The Disposition of Sacrifices (6:1\u20137:38)
\nTsav
\nAs noted in the introductory Comment to chapters 1\u20137, the last two chapters of this section present the torah, the \u201critual,\u201d for each one of the several types of sacrifices already outlined in chapters 1\u20135. The earlier chapters emphasize the mechanics\u2014the preparation of sacrifices and their ingredients\u2014as well as the special conditions that made certain sacrifices necessary.
\nChapters 6\u20137, on the other hand, focus on the role of the priesthood as officiants in the sanctuary and detail the special care that must attend the sacrificial offerings in order to prevent impurity. Most of all, these chapters specify that certain portions of the sacrifices (with the exception of the burnt offerings, or holocausts) were to be allocated to the priests as their share.
\nSome repetition of content is noticeable when we compare chapters 6\u20137 with chapters 1\u20135. Unique to chapters 6\u20137, however, is the glimpse they offer of the system whereby priests partook of sacred meals within the precincts of the sanctuary, meals that were at least in part supported or sustained by sacrificial offerings. In this connection it should be remembered that\u2014except for the burnt offering of chapter 1, the priestly min\u1e25ah of 6:12\u201316, and the priestly \u1e25atta\u02bet of 4:1\u201321\u2014most sacrifices were meant to be eaten, usually by priests and on occasion even by the donors.
\nMost sections of the sacrificial animals (except for the holocausts) were prepared as food, and only relatively small parts of the victims were burned on the altar as \u201cGod\u2019s share.\u201d Relevant procedures such as the boiling of sacrificial flesh and the baking or frying of grain offerings have already been set forth and explained in chapters 2\u20133 and 4:22f.
\nThe priests received their emoluments in several forms, all in return for their services on behalf of the Israelite people. This principle is reflected in the provisions of 6:12\u201316, namely, the law governing the High Priest\u2019s grain offering, which was completely burned on the altar. That passage illustrates the rule that priests may not be compensated for sacrifices performed on their own behalf but only for services rendered to others.
\nThe occurrence of this law in chapter 6 has been viewed as a problem because it seems to interrupt the continuity of the rest of the chapter. It was most likely inserted here because of its general topical relationship to grain offerings, the subject of verses 7\u201311, which immediately precede it.
\nThe key term in chapters 6\u20137 is torah, which requires clarification precisely because the more general term Torah is so familiar. Hebrew torah derives from the verb y-r-h, \u201cto cast, shoot\u201d\u2014an arrow, for instance. The verb in the Hifil form, horah, means \u201cto aim, direct toward\u201d\u2014hence \u201cto show the way, instruct.\u201d As used here, torah signifies the content of the instruction. Frequently reference is to priestly instruction, including what the priests have been taught as well as what they, in turn, teach the Israelite people regarding the performance of religious rituals. It is a term that appears throughout the priestly writings of the Bible, A classic example pertains to the foreigners who had been settled in Samaria by the Assyrian conquerors after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 b.c.e. These new arrivals sought instruction in the proper worship of the God of Israel, and in 2 Kings 17:28 we read that an Israelite priest, who had been exiled from Samaria, was sent back there and engaged in \u201cinstructing\u201d (va-yehi moreh) the newcomers.
\nChapters 6\u20137 consist of a series of discernible units of the torot, \u201critual instructions,\u201d which are ordered differently from those of chapters 1\u20135. The \u02bfolah and min\u1e25ah are discussed first in 6:1\u201316, since they were part of the public cult. Chapters 6:17\u20137:10 treat the sin offering and the guilt offering, which were not a regular feature of the public cult but, rather, expiatory rituals usually performed by individual Israelites. (The guilt offering [\u02beasham] had no role at all in the public cult.) The first unit extends, therefore, from 6:1\u20137:10 and concludes with the allocations of sacrificial foods to the priests. This completes the category of kodesh kodashim, \u201cmost sacred offerings.\u201d
\nIt is followed by the category of kodashim kallim, \u201cofferings of lesser sanctity,\u201d as it is known in the Mishnah, and is represented by zeva\u1e25 ha-shelamim, \u201cthe sacred gift of greeting,\u201d treated in 7:11\u201334. Except for the unique shelamim offered on Shavuot and ordained in Leviticus 23:19, this type of sacrifice was utilized primarily in private worship (its public use was reserved for commemorating special occasions).
\nWe observe in chapters 6\u20137 an administrative order that begins with the most sacred public offerings and continues with other most sacred offerings that are usually relegated to private worship. The law then proceeds to outline offerings of lesser sanctity that also fall within the category of private worship. Finally, 7:35\u201338 summarizes the allocations of parts of the sacrificial offerings as the \u201cshare\u201d (mish\u1e25ah) of the priests, their portions of the Lord\u2019s offerings by fire.
\nCHAPTER 6
\nTHE BURNT OFFERING (\u02bfOLAH) (vv. 1\u20136)
\n2. Command Aaron and his sons According to the Sifra, the imperative form of the verb tsav, \u201ccommand,\u201d emphasizes the duty to provide for the needs of sanctuary worship, the administration of which was the responsibility of the priests. Similar emphatic formulations occur in Leviticus 24:2 and in Numbers 28:2, both statements that introduce new sections of the law.
\nThis is the ritual of the burnt offering The preparation and presentation of the \u02bfolah have been explained in chapter 1.
\nThe burnt offering itself shall remain The Hebrew syntax is unusual. The construction hi\u02be ha-\u02bfolah is usually rendered \u201cit is the burnt offering,\u201d but this sense would not be suitable here. The translation reflects the fact that in certain contexts the pronouns \u201che\u201d and \u201cshe\u201d are used for emphasis, in the sense of \u201chimself\u201d and \u201cherself.\u201d Compare Jeremiah 6:6 hi\u02be ha-\u02bfir, \u201cthe city itself.\u201d
\nwhere it is burned Rather, \u201con its fireplace.\u201d Hebrew moked, from the verb yakad, \u201cto burn, blaze,\u201d designates the spot on top of the altar grill where the firewood was placed. The same verb accounts for the Hofal form tukad, \u201cis kept burning,\u201d at the end of the verse and in verses 5\u20136 below.
\nall night until morning, while the fire on the altar is kept going on it The daily holocaust (burnt offering) consisted of two yearling lambs, one offered in the morning and the other in the evening, as ordained in Exodus 29:38f. and Numbers 28:3\u20134. The morning holocaust, with its accompanying grain offering and libation, were the first offerings placed on the altar of burnt offerings each day, and the evening holocaust and its accompaniments were the final ones (Sifra). The latter offering was left burning on the altar during the night; first thing in the morning the ashes of the previous day\u2019s sacrifices were removed and new firewood was added, as we are told in verse 3.
\nAll of this occurred before the fresh holocaust was placed on the altar. Although the same altar was used for other sacrifices during the day, it was logical to provide instructions for tending the altar at this point since each day the public cult began and concluded with the holocaust.
\n3. linen raiment, with linen breeches Israelite priests customarily wore linen garments, as is prescribed specifically for the Yom Kippur ritual in 16:4. Linen was first imported into ancient Israel from Egypt, where it was also worn by priests.
\nThe Hebrew construction middo bad, literally \u201chis raiment of linen,\u201d is unusual because in Hebrew the pronominal suffix is expressed in the object, but the sense is clear nonetheless.
\nand he shall take up the ashes The Hebrew verb herim often means \u201cto take away, remove,\u201d as is true in 2:9, where the text speaks of removing a portion of the grain offering so that it may be burned on the altar. This meaning of the verb is reflected in the postbiblical term terumat ha-desben, \u201cthe removal of the ashes,\u201d a ritual described in Mishnah Tamid 1:2\u20132:2, as it was practiced in Second Temple times.
