CHAPTER 19
\nThe Laws of Holiness
\nKedoshim
\nChapter 19 may be characterized as a brief torah (instruction). It states the duties incumbent on the Israelites as a people and includes a wide range of laws and commandments that are representative of the basic teachings of the Torah. More specifically, it echoes the Ten Commandments. These features were noted by the ancient sages. In Leviticus Rabba 24, we read as follows: \u201cSpeak to the entire Israelite people and say to them: \u2018You shall be holy.\u2026\u2019 Rabbi Hiyya taught: These words inform us that this section is to be read before the people in an assembly. And why is it to be read before the people in an assembly? Because most of the essential laws of the Torah can be derived from it. Rabbi Levi said: Because the Ten Commandments are embodied in it.\u201d The midrash then proceeds to list a series of parallels between chapter 19 and the Ten Commandments. Some of the parallels require homiletical license, but even according to the strictest exegesis the following can be established:
\nLeviticus 19
\nThe Ten Commandments
\nReverence for parents (v. 3a)
\nHonoring parents (no. 5)
\nThe Sabbath (v. 3b)
\nThe Sabbath (no. 4)
\nIdolatry (v. 4)
\nIdolatry; worship of other Gods (no.2)
\nStealing and deceitful conduct (vv. 11a, 13, 15, 35)
\nStealing (no.8)
\nFalse oaths (v. 12)
\nFalse oaths (no. 3)
\n\u201cI am the Lord your God who freed you from the land of Egypt\u201d (v. 36)
\n\u201cI am the Lord \u2026\u201d (no. 1)
\nThere are, in addition, further parallels of a less precise nature to be noted in the Comments.
\nIn Ezekiel 22:6\u201312 we find a prophetic condemnation of the Israelite people and its \u201cprinces\u201d that refers to some of the laws and commandments set forth in this chapter as well as to those characteristic of other parts of the Holiness Code. In most cases, the parallels are so precise that a literary connection between chapter 19 and Ezekiel 22:6\u201312 is most probable. In the prophecy there is reference to the following six items prominent in chapter 19: (1) humiliation of parents, (2) cheating strangers, (3) despising Sabbaths and sacred offerings, (4) depravity, (5) defrauding one\u2019s own kinsfolk, and (6) baseness. Chapter 19 thus emerges as a major biblical statement on the duties of the Israelite people. The entire people is addressed in the plural, and all of what is said relates directly to the opening statement: \u201cYou shall be holy.\u2026\u201d The emphasis on duties basic to collective existence stands out in bold relief; the concept of \u201ca kingdom of priests and a holy nation,\u201d expressed in the words of Exodus 19:6, is the unifying theme of chapter 19.
\nThe composition of the chapter requires some comment. It is organized around a series of primarily apodictic statements: \u201cDo not \u2026\u201dor \u201cYou shall.\u2026\u201d Each is of one to three verses in length and usually concludes with the formula \u201cI the Lord am your God\u201d or simply \u201cI am the Lord.\u201d This collection employs both second and third person formulations and both singular and plural forms of address. Taken as a whole, it appears to have been compiled from previously recorded laws and commandments, which have been preserved in their original form. Both the introduction and conclusion are utterly brief when compared with other chapters in the Holiness Code, lending this chapter a dramatic quality.
\n2. The Lord spoke to Moses \u2026 You shall be holy Rather, \u201cYou must be holy!\u201d The verse is distinctive in that it provides a rationale for a commandment: Israel must be holy because God is holy. To have a close relationship to God, the people must emulate God. As one of the sages put it: \u201cIt is comparable to the court of a king. What is the court\u2019s duty? To imitate the king!\u201d In theological terminology this doctrine is known as imitatio dei, \u201cthe imitation of God.\u201d For further discussion, see Excursus 6.
\n3. You shall each revere his mother and bis father, and keep My sabbaths Literally, \u201cEach one, his mother and his father, you shall revere.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, sentences beginning with \u02beish, \u201ca person,\u201d may shift to second person address, as is the case here. More significant is the fact that mother precedes father, whereas elsewhere father usually comes first, as one would expect in a patrilineal society. There are a few exceptions to the normal pattern, however, suggesting that in familial contexts, deference is shown to the mother. In 21:2, one\u2019s mother comes first in a list of consanguineal relatives. In Genesis 35:18 we observe that the name given a newborn child by its mother is recorded prior to the name given by the father. The traditional resolution of the unusual order evident in our verse is based on a comparison with the Fifth Commandment, where father precedes mother. The two statements, when combined, amount to an equitable estimation of both parents.
\n4. Do not turn to idols The Hebrew idiom \u02beal tifnu \u02beel, \u201cDo not turn to,\u201d conveys the sense of reliance on a power, human or divine. It is frequently used with reference to idolatrous tendencies. The etymology of Hebrew \u02beelil, \u201cidol,\u201d is uncertain. Some derive it from \u02beal, \u201cnothingness,\u201d as in Job 24:25. Others take it as a diminutive form of \u02beel, \u201cgod, deity,\u201d used derogatorily. The form \u02beelil also occasionally functions as an adjective rather than as a noun. In Job 13:4 we find rofe\u02beei \u02beelil, \u201cineffectual physicians,\u201d and in Jeremiah 14:14 kesem ve-\u02beelil, \u201can empty divination.\u201d These usages seem to argue for the derivation from \u02beal, \u201cnothingness.\u201d
\nmolten gods Hebrew massekhah derives from the verb n-s-kh, \u201cto pour into a mold, cast.\u201d
\n5. When you sacrifice an offering of well-being Rather, \u201ca sacred gift of greeting.\u201d Verses 5\u20138 contain the first of the casuistic statements in chapter 19. They are addressed primarily to the individual Israelites who donated shelamim sacrifices to God. The basic rites associated with this sacrifice are set forth in chapter 3, in 7:11\u201334, and in 22:21, where there are further provisions for making the offering. This abundance of information is not without problems, however. According to 7:11\u201334, the shelamim could be used for three purposes: as a votive offering (neder), as a voluntary offering (nedavah), and as a thanksgiving offering (todah). When we examine the provisions of 7:11\u201334 more closely we discover, however, that the thanksgiving offering is distinct from the other two. It is accompanied by two kinds of grain offerings, one of which is made from leavened dough. Furthermore, the flesh of the todah could be consumed by priests and donors only on the same day as its presentation, whereas in the other two types of shelamim, the flesh could be consumed until the morning of the third day. There is also the difference that in 22:21\u201325 the todah is separated from the other types of shelamim.
\nIn summary, the todah retained distinctive features even after being incorporated in the general category of shelamim sacrifices. The code of 7:11\u201334 appears to represent the outcome of a process of development and change. Our code and that of 22:21f. represent an earlier stage and do not subsume the todah under the category of shelamim offerings. This is so because the codes of Leviticus were arranged according to a topical order that was not meant to reflect the inner development of ritual but, rather, to instruct the priesthood and the Israelites on proper procedures. It is therefore quite understandable that in the later chapters of Leviticus one may find statements that reflect earlier stages of cultic development.
\nso that it may be accepted on your behalf On the sense of Hebrew li-rtsonkhem, \u201con your behalf,\u201d see Comment to 1:3.
\n6. It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it For similar procedures and terminology, see 7:15\u201318 and Comments to those verses.
\n8. And he who eats of it shall bear his guilt See Comment to 5:1.
\nfor he has profaned what is sacred to the Lord \u2026 Hebrew kodesh, \u201csacred,\u201d and the plural kodashim often have the sense of \u201csacred offering(s).\u201d The Hebrew verb \u1e25illel, \u201cto render profane, impure,\u201d is related to the noun \u1e25ol, \u201cunsanctified, profane.\u201d
\nThe penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d (karet) is added to the admonition here. In 7:18, which deals with the same ritual requirements as this passage, no mention is made of it.
\n9. When you reap the harvest of your land Verses 9\u201310 require that some produce from the harvest of field and vineyard be given to the poor and the stranger. In all, four types of gifts are specified: two from the grain harvest and the corresponding two from the vineyards. The two allocations of grain are pe\u02beah and leket.
\nRegarding pe\u02beah, \u201cthe corner, edge\u201d of the field, there is no limit or minimum as to the space or quantity to be left unharvested in the corners of the field. Tradition set the minimum at one-sixtieth of the yield, according to the Mishnah Pe\u02beah 1:1\u20132. The Mishnah recommends taking into consideration several factors, such as the abundance of the yield, the overall resources of the owner of the field, and the current needs of the poor.
\nLeket, \u201cgleanings,\u201d is a collective noun. Mishnah Pe\u02beah 4:10 defines leket as that which falls to the ground during reaping. It was the practice in ancient Israel, as in the ancient Near East generally, to cut the stalks of grain with one hand while catching what was reaped with the other. This technique is alluded to in Psalms 129:6\u20137: \u201cLet them be like grass on roofs \u2026 that affords no handful for the reaper.\u201d Whatever the reaper failed to catch in his other hand fell to the ground. This is what is known as leket, to be left ungathered. A description of gleaning by the poor in ancient Israel is preserved in the Book of Ruth 2:3, 7. There it is told how the poor of Bethlehem, Ruth among them, followed along in the rows of grain after the reapers.
\n10. You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit The two allocations to the poor and the stranger from the vineyards are: \u02bfolelot and peret. \u02bfolelot, \u201cgrape clusters not fully grown,\u201d are defined according to Mishnah Pe\u02beah 7:4 as grapes that have neither katef, \u201cthe developed top of the cluster,\u201d having small stems branching out from the main stem, nor natef, \u201cthe developed bottom part of the cluster.\u201d Such underdeveloped growths cannot properly be termed \u02beeshkol, \u201ca cluster,\u201d and must consequently be left unpicked until they mature. At that time, only the poor and the stranger may pick them. Peret is \u201cfruit that falls to the ground during picking,\u201d as defined in Mishnah Pe\u02beah 7:3. Such fruit is to be left ungathered.
\nfor the poor and the stranger On the term ger, \u201cstranger,\u201d see Comments to verse 33 and to 17:8. In 23:22 we find a similar law. The term \u02bfani, one of several used in biblical Hebrew to characterize the poor, expresses the suffering, deprivation, and miserable state of the poor.
\n11. You shall not steal This parallels the Eighth Commandment.
\nyou shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another This approximates the import of the Ninth Commandment: \u201cYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.\u201d Here the verb lo\u02be teshakkeru, literally \u201cYou shall not lie,\u201d is used, and in the Ninth Commandment, the noun sheker in the designation \u02bfed shaker, \u201ca false witness.\u201d The law of 5:21\u201324 prescribes the expiation, restitution, and penalties required of one who acts deceitfully in this way.
\n12. You shall not swear falsely by My name Both the Mishnah and the Sifra assume that our passage and the Third Commandment are parallels. A comparison of the two passages is instructive. Both employ the verb nishba\u02bf, \u201cto swear, take an oath.\u201d But the Third Commandment uses the adverbial la-shav\u02be, whose meaning is not completely clear, whereas our passage uses the adverbial la-shaker, \u201cfalsely,\u201d whose meaning is precise. Mishnah Shevu\u02bfot 3:8f. defines shav\u02be as that which differs from what is generally accepted as true, which contradicts fact or reality, or which projects an impossibility. Thus, shav\u02be is an aspect of falsehood.
\nprofaning the name of your God Oaths are sworn in God\u2019s name, and one who swears falsely treats God\u2019s name as if it were not holy. This is the sense of the verb ve-\u1e25illalta, literally \u201cyou will profane,\u201d in our verse. God\u2019s \u201cname,\u201d or renown, and the awe in which He is held are diminished by those who fail to revere Him. Profanation of God\u2019s name occurs as a result of false oaths and also as a result of improper sacrifice, the neglect of purity, and the practice of idolatry, the latter being an extreme affront to God. Conversely, obedience to God\u2019s laws sanctifies His name. In later Jewish literature we encounter the notion of \u1e25illul ha-shem, \u201cthe desecration of God\u2019s name,\u201d which refers to acts that bring dishonor on God\u2019s people, Israel, or upon His Torah.
\n13. You shall not defraud your fellow. The terms \u02bfoshek, \u201cfraud,\u201d and gazel, \u201crobbery,\u201d are explained in the Comment to 5:22.
\nThe wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning Hebrew pe\u02bfullah, \u201cwages,\u201d actually connotes both the effort and its reward, both labor and the compensation paid for labor. Hebrew sakhir, \u201chired worker,\u201d is usually one paid for a particular job or for his time.
\n14. You shall not insult the deaf The Hebrew verb killel, \u201cto insult,\u201d literally \u201cto treat lightly,\u201d reflects the adjective kall, \u201cslight, of little importance.\u201d It is often used in contrast to kibbed, \u201cto honor, treat with respect,\u201d and barekh, \u201cto bless.\u201d What is \u201clight\u201d is worth less than what is \u201cheavy.\u201d In Hebrew to be \u201cheavy\u201d and to be \u201chonored\u201d are related concepts. Elsewhere the verb killel may have the more severe connotation \u201cto curse, blaspheme,\u201d as in 24:14. Speaking ill of the deaf is especially reprehensible because it is taking unfair advantage of another\u2019s disability.
\nor place a stumbling block before the blind Compare Deuteronomy 27:18: \u201cCursed be he who misdirects a blind person on his way.\u201d
\nLater Jewish tradition interpreted the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind as embodying a general norm of behavior. One should not tempt another person by preying on his weakness, his \u201cblindness,\u201d so to speak, or mislead one who cannot properly \u201cperceive\u201d the facts of a situation.
\nYou shall fear your God This admonition seems especially appropriate for offenses that cannot be detected and that, therefore, are readily concealed. The deaf cannot hear what is being said about them, and the blind cannot see who causes them to stumble. But God sees and hears on their behalf and will punish their tormentors.
\n15. You shall not render an unfair decision The several commandments stated together in the verse represent still another instance of \u201cthe general followed by the specific.\u201d In other words, favoring the poor in judgment and giving preferential treatment to the rich are specific examples of the general category of unfair judgment.
\nHebrew lo\u02be ta\u02bfaseh \u02bfavel literally means \u201cDo not commit an injustice.\u201d Hebrew \u02bfavel is synonymous with resha\u02bf, \u201cwickedness,\u201d mirmah, \u201cdeceit,\u201d and \u1e25amas, \u201cviolence.\u201d Its antonyms are \u02beemunnah, \u201ctrustworthiness,\u201d and mishpat, \u201cjustice.\u201d
\ndo not favor the poor In the pursuit of justice there can be no favoritism, even toward those for whom we have instinctive sympathy and who are otherwise deserving of our aid. This is stated in Exodus 23:3: \u201cnor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute.\u201d
\nThe Hebrew idiom lo\u02be tissa\u02be penei literally means \u201cDo not lift up the face of.\u201d An honored leader may be known as nesu\u02be panim, literally \u201cone whose face is uplifted,\u201d or nasi\u02be, literally \u201cone elevated, raised above others,\u201d hence \u201ca prince.\u201d
\nor show deference to the rich Hebrew gadol means \u201ca great person,\u201d but the context favors translating \u201crich\u201d in contrast to dall, literally \u201cone lacking in resources, poor.\u201d
\njudge your kinsman fairly On the sense of Hebrew \u02bfamit, \u201cneighbor,\u201d see Comment to 18:20.
