Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

which sometimes utters a mournful cry, and at other times snores like a sleeping man, and the flesh of which is said to be by no means unpleasant, or the hissing owl (strix stridula), wliich inhabits the ruins in Egypt and Syria, and is sometimes called massusu, at other times bane, a very voracious bird, which is said to fly in at open windows in the evening and kill children that are left unguarded, and which is very much dreaded in consequence. rii<ij, which alsoliv^ed in desolate places (Isa. xxxiv. 11; Zeph. ii. 14), or in the desert itself (Ps. cii. 7), was not the kata, a species of partridge or heath-cock, which is found in Syria (^Rohinsorij ii. p. 620), as this bird always flies in large flocks, and this is not in harmony with Isa. xxxiv. 11 and Zeph. ii. 14, but the pelican (TreXeKaVy LXX.), as all the ancient versions render it, which Ephraem (on Num. xiv. 17) describes as a marsh-bird, very fond of its young, inhabiting desolate places, a;id uttering an incessant cry. It is the true pelican of the ancients (pelecanus graculus), the Hebrew name of which seems to have been derived from fc<ip to spit, from its habit of spitting out the fishes it has caught, and which is found in Palestine and the reedy marshes of Egypt (Robinson, Palestine). DH'ij in Deut. nyrrij is kvkvo^j the swan, according to the Septuagint porphyrio^ the fish-heron, according to the Vulgate; a marsh-bird therefore, possibly vultur percnopterus (^Saad. Ar. Erp.)j which is very common in Arabia, Palestine, and Syria, and was classed by the ancients among the different species of eagles {Plin. h. n. 10, 3), but which is said to resemble the vulture, and was also called 6peL7re\apyo<;y the mountain-stork (^Arist, h, an. 9, 32). It is a stinking and disgusting bird, of the raven kind, with black pinions; but with this exception it is quite white. It is also bald-headed, and feeds on carrion and filth. But it is eaten notwithstanding by many of the Arabs {Barckhardty Syr, p. 1046). It received its name of " tenderly loving " from the tenderness with which it watches over its young (Bochart, iii. pp. 56, 57). In this respect it resembles the stork, ^']''p[!lj (^vis pia, a bird of passage according to Jer. viii. 7, which builds its nest upon the cypresses (Ps. civ. 17, cLBochart, iii. pp. 85 sqq.). In the East the stork builds its nest not only upon high towers and the roofs of houses, but according to Kazwini and others mentioned by Bochart (iii. p. 60), upon lofty trees as well.^ '^?J^> according * Oedmann (v. 58 sqq.), Kndbel^ and others follow the Greek translation to tlie LXX. and Vuhjatc '^apaSpLu^;, a marsh-bird of the snipe kind, of wliich there are several species in Egypt (Ildssehpnsty p. 308). This is quite in accordance with the expression " after her kind," whicli j)oints to a numerous genus. The omission of riNT before ns^sn, whereas it is found before the name of every other animal, is very striking; but as the name is preceded by the copulative vav in Deuteronomy, and stands for a particular bird, it may be accounted for either from a want of precision on the part of the author, or from an error of the copyist like the omission of the ] before ri5< in vcr. 15.^ nM^T: according to the LXX., Vidg.^ and others, the lapwing^ wliich is found in Syria, Arabia, and still more commonly in Egypt (Forskj Russel, Sonnini), and is eaten in some places, as its flesh is said to be fat and savoury in autumn (Sonn. 1, 204). But it has a disagreeable smell, as it frequents marshy districts seeking worms and insects for food, and according to a common belief among the ancients, builds its nest of human dung. Lnstly, ^^^V.^ ii the bat (Isa. ii. 20), which the Arabs also classified among th) birds.

of Leviticus and the Psalms, and the Vulgate rendering of Leviticus, the Psalms, and Job, and suppose the reference to be to the epulto^^ herodius, the heron: but the name chasidah points decidedly to the stork, which was generally regarded by the ancients aspietatis cultrix (Petron. 55, 6), whereas, with the exception of the somewhat indefinite passage in Aelian (Nat. an. 3, 23), kxi rovg ipoihtov; oLkovu ttqiup rex,vT6v {i.e. feed their young by spitting out their food) >cocl rovg irihiy.oLva^g fiiuroi, nothing is said about the parental affection of the heron. And the testimony of Bellonius^ " Ciconiss qitas setate in Europa sunt^ magna hijemis parte ut in Aegypto sic etiam circa Antiochiam et juxta Amanum monfem degiint,^^ is a sufficient answer to KnoheVs assertion, that according to Seetzen there are no storks in Mount Lebanon.

^ On account of the omission of ns^l Knobel would connect nSiXn as an adjective with riT'Dnn, and explain Pijx as derived from Pi^y frons^ Pi^y frondens., and signifying bushy. The herons were called *' the bushy chasidah,^^ he supposes, because they have a tuft of feathers at the back of their head, or long feathers hanging down from their neck, which are wanting in the other marsh-birds, such as the flamingo, crane, and ibis. But there is this important objection to the explanation, that the charge of X for ^ in such a word as Pi^y, frons^ which occurs as early as chap, xxiii. 40, and has retained its y even in the Aramjean dialects, is destitute of all probability. In addition to this, there is the improbability of the chasidah being the only bird to which a special epithet was applied, or of its being restricted by anaphah to the different species of heron, with three of which the ancienta

Vers. 20-23 (cf. Deut. xiv. 19). To the birds there are appended flying animals of other kinds: " all swarms of fowl that go upon fours,''^ i.e. the smaller winged animals with four feet, which are called slierezj " swarms," on account of theif multitude. These were not to be eaten, as they were all abominations, with the exception of those " ivJdch have two shank-feet above their feet (i.e. springing feet) to leap with " (x^ for)^ as in Ex. xxi. 8). Locusts are the animals referred to, four varieties being mentioned with their different species (^^ after Ids kitid'^); but these cannot be identified with exactness, as there is still a dearth of information as to the natural history of the oriental locust. It is well known that locusts were eaten by many of the nations of antiquity both in Asia and Africa, and even the ancient Greeks thought the Cicades very agreeable in flavour (Arist. h. an. 5, 30). In Arabia they are sold in the market, some- 1 imes strung upon cords, sometimes by measure; and they are { Iso dried, and kept in bags for winter use. For the most part, 1 owever, it is only by the poorer classes that they are eaten, and r lany of the tribes of Arabia abhor them (Robinson, ii. p. (S'l^); and those who use them as food do not eat all the species indiscriminately. They are generally cooked over hot coals, or on a plate, or in an oven, or stewed in butter, and eaten either with salt or with spice and vinegar, the head, wings, and feet being thrown away. They are also boiled in salt and water, and eaten with salt or butter. Another process is to dry them thoroughly, were acquainted (Aristot. h. an. 9, 2; Plin. h. n. 10, 60). If chasidah denoted the heron generally, or the white heron, the epithet anaphah would be superfluous. It would be necessary to assume, therefore, that chasidah denotes the whole tribe of marsh-birds, and tliat Moses simply intended to prohibit the heron or bushy marsh-bird. But either of these is very improbable: the former, because in every other passage of the Old Testament chasidah stands for one particular kind of bird; the latter, because Moses could hardly have excluded storks, ibises, and other marsh-birds that live on worms, from his prohibition. All that remains, therefore, is to separate ha-anaphah from the preceding word, as in Deuteronomy, and to understand it as denoting the plover (?) or heron, as there were several species of both. Which is intended, it is impossible to decide, as there is nothing certain to be gathered from either the ancient versions or the etymology. BocharCs reference of the word to a fierce bird, viz. a species of eagle, which the Arabs call Tummoj\ is not raised into a probability by a comparison with the similarly sounding dvoT^ocla, of Od. 1, 320, by which Aristarchus understands a kind of eagle.

and then grind them into meal and make cakes of tliem. Tlie Israelites were allowed to eat the cwheh, i.e., according to Ex. x. 13, 11), Nahum iii. 17, etc., the flying migratory locust, grylhis migratoriuSj which still bears this name, according to Niebuhr, in Maskat and Bagdad, and is poetically designated hi Ps. Ixxviii. 46, cv. 34, as ''"P^j '^'^ devourer, and P^^, the eater-up; but Knohel is mistaken in supposing that these names are applied to certain species of the arheli. ^f^^-, according to the Chaldee, deghitlvit, ahsoiysit, is unquestionably a larger and peculiarly voracious species of locust. This is all that can be inferred from the rashoji of the Targums and Talmud, whilst the drTaKT]^ and attacus of the LXX. and Vulg. are altogether unexplained. 7iin: according to the Arabic, a galloping, i.e. a hopping, not a flying species of locust. This is supported by the Samaritan, also by the LXX. and Vulg., 6(f)LOfid'^7]<;j ophiomachus. According to Ilesycldus and Suidas, it was a species of locust without wings, probably a very large kind; as it is stated in Mishnah, Shabb. vi. 10, that an egg of the chargol was sometimes suspended in the ear, as a remedy for earache. Among the different species of locusts in Mesopotamia, Niebuhr (Arab. p. 170) saw two of a very large size with springing feet, but without wings. ^^n, a word of uncertain etymolog}^, occurs in Num. xiii. 33, w^here the spies are described as being like chagabim by the side of the inhabitants of the country, and in 2 Chron. vii. 13, where the chagab devours the land. From these passages we may infer that it was a species of locust without wings, small but very numerous, probably the drreXa^o^, which is often mentioned along with the dKpk, but as a distinct species, locustarum minima sine pennis (Plin. h. n. 29, c. 4, s. 29), or parva locus fa modicis pennis reptans potius quam volitans semperque suhsiliens (Jerome on Nahum iii. 17).^

^ In Deut. xiv. 19 the edible kinds of locusts are passed over, because it was not the intention of Moses to repeat every particular of the earlier laws in these addresses. But when Knohel (on Lev. pp. 455 and 461) gives this explanation of the omission, that the eating of locusts is prohibited in Deuteronomy, and the Deuteronomist passes them over because in his more advanced age there was apparently no longer any necessity for the prohibition, this arbitrary interpretation is proved to be at variance with historical truth by the fact that locusts were eaten by John the Baptist, inasmuch as this proves at all events that a more advanced age had not given up the custom of eating locusts.

In vers. 24-28 there follow still further and more precise instructions, concerning defilement through contact with the carcases (i.e, the carrion) of the animals already mentioned. These instructions relate first of all (vers. 24 and 25) to aquatic and winged animals, which were not to be eaten because they were unclean (the expression "/or tJiese^' in ver. 24 relates to them); and then (vers. 26-28) to quadrupeds, both cattle that have not the hoof thoroughly divided and do not ruminate (ver. 26), and animals that go upon their hands, i.e, upon paws, and have no hoofs, such as cats, dogs, bears, etc. — Vers. 27, 28. The same rule was applicable to all these animals: " whoever toucheth the carcase of ihem shall he unclean until the even^^ i.e, for the rest of the day; he was then of course to wash himself. Whoever carried their carrion, viz. to take it away, was also unclean till the evening, and being still m.ore deeply affected by the defilement, he was to wash his clothes as well.

