The process by which the notions of holiness and uncleanness, which were undifl'erentiated in taboo, came to be distinguished was probably something of this kind. It has already been pointed out that two classes of taboo may be distinguished. A common thing may become taboo if a god or sacred person lays a taboo upon it. Or a thing or state may be intrinsically taboo. Roughly speaking, this corresponds to the distinction between holy and unclean. The holy is that which is naturally common, but has become holy through contact with the DiWne. But there is an uncleanness of a primary order, of an intrinsic and not accidental kind, uncommunicated as no earthly holiness can be said to be. It is true that there is a communi- cated uncleanness, but uncommunicated unclean- ness has no uncommunicated holiness to match it in the human realm. All holiness is derivative save the holiness of God. It is bv this principle that the unclean thing may be ta\)00 in its own right, while the holv thing cannot be, that we must explain the priestly torah given in Hag 2"- ". Holy ilesh infects with holiness a garment in which it is carried, but this garment does not transmit the holiness to what it touches. A man who is unclean by contact with a dead body infects with
* ' Id general, we may say that the prohibition to use the vessels, garments, and so on, of certain persons, and the eHectJ supposed to follow an infraction of the rule, are exactly the same whether the persons to whom tne things belong are s:icred or what we might call unclean and polluted' (Fraier, Tlu Golden Bouqh'', L ;)26 : cf. also ii. S04-3(HI).
UNCLEAlf, UJsCLEANXESS
UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESS 827
nnclcanness what he touches. In other words, a dead body is endowed with higher virulence of con- tagion than holy llesh. And the reason is that a corpse is a fountainhead of uuckanness, while holy flesh is holy, not intrinsically, but only because it has been devoted to God, the sole fountainhead of holiness. Probablj', then, the distinction between holiness and unclcanness was simply the explicit allinnation of a distinction alreadj' implicit in the idea of taboo. And it was a great stop in advance when the essential dillerence of things indiscrimin- ately classed together as taboo emerged into clear consciousness. A large irrational element, it is true, survived in the idea of holiness as well as in that of uncleanness. But by linking the idea of holiness with that of God, Uie foriner was started on a career of intellectual, moral, and spiritual development, which made it at last the fit expres- sion ot the highest religious ideal. On the other hand, uncleanness remained to the last a virtually savage idea, one of the heathen survivals in Judaism which Christianity had simidy to elimi- nate. And where life is lived under the shadow of innumerable taboos, these form an insuperable barrier to progress, for man is tied to the fixed routine, not venturing on unknown paths for terror of the perils that lurk everywhere in his way. But when taboos are recognized as expressing the will of the gods, instead of the paralyzing dread of unknown and incalculable forces, we have the re- straint imposed by a kind and trusted deity, Avhich leaves room for progress, because it introduces a rational element, and claims for religion what had been iuextricably bound up with superstition.*
The opposite of ' holy ' is ' common,' the opposite of 'unclean' is 'clean.' While 'holy' and 'unclean' are strong positive terras, ' common ' and ' clean ' are siiuply their pale negatives. Clean is not the same as holy; it implies no dedication to the Divine aervice, and has no infectious quality. The clean person is one who may freely approach his God in worship. I'or this he need not be holy, though there are certain cases where cleanness, i.e. the mere absence of uncleanness, is insutlicient. At Sinai the Hebrews had to sanctify themselves by washing and abstinence from women (Ex I'J). But so exceptional an occasion cannot be taken as typical. Nor are the common and the unclean identical ; the common is rather, ordinarily at any rate, also the clean. Yet, just as the clean and the holy tended to be identified, since whatever is holy must also be clean, so their opposites, the unclean and the common. But, in spite of such obliteration of distinctions, it only creates confusion if thej' are not empliasized.
It should further be noticed that the laws of un- cleanness, while largely a survival from prehistoric savagerj', or the semi -civilization of primitive Semites, partly originated in a protest of the higher religion of Israel against heathenism. Certain things w liicli were connected with heathen cults, and constituted a danger to spiritual religion, were placed under taboo. Whether by survival or pro- test a thing was regarded as uncl(Min, it was alike an abomiuation to J ", cuttin" oil' the oU'eiider from intercourse with Him and fellowship with the com- munity. It is probable that the extent to which the laws are duo to protest against heathenism has been overrated in recent discussions. Similarly, in the face of savage parallels, it is probable that some laws in the Priestly Code, which are often regarded as very late developments and impracticable refine- ments, are in substance of the highest antiquity. That, as at present codified, they are late is clear, and such a passage as Lv ll-<-3» [a not unfairly re- garded as exhibiting the rudiments of the casuistry of the scribes. But the central prohibition of the • Sco W. It. Smltli. ;tS» pp. 162-165.