the night hawk<\/em> ] The meaning of the Heb. tam<\/em> is very uncertain. The root seems to indicate a bird of aggressive and violent character.<\/p>\n the seamew<\/em> ] cuckow<\/em> A.V. So LXX. and Vulg.<\/p>\n the hawk after its kind<\/em> ] Many varieties of the hawk are indicated. The Heb. word n<\/em> occurs here, in Deu 14:15<\/span> and Job 39:26<\/span> only.<\/p>\n Verse 16<\/span>. The owl<\/B><\/I>] bath haiyaanah<\/I>, the daughter<\/I> of vociferation<\/I>, the female ostrich<\/I>, probably so called from the noise they make. “In the lonesome part of the night,” says Dr. Shaw, “the ostriches frequently make a very doleful and hideous noise, sometimes resembling the roar<\/I> of the lion<\/I>; at other times, the hoarser voice of the bull<\/I> or ox<\/I>.” He adds, “I have heard them groan<\/I> as if in the deepest agonies.” – Travels, 4to edition, p. 455. The ostrich is a very unclean animal, and eats its own ordure as soon as it voids it, and of this Dr. Shaw observes, (see above,) it is remarkably fond! This is a sufficient reason, were others wanting, why such a fowl should be reputed to be unclean, and its use as an article of diet prohibited.<\/P> <\/P> The night hawk<\/B><\/I>] tachmas<\/I>, from chamas<\/I>, to force away, act violently<\/I> and unjustly<\/I>; supposed by Bochart<\/I> and Scheuchzer<\/I> to signify the male ostrich<\/I>, from its cruelty towards its young; (see Job 39:13-18<\/span>); but others, with more reason, suppose it to be the bird described by Hasselquist, which he calls the strix Orientalis<\/I>, or Oriental owl. “It is of the size of the common owl, living in the ruins and old deserted houses of Egypt and Syria; and sometimes in inhabited houses. The Arabs in Egypt call it Massasa<\/I>, the Syrians Bana<\/I>. It is very ravenous in Syria, and in the evenings, if the windows be left open, it flies into the house and kills infants<\/I>, unless they are carefully watched; wherefore the women are much afraid of it.” – Travels, p. 196.<\/P> <\/P> If this is the fowl intended, this is a sufficient reason why it should be considered an abomination<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> The cuckoo<\/B><\/I>] shachaph<\/I>, supposed rather to mean the sea<\/I> mew<\/I>; called shachaph<\/I>, from shachepheth<\/I>, a wasting<\/I> distemper<\/I>, or atrophy<\/I>, (mentioned Le 26:16<\/span>; De 28:22<\/span>), because its body is the leanest<\/I>, in proportion to its bones and feathers, of most other birds, always appearing as if under the influence of a wasting distemper<\/I>. A fowl which, from its natural constitution or manner of life, is incapable of becoming plump<\/I> or fleshy<\/I>, must always be unwholesome; and this is reason sufficient why such should be prohibited.<\/P> <\/P> And the hawk<\/B><\/I>] nets<\/I>, from the root natsah<\/I>, to shoot forth<\/I> or spring forward<\/I>, because of the rapidity and length of its flight, the hawk being remarkable for both. As this is a bird of prey<\/I>, it is forbidden, and all others of its kind.<\/P> <\/p>\n The owl, <\/B>Heb. the daughter of the owl<\/I>, which he mentions as the best of the kind both for sex and age, and therefore more desired for food than the elder or males. And it is hereby implied, that the very youngest and best of all the other kinds are forbidden, and much more the rest. <\/P> <\/p>\n 16. the owl<\/B>It is generallysupposed the ostrich is denoted by the original word. <\/P> the nighthawk<\/B>a verysmall bird, with which, from its nocturnal habits, many superstitiousideas were associated. <\/P> the cuckoo<\/B>Evidentlysome other bird is meant by the original term, from its being rangedamong rapacious birds. DR.SHAW thinks it is thesafsaf; but that, being a graminivorous and gregarious bird, isequally objectionable. Others think that the sea mew, or some of thesmall sea fowl, is intended. <\/P> the hawk<\/B>The Hebrew<\/I>word includes every variety of the falcon familyas the goshawk,the jerhawk, the sparrow hawk, c. Several species of hawks are foundin Western Asia and Egypt, where they find inexhaustible prey in theimmense numbers of pigeons and turtledoves that abound in thosequarters. The hawk was held pre-eminently sacred among the Egyptiansand this, besides its rapacious disposition and gross habits, mighthave been a strong reason for its prohibition as an article of foodto the Israelites.