breast () (4) and the right pi (according to the general view-LXX. ẞpaxiwv; Vulgate, arma—the right shoulder, therefore a fore leg; according to Knobel, the right hind leg, the right thigh) to the priest as a heave-offering (Lev. vii. 29-34). This brings us to discuss the ceremony of the waving or swinging (27, 7), as well as the question, what relation this had to that of heaving (, ). Besides the case just mentioned, the former occurred also at the peace-offerings enjoined at the consecration of priests (Lev. vii. 29-34) and the dedication of Nazarites (Num. vi. 20), at the jealousy-offering (ver. 25), at the trespass-offering of the leper (Lev. xiv. 12), at the offering of the sheaf of new corn at the Passover, and the loaves of first-ripe corn and peace-offering lambs at the Feast of Weeks (5). According to Jewish tradition, which coincides with the intimations given (Ex. xxix. 24, Lev. viii. 27, etc.), it consisted in the priest laying the matter to be waved upon the hands of the offerer (6), placing his hands under those of the latter, and moving them in a horizontal direction-backwards and forwards, according to the Talmud (i), and also towards the right and left, that is, towards the four quarters of the heavens, according to some later Rabbis (7). Of the meaning of the transaction, in the simpler form in which the Talmud describes it, no doubt can exist, when it is considered that the waving took place almost exclusively in the case of such portions of sacrifices as were allotted to the priests as a gift from Jehovah (8). The swinging forwards evidently denoted the presentation of the gift to God, it was a declaration in action that it properly belonged to Him; while the moving it backwards again expressed that God on His part returned the gift, and assigned it to the priest. In the view connected, on the other hand, with the rabbinical explanation, according to which the ceremony is said to allude to the universal government of God (9), it is not easy to perceive why such an acknowledgment of the Divine omnipresence (as Sykes, über die Opfer, edited by Semler,

(2) The prohibition did not relate to the fat of other eatable nimals, such as deer. Hence the statement, sometimes made, hat fat, as well as the blood, was among the articles of food .orbidden by the Mosaic law, is incorrect. The passage, Lev. viii. 25, expressly says, "Whosoever eateth the fat of the beast of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord."

(3) "Flos carnis," Neumann's above-named work, p. 35 Thus, generally speaking, it was the best and most nourishing part which was to be offered to God, on which account the Hebrew gave a very wide extent to the term (Gen. xlv. 18; Num. xviii. 12; Deut. xxxii. 14, etc.). Keil insists on seeing also in the fat a symbol of the inward man. But if a symbol were here in question, should we not expect that the heart, which Scripture represents as the seat of life, would have been offered? Finally, the opinion of Maimonides, that the fat was denied to man and destined to be burnt on the altar on dietetic grounds, has been aptly opposed by Bähr (Symbolik, ii. p. 382) in the remark, "Is the Lord to have what man cannot use what would disagree with him?"

(4) "The breast, which in oxen, sheep, and goats is called the brisket, consists mostly of gristly fat, and is one of the bestflavoured portions” (Knobel).

(5) In the case both of the last named and of the trespassoffering lamb of the leper, it took place with the whole animal before it was slain. In Thosaphta Menachoth, viii. 6 (Ugolino, Thesaur. xix. p. 675, comp. Reland, Ant. iii. 1. 17), the matter is thus defined:-1. Private peace-offerings-laying on of the hand before slaying, waving afterwards; 2. Public peaceofferings no laying on of the hand, waving both before and after slaying; 3. Trespass-offering of the leper-waving and laying on of the hand before slaying.

(6) With respect to this part of the transaction, the LXX. denote it by επιτιθέναι, ἐπίθεμα.

(7) See the passages from later Rabbis in Outram, id. p. 151 sq.-On the form of waving at the consecration of Levites, see § 94. Rabbinical tradition, founded on a misunderstanding of Ex. xxix. 27, hereafter to be discussed, con

(מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד) nects also the heaving upwards and downwards

with the manipulation of waving (Menachoth, v. 6; Thosaphta Menachoth, vii. 9, in Ugol. p. 671, etc.), and consequently

in favour of the officiating priest.(14). After the separation of the wave-breast, the rest of the flesh was the portion of the offerers (15), to be used by them as a sacrificial feast in the sanctuary, in which all the members of their families and other guests might participate. Levitical cleanness was indispens

able in all who ate of the sacrifices; any one who should, in spite of any uncleanness he might have incurred, eat thereof, was to be cut off. In the case of the thank-offering, the flesh was to be consumed on the same day (vii. 15, xxii. 29 sq.); in that of other sacrifices, on the second at furthest; if any remained till the third day, it was to be burned (vii. 16 sq., xix. 6 sq.) (16). The signification of this sacrificial repast was not (as Bahr, Symbolik, ii. p. 374, and others suppose) that Jehovah, as proprietor of the flesh which was offered, was the host, and they who fed thereon His guests; on the contrary, it was rather God who condescended to be the guest of the offerer, receiving the breast as His portion of honour, and then relinquishing it to His servant the priest. Thus the repast was a pledge of the blessed fellowship into which He would enter with His people among whom He dwelt (17). It was also to be a love-feast, at which, besides the members of the family, the Levites (Deut. xii. 18) and (as prescribed, Deut. xvi. 11, in the case of the peace-offerings at Pentecost) the needy were to find refreshment. Niggardliness was prevented by the prohibition of a longer keeping of the flesh; still the principal reason of the injunction to consume it before the third day, may have lain in the likelihood of corruption taking place (18).

