The whole ceremony is peculiar, and suggests many questions which have never been fully solved. In par- ticular, the svmbolic meaning of the details is still un-
PURIFICATION-WATERS
802
PURIM
settled, as the disagreement of recent expositors shows (ISiihr, Symbol, ii. 193 Bq.; Hengstenberg, Moses und Egypt en, p. 181 Bq.; Anonymous, Evangel. K.-Z. 1843, No. L9; Baumgarten, Comment, zum I'mtnt. ii. :;;;;; sq.; Philippson, Pentat. p. 768 Bq.; Kurtz, in the Stud. n. Krit. [ l*li> |, iii. 029 sq.). We cannot here dwell upon this unfruitful investigation, but will refer singly to the principal points.
1. I be purification of those made unclean by a corpse
ted, nol by the usual means of cleansing pure water— bu I by this sharp fluid, because this Kind of
uncleai bs was considered very deep and sad. The
i. ason of this is obvious. Hence the means oi cleansing is a kind of lye, which is strong in its action. We find ashes and lye among the means of purification used not merely by the Romans (Virgil, Eclog, viii, 101; Ovid, /■'us/, iv. 639, 725, 733; Arnob. Gent. v. 32), bul by the old Persians, who made their most powerful cleansing stuff oul of water and ashes by means of tire (Zenda- vesta, iii, 216; another kind of sacred water used by Egyptian priests is mentioned in .Elian. Anim. \ ii. 15 I. Besides, this lye among the Israelites was made, nol
Oul of ashes in general, bul from the ashes of a sin- offering, and from that which alone remained of this Bin-offering.
2. A heifer, not a bull (Lev. iv. 11), is used, perhaps (Bahr, p. 198) because the female sex is that which brings forth life (comp. Gen. iii. 20; otherwise Heng- stenberg and Baumgarten— the former interpreting too outwardly, op. tit. p. 182; the latter too artificially). But the object may have been simply to distinguish this particular sin-offering, when the animal was made a means to a hallowing purpose, from that in which it was presented to Jehovah in his sanctuary as a sacrifice of reconciliation. Yet physical uiicleauncss is always less burdensome than sin against the moral law (comp. Philippson, p. 769 >. Why a red heifer? The explana- tion of Spencer I Leg. Hit. ii. 15, 2, 6), thai a red heifer was chosen in token of opposition to the Egyptian cus- tom of sacrificing red cattle toTyphon, who was fancied
to I fa red color (Plut. fsidor. 22), is worthless. The
recent expositors of the symbols waver between red as the color of lift (Bahr, Kurtz) and of sin and death (Hengstenberg). According to the rabbins, Solomon did not know the reason, and no ancient tradition re- specting it has reached us. The secret will never he discovered. It it lie said that red heifers were chosen lor their scarcity, which rendered them prized in the Easl i IJeland. Antiq. Sacr. ii. •'>. 2:!; AmraVceis [ed.
I.elle . p. 71 i. the answer is only rendered more diffi- cult. Rarity is not made an object in the directions given. Perhaps the dark color is simply selected as ac- cording wii li i he serious nature of the work in hand, and aiding to keep the removal of sin steadily before the eye. White heifers were untitled for this purpose: black ones are very rare in the East. As the accom- paniments cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool, which Maimonides in his time already fell the difficulty of explaining — have never yet been fullj accounted for,
Kiln's explanation is the most intelligent (p. 502 Bq.), while Baumgarten's is absurd. See Hyssop.
8. The twofold sprinkling on the third and seventh daj s lias an analogy in two other places i Lev. xii. 2 sq. :
civ, B Bq.). That terrible impurity was not to lie re- moved in a moment; its serious nature demanded two
periods of effort. Three and se^ en, too. are significant
numbers in themselves. 'The seven, or week, is also a
i Omplete period, and with it the cen umnx
ot purification ends.
4. The reason why the heifer was burned without the holy city, and the persons occupied in this work were accounted unclean, i- not the impurity of the sacrifice in itself (as Bahr has well remarked), bul in the fact ofits
relation Willi il -i mi. lean thin-- death and the
corpse.
See, in general, M osi - Maimon. Tr. a\ Vacca Unfa,
Ilehr. et I .at. (ed. /ell. r. Amsterd. 1711 >; Marck, f>is-
tert. ad Vet. Test. Fascic. p. 114 sq. ; Deyling, Observat. iii, 89 sq. ; Th. Dassov. De Vacca Rufa, Observat. Tn- strux. (J. <i. W. Dunkel. Lips. 1758); Bashuysen, Dt Aspersioni Sacra ex Mente Gemaristar. isirv. 1717.; IMand. Antiq. Sacr. ii. 5, 2:).— Winer, ii. 504.
Purificatoiium is a piece of linen folded several times, which is used in drying the chalice and willing the paten during the ma--. Ii was Originally a towel fast- ened to the piscina, or ve88el placed at the side of the altar. Only in later times il took the present simpler j form — probably at the time when the priest himself drank the wine which had been used for the purification of the chalice and the ablution oft he fingers. The clean- ing of the jntrificatoritim, as it comes in immediate con- tact with the consecrated forms, must, by prescription of the canon, he done by the priest himself. It- length and width must he about half an ell, and as it is exclu- sively employed for the ritual use. it must be conse- crated and marked in the middle with a cross. The (i reeks use a sponge lor the cleaning of the chalice and