CHAPTER 24
\nA Collection of Laws
\nChapter 24 is a brief collection of diverse religious laws concerning the kindling of lamps in the sanctuary, the rows of bread displayed before God in the sanctuary, and laws governing blasphemy and other serious crimes. A number of other features of this chapter warrant special comment. There is, first of all, a statement on the \u201claw of retaliation\u201d (lex talionis), similar to what we find in Exodus 21:23\u201325 and Deuteronomy 19:21. This subject is discussed in Excursus 9. In addition, verses 10\u201312 preserve a didactic narrative about an incident of blasphemy, which serves as a background to the legislation on the subject. This recorded incident occasions two further items of interest: a reference to incarceration as a form of detention; and a divine revelation that was needed for an immediate purpose.
\nTHE KINDLING OF THE MENORAH (vv. 1\u20134)
\nCommand the Israelite people \u2026 clear oil of beaten olives The Hebrew adjective zakh, \u201cclear, pure,\u201d is used to indicate the purity of ingredients. The verb k-t-t means \u201cto pulverize, crush, grind,\u201d and the particular form katit is passive: \u201cbeaten.\u201d In the Rashi to Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 8:4, it is explained that olive oil from the first of three pressings was called zakh in the period of the Second Temple. This same law regarding the kindling of the lamps is restated in Exodus 27:20\u201321. The traditional commentaries were understandably troubled by the precise repetition. Rashi explains that our passage represents the essential statement of the specific law, whereas the Exodus passage is part of the monumental general description of the Tabernacle.
\nfor kindling lamps regularly The Hebrew word tamid, whether used as an adjective or as an adverb (cf. in v. 3), has the sense of regularity. It does not mean \u201cforever, always.\u201d In practice, the lamp in the sanctuary burned only from evening to morning, as verse 3 states explicitly. The requirement that the lamp be lit in all generations is not conveyed by the word tamid, but by the formula \u1e25utkkat \u02bfolam le-doroteikhem, \u201cIt is a law for all time throughout the ages.\u201d
\n3. the curtain of the Pact The composite term parokhet ha-\u02bfedut is best translated \u201cthe curtain of [the Ark of] the Pact.\u201d The term parokhet is explained in the Comment to 4:6. In its portrayal of the sanctuary, priestly literature clearly differentiates between the inner and outer sections of the enclosed sanctuary. Behind the parokhet stood the Ark, known in some texts as the \u201cArk of the Pact\u201d (\u02bearon ha-\u02bfedut, or simply ha-\u02bfedut), in which rested the \u201cTablets of the Pact\u201d (lu\u1e25ot ha-\u02bfedut).
\n4. He shall set up the lamps on the pure lampstand The actual instructions for fashioning of the lampstand are ordained in Exodus 25:31\u201339. It was to be made of pure gold, of one solid piece that was hammered into shape. It had seven branches. According to 1 Kings 7:49 there were ten lampstands in the Solomonic Temple. They stood in two rows in front of the inner sanctum, which was called devir. This corresponded to the position of the one lampstand in the sanctuary.
\nThe noun menorah derives from ner, \u201ca light,\u201d and its form suggests that its basic meaning is \u201cthe place of light,\u201d hence, \u201clampstand.\u201d Whatever details are known about the menorah of biblical times come from textual descriptions. Artifacts unearthed in archaeological excavations represent the later models of the menorah that ultimately became prominent graphic symbols of Judaism and of the Jewish people.
\nTHE ROWS OF BREAD (vv. 5\u20139)
\n5. You shall take choice flour Rather, \u201csemolina flour.\u201d The bread presented as an offering on a table inside the sanctuary is elsewhere known as le\u1e25em ha-panim, \u201cthe bread of display,\u201d or as le\u1e25em ha-tamid, \u201cthe regularly [offered] bread.\u201d As explained in the Comment to 2:4, Hebrew \u1e25allah means \u201ca round loaf.\u201d The amount of flour used for each loaf was two-tenths of an \u02beefah, or about 2.2 liters.
\nThe practice of displaying bread in the sanctuary is very ancient. There is a reference to this offering in an account from the early career of David. While fleeing from Saul, David and his men arrived at the sanctuary of Nob and were given some of the bread of display to eat. According to ritual legislation, only priests were permitted to partake of these consecrated loaves and, then, only within sacred precincts. In the aforementioned story, the priest at Nob had to be assured that David\u2019s fighting men were pure before he permitted them to eat of the bread of display.
\nAs noted by Ibn Ezra, the twelve loaves clearly represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
\n6. Place them on the pure table \u2026 in two rows Hebrew ma \u02bfarekhet, \u201cset, row,\u201d led to the designations of the bread of display as le\u1e25em ha-ma\u02bfarekhet, \u201cthe bread of the row,\u201d and \u02bferekh le\u1e25em, \u201ca row of bread.\u201d The same terminology is used to designate a battle line.
\n7. With each row you shall place pure frankincense Frankincense (levonah) was also an ingredient of the incense. Here, its function was that of a \u201ctoken portion\u201d (\u02beazkarah). In most of the grain offerings prescribed in priestly legislation, a small amount of flour was scooped up by the officiating priest and then placed on the altar to burn. That constituted the \u201ctoken portion.\u201d This case is exceptional, as Rashi comments, \u201cfor none of the bread went to the \u2018Most High,\u2019 but rather, the frankincense was burned when they removed it (the bread) each sabbath.\u201d
\nIn effect, two different modes of sacrifice are reflected in the prescribed manner of offering the bread of display. The loaves themselves were a presentation to God for which no altar of burnt offerings was used. The bread was viewed by God and, by this means, accepted by Him. Subsequently, the loaves were apportioned to the priests. In an effort to adapt this widespread mode of sacrifice to the more distinctive method of burning offerings on the altar, frankincense was to be burned near the loaves of bread; just as with other offerings of grain, a small amount of flour was burned on the altar. God was pictured as inhaling the aroma of the burning frankincense, which served as \u201can offering by fire.\u201d
\nThe preposition \u02bfal means \u201cnear, together with,\u201d not \u201con, upon.\u201d In Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 11:5, we are told how the frankincense was burned during the period of the Second Temple. Two containers (bazikhin) were placed near the rows of loaves for this purpose.
\n8. He shall arrange them before the Lord regularly every sabbath day In Hebrew, repetition is a way of expressing regularity. Thus, be-yom ha-shabbat, be-yom ha-shabbat, \u201con the Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day,\u201d means \u201cevery Sabbath,\u201d just as ba-boker, ba-boker, \u201cin the morning, in the morning,\u201d means \u201cevery morning\u201d in Exodus 29:39. Note that here, tamid designates a weekly, not a daily procedure, which was the case in 6:13.
\n9. for they are his as most holy things from the Lord\u2019s offerings See Comment to 2:3.
\nLAWS GOVERNING BLASPHEMY AND OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES (vv. 10\u201322)
\n10. There came out among the Israelites This begins a brief narrative that serves to introduce the law governing the crime of blasphemy in verse 13. The point is made that the blasphemer was not a full-fledged Israelite, but was of mixed parentage, in contrast to the person with whom he fought, \u201cthe Israelite man.\u201d Hebrew va-yinnatsu connotes physical fighting. In the heat of the fight, the man of mixed parentage blasphemed.
\n11. pronounced the Name in blasphemy The Hebrew verb n-k-v, which also occurs in verse 15, literally means \u201cto pierce,\u201d and by extension, \u201cto specify, pronounce explicitly, identify.\u201d Targum Onkelos renders it in Aramaic as u-faresh, \u201che pronounced explicitly.\u201d The force of the two verbs taken together\u2014va-yikov \u2026 va-yekallel, literally \u201che pronounced \u2026 he cursed\u201d\u2014is to make of the later verb an adverbial phrase: \u201che pronounced by cursing blasphemously.\u201d Hebrew ha-shem, \u201cthe Name,\u201d is an abbreviation of shem YHVH, \u201cthe name of the Lord,\u201d as it appears in verse 15. This implicit way of referring to God as \u201cthe Name\u201d became proverbial in later Jewish literature.
\nThe genealogy of the blasphemer in this incident is certainly significant. His Israelite mother came from the tribe of Dan, associated with the northern cult at the temple of Dan, which the Jerusalemite priesthood considered illegitimate.
\nA prohibition against blasphemy is preserved in the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 22:27). That the penalty for blasphemy is death, as stated in biblical law, is intimated in Job 2:9, where we read that Job\u2019s wife urged him to end his life, which had become insufferable, by committing blasphemy.
\nThis section, which continues through verse 12, recounts a rare instance of incarceration, similar to what is recorded in Numbers 15:34. In both passages, the term mishmar, \u201cguardhouse,\u201d is used; and in both instances, detention was necessary until God provided a specific communication regarding the appropriate penalty, an act conveyed by the verb p-r-sh, \u201cto state clearly, specify.\u201d The specific communication from God specifying the penalty to be imposed on the blasphemer serves to dramatize the concept, basic to priestly literature, that all the particulars of religious law were communicated by God to Moses. In another instance, Moses was urged to detain two persons, but he refused to do so.
\nPenal incarceration as the actual punishment for a crime was seldom the norm in the ancient Near East. There were, however, debtors\u2019 prisons and those where slaves were held, often on the estates of large landowners and kings. These guarded facilities served as living quarters from which escape was difficult.
\n14. Take the blasphemer outside the camp Capital sentences were executed outside the area of settlement. This was due, at least in part, to the impurity attached to a corpse. It was also because the taking of a human life, even though by judicial process and required by law, was regarded as a horrendous act. In the laws of Deuteronomy (17:5), one convicted of a capital offense was to be taken to the gates of the city to be executed. Naboth the Jezreelite, who had been wrongly condemned to die, was nevertheless executed outside the city, according to custom.
\nand let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head Biblical law considers hearing, not only seeing, to be a form of witnessing, especially where the act involved consists primarily of speaking audibly, as with blasphemy. On the same basis, one attests to hearing the pronouncement of vows. Conversely, one who has not actually heard an oath is not bound by it. When two parties to a contract make mutual commitments, God hears them and holds them responsible.
\nThe entire community has a responsibility to root out blasphemy because it adversely affects everyone, even if it is committed by a single individual. Such a direct affront to God awakens His anger.
\nThe laying on of hands, as explained in the Comment to 1:4, symbolizes the transfer of authority and has both cultic and legal functions.
\n15. Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt The formulation \u02beish \u02beish, \u201canyone, any man,\u201d is characteristic of the Holiness Code. The idiom nasa\u02be \u1e25et\u02be is synonymous with nasa\u02be \u02beavon, \u201cto bear the punishment of a sin, or offense.\u201d
\n16. The whole community shall stone him; stranger or citizen Non-Israelites are responsible for acts considered vital to maintaining the religious character of the community. Therefore, offenses that threaten that overall religious character are punishable, even when committed by non-Israelite residents.
\n17. If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death. Similar laws involving precise retaliation for murder and bodily injury occur in Exodus 21:23\u201325 and Deuteronomy 19:21. They are stated here because of their legal relationship to the death penalty imposed for blasphemy. One who kills a human being intentionally must pay with his life. The law code of Numbers 35:9\u201334 stipulates exceptions to this rule, for cases of accidental manslaughter.
\n18. One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it Biblical criminal law consistently differentiates between human life and the life of animals. Restitution can be made for destruction of livestock, even if intentional. This is stated most explicitly in verse 21.
\nlife far life That is to say, the assessed value of the animal destroyed or of another animal provided in place of the one killed.
\n19. If anyone maims his fellow Hebrew mum, \u201cblemish, injury,\u201d here refers to a permanent condition\u2014the loss of a limb, an eye\u2014or a break that does not mend, as is specified in the following verses. The same term, mum, is used in 21:17 and 22:20f. to describe disqualifying defects in priests and sacrificial animals.
\n20. fracture for fracture, \u2026 The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on him The full implications of retaliatory punishment for injuries are explored in Excursus 9.
\n22. You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike The Hebrew term mishpat means \u201cnorm of justice, standard.\u201d The same rules apply whether the offender or the victim are Israelites or resident non-Israelites. This stipulation must be made explicit because of the practice, in certain legal systems, of judging resident aliens by a different law. Extraterritoriality was not endorsed by biblical law in cases of killing or bodily injury, nor in cases of blasphemy.
\n23. Moses spoke thus to the Israelites It was important to record the actual compliance of the Israelites with God\u2019s command.<\/p>\n
The Principles of Land Tenure (25:1\u201326:2)
\nBe-har
\nChapter 25 of Leviticus is the only code of practice on the subject of land tenure in ancient Israel that is preserved in the Torah. This unique collection of laws and commandments governs the permanent rights of landowners and the legalities of the sale and mortgaging of land. There are also laws regarding indebtedness and indenture, a system of repaying debts through one\u2019s labors. In chapter 25, the seventh year, when fields are to lie fallow, is called the \u201cSabbatical year\u201d; and after a cycle of seven Sabbatical years\u2014every half century\u2014there is to be a Jubilee year.
\nThe basic biblical theory of land tenure is expressed in verses 23\u201324: \u201cBut the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me. Throughout the land that you hold, you must provide for the redemption of the land.\u201d Its fundamental tenet is that the land of Canaan belongs to God, who had granted it to the Israelites as an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201ctenured land, land holding.\u201d It is not theirs to dispose of as they wish; it could not be permanently alienated. Israelite landowners who were compelled by circumstances to sell their land or to mortgage it to pay their debts retained the right to redeem, or retrieve, it. If the original owner raised the necessary funds, the creditor or purchaser was required to restore it to him; and, as a last resort, the land reverted to the original owner on the Jubilee. In effect, all transfers of land designated as \u02bea\u1e25uzzah became long-term leases and were not to be considered final sales.
\nChapter 25 guarantees the rights of individual landowners in contrast to the more ancient system of ge\u02beullah, \u201credemption,\u201d that sought to retain ancestral land within the clan. According to that system, the redeemer, a relative within the clan, gained title to the land he had redeemed out of his own resources, for preventing loss of land to the clan as a whole was deemed more important than protecting the rights of any individual owner. Chapter 25 represents a significant adaptation of the ancient system of redemption. The redeemer from the same clan was commanded to restore the land to its original owner, as concern shifts from the clan to the individual owner.
\nIndeed, land tenure is at the heart of the chapter, which does not provide for a moratorium on debts every seventh year, as does the law of Deuteronomy 15; nor does it require the release of indentured servants every seventh year, as do both Deuteronomy 15 and Exodus 21. Both of the latter chapters are primarily concerned with the alleviation of poverty. By contrast, according to the system embodied in chapter 25, a maximum of fifty years could elapse until relief was forthcoming. Undoubtedly, it was expected that by rendering sales and mortgages of land conditional and of limited duration and by guaranteeing the right of retrieval by original owners, the debilitating process of disenfranchisement could be stemmed.
\nIn the agrarian societies of the past, virtually all indebtedness was associated with the land. One borrowed for the purpose of securing seed, implements, or work animals and to defray the cost of hiring laborers. The loan was to be repaid after the harvest. If the crop failed, or if the borrower, for whatever other reason, found himself unable to repay his debt, the next step was mortgaging or selling land. And, as a consequence, one who no longer had land to pledge or sell was often forced to indenture himself or his children in order to work off the debt. Hence the strong admonitions in chapter 25 against the abuse of fellow Israelites who had been indentured. If an Israelite became indentured to another Israelite and no redeemer came to his assistance and he, himself, could not repay his debt, there was no recourse except to await the Jubilee, when a general \u201crelease\u201d was declared. The only exception stated in verses 47f. was when an Israelite became indentured to a non-Israelite. In that event, an additional effort was to be made on the part of his entire clan to redeem him.
\nExcursus 10 considers exactly how the legislation of this chapter fits into the historical development of economic institutions in biblical Israel, as seen against the background of the ancient Near East.
\nCHAPTER 25
\nTHE SABBATICAL YEAR AND THE JUBILEE (25:1\u201323)
\nThe seventh year in a continuous cycle of years is called the sabbatical year (just as the seventh day is the Sabbath). In that year, the sowing and reaping of fields, as well as the pruning and picking of vines, are prohibited. What grows naturally is for the taking, by man and beast (vv. 1\u20137).
\nEvery fiftieth year, a Jubilee (yovel) is proclaimed. On that occasion there is to be \u201crelease\u201d (deror), by which all tenured land reverts to its original owners, and all indentured Israelites return to their homes. The agricultural prohibitions of the sabbatical year also apply (vv. 8\u201312).
\nAll sales of land are to be considered leases, not final sales. The cost of the lease, for any who desired to \u201cbuy it out,\u201d is to be computed in terms of crop years, namely, the number of crop years remaining until the next Jubilee. This section concludes with an additional admonition against violating the laws of the sabbatical year; it emphasizes the rewards of obedience to the law (vv. 13\u201322).
\n2. When you enter the land \u2026 the land shall observe a sabbath of the Lord Exodus 23:10\u201311 also commands the abandonment of agricultural land every seventh year, in somewhat the same terms. The salient difference is that only in the Holiness Code is the seventh year called a sabbath. (As well, only here is the fiftieth year, the Jubilee, called a sabbath.) The application of the sabbatical idea to measuring time is basic to chapter 23, where, in verses 15\u201316, the seven weeks of counting prior to Shavuot are called shabbatot, \u201csabbaths.\u201d Those are weeks of days, whereas here we are speaking of weeks of years, of seven-year cycles. The land is personified\u2014it, too, tires and requires rest.
\n3. Six years you may sow your field Compare the wording in Exodus 23:10: \u201cSix years you shall sow your land.\u2026\u201d
\nand six years you may prune your vineyard Hebrew kerem, \u201cvineyard,\u201d is a term that may also designate olive groves, although in Exodus 23:11 olive groves and vineyards are listed as two items.
\nPruning was essential for assuring the growth of the grapes. There were two prunings each year, one in the winter, or rainy season, when the shoots that had not produced grapes the previous year were snipped off, and a second in June or July, when the new blossoms had already appeared.
\nThis latter trimming is precisely described in Isaiah 18:5: \u201cFor before the vintage, yet after the budding,\/When the blossom has hardened into berries,\/He will trim away the twigs with pruning hooks,\/And lop off the trailing branches.\u201d
\nand gather in the yield That is, the yield of \u201cthe land\u201d (ha-\u02bearets) in verse 2.
\n4. the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest On the composite term shabbat shabbaton, \u201ca sabbath of complete rest,\u201d see Comments to 16:31 and to 23:3.
\nAllowing the land to lie fallow every seventh year helped to reduce the amount of sodium in the soil, especially where irrigation was employed. This subject is treated in Excursus 10.
