SACRIFICE
AND
OFFERING
theocratic
community
the
more
valuable
the
victim.
On
the
other
hand,
both
agree
as
compared
with
the
older
sacrifices:
(1)
in
the
disposal
of
the
flesh
of
the
sacrifice
in
so
far
as
it
was
neither
entirely
burned
on
the
altar
as
in
the
whole
offering,
nor
assigned
to
the
offerer
for
a
sacred
meal
as
in
the
peace
offering,
but
was
otherwise
disposed
of
(see
next
§§);
and
(2)
in
the
absence
of
the
cereal
and
wine
offerings
which
were
the
regular
accom-paniments
of
the
other
animal
sacrifices.
14.
The
sin
ofiering
(Lv
4>-Si3
&»-ia.
Ex
29"-",
Nu
15^2-2'
etc.).
—
Leaving
aside
the
question
of
the
relation
of
these
sections
to
each
other
as
to
origin
and
date
—
all-important
as
this
is
for
the
evolution
of
the
sin
offering
—
we
find
from
a
comparison
of
Lv
4.
S'-",
the
most
systematic
as
it
is
probably
the
latest
exposition
of
the
subject,
with
other
sections
of
the
code
where
this
special
sacrifice
is
required,
that
the
latter
was
the
prescribed
medium
of
expiation
for
two
main
classes
of
offences.
These
are
(1)
sins
committed
in
ignorance
or
by
inadvertence
(i^-
"■
22,
Nu
IS"-^')
as
opposed
to
sins
committed
'with
an
high
hand'
(v.'»
RV),
i.e.
in
conscious
and
wilful
defiance
of
the
Divine
law,
for
which
no
sacrifice
could
atone;
(2)
cases
of
defilement
or
uncleanness,
contracted
in
various
ways
and
having
no
connexion
with
'sin'
in
the
modern
sense
of
a
breach
of
the
moral
law,
such
as
the
defilement
of
childbirth
and
of
leprosy,
the
uncleanness
of
the
altar
and
the
like.
At
this
point
it
will
repay
us
to
examine
the
origin
of
the
term
ckattd'th,
omitted
from
§
2,
as
likely
to
afford
a
clue
to
the
true
significance
9f
the
sacrifice.
Derived
from
the
verb
signifying
'
to
sin
'
in
the
sense
of
*
to
miss
(the
mark
or
the
way),'
ckattd'th
denotes
sin,
then
a
sacrifice
for
sin.
It
may
be
questioned,
however,
whether
this
transference
of
meaning
was
as
direct
as
is
usually
implied.
The
inten-sive
stems
of
the
root-
verb
are
repeatedly
used
in
the
'
priv-ative'
sense
best
expressed
by
'to
unsin'
(Germ,
enisund-igen\
by
some
rite
of
purification,
as
Lv
8",
Ezk
43™-^,
of
'unsinning,'
i.e.
purifying
or
purging
the
altar;
Nu
191^,
of
'unsinning'
a
person
defiled
by
contact
with
a
corpse;
8"
'
the
Levites
imsiimed
themselves
(RV
purified
them-selves
from
sin)
and
washed
their
clothes,'
where
the
'sin'
of
RV
refers
only
to
ceremonial
uncleanness.
From
this
use
of
the
verb,
chaiid'th
itself
acguired
the
secondary
sense
of
'
purification,'
e.g.
Nu
8'
(
AV
nghtly
'
water
of
punfying'
—
RV
'expiation')
and
19'-",
where
the
red
neifer
and
her
ashes
are
described
as
a
ckattd'th^
that
is,
as
the
means
of
removing
the
uncleanness
caused
by
the
dead.
It
follows
from
the
above
that
'purification
offering'
better
expresses
to_
the
modem
mind
the
purposes
of
the
ckattd'th
than
does
'sin
offering.'
with
its
misleading
associations.
These
considerations
lead
us
directly
to
the
heart
of
the
sacrificial
doctrine,
if
the
term
may
be
allowed,
of
Ezekiel
and
the
Priests'
Code.
Sacrifice
is
the
Divinely
appointed
means
b_y
which
the
ideal
hohness
of
the
theocratic
com-munity
IS
to
be
maintained.
God's
all-devouring
holiness
requires
that
the
people
shall
keep
themselves
free
not
only
from
moral
imperfection,
but
also
from
every
ceremonial
defilement
that
would
interrupt
the
relations
between
them
and
God.
In
the
sphere
of
morals
only
'unwitting
faults'
are
contemplated,
for
'
these
are
the
only
faults
of
which
the
redeemed
and
restored
people
will
be
guilty'
(A.
B.
Davidson),
and(
in
so
far
as
the
ritual
of
the
sin
offering
provides
for
their
expiation,
these
sins
of
inadvertence
are
conceived
as
defiling
the
sinner
who,
because
of
his
unclean-ness,
becomes
a
source
of
danger
to
the
community.
From
this
point
of
view
the
gradation
in
the
victims
prescribed
first
becomes
intelligible;
for
the
higher
the
theocratic
rank
of
the
sinner,
the
greater,
according
to
the
antique
view
of
the
contagion
both
of
holiness
and
of
uncleanness,
was
his
power
of
contamination.
It
is
to
be
noted,
finally,
that
the
order
is
first
the
removal
of
the
defilement
by
means
of
the
sacrifice,
and
then
the
Divine
forgiveness
of
his
sin
as
amoral
offence
(see
Lv
i'"-
28.
31.
35).
Returning
to
Lv
41-S",
we
find
that,
apart
from
the
gradation
of
the
prescribed
victims
already
referred
to,
the
distinguishing
feature
in
the
ritual
of
the
sin
offer-ing
is
the
more
intense
application
of
the
blood.
