Modern Hebron is a city of some 20,000 inhabitants, 85 percent of whom are Moslems and the remainder mostly Jews. The city is divided into seven quarters, one of which is known as that of the “glass blowers” and another as that of the “water-skin makers.” These industries, with the manufacture of pottery, are the main sources of trade. The most conspicuous building is the Haram (see MACHPELAH). In the town are two large open reservoirs the Birket el Qassasin, the “pool of the glass blowers” and Birket es Sultan,
“the pool of the Sultan.” This latter, which is the larger, is by tradition the site of the execution of the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 4:12). The Moslem inhabitants are noted for their fanatical exclusiveness and
conservatism, but this has been greatly modified in recent years through the patient and beneficent work of Dr. Paterson, of the U. F. Ch. of S. Med.
Mission. The Jews, who number about 1,500, are mostly confined to a special ghetto; they have four synagogues, two Sephardic and two Ashkenazic; they are a poor and unprogressive community.
For Hebron (Josh 19:28) see EBRON.
E. W. G. Masterman HEBRON (2)
([ˆwOrb]j,, chebhron], “league,” “association”):
(1) The third son of Kohath, son of Levi (Ex 6:18; Nu 3:19,27; 1 Ch 6:2,18; 23:12,19).
(2) A son of Mareshah and descendant of Caleb (1 Ch 2:42,43).
See also KORAH.
HEBRONITES
<he’-brun-its> ([yniwOrb]j,, chebhroni]): A family of Levites, descendants of Hebron, third son of Kohath (Nu 3:27; 26:58, etc.).
HEDGE
<hej>:
(1) [hk;Wsm], mecukhah], “a thorn hedge,” only in Mic 7:4.; [hK;cum], mesukkah], “a hedge” (Isa 5:5); [qd,j; tk”cum], mesukhath chadheq], “a hedge of thorns” (Prov 15:19).
(2) [rdeg;, gadher], and [hr;deG], geherah], translated “hedges” in the Revised Version (British and American) only in Ps 89:40, elsewhere
“fence.” GEDERAH (which see) in the Revised Version margin is translated “hedges” (1 Ch 4:23).
(3) [6Wx[}n”, na`atsuts], “thorn-hedges” (Isa 7:19).
(4) [fragmo>v, phragmos], translated “hedge” (Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1; Lk 14:23); “partition” in Eph 2:14, which is its literal meaning. In the Septuagint it is the usual equivalent of the above Hebrew words.
Loose stone walls without mortar are the usual “fences” around fields in Palestine, and this is what gadher and gedherah signify in most passages.
Hedges made of cut thorn branches or thorny bushes are very common in the plains and particularly in the Jordan valley.
E. W. G. Masterman HEDGEHOG
<hej’-hog> Septuagint [ejci~nov, echinos], “hedgehog,” for [dPqi, qippodh], in Isa 14:23; 34:11; Zeph 2:14, and for [zwOPqi, qippoz], in Isa 34:15).
See PORCUPINE; BITTERN; OWL; SERPENT.
HEED
<hed>: This word, in the sense of giving careful attention (“take heed,”
“give heed,” etc.), represents several Hebrew and Greek words; chief among them [rm”v;, shamar], “to watch”; [ble>pw, blepo], “to look,”
[oJra>w, horao], “to see.” As opposed to thoughtlessness, disregard of God’s words, of the counsels of wisdom, of care for one’s ways, it is constantly inculcated as a duty of supreme importance in the moral and spiritual life (Dt 4:9,15,23; 27:9 the King James Version, etc.; Josh 22:5;
23:11; Ps 39:1; Mt 16:6; Mk 4:24; 13:33; Lk 12:15; 1 Cor 3:10; 8:9;
10:12; Col 4:17, etc.).