\n16. Do not deal basely with your countrymen Rather, \u201cDo not act as a merchant toward your own kinsmen.\u201d This dictum remains ambiguous. Hebrew rakhil has usually been related to rokhel, \u201cmerchant.\u201d The idiom lo\u02be telekh rakhil has been interpreted to mean that one should not move about in the manner of a merchant, who is presumed to be privy to secret dealings and gossip. This is how the sense of talebearing developed in postbiblical Hebrew.
\nIn Jeremiah 6:28 and Ezekiel 22:9, rakhil is equated with acts of corruption and betrayal, even with murder. As a consequence, many traditional commentators, among them Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Rashbam, and Rashi, relate the verbal root r-kh-l to r-g-l, \u201cto spy.\u201d
\nThe Sifra preserves the following interpretation: \u201cThat you not act as a merchant who merely loads up his horse and departs.\u201d Now, Hebrew be-\u02bfammekha means \u201camong, with your kinsmen.\u201d Perhaps the sense is that in dealing with one\u2019s own kinsmen one should not be \u201call business,\u201d interested solely in profit, but, rather, considerate and friendly. Merchants were often foreigners who felt no close ties to those with whom they did business. The passage, nevertheless, remains problematic.
\nDo not profit by the blood of your fellow This part of the verse is also difficult to interpret because of the problems in ascertaining the sense of the Hebrew idiom lo\u02be ta\u02bfamod \u02bfal, literally \u201cdo not stand over, by, near.\u201d
\nThere have been three principal suggestions. The first, \u201cto stand aside, to stand by,\u201d has the sense that one ought not to stand by inactively when one\u2019s neighbor\u2019s life is in danger. This is the interpretation of the Sifra, followed by Rashi and others. Targum Yerushalmi understands this statement in a similar way: \u201cDo not be silent concerning the \u2018blood\u2019 of your comrade when you know the truth in a legal case.\u201d The second suggestion takes the Hebrew to mean \u201cto conspire against, act against.\u201d Thus, Targum Onkelos reads: \u201cDo not rise up against the life of your comrade\u201d (Aram. la\u02be tekum \u02bfal dama\u02be de-\u1e25avrakh). This is similar to the interpretation of Ibn Ezra: \u201cOne ought not to join forces with murderers.\u201d \u201cTo stand over\u201d has this sense in several biblical passages. The third explanation of the Hebrew is \u201cto survive by means of, subsist, rely on.\u201d Ehrlich compares Ezekiel 33:26: \u02bfamadta \u02bfal \u1e25arbekha, \u201cYou have relied upon your sword for survival,\u201d with Genesis 27:40: \u02bfal \u1e25arbekha ti\u1e25yek, \u201cYet by your sword shall you live.\u201d This last interpretation is the one expressed in the translation, and it best fits the immediate context. One ought not pursue one\u2019s own livelihood in a manner that endangers another or at the expense of another\u2019s well-being.
\n17. You shall not bate your kinsfolk in your heart Verses 17\u201318 constitute a unit. The context suggests the interpretation that an individual should not allow ill feelings to fester; rather, he should confront his kinsman and admonish him directly, in this way avoiding grudges and vengeance that breed hatred. Moreover, a proper attitude promotes love for one\u2019s neighbor. The opening statement (v. 17) contrasts with the conclusion (v. 18) as hate contrasts with love.
\nReprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him Rather, \u201cReprove your neighbor so that you will not incur guilt on his account.\u201d As the sages put it: \u201cWoe unto the wicked person, and woe unto his neighbor!\u201d One may eventually suffer by being closely involved with wrongdoers, and it becomes necessary to protect oneself when close associates go astray. There is also the suggestion that, beyond self-interest, civic responsibility requires a person to admonish others out of concern for others and for the community as a whole. This line of interpretation is adopted by Ramban and is most often cited by the ancient sages. In the Damascus Covenant, one of the compositions known as The Dead Sea Scrolls, the duty to admonish fellow members of the community went so far as to require one to report wrongdoing on the part of others to a special examiner.
\n18. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen Hebrew tikkom derives from the verb n-k-m, \u201cto take vengeance,\u201d and tittor from n-t-r, \u201cto keep, guard, retain.\u201d The sense is that one ought not to keep alive the memory of another\u2019s offense against him.
\nLove your fellow as yourself The prefixed lamed in le-re\u02bfakha indicates the direct object. The sage Hillel paraphrased this commandment in a negative formulation: \u201cWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your comrade.\u201d Rabbi Akiba, quoted in the Sifra, once commented as follows on \u201cLove your fellow as yourself\u201d that \u201cthis is a central principle in the Torah\u201d (zeh kelal gadol ba-torah).
\n19. You shall observe My laws On the meaning of Hebrew \u1e25ok, \u201claw,\u201d see Comment to 18:4. This statement introduces the particular laws that follow.
\nYou shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind Hebrew tarbi\u02bfa is from the root r-b-\u02bf, \u201cto crouch, lie down.\u201d The Hifil form used here means \u201cto cause to crouch, to allow to lie down,\u201d hence \u201cto mate.\u201d
\nHebrew kil\u02beayim has been variously explained. It is most probably cognate with Ugaritic kl\u02beat, \u201cboth,\u201d said of both hands, and with Akkadian kilallan, \u201cboth, a pair.\u201d On this basis, Hebrew kil\u02beayim would mean \u201ctwo kinds (together).\u201d It is used of animals, plants, grain, and cloth.
\nThe etymology of Hebrew sha\u02bfatnez, \u201cmixture,\u201d is not known. In Deuteronomy 22:11, it is defined as a fabric woven of linen and wool. The specifics of rabbinic law on this verse are treated extensively in the tractate Kilayim of the Mishnah.
\n20. If a man has carnal relations with a woman who is a slave The law of verses 20\u201322 is topically related to the Seventh Commandment because it hinges on the legalities of adultery, even though adultery is not actually involved here.
\nOn the sense of Hebrew shikhvat zera\u02bf, here rendered \u201ccarnal relations,\u201d see Comment to 18:20.
\nand has been designated for another man Rather, \u201cand has been assigned in advance to another man.\u201d The Hebrew adjective ne\u1e25refet can now be explained precisely. It is cognate with Akkadian \u1e2bar\u0101pu, \u201cto be early, arrive early.\u201d On this basis ne\u1e25refet would mean \u201cassigned in advance,\u201d that is, in advance of redemption or manumission. Compare Judges 5:18, literally \u201cZebulun is a tribe that precipitously exposed itself to death\u201d (\u1e25eref nafsho la-mut). This verb is unrelated to the more frequent Hebrew verb \u1e25eref, \u201cto blaspheme, slander.\u201d
\nthere shall be an indemnity The term bikkoret, \u201cindemnity,\u201d occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. It is probably cognate with the Akkadian verb baq\u0101ru, \u201cto make good on a claim, to indemnify.\u201d Biblical bikkoret is therefore also related to mishnaic hevker, \u201cproperty over which one has relinquished his claim.\u201d In our verse, the term bikkoret designates the actual payment imposed on the responsible party.
\nSome legal background is required by way of explanation. The law of Exodus 21:7\u201311 allows a father to sell his preadolescent daughter as a slave to another Israelite. This was usually done out of extreme deprivation or indebtedness. When the slave girl reached marriageable age, her master was required to do one of three things: marry her himself, designate her as his son\u2019s wife, or allow her to be redeemed. This last option was interpreted to mean that the master could pledge the girl to another Israelite. Although Exodus 21:8 prohibits the master from selling the girl to a non-Israelite, it does not prohibit such arrangements as would involve another Israelite man. The latter would redeem the girl by a payment to her master and take her as his wife.
\nThe situation projected in our passage is as follows: An Israelite slave girl, here called shif\u1e25ah, was pledged by her master to another Israelite man. The designation had already been made, but had not been finalized by payment to the girl\u2019s master or, possibly, the man had not yet claimed his bride. Legally, the girl was still a slave and unmarried. If at this point, an outsider had carnal relations with her, he would have caused a loss to her master because, no longer a virgin, she would be less desirable as a wife, and the prospective husband would undoubtedly cancel the proposed marriage.
\nIn parallel circumstances, Exodus 22:15\u201317 stipulates that one who seduced a free maiden who was not yet pledged as a wife had either to marry her himself or pay her father the equivalent of the marriage price (mohar). In our case, the option of marriage was ruled out because the girl had been pledged to another man\u2014leaving only one way to deal with the situation. The man who had had carnal relations with the girl had to pay an indemnity to her master to compensate him for his loss. Presumably, since the marriage was called off, and the young woman rendered undesirable, the owner would have to continue maintaining her in his household.
\n21. But he must bring \u2026 as bis guilt offering to the Lord An \u02beasham, \u201cguilt offering,\u201d is required here in addition to the indemnity because an act of defilement had been committed: a violation of holiness. The woman had been promised to another, and even though the union was not adulterous, it was, legally speaking, more than merely an act of seduction. In rabbinic sources, this guilt offering is known as \u02beasham shif\u1e25ah \u1e25arufah, \u201cthe guilt offering of the predestinated slave woman.\u201d
\n22. shall make expiation for him On the meaning of the verb kipper, \u201cto expiate,\u201d see Comment to 4:20.
\n23. When you enter the land Verses 23\u201325 represent yet another casuistic passage, projected into the future.
\nand plant any tree for food On Hebrew le-ma\u02beakhal, literally \u201cfor eating,\u201d cf. Genesis 2:9, 3:6, and so forth.
\nyou shall regard its fruit as forbidden Rather, \u201cYou shall trim its fruit in the manner of a foreskin.\u201d The syntax is unusual. Literally, this clause would read: \u201cYou shall trim its foreskin as foreskin (va-\u02bfaraltem \u02beet \u02bforlato). Here, we have a cognate accusative, that is, the verb and the object derive from the same root. Later on in the passage we find the masculine plural noun \u02bfarelim, \u201cin a state of uncircumcision.\u201d Is this formula to be understood graphically, as involving physical acts, or figuratively, as the JPS translation conveys?
\nIn biblical usage, the adjective \u02bfarel and the noun \u02bforlah usually connote physical conditions that may have moral or religious ramifications. They may describe \u201cthickening about your heart,\u201d which prevents the heart from experiencing proper attitudes, as in Deuteronomy 10:16. The metaphor is based on a real physical condition. Or, one may say, as in Jeremiah 6:10, that the ear is \u201cblocked\u201d by the earlobe, so that one is prevented from hearing God\u2019s words. Exodus 6:12, 30 speaks of \u201cuncircumcised\u201d lips that make articulate speech difficult. In these cases, as well, the metaphor has its origin in a physical condition.
\nIn applying the above usages to the fruit of trees and vines, the sense is to \u201ctrim\u201d or \u201cremove\u201d certain growths. A good case can be made for understanding the law as requiring the trimming of trees and vines. Targum Onkelos merely reflects later interpretation in translating \u201cYou shall remove its fruit\u201d in the same way that it renders the noun \u02bfarelim, later on in the verse, as \u201cfruit removed for destruction.\u201d As a matter of law, rabbinic exegesis taught that fruit of the first three years be burned. Trimming may have been the actual intent of biblical law.
\n24. set aside for jubilation The functional sense of Hebrew kodesh is \u201cdevoted, set aside.\u201d Hebrew hillulim, \u201cjubilation,\u201d occurs in only one other biblical passage, Judges 9:27: \u201cThey [the Shechemites] went out into the fields, gathered and trod out the vintage of their vineyards, and [literally] celebrated rites of jubilation (va-ya\u02bfasu hillulim). They entered the temple of their god \u2026 they ate and drank.\u201d
\nThe noun hillulim derives from the same root as hillel, \u201cto praise,\u201d but this verb has differentiated meanings, some positive and others decidedly negative. Thus, holelot means \u201crevelry\u201d as an improper pursuit. These various forms of the same root share in common the onomatopoetic quality of \u201ch-l-l,\u201d which actually transmits a sound. On that basis, the jubilant shouting at the time of the grape harvest is called hillulim. However, out of context this term does not inform us of the propriety of the celebration. So, hillulim in Judges 9:24 connotes a pagan rite, whereas the code in Leviticus obviously enjoins the Israelites to rejoice before the Lord, as they devote the fruits of the fourth year.
\nA similar celebration was envisioned by a prophet of the exile. God would soon restore Jerusalem and no longer permit Israel\u2019s enemies to eat up her grain or drink her wine. Thus, Isaiah 62:9: \u201cBut those who harvest it shall eat it, and [literally] celebrate jubilantly (ve-hillelu) before the Lord, and those who gather it shall drink it in My sacred courts.\u201d
\n25. that its yield to you may be increased Increase of yield is God\u2019s blessing.
\n26. You shall not eat anything with its blood Verses 26\u201328 contain several prohibitions against practices characteristic of the pagan Canaanites and other idolators. Hebrew lo\u02be to\u02bekhlu \u02bfal ha-dam, \u201cYou shall not eat anything with its blood in it,\u201d is a rare formulation occurring only here, in 1 Samuel 14:32\u201334, and in Ezekiel 33:25, which is reminiscent of our verse. It represents an alternate way of stating the prohibition of blood consumption, which we have already encountered several times in Leviticus. The preposition \u02bfal means \u201ctogether with,\u201d which is often its meaning in the ritual texts.
\nCommentators, traditional and modern, have generally realized that the account in 1 Samuel 14 was basic for a proper understanding of our verse. During one of the Philistine wars, the Israelites suffered a setback (1 Sam. 14:24). King Saul, leader of the Israelites, hoping to turn the unfavorable tide of battle, adjured the people by a vow not to partake of the spoils taken from the enemy until nightfall, as an act of expiation. The people, weak and exhausted by combat, and unaware of Saul\u2019s ban against eating spoils, followed the example of Saul\u2019s own son, Jonathan, and began to slaughter cattle taken in battle: va-yo\u02behklu ha-\u02bfam \u02bfal ha-dam, \u201cThe people ate [the meat] with its blood in it\u201d (v. 32). They slaughtered the cattle on the bare ground, without recourse to an altar and without draining the blood.
\nTo prevent more consumption of blood, Saul, following very ancient customs, used a local rock as an altar. He ordered that animals be brought to that spot for proper slaughter and, in this way, reminded the people that the blood of animals was to be dashed on the altar and drained from them before the flesh could be eaten. The account in 1 Samuel 14 thus describes quite vividly what is meant by eating meat with its blood in it. In our verse, the prohibition against eating blood is formulated apodictically, leaving no room for exceptions and providing no explanations, such as are found elsewhere in chapter 17 and in Deuteronomy 12.
\nSome commentators, including Ramban, express the view that eating blood was a magical act, on the order of the other magical practices prohibited in verses 26\u201328.
\nYou shall not practice divination or soothsaying Some have interpreted Hebrew lo\u02be tena\u1e25ashu as reflecting a denominative verb based on na\u1e25ash, \u201csnake,\u201d since snakes were employed in pronouncing charms. More likely, however, the verb ni\u1e25esh is related to the verb l-\u1e25-sh, \u201cto whisper, pronounce an incantation.\u201d In Hebrew, nun and lamed can interchange phonetically. All we know from the Bible about the manner of pronouncing incantations is that goblets were used in the process.
