THE JPS TORAH COMMENTARY
\nLEVITICUS \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the last century, a new way of looking at the Bible developed. Research into the ancient Near East and its texts recreated for us the civilizations out of which the Bible emerged. In this century, there has been a revival of Jewish biblical scholarship; Israeli and American scholars, in particular, concentrating in the fields of archaeology, biblical history, Semitic languages, and the religion of Israel, have opened exciting new vistas into the world of the Scriptures. For the first time in history, we have at our disposal information and methodological tools that enable us to explore the biblical text in a way that could never have been done before. This new world of knowledge, as seen through the eyes of contemporary Jewish scholars and utilizing at the same time the insights of over twenty centuries of traditional Jewish exegesis, is now available for the first time to a general audience in The JPS Torah Commentary.
\nThe Commentary is published in five volumes, each by a single author who has devoted himself to the study of the text. Given the wide range of perspectives that now exist in biblical scholarship, the JPS has recognized the individual expertise of these authors and made no attempt to impose uniformity on the methodology or content of their work.
\nThe Hebrew text is that of the Leningrad Codex B 19A, the oldest dated manuscript of the complete Hebrew Bible. Copied from a text written by the distinguished Masoretic scholar Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, who lived in the first half of the 10th century c.e., the manuscript was completed in 1009 c.e. In this edition it has been arranged according to the weekly synagogue Torah readings. The format has been adjusted to correspond to that adopted by the Tanakh, the new translation of the Hebrew Bible, published by the Jewish Publication Society and utilized in the present Commentary.
\nThe Jewish Publication Society has completed this project with a full awareness of the great tradition of Jewish Bible commentary, with a profound sense of the sanctity of the biblical text and an understanding of the awe and love that our people has accorded its Bible. The voice of our new Commentary resounds with the spirit and concerns of our times\u2014just as the Jewish spirit has always found its most sincere and heartfelt expression in its appreciation of the Bible; yet it acknowledges the intrinsic value of the tools of modern scholarship in helping to establish the original sense and setting of Scripture.
\nWith all this fixed firmly in mind, the Jewish Publication Society commits its good name and its decades of pioneering in the world of English-language Jewish publishing to this Torah Commentary with the hope that it will serve as the contemporary addition to the classic commentaries created by Jews during past epochs in Jewish history.
\nNahum M. Sarna, general editor
\nChaim Potok, literary editor<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION
\nThe Hebrew Bible expresses the central concerns of the minds and hearts of an ancient people. One such concern underlies the question posed by the prophet Micah (6:6\u20138):
\nWith what shall I approach the Lord,
\nDo homage to God on high?
\nShall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
\nWith calves a year old?\u2026
\nHe has told you, O man, what is good,
\nAnd what the Lord requires of you:
\nOnly to do justice
\nAnd to love goodness,
\nAnd to walk modestly with your God.
\nLike other Israelite prophets, Micah questioned the accepted norms of religious behavior, which required that God be worshiped through sacrifice. How shall the human being honor his Creator? What does God require of His creatures? The prophet\u2019s response regards burnt offerings as a poor substitute for justice and goodness.
\nWe should regard Leviticus 19:2 as a priestly response to the same question posed by Micah: What does the Lord require of Israel?
\nYou shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy!
\nThe priestly traditions emphasized the proper worship of God, undertaken in the pursuit of holiness, which, in turn, could only be realized in the context of an Israelite society governed by religious law. Justice and compassion, too, were a dimension of holiness, and at points, the priestly and the prophetic responses converged. But the priests were concerned with the celebration of holiness, the preservation of purity, and the formation of a religious community that acknowledged the true God.
\nLeviticus takes its cue from the covenantal charge delivered in Exodus 19:5\u20136: \u201cIndeed, all the earth is Mine, but you shall be My kingdom of priests and holy nation.\u201d How Israel was to realize the divine program is the burden of the Book of Leviticus.
\nThis program is clearly alluded to by the rabbinic name for this book, torat kohanim, \u201cinstructions for the priests,\u201d that is, the rules and procedures by which the priests themselves were to perform their tasks. Certain sections of Leviticus are entitled torah\u2014chapters 6\u20137, for instance. These texts are in essence manuals of practice that were used in the training of priests. The same function is evident elsewhere, even where the term torah does not appear.
\nBut torat kohanim can also be translated as \u201cinstructions of (or by) the priests,\u201d that is, the rulings and teachings of the priests that are addressed to the Israelite people. As Jeremiah put it (18:18): \u201cFor instruction (torah) shall not fail from the priests, nor counsel from the wise, nor oracle from the prophet.\u201d In Haggai 2:10\u201313, we find an actual inquiry on a question of ritual addressed to the priests of Jerusalem during the late sixth century b.c.e., after the Babylonian exile had ended. The ruling the priests issued in that instance was their torah, their instructions to the people. The same meaning is present in Malachi 2:6\u20137. There, Levi, the forefather of the priests, is praised:
\nProper rulings (torat \u02beemet) were in his mouth,
\nAnd nothing perverse was on his lips;
\nHe served Me with complete loyalty
\nAnd held the many back from iniquity.
\nFor the lips of a priest guard knowledge,
\nAnd men seek rulings (torah) from his mouth;
\nFor he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts.
\nLeviticus addresses the multiple functions of the priesthood: officiation in the sacrificial cult, purification, and administration of sanctuary and consecrated personnel. But its educational role pervades the book: The biblical priests taught the people what God required of them. The two dimensions of the rabbinic name torat kohanim not only account for the varied subject matter contained in Leviticus, but they also hold the key to the book\u2019s organization and structure.
\nThe more commonly known name, Va-yikra\u02be was intended merely as an aid to memory; it classified the book by referring to the first significant word in its opening verse. (Compare Shemot for Exodus, Devarim for Deuteronomy, and so on.) On the other hand, the Latin name Leviticus, which goes back to the Greek word Levitikon\u2014which, in turn, reflects Hebrew levi, \u201ca Levite\u201d\u2014was, indeed, intended to characterize the contents of the book.
\nTo Greek-speaking Jews of antiquity, such as those in Alexandria who produced the ancient Greek translation of the Bible known as the Septuagint, the name Levitikon probably meant \u201cpriestly\u201d in a general sense and did not refer specifically to the Levites as a group. Leviticus assigns no particular role to the Levites, in contrast to the Book of Numbers, where their role is paramount.
\nIn some way, the name Leviticus was probably conditioned by the terminology in Deuteronomy, which classifies all priests as Levites, using such designations as ha-kohanim ha-leviyim, \u201cthe Levitical priests\u201d (Deut. 17:9, 18; 18:1). It is significant that the prophet Malachi referred to the priests of Jerusalem as \u201cLevi.\u201d He speaks of \u201cthe covenant of Levi,\u201d upheld by the priests in earlier times but abrogated in the prophet\u2019s own day. The equation \u201cLevi\u201d = \u201cthe priesthood\u201d suggests the very identification expressed by the Greek name, Levitikon. Most likely, Greek Levitikon expresses the same concept as Hebrew torat kohanim.
\nThe Leviticus Text
\nContent Leviticus begins (chaps. 1\u20133) with regulations governing the preparation and presentation of the three principal types of sacrifices used in the cult of biblical times: the burnt offering, the grain offering, and the sacred gift of greeting. These \u201cmodes\u201d of sacrificing were utilized separately and in combination in a wide variety of celebrations and occasions for worship, both public and private.
\nThe burnt offering (\u02bfolah) was prepared as a holocaust and, except for the hide, was entirely destroyed on the altar fire. The \u02bfolah consisted of animals and fowl that were slaughtered and sectioned and then placed on the altar of burnt offerings. Blood drawn from the \u02bfolah was dashed and sprinkled on the altar. The object of this sacrifice, as detailed in chapter 1, and of other offerings burnt on the altar, was to send the aromatic smoke of the offering heavenward, where God would, it was popularly believed, breathe in the pleasing aroma of His people\u2019s gift.
\nThe grain offering (min\u1e25ah), discussed in chapter 2, was usually made of semolina flour, olive oil, and aromatic spices, such as frankincense. Originally this type of offering was not meant to be burnt on the altar but was meant to be presented, or shown, to God. In time, however, its mode was adapted to conform to the growing emphasis on burnt altar sacrifices, a trend clearly observable in biblical worship. The priest placed a fistful of dough on the altar as a token, while the rest was baked or fried. Most min\u1e25ah offerings were made of unleavened dough.
\nThese two types of sacrifices are classified as \u201cmost sacred,\u201d meaning, in practical terms, that only priests could partake of them\u2014and then only in sacred areas of the Sanctuary. The third type, the sacred gift of greeting (shelamim), was a zeva\u1e25, a sacred meal. Certain parts of the sacrifice were burnt on the altar, but most of it was boiled in pots and then apportioned among priests and donors, as detailed in chapter 3. Sacrifices of the zeva\u1e25 type were classified as \u201cless sacred,\u201d and parts of them could be eaten outside the Sanctuary.
\nLeviticus then proceeds in chapters 4\u20135 to address the need for expiation: the need for God\u2019s forgiveness. Two principal sacrifices served this need, the sin offering (\u1e25atta\u02bet) and the guilt offering (\u02beasham). Both were necessitated by unintentional offenses against God committed by individuals and their families and by the Israelite community and its leadership. Each had its specific varieties, which were classified as \u201cmost sacred.\u201d Usually, parts of these sacrifices were allocated to the priests.
\nChapters 6\u20137 contain regulations for the distribution of the various sacrifices to priests and to donors, where applicable. A good part of the revenue needed to support the priesthood accrued in the form of sacrifices.
\nA legitimate priesthood, well trained and properly consecrated, was essential to the conduct of worship. Chapters 8\u201310 of Leviticus record a series of events in the time of Moses, through which the formal sacrificial worship of the God of Israel on the part of His people, Israel, was initiated. In chapter 8, the priesthood of Aaron and of his sons was officially installed with rites of consecration at the same time that Moses sanctified the Tabernacle and its altar. Thereupon, in chapter 9, the newly invested priests officiated for the first time.
\nThe priestly tradition rarely allowed for celebration without voicing strong admonitions on the conduct of religious worship. Chapter 10, for example, reports on the tragic death of the two of Aaron\u2019s sons who officiated improperly; it is followed by a series of instructions to the priests on their functions.
\nTaken as a whole, chapters 1\u201310 focus on officiation as a basic function of the priesthood. Chapters 11\u201316, on the other hand, address the matter of purity, which is a prerequisite of the pursuit of holiness. This section of Leviticus begins, therefore, with the regimen required for a pure diet; it outlines those sources of food, derived from living creatures, that are forbidden and those that are allowed. (That which grows out of the land is permitted.)
\nIn addition to enumerating the relevant species of living creatures, chapter 11 deals with the contamination of foodstuffs caused by contact with impure vessels, and with impure persons.
\nChapters 12\u201315 delineate the tasks of the priests in purifying persons whose physical conditions were considered impure. Left unattended, such conditions were dangerous: They threatened the purity of the Sanctuary because it was located within the Israelite settlement. The category of tum\u02beah, \u201cimpurity,\u201d included actual diseases and infections, on the one hand, and the less perceptible phenomenon of impurity, on the other. By subsuming both under the common category of tum\u02beah, it was possible to draw attention to problems of public health, as well as to promote the religious devotion of the community. These priestly concerns were prevalent in many ancient Near Eastern societies.
