Imágenes de páginas

allotted to the priest might be eaten by him, after being boiled or roasted in a clean place (not necessarily the sanctuary), Lev. x. 14. Deut. xviii. 3 seems to offer a difficulty, since, according to this passage, the priest's due, mano mat ngo Dyn nep, whether of ox or sheep, was to be the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw. Many (comp. Riehm, die Gesetzgebung Mosis im Lande Moab, p. 41 sq.) see in the passage an alteration of the portions of offerings appointed by former laws. The evident reference, however, of vers. 1 and 2 to Num. xviii. 20, decidedly gives the impression that the passage is an addition to earlier appointments. Besides what is granted to the priests by the Lord, inasmuch as He will be their asme, a gift of respect on the part of the people is also allotted them. In this sense the reference of the passage to the peace-offering presents no difficulty; and a confirmation of this reference may be seen in 1 Sam. ii. 13 sq. (see Schultz, das Deuteronomium erklärt, p. 59). Jewish tradition, however, so far as it can be followed up (Josephus, Ant. iv. 4. 4; Philo, de sacerd. hon. $ 3; Mishna Cholin, x. 1; comp. Ranke, Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, ii. p. 290 sq.), has regarded this passage as prescribing the bestowal of a portion of animals slaughtered for ordinary use (Philo : από τών έξω του βωμού θυoμένων; or, as the Mishna expresses it, this tribute was to be given from the rbin, the profane, under which point of view (xi. 1) the firstfruits of the sheep-shearing, mentioned Deut. xviii. 4, are also regarded); and this precept may be most simply explained by the fact (Ranke, p. 295) that a compensation was to be given to the priests for the loss of revenue they sustained by the alteration of the law of Lev. xvii. 1-9, contained in Deut. xii. When Riehm opposes to this view of the passage the impracticability of such a precept, we must consider, on the other hand, that an obligation to bring or send the prescribed portions of a slaughtered animal to the sanctuary is out of the question,Jewish tradition also reckoning this tribute as belonging to the

and as among those which might be brought to any ,קדשי הגביל

priest whatever. The tribute might be sent to a priest's city, or to any priest staying in the neighbourhood. That the observance of this precept was omitted where there was no opportunity of observing it, may be as reasonably concluded as e.g. the self-evident fact that the command to invite the Levites to

[ocr errors]

the feast of the tenth rests on the assumption that Levites are actually to be found in the neighbourhood. The question why just these three portions of a slaughtered animal were to be given, has been variously answered. The most simple explanation is that of Fagius, that these represent the three chief divisions of the animal, head, trunk, and feet, of which they formed parts (article Priesterthum im A. T.). Of the meat-offering, which was combined with the peace-offering, the priest was to receive one cake (Lev. vii. 14, probably one of each of the three kinds mentioned, ver. 12), undoubtedly after the memorial (askarah) had, according to the precept (ii. 9), been first burned (art. Opferkultus des A. T.).

(15) This was the case without exception in private peaceofferings. In public peace-offerings, all the flesh of the sacrificed animals, except the portions of fat, went, according to the usual view, to the priests. This is, however, expressly said only of the two lambs of the pentecostal peace-offerings (xxiii. 30); and Keil (in his above-cited work, p. 245 sq.), opposing the application of this rule to all public peace-offerings, justly appeals to Deut. xxvii. 7, where, besides the public peaceofferings, the repasts of the people are also spoken of, and to 1 Kings viii. 36, according to which Solomon offered at the dedication of the temple 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep, which it was quite impossible that the priests alone could consume, and finally suggests that, with the exception of the pentecostal sacrifices, the peace-offerings at festivals were voluntary gifts.

(16) This was also prescribed with respect to such flesh of sacrifices as had come in contact with anything unclean (Lev. vii. 19). The fact that the peace-offering terminated in a repast explains the circumstance that, according to Lev. vii. 13, besides the unleavened bread of the meat-offering, leavened bread was also to be offered, which, however, was not laid on the altar, but only eaten with the flesh at the ensuing meal. It is utterly unnecessary to understand the passage as expressing that the unleavened meat-offering itself was offered upon a layer of leavened bread. See Knobel on the passage.

(17) It is self-evident that cleanness was exacted of all participators in such an act of communion ; its opposite would have been an act of flagrant contempt on the part of the invited guests, hence the threat of severe punishment.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

(18) This danger of uncleanness would naturally be most strictly avoided in the case of the thank-offering, as pre-eminent among the peace-offerings.

$ 134.