\nHebrew ve-lo\u02be te\u02bfonenu, \u201cand do not practice soothsaying,\u201d may be related to reading the omens of the clouds, since in Hebrew, the word for cloud is \u02bfanan. We possess extensive information on the ominous role of clouds in ancient Near Eastern divination. The forms of clouds, their times of appearance, their movements and positions, and the heavenly bodies they obscure were all factors in interpreting omens. Isaiah 2:6 refers to Philistines as engaging in such practices.
\n27. You shall not round off the side-growth on your bead Hebrew pe\u02beah, \u201cside-growth,\u201d is the same word used in verse 9 to designate the corner, or edge, of a field. Hebrew lo\u02be takkifu, \u201cyou shall not round off,\u201d derives from the verb n-k-f, \u201cto encircle.\u201d Certain peoples who inhabited desert areas are referred to as ketsutsei pe\u02beah, \u201cmen with their side-growth cut off.\u201d
\nor destroy the side-growth of your beard Tearing out the hair of one\u2019s beard, as well as of the head, was a custom associated with mourning over the dead.
\n28. You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead In Elijah\u2019s contest with the cult prophets of Baal, recounted in 1 Kings 18, we read that the pagan priests gashed themselves as they called upon Baal to answer their prayers. Hebrew nefesh may connote a dead body as well as a living person.
\nor incise any marks Hebrew ka\u02bfka\u02bf remains unexplained, though its meaning is clear in context. Hebrew ketovet incorporates the verb k-t-v, \u201cto write,\u201d which is also said of incising on stone, so that it could designate some form of tattoo.
\n29. Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot The verb \u1e25illel, earlier encountered in verse 11, means \u201cto defile, profane.\u201d Harlotry was a violation of holiness that resulted in a status similar, for example, to cultic defilement of sacred objects. The verb zanah has many connotations, and although harlotry is not necessarily tantamount to adultery, an adulteress may be referred to as zonah, thus characterizing her infidelity as being similar to the promiscuity of a harlot.
\nlest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity In biblical idiom \u201cland\u201d may connote the people of the land, as is the intent here. On the sense of Hebrew zimmah, \u201cdepravity,\u201d see Comment to 18:17.
\n30. You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary See above, in verse 3, and the restatement in 26:2. In Ezekiel 22:8, \u201cMy sabbaths\u201d is paralleled by kodashai, \u201cMy sacred things,\u201d namely, sacred offerings.
\n31. Do not turn to ghosts and do not inquire of familiar spirits On the sense of Hebrew \u02beal tifnu \u02beel, \u201cdo not turn to,\u201d see verse 4. Hebrew \u02beov is of uncertain origin. It was a part of the magic known to the pagans of Canaan. In 1 Samuel 28:3f., it is related that King Saul, after having outlawed recourse to mediums, actually consulted a woman known as ba\u02bfalat\u02beov, \u201ca sorceress,\u201d who conjured up the ghost of the prophet Samuel from the earth. In Isaiah 29:4, we read: \u201cYour speech shall sound like a ghost\u2019s (ke-\u02beov) from the ground.\u201d Reference is to spiritualist communication with the dead in the netherworld. Hebrew yid\u02bf oni is usually thought to derive from the verb y-d-\u02bf, \u201cto know, be familiar with,\u201d which yields the translation \u201cfamiliar spirit,\u201d namely, the spirits of deceased relatives or intimates.
\nThe verb tevmkkeshu, \u201cinquire of,\u201d suggests that we are dealing with oracular inquiry or augury. Elsewhere we also find the verbs d-r-sh and sh-\u02be-l, \u201cto inquire of,\u201d used in connection with the \u02beov and yid\u02bf oni.
\nto be defiled by them Recourse to such magical practices, typical of idolatrous religions, renders one figuratively impure.
\n32. You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old On the sense of the Hebrew verb h-d-r, \u201cto show deference,\u201d see verse 15. According to later rabbinic law, one was required to show deference to the elderly by caring for them.
\nyou shall fear your God See Comment to verse 14. Respect for the elderly is the sign of a decent society; in a society where proper behavior has broken down, the young fail to respect their elders.
\n33. When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him The Torah, and the Bible generally, emphasize the duty to treat resident foreigners as fairly as one is commanded to treat a citizen. Verse 10 includes the ger, \u201cstranger,\u201d among those entitled to the leftovers of the harvest. The ger referred to in the Bible was most often a foreign merchant or craftsman or a mercenary soldier. This term never refers to the prior inhabitants of the land; those are identified by ethnological groupings, such as Canaanites and Amorites, or by other specific terms of reference.
\nIn the biblical ethos, the importance of being considerate to foreign residents drew added impetus from the memory of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt\u2014Israelites should be able to empathize with the alien. In fact, because of xenophobic attitudes, which could lead to extreme acts of violence against strangers, most ancient societies had laws protecting foreign merchants, officials, and others.
\nHebrew lo\u02be tonu, \u201cdo not wrong,\u201d usually connotes economic exploitation, the deprivation of property, or denial of legal rights. It was used with particular reference to those who suffered from lack of legal redress, such as the poor, the widow and the orphan, along with the foreigner.
\n34. as one of your citizens Hebrew \u02beezrab, and the fuller designation \u02beezra\u1e25 ha-\u02bearets, \u201cthe permanent resident of the land,\u201d are terms of uncertain etymology. It has been suggested that \u02beezra\u1e25 was originally a botanical term for a tree or plant that is well rooted in the soil. We read in Psalms 37:35: \u201cwell-rooted like a robust native tree\u201d (ke\u02beezra\u1e25 ra\u02bfanan). If this derivation is correct, an \u02beezra\u1e25 is one whose lineage has \u201croots\u201d in the land, one who belongs to the group that possesses the land. However, the term \u02beezm\u1e25 is never applied to the prior inhabitants of Canaan.
\n35. You shall not falsify measures The Hebrew reads: \u201cYou shall not commit an injustice.\u201d See Comment to verse 15.
\nof length, weight, or capacity Hebrew middah is a general term for all sorts of measurements. Here it refers to surface, area measurement, whereas mesurah is a term for liquid capacity.
\n36. You shall have an honest balance \u2026 Similar admonitions occur in Deuteronomy 25:14\u201315 and Ezekiel 45:10. The ancient scales (mo\u02beznayim) had an upright, on which two cups or plates were balanced. In one was a stone or iron weight (\u02beeven), and the other held the goods to be weighed. Hebrew \u02beefah, as a dry measure of capacity, was equal to one-tenth of a \u1e25omer; and, as a liquid measure of capacity, was equal to the bat, which contained approximately twenty-two liters. Hebrew hin was a liquid measure equal to one-sixth of a bat, or approximately 3.6 liters. These are merely specific examples of weights and measures, intended to illustrate the general rule requiring honesty.
\nI the Lord am your God \u2026 This statement resembles the First Commandment in its emphasis on the liberation from Egypt.
\n37. You shall faithfully observe The two Hebrew verbs u-shemartem va-\u02bfasitem do not refer to two separate acts but rather reinforce each other: \u201cYou shall take care to perform.\u201d
\nCHAPTER 20
\nThe Family in Religious Context
\nChapter 20 reformulates the essential content of chapter 18 on the subject of incest and forbidden sexual activity. It also reflects certain themes known from chapter 19. There are, however, two main differences between chapters 18 and 20.
\nIn the first instance, the contents of chapter 18 are for the most part formulated apodictically, as categorical imperatives (\u201cDo not \u2026,\u201d \u201cYou shall \u2026,\u201d etc.). As is normally true of apodictic texts, a penalty is not specified for each offense. There is only a collective penalty, formulated within the overall framework of the admonition against pagan worship. Chapter 20, on the other hand, is formulated casuistically in the form of case law (\u201cIf \u2026,\u201d \u201cWhen \u2026,\u201d etc.). Thus, in addition to an overall admonition, it provides specific penalties, often of a capital nature, for each offense.
\nThe second, major difference between chapters 18 and 20 concerns their characterizations of pagan religions. Chapter 18 speaks out, in verses 1\u20133, against the ways of the Canaanites and Egyptians, a theme referred to only briefly in chapter 20, in verse 26. Chapter 20 opens with a major statement against the cult of Molech (vv. 1\u20135), a subject that had been only mentioned once before, in 18:21. The introductory statement is followed in verse 6 by a prohibition against necromancy, a theme addressed again in verse 27. The chapters\u2019 distinctive perspectives must surely reflect their different historical backgrounds. What is common to both chapters is the assumed connection between pagan worship and sexual degeneracy\u2014both are regarded as the causes of exile.
\nThe grouping of the laws in chapter 20 reflects legal distinctions. Verses 1\u201316 deal with capital offenses, whereas verses 17\u201321 concern violations for which the penalty is being \u201ccut off\u201d from the Israelite community. This penalty is imposed for certain marital violations that were not considered sufficiently severe to warrant punishment by death. These included marriage with half sisters (v. 17), with aunts (v. 19), and with any woman who had once been married to one\u2019s brother (v. 21).
\n2. Say further to the Israelite people Literally, \u201cAnd to the Israelite people say.\u201d The inverted syntax is for emphasis, to reinforce the idea that what follows is addressed to the entire people. The initial, prefixed vav, \u201cAnd,\u201d suggests that the provisions of this chapter are additions to what had already been stated in chapter 18.
\nAnyone among the Israelites The Hebrew reads mi-beneiyisra\u02beel, \u201cfrom among the Israelites,\u201d rather than mi-beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cfrom the household of Israel,\u201d as in 17:3, 8. These two terms are virtually synonymous in priestly literature, although each has a history of its own. On the formulation \u02beish \u02beish, \u201cany man,\u201d see comment to 17:3.
\nor among the strangers residing in Israel See Comments to 16:9 and 17:8 on the matter of resident aliens and their legal status. The worship of other gods was forbidden to all who resided in the Land of Israel, whether or not they were Israelites.
\nwho gives any of bis offspring to Molech On the name Molech (or Moloch) see Comment to 18:21 and Excursus 7. In 18:21, we find a similar injunction, formulated as lo\u02be titten le-ha\u02bfavir, \u201cyou shall not devote for handing over.\u201d The verb n-t-n more precisely connotes devotion to a god in both passages.
\nshall be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones The Hofal form of the verb, yummat, \u201che shall be put to death,\u201d means execution by human hands. The Hebrew term \u02bfam ha-\u02bearets, \u201cpeople of the land,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 4:27. It usually refers to those citizens who have a voice in the affairs of the community. The Hebrew verb r-g-m is used specifically to describe what is done with stones; they are either thrown or hurled with a slingshot. Elsewhere, stoning is the penalty for blasphemy as well. The question arises as to how the sentence was to be carried out. In Deuteronomy 17:1\u20137 we also read that one convicted of worshiping other gods is to be stoned. There it is stipulated that the witnesses for the prosecution should cast the first stones, to be followed by others of the community. This suggests that the execution took place subsequent to a trial and was under judicial control.
\n3. And I will set My face against that man and will cut him off The Hebrew idiom ve-nattati panai be-, \u201cI will set My face against,\u201d expresses the intent to punish. In the Hebrew Bible, it is said only of God Himself, and it incorporates the notion of God\u2019s \u201cface\u201d or \u201cpresence\u201d as a potent force that can either assist or punish. Here, the \u201ccutting off\u201d of the offender is expressed by an active transitive form of the verb, ve-hikhratti, \u201cI will cut off.\u201d God is the subject who \u201ccuts off.\u201d This provides further support for what has already been said, that the penalty known as haret was complex and could be understood both as a divine punishment and as an action taken by the community. In the case before us, the punitive process is twofold. The community is commanded to put the offender to death. Should it fail to do its duty, God will punish the offender in His own way. This dynamic is further clarified by the provisions of verses 4\u20136 below.
\nand so defiled My sanctuary and profaned My holy name The profanation of God\u2019s name is explained in the Comment to 19:12. A central doctrine of the ritual legislation is that pagan worship, however manifested, rendered the sanctuary impure. Such practices usually involved either the introduction of pagan cult objects into the sanctuary or their installation near it. This obviously polluted the sanctuary. But, even in the absence of actual physical intrusion, the very act of disobedience to God by members of the community effectively defiled the sanctuary, which stood within the settlement. The purity of the sanctuary, which was not only a function of physical condition, was endangered by any actions that aroused God\u2019s wrath, whether or not actual contact had occurred.
\n4. should shut their eyes What the community neglects to do, God will do! The verb he\u02bfelim, \u201cto shut [the eye],\u201d is idiomatic for negligence.
\n5. Against \u2026 his kin \u2026 in going astray after Molech Hebrew mishpa\u1e25ah, \u201cclan\u201d (\u201ckin\u201d), designates the basic sociological unit in ancient Israelite society. It is presumed that the clan tends to act together in matters of worship, following the way of its leaders. The verb z-n-h, \u201cto go astray,\u201d essentially connotes sexual waywardness and is proverbial as a metaphor for the worship of other gods.
\n6. And if any person turns to ghosts This verse restates casuistically what has been commanded in 19:4, where the term \u02beov, \u201cghost,\u201d is explained. Although the death penalty is not stipulated in this verse, it is stated in verse 27, as though in retrospect. This law is part of the section (vv. 1\u201316) that deals with capital offenses. According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4, the necromancer is liable to the death penalty. Furthermore, verses 2\u20134, which deal with similar offenses, also stipulate the death penalty. It is likely, therefore, that verse 6 is abbreviated.
\n7. You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy This verse restates 19:2, and its command is repeated, for emphasis, in verse 26.
\nFORBIDDEN SEXUAL UNIONS (vv. 8\u201321)
\n8. You shall faithfully observe My laws Compare 18:20 and 19:37 for similar statements.
\nI the Lord make you holy See Comment to 11:44, where this statement is discussed.
\n9. If anyone insults his father or his mother See Comment to 19:14.
\nhis bloodguilt is upon him Hebrew dam, \u201cblood,\u201d and the plural damim often connote the death penalty. (See further in vv. 11\u201313, 16, 27.) In Deuteronomy 18:18, a case involving murder is referred to simply as dam.
\n14. If a, man marries a woman and her mother Compare 18:17.
\nboth be and they shall be put to the fire The unusual feminine object pronoun \u02beethen, \u201cthem,\u201d occurs thirteen times in the Hebrew Bible. The usual form is \u02beotan.
\nDeath by fire bore a special relationship to forbidden sexual behavior. According to 21:9, the daughter of a priest who degrades herself by harlotry is to be punished in this manner. And in the account of Genesis 38:24, Judah threatened his daughter-in-law Tamar with death by fire when he learned that she had become pregnant while awaiting levirate marriage, an offense tantamount to adultery.
\n15\u201316. If a man has carnal relations with a beast \u2026 If a woman approaches any beast Compare 18:23, where the commandment concerns a woman who has sexual relations with a beast.
