DISCLAIMER: As mentioned on my other web sites and pages, I do not espouse to all of the beliefs expressed on the reciprocal links I have provided here. My web sites are a venture into the pros and cons of diverse aspects of religious beliefs. I leave it completely up to each individual to decide what is truth and what is not. I am also not responsible for any cost or donation purchases that are made through these links. These reciprocal links are purely for educational and research purpose only. Please view these links at your own discretion.
FEATURE LINKS
Would you like to be a feature link at the top of this page?
E-MAIL ME with your request and I will get back to you ASAP.
Do Rabbits Chew Their Cud?
The Bible beats the skeptics (again)
By Jonathan Sarfati
DO RABBITS CHEW THE CUD?
Leonard R. Brand
Chairman, Department of Biology
Loma Linda University
Does The Hare Raelly Chew The Cud?
Did Father Yahweh instruct that the covering for the tabernacle to be made with "badger skins"?
"Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?
There is uncertainty as to the particular kind of skin referred to as ta′chash; this Hebrew word is used in describing the outer cover of the tabernacle and a wrapping for the furnishings and utensils of the sanctuary for transport. Ta′chash or techa·shim′ (plural) usually appears alongside ‛ohr or ‛oh·rohth′ (skin, skins). (Ex 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Nu 4:6-14, 25; Eze 16:10) The translators of the Greek Septuagint seem to have understood the Hebrew word to denote, not an animal, but the color blue. (Compare Nu 4:14, ftn.) However, the almost unanimous opinion of Jewish commentators is that ta′chash refers to an animal. This view was also endorsed by the Hebrew lexicographer Gesenius, who considered the Septuagint reading to be simply conjecture, a rendering having the support neither of etymology nor of related languages. He understood ta′chash to mean either the seal or the badger, basing his conclusions on the context, the authority of the Talmudists, a comparison of the Hebrew word with similar words in other languages, and Hebrew etymology.
Bible translators have variously rendered ‛ohr (‛oh·rohth′) ta′chash (techa·shim′) as “badgers’ skin(s)” (KJ), “goatskin(s)” (RS), “porpoise skin(s)” (AT), “sealskin(s)” (AS), “leather” (Mo), “fine leather” (JB), “violet skins” (Dy), and “tahash leather” (NW, Ex 25:5, ftn, but “sealskins” in main text). The rendering “badgers’ skin(s)” is not generally favored by scholars, since it is thought unlikely that the Israelites would have been able to procure enough badger skins, either in Egypt or in the wilderness, for covering the tabernacle. There are also scholars who consider neither “badgers’ skin(s)” nor “sealskin(s)” nor “porpoise skin(s)” to be correct, in view of the fact that badgers, seals, porpoises or dolphins, dugongs, and similar creatures were evidently unclean for food. (Le 11:12, 27) They therefore find it hard to conceive that the skin of an “unclean” animal would have been used for something so sacred as the construction of the tabernacle and as a protective covering for the furnishings and utensils of the sanctuary. Those taking this view suggest that ta′chash may designate the skin of a clean animal, possibly of a kind of antelope, sheep, or goat.
Usable, Though Seal Classed as Unclean. The fact that seals were evidently unclean for food would not necessarily rule out using their skins as a covering for the tabernacle. For instance, whereas the lion and the eagle were “unclean” (Le 11:13, 27), the heavenly cherubs seen by Ezekiel in vision were depicted with four faces, including that of a lion and of an eagle. (Eze 1:5, 10; 10:14) Also, the copper carriages that Solomon made for temple use were adorned with representations of lions, and this undoubtedly according to the plans given to David by divine inspiration. (1Ki 7:27-29; 1Ch 28:11-19) The Israelites used “unclean” animals, such as asses, for mounts, it even being foretold that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem upon an ***. (Zec 9:9; Mt 21:4, 5) Although John the Baptizer had a most sacred commission to “go in advance before Jehovah to make his ways ready,” he wore clothing made from the hair of an “unclean” animal. (Lu 1:76; Mt 3:4; Le 11:4) All of this tends to indicate that the distinction between clean and unclean was simply dietary, though at times it was also used with reference to sacrifice, and did not require that the Israelites regard “unclean” animals with general abhorrence. (Le 11:46, 47) Also, these, like the “clean” animals, were created by God and were therefore good, not loathsome in themselves.—Ge 1:21, 25.
How Obtainable by Israelites. If the ta′chash of the Bible does designate a kind of seal, then a question may arise as to how it was possible for the Israelites to obtain sealskins. While seals are generally associated with Arctic and Antarctic regions, some seals favor warmer climates. Today a few monk seals still inhabit part of the Mediterranean Sea, as well as other warmer waters. Over the centuries man has greatly reduced the number of seals, and in Bible times these animals may have been abundant in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea. As late as 1832 an English edition of Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible (p. 139) observed: “On many of the small islands of the Red sea, around the peninsula of Sinai, are found seals.”—See also The Tabernacle’s Typical Teaching, by A. J. Pollock, London, p. 47.
The ancient Egyptians engaged in commerce on the Red Sea and, of course, received goods from many of the Mediterranean regions. So the Egyptians would have had access to sealskins. Hence, when the Israelites left Egypt, they might have taken with them the sealskins they already had, along with others obtained when the Egyptians gave into their hands an abundance of valuable things.—Ex 12:35, 36.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Badgers' skins - Rather, leather, probably of a sky-blue color, formed from the skins of the תחשׁ tachash (a general name for marine animals), which was well adapted as a protection against the weather.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And rams' skins died red,.... Of these were made a covering for the tent or tabernacle:
and badgers' skins, which were for the same use: the Septuagint version calls them hyacinth or blue skins; according to which, they seem to be the rams' skins died blue; and so Josephus (b) seems to have understood it; and it is much questionable whether the same creature is meant we call the badger, since that with the Israelites was an unclean creature; nor is its skin made use of for shoes, or well could be, as the skin of this creature is said to be, Ezekiel 16:10. Jarchi says it was a kind of beast only at that time; and Aben Ezra says, it was known in those days but not now: ...
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
תּחשׁ is either the seal, phoca, or else, as this is not known to exist in the Arabian Gulf, the φῶκος equals φώκαινα of the ancients, as Knobel supposes, or κῆτος θαλάσσιον ὅμοιον δελφῖνι, the sea-cow (Manati, Halicora), which is found in the Red Sea, and has a skin that is admirably adapted for sandals. Hesychius supposes it to have been the latter, which is probably the same as the large fish Tn or Atm, that is caught in the Red Sea, and belongs to the same species as the Halicora (Robinson, Pal. i. p. 170); as its skin is also used by the Bedouin Arabs for making sandals (Burckhardt, Syr. p. 861). In the Manati the upper skin differs from the under; the former being larger, thicker, and coarser than the latter, which is only two lines in thickness and very tough, so that the skin would be well adapted either for the thick covering of tents or for the finer kinds of ornamental sandals (Ezekiel 16:10).
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
5. badgers' skins-The badger was an unclean animal, and is not a native of the East-rather some kind of fish, of the leather of which sandals are made in the East. [See on [23]Ex 39:34 and [24]Eze 16:10.] SOURCE
BADGER [Skins]: Tanned skins used to cover the holy things of the Sanctuary; not of the omnivorous [unclean] 'badger' per se, but possibly of a ruminant, streaked species of antelope making fine pelts [Numbers 14]. SOURCETachash
VIEW
SIGN