Vers. 29-38. To these there are attached analo£!;ous instructions concernini^ defilement throuo-h contact with the smaller creeping animals (sherez), which formed the fourth class of the animal kingdom; though the prohibition against eating these animals is not introduced till vers. 41, 42, as none of these were usually eaten. Sherez, the swarm, refers to animals which swarm together in great numbers (see at Gen. i. 21), and is synonymous with rentes (cf. Gen. vii. 14 and vii. 21), "the creeping;" it denotes the smaller land animals which move without feet, or with feet that are hardly perceptible (see at Gen. i. 24). Eight of the creeping animals are named, as defiling not only the men with whom they might come in contact, but any domestic utensils and food upon which they might fall; they were generally found in houses, therefore, or in the abodes of men. ^.'?n is not the mole (according to Saad. Ar, Ahys., etc.), although the Arabs still call this chuld, but the weasel (LXX., Onk., etc.), which is common in Syria and Palestine, and is frequently mentioned by the Talmudists in the feminine form '^'^r'^nj as an animal which caught birds (Mishn. Cholin iii. 4), which would run over the wave-loaves with a sherez in its mouth (Mishn. Tohor. iv. 2), and which could drink water out of a vessel (Mishn. Para ix. 3). *i^^y is the mouse (according to the ancient versions and the Talmud), and in 1 Sam. vi. 5 the Jield-mousey the scourge of the fields, not the jerboa, as Knobel supposes; for this animal lives in holes in the ground, is very shy, and does not frequent houses as is assumed to be the case with the animals mentioned here. ^^ is a kind of lizard^ but whether the thav or dsabby a harmless yellow lizard of 18 inches in length, which is described by Seetzen, iii. pp. 436 sqq., also by Ilasselquist under the name of lacerta yEriyptia^ or the waral, as Knohel supposes, a large land lizard reaching as much as four feet in length, which is also met with in Palestine (Rohinsorij ii. 160) and is called el worran by Seetzen^ cannot be determined. — Ver. 30. The early translators tell us nothing certain as to the three following names, and it is still undecided how they should be rendered. npjK is translated ^v<yaXr] by the LXX., i.e. shrew-mouse; but the oriental versions render it by various names for a lizard. Bochart supposes it to be a species of lizard wqth a sharp groaning voice, because Pp^5 signifies to breathe deeply, or groan. Rosenmi'dler refers it to the lacerta Gecho, which is common in Egypt, and utters a peculiar cry resembling the croaking of frogs, especially in the night, Leyrer imagines it to denote the whole family of monitores; and Knohel^ the large and powerful river lizard, the water-waral of the Arabs, called lacerta Nilotica in Hasselqidst^ pp. 361 sqq., though he has failed to observe, that Moses could hardly have supposed it possible that an animal four feet long, resembling a crocodile, could drop down dead into either pots or dishes. ni3 is not the chameleon (LXX.), for this is called tinshemethj but the chardaun (^Arab.), a lizard which is found in old walls in Natolia, Syria, and Palestine, lacerta stellio, or lacerta coslordilos (Hasselquist, pp. 351-2). Knobel supposes it to be the frog, because coach seems to point to the crying or croaking of frogs, to which the Arabs apply the term kuh^ the Greeks koo,^^ the Romans coaxare. But this is very improbable, and the frog would be quite out of place in the midst of simple lizards. '^^9- > according to the ancient versions, is also a lizard. Leyrer supposes it to be the nocturnal, salamander-like family of geckons; Knobel, on the contrary, imagines it to be the tortoise, which creeps upon the earth (terrce adha^ret), because the Arabic verb signifies terrce adhcesit. This is very improbable, however. tDpn (LXX.), cravpa, Vulg. lacerta, probably the true lizard, or, as Leyrer conjectures, the angids (^Luth. Blindschleiche, blindworm), or zygnis, which forms the link between lizards and snakes. The rendering " snail " (Sam. Rashi, etc.) is not so probable, as this is called Pvl^ in Ps. Iviii. 9; although the purple snail and all the marine species are eaten in Egypt and Palestine. Lastly, r\'i2\^2^^ the self-inflating animal (see at ver. 18), is no doubt the chameleon, which frequently inflates its belly, for example, when enraged, and remains in this state for several hours, when it gradually empties itself and becomes quite thin again. Its flesh was either cooked, or dried and reduced to powder, and used as a specific for corpulence, or a cure for fevers, or as a general medicine for sick children {Plin. h, n, 28, 29). The flesh of many of the lizards is also eaten by the Arabs (Leyrer, pp. 603, 604). — Yer. 31. The words, " these are unclean to you among all swarming creatures^'' are neither to be understood as meaning, that the eight species mentioned were the only swarming animals that were unclean and not allowed to be eaten, nor that they possessed and communicated a larger amount of uncleanness; but when taken in connection with the instructions which follow, they can only mean, that such animals would even defile domestic utensils, clothes, etc., if they fell down dead upon them. Not that they were more unclean than others, since all the unclean animals would defile not only persons, but even the clothes of those who carried their dead bodies (vers. 25, 28); but there was more fear in their case than in that of others, of their falling dead upon objects in common use, and therefore domestic utensils, clothes, and so forth, could be much more easily defiled by them than by the larger quadrupeds, by water animals, or by birds. " When they be dead,^^ lit. " in their dying; " Le. not only if they were already dead, but if they died at the time when they fell upon any object. — Ver. 32. In either case, anything upon which one of these animals fell became unclean, " whether a vessel of ivood, or raiment, or skitiJ^ Every vessel (y3 in the widest sense, as in Ex. xxii. 6), " wherein any work is done^' i.e. that was an article of common use, was to be unclean till the evening, and then placed in water, that it might become clean again. — Ver. 33. Every earthen vessel, into which {lit. into the midst of which) one of them fell, became unclean, together with the whole of its contents, and was to be broken, i.e. destroyed, because the uncleanness was absorbed by the vessel, and could not be entirely removed by washing (see at chap. vi. 21). Of course the contents of such a vessel, supposing there were any, were not to be used. — Yer. 34. " Every edible food (IP before ^3 partitive, as in chap. iv. 2) upon which water comes^^ — that is to say, which was prepared with water, — and " every drink that is drunk... becomes unclean in every vessel,^ sc. if such an animal should fall dead upon the food, or into the drink. The traditional rendering of ver. 34a, " every food upon which water out of such a vessel comes, ^ is untenable; because D^D without an article cannot mean such water, or this water. — Ver. 35. Every vessel also became unclean, upon which the body of such an animal fell: such as "^W^ the earthen bakingpot (see chap. ii. 4), and ^IT^j the covered pan or pot, "^"'3, a boiling or roasting vessel (1 Sam. ii. 14), can only signify, when used in the dual, a vessel consisting of two parts, i.e. a pan or pot with a lid, — Ver. 36. Springs and wells were not defiled, because the uncleanness would be removed at once by the fresh supply of water. But whoever touched the body of the animal, to remove it, became unclean. — Vers. 37, 38. All seed-corn that was intended to be sown remained clean, namely, because the uncleanness attaching to it externally would be absorbed by the earth. But if water had been put upon the seed, i.e. if the grain had been softened by water, it was to be unclean, because in that case the uncleanness would penetrate the softened grains and defile the substance of the seed, which would therefore produce uncleanness in the fruit.

Vers. 39-47. Lastly, contact with edible animals, if they had not been slaughtered, but had died a natural death, and had become carrion in consequence, is also said to defile (cf. vers. 39, 40 with vers. 24-28). This was the case, too, with the eating of the swarming land animals, whether they went upon the belly,^ as snakes and worms, or upon four feet, as rats, mice, weasels, etc., or upon many feet, like the insects (vers. 41-43). Lastly (vers. 44, 45), the whole law is enforced by an appeal to the calling of the Israelites, as a holy nation, to be holy as Jehovah their God, who had brought them out of Egypt to be a God to them, was holy (Ex. vi. 7, xxix. 45, 46). — Vers. 46, 47, contain the concluding formula to the whole of this law.

If we take a survey, in closing, of the animals that are enu-

^ The large "| in |in]| (ver. 42) shows that this vav is the middle letter of the Pentateuch.

rnerated as unclean and not suitable for food, we shall find that among the larger land animals they were chiefly beasts of prey, that seize upon other living creatures and devour them in their blood; among the w^ter animals, all snake-like fishes and slimy shell-fish; among birds, the birds of prey, which watch for the life of other animals and kill them, the marsh-birds, which live on worms, carrion, and all kinds of impurities, and such mongrel creatures as the ostrich, which lives in the desert, and the bat, which flies about in the dark; and lastly, all the smaller animals, with the exception of a few graminivorous locusts, but more especially the snake-like lizards, — partly because they called to mind the old serpent, partly because they crawled in the dust, seeking their food in mire and filth, and suggested the thought of corruption by the slimy nature of their bodies. They comprised, in fact, all such animals as exhibited more or less the darker type of sin, death, and corruption; and it was on this ethical ground alone, and not for all kinds of sanitary reasons, or even from political motives, that the nation of Israel, which was called to sanctification, was forbidden to eat them. It is true there are several animals mentioned as unclean, e,g. the ass, the camel, and others, in which we can no longer recognise this type. But we must bear in mind, that the distinction between clean animals and unclean goes back to the very earliest times (Gen. vii. 2, 3), and that in relation to the large land animals, as well as to the fishes, the Mosaic law followed the marks laid down by tradition, which took its rise in the primeval age, whose childlike mind, acute perception, and deep intuitive insight into nature generally, discerned more truly and essentially the real nature of the animal creation than we shall ever be able to do, with thoughts and perceptions disturbed as ours are by the influences of unnatural and ungodly culture.^

The laws concern in o; defilement through eatingr unclean animals, or through contact with those that had died a natural death, are followed by rules relating to defilements proceeding from the

