Possibly we should regard aa an extension of the law of issues, the uncleanness of the human excreta. Ezekiel protests against using human e.\cremcnt for fuel with which to bake bread, on the ground of the uncleanness that would then be communi- cated to the food, and is permitted to substitute animal excrement, which apparently was not deQl- ing, or dehling in a much slighter degree, and is often used now in Syria for fuel ( Ezk 4'''- "). The law in Dt 23'-'", directed to secure cleanness in the camp, is regarded by some as a mere impracticable relinement of a theorist. But numerous savage parallels may be quoted for this as for all tlie Hebrew war taboos. Frazer says that the rules of ceremonial purity prescribed for Hebrew warriors are ' identical with rules observed by Maoris and Australian black-fellows on the warpath.' The
firecise rule in question is found amoii" .Austra- ians, Melanesiang, South Africans, and Fijians. Frazer suggests that the original motive in the case of the Hebrews was identical with the a\ owed motive of savages, ' a fear lest the enemy should obtain the refuse of their persons, and thus be enabled to work their destruction by magic' [I.e. L 3'28).t It is not necessary to appeal to savages; the same custom is found among the Arabs (Wellh. I.e. p. 173). We should perhaps bring under the same law the prohibition of woollen garments to the priests, because tliey caused sweat (Ezk 44"- "). The clause ' they shall not gird themselves with anythim^ thrit cnu^eth sweat ' is regarded by Cornill and Toy as a gloss, and the translation is a little uncertain ; but it correctly represents what must have been the object of the prohibition, as is shown by the Syrian and Egyptian parallels. A law of decency underlies the requirement in Ezekiel and P that the priests should wear linen drawers. This was a survival of the feeling that the deity dwelt in the altar, and that the person must not be ex- posed to it (Ezk 44", Ex 28«- *", Lv 6'" IC). In the Book of the Covenant the same result was secured by the prohibition of steps u]) to the altar (Ex 20^, see W. R. Smith, OTJC p. 3.38).
(ft) Uncleannci'i connerterl with food. — The article Food deals very fully with much of this suhjcct, and it is unnecessary to repeat in detail what is said there. Naturally, however, questions ari.se in this article that do not arise in an article on Food. The taboos on food among savage peoples are very numerous. These cannot he exjilained as due to sanitary considerations or as the expression of natural disgust. The reason is religious. It is very probable that many cases are to be explained as originating in totemism.J But it is not only among sav.ages that such restric- tions on food are found. They survive among many civilized peoples of antiquity — Indians, Egj'ptians. Syrians, Greeks, and others. Accord- ing to Wellhausen, the distinction between clean and unclean food was not known to the ancient Arabs ; they recognized only usual and unusual {I.e. 108, IGli). At the same time, taboos in some sense seem from Wellhauscn's own statements to
• Brinton, Rrtlgion$ of Primitive PeapUt, p. 109.
t Hair and nail parincB are often l)urie<I witn ifreat preo4»iit1on, for a simitar rciison. The * hill of forenkins' (/oh ."P), according to one interpretation of lt« meftnioKi would be a Hebrew parallel (of. 2430 L.\,X).
t See W. R, Smith, Kiruthip, ch. Tilt and pp. 304-Sll, OTJC^ 8e«, 3«T. /(S2 jxunim ; Spencer and Oillen, SattM Triba of Central Axulratia, 167-lOB, 20^-211, <67, 463; Jevona, Intnd. to the Uiitory of Jtei. 102, 110-127.
have been recognized. Still in this, as in some other res[>ccts, the Hebrews preserve the mora primitive type.* In the Flood story (J^) the dis- tinction between clean animals and animals not clean is presupposed as known, though the tech- nical word for unclean (K;p) is not used (Gn 7- S*'). P, on the contrary, represents man as hitherto vegetarian ; and when animal food is first permitted, no restriction is made, except that the blood should not be eaten, since it was the vehicle of the life (l^n 1-* £)"•''). We have lists of clean and unclean aninnils in Dt 14*"^ and Lv U.+
The criterion for clean beasts, that they must part the hoof and chew the cud, should probably be regarded as a late attempt to define a class by a single formtila, the members of which had already been selected on other grounds. The camel, hare, and coney [Ili/rax Syriaeu.t) are pronounced un- clean, because while they chew the cud they do not part the hoof, and the swine for the opposite reason. The camel was eaten by the Arabs and used in sacrifices: it may conceivably have been excluded on this latter account. There are traces of a belief in Arabia ' that camels, or, at all events, certain breeds of camels, were of demoniac origin ' (W. R. Smith, KS- 2S3, n. 2).* The /wre was prob- ably a sacred animal, for ' hares' heads were worn as amulets by Arab women ' (W. R. Smith, I.e. 3S2), and the foot was used as a charm against demons (Kinship, 211). WhUe the Arabs eat it, the other inhabitjints of Syria, the Turks and the Armenians, abstain from it, and the Parsees regard it as the uncleanest of animals ; the ancient Britons regarded it as taboo, ' gtistare fas non puUmt ' (Cies. de B. G. V. 12. See Dillm. and Kalisch, Lei-iticus, ii. 55).§ It was supposed to menstruate, and was thus assimilated to mankind. It was regarded as very lascivious (cf. Barn. 10). The eo7irj/ (llijrax Syriacus) is still avoided for food by Christians and Mohainmed.-ins in Abyssinia. In the Sinai peninsula it, with the panther, is believed to have been originally human, and he who eats its llesh, it is said, will never see his parents again (W. R. Smith, RS^ 88, 444). There is much evidence to show that the stoine was a holy animal. While forbidden food to the Semites, the taboo was variously explained as due to its holiness or un- cleanness. It was eaten only in such mystic sacri- fices as are described in Is (io^-" 66'- ". The Egyp- tians regarded it as highly taboo, not only as food,