• For India see Frazer, The Golden Boioh'', i. 466, 457. t In Ex 2231 (JE) • Besh that is torn of teasU in the field' li not to be eaten, because the Hebrews are holy to J" ; it must b«
cast to the dogs.
UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESS
UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESS 831
nary sacrifice was made over to the deity. It is probable, however, that in the earliest type of sairiiice it was devoured by the worshippers, and in the mystic sacrilices that are referreu to in Is 65. GO this feature reappeared. The breaking of the dof^'s neck was a killiuf; of it without shedding the blood (see, further, under Food, S.\Ci;ifice).*
The 'sinew of the thi;;h' is said in Gu 32^- not to be eaten by the Israelites, thouf^h no reference is made to this in the Law. It became taboo through the touch of Jacob's Divine antagonist. Probably, as W. K. Smith suggests, ' the thigh is a seat of life and procreative power ' {RS' 380).t
The thrice repeated (Ex 231" 34™, Dt 14-') taboo on scethinq a kid in its mother's rnilk is discussed in the articles l'"00D, Goat. Here it is necessary to add only what is required by the nature of this article.
We may safely set aside the view that the rule rests on sentitnental conBiderations. It is directed apainst some re- lij^ious or magical practice in connexion with the dish. The common explanation that gout's milk was used to produce fruitful crops, while true in itself, does not account for this 8])ecial prohibition. W. R. Smith suggests that milk was a substitute for blood, so that this dish would violate the tal)00 on blood {I.e. 221). But neither does this e-xplain why it is o kid so prepared that is forbidden. If goat's milk possessed magical qualities, these might be supposed to be present also in a sucking kid. The combination of the two doubles the magical intensity, and we may suppose that the rite condemned was originally pastoral rather than agricultural. The subsequent use of goat's milk in agriculture is a natural appliailion of a pastoral charm for fruitfulness. The question may further be raised whether it has not been too hastily assuined that •mother's milk' means simply goat's milk, i.e. "the milk of any goat. The physical blood relation between the kid and its dam would make the magic more efficacious, doubling it in upoQ itself.
As examples of the care ■\vith which the Jews practised these laws, Dn 1", To l'" '-, Jth 12'% Ad. Est 14", 1 Mac l'"®", 2 Mac 6'* 7' may be quoted.
The viltimate origin of the uncleanness of certain animals probably lies in the fact that they were totems of primitive Semites. It is true that some of the greatest Semitic scholars doubt if the Semites passed through the totem stage. Egyp- tologists also seem to be unanimous in denying that totemisui ever prevailed in Egypt. But it is a question on which the anthronolugist also, with the comparative method, must be consulted ; and Robertson Smith, the chief defender of the theory in question, spoke with the authority not only of a most eminent Seniitist, but that of an expert anthropologist. The theory gains much of its plausibility from the light and order it brings to a number of otherwise obscure and incoherent facts. That the unclean foods are so numerous is perhaps due to the very heterogeneous origin of the Hebrew people, the totems of many stocks being regarded as forbidden food by the united nation. At the same time it must be remembered that among savage races totem stocks exist side by side in the same community, without necessarily tabooing each other's totems, though they may avoid the ostentation with which tliey feast on the totem of an enemy. Eurther, even in totem clans there are taboos on food at certain stages of life or in certain conditions, which are otherwise lawful food. We need not, of course, look for actual totemisra in the historical i)eriod of the Hebrew people. But if the Semites passed through totcmism, numerous survivals must be expected, and jiart at least of the prohibitions probably are to be accounted for in this way. Two principles, however, even in this case, may have been at
• See W. It. Smith, Kinship, 808, 310, KS^ n\, «86, S3»-S62; Fra,.or. I.e. i. 353-302 ; Jevons, I.e. "3, H.
t Tor the same taboo among the N. American Indians, •ccounled for by a mythical stor)', see Krazer, I.e. IL i\9-*il. Kalllr men also will not eat it, it is 'sent to the principal boy at the kraal, who with his companions oonsfder it as their right.*
work. The lists in Deuteronomy and Leviticus may include food traditionally taboo. In this case the Law simj)ly endorses, as in so many instances, ancient practices. But they may also forbid food, not on the ground of immemorial custom, but because its use in heathen rites con- stituted a religious danger to Israel. It ought to be added tliiil the proof of the demoniacal or magical qualities attaching to certain unlawful foods in no way conflicts with their totem char- acter. On the contrary, as is well illustrated by the connexion between tlie _;'*»»! and the wild beasts among the Arabs, these qualities are probably attributed to them in virtue of their original totem significance.