|
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no reasonable cause for
the ceremonial observances. Because, as the Apostle says (1 Tim.
4:4), "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected
that is received with thanksgiving." It was therefore unfitting that
they should be forbidden to eat certain foods, as being unclean
according to Lev. 11 [Dt. 14].
Objection 2: Further, just as animals are given to man for food,
so also are herbs: wherefore it is written (Gn. 9:3): "As the
green herbs have I delivered all" flesh "to you." But the Law did
not distinguish any herbs from the rest as being unclean, although some
are most harmful, for instance, those that are poisonous. Therefore
it seems that neither should any animals have been prohibited as being
unclean.
Objection 3: Further, if the matter from which a thing is generated
be unclean, it seems that likewise the thing generated therefrom is
unclean. But flesh is generated from blood. Since therefore all
flesh was not prohibited as unclean, it seems that in like manner
neither should blood have been forbidden as unclean; nor the fat which
is engendered from blood.
Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Mt. 10:28; cf.
Lk. 12:4), that those should not be feared "that kill the
body," since after death they "have no more that they can do":
which would not be true if after death harm might come to man through
anything done with his body. Much less therefore does it matter to an
animal already dead how its flesh be cooked. Consequently there seems
to be no reason in what is said, Ex. 23:19: "Thou shalt not
boil a kid in the milk of its dam."
Objection 5: Further, all that is first brought forth of man and
beast, as being most perfect, is commanded to be offered to the Lord
(Ex. 13). Therefore it is an unfitting command that is set forth
in Lev. 19:23: "when you shall be come into the land, and
shall have planted in it fruit trees, you shall take away the
uncircumcision of them," i.e. the first crops, and they "shall be
unclean to you, neither shall you eat of them."
Objection 6: Further, clothing is something extraneous to man's
body. Therefore certain kinds of garments should not have been
forbidden to the Jews: for instance (Lev. 19:19): "Thou
shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two sorts": and (Dt.
22:5): "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel,
neither shall a man use woman's apparel": and further on (Dt.
22:11): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of woolen
and linen together."
Objection 7: Further, to be mindful of God's commandments
concerns not the body but the heart. Therefore it is unsuitably
prescribed (Dt. 6:8, seqq.) that they should "bind" the
commandments of God "as a sign" on their hands; and that they should
"write them in the entry"; and (Num. 15:38, seqq.) that
they should "make to themselves fringes in the corners of their
garments, putting in them ribands of blue . . . they may remember .
. . the commandments of the Lord."
Objection 8: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:9) that
God does not "take care for oxen," and, therefore, neither of
other irrational animals. Therefore without reason is it commanded
(Dt. 22:6): "If thou find, as thou walkest by the way, a
bird's nest in a tree . . . thou shalt not take the dam with her
young"; and (Dt. 25:4): "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that
treadeth out thy corn"; and (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not
make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind."
Objection 9: Further, no distinction was made between clean and
unclean plants. Much less therefore should any distinction have been
made about the cultivation of plants. Therefore it was unfittingly
prescribed (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not sow thy field with
different seeds"; and (Dt. 22:9, seqq.): "Thou shalt sow
thy vineyard with divers seeds"; and: "Thou shalt not plough with
an ox and an ass together."
Objection 1:: Further, it is apparent that inanimate things are
most of all subject to the power of man. Therefore it was unfitting to
debar man from taking silver and gold of which idols were made, or
anything they found in the houses of idols, as expressed in the
commandment of the Law (Dt. 7:25, seqq.). It also seems an
absurd commandment set forth in Dt. 23:13, that they should
"dig round about and . . . cover with earth that which they were
eased of."
Objection 1:: Further, piety is required especially in priests.
But it seems to be an act of piety to assist at the burial of one's
friends: wherefore Tobias is commended for so doing (Tob.
1:20, seqq.). In like manner it is sometimes an act of piety to
marry a loose woman, because she is thereby delivered from sin and
infamy. Therefore it seems inconsistent for these things to be
forbidden to priests (Lev. 21).