\nChapter 12 deals with the mother and her newborn child and prescribes quarantine, purifications, and sacrifices for the period following childbirth. Chapters 13\u201314 deal with the treatment and purification of persons suffering from certain skin ailments that were, undoubtedly, regarded as contagious. Similar symptoms occurring in leather, cloth, and plastered building stones also required purification. Finally, the Israelite priesthood was expected to concern itself with persons who suffered from infectious discharges associated with the genital organs. For males, the regulations involved both normal seminal emissions and abnormal discharges from the penis. For females, they involved normal menstruation and abnormal vaginal discharges. It was thought that phenomena associated with the organs of procreation were potentially dangerous if not cared for and purified according to the procedures of chapter 15.
\nChapter 16 is perhaps the best-known of all the sections of Leviticus, because it is traditionally read in the synagogue on Yom Kippur. It includes the well-known account of the dispatch of the scapegoat, a practice of great interest to students of religious phenomenology, with analogues in other ancient and recent cultures. The chapter also addresses the need to maintain the purity of the Sanctuary on a regular basis. The sacred space of the Sanctuary and its various artifacts and vessels were indispensable for proper purification, just as were the priests themselves. The High Priest and his family were first purified of guilt for any infractions of religious law on their own part that may have led to the defilement of the Sanctuary. In turn, the priesthood sought expiation for the entire House of Israel, thereby redressing any offenses by the people that may have led to the defilement of the Sanctuary.
\nTogether with the scapegoat, which carried away the sins of the people to a land of no return, blood rites and expiatory sacrifices effectuated the purification of the Sanctuary. This elaborate complex of religious rites was scheduled as an annual event, on Yom Kippur, the tenth day of the seventh month, just prior to the most widely celebrated pilgrimage of the year on the Sukkot festival.
\nThis concludes the first division of Leviticus. Chapters 17\u201326 consist largely of the Holiness Code, to which chapter 27 was subsequently appended. The Holiness Code constitutes a major statement of law: It is, in effect, a priestly pronouncement of God\u2019s will, defining what the God of Israel requires of His people.
\nAs is true of the other principal collections of laws in the Torah, the Holiness Code opens with a Prologue (chap. 17) and ends with an Epilogue (26:3\u201346). The Prologue ordains proper worship. All sacrifices are to be presented at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and are to be offered on the one legitimate altar by a properly consecrated priest. The erstwhile custom of offering sacrifices at multiple shrines and altars is outlawed. No blood is to be consumed. Blood drawn from sacrificial animals and fowl is reserved for ritual utilization on the altar.
\nIn fairly traditional fashion, the Epilogue admonishes the Israelite people to obey God\u2019s laws and commandments by predicting the consequences of disobedience. Israel will be exiled from its land and will endure horrible suffering. In a more original vein, the Epilogue goes beyond destruction and exile to hold forth the hope of restoration and national survival if only Israel repents of its disobedience, confesses its sins, and applies the lessons of its tragic experience.
\nBetween Prologue and Epilogue, the Holiness Code preserves important legal texts. Chapters 18 and 20, in their different formulations, define the immediate Israelite family by setting the limits of incest and by forbidding certain sexual unions. In an endogamous society, one in which marriage within the group as defined is normal, if not at all times mandatory, it becomes necessary to regulate the degree of closeness in order to avoid incest and excessive inbreeding. As the family is the foundation of society, all systems of law show concern for its definition.
\nChapter 19 is a collection of laws modeled after the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments). It demonstrates the interrelatedness of proper social behavior and a meaningful religious life, two dimensions of life that were never meant to be regarded as separate. Thus, chapter 19 commands the observance of the Sabbath and also respect for parents. It prohibits certain pagan funerary practices involving necromancy and also commands respect for elders. It requires the disposition of sacrificial flesh within a prescribed time, while prohibiting fraudulent economic practices. We are instructed to avoid grafting and blending species that are separate in nature, such as flax and wool and plants and vines, as well as to leave gleanings and corner sections of fields for the needy. Idolatry is condemned, yet Israelites are commanded to show kindness to aliens residing in the Land of Israel, who are idolaters by origin. All the above, and more, are identified as milestones on the road to holiness.
\nThe sanctity of the priesthood itself was indispensable to the fulfillment of Israel\u2019s mandate to become a holy nation. What was sacrificed to God also had to be suitable. In both instances, physical soundness\u2014that is, the absence of blemishes and disfiguration\u2014served as the normal criterion of suitability (chaps. 21\u201322).
\nThe \u201csancta\u201d are basic to the religious character of any society. Chapter 23 presents a calendar of set times, or sacred celebrations, that are marked during the year. This calendar includes the weekly Sabbath, an uninterrupted day of rest from normal tasks. Chapter 23 outlines the annual festivals beginning with the spring of the year. First comes Passover, a seven-day festival during which unleavened bread is eaten and on which a pilgrimage is undertaken. Then we read of the seven-week interval of counting, leading up to the Festival of First Fruits (also known as Shavuot). In the autumn of the year, Israelites celebrated the first day of the seventh month, which later became Rosh Hashanah. And the tenth day of the seventh month is Yom Kippur. The seven-day Sukkot festival and its concluding observance of the eighth day begin on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and were the occasion for pilgrimage. This completed the annual calendar.
\nChapter 24 then details two practices associated with the Sanctuary, the eternal light and the bread of display, and it relates an incident of blasphemy and its prompt punishment. Chapter 25 presents a major statement on economic policy: A holy nation treats its members justly and humanely and does not tolerate widespread poverty or disenfranchisement. The chapter declares that sales of land in Israel were to be of limited duration, like long-term leases; all sales would terminate in the year of the Jubilee, which came in the fiftieth year, at the conclusion of a series of seven sabbatical cycles. At that time, all land was to revert to its original owners and all indentures would cease. Indebtedness, too, was regulated, and the imposition of interest prohibited.
\nChapter 25 conveys a concept of land ownership according to which all land is theoretically owned by the God of Israel, for it is He who granted the Land of Israel to His people. The Israelites, then, are His stewards and tenants. Moreover, God has first claim on all that the land produces. This theory of ownership sought to promote a sense of collective responsibility for the land by regulating the way of life pursued by its inhabitants, the people of Israel.
\nThe inclusion of chapter 27 in the context of the Holiness Code, where it logically belongs, enables us to observe just how the priesthood was expected to administer the affairs of the Sanctuary. The priests were to establish the valuations of commodities devoted to the Sanctuary that were collected as dues, tithes, and the like.<\/p>\n
Structure The outline just presented indicates clearly that the Book of Leviticus was compiled according to a plan, or concept, that reflects both dimensions of the name torat kohanim discussed at the outset. Allowing for some anomalies, we can divide Leviticus into two principal parts: Chapters 1\u201316 consist of manuals of practice addressed to the priesthood, and chapters 17\u201327 consist of priestly teachings addressed to the Israelite people. The former division represents torat kohanim in the sense of instructions for the priests, whereas the latter division expresses the notion of instructions by the priests. The former division focuses on officiation and purification as particular concerns of the priesthood, whereas the latter section emphasizes holiness as the common concern of all Israelites.
\nFurther patterns of organization are discernible in the former division: Chapters 1\u201310 deal with officiation, and chapters 11\u201316, with purification. Furthermore, there is a symmetry in the organization of each of the two subdivisions. We are first told in chapters 1\u20137 how the principal sacrifices are to be prepared and offered by the priests. Thereupon chapters 8\u201310 establish the exclusive legitimacy of the Aaronide priesthood as officiants in the sacrificial cult. They record the consecration of the priesthood and the initiation of the Tabernacle cult in the time of Moses.
\nThe same internal pattern is evident in chapters 11\u201316, as regards purity. First, the duties of the priesthood in effecting required purifications are detailed in chapters 11\u201315. Then chapter 16 describes how the Sanctuary, whose altar and appurtenances were necessary for most purification rites, was to be kept in a pure state.
\nWithin the former division, chapters 1\u201316, there is an apparent anomaly. We might have expected to find chapter 11 in the Holiness Code, since it ordains a regimen of dietary prohibitions and regulates the purity of vessels and their contents. These regulations apply to all Israelites, not only to priests. What is more, chapter 11 prescribes no explicit purification rites to be performed by the priests, as is the case of chapters 12\u201315. On what basis, then, can chapter 11 qualify as a torah, or manual, for the priesthood?
\nActually, it may have originated in the Holiness Code, only to be shifted later on to the former division of Leviticus. This chapter is, after all, the only section of Leviticus outside the Holiness Code that emphasizes the theme of Israel\u2019s holiness (vv. 44\u201345). It employs the same holiness terminology encountered in the Holiness Code itself, in such verses as 19:1\u20132, 36, 20:26, and 22:32\u201333. Perhaps the provisions of chapter 11 were redefined as a torah of purity, a manual of procedures for the priests. The postscript of chapter 11, in verses 46\u201347, implies as much: \u201cThese are the instructions (ha-torah) concerning animals, birds, all living creatures \u2026 for distinguishing between the unclean and the clean.\u201d Making such distinctions was one of the basic duties of priests, as we read in 10:10: \u201cFor you [= the priests] must distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean.\u201d
\nAt some point, chapter 11 was perceived to be germane to the training of priests, and its content was redefined in terms of purity, rather than holiness. In substance, the dietary code applied to all Israelites and was requisite to the attainment of holiness on the part of the people as a whole. This much is clear from the similar code of dietary laws preserved in Deuteronomy 14, where the theme of a holy nation predominates. In Leviticus, however, the dietary laws, extended to include the purity of vessels and of persons, came to be perceived as a matter of special concern to the priesthood and were positioned among the torot of purity. This is epitomized in the opening verses of chapter 11. In verse 1, God addresses Moses and Aaron, and in verse 2, He commands them to speak in turn to the Israelite people.
\nThe second division of Leviticus consists of chapters 17\u201327. As regards chapter 27, one assumes that it was appended to Leviticus only after the Holiness Code was compiled, with the Epilogue (26:3\u201346) already in place. In content, the chapter belongs with the Holiness Code, as it deals with votives, consecrations, and other forms of popular support for the Sanctuary, all administered by the priests.
\nBy and large, the contents of chapters 17\u201327 are addressed to the Israelite people and relate to the life of the entire community. And yet, we encounter apparent anomalies. Chapters 21\u201322 are addressed to the priesthood and deal with the physical requirements of priests and sacrificial materials. Also included are marriage restrictions applicable to priests and laws relieving priests of funerary duties: One might have expected to find these chapters in the former division of Leviticus.
\nYet the theme of holiness predominates in chapters 21\u201322 and is reiterated in 21:15, 24 and 22:16, 32\u201333. These chapters stand in the same relation to the priesthood as does the rest of the Holiness Code in relation to the Israelite people. There is a symmetry. As an example, Israelites must follow certain marriage practices; the same is true of priests. One may also presume that the sanctity of the priesthood and its governance of its own membership were matters of concern to the entire community.
\nWe are unable to account for the two overlapping versions of the marriage code in chapters 18 and 20. Although each is formulated differently, the presence of both is inevitably repetitious. In chapter 24, we find material arranged rather loosely. But for the most part, chapters 17\u201327 conform to the notion of torat kohanim as teachings by the priests that were addressed to the Israelite people.
\nFormulation Leviticus preserves only one prose composition, the Epilogue to the Holiness Code (26:3\u201346), and only a few brief reports. Aside from commonplace introductions and postscripts, Leviticus is otherwise devoted entirely to ritual and law. The nature of the content has dictated a particular style of writing that may be called \u201cformulaic,\u201d the writing usually encountered in legal documents, in leases and deeds, and in purchase agreements.
\nFormulaic statements do not read smoothly; rather, they tend to be abrupt and laconic in style. Most important is the fact that the technical vocabulary of such documents is specialized, so that terms and verbal forms do not have their usual meanings. They must be interpreted in context. As an example, the common Hebrew verb \u02bfasah, \u201cto do, make,\u201d may mean, in a priestly text, \u201cto perform a ritual\u201d; but, in another specific statement, it can also mean \u201cto assign a sacrifice.\u201d It becomes necessary, therefore, to exercise care in reading formulaic texts so as not to overlook such specializations of meaning.
