260 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
Julius Fuerst). The first translation (colour) is against the 
Hebrew grammar; if colour was meant it ought to be said 
*‘ oroth metokhoshim,” instead of ‘‘ oroth Thoshim,”’ like ‘‘ oroth 
alim modomin,” and in Ezekiel xvi. 10 it is quite unthinkable to 
take ‘“‘ Thahash ”’ as a colour ; and therefore those Commentators 
who strictly keep to the grammar, e.g. ‘‘ Rashi” and ‘‘ Eben- 
Ezra,’ have left the word untranslated, restricting themselves to 
the statement ‘‘ Thahash ’” was an animal known at that time. 
The second translation, ‘“‘ Badger” or ‘‘ Dolphin,” is decidedly 
against the Jewish religious spirit of the time when the Taber- 
nacle was erected. It would be preposterous to admit that 
Moses, at the same time when he dictated the severe precepts of 
“clean’”’ and ‘*‘ unclean,” should have chosen skins of unclean 
animals for the adornment of the Holy Tabernacle of God. 
As a final and authoritative argument, I take the characters 
which are found alike in the ‘“‘ Okapi”’ as well as in the ‘‘ Tha- 
hash”; they are both ‘“‘ ruminating,” “ parted hoofs” (which 
mark both as clean animals), and have a ‘“ horn-like elevation 
at the root of the nose” (which induced the Talmudists to speak of 
one horn)* ‘‘ and the enchanting colour of the skin.”” There is no 
doubt that the ‘‘ Thahash ”’ was of a beautiful colour, otherwise 
its skin would have been dyed and coloured for beauty, as the 
rams’ skins were dyed red (Exod. xxv. 5). 
* And the imagination was used to construct ‘‘ only one horn” of the 
elevation between the eyes, and to make the miraculous ‘‘ Thahash’’ some- 
what resemble the legendary miraculous bull, who was the first sacrifice 
of Adam. Ofthis bull, Rabbi Yehudah (‘Talmud-Bably, Tractat Sabbath,’ 
p- 286), interpreting a verse in Psalm lxix., says, ‘“‘ The bull which was the 
first sacrifice of Adam had only one horn on his forehead.” 