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:14): "But thou art
otherwise instructed by the Lord thy God": from which words we may
gather that these observances were instituted by God to be a special
prerogative of that people. Therefore they are not without reason or
cause.
I answer that, The Jewish people, as stated above (Article 5),
were specially chosen for the worship of God, and among them the
priests themselves were specially set apart for that purpose. And just
as other things that are applied to the divine worship, need to be
marked in some particular way so that they be worthy of the worship of
God; so too in that people's, and especially the priests', mode of
life, there needed to be certain special things befitting the divine
worship, whether spiritual or corporal. Now the worship prescribed by
the Law foreshadowed the mystery of Christ: so that whatever they did
was a figure of things pertaining to Christ, according to 1 Cor.
10:11: "All these things happened to them in figures."
Consequently the reasons for these observances may be taken in two
ways, first according to their fittingness to the worship of God;
secondly, according as they foreshadow something touching the
Christian mode of life.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article 5, ad 4,5),
the Law distinguished a twofold pollution or uncleanness; one, that
of sin, whereby the soul was defiled; and another consisting in some
kind of corruption, whereby the body was in some way infected.
Speaking then of the first-mentioned uncleanness, no kind of food is
unclean, or can defile a man, by reason of its nature; wherefore we
read (Mt. 15:11): "Not that which goeth into the mouth
defileth a man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a
man": which words are explained (Mt. 15:17) as referring to
sins. Yet certain foods can defile the soul accidentally; in so far
as man partakes of them against obedience or a vow, or from excessive
concupiscence; or through their being an incentive to lust, for which
reason some refrain from wine and flesh-meat.
If, however, we speak of bodily uncleanness, consisting in some kind
of corruption, the flesh of certain animals is unclean, either because
like the pig they feed on unclean things; or because their life is
among unclean surroundings: thus certain animals, like moles and mice
and such like, live underground, whence they contract a certain
unpleasant smell; or because their flesh, through being too moist or
too dry, engenders corrupt humors in the human body. Hence they were
forbidden to eat the flesh of flat-footed animals, i.e. animals
having an uncloven hoof, on account of their earthiness; and in like
manner they were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals that have many
clefts in their feet, because such are very fierce and their flesh is
very dry, such as the flesh of lions and the like. For the same
reason they were forbidden to eat certain birds of prey the flesh of
which is very dry, and certain water-fowl on account of their
exceeding humidity. In like manner certain fish lacking fins and
scales were prohibited on account of their excessive moisture; such as
eels and the like. They were, however, allowed to eat ruminants and
animals with a divided hoof, because in such animals the humors are
well absorbed, and their nature well balanced: for neither are they
too moist, as is indicated by the hoof; nor are they too earthly,
which is shown by their having not a flat but a cloven hoof. Of fishes
they were allowed to partake of the drier kinds, of which the fins and
scales are an indication, because thereby the moist nature of the fish
is tempered. Of birds they were allowed to eat the tamer kinds, such
as hens, partridges, and the like. Another reason was detestation of
idolatry: because the Gentiles, and especially the Egyptians, among
whom they had grown up, offered up these forbidden animals to their
idols, or employed them for the purpose of sorcery: whereas they did
not eat those animals which the Jews were allowed to eat, but
worshipped them as gods, or abstained, for some other motive, from
eating them, as stated above (Article 3, ad 2). The third
reason was to prevent excessive care about food: wherefore they were
allowed to eat those animals which could be procured easily and
promptly.
