Leviticus 11:22

Lev 11:22 [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

Ver. 22. The locust, &c.] All creeping fowls that go upon all four might not be beaten, except Arbe, Soleam, Chargol, and Chargah, names to us unknown.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Lev 11:22. The locust after his kind — The Hebrew word ארבהarbeh, is sometimes a common name for all locusts, but here signifies a peculiar sort of them The name derived from רבהrabah, to multiply, imports a multitude, no animal being more prolific. The bald locust — As it is not easy to determine what species of locust this is, and as it has not any name in modern languages, it might be better, in a translation, to retain the original name סלעם solgnam, which, in the Chaldaic, signifies to consume. The beetle — As none ever eat beetles, and they are not four-footed with legs to leap withal, it is the opinion of good critics that the Hebrew word חרגל chargol is not properly translated. It is rather to be taken for another sort of locust unknown to us. The grasshopper — Another species of locust, the Hebrew name of which is derived, according to Bochart, from an Arabic word, which signifies to veil, because they fly in such swarms as sometimes to veil or darken the sun. But how to distinguish these locusts from the rest is difficult, if not impossible to us. They were, however, well known of old in the eastern countries. For locusts, though unusual food with us, were commonly eaten by the Æthiopians, Lybians, Parthians, and other eastern people bordering upon Judea. And as it is certain the eastern locusts were much larger than ours, so it is probable they were of different qualities, and yielded better nourishment.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

These were certain kinds of grasshoppers, which are not now properly known.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 22. The locust] ארבה arbeh, either from ארב arab, to lie in wait or in ambush, because often immense flights of them suddenly alight upon the fields, vineyards, c., and destroy all the produce of the earth or from רבה rabah, he multiplied, because of their prodigious swarms. See a particular account of these insects in the notes, See "Ex 10:4".

The bald locust] סלעם solam, compounded, says Mr. Parkhurst, from סלע sala, to cut, break, and עם am, contiguity; a kind of locust, probably so called from its rugged, craggy form. See the first of Scheuchzer's plates, vol. iii., p. 100.

The beetle] חרגל chargol. "The Hebrew name seems a derivative from חרג charag, to shake, and רגל regel, the foot; and so to denote the nimbleness of its motions. Thus in English we call an animal of the locust kind a grasshopper; the French name of which is souterelle, from the verb sauter, to leap" - Parkhurst. This word occurs only in this place. The beetle never can be intended here, as that insect never was eaten by man, perhaps, in any country of the universe.

The grasshopper] חגב chagab. Bochart supposes that this species of locust has its name from the Arabic verb [Arabic] hajaba to veil; because when they fly, as they often do, in great swarms, they eclipse even the light of the sun. See the notes on "Ex 10:4", and the description of ten kinds of locusts in Bochart, vol. iii., col. 441. And see the figures in Scheuchzer, in whose plates 20 different species are represented, vol. iii., p. 100. And see Dr. Shaw on the animals mentioned in this chapter. Travels, p. 419, c., 4to. edition and when all these are consulted, the reader will see how little dependence can be placed on the most learned conjectures relative to these and the other animals mentioned in Scripture. One thing however is fully evident, viz., that the locust was eaten, not only in those ancient times, in the time of John Baptist, Mt 3:4, but also in the present day. Dr. Shaw ate of them in Barbary "fried and salted," and tells us that "they tasted very like crayfish." They have been eaten in Africa, Greece, Syria, Persia, and throughout Asia; and whole tribes seem to have lived on them, and were hence called acridophagoi, or locust-eaters by the Greeks. See Strabo lib. xvi., and Pliny, Hist. Nat., lib. xvii., c. 30.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(22) The locust after his kind.—Of the four species of locusts here specified as permitted to be eaten, this one called arbe is the most frequently mentioned in the Bible. It occurs no less than twenty-four times, and is in four instances wrongly rendered in the Authorised Version by “grasshopper” (Jdg_6:5; Jdg_7:12; Job_39:20; Jer_46:23). It is the locust which constituted the eighth plague of Egypt (Exo_10:4-19); which is described as committing the terrible ravages (Deu_28:38; Joe_1:4; Joe_2:25; Nah_3:7); and which swarmed in such innumerable quantities that it became a proverb in the Bible, “like the locusts in multitude” (Jdg_7:12; Jer_46:23). From these characteristics the arbe is supposed to be the flying migratory locust. The administrators of the law in the time of Christ described the arbe by the name gubai, which is the species most commonly eaten, and ordained the following benediction to be recited before eating it: “Blessed be He by whose word everything was created.” The locusts which are still eaten by the Jews and other Eastern nations are prepared in different ways. Generally they are thrown alive into a pot of boiling water mixed with salt, and taken out after a few minutes, when the heads, feet, and wings are plucked off, and the trunks are dried in an oven or in the sun on the roofs of houses, and are kept in bags for winter use. They are also broiled or stewed, or fried in butter; or they are mixed with butter and spread on thin cakes of bread. In taste they resemble shrimps or prawns. There are shops in some Eastern towns where they only sell locusts, strung upon cords or by measure. The locusts thus form an antidote to the famine they create by the devastation which they commit. They formed, along with “wild honey,” the food of John the Baptist (Mat_3:4).

