THE COMMENTARY TO LEVITICUS<\/p>\n
The Principal Types of Sacrifice (1:1\u20137:38)<\/p>\n
Va-yikra\u02be<\/p>\n
Chapters 1\u20137 constitute the first section of the Book of Leviticus. They outline the basic modes of sacrifice, listing and describing the several classes of offerings to be presented to God in the sanctuary. Chapters 1\u20135 are addressed to the general populace\u2014to individual Israelites and to their leaders, to all who wished to worship God or who were required by circumstances to offer a particular sacrifice. They tell what may be offered\u2014animals, birds, grain, and so forth\u2014and they lay down the proper procedures for presenting the different sacrifices, a function that was performed primarily by priests but could occasionally require some sort of participation on the part of the donors of the sacrifices. Chapters 6\u20137, on the other hand, constitute a professional manual for the priesthood; they provide a torah, literally \u201can instruction,\u201d for each of the major classes of sacrifices. Although there is some overlapping of specific content between chapters 1\u20135 and chapters 6\u20137, the style and the form of each division is distinct.
\nChapters 1\u20135 should be subdivided further. Chapters 1\u20133 outline the three principal types of sacrifices that were offered regularly by individual Israelites and their families, by kings and other leaders, and often by the entire community. A chapter is devoted to each of them: the burnt offering (\u02bfolah), the grain offering (min\u1e25ah), and the sacred gifts of greeting (zeva\u1e25 ha-shelamim). These offerings could be included in a variety of celebrations\u2014public and private, voluntary and obligatory. They served a multiplicity of functions since they could be offered singly or as part of more elaborate rites. The sacrifices treated in chapters 4\u20135, sacrifices of expiation, were of more limited application. Offered for the purpose of securing God\u2019s forgiveness, their presentation was obligatory, pursuant to transgressions of religious law, committed either by omission or through inadvertent violations. In most cases, the sacrifice served to remove the charge against the offenders and to restore them to a proper relationship with God and to fit membership in the religious community.
\nIt should be emphasized here, as the workings of the sacrificial system are introduced to the reader, that the laws of the Torah did not permit Israelites to expiate intentional or premeditated offenses by means of sacrifice. There was no vicarious, ritual remedy\u2014substitution of one\u2019s property or wealth\u2014for such violations, whether they were perpetrated against other individuals or against God Himself. In those cases, the law dealt directly with the offender, imposing real punishments and acting to prevent recurrences. The entire expiatory system ordained in the Torah must be understood in this light. Ritual expiation was restricted to situations where a reasonable doubt existed as to the willfulness of the offense. Even then, restitution was always required where loss or injury to another person had occurred. The mistaken notion that ritual worship could atone for criminality or intentional religious desecration was persistently attacked by the prophets of Israel, who considered it a major threat to the entire covenantal relationship between Israel and God.
\nIn summary, the prescriptions of chapters 1\u20137 outline the main components of the biblical sacrificial system, as it was administered by the Israelite priesthood.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1<\/p>\n
THE BURNT OFFERING (\u02bfOLAH) (vv. 1\u201317)<\/p>\n
Chapter 1 deals with the sacrifice called \u02bfolah, which was burned to ashes on the altar of burnt offerings. No part of it was eaten, either by priests or donors. The \u02bfolah could consist of male herd cattle (vv. 3\u20139), of male flock animals (vv. 10\u201313), or of certain birds (vv. 14\u201317). Despite some differences in detail, the procedures for all burnt offerings, or holocausts, were quite similar: The sacrifice was presented at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; the donor laid his hand on the victim, thereby designating it for a particular rite; and blood from the sacrificial victim was dashed on the altar in appropriate ways.<\/p>\n
1. The LORD called to Moses \u2026 from the Tent of Meeting Although the sense is clear enough, the unusual syntax of the Hebrew did not escape the attention of commentators. Rashbam suggested that this opening verse takes up where Exodus 40:34\u201335 leaves off. There we read that Moses had been unable to enter the Tent because it was filled with God\u2019s presence. Here we read that the Lord \u201ccalled\u201d Moses, that He summoned him from the Tent nonetheless! In this way Leviticus is linked sequentially to Exodus.
\nHebrew \u02beohel mo\u02bfed is the name given to the portable tent structure that housed the Ark and other cult objects. In other priestly texts this structural complex is called mishkan, a term that also means \u201ctent.\u201d Conceived as God\u2019s earthly residence, this sanctuary served two principal functions: It was an oraculum, where God communicated His word, and it was a cult site, where God was worshiped through sacrifices. The derivation of the word mo\u02bfed from the root y-\u02bf-d, \u201cto meet, come together\u201d at an appointed time or place, expresses the functions of the structure called \u02beohel mo\u02bfed.
\nThis Tent of Meeting was surrounded by an enclosed courtyard, within which stood the altar of burnt offerings. In turn, the altar faced the entrance of the Tent, so that sacrifices were directed toward God\u2019s residence. Within, the Tent itself was divided into two sections, separated by a screen (parokhet) that was embroidered with cherubs. Behind the screen, in the innermost area, was the Holy of Holies, which housed the Ark covered by its sculptured lid, the kapporet. Before the screen, in the front part of the Tent, stood the menorah, the altar of incense, and a table for presentations. The outer entrance of the Tent was also protected by a curtain. All of this information is set forth in Exodus 25:1\u201327:21 and repeated, with additional detail, in Exodus 35\u201340.
\nThere is, however, another tradition about \u02beohel mo\u02bfed that differs from what has been reconstructed here from the priestly texts. In Exodus 33:6\u201311, \u02beohel mo\u02bfed is portrayed as a Tent\u2014pitched far outside the Israelite encampment\u2014that served exclusively as an oraculum. Whenever Moses entered the Tent to \u201cmeet\u201d with God, a pillar of cloud appeared at its entrance as though to separate the Tent from the people gathered around. What is striking about these verses is the absence of any reference to the sacrificial cult, the Ark, or any other sacred objects. Evidently, the priestly tradition fused several of the known sacred functions of ancient Israel (including the cloud traditions) in their retelling of the history of the \u02beohel mo\u02bfed during the wilderness period. How these traditions are brought together has been widely discussed in recent scholarly literature; nevertheless, we still do not know the whole story.<\/p>\n
2. the Israelite people Hebrew benei yisra\u02beel, a very common way of referring to the Israelite people, is usually rendered \u201cthe children of Israel.\u201d But that rendering is unsatisfactory, for it fails to express the concept of peoplehood basic to biblical notions of group organization. The term is constructed in the same way as are several other ethnographic names, such as benei \u02bfammon, \u201cthe Ammonite people,\u201d and the names of families or clans. Such nomenclature expresses kinship and reflects the notion that nations, like families, are descendants of common ancestors and share a common genealogy. The Israelite people was thought to have descended from the patriarch Israel and his twelve sons.<\/p>\n
When any of you presents The syntax of the Hebrew is unusual: \u201cWhen a person presents, from among you.\u201d Here the term for person is \u02beadam, whereas elsewhere it may be \u02beish or nefesh. All three terms share the same functional connotation, although each preserves individual nuances. The conditional particle ki, \u201cif, when,\u201d is the sign of the casuistic formulation so characteristic of biblical and ancient Near Eastern law codes. This syntax projects a hypothetical situation; a particular law applies only \u201cif\u201d or \u201cwhen\u201d a certain situation arises.<\/p>\n
an offering Hebrew korban, \u201coffering,\u201d is a generic term for anything presented to God when one approaches (karav) His sanctuary. A korban could consist of artifacts and vessels, votive objects, or sacrificial victims, as is the case here. Archaeological excavations at various sites, including Jerusalem and its environs, have turned up objects inscribed with the word korban, indicating that they were used to prepare or present offerings.<\/p>\n
cattle \u2026 herd \u2026 flock As in many legal formulas, the general category, here represented by behemah, \u201ccattle,\u201d is stated first. It is further specified by the two usual classes of cattle: bakar, \u201clarge cattle,\u201d and tso\u02ben, \u201cflock.\u201d In rabbinic interpretation, this rhetorical pattern is known as kelal u-frat, \u201cthe general followed by the specific.\u201d The general category is defined by its specifications. Wild animals (\u1e25ayyah, \u201cbeast\u201d) are unsuitable for sacrifice, as they are not of the category behemah.<\/p>\n
3. If his offering is a burnt offering The conditional particle \u02beim, \u201cif,\u201d frequently introduces cultic laws in the Book of Leviticus and is encountered repeatedly in the first three chapters as well as elsewhere in the book. It expresses the options available to those who offer sacrifices\u2014the choice of which type of sacrifice to bring as well as the choice of animal, fowl, or various grain offerings, where applicable.
\nWhile the casuistic formulation with \u201cif\u201d is generally characteristic of ancient Near Eastern law codes, its appearance in the Punic \u201ctariffs,\u201d so-called, is immediately relevant to our understanding of Leviticus. These statutes, displayed on stone monuments, were discovered in Marseilles but come from Carthage. They are rather imprecisely dated in the fourth or third century B.C.E. and are written in Punic, a dialect of the Phoenician language used in the western Mediterranean colonies that is very similar to biblical Hebrew. These tariffs set down the taxes, or \u201cdues,\u201d to be paid by those who offered sacrifice in the temple of Carthage (outside of modern Tunis). Throughout the Leviticus commentary there will be occasion to point out substantive parallels between the laws of Leviticus and the Marseilles tariffs and to illustrate the similarities in composition and formulation between the two sources.
\nThe tariffs repeatedly delineate the various kinds of offerings in the following manner: b\u02belp\u2014kll, \u02bem \u1e63w\u02bft, \u02bem \u0161lm kll. This means: \u201cIn the case of a head of large cattle\u2014[whether] holocaust, or expiatory offering (?), or sacred gift of greeting [accompanying] the holocaust.\u2026\u201d There is a close resemblance here to the casuistic, or conditional, formulation of our chapter: (1) the options\u2014large or small cattle (v. 2); (2) \u02beim \u02bfolah korbano\u2014\u201cIf his offering is a burnt offering\u201d (v. 3); (3) ve-\u02beim min ha-tso\u02ben korbano\u2014\u201cIf his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock\u201d (v. 10); and (4) ve-\u02beim min ha-\u02bfof \u02bfolah korbano\u2014\u201cIf his offering is a burnt offering of birds\u201d (v. 14).
\n\u201cBurnt offering\u201d is a functional translation of Hebrew \u02bfolah, which actually derives from the verb \u02bf-l-h, \u201cto ascend.\u201d This type of sacrifice was to be consumed in its entirety (exclusive of the hide) by the altar fire. This could account for its name: The offering may have been called \u02bfolah because its flames and smoke \u201cascended\u201d to heaven. Other actions involved in presenting the \u02bfolah may also help to explain its name. There was the \u201cascent\u201d of the sacrifice itself onto the altar, and one speaks of \u201craising up\u201d the \u02bfolah, conveyed by the Hifil form he\u02bfelah. There is also the \u201cascent\u201d of the priest or of the officiant or the donor onto a raised platform where the offering was to be made. This interpretation seems to be corroborated by an ancient Ugaritic epic that tells of a king named Keret who mounted the turret of his city wall to offer a sacrifice; his act is conveyed by a form of the verb \u02bfly, \u201cascend.\u201d
\nThe \u02bfolah was a signal to God that His worshipers desired to bring their needs to His attention; its purpose was to secure an initial response from Him. (God is perceived as breathing the aromatic smoke of the \u02bfolah and responding favorably to the overtures of His devotees.) Frequently, the \u02bfolah was the first sacrifice in rites that included other offerings as well, which supports this suggestion about its purpose. This sacrificial method is known as \u201cattraction,\u201d the offering of an inviting gift to God. In those biblical narratives where the \u02bfolah is prominent, or where it is the only sacrifice employed, attraction emerges as its specific purpose, as is clearly illustrated in the Elijah narrative of 1 Kings 18. Elijah prepares the \u02bfolah and the Baal priests prepare their offerings in the same manner, their common objective being to secure a response from the deity they respectively worship. As 1 Kings 18:24 puts it, \u201cThe god who responds with fire, that one is God.\u201d Balaam uses the method of attraction at various sites to induce an encounter with the God of Israel, as we read in Numbers 23:3\u20136, for example. The priestly texts also understand the function of the \u02bfolah in this way. Leviticus 9:24 relates that after the installation of Aaron and his sons as priests a fire issued forth from the sanctuary and consumed the \u02bfolah and other offerings on the altar, thereby confirming God\u2019s acceptance of the rites of installation.
\nThis, then, was the reason for beginning with the \u02bfolah, which was followed in so many instances by the zeva\u1e25, the shared sacred meal. Before God could be expected to accept the invitation of His worshipers, it was necessary to have an indication of His readiness to be present. This phenomenology suggests that the term \u02bfolah refers to the \u201cascent\u201d of the smoke and flames of the sacrifice itself. The sacrifice, in its transmuted form, reaches God.<\/p>\n
for acceptance in his behalf The antecedent of Hebrew li-rtsono is the donor of the sacrifice. The sacrifice counts in his favor; it is accredited to him. When a sacrifice is not considered proper the opposite is said of it: lo\u02be le-ratson, \u201cnot acceptable, discredited.\u201d<\/p>\n
before the LORD Hebrew lifnei YHVH seems to delineate a defined sacred area, at times the zone beginning at the rear of the altar of burnt offerings in the sanctuary courtyard and continuing to the interior of the Tent. In other passages the zone is less specific, referring to a large space near the entrance of the courtyard. The point is that priestly law strictly limits sacrifice to a particular area and to the legitimate altar.<\/p>\n
4. He shall lay his hand This symbolic act, known in later Hebrew as semikhah, \u201cthe laying on\u201d of hands, served to assign a sacrificial victim for use in a particular rite, in this case an \u02bfolah. This act had other uses as well, and these help to clarify its meaning. By the laying on of hands, those in authority could invest other persons with offices of authority. Moses laid his hands on Joshua when appointing him leader of the Israelite people, as we read in Numbers 27:18\u201323 and Deuteronomy 34:9. In the same way, in Numbers 8:10 the Israelites are instructed to lay their hands on the Levites. In Leviticus 24:10\u201316 we read that the members of the community are to lay their hands on a person convicted of blasphemy, thereby identifying him as the guilty party. Thus, the laying on of hands may not have been a cultic rite originally but, rather, a juridic or legal procedure.
\nThe Hittites had a similar procedure. In their Ritual of Tunnawi we read that a female worshiper touches the horn of a fertile cow, hoping to transfer the animal\u2019s fertility to herself. This is the same process, working in a different direction; other Hittite rituals describe similar acts.
\nIt is important to emphasize that the requirement of semikhah for some expiatory sacrificial victims should not be interpreted as indicating that the essential function of laying on the hands was necessarily the transferal of impurity or guilt to the victim. In the cult, semikhah assured that sacrifices intended for specific rites would be used solely for that purpose. Once assigned in this way, the offering was sacred and belonged to God. The act of semikhah was probably accompanied by a recitation that has been lost to us. The Mishnah preserves formulas of assignment from a later period.<\/p>\n
that it may be acceptable in his behalf, in expiation for him Rather, \u201cBy its acceptance on his behalf it serves as redemption for him.\u201d Usually, the formula le-khapper \u02bfal means \u201cto perform rites of expiation over, near, or with respect to\u201d a person or group of people or an object, such as the altar. This sense is not suitable here because as a type of sacrifice the \u02bfolah was not occasioned by any offense that would have placed the offender in need of expiation!
\nIn his comments on this verse, Ibn Ezra calls attention to Exodus 30:12, where we read that each Israelite was required to contribute a half-shekel as a head-tax to the sanctuary: \u201cEach shall pay the LORD a ransom for himself on being enrolled, that no plague may come upon them through their being enrolled.\u201d Ibn Ezra is suggesting that here we have an abbreviation of the formula le-khapper \u02bfal nefesh, \u201cto serve as ransom for a life,\u201d which occurs in Exodus 30:15 as part of the same instruction. It is not a rite of expiation that figures in our verse but, rather, protection from God\u2019s wrath. Proximity to God was inherently dangerous for both the worshiper and the priests, even if there had been no particular offense to anger Him. The favorable acceptance of the \u02bfolah signaled God\u2019s willingness to be approached and served as a kind of ransom, or redemption, from divine wrath.<\/p>\n
5. The bull shall be slaughtered The Hebrew verb sh-\u1e25-t, \u201cto slaughter,\u201d may connote ritual slaughter, as it does here, or it may simply mean slaughtering in general. The Bible never informs us of which instrument was to be used to slaughter sacrifices. The only possible clue is the type of knife, never actually described, that Abraham was preparing to use on Isaac. It is called ma\u02beakhelet in Genesis 22:10.<\/p>\n
against all sides of the altar The reference is to the altar of burnt offerings, mizba\u1e25 ha-\u02bfolah, mentioned by name in Leviticus 4:7. According to Exodus 27:1\u20138, it was made of acacia wood overlaid with copper. It was hollow and partly filled with earth. At the half point of its interior, there was a copper net, or grate, that served as a grill on which the offerings were placed. The altar had four \u201chorns\u201d at its four corners, and it could be carried with two poles inserted in rings. Horned altars of stone have been discovered in archaeological excavations in Israel.<\/p>\n
6. shall be flayed and cut up into sections The hide was not burned. Usually, sacrificial animals were sectioned before being placed on the altar. The verb nata\u1e25, \u201cto section,\u201d has a specialized meaning in biblical Hebrew, always referring to the sectioning of living bodies, animal or even human. The salient exception to the sectioning of sacrificial animals was the paschal lamb, which, according to the law of Exodus 12:9, was roasted whole.<\/p>\n
7. and lay out wood upon the fire The Hebrew verb \u02bf-r-kh, \u201cto set up, arrange, lay out\u201d and the nominal form ma\u02bfarakhah, \u201clayout, array,\u201d are part of the technical vocabulary of the cult. In Exodus 29:37 the same verb is used to signify placing offerings on the altar.<\/p>\n
8. with the head and the suet The head of the animal had been severed. Hebrew peder, \u201csuet,\u201d is cognate with Akkadian pitru, a term used in cuneiform texts, where it refers to the loose covering of fat over the liver. Peder occurs only here, in verse 12, and in 8:20.<\/p>\n
9. entrails Hebrew kerev is synonymous with me\u02bfayim, \u201cintestines,\u201d in Isaiah 16:11, which helps to define it as an anatomical term.<\/p>\n
turn the whole into smoke This is the precise sense of Hebrew hiktir, a verb derived from the noun kiter or kitor, \u201csmoke.\u201d In Hebrew and in other Semitic languages, the word for incense (ketoret) derives, in turn, from the word for smoke because it appears in the form of smoke. The burned parts of the victim rise as smoke when they are consumed by the altar fire.<\/p>\n
an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the LORD The etymology of the term \u02beisheh is disputed, but it probably derives from \u02beesh, \u201cfire.\u201d It follows the form of certain adjectives and literally means \u201csomething fiery.\u201d The idiom rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25 means \u201ca pleasant aroma.\u201d The unusual form ni\u1e25oa\u1e25 probably derives from the verb nua\u1e25, \u201cto rest, be at ease\u201d\u2014hence \u201cexperience pleasure, comfort.\u201d In the rabbinic tradition the linguistic connection with na\u1e25at, \u201ccomfort, ease,\u201d is emphasized, expressing the thought that sacrifices offered in accordance with God\u2019s instructions bring Him pleasure, na\u1e25at rua\u1e25.
\nAromatic substances were utilized in the biblical cult. There was the daily incense offering prescribed in Exodus 30:7\u201310, 34\u201335. Exodus 30:24\u201328 ordains that the Tent of Meeting be censed with aromatic substances. Numbers 19:6 speaks of casting cedar wood and hyssop, both aromatic, into the fire that burned the red heifer to ashes.
\nFumigation was widely employed in the ancient Near East. Maimonides explained the use of incense as a means of removing the stench of the burning sacrifices. Although the priestly texts do not contain the explicit requirement of using aromatics in all sacrifices, the fact that so many offerings are characterized by rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25, \u201ca pleasing odor,\u201d certainly gives us reason to suppose that such was intended.<\/p>\n
14. turtledoves or pigeons In Genesis 15:9 the turtledove (tor) is paired with a young bird (gozal). Hebrew benei yonah is better translated \u201cyoung pigeons.\u201d<\/p>\n
15. pinch off its head The Hebrew verb m-l-k means \u201cto break the nape of the neck,\u201d usually of a bird. In later periods this was done by the priest with his fingernail. In this case the head of the bird was to be severed after its neck was broken. But in other instances this was not done. When birds were used as sin offerings the heads were not severed; so we are told in 5:8\u20139. The reason for severing the head of a bird offered as an \u02bfolah may be that this parallels the procedure for executing other animals, as we read in verses 6 and 8.<\/p>\n
and its blood shall be drained out The Hebrew verb matsah is rare in biblical usage, although it becomes frequent in later phases of the language. It means \u201cto squeeze\u201d or \u201cdrain out\u201d a liquid. The same verb is used in 5:9 to describe the draining of blood from sin offerings.<\/p>\n
16. He shall remove its crop with its contents Hebrew mur\u02beah, \u201ccrop,\u201d occurs only here. Its approximate meaning may be learned from Targum Onkelos: the rendering of zefek, a form of Greek oisophagos, \u201cesophagus.\u201d It designates a pocket in the bird\u2019s throat where food was retained during digestion.
\nHebrew notsah usually means \u201cfeather,\u201d but that connotation is inappropriate here. Targum Onkelos takes it to mean \u201cfood,\u201d and the Sifra explains it as \u201cgizzard.\u201d The crop was too dirty to be placed on the altar, so it was consigned to the ash heap, near the altar. In the case of animals sacrificed as burnt offerings, the entrails had to be washed before being placed on the altar, as we read in verse 9, to assure that nothing offensive was offered to God.
\nLike certain other priestly laws, chapter 1 presented the ancient worshiper with several options ranging from expensive large cattle to relatively inexpensive birds. Undoubtedly, this graduated system was intended to enable Israelites of modest means to participate in religious life by presenting offerings at the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2<\/p>\n
THE GRAIN OFFERING (MIN\u1e24AH) (vv. 1\u201316)<\/p>\n
The subject of chapter 2 is the min\u1e25ah, \u201cgrain offering.\u201d Like the burnt offering of chapter 1, it was appropriate for a variety of occasions and often served as a less costly alternative to animal sacrifices. Like the burnt offering, the min\u1e25ah was also considered a \u201cmost sacred offering,\u201d and this status imposed special restrictions.
\nChapter 2 outlines the different types of min\u1e25ah, listing them according to their different methods of preparation. The ingredients were usually the same for the various offerings: The min\u1e25ah was made of semolina, the choice part of wheat that was taken from the inner kernels; olive oil was mixed into the dough or smeared on it; and frankincense was applied to it, enhancing the taste. The min\u1e25ah could be prepared on a griddle, in a pan, or in an oven. A fistful of the dough, with the oil and frankincense added, was burned on the altar. The rest was prepared in one of the accepted ways, to be eaten by the priests in the sacred precincts of the sanctuary. Since the fistful of dough was burned on the altar, grain offerings could not be made with leavened dough, as is discussed further on, and they had to be salted.
\nVerses 14\u201316 digress somewhat from the pattern of the chapter as a whole. They ordain a special min\u1e25ah of first fruits (bikkurim), which consisted of nearly ripe grain from the new crop. This grain was roasted and then made into grits.<\/p>\n
1. When a person presents The word for \u201cperson\u201d is nefesh, which has often been rendered \u201csoul.\u201d We know, however, that the term enjoys a wide range of connotations and should be translated in accordance with its context. Here nefesh refers to an individual as part of a group.<\/p>\n
an offering of meal Rather, \u201can offering of grain.\u201d In modern English usage \u201cmeal\u201d hardly ever refers to wheat, and it would be inaccurate to call an offering made of wheat by a name that refers primarily to other grains.
\nActually, the term min\u1e25ah has an interesting history. It does not relate to the substances used in preparing the sacrifice. Its basic sense is that of \u201ctribute, gift.\u201d Like many names given to sacrifices, the term min\u1e25ah was appropriated by priestly writers from the administrative vocabulary because it effectively expressed the subservient relationship of the worshiper toward God. At the same time, it conveyed the duty of the worshiper to present gifts to God, often in the form of sacrifices.
\nIn the first stage, min\u1e25ah served as a generic term for any type of sacrifice. In Genesis 4:3\u20135 the different sacrifices of Cain and Abel, one consisting of grain and the other of animals, are both called min\u1e25ah. Just how the term came to signify grain offerings, in particular, is not entirely clear. Perhaps the answer lies in the manner of presenting some grain offerings and in the derivation of the term min\u1e25ah. It probably derives from the root n-\u1e25-h, \u201cto lead, conduct,\u201d and so the term min\u1e25ah would signify \u201cwhat was set before, brought to\u201d a deity or ruler. Biblical evidence indicates that from early times offerings of grain and fruit were not burned on the altar but, rather, placed or set before God. Leviticus 24:5\u20136 ordain that the \u201cbread of display\u201d was to be presented in this way. According to Leviticus 7:12\u201313, the thanksgiving offering (todah) included two loaves of bread, no part of which was burned on the altar. Deuteronomy 26:1\u20134 describes how the \u201cfirst fruits\u201d were placed before God.
\nWhat we perceive in chapter 2 is the gradual adaptation of presentation offerings to the prevailing mode of the burnt offerings; that is, a small portion of the dough from the min\u1e25ah was burned on the altar. Even the bread of display was not unaffected by such developments. Pure frankincense was burned near the loaves of the bread of display when they were placed on the tables in the sanctuary, as we read in 24:7. It is the older, unadapted method of presentation, however, that accounts for the name min\u1e25ah in the first place. Once applied to grain offerings, it is understandable that the term min\u1e25ah should refer to sacrifices of the evening or late afternoon, since grain offerings were customary in evening rituals. Indeed, evening became known as the time of the min\u1e25ah.<\/p>\n
choice flour Hebrew solet is better translated \u201csemolina flour\u201d; Ibn Ezra translates \u201cflour of clear wheat.\u201d Rabbinic law stipulates that wherever the Torah mandates solet, wheat must be used (Sifra). The usual translation \u201cfine flour\u201d is, therefore, incorrect. This is not to say that flour for the min\u1e25ah was not finely ground or pounded in a mortar\u2014it undoubtedly was. However, the point of this verse is to prescribe the substance of the offering and not how that substance was to be prepared. Almost all grain offerings had olive oil mixed into the flour; at a later stage, into the dough. The verb describing this procedure is b-l-l, \u201cto mix,\u201d which appears below, in v. 4, and frequently thereafter. Hebrew b-l-l attests to cognates in other Semitic languages, most notably in Akkadian as bal\u0101lu, in similar contexts to ours.
\nWhat v. 1 informs us is that oil was initially poured over the semolina flour (the verb y-ts-q, \u201cto pour\u201d) along with frankincense (Heb. levonah). Depending on how the grain offering was to be prepared\u2014by baking, frying, etc.\u2014oil might also be applied in any of several ways to the dough at later stages, as will become evident in the verses to follow.<\/p>\n
2. shall scoop out of it a handful Hebrew komets is a way of indicating a minute quantity.<\/p>\n
as well as all of its frankincense The Hebrew preposition \u02bfal often means \u201ctogether with, in addition to,\u201d not necessarily \u201con\u201d or \u201cover.\u201d The sense here is that the frankincense was used along with other ingredients. Cognates of Hebrew levonah, \u201cfrankincense,\u201d are known in the other Semitic languages.<\/p>\n
and this token portion The precise meaning of Hebrew \u02beazkarah, \u201ctoken portion,\u201d is difficult to ascertain. Some have explained it as \u201creminder,\u201d analyzing this unusual word as an Afel form. On this basis, \u02beazkarah would mean \u201cthat which calls to mind.\u201d The fistful of dough is reminiscent of the complete offering from which it was taken. The translation \u201ctoken portion\u201d relates the word \u02beazkarah to the same verbal root, z-kh-r, and to the noun zekher, which can mean \u201ca commemorative object.\u201d The Akkadian cognate zikru has the specialized connotation of \u201ceffigy, double,\u201d that is, an object that resembles the original. It is this analysis that produced the translation \u201ctoken portion.\u201d<\/p>\n
3. a most holy portion Hebrew kodesh kodashim is a superlative combination, literally \u201cmost holy of the holy offerings.\u201d In Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 5 this category is expressed by the plural: Kodshei kodashim is contrasted with kodashim kallim, \u201cofferings of lesser sanctity.\u201d This latter category includes the offerings prescribed in chapter 3.<\/p>\n
4. baked in the oven \u2026 unleavened cakes \u2026 unleavened wafers The law here distinguishes between the two customary varieties of baked goods: \u1e25allah, \u201ca thick, round cake,\u201d according to Ibn Ezra\u2019s translation; and rakik, \u201ca thin cake, cookie, or wafer.\u201d The basic meaning of metsah remains uncertain. Its functional sense, however, is quite specific. It means \u201cunleavened dough\u201d\u2014the opposite of \u1e25amets, \u201cleavening, leavened dough.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. on a griddle Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot distinguishes between cakes prepared on a griddle (ma\u1e25avat) and those prepared in a pan, the subject of verse 7. Cakes prepared on a griddle become crisp and can be broken into pittim, \u201cbits,\u201d the plural of the better-known word for a slice of dry bread, pat (le\u1e25em). In Leviticus 6:14 we find the term min\u1e25at pittim, \u201ca grain offering of crisp slices.\u201d<\/p>\n
7. in a pan Hebrew mar\u1e25eshet derives from the verb r-\u1e25-sh, \u201cto move, agitate,\u201d referring in this case to the motion of the dough as it is deep fried in a covered pan. Cakes prepared in this way become soft, as we read in Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:8 and as is explained by Ibn Ezra.<\/p>\n
8. When you present \u2026 it shall be brought \u2026 who shall take it up Rather, \u201cYou shall bring any grain offering prepared in any of these ways to the LORD; one shall present it to the priest, who shall deliver it to the altar.\u201d This verse employs three verbs to convey the sequence of actions involved in the process of presenting a grain offering: hevi\u02be, \u201cto bring\u201d; hikriv, \u201cto present\u201d; higgish, \u201cto deliver.\u201d All three verbs are used elsewhere to describe the presentations of sacrifices. Once the dough is prepared, the offering must be carried through to its completion.
\nHebrew me-\u02beeleh cannot mean \u201cfrom any of these,\u201d since that would imply that several different substances were used, which was not the case. The translation \u201cin any of these ways\u201d follows Rashi and Malbim, both of whom noted the problem in this phrase.<\/p>\n
9. The priest shall remove This parallels the statement of verse 2: \u201cThe priest shall scoop out of it.\u2026\u201d Verses 8\u201310 generally recapitulate the provisions stipulated earlier in verses 2\u20133. It is not uncommon in codes of law, as well as in narratives, to find some repetition for clarity and emphasis.<\/p>\n
10. And the remainder of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons This rule refers to a basic feature of the Israelite sacrificial system and of most ancient Near Eastern cults. In a few cases, the complete sacrifice was consumed by the altar fire; but, more often than not, large portions of the offerings were to be eaten by the priests and, in some cases, by the donors of the offerings as well. This was considered indispensable to the ritual process because it was important to celebrate a sacred meal in the presence of God. Failure to eat the appropriate portion of the sacrifices in the proper place and within the proper span of time would render the sacrifices themselves ineffectual. There were, therefore, two dimensions to a sacrifice: On the altar (or, in some cases, on a table), the deity received portions of the sacrifice, whereas the officiants (and sometimes donors) partook of their portions soon after. Together, these parallel acts made the celebration complete.<\/p>\n
11. for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke In other words, no leaven or honey may be burned on the altar.
\nHebrew \u1e25amets, \u201cleaven,\u201d is cognate with Akkadian em\u1e63u, \u201csour, fermented.\u201d In Akkadian, this adjective often describes beer, dough, and vinegar.
\nSince antiquity, there has been discussion as to the meaning of Hebrew devash. From what is known, production of honey in beehives was not much in evidence in biblical Israel. Bees gathered to produce honey in the crevices of rocks, in split tree trunks, and in carcasses of animals. Accordingly, devash occasionally refers to the honey of bees. Most authorities\u2014including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Maimonides\u2014insist that devash in the Bible refers primarily to the nectar of dates and possibly of other fruits. It is, after all, a general term for \u201csweetness.\u201d The Akkadian cognate dishpu also had that more general usage. Furthermore, verse 12 must have intended the nectar of fruits because honey processed by bees would hardly have been called \u201cfirst fruits\u201d (re\u02beshit). It is reasonable to conclude that the prohibition set forth in our chapter was inclusive of both bee honey and nectars.
\nWhen we attempt to explain the prohibitions against leaven and honey, we confront ancient attitudes that are far from clearly understood. It is not typical of either the Levitical laws or the law codes of the Torah generally to explain the basis for their requirements or prohibitions. Nevertheless, it is clear that leaven and honey were not unsuitable for all offerings, only for those burned on the altar. Only what God was intended to inhale could not contain these substances. It is logical, therefore, to seek an explanation that is tied in specifically with burnt offerings. The explanation that \u201cleavening,\u201d or \u201csouring,\u201d spoiled foodstuffs is hardly convincing because the best foods were often subjected to leavening. Conversely, matsah was poor man\u2019s bread. Wine was fermented, and yet it was proper for libations poured onto the altar. As regards leaven, a connection between the prohibition stated here and the Passover laws is certainly to be assumed. And yet nowhere is the matsah of Passover explicitly associated with the requirements of grain offerings. The requirement to eat matsah and to avoid \u1e25amets on Passover is given an historical or commemorative explanation. It is obvious, in any event, that there was a general aversion to leaven in altar offerings, although, as has been noted, this attitude did not affect offerings presented in other ways.
\nThe prohibition against honey may represent a reaction against the widespread use of honey in pagan cults, an explanation actually ventured by Maimonides. Indeed, we possess extensive comparative evidence that honey was frequently offered to pagan gods in the ancient Near East. In the Ugaritic epic of Keret, we read that nbt (cognate of Heb. nofet, \u201choney from a honeycomb\u201d) was offered to the Syro-Canaanite god El. Cuneiform records from Mesopotamia and ancient Syria often list dishpu, \u201choney-nectar,\u201d as an offering. By prohibiting the use of honey on the altar, the priestly laws may have been directed at eliminating pagan practices.
\nThere is a subtle suggestion that the aversion to nectar as a sacrificial substance may have been very ancient in biblical Israel. Whereas wine and olive oil were prized as ingredients for sacrifices, nectar was not. The parable of Jotham in Judges 9:8\u201313 speaks of the virtues of various trees and vines. The olive tree boasts that its rich oil \u201chonors God and men,\u201d and the grapevine says that its wine \u201cgladdens God and men.\u201d But it is significant that the fig tree, in speaking of \u201cmy sweetness, my delicious fruit,\u201d fails to allude to their utilization as offerings to deities!
\nUntil further evidence becomes available, it must be assumed that we do not clearly understand the attitudes reflected in these prohibitions.<\/p>\n
12. as an offering of choice products Rather, \u201cas an offering of first fruits.\u201d The point is that honey and leaven are unsuitable as altar offerings but are suitable as offerings set before God.