\n5. You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest Hebrew safia\u1e25, \u201caftergrowth,\u201d refers to what grows naturally the following season from seeds that had fallen to the ground during reaping. Maimonides clearly explains this in his commentary to Mishnah Kilayim 2:5: \u201cAt times, some of the plant grows a second and even a third time after reaping. That which grows a second time is called safia\u1e25, and after a third time, sha\u1e25is. This is described in Isaiah 37:30: \u2018This year you eat what grows of itself (safia\u1e25), and the next year, what springs from that (sha\u1e25is), and in the third year sow and reap and plant vineyards and eat their fruit.\u2019 \u201d
\nthe grapes of your untrimmed vines Rather, \u201cthe grapes of your forbidden vines.\u201d Hebrew \u02bfinvei nezirekha occurs only here. The translation \u201cuntrimmed vines\u201d is correct, functionally speaking, because vines were not to be trimmed during the Sabbatical year. Underlying this strange idiom is the law of the Nazirite (nazir) in Numbers 2:11\u201312. The Nazirite may not partake of anything that grows on the vine, probably a very ancient prohibition. Samson\u2019s mother is instructed that her son is not to drink intoxicants, for he is to be a Nazirite of God (Judg. 13:7), and the prophet Amos (2:11\u201312) castigates the people for giving Nazirites wine to drink. It may have been proverbial in ancient Israel to refer to grapes that grew naturally during the Sabbatical year as \u201cNazirite\u201d grapes. This may be implied in the comment of Ramban: \u201cAnd the vine which was not worked was called nazir, because one is to set it aside, and separate it from himself, as if it were not his own.\u201d
\n6. the hired and bound laborers who live with you Both terms, sakhir and toshav, are subject to varying interpretations, according to context. Hebrew sakhir usually refers to a laborer who works for wages, whereas toshav often designates a foreign \u201cresident,\u201d a merchant or laborer. This is suggested here by the words ha-garim \u02bfimmakh, \u201cwho live with you.\u201d In the ancient Near East, as in other parts of the world, laborers were often billeted on the estates of their employers, and this was especially true of foreign laborers. This practice also helps to explain the translation \u201cbound laborer\u201d for Hebrew toskav. In verse 35 we read of one Israelite \u201cholding\u201d another as one would a \u201cforeign resident\u201d (ger toshav).
\nVerse 6 states that one\u2019s hired and bound laborers are entitled to join in gathering what grows naturally during the Sabbatical year, just as are one\u2019s slaves. The owner of a field, grove, or vineyard may also gather in this way, so long as he does not act as an owner, but just as another Israelite, taking his turn.
\n7. and your cattle and the beasts in your land may eat all its yield Verses 6\u20137 recall Exodus 23:11, where we read that owners of fields must leave the natural growth of the land for the needy among the Israelites and for the beasts, as well. The reference to beasts symbolizes the freedom characteristic of the Sabbatical year: Man and beast are free to roam about and gather their sustenance.
\n8. You shall count off seven weeks of years This mirrors the wording of 23:15\u201316, where we read of seven weeks of days.
\ngives you a total of forty-nine years The Hebrew idiom ve-hayu lekha literally means \u201cthey shall be for you,\u201d but the sense is \u201cthey shall total, amount to.\u201d
\n9. Then you shall sound the horn loud Hebrew teru\u02bfah is the term for the sustained, loud blast of the shofar.
\nin the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month The sounding of the shofar five days before the autumn harvest festival of Sukkot served to proclaim the advent of the Jubilee. According to 23:27 (and 16:29) this was the day of Yom Kippur. There is an obvious problem in this statement: The year of the Jubilee is said to begin in the seventh month of the year. Two calendars, each with its own history, are reflected in this verse. The year of the Jubilee began in the autumn, whereas the calendar in regular use numbered the months from the springtime, as prescribed in Exodus 12:1\u20132.
\n10. and you shall hallow the fiftieth year. The Jubilee year is to be hallowed just as the Sabbath day is hallowed. The verb kiddesh, \u201cto sanctify, hallow,\u201d is customarily used to convey the sanctification of the Sabbath; by using this verb in connection with the Jubilee, a parallelism between the two occasions is created.
\nYou shall proclaim release throughout the land for all its inhabitants The Hebrew term deror has conventionally been rendered \u201cfreedom, liberty.\u201d More has been learned about it in recent years, however. Hebrew deror is cognate with Akkadian andur\u0101ru, which designates an edict of release issued by the Old Babylonian kings and some of their successors. This edict was often issued by a king upon ascending the throne and was a feature of a more extensive legal institution known as mesharum, a moratorium declared on debts and indenture. The Akkadian verb dar\u0101ru, like Hebrew d-r-r, means \u201cto move about freely,\u201d referring in this instance to the freedom granted those bound by servitude. In Jeremiah 34:15, we read that, as the Chaldeans approached Jerusalem, King Zedekiah ordered the people to release their indentured servants, to proclaim a deror, \u201crelease.\u201d In Isaiah 61:1, the Judeans exiled in Babylonia are to be freed under terms of a deror as they are restored to their land. The biblical laws of the Jubilee year thus incorporate Near Eastern legal institutions of great antiquity.
\nIt shall be a jubilee for you Hebrew yovel means both \u201cram\u201d and \u201cram\u2019s horn.\u201d The fiftieth year is called \u201cJubilee\u201d because its advent is proclaimed by sounding the ram\u2019s horn.
\neach of you shall return to his holding This refers primarily to families who were evicted from their homes and farms due to foreclosure and who had been unable to repay their loans. This situation is clearly projected in verses 13\u201317 and, again, in verses 25\u201328.
\nThe term \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201ctenured land, land holding,\u201d is the key to a proper understanding of chapter 25 as a whole. It receives considerable attention in Excursus 10. Here, it suffices to emphasize the rule that an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah is settled and worked by permission of the rulers of the land. Verse 23 states:\u201cFor the land is Mine,\u201d namely, the Lord\u2019s. God granted the Israelite people the land of Canaan as its \u02bea\u1e25uzza\u1e25. The Israelites are God\u2019s tenants, so to speak. They do not possess or rule the land as a result of conquest, and they do not have the right to dispose of it as if it were entirely their own. This is the basic theory of land tenure expressed in the legislation of chapter 25, and it is the foundation for the laws governing sale and purchase of most real estate owned, in the usual sense, by Israelites.
\nand each of you shall return to his family Rather, \u201cto his clan.\u201d The Hebrew term mishpa\u1e25ah designates the basic socioeconomic unit in ancient Israel. It was more inclusive than the immediate family, which is the unit whose parameters are reflected in the incest laws of chapters 18 and 20.
\nUnderstood in terms of Exodus 21:2f. and Deuteronomy 15:12f., this means that indentured Israelites, compelled to live on the estates of their creditors, would be free to return to their own homes. In those other legal statements we read of the master \u201cdismissing, freeing\u201d his indentured servants, allowing them to return home. In 2 Kings 4:1f. we are told how a certain creditor sought to take a woman\u2019s son away from home to work as an indentured servant.
\n11. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you The syntax of the Hebrew is somewhat unusual. Literally, it reads: \u201cIt is a Jubilee, the fiftieth year\u2014it shall be for you.\u201d
\nyou shall not sow See Comments to verses 4\u20135 regarding the formulation of this commandment.
\n12. you may only eat the growth direct from the field This is the sense of min ha-sadeh, \u201cfrom the field.\u201d The same wording occurs in Exodus 23:16, in the context of harvesting directly from the field. Here, the owner of fields and groves is forbidden to harvest his yield in the usual way, but must leave it for all to eat. He may, of course, join in with others to gather food, but not in the status of an owner.
\n13. In this year of jubilee, each of you shall return to his holding This is a general, introductory statement. It is followed by a delineation of the specific conditions under which a person was likely to lose possession of his land in the first place.
\n14. When you sell property to your neighbor The verb timkeru, \u201cyou sell,\u201d is in the plural, whereas la-\u02bfamitekha has a singular suffix. Such fluctuations of syntax occasionally occur in biblical Hebrew. The term \u02bfamit, \u201cneighbor,\u201d refers to a fellow Israelite and would not be used to designate a non-Israelite. This law only applies to transfers of property among Israelites.
\nHebrew mimkar literally means \u201cwhat is sold,\u201d namely, \u201cpossessions, property.\u201d Compare Ezekiel 7:13: \u201cFor the seller shall not return to what he sold (ha-mimkar).\u201d
\nyou shall not wrong one another The verb honah connotes economic oppression or fraud, as is explained in the Comment to 19:33. Ezekiel (45:9f.) admonishes the princes of Israel not to \u201coppress\u201d the people in matters of land and currency. How to avoid fraud in land transfers is explained in the following verses.
\n15. In buying from your neighbor The value of leases on the land was to be computed in terms of crop years. Since all land that was \u201csold\u201d would revert to its original owners at the next Jubilee, the price was to be equivalent to the number of crops the purchaser would realize from the land before that occasion. The same principle operated in the case of indentured Israelites, as we read in verse 50, regarding the period of time they would continue to serve. Thus, if at the time of the sale only a few years remained, the cost of the lease would be relatively small.
\n16. the more such years, the higher the price you pay \u2026 Rather, \u201cThe more the [remaining] years, the higher you may fix its purchase price, and the less the [remaining] years, the lower its purchase price. For he is actually selling you a number of crop years.\u201d The term miknah, \u201cpurchase, what is purchased,\u201d is known from Jeremiah 32:11, where we find sefer ha-miknah, \u201cthe deed of purchase.\u201d Our verse restates the rule set forth in verse 15 that \u201csales\u201d of agricultural land held as an \u02bea\u1e25uzznh are, legally speaking, leases.
\n17. Do not wrong one another, but fear your God This repeats, for emphasis, the statement of verse 14. It is characteristic of the Holiness Code to exhort the Israelite people to act out of fear of God, especially in matters that do not lend themselves easily to enforcement. Only those who realize that God sees all and will punish even secret transgressions of His laws will resist the temptation to try to get away with their sins and their crimes.
\n18. Tou shall observe My laws Verses 18\u201322 interrupt the continuity of the legislation governing the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee year. This subject is resumed in verse 23, which then concludes this section of chapter 25. Verse 23 takes up where verse 17 leaves off: After stipulating the rules for the sale of land, verse 23 reemphasizes the point that such sales are not final. Verses 18\u201322 constitute, therefore, an exhortation to obey God\u2019s laws and commandments, with the promise of security and abundance as a reward for such obedience.
\nthat you may live upon the land in security Here, and in verse 19, Hebrew la-veta\u1e25, \u201cin security,\u201d describes a situation in which a people is safe from attack and need not fear invasions. It is customarily a feature of the covenantal promise to Israel, expressed most emphatically in the Book of Deuteronomy. In Judges 18:7f. we find a description of a people living \u201csecurely.\u201d The residents of Laish in southern Phoenicia never expected an inland attack and consequently were overwhelmed by the tribe of Dan without recourse to fighting. The Israelite people will subdue its enemies all around, so that they may live securely, without fear, as we read in Deuteronomy 12:10:\u201cWhen you cross the Jordan and settle in the land that the Lord your God is allotting to you, and He grants you safety from all your enemies around you and you live in security (beta\u1e25)\u201d
\n19. the land shall yield its fruit and you shall eat your fill Along with security will come fertility and abundance. Hebrew sova\u02bf, \u201cplenty, satiety,\u201d is a term with an interesting history in the ancient Near East. It occurs in royal inscriptions relating the achievements of kings who provided well for their peoples. In the Hebrew Bible, it frequently pertains to God\u2019s promise of blessing, since God is the ultimate provider of His people. This reference to abundant fertility links verse 19 to verses 20\u201322, which pertain to the Sabbatical year rather than to the Jubilee itself. Verses 20\u201322 take their cue from the theme of abundance.
\n20. \u201cWhat are we to eat in the seventh year, if we may neither sow nor gather in our crops?\u201d Hebrew hen, \u201cif,\u201d is merely a different form of the conditional particle \u02beim. This verse projects the anxiety of the people. They are assured that the crop of the sixth year will be so abundant that it will last beyond the end of the seventh year, when they would normally rely on a new crop. The sense is: \u201cWhat are we to eat at the end of the seventh year and well into the eighth year?\u201d
\n21. I will ordain My blessing This and verse 22 are the response. Until the crop of the eighth year is harvested, you will have sufficient food from the \u201cold\u201d crop, namely, that of the sixth year. The language recalls Deuteronomy 28:8: \u201cThe Lord will ordain blessings for you.\u201d The Hebrew verb tsivvah, \u201cto command, ordain,\u201d has as its primary sense \u201cto dispatch, send.\u201d God employs the forces of nature, which are under His control, to provide for His people.
\nso that it shall yield a crop sufficient for three years The verb \u02bfasah may connote \u201cproducing\u201d crops or fruit. Compare Psalms 107:37: va-ya\u02bfasu peri tevu\u02beah, \u201cthat yield a fruitful harvest.\u201d
\n22. you will still be eating old grain Compare 26:10, where Hebrew yashan, \u201cold grain,\u201d contrasts with \u1e25adash, \u201cnew grain.\u201d
\n23. But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim The text returns to its principal subject: the status of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land as inalienable. Hebrew li-tsemitut does not mean \u201cin perpetuity.\u201d We now know its precise meaning from the Akkadian contracts discovered at Ugarit. In these documents, the descriptive term tsamit (or tsamat) means \u201cfinally handed over.\u201d This term establishes that the sale recorded is final and that the property sold is irretrievable. A clause will often read tsamit adi d\u0101r\u012bti, \u201cfinally handed over to all generations.\u201d The sale is permanent, because it is final and concluded at the full price. This clause corresponds to the formula appearing in verse 30 of our chapter. That formula deals with sales of urban dwellings that become final if not redeemed within one year: li-tsemitut la-koneh \u02beoto le-dorotav, literally \u201cfinally handed over to the one who purchases it, to his generations.\u201d Our verse states that sales of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land are not of that status; they are not li-tsemitut.
\nAs was true of the institution of \u201crelease\u201d (deror), prescribed in verse 10, we find in the term tsemitut another instance of very ancient terminology in chapter 25. The repeated emphasis in our legislation on computing the price of the land in terms of crop years also relates to the fact that in the Akkadian contracts from Ugarit, property \u201cfinally handed over\u201d is at the full price. Not so \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land.
\nyou are but strangers resident with Me The Israelites\u2014merely God\u2019s tenants in the land of Canaan\u2014do not have the right to alienate the land.
\nADDITIONAL LAWS REGARDING LAND TENURE AND INDENTURE (25:24\u201355)
\nAs we have seen, the permanent alienation of land classified as \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201ctenured land,\u201d is prohibited. It is stressed here that clan relatives are obligated to redeem the lands of their relatives in the event of sale or foreclosure. One whose own fortunes improved was then duty-bound to redeem his own land by paying off the remainder of the creditor\u2019s, or purchaser\u2019s, lease. But even if no redemption was possible, the land reverted to its original owner at the Jubilee (vv. 23\u201328).
\nUrban real estate, located within city walls, was exempt from the general rule. It could be redeemed for only one year after its sale; afterward it was considered permanently alienated. Two other, related provisions are included in the legislation. Village dwellings, where no walls encompass the settlement, were subject to the general rule, and could still be redeemed after one year; they reverted on the Jubilee, just like agricultural land. As regards the holdings of the Levites, property within the Levitical cities could be redeemed indefinitely, but the enclosed areas adjacent to the Levitical cities could never be sold in the first instance. They were effectively removed from the sphere of economic activity (vv. 29\u201334) and held in trust for the Levites.
\nWe then encounter three related laws governing indebtedness and indenture, (1) If one Israelite becomes indebted to another, he may not be charged any form of interest on his debt. (2) If one Israelite becomes indentured to another, he may not be treated as a slave and must be given his freedom in the Jubilee year, at the latest. (3) If an Israelite becomes indentured to a non-Israelite, efforts must be undertaken by the entire clan to redeem him as soon as possible. If not redeemed, such an indentured Israelite gains his freedom at the next Jubilee, along with his wife and children (vv. 35\u201355).
\nThis section of Leviticus concludes with a series of commandments, prohibiting idolatry of various sorts and enjoining the Israelites to observe the Sabbath and show respect for what is sacred (26:1\u20132).
\n24. you must provide for the redemption of the land After stipulating the basis for computing sales of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land, the legislation now deals with the law of redemption, an alternative that is preferable to the Jubilee. Land should be retrieved as soon as it is financially feasible. The effect of this law is to obligate the purchaser to accept the redemption payment of the original owner. He may not refuse to do so. Verse 24 is a general statement that is followed by a series of situations in which the rule applies.
\n25. If your kinsman is in straits The Hebrew verb m-w-kh, which occurs only in this chapter and in 27:8, is probably related to the root m-k-k, \u201cto collapse.\u201d In Late Hebrew we find the form namokh, \u201clow.\u201d The sense is that of \u201creduction\u201d to poverty.
\nhis nearest redeemer It is preferable to understand Hebrew karov as \u201crelative, one closely related,\u201d within the clan, as is explained in the Comment to 21:2. The order of relatedness is delineated below in verses 48\u201349. An actual redemption of this kind is recorded in Jeremiah 32:6\u201314, although the legalities of that act differ somewhat from the law set forth in this chapter. Here, the object of redemption is to restore the property to one\u2019s relative, who would retain possession of his land within the clan. The redeemer would not possess the land himself.
\n26. but prospers and acquires enough to redeem with The Hebrew idiom ve-hissigah yado literally means \u201chis hand reaches,\u201d which is to say that he has the means \u201cat hand.\u201d The idiom mats\u02beah yado has the slightly different meaning \u201che is able,\u201d literally \u201chis hand has overtaken.\u201d The idiomatic formulation creates a practical sequence: A person acquires the means and is therefore able to redeem his land.
\n27. he shall compute the years since its sale Hebrew \u1e25ishev, \u201cto record, keep on account,\u201d occurs in 2 Kings 12:16, literally, \u201cBut they do not keep an accounting of the men to whom the silver is remitted for paying the workers, for they work on trust.\u201d This connotation is an extension of the sense of calculating. Ecclesiastes preserves the related forms \u1e25ishavon and \u1e25eshbon, \u201ccalculation.\u201d
\nrefund the difference Two other usages bear explanation. Hebrew \u02bfodef, \u201csurplus, excess,\u201d is an ancient accounting term, and the verb heshiv, normally \u201cto bring back, return,\u201d may mean \u201cto pay, to refund,\u201d as it does here. The procedure was that one who wished to redeem land he had sold had to pay the purchaser the value of the rest of his lease; that is, he deducted from the price the value of the years the purchaser had already benefited from the land.
\n28. it shall be released The Hebrew verb yatsa\u02be used here, which simply means \u201cto go out, depart,\u201d may have the specialized connotation of gaining one\u2019s freedom, changing status, or being released. An indentured servant \u201cdeparts\u201d from his master\u2019s estate, which means that he gains release. Cognates of Hebrew yatsa\u02be in other Semitic languages, such as Akkadian ats\u00fb, may also have this connotation.
\nTo summarize the preceding verses: An owner of land who had sold it under economic stress could redeem it at any time, either through his own resources or those of a clan relative. Implicit in the law is the fact that the purchaser could not refuse the right of redemption.