Of Vows (1)

The notion of the vow extends much fartlier than to those vowed sacrifices properly so called (discussed in § 132). For the

vow positive, the promise to dedicate something to God may refer not merely to a sacrifice, but to the dedication of some other object; and besides this, there is the vow negative, the promise to renounce some act or enjoyment for the glory of God. It is only with reference to the positive vow that the word 773 is used in the law (with the exception of Num. vi. 5), while the negative vow (the forswearing, as it has been called, in opposition to swearing), is designated by 108 or 08, obligatio (Num. xxx. 3 sq.), or more fully by eb ninys hos nyar (ver. 14).—The positive vow first appears in the Old Testament in Gen. xxviii. 20-22, as a promise to erect a place of worship, and might extend to persons, even the person of the vower, to animals and to lands. Persons were dedicated to the service of the sanctuary (thus Hannah vowed her son, 1 Sam. i. 11); and it is probably on this ground that the circumstance of women being employed in the sanctuary (Ex. xxxviii. 8; 1 Sam. ii. 22 (2)) is to be explained. Persons and lands might (3), unclean animals must, be redeemed at an appointed valuation-see the law, Lev. xxvii. 1-25 (4); clean animals, on the other hand, which had been vowed, were always to be sacrificed (ver. 9 sq.). Of course that which was already due to God (ver. 26) could not become the subject of a vow, neither could aught connected with crime or infamy; comp. Deut. xxiii. 18 (5). Anything which had fallen under the curse could only be the

This word signifies "a being cut off," i.e. from the ordinary connection of life; for to be subjected to the

.חֵרֶם subject of the

Cherem, the vow of extermination, is to have forfeited existence. The Cherem might be carried into execution either in consequence of a Divine command or of a special kind of vow, the vow of devotion; comp., as the chief

passage on

this subject, Lev. xxvii. 28 sq. "Nothing devoted could be redeemed. If the vow related to anything living, it must be put to death (6); lands which had been devoted were irredeemable and unsaleable, the priests having the right of possession, see ver. 21 (7). Of course this vow, the Cherem, might not be arbitrarily vowed, otherwise the laws of imprecation would have been in irreconcilable opposition to other laws. Only (as may be inferred from Ex. xxii. 19, Deut. xiii. 16) that which had incurred the judgment due to idolatry could be thus placed under the ban. Hence the vow of extermination must be regarded as a manifestation of zeal for Jehovah's honour.

Among vows of abstinence, the most usual was that of fasting, which, except on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 29, xxiii. 27, of which hereafter, § 140), was quite voluntary, and therefore often appears as the expression of penitence (comp. e.g. 1 Sam. vii. 6, Joel ii. 12, etc.), or of mourning in general. It is not till after the captivity that we meet with various other annual fasts (of which hereafter). The Pentateuch makes use of the expression xd; nisy (compare, besides the already quoted passages, Num. xxx. 14), to bow the soul, for fasting (8), in which the special significance of fasting is expressed; some indulgence, otherwise allowable, must be denied to the natural will to testify to the earnestness of its penitence and grief. It is characteristic of the moral spirit of Mosaism, that it strictly forbids all unnatural austerities, such as maiming or mutilating the limbs, branding, and the like (Lev. xix. 28; Deut. xiv. 1 sq., xxiii. 2 sq.), for it is said, Deut. xix. 1 sq., “Thou art an holy people.” (Eunuchs were on this account excluded from the congregation.)

The permission of vows is best understood in its subjective aspect, from the pedagogic standpoint of the law. "To be bound by an oath might support the weakness and fickleness of

the natural will, and give energy to a prayer or a resolution. Still a vow was never regarded as specially meritorious. “If

" thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin unto thee,” Deut. xxiii. 22. 'Of course, if a vow were once made, its performance was strictly insisted on, Num. xxx. 3, Deut. xxiii. 22–24 (9); at the same time, however, it was enacted that the vow of a daughter in her father's house, or of a wife, was only binding if her father or husband confirmed it by silence (10). Inconsiderate vows are expressly reproved, Prov. xx. 25, and Eccl. v. 3-5. The heathen view of a vow, as forming a kind of compact with the Deity, by means of which a claim upon Divine interposition was acquired on the part of him who makes it, may indeed be found in the form of the Old Testament vow (if thou doest so to me, I will do so and so) from Gen. xxviii. 20 sq. onwards; but the notion that God will be influenced to grant a petition by an external performance as such, is opposed, Ps. Ixvi. 18, by the words, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me," after the fulfilment of vows had been previously spoken of, vers. 13-15; while in Ps. 1. 14, also, the offering of thanksgiving is regarded as the right fulfilment of vows (11).

(1) Comp. my article, Gelübde bei den Hebräern, in Herzog's Realencycl. xiv. p. 788 sqq.

(2) The sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, however, is not to be included here. Whether the Nethinim, so frequently mentioned in the later historical books as permanently appointed to the temple service, were among such devoted persons, cannot be determined; generally, however, their origin was undoubtedly a different one. See on both points the Historical Section in “ Prophetism.”

(3) According to Saalschütz, mos. Recht, p. 363, the law not only allowed the redemption of a devoted person, but regarded this as the sole purport of the oath. Hence the consignment of the individual to the service of the sanctuary was out of the question, and all that was contemplated by such a vow was the payment of a certain sum of money. This view is compatible with Lev. xxvii. 2 sq., inasmuch as the opposite is not there brought forth as in ver. 15 sq. (comp. Philo, de spec. leg. $ 8).

« AnteriorContinuar »