And the bald locust.—This is the only place where salam, which is the name in the original, occurs as one of the edible kinds of leaping insects. Any attempt to identify the species is simply conjecture, since all which tradition tells us about it is that this kind of locust “has no tail but has a hump.”

The beetle.—Rather, the hopping locust. Though it is difficult to identify the exact species, as the name (chargol) does not occur again in the Bible, yet it is perfectly certain that a sort of locust is here intended, since the context clearly shows that four different kinds of the same insect are enumerated. This is moreover confirmed by the administrators of the law in the time of Christ, who assure us the chargol is a species of locust having both a hump and a tail, the eggs of which Jewish women suspended in the ear as a remedy against ear-ache. This shows that it must have been a very large kind, and as the name denotes the galloping or hopping one, it is evidently designed to describe an unwinged species.

The grasshopper.—Rather, the small locust. This name (chagab) occurs four times more in the Bible (Num_13:33; 2Ch_7:13; Ecc_12:5; Isa_40:22), and is only in one place rightly rendered by locust (2Ch_7:13) in the Authorised Version. From the fact that it is described as laying waste the fields (2Ch_7:13), and that its insignificant appearance is contrasted with giant men (Num_13:33) and with the great God of heaven (Isa_40:22), it is justly inferred that it denotes a small devastating locust which swarms in great quantities. According to the authorities in the time of Christ, it is a species which has a tail, but no hump. It was so common that the name (chagab) became a generic term for many of the locust tribe. Some kinds bearing this name were beautifully marked, and were eagerly caught by Jewish children as playthings, just as butterflies and cockchafers are sought after by children in the present day. Others again were caught in large numbers, sprinkled over with wine, and then sold. Hence the following two rules obtained during the second Temple: (1) No Israelite was allowed to buy them after the dealer had prepared them in this manner; and (2) he that vowed to abstain from flesh is not allowed to eat the flesh of fish and of (chagabim) locusts. Because the edible kinds of locusts are passed over in the parallel dietary laws in Deuteronomy, some have concluded that the eating of these insects was prohibited at the more advanced time when Deuteronomy was written. The fact, however, that John the Baptist ate locusts, and that a benediction was ordered during the second Temple to be recited at eating them, plainly shows the futility of the assertion. The Lawgiver never intended to repeat in Deuteronomy every particular point of legislation.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Even these of them ye may eat, &c. The four following ones, which seem to be no other than four sorts of locusts:

the locust after his kind; this is the common locust, called by the name of Arbeh, from the great multiplication and vast multitudes of them; the phrase, "after his kind", and which also is used in all the following instances, signifies the whole entire species of them, which might be eaten:

and the bald locust after his kind; which in the Hebrew text is Soleam, and has its name, as Aben Ezra suggests, from its ascending rocks: but since locusts do not climb rocks, or have any peculiar regard for them, rather this kind of locust may be so called, from their devouring and consuming all that come in their way (g), from the Chaldee word which signifies to swallow, devour, and consume; but why we should call it the bald locust is not so clear, though it seems there were such, since the Jews describe some that have no baldness, which the gloss explains, whose head is not bald (h), which shows that some are bald; and so, this is described by Kimchi (i), it has an eminence, a rising, or bunch upon it; some render it baldness, and it hath no tail, and its head is long; and so Ben Melech:

and the beetle after his kind; which is another sort of locust called Chargol, and should not be rendered a beetle, for no sort of beetles are eatable, nor have legs to leap withal, and so come not under the general description given of such flying, creeping things, fit to eat: Kimchi says it is one kind of a locust (k), and Hiscuni derives its name from and because it strives to leap with its feet, which answers to the above descriptive character: the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions, and some others, render it by Ophiomachus, a fighter with serpents, to which the locust is an enemy, and kills them, taking fast hold of their jaws, as Pliny says (l), and so Aristotle (m):

