« AnteriorContinuar »
grows on the ground, and has a purgative quality, as Porpyhry* says, was believed by the Egyptians.'
VII. Another sacrifice of this kind was required from women after childbirth : for which Abarbinelt assigns the same reason as for that which we have just mentioned. “As no one bears pains and troubles
in this world without guilt; and as, according to our 'rabbies of blessed memory, there is no chastisement without sin; and lastly as every woman bears children with pain and danger, hence every one is commanded, ' after childbirth, to offer an expiatory sacrifice.'
VIII. The third sacrifice of this description was appointed for all those who, while they were defiled by impurity arising from the touch of any thing unclean, but being unconscious of their pollution, ate of the sacrifices. Similar to this also was the fourth; which was prescribed for those who entered into the sanctuary, either altogether ignorant, or forgetful, of the pollution by which they were defiled. I Persons who were polluted by any uncleanness communicated by contact with any other person or thing, unless they either ate of the sacrifices, or entered into the sanctuary, needed no sacrificial expiation : but in order to their purification, were commanded to wash their bodies and their garments, and whenever they were defiled by a dead corpse, to take care that their bodies should be sprinkled with purifying water.Ş On the performance of these rites they were considered as legitimately purified without any piacular sacrifice. Nor was any impurity, except what arose from leprosy, childbirth, hæmorrhage, or one other case already referred to, if connected with no other
* Ex Chæremone, in L. iv. de Abstinen. of Ad Levit. xii.
§ Levit. xi. 28. 40, Num. xix. 19, 20.
act or intention, so great in itself as to require sacrificial purgation. Wherefore those who were polluted by the touch of any unclean thing, except only the Nazarites, needed no expiatory victim, unless through imprudence they should profane either the sacrifices or the sanctuary. But a Nazarite defiled with a dead body was obliged to offer an expiatory victim, because every one who took the Nazarite's vow was bound not to come near any human corpse till after that vow was fulfilled.*
IX. The fifth sacrifice of this kind was enjoined upon all those, who, when called to swear concerning any matter to which they had been privy, were guilty of a suppression of evidence.f It was customary with the Hebrews to endeavour to obtain a confession of the truth, by using very solemn forms of adjuration. Thus Ahab said to Micaiah: “ I adjure
thee that thou say nothing but the truth to me in the " name of the Lord.”! And Caiaphas the high priest said to Jesus: “ I adjure thee by the living God, “ that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the “Son of God."; It was by some such form that witnesses when standing before a tribunal were urged to give testimony.|| And the expression of Moses, which we render" the voice of swearing,” is rendered by the Septuagint, the voice of adjuration : which whoever heard that was privy to the truth, and refrained from delivering his testimony, he was guilty of a sin which required sacrificial expiation.
X. The last sacrifice of this kind, Maimonides says, was enjoined upon those who unintentionally perjured themselves respecting something that was t Levit. v.5. 1 II Chron. xviii. 13.
In Shebuoth, c. 1.
# Num, vi, 6.
# Prov. xxix, 24.
past; or having sworn concerning something future and possible, and lawful for them, did, through forgetfulness, otherwise than they had sworn they would do. The Jews reckon four kinds of oaths.* The first they call an oath of testimony; as of witnesses before a tribunal, of which enough has been said already. The second is called an oath about a pledge : as when persons swear concerning any thing that belongs to another person, either intrusted to them, or found, or taken away by fraud or force;t which we shall presently notice. The third is a vain oath: this kind is described as including four sorts. The first relates to something present, and that manifestly false: as if any one were to swear that marble is gold. The second also relates to something present, and that manifestly true, which it is impossible to doubt: as if any one should swear that marble is marble. The third respects a thing altogether unlawful; as if any one were 'to swear that thenceforward he would never perform any particular duty. The last respects any thing evidently impossible : as if any one were to swear that he would fast for ten days. And concerning this kind, comprehending all these sorts, they maintain, that whoever sinned in this way with knowledge was to suffer the punishment of scourging; but that whoever committed this sin in ignorance, repentance alone was sufficient for its expiation without any piacular victim. The fourth kind of swearing, which is the only one referred by them to the present subject, they distinguish by an appellation taken from the scriptures, calling it a pronounced oath. Of this kind they make four sorts: the two first respect something * In Shebuoth, c. 1. + Levit. vi. 2, 3.
Levit. V. 4,
past, one affirmative, the other negative; as if any one were to swear that this or that had or had not been done. The other two relate to any thing future, one affirming, the other denying; as if any one were to swear that he would sleep, or would not sleep, today. And concerning this kind of oath, including all its varieties, it is affirmed by the Jews, that whoever knowingly committed this sin, was not to offer an expiatory victim, but to be scourged; and that whoever sinned in this way through ignorance, it was commanded in the law, that the offence, when discovered, should be expiated by a sacrifice greater or ·less, according to the circumstances of each individual. Thus say the Jews: but what is the language of Moses on this subject?* “ If a soul swear, pro
nouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, “ whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with “ an oath, and it it be hid from him ; when he knoweth
of it,-he shall confess that he hath sinned, -and he -“shall bring a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid, " for a sin offering,” if he were able to procure either ; but if not, he was commanded to bring to the priest two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, one to be sacrificed as a sin offering, the other as a burnt offering: and any one who was too poor to procure such birds, was allowed to substitute the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour. But these words, “If a soul
swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to “ do good,” refer, whatever may be pretended by the Jews, to no other kind of oath than what relates to something future. The phrase, “to do evil,” is to be understood of punishments permitted by the law; such as the demand of retaliation, revenge against a homicide, and other punishments of the same kind.
* Levit. v. 4.13.
The Paschal Sacrifice. FROM the sin offerings we proceed to the Trespass Offerings. Of these, according to the Jews, there yere two kinds, the doubtful trespass offering, and the certain trespass offering. The victim for a doubtful trespass, they say, was enjoined upon those who conceived a suspicion that they had committed any sin, which, if ascertained, would require to be expiated by the definite sin offering: so that the sins to be expiated by both these kinds of sacrifice were evidently of the same nature, but were not objects of equal consciousness. Thus, if any person was certain that he had through ignorance eaten fat, or blood, or any of the peace offerings that had been kept beyond the time appointed, this offence, they affirm, was to be expiated by the definite sin offering : but if a person was only suspicious of his having committed such a sin, and not certainly conscious of it, in this case, they maintain that the law prescribed the doubtful trespass offering; and that this offence, if it were afterwards clearly ascertained, would require to be expiated again by the definite sin offering : for that the doubtful trespass offering was no otherwise available than to suspend the punishment till the offence should be ascertained beyond all doubt.
II. If you inquire for the law by which the doubtful trespass offering was instituted and enjoined, the Jews produce the following passage, in which they suppose it to be contained: “And if a soul sin, and “commit any of these things which are forbidden to