^ " In its direct and deep insight into the entire nexus of the physical, psychical, and spiritual world, into the secret correspondences of the cosmos and nomoSj this sense for nature anticipated discoveries which we shall never

human body, in consequence of which persons contaminated by them were excluded for a longer or shorter period from the fello\v^lli}) of the sanctuary, and sometimes even from intercourse with tlioir fellow-countrj'inen, and which had to be removed by washing, by significant lustrations, and by expiatory sacrifices. They comj)rised the uncleanness of a woman in consequence of child-bearing (chap, xii.), leprosy (chap. xiii. and xiv.), and both natural and diseased secretions from the sexual organs of either male or female (emissio seminis and gonorrhoea, also menses and ilux: chap, xv.); and to these there is added in Num. xix. 11- 22, defilement proceeding from a human corpse. Involuntary emission defiled the man; voluntary emission, in sexual intercourse, both the man and the woman and any clothes upon which it might come, for an entire day, and this defilement was to be removed in the evening by bathing the body, and by washing the clothes, etc. (chap. xv. 16-18). Secretions from the sexual organs, whether of a normal kind, such as the menses and those connected with child-birth, or the result of disease, rendered not only the persons affected with them unclean, but even their couches and seats, and any persons who might sit down upon them; and this uncleanness was even communicated to persons who touched those who were diseased, or to anything with which they had come in contact (chap. xv. 3-12, 19—27). In the case of the menses, the uncleanness lasted seven days (chap. xv. 19, 24); in that of child-birth, either seven or fourteen days, and then still further thirty- three or sixty-six, according to circumstances (chap. xii. 2, 4, 5); and in that of a diseased flux, a^ long as the disease itself lasted, and seven days afterwards (chap. xv. 13, 28); but the uncleanness communicated to others only lasted till the evening. In all these cases the purification consisted in the bathing of the body and washing of the clothes and other objects. But if the uncleanness lasted more than seven days, on the day after the purification with water a sin-offering and a burntoffering were to be offered, that the priest might pronounce the person clean, or receive him once more into the fellowship of the holy God (chap. xii. 6, 8, xv. 14, 15, 29, 30). Leprosy made those who were affected with it so unclean, that they were ex-

make with our ways of thinking, but which a purified humanity, when looking back from the new earth, will fully understand, and will no longer only ' see through a glass darkly.'" — Leyrer, Herzog's Cycl.

eluded from all intercourse with the clean (chap. xiii. 45, 46): and on their recovery they were to be cleansed by a solemn lustration, and received again with sacrifices into the congregation of the Lord (chap. xiv. 1-32). There are no express instructions as to the communicability of leprosy; but this is implied in the separation of the leper from the clean (chap. xiii. 45, 46), as well as from the fact that a house affected by the leprosy rendered all who entered it, or slept in it, unclean (chap. xiv. 46, 47). The defilement caused by a death was apparently greater still. Not only the corpse of a person who had died a natural death, as well as of one who had been killed by violence, but a dead body or grave defiled, for a period of seven days, both those who touched them, and (in the case of the corpse) the house in which the man had died, all the persons who were in it or might enter it, and all the open vessels that were there (Num. xix. 11, 14-16). Uncleanness of this kind could only be removed by sprinkling water prepared from running water and the ashes of a sin-offering (Num. xix. 12, 17 sqq.), and would even spread from the persons defiled to persons and things with which they came in contact, so as to render them unclean till the evening (Num. xix. 22); whereas the defilement caused by contact with a dead animal lasted only a day, and then, like every other kind of uncleanness that only lasted till the evening, could be removed by bathing the persons or washing the things (chap. xi. 25 sqq.). But whilst, according to this, generation and birth as well as death were affected with uncleanness; generation and death, the coming into being and the going out of being, were not defiling in themselves, or regarded as the two poles which bound, determine, and enclose the finite existence, so as to warrant us in tracing the principle which lay at the foundation of the laws of purification, as Bdhr supposes, " to the antithesis between the infinite and the finite being, which falls into the sphere of the sinful when regarded ethically as the opposite to the absolutely holy." Finite existence was created by God, quite as much as the corporeality of man; and both came forth from His hand pure and good. Moreover it is not begetting, giving birth, and dying, that are said to defile; but the secretions connected with generation and child-bearing, and the corpses of those who had died. In the decomposition which follows death, the effect of sin, of which death is the wages, is made manifest in the body. Decomposition, as the embodiment of the unholy nature of sin, is uncleanness Kar i^o-)(i]v; and this the Israelite, who was called to sanctification in fellowship with God, was to iivoid and abhor. Hence the human corpse produced the greatest amount of defilement; so great, in fact, that to remove it a sprinkling water was necessary, which had been strengthened by the ashes of a sin-offering into a kind of sacred alkali. Next to the corpse, there came on the one hand leprosy, that bodily image of death which produced all the symptoms of decomposition even in the living body, and on the other hand the offensive secretions from the organs of generation, which resemble the putrid secretions that are the signs in the corpse of the internal dissolution of the bodily organs and the commencement of decomposition. From the fact that the impurities, for which special rites of purification were enjoined, are restricted to these three forms of manifestation in the hum.an body, it is very evident that the laws of purification laid down in the O. T. were not regulations for the promotion of cleanliness or of good morals and decency, that is to say, were not police regulations for the protection of the life of the body from contagious diseases and other things injurious to health; but that their simple object was " to impress upon the mind a deep

horror of evervthinor that is and is called death in the creature, and thereby to foster an utter abhorrence of everything that is or is called sin, and also, to the constant humiliation of fallen man, to remind him in all the leading processes of the natural life — generation, birth, eating, disease, death — how everything, even his own bodily nature, lies under the curse of sin (Gen. iii. 14-19), that so the law might become a ^ schoolmaster to bring unto Christ,' and awaken and sustain the longing for a Redeemer from the curse which had fallen upon his body also (see Gal. iii. 24, Rom. vii. 24, viii. 19 sqq.; Phil. iii. 21)." Leyrer,

Chap. xii. Uncleanness and Purification after Childbirth.— Vers. 2-4. '' If a woman bring forth (V''")Tn) seed and hear a boy, she shall be unclean seven days as in the days of the uncleanness of her (monthly) sickness" n"!:^ from TlJ to flow, lit, that which is to flow, is applied more especially to the uncleanness of a woman's secretions (chap, xv 19). '^'^1'^, inf. of nn^ to be sickly or ill, is applied here and in chap. xv. 33, xx. 18, to the suffering connected with an issue of blood. — Vers. 3, 4. After the expiration of this period, on the eighth day, the boy ^A'as to be circumcised (see at Gen. xvii.). She was then to sit, i.e. remain at home, thirty-three days in the blood of purification, without touching anything holy or coming to the sanctuary (she was not to take any part, therefore, in the sacrificial meals, the Passover, etc.), until the days of her purification were full, i.e. had expired. — Ver. 5. But if she had given birth to a girl, she was to be unclean two weeks (14 days), as in her menstruation, and then after that to remain at home QG days. The distinction between the seven (or fourteen) days of the "separation for her infirmity," and the thirty-three (or sixty-six) days of the "blood of her purifying," had a natural ground in the bodily secretions connected with child-birth, which are stronger and have more blood in them in the first week (lochia rubra) than the more watery discharge of the lochia alba, which may last as much as five weeks, so that the normal state may not be restored till about six weeks after the birth of the child. The prolongation of the period, in connection with the birth of a girl, was also founded upon the notion, which was very common in antiquity, that the bleeding and watery discharge continued longer after the birth of a girl than after that of a boy (^Hippocr. 0pp. ed. Kiihri. i. p. 393; Aristot. h. an. 6, 22; 7, 3, cf. Burdach, Physiologic iii. p. 34). But the extension of the period to 40 and 80 days can only be accounted for from the significance of the numbers, which we meet with repeatedly, more especially the number forty (see at Ex. xxiv. 18). — Vers. 6, 7. After the expiration of the days of her purification " with regard to a son or a daughter ^^ i.e. according as she had given birth to a son or a daughter (not for the son or daughter, for the woman needed purification for herself, and not for the child to which she had given birth, and it was the woman, not the child, that was unclean), she was to bring to the priest a yearling lamb for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or turtle-dove for a sin-offering, that lie might make atonement for her before Jehovah and she might become clean from the source of her issue, ^rij^ J^^ Ut. son of his year, which is a year old (cf. chap, xxiii. 12; Num. vi. 12, 14, viL 15, 21, etc.), is used interchangeably with nj^ |3 (Ex. xii. 5), and with ny^^" '•^B in the plural (chap, xxiii. 18, 19; Ex. xxix. 38;

Num. vii. 17, 23, 29). C3''P^^ ^ip^, fountain of bleeding (see at Gen. iv. 10), equivalent to hemorrhage (cf. chap. xx. 18). The purification by bathing and washing is not specially mentioned, as being a matter of course; nor is anything stated with reference to the communication of her uncleanness to persons who touched either her or her couch, since the instructions with regard to the period of menstruation no doubt applied to the first seven and fourteen days respectively. For her restoration to the Lord and His sanctuary, she was to come and be cleansed with a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, on account of the uncleanness in w^iicli the sin of nature had manifested itself; because she had been obliged to absent herself in consequence for a whole week from the sanctuary and fellowship of the Lord. But as this purification had reference, not to any special moral guilt, but only to sin which had been indirectly manifested in her bodily condition, a pigeon was sufficient for the sin-offering, that is to say, the smallest of the bleeding sacrifices; whereas a yearling lamb was required for a burnt-offering, to express the importance and strength of her surrender of herself to the Lord after so long a separation from Him. But in cases of great poverty a pigeon might be substituted for the lamb (ver. 8, cf. chap. v. 7, 11).

Chap. xiii. and xiv. Leprosy. — The law for leprosy, the observance of which is urged upon the people again in Deut. xxiv. 8, 9, treats, in the fi)\st place, of leprosy in men: (a) in its dangerous forms when appearing either on the skin (vers. 2-28), or on the head and beard (vers. 29-37); (6) in harmless forms (vers. 38 and 39); and (c) when appearing on a bald head (vers. 40-44). To this there are added instructions for the removal of the leper from the society of other men (vers. 45 and 46). It treats, secondly ^ of leprosy in linen, woollen, and leather articles, and the v^^ay to treat them (vers. 47-59); thirdly^ of the purification of persons recovered from leprosy (chap. xiv. 1-32); Siiid fourthly, of leprosy in houses and the way to remove it (vers. 33-53). — The laws for leprosy in man relate exclusively to the so-called white leprosy, Xeu/c?;, Xeirpa, lepra, which probably existed at that time in hither Asia alone, not only among the Israelites and Jews (Num. xii. 10 sqq.; 2 Sam. iii. 29; 2 Kings V. 27, vii. 3, xv. 5; Matt. viii. 2, 3, x. 8, xi. 5, xxvi. 6, etc.), but also among the Syrians (2 Kings v. 1 sqq.), and which is still found in that part of the world, most frequently in the countries of the Lebanon and Jordan and in the neighbourhood of Damascus, in w^hich city there are three hospitals for lepers (SeetzeUy pp, 277, 278), and occasionally in Arabia (Niehuhr, Arab. pp. 135 sqq.) and Egypt; though at the present time the pimply leprosy, lepra tuherosa s. articulorum (the leprosy of the joints), is more prevalent in the East, and frequently occurs in Egypt in the lower extremities in the form of elephantiasis. Of the white leprosy (called Lepi-a 3Iosaica), which is still met with in Arabia sometimes, where it is called Ba7'as, Trusen gives the following description: " Very frequently, even for years

before the actual outbreak of the disease itself, wdiite, yellowish spots are seen lying deep in the skin, particularly on the genitals, in the face, on the forehead, or in the joints. They are without feeling, and sometimes cause the hair to assume the same colour as the spots. These spots afterwards pierce through the cellular tissue, and reach the muscles and bones. The hair becomes white and woolly, and at length falls off; hard gelatinous swellings are formed in the cellular tissue; the skin gets hard, rough, and seamy, lymph exudes from it, and forms large scabs, which fall off from time to time, and under these there are often offensive running sores. The nails then swell, curl up, and fall off; entropium is formed, with bleeding gums, the nose stopped up, and a considerable flow of saliva.... The senses become dull, the patient gets thin and weak, colliquative diarrhea sets in, and incessant thirst and burninf]^ fever terminate his sufferincrs" (JCranklieiten d. alten Hehr. p. 165).