\nSeveral examples may serve to illustrate the complexity of language characteristic of Leviticus and of priestly writing in general.
\n1. In 1:4, we read of a procedure involved in presenting a sacrifice: ve-samakh yado \u02bfal ro\u02besh ha-\u02bfolah ve-nirtsah lo le-khapper \u02bfalav, \u201cHe [= the donor] shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf, in expiation for him.\u201d Analyzing this verse as a formulaic statement must take into account the following factors:
\na. The term \u02bfolah, as the name of a particular type of sacrificial offering, must be defined precisely.
\nb. The verb samakh, \u201cto lay upon, lean upon,\u201d has a technical meaning in the context of ritual and law. It must be explained how the laying on of the hand functioned as part of the act of sacrifice and why it was necessary. This was a widespread practice both in biblical Israel and in the ancient Near East generally. Extensive Hittite evidence is available on this practice.
\nc. The Nifal form, nirtsah, \u201cto be acceptable, to be regarded favorably,\u201d and other forms of the verb ratsah characterize both the favorable disposition of God and the suitability of the offering itself. The verb relates to one of the primary concerns of religious experience\u2014the efficacy of ritual.
\nd. The verb kipper, \u201cto expiate,\u201d is central to ancient Israelite worship because it relates to divine forgiveness. Its basic sense is that of cleansing, of washing away impurity and sinfulness. In this instance, we must also explain what need there was for expiation when an Israelite donated a burnt offering without any offense against God involved.
\ne. Finally, we must be precise in understanding the syntax of the verb kipper when it is followed by the preposition \u02bfal. In our case, it means to expiate \u201con behalf of, in relation to,\u201d whereas elsewhere it may imply physical contact: \u201cto expiate over, upon.\u201d
\n2. In 25:47, we read of an Israelite indentured to a non-Israelite resident of the land: ve-khi tassig yad ger ve-toshav \u02bfimmakh, umakh\u02be \u02bea\u1e25ikha \u02bfimmo, ve-nimkar le-ger toshav \u2026 \/\u201cIf a resident alien among you has prospered, and your kinsman being in straits, comes under his authority and gives himself over to the resident alien.\u2026\u201d Formulaic analysis of this statement leads to the following observations:
\na. Hebrew ger ve-toshav represents an example of hendiadys, two words that have the force of one, as though written ger toshav, a combination we actually find elsewhere; hence the translation \u201cresident (toshav) alien (ger)\u201d This composite term must be explained in various contexts. Here it refers to a non-Israelite living in the Land of Israel, whereas elsewhere in the same chapter (v. 23) it refers to the Israelites themselves as \u201cresidents\u201d in God\u2019s land.
\nb. Hebrew \u02bea\u1e25, literally \u201cbrother,\u201d is a term for a fellow Israelite; hence the translation \u201ckinsman.\u201d It expresses the notion that all Israelites are related, as if in one large family. This connotation and its implications must be explored.
\nc. The verb makhar, \u201cto sell,\u201d is here used to characterize indenture, a form of bondage in which the debtor works for the creditor, usually on the creditor\u2019s premises, to pay off his debt. So, nimkar, the Nifal form, means to put oneself under the authority of another. This specialized meaning is also applicable in other Torah laws.
\nd. Finally, two other verbs used in this verse have specialized connotations that are particularly relevant to priestly law. The verb mukh seems to mean \u201cto become weak.\u201d Here, and in similar statements in chapter 25, it connotes financial instability; hence the translation \u201cbeing in straits.\u201d Similarly, the idiom tassig yad, literally, \u201cthe hand reaches,\u201d conveys the notion of acquisition or material gain.
\n3. In 8:10, we read about how Moses consecrated the Tabernacle: va-yikka\u1e25 mosheh \u02beet shemen ha-mis\u1e25ah va-yimsha\u1e25 \u02beet ha-mishkan ve-\u02beet kol \u02beasher bo\/ \u201cMoses took the anointing oil and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it, thus consecrating them.\u201d Here, again, careful analysis demands attention to technical usage:
\na. The specific composition of the oil called shemen ha-mis\u1e25ah must be described; furthermore, the rite of unction must be discussed in terms of its efficacy and function as part of the process of consecration.
\nb. The term that designates the Sanctuary in this verse is mishkan. Elsewhere in Leviticus we also find two other terms for the same structure: \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe Tent of Meeting,\u201d and mikdash, \u201csanctuary, temple.\u201d The character of the projected Sanctuary must be described and the origins of the relevant terms traced.
\nc. Finally, the verb kiddesh, \u201cto consecrate,\u201d proves to be of central importance in biblical literature. It expresses a whole complex of concepts and is linked to other forms of the verb kadash, \u201cto be holy.\u201d The Piel form that we have here is often used to convey the attribution of holiness to persons, spaces, structures, and even special times, such as the Sabbath and festivals, that were \u201csanctified\u201d in various ways.
\nThe three examples just cited not only illustrate the \u201cdeep structure\u201d of formulaic writing but also are informative in other ways. The first example comes from a prescriptive ritual, chapter 1. Most of the ritual texts of Leviticus are prescriptive in that they ordain, or command, certain procedures rather than merely describing them. Thus, the verb ve-samakh conveys an order: \u201cHe shall lay upon.\u201d The second example, 25:47, actually comes from a legal passage. The casuistic formulation, which uses \u201cIf\u201d or \u201cWhen,\u201d is typical of legal statements. Often the actual requirements of law are expressed as conditions or circumstances: If certain conditions obtain, the law becomes operative.
\nIn a real sense, ritual and law are interrelated because both are expressed in terms of duty and both require compliance with precise procedures.
\nThe third example, 8:10, is taken from a descriptive ritual. The verbs occurring in descriptive rituals are in narrative forms, like va-yikka\u1e25, \u201che took,\u201d in our verse. Descriptive rituals are formulated as reports, as though written by one who actually observed the performance of a particular celebration.
\nTo summarize: Leviticus is almost entirely composed of prescriptive rituals pertaining to officiation and purification, of laws and commandments, and of descriptive rituals recording important celebrations.
\nVersions Both the translation and Commentary presented here are based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. The term \u201cMasoretic\u201d designates a group of authorized texts of the Hebrew Bible that have been accepted by most Jewish communities since talmudic times, a period roughly corresponding to the early centuries of the Christian Era. Exactly when and how the received Masoretic text became official is a difficult matter to ascertain. As more evidence emerges, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a complex and protracted process of collating manuscripts and of determining precise readings.
\nStudy of the actual Hebrew text of a given biblical book\u2014its precise wording, spelling (orthography), and vocalization (a factor that directly affects meaning in Semitic languages)\u2014is known as text criticism. The text critic attempts to determine what was the original ancient text. An effort is made to identify possible errors that may have crept into the text through miscopying. Ancient copies and early manuscripts are examined for this purpose.
\nWe now know that differing versions of the text of the Torah, and of biblical books generally, circulated within Jewish communities during the Greco-Roman period. This is confirmed by recent discoveries of ancient copies, such as those found at Qumran, that preserve readings that differ from those appearing in our Masoretic text. At that site atop the cliff overlooking the Dead Sea, there lived a sect (or sects) of Jews from about 135 b.c.e. to about 70 c.e., when the Second Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Those Jews retained copies of biblical texts alongside their contemporary, sectarian compositions. This archive, and similar writings discovered in nearby sites, have come to be known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. They include many texts, such as fragments of Exodus, as well as segments of Samuel, Jeremiah, and Psalms. The most impressive find is the extensive Isaiah scroll. Some of the material has been published\u2014including parts of one or more scrolls of Leviticus, written in a script imitative of earlier centuries\u2014by D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews. R. H. Harrison dates the script on paleographic grounds to around 100 b.c.e.
\nScholars working with the Leviticus scroll, which preserves legible verses from chapters 4, 10, 11, and 13\u201327, have carefully tabulated all instances where these ancient fragments differ from our Masoretic text. They have also correlated these variations with the text of the Samaritans, which is an ancient version that differs appreciably from the Masoretic text at many points. The evidence of the Septuagint was also figured into the comparisons. The ancient Jewish translators of the Torah into Greek must have had before them a Hebrew text that differed from the Masoretic text at some points; otherwise their translations would make no sense. The results of these rather complex comparisons indicate that the text of the Torah had not yet been standardized during the last pre-Christian centuries. At that time, its precise wording had not been uniformly accepted by all Jewish communities.
\nJust how significant this situation is for our understanding of the content of Leviticus is a matter of judgment. The variations between the Qumranic and the Masoretic versions do not reflect a different meaning or intent. Many are simply alternative ways of stating the same laws and rituals and involve little more than different tenses of the same verbs, juxtapositions of syntax, alterations of sequences, and stylistic variations. This is not so with respect to the Samaritan text, where we find substantive variations. (The Septuagint translation also reveals attempts by the translators to interpret the Hebrew text in specific ways.)
\nNevertheless, quite early on, it seems, efforts were under way to standardize the text of the Torah, which was read in its entirety in the synagogue. Furthermore, exceptional care was exercised in copying Torah books: Since the laws and rituals of the Torah were basic to the fulfillment of Judaism, their status encouraged great textual precision.
\nIn summary, the copies of Leviticus discovered at Qumran testify to a degree of textual variety around 100 b.c.e. regarding the third book of the Torah. These ancient copies reinforce our sense that the Masoretic text of the Torah accurately preserves ancient writings. But the Masoretic versions also indicate that important decisions were eventually made in order to fix the wording of passages where variation had previously existed. The Greek Septuagint of Leviticus indicates only a few cases of textual divergence, where the text used by the translators was different from the Masoretic version. These instances are hardly of great significance. When we contrast the situation of Leviticus to that of other biblical books such as Samuel, where whole passages differ, we appreciate how stable the text of the Torah was in late antiquity relative to other sections of the biblical canon.<\/p>\n
The Context
\nBeyond the general guidelines established for the Commentary series as a whole, the present Commentary on Leviticus pursues a particular method. In part, this method was dictated by the distinctive character of the book itself, but it also reflects the approach adopted by the commentator.
\nIn Search of Context: Realistic Interpretation The first matter to be discussed is the new translation, which appears alongside the Masoretic Hebrew text. It was produced under the auspices of the Jewish Publication Society and represents a major advance in our comprehension of the biblical text. In fact, it helped to guide the commentator to a more accurate understanding of the text than might otherwise have been possible in numerous instances. There were, however, cases where the commentator disagreed with the translators, and alternative renderings were proposed. Usually, such disagreements pertained to the syntax and style of the English translation. It was felt that the full import of the formulaic style of Leviticus was occasionally obscured in the translation, and an effort was made to convey with greater precision the meaning of the Hebrew technical terms and formulas. This approach to the process of translation merely underscores the importance of decoding formulaic writing in the effort to reconstruct the rituals and laws of Leviticus.
\nREALISM AND THE COMPARATIVE METHOD The technical terms and formulas of Leviticus are the very features that lend an air of realism to the written word. Just as in the analysis of legal texts one seeks to define the terms of reference used for crimes and violations or conditions and obligations, so too in studying ritual texts it is imperative to discern what the names of various sacrifices and rites meant to the ancient Israelites. In a significant way, most ritual texts are legal in character because they set down specific procedures and impose exact penalties.
