CHAPTER 14
\nMetsora\u02bf
\nChapter 14 is a continuation of the laws of chapter 13. Its contents may be divided into two main sections: (1) purification rites for a person declared impure under the provisions of 13:8\u201346 (vv. 1\u201332) (a person declared pure after seven, or even fourteen, days required no such elaborate rites and had only to launder his clothing, as prescribed in 13:6); and (2) tsara\u02bfat in plastered or mud-covered building stones (vv. 32\u201353). Verses 54\u201357 are a postscript to chapters 13\u201314.
\nPURIFICATION RITES FOR INDIVIDUALS (vv. 1\u201332)
\nThe rites ordained for the purification of a person who had suffered from tsara\u02bfat are among the most elaborate in the priestly laws. They demonstrate how seriously the infections referred to as tsara\u02bfat were taken in biblical Israel; and they combine cultic procedures in the sanctuary area with those to be performed outside the camp.
\nThe priest began by visiting the person whose condition had apparently healed in order to ascertain that this had actually occurred. There he prepared two live birds, a cedar stick, a hyssop branch, and a piece of crimson cloth\u2014the same materials that, according to Numbers 19:6f., were employed in the purification of an Israelite who came into contact with a corpse.
\nOne of the birds was to be slaughtered over running spring water, so that whatever blood was not caught up in an earthen vessel employed for this purpose would run down into the earth. The second bird, cedar stick, hyssop branch, and crimson cloth were dipped in the blood that had been collected in the earthen vessel. The live bird was set free to carry away the evil of the disease into the open field. Some of the blood of the slaughtered bird was then sprinkled seven times on the person being purified, who had to launder his clothing, shave off all his hair, and bathe.
\nThe individual was then permitted to reenter the camp, although he had to remain outside his own house for seven more days, after which he would, once again, shave off all his hair, including his beard and eyebrows, launder his clothing, and bathe. He was then purified of the disease and ready to commence the sacrificial rites of the eighth day, to be performed at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Those rites closely parallel the purification of the priests at the time of their investiture, as set forth in chapter 8. In both instances the use of blood and oil is specified, and in both some of the extremities of the body are singled out for special purification.
\nThree animals were utilized in the rites of the eighth day: two male sheep and one ewe. One of the sheep served as a guilt offering (\u02beasham), and the other as a burnt offering (\u02bfolah); the ewe served as a sin offering (\u1e25atta\u02bet). A log of oil and a grain offering were employed as accompaniment to some of the sacrifices. The \u02beasham sacrifice and the oil were offered together in the manner of a presentation (tenufah).
\nSome of the blood from the \u02beasham sacrifice was applied to the extremities of the person being purified\u2014on the ridge of his right ear, on his right thumb, and on his right metatarsal toe. Then the priest poured oil on his own left palm and, with his right forefinger, sprinkled some of the oil seven times in the direction of the Tent of Meeting. Oil was applied to the extremities of the person being purified, over the blood of the \u02beasham, at the same places. The remainder of the oil was poured on the individual\u2019s head.
\nFinally, the sin offering and the burnt offering were performed in the usual manner on behalf of the person being purified, accompanied by the grain offering. Those unable to afford the full regimen of animal sacrifices were allowed to substitute two doves or two young pigeons for the ewe and the male sheep of the sin offering and the burnt offering, respectively. The sheep of the \u02beasham could not be substituted, however, for it was essential for purification.
\n2. This shall be the ritual for a leper The term torah, \u201critual,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 6:2. In that sense, the torah served as a manual of procedure for the priests, who administered the purification rites.
\nWhen it had been reported to the priest Rather, \u201cHe shall be brought to the priest.\u201d
\nAs in 13:2, the afflicted person must be examined by the priest. In this case the priest went out of the camp to the afflicted person who, having been declared impure, could not enter the camp. Nevertheless, the formulation of 13:2 is repeated here, although the circumstances are somewhat different.
\n4. the priest shall order two live clean birds The birds must be physically sound and of a pure species. The impure species of birds are listed in 11:13\u201320 and in Deuteronomy 14:11\u201319. Rabbinic traditions specify certain birds for these rites. The Sifra, in the name of Rabbi Ishmael, identifies the bird as deror, \u201cwhich lives [as freely] in a house as it does in the open field.\u201d As its name conveys, it is a bird that, once set free, will not return.
\ncedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop Hyssop (\u02beezov) is associated with purification: \u201cPurge me with hyssop till I am pure,\u201d says the psalmist (51:9). Hyssop was also employed in the purification of a person contaminated by contact with a corpse, according to Numbers 19:6.
\nHebrew sheni tola \u02bfat literally means \u201cthe scarlet of the worm.\u201d (The reverse, tola\u02bfat shani, also occurs.) More precisely, reference is to an insect that lives in the leaves of palm trees and from whose eggs the crimson dye is extracted. Hebrew shani designates the scarlet color. It does not inform us which kind of cloth is to be used, but the tradition is that it was wool.
\n5. over fresh water in an earthen vessel Whatever blood of the slaughtered bird was not collected in the vessel would flow down into the earth. Hebrew mayim \u1e25ayim means \u201cliving water,\u201d namely, water that flows continually, like that of springs, and is not stagnant.
\n6. together with the live bird Here the preposition \u02bfal does not mean \u201con, upon, over\u201d but, rather, \u201ctogether with, near.\u201d This is often its precise meaning in the formulation of the ritual texts.
\n7. on him who is to be cleansed The verbal form mittahher is reflexive (Hitpael), \u201cone who purifies himself, who undergoes purification.\u201d
\nand he shall set the live bird free The Piel form ve-shilla\u1e25 means \u201cto drive off, dispatch,\u201d hence \u201cto set free.\u201d The Kal stem of the same verb merely means \u201cto send.\u201d
\nin the open country Hebrew \u02bfal penei ha-sadeh contrasts elsewhere with the town or the settled area. In verse 53 below, this is actually stated: \u201c\u2026 he shall set the live bird free outside the city, in the open country.\u201d There reference is to the purification of a stone dwelling, and the setting is necessarily within a town.
\n9. of head, beard, and eyebrows It was normally forbidden to shave the beard or the sidelocks of the head, as we read in 19:27. These purification rites are exceptional, however. Hebrew gabbot, \u201c[eye] brows,\u201d literally means \u201crims, what is above, over.\u2026\u201d
\n10. three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering As explained in the Comment to 2:1f., \u201cgrain offering\u201d is a more precise translation of Hebrew min\u1e25ah, and Hebrew solet is better rendered \u201csemolina flour.\u201d Three-tenths is the total amount required, so that each head of small cattle would be accompanied by one-tenth of an \u02beefah, the usual amount. Hebrew log was a liquid measure of volume that consisted of approximately three-tenths of a liter.
\n11. These shall be presented The person undergoing purification is stationed near the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, together with the material assembled for use in his purification.
\nby the priest who performs the cleansing Hebrew ha-kohen ha-metahher may have a more technical sense: \u201cthe purificatory priest.\u201d Quite probably, there was specialization of priestly functions, so that certain priests were specifically trained for such purifications and were routinely assigned to administer them. This was so in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
\n12. as a guilt offering The essential character and function of the guilt offering (\u02beasham) are discussed in the introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135. It is not clear just why this type of sacrifice was required in the purification of one afflicted with tsara\u02bfat, since the usual purpose of an \u02beasham was to expiate an offense that caused a loss to the sanctuary or to another person as a result of a false oath. In the case of one who suffered from tsara\u02bfat, what loss had occurred? The traditional answer is that the sufferer must have committed some offense, such as maligning others, that made an \u02beasham appropriate. From the context, however, it is more likely that the \u02beasham served as a sacrifice of purification. It provided sacrificial blood for sprinkling on the extremities of the individual being purified; blood from the burnt offering and the sin offering could not be applied to the body of a human being.
\nand he shall elevate them as an elevation offering This manner of sacrifice, called tenufah, is described in the Comment to 7:30.
\n13. at the spot in the sacred area In 1:11 it is specified that the burnt offering is presented on the north side of the altar; according to 6:18 and 7:2 the same is true of the sin offering and the guilt offering.
\nFor the guilt offering \u2026 it is most holy This restates the rule of 7:7. Those sacrifices considered \u201cmost holy,\u201d in contrast to those regarded as \u201cof lesser sanctity,\u201d are listed in the Comment to 2:3.
\n14. on the ridge of the right ear Compare the procedures in 8:23\u201324 for the purification of Aaron and his sons on the occasion of their investiture as priests. The person being purified was treated literally from head to foot. The term tenukh, \u201cridge\u201d of the ear, and bohen, \u201cbig toe,\u201d are known to us only from priestly texts, such as 8:23\u201324 and Exodus 29:20, which describe the installation of the Aaronide priesthood. These texts are, thus, very important sources for our knowledge of ancient anatomical terms.
\n18. Thus the priest shall make expiation The above rites were essential to securing expiation, or purification. On the sense of the verb kipper, \u201cto make expiation,\u201d see Comment to 4:21. The verb is repeated in verses 19\u201320 because the sin offering and the burnt offering were also part of the overall purification. The sin offering served to put the individual in good standing with God, and the burnt offering symbolized his renewed acceptability as a worshiper\u2014that is, with God\u2019s acceptance of the burnt offering, the individual was fully reinstated.
\n21. If, however, he is poor Verses 21\u201332 repeat the rites prescribed in verses 1\u201320, except that birds are substituted for animals in the burnt offering and the sin offering. This system allowed persons unable to afford several animals at one time to substitute less expensive animals; it enabled those rendered impure through no fault of their own to be reinstated as worshipers in good standing. The formulation of this allowance is explained in the Comments to 5:11\u201313. Such reductions are provided for the new mother in 12:8 and for expiating sins of omission in 5:11\u201313. Votive payments may also be reduced in this way, according to the provisions of chapter 27. The \u02beasham sacrifice, however, could not be substituted.
\n32. Such is the ritual for him who has a scaly affection The syntax of the Hebrew is unusual: zo\u02bet torat \u02beasher bo, literally \u201cThis is the ritual for one in whom there is\u201d a scaly affection.
\nTSARA\u02bfAT IN BUILDING STONES (vv. 33\u201353)
\nThis section deals with some sort of mold, blight, or rot, perhaps of a fungoid character, which produced recessed lesions and discoloration in the plaster or mud used to cover building stones. The symptoms resembled tsara\u02bfat in humans and were similar to conditions affecting leather and fabric. The condition was considered to be something like a plague and was thought to be contagious and dangerous.
\nA homeowner had to report the condition to the priest, who immediately ordered the house to be cleaned of its contents. He then inspected the interior of the house: If he detected greenish or reddish lesions on the plastered facing of any of the stones, he imposed a quarantine on the house for seven days. At the end of that period, he returned to inspect the house a second time. If the infected areas had become enlarged, he then ordered the infected stones to be dislodged and taken outside the camp. The rest of the stones of the house were scraped on the interior side, and the mud or plaster was removed from the camp. New stones were installed, and the entire interior of the house plastered anew.
\nNow if, after all these precautions had been taken, the plague persisted in breaking out, the condition was declared to be acute tsara\u02bfat; the house had to be leveled, and all its stones, its wood, and its mud, removed outside the city. Retroactively, in such a case, all who had entered the house during its period of quarantine, or who had lain down inside it, or partaken of food inside it were to launder their clothing.
\nIf, on the other hand, the priest observed no enlargement of the infected areas after the proper measures had been taken, he could pronounce the house pure. In that event, rites of purification were necessary. These rites largely conformed to the procedures performed for a person whose acute tsara\u02bfat had healed, as set forth in 14:1\u20137. The slaughtering of a bird, the freeing of a bird, and the use of a cedar stick, and hyssop, and crimson cloth paralleled what was done to purify a human being. The shaving of hair in humans is even paralleled by the scraping of the mud from the building stones! The only difference between the rites for a person and those for a house was that, instead of applying blood and oil to the house, blood and \u201cliving water\u201d were used in a combined ritual.
\n34. the land \u2026 that I give you as a possession The Hebrew term \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201cpossession, land holding,\u201d is central to the theory of land tenure in the Book of Leviticus. Chapter 25 sets forth the rights and duties of the owner of an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah.
\nand I inflict an eruptive plague upon a house It is God who inflicts the plague as a punishment. The term nega\u02bf, \u201cplague,\u201d literally \u201ctouch,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 13:2.
\n35. \u201cSomething like a plague has appeared upon my house.\u201d The appearance of what the owner observed reminded him of a disease of the skin.
\n36. The priest shall order the bouse cleared Once the priest arrives and quarantines the house, everything inside it becomes impure as well\u2014at the very least, those vessels whose form and function make them susceptible to contamination.
\n37. to consist of greenish or reddish streaks that appear to go deep into the wall More precisely, \u201c\u2026 lesions that appear to be recessed within the surface of the wall.\u201d Hebrew sheka\u02bfarurot, \u201cstreaks\u201d or \u201clesions,\u201d is most likely derived from the verb shaka\u02bf, \u201cto sink, recede,\u201d as Targum Onkelos indicates by his Aramaic rendering pe\u1e25atin, \u201cfurrows.\u201d Targum Jonathan translates meshak\u02bfan, \u201crecessed, sunk,\u201d taking the Hebrew word as an adjective derived from shaka\u02bf, This is also the view of the Sifra: \u201ctheir appearance is recessed.\u201d Others have derived Hebrew sheka\u02bfarurot from a presumed verb ka\u02bfar, \u201cto dig out a bowl\u201d (cf. Heb. ke\u02bfarah, \u201cbowl\u201d). We have information on the magical treatment of similar fungoid conditions in Mesopotamian texts.
\n38. close up the house A diseased person is closed up in a house. Here, the house itself is \u201clocked up\u201d in order to keep people out. The use of the Hifil form hisgir to connote closure is purposely suggestive of the parallelism of the procedures for both humans and houses.
\n39. If he sees that the plague has spread As indicated in the Comment to 13:5, the sense of Hebrew pasah is \u201cto become enlarged.\u201d If the lesions became enlarged, it is likely that the blight, or fungus, had penetrated to the stones themselves.
\n40. to be pulled out Alternatively, \u201cto be pushed out, dislodged.\u201d The Hebrew verb \u1e25alats is cognate with Akkadian \u1e2bal\u0101\u1e63u, \u201cto press, squeeze out.\u201d As a practical consideration, it is likely that the infected stones were pushed out from the interior of the house.