Chap. xiii. 2-28. The symptoms of leprosy j whether proceeding directly from, eruptions in the skin^ or caused by a boil or burn. — Vers. 2-8. The first case: "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh (body) a raised spot or scab, or a bright spot." ^^^, a lifting up (Gen. iv. 7, etc.), signifies here an elevation of the skin in some part of the body, a raised spot like a pimple. J^nsp^ an eruption, scurf, or scab, from nsp to pour out, " a pouring out as it were from the flesh or skin" {Knobel). ^"^I^^, from "in^^ in the Arabic and Chaldee to shine, is a bright swollen spot in the skin. If either of these signs became " a spot of leprosy," the person affected was to be brought to the priest, that he might examine the complaint. The term zaraath, from an Arabic word signifying to strike down or scourge, is applied to leprosy as a scourge of God, and in the case of men it always denotes the white leprosy, which the Arabs call haras, V^?, a stroke {lit, "stroke of leprosy"), is applied not only to the spot attacked by the leprosy, the leprous mole (vers. 3, 29-32, 42, etc.), but to the persons and even to things affected with leprosy (vers. 4, 12, 13, 31, 50, 55). — Ver. 3. A person so diseased was to be pronounced unclean, (a) if the hair of his head had turned white on the mole, i.e. if the dark hair which distinguished the Israelites had become white; and {h) if the appearance of the mole was deeper than the skin of the flesh, i.e. if the spot, where the mole was, appeared depressed in comparison with the rest of the skin. In that case it was leprosy. These signs are recognised by modern observers {e.g. Ilensler); and among the Arabs leprosy is regarded as curable if the hair remains black upon the white spots, but incurable if it becomes Avhitish in colour. — Vers. 4-6. But if the bright spot was white upon the skin, and its appearance was not deeper than the skin, and the place therefore was not sunken, nor the hair turned white, the priest was to shut up the leper, i.e. preclude him from intercourse with other men, for seven days, and on the seventh day examine him again. If he then found that the mole still stood, i.e. remained unaltered, " in his eyes," or in his view, that it had not spread any further, he was to shut him up for seven days more. And if, on further examination upon the seventh day, he found that the mole had become paler, had lost its brilliant vv^hiteness, and had not spread, he was to declare him clean, for it was a scurf, i.e. a mere skin eruption, and not true leprosy. The person who had been pronounced clean, however, was to wash his clothes, to change himself from even the appearance of leprosy, and then to be clean. — Vers. 7, 8. But if the scurf had spread upon the skin " after his (first) appearance before the priest with reference to his cleansing," i.e. to be examined concerning his purification; and if the priest noticed this on his second appearance, he was to declare him unclean, for in that case it was leprosy.

The second case (vers. 9-17): if the leprosy broke out without previous eruptions. — Vers. 9 sqq. " If a mole of leprosy is in a man, and the priest to whom he is brought sees that there is a white rising in the skin, and this has turned the hair white, and there is raw (proud) flesh upon the elevation, it is an old leprosy." The apodosis to vers. 9 and 10 commences with ver. 11. '•n "ito living, i.e. raw, proud flesh, n^np the preservation of life (Gen xlv. 5), sustenance (Judg. vi. 4); here, in vers. 10 and 24, it signifies life in the sense of that which shows life, not a blow or spot (^^3, from nriD to strike), as it is only in a geographical sense that the verb has this signification, viz. to strike against, or reach as far as (Num. xxxiv. 11). If the priest found that the evil was an old, long-standing leprosy, he was to pronounce the man unclean, and not first of all to shut him up, as there was no longer any doubt about the matter. — Yers. 12, 13. If, on the other hand, the leprosy broke out blooming on the skin, and covered the whole of the skin from head to foot " witli regard to the whole sight of the eyes of the priest," i.e. as far as his eyes could see, the priest was to pronounce the person clean. " He has turned quite white," i.e. his dark body has all become white. The breaking out of the leprous matter in this complete and rapid way upon the surface of the whole body was the crisis of the disease; the diseased matter turned into a scurf, which died away and then fell off. — Yer. 14. " But in the day when proud flesh appears upon him, he is unclean,... the proud flesh is unclean; it is leprosy." That is to say, if proud flesh appeared after the body had been covered with a white scurf, with which the diseased matter had apparently exhausted itself, the disease was not removed, and the person affected with it was to be pronounced unclean.

The tJdrd case: if the leprosy proceeded from an abscess which had been cured. In ver. 18 ^^^ is first of all used absolutely, and then resumed with ^3, and the latter again is more closely defined in i"iiyii: " if there arises in the flesh, in him, in his skin, an abscess, and (it) is healed, and there arises in the place of the abscess a white elevation, or a spot of a reddish white, he (the person so affected) shall appear at the priest's." — Yer. 20. If the priest found the appearance of the diseased spot lower than the surrounding skin, and the hair upon it turned white, he was to pronounce the person unclean. " It is a mole of leprosy: it has broken out upon the abscess." — Yers. 21 sqq. But if the hair had not turned white upon the spot, and there was no depression on the skin, and it (the spot) was pale, the priest was to shut him up for seven days. If the mole spread upon the skin during this period, it was leprosy; but if the spot stood in its place, and had not spread, it was T^^*^ ^?1?j " the closing of the abscess:" literally "the burning;" here, that part of the skin or flesh which has been burnt up or killed by the inflammation or abscess, and gradually falls off as scurf {Knohel).

The fourth case (vers. 24-28): if there was a burnt place upon the skin of the flesh {^^ ^\?^, a spot where he had burnt himself with fire, the scar of a burn), and the " life of the scar" — i.e. the skin growing or forming upon the scar (see ver. 10) — " becomes a whitish red, or white spot," i.e, if it formed itself into a bright swollen spot. This was to be treated exactly like the previous case. ^\^^>^ ^^^ (ver. 28), rising of the scar of the burn, i^, a rising of the flesh and skin growing out of the scar of the burn.

Vers. 29-37. Leprosy upon the head or chin. — If the priest saw a mole upon the head or chin of a man or woman, the appearance of which was deeper than the skin, and on which the hair was yellow (3n^ golden, reddish, fox-colour) and thin, he was to regard it as pnp. Leprosy on the head or chin is called prip^ probably from pnj to pluck or tear, from its plucking out the hair, or causing it to fall off; like icvrjc^rjj the itch, from kvolWj to itch or scratch, and scabies, from scabere. But if he did not observe these two symptoms, if there was no depression of the skin, and the hair was black and not yellow, he was to shut up the person affected for seven days. In is T^? "ih^ (ver. 31) there is certainly an error of the text: either "^HK^ must be retained and ^^5 dropped, or *^nK^ must be altered into ^^"i, according to ver. 37. The latter is probably the better of the two. — Vers. 32 sqq. If the mole had not spread by that time, and the two signs mentioned were not discernible, the person affected was to shave himself, but not to shave the nethek, the eruption or scurfy place, and the priest w^as to shut him up for seven days more, and then to look whether any alteration had taken place; and if not, to pronounce him clean, whereupon he was to wash his clothes (see ver. 6). — Vers. 35, 36. But if the eruption spread even after his purification, the priest, on seeing this, was not to look for yellow hair. "He is unclean:" that is to say, he was to pronounce him unclean without searching for yellow hairs; the spread of the eruption was a sufficient proof of the leprosy. — Ver. 37. But if, on the contrary, the eruption stood

(see ver. 5), and black hair grew out of it, he was healed, and the person affected was to be declared clean

Vers. 38 and 39. Harmless leprosy. — This broke out upon the skin of the body in nina plaits, " white rings." If these were dull or a pale white, it was the harmless bohaky aX(ji6<; (LXX.), which did not defile, and which even the Arabs, who still call it bahak, consider harmless. It is an eruption upon the skin, appearing in somewhat elevated spots or rings of unequal sizes and a pale white colour, which do not change the hair; it causes no inconvenience, and lasts from two months to two years.

Vers. 40-44. The leprosy of bald heads. — n^.i? is a head bald behind; nsji, in front, " bald from the side, or edge of his face, i.e, from the forehead and temples." Bald heads of both kinds were naturally clean. — Vers. 42 sqq. But if a white reddish mole was formed upon the bald place before or behind, it was leprosy breaking out upon it, and was to be recognised by the fact that the rising of the mole had the appearance of leprosy on the skin of the body. In that case the person was unclean, and to be pronounced so by the priest. " On his head is his plague of leprosy," i.e. he has it in his head.

Vers. 45 and 46. With regard to the treatment of lepers, the lawgiver prescribed that they should wear mourning costume, rend their clothes, leave the hair of their head in disorder (see at chap. X. 6), keep the beard covered (Ezek. xxiv. 17, 22), and cry " Unclean, unclean," that every one might avoid them for fear of being defiled (Lam. iv. 15); and as long as the disease lasted they were to dwell apart outside the camp (Num. v. 2 sqq., xii. 10 sqq., cf. 2 Kings xv. 5, vii. 3),^ a rule which implies that the leper rendered others unclean by contact. From this the Rabbins taught, that by merely entering a house, a leper polluted everything within it (Mishnah, Kelim i. 4; Negaim xiii. 11).

