Badger

תחש . This word in a plural form occurs, Exo 25:5; Exo 26:14; Exo 35:7; Exo 35:23; Exo 36:19; Exo 39:34; Num 4:6; Num 4:8; Num 4:10-12; Num 4:14; Num 4:25; Eze 16:10; and is joined with ערת , skins used for the covering of the tabernacle in the wilderness. The Jewish interpreters are agreed as to its being some animal. Jarchi says it was a beast of many colours, which no more exists. Kimchi holds the same opinion. Aben Ezra thinks it some animal of the bovine kind, of whose skins shoes are made; alluding to Eze 16:10. Most modern interpreters have taken it to be the badger, and among these our English translators; but, in the first place, the badger is not an inhabitant of Arabia; and there is nothing in its skin peculiarly proper either for covering a tabernacle or making shoes. Hasaeus, Michaelis, and others, have laboured to prove that it is the mermaid, or homo marinus, the trichekus of Linnaeus. Faber, Dathe, and Rosenmuller, think that it is the seal, or sea calf, vitulus marinus, the skin of which is both strong and pliable, and was accounted by the ancients as a most proper outer covering for tents, and was also made into shoes, as Rau has clearly shown. Niebuhr says, “A merchant of Abushahr called dahash that fish which the captains in English vessels call porpoise, and the Germans, sea hog. In my voyage from Maskat to Abushahr, I saw a prodigious quantity together near Ras Mussendom, that were all going the same way, and seemed to swim with great vehemence.” Bochart thinks that not an animal, but a colour, was intended, Exo 25:5; so that the covering of the tabernacle was to be azure, or sky blue.

This is unquestionably a wrong interpretation of the word tachash, since the badger is not found in Southern Asia, and has not as yet been noticed out of Europe. The word occurs in the plural form in Exo 25:5; Exo 26:14; Exo 35:7; Exo 35:23; Exo 36:19; Exo 39:34; Num 4:6; Num 4:8; Num 4:10-12; Num 4:14; Num 4:25; and Eze 16:10; and in connection, with oroth, skins, is used to denote the covering of the Tabernacle. Negroland and Central and Eastern Africa contain a number of ruminating animals of the great antelope family; which are known to the natives under various names, such as pacasse, empacasse, thacasse, facasse, and tachaitze, all more or less varieties of the word tachash: they are of considerable size; often of slaty and purple grey colors, and might be termed stag-goats and ox-goats. Of these one or more occur in the hunting-scenes on Egyptian monuments, and therefore we may conclude that the skins were accessible in abundance, and may have been dressed with the hair on for coverings of baggage, and for boots, such as we see worn by the human figures in the same processions. Thus we have the greater number of the conditions of the question sufficiently realized to enable us to draw the inference that tachash refers to a ruminant of the Aigocerine or Damaline groups, most likely of an iron-grey or slaty-colored species.

A small inoffensive animal, of the bear genus, which remains torpid all winter. It is an inhabitant of cold countries, and is not found in Palestine. Hence many think the "badgers’ skins" mentioned Exo 25:5 ; 26:14; Eze 16:10, and elsewhere, as being used for covering the tabernacle and for shoes, were the skins not of this animal, but of a species of seal found in the Red Sea. Burckhardt remarks that he "saw parts of the skin of a large fish, killed on the coast, which was an inch in thickness, and is employed by the Arabs instead of leather for sandals." Others think it was an animal of the antelope species, the skins of which the Jews had obtained in Egypt.\par

(Exo 26:14). Badger skins were the outer covering of the tabernacle, in the wilderness; and of the ark, the table, the candlestick, the golden altar, and altar of burnt offering (Num 4:6-14). In Eze 16:10 Jehovah alludes to this, under the image of the shoes made of badger skins for delicate and beautiful women; "I shod thee with badger skin." This was the material of the shoes worn by Hebrew on festival days. Weighty authorities render Hebrew tachash a "seal," not a "badger"; seals were numerous on the shores of the Sinaitic peninsula.