\nHebrew re\u02beshit is ambiguous. It can mean \u201cfirst,\u201d in order or sequence, or \u201cforemost,\u201d in terms of quality. These two meanings are not mutually exclusive, but they differ nonetheless. As in Deuteronomy 26:2, 10, re\u02beshit is here to be understood as positional: \u201cfirst fruits,\u201d referring to offerings of the first fruits, or produce, of the land. Thus, before the Israelites were permitted to enjoy the bounty of the land, they were required to offer God some of what was His. This process is known as desacralization. Such offerings were, in fact, among those usually placed before God rather than burned on the altar.<\/p>\n
13. the salt of your covenant with God According to priestly law, all sacrifices were to be salted. In the case of meat, salt functioned to remove whatever blood remained after slaughter. The unexpected use of salt in grain offerings is likely a reflection of the overall tendency toward uniformity in ritual. The same general requirement is referred to in Numbers 18:19. In Ezra 6:9 and 7:22 we read that large quantities of salt were delivered to the postexilic Temple of Jerusalem for use in the sacrificial cult.
\nIn effect, the phrase mela\u1e25 berit \u02beeloheikha refers to the binding, God-ordained obligation, or commitment, to use salt. In Leviticus 24:8\u20139, berit \u02bfolam similarly means \u201ca commitment for all time.\u201d There berit \u02bfolam interacts with \u1e25ok \u02bfolam, \u201cdue for all time.\u201d In the law of Exodus 31:16, the Sabbath is also characterized as berit \u02bfolam, an observance binding forever.
\nIn Numbers 18:19, the requirement of salting sacrifices is repeated, although in somewhat altered form, as berit mela\u1e25 \u02bfolam; but the sense is the same: \u201can everlasting covenant of salt.\u201d Nevertheless, an extensive literature has arisen on the subject of the presumed role of salt in the enactment of treaties and covenants on the assumption that berit mela\u1e25 means \u201ca covenant made binding by salt.\u201d Scholars have noted references to salt in ancient Near Eastern treaty curses: according to these, if a treaty were violated one\u2019s land would be sowed or plowed with salt so as to impair its productivity. Similarly, the symbolic role of salt in rituals of hospitality has been mentioned in support of the notion that the use of salt in the sacrificial cult may have had a covenantal function. It is doubtful, however, whether any of this explicitly concerns the Levitical law requiring the salting of sacrifices.
\nIn any event, berit in our text and in Numbers 18:19 should be understood to mean \u201cbinding obligation, commitment,\u201d making the use of salt a duty, rather than attributing any covenantal function to salt per se.<\/p>\n
14. first fruits Hebrew bikkurim derives from the same verbal root as bekhor, \u201cfirst-born,\u201d which refers to both animals and humans. Growth and birth were perceived as dimensions of the same process in all of nature.<\/p>\n
new ears \u2026 grits of the fresh grain The same items are mentioned in Leviticus 23:14, where an offering of first fruits is likewise prescribed. Hebrew \u02beaviv, here translated \u201cgrain in season,\u201d designates grain just prior to ripening, when the kernels, not yet darkened, still have a greenish color. This is the understanding of Exodus 9:31\u201332 in a description of the effects of the hailstorm on crops growing in Egypt. There \u02beaviv is contrasted to \u02beafilot, literally \u201cgrain that darkens late.\u201d (Heb. \u02beafelah means darkness.) Hence, \u02beaviv refers to grain that was already ripe when the hail struck and was consequently damaged by it. The same word designates the month in the spring when grains ripen and derives from the root \u02beanav, \u201cto bud.\u201d In mishnaic Hebrew, the biblical collective noun geres, \u201cgrits,\u201d is spelled with a samekh in the plural form gerisin. This helps to define it more precisely. Targum Onkelos translates geres by Aramaic perokhan, \u201chulled kernels of grain.\u201d Both verbs, g-r-s and p-r-kh, mean \u201cto crush.\u201d Hebrew kalui, written kali in Leviticus 23:14, derives from a rare Hebrew verb meaning \u201cto burn, parch.\u201d The derivation of Hebrew karmel, here translated \u201cfresh ear\u201d from context, is uncertain.
\nThe similarity of our text to 23:14\u201317 has raised the question as to whether both texts are speaking of the same offerings. Both are called bikkurim, \u201cfirst fruits,\u201d and most traditional commentators, including Rashi and Ramban, have argued for the identity of the two laws, with Ibn Ezra and Luzzatto dissenting. It is probable that the difference lies in the timing and the disposition of the two offerings, not in their essential character. Our text indicates a voluntary, unscheduled sacrifice to be burned on the altar and hence to be prepared with unleavened dough. The offering ordained in 23:14\u201317 is an obligatory offering, to be baked on Shavuot from the new grain crop, of leavened dough. It is to be placed before the Lord rather than burned on the altar. This prescription more closely resembles the offerings of first fruits ordained in Deuteronomy 26.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3<\/p>\n
THE SACRED GIFT OF GREETING (ZEVA\u1e24 SHELAMIM) (vv. 1\u201317)<\/p>\n
Chapter 3 is a code of sacrifice governing the third essential type of offering in Israelite worship, the type called zeva\u1e25. The most frequent zeva\u1e25 was known as zeva\u1e25 shelamim, \u201csacred gift of greeting.\u201d In order to understand chapter 3 against the background of the first two codes\u2014the law of the burnt offering in chapter 1 and the law of the grain offering in chapter 2\u2014it is necessary to explain each component of the composite term zeva\u1e25 shelamim independently.
\nThe zeva\u1e25 was presented differently from the burnt offering or grain offering, although there were overlapping features. Some of the same animals used for burnt offerings could be used for the zeva\u1e25 as well, and the same altar was used for all three types of offerings. Also, blood from the sacrificial animal offered as a zeva\u1e25 was applied to the altar of burnt offerings, in different ways but in the same spirit.
\nThere were, however, significant differences that inform us of the special character of the zeva\u1e25. Whereas the \u02bfolah of chapter 1 was completely consumed by the altar fire, and in this way given over to God entirely, the zeva\u1e25 was a sacred meal in which sections of the sacrifice were shared by the priests and donors of the offering. Only certain fatty portions of the animal were burned on the altar as God\u2019s share. There is also some evidence that at an early stage in the development of Israelite worship, the zeva\u1e25 may have been prepared in a manner that did not require the use of an altar. According to Exodus 12\u201313, the paschal zevah was to be roasted whole over an open fire, in proximity to one\u2019s home, a procedure that was probably very ancient.
\nWhereas the min\u1e25ah could be eaten only by priests, the eating of the zeva\u1e25 was not so restricted. Thus it clearly represents a distinctive mode of sacrifice whose presentation expressed its purpose: to afford the worshipers the experience of joining together with the priests in a sacred meal at which God Himself was perceived to be the honored guest. Viewed as a class of sacrificial offerings, the zeva\u1e25 was, however, \u201can offering of lesser sanctity\u201d because even nonpricsts could partake of it, even outside the sanctuary.
\nThe word shelamim is difficult to define precisely because the Hebrew verb sh-l-m, from which it derives, has many related yet different connotations. The translation \u201csacrifice of well-being\u201d reflects one of these meanings, based on the rendering of shalom as \u201cwell-being, wholeness.\u201d The preferred rendering \u201csacred offering of greeting\u201d reflects, on the other hand, the particular role of this sacrifice in the Israelite cult.
\nIn time, shelamim became the term for a general category of sacrifices and was virtually interchangeable with zeva\u1e25 itself. It had several uses, including the thanksgiving offering (todah), the voluntary offering (nedavah), and the payment of vows (neder). Often the shelamim sacrifice was combined with other sacrifices, especially with \u02bfolah, in celebrating important events in the history of the Israelite people. It also served as part of the public celebration of the Shavuot festival (23:19). It was offered most frequently, however, as a personal sacrifice.<\/p>\n
1. a sacrifice of well-being The Hebrew term shelamim is better rendered \u201ca sacred gift of greeting\u201d as will be explained in due course. The noun zeva\u1e25 produced the verb zava\u1e25, which is usually translated \u201cto slaughter.\u201d Although in practice a biblical zeva\u1e25 consisted of slaughtered animals, it is more accurate to explain this term as \u201cfood offering\u201d and to understand the verb z-v-\u1e25 as \u201cto celebrate a sacred meal.\u201d The Akkadian cognate is z\u012bbu, which may designate any offering of food. Both Ugaritic and Phoenician texts indicate that other foodstuffs, aside from meat, could be termed z-b-\u1e25\/d-b-\u1e25. The widespread circulation of these Semitic terms testifies to the importance of this type of sacrifice, from earliest times, in any number of religious cults.
\nThe most detailed description of the zeva\u1e25 sacrifice, apart from the priestly legislation in the Book of Leviticus, is found in 1 Samuel 9:12, 14, 19, 22\u201325. There participants are referred to as keru\u02beim, \u201cinvited guests.\u201d A priest presided over the celebration\u2014in that instance the prophet Samuel himself, who functioned as a priest on many occasions. Samuel blessed the sacrifice, offered it up, and then distributed portions of it to the invited participants, who partook of it in special rooms. What was eaten by the priests and the invited guests was boiled in pots, whereas the portions offered to God were burned on the altar. Some further details may be deduced from the story concerning the sinful sons of Eli, the priest of Shiloh, as related in 1 Samuel 2:12\u201316. It was forbidden for the priests or the participants to eat the meat of the zeva\u1e25 before God\u2019s share had been offered to Him on the altar. That account also makes reference to the kinds of pots and forks that were used.
\nThe term shelamim has puzzled commentators since antiquity. The Septuagint gives it no fewer than three different Greek renderings, and midrashic interpretations likewise vary greatly. The usual translation, \u201cpeace offering,\u201d merely echoes the Latin of the Vulgate, pacificus, and the Greek eir\u0113nikos, one of the Septuagint\u2019s renderings. Both mean \u201cthat which relates to peace.\u201d Presumably, this translation expresses the peaceful, or harmonious, relationship between the worshiper and God, brought about and reaffirmed by the sacrifice itself. In a similar vein, some scholars have taken their cue from a statement in Solomon\u2019s prayer at the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem included in 1 Kings 8. On that occasion, shelamim offerings were sacrificed, and verse 61 states: \u201cAnd may you be wholehearted with [shalem \u02bfim] the LORD our God.\u201d In the view of these scholars, this statement, in the context of the dedication ceremony, establishes the meaning of the word shelamim as a sacrifice intended to reaffirm the covenant between God and the Israelite people. Still another interpretation, also based on one of the connotations of the verb sh-l-m, is preserved in Midrash ha-Gadol. There shelamim is explained in quantitative terms: she-ha-kol shelemim bo, \u201cfor all are \u2018complete\u2019 in it,\u201d that is, all receive a portion of the sacrifices\u2014priests, participants (or donors), and God. The New English Bible seems to have adopted this view, because it translates shelamim as \u201cshared offering.\u201d
\nAll of the aforementioned interpretations are possible, of course, but there is now comparative evidence to suggest that the term shelamim originally meant \u201ctribute, gift of greeting.\u201d In a Ugaritic epic, Keret, the king of a besieged city, offered shalam\u016bma to the commander of the attacking forces in an effort to induce him to withdraw the siege. In Akkadian texts we find a cognate term, shulm\u0101nu, that literally means \u201ca gift of greeting,\u201d such as was presented by vassals to their suzerains when they visited them or by emissaries on a mission to their allies. This meaning reflects the word of greeting, which is shalom in Hebrew and is expressed by similar words in Ugaritic and Akkadian. The shelamim is offered when one greets another by saying \u201cshalom!\u201d In the cult, the shelamim assumed the form of an animal sacrifice offered to God when one came before Him to greet Him at a sacred meal. It was adopted as the name of a particular sacrifice because it expressed the fellowship experienced by the worshipers and priests in God\u2019s presence, as they greeted their divine guest.<\/p>\n
3. the fat that covers the entrails Hebrew \u1e25elev has the general sense of \u201cfat,\u201d but here it refers specifically to the fat that covers or surrounds the kidneys, the liver, and the entrails. It does not refer, in its legal usage, to ordinary fat that adheres to the flesh of an animal, which is called shuman in rabbinic Hebrew. \u1e24elev, like sacrificial blood, is forbidden for human consumption. Although not regarded as choice food for humans, under normal circumstances, \u1e25elev was desired by God. From the cultic perspective, a food\u2019s desirability was not a function of the usual dietary considerations but of its symbolic value. Deuteronomy 32:14, for example, refers to the finest quality of wheat as the \u201cfat\u201d of the wheat, where fatness is a symbol of energy and blessing.
\nHebrew kesalim, translated loins, is better rendered \u201csinews, tendons.\u201d It has cognates in several other Semitic languages, where it occurs in detailed religious and medical texts. This has helped to establish the precise meaning of an otherwise rare term in Hebrew.<\/p>\n
4. the protuberance on the liver The sense is more precisely conveyed by variations of this term such as, \u201cthe protuberance of the liver\u201d (8:16; 9:10). The \u201cprotuberance\u201d (yoteret) was not at the top of the liver. According to Maimonides, the reference is to \u201cthe lower end of the liver, which protrudes from it, like the thumb from the hand.\u201d In Latin nomenclature, this appendage is known as lobus caudatus; in Hebrew, \u02beetsba\u02bf ha-kaved, \u201cthe \u2018finger\u2019 of the liver,\u201d as it is called in Mishnah Tamid 4:3. In Leviticus 1:8 this protuberance is called peder.<\/p>\n
5. with the burnt offering Not \u201con top, over the burnt offering.\u201d According to Rashi, the point is, rather, that the same altar of burnt offerings was used for the \u02bfolah and the zeva\u1e25 shelamim. The Hebrew preposition \u02bfal does not necessarily mean \u201con, upon,\u201d so that here \u02bfal ha-\u02bfolah may be rendered \u201cwith the \u02bfolah.\u201d<\/p>\n
6\u20138. The terms and procedures prescribed here have been explained in the Comments to chapter 1.<\/p>\n
9. the fat from the sacrifice \u2026 the whole broad tail Literally, \u201cits fat.\u201d Hebrew \u02bealyah has cognates in Aramaic and Arabic that clarify its precise meaning. It is the large, broad tail of certain species of sheep that are still raised in Israel and in neighboring countries.
\nIn 8:25 we have \u201cthe fat and the broad tail,\u201d which indicates that \u1e25elev and \u02bealyah are two separate parts of the sheep. Here it would appear that \u1e25elbo, \u201cits fat,\u201d is the general category, then specified by two of its components: (1) the broad tail, and (2) other fat that covers the internal organs. It is likely, therefore, that here the word \u1e25elev is used in a more general sense first, whereas further on in the verse it is used technically to signify the fat covering the internal organs.
\nHebrew temimah may mean \u201ccomplete\u201d in contrast to \u201cpartial.\u201d This is its meaning, for instance, in 23:15: \u201cseven complete Sabbaths (shabbatot temimot)\u201d Usually this adjective means \u201cfaultless, without blemish,\u201d but that meaning is unsuitable here.<\/p>\n
the backbone Hebrew \u02bfatseh, which occurs only here in all of the Hebrew Bible, is rendered by Targum Onkelos as shidreta\u02be, \u201cspine.\u201d<\/p>\n
11. on the altar as food Hebrew le\u1e25em not only means \u201cbread\u201d but is a more general word for food. In Leviticus 21:6 and Numbers 28:2, the sacrifices are referred to as le\u1e25em, because they are offered to God in the same way as food is served to humans. In most ancient societies it was believed that gods required food for their sustenance and relied on sacrifices for energy and strength. Rituals for feeding the statues of gods are known from Egypt and Mesopotamia.
\nThe Torah codes, while preserving the idiom common to ancient religions, understand the process somewhat differently. God desires the sacrifices of His worshipers not because He requires sustenance but because He desires their devotion and their fellowship.<\/p>\n
16. All fat is the LORD\u2019s This verse states the general rule, applicable to all animal sacrifices of which sections were burnt on the altar. \u1e24elev, \u201cfat,\u201d is prohibited for human consumption because it belongs to God as His share.<\/p>\n
17. a law for all time Hebrew \u1e25ukkah, \u201claw,\u201d like the masculine form \u1e25ok, derives from the verbal root \u1e25-k-k, \u201cto inscribe, incise,\u201d and reflects the practice of inscribing statutes on stone. The priestly codes often stipulate that what is ordained in a specific instance is meant as a permanent statute. This formula not only adds emphasis but meets a basic requirement in codified laws, namely, a statement as to time limits, if applicable.<\/p>\n
in all your settlements The regulations prescribed here regarding fat and blood are not restricted to the cult of the sanctuary but are obligatory, as well, in the homes of the Israelites, in the conduct of their private lives. In this respect, the prohibition against eating fat and blood differs from the other laws governing sacrificial rites, which are only applicable to the cult proper.<\/p>\n
you must not eat any fat or any blood The principal statement on the prohibition against eating blood occurs in 17:10\u201312, where its rationale is given and where its larger implications will be explained. The fact that the two prohibitions are listed together here has led some to seek a common basis for prohibiting both. They both belong to God as sacrificial offerings. There is, however, much that is distinctive to the blood prohibition over and above the utilization of blood in sacrificial rites.<\/p>\n
The Expiatory Sacrifices (4:1\u20135:26)<\/p>\n
Chapters 4 and 5 contain the laws governing expiatory sacrifices, the purpose of which is to secure atonement and forgiveness from God. These offerings are efficacious only when offenses are inadvertent or unwitting. They do not apply to defiant acts or premeditated crimes. Whenever an individual Israelite, a tribal leader, a priest, or even the chief priest, or the Israelite community at large is guilty of an inadvertent offense or of failing to do what the law requires, expiation through sacrifice is required.
\nThe laws of chapters 4\u20135 do not specify all the offenses for which such sacrifices are mandated. We may assume, as did the rabbinic sages, that there is a correspondence between those offenses requiring the expiatory offerings and those punishable by the penalty known as karet, the \u201ccutting off\u201d of the offender from the community: The expiatory sacrifices are required for inadvertent transgressions that, if committed defiantly, would bring upon the offender the penalty of karet.
\nAt some early stage karet probably involved actual banishment. Karet was often combined with more stringent punishments, even death. It is sometimes perceived as punishment meted out directly by God, in contrast to that imposed by the community and its leaders for offenses committed against God. Karet was inflicted for a variety of religious sins, such as desecration of the Sabbath, eating leaven on Passover, or committing adultery. Although this group excluded most crimes against persons, it included certain crimes \u201cbetween man and man\u201d when these involved oaths taken in God\u2019s name or the misappropriation of sanctuary property. Even the withholding of testimony had a sacred aspect to it.
\nIn substance, chapters 4\u20135 prescribe two principal sacrifices: the \u1e25atta\u02bet and \u02beasham. The object of the \u1e25atta\u02bet, usually translated \u201csin offering,\u201d was to remove the culpability borne by the offender, that is, to purify the offender of his guilt (4:1\u20135:13). The \u02beasham, usually translated \u201cguilt offering,\u201d was actually a penalty paid in the form of a sacrificial offering to God. It applied when one had unintentionally misappropriated property that belonged to the sanctuary or had been contributed to it; or, in certain cases, when one had sworn falsely concerning his responsibility toward the property of others. A false oath brings God into the picture directly. The sacrifice did not relieve the offender of his duty to make full restitution for the loss he had caused another. In fact, the offender was fined 20 percent of the lost value. The \u02beasham merely squared the offender with his God, whose name he had taken in vain (5:14\u201326).
\nA further distinction must be drawn with respect to the term \u1e25atta\u02bet itself. Two different sacrificial rites are actually subsumed under the name \u1e25atta\u02bet. Although both share the common objective of expiating religious offenses, each accomplishes this end through its own particular ritual means. The first \u1e25atta\u02bet, prescribed in 4:3\u201321, consisted of a young bull, offered in the case when the chief priest or the collective community of Israelites was guilty. It was accompanied by unusual rites in which blood taken from the sacrificial victim was brought inside the Shrine, reflecting the severity of the offense committed against God and His sanctuary. Furthermore, no part of the sacrifice was consumed by the priests; instead, whatever was not placed on the altar was removed from the camp and burned, a procedure that anthropologists call \u201criddance.\u201d
\nThe second type of \u1e25atta\u02bet, prescribed in 4:22\u20135:13, consisted of a goat or sheep, but in certain instances offerings of birds or grain could be substituted for an animal. Such an offering was mandated in the event an individual Israelite or a tribal chief inadvertently committed a forbidden act (4:22\u201335) or failed to perform a required duty (5:1\u201313). This type of \u1e25atta\u02bet, of which there were several varieties, had the twofold effect of propitiating God through an altar sacrifice and of compensating pensating the priesthood for its services on behalf of the people. Portions of the offering were consumed by the priests in sacred precincts.
\nAll told, chapters 4\u20135 reflect a deep concern for sanctity\u2014for maintaining the purity of the sanctuary against all forms of defilement caused by the priesthood and the people and for assuring the acceptability of all Israelites in God\u2019s sight. Further information on the expiatory sacrifices is presented in 6:17\u20137:10. The laws of chapters 4\u20135 see an inherent connection between sinfulness and impurity, a connection that is apparent in a variety of situations. Many technical terms can mean both \u201csin\u201d and \u201cimpurity.\u201d Since antiquity there has been a tendency in many languages to juxtapose ritual and legal concepts. Even today, we use the word \u201cfault\u201d to connote both a physical or structural imperfection as well as a misdeed. In the context of ritual, one is perceived as either pure or impure, which implies a physical, or nearly physical, state. In the context of law, one is innocent or guilty, which relates primarily to behavior. In the Levitical codes of the Torah, as in many other ancient traditions, these two contexts have been blended, so that what is sinful is at the same time impure; conversely, the forgiven person is at the same time purified. Consequently, the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice can be viewed both as a form of purification and as the removal of one\u2019s guilt. There is also a cause-and-effect relationship to be considered: Sinful acts are often, though not always, the very ones that cause impurity.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 4<\/p>\n
FORMS OF THE \u1e24ATTA\u02beT SACRIFICE<\/p>\n
FOR SINS COMMITTED (vv. 1\u201335)<\/p>\n
2. When a person unwittingly incurs guilt Literally, \u201cWhen a person unwittingly commits an offense.\u201d The translation \u201cincurs guilt\u201d more properly expresses the consequences of the act, not the act itself. The Hebrew verb shagag, \u201cto err,\u201d and its adverbial derivative bishgagah, \u201cunwittingly,\u201d were understood by the rabbis to have two related aspects: (1) inadvertence with respect to the facts of law; and (2) inadvertence with respect to the nature of the act. In the first situation, the offender might be unaware that the act was in violation of the law, or, at the very least, might not know the specific penalties for such actions. In both the biblical and rabbinic traditions, it was conceded that ignorance of the law was a mitigating circumstance, and this was especially true in ritual or religious matters. Inadvertence with respect to the nature of the act itself would occur if, for example, a person ate forbidden fat, \u1e25elev, thinking it was merely ordinary fat, shuman, which is permitted. In both cases, the presumption is that an Israelite possessed of full awareness and knowledge would seek to obey God\u2019s laws, not violate them. Such unwitting offenses could therefore be expiated by ritual means.
\nThe verb \u1e25-t-\u02be has a wide range of meanings in biblical Hebrew and in cognate languages, especially Akkadian. Comparative evidence in this case enables us to trace the various usages of this verb in Hebrew. Akkadian \u1e2ba\u1e6d\u00fb means \u201cto err, be at fault, betray.\u201d It is used in treaties and legal documents to refer to violations of trust or breaches of treaty. When the concepts expressed by the verb \u1e25-t-\u02be are applied to religious offenses, they refer to violations of the covenant between God and Israel and to those who fail to fulfill their religious duties.<\/p>\n
in regard to \u2026 things not to be done, and does one of them In rabbinic terminology this circumstance is referred to as shiggat ha-ma\u02bfaseh, \u201can inadvertent violation that involves committing an act.\u201d Note the repeated use of the verb \u02bfasah, \u201cto do, commit,\u201d in verses 13, 22, and 29. Such transgressions stand in contrast to \u201csins of omission,\u201d where the fault lies in the failure to act or to do what is required by law.<\/p>\n
3. If it is the anointed priest The title ha-kohen ha-mashia\u1e25 is synonymous with ha-kohen ha-gadol, \u201cthe High Priest,\u201d which occurs in 21:10. According to the primary laws of Leviticus, he is the only priest anointed with the oil of unction, and this accounts for his title here and in 6:15.<\/p>\n
so that blame falls upon the people The errors and possible offenses of the chief cultic official, the individual in charge of the sanctuary and the priesthood, had an effect on the entire community. Here the law refers to offenses occurring in the performance of the priestly office, not to the personal sins of the chief priest (which he had to expiate independently). And yet later commentators, such as Rashi and Rashbam, were not far from the mark in stressing that the chief priest\u2019s personal behavior was relevant to his sacerdotal office. In the Yom Kippur ritual, set forth in chapter 16, we read that he had first to atone for his own sins and those of his family before he could secure atonement for the entire Israelite community.
\nThe noun \u02beashmah, \u201cblame,\u201d derives from the same root as the sacrifice known as \u02beasham. In the Levitical codes, cultic notions of guilt do not correspond exactly to legal norms of innocence and guilt. Human judges, who must proceed on the basis of evidence, dare not prejudge a person\u2019s guilt. But the divine Judge, who knows our deepest thoughts, is not so limited. In religious terms, even inadvertent offenses where there is not any intent to violate the commandments might immediately arouse God\u2019s wrath and result in divine punishment.
\nThus, priestly texts hold that God\u2019s wrath is easily kindled by carelessness in maintaining the purity of His earthly sanctuary and by the improper execution of religious duties, even if unintentional. Although this is, of course, only one of the viewpoints encountered in biblical literature (elsewhere, we are assured that God is slow to anger), in Leviticus the sense of the reality of divine wrath should not be underestimated. Mitigating and preventing that wrath is a major objective of the religious life.<\/p>\n
for the sin of which he is guilty Rather, \u201cfor the sin that he has committed.\u201d As in verse 3 it is preferable to convey in the translation the sense of the act itself rather than the consequent guilt that results from the act. It is important to explain that the Hebrew consonantal root \u1e25-t-\u02be-t is ambiguous. The Masoretes consistently pointed the second root consonant, tet, with a dagesh, but in fact the Hebrew consonants allow for two distinct nouns: (1) \u1e25ata\u02bet, a noun based on the Kal stem and a variant of \u1e25ata\u02beah, \u201csin, fault, offense\u201d; (2) \u1e25atta\u02bet, a noun based on the Piel stem, literally \u201can offering to remove an offense, to purify.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, the Piel stem may signify the undoing, or elimination, of the very act, or state, conveyed by the Kal stem of the same verb. Thus, Hebrew \u1e25itte\u02be means \u201cto remove impurity,\u201d as in 6:19 and 8:15. Here the phrase ha-\u1e25atta\u02bet \u02beasher \u1e25at\u02beu \u02bfaleiha means \u201cthe offense which they committed,\u201d not, of course, \u201cthe sin offering.\u201d<\/p>\n
a bull of the herd The Sifra defines ben bakar as a three-year-old bull. As in the case of benei yonah, \u201cyoung pigeons,\u201d in 1:14, the designation ben, \u201cson, offspring,\u201d indicates the relative age of the sacrificial victim.<\/p>\n
4. and lay his hand upon the bead of the bull The rite of laying on the hand is explained in the Comment to 1:4.<\/p>\n
6. in front of the curtain of the Shrine The Comment to 1:3 explains that the Tent of Meeting was of two parts, separated from each other by a curtain called parokhet. The parokhet was held up by four poles, inserted into sockets in the ground; it reached from one side of the Tent to the other and all the way to its top. It concealed from view the innermost section of the Tent, which was called kodesh ha-kodashim, \u201cthe Holy of Holies.\u201d The parokhet also marked off the first section, encountered upon entering the Tent, which was called simply kodesh, \u201csanctuary.\u201d According to Exodus 26:31\u201335, the parokhet was made of embroidered fabric, with representations of cherubs woven into it.
\nThe blood rites prescribed here and in verses 16\u201321 are highly unusual and are reserved elsewhere for the Yom Kippur ritual, as set forth in chapter 16. Only here, and in the law of 16:18, was sacrificial blood to be dabbed on the horns of the incense altar, which stood inside \u201cthe Shrine,\u201d not outside in the courtyard.<\/p>\n
7. on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense For the design of the altar, see Exodus 30:1\u201310, and for the recipe for the incense to be used on it, see Exodus 30:34\u201338. Only incense was to be offered on this altar, which stood inside the Tent proper, whereas all other sacrifices were to be burned on the altar that stood in the courtyard, facing the entrance to the Tent. Examples of ancient incense altars and of horned altars as well have been unearthed in archaeological excavations.<\/p>\n
10. just as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of well-being The relevant procedures are discussed in the Comments to 3:3\u20134. The point is that in this case the same parts of the animal are placed on the altar as in the case of the shelamim sacrifice. The difference here is that the rest of the animal is not eaten but destroyed.<\/p>\n
11. But the hide of the bull In this rite, as in the Yom Kippur ritual, we find the combination of two methods of expiation, or purification: an offering by fire on the altar for the purpose of propitiating God; and a riddance ritual by which impurity is eliminated from the Israelite camp and physically destroyed. The best example of a complete riddance ritual is the procedure for purification after contamination by a corpse, as set forth in Numbers 19. The entire red heifer, selected for this purpose, was burned outside the camp, and no part of it was offered to God. By comparing that rite with the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice prescribed in 4:3\u201321 and with the Yom Kippur sacrifice, we can appreciate how two modes of purification were combined. Here impurity is destroyed by the destruction of the entire victim, even its hide\u2014a very extreme procedure, for the hides were not burned even in the execution of the \u02bfolah, prescribed in chapter 1.
\nUnderlying rituals such as this one is a concept known in the phenomenology of religion as \u201csubstitution\u201d: The sacrificial victim substitutes for the person, or persons, who offended God or who are impure. Impurity is transferred from them to the sacrificial victim, thus freeing the offenders from God\u2019s punishment. God accepts the sacrifice in lieu of the life of the offenders, whom He then pardons.<\/p>\n
and its dung As in 8:17, Hebrew peresh designates the undigested contents of the stomach.<\/p>\n
12. to a clean place outside the camp Literally, \u201cto a pure place.\u201d In the Levitical texts of the Bible, Hebrew tahor is better understood in the cultic sense of \u201cpure,\u201d rather than in the hygienic sense of cleanliness, although it was certainly important to maintain cleanliness in performing all cultic rites, and in the sanctuary generally. But \u201ccleanliness,\u201d as it is usually understood, is an inadequate term here, since one could be \u201cclean\u201d but still \u201cimpure,\u201d and the same was true of objects and sacred areas if certain rites had not been performed properly. Although the primary sense of tahor pertains to the \u201cpurity\u201d of physical properties or physical effects (such as \u201cpure\u201d light or \u201cpure\u201d color), its cultic connotation has more to do with a state of ritual purity.<\/p>\n
to the ash heap There was an ash heap outside the camp, just as in 1:16 we read that there was one located near the altar of burnt offerings.<\/p>\n
13. the whole community of Israel Hebrew \u02bfedah, \u201ccommunity,\u201d one of the terms for the Israelites as a whole, is regularly used in this sense in the priestly codes of the Torah. It probably derives from the verb y-\u02bf-d \u201cto meet\u201d\u2014at an appointed time, or place. (The same verbal root underlies the term \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe Tent of Meeting,\u201d and Hebrew mo\u02bfed, \u201cannual festival, appointed time.\u201d) The term \u02bfedah conveys the sense that the group was unified as a community on the basis of set principles. The Hebrew verb y-\u02bf-d never connotes a random phenomenon. The character of the Israelite community was determined by a shared history and a common religion. Hebrew \u02bfedah is known outside the Bible, primarily in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine, in Upper Egypt (present-day Aswan). There, a Jewish mercenary community lived through most of the fifth century B.C.E., and this community is referred to as \u02bfedah.<\/p>\n
and they realize their guilt Rather, \u201cand thereby incur guilt.\u201d The precise sense of ve-\u02beashemu here and of the singular form ve-\u02beashem in verses 22, 27 and in 5:2, 4, 17, and 23, has been the subject of extensive scholarly argument. These forms all occur in the transitional verses of chapter 4, following descriptions of various hypothetical offenses. When certain transgressions occur\u2014ve-\u02beashemu. If subsequently the offenses become known, special rites are to be performed. And so the entire process of ritual expiation hinges on this pivotal verb.
\nThere are several conclusions that can be stated at the outset, so as to eliminate unlikely interpretations. The verb \u02beasham, as it is used in this law, does not imply any spiritual or psychological change in the offender, which might induce him to admit to an offense he had previously concealed or denied. It is simply that facts have become known that were unknown before. Furthermore, the conjunctive vav in the transition from verse 13 to verse 14 with the Hebrew verb ve-nod\u02bfah does not mean \u201cor it became known\u201d but, rather, \u201cwhen it became known\u201d (or possibly \u201cif it became known\u201d). There is no contrast implied, as between one\u2019s own recollection versus being informed by others. A state of guilt exists because of the fact of the misdeed. If and when the offense becomes known, expiation must be undertaken.
\nThe main problem concerns the concept of culpability, or guilt, itself. In the cultic conception, guilt exists whether or not the offender is aware of it at the time. God\u2019s wrath is aroused by the offense against Him. Guilt may \u201cbegin\u201d even before the offender realizes what he has done. Undoubtedly, an offender has to become aware of his sins at some point, if expiation is to be undertaken at all. But, this awareness is not expressed in our text by the verb \u02beasham, which refers only to the state of guilt as determined by God, the supreme judge. Awareness is expressed by the verb yada\u02bf, \u201cto know.\u201d Therefore, in all the transitional verses the verb \u02beasham means \u201cto be in a state of guilt,\u201d whereas the verb yada\u02bf connotes awareness of guilt.<\/p>\n
15. The elders of the community shall lay their hands \u2026 The \u201celders\u201d (zekenim) represent a very ancient institution in biblical Israel, comparable to councils of elders known from other ancient Near Eastern societies. Several early biblical sources represent the zekenim as part of the tribal system, in a role similar to the Bedouin or Arab sheikhs. The \u201celders\u201d hark back to preurban and premonarchic periods of Israelite settlement in Canaan, but this institution continued to function during later periods as well and never fully lost its authority. Here the elders act on behalf of the Israelite community in expiating collective offenses against God, as is often their responsibility.<\/p>\n
16\u201319. The rites required in the event the whole community sins are identical to those prescribed for the expiation of the anointed priest, as set forth in verses 3\u201312.<\/p>\n
20. the priest shall make expiation for them Expiation by means of sacrificial blood-rites is a prerequisite for securing God\u2019s forgiveness. As the rabbis expressed it, \u02beein kapparah \u02beella\u02be bedam, \u201cThere is no ritual expiation except by means of blood.\u201d
\nThe Hebrew verb k-p-r expressed in the Piel stem as kipper, \u201cto expiate,\u201d has cognates in several other Semitic languages, most notably in Akkadian. It expresses a central theme in the Levitical texts, and a correct understanding of the process of expiation, in all its aspects, hinges upon its proper interpretation. The Akkadian verb kuppuru, which corresponds to Hebrew kipper, means \u201cto wipe off, burnish, cleanse.\u201d In cultic terms this means that expiation is conceived of as cleansing, as wiping away impurity, contamination, and, by extension, sinfulness itself. This interpretation differs from the concept endorsed by many scholars that the verb kipper means \u201cto cover, conceal\u201d the sin or impurity from God\u2019s view. Such an idea is of course well known in biblical literature, as it is in most other religious traditions, but it is not the idea conveyed by the verb kipper. Not all biblical concepts of atonement and forgiveness reflect the same perception. The Levitical texts use the verb kipper to express the concept that through expiation one is \u201cwiped clean\u201d of impurities that adhere or cling to a person\u2014infect him, we might say.