(1) In oxen and goats it consisted of the fat covering the intestines (P), the fat upon the intestines, the two kidneys with their fat, and finally, the caul of the liver (so Luther, De Wette, and Knobel; on the other hand, most moderns understand by by nn the great upper lobe of the liver). In sheep, the fat tail was added as a fifth piece. It seems needless here to go into farther particulars concerning the meaning of these somewhat disputed expressions.

(2) The prohibition did not relate to the fat of other eatable animals, such as deer. Hence the statement, sometimes made, that fat, as well as the blood, was among the articles of food forbidden by the Mosaic law, is incorrect. The passage, Lev. viii. 25, expressly says, "Whosoever eateth the fat of the beast of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord."

(3) "Flos carnis," Neumann's above-named work, p. 35 Thus, generally speaking, it was the best and most nourishing part which was to be offered to God, on which account the Hebrew gave a very wide extent to the term (Gen. xlv. 18; Num. xviii. 12; Deut. xxxii. 14, etc.). Keil insists on seeing also in the fat a symbol of the inward man. But if a symbol were here in question, should we not expect that the heart, which Scripture represents as the seat of life, would have been offered? Finally, the opinion of Maimonides, that the fat was denied to man and destined to be burnt on the altar on dietetic grounds, has been aptly opposed by Bähr (Symbolik, ii. p. 382) in the remark, "Is the Lord to have what man cannot use—what would disagree with him?"

(4) "The breast, which in oxen, sheep, and goats is called the brisket, consists mostly of gristly fat, and is one of the bestflavoured portions" (Knobel).

(5) In the case both of the last named and of the trespassoffering lamb of the leper, it took place with the whole animal before it was slain. In Thosaphta Menachoth, viii. 6 (Ugolino, Thesaur. xix. p. 675, comp. Reland, Ant. iii. 1. 17), the matter is thus defined:-1. Private peace-offerings-laying on of the hand before slaying, waving afterwards; 2. Public peaceofferings no laying on of the hand, waving both before and after slaying; 3. Trespass-offering of the leper-waving and laying on of the hand before slaying.

(6) With respect to this part of the transaction, the LXX. denote it by επιτιθέναι, ἐπίθεμα.

(7) See the passages from later Rabbis in Outram, id. p. 151 sq.-On the form of waving at the consecration of Levites, see § 94. Rabbinical tradition, founded on a misunderstanding of Ex. xxix. 27, hereafter to be discussed, con

(מַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד) nects also the heaving upwards and downwards

with the manipulation of waving (Menachoth, v. 6; Thosaphta Menachoth, vii. 9, in Ugol. p. 671, etc.), and consequently

represents the portions of the sacrifice as swung in four or in six directions.

(8) This refers also, according to Num. viii. 19, to the wave of the Levites. On the meaning of the ceremony, Lev. viii. 25 sq., see § 95.

(9) Deo omnia implenti, omnia tuenti et possidenti victima rite porrecta fuit (Witsius, Miscell. i. p. 403).

(10) Compare on this point especially Keil, Archæol. i. p. 253.

(11) In this respect I entirely coincide with Knobel on Lev. vii. 33, in opposition to Kurtz. Comp. also on this point, Keil, Archæol. p. 244 sq.; Gesenius, too, who in his Thesaurus, ii. p. 866, embraced the usual view, subsequently renounced it, iii. p. 1277.

(12) The

D, Lev. ii. 9, corresponds with the

of ver. 2, and the 7, in vers. 31 and 35, with the D in Lev. iv. 10. (13) With this corresponds also the later use of the word, Isa. xl. 20, and in Ezekiel. In the latter, stands, ch. xlv. 1, xlviii. 8, 12, 20, for the portions of land set apart for Jehovah (for the temple and priests), and ch. xlv. 13, for the oblations to be given to the prince for distribution in sacrifices. Comp. finally, Ezra viii. 25. The LXX. translate it in Ex. xxv. 2 sq., where it is used of the gifts for the making of the tabernacle, by ȧrapyý; in the parallel passages, xxxv. 21, xxxvi. 3, by ȧpaípeμa; and only in xxx. 13 sq., where it stands for the offering of the half shekel for the sanctuary, by eio popá (Onkelos in all these passages, by xD). They have indeed hit the right meaning when they also translate D, Lev. ii. 9, by ἀφαιρεῖν, and iv. 8 by περιαιρεῖν, etc.

(14) The juxtaposition of the 7 and the D in Ex. xxix. 27 does not prove, since each of the two relative clauses refers to a different object, that the latter denotes a ceremony identical with waving, in which case it would be indifferent whether DN were combined, as in the LXX., with Dor with. Finally, it must be considered that E also appears with the general meaning "offering" in Ex. xxxv. 22, xxxviii. 24, for the gold used for the sanctuary, while only stands for the silver and brass, because here the point of view embraced is that what was brought was but a portion. removed from the mass. The wave-breast and heave-shoulder