(c) Uncleannass connected with leprosy. — This disea.se and tlie purifications after cure are so thoroughly dealt with in the article Lkpiio.si' that it is unnecessary to add more here than a few supplementary remarks. For the view there mentioned, th.at the leper was regarded as the victim, in a peculiar degree, of a stroke of God, like the man hanged on a tree, 'accur.scd of God,' we may compare the euphemistic name for it among the Arabs, ' the blessed disease,' mulAraka (Wellh. I.e. I'J9). The man 'smitten by God' neces.sarily becomes unclean. We find examples of a belief among savages that leprosy may be caused by eating the totem animal, though it must be added that other diseases might be so incurred, skin dise.'ises, however, predominating. With this we should compare the fact tliat the Egyp- tians, to whom the swine was taboo in a liigh degree, thought that drinking pig's milk caused leprosy (Frazer, I.e. ii. 306, 307). The rules laid down for lepers corresponded to those prescribed for mourners ; perhaps the feeling entered in that leprosy was a living death. The ritual of releasing the live bird into the open field, rests on a similar idea to that expressed in the 'goat for Azazel.' A similar custom was practised by widows in Arabia on release from the uncleanness of widowhood, at the end of a year.* The liird is said to have died. An As.syrian parallel is, 'May the bird to heaven cause it (my gioaning) to a.-^cend ' {UP ix. 51). It seems strange that a guilt -offering should be required. Nowack {Ileb. Arch. ii. 2s;)) thinks the author regarded a sin-otl'ering as inadmissible in this very peculiar rite, and further took the rite over from an earlier time, and did not freely create it (see, further, Lei'Hosv).
(d) Uncleanness connected with denth. — This also is familiar among primitive peoples. That the numerous rites which have grown up around the dead express partly a h(jrror of the spirit and dread of its return, is true.f But there are many examples of rites designed to continue with the dead the communion held with them while living. J Frequently the taboos on the dead are attributed to ancestor-worship; but this view seems improb- able, for we find the taboo more widely prevalent than it is likely ancestor-worship ever was, — and the proofs for this among the llebiews are certainly not stringent. The taboos rest on the belief that the soul survives the body, and lingers near its
• Wellh. I.e. 171 ; W. R. Smith, I.e. 422. The reference vo Frazer, ^c, in the article LBi'Kosr, corresponds to iii. 16 in the second edition.
t I'razer, I.e. I. 825, etc. ; Tylor, {.<. IL 26-27 ; W. R. Smith I.e. XM, n. 2, 309, 370.
: \V. It. Smith, I.e. 322, 823, 870. ' Wh.lo the rudest nations seek to keep up their comiection with the beloved deiid. they also believe that vcrj* dangerous inlhiences hover round death- be<ls, cori'ses, and graves, and many funeral ceremonies are ob- served as safeguards against these* (330, n. 2). 'There is a tendency at present, in one school of anthropologists, to explain all death cust^jms as due to fear of gljostjj. Ilut among the Semites, at any rate, almost all death customs, from the kissing of the corjjse (On 60l) onwards, are dictate<l by an affection (hat endures beyond the grave' (S'i)). See, also, Tvlor, Lc. 32-S4 (Mpeclally tlie pathetic dirge there quoted) ; Jevons, I.e. 44-68.
?32 U-tfCLEAX, UXCLEANNESS
UNCLEAN, UNCLEANNESS
earthly house or its grave. How serious tlie danger was taken to be, is clear from tlie highly in- fectious character attributed to it.* This prevails, probably, among all savage peoples. The Ilebrews are in this respect more primitive than the Arabs. Among the latter, mourning does not usually make unclean ; and in Islam contact with the corpse does not delile, though it is doubtful if this rule prevailed among the ancient Arabs (Wellli. I.e. 171, 17'2). Such cases, among the Hebrews, as those of contact with the carcases of animals have already been dealt with. The human corpse was regarded by them as most deUling. Although we have no very early evidence, it is unquestionable, in vnew of the savage parallels, that they always had this belief, and, in more primitive times, probably in a much intenser form. The late codihcation of the laws in no way disproves, in itself, the antiquity of the observances.
The fullest legislation on the subject is to be found iu Nu 19 (P). It is there enjoined that every one who touches ' the dead body of a man shall be unclean seven days.' If a man die in his tent, every one who is in the tent, or who enters it, is unclean for seven days ; and any vessel standing open in the tent is unclean. In the open tield actual contact is necessary to produce delilement. But such contact was not merely with a body de.ad by the sword or natural death, but even with a bone or the grave. Hence it became customaiy to whiten graves, that they might be readily avoided and involuntary uncleanness not be con- tracted (Mt23-", Lk ll"). The-striking illustration of the infectious uncleanness of the corpse given in Hag 2""" has been already referred to. The law iu Nu 19^ is that whatever tlie person thus unclean touches shall be unclean, and the person who touches this object shall be unclean till even. In Nu 5- those unclean by the touch of a corpse are put out of the camp alon" with lepers and those who have issues. Josiah defiled the altars at the high places with dead men's bones (2 K 23"'-"''). Similarlj', the dead bodies of Gog's host defiled the land, which was cleansed only by tlieir burial (Ezk 39'-''*). In old Israel the kings were buried close to the temple, a practice warmly denounced by Ezekiel as deliling it (43'"'). Bloodshed defiles the land, and the uncleanness can be removed only by the blood of him that shed it (Nu 35*').t Hence warriors, while holy persons, as already shown, were rendered unclean by the slaughter of men in war. Thus, after the slaughter of the Midianites, those who had killed any one or touched the slain had to remain outside the camp seven days, puri- fying themselves on the third and seventh day. Kvery thin" that could endure fire was passed through it, out was also purified with the water of separation. All that could not endure the fire was passed through water. Clothes had to be washed on the seventh day (Nu SI'"""). Some of the taboos on warriors have been already discussed. The present rule is relegated by some to the class >f legal refinements which had never any existence •o the national life. Here, again, the comparative method warns us against too hasty a conclusion. Even more stringent rules are found among