With regard to blood and fat, they were forbidden to partake of those
of any animals whatever without exception. Blood was forbidden, both
in order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of human
blood, as stated above (Article 3, ad 8); and in order to shun
idolatrous rite whereby it was customary for men to collect the blood
and to gather together around it for a banquet in honor of the idols,
to whom they held the blood to be most acceptable. Hence the Lord
commanded the blood to be poured out and to be covered with earth
(Lev. 17:13). For the same reason they were forbidden to eat
animals that had been suffocated or strangled: because the blood of
these animals would not be separated from the body: or because this
form of death is very painful to the victim; and the Lord wished to
withdraw them from cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as
to be less inclined to be cruel to other men, through being used to be
kind to beasts. They were forbidden to eat the fat: both because
idolaters ate it in honor of their gods; and because it used to be
burnt in honor of God; and, again, because blood and fat are not
nutritious, which is the cause assigned by Rabbi Moses (Doct.
Perplex. iii). The reason why they were forbidden to eat the sinews
is given in Gn. 32:32, where it is stated that "the children of
Israel . . . eat not the sinew . . . because he touched the sinew
of" Jacob's "thing and it shrank."
The figurative reason for these things is that all these animals
signified certain sins, in token of which those animals were
prohibited. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faustum iv, 7): "If
the swine and lamb be called in question, both are clean by nature,
because all God's creatures are good: yet the lamb is clean, and the
pig is unclean in a certain signification. Thus if you speak of a
foolish, and of a wise man, each of these expressions is clean
considered in the nature of the sound, letters and syllables of which
it is composed: but in signification, the one is clean, the other
unclean." The animal that chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is
clean in signification. Because division of the hoof is a figure of
the two Testaments: or of the Father and Son: or of the two natures
in Christ: of the distinction of good and evil. While chewing the
cud signifies meditation on the Scriptures and a sound understanding
thereof; and whoever lacks either of these is spiritually unclean. In
like manner those fish that have scales and fins are clean in
signification. Because fins signify the heavenly or contemplative
life; while scales signify a life of trials, each of which is required
for spiritual cleanness. Of birds certain kinds were forbidden. In
the eagle which flies at a great height, pride is forbidden: in the
griffon which is hostile to horses and men, cruelty of powerful men is
prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very small birds, signifies
those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is full of cunning,
denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings. The vulture,
which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases of the slain,
signifies those who like others to die or to fight among themselves that
they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind signify those who are
blackened by their lusts; or those who lack kindly feelings, for the
raven did not return when once it had been let loose from the ark. The
ostrich which, though a bird, cannot fly, and is always on the
ground, signifies those who fight God's cause, and at the same time
are taken up with worldly business. The owl, which sees clearly at
night, but cannot see in the daytime, denotes those who are clever in
temporal affairs, but dull in spiritual matters. The gull, which
flies both in the air and swims in the water, signifies those who are
partial both to Circumcision and to Baptism: or else it denotes those
who would fly by contemplation, yet dwell in the waters of sensual
delights. The hawk, which helps men to seize the prey, is a figure
of those who assist the strong to prey on the poor. The screech-owl,
which seeks its food by night but hides by day, signifies the lustful
man who seeks to lie hidden in his deeds of darkness. The cormorant,
so constituted that it can stay a long time under water, denotes the
glutton who plunges into the waters of pleasure. The ibis is an
African bird with a long beak, and feeds on snakes; and perhaps it is
the same as the stork: it signifies the envious man, who refreshes
himself with the ills of others, as with snakes. The swan is bright
in color, and by the aid of its long neck extracts its food from deep
places on land or water: it may denote those who seek earthly profit
though an external brightness of virtue. The bittern is a bird of the
East: it has a long beak, and its jaws are furnished with
follicules, wherein it stores its food at first, after a time
proceeding to digest it: it is a figure of the miser, who is
excessively careful in hoarding up the necessaries of life. The coot
has this peculiarity apart from other birds, that it has a webbed foot
for swimming, and a cloven foot for walking: for it swims like a duck
in the water, and walks like a partridge on land: it drinks only when
it bites, since it dips all its food in water: it is a figure of a man
who will not take advice, and does nothing but what is soaked in the
water of his own will. The heron, commonly called a falcon,
signifies those whose "feet are swift to shed blood" (Ps.