\n29. If a man sells a dwelling bouse in a walled city The law of redemption is limited in the case of urban dwellings. A town, defined as an area surrounded by a wall, is excluded from the tenure system applicable to agricultural land held as an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah. In the ancient Near East, towns and cities had a special status as regards tax exemptions and legal prerogatives. In agrarian societies arable land and, to a degree, pastureland as well were the mainstay of the economy. They accounted for most of the employment in addition to their value as the source of food. In the towns lived the artisans, and those we would today call members of the service professions, which often included members of priestly families. The implications of these realities are discussed in Excursus 10.
\nthe redemption period shall be a year Literally, \u201cfor days.\u201d Hebrew yamim, \u201cdays,\u201d when used in certain contexts, is a way of indicating a year of days. This is clarified by verse 30, as though by way of explanation: \u201cbefore a full year has elapsed.\u201d Similarly, in 1 Samuel 1:21, zeva\u1e25 ha-yamim is best rendered \u201cthe annual sacrifice.\u201d
\n30. shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages Rather, \u201cshall legally become the property of the purchaser.\u201d Here, the sense of Hebrew ve-kam, literally \u201cto stand,\u201d is \u201cto belong to, become the property of.\u201d Compare Genesis 23:20, literally, \u201cAnd the field and the cave within it became the property (va-yakom) of Abraham.\u201d This meaning is rare, but precise, when it occurs.
\n31. But houses in villages that have no encircling walls The term used here for \u201cvillages,\u201d Hebrew \u1e25atserim, has an interesting history. It was originally a pastoral term, synonymous with \u201ctents.\u201d Deuteronomy 2:23 relates that the land of the Ammonites in Transjordan was once populated by a people who lived in \u1e25atserim. According to Isaiah 42:11, the Kedemite tribes lived in such encampments in the vicinity of Petra. In the genealogy of Genesis 25:13ff., the clans of Ishmael, who were related to the Kedemites, lived in \u1e25atserim and tirot, \u201ccircular encampments.\u201d Here, reference is primarily to agricultural villages, where there were houses, not tents, and fields, not pastureland.
\nshall be classed as open country Rather, \u201cShall be classed as arable land.\u201d The sense of the Hebrew verb ye\u1e25ashev is \u201cto be counted among, considered part of.\u201d Dwellings located in unwalled towns are considered part of the \u02bea\u1e25uzzah of the Israelites and therefore are subject to the general rule governing such lands. They are different from urban dwellings, in general. Hebrew sedeh ha-\u02bearets, literally \u201cthe field of the land,\u201d means, in effect, agricultural land.
\n32. As for the cities of the Levites, the houses in the cities they hold The urban dwellings of the Levites within their cities are to be released on the Jubilee and are redeemable, unlike other urban dwellings, which are subject to a different law, according to verse 31. In Numbers 35:1\u201318, we read that the Levites are to be given forty-eight towns, inclusive of the six \u201ccities of asylum\u201d established by the legislation of Deuteronomy 19:2\u20139. These towns are to be considered a surrogate \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, in place of agricultural land. Verse 34 adds that the areas adjacent to the Levitical towns are included in this surrogate \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, an arrangement necessitated by the fact that the Levites were not assigned a territory, as were the other tribes of Israel, as we learn from Deuteronomy 18:1\u20132.
\n33. Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites\u2014houses sold in a city they hold\u2014shall be released through the jubilee The parenthetical comment, separated by dashes in the translation, may be a gloss inserted by a later writer to explain the anomalous usage of the verb ga\u02beal in this verse. It usually means \u201cto redeem,\u201d reflecting the system of clan responsibility for assisting needy relatives; but that meaning does not work here because this verse concerns urban dwellings sold or mortgaged by Levites who found themselves in difficult financial straits. The clause \u02beasher yig\u02beal min ha-levi\u02beim should, therefore, be understood to mean \u201cwhich is appropriated from the Levites,\u201d namely, by those who had either purchased it or held it as security for debts. Since the Levitical towns are the surrogate \u02bea\u1e25uzzah of the Levites, properties within them come under the provisions of the \u02bea\u1e25uzzah. As in verse 28, usage of the verb yatsa\u02be, \u201cto depart,\u201d is legal: \u201cto be released, to go free.\u201d
\n34. But the unenclosed land about their cities cannot be sold The term translated \u201cunenclosed land (migrash)\u201d originally designated an area for livestock. Like the term \u1e25atserim encountered in verse 31 it came to designate an area used primarily for gardening or agriculture, although the Levites may also have kept their livestock there. Such areas, immediately outside the towns, could not be sold under any circumstances, no matter how severe the economic situation of the Levites. Held in trust for the Levites, they were effectively removed from the context of indebtedness. Perhaps the reason for this exceptional restriction was related to the sustenance that the Levites derived from such plots of land, the only ones they possessed.
\nfor that is their holding for all time The composite term \u02bea\u1e25uzzat \u02bfolam, \u201ca holding for all time,\u201d is best known from the covenantal promises to the patriarchs and to other leaders of the Israelites. In such contexts, the sense is that the rights conferred by God to the Israelites over the land are permanent, for all time. In verse 46, non-Israelite slaves may be owned by Israelites as \u201cproperty for all time (\u02bea\u1e25uzzah le-\u02bfolam)\u201d Like the land itself, the non-Israelite population of Canaan and the foreigners from surrounding lands were subdued. In our verse, however, \u02bea\u1e25uzzat \u02bfolam is a specific legal term. It is a way of stating that the plots (migrash) of the Levites are protected from liability and remain continuously in the possession of the Levites.
\n35. If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority Verses 35\u201338 deal with indebtedness, just as further on, verses 39\u201341 deal with indenture, which is a more severe set of circumstances. The crucial difference between them is that one who possesses property that he can sell or mortgage is still free, but one who has no assets must work off his debts as an indentured servant.
\nThe sense of Hebrew ki yamukh is \u201cif he is reduced,\u201d as is explained in the Comment to verse 25. The idiom u-matah yado occurs only here. Literally it means \u201cif his hand stumbles, buckles.\u201d This image is usually applied to stumbling feet. Here, the sense is not physically graphic, but rather situational: u-matah yado \u02bfimmakh, literally \u201cif he lost his means in dealing with you,\u201d that is, if he became indebted to you. This usage expresses the opposite of ve-hissigah yado, literally \u201chis hand reaches,\u201d in verse 25, or mats\u02beah yado, \u201chis hand overtakes,\u201d in verse 28. Both of those idioms indicate adequate means, whereas matah yado indicates inadequate means.
\nand you hold him as though a resident alien On the composite term ger toshav, \u201cresident alien,\u201d see Comment to verse 6. One who mortgaged his land or sold it to another became, in a real sense, a tenant on his own land.
\nlet him live by your side The same idiom, slightly expanded, occurs in the next verse: ve-\u1e25ai \u02bea\u1e25ikha \u02bfimmakh, \u201clet him live by your side, as your brother.\u201d The precise sense of this idiom is hard to determine. It could be taken to mean that the person involved may not be evicted from his land, but he must be allowed to continue to reside at your side as a member of the community.
\n36. do not exact from him advance or accrued interest Literally, Hebrew neshekh means \u201ca bite,\u201d and tarbit means \u201cincrement, profit\u201d on a loan, as noted by Ramban. An alternate form, in verse 37, is marbit. In Exodus 22:24, we read: \u201cExact no interest (neshekh) from them\u201d and in Deuteronomy 23:20: \u201cYou shall not deduct interest (neshekh) from loans to your countrymen.\u201d In late Hebrew we encounter the term ribbit based on the same root as tarbit and marbit. All of these three terms are cognate with Aramaic marbitha\u02be, and probably as well with Akkadian ribbatum, which means \u201cback payment, arrears.\u201d If so, the sense would be the additional payment one owed from the time he borrowed. The fact that in verse 37 neshekh is used with reference to silver and marbit with reference to foodstuffs led Mishnah Bava Metsia 5:1 to define neshekh as a demand for payment in excess of what was lent, and tarbit or marbit as the demand for more grain or foodstuffs than were provided to the borrower. The Mishnah deals extensively with fluctuations in market prices for commodities, from one season of the year to the next. Typically, one went into debt at the time of planting, with the expectation of repaying the debt after the harvest.
\n38. I the Lord am your God The God who gave the Israelites a land of their own and freed them from the servitude of Egypt now commands them, in turn, to prevent conditions of servitude among their own people.
\n39. If your kinsman \u2026 must give himself over to you Verses 39\u201346 deal with indenture. An Israelite indentured to another must not be treated as a slave. He may not be overworked, and he must be granted release in the Jubilee year. Hebrew ve-nimkar, \u201cto be sold,\u201d must be understood as being handed over to indenture.
\ndo not subject him to the treatment of a slave Hebrew \u02bfeved has many connotations, all expressive of \u201cserving.\u201d Here, it refers to indenture, not to slavery in the full economic sense of the term.
\n40. He shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer For this terminology, see Comments to verses 6, 23, and 35. The legal status of the indentured Israelite is that of an employee.
\nhe shall serve with you only until the jubilee year This provision differs from the laws of Exodus 21:1\u20136 and Deuteronomy 15:12\u201318, both of which set the limit of service at six years. According to our legislation, indenture may last as long as fifty years. If contrasted with actual slavery, or with serfdom, which continue through the generations, our law is relatively lenient; but compared with the other laws of the Torah, it is most severe and allows for almost lifelong indenture. This could, of course, occur under the laws of Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15, in cases where the indentured servant insists on remaining with his master for any of a variety of reasons.
\n41. Then he and his children with him shall be free of your authority Again, the verb yatsa\u02be, \u201cto depart,\u201d connotes release, freedom. The reference here to the release of the children of an indentured Israelite is significant. Jubilee is all-inclusive and undoubtedly applies to one\u2019s wife and children as well. The law of Exodus 21:1\u20136, in contradistinction, requires that the wife and children of an indentured Israelite, if he married while indentured, would not be released, but would remain with the master. So, our legislation, while allowing for indenture for as long as fifty years, removes all restrictions on the freedom of the indentured person and his family once that period is over. It is noteworthy that the Sifra interprets the following two terms\u2014va-\u02bfavndo le-\u02bfolam, \u201che shall then remain his slave for life,\u201d in Exodus 21:6 and \u02bfeved \u02bfolam, \u201cslave in perpetuity,\u201d in Deuteronomy 15:17\u2014both to mean until the Jubilee, not actually forever. This serves to reconcile the differences between the various laws of the Torah.
\nhe shall go back to his family and return to his ancestral holding Indentured servants often lived on the estates of their masters. With the Jubilee, land was restored to its original owners, and indentured servants were released. So, an indentured Israelite had a home, once again, to which he could return.
\n42. For they are My servants God acquired the Israelites as His \u201cslaves,\u201d by redeeming them from Egyptian bondage. His claim has priority. Israelites, however, should not hold other Israelites in slavery, because they were once slaves themselves.
\nHebrew mimkeret, \u201csale,\u201d is a feminine form of mimkar, which occurs in verse 14.
\n43. You shall not rule over him ruthlessly Hebrew be-farekh, here translated \u201cruthlessly,\u201d literally means \u201cwith backbreaking labor,\u201d as Rashi notes. This idiom also evokes the Egyptian bondage: \u201cThe Egyptians ruthlessly imposed upon the Israelites the various labors that they made them perform\u201d (Exod. 1:13\u201314). What the Egyptians did to the Israelites, Israelites ought not to do to one another. Fear of God should assure compliance with His commandments in this regard.
\n44. Such male and female slaves as you may have Israelites may own non-Israelite slaves. These may come from either non-Israelite residents of Canaan or from neighboring peoples.
\n45. These shall become your property In ancient law, slaves were often regarded as having a legal status parallel to that of land. Just as the land was a \u201cholding\u201d (\u02bea\u1e25uzzah) to be handed down within families, so were slaves.
\n46. you may keep them us a possession for your children after you Hebrew ve-hitna\u1e25altem means \u201cto receive as a possession, to be assigned as a possession\u201d and most frequently applies to land. Here, a form of the verb na\u1e25al, \u201cto receive as a possession,\u201d combines with the term \u02bea\u1e25uzzah and with the verb la-reshet, \u201cto appropriate as a possession.\u201d These three terms have independent histories but are here used synonymously. The rights Israelites were granted over their non-Israelite slaves, like those they had over the land, were permanent.
\nsuch you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen A contrast is drawn between Israelites and non-Israelites. Israelites are bound together by kinship and cannot be held as slaves by one another. That is the force of the term \u02bea\u1e25, \u201cbrother,\u201d which occurs twice in verse 46.
\n47. If a resident alien among you has prospered Verses 47\u201354 deal with a situation in which an Israelite becomes indentured to a non-Israelite. The vocabulary echoes that of verse 25, where the relevant idioms are explained.
\nor to an offshoot of an alien\u2019s family Hebrew \u02bfeker, \u201coffshoot,\u201d occurs only here in the Bible. It is related to \u02bfikkar, \u201croot.\u201d Hebrew \u02bfeker is cognate with Aramaic \u02bfqr, a term known from the Aramaic inscriptions of Sfire, in Syria; it is a relatively old term governing family relationships.
\n48. he shall have the right of redemption The clan of the Israelite indentured to a non-Israelite bears the responsibility for redeeming their kinsman.
\nOne of his kinsmen shall redeem him The order of obligation to redeem kinsmen within the clan correlates, in a general way, with the law of inheritance set forth in the account of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters, in Numbers 27:8\u201311. First come brothers, then uncles and cousins, then other consanguineal relatives. These could even include grandchildren, also considered consanguineal relatives in the laws of Leviticus 18:10.
\n49. or anyone of bis family who is of his own flesh Not all relatives within the clan are consanguineal. The clan (mishpa\u1e25ah) usually designates a fairly large unit.
\n50. He shall compute with his purchaser The dynamics of this system are clarified in the Comments to verses 15\u201316, 27, and 40; they parallel the system employed in determining the value of real estate being redeemed. The computation is in terms of wages (over a period of years) instead of crop years, as is the case in long-term leases.
\n53. be shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight The duty to redeem an Israelite relative indentured to a non-Israelite is exceptional. To allow a fellow Israelite to remain indentured to a gentile would be a cruel humiliation; and one was not permitted to remain indifferent in such a situation, which could lead to forfeiture of land mortgaged to debts and its seizure by non-Israelites.
\n54. If he has not been redeemed in any of those ways The last recourse is the Jubilee, if all other efforts have failed.
\n55. For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants This repeats the statement of verse 42.
\nCHAPTER 26
\n26:1. You shall not make idols for yourselves In 19:4, the term \u02beelil is explained as \u201can object of naught.\u201d Hebrew pesel is a sculptured object, usually representational. The term matsevah, translated \u201cpillars,\u201d is the usual term for stele, usually a stone object, standing upright, and often bearing an inscription.
\nHebrew \u02beeven maskit is difficult to explain precisely. The term maskit occurs in Numbers 33:52, with reference to the pagan iconography of the Canaanites, which the Israelites are commanded to destroy. The Sifra derives maskit from the verb sakhakh, \u201cto cover over,\u201d and explains it as designating a paved area outside a temple, where it was customary to prostrate oneself. Targum Onkelos translates \u02beeven segida\u02be as \u201ca stone for worshiping.\u201d Targum Jonathan renders \u02beeven metsayar as \u201ca decorated stone, one with figures drawn on it,\u201d deriving maskit from the verb sakhah, \u201cto gaze upon, view.\u201d From Ezekiel 8:10\u201312, we could conclude that, indeed, the maskit involved drawn figures\u2014in that case, figures drawn on the walls of temple chambers. Proverbs 25:11 would imply that maskit refers to decorated metal objects. NEB and NJPS have: \u201csilver showpieces.\u201d Despite the uncertainty, clearly the intent of this verse is to forbid pagan cult objects of various sorts. Such are incompatible with the worship of the God of Israel.
\n2. You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary This restates numerous commandments on the observance of the Sabbath. The Masoretic vocalization mikdashi, \u201cMy sanctuary,\u201d is not really problematic. Instead of worshiping improperly, Israelites should attend God\u2019s legitimate sanctuary. Nevertheless, it is tempting to vocalize mekuddashai, \u201cMy sacred occasions.\u201d Compare Ezra 3:5: u-le-khol mo\u02bfadei YHVH ha-mekuddashim, \u201cfor all the sacred fixed times of the Lord.\u201d This would tie in well with the emphasis on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 26:3\u201346
\nEpilogue to the Holiness Code (26:3\u201346)
\nBe-\u1e25ukkotai
\nThe Epilogue to the Holiness Code is the only composition within the Book of Leviticus that is neither legal nor ritual in character. For the rest, Leviticus is made up of collections of religious law and descriptions of ritual celebrations, all of which are written in formulaic language. In both form and function, the Epilogue is the counterpart of Deuteronomy 28\u201330. Each composition appears after a collection of laws and seems to reinforce the sanction of those laws. Two major principles of biblical religion find expression in these Epilogues: the concept of free will and the doctrine of reward and punishment. Obedience to God\u2019s will brings reward; disobedience brings dire punishment. The choice rests with the people of Israel and its leaders.
\nThe Epilogue may be divided into three sections. (1) The Blessing (vv. 3\u201313): God promises Israel that if His laws and commandments are properly obeyed He will bring peace and prosperity to the land and provide safety from wild beasts. He will enable the population to increase and assure the people of victory over all their enemies. The land will be abundantly productive and free from the ravages of war. The Blessing concludes with God\u2019s commitment to an enduring covcnantal relation with the people of Israel. God\u2019s redemptive power, demonstrated at the Exodus, will be reaffirmed: Israel will be free of oppression. (2) The Execration (vv. 14\u201345): As in Deuteronomy, more space is devoted to the punishments that will befall Israel and the land, should Israel violate or disregard God\u2019s commandments, than is devoted to the Blessing. The Execration is composed in an escalating scale with admonition heaped upon admonition. If the Israelites do not return to God after one series of tragic circumstances, then even more horrible punishments will ensue. Defeat and disease will be followed by natural disasters that threaten the fertility of the land. Wild beasts will prey on the populace and ravage the livestock. These adversities will be followed by invasion, famine, and pestilence. Towns and holy places will be made desolate; human beings will eat the flesh of their children who died of hunger. The ultimate punishment will be prolonged exile in foreign lands and the danger of collective extinction. At this point, a new theme is suddenly introduced: expiation of the sins of the people through the suffering of exile and the anguish of the desolate land. A door is opened to divine mercy and forgiveness. A contrite people of Israel will confess its sins, and, in response, God will remember His covenant and the land. The Epilogue ends with a promise of restoration. (3) A Postscript (v. 46): Verse 46 serves as the conclusion to the entire Holiness Code, which begins in chapter 17.
\nTHE BLESSING (vv. 3\u201313)
\n3. If you follow My laws The Hebrew idiom \u02beim be-\u1e25ukkotai telekhu, literally \u201cif you walk in My laws,\u201d conceives of God\u2019s laws and commandments as the right \u201cpath\u201d of life, a frequent theme in biblical literature. This statement sets the tone for the entire Blessing.