Vers. 47—59. Leprosy in linen, woollen, and leather fabrics and clothes. — The only wearing apparel mentioned in ver. 47 is either woollen or linen, as in Deut. xxii. 11, Hos. ii. 7, Prov. xxxi. 13; and among the ancient Egyptians and ancient Greeks these were the materials usually worn. In vers. 48 sqq. ''ri^ and y^V, " the

^ At the present day there are pest-houses specially set apart for lepers outside the towns. In Jerusalem they are situated against the Zion-gate (see RohinsoTiy Pal. i. p. 364).

flax and the wool," i.e. for linen and woollen fabrics, are distinguished from clothes of wool or flax. The rendering given to these words by the early translators is (nrjficov and KpoKT)^ stamen et suhtegmen (LXX., Vulg.)y i.e. warp and weft. The objection offered to this rendering, that warp and weft could not be kept so separate from one another, that the one could be touched and rendered leprous without the other, has been met by Gussetius by the simple but correct remark, that the reference is to the yarn prepared for the warp and weft, and not to the woven fabrics themselves. So long as the yarn was not woven into a fabric, the warp-yarn and weft-yarn might very easily be separated and lie in different places, so that the one could be injured without the other. In this case the yarn intended for weaving is distinguished from the woven material, just as the leather is afterwards distinguished from leather-work (ver. 49). The signs of leprosy were, if the mole in the fabric was greenish or reddish. In that case the priest was to shut up the thing affected with leprosy for seven days, and then examine it. If the mole had spread in the meantime, it was a " grievous leprosy." rn^DD^ from "l^<^ irritavity recruduit {yidnus\ is to be explained, as it is by Bochart, as signifying lepra exasperata, V^IJ} n'lSDD making the mole bad or angry; not, as Gesenius maintains, from "it^D = 1"1D acerbufn faciens^ i.e, dolorem acerhum excitans, w^hich would not apply to leprosy in fabrics and houses (chap. xiv. 44), and is not required by Ezek. xxviii. 24. All such fabrics were to be burned as unclean. — Vers. 53 sqq. If the mole had not spread during the seven days, the priest was to cause the fabric in which the mole appeared to be washed, and then shut it up for seven days more. If the mole did not alter its appearance after being washed, even though it had not spread, the fabric was unclean, and was therefore to be burned. " It is a corroding in the back and front" (of the fabric or leather). nnriQ^ from nnQ^ in Syriac fodit, from which comes rins a pit, lit. a digging: here a corroding depression. ^n"]i^ a bald place in the front or right side, rinsa a bald place in the back or left side of the fabric or leather. — Ver. 56. But if the mole had turned pale by the seventh day after the washing, it (the place of the mole) was to be separated (torn off) from the clothes, leather or yarn, and then (as is added afterwards in ver, 58) the garment or fabric from which the mole had disappeared was to be washed a second time, and would then be clean. — Yer. 57. But if the mole appeared again in any such garment or cloth, i.e. if it appeared again after this, it was a leprosy bursting forth afresh, and the thing affected with it was to be burned. Leprosy in linen and woollen fabrics or clothes, and in leather, consisted in all probability in nothing but so-called mildew, which commonly arises from damp and want of air, and consists, in the case of linen, of round, partially coloured spots, which spread, and gradually eat up the fabric, until it falls to pieces like mould. In leather the mildew consists most strictly of " holes eaten in," and is of a " greenish, reddish, or whitish colour, according to the species of the delicate cryptogami by which it has been formed."

Chap, xiv., vers. 1-32. Purification of the leper ^ after his recovery from his disease. As leprosy, regarded as a decomposition of the vital juices, and as putrefaction in a living body, was an image of death, and like this introduced the same dissolution and destruction of life into the corporeal sphere which sin introduced into the spiritual; and as the leper for this very reason was not only excluded from the fellowship of the sanctuary, but cut off from intercourse with the covenant nation which was called to sanctlfication: the man, when recovered from leprosy, was first of all to be received into the fellowship of the covenant nation by a significant rite of purification, and then again to be still further inducted into living fellowship with Jehovah in His sanctuary. Hence the purification prescribed was divided into two acts, separated from one another by an interval of seven days.

The first act (vers. 2-8) set forth the restoration of the man, who had been regarded as dead, into the fellowship of the living members of the covenant nation, and was therefore performed by the priest outside the camp. — Vers. 2 sqq. On the day of his purification the priest was to examine the leper outside the camp; and if he found the leprosy cured and gone (|p ^^^1^, const, pra?gnanSy healed away from, i.e. healed and gone away from), he was to send for (lit. order them to fetch or bring) two living (ni^rij with all the fulness of their vital power) birds (without any precise direction as to the kind, not merely sparrows), and (a piece of) cedar-wood and coccus (probably scarlet wool, or a little piece of scarlet cloth), and hyssop (see at Ex. xii. 22).

■ — Vers. 5 sqq. The priest was to have one of the birds killed into an earthen vessel upon fresh water (water drawn from a fountain or brook, chap. xv. 13, Gen. xxvi. 19), that is to say, slain in such a manner that its blood should flow into the fresh water which was in a vessel, and should mix with it. He was then to take the (other) live bird, together with the cedar-wood, scarlet, and hyssop, and dip them (these accompaniments) along with the bird into the blood of the one which had been killed over the water. With this the person cured of leprosy was to be sprinkled seven times (see chap. iv. 6) and purified; after which the living bird was to be " let loose upon the face of the field," i.e. to be allowed to fly away into the open country. The two birds were symbols of the person to be cleansed. The one let loose into the open country is regarded by all the commentators as a symbolical representation of the fact, that the former leper was now imbued with new vital energy, and released from the fetters of his disease, and could now return in liberty again into the fellowship of his countrymen. But if this is established, the other must also be a symbol of the leper; and just as in the second the essential point in the symbol was its escape to the open country, in the first the main point must have been its death. Not, however, in this sense, that it was a figurative representation of the previous condition of the leper; but that, although it was no true sacrifice, since there was no sprinkling of blood in connection with it, its bloody death was intended to show that the leper would necessarily have suffered death on account of his uncleanness, which reached to the very foundation of his life, if the mercy of God had not delivered him from this punishment of sin, and restored to him the full power and vigour of life again. The restitution of this full and vigorous life was secured to him symbolically, by his being sprinkled wdth the blood of the bird which was killed in his stead. But because his liability to death had assumed a bodily form in the uncleanness of leprosy, he was sprinkled not only with blood, but with the flowing water of purification into which the blood had flowed, and was thus purified from his mortal uncleanness. Whereas one of the birds, however, had to lay down its life, and shed its blood for the person to be cleansed, the other was made into a symbol of the person to be cleansed by being bathed in the mixture of blood and water; and its release, to return to its fellows and into its nest, represented his deliv.erance from the ban of death which rested upon leprosy, and his return to the fellowship of his own nation. This signification of the rite serves to explain not only the appointment of birds for the purpose, since free unfettered movement in all directions could not be more fittingly represented by anything than by birds, which are distinguished from all other animals by their freedom and rapidity of motion, but also the necessity for their being alive and clean, viz. to set forth the renewal of life and purification; also the addition of cedar-wood, scarlet wool, and hyssop, by which the life-giving power of the blood mixed with living (spring) water was to be still further strengthened. The cedar-wood, on account of its antiseptic qualities (ep^et aar]iTTov rj A:eS/509, Theodor. on Ezek. xvii. 22), was a symbol of the continuance of life; the coccus colour, a symbol of freshness of life, or fulness of vital energy; and the hyssop (^^oTavrj pvirrLKr}^ herha humilis, medicinalis, purgandis pulmonihus apta: August, on Ps. li.), a symbol of purification from the corruption of death. The sprinkhng was performed seven times, because it referred to a readmission into the covenant, the stamp of which was seven; and it was made with a mixture of blood and fresh water, the blood signifying life, the water purification. — Ver. 8. After this symbolical purification from the mortal ban of leprosy, the person cleansed had to purify himself bodily, by washing his clothes, shaving off all his hair — i.e. not merely the hair of his head and beard, but that of his whole body (cf. ver. 9), — and bathing in water; and he could then enter into the camp. But he had still to remain outside his tent for seven days, not only because he did not yet feel himself at home in the concrreo-ation, or because he was still to retain the consciousness that something else was wanting before he could be fully restored, but, as the Chaldee has explained it by adding the clause, et non accedat ad latus uxoris suce, that he might not defile himself again by conjugal rights, and so interrupt his preparation for readmission into fellowship with Jehovah.

The second act (vers. 9-20) effected his restoration to fellowship with Jehovah, and his admission to the sanctuary. It commenced on the seventh day after the first with a fresh purification; viz. shaving off all the hair from the head, the beard, the eyebrows — in fact, the vvliole body, — washing the clothes, and bathing the body. On the eighth day there followed a sacrificial expiation; and for this the person to be expiated was to bring two sheep without blemish, a ewe-lamb of a year old, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a meat-oft'ering, and a log (or one-twelfth of a hin, i.e. as much as six hens' eggs, or 15*G2 Rhenish cubic inches) of oil; and the priest was to present him, together wuth these gifts, before Jehovah, i.e. before the altar of burnt-offering. The one lamb was then offered by the priest as a trespass-offering, together with the log of oil; and both of these were waved by him. By the waving, which did not take place on other occasions in connection with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, the lamb and oil were transferred symbolically to the Lord; and by the fact that these sacrificial gifts represented the offerer, the person to be consecrated to the Lord by means of them was dedicated to His service again, just as the Levites were dedicated to the Lord by the ceremony of waving (Num. viii. 11, 15). But a trespass-offering was required as the consecrationoffering, because the consecration itself served as a restoration to all the rights of the priestly covenant nation, which had been lost by the mortal ban of leprosy.^ — Vers. 13, 14. After the slaying of the lamb in the holy place, as the trespass-offering, like the sin-offering, was most holy and belonged to the priest (see at chap. vii. 6), the priest put some of its blood upon the tip of the right ear, the right thumb, and the great toe of the right foot of the person to be consecrated, in order that the organ of hearing, with which he hearkened to the word of the Lord, and those used in acting and walking according to His command-

^ Others, e.g. Riehm and OeJiler., regard this trespass- offering also as a kind of mulcta, or satisfaction rendered for the fact, that during the whole period of his sickness, and so long as he was excluded from the congregation, the leper had failed to perform his theocratical duties, and Jehovah had been injured in consequence. But if this was the idea upon which the trespass-offering was founded, the law would necessarily have required that trespass -offerings should be presented on the recovery of persons who had been affected with diseased secretions; for during the continuance of their disease, which often lasted a long time, even as much as 12 years (Luke viii. 43), they were precluded from visiting the sanctua*/ or serving the Lord with sacrifices, because they were unclean, and therefore could not perform their theocratical duties.

