Further, in the Law of Holiness (H) 'swarming things ' (see art. CREEPING TttiNOS, where the two
• See Movers, Die PhSnlzier, i. 218-220 (where several further exx. are collected); W. K. Smith, I.e. 163, 218, 290, 291, 411, 475 ; Frazer, I.e. ii. 29»-311 ; Jevons, I.e. 118, n. 3 ; the very elaborate discussion in Kalisch, Leeilicus, pt. ii. 79-93 ; also art. Food.
t According to Ex 3420 (JE) the firstling of an ais had to be redeemed with a lamb, but if not redeemed its neck must be broken. The lat«r law (Lv 27^ prescribed that an unclean firstling should be redeemed at the priest's valuation, plus one- flfth, but if not redeemed it must be sold.
t Frazer mentions that the dog is regarded by the Ojibways * as unclean, and yet in some respects as holy ' (Bnc. Brit.^ art. ' Taboo ').
§ W. U. .Smith, Kinship, IOC ; RS^ 219. The author points out that though a ' clean ' bird in legal times, we never read of it in OT as an article of diet. It was not used for sacrifices accom- panied by a meal, but in burnt-ofTerings and sin-offerings, which nad a connexion with mystical sacrifices (p. 294).
terms so translated are distinguished) are forbidden (Lv U'"-"). What was included under this term may be seen in the article mentioned (vol. i. 518"). The prohibition of reptiles is explained by the superstitions universally attached to serpents. The Arabs frequently regarded them as demoniacal, and identified them with the jinn (W. R. Smith, I.e. 120, 121, 129, 130, 442, Kinship, 197 ; and especi- ally Wellh. I.e. 152-155).* The serpent of Gn 3 illustrates the demoniacal nature of these reptiles. It is curious that the list in Deuteronomy speaks only of ' winged swarming things,' by whicli appar- ently winged insects are meant. These are re- garded as unclean also in P(Lv 11*', unless this belongs to H), for the phrase 'winged swarming creatures tliat "o on all fours' seems to mean the same as ' winged swarming creatures.' Four kinds of locusts are permitted for food (see Food, Locust). Whether this is a variation from Dt 14 is uncertain. On the one hand, the rule in the latter passage seems to admit of no exception. On the other, the term translated ' fowls ' in Dt 14^ may be used in this restricted sense of ' winged swarming things,' in which case the meaning will be that certain winged insects are clean and lawful food. Inserted in Lv 11 we have a list of things the carcases of which produce uncleanness through contact (vv.*^"^). This list includes the unclean quadrupeds, and of swarming things — the weasel, the mouse, certain lizards, and the chameleon.
It is curious that the list is not more extensive, especially OM the author enters on a casuistical discussion of details. The swarming things mentioned were regarded as demoniacal, the mouse is coupled with the swine in Is 6617 as eaten in the mysteries there denounced (see W. R. Smith, Kinship, 302, 303, A'S2 293 ; A. Lang, Custom and Mj/th (1893), 103-120). This section is probably a later addition, not at all on the ground that pollution by contact is a late refinement of pollu- tion by eating, for taboo on cont.act is very ancient, but because of its casuistry and its interruption of the context. Toucllin^; involves uncleanness till the evening, bearing the carcass of the quadrupeds induces uncleanness in a deeper degree ; for not only is the person unclean till the evening, but he must wash his clothes. The carcases of swarming things infect with un- cleanness all clothing or vessels, and the food in them. The vessels are unclean till the evening, and must be steeped in water. If made of earthenware they must be broken, as the uncleanness would sink into the pores. A fountain or cistern, however, remained clean, though whatever touched the unclean thing {i.e. to remove it) became unclean. Seed was not polluted by contact, unless water, by which it would soak in, bad been put upon it.
Contact with a clean beast that died a natural death produced uncleanness till the evening. Eat- ing of it or carrying it involved the washing of clothes in addition. In Lv 17" bathing of the body is also required.
This law is made to apply to the stranger as well as the home-born. In Ut 14^' the prohibition is made absolute for the Hebrews, and based on their holiness to J". But the flesh of such animals may be given to the stranger who is sojourning in Israel, or sold to the foreigner.t It must be remembered that the law is not sanitary, but ritual ; there was therefore no reason why a taboo, bindin"; on the holy people, should be imposed on those who are not members of it. For the priestly legislators the land is holy, be- cause J" dwells in it, and therefore those who are in it, Israelites or not, must observe precautions against uncleanness. The priests are forbidden to eat such food absolutely (Lv 22'). The reason was that the flesh had still the blood within it. Blood was always prohibited (1 S 14^, Dt 12'^--», Gn 9', Lv IT'"-'* 3" etc.), but the prohibition seems not always to have been observed (1 S H*-"", Ezk 33*). It, with the fat, was regarded by primitive peoples as in a special sense the seat of life, and in ordi-