And ye shall be holy men unto me— See note on ch. Exodus 19:6. As the prohibition of eating flesh torn by beasts, is immediately subjoined to these words, Le Clerc's conjecture seems extremely probable, that holy men here signifies, consecrated, as priests, in holiness to me: it being likely that the priests only of the other nations, and of Egypt especially, abstained at all times from whatever was accidentally killed, or died of itself. Pythagoras, it is well known, derived his philosophy from the Egyptian priests; and he taught, that those who would duly qualify themselves for the worship of the gods, ought, among other things, to touch no dead body; and to abstain from flesh torn by beasts, and from that which dies of itself. Others of the heathens, as Calmet has well observed, had the same aversion to flesh torn by beasts. Phocylides thus enjoins,
"Abstain from flesh, that falls to beasts a prey, Detest and throw such noxious food away To dogs; let ravenous dogs devour such feasts As fair their nature: beasts are meat for beasts." Precept. Poem. by HARTE.
Possibly this prohibition might, in some measure, be founded on the general law of abstinence from blood. In the Samaritan code it is, ye shall entirely cast it away, instead of, ye shall cast it to the dogs. (see Houbigant's note.) But a remark made by the author of the Observations, would rather lead one to believe ours to be the true meaning: "The great external purity," says he, "which is so studiously attended to by the modern eastern people, as well as the ancient, produces same odd circumstances in respect to their dogs. They do not suffer them in their houses, and even with care avoid their touching them in the streets, which would be considered as a defilement. One would imagine then, that, under these circumstances, as they do not appear by any means to be necessary in their cities, however important they may be to those who feed flocks, there should be very few of these creatures found in those places: they are there, notwithstanding, in great numbers, and crowd their streets. They do not appear to belong to particular persons, as our dogs do; nor to be fed distinctly by such as might claim some interest in them, but get their food as they can. At the same time, they consider it as right to take some care of them; and the charitable people among them frequently give money every week or month to butchers and bakers to feed them at stated times; and some leave legacies at their deaths for the same purpose." This is Le Bruyn's account; and Thevenot and Maillet mention something of the same sort. In like manner dogs seem to have been looked upon among the Jews in a disagreeable light, 1 Samuel 17:43. Exodus 8:13 yet they had them in considerable numbers in their cities, but they were not shut up in their houses or courts, Psalms 6:10. They seem to have been forced to seek their food wherever they could find it, Psalms 59:15. To which I may add, that some care of them seems to be indirectly enjoined to the Jews in this verse; where, after prohibiting them to eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field, it is added, ye shall cast it to the dogs: Circumstances, which seem to be better illustrated by the abovementioned travellers into the East, than by any commentators that I know of.