\nand you shall kill the beast In the law of Exodus 21:28\u201329, it is ordained that a bull who has gored a man to death must be put to death. Here, however, the danger is not of the same sort; the punishment in this case derives from the notion that animals, like humans, also bear guilt. As we are told in Jonah 3:7\u20138, the herds and flocks of Nineveh participated in the repentance of the city, along with the king and citizenry. The same attribution of moral norms to the animal kingdom is expressed in the Flood stories of Genesis 6:7 and 9:5. Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4 explains that it would be unseemly to allow an animal that had been involved in the corruption of a human being to be seen walking about. This theme is also discussed in Excursus 2, \u201cThe Meaning of the Dietary Laws.\u201d
\n17. If a man marries bis sister Compare Leviticus 18:9, 11 and Deuteronomy 27:22. The verb l-k-\u1e25, \u201cto acquire\u201d as a wife, is a legal term for marriage. In 18:9, 11, the prohibition is expressed in terms of sexual access rather than legality, as it is here.
\nit is a disgrace Hebrew \u1e25esed, as it is used here, is unrelated to the noun \u1e25esed, \u201csteadfast love, kindness,\u201d found so frequently in the Bible. This is an instance of homonyms, two words written alike and that sound alike, but that have no etymological connection. In this verse, \u1e25esed is cognate with Aramaic \u1e25esda\u02be and Syriac \u1e25esda\u02be, \u201cignominy, disgrace.\u201d In Genesis 30:23, Targum Onkelos renders Hebrew \u1e25erpah, \u201cshame,\u201d as \u1e25asda\u02be.
\nthey shall be excommunicated in the sight of their kinsfolk This is a way of expressing banishment.
\n18. If a man lies with a woman in her infirmity Intercourse with a menstruating woman is forbidden, as stated in 18:19. Hebrew davah means \u201cill, infirm.\u201d In the continuation of this verse, we encounter several other Hebrew terms that require explanation. The noun makor, \u201csource, spring,\u201d also refers to the source of the blood flow in the case of a menstruating woman, as is explained in the Comment to 12:7. The verb he\u02bferah, \u201che uncovered,\u201d is related to \u02bfervak, \u201cnakedness.\u201d
\n19. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother\u2019s sister Compare 18:6, 13\u201314.
\n20. If a man lies with his uncle\u2019s wife \u2026 they shall die childless Compare 18:13\u201314. The association between childlessness and being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community is explained in Excursus 1.
\n21. If a man marries the wife of his brother, it is indecency Compare 18:16. Hebrew niddah means \u201cmenstruation, a menstruating woman.\u201d Here this term is extended to mean \u201cdisgrace, indecency.\u201d The application of this image to socioreligious situations derives from the widespread metaphaor of Israel as a faithless bride.
\nPOSSESSION OF THE LAND (vv. 21\u201327)
\n22. You shall faithfully observe all My laws This statement introduces the closing admonition of verses 22\u201326, which is only loosely connected to the specifics of the rest of the chapter. Similar language is to be found in 18:24\u201328.
\n23. I abhorred them The Hebrew verb used here is k-w-ts, \u201cto abhor,\u201d which elsewhere conveys the sense of extreme frustration and dislike.
\n24. You shall possess their land The Hebrew verb y-r-sh, \u201cto possess,\u201d belongs to the ancient vocabulary expressing the collective rights of the Israelites to the land of Canaan. Although the verb eventually appropriated the additional meaning of \u201cinherit,\u201d its primary sense had nothing necessarily to do with inheritance. Thus, God allotted the land of Canaan to the people of Israel, \u201cto possess\u201d as its estate, and it was then divided, clan by clan; only once this process was under way did inheritance become a factor.
\na land flowing with milk and honey This is a well-known characterization of the land of Canaan in biblical literature. Hebrew devash, \u201choney,\u201d usually refers to the nectar of trees. As such, this depiction projects a land with plentiful, milk-producing herds and flocks and abounding in fruit trees, especially the date palm.
\nwho has set you apart from other peoples Although the distinctiveness of Israel is a major theme in biblical literature, it is rare to read that God actively \u201cseparates\u201d Israel, a notion conveyed by the Hifil verb hivdil, \u201cto divide, separate.\u201d In the following verses, the separateness of Israel, involving their duty to live differently from other nations, is the stated rationale for the requirement to observe the dietary laws, which are the subject of chapter 11.
\n25. So you shall set apart the clean beast from the unclean As has generally been advocated, it is more precise to render the Hebrew terms tabor and tame\u02be as \u201cpure\u201d and \u201cimpure,\u201d respectively, rather than as \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cunclean.\u201d The conditions described by these terms are defined by the laws of purity, not by any specific notion of hygiene or physical cleanliness. In this instance, the Israelites must carefully differentiate between the pure and the impure, in emulation of God\u2019s ways. He had set them apart; they must do likewise.
\nYou shall not draw abomination upon yourselves The Hebrew verb sbikkets means \u201cto make something unfit, to consider it unfit.\u201d
\n26. You shall be holy \u2026 See verse 7.
\n27. A man or woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit The insertion of this verse at the conclusion of chapter 20 is rather puzzling, since it seems to be an afterthought. Its addition here may have been occasioned by the omission of the death penalty from the earlier reference to this subject in verse 6.<\/p>\n
Laws Governing the Priesthood (21:1\u201322:33)
\nEmor
\nChapters 21 and 22 of Leviticus differ significantly from the rest of the Holiness Code (chaps. 17\u201326) in that they are addressed primarily to the priesthood, not to the Israelite people as a whole. This orientation reflects the special content of these two chapters. They deal with the following subjects: (1) laws of purity, which prohibit priests from having contact with the dead; (2) marital restrictions imposed on the priests; (3) the requirement of physical soundness for the officiating priesthood; and (4) the prerequisites for partaking of \u201csacred donations\u201d allocated to the priests as their food. In addition, paralleling the requirement of physical soundness for priests is the requirement that sacrificial animals also be free of physical defects.
\nThe varied laws of chapters 21 and 22 are organized as follows: Both the code for ordinary priests (21:1\u20139) and the code for the High Priest (21:10\u201315) begin with funerary regulations and conclude with marital restrictions. This establishes a symmetry. Logical sequence is evident in subsequent sections of these two chapters, as well. Thus, 21:16\u201324 enumerates the bodily defects that render a priest unfit to officiate in the sacrificial cult, whereas 22:1\u20139, immediately following, deals with priests who become impure, but whose unfitness is only temporary. Finally, 22:10\u201316 states the privileges of the priesthood. Only they, not lay Israelites, may partake of \u201csacred donations.\u201d Taken as a whole, the section from 21:16 to 22:16 addresses the two basic issues of who may officiate in the sacrificial cult and who may partake of sacred donations.
\nIn 22:17\u201333, the remaining section of this unit, we find a collection of diverse ordinances applicable to Israelites who participate in religious life by donating sacrificial offerings. All sacrificial animals must be complete (possessing all limbs and organs) and without blemish (22:17\u201325); newborn animals may not be sacrificed until they are eight days old; and an animal may not be sacrificed on the same day as its mother (22:26\u201328). In conclusion, 22:29\u201333 prescribes special regulations governing the thanksgiving offering (todah), which was a sacrifice frequently donated by individual Israelites.
\nThree subjects discussed in chapters 21\u201322 deserve special comment: the office of the High Priest, the marital and funerary restrictions imposed on the priesthood, and the general requirement of physical soundness, for priests and sacrificial offerings alike.
\nBoth the funerary and the marital restrictions express the concern that priests preserve the purity of their persons. Priestly impurity, which resulted from contact with the dead and from impure marriages, could, in turn, render the sanctuary itself impure. Although the impurity of corpses affected everyone, it was permissible for an Israelite to become impure, when necessary; such an individual could then be restored to purity by following the proper procedures. Priests, by exception, were not similarly permitted, except in the case of an ordinary priest, who was granted a dispensation when one of his close relatives died. The High Priest, however, was prevented from attending even the burial of his own parents. In effect, this law eliminated a funerary role for the Israelite priesthood. There can be little doubt that this fact, resulting from the attribution of extreme impurity to the human corpse, reflects the abhorrence felt in ancient Israel toward the cult of the dead. Worship of the dead was a widespread phenomenon in the ancient Near East, as it was elsewhere; and priests, as officiants in religious cults, usually had a prominent funerary role\u2014as was not the case in the monotheistic religion of ancient Israel.
\nThe marital restrictions imposed on the priesthood set an ideal standard for a wife: a virgin, usually from one\u2019s own patrilineal clan or tribe. Although mandated for the High Priest, a dispensation was granted to the ordinary priest to marry a widow, but not a divorc\u00e9e or harlot. This last restriction must be explained, especially as regards the divorc\u00e9e. (The prohibition against marrying a harlot requires no explanation.) In Mosaic law, summarized in Deuteronomy 24:1f., the only clear grounds for divorce was serious sexual misconduct, as explained in the Comment to verse 7. Sexual immorality was a religious sin, an offense against God, in addition to its obvious interpersonal offensiveness. Consequently, a divorced woman was stigmatized and considered unfit for marriage to a priest.
\nThe last subject of these chapters, the insistence on physical soundness, both for officiating priests and for sacrificial victims, reflects the notion that God, demanding the very best, would be offended were any blemished or imperfect person or animal to come unto His immediate presence. Nevertheless, even though a disfigured priest could not officiate in the cult, he was not denied his priestly emoluments. There is a marked correspondence between the physical defects that render a priest unfit to officiate and those that render a sacrificial animal unacceptable, as this chart illustrates.
\nPriest
\nSacrificial Animal
\nBlindness
\nBlindness
\nA broken arm or leg
\nOne injured or maimed
\nScurvy
\nScurvy
\nA boil-scar
\nA boil or scar
\nA limb too short or too long
\nA limb extended or contracted
\nCrushed testes
\nCrushed, bruised, torn, or cut testes
\nA growth in the eye
\nA wen
\nThe code for the priesthood presented in chapter 21, in particular, bears a striking correspondence to Ezekiel 44. Specific similarities are noted in Comments to the relevant verses.
\nCHAPTER 21
\nRESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS (vv. 1\u201324)
\n1. None shall defile himself for any [dead] person among his kin Similar provisions occur in Ezekiel 44:25: \u201c[A priest] shall not defile himself by entering [a house] where there is a dead person. He shall defile himself only for father or mother, son or daughter, brother or unmarried sister.\u201d The term nefesh, \u201c[dead] person,\u201d occurs in a more explicit form in verse 11 as nefesh met, \u201ca dead body.\u201d
\nThe precise sense of Hebrew \u02bfam is crucial for understanding the provisions of this chapter. It can designate an entire people or a more limited group. In chapter 21, its consistent meaning is \u201ckin.\u201d In verses 1\u20134, the social context is the clan. As a general rule, an ordinary priest may not become defiled by contact with the dead of his own clan, but he may for those members of his clan who are most closely related to him. Attending to the burial of clan relatives was a traditional duty.
\n2. except for the relatives that are closest to him Alternatively, \u201cExcept for his \u2018flesh\u2019 relatives, who are closest to him.\u201d The meaning of Hebrew she\u02bfer, \u201cflesh,\u201d as a kinship term is explained in the introductory Comment to chapter 18.
\nThe adjective karov, \u201cnear,\u201d can function as a noun with the meaning of \u201crelative.\u201d Originally, it expressed physical proximity as well as familial closeness, since extended families often lived together. Thus, according to verse 3, a sister who marries and leaves the family domicile is no longer \u201cclose\u201d because she belongs to another family. Note that here, mother precedes father in the list of she\u02beer relatives, as is true in 19:3, in the commandment to revere one\u2019s parents.
\n3. also for a virgin sister, close to him because she has not married The sister is \u201cclose\u201d until she marries and goes to live with her husband\u2019s family. Then, presumably, there would be others to attend to her burial. According to the Sifra, even a betrothed woman who still resides in her father\u2019s household is considered \u201cclose.\u201d The idiom \u02beasher lo\u02be hayetah le-\u02beish, \u201cwho has never \u2018belonged\u2019 to a man\u201d refers to the legal status of a woman in marriage and to sexual union in marriage.
\n4. But he shall not defile himself as a kinsman by marriage Hebrew ba\u02bfal be-\u02bfammav, literally \u201ca husband as one among his kin,\u201d is difficult and has been so regarded since late antiquity. The simple sense is that a priest, in the role of husband, is not permitted to attend to the burial of his wife. A man\u2019s wife is not his consanguineal relative, but his affinal relative, that is, she is related to him through marriage. All six relatives at whose death a priest may render himself impure are \u201cflesh\u201d relatives\u2014his parents, his brother and sister (under certain conditions), and his son and daughter. Rashbam explains this statement as follows: \u201cNo husband (ba\u02bfal) from among the \u2018kinship\u2019 [of the priesthood] (be-\u02bfammav) may defile himself for his wife.\u201d This is, however, a forced explanation.
\nWe can presume that normally an Israelite was responsible for attending to his wife\u2019s burial. A rabbinic tradition cites Genesis 2:24 in this regard: \u201cHence a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh (basar \u02bee\u1e25ad).\u201d This was taken to mean that a man\u2019s wife was to be treated as a \u201cflesh\u201d relative in certain respects. Both Abraham and Jacob personally attended to their wives\u2019 burials, which suggests that it was a husband\u2019s duty to do so. But in the case of a priest, purity took precedence and could be set aside only for attending to strictly consanguineal relatives. At a later period, a basis was found in the law to allow the involvement of a priest in his wife\u2019s burial. As Maimonides explains: \u201cAs regards the wife of a priest\u2014one must render himself impure, even against his will; but the duty to render himself impure is only by enactment of the Scribes. They (the Scribes) gave her (the wife of a priest) the status of \u2018a dead person whom one is commanded to bury\u2019 (met mitsvah).\u201d This means that this duty is not ordained in the Torah. It was reasoned by the sages that situations might arise where such a woman\u2019s only heir would be her husband, and if he failed to attend to her burial, there would be no one else to do so.
\nand so profane himself The Hebrew verbal form le-he\u1e25allo, \u201cto profane himself,\u201d is rare. It derives from the root \u1e25-l-l, \u201cto profane, render unfit.\u201d It is a Nifal form with reflexive force, which means, as Ibn Ezra observes, that the action is projected onto oneself.
\n5. They shall not shave smooth A similar prohibition is stated in Ezekiel 44:20. The verb k-r-\u1e25, \u201cto make one\u2019s head bald,\u201d derives from the noun kor\u1e25ah, \u201cbaldness, bald spot,\u201d and the adjective kerea\u1e25, \u201cbald.\u201d It connotes the removal of all hair from the pate or from a section of it, either by shaving or by pulling out the hair at its roots. Deuteronomy 14:1 prohibits all Israelites from doing this, but it is understandable that this code should emphasize this prohibition with respect to the priests. Like gashing, shaving the hair and pulling it out were rites of mourning in ancient Canaan that Israelite religious leaders sought to prevent.
\n6. They shall be holy to their God See Comments to 18:21 and 19:12; and see 22:32 for comparable statements.
\nofferings by fire On the sense of Hebrew \u02beisheh, \u201coffering by fire,\u201d see Comment to 1:9.
\nthe food of their God, and so must be holy Sacrificial offerings are often called le\u1e25em, \u201cfood,\u201d and at least in a symbolic sense are considered food for God. The priests must observe strict codes of purity because they are the ones charged with performance of the rites of the sacred cult.
\n7. defiled by harlotry The translation takes the Hebrew zonah va-\u1e25alalah as a hendiadys, the use of two words to express a single concept, hence, \u201cdegraded by harlotry.\u201d This corresponds to the wording in verse 14, where we read zonah \u1e25alalah, \u201ca degraded harlot.\u201d
\nThe later tradition created a category of unfit priests called \u1e25alalim, \u201cdegraded priests,\u201d which also included the sons and daughters of priests who had violated certain rules of the priesthood. This is not explicitly provided for in the laws of the Torah. However, it may be suggested by verse 15, where it is said, apropos of the High Priest, \u201cthat he may not profane (ve-lo\u02be ye\u1e25allel) his offspring.\u201d
\nThe rabbinic tradition also provides various definitions of zonah, \u201charlot.\u201d This term is most often applied to a woman habitually given to harlotry, not to one who may have lapsed on a particular occasion.
\nnor \u2026 one divorced from her husband The law prohibiting priests from marrying divorced women persisted into later Judaism. It was adopted by the Christian church for its clergy, who were consecrated; and was also applied to Christian kings. There is a specific reason for this ban, which explains why the divorc\u00e9e and the harlot are mentioned together. Hoffmann explains that this priestly ban helps to clarify the view of the House of Shammai as to the grounds for divorce. In the law of Deuteronomy 24:1, it is stipulated that a man may divorce his wife if he discovers in her behavior literally \u201csome matter that was sexually improper\u201d (\u02bfervat davar), which was taken to mean that only the presumption of marital infidelity constituted legal grounds for initiating divorce. In an effort to broaden the grounds for divorce, the House of Hillel, whose view is reported in Gittin 90a, departed from the original sense of \u02bfervat davar in maintaining that \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness, sexuality,\u201d was not the only \u201cmatter\u201d (davar) that could serve as grounds for divorce. So, although this wider interpretation became normative in later Judaism, it was not originally envisioned in the laws of the Torah. In biblical times, it is likely that divorce always involved a charge by the husband of infidelity. If that charge was made when the marriage was first consummated, the husband had to substantiate it in accordance with the law of Deuteronomy 22:13\u201314. At other times, a husband could subject his wife to an ordeal if he suspected that she was pregnant by another man, as we read in Numbers 5:11\u201331. If there was adequate testimony to prove adultery on the wife\u2019s part, she was subject to the death penalty under the law of Deuteronomy 22:23\u201324. In most cases, however, there was insufficient evidence to condemn a woman under this law. There was, however, sufficient motivation for a husband to charge his wife with adultery, thereby accomplishing what he truly sought\u2014divorce.
\n9. defiles herself through harlotry The verb te\u1e25el literally means \u201cto perform a degrading act, to cause defilement.\u201d It derives from the same root as le-he\u1e25allo, \u201cto profane himself,\u201d in verse 4.
\nit is her father whom she defiles; she shall be put to the fire The behavior of a priest\u2019s daughter reflects on her father\u2019s sacral office. Death by fire indicates the seriousness of the offense. When Jacob\u2019s son Judah learned that Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was pregnant at a time when she was awaiting levirate marriage, he said: \u201cBring her out \u2026 and let her be burned\u201d (Gen. 38:24). It seems, therefore, that it was the custom to impose death by burning in the case of serious sexual offenses.
\n10. The priest who is exalted above his fellows According to Hoffmann, the full title ha-kohen ha-gadol me-\u02bee\u1e25av, \u201cthe priest who is \u2018greater\u2019 than his brothers,\u201d is abbreviated as ha-kohen ha-gadol, \u201cthe chief priest.\u201d The full title helps to define the status of the High Priest, so-called, whose distinction derives from two factors. He is the only priest to receive unction with the \u201coil of anointing,\u201d according to the primary laws of Leviticus, and he wears unique vestments.
\nand who has been ordained On the sense of the technical idiom \u201cto fill the hand,\u201d see Comments to 8:28, 33.
\nshall not bare his bead or rend his vestments A similar prohibition against baring the head appears in Ezekiel 44:20. On the meaning of the two verbs para\u02bf, \u201cto bare the head, dishevel the hair,\u201d and param, \u201cto tear,\u201d see Comment to 10:6, where these traditional signs of mourning are explained.
\n11. He shall not go in where there is any dead body The wording of this verse is strange. Usually, the Hebrew construction ba\u02be \u02bfal means \u201cto advance against,\u201d or \u201cto befall\u201d a person, or even \u201cto appear\u201d at a particular time. In Ezekiel 44:25, which contains the same law, the usage is slightly different, namely, ba\u02be \u02bfel, \u201cto enter, go in.\u201d The two Hebrew prepositions \u02beel and \u02bfal are often interchangeable, however, and the same meaning may be intended in both statements, here and in Ezekiel. On the other hand, the preposition \u02bfal can mean \u201con account of, because of,\u201d in which case this verse could be rendered: \u201cHe shall not enter [anywhere] on account of a dead body,\u201d namely, to attend to a dead body.
\nhe shall not defile himself even for his father or mother In the Hebrew, the word order is inverted for emphasis. The indirect object precedes the verb: \u201cEven for his father or mother he shall not defile himself.\u201d
\n12. He shall not go outside the sanctuary The High Priest may not leave the sanctuary even for the purpose of attending to the burial of close relatives, including his own parents. The impurity that would result from his contact with the dead would defile the sanctuary upon his return. In effect, he could never purify himself so completely as to avoid the danger of contaminating the Holy of Holies. Hebrew mikdash, \u201choly place, sanctuary,\u201d is a basic term for a building that served as a sanctuary.
\nfor upon him is the distinction of the anointing oil of his God The translation \u201cdistinction\u201d for Hebrew nezer precisely reflects the etymology of this word. The Hebrew verb nazar means \u201cto set apart, devote,\u201d from which we have nazir, \u201cone who has vowed to abstain from, to avoid\u201d certain foodstuffs or activities or \u201cone who is distinguished, set apart from others\u201d by position. Once before, in 8:9, the Hebrew term nezer ha-kodesh was translated \u201cthe holy diadem.\u201d In that context, reference is to the frontlet of gold worn by the High Priest on certain occasions. Functionally, nezer can connote a crown or diadem, which is a symbol of distinction, but that is not the derivation of the term itself.
\n13\u201314. He may marry only a woman who is a virgin.\u2026 Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife Again, the term \u02bfam, \u201ckin,\u201d refers specifically to the priestly clan, as was true in verses 1 and 4. This means that the High Priest must marry a virgin from a priestly family. Verse 15 reasons that if he were to marry outside the priestly kinship, he would profane \u201chis offspring among his kin\u201d (zar\u02bfo be-\u02bf amav). They would be unfit to serve as priests. Ezekiel 44:22, in a similar law, permits the High Priest to marry any virgin \u201cfrom the offspring of Israel\u201d (mi-zera\u02bf yisra\u02beel).
\n17. No man of your offspring throughout the ages who has a defect Hebrew mum, \u201cdefect, blemish,\u201d is used with respect to both humans and animals. A mum may be the result of an injury, as is indicated in 24:19\u201320.
\nshall be qualified to offer the food of his God On the sense of Hebrew le\u1e25em, \u201cfood,\u201d as a way of referring to sacrificial offerings, see Comment to verse 6. Priests who are physically unsound are deprived only of the right to officiate in the cult, not of their emoluments, since it is through no fault of their own that they suffer from such defects.
\n18. no man who is blind, or lame The Hebrew adjective \u02bfivver, \u201cblind,\u201d may refer to a person who has only one good eye or who has lost one eye; it does not necessarily connote total blindness. The adjective pissea\u1e25, \u201clame,\u201d refers to one who cannot walk properly, who cannot \u201cstraddle.\u201d It can refer to a person who is lame in one leg. Custom frowned on the entry of anyone who was crippled into the sacred precincts of the sanctuary.
\nor has a limb too short or too long The pair of adjectives \u1e25arum \u02beo saru\u02bfa has been interpreted variously. Hebrew saru\u02bfa clearly means \u201cextended, raised\u201d according to the Sifra. If a contrast was intended, \u1e25arum should mean \u201ctruncated, shortened.\u201d The Akkadian verb ar\u0101mu (also written \u1e2bar\u0101mu) means \u201cto cover, stretch over,\u201d as by a membrane or by flesh. It is used in medical texts to describe birth defects. On this basis, Hebrew \u1e25arum may designate one whose skin was stretched over an unnaturally short limb.
\n19. a broken leg or a broken arm Normally, such injuries would be permanent because broken limbs were not set properly in ancient times.
\n20. or who is a hunchback, or a dwarf The adjective gibben, \u201chunchback,\u201d is related to the noun gavnunnim, \u201ccrass, rocky terrain,\u201d which occurs in Psalms 68:17\u201318, and also to Late Hebrew gabbenet, \u201ca hunch\u201d on the back. The Hebrew adjective dak most often means \u201cthin,\u201d but on the basis of Akkadian cognates, we know that its basic meaning is \u201csmall,\u201d which is its sense here.
\nor who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy Hebrew tevallul is explained in Bekhorot 28b as \u201ca white line in the pupil of the eye.\u201d This term derives from the root b-l-l, \u201cto mix, pour over,\u201d and in Akkadian the cognate bal\u0101lu may mean \u201cto be spotted.\u201d It is so used in omens, with reference to the color of animals and humans.
\nHebrew garav, \u201cboil-scar,\u201d is cognate with Akkadian gar\u0101bu, a kind of eczema or scab, perhaps a form of dermatitis. The noun yallefet is explained in Bekhorot 41a as \u201cflaky skin,\u201d a condition reported as prevalent in Egypt.
\nor crushed testes Hebrew meroa\u1e25 \u02beeshekh literally means \u201cone whose testicles are rubbed, crushed.\u201d The noun \u02beeshekh occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible, but it is cognate with Akkadian i\u0161ku and Ugaritic u\u0161k. Deuteronomy 23:2 forbids a man with this condition to marry within the Israelite fold because he would be unable to beget children.
\n21. No man \u2026 shall be qualified to offer the Lord\u2019s offering by fire Literally, \u201cNo man shall approach so as to offer.\u2026\u201d
\n22. He may eat of the food of his God A physically defective priest was prohibited only from officiating; he was not denied his emoluments. The intent was to prevent his presence in the holy precincts where sacrifices were offered\u2014at the altar of sacrifice or inside the Shrine proper.
\n23. He shall not profane these places sacred to Me The plural mikdashai, \u201cMy holy places,\u201d is somewhat unusual, but we can compare Jeremiah 51:51: mikdeshei beit YHVH, \u201cthe sacred areas of the Lord\u2019s House,\u201d as well as Psalms 68:36: mi-mikdasheikha, \u201cwithin your holy places.\u201d This rendering underscores the spatial factor, the question of where the defective priests would have been stationed were they officiating in the cult.
\n24. Thus Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites. We are not told what Moses said because the verb has no object. This verse, a postscript, serves to link the special provisions of chapter 21 with the rest of the Holiness Code. In stating that these laws are addressed to all the Israelites, the spirit of inclusiveness so characteristic of the Holiness Code is retained, even though chapter 21 deals with matters of specific concern to the priesthood.
\nCHAPTER 22
\nSACRED DONATIONS (vv. 1\u201333)
\n2. Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations \u2026 lest they profane My holy name The Hebrew is unusual. Literally, the verse reads: \u201cInstruct Aaron and his sons to separate themselves from the sacred donations of the Israelite people (lest they profane My holy name) which they consecrate to Me.\u201d For a smoother reading, the translation shifts the parenthetical clause, which intrudes on the normal sentence structure, to the end of the verse.
\nThe verb ve-yinnazru literally means \u201cand let them separate themselves.\u201d Rashi and Ibn Ezra both compare this verse with 15:31 ve-hizzartem \u02beet benei yisra\u02beel, literally \u201cYou shall cause the Israelite people to avoid.\u201d
\nThe verses that follow provide the details of what such avoidance entails. The first rule is that impure priests may not come into contact with sacred donations.
\n3. while in a state of uncleanness The Hebrew reads ve-tum\u02beato \u02bfalav, \u201chis uncleanness being upon him.\u201d The sense is circumstantial.
\npartakes of any sacred donation Rather, \u201cwho shall approach any sacred donation.\u201d The verb yikrav, used in this statement, means \u201cto approach,\u201d and it is preferable to retain the literal sense of the original Hebrew. The purpose of this law was to prevent impure priests from having physical contact with consecrated offerings, lest they defile them. In fact, that is why impure priests are not allowed to partake of them in the first place.
\nthat person shall be cut off from before Me The wording differs from the usual formulation. Normally, one is \u201ccut off\u201d from his kin or people. Here, the idea is that God directly objects to the nearness of impure priests and does not wish them to stand in His presence.
\nI am the Lord This frequent refrain in the Holiness Code often concludes a section of laws or commandments.
\n4. No man of Aaron\u2019s offspring \u2026 shall eat The formulation \u02beish \u02beish often introduces the positive statement \u201cany man.\u201d It may, however, imply negation when the verb in the main clause is negative, as it is here: lo\u02be yo\u02bekhal, \u201cshall not eat.\u201d The negative formulation makes this statement apodictic; it issues an unconditional command.
\nwho has an eruption or a discharge Verse 4a begins a sequence of impurities, ordered from most to least severe, that continues through verse 5. The Hebrew adjective tsaru\u02bfa (or metsora\u02bf) describes a person who suffers from a skin ailment known as tsara\u02bfat, usually rendered \u201cleprosy.\u201d The symptoms and purification of this ailment are the subjects of chapters 13 and 14. Hebrew zav describes a person who has experienced a bodily discharge. The verb zav means \u201cto flow.\u201d Procedures relevant to such conditions are set forth in chapter 15.
\nof the sacred donations until be is clean This section poses two related problems of interpretation. We must first determine the precise meaning of kodashim, \u201csacred donations,\u201d a term that can apply to various types of offerings of greater and lesser sanctity. Then, too, we must clarify the meaning of the verb yithar, \u201che shall become pure.\u201d This verb is variously used to refer to progressive stages in the cycle of purification. Here, kodashim designates sacrificial offerings of which a priest may partake only when he is pure. Therefore, the verb yithar must refer to the final purification of an afflicted priest, which occurs only after sacrifices are offered on the eighth day. Hoffmann points out that this requirement is made explicit in 14:20 and 15:13\u201315, with respect to both the tsaru\u02bfa and the zav. After the seven-day cycle, the sufferer is called, in the terminology of the Mishnah, me\u1e25ussar kippurim, \u201cone who lacks expiation.\u201d The period of impurity is over, if the ailment has healed, but rites of purification have yet to be performed.
\n4b\u20135. If one touches anything made unclean by a corpse A person who comes into contact with the corpse of another Israelite is known as teme\u02be met, \u201cone impure because of a corpse.\u201d This impurity is so severe that even a vessel that comes into contact with a corpse is rendered impure. According to Numbers 19:10\u201312, anyone, priest or lay Israelite, who has contact with a person impure in this way, in turn, becomes impure as well.
\nor if a man has an emission of semen This law is explained in the Comments to 15:15\u201318.
\nor if a man touches any swarming thing This type of impurity is explained in the Comments to 11:24, 29\u201330.
\nor any human being by whom he is made unclean\u2014whatever his uncleanness This law concerns a person, in this case a priest, who touches another person who is in a state of impurity for any of a variety of reasons, including the impurity of a tsaru\u02bfa or a zav. Whereas verse 4a concerns persons who are themselves the source of impurity, verses 4b\u20135 concern persons whose impurity is transmitted to them by contact with others who are impure.
\n6. the person who touches such A priest who touches persons and vessels that are impure, but who was not initially impure himself, needs only to bathe and wait until after sunset in order to be restored to a pure state. In Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 12:1, such a priest is known as tevul yom, \u201cone who immerses on the same day.\u201d
\nunless he has washed his body On the procedure involved, see Comment to 8:6.
\n7. As soon as the sun sets Hebrew u-va\u02be ha-shemesh is circumstantial: \u201cthe sun having entered.\u201d The \u201centering\u201d of the sun reflects the ancient cosmology, wherein the sun enters its house of the night and passes through to the East; from there it \u201cgoes forth\u201d at dawn. This is expressed in Ecclesiastes 1:5: \u201cThe sun rises, and the sun sets\u2014\/And glides back to where it rises.\u201d The time of the entrance of the sun is usually understood as the time when darkness falls.
\nfor they are his food It would be unfair to deprive priests of their \u201cdaily bread\u201d any longer than absolutely necessary. Furthermore, partaking of sacrifices by the priests, especially expiatory offerings, was considered indispensable to the efficacy of these offerings.
\n8. He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts A similar statement occurs in Ezekiel 44:31: \u201cPriests shall not eat anything, whether bird or animal, that died or was torn by beasts.\u201d In 17:15, this same prohibition is addressed to all Israelites, and similar commandments are addressed to the Israelite people in Exodus 22:30 and Deuteronomy 14:21. It is likely, therefore, that this very ancient prohibition was repeated for emphasis in the laws addressed specifically to the priests. There is no basis for concluding that they once applied only to priests and were later extended to all Israelites, as some modern students of biblical religion maintain.
\n9. They shall keep My charge The Hebrew term mishmeret, \u201ccharge,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 8:35.
\nlest they incur guilt thereby and die for it Rather, \u201clest they bear the punishment of the offense, on that account, and die for it.\u201d The sense of \u201cbearing punishment\u201d is discussed in the Comment to 5:1, where it is explained that the same term that describes the offense itself may also convey the punishment incurred. In 5:1 the term for \u201coffense\u201d is \u02bfavon, whereas here it is \u1e25et\u02be, but the meaning is the same.
\n10. No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. Hebrew zar, here translated \u201clay person,\u201d is a relative term, whose precise meaning depends on context. The basic sense is \u201coutsider, stranger, one who is hated.\u201d It may refer to a nonpriest, as is the case here, to a non-Levite, or a non-Israelite.
\nThe singular kodesh functions as a collective noun: \u201csacred donations,\u201d and is interchangeable with the plural kodashim, used in preceding verses.
\nNo bound or hired laborer of a priest shall eat of the sacred donations Essentially, the Hebrew term toshav means \u201cresident\u201d and it may refer to foreign residents, as well. It is, however, a term having diverse socioeconomic connotations. In 25:35f., 47f., the toshav is one who was seized in default of debt and then compelled to \u201creside\u201d in the home of the creditor until he worked off his obligation. This explains the translation \u201cbound laborer.\u201d Hebrew sakhir merely designates a \u201chired\u201d laborer, one who works for wages, as is explained in the Comment to 19:13.
\nOnly one who is a priest\u2019s property or a member of his immediate family may eat of the sacred donations that were apportioned to the priests. The toshav of a priest was not his property, but more like an indentured servant; and one\u2019s hired laborer was also an employee, not a slave.
\n11. but a person who is a priest\u2019s property by purchase \u2026 and those that are born into his household may eat of his food Hebrew kinyan kaspo, \u201cone purchased by his silver,\u201d is a way of referring to slaves, whereas yelid beito, \u201cborn into his household,\u201d designates the children of one\u2019s slaves. By definition, these terms refer to non-Israelites, because Israelites could not be owned as slaves by other Israelites, according to the law of 25:42\u201346.
\n12. If a priest\u2019s daughter marries a layman A priest\u2019s daughter derives the privilege of partaking of the priests\u2019 food from her father, who is responsible for her care so long as she resides in his domicile. If she marries a member of the priesthood, her entitlement then derives from her husband. But if she marries outside the priesthood, there is no basis for her enjoying this privilege. As in verse 10, Hebrew zur here designates a nonpriest.
\nshe may not eat of the sacred gifts Hebrew terumat ha-kodashim is a unique combination of terms and requires clarification. The term terumah means \u201clevy, collected donation, what is raised.\u201d It may refer to voluntary contributions or to obligatory levies. The term itself informs us that the sacred materials had been \u201craised\u201d; the context determines on what basis. Here, terumat ha-kodashim refers to priestly emoluments having the status of \u201clesser sanctity.\u201d Most sacrificial offerings were restricted to the priests themselves and were to be eaten only in sacred precincts. They could not be shared with other members of the priestly families. This is not the sense here.
\n13. and without offspring, and is back in her father\u2019s house as in her youth Rather, \u201cshe may return to her father\u2019s house.\u201d According to biblical law, a widow or a divorc\u00e9e without children was compelled to rely on her father or her brothers for support. A widow did not inherit her husband\u2019s estate; his sons or, if he had no sons, his daughters fell heir to it. Similarly, a childless, divorced woman had no claim on her husband\u2019s estate. (In later Judaism, the settlement contained in the ketubbah, \u201cwrit of marriage,\u201d protected women in such circumstances.) This verse ordains, therefore, that the daughter of a priest who had been married to a nonpriest could regain her privileges within her original, priestly family. Once returned, she partakes of the priestly emoluments as she had done before her marriage, according to Hoffmann.
\n14. if a man eats of a sacred donation unwittingly This law refers to an ordinary Israelite who inadvertently partakes of what properly belongs only to the priesthood. This law is structured along the lines of the law of ma\u02bfal set forth in 5:14\u201316.
\nhe shall pay the priest for the sacred donation The entire payment, including the penalty of one-fifth of the estimated value of the misappropriated property, is referred to as ha-kodesh, \u201cthe sacred donation.\u201d Once remitted, it all became the property of the priest. In ritual texts, \u201cthe priest\u201d (ha-kohen) usually refers to the priest in charge at the time. Rabbinic law introduced the principle of tovat hana\u02beah, \u201cthe right to provide a benefit.\u201d In many cases, the Israelite in question could select the priest to whom the required payment would be remitted.
\n15. But [the priests] must not allow the Israelites \u2026 Rather, \u201cFor the priests must not profane the sacred donations of the Israelites, which they collect for the Lord, by bringing upon them (the Israelites) the punishment for eating such sacred donations.\u201d Rashi understands this as an admonition to the priesthood not to allow ordinary Israelites to partake of sacred donations. The priests, responsible for maintaining proper storage and accurate accounting procedures, were to police themselves in order to prevent priests, who might be so tempted, from dealing in sacred donations to their own advantage. Such individuals would have to be punished appropriately.
\nHebrew \u02bfavon \u02beashmah is a unique combination of terms. In the Comment to 4:3 it is explained that \u02beashmah may connote \u201cblame\u201d or \u201cpunishment\u201d for a forbidden act as well as the act itself.
\nThe verb ve-hissi\u02beu, \u201cthey bring upon,\u201d derives from the root nasa\u02be, \u201cto bear, carry.\u201d The offender \u201cbears\u201d the punishment for his acts, but when others neglect their responsibility, they cause Israelites to bear such punishment.
\n16. for it is I the Lord who make them sacred This postscript can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It is God who ordained that the priests are sacred or (2) it is God who declared that the donations are sacred.
\n18. When any man of the house of Israel The character of the formula \u02beish \u02beish, \u201cany man,\u201d is explained in the Comment to verse 4.
\nor of the strangers in Israel Non-Israelites also donated sacrificial offerings to the God of Israel. In the ancient Near East, it was customary to pay respect to the god of the host country. Solomon\u2019s prayer, preserved in 1 Kings 8:41\u201343, refers to the stranger from a distant land who, impressed with the renown of the God of Israel, wishes to worship Him in Jerusalem.
\na burnt offering as his offering for any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings The burnt offering (\u02bfolah), in addition to being the mainstay of the public cult, also served as an individual sacrifice, often brought as a votive, or freewill, offering. The terms neder, \u201cvotive offering,\u201d and nedavah, \u201cfreewill offering,\u201d are explained in the Comment to 7:16.
\n19. it must, to be acceptable in your favor Hebrew le-ratson, \u201cfor acceptance,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:3.
\na male without blemish, from cattle or sheep or goats The sense is alternative\u2014either large or small cattle. Compare the formulation further on, in verse 27.
\n20. You shall not offer any that has a defect Deuteronomy 17:1 states the same requirement: \u201cYou shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect of a serious kind.\u201d
\n21. And when a man offers, from the herd or flock, a sacrifice of well-being Rather, \u201ca sacred gift of greeting.\u201d Verses 21\u201325 specify that a sacred gift of greeting (shelamim) may not have defects. The disqualifying defects are then enumerated in detail.
\nfor an explicit vow Rather, \u201cto set aside a votive.\u201d The Hebrew verb le-falle\u02be means \u201cto set aside\u201d and is explained in the Comment to 27:2, where its importance in the votive system is discussed.
\n22. Anything blind, or injured, or maimed In the introductory Comment to chapters 21\u201322, the correspondences between those physical defects that render a priest unfit to officiate in the cult and those that render a sacrificial animal unfit are tabulated in detail. Only terms that do not occur in chapter 21 are explained here.
\nHebrew shavur means \u201cbroken,\u201d and \u1e25aruts means \u201ccut off, incised,\u201d hence, \u201cmaimed.\u201d Hebrew yabbelet is related to tevallul, \u201cwen, a growth in the eye,\u201d in 21:20.
\n23. You may, however, present as a freewill offering an ox or a sheep with a limb extended or contracted \u2026 Hebrew kalut literally means \u201cdrawn in.\u201d The provisions of verse 23 are exceptional in that they distinguish between the requirements for a freewill offering and those applicable to a votive, which are more stringent. Elsewhere no such distinction is made. This disparity is understandably troubling to traditional commentators. Ramban interprets the term nedavah loosely to mean a voluntary contribution to the sanctuary, not intended for use as a sacrificial offering on the altar. For this reason, the requirements of soundness were eased. More likely, however, the less stringent requirements in the case of the nedavah had to do with the entirely voluntary character of this offering. It was not obligated by any prior commitment, as was the votive pledge (the neder), nor was it even occasioned by the duty to thank God for something He had done for the worshiper.
\nThe language of this law is also somewhat distinctive. The Hebrew reads nedavah ta\u02bfaseh \u02beoto, \u201cYou shall make of it a freewill offering.\u201d But in such contexts Hebrew \u02bfasah may mean \u201cto perform a rite, offer a sacrifice.\u201d This is so in Exodus 12:48, where ve-\u02bfasah pesa\u1e25 means \u201cand he performs the paschal sacrifice.\u201d Compare, for example, Leviticus 14:19; 16:24. On this basis we should translate: \u201cYou shall perform it as a freewill offering.\u201d
\n24. [with its testes] bruised or crushed or torn or cut The substance of this law does not differ appreciably from that of 21:20, but the terminology is different. Hebrew ma\u02bfukh means \u201crubbed, crushed\u201d and is synonymous with meroa\u1e25 \u02beashakh, \u201cwith crushed testes,\u201d in 21:20. Hebrew katut means \u201cpounded, pulverized, crushed,\u201d and natuk means \u201cdetached, torn off.\u201d Hebrew karut literally means \u201ccut off,\u201d hence, \u201ccastrated.\u201d
\nYou shall have no such practices in your own land The new JPS translation joins verse 24b to what follows, implying a general prohibition of abhorrent practices that applied to all the defects enumerated in verses 22\u201324. It is more likely that reference here is specifically to the conditions listed in verse 24a, namely, genital mutilation, or gelding, of animals\u2014things one \u201cdoes\u201d to an animal. By contrast, the defects listed in verses 22\u201323 are more likely congenital in nature or the result of injury.
\n25. nor shall you accept such [animals] from a foreigner Verse 25 concludes this section of the legislation and refers to all the defects listed in verses 22\u201324. Resident non-Israelites might want to sell animals to Israelites or contribute them as their own offerings. Such animals are subject to the same regulations as those originally belonging to Israelites.
\nfor they are mutilated, they have a defect Hebrew mosh\u1e25atam bam literally means \u201ctheir mutilation is in them.\u201d This connotes a distortion of normal physical form. The postexilic prophet Malachi (1:14) states the matter as follows: \u201cA curse on the cheat who has an [unblemished] male in his flock, but for his vow sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord!\u201d
\n27. When an ox or a sheep or a goat For another instance of this unusual combination see 17:3. Newborn animals may not be sacrificed until the eighth day after birth.
\n28. no animal \u2026 shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young The law forbids such sacrifice even after eight days. Traditionally, this prohibition has been explained as expressing compassion for living creatures. It has been understood to apply only to female animals, \u201cmothers,\u201d and their male offspring (Heb. beno, [literally] \u201cits son\u201d). Practically speaking, male animals account for the majority of sacrifices. This interpretation is cited by Rashi, Maimonides, and others.
\n29. sacrifice it so that it may be acceptable Verses 29\u201330 present a separate law for the thanksgiving offering, which is here treated as distinct from the shelamim.
\n30. It shall be eaten on the same day In the Comments to 19:5\u20138, it is explained that the thanksgiving offering is subject to different rules.
\n31. You shall faithfully observe My commandments This concluding statement is typical of ritual legislation in the Torah.
\n32. You shall not profane My holy name In verse 2 above, the laws began with the same admonition.
\n33. I who brought you out of the land of Egypt As in 19:36, reference is made, at the conclusion of ritual legislation, to God\u2019s act of liberating the Israelites from Egyptian bondage\u2014the basis of His demand for obedience to His laws and commandments.
\nCHAPTER 23
\nThe Calendar of Sacred Time
\nLeviticus 23 is a calendar of the annual festivals celebrated in biblical times. As such, it represents the primary statement on the religious festivals in the priestly tradition and, hence, is a highly important source. In conformance with biblical tradition, this calendar also includes the Sabbath, even though it is not, technically speaking, a calendrical festival.
\nActually, the Torah preserves three calendrical traditions, corresponding to its three principal collections of laws: the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the ritual legislation. Each expresses its own distinctive concept of the festivals, usually conveyed by the precise name given to each occasion. The calendar of Exodus 23:12\u201319, part of the Book of the Covenant, focuses on the Sabbath and on the three pilgrimage festivals: \u1e25ag ha-matsot, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Fast of Unleavened Bread\u201d; \u1e25ag ha-katsir, \u201cthe Spring Harvest Pilgrimage\u201d; and \u1e25ag ha-\u02beasif, \u201cthe Pilgrimage of Ingathering.\u201d The calendar of Deuteronomy 16:1\u201317 names the pesa\u1e25; \u1e25ag ha-shavu\u02bfot, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Festival of Weeks\u201d in the late spring; and \u1e25ag ha-sukkot, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Festival of Booths\u201d in the autumn. Numbers 28\u201329 include the daily and Sabbath celebrations and those for the New Moon and all the festivals and holy days. The present chapter and Numbers 28\u201329 together constitute a detailed register of the sacrifices required throughout the year. In addition, Exodus 34:17\u201326 preserves a brief calendar that is related in form and content to Exodus 23:12\u201319.
\nThe contents of chapter 23 may be outlined as follows:
\nA superscription, or title (vv. 1\u20132)
\nThe Sabbath (v. 3)
\nA second superscription (v. 4)
\nThe paschal sacrifice and the matsot festival (vv. 5\u20138)
\nOfferings from the new grain crop, during a seven-week period of counting (vv. 9\u201322)
\nThe first day of the seventh month, a day of commemoration with loud blasts of the shofar (vv. 23\u201325)
\nThe tenth of the seventh month, the Day of Atonement (vv. 26\u201332)
\nThe Sukkot festival beginning on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (vv. 33\u201336)
\nA summary statement (vv. 37\u201338)
\nFurther laws for the Sukkot festival (vv. 39\u201343)
\nA postscript (v. 44)
\nThe above outline, especially the two superscriptions, shows the composite character of chapter 23. The Sabbath law has been appended to the beginning of the calendar proper, and verses 39\u201343 have been similarly added at the end, after it seemed that the calendar was complete. This latter passage provides additional regulations about the Sukkot festival, including the only statement preserved in the Torah explaining the requirements to dwell in booths during the festival of ingathering and to use greenery in its celebration.
\nVerses 9\u201322 are also highly significant, for they ordain detailed offerings from the new grain crop. They also highlight the importance of the Sabbath day in calculating time.
\nTHE SABBATH (vv. 1\u20133)
\n2. Speak to the Israelite people The sacred occasions, the Sabbaths and festivals, are to be observed by all the people; they are not merely of concern to the priesthood nor relevant solely to the sacrificial cult of the sanctuary. This introductory statement sets the tone for the entire chapter, whose provisions inform the people, as well as the priests, about how the Sabbath and festivals are to be observed.
\nThese are My fixed times, the fixed times of the Lord, which you shall proclaim as sacred occasions The Hebrew term mo\u02bfed, \u201cset time,\u201d derives from the root y-\u02bf-d, \u201cto set, designate\u201d a time or place. The dates of the festivals and the regularity of a Sabbath every seventh day were set by God, and yet the Israelites are also commanded to proclaim them as sacred. These two acts are not contradictory but, rather, complementary. The sanctity of the Sabbath and festivals is not achieved by God\u2019s act alone. It requires a combination of divine and human action.
\nThere is, however, a problem in using the term mo\u02bfed with reference to the Sabbath. Elsewhere in the ritual legislation it usually designates an annual occurrence. A mo\u02bfed occurs at the same time each year; its annual date must be \u201cfixed.\u201d There is, however, no need to \u201cfix\u201d the time of the Sabbath, which is not, strictly speaking, a calendrical phenomenon, as Rashi has pointed out. Furthermore, biblical usage regularly differentiates between shabbat, \u201cthe Sabbath,\u201d and mo\u02bfed, as in verses 37\u201338 of our chapter, which speak of the \u201cset times of the Lord\u201d as being \u201capart from the sabbaths of the Lord.\u201d Accordingly, the use of mo\u02bfed for the Sabbath is most likely to be explained by the influence of the langauge of verse 4 upon that of verse 2.
\nHebrew mikret\u02be kodesh, here rendered \u201csacred occasion,\u201d is a somewhat ambiguous term original to the Holiness Code. The verb k-r-\u02be may mean \u201cto proclaim\u201d or \u201cto summon, invite.\u201d Accordingly, one could render mikra\u02be kodesh as \u201ca sacred assembly, convocation,\u201d indicating that on an occasion so designated, the community is summoned for common worship and celebration.
\n3. On six days work may be done This statement emphasizes three norms of conduct basic to the observance of the Sabbath: (1) the prohibition of mela\u02bekhah, \u201cwork,\u201d (2) the sanctity of the Sabbath, and (3) the requirement that the Sabbath be observed in all Israelite settlements. The formulation of verse 3, especially use of the passive verb te\u02bfaseh, \u201cmay be done,\u201d closely resembles similar statements in Exodus 12:26; 31:5; and 35:2. The active formulation ta\u02bfaseh, \u201cyou shall do,\u201d is more common.
\nHebrew mela\u02bekhah, \u201cwork,\u201d derives from the root l-\u02be-k, \u201cto send, dispatch, assign,\u201d now attested in Ugaritic. The noun mal\u02beakh, \u201cmessenger, angel,\u201d also derives from this root. On this basis, mela\u02bekhah is best translated \u201cassigned tasks, what one is sent to do.\u201d The main object of the Sabbath law, in this respect, is to avoid performing one\u2019s daily tasks on the Sabbath.
\na sabbath of complete rest Hebrew sbabbat shabbaton is superlative, literally \u201cthe most restful cessation\u201d from assigned tasks. The Sabbath is to be observed by a greater abstinence from daily tasks than is required on the festivals. On seasonal festivals, one refrains from work primarily to be free to celebrate, whereas on the Sabbath, the very object is rest.
\nThe term shabbat means \u201cto desist, cease, be idle.\u201d The Sabbath day is, consequently, a hiatus in the regular progression of daily labor. It enables a person literally to \u201ccatch his breath\u201d (hinnafesh), the verb used to describe God\u2019s rest on the Sabbath of Creation.
\nIn other contexts, the term shabbat may connote a \u201csabbath,\u201d namely, an occasion that resembles the Sabbath, such as the last year in the seven-year sabbatical cycle or a week, which ends on the Sabbath day. Hebrew shabbaton expresses that which is like the Sabbath and as such designates the Day of Atonement and other occasions, including the first and seventh days of festivals.
\nit shall be a sabbath of the Lord The translation conveys the sense of prepositional lamed, which connotes possession: \u201ca Sabbath belonging to the Lord.\u201d The Sabbath belongs to God, just as festivals are said to be \u1e25ag le-YHVH, \u201ca pilgrimage festival belonging to the Lord.\u201d On such occasions, one should not pursue his own affairs but should devote himself to spiritual matters. This is stated most clearly in Isaiah 58:13\u201314: \u201cIf you refrain from trampling the sabbath,\/From pursuing your affairs on My holy day;\/If you call the Sabbath \u2018delight,\u2019\/The Lord\u2019s holy day \u2018honored\u2019;\/And if you honor it and go not your ways\/Nor look to your affairs, nor strike bargains\u2014\/Then you can seek the favor of the Lord.\u201d There is the subtle implication that on the Sabbath one is to worship God in special ways, though nothing in the way of special sacrificial rites is specifically ordained here.
\nthroughout your settlements This stipulation occurs frequently in the ritual legislation. It emphasizes the fact that the Sabbath is to be observed by the community of Israelites in their houses and is not solely a celebration to take place in the sanctuary.
\nTHE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD (vv. 4\u20138)
\nThis section of the calendar ordains that the paschal sacrifice is to be offered on the fourteenth day of the first month, in the early evening. The Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the fifteenth day and lasts seven days. The first and seventh days are designated sacred assemblies, when work is forbidden. There is mention of an offering by fire on each of the seven days, but no details about it are provided. Unleavened bread is to be eaten, and all leaven avoided for seven days, beginning at the time of the paschal sacrifice.
\n4. These are the set times of the Lord \u2026 each at its appointed time Each festival is to occur at the same time every year.
\n5. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month This is the dating system that was in use during much of the biblical period, especially in the formulation of official records and laws. The operative unit of time was the lunar month (\u1e25odesh), not the week; and the months of the year were designated by ordinal numbers: the first month, \u2026 the seventh month, and so forth. The counting began in the spring of the year. There is both biblical and extrabiblical evidence that other calendrical systems were also in use during the biblical period, but Leviticus 23 does not refer to them. For further discussion of the month names in the various systems of recording time in biblical Israel, see Excursus 8.
\nat twilight Hebrew bein ha-\u02bfarbayim is ambiguous. The translation \u201ctwilight\u201d understands it as designating the period of time between sunset and nightfall, approximately one and one-third hours in duration. As a dual form \u02bfarbayim expresses two \u201csettings\u201d: sunset and a later \u201csetting\u201d that follows\u2014nightfall. Mekhilta Bo\u02be 5 presents the view of Rabbi Nathan that bein ha-\u02bfarbayim is the time after the sun begins to incline toward the west, after the sixth hour of the day. In a hypothetical twelve-hour day that begins at 6:00 a.m. and concludes at 6:00 p.m., this would mean that the time period called bein ha-\u02bfarbayim begins at noon. Mishnah Pesa\u1e25im 5:1 tells us that during the period of the Second Temple, the paschal sacrifice was offered on the altar at approximately nine and a half hours into the day, immediately following the second daily offering (tamid), which was scheduled earlier on Passover eve. This was near the midpoint of the second half of the ideal twelve-hour day that begins at 6:00 a.m. and concludes at 6:00 p.m. Again, this is before twilight. There is no similar information available about practices in earlier periods of antiquity.
\nHere, the term pesa\u1e25 refers to the sacrifice not to the festival. Actually, the accepted name \u201cPassover\u201d is a misnomer because the verb pasa\u1e25 in the Kal stem does not mean \u201cto pass over, skip over,\u201d but rather \u201cto straddle, hedge.\u201d Thus, we read in 1 Kings 18:21, [literally] \u201cHow long will you keep on straddling (pos\u1e25im) the two branches?\u201d In other words, pasa\u1e25 means to stand with one leg on one branch and the second leg on the other. In the notes to Exodus 12:11, 23, the new JPS translation cites this interpretation as an alternative to \u201cpassover offering\u201d for Hebrew pesa\u1e25. It notes the rendering \u201cprotective offering.\u201d Thus, we also read in Exodus 12:23: \u201cFor when the Lord goes through to smite the Egyptians, He will see the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, and the Lord will protect the door and not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home.\u201d
\nMekhilta Bo\u02be 7 cites Isaiah 31:5: \u201cLike the birds that fly, even so will the Lord of Hosts shield Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting (pasoa\u1e25) and rescuing.\u201d In such terms, the paschal sacrifice commemorates God\u2019s protection of the Israelites. The details of the paschal sacrifice are presented in Exodus 12\u201313.
\n6. and on the fifteenth day of that month the Lord\u2019s Feast of Unleavened Bread Rather, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Feast of Unleavened Bread of the Lord.\u201d The Hebrew term \u1e25ag is crucial for a proper understanding of the biblical festivals and their development. \u1e24ag means \u201cpilgrimage,\u201d and wherever this term is used to characterize a festival, it refers to an actual pilgrimage, either to a nearby or to a faraway cult site. The duty to undertake a pilgrimage is known in a number of other religions, most notably in Islam, where the Arabic term \u1e25ajatun, cognate with Hebrew \u1e25ag, designates a holy pilgrimage. This means that any festival called \u1e25ag could not be fully celebrated at one\u2019s home, but required one\u2019s presence at a cult site. In earlier times, the pilgrimage might have brought a family to a nearby altar, but subsequently Deuteronomy ordained that all sacrificial offerings were to be brought to one, central Temple, which necessitated a much longer pilgrimage for most Israelites.
\nThere is some ambiguity as to how long the pilgrimage, itself, was to last. In the case of the autumn festival the formulation is clear: verse 34 explicitly states that the pilgrimage is to last for seven days. The same is to be understood here. The pilgrimage lasted for as long as unleavened bread was eaten, namely, for seven days.
\nThe meaning of Hebrew matsot, \u201cunleavened bread,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 2:4.
\n7. the first day you shall celebrate a sacred occasion Rather, \u201ca sacred assembly.\u201d (See Comment to verse 3.) On the first and seventh, or last, day of the festival, work is forbidden. The community celebrates together. On the intervening days, normal work may be carried on, if necessary, although the celebration continues.
\nyou shall not work at your occupations The composite term mele\u02bekhet \u02bfavodah, literally \u201cassignment of labor,\u201d is somewhat redundant.
\n8. Seven days you shall make offerings by fire to the Lord The Hebrew term \u02beisheh, \u201coffering by fire,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:9. Here, the precise character of the offerings by fire is not specified. The same general reference occurs in the laws for the celebrations of the seventh month. These sacrifices are to be offered on the sanctuary altar. The laws of Numbers 28\u201329 enumerate which offerings are to be brought on each occasion. This is the import of the introductory statement in Numbers 28:3: \u201cThese are the offerings by fire that you are to present to the Lord.\u201d
\nOFFERINGS FROM THE NEW GRAIN CROP (vv. 9\u201314)
\nIn this section, two offerings taken from the new crop are prescribed: \u02bfomer and bikkurim. The first, \u02bfomer, is the offering of a \u201csheaf\u201d of new barley. As originally intended, the priest was to offer it on the morrow of the first Sabbath subsequent to the seven-day festival. New grain could not be eaten until this offering was made. It constituted desacralization, a rite that gives to God the first of the new crop, thus releasing the rest of it for ordinary human use.
\nBeginning on the day of this offering, a period of counting is initiated. Seven full \u201csabbaths,\u201d or weeks, are counted off. On the fiftieth day, the second offering of meal of new wheat, baked into leavened loaves, is offered in the sanctuary as bikkurim, \u201cfirst fruits.\u201d It consists of grain furnished by the Israelite settlements. That day is a sacred assembly on which work is forbidden. Here, it is not designated \u1e25ag, \u201cpilgrimage,\u201d as it is in Deuteronomy 16:10, a significant difference.
\nThis section concludes with a paraphrase of 19:9\u201310, requiring Israelites to leave the edges of their fields and their gleanings from the grain harvests for the poor and the stranger.
\n10. When you enter the land Compare such introductory statements as 14:34; 19:23; etc.
\nyou shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest Hebrew \u02bfomer means a bundle of stalks, bound together after reaping. Reference is to a sheaf of barley, which is the first grain to ripen in the spring. This sheaf is to be brought to \u201cthe priest,\u201d that is, the particular priest who officiates at the rite in the sanctuary.
\n11. He shall elevate the sheaf Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:1 describes the procedure employed in the days of the Second Temple as follows: \u201cHow is one to do this? He inserts his two hands underneath the objects being offered and carries them to and fro. He lifts them up and lowers them.\u201d The purpose of such rites was to show the offering to God, so that it might be accepted.