\n41. The house shall be scraped \u2026 the coating \u2026 shall be dumped The Hebrew verb katsa\u02bf, meaning \u201cto chisel, cut,\u201d is cognate with Aramaic ka\u1e6da\u02bf and is used in connection with the work of a sculptor or craftsman. The second part of the verse uses the verb ve-hiktsu, which is of similar meaning. The purpose of scraping the mud coating off of the interior facing of the rest of the stones was to ascertain whether the infection had penetrated beneath the coating into the stones themselves.
\n42. and replace those stones with them The Hebrew is stated in an unusual manner: \u201cThey shall insert in place of those stones.\u201d
\nand take other coating and plaster the house As in the previous verses, Hebrew \u02bfafar literally means \u201cdirt, mud.\u201d Hebrew ve-ta\u1e25u, \u201cthey shall plaster,\u201d indicates that the laws are speaking of streaks or lesions that first appeared on the plaster or mud that covered the stones. These latter could be retained if the blight had not penetrated to them.
\n43. after the stones have been \u2026 replastered The verbal form hittoa\u1e25 is the infinitive absolute of the Nifal stem \u201cto be plastered.\u201d
\n44. it is a malignant eruption Hebrew tsara\u02bfat mam\u02beeret, \u201cmalignant, acute tsara\u02bfat,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 13:51.
\n45. The house shall be torn down The Hebrew verb natats, \u201cto tear down,\u201d has a specialized meaning in the Hebrew Bible, being reserved for the utter destruction, or razing, of buildings and artifacts.
\n46. Whoever enters the house The provisions of verses 46\u201347 resemble those of Numbers 19:14f. They pertain to the communication of an impurity present in a closed structure (a \u201ctent\u201d) to those who are inside the structure while it is impure. In Numbers the presence of a corpse makes the impurity much more severe than it is in the present case, but the dynamics of communicating impurity are the same in both instances.
\n49. To purge the house The verb used here is \u1e25itte\u02be, \u201cto remove the sin, impurity.\u201d The Piel stem may often connote the elimination of what the Kal, or simple stem, connotes in the first place. This verb is almost synonymous with kipper, used in verse 53, except that in this sense it always involves actual physical contact with the object to be purified, and it is never used with regard to the purification of a human being.
\nThe procedures for purifying the house that has \u201chealed,\u201d so to speak, are almost identical to those prescribed in verses 1\u201332 for purifying a diseased person. A bird is slaughtered and a live bird is set free; cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson cloth, too, are utilized. The only difference is that instead of oil and blood, water and blood are sprinkled on the house.
\n53. outside the city in the open country See Comment to verse 6.
\nThus he shall make expiation for the house, and it shall be clean See the same formulation in verse 20 in the purification of humans. Also see Comment to verse 18.
\n54. Such is the ritual Verses 54\u201357 are a postscript to the entire contents of chapters 13\u201314. Often the Hebrew formula zo\u02bet ha-torah serves to introduce a manual of practice, as in verse 2. Here it serves as a concluding statement, summarizing the subject matter of the two chapters in the order of its presentation: humans, leather and fabrics, and stone houses.
\n57. when they are unclean and when they are clean The Hebrew be-yom ha-tame\u02be u-ve-yom ha-tahor is literally \u201cat the time of the impure and at the time of the pure.\u201d On the basis of the usual syntax, one could read here, without altering the consonants of the Masoretic text, as follows: be-yom hittame\u02be u-ve-yom hittahher, \u201cwhen they become impure, and when they become pure.\u201d The sense is clear, nonetheless. The principal task of the purificatory priest is to monitor diseases.
\nCHAPTER 15
\nDischarges from Sexual Organs
\nChapter 15 sets forth the procedures required when an Israelite male or female experiences discharges from the sexual organs. Most of the chapter deals with discharges that are the result of illness or infection, not to be confused with the normal menstruation of the female or the seminal emissions of the male. Evidently, the purpose of chapter 15 is to distinguish among physical phenomena that share some of the same symptoms but that are understood differently in terms of their physical and religious significance.
\nIn chapter 15 we observe, perhaps more clearly than elsewhere in Leviticus, the virtual interchangeability of two conditions: illness and impurity. The laws here may refer to illness simply as impurity and to the termination of illness and the regaining of health as the resumption of purity. By classifying illness and disease as forms of impurity, the Israelite priesthood placed them in the realm of religious concern. It was probably thought that impurity was contagious or, to put it another way, that the effects of abnormal discharges\u2014and, to a lesser degree, of normal emissions and menstruation\u2014were contagious. Impure persons were prohibited from entering the sanctuary. In stark contrast, it must be remembered that in all other ancient Near Eastern religions everything that pertained to sexuality had a role in cult and ritual.
\nAll that was associated with the sexual organs was a matter of religious concern in ancient Israel, but one assumes that little was known about treatment for abnormal bodily discharges apart from bathing, laundering clothing, and careful observation of the course taken by the ailment itself. As described in chapter 15, such discharges of the male consisted of pus, or some similar substance, which appeared as a clear liquid running from the penis or as a dense substance that caused stoppage in the penis. Hebrew zov, literally \u201cflowing,\u201d is most likely a term for any number of similar infections of the urinary tract or of the internal organs. It is most likely not to be identified with gonorrhea, as some have suggested. The abnormal vaginal discharges of the female, as described here, consisted of blood and persisted beyond, or outside, the menstrual period \u201cfor many days,\u201d as the text states. Most likely, these discharges were related to uterine disorders. Like menstruation itself, they are also called zov.
\nChapter 15 also includes laws governing normal seminal emissions in the male and menstruationin the female. It was characteristic of all who experienced abnormal discharges from the sexual organs, as well as of the menstruating woman, that their impurity extended to persons and objects that came into contact with them. The details of such transmitted impurity will be discussed in the Commentary. The general rule here is that persons experiencing the relevant discharges remain impure for seven days after the disappearance of the observable symptoms\u2014as verse 13 puts it: after the person becomes \u201cpure.\u201d At the end of the seventh day, the person must bathe the entire body in \u201cliving\u201d water, launder clothing worn during the period of the illness, and on the eighth day undergo ritual purification at the sanctuary.
\nAll the impurities dealt with in this chapter, like any prevailing impurity within the Israelite community, threatened, directly or indirectly, the purity of the sanctuary, which was located within the area of settlement. This is stated explicitly in verse 31: \u201cYou shall put the Israelites on guard against their uncleanness, lest they die through their uncleanness by defiling My Tabernacle which is among them.\u201d
\nThe specific topics in chapter 15 may be outlined as follows:
\n1. The Israelite male (vv. 1\u201318)
\na. Abnormal discharges from the penis (vv. 1\u201315)
\nb. Normal seminal emissions (vv. 16\u201318)
\n2. The Israelite female (vv. 19\u201330)
\na. The menstrual period (vv. 19\u201324)
\nb. Abnormal vaginal discharges of blood (vv. 25\u201330)
\n3. Conclusion (vv. 31\u201333)
\nTHE ISRAELITE MALE (vv. 1\u201318)
\n1. When any man has a discharge issuing from his member Literally, \u201cwhen any man has a discharge, his discharge being from his \u2018flesh.\u2019 \u201d Hebrew basar, the usual word for \u201cbody, flesh,\u201d is here recognized as a euphemism for the penis, an interpretation stated in most of the traditional commentaries. The form zovo means \u201chis discharging.\u201d Throughout the chapter, the term zov is the name given both to ailments and to menstruation itself.
\n3. The uncleanness from his discharge shall mean the following Rather, \u201cThis is his impurity during his discharging.\u201d This statement defines the physical symptoms of the ailment. Here \u201cimpurity\u201d refers to the ailment itself, not to a separate matter, since \u201cimpurity\u201d and \u201cailment\u201d are synonymous.
\nwhether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up These are the two forms usually taken by the ailment. The participle rar, from the noun rir, means \u201cto flow, run,\u201d as with a bodily liquid. In 1 Samuel 21:4, this word describes a running mouth. The Hifil form he\u1e25tim, meaning \u201cto seal itself up,\u201d occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible; it functions uniquely as a medical usage. In other forms, this verb usually refers to the sealing of documents or of spaces and containers.
\nhis uncleanness means this Rather, \u201cThis is his impurity.\u201d Namely, this is the illness. The clause merely recapitulates what has just been described.
\n4. Any bedding on which the one with the discharge lies Hebrew mishkav means \u201cbed, an object on which one lies.\u201d The two sorts of objects rendered impure by contact with the one who has the discharge are those upon which he lies and those on which he sits, called moshav in rabbinic Hebrew. These objects must be cleansed.
\nIn this verse the impurity is communicated by the affected person to certain objects, whereas in verses 5\u20137 we read that contact with such objects, in turn, communicates the impurity to other persons.
\n5. Anyone who touches his bedding Verses 5\u20136 prescribe that a person who comes in contact with impure bedding, chairs, and so forth remains impure until evening and must bathe and launder his or her clothing.
\nbathe in water Even though the Hebrew verb ra\u1e25ats, \u201cto wash,\u201d has no direct object, as it does in verse 13 below, it is clear from the context that here the law requires bathing oneself completely. A good illustration of this usage is provided in 2 Kings 5:14. Naaman, instructed by the prophet Elisha to \u201cwash\u201d (ra\u1e25ats) in the waters of the Jordan, understood this to mean complete immersion, a point noted by Hoffmann.
\n7. Whoever touches the body of the one with the discharge Direct contact with the affected person renders one impure.
\n8. If one with a discharge spits on one who is clean Verses 8\u20139 change direction and speak of contact initiated by the affected person. Spittle was considered to carry infection and disease.
\n9. Any means for riding Hebrew merkav means \u201can object on which one rides,\u201d such as a saddle or other appurtenance located under the rider. If one with a discharge rides on these objects, they become impure.
\n10. whoever touches anything that was under him The antecedent of Hebrew ta\u1e25tav, \u201cunder him,\u201d is the affected person, not any object. In this case, the impurity does not extend to the clothing of the person who touches such objects, only to his body.
\nand whoever carries such things Contact by carrying objects requires the usual severity. In rabbinic law, massa\u02be, \u201ccarrying,\u201d is one of the major categories of contact that renders persons and objects impure. The other four are: magga\u02bf, \u201ctouching\u201d; moshav, \u201csitting\u201d; mishkav, \u201clying\u201d; and merkav, \u201criding.\u201d Furthermore, rabbinic law carefully distinguishes between different levels of impurity. \u02beAv ha-tum\u02beah, \u201ca primary category of impurity,\u201d renders other persons and objects actively impure, which is to say, capable of transmitting impurity on their own. The second category concerns those persons and objects that are contaminated through such primary impurity. Called ri\u02beshon le-tum\u02beah, \u201cimpurity of the first order,\u201d this category does not render other persons or objects sources of impurity,
\n11. If one with a discharge, without having rinsed his bands Verse 11 concerns contact between a person with a discharge and another person. It projects the reverse direction of the situation specified in verse 7 above, where a pure person initiates contact with one who is impure. The wording of the verse is at first glance puzzling because it implies that the impure person needed only wash his hands, whereas verse 13 explicitly requires that the impure person bathe his entire body in fresh water in order to become pure. Various resolutions to this apparent inconsistency have been proposed since antiquity. It might be preferable, however, to take verse 11 less literally than has usually been done. The sense seems to be that one with a discharge who touches another person with his hands (hence the reference to hands) prior to purification renders that person and his clothing impure. The resultant impurity lasts until evening and is removed by bathing and the laundering of clothing.
\n12. An earthen vessel Earthen vessels touched by a person who has had a discharge cannot be purified and must be destroyed, whereas wooden vessels may be soaked in water and used again. The same distinction between earthen and wooden vessels is drawn in the law of 11:32f. governing vessels that come into contact with a swarming creature (sherets).
\nIn summary, verses 1\u201312 outline the direct and indirect effects of the impurity attendant upon an Israelite male who has a discharge from his penis. Verses 13\u201315 prescribe the purification required under such circumstances.
\n13. When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge As Hoffmann notes, becoming clean (or pure) is a way of saying that the affected person is well again.
\nhe shall count off seven days for his cleansing Rather, \u201cHe shall count off seven days of being pure.\u201d Hebrew le-tohorato means \u201cof his being in a state of purity.\u201d Seven consecutive days must pass after the termination of the ailment before ritual purification can be undertaken. At the end of the seven days, the person must bathe his body in living water, namely, naturally flowing water, and launder his clothing. This is an extraordinary requirement because usually immersion is allowed in a \u201cgathering of water\u201d (mikveh mayim), in which only a certain quantity of the total amount of water need be \u201cliving.\u201d After these acts, the zav is pure and is ready to undergo the appropriate rituals at the sanctuary.
\n14. On the eighth day Two birds, turtledoves or young pigeons (see Comment to 1:14), are presented to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Once again, the designation peta\u1e25 \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d includes a rather large area that reached all the way to the outer gate of the sanctuary courtyard. The person who had been affected could hardly have approached the inner courtyard prior to purification.
\nThis expiatory offering resembles, in substance, the one required for the purification of a new mother who was unable to afford a more substantial offering, as specified in 12:8.
\n15. The priest shall offer them In this case, it is the priest who designates which bird shall be used for each offering. As has been explained in several instances, the sequence \u201csin offering\u201d followed by \u201cburnt offering\u201d expresses a specific phenomenology. The relationship of the zav to God is first rectified by means of the sin offering, which purifies him; only then does he present a sacrifice on his own as a restored member of the religious community. He resumes the role of a proper worshiper through his burnt offering, and its acceptance by God confirms his reinstatement.
\nA sin offering is required here not because the person in question offended God by any intentional or unintentional act but because the impurity, which is to say the ailment, threatened the purity of the sanctuary.
\nThus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf The sense of the formula ve-khipper \u02bfalav is: \u201cHe shall perform rites of expiation over him,\u201d namely, with respect to him or on his behalf.
\n16. When a man has an emission of semen The sense of Hebrew shikhvat zera\u02bf is \u201ca flowing of semen.\u201d As Ibn Ezra explains, this statement pertains to an involuntary emission of semen. In Deuteronomy 23:11 this is called mikreh lailah, \u201ca nocturnal emission.\u201d In rabbinic law, a person in this situation is called tevul yom, \u201cone who is to immerse himself on the same day.\u201d
\n17. All cloth or leather on which semen falls Clothing and other objects of cloth and leather, susceptible to contamination, must be cleansed. They remain impure until evening, which means that they may not be used until that time.
\n18. And if a man has carnal relations with a woman Hoffmann explains that the woman in this case does not become impure as a result of semen entering her body. This is important to emphasize, because the sequence of verses 16\u201318 might suggest just such an interpretation. Verse 16 tells us that a man becomes impure after a seminal emission, and verse 17 states that cloth and leather become impure through contact with semen. The fact is, however, that the true function of semen is realized when a man inseminates his wife in fulfillment of the divine command to be fruitful and multiply, as we read in Genesis 1:28. It is merely that the law declared her, like her male partner, to be impure after intercourse. Both must bathe after the sex act.