ments, might thereby be sanctified through the power of the atoning blood of the sacrifice; just as in the dedication of the priests (chap. viii. 24). — Yers. 15-18. The priest then poured some oil out of the log into the hollow of his left hand, and dipping the finger of his right hand in the oil, sprinkled it seven times before Jehovah, i.e. before the altar of burnt-offering, to consecrate the oil to God, and sanctify it for further use. With the rest of the oil he smeared the same organs of the person to be consecrated which he had already smeared with blood, placing it, in fact, " upon the blood of the trespass-offering,^^ i.e. upon the spots already touched with blood; he then poured the remainder upon the head of the person to be consecrated, and so made atonement for him before Jehovah. The priests were also anointed at their consecration, not only by the pouring of oil upon their head, but by the sprinkling of oil upon their garments (chap. viii. 12, 30). But in their case the anointing of their head preceded the consecration-offering, and holy anointing oil was used for the purpose. Here, on the contrary, it was ordinary oil, which the person to be consecrated had offered as a sacrificial gift; and this was first of all sanctified, therefore, by being sprinkled before Jehovah, after which the oil was sprinkled and poured upon the organs with which he was to serve the Lord, and then upon the head, which represented his personality. Just as the anointing oil, prepared according to divine directions, shadowed forth the power and gifts of the Spirit, with which God endowed the priests for their peculiar office in His kingdom; so the oil, which the leper about to be consecrated presented as a sacrifice out of his own resources, represented the spirit of life which he had received from God, and now possessed as his own. This property of his spirit was presented to the Lord by the priestly waving and sprinkling of the oil before Jehovah, to be pervaded and revived by His spirit of grace, and when so strengthened, to be not only applied to those organs of the person to be consecrated, with which he fulfilled the duties of his vocation as a member of the priestly nation of God, but also poured upon his head, to be fully appropriated to his person. And just as in the sacrifice the blood was the symbol of the soul, so in the anointing the oil was the symbol of the spirit. If, therefore, the soul was established in gracious fellowship with the Lord by being sprinkled with the atoning blood of sacrifice, the anointing with oil had reference to the spirit, which gives life to soul and body, and which was thereby endowed with the power of the Spirit of God. In this way the man cleansed from leprosy was reconciled to Jehovah, and reinstated in the covenant privileges and covenant grace. — Vers. 19, 20. It was not till all this had been done, that the priest could proceed to make expiation for him with the sin-offering, for which the ewe-lamb was brought, "on account of his uncleanness," i.e. on account of the sin which still adhered to him as well as to all the other members of the covenant nation, and which had come outwardly to light in the uncleanness of his leprosy; after which he presented his burnt-offering and meat-offering, which embodied the sanctification of all his members to the service of the Lord, and the performance of works well-pleasing to Him. The sin-offering, burnt-offering, and meat-offering were therefore presented according to the general instructions, with this exception, that, as a representation of diligence in good works, a larger quantity of meal and oil was brought than the later law in Num. xv. 4 prescribed for the burnt-offering. — Vers. 21-32. In cases of poverty on the part of the person to be consecrated, the burnt-offering and sin-offering were reduced to a pair of turtle-doves or young pigeons, and the meat-offering to a tenth of an ephah of meal and oil; but no diminution was allowed in the trespass-offering as the consecration-offering, since this was the conditio sine qua non of reinstatement in full covenant rights. On account of the importance of all the details of this law, every point is repeated a second time in vers. 21-32.

Vers. 33-53. The law concerning the leprosy of houses was made known to Moses and Aaron, as intended for the time when Israel should have taken possession of Canaan and dwell in houses. As it was Jehovah who gave His people the land for a possession, so " putting the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of their possession " is also ascribed to Him (ver. 34), inasmuch as He held it over them, to remind the inhabitants of the house that they owed not only their bodies but also their dwelling-places to the Lord, and that they were to sanctify these to Him. By this expression, " I put^^ the view which Knohel still regards as probable, viz. that the house-leprosy was only the transmission of human leprosy to the walls of the houses, is completely overthrown; not to mention the fact, that throughout the whole description there is not the slightest hint of any such transmission, but the inhabitants, on the contrary, are spoken of as clean, Le. free from leprosy, and only those who went into the house, or slept in the house after it had been shut up as suspicious, are pronounced unclean (vers. 46, 47), though even they are not said to have been affected with leprosy. The only thing that can be gathered from the signs mentioned in ver. 37 is, that the house-leprosy was an evil which calls to mind " the vegetable formations and braid-like structures that are found on mouldering walls and decaying walls, and which eat into them so as to produce a slight depression in the surface."^ — Vers. 35, 36. When the evil showed itself in a house, the owner was to send this message to the priest, " A leprous evil has appeared in my house," and the priest, before entering to examine it, was to have the house cleared, lest everything in it should become unclean. Consequently, as what was in the house became unclean only when the priest had declared the house affected with leprosy, the reason for the defilement is not to be sought for in physical infection, but must have been of an ideal or symbolical kind. — Vers. 37 sqq. If the leprous spot appeared in " greenish or reddish depressions, which looked deeper than the wall,'^ the priest was to shut up the house for seven days. If after that time he found that the mole had spread on the walls, he was to break out the stones upon which it appeared, and remove them to an unclean place outside the town, and to scrape the house all round inside, and throw the dust that was scraped off into an unclean place outside the town. He was then to put other stones in their place, and plaster the house with fresh mortar. — Vers. 43 sqq. If the mole broke out again after this had taken place, it was a malicious leprosy, and the house was to be pulled down as unclean, whilst the stones, the wood, and the mortar were to be taken to an unclean place outside the town. — Vers. 46, 47. Whoever went into the house during the time that it was closed, became unclean till the evening and had to wash himself; but

^ Cf. Sommer (p. 220), who says, " The crust of many of these lichens

is so marvellously thin, that they simply appear as coloured spots, for the most part circular., which gradually spread in a concentric form, and can be rubbed oif like dust. Some species have a striking resemblance to eruptions upon the skin. There is one genus called spiloma (spots); and another very numerous genus bears the name of lepraria.'^

whoever slept or ate therein during this time, was to wash liis clothes, and of course was unclean till the evening. Snk 'T'5pn (ver. 4G) may be a perfect tense, and a relative clause dependent upon ""P^, or it may be an infinitive for ">"'3pn as in ver. 43. — Ver. 48. If the priest should find, however, that after the fresh plastering the mole had not appeared again, or spread (to other places), he was to pronounce the house clean, because the evil was cured, and (vers. 49-53) to perform the same rite of purification as was prescribed for the restoration of a man, who had been cured of leprosy, to the national community (vers. 4-7). The purpose was also the same, namely, to cleanse (^tsn cleanse from sin) and make atonement for the house, i.e. to purify it from the uncleanness of sin which had appeared in the leprosy. For, although it is primarily in the human body that sin manifests itself, it spreads from man to the things which he touches, uses, inhabits, though without our being able to represent this spread as a physical contagion. — Vers. 54-57 contain the concluding formula to chap. xiii. and xiv. The law of leprosy was given *^ to teach in the day of the unclean and the clean," i.e. to give directions for the time when they w^ould have to do with the clean and unclean.

Chap. XV. The Uncleanness of Secretions. — These include (1) a running issue from a man (vers. 2-15); (2) involuntary emission of seed (vers. 16, 17), and the emission of seed in sexual intercourse (ver. 18); (3) the monthly period of a woman (vers. 19-24); (4) a diseased issue of blood from a woman (vers. 25-30). They consist, therefore, of two diseased and two natural secretions from the organs of generation.

Vers. 2-15. The running issue from a man is not described with sufficient clearness for us to be able to determine with certainty what disease is referred to: " if a man becomes flowing out of his flesh, he is unclean in his flux." That even here the term flesh is not a euphemism for the organ of generation, as is frequently assumed, is evident from ver. 13, "he shall wash his clothes and bathe his Jlesh in water," when compared with chap, xvi. 23, 24, 28, etc., where flesh cannot possibly have any such meaning. The "flesh" is the body as in ver. 7, " whoever touches the flesh of him that hath the issue," as compared with ver. 19, " whosoever toucheth her." At the same time, the agreement between the law relating to the man with an issue and that concerning the woman with an issue (ver. 19, "her issue in her flesh") points unmistakeably to a secretion from the sexual organs. Only the seat of the disease is not more closely defined. The issue of the man is not a hemorrhoidal disease, for nothincr is said about a flow of blood; still less is it a syphilitic suppuration (^gonorrhcBa virulenta)^ for the occurrence of this at all in antiquity is very questionable; but it is either a diseased flow of semen (gonor7'hoea)y i.e. an involuntary flow drop by drop arising from weakness of the organ, as Jeroine and the Rabbins assume, or more probably, simply hlenorrlioea urethrce^ a discharge of mucus arising from a catarrhal affection of the mucous membrane of the urethra (urethritis). The participle HT H'Ti'' is expressive of continued duration. In ver. 3 the uncleanness is still more closely defined: " whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh closes before his issue," i.e. whether the member lets the matter flow out or by closing retains it, " it is his uncleanness," i.e. in the latter case as well as the former it is uncleanness to him, he is unclean. For the "closing" is only a temporary obstruction, brought about by some particular circumstance. — Yer. 4. Every bed upon which he lay, and everything upon which he sat, was defiled in consequence; also every one who touched his bed (ver. 5), or sat upon it (ver. G), or touched his flesh, i.e. his body (ver. 7), was unclean, and had to bathe himself and wash his clothes in consequence. — Vers. 9, 10. The conveyance in which such a man rode was also unclean, as well as everything under him; and whoever touched them was defiled till the evening, and the person who carried them was to wash his clothes and bathe himself. — Yer. 11. This also applied to every one whom the man with an issue might touch, without first rinsing his hands in water. — Yers. 12, 13- Yessels that he had touched were to be broken to pieces if they were of earthenware, and rinsed with water if they were of wood, for the reasons explained in chap. xi. 33 and vi. 21. — Yers. 13-15. When he was cleansed, i.e. recovered from his issue, he was to wait seven davs with rerrard to his purification, and then wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water, and be clean. On the eighth day he was to bring two turtle-doves or young pigeons, in order that the priest might prepare one as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering, and make an atonement for him before the Lord for his issue.

Vers. 16-18. Involuntary emission of seed. — This defiled for tlie whole of the day, not only the man himself, but any garment or skin upon which any of it had come, and required for purification that the whole body should be bathed, and the polluted thinfTS washed. — Yer. 18. Sexual connection. " If a man lie with a woman with the emission of seed, both shall be unclean till the evening, and bathe themselves in water." Consequently it was not the concuhitus as such which defiled, as many erroneously suppose, but the emission of seed in the coitus. This explains the law and custom, of abstaining from conjugal intercourse during the preparation for acts of divine worship, or the performance of the same (Ex. xix. 5; 1 Sam. xxi. 5, 6; 2 Sam. xi. 4), in which many other nations resembled the Israelites. (For proofs see Leyrer's article in Ilerzog s Cyclopaedia, and Knohel in loco, though the latter is wrong in supposing that conjugal intercourse itself defiled.)

Vers. 19—24. The menses of a ivoman. — "If a woman have an issue, (if) blood is her issue in her flesh, she shall be seven days in her uncleanness." As the discharge does not last as a rule more than four or five days, the period of seven days was fixed on account of the significance of the number seven. In this condition she rendered every one who touched her unclean (ver. 19), everything upon which she lay or sat (ver. 20), every one who touched her bed or whatever she sat upon (vers. 21, 22), also any one who touched the blood upon her bed or seat (ver. 23, where t<^n and ^2 are to be referred to C]*n); and they remained unclean till the evening, when they had to wash their clothes and bathe themselves. — Yer. 24. If a man lay with her and her uncleanness came upon him, he became unclean for seven days, and the bed upon which he lay became unclean as well. The meaning cannot be merely if he lie upon the same bed with her, but if he have conjugal intercourse, as is evident from chap. xx. 18 and Num. v. 13 (cf. Gen. xxvi. 10, xxxiv. 2, XXXV. 22; 1 Sam. ii. 22). It cannot be adduced as an objection to this explanation, which is the only admissible one, that according to chap, xviii. 19 and xx. 18 intercourse with a woman during her menses was an accursed crime, to be punished by extermination. For the law in chap. xx. 18 refers partly to conjugal intercourse during the hemorrhage of a woman after child-birth, as the similarity of the words in chap. xx. 18 and xii.

