Mohammed, he pretended to have been in heaven, where God spoke to him from the midst of a great and bright fire, part of which he brought away with him, and placed it on the altar of the first fire-temple which he erected (at Xix, in Media), whence it was propagated to other altars. Even the Hindoos, although they are not worshippers of fire, are particularly careful about the origin of the fires which they use for sacred purposes. That which is used in the great sacrifice of Yagam must be taken from the fire of some previous offering of the same kind, or procured afresh by rubbing together two pieces of wood: any other would amount to what is called 'strange fire' in the ensuing chapter. This sacrifice seems to be a very expensive freewill offering-believed to be effectual in procuring the offerers the fruition of their desires. They reserve a portion of the fire, and carefully keep it up all their lives, with a view to its being employed to light their funeral pile (Roberts's Illustrations, p. 84). In the same way, the Sagnicas, when they enter on their sacerdotal office, kindle, with two pieces of hard wood, a fire which they keep lighted through their lives, for their nuptial ceremony, the performance of solemn sacrifices, the obsequies of their ancestors, and their own funeral pile (Asiatic Researches, ii. 60).

With respect to the command, that the sacred fire on the altar of burnt offerings should never go out, it has seemed doubtful to many whether this injunction was put in execution in the wilderness, during the marches of the Israelites from one place to another. If they did not preserve the fire during their pilgrimage, they could not afterwards, because we read of no new supply of miraculous fire until the dedication of Solomon's temple, when the fire descended upon the new altar of burnt offerings. Whether the fire, if it still existed, on the tabernacle altar, was then transferred to the new altar, or else extinguished, we cannot learn; but it is on all hands allowed that the miraculous fire was kept up on the temple altar until the time of Manasseh, as some say, but as others, with more probability, state, till the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans. It was not restored by miracle to the second

temple, where they had only common fire: and this is numbered among the circumstances in which this temple was inferior to that of Solomon.

The Jews believe that the fire was maintained on the altar during the forty years' wanderings: and the Jewish tradition, as stated by Maimonides, is, that there were three fires on the altar-one for burnt offerings, another to supply fire for the incense offerings, and a third kept always burning, in compliance with the law. It would therefore seem that, in this view, two of the fires were allowed to go out when not wanted, and were rekindled, when required, from the perpetual fire. As the altar in its removals was to be covered with a purple cloth and the ashes taken out (Num. iv. 13), the sacred fire must then have been conveyed in a separate receptacle. (See the fifth note on Exod. xxvii. 3.) With regard to the fire on the temple-altar, the rabbins tell us that great care was taken that no wood but that which was reputed clean should be employed for fuel; and it was all carefully barked and examined before it was laid on. The fire also was never to be blown upon, either with bellows or with the breath of man. These regulations are so similar to those of Zoroaster, as to strengthen the opinion of his being thoroughly conversant with the usages of the Hebrews. He strictly enjoined that the fire which he pretended to have brought from heaven should be carefully kept up, that barked wood only should be used for fuel, and that it should be revived only by the blasts of the open air, or by oil being poured upon it. It was death to cast upon it any unclean thing, or to blow it with bellows or with the breath, by which it would be polluted; and, for this reason, the priests themselves, although they watched the fire day and night, never approached it but with a cloth over their mouths, that they might not breathe thereon. The history, true or false, of the preservation of this fire after the Mohammedan conquest, under circumstances of concealment and difficulty, is very interesting. The modern Parsees of India believe that it was ultimately conveyed to that country, and consequently that they still possess the sacred fire which Zoroaster brought from

heaven.

CHAPTER X.

1 Nadab and Abihu, for offering of strange fire, are burnt by fire. 6 Aaron and his sons are forbidden to mourn for them. 8 The priests are forbidden wine when they are to go into the tabernacle. 12 The

law of eating the holy things. 16 Aaron's excuse for transgressing thereof.

AND 'Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.

5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.

6 ¶ And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people but let your brethren, the whole house cf Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.

7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.

8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,

9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and

clean;

11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

12 ¶ And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy :

13 And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons' due, of the sacrifices of the LORD made by fire: for so I am commanded.

14 And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall ye eat in a clean place; thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they be thy due, and thy sons' due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Israel.

15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and

2 Exod. 29. 24.

thy sons' with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded.

16 And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying,

17 Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?

18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.

19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD? 20 And when Moses heard that, he was

content.