\nAs a matter of fact, the impurity of semen made it forbidden ever to have sex within sacred precincts, once again creating a distance between the process of procreation and the cult. In other ancient Near Eastern religions, fertility was celebrated in the cult\u2014on special occasions, sexual intercourse might even be dramatized and myths telling of the mating of the gods were recited. Not so in the cult of Israelite monotheism.
\nTHE ISRAELITE FEMALE (vv. 19\u201330)
\nIn this section (vv. 19\u201330), the law begins with the subject of a woman\u2019s normal menstruation and then proceeds to deal with abnormal discharges of blood. There is a logic to this order because, with respect to women, the normal and the abnormal are of the same substance, namely, blood, and are often related to the timing of the menstrual period. In the case of males, there is a perceptible difference between seminal emissions and pus or other substances issuing from the penis as a result of infection. Perhaps it is for this reason that the laws governing males begin with abnormalities and then proceed to deal with normal emissions of semen.
\n19. When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body Menstruation is called zov, \u201cdischarge,\u201d and some of the same terms of reference are used here as in the case of abnormal discharges of the male in verses 1\u201312. Normal seminal emissions, however, would not be called zov,
\nshe shall remain in her impurity seven days Rather, \u201cshe shall remain in her menstrual condition seven days.\u201d The term niddah, which previously appeared in 12:2, derives from the root n-d-h (cognate to Akk. nad\u00fb), \u201cto cast, hurl, throw.\u201d It represents a variation of n-z-h, \u201cto spatter,\u201d discussed in the Comment to 6:20, a connection suggested by Rashi in his comment to Numbers 19:9. It does not connote impurity in and of itself but, rather, describes the physiological process of the flow of blood. The status of the menstruating woman is that she is ritually impure during that period, according to regulation.
\nAnyone who has contact with a woman during her menstrual period is impure until evening. Verses 20\u201323 repeat some of the same forms of transmitted impurity as we observed in the case of the male who had a discharge. Whatever the woman sits on or lies on becomes impure, and one who touches such objects becomes impure in turn.
\n23. Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat This verse has occasioned a good deal of comment because of its unusual syntax. The translation understands the phrase ve-\u02beim \u02bfal ha-mishkav hu\u02be to mean \u201cif it is a case of touching her bedding\u201d or a case of touching a vessel, and so forth. The pronoun hu\u02be does not refer to a person or object but to a situation. Hoffmann notes that verse 23 contrasts with verse 24: Touching an object on which a menstruating woman has either sat or lain renders one impure only until evening, whereas having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman renders a man impure for seven days. Although the formulation is not explicit in every case, it is clear from context that when any one of these impurities occurs, the requirement is to bathe and launder one\u2019s clothing. This is explicitly stated in verses 21\u201322 but not in verses 20 and 23.
\n24. her impurity is communicated to him Rather, \u201cher menstrual impurity is communicated to him.\u201d
\nThe essential prohibition against having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman is stated in 18:19 and again in 20:18. The penalty is being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community of Israel. Here the concern is with impurity. One who has sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual period becomes impure for seven days, and his impurity is severe enough to contaminate his bedding as well. He must, of course, bathe and launder his clothing after seven days.
\n25. for many days, not at the time of her impurity Rather, \u201cnot at the period of her menstruation.\u201d This is the primary symptom: irregularity of blood discharges, which either persist beyond the regular menstrual period or are unconnected with it altogether. A woman who has discharges of blood not due to her menstruation bears the same impurity as a menstruating woman for as long as the discharges last.
\n26\u201327. These verses repeat the law that whatever the woman with the discharge sits on or lies on becomes impure and that whoever touches these items becomes impure and remains so until evening.
\n28. When she becomes clean of her discharge Like the male, the female must count off seven days subsequent to the termination of her abnormal discharge of blood.
\n29\u201330. These verses repeat the laws app icable to the Israelite male. The categorical difference between abnormal and normal conditions is that abnormalities ultimately require ritual expiation as part of the purification process, whereas normal conditions, though inducing impurity, require only bathing and laundering of clothing and observance of the proper period of waiting. Such normal conditions do not of themselves involve the sanctuary directly, unless a person in such a state actually enters the sacred precincts.
\nCONCLUSION (vv. 31\u201333)
\n31. You shall put the Israelites on guard The verbal form ve-hizzartem, which is unique in the Hebrew Bible, means \u201cyou shall cause \u2026 to avoid; to be separate from.\u2026\u201d In 22:2 we read that the Israelites are instructed to keep themselves separate (ve-yinnazru) from the sacred offerings that are forbidden to them. The root is n-z-r, from which the term nazir, \u201ca Nazirite,\u201d derives.
\nlest they die \u2026 by defiling My Tabernacle As noted in the introductory Comment to the chapter, this is a major statement of policy. Although an impure person may not be guilty of any offense against God, as is true in these laws dealing with illnesses and natural physiological processes, such impurities nevertheless threaten the status of the entire community if left unattended. If the sanctuary were defiled, God\u2019s wrath would be aroused against the entire community. This is the sense of the warning \u201clest they die.\u201d It is not the condition of impurity per se that evokes God\u2019s punishment, but the failure to rectify that condition so as to restore a state of purity.
\n32. Such is the ritual Hebrew torah means \u201cinstruction, prescribed ritual.\u201d This term is frequently used to designate a particular rule in which the priests are to be instructed. Verse 32 serves as a concluding statement, as if to say: \u201cThe preceding is the prescribed ritual.\u201d Similar statements occur elsewhere after specific rituals have been prescribed, for example, in 7:37, following the rites of chapters 6\u20137, and in 14:54, following the rituals of chapters 13\u201314.
\n33. and concerning her who is in menstrual infirmity The adjective davah, meaning \u201cweak,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 12:2.
\nIn the subsequent development of Jewish religion, chapter 15 of Leviticus is best remembered for the limitations placed on sexual relations between man and wife during her menstrual period. The requirement that a woman bathe after her period has continued to be upheld by observant Jewish women just prior to marriage, and thereafter.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 16
\nThe Yom Kippur Ritual
\nA\u1e25arei Mot
\nLeviticus 16, which is read in synagogues on Yom Kippur, is well known in the Jewish tradition, and the significance of the ritual of the scapegoat for religious studies in general has drawn widespread attention to this chapter.
\nThe distinctive rites prescribed here involve rare practices called rites of riddance, which effect the removal and destruction of impurity. The transgressions of the Israelites and their priests, which produce impurity, are dramatically transferred to the scapegoat, which is driven into the wilderness, never to return. Certain parts of sin offerings are burned to ashes outside the encampment rather than on the altar. Chapter 16 also ordains the use of sacrificial blood in unusual ways during the purification of the sanctuary. These two processes\u2014purification through sacrificial blood and purification by riddance\u2014are woven into one of the most complex rituals to have reached us from any ancient society.
\nThe primary objective of expiatory rites like the ones set forth in chapter 16 was to maintain a pure sanctuary. An impure, or defiled, sanctuary induced God to withdraw His presence from the Israelite community. Obviously, the greatest threat to the purity of the sanctuary came from the priesthood itself, whose members functioned within its sacred precincts and who bore primary responsibility for its maintenance. The sanctuary was also threatened by major transgressions of the laws of purity involving the entire Israelite community or by the failure of individual Israelites to attend to their own purification\u2014for example, after contamination by a corpse. This occurred because such serious impurities were considered to be contagious and thereby ultimately affected the sanctuary, which was located within the area of settlement. As long as impurity persisted, God remained offended, so to speak, and the danger of His wrath and possible alienation was imminent.
\nThis ancient view of Yom Kippur is somewhat different from that which came to predominate in later Judaism, especially in the centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. Atonement for the sins of the people eventually replaced the purification of the sanctuary per se as the central theme of Yom Kippur. This shift of emphasis is already suggested in verse 30: \u201cFor on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord.\u201d The purification of the sanctuary was understood to extend to the people\u2014to relieve them of their transgressions as well. However, no ritual of purification was actually performed over the people, as was the case on other occasions.
\nIn chapter 16 we observe a dynamic interaction between the priesthood\/community, on the one hand, and the omnipresence of God, on the other. Out of love for His people Israel, God manifests His presence among them, but only on condition that the Israelite sanctuary be maintained in a state of purity. God\u2019s forgiveness, coming at the end of the expiatory process, can be anticipated only after the purification of the sanctuary is satisfactorily accomplished.
\nThis chapter presents us with difficult problems not only because of the complexity of the rituals themselves but also because certain verses anticipate rites to be performed further on, whereas others merely recapitulate what has already occurred. The chapter may be divided into six sections that present a reconstruction of the complete Yom Kippur ritual. Here the Commentary draws heavily from talmudic literature, which often preserves descriptions of very ancient rites and fills in details absent from the chapter itself.
\nVerses 1\u20132 introduce the rites prescribed in chapter 16 by referring to the untimely deaths of Nadab and Abihu, the two sons of Aaron who improperly entered the sanctuary, as recounted in chapter 10. This reference served as an admonition to the priesthood since the purification of the sanctuary required the High Priest to enter its innermost part. If extreme care were not exercised in this endeavor, he risked death.
\n1. after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they drew too close The offense of Aaron\u2019s sons is discussed in the Comment to 10:1.
\n2. Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine Hebrew be-khol \u02bfet, literally \u201cat any time, at all times\u201d is not to be taken to mean that the High Priest was never to enter the Holy of Holies, which would contradict the procedures of this chapter, but, rather, that he was only to enter the Holy of Holies on this unique occasion. In this context, Hebrew ha-kodesh refers to the innermost part of the sanctuary, whereas the entire structure is called \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe Tent of Meeting.\u201d This is evident from verse 16.
\ninto the Shrine behind the certain That is to say, on the inward side of the parokhet, the name given to the curtain that divided the Shrine, or Holy of Holies, from the larger area first encountered upon entering the sanctuary. The layout of the Tent of Meeting, or Tabernacle, is described in the Comment to 1:1.
\nin front of the cover that is upon the ark The Hebrew term kapporet, \u201ccover,\u201d has been variously explained. As described in Exodus 25:17\u201322, it was a sculptured lid for the Ark, fashioned with two cherubs facing each other. It was called kapporet because of its function in the expiatory process, not because of its physical function as a covering for the Ark. The Septuagint renders kapporet by Greek hilast\u0113rion, \u201cinstrument of propitiation.\u201d The lid of the Ark was called kapporet, a noun that derives from the verb k-p-r, \u201cto wipe clean, purify,\u201d hence \u201cto expiate,\u201d because it was God\u2019s seat of mercy whence atonement was granted.
\nfor I appear in the cloud over the cover Most of the traditional commentaries\u2014including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Rashbam\u2014understood the cloud (\u02bfanan) to refer to God\u2019s presence (kavod). This was also the rendering of Targum Jonathan. As explained in the introductory Comment to chapters 8\u20139, the kavod was depicted as a cloud with fire burning inside it. The cloud pervaded the sanctuary and was visible above it. By contrast, certain talmudic sources identify the cloud of this verse with the \u201ccloud of incense\u201d produced by the High Priest inside the Shrine, as described in verse 13. If that is the case, then verse 2 anticipates what is to follow and is stating that God appeared to the High Priest only when the incense cloud had filled the Shrine.
\nThe wording of verse 2 argues against the second interpretation, however. The statement \u201cFor I appear in the cloud\u201d explains the restriction of entry. Aaron is normally prohibited from entering the Holy of Holies precisely because that is where God\u2019s kavod abides. Furthermore, identifying the cloud as the incense cloud would not accord with the purpose of the incense in this case. The incense cloud in verse 13 protected the High Priest when he came into God\u2019s immediate presence, whereas in this verse the cloud envelope, represented by the kavod itself, protected God, so to speak.
\nPREPARATIONS FOR PURIFICATION (vv. 3\u201310)
\nThe main celebrant in the purification of the sanctuary was the High Priest. Although he was assisted at certain points in the proceedings, the efficacy of the entire ritual depended primarily on him. He prepared himself by bathing his body and donning his special white linen vestments. For the rites of purification, he provided, out of his own resources, a young bull for the sin offering. The Israelite community, for its part, provided two he-goats and one ram for a burnt offering. The bull was to be used in securing expiation for the sins of the priesthood, and one of the he-goats, selected by lot, became the sin offering of the people. The other he-goat was not slaughtered. It became the scapegoat, to be driven into the wilderness.
\n3. Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine Hebrew be-zo\u02bet yavo\u02be is emphatic: \u201conly in this way shall he enter \u2026\u201d\u2014strict adherence to the prescribed procedures and the use of proper materials are indispensable to the efficacy of the purification rites.
\n4. He shall be dressed in a sacral linen tunic The regular vestments of the High Priest, described in 8:7f., were made of gold and rare gems and woven of costly dyed fabrics. For the rites described here, the High Priest donned unadorned white linen vestments that were fashioned especially for the occasion and that, undoubtedly, were of particular significance. They symbolized the abject state of the High Priest, the representative of the Israelite people, in seeking expiation of sins and making confession. Although the text does not say where the High Priest was to don his vestments and perform his ablutions, it is probable that these procedures were performed in a screened area near the Tent of Meeting.
\n5. And from the Israelite community \u2026 two he-goats Sin offerings on behalf of the entire community usually consisted of large cattle, as, for example, in 4:1\u201321; those offered by individual Israelites were usually from the flocks, as in 4:22f. The Yom Kippur ritual was an exception\u2014he-goats from the flocks served as sin offerings for the entire people.
\nIt is not entirely clear why both of the he-goats, the scapegoat and the one designated \u201cfor the Lord,\u201d were referred to as sin offerings. Perhaps it is because at this point the lots had not yet been cast to determine which he-goat would be marked \u201cfor the Lord\u201d and which \u201cfor Azazel.\u201d Potentially, then, both were sin offerings. Verses 9\u201310 explain that only the he-goat marked \u201cfor the Lord\u201d served as an actual sin offering.
\n6. Aaron is to offer his own bull This statement is anticipatory. This is what Aaron would do at the appropriate time. On the formulation kipper be\u02bfad, \u201cto make expiation for, on behalf of,\u201d see Comment to 4:20, where several indirect-object constructions with kipper are discussed.
\n7. Aaron shall take the two he-goats and let them stand before the Lord A note to the translation explains that the Hebrew text reads ve-laka\u1e25, \u201cHe shall take,\u201d but that the sense of the verse is clearer if the antecedent \u201cAaron\u201d is inserted, based on its occurrence at the beginning of verse 8.