\nto which the fire has reduced the burnt offering The common verb \u02beakhal, \u201cto eat,\u201d when referring to the action of fire, means \u201cto consume, destroy.\u201d
\n4. take off his vestments As we are told in Exodus 28:43, the priestly vestments were to be worn only in the precincts of the sanctuary.
\nand carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place The pure place outside the camp is called shefekh ha-deshen, \u201cthe ash heap\u201d in 4:12.
\nIn 1:16 the spot near the eastern side of the altar where the ashes were dumped is called mekom hadeshen, \u201cthe place for the ashes.\u201d
\n5. every morning In the Hebrew idiom ba-boker ba-boker, which also occurs in Exodus 30:7, repetition conveys continuity. Compare the idiom yom yom, \u201cevery day,\u201d in Psalms 68:20.
\nthe priest shall feed wood to it In late biblical times wood for the altar fire was secured through a special collection called kurban ha-etsim, \u201cthe donation of wood,\u201d in Nehemiah 10:35 and 13:31. This procedure is also mentioned in Mishnah Tamid 2:3\u20135.
\nlay out the burnt offering on it The Hebrew verb \u02bfarakh, \u201cto set up, arrange,\u201d has already been explained in the Comments to 1:7\u20138.
\n6. A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, not to go out The requirement of keeping the fire burning at all times is also implied in verse 2 above. Here the rendering \u201cperpetual\u201d is appropriate because our verse states explicitly that the fire is not to go out but must burn incessantly. The term tamid does not always have this specific meaning, as is explained in the Comment to verse 12 below. Its usual sense is regularity. The perpetual fire on the altar expressed the devotion of the Israelite people to God by indicating that they were attendant upon God at all times in the sanctuary.
\nTHE GRAIN OFFERING (MIN\u1e24AH) (vv. 7\u201311)
\n7. And this is the ritual of the meal offering The preparation of the min\u1e25ah is set forth in chapter 2.
\nThe syntax of the Hebrew in this verse is somewhat unusual: kakrev \u02beotah benei \u02beaharon, \u201cto offer it, the sons of Aaron.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, the infinitive absolute, here represented by the form hakrev, can stand for other forms of the verb and may be translated accordingly.
\n8. A handful of the choice flour The procedure for presenting the grain offering is set forth in chapter 2.
\n9. What is left of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons The torah of the grain offering here adds an important requirement, not stressed in chapter 2, that the priests must partake of the grain offering. This was considered indispensable to the efficacy of the ritual, and this requirement is repeated in verses 11 and 19 below, with reference to the sin offering. The same duty is dramatized in Moses\u2019 criticism of the priests recorded in 10:17f. The priests had not partaken of the sin offering as they should have on the occasion of their investiture. Portions of the sacrifices that remained uneaten after a specified period of time were to be destroyed.
\nin the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting As described in Exodus 27:9\u201319 and 35:17 and in other priestly texts, the Tabernacle had an enclosed courtyard, just as did the Temple of Jerusalem. And yet, in all of Leviticus, it is only here and in verse 19 below that this sacred area is called \u1e25atser, \u201ccourtyard.\u201d Usually this area is referred to as peta\u1e25 \u02beobel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d which included a large part of the courtyard.
\n10. I have given it as their portion from My offerings by fire The notion that God granted parts of the sacrifices to the priests is explained in the Comment to 2:3.
\n11. Only the males among Aaron\u2019s descendants Sacrificial foods could be eaten only by the priests themselves, although other foodstuffs collected for their support and other forms of priestly revenue could be used to feed their families. These are summarized in Numbers 18:8\u201320.
\nas their due for all time Hebrew \u1e25ok (fem. \u1e25ukkab), \u201cdue,\u201d derives from the verb \u1e25-k-k, \u201cto inscribe, engrave,\u201d and signifies that which is ordained by written statute. By extension, it connotes one\u2019s lawful share or amount, a rightful due, which is the meaning of \u1e25ok here.
\nAnything that touches these shall become holy Rather, \u201cAnyone who is to touch these must be in a holy state.\u201d
\nSimilar statements pertaining to the sanctity of the altar occur in Exodus 29:37 and 30:29 and in verse 20 below. The problem of interpretation concerns the verb yikdash. Does it mean \u201cwill become holy\u2014as a result of contact with sanctified substances and objects\u2014or \u201cmust be in a holy state\u201d\u2014before being allowed to come into contact with sacred substances and objects? Several scholars, most notably M. Haran, have argued for the former interpretation. Haran has formulated a theory of \u201ccontagious\u201d holiness, according to which the sanctity of holy objects and substances is communicated, or conducted, to all that comes into contact with them.
\nAlthough the verb k-d-sh itself often connotes resultant holiness, it is more likely that here it refers to what must occur prior to contact with the sacred. Our verse simply means that only consecrated persons may have contact with sacrificial materials, a notion that reinforces the opening of the verse: Only Aaronide priests may partake of the sacrifices. Similarly, in Exodus 29:37 and 30:29 the sense is that only consecrated persons may have contact with the altar. In fact, there are indications that holiness was not regarded as \u201ccontagious\u201d at all, unlike impurity, which was thought to be highly communicable. This contrast is brought out clearly in Haggai 2:11\u201313, where we read the actual text of an inquiry on questions of purity, addressed to the priesthood of Jerusalem in the early postexilic period.
\nThe priests were asked, hypothetically, whether foodstuffs carried by a man would be rendered holy through physical contact with sacrificial flesh borne by the same man in the folds of his garment. They answered in the negative. But, when the priests were asked whether the same foodstuffs would be defiled if touched by a man impure through contact with a corpse, they replied in the affirmative. The point is that whereas impurity is transferred through physical contact alone, substances do not become holy merely through contact with sacred materials. An act of consecration is required.
\nTHE GRAIN OFFERING OF THE HIGH PRIEST (vv. 12\u201316)
\n13. This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer The term korban is explained in the Comment to 1:2.
\non the occasion of his anointment Hebrew be-yom, literally \u201con the day of,\u201d simply means \u201cwhen,\u201d as is typical of many units of time.
\nThe rite of unction was essential to the status of the High Priest and is described in 8:10ff. Not only he but the altar as well was anointed. According to chapters 8\u20139, where the investiture of the priesthood is described in detail, only the High Priest was anointed with the special oil prepared for this purpose. This is also the intent of Exodus 29:17, a similar investiture text, and of the Holiness Code, according to 21:10f. But another tradition, reflected in Exodus 34:30; 40:14\u201319; and Leviticus 7:36, indicates that Aaron\u2019s sons were also to receive the rite of unction. Our verse agrees with the tradition that only Aaron was to be anointed because it refers to \u201chis anointment\u201d (himmasha\u1e25 \u02beoto); Aaron\u2019s sons joined in the offering, but only he was anointed.
\ntenth of an ephah of choice flour For this standard content of the grain offering, see Numbers 28:5 and Comments to Leviticus 5:11 and 6:8.
\nas a regular meal offering The term tamid connotes regularity and for the most part is used to characterize daily offerings. There was an entire regimen of daily rites called tamid: (1) the daily holocausts accompanied by grain offerings and libations, as prescribed in Exodus 29:38ff. and Numbers 28:3f.; and (2) the kindling of the \u201cregular light\u201d (ner tamid) every morning, as is ordained in Exodus 27:20\u201321; 30:7\u20138; and 40:25; Leviticus 24:1\u20134; and Numbers 8:2; (3) the regular incense offering, ordained in Exodus 30:7\u201310 and 40:27, to be presented each morning when the High Priest tended the menorah.
\nThe problem in verse 13 is glaring:A grain offering to be presented on the day of Aaron\u2019s anointment, as part of his initiation, is called tamid! There is evidence from Second Temple times of a daily grain offering presented by the High Priest as a holocaust, just as this passage ordains. In Ben Sira 45:14 we read: \u201c\u2026 his [the High Priest\u2019s] grain offering shall be burned to smoke in its entirety, twice every day.\u201d In Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 4:5 and 6:2, this daily grain offering is called \u1e25avitei kohen gadol, \u201cthe griddle cakes of the High Priest.\u201d Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (3.10.7) also refers to this rite.