3 Chap. 6. 26.

Verse 1.Nadab and Abihu... offered strange fire before the LORD-From the interdiction of wine and strong drink which immediately succeeds this awful event, it has been inferred that a too free indulgence in wine led them to the act of disobedience and rashness for which Nadab and Abihu were thus awfully punished. This, however, is no more than a conjecture. As to the crime itself, some think that it consisted in an unauthorized attempt to enter the most holy place, which the high-priest alone was allowed to enter, and that only once in the year. This would also involve an attempted encroachment on the peculiar prerogatives of the high-priest. We confess, however, that their offence does not seem to us so difficult to discover as these conjectures suppose. The text says that 'they offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not.' This seems clear enough, when we recollect that the statements in the preceding chapter concerning the fire miraculously kindled on the altar, which was to be continually kept up on the altar of burnt offering, and from which the fire was to be taken to burn the incense offered morning and evening on the golden altar. By strange fire,' therefore, we are to understand, probably, common fire, not from the brazen altar, and therefore not that which had in its origin been miraculously kindled and appropriated to the service of the altars. That they had no right to offer incense at all, as some Rabbins and modern critics suppose, there seems reason to doubt; indeed, that the censers are said to be their censers,' seems to imply that it was part of their duty to offer incense. In this case, their crime was that they performed their duty in an irregular and negligent manner. (See Saurin's Dissertations, No. lvi.) We incline to prefer this interpretation; but Scheltinga and others advocate the opinion, that the fire itself was properly taken from the altar of burnt offerings, but that the incense was applied to the fire in another manner than God had ordained. They ground this opinion chiefly on the fact that Moses calls it simply 'fire' as put into the censers, and does not call it strange fire' till after the incense has been introduced. It has also been asked where these unhappy men got the fire, if it was not from the altar? The Targum of

Jonathan answers, with great probability, that they obtained it from the fires at which the priests' portion of the sacrifices was dressed for food in the court of the tabernacle. Strange or common fire was, in much the same way, rigidly interdicted by the religion of Zoroaster, which declared it a crime punishable with death to kindle fire on the altar of any newly-erected temple, or to rekindle it on any altar when it had been by accident extinguished, except with fire obtained either from some other temple, or from the sun.

2. Fire from the LORD... devoured them.'—' Slew them' would have been more accurate, as it seems, from v. 5, that their bodies were not reduced to ashes, nor even their vestments consumed. Whence the fire proceeded does not appear. Some think it came from their own censers: but the expression from the Lord,' would seem either to imply that it issued immediately from the air, or from the most holy place, where the Lord's presence dwelt between the cherubim. The effect, as described, resembles that of lightning, which destroys without injuring the clothes or leaving any marks of violence on the bodies of the slain. It is said that the Jews, from this precedent, derived their practice of strangling or suffocating those that were condemned to be burned, without reducing them to ashes.

3. And Aaron held his peace.'-The reader will not fail to remark the emphasis and effect of this beautiful abruption. It implies, that however strongly he may have felt this awful event as a father, he indulged no lamentation or complaint, but submitted in silence to the judgment of God upon those very sons who had before been peculiarly honoured with the Divine favour; they alone of all his sons having been with him and Moses and the seventy elders on the mount (Exod. xxiv. 9), and had seen there the symbols of the Divine presence, and heard, under the most awful circumstances, the delivery of those ordinances which it was death to break, and for breaking which they had died. This made their presumption or neglect the more criminal. We may safely claim for the conduct of their afflicted father on this occasion as large a measure of praise as writers have liberally given to instances of resignation to calamity, similar, but certainly not more con

spicuous. Indeed, from the instances quoted, it would seem as if the ancient heathen expected priests and others, when engaged in sacrifices, to remain unmoved by any intelligence concerning their private calamities. They relate that Minos heard of the death of his son while occupied in a sacrifice; but although he took off his crown, and commanded the music to cease, he continued the sacrifice he had commenced. Xenophon, while offering a sacrifice, heard that his eldest son had been killed in the battle of Mantinca; upon this he put off his mitre until he should learn how his son had died, and when he knew that he had died bravely and victorious, he replaced it on his head, and continued the sacrifice. Many similar illustrations might be adduced; but we have the rather selected these, as they also contribute to illustrate the direction in r. 6: Uncover not your heads.'

6. Uncover not your heads-Some explain this in reference to the hair, which the Israelites were sometimes accustomed to shave in times of mourning. But we concur with the Septuagint, and the great majority of commentators, in believing that the mitre or turban was intended. This was also worn by the priests while officiating. The heathen priests and sacrificers also had their heads covered; and as we gather from the instances in the preceding note, that it was among them a mark of affliction for such a person to take off the covering of the head, we may infer that this was forbidden to the Hebrew priests as a well-known and common act of priestly mourning.