\nA realistic approach to Leviticus posits that at certain periods of Israelite history, priests offered sacrifices just as they were instructed to do in the opening chapters of the book. On the same basis, it is assumed that priests presided over purifications like those prescribed in chapters 12\u201316. In other words, we consider the text of Leviticus to be a source of evidence of the actual practice of religion; to be sure, not the practice followed at all periods of biblical history but, rather, what was followed at certain periods. It is curious that the realistic approach is, in its way, traditional because the tradition invariably regards all that is written in the Torah as having actually occurred.
\nThough the traditionalist commentator tends to adopt a view that allows for relatively little development or change in practice, the very belief in the authenticity of Mosaic law reveals a realistic perspective. In its commitment to realism, this Commentary follows the method of the Mishnah and of rabbinic legal interpretation in the effort to preserve and reconstruct the realia of the biblical cult.
\nModern critical scholars have for the most part tended to doubt the realism of the priestly texts of the Torah. Some regard the rituals and laws of Leviticus as artificial or programmatic, as canonical statements of what was thought to be proper rather than as evidence of actual practice. According to this view, the repetitious detail of ritual formulation does not reveal the true nature of religion but merely represents ossified crystallizations of established practices whose inner logic had been largely forgotten and whose forms had lost much of their meaning. The tendency toward homiletical and allegorical interpretation of ritual has also served to distance the study of Leviticus from realistic insights. Without discounting the independent value of such methods of interpretation and the edifying messages they afford, it is more important to retrieve, as best we can, the reality of ancient biblical religion. After all, it is this reality, this actual stage of religious development, that is the basis of all subsequent phases of Jewish religion.
\nPerhaps the strongest endorsement of realistic interpretation is offered by comparative evidence from other ancient Near Eastern cultures. One who is conversant with the documentary evidence of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria would hardly doubt that the priestly texts of the Torah have a foundation in reality. One would hardly regard as unrealistic an elaborate account of numerous sacrifices listed in repetitious sequence if the tablet on which that account was written had been unearthed in the ruins of a Mesopotamian temple. We now possess thousands of such ancient records.
\nNor would one doubt the realism of a Ugaritic temple ritual of the late second millennium b.c.e. that prescribes various sacrifices and recitations for specific days of a given month, listing these in repetition. The same realism is assumed for Hittite festival texts and purifications and for Egyptian wall inscriptions, which often appear alongside pictorial depictions of the very ceremonial scenes referred to in the inscriptions themselves. From a later period, we have the tariffs from Carthage, which inform all who wished to offer sacrifices in the temple of that important city as to what items and amounts had to be remitted to the temple administration. This information pertains, most probably, to the fourth and third centuries b.c.e.
\nAdmittedly, we lack the kind of historical information for Leviticus that we possess for the extrabiblical documents, and this lack seems to diminish our sense of realism. Thus, although the extensive archaeological activity carried out on biblical soil has yielded artifacts and structures in great quantity, relatively little of it is written material. We also lack the graphic depictions of ritual like those that have been found in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria. And there is a tendency to regard canonical texts as being at least once removed from reality since they have undergone some editing and reformulation. Nevertheless, careful utilization of all that we actually possess from biblical Israel combined with examination of comparative sources can at least partially compensate for the scarcity of Hebraic evidence. Though we may never overcome our disadvantages, we ought not to diminish our efforts in search of ancient reality.
\nIn addition to contemporary evidence, we possess later Jewish sources of considerable value for reconstructing biblical rituals. The Mishnah and other rabbinic texts preserve extensive descriptions of ritual celebrations as they were conducted in late Second Temple times. As an example, tractate Yoma of the Mishnah is devoted entirely to the rites of Yom Kippur. In formulation and arrangement, these rabbinic texts often read like ancient Near Eastern documents. In some respects they resemble the temple records and ritual tablets of the ancient Near East, even more closely than do the priestly texts of the Torah.
\nThe validity of utilizing the Mishnah as evidence of earlier Israelite practice can be argued on the basis of an analogy from elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Thus, it is generally considered valid for students of Mesopotamian religion to utilize as source material the Uruk rituals, much later texts that date from the Seleucid period. We find that, even allowing for changes in religious practice, later material coming from identical locales and pertaining to the same people or society can be highly instructive. It has been found to be so in interpreting Leviticus.
\nAlso suggestive of the realism of Leviticus are the specific terms for the sacrifices that were offered in biblical times, many of which originated in other, nonritual or nonpriestly contexts. They can be studied more precisely in those contexts where their root meanings and basic functions are clearly evident.
\nSeveral examples can serve to illustrate the method employed in this Commentary. The term min\u1e25ah designates grain offerings in the priestly texts. In the Commentary, its various meanings are explored. Ultimately, Hebrew min\u1e25ah derives from the political and administrative vocabulary, where it has the meaning of \u201ctribute, gift.\u201d The min\u1e25ah was paid to kings of Judah and Israel by tributary peoples and, under less favorable circumstances, by Israelites to foreign, imperial kings (cf. 2 Sam. 8:2\u20136; 1 Kings 5:1; 2 Kings 8:8\u20139, 17:3\u20134). There can be little doubt that the administrative meanings of min\u1e25ah are primary; priestly and other writers appropriated the term to designate certain types of offerings that were presented in the manner of gifts. A term meaning \u201ctribute, gift\u201d is, after all, highly appropriate for expressing the relationship between the individual worshiper and God and between the Israelite community and the God of Israel. It highlights the themes of sovereignty and subservience, of covenant and mutual obligations, and of loyalty and devotion.
\nIn a similar way, Hebrew tamid, \u201cregular, daily sacrifice; daily rite,\u201d was appropriated by priestly writers from the administrative vocabulary. In nonritual contexts, tamid designates regular rations or allocations granted by kings to their retainers (2 Sam. 9:7, 10; 2 Kings 25:29\u201330; Jer. 52:33). What better term for the daily sacrifice in Exodus 29 or in Numbers 28!
\nA third example may further clarify this process of appropriation. The Hebrew verb \u1e25ata\u02be, \u201cto offend, sin,\u201d and the nouns derived from it, such as \u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201csin offering,\u201d are basic to the vocabulary of cult and ritual. They pertain to one of the principal objectives of ritual, the expiation of religious offenses. In other biblical contexts, the verb \u1e25ata\u02be clearly signifies violations of treaties and alliances: the betrayal of trust between nations and between officials and their overlords. In this instance, we are fortunate in having the Akkadian cognate \u1e25a\u1e6d\u00fb and its derivatives so that we can document their semantic range, extending from the political and administrative to ritual and purificatory contexts.
\nThese examples suggest that the priestly writers and others writing about the practice of religion operated within a larger institutional framework. Like royal scribes (which many were), they used a vocabulary and formulary common to that larger context. The cult, in other words, did not function as something apart or \u201cunreal.\u201d Rather, the observable interaction of religion, government, and society that is indicated by the terms and formulas of the priestly texts further enhances our sense of realism.
\nTHE PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION Phenomenology is the study of essence and manifestation. We often observe a manifest act and ask what it \u201cmeans\u201d in the hope of learning why such an act was performed in specific ways. What did it \u201cmean,\u201d for example, to offer a burnt sacrifice on the altar in celebration of a particular occasion? To answer questions of this sort, we attempt to penetrate the inner mentality of the ancient Israelites.
\nIt is extremely difficult in general to attribute meaning to formal acts, especially so regarding those we can no longer observe in practice. Such acts possess inner systemic meaning; that is, they may be seen as \u201cmeaningful\u201d only within discrete contexts. Once certain facts are known, the overt behavior makes sense, just as details of law make sense only if we see them as part of an overall legal system based on known principles.
\nOne example will suffice. In this Commentary it is proposed that, by declaring the corpse of an Israelite impure in the extreme, the Torah effectively eliminated any funerary role for the priesthood. No funerary cult was admitted into the Sanctuary, and attending to the burial of the dead was declared a family matter.
\nOn the face of it, one would have expected the Israelite priesthood to be involved in funerary rites, since death has surely been a matter of religious concern in virtually every known human society. But a religious system opposed to pagan cults of the dead, one which regarded worship of dead ancestors as incompatible with worship of the God of Israel, would indeed have sought to distance funerary activity from the Sanctuary and to eliminate any priestly role in such rites.
\nPerhaps the most valuable insight we might obtain about the phenomenology of biblical religion would be an explanation of the meaning of the act of sacrifice itself. What were the concerns that made sacrificial worship so important? Of all the theories that have been advanced to explain the phenomenon of sacrifice, the notion of the sacrifice as a gift offered to the Deity tells us most about the purposes of such worship. Again the key is provided by terminology.
\nWhen we analyze the names of specific sacrifices, we observe that many of them connote a gift of some sort. We have already seen that min\u1e25ah basically means \u201cgift, tribute.\u201d The term berakhah, usually rendered \u201cblessing,\u201d means \u201cgrant, gift\u201d in contexts relevant to gifts of land and other forms of material wealth. In this Commentary it is proposed that Hebrew shelamim, the name given to a popular sacrifice, actually means \u201csacred gift of greeting,\u201d based on comparative evidence from other ancient Semitic languages. These and other examples endorse the notion that a sacrifice is first and foremost a gift. This is so even when a sacrifice is obligatory or when it is prompted by some offense committed against God.
\nThe purpose of sacrifice was to formalize or reaffirm and, at times, to repair the relationship between the worshiper and God and between the community of worshipers and God. It is this relationship and the problems emerging from it that require explanation.
\nHuman beings have always sought the nearness and presence of God (or of the gods, in polytheistic environments). We are filled with anxiety at the prospect of God\u2019s withdrawal, or absence, or distance from the human scene. In truth, God is omnipresent: He hears our prayers even from the distant heavens. We are told that He \u201cis near \u2026 to all who call Him with sincerity\u201d (Ps. 145:18).
\nDespite the avowed belief in God\u2019s omnipresence, it was seldom satisfying or reassuring to the human psyche. Emotionally, we expect that God, as the power who sustains the universe and grants the petitions of His worshipers, responds to our needs more readily if He is near and present and that He is less likely to do so from heaven. This feeling is a projection of human dependence on God. But to retain the nearness of God it was necessary to provide a sacred environment acceptable to Him. It was feared that if the purity of the earthly environment were compromised, God would become enraged and withdraw His presence from His people, often punishing them as well.
\nThus, in Leviticus and in priestly literature generally, we find statements as to what was required to retain God\u2019s continuing presence in the midst of His people. If Israel becomes a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, with all that this entails, the God of Israel will abide amidst the people and grant them the blessings of life. This is the inner reality of the rituals and laws of Leviticus, and these are the central concerns that generated all that Leviticus ordains.
\nLiterary History: When Leviticus Was Written Positioned between Exodus and Numbers, the Book of Leviticus is an integral part of the written history that flows through the five books of the Torah. After leaving Egypt, the Israelites experienced the revelation of God at Sinai, where they entered into a covenant with God and received laws and commandments by which to live as a people. One aspect of the covenant was the commandment to initiate the proper worship of the God of Israel. Exodus concludes by recording the construction of the desert Tabernacle and, in anticipation of Leviticus, refers to the investiture of the Aaronide priesthood.
\nAlthough Leviticus records some events, it is essentially not a recounting of historical developments and changes. Hence, there is no historiography per se. The book begins with God\u2019s call to Moses from the Tent of Meeting (another name for the Tabernacle), and, in its entirety, it pertains to the institution of religious life within the Israelite community before the settlement of Canaan, the promised land. It appears that the sequence of events in Leviticus occurs during a very brief period of time at the beginning of the forty years of wandering. The institution of worship and the ordering of religious life set forth in the book were undertaken before the wanderings began\u2014more precisely, before the decree that the people would have to wander so many years before entering Canaan. The Book of Numbers, by contrast, begins with reference to a specific date, the first day of the second month of the second year after the Exodus from Egypt. Numbers covers a period of some thirty-eight years, and it contains the historiographic climax of the Torah, which occurs in the steppes of Moab, before the crossing of the Jordan (an event recounted as well at the end of Deuteronomy).