\nHebrew he\u02bfemid, \u201cto station\u201d (see v. 10), is used with respect to persons who were made to stand in the presence of the Lord, near the altar, when purificatory rites were about to be performed on their behalf. God was to view them and find them deserving of purification.
\nIn this case the two he-goats were stationed near the altar so that one could be chosen by lot as a sacrifice and the other one could be selected as the scapegoat. Further on in the proceedings, in verses 19\u201320, as the High Priest pronounced the confessional over the designated scapegoat, he also \u201cbrought it near\u201d to the altar. The verb he\u02bfemid designates preparatory acts, whereas hikriv, \u201cto bring near, offer,\u201d may signify the act of sacrifice itself or merely moving an object nearer to the altar, as it does in verse 20.
\n8. and he shall place lots upon the two goats On the utilization of lots in ancient Israel, see Comment to 8:8.
\none marked for the Lord and the other marked for Azazel One lot bore the inscription le-YHVH, \u201cfor the Lord,\u201d and the other the inscription la-\u02bfaza\u02bezel, \u201cfor Azazel,\u201d that is, belonging to the Lord and to Azazel, respectively. Archaeological excavations have unearthed many objects with names inscribed on them, with the prepositional lamed indicating the names of their owners.
\nThe precise meaning of Hebrew \u02bfaza\u02bezel, found nowhere else in the Bible, has been disputed since antiquity and remains uncertain even to the present time. Over the centuries, exegesis of this name has followed three lines of interpretation. According to the first, Azazel is the name of the place in the wilderness to which the scapegoat was dispatched; the term is taken as synonymous with \u02beerets gezerah, \u201cinaccessible region,\u201d in verse 22. Verse 10 may also suggest this interpretation. When translated literally it reads: \u201cand send it [the he-goat] off to Azazel, to the wilderness.\u201d Yoma 67b understands \u02bfaza\u02bezel as \u201ca fierce, difficult land,\u201d taking the first part of the word to mean \u02bfazz, \u201cstrong, fierce.\u201d According to the second line of interpretation, Azazel describes the goat. The word \u02bfaza\u02bezel is a contraction (notarikon) comprised of \u02bfez, \u201cgoat,\u201d and \u02beazal, \u201cto go away,\u201d hence \u201cthe goat that goes away.\u201d This interpretation occurs in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate and underlies the rabbinic characterization sa\u02bfir ha-mishtallea\u1e25, \u201cthe goat that is dispatched,\u201d in Mishnah Yoma 6:2. This is, in fact, the interpretation that led to the English rendering \u201cscapegoat\u201d (from \u201cescape goat\u201d), which first appeared in Tyndale\u2019s English translation of the Bible in 1530.
\nBoth of the above interpretations are contrived. The third line of interpretation is preferable. Azazel in later myth was the name given to the demonic ruler of the wilderness. The derivation of the word is uncertain, but the thematic relationship of Azazel to the se\u02bfirim, \u201cgoat-demons,\u201d of 17:7 suggests that the word \u02bfez, \u201cgoat,\u201d is represented in it. The form \u02bfaza\u02bezel may have developed through reduplication of the letter zayin: \u02bfez-\u02beel, \u201cmighty goat,\u201d was pronounced \u02bfezez\u02beel and, finally, \u02bfaza\u02bezel. The ritual of the scapegoat is discussed in Excursus 4.
\n9. the goat designated by lot for the Lord The idiom \u02bfalah \u02bfalav ha-goral, literally \u201cthe lot came up for him\/it,\u201d is an idiom for describing the outcome of casting lots. It probably indicates that the side of the lot bearing the affirmative sign came up on top. The working of lots is explained in the Comment to 8:8.
\nwhich he is to offer as a sin offering Rather, \u201cand he shall designate it a sin offering.\u201d Assigning an animal as a sacrifice was a formal act accompanied by a declaration. The Sifra, cited by Rashi, explains the procedure as follows: \u201cWhen he [the High Priest] places the lot upon it [the goat] he gives it a name and states: To the Lord as a sin offering (le-YHVH \u1e25atta\u02bet).\u201d No such formulas have survived from biblical times.
\n10. shall be left standing alive The text emphasizes that the he-goat designated for Azazel was not slaughtered in the manner of a sacrifice as was the other goat, which was designated as a sin offering. Its disposition represented a different means of securing expiation, according to Ramban.
\nto make expiation with it The idiom le-khapper \u02bfalav, translated \u201cto make expiation with it,\u201d is actually perplexing, as used in this verse. Almost without exception, kipper \u02bfal has to do with the use of sacrificial blood as a means of expiation, which is clearly not the case here. The scapegoat was not part of the expiation rites proper and was not slaughtered. It was merely stationed alongside the other goat and, like it, selected by lot.
\nTraditional commentaries express diverse views regarding this statement, which they recognize as representing exceptional usage. Targum Jonathan translates: \u201cto atone for the sinfulness of the people, the House of Israel,\u201d in which case the preposition \u02bfalav, \u201cupon it,\u201d refers to the people, not the goat. Rashi notes that the verb kipper invokes confession, not only atonement, so that this verse could refer to the confession pronounced \u201cover\u201d the scapegoat, as prescribed in verse 21. Ibn Ezra emphasizes function: \u201cThat the goat takes on itself the expiation.\u201d This is closer to what is being proposed here. The goat was an instrument of expiation\u2014no rite of expiation involving blood was performed near it.
\nand to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel The scapegoat was not an offering to Azazel; it was being dispatched to his realm, the wilderness.
\nTHE PURIFICATION OF THE SANCTUARY (vv. 11\u201319)
\nIn anticipation of the purification of the sanctuary, chapter 16 sets forth the necessary procedures for those rites. The most notable feature was the unique practice of bringing sacrificial blood into the Holy of Holies. It was there that the Ark, with its sculptured lid, the kapporet, stood. The kapporet was envisioned as God\u2019s throne and the Ark as His footstool as He sat astride the cherubs of the kapporet.
\nThe High Priest first slaughtered the bull he had provided for the sin offering on behalf of the priesthood. He then drained its blood into a bowl that was held by an assisting priest until it was needed. This detail of the procedure, unmentioned in the Torah text, is supplied by Mishnah Yoma 4:3. Next, the High Priest took a fire pan full of coals from the altar of burnt offerings and two handfuls of a special incense and made his way toward the Holy of Holies. He ignited the incense, which filled the sanctuary with smoke, and left the fire pan just inward of the parokhet curtain. He was now ready to bring the blood of the sin offering into the Holy of Holies. He left the Holy of Holies momentarily, took the bowl of bull\u2019s blood, and reentered the Holy of Holies, where he sprinkled some of the blood once over the eastern side of the kapporet. On his way out, he left the bowl on a stand provided for that purpose. The same procedure was repeated with the blood of the he-goat, provided by the people as their sin offering.
\nThe preceding reconstruction of the purification procedures is based on a fusion of the biblical and mishnaic evidence, as preserved in Mishnah Yoma 5:3.
\nAt this point the text of 16:16 specifies: \u201cAnd he shall do the same for the Tent of Meeting.\u201d This was interpreted by Mishnah Yoma 5:4 to mean that the High Priest sprinkled some of the blood from each of the two sin offerings onto the outer side of the parokhet curtain, a practice known from Leviticus 4:16\u201317. Mixing the blood of the bull and the he-goat into one bowl, he proceeded to purify the golden incense altar that stood just outside the parokhet curtain, as the aforementioned Mishnah Yoma explains. He did this by \u201capplying\u201d blood to each of the four horns of the incense altar and, then, by sprinkling the rest of the blood on the altar seven times.
\nThe purification of the sanctuary was thus completed in two stages, represented first by the bull and then by the he-goat, or to put it in another way, by the sin offering of the priesthood and of the people, respectively. It represents the only instance in the priestly laws of the Torah in which sacrificial blood is brought into the Holy of Holies. What we observe is the purification, or sealing up, of a route of entry leading inward from the incense altar to the parokhet curtain to the Ark and kapporet. This unique procedure was necessitated by the entry of a mortal being, the High Priest, into the Holy of Holies\u2014an act required for the proper purification of the sanctuary but one that, at the same time, endangered that very condition of purity.
\n11. Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin offering Nothing was actually placed on the altar at this point. The verb hikriv, \u201cto offer,\u201d here indicates that the bull was slaughtered and prepared for sacrifice. The actual sacrifice is described in verse 25. Our verse follows up on the preparations already initiated in verse 6. Once the bull provided by the High Priest was designated a sin offering, it was called par ha-\u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201cthe bull for the sin offering.\u201d A similar formal designation occurs in 8:18: \u02beel ha-\u02bfolah, \u201cthe ram for the burnt offering.\u201d
\nto make expiation for himself and his household The construction kipper be\u02bfad previously appeared in verse 6. Here, again, the text anticipates the purpose of the sin offering in advance of its actual performance.
\n12. And be shall take a panful of glowing coals scooped from the altar before the Lord Fire pans were used for several purposes, as is explained in the Comment to 10:1. Here, the designation \u201cthe altar before the Lord\u201d must refer to the altar of burnt offerings in the sanctuary courtyard, since the High Priest brings the coals from there into the sanctuary. In another context, in verse 18, the golden incense altar is referred to in the same way as \u201cthe altar that is before the Lord.\u201d
\nfinely ground aromatic incense The prescription for blending this incense is provided in Exodus 30:34\u201338. The same blend was used for the daily incense offering, ordained in Exodus 30:26. The rabbinic tradition explains that for the rites of purification on Yom Kippur, the incense was ground more finely than usual.
\n13. the cover that is over [the Ark of] the Pact The term kapporet, \u201ccover,\u201d is explained in the Comment to verse 2. Hebrew ha-\u02bfedut, \u201cthe Pact,\u201d is an abbreviation of \u02bearon ha-\u02bfedut, \u201cthe Ark of the Pact,\u201d a term frequently used in the Tabernacle texts (for example, in Exod. 25:22; 26:33), but also occurring in other passages, such as Leviticus 24:3. The Ark is referred to in this way because \u201cthe tablets of the Pact\u201d (lu\u1e25ot ha-\u02bfedut) were deposited in it, as is stated in Exodus 31:7.
\nlest he die The incense cloud served to protect the High Priest while he stood in the immediate area of God\u2019s kavod, \u201cpresence.\u201d Incense was widely used as an apotropaic substance, or means of protection. In Numbers 17:11\u201313, we read that Moses instructed Aaron to burn incense in a fire pan to protect the Israelites from a plague sent against them by God, who had become enraged at the rebellion of Korah and his group. Aaron stood with the incense \u201cbetween the dead and the living,\u201d and the plague subsided.
\nIn the ritual of Yom Kippur, the High Priest drew extremely close to God\u2019s throne in the Holy of Holies and was therefore in danger\u2014even though he had committed no wrongdoing and was in the Holy of Holies in accordance with God\u2019s instructions. As discussed in the Comment to 1:4, all who stand in God\u2019s presence are in need of expiation in order to avert His wrath.
\n14. and sprinkle it with his finger Sprinkling sacrificial blood was a frequent procedure. Mishnah Yoma 5:3 interprets the verse to mean that the High Priest sprinkled the blood once over the kapporet and seven times in front of it. The first sprinkling was done with an upward motion and the other seven sprinklings, with a downward motion. Verse 15 adds that these rites were repeated, using some of the blood from the he-goat provided by the people.
\n16. of the uncleanness and transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins Uncleanness is equated with sinfulness; thus, according to the biblical conception, sinfulness was regarded as a form of impurity. The verb \u1e25itte\u02be, literally \u201cto remove the sin,\u201d effectively means \u201cto purify,\u201d as in 14:52.
\nwhich abides with them in the midst of their uncleanness This was the concession made by God out of His love for Israel. He allowed His people to build an earthly residence for Him, on condition that its purity be strictly maintained. In a very real sense, this was the primary purpose of the entire biblical ritual of Yom Kippur.
\n17. nobody else shall be in the Tent of Meeting On the occasion of this ritual, only the High Priest, who had undergone meticulous purification for his role on Yom Kippur and who held a special status, was permitted inside the Tent. At other times, ordinary priests officiated in the larger section of the Tent, where the menorah, the presentation table, and the altar of incense stood.
\n18. he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord In verse 12, \u201cthe altar before the Lord\u201d referred to the altar of burnt offerings; here, according to the context, it must refer to the incense altar. The sense of \u201cgoing out\u201d should, therefore, be understood not as an indication that the High Priest left the Tent itself, but only that he came out of the Holy of Holies to the outer chamber of the Tent.
\n19. Thus he shall cleanse it \u2026 and consecrate it The verb tihher, \u201cto cleanse, purify,\u201d describes a variety of acts. Purification in this instance was accomplished by the use of sacrificial blood from the sin offerings, although blood has no real cleansing properties. (Water, for instance, does, and it was also frequently used in the purification process, along with detergent, in laundering clothing. As a process, fire also purifies. Even oil, used in rites of consecration, possesses cleansing properties, as noted in the Comment to 8:2.) But, all acts of purification went beyond whatever physical properties were possessed by the substances employed and expressed notions of a religious character. In the case of blood, the religious factor is more conspicuous than it is with respect to other substances that have actual cleansing power. It is therefore preferable to translate tihher as \u201cto purify\u201d rather than as \u201cto cleanse.\u201d The root t-h-r has, as its primary connotation, a physical purity, like that of the sky or of pure metals, such as gold, which contain little or no alloy. It is also said of the pure water of springs.
\nThe verb kiddesh, \u201cto consecrate,\u201d often figures in the initial dedication of sacred places and persons. Here, the rites performed on Yom Kippur served to reconsecrate the sanctuary, thus restoring it to its pristine state of purification.
\nTHE DISPATCH OF THE SCAPEGOAT (vv. 20\u201322)
\nAfter completing the purification of the sanctuary by means of the blood rites, the High Priest turned his attention to the second mode of purification, that of riddance. Repeatedly, the scapegoat is referred to as \u201cthe live goat,\u201d emphasizing the difference between its manner of disposition and that of the sin offerings, which were slaughtered.
\nThe High Priest laid his hands on the scapegoat and confessed over it the sins of the people, not his own transgressions or those of the priesthood. (Those would be adequately expiated by the blood rites associated with the sin offering of the priesthood and by the final destruction of parts of that offering by fire outside the camp, as set forth in verses 23\u201328.) The scapegoat served only the people, not the priesthood itself. By laying his hands on the scapegoat, the High Priest transferred to it the sins of the people, which were carried with it into the wilderness, to a land of no return.