James Orr HEEL
<hel> ([bqe[;, `aqebh]): “The iniquity of my heels” (Ps 49:5 the King James Version) is a literal translation, and might be understood to indicate the Psalmist’s “false steps,” errors or sins, but that meaning is very
doubtful here. the Revised Version (British and American) gives “iniquity at my heels.” the Revised Version margin gives a still better sense, “When the iniquity of them that would supplant me compasseth me about, even of them that trust in .... riches” — treacherous enemies ever on the watch to trip up a man’s heels (compare Hos 12:3). Of Judah it was said, “Thy heels (shall) suffer violence” (Jer 13:22) through being “made bare” (the King James Version), and thus subject to the roughness of the road as she was led captive.
Figurative:
(1) Of the partial victory of the evil power over humanity, “Thou shalt bruise (m “lie in wait for”) his heel” (Gen 3:15), through constant, insidious suggestion of the satisfaction of the lower desires. Or if we regard this statement as a part of the Protevangelium, the earliest proclamation of Christ’s final, and complete victory over sin, the destruction of “the serpent” (“He shall bruise thy head”), then the reference is evidently to Christ’s sufferings and death, even to all that He endured in His human nature.
(2) Of the stealthy tactics of the tribe of Dan in war, “An adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels” (Gen 49:17), by which it triumphed over foes of superior strength.
(3) Of violence and brutality, “Who .... hath lifted up his heel against me” (Ps 41:9; Jn 13:18), i.e. lifted up his foot to trample upon me (compare Josh 10:24).
M. O. Evans HEGAI; HEGE
<he’-ga-i>, <he’-ge> ([yg”he, heghay]; [Gai`>Gai] (Est 2:8,15), and [agehe, heghe’], Hege (Est 2:3)): One of the officers of the Persian king Ahasuerus; a chamberlain or eunuch (keeper of women), into whose
custody the “fair young virgins” were delivered from whom the king intended to choose his queen in the place of the discredited Vashti.
HEGEMONIDES
<heg-e-mon’-i-dez>, <hej-e-mo-ni’-dez> ([ JHgemoni>dhv,
Hegemonides]): The Syrian officer placed in command of the district extending from Ptolemais to the Gerrenians (2 Macc 13:24). It is not easy to see how in the King James Version and even in Swete’s revised text the word can be taken as a mere appellative along with strategon, the two being rendered “principal officer”: one of the two could certainly be omitted (Swete, 3rd ed., 1905, capitalizes Hegemonides). In the Revised Version (British and American) the word is taken as the name of some person otherwise unknown.
HEIFER
<hef’-er> ([hr;P;, parah], in Nu 19 (see following article) and Hos 4:16;
[hl;g][,, `eghlah], elsewhere in the Old Testament; [da>maliv, damalis], in Heb 9:13):For the “heifer of three years old” in the King James Version, the Revised Version margin of Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34, see EGLATH-
SHELISHIYAH. A young cow (contrast BULLOCK). The [`eghlah] figures specifically in religious rites only in the ceremony of Dt 21:1-9 for the cleansing of the land, where an unexpiated murder had been committed.
This was not a sacrificial rite — the priests are witnesses only, and the animal was slain by breaking the neck — but sacrificial purity was required for the heifer. Indeed, it is commonly supposed that the rite as it now stands is a rededication of one that formerly had been sacrificial. In the sacrifices proper the heifer could be used for a peace offering (Lev 3:1), but was forbidden for the burnt (Lev 1:3) or sin (Lev 4:3,14) offerings.
Hence, the sacrifice of 1 Sam 16:2 was a peace offering. In Gen 15:9 the ceremony of the ratification of the covenant by God makes use of a heifer and a she-goat, but the reason for the use of the females is altogether obscure. Compare following article.
Figuratively: The heifer appears as representing sleekness combined with helplessness in Jer 46:20 (compare the comparison of the soldiers to
`stalled calves’ in the next verse). In Jer 50:11; Hos 10:11, the heifer is pictured as engaged in threshing. This was particularly light work, coupled with unusually abundant food (Dt 25:4), so that the threshing heifer served
especially well for a picture of contentment. (“Wanton” in Jer 50:11, however, is an unfortunate translation in the Revised Version (British and American).) Hosea, in contrast, predicts that the “heifers” shall be set to the hard work of plowing and breaking the sods. In Jdg 14:18, Samson uses “heifer” in his riddle to refer to his wife. This, however, was not meant to convey the impression of licentiousness that it gives the modern reader.