Others say it is the halicore, a Red Sea fish, which still is used by the Arabs to make soles for shoes and like purposes; called dahash, like tachash. Others think it is the stag goat, of the antelope kind, called thacasse, related perhaps to tachash, to be seen on Egyptian monuments. A great objection to the badger is, it is not found in Bible lands, Syria, Arabia, or Egypt, and certainly not in sufficient quantities for the Israelites’ purpose. The objection to the halicore is Lev 11:10; "all that have not fins and scales in the seas." But that prohibition refers only to using them as food; moreover, the tachash probably includes marine animals in general, their skins made into "leather" were well fitted to protect against the weather. Josephus makes the color sky blue (Ant. 3:6, section 4).

is the interpretation in the Auth. Vers. of the word תִּחשׁ, tach’ash (Eze 16:10; Sept. δέρματα ὑακίνθινα; Aid. ed. ἰάνθινα; Compl. ὑάνθινα, al. πεπυρωμένα in Exo 25:5; Alex. δέρματα ἃγια in Exo 35:7; ὑάκινθος, Aq. and Sym. ἰάνθινα in Eze 16:10; Vulg. pelles ianthinoe, ianthinus); but many doubt its correctness, since the badger is not found in Southern Asia, and has not as yet been noticed out of Europe. The word occurs in the plural form in Exo 25:5; Exo 26:14; Exo 35:7; Exo 35:23; Exo 36:19; Exo 39:34; Num 4:6; Num 4:8; Num 4:10-12; Num 4:14; Num 4:25; and, in connection with עֹרֹת, oroth’, “skins,” is used to denote the covering of the Tabernacle, of the Ark of the Covenant, and of other sacred vessels. In Eze 16:10, it indicates the material of which the shoes of women were made. Possibly the Latin taxus or taxo, the original of the Spanish taxon, Ital. tasso, Fr. taisson, Germ. Dachs, is the same word as tachash; and these designate the badger. This, however, appears to be the only support for the rendering “badger” (meles tarus) besides that of the Chaldee paraphrast (סִסְגוֹנָא, “taxus, sic dictus quia gaudet et superbit in coloribus multis,” Buxtorf, Lex. Rab. s.v.). SEE ZOOLOGY.

The ancient interpreters understand by it a color given to leather, e.g. Sept. ὑακίνθινα: so Aquila, Symmachus, and the Syriac, which are followed by Bochart (Hieroz. 2:387), Rosenmüller (Schol. ad V. T., Exo 25:5; Eze 16:10), Bynaeus (De Calceis Hebraeorum, lib. 1, ch. 3), Scheuchzer (Phys. Sacr. in Exo 25:5), and others. Parkhurst (Heb. Lex. s.v.), observes that “an outermost covering for the tabernacle of azure or sky-blue was very proper to represent the sky or azure boundary of the system.” But this is mere conjecture. The Talmudists say that it is an animal like a weasel. Others, as Gesner and Harenberg (in Musaeo Brem. 2:312), have thought that some kind of wolf, known by the Greek name θώς, and the Arabic Shaghul is intended. Hasaeus (in Dissert. Philolog. Sylloge. diss. 9, § 17) and Bisching, in his preface to the Epitome of Scheuchzer’s Physica Sacra, are of opinion that tachash denotes a cetacean animal, the Trichechus manatus of Linnaeus, which, however, is only found in America and the West Indies. Others, with Sebald Ran (Comment. de iis quae ex Arab. in usum Tabernac. fuerunt repetita, Traj. ad Rhen. 1753, ch. 2), are in favor of tachash representing some kind of seal (Phoca vitulina, Lin.). Dr. Geddes (Crit. Rem. Exo 25:5) is of the same opinion. Gesenius understands (Heb. Lex. s.v.) some “kind of seal or badger, or other similar (!) creature.” Of modern writers Dr. Kitto (Pict. Bibl. on Exo 25:5) thinks that tachash denotes some clean animal, as in all probability the skin of an unclean animal would not have been used for the sacred coverings. The corresponding Arabic word is not only a dolphin, but also a seal, and seals (?) were numerous on the shores of the peninsula of Sinai (Strab. 16:776). The etymology of the word in Hebrews is favorable to this view, from the root חָשָׁה, chashah’, to rest; and seals no less than badgers are somnolent animals. (See Simonis Exercitatio de תִּחִשׁ, Hal. 1735.) Maurer, however (Comment. in Exod.), derives it from the root תָּחִשׁ, tachash’, to penetrate, a notion which suits the burrowing of the badger as well as the plunging of the seal. Pliny (2:56) mentions the use of the skins of seals as a covering for tents, and as a protection from lightning. (Comp. Plut. Symp. v. 9; Sueton. Octav. 90; Faber, Archaeol. Hebr. 1:115.) The tachash has also been identified with the Trichechus marinus of Linnaeus, and with the sea-cow called lamantin or dugong. Others find it in an animal of the hyena kind, which is called by the Arabs tahesh (Botta’s Voyage in Yemen, 1841). Robinson (Researches, 1:171)