\n20. shall be brought forward The scapegoat was brought near to the altar of burnt offerings. It stood facing the entrance of the courtyard, from which it would depart.
\n21. and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites The verb hitvaddah, from the root y-d-h (or v-d-h), means \u201cto reveal oneself\u201d and connotes the opposite of concealment. Originally, the confessional enumerated the various sins in order to expose them. Once isolated in this way\u2014identified by name\u2014the sins could be exorcised. Ancient peoples believed that sinfulness, like impurity, was an external force that had clung to them; it was necessary, therefore, to \u201cdrive out,\u201d or detach, sins. This view is expressed in the literal wording of an ancient prayer preserved in Psalms 65:4:\u201cAll sorts of sins have overwhelmed me: it is you, O Lord, who will wipe them away!\u201d
\nThere was undoubtedly a formula for the confessional that was used in biblical times, although the priestly laws of the Torah preserve very little recitational material. A later version of the confessional, still recited in the traditional Jewish liturgy, is preserved in Mishnah Yoma 4:2f. An earlier confession is found in Daniel 9:4f.
\na designated man The exact meaning of Hebrew \u02beish \u02bfitti is uncertain. The noun \u02bfet means \u201ctime, appointed time.\u201d The sense here is \u201ca person available at a specific time.\u201d According to Mishnah Yoma 6:3, a priest was assigned this task in order to make certain that the scapegoat did not return to the settled area. The Bible does not provide information on what, if anything, was done with the scapegoat in the wilderness. Mishnah Yoma 6:6, 8 also records the later practice of hurling the scapegoat from a cliff.
\nThe verb shilla\u1e25 may mean \u201cto set free,\u201d but when used with reference to animals it more likely means \u201cto drive.\u201d This translation more accurately conveys the role of the person designated to accompany the scapegoat.
\nRITES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISPATCH OF THE SCAPEGOAT (vv. 23\u201328)
\nAfter the High Priest had performed all the rites of purification and had dispatched the scapegoat, he removed his white linen vestments, bathed, and donned his golden vestments. He then sacrificed the two burnt offerings (one for himself and one for the people), each consisting of a ram. He placed the fatty portions of the two sin offerings, along with the burnt offerings, on the altar. Those parts of the two sin offerings not burned on the altar were taken outside the camp and burned to ashes.
\nIn addition to the High Priest, two other persons were required to undergo a form of purification: the man designated to accompany the scapegoat and the person who attended to burning the remaining parts of the sin offerings outside the camp. Both were required to bathe before returning to the camp because they had become contaminated in the process of performing a riddance ritual. Similarly, we read in Numbers 19:8 that the person assigned to burn the red heifer outside the encampment was required to bathe; he too had become impure in the process of performing a riddance ritual. Although this may seem paradoxical, it is not. Animals used in riddance rituals had taken on the impurities transferred to them and anyone having contact with such required purification.
\nBoth the High Priest and the people offered a burnt offering, following a pattern characteristic of the Israelite cult. The burnt offering was an invocation; it sought God\u2019s favorable attention and confirmed the purification of His people. In the initial purification of the sanctuary, recorded in chapters 8\u201310, we also observe that once burnt offerings had been accepted, worship of God could legitimately take place.
\n23. And Aaron shall go into the Tent of Meeting Since antiquity, commentators have been puzzled by this statement. Taken literally, it means that Aaron was to reenter the Tent, disrobe, and leaving his vestments, proceed in a nude state to the place of bathing, as indicated in verse 24. This procedure is hardly conceivable. The law of Exodus 20:26 expressly forbids exposure of nakedness near the altar. Exodus 28:42\u201343 indicates that the priestly vestments were fashioned in such a manner as to avoid possible exposure of private parts.
\nThe sages were, of course, fully aware of this problem. Yoma 32a states that the chapter records the proper order up to verse 23. However, the first part of verse 23, in which Aaron is instructed to enter the Tent, is out of order and belongs after verse 25\u2014that is, Aaron was to disrobe after he had already performed the burnt offerings and had placed the fatty portions of the sin offerings on the altar. Rashi also refers to this talmudic interpretation. The purpose of Aaron\u2019s reentry later was to retrieve the fire pan that he had left in the Holy of Holies, as is explained in Mishnah Yoma 7:4.
\nThis interpretation leaves certain questions unanswered. If the reentry of the High Priest is deferred to the end of verse 25, how is it that in verse 24 we read that he is to \u201ccome out\u201d? Come out of where? To put it simply: The acts prescribed in verses 23\u201324 would seem to be in their proper sequence, but they are improper in themselves. A change of vestments would be appropriate following purification rites, and so would ablutions. What is improper is the place of the acts, inside the Tent, since disrobing there would constitute a serious breach of propriety. To resolve this problem it is necessary to assume that certain details are left unspecified in our chapter. We have already observed this in other connections. In such instances, we may employ later, rabbinic descriptions and specifications, so long as we bear in mind that the Mishnah is describing a temple in Jerusalem, whereas chapter 16 is speaking of a tentlike structure surrounded by a courtyard. With this understanding, the following reconstruction of the acts of the High Priest is proposed.
\nAfter dispatching the scapegoat, the High Priest was standing near the altar of burnt offerings, in the courtyard. He proceeded to a screened area, adjacent to the Tent, where he disrobed, bathed, and donned his golden vestments. Mishnah Middot 5:3 and Mishnah Yoma 3:3 refer to a bureau in the temple complex on whose roof was a place for ablutions, called beit ha-tevilah, \u201cthe place of immersion.\u201d One assumes that in the Tabernacle described by the priestly tradition there was also an area for disrobing and bathing, acts quite frequently called for in the performance of the sacrificial cult.
\nOn this basis, we would have to understand the opening words of verse 23, u-va\u02be \u02beaharon \u02beel \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, to mean \u201cAnd Aaron shall approach the Tent of Meeting,\u201d not that he was actually to enter it at that point. The Hebrew idiom ba\u02be \u02bfel usually means \u201cto enter,\u201d but the proposed translation is acceptable. Similarly, in verse 24, the words \u201cthen he shall come out\u201d would refer to the egress of the High Priest from the screened area, not to his exit from the Tent altogether. To summarize: Verses 23\u201324 are best understood as recording that the High Priest approached the Tent, entered a screened area, disrobed, bathed, and donned his golden vestments; he then left that area to perform the burnt offering. There was no need for him to enter the Tent itself.
\n24. making expiation for himself and for the people The \u02bfolah, \u201cburnt offering,\u201d was not directly involved in the rites of expiation. This is a general statement referring to all that the High Priest had done by way of expiation, rather than to the \u02bfolah specifically.
\n25. The fat of the sin offering The fatty portions of the sin offerings, the bull and the he-goat, were burned on the altar, and the rest was burned outside the camp. This procedure is first prescribed in 4:8\u201310, 19, 20.
\n26. He who set the Azazel-goat free shall \u2026 bathe Rather, \u201cHe who drove out the Azazel-goat.\u201d The requirement to bathe before reentering the camp applied to various impure persons, including those impure by reason of disease.
\n27. whose blood was brought in to purge the Shrine Rather, \u201cwhose blood was introduced to perform rites of expiation within the Shrine.\u201d The formula le-khapper be- means \u201cto expiate in, within,\u201d indicating where the rites are to be performed. The sense of \u201cpurging the Shrine\u201d is conveyed by the direct object construction, as in verse 20: le-khapper \u02beet ha-kodesh. Reference to bringing blood inside the Shrine emphasizes the distinction between this rite and the sin offerings of lesser gravity. The same distinction between the two types of sin offerings is made in 4:11\u201312, 21; 6:23; and 10:18.
\nDESIGNATION OF AN ANNUAL ATONEMENT DAY (vv. 29\u201334)
\nUp to this point in chapter 16, nothing has been said about when or how often the sanctuary was to be purified. Nor has there been instruction regarding the conduct required of the Israelite community on such occasions. Common sense would prompt us to assume that periodic purifications were necessary once the sanctuary was in operation. Indeed, verses 29\u201334 supply this information. Addressed to the entire people, not only to the priesthood, they ordain an annual Day of Atonement for all time and provide regulations to govern the conduct of the people on that day. Verse 30 states that, through the purification of the sanctuary, the entire people was relieved of its iniquities.
\n29. a law for all time What is ordained here is to be practiced in all future generations. Similar provisions occur throughout Leviticus, as in 3:17, 6:11, and in this chapter in verses 31 and 34.
\nIn the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month Until a relatively late period in biblical history, the months of the year were counted from the spring season, the month of Passover, which was the first month. The seventh month was, therefore, the month of the autumn Sukkot festival and, of course, of Yom Kippur. It is not known with certainty exactly when the counting of the months shifted to the autumn of the year, so that Yom Kippur and Sukkot would, accordingly, occur in the first month of the year, then named Tishrei.
\nyou shall practice self-denial In biblical literature the idiom \u02bfinnah nefesh always connotes fasting, as Ibn Ezra observed and as we may deduce from the contexts of Isaiah 58:3, 10 and Psalms 35:13. Mishnah Yoma 8:1 interprets self-denial to involve five abstentions: from food and drink, bathing, use of oil or unguent on the body, wearing leather shoes, and sexual intercourse.
\nand you shall do no manner of work In verse 31, the Day of Atonement is called a Sabbath, on which work is forbidden. But, even on festival days, labor was forbidden. This is repeated for emphasis in the laws of chapter 23, where Yom Kippur appears in the list of annual festivals.
\nIncluding the alien in the prohibition of labor follows a characteristic pattern in the laws of Leviticus, whose purpose was to legislate for a religious community or network of communities. If resident aliens, such as merchants and craftsmen, were to continue their daily pursuits, the Israelite community would be affected as well. Aliens were not, however, expected to practice self-denial, only to honor the day by abstaining from work. Aliens who wished to take part in annual celebrations, such as the Passover, could do so only if their males had been circumcised, and the rites in which they then participated would have to be performed in the manner proper for Israelites. The considerations underlying this law governing non-Israelites undoubtedly guided the founders of the modern state of Israel to declare the Sabbath the weekly day of rest and to proclaim the festivals and holy days of the year national holidays, throughout the land.
\n30. For on this day atonement shall be made for you The name yom ha-kippurim (or yom kippur) is suggested by this verse and by 23:27\u201328. This verse introduces the purification of the people. (Until this time, the purification of the sanctuary had been the object of the various rites.) It is probably for this reason that the verse enjoys such prominence in the liturgy of Yom Kippur until this day.
\n31. a sabbath of complete rest The construction shabbat shabbaton has the force of a superlative. This is explained by Rashi in his comment to Exodus 31:15: \u201cScripture doubled its wording to indicate that it [= the Sabbath] carries the prohibition of all manner of labor, even the preparation of food necessary for subsistence. The same is true of the Day of Atonement, of which it is also said:shabbat shabbaton\u2014for all forms of labor are prohibited on that occasion, as stated in Leviticus 23:32. But, regarding the festivals, it says only that on the first day and the eighth day a shabbaton occurs (not shabbat shabbaton), indicating that Israelites are prohibited from any type of laborious toil, but may prepare food to sustain life.\u201d
\nWords ending in -on tend to have an abstract sense. Thus, zikkaron means \u201cmemorial,\u201d herayon, \u201cpregnancy,\u201d and so forth. On this basis, shabbaton would mean \u201crestfulness.\u201d As Rashi, in his comment to Exodus 31:15 puts it:menu\u1e25at margo\u02bfa, \u201ca rest of relaxation.\u201d
\n32. The priest who has been anointed and ordained On the meaning of mille\u02be yad, \u201cto fill the hand, appoint,\u201d see Comment to 8:22.
\nHe shall purge the innermost Shrine This verse illustrates the rule that in the priestly laws, the verb kipper, \u201cto purge,\u201d takes the direct object only when said of inanimate objects, such as the altar, the sanctuary, and so forth. When said of persons, or even of sacrificial victims, kipper takes an object of preposition in constructions such as kipper \u02bfal, \u201cto make expiation over, for.\u201d In this verse it is the Shrine that is being purged, so the construction with the direct object is used: ve-khipper \u02beet ha-kodesh, \u201che shall purge the Shrine.\u201d
\nThe primary sense of the verb kipper is \u201cto wipe off, cleanse,\u201d essentially a physical process, like cleansing with detergents or abrasives. In the biblical conception, expiation was not an automatic result of performing certain acts. Purification resulted because God accepted the acts of the priests and of the people and granted expiation. The same is true of forgiveness, as we read in 4:31: \u201cThus the priest shall make expiation for him, and he shall be forgiven.\u201d As a result of God\u2019s acceptance of the rites of expiation one is forgiven by God.
\n34. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him The syntax of the Hebrew is unusual. Literally, it reads: \u201cAnd he did as the Lord commanded Moses.\u201d The sense is clear, nonetheless. Formulas of compliance are quite frequent in the priestly laws of the Torah. They epitomize the piety of the early Israelites and of their leaders, who were swift to obey God\u2019s commandments. Such formulas also emphasize the doctrine that all of the details of the cult were communicated directly by God to Moses at the very beginning of Israel\u2019s history as a people.
\nThe Pursuit of Holiness (17:1\u201326:46)
\nChapters 17\u201326 of Leviticus constitute a distinct unit whose dominant theme is holiness. For this reason the section has been known by the name \u201cHoliness Code,\u201d a term first used by A. Klosterman in 1877. The thematic unity of the Code is further enhanced by the unique style that characterizes these chapters.
\nThe central idea of the Holiness Code is that the people of Israel bears the collective responsibility to seek to achieve holiness, as expressed in 19:2: \u201cYou shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy.\u201d This idea, rarely encountered in the rest of Leviticus, is here stated repeatedly and emphatically. Given the prominence of the idea of a holy people, the laws and commandments are usually addressed to all of Israel, not merely to Moses, Aaron, or the priesthood. Virtually all sections of the Holiness Code open with the injunction to speak to the Israelite people; chapters 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 begin in this way. Elsewhere in Leviticus, by contrast, the people of Israel is addressed collectively on matters of ritual practice, exclusively. This is true in 1:2, 4:1, and 7:28, all of which prescribe the proper modes of sacrifice. And in 11:2 the entire people is instructed on the matter of forbidden foodstuffs.
