THE COMMENTARY TO LEVITICUS<\/p>\n
The Principal Types of Sacrifice (1:1\u20137:38)
\nVa-yikra\u02be
\nChapters 1\u20137 constitute the first section of the Book of Leviticus. They outline the basic modes of sacrifice, listing and describing the several classes of offerings to be presented to God in the sanctuary. Chapters 1\u20135 are addressed to the general populace\u2014to individual Israelites and to their leaders, to all who wished to worship God or who were required by circumstances to offer a particular sacrifice. They tell what may be offered\u2014animals, birds, grain, and so forth\u2014and they lay down the proper procedures for presenting the different sacrifices, a function that was performed primarily by priests but could occasionally require some sort of participation on the part of the donors of the sacrifices. Chapters 6\u20137, on the other hand, constitute a professional manual for the priesthood; they provide a torah, literally \u201can instruction,\u201d for each of the major classes of sacrifices. Although there is some overlapping of specific content between chapters 1\u20135 and chapters 6\u20137, the style and the form of each division is distinct.
\nChapters 1\u20135 should be subdivided further. Chapters 1\u20133 outline the three principal types of sacrifices that were offered regularly by individual Israelites and their families, by kings and other leaders, and often by the entire community. A chapter is devoted to each of them: the burnt offering (\u02bfolah), the grain offering (min\u1e25ah), and the sacred gifts of greeting (zeva\u1e25 ha-shelamim). These offerings could be included in a variety of celebrations\u2014public and private, voluntary and obligatory. They served a multiplicity of functions since they could be offered singly or as part of more elaborate rites. The sacrifices treated in chapters 4\u20135, sacrifices of expiation, were of more limited application. Offered for the purpose of securing God\u2019s forgiveness, their presentation was obligatory, pursuant to transgressions of religious law, committed either by omission or through inadvertent violations. In most cases, the sacrifice served to remove the charge against the offenders and to restore them to a proper relationship with God and to fit membership in the religious community.
\nIt should be emphasized here, as the workings of the sacrificial system are introduced to the reader, that the laws of the Torah did not permit Israelites to expiate intentional or premeditated offenses by means of sacrifice. There was no vicarious, ritual remedy\u2014substitution of one\u2019s property or wealth\u2014for such violations, whether they were perpetrated against other individuals or against God Himself. In those cases, the law dealt directly with the offender, imposing real punishments and acting to prevent recurrences. The entire expiatory system ordained in the Torah must be understood in this light. Ritual expiation was restricted to situations where a reasonable doubt existed as to the willfulness of the offense. Even then, restitution was always required where loss or injury to another person had occurred. The mistaken notion that ritual worship could atone for criminality or intentional religious desecration was persistently attacked by the prophets of Israel, who considered it a major threat to the entire covenantal relationship between Israel and God.
\nIn summary, the prescriptions of chapters 1\u20137 outline the main components of the biblical sacrificial system, as it was administered by the Israelite priesthood.
\nCHAPTER 1
\nTHE BURNT OFFERING (\u02bfOLAH) (vv. 1\u201317)
\nChapter 1 deals with the sacrifice called \u02bfolah, which was burned to ashes on the altar of burnt offerings. No part of it was eaten, either by priests or donors. The \u02bfolah could consist of male herd cattle (vv. 3\u20139), of male flock animals (vv. 10\u201313), or of certain birds (vv. 14\u201317). Despite some differences in detail, the procedures for all burnt offerings, or holocausts, were quite similar: The sacrifice was presented at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; the donor laid his hand on the victim, thereby designating it for a particular rite; and blood from the sacrificial victim was dashed on the altar in appropriate ways.
\n1. The Lord called to Moses \u2026 from the Tent of Meeting Although the sense is clear enough, the unusual syntax of the Hebrew did not escape the attention of commentators. Rashbam suggested that this opening verse takes up where Exodus 40:34\u201335 leaves off. There we read that Moses had been unable to enter the Tent because it was filled with God\u2019s presence. Here we read that the Lord \u201ccalled\u201d Moses, that He summoned him from the Tent nonetheless! In this way Leviticus is linked sequentially to Exodus.
\nHebrew \u02beohel mo\u02bfed is the name given to the portable tent structure that housed the Ark and other cult objects. In other priestly texts this structural complex is called mishkan, a term that also means \u201ctent.\u201d Conceived as God\u2019s earthly residence, this sanctuary served two principal functions: It was an oraculum, where God communicated His word, and it was a cult site, where God was worshiped through sacrifices. The derivation of the word mo\u02bfed from the root y-\u02bf-d, \u201cto meet, come together\u201d at an appointed time or place, expresses the functions of the structure called \u02beohel mo\u02bfed.
\nThis Tent of Meeting was surrounded by an enclosed courtyard, within which stood the altar of burnt offerings. In turn, the altar faced the entrance of the Tent, so that sacrifices were directed toward God\u2019s residence. Within, the Tent itself was divided into two sections, separated by a screen (parokhet) that was embroidered with cherubs. Behind the screen, in the innermost area, was the Holy of Holies, which housed the Ark covered by its sculptured lid, the kapporet. Before the screen, in the front part of the Tent, stood the menorah, the altar of incense, and a table for presentations. The outer entrance of the Tent was also protected by a curtain. All of this information is set forth in Exodus 25:1\u201327:21 and repeated, with additional detail, in Exodus 35\u201340.
\nThere is, however, another tradition about \u02beohel mo\u02bfed that differs from what has been reconstructed here from the priestly texts. In Exodus 33:6\u201311, \u02beohel mo\u02bfed is portrayed as a Tent\u2014pitched far outside the Israelite encampment\u2014that served exclusively as an oraculum. Whenever Moses entered the Tent to \u201cmeet\u201d with God, a pillar of cloud appeared at its entrance as though to separate the Tent from the people gathered around. What is striking about these verses is the absence of any reference to the sacrificial cult, the Ark, or any other sacred objects. Evidently, the priestly tradition fused several of the known sacred functions of ancient Israel (including the cloud traditions) in their retelling of the history of the \u02beohel mo\u02bfed during the wilderness period. How these traditions are brought together has been widely discussed in recent scholarly literature; nevertheless, we still do not know the whole story.
\n2. the Israelite people Hebrew benei yisra\u02beel, a very common way of referring to the Israelite people, is usually rendered \u201cthe children of Israel.\u201d But that rendering is unsatisfactory, for it fails to express the concept of peoplehood basic to biblical notions of group organization. The term is constructed in the same way as are several other ethnographic names, such as benei \u02bfammon, \u201cthe Ammonite people,\u201d and the names of families or clans. Such nomenclature expresses kinship and reflects the notion that nations, like families, are descendants of common ancestors and share a common genealogy. The Israelite people was thought to have descended from the patriarch Israel and his twelve sons.
\nWhen any of you presents The syntax of the Hebrew is unusual: \u201cWhen a person presents, from among you.\u201d Here the term for person is \u02beadam, whereas elsewhere it may be \u02beish or nefesh. All three terms share the same functional connotation, although each preserves individual nuances. The conditional particle ki, \u201cif, when,\u201d is the sign of the casuistic formulation so characteristic of biblical and ancient Near Eastern law codes. This syntax projects a hypothetical situation; a particular law applies only \u201cif\u201d or \u201cwhen\u201d a certain situation arises.
\nan offering Hebrew korban, \u201coffering,\u201d is a generic term for anything presented to God when one approaches (karav) His sanctuary. A korban could consist of artifacts and vessels, votive objects, or sacrificial victims, as is the case here. Archaeological excavations at various sites, including Jerusalem and its environs, have turned up objects inscribed with the word korban, indicating that they were used to prepare or present offerings.
\ncattle \u2026 herd \u2026 flock As in many legal formulas, the general category, here represented by behemah, \u201ccattle,\u201d is stated first. It is further specified by the two usual classes of cattle: bakar, \u201clarge cattle,\u201d and tso\u02ben, \u201cflock.\u201d In rabbinic interpretation, this rhetorical pattern is known as kelal u-frat, \u201cthe general followed by the specific.\u201d The general category is defined by its specifications. Wild animals (\u1e25ayyah, \u201cbeast\u201d) are unsuitable for sacrifice, as they are not of the category behemah.
\n3. If his offering is a burnt offering The conditional particle \u02beim, \u201cif,\u201d frequently introduces cultic laws in the Book of Leviticus and is encountered repeatedly in the first three chapters as well as elsewhere in the book. It expresses the options available to those who offer sacrifices\u2014the choice of which type of sacrifice to bring as well as the choice of animal, fowl, or various grain offerings, where applicable.
\nWhile the casuistic formulation with \u201cif\u201d is generally characteristic of ancient Near Eastern law codes, its appearance in the Punic \u201ctariffs,\u201d so-called, is immediately relevant to our understanding of Leviticus. These statutes, displayed on stone monuments, were discovered in Marseilles but come from Carthage. They are rather imprecisely dated in the fourth or third century b.c.e. and are written in Punic, a dialect of the Phoenician language used in the western Mediterranean colonies that is very similar to biblical Hebrew. These tariffs set down the taxes, or \u201cdues,\u201d to be paid by those who offered sacrifice in the temple of Carthage (outside of modern Tunis). Throughout the Leviticus commentary there will be occasion to point out substantive parallels between the laws of Leviticus and the Marseilles tariffs and to illustrate the similarities in composition and formulation between the two sources.
\nThe tariffs repeatedly delineate the various kinds of offerings in the following manner: b\u02belp\u2014kll, \u02bem \u1e63w\u02bft, \u02bem \u0161lm kll. This means: \u201cIn the case of a head of large cattle\u2014[whether] holocaust, or expiatory offering (?), or sacred gift of greeting [accompanying] the holocaust.\u2026\u201d There is a close resemblance here to the casuistic, or conditional, formulation of our chapter: (1) the options\u2014large or small cattle (v. 2); (2) \u02beim \u02bfolah korbano\u2014\u201cIf his offering is a burnt offering\u201d (v. 3); (3) ve-\u02beim min ha-tso\u02ben korbano\u2014\u201cIf his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock\u201d (v. 10); and (4) ve-\u02beim min ha-\u02bfof \u02bfolah korbano\u2014\u201cIf his offering is a burnt offering of birds\u201d (v. 14).
\n\u201cBurnt offering\u201d is a functional translation of Hebrew \u02bfolah, which actually derives from the verb \u02bf-l-h, \u201cto ascend.\u201d This type of sacrifice was to be consumed in its entirety (exclusive of the hide) by the altar fire. This could account for its name: The offering may have been called \u02bfolah because its flames and smoke \u201cascended\u201d to heaven. Other actions involved in presenting the \u02bfolah may also help to explain its name. There was the \u201cascent\u201d of the sacrifice itself onto the altar, and one speaks of \u201craising up\u201d the \u02bfolah, conveyed by the Hifil form he\u02bfelah. There is also the \u201cascent\u201d of the priest or of the officiant or the donor onto a raised platform where the offering was to be made. This interpretation seems to be corroborated by an ancient Ugaritic epic that tells of a king named Keret who mounted the turret of his city wall to offer a sacrifice; his act is conveyed by a form of the verb \u02bfly, \u201cascend.\u201d
\nThe \u02bfolah was a signal to God that His worshipers desired to bring their needs to His attention; its purpose was to secure an initial response from Him. (God is perceived as breathing the aromatic smoke of the \u02bfolah and responding favorably to the overtures of His devotees.) Frequently, the \u02bfolah was the first sacrifice in rites that included other offerings as well, which supports this suggestion about its purpose. This sacrificial method is known as \u201cattraction,\u201d the offering of an inviting gift to God. In those biblical narratives where the \u02bfolah is prominent, or where it is the only sacrifice employed, attraction emerges as its specific purpose, as is clearly illustrated in the Elijah narrative of 1 Kings 18. Elijah prepares the \u02bfolah and the Baal priests prepare their offerings in the same manner, their common objective being to secure a response from the deity they respectively worship. As 1 Kings 18:24 puts it, \u201cThe god who responds with fire, that one is God.\u201d Balaam uses the method of attraction at various sites to induce an encounter with the God of Israel, as we read in Numbers 23:3\u20136, for example. The priestly texts also understand the function of the \u02bfolah in this way. Leviticus 9:24 relates that after the installation of Aaron and his sons as priests a fire issued forth from the sanctuary and consumed the \u02bfolah and other offerings on the altar, thereby confirming God\u2019s acceptance of the rites of installation.
\nThis, then, was the reason for beginning with the \u02bfolah, which was followed in so many instances by the zeva\u1e25, the shared sacred meal. Before God could be expected to accept the invitation of His worshipers, it was necessary to have an indication of His readiness to be present. This phenomenology suggests that the term \u02bfolah refers to the \u201cascent\u201d of the smoke and flames of the sacrifice itself. The sacrifice, in its transmuted form, reaches God.
\nfor acceptance in his behalf The antecedent of Hebrew li-rtsono is the donor of the sacrifice. The sacrifice counts in his favor; it is accredited to him. When a sacrifice is not considered proper the opposite is said of it: lo\u02be le-ratson, \u201cnot acceptable, discredited.\u201d
\nbefore the Lord Hebrew lifnei YHVH seems to delineate a defined sacred area, at times the zone beginning at the rear of the altar of burnt offerings in the sanctuary courtyard and continuing to the interior of the Tent. In other passages the zone is less specific, referring to a large space near the entrance of the courtyard. The point is that priestly law strictly limits sacrifice to a particular area and to the legitimate altar.
\n4. He shall lay his hand This symbolic act, known in later Hebrew as semikhah, \u201cthe laying on\u201d of hands, served to assign a sacrificial victim for use in a particular rite, in this case an \u02bfolah. This act had other uses as well, and these help to clarify its meaning. By the laying on of hands, those in authority could invest other persons with offices of authority. Moses laid his hands on Joshua when appointing him leader of the Israelite people, as we read in Numbers 27:18\u201323 and Deuteronomy 34:9. In the same way, in Numbers 8:10 the Israelites are instructed to lay their hands on the Levites. In Leviticus 24:10\u201316 we read that the members of the community are to lay their hands on a person convicted of blasphemy, thereby identifying him as the guilty party. Thus, the laying on of hands may not have been a cultic rite originally but, rather, a juridic or legal procedure.
\nThe Hittites had a similar procedure. In their Ritual of Tunnawi we read that a female worshiper touches the horn of a fertile cow, hoping to transfer the animal\u2019s fertility to herself. This is the same process, working in a different direction; other Hittite rituals describe similar acts.
\nIt is important to emphasize that the requirement of semikhah for some expiatory sacrificial victims should not be interpreted as indicating that the essential function of laying on the hands was necessarily the transferal of impurity or guilt to the victim. In the cult, semikhah assured that sacrifices intended for specific rites would be used solely for that purpose. Once assigned in this way, the offering was sacred and belonged to God. The act of semikhah was probably accompanied by a recitation that has been lost to us. The Mishnah preserves formulas of assignment from a later period.
\nthat it may be acceptable in his behalf, in expiation for him Rather, \u201cBy its acceptance on his behalf it serves as redemption for him.\u201d Usually, the formula le-khapper \u02bfal means \u201cto perform rites of expiation over, near, or with respect to\u201d a person or group of people or an object, such as the altar. This sense is not suitable here because as a type of sacrifice the \u02bfolah was not occasioned by any offense that would have placed the offender in need of expiation!
\nIn his comments on this verse, Ibn Ezra calls attention to Exodus 30:12, where we read that each Israelite was required to contribute a half-shekel as a head-tax to the sanctuary: \u201cEach shall pay the Lord a ransom for himself on being enrolled, that no plague may come upon them through their being enrolled.\u201d Ibn Ezra is suggesting that here we have an abbreviation of the formula le-khapper \u02bfal nefesh, \u201cto serve as ransom for a life,\u201d which occurs in Exodus 30:15 as part of the same instruction. It is not a rite of expiation that figures in our verse but, rather, protection from God\u2019s wrath. Proximity to God was inherently dangerous for both the worshiper and the priests, even if there had been no particular offense to anger Him. The favorable acceptance of the \u02bfolah signaled God\u2019s willingness to be approached and served as a kind of ransom, or redemption, from divine wrath.
\n5. The bull shall be slaughtered The Hebrew verb sh-\u1e25-t, \u201cto slaughter,\u201d may connote ritual slaughter, as it does here, or it may simply mean slaughtering in general. The Bible never informs us of which instrument was to be used to slaughter sacrifices. The only possible clue is the type of knife, never actually described, that Abraham was preparing to use on Isaac. It is called ma\u02beakhelet in Genesis 22:10.
\nagainst all sides of the altar The reference is to the altar of burnt offerings, mizba\u1e25 ha-\u02bfolah, mentioned by name in Leviticus 4:7. According to Exodus 27:1\u20138, it was made of acacia wood overlaid with copper. It was hollow and partly filled with earth. At the half point of its interior, there was a copper net, or grate, that served as a grill on which the offerings were placed. The altar had four \u201chorns\u201d at its four corners, and it could be carried with two poles inserted in rings. Horned altars of stone have been discovered in archaeological excavations in Israel.
\n6. shall be flayed and cut up into sections The hide was not burned. Usually, sacrificial animals were sectioned before being placed on the altar. The verb nata\u1e25, \u201cto section,\u201d has a specialized meaning in biblical Hebrew, always referring to the sectioning of living bodies, animal or even human. The salient exception to the sectioning of sacrificial animals was the paschal lamb, which, according to the law of Exodus 12:9, was roasted whole.
\n7. and lay out wood upon the fire The Hebrew verb \u02bf-r-kh, \u201cto set up, arrange, lay out\u201d and the nominal form ma\u02bfarakhah, \u201clayout, array,\u201d are part of the technical vocabulary of the cult. In Exodus 29:37 the same verb is used to signify placing offerings on the altar.
\n8. with the head and the suet The head of the animal had been severed. Hebrew peder, \u201csuet,\u201d is cognate with Akkadian pitru, a term used in cuneiform texts, where it refers to the loose covering of fat over the liver. Peder occurs only here, in verse 12, and in 8:20.
\n9. entrails Hebrew kerev is synonymous with me\u02bfayim, \u201cintestines,\u201d in Isaiah 16:11, which helps to define it as an anatomical term.
\nturn the whole into smoke This is the precise sense of Hebrew hiktir, a verb derived from the noun kiter or kitor, \u201csmoke.\u201d In Hebrew and in other Semitic languages, the word for incense (ketoret) derives, in turn, from the word for smoke because it appears in the form of smoke. The burned parts of the victim rise as smoke when they are consumed by the altar fire.
\nan offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord The etymology of the term \u02beisheh is disputed, but it probably derives from \u02beesh, \u201cfire.\u201d It follows the form of certain adjectives and literally means \u201csomething fiery.\u201d The idiom rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25 means \u201ca pleasant aroma.\u201d The unusual form ni\u1e25oa\u1e25 probably derives from the verb nua\u1e25, \u201cto rest, be at ease\u201d\u2014hence \u201cexperience pleasure, comfort.\u201d In the rabbinic tradition the linguistic connection with na\u1e25at, \u201ccomfort, ease,\u201d is emphasized, expressing the thought that sacrifices offered in accordance with God\u2019s instructions bring Him pleasure, na\u1e25at rua\u1e25.
\nAromatic substances were utilized in the biblical cult. There was the daily incense offering prescribed in Exodus 30:7\u201310, 34\u201335. Exodus 30:24\u201328 ordains that the Tent of Meeting be censed with aromatic substances. Numbers 19:6 speaks of casting cedar wood and hyssop, both aromatic, into the fire that burned the red heifer to ashes.
\nFumigation was widely employed in the ancient Near East. Maimonides explained the use of incense as a means of removing the stench of the burning sacrifices. Although the priestly texts do not contain the explicit requirement of using aromatics in all sacrifices, the fact that so many offerings are characterized by rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25, \u201ca pleasing odor,\u201d certainly gives us reason to suppose that such was intended.
\n14. turtledoves or pigeons In Genesis 15:9 the turtledove (tor) is paired with a young bird (gozal). Hebrew benei yonah is better translated \u201cyoung pigeons.\u201d
\n15. pinch off its head The Hebrew verb m-l-k means \u201cto break the nape of the neck,\u201d usually of a bird. In later periods this was done by the priest with his fingernail. In this case the head of the bird was to be severed after its neck was broken. But in other instances this was not done. When birds were used as sin offerings the heads were not severed; so we are told in 5:8\u20139. The reason for severing the head of a bird offered as an \u02bfolah may be that this parallels the procedure for executing other animals, as we read in verses 6 and 8.
\nand its blood shall be drained out The Hebrew verb matsah is rare in biblical usage, although it becomes frequent in later phases of the language. It means \u201cto squeeze\u201d or \u201cdrain out\u201d a liquid. The same verb is used in 5:9 to describe the draining of blood from sin offerings.
\n16. He shall remove its crop with its contents Hebrew mur\u02beah, \u201ccrop,\u201d occurs only here. Its approximate meaning may be learned from Targum Onkelos: the rendering of zefek, a form of Greek oisophagos, \u201cesophagus.\u201d It designates a pocket in the bird\u2019s throat where food was retained during digestion.
\nHebrew notsah usually means \u201cfeather,\u201d but that connotation is inappropriate here. Targum Onkelos takes it to mean \u201cfood,\u201d and the Sifra explains it as \u201cgizzard.\u201d The crop was too dirty to be placed on the altar, so it was consigned to the ash heap, near the altar. In the case of animals sacrificed as burnt offerings, the entrails had to be washed before being placed on the altar, as we read in verse 9, to assure that nothing offensive was offered to God.
\nLike certain other priestly laws, chapter 1 presented the ancient worshiper with several options ranging from expensive large cattle to relatively inexpensive birds. Undoubtedly, this graduated system was intended to enable Israelites of modest means to participate in religious life by presenting offerings at the sanctuary.
\nCHAPTER 2
\nTHE GRAIN OFFERING (MIN\u1e24AH) (vv. 1\u201316)
\nThe subject of chapter 2 is the min\u1e25ah, \u201cgrain offering.\u201d Like the burnt offering of chapter 1, it was appropriate for a variety of occasions and often served as a less costly alternative to animal sacrifices. Like the burnt offering, the min\u1e25ah was also considered a \u201cmost sacred offering,\u201d and this status imposed special restrictions.
\nChapter 2 outlines the different types of min\u1e25ah, listing them according to their different methods of preparation. The ingredients were usually the same for the various offerings: The min\u1e25ah was made of semolina, the choice part of wheat that was taken from the inner kernels; olive oil was mixed into the dough or smeared on it; and frankincense was applied to it, enhancing the taste. The min\u1e25ah could be prepared on a griddle, in a pan, or in an oven. A fistful of the dough, with the oil and frankincense added, was burned on the altar. The rest was prepared in one of the accepted ways, to be eaten by the priests in the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. Since the fistful of dough was burned on the altar, grain offerings could not be made with leavened dough, as is discussed further on, and they had to be salted.
\nVerses 14\u201316 digress somewhat from the pattern of the chapter as a whole. They ordain a special min\u1e25ah of first fruits (bikkurim), which consisted of nearly ripe grain from the new crop. This grain was roasted and then made into grits.
\n1. When a person presents The word for \u201cperson\u201d is nefesh, which has often been rendered \u201csoul.\u201d We know, however, that the term enjoys a wide range of connotations and should be translated in accordance with its context. Here nefesh refers to an individual as part of a group.
\nan offering of meal Rather, \u201can offering of grain.\u201d In modern English usage \u201cmeal\u201d hardly ever refers to wheat, and it would be inaccurate to call an offering made of wheat by a name that refers primarily to other grains.
\nActually, the term min\u1e25ah has an interesting history. It does not relate to the substances used in preparing the sacrifice. Its basic sense is that of \u201ctribute, gift.\u201d Like many names given to sacrifices, the term min\u1e25ah was appropriated by priestly writers from the administrative vocabulary because it effectively expressed the subservient relationship of the worshiper toward God. At the same time, it conveyed the duty of the worshiper to present gifts to God, often in the form of sacrifices.
\nIn the first stage, min\u1e25ah served as a generic term for any type of sacrifice. In Genesis 4:3\u20135 the different sacrifices of Cain and Abel, one consisting of grain and the other of animals, are both called min\u1e25ah. Just how the term came to signify grain offerings, in particular, is not entirely clear. Perhaps the answer lies in the manner of presenting some grain offerings and in the derivation of the term min\u1e25ah. It probably derives from the root n-\u1e25-h, \u201cto lead, conduct,\u201d and so the term min\u1e25ah would signify \u201cwhat was set before, brought to\u201d a deity or ruler. Biblical evidence indicates that from early times offerings of grain and fruit were not burned on the altar but, rather, placed or set before God. Leviticus 24:5\u20136 ordain that the \u201cbread of display\u201d was to be presented in this way. According to Leviticus 7:12\u201313, the thanksgiving offering (todah) included two loaves of bread, no part of which was burned on the altar. Deuteronomy 26:1\u20134 describes how the \u201cfirst fruits\u201d were placed before God.
\nWhat we perceive in chapter 2 is the gradual adaptation of presentation offerings to the prevailing mode of the burnt offerings; that is, a small portion of the dough from the min\u1e25ah was burned on the altar. Even the bread of display was not unaffected by such developments. Pure frankincense was burned near the loaves of the bread of display when they were placed on the tables in the sanctuary, as we read in 24:7. It is the older, unadapted method of presentation, however, that accounts for the name min\u1e25ah in the first place. Once applied to grain offerings, it is understandable that the term min\u1e25ah should refer to sacrifices of the evening or late afternoon, since grain offerings were customary in evening rituals. Indeed, evening became known as the time of the min\u1e25ah.
\nchoice flour Hebrew solet is better translated \u201csemolina flour\u201d; Ibn Ezra translates \u201cflour of clear wheat.\u201d Rabbinic law stipulates that wherever the Torah mandates solet, wheat must be used (Sifra). The usual translation \u201cfine flour\u201d is, therefore, incorrect. This is not to say that flour for the min\u1e25ah was not finely ground or pounded in a mortar\u2014it undoubtedly was. However, the point of this verse is to prescribe the substance of the offering and not how that substance was to be prepared. Almost all grain offerings had olive oil mixed into the flour; at a later stage, into the dough. The verb describing this procedure is b-l-l, \u201cto mix,\u201d which appears below, in v. 4, and frequently thereafter. Hebrew b-l-l attests to cognates in other Semitic languages, most notably in Akkadian as bal\u0101lu, in similar contexts to ours.
\nWhat v. 1 informs us is that oil was initially poured over the semolina flour (the verb y-ts-q, \u201cto pour\u201d) along with frankincense (Heb. levonah). Depending on how the grain offering was to be prepared\u2014by baking, frying, etc.\u2014oil might also be applied in any of several ways to the dough at later stages, as will become evident in the verses to follow.
\n2. shall scoop out of it a handful Hebrew komets is a way of indicating a minute quantity.
\nas well as all of its frankincense The Hebrew preposition \u02bfal often means \u201ctogether with, in addition to,\u201d not necessarily \u201con\u201d or \u201cover.\u201d The sense here is that the frankincense was used along with other ingredients. Cognates of Hebrew levonah, \u201cfrankincense,\u201d are known in the other Semitic languages.
\nand this token portion The precise meaning of Hebrew \u02beazkarah, \u201ctoken portion,\u201d is difficult to ascertain. Some have explained it as \u201creminder,\u201d analyzing this unusual word as an Afel form. On this basis, \u02beazkarah would mean \u201cthat which calls to mind.\u201d The fistful of dough is reminiscent of the complete offering from which it was taken. The translation \u201ctoken portion\u201d relates the word \u02beazkarah to the same verbal root, z-kh-r, and to the noun zekher, which can mean \u201ca commemorative object.\u201d The Akkadian cognate zikru has the specialized connotation of \u201ceffigy, double,\u201d that is, an object that resembles the original. It is this analysis that produced the translation \u201ctoken portion.\u201d
\n3. a most holy portion Hebrew kodesh kodashim is a superlative combination, literally \u201cmost holy of the holy offerings.\u201d In Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 5 this category is expressed by the plural: Kodshei kodashim is contrasted with kodashim kallim, \u201cofferings of lesser sanctity.\u201d This latter category includes the offerings prescribed in chapter 3.
\n4. baked in the oven \u2026 unleavened cakes \u2026 unleavened wafers The law here distinguishes between the two customary varieties of baked goods: \u1e25allah, \u201ca thick, round cake,\u201d according to Ibn Ezra\u2019s translation; and rakik, \u201ca thin cake, cookie, or wafer.\u201d The basic meaning of metsah remains uncertain. Its functional sense, however, is quite specific. It means \u201cunleavened dough\u201d\u2014the opposite of \u1e25amets, \u201cleavening, leavened dough.\u201d
\n5. on a griddle Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot distinguishes between cakes prepared on a griddle (ma\u1e25avat) and those prepared in a pan, the subject of verse 7. Cakes prepared on a griddle become crisp and can be broken into pittim, \u201cbits,\u201d the plural of the better-known word for a slice of dry bread, pat (le\u1e25em). In Leviticus 6:14 we find the term min\u1e25at pittim, \u201ca grain offering of crisp slices.\u201d
\n7. in a pan Hebrew mar\u1e25eshet derives from the verb r-\u1e25-sh, \u201cto move, agitate,\u201d referring in this case to the motion of the dough as it is deep fried in a covered pan. Cakes prepared in this way become soft, as we read in Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:8 and as is explained by Ibn Ezra.
\n8. When you present \u2026 it shall be brought \u2026 who shall take it up Rather, \u201cYou shall bring any grain offering prepared in any of these ways to the Lord; one shall present it to the priest, who shall deliver it to the altar.\u201d This verse employs three verbs to convey the sequence of actions involved in the process of presenting a grain offering: hevi\u02be, \u201cto bring\u201d; hikriv, \u201cto present\u201d; higgish, \u201cto deliver.\u201d All three verbs are used elsewhere to describe the presentations of sacrifices. Once the dough is prepared, the offering must be carried through to its completion.
\nHebrew me-\u02beeleh cannot mean \u201cfrom any of these,\u201d since that would imply that several different substances were used, which was not the case. The translation \u201cin any of these ways\u201d follows Rashi and Malbim, both of whom noted the problem in this phrase.
\n9. The priest shall remove This parallels the statement of verse 2: \u201cThe priest shall scoop out of it.\u2026\u201d Verses 8\u201310 generally recapitulate the provisions stipulated earlier in verses 2\u20133. It is not uncommon in codes of law, as well as in narratives, to find some repetition for clarity and emphasis.
\n10. And the remainder of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons This rule refers to a basic feature of the Israelite sacrificial system and of most ancient Near Eastern cults. In a few cases, the complete sacrifice was consumed by the altar fire; but, more often than not, large portions of the offerings were to be eaten by the priests and, in some cases, by the donors of the offerings as well. This was considered indispensable to the ritual process because it was important to celebrate a sacred meal in the presence of God. Failure to eat the appropriate portion of the sacrifices in the proper place and within the proper span of time would render the sacrifices themselves ineffectual. There were, therefore, two dimensions to a sacrifice: On the altar (or, in some cases, on a table), the deity received portions of the sacrifice, whereas the officiants (and sometimes donors) partook of their portions soon after. Together, these parallel acts made the celebration complete.
\n11. for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke In other words, no leaven or honey may be burned on the altar.
\nHebrew \u1e25amets, \u201cleaven,\u201d is cognate with Akkadian em\u1e63u, \u201csour, fermented.\u201d In Akkadian, this adjective often describes beer, dough, and vinegar.
\nSince antiquity, there has been discussion as to the meaning of Hebrew devash. From what is known, production of honey in beehives was not much in evidence in biblical Israel. Bees gathered to produce honey in the crevices of rocks, in split tree trunks, and in carcasses of animals. Accordingly, devash occasionally refers to the honey of bees. Most authorities\u2014including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Maimonides\u2014insist that devash in the Bible refers primarily to the nectar of dates and possibly of other fruits. It is, after all, a general term for \u201csweetness.\u201d The Akkadian cognate dishpu also had that more general usage. Furthermore, verse 12 must have intended the nectar of fruits because honey processed by bees would hardly have been called \u201cfirst fruits\u201d (re\u02beshit). It is reasonable to conclude that the prohibition set forth in our chapter was inclusive of both bee honey and nectars.
\nWhen we attempt to explain the prohibitions against leaven and honey, we confront ancient attitudes that are far from clearly understood. It is not typical of either the Levitical laws or the law codes of the Torah generally to explain the basis for their requirements or prohibitions. Nevertheless, it is clear that leaven and honey were not unsuitable for all offerings, only for those burned on the altar. Only what God was intended to inhale could not contain these substances. It is logical, therefore, to seek an explanation that is tied in specifically with burnt offerings. The explanation that \u201cleavening,\u201d or \u201csouring,\u201d spoiled foodstuffs is hardly convincing because the best foods were often subjected to leavening. Conversely, matsah was poor man\u2019s bread. Wine was fermented, and yet it was proper for libations poured onto the altar. As regards leaven, a connection between the prohibition stated here and the Passover laws is certainly to be assumed. And yet nowhere is the matsah of Passover explicitly associated with the requirements of grain offerings. The requirement to eat matsah and to avoid \u1e25amets on Passover is given an historical or commemorative explanation. It is obvious, in any event, that there was a general aversion to leaven in altar offerings, although, as has been noted, this attitude did not affect offerings presented in other ways.
\nThe prohibition against honey may represent a reaction against the widespread use of honey in pagan cults, an explanation actually ventured by Maimonides. Indeed, we possess extensive comparative evidence that honey was frequently offered to pagan gods in the ancient Near East. In the Ugaritic epic of Keret, we read that nbt (cognate of Heb. nofet, \u201choney from a honeycomb\u201d) was offered to the Syro-Canaanite god El. Cuneiform records from Mesopotamia and ancient Syria often list dishpu, \u201choney-nectar,\u201d as an offering. By prohibiting the use of honey on the altar, the priestly laws may have been directed at eliminating pagan practices.
\nThere is a subtle suggestion that the aversion to nectar as a sacrificial substance may have been very ancient in biblical Israel. Whereas wine and olive oil were prized as ingredients for sacrifices, nectar was not. The parable of Jotham in Judges 9:8\u201313 speaks of the virtues of various trees and vines. The olive tree boasts that its rich oil \u201chonors God and men,\u201d and the grapevine says that its wine \u201cgladdens God and men.\u201d But it is significant that the fig tree, in speaking of \u201cmy sweetness, my delicious fruit,\u201d fails to allude to their utilization as offerings to deities!
\nUntil further evidence becomes available, it must be assumed that we do not clearly understand the attitudes reflected in these prohibitions.
\n12. as an offering of choice products Rather, \u201cas an offering of first fruits.\u201d The point is that honey and leaven are unsuitable as altar offerings but are suitable as offerings set before God.
\nHebrew re\u02beshit is ambiguous. It can mean \u201cfirst,\u201d in order or sequence, or \u201cforemost,\u201d in terms of quality. These two meanings are not mutually exclusive, but they differ nonetheless. As in Deuteronomy 26:2, 10, re\u02beshit is here to be understood as positional: \u201cfirst fruits,\u201d referring to offerings of the first fruits, or produce, of the land. Thus, before the Israelites were permitted to enjoy the bounty of the land, they were required to offer God some of what was His. This process is known as desacralization. Such offerings were, in fact, among those usually placed before God rather than burned on the altar.
\n13. the salt of your covenant with God According to priestly law, all sacrifices were to be salted. In the case of meat, salt functioned to remove whatever blood remained after slaughter. The unexpected use of salt in grain offerings is likely a reflection of the overall tendency toward uniformity in ritual. The same general requirement is referred to in Numbers 18:19. In Ezra 6:9 and 7:22 we read that large quantities of salt were delivered to the postexilic Temple of Jerusalem for use in the sacrificial cult.
\nIn effect, the phrase mela\u1e25 berit \u02beeloheikha refers to the binding, God-ordained obligation, or commitment, to use salt. In Leviticus 24:8\u20139, berit \u02bfolam similarly means \u201ca commitment for all time.\u201d There berit \u02bfolam interacts with \u1e25ok \u02bfolam, \u201cdue for all time.\u201d In the law of Exodus 31:16, the Sabbath is also characterized as berit \u02bfolam, an observance binding forever.
\nIn Numbers 18:19, the requirement of salting sacrifices is repeated, although in somewhat altered form, as berit mela\u1e25 \u02bfolam; but the sense is the same: \u201can everlasting covenant of salt.\u201d Nevertheless, an extensive literature has arisen on the subject of the presumed role of salt in the enactment of treaties and covenants on the assumption that berit mela\u1e25 means \u201ca covenant made binding by salt.\u201d Scholars have noted references to salt in ancient Near Eastern treaty curses: according to these, if a treaty were violated one\u2019s land would be sowed or plowed with salt so as to impair its productivity. Similarly, the symbolic role of salt in rituals of hospitality has been mentioned in support of the notion that the use of salt in the sacrificial cult may have had a covenantal function. It is doubtful, however, whether any of this explicitly concerns the Levitical law requiring the salting of sacrifices.
\nIn any event, berit in our text and in Numbers 18:19 should be understood to mean \u201cbinding obligation, commitment,\u201d making the use of salt a duty, rather than attributing any covenantal function to salt per se.
\n14. first fruits Hebrew bikkurim derives from the same verbal root as bekhor, \u201cfirst-born,\u201d which refers to both animals and humans. Growth and birth were perceived as dimensions of the same process in all of nature.
\nnew ears \u2026 grits of the fresh grain The same items are mentioned in Leviticus 23:14, where an offering of first fruits is likewise prescribed. Hebrew \u02beaviv, here translated \u201cgrain in season,\u201d designates grain just prior to ripening, when the kernels, not yet darkened, still have a greenish color. This is the understanding of Exodus 9:31\u201332 in a description of the effects of the hailstorm on crops growing in Egypt. There \u02beaviv is contrasted to \u02beafilot, literally \u201cgrain that darkens late.\u201d (Heb. \u02beafelah means darkness.) Hence, \u02beaviv refers to grain that was already ripe when the hail struck and was consequently damaged by it. The same word designates the month in the spring when grains ripen and derives from the root \u02beanav, \u201cto bud.\u201d In mishnaic Hebrew, the biblical collective noun geres, \u201cgrits,\u201d is spelled with a samekh in the plural form gerisin. This helps to define it more precisely. Targum Onkelos translates geres by Aramaic perokhan, \u201chulled kernels of grain.\u201d Both verbs, g-r-s and p-r-kh, mean \u201cto crush.\u201d Hebrew kalui, written kali in Leviticus 23:14, derives from a rare Hebrew verb meaning \u201cto burn, parch.\u201d The derivation of Hebrew karmel, here translated \u201cfresh ear\u201d from context, is uncertain.
\nThe similarity of our text to 23:14\u201317 has raised the question as to whether both texts are speaking of the same offerings. Both are called bikkurim, \u201cfirst fruits,\u201d and most traditional commentators, including Rashi and Ramban, have argued for the identity of the two laws, with Ibn Ezra and Luzzatto dissenting. It is probable that the difference lies in the timing and the disposition of the two offerings, not in their essential character. Our text indicates a voluntary, unscheduled sacrifice to be burned on the altar and hence to be prepared with unleavened dough. The offering ordained in 23:14\u201317 is an obligatory offering, to be baked on Shavuot from the new grain crop, of leavened dough. It is to be placed before the Lord rather than burned on the altar. This prescription more closely resembles the offerings of first fruits ordained in Deuteronomy 26.
\nCHAPTER 3
\nTHE SACRED GIFT OF GREETING (ZEVA\u1e24 SHELAMIM) (vv. 1\u201317)
\nChapter 3 is a code of sacrifice governing the third essential type of offering in Israelite worship, the type called zeva\u1e25. The most frequent zeva\u1e25 was known as zeva\u1e25 shelamim, \u201csacred gift of greeting.\u201d In order to understand chapter 3 against the background of the first two codes\u2014the law of the burnt offering in chapter 1 and the law of the grain offering in chapter 2\u2014it is necessary to explain each component of the composite term zeva\u1e25 shelamim independently.
\nThe zeva\u1e25 was presented differently from the burnt offering or grain offering, although there were overlapping features. Some of the same animals used for burnt offerings could be used for the zeva\u1e25 as well, and the same altar was used for all three types of offerings. Also, blood from the sacrificial animal offered as a zeva\u1e25 was applied to the altar of burnt offerings, in different ways but in the same spirit.
\nThere were, however, significant differences that inform us of the special character of the zeva\u1e25. Whereas the \u02bfolah of chapter 1 was completely consumed by the altar fire, and in this way given over to God entirely, the zeva\u1e25 was a sacred meal in which sections of the sacrifice were shared by the priests and donors of the offering. Only certain fatty portions of the animal were burned on the altar as God\u2019s share. There is also some evidence that at an early stage in the development of Israelite worship, the zeva\u1e25 may have been prepared in a manner that did not require the use of an altar. According to Exodus 12\u201313, the paschal zevah was to be roasted whole over an open fire, in proximity to one\u2019s home, a procedure that was probably very ancient.
\nWhereas the min\u1e25ah could be eaten only by priests, the eating of the zeva\u1e25 was not so restricted. Thus it clearly represents a distinctive mode of sacrifice whose presentation expressed its purpose: to afford the worshipers the experience of joining together with the priests in a sacred meal at which God Himself was perceived to be the honored guest. Viewed as a class of sacrificial offerings, the zeva\u1e25 was, however, \u201can offering of lesser sanctity\u201d because even nonpricsts could partake of it, even outside the sanctuary.
\nThe word shelamim is difficult to define precisely because the Hebrew verb sh-l-m, from which it derives, has many related yet different connotations. The translation \u201csacrifice of well-being\u201d reflects one of these meanings, based on the rendering of shalom as \u201cwell-being, wholeness.\u201d The preferred rendering \u201csacred offering of greeting\u201d reflects, on the other hand, the particular role of this sacrifice in the Israelite cult.
\nIn time, shelamim became the term for a general category of sacrifices and was virtually interchangeable with zeva\u1e25 itself. It had several uses, including the thanksgiving offering (todah), the voluntary offering (nedavah), and the payment of vows (neder). Often the shelamim sacrifice was combined with other sacrifices, especially with \u02bfolah, in celebrating important events in the history of the Israelite people. It also served as part of the public celebration of the Shavuot festival (23:19). It was offered most frequently, however, as a personal sacrifice.
\n1. a sacrifice of well-being The Hebrew term shelamim is better rendered \u201ca sacred gift of greeting\u201d as will be explained in due course. The noun zeva\u1e25 produced the verb zava\u1e25, which is usually translated \u201cto slaughter.\u201d Although in practice a biblical zeva\u1e25 consisted of slaughtered animals, it is more accurate to explain this term as \u201cfood offering\u201d and to understand the verb z-v-\u1e25 as \u201cto celebrate a sacred meal.\u201d The Akkadian cognate is z\u012bbu, which may designate any offering of food. Both Ugaritic and Phoenician texts indicate that other foodstuffs, aside from meat, could be termed z-b-\u1e25\/d-b-\u1e25. The widespread circulation of these Semitic terms testifies to the importance of this type of sacrifice, from earliest times, in any number of religious cults.
\nThe most detailed description of the zeva\u1e25 sacrifice, apart from the priestly legislation in the Book of Leviticus, is found in 1 Samuel 9:12, 14, 19, 22\u201325. There participants are referred to as keru\u02beim, \u201cinvited guests.\u201d A priest presided over the celebration\u2014in that instance the prophet Samuel himself, who functioned as a priest on many occasions. Samuel blessed the sacrifice, offered it up, and then distributed portions of it to the invited participants, who partook of it in special rooms. What was eaten by the priests and the invited guests was boiled in pots, whereas the portions offered to God were burned on the altar. Some further details may be deduced from the story concerning the sinful sons of Eli, the priest of Shiloh, as related in 1 Samuel 2:12\u201316. It was forbidden for the priests or the participants to eat the meat of the zeva\u1e25 before God\u2019s share had been offered to Him on the altar. That account also makes reference to the kinds of pots and forks that were used.
\nThe term shelamim has puzzled commentators since antiquity. The Septuagint gives it no fewer than three different Greek renderings, and midrashic interpretations likewise vary greatly. The usual translation, \u201cpeace offering,\u201d merely echoes the Latin of the Vulgate, pacificus, and the Greek eir\u0113nikos, one of the Septuagint\u2019s renderings. Both mean \u201cthat which relates to peace.\u201d Presumably, this translation expresses the peaceful, or harmonious, relationship between the worshiper and God, brought about and reaffirmed by the sacrifice itself. In a similar vein, some scholars have taken their cue from a statement in Solomon\u2019s prayer at the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem included in 1 Kings 8. On that occasion, shelamim offerings were sacrificed, and verse 61 states: \u201cAnd may you be wholehearted with [shalem \u02bfim] the Lord our God.\u201d In the view of these scholars, this statement, in the context of the dedication ceremony, establishes the meaning of the word shelamim as a sacrifice intended to reaffirm the covenant between God and the Israelite people. Still another interpretation, also based on one of the connotations of the verb sh-l-m, is preserved in Midrash ha-Gadol. There shelamim is explained in quantitative terms: she-ha-kol shelemim bo, \u201cfor all are \u2018complete\u2019 in it,\u201d that is, all receive a portion of the sacrifices\u2014priests, participants (or donors), and God. The New English Bible seems to have adopted this view, because it translates shelamim as \u201cshared offering.\u201d
\nAll of the aforementioned interpretations are possible, of course, but there is now comparative evidence to suggest that the term shelamim originally meant \u201ctribute, gift of greeting.\u201d In a Ugaritic epic, Keret, the king of a besieged city, offered shalam\u016bma to the commander of the attacking forces in an effort to induce him to withdraw the siege. In Akkadian texts we find a cognate term, shulm\u0101nu, that literally means \u201ca gift of greeting,\u201d such as was presented by vassals to their suzerains when they visited them or by emissaries on a mission to their allies. This meaning reflects the word of greeting, which is shalom in Hebrew and is expressed by similar words in Ugaritic and Akkadian. The shelamim is offered when one greets another by saying \u201cshalom!\u201d In the cult, the shelamim assumed the form of an animal sacrifice offered to God when one came before Him to greet Him at a sacred meal. It was adopted as the name of a particular sacrifice because it expressed the fellowship experienced by the worshipers and priests in God\u2019s presence, as they greeted their divine guest.
\n3. the fat that covers the entrails Hebrew \u1e25elev has the general sense of \u201cfat,\u201d but here it refers specifically to the fat that covers or surrounds the kidneys, the liver, and the entrails. It does not refer, in its legal usage, to ordinary fat that adheres to the flesh of an animal, which is called shuman in rabbinic Hebrew. \u1e24elev, like sacrificial blood, is forbidden for human consumption. Although not regarded as choice food for humans, under normal circumstances, \u1e25elev was desired by God. From the cultic perspective, a food\u2019s desirability was not a function of the usual dietary considerations but of its symbolic value. Deuteronomy 32:14, for example, refers to the finest quality of wheat as the \u201cfat\u201d of the wheat, where fatness is a symbol of energy and blessing.
\nHebrew kesalim, translated loins, is better rendered \u201csinews, tendons.\u201d It has cognates in several other Semitic languages, where it occurs in detailed religious and medical texts. This has helped to establish the precise meaning of an otherwise rare term in Hebrew.
\n4. the protuberance on the liver The sense is more precisely conveyed by variations of this term such as, \u201cthe protuberance of the liver\u201d (8:16; 9:10). The \u201cprotuberance\u201d (yoteret) was not at the top of the liver. According to Maimonides, the reference is to \u201cthe lower end of the liver, which protrudes from it, like the thumb from the hand.\u201d In Latin nomenclature, this appendage is known as lobus caudatus; in Hebrew, \u02beetsba\u02bf ha-kaved, \u201cthe \u2018finger\u2019 of the liver,\u201d as it is called in Mishnah Tamid 4:3. In Leviticus 1:8 this protuberance is called peder.
\n5. with the burnt offering Not \u201con top, over the burnt offering.\u201d According to Rashi, the point is, rather, that the same altar of burnt offerings was used for the \u02bfolah and the zeva\u1e25 shelamim. The Hebrew preposition \u02bfal does not necessarily mean \u201con, upon,\u201d so that here \u02bfal ha-\u02bfolah may be rendered \u201cwith the \u02bfolah.\u201d
\n6\u20138. The terms and procedures prescribed here have been explained in the Comments to chapter 1.
\n9. the fat from the sacrifice \u2026 the whole broad tail Literally, \u201cits fat.\u201d Hebrew \u02bealyah has cognates in Aramaic and Arabic that clarify its precise meaning. It is the large, broad tail of certain species of sheep that are still raised in Israel and in neighboring countries.
\nIn 8:25 we have \u201cthe fat and the broad tail,\u201d which indicates that \u1e25elev and \u02bealyah are two separate parts of the sheep. Here it would appear that \u1e25elbo, \u201cits fat,\u201d is the general category, then specified by two of its components: (1) the broad tail, and (2) other fat that covers the internal organs. It is likely, therefore, that here the word \u1e25elev is used in a more general sense first, whereas further on in the verse it is used technically to signify the fat covering the internal organs.
\nHebrew temimah may mean \u201ccomplete\u201d in contrast to \u201cpartial.\u201d This is its meaning, for instance, in 23:15: \u201cseven complete Sabbaths (shabbatot temimot)\u201d Usually this adjective means \u201cfaultless, without blemish,\u201d but that meaning is unsuitable here.
\nthe backbone Hebrew \u02bfatseh, which occurs only here in all of the Hebrew Bible, is rendered by Targum Onkelos as shidreta\u02be, \u201cspine.\u201d
\n11. on the altar as food Hebrew le\u1e25em not only means \u201cbread\u201d but is a more general word for food. In Leviticus 21:6 and Numbers 28:2, the sacrifices are referred to as le\u1e25em, because they are offered to God in the same way as food is served to humans. In most ancient societies it was believed that gods required food for their sustenance and relied on sacrifices for energy and strength. Rituals for feeding the statues of gods are known from Egypt and Mesopotamia.
\nThe Torah codes, while preserving the idiom common to ancient religions, understand the process somewhat differently. God desires the sacrifices of His worshipers not because He requires sustenance but because He desires their devotion and their fellowship.
\n16. All fat is the Lord\u2019s This verse states the general rule, applicable to all animal sacrifices of which sections were burnt on the altar. \u1e24elev, \u201cfat,\u201d is prohibited for human consumption because it belongs to God as His share.
\n17. a law for all time Hebrew \u1e25ukkah, \u201claw,\u201d like the masculine form \u1e25ok, derives from the verbal root \u1e25-k-k, \u201cto inscribe, incise,\u201d and reflects the practice of inscribing statutes on stone. The priestly codes often stipulate that what is ordained in a specific instance is meant as a permanent statute. This formula not only adds emphasis but meets a basic requirement in codified laws, namely, a statement as to time limits, if applicable.
\nin all your settlements The regulations prescribed here regarding fat and blood are not restricted to the cult of the sanctuary but are obligatory, as well, in the homes of the Israelites, in the conduct of their private lives. In this respect, the prohibition against eating fat and blood differs from the other laws governing sacrificial rites, which are only applicable to the cult proper.
\nyou must not eat any fat or any blood The principal statement on the prohibition against eating blood occurs in 17:10\u201312, where its rationale is given and where its larger implications will be explained. The fact that the two prohibitions are listed together here has led some to seek a common basis for prohibiting both. They both belong to God as sacrificial offerings. There is, however, much that is distinctive to the blood prohibition over and above the utilization of blood in sacrificial rites.
\nThe Expiatory Sacrifices (4:1\u20135:26)
\nChapters 4 and 5 contain the laws governing expiatory sacrifices, the purpose of which is to secure atonement and forgiveness from God. These offerings are efficacious only when offenses are inadvertent or unwitting. They do not apply to defiant acts or premeditated crimes. Whenever an individual Israelite, a tribal leader, a priest, or even the chief priest, or the Israelite community at large is guilty of an inadvertent offense or of failing to do what the law requires, expiation through sacrifice is required.
\nThe laws of chapters 4\u20135 do not specify all the offenses for which such sacrifices are mandated. We may assume, as did the rabbinic sages, that there is a correspondence between those offenses requiring the expiatory offerings and those punishable by the penalty known as karet, the \u201ccutting off\u201d of the offender from the community: The expiatory sacrifices are required for inadvertent transgressions that, if committed defiantly, would bring upon the offender the penalty of karet.
\nAt some early stage karet probably involved actual banishment. Karet was often combined with more stringent punishments, even death. It is sometimes perceived as punishment meted out directly by God, in contrast to that imposed by the community and its leaders for offenses committed against God. Karet was inflicted for a variety of religious sins, such as desecration of the Sabbath, eating leaven on Passover, or committing adultery. Although this group excluded most crimes against persons, it included certain crimes \u201cbetween man and man\u201d when these involved oaths taken in God\u2019s name or the misappropriation of sanctuary property. Even the withholding of testimony had a sacred aspect to it.
\nIn substance, chapters 4\u20135 prescribe two principal sacrifices: the \u1e25atta\u02bet and \u02beasham. The object of the \u1e25atta\u02bet, usually translated \u201csin offering,\u201d was to remove the culpability borne by the offender, that is, to purify the offender of his guilt (4:1\u20135:13). The \u02beasham, usually translated \u201cguilt offering,\u201d was actually a penalty paid in the form of a sacrificial offering to God. It applied when one had unintentionally misappropriated property that belonged to the sanctuary or had been contributed to it; or, in certain cases, when one had sworn falsely concerning his responsibility toward the property of others. A false oath brings God into the picture directly. The sacrifice did not relieve the offender of his duty to make full restitution for the loss he had caused another. In fact, the offender was fined 20 percent of the lost value. The \u02beasham merely squared the offender with his God, whose name he had taken in vain (5:14\u201326).
\nA further distinction must be drawn with respect to the term \u1e25atta\u02bet itself. Two different sacrificial rites are actually subsumed under the name \u1e25atta\u02bet. Although both share the common objective of expiating religious offenses, each accomplishes this end through its own particular ritual means. The first \u1e25atta\u02bet, prescribed in 4:3\u201321, consisted of a young bull, offered in the case when the chief priest or the collective community of Israelites was guilty. It was accompanied by unusual rites in which blood taken from the sacrificial victim was brought inside the Shrine, reflecting the severity of the offense committed against God and His sanctuary. Furthermore, no part of the sacrifice was consumed by the priests; instead, whatever was not placed on the altar was removed from the camp and burned, a procedure that anthropologists call \u201criddance.\u201d
\nThe second type of \u1e25atta\u02bet, prescribed in 4:22\u20135:13, consisted of a goat or sheep, but in certain instances offerings of birds or grain could be substituted for an animal. Such an offering was mandated in the event an individual Israelite or a tribal chief inadvertently committed a forbidden act (4:22\u201335) or failed to perform a required duty (5:1\u201313). This type of \u1e25atta\u02bet, of which there were several varieties, had the twofold effect of propitiating God through an altar sacrifice and of compensating pensating the priesthood for its services on behalf of the people. Portions of the offering were consumed by the priests in sacred precincts.
\nAll told, chapters 4\u20135 reflect a deep concern for sanctity\u2014for maintaining the purity of the sanctuary against all forms of defilement caused by the priesthood and the people and for assuring the acceptability of all Israelites in God\u2019s sight. Further information on the expiatory sacrifices is presented in 6:17\u20137:10. The laws of chapters 4\u20135 see an inherent connection between sinfulness and impurity, a connection that is apparent in a variety of situations. Many technical terms can mean both \u201csin\u201d and \u201cimpurity.\u201d Since antiquity there has been a tendency in many languages to juxtapose ritual and legal concepts. Even today, we use the word \u201cfault\u201d to connote both a physical or structural imperfection as well as a misdeed. In the context of ritual, one is perceived as either pure or impure, which implies a physical, or nearly physical, state. In the context of law, one is innocent or guilty, which relates primarily to behavior. In the Levitical codes of the Torah, as in many other ancient traditions, these two contexts have been blended, so that what is sinful is at the same time impure; conversely, the forgiven person is at the same time purified. Consequently, the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice can be viewed both as a form of purification and as the removal of one\u2019s guilt. There is also a cause-and-effect relationship to be considered: Sinful acts are often, though not always, the very ones that cause impurity.
\nCHAPTER 4
\nFORMS OF THE \u1e24ATTA\u02beT SACRIFICE
\nFOR SINS COMMITTED (vv. 1\u201335)
\n2. When a person unwittingly incurs guilt Literally, \u201cWhen a person unwittingly commits an offense.\u201d The translation \u201cincurs guilt\u201d more properly expresses the consequences of the act, not the act itself. The Hebrew verb shagag, \u201cto err,\u201d and its adverbial derivative bishgagah, \u201cunwittingly,\u201d were understood by the rabbis to have two related aspects: (1) inadvertence with respect to the facts of law; and (2) inadvertence with respect to the nature of the act. In the first situation, the offender might be unaware that the act was in violation of the law, or, at the very least, might not know the specific penalties for such actions. In both the biblical and rabbinic traditions, it was conceded that ignorance of the law was a mitigating circumstance, and this was especially true in ritual or religious matters. Inadvertence with respect to the nature of the act itself would occur if, for example, a person ate forbidden fat, \u1e25elev, thinking it was merely ordinary fat, shuman, which is permitted. In both cases, the presumption is that an Israelite possessed of full awareness and knowledge would seek to obey God\u2019s laws, not violate them. Such unwitting offenses could therefore be expiated by ritual means.
\nThe verb \u1e25-t-\u02be has a wide range of meanings in biblical Hebrew and in cognate languages, especially Akkadian. Comparative evidence in this case enables us to trace the various usages of this verb in Hebrew. Akkadian \u1e2ba\u1e6d\u00fb means \u201cto err, be at fault, betray.\u201d It is used in treaties and legal documents to refer to violations of trust or breaches of treaty. When the concepts expressed by the verb \u1e25-t-\u02be are applied to religious offenses, they refer to violations of the covenant between God and Israel and to those who fail to fulfill their religious duties.
\nin regard to \u2026 things not to be done, and does one of them In rabbinic terminology this circumstance is referred to as shiggat ha-ma\u02bfaseh, \u201can inadvertent violation that involves committing an act.\u201d Note the repeated use of the verb \u02bfasah, \u201cto do, commit,\u201d in verses 13, 22, and 29. Such transgressions stand in contrast to \u201csins of omission,\u201d where the fault lies in the failure to act or to do what is required by law.
\n3. If it is the anointed priest The title ha-kohen ha-mashia\u1e25 is synonymous with ha-kohen ha-gadol, \u201cthe High Priest,\u201d which occurs in 21:10. According to the primary laws of Leviticus, he is the only priest anointed with the oil of unction, and this accounts for his title here and in 6:15.
\nso that blame falls upon the people The errors and possible offenses of the chief cultic official, the individual in charge of the sanctuary and the priesthood, had an effect on the entire community. Here the law refers to offenses occurring in the performance of the priestly office, not to the personal sins of the chief priest (which he had to expiate independently). And yet later commentators, such as Rashi and Rashbam, were not far from the mark in stressing that the chief priest\u2019s personal behavior was relevant to his sacerdotal office. In the Yom Kippur ritual, set forth in chapter 16, we read that he had first to atone for his own sins and those of his family before he could secure atonement for the entire Israelite community.
\nThe noun \u02beashmah, \u201cblame,\u201d derives from the same root as the sacrifice known as \u02beasham. In the Levitical codes, cultic notions of guilt do not correspond exactly to legal norms of innocence and guilt. Human judges, who must proceed on the basis of evidence, dare not prejudge a person\u2019s guilt. But the divine Judge, who knows our deepest thoughts, is not so limited. In religious terms, even inadvertent offenses where there is not any intent to violate the commandments might immediately arouse God\u2019s wrath and result in divine punishment.
\nThus, priestly texts hold that God\u2019s wrath is easily kindled by carelessness in maintaining the purity of His earthly sanctuary and by the improper execution of religious duties, even if unintentional. Although this is, of course, only one of the viewpoints encountered in biblical literature (elsewhere, we are assured that God is slow to anger), in Leviticus the sense of the reality of divine wrath should not be underestimated. Mitigating and preventing that wrath is a major objective of the religious life.
\nfor the sin of which he is guilty Rather, \u201cfor the sin that he has committed.\u201d As in verse 3 it is preferable to convey in the translation the sense of the act itself rather than the consequent guilt that results from the act. It is important to explain that the Hebrew consonantal root \u1e25-t-\u02be-t is ambiguous. The Masoretes consistently pointed the second root consonant, tet, with a dagesh, but in fact the Hebrew consonants allow for two distinct nouns: (1) \u1e25ata\u02bet, a noun based on the Kal stem and a variant of \u1e25ata\u02beah, \u201csin, fault, offense\u201d; (2) \u1e25atta\u02bet, a noun based on the Piel stem, literally \u201can offering to remove an offense, to purify.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, the Piel stem may signify the undoing, or elimination, of the very act, or state, conveyed by the Kal stem of the same verb. Thus, Hebrew \u1e25itte\u02be means \u201cto remove impurity,\u201d as in 6:19 and 8:15. Here the phrase ha-\u1e25atta\u02bet \u02beasher \u1e25at\u02beu \u02bfaleiha means \u201cthe offense which they committed,\u201d not, of course, \u201cthe sin offering.\u201d
\na bull of the herd The Sifra defines ben bakar as a three-year-old bull. As in the case of benei yonah, \u201cyoung pigeons,\u201d in 1:14, the designation ben, \u201cson, offspring,\u201d indicates the relative age of the sacrificial victim.
\n4. and lay his hand upon the bead of the bull The rite of laying on the hand is explained in the Comment to 1:4.
\n6. in front of the curtain of the Shrine The Comment to 1:3 explains that the Tent of Meeting was of two parts, separated from each other by a curtain called parokhet. The parokhet was held up by four poles, inserted into sockets in the ground; it reached from one side of the Tent to the other and all the way to its top. It concealed from view the innermost section of the Tent, which was called kodesh ha-kodashim, \u201cthe Holy of Holies.\u201d The parokhet also marked off the first section, encountered upon entering the Tent, which was called simply kodesh, \u201csanctuary.\u201d According to Exodus 26:31\u201335, the parokhet was made of embroidered fabric, with representations of cherubs woven into it.
\nThe blood rites prescribed here and in verses 16\u201321 are highly unusual and are reserved elsewhere for the Yom Kippur ritual, as set forth in chapter 16. Only here, and in the law of 16:18, was sacrificial blood to be dabbed on the horns of the incense altar, which stood inside \u201cthe Shrine,\u201d not outside in the courtyard.
\n7. on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense For the design of the altar, see Exodus 30:1\u201310, and for the recipe for the incense to be used on it, see Exodus 30:34\u201338. Only incense was to be offered on this altar, which stood inside the Tent proper, whereas all other sacrifices were to be burned on the altar that stood in the courtyard, facing the entrance to the Tent. Examples of ancient incense altars and of horned altars as well have been unearthed in archaeological excavations.
\n10. just as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of well-being The relevant procedures are discussed in the Comments to 3:3\u20134. The point is that in this case the same parts of the animal are placed on the altar as in the case of the shelamim sacrifice. The difference here is that the rest of the animal is not eaten but destroyed.
\n11. But the hide of the bull In this rite, as in the Yom Kippur ritual, we find the combination of two methods of expiation, or purification: an offering by fire on the altar for the purpose of propitiating God; and a riddance ritual by which impurity is eliminated from the Israelite camp and physically destroyed. The best example of a complete riddance ritual is the procedure for purification after contamination by a corpse, as set forth in Numbers 19. The entire red heifer, selected for this purpose, was burned outside the camp, and no part of it was offered to God. By comparing that rite with the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice prescribed in 4:3\u201321 and with the Yom Kippur sacrifice, we can appreciate how two modes of purification were combined. Here impurity is destroyed by the destruction of the entire victim, even its hide\u2014a very extreme procedure, for the hides were not burned even in the execution of the \u02bfolah, prescribed in chapter 1.
\nUnderlying rituals such as this one is a concept known in the phenomenology of religion as \u201csubstitution\u201d: The sacrificial victim substitutes for the person, or persons, who offended God or who are impure. Impurity is transferred from them to the sacrificial victim, thus freeing the offenders from God\u2019s punishment. God accepts the sacrifice in lieu of the life of the offenders, whom He then pardons.
\nand its dung As in 8:17, Hebrew peresh designates the undigested contents of the stomach.
\n12. to a clean place outside the camp Literally, \u201cto a pure place.\u201d In the Levitical texts of the Bible, Hebrew tahor is better understood in the cultic sense of \u201cpure,\u201d rather than in the hygienic sense of cleanliness, although it was certainly important to maintain cleanliness in performing all cultic rites, and in the sanctuary generally. But \u201ccleanliness,\u201d as it is usually understood, is an inadequate term here, since one could be \u201cclean\u201d but still \u201cimpure,\u201d and the same was true of objects and sacred areas if certain rites had not been performed properly. Although the primary sense of tahor pertains to the \u201cpurity\u201d of physical properties or physical effects (such as \u201cpure\u201d light or \u201cpure\u201d color), its cultic connotation has more to do with a state of ritual purity.
\nto the ash heap There was an ash heap outside the camp, just as in 1:16 we read that there was one located near the altar of burnt offerings.
\n13. the whole community of Israel Hebrew \u02bfedah, \u201ccommunity,\u201d one of the terms for the Israelites as a whole, is regularly used in this sense in the priestly codes of the Torah. It probably derives from the verb y-\u02bf-d \u201cto meet\u201d\u2014at an appointed time, or place. (The same verbal root underlies the term \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe Tent of Meeting,\u201d and Hebrew mo\u02bfed, \u201cannual festival, appointed time.\u201d) The term \u02bfedah conveys the sense that the group was unified as a community on the basis of set principles. The Hebrew verb y-\u02bf-d never connotes a random phenomenon. The character of the Israelite community was determined by a shared history and a common religion. Hebrew \u02bfedah is known outside the Bible, primarily in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine, in Upper Egypt (present-day Aswan). There, a Jewish mercenary community lived through most of the fifth century b.c.e., and this community is referred to as \u02bfedah.
\nand they realize their guilt Rather, \u201cand thereby incur guilt.\u201d The precise sense of ve-\u02beashemu here and of the singular form ve-\u02beashem in verses 22, 27 and in 5:2, 4, 17, and 23, has been the subject of extensive scholarly argument. These forms all occur in the transitional verses of chapter 4, following descriptions of various hypothetical offenses. When certain transgressions occur\u2014ve-\u02beashemu. If subsequently the offenses become known, special rites are to be performed. And so the entire process of ritual expiation hinges on this pivotal verb.
\nThere are several conclusions that can be stated at the outset, so as to eliminate unlikely interpretations. The verb \u02beasham, as it is used in this law, does not imply any spiritual or psychological change in the offender, which might induce him to admit to an offense he had previously concealed or denied. It is simply that facts have become known that were unknown before. Furthermore, the conjunctive vav in the transition from verse 13 to verse 14 with the Hebrew verb ve-nod\u02bfah does not mean \u201cor it became known\u201d but, rather, \u201cwhen it became known\u201d (or possibly \u201cif it became known\u201d). There is no contrast implied, as between one\u2019s own recollection versus being informed by others. A state of guilt exists because of the fact of the misdeed. If and when the offense becomes known, expiation must be undertaken.
\nThe main problem concerns the concept of culpability, or guilt, itself. In the cultic conception, guilt exists whether or not the offender is aware of it at the time. God\u2019s wrath is aroused by the offense against Him. Guilt may \u201cbegin\u201d even before the offender realizes what he has done. Undoubtedly, an offender has to become aware of his sins at some point, if expiation is to be undertaken at all. But, this awareness is not expressed in our text by the verb \u02beasham, which refers only to the state of guilt as determined by God, the supreme judge. Awareness is expressed by the verb yada\u02bf, \u201cto know.\u201d Therefore, in all the transitional verses the verb \u02beasham means \u201cto be in a state of guilt,\u201d whereas the verb yada\u02bf connotes awareness of guilt.
\n15. The elders of the community shall lay their hands \u2026 The \u201celders\u201d (zekenim) represent a very ancient institution in biblical Israel, comparable to councils of elders known from other ancient Near Eastern societies. Several early biblical sources represent the zekenim as part of the tribal system, in a role similar to the Bedouin or Arab sheikhs. The \u201celders\u201d hark back to preurban and premonarchic periods of Israelite settlement in Canaan, but this institution continued to function during later periods as well and never fully lost its authority. Here the elders act on behalf of the Israelite community in expiating collective offenses against God, as is often their responsibility.
\n16\u201319. The rites required in the event the whole community sins are identical to those prescribed for the expiation of the anointed priest, as set forth in verses 3\u201312.
\n20. the priest shall make expiation for them Expiation by means of sacrificial blood-rites is a prerequisite for securing God\u2019s forgiveness. As the rabbis expressed it, \u02beein kapparah \u02beella\u02be bedam, \u201cThere is no ritual expiation except by means of blood.\u201d
\nThe Hebrew verb k-p-r expressed in the Piel stem as kipper, \u201cto expiate,\u201d has cognates in several other Semitic languages, most notably in Akkadian. It expresses a central theme in the Levitical texts, and a correct understanding of the process of expiation, in all its aspects, hinges upon its proper interpretation. The Akkadian verb kuppuru, which corresponds to Hebrew kipper, means \u201cto wipe off, burnish, cleanse.\u201d In cultic terms this means that expiation is conceived of as cleansing, as wiping away impurity, contamination, and, by extension, sinfulness itself. This interpretation differs from the concept endorsed by many scholars that the verb kipper means \u201cto cover, conceal\u201d the sin or impurity from God\u2019s view. Such an idea is of course well known in biblical literature, as it is in most other religious traditions, but it is not the idea conveyed by the verb kipper. Not all biblical concepts of atonement and forgiveness reflect the same perception. The Levitical texts use the verb kipper to express the concept that through expiation one is \u201cwiped clean\u201d of impurities that adhere or cling to a person\u2014infect him, we might say.
\nIf this is the underlying sense of the verb kipper, how are we to understand the indirect object formulation ve-khipper \u02bfaleihem used in this verse? The direct object formulation kipper \u02beet clearly means \u201cto wipe clean,\u201d but a less graphic meaning would be required for indirect-object formulations. The sense here is functional: \u201cto perform rites of expiation over, with respect to.\u2026\u201d Sinfulness, or impurity, is removed from the offender by means of specific rites. In this case they do not involve physical purification, such as bathing or changing garments; nor do they require the application of blood or other substances to a person, garments, or immediate environment. The purification comes from God in response to the proper performance of required rituals undertaken in good faith.
\nand they shall be forgiven The verb sala\u1e25 has been variously explained. Most likely, the proposed derivation from a verb meaning \u201cto wash, sprinkle with water\u201d (with attested cognates in Ugaritic and Akkadian) is correct. The basic concept would be that of cleansing with water, a concept then extended, of course, to connote God\u2019s forgiveness and acceptance of expiation.
\n21. of the congregation Hebrew kahal, like \u02bfedah, encountered in verse 13, is a term for the Israelites as a whole. It derives from the verb kahal, \u201cto assemble,\u201d and characterizes a group living together.
\n22. a chieftain who incurs guilt Literally, \u201cwho commits an offense.\u201d Hebrew nasi\u02be, \u201cchieftain,\u201d is a passive form of the verb nasa\u02be, \u201cto elevate, raise up.\u201d The nasi\u02be is one who has been \u201celevated\u201d above others. This originally reflected the practice of electing tribal leaders. Unlike the priest, the nasi\u02be was a secular leader, not one who held a sacred office, although at times he might bear special sacral responsibilities. He was not, therefore, directly responsible for the religious offenses of the whole community, as was the chief priest. Consequently, his sacrifice of expiation was basically the same as that of any other Israelite. On the other hand, he was not free of punishment by virtue of his eminent position and was, in every respect, subject to religious law.
\n23. a male goat Hebrew sa\u02bfir, literally \u201ca hairy goat.\u201d The rabbis defined the law as requiring a yearling goat, just as in other cases a yearling sheep was required. The utilization of goats for sin offerings, which was relatively frequent in biblical worship, is a development from the premonotheistic worship of the wilderness goat as a demonic being. This is implied in the law of 17:7, which warns Israelites not to worship \u201cgoat demons\u201d (se\u02bfirim) as they had once done. In the Yom Kippur ritual of chapter 16, this practice has been transposed into a component of a monotheistic rite consisting of the dispatch of the scapegoat.
\n25\u201326. The same portions of the sacrificial animal are placed on the altar as for the shelamim, prescribed in 3:3\u20134. The difference is that here some of the sacrificial blood is dabbed on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings, and the rest is poured out at the base of the altar. In the case of the \u02bfolah and the shelamim, all sacrificial blood is dashed against the sides of the altar. It seems that here the horns of the outside altar receive blood to parallel the horns of the incense altar inside the Shrine, which receive blood from the more severe \u1e25atta\u02bet prescribed in verses 3\u201321. The priests received portions of this type of \u1e25atta\u02bet, as outlined in the legislation of 6:17\u20137:10.
\n27. any person from among the populace From here to the end of chapter 4, the form of the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice is essentially the same as the one prescribed for the nasi\u02be, with the difference that an individual Israelite could choose to offer a female goat or a female sheep instead of a male animal. The term \u02bfam ha-\u02bearets literally means \u201cthe people of the land,\u201d but it had diverse social and political applications in biblical society, where it served to distinguish the populace at large from such individuals as officials and priests. It did not, however, convey a lowly status by any means. In fact, \u02bfam ha-\u02bearets often refers to the landed gentry of ancient Israel, those who elected kings. This gentry continued to govern as a council in Jerusalem until the destruction of the First Temple.
\n28. a female goat It is not certain why female animals were required for certain offerings and not for others. Most animal sacrifices consisted of males for the probable reason that fewer males than females were necessary to reproduce the herds and flocks. This pattern is common to most ancient Near Eastern religions.
\n32\u201335. The procedures prescribed for a female sheep offered as a \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice are identical to those pertaining to a female goat.
\nCHAPTER 5
\nADDITIONAL MEANS OF EXPIATION (vv. 1\u201313)
\nThe theme of expiation, introduced in chapter 4, continues through chapter 5, which may be divided topically into four sections, (1) Verses 1\u201313, an adaptation of the \u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201csin offering,\u201d first prescribed in 4:27\u201335. Here a similar sacrifice is ordained for \u201csins of omission\u201d rather than for active violations of the law, as in chapter 4. (2) Verses 14\u201316, the \u02beasham, \u201cguilt offering,\u201d imposed on those who inadvertently misappropriate sanctuary property. (3) Verses 17\u201319, an adaptation of the \u02beasham for situations where a possible violation has occurred, but not a certain one. (4) Verses 20\u201326, an \u02beasham offered in expiation of any of a series of deceitful acts involving an oath and the loss of property to others.
\nThese varied laws make of chapter 5 a legal mosaic that has interested commentators since antiquity. There is, first of all, the problem regarding the laws of verses 1, 4, and 20\u201326. On the face of it, these are not cultic laws but, rather, laws of testimony. More significant is the fact that in the laws of verses 1 and 20\u201326 there is no reference to inadvertence, which is a basic precondition for ritual atonement. Everywhere else in chapters 4\u20135 there is some reference to the fact that the offense involved was unintentional or had escaped notice. Finally, verses 17\u201319 seem to be repetitive, rephrasing the essential provisions of 4:27\u201335, and one is hard put to explain the necessity for such a restatement unless a new legal principle is being introduced.
\nOnce these difficulties are acknowledged, an attempt can be made to relate the entire content of chapter 5 to the central theme of expiation.
\nFOR SINS OF OMISSION (vv. 1\u201313)
\n1. When he has heard a public imprecation One who heard a proclamation adjuring all who possessed information in a certain case to come forward and testify, but who failed to assist the judicial process and withheld evidence, was liable to a penalty. Hebrew kol, which simply means \u201cvoice, sound,\u201d here has the technical sense of \u201coral proclamation.\u201d Thus we read in Ezra 1:1: \u201cHe [Cyrus] issued a proclamation [va-ya\u02bfaver kol] throughout his realm.\u201d In later Hebrew usage the idiom yatsa\u02be kol, literally \u201cthe voice went forth,\u201d means \u201ca proclamation was issued.\u201d According to talmudic law, one could be held legally responsible once the facts of a certain case or situation had been publicly proclaimed.
\nAn \u201cadjuration\u201d (\u02bealah) consisted of a statement pronouncing a curse over anyone who failed to uphold the law. In this respect an \u02bealah had the same force as an oath that a person might take to clear himself of a charge, swearing that he had indeed fulfilled his obligation. In Genesis 24:41 we read that Abraham charged his steward Eliezer, under terms of an \u02bealah, not to agree to any marriage arrangement that would require Isaac to leave Canaan and return to Aram-naharaim. In Deuteronomy, chapter 29, we read that the people of Israel were adjured not to worship other gods, under threat of the devastation of their land. In both cases, those bound by an \u02bealah could free themselves of the threatened penalties by fulfilling the terms of the adjuration. In our case, a person would be clear of the penalties stipulated in the \u02bealah by coming forth to testify. But if he failed to do so, he would bear the punishment of the adjuration.
\nso that he is subject to punishment Rather, \u201cHe shall bear the punishment for his sin.\u201d The Hebrew formula nasa\u02be \u02bfavon reflects a semantic process by which the same word can designate both the act and its effect, the crime and its punishment. In this way \u02bfavon can be translated \u201csin\u201d and also \u201cthe wages of sin,\u201d meaning punishment. Compare the equivalent formula nasa\u02be \u1e25et\u02be, \u201cto bear the punishment of an offense,\u201d in 22:9. There is a symmetry to the legal formulation. Verse 1 concludes with ve-nasa\u02be \u02bfavono, \u201cHe shall bear the punishment for his sin,\u201d and verse 2 with ve-\u02beashem, \u201cHe shall be held guilty.\u201d
\nThe presence of a law on testimony in a cultic code requires explanation. The same problem concerns verse 4 and verses 20\u201326. In fact, chapter 5 demonstrates the interaction between two themes in biblical law: (1) purity and respect for what is sacred, which are essential if there is to be reverence for God, and (2) trust, as expressed in oaths taken in God\u2019s name. In the ancient Near East courts and archives generally were located in temple complexes, and this was true of ancient Israel as well. Deuteronomy 1:16\u201317 states that judgment is God\u2019s prerogative, and Deuteronomy 16:8\u201312 ordains that the central court be located in the Temple. In Deuteronomy 33:8\u201310 we read that the Levitical priests were assigned the task of instructing the people in the laws of God; they also served oracular functions that involved determinations of innocence and guilt. Thus there is an institutional connection between testimony and related juridical procedures, on the one hand, and expiation for what we usually refer to as religious sins, on the other. Whenever God\u2019s name was involved, religion was involved. This is true even today, notwithstanding the constitutional separation of church and state operative in modern democracies.
\nVerse 1 poses still another problem, which it shares with verses 20\u201326: the absence of any reference to inadvertence. Ancient commentators were aware of this; the Sifra, for instance, responded by extending the provisions of verse 1 to include unintentional sins as well.
\nIf properly understood, verse 1 may resolve its own problem. We should understand the failure to come forth as a form of inadvertence, namely, negligence. In this case, the omission was, moreover, one that involved speech, not deed, a distinction also noted by traditional commentators and one that would not apply to the laws in verses 20\u201326, although it seems likely in verse 1.
\n2. when a person touches any unclean thing The general category kol davar tame\u02be, \u201cevery impure thing,\u201d is followed by three specific types of impure carcasses: impure animals, beasts, and swarming creatures (sherets). The main source for these prohibitions of contact is chapter 11, especially verses 24\u201331, where their significance is discussed. In rabbinic law such objects are known as \u02beavot ha-tum\u02beah, \u201cprimary sources of impurity,\u201d which have the effect of defiling whatever touches them.
\nand the fact has escaped him, and then, being unclean, he realizes his guilt Rather, \u201cand insofar as he was impure, he had incurred guilt.\u201d The point is that impurity is the basis of the offender\u2019s guilt. For a time one had been impure without realizing it and therefore had also been culpable without knowing it.
\n3. Or when he touches human uncleanness Hebrew tum\u02beat \u02beadam, \u201chuman impurity,\u201d refers to such forms of impurity as affect a woman after childbirth (12:2), a person who experiences a bodily discharge (15:2, 19), or a man who has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19). It also applies to a person who has eaten the meat of a dead animal or an animal torn by beasts (17:15\u201316). This category must be distinguished from the more severe impurity caused by contact with a corpse (Num. 19:13), which caused a person to be \u201cdefiled by a corpse\u201d (Heb. tame\u02be la-nefesh), the term used in Numbers 9:10.
\nand, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt Rather, \u201cand though the fact escaped him, he ultimately knew of his having been guilty.\u201d As has been emphasized repeatedly, according to cultic law guilt is not a function of awareness; it is a function of committing an act or failing to commit one (see Comments to 4:13\u201314). Therefore, the vav in ve-\u02beashem does not create a sequence of knowledge followed by guilt. That vav is not conjunctive but, rather, circumstantial; literally, \u201cHe, being guilty, knew,\u201d According to Mishnah Shevu\u02bfot 1:2 and 2:1f., the sacrifices referred to in 5:1\u201313 apply only when there exists \u201cinitial knowledge,\u201d \u201cultimate knowledge,\u201d and \u201clack of notice in the interim.\u201d In other words, something originally known was ignored or forgotten and then later recalled. It was at that point that the offender undertook to expiate for his offense.
\nThe concern in verses 2\u20133 is the protection of the sanctuary and all within it from any sort of impurity \u201ccarried\u201d by an impure person. If the offense had been intentional, the contamination of the sanctuary would subject the offender to the more severe penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community, as stated in 7:19\u201321.
\n4. an oath to bad or good purpose The Hebrew idiom le-hara\u02bf o\u02be le-hetiv means \u201cto any purpose at all.\u201d It is a merism, which is a way of expressing generalities by stating them as polarities. The oath referred to here bound the person to do or not to do something and was similar to \u201cthe oath of self-denial\u201d stipulated in Numbers 30. One must fulfill an oath, and if one neglects to do so or allows the matter to escape his notice, he offends God, in whose name the oath was taken, as well as those affected by it. As Deuteronomy 23:24 states, \u201c\u2026 you must fulfill what has crossed your lips,\u201d a thought echoed in Ecclesiastes 5:3\u20135.
\n5. when he realizes his guilt \u2026 he shall confess that wherein he has sinned Alternatively, \u201cwhen he incurs guilt, and has confessed how he has sinned, he shall bring.\u2026\u201d The requirement of making confession is not the main thrust of this statement. The verb hitvaddah, \u201cto confess,\u201d is more likely indicative than subjunctive; it is conveying a fact rather than expressing a requirement.
\nAll those who wished to expiate offenses against God admitted their guilt at some point, and yet this is the only explicit reference to confession in all of chapters 4\u20135, and for a good reason. In this case the confession was material to the judicial process. In other cases, projected in chapters 4\u20135, there are indications as to what prompted the offender to undertake expiation. In 4:2\u201323, and again in 27\u201328, we are told that the matter was brought to the attention of the offender, and this may also be true of the situation reflected in 4:13. Similarly, in 5:14\u201316 it had probably been discovered that property was missing. In 5:20\u201326 the deceit involved other persons, and the suspect had been accused. Here we are dealing with private acts and the failure to act, which might never have come to light had the offender himself not come forth to confess. The motivation for doing so was religious and moral\u2014the desire to be purified and to avert God\u2019s wrath for having failed to fulfill one\u2019s commitments.
\nThe essence of the confessional is the exposure, or revelation, of one\u2019s sins. The confessional is basic to the Yom Kippur ritual, and its phenomenological character is explained in the Comment to 16:21. A confession is also required in the summary laws of Numbers 5:5\u20137, as regards the \u02beasham penalty.
\n6. And he shall bring as his penalty \u2026 a sin offering The word \u02beasham has two connotations: \u201cpenalty\u201d and \u201cguilt offering\u201d (see Comment to v. 15). The term \u02beasham in the sense of \u201cpenalty\u201d thus can designate a sin offering, as is the case here. The sacrifice prescribed in this instance consisted of a female from the flock. It was to \u201csins of omission\u201d what the sacrifice prescribed in 4:27\u201335 was to \u201csins of commission.\u201d Here the offender had the option of offering either a sheep or a goat. One who could afford the full \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice was to offer it even for sins of omission, which were deemed less severe.
\n7. But if his means do not suffice This is the functional sense of the Hebrew idiom \u02beim \u02beein yado masseget, literally \u201cif his \u2018hand\u2019 cannot reach.\u201d In rabbinic parlance, this type of sacrifice was called korban \u02bfoleh ve-yored, \u201cthe ascending and descending offering,\u201d that is, one whose cost was determined on a sliding scale, a concept that was basic to the system of vows in ancient Israel. If one donated to the sanctuary a fixed amount of silver as his \u201cvaluation,\u201d symbolically making himself God\u2019s servant, he could have that amount reduced if the attending priest assessed his means as inadequate (27:1\u20138). The same sliding scale also applied to certain obligatory sacrifices unconnected with any offense at all; otherwise inability to meet the full cost might deny purification to one who was diseased (14:21) or to a woman impure after childbirth (12:6\u20138). We know, from comparative evidence, that the sliding scale was also employed in the Punic temple at Carthage during the fourth and third centuries b.c.e.
\nThe distribution of the two birds of the reduced \u1e25atta\u02bet is significant: One was to be offered as a \u1e25atta\u02bet and the other as an \u02bfolah. The same distribution is prescribed in 15:15, 30 for instances of impurity. Ibn Ezra, later cited by Maimonides, explains this distribution as a way of compensating for the fatty portions of the sacrificial animals, which would have been burned on the altar as God\u2019s share had the full \u1e25atta\u02bet been offered. By burning one of the birds to ashes, the share offered to God was at least increased.
\n8\u20139. pinching its head at the nape without severing For the specialized sense of the Hebrew verb m-l-k, see Comment to 1:15. The utilization of sacrificial blood prescribed here is similar to the procedure used for the \u1e25atta\u02bet generally, as prescribed in 4:25, 30, except that in this instance the blood was not sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings but on its side (kir).
\nThere is logic to the order of the two sacrifices: The \u1e25atta\u02bet preceded the \u02bfolah because one was obliged to be in good standing before he could properly worship God. Coming immediately after the \u1e25atta\u02bet, which was expiatory in character, the \u02bfolah symbolized the restoration of the offender and constituted his first act of worship after forgiveness.
\n10. according to regulation Hebrew ka-mishpat, used quite frequently in the priestly legislation of the Torah, obviates the need for restating the complete ritual. It is a form of cross-reference that assumes the reader will know where the complete regulation is stated.
\nthe priest shall make expiation on his behalf See Comment to 4:20 on the sense of the verb kipper, \u201cto expiate.\u201d
\n11. a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering The quantity of flour used in this offering is equivalent to what is prescribed for the grain offering in 6:12 and Numbers 28:5. Hebrew solet more accurately means \u201csemolina flour.\u201d The usual embellishments of oil and frankincense, prescribed for the grain offering in 2:1 and elsewhere, are not included here. The same austerity is noticeable in the grain offering required of the wife suspected of infidelity in the code of Numbers 5:15. Although this omission may be explained in part as a reduction in the cost of the offering, there is probably another factor involved: It was thought that God took no delight in receiving such offerings and would have preferred, so to speak, that they had not been necessary in the first place!<\/p>\n
USES OF THE \u02beASHAM SACRIFICE (vv. 14\u201326)
\nFOR SINS AGAINST THE SANCTUARY (vv. 14\u201316)
\n15. When a person commits a trespass The etymology of Hebrew ma\u02bfal is uncertain. All biblical occurrences of this term relate directly or indirectly to ancient notions of sacrilege and impurity; as such, it is an appropriate term for misappropriation of sanctuary property. It may also refer to betrayal of trust, involving marital infidelity; to acts of deceit; and to violation of the covenant between God and Israel by the worship of foreign gods. In legal texts, the crime of ma\u02bfal involves actual loss of property to other persons or agencies. This is the view of the Mishnah Me\u02bfilah, and it is borne out by an analysis of other cases where the \u02beasham is required in expiation of ma\u02bfal.
\nThe law of verses 14\u201316 applies only to unintentional misuse or destruction of sanctuary property. That is the force of bishgagah, \u201cinadvertently,\u201d in this verse. Intentional theft of sacred property or damage to it was a heinous crime. The story about Achan, preserved in Joshua 7, epitomizes the severity of intentional ma\u02bfal. Achan was caught looting the spoils of Jericho, which had been devoted to God, and he was put to death in punishment for his crime.
\nremiss about any of the Lord\u2019s sacred things The term kodshei YHVH, \u201cthe Lord\u2019s sacred things,\u201d has general as well as specific connotations. In this context it refers to sanctuary property, not to priestly allocations or tithes, which belonged to the priests and Levites, and not to the sanctuary proper. According to 22:14, misappropriation of what belonged to the priests required the offender to make restitution and to pay a penalty, but there is no mention of an \u02beasham sacrifice. The precise sense of the idiom \u1e25ata\u02be min, \u201cto be remiss about,\u201d receives some clarification through comparison with verse 16, where we read \u02beet \u02beasher \u1e25ata\u02be min ha-kodesh, literally \u201cthat which he sinfully detracted from sanctuary property.\u201d In this context \u1e25ata\u02be conveys the notion of causing a loss. Similarly, the Piel stem of the same verb \u1e25itte\u02be may mean \u201cto make up a loss.\u201d
\nhe shall bring as his penalty As in verse 6, the term \u02beasham is used here in the sense of \u201cpenalty.\u201d Actually, in this one verse we have both meanings of the term \u02beasham: as fulfillment of the duty to offer an \u02beasham sacrifice and as fulfillment of the duty of a \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice.
\nconvertible into payment in silver Rather, \u201caccording to the equivalent in silver.\u201d The term \u02bferekh means \u201cassessed value, equivalent.\u201d The second person masculine form \u02bferkekha, \u201cyour equivalent,\u201d became a fixed term, what linguists call a \u201cbound form.\u201d As a result, we can refer to ha-\u02bferkekha literally as \u201cthe \u2018your equivalent.\u2019 \u201d A feminine plural \u02bfrkt, \u201cequivalents,\u201d is attested in a Punic votive inscription, where the verb n-d-r, \u201cto pledge, vow,\u201d also occurs. In still another Punic text, a tax official bears the title r [b] \u02bfrkt, \u201csupervisor of taxes.\u201d These are rare, extrabiblical attestations of terms similar to biblical \u02bferekh. In 27:1 we therefore find the formulation be-\u02bferkekha nefashot, \u201cin the \u2018your equivalent\u2019 of lives.\u201d Compare 2 Kings 12:5: \u02beish kesef nafshot \u02bferko, \u201cthe silver of each person\u2019s life equivalent.\u201d The offender had the option of either providing a ram of his own or remitting the cost of one so that a proper sacrificial ram could be secured on his behalf. The form of the sacrifice was not optional, however, and is set forth in 7:1\u201310.
\nThe term \u02bferekh (or \u02bferkekha) is central to the system of cultic administration in ancient Israel. It occurs in two contexts: the votive system, set forth primarily in chapter 27, and the \u02beasham sacrifice, as prescribed here. The problem is to explain the puzzling formulation of the law. Why is it stressed that the ram offered as an \u02beasham sacrifice corresponded to a value in silver shekels, especially when the actual amount of the valuation is not stated?
\nBiblical literature provides evidence for the development of the \u02beasham from a votive offering of expiation, which could take any number of forms, to an altar sacrifice of fixed form. In 1 Samuel 6:3\u20135, we are told that the Philistines, suspecting that they were being punished by the God of Israel for failing to return the Ark they had captured in battle, sent it back to the Israelite camp as an act of restitution. In addition, they sent objects of value as an \u02beasham to appease God\u2019s wrath.
\nThis background helps to explain how terminology originating in the votive system came to be applied to the \u02beasham as an altar sacrifice: Expiation is common to both systems. The \u02beasham began as a votive offering, as we gather from the Philistine episode, but it subsequently developed into an altar offering as well. Perhaps for this reason, it is stated that the \u02beasham sacrifice, consisting of one ram, represented an assessment in silver shekels. Reference to silver is more traditional than realistic. So it is that a votive offering, figured in silver shekels, became an altar offering, specified in terms of animals, as one would expect.
\nHebrew shekel ha-kodesh, \u201csanctuary weight,\u201d was the prevalent standard in ancient Israel at certain periods. In fact, Ezekiel 45:12, in listing official weights and measures, gives the silver content of the shekel as 20 gerahs, \u201cgrains,\u201d which is identical to the sanctuary weight of a shekel according to 27:25 and as stated in Exodus 31:13.
\n16. He shall make restitution \u2026 and he shall add a fifth part to it The penalty of one-fifth was a common feature of Temple administration. The provisions of this law are reformulated in verse 24 where the specific terminology is explained.
\nThe priest shall make expiation on his behalf On the sense of the verb kipper, see Comment to 4:20. It is to be assumed that the blood from the \u02beasham sacrifice was disposed of in the same way as that of the \u1e25atta\u02bet of the people in 4:25, 30.
\nOne is prompted to ask how instances of ma\u02bfal came to light in the first place. To establish the intentional theft of sanctuary property, the testimony of witnesses was necessary. In Joshua 7:14\u201315, the person guilty of ma\u02bfal was \u201ctrapped\u201d by the casting of lots and compelled to confess his crime. Here, in the case of unintentional ma\u02bfal, it is possible that the missing property was discovered during an inventory; and although there was no evidence, suspects were questioned. This may be a situation in which a person used foodstuffs or other materials of value for his private purposes, presuming they were not \u201csacred things.\u201d Examples are provided in Mishnah Me\u02bfilah.
\nTHE \u02beASHAM OF CONTINGENCY (vv. 17\u201319)
\n17. And when a person, without knowing it, sins \u2026 and then realizes his guilt Alternatively, \u201cAnd when a person sins, but did not subsequently realize that he had incurred guilt.\u201d The ambiguity in this verse derives from its negative formulation. In verses 3\u20134 the formulation is positive, \u201cand he knew,\u201d whereas here we have ve-lo\u02be yuan\u02bf, \u201che did not know.\u201d The new JPS translation understands this negative formulation to refer to lack of initial knowledge and the following verb, ve-\u02beashem, to refer to the subsequent realization or awareness of guilt\u2014in this way resolving the problem of explaining how one was obliged to expiate a sin of which he never became aware.
\nThere remain, however, several problems in this translation. As explained in the Comment to 5:3 yada\u02bf, \u201che knew,\u201d refers to ultimate knowledge, not initial knowledge, and the verb ve-\u02beashem refers to the fact of guilt, not the awareness of it. Furthermore, the translation above would make of this verse a repetition of 4:27\u201335. In both cases a person inadvertently violated a law, a violation of which he later became aware. But since the language of legislative formulation is exceedingly precise, one would expect there to be a significant difference between the positive formulation of 4:27f. and the negative formulation of our verse. Wherein does that difference lie?
\nThe rabbinic tradition understands the laws of 5:17\u201319 to mean that the offender did not know for certain, but only suspected, that he may have committed an offense. In effect, he had no positive, ultimate knowledge of the offense, and this is the sense of the clause ve-hu\u02be lo\u02be yaaa\u02bf, \u201che did not know\u201d\u2014for certain. Most of Mishnah Keritot is devoted to a discussion of cases where the \u02beasham of 5:17\u201319 would apply. There it is called \u02beasham talui, \u201cthe contingent \u02beasham.\u201d Certain knowledge of an offense committed would invoke the law of 4:27\u201335, but where there was uncertainty about past trespasses, an \u02beasbam consisting of a ram was prescribed in order to avert God\u2019s wrath in a preventive way.
\nThere is some biblical evidence that sacrifices were offered on this basis. The Mishnah speaks of \u02beasbam \u1e25asidim, \u201cthe guilt offering of the devout\u201d; and Job 1:5 recounts how one devout person, who was tested by God, brought daily burnt offerings on behalf of his children because of the likelihood that in the midst of their feasting and revelry they would unwittingly commit blasphemy.
\n18. for the error that he committed unwittingly Rather, \u201cfor the inadvertent sin he committed, but did not subsequently realize.\u201d
\nTHE \u02beASHAM FOR ROBBERIES (vv. 20\u201326)
\nVerses 20\u201326 comprise laws about the expiation of false oaths involving deceitful acts of theft, robbery, fraud, and so on, which cause actual loss of property to another. These parallel, with respect to crimes \u201cbetween man and man,\u201d the provisions of 5:14\u201316 regarding the inadvertent misappropriation of sanctuary property, but with an important difference: The offenses outlined here were quite definitely intentional! A person misappropriated property or funds entrusted to his safekeeping, or defrauded another, or failed to restore lost property he had located. As there were no witnesses to the crime, the usual laws of testimony were not applicable. When sued, the defendant lied under oath and claimed no responsibility. Without witnesses, the aggrieved party had no further recourse and sustained an irretrievable loss.
\nBut if, subsequently, the accused came forth on his own and admitted to having lied under oath\u2014thus assuming liability for the unrecovered property\u2014he was given the opportunity to clear himself by making restitution and by paying a fine of 20 percent to the aggrieved party. Having lied under oath, he had also offended God and was obliged to offer an \u02beasham sacrifice in expiation.
\nThe practice of allowing pleas of guilty \u201cafter the fact,\u201d or of allowing one to offer to make restitution, is accepted in many legal systems. According to Mishnah Bava Metsia 3:1, a person who failed to produce what had been entrusted to him had to swear that he had not abused his trust. If he wished to avoid the prescribed oath, imposed in Exodus 22:6\u201313, he could offer to make restitution, and that satisfied the law. Here the more serious case of admission after a false oath accounts for the penalty of 20 percent and the requirement of an \u02beasham sacrifice.
\nBut how are we to explain the opportunity for the ritual expiation of an intentional false oath, given that both versions of the Decalogue, in Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11, state that God will not exonerate one who swears falsely in His name but will surely punish him? Mishnah Bava Metsia 6 explains that the expiation allowable under this law applied only when the offender came forth on his own and confessed his crime. This is made explicit in Numbers 5:5\u20137, another version of the same law, where there is reference to the confessional of the guilty party. If instead, however, witnesses appear and testify to the guilt of the offender, expiation is not possible. The guilty party would then face God\u2019s punishment as well as the imposition of multiple penalties.
\nThe admission by the guilty party enables the victim of a crime to recover his lost property in a case where there is no other legal recourse; that is, although the criminal is under suspicion, there is no proof of his guilt. Whereas, in the first place, the overriding objective in biblical law is to prevent theft, fraud, robbery, and other crimes, in the event they occur, it becomes of prime importance to recover what was lost or damaged on behalf of the victim. God accepts the expiation even of one who swears falsely in His name because the guilty person is willing to make restitution to the victim of his crime, for God is offended less by the desecration of His name than by disobedience of His law, which produces violence among men.
\nThe terminology of verses 22\u201323 is of particular interest: Hebrew ki\u1e25\u1e25esh, \u201cto act with deceit,\u201d is a synonym for shikker, \u201cto lie,\u201d in 19:11. It may variously connote denial of the truth, as in Genesis 18:15, or the fabrication of an untruth, as in 1 Kings 13:18, as well as faithlessness in general. Hebrew \u02bfamit, \u201cfellow,\u201d suggests, by its context, a social relationship.
\nVerses 21\u201323 project three kinds of deceit: (1) Misappropriation of what was entrusted to one\u2019s safekeeping (pikkadon) or of a pledge (tesumet yad). The latter term literally refers to what is \u201cplaced\u201d in one\u2019s \u201chand,\u201d and it is difficult to define specifically. Rashi interprets it as a loan or business investment, and Ibn Ezra, as a partnership arrangement. (2) Robbery (gezelah), which gave its name to the \u02beasbam in rabbinic law, \u02beasham gezelot, \u201cthe \u02beasbam of robberies.\u201d (3) Fraud (\u02bfoshek), which does not refer to taking from another what is already his, which is theft or robbery, but, as Erhlich and Hoffmann state, to withholding what he is entitled to receive. Rashi interprets \u02bfosbek as illegally withholding the wages of a laborer, forbidden in the law of 19:13; this is called \u201crestraint.\u201d
\n23. when one has thus sinned and, realizing bis guilt, would restore that which he got Rather, \u201cWhen one has thus sinned, thereby incurring guilt, he must restore that which he got.\u201d This corresponds to the formulation in Numbers 5:7, where the verb ve-hesbiv, \u201che must remit,\u201d expresses what the criminal is required to do, not what he may prefer to do.
\n24. he shall repay the principal amount.\u2026 He shall pay it to its owner when be realizes bis guilt Alternatively, \u201cwhen his guilt is established.\u201d Hebrew be-yom \u02beashmato, literally \u201con the day of his guilt,\u201d refers to the time when the guilt is proved, not when one realizes it. Only after acting to make good on his obligation and by paying a fine may the offender undertake ritual expiation. The provisions of verses 25\u201326 are identical to those of the \u02beasham as prescribed in verse 16 but one formulated differently. Here, Hebrew ro\u02besh, \u201chead,\u201d like English \u201ccapital,\u201d refers to principal, in contrast to interest or other additional payments and revenues. Cf. usage in Numb. 5:7. In Aramaic legal documents, re\u02besha\u02be, literally \u201cthe head,\u201d has the same financial connotation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n