7 (\!\p'J "*^PP) clearly proves, and to the case of a man attempting cohabitation with a woman during her menstruation. The verse before us, on the contrary, refers simply to the possibility of menstruation commencing during the act of conjugal intercourse, when the man would be involuntarily defiled through the unexpected uncleanness of the woman.

Vers. 25—31. Diseased issue from a woman. — If an issue of blood in a woman flowed many days away from (not in) the time of her monthly uncleanness, or if it flowed beyond her monthly uncleanness, she was to be unclean as long as her unclean issue continued, just as in the days of her monthly uncleanness, and she defiled her couch as well as everything upon which she sat, as in the other case, also every one who touched either her or these things. — Vers. 28-30. After the issue had ceased, she was to purify herself like the man with an issue, as described in vers. 13-15. — Obedience to these commands is urged in ver. 31: " Cause that the children of Israel free themselves from their uncleanness, that they die not through their uncleanness, by defiling My dwelling in the midst of them." "T'^n, Hiphilj to cause that a person keeps aloof from anything, or loosens himself from it, from "^TJ, Niphal to separate one's self, signifies here deliverance from the state of uncleanness, purification from it. Continuance in it was followed by death, not merely in the particular instance in which an unclean man ventured to enter the sanctuary, but as a general fact, because uncleanness was irreconcilable with the calling of Israel to be a holy nation, in the midst of which Jehovah the Holy One had His dwelling-place (chap, xi. 44), and continuance in uncleanness without the prescribed purification was a disregard of the holiness of Jehovah, and involved rebellion against Him and His ordinances of grace. — Vers. 32, 33. Concluding formula. The words, " him that lieth with her that is unclean,^ are more general than the expression, "lie with her," in ver. 24, and involve not only intercourse with an unclean woman, but lying by her side upon one and the same bed.

The sacrifices and purifications enjoined thus far did not suffice to complete the reconciliation between the congregation of Israel, which was called to be a holy nation, but in its ver}' nature was still altogether involved in sin and uncleanness, and Jehovah the Holy One, — that is to say, to restore the perfect reconciliation and true vital fellowship of the nation with its God, in accordance with the idea and object of the old covenant, — because, even with the most scrupulous observance of these directions, many sins and defilements would still remain unacknowledged, and therefore without expiation, and would necessarily produce in the congregation a feeling of separation from its God, so that it would be unable to attain to the true joyousness of access to the throne of grace, and to the place of reconciliation with God. This want was met by the appointment of a yearly general and perfect expiation of all the sins and uncleanness which had remained unatoned for and uncleansed in the course of the year. In this respect the laws of sacrifice and purification received their completion and finish in the institution of the festival of atonement, which provided for the congregation of Israel the highest and most comprehensive expiation that was possible under the Old Testament. Hence the law concerning the day of atonement formed a fitting close to the ordinances designed to place the Israelites in fellowship with their God, and raise the promise of Jehovah, " I will be your God," into a living truth. This law is described in the present chapter, and contains (1) the instructions as to the performance of the general expiation for the year (vers. 2-28), and (2) directions for the celebration of this festival every year (vers. 29-34). From the expiation effected upon this day it received the name of " day of expiations j^ i.e. of the highest expiation (chap, xxiii. 27). The llabbins call it briefly fc^^^**, the day Kar i^oxv^'

Vers. 1, 2. The chronological link connecting the following law 'with the death of the sons of Aaron (chap. x. 1-5) was intended, not only to point out the historical event which led to the appointment of the day of atonement, but also to show the importance and holiness attached to an entrance into the inmost sanctuary of God. The death of Aaron's sons, as a punishment for wilfully " drawing near before Jehovah," was to be a solemn warning to Aaron himself, "not to come at all times into the holy place within the vail, before the mercy-seat upon the ark," i.e. into the most holy place (see Ex. xxv. 10 sqq.), but only at the time to be appointed by Jehovah, and for the purposes instituted by Him, i.e.y according to vers. 29 sqq., only once a year, on the day of atonement, and only in the manner prescribed In vers. 3 sqq., that he might not die. — " For I will appear in the cloud above the capporeth." The cloud in which Jehovah appeared above the capporeth, between the cherubim (Ex. xxv. 22), was not the cloud of the incense, with which Aaron was to cover the capporeth on entering (ver. 13), as Vitringa, Bdhr^ and others follow the Sadducees in supposing,, but the cloud of the divine glory, in which Jehovah manifested His essential presence in the most holy place above the ark of the covenant. Because Jehovah appeared in this cloud, not only could no unclean and sinful man go before the capporeth, i.e. approach the holiness of the all-holy God; but even the anointed and sanctified high priest, if he went before it at his own pleasure, or without the expiatory blood of sacrifice, would expose himself to certain death. The reason for this prohibition is to be found in the fact, that the holiness communicated to the priest did not cancel the sin of his nature, but only covered it over for the performance of his official duties, and so long as the law, which produced only the knowledge of sin and not its forgiveness and removal, was not abolished by the complete atonement, the holy God was and remained +o mortal and sinful man a consuming fire, before which no one could stand.

Vers. 3-5. Only f^^?T^, " with tJiis,^^ i.e. with the sacrifices, dress, purifications, and means of expiation mentioned afterwards, could he go into " the holy place," i.e., according to the more precise description in ver. 2, into the inmost division of the tabernacle, which is called Kodesh JiakkadasJiim, '' the holy of holies," in Ex. xxvi. 33. He was to bring an ox (bullock) for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering, as a sacrifice for himself and his house {i.e. the priesthood, ver. 6), and two hegoats for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering, as a sacrifice for the congregation. For this purpose he was to put on, not the state-costume of the high priest, but a body-coat, drawers, girdle, and head-dress of white cloth (had: see Ex. xxviii. 42), having first bathed his body, and not merely his hands and feet, as he did for the ordinary service, to appear before Jehovah as entirely cleansed from the defilement of sin (see at chap. viii. 6) and arrayed in clothes of holiness. The dress of white cloth was not the plain official dress of the ordinary priests, for the girdle of that dress was coloured (see at

Ex. xxviii. 39, 40); and in that case the high priest would not have appeared in the perfect purity of his divinely appointed office as chief of the priesthood, but simply as the priest appointed for this day (v, Ilofmami). Nor did he officiate (as many of the Rabbins, and also C. a Lapide, GrotiuSj liosenm tiller, and Knohel suppose) as a penitent praying humbly for the forgiveness of sin. For where in all the world have clear white clothes been worn either in mourning or as a penitential garment? The emphatic expression, " these are holy garments^^ is a sufficient proof that the pure white colour of all the clothes, even of the girdle, was intended as a representation of holiness. Although in Ex. xxviii. 2, 4, etc., the official dress not only of Aaron, but of his sons also, that is to say, the priestly costume generally, is described as " holy garments," yet in the present chapter the word kodesh, " holy," is frequently used in an emphatic sense (for example, in vers. 2, 3, 16, of the most holy place of the dwelling), and by this predicate the dress is characterized as most holy. Moreover, it was in haddim (" linen") that the angel of Jehovah was clothed (Ezek. ix. 2, 3, 11, x. 2, 6, 7, and Dan. x. 5, xii. 6, 7), whose whole appearance, as described in Dan. x. 6, resembled the appearance of the glory of Jehovah, which Ezekiel saw in the vision of the four cherubim (chap, i.), and was almost exactly like the glory of Jesus Christ, which John saw in the Revelation (chap. i. 13-15). The white material, therefore, of the dress which Aaron wore, when performing the highest act of expiation under the Old Testament, was a symbolical shadowing forth of the holiness and glory of the one perfect Mediator between God and man, who, being the radiation of the glory of God and the image of His nature, effected by Himself the perfect cleansing away of our sin, and who, as the true High Priest, being holy, innocent, unspotted, and separate from sinners, entered once by His own blood into the holy place not made with hands, namely, into heaven itself, to appear before the face of God for us, and obtain everlasting redemption (Heb. i. 3, vii. 26, ix. 12, 24).

Vers. 6-10. With the bullock Aaron \;as to make atonement for himself and his house. The two he-goats he was to place before Jehovah (see chap. i. 5), and " give lots over them," i.e. have lots cast upon them, one lot for Jehovah, the other for Azazel. The one upon which the lot for Jehovah fell (n^'V, from the coming up of the lot out of the urn, Josh, xviii. 11, xLx. 10), he was to prepare as a sin-offering for Jehovah, and to present the one upon which the lot for Azazel fell alive before Jehovah, Vpy "IS??, '' to expiate it,^ i.e. to make it the object of expiation (see at ver. 21), to send it (them) into the desert to Azazel.?t^|^j which only occurs in this chapter, signifies neither " a remote solitude," nor any locality in the desert whatever (as Jonathan^ Bashi, etc., suppose); nor the " he-goat'' (from ty goat, and p^V to turn off, " the goat departing or sent away," as Si/mm., Theodot., the Vulgate, Luther, and others render it); nor " complete removal" {Bdhr, Winer, Tlioluck, etc.). The words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being, in opposition to Jehovah. The word is a more intense form of /TV removit, dimovit, and comes from <Tp_ty by absorbing the liquid, Ike Babel from halhel (Gen", xi. 9), and Golgotha from gulgalta {Ewald, § 158c). The Septuagint rendering is correct, o aTro- •3 -o/z-Trato?; although in ver. 10 the rendering airoTToinrrj is also adopted, i.e. " averruncus, a fiend, or demon whom one drives away" {Ewald). We have not to think, however, of any demon whatever, who seduces men to wickedness in the form of an evil spirit, as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in the Jewish writings (Book of Enoch viii. 1, x. 12, xiii. 1 sqq,), like the terrible fiend Shihe, whom the Arabs of the peninsula of Sinai so much dread {Seetzen, i. pp. 273-4), but of the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons. The desert and desolate places are mentioned elsewhere as the abode of evil spirits (Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14; Matt. xii. 43; Luke xi. 24; Rev. xviii. 2). The desert, regarded as an image of death and desolation, corresponds to the nature of evil spirits, who fell away from the primary source of life, and in their hostility to God devastated the world, which was created good, and brought death and destruction in their train.