13:3). The plover, which is a garrulous bird, signifies the
gossip. The hoopoe, which builds its nest on dung, feeds on foetid
ordure, and whose song is like a groan, denotes worldly grief which
works death in those who are unclean. The bat, which flies near the
ground, signifies those who being gifted with worldly knowledge, seek
none but earthly things. Of fowls and quadrupeds those alone were
permitted which have the hind-legs longer than the forelegs, so that
they can leap: whereas those were forbidden which cling rather to the
earth: because those who abuse the doctrine of the four Evangelists,
so that they are not lifted up thereby, are reputed unclean. By the
prohibition of blood, fat and nerves, we are to understand the
forbidding of cruelty, lust, and bravery in committing sin.
Reply to Objection 2: Men were wont to eat plants and other
products of the soil even before the deluge: but the eating of flesh
seems to have been introduced after the deluge; for it is written
(Gn. 9:3): "Even as the green herbs have I delivered . . .
all" flesh "to you." The reason for this was that the eating of the
products of the soil savors rather of a simple life; whereas the eating
of flesh savors of delicate and over-careful living. For the soil
gives birth to the herb of its own accord; and such like products of
the earth may be had in great quantities with very little effort:
whereas no small trouble is necessary either to rear or to catch an
animal. Consequently God being wishful to bring His people back to a
more simple way of living, forbade them to eat many kinds of animals,
but not those things that are produced by the soil. Another reason may
be that animals were offered to idols, while the products of the soil
were not.
The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said
(ad 1).
Reply to Objection 4: Although the kid that is slain has no
perception of the manner in which its flesh is cooked, yet it would
seem to savor of heartlessness if the dam's milk, which was intended
for the nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish.
It might also be said that the Gentiles in celebrating the feasts of
their idols prepared the flesh of kids in this manner, for the purpose
of sacrifice or banquet: hence (Ex. 23) after the solemnities to
be celebrated under the Law had been foretold, it is added: "Thou
shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam." The figurative reason
for this prohibition is this: the kid, signifying Christ, on account
of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rm. 8:3), was not to be
seethed, i.e. slain, by the Jews, "in the milk of its dam,"
i.e. during His infancy. Or else it signifies that the kid, i.e.
the sinner, should not be boiled in the milk of its dam, i.e. should
not be cajoled by flattery.
Reply to Objection 5: The Gentiles offered their gods the
first-fruits, which they held to bring them good luck: or they burnt
them for the purpose of secrecy. Consequently (the Israelites) were
commanded to look upon the fruits of the first three years as unclean:
for in that country nearly all the trees bear fruit in three years'
time; those trees, to wit, that are cultivated either from seed, or
from a graft, or from a cutting: but it seldom happens that the
fruit-stones or seeds encased in a pod are sown: since it would take a
longer time for these to bear fruit: and the Law considered what
happened most frequently. The fruits, however, of the fourth year,
as being the firstlings of clean fruits, were offered to God: and
from the fifth year onward they were eaten.
The figurative reason was that this foreshadowed the fact that after
the three states of the Law (the first lasting from Abraham to
David, the second, until they were carried away to Babylon, the
third until the time of Christ), the Fruit of the Law, i.e.
Christ, was to be offered to God. Or again, that we must mistrust
our first efforts, on account of their imperfection.
Reply to Objection 6: It is said of a man in Ecclus. 19:27,
that "the attire of the body . . . " shows "what he is." Hence
the Lord wished His people to be distinguished from other nations,
not only by the sign of the circumcision, which was in the flesh, but
also by a certain difference of attire. Wherefore they were forbidden
to wear garments woven of woolen and linen together, and for a woman to
be clothed with man's apparel, or vice versa, for two reasons.
