the Second Week after Easter
Click here to join the effort!
Read the Bible
La Biblia Reina-Valera
Deuteronomio 14:5
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- InternationalParallel Translations
el ciervo, la gacela, el corzo, la cabra montés, el íbice, el antílope y el carnero montés.
el ciervo, la gacela, el corzo, la cabra mont�s, el ant�lope, el carnero mont�s y el gamo.
el ciervo, el corzo, y el b�falo, y el cabr�o salvaje, y el unicornio (rinoceronte ), y el buey salvaje, y la cabra mont�s.
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
the wild goat: The word akko, according to the LXX and Vulgate, signifies the tragelephus, or goat-deer; so called from its resemblance to both species. Dr. Shaw states that an animal of this kind is found in the East, where it is called fishtull, and lerwee.
pygarg: or, bison. Heb. dishon. The pygarg, נץדבסדןע, or white-buttocks, according to the LXX; and Dr. Shaw states that the liamee, as the Africans call it, is exactly such an animal; being of the same shape and colour as the antelope, and of the size of a roebuck.
the wild ox: Theo, probably the oryx of the Greeks, a species of large stag; and the Bekkar el wash of Dr. Shaw. Deuteronomy 14:5
Reciprocal: Deuteronomy 12:15 - the unclean
Gill's Notes on the Bible
The hart, the roebuck, and the fallow deer,.... All of the deer kind, and very agreeable food; harts were very common in the land of Canaan and parts adjacent; Aelianus says u harts are bred in the great mountains in Syria, Amanus, Lebanon, and Carmel: the roebuck, or "dorcas", from whence a good woman had her name, Acts 9:36 is spoken of by Martial w as very delicious food, and so are fallow deer; the word "jachmur", here used, having the signification of redness in it, may be used for that sort which are called red deer: it is observed that in the Arabic language it is used for an animal with two horns, living in the woods, not unlike an hart, but swifter than that; and it is asked, is it not the "aloe" or "elch" x?
and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois; the wild goat is reckoned by Pliny y among the half wild creatures in Africa; according to the philosopher z there are none but in Syria, on which Canaan bordered, and were very remarkable ones, having ears a span and nine inches long, and some reached to the ground. The Hebrew name for this creature is "akko"; and there is a fourfooted wild beast, by the Tartarians called "akkyk", and by the Turks "akoim", and which with the Scythians and Sarmatians are to be met with in flocks; it is between a hart and a ram, its body whitish, and the flesh exceeding sweet a; it seems to be the same with the "tragelaphus", of which there were in Arabia, as Diodorus Siculus b says; the next is the "pygarg", which we so render from the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions, or white buttocks, so called from the hinder part of it being white; a species of the eagle with a white tail is called a "pygarg", but here a four footed animal is meant; and which is mentioned as such, along with hinds, does, and goats, by Herodotus c, Aelian d, and Pliny e: it has its name "dishon", in Hebrew, from its ash colour, and the "tragelaphus", or goat deer, has part of its back ash coloured, and has ash coloured spots or streaks on its sides f: some take it to be the "strepsiceros", a kind of buck or goat with writhed horns, which the Africans, as Pliny says g, call "addaca", which is thought by some to be a corruption of "al-dashen", so Junius; the Targum of Jonathan takes it for the "unicorn" or "rhinoceros"; and the Talmudists say h that the unicorn, though it has but one horn, is free, i.e. lawful to be eaten: the "wild ox" was common in Arabia; Strabo i speaks of multitudes of wild oxen in some parts of Arabia, on the flesh of which and other animals the Arabians live; in the Septuagint version it is called the "oryx", which is a creature that has but one horn, and divides the hoof k, and so might be eaten; Acts 9:36- :, the last, the "chamois", has a French name, and is a creature of the goat kind, from whose skin the chamois leather is made; in the figure of its body it seems to approach very much to the stag kind l; perhaps it is the same with the "cemas" of Aelian m, mentioned by him along with roebucks. Some take it to be the "tarandus", of which Pliny says n it is of the size of an ox, has a head bigger than a hart, and not unlike it; its horns are branched, hoofs cloven, and is hairy like a bear. In the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan this is the "pygarg"; these several sorts of beasts were allowed to be eaten; the three first there is no difficulty about them, but the other seven it is hard to determine what they are, at least some of them. Dr. Shaw o thinks that the deer, the antelope, the wild bear, the goat deer, the white buttocks, the buffalo, and jeraffa, may lay in the best claim to the "ailee", "tzebi", "yachmur", "akkub", "dishon", "thau", and "zomer", here.
