members of a victim in any other place;-who made the sacred oil or incense for profane uses;-and who anointed themselves with that oil.* Such then were the sins which when committed in ignorance, almost all the Jews conclude, might be legitimately expiated by what they call the definite sin offering. The only rabbi who dissents from the general opinion on this subject, is Aben Ezra; who maintains that this kind of sacrifices was also prescribed for those sins which when committed with knowledge were to be punished with scourging. But the sins which when committed with knowledge were to be punished with stripes, are generally said by them to be two hundred and seven in number; so that the opinion of Aben Ezra is much nearer to ours than that of the rest of the Jews. But our opinion having been just stated, it is unnecessary to repeat it here. IV. The definite sin offering required from the high priest was a young bullock; from a ruler, a male kid; from any private individual, a female kid or lamb§ but for defiled Nazarites, and for persons of any rank or either sex, who were to be purified from defilement caused by hæmorrhages or other specified impurities, the appointed sin offering was a turtle dove or young pigeon; || which was also to be accompanied with another bird of the same species, that was to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Some have supposed that the requisition of sacrifices for the purification of all the grosser corporeal impurities, was designed to inculcate the far superior necessity * Levit. xx. 6. 4, 5. Exod. xxxi. 14. Levit. xxiii. 29, 30. Exod xii. 15. Levit. xix. 8. vii. 25. 27. 18. xvii. 4. Exod. xxx. 33. 38. + Ad Levit. iv. § Levit. iv. 4. 23. 28.32.. Maimon, in Sanhedrin, c. 19. Num. vi. 10, 11. Levit. xv. 15. 30. of guarding against all impurity of mind; and that symbolical significations and recondite senses of this kind were included in most of the precepts of the law of Moses. Let it also be observed, that those defilements which required to be purified by sacrifices were communicated by contagion, like an infectious disease; so that persons polluted by them were considered as having polluted and injured others, and therefore as needing sacrificial atonement.* But thus perhaps it was also signified, that the mortal and impure bodies of men are not to be consecrated for immortality, except by a sacrifice, that is, the sacrifice of the Messiah, of which all these were figures. Reverence for the sanctuary, however, demanded that no person who had been defiled by any gross corporeal impurity, should be permitted to re-enter it without being purified by an expiatory sacrifice: and whatever belonged to reverence for the sanctuary, was equally connected with reverence for the divine Being who resided in it. V. From the definite we proceed to the ascending and descending sin offering. And by these sacrifices, which were either more or less according to the ability of the offerer, were to be purged certain kinds both of sins and of impurities. The sacrifices of this sort were six. Two that were appointed for the purification of corporeal defilement, were so restricted by the law, that a person unable to procure a lamb or kid Sciendum, inquit Grotius, in Syriæ locis et vicinis non minus. T yoyoggia quam тa una habere aliquid contagione nocens, unde ista legibus, quæ a lepræ legibus non longe abeunt, constringuntur.' Ad Levit. xv. 2. Accedit etiam, quod lepra, ac sanguinis, seminisque fluxio ex vita minus sancte acta ortum sæpenumero haberet. Quo minus mirum si sacra lege cautum esset, ut morbis illis inquinati piaculari hostia purgarentur. was to offer a turtle dove and a young pigeon, one as a sin offering, and the other as a burnt offering. In the other four the provision was still further relaxed; a person who needed a sin offering, if in extreme poverty, being permitted to substitute an oblation of fine flour; which is commonly called the meat offering of the sinner, and which has been sufficiently noticed in a former chapter. VI. The first sacrifice of this kind was appointed to be offered after the removal of leprosy. For this law, as I have hinted in the last note, various reasons may be offered. The most important in the opinion of the Jews, is, that no one, as they apprehend, was ever afflicted with leprosy, except on account of some sin that required sacrificial atonement. Thus Abarbinel:* This sacrifice of the leper was ' offered on that account, because it is a foundation ' of the law, and a principal article of faith, that all things which happen to men happen under the di"rection of divine providence, according to the respective actions and deserts of each individual: so 'that every leper ought to consider himself polluted with leprosy on account of his sins and trespasses.' And the leprosy was thought by Maimonidest to have been the punishment of evil speaking; and by Grotius, of pride: which he supposes to have occasioned cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop to be used in the purification of a leper. The leprosy,' he says, 'is the punishment of pride, as is evident in the case of Miriam, Moses's sister, of Gehazi, and of "Uzziah. The pride is emblematically signified by the cedar; the sin by the scarlet; and the hyssop 'denotes the opposite virtue of humility. For hyssop * Ad Levit. xiv. + Moreh Nevoch. P. iii. c. 4. Ad Levit. xiv. 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 Abarbinel† 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. 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.§ 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. +Ad Levit. xii. § Levit. xi. 28. 40. Num. xix. 19, 20. L 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.† 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 Num. vi. 6. + Levit. v. 5. II Chron. xviii. 15. In Shebuoth, c. 1. |