\nIf this is the underlying sense of the verb kipper, how are we to understand the indirect object formulation ve-khipper \u02bfaleihem used in this verse? The direct object formulation kipper \u02beet clearly means \u201cto wipe clean,\u201d but a less graphic meaning would be required for indirect-object formulations. The sense here is functional: \u201cto perform rites of expiation over, with respect to.\u2026\u201d Sinfulness, or impurity, is removed from the offender by means of specific rites. In this case they do not involve physical purification, such as bathing or changing garments; nor do they require the application of blood or other substances to a person, garments, or immediate environment. The purification comes from God in response to the proper performance of required rituals undertaken in good faith.<\/p>\n
and they shall be forgiven The verb sala\u1e25 has been variously explained. Most likely, the proposed derivation from a verb meaning \u201cto wash, sprinkle with water\u201d (with attested cognates in Ugaritic and Akkadian) is correct. The basic concept would be that of cleansing with water, a concept then extended, of course, to connote God\u2019s forgiveness and acceptance of expiation.<\/p>\n
21. of the congregation Hebrew kahal, like \u02bfedah, encountered in verse 13, is a term for the Israelites as a whole. It derives from the verb kahal, \u201cto assemble,\u201d and characterizes a group living together.<\/p>\n
22. a chieftain who incurs guilt Literally, \u201cwho commits an offense.\u201d Hebrew nasi\u02be, \u201cchieftain,\u201d is a passive form of the verb nasa\u02be, \u201cto elevate, raise up.\u201d The nasi\u02be is one who has been \u201celevated\u201d above others. This originally reflected the practice of electing tribal leaders. Unlike the priest, the nasi\u02be was a secular leader, not one who held a sacred office, although at times he might bear special sacral responsibilities. He was not, therefore, directly responsible for the religious offenses of the whole community, as was the chief priest. Consequently, his sacrifice of expiation was basically the same as that of any other Israelite. On the other hand, he was not free of punishment by virtue of his eminent position and was, in every respect, subject to religious law.<\/p>\n
23. a male goat Hebrew sa\u02bfir, literally \u201ca hairy goat.\u201d The rabbis defined the law as requiring a yearling goat, just as in other cases a yearling sheep was required. The utilization of goats for sin offerings, which was relatively frequent in biblical worship, is a development from the premonotheistic worship of the wilderness goat as a demonic being. This is implied in the law of 17:7, which warns Israelites not to worship \u201cgoat demons\u201d (se\u02bfirim) as they had once done. In the Yom Kippur ritual of chapter 16, this practice has been transposed into a component of a monotheistic rite consisting of the dispatch of the scapegoat.<\/p>\n
25\u201326. The same portions of the sacrificial animal are placed on the altar as for the shelamim, prescribed in 3:3\u20134. The difference is that here some of the sacrificial blood is dabbed on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings, and the rest is poured out at the base of the altar. In the case of the \u02bfolah and the shelamim, all sacrificial blood is dashed against the sides of the altar. It seems that here the horns of the outside altar receive blood to parallel the horns of the incense altar inside the Shrine, which receive blood from the more severe \u1e25atta\u02bet prescribed in verses 3\u201321. The priests received portions of this type of \u1e25atta\u02bet, as outlined in the legislation of 6:17\u20137:10.<\/p>\n
27. any person from among the populace From here to the end of chapter 4, the form of the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice is essentially the same as the one prescribed for the nasi\u02be, with the difference that an individual Israelite could choose to offer a female goat or a female sheep instead of a male animal. The term \u02bfam ha-\u02bearets literally means \u201cthe people of the land,\u201d but it had diverse social and political applications in biblical society, where it served to distinguish the populace at large from such individuals as officials and priests. It did not, however, convey a lowly status by any means. In fact, \u02bfam ha-\u02bearets often refers to the landed gentry of ancient Israel, those who elected kings. This gentry continued to govern as a council in Jerusalem until the destruction of the First Temple.<\/p>\n
28. a female goat It is not certain why female animals were required for certain offerings and not for others. Most animal sacrifices consisted of males for the probable reason that fewer males than females were necessary to reproduce the herds and flocks. This pattern is common to most ancient Near Eastern religions.<\/p>\n
32\u201335. The procedures prescribed for a female sheep offered as a \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice are identical to those pertaining to a female goat.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 5<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL MEANS OF EXPIATION (vv. 1\u201313)<\/p>\n
The theme of expiation, introduced in chapter 4, continues through chapter 5, which may be divided topically into four sections, (1) Verses 1\u201313, an adaptation of the \u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201csin offering,\u201d first prescribed in 4:27\u201335. Here a similar sacrifice is ordained for \u201csins of omission\u201d rather than for active violations of the law, as in chapter 4. (2) Verses 14\u201316, the \u02beasham, \u201cguilt offering,\u201d imposed on those who inadvertently misappropriate sanctuary property. (3) Verses 17\u201319, an adaptation of the \u02beasham for situations where a possible violation has occurred, but not a certain one. (4) Verses 20\u201326, an \u02beasham offered in expiation of any of a series of deceitful acts involving an oath and the loss of property to others.
\nThese varied laws make of chapter 5 a legal mosaic that has interested commentators since antiquity. There is, first of all, the problem regarding the laws of verses 1, 4, and 20\u201326. On the face of it, these are not cultic laws but, rather, laws of testimony. More significant is the fact that in the laws of verses 1 and 20\u201326 there is no reference to inadvertence, which is a basic precondition for ritual atonement. Everywhere else in chapters 4\u20135 there is some reference to the fact that the offense involved was unintentional or had escaped notice. Finally, verses 17\u201319 seem to be repetitive, rephrasing the essential provisions of 4:27\u201335, and one is hard put to explain the necessity for such a restatement unless a new legal principle is being introduced.
\nOnce these difficulties are acknowledged, an attempt can be made to relate the entire content of chapter 5 to the central theme of expiation.<\/p>\n
FOR SINS OF OMISSION (vv. 1\u201313)<\/p>\n
1. When he has heard a public imprecation One who heard a proclamation adjuring all who possessed information in a certain case to come forward and testify, but who failed to assist the judicial process and withheld evidence, was liable to a penalty. Hebrew kol, which simply means \u201cvoice, sound,\u201d here has the technical sense of \u201coral proclamation.\u201d Thus we read in Ezra 1:1: \u201cHe [Cyrus] issued a proclamation [va-ya\u02bfaver kol] throughout his realm.\u201d In later Hebrew usage the idiom yatsa\u02be kol, literally \u201cthe voice went forth,\u201d means \u201ca proclamation was issued.\u201d According to talmudic law, one could be held legally responsible once the facts of a certain case or situation had been publicly proclaimed.
\nAn \u201cadjuration\u201d (\u02bealah) consisted of a statement pronouncing a curse over anyone who failed to uphold the law. In this respect an \u02bealah had the same force as an oath that a person might take to clear himself of a charge, swearing that he had indeed fulfilled his obligation. In Genesis 24:41 we read that Abraham charged his steward Eliezer, under terms of an \u02bealah, not to agree to any marriage arrangement that would require Isaac to leave Canaan and return to Aram-naharaim. In Deuteronomy, chapter 29, we read that the people of Israel were adjured not to worship other gods, under threat of the devastation of their land. In both cases, those bound by an \u02bealah could free themselves of the threatened penalties by fulfilling the terms of the adjuration. In our case, a person would be clear of the penalties stipulated in the \u02bealah by coming forth to testify. But if he failed to do so, he would bear the punishment of the adjuration.<\/p>\n
so that he is subject to punishment Rather, \u201cHe shall bear the punishment for his sin.\u201d The Hebrew formula nasa\u02be \u02bfavon reflects a semantic process by which the same word can designate both the act and its effect, the crime and its punishment. In this way \u02bfavon can be translated \u201csin\u201d and also \u201cthe wages of sin,\u201d meaning punishment. Compare the equivalent formula nasa\u02be \u1e25et\u02be, \u201cto bear the punishment of an offense,\u201d in 22:9. There is a symmetry to the legal formulation. Verse 1 concludes with ve-nasa\u02be \u02bfavono, \u201cHe shall bear the punishment for his sin,\u201d and verse 2 with ve-\u02beashem, \u201cHe shall be held guilty.\u201d
\nThe presence of a law on testimony in a cultic code requires explanation. The same problem concerns verse 4 and verses 20\u201326. In fact, chapter 5 demonstrates the interaction between two themes in biblical law: (1) purity and respect for what is sacred, which are essential if there is to be reverence for God, and (2) trust, as expressed in oaths taken in God\u2019s name. In the ancient Near East courts and archives generally were located in temple complexes, and this was true of ancient Israel as well. Deuteronomy 1:16\u201317 states that judgment is God\u2019s prerogative, and Deuteronomy 16:8\u201312 ordains that the central court be located in the Temple. In Deuteronomy 33:8\u201310 we read that the Levitical priests were assigned the task of instructing the people in the laws of God; they also served oracular functions that involved determinations of innocence and guilt. Thus there is an institutional connection between testimony and related juridical procedures, on the one hand, and expiation for what we usually refer to as religious sins, on the other. Whenever God\u2019s name was involved, religion was involved. This is true even today, notwithstanding the constitutional separation of church and state operative in modern democracies.
\nVerse 1 poses still another problem, which it shares with verses 20\u201326: the absence of any reference to inadvertence. Ancient commentators were aware of this; the Sifra, for instance, responded by extending the provisions of verse 1 to include unintentional sins as well.
\nIf properly understood, verse 1 may resolve its own problem. We should understand the failure to come forth as a form of inadvertence, namely, negligence. In this case, the omission was, moreover, one that involved speech, not deed, a distinction also noted by traditional commentators and one that would not apply to the laws in verses 20\u201326, although it seems likely in verse 1.<\/p>\n
2. when a person touches any unclean thing The general category kol davar tame\u02be, \u201cevery impure thing,\u201d is followed by three specific types of impure carcasses: impure animals, beasts, and swarming creatures (sherets). The main source for these prohibitions of contact is chapter 11, especially verses 24\u201331, where their significance is discussed. In rabbinic law such objects are known as \u02beavot ha-tum\u02beah, \u201cprimary sources of impurity,\u201d which have the effect of defiling whatever touches them.<\/p>\n
and the fact has escaped him, and then, being unclean, he realizes his guilt Rather, \u201cand insofar as he was impure, he had incurred guilt.\u201d The point is that impurity is the basis of the offender\u2019s guilt. For a time one had been impure without realizing it and therefore had also been culpable without knowing it.<\/p>\n
3. Or when he touches human uncleanness Hebrew tum\u02beat \u02beadam, \u201chuman impurity,\u201d refers to such forms of impurity as affect a woman after childbirth (12:2), a person who experiences a bodily discharge (15:2, 19), or a man who has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman (18:19). It also applies to a person who has eaten the meat of a dead animal or an animal torn by beasts (17:15\u201316). This category must be distinguished from the more severe impurity caused by contact with a corpse (Num. 19:13), which caused a person to be \u201cdefiled by a corpse\u201d (Heb. tame\u02be la-nefesh), the term used in Numbers 9:10.<\/p>\n
and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt Rather, \u201cand though the fact escaped him, he ultimately knew of his having been guilty.\u201d As has been emphasized repeatedly, according to cultic law guilt is not a function of awareness; it is a function of committing an act or failing to commit one (see Comments to 4:13\u201314). Therefore, the vav in ve-\u02beashem does not create a sequence of knowledge followed by guilt. That vav is not conjunctive but, rather, circumstantial; literally, \u201cHe, being guilty, knew,\u201d According to Mishnah Shevu\u02bfot 1:2 and 2:1f., the sacrifices referred to in 5:1\u201313 apply only when there exists \u201cinitial knowledge,\u201d \u201cultimate knowledge,\u201d and \u201clack of notice in the interim.\u201d In other words, something originally known was ignored or forgotten and then later recalled. It was at that point that the offender undertook to expiate for his offense.
\nThe concern in verses 2\u20133 is the protection of the sanctuary and all within it from any sort of impurity \u201ccarried\u201d by an impure person. If the offense had been intentional, the contamination of the sanctuary would subject the offender to the more severe penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community, as stated in 7:19\u201321.<\/p>\n
4. an oath to bad or good purpose The Hebrew idiom le-hara\u02bf o\u02be le-hetiv means \u201cto any purpose at all.\u201d It is a merism, which is a way of expressing generalities by stating them as polarities. The oath referred to here bound the person to do or not to do something and was similar to \u201cthe oath of self-denial\u201d stipulated in Numbers 30. One must fulfill an oath, and if one neglects to do so or allows the matter to escape his notice, he offends God, in whose name the oath was taken, as well as those affected by it. As Deuteronomy 23:24 states, \u201c\u2026 you must fulfill what has crossed your lips,\u201d a thought echoed in Ecclesiastes 5:3\u20135.<\/p>\n
5. when he realizes his guilt \u2026 he shall confess that wherein he has sinned Alternatively, \u201cwhen he incurs guilt, and has confessed how he has sinned, he shall bring.\u2026\u201d The requirement of making confession is not the main thrust of this statement. The verb hitvaddah, \u201cto confess,\u201d is more likely indicative than subjunctive; it is conveying a fact rather than expressing a requirement.
\nAll those who wished to expiate offenses against God admitted their guilt at some point, and yet this is the only explicit reference to confession in all of chapters 4\u20135, and for a good reason. In this case the confession was material to the judicial process. In other cases, projected in chapters 4\u20135, there are indications as to what prompted the offender to undertake expiation. In 4:2\u201323, and again in 27\u201328, we are told that the matter was brought to the attention of the offender, and this may also be true of the situation reflected in 4:13. Similarly, in 5:14\u201316 it had probably been discovered that property was missing. In 5:20\u201326 the deceit involved other persons, and the suspect had been accused. Here we are dealing with private acts and the failure to act, which might never have come to light had the offender himself not come forth to confess. The motivation for doing so was religious and moral\u2014the desire to be purified and to avert God\u2019s wrath for having failed to fulfill one\u2019s commitments.
\nThe essence of the confessional is the exposure, or revelation, of one\u2019s sins. The confessional is basic to the Yom Kippur ritual, and its phenomenological character is explained in the Comment to 16:21. A confession is also required in the summary laws of Numbers 5:5\u20137, as regards the \u02beasham penalty.<\/p>\n
6. And he shall bring as his penalty \u2026 a sin offering The word \u02beasham has two connotations: \u201cpenalty\u201d and \u201cguilt offering\u201d (see Comment to v. 15). The term \u02beasham in the sense of \u201cpenalty\u201d thus can designate a sin offering, as is the case here. The sacrifice prescribed in this instance consisted of a female from the flock. It was to \u201csins of omission\u201d what the sacrifice prescribed in 4:27\u201335 was to \u201csins of commission.\u201d Here the offender had the option of offering either a sheep or a goat. One who could afford the full \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice was to offer it even for sins of omission, which were deemed less severe.<\/p>\n
7. But if his means do not suffice This is the functional sense of the Hebrew idiom \u02beim \u02beein yado masseget, literally \u201cif his \u2018hand\u2019 cannot reach.\u201d In rabbinic parlance, this type of sacrifice was called korban \u02bfoleh ve-yored, \u201cthe ascending and descending offering,\u201d that is, one whose cost was determined on a sliding scale, a concept that was basic to the system of vows in ancient Israel. If one donated to the sanctuary a fixed amount of silver as his \u201cvaluation,\u201d symbolically making himself God\u2019s servant, he could have that amount reduced if the attending priest assessed his means as inadequate (27:1\u20138). The same sliding scale also applied to certain obligatory sacrifices unconnected with any offense at all; otherwise inability to meet the full cost might deny purification to one who was diseased (14:21) or to a woman impure after childbirth (12:6\u20138). We know, from comparative evidence, that the sliding scale was also employed in the Punic temple at Carthage during the fourth and third centuries B.C.E.
\nThe distribution of the two birds of the reduced \u1e25atta\u02bet is significant: One was to be offered as a \u1e25atta\u02bet and the other as an \u02bfolah. The same distribution is prescribed in 15:15, 30 for instances of impurity. Ibn Ezra, later cited by Maimonides, explains this distribution as a way of compensating for the fatty portions of the sacrificial animals, which would have been burned on the altar as God\u2019s share had the full \u1e25atta\u02bet been offered. By burning one of the birds to ashes, the share offered to God was at least increased.<\/p>\n
8\u20139. pinching its head at the nape without severing For the specialized sense of the Hebrew verb m-l-k, see Comment to 1:15. The utilization of sacrificial blood prescribed here is similar to the procedure used for the \u1e25atta\u02bet generally, as prescribed in 4:25, 30, except that in this instance the blood was not sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings but on its side (kir).
\nThere is logic to the order of the two sacrifices: The \u1e25atta\u02bet preceded the \u02bfolah because one was obliged to be in good standing before he could properly worship God. Coming immediately after the \u1e25atta\u02bet, which was expiatory in character, the \u02bfolah symbolized the restoration of the offender and constituted his first act of worship after forgiveness.<\/p>\n
10. according to regulation Hebrew ka-mishpat, used quite frequently in the priestly legislation of the Torah, obviates the need for restating the complete ritual. It is a form of cross-reference that assumes the reader will know where the complete regulation is stated.<\/p>\n
the priest shall make expiation on his behalf See Comment to 4:20 on the sense of the verb kipper, \u201cto expiate.\u201d<\/p>\n
11. a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering The quantity of flour used in this offering is equivalent to what is prescribed for the grain offering in 6:12 and Numbers 28:5. Hebrew solet more accurately means \u201csemolina flour.\u201d The usual embellishments of oil and frankincense, prescribed for the grain offering in 2:1 and elsewhere, are not included here. The same austerity is noticeable in the grain offering required of the wife suspected of infidelity in the code of Numbers 5:15. Although this omission may be explained in part as a reduction in the cost of the offering, there is probably another factor involved: It was thought that God took no delight in receiving such offerings and would have preferred, so to speak, that they had not been necessary in the first place!<\/p>\n
USES OF THE \u02beASHAM SACRIFICE (vv. 14\u201326)<\/p>\n
FOR SINS AGAINST THE SANCTUARY (vv. 14\u201316)<\/p>\n
15. When a person commits a trespass The etymology of Hebrew ma\u02bfal is uncertain. All biblical occurrences of this term relate directly or indirectly to ancient notions of sacrilege and impurity; as such, it is an appropriate term for misappropriation of sanctuary property. It may also refer to betrayal of trust, involving marital infidelity; to acts of deceit; and to violation of the covenant between God and Israel by the worship of foreign gods. In legal texts, the crime of ma\u02bfal involves actual loss of property to other persons or agencies. This is the view of the Mishnah Me\u02bfilah, and it is borne out by an analysis of other cases where the \u02beasham is required in expiation of ma\u02bfal.
\nThe law of verses 14\u201316 applies only to unintentional misuse or destruction of sanctuary property. That is the force of bishgagah, \u201cinadvertently,\u201d in this verse. Intentional theft of sacred property or damage to it was a heinous crime. The story about Achan, preserved in Joshua 7, epitomizes the severity of intentional ma\u02bfal. Achan was caught looting the spoils of Jericho, which had been devoted to God, and he was put to death in punishment for his crime.<\/p>\n
remiss about any of the LORD\u2019s sacred things The term kodshei YHVH, \u201cthe LORD\u2019s sacred things,\u201d has general as well as specific connotations. In this context it refers to sanctuary property, not to priestly allocations or tithes, which belonged to the priests and Levites, and not to the sanctuary proper. According to 22:14, misappropriation of what belonged to the priests required the offender to make restitution and to pay a penalty, but there is no mention of an \u02beasham sacrifice. The precise sense of the idiom \u1e25ata\u02be min, \u201cto be remiss about,\u201d receives some clarification through comparison with verse 16, where we read \u02beet \u02beasher \u1e25ata\u02be min ha-kodesh, literally \u201cthat which he sinfully detracted from sanctuary property.\u201d In this context \u1e25ata\u02be conveys the notion of causing a loss. Similarly, the Piel stem of the same verb \u1e25itte\u02be may mean \u201cto make up a loss.\u201d<\/p>\n
he shall bring as his penalty As in verse 6, the term \u02beasham is used here in the sense of \u201cpenalty.\u201d Actually, in this one verse we have both meanings of the term \u02beasham: as fulfillment of the duty to offer an \u02beasham sacrifice and as fulfillment of the duty of a \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice.<\/p>\n
convertible into payment in silver Rather, \u201caccording to the equivalent in silver.\u201d The term \u02bferekh means \u201cassessed value, equivalent.\u201d The second person masculine form \u02bferkekha, \u201cyour equivalent,\u201d became a fixed term, what linguists call a \u201cbound form.\u201d As a result, we can refer to ha-\u02bferkekha literally as \u201cthe \u2018your equivalent.\u2019 \u201d A feminine plural \u02bfrkt, \u201cequivalents,\u201d is attested in a Punic votive inscription, where the verb n-d-r, \u201cto pledge, vow,\u201d also occurs. In still another Punic text, a tax official bears the title r [b] \u02bfrkt, \u201csupervisor of taxes.\u201d These are rare, extrabiblical attestations of terms similar to biblical \u02bferekh. In 27:1 we therefore find the formulation be-\u02bferkekha nefashot, \u201cin the \u2018your equivalent\u2019 of lives.\u201d Compare 2 Kings 12:5: \u02beish kesef nafshot \u02bferko, \u201cthe silver of each person\u2019s life equivalent.\u201d The offender had the option of either providing a ram of his own or remitting the cost of one so that a proper sacrificial ram could be secured on his behalf. The form of the sacrifice was not optional, however, and is set forth in 7:1\u201310.
\nThe term \u02bferekh (or \u02bferkekha) is central to the system of cultic administration in ancient Israel. It occurs in two contexts: the votive system, set forth primarily in chapter 27, and the \u02beasham sacrifice, as prescribed here. The problem is to explain the puzzling formulation of the law. Why is it stressed that the ram offered as an \u02beasham sacrifice corresponded to a value in silver shekels, especially when the actual amount of the valuation is not stated?
\nBiblical literature provides evidence for the development of the \u02beasham from a votive offering of expiation, which could take any number of forms, to an altar sacrifice of fixed form. In 1 Samuel 6:3\u20135, we are told that the Philistines, suspecting that they were being punished by the God of Israel for failing to return the Ark they had captured in battle, sent it back to the Israelite camp as an act of restitution. In addition, they sent objects of value as an \u02beasham to appease God\u2019s wrath.
\nThis background helps to explain how terminology originating in the votive system came to be applied to the \u02beasham as an altar sacrifice: Expiation is common to both systems. The \u02beasham began as a votive offering, as we gather from the Philistine episode, but it subsequently developed into an altar offering as well. Perhaps for this reason, it is stated that the \u02beasham sacrifice, consisting of one ram, represented an assessment in silver shekels. Reference to silver is more traditional than realistic. So it is that a votive offering, figured in silver shekels, became an altar offering, specified in terms of animals, as one would expect.
\nHebrew shekel ha-kodesh, \u201csanctuary weight,\u201d was the prevalent standard in ancient Israel at certain periods. In fact, Ezekiel 45:12, in listing official weights and measures, gives the silver content of the shekel as 20 gerahs, \u201cgrains,\u201d which is identical to the sanctuary weight of a shekel according to 27:25 and as stated in Exodus 31:13.<\/p>\n
16. He shall make restitution \u2026 and he shall add a fifth part to it The penalty of one-fifth was a common feature of Temple administration. The provisions of this law are reformulated in verse 24 where the specific terminology is explained.<\/p>\n
The priest shall make expiation on his behalf On the sense of the verb kipper, see Comment to 4:20. It is to be assumed that the blood from the \u02beasham sacrifice was disposed of in the same way as that of the \u1e25atta\u02bet of the people in 4:25, 30.
\nOne is prompted to ask how instances of ma\u02bfal came to light in the first place. To establish the intentional theft of sanctuary property, the testimony of witnesses was necessary. In Joshua 7:14\u201315, the person guilty of ma\u02bfal was \u201ctrapped\u201d by the casting of lots and compelled to confess his crime. Here, in the case of unintentional ma\u02bfal, it is possible that the missing property was discovered during an inventory; and although there was no evidence, suspects were questioned. This may be a situation in which a person used foodstuffs or other materials of value for his private purposes, presuming they were not \u201csacred things.\u201d Examples are provided in Mishnah Me\u02bfilah.<\/p>\n
THE \u02beASHAM OF CONTINGENCY (vv. 17\u201319)<\/p>\n
17. And when a person, without knowing it, sins \u2026 and then realizes his guilt Alternatively, \u201cAnd when a person sins, but did not subsequently realize that he had incurred guilt.\u201d The ambiguity in this verse derives from its negative formulation. In verses 3\u20134 the formulation is positive, \u201cand he knew,\u201d whereas here we have ve-lo\u02be yuan\u02bf, \u201che did not know.\u201d The new JPS translation understands this negative formulation to refer to lack of initial knowledge and the following verb, ve-\u02beashem, to refer to the subsequent realization or awareness of guilt\u2014in this way resolving the problem of explaining how one was obliged to expiate a sin of which he never became aware.
\nThere remain, however, several problems in this translation. As explained in the Comment to 5:3 yada\u02bf, \u201che knew,\u201d refers to ultimate knowledge, not initial knowledge, and the verb ve-\u02beashem refers to the fact of guilt, not the awareness of it. Furthermore, the translation above would make of this verse a repetition of 4:27\u201335. In both cases a person inadvertently violated a law, a violation of which he later became aware. But since the language of legislative formulation is exceedingly precise, one would expect there to be a significant difference between the positive formulation of 4:27f. and the negative formulation of our verse. Wherein does that difference lie?
\nThe rabbinic tradition understands the laws of 5:17\u201319 to mean that the offender did not know for certain, but only suspected, that he may have committed an offense. In effect, he had no positive, ultimate knowledge of the offense, and this is the sense of the clause ve-hu\u02be lo\u02be yaaa\u02bf, \u201che did not know\u201d\u2014for certain. Most of Mishnah Keritot is devoted to a discussion of cases where the \u02beasham of 5:17\u201319 would apply. There it is called \u02beasham talui, \u201cthe contingent \u02beasham.\u201d Certain knowledge of an offense committed would invoke the law of 4:27\u201335, but where there was uncertainty about past trespasses, an \u02beasbam consisting of a ram was prescribed in order to avert God\u2019s wrath in a preventive way.
\nThere is some biblical evidence that sacrifices were offered on this basis. The Mishnah speaks of \u02beasbam \u1e25asidim, \u201cthe guilt offering of the devout\u201d; and Job 1:5 recounts how one devout person, who was tested by God, brought daily burnt offerings on behalf of his children because of the likelihood that in the midst of their feasting and revelry they would unwittingly commit blasphemy.<\/p>\n
18. for the error that he committed unwittingly Rather, \u201cfor the inadvertent sin he committed, but did not subsequently realize.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE \u02beASHAM FOR ROBBERIES (vv. 20\u201326)<\/p>\n
Verses 20\u201326 comprise laws about the expiation of false oaths involving deceitful acts of theft, robbery, fraud, and so on, which cause actual loss of property to another. These parallel, with respect to crimes \u201cbetween man and man,\u201d the provisions of 5:14\u201316 regarding the inadvertent misappropriation of sanctuary property, but with an important difference: The offenses outlined here were quite definitely intentional! A person misappropriated property or funds entrusted to his safekeeping, or defrauded another, or failed to restore lost property he had located. As there were no witnesses to the crime, the usual laws of testimony were not applicable. When sued, the defendant lied under oath and claimed no responsibility. Without witnesses, the aggrieved party had no further recourse and sustained an irretrievable loss.
\nBut if, subsequently, the accused came forth on his own and admitted to having lied under oath\u2014thus assuming liability for the unrecovered property\u2014he was given the opportunity to clear himself by making restitution and by paying a fine of 20 percent to the aggrieved party. Having lied under oath, he had also offended God and was obliged to offer an \u02beasham sacrifice in expiation.
\nThe practice of allowing pleas of guilty \u201cafter the fact,\u201d or of allowing one to offer to make restitution, is accepted in many legal systems. According to Mishnah Bava Metsia 3:1, a person who failed to produce what had been entrusted to him had to swear that he had not abused his trust. If he wished to avoid the prescribed oath, imposed in Exodus 22:6\u201313, he could offer to make restitution, and that satisfied the law. Here the more serious case of admission after a false oath accounts for the penalty of 20 percent and the requirement of an \u02beasham sacrifice.
\nBut how are we to explain the opportunity for the ritual expiation of an intentional false oath, given that both versions of the Decalogue, in Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11, state that God will not exonerate one who swears falsely in His name but will surely punish him? Mishnah Bava Metsia 6 explains that the expiation allowable under this law applied only when the offender came forth on his own and confessed his crime. This is made explicit in Numbers 5:5\u20137, another version of the same law, where there is reference to the confessional of the guilty party. If instead, however, witnesses appear and testify to the guilt of the offender, expiation is not possible. The guilty party would then face God\u2019s punishment as well as the imposition of multiple penalties.
\nThe admission by the guilty party enables the victim of a crime to recover his lost property in a case where there is no other legal recourse; that is, although the criminal is under suspicion, there is no proof of his guilt. Whereas, in the first place, the overriding objective in biblical law is to prevent theft, fraud, robbery, and other crimes, in the event they occur, it becomes of prime importance to recover what was lost or damaged on behalf of the victim. God accepts the expiation even of one who swears falsely in His name because the guilty person is willing to make restitution to the victim of his crime, for God is offended less by the desecration of His name than by disobedience of His law, which produces violence among men.
\nThe terminology of verses 22\u201323 is of particular interest: Hebrew ki\u1e25\u1e25esh, \u201cto act with deceit,\u201d is a synonym for shikker, \u201cto lie,\u201d in 19:11. It may variously connote denial of the truth, as in Genesis 18:15, or the fabrication of an untruth, as in 1 Kings 13:18, as well as faithlessness in general. Hebrew \u02bfamit, \u201cfellow,\u201d suggests, by its context, a social relationship.
\nVerses 21\u201323 project three kinds of deceit: (1) Misappropriation of what was entrusted to one\u2019s safekeeping (pikkadon) or of a pledge (tesumet yad). The latter term literally refers to what is \u201cplaced\u201d in one\u2019s \u201chand,\u201d and it is difficult to define specifically. Rashi interprets it as a loan or business investment, and Ibn Ezra, as a partnership arrangement. (2) Robbery (gezelah), which gave its name to the \u02beasbam in rabbinic law, \u02beasham gezelot, \u201cthe \u02beasbam of robberies.\u201d (3) Fraud (\u02bfoshek), which does not refer to taking from another what is already his, which is theft or robbery, but, as Erhlich and Hoffmann state, to withholding what he is entitled to receive. Rashi interprets \u02bfosbek as illegally withholding the wages of a laborer, forbidden in the law of 19:13; this is called \u201crestraint.\u201d<\/p>\n
23. when one has thus sinned and, realizing bis guilt, would restore that which he got Rather, \u201cWhen one has thus sinned, thereby incurring guilt, he must restore that which he got.\u201d This corresponds to the formulation in Numbers 5:7, where the verb ve-hesbiv, \u201che must remit,\u201d expresses what the criminal is required to do, not what he may prefer to do.<\/p>\n
24. he shall repay the principal amount.\u2026 He shall pay it to its owner when be realizes bis guilt Alternatively, \u201cwhen his guilt is established.\u201d Hebrew be-yom \u02beashmato, literally \u201con the day of his guilt,\u201d refers to the time when the guilt is proved, not when one realizes it. Only after acting to make good on his obligation and by paying a fine may the offender undertake ritual expiation. The provisions of verses 25\u201326 are identical to those of the \u02beasham as prescribed in verse 16 but one formulated differently. Here, Hebrew ro\u02besh, \u201chead,\u201d like English \u201ccapital,\u201d refers to principal, in contrast to interest or other additional payments and revenues. Cf. usage in Numb. 5:7. In Aramaic legal documents, re\u02besha\u02be, literally \u201cthe head,\u201d has the same financial connotation.<\/p>\n
The Disposition of Sacrifices (6:1\u20137:38)<\/p>\n
Tsav<\/p>\n
As noted in the introductory Comment to chapters 1\u20137, the last two chapters of this section present the torah, the \u201critual,\u201d for each one of the several types of sacrifices already outlined in chapters 1\u20135. The earlier chapters emphasize the mechanics\u2014the preparation of sacrifices and their ingredients\u2014as well as the special conditions that made certain sacrifices necessary.
\nChapters 6\u20137, on the other hand, focus on the role of the priesthood as officiants in the sanctuary and detail the special care that must attend the sacrificial offerings in order to prevent impurity. Most of all, these chapters specify that certain portions of the sacrifices (with the exception of the burnt offerings, or holocausts) were to be allocated to the priests as their share.
\nSome repetition of content is noticeable when we compare chapters 6\u20137 with chapters 1\u20135. Unique to chapters 6\u20137, however, is the glimpse they offer of the system whereby priests partook of sacred meals within the precincts of the sanctuary, meals that were at least in part supported or sustained by sacrificial offerings. In this connection it should be remembered that\u2014except for the burnt offering of chapter 1, the priestly min\u1e25ah of 6:12\u201316, and the priestly \u1e25atta\u02bet of 4:1\u201321\u2014most sacrifices were meant to be eaten, usually by priests and on occasion even by the donors.
\nMost sections of the sacrificial animals (except for the holocausts) were prepared as food, and only relatively small parts of the victims were burned on the altar as \u201cGod\u2019s share.\u201d Relevant procedures such as the boiling of sacrificial flesh and the baking or frying of grain offerings have already been set forth and explained in chapters 2\u20133 and 4:22f.
\nThe priests received their emoluments in several forms, all in return for their services on behalf of the Israelite people. This principle is reflected in the provisions of 6:12\u201316, namely, the law governing the High Priest\u2019s grain offering, which was completely burned on the altar. That passage illustrates the rule that priests may not be compensated for sacrifices performed on their own behalf but only for services rendered to others.
\nThe occurrence of this law in chapter 6 has been viewed as a problem because it seems to interrupt the continuity of the rest of the chapter. It was most likely inserted here because of its general topical relationship to grain offerings, the subject of verses 7\u201311, which immediately precede it.