\nThe tradition has consistently accepted this literary framework as historical and has considered the many statements in Leviticus\u2014and in the Torah generally, wherein God speaks to Moses, and Aaron, and the Israelites\u2014as historically accurate. According to this view, the entire Torah was revealed, or communicated, through Moses, precisely as stated. Since talmudic antiquity, sages and commentators have been aware of chronological discrepancies and have been willing to concede that the events recorded in the Torah do not always appear in actual sequence. Thus the talmudic dictum: \u201cThere is no early or late in the Torah.\u201d They also agree that certain laws belonged, more logically, in other contexts. But never is the possibility accepted that the Torah, as we have it, was compiled from separate, sometimes divergent, sources or components, attributable to different authors and historical periods.
\nTraditional interpreters found it necessary to deal with apparent contradictions in the text itself, a situation that threatened the concept of the unity of transmission in which they believed. Leviticus 1:1 records God\u2019s call to Moses from the Tent of Meeting after the Sinaitic revelation, whereas other statements in Leviticus indicate that certain instructions were communicated at Sinai (7:37\u201338; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34). In Numbers we find statements of Sinaitic revelation in 36:13, but Numbers 1:1 indicates a communication at the Tent of Meeting, and 26:3, in the steppes of Moab, some thirty-eight years later. D. Z. Hoffmann, a traditionalist scholar writing around the turn of the twentieth century, devotes considerable attention to the problem of transmission. He cites a dispute between sages of the second century c.e., recorded in Zeva\u1e25im 115b: \u201cR. Ishmael says: The generalities were spoken at Sinai, and the specifics at the Tent of Meeting. R. Akiba says: Both the generalities and the specifics were [first] spoken at Sinai. They were reiterated at the Tent of Meeting and stated a third time in the steppes of Moab.\u201d
\nRabbi Akiba\u2019s view has predominated in the Jewish tradition. But the real significance of this ancient debate lies in its presuppositions, not in its proposed resolution. The Torah was revealed by the one divine shepherd to one prophet, Moses, and nothing stated in it should be construed as contradicting this doctrine. There can be no real differences among Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as to what each records or prescribes as law and commandment. Surely God would not contradict Himself. More consequentially\u2014Moses\u2019 transmission of God\u2019s words was considered faithful and accurate. The historical implication of this view is that the laws and rites set forth in Leviticus either went into effect in the Israelite society of Moses\u2019 day or were intended to take effect once the people entered Canaan and settled there.
\nFor the past several centuries, ever since the Renaissance and the Age of Humanism during the early sixteenth century, a modern method of studying the Hebrew Bible, including the Torah, has been pursued: the critical method. Critical scholarship regards the Bible as ancient literature and understands statements attributing time and place to events and institutions as traditional, as conveying what ancient authors and editors would have the reader accept as historical. Whether or not such statements are historically accurate is a determination to be made on the basis of critical investigation and may not be accepted as accurate solely on the evidence of the biblical text.
\nIf there is any degree of consensus among modern critical scholars, who predictably disagree on many questions, it is in the judgment that the institutions legislated in the Torah and the concepts expressed in its historical narratives were promulgated centuries later than the age of Moses and, then, not all at the same time. In substance, certain Torah institutions are very ancient, even antedating the lifetime of Moses, which history would assign to the late thirteenth or early twelfth century b.c.e. Other institutions appear to be relatively late. The critical consensus is that the Torah as we have it is comprised of components, or \u201csources,\u201d and not merely of books. These sources use different language, reflect different historical periods, and express divergent points of view regarding early Israelite history and the biblical message as well. The key factor in the critical approach is development; and its most basic insight is the awareness of difference. Instead of attempting to harmonize divergences, the critical scholar is particularly sensitive to the factor of change.
\nGenerally speaking, critical inquiry is historically oriented in its search for ancient reality. It accepts the validity of comparative evidence derived from other, related societies and cultures. The traditionalist, on the other hand, is more interested in the message of Torah literature. Therefore, whereas the critical scholar seeks to reconstruct the literary processes involved in the composition of the Torah, to trace the actual historical development of Israelite religion and society, the traditionalist is more concerned with Torah literature as the central document of Judaism, the ultimate foundation upon which later Judaism rests.
\nThe two approaches are not totally irreconcilable. Although traditionalists cannot accept much of what the critical scholar discovers because it may conflict with doctrine, they appreciate the critical scholar\u2019s cultural insights on the meaning of the text. And the critical scholar can, indeed, learn much from traditional interpretations and insights, even if he does not share the overall presuppositions underlying traditional interpretations.
\nAs regards Leviticus, the prime representative of priestly literature in the Torah, critical inquiry has added considerably to our understanding of the text, as well as to our historical knowledge about the development of biblical religion.
\nCritical scholars refer to the priestly component of Torah literature as Priesterschrift (commonly called P). The contents of Leviticus emerged from centers of priestly administration in biblical Israel such as Jerusalem, and Leviticus is linked by language and subject matter to other priestly materials preserved in the books of the Torah generally.
\nPriestly writing in the Torah is of two main types: historiography on the one hand, and law and ritual on the other. In Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, and even occasionally in Deuteronomy, we find priestly historiography, which, in effect, recasts the early history of Israel in a way that assigns great historic importance to covenants between God and Israel and between God and the patriarchs. Priestly writers were particularly interested in genealogies\u2014in establishing the connection of the generations and in emphasizing the bonds uniting all Israelites. They recorded an unbroken tradition of sacrifice and of the worship of God: from the sacrifices offered by Noah and the patriarchs to the Passover of Egypt and, in the Book of Numbers, to the end of the period of wanderings. Priestly writers were absorbed by ritual detail; they sought to root the proper worship of God and the institutional network required to conduct such worship in the earliest periods of Israelite history.
\nBy studying Leviticus as priestly literature, we are also able to assess its relationship to those statements on matters of worship and religious life that are preserved in the historical and prophetic books. Once we accept the possibility that certain of the laws and institutions, as set forth in Leviticus, derive from later periods of biblical history, we may explore, by comparison and contrast, the relationship of Leviticus to Ezekiel, especially the concluding chapters of the latter book. We are also attracted to the dicta of Jeremiah and Deutero-Isaiah and of the postexilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all of whom addressed questions of ritual and worship quite extensively. The emphasis on cult and worship and on the Temple as a central institution in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles is similarly directly relevant.
\nIn summary, the critical analysis of Torah literature has led to the identification of several documentary sources, or textual archives, emanating from different schools of writers in biblical times. Each contributed its content to the Torah and to biblical literature as a whole.
\nIn addition to priestly literature, modern scholarship has identified a source known as E (Elohist), in which the God of Israel is designated by the generic term \u02beelohim, \u201cDivinity, God.\u201d This collection is presumed to have emerged from the northern Israelite kingdom. More recently, it has been suggested that there is a distinctive Transjordanian component in biblical literature, composed of writings from that area, especially from Gilead. In successive periods of biblical history, large areas of Transjordan were under Israelite domination, and Israelites were settled there.
\nAnother source is known as J, based on \u201cJehovah,\u201d a mistaken reading of the consonants YHVH, the tetragrammaton. This source emerged from Judah and its capital, Jerusalem. At some time in preexilic history, the two sources J and E were combined by Judean editors. Finally, we have what scholars refer to as the Deuteronomic school, which, known as D, continued to function in ancient Israel long after J and E were compiled.
\nAt the present time, there is considerable disagreement among critical scholars as to the history and development of the source known as P. The textual content of P is fairly well defined because priestly language is distinctive and specialized. It is much more difficult to trace the historic development of priestly literature\u2014in this instance, of Leviticus, which consists entirely of priestly writings. Several general observations will serve to identify the problems encountered by critical scholars.
\n1. The canonical order of the books of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) may or may not be historically accurate. (Moreover, each of the five books is in itself a composite, preserving materials of differing origins.) For the purposes of this Commentary it is of critical importance to ascertain whether Leviticus antedates Deuteronomy, as the canonical order indicates, or whether the reverse is the case. This determination is important because Deuteronomy 12 and 14\u201317 expound a new doctrine of religious worship; and worship is of course the principal concern of Leviticus. Thus, the sequence necessarily influences our understanding of Leviticus.
\nDeuteronomy ordains that all sacrificial worship and cultic activity be conducted at the one central Temple. Such activities would be illegitimate if carried out at any other cult site. No other Torah book states this restriction explicitly, though there may be an allusion to it in Leviticus. Indeed, Exodus 20:22\u201323 states that sacrifices to the God of Israel may be offered at any proper site.
\nDeuteronomy, therefore, announces a new pattern of worship, a change in customary practice. In some way, this Deuteronomic doctrine is historically related to the edict of Josiah, king of Judah, issued in 622 b.c.e. and reported in 2 Kings 22\u201323. Josiah most probably reaffirmed a doctrine known earlier, whose implementation had been neglected or opposed for generations. The Deuteronomic doctrine eventually produced far-reaching changes in religious life.
\nTo return to our question: Is the cultic legislation of Leviticus based on this Deuteronomic doctrine of centralized worship? Some great scholars, including Julius Wellhausen in the nineteenth century, interpreted the provisions of Leviticus 17 as indirectly endorsing the doctrine of cult centralization. We read there that Israelites were forbidden, once in their own land, to continue offering sacrifices wherever they wished, as they had done previously. They were required to bring all sacrifices to the Tent of Meeting, to be offered on the sanctuary altar by a legitimate priest. According to Wellhausen, this regulation, cast in a wilderness setting and with a portable Tent-shrine, reflects the distinctive doctrine of Deuteronomy; that is, its statement in Leviticus would have been inconceivable without the prior promulgation of Deuteronomic law.
\nMore recently, H. L. Ginsberg has argued that the festival legislation of Leviticus 23 represents a response to the same Deuteronomic doctrine of centralized worship. An Israelite intending to celebrate one of the pilgrimage festivals fully would be required to undertake a lengthy trip to a central sanctuary and could no longer celebrate at a local shrine or high place (bamah). This logistical problem lies behind the festival legislation of chapter 23, which altered the duration and scheduling of festivals, as well as their cultic character. Most of these changes were instituted against the background of the prior Deuteronomic reforms of worship.
\nGinsberg, noting similarities of diction and doctrine between Hosea and Deuteronomy, traces the origin of the law of cult centralization to the northern kingdom of Israel, in the period before the fall of that kingdom to the Assyrians in 722\u2013721 b.c.e. He proposes that Deuteronomic writings (though not the entire Book of Deuteronomy) were transmitted to Judah and Jerusalem and that these ideas influenced King Hezekiah of Judah, who had endeavored to do away with the high places (2 Kings 18:4). This effort apparently failed. Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who enjoyed a long reign and was known for his heterodoxy. In the late seventh century, Josiah, who had \u201creturned\u201d to the Lord sincerely (2 Kings 23:25), destroyed the major cult sites in use at the time and altered the role of the priesthood.
\nNow, if Leviticus mirrors the doctrine of Deuteronomy, then it is most likely a product of the age of Josiah at the earliest, at least in its laws governing proper worship and celebrations. There are scholars who dispute this historical reconstruction and, instead, regard the legislation of Leviticus as being earlier than the time of Josiah and the promulgation of the Deuteronomic doctrine of cult centralization. Foremost among these was Yehezkel Kaufmann. In his monumental work, he argued that the priestly literature of the Torah emerged at an earlier period than the Deuteronomic writings. More recent scholars, who follow this chronology, date P to the early seventh century b.c.e.