u Hist. Animal. l. 5. c. 56. w "Delicium parvo", &c. Epigram. l. 13. 93. x Castel. Lex. Polyglott. Col. 1. 294. y Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 53. z Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 8. c. 28. a Scheuchzer. Physic. Sacr. vol. 3. p. 415. b Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 134. Vid. Plin. l. 8. c. 33. c Melpomene, sive, l. 4. c. 192. d Hist. Animal l. 7. c. 19. e Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 53. f Calmet's Dictionary on the word "Pygarg". g Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 39. h T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 59. 2. i Geograph. l. 16. p. 530. k Aristot. Hist. Animal, l. 2. c. 1. l Supplement to Chambers's Dictionary on the word "Rupricapra". m Hist. Animal. l. 14. c. 14. n Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 34. 34. o Travels, p. 418.
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.
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse Deuteronomy 14:5. The hart — איל aiyal, the deer, according to Dr. Shaw: Deuteronomy 12:15.
The roebuck — צבי tsebi, generally supposed to be the antelope, belonging to the fifth order Pecora, genus MAMMALIA, and species 38. It has round twisted spiral horns, hairy tufts on the knees, browses on tender shoots, lives in hilly countries, is fond of climbing rocks, and is remarkable for its beautiful black eyes. The flesh is good and well flavoured.
The fallow deer — יחמור yachmur, from חמר chamar, to be troubled, disturbed, disordered: this is supposed to mean, not the fallow deer, but the bubalus or buffalo, which is represented by Dr. Shaw, and other travellers and naturalists, as a sullen, malevolent, and spiteful animal, capricious, ferocious, and every way brutal. According to the Linnaean classification, the buffalo belongs to the fifth order Pecora, genus MAMMALIA, species bos. According to 1Kg 4:23, this was one of the animals which was daily served up at the table of Solomon. Though the flesh of the buffalo is not considered very delicious, yet in the countries where it abounds it is eaten as frequently by all classes of persons as the ox is in England. The yachmur is not mentioned in the parallel place, Leviticus 11:1-47.
The wild goat — אקו akko. It is not easy to tell what creature is intended by the akko. Dr. Shaw supposed it to be a kind of very timorous goat, known in the East by the name fishtall and serwee, and bearing a resemblance both to the goat and the stag, whence the propriety of the name given it by the Septuagint and Vulgate, tragelaphus, the goat-stag; probably the rupicapra or rock-goat. The word is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.
The pygarg — דישן dishon. As this word is nowhere else used, we cannot tell what animal is meant by it. The word pygarg πυγαργος, literally signifies white buttocks, and is applied to a kind of eagle with a white tail; but here it evidently means a quadruped. It was probably some kind of goat, common and well known in Judea.
The wild ox — תאו teo. This is supposed to be the oryx of the Greeks, which is a species of large stag. It may be the same with the bekker el wash, described by Dr. Shaw as "a species of the deer kind, whose horns are exactly in the fashion of our stag, but whose size is only between the red and fallow deer." In Isaiah 51:20 a creature of the name of to is mentioned, which we translate wild bull; it may be the same creature intended above, with the interchange of the two last letters.
The chamois — זמר zemer. This was probably a species of goat or deer, but of what kind we know not: that it cannot mean the chamois is evident from this circumstance, "that the chamois inhabits only the regions of snow and ice, and cannot bear the heat." - Buffon. The Septuagint and Vulgate translate it the Camelopard, but this creature is only found in the torrid zone and probably was never seen in Judea; consequently could never be prescribed as a clean animal, to be used as ordinary food. I must once more be permitted to say, that to ascertain the natural history of the Bible is a hopeless case. Of a few of its animals and vegetables we are comparatively certain, but of the great majority we know almost nothing. Guessing and conjecture are endless, and they have on these subjects been already sufficiently employed. What learning, deep, solid, extensive learning, and judgment could do, has already been done by the incomparable Bochart in his Hierozoicon. The learned reader may consult this work, and, while he gains much general information, will have to regret that he can apply so little of it to the main and grand question. As I have consulted every authority within my reach, on the subject of the clean and unclean animals mentioned in the law, and have detailed all the information I could collect in my notes on Leviticus 11:0, I must refer my readers to what I have there laid down.