\nThe key term in chapters 6\u20137 is torah, which requires clarification precisely because the more general term Torah is so familiar. Hebrew torah derives from the verb y-r-h, \u201cto cast, shoot\u201d\u2014an arrow, for instance. The verb in the Hifil form, horah, means \u201cto aim, direct toward\u201d\u2014hence \u201cto show the way, instruct.\u201d As used here, torah signifies the content of the instruction. Frequently reference is to priestly instruction, including what the priests have been taught as well as what they, in turn, teach the Israelite people regarding the performance of religious rituals. It is a term that appears throughout the priestly writings of the Bible, A classic example pertains to the foreigners who had been settled in Samaria by the Assyrian conquerors after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C.E. These new arrivals sought instruction in the proper worship of the God of Israel, and in 2 Kings 17:28 we read that an Israelite priest, who had been exiled from Samaria, was sent back there and engaged in \u201cinstructing\u201d (va-yehi moreh) the newcomers.
\nChapters 6\u20137 consist of a series of discernible units of the torot, \u201critual instructions,\u201d which are ordered differently from those of chapters 1\u20135. The \u02bfolah and min\u1e25ah are discussed first in 6:1\u201316, since they were part of the public cult. Chapters 6:17\u20137:10 treat the sin offering and the guilt offering, which were not a regular feature of the public cult but, rather, expiatory rituals usually performed by individual Israelites. (The guilt offering [\u02beasham] had no role at all in the public cult.) The first unit extends, therefore, from 6:1\u20137:10 and concludes with the allocations of sacrificial foods to the priests. This completes the category of kodesh kodashim, \u201cmost sacred offerings.\u201d
\nIt is followed by the category of kodashim kallim, \u201cofferings of lesser sanctity,\u201d as it is known in the Mishnah, and is represented by zeva\u1e25 ha-shelamim, \u201cthe sacred gift of greeting,\u201d treated in 7:11\u201334. Except for the unique shelamim offered on Shavuot and ordained in Leviticus 23:19, this type of sacrifice was utilized primarily in private worship (its public use was reserved for commemorating special occasions).
\nWe observe in chapters 6\u20137 an administrative order that begins with the most sacred public offerings and continues with other most sacred offerings that are usually relegated to private worship. The law then proceeds to outline offerings of lesser sanctity that also fall within the category of private worship. Finally, 7:35\u201338 summarizes the allocations of parts of the sacrificial offerings as the \u201cshare\u201d (mish\u1e25ah) of the priests, their portions of the Lord\u2019s offerings by fire.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 6<\/p>\n
THE BURNT OFFERING (\u02bfOLAH) (vv. 1\u20136)<\/p>\n
2. Command Aaron and his sons According to the Sifra, the imperative form of the verb tsav, \u201ccommand,\u201d emphasizes the duty to provide for the needs of sanctuary worship, the administration of which was the responsibility of the priests. Similar emphatic formulations occur in Leviticus 24:2 and in Numbers 28:2, both statements that introduce new sections of the law.<\/p>\n
This is the ritual of the burnt offering The preparation and presentation of the \u02bfolah have been explained in chapter 1.<\/p>\n
The burnt offering itself shall remain The Hebrew syntax is unusual. The construction hi\u02be ha-\u02bfolah is usually rendered \u201cit is the burnt offering,\u201d but this sense would not be suitable here. The translation reflects the fact that in certain contexts the pronouns \u201che\u201d and \u201cshe\u201d are used for emphasis, in the sense of \u201chimself\u201d and \u201cherself.\u201d Compare Jeremiah 6:6 hi\u02be ha-\u02bfir, \u201cthe city itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
where it is burned Rather, \u201con its fireplace.\u201d Hebrew moked, from the verb yakad, \u201cto burn, blaze,\u201d designates the spot on top of the altar grill where the firewood was placed. The same verb accounts for the Hofal form tukad, \u201cis kept burning,\u201d at the end of the verse and in verses 5\u20136 below.<\/p>\n
all night until morning, while the fire on the altar is kept going on it The daily holocaust (burnt offering) consisted of two yearling lambs, one offered in the morning and the other in the evening, as ordained in Exodus 29:38f. and Numbers 28:3\u20134. The morning holocaust, with its accompanying grain offering and libation, were the first offerings placed on the altar of burnt offerings each day, and the evening holocaust and its accompaniments were the final ones (Sifra). The latter offering was left burning on the altar during the night; first thing in the morning the ashes of the previous day\u2019s sacrifices were removed and new firewood was added, as we are told in verse 3.
\nAll of this occurred before the fresh holocaust was placed on the altar. Although the same altar was used for other sacrifices during the day, it was logical to provide instructions for tending the altar at this point since each day the public cult began and concluded with the holocaust.<\/p>\n
3. linen raiment, with linen breeches Israelite priests customarily wore linen garments, as is prescribed specifically for the Yom Kippur ritual in 16:4. Linen was first imported into ancient Israel from Egypt, where it was also worn by priests.
\nThe Hebrew construction middo bad, literally \u201chis raiment of linen,\u201d is unusual because in Hebrew the pronominal suffix is expressed in the object, but the sense is clear nonetheless.<\/p>\n
and he shall take up the ashes The Hebrew verb herim often means \u201cto take away, remove,\u201d as is true in 2:9, where the text speaks of removing a portion of the grain offering so that it may be burned on the altar. This meaning of the verb is reflected in the postbiblical term terumat ha-desben, \u201cthe removal of the ashes,\u201d a ritual described in Mishnah Tamid 1:2\u20132:2, as it was practiced in Second Temple times.<\/p>\n
to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering The common verb \u02beakhal, \u201cto eat,\u201d when referring to the action of fire, means \u201cto consume, destroy.\u201d<\/p>\n
4. take off his vestments As we are told in Exodus 28:43, the priestly vestments were to be worn only in the precincts of the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
and carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place The pure place outside the camp is called shefekh ha-deshen, \u201cthe ash heap\u201d in 4:12.
\nIn 1:16 the spot near the eastern side of the altar where the ashes were dumped is called mekom hadeshen, \u201cthe place for the ashes.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. every morning In the Hebrew idiom ba-boker ba-boker, which also occurs in Exodus 30:7, repetition conveys continuity. Compare the idiom yom yom, \u201cevery day,\u201d in Psalms 68:20.<\/p>\n
the priest shall feed wood to it In late biblical times wood for the altar fire was secured through a special collection called kurban ha-etsim, \u201cthe donation of wood,\u201d in Nehemiah 10:35 and 13:31. This procedure is also mentioned in Mishnah Tamid 2:3\u20135.<\/p>\n
lay out the burnt offering on it The Hebrew verb \u02bfarakh, \u201cto set up, arrange,\u201d has already been explained in the Comments to 1:7\u20138.<\/p>\n
6. A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, not to go out The requirement of keeping the fire burning at all times is also implied in verse 2 above. Here the rendering \u201cperpetual\u201d is appropriate because our verse states explicitly that the fire is not to go out but must burn incessantly. The term tamid does not always have this specific meaning, as is explained in the Comment to verse 12 below. Its usual sense is regularity. The perpetual fire on the altar expressed the devotion of the Israelite people to God by indicating that they were attendant upon God at all times in the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
THE GRAIN OFFERING (MIN\u1e24AH) (vv. 7\u201311)<\/p>\n
7. And this is the ritual of the meal offering The preparation of the min\u1e25ah is set forth in chapter 2.
\nThe syntax of the Hebrew in this verse is somewhat unusual: kakrev \u02beotah benei \u02beaharon, \u201cto offer it, the sons of Aaron.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, the infinitive absolute, here represented by the form hakrev, can stand for other forms of the verb and may be translated accordingly.<\/p>\n
8. A handful of the choice flour The procedure for presenting the grain offering is set forth in chapter 2.<\/p>\n
9. What is left of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons The torah of the grain offering here adds an important requirement, not stressed in chapter 2, that the priests must partake of the grain offering. This was considered indispensable to the efficacy of the ritual, and this requirement is repeated in verses 11 and 19 below, with reference to the sin offering. The same duty is dramatized in Moses\u2019 criticism of the priests recorded in 10:17f. The priests had not partaken of the sin offering as they should have on the occasion of their investiture. Portions of the sacrifices that remained uneaten after a specified period of time were to be destroyed.<\/p>\n
in the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting As described in Exodus 27:9\u201319 and 35:17 and in other priestly texts, the Tabernacle had an enclosed courtyard, just as did the Temple of Jerusalem. And yet, in all of Leviticus, it is only here and in verse 19 below that this sacred area is called \u1e25atser, \u201ccourtyard.\u201d Usually this area is referred to as peta\u1e25 \u02beobel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d which included a large part of the courtyard.<\/p>\n
10. I have given it as their portion from My offerings by fire The notion that God granted parts of the sacrifices to the priests is explained in the Comment to 2:3.<\/p>\n
11. Only the males among Aaron\u2019s descendants Sacrificial foods could be eaten only by the priests themselves, although other foodstuffs collected for their support and other forms of priestly revenue could be used to feed their families. These are summarized in Numbers 18:8\u201320.<\/p>\n
as their due for all time Hebrew \u1e25ok (fem. \u1e25ukkab), \u201cdue,\u201d derives from the verb \u1e25-k-k, \u201cto inscribe, engrave,\u201d and signifies that which is ordained by written statute. By extension, it connotes one\u2019s lawful share or amount, a rightful due, which is the meaning of \u1e25ok here.<\/p>\n
Anything that touches these shall become holy Rather, \u201cAnyone who is to touch these must be in a holy state.\u201d
\nSimilar statements pertaining to the sanctity of the altar occur in Exodus 29:37 and 30:29 and in verse 20 below. The problem of interpretation concerns the verb yikdash. Does it mean \u201cwill become holy\u2014as a result of contact with sanctified substances and objects\u2014or \u201cmust be in a holy state\u201d\u2014before being allowed to come into contact with sacred substances and objects? Several scholars, most notably M. Haran, have argued for the former interpretation. Haran has formulated a theory of \u201ccontagious\u201d holiness, according to which the sanctity of holy objects and substances is communicated, or conducted, to all that comes into contact with them.
\nAlthough the verb k-d-sh itself often connotes resultant holiness, it is more likely that here it refers to what must occur prior to contact with the sacred. Our verse simply means that only consecrated persons may have contact with sacrificial materials, a notion that reinforces the opening of the verse: Only Aaronide priests may partake of the sacrifices. Similarly, in Exodus 29:37 and 30:29 the sense is that only consecrated persons may have contact with the altar. In fact, there are indications that holiness was not regarded as \u201ccontagious\u201d at all, unlike impurity, which was thought to be highly communicable. This contrast is brought out clearly in Haggai 2:11\u201313, where we read the actual text of an inquiry on questions of purity, addressed to the priesthood of Jerusalem in the early postexilic period.
\nThe priests were asked, hypothetically, whether foodstuffs carried by a man would be rendered holy through physical contact with sacrificial flesh borne by the same man in the folds of his garment. They answered in the negative. But, when the priests were asked whether the same foodstuffs would be defiled if touched by a man impure through contact with a corpse, they replied in the affirmative. The point is that whereas impurity is transferred through physical contact alone, substances do not become holy merely through contact with sacred materials. An act of consecration is required.<\/p>\n
THE GRAIN OFFERING OF THE HIGH PRIEST (vv. 12\u201316)<\/p>\n
13. This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer The term korban is explained in the Comment to 1:2.<\/p>\n
on the occasion of his anointment Hebrew be-yom, literally \u201con the day of,\u201d simply means \u201cwhen,\u201d as is typical of many units of time.
\nThe rite of unction was essential to the status of the High Priest and is described in 8:10ff. Not only he but the altar as well was anointed. According to chapters 8\u20139, where the investiture of the priesthood is described in detail, only the High Priest was anointed with the special oil prepared for this purpose. This is also the intent of Exodus 29:17, a similar investiture text, and of the Holiness Code, according to 21:10f. But another tradition, reflected in Exodus 34:30; 40:14\u201319; and Leviticus 7:36, indicates that Aaron\u2019s sons were also to receive the rite of unction. Our verse agrees with the tradition that only Aaron was to be anointed because it refers to \u201chis anointment\u201d (himmasha\u1e25 \u02beoto); Aaron\u2019s sons joined in the offering, but only he was anointed.<\/p>\n
tenth of an ephah of choice flour For this standard content of the grain offering, see Numbers 28:5 and Comments to Leviticus 5:11 and 6:8.<\/p>\n
as a regular meal offering The term tamid connotes regularity and for the most part is used to characterize daily offerings. There was an entire regimen of daily rites called tamid: (1) the daily holocausts accompanied by grain offerings and libations, as prescribed in Exodus 29:38ff. and Numbers 28:3f.; and (2) the kindling of the \u201cregular light\u201d (ner tamid) every morning, as is ordained in Exodus 27:20\u201321; 30:7\u20138; and 40:25; Leviticus 24:1\u20134; and Numbers 8:2; (3) the regular incense offering, ordained in Exodus 30:7\u201310 and 40:27, to be presented each morning when the High Priest tended the menorah.
\nThe problem in verse 13 is glaring:A grain offering to be presented on the day of Aaron\u2019s anointment, as part of his initiation, is called tamid! There is evidence from Second Temple times of a daily grain offering presented by the High Priest as a holocaust, just as this passage ordains. In Ben Sira 45:14 we read: \u201c\u2026 his [the High Priest\u2019s] grain offering shall be burned to smoke in its entirety, twice every day.\u201d In Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 4:5 and 6:2, this daily grain offering is called \u1e25avitei kohen gadol, \u201cthe griddle cakes of the High Priest.\u201d Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (3.10.7) also refers to this rite.
\nThe problem is further complicated by the fact that a grain offering, presented as a holocaust, is indeed ordained as part of the initiation of the priesthood in 8:26\u201328, but its ingredients are different from what is specified here. So there is evidence both for an offering of initiation and for a regular offering, and yet the specifications are problematic in both cases.
\nIbn Ezra, attempting to solve the problem by interpreting the prepositional bet in the formula beyom himmasha\u1e25 \u02beoto as \u201cdirection from,\u201d so rendered this formula: \u201cfrom the day of his anointment.\u201d This corresponds to some extent with the view of Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Kelei Ha-mikdash 5:16) that Leviticus 8:26\u201328 concerns the singular offering of the High Priest upon his initiation, whereas our passage speaks of the regular incense offering presented by the High Priest.
\nThese attempted resolutions fall short, however, because verse 15 of our chapter states that each successive High Priest was to make the same grain offering, which seems to mean that the initiation rite was permanent, not that the grain offering was to be a regular feature of the public cult. Furthermore, we are still left with the difference in content between this grain offering and what is ordained in 8:26\u201328. It is likely that these are parallel traditions on the investiture of the High Priest. Our rite became the pattern for the daily grain offering of the High Priest, whereas that of chapter 8 remained associated specifically with his investiture.<\/p>\n
14. You shall bring it well soaked, and offer it as a meal offering of baked slices Hebrew murbekhet, \u201cwell soaked,\u201d occurs only here, in Leviticus 7:12, and in 1 Chronicles 23:23, all with reference to the treatment of flour. The Sifra explains murbekhet as \u201cfully prepared in boiling water.\u201d The Akkadian cognate, the verb rab\u0101ku, means \u201cto mix, extract,\u201d and it is used with reference to the preparation of herbs and drugs. This is also the sense of Arabic radaka.
\nHebrew tufinim, here rendered \u201cbaked (slices),\u201d is as yet unexplained. Commentators have assumed that it derives from the root \u02be-f-h, \u201cto bake,\u201d but that the alef of that root was elided. The term pittim, \u201cslices,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 2:6.<\/p>\n
15. to be burned entirely into smoke Hebrew kalil conveys the notion of being entirely consumed by fire. It is an early term for a holocaust offering, as in Deuteronomy 33:10: \u201cThey [the Levites] shall offer You incense to savor and whole-offerings [kalil] on Your altar.\u201d In the cult of Carthage, as we know it from inscriptions dating to the fourth or third century B.C.E., there is also mention of an offering called kll.<\/p>\n
16. So, too, every meal offering of a priest Every grain offering brought by a priest on his own behalf, or on behalf of the priesthood, in expiation or as a voluntary offering, was to be burned entirely on the altar. This affirms the rule that priests could benefit only for services undertaken on behalf of other Israelites, not on their own behalf. When the offering served only the priests themselves, the usual share of the priests had to be surrendered to God.<\/p>\n
THE SIN OFFERING (\u1e24ATTA\u02beT) (6:17\u201323)<\/p>\n
18. the sin offering shall be slaughtered In 1:11 it is ordained that the \u02bfolah is to be slaughtered at the northern side of the altar, and this practice is recorded for the Second Temple in Mishnah Zevha\u1e25im 5:1f. We are informed here that this rule also applies to the sin offering.<\/p>\n
it is most holy The sin offering is of the class of kodesh kodashim, \u201cmost sacred offerings.\u201d This class was first encountered in 2:3 and was mentioned in this chapter in verse 10. It recurs in verse 22 and in 7:6.<\/p>\n
19. The priest who offers it as a sin offering Hebrew me\u1e25atte\u02be a denominative form deriving from the noun \u1e25atta\u02bet itself, means \u201cto perform a sin offering.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting The entire courtyard is sacred. See Comment to verse 9.<\/p>\n
20. Anything that touches its flesh shall become holy Rather, \u201cAnyone who is to touch its flesh must be in a holy state.\u201d This preferred translation is explained in the Comment to verse 11.<\/p>\n
and if any of its blood is spattered upon a garment The form yizzeh represents the Kal stem and means \u201cto spatter,\u201d as in 2 Kings 9:33 and Isaiah 63:3. Usually, we find the Hifil form, hizzah, \u201cto sprinkle, cast,\u201d as is explained in the Comment to 15:19. Should any sacrificial blood stain a garment, that garment must be laundered because it would be improper if any blood of the sacrifice was not used for its only legitimate purpose. The blood of the sin offering was to be placed on the horns of the altar and the rest poured down its side, as is ordained in 4:25. It was sufficient to launder garments to rid them of the blood. This is also the later law of Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 11:1\u20135.<\/p>\n
21. An earthen vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken Earthenware, being more porous than metal, absorbs particles of the flesh boiled in it. Technically speaking, some of the sacrificial flesh would remain in the vessel. Such flesh would constitute notar, \u201cleftovers of the sacrifice,\u201d forbidden for consumption according to 7:15\u201317. Now, according to Hoffmann, if other foodstuffs were subsequently boiled in the same ceramic vessel, the forbidden sacrificial particles would contaminate the rest. To prevent this, the earthenware vessel had to be broken, because there was no possible way to purify it. This accords with the later legislation of Mishnah Kelim 2:1.<\/p>\n
if it was boiled in a copper vessel, [the vessel] shall be scoured and rinsed with water Hebrew marak, which is cognate with Akkadian mar\u0101qu and Aramaic meraq, means \u201cto cleanse\u201d by rubbing or abrasive action, at times using boiling water. This is how the procedure is described in Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 5:7. Rabbinic law, in Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 11:7\u20138, actually extended these procedures to include all prepared sacrificial offerings.
\nSimilar procedures continue to be used to this day. In fact, they are required, according to traditional Jewish practice, for rendering some types of cooking vessels and eating utensils fit (kasher) for use.<\/p>\n
23. from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting This rule refers to the priestly \u1e25atta\u02bet as set forth in 4:1\u201321, to the rites prescribed in 8:17 for the investiture of the priests, and in chapter 16 for the Yom Kippur ritual. Similar rites are involved in purification from the contamination communicated by a corpse in Numbers 19.
\nThis rule is the issue addressed in Moses\u2019 criticism of Aaron and his sons in 10:17\u201318. In that episode the priests should have partaken of the sin offering presented at the initiation of the Tabernacle cult, none of which had been brought inside the Tent. Their failure to partake of it might have affected the efficacy of the offering.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 7<\/p>\n
THE GUILT OFFERING (\u02beASHAM) (vv. 1\u201310)<\/p>\n
1. This is the ritual of the guilt offering The procedures specified in verses 1\u20136 for the \u02beasham, \u201cguilt offering,\u201d complement those already stipulated for the sin offering in 6:17. The provisions are identical for both offerings, a fact made explicit in verse 7, and it is therefore unnecessary to comment on them in detail. Verses 1\u20136 provide particulars absent from chapter 6; they are, however, anticipated in 4:28f. and in chapter 5. The anatomical terms that occur in verses 3\u20134 are explained in the Comments to 3:3\u20134.<\/p>\n
7. it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby This statement is significant because it indicates that the expiatory sacrifices eaten by the priests are actually their property. This principle is further expounded in verses 8\u201310.<\/p>\n
8. So, too, the priest \u2026 shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that he offered Chapter 1, which sets forth the procedures relevant to the burnt offering, meticulously avoids mentioning that the hide of the sacrificial animal should be burned because, in fact, it was not to be destroyed. Only in the case of the priestly \u1e25atta\u02bet, ordained in 4:1\u201321 and in similar riddance rituals, was the hide to be destroyed\u2014and that was done outside the camp, not on the altar. In most cases, the officiating priest could keep the hide as his own and profit from its value.<\/p>\n
9. Further, any meal offering The text seems to prescribe various grain offerings. Verse 9 speaks of those prepared in an oven, in a pan, or on a griddle, all of which belong to the officiating priest; verse 10 speaks of other grain offerings that belong to all priests. Although traditional commentaries are hard pressed to reconcile verses 9 and 10, Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 6:1 does not record any difference in the allocation of the various grain offerings. This suggests that we simply have two merisms, that is, two different ways of saying, in effect, that all types of grain offerings, parts of which went to the priests, belonged to the various groups of officiants at these rites; this according to Hoffmann.<\/p>\n
THE SACRED GIFT OF GREETING (ZEVA\u1e24 HA-SHELAMIM) (7:11\u201334)<\/p>\n
11. This is the ritual of the sacrifice of well-being Rather, \u201cof the sacred gift of greeting.\u201d The preferred translation of zeva\u1e25 ha-shelamim is explained in the Comment to 3:1.
\nBeginning in this verse attention shifts to the sacrifices of lesser sanctity. Donors could eat parts of these sacrifices outside the sacred precincts of the sanctuary; the priests could eat them inside the sanctuary precincts. As in chapter 3, our section employs the term shelamim in a general sense, referring to all sacrifices of the zeva\u1e25 type.<\/p>\n
12. If he offers it for thanksgiving The sacrifice is offered as an expression of gratitude. In this single verse, the term todah has two meanings. Here we have the more general sense of \u201cthanksgiving\u201d as a religious attitude. Further on in the verse, zeva\u1e25 todah is a technical term that designates the thanksgiving offering, as in verses 13\u201315 below.<\/p>\n
the sacrifice of thanksgiving This use of zeva\u1e25 todah, \u201cthe thanksgiving sacrifice,\u201d technically refers to the animal sacrifice that was ordained in chapter 3, namely, a sheep or goat of either sex. Nevertheless, the ritual first considers the preparation and disposition of the grain offerings of both unleavened and leavened cakes that accompanied the animal sacrifice, a matter not dealt with elsewhere in Leviticus. The ritual then proceeds to deal with the animal sacrifice itself, for which basic information is available in chapter 3.
\nThanksgiving offerings were appropriate for expressing one\u2019s gratitude to God for deliverance from danger or misfortune. Amos (4:5) mentioned them as frequent offerings in his day. The prophet Jeremiah (17:26; 33:11) envisioned a faithful people streaming into Jerusalem from all over the land to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving.
\nThe prescriptions of our chapter subsume the todah under the general category of shelamim and yet indicate that it was originally distinct from the other kinds of shelamim, such as votaries and freewill offerings, discussed in verses 16\u201318. Not only did the todah itself undergo development, as we shall presently see, but its classification undoubtedly changed as well. Whereas here the todah is considered a kind of shelamim offering, in the Holiness Code, as represented by 22:21f., it is even listed separately from the shelamim.
\nAccording to our verse the todah must be accompanied by a grain offering of unleavened cakes. Combining grain offerings with animal sacrifices is a well-known pattern, not only in the regular public cult as it developed in ancient Israel but in specific celebrations as well. According to 8:26, a grain offering accompanied the zeva\u1e25 in the ordination rites of the Aaronide priesthood. The requirement of eating unleavened cakes (matsah) together with the paschal zeva\u1e25 may also represent the same combination. The grain offering ordained here is patterned after the one presented in 2:4f., except that it was to be prepared with \u201csoaked\u201d flour, like the priestly min\u1e25ah\u2014the holocaust of 6:14.<\/p>\n
13. This offering, with cakes of leavened bread added The preposition \u02bfal occurs twice in this verse, and in both instances it means \u201cin addition to.\u201d
\nThe min\u1e25ah of leavened cakes (\u1e25amets) is actually what the prophet Amos (4:5) referred to as the thanksgiving offering, which indicates that it was, at certain periods, a self-sufficient rite, independent of animal sacrifice. The different disposition of the grain offering prescribed here follows the rule of 2:11 that no leaven may ascend the altar of burnt offerings. Thus, the leavened cakes are not offered on the altar, only the unleavened ones. This min\u1e25ah of leavened cakes is one of two such offerings recorded in the Torah, the other being the min\u1e25ah of new grain, prescribed in 23:17, to be presented on Pentecost. In a sense, the bread of display (le\u1e25em ha-panim), made of leavened dough, is yet another example, although strictly speaking it is not called a min\u1e25ah in 24:8.
\nOur verse employs the unusual composite term zeva\u1e25 todat shelamav, \u201chis sacred thanksgiving gifts of greeting.\u201d It epitomizes the incorporation of the todah within the general category of shelamim sacrifices.
\nWe are not told precisely how many cakes of the several varieties were to be offered during the entire rite. Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 7:1 mentions ten of each variety. This totals forty cakes and wafers, thirty unleavened and ten leavened. All were made from the same dough, according to Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:1; the dough for the leavened cakes differed only in its being allowed to rise.<\/p>\n
14. one of each kind as a gift to the LORD Literally, \u201cone of each offering,\u201d that is, four pieces in all were allotted to the officiating priest. Hebrew terumah, translated here and in verse 32 as \u201cgift,\u201d more precisely means \u201clevy, what is raised.\u201d The verb herim sometimes connotes \u201craising\u201d funds.
\nIt may not appear logical to designate the priests\u2019 allocation as an offering to the Lord. Nevertheless, sacrificial procedures in biblical Israel, and in the Near East generally, often dictated that the offering was first presented to the deity for acceptance, at which time, having been devoted to him, it belonged to him in its entirety. Only then did the deity grant portions of the same offerings to the priests and, occasionally, to the donors as well. Consequently, even in cases such as ours, where no part of the leavened grain offering was placed on the altar, it could be considered, nonetheless, as an offering to the Lord. This theory of the transfer of gifts initially offered to the Lord underlies the grants to the priesthood outlined in Numbers 18:8ff. and is also reflected in verses 34 and 35 below. These passages state explicitly that the Lord granted to the Aaronide priesthood portions of the sacrifices as their measure, or share, from what had been offered to Him in the first instance.<\/p>\n
15. And the flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice This indicates yet another difference between the todah and other shelamim sacrifices. In the case of the todah, the flesh must be eaten on the day the altar sacrifice is made; if not consumed then, it must be burned. This rule is also stated in 22:29\u201330, and is reminiscent of the paschal sacrifice. Exodus 12:5\u201310 tells us that no part of it could be left over until the following morning. And in disposing of the ram of investiture, a rite included in the ordination of the Aaronide priesthood in Leviticus 8:31\u201332, the sacrificial flesh also had to be eaten with dispatch.
\nThe todah occupied a special position in the rabbinic tradition because it symbolized the pure expression of gratitude to God. It was not obligatory; nor was it occasioned by sinfulness or guilt, nor even by the motives that induced Israelites to pledge votive sacrifices when confronted by danger. According to rabbinic teaching, it would continue to be offered in the messianic era, when the rest of the sacrificial system was no longer operative.<\/p>\n
16. If, however, the sacrifice he offers is a votive Except in the case of the todah, the flesh of shelamim sacrifices may be eaten until the third day, a rule also stated in 19:5\u20138.
\nHebrew neder, \u201cvotive,\u201d can be used both for the original pronouncement of the vow and for the act of fulfillment. Here neder has the latter meaning, referring to the payment of the vow in the form of sacrifice.
\nVows were an important element in Israelite religion, and making a vow, in itself a private act, was often interrelated with public worship. In 1 Samuel 1 it is recounted that Elkanah and his family, on a pilgrimage to Shiloh to offer the annual sacrifices, attended to their private vows on the same occasion. The payment of a vow could take the form of sacrifice. The appropriateness of the shelamim for such payment is suggested by Proverbs 7:14. There we read that a harlot might lure an unsuspecting young man to her house by offering him a portion of her shelamim sacrifice: \u201cI owe shelamim offerings; for today I have paid my vows\u201d (literally). This was admittedly a pretext, but a credible one in terms of accepted practice.
\nThere were no restrictions regarding where the donor of a shelamim sacrifice could eat his portion of the offering, so long as this was done promptly and no impure person partook of the flesh, a rule stated in verse 19 below.<\/p>\n
or a freewill offering Hebrew nedavah, \u201cfreewill offering,\u201d also serves as a generic term for many types of voluntary contributions to the sanctuary. Like the todah, it expresses gratitude to God and is often mentioned together with the neder. Amos 4:5 mentions the todah and the nedavah together.<\/p>\n
18. If any of the flesh \u2026 is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable The formula lo\u02be yeratseh, \u201cit shall not be acceptable,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:3. Because the sacrificial flesh was left uneaten for an improper period of time, the sacrifice itself was not efficacious: \u201cIt shall not be counted for him who offered it.\u201d This rule is also stated in 19:5 and in 22:10.
\nThe precise meaning of Hebrew piggul, here translated \u201can offensive thing,\u201d remains uncertain. In Ezekiel 4:14, it is used, together with references to carcasses and torn flesh, in a more general sense as something forbidden. In Isaiah 55:4 the plural form piggulim seems to designate flesh offered in idolatrous worship, regarded as abominable, like the flesh of swine.
\nIn this verse the penalty for eating flesh remaining from the shelamim sacrifice after the third day is stated merely as \u201cbearing one\u2019s guilt,\u201d whereas in 19:5\u20138 the penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d from the religious community is imposed for the same offense.<\/p>\n
19. Flesh that touches anything unclean shall not be eaten Beginning in verse 19, the text proceeds to deal more fully with the subject of impurity, a concern that was particularly relevant to the shelamim because parts of it were handled by ordinary Israelites outside the sanctuary. This warranted an explicit admonition. In chapter 22, the law addressed to the priests includes all sacrifices in the admonition.
\nAt the end of this verse, the Hebrew syntax is unusual. The text reads ve-ha-basar kol tahor yo\u02bekhal basar, literally \u201cand the flesh\u2014any pure person may eat flesh.\u201d This rhetorical device is known as anacoluthon, wherein the sentence starts out to say one thing and then abruptly switches to another.<\/p>\n
20. But the person who, in a state of uncleanness, eats flesh \u201cFlesh\u201d (basar) means sacrificial flesh, of course.<\/p>\n
21. When a person touches anything unclean, be it human uncleanness The term tum\u02beat \u02beadam, \u201chuman uncleanness,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 5:2\u20133.<\/p>\n
any unclean creature Hebrew shekets, literally \u201cabomination,\u201d is translated \u201cunclean creature\u201d in accordance with ancient versions of the Torah. Several Hebrew manuscripts read sherets, \u201cswarming creature,\u201d instead. This is understandable, even apart from the similarity in spelling and sound, because swarming creatures are often referred to as abominable.<\/p>\n
23. You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat Verses 22\u201327 contain prohibitions against eating blood (vv. 26\u201327) and against eating \u1e25elev, the animal fat that is offered on the altar. As was noted in the Comment to 3:3\u20134, \u1e25elev does not refer to ordinary fat that adheres to meat but to fat that covers the internal organs and entrails. It was also explained that the prohibition of \u1e25elev derived from the assignment of the fatty portions of the victim to God as His share of the offering. This made \u1e25elev forbidden for any other use. Like 3:17, this legislation extends the prohibition of \u1e25elev so as to \u201cbuild a fence\u201d around the law. Once the \u1e25elev of sacrificial animals was forbidden, the \u1e25elev of all pure animals was forbidden as well, whether or not the animals in question were actually sacrificed. Regarding the penalty of karet for violating these as well as other prohibitions, see Excursus 1.
\nThe blood prohibition is more comprehensive and applies to all but the blood of fish and certain permitted insects, according to the Sifra. More about the basis for the prohibition is explained in the Comments to 3:17 and 17:11.<\/p>\n
24. Fat from animals that died This would seem to be an unnecessary statement, since an animal torn by beasts (terefah) and the carcass of a dead animal (nevelah) were forbidden in their entirety, according to the laws of Exodus 22:30 and Leviticus 17:15; 22:18. In turn, therefore, any part of them would also be forbidden. It is likely that this rule was included for emphasis, to reinforce the ban on eating \u1e25elev. According to rabbinic interpretation the verse served to limit the prohibition to the consumption of \u1e25elev; its use for other purposes was permitted.<\/p>\n
25. from which offerings by fire may be made This clarifies the provisions of verse 22. The \u1e25elev of large and small cattle is forbidden because such animals are of the kind offered as sacrifices.<\/p>\n
26. And you must not consume any blood \u2026 in any of your settlements The formula bekhol moshvoteikhem, \u201cin any of your settlements,\u201d often appears in the instructions regarding activities that are not limited to the sanctuary and priesthood but that nevertheless involve violations of religious law. Examples are the Passover law, requiring Israelites to eat matsah during the festival, and laws governing the observance of the Sabbath and other holy days. These duties were not limited to the sacred cult of the sanctuary and applied as well to Israelites, wherever they lived.<\/p>\n
29. The offering to the LORD \u2026 sacrifice of well-being to the LORD Verses 29\u201330 ordain that the donor of the shelamim sacrifice must actually participate in the presentation of the offering. In contrast to the \u201cmost sacred offerings\u201d discussed in 6:1\u20137:10, at which only priests officiated, the presentation of the shelamim sacrifices was to involve ordinary Israelites as well. Since nonpriests could not actually place sacrifices on the altar\u2014access to the adjacent area was banned to them\u2014the rite of tenufah, \u201cpresentation,\u201d was employed to afford them some measure of participation in sacrifices of lesser sanctity. (Although Israelites normally laid their hand on sacrifices that they offered, as is stipulated in 1:4, this was merely a preliminary assignment of the victim, not part of the sacrificial presentation itself.)<\/p>\n
30. the breast to be elevated as an elevation offering before the LORD A sacrifice designated tenufah, derived from the verb henif, \u201cto lift, raise.\u201d As Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:6 describes it, the offering was carried to and fro in a raised position, the intent being to show the offering to God for His acceptance. The rite of tenufah was a sufficient mode of sacrifice, although in our case it merely precedes the burning of certain parts of the offering on the altar and the burning of other parts in pots. These two modes, presentation and burning (here \u02beisheh, \u201coffering by fire\u201d) are discussed in the Comment to 2:1. Tenufah was a method of presentation suitable for the dedication of the Levites as servants in the sanctuary, according to Numbers 8:11, and for the consecration of precious metals contributed to the sanctuary, as recorded in Exodus 35:22 and 38:24, 29. It was likewise prescribed for certain grain offerings, no part of which was placed on the altar, such as the offering from the new crop ordained in Leviticus 23:11, 17.
