Heinsius, Daniel, an eminent scholar, was born in 1580 at Cxhent. He studied law for some months at Franckcr, but, determining to devote himself to letters, he went to Leyden, where ho studied under Joseph Scal- iger. In 1599 he began to teach Latin in the univer- sit}', and on the death of Scaliger (1609) he was made professor of history. He was afterwards made librarian to the University, and historiographer to the States of Holland. He was secretary to the Synod of Dort, 1618. See Dort. He died Feb. 23, 1655. Besides editing many Latin and Greek classics, he published Sacrariim exercltutiomim ad N. T. libri xx (Lugd. Bat, 1639, fol.) : — Arigturchus sacer, sive Exercitationes ad Nonni Par- aphrasin in Jvhannein (Lugd. Bat. 1627, sm. 8 vo). Hein- sius was a strong advocate of a special Hellenistic dia- lect.
Heir (some form of the verb tJ'H'i, to possess; Gr. K\r]o6vo}.ioQ, a receiver bg lot). The Hebrew institu- tions relative to inheritance were of a very simple char- acter. Under the patriarchal system the property was divided among the sons of the legitimate wives (Gen. xxi, 10; xxiv, 36; xxv, 5), a larger portion being as- signed to one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the duty of maintaining the females of the famil}^ See BiRTiiuiGHT. The sons of concubines were portioned off with presents (Gen. xlix, 1 sq.), but tliis may have been restricted to cases where the children had been adopted by the legitimate wife (Gen. xxx, 3). But Ja- cob made the sons whom he had by his concubines heirs, as well as the others (Gen. xlix, 12-27). Moses laid no restrictions upon the choice of fathers in this respect ; and we may infer that the sons of concubines, for the most part, received an equal share with the other sons, from the fact that Jephthah, the son of a concubiue, com- plained that he was excluded from his father's liouse without any portion (Judg. xi, 1-7). Daughters had no share in the patrimony (Gen. xxxi, 14), but received a marriage portion, consisting of a maid-servant (Gen. xxix, 24, 29) or some other property. As a matter of special favor they sometimes took part with the sons (Job xlii, 15). The Mosaic law regulated the succession to real property thus : it was to be divided among the sons, the eldest receiving a double portion (Dent, xxi, 17), the others equal shares: if there were no sons, it Went to the daughters (Numb, xxvii, 8), on the condi-
tion that they did not marry out of their own tribe (Numb, xxxvi, 6 sq. ; Tub. vi, 12 ; vii, 13), otherwise the patrimony was forfeited (Josephus, A nt. iv, 7, 5). If there were no daughters, it went to the brother of the deceased ; if no brother, to the paternal uncle ; and, fail- ing these, to the next of kin (Numb, xxvii, 9-11). In the case of a widow being left wthout children, the nearest of kin on her husband's side had the right of marrying her, and, in the event of his refusal, the next of kin (Kuth iii, 12, 13) : with him rested the obligation of redeeming the property of the widow (Ruth iv, 1 sq.), if it had been either sold or mortgaged : this obligation was termed H^XStl 125'^^ (-'the right of inheritance"), and was exercised in other cases besides that of )nar- riage (Jer. xxxii, 7 sq.). If none stepped forward to marrv' the widow, the inheritance remained with her until her death, and then reverted to the next of kin. See Widow. The object of these regidations evidently was to prevent the alienation of the land, and to retain it in the same family : the Mosaic law enforced, in short, a strict entail. Even the assignment of the double por- tion, which under the patriarchal regime had been at the disposal of the father (Gen. xlviii, 22), was by the INIo- saic law limited to the eldest son (Deut. xxi, 15-17). The case of Achsah, to whom Calel3 presented a field (Josh. XV, 18, 19 ; Judg. i, 15), is an exception ; but per- haps even in that instance the land reverted to Caleb's descendants either at the death of Achsah or in the year of Jubilee. The land being thus so strictly tied up, the notion oi heirship, as we understand it, was hardly known to the Jews : succession was a matter of right, and not of favor — a state of things which is embodied in the He- brew language itself, for the word a^'^ (A. V. " to inher- it") implies ^JOSsessioH, and very oit&n forcible possession (Deut. ii, 12 ; Judg. i, 29 ; xi, 24), and a similar idea lies at the root of the words MTnS and •^?'T3, generally translated "inheritance." Testamentary dispositions were, of course, generally superfluous : the nearest ap- proach to the idea is the blessing, which in early times conveyed temporal as well as spiritual benefits (Gen. xxvii, 19,37; Josh, xv, 19). It appears, however, that eventually the father had at least the right of express- ing his last wishes or icill in the presence of witnesses, and probably in the presence of the heirs (2 Kings xx, 1). The references to wills in the apostle Paul's writ- ings are borrowed from the usages of Greece and Eomc (Heb. ix, 17), whence the custom was introduced into Judaea : several wills are noticed by Josephus in connec- tion with the Herods (Ant. xiii, 16, 1 ; xvii, 3, 2; War, ii, 2, 3).