In
this
respect
two
grades
of
sin
offering
are
distinguished,
a
higher
and
a
lower.
In
the
higher
grade,
which
comprises
the
offering
of
the
high
priest
and
that
of
the
'whole
congregation,'
the
blood
is
carried
by
the
officiating
SACRIFICE
AND
OFFERING
priest
into
the
Holy
Place
of
the
Tent
of
Meeting
—
in
practice
the
Temple.
There
some
of
it
is
sprinkled
with
the
finger
seven
times
before
the
veil,
and
some
applied
to
the
horns
of
the
altar
of
incense,
while
the
rest
is
poured
out
at
the
base
of
the
altar
of
burnt
offering.
The
victim
in
both
cases
is
a
young
bull,
the
flesh
of
which
is
so
sacrosanct
that
it
has
to
be
burned
without
the
camp.
In
the
lower
grade,
part
of
the
blood
was
smeared
upon
the
horns
of
the
altar
of
burnt
offering,
while
the
rest
was
poured
out,
as
before,
at
its
base.
It
is
inter-esting
to
note,
as
bearing
on
the
evolution
of
the
ritual,
that
in
a
presumably
older
stratum
of
P
(Ex
29"-"),
the
blood
ritual,
even
for
the
high
priest's
offering,
does
not
exceed
that
of
the
lower
grade
of
Lv
4.
The
flesh
of
the
latter,
which
was
also
'most
holy,'
was
eaten
by
the
priests
within
the
sanctuary
(62*-'").
To
meet
the
requirements
of
the
poor
man,
provision
was
made
for
the
admission
of
'
two
turtle-doves
or
two
young
pigeons,'
and
in
cases
of
extreme
poverty
of
'
the
tenth
part
of
an
ephah
of
fine
flour'
(about
7
pints),
offered
without
oil
and
without
incense
(5"-").
If
the
conclusion
reached
above
be
accepted,
that
the
chatta'th
is
essentially
a
sacriflce
of
purification,
it
is
evident
that
the
victim
cannot
be
regarded
here,
any
more
than
in
the
other
sacrifices,
as
the
substitute
for
the
offerer,
presumed
to
have
incurred
the
penalty
of
death
(see,
further,
for
the
doctrine
of
the
pcma
vicaria,
§16).
15.
The
guilt
or
trespass
ofiering
(Lv
5"-6'
71-',
Nu
SS-8).—
The
Heb.
word
^dshdm
signifies
generally
a
wrong
done
to
another
and
the
guilt
thereby
incurred,
and
specially
the
property
of
another
wilfully
withheld
(Nu
5
'•').
In
the
earner
period
it
came
to
denote
also
the
gift
(1
S
63^)
or
money
payment
(2
K
12i8')
by
which,
in
addition
to
restitu-tion,
it
was
sought
to
make
amends
for
the
wrong;
in
the
laterperiod,
finally,
'as^amis
thesacrificewMchaccompanied
the
act
of
restitution.
The
references
in
the
Pentateuch
to
the
guilt
(RV)
or
trespass
(AV,
RVm)
offering
are
not
entirely
con-sistent
in
their
representation
of
its
nature
and
purpose.
The
guilt
offering
of
the
leper,
for
example
(Lv
14im),
can
scarcely
be
distinguished
from
the
sin
offering
(cf.
5"-").
Taking
the
most
explicit
of
the
passages,
however,
Lv
6'-',
we
see
that
the
guilt
offering
deals
with
the
misappropriation
of
the
property
of
another.
In
5"
-18
this
misappropriation
takes
the
form
of
un-wittingly
withholding
part
of
the
sacred
dues,
'
the
holy
things
of
the
Lord.'
In
both
cases
the
offender
has
to
restore
the
property
or
due
withheld,
together
with
a
fine
amounting
to
one-flfth
of
its
value
as
compensation
for
the
loss
sustained,
and
to
offer
a
sacriflce
as
expiation
of
his
breach
of
faith
(S's,
EV
'trespass').
Provision
is
also
made
for
a
public
confession
(Nu
5').
The
victim
in
these
typical
cases
is
invariably
a
ram,
and
the
ritual
is
that
of
the
ordinary
sacrifices,
except
that
the
flesh
can
be
eaten,
like
that
of
the
lower
grade
of
sin
offer-ings,
only
by
the
priests
'in
a
holy
place.'
For
the
various
occasions
on
which
one
or
more
of
the
five
varieties
of
sacriflce
above
enumerated
had
to
be
offered,
see,
among
others,
the
following
articles:
—
Atonement
[Day
of],
Clean
and
Unclean,
Covenant,
Feasts,
Nazirite,
Tithe,
Vow,
etc.
16.
The
significance
of
sacbifice
in
OT.
—
The
origin
and
significance
of
sacrifice
is
a
problem
on
which
students
of
religion
are
still
greatly
divided.
So
far
as
the
OT
student
is
concerned,
the
question
of
origins
does
not
necessarily
arise,
for
the
institution
of
sacrifice
had
already
a
long
life
behind
it
when
the
Hebrew
tribes
first
entered
upon
the
stage
of
history.
One
fact,
at
least,
seems
to
be
well
established.
The
ancestors
of
the
Hebrews,
like
the
Arabs
of
the
present
day,
had
no
'offermgs
made
by
Are,'
but
were
content
to
pour
the
blood
over
the
sacred
stone
without
burning
any
part
of
the
flesh.
(For
the
view
that
the
Hebrews
of
the
historic
period
still
retained
a
recollection
of
this