\nand faithfully observe My commandments Literally, \u201cobserve and do My commandments.\u201d The two verbs reinforce one another, yielding the sense of thoroughgoing observance.
\n4. I will grant your rains in their season In the Land of Israel, as in adjacent areas, rainfall is limited to a fixed season of the year. At other times, there is no rain for months on end. If sufficient rain does not fall at the expected time, the results are more harmful than in temperate climates. This explains the repeated emphasis on \u201crains in their season.\u201d
\nthe earth shall yield its produce Hebrew yevul refers to all that the earth produces, that comes forth from the earth. The noun yevul derives from the verb y-b-l (or w-b-l), which is most often expressed in the Hifil form \u201cto bring.\u201d
\n5. Your threshing shall overtake the vintage There will be so much grain to thresh that the threshing will continue into late summer when the vines are picked, an activity called batsir. Although the verb d-w-sh, \u201cto thresh,\u201d is well attested in biblical Hebrew, the noun dayish is unique to this verse. The closest we come to it is in Deuteronomy 25:4: \u201cYou shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing (be-disho).\u201d
\nYou shall eat your fill of bread and dwell securely in your land Hebrew la-sova\u02bf, \u201cto satiety,\u201d and the noun sava\u02bf, \u201cabundance,\u201d are proverbial for the blessings of fertility, especially abundant grain. The assurance of security conveyed by Hebrew beta\u1e25 or la-veta\u1e25 is also common to many biblical blessings. In 25:18\u201319 we read that proper observance of the Sabbatical year will also be rewarded by domestic security.
\n6. I will grant peace in the land This promise, and all the others included in verses 4\u20136, are closely paralleled in Ezekiel 34:25\u201328.
\nand no sword shall cross your land The image of a sword \u201ccrossing\u201d (\u02bfavar) is a rare way of depicting the ravages of war. Its only other occurrence is in Ezekiel 14:17: \u201cOr, if I were to bring the sword upon that land and say, \u2018Let a sword sweep through (te\u02bfavor) the land.\u2019 \u201d
\n7. You shall give chase to your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword This statement reinforces the promises that immediately precede it: You shall not suffer from war, but your enemies will.
\n8. Five of you shall give chase to a hundred In the poetry of Deuteronomy 32:29, we read: \u201cWere they wise, they would think upon this,\/Gain insight into their future:\/\u2018How could one have routed a thousand,\/Or two put ten thousand to flight,\/Unless their Rock had sold them,\/The Lord had given them up?\u2019 \u201d This is echoed in Joshua 23:10.
\n9. I will look with favor upon you When God turns toward His people, they are blessed with victory and prosperity, but when He turns away from them, or turns against them, the result is disaster. We read of this again, in verse 17 of the Execration.
\nand I will maintain My covenant with you The Hebrew verb hekim may refer to the initial making of a covenant, or to maintaining in force an already established covenant, or even to fulfilling it. The second sense is the connotation here, where hekim stands in contrast to hefer, \u201cto nullify, abrogate,\u201d in verse 15. The same contrast occurs in Ezekiel 16:59\u201362; it occurs in legal contexts and is also appropriate for describing the commitments of a covenant. In Numbers 30, the same terms are used in defining the obligations of a father to his daughter and of a husband to his wife as regards vows. Depending on the circumstances, a father either \u201caffirms, maintains in force\u201d (hekim) his daughter\u2019s vows or \u201cannuls\u201d (hefer) them. The same is true of a husband.
\n10. You shall eat old grain long stored The Hebrew reads yashan noshan, literally \u201cvery old.\u201d A similar thought is expressed in 25:22 with respect to the Sabbatical year. Its observance, including the special provisions for the poor, will result in the reward of an abundance of grain.
\n11. I will establish My abode in your midst Hebrew mishkan often refers specifically to the Tabernacle, as in 8:10; but here it has the more general sense of \u201cresidence.\u201d
\nI will not spurn you The verb g-\u02bf-l is relatively rare in the Hebrew Bible and, when used together with nefesh, has the sense of intense feelings of abhorrence. This is expressed further on in verses 43\u201344, where g-\u02bf-l is synonymous with m-\u02be-s, \u201cto despise.\u201d The primary image seems to be that of physical spoilage, or filth.
\n12. I will be ever present in your midst This is a loose rendering of Hebrew ve-hithallakhti be-tokhekhem, literally \u201cI will walk about in your midst.\u201d In a religious society, the presence and nearness of God are of vital concern and are contingent on the behavior of the people. The notion that God \u201cwalks about\u201d is also conveyed in Nathan\u2019s oracle addressed to David, as we read in 2 Samuel 7:6\u20137: \u201cFrom the day that I brought the people of Israel out of Egypt to this day I have not dwelt in a house, but have moved about (va-\u02beehyeh mithallekh) in Tent and Tabernacle. As I moved about (\u02beasher hithallakhti) wherever the Israelites went.\u2026\u201d
\nI will be your God, and you shall be My people This formal statement defines the covenantal relationship between God and Israel and serves as the legal terms of adoption. Thus we read once again in Nathan\u2019s oracle, in 2 Samuel 7:14: \u201cI will be a father to him [the Davidic king], and he shall be a son to Me.\u201d The reverse of this pledge of adoption, expressing disapproval and rejection of Israel, is found in Hosea 1:9: \u201cFor you are not My people, and I will not be your [God].\u201d
\n13. who broke the bars of your yoke The bars (motot) of the yoke (\u02bfol) were tied to the neck of a work animal by means of thongs (moserot). Jeremiah 28:10\u201313 provides a graphic description of a yoke on a human being; breaking the yoke is a metaphor for liberation. The bars of Jeremiah\u2019s yoke are broken and thereby set him free. Yokes are still used in many parts of the Near East today and have not changed much since antiquity. The aptness of the biblical metaphor is apparent. A person who is subjugated, upon whom a yoke is placed, is bent over. Once the bars of the yoke are broken, he can stand at full stature, a position conveyed by the unique word komamiyyut, \u201cin an upright position.\u201d We find a later echo of this verse in the Grace after Meals: \u201cMay the All Merciful One break off the yoke of exile from our necks and allow us to walk at full stature to our land.\u201d
\nTHE EXECRATION (vv. 14\u201345)
\nThe Execration often employs the terms and idioms of the Blessing to state the reverse, a literary technique that heightens the opposition of obedience and disobedience. See Excursus 11 for a list of examples.
\n15. If you reject My laws It is Israel who creates the unfavorable situation, not God. He promised not to reject His people as long as they remained obedient.
\n16. I will wreak misery upon you The Hebrew clause ve-hifkadti \u02bfaleikhem literally means \u201cI shall assign to you, bring upon you by command.\u201d The sense is that God will unleash destruction against His people. As for Hebrew bebalah, it is better rendered \u201cshock, convulsions,\u201d since the verb b-h-l describes physical movement.
\nconsumption and fever The two medical terms sha\u1e25efet and kada\u1e25at occur elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 28:22. Hebrew kada\u1e25at derives from the verb k-d-\u1e25, \u201cto burn, flare,\u201d said of fire and of \u201cfuming\u201d rage, as, for example, in Deuteronomy 32:22 and Jeremiah 15:14. Hence, \u201cfever.\u201d Hebrew sha\u1e25efet is rendered \u201cconsumption\u201d on the basis of the Arabic cognate, sa\u1e25afa, \u201cto flay, remove the fat,\u201d such as the fat of an animal.
\nwhich cause the eyes to pine Hebrew mekhallot \u02bfeinayim literally means \u201cwhich exhaust the eyes\u201d so that the eyes can no longer see. They will have been worn out by anxious expectation. Similarly, medivot nefesh means \u201cthat cause despair, depression.\u201d The form medivot is an abbreviation of mad\u02beivot. Prolonged illness causes one to despair of ever being healed. Hebrew nefesh often refers to the physical body, or to parts of it, as well as to emotional states.
\nyou shall sow your seed to no purpose Hebrew la-rik means \u201cin emptiness.\u201d Its usual synonyms are hevel, \u201cvapor, nothingness,\u201d and tohu, \u201cformlessness.\u201d
\nYour enemies shall eat it In a situation of blessing, one enjoys the fruits of one\u2019s labors. It is tragic, however, to witness a people deprived of its crops by conquering hordes. The same situation is projected in the Execration of Deuteronomy 28:33, 50\u201351.
\n17. I will set My face against you This is the reverse of verse 9 of the Blessing.
\nyou shall be routed by your enemies The same dire prediction is found in the Execration of Deuteronomy 28:25. The Hebrew verb n-g-f means \u201cto throw back, batter.\u201d In Solomon\u2019s prayer at the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:33\u201334) the hope is expressed that if Israel is ever routed by its enemies as a consequence of its sins, the people will be able to plead for forgiveness in the Temple.
\nand your foes shall dominate you The Hebrew verb r-d-h means \u201cto exercise rule.\u201d The same thought is echoed in verses 36\u201337.
\nYou shall flee though none pursues This is the height of anxiety: the terror of being pursued.
\n18. And if, for all that, you do not obey Me This introduces a point of transition in the Execration. We find similar transitions in verses 27, 33, and 37. The conditional formulation brings home the point that God would cause an end to the suffering of the people and the land whenever the people overcame its disobedience and confessed its sins. This was not to occur, however, until after the suffering brought on by a prolonged exile.
\nI will go on to discipline you sevenfold for all your sins The infinitive le-yassera means \u201cto rebuke, censure\u201d but also conveys the nuance of imposing punishment. The notion of sevenfold is proverbial in biblical literature and is usually expressed by the adverb shiv\u02bfatayim, \u201cseven times.\u201d
\n19. and I will break your proud glory The same image is expressed in Ezekiel 24:21; 33:28, and elsewhere. Hebrew \u02bfoz means \u201cpower, might,\u201d and the combination ge\u02beon \u02bfoz means \u201cpowerful pride,\u201d the pride that comes from having power. The sense is that the land, which was \u201cthe pride\u201d of the people, will be destroyed. This theme is expanded in the following verses.
\nI will make your skies like iron The same statement occurs in the Execration of Deuteronomy 28:33 and in the treaties of King Esarhaddon of Assyria, who ruled in the seventh century b.c.e. In these treaties, the king\u2019s vassals are warned that they will be severely punished by the gods of the empire for any violations of the treaties. The sense of the statement is that the rains will cease and the artesian springs of the earth will become dry.
\n20. so that your strength shall be spent to no purpose This restates the thoughts expressed in verse 16.
\n21. And if you remain hostile toward Me Here, again, is a transition, where the conditions for God\u2019s forgiveness are stated.
\nHebrew keri, \u201chostility,\u201d and the idiom halakh \u02bfim \u2026 be-keri, \u201cto walk with \u2026 in hostility,\u201d are unique to this chapter. Targum Onkelos translates be-kashyu, \u201cwith hardness, obstinacy,\u201d deriving keri from the root k-r-r, \u201cto be cold.\u201d Compare the noun form karah, \u201ccold wave,\u201d in Nahum 3:17, and mekerah, \u201ccool chamber,\u201d in Judges 3:24. The reverse of \u201cwalking in hostility\u201d is \u201cagreeing to obey\u201d (\u02beavah li-shmo\u02bfa) suggesting that keri is synonymous with meri, \u201crebelliousness.\u201d Note the contrast in Isaiah 1:19\u201320: \u201cIf, then, you agree and give heed,\/You will eat the good things of the earth;\/But if you refuse and disobey (u-meritem),\/You will be devoured by the sword.\u201d The notion of meri as \u201crebelliousness\u201d is a major theme in the prophecies of Ezekiel, but the term keri occurs nowhere else in the Bible; hence its meaning remains uncertain.
\n22. I will loose wild beasts against you The Hifil form used here, ve-hishla\u1e25ti, is rare in biblical Hebrew. It conveys the sense of \u201cdriving\u201d the beasts through the land. This threat is the reverse of the Blessing stated in verse 6.
\nand they shall bereave you of your children The verb sh-kh-l is used specifically to connote the loss of children or with respect to animals, the loss of young. The parallel word, both in Hebrew and in Ugaritic, is \u02beulman, \u201cwidowhood.\u201d Thus we read in Isaiah 47:8\u20139: \u201cI shall not become a widow\/Or know loss of children.\u2026\u201d
\nThey shall decimate you Deserted roads are often depicted as a feature of wars and invasion in biblical literature. Compare Lamentations 1:4: \u201cZion\u2019s roads are in mourning.\u201d Similar themes occur in Isaiah 33:8; Ezekiel 30:3\u20134; and in Psalms 107:38.
\n23. and if these things fail to discipline you Rather, \u201cand if, after these things, you do not submit to my discipline.\u201d This is another point of transition. Reference is to verse 18, where the theme of \u201cdiscipline\u201d was introduced. The discipline consists of the punishments endured by the people and the land. The Nifal form tivvaseru means \u201cto be disciplined, to submit to discipline.\u201d
\n25. I will bring a sword against you to wreak vengeance for the covenant Rather, \u201ca sword enforcing the threats of the covenant.\u201d
\nThe unique clause nokemet nekam berit uses the verb n-k-m and the noun nakam in an unusual sense. Usually nakam means \u201cvengeance,\u201d and the verb occurs in the Nifal meaning \u201cto be avenged\u201d or in the Kal stem, as is the case here, with the meaning \u201cto avenge, wreak vengeance.\u201d Translated in the usual way, our clause would mean that God brings against Israel a sword that exacts vengeance for the violation of the covenant (berit). Yet, Hebrew nekam berit seems to connote some feature of the covenant itself. Commenting on this verse, the Sifra speaks of \u201cnakam that is in the covenant and nakam that is not in the covenant.\u201d It is as though nakam refers to the adjurations and admonitions stated in the terms of the covenant. In Deuteronomy 29:20 we read of \u02bealot ha-berit, \u201cthe oaths of the covenant,\u201d which comprise the section in most treaties that states the penalties for violation. Perhaps the sages of the Sifra were thinking of the statement in the Epilogue of Deuteronomy (28:61) where the Israelites are warned that God will bring afflictions upon them that are not even mentioned in the Execration! This suggests that nakam in our verse does not mean \u201cvengeance,\u201d in the usual sense, but rather the threat of punishment.
\nI will send pestilence among you Seeking refuge in cities will be to no avail because pestilence will spread quickly through the crowded towns under siege. The same thought is expressed in Deuteronomy 28:21.
\n26. When I break your staff of bread The idiom matteh le\u1e25em, \u201cstaff of bread,\u201d occurs several times in the prophecies of Ezekiel. It is synonymous with mish\u02bfan le\u1e25em, \u201csupport of bread,\u201d in Isaiah 3:1. This is the origin of the aphorism \u201cBread is the staff of life.\u201d
\nThey shall dole out your bread by weight The same thought is expressed in Ezekiel 4:16: \u201cO mortal, I am going to break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they shall eat bread by weight, in anxiety, and drink water by measure, in horror.\u201d
\nThe verb ve-heshivu, literally \u201cthey shall return,\u201d conveys the sense of \u201cpaying, allocating.\u201d Compare Numbers 5:7: \u201cHe shall make restitution (ve-heshiv \u02beet \u02beashamo)\u201d; and see 25:27.
\n27. But if, despite this This is yet another transition, leading into the final round of admonitions.
\n29. You shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters The same horror is depicted in Deuteronomy 28:53f. and in Lamentations 2:20. Similar descriptions are found in the Assyrian vassal treaties, as is explained in Excursus 11.
\n30. I will destroy your cult places Verses 30\u201331 closely parallel the oracle of Ezekiel 6:3f. This is a cruelly ironic statement: The Israelite warriors and citizenry will be slain at the very altars and cult centers where they offended God by their worship of foreign gods and idols.
\nThe verses contain several archaeological terms of interest. Hebrew bamah, a term for various cult installations, means \u201cback,\u201d as we now know from Ugaritic, where we find bmt p\u1e2bl, \u201cthe back of a mare,\u201d on which goods are loaded. Hebrew bamah has, therefore, two connotations, (1) Topographically, it refers to the high ridges or peaks of mountains, as in Amos 4:13 or in Deuteronomy 32:13. This parallels the sense of the \u201cshoulder\u201d of a mountain, as in Joshua 15:10. (2) Architecturally, it refers to a raised platform or structure, as is the meaning here. The Books of Kings often refer to the bamot, which were tolerated by most kings, but condemned by pious monotheists. Both usages reflect a semantic process whereby the physiognomy of humans and animals is transferred to the inanimate natural world as well as to architecture.
\nThe term \u1e25ammanim is translated \u201cincense altars.\u201d An Aramaic altar inscription from Palmyra contains the words \u1e25mn\u02be dnh w\u02belt\u02be dnh, \u201cthis \u1e25amman and this altar.\u201d On the reverse side of the altar there is a relief depicting two standing men with an incense stand, or altar, placed between them. This would seem to mean that the \u1e25amman was the incense altar itself. In still another Palmyrene inscription we read that someone dedicated \u1e25mn\u02be klh hw w\u02betrh w\u02bep \u1e6dll \u02bedrwn\u02be klh, \u201cthe complete \u1e25amman, with its installation, and even covered the entire chamber with a roof.\u201d This suggests that the \u1e25amman was located within a chamber. The etymology of \u1e25amman may have actually been confused by this recent evidence. Identifying it as an incense altar implied that \u1e25amman derived from the root \u1e25-m-m, \u201cto be hot.\u201d We are now able to determine that this is not so because a word \u1e2bmn is now attested in Ugaritic ritual texts that mention many cultic artifacts. Now, in Ugaritic the verb meaning \u201cto be hot\u201d also occurs, but it is written with a different letter, \u1e25\u0113\u1e6d. (In the Semitic languages, there were originally both \u1e2b\u0113\u1e6d and \u1e25\u0113\u1e6d, but over the course of time, certain languages like Hebrew reduced the alphabet, leaving only \u1e25et. As a result, there is often confusion about the derivation of words written with a Hebrew \u1e25et.) As a consequence, Hebrew and Aramaic \u1e25amman probably have nothing to do with the idea of being \u201chot\u201d; nor is it likely that the Late Hebrew word for \u201csun\u201d (\u1e25ammah) is relevant to the artifact called \u1e25amman. The suggestion that \u1e25ammanim were sun disks must also be discarded. We see, instead, on the basis of the Ugaritic evidence, that we are dealing with the name of an artifact or structure that had an independent origin. This is not to say that a \u1e25amman, \u201caltar,\u201d could not be dedicated to the sun-god in pagan societies, but only to emphasize that this is not the meaning of the word itself.