mentions sandals made of the thick skin of a fish which is caught in the Red Sea. It is a species of halicore, named by Ehrenberg (Symb. Phys. 2) Halicora Hemprichii. The skin is clumsy and coarse, and might answer very well for the external covering of the Tabernacle. According to Ehrenberg, the Arabs on the coast call this animal Naka and Lottum. Arabian naturalists applied the term ensan alma, “‘man of the sea,” to this creature. Thevenot speaks of a kind of sea-man, which is taken near the port of Tor. “It is a great strong fish, and hath two hands, which are like the hands of a man, saving that the fingers are joined together with a skin, like the foot of a goose; but the skin of the fish is like the skin of a wild goat or chamois. When they spy that fish, they strike him on the back with harping irons, as they do whales, and so kill him. They use the skin of it for making bucklers, which are musket-proof.” Niebuhr adds the information that “a merchant of Abushahr called dahash that fish which the captains of English ships call porpoise.” The same traveler reports that he saw prodigious schools of these animals swimming. Professor Ruppell (Mus. Senck. 1:113, t. 6), who saw the creature on the coral banks of the Abyssinian coast, ascertained by personal examination that the creature in question was a sort of dugong, a genus of marine Pachydermata, to which he gave the name of Halicore tabernaculi, from a conviction that it was the tachash of Moses. It grows to eighteen feet in length. See WHALE.

“In the present state of zoological knowledge, however, it is not necessary to refute the notions that tachash was the name of a mermaid or homo- marinus, or of the walrus, a Polar animal, or of the dugong or seal, for neither of these is known in the Indian, Red, or Persian Seas, and there is little probability that in remote ages they frequented the south-east extremity of the Mediterranean, where the current sweeps all things northward; still less that they nestled in the lakes of the Delta, where crocodiles then abounded. But Niebuhr’s hint respecting the name tachash, given, with some reference to colors, to a species of delphinus or porpoise, by the Arabs near Cape Mussendum, may deserve consideration, since the same people still make small rounded bucklers and soles of sandals of the hout’s skin, which is a cetaceous animal, perhaps identical with Niebuhr’s. This material might have been obtained from the caravan-traders of Yemen, or from the Ismaelites of Edom, but does not appear to have been fitted for other purposes than pack-saddles and sandal-soles. Considering tachash, therefore, not to indicate a color, but the skin of an animal, which may have derived its name from its color, probably deep gray, ash, or slaty (hysginus), we must look for the object in question to the zoology of the region around, or to places accessible by means of the traders and tribute importations of raw materials in Egypt, where we actually observe leopard or panther skins, and others of a smaller animal with a long fox-tail, represented in the triumphal procession of Thothmes III at Thebes (Wilkinson’s Anc. Egyptians, 1, pl. 4). These may have been of a canine genus, such as the agriodus, or megalotis Lalandii, which is actually iron- gray; or of a viverrous species, of which there are many in Africa both gray and spotted. Still these are unclean animals, and for this reason we turn to another view of the case, which may prove the most satisfactory that can now be obtained. Negroland and Central and Eastern Africa contain a number of ruminating animals of the great antelope family; they are known to the natives under various names, such as pacasse, empacasse, thacasse, facasse, and tachaitze, all more or less varieties of the word tachash; they are of considerable size, often of slaty and purple-gray colors, and might be termed stag-goats and ox-goats. Of these one or more occur in the hunting-scenes on Egyptian monuments, and therefore we may conclude that the skins were accessible in abundance, and may have been dressed with the hair on for coverings of baggage, and for boots, such as we see worn by the human figures in the same processions. Thus we have the greater number of the conditions of the question sufficiently realized to enable us to draw the inference that tachash refers to a ruminant of the Aigocerine or Damaline groups, most likely of an iron-gray or slaty- colored species” SEE ANTELOPE.