First, to avoid idolatrous worship. Because the Gentiles, in their
religious rites, used garments of this sort, made of various
materials. Moreover in the worship of Mars, women put on men's
armor; while, conversely, in the worship of Venus men donned
women's attire. The second reason was to preserve them from lust:
because the employment of various materials in the making of garments
signified inordinate union of sexes, while the use of male attire by a
woman, or vice versa, has an incentive to evil desires, and offers an
occasion of lust. The figurative reason is that the prohibition of
wearing a garment woven of woolen and linen signified that it was
forbidden to unite the simplicity of innocence, denoted by wool, with
the duplicity of malice, betokened by linen. It also signifies that
woman is forbidden to presume to teach, or perform other duties of
men: or that man should not adopt the effeminate manners of a woman.
Reply to Objection 7: As Jerome says on Mt. 23:6, "the
Lord commanded them to make violet-colored fringes in the four corners
of their garments, so that the Israelites might be distinguished from
other nations." Hence, in this way, they professed to be Jews:
and consequently the very sight of this sign reminded them of their
law.
When we read: "Thou shalt bind them on thy hand, and they shall be
ever before thy eyes, the Pharisees gave a false interpretation to
these words, and wrote the decalogue of Moses on a parchment, and
tied it on their foreheads like a wreath, so that it moved in front of
their eyes": whereas the intention of the Lord in giving this
commandment was that they should be bound in their hands, i.e. in
their works; and that they should be before their eyes, i.e. in
their thoughts. The violet-colored fillets which were inserted in
their cloaks signify the godly intention which should accompany our
every deed. It may, however, be said that, because they were a
carnal-minded and stiff-necked people, it was necessary for them to
be stirred by these sensible things to the observance of the Law.
Reply to Objection 8: Affection in man is twofold: it may be an
affection of reason, or it may be an affection of passion. If a
man's affection be one of reason, it matters not how man behaves to
animals, because God has subjected all things to man's power,
according to Ps. 8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his
feet": and it is in this sense that the Apostle says that "God has
no care for oxen"; because God does not ask of man what he does with
oxen or other animals.
But if man's affection be one of passion, then it is moved also in
regard to other animals: for since the passion of pity is caused by the
afflictions of others; and since it happens that even irrational
animals are sensible to pain, it is possible for the affection of pity
to arise in a man with regard to the sufferings of animals. Now it is
evident that if a man practice a pitiful affection for animals, he is
all the more disposed to take pity on his fellow-men: wherefore it is
written (Prov. 11:10): "The just regardeth the lives of his
beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel." Consequently the
Lord, in order to inculcate pity to the Jewish people, who were
prone to cruelty, wished them to practice pity even with regard to dumb
animals, and forbade them to do certain things savoring of cruelty to
animals. Hence He prohibited them to "boil a kid in the milk of its
dam"; and to "muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"; and to
slay "the dam with her young." It may, nevertheless, be also said
that these prohibitions were made in hatred of idolatry. For the
Egyptians held it to be wicked to allow the ox to eat of the grain
while threshing the corn. Moreover certain sorcerers were wont to
ensnare the mother bird with her young during incubation, and to employ
them for the purpose of securing fruitfulness and good luck in bringing
up children: also because it was held to be a good omen to find the
mother sitting on her young.
As to the mingling of animals of divers species, the literal reason
may have been threefold. The first was to show detestation for the
idolatry of the Egyptians, who employed various mixtures in
worshipping the planets, which produce various effects, and on various
kinds of things according to their various conjunctions. The second
reason was in condemnation of unnatural sins. The third reason was the
entire removal of all occasions of concupiscence. Because animals of
different species do not easily breed, unless this be brought about by
man; and movements of lust are aroused by seeing such things.
Wherefore in the Jewish traditions we find it prescribed as stated by
Rabbi Moses that men shall turn away their eyes from such sights.
The figurative reason for these things is that the necessities of life
should not be withdrawn from the ox that treadeth the corn, i.e. from
the preacher bearing the sheaves of doctrine, as the Apostle states
(1 Cor. 9:4, seqq.). Again, we should not take the dam with
her young: because in certain things we have to keep the spiritual
senses, i.e. the offspring, and set aside the observance of the
letter, i.e. the mother, for instance, in all the ceremonies of the
Law. It is also forbidden that beast of burden, i.e. any of the
common people, should be allowed to engender, i.e. to have any
connection, with animals of another kind, i.e. with Gentiles or
Jews.
