times the use made of the blood must have held an slaughtered ; the women and children, the cattle important place in the same connexion. And, seeing that in the case of the offering of children
and other property, are to be regarded as spoil. This rule is followed in the case of the Midianites, the blood in question was closely related to that of the offerer, this species of sacrifice also must un-
according to Nu 317, but Moses afterwards (v.17) demands the slaughter also of all the female questionably be regarded from the point of view | prisoners except those that were still virgins. of the establishing of a sacramenta communion between the offerer and the Deity.
A further mitigation of the practice is found, finally, in the possibility of making some of the
A somewhat different character belongs, on the other hand, to other two rites, which are certainly
prisoners slaves of the sanctuary ; cf. Jos 9% and the Néthinim or ‘given ones’ amongst the per- also pre-Mosaic, namely the ratifying of a cove- sonnel of the post-exilic temple. nant by cutting one or more animals in pieces, so that the contracting parties might pass between
The hérem, as a solemn devoting to destruction, might, however, include in its scope even Israel- the pieces laid opposite one another; and the hérem or ban.
ites, and not only individuals but communities. In Gn 15°: 27 (J), in the case of the ‘ covenant’ of
Thus Dt 1315" requires the putting to death of al/
the inhabitants of any Israelitish city that fell Jahweh with Abraham, the first named of these into idolatry, and the burning of a// their property rites is enjoined and performed by God alone; but | as ‘a whole-offering to J ahweh.’+ According to here we have to do not with a covenant in the Jg 20% all the members of the tribe of Benjamin ordinary human sense, but with a religious ‘ bérith,’ | were slaughtered and their cities burned on account whose essence lies in the Divine institution, de- | of the outrage at Gibeah ; according to 21°" the mand, and promise. God accommodates Himself here to human custom by passing between the
ban was executed on all the inhabitants of Jabesh- gilead with the exception of 400 virgins who were pieces of the dismembere animal, just as in Jer 3418. the contracting parties pass between the
parts of the calf cut in twain. The whole trans- action in so far resembles a sacrificial one, as the kinds of animals enumerated in Gn 15°, as well as the calf of Jer 348, all belong to the class usually employed for sacrifice ; nor is it impossible that the acd of these animals was In some way utilized as sacrificial blood. The kernel of the rite is manifestly the invoking of a curse upon oneself in case of a breach of the obligation under- taken.* This is clearly alluded to in 1 S 11’ (as
* F, Schwally (Semit. Kriegsaltertumer, Heft 1, ‘Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel,’ Leipzag, 1901, p. 54) well describes the
action of Saul in 1S 117 as a ‘Schwur- oder Bundesritus’ ; the dismembered bodies have in all the instances above cited the significance of an ‘ Fidopfer,’ to which numerous analogies are found in other religions as well.
* Of, Schwally, .c. p. 29 ff.
+In Jer 12% the expression ‘ dedicate (lit. hallow) them for the day of slaughter’ answers exactly to the elsewhere em- ployed ‘ ban.’
t In view of what has been said above, this cannot be taken to mean that the destruction in consequence of the hérem actually represents a whole- or burnt-offering, but that it has this force comparatively, being as well-pleasing as a burnt- offering. Schwally very appropriately refers to the statement of Mesha on the Moabite Stone, 1. 11f.: ‘and I slew all the people of the city, a pleasing spectacle for Chemosh and for Moab.’ In the same way is explained why the touching of the ‘devoted’ thing roused the anger of the Deity (Jos 76).
620 RELIGION OF ISRAEL
urgently required. That the man who stole any- thing of what had been ‘devoted’ came himself under the ban, because he had broken the ‘ taboo’ caused by the hérem, is shown by the case of Achan (Jos 7*-), The ‘holy indignation of Jahweh,’ which burns at first against. the whole people (v.*"-), is appeased only when Achan is stoned to death (v.*5), Nor is it easy to understand 1 S 14% except to mean that the curse resting upon Jonathan (cf. v.*4), in which he had involved him- self by disregard of Saul’s prohibition, as of a kind of hérem, was removed by drawing lots for and putting to death a substitute. In 2S 21**: Israel is delivered from the consequences of the curse of the Gibeonites by the giving up and putting to death of seven members of the family of Saul, whose action was responsible for the curse.
A unique character belongs to the case supposed in Ly 2775"-, that an Israelite might ‘devote’ any possession of his, including human beings (slaves or captives taken in war?) and cattle. Every- thing so ‘devoted’ is most holy to Jahweh: if human beings, they must be put to death.
The circumstance that in the earliest times there is no trace of drink-offerings of wine, is explicable very simply on the ground that these were possible only after Israel had become used to vine-culture in Canaan. On the other hand, the libations of water mentioned as prayer-oflferings before battle (1S 7°, cf. also 2S 23%) are in all probability a survival from a time when water (in the desert) was considered an article of value. Extraordinary occasions such as war (see below) led to a revival of the primitive ritual practice.