\nIn the Ugaritic ritual texts we read of offerings brought \u201cat the \u1e2bmn.\u201d The word \u1e2bmn also occurs as part of a personal name, which suggests a possible connection between \u1e25amman and the name of the god Baal-\u1e24amm\u00f4n mentioned in a ninth-century b.c.e. Phoenician inscription from ancient Turkey. The same deity was prominent at Carthage. The cult of Baal-\u1e24amm\u00f4n continued over many centuries. Until recently, it was not known as early as the second millennium b.c.e., but the attestation of this name in Ugaritic, if accurate, may push back the date. It seems quite possible, therefore, that the name of a deity is reflected in the word \u1e25ammanim and that it means literally \u201can altar of \u1e24amm\u00f4n.\u201d The biblical evidence concerning \u1e25ammanim correlates well with that of Ugarit and Palmyra. In 2 Chronicles 14:4 and 34:3 we read that the \u1e25amman was installed \u201cabove\u201d altars and bamot. Whether the \u1e25amman was uniformly used as an incense altar is not entirely clear. In Isaiah 27:9 we are told that the sin of Jacob can be expiated by destroying improper cultic artifacts: \u201cThat he make all the altar-stones\/Like shattered blocks of chalk\u2014\/With no sacred post left standing,\/nor any \u1e25ammanim.\u201d
\nHebrew gillulim, translated \u201cfetishes,\u201d always appears in the plural. It is a derisive term used to characterize pagan statues and probably derives from the root g-l-l, \u201cto roll,\u201d as to roll a stone. From the same root we have the noun gal, \u201ca pile, mound\u201d (also a \u201cwave\u201d of water). Our verse paraphrases Ezekiel 6:4b: \u201cI shall cast your slain before your fetishes (lifnei gilluleikhem).\u201d Here we read ve-natatti pigreikhem \u02bfal pigrei gilluleikhem, literally \u201cI shall place your corpses atop the corpses of your fetishes.\u201d The problem is that elsewhere Hebrew peger refers to the corpse of an animate being and would not apply to a statue or stone object. There is, however, an analogous usage of nevelah, \u201ccadaver,\u201d also a term usually reserved for animate creatures. In Jeremiah 16:18 we read: \u201cBecause they have defiled My land\/With the corpses of their abominations (be-nivlat shikkutseihem)\u201d The lifelessness of pagan statues, and therefore the powerlessness of the would-be deities they represent, is epitomized in Psalms 135:15\u201317: \u201cThe idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men\u2019s hands. They have mouths, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see.\u2026\u201d
\nand I will not savor your pleasing odors On the meaning of Hebrew rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25, \u201cpleasing odor,\u201d see Comment to 1:9. God will refuse to accept the offerings of those who have angered Him by violating His commandments. This theme, discussed in Excursus 11, is also present in ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions and treaties.
\n32. I will make the land desolate The syntax of the Hebrew is emphatic: \u201cI, Myself, will make the land desolate.\u201d
\nso that your enemies \u2026 shall be appalled by it A degree of sensitivity is attributed even to the enemies of Israel and to the deported peoples who will be settled in the land by the conquerors. Like all other ancient people, they, too, will interpret the desolation as a punishment for some horrible offense committed by the Israelites against their God. A similar projection is found in Deuteronomy 29:21\u201323: \u201cAnd later generations will ask\u2014the children who succeed you, and foreigners who come from distant lands \u2026 all nations will ask, \u2018Why did the Lord do thus to the land? Wherefore that awful wrath?\u2019 \u201d
\n33. And you I will scatter among the nations The verb zarah means \u201cto winnow,\u201d and in the Piel stem zerah means \u201cto scatter,\u201d as one scatters chaff to the winds. This verb is used in the prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah to describe dispersion.
\nand I will unsheath the sword against you The verb herik used here means \u201cto empty,\u201d referring to emptying the sheath as the sword is drawn. The idiom herik \u1e25erev appears only here and in Ezekiel, where it is used repeatedly.
\nand your cities a ruin Hebrew \u1e25orvah has an abstract sense: \u201ca state of ruin.\u201d
\n34. Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years In its desolation, the land will lie abandoned for a prolonged period as punishment for not having been allowed to lie fallow every seventh year as was commanded in 25:1f. Had the Israelites obeyed the law of the sabbatical year, the land would not be desolate.
\nIn certain contexts, the verb r-ts-h means \u201cto expiate, make up.\u201d The passive form reflects this meaning in Isaiah 40:2: \u201cthat her iniquity is expiated (ki nirtsah \u02bfavonah)\u201d Here, the form hinsah means \u201cto secure expiation, to make up for.\u201d
\n36. I will cast a faintness into their hearts Hebrew morekh, \u201cfaintness,\u201d occurs only here and is probably derived from the root r-k-k, \u201cto be soft.\u201d In Deuteronomy 20:8 the cowardly are called literally \u201cthe soft of heart\u201d (rakh ha-levav) and are considered unfit for military service.
\nThe sound of a driven leaf The \u201cleaf blown away\u201d (the verb niddaf) by the wind is a vivid description, also found in Job 13:25. The slightest sound will alarm the people, so great is their fear.
\nthey shall fall though none pursues This repeats the thought expressed in verse 17.
\n37. They shall stumble over one another A similar thought is expressed in Jeremiah 46:12b: \u201cFor warrior stumbles against warrior;\/The two fall down together.\u201d
\nYou shall not be able to stand your ground Hebrew tekumah, unique to this verse, connotes the strength to withstand, to remain standing in the face of attack.
\nand the land of your enemies shall consume you A land may be said to devour its inhabitants in the sense that if it becomes unproductive, its population will perish. Ironically, this is how the spies, at least most of them, described the land of Canaan: \u201cThe country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its settlers.\u201d Here, the sense is that the exiled community will be swallowed up by the land of exile and become extinct.
\n39. shall be heartsick Hebrew yimmakku means literally \u201cthey will waste away, melt.\u201d One\u2019s eyes may \u201cmelt\u201d in their sockets (Zech. 14:12), as we find with the noun mak, \u201crot,\u201d in Isaiah 3:24 and 5:24. The root m-k-k may be related to m-g-g, which also connotes dread in Exodus 15:14 and Ezekiel 21:20. In Ezekiel 4:17 and 24:23 there is the unusual idiom \u201cto waste away because of transgression (\u02bfavon),\u201d which conveys the meaning that the people will experience severe remorse.
\nover the iniquities of their fathers The text actually reads \u201cover the iniquities of their fathers which are with them (\u02beittam).\u201d The realization that they are suffering for the cumulative sins of generations is even more distressing to the exiles. In Lamentations 5:7 we find the same reaction on the part of the Judean exiles: \u201cOur fathers sinned and are no more;\/And we must bear their guilt.\u201d Elsewhere in biblical literature the opposite view is expressed. Thus, Ezekiel in chapter 18 insists that each generation bears responsibility for its own sins.
\n40. and they shall confess their iniquity For the sense of Hebrew ve-hitvaddu, \u201cthey shall confess,\u201d see Comments to 5:5 and 16:21.
\nin that they trespassed against Me The noun ma\u02bfal and the related verb ma\u02bfal are explained in the Comments to 5:14f. More extended usages, connoting betrayal, occur in Ezekiel 17:20; 18:24; 39:23; and in Ezra 10:2.
\n41. and have removed them into the land of their enemies Hebrew ve-heve\u02beti does not mean \u201cremove,\u201d but \u201cbring,\u201d and the use of this verb in the present context is strange. The Septuagint reads kai apol\u00f4, implying a Hebrew text that reads ve-ha\u02beavadti, \u201cI have caused to perish.\u201d It should be noted that the verb \u02beavad is actually used in verse 38 and does not connote complete destruction\u2014for verse 39 speaks of those who survive. To accept the reading ve-ha\u02beavadti would not contradict verse 44, where it is stated that God did not destroy His people in exile. It seems that the verb \u02beavad may describe stages in a process of perishing without implying actual extinction. In fact, certain forms of the verb \u02beavad convey the sense of \u201cscattering, dispersing,\u201d as in Numbers 24:19 and Jeremiah 23:1; 49:38.
\nthen at last Hebrew \u02beo \u02beaz, literally \u201cor then\u201d may be compared with ki \u02beaz, \u201conly then, surely then,\u201d in Joshua 1:8: \u201cOnly then (ki \u02beaz) will you prosper \u2026 and only then (ve-\u02beaz) will you be successful.\u201d
\ntheir obdurate heart Hebrew libbam he\u02bfarel literally means \u201ctheir uncircumcised heart.\u201d This image is best known from Deuteronomy 10:16, Jeremiah 9:25, and Ezekiel 44:7. Its sense is that of a \u201cthickened\u201d heart. Whenever the image of the foreskin (\u02bforlah) is employed actual physical thickness seems to be involved. The thickened heart cannot feel or think; one whose earlobe is too thick cannot hear God\u2019s words (Jer. 6:10); Moses\u2019 thickened lips made it difficult for him to speak articulately (Exod. 6:12). According to the law of Leviticus 19:23, trees and vines classified as \u02bfarelim are untrimmed.
\nIn exile, the people will submit to God\u2019s will, and their contrition will prompt God to remember His covenant. This theme is expressed in Ezekiel 20:43: \u201cThere you will recall your ways and all the acts by which you defiled yourselves; and you will loathe yourselves for all the evils that you committed.\u201d
\n42. Then will I remember My covenant This is a familiar theme. We read in Genesis 9:15 that after the Flood God states that whenever He sees the rainbow, He will remember His promise not to bring destruction on the natural world for the sins of mankind. He acts to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage after remembering His covenant with the patriarchs (Exod. 6:5). Perhaps most appropriate is the statement in Ezekiel 16:60: \u201cNevertheless, I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish it with you as an everlasting covenant.\u201d
\nand I will remember the land This statement is unique in Scripture. The personification of the land is, in itself, a frequent theme, but nowhere else is it said that God remembers the land.
\n43. For the land shall be forsaken of them The land and the people must both atone, each in its own way. The land atones through its desolation and the loss of its inhabitants; the people atone through exile.
\nfor the abundant reason that Hebrew ya\u02bfan u-ve-ya\u02bfan is emphatic: \u201cFor the very reason that.\u201d
\n44. Yet, even then No matter how disloyal the Israelites have been, the Lord remains their God and will restore them.
\n45. the covenant with the ancients Hebrew ri\u02beshonim, \u201cthe former ones,\u201d refers to Israelites who lived in former generations; in this case, to those who left Egypt.
\nin the sight of the nations God pledged to redeem the Israelites whom He liberated from Egypt. This He did in the sight of the nations, who witnessed the covenant, so to speak. For this reason, to allow Israel to perish, though the punishment be deserved, would detract from God\u2019s renown. Hence, if Israel shows remorse and mends its ways, God will not cause the entire people to perish. The same thoughts are expressed in Isaiah 52:10 and in Ezekiel 20:9, 14.
\nPOSTSCRIPT (v. 46)
\nThese are the laws All that is commanded in chapters 17\u201326, the Holiness Code, comes from the Lord, as transmitted through Moses on Mount Sinai. A similar statement appears at the end of chapter 27, which concludes the Book of Leviticus. From a traditional point of view, it was important to record the source of legislation so that its authority could not be questioned.
\nCHAPTER 27
\nFunding the Sanctuary
\nIt is likely that chapter 27 was appended to the Book of Leviticus. From a purely textual perspective, the Epilogue (26:3\u201346) would seem to be a suitable conclusion to the book. But in order to include in Leviticus a matter of central importance, the funding of the sanctuary, chapter 27 was added. Maintaining the physical plant of the sanctuary was certainly costly, and it was necessary to provide the materials used in public sacrifice and to support the clergy.
\nThe sources of income, as set forth in this chapter, were of the following kinds: (1) votive pledges in fixed amounts of silver (vv. 1\u20138); (2) votary pledges of animals (vv. 9\u201313); (3) consecrations of urban property, land holdings, and acquired agricultural land (vv. 14\u201325); (4) firstlings (vv. 26\u201327); (5) donations of property that had been acquired under the law of \u1e25erem, \u201cproscription\u201d (vv. 28\u201329); and (6) tithes of produce and livestock (vv. 30\u201333).
\nThe actual goal of the system of funding prescribed in chapter 27 was to secure silver for the sanctuary and its related needs, not, for the most part, to secure the actual commodities that were pledged or consecrated. What was donated could be redeemed, and it was the redemption payment that was sought by the sanctuary in most cases. There were exceptions, of course. For certain reasons \u1e25erem property could not be redeemed; and donated animals that were suitable for sacrifice would be retained by the sanctuary. On the whole, however, the sanctuary preferred silver. The legislation of chapter 27, although couched in traditional terms of devotion, actually worked in such a way as to provide silver for the sanctuary.
\nVOTARY PLEDGES IN FIXED AMOUNTS OF SILVER (vv. 1\u20138)
\nThe custom of pledging one\u2019s valuation in silver to the sanctuary harks back to the actual dedication of oneself, or one\u2019s child, to Temple service. In 1 Samuel 1 we read that Hannah vowed at the sanctuary of Shiloh that if God granted her a son she would bring him to Shiloh, where he would remain in service all his days. When Samuel was born to her, she, indeed, devoted him in this way. Pledging the equivalent of one\u2019s life, according to a scale established by the priesthood, served two ends: the spirit of the ancient tradition was satisfied, and, in practical terms, the sanctuary received necessary funds.
\nA key source for understanding the system of \u201cequivalents\u201d is 2 Kings 12:5\u20136. King Jehoash of Judah required funds for Temple repairs and decided to tap several sources of revenue for this purpose (with kesef understood to mean \u201csilver\u201d): \u201cJehoash said to the priests, \u2018All the silver, current silver, brought into the House of the Lord as sacred donations\u2014any silver a man may pay as the silver equivalent of persons (kesef nafshot \u02bferko), or any other silver that a man may be minded to bring to the House of the Lord\u2014let the priests receive it, each from his benefactor.\u2019 \u201d This is precisely the sort of votary, or sacred pledge, that is the subject of verses 1\u20138 of our chapter. The term \u02bferekh, \u201cequivalent,\u201d is used in the same way in both sources. Our chapter fixes equivalents for persons of various ages and for both sexes.
\n2. When anyone explicitly vows to the Lord the equivalent for a human being Rather, \u201cWhen a person vows to set aside a votary offering.\u2026\u201d The preferred translation closely approximates the interpretation of Rashi, Ramban, and the Targum Onkelos. The point is that the verb hipli\u02be, with a final alef, is a variant of the verb palah, with a final heh, a verb whose meaning is clearly known: \u201cto set apart.\u201d The term neder here refers to the substance of the vow, to what is pledged, not to the original pronouncement of the vow; hence the preferred translation \u201cvotary offering.\u201d On the unusual form \u02bferkekha, literally \u201cyour equivalent,\u201d see Comment to 5:15, where this form is explained.
\n3. the following scale shall apply
\nAge
\nMale
\nFemale
\n20\u201360 years of age
\n50 shekels
\n30 shekels
\n5\u201320 years of age
\n20 shekels
\n10 shekels
\n1 month-5 years of age
\n5 shekels
\n3 shekels
\nover 60 years of age
\n15 shekels
\n10 shekels
\nThe silver content of the shekel is specified in verse 25. Some features of this scale are readily explicable. The age factor reflects productive capacity. Elsewhere, in Numbers 4:3, 32, we find the age of service in the Tabernacle to be between twenty and fifty years of age, but the principle is the same. At the age of one month, a child was considered viable and likely to survive the perils of infant mortality. That is why, according to Numbers 18:15\u201316, first-born sons are redeemed according to this same system of equivalents, beginning at the age of one month. First-born sons did not have to be pledged, of course:They already belonged to God. Gender differentiation may be linked to productivity, it being presumed that a male could earn more than a female. The difference in valuations may also reflect a certain attitude toward women. It is worthy of note, nonetheless, that women could participate in the votive system freely, a fact that is indicated by a number of biblical sources.
\nBut if one cannot afford the equivalent The verb mukh, \u201cto be in straits,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 25:25.
\nhe shall be presented before the priest The Hebrew verb he\u02bfemid means \u201cto station, present.\u201d It is also used to describe the presentation of offerings. See Comments to 14:11 and 16:7.
\nand the priest shall assess him The Hebrew verb he\u02bferikh, \u201cto evaluate, assess,\u201d is part of the administrative vocabulary of ancient Israel. Thus, King Jehoiakim \u201cassessed\u201d the entire land of Judah when levying taxes to pay for the tribute he owed Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:35).
\naccording to what the vower can afford Hebrew ka\u02beasher tassig yad ha-noder literally means \u201cwhich the hand of the vower can reach.\u201d The adjustment of valuations, like the allowance for adjusting certain required sacrifices, is a general feature of priestly administration. Allowance was made for reductions when the inability of an Israelite to afford the standard cost of an offering or donation would deprive him of expiation or, as in this case, preclude the performance of a pious act.
\nVOTARY PLEDGES OF ANIMALS (vv. 9\u201313)
\nOne could donate animals to the sanctuary and then redeem them. There was a surcharge of 20 percent over and above the value of the animal, as assessed by the priesthood. These particular laws, and those to follow regarding donations of real property to the sanctuary, point to the administrative functions of the priesthood. The priesthood set the value of the animal, which undoubtedly had an effect on the marketplace as well. All transactions were negotiated in sanctuary weight (v. 25), another factor of economic control.
\nOne who gave of his own property to the sanctuary was held in high esteem. Logically, one should not undo this act by buying back what was devoted. Then, too, what was devoted had already become sacred. Accordingly, a surcharge of 20 percent was imposed on the donor who would seek to recover what had already been consecrated. At the same time, the sanctuary was allowed to profit from the transaction.
\n9. If [the vow concerns] any animal that may be brought as an offering to the Lord Traditional commentators disputed the legal import of this statement. The crucial factor is the intent of the donor: If it was to devote an actual altar offering, the donation constituted a valid assignment to \u201cthe altar.\u201d And even though a particular sacrifice was not specified, the law of 22:21f. applied, that is to say, the animal would be accepted as a sacrifice. Once this occurred, no redemption was possible. The contrast between verses 9\u201310 and verse 11 hinges upon the presumed intent of the donor. It was presumed that one who donated an animal of a species unsuitable for sacrifice intended a contribution of the value of the animal, not of the animal itself. For this reason, redemption was allowed. With Maimonides dissenting, the majority view is that the sacrificial votary is the subject of verses 9\u201310.
\n10. One may not exchange or substitute another for it The Hebrew verbs hemir and he\u1e25elif mean essentially the same thing: \u201cto substitute.\u201d The nominal term temurah is used in barter or exchange.
\nthe thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy The donor was also at a disadvantage if he sought to substitute another animal for the one donated. It too became sanctuary property.
\n11. If [the vow concerns] any unclean animal An impure animal is unfit for sacrifice. Therefore, the donor is presumed to have intended the assessed value of the animal as his pledge, not a sacrificial votary. By payment of the 20 percent surcharge, he may retrieve it. For a definition of \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cunclean\u201d animals (or, more precisely, of \u201cpure\u201d and \u201cimpure\u201d animals) see introductory Comment to chapter 11.
\n12. Whether high or low The assessment of the priest stands, even if it exceeds the market price of the animal.
\n13. and if he wishes to redeem it The law is stated conditionally, although, in actual practice, it was usually expected that the donor would redeem what he had pledged.
