.* is said in the book Siphra ;* And every one shall lay on his own hand, not the hand of his servant; his own hand, not the hand of his substitute; 'his own hand, not the hand of his wife.' This rule is understood by Maimonidest to admit of an exception in reference to the burnt offerings and peace offerings of a person, deceased; who, after having selected the victims for voluntary sacrifices, had died before his design was carried into execution; for that those victims, being destined for the altar, were to be sacrificed according to the intention of the deceased, and the hands of his heir were required to be laid upon them. If any one happen to die, leaving a sacrifice behind him, whether a burnt offering or peace offering, his heir brings it to the altar, lays his hands upon its head, and also performs the libations; that is, adds the proper quantity of wine, oil, and flour, appointed for such a victim. This writer further observes, that the imposition of hands was to be performed,-on the burnt offerings and sin offerings, at the north side of the altar, which was the place where those victims were to be slain ;§-and on the peace offerings, in any part of the sanctuary: and that every person, while laying his hands on the head of an animal about to be sacrificed, in any place, was to turn his face and eyes towards the west, or towards the temple. This was thought the more becoming, because every person, while laying hands on a victim, used to offer up some solemn prayers, which it was deemed improper to utter, except with the face directed towards the temple. Hence the following Vid. Korban. Aaron. c. 17. In Maase Korban, c, 3. + Ibid vi. 25. vii, 2, language of the same rabbi:* Let every person 'standing out of the land of Israel, say his prayers 'with his face turned towards the land of Israel. 6 6 Let every person standing within the land of Israel, turn his face towards Jerusalem, towards the sanctuary. Let every person standing in the temple, turn his face towards the inner sanctuary.' But the law, respecting imposition of hands on the heads of victims, is considered by the Jews as obligatory on none but male adults, Israelites by birth, and in the full possession of their bodily senses and mental faculties; so that women and boys, strangers and servants, men who were deaf and blind, and ideots, had no concern in this rite :†-a point which it is of no importance for us to discuss. VII. The Jews are all of opinion, that imposition of hands was not required upon any sacrifices offered for the whole congregation, except only on the sin offerings; and as this opinion contradicts no law, so it sufficiently accords with the ancient and received custom. For when burnt offerings and sin offerings for all Israel were sacrificed at the command of Hezekiah, we read that the hands of the elders were laid upon the sin offerings, but not upon the burnt offerings. But though imposition of hands was not practised upon any sacrifices of the whole congregation, except only the sin offerings, yet the Jews are not all agreed that this ceremony was necessary to be performed upon all victims of this kind. For some suppose, that this rite used to be employed on no sacrifice of the whole congregation, except the goat that was led away into the wilderness, and the * In Tephilla Ubircath Cohan. c. 5. + II Chron. xxix. 20-24. + Maimon. in Maase Korban. c. 3. § Maimon, in Maase Korban, c. 3, bullock that was slain for a sin of ignorance.* But the advocates of this opinion are easily confuted; for the hands of the elders were laid upon the goats, which, as I have just mentioned, Hezekiah commanded to be sacrificed as a sin offering for all Israel. Hence other rabbies are of opiniont, that imposition of hands used to be practised on all sin offerings sacrificed for the whole congregation, whose blood was to be carried into the sanctuary. The number of elders employed in this ceremony, some affirm to have been three; others, five; and others, twelve,|| who were the princes of the tribes. On this point it is of no importance to contend, because more or fewer might equally represent the whole nation, and consequently might perform this rite in the place, and on the behalf, of all the people. VIII. Imposition of hands was the customary mode of marking out and designating those persons which were either devoted to death, or commended to the divine favour, or destined to any important office or sacred service: and this rite was always accompanied by some express words adapted to the nature and design of the business in hand. Thus any one who had been guilty of blasphemy was devoted to death, by the hands of the witnesses laid upon his head, and, as Maimonides says, ** with the following: imprecation: Thy blood be upon thine own head; for thou hast perished according to thy ' desert.' The patriarch Jacob, laying his hands upon Ephraim and Manasseh, at the same time com Levit. xvi. 21. iv. 15. + R. Simeon, apud lib. Siph. c. 6. + Maimon. in Maase Korban. c. 3. Sectat. R. Simeon. in Siphra, c. 6. Jonathan Targumist. ad Levit. iv. 15. ** In Avoda Zara, c. 2. § R. Juda in Siphra, c. 6. Levit. xxiv. 14. mended them both to God by his prayers.* And when Moses committed the government to Joshua with the same ceremony,† he doubtless implored for him an increased measure of divine inspiration, to qualify him for the discharge of so arduous an office. And, what is very important in the present inquiry, when the high priest laid his hands even upon an irrational animal, the goat that was to be led away into the wilderness, he at the same time confessed over that victim the sins of all the people, and imprecated upon its head the vengeance due to them.‡ Imposition of hands was never used without some form of supplication, or imprecation, or both and hence solemn prayers are often included under the description of " laying on hands," even where no prayers are expressly mentioned. So this very law, which commanded the hand of the offerer to be laid upon a victim about to be sacrificed, must be considered as including a tacit command to offer up some prayers, by which the victim was to be consecrated. Thus Aaron Ben Chajim says: Where 'there is no confession of sins, there is no imposition ' of hands; because imposition of hands belongs to 'confession of sin.' Maimonides also says: Every person places both his hands between the two horns of the victim, and makes confession of sin over a 'sin offering, and of trespass over a trespass offer'ing; and over a burnt offering he confesses those 'things which have been done against affirmative pre *Gen. xlviii. 14. 16. 20. + Num. xxvii. 18. 23. Deut. xxxiv. 9. Levit. xvi. 21. & Deut. xxxiv. 9. I Tim. v. 22. Heb. vi. 2. Matt. xix. 15. Mark v. 23. vi. 5. Luke iv. 40. xiii. 13. Acts viii. 18, 19. xix. 6. Ad Siphra in Dibur. Hachat. fol. 95. Edit. Venet. In Maase Korban, c. 3. 'cepts, or against negative precepts which are inseparable from affirmative ones.' The owner of every peace offering this rabbi supposes to have pronounced over his victim, not confessions, but praises.* 'Over peace offerings, I apprehend, he 'makes no confession of sin, but commemorates the praises of God.' IX. It is highly probable, indeed, that the prayers which used to be pronounced over each victim, corresponded to the nature and design of that victim. Thus I should suppose that sin offerings and trespass offerings were chiefly accompanied by confessions of guilt, united with deprecations of punishment; voluntary offerings, by prayers for blessings; eucharistic and votive sacrifices, offered after prosperity enjoyed or dangers escaped, by praises and thanksgivings; and every kind of victims by such prayers as were most suitable to each. Yet every sacrifice, to whatever class it belonged, might duly and properly be accompanied by some confession of guilt and supplication for pardon; which would well become the best of men, whatever was the occasion of their sacrifices. The heathens connected various prayers, with their sacrifices, according to the different designs with which they were offered. That victimis 'should be sacrificed without prayer,' says Pliny,t seems improper, and not duly reverential to the gods. 'Besides, there are various forms, of supplication, of deprecation, and of commendation.' Nor do I see any reason to doubt that the same custom was followed by the Jews. All the rabbies maintain the total inefficacy of any sacrifice to obtain the pardon of guilt, unless the person who offered it added his confessions + Hist. Nat. L. xxviii, c. 2. *In Maase Korban. c. 3. |