\nThe Holiness Code, with its emphasis on the interdependence of all Israelites in every aspect of life, including their history and shared destiny, resembles the other two major collections of laws and commandments found in the Torah, the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:19\u201323:33) and the Deuteronomic laws (primarily Deut. 12\u201328). These similarities may be tabulated graphically as follows:
\nTheme
\nHoliness Code
\nBook of the Covenant
\nDeuteronomy
\nPrologue: proper modes of worship
\nLev. 17
\nExod. 20:19\u201323
\nDeut. 12
\nEpilogue: blessings and execrations
\nLev. 26:3\u201346
\nExod. 23:20\u201333
\nDeut. 27\u201330
\nDuties that pertain to the land
\nLev. 19:9f.; 25
\nExod. 23:10\u201311
\nDeut. 15; 24:19\u201322; 26
\nA calendar of sacred occasions
\nLev. 23
\nExod. 23:12\u201319
\nDeut. 16:1\u20137
\nFollowing is a brief outline of the Holiness Code. More detailed information is provided in the introductory Comments to the individual chapters and sections: (1) The Prologue (chap. 17). (2) Commandments governing forbidden sexual unions\u2014incest, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality, etc. All such forbidden acts are designated to\u02bfevah, \u201cabhorrent things,\u201d inconsistent with holiness (chap. 18). (3) A code of religious and secular laws, including matters pertaining to agriculture, testimony, social ethics, and certain rituals associated with sacrifice (chap. 19). (4) A legally formulated restatement of chapter 18, with the addition of some new laws (chap. 20). (5) Ordinances governing the priesthood in matters of ritual purity, marriage, and the physical prerequisites of officiating in a priestly capacity (21:1\u201322:16). (6) Requirements for sacrificial animals and regulations for the shelamim offering that was frequently brought by individual Israelites (22:17\u201333). (7) A liturgical calendar of the year\u2019s festivals and sacred occasions, including the Sabbath (chap. 23). (8) Several laws regarding the eternal light, the bread of display, talion, and blasphemy. In addition there is a priestly account of an instance of blasphemy during the lifetime of Moses (chap. 24). (9) Laws governing agriculture and the ownership of land, including the law of the Sabbatical year. This section concludes with an admonition against idolatry (25:1\u201326:2). (10) The Epilogue (26:3\u201346).
\nCHAPTER 17
\nPROLOGUE: PROPER FORMS OF WORSHIP (vv. 1\u201316)
\nChapter 17 introduces the Holiness Code. Verses 1\u20139 state the requirement that all sacrifices be offered at the one, legitimate altar, located near the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Verses 10\u201312 prescribe the proper disposition of sacrificial blood, to which is added the prohibition against consumption of all blood. Verses 13\u201315 require that the blood of animals and fowl caught in the hunt be drained and covered with earth. Finally, verses 15\u201316 prohibit the eating of flesh from carcasses of animals that died or were torn by beasts.
\n2. and to all the Israelite people These ordinances are addressed not only to the leaders and the priesthood but to the people as a whole.
\nThis is what the Lord has commanded This characteristic formula in the priestly texts expresses the idea that all of the details of worship and ritual were directly commanded by God.
\n3. if anyone of the bouse of Israel The complete formula \u02beish \u02beish mi-beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cany man of the house of Israel,\u201d occurs only in this chapter (also in vv. 8 and 10) and in Ezekiel 14:4, 7. The characterization of the Israelite people as \u201cthe house of Israel,\u201d occurs very frequently, however, in the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, where it expresses the close relationship and common descent of Israelites, even in exile.
\nslaughters an ox or sheep or goat The precise wording \u201can ox or sheep or goat\u201d recurs in 22:27, where it also relates to laws of sacrifice.
\nBecause the Hebrew verb sha\u1e25at, \u201cto slaughter,\u201d has two meanings, its specific usage in this verse is of crucial importance for an understanding of the chapter as a whole. The verb can mean \u201cto slaughter,\u201d in the general sense. In that case, the verse would indicate that whenever an Israelite slaughtered an animal for whatever reason\u2014including for food\u2014that act of slaughter had to be carried out at the one, legitimate altar located at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The verb can also mean \u201cto slaughter a sacrifice.\u201d As such, the sense would be that all sacrifices had to be made at the legitimate altar; but the general slaughter of animals for food, which is nonsacrificial, would be permitted anywhere.
\nThe significance of verses 3\u20134 has been debated since late antiquity. It was always apparent that verses 3\u20134 could be taken to contradict the laws of Deuteronomy 12:15f. The latter clearly state that the Israelites were allowed to slaughter animals for food without recourse to the sacrificial altar, so long as they took care to drain the blood from the slaughtered animal and refrained from eating blood. Such nonsacrificial slaughter of animals for food became known in the later Jewish tradition as ha-sho\u1e25et \u1e25ullin, \u201cone who slaughters nonsacrally.\u201d
\nThus, the question of whether Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12 agree or disagree on the permissibility of nonsacral slaughter away from the altar hinges on the meaning of the verb sha\u1e25at in this verse. This issue was the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Ishmael. Ishmael held that Leviticus 17 intended to forbid all forms of slaughter away from the central altar and that subsequently the Torah, in Deuteronomy 12, granted a dispensation permitting what had earlier been forbidden. Clearly, he understood the verb in its general sense. Akiba insisted, on the other hand, that the Torah had never forbidden nonsacral slaughter and that the intent of Leviticus 17 was that only slaughter was permissible, but not the \u201cstabbing\u201d to death of animals, called ne\u1e25irah in Hebrew. Understanding the verb sha\u1e25at in its narrow, technical sense of sacrificial slaughter, Akiba was of the view that chapter 17 did not require all slaughter of animals for food to be sacrificial in character. Only animals intended for sacrifice had to be slaughtered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
\nThe Sifra, commenting on 17:3\u20134, adopted the main thrust of Akiba\u2019s view: \u201cIsraelites are liable under the law governing one who slaughters and offers sacrifices in the open field, but the gentiles are not.\u2026 Furthermore, gentiles are permitted to build a bamah (high place) anywhere and ascend to the heavens!\u201d The Sifra thus understood Leviticus 17 to refer specifically to matters of sacrifice, not to ordinary slaughtering for food, in which case Deuteronomy 12 did not permit something that the Torah had earlier forbidden. Both chapters, then, require essentially the same procedure: sacrifice restricted to one, legitimate altar. This interpretation seems to be borne out by the Sifra\u2019s exegesis of chapter 17, according to which verses 5\u20137 provide the rationale for verses 3\u20134. Thus, in verse 5, the purpose of the law was to prevent sacrifices \u201cin the open field.\u201d Similarly, the Sifra understands verses 8\u201310 to represent a restatement of verses 3\u20137, meaning that one who \u201cslaughters\u201d (in the language of verse 3) is identical to one who \u201coffers\u201d (in the language of verse 8).
\nIn the ritual texts of the Torah the verb sh-\u1e25-t never has the general sense of \u201cslaughtering\u201d that it has in other, less detailed biblical texts. In 22:26f., for example, in a formulation identical to that found here, we read that the offspring of large and small cattle may not be \u201cslaughtered\u201d until the eighth day after birth, at which time they first become acceptable as sacrifices. In keeping with this understanding, the verb sh-\u1e25-t may replace z-v-\u1e25, \u201cto celebrate a sacrifice.\u201d Compare, for example, the laws concerning the paschal sacrifice. Exodus 23:18 uses the verb z-v-\u1e25; the almost verbatim restatement in Exodus 34:35 uses the verb sh-\u1e25-t.
\nIt is proper, therefore, to view the verb sh-\u1e25-t in this verse as a term for sacrificing and to conclude that there is basic agreement between Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12. Nonetheless, a large body of scholars, following Rabbi Ishmael, continues to regard Leviticus 17 as representing an earlier stage in the history of Israelite worship, when all slaughter of animals for food had to be of a sacral character.
\n4. to present it as an offering to the Lord The formula le-hakriv korban, \u201cto present an offering,\u201d is typical of the priestly texts of the Torah. The term korban itself is generic, designating various types of offerings that are \u201cbrought near.\u201d
\nbefore the Lord\u2019s Tabernacle This verse primarily concerns the place of sacrifice; it is to be restricted to the Tabernacle altar.
\nbloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood Elsewhere the idiom shafakh dam, \u201cto shed blood,\u201d refers to homicide, usually intentional murder. Its usage here in the case of an individual who slaughters a sacrifice improperly is exceptional and an example of hyperbole. According to Hoffmann, it serves to dramatize the extreme seriousness of improper sacrifice.
\nWhen this verse is compared with Genesis 9:1\u20136, an interesting difference emerges. Genesis 9:1\u20134 grants permission to humans to consume the meat of living creatures, so long as no blood is eaten. Immediately following this dispensation, in verses 5\u20136, is the statement that all who shed the blood of other humans shall be put to death. The two situations are thus contrasted: It is permitted to slaughter animals for food but prohibited to shed blood. In our verse, slaughter of animals for sacrifice at the wrong site is equated with the shedding of blood. As is often the case, biblical statements draw on other, preceding verses, lending a different nuance to traditional language.
\nthat man shall be cut off from among his people Excursus 1 explains the penalty called karet, \u201ccutting off.\u201d
\n5. in the open Hebrew \u02bfal penei ha-sadeh does not mean \u201con the ground,\u201d but rather \u201cin the open field.\u201d It is the opposite of \u201cin a tent\u201d or \u201cin town.\u201d The Israelites had formerly offered sacrifices both inside and outside the camp (ma\u1e25aneh), the term used in verse 3 for the area of Israelite settlement. In Judges 6:21 and 13:19, we read of sacrifices offered on rocks. Elsewhere, we find local and private altars in use during the early periods of Israelite history. It was difficult for the legitimate priesthood to regulate such cult sites, where idolatry and other improper activities might take place.
\nthat they may bring them before the Lord, to the priest According to Ibn Ezra this is the rationale for prohibiting sacrifice away from the Tabernacle altar, as conveyed in the words of verses 3\u20134 above. In other words, sacrifices should be offered by a proper priest at the sole, legitimate altar.
\nand offer them as sacrifices of well-being to the Lord Rather, \u201cas sacred gifts of greeting.\u201d This rendering is explained in the Comment to 3:1. The shelamim offering became the foremost type of zeva\u1e25, especially for individual donations. The intent of this verse is that Israelites must present their offerings as proper shelamim at the Tabernacle altar.
\n6. that the priest may dash the blood Concern for the proper use of sacrificial blood is basic to the regulations of chapter 17, especially in verses 10f. Except for sacrifices burned to ashes on the altar, most other sacrifices were divided between the altar fire and humans. The altar received the blood and the fatty portions of animal sacrifices, and priests, and sometimes donors, received other portions of the sacrifices. For a detailed outline of these allotments, see introductory Comment to chapters 6\u20137. The formula le-rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25, \u201cof a pleasing odor,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:8.
\nThe designation of the Tabernacle altar as mizba\u1e25 YHVH, \u201cthe altar of the Lord,\u201d is significant. It is based on the view that there is only one, legitimate altar at which the God of Israel may be worshiped. Similarly, Deuteronomy 12:27, 16:21, and so forth designate the one, legitimate altar to be erected in the settled land as mizba\u1e25 YHVH \u02beeloheikha, \u201cthe altar of the Lord your God.\u201d In the ritual texts, this unique altar is usually referred to simply as ha-mizbea\u1e25, \u201cthe altar,\u201d there being no need to specify that the altar is the Tabernacle altar, that fact being understood.
\nthat they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons after whom they stray The ancient worship of goat-demons (se\u02bfirim), thought to be rulers of the wilderness and associated with illness and death, is discussed in the Comment to 16:8 and in Excursus 4.
\nThe regulations of chapter 17 refer to the milieu of the Sinai wilderness during the period that preceded the entry of the Israelites into Canaan. At that time it would have been important to uproot prior religious customs and to enforce strict adherence to the monotheistic religion of Israel. As the rabbis put it: \u201cit was difficult in their perception to withdraw from idolatry.\u201d
\nThe verb z-n-h, \u201cto go astray,\u201d in this verse is appropriate in the context of the early wilderness period. Although the verb literally means \u201cto commit harlotry,\u201d its various connotations and those of its derivatives afford insight into the religious mentality of biblical writers. In most of its occurrences the verb is used metaphorically to express disloyalty and betrayal, conveyed as marital infidelity. The most frequent image is that of the unfaithful wife or the woman of bad character who sells herself to her lovers. Placing unwarranted trust in them, she finds herself abandoned by them in her hour of need. This image is employed to characterize Israel\u2019s repeated behavior as a people, although it may be applied to any other people as well. In Isaiah 23:15\u201318, for example, the city-state of Tyre is called a harlot because of its typically deceitful mercantile dealings. In most cases, however, reference is to Israel, God\u2019s chosen people, who is likened to a bride. At certain periods of her history, she showed great fidelity, but at other times she betrayed God by turning to idolatry. She also entered into alliances with other nations who later failed her in a time of need. Against this background, use of the verb z-n-h here to characterize the worship of goat-demons reflects a concern for the proper worship of God and urges the avoidance of all practices that may lead to idolatry.
\nThis shall be to them a law for all time On the significance of this formula, see Comment to 3:17.
\n8. If anyone of the house of Israel This is a restatement of verses 3\u20135. Here, however, there is no ambiguity as to the intent of the law. Its purpose is to outlaw sacrifices anywhere except at the Tabernacle altar. The verse also includes the \u201cresident stranger\u201d (ger) in this prohibition.
\n10. partakes of any blood There are several statements in the Torah forbidding the consumption of blood. In this chapter, the prohibition is explicitly related to the performance of the cult: Sacrificial blood is to be dashed against the altar as God\u2019s share of the sacrifices along with the fatty portions of the sacrificial animals. It serves to secure expiation for the Israelites. But, like Genesis 9, the statement goes beyond the cultic basis for prohibiting the consumption of blood in forbidding kol dam, \u201call blood,\u201d a point noted by Rashi. Violation carries the penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community of Israel. The active verb ve-hikhratti, \u201cI shall cut off,\u201d is used instead of the usual passive form of the verb, as in verses 4 and 9, making it absolutely clear that the punishment comes directly from God.
\n11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood This is repeated in verse 14, and similar formulations occur elsewhere in the Torah. Thus, Deuteronomy 12:23 states: \u201cFor the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh.\u201d Genesis 9:4 implies the same rationale for not eating blood: \u201cYou must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.\u201d
\nand I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar Rashi states: \u201cBlood represents life, and it can therefore expiate for life.\u201d Basic to the theory of sacrifice in ancient Israel, as in many other ancient societies, was the notion of substitution. The sacrifice substituted for an individual human life or for the lives of the members of the community in situations where God could have exacted the life of the offender, or of anyone else, for that matter. Indeed, all who stood in God\u2019s immediate presence risked becoming the object of divine wrath. But substitution could avert the danger, with sacrificial blood being especially instrumental because it was the symbol of life.