\non the day after the sabbath The Hebrew words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat, repeated in verse 15a, are problematic because it is not specified which Sabbath is intended. The accepted rabbinic interpretation is that here shabbat does not refer to the Sabbath day but means something similar to shabbaton in verse 39, that is, a time of resting. This characterization applies both to the Sabbath and to festivals. This interpretation is explained in the Sifra \u02beEmor 23:11, 15: mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat\u2014mi-mo\u1e25orat yom tov, \u201con the morrow of the Sabbath\u2014on the morrow of the festival.\u201d Targum Onkelos explains mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat in the same way, as does the Septuagint to 23:11: t\u00ea epaurion t\u00eas pr\u014dt\u0113s, \u201con the morrow of the first day (i.e., the first day of the festival).\u201d Although this interpretation resolves a difficulty in the text, it does not convey its simple sense. It has been suggested that the words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat in verse 11 and in verse 15a represent an abbreviation of the phrase mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat ha-shevi\u02bfit, literally \u201cuntil the morrow of the seventh \u2018sabbath\u2019 of days\u201d in verse 16 below. Verses 15\u201316 use the term shabbat in the sense of \u201cweek\u201d; verse 11 uses the abbreviation shabbat in its normal sense of a particular day, the Sabbath. This would require that seven \u201csabbaths\u201d of days (shabbatot) would pass during the period of fifty days. It is therefore suggested that the words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat here and in verse 15a were glosses inserted to ensure that the period of counting the seven weeks would begin on the day after the Sabbath. If this analysis is accurate, the text of verse 11 should probably read as follows: vehenif \u02beet ha-\u02bfomer lifnei YHVH li-retsonkhem yenifennu ha-kohen, \u201cHe shall present the sheaf before the Lord; for acceptance on your behalf the priest shall present it.\u201d
\n12\u201313. On the day that you elevate the sheaf The burnt offering (\u02bfolah) was often accompanied by a grain offering (min\u1e25ah) and a libation (nesekh), as prescribed here. The measure of grain required here is twice the usual amount, perhaps to emphasize the signal importance of grain in this celebration.
\n14. Until that very day \u2026 you shall eat no bread Hebrew \u02bfetsem, \u201cbone,\u201d may mean \u201cthe thing, itself; the essence.\u201d With prefixed bet, be-\u02bfetsem means \u201cin the same, in the very.\u201d For the meaning of Hebrew kali, \u201cparched grain,\u201d and karmel, \u201cfresh ears,\u201d see Comment to 2:14. Until God receives a share of the new grain crop, none of it may be used by humans.
\nthroughout the ages in all your settlements Compare verse 3 above and verse 31 below.
\nTHE SHAVUOT FESTIVAL (vv. 15\u201322)
\n15\u201316. And from the day on which you bring the sheaf \u2026 the day after the sabbath Referring to the Comment to verse 11 above, it should be repeated here that the words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat may be a gloss. The original text may have read: u-sefartem lakhem mi-yom havi\u02beakhem, \u201cAnd you shall count off, from the day on which you bring.\u201d This is how the text of the Temple Scroll from Qumran reads. The offering is known as \u02bfomer ha-tenufah, \u201cthe sheaf for the presentation.\u201d In biblical usage, when the term shabbat refers to a week and not an occasion it probably always connotes a sabbatical week. This is certain in chapter 23 and in the Holiness Code generally. In 25:8 sheva\u02bf shabbetot shanim means \u201cseven septenaries,\u201d namely, seven cycles of seven years, each of which ends with a sabbatical year, when no planting or harvesting may be done. On this basis, sheva\u02bf shabbatot in verse 15 must mean \u201cseven weeks of days.\u201d This indicates, in effect, that the period of counting begins on the day after the first Sabbath, the first Sunday subsequent to the beginning of the festival.
\nan offering of new grain In the Comment to 2:14 it is explained that this offering of new grain (min\u1e25ah \u1e25adashah) is distinct from the grain offering, also of the new harvest, brought by individual Israelites. Both offerings, however, are to be of the best semolina wheat.
\n17. You shall bring front your settlements two loaves On the use of unleavened bread in altar offerings, see Comment to 7:13. The rule is that no leaven could ascend the altar. Since no part of the offering ordained here\u2014presented before God to be viewed and accepted\u2014ascends the altar, it was made of \u1e25amets, \u201cleavened dough.\u201d
\n18. With the bread you shall present Here, the preposition \u02bfal means \u201ctogether with, in addition to.\u201d The offerings prescribed in verses 18\u201320 are typical of those included in composite public rites, where several different sacrifices are offered together to constitute a more elaborate celebration. The animals, both small and large, are to be offered as burnt offerings and are accompanied by the grain offerings and libations.
\n19. You shall also offer one he-goat as a sin offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. The various types of sin offerings are discussed in the introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135. An explanation of the shelamim sacrifice, preferably rendered \u201csacred gift of greeting,\u201d is provided in the Comment to 3:1. The reason a \u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201csin offering,\u201d is required on this occasion is unclear. It may perhaps be related to the periodic need to restore the people to a state of cultic purity. This is the only occasion on which the shelamim sacrifice is offered on a scheduled basis, as part of the public cult.
\n20. The priest shall elevate these\u2014the two lambs\u2014The object pronoun \u02beotam, \u201cthem,\u201d refers to the two yearling lambs of verse 19.
\nthey shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest In the first instance, these offerings are the Lord\u2019s, but He commands that they be allotted to the priests. As the Talmud states: \u201cThe Lord has acquired it and has given it to the priests.\u201d Sections of the shelamim are usually reserved for the donors of the sacrifice as well. That is the rule of 7:28f., but it applies only to private offerings. Our law represents the only instance of the shelamim as part of the public cult. For this reason, all sections not burned on the altar are designated for the priests. One could say that this unique shelamim is treated by the law as a most sacred offering.
\nThe essential offerings set forth in verses 9\u201322, in celebration of the new grain crop, reflect a widely known mode of worship in which burnt offerings played no part. Sacrifice is, instead, by presentation, the object being that God views the sacrifice, and in that way accepts it. (In the burnt offering, God, so to speak, \u201cbreathes in the smoke\u201d that rises from the fire.) It is likely, furthermore, that verses 12\u201313 and 18\u201320, which specify certain burnt offerings in addition to the presentation offerings for the initial and final celebrations of the new grain crop, are later developments. They do not represent the earliest form of celebrating these occasions and may have been added in order to bring the code of verses 9\u201322 into conformity with what subsequently became the full regimen of offerings.
\n21. On that same day you shall bold a celebration In this verse, the Hebrew verb u-kera\u02betem is derived from the noun mikra\u02be, \u201cassembly,\u201d and means literally \u201cyou shall proclaim an assembly.\u201d This interpretation is required by the syntax of the Hebrew, which would not be balanced if the verb k-r-\u02be were understood in its usual sense of \u201cto proclaim.\u201d
\n22. And when you reap the harvest of your land This verse paraphrases 19:9\u201310. It is appended here because of its topical connection with the harvest.
\nTHE FIRST DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH (vv. 23\u201325)
\nThis section ordains the celebration of three major sacred occasions occurring during the seventh month: (1) the first day of the seventh month (which in the later tradition becomes the Jewish New Year); (2) the Day of Atonement; and (3) the Sukkot festival.
\n24. In the seventh month, on the first Any of the month \u2026 a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts. Note the same system of dating in verse 5 above and subsequently in verses 27, 33, and 39. Hebrew zikhron teru\u02bfah means literally \u201ccommemoration by blasting\u201d the shofar. The same designation of this occasion occurs in Numbers 29:1. The sounding of horns had various functions in ancient Israel, as well as elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Usually, it was a method of assembling the people before moving on to a new location or of mustering troops for battle. There were cultic uses as well. Horns were blasted when sacrifices were offered, and they were used by Temple musicians. In our text, the horn was blasted to announce the forthcoming pilgrimage festival, which occurred two weeks after the first day of the month. Thus we read in Psalms 81:4 literally, \u201cBlow the horn on the New Moon,\/on the full moon for the day of our pilgrimage festival.\u201d Chapter 23 presents this occasion as a day of rest and of sacred assembly. It is not conceived of as a New Year at this stage, but, rather, as an occasion preliminary to the Sukkot festival.
\nDAY OF ATONEMENT (vv. 26\u201332)
\nThe Commentary to 16:29\u201334 presents a detailed discussion of the rites ordained for this occasion. The introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135 contains further clarification of the Hebrew verb kipper, \u201cto expiate, atone,\u201d and the noun kippurim, \u201cexpiation, atonement.\u201d
\n27. Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month Hebrew \u02beakh, \u201cmoreover,\u201d here translated \u201cMark,\u201d is often used in the ritual laws for emphasis. Compare verse 39 below.
\nyou shall practice self-denial As explained in the Comment to 16:31, self-denial refers to fasting.
\n28. you shall do no work The prohibition of labor is repeated for emphasis in verse 30 below.
\n29\u201330. shall be cut off \u2026 I will cause that person to perish This is the only instance in the priestly codes of the Torah where God is said to cause the offender to perish. The closest we come to this notion is in 17:10 and in 20:3\u20136, where God is said to cut off the offender from the community.
\n32. It shall be a sabbath of complete rest for you See Comment to verse 3 above.
\nfrom evening to evening, you shall observe this your sabbath The phrase me-\u02bferev \u02bfad \u02bferev, \u201cfrom evening to evening,\u201d appears only in this verse; it is not said of any other sacred occasion, even the regular Sabbath. Indeed, it is uncertain as to whether in biblical times the Sabbath and the festivals began on the prior evening, as became the custom in later Judaism. In the laws of Passover and the matsot festival (vv. 5\u20138), the paschal sacrifice is indeed offered on the eve of the fifteenth day, and that event effectively marks the beginning of the festival as a whole. But the paschal offering was, after all, unusual in this very respect, for sacrifices in celebration of sacred occasions were typically offered in the morning.
\nTraditionally this verse has been interpreted as setting the norm for the entire gamut of festivals in the Jewish religious calendar, namely, that the celebration commences the previous evening. This fact notwithstanding, the uniqueness of the provision \u201cfrom evening to evening\u201d in connection with the Day of Atonement might suggest that the practice in this case was exceptional. The issue revolves around the definition of yom, \u201cday,\u201d in Genesis 1. The repeated phrase \u201cthere was evening and there was morning\u201d regarding the days of Creation could be taken to mean that where ritual legislation refers to a particular \u201cday\u201d of the month, it means a day extending from evening to evening. Rashbam notes, however, that this formula could be taken to mean that the second day and those following it began at dawn. In fact, his view has much to recommend it because there are many indications that in biblical Hebrew usage yom, \u201cday,\u201d meant the daylight hours. On this basis the requirement regarding the Day of Atonement was probably unique, and it is likely that, except for Passover, all other festivals, even the Sabbath, began at dawn in biblical times. Rabbinic halakhot clearly determined that the Sabbath and festivals commence with the evening.
\nChapter 23 thus represents the Day of Atonement as a day of complete rest, a Sabbath in that respect, on which an offering by fire was presented and on which Israelites were to fast and otherwise deprive themselves, the object being to secure expiation of sins. Recalling the complex legislation of chapter 16, it is worth repeating here that the tenth day of the seventh month was essentially a day on which the sanctuary was purified, and all violations of its purity expiated through various religious rites. Undoubtedly, scheduling this occasion only a few days prior to the major pilgrimage festival of the year ensured that the sanctuary and, hence, the people would be restored to a state of fitness in time for the celebration of the autumn Sukkot festival.
\nTHE SUKKOT FESTIVAL (vv. 33\u201344)
\nThis section combines two laws for the Sukkot festival: a seven-day observance and a concluding celebration on the eighth day. Like the matsot festival in the spring of the year, the first and seventh days of Sukkot are sacred assemblies on which work is forbidden. Offerings by fire are ordained for each of the seven days. Verses 39\u201343 provide further features: Greenery is to be used in the celebration, and the Israelites are to dwell in booths. Although Deuteronomy 16:13 also calls this occasion \u201cthe Feast of Booths,\u201d it does not provide any rationale for the name of the festival or for the related commemorative practice, such as is given here.
\n34. On the fifteenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Feast of Booths to the Lord Hebrew sukkah, \u201cbooth,\u201d derives from the verb s-kh-kh, \u201cto cover over,\u201d as would be said of branches. It designates a small, often impermanent structure that is covered on top, but that may be only partially enclosed on its sides. In Genesis 33:17 there is reference to a \u201cbooth\u201d used as a stall for livestock, and in Isaiah 1:8, to a \u201cbooth\u201d for watchmen in a vineyard.
\n36. On the eighth day \u2026 it is a solemn gathering Hebrew \u02bfatseret, \u201csolemn gathering,\u201d is a variation of \u02bfatsarah, a term that designates religious gatherings, such as public fasts. According to Deuteronomy 16:8, as well as the ritual legislation, the \u02bfatseret consistently comes at the conclusion of a prolonged celebration. This undoubtedly prompted the Septuagint to render it by Greek exodion, \u201cfinale, recessional.\u201d Etymologically, this term derives from the verb \u02bfatsar, \u201cto detain, restrain, confine,\u201d and may refer to the fact that the people are kept together for an additional day.
\n37. Those are the set of times of the Lord \u2026 on each day what is proper Hebrew devar yom be-yomo, \u201con each day what is proper,\u201d is an administrative formula, originally employed in delineating disbursements of food and other materials. It is also appropriate for listing offerings prescribed for particular occasions.
\n38. apart from the sabbaths of the Lord, and apart from your gifts Hebrew mattanah, \u201cgift,\u201d usually indicates a voluntary presentation. The formulation here resembles that in several of the laws of Deuteronomy.
\n39. when you have gathered in the yield of your land This is the basis for the older name of the festival, used in Exodus 23:16 and 34:22: \u1e25ag ha-\u02beasif, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Festival of Ingathering.\u201d
\n40. The product of hadar trees There is no positive horticultural identification of a tree, or a type of tree, called hadar. Words probably related etymologically to hadar connote beauty and majesty. Hebrew \u02bfets hadar, \u201chadar trees,\u201d is a general category that is followed by the specification of three beautiful trees: (1) kappot temarim, \u201cpalm branches,\u201d (2) \u02bfanaf \u02bfets \u02bfavot, \u201cbranches of leafy trees,\u201d and (3) \u02bfarvei na\u1e25al, \u201cwillows of the brook.\u201d This greenery symbolizes the abundance of water and oases and the beauty of the Land of Israel. Traditionally, the \u201cfruit of the tree\u201d has been taken to be the citron (\u02beetrog). It is a much later addition to the Sukkot celebration.
\nyou shall rejoice before the Lord your God This is the only festival prescribed in chapter 23 on which rejoicing is explicitly commanded. In the festival calendar of Deuteronomy 16, rejoicing is also mentioned in connection with the Feast of Weeks (v. 11). Elsewhere we read that sacrificial worship in the Temple is an occasion for rejoicing. It is not clear just why the Sukkot festival is singled out here, although it may be because Sukkot was the most prominent of the ancient pilgrimage festivals.
\n41. You shall observe it as a festival of the Lord Rather, \u201cyou shall observe it as a pilgrimage festival of the Lord.\u201d The pilgrimage is to last seven days.
\n42. all citizens in Israel Hebrew \u02beezra\u1e25, \u201ccitizen,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 19:34.
\n43. that I made the Israelite people live in booths According to Exodus 12:37, Sukkot is the name of the first stop on the exodus route from Egypt. A double entendre may have been intended: God brought the Israelites to Sukkot when He led them out of Egypt, and He also made them dwell in sukkot, \u201cbooths,\u201d at that time.
\n44. So Moses declared Rather, \u201cHe commanded.\u201d As the leader of the people, Moses ordered that the Israelites observe the set times of the Lord. The two passages dealing with the Sukkot festival, verses 33\u201338 and verses 39\u201344, may be differentiated according to their content. The former passage deals with the public celebration of the festival in the sanctuary in the manner of the statements regarding the Passover, the first day of the seventh month, and the Day of Atonement. The latter passage addresses the Israelite families and commands them to provide themselves with certain kinds of greenery and to dwell in booths.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n