urnt-oftering (Ly 4%: 16-25), On the Great Day of Atonement the blood of the guilt-offering is actu- ally brought by the high priest into the Holy of Holies, and sprinkled upon and before the lid of the sacred Ark (Lv 16%"). But even the idea of the offering of food still plays a part (although, no doubt, a less prominent one) in P, as is evident from such facts as that—apart of course from in- cense—it is only what may be eaten that is to be offered, and indeed—as befits the holiness of God —only clean and unblemished animals; that every sacrifice must be seasoned with salt (the meal- offering with oil) ; and, above all, that every com- plete sacrifice includes not only flesh but an additional dish in the form of a food-offering, and a portion of drink in the shape of a wine- libation.
But in all this we have not yet the answer to the most important question from the point of view of the history of religion, namely this: Wherein consists, according to P, the efficacy of sacrifice ? Is it effectual simply ex opere operato, or do other,
specifically religious, points of view come into con- sideration? The reply to this question depends upon a correct understanding of the force of the so-called sémikhah (np) or laying on of hands, and of the significance of the blood in the sacri- ficial ritual.
In every species of bloody sacrifice the offerer has to take his stand before the door of the sanctuary and lay his hand upon the head of the victim (Ly 14, here of the burnt-offering, with the addition ‘so shall it be accepted for him and pro- cure atonement for him’; 37%, of the peace- offering ; 4415-24-29, of the sin-offering). What is the meaning of this ceremony of hand-imposition, upon which manifestly great weight is laid in the sacrificial ritual? It was natural to think of a transference of guilt, especially as this is expressly witnessed to in Ly 16“, There the high priest lays both hands on the head of the so-called ‘scape- goat’ (see art. AZAZEL in vol. i.), confesses over him all the transgressions of Israel, and then sends him away, laden with the people’s guilt, into the wilder- ness. Beyond doubt, the laying on of hands in this instance denotes a transference of guilt, but the ‘scape-goat’ is no sacrificial victim, and hence the whole parallel is unsuitable as an aid to explain- ing the ritual of sacrifice. Besides, the laying on of hands is practised also with peace- or thank- offerings, which are not presented for atoning pur- poses, as well as in connexion with the consecra- tion of the Levites (Nu 8°). The latter ceremony, in particular, permits of no other explanation than that the laying on of hands is an act whereby a renunciation of personal possession and a giving over with a view to sacrifice [or, in the case of the Levites, with a view to pr etual service in the sanctuary] is accomplished. Hones the comparison with the manwmissio of Roman law is quite appro- priate.*
It is another question whether—quite apart from the meaning of the 73»»—there may not have been present, at Teast in the guilt-offering, the idea of a surrender of the life of the animal in place of the forfeited human life—in other words, the inflicting of a penalty upon the victim, and thereby accom- plishing a satisfactio vicaria. This view has been maintained all the more positively, because in the New Testament the sacrificial death of Christ is undeniably at times looked at from this viewpoint. Further, in Ly 17# it is expressly insisted that the seat of life is in the blood, and that God has ordained that blood be used at the altar to accom- plish propitiation, for ‘the blood atones through the life [contained in it].’ Here, surely, it appears to be clearly declared that the life of the victim is a substitute for that of the sinner. But this con- clusion is once more rendered impossible by the circumstance that then the sacrificial victim must have been regarded as laden with guilt and curse, and hence as unclean, whereas in reality it is
* Volz (art. ‘Die Handauflegung beim Opfer’ in ZA7'W, 1901, p. 93 ff.) protests against the idea of the manumissio, and re- fuses to separate the 73°2D of sacrifice from that of blessing and of installation in office (Nu 2718. 23, Dt 349). What is in view, he holds, is the conveying of a substance from one party to another— in the case of the sin-offering, the conveying of sin, uncleanness, and curse to the sacrificial victim. But how then could the flesh of the sin-offering have been counted most holy, and been directed to be eaten by the priests in a holy place (Ly 618f)? Volz meets this objection by supposing that the sin-offering was meant originally not for Jahweh but for demons hostile to man, and that the 73°) was then transferred from the sin-offering to the other offerings as well. On the other hand, Matithes (art. ‘Der Siihnegedanke bei den Stindopfern’ in ZATW, 1903, p. 97 ff.) rightly contends, in opposition to Volz, for different kinds of hand-imposition. Bertholet’s proposal (Com. on Lv 14) to start from Ly 2414 and to explain the 73.0 of sacrifice as the ‘establishing of a solidarity between offerer and offering,’ comes in the end to the same thing as the manwmissio interpretation, only that, according to Bertholet, the fundamental notion of the communio is meant here again to find expression.