Burton Scott Easton HEIFER, RED
In Nu 19 a rite is described in which the ashes of a “red heifer” and of certain objects are mixed with running water to obtain the so-called “water for impurity.” (Such is the correct translation of the American Standard Revised Version in Nu 19:9,13,10,21; 31:23. In these passages, the King James Version and the English Revised Version, through a
misunderstanding of a rather difficult Hebrew term, have “water of separation”; Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) have, “water of sprinkling.” the English Revised Version margin,
“water of impurity,” is right, but ambiguous.) This water was employed in the removal of the uncleanness of a person or thing that had been in contact with a dead body, and also in removing ritual defilement from booty taken in war.
1. ORIGIN AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RITE:
The general origin of the rite is clear enough, as is the fact that this origin lies back of the official sacrificial system of Israel. For the removal of impurity, ritual as well as physical, water, preferably running water (Nu 19:17; compare Lev 14:5 ff; 15:13), is the natural means, and is employed universally. But where the impurity was unusually great, mere water was not felt to be adequate, and various substances were mixed with it in order to increase its efficacy. So (among other things) blood is used in Lev 14:6,7, and dust in Nu 5:17 (see WATER OF BITTERNESS). The use, however, of ashes in Nu 19:17 is unique in the Old Testament, although parallels from elsewhere can be adduced. So e.g. in Ovid Fasti, iv.639-40, 725, 733, in the last of these references, “The blood of a horse shall be a purification, and the ashes of calves,” is remarkably close to the Old Testament. The ashes were obtained by burning the heifer completely, “her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung” (the contents of the
entrails) (Nu 19:5; compare Ex 29:14). Here only in the Old Testament is blood burned for a ceremonial purpose, and here only is burning a
pewliminary; elsewhere it is either a chief act or serves to consume the remnants of a finished sacrifice — Lev 4:12 and Nu 19:3 are altogether different.
The heifer is a female. For the regular sin offering for the congregation, only the male was permitted (Lev 4:14), but the female was used in the purificatory ceremony of Dt 21:3 (a rite that has several points of similarity to that of Nu 19). An individual sin offering by one of the common people, however, required a female (Lev 4:28), but probably only in order to give greater prominence to the more solemn sacrifices for which the male was reserved. A female is required again in the cases enumerated in Lev 5:1-6, most of which are ritual defilements needing purification; a female was required at the purification of a leper (in addition to two males, Lev 14:10), and a female, with one male, was offered when a Nazirite terminated his vows (Nu 6:14). Some connection between purification and the sacrifice of a female may be established by this list, for even in the case of the Nazirite the idea may be removal of the state of consecration. But the reason for such a connection is anything but obvious, and the various explanations that have been offered are hardly more than guesses. The most likely is that purificatory rites originated in a very primitive stage when the female was thought to be the more sacred animal on account of its greater usefulness.
Of the other requirements for the heifer she must be “red,” i.e. reddish brown (Nu 19:2). Likeness in color to blood is at first sight the most natural explanation, but likeness in color to ripe grain is almost equally plausible. It may be noted that certain Egyptian sacrifices also required red cattle as victims (Plutarch, De Isid. 31). The heifer is to be “without spot”
(“faultless”), “wherein is no blemish,” the ordinary requirement for sacrifices. (The Jewish exegetes misread this “perfectly red, wherein is no blemish,” with extraordinary results; see below.) But an advance on sacrificial requirements is that she shall be one “upon which never came yoke.” This requirement is found elsewhere only in Dt 21:3 and in 1 Sam 6:7 (that the animals in this last case were finally sacrificed is, however, not in point). But in other religions this requirement was very common
(compare Iliad x.293; Vergil, Georg. iv.550-51; Ovid, Fasti iv.336).