\n2. The relative chronology of the Torah books and of the sources that comprise Torah literature also has a bearing on the significance of the similarities, in language and content, between the writings of Ezekiel and P. Ezekiel, the priest-prophet, was a major spokesman of the priestly school of Jerusalem. He lived at the time of the destruction of the First Temple and went into exile to Babylonia. Some scholars, following Kaufmann and others of his persuasion, maintain that P served as a source for Ezekiel. Others conclude that, for the most part, the relationship was the reverse: It was Ezekiel who introduced some of the themes that found their way into the priestly source of the Torah.
\nGinsberg, for example, proposes that themes prominent in the Epilogue to the Holiness Code of Leviticus (26:3\u201346) were drawn from Ezekiel. Historically, this would mean that, at the very least, parts of the Epilogue were written well into the Babylonian exile, during the sixth century b.c.e.
\nThe most prudent view on the history of Leviticus would approximate that of the late E. A. Speiser: that priestly law and literature took form over a protracted period of time and that it would be inaccurate to assign all of their contents to a single period of ancient history. This approach helps to explain the presence of some relatively early material in Leviticus, while at the same time allowing for the inclusion of exilic and postexilic creativity. It also correlates well with the observable strata within Leviticus and within P as a whole, a subject to be explained in due course.
\nThere are indications that Leviticus may include postexilic material. Certain of its terms of reference are known from extrabiblical documents of the late sixth and fifth centuries b.c.e., after the end of the Babylonian exile. Some of the legislation of Leviticus regarding the jurisdiction of the priesthood fits in well with the preexilic situation\u2014for example, chapter 27, which speaks of priestly accountability for Temple administration, a set of functions compatible with the Judean monarchy. Chapter 25, however, speaks of indebtedness, indenture, and land transactions; it is unrealistic to suppose that under the Judean kings the priesthood would have had jurisdiction over such matters. From the books of Samuel and Kings, it would appear that royal officials and local elders dealt with such transactions. In the postexilic period, however, Jerusalem and Judea were governed by a priesthood, a \u201chierocracy,\u201d centered in the Temple of Jerusalem, whose heads represented the Jewish community to the Persian authorities. The theory of land tenure set forth in chapter 25 also differs appreciably from that typical of the preexilic period.
\nThere is a certain logic in supposing that, at a time when the Second Temple was being rebuilt, priestly writers would be engaged in recording their interpretation of the historic events that had contributed to the Judean restoration. One hears echoes of exilic prophecy in Leviticus, in such themes as redemption (ge\u02beullah), a major emphasis in the writings of the exilic author, or authors, of Isaiah 40\u201366.
\nIn summary, Leviticus is part of the priestly component in Torah literature, in keeping with its traditional classification as torat kohanim. It is linked to priestly historiography preserved in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers and even occasionally in Deuteronomy. In their interpretations of early Israelite history, priestly writers placed great emphasis on religious concerns: the covenant between God and Israel, sacrifice and celebration, purification and the quest for holiness. Some of the forms of sacrifice prescribed in Leviticus were quite ancient. This is true of the Sabbath and annual festivals as well\u2014though it is likely that, in Leviticus, they also incorporate later phases of development.
\nIn this regard, Leviticus is like other biblical books. Each has a prehistory as well as a literary history, having undergone various stages of redaction. Ancient Israelite religion incorporated institutions and laws that antedated their committal to writing. A close study of Leviticus shows that although the book is unified by its common priestly derivation, many of its sections and chapters exhibit distinctive features, suggesting that it includes materials written by different authors at different times\u2014a probability strengthened by a careful look at its terminology. The book contains terms for designating the collectivity of Israelites, ranging from the common term benei yisra\u02beel, \u201cthe Israelites,\u201d to the more limited one, beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cthe household of Israel,\u201d a term largely concentrated in chapters 17 and 22 (and once in 10:6). Chapters 17 and 22, both of which are in the Holiness Code, have other elements in common, further indicating that they derive from the same archive or have been written by the same author.
\nWhen we examine terms referring to fellow Israelites, we also encounter concentrations of usage in the Holiness Code. The term rea\u02bf, \u201ccompanion,\u201d is found only in Leviticus 19 and 20, both in the Holiness Code; \u02bfamit, \u201ckinsman,\u201d is restricted to chapter 5 and the Holiness Code. These facts of usage correlate with the overall definition of the Holiness Code as a distinctive collection. Even the frequent biblical term \u02bea\u1e25, \u201cbrother, kinsman,\u201d as a way of referring to a fellow Israelite, is restricted in Leviticus to the Holiness Code. These patterns suggest the conclusion that Leviticus, in its received form, was compiled from existing documents or archives and that little attempt was made to standardize usage with respect to its basic terminology.
\nIt is also true that in any given chapter or other textual unit one may find passages that were added to a prior version of the text. Taking Leviticus 23 as an example, we note that verse 4 repeats verse 2 in introducing the set times (mo\u02bfadim) of the liturgical year. We also find two consecutive statements on the Sukkot festival, one in verses 33\u201338, the other in verses 39\u201343. The former statement ends with a summary in verses 37\u201338, and it is quite abrupt to have a second statement appearing after a summary.
\nLike the other books of the Torah, Leviticus documents significant developments in the celebration of the festivals and other important observances. To identify such developments requires the subtle analysis of the text, its terminology and composition, and its relation to other sources dealing with similar subjects.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Institutional History: Realistic Functions in Leviticus Perhaps the closest we can come to a sense of historical reality regarding the laws and rituals of Leviticus is through an analysis of the institutions to which the book refers. As has been explained, Leviticus lacks the usual information on which critical scholars rely in their effort to date an ancient text. However, we may instead utilize religious institutions as historical indicators. If we can establish when certain practices or procedures went into effect, when certain laws were enacted, or when the Israelites began to order their collective existence as Leviticus requires, we may be able to identify specific periods of biblical history.
\nFour principal factors are reflected in Leviticus and are presupposed by its laws and rituals: (1) the community, within which the program ordained by Leviticus was to be realized; (2) the priesthood or consecrated fraternity in charge of the religious life of the community and its individual members; (3) the Sanctuary, a structural complex where sacrificial worship, purification rites, and public celebration took place; and (4) the cult, a regimen of worship, purification, and celebration centered in the Sanctuary and conducted by the priesthood.
\nTHE COMMUNITY Leviticus ordains a religious way of life for a community or for a network of communities. As projected in Leviticus, this community was comprised of the Israelites living during the period of the Sinai migrations, prior to the settlement of Canaan. Moses was the leader of the people, with Aaron, the High Priest, at his side. God communicated to Moses, and sometimes to Aaron as well, the regulations by which the Israelites were to live; this is how the community was governed. Also communicated were laws that would take effect once the people settled in the land of Canaan. There is no reference to a king, for the obvious reason that Leviticus is set in a period that antedates the advent of the monarchy.
\nA traditionalist commentator would tend to interpret the diverse names by which the community is designated in Leviticus as synonymous with each other. By contrast, the critical interpreter would seek to learn what each of these names contributes to our historic knowledge of the ancient Israelites. It would be best to divide these various names into two categories: (1) functional terms that inform us realistically about the nature of the community as conceived in Leviticus, and (2) traditional terms that are common to many biblical traditions and tell us little of specific significance as regards Leviticus.
\nIn the latter group of traditional, or representative, terms we find benei yisra\u02beel, \u201cthe Israelite people,\u201d and beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cthe household of Israel.\u201d These names are hardly distinctive; nor is the frequent designation ha\u02bfam, \u201cthe people.\u201d The truly functional terms seem to be ha-\u02bfedah, \u201cthe community,\u201d a specifically priestly term of reference, and hakahal, \u201cthe congregation,\u201d a term of generally wider usage that seems to have a specific function in Leviticus.
\nA cognate of the term \u02bfedah is known outside the Hebrew Bible. It occurs in Aramaic documents of the fifth century b.c.e. unearthed in Egypt, at the site of the Jewish colony at Elephantine. In those documents, Aramaic \u02bfedah is one way of referring to the socioreligious unit; we read of one who would rise up in the \u02bfedah to press his suit or to take other legal action. The derivation of the word \u02bfedah is not entirely certain, but quite clearly it is a term having no genealogical, familial, or tribal connection. The same is true of kahal, which is also known from extrabiblical sources. Whereas the terms benei yisra\u02beel, beit yisra\u02beel, and \u02bfam express kinship, at least in their original orientation, the terms \u02bfedah and kahal do not. It is of interest to note that the usual terms for \u201ctribe,\u201d shevet and matteh, never appear in Leviticus as designations for the internal units that comprised the collectivity, as they frequently do in the Book of Numbers, for example.
\nHebrew mishpa\u1e25ah, \u201cclan,\u201d is a functional term in Leviticus. It appears in contexts that speak of the economic ties that bind families together and of land ownership. In significant respects, the functional context of the Israelite clan had broken down, but, as in all communities, clans continued to exist. We also find in Leviticus that the laws governing marriage serve to define the immediate family in terms of both consanguineal (blood) and affinal (marriage) relations. And yet, when it comes to ways of referring to fellow Israelites, we again encounter differing functional and traditional terms and sometimes the same term used in various ways. Leviticus employs the kinship term \u02bea\u1e25, \u201cbrother, kinsman,\u201d to refer to a member of the same clan, in which cases its use is functional; but it also uses \u02bea\u1e25 more loosely to refer to any member of a society. There is also reference to benei \u02bfamkha, \u201cfellow members of your people.\u201d
\nThe most definitively functional terms in Leviticus are social in orientation and have no basis in kinship. Thus, a fellow Israelite may be a re\u02bfa, \u201cfellow, associate,\u201d or an \u02bfamit, \u201cneighbor,\u201d a term occurring in Leviticus and only once elsewhere, in Zechariah 13:7, in parallelism with re\u02bfa. A community whose members refer to each other as re\u02bfa or \u02bfamit is one in which clans and families function in the usual ways but where common ancestry and kinship play much less of a role than do social communality and religious identity. This conclusion is somewhat surprising because we customarily think of the priestly tradition as emphasizing genealogy, whereas what we see in Leviticus is evidence of covenantal community.
\nSettlement patterns may also point either to traditional conceptions, on the one hand, or to aspects of historical reality, on the other. In the context of the migration through Sinai en route to the promised land, Leviticus often refers to ha-ma\u1e25aneh, \u201cthe encampment,\u201d which we may regard as a traditional term in that setting. We also find a rather imprecise term, moshavot, \u201csettlements,\u201d literally \u201cterritories of habitation.\u201d In contrast to these, Leviticus also speaks of towns (\u02bfir, \u02bfarim), referring to urban dwellings and to the Levitical towns. It deals with the legalities of the sale of both urban property and arable land. More curious, perhaps, and possibly more revealing, is the reference to towns in the laws of Leviticus 14:4 off. that require quarantine of diseased persons.
\nBeneath the surface of traditional terminology in Leviticus we find terms characteristic of an agrarian society that also engaged in pastoral pursuits. An example is migrash, \u201clot,\u201d a way of designating both corrals and gardens adjacent to towns. We also encounter the term \u1e25atserim, \u201copen settlements,\u201d which designates agricultural and\/or pastoral villages. Outside the towns is the sadeh, \u201copen country.\u201d
\nTerms for leadership likewise contribute to the picture of the Israelite community projected in Leviticus. There is only one occurrence of the tribal term nasi\u02be, \u201cchieftain,\u201d and in that instance we are told that the nasi\u02be who is guilty of a religious offense must expiate it in the same manner as any other Israelite. In contrast, an offense by the High Priest, called \u201cthe anointed priest,\u201d is of the same consequence as one committed by the entire community; it therefore requires more elaborate expiation rites. This suggests that the High Priest was the functional head of the community. We occasionally read of the zekenim, \u201celders,\u201d but only in ceremonial roles.
\nIn summary, a functional analysis of what Leviticus has to say about the nature of the Israelite community leads to the following conclusions: We have reflected in Leviticus a community functioning as a socioreligious organism, whose members are similar to what we today would call citizens. This agricultural\/pastoral community is governed by the High Priest, and its affairs are administered by the priesthood. In the Commentary, as well as in this Introduction, it is suggested that the community depicted in Leviticus would seem to reflect the life situation of the Judean populace in the early postexilic period. At that time, a hierocracy, or a government by priests, administered Jerusalem and Judea under Persian imperial domination. An alternative model could be the premonarchic pattern of settlement, but there are many reasons to consider such an early provenance unlikely.
\nRegarding the social character of the projected community, we can say, furthermore, that it was intended to be sacred. Non-Israelite residents were to be treated humanely, but they were prohibited from overt acts that clashed with the strictly monotheistic commitments of Israelite religion. For example, they were required to respect the festivals, which, including the Sabbaths, were to be observed in all the Israelite habitations and celebrated in the public cult.
\nGreat care was to be exercised in diet and in the storage and preparation of food. There was a heightened concern with purity; certain unusual diseases and infections, as well as normal physiological phenomena, were classified as impure and regulated accordingly. The objective of this community was to become a holy nation in every respect, a people unified by a common religion and, in the words of the Epilogue to the Holiness Code, bound by a common destiny. Communal and interpersonal relations were to be conducted on the highest ethical level. Elders and parents were to be shown respect. Dealings were to be honest. The unfortunate had to be cared for. Israelites were expected to be devout in their support for the priesthood and Sanctuary, pious in worship, and God-fearing. All inadvertent offenses against God were to be expiated in the cult, so as to avert God\u2019s wrath.
\nIs it realistic to conclude that all the laws and rituals of Leviticus were observed within the community? Of course not! From prophetic denunciations and critiques of religious experience, we gather that there was often cause for complaint. The admonitions against idolatry and its concomitants\u2014sorcery, necromancy, and divination\u2014and the great emphasis on preserving the distinctiveness of Israelite identity indicate that there were ongoing problems. Biblical outcries against social injustice likewise warn the reader against idealizing the ancient Israelite community. Such horrendous stories as the sudden death of two of Aaron\u2019s sons at God\u2019s hand for a ritual offense suggest the need to admonish the community and the priesthood against improper forms of worship.
\nThe provisions of Leviticus 25 seem to reflect an economically strained, somewhat stratified society, in which the risk of forfeiture of land was ever present and in which indenture was common. The law aimed to protect the rights of landowners, and the ancient duty to preserve land within the clan, so basic to earlier legislation, had given way to an emphasis on private ownership. Charging interest was forbidden, and the right to redeem seized land and indentured persons was guaranteed. There is reference to the special problems involved in doing business with non-Israelites, which suggests a mixed population.
\nTHE PRIESTHOOD The functions of the priesthood have already been discussed in various connections and will be further clarified in the discussion of the Sanctuary and cult, as these are reflected in Leviticus. It has been suggested that in the real\u2014namely, the historic\u2014community of Leviticus, the priesthood occupied a position of leadership. The \u201canointed priest,\u201d or High Priest, was the effective head of the community.
\nThe priesthood filled several primary functions: (1) officiation in the sacrificial cult; (2) purification and related activities, which included attending to the ill and impure; (3) administration of the transactions of the Sanctuary and probably of other transactions involving sales of land, indebtedness, and indenture; and, finally, (4) implicit in all that Leviticus prescribes were the judicial and educational roles of the priesthood. According to Leviticus, officiation in the sacrificial cult was the exclusive prerogative of the priesthood, though donors and communal leaders participated in officiation by the placing of hands on the offering. Certain cultic functions were reserved for the High Priest.
\nTo be fit for cultic officiation in the sacred precincts of the Sanctuary, a priest, once consecrated, was required to remain in a state of ritual purity. Purity also affected the right of the priest to partake of consecrated foodstuffs derived from the offerings of the sanctuary. Priests were subject to certain marital restrictions: They were banned from marrying divorced women, harlots, and women who were degraded as a result of prohibited marriages or from families that were declassed. The High Priest was even further restricted and could marry only a virgin of his own kin. The violation of these restrictions would defile a priest and affect his children\u2019s status.
\nIn addition, the notion that blemishes or other physical deformities render a sacrifice unfit to be offered to God also applied to the physical condition of priests. Physical soundness was required of officiating priests, though priests born with deformities, or who had been injured, were not deprived of their support.
\nHistorically, there is every reason to regard such requirements as having been realistic in their time. In fact, they continued to be operative in postbiblical times, and the marital restrictions remain in effect to this day among traditional Jews.
\nOne type of impurity was particularly consequential for priests, although its effects were remediable: the severe impurity resulting from contact with the dead. Priests were effectively eliminated from any funerary role and could attend only to the burial of close, consanguineal relatives and, by implication, to the burial of their wives. The High Priest could never be involved in burial. The dead body of an Israelite was regarded as the most severe generator of impurity. These regulations are known to have been realistic and have persisted throughout the centuries since biblical times.
\nAlso realistic were the therapeutic functions of the priesthood in treating diseases that were regarded as life-threatening as well as impure. In part, we observe in Leviticus the transferral to the official priesthood of certain roles elsewhere associated with prophets and \u201cmen of God.\u201d In the rituals and laws of Leviticus there is little mention of the customary oracular functions of priests. Whereas Aaron donned the ephod and Urim and Thummim at his investiture\u2014and there is also reference to the casting of lots on Yom Kippur\u2014Leviticus fails to prescribe an oracular role to the priesthood as a whole.
\nThe priesthood was charged with maintaining the purity of the Sanctuary. This involved procedures for restoring its purity once defiled and for replacement of vessels that could not be purified. In reality, maintenance, as it is usually understood, consisted in large part of maintaining purity. Once a year, prior to the Sukkot festival, on the day that came to be known as Yom Kippur, there was an elaborate general purification of the Sanctuary in which the High Priest had a unique role.
\nPriests issued rulings on the fitness of sacrificial animals and other consecrated materials, so as to prevent the defiling of the Sanctuary through impure offerings. Consecrated substances had to be stored in special ways and removed at specific times. Priests also instructed the people in proper food sources and on the purity of vessels.
\nOn certain levels, purification involved administration, and chapter 27 shows how the priests were to conduct the business of the Sanctuary. Specific market values were placed on many commodities for the purpose of determining the cost of redeeming donations of various sorts to the Sanctuary. Priests registered all that was brought into and dispensed from the Sanctuary. Sanctuary weight was the standard.
\nChapter 25 is a code of law that has already been discussed for the information it provides on the Israelite community. Its provisions pertain to sales of land, indebtedness, and indenture. It does not explicitly mention the priesthood. All transactions are expressed as occurring between individual Israelites, occasionally among members of the same clan, and also with non-Israelite residents of the land. There is no direct reference to any legal or administrative authority or agency that might have been in charge of such transactions. Nevertheless, the very inclusion of chapter 25 in Leviticus suggests that the priesthood was undoubtedly expected to administer such transactions. The chapter is introduced by statements on the importance of observing the Sabbatical year; and it is here that the Jubilee year is initiated as an institution in Torah literature. All of this suggests that the laws of chapter 25, though mundane in nature, were of religious concern.
\nLeviticus tells us little in an explicit way about the training and education of priests, though the torot and similar texts undoubtedly served as manuals of procedure to be followed by the priests in the performance of their tasks. A bit more is said about the support of the clergy and their families. The people were, in effect, taxed for that purpose in several ways. Sections from most sacrifices were withheld on behalf of the clergy. We are compelled to rely on sources other than Leviticus for a full outline of this support system, and at times it is not clear whether certain payments went to support the clergy in particular or to the Sanctuary as an institution.
\nIn summary, Leviticus is an important source of information on the realistic functions of the priesthood. In the community projected in Leviticus, the priesthood held most of the leadership roles, administered the Sanctuary, and probably also handled legal transactions of all sorts.
\nWhere realism ends, tradition begins: Leviticus presupposes the exclusive legitimacy of the Aaronide priesthood, a basic tenet of the priestly source of the Torah. But the tradition of the Aaronide priesthood\u2014a family-based fraternity founded by Aaron, Moses\u2019 brother, and his sons\u2014does not accord with the overall thrust of biblical evidence. Although consistently associated with the priestly component of Torah literature, this tradition is almost entirely absent from the historical books, Judges through Kings. It reemerges only in the postexilic writings of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Even in Ezekiel we read of the Zadokite priesthood, not of the Aaronide priesthood.
\nIn fact, general references in Leviticus to \u201cthe priest\u201d (ha-kohen) can be interpreted as referring originally not to Aaron or his sons at all but merely to any legitimate priest, or to the priest in charge. But the priestly writers, wishing to feature the Aaronide priesthood, may have incorporated that material into Leviticus. In chapters 8\u201310, we find a description, or record, of the original consecration of the Aaronide priesthood and the initial assumption of their duties in the Tabernacle. Elsewhere, as well, priests are often identified as Aaronide priests. Thus, this tradition on the origins of the priesthood begins in Exodus, continues through Leviticus, and finds its most elaborate expression in Numbers. Priestly historiography weaves in the antecedent family background via the early career of Moses and the Egyptian experience. In Numbers, the first succession after Aaron\u2019s death is also recounted, thereby establishing the hereditary character of the priesthood.
\nIt is not certain when and how this tradition of an Aaronide priesthood, with its tribal and familial underpinnings, arose. Its historicity in the preexilic period is doubtful, both on literary-historical grounds and in institutional terms. It is not unrealistic, however, to have priestly families or to find priests clustered in their own communities. Even the hereditary principle is realistic, if we allow for the occasional recruitment or adoption of outsiders. Actually, three factors interacted to give structure to ancient priesthoods: place of residence, family origin, and training in the priestly arts. Families tended to reside together and to transmit crafts and professions from generation to generation with some degree of secrecy. Perhaps the least realistic feature of Leviticus is the Aaronide tradition.
\nIn sum, Leviticus is extremely informative about the operation of the priesthood and its involvement not only in the cult but also in communal administration\u2014although we must conclude that the account of the Aaronide tradition is itself historically questionable.
\nTHE SANCTUARY Leviticus presents us with a traditional view, according to which formal worship of the God of Israel was initiated during the days of Moses in a portable tentlike sanctuary. This structural complex, described in the Commentary, is variously named \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe Tent of Meeting,\u201d and ha-mishkan, \u201cthe Tabernacle.\u201d Leviticus also employs the term mikdash, \u201csanctuary,\u201d which, strictly speaking, refers to a stationary building, roofed and enclosed. Because priestly writers also use this term more loosely to designate the Tent of Meeting\/Tabernacle, as in Exodus 25:8 and Numbers 1\u20139 and following, it is not certain how it should be understood in Leviticus.
\nPriestly literature records that this tentlike structure and its accompanying altars served as the sole legitimate Israelite Sanctuary. It was the repository of the Ark and its contents during the period of the Sinai migrations, and it continued in this function at Shiloh, the first major cult site established by the settling Israelites (Josh. 18:1). The same portable Tabernacle served as the repository of the Ark until it was replaced by the Solomonic Temple and its Shrine in Jerusalem, after a period in which the Ark was moved through several sites (see 2 Sam. 7:4\u20136; 1 Kings 8:3\u20136).
\nThis is the tradition as stated and as reflected in Leviticus. The Torah itself is not consistent in its depiction of this tentlike structure. The evident discrepancies have been debated since late antiquity, both by traditionalist and more recently by critical scholars. In fact, critical scholarship has generated the same kinds of questions about the Tabernacle tradition as about the historicity of Leviticus as a whole. It has been proposed that the Tabernacle tradition is merely a feature of the larger recasting of early Israelite history that we encounter in priestly literature. A migratory people, forbidden to follow the customary pattern of offering sacrifices at existing altars and cult sites and barred from erecting new ones, according to the official law of the priests (Lev. 17), would have been well served by a portable sanctuary. This structure, erected within the \u201cencampment\u201d (ma\u1e25aneh), would have served as the locus of cultic and other communal activity. The oracular function associated with \u201cthe Tent\u201d to which Moses repaired in order to communicate with God (Exod. 33) was integrated into the priestly conception of the Sanctuary.
\nIn critical terms, a distinction must be made between the Ark as a cult object and the tradition of a wilderness Tabernacle.
\nThe reality of an Ark containing sacred tablets may be accepted, but the tradition of the Tabernacle, with all its corollary features, is hardly realistic. The effort to find analogues to the priestly Tabernacle has led scholars to structures in use by Bedouins and to Egyptian reliefs that portray a shrine or altar of sorts positioned at the center of the Egyptian military camp. Leviticus probably does not provide us with realistic information about the physical features of early Israelite cult sites or altars. Archaeological excavations have yielded examples of fairly early Israelite cult sites at Shiloh, Arad, Beer-Sheba, and elsewhere. The pattern seems clearly to have been one of stationary altars and bamot (a term designating a larger installation) and of regional temples. The evidence of other biblical books also points in this direction; there are abundant narratives about events occurring at any number of stationary cult sites.
\nTraditionalist interpretation, undoubtedly beginning in the Bible itself, has always sought to preserve a unified record and to harmonize very different portrayals of early Israelite worship. The critical scholar is willing to admit the existence of differing histories of early Israel. Leviticus belongs to the priestly tradition, which in this respect is less realistic than other biblical records.
\nNevertheless, the spatial organization reflected in the design of the priestly Tabernacle has a direct bearing on the realities of worship in biblical times. We observe a progression of graduated zones of sanctity (or taboo) as we proceed closer to the Holy of Holies. Each zone imposes increasingly restricted access and stricter purity requirements.
\nThis principle of incremental spatial sanctity determined, to a considerable extent, the actual design of ancient temples in the Near East and elsewhere. It is clearly noticeable at Iron Age Arad, where the more holy area is demarcated from the rest of the courtyard by a step or ledge. Some scholars have suggested a correlation between the measurements of the main altar at Arad and the dimensions of the priestly altar. The orientation of the priestly altar of burnt offerings toward the entrance to the Shrine clearly reflects actual ancient design.
\nThe desert Tabernacle described in the priestly tradition is modeled after actual temples. It is only from the priestly tradition, however, that we learn so much about the meaning that underlies the design. There is, therefore, a certain irony in our quest for ancient realism: The physical character of the priestly Tabernacle is probably unrealistic, but the apportionment of space in its projected design reveals the concepts underlying the designs of real temples in biblical Israel.
\nTHE CULT There is every reason to accept the cultic practice presented in Leviticus as essentially realistic. The phenomenology of sacrifice has also been described in considerable detail. What is now required is an overview of the nature of Israelite worship, as we learn about it from Leviticus.
\nIn biblical times, until after the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem, public or private prayer was not regarded as a sufficient mode of worship. The requirements of worship included some sacrificial offering. This was true even after the Babylonian exile. In fact, traditional Judaism has never abandoned hope for a restoration of the sacrificial cult. More will be said on this subject later in this introduction.
\nThe regimen of sacrifice shows us how the various available materials utilized as sacrifices were related to food sources and to the formalities of dining and hospitality. After all, sacrifices were provided, so to speak, to the visiting, or resident, divine guest. They were sacred meals of sorts. So we find large and small cattle, fowl, grains, wine and oil, and incense. We also find spices, mostly aromatic, and salt, basically used to remove vestigial blood from meat but prescribed even for grain offerings. Male animals were used predominantly, probably out of economic concerns; females were needed to reproduce the herds and flocks. It remains uncertain as to why females are specifically ordered for a certain relatively few sacrificial rites.
\nThere was definitely a quantitative factor at work in the sacrificial regimen\u2014as if to say, the more important the rite or the more grievous the offense, the more costly the sacrifice. Allowances were made for those unable to afford the full measure: In cases where individuals could not afford the required item and might be deprived of purification or expiation, they were allowed to substitute less costly sacrifices.
\nThe individual Israelite and his family enjoyed several avenues of access to worship in the Sanctuary. Vowing a sacrifice to God was a common practice, and this may have been the most frequent route to the Sanctuary. Most kinds of sacrifices were available to the individual, including sin offerings of various sorts, which one would be obligated to donate in the event an offense had been committed. One might also devote objects of value, including land, to the Sanctuary; or symbolically the individual could devote himself or herself. A system of commutations is set forth in chapter 27, whereby one would overpay 20 percent for the privilege of repurchasing a donation. We read of offerings of first fruits on an individual basis.
\nThere is every reason to accept as realistic the participation of individuals and their families in the sacrificial and votive cult. There were occasions when such participation was obligatory, and one assumes that a new mother would make every effort to secure the sacrifice she required after her period of quarantine. If anything, the expiatory function may have been overused at times. Individual participation in the cult was determined by the life cycle, by the seasons, and by one\u2019s own life experience.
\nPublic worship, as we observe it in Leviticus, centered around the Sabbaths and the festivals celebrated in the Sanctuary. The book does not provide a full picture of such worship. Interestingly, it does not focus on the daily public cult, but refers only to a public daily grain offering by the High Priest and to the lamp kindled by him (6:12\u201316, 24:2\u20134). On festivals, the duty of pilgrimage brought large numbers of Israelites to the Sanctuary, where they attended the public celebration. Though the rites were performed by priests, and though the text tells us little of the social dynamics of cultic celebration, the cultic experience was certainly meaningful for all who were present. Since Leviticus is pointedly oriented to the functions of the priesthood, it is to be expected that its rituals and laws emphasize those elements.
\nViewing the cult from the perspective of the God of Israel, the divine recipient of sacrificial offerings, might help us arrive at an imaginative method of deepening our understanding of religious phenomenology. The various modes of sacrifice testify to differing perceptions as to how gifts were to be offered to God. The burnt offering expresses, so to speak, the perception that God breathes in the aromatic smoke, which ascends heavenward. An offering presented on a table in the Shrine reflects a different phenomenology, one in which God views the sacrifice with pleasure and thereby accepts it: The gift, in such cases, is shown to Him and is then allocated to the priests, who actually consume it. Offerings of wine and the use of aromatic oil have their obvious meanings.
\nMost sacrifices combine more than one mode, and we observe significant evidence of development in the manner of worship as prescribed in the rituals of Leviticus. Thus, a small scoop of dough from most grain offerings was burned on the altar, while the rest of the substance of the offering was prepared as human food through baking or frying. Similarly, most burnt offerings were only partially burned on the altar, with the rest prepared as food for priests and, in some cases, for the donors of sacrifices. The object was to celebrate a sacred meal in the presence of God, to share a meal with the Deity. In fact, the sacrifice was generally not efficacious unless the priests and, where applicable, the donors actually partook of their respective shares.
\nThe blood rites prescribed in Leviticus represent a different set of meanings, and, though part of the same sacrificial cult, they functioned in other ways. Blood was taboo and forbidden for human consumption because it was regarded as the vital juice, that part of the physical being of the sacrificial animal that gave it life. Reserved for God, the blood was offered to Him on the altar. Vestigial blood was removed by salting the offerings. Blood substituted for the life of the worshiper and served to avert divine wrath. In the Commentary, the phenomenology of blood rites is explained in considerable detail.
\nSimilar to the role of blood is the role of those parts of sacrificial animals that were consumed on the altar, particularly the fat covering the internal organs. Fat was thought to be desired by the Deity because it was perceived as giving energy. Reference to the fat of an animal or to the \u201cfat\u201d of wheat was a way of referring to their choice parts. In a related matter, all materials used as offerings had to be the choicest, without blemish or physical deformity. One used the best semolina and the best olive oil and spices.
\nThe absence of any recitational texts is conspicuous in Leviticus. And yet, we should not assume that all was done in silence. We find reference to a verbal confession of sins, and we are warranted in assuming that priests recited fixed liturgical formulas at various points in the process of offering sacrifices while performing rites of purification. Although the priestly texts simply do not reproduce these liturgies, it is hard to conceive of a sacrificial cult without instruction and formal statements. In Numbers, we have the Priestly Benediction; and the Mishnah preserves some such recitations, all of a later origin.
\nAbsolutely nothing is recorded in Leviticus about how animals were slaughtered or about the tools used in this process. All sorts of vessels are mentioned, such as bowls and tools for cleaning and scraping. All of these are realistic and may, in some cases, be identified with artifacts unearthed in archaeological excavations.
\nTo conclude: Leviticus affords us only a partial view of the official biblical cult, but its functional evidence is undoubtedly realistic, as far as it goes. It is difficult to pinpoint precisely when the procedures of the cult, as preserved in Leviticus, went into operation. It can be said, however, that the older mode of presentation offerings was clearly accommodated, in Leviticus, to the rising importance of the burnt altar offering in Israelite religion. When compared with the table of sacrifices prescribed for the public cult in Numbers 28\u201330, Leviticus 23 seems to represent an earlier stage. On the other hand, the emphasis on rites of purification in Leviticus appears to reflect the growing interest in purity evident in exilic and postexilic literature.
\nConclusions
\nLeviticus remains a major source of knowledge about the religion of biblical Israel. By virtue of its abundant detail, it provides information of a kind rarely encountered elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, except in other priestly texts, such as one finds in Exodus and Numbers.
\nStudying Leviticus enhances our awareness that, in practice, Israelite religion not only embodied concepts and beliefs that were held by the members of the religious community of Israel but also represented a specific system with prescribed ways of expressing these beliefs and concepts. This awareness should encourage students of biblical religion and society to devote more attention to ritual and symbolism, worship, celebration, and purification as set forth in Leviticus. It is from these aspects of religious experience that we learn what it meant to be an Israelite who believed in and worshiped the God of Israel.
\nHistorically, the laws, celebrations, and purifications of Leviticus served as part of the structure of later Judaism. Although the modes of Jewish religion underwent significant change over the course of time in response to new historical circumstances and differing perceptions of the meaning of religion, much of the biblical system of religious living has survived. A proper understanding of historical Judaism becomes possible, then, only by way of an understanding of its earliest phases.
\nFor all students of biblical religion and history, Leviticus poses a genuine challenge: Are we able to penetrate forms and actions to arrive at the dimension of their underlying meanings? Are we limited to statements about how religious devotion was expressed, or can we say something as well about why it was expressed in prescribed ways? One of the major purposes of the present Commentary will be the attempt to fathom the significance of biblical religion, in essence and manifestation.
\nLeviticus speaks to us of purity and holiness and, in effect, commands us to worship God fervently:
\nO house of Israel, bless the Lord;
\nO house of Aaron, bless the Lord;
\nO house of Levi, bless the Lord;
\nyou who fear the Lord, bless the Lord.
\nBlessed is the Lord from Zion,
\nHe who dwells in Jerusalem.
\nHallelujah. (Ps. 135:19\u201321)<\/p>\n
weiter<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE JPS TORAH COMMENTARY LEVITICUS \u05d5\u05d9\u05e7\u05e8\u05d0 In the last century, a new way of looking at the Bible developed. Research into the ancient Near East and its texts recreated for us the civilizations out of which the Bible emerged. In this century, there has been a revival of Jewish biblical scholarship; Israeli and American … <\/p>\n