826 UNCLEAN, UNCLEANXESS
UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESS
shut up are those ritually unclean. Several allu- sions to uncleiinness are found in the Prophets (Am 7", Hos &>, Ezk 4", Hag 2'*, Is 52'- " 35»), while in Deuteronomy, antl much more elaborately in the Priestly Code, it is made the subject of detailed legislation. The laws of defilement and purilioa- tion were developed by the misdirected ingenuity of the scribes into a system of casuistry, even more than ordinarily finespun and minute, which con- stituted, in fact, the most important part of the regulations by which the pious Jew had to order his life. But the laws of uncleanness are far older than the Hebrew people. It is only necessary to read them, to be convinced that they are not the creation of the higher religion of Israel. Anthro- pology, however, has proved, what might naturally have been suspected, that they belong essentially to the prehistoric past. Their congenial atmosphere is not that which breathes in the Hebrew prophets, but that which animates the crudest forms of savage religion.
Some of the laws might, indeed, be explained on rational grounds, &3 due to sanitary precaution, to love of cleanliness, to natural aversion from disjrusting objects. But it is certain that these do not explain many of the prohibitions, and cannot account for the precise selection oromission which characterizes the list of things unclean. We may grant that these considera- tions may have played some part in late development, but this should probably be reduced to a minimum. It is more likely, in fact, that the laws of uncleanness created sanitary laws and aversion for certain things than that they were created by them. Where a tribe happened to regard thin-'S as unclean which also are insanitary, it would, so far as it did so, increase its chances in the struggle for existence, while natural selection would tend to eliminate tribes whose ritual in no way coincided with sani- tary requirements. Thus with the sunival of the former set of tribes sanitary regulations mi":ht come by degrees to be estab- lished, with no intention of doing more than securing ritual cleanness. A^ain, what we call natural aversion is probably natural only m the sense that habit is second nature. The natural disgust which we feel at certain kinds of food is due altogether to custom, and sentiment formed by custom. The dog or horse is naturally no more repulsive than the ox, yet many have an invincible repugnance to dog-flesh or horse-llesh. A Jew's instinctive loathing for the swine, which is eaten freely by Uentiles, often survives the surrender of all religious scruples. And it is decisive that these laws originated at a time when the rudiments of sanitation were still undreamed of, and are found among peoples who own no restraint of cleanliness or natural disgust. It is also well known that even in higher religions ritual cleanness may be obtained by bathing in verj- dirtj' water. Still less happy are the attempts to find a rational basis for these laws in the spiritual principles of the higher religion of Israel. For not only does it need strained arguments to remove their essentially irrational character and make them at home in a spiritual religion, but the numerous parallels in much lower re- ligions are so close that it is unreasonable to shut the eyes to their essential atBnity. It is futile to fumble at the lock with stich rusty keys, when anthropology has given lu one which tits every ward.
The ideas and usages among other peoples, which are similar to the Hebrew laws of uncleanness, are conveniently classed under that widespread system known as 'taboo.' The general notion of taboo is that certain things are regarded as uns.afe for con- tact or use in common life, by reason of the super- natur;U penalties which would thereby be incurred. A common thing may become taboo through the action of a god, chief, or priest, and the sanction for the restriction he imposes is his own power of avenging its violation. But some things or con- ditions are intrinsically taboo, and infringement ol their character brings its own penalty by a mechanical necessity without external aid. There is an inherent energy in them, which is discharged on all who rashly break the taboo. One of the most striking features of taboo is its infectious character. It is transmitted by contact, and the person or thing tlius tabooed may become a new- source of infection, though the supernatural virus loses intensity at each new stage of trausmis.sion. The infection might in some cases be removed by ritual means, chief among which must be placed washing. In other cases it was too deeply engrained to be removed. From this single root of taboo sprang not uncleanness only, but holiness. Origin-
ally, par.idoxical as it may seem, there was little dillerenie between them. Both holiness and un- cleanness are infectious, and require identical or similar ritual purification (see Holiness). It is especially instructive to compare the law of the sin-ottering (Lv 6-'^"*') with such passages as Lv 1 124-88. ai-M 151-12. su-M. 26. 27. ^ ^g {.q beobserved
that both are treated as of purely materialistic quality, so much so, in fact, that holiness or un- cleanness may be scoured oil' a vessel, unless it is of unglazed earthenware and the holiness or un- cleanness has soaked into it, in which case it must be broken. It is further confirmation of tlie original identity of the two, that while a holy thing is usually said to communicate holiness and an unclean thing uncleanness, in one case a holy thing produces uncleanness. The canonicity of a book was expressed in the phrase, it ' defiles the hands.' If it was a common, tnat is, a non-canonical book, it was not holy; if canonical, it was holy, and produced ceremonial defilement. The practical consequence of both holiness and uncleanness was to withdraw the object they infected from partici- pation in common life. The holy thing wjis dedi- cated to God, and to treat it as common was to violate its sanctity and incur His anger. Hence the avoidance of holiness as a plague, and the pre- cautions taken to avoid catching it. Moses must keep his distance and remove his shoes from his feet on ground made holy by God's presence in the bush (Ex 3^) ; bounds (corresponding to a taboo line) must be set about the mountain at Sinai, lest the people draw too near and J" break forth upon them. Whatever touched the mountain bectz:2 3o sacred that it was too dangerous to be touched, the death penalty must be executed on it from a safe distance (Ex lO'^'"-''). The men of Eeth-shemesh, and Uzzah, were smitten for contact with the ark ( I S 0»-', 2 S 6'). The priests are bidden put oiT the garments wherein they minister, when they go out to the people, lest they sanctify the people with their garments (Ezk 44''') ; and those who take part in the heathen mysteries described in Is eo*"' warn the bystanders not to come near lest they catch the contagion of their holiness (Is 65° reading, with a change in the pointing, ' lest I make thee holy ').