\nCONSECRATIONS (vv. 14\u201325)
\nThe Hebrew verb hikdish means \u201cto consecrate.\u201d It enjoys a wide range of connotations, from the devotion of sacrificial offerings as in 22:2f. to the consecration of the first-born in response to God\u2019s command. In Nehemiah 12:47, we read of \u201cconsecrations\u201d in support of the clergy. In 2 Kings 12:18\u201319 we read of the donations that kings \u201cconsecrated\u201d to the Temple, frequently from the spoils of war. This section of chapter 27 speaks of three specific types of consecrations: (1) urban dwellings, (2) \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land, and (3) acquired agricultural land.
\n14. If anyone consecrates his bouse to the Lord According to 25:29f., urban dwellings are not subject to the Jubilee; if not redeemed within a year, they become the permanent property of the purchaser. Here, nothing is said about a time limit, because consecration differs from an ordinary sale.
\nso it shall stand In verse 12, the verb employed is yihyeh, \u201cit shall be, stand\u201d; here, yakum has essentially the same functional meaning: \u201cto be in force, to be legally valid.\u201d
\n15. he must add one-fifth The formulaic \u1e25amishit kesef \u02bferkekha, \u201cone-fifth of the silver equivalent\u201d (cf. v. 19) replaces \u1e25amishito, \u201cits fifth part\u201d of verses 13, 31. The meaning is the same.
\nand it shall be his Hebrew ve-hayah lo connotes possession.
\n16. If anyone consecrates to the Lord any land that he holds Rather, \u201cany part of his tenured land\u201d (cf. the translation in v. 21, and see vv. 24, 28). The legal status of the \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201cland holding, tenured land,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 25:25 and in Excursus 10. Chapter 27 differentiates between an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, which belongs to an original owner, and acquired land, which had been transferred to someone other than the original owner.
\nits assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement The method of delineating plots of arable land by reference to the quantity of seed required in the planting is common to many ancient Near Eastern societies. The formula used here, zera\u02bf \u1e25omer, \u201ca \u1e25omer of seed,\u201d means \u201c[an area sown with] a \u1e25omer of seed.\u201d The term \u1e25omer, from \u1e25amor, refers to \u201can ass, mule,\u201d but the Hebrew term and its cognates in Akkadian and Ugaritic designate a dry measure, equal to the normal load of an ass. Estimates of its bulk vary from 3.8 to 6.5 bushels. According to Ezekiel 45:11f., the most extensive catalogue of weights and measures preserved in the Bible, a \u1e25omer equals ten \u02beefahs. It was equivalent to the kur (Sum. gur, Akk. kurru).
\n17. as of the jubilee year At the Jubilee, \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land reverted to its original owners, as mandated in 25:10, 13f. All transfers of such property were, in fact, not final sales, but long-term leases that expired at the next Jubilee. What was being consecrated, in our case, was a lease computed in crop years. At the Jubilee, the sanctuary lost its right to the yields of such lands, which then reverted to their owners. As verses 17\u201318 explain, a full valuation would apply only if the full forty-nine years remained. Anything less would necessitate proportional reductions.
\n18. shall be so reduced Hebrew ve-nigra\u02bf is a mathematical term that means \u201cto be subtracted.\u201d
\n20. and the land is sold to another The formulation is ambiguous. It could not mean that the donor sold the land after he had consecrated it, for such a sale would not be binding. The sense must be, therefore, that the priesthood sold the land when it became apparent that its donor did not intend to redeem it. Once this occurred, the donor lost his right to redeem it, ever, according to Rashi and Ramban.
\n21. when it is released in the jubilee, the land shall be holy to the Lord, as land proscribed If the donor failed to redeem the land prior to the next Jubilee, the initial consecration is considered permanently binding, and the land remains the property of the sanctuary forever: it is holy to the Lord. At the time of the next Jubilee, the sanctuary would be the legal owner. The status of such land is compared to that of \u1e25erem land, land that could never be redeemed. This status is explained in the Comment to verses 28\u201329. In this way, the sanctuary enjoyed a special privilege. In all other cases, according to 25:14f., sales of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land were never to be final, whereas unredeemed consecrations were. Normally it was guaranteed that land would revert to the original owner at the Jubilee, even if he lacked the means to buy back his land. The legislation of chapter 27 is complex in this regard. On the one hand, it utilized the Jubilee law in computing the value of the land. On the other hand, the privilege of the sanctuary overrode the rights of the original owner.
\nit becomes the priest\u2019s holding This accords with the law of Numbers 18:14, which grants all \u1e25erem land to the priesthood.
\n22. If he consecrates to the Lord land that he purchased This reflects the provisions of 25:25f. If one is compelled to sell any part of his \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, it reverts to him at the next Jubilee, even if he has been unable to redeem it in the interim. One who purchased \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land on this basis, therefore, was not a full owner. If he subsequently consecrated such acquired land, he had to be prepared to remit its value in silver to the sanctuary at the time of its consecration, plus the surcharge of 20 percent. Otherwise, his consecration would not be accepted in the first place because the field could not be collateral for his donation, as it would have been if it were his true \u02bea\u1e25uzzah.
\n23. the proportionate assessment Hebrew mikhsah means \u201ccut, portion.\u201d The sense is that the donor must pay the Temple an appropriate amount in silver, equal to the assessed yield of the crop years remaining until the next Jubilee.
\n24. whose holding the land is Rather, \u201cto whom the tenured land belongs.\u201d The consecration of the land by one who had purchased it from its original owner does not affect the primary rights of the original owner.
\n25. All assessments shall be by the sanctuary weight The standard known as shekel hakodesh, \u201csanctuary weight,\u201d contained twenty gerahs or \u201cgrains\u201d of silver. There is mention of a royal standard, called \u02beeven ha-melekh, \u201cthe royal \u2018stone,\u2019 \u201d in 2 Samuel 14:26.
\nFIRSTLINGS (vv. 26\u201327)
\nAll Torah traditions know of the idea that the first-born males of man and beast are initially consecrated to God. Although chapter 27 makes no mention of the essential obligation to devote first-born sons, it does deal, as part of its primary concern with Temple funding, with firstlings as a source of such income. Of immediate concern in the chapter is the fact that already at birth, the firstlings of the herds and flocks are sacred. They are not something one can consecrate, for one may consecrate only what he owns.
\n26. A firstling of animals, however, which\u2014as a firstling\u2014is the Lord\u2019s This refers to pure animals, suitable for sacrifice. (Verse 27 deals with the firstlings of impure animals.) The Hebrew verb yevukkar is a denominative based on the noun bekhor, \u201cfirstling.\u201d The sense of yevukkar is \u201cto be assigned as a firstling to the Lord.\u201d In Deuteronomy 21:16 we find the active form \u201che may not treat as first-born (yevakker) the son of the loved one.\u201d
\n27. But if it is of unclean animals The law is that firstlings of impure animals, unsuitable for sacrifice, may be redeemed on the usual basis. If they are not redeemed, the sanctuary may sell them for silver. No time limit is stipulated. This last provision differs from the law of Exodus 13:13, repeated in Exodus 34:20, requiring that the firstling of an ass (an example of an impure animal) must be either exchanged for a lamb or destroyed. This difference between the two laws regards the legal status of the firstlings of impure animals. According to the legislation of Exodus, the sanctuary administration could not benefit from an impure animal in any way. It could not receive an animal unsuitable for sacrifice. In our legislation, the sanctuary had the right to dispose of impure firstlings profitably. The wording of our law indicates subtly that it reflects the legislation of Exodus. Throughout most of chapter 27, the verb ga\u02beal, \u201cto redeem,\u201d is used. Only here, and in verse 29, is the verb padah, \u201cto redeem,\u201d used, precisely because it is the verb that is used in Exodus 13:13 and 34:20 in a similar matter of law.
\nThe difference between the laws of Exodus and Leviticus on the matter of firstlings also reflects differing administrative practices on the part of the priesthood of the sanctuary. As has been stated, our legislation is aimed at securing silver for the sanctuary, and its provisions indicate the extensive use of currency in the economy at large.
\nPROSCRIBED PROPERTY (vv. 28\u201329)
\n28. But of all that anyone owns \u2026 nothing that he has proscribed for the Lord may be sold or redeemed In the Comment to verse 21, it is noted that an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah consecrated to the sanctuary, but not redeemed prior to the next Jubilee year, acquired the status of \u1e25erem, \u201cproscribed property.\u201d This verse is the actual statement on the legal status of land and other property that is proscribed; verse 29 gives the law regarding a person condemned under the \u1e25erem.
\nThe verb \u1e25-r-m means \u201cto set apart, denote, restrict\u201d and, in biblical Hebrew, seems always to have a negative or prohibitive connotation; it describes what is to be avoided, destroyed, or forbidden. Its cognates in certain other Semitic languages can connote the positive aspects of holiness as well as the negative.
\nTo designate something as \u1e25erem may mean either that it is to be destroyed completely or that it is to be reserved exclusively for specific purposes associated with the sanctuary. The institution of the \u1e25erem was variously interpreted in biblical Israel. Historically, it was associated with war. It had been a very ancient, pre-Israelite practice to donate the spoils of war to gods, including conquered cities and territories. At times this involved killing off the army of the enemy and even a population that refused to surrender. This practice is known from Mari, a town in Syria, from documents dating to the eighteenth century b.c.e. It was also operative among some of Israel\u2019s contemporary neighbors. King Mesha of Moab, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4 as a contemporary of Ahab, king of northern Israel in the ninth century b.c.e., records in his royal inscription that he proscribed (Moab. h\u1e25rm = Heb. he\u1e25erim) conquered towns to Kemosh, the national god of the Moabites.
\nIn biblical law, the institution of the \u1e25erem is carried over into the context of juridical punishment, where the penalty for worshiping other gods is death. Exodus 22:19 ordains that any person who offers sacrifice to another god is to be proscribed, which is to say, condemned to death. A similar punishment is ordained for the town whose inhabitants collectively participate in the worship of other gods, according to Deuteronomy 13:13f.
\nWhereas these precedents explain verse 29, which concerns a condemned man, there remains a serious difficulty with respect to verse 28. From what we know of the \u1e25erem, it is an imposed condition; one would not speak of voluntarily proscribing a field. Nor did this difficulty go unnoticed by the rabbinic sages and the medieval commentators. Two related explanations are given: First, verse 28 may be speaking of a man who swore to devote his property. Or, second, it may be speaking of one who took an oath in another matter, swearing that if he failed to uphold that oath, his property would be forfeit as \u1e25erem. In either case, the oath, once taken, made of the act of devotion a binding obligation; it was no longer a voluntary act. On this basis, one could translate verse 28 as follows: \u201cBut anything that a man (swears) to devote as proscribed property to the Lord (\u02beasher ya\u1e25arim \u02beish le-YHVH).\u201d In late Second Temple times, this was a common practice. One would state: harei \u02bfalai be-\u1e25erem, \u201cI owe this, under penalty of proscription.\u201d Such oaths were called \u1e25aramim because it was stipulated that the penalty for failure to uphold the oath was the proscription, or confiscation, of one\u2019s property by the Temple.
\nBased on the limited information available concerning the \u1e25erem in biblical times, this interpretation is perhaps the closest we can come to resolving the difficulty in verse 28, but it is far from adequate. One has the impression that there is a background to this law that is unknown to us since it diverges decidedly from the norms applicable to the institution of the \u1e25erem as they are known from other biblical sources.
\nSeveral additional notes on verse 28: The \u201cman\u201d whom one proscribes is undoubtedly a non-Israelite slave, who is considered the property of his owner. And in verse 21, sedeh ha-\u1e25erem would mean \u201ca field that has acquired the status of \u1e25erem.\u201d Such property, according to verse 28, may not be redeemed by the one who devoted it; nor may the sanctuary ever sell it, although it probably could use the revenue from it.
\n29. No human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed This law reflects, at least in part, the provisions of Exodus 22:19, which ordain that anyone who worships another god shall be proscribed, that is, condemned to death. (This law is cited here because of its topical relation to v. 28, although it has nothing to do with the subject of income for the sanctuary.) Like the murderer of Numbers 35:31\u201334 who cannot be ransomed (note the verb padah, \u201cto redeem\u201d), one condemned under the law of \u1e25erem must pay with his life.
\nTITHES (vv. 30\u201333)
\nThis chapter speaks of two kinds of tithes: a tenth of the yield of the land and a tenth of the flocks and herds.
\n30. All tithes from the land \u2026 are the Lord\u2019s; they are holy to the Lord In its overall effect, this law is consonant with the provisions of Deuteronomy 14:22f., although the matter is stated differently here. In the legislation of Deuteronomy, Israelites are required to set aside a tithe from the produce of the fields and to bring it each year to the central Temple. There, they are to consume it \u201cin the presence of the Lord\u201d as a sacred meal. Those distant from the Temple were to convert the ritual produce into silver and to use that silver to purchase offerings when they arrived at the Temple, which they would then celebrate in God\u2019s presence. This was in addition to the tithe given locally to the Levites. In the later tradition this tithe was called ma\u02bfaser sheni, \u201cthe second tithe.\u201d As of the time it was set aside initially, the tithe, and its eventual equivalent in silver, were preassigned. They belonged to the sanctuary and could not be used for any other purpose. Here, the procedures for the tithe follow the general pattern of the legislation of chapter 27. Redemption imposed a surcharge of 20 percent, as is noted in verse 31.
\n32. All tithes of the herd or flock No other Torah legislation ordains a tithe from the annual increments of the herds and flocks. Yet this statement seems to assume the existence of such a law, just as verse 30 assumes the law of tithes from the yield of the field. There are, indeed, indications of such a law as applied to the herds and flocks. In 1 Samuel 8:15\u201317, Samuel warns the people of the burdens of a monarchy. Among the prerogatives of a king, he says, is the right to demand a tenth of the livestock as well as of the produce. In that early law, the tithe is regarded as a royal tax of sorts, whereas here, the tithe is a tax payable to the Levites, as it is in Deuteronomy.
\nThere are more subtle indications of tithing the herds and flocks. Thus, Abraham pledged a tenth of all his possessions to the Canaanite priest-king, Melchizedek, and Jacob similarly pledged a tenth of his wealth at Bethel, in Genesis 14:20 and 34:22, respectively. Both patriarchs were known as owners of large herds and flocks.
\nThe annual increment of the herds and flocks was counted under the shepherd\u2019s staff. Jeremiah (33:13) prophesies that \u201csheep shall pass again under the hands of one who counts them,\u201d and Ezekiel (20:37) uses the term as metaphor, as God states: \u201cI will make you pass under the shepherd\u2019s staff.\u201d
\n33. He must not look out for good as against bad The actual tenth animal is to be counted as the tithe, whatever its condition. That very animal is preassigned, as of the moment of its designation as \u201cthe tenth.\u201d It can be neither substituted nor redeemed. Hebrew yevakker means \u201cto search out, examine,\u201d as a shepherd \u201cseeks out\u201d his livestock to examine them. Thus, we read in Ezekiel 34:11\u201312: \u201cFor thus said the Lord God: \u2026 I am going to take thought for My flock and I will seek them out (u-vikkartim). As a shepherd seeks out his flock (ke-vakkarat ro\u02bfeh \u02bfedro).\u2026\u201d
\nTHE POSTSCRIPT (V. 34)
\nThese are the commandments that the Lord gave Moses \u2026 on Mount Sinai This postscript reverts to the opening verse of chapter 25: \u201cThe Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.\u201d It was customary to state, both at the beginning and at the end of major sections, or books, of the Torah, where and when the revelation from God had occurred. The same kind of postscript occurs in 26:46 and in the closing verse of the Book of Numbers, 36:13.
\n\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7
\n\u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8
\n\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea
\n\u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05ea\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2\u05d4
\n\u05d8\u05c4\u05e0\u05c4\u05e3\u05c4
\n\u05d5\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d1\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8
\n\u05d5\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05c4\u05d4\u05c4
\nLEVITICUS IN THE ONGOING JEWISH TRADITION
\nBecause we have sinned, we and our forefathers, our city lies in ruin, and our Temple is desolate; our Glory has departed, and the Divine Presence has been withdrawn from our \u201cHouse of Life.\u201d
\nWe are, therefore, unable to fulfill our obligations in Your chosen \u201cHouse,\u201d in the great sacred Temple which bears Your name, because of the hand that has been cast against Your sanctuary.
\nModern students of ancient religions often find it difficult to identify with the pathos and the sense of deprivation conveyed by such statements as this one, taken from the Jewish liturgy. There is a tendency to regard such pronouncements as little more than disclaimers intended to absolve worshipers of those obligations imposed by the Torah but no longer possible to fulfill. Such a reading of Jewish liturgy would, however, misrepresent the mentality of the Jews of antiquity as well as of their successors, virtually to the modern period. To take such pronouncements less than seriously would be to miss the essence of religious experience itself.
\nAs regards the substance of Leviticus\u2014its laws and rituals\u2014the termination of sacrificial worship subsequent to the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. by the invading Romans ultimately rendered obsolete the basic system of sacrifice and purification upon which the priestly regimen of biblical religion rested. One cannot appreciate what became of this Levitical system without first exploring the transformation from sacrificial worship, which reflects the function of sacred space, to the alternative modes of worship and different religious institutions that became vital in later Judaism.
\nWe shall attempt to clarify how historical events, over which Jewish leadership had little control, interacted with internal policy decisions, over which that leadership exercised considerable control, to produce a new Judaism. The priesthood, so central to the Levitical system, ultimately retained only a vestigial role in historic Judaism. This brief treatment cannot presume to provide a comprehensive outline of later Jewish religious observance. The purpose is rather to analyze the methods that were applied to the restructuring of Judaism in late antiquity. In this way, the reader of the Commentary may catch a glimpse of continuity and change and focus attention on the lasting relevance of Leviticus. The reader will be referred to special studies on particular subjects and should consult appropriate religious authorities on questions of practice.
\nFrom Sacrifice to Alternative Forms of Worship
\nSome students of ancient Judaism maintain that what history decreed in the first century c.e. had, in fact, already been decided by the Jewish leadership. Prayers and blessings had all but replaced sacrifice, so the argument goes, even before the Romans made its continuation impossible. Although there is a degree of validity to this argument, it applies only to certain aspects of historical development in antiquity. Even in the pagan societies of late antiquity, there was opposition to sacrifice among those who had ceased believing in the mythological pantheons and who questioned the efficacy of elaborate cultic celebrations. Within ancient Jewry, alternative modes of worship\u2014all in a monotheistic framework\u2014had been developing for centuries prior to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, as successive restrictions were placed on the consecration of space. The Jewish leadership, as a result, was not entirely unprepared for the eventual loss of the central Temple in Jerusalem. But no amount of preparation could thoroughly cushion the shock of the Temple\u2019s destruction or lessen the challenge of accommodating to a new reality. Indeed, it would be a gross misjudgment of the religious attitudes of the first century, both in the Land of Israel and in the lands of the Diaspora, to suppose that most Jews no longer believed that sacrifice was essential to the fulfillment of Jewish religion. On the contrary, their feelings more accurately correlate with the words of the lamentation cited at the beginning of this essay. Sacrificial worship was for them exceedingly meaningful, an intense experience, not merely a formal activity. We should not be misled by the tone of the persistent criticisms of cultic religion that are found in biblical literature; all forms of worship can be genuinely meaningful for most people.
\nIn God-centered religions, the operative theory holds that a \u201cpresent\u201d God may be expected to be more responsive to human needs, more approachable than a deity perceived to be distant, in the far heavens. This very powerful perception dictates the main objective of worship: to create an environment conducive to establishing a relationship that allows humans, individually and collectively, to bring their needs to the attention of God, the source of power and blessings. This objective has not changed appreciably since earliest times, although the dynamics of worship in Judaism have changed radically.
\nAll that remained once the Temple was destroyed were words\u2014prayers, blessings, and readings from Scripture and the other canonical sources. The difference between sacrifice and prayer may be compared with the difference between actual service to God and saying that one is serving Him; between offering an actual gift to God, whom one loves, and saying that one loves God. A sacrifice represents an actual gift, offered to God in a sacred environment in which He is thought to reside and in which consecrated priests minister to Him in purity. Whenever humans and God shared a sacred meal a bond was acknowledged to exist between them: a veritable covenant. A \u201cpersonal\u201d basis was established and reinforced, one that allowed humans to petition God, to seek His help. Ever pressed by real needs, human communities find considerable security in the belief that God is near and attentive (Ps. 145:18).
\nCould Jewish religion continue to be effective, to answer the needs of its worshipers without the experience attendant upon the sacrificial worship of God? Could words compensate for gifts, and were there deeds or acts of a different sort that could produce something akin to the experience of sacrificial worship?
\nIt might be of interest to explore what other religious communities have done to meet the needs of their adherents. Christianity adopted the policy of sanctifying space, as Judaism had once done. Christian worship in the form of the traditional mass affords the devout an experience of sacrifice, of communion, and proclaims that God is present. The Christian church, then, is a temple. Islam, however, followed the example of Judaism in opting for nonsacral worship, thereby making of the mosque an institution more similar to the Jewish synagogue. But Islam operates with sacred space as well, most notably in Mecca, the focus of pilgrimage for all Muslims. Judaism, deprived of its unique, sacred space, the Temple of Jerusalem, has operated without sacrificial worship and without sacred space since late antiquity. This situation has necessarily undercut the intensity of religious experience. Jewish pilgrims, when they arrived in Jerusalem, saw only the scene of ancient ruins and retaining walls. They were afforded only sad memory and could experience only fierce hope.
\nNevertheless, human needs do not change appreciably, even over long periods of time, as regards religious experience: The need for perceptible demonstrations of God\u2019s nearness and Presence has not diminished among the devout, even to this day. In theory, despite the destruction of the Temple, Jewish religion never renounced sacrificial worship permanently\u2014at least not until modern times, when certain Jewish religious movements altered the traditional liturgy to avoid references to the restoration of sacrifice. Through the centuries since late antiquity, Jewish liturgy has expressed the hope for the reinstitution of sacrificial worship as part of the larger hope for the restoration of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. At the present time, when the Land of Israel has been rebuilt, renewed proximity to the locus of ancient worship has, indeed, awakened a deep sense of the sanctity of space and released feelings that were previously unexpressed. It is too soon to project the course of future developments in Judaism relevant to sacred space, but we should expect that the factor of space will play a greater role than it had during the long centuries of dispersion.
\nThe Centralized Cult
\nThe course of Jewish religion\u2014and the legacy of Leviticus\u2014in later periods was of course influenced by decisions made in the preexilic period of biblical history. We are thinking in particular of severe limitation of sacred space to a unique site. When that place\u2014the Temple in Jerusalem\u2014was no longer functional, sacrifice likewise became impossible. There had, after all, been other possibilities. In earlier periods Israelite religion had functioned with ubiquitous sacrificial worship in the Land of Israel; temples and cult sites had been manifold. But prior to the Babylonian exile of 586 b.c.e., young King Josiah of Judah, instructed by devout priests, sought to repurify the cult, which had been compromised by a predecessor, Manassch. Josiah centralized the cult in Jerusalem, requiring that henceforth all sacrificial worship of the God of Israel take place exclusively in the Temple. We now know that Josiah\u2019s edicts represented an advanced phase of a long, but delayed, movement toward cult centralization that had first emerged in the northern kingdom of Israel before its downfall in the late eighth century b.c.e..
\nWe are not entirely clear as to the underlying motivations of this movement. Undoubtedly, centralization was held out as a means of greater control, the better to purify the Israelite cult of pagan elements and other improper forms of worship. Experience had shown how vulnerable the cult was to pagan influence. The eighth-century prophets condemned the religious situation in the northern Israelite kingdom, with its temples and altars. They saw in them mere tools of royal policy, instruments of state religion, and envisioned in their stead a new temple at a site to be designated by God, where loyalty to God would be more important than loyalty to kings.
\nThough hardly obeyed promptly or consistently throughout the land, Josiah\u2019s \u201creforms,\u201d as they have come to be known, became definitive in the long term, the real test coming in the exilic period. With the destruction of the First Temple of Jerusalem in 586 b.c.e. by the invading Babylonians, large numbers of the populace were exiled, and a Jewish Diaspora emerged in Babylonia and other parts of the Near East. For a time, both those Judeans who remained in the land and the Jews in the Diaspora were left without a central temple in Jerusalem. When the restoration became a real possibility, pursuant to the edict of Cyrus the Great, issued in 538 b.c.e., the only acceptable program was the rebuilding of the Temple on its former site in Jerusalem, although the hiatus of the exilic period had given Jewish leadership pause to consider a new and crucial set of alternatives: Should the God of Israel be worshiped through sacrifice in the Diaspora? Should altars and temples be built for this purpose in Babylonia, for example? There were certainly plenty of priests available in Babylonia to officiate at sacrificial worship. In a sense, this option had been foreclosed earlier by Josiah\u2019s edict. If sacred space within the Land of Israel, itself, had been officially restricted to a single site, how much more unacceptable would sacrificial worship be in the impure lands of the gentiles, who worshiped idols.
\nNevertheless, we find allusions in the exilic biblical literature to an ongoing debate on the question of sacrificial worship in Babylonia. The Book of Ezekiel may well refer to this subject, although admittedly in cryptic fashion. In chapter 20 we read that elders of Israel approached the prophet Ezekiel with a certain inquiry and that he emphatically refused to sanction their proposal. The language is elusive, and we can infer the gist of the inquiry only from the prophet\u2019s response. He tells the elders that only when God restores His people to His holy mountain, in the Land of Israel, will it be possible for Jews to worship Him once again. Until then, God will demonstrate His Presence among His people by being \u201csomething of a sanctuary\u201d (mikdash me\u02bfat) in the lands of the exile (Ezek. 11:16\u201320). Ezekiel, who envisioned a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem, would certainly have endorsed the edicts of Josiah. In the Commentary we maintain that the laws of Leviticus 17 regarding proper worship also reflect the principle of centralized sacrificial worship.
\nThere were some exceptions to this principle. The only \u201cJewish\u201d temple to be built elsewhere in the Land of Israel subsequent to the restoration was the Samaritan temple (now excavated) atop Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans, denied permission to participate in the establishment of the Jerusalem Temple, built one of their own. For the rest, it was to the Temple in Jerusalem that Jewish worshipers repaired to offer sacrifice. There were, in addition, a few Jewish temples in the Diaspora, especially in the Egyptian Diaspora, which began earlier than the Babylonian. The Jewish temple at Elephantine, in Upper Egypt, operated throughout most of the fifth century b.c.e. But such institutions did not speak for the main body of Jewry and seldom endured.
\nWith the rebuilt central Temple in Jerusalem sacrificial worship resumed under the aegis of a consecrated priesthood. During the period of the Second Temple, which lasted approximately six hundred years, the Levitical system was thus very much in evidence. But during that period the demography of the Jewish people had changed, the large majority living outside the Land of Israel. Thus, with sacrifice restricted to the only proper location and the population of Jews so dispersed, the bond between people and Temple became more attenuated, and those out of touch with the Temple required alternative modes of worship. There emerged the institution that came to be known as the synagogue (beit hakenesset, \u201chouse of assembly\u201d). But even so the mentality of Jews during the period of the Second Temple should not be misunderstood. For the most part, they did not regard sacrificial worship as pass\u00e9. Within its limited sphere, it was vital to the Jewish people. Even though they could not participate directly, Jews everywhere were concerned that the full regimen of sacrifices continue without interruption or interference in the Temple of Jerusalem. It was precisely during this period, through sequential imperial dominations and brief opportunities at autonomous rule, that the Temple of Jerusalem and its priesthood enjoyed considerable power and prominence. The priesthood of Jerusalem represented Judea to imperial authorities at various times and also exercised governance within the Land of Israel. In religious matters, it often spoke for world Jewry.
\nThis was a period when the torot of Leviticus were fully operative in Jerusalem. From the Books of Chronicles, a composition of the Persian period (538\u2013ca.330 b.c.e.), we learn of the elaborate organization of the priesthood into assigned tours of duty (mishmarot). See ond Temple literature and the writings of Josephus, for example, inform us of the role of the priesthood in Greco-Roman times. The Mishnah preserves evidence of Temple operations during its last phases. The overall impression is one of great activity in Jerusalem: of pilgrimages and delegations (ma\u02bfamadot) coming from all over the Diaspora, of financial support for the Temple establishment, and of written correspondence on matters of religious significance.
\nIt is interesting to note that during the Antiochan persecutions of the second century b.c.e., which provide the historical background of the Hanukkah episode, there was a very brief period during which the public cult of the Temple of Jerusalem was suspended. We are fortunate in having considerable documentation of that episode, which allows us to observe how great was the anxiety within the Jewish communities at the time. We must conclude that there is no cause to discount the significance of the sacrificial cult, even though its performance was centralized and restricted, and even though most Jews could not actually participate in it directly.
\nPost-Temple Judaism
\nWhat became of the substance of Leviticus in post-Temple Judaism? How was the eventual loss of sanctity compensated? Unprecedented until the destruction of the Second Temple was the need to rely exclusively on nonsacral worship. Public prayer had coexisted with the cult\u2014in the Temple precincts proper. Synagogues functioned in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. But these activities and these institutions did not have to be fully self-sufficient. There had always been the Temple.
\nA key to the answer lies in an analysis of the priestly components of the Torah. The two pillars of Leviticus are sanctity and purity. Between them, these two dimensions of law and ritual account not only for the content of Leviticus but also for the structure and organization of the book, as has already been shown. Jewish leadership in the post-Temple period saw an opportunity to compensate for the vacuum left by the cessation of sacrificial worship by placing a greater emphasis on purity. This process actually began long before the Roman destruction, as we now know from sectarian literature, such as the texts from Qumran.
\nPurity and sanctity had enjoyed a subtle relationship in ancient Israel. Viewed from the perspective of the cult, purity was a precondition: What was sacred had to be pure in the first instance; its purity had to be preserved and any defilement redressed. In the biblical period, purity legislation was stimulated primarily by the need for a pure sanctuary and a pure priesthood.
\nIn itself, however, the concept of purity, the essential notion that certain places, objects, and species of animals, for instance, were pure, whereas others were impure, had most probably emerged independently of the cult, to begin with. The priesthood, in effect, appropriated preexisting concepts of purity and applied them to the requirements of the cult. A good example is provided by the dietary legislation of Leviticus 11. Accepted criteria of pure and impure living creatures were adopted as a basis for determining which animals and fowl were suitable as sacrifices. These criteria also applied, however, to the diet of all Israelites.
\nSo long as Israelite, then Jewish, religion was oriented to sacred space, toward a Temple, purity remained primarily a function of the cult. It affected priests and all persons, in varying degrees, in their relations with the Temple as a sacred environment. It was relevant to determine whether a person was pure because it was necessary to know whether such a person might or might not approach the Temple. In an extended sense, it meant that impurity threatened the status of the Temple which existed in the community.
\nLater Judaism progressively restored the distinction between purity and sanctity. What was lost by way of sanctity could not be replaced in kind when the Temple no longer stood. The efforts undertaken to generate alternative modes of worship and celebration could not, for all of their intensity, produce a religious experience of the same order as that afforded by sacrificial worship. But those aspects of purity that had always pertained to noncultic areas of life could continue to function in post-Temple Judaism, even if sacrifice itself was no longer possible.
\nIn post-Temple Judaism, purity remained operative in three principal areas: priesthood, family, and diet, all of which derive in great measure from the specific provisions of Leviticus.
\nThe Purity of the Priest (Kohen) After the Second Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, there remained little realistic need for priests. Furthermore, it became increasingly difficult to substantiate priestly lineage, which was hereditary, through the paternal line. After a time, priestly lineage became presumptive; it was merely a \u201cclaim\u201d (\u1e25azzakah) to priestly status. Serious attempts were made to keep family records, and for a time, priestly status served as a social register. But with recurring dislocations and the distancing of Jewish communities from the Land of Israel, it eventually became impossible to prove such lineage conclusively.
\nDespite the relative little that remained of priestly function, so central to the Levitical system, there persisted an attitude on the part of the kohanim themselves, as well as on the part of the community, that saw value in having priests continue to obey the biblical restrictions imposed on them and occupy a respected position in synagogue and community. A recent study of the priests of Sepphoris, a town in Lower Galilee, sheds light on the status and religious role of priests during the centuries following the destruction.
\nTwo kinds of priestly restrictions have persisted in the absence of the Temple, one in the area of marital regulations and the other regarding contact with the dead.
\nAccording to the provisions of Leviticus 21, priests, as consecrated persons, are forbidden to marry certain women: a divorc\u00e9e (gerushnh), a harlot (zonah), and a woman classified as \u201ca defiled woman\u201d (\u1e25alalah), namely, one born of a union that had been forbidden to priests initially.
\nSexual misconduct was regarded as a form of impurity and was the sole basis for divorce. According to the laws of Deuteronomy 24:1\u20134, a divorc\u00e9e was stigmatized, it being assumed that she had been unfaithful to her husband. Being impure, she could not be married to a priest. To be sure, later rabbinic law liberalized the grounds for divorce, but originally the restrictions on priestly marriage were a response to the strict letter of Mosaic law, as stated in Deuteronomy.
\nRabbinic legislation retained the restrictive categories imposed in Leviticus 21, at times redefining them. Two classes of women forbidden to the priest were added: (1) a woman who had not been born a Jew but who had converted to Judaism (giyyoret in Late Hebrew), and (2) a woman rejected from levirate marriage (\u1e25alutsah in Late Hebrew). The latter prohibition represents an extension of the principle operative in banning divorc\u00e9es: A woman rejected from levirate marriage (yibbum) was also viewed as stigmatized.
\nThe ban on priestly marriage to a converted woman was derived hermeneutically from the prohibition of priestly marriage to a harlot, reflecting an admittedly disparaging view of the sexual behavior of gentile women in the rabbinic period. It was thought that one born in a state of impurity should not marry a kohen, even though the woman in question had subsequently purified herself through conversion to Judaism. Religious conversion\u2014hardly envisioned in Leviticus\u2014represents a later development in Jewish religion.
\nNow, a priest who transgressed the law and actually married a woman forbidden to him solely because of his priestly status defiled himself as a kohen. This defilement extended to all children born of the forbidden union. Such priests and their sons could not officiate, and they and their dependents would not receive priestly emoluments. But the marriage itself was legal and binding, and the children born of such marriages were of acceptable status in other respects. Until modern times, those who are of priestly lineage by their own reckoning have usually observed the ancient restrictions on marriage and, in traditional families, continue to do so.
\nThe second area of priestly purity, namely, avoidance of contact with the dead, also derives from Leviticus 21, although the impurity itself and its regulation are addressed in Numbers 19.
\nIn fact, contact with the dead defiles everyone, but nonpriests are permitted to defile themselves in this way because of the importance attached to proper burial of the dead. Priests, however, may render themselves impure in this extreme way only in order to attend to the burial of close relatives\u2014a mother, father, son or daughter, and brother. Rabbinic law added one\u2019s wife to the exemption. The duty toward one\u2019s wife, implicit in biblical narratives, was never given a legal formulation in the Bible.
\nLooking back over the centuries, it is remarkable to what extent men of priestly families have continued to adhere to these purity restrictions, notwithstanding the presumptive nature of their priestly status. Since the destruction of the Second Temple, no effective method has been available for priests (or for any Jews, in fact) to be purified after contact with the dead. (Proximity to non-Jewish dead does not, according to rabbinic law, render a Jew impure.) Talmudic literature gives ample evidence of the anxiety experienced over the impurity of the dead, as it became more difficult to identify Jewish graves in the Land of Israel during Roman times.
\nBiblical religion regarded the dead as impure in the extreme and forbade priests from participating in funerary rites. In the Commentary it is maintained that this prohibition was aimed at preventing a cult of the dead from becoming part of Israelite worship. To the extent that a higher form of religious expression is served by avoiding a cult of the dead, the devotion of kohanim to the ancient purity restrictions has contributed significantly to this goal.
\nCertain priestly functions that survived in post-Temple Judaism, such as the redemption of first-born sons and the pronouncement of the priestly benediction, will be discussed in the section \u201cWorship and Celebration.\u201d
\nThe Purity of the Jewish Family Leviticus has a great deal to say about the definition of the family and about sexual behavior. As the primary statement of priestly law in the Torah, the book would logically tend to focus on such matters as incest and other forbidden sexual unions. The legalities of marriage and divorce and such problems as the misrepresentation of virginity in marriage are addressed elsewhere, but it is in Leviticus that the inner workings of family life are discussed.
\nThe law governing the immediate family, as it is projected in Leviticus 18 and 20, continued to operate in later periods of Jewish history. There were recurrent disagreements on the permissibility of marriage with first cousins and half sisters, for instance, but such matters hardly affected the basic incest system of the Torah. One notes that lesbian intercourse, not explicitly forbidden in Leviticus, was made so in rabbinic law, so that all forms of homosexuality were prohibited.
\nNew issues, unanticipated in Leviticus, began to affect the integrity of the Jewish family in later periods of Jewish history. Religious conversion to Judaism brought a new element to the family, and changing demographic and social conditions led to intermarriage. Eventually, the adoption of the matrilineal principle established the socioreligious identity of a child born out of an intermarriage as that of its mother, not its father. Significantly, the illegitimacy of children, a subject rarely elaborated in the laws of the Torah, continued to be defined in limited fashion, rather than broadly. Only the offspring of incest or adultery was a mamzer, \u201cbastard\u201d (Deut. 23:3)\u2014not one merely born out of wedlock, as was the case in some other legal systems. Only mamzerim were forbidden in marriage to Jews.
\nBut as a general rule, the provisions of Leviticus show more concern for sexuality per se than for legalities associated with it. There is great interest in the reproductive cycle of the female. The physiological processes involved in reproduction were defined as impure, and women undergoing such were distanced from the cult and Sanctuary. This function of impurity as a category of priestly law is explained in the Commentary. Though such impurity was relevant to the community because it could affect the Sanctuary, it was also relevant on the most intimate level to sexual relations within the family. That dimension of family purity survived and functioned vitally in post-Temple Judaism.
\nMenstruation, in particular, as well as the processes relevant to childbirth, were conditions that imposed restrictions on sexual intercourse between husband and wife and also required purification. In this area of behavior, purification had always affected personal life in other than cultic ways. These concerns are addressed in Leviticus 12 and 15. General prohibitions against having intercourse with a menstruating woman appear as well in Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18, in the context of family law.
\nLeviticus 15:19\u201323 (and cf. 12:1\u20138) deals with menstrual impurity. Intercourse is forbidden for seven days from the outset of the period. (Similar restrictions, but for longer periods, apply to a mother after childbirth). The law requires a woman to bathe at the conclusion of the seven days or following abnormal genital discharges that occur subsequently. Two factors are indispensable to the resumption of sexual intercourse: the passage of a fixed number of days and proper purification by bathing. The Torah does not, however, specify how bathing is to be carried out. Certain standards may be learned from a comparison with the purification of vessels, as delineated in Leviticus 11.
\nRabbinic law defined bathing, an act conveyed by the Hebrew verb ra\u1e25ats, as total immersion of the body. Rabbinic law also specified the necessary quantity of water and determined its purity. Natural bodies of running water were optimal but hardly accessible in most situations. It became necessary to utilize man-made structures and to set standards and dimensions for them. In postbiblical sources, the \u201cbath\u201d used by women (and by others) is called mikvah, \u201ca gathering, container of water.\u201d
\nThe masculine form, mikveh, occurs in biblical Hebrew and designates natural bodies of water (Gen. 1:10; Exod. 7:9). In Leviticus 11:26, mikveh mayim, \u201ca spring,\u201d is mentioned in connection with the purification of certain types of vessels. But it is in Isaiah 22:11 that the feminine form of the word, mikvah, appears, as synonymous with berekhah, \u201cpool.\u201d
\nMishnah Mikva\u02beot sets down the dimensions and specifications for a proper mikvah. The water (at least most of it beyond a certain minimum quantity) must be fresh; it may not be \u201cdrawn water\u201d (mayim she\u02beuvim), which is not sufficiently pure. The mikvah had to be large enough to allow for total immersion. Proper bathing meant that no substance could intervene between one\u2019s skin and the water. Such intervention was termed \u1e25atsitsah. Loose clothing could be worn, however.
\nArchaeological excavations have revealed actual examples of ancient mikva\u02beot at such sites as Masada. All through the centuries, Jewish communities maintained mikva\u02beot, and until recent times adherence to the rites of purification seems to have been widespread. Practice today is mostly limited to traditional families.
\nMishnah Niddah deals with menstruation in great detail. The period of seven days is absolute regardless of how long the actual flow lasted. At the close of the seven days, after dark, a woman must bathe properly. Abnormal discharges (zivah in rabbinic Hebrew; zov in Leviticus) also rendered a woman impure. Rabbinic law provides for various contingencies, depending on how long the discharges lasted, and special provisions were made for pregnancy and childbirth.
\nA woman who has not bathed properly in order to purify herself subsequent to her last period remains sexually forbidden to her husband. Other restrictions were imposed in order to prevent the kind of physical intimacy that might lead to intercourse, but nothing was done to interrupt normal conditions of family life during menstruation. A woman is expected to examine herself and monitor her menstrual period and to be honest and forthcoming with her husband. The purity associated with menstruation has no direct bearing on the legitimacy of children.
\nIn antiquity it was assumed, and with good reason, that Jewish women would not engage in sex before marriage, which, in any event, usually occurred at a relatively young age. A young woman would therefore immerse herself for the first time before her marriage and continue to do so from then on.
\nThe communal mikvah may also be utilized for the purification of vessels. Men may also use mikva\u02beot. In this connection it is worthwhile to contrast the impurity of males with that of females in post-Temple Judaism. The impurity of the male suffering from genital discharges was quite severe, according to the requirements of Leviticus 15. Yet such impurity soon lost its relevance, precisely because it had been cult related. But menstruation, because it had other applications deriving from its relation to human reproduction, became a major focus of purity legislation in later Judaism.
\nThis is the most logical place to discuss circumcision, although it differs somewhat in its phenomenology. The only statement regarding this rite in Leviticus appears in 12:3, in the context of childbirth. The principal Torah source for the rite of circumcision is Genesis 17, where it is related to the life of the patriarch Abraham.
\nCircumcision must take place on the eighth day after birth. This requirement overrides all other religious considerations. If the eighth day falls on Sabbath or on the Day of Atonement, for that matter, circumcision is performed as scheduled. Medical or potentially life-threatening conditions provide the only basis for postponement. Hemophilia, for example, is discussed in rabbinic law; and there are situations in which circumcision may actually be forbidden for medical reasons.
\nRabbinic sources discuss fairly obvious considerations left unspecified in the Torah. The operation must be performed in specific ways, and there are personal and professional requirements as to who may perform this rite. The religious duty rests with the child\u2019s father. It is he who is commanded to circumcise his son, but as a practical matter, a professionally trained adult male Jew performs the operation on behalf of the father. Such a person is called mohel, \u201ccircumciser,\u201d and the rite itself is known as milah, \u201ccircumcising,\u201d or berit milah, \u201cthe covenant of circumcision.\u201d The circumcision is the physical mark, or \u201csign\u201d (\u02beot), of the covenant between God and Israel, first enacted between Abraham and his family and God.
\nCircumcising one\u2019s son is a religious duty commanded in the Torah, and it is therefore accompanied by blessings (berakhot) that express compliance with God\u2019s command. The mohel states that his act complies with the commandment \u201cconcerning circumcision\u201d (\u02bfal ha-milah), whereas the child\u2019s father states that God commanded us \u201cto initiate him in the covenant of Abraham, our patriarch\u201d (le-hakhnisso bi-verito shel \u02beavraham \u02beovinu). The traditional liturgy refers, of course, to the covenant sealed in the flesh of all male Jews. In turn, the theme of covenant evokes the promise of redemption for the Jewish people. Ultimately, this is what brought the prophet Elijah into the act. In the later tradition, based upon 1 Kings 19:10, 14, Elijah became an angel, the \u201cangel of the covenant\u201d (mal\u02beakh haberit), the herald of the redemption to come (Mal. 3:23), when all who are circumcised will be saved from damnation.
\nAs a rite of passage, one of a series of such rites that punctuate the life cycle, milah is linked thematically to other important moments. For this reason the liturgy of the berit milah expresses the hope that the child now being initiated into the covenant will, in due course, enter into the study of Torah (torah), into the marriage canopy (\u1e25uppah), and into a life of good acts (ma\u02bfasim tovim). Historically, circumcision has been the primary mark of Jewish identity. Those like the Roman emperor Hadrian, who sought to obliterate that identity, forbade circumcision. On the other hand, Hellenizing Jews of an earlier period, who had sought to conceal their Jewish identity completely, tried to alter the physical mark of their circumcision.
\nGenerally, Jews have been extremely loyal to the duty of milah. It should be borne in mind that more than a medical operation is required. The operation must be performed in such a way that it reflects the \u201cconscious intent\u201d (kavvanah) of the religious rite.
\nDietary Purity Leviticus 11 is the most elaborate text on the subject of the dietary laws, which, with some differences, are also presented in Deuteronomy 14. Both codes of law are addressed to the entire people of Israel, and not only to the priests, a fact that will prove to be significant in the ensuing discussion.
\nHistorically, kashrut, \u201cfitness,\u201d the name given to the overall dietary regimen, has proved to be an effective system of purity in post-Temple Judaism. It has lent to the Jewish home an atmosphere of purification. More than one midrash notes that the Hebrew word shul\u1e25an, \u201ctable,\u201d may also designate an altar. When the prophet Ezekiel beheld the altar of his visionary Temple he proclaimed: zek ha-shul\u1e25an \u02beasher lifnei YHVH, \u201cThis is the table that stands before the Lord\u201d (Ezek. 41:22).
\nPerhaps the clearest way of tracing what became of the dietary laws of Leviticus in later Judaism would be to list the principal features of biblical law and then review what became of each of them.
\n1. The Torah generically prohibits eating the meat or substance of certain living creatures and classifies them as impure. In some cases observable, physical criteria are stipulated, whereas in other instances, a list of forbidden creatures is provided (Lev. 11; Deut. 14).
\n2. It is forbidden to ingest the blood of any animal (including \u201cbeasts,\u201d such as deer) and of fowl. (Fish and insects are not included in this ban on blood.) It follows, therefore, that methods of slaughtering animals and fowl should allow for as much blood as possible to leave the body of the animal or bird. To remove residual blood, salted meat was left out to drain. The use of salt is mentioned in the context of sacrifice (Lev. 2:13). The Torah says nothing about the tools to be used for slaughter or about how slaughter is to be performed.
\nAkin to the prohibition against ingesting blood is that forbidding consumption of animal fat (\u1e25elev; Lev. 7:23\u201325). A specific statement in Genesis 32:31\u201332 prohibits eating the sciatic nerve (gid ha-nasheh), which could be plucked out by those expert in this task.
\n3. The Torah forbids eating the meat of the carcass (nevelah) of dead animals and fowl. It likewise prohibits eating meat from animals and fowl torn by beasts (terefah; Lev. 7:34; 17:15; 22:8). It is also forbidden to eat flesh from any creature while it is still alive (Gen. 9:4).
\n4. Leviticus 11 legislates detailed purity requirements for those vessels and utensils used to store, prepare, and serve food\u2014the purpose being to preserve food from contamination. Impurity was thought to be conducted from one substance to another by actual contact, as well as in other ways.
\n5. In three separate statements (none of which appears in Leviticus) the Torah forbids boiling a goat in its mother\u2019s milk (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:2). These prohibitions were similar in spirit to the ban on sacrificing a mother animal and her offspring on the same day, or the offspring immediately after birth (Lev. 22:26\u201328). In the later religious traditions, these three statements became the basis for separating meat and dairy products from each other. Of a similar character is the prohibition of eating leaven during the Passover festival (Exod. 12, 13, etc.); in both cases, the prohibition is relational, not intrinsic.
\n6. Torah legislation, much of it in Leviticus, prohibits Israelites from partaking in or benefiting from various foodstuffs until these are desacralized. The operative principle is that the crop, or yield, is forbidden to humans until God receives His share or until God\u2019s prior claim is satisfied, at which time the rest of the lot becomes available for use.
\nA good example of this is grain set aside for the tithe (ma\u02bfaser) or for priestly levies (terumah). Until these dues were withheld, the crop could not be used or prepared as food. The same prohibition of use would affect the fruit of young trees (\u02bforlah) until after the fourth year, when it was to be devoted. First fruits (bikkurim) were to be devoted, and firstlings (bekhorot) of man and beast belonged to God. Unless fit for sacrifice, they were to be redeemed\u2014and could not be used until then. All that grows during the Sabbatical year, \u201cthe fruit of the seventh year\u201d (perot shevi\u02bfit in late Hebrew), may not be marketed.
\nThe upshot of all of these laws is that certain otherwise permissible foodstuffs were forbidden for consumption ephemerally.
\nWhat became of all these kinds of dietary restrictions in post-Temple Judaism?
\n1. The generic prohibitions have remained in force until the present day. At times, the pig has been regarded as the height of impurity. There is no basis for this distinction in religious law, but there are cultural and historical reasons for it. It has been necessary at times to decide the status of certain fowl unknown in the biblical period and to resolve ambiguities concerning certain species of fish. But by and large, the ancient system has persisted with remarkable precision.
\n2. The prohibition against ingesting blood interacted with the regulations governing nevelah and terefah to yield a method of slaughter and a system of inspection aimed at satisfying the cumulative requirements of biblical law.
\nIn Mishnah \u1e24ullin we find the basic regulations governing she\u1e25itah, \u201cslaughter.\u201d This term is a form of the same verb often used in the Torah, namely, sha\u1e25at, \u201cto slaughter.\u201d Rabbinic law defined this verb in practical terms by stipulating which tools may be employed in the process of she\u1e25itah.
\nThe verb sha\u1e25at is defined as a cutting, or slicing, action, whereby a blade is drawn over a certain area of the neck. Stabbing, or piercing, is unacceptable. Tools made of various materials may be used, so long as their form makes them suitable for accomplishing an uninterrupted cutting action. Such tools must be sharp and devoid of nicks. The objective is to cut open the esophagus (veshet) and the windpipe (kaneh) so that the blood gushes forth rapidly. Rabbinic law also stipulates who may perform she\u1e25itah, and relatively few restrictions are imposed. The slaughterer is not a cleric or consecrated person by any means, only a skilled person. The functional meanings of the terms nevelah and terefah underwent significant adaptation in the later tradition. Nevelah, for example, was defined as meat from any animal (beast) or fowl that had not met its death through proper she\u1e25itah.
\nThere is a rather subtle aspect to this definition because the Torah explicitly provides for hunting (e.g., Lev. 17:13\u201314; Deut. 12:15), and Leviticus 1:15 provides for snapping the nape of fowl offered as sacrifices. The blood of hunted animals and fowl need only be drained and buried, and the list of permitted animals in Deuteronomy 14:3\u20135 includes several types of deer, which were normally hunted. The rabbis were, of course, fully aware of the biblical sanction for alternative methods, but over time they standardized practice. It was a positive commandment (mitsvat \u02bfaseh) to slaughter all meat, to perform she\u1e25itah.
\n3. No meat may be eaten as food until the animal or bird from which it was taken has actually expired, a requirement based on Genesis 9:4. In rabbinic terminology, such forbidden meat is called \u02beever min ha-\u1e25ai, \u201ca limb from a living creature.\u201d
\nOf particular significance is the rabbinic definition of terefah. Using subtle hermeneutics, the rabbis defined terefah as the condition of a living creature (including a human being) that was expected to die or that was on the verge of death. This would include a severely diseased animal, for example. A kind of autopsy was performed immediately after she\u1e25itah in order to ascertain whether the animal or bird had been healthy at the time of slaughter. This entailed examination of the internal organs, with the lungs most often mentioned. This inspection is known as bedikah. If it was determined that the animal or bird had been about to die\u2014that is, it might have died on its own before she\u1e25itah\u2014that animal or fowl was declared terefah and could not be used as food.
\nThe prohibition against ingesting blood was addressed, in the first instance, by proper slaughter. Meat was then to be salted and the blood allowed to drain for a time so as to remove residual blood. Preparation over an open fire would also accomplish this objective.
\n4\u20135. We combine two features of biblical legislation that came to be associated with one another in later rabbinic law: the purity of vessels and the separation of meat and milk products from one another. This extremely complex aspect of law underwent considerable development in postbiblical times. Rabbinic law in this area, concentrated in Mishnah Kelim, defines the biblical term keli, \u201cvessel,\u201d in functional terms; and Mishnah Makhshirin deals with factors that \u201ccondition\u201d (makhshir) substances so that they are susceptible to impurity. Thus, water conditions grain and makes it susceptible to impurity, whereas dry grain does not become contaminated.
\nVessels manufactured of certain materials could be purified subsequent to defilement; others could not and had to be destroyed. Milk and meat were regarded as impure with respect to each other in their admixture, so that vessels used for one could not normally be used for the other. In a similar way, leaven (\u1e25amets) was functionally impure during the Passover festival, so that special cooking and eating vessels had to be used at that time. Heat is another factor that affects purity, since it is thought that porous materials absorb food when either the food or the vessel, or both, are heated. Biblical prohibitions are often stated in terms of boiling or cooking. After eating meat products, there was to be a waiting period before partaking of dairy products, and the two were not to be eaten together. Forbidden \u1e25elev, \u201cfat,\u201d was normally removed after slaughter and rarely reached the consumer. Where experts were available to pluck out the sciatic nerve, the sirloin portion could be used. Otherwise, it was disposed of entirely.
\nThe totality of later legislation yielded a highly systematic regimen of food preparation and of dining procedures: Only permitted foods could be eaten to start with, and the purity of these foods had to be preserved in specific ways.
\nQuite clearly, the regulations governing vesssels and utensils were aimed at achieving an effect similar to that of pure, sacrificial offerings. We read in talmudic literature of contemporary Jews who endeavored to attain a cultic standard of purity in their domestic diet. Down to modern times, kashrut has been practiced in Jewish communities all over the world, with some differences in custom.
\n6. For some time after the destruction of the Second Temple efforts were made to support priestly families and to refrain from benefiting from whatever the Torah had originally assigned to the priesthood and to the Temple. Eventually, such taxes as tithes, priestly levies, and firstlings of the herds and flocks were discontinued, as such, and payments were collected by communal agencies for philanthropic purposes and other necessary functions. To a considerable extent, the practice of tzedakah, \u201cphilanthropy,\u201d replaced cultic donations. This redirection of communal energy and religious commitment is actually a fascinating process, which has been studied in considerable depth in recent years, but it goes far beyond the subject of dietary restrictions.
\nOpinions differ even today\u2014with the Land of Israel once again settled and yielding seasonal harvests\u2014as to whether such regulations as tithing and setting aside the produce of the Sabbatical year are in force, given the fact that no Temple is currently operative. In the market places of Israel one can observe signs informing the consumer that tithes and priestly levies have been duly set aside or that the produce being marketed was not grown in the land during the Sabbatical year, known as the year of shemitah. It is still customary to cast a fistful of dough into the oven when baking, a practice known as hafrashat \u1e25allah, \u201cthe setting aside of hallah,\u201d which commemorates the \u02beazkarah, \u201ctaken portion of the grain offering\u201d (Lev. 2:2), and also most probably the todah, which is the thanksgiving offering ordained in Leviticus 7:12\u201313.
\nThere are a few additional dietary regulations not mentioned in the above survey. It is forbidden for Jews to drink wine used in pagan libations because to do so would constitute participation in idolatrous rites, at least indirectly so. This prohibition is derived from Deuteronomy 32:38, where those who drink pagan libations are condemned alongside those who partake of idolatrous sacrifices. The rabbinic system tended to maximize this prohibition, with the result that all wine produced by gentiles, or, in the opinion of some, even handled by them, was suspect and regarded as yein nesekh, \u201cwine of libations.\u201d From the New Testament and other early sources, we learn that a debate ensued in Christendom on the subject of partaking of pagan sacrifices, whereas in Judaism this question was emphatically settled by a continuing commitment to the dietary regimen prescribed in the Torah.
\nThe subject of wine produced by gentiles raises a problem of persistent concern, namely, policy regarding foodstuffs processed by gentiles or prepared under unsupervised conditions. This situation concerns such foods as cheeses, for example. All such considerations are still being addressed by religious authorities. Kashrut emerges as a dynamic system in religious life, not a static one.
\nIn summary, post-Temple Judaism was enriched by efforts to redirect purity from Temple and cult to home and community. The area of kaskrut owes a lot to Leviticus, specifically, because it is here that the factor of purity predominates, a purity that extends as well to vessels and utensils. The social and spiritual ramifications of kashrut continue to be important, strengthening the identity of Jewish families and communities, an objective basic to the biblical system itself.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n