- Neither rend your clothes.'-Calmet, in his Commentaire Littéral, thinks that this command is restricted to the sacerdotal vestments of the priests; and it is certainly possible that the interdiction of the outward indication of mourning was limited to the time in which the priests were engaged in their official duties and wore their ceremonial habits. At other times they dressed like the rest of their countrymen; and the Talmud says, that a priest was only accounted a priest while he wore the sacred vestments, and that beyond the precincts of the temple (or tabernacle) he was considered only as a layman. This, of

course, can only apply to the secondary priests, and it seems doubtful how far it applies even to them. It is, however, certain that the priests wore the common dress on ordinary occasions; and that they were not forbidden to rend it, is rendered probable from the fact that the high-priest Caiaphas rent his clothes when he heard the alleged blasphemy of Jesus Christ. This, however, was not an act of mourning, which only it seems the intention of the text to forbid. We do not suppose that the priests were allowed to rend the sacred vestments on any occasion; but whether they might not exhibit an act of mourning, when not engaged in their official duties, it is difficult to determine. Rending the clothes was a common and very ancient mode of expressing grief, indignation, or concern, and as such is frequently mentioned in the Scriptures. The earliest instances are those of Reuben on finding the pit empty in which he had expected to discover Joseph; and of Jacob, who also rent his clothes when he heard of Joseph's death. It is said that the upper garment only was rent for a brother, sister, son, daughter, or wife, but all the garments for a father or mother. Maimonides says that the rents were not stitched up again till after thirty days, and were never sewed up well. There is no law which enjoins the Jews to rend their clothes; yet in general they so far think it requisite to comply with this old custom as to make a slight rent for the sake of form.

9. Do not drink wine nor strong drink.'-Setting aside the detailed explanations of the Rabbins, this seems to mean that the priests were not to drink wine, or any other ine briating liquor, on the days of their ministration, until after their service in the tabernacle for the current day had terminated. A regulation like this was in force among the Egyptian priests. The Carthaginians (and probably their ancestors the Phoenicians) had a similar law for their magistrates, who, during their year of office, and the judges and governors, while in actual employment, were not allowed so much as to taste wine. Strong drinks' undoubtedly include all intoxicating drinks other than wine.

CHAPTER XI.

1 What beasts may, 4 and what may not be eaten. 9 What fishes. 13 What fowls. 29 The creeping things which are unclean.

AND the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

1 Deut. 14. 4. Acts 10. 14.

7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

9¶ These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination | unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

13¶ And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

2 2 Mac. 6. 18.

15 Every raven after his kind;

16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

22 Even these of them ye may cat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.

25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.

27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the

even.

28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.

29 ¶ These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,

30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.

31 These are unclean to you among all that creep whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.

32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein

Chap. 6. 28.

and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.

33 And every carthen vessel, whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it.

34 Of all meat which may be eaten, that on which such water cometh shall be unclean : and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.

35 And every thing whereupon any part of their carcase falleth shall be unclean; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall be broken down: for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.

36 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, 'wherein there is plenty of water, shall be clean: but that which toucheth their carcase shall be unclean.

37 And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean.

38 But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you.

39 And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even.

40 And he that eateth of the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even he also that beareth the carcase of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

43 Ye shall not make your selves abo minable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and 'ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth

ye

Heb. sou's.

5 Heb. doth multiply feet.

7 Chap. 19. 2, and 10. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 15.

in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:

47 To make a difference between the un

Verse 2. These are the beasts which ye shall eat.'-The principal design of the dietetical regulations embodied in this chapter, as well as of many other of the laws of Moses, was to oblige the Israelites to continue, as far as possible, a distinct people in Palestine, without spreading into other countries, or having much intercourse with their inhabitants. This object explains many directions which otherwise it would be difficult to understand. And the ulterior intention of this doubtless was to prevent them from being infected by that idolatry into which all the neighbouring nations were plunged, as well as to preserve them from the degrading vices to which the idolaters of Palestine were eminently addicted, as we learn not only from the Scriptures, but from the authority of the classical writers. Now, in attaining this object, a distinction of meats must be felt to have been of the highest importance. Intimate friendships,' says Michaelis, are in most cases formed at table; and with the man with whom I can neither eat nor drink, let our intercourse in business be what it may, I shall seldom become so familiar as with him whose guest I am, and he mine. If we have, besides, from education, an abhorrence of the food which others eat, this forms a new obstacle to closer intimacy. The truth of this observation must be obvious to every person acquainted with the East, where, on account of the natives regarding as unclean many articles of food and modes of preparation in which Europeans indulge, travellers or residents find it impossible to associate intimately with conscientious Mohammedans or Hindoos. Nothing more effectual could be devised to keep one people distinct from another. It causes the difference between them to be ever present to the mind, touching, as it does, upon so many points of social and every day contact; and it is therefore far more efficient in its results, as a rule of distinction, than any difference in doctrine, worship, or morals, which men could entertain. While the writer of this note was in Asia, he had almost daily occasion to be convinced of the incalculable efficacy of such distinctions in keeping men apart from strangers. A Mohammedan, for instance, might be kind, liberal, indulgent; but the recurrence of a meal, or of any eating, threw him back upon his own distinctive practices and habits, reminding him that you were an unclean person from your habits of indulgence in foods and drinks forbidden to him, and that his own purity was endangered by communication with you. Your own perception of this feeling in him, is not to you less painful and more discouraging to intercourse, than its existence is to him who entertains it. It is a mutual repulsion continually operating; and its effect may be estimated from the fact, that no nation, in which a distinction of meats was rigidly enforced as a part of a religious system, has ever changed its religion. Oriental legislators have been generally aware of the effect of such regulations; and hence through most parts of Asia we find a religious distinction of meats in very active operation, and so arranged as to prevent social intercourse with people of a different faith. In the chapter before us it is not difficult to discover that the Israelites, in attending to its injunctious, must have been precluded from social intercourse with any of their neighbours. As to the Egyptians, they had themselves a system of national laws on this point, which restrained them from intercourse with strangers. They could not eat with the Israelites even in the time of Jacob. Some of the animals which the Israelites were allowed to eat were never slaughtered by the Egyptians, being sacred to some god; while, on the other hand, the Israelites were interdicted some animals which the Egyptians ate freely. Then as to the Canaanites or Phoenicians, they seem to have eaten not only those meats prohibited by Moses, which we usually eat; but also others, of which the flesh of dogs was one. With regard

clean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

to the Arabs, they were nearly related to the Israelites, and their practices were less corrupt than those of the Egyptians and Canaanites, whence the difference of food is not so strongly marked; but still it was quite enough to hinder the intimacy of the two nations. The camel not only constitutes the principal wealth of the Arabs, but its flesh is a principal animal food; besides which they eat the hare, and the jerboa-all these are forbidden in this chapter, the last under the name of 'mouse.' If even at this distance of time we can discover such differences between the diet of the Hebrews and that of their neighbours, we may easily conceive that a more intimate acquaintance with the diet of the latter would exhibit more important and numerous distinctions.

Those which we have stated are doubtless the principal reasons for the minute distinctions of food enforced in this chapter, as indeed seems to be expressly intimated in re. 43-45. But there is every probability that dietetical considerations also had their due weight, although we are not to consider such considerations as influencing all the prohibitions relative to unclean beasts. Such considerations are sufficiently obvious, however, in some of the interdictions, such, for instance, as that of pork, in v. 7 (see the note thereon): and we feel satisfied that a minute investigation would show that the nutriment afforded by the flesh of many of the interdicted animals is less wholesome and tends more to the production of scrofulous and scorbutic disorders, than that of any included in the list of permitted food. To this some have added moral reasons for the laws in question, ascribing to the eating of certain animals a specific influence on the moral temperament. That such an influence may to some degree and in certain forms be exhibited, need not be denied; but it will still remain doubtful whether such influence of particular kinds of food can ever be of so much importance, as alone to furnish a reason for legislative interference.

3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof,' etc.-Here we have a specific allusion to that order of the mammalia which are called the Ruminantia, as embracing all those animals that chew the cud, and have the foot divided into two principal toes, whereof the nails are developed in an extraordinary manner, and form what is commonly known by the name of a hoof. Their stomach is divided into four distinct sacs or portions, and they subsist entirely upon vegetables; hence they are in a peculiar manner suited for the purpose recommended both by prescription and use. All beasts that had neither, or wanted one, of the distinguishing marks in question, are declared unclean. The reader will not fail to observe that the beautifully simple and scientific division of quadrupeds here stated on Divine authority at so early a period, is one which has never yet, after all the improvements in natural history, become obsolete; but, on the contrary, is one which the greatest masters of the science have continued to consider useful.

4. The camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof-Michaelis justly remarks, that in the case of certain quadrupeds a doubt may arise, whether they do fully divide the hoof, or ruminate. In such cases,' he says, to prevent difficulties, a legislator must authoritatively decide; by which I do not mean that he should prescribe to naturalists what their belief should be, but only to determine, for the sake of expounders or judges of the law, what animals are to be regarded as ruminating, or parting the hoof.' This doubt arises in the case of the camel, which does ruminate, and does in some sort divide the hoof-that is, the foot is divided into two toes, which are very distinctly marked above, but underneath the division is limited to the anterior portion of the foot, the toes being cushioned upon and confined by the elastic pad upon which the camel goes. This peculiar conformation of the foot