 13:49



Ver. 49. And if the plague be greenish or reddish the garment, or in the skin,.... Either of these two colours were signs of leprosy in garments; but it is not agreed whether stronger or weaker colours are designed; the radicals of both these words being doubled, according to some, and particularly Aben Ezra, lessen the sense of them; and so our translators understand it; but, according to Ben Gersom, the signification is increased thereby, and the meaning is, if it be exceeding green or exceeding red; and this is evidently the sense of the Misnah {p}; garments are defiled by green in greens, and by red in reds, that is, by the greenest and reddest; the green, the commentators say {q}, is like that of the wings of peacocks and leaves of palm trees, and the red like crimson or scarlet; and now these garments or skins, in which the green or red spots appeared, must be white, and not coloured or dyed: the canon runs thus {r}; skins and garments dyed are not defiled with plagues (of leprosy); a garment whose warp is dyed, and its woof white, or its woof dyed, and its warp white, all goes according to the sight; that is, according to what colour to the eye most prevails, whether white or dyed:



either in the warp or in the woof, or in anything of the skin; the same held good of these as of a garment, or anything else made of them:



it [is] a plague of leprosy; it has the signs of one, and gives great suspicion that it is one:



and shall be shewed unto the priest; by the person in whose possession it is, that it may be examined and judged of whether it is a leprosy or no.



{p} Misn. Negaim, c. 11. sect. 4. {q} Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Edaiot, c. 7. sect. 8. {r} Misn. ut supra, (c.11.) sect. 3, 4.





Leviticus 13:50



Ver. 50. And the priest shall look upon the plague,.... The green or red spot in the garment, &c.



and shut up [it that hath] the plague seven days; the woollen or linen garment, the warp or the woof, or skins, and those things that were made of them.





Leviticus 13:51



Ver. 51. And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day,.... To see whether there is any alteration in it in that space of time:



if the plague be spread in the garment, either in the warp or in the woof, or in a skin, [or] in any work that is made of skin; the green and red spot be spread more and more in either of them, whether the colour remains the same or not, be changed, the green into red, or the red into green, yet if there was a spreading, it was a sign of leprosy. According to the Jewish canon {s}, if the plague was green and spread red, or red and spread green, it was unclean; that is, as Bartenora {t} explains it, if it was red in the size of a bean, and at the end of the week the red had spread itself to green; or if at the beginning it was green like a bean, and at the end of the week had spread itself to the size of a shekel, and the root or spread of it was become red;



the plague [is] a fretting leprosy; according to Jarchi, a sharp and pricking one, like a thorn; which signification the word has in

Eze 28:24. Ben Gersom explains it, which brings a curse, corruption, and oldness into the thing in which it is; an old "irritated, exasperated" leprosy, as Bochart {u}, from the use of the word in the Arabic tongue, translates it:



it [is] unclean; and the garment or thing in which it is.



{s} Misn. Negaim, c. 11. sect. 3, 4. {t} In ib. {u} Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 2. c. 45. col. 493.





Leviticus 13:52



Ver. 52. He shall therefore burn that garment,.... That there may be no more use of it, nor profit from it; and this was done without the city, as Ben Gersom asserts:



whether in warp or woof, in woollen or in linen, or anything of skin,

wherein the plague is; all and either of them were to be burnt:



for it [is] a fretting leprosy; See Gill on "Le 13:51":



it shall be burnt in the fire; which may teach both to hate the garment spotted with the flesh, and to put no trust in and have no dependence on a man's own righteousness, which is as filthy rags, and both are such as shall be burnt, and the loss of them suffered, even when a man himself is saved, yet so as by fire, 1Co 3:15.





Leviticus 13:53



Ver. 53. And if the priest shall look,.... On the seventh day as before, after shutting up:



and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin; but is at an entire stay, that it may be hoped it is not a fretting leprosy: so when men do not proceed to more ungodliness, as wicked men commonly do, but there is a stop put to their vicious life and conversation, it is an hopeful sign of future good.





Leviticus 13:54



Ver. 54. Then the priest shall command that they wash [the thing] wherein the plague [is],.... The priest did not wash it himself, but ordered others to do it; and this was either the part in which the plague was, or the whole garment or skin in which it was; which may be typical of the washing of the garments of men in the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin, Re 7:14:



and he shall shut it up seven days more: the garment or skin in which the leprosy was, or suspected to be, to see what alteration would be made by that time through the washing, whether the colour would be altered, or whether it would spread any more or not.





Leviticus 13:55



Ver. 55. And the priest shall look on the plague after it is washed,.... That is, on the second seventh day, or thirteenth day from his first inspection of it:



and, behold, [if] the plague has not changed its colour; and the plague be not spread, it [is] unclean, thou shalt burn it in the fire; if it remains just as it was at first, very green or very red, and has not diminished of its colour at all, nor changed from one colour to another, although it should not have spread itself, yet it is defiled, and to be burnt without the camp, as before; that which spreads itself here and there, it is to be burnt:



it [is] after inward, [whether] it [be] bare within or without; that is, whether it be threadbare on the wrong or right side of the garment, the nap being eaten off by the leprosy; which shows it to be a fretting, eating, and corroding one: in the Hebrew text it is, "in the boldness of the hinder", or "in the baldness of the fore part"; they are the same words which are used of the boldness of the back part and fore part of the head, Le 13:42; the nap being off either of the outer and right side of the cloth, or of the inner and wrong side, made it look like a bald head, whether before or behind.





Leviticus 13:56



Ver. 56. And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague [be] somewhat dark after the washing of it,.... Is become of a weaker colour, either not quite so green, or not quite so red as it was, or is "contracted", and does not spread itself, See Gill on "Le 13:6"; but is rather become less:



then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof; that is, that piece which has the plague in it, and burn it, as Jarchi says; that so the whole may not be lost, which is otherwise pure, and clean, and free from any infection. The manner of expression confirms what I have observed on Le 13:48; that the warp and woof are considered as separate things, and as before they are wove together, or wrought into one garment. This rending out may denote the denying of ungodliness and worldly lusts, the parting with right eye and right hand sins, and having no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.





Leviticus 13:57



Ver. 57. And if it appear still in the garment, either in the warp, or in the woof, or in anything of skin,.... After the piece has been rent out, in another part of the garment, &c. where before it was not seen:



it [is] a spreading [plague]; or leprosy; a flourishing one, as the word signifies, a growing and increasing one:



thou shalt burn that wherein the plague [is] with fire; according to Aben Ezra, only that part in which the plague was; but Jarchi says the whole garment; with whom Ben Gersom seems to agree, who reads the words, thou shall burn it, with that in which the plague is; the whole garment, skin, warp, or woof, along with the part in which the leprosy is.





Leviticus 13:58



Ver. 58. And the garment, either warp or woof, or whatsoever thing of skin [it be], which thou shalt wash,.... After it had been shut up seven days, and viewed by the priest again: if the plague be departed from them: upon a review of them:



then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean; and so reckoned even thoroughly clean, and used; this denotes the thorough washing and cleansing of sinners by the blood of Jesus, see Ps 51:2; this washing was by dipping; and so the Targum renders it; and Jarchi observes, that all washings of garments, which are for dipping, they interpret by the same word.





Leviticus 13:59



Ver. 59. This [is] the law of the plague of leprosy,.... The rules by which it was to be judged of; whether or no it was



in a garment of woollen, or linen, either the warp or woof, or any thing of skins; which include everything in which this sort of leprosy was:



to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean; either to declare it free from the plague of the leprosy, or as infected with it, and so accordingly dispose of it.

 

↑ Back to top