Reply to Objection 9: All these minglings were forbidden in
agriculture; literally, in detestation of idolatry. For the
Egyptians in worshipping the stars employed various combinations of
seeds, animals and garments, in order to represent the various
connections of the stars. Or else all these minglings were forbidden
in detestation of the unnatural vice.
They have, however, a figurative reason. For the prohibition:
"Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds," is to be
understood, in the spiritual sense, of the prohibition to sow strange
doctrine in the Church, which is a spiritual vineyard. Likewise
"the field," i.e. the Church, must not be sown "with different
seeds," i.e. with Catholic and heretical doctrines. Neither is it
allowed to plough "with an ox and an ass together"; thus a fool
should not accompany a wise man in preaching, for one would hinder the
other.
Reply to Objection 1: Silver and gold were reasonably forbidden
(Dt. 7) not as though they were not subject to the power of man,
but because, like the idols themselves, all materials out of which
idols were made, were anathematized as hateful in God's sight. This
is clear from the same chapter, where we read further on (Dt.
7:26): "Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy
house, lest thou become an anathema like it." Another reason was
lest, by taking silver and gold, they should be led by avarice into
idolatry to which the Jews were inclined. The other precept (Dt.
23) about covering up excretions, was just and becoming, both for
the sake of bodily cleanliness; and in order to keep the air
wholesome; and by reason of the respect due to the tabernacle of the
covenant which stood in the midst of the camp, wherein the Lord was
said to dwell; as is clearly set forth in the same passage, where
after expressing the command, the reason thereof is at once added, to
wit: "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to
deliver thee, and to give up thy enemies to thee, and let thy camp be
holy, and let no uncleanness appear therein." The figurative reason
for this precept, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi), is that
sins which are the fetid excretions of the mind should be covered over
by repentance, that we may become acceptable to God, according to
Ps. 31:1: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and
whose sins are covered." Or else according to a gloss, that we
should recognize the unhappy condition of human nature, and humbly
cover and purify the stains of a puffed-up and proud spirit in the deep
furrow of self-examination.
Reply to Objection 1:: Sorcerers and idolatrous priests made use,
in their rites, of the bones and flesh of dead men. Wherefore, in
order to extirpate the customs of idolatrous worship, the Lord
commanded that the priests of inferior degree, who at fixed times
served in the temple, should not "incur an uncleanness at the death"
of anyone except of those who were closely related to them, viz. their
father or mother, and others thus near of kin to them. But the
high-priest had always to be ready for the service of the sanctuary;
wherefore he was absolutely forbidden to approach the dead, however
nearly related to him. They were also forbidden to marry a "harlot"
or "one that has been put away," or any other than a virgin: both on
account of the reverence due to the priesthood, the honor of which
would seem to be tarnished by such a marriage: and for the sake of the
children who would be disgraced by the mother's shame: which was most
of all to be avoided when the priestly dignity was passed on from father
to son. Again, they were commanded to shave neither head nor beard,
and not to make incisions in their flesh, in order to exclude the rites
of idolatry. For the priests of the Gentiles shaved both head and
beard, wherefore it is written (Bar 6:30): "Priests sit in
their temples having their garments rent, and their heads and beards
shaven." Moreover, in worshipping their idols "they cut themselves
with knives and lancets" (3 Kgs. 18:28). For this reason
the priests of the Old Law were commanded to do the contrary.
The spiritual reason for these things is that priests should be
entirely free from dead works, i.e. sins. And they should not shave
their heads, i.e. set wisdom aside; nor should they shave their
beards, i.e. set aside the perfection of wisdom; nor rend their
garments or cut their flesh, i.e. they should not incur the sin of
schism.
|
|