\nWhat we observe in our legislation is the sequential combining of modes of sacrifice that were originally independent. Even here, however, the parts of the sacrifice that were \u201cpresented\u201d were not burned on the altar, as we read in verse 34 below. They were assigned to the priests and the donors and were boiled in pots.<\/p>\n
31. the priest shall turn the fat into smoke The order of the procedure is significant here: The priest was entitled to take the breast and the right thigh of the sacrificial animal only after God\u2019s share of the offering, that is, the fatty portions, had been burned on the altar. As related in 1 Samuel 2:15\u201317, the sons of Eli, the priest of Shiloh, failed to observe this law. They seized their portions of the sacrifices from the cooking pots, even before the altar sacrifice had been performed, thereby provoking God\u2019s wrath.<\/p>\n
33. shall get the right thigh as his portion Hebrew manah, \u201cportion,\u201d is a synonym for \u1e25ok, \u201cdue,\u201d the term used in verse 34 and, previously, in 6:11. In verse 35 below, a third term, mish\u1e25ah, \u201cmeasure,\u201d is used.<\/p>\n
34. and the thigh of gift offering Hebrew terumah is explained in the Comment to verse 14.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY (7:35\u201338)<\/p>\n
35. Those shall be the perquisites of Aaron Rather, \u201cthey shall constitute the share of Aaron.\u201d The translation derives Hebrew mish\u1e25ak from the verb masha\u1e25, \u201cto anoint,\u201d and explains it as referring to the gifts and honors received by the priests as a consequence of their anointment. This interpretation seems to be supported by the following verse, which states that God commanded that such emoluments be given the priests once they had been anointed.
\nWhat we have, however, is a case of homonyms, two roots that appear alike but that have separate derivations: (1) masha\u1e25, \u201cto anoint,\u201d and (2) masha\u1e25, \u201cto measure,\u201d a verb more common in Aramaic and Akkadian than in Hebrew. The noun mish\u1e25ah simply means \u201cmeasure,\u201d hence \u201cshare,\u201d and is a synonym for manah and \u1e25ok, terms used earlier. Numbers 18:8 has le-mosh\u1e25ah, \u201cas a share,\u201d where this meaning is clear. In that passage there is nothing to suggest a connection with anointing. The Aramaic noun mis\u1e25eta\u02be, \u201cmeasure,\u201d occurs in Egyptian documents dating from the fifth century B.C.E. In Late Babylonian documents we find the Akkadian forms mi\u0161i\u1e25tu or me\u0161\u1e25\u0101tu. This is the very Semitic root expressed here.<\/p>\n
37. Such are the rituals Hebrew zo\u02bet ha-torah has collective force, although in form it is singular. It refers to all of the rituals set forth in chapters 6\u20137.<\/p>\n
the offering of ordination Whereas there is a torah in chapters 6\u20137 for the other items summarized in this verse, there is none for the ordination of the priests. The only possible point of reference in chapters 6\u20137 would be the min\u1e25ah holocaust offered by the High Priest and prescribed in 6:12\u201316. The ordination rites themselves are described in chapters 8\u20139. Hebrew millu\u02beim, \u201cordination,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 8:22.<\/p>\n
38. with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai The main thrust of this verse is the assertion that, already in the wilderness of Sinai, the Israelites worshiped God with sacrifices.<\/p>\n
The Initiation of Formal Worship (chaps. 8\u20139)<\/p>\n
Chapters 8 and 9 of Leviticus present a detailed description of the religious celebrations marking the initiation of formal worship in ancient Israel. This description is part of a larger historiography: an interpretation of the history of Israel from the perspective of its priesthood. The priesthood had a particular interest in the origin of worship because of its own central role in this area of Israelite life.
\nSubsequent to the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation of laws and commandments at Mount Sinai, the Tabernacle was erected, and Moses was instructed by God on the proper modes of worship. A priesthood had to be ordained and the altar and Tabernacle consecrated to God\u2019s service.
\nIn their detailing of these issues, therefore, chapters 8 and 9 differ from the preceding chapters of Leviticus and from most of what follows. Unlike the other sections, they are not legal in formulation but, rather, descriptive of special ritual events; they serve to describe the fulfillment of what was ordained in Exodus 29:1\u201337 and also overlap in content with the final chapters of Exodus.
\nChapter 8, in verses 1\u20133, briefly outlines what is to follow. This introduction (and also the introduction that opens chapter 9) functions to reinforce the principle that all the specific rituals were commanded by God. Indeed, we encounter the recurrent formula: \u201cAs the LORD had commanded Moses\u201d at various points in these chapters (8:9, 13, 17, 21, 29; 9:10). The effect is to portray Moses, Aaron and his sons, and the Israelites as obedient to God\u2019s command and to attribute Israelite modes of worship to divine command, not to custom and convention.
\nMost of chapter 8 (vv. 6\u201336) is devoted to a description of two distinct yet related ceremonies: the consecration of the altar and Tabernacle and of Aaron, the High Priest (vv. 6\u201312); and the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests, which was accomplished by a series of sacrificial and purificatory rites, performed over a period of seven days (vv. 13\u201336).
\nThe High Priest is represented as the bearer of a distinct office. He wore special vestments not worn by ordinary priests, and he alone was anointed with the \u201coil of anointing,\u201d the same oil used to consecrate the altar and Tabernacle and its sacred vessels. In effect, he was the human counterpart of the altar. Following the consecration of the altar and the High Priest, the altar was purified preparatory to its utilization, just as the priests themselves would soon be purified. The altar was then used for the first time in a kind of trial run: an \u02bfolah, \u201cburnt offering,\u201d was sacrificed on it (vv. 18\u201321), and when a favorable response was received from God, the actual ordination ceremonies, which were to last seven days, could proceed (vv. 22\u201336). As the main event, the \u201cram of ordination,\u201d whose blood was used to initiate the priests, was offered on the altar.
\nChapter 9, after an introduction (vv. 1\u20137), describes the ritual for the eighth day. Moses plays a key role, for it is he who issues the detailed instructions for the performance of various rites, just as he had issued orders to Aaron and his sons regarding the celebration of the first seven days. The rites described in this chapter are dedicatory in character, performed on behalf of the entire people. They celebrate the entry of God\u2019s \u201cpresence\u201d (kavod) into the newly consecrated Tabernacle, an earthly residence for the God of Israel. Hebrew mishkan, translated \u201cTabernacle,\u201d means \u201ctent\u201d; but it derives from the verb shakhan, \u201cto dwell, reside.\u201d The dedication of the Tabernacle was not complete, therefore, until God\u2019s presence rested upon it, as is stated in Exodus 29:43: \u201cIt [the Tabernacle] shall be sanctified by My presence.\u201d In the same way, the Temple of Jerusalem is called bayit, \u201chouse,\u201d and was declared to be sacred only after God\u2019s presence entered it.
\nThere are diverse traditions regarding the precise form assumed by God\u2019s presence when it became visible or manifest. It is described variously as a blazing fire, and as a thick cloud that took on a fiery glow at night. In the traditions concerning the wilderness Tabernacle, the cloud of God\u2019s presence hovered over the structure when it was stationary and filled it. (In the biblical conception of God, His presence filled the entire universe and could not be contained in any earthly temple. Yet God\u2019s presence in the Tabernacle and, later, in the Temple of Jerusalem was not thought to contradict the fact of His omnipresence. Rather, His nearness to the human community was regarded as evidence of His concern for those who called upon Him.)
\nAs the presence of God was welcomed at the Tabernacle, extreme care had to be exercised to protect it from impurity. Both the priests and the people, represented on this occasion by the elders (zekenim), offered their respective sin offerings, an indication that the Tabernacle existed for the benefit of all, not solely for the priesthood.
\nOnce the purificatory sacrifices were completed and the first \u02bfolah offered, the sacred gifts of greeting (shelamim) were placed on the altar in celebration of the dedication of the altar and Tabernacle. The people received a blessing, and God\u2019s presence appeared before them. Miraculously, the altar fire was ignited to consume the sacred gifts of greeting, and the people prostrated themselves before God and rejoiced greatly (vv. 22\u201324).
\nChapters 8 and 9 present Moses as the \u201cpriest-maker.\u201d As the first of the prophets, he ordains the first priests. In the priestly historiography, he also instructs them in their duties and later, when Aaron dies, transfers the office of High Priest from Aaron to his son Eleazar (Num. 20:22\u201329). Only once in biblical literature, in Psalms 99:6, is Moses himself called kohen, \u201cpriest\u201d: \u201cMoses and Aaron among His priests, Samuel, among those who call on His name.\u201d It would be incorrect, however, to regard Moses as a priest, and the passage undoubtedly does not use the term kohen in its technical sense.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 8<\/p>\n
THE CONSECRATION OF PRIESTS AND TABERNACLE (vv. 1\u201336)<\/p>\n
Moses is instructed to assemble Aaron and his sons and all the materials to be used in the celebrations to follow: the vestments, the anointing oil, the sacrificial animals, and the unleavened bread. Then the congregation assembles.<\/p>\n
2. the vestments, the anointing oil The vestments and the robing of the priests are described in verses 7\u20139. The \u201canointing oil\u201d (shemen ha-mish\u1e25ah) was blended according to a special recipe (prescribed in Exod. 30:22\u201325) that could not be imitated for any other purpose. Verses 10\u201312 and 23\u201324 specify exactly how this oil was utilized in the celebrations.<\/p>\n
3. and assemble the whole community On the term \u02bfedah, see Comment to 4:13. The verb hakhel, \u201cto assemble,\u201d is a form of the root from which kahal, \u201ccongregation,\u201d derives.<\/p>\n
at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting The designation peta\u1e25 \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cat the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d should not be taken literally. The actual place of assembly of the people was in the outer section of the courtyard, not directly in front of the Tent. According to accepted procedures, it was forbidden for any except priests to advance beyond the altar of burnt offerings, which stood in the courtyard about halfway between the outer gate and the entrance to the Tent proper. There were gradations of sanctity, as one moved from the interior of the Tent toward the outer gate of the Tabernacle complex. The outer section of the courtyard was reserved for activities preparatory to sacrifice and for the assembly of the people, which undoubtedly overflowed beyond the outer gate.
\nAt the site of Arad in the Negeb, archaeologists have unearthed an Israelite sanctuary dating from the period of the First Temple of Jerusalem. In its courtyard stood an altar, and aligned with the front of the altar there was a row of stones indicating a step onto a higher surface. Most likely, this step marked the division between the two sections of the courtyard. The Temple of Jerusalem likewise had both an inner and an outer courtyard at certain periods of its history.<\/p>\n
5. This is what the LORD has commanded The description that follows is what the Lord has commanded, according to Hoffmann.<\/p>\n
6. Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons The verb va-yakrev, here translated \u201che brought,\u201d has the general sense of presentation and does not necessarily imply a sacrificial offering. In Numbers 8:9 we read that the Levites, like the priests, were brought into God\u2019s presence when they were to be consecrated.<\/p>\n
and washed them with water Ablutions are a universal feature of religious ritual. Beyond the obvious hygienic advantages of water, its utilization in ritual also serves to purify symbolically. Ibn Ezra indicates that the formula \u201cto wash the body\u201d refers to bathing, but the verb r-\u1e25-ts, \u201cto wash,\u201d used alone, refers to only the hands and feet. In rabbinic idiom this rite is called kiddush yadayim ve-raglayim, \u201cthe sanctification of hands and feet.\u201d Water for ablutions was provided in a basin (kiyyor) that was located in the inner section of the Tabernacle courtyard. In the Temple of Jerusalem there was a large basin called yam, \u201csea,\u201d as well as ten mobile basins. Purification by water continued to have great significance in postbiblical Judaism, as it did in Christianity and Islam.<\/p>\n
7. He put the tunic on him There were, in all, eight vestments worn by the High Priest, of which four were unique to him. They are described in Exodus 28 and again in Exodus 39; here they are merely mentioned by name.
\nIt is to be assumed that at the beginning of the robing the priests were wearing their linen breeches (mikhnasayim). There is no mention of sandals, for they undoubtedly officiated barefoot, which would conform to ancient Israelite notions of proper dress in sacred places. According to Exodus 3:5 and Joshua 5:15, Moses and Joshua, respectively, were instructed to remove their sandals when standing on sacred ground.
\nThe High Priest donned a fringed linen tunic (kuttonet) that was tied with a sash (\u02beavnet). This was followed by the robe (me\u02bfil), also known as me\u02bfil ha-\u02beefod, \u201cthe \u02beefod robe,\u201d because the \u02beefod was worn over it. This robe was made of purple wool and had golden bells attached to it. Between each bell was a cloth pomegranate. The \u02beefod was attached to the robe by a decorated band called heshev. The \u02beefod itself was made of wool and linen with gold threads woven into the fabric, giving it a golden appearance. Two lapis lazuli stones (shoham), each engraved with the names of six of the twelve tribes of Israel, were attached to the shoulder pads, called kitfot ha-\u02beefod.
\nThe word \u02beefod is cognate with Akkadian epattu, \u201ca costly garment.\u201d Not all biblical descriptions of it are consistent. At times it appears that the Bible is speaking of something other than a garment, perhaps a statue or an upright object. In Judges 8:7, Gideon \u201csets up\u201d an \u02beefod in his hometown, and in Judges 18:18, the term pesel ha-\u02beefod, \u201cthe \u02beefod statue,\u201d is used in reference to the idol of Micah. Actually, all biblical references to the \u02beefod probably indicate the same phenomenon, but represent its changing manifestation at different stages of Israelite history. The term itself is pre-Israelite and was originally used in the context of robing statues of gods in richly ornamented, golden garments. This explains the usage in Judges, where Micah\u2019s \u02beefod meets with disapproval. It was a vestige of premonotheistic practice, like the idol of Micah itself. Because priests, and occasionally kings, were deemed sacred persons, it was customary to utilize garments of the types that had been common to both priests and statues of gods, even though there was no longer any place for the statues themselves in the legitimate Israelite cult.<\/p>\n
8. He put the breastpiece on him The breastpiece (\u1e25oshen) was made of wool and linen. Gold threads were woven into the fabric, and twelve gem stones were set into the almost metallic cloth. The name of one tribe of Israel was engraved on each stone. The \u1e25oshen was fashioned in the form of a square pouch. which served as a container for the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\n
and put into the breastpiece the Urim and Thummim The meanings of these terms, as well as the objects they designate, remain elusive. In form, the Urim and Thummim may have been fairly flat stones, similar to the p\u016br\u016b used in Mesopotamia, and known in Hebrew as purim in the Megillah of Esther. Examples of such objects, which worked in the manner of dice or lots, have been
\nrecovered in archaeological excavations. In 1 Samuel 14:43 the verb used to describe their operation is happilu, \u201cthrow down!\u201d Casting lots was the only form of divining the word of God sanctioned in the official monotheistic cult, which normally objected to the use of omens for predicting the future.
\nWhereas the meaning of the word Thummim (tummim) is clear, deriving from a root meaning \u201cto be complete, innocent,\u201d the etymology of Urim (\u02beurim) has been disputed. Logically, it should mean the opposite of tummim, and on this basis it has been suggested that it derives from the root \u02bearar, \u201cto curse.\u201d If the face of the stones called \u02beurim comes up in both of the lots, the verdict is unfavorable. A classic instance of the use of the Urim and Thummim is preserved in 1 Samuel 14: King Saul\u2019s orders have been disobeyed, and in order to discover the guilty parties, he has recourse to oracular inquiry of God. Hoping that his son, Jonathan, will not be identified by lot, he says to the Lord: \u201cShow the Thummim,\u201d a verdict that would have cleared his son.
\nThe High Priest wore the Urim and Thummim when he entered the Tent, thereby calling attention to his oracular function in guiding the destiny of the Israelite people. Numbers 27:21 relates that when Joshua was appointed as Moses\u2019 successor, he was instructed to inquire of Eleazar, son of Aaron, the new High Priest, as to the verdict of the Urim.<\/p>\n
9. And be set the headdress on his head Ordinary priests wore turbans (migba\u02bfot), as we are told in verse 13, and only the High Priest wore the royal headdress (mitsnefet). The diadem (tsits) was a crown of gold reserved for the High Priest and worn when he officiated inside the Tent of the Tabernacle complex. On it were engraved the words kodesh le-YHVH, \u201cSacred to the LORD,\u201d indicating that the High Priest himself was a sanctified person, entirely devoted to his sacred functions.
\nArchaeologists have found artifacts and storage jars containing materials used in Temple ritual and bearing the word kodesh marked on them. This practice is reflected in the prophecy of Zechariah 14:20\u201321. When the nations come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Sukkot festival, the bells of the horses will have the words kodesh le-YHVH inscribed on them, and every pot in Jerusalem will be kodesh so that offerings can be cooked in them. In Jeremiah 2:3 the entire people of Israel is symbolically referred to as kodesh le-YHVH, God\u2019s own people.
\nIn verses 10\u201312 we read of two parallel acts: the consecration of Aaron, the High Priest, and the consecration of the altar and the Tabernacle with its vessels. Both were accomplished by the same means\u2014anointing with (the same) oil. In this way Aaron, too, became a sacred vessel.
\nOil, universally used as an unguent and cleanser, has, like water, also assumed a religious, and even legal, significance. Pouring oil over cultic objects, as over persons\u2014kings and priests\u2014confers a special status. In biblical Israel kings were anointed by prophets, and Elisha was anointed by his master, Elijah. The oil was usually poured from a bowl or a horn. The consecration of Aaron, the High Priest, by the prophet Moses parallels the anointing of kings by prophets.
\nAfter the sons of Aaron were robed, the sacrifices of ordination commenced. A sin offering, along the lines of what is prescribed in 4:3\u201312, was brought. It was of the type required when the High Priest inadvertently committed an offense and was thus suitable for his initial purification (vv. 13\u201317). Then the ordination rites commenced. Two rams were used, one as an \u02bfolah, \u201cburnt offering,\u201d and the other as the actual sacrifice of investiture. The sacrifice of investiture was offered in a manner similar to the shelamim, \u201csacred gifts of greeting,\u201d as prescribed in chapter 3 and in 7:11f. Unleavened cakes and wafers were employed as an additional sacrificial ingredient.
\nBlood from the sacrifice of investiture was applied to the extremities of the priests, a rite of purification elsewhere prescribed for those suffering from certain dangerous ailments (vv. 18\u201329). Finally, a mixture of oil and water was dabbed on the persons of Aaron and his sons, after they had donned their respective vestments. The priests then partook of portions of the sacrifice of investiture; they were to remain inside the Tabernacle for seven days (vv. 30\u201336).<\/p>\n
14. He led forward the bull of sin offering Large cattle were used in sin offerings associated with purification when the entire community and the High Priest, in particular, were affected. We observe this in 4:3\u201312 and in chapter 16.<\/p>\n
15. and it was slaughtered Literally, va-yish\u1e25at, meaning \u201che slaughtered\u201d; but third person verbs can be translated as passives when no subject is specified. The verb y-ts-k, \u201cto pour,\u201d usually refers to water, and only here and in 9:9 is it used with respect to pouring sacrificial blood. The usual verb is sh-f-kh, \u201cto pour.\u201d<\/p>\n
cleansing the altar Rather, \u201cremoving the altar\u2019s impurities.\u201d Hebrew \u1e25itte\u02be, a verb in the Piel stem, has the force of undoing or removing the effects of the action conveyed by the Kal stem. Thus, \u1e25ata\u02be means \u201cto commit an offense,\u201d and \u1e25itte\u02be means \u201cto remove an offense.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thus he consecrated it in order to make expiation upon it Rather, \u201cThus he consecrated it for making expiation upon it.\u201d Hebrew le-khapper always means \u201cto expiate, to perform rites of expiation.\u201d The sense here is that the altar was consecrated for the purpose of making expiation, since expiatory sacrifices required an altar.<\/p>\n
16. Moses then took all the fat For the procedures involved in the laws of verses 16\u201320, see Comments to 4:8\u201312, 19\u201320, and 16:6.<\/p>\n
17. he put the fire outside the camp This requirement is rephrased in Ezekiel 43:21.<\/p>\n
18. Then he brought forth the ram of burnt offering The procedures for the ram offered as the \u02bfolah correspond to what is prescribed in chapter 1. The function of the \u02bfolah was to evoke a favorable response from the Deity prior to approaching Him with other sacrifices.<\/p>\n
22. He brought forward the second ram, the ram of ordination The Hebrew term millu\u02beim, \u201cordination,\u201d literally means \u201cfilling\u201d the hands, a symbolic act that transfers or confers status or office. Further on, in verses 27\u201329, we read that parts of the offerings were actually placed on the palms of Aaron and his sons, who raised them in a presentation to God. The biblical formula mille\u02be yad, \u201cto fill the hand,\u201d is limited to the appointment of priests and cultic officials.
\nThe ram of ordination was offered in the manner of the shelamim, \u201csacred gifts of greeting,\u201d with certain differences arising from the particular character of this occasion.<\/p>\n
23. Moses took some of its blood \u2026 Aaron\u2019s right ear Dabbing sacrificial blood on certain extremities of the body is essentially a rite of purification, a procedure that was followed in the case of one who suffered from an acute skin disease, according to the legislation of 14:14f., where this rite is explained in greater detail. In this manner Aaron and his sons were purified as they entered into their new status.<\/p>\n
24. and the rest of the blood Moses dashed against every side of the altar It is significant that the remainder of the blood taken from the ram of ordination is cast upon the altar. This is analogous to what occurred at the enactment of the Sinaitic covenant, as recounted in Exodus 24:6\u20138. On that occasion part of the blood was cast upon the altar, which represented God as one of the \u201cparties\u201d to the covenant, and the rest of the blood was cast over the people, the other party. In the ordination of the priests, the sacrificial blood served a dual function: It purified the priests and also bound them in a covenant of service to God in His Tabernacle.
\nPerhaps the grain offerings of unleavened dough, of cakes and wafers, were included here so that a representation of all the major classes of sacrifices would be offered by the newly ordained priests. The names of the specific ingredients are explained in the Comment to 2:4.<\/p>\n
27. He placed all these on the palms of Aaron \u2026 and elevated them Rather, the Hebrew term tenufah is explained in the Comment to 7:30.
\nIncluded here among the parts of the ordination sacrifice burned on the altar was the thigh (shok), which, according to the provisions of 7:32f., belonged to the priests. In the rites of ordination, the priests surrendered their own portion to God, since it had been offered on their behalf, and it would have been improper for the priests to benefit from what was offered on their own behalf. Only when they were of service to others could they benefit in this way. Therefore, the procedure was altered, and Moses, as the officiant, received his portion (manah), consisting of the breast (\u1e25azeh), which he, in turn, contributed to the priests as a gift.<\/p>\n
30. And Moses took some of the anointing oil A mixture of anointing oil and sacrificial blood was sprinkled on Aaron and his sons and upon their vestments, and this completed their ordination.<\/p>\n
31. Moses said to Aaron Moses instructed Aaron and his sons on how to dispose of the meat of the ordination sacrifice, that is, the breast, Moses\u2019 own portion of the sacrifice. We are probably to read the passive form, tsuvveiti, \u201cI was commanded,\u201d instead of tsivveiti, \u201cI have commanded.\u201d This passive form occurs in verse 35 in a similar context. It was vital to the efficacy of the ordination sacrifice that the priests actually partake of it. Only in this way would they join in the sacred meal in the presence of the Lord.<\/p>\n
32. and what is left over What was not eaten had to be destroyed. See Comment to 7:17.<\/p>\n
33. You shall not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days Here again, the designation \u201centrance of the Tent\u201d has to be understood in context. The priests were not inside the Tent but, rather, near its entrance, in the inner section of the Tabernacle courtyard. They were not to leave this sanctified area for seven days in order to avoid contact with anything or anyone impure.<\/p>\n
for seven days, until the day that your period of ordination is completed The practical impact of this statement is difficult to ascertain. In the parallel passages of Exodus 29:35\u201337 it is explicitly ordained that a sin offering was to be offered each day for seven days and that the altar was to be repeatedly anointed for seven days. Here it merely states that the \u201cfilling of the hands\u201d was to last for seven days. Does this mean that the ordination sacrifice was to be repeated each day, for seven days, and does the beginning of verse 34 indicate that what was done on the first day was to be repeated seven times? Most traditional commentaries are of this opinion.<\/p>\n
35. keeping the LORD\u2019s charge The \u201ccharge\u201d consisted of following the instructions given on this occasion. Hebrew mishmeret may connote \u201cguarding\u201d against violations.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 9<\/p>\n
THE FIRST CELEBRATION OF SACRIFICE (vv. 1\u201324)<\/p>\n
Shemini<\/p>\n
Chapter 9 describes what occurred after the seven days of ordination. At that time, on the eighth day, the Tabernacle altar was used for the first time in the performance of sacrificial worship on behalf of the people of Israel. As in chapter 8, this chapter too is introduced (vv. 1\u20137) by instructions regarding the rites to be described subsequently. All the necessary materials are assembled and the congregation gathers in the outer section of the Tabernacle courtyard.<\/p>\n
1. On the eighth day Moses called Aaron \u2026 and the elders of Israel The \u201celders\u201d (zekenim) represented the people. Their functions and status are discussed in the Comment to 4:15.<\/p>\n
2. He said to Aaron: \u201cTake a calf of the herd\u201d In the Comments to 8:14\u201318 the combination of sin offering and burnt offering is explained. The difference is that here the entire people is involved, not only the priesthood, as in chapter 8. A sequence of sin offering and burnt offering was ordained both for the priesthood and for the people.<\/p>\n
4. For today the LORD will appear to you This is the main purpose of the celebrations, as we read explicitly in verse 6.<\/p>\n
5. that Moses had commanded Moses had an enhanced role in this celebration as the transmitter of God\u2019s commands. In Leviticus, it is usually God who commands, not Moses.<\/p>\n
7. Then Moses said to Aaron: \u201cCome forward to the altar\u201d At this point, Moses turned over the conduct of the ritual to Aaron by inviting him to officiate at the altar for the first time.<\/p>\n
making expiation for yourself and for the people This formulation is suggestive of what we find in 16:15\u201317 regarding the role of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. The sin offering of the priesthood indirectly served the people as well, but an additional sin offering on their behalf was required nevertheless.<\/p>\n
9. Aaron\u2019s sons brought the blood to him This is a detail of procedure missing elsewhere. In 8:14, 22 it is merely stated that the officiating priests \u201ctook\u201d the blood. Practically speaking, it was necessary for another priest to assist the officiant; in Mishnah Yoma 4:3, 5:3, it is explained that a second priest held the sacrificial blood in a bowl and, later on in the ritual, handed it back to the officiant.<\/p>\n
12. Aaron\u2019s sons passed the blood to him The rare form va-yamtsi\u02beu, \u201cthey handed over, passed on,\u201d is unique to this chapter in all of Leviticus. In verse 9 the verb used is va-yakrivu, \u201cthey brought.\u201d<\/p>\n
16. according to regulation On the meaning of Hebrew ka-mishpat, \u201caccording to regulation,\u201d see Comment to 5:10.<\/p>\n
17. He then brought forward the meal offering and, taking a handful of it The Comment to 2:1 explains that Hebrew min\u1e25ah is better rendered \u201cgrain offering.\u201d A literal rendering of vayemalle\u02be kappo mi-mennah would read \u201cHe filled his palm with it,\u201d namely, with a fistful of the dough. Usually this act is described as \u201cscooping a fistful,\u201d as in 2:2 and in 6:8, but the procedure is the same.<\/p>\n
he turned it into smoke on the altar\u2014in addition to the burnt offering of the morning The formula \u02bfolat ha-boker, \u201cthe burnt offering of the morning,\u201d occurs several times in the Bible. It occurs in 2 Kings 16:15 as well as in Numbers 28:23 and Ezekiel 46:15. In all instances, \u02bfolat ha-boker refers to the daily burnt offering of the morning. Here such a sense would be problematic because the daily cult was not in force before the rites of investiture and dedication had been performed. Reference to \u201cthe burnt offering of the morning\u201d would be anticipatory.
\nThis difficulty is addressed in the Sifra, which identifies \u201cthe burnt offering of the morning\u201d with the sacrifice just offered by the people on this very occasion, as described in verses 12\u201316. The grain offering specified here would have been made in addition to the special burnt offering, conforming to the common pattern whereby grain offerings accompany burnt offerings. The regimen here would then resemble the rites described in Exodus 40:29f., where both a burnt offering and a grain offering were performed at the dedication of the Tabernacle altar.
\nNevertheless, it would be questionable to adopt a meaning for \u02bfolat ha-boker in this instance that differs from its meaning everywhere else. Critical scholarship raises the possibility that a later editor added this wording on the suggestion of Numbers 28\u201329, or perhaps of Exodus 29:38\u201346, where the daily burnt offerings are specifically ordained. Certainly, the wording here is strange, and traditional attempts to explain its occurrence are less than satisfactory.<\/p>\n
18. He slaughtered the ox and the ram, the people\u2019s sacrifice of well-being Rather, \u201cthe people\u2019s sacred gifts of greeting.\u201d The extent of the sacrifice was greater than usual on this occasion, including both an ox and a ram. The procedures correspond to the provisions of chapter 3 and of 7:11f.<\/p>\n
22. Aaron lifted his bands toward the people and blessed them According to the Sifra, followed by Rashi and some other commentators, the priestly blessing preserved in Numbers 6:22\u201327 was pronounced on this occasion: \u201cThe LORD bless you and keep you.\u2026\u201d Raising the hands was a characteristic gesture of prayer, directed toward God, whereas here Aaron faced the people and raised his hands over them as he blessed them. This represents a variation on the usual significance of the act. In rabbinic Hebrew, this act is called nesi\u02beat kappayim, \u201cthe raising of the palms.\u201d<\/p>\n
and he stepped down The sequence here is unclear. Aaron should first have stepped down and then blessed the people. Sensing this problem, Ibn Ezra took the verb va-yered as a pluperfect:\u201chaving stepped down,\u201d he blessed the people.<\/p>\n
23. Moses and Aaron then went inside the Tent of Meeting It is unclear why Moses and Aaron entered the Tent at this time. The Sifra assumes that it was in order to pray for the anticipated appearance of God\u2019s presence (kavod). Ibn Ezra states that it was in order to pray for the miraculous ignition of the altar fire. The two views are not inconsistent. When God\u2019s presence appeared, a flame came forth from inside the Tent and ignited the altar fire, as we read in the following verse.<\/p>\n
24. Fire came forth from before the LORD The Sifra interprets this as a fire from heaven. Rashbam more accurately identifies it as the fire of God that was inside the Tent, the same fire that would subsequently scald Nadab and Abihu, Aaron\u2019s two sons, when they entered the Tent improperly, according to 10:2. In both verses we have the same formulation: va-tetse\u02be \u02beesh mi-lifnei YHVH, \u201cFire came forth from before the LORD.\u201d God\u2019s fire issued from the kavod, which itself was a fire that was enveloped in a thick cloud and pervaded the Tent. It was a blessing to those who pleased God but destructive to those who angered Him. On this occasion the ignition of the altar fire was cause for rejoicing.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n
Admonitions on Priestly Conduct<\/p>\n
Chapter 10, following the ordination of Aaron and his sons and the appearance of God\u2019s presence (kavod) at the newly consecrated Tabernacle, sets forth various regulations regarding appropriate priestly conduct. To emphasize the necessity of precise compliance with all the ritual laws, this chapter preserves a brief narrative of the untimely death of two of Aaron\u2019s sons, Nadab and Abihu; having made an improper incense offering, they were struck down by God\u2019s fire.
\nLike the story of Korah in Numbers 16\u201317, the story about Nadab and Abihu served as an admonition and as an object lesson. The tragedy of their punishment is echoed in several other Torah passages.
\nThe chapter may be divided into four discernible sections: (1) the death of Nadab and Abihu and its aftermath (vv. 1\u20137); (2) the regulations prohibiting priests from imbibing intoxicants prior to officiating in the cult (vv. 8\u201311); (3) a restatement of the requirement that priests eat their allotted portions from the sacrifices within specified areas (vv. 12\u201315); (4) Moses\u2019 instructions to Aaron and his remaining sons regarding the disposition of the sin offering that had been brought by the people as part of the dedication of the Tabernacle (vv. 16\u201320). Reference is to the sacrifice mentioned in 9:3 and described in 9:15\u201321.
\nChapter 10 seems to bring to a conclusion the account of the traditions regarding the initiation and consecration of the Israelite priesthood that was treated in chapters 8\u201310.<\/p>\n
THE DEATH OF NADAB AND ABIHU: A DRAMATIC PRECEDENT (vv. 1\u20137)<\/p>\n
1. each took his fire pan, put fire in it Rather, \u201cand put coals in it.\u201d Hebrew \u02beesh, \u201cfire,\u201d in fact refers to the embers placed on the fire pans (ma\u1e25tot). In Numbers 17:2, \u02beesh is correctly translated \u201ccoals\u201d and should be so rendered here as well.<\/p>\n
alien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them Hebrew \u02beesh zarah, \u201calien fire,\u201d refers to the incense itself. It could be translated \u201can alien [incense offering by] fire.\u201d The sense of Hebrew zarah, \u201calien,\u201d is elusive, and the \u201cstrangeness\u201d implied has been variously interpreted. The text does not specify the offense committed by the two young priests; it merely states that they brought an offering that had not been specifically ordained. The Sifra speculates that they brought a voluntary offering in celebration of the Tabernacle dedication. Various suggestions in the midrashim produce a composite of several possible offenses. In Leviticus Rabba we read: \u201cBecause of nearness (kirvah)\u2014for they penetrated into the innermost section [of the sanctuary]. Because of \u2018sacrificing\u2019 (krivah)\u2014for they brought an offering they were not enjoined to bring. Because of \u2018alien fire\u2019\u2014they brought coals inside [the sanctuary] which came from an oven (and not from the sacrificial altar).\u201d
\nThe principle of this last interpretation has been adopted by a modern scholar, M. Haran, who suggests that the offense of the two priests lay in using incense brought from outside the sacred area between the altar and the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. It was therefore impure. For the others, the midrashic interpretations play on the verb k-r-v, \u201cto draw near, approach.\u201d reflected in va-yakrivu, \u201cthey brought near, presented,\u201d in verse 1. The first of these interpretations, that the offense consisted of penetrating too far into the sanctuary, is supported by the reference to this episode in 16:1\u20132. There Aaron is warned not to repeat the offense of his two sons by proceeding beyond the curtain (parokhet) in the sanctuary on any occasion other than Yom Kippur\u2014\u201clest he die.\u201d
\nA possible key to the precise nature of the offense lies in the equivalence of two descriptive terms: \u02beesh zarah in our text and ketoret zarah, \u201can alien incense offering,\u201d in Exodus 30:9. If \u02beesh zarah is equivalent to ketoret zarah we may learn from Exodus 30:9 that it was forbidden to offer on the golden incense altar anything other than the daily incense offering. Aaron\u2019s two sons, then, violated the law of Exodus 30:9: Entering the Tent for an improper purpose, they met with death.<\/p>\n
2. And fire came forth from the LORD This refers to the fire mentioned in 9:24, which came forth from inside the Tent of Meeting and consumed the sacrifices offered at the dedication of the Tabernacle, as explained by Rashbam. The phraseology here is similar to that of Numbers 16:35, where it is said that God\u2019s fire consumed Korah and his faction as they stood near the Tent of Meeting to offer incense that had been rejected by God. This suggests a similarity of theme, as well.<\/p>\n
at the instance of the LORD Rather, \u201cbefore the Lord.\u201d This formula identifies the place of death. Verses 4\u20135 state that Aaron\u2019s relatives removed the bodies of Nadab and Abihu \u201caway from the front of the sanctuary,\u201d namely, from the spot where they died. It is logical, therefore, to conclude that verse 2 is also identifying the place of death, rather than informing us who caused their death.<\/p>\n
3. Through those near to Me I show Myself holy The duly consecrated priests are \u201cnear\u201d to God. Thus, we read in Ezekiel 42:13: \u201cThe northern chambers and the southern chambers \u2026 are the consecrated chambers in which the priests who have access to the LORD (\u02beasher kerovim le-YHVH) shall eat the most holy offerings.\u201d Hebrew karov also serves as an official title, designating the courtier who is permitted to approach the king, as in Esther 1:14 or in Ezekiel 23:12, where governors and provincial rulers are called kerovim, members of the official inner circle. The priests enjoy a comparable position in the sanctuary.
