Leviticus 11:12

11:1-47 What animals were clean and unclean. - These laws seem to have been intended, 1. As a test of the people's obedience, as Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge; and to teach them self-denial, and the government of their appetites. 2. To keep the Israelites distinct from other nations. Many also of these forbidden animals were objects of superstition and idolatry to the heathen. 3. The people were taught to make distinctions between the holy and unholy in their companions and intimate connexions. 4. The law forbad, not only the eating of the unclean beasts, but the touching of them. Those who would be kept from any sin, must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, or coming near it. The exceptions are very minute, and all were designed to call forth constant care and exactness in their obedience; and to teach us to obey. Whilst we enjoy our Christian liberty, and are free from such burdensome observances, we must be careful not to abuse our liberty. For the Lord hath redeemed and called his people, that they may be holy, even as he is holy. We must come out, and be separate from the world; we must leave the company of the ungodly, and all needless connexions with those who are dead in sin; we must be zealous of good works devoted followers of God, and companions of his people. ]

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.

Any fish, either from salt water or fresh, might be eaten if it had both scales and fins. but no other creature that lives in the waters. Shellfish of all kinds, whether mollusks or crustaceans, and cetaceous animals, were therefore prohibited, as well as fish which appear to have no scales, like the eel; probably because they were considered unwholesome, and (under certain circumstances) found to be so.

12. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales, &c.—Under this classification frogs, eels, shellfish of all descriptions, were included as unclean; "many of the latter (shellfish) enjoy a reputation they do not deserve, and have, when plentifully partaken of, produced effects which have led to a suspicion of their containing something of a poisonous nature."

(cf. Deuteronomy 14:9 and Deuteronomy 14:10 ). Of water animals, everything in the water, in seas and brooks, that had fins and scales was edible. Everything else that swarmed in the water was to be an abomination, its flesh was not to be eaten, and its carrion was to be avoided with abhorrence. Consequently, not only were all water animals other than fishes, such as crabs, salamanders, etc., forbidden as unclean; but also fishes without scales, such as eels for example. Numa laid down this law for the Romans: ut pisces qui sqamosi non essent ni pollicerent (sacrificed): Plin. h. n. 32, c. 2, s. 10. In Egypt fishes without scales are still regarded as unwholesome (Lane, Manners and Customs).

12 . she is indeed my sister ] See Genesis 11:29 , Genesis 12:19 . The marriage with a half-sister was evidently permitted in David’s time (cf. 2 Samuel 13:13 ); and it was practised in the days of Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 22:11 ), though forbidden by the laws of Leviticus 18:9 ; Leviticus 18:9 ; Leviticus 18:11 ; Leviticus 20:17 ; Deuteronomy 27:22 . It is said to have been permitted in Phoenicia and Egypt. Abraham’s excuse is based upon a half truth. Sarah may have been truly his sister; but this statement was no moral justification for his suppression of the fact that she was his wife. The further excuse in Genesis 20:13 , that as he travelled about he always practised this mental reservation concerning Sarah, scarcely adds dignity to his line of defence.

3:15 [134]4:1 [135]4:21 [136]4:21 [137]5:1 [138]6:3 [139]7 [140]7 [141]7:4 [142]7:4 [143]9:16 [144]9:16 [145]12:41 [146]12:44 [147]13:2 [148]16:10 [149]18:18-20 [150]18:20-23 [151]18:21 [152]18:22 [153]19:6 [154]19:6 [155]19:18 [156]20 [157]20:1 [158]20:1 [159]20:1 [160]20:2 [161]20:2 [162]20:2 [163]20:2 [164]20:3 [165]20:3-5 [166]20:3-5 [167]20:3-5 [168]20:4 [169]20:5 [170]20:12-17 [171]20:18 [172]20:23 [173]21 [174]22 [175]23 [176]24 [177]24:5 [178]24:6 [179]24:7 [180]30:1 [181]30:18 [182]32:4 [183]32:4 [184]32:5 [185]32:8 [186]32:8 [187]32:9 [188]32:10 [189]32:10-14 [190]32:12 [191]32:28 [192]32:31 [193]32:32 [194]32:32 [195]32:33 [196]33:18 [197]33:20 [198]34:1 [199]34:6 [200]34:6 Leviticus [201]10:1 [202]17:14 [203]18:21 [204]18:21 [205]19:2 [206]26:46 Numbers [207]11:12 [208]11:12 [209]11:13 [210]11:13-17 [211]12 [212]14:16 [213]14:17 [214]14:21 [215]16 [216]21:5-7 [217]23 [218]23 [219]23:19 [220]23:19 [221]23:19 [222]24:17 [223]25:2 Deuteronomy