and the grasshopper after his kind; this is another, and the fourth kind of the locust that might be eaten; its name is Chagab, from the Arabic word Chaguba, "to vail", locusts vailing the light of the sun: and according to the Jewish doctors, it is a name which every locust fit to eat should have;"among the locusts (fit for food) are these, who have four feet, and four wings and thighs, and wings covering the greatest part of them, and whose name is Chagab (n);''and commentators say (o), it must be called by this name, as well as have those signs: the difference between these several sorts is with them this; the Chagab has a tail, but no bunch; Arbeh neither bunch nor tail; and Soleam has a bunch, but not a tail; and Chargol has both bunch and tail (p): Maimonides (q) reckons up eight sorts of them fit to eat; and these creatures were not only eaten by the Jews, but by several other nations: with the Parthians they were very agreeable and grateful food, as Pliny (r) relates; who also says (s), that some part of the Ethiopians live only upon them all the year, hardened in smoke, and with salt: Diodorus Siculus (t) makes mention of the same, and calls them Acridophagi, locust eaters, and gives a particular account of their hunting and taking them, and preserving them for food; and so does Strabo (u); and the same Solinus (w) relates of those that border on Mauritania; and they are still eaten in Barbary, where they dry them in ovens to preserve them, and then either eat them alone, or pounded and mixed with milk: their taste is said to be like shrimps (x); and Bochart (y) has shown, from various writers, that they were a delicious food with the Greeks, especially among the common people; and so they are with the Indians (z).

(g) So R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 88. 1. (h) T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 65. 2. (i) Sepher Shorash. in voc. (k) Ib. in voc. (l) Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 29.) (m) Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 6. (n) Misn. Cholin, c. 3. sect. 7. (o) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (p) Vid. T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 65. 2. (q) Maacolot Asurot, c. 1. sect. 21. (r) Nat. Hist. l. 11. c. 29. (s) Ib. l. 6. c. 30. (t) Bibliothec. l. 3. p. 162, 163. (u) Geograph. l. 16. p. 531. (w) Polyhistor. c. 43. (x) Sir Hans Sloane's Natural History of Jamaica, vol. 1. p. 29. (y) Hierozoic. par. 2. l. 4. c. 7. col. 490, 491. (z) Agreement of Customs of the East Indians and Jews, art. 12. p. 60.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

In the uncertainty of identifying these four creatures, it has been suggested that some of the names may belong to locusts in an imperfect state of development. Most modern versions have taken a safer course than our translators, by retaining the Hebrew names.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Locust. The three former are species of the same kind. The bruchus is a young locust, without wings, (St. Augustine in Psal. civ.,) and the attachus the least of all. (Pliny, xxix. 5.) The ophiomachus is large, "encounters serpents," and is destitute of wings. The nations called Acridophagi, received their name from their feeding upon locusts, which are the food of the common people in Syria and Africa. See Pliny, xi. 29, &c. Clenard, in 1541, wrote from Fez, that he had seen the sky darkened with clouds of locusts, which the people endeavoured presently to destroy, and filled wagons with their bodies, for food. Kirsten says, they are very delicious. Arnulph assures us, that they are a finger’s breadth, and are fried in oil by the poor. (Raban. in Matthew iii. 4.) See Joel ii. (Calmet) --- There is no need, therefore, of having recourse to crab fish and wild pears, for John the Baptist’s food, as Beza has done. (Tirinus)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Locusts, though unusual in our food, were commonly eaten by the Ethiopians, Libyans, Parthians, and other eastern people bordering upon the Jews, which is expressly affirmed by Diodorus Siculus, Aristotle, Pllny, St. Hierom, and others, as well as Mat 3:4. And it is certain that the eastern locusts were much larger than ours, so it is probable they were of different qualities, and yielded better nourishment; and the familiar use of them made them more agreeable to their bodies; for even poisons themselves have by frequent use been made not only harmless, but nourishing also to some persons.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. The locust — The Hebrew arbeh. All the Bedawin of Arabia — but only the poorest beggars in Egypt and Nubia — eat locusts. Scalded in boiling sea water, dried, and deprived of their heads and wings, they are sold by measure in Arabian towns. See Exo_10:4, note.

The bald locust — The Hebrew salam. It occurs only in the catalogues, hence all that can possibly be known of it is, that it is some kind of straight-winged, leaping insect, good for food. “From the statement of the peculiar characteristic of the head, the name may with some reason be assigned to the genus truxalis, very common in the Holy Land, and which has a long, narrow, smooth head, and straight sword-shaped antennae.” — Tristram.

The beetle — Hebrew chargol. It occurs only here. It certainly is not the beetle, which is not a leaping insect, nor is it fit to be eaten. Rosenmuller pronounces all attempts to identify the chargol “merae conjecturae.” The Revised Version has cricket instead of beetle.

The grasshopper — The Hebrew chagab is four times translated grasshopper and once locust. 2Ch_7:13. It is utterly impossible to distinguish this species of locust from the arbeh, though according to the Talmud it contains eight hundred kinds. Tristram thinks that the chagab was a small species, and that grasshopper is as near a translation as could be given.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The locust - Locusts, though unusual in our food, were commonly eaten by the Ethiopians, Lybians, Parthians, and other eastern people bordering upon the Jews. And as it is certain the eastern locusts were much larger than ours, so it is probable they were of different qualities, and yielding better nourishment.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.