• ' Araonp the Maoris any one who had handled a corpse, helped to convey it to the grave, or touched a dead man's bones, was cut off from all inlercouree, and almost all communication, with mankind. He could not enter any house, or come into contact with any person or thing, without utterly bedevilling them. . . . And when, the dismal term of his seclusion being over, the mourner was about to mix with his fellows once more, all the dishes he had used in his seclusion were diligently smashed, and all the gannents he had worn were carefully thrown away, lest they should spread the conta^'ion of his defilement among others' (Krazer, I.e. i. 323, 324 ; Jevons, I.e. 67, 68, 76-78).
t When the offender was unknovvn, guilt was purged from the land by the ritual of the heifer, whose neck was broken in an uncultivated valley with running water (Dt 211-*)l See IIkifer ; Driver, ad loc; and W. &. Smith, i.e. 370, 871.
savages.* Their origin seetns to be due to dread of vengeance from the ghosts of the slain. Among the taboos to wliich the Nazirite was siibject was that on contact with the dead. This and the puri- fication prescribed for its violation are fully dis- cus.sed in the art. Naziiute.
The priest, according to Ezekiel, must come at no dead person to delile him.self, except parent, child, brother, or unmarried sister.t In the case of the death of such a relative, even after he is cleansed he must wait seven days, and then, on entering the sanctuary, he must oiler a sin-ollering (Ezk 44^"-''). A curious relaxation of the law of uncleanness is that those who are unclean by con- tact with a tlead body may yet eat the passover (Nu 9""'-). Certain mourning cu.stoms also pro- duced uncleanness. Hence the Israelite, wlien ottering his charity tithe, was required to affirm that he had not eaten of it while mourning, nor removed it from his house while unclean, nor gi^•en of it for the dead (Ut 26'^). If he had eaten of it in his mourning, it would have contracted his uncleanness.^ The reference to giving it for the dead is of uncertain meaning. The sense may be that he has not sent it to the friends of the de- ceased for a fimeral feast (which would make the whole tithe unclean), or that he has not (in ac- cordance with a very widespread custom) placed some of it in the tomb to serve the spirit for food on its road to Sh661, or that he has not used it in sacrifices to the dead (cf. Jer 16', itself an obscure passage). The bread of mourners is referred to in Hos 9^ as causing uncleanness. Other mourning customs, such as cuttings in the flesh, or making baldness between the eyes for the dead, are for- bidden in Dt 14', Lv ig-", as incompatible with the holiness of the people of J". Both are well-known savage customs,§ and were regarded as legitimate signs of mourning (Jer 16", Ezk 7'*, Is 22'-) appar- ently down to the time of Ezekiel (see CUTTIN'GS IN THE Flesh, Mourning). The mourning cus- tom for the captive whom the Israelite (Dt 21"'-") takes to wife is interesting. The shaving of head and paring of nails remove the uncleanness of mourning (cf. the shaving of hair in the clcansin" of the leper, Lv 14'). A similar rite was perfonned by widows in Arabia after the twelve months they spent in a hut outside the camp, neither dressing the hair nor cutting the nails. ||
Purification from the uncleanness caused by a dead body was eflected by the 'water of separa- tion,' made by pouring water on the ashes of a red heifer (Nu 19). The heifer was completely burnt, along with cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet. The burning of the blood in this rite is unique ; it was clearly intended to comiimnicate an intenser sanctity to the ashes. The ashes were kept in a clean place outside the camp, and 'living water' was poured on them. Then the unclean was
* Frazer, I.e. 331-339. The account of the Pima Indians il especially noteworthy as showing that taboos far more ' im- practicable' than those enjoined in Nu 31 are actually observed. The uncleanness and purification prescribed in this uassage for warriors after the return from battle are similar to those recog- nized over a very wide area.
t Unmarried sister, because marriage was regarded as trans- ferring her to the husband's family. The same feeling underlies the law that the priest's daughter on marriage to a stranger loses the right to eat of the heave-ollerings of the holy things (Lv 2ii'J). V\'omen could not eat of the sinoflering (Lv 6'-'), guiltoftering {'•'), or meal.oHering(6i8), on account of their high sanctity.
! For taboos on mourners and monming customs see FraMr, I.e. i. 3SS, 380; W. R. Smith, I.e. 322-3'>8, 338; Wellh. Le. 170, 171, 177 ff. ; Spencer and Gillen, I.e. 499, 600-507, 609.
§ See, for example, Spencer and Gillen, I.e. 609, 610.
II W. R. Smith, I.e. 4'.'S, 447 ; Wellh. I.e. 171. The meaning o« the custom is clearly brought out by Fraier, Lc L 3S8, 389. Ho quotes parallels from mourning customs in ancient India, Borneo, and the West Coast of Africa. It is very instructive, •» throwing light on the underlying idea, that moral uncleanness is ]>ur>;ed away in some coses by the sliaving oflf of all the hair and bathing in the sacred stream.