<\/P><\/p>\n And the owl<\/strong>,…. 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:<\/p>\n and the night hawk<\/strong>; 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:<\/p>\n and the cuckoo<\/strong>; 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:<\/p>\n and the hawk after his kind<\/strong>; 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<\/span> the hawk was a symbol of deity with the Egyptians, and was reverenced and worshipped by them f.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n , i.e., either daughter of screaming ( Bochart<\/em>), or daughter of greediness ( Gesenius<\/em>, etc.), is used according to all the ancient versions for the ostrich, which is more frequently described as the dweller in the desert (Isa 13:21<\/span>; Isa 34:13<\/span>, etc.), or as the mournful screamer (Mic 1:8<\/span>; Job 30:29<\/span>), and is to be understood, not as denoting the female ostrich only, but as a noun of common gender denoting the ostrich generally. It does not devour carrion indeed, but it eats vegetable matter of the most various kinds, and swallows greedily stones, metals, and even glass. It is found in Arabia, and sometimes in Hauran and Belka ( Seetzen<\/em> and Burckhardt<\/em>), and has been used as food not only by the Struthiophagi of Ethiopia ( Diod. Sic. <\/em> 3, 27; Strabo<\/em>, xvi. 772) and Numidia ( Leo Afric<\/em>. p. 766), but by some of the Arabs also ( Seetzen<\/em>, iii. p. 20; Burckhardt<\/em>, p. 178), whilst others only eat the eggs, and make use of the fat in the preparation of food. , according to Bochart, Gesenius,<\/em> and others, is the male ostrich; but this is very improbable. According to the lxx, Vulg<\/em>., and others, it is the owl<\/em> ( Oedmann<\/em>, iii. pp. 45ff.); but this is mentioned later under another name. According to Saad. Ar. Erp. <\/em> it is the swallow<\/em>; but this is called in Jer 8:7<\/span>. Knobel<\/em> supposes it to be the cuckoo<\/em>, which is met with in Palestine ( Seetzen<\/em>, 1, p. 78), and derives the name from , violenter egit <\/em>, supposing it to be so called from the violence with which it is said to turn out or devour the eggs and young of other birds, for the purpose of laying its own eggs in the nest ( Aristot. hist. an.<\/em> 6, 7; 9, 29; Ael. nat. an.<\/em> 6, 7). is the , or slender gull<\/em>, according to the lxx and Vulg<\/em>. Knobel<\/em> follows the Arabic, however, and supposes it to be a species of hawk<\/em>, which is trained in Syria for hunting gazelles, hares, etc.; but this is certainly included in the genus . , from to fly, is the hawk<\/em>, which soars very high, and spreads its wings towards the south (Job 39:26<\/span>). It stands in fact, as shows, for the hawk-tribe generally, probably the , accipiter <\/em>, of which the ancients enumerate many different species. , which is mentioned in Psa 102:7<\/span> as dwelling in ruins, is an owl<\/em> according to the ancient versions, although they differ as to the kind. In Knobel’s<\/em> opinion it is either the screech-owl<\/em>, which inhabits ruined buildings, walls, and clefts in the rock, and the flesh of which is said to be very agreeable, or the little screech-owl<\/em>, which also lives in old buildings and walls, and raises a mournful cry at night, and the flesh of which is said to be savoury. , according to the ancient versions an aquatic bird, and therefore more in place by the side of the heron, where it stands in Deuteronomy, is called by the lxx ; in the Targ<\/em>. and Syr<\/em>. , extrahens pisces <\/em>. It is not the gull<\/em>, however ( larus catarractes <\/em>), which plunges with violence, for according to Oken<\/em> this is only seen in the northern seas, but a species of pelican<\/em>, to be found on the banks of the Nile and in the islands of the Red Sea, which swims well, and also dives, frequently dropping perpendicularly upon fishes in the water. The flesh has an oily taste, but it is eaten for all that.<\/p>\n : from to snort, according to Isa 34:11<\/span>, dwelling in ruins, no doubt a species of owl<\/em>; according to the Chaldee and Syriac, the uhu<\/em>, which dwells in old ruined towers and castles upon the mountains, and cries uhupuhu<\/em>. , which occurs again in Lev 11:30<\/span> among the names of the lizards, is, according to Damiri<\/em>, a bird resembling the uhu<\/em>, but smaller. Jonathan<\/em> calls it uthya<\/em> = , a night-owl<\/em>. The primary meaning of the word is essentially the same as that of , to breathe or blow, so called because many of the owls have a mournful cry, and blow and snort in addition; though it cannot be decided whether the strix otus <\/em> is intended, a bird by no means rare in Egypt, which utters a whistling blast, and rolls itself into a ball and then spreads itself out again, or the strix flammea <\/em>, a native of Syria, which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl ( strix stridula <\/em>), which inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu<\/em>, at other times bane<\/em>, a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence. , which also lived in desolate places (Isa 34:11<\/span>; Zep 2:14<\/span>), or in the desert itself (Psa 102:7<\/span>), was not the kat<\/em>, a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (Robinson, ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa 34:11<\/span> and Zep 2:14<\/span>, but the pelican<\/em> ( , lxx), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem<\/em> (on Num 14:17<\/span>) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, and uttering an incessant cry. It is the true pelican of the ancients ( pelecanus graculus <\/em>), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). , in Deut. , is , the swan, according to the Septuagint; porphyrio <\/em>, the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus <\/em> ( Saad. Ar. Erp.<\/em>), which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles ( Plin. h. n. <\/em> 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called , the mountain-stork ( Arist. h. an. <\/em> 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white. It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs ( Burckhardt, Syr.<\/em> p. 1046). It received its name of “ tenderly loving<\/em> ” from the tenderness with which it watches over its young ( Bochart<\/em>, iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, , avis pia <\/em>, a bird of passage according to Jer 8:7<\/span>, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Psa 104:17<\/span>, cf. Bochart<\/em>, iii. pp. 85ff.). In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini<\/em> and others mentioned by Bochart<\/em> (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well.<\/p>\n (Note: Oedmann<\/em> (v. 58ff.), Knobel<\/em>, and others follow the Greek translation of Leviticus and the Psalms, and the Vulgate<\/em> rendering of Leviticus, the Psalms, and Job, and suppose the reference to be to the , herodius <\/em>, the heron: but the name chasidah <\/em> points decidedly to the stork, which was generally regarded by the ancients as pietatis cultrix <\/em> ( Petron<\/em>. 55, 6), whereas, with the exception of the somewhat indefinite passage in Aelian<\/em> ( Nat. an.<\/em> 3, 23), (i.e., feed their young by spitting out their food) , nothing is said about the parental affection of the heron. And the testimony of Bellonius<\/em>, “ Ciconiae quae aetate in Europa sunt, magna hyemis parte ut in Aegypto sic etiam circa Antiochiam et juxta Amanum montem degunt <\/em>,” is a sufficient answer to Knobel’s<\/em> assertion, that according to Seetzen there are not storks in Mount Lebanon.)<\/p>\n , according to the lxx and Vulgate<\/em> , a marsh-bird of the snipe<\/em> kind, of which there are several species in Egypt ( Hasselquist<\/em>, p. 308). This is quite in accordance with the expression “after her kind,” which points to a numerous genus. The omission of before , whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav<\/em> in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the before in Lev 11:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n (Note: On account of the omission of Knobel<\/em> would connect as an adjective with , and explain as derived from frons<\/em>, frondens<\/em>, and signifying bushy. The herons were called “the bushy chasidah <\/em>,” he supposes, because they have a tuft of feathers at the back of their head, or long feathers hanging down from their neck, which are wanting in the other marsh-birds, such as the flamingo, crane, and ibis. But there is this important objection to the explanation, that the change of for in such a word as frons, which occurs as early as Lev 23:40<\/span>, and has retained its even in the Aramaean dialects, is destitute of all probability. In addition to this, there is the improbability of the chasidah <\/em> being restricted by anaphah <\/em> to the different species of heron, with three of which the ancients were acquainted ( Aristot. h. an. <\/em> 9, 2; Plin. h. n.<\/em> 10, 60). If chasidah <\/em> denoted the heron generally, or the white heron, the epithet anaphah <\/em> would be superfluous. It would be necessary to assume, therefore, that chasidah <\/em> denotes the whole tribe of marsh-birds, and that Moses simply intended to prohibit the heron or bushy marsh-bird. But either of these is very improbable: the former, because in every other passage of the Old Testament chasidah <\/em> stands for one particular kind of bird; the latter, because Moses could hardly have excluded storks, ibises, and other marsh-birds that live on worms, from his prohibition. All that remains, therefore, is to separate ha <\/em> – anaphah <\/em> from the preceding word, as in Deuteronomy, and to understand it as denoting the plover (?) or heron, as there were several species of both. Which is intended, it is impossible to decide, as there is nothing certain to be gathered from either the ancient versions or the etymology. Bochart’s<\/em> reference of the word to a fierce bird, viz., a species of eagle, which the Arabs call Tammaj<\/em>, is not raised into a probability by a comparison with the similarly sounding of Od. 1, 320, by which Aristarchus<\/em> understands a kind of eagle.)<\/p>\n : according to the lxx, Vulg<\/em>., and others, the lapwing<\/em>, which is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt ( Forsk, Russel, Sonnini<\/em>), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn ( Sonn<\/em>. 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung. Lastly, is the bat (Isa 2:20<\/span>), which the Arabs also classified among the birds.<\/p>\n (16) And the owl.<\/strong>Better, and the ostrich, <\/em>as the Authorised Version rightly renders it in the margin in three out of the eight passages in which it occurs, viz., Job. 30:29<\/span>, Isa. 34:13<\/span>; Isa. 43:20<\/span>; literally, the daughter <\/em>or inhabitant of the desert. <\/em>The ostrich, which is the largest bird and the swiftest of all cursorial animals, was associated by the Hebrews with the terrors of the wilderness, and was regarded by the ancients as an unnatural hybrid, as a kind of half bird and half quadruped. It dwells amongst desolated places (Isa. 13:21<\/span>; Isa. 34:13<\/span>; Jer. 50:39<\/span>), fills the air with its doleful and hideous wails (Mic. 1:8<\/span>) and cruelly neglects its eggs to be hatched by the sun or trodden down under foot (Lam. 4:3<\/span>; Job. 39:17-18<\/span>). Owing to its proverbial stupidity, this hybrid is selected with another monster to illustrate the abundant goodness of the Lord, by showing that even this creature will become sensible of gratitude and break forth into thanksgiving and praise (Isa. 43:20<\/span>). The flesh of the ostrich was eaten by the ancient Ethiopians, Indians, and other nations. The Romans regarded ostrich brains as a great delicacy. The ostrich occasionally devours fowls and other small vertebrates like a bird of prey, and tradition assures us that ostriches consumed the body of Agag.<\/p>\n And the night hawk.<\/strong>Of all the unclean birds constituting this list, the one here rendered night hawk is the most difficult to identify. The name in the original (tachms<\/em>) simply describes the bird as the violent one, or the rapacious, or the cruel, and this designation would apply to any bird of prey not already specified in this catalogue. Hence it has alternately been taken for the owl, the night hawk, the male ostrich, the falcon, the seabird gannet, the cuckoo, and the swallow. It will, however, be seen that all the large birds of prey which are here hazarded, have either already been mentioned or are mentioned in the sequel of this list, whilst the small birds, viz., the cuckoo and the swallow, are too insignificant and too harmless to be placed between the large raptorial companions. In this uncertainty of opinion it is best to leave the Authorised Version alone. The name only occurs again in the parallel passage in Deu. 14:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n And the cuckow.<\/strong>Rather, and the sea-gull. <\/em>Like the foregoing bird of prey, the shachaph <\/em>here mentioned only occurs again in the duplicate list of unclean animals in Deu. 14:15<\/span>. It literally means the thin, slender, <\/em>or cadaverous <\/em>bird, and is taken by the most ancient authorities to denote the sea-gull, which is the raven of the sea. It darts down with great velocity upon its victim, like a bird of prey. It not only eats fishes, insects, and smaller aquatic animals, but feeds upon carrion. The eggs of the gulls and the flesh of the young birds are to this day eaten both in the East and in some northern countries of Europe.<\/p>\n And the hawk.<\/strong>Besides the parallel passage in Deu. 14:15<\/span>, the hawk (netz<\/em>) also occurs in Job. 39:26<\/span>, where it is described as a migratory bird, since it migrates to a more southern climate on the approach of winter. It feeds upon mammals, birds, and amphibia, and attacks even its own parent, mate, and offspring. It abounds in a variety of species in all parts of Asia. Hence the remark after his kind. Some tribes regard the flesh of the hawk as very palatable.<\/p>\n 16<\/strong>. <\/strong> The owl <\/strong> This is the ostrich, literally, the daughter of the howl, <\/em> from its doleful cry. It is correctly translated in Lam 4:3<\/span>. It is the largest of all known birds, and the swiftest of all cursorial animals. To capture one costs the lives of two horses. Its strength and voracity are enormous. From its habits of indiscriminately gulping down almost anything, even glass or stone, it is obviously unclean. Its cry by night, Tristram says, resembles the hoarse lowing of an ox in pain; others compare it to the roar of the lion. <\/p>\n The nighthawk <\/strong> The Hebrew tachmas, <\/em> found only in Deu 14:15<\/span> and Isa 34:11<\/span>, cannot with certainty be identified. The conjectures are, that it is the male ostrich, the swallow, and the owl. As the Seventy and the Vulgate agree in the last named bird, and since it is very common, with Tristram we adopt it as the true rendering. <\/p>\n The cuckoo <\/strong> There is no authority for this translation. The thachaph, leanness, <\/em> is supposed to be a bird of the genus gull, probably the stormy petrel, commonly called Mother Carey’s chicken, which abounds in the Levant. <\/p>\n The hawk <\/strong> There are in Palestine several species of the falcon, most of which are summer visitors from the South. See Job 39:26<\/span>. The smaller species are the kestrel and hobby. Of the larger kinds, the falco sacer <\/em> is the most magnificent.<\/p>\n Lev 11:16<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And the cuckow<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The didapper, <\/em>or seamew. <\/em>Bochart after the LXX and Vulgate. <\/p>\n Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,<\/p>\n Ver. 16. And the owl, and the night hawk.<\/strong> ] Night birds that hate the light, or fly against it, as bats do, are an abomination. Deeds of darkness are out of date, now in the days of the gospel especially. Rom 13:12-13 <\/p>\n ouckow. Probably = sea-gull. <\/p>\n Deu 14:15-18, Psa 102:6, Isa 13:21, Isa 13:22, Isa 34:11-15, Joh 3:19-21, Eph 2:2, Eph 2:3, Eph 4:18, Eph 4:19, Eph 5:7-11, Phi 3:18, Phi 3:19, 1Th 5:5-7, Rev 18:2<\/p>\n And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind, 16. ostrich ] Here and in Deu 14:15; Job 30:29; Isa 13:21; Isa 34:13; Isa 43:20; Jer 50:39; Mic 1:8 the rendering ‘owl’ of A.V. should be corrected to ‘ostrich.’ the night hawk ] The meaning of the Heb. … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 11:16”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"