\nPriests who adhere to the regulations of their office and protect the purity of the sanctuary sanctify God; and, in turn, the sanctuary is favored by God\u2019s presence. When, as happened in this case, they flout God\u2019s will, He exercises His punitive power, compelling all to recognize His authority.
\nThe two sides of the coin are expressed quite clearly in other passages of the Torah. In 22:31\u201332 we read: \u201cYou shall faithfully observe My commandments: I am the LORD. You shall not profane My holy name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Israelite people.\u2026\u201d In contrast, we read in Numbers 20:12\u201313: \u201cBut the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, \u2018Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.\u2019 Those are the Waters of Meribah\u2014meaning that the Israelites quarrelled with the Lord\u2014through which He affirmed His sanctity.\u201d
\nEither way, God emerges triumphant, for He will not allow His sanctity to be compromised.<\/p>\n
And Aaron was silent Aaron accepted God\u2019s harsh judgment and did not cry out or complain at his painful loss.<\/p>\n
4. sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron Aaron\u2019s cousins, who were the uncles of Nadab and Abihu, had the task of attending to the bodies of the two dead priests.
\nIn ancient Israel, certain funerary functions may have been the traditional responsibility of one\u2019s close relatives. Amos 6:10 mentions that, in the destruction to come, one\u2019s uncle and his \u201cburner\u201d (mesarefo), who may have been one and the same person, would remove from dwellings ravaged by fire the bones of those caught in the devastation. Thus, it may not have been coincidental that the uncles of Nadab and Abihu undertook to remove their bodies.
\nRamban explains that it was necessary for Aaron\u2019s cousins to remove the bodies of the dead priests in this instance because the two remaining sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar, had just been consecrated as priests and could not defile themselves by contact with corpses. Normally, ordinary priests were permitted contact with corpses of close relatives, but not in this case.<\/p>\n
from the front of the sanctuary The sequence of events is difficult to reconstruct. The two priests had entered the Tent of Meeting. They were probably struck down as they were departing, when they were already in the courtyard outside the Tent.<\/p>\n
to a place outside the camp The corpses had to be removed from the camp as was required in the case of any impure object. Relatively little is known of ancient Israelite burial customs, except that impurity resulting from contact with corpses was the most severe kind and a major concern in religious law. The dead were buried away from the settled areas.<\/p>\n
5. by their tunics This significant detail indicates that the bodies of the two priests were not completely consumed by God\u2019s fire. The faces of the priests were probably blasted by the flame, which killed them, but their bodies were not burned fully. The Hebrew verb \u02beakhal usually means \u201cto consume, destroy.\u201d But when it is used to describe the action of fire, it may simply mean \u201cto burn, blaze.\u201d The clothing worn by the priests was intact.<\/p>\n
6. \u201cdo not bare your heads and do not rend your clothes\u201d The sense of the Hebrew verb para\u02bf is \u201cto dishevel\u201d the hair. Such an act of mourning obviously involved baring the head. The verb param, \u201cto rend,\u201d was interpreted in the Talmud as tearing along the seams of one\u2019s garment.<\/p>\n
lest you die This refers to death at the hand of God, as a punishment.<\/p>\n
and anger strike the whole community Ketsef, \u201cwrath,\u201d and the verb katsaf have a particular force in biblical Hebrew, often suggesting a plague sent by God to punish those who have angered Him.
\nAs noted above, the particular circumstances surrounding the death of Nadab and Abihu\u2014occurring at the time of their consecration and purification\u2014prevented, indeed forbade, their father and brothers from mourning for them. Their sanctification took precedence. The rest of the people, however, were to mourn. The Hebrew verb b-kh-h, \u201cto weep,\u201d means \u201cto mourn\u201d in the context of bereavement. The period of mourning was customarily seven days.<\/p>\n
7. And so do not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting Here, as in other references to peta\u1e25 \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d the Tent designates a large area, which included the inner section of the courtyard. It is not that the priests were restricted to the inside of the Tent throughout the period of mourning; they were merely forbidden to leave the sacred precinct of the inner court.<\/p>\n
for the LORD\u2019s anointing oil is upon you The precise intent of this verse is not clear. According to 8:10\u201312 only Aaron was anointed with the special oil. Although he along with his sons had a mixture of the oil and sacrificial blood sprinkled on them (8:30) it is questionable whether that procedure would be referred to as anointment.
\nActually, there are two distinct traditions concerning the anointing of the priesthood. According to chapter 8 and 21:10, the High Priest was distinguished because only he was anointed. But according to 7:35\u201336 and certain other traditions (cf. Exod. 40:15), Aaron\u2019s sons were also anointed. Our passage may reflect this second tradition.<\/p>\n
RULES FOR THE PRIESTHOOD (vv. 8\u201315)<\/p>\n
9. Drink no wine or other intoxicant In biblical Hebrew shekhar does not usually mean \u201cbeer,\u201d as does Akkadian shik\u0101ru, for instance. Hebrew shekhar always occurs together with yayin, \u201cwine,\u201d as is the case here. The reference to shekhar in connection with the Nazirite in Numbers 6:3 makes it clear that beer is not intended because the Nazirite is prohibited only from drinking any grape product. Targum Onkelos translates yayin ve-shekhar as Aramaic \u1e25amar u-meravvei, \u201cwine or intoxicant.\u201d<\/p>\n
10. for you must distinguish Verses 10 and 11 begin with infinitives, literally \u201cto distinguish\u201d and \u201cto teach,\u201d but the force of these infinitives is imperative, as the translation indicates. Intoxicants were forbidden to the priests precisely because imbibing them would impair their faculties and they would not be able to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. This responsibility is emphasized throughout Leviticus and in Ezekiel 44:23 as well. It is likely that, in using this occasion to stress the major roles of the priesthood, the text is linking the restriction on intoxicants to the horrendous deaths of Aaron\u2019s two sons.<\/p>\n
12. Take the meal offering This refers to the grain offering presented by the people as part of the Tabernacle dedication, as stipulated in 9:4, 17.<\/p>\n
and eat it unleavened beside the altar This procedure was ordained in 2:3 and in 6:7\u201311. That is the sense of \u201cfor so I have been commanded\u201d at the end of verse 13 and the formula \u201cas the LORD has commanded\u201d in verse 15. In 6:7 we are told that the priests must eat what is left of the grain offerings brought on behalf of Israelites \u201cin front of the altar\u201d (\u02beel penei ha-mizbea\u1e25). The difference in wording is probably insignificant.<\/p>\n
inasmuch as it is your due On the meaning of the Hebrew term \u1e25ok, see Comment to 6:11.<\/p>\n
14. But the breast of elevation offering Rather, \u201cof the presentation offering.\u201d The regulations governing the priests\u2019 allocation of portions from certain sacrifices are stipulated in 7:11\u201338, especially in 7:30f. The text of chapter 10 thus acknowledges the earlier ritual legislation in Leviticus as the source for what the Lord commands. It records compliance with what had been ordained.<\/p>\n
MOSES MONITORS THE PRIESTS AND THE CULT (vv. 16\u201320)<\/p>\n
16. Then Moses inquired about the goat of sin offering Reference is to the sin offering provided by the people as part of the dedication rites in 9:3, 15. Rabbi Akiba makes this connection in the Sifra: The priests were required to eat certain portions of sin offerings within the sacred precincts, as is stipulated in 6:18, 22.
\nUpon inquiry, Moses learned that on this occasion the priestly portions of the sin offering had been burned on the altar\u2014the priests had not eaten them as they were supposed to. Having disobeyed their instructions, they incurred Moses\u2019 anger. He spoke to Aaron\u2019s sons in deference to Aaron himself.<\/p>\n
17. For it is most holy, and He has given it to you to remove the guilt of the community On one level, the priestly emoluments represent the compensation due the priests for their services in securing expiation, for officiating in the cult, and so forth. There is, however, another dimension: It was the duty of the priests to cat their assigned portions of the \u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201csin offering,\u201d of the people. This \u1e25atta\u02bet was an indispensable component of the expiatory process. As the Sifra puts it: \u201cThe priests eat (of the \u1e25atta\u02bet) and the donors thereby secure expiation.\u201d Therefore, although the blood rites incorporated in the offering of the \u1e25atta\u02bet constituted the primary means of expiation, the sacred meals of the priests were also essential.
\nHebrew lase\u02bet \u02bfavon is ambiguous because the verb nasa\u02be can mean both \u201cto bear, carry\u201d and also \u201cto remove; carry away,\u201d which is the sense here. The priests effectively removed the sins of the people by attending to the sacrifices of expiation. But they were not to be punished for the sins of the community.<\/p>\n
18. Since its blood was not brought inside the sanctuary Reference is to the rule of 6:23: \u201cBut no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary; any such shall be consumed in fire.\u201d Since the blood of the dedicatory sin offering had not been brought inside the sanctuary, the proper portions of the sacrifice were to be eaten by the priests. For a discussion of the various types of sin offerings and the disposition of the blood in each case, see introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135.<\/p>\n
19. they brought their sin offering \u2026 and such things have befallen me Aaron sought to excuse the failure of the priests to eat their portions of the sacrifice by explaining to Moses that his sons thought they should not eat of the sacrifice because they were in mourning. From Deuteronomy 26:14 we may infer that mourners who had just sustained a loss were not allowed to partake of devoted foods. Hebrew ve-\u02beakhalti is to be understood here as a pluperfect, contrary to fact: \u201cHad I eaten.\u201d<\/p>\n
20. And when Moses heard this, he approved The Hebrew idiom \u201cto find favor in the sight of\u201d conveys approval. Moses reassured Aaron that the priestly duties, requiring the priests to partake of the sacrifice, took precedence over personal bereavement. Consequently, as had been stressed in verse 6, the priests were forbidden to mourn.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 11<\/p>\n
The Laws of Kashrut: Proper Foods and Vessels<\/p>\n
Chapter 11 of Leviticus ordains a system of dietary laws that specify what an Israelite may and may not eat as food. All that grows in the soil of the earth may be eaten, but a complex regimen of permitted and forbidden types governs the consumption of air, land, and water creatures. Leviticus 11 is one of two major collections of dietary laws in the Torah, the other being Deuteronomy 14. For a discussion of the meaning of the dietary laws, see Excursus 2.
\nIn enumerating the various types of animals, birds, fish, insects, and reptiles, this chapter, like its counterpart in Deuteronomy, follows well-known ancient Near Eastern traditions. The school texts of ancient Syria and Mesopotamia, used for the training of ancient scribes, include columns that list the names of animals, birds, and other living creatures according to class and species. In several respects, Leviticus 11 goes further than the dietary laws of Deuteronomy 14. First of all, it deals with one of the primary concerns of the priesthood, the impurity that results from physical contact with that which is intrinsically impure. Not only would contact with carcasses of prohibited creatures render an Israelite impure, a principle present in Deuteronomy 14, but such impurity would in turn be transmitted to vessels and foodstuffs. Whereas Deuteronomy 14 merely classifies creatures that are considered impure, Leviticus 11, in addition, legislates the status of humans, vessels, and foodstuffs contaminated by contact with impure creatures.
\nDuring the early rabbinic period, both of these subjects\u2014the dietary laws and the purity of vessels and foodstuffs\u2014developed into major categories of religious law, and they have remained important elements of Jewish religious life ever since. These prescribed patterns of behavior, usually referred to as kashrut, meaning \u201cfitness\u201d (of foods and vessels), are discussed in \u201cLeviticus in the Ongoing Jewish Tradition.\u201d Here emphasis is on the priestly legislation of the biblical period, as seen in its historical context.<\/p>\n
The Dietary Laws:Two Collections (vv. 1\u201323) The dietary restrictions reflect the idea, known the world over, that what one eats is a matter of religious significance. In later Jewish tradition, the impurity resulting from the consumption of forbidden foods became known as tum\u02beat kodesh, \u201cimpurity pertaining to sanctity.\u201d The key word in chapter 11 is tame\u02be, an adjective meaning \u201cimpure\u201d; and the chapter concerns itself with the prevention of impurity and with its elimination, once contracted. No rituals of purification involving water, oil, or blood are prescribed for cleansing a person of impurity that resulted from eating forbidden foods per se. Nevertheless, the physical contact necessarily involved in eating forbidden foods required sacrificing a sin offering, according to the law of 5:2.
\nA comparison of Leviticus 11 with Deuteronomy 14 reveals that the two sources are closely related in form and content. In Leviticus 11, the dietary laws are viewed as part of a larger purity system that is basic to the priestly tradition. A detailed comparison of the two chapters yields the following information:<\/p>\n
THE DIETARY LAWS: TWO COLLECTIONS<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 14
\nLeviticus 11<\/p>\n
1. Permitted land animals
\nA list of ten animals, domesticated and hunted.
\n1. The same two criteria, and the same list of prohibited land animals. (vv. 3\u20138)<\/p>\n
CRITERIA:Fully cleft hoofs and chew their cud<\/p>\n
Prohibited land animals
\nThe camel, hare, daman, and swine. (vv. 3\u20138)<\/p>\n
2. Water creatures
\n2. The same two criteria, stated both positively and negatively. (vv. 9\u201312)<\/p>\n
CRITERIA:Both fins and scales. (vv. 9\u201310)<\/p>\n
3. Birds
\nA list of prohibited birds. No general criteria stated. (vv. 11\u201318)
\n3. Essentially the same list of prohibited birds. No general criteria stated. (vv. 13\u201319)<\/p>\n
4. Winged, swarming creatures
\nA general statement prohibiting all creatures of this type. (vv. 19\u201320)
\n4. The same general statement. However, four types of permitted locusts are listed.
\nCRITERION:Jointed legs. (vv. 20\u201323)<\/p>\n
5. Prohibited
\nEating the dead body of any animal. (v. 21)
\n5. This prohibition is not explicitly stated, but it may be inferred from other provisions of the law.<\/p>\n
6. Prohibited
\nSeething a kid in its mother\u2019s milk. (v. 21)
\n6. No such prohibition is stated.<\/p>\n
7 Not specifically stated.
\n7. Prohibited
\nConsumption or tactile contact with the dead bodies of land and amphibious creatures. Eight creatures are listed, including several types of lizards. (vv. 29\u201331)<\/p>\n
8. Not specifically stated.
\n8. Prohibited
\n(a) All creatures that walk on their bellies; (b) all four-legged creatures that walk on paws; (c) all many-legged creatures. (vv. 41\u201343)<\/p>\n
With respect to land animals, birds, and fish, the two sources have essentially the same provisions. Chapter 11 introduces specific provisions in two categories: (1) land and amphibious swarming creatures, known collectively as sherets, and (2) reptiles and animals having many legs.<\/p>\n
Impurity (vv. 24\u201340,) Leviticus 11 also deals with the subject of the impurities that result from various kinds of contact with the dead bodies of prohibited creatures. This subject first appears in verses 24\u201328, where such contact renders an Israelite impure until evening. Similarly, carrying any part of such dead creatures renders one impure until evening and requires the laundering of one\u2019s clothing. Verses 29\u201339 deal with the impurity resulting from contact with the dead bodies of eight specified swarming creatures (sherets). This impurity is of even greater consequence, as not only are humans rendered impure but also functional vessels and their edible contents. The differing effects of water, as set forth in chapter 11, are particularly important. Water purifies impure persons and vessels, and the water of cisterns and springs is not inherently susceptible to contamination by swarming creatures. At the same time, because water conditions the seeds used for planting, it renders them susceptible to contamination. Therefore, seed that has been dampened with water and that subsequently comes in contact with the dead body of any prohibited swarming creature is then considered impure. If, on the other hand, no water has dampened the seed in the first place, it is not subject to contamination and remains pure in the event of such contact.
\nLeviticus 11:39\u201340 prohibits contact with the corpse (nevelah) of a pure animal, that is, one permitted as food if properly slaughtered; such contact renders an Israelite impure. One who eats any part of it is impure and must launder his clothing. As in the case of prohibited foodstuffs, the above impurities require the person affected to offer a sacrifice in expiation, according to the laws of 5:2. Verses 41\u201344 contain general admonitions that reinforce the impurity associated with swarming creatures. The chapter concludes with an exhortation to observe the laws of purity, a prerequisite to becoming a holy people. In practical terms, an Israelite or priest who was in the state of impurity was prevented from entering or approaching the sanctuary\u2014which, in turn, protected the sanctuary. Obviously, priests, who frequented the sanctuary, were more likely to defile it. Nevertheless the laws of chapter 11 are addressed to all Israelites, since impurity anywhere in the settlement had the effect of provoking God\u2019s wrath and at least indirectly threatening the purity of the sanctuary.
\nBoth Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 are concerned with the category of tame\u02be, \u201cimpure.\u201d Deuteronomy uses the term to\u02bfevah, \u201cabomination,\u201d in characterizing violations of purity, whereas Leviticus employs the synonymous term shekets.<\/p>\n
PERMITTED AND FORBIDDEN FOOD SOURCES (vv. 1\u201323)<\/p>\n
LAND ANIMALS (vv. 2\u20138)<\/p>\n
2. These are the creatures that you may eat The Hebrew terms \u1e25ayyah, \u201ccreature,\u201d and behemah, \u201canimal,\u201d have varying connotations. Here \u1e25ayyah is a generic term meaning \u201cliving creature,\u201d whereas behemah is defined as that \u201cwhich inhabits the land\u201d (\u02beasher \u02bfal ha-\u02bearets). This definition is corroborated by the contrasting category \u201call that live in the water\u201d in verse 9.<\/p>\n
3. any animal that has true hoofs Our chapter does not list the ten permitted land animals as does Deuteronomy 14:4. Only the general rule is stated here, as in Deuteronomy 14:6. There is no reason, however, to doubt that both sources permit the same land animals as food.
\nHebrew mafreset parsah means literally \u201cthat grows hoofs,\u201d just as in the continuation of the verse ve-shosa\u02bfat shesa\u02bf means literally \u201cthat cleaves a cleavage,\u201d the verb shasa\u02bf meaning \u201cto split, cut through.\u201d Grammarians refer to this syntax as the cognate accusative since both the verbal form and its object derive from the same root. Deuteronomy 14:6 is more explicit: ve-shosa\u02bfat shesa\u02bf shetei perasot, \u201cand exhibits the cleavage of two hoofs.\u201d To qualify as pure, an animal\u2019s hoofs must be split all the way through, producing two toes, of a sort, so that the animal in question does not walk on paws, called kappayim in verse 27 below.
\nHebrew me\u02bfaleh gerah means literally \u201cwhich brings up the cud.\u201d Rashi explains this as follows: \u201cThe animal brings up and regurgitates its food from its intestines back into its mouth, to fragmentize and grind it.\u201d This describes a class of animal known as ruminants, those whose stomach has four compartments. The Hebrew word gerah, \u201ccud,\u201d derives from the verb garar, \u201cto pull, drag along,\u201d and it may be related to the word garon, \u201cthroat.\u201d<\/p>\n
4. The following \u2026 you shall not eat The list of four unclean land animals consists of what may be called borderline cases, animals that exhibit one but not both of the required physical criteria. The likelihood of mistaking such animals for pure animals was greater.<\/p>\n
the camel The camel (an English word that derives from the common Semitic word gamal) does not have fully cleft hoofs. Its hoof is split in its upper part, but bound together in its lower part.<\/p>\n
it is unclean for you Hebrew tame\u02be is better translated \u201cimpure\u201d because at issue is not a notion of hygienic cleanliness, as we know it, but of purity as a ritual condition.<\/p>\n
5. the daman Hebrew shafan designates the Syrian hyrax, a small mammal. It does not actually chew its cud, but gives that impression because it has protrusions in its stomach, which suggest that its stomach might have compartments, as is characteristic of the ruminants.<\/p>\n
6. the hare Hebrew \u02bearnevet, \u201chare,\u201d is actually a rodent. It is not a ruminant but gives the impression of being one because it munches its food so noticeably.<\/p>\n
7. the swine Hebrew \u1e25azzir, \u201cpig, swine,\u201d was widely domesticated in ancient Canaan and even raised for food. No distinction is made here between the wild and the domesticated species of the swine. It is the only domesticated animal used as food in biblical times that has a truly split hoof but does not chew its cud.
\nThe verbal form written yiggar is probably to be vocalized yagor, \u201cbrings up,\u201d from the root garar. The clause ve-gerah-yiggar (that is, yagor) is an alternate way of stating ma\u02bfaleh gerah, \u201cbrings up the cud,\u201d as in verse 3 above.<\/p>\n
8. You shall not eat of their flesh or touch their carcasses The term nevelah is ambiguous because it can designate the carcass of an animal or human being and because it does not indicate the cause of death\u2014whether by natural means or by being killed or slaughtered in some way. However, in some contexts it refers specifically to animals that died a natural death.
\nHere the sense is general: Not only is one prohibited from eating the meat of forbidden animals but also from touching or handling any part of their bodies, as would normally occur in preparing meat as food. This rule was undoubtedly intended as a safeguard against possible consumption of meat from such prohibited animals. In Leviticus 17:15 and Deuteronomy 14:21 we find the prohibition against eating the flesh of any animal that died or was torn by beasts.<\/p>\n
WATER CREATURES (vv. 9\u201312)<\/p>\n
9. that has fins and scales Hebrew senappir is a word of uncertain origin occurring only here and in Deuteronomy 14:9\u201310. It may be cognate with Akkadian sappartu, \u201ca horny protrusion.\u201d Hebrew kaskeset is translated by Targum Onkelos as kelifan, \u201cpeels,\u201d and probably refers to the soft scales of the fish.<\/p>\n
10. among all the swarming things of the water The Hebrew verb sharats, cognate with Akkadian shar\u0101tsu, means \u201cto come to life, crawl, swarm.\u201d All those water creatures that do not swim by the usual means of fins but, instead, crawl are considered impure. In the later tradition it was explained that fish were considered pure if they had fins and scales at any time, even if they shed them at some point in their life cycle, or only developed them in the course of their growth.<\/p>\n
they are an abomination for you Hebrew shekets is cognate with the Akkadian verb shaq\u0101tsu, \u201cto be of bad appearance\u201d\u2014hence \u201cdetestable.\u201d Here again, as in verse 8 above, the prohibition affects both eating and touching.<\/p>\n
CREATURES OF THE SKY (vv. 13\u201317)<\/p>\n
13. The following you shall abominate among the birds There are no overall physical criteria by which to distinguish pure birds from impure birds. Rather, a long list of prohibited birds is provided, the assumption being that all others would be permitted. Determining which birds are permitted has been in some cases a matter of custom and has resulted in persistent discrepancies among various communities in the course of Jewish history. Based on information provided in the Hebrew Bible, especially from religious law, we know that all permitted birds fall into the following classes: (1) Columbiformes: various types of doves and pigeons; (2) Galliformes: hens and quail (selav), gathered as food in the Sinai desert as told in the narratives of Exodus 16:13 and Numbers 11:31\u201332; (3) Anseriformes: domestic geese and ducks; and (4) Passerines: specifically the house sparrow (deror).
\nThe list of prohibited birds given here is virtually identical with that of Deuteronomy 14. It does not correspond exactly to zoological classifications and even includes the bat (\u02bfatallef), which is technically a winged rodent, not a bird. The impure birds are virtually all birds of prey. They include the following: (1) Four types of falcons: ta\u1e25mas, \u201cfalcon\u201d; nets, \u201csparrow hawk\u201d; da\u02beah (dayyah in Deut. 14:13), \u201ckite\u201d; and \u02beayyah, \u201cbuzzard.\u201d These eat living flesh and carrion. (2) Four types of vultures or eagles: nesher, \u201ceagle, griffin, vulture\u201d; \u02bfozniyyah, \u201cblack vulture\u201d; ra\u1e25am, \u201cEgyptian vulture\u201d; peres, \u201cbearded vulture.\u201d These eat carrion. (3) Six types of owls: yanshuf, \u201clong-eared owl\u201d; bat ya\u02bfanah, \u201cdark, desert eagle owl\u201d; tinshemet, \u201cbarn, screech owl\u201d; kos, \u201clittle owl\u201d; ka\u02beat, \u201cSaharan owl\u201d; and shalakh, \u201cfish owl, ostrich.\u201d These are nocturnal birds of prey. (4) The raven, \u02bforev. Ravens eat living flesh and carrion. Several types of ravens were known in biblical lands. (5) Marsh, or sea birds: \u1e25asidah, \u201cstork\u201d; \u02beanafah, \u201cheron\u201d; and sha\u1e25af, \u201csea gull.\u201d
\nThere is some uncertainty about nomenclature, which is why the renderings given here differ in some cases from those provided in the translation. The general classifications, however, are fairly clear.<\/p>\n
WINGED INSECTS (vv. 20\u201323)<\/p>\n
20. All winged swarming things The section on winged insects (vv. 20\u201323) provides a classic instance of what students of literature call inclusio. The section begins in verse 20 with a general statement, which is repeated with only slight variations in verse 23. Both statements are prohibitive, whereas the intervening two verses (21\u201322) state exceptions to the overall prohibition. The expression \u201cwinged swarming things\u201d (sherets ha\u02bfof) is a roundabout way of describing insects.<\/p>\n
21. But these you may eat \u2026 all that have, above their feet, jointed legs to leap with on the ground The Hebrew is to be read \u02beasher lo (\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d5), \u201cwhich has,\u201d not \u02beasher lo\u02be (\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d0), \u201cwhich is not,\u201d as the Masoretic text is written. There are other similar cases in the Hebrew Bible, some already noted by ancient and medieval scribes, of the confusion of these two short homophones. Hebrew kera\u02bfayim, \u201cjointed legs,\u201d is a term for the hind legs, or hocks, of animals. Hebrew nitter, \u201cto leap,\u201d is unique in biblical Hebrew and is translated on the basis of the context.
\nFour types of locusts, each in turn comprising several varieties, are permitted: (1) \u02bearbeh, a general term for locust, as in Joel 2:25; (2) sol\u02bfam, grasshopper; (3) \u1e25argol, cricket, grasshopper; and (4) \u1e25agav, bald locust, grasshopper.<\/p>\n
23. But all other winged swarming things The types of locusts listed above are permitted but all others (ve-khol) are forbidden. Even today, grasshoppers are part of the diet in some countries.<\/p>\n
THE CONDUCTIVITY OF IMPURITY (vv. 24\u201340)<\/p>\n
This part of chapter 11 deals with impurity resulting from several kinds of contact\u2014such as touching, carrying, containing\u2014that render persons, vessels, and foodstuffs impure in varying degrees. Verses 24\u201328 establish the principle that mere contact with the carcasses of impure creatures causes impurity, even without consumption of them. Verses 29\u201338 introduce a new category of impure creatures: reptiles, whose impurity is even more consequential than that of land, water, and sky creatures. Verses 39\u201340 deal with the impurity resulting from contact with the carcasses of pure land animals.<\/p>\n
24. And the following shall make you unclean Hebrew u-le-\u02beelleh, \u201cand to these,\u201d refers to what follows. Again we have an inclusio: Verses 24\u201325 are virtually repeated in verses 27b\u201328; what intervenes here in verses 26\u201327a does not state the exceptions but, rather, details the rule.<\/p>\n
27. Also all animals that walk on paws \u2026 whoever touches their carcasses Hebrew kaf here refers to paws, as distinct from toes or from completely split hoofs. Tactile contact with the carcass of an impure creature serves to render only the person involved impure, whereas carrying something impure results in the contamination of one\u2019s clothing as well.<\/p>\n
29. The following shall be unclean for you Eight types of swarming land creatures are listed, including four types of lizards: \u1e25oled, \u201cmole\u201d; \u02bfakhbar, \u201cmouse\u201d; tsav, \u201cgreat lizard\u201d; \u02beanakah, \u201cgecko\u201d; koa\u1e25, \u201cland crocodile, monitor\u201d; leta\u02beah, \u201clizard\u201d; \u1e25omet, \u201csand lizard\u201d; and tinshemet, \u201cchameleon.\u201d The name of this last reptile is identical with that of the barn, screech owl, listed in verse 18. Both are so called for the sounds they make, despite their differing natures.<\/p>\n
31. whoever touches them when they are dead This anticipates the references to nevelah, \u201ccarcass,\u201d as an alternative way of describing a dead creature in verses 35\u201340.<\/p>\n
32. And anything on which one of them falls when dead Beginning in this verse, and continuing through verse 38, we have the biblical basis of what later was to become an elaborate system of purity in Judaism (affecting vessels and foodstuffs) to which an entire tractate of the Mishnah, Kelim, is devoted.
\nThe clause \u02beasher yippol \u02bfalav, \u201cthat falls upon it,\u201d is to be contrasted with what is stated in verse 33: \u02beasher yippol mehem \u02beel tokho, \u201cinto which one of them falls.\u201d Under priestly law, vessels made of wood, leather, and certain types of cloth become impure by means of exterior contact alone, whereas ceramic vessels (with the exception of stoves and ovens) become impure only if the contaminating substance enters their interior space. This is explained in Mishnah Kelim 2:1. For this reason, ceramic vessels could be protected from impurity by having a lid fastened on them, according to the law of Numbers 19:15, explained in Mishnah Kelim 10:1.<\/p>\n
Be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack Rather, \u201cBut if any vessel of wood, of cloth, or of skin, or of sackcloth.\u201d In a legal text such as this, a technical translation is preferable, and this verse is speaking specifically of a vessel (keli). In the later tradition, keli is defined as a functional object \u02beasher ye\u02bfaseh mela\u02bekhah bahem, \u201cwith which a task can be performed,\u201d as our verse explains; and as that which has interior space, a \u201creceptacle,\u201d beit kibbul, in rabbinic terminology. Verse 32, referring to vessels made of such materials as cloth, wood, or leather, indicates that such vessels may be cleansed in water and that they remain impure only until evening.
\nHebrew beged is defined as something woven of cloth, and sak, as something made of goat\u2019s hair or the hair of a similar animal. That such vessels of cloth, leather, and goat\u2019s hair can be purified in water may also be learned from Numbers 31:20, which deals with the purification of spoils of war: \u201cYou shall also purify everything woven of cloth, every vessel of leather, everything made of goat\u2019s hair, and every vessel of wood.\u201d It is implicit that food contained in such contaminated vessels is also impure.<\/p>\n
33. And if any of those falls into an earthen vessel A ceramic vessel does not become impure until the dead swarming creatures enter inside it; should this happen, there is no remedy but to smash the vessel.<\/p>\n
34. As to any food that may be eaten Solid food that has been dampened by water and then comes into contact with dead swarming creatures becomes impure because water is a conductor of impurity. Similarly, liquids inside contaminated vessels become impure.<\/p>\n
35. Everything on which the carcass of any of them falls This statement, which refers directly to verse 32 above, in effect restates the general rule governing forbidden swarming creatures and then applies it to stoves and ovens. Like vessels of wood, cloth, leather, and animal hair, and in contradistinction to ceramic vessels generally, ovens and stoves become contaminated as soon as dead swarming creatures fall onto them, a condition for which there is no remedy. Impure stoves and ovens must be smashed.
\nThe word tanur is defined as a large, covered ceramic oven, whereas kirayim designates a grate or stove top in which fire is kindled and upon which two pots could be placed for cooking. Often such appliances were installed in the floor of a room, set in a corner flush with the walls. It was probably thought that the intense heat generated in stoves and ovens made the ceramic material more susceptible to impurity than was the case with ceramic storage vessels.
\nFrom Numbers 31:22 we learn that metal vessels may be purified in fire. Stone vessels are not susceptible to impurity in any case.<\/p>\n
36. However, a spring or cistern in which water is collected shall be clean The Hebrew adverb \u02beakh, \u201chowever,\u201d draws a contrast: Whereas water generally renders foodstuffs susceptible to impurity, this is true only of water \u201cplaced in them,\u201d that is, water emitting from a vessel that is detached from the earth. By contrast, neither rainwater in a cistern nor natural bodies of water transmit impurity. Hebrew bor is a technical term for a \u201ccistern\u201d in which rainwater is collected from the surrounding area. The Hebrew term mikveh ha-mayim designates natural bodies of water, as is evident from Genesis 1:10: \u201cAnd the gathering of waters (mikveh ha-mayim) He called seas.\u201d<\/p>\n
38. But if water is put on the seed Water conditions seed, rendering it susceptible to impurity. The verbal form yutttan actually represents the fairly rare internal Kal passive, but its true morphology was probably not recognized. More precisely, the form is yutan. Dampened seed\u2014but not dry seed\u2014becomes impure if the dead body of a forbidden swarming creature falls onto it. It is not entirely clear why the impurity associated with the sherets, \u201cswarming creature,\u201d discussed in verses 29\u201337 is more severe in its effects than that associated with the dead bodies of other creatures.<\/p>\n
39. If an animal that you may eat has died Physical contact with the nevelah, \u201ccarcass,\u201d even of a permitted animal, renders a person impure until evening.<\/p>\n
40. anyone who eats of its carcass \u2026 and anyone who carries its carcass This statement reiterates the prohibition, encountered earlier in verse 8, against eating meat of any animal, even a permitted one, that has died a natural death. Similarly, carrying the carcass or any part of it produces impurity. In both cases the person involved must launder his clothes.<\/p>\n
41. All things that swarm upon the earth are an abomination Verses 41\u201344 express the concept of shekets, \u201cabomination.\u201d They repeat the definition of forbidden swarming creatures and warn Israelites against becoming contaminated by the impurity of these creatures. The key verb in these verses is shikkets, \u201cto make abominable, declare abominable.\u201d The Israelites must regard the sherets as abominable, lest they themselves become abominable, which is to say, impure.<\/p>\n
44. you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy This statement is explained in the Comment to 19:2, where it introduces the theme of Israel\u2019s imperative to become a holy nation.<\/p>\n
POSTSCRIPT (vv. 46\u201347)<\/p>\n
46. These are the instructions This is a fairly typical postscript, which often appears at the conclusion of a major code of law.<\/p>\n
47. for distinguishing between \u2026 the living things that may be eaten A similar admonition occurs in 20:25. The purpose of the code of law promulgated in chapter 11 is to enable the Israelites to distinguish (lehavdil) between the permitted and forbidden foodstuffs under priestly instruction.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 12<\/p>\n
Regulations Concerning the New Mother<\/p>\n
Tazria\u02bf<\/p>\n
Chapter 12 defines the ritual status of an Israelite mother after childbirth. Whereas her child is born pure, she is considered to be impure for varying periods of time depending on the sex of the child\u2014seven days for a son, fourteen days for a daughter. The text is not explicit about the precise nature of the impurity sustained by a new mother during this initial period, although her impurity is compared with that of a menstruating woman. It is to be assumed that she was not permitted to have marital relations with her husband and that her impure condition would cause defilement through certain types of contact.