BADGER.—Rock badger (Lev 11:5 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ), i.e. Hyrax Syriacus. See Coney.

baj´ẽr תּחשׁ, taḥash or תּחשׁ, tāḥasȟ: The word taḥash occurs in the descriptions of the tabernacle in Ex 25; 26; 35; 36 and 39, in the directions for moving the tabernacle as given in Nu 4, and in only one other passage, Eze 16:10, where Jerusalem is spoken of as a maiden clothed and adorned by her Lord. In nearly all these passages the word taḥash occurs with ‛ōr, “skin,” rendered: the King James Version “badgers’ skins,” the Revised Version (British and American) “sealskin,” the Revised Version, margin “porpoise-skin,” Septuagint dérmata huakı́nthinǎ. In all the passages cited in Ex and Nu these skins are mentioned as being used for coverings of the tabernacle; in Eze 16:10, for shoes or sandals. The Septuagint rendering would mean purple or blue skins, which however is not favored by Talmudic writers or by modern grammarians, who incline to believe that taḥash is the name of an animal. The rendering, “badger,” is favored by the Talmudic writers and by the possible etymological connection of the word with the Latin taxus and the German Dachs. The main objection seems to be that badgers’ skins would probably not have been easily available to the Israelites. The badger, Meles taxus, while fairly abundant in Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, does not seem to occur in Sinai or Egypt.

A seal, Monachus albiventer (Arabic fuḳmeh), the porpoise, Phocoena communis, and the common dolphin, Delphinus delphis, are all found in the Mediterranean. The dugong, Halicore dugong, inhabits the Indian Ocean and adjoining waters from the Red Sea to Australia. The Arabic tukhas or dukhas is near to taḥash and is applied to the dolphin, which is also called delfı̂n. It may be used also for the porpoise or even the seal, and is said by Tristram and others to be applied to the dugong. The statement of Gesenius (Boston, 1850, under the word “taḥash”) that the Arabs of Sinai wear sandals of dugong skin is confirmed by recent travelers, and is of interest with reference to Eze 16:10, “.... shod thee with badgers’ skin” (King James Version). The dugong is a marine animal from 5 to 9 ft. in length, frequenting the shore and feeding upon seaweed. It belongs to the order Sirenia. While outwardly resembling Cetacea (whales and porpoises), the Sirenia are really more allied to the Ungulata, or hoofed animals. The dugong of the Indian Ocean and the manatee of the Atlantic and of certain rivers of Africa and South America, are the only living representatives of the Sirenia. A third species, the sea-cow of Behring Sea, became extinct in the 18th century. The seal and porpoise of the Revised Version (British and American), the dolphin, and the dugong are all of about the same size and all inhabit the seas bordering on Egypt and Sinai, so that all are possible candidates for identification with the taḥasȟ. Of the four, recent opinion seems most to favor the dugong.

Mr. S. M. Perlmann has suggested (Zoologist, set. 4, XII, 256, 1908) that the okapi is the animal indicated by taḥasȟ.

Gesenius (Leipzig, 1905) cites Bondi (Aegyptiaca, i. ff) who adduces the Egyptian root tḥs and makes the expression ‛ōr taḥash mean “soft-dressed skin.” This suits the context in every passage and is very promising explanation.

(See under "SKINS")

Badger. Only the skin of badgers is mentioned in the Bible and even this is questionable. (Exo 26:14) and (Num 4:6-25) speak of the coverings for the tent of the tabernacle. The Hebrew word tachash is translated "badger skins." However, no one really knows what the Hebrews meant by this word. Other translators render it as "goatskins" (RSV), "porpoise-hides" (NEB), or "hides of sea cows" (NIV).

Possibly this word did mean badgers. Coarse badger hair would certainly be a protective cushion between the fine fabrics in which the articles of worship were wrapped for travel. The KJV translates the word as "badgers" skins" in (Eze 16:10), which refers to a foot covering. The RSV translates "leather."