\nThe problem is further complicated by the fact that a grain offering, presented as a holocaust, is indeed ordained as part of the initiation of the priesthood in 8:26\u201328, but its ingredients are different from what is specified here. So there is evidence both for an offering of initiation and for a regular offering, and yet the specifications are problematic in both cases.
\nIbn Ezra, attempting to solve the problem by interpreting the prepositional bet in the formula beyom himmasha\u1e25 \u02beoto as \u201cdirection from,\u201d so rendered this formula: \u201cfrom the day of his anointment.\u201d This corresponds to some extent with the view of Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Kelei Ha-mikdash 5:16) that Leviticus 8:26\u201328 concerns the singular offering of the High Priest upon his initiation, whereas our passage speaks of the regular incense offering presented by the High Priest.
\nThese attempted resolutions fall short, however, because verse 15 of our chapter states that each successive High Priest was to make the same grain offering, which seems to mean that the initiation rite was permanent, not that the grain offering was to be a regular feature of the public cult. Furthermore, we are still left with the difference in content between this grain offering and what is ordained in 8:26\u201328. It is likely that these are parallel traditions on the investiture of the High Priest. Our rite became the pattern for the daily grain offering of the High Priest, whereas that of chapter 8 remained associated specifically with his investiture.
\n14. You shall bring it well soaked, and offer it as a meal offering of baked slices Hebrew murbekhet, \u201cwell soaked,\u201d occurs only here, in Leviticus 7:12, and in 1 Chronicles 23:23, all with reference to the treatment of flour. The Sifra explains murbekhet as \u201cfully prepared in boiling water.\u201d The Akkadian cognate, the verb rab\u0101ku, means \u201cto mix, extract,\u201d and it is used with reference to the preparation of herbs and drugs. This is also the sense of Arabic radaka.
\nHebrew tufinim, here rendered \u201cbaked (slices),\u201d is as yet unexplained. Commentators have assumed that it derives from the root \u02be-f-h, \u201cto bake,\u201d but that the alef of that root was elided. The term pittim, \u201cslices,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 2:6.
\n15. to be burned entirely into smoke Hebrew kalil conveys the notion of being entirely consumed by fire. It is an early term for a holocaust offering, as in Deuteronomy 33:10: \u201cThey [the Levites] shall offer You incense to savor and whole-offerings [kalil] on Your altar.\u201d In the cult of Carthage, as we know it from inscriptions dating to the fourth or third century b.c.e., there is also mention of an offering called kll.
\n16. So, too, every meal offering of a priest Every grain offering brought by a priest on his own behalf, or on behalf of the priesthood, in expiation or as a voluntary offering, was to be burned entirely on the altar. This affirms the rule that priests could benefit only for services undertaken on behalf of other Israelites, not on their own behalf. When the offering served only the priests themselves, the usual share of the priests had to be surrendered to God.
\nTHE SIN OFFERING (\u1e24ATTA\u02beT) (6:17\u201323)
\n18. the sin offering shall be slaughtered In 1:11 it is ordained that the \u02bfolah is to be slaughtered at the northern side of the altar, and this practice is recorded for the Second Temple in Mishnah Zevha\u1e25im 5:1f. We are informed here that this rule also applies to the sin offering.
\nit is most holy The sin offering is of the class of kodesh kodashim, \u201cmost sacred offerings.\u201d This class was first encountered in 2:3 and was mentioned in this chapter in verse 10. It recurs in verse 22 and in 7:6.
\n19. The priest who offers it as a sin offering Hebrew me\u1e25atte\u02be a denominative form deriving from the noun \u1e25atta\u02bet itself, means \u201cto perform a sin offering.\u201d
\nIn the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting The entire courtyard is sacred. See Comment to verse 9.
\n20. Anything that touches its flesh shall become holy Rather, \u201cAnyone who is to touch its flesh must be in a holy state.\u201d This preferred translation is explained in the Comment to verse 11.
\nand if any of its blood is spattered upon a garment The form yizzeh represents the Kal stem and means \u201cto spatter,\u201d as in 2 Kings 9:33 and Isaiah 63:3. Usually, we find the Hifil form, hizzah, \u201cto sprinkle, cast,\u201d as is explained in the Comment to 15:19. Should any sacrificial blood stain a garment, that garment must be laundered because it would be improper if any blood of the sacrifice was not used for its only legitimate purpose. The blood of the sin offering was to be placed on the horns of the altar and the rest poured down its side, as is ordained in 4:25. It was sufficient to launder garments to rid them of the blood. This is also the later law of Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 11:1\u20135.
\n21. An earthen vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken Earthenware, being more porous than metal, absorbs particles of the flesh boiled in it. Technically speaking, some of the sacrificial flesh would remain in the vessel. Such flesh would constitute notar, \u201cleftovers of the sacrifice,\u201d forbidden for consumption according to 7:15\u201317. Now, according to Hoffmann, if other foodstuffs were subsequently boiled in the same ceramic vessel, the forbidden sacrificial particles would contaminate the rest. To prevent this, the earthenware vessel had to be broken, because there was no possible way to purify it. This accords with the later legislation of Mishnah Kelim 2:1.
\nif it was boiled in a copper vessel, [the vessel] shall be scoured and rinsed with water Hebrew marak, which is cognate with Akkadian mar\u0101qu and Aramaic meraq, means \u201cto cleanse\u201d by rubbing or abrasive action, at times using boiling water. This is how the procedure is described in Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 5:7. Rabbinic law, in Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 11:7\u20138, actually extended these procedures to include all prepared sacrificial offerings.
\nSimilar procedures continue to be used to this day. In fact, they are required, according to traditional Jewish practice, for rendering some types of cooking vessels and eating utensils fit (kasher) for use.
\n23. from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting This rule refers to the priestly \u1e25atta\u02bet as set forth in 4:1\u201321, to the rites prescribed in 8:17 for the investiture of the priests, and in chapter 16 for the Yom Kippur ritual. Similar rites are involved in purification from the contamination communicated by a corpse in Numbers 19.
\nThis rule is the issue addressed in Moses\u2019 criticism of Aaron and his sons in 10:17\u201318. In that episode the priests should have partaken of the sin offering presented at the initiation of the Tabernacle cult, none of which had been brought inside the Tent. Their failure to partake of it might have affected the efficacy of the offering.
\nCHAPTER 7
\nTHE GUILT OFFERING (\u02beASHAM) (vv. 1\u201310)
\n1. This is the ritual of the guilt offering The procedures specified in verses 1\u20136 for the \u02beasham, \u201cguilt offering,\u201d complement those already stipulated for the sin offering in 6:17. The provisions are identical for both offerings, a fact made explicit in verse 7, and it is therefore unnecessary to comment on them in detail. Verses 1\u20136 provide particulars absent from chapter 6; they are, however, anticipated in 4:28f. and in chapter 5. The anatomical terms that occur in verses 3\u20134 are explained in the Comments to 3:3\u20134.
\n7. it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby This statement is significant because it indicates that the expiatory sacrifices eaten by the priests are actually their property. This principle is further expounded in verses 8\u201310.
\n8. So, too, the priest \u2026 shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that he offered Chapter 1, which sets forth the procedures relevant to the burnt offering, meticulously avoids mentioning that the hide of the sacrificial animal should be burned because, in fact, it was not to be destroyed. Only in the case of the priestly \u1e25atta\u02bet, ordained in 4:1\u201321 and in similar riddance rituals, was the hide to be destroyed\u2014and that was done outside the camp, not on the altar. In most cases, the officiating priest could keep the hide as his own and profit from its value.
\n9. Further, any meal offering The text seems to prescribe various grain offerings. Verse 9 speaks of those prepared in an oven, in a pan, or on a griddle, all of which belong to the officiating priest; verse 10 speaks of other grain offerings that belong to all priests. Although traditional commentaries are hard pressed to reconcile verses 9 and 10, Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 6:1 does not record any difference in the allocation of the various grain offerings. This suggests that we simply have two merisms, that is, two different ways of saying, in effect, that all types of grain offerings, parts of which went to the priests, belonged to the various groups of officiants at these rites; this according to Hoffmann.
\nTHE SACRED GIFT OF GREETING (ZEVA\u1e24 HA-SHELAMIM) (7:11\u201334)
\n11. This is the ritual of the sacrifice of well-being Rather, \u201cof the sacred gift of greeting.\u201d The preferred translation of zeva\u1e25 ha-shelamim is explained in the Comment to 3:1.
\nBeginning in this verse attention shifts to the sacrifices of lesser sanctity. Donors could eat parts of these sacrifices outside the sacred precincts of the sanctuary; the priests could eat them inside the sanctuary precincts. As in chapter 3, our section employs the term shelamim in a general sense, referring to all sacrifices of the zeva\u1e25 type.
\n12. If he offers it for thanksgiving The sacrifice is offered as an expression of gratitude. In this single verse, the term todah has two meanings. Here we have the more general sense of \u201cthanksgiving\u201d as a religious attitude. Further on in the verse, zeva\u1e25 todah is a technical term that designates the thanksgiving offering, as in verses 13\u201315 below.
\nthe sacrifice of thanksgiving This use of zeva\u1e25 todah, \u201cthe thanksgiving sacrifice,\u201d technically refers to the animal sacrifice that was ordained in chapter 3, namely, a sheep or goat of either sex. Nevertheless, the ritual first considers the preparation and disposition of the grain offerings of both unleavened and leavened cakes that accompanied the animal sacrifice, a matter not dealt with elsewhere in Leviticus. The ritual then proceeds to deal with the animal sacrifice itself, for which basic information is available in chapter 3.
\nThanksgiving offerings were appropriate for expressing one\u2019s gratitude to God for deliverance from danger or misfortune. Amos (4:5) mentioned them as frequent offerings in his day. The prophet Jeremiah (17:26; 33:11) envisioned a faithful people streaming into Jerusalem from all over the land to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving.
\nThe prescriptions of our chapter subsume the todah under the general category of shelamim and yet indicate that it was originally distinct from the other kinds of shelamim, such as votaries and freewill offerings, discussed in verses 16\u201318. Not only did the todah itself undergo development, as we shall presently see, but its classification undoubtedly changed as well. Whereas here the todah is considered a kind of shelamim offering, in the Holiness Code, as represented by 22:21f., it is even listed separately from the shelamim.
\nAccording to our verse the todah must be accompanied by a grain offering of unleavened cakes. Combining grain offerings with animal sacrifices is a well-known pattern, not only in the regular public cult as it developed in ancient Israel but in specific celebrations as well. According to 8:26, a grain offering accompanied the zeva\u1e25 in the ordination rites of the Aaronide priesthood. The requirement of eating unleavened cakes (matsah) together with the paschal zeva\u1e25 may also represent the same combination. The grain offering ordained here is patterned after the one presented in 2:4f., except that it was to be prepared with \u201csoaked\u201d flour, like the priestly min\u1e25ah\u2014the holocaust of 6:14.
\n13. This offering, with cakes of leavened bread added The preposition \u02bfal occurs twice in this verse, and in both instances it means \u201cin addition to.\u201d
\nThe min\u1e25ah of leavened cakes (\u1e25amets) is actually what the prophet Amos (4:5) referred to as the thanksgiving offering, which indicates that it was, at certain periods, a self-sufficient rite, independent of animal sacrifice. The different disposition of the grain offering prescribed here follows the rule of 2:11 that no leaven may ascend the altar of burnt offerings. Thus, the leavened cakes are not offered on the altar, only the unleavened ones. This min\u1e25ah of leavened cakes is one of two such offerings recorded in the Torah, the other being the min\u1e25ah of new grain, prescribed in 23:17, to be presented on Pentecost. In a sense, the bread of display (le\u1e25em ha-panim), made of leavened dough, is yet another example, although strictly speaking it is not called a min\u1e25ah in 24:8.
\nOur verse employs the unusual composite term zeva\u1e25 todat shelamav, \u201chis sacred thanksgiving gifts of greeting.\u201d It epitomizes the incorporation of the todah within the general category of shelamim sacrifices.
\nWe are not told precisely how many cakes of the several varieties were to be offered during the entire rite. Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 7:1 mentions ten of each variety. This totals forty cakes and wafers, thirty unleavened and ten leavened. All were made from the same dough, according to Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:1; the dough for the leavened cakes differed only in its being allowed to rise.
\n14. one of each kind as a gift to the Lord Literally, \u201cone of each offering,\u201d that is, four pieces in all were allotted to the officiating priest. Hebrew terumah, translated here and in verse 32 as \u201cgift,\u201d more precisely means \u201clevy, what is raised.\u201d The verb herim sometimes connotes \u201craising\u201d funds.
\nIt may not appear logical to designate the priests\u2019 allocation as an offering to the Lord. Nevertheless, sacrificial procedures in biblical Israel, and in the Near East generally, often dictated that the offering was first presented to the deity for acceptance, at which time, having been devoted to him, it belonged to him in its entirety. Only then did the deity grant portions of the same offerings to the priests and, occasionally, to the donors as well. Consequently, even in cases such as ours, where no part of the leavened grain offering was placed on the altar, it could be considered, nonetheless, as an offering to the Lord. This theory of the transfer of gifts initially offered to the Lord underlies the grants to the priesthood outlined in Numbers 18:8ff. and is also reflected in verses 34 and 35 below. These passages state explicitly that the Lord granted to the Aaronide priesthood portions of the sacrifices as their measure, or share, from what had been offered to Him in the first instance.
\n15. And the flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice This indicates yet another difference between the todah and other shelamim sacrifices. In the case of the todah, the flesh must be eaten on the day the altar sacrifice is made; if not consumed then, it must be burned. This rule is also stated in 22:29\u201330, and is reminiscent of the paschal sacrifice. Exodus 12:5\u201310 tells us that no part of it could be left over until the following morning. And in disposing of the ram of investiture, a rite included in the ordination of the Aaronide priesthood in Leviticus 8:31\u201332, the sacrificial flesh also had to be eaten with dispatch.
\nThe todah occupied a special position in the rabbinic tradition because it symbolized the pure expression of gratitude to God. It was not obligatory; nor was it occasioned by sinfulness or guilt, nor even by the motives that induced Israelites to pledge votive sacrifices when confronted by danger. According to rabbinic teaching, it would continue to be offered in the messianic era, when the rest of the sacrificial system was no longer operative.
\n16. If, however, the sacrifice he offers is a votive Except in the case of the todah, the flesh of shelamim sacrifices may be eaten until the third day, a rule also stated in 19:5\u20138.
\nHebrew neder, \u201cvotive,\u201d can be used both for the original pronouncement of the vow and for the act of fulfillment. Here neder has the latter meaning, referring to the payment of the vow in the form of sacrifice.
\nVows were an important element in Israelite religion, and making a vow, in itself a private act, was often interrelated with public worship. In 1 Samuel 1 it is recounted that Elkanah and his family, on a pilgrimage to Shiloh to offer the annual sacrifices, attended to their private vows on the same occasion. The payment of a vow could take the form of sacrifice. The appropriateness of the shelamim for such payment is suggested by Proverbs 7:14. There we read that a harlot might lure an unsuspecting young man to her house by offering him a portion of her shelamim sacrifice: \u201cI owe shelamim offerings; for today I have paid my vows\u201d (literally). This was admittedly a pretext, but a credible one in terms of accepted practice.
\nThere were no restrictions regarding where the donor of a shelamim sacrifice could eat his portion of the offering, so long as this was done promptly and no impure person partook of the flesh, a rule stated in verse 19 below.
\nor a freewill offering Hebrew nedavah, \u201cfreewill offering,\u201d also serves as a generic term for many types of voluntary contributions to the sanctuary. Like the todah, it expresses gratitude to God and is often mentioned together with the neder. Amos 4:5 mentions the todah and the nedavah together.
\n18. If any of the flesh \u2026 is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable The formula lo\u02be yeratseh, \u201cit shall not be acceptable,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:3. Because the sacrificial flesh was left uneaten for an improper period of time, the sacrifice itself was not efficacious: \u201cIt shall not be counted for him who offered it.\u201d This rule is also stated in 19:5 and in 22:10.
\nThe precise meaning of Hebrew piggul, here translated \u201can offensive thing,\u201d remains uncertain. In Ezekiel 4:14, it is used, together with references to carcasses and torn flesh, in a more general sense as something forbidden. In Isaiah 55:4 the plural form piggulim seems to designate flesh offered in idolatrous worship, regarded as abominable, like the flesh of swine.
\nIn this verse the penalty for eating flesh remaining from the shelamim sacrifice after the third day is stated merely as \u201cbearing one\u2019s guilt,\u201d whereas in 19:5\u20138 the penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d from the religious community is imposed for the same offense.
\n19. Flesh that touches anything unclean shall not be eaten Beginning in verse 19, the text proceeds to deal more fully with the subject of impurity, a concern that was particularly relevant to the shelamim because parts of it were handled by ordinary Israelites outside the sanctuary. This warranted an explicit admonition. In chapter 22, the law addressed to the priests includes all sacrifices in the admonition.
\nAt the end of this verse, the Hebrew syntax is unusual. The text reads ve-ha-basar kol tahor yo\u02bekhal basar, literally \u201cand the flesh\u2014any pure person may eat flesh.\u201d This rhetorical device is known as anacoluthon, wherein the sentence starts out to say one thing and then abruptly switches to another.
\n20. But the person who, in a state of uncleanness, eats flesh \u201cFlesh\u201d (basar) means sacrificial flesh, of course.
\n21. When a person touches anything unclean, be it human uncleanness The term tum\u02beat \u02beadam, \u201chuman uncleanness,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 5:2\u20133.
\nany unclean creature Hebrew shekets, literally \u201cabomination,\u201d is translated \u201cunclean creature\u201d in accordance with ancient versions of the Torah. Several Hebrew manuscripts read sherets, \u201cswarming creature,\u201d instead. This is understandable, even apart from the similarity in spelling and sound, because swarming creatures are often referred to as abominable.
\n23. You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat Verses 22\u201327 contain prohibitions against eating blood (vv. 26\u201327) and against eating \u1e25elev, the animal fat that is offered on the altar. As was noted in the Comment to 3:3\u20134, \u1e25elev does not refer to ordinary fat that adheres to meat but to fat that covers the internal organs and entrails. It was also explained that the prohibition of \u1e25elev derived from the assignment of the fatty portions of the victim to God as His share of the offering. This made \u1e25elev forbidden for any other use. Like 3:17, this legislation extends the prohibition of \u1e25elev so as to \u201cbuild a fence\u201d around the law. Once the \u1e25elev of sacrificial animals was forbidden, the \u1e25elev of all pure animals was forbidden as well, whether or not the animals in question were actually sacrificed. Regarding the penalty of karet for violating these as well as other prohibitions, see Excursus 1.
\nThe blood prohibition is more comprehensive and applies to all but the blood of fish and certain permitted insects, according to the Sifra. More about the basis for the prohibition is explained in the Comments to 3:17 and 17:11.
\n24. Fat from animals that died This would seem to be an unnecessary statement, since an animal torn by beasts (terefah) and the carcass of a dead animal (nevelah) were forbidden in their entirety, according to the laws of Exodus 22:30 and Leviticus 17:15; 22:18. In turn, therefore, any part of them would also be forbidden. It is likely that this rule was included for emphasis, to reinforce the ban on eating \u1e25elev. According to rabbinic interpretation the verse served to limit the prohibition to the consumption of \u1e25elev; its use for other purposes was permitted.
\n25. from which offerings by fire may be made This clarifies the provisions of verse 22. The \u1e25elev of large and small cattle is forbidden because such animals are of the kind offered as sacrifices.
\n26. And you must not consume any blood \u2026 in any of your settlements The formula bekhol moshvoteikhem, \u201cin any of your settlements,\u201d often appears in the instructions regarding activities that are not limited to the sanctuary and priesthood but that nevertheless involve violations of religious law. Examples are the Passover law, requiring Israelites to eat matsah during the festival, and laws governing the observance of the Sabbath and other holy days. These duties were not limited to the sacred cult of the sanctuary and applied as well to Israelites, wherever they lived.
\n29. The offering to the Lord \u2026 sacrifice of well-being to the Lord Verses 29\u201330 ordain that the donor of the shelamim sacrifice must actually participate in the presentation of the offering. In contrast to the \u201cmost sacred offerings\u201d discussed in 6:1\u20137:10, at which only priests officiated, the presentation of the shelamim sacrifices was to involve ordinary Israelites as well. Since nonpriests could not actually place sacrifices on the altar\u2014access to the adjacent area was banned to them\u2014the rite of tenufah, \u201cpresentation,\u201d was employed to afford them some measure of participation in sacrifices of lesser sanctity. (Although Israelites normally laid their hand on sacrifices that they offered, as is stipulated in 1:4, this was merely a preliminary assignment of the victim, not part of the sacrificial presentation itself.)
\n30. the breast to be elevated as an elevation offering before the Lord A sacrifice designated tenufah, derived from the verb henif, \u201cto lift, raise.\u201d As Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:6 describes it, the offering was carried to and fro in a raised position, the intent being to show the offering to God for His acceptance. The rite of tenufah was a sufficient mode of sacrifice, although in our case it merely precedes the burning of certain parts of the offering on the altar and the burning of other parts in pots. These two modes, presentation and burning (here \u02beisheh, \u201coffering by fire\u201d) are discussed in the Comment to 2:1. Tenufah was a method of presentation suitable for the dedication of the Levites as servants in the sanctuary, according to Numbers 8:11, and for the consecration of precious metals contributed to the sanctuary, as recorded in Exodus 35:22 and 38:24, 29. It was likewise prescribed for certain grain offerings, no part of which was placed on the altar, such as the offering from the new crop ordained in Leviticus 23:11, 17.
\nWhat we observe in our legislation is the sequential combining of modes of sacrifice that were originally independent. Even here, however, the parts of the sacrifice that were \u201cpresented\u201d were not burned on the altar, as we read in verse 34 below. They were assigned to the priests and the donors and were boiled in pots.
\n31. the priest shall turn the fat into smoke The order of the procedure is significant here: The priest was entitled to take the breast and the right thigh of the sacrificial animal only after God\u2019s share of the offering, that is, the fatty portions, had been burned on the altar. As related in 1 Samuel 2:15\u201317, the sons of Eli, the priest of Shiloh, failed to observe this law. They seized their portions of the sacrifices from the cooking pots, even before the altar sacrifice had been performed, thereby provoking God\u2019s wrath.
\n33. shall get the right thigh as his portion Hebrew manah, \u201cportion,\u201d is a synonym for \u1e25ok, \u201cdue,\u201d the term used in verse 34 and, previously, in 6:11. In verse 35 below, a third term, mish\u1e25ah, \u201cmeasure,\u201d is used.
\n34. and the thigh of gift offering Hebrew terumah is explained in the Comment to verse 14.
\nSUMMARY (7:35\u201338)
\n35. Those shall be the perquisites of Aaron Rather, \u201cthey shall constitute the share of Aaron.\u201d The translation derives Hebrew mish\u1e25ak from the verb masha\u1e25, \u201cto anoint,\u201d and explains it as referring to the gifts and honors received by the priests as a consequence of their anointment. This interpretation seems to be supported by the following verse, which states that God commanded that such emoluments be given the priests once they had been anointed.
\nWhat we have, however, is a case of homonyms, two roots that appear alike but that have separate derivations: (1) masha\u1e25, \u201cto anoint,\u201d and (2) masha\u1e25, \u201cto measure,\u201d a verb more common in Aramaic and Akkadian than in Hebrew. The noun mish\u1e25ah simply means \u201cmeasure,\u201d hence \u201cshare,\u201d and is a synonym for manah and \u1e25ok, terms used earlier. Numbers 18:8 has le-mosh\u1e25ah, \u201cas a share,\u201d where this meaning is clear. In that passage there is nothing to suggest a connection with anointing. The Aramaic noun mis\u1e25eta\u02be, \u201cmeasure,\u201d occurs in Egyptian documents dating from the fifth century b.c.e. In Late Babylonian documents we find the Akkadian forms mi\u0161i\u1e25tu or me\u0161\u1e25\u0101tu. This is the very Semitic root expressed here.
\n37. Such are the rituals Hebrew zo\u02bet ha-torah has collective force, although in form it is singular. It refers to all of the rituals set forth in chapters 6\u20137.
\nthe offering of ordination Whereas there is a torah in chapters 6\u20137 for the other items summarized in this verse, there is none for the ordination of the priests. The only possible point of reference in chapters 6\u20137 would be the min\u1e25ah holocaust offered by the High Priest and prescribed in 6:12\u201316. The ordination rites themselves are described in chapters 8\u20139. Hebrew millu\u02beim, \u201cordination,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 8:22.
\n38. with which the Lord charged Moses on Mount Sinai The main thrust of this verse is the assertion that, already in the wilderness of Sinai, the Israelites worshiped God with sacrifices.
\nThe Initiation of Formal Worship (chaps. 8\u20139)
\nChapters 8 and 9 of Leviticus present a detailed description of the religious celebrations marking the initiation of formal worship in ancient Israel. This description is part of a larger historiography: an interpretation of the history of Israel from the perspective of its priesthood. The priesthood had a particular interest in the origin of worship because of its own central role in this area of Israelite life.
\nSubsequent to the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation of laws and commandments at Mount Sinai, the Tabernacle was erected, and Moses was instructed by God on the proper modes of worship. A priesthood had to be ordained and the altar and Tabernacle consecrated to God\u2019s service.
\nIn their detailing of these issues, therefore, chapters 8 and 9 differ from the preceding chapters of Leviticus and from most of what follows. Unlike the other sections, they are not legal in formulation but, rather, descriptive of special ritual events; they serve to describe the fulfillment of what was ordained in Exodus 29:1\u201337 and also overlap in content with the final chapters of Exodus.
\nChapter 8, in verses 1\u20133, briefly outlines what is to follow. This introduction (and also the introduction that opens chapter 9) functions to reinforce the principle that all the specific rituals were commanded by God. Indeed, we encounter the recurrent formula: \u201cAs the Lord had commanded Moses\u201d at various points in these chapters (8:9, 13, 17, 21, 29; 9:10). The effect is to portray Moses, Aaron and his sons, and the Israelites as obedient to God\u2019s command and to attribute Israelite modes of worship to divine command, not to custom and convention.
\nMost of chapter 8 (vv. 6\u201336) is devoted to a description of two distinct yet related ceremonies: the consecration of the altar and Tabernacle and of Aaron, the High Priest (vv. 6\u201312); and the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests, which was accomplished by a series of sacrificial and purificatory rites, performed over a period of seven days (vv. 13\u201336).
\nThe High Priest is represented as the bearer of a distinct office. He wore special vestments not worn by ordinary priests, and he alone was anointed with the \u201coil of anointing,\u201d the same oil used to consecrate the altar and Tabernacle and its sacred vessels. In effect, he was the human counterpart of the altar. Following the consecration of the altar and the High Priest, the altar was purified preparatory to its utilization, just as the priests themselves would soon be purified. The altar was then used for the first time in a kind of trial run: an \u02bfolah, \u201cburnt offering,\u201d was sacrificed on it (vv. 18\u201321), and when a favorable response was received from God, the actual ordination ceremonies, which were to last seven days, could proceed (vv. 22\u201336). As the main event, the \u201cram of ordination,\u201d whose blood was used to initiate the priests, was offered on the altar.
\nChapter 9, after an introduction (vv. 1\u20137), describes the ritual for the eighth day. Moses plays a key role, for it is he who issues the detailed instructions for the performance of various rites, just as he had issued orders to Aaron and his sons regarding the celebration of the first seven days. The rites described in this chapter are dedicatory in character, performed on behalf of the entire people. They celebrate the entry of God\u2019s \u201cpresence\u201d (kavod) into the newly consecrated Tabernacle, an earthly residence for the God of Israel. Hebrew mishkan, translated \u201cTabernacle,\u201d means \u201ctent\u201d; but it derives from the verb shakhan, \u201cto dwell, reside.\u201d The dedication of the Tabernacle was not complete, therefore, until God\u2019s presence rested upon it, as is stated in Exodus 29:43: \u201cIt [the Tabernacle] shall be sanctified by My presence.\u201d In the same way, the Temple of Jerusalem is called bayit, \u201chouse,\u201d and was declared to be sacred only after God\u2019s presence entered it.
\nThere are diverse traditions regarding the precise form assumed by God\u2019s presence when it became visible or manifest. It is described variously as a blazing fire, and as a thick cloud that took on a fiery glow at night. In the traditions concerning the wilderness Tabernacle, the cloud of God\u2019s presence hovered over the structure when it was stationary and filled it. (In the biblical conception of God, His presence filled the entire universe and could not be contained in any earthly temple. Yet God\u2019s presence in the Tabernacle and, later, in the Temple of Jerusalem was not thought to contradict the fact of His omnipresence. Rather, His nearness to the human community was regarded as evidence of His concern for those who called upon Him.)
\nAs the presence of God was welcomed at the Tabernacle, extreme care had to be exercised to protect it from impurity. Both the priests and the people, represented on this occasion by the elders (zekenim), offered their respective sin offerings, an indication that the Tabernacle existed for the benefit of all, not solely for the priesthood.
\nOnce the purificatory sacrifices were completed and the first \u02bfolah offered, the sacred gifts of greeting (shelamim) were placed on the altar in celebration of the dedication of the altar and Tabernacle. The people received a blessing, and God\u2019s presence appeared before them. Miraculously, the altar fire was ignited to consume the sacred gifts of greeting, and the people prostrated themselves before God and rejoiced greatly (vv. 22\u201324).
\nChapters 8 and 9 present Moses as the \u201cpriest-maker.\u201d As the first of the prophets, he ordains the first priests. In the priestly historiography, he also instructs them in their duties and later, when Aaron dies, transfers the office of High Priest from Aaron to his son Eleazar (Num. 20:22\u201329). Only once in biblical literature, in Psalms 99:6, is Moses himself called kohen, \u201cpriest\u201d: \u201cMoses and Aaron among His priests, Samuel, among those who call on His name.\u201d It would be incorrect, however, to regard Moses as a priest, and the passage undoubtedly does not use the term kohen in its technical sense.
\nCHAPTER 8
\nTHE CONSECRATION OF PRIESTS AND TABERNACLE (vv. 1\u201336)
\nMoses is instructed to assemble Aaron and his sons and all the materials to be used in the celebrations to follow: the vestments, the anointing oil, the sacrificial animals, and the unleavened bread. Then the congregation assembles.
\n2. the vestments, the anointing oil The vestments and the robing of the priests are described in verses 7\u20139. The \u201canointing oil\u201d (shemen ha-mish\u1e25ah) was blended according to a special recipe (prescribed in Exod. 30:22\u201325) that could not be imitated for any other purpose. Verses 10\u201312 and 23\u201324 specify exactly how this oil was utilized in the celebrations.
\n3. and assemble the whole community On the term \u02bfedah, see Comment to 4:13. The verb hakhel, \u201cto assemble,\u201d is a form of the root from which kahal, \u201ccongregation,\u201d derives.
\nat the entrance of the Tent of Meeting The designation peta\u1e25 \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cat the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d should not be taken literally. The actual place of assembly of the people was in the outer section of the courtyard, not directly in front of the Tent. According to accepted procedures, it was forbidden for any except priests to advance beyond the altar of burnt offerings, which stood in the courtyard about halfway between the outer gate and the entrance to the Tent proper. There were gradations of sanctity, as one moved from the interior of the Tent toward the outer gate of the Tabernacle complex. The outer section of the courtyard was reserved for activities preparatory to sacrifice and for the assembly of the people, which undoubtedly overflowed beyond the outer gate.
\nAt the site of Arad in the Negeb, archaeologists have unearthed an Israelite sanctuary dating from the period of the First Temple of Jerusalem. In its courtyard stood an altar, and aligned with the front of the altar there was a row of stones indicating a step onto a higher surface. Most likely, this step marked the division between the two sections of the courtyard. The Temple of Jerusalem likewise had both an inner and an outer courtyard at certain periods of its history.
\n5. This is what the Lord has commanded The description that follows is what the Lord has commanded, according to Hoffmann.
\n6. Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons The verb va-yakrev, here translated \u201che brought,\u201d has the general sense of presentation and does not necessarily imply a sacrificial offering. In Numbers 8:9 we read that the Levites, like the priests, were brought into God\u2019s presence when they were to be consecrated.
\nand washed them with water Ablutions are a universal feature of religious ritual. Beyond the obvious hygienic advantages of water, its utilization in ritual also serves to purify symbolically. Ibn Ezra indicates that the formula \u201cto wash the body\u201d refers to bathing, but the verb r-\u1e25-ts, \u201cto wash,\u201d used alone, refers to only the hands and feet. In rabbinic idiom this rite is called kiddush yadayim ve-raglayim, \u201cthe sanctification of hands and feet.\u201d Water for ablutions was provided in a basin (kiyyor) that was located in the inner section of the Tabernacle courtyard. In the Temple of Jerusalem there was a large basin called yam, \u201csea,\u201d as well as ten mobile basins. Purification by water continued to have great significance in postbiblical Judaism, as it did in Christianity and Islam.
\n7. He put the tunic on him There were, in all, eight vestments worn by the High Priest, of which four were unique to him. They are described in Exodus 28 and again in Exodus 39; here they are merely mentioned by name.
\nIt is to be assumed that at the beginning of the robing the priests were wearing their linen breeches (mikhnasayim). There is no mention of sandals, for they undoubtedly officiated barefoot, which would conform to ancient Israelite notions of proper dress in sacred places. According to Exodus 3:5 and Joshua 5:15, Moses and Joshua, respectively, were instructed to remove their sandals when standing on sacred ground.
\nThe High Priest donned a fringed linen tunic (kuttonet) that was tied with a sash (\u02beavnet). This was followed by the robe (me\u02bfil), also known as me\u02bfil ha-\u02beefod, \u201cthe \u02beefod robe,\u201d because the \u02beefod was worn over it. This robe was made of purple wool and had golden bells attached to it. Between each bell was a cloth pomegranate. The \u02beefod was attached to the robe by a decorated band called heshev. The \u02beefod itself was made of wool and linen with gold threads woven into the fabric, giving it a golden appearance. Two lapis lazuli stones (shoham), each engraved with the names of six of the twelve tribes of Israel, were attached to the shoulder pads, called kitfot ha-\u02beefod.
\nThe word \u02beefod is cognate with Akkadian epattu, \u201ca costly garment.\u201d Not all biblical descriptions of it are consistent. At times it appears that the Bible is speaking of something other than a garment, perhaps a statue or an upright object. In Judges 8:7, Gideon \u201csets up\u201d an \u02beefod in his hometown, and in Judges 18:18, the term pesel ha-\u02beefod, \u201cthe \u02beefod statue,\u201d is used in reference to the idol of Micah. Actually, all biblical references to the \u02beefod probably indicate the same phenomenon, but represent its changing manifestation at different stages of Israelite history. The term itself is pre-Israelite and was originally used in the context of robing statues of gods in richly ornamented, golden garments. This explains the usage in Judges, where Micah\u2019s \u02beefod meets with disapproval. It was a vestige of premonotheistic practice, like the idol of Micah itself. Because priests, and occasionally kings, were deemed sacred persons, it was customary to utilize garments of the types that had been common to both priests and statues of gods, even though there was no longer any place for the statues themselves in the legitimate Israelite cult.
\n8. He put the breastpiece on him The breastpiece (\u1e25oshen) was made of wool and linen. Gold threads were woven into the fabric, and twelve gem stones were set into the almost metallic cloth. The name of one tribe of Israel was engraved on each stone. The \u1e25oshen was fashioned in the form of a square pouch. which served as a container for the Urim and Thummim.
\nand put into the breastpiece the Urim and Thummim The meanings of these terms, as well as the objects they designate, remain elusive. In form, the Urim and Thummim may have been fairly flat stones, similar to the p\u016br\u016b used in Mesopotamia, and known in Hebrew as purim in the Megillah of Esther. Examples of such objects, which worked in the manner of dice or lots, have been recovered in archaeological excavations. In 1 Samuel 14:43 the verb used to describe their operation is happilu, \u201cthrow down!\u201d Casting lots was the only form of divining the word of God sanctioned in the official monotheistic cult, which normally objected to the use of omens for predicting the future.
\nWhereas the meaning of the word Thummim (tummim) is clear, deriving from a root meaning \u201cto be complete, innocent,\u201d the etymology of Urim (\u02beurim) has been disputed. Logically, it should mean the opposite of tummim, and on this basis it has been suggested that it derives from the root \u02bearar, \u201cto curse.\u201d If the face of the stones called \u02beurim comes up in both of the lots, the verdict is unfavorable. A classic instance of the use of the Urim and Thummim is preserved in 1 Samuel 14: King Saul\u2019s orders have been disobeyed, and in order to discover the guilty parties, he has recourse to oracular inquiry of God. Hoping that his son, Jonathan, will not be identified by lot, he says to the Lord: \u201cShow the Thummim,\u201d a verdict that would have cleared his son.
\nThe High Priest wore the Urim and Thummim when he entered the Tent, thereby calling attention to his oracular function in guiding the destiny of the Israelite people. Numbers 27:21 relates that when Joshua was appointed as Moses\u2019 successor, he was instructed to inquire of Eleazar, son of Aaron, the new High Priest, as to the verdict of the Urim.
\n9. And be set the headdress on his head Ordinary priests wore turbans (migba\u02bfot), as we are told in verse 13, and only the High Priest wore the royal headdress (mitsnefet). The diadem (tsits) was a crown of gold reserved for the High Priest and worn when he officiated inside the Tent of the Tabernacle complex. On it were engraved the words kodesh le-YHVH, \u201cSacred to the Lord,\u201d indicating that the High Priest himself was a sanctified person, entirely devoted to his sacred functions.
\nArchaeologists have found artifacts and storage jars containing materials used in Temple ritual and bearing the word kodesh marked on them. This practice is reflected in the prophecy of Zechariah 14:20\u201321. When the nations come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Sukkot festival, the bells of the horses will have the words kodesh le-YHVH inscribed on them, and every pot in Jerusalem will be kodesh so that offerings can be cooked in them. In Jeremiah 2:3 the entire people of Israel is symbolically referred to as kodesh le-YHVH, God\u2019s own people.
\nIn verses 10\u201312 we read of two parallel acts: the consecration of Aaron, the High Priest, and the consecration of the altar and the Tabernacle with its vessels. Both were accomplished by the same means\u2014anointing with (the same) oil. In this way Aaron, too, became a sacred vessel.
\nOil, universally used as an unguent and cleanser, has, like water, also assumed a religious, and even legal, significance. Pouring oil over cultic objects, as over persons\u2014kings and priests\u2014confers a special status. In biblical Israel kings were anointed by prophets, and Elisha was anointed by his master, Elijah. The oil was usually poured from a bowl or a horn. The consecration of Aaron, the High Priest, by the prophet Moses parallels the anointing of kings by prophets.
\nAfter the sons of Aaron were robed, the sacrifices of ordination commenced. A sin offering, along the lines of what is prescribed in 4:3\u201312, was brought. It was of the type required when the High Priest inadvertently committed an offense and was thus suitable for his initial purification (vv. 13\u201317). Then the ordination rites commenced. Two rams were used, one as an \u02bfolah, \u201cburnt offering,\u201d and the other as the actual sacrifice of investiture. The sacrifice of investiture was offered in a manner similar to the shelamim, \u201csacred gifts of greeting,\u201d as prescribed in chapter 3 and in 7:11f. Unleavened cakes and wafers were employed as an additional sacrificial ingredient.
\nBlood from the sacrifice of investiture was applied to the extremities of the priests, a rite of purification elsewhere prescribed for those suffering from certain dangerous ailments (vv. 18\u201329). Finally, a mixture of oil and water was dabbed on the persons of Aaron and his sons, after they had donned their respective vestments. The priests then partook of portions of the sacrifice of investiture; they were to remain inside the Tabernacle for seven days (vv. 30\u201336).
\n14. He led forward the bull of sin offering Large cattle were used in sin offerings associated with purification when the entire community and the High Priest, in particular, were affected. We observe this in 4:3\u201312 and in chapter 16.
\n15. and it was slaughtered Literally, va-yish\u1e25at, meaning \u201che slaughtered\u201d; but third person verbs can be translated as passives when no subject is specified. The verb y-ts-k, \u201cto pour,\u201d usually refers to water, and only here and in 9:9 is it used with respect to pouring sacrificial blood. The usual verb is sh-f-kh, \u201cto pour.\u201d
\ncleansing the altar Rather, \u201cremoving the altar\u2019s impurities.\u201d Hebrew \u1e25itte\u02be, a verb in the Piel stem, has the force of undoing or removing the effects of the action conveyed by the Kal stem. Thus, \u1e25ata\u02be means \u201cto commit an offense,\u201d and \u1e25itte\u02be means \u201cto remove an offense.\u201d
\nThus he consecrated it in order to make expiation upon it Rather, \u201cThus he consecrated it for making expiation upon it.\u201d Hebrew le-khapper always means \u201cto expiate, to perform rites of expiation.\u201d The sense here is that the altar was consecrated for the purpose of making expiation, since expiatory sacrifices required an altar.
\n16. Moses then took all the fat For the procedures involved in the laws of verses 16\u201320, see Comments to 4:8\u201312, 19\u201320, and 16:6.
\n17. he put the fire outside the camp This requirement is rephrased in Ezekiel 43:21.
\n18. Then he brought forth the ram of burnt offering The procedures for the ram offered as the \u02bfolah correspond to what is prescribed in chapter 1. The function of the \u02bfolah was to evoke a favorable response from the Deity prior to approaching Him with other sacrifices.
\n22. He brought forward the second ram, the ram of ordination The Hebrew term millu\u02beim, \u201cordination,\u201d literally means \u201cfilling\u201d the hands, a symbolic act that transfers or confers status or office. Further on, in verses 27\u201329, we read that parts of the offerings were actually placed on the palms of Aaron and his sons, who raised them in a presentation to God. The biblical formula mille\u02be yad, \u201cto fill the hand,\u201d is limited to the appointment of priests and cultic officials.
\nThe ram of ordination was offered in the manner of the shelamim, \u201csacred gifts of greeting,\u201d with certain differences arising from the particular character of this occasion.
\n23. Moses took some of its blood \u2026 Aaron\u2019s right ear Dabbing sacrificial blood on certain extremities of the body is essentially a rite of purification, a procedure that was followed in the case of one who suffered from an acute skin disease, according to the legislation of 14:14f., where this rite is explained in greater detail. In this manner Aaron and his sons were purified as they entered into their new status.
\n24. and the rest of the blood Moses dashed against every side of the altar It is significant that the remainder of the blood taken from the ram of ordination is cast upon the altar. This is analogous to what occurred at the enactment of the Sinaitic covenant, as recounted in Exodus 24:6\u20138. On that occasion part of the blood was cast upon the altar, which represented God as one of the \u201cparties\u201d to the covenant, and the rest of the blood was cast over the people, the other party. In the ordination of the priests, the sacrificial blood served a dual function: It purified the priests and also bound them in a covenant of service to God in His Tabernacle.
\nPerhaps the grain offerings of unleavened dough, of cakes and wafers, were included here so that a representation of all the major classes of sacrifices would be offered by the newly ordained priests. The names of the specific ingredients are explained in the Comment to 2:4.
\n27. He placed all these on the palms of Aaron \u2026 and elevated them Rather, the Hebrew term tenufah is explained in the Comment to 7:30.
\nIncluded here among the parts of the ordination sacrifice burned on the altar was the thigh (shok), which, according to the provisions of 7:32f., belonged to the priests. In the rites of ordination, the priests surrendered their own portion to God, since it had been offered on their behalf, and it would have been improper for the priests to benefit from what was offered on their own behalf. Only when they were of service to others could they benefit in this way. Therefore, the procedure was altered, and Moses, as the officiant, received his portion (manah), consisting of the breast (\u1e25azeh), which he, in turn, contributed to the priests as a gift.
\n30. And Moses took some of the anointing oil A mixture of anointing oil and sacrificial blood was sprinkled on Aaron and his sons and upon their vestments, and this completed their ordination.
\n31. Moses said to Aaron Moses instructed Aaron and his sons on how to dispose of the meat of the ordination sacrifice, that is, the breast, Moses\u2019 own portion of the sacrifice. We are probably to read the passive form, tsuvveiti, \u201cI was commanded,\u201d instead of tsivveiti, \u201cI have commanded.\u201d This passive form occurs in verse 35 in a similar context. It was vital to the efficacy of the ordination sacrifice that the priests actually partake of it. Only in this way would they join in the sacred meal in the presence of the Lord.
\n32. and what is left over What was not eaten had to be destroyed. See Comment to 7:17.
\n33. You shall not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days Here again, the designation \u201centrance of the Tent\u201d has to be understood in context. The priests were not inside the Tent but, rather, near its entrance, in the inner section of the Tabernacle courtyard. They were not to leave this sanctified area for seven days in order to avoid contact with anything or anyone impure.
\nfor seven days, until the day that your period of ordination is completed The practical impact of this statement is difficult to ascertain. In the parallel passages of Exodus 29:35\u201337 it is explicitly ordained that a sin offering was to be offered each day for seven days and that the altar was to be repeatedly anointed for seven days. Here it merely states that the \u201cfilling of the hands\u201d was to last for seven days. Does this mean that the ordination sacrifice was to be repeated each day, for seven days, and does the beginning of verse 34 indicate that what was done on the first day was to be repeated seven times? Most traditional commentaries are of this opinion.
\n35. keeping the Lord\u2019s charge The \u201ccharge\u201d consisted of following the instructions given on this occasion. Hebrew mishmeret may connote \u201cguarding\u201d against violations.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n