\nSubsequent to the initial seven days of impurity, there was an additional period of thirty-three days after the birth of a son and sixty-six days after the birth of a daughter during which the new mother awaited her final purification. Although she could engage in marital relations, she was barred from entry into the sanctuary and from contact with \u201csacred things,\u201d pending her final purification by rites of expiation. At the conclusion of this extended time period, the new mother was required to present a sin offering (\u1e25atta\u02bet), accompanied by a burnt offering, to signify the elimination of all impurity. The priest performed these rites of expiation on the woman\u2019s behalf, and she was declared pure again.
\nThe legislation of chapter 12 is of additional interest because in verse 3 it also includes the requirement that a male child be circumcised on the eighth day after birth.<\/p>\n
2. When a woman at childbirth bears a male Rather, \u201cwhen a woman is inseminated and bears a male.\u201d The formulation \u02beishah ki tazria\u02bf ve-yaledah is ambiguous. The translation takes the form of the verb tazria\u02bf as causative, \u201cto bear seed.\u201d This is its sense in Genesis 1:11\u201312: \u02bfesev mazria\u02bf zero\u02bf literally \u201cplants that bear seed.\u201d On this basis, our verse describes a unitary event: childbirth. An alternative would be to understand the verb tazria\u02bf as describing conception before childbirth, much in the same way as the commonplace idiom \u201cshe conceived and bore\u201d conveys the two sequential stages of the process. Since in Numbers 5:28 the passive ve-nizr\u02bf ah zera\u02bf means \u201cshe is able to retain seed,\u201d the form tazria\u02bf should also be understood as referring to conception. The Hifil form of the verb often connotes physical conditions and is not consistently causative. It is worth noting that the Samaritan version reads t-z-r-\u02bf instead of t-z-r-y-\u02bf, the Masoretic version. This suggests that the Samaritan version understood a Nifal form here: tizzara\u02bf, literally \u201cShe shall be inseminated.\u201d In fact, the Torah recitation of the Samaritans, as recorded phonetically by Z. Ben-Hayyim, has tizzara\u02bf. This information would seem to endorse the interpretation proposed here.<\/p>\n
she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity The implication is that not only the duration but the actual nature of the impurity resembles that of a menstruating woman. As Hoffmann notes, it is as though the text read ke-vi-ymei, \u201cas in the days of.\u2026\u201d This is more clearly expressed in verse 5, literally, \u201cShe shall be unclean two weeks in a manner like her menstruation (keniddatah).\u201d
\nThe impurity of the menstruating woman is defined in 15:19\u201324, where the term niddah, \u201cmenstruation,\u201d is explained. A menstruating woman was impure primarily with respect to marital relations, though there were certain additional restrictions.
\nHebrew devotah, \u201cher infirmity,\u201d derives from the root davah, \u201cto be ill, weak.\u201d In 15:33, the menstruating woman is called davah, \u201cinfirm.\u201d<\/p>\n
3. On the eighth day the flesh of bis foreskin shall be circumcised The Hebrew verb yimmol is passive (Nifal), from the root m-w-l, \u201cto cut off.\u201d It is used only with respect to the foreskin (\u02bforlah) or its metaphorical expressions. The essential law of circumcision is stated in Genesis 17:10\u201314, within the context of the covenant between God and Abraham. The practice of circumcision was extant in other ancient cultures, but it assumed a new significance in Israelite religion.
\nThere is undoubtedly a correlation between the eight-day period between birth and circumcision and the duration of the initial period of the mother\u2019s impurity after giving birth to a male child, as Hoffmann states.<\/p>\n
4. remain The verb yashav, \u201cto sit, dwell,\u201d can also mean \u201cto await, remain inactive,\u201d as it does here.<\/p>\n
blood purification The meaning of this translation for Hebrew demei toharah is not clear. Perhaps a more literal rendering is preferable: \u201cpure blood.\u201d The sense of the statement is that discharges of blood that occur after the initial period of impurity are unlike menstrual blood and are not regarded as being impure.<\/p>\n
she shall not touch any consecrated thing The rabbinic sages debated the meaning of kodesh, \u201cconsecrated thing.\u201d A broad definition would include within this category such items as terumah, the allocations to the priests. According to that definition the wife of a priest who had just given birth would be prohibited from partaking of these foodstuffs.<\/p>\n
until her period of purification is completed Rather, \u201cuntil her period of purity is completed.\u201d The noun tohar, \u201cpurity,\u201d is masculine. For this reason the Masorctes inserted a dot (mappik) in the final heh, producing tohar-ah, \u201cher purity.\u201d It is not the purification that lasts so long but, more precisely, the time required until the woman is declared pure again.
\nThe status of a new mother during this extended period of time was complex. On the one hand, she was no longer impure because of discharges. On the other hand, she was still barred from entry into the sanctuary and from contact with consecrated things. The rabbinic sages compared her status to that of a person impure for a day. Until sunset, rites of purification could not be undertaken; and yet such a person was on his way to final purification, and only time separated him from it. Similarly, the new mother had to wait until a specific period of time had elapsed before she could be declared pure, a period referred to as yama\u02be \u02bearikha\u02be, \u201can extended day.\u201d Rashi comments that her sun would set, so to speak, only after thirty-three or sixty-six days, as the case may be.<\/p>\n
5. If she bears a female The time periods are doubled for a female, but the provisions are the same. See Excursus 3 for more on the sex differentiation and on the impurity of the new mother.<\/p>\n
6. On the completion of her period of purification Rather, \u201cof her period of purity.\u201d After the termination of the second period (during which the new mother was essentially pure for private purposes) rites are performed so as to readmit her into the sanctuary and into the religious life of the community.<\/p>\n
she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting As prescribed in 17:3f., all sacrifices are to be offered at one cult site, the Tent of Meeting, on the altar of burnt offerings.<\/p>\n
a lamb \u2026 for a burnt offering On the manner of presenting a burnt offering (\u02bfolah) see chapter 1. The requirement of two offerings, the burnt offering and the sin offering (\u1e25atta\u02bet), requires clarification. The type of \u1e25atta\u02bet offered by individual Israelites, as in this case, served a dual function. It propitiated God and also compensated the priesthood for its indispensable services in securing expiation. This is why the priests partake of sections of the \u1e25atta\u02bet sacrifice.<\/p>\n
a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering The translation \u201csin offering\u201d for Hebrew \u1e25atta\u02bet is acceptable if understood properly, as it is in our verse. Ancient man seldom distinguished between \u201csin\u201d and \u201cimpurity.\u201d In man\u2019s relation to God, all sinfulness produced impurity. All impurity, however contracted, could lead to sinfulness if not attended to, and failure to deal properly with impurity aroused God\u2019s anger. The point is that the requirement to present a sin offering does not necessarily presume any offense on the part of the person so obligated. This offering was often needed solely to remove impurity. Childbirth, for example, was not sinful\u2014it involved no violation of law\u2014yet a sin offering was required.
\nThe sequence and combination of the two offerings also requires comment. The same rites are required in purification after certain diseases and for the Nazirite. The \u1e25atta\u02bet, in removing the impurity, restored to the person the right of access to the sanctuary; and the \u02bfolah that followed immediately upon it symbolized this renewed acceptability. It served as an invocation to God, the first act of worship after being restored to purity. God\u2019s acceptance of the \u02bfolah signaled the readmission of the individual into the religious life of the community.<\/p>\n
7. and make expiation on her behalf For the meaning of this formulation, see Comment to 4:20.<\/p>\n
from her flow of blood See Comment to 20:18. Hebrew makor is a synonym of ma\u02bfayan, \u201cspring\u201d (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Hos. 13:15), and can refer to a source of liquid flowing from the body, for instance, tears, as in Jeremiah 8:23: \u201cOh, that my head were water, My eyes a fount of tears (mekor dim\u02bfah).\u201d<\/p>\n
8. If, however, her means do not suffice The provision for a reduction in the cost of the sacrifice is standard for a number of required purifications and religious obligations. Insistence on the full sacrifice would have deprived poor Israelites of expiation when impurity was incurred through no fault of their own.<\/p>\n
THE PURIFICATION OF SKIN DISEASES (13:1\u201314:57)<\/p>\n
Chapters 13\u201314 prescribe the role of the Israelite priesthood in diagnosing and purifying persons afflicted with a skin disease known as tsara\u02bfat. This disease also contaminated fabrics and leather as well as plastered or mud-covered building stones. The identification of biblical tsara\u02bfat with \u201cleprosy\u201d is unlikely, if by \u201cleprosy\u201d is meant Hansen\u2019s disease; for the symptomatology provided in chapter 13 does not conform to the nature or course of that disease. Undoubtedly, a complex of various ailments was designated by the term tsara\u02bfat.
\nChapters 13\u201314 may be outlined as follows: (1) acute and transient tsara\u02bfat in humans (13:1\u201346); (2) acute and transient tsara\u02bfat in fabrics and leather (13:47\u201359); (3) purification rites for a person who has healed after transient tsara\u02bfat (14:1\u201332); (4) tsara\u02bfat in plastered or mud-covered building stones (14:33\u201353); and (5) a postscript to chapters 13\u201314 (14:54\u201357).
\nThe legislation of chapters 13\u201314 highlights one of the lesser-understood functions of the Israelite priesthood, whose role went beyond officiating in the cult and attending to the administration of the sanctuary. In 14:11 we read of ha-koben ha-metahher, \u201cthe purificatory priest,\u201d who regularly dealt with visible, usually contagious illnesses. He combined medical and ritual procedures in safeguarding the purity of the sanctuary and of the Israelite community, which was threatened by the incidence of disease. He instructed the populace and was responsible for enforcing the prescribed procedures.
\nIn the laws of chapters 13\u201314, acute diseases are subsumed under the category of impurity (tum\u02beah). The afflicted person was treated as an impure substance would be and was quarantined until such time as it could be ascertained, on the basis of observable symptoms, whether the ailment was acute or transient. If it was not acute, the sufferer could be pronounced pure (\u1e6dabor) after a given period and be readmitted to the area of settlement. If, however, the symptoms indicated acute tsara\u02bfat (tsara\u02bfat mam\u02beeret), there was no cure, and the sufferer was banished from the settlement for as long as the disease persisted: in many cases, for life.
\nGenerally speaking, all disease was regarded as a punishment from God for some wrongdoing. In the case of tsara\u02bfat specifically, there was a tradition that it represented a punishment from God for acts of malice such as Miriam\u2019s malicious criticism of Moses, reported in Numbers 12:1\u20133. Precisely why skin diseases were singled out in the priestly codes is not certain. Tsara\u02bfat was undoubtedly quite prevalent in biblical Israel, and there are also the factors of its visibility and its presumed contagion.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 13<\/p>\n
THE SYMPTOMATOLOGY (vv. 1\u20138)<\/p>\n
The initial problem faced by the priest was to determine whether the sufferer had acute tsara\u02bfat or some less acute ailment with which it might be confused, but which would heal. If the initial examination did not immediately reveal symptoms of acute tsara\u02bfat, the person was held for further observation for two successive periods of seven days. The text describes the symptoms and prescribes the procedure to be followed. Acute tsara\u02bfat is indicated by a whitish discoloration of the body hair in the infected areas of the skin and by lesions that appear to be recessed or lower than the surrounding skin. If, after seven days, the lesions do not become enlarged, and if, within fourteen days, the hair in the infected areas reverts to a more normal, darker color, a determination may be made that the infection is not acute tsara\u02bfat. Otherwise, further quarantine is imposed; if the rash continues to spread, the person is considered to have acute tsara\u02bfat and is declared impure indefinitely.<\/p>\n
2. When a person has on the skin of his body In this verse we find most of the recurring technical terms for the infections referred to in chapters 13\u201314, and it would be helpful to define these terms here.
\n(1) Se\u02beet, translated \u201cswelling.\u201d A more precise rendering is \u201clocal inflammation, boil, mole.\u201d This is a generic classification for diverse local inflammations or protrusions, which may assume any one of several forms. In 13:28, Hebrew se\u02beet ha-mikhvah, \u201cthe se\u02beet of the burn,\u201d is synonymous with tsarevet ha-mikhvah, \u201cthe scab, scar of the burn.\u201d So, se\u02beet and tsarevet both designate similar protrusions.
\n(2) Sapa\u1e25at or mispa\u1e25at, translated \u201crash.\u201d Literally, sapa\u1e25at characterizes the ailment as \u201cgrowing\u201d out of the skin, that is, \u201cbreaking out.\u201d This term is not the name of a specific disease of the skin but, rather, identifies a symptomatology in the same way that \u201crash\u201d does in English.
\n(3) Bakeret, translated \u201cdiscoloration,\u201d but more literally \u201cwhite, shiny spot.\u201d It may designate a disease known as vitiligo, a whitish ailment of the skin called bohak in 13:39. Hebrew baheret derives from the adjective bahir, \u201cshiny,\u201d just as bohak derives from a verb meaning \u201cto shine.\u201d
\n(4) Nega\u02bf, translated \u201caffection.\u201d This is the generic term for plague and for various sorts of diseases. Literally, it means \u201ctouch\u201d and reflects the widespread, ancient belief that gods afflicted persons by their touch. The biblical example closest to expressing this belief occurs in the story of Jacob\u2019s contact with the angel of God. The angel \u201ctouched\u201d Jacob\u2019s hip, which caused Jacob to limp (Gen. 32:26, 32f.). The \u201ctouch\u201d of divine beings thus became a general term for affliction, and it expressed the belief that one suffered disease as a punishment from God.
\n(5) Tsara\u02bfat, translated \u201cscaly affection.\u201d This rendering of tsara\u02bfat is based on the given symptomatology. The etymology is uncertain.<\/p>\n
it shall be reported to Aaron the priest Alternatively, \u201cHe shall be brought to the priest.\u201d The point is that the afflicted person must be brought before the priest. The antecedent of the verb ve-huva\u02be, \u201che shall be brought,\u201d is \u02beadam, \u201ca person.\u201d This interpretation correlates with verse 6: ve-nir\u02be ah shenit \u02beel ha-kohen, \u201che shall appear a second time before the priest.\u201d<\/p>\n
3. If hair in the affected patch has turned white Hebrew hafakh lavan, \u201chas turned white,\u201d is the opposite of kehah, \u201chas faded,\u201d in verse 6. Usually Hebrew hafakh means \u201cto cause a change, overturn, reverse,\u201d and Ibn Ezra observes that its stative usage here is unusual. In verses 16 and 25 we find the usual passive form of the verb: ve-nehefkhah le-lavan, literally \u201cit turned into white.\u201d<\/p>\n
appears to be deeper than the skin The meaning of Hebrew \u02bfamok, \u201cdeep,\u201d is explained by verse 20 and by 14:37, where this symptom is characterized as shafal min ha-\u02bfor, \u201clower than the skin.\u201d<\/p>\n
When the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him unclean In these codes Hebrew timme\u02be means \u201cto declare, pronounce impure,\u201d just as, in verses 6, 13, and 17, tihher means \u201cto declare pure, purified.\u201d Literally, the object of the verb is the disease, not the person, but here and in some following verses we find instances of metonymy, a literary device whereby, in this instance, the disease is interchangeable with its victim. In referring to the disease, the text also refers to the person.<\/p>\n
4. the priest shall isolate the affected person More precisely, Hebrew ve-hisgir means \u201che shall confine, lock up.\u201d Rashi notes that a special house was used for this purpose. The incident of Miriam\u2019s affliction with tsara\u02bfat, as recounted in Numbers 12:14\u201315, informs us that the place of quarantine was outside the camp. This is only to be expected, since the afflicted person may have been impure. Here again we have an instance of metonymy. Literally the text states that the disease is quarantined, meaning, actually, the diseased individual.<\/p>\n
5. and if the affection has remained unchanged in color Hebrew \u02bfamad be-\u02bfeinav literally means \u201cit retained its appearance.\u201d The alternative way of stating this condition is ve-\u02beim ta\u1e25teiha ta\u02bfamod, \u201cand if it remains in its place,\u201d as in verse 23.
\nOur verse is somewhat redundant, reading literally \u201c\u2026 and if the affection remains unchanged in appearance, and has not become enlarged.\u201d The statement as a whole pertains to both size and shape.<\/p>\n
and the disease has not spread on the skin The Hebrew verb pasah more precisely means \u201cto increase\u201d\u2014in size or in number. This symptom describes the enlargement of localized lesions, whereas \u201cspreading\u201d over the body is conveyed by the verb para\u1e25, \u201cto break out,\u201d as in verse 12.<\/p>\n
6. if the affection has faded Hebrew kehah is the third person masculine perfect form of the verb \u201chas faded.\u201d<\/p>\n
he shall wash his clothes Laundering one\u2019s garments was a procedure frequently used in purification rites.<\/p>\n
7. and been pronounced clean Literally, Hebrew le-tohorato means \u201cfor pronouncing him pure.\u201d<\/p>\n
be shall present himself again to the priest Hebrew shenit can mean \u201cagain,\u201d not only \u201cfor a second time.\u201d<\/p>\n
8. it is leprosy That is to say, it is acute tsara\u02bfat.<\/p>\n
CHRONIC AILMENTS (vv. 9\u201317)<\/p>\n
If a person with an \u201cold\u201d ailment, or what we would call a chronic condition, is brought to the priest, a different set of diagnostic criteria is applied. Exposed (\u201craw\u201d) flesh in an infected area indicates that the old ailment never healed properly. If, however, the exposed flesh is subsequently covered by new skin (referred to by the text as \u201cturning completely white\u201d), this indicates that the chronic tsara\u02bfat has healed.<\/p>\n
9. When a person has a scaly affection That is to say, when a person shows the priest an old ailment of the skin that may represent the recurrence of chronic tsara\u02bfat.<\/p>\n
10. a white swelling which has turned some has white Rather, \u201ca white inflammation, in which the hair has turned white.\u201d The antecedent of hafekhah lavan, \u201chas turned white,\u201d is se\u02beet, \u201cinflammation.\u201d The verb is stative, not transitive, or active, just as in verse 3.<\/p>\n
with a patch of undiscolored flesh Rather, \u201cof exposed flesh.\u201d This approximates the translation \u201cquick raw flesh,\u201d noted previously. The present translation could confuse the symptomatology, both here and in verses 13\u201316. The point is that when healing occurs, white, normal skin grows over the infected area, as indicated in verse 13. But, as verse 14 promptly informs us, the recurrence of infection is indicated by the reappearance of \u201craw\u201d flesh. This interpretation is virtually confirmed by verse 24, where mi\u1e25yat ha-mikhvah clearly means \u201cthe exposed flesh of the burn,\u201d and mi\u1e25yah derives from the same verbal root as \u1e25ai in verse 10.<\/p>\n
11. it is chronic leprosy Hebrew noshenet means \u201cold, prior.\u201d In this case, there is no need for a period of quarantine because it is determined at the outset that acute tsara\u02bfat has recurred.<\/p>\n
12. If the eruption spreads out over the skin Hebrew p-r-\u1e25 means \u201cto blossom. \u201cCompare Exodus 9:9: she\u1e25in porea\u1e25 \u02beaba\u02bfbu\u02bfot, \u201cdermatitis breaking out into boils.\u201d<\/p>\n
so that it covers all the skin of the affected person Literally, \u201call the skin of the infection.\u201d This is another instance of metonymy.
\nThe idiom \u201cfrom head to foot,\u201d suggested here, is proverbial. In Isaiah 1:6 we read \u201cfrom head to foot, no spot is sound.\u201d An identical expression occurs frequently in Akkadian medical texts: i\u0161tu qaqq\u0101di\u0161u adi \u0161\u0113p\u0113\u0161u, \u201cfrom his head to his feet.\u201d<\/p>\n
wherever the priest can see Rather, \u201cafter the priest\u2019s complete examination.\u201d The sense is temporal, not spatial.<\/p>\n
13. for he has turned all white Exposed, or \u201craw,\u201d flesh is a reddish color, not white, like normal skin. This, then, is the criterion: Skin turned white is new skin that has grown over the \u201craw\u201d area.<\/p>\n
14. But as soon us undiscolored flesh appears on it Rather, \u201cas soon as exposed flesh reappears on it.\u201d Exposed flesh, if it persists or recurs, is symptomatic of chronic tsara\u02bfat. It means that the old infection has not been covered by new skin and will not heal properly.<\/p>\n
16. But if the undiscolored flesh again turns white Rather, \u201cBut if the exposed flesh recedes and resumes its whiteness.\u201d On the sense of Hebrew yashuv, \u201crecedes,\u201d see 2 Kings 20:9: \u201cShall the shadow advance ten steps or recede ten steps?\u201d The meaning here is that new (\u201cwhite\u201d) skin has grown over the infected, exposed flesh.<\/p>\n
TSARA\u02bfAT AS A COMPLICATION (vv. 18\u201346)<\/p>\n
This section of the code deals with tsara\u02bfat as a complication arising out of other conditions, that is, as a secondary development. These symptoms are (1) she\u1e25in, a term characterizing a number of conditions similar to dermatitis (vv. 18\u201323); (2) a burn that became infected (vv. 24\u201328); (3) diseases of the hair (vv. 29\u201337); (4) a skin condition identified as vitiligo (vv. 38\u201339); and (5) ailments of the scalp and forehead (vv. 40\u201346).<\/p>\n
18. When an inflammation appears on the skin of one\u2019s body and it heals Rather, \u201cWhen a dermatitis infection had occurred on one\u2019s skin but had healed.\u201d The primary condition, dermatitis (she\u1e25in), had healed, but a secondary infection had developed in the same area.<\/p>\n
19. streaked with red The reduplicative form \u02beadamdam is diminutive: hence \u201creddish, pink,\u201d or the like. Similar forms recur in verses 23, 43, 49, and elsewhere.<\/p>\n
20. If the priest finds The symptomatology here is essentially the same as that applicable to the diagnosis of an initial condition of tsara\u02bfat, in verses 1\u20138. This prescription employs the adjective shafal, \u201clow, deep,\u201d instead of \u02bfamok, \u201cdeep,\u201d as in verse 3.<\/p>\n
22. If it should spread in the skin Rather, \u201cIf it should become enlarged on the skin.\u201d<\/p>\n
23. it is the scar of the inflammation On the meaning of Hebrew tsarevet, see Comment to verse 2.<\/p>\n
24. When the skin of one\u2019s body sustains a burn by fire Hebrew mikhvah, \u201cburn,\u201d is derived from the same root as keviyah, \u201ca burn,\u201d in Exodus 21:25.<\/p>\n
and the patch from the burn is a discoloration Rather, \u201cand the exposed skin of the burn is a pink or white shiny spot.\u201d See Comment to verse 2.<\/p>\n
29. If a man or woman has an affection on the head or in the beard According to dermatologists, the hair, which is rooted in layers of the skin, is directly affected by such conditions as acne, which disturb the hair follicles.<\/p>\n
30. and there is thin yellow hair in it The symptomatology is generally similar to that of skin ailments, except that yellow, not white hair, is the discoloration to be watched for. Mishnah Nega\u02bfim 10:1 explains that the adjective dak indicates that the growth of the hair was stunted, that the hair was shorter than usual.<\/p>\n
it is a scall As the name of a particular disease, Hebrew netek, \u201cscall,\u201d occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. Technically, it refers to the condition of the hair follicles, not of the skin. It describes the follicles of hair as being \u201ctorn\u201d from the scalp after \u201csplitting.\u201d This occurs in certain skin ailments.
\nThe noun netek derives from a verb that means \u201cto tear apart\u201d and is used, curiously enough, with reference to string, or stringy substances, similar to the hair follicles. Thus we read in Judges 16:9: \u201cas a strand of tow comes apart (yinnatek).\u201d Also, compare Ecclesiastes 4:12: \u201ca threefold cord is not readily broken (yinnatek).\u201d Some have identified the ailment called netek as acne vulgaris.<\/p>\n
31. yet there is no black hair in it This verse appears to be problematic. As it stands, it does not represent the exact reverse of verse 30, which sets forth two criteria: recessed lesions and yellowish hair in the infected areas. The reverse symptoms would be no recessed lesions and no yellow hair. Verse 31, however, states: no recessed lesions and no black hair. Some modern scholars assume a scribal error and read tsahov, \u201cyellow,\u201d instead of sha\u1e25or, \u201cblack, dark,\u201d in verse 31. The Septuagint deletes one of the negatives in the verse, leaving only one relevant symptom\u2014the recessed lesions.
\nThese changes do not reflect a correct understanding of the verse. This passage is describing the progressive stages of a complication whose treatment differs somewhat from acute tsara\u02bfat because of the background condition involved. Verse 30 stipulates that if both positive symptoms appear, acute tsara\u02bfat is indicated. Verse 31 states that if only one symptom occurs\u2014the absence of black, normal hair, which is equivalent to the presence of yellow infected hair\u2014quarantine is imposed because a final determination cannot yet be made. (Recessed lesions alone are also not sufficient to indicate acute tsara\u02bfat.) At a later stage, dark hair might still grow back and the lesions remain unenlarged, a situation described in verse 37.<\/p>\n
32. On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection Three conditions must obtain for a declaration of purity at this stage: no yellow hair, no enlargement of the lesions, and no recessed lesions. To allow for clearer observation, the hair is shaved around the infected areas, leaving the infected areas themselves unshaven.<\/p>\n
36. If the scall has spread on the skin Any enlargement of the lesions after fourteen days is sufficient to warrant a diagnosis of acute tsara\u02bfat. The priest need look no further for yellow hair. Hebrew yevakker means \u201cto attend, examine.\u201d<\/p>\n
37. But if the scall has remained unchanged If normal-colored hair grows back in the infected area and there has been no subsequent enlargement of the lesions, the netek infection has healed.<\/p>\n
38. the skin of the body streaked with white discolorations This brief section (vv. 38\u201339) deals with an ailment known as bohak, \u201cbrightness,\u201d which has been identified by some medical authorities as vitiligo. It is a rash that is not acute.<\/p>\n
40. If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald This section (vv. 40\u201344) deals with cases where a person had already become bald prior to the outbreak of the ailment in question. The terms of reference here are interesting. Hebrew yimmaret means \u201cto be rubbed, scratched\u201d\u2014so that the hair is plucked out. The Akkadian cognate mara\u1e6du is frequently used with this meaning in medical texts. Whereas Hebrew kara\u1e25at designates the bald area at the top and back part of the head, Hebrew gaba\u1e25at refers to the front part of the head and the forehead. In verse 41, gaba\u1e25at is synonymous with pe\u02beat panav, \u201chis temples, forehead.\u201d According to 2 Chronicles 26:19, tsara\u02bfat shone on the forehead of an afflicted king. This is the very condition described in our code.<\/p>\n
43. The priest shall examine him If the inflamed infection is whitish on the bald pate or on the forehead, the person is suffering from acute tsara\u02bfat. Hebrew tsaru\u02bfa means \u201cone suffering from tsara\u02bfat.\u201d An alternative form is metsora\u02bf, as in verse 42.<\/p>\n
44. he has the affection on his head Hebrew be-ro\u02besh nig\u02bfo, literally \u201cat the head of his infection,\u201d represents transposition, or reverse order. The correct sense is be-nega\u02bf ro\u02besho, \u201con account of the infection on his head.\u201d<\/p>\n
45. As for the person with a leprous affection Verses 45\u201346 prescribe what is to be done with one whose ailments have not healed, namely, one who suffers from the acute condition stipulated in verse 8. Up to this point, the code has set forth procedures prerequisite to a declaration of purity. Here, by contrast, is the treatment for one who is finally declared tame\u02be, \u201cimpure,\u201d due to acute tsara\u02bfat of any of the varieties discussed in verses 1\u201344.<\/p>\n
his clothes shall be rent Hebrew parum, \u201ctorn,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 10:6.<\/p>\n
his head shall be left bare Baring the head so that the hair hung loose was a customary way of shaming a person, as was covering the upper lip. A wife suspected of adultery had her head bared (Num. 5:18), and the prophet Micah (3:7) states: \u201cThe seers shall be shamed and the diviners unfounded; They shall cover their upper lips.\u201d Here, although no comparable disgrace was involved, these symbols could serve as a means of keeping others distant from the diseased person.<\/p>\n
and he shall call out, \u201cUnclean!\u201d The sufferer must warn all who approach that he is impure. Compare Isaiah 52:11: \u201cTurn, turn away, touch naught unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n
46. as long as the disease is on him The Hebrew reads kol yemei \u02beasher, \u201call the days while.\u2026\u201d The upshot of this provision is that an individual suffering from acute tsara\u02bfat may be permanently banished; in 2 Kings 15:5 a Judean king afflicted with acute tsara\u02bfat remained all his life in a place called beit ha-\u1e25ofshit, \u201cthe house of quarantine.\u201d<\/p>\n
TSARA\u02bfAT IN FABRICS AND LEATHER (vv. 47\u201359)<\/p>\n
This section deals with tsara\u02bfat-type infections that damage fabrics and worked leather. These phenomena had the same appearance as those that attacked humans and it was probably believed that they were dangerous. Some have suggested that they were perhaps fungoid or sporoid infections. The same would be true of the mold that attacked plastered or mud-covered building stones, the subject of 14:33f. The terminology and procedures concerning fabrics and leather were deliberately modeled on the code for human diseases, even to the point of referring to the inner and outer surfaces of fabrics and leather as kara\u1e25at and gaba\u1e25at, \u201cthe back and the front\u201d of the bald head!
\nThe procedures themselves are fairly simple. On the basis of a seven-day period of observation, the priest determines whether or not the infection is tsara\u02bfat mam\u02beeret, \u201cacute, malignant tsara\u02bfat\u201d (vv. 51\u201352). In such a case, the item must be entirely burned. If it is determined that the infected, discolored areas have not become enlarged, the item is laundered and held for an additional period of observation, after which it is laundered again. If, then, the infected areas still remain, even though not enlarged, the infection is diagnosed as pe\u1e25etet, a form of acute tsara\u02bfat. In such a case, the fabric or leather must be entirely burned. Throughout the course of this procedure, every effort is made to save as much as possible of the materials by cutting away only the infected areas in the hope of containing the spread of the infection. However, the item as a whole can only be declared pure if the infection finally remits or disappears entirely.<\/p>\n
47. in a cloth of wool or linen fabric Wool and linen were the two fibers from which most cloth was woven in biblical times. The two, wool and linen, were not woven into the same fabric.<\/p>\n
48. in the warp or in the woof Hebrew sheti designates the vertical, drawn threads on the loom, whereas \u02bferev designates those threads that are woven in by means of the shuttle, the horizontal action.<\/p>\n
or in anything made of skin Hebrew mele\u02bekhet \u02bfor means \u201cworked leather.\u201d Compare verse 51: limla\u02bekhah, \u201cfor working.\u201d<\/p>\n
51. the affection is a malignant eruption Hebrew mam\u02beeret means \u201cdestructive, pricking.\u201d Compare sillon mam\u02beir, \u201ca prickly brier,\u201d in Ezekiel 28:24.<\/p>\n
55. it is a fret, whether on its inner side or its outer side Hebrew pe\u1e25etet, translated \u201cfret,\u201d derives from the verb pa\u1e25at, \u201cto dig out, furrow.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, it occurs only here, but the verb is common in Late Hebrew and in Aramaic. Reference to the bodily areas, kara\u1e25at (\u201cbald head\u201d) and gaba\u1e25at (\u201cbald forehead\u201d), to describe surfaces of fabric and leather shows that the symptomatology is modeled directly on the symptoms of human disease.<\/p>\n
56. after it has been washed Hebrew hukkabbes is a rare form of the verb, although its meaning is clear.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 14<\/p>\n
Metsora\u02bf<\/p>\n
Chapter 14 is a continuation of the laws of chapter 13. Its contents may be divided into two main sections: (1) purification rites for a person declared impure under the provisions of 13:8\u201346 (vv. 1\u201332) (a person declared pure after seven, or even fourteen, days required no such elaborate rites and had only to launder his clothing, as prescribed in 13:6); and (2) tsara\u02bfat in plastered or mud-covered building stones (vv. 32\u201353). Verses 54\u201357 are a postscript to chapters 13\u201314.<\/p>\n
PURIFICATION RITES FOR INDIVIDUALS (vv. 1\u201332)<\/p>\n
The rites ordained for the purification of a person who had suffered from tsara\u02bfat are among the most elaborate in the priestly laws. They demonstrate how seriously the infections referred to as tsara\u02bfat were taken in biblical Israel; and they combine cultic procedures in the sanctuary area with those to be performed outside the camp.
\nThe priest began by visiting the person whose condition had apparently healed in order to ascertain that this had actually occurred. There he prepared two live birds, a cedar stick, a hyssop branch, and a piece of crimson cloth\u2014the same materials that, according to Numbers 19:6f., were employed in the purification of an Israelite who came into contact with a corpse.
\nOne of the birds was to be slaughtered over running spring water, so that whatever blood was not caught up in an earthen vessel employed for this purpose would run down into the earth. The second bird, cedar stick, hyssop branch, and crimson cloth were dipped in the blood that had been collected in the earthen vessel. The live bird was set free to carry away the evil of the disease into the open field. Some of the blood of the slaughtered bird was then sprinkled seven times on the person being purified, who had to launder his clothing, shave off all his hair, and bathe.
\nThe individual was then permitted to reenter the camp, although he had to remain outside his own house for seven more days, after which he would, once again, shave off all his hair, including his beard and eyebrows, launder his clothing, and bathe. He was then purified of the disease and ready to commence the sacrificial rites of the eighth day, to be performed at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Those rites closely parallel the purification of the priests at the time of their investiture, as set forth in chapter 8. In both instances the use of blood and oil is specified, and in both some of the extremities of the body are singled out for special purification.
\nThree animals were utilized in the rites of the eighth day: two male sheep and one ewe. One of the sheep served as a guilt offering (\u02beasham), and the other as a burnt offering (\u02bfolah); the ewe served as a sin offering (\u1e25atta\u02bet). A log of oil and a grain offering were employed as accompaniment to some of the sacrifices. The \u02beasham sacrifice and the oil were offered together in the manner of a presentation (tenufah).
\nSome of the blood from the \u02beasham sacrifice was applied to the extremities of the person being purified\u2014on the ridge of his right ear, on his right thumb, and on his right metatarsal toe. Then the priest poured oil on his own left palm and, with his right forefinger, sprinkled some of the oil seven times in the direction of the Tent of Meeting. Oil was applied to the extremities of the person being purified, over the blood of the \u02beasham, at the same places. The remainder of the oil was poured on the individual\u2019s head.
