In the legislation of Moses on the subject of clean and unclean ' animals, we find a more parti cular classification of the various tribes of the animal kingdom, so far at least as they fell under the notice of the sacred writer in a somewhat limited district. The portion pertaining to aquatic animals is contained in Lev. xi. 9-12, ancl Dent. xiv. 9, to. A distinction is here drawn between salt-water and fresh-water fish, and between such as are clean and unclean in each. The distinction is a simple one ; Whatsoever hath fins ana' scales, etc., ye shall eat ;' and All that have not fins and scales, etc., shall be an abomination unto you.' No particular fishes are named,T. and this is the more — * The ancients observed the extreme fecundity of fishes. The early Hebrews formed the verb rin, to multiply exceedingly, from VI a fish. See TT Gen. xlviii. where Jacob's blessing literally means, let them increase like the fish.' Onkelos renders the phrase in terms equivalent to ut pisces maris multiplicentur. Compare Pliny, Hist. Nat. ix. 50, and Aristotle, Hist. Animal. vi. 31. For some moa'ern notices of this fecundity of fishes, see Kitto, Bible Illustr. i. 34.
i• In most instances nri differs from the other generic word in having a collective sense, as in the passage mentioned in the text; whereas the latter has rather an ina'ividual meaning, as in Kings iv. 33. In the book of Jonah, however, the r; of i. 17, and the ;1,,r1 of ii. r, are undoubtedly synonymous. (See Gesenius Thes. 32o, who com pares Mr; with the collective MID = .birros, cavalry ; comp. Fiirst, Hebr. II/orterb. i. 286).
In the Epistle of Barnabas, c. x., the writer, with express reference to this law of Moses men tions certain fishes as prohibited by name—kal cn) ktil 047, 6bno-1, o-Abpau,ap, obab roXiiroaa, obab Thou,shalt not eat of the lamprey, the poly pus, nor the cuttle-fish (Hefele's Patrer Apost. [ed. 2], p. 21). This addition appears in no existing copy of the Pentateuch, nor does it even occur in the quotation from Barnabas, made by remarkable, because the context before and after the two passages mentions many individual names of birds and beasts. A similar distinction of fishes with and without scales as fit and unfit for offer ings [or, as Bochart (Hieroz. ed. Leusden, p. 42) says, for food at the sacrificial feasts], seems to. have been early made in the sacred rites of Rome. Pliny quotes from Cassius Hemina an old law of Numa, ut pisces qui squamosi' 1I012 essent ni [ne] pollncerent (Hist. Nat. xxxii. 2, To). In ancient Egypt, the sanctity and the wholesomeness of fishes were incompatible qualities. The most effectual method of forbidding the use of any fish was to assign it a place among the sacred animals of the country' (Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, iii. 58).
On this principle the /4pidotzts, a scaly fish, was deemed both sacrcd and unfit fur use. The reason of the law lies perhaps in the nature of things ; the terms of the prohibition would exclude all aquatic animals which are not fishes (strictly so called), such as the saurians and the serpents, which would be accounted as an abomination and unclean. Sanatory considerations would have weight in such legislation,* In Eg,ypt, fish which have not scales are generally found to be unwholesome food. One of the few reasonable laws of the Caliph, El-I Iakim, was that which forbade the selling or catching of such kinds of fish (Lane's Modern Egyptians, i. 136, note ; De Sacy's Chrestonzathie Arabe [ed. 2] i. 98 ; Knobel, on Lev. xi. 9). Maimonides, with less reason, sces in the Levitical distinctions offins and scales among fishes marks whereby the more noble and excellent species might be distinguished from those that were inferior ' (Townley's Afore Nevochim, p. 305). In no ordinance of the laws of Moses do we find fishes. prescribed as religious offerings. In this respect, as well as many others, these laws were opposed to the heathen rituals, which appointed fish-offerings to various deities. Besides the lepidotus, the oxyrhincus, the phagrus [eel, from its unwholesome qualities not eaten by the ancient Egyptians,' Wilkinson v. 25r], /atus and ma.otes were held sacred t in various parts of ancient Egypt (Clem. Alex.; Plutarch ; Strabo ; Athen. mils, are the authorities referred to by Sir G. Wil kinson, v. 125). In the Ordinances of Menu, chap. v. (on Diet, Purification, etc.), sects. 15, 16, the twice-born man is commanded diligently to abstain from ftsh ; yet the two fishes called pat' hina and rohita may be eaten by the guests, when offered at a repast in honour of the gods or manes ; and so may the ra'jiva, the sinhatunda, and the sasalca* of every species.' (Sir W. Jones' Laws of Menu, by Haughton, p. 146).
Taking fishes in the scientific sense of 'oviparous, vertebrated, cold-blooded animals, breathing water by means of gills or branchice, and generally provided with fins,' none are mentioned by name throughout the O. T. and N. T.; but regarded in the popular and inexact sense of aquatic animals, inhabitants more or less of the water, we meet with eleven in stances, which require some notice here. (1.) That well-known Batrachian reptile, the frog (1/".1.1DY, LXX. Thispaxos, Vulg. Rana), which emerges from a fish-like infancy, breathing by gills instead of lungs, and respiring water instead of air, is often mentioned in Exod. but only in two passages else, Ps. lxxviii. 45, and cv. 30 [TSEPHARDEA]. (2. ) The Annelid, horse-leech, whosc name occurs only once, Prov. xxx. 15 (151,1., LXX. Bsexxn, Vulg.