\nThis explains the specific intent of the Hebrew formula le-khapper \u02bfal nafshoteikhem, \u201cfor making expiation for your lives.\u201d Literally, this formula means \u201cto serve as kofer (ransom) for your lives.\u201d God accepts the blood of the sacrifices in lieu of human blood. The practice of offering blood on the altar may have been very ancient, harking back to the worship of chthonic deities of the netherworld. In biblical religion, it appears to have been an act of contrition, an acknowledgment of God\u2019s power over life and death.
\nSubstitution was allowed only in cases of inadvertence. Where the offense against God had been intentional, ritual expiation did not apply. This distinction corresponds to the norms of biblical criminal law, which allowed no ransom for the life of a murderer. A bridge between the two systems, the criminal and the cultic, can be observed in Deuteronomy 21:1\u20139. When the corpse of a slain person whose murderer was unknown was discovered outside the territorial jurisdiction of any town, a quasi-sacrificial rite was required. Since no established community could be held accountable for the act of murder, it became necessary to deal with it in a manner that satisfied at least the religious abhorrence of bloodshed. A young heifer was decapitated near a flowing stream, and its blood poured into the water so that it flowed into the earth. Had this not been done, the earth would not have \u201caccepted\u201d the blood of the murdered person, just as in Genesis 4:10\u201313, the earth \u201cprotested\u201d at having the blood of Abel, slain by Cain, poured over it because Cain had gone unpunished.
\nThis legal case clearly illustrates how animal blood can substitute for the life of an offender in situations where criminal penalties cannot be imposed. The use of sacrificial blood on the altar has a similar effect in cases of unintentional religious offenses.
\nit is the blood, as life, that effects expiation Alternatively, \u201cfor it is the blood that effects expiation in exchange for life.\u201d This clause has been interpreted in various ways and is critical for a proper understanding of the entire Israelite sacrificial system. Ibn Ezra understands it as follows: \u201cBy means of the \u2018life\u2019 that is in it, it (meaning \u2018the blood\u2019) effects expiation.\u201d This interpretation has been accepted by modern scholars and probably underlies the given translation, which takes the prepositional bet in the word ba-nefesh to be bet instrumentii, \u201cthe bet of means.\u201d Expiation is effected by means of blood.
\nThe alternative rendering takes prepositional bet as bet pretii, \u201cthe bet of price.\u201d There is a subtle but significant difference between the two functions. Bet pretii occurs in legal statements, where its meaning is clear. In Exodus 21:23 we read nefesh ta\u1e25at nefesh, \u201ca life in place of a life.\u201d But in Deuteronomy 19:21 the same provision is restated as nefesh be-nefesh, \u201ca life in exchange for a life.\u201d
\nIn our passage, blood is considered efficacious because it represents life, not because it has special properties. Creatures cannot live without blood, and killing is expressed as shedding blood. On this basis, the blood of the sacrifice offered on the altar is the \u201clife\u201d of the sacrifice and can stand in place of human life. God accepts it in lieu of human life and grants expiation or refrains from wrath.
\n12. No person among you shall partake of blood This is a restatement of the blood prohibition, for emphasis. These prohibitions of consumption of blood provide the scriptural basis for later regulations in historical Judaism governing the slaughter and preparation of meat. To this day, the purpose of such ritual practice is to remove the blood from meat.
\n13. And if any Israelite \u2026 hunts down an animal or bird \u2026 be shall pour out its blood The Masoretic text has mi-benei yisra\u02beel, (literally) \u201cof the Israelites,\u201d but the Samaritan version has mi-beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cof the House of Israel,\u201d as in verses 3, 8, and 13. The Septuagint, however, agrees with the Masoretic reading, which diverges from the pattern of the chapter as a whole. The blood of all animals and fowl caught in the hunt must be drained of blood before the meat may be eaten. This is also implied in the laws of Deuteronomy 12:15\u201316, 22f., where we are told that the meat of slaughtered animals may be eaten in the same way as one may eat the meat of animals caught in the hunt, the deer and the gazelle. The law in both cases forbids eating any of the blood, and it does not require an act of sacrifice for what is caught in the hunt. Despite the fact that Deuteronomy 12 goes further in its provisions than does this code\u2014explicitly stating that animals slaughtered for food need not be sacrificed\u2014it is likely that both codes operated on the same principle.
\n14. For the life of all flesh\u2014its blood is its life This is yet another restatement of the principle that blood represents life.
\nAny person \u2026 who eats what has died or has been torn by beasts Hebrew nevelah means \u201ca dead animal.\u201d This is precisely established by its Akkadian cognate napultu, which in the ancient Mesopotamian dictionaries is translated by mitti or mittitum, \u201cdead body.\u201d Hebrew terefah, \u201ctorn flesh,\u201d is derived from the verb t-r-f, which in biblical usage always describes the action of wild beasts or those resembling them in their rapaciousness. The two prohibitions of nevelah and terefah are frequently listed together because dead flesh would often come from an animal that had been killed by wild beasts.
\nThere are two aspects to these prohibitions: (1) Eating flesh of carcasses or torn animals is forbidden, and (2) tactile contact with carcasses renders one impure and requires purificatory ablutions. Leviticus 5:25 includes contact with carcasses in a list of inadvertent or neglectful sins that obligate the offender to bring a sin offering and confess his wrongdoing.
\nHere, we find the duty to bathe and launder one\u2019s garments. Laundering was a procedure often included in rites of purification.
\n16. he shall bear his guilt The legal significance of this formula is explained in the Comment to 5:1.
\nCHAPTER 18
\nDefinition of the Family
\nChapter 18 is the most systematic and complete collection of laws within the Torah dealing with the subject of incest and other forbidden sexual unions. It outlines in detail which unions among relatives within the ancient Israelite clan are forbidden on grounds of incest, adultery, and so on; and in so doing, it indirectly defines the limits of the immediate family. By way of contrast, marriages within the extended clan, called mishpa\u1e25ah in Hebrew, were actually encouraged.
\nChapter 18 seeks to draw that critical line of distinction between the immediate family and the larger clan. The underlying concern of its laws is the continuity of the Israelite family over successive generations. The immediate family was formed by a man who married one or more wives, thereby initiating the process of procreation. This conception of the family explains why the regulations governing sexual behavior were addressed to the male as the head of the family. The biblical family was organized along patrilineal lines; that is, a person was related primarily to his father and to his father\u2019s kin. Although primacy was given to relationships on the paternal side, the system nonetheless afforded the mother and her kin a certain status as well, as we observe in the laws of chapter 18. Excursus 5 provides further discussion of the Israelite family.
\nTwo principles govern the definition of incest in the code of chapter 18 and throughout the rest of the Torah: (1) she\u02beer, \u201cflesh relations,\u201d sometimes known as consanguineal or blood relations and (2) \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness,\u201d a euphemism for sexuality. The nuclear family was founded on six she\u02beer relatives: mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister. We learn this indirectly from the code of purity governing the Israelite priesthood. According to 21:2\u20133, an ordinary priest, usually forbidden to defile himself through contact with a corpse, was, nevertheless, permitted to attend to the burial of any one of these six relatives. The she\u02beer relationship is extended in 18:12\u201313 to include the sister of one\u2019s father or mother.
\nThe she\u02beer relatives are in a different category from members of the family related by affinity, those who become a man\u2019s relatives by marriage. (A man\u2019s wife is his affinal relative par excellence and her sisters and her children from other marriages are also included in this category.) The basic principle regulating sexual union with affinal relatives is conveyed by the term \u02bfervah. The only exception is levirate marriage, which, according to Deuteronomy 25:5\u201310, dispenses with the prohibition of \u02bfervah in cases when a brother dies without leaving a male heir. In such an event, it is actually incumbent on a man to marry his brother\u2019s widow.
\nThe interaction of these two principles, she\u02beer relationship and \u02bfervah (exclusive sexual access), account directly and by extension for all of the prohibited sexual unions within the Israelite family. Their scope was, in addition, affected by the polygamous character of the Israelite family. A man who was married to more than one wife would bring into the range of potentially prohibited marriages a large number of women from the clan, or tribe, than would be the case under a monogamous system. As an example, a man with several wives could not marry the sister of any one of them while that wife was alive. Further discussion of family structure is found in Excursus 5.
\nChapter 18 is one of three legal collections in the Torah that deal in detail with incest and sexuality. Leviticus 20 restates chapter 18 in almost all of its particulars, and Deuteronomy 27:20\u201323 enumerates prohibitions of the same sort. But each of these texts is formulated in a distinctive way. Deuteronomy 27:20\u201323 is part of an execration, its dicta expressed as: \u201cCursed be he \u2026\u201d or \u201cAny man who.\u2026\u201d As is typical in legal codes, Leviticus 20 specifies penalties for each of the offenses. By contrast, chapter 18 represents a series of commandments formulated in a style similar to the Decalogue: \u201cDo not \u2026\u201d or \u201cThou shalt not.\u2026\u201d Although there is comment on the nature of the offenses and their gravity, no specific penalties are stipulated, as they almost always are in legal codes.
\nA subject not discussed explicitly in any of the codes is the status of children born out of incestuous or adulterous relationships. Deuteronomy 23:3 forbids a bastard (mamzer) or his direct descendants to marry within the Israelite community (kahal), but the term mamzer is never defined legally. In the biblical period Israelite children of uncertain paternity\u2014those born out of incest and adultery or to harlots\u2014were undoubtedly ostracized. In Judges 11:1\u201312 we read that Jephthah, who was a harlot\u2019s son, was driven away from home by the legitimate sons of his father. Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 defines the status of children in terms of the circumstances surrounding their conception, that is, in terms of which prohibitions had been violated; thus the status of mamzer is applied to offspring born out of adultery or incest. But, according to Jewish law, one born out of wedlock (when there is not adultery or incest) is not considered a mamzer.
\nChapter 18 opens (vv. 1\u20135) and closes (vv. 24\u201330) with admonitions that state the consequences of transgressing against God\u2019s commandments in the area of forbidden sexual activity. Such offenses would undermine Israel\u2019s right to the land of Canaan and would eventually bring about the exile. The main section of the chapter may be divided into three classes of forbidden sexual activity: (1) incest (vv. 6\u201316); (2) unions with women who are closely related to each other (vv. 17\u201318); and (3) other forbidden sexual activity, including adultery (vv. 19\u201320, 22\u201323). Verse 21 stands out as a special prohibition of Molech worship. It may have been included here because the Molech cult involved the sacrifice of children.
\n2. Speak to the Israelite people The regulations of chapter 18 were meant to govern the conduct of the entire people.
\nI the Lord am your God Chapter 18 begins and ends (v. 30) with this assertion, which, with variations, appears frequently as a recurrent theme in the Holiness Code. It emphasizes that all of the commandments come directly from God and are to be obeyed with utmost strictness.
\n3. You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt \u2026 or of the land of Canaan This statement is puzzling in a code dealing primarily with incest, since there is no explicit evidence that incest was widespread in Canaan or Egypt. At certain periods in the history of ancient Egypt, it was the custom among the royal class to encourage brother-sister marriages. This was not likely to be imitated by the common people of another culture. Some of the tangential prohibitions of chapter 18, however, such as homosexuality and bestiality, were apparently quite common in Canaanite culture.
\nnor shall you fallow their laws Elsewhere, injunctions against following the laws or practices of other nations refer primarily to idolatry. Thus, in 2 Kings 17:7\u20138, \u1e25ukkot ha-goyim, \u201cthe laws of the nations,\u201d refer specifically to the worship of other deities. It is likely, therefore, that here the injunctions against following the laws of the nations represent generalizations rather than precise, historical references. The references to the sexual misconduct characteristic of the former inhabitants are probably to be attributed to the vehemence of the negative attitude of the priestly literature toward pagan ways of life. It would be in character for the priestly codes to enlarge on the sense of revulsion toward idolatrous religions, going beyond mere references to idolatry itself.
\nThe full significance of the association between incest and the sins of the Canaanites is conveyed in the closing admonition of verses 24\u201328. There, possession of the land is made contingent on the quality of family life; should the land be defiled it would reject the Israelites as it had the former Canaanites.
\n4. My rules alone shall you observe, and faithfully follow My laws The terms \u1e25ok, \u1e25ukkah, and mishpat are often used synonymously in exhortations such as this. And yet, in its original meaning mishpat differs considerably from \u1e25ok and \u1e25ukkah. When these latter are used technically, they express the recording and promulgation of the law, since they derive from the verb \u1e25-k-k, \u201cto engrave, inscribe.\u201d The term mishpat, on the other hand, derives from the verb sh-f-t, \u201cto judge, pronounce judgment.\u201d It refers primarily to rules, or norms, that govern the judicial process and to laws that are decided as part of that process.
\nThe Hebrew verb h-l-kh, \u201cto go, walk,\u201d is often used to connote adherence to God\u2019s commandments. It expresses a metaphor, common to many literary traditions, of life as a journey on which one embarks or a path on which one walks. God\u2019s commandments direct a person in the right path and represent the \u201cway\u201d in which one should \u201cwalk.\u201d There is nothing particularly theological about this metaphor, which may characterize any course of action, so long as it is considered to be normative, or proper.