\nFinally, the sin offering and the burnt offering were performed in the usual manner on behalf of the person being purified, accompanied by the grain offering. Those unable to afford the full regimen of animal sacrifices were allowed to substitute two doves or two young pigeons for the ewe and the male sheep of the sin offering and the burnt offering, respectively. The sheep of the \u02beasham could not be substituted, however, for it was essential for purification.<\/p>\n
2. This shall be the ritual for a leper The term torah, \u201critual,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 6:2. In that sense, the torah served as a manual of procedure for the priests, who administered the purification rites.<\/p>\n
When it had been reported to the priest Rather, \u201cHe shall be brought to the priest.\u201d
\nAs in 13:2, the afflicted person must be examined by the priest. In this case the priest went out of the camp to the afflicted person who, having been declared impure, could not enter the camp. Nevertheless, the formulation of 13:2 is repeated here, although the circumstances are somewhat different.<\/p>\n
4. the priest shall order two live clean birds The birds must be physically sound and of a pure species. The impure species of birds are listed in 11:13\u201320 and in Deuteronomy 14:11\u201319. Rabbinic traditions specify certain birds for these rites. The Sifra, in the name of Rabbi Ishmael, identifies the bird as deror, \u201cwhich lives [as freely] in a house as it does in the open field.\u201d As its name conveys, it is a bird that, once set free, will not return.<\/p>\n
cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop Hyssop (\u02beezov) is associated with purification: \u201cPurge me with hyssop till I am pure,\u201d says the psalmist (51:9). Hyssop was also employed in the purification of a person contaminated by contact with a corpse, according to Numbers 19:6.
\nHebrew sheni tola \u02bfat literally means \u201cthe scarlet of the worm.\u201d (The reverse, tola\u02bfat shani, also occurs.) More precisely, reference is to an insect that lives in the leaves of palm trees and from whose eggs the crimson dye is extracted. Hebrew shani designates the scarlet color. It does not inform us which kind of cloth is to be used, but the tradition is that it was wool.<\/p>\n
5. over fresh water in an earthen vessel Whatever blood of the slaughtered bird was not collected in the vessel would flow down into the earth. Hebrew mayim \u1e25ayim means \u201cliving water,\u201d namely, water that flows continually, like that of springs, and is not stagnant.<\/p>\n
6. together with the live bird Here the preposition \u02bfal does not mean \u201con, upon, over\u201d but, rather, \u201ctogether with, near.\u201d This is often its precise meaning in the formulation of the ritual texts.<\/p>\n
7. on him who is to be cleansed The verbal form mittahher is reflexive (Hitpael), \u201cone who purifies himself, who undergoes purification.\u201d<\/p>\n
and he shall set the live bird free The Piel form ve-shilla\u1e25 means \u201cto drive off, dispatch,\u201d hence \u201cto set free.\u201d The Kal stem of the same verb merely means \u201cto send.\u201d<\/p>\n
in the open country Hebrew \u02bfal penei ha-sadeh contrasts elsewhere with the town or the settled area. In verse 53 below, this is actually stated: \u201c\u2026 he shall set the live bird free outside the city, in the open country.\u201d There reference is to the purification of a stone dwelling, and the setting is necessarily within a town.<\/p>\n
9. of head, beard, and eyebrows It was normally forbidden to shave the beard or the sidelocks of the head, as we read in 19:27. These purification rites are exceptional, however. Hebrew gabbot, \u201c[eye] brows,\u201d literally means \u201crims, what is above, over.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
10. three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering As explained in the Comment to 2:1f., \u201cgrain offering\u201d is a more precise translation of Hebrew min\u1e25ah, and Hebrew solet is better rendered \u201csemolina flour.\u201d Three-tenths is the total amount required, so that each head of small cattle would be accompanied by one-tenth of an \u02beefah, the usual amount. Hebrew log was a liquid measure of volume that consisted of approximately three-tenths of a liter.<\/p>\n
11. These shall be presented The person undergoing purification is stationed near the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, together with the material assembled for use in his purification.<\/p>\n
by the priest who performs the cleansing Hebrew ha-kohen ha-metahher may have a more technical sense: \u201cthe purificatory priest.\u201d Quite probably, there was specialization of priestly functions, so that certain priests were specifically trained for such purifications and were routinely assigned to administer them. This was so in Egypt and Mesopotamia.<\/p>\n
12. as a guilt offering The essential character and function of the guilt offering (\u02beasham) are discussed in the introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135. It is not clear just why this type of sacrifice was required in the purification of one afflicted with tsara\u02bfat, since the usual purpose of an \u02beasham was to expiate an offense that caused a loss to the sanctuary or to another person as a result of a false oath. In the case of one who suffered from tsara\u02bfat, what loss had occurred? The traditional answer is that the sufferer must have committed some offense, such as maligning others, that made an \u02beasham appropriate. From the context, however, it is more likely that the \u02beasham served as a sacrifice of purification. It provided sacrificial blood for sprinkling on the extremities of the individual being purified; blood from the burnt offering and the sin offering could not be applied to the body of a human being.<\/p>\n
and he shall elevate them as an elevation offering This manner of sacrifice, called tenufah, is described in the Comment to 7:30.<\/p>\n
13. at the spot in the sacred area In 1:11 it is specified that the burnt offering is presented on the north side of the altar; according to 6:18 and 7:2 the same is true of the sin offering and the guilt offering.<\/p>\n
For the guilt offering \u2026 it is most holy This restates the rule of 7:7. Those sacrifices considered \u201cmost holy,\u201d in contrast to those regarded as \u201cof lesser sanctity,\u201d are listed in the Comment to 2:3.<\/p>\n
14. on the ridge of the right ear Compare the procedures in 8:23\u201324 for the purification of Aaron and his sons on the occasion of their investiture as priests. The person being purified was treated literally from head to foot. The term tenukh, \u201cridge\u201d of the ear, and bohen, \u201cbig toe,\u201d are known to us only from priestly texts, such as 8:23\u201324 and Exodus 29:20, which describe the installation of the Aaronide priesthood. These texts are, thus, very important sources for our knowledge of ancient anatomical terms.<\/p>\n
18. Thus the priest shall make expiation The above rites were essential to securing expiation, or purification. On the sense of the verb kipper, \u201cto make expiation,\u201d see Comment to 4:21. The verb is repeated in verses 19\u201320 because the sin offering and the burnt offering were also part of the overall purification. The sin offering served to put the individual in good standing with God, and the burnt offering symbolized his renewed acceptability as a worshiper\u2014that is, with God\u2019s acceptance of the burnt offering, the individual was fully reinstated.<\/p>\n
21. If, however, he is poor Verses 21\u201332 repeat the rites prescribed in verses 1\u201320, except that birds are substituted for animals in the burnt offering and the sin offering. This system allowed persons unable to afford several animals at one time to substitute less expensive animals; it enabled those rendered impure through no fault of their own to be reinstated as worshipers in good standing. The formulation of this allowance is explained in the Comments to 5:11\u201313. Such reductions are provided for the new mother in 12:8 and for expiating sins of omission in 5:11\u201313. Votive payments may also be reduced in this way, according to the provisions of chapter 27. The \u02beasham sacrifice, however, could not be substituted.<\/p>\n
32. Such is the ritual for him who has a scaly affection The syntax of the Hebrew is unusual: zo\u02bet torat \u02beasher bo, literally \u201cThis is the ritual for one in whom there is\u201d a scaly affection.<\/p>\n
TSARA\u02bfAT IN BUILDING STONES (vv. 33\u201353)<\/p>\n
This section deals with some sort of mold, blight, or rot, perhaps of a fungoid character, which produced recessed lesions and discoloration in the plaster or mud used to cover building stones. The symptoms resembled tsara\u02bfat in humans and were similar to conditions affecting leather and fabric. The condition was considered to be something like a plague and was thought to be contagious and dangerous.
\nA homeowner had to report the condition to the priest, who immediately ordered the house to be cleaned of its contents. He then inspected the interior of the house: If he detected greenish or reddish lesions on the plastered facing of any of the stones, he imposed a quarantine on the house for seven days. At the end of that period, he returned to inspect the house a second time. If the infected areas had become enlarged, he then ordered the infected stones to be dislodged and taken outside the camp. The rest of the stones of the house were scraped on the interior side, and the mud or plaster was removed from the camp. New stones were installed, and the entire interior of the house plastered anew.
\nNow if, after all these precautions had been taken, the plague persisted in breaking out, the condition was declared to be acute tsara\u02bfat; the house had to be leveled, and all its stones, its wood, and its mud, removed outside the city. Retroactively, in such a case, all who had entered the house during its period of quarantine, or who had lain down inside it, or partaken of food inside it were to launder their clothing.
\nIf, on the other hand, the priest observed no enlargement of the infected areas after the proper measures had been taken, he could pronounce the house pure. In that event, rites of purification were necessary. These rites largely conformed to the procedures performed for a person whose acute tsara\u02bfat had healed, as set forth in 14:1\u20137. The slaughtering of a bird, the freeing of a bird, and the use of a cedar stick, and hyssop, and crimson cloth paralleled what was done to purify a human being. The shaving of hair in humans is even paralleled by the scraping of the mud from the building stones! The only difference between the rites for a person and those for a house was that, instead of applying blood and oil to the house, blood and \u201cliving water\u201d were used in a combined ritual.<\/p>\n
34. the land \u2026 that I give you as a possession The Hebrew term \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201cpossession, land holding,\u201d is central to the theory of land tenure in the Book of Leviticus. Chapter 25 sets forth the rights and duties of the owner of an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah.<\/p>\n
and I inflict an eruptive plague upon a house It is God who inflicts the plague as a punishment. The term nega\u02bf, \u201cplague,\u201d literally \u201ctouch,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 13:2.<\/p>\n
35. \u201cSomething like a plague has appeared upon my house.\u201d The appearance of what the owner observed reminded him of a disease of the skin.<\/p>\n
36. The priest shall order the bouse cleared Once the priest arrives and quarantines the house, everything inside it becomes impure as well\u2014at the very least, those vessels whose form and function make them susceptible to contamination.<\/p>\n
37. to consist of greenish or reddish streaks that appear to go deep into the wall More precisely, \u201c\u2026 lesions that appear to be recessed within the surface of the wall.\u201d Hebrew sheka\u02bfarurot, \u201cstreaks\u201d or \u201clesions,\u201d is most likely derived from the verb shaka\u02bf, \u201cto sink, recede,\u201d as Targum Onkelos indicates by his Aramaic rendering pe\u1e25atin, \u201cfurrows.\u201d Targum Jonathan translates meshak\u02bfan, \u201crecessed, sunk,\u201d taking the Hebrew word as an adjective derived from shaka\u02bf, This is also the view of the Sifra: \u201ctheir appearance is recessed.\u201d Others have derived Hebrew sheka\u02bfarurot from a presumed verb ka\u02bfar, \u201cto dig out a bowl\u201d (cf. Heb. ke\u02bfarah, \u201cbowl\u201d). We have information on the magical treatment of similar fungoid conditions in Mesopotamian texts.<\/p>\n
38. close up the house A diseased person is closed up in a house. Here, the house itself is \u201clocked up\u201d in order to keep people out. The use of the Hifil form hisgir to connote closure is purposely suggestive of the parallelism of the procedures for both humans and houses.<\/p>\n
39. If he sees that the plague has spread As indicated in the Comment to 13:5, the sense of Hebrew pasah is \u201cto become enlarged.\u201d If the lesions became enlarged, it is likely that the blight, or fungus, had penetrated to the stones themselves.<\/p>\n
40. to be pulled out Alternatively, \u201cto be pushed out, dislodged.\u201d The Hebrew verb \u1e25alats is cognate with Akkadian \u1e2bal\u0101\u1e63u, \u201cto press, squeeze out.\u201d As a practical consideration, it is likely that the infected stones were pushed out from the interior of the house.<\/p>\n
41. The house shall be scraped \u2026 the coating \u2026 shall be dumped The Hebrew verb katsa\u02bf, meaning \u201cto chisel, cut,\u201d is cognate with Aramaic ka\u1e6da\u02bf and is used in connection with the work of a sculptor or craftsman. The second part of the verse uses the verb ve-hiktsu, which is of similar meaning. The purpose of scraping the mud coating off of the interior facing of the rest of the stones was to ascertain whether the infection had penetrated beneath the coating into the stones themselves.<\/p>\n
42. and replace those stones with them The Hebrew is stated in an unusual manner: \u201cThey shall insert in place of those stones.\u201d<\/p>\n
and take other coating and plaster the house As in the previous verses, Hebrew \u02bfafar literally means \u201cdirt, mud.\u201d Hebrew ve-ta\u1e25u, \u201cthey shall plaster,\u201d indicates that the laws are speaking of streaks or lesions that first appeared on the plaster or mud that covered the stones. These latter could be retained if the blight had not penetrated to them.<\/p>\n
43. after the stones have been \u2026 replastered The verbal form hittoa\u1e25 is the infinitive absolute of the Nifal stem \u201cto be plastered.\u201d<\/p>\n
44. it is a malignant eruption Hebrew tsara\u02bfat mam\u02beeret, \u201cmalignant, acute tsara\u02bfat,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 13:51.<\/p>\n
45. The house shall be torn down The Hebrew verb natats, \u201cto tear down,\u201d has a specialized meaning in the Hebrew Bible, being reserved for the utter destruction, or razing, of buildings and artifacts.<\/p>\n
46. Whoever enters the house The provisions of verses 46\u201347 resemble those of Numbers 19:14f. They pertain to the communication of an impurity present in a closed structure (a \u201ctent\u201d) to those who are inside the structure while it is impure. In Numbers the presence of a corpse makes the impurity much more severe than it is in the present case, but the dynamics of communicating impurity are the same in both instances.<\/p>\n
49. To purge the house The verb used here is \u1e25itte\u02be, \u201cto remove the sin, impurity.\u201d The Piel stem may often connote the elimination of what the Kal, or simple stem, connotes in the first place. This verb is almost synonymous with kipper, used in verse 53, except that in this sense it always involves actual physical contact with the object to be purified, and it is never used with regard to the purification of a human being.
\nThe procedures for purifying the house that has \u201chealed,\u201d so to speak, are almost identical to those prescribed in verses 1\u201332 for purifying a diseased person. A bird is slaughtered and a live bird is set free; cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson cloth, too, are utilized. The only difference is that instead of oil and blood, water and blood are sprinkled on the house.<\/p>\n
53. outside the city in the open country See Comment to verse 6.<\/p>\n
Thus he shall make expiation for the house, and it shall be clean See the same formulation in verse 20 in the purification of humans. Also see Comment to verse 18.<\/p>\n
54. Such is the ritual Verses 54\u201357 are a postscript to the entire contents of chapters 13\u201314. Often the Hebrew formula zo\u02bet ha-torah serves to introduce a manual of practice, as in verse 2. Here it serves as a concluding statement, summarizing the subject matter of the two chapters in the order of its presentation: humans, leather and fabrics, and stone houses.<\/p>\n
57. when they are unclean and when they are clean The Hebrew be-yom ha-tame\u02be u-ve-yom ha-tahor is literally \u201cat the time of the impure and at the time of the pure.\u201d On the basis of the usual syntax, one could read here, without altering the consonants of the Masoretic text, as follows: be-yom hittame\u02be u-ve-yom hittahher, \u201cwhen they become impure, and when they become pure.\u201d The sense is clear, nonetheless. The principal task of the purificatory priest is to monitor diseases.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 15<\/p>\n
Discharges from Sexual Organs<\/p>\n
Chapter 15 sets forth the procedures required when an Israelite male or female experiences discharges from the sexual organs. Most of the chapter deals with discharges that are the result of illness or infection, not to be confused with the normal menstruation of the female or the seminal emissions of the male. Evidently, the purpose of chapter 15 is to distinguish among physical phenomena that share some of the same symptoms but that are understood differently in terms of their physical and religious significance.
\nIn chapter 15 we observe, perhaps more clearly than elsewhere in Leviticus, the virtual interchangeability of two conditions: illness and impurity. The laws here may refer to illness simply as impurity and to the termination of illness and the regaining of health as the resumption of purity. By classifying illness and disease as forms of impurity, the Israelite priesthood placed them in the realm of religious concern. It was probably thought that impurity was contagious or, to put it another way, that the effects of abnormal discharges\u2014and, to a lesser degree, of normal emissions and menstruation\u2014were contagious. Impure persons were prohibited from entering the sanctuary. In stark contrast, it must be remembered that in all other ancient Near Eastern religions everything that pertained to sexuality had a role in cult and ritual.
\nAll that was associated with the sexual organs was a matter of religious concern in ancient Israel, but one assumes that little was known about treatment for abnormal bodily discharges apart from bathing, laundering clothing, and careful observation of the course taken by the ailment itself. As described in chapter 15, such discharges of the male consisted of pus, or some similar substance, which appeared as a clear liquid running from the penis or as a dense substance that caused stoppage in the penis. Hebrew zov, literally \u201cflowing,\u201d is most likely a term for any number of similar infections of the urinary tract or of the internal organs. It is most likely not to be identified with gonorrhea, as some have suggested. The abnormal vaginal discharges of the female, as described here, consisted of blood and persisted beyond, or outside, the menstrual period \u201cfor many days,\u201d as the text states. Most likely, these discharges were related to uterine disorders. Like menstruation itself, they are also called zov.
\nChapter 15 also includes laws governing normal seminal emissions in the male and menstruationin the female. It was characteristic of all who experienced abnormal discharges from the sexual organs, as well as of the menstruating woman, that their impurity extended to persons and objects that came into contact with them. The details of such transmitted impurity will be discussed in the Commentary. The general rule here is that persons experiencing the relevant discharges remain impure for seven days after the disappearance of the observable symptoms\u2014as verse 13 puts it: after the person becomes \u201cpure.\u201d At the end of the seventh day, the person must bathe the entire body in \u201cliving\u201d water, launder clothing worn during the period of the illness, and on the eighth day undergo ritual purification at the sanctuary.
\nAll the impurities dealt with in this chapter, like any prevailing impurity within the Israelite community, threatened, directly or indirectly, the purity of the sanctuary, which was located within the area of settlement. This is stated explicitly in verse 31: \u201cYou shall put the Israelites on guard against their uncleanness, lest they die through their uncleanness by defiling My Tabernacle which is among them.\u201d
\nThe specific topics in chapter 15 may be outlined as follows:<\/p>\n
1. The Israelite male (vv. 1\u201318)
\na. Abnormal discharges from the penis (vv. 1\u201315)
\nb. Normal seminal emissions (vv. 16\u201318)
\n2. The Israelite female (vv. 19\u201330)
\na. The menstrual period (vv. 19\u201324)
\nb. Abnormal vaginal discharges of blood (vv. 25\u201330)
\n3. Conclusion (vv. 31\u201333)<\/p>\n
THE ISRAELITE MALE (vv. 1\u201318)<\/p>\n
1. When any man has a discharge issuing from his member Literally, \u201cwhen any man has a discharge, his discharge being from his \u2018flesh.\u2019 \u201d Hebrew basar, the usual word for \u201cbody, flesh,\u201d is here recognized as a euphemism for the penis, an interpretation stated in most of the traditional commentaries. The form zovo means \u201chis discharging.\u201d Throughout the chapter, the term zov is the name given both to ailments and to menstruation itself.<\/p>\n
3. The uncleanness from his discharge shall mean the following Rather, \u201cThis is his impurity during his discharging.\u201d This statement defines the physical symptoms of the ailment. Here \u201cimpurity\u201d refers to the ailment itself, not to a separate matter, since \u201cimpurity\u201d and \u201cailment\u201d are synonymous.<\/p>\n
whether his member runs with the discharge or is stopped up These are the two forms usually taken by the ailment. The participle rar, from the noun rir, means \u201cto flow, run,\u201d as with a bodily liquid. In 1 Samuel 21:4, this word describes a running mouth. The Hifil form he\u1e25tim, meaning \u201cto seal itself up,\u201d occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible; it functions uniquely as a medical usage. In other forms, this verb usually refers to the sealing of documents or of spaces and containers.<\/p>\n
his uncleanness means this Rather, \u201cThis is his impurity.\u201d Namely, this is the illness. The clause merely recapitulates what has just been described.<\/p>\n
4. Any bedding on which the one with the discharge lies Hebrew mishkav means \u201cbed, an object on which one lies.\u201d The two sorts of objects rendered impure by contact with the one who has the discharge are those upon which he lies and those on which he sits, called moshav in rabbinic Hebrew. These objects must be cleansed.
\nIn this verse the impurity is communicated by the affected person to certain objects, whereas in verses 5\u20137 we read that contact with such objects, in turn, communicates the impurity to other persons.<\/p>\n
5. Anyone who touches his bedding Verses 5\u20136 prescribe that a person who comes in contact with impure bedding, chairs, and so forth remains impure until evening and must bathe and launder his or her clothing.<\/p>\n
bathe in water Even though the Hebrew verb ra\u1e25ats, \u201cto wash,\u201d has no direct object, as it does in verse 13 below, it is clear from the context that here the law requires bathing oneself completely. A good illustration of this usage is provided in 2 Kings 5:14. Naaman, instructed by the prophet Elisha to \u201cwash\u201d (ra\u1e25ats) in the waters of the Jordan, understood this to mean complete immersion, a point noted by Hoffmann.<\/p>\n
7. Whoever touches the body of the one with the discharge Direct contact with the affected person renders one impure.<\/p>\n
8. If one with a discharge spits on one who is clean Verses 8\u20139 change direction and speak of contact initiated by the affected person. Spittle was considered to carry infection and disease.<\/p>\n
9. Any means for riding Hebrew merkav means \u201can object on which one rides,\u201d such as a saddle or other appurtenance located under the rider. If one with a discharge rides on these objects, they become impure.<\/p>\n
10. whoever touches anything that was under him The antecedent of Hebrew ta\u1e25tav, \u201cunder him,\u201d is the affected person, not any object. In this case, the impurity does not extend to the clothing of the person who touches such objects, only to his body.<\/p>\n
and whoever carries such things Contact by carrying objects requires the usual severity. In rabbinic law, massa\u02be, \u201ccarrying,\u201d is one of the major categories of contact that renders persons and objects impure. The other four are: magga\u02bf, \u201ctouching\u201d; moshav, \u201csitting\u201d; mishkav, \u201clying\u201d; and merkav, \u201criding.\u201d Furthermore, rabbinic law carefully distinguishes between different levels of impurity. \u02beAv ha-tum\u02beah, \u201ca primary category of impurity,\u201d renders other persons and objects actively impure, which is to say, capable of transmitting impurity on their own. The second category concerns those persons and objects that are contaminated through such primary impurity. Called ri\u02beshon le-tum\u02beah, \u201cimpurity of the first order,\u201d this category does not render other persons or objects sources of impurity,<\/p>\n
11. If one with a discharge, without having rinsed his bands Verse 11 concerns contact between a person with a discharge and another person. It projects the reverse direction of the situation specified in verse 7 above, where a pure person initiates contact with one who is impure. The wording of the verse is at first glance puzzling because it implies that the impure person needed only wash his hands, whereas verse 13 explicitly requires that the impure person bathe his entire body in fresh water in order to become pure. Various resolutions to this apparent inconsistency have been proposed since antiquity. It might be preferable, however, to take verse 11 less literally than has usually been done. The sense seems to be that one with a discharge who touches another person with his hands (hence the reference to hands) prior to purification renders that person and his clothing impure. The resultant impurity lasts until evening and is removed by bathing and the laundering of clothing.<\/p>\n
12. An earthen vessel Earthen vessels touched by a person who has had a discharge cannot be purified and must be destroyed, whereas wooden vessels may be soaked in water and used again. The same distinction between earthen and wooden vessels is drawn in the law of 11:32f. governing vessels that come into contact with a swarming creature (sherets).
\nIn summary, verses 1\u201312 outline the direct and indirect effects of the impurity attendant upon an Israelite male who has a discharge from his penis. Verses 13\u201315 prescribe the purification required under such circumstances.<\/p>\n
13. When one with a discharge becomes clean of his discharge As Hoffmann notes, becoming clean (or pure) is a way of saying that the affected person is well again.<\/p>\n
he shall count off seven days for his cleansing Rather, \u201cHe shall count off seven days of being pure.\u201d Hebrew le-tohorato means \u201cof his being in a state of purity.\u201d Seven consecutive days must pass after the termination of the ailment before ritual purification can be undertaken. At the end of the seven days, the person must bathe his body in living water, namely, naturally flowing water, and launder his clothing. This is an extraordinary requirement because usually immersion is allowed in a \u201cgathering of water\u201d (mikveh mayim), in which only a certain quantity of the total amount of water need be \u201cliving.\u201d After these acts, the zav is pure and is ready to undergo the appropriate rituals at the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
14. On the eighth day Two birds, turtledoves or young pigeons (see Comment to 1:14), are presented to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Once again, the designation peta\u1e25 \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe entrance of the Tent of Meeting,\u201d includes a rather large area that reached all the way to the outer gate of the sanctuary courtyard. The person who had been affected could hardly have approached the inner courtyard prior to purification.
\nThis expiatory offering resembles, in substance, the one required for the purification of a new mother who was unable to afford a more substantial offering, as specified in 12:8.<\/p>\n
15. The priest shall offer them In this case, it is the priest who designates which bird shall be used for each offering. As has been explained in several instances, the sequence \u201csin offering\u201d followed by \u201cburnt offering\u201d expresses a specific phenomenology. The relationship of the zav to God is first rectified by means of the sin offering, which purifies him; only then does he present a sacrifice on his own as a restored member of the religious community. He resumes the role of a proper worshiper through his burnt offering, and its acceptance by God confirms his reinstatement.
\nA sin offering is required here not because the person in question offended God by any intentional or unintentional act but because the impurity, which is to say the ailment, threatened the purity of the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf The sense of the formula ve-khipper \u02bfalav is: \u201cHe shall perform rites of expiation over him,\u201d namely, with respect to him or on his behalf.<\/p>\n
16. When a man has an emission of semen The sense of Hebrew shikhvat zera\u02bf is \u201ca flowing of semen.\u201d As Ibn Ezra explains, this statement pertains to an involuntary emission of semen. In Deuteronomy 23:11 this is called mikreh lailah, \u201ca nocturnal emission.\u201d In rabbinic law, a person in this situation is called tevul yom, \u201cone who is to immerse himself on the same day.\u201d<\/p>\n
17. All cloth or leather on which semen falls Clothing and other objects of cloth and leather, susceptible to contamination, must be cleansed. They remain impure until evening, which means that they may not be used until that time.<\/p>\n
18. And if a man has carnal relations with a woman Hoffmann explains that the woman in this case does not become impure as a result of semen entering her body. This is important to emphasize, because the sequence of verses 16\u201318 might suggest just such an interpretation. Verse 16 tells us that a man becomes impure after a seminal emission, and verse 17 states that cloth and leather become impure through contact with semen. The fact is, however, that the true function of semen is realized when a man inseminates his wife in fulfillment of the divine command to be fruitful and multiply, as we read in Genesis 1:28. It is merely that the law declared her, like her male partner, to be impure after intercourse. Both must bathe after the sex act.
\nAs a matter of fact, the impurity of semen made it forbidden ever to have sex within sacred precincts, once again creating a distance between the process of procreation and the cult. In other ancient Near Eastern religions, fertility was celebrated in the cult\u2014on special occasions, sexual intercourse might even be dramatized and myths telling of the mating of the gods were recited. Not so in the cult of Israelite monotheism.<\/p>\n
THE ISRAELITE FEMALE (vv. 19\u201330)<\/p>\n
In this section (vv. 19\u201330), the law begins with the subject of a woman\u2019s normal menstruation and then proceeds to deal with abnormal discharges of blood. There is a logic to this order because, with respect to women, the normal and the abnormal are of the same substance, namely, blood, and are often related to the timing of the menstrual period. In the case of males, there is a perceptible difference between seminal emissions and pus or other substances issuing from the penis as a result of infection. Perhaps it is for this reason that the laws governing males begin with abnormalities and then proceed to deal with normal emissions of semen.<\/p>\n
19. When a woman has a discharge, her discharge being blood from her body Menstruation is called zov, \u201cdischarge,\u201d and some of the same terms of reference are used here as in the case of abnormal discharges of the male in verses 1\u201312. Normal seminal emissions, however, would not be called zov,<\/p>\n
she shall remain in her impurity seven days Rather, \u201cshe shall remain in her menstrual condition seven days.\u201d The term niddah, which previously appeared in 12:2, derives from the root n-d-h (cognate to Akk. nad\u00fb), \u201cto cast, hurl, throw.\u201d It represents a variation of n-z-h, \u201cto spatter,\u201d discussed in the Comment to 6:20, a connection suggested by Rashi in his comment to Numbers 19:9. It does not connote impurity in and of itself but, rather, describes the physiological process of the flow of blood. The status of the menstruating woman is that she is ritually impure during that period, according to regulation.
\nAnyone who has contact with a woman during her menstrual period is impure until evening. Verses 20\u201323 repeat some of the same forms of transmitted impurity as we observed in the case of the male who had a discharge. Whatever the woman sits on or lies on becomes impure, and one who touches such objects becomes impure in turn.<\/p>\n
23. Be it the bedding or be it the object on which she has sat This verse has occasioned a good deal of comment because of its unusual syntax. The translation understands the phrase ve-\u02beim \u02bfal ha-mishkav hu\u02be to mean \u201cif it is a case of touching her bedding\u201d or a case of touching a vessel, and so forth. The pronoun hu\u02be does not refer to a person or object but to a situation. Hoffmann notes that verse 23 contrasts with verse 24: Touching an object on which a menstruating woman has either sat or lain renders one impure only until evening, whereas having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman renders a man impure for seven days. Although the formulation is not explicit in every case, it is clear from context that when any one of these impurities occurs, the requirement is to bathe and launder one\u2019s clothing. This is explicitly stated in verses 21\u201322 but not in verses 20 and 23.<\/p>\n
24. her impurity is communicated to him Rather, \u201cher menstrual impurity is communicated to him.\u201d
\nThe essential prohibition against having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman is stated in 18:19 and again in 20:18. The penalty is being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community of Israel. Here the concern is with impurity. One who has sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual period becomes impure for seven days, and his impurity is severe enough to contaminate his bedding as well. He must, of course, bathe and launder his clothing after seven days.<\/p>\n
25. for many days, not at the time of her impurity Rather, \u201cnot at the period of her menstruation.\u201d This is the primary symptom: irregularity of blood discharges, which either persist beyond the regular menstrual period or are unconnected with it altogether. A woman who has discharges of blood not due to her menstruation bears the same impurity as a menstruating woman for as long as the discharges last.<\/p>\n
26\u201327. These verses repeat the law that whatever the woman with the discharge sits on or lies on becomes impure and that whoever touches these items becomes impure and remains so until evening.<\/p>\n
28. When she becomes clean of her discharge Like the male, the female must count off seven days subsequent to the termination of her abnormal discharge of blood.<\/p>\n
29\u201330. These verses repeat the laws app icable to the Israelite male. The categorical difference between abnormal and normal conditions is that abnormalities ultimately require ritual expiation as part of the purification process, whereas normal conditions, though inducing impurity, require only bathing and laundering of clothing and observance of the proper period of waiting. Such normal conditions do not of themselves involve the sanctuary directly, unless a person in such a state actually enters the sacred precincts.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION (vv. 31\u201333)<\/p>\n
31. You shall put the Israelites on guard The verbal form ve-hizzartem, which is unique in the Hebrew Bible, means \u201cyou shall cause \u2026 to avoid; to be separate from.\u2026\u201d In 22:2 we read that the Israelites are instructed to keep themselves separate (ve-yinnazru) from the sacred offerings that are forbidden to them. The root is n-z-r, from which the term nazir, \u201ca Nazirite,\u201d derives.<\/p>\n
lest they die \u2026 by defiling My Tabernacle As noted in the introductory Comment to the chapter, this is a major statement of policy. Although an impure person may not be guilty of any offense against God, as is true in these laws dealing with illnesses and natural physiological processes, such impurities nevertheless threaten the status of the entire community if left unattended. If the sanctuary were defiled, God\u2019s wrath would be aroused against the entire community. This is the sense of the warning \u201clest they die.\u201d It is not the condition of impurity per se that evokes God\u2019s punishment, but the failure to rectify that condition so as to restore a state of purity.<\/p>\n
32. Such is the ritual Hebrew torah means \u201cinstruction, prescribed ritual.\u201d This term is frequently used to designate a particular rule in which the priests are to be instructed. Verse 32 serves as a concluding statement, as if to say: \u201cThe preceding is the prescribed ritual.\u201d Similar statements occur elsewhere after specific rituals have been prescribed, for example, in 7:37, following the rites of chapters 6\u20137, and in 14:54, following the rituals of chapters 13\u201314.<\/p>\n
33. and concerning her who is in menstrual infirmity The adjective davah, meaning \u201cweak,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 12:2.
\nIn the subsequent development of Jewish religion, chapter 15 of Leviticus is best remembered for the limitations placed on sexual relations between man and wife during her menstrual period. The requirement that a woman bathe after her period has continued to be upheld by observant Jewish women just prior to marriage, and thereafter.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 16<\/p>\n
The Yom Kippur Ritual<\/p>\n
A\u1e25arei Mot<\/p>\n
Leviticus 16, which is read in synagogues on Yom Kippur, is well known in the Jewish tradition, and the significance of the ritual of the scapegoat for religious studies in general has drawn widespread attention to this chapter.
\nThe distinctive rites prescribed here involve rare practices called rites of riddance, which effect the removal and destruction of impurity. The transgressions of the Israelites and their priests, which produce impurity, are dramatically transferred to the scapegoat, which is driven into the wilderness, never to return. Certain parts of sin offerings are burned to ashes outside the encampment rather than on the altar. Chapter 16 also ordains the use of sacrificial blood in unusual ways during the purification of the sanctuary. These two processes\u2014purification through sacrificial blood and purification by riddance\u2014are woven into one of the most complex rituals to have reached us from any ancient society.
\nThe primary objective of expiatory rites like the ones set forth in chapter 16 was to maintain a pure sanctuary. An impure, or defiled, sanctuary induced God to withdraw His presence from the Israelite community. Obviously, the greatest threat to the purity of the sanctuary came from the priesthood itself, whose members functioned within its sacred precincts and who bore primary responsibility for its maintenance. The sanctuary was also threatened by major transgressions of the laws of purity involving the entire Israelite community or by the failure of individual Israelites to attend to their own purification\u2014for example, after contamination by a corpse. This occurred because such serious impurities were considered to be contagious and thereby ultimately affected the sanctuary, which was located within the area of settlement. As long as impurity persisted, God remained offended, so to speak, and the danger of His wrath and possible alienation was imminent.
\nThis ancient view of Yom Kippur is somewhat different from that which came to predominate in later Judaism, especially in the centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Atonement for the sins of the people eventually replaced the purification of the sanctuary per se as the central theme of Yom Kippur. This shift of emphasis is already suggested in verse 30: \u201cFor on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the LORD.\u201d The purification of the sanctuary was understood to extend to the people\u2014to relieve them of their transgressions as well. However, no ritual of purification was actually performed over the people, as was the case on other occasions.
\nIn chapter 16 we observe a dynamic interaction between the priesthood\/community, on the one hand, and the omnipresence of God, on the other. Out of love for His people Israel, God manifests His presