Is there any secondary object in these laws besides the motive distinctly mentioned? It has frequently been observed that Jews have enjoyed a certain degree of immunity from epidemics that raged among their non-Jewish neighbours. It has further been noticed that they have a lower rate of mortality and a greater longevity. These facts are generally explained to be the result of a temperate life, regulated by the Divine Law. Finding that such is the consequence of obedience to the Dietary Laws, we may fairly assume that in distinguishing certain things from the rest, in prohibiting some and permitting others, the Lawgiver aimed at the health and the well-being of man’s body. Our conception of the goodness of God compels us to believe that in recommending certain things for our use He intended thereby to promote our well-being, and to show us what is good for our health, and what is injurious. But we must take care that we do not on that account consider these precepts exclusively as sanitary regulations, however important such regulations may be. We must not lose sight of the fact that Holiness is the only object of the Dietary Laws, mentioned in the Pentateuch.
But what difference can it make to the Almighty whether we eat this or that? Surely it makes no difference to the Almighty; but we have faith in His Goodness and Wisdom, and are convinced that He knows by what means we may best attain to that [[457]]holiness which we are so frequently exhorted to seek, and that the Divine Laws which He revealed to us for this very purpose show the shortest and the safest road to this aim.
With the following exceptions, the Dietary Laws concern only animal food:—
(1.) ערלה “Forbidden fruit,” i.e., the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting (Lev. xix. 23).—The fruit of the fourth year (נטע רבעי) was formerly, in the time of the Temple, brought to Jerusalem, and consumed there amidst praises and thanksgiving to Him who is the source of all blessing (ibid. v. 24). Those who lived far from Jerusalem were allowed to redeem the fruit of the fourth year with silver, and to spend the latter in the holy city.
(2.) חדש “New corn.”—The Omer of barley offered on the second day of Passover is called “the first of your harvest” (Lev. xxiii. 10), and it was enjoined, “Ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears,[140] until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the oblation of your God” (ibid. 14).
These two laws (ערלה and חדש) seem to have their source in the dictum, “The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God” (Exod. xxiii. 19).
(3.) כלאים.—Mixture of different kinds. “Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed” (Lev. xix. 19).[141] “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with [[458]]two kinds of seed” (Deut. xxii. 9). In the former case only the sowing of divers kinds is prohibited, but the produce of such sowing is not forbidden; in the latter case, if the law is transgressed, the produce of both the vine and the seed is not to be used for any purpose whatever (אסור בהנאה), for the law is followed by the words, “lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which thou hast sown and the increase of the vineyard.”
Although these and similar[142] precepts are introduced by the words “Ye shall keep my statutes (חקתי),” and no reason is given for the enactment of these statutes, it seems, from the position occupied by these laws in a section of moral precepts, that they serve as reminders of the important lesson that our conduct should be regulated by the principles of contentment and simplicity of life, principles which are the best safeguard against undue desire for luxury and superfluity. The prohibition of sowing divers kinds of seed further reminds us of the importance of preserving our heart in a state of simplicity and purity; that twofold weights, twofold measures, and especially a twofold heart are an abomination to the Lord.
In reference to animal food the following principles are observed:— [[459]]
1. The killing of animals and the consuming of their flesh must not tend to create savage and cruel habits. It is therefore forbidden—