CHAPTER XXIII.

Of the Causes and Reasons of the Precepts of the thirteenth Class. THE Precepts comprehended in the thirteenth

class are those which we have enumerated in the Talmudical tracts, "Of forbidden meats;""Of the rites of slaughtering;"--"Of vows;" and "Of the Nazariteship ;"—and although we have in other works largely and explicitly spoken of the utility of these precepts in general, (117) yet a more particular explanation of some of them may be added.

We commence, therefore, by remarking, that all those kinds of food which are forbidden in our law, are unwholesome; nor are there any amongst them, excepting pork and fat, concerning which a doubt can be entertained whether they be injurious to health or not.

Nor does any ground exist for hesitancy even with regard to these. For the flesh of swine is of too humid a nature to be wholesome; though the principal reason why the law forbade the eating of swine, (Levit. xi, 7,) was, because of their extreme filthiness and their feeding on so many foul and impure things. For it is well known how solicitously the law forbade all filthiness and dirt, even in the fields and in the camp, to say nothing of the

cities. Now had swine been permitted to be eaten, the streets and houses would have become public nuisances, as we find them to be in those countries where they are nourished and eaten. It is a common saying with our Rabbins, that, "the mouth of a swine is like the most detestable filth."

The Fat of the Intestines (Levit. iii, 17; vii, 24) elogs the stomach too much, hinders digestion, and generates thick and cold blood, whence it is much fitter to be burnt than eaten. (118)

Blood, and that which dieth of itself, are innutritive and difficult of digestion. (Levit. vii, 26; xvii, 15.)

That which was torn with beasts, (Levit. xvii, 15; xxii, 8,) was nothing else but what was beginning to die, (or become a dead carcase,) and inclined to putrefaction.

The distinctions of ruminating or chewing the cud and dividing the hoof, among beasts; and of fins and scales among fishes, (Levit. xi,) were not the reasons why they were permitted to be eaten ; nor the want of them, the causes why they were forbidden; but merely marks whereby the more noble and excellent species might be distinguished, from those that were inferior or unwholesome.

The reason why the sinew of the thigh was forbidden, is assigned in Scripture. (Genesis xxxii, 32.)

The limb of a living animal, that is, cut off whilst the animal was living, was forbidden,

(Gen. ix, 4,) because it was a proof of a cruel disposition, and because some of the Gentile kings, at that period, acting from idolatrous motives, were accustomed to take an animal, cut off one of its limbs, and afterwards eat it. (119)

Flesh eaten with milk or in milk, (Exodus xxiii, 19,) appears to me to have been prohibited, not merely because it afforded only gross nourishment, but also because it savoured of idolatry, some of the idolaters probably doing so in their worship or at their festivals: and I am the more inclined to this opinion from observing that the law, in noticing this practice, does it twice, immediately after having spoken of the three solemn annual feasts; (Exod. xxiii, 17, 19; xxxiv, 23, 26 ;) "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the LORD God.—Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk :"-as if it had been said, When ye appear before me in your feasts, ye shall not cook your food after the manner of the idolaters who are accustomed to this practice. This reason appears to me of great weight, although, I have not yet found it in the Zabian books. (120)

The precept concerning the slaughtering of animals was necessary, because the natural nourishment of men consists of the fruits of the earth, and of the flesh of animals; and that the kinds of flesh allowed us were the best that could be eaten, no physician will question. Since, therefore, it was necessary, that animals should

be killed, for the sake of good food and nourishment, the law enjoined that kind of death that was the easiest, and forbade them to be tortured by a cruel and lingering mode of slaughtering; or to have their nostrils slit; or to have any limb cut off, as we have already shown.-In a similar manner it was forbidden "to kill a cow or ewe, and her young, both in one day," (Levit. xxii, 28,) lest the young one should happen to be killed before the dam, which would have caused her the greatest grief, for in this case there is no difference betwixt the grief of men and that of irrational animals, the love of a mother to her infant not being the effect of reason but of instinct, which is found in most animals as well as in man. This injunction referred particularly to cattle and sheep, because these were the only domestic animals lawful to be eaten, and of which they could distinguish with certainty the mother from her young. The cause already mentioned gave rise also to the precept respecting birds' nests, (Deut. xxii, 6, 7,) for the eggs on which the dam is sitting, or the young ones which have need of her, are not, in general, permitted to be eaten; and when the dam is let fly, she is not distressed by seeing her young ones carried off; it, therefore, frequently happens that all are untouched, because that which might be taken may not be lawfully eaten. If the law then be thus careful to prevent beasts and birds from suffering pain and grief, how much more mankind!

The precept of covering blood, (Levit. xvii, 13,) we have already shown, refers to both wild beasts and clean birds.

As the law gave various precepts relative to forbidden meats, so likewise it enjoined precepts respecting lawful and unlawful Vows. (Num.xxx.) For persons sometimes said, "This bread is forbidden me," or "This flesh is forbidden me;" thus rendering it unlawful for them to eat those things; and this was done by them, in order to acquire, by this means, the virtue of contentment or continence, and to restrain an immoderate appetite and hence, the saying, that vows are the hedge of separation, that is, of abstinence, or of a holy and sanctified life. But since women are apt to act too hastily, through the ardour of their minds, great inconveniences, dissensions, corruptions, and confusions might be occasioned in families, if the right of making vows rested with themselves, by one kind of food being lawful for the husband but unlawful for the wife, or lawful for the daughter but unlawful for the mother; therefore, the authority was given to the head of the family in every thing which might produce advantage or injury. There was, however, this exception, that every woman who was in her own power, having neither husband nor father, and who had attained the years of maturity, possessed the same right of vows as the man. (Numb. xxx, 9.)

The cause and reason of the precepts relating to the Nazarite, (Numb. vi,) that is, of abstinence