\n5. by the pursuit of which man shall live The simple sense of the clause va-\u1e25ai ba-hem, \u201che shall live by them,\u201d is that one should live his life in accordance with God\u2019s laws and commandments and that he should obey them all his life or while he is alive. This clause has, however, stimulated other interpretations reflecting its unusual syntax and its semantic nuances. Syntax allows us to understand this clause as one of result: \u201cthat man shall perform, so that [as a result] he may acquire life by them.\u201d Performance of God\u2019s laws and commandments holds forth the reward of life, whereas their violation threatens man with death. This interpretation is the basis for the traditional understanding of our verse by later commentaries, which state that observance of the commandments is rewarded by life in the world to come. We also find a nuanced rabbinic interpretation that stresses the sanctity of life itself: va-\u1e25ai ba-hem ve-lo\u02be she-yamut ba-hem, \u201cThat one may live by them, not that one should die because of them.\u201d In situations directly threatening human life, one should set aside the commandments in order to preserve human life. This principle was known as pikkua\u1e25 nefesh, \u201cthe sparing or rescue of human life.\u201d
\n6. None of you shall come near anyone of bis own flesh to uncover nakedness This verse contains terms of reference that are essential for a proper understanding of the legislation of chapter 18 as a whole. The Hebrew verb k-r-v, \u201cto come near, approach,\u201d often has the connotation of sexual intercourse. The terms most in need of interpretation are she\u02beer, \u201cflesh,\u201d and \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness.\u201d The simple meaning of she\u02beer is \u201cmeat, food,\u201d as we learn from Exodus 21:10, where this word refers to the food a man must provide for a slave girl in his charge. This is also the meaning of the Akkadian cognate \u0161\u00eeru. Much in the way that basar, \u201cmeat,\u201d approximates the sense of blood relative, so she\u02beer is used to characterize consanguineal relatives within the family. This meaning is also conveyed by the Ugaritic cognate \u1e6far. The composite term she\u02beer besaro, literally \u201cthe flesh of his flesh,\u201d is a redundancy, used for emphasis. The noun \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness,\u201d is a euphemism for sexuality that is related to the verb \u02bf-r-h, \u201cto uncover,\u201d and is cognate with the Akkadian adjective eru(m), \u201cempty, bereft, naked.\u201d To \u201cuncover nakedness\u201d means \u201cto have sexual intercourse.\u201d
\nVerse 6 is an opening statement that establishes a general category to be spelled out in the following verses. A basic rule of rabbinic hermencutics states: \u201cThe general category includes only what is in its specific components.\u201d As applied to our case, this means that the circle of forbidden, incestuous relatives could not be extended to include any who are not explicitly mentioned in the laws of chapter 18. The only exception is a man\u2019s own daughter, who is, of course, forbidden to him sexually, but who is not listed among the incestuous relations. The law does mention granddaughters, however (v. 10), and it is to be assumed that since a daughter is more closely related than a granddaughter, she would be forbidden, a fortiori. The daughter is one of the six she\u02beer relations listed in 21:2\u20133.
\n7. Your father\u2019s nakedness, that is, the nakedness of your mother This verse forbids sexual relations with one\u2019s natural mother, according to Ramban. The prefixed vav in the word ve-\u02bfervat is to be translated \u201cthat being the nakedness of.\u201d It does not add another element, but rather defines further what immediately preceded it. This vav is, therefore, called \u201ccircumstantial.\u201d In this case, \u02bfervat \u02beavikha means \u201cthe nakedness reserved for your father, belonging to your father.\u201d Only one\u2019s father has access to one\u2019s mother\u2019s sexuality. This is also the meaning of \u02bfervat, \u201cthe nakedness of,\u201d in the following verse.
\n8. the nakedness of your father\u2019s wife This refers to one who has sexual relations with a wife of his father who is not his own mother. By so doing, he would also uncover his father\u2019s \u201cnakedness,\u201d namely, the nakedness of a woman who had been reserved for his father. This regulation most obviously applied in polygamous societies, but it also related to cases of divorce. A man may never marry his father\u2019s divorc\u00e9e. The sin of Reuben, as recounted in Genesis 35:22 and referred to in Genesis 49:4, was that he cohabited with one of his father\u2019s wives.
\n9. The nakedness of your sister\u2014your father\u2019s daughter or your mother\u2019s, whether born into the household or outside Targum Onkelos renders this verse as follows: \u201cwho is born from your father by another woman, or by your mother from another man.\u201d This rendering takes the definition moledet bayit \u02beo moledet \u1e25uts, \u201cwhether born into the household or outside,\u201d as parenthetical and redundant, not as adding another category. In other words, \u201cyour father\u2019s daughter\u201d was born into your household, whereas your mother\u2019s daughter was born outside of it at a time when your mother was not part of your father\u2019s household. On this basis, moledet bayit of our verse is equivalent in meaning to moledet \u02beavikha, \u201cborn to your father,\u201d in verse 11. Elsewhere, Hebrew moledet usually refers to place of birth. The provisions of verse 11 partially duplicate those of this verse.
\n10. The nakedness of your son\u2019s daughter, or of your daughter\u2019s daughter It is not entirely clear why the prohibition of union with one\u2019s own daughter was not made explicit, but it is obvious that such a union would have been incestuous, as noted in the introductory Comment and in the Comment to verse 6.
\n11. The nakedness of your father\u2019s wife\u2019s daughter This is an alternative way of formulating verse 9, namely, \u201cyour father\u2019s daughter,\u201d a half sister with whom one shares a common father but not the same mother. The overlapping of verses 9 and 11 has attracted critical attention since talmudic times. In Yevamot 22b, Rabbi Yose b. Judah, noting the presence of the word \u201cwife\u201d in verse 11 and its absence in verse 9, concludes that verse 9 is speaking of a daughter born of one\u2019s father\u2019s mistress, not wife! Verse 11 would refer, then, to a legal half sister. This is unlikely, however, because chapter 18 does not deal with the institution of concubinage. Hoffmann understands verse 11 differently, as adding a prohibition to verse 9. In his view, verse 9 forbids marriage only to a full sister or at least to one with the same mother, whereas verse 11 adds the prohibition of a sister with whom one shared only a common father, and who was less closely related. This, too, is a forced explanation that would require understanding verse 9 as \u201cyour father\u2019s daughter, or only your mother\u2019s daughter,\u201d which is not what the verse says.
\nIt is preferable to concede that there was some overlap or repetition in chapter 18 rather than to distort the simple sense of verse 9 in order to preserve a semblance of consistency within the chapter.
\n12\u201313. the nakedness of your father\u2019s sister \u2026 the nakedness of your mother\u2019s sister The two sides of the family are differentiated, with the two aunts mentioned separately. Their relationship represents an extension of the she\u02beer principle. Verse 14 adds an affinal aunt, the wife of one\u2019s uncle.
\n14. the nakedness of your father\u2019s brother: do not approach his wife The formation \u02bfervat \u02bea\u1e25i \u02beavikha, \u201cthe nakedness of your father\u2019s brother,\u201d means the sexual access to his wife. This is explained in verses 7\u20138, regarding the meaning of the term \u02bfervah.
\n15. the nakedness of your daughter-in-law Hebrew kallah, like its Akkadian cognate kallatu, basically means \u201cdaughter-in-law.\u201d Nevertheless, usage was fluid. Viewed from the perspective of the son\u2019s generation, the kallah was the \u201cbride,\u201d just as the masculine counterpart \u1e25atan means both \u201cson-in-law\u201d and \u201cbridegroom.\u201d
\n16. the nakedness of your brother\u2019s wife; it is the nakedness of your brother Here again, as in verses 7\u20138, \u02bfervah refers to sexual access. The \u02bfervah of one\u2019s brother is the nakedness of the brother\u2019s wife, who is forbidden in marriage. Deuteronomy 25:5\u201310 provides a significant exception. In the event a man dies without leaving a male heir, his brother is commanded to take the widow in order to produce an heir and assure the continuity of his brother\u2019s \u201cname.\u201d This is known as levirate marriage.
\nVerse 16 completes the primary list of incestuous relatives. Verses 17\u201318 deal with two cases where marriage into the family engenders additional prohibitions, on the principle that certain of the she\u02beer relatives of a man\u2019s wife are also forbidden. This combines the affinal and consanguineal principles, so that a man may not marry his wife\u2019s daughter nor her granddaughters. In effect, the cumulative provisions of Leviticus 18 and 20 and of Deuteronomy 27 prohibit marriage with three generations of the wife\u2019s she\u02beer relatives: her mother, her sister (in verse 18, which follows), and her daughter. This is even extended to a fourth generation, with the prohibition of her granddaughters. Whereas Leviticus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 27:23 project the prohibition back to the parent generation and forbid marriage with one\u2019s mother-in-law, our text looks forward and forbids marriage with the daughter and granddaughter of one\u2019s wife.
\nThe new JPS translation understands the form sha\u02bearah as an abstract feminine noun meaning \u201ckindred, kinship,\u201d the sense being that the wife\u2019s daughters and granddaughters are part of her kinship circle. One could, however, vocalize the word she\u02beerah with a mappik (dot) in the final heh of the word, and render it \u201cher flesh.\u201d Actually, such a reading makes sense because the basis of these prohibitions is that a wife\u2019s daughter and her granddaughter are her she\u02beer relatives.
\n17. it is depravity Hebrew zimmah, from the root z-m-m, \u201cto plot, conspire,\u201d usually refers either to sexual immorality or, as a metaphor, to Israel\u2019s infidelity in committing idolatry.
\n18. Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister Hebrew li-tsror reflects the noun tsarah, \u201crival wife,\u201d which, in turn, derives from the verb ts-r-r, \u201cto assail, attack.\u201d In polygamous marriages, the interests of the several wives inevitably conflicted.
\nand uncover her nakedness in the other\u2019s lifetime The syntax requires clarification. The literal sense is \u201cto uncover her nakedness (that is, the wife\u2019s sister\u2019s nakedness) in addition to her, during her lifetime (that is, the wife\u2019s lifetime).\u201d The preposition \u02bfal in this statement has the same meaning as \u02bfal nashav, \u201cin addition to his wives,\u201d in Genesis 28:9. Marrying two sisters would create an extremely unhealthy rivalry. The prohibition continues so long as the first sister remains alive, even if she had been divorced from the man in question. It is not certain why the text dispenses with the rule of permanent prohibition in this case.
\n19. Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness Rather, \u201cduring her period of impurity.\u201d As has been noted, the polar terms tame\u02be, \u201cimpure,\u201d and tahor, \u201cpure,\u201d do not describe sanitary conditions, but, rather, ritual conditions. This prohibition, which initiates the section on sexual activity other than incest, is distinctive in that it governs a man\u2019s sexual relations with his own wife. On the precise meaning of Hebrew niddah, \u201cperiod of menstruation,\u201d see Comments to 12:2 and 15:19.
\n20. Do not have carnal relations with your neighbor\u2019s wife The literal Hebrew formula for impregnation is \u201cto place your layer of semen\u201d (natan shekhovtekha le-zera\u02bf). The offspring of an adulterous union was undoubtedly illegitimate. Apart from the immorality of adultery, children born out of such unions were stigmatized. The prohibition of adultery is basic to biblical law and religion. It is included in the Decalogue, in Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18, where it is associated with the commandment not to covet one\u2019s neighbor\u2019s wife. The prophets of Israel were likewise very vocal in its condemnation. The act of adultery also became the basis for a widely used prophetic metaphor expressing the poignancy of Israel\u2019s faithlessness. According to that metaphor, it is Israel, the bride, who is wayward.
\n21. Do not allow any of your offspring to be offered up to Molech Rather, \u201cDo not dedicate any of your offspring to Molech.\u201d The verb n-t-n used in this statement may mean \u201cto devote, dedicate\u201d as an offering to a deity. Molech is the name given to a deity worshiped by some of Israel\u2019s ancient neighbors. According to 2 Kings 23:10, King Josiah destroyed a cult site in the environs of Jerusalem where children had been sacrificed to Molech during the earlier reign of Manasseh, king of Judah. The biblical evidence on the subject of the Molech cult is difficult to interpret clearly and has occasioned controversy among biblical scholars. These problems are explored in Excursus 7.
\n22. Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman Hebrew mishkevei \u02beishshah means literally \u201cafter the manner of lying with a woman\u201d by the introduction of the male member. Male homosexuality is associated with the ancient Canaanites, if we are to judge from biblical literature. Two biblical narratives highlight this theme, one about the men of Sodom in Genesis 19, and the other concerning the fate of the concubine at Gibeah in Judges 19. Although Gibeah was an Israelite town, the story clearly implies that Gibeah\u2019s Israelite residents had descended to the abominable ways of the surrounding Canaanites.
\nBoth of these accounts place the phenomenon of male homosexuality in a particular context: xenophobia. This extreme fear of strangers induces a community to attack visitors. In both of the stories cited here, the form of attack was homosexual assault. It is also thought that the pagan priests, called kedeshim, regularly engaged in homosexual acts. The term me\u1e25ir kelev, \u201cthe pay of a dog,\u201d mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:18\u201319, refers to the wages of a male prostitute, who usually serviced men, not women, in ancient societies. Male homosexuality is called to\u02bfevah, \u201cabhorrence, abomination,\u201d a term that occurs frequently in the admonitions of Deuteronomy. It occurs no fewer than four times in this concluding section of our chapter. In Genesis 46:34 and Exodus 8:22, it serves to characterize what Egyptians considered abhorrent, principally pastoral pursuits. There has been considerable speculation as to why lesbianism is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah. In due course, rabbinic interpretation added this prohibition, as well.
\n23. Do not have carnal relations with any beast \u2026 and let no woman lend herself to a beast This is the only instance in chapter 18 where a commandment is addressed to the woman. Elsewhere in the laws the second person masculine singular form of address is consistently employed. Here, the statement speaks, as well, of what a woman may not do. In ancient Israel women would have had little access to men on their own initiative, but would have had the opportunity to engage in bestiality with animals if they chose to. It is understood, of course, that such conduct was forbidden to both men and women, as is explicit in the formulation of 20:15. Hebrew tevel, \u201cperversion,\u201d derives from the root b-l-l, \u201cto mix.\u201d The sense is that sexual activity between man and beast is a forbidden \u201cmixture\u201d of the species.
\nWith this the laws of forbidden sexual activity are complete. The closing section (vv. 24\u201330) is an admonition against violating any of the sexual prohibitions stated in the chapter.
\n24. Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways The prohibited sexual acts set forth in chapter 18 fall within the scope of impurity. Although incest and the other sexual offenses involve interpersonal relations, they are also offenses against God.
\n25. Thus the land became defiled The interdependence of the people and the land is a prominent theme in prophetic teaching. Those who violate the code of family life commit an outrage that defiles the land\u2014which, in turn, will spew them out. This is, of course, one way of explaining the exile of a people from its land, a threat intrinsic to chapter 18. It is as though the land, personified, is angered by its defilement at man\u2019s hand.
\nExile is punishment for an abhorrent way of life, not only as regards Israel, but also for all other nations. So, for example, until the prior inhabitants of Canaan reach the limit of their sinfulness, the Israelites cannot occupy their land, and the fulfillment of God\u2019s promise of Genesis 15:16 must be delayed: \u201cAnd they shall return here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.\u201d In the admonition of chapter 18, this theme is applied to Israel itself.
\n26. neither the citizen nor the stranger who resides among you The goal of establishing a holy community required that all who lived within it, both Israelites and aliens, uphold a standard of proper sexual behavior. Here, as in other instances, the admonition is worded so as to include non-Israelites.
\n29. such persons shall be cut off from their people On the penalty known as karet, \u201ccutting off,\u201d see Excursus 1. Possibly, this statement requires that foreign enclaves in the Land of Israel also banish members of these groups who violated the sexual laws governing Israelites. This is suggested by the third-person formulation: \u201cfrom their people.\u201d
\n30. You shall keep My charge On the specialized connotations of Hebrew mishmeret, \u201ccharge,\u201d see Comment to 8:35.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n