UNCLEAN, UNC LEANNESS
UNCLEAJN^ UNCLEANNESS 833
sprinkled by a clean person on the third and the seventh daj's, and on the latter he washed his clothes and bathed his body, and was clean at even. The priest who superintended the slaughter and burning of the heifer, and the man who burned her, had to wash their clothes, bathe, and be unclean till even. He who gathered the ashes had to wash his clothes, and be unclean till even ; he who sprinkled the water had to wash his clothes, and he who touched it was nnclean till even (see, further, art. I'KD Hkificr). The purifications i>re- Bcribed after the slaughter of the Midianites (Nu 31'"-^). including tire for metal, have been already referred to.
iii. Unci.e.\nnks.s AND Ritual. —Throughout the history of Israel uncleanness disqualilied a man for the worship of God. David s absence from the sacred festival was fully accounted for by the sup[iosition of his uncleanness (1 S 20^) ; Jeremiah was 'restrained,' probably by unclean- ness, and could not go into the temple (.Jer 36'). The idea has undergone an ethical transformation when the song of the seraphim and the smoke of the Divine resentment (?) make tlie heart of Isaiah quail at the consciousness that in his moral im- purity he has dared to cross the temple tliresliold (Is C"'). In spite of Ezekiel's complaints that the priests had not caused the people to discern between the clean and the unclean (22-*), it is clear that some rules were all along observed. Yet these permitted i)ractices which, from the stand- point of Judaism, were highly irregular. Uncireum- cised foreigners were allowed to enter tlie sanctuary (Ezk 44'). Ezekiel insists that this shall be absolutely forbidden in the future (44"). Uncir- cumcision in the male worshipjier was regarded as uncleanness, as a state which precluded him from communion with God. So we read that into the restored Jerusalem, the holy city, there shall come no more the uncircumcised and the unclean 'Is .52'). The rule is strongly enforced in the Law. Similarly, the unclean may not pass along the holy way by which pilgrims come up to the temple (Is 3.5''i. The sacred feasts may he observed by any clc.in Israelite. The meat of the peaceollerings may be eaten by any clean person, but any one eating with his uncleanness upon him will be cut oil' by the stroke of Divine judgment (Lv 7"'").* On the other hand, both clean and unclean were permitted to eat the flesh of sacrificial animals if they were not brought in sacrifice (Dt 12" IS-'), but the blood had to be poured out on the earth as water. Naturally, uncleanness disqualified the
Friests for eating holy things (Lv 22^'', cf. Is 52"). f, further, the sacred food touclied anything unclean, it might not be eaten (Lv 7").
A very interesting law is that forbidding an iron tool to lie used on the stones of which the altar is constructed (Ex 20", Dt 27''-», Jos 8"). Exodus, it is tnie, does not mention iron ; it simply forbids the altar to be polluted by the use of a tool to hew the stones. But the point of the prohibition lies in the reference to iron. It can scarcely be that the requirement that the stones shall be unhewn is n protest against the intrusion of culture into religion. Nor can there be any question of otfend- ing the deity that dwelt in the stone, for it is not a monolith, but a structure built out of several stones, that the author has in view. Nor is the use of iron in war and its consequent connexion with death re^'arded as unfitting it for the service of God (in tins case 1 Cli 22' might be compared). The taboo on iron in ritual is very widely observed. It is wholly due to ' the conservatism of the re-
• The apparent exception to thin principle already mentioned, that the unclean by touch of a cleu4 lto<ly niij^ht eiit the pnMi- ever, itt part i:illy accounted for by the fact that in I' the poMover « not cunuidered a sacriUce (cf. 2 Ch 30" *>, Ezr Q^).
voi_ IV. — 53
ligious instinct.' Long after iron came into common use in daily life, the dread of Innovation in religion forbade it to be emploj'ed in ritual. Hence bronze knives continued to be used in religious ceremonies after iron knives were in common use. But it is even more striking that survivals from the Stone Age should persist into the Iron Age than that we should have survivals from the Bronze Age. Yet of this there are several exani]iles. The true parallel to the prohibition of the iron tool on the altar is Zipporah's circum- cision of her son with a flint (E.k 4^), and Joshua'i circumcision of the Israelites with flint knives (Jos5=-»).*
Lastly, the references to foreign lands as nnclean have a ritual significance. Palestine was the only land in which J " could be worshipped with sacrifice and oll'ering, unless soil were actually taken from the clean into the unclean land, as was done by Naaman (2 K 5"), whose point of view, we need not doubt, was shared by ordinary Israelites. Exile was therefore regarded with dread, for it severed the connexion of the worshipper with his God. And since neither tithe nor first-fruit could be offered, the crops remained unclean, and those in an unclean land were compelled to eat nnclean food(Hos9«-'').