Vers. 11-20. He was then to slay the bullock of the sinoffering, and make atonement for himself and his house (or family, i.e. for the priests, ver. 33). But before bringing the blood of the sin-offering into the most holy place, he was to take

" the filling of the censer (machtah, a coal-pan, Ex. xxv. 38) with -fire-coals,'^ Le. as many burning coals as the censer would hold, from the altar of burnt-offering, and " the fillirig of his hands,^* i.e. two hands full of ''fragrant incense^' (Ex. xxx. 34), and go with this within the vail, i.e. into the most holy place, and there place the incense upon the fire before Jehovah, *^ tJiat the cloud of (burning) incense might cover the capporeth above the testimony, and he might not die'^ Tlie design of these instructions was not that the holiest place, the place of Jehovah's presence, might be hidden by the cloud of incense from the gaze of the unholy eye of man, and so he might separate himself reverentially from it, that the person approaching might not be seized with destruction. But as burning incense was a symbol of prayer, this covering of the capporeth with the cloud of incense was a symbolical covering of the glory of the Most Holy One with prayer to God, in order that He might not see the sin, nor suffer His holy wrath to break forth upon the sinner, but might graciously accept, in the blood of the sin-offering, the souls for which it was presented. Being thus protected by the incense from the wrath of the holy God, he was to sprinkle (once) some of the blood of the ox with his finger, first upon the capporeth in front, i.e. not upon the top of the capporeth, but merely upon or against the front of it, and then seven times before the capporeth, i.e. upon the ground in front of it. It is here assumed as a matter of course, that when the offering of incense was finished, he would necessarily come out of the most holy place again, and go to the altar of burnt-offering to fetch some of the blood of the ox which had been slaughtered there. — Yer. 15. After this he was to slay the he-goat as a sin-offering for the nation, for which purpose, of course, he must necessarily come back to the court again, and then take the blood of the goat into the most holy place, and do just the same with it as he had already done with that of the ox. A double sprinkling took place in both cases, first upon or against the capporeth, and then seven times in front of the capporeth. The first sprinkling, which was performed once only, was for the expiation of the sins, first of the high priest and his house, and then of the congregation of Israel (chap. iv. 7 and 18); the second, which was repeated seven times, was for the expiation of the sanctuary from the sins of the people. This is implied in the words of ver. 16a, "and so shall he make expiation for the most holy place, on account of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and on account of their transgressions with regard to all their sins," which refer to both the sacrifices; since Aaron first of all expiated the sins of the priesthood, and the uncleanness with which the priesthood had stained the sanctuary through their sin, by the blood of the bullock of the sin-offering; and then the sins of the nation, and the uncleannesses with which it had defiled the sanctuary, by the he-goat, which was also slain as a sin-offering.^ — Vers. 16b and 17. ^' And so shall he do to the tabernacle of the congregation that dwelleth among them " {i.e, has its place among them, Josh. xxii. 19) "m the midst of their uncleanness T The holy things were rendered unclean, not only by the sins of those who touched them, but by the uncleanness, i.e. the bodily manifestations of the sin of the nation; so that they also required a yearly expiation and cleansing through the expiatory blood of sacrifice. By ohel moed, " the tabernacle of the congregation," in vers. 16 and 17, as well as vers. 20 and 33, we are to understand the holy place of the tabernacle, to which the name of the whole is applied on account of its occupying the principal space in the dwelling, and in distinction from kodesh (the holy), which is used in this chapter to designate the most holy place, or the space at the back of the dw-elling. It follows still further from this, that by the altar in ver. 18, and also in vers. 20 and 33, which is mentioned here as the third portion of the entire sanctuary, we are to understand the altar of burnt-offering in the court, and not the altar of incense, as the Rabbins and most of the commentators assume. This rabbinical view cannot be sustained, either from Ex. xxx. 10 or from the context. Ex. xxx. 10 simply prescribes a yearly expiation of the altar of incense on the day of atonement; and this is implied in the words '^ so shall he do," in ver. 165. For these words can only mean, that in the same way in which he had expiated the most holy place he was also to expiate the holy place of the tabernacle, in which the altar of incense took the place of the ark of the covenant of

^ V. Hofinann's objection to this rests upon the erroneous supposition that a double act of expiation was required for the congregation, and only a single one for the priesthood, whereas, according to the distinct words of the text, a double sprinkling was performed with the blood of both the sinofferings, and therefore a double expiation effected.

the most holy place; so that the expiation was performed by his putting blood, in the first place, upon the horns of the altar, and then sprinkling it seven times upon the ground in front of it. The expression "go out" in ver. 18 refers, not to his going out of the most holy into the holy place, but to his going out of the ohel moed (or holy place) into the court. — Yer. 17. There was to be no one in the ohel moed when Aaron went into it to make expiation in the most holy place, until he came out (of the tabernacle) again; not because no one but the chief servant of Jehovah was worthy to be near or present either as spectator or assistant at this sacred act before Jehovah (^Knohel)^ but because no unholy person was to defile by his presence the sanctuary, which had just been cleansed; just as no layman at all was allowed to enter the holy place, or could go with impunity into the presence of the holy God. — Vers. 18, 19. After he had made atonement for the dwelling, Aaron was to expiate the altar in the court, by first of all putting some of the blood of the bullock and he-goat upon the horns of the altar, and then sprinkling it seven times with his finger, and thus cleansing and sanctifying it from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel. The application of blood to the horns of the altar was intended to expiate the sins of the priests as well as those of the nation; just as in the case of ordinary sin-offerings it expiated the sins of individual members of the nation (chap. iv. 25, 30, 34), to which the priests also belonged; and the sevenfold sprinkling effected the purification of the place of sacrifice from the uncleannesses of the congregation.

The meaning of the sprinkling of blood upon the capporeth and the horns of the two altars was the same as in the case of every sin-offering (see pp. 280 and 304). The peculiar features in the expiatory ritual of the day of atonement were the following. In the first place, the blood of both sacrifices was taken not merely into the holy place, but into the most holy, and sprinkled directly upon the throne of God. This was done to show that the true atonement could only take place before the throne of God Himself, and that the sinner was only then truly reconciled to God, and placed in the full and living fellowship of peace with God, when he could come directly to the throne of God, and not merely to the place where, although the Lord did indeed manifest His grace to him, He was still separated from PENT. — VOL. II. 2 0 him by a curtain. In this respect, therefore, the bringing of the blood of atonement into the most holy place had a prophetic signification, and was a predictive sign that the curtain, which then separated Israel from its God, would one day be removed, and that with the entrance of the full and eternal atonement free access would be opened to the throne of the Lord. The second peculiarity in this act of atonement was the sprinkling of the blood seven times upon the holy places, the floor of the holy of holies and holy place, and the altar of the court; also th« application of blood to the media of atonement in the three divisions of the tabernacle, for the cleansing of the holy places from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. As this uncleanness cannot be regarded as consisting of physical defilement, but simply as the ideal effluence of their sins, which had been transferred to the objects in question; so, on the other hand, the cleansing of the holy places can only be understood as consisting in an ideal transference of the influence of the atoning blood to the inanimate objects which had been defiled by sin. If the way in which the sacrificial blood, regarded as the expiation of souls, produced its cleansing effects was, that by virtue thereof the sin was covered over, whilst the sinner was reconciled to God and received forgiveness of sin and the means of sanctification, we must regard the sin-destroying virtue of the blood as working in the same way also upon the object's defiled by sin, namely, that powers were transferred to them which removed the effects proceeding from sin, and in this way wiped out the uncleanness of the children of Israel that was in them. This communication of purifying powers to the holy things was represented by the sprinkling of the atoning blood upon and against them, and indeed by their being sprinkled seven times, to set forth the communication as raised to an efficiency corresponding to its purpose, and to impress upon it the stamp of a divine act through the number seven, which was sanctified by the work of God in creation.

Vers. 20-22. After the completion of the expiation and cleansing of the holy things, Aaron was to bring up the live goat, Le. to have it brought before the altar of burnt-offering, and placing both his hands upon its head, to confess all the sins and transgressions of the children of Israel upon it, and so put them upon its head. He was then to send the goat away into the desert by a man who was standing ready, that it mJght carry all its sins upon it into a land cut off; and there the man was to set the goat at liberty. W, aTraf \ey. from ny an appointed time, signifies opportune, present at the right time, or ready. nnTa^ which is also met with in this passage alone, from '^U to cut, or cut off, that which is severed, a country cut off from others, not connected by roads with any inhabited land. " The goat was not to find its way back" {Knobel). To understand clearly the meaning of this symbolical rite, we must start from the fact, that according to the distinct w^ords of ver. 5, the two goats were to serve as a sin-offering (nSDHp). They were both of them devoted, therefore, to one and the same purpose, as was pointed out by the Talmudists, who laid down the law on that very account, that they were to be exactly alike, colore, statura, et valore. The living goat, therefore, is not to be regarded merely as the bearer of the sin to be taken away, but as quite as truly a sin-offering as the one that was slaughtered. It was appointed ^7^^ "^???? (ver. 10), i.e. not that an expiatory rite might be performed over it, for ^V with "i^3 always applies to the object of the expiation, but properly to expiate it, i.e. to make it the object of expiation, or make expiation with it. To this end the sins of the nation were confessed upon it with the laying on of hands, and thus symbolically laid upon its head, that it might bear them, and when sent into the desert carry them away thither. The sins, which were thus laid upon its head by confession, were the sins of Israel, which had already been expiated by the sacrifice of the other goat. To understand, however, how the sins already expiated could still be confessed and laid upon the living goat, it is not sufficient to say, with jBaAr, that the expiation with blood represented merely a covering or covering up of the sin, and that in order to impress upon the expiation the stamp of the greatest possible completeness and perfection, a supplement was appended, whick represented the carrying away and removal of the sin. For in the case of every sin-offering for the congregation, in addition to the covering or forgiveness of sin represented by the sprinkling of blood, the removal or abolition of it was also represented by the burning of the flesh of the sacrifice; and this took place ir the present instance also. As both goats w^ere intended for a sin-offering, the sins of the nation were confessed upon both, and placed upon the heads of both by the laying on of hands; though it is of the living goat only that ^his is expressly recorded, being omitted in the case of the other, because the rule laid down in chap, iv. 4 sqq. was followed.^ By both Israel was delivered from aP sins and transgressions; but by the one, upon which the lot " for Jehovah" fell, it was so with re*gard to Jehovah; by the other, upon which the lot " for Azazel" fell, with regard to Azazel. With regard to Jehovah, or in relation to Jehovah, tlie sins were wiped away by the sacrifice of the goat; the sprinkling of the blood setting forth their forgiveness, and the burning of the animal the blotting of them out; and w^ith this the separation of the congregation from Jehovah because of its sin was removed, and living fellowship with Gt)d restored. But Israel had also been brought by its sin into a distinct relation to Azazel, the head of the evil spirits; and it was necessary that this should be brought to an end, if reconciliation with God was to be perfectly secured. This complete deliverance from sin and its author was symbolized in the leading away of the goat, which had been laden with the sins, into the desert. This goat was to take back the sins, which God had forgiven to His congregation, into the desert to Azazel, the father of all sin, on the one hand as a proof that his evil influences upon men would be of no avail in the case of those who had received expiation from God, and on the other hand as a proof to the congregation also that those who were laden with sin could not remain in the kingdom of God, but would be banished to the abode of evil spirits, unless they were redeemed therefrom. This last point, it is true, is not expressly mentioned in the text; but it is evident from the fate which necessarily awaited the goat, when driven into the wilderness in the " land cut off.'* It would be sure to perish out there in the desert, that is to say, to suffer just what a sinner would have to endure if his sins remained upon him; though probably it i^ only a later addition, not founded in the law, which we find in the Mishnahj Joma vi. 6, viz. that the goat was driven headlong from a rock in the desert, and dashed to pieces at the foot.