Deuteronomio 14:12

La Biblia Reina-Valera

Y estas son de las que no comeréis: el águila, y el azor, y el esmerejón,

Parallel Translations

La Biblia de las Americas
Pero éstas no comeréis: el águila, el buitre y el buitre negro;

La Biblia Reina-Valera Gomez
Y �stas son de las que no comer�is: el �guila, el quebrantahuesos, el esmerej�n,

Sagradas Escrituras (1569)
Y �stas son de las que no comer�is: el �guila, y el azor, y el esmerej�n,

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

Leviticus 11:13-19

Reciprocal: Leviticus 7:21 - any unclean

Gill's Notes on the Bible

Ver. 12-18. But these are they of which they shall not eat,.... Jarchi observes, that the unclean birds are particularly mentioned, to teach that the clean sort are more than the unclean, and therefore the particulars of the fewest are given: these are all the same names as in

Leviticus 11:13, excepting one, "the glede", Deuteronomy 14:13 which is a kind of kite or puttock; the Jerusalem Targum renders it the vulture, and the Targum of Jonathan the white "dayetha" or vulture; and Aristotle says q there are two sorts of vultures, the one small and whiter, the other larger and of many forms or colours; in Hebrew its name here is "raah", and is thought to be the same with "daah" in Leviticus 11:14 there translated the "vulture", which has its name there from flying, and here from seeing, for which it is remarkable; see Job 28:7 and the letters ד and ר are pretty much alike, and are sometimes changed, but there is another here, in Deuteronomy 14:13 mentioned, the "dayah", which is not mentioned in Leviticus 11:1, though some think it the same with the "ayah", rendered both here and there the "kite"; perhaps it means another sort of vulture, the black vulture, as the Targum of Jonathan.

q Hist. Animal. l. 8. c. 3.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Compare Leviticus 11:0. The variations here, whether omissions or additions, are probably to be explained by the time and circumstances of the speaker.

Deuteronomy 14:5

The “pygarg” is a species of gazelle, and the “wild ox” and “chamois” are swift types of antelope.

Deuteronomy 14:21

The prohibition is repeated from Leviticus 22:8. The directions as to the disposal of the carcass are unique to Deuteronomy, and their motive is clear. To have forbidden the people either themselves to eat that which had died, or to allow any others to do so, would have involved loss of property, and consequent temptation to an infraction of the command. The permissions now for the first time granted would have been useless in the wilderness. During the 40 years’ wandering there could be but little opportunity of selling such carcasses; while non-Israelites living in the camp would in such a matter be bound by the same rules as the Israelites Leviticus 17:15; Leviticus 24:22. Further, it would seem (compare Leviticus 17:15) that greater stringency is here given to the requirement of abstinence from that which had died of itself. Probably on this, as on so many other points, allowance was made for the circumstances of the people. Flesh meat was no doubt often scarce in the desert. It would therefore have been a hardship to forbid entirely the use of that which had not been killed. However, now that the plenty of the promised land was before them, the modified toleration of this unholy food was withdrawn.