2. USE OF CEDAR AND HYSSOP:
While the heifer was being burned, “cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet”
(i.e. scarlet wool or thread) were cast into the flames. The same combination of objects (although differently employed) is found at the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:4), but their meaning is entirely unknown. The explanations offered are almost countless. It is quite clear that hyssop was especially prized in purifications (Ps 51:7), but the use of hyssop as a sprinkler and the use of ashes of hyssop may be quite unrelated. Hyssop and cedar were supposed to have medicinal properties (see CEDAR;
HYSSOP). Or the point may be the use of aromatic woods. For a mixture of cedar and other substances in water as a purificatory medium compare Fossey, Magie Assyrienne, 285. The scarlet wool offers still greater difficulties, apart from the color, but it may be noted that scarlet wool plays a part in some of the Babylonian conjurations (Assyrian Bibl., XII, 31). But, obviously, none of this leads very far and it may all be in the wrong direction. All that can be said definitely is that Lev 14:4 and Nu 19:6 show that the combination of objects was deemed to have a high purificatory value.
3. APPLICATION AND SACREDNESS OF THE ASHES:
The ashes, when obtained, were used in removing the greatest of impurities. Consequently, they themselves were deemed to have an extraordinarily “consecrated” character, and they were not to be handled carelessly. Their consecration extended to the rite by which they were produced, so that every person engaged in it was rendered unclean (Nu 19:7,8,10), an excellent example of how in primitive religious thought the ideas of “holiness” and “uncleanness” blend. It was necessary to perform the whole ceremony “without the camp” (Nu 19:3), and the ashes, when prepared, were also kept without the camp (Nu 19:9), probably in order to guard against their touch defiling anyone (as well as to keep them from being defiled). When used they were mixed with running water, and the mixture was sprinkled with hyssop on the person or object to be cleansed (Nu 19:17-19). The same water was used to purify booty (Nu 31:23), and it may also be meant by the “water of expiation” in Nu 8:7.
4. OF NON-PRIESTLY AND NON-ISRAELITISH ORIGIN:
In addition to the similarities already pointed out between Nu 19 and Dt 21:1-9, the rites resemble each other also in the fact that, in both, laymen are the chief functionaries and that the priests have little to do (in Dt 21:1- 9 they are mere passive witnesses). This suggests a non-priestly origin. The title “sin-offering” in Nu 19:9,17 (unless used in a unique sense) points to an original sacrificial meaning, although in Nu 19 the heifer is carefully kept away from the altar. Again, the correspondences with rites in other religions indicate a non-Israelitish origin. Such a ceremony may well have passed among the Israelites and have become prized by them. It contained nothing objectionable and seemed to have much of deep worth, and a few slight additions — chiefly the sprinkling (Nu 19:4; compare Lev 4:6,17) — made it fit for adoption into the highest system. Some older features may have been eliminated also, but as to this, of course, there is no information.
But, in any case, the ceremony is formed of separate rites that are
exceedingly old and that are found in a great diversity of religions so that any elaborate symbolic interpretation of the details would seem to be without justification. The same result can be reached by comparing the countless symbolic interpretations that have been attempted in the past, for they differ hopelessly. As a matter of fact, the immense advance that has been gained in the understanding of the meaning of the Old Testament rites through the comparative study of religions has shown the futility of much that has been written on symbolism. That a Certain rite is widely practiced may merely mean that it rests on a true instinct. To be sure, the symbolism of the future will be written on broader lines and will be less pretentious in its claims, but for these very reasons it will rest on a more solid basis. At present, however, the chief task is the collection of material and its correct historical interpretation.
5. OBSCURITY OF LATER HISTORY:
The later history of the rite is altogether obscure. As no provision was made in Nu 19 for sending the ashes to different points, the purification could have been practiced only by those living near the sanctuary.
Rabbinical casuistry still further complicated. matters by providing that two black or white hairs from the same follicle would disqualify the heifer (see above), and that one on whom even a cloth had been laid could not be used. In consequence, it became virtually or altogether impossible to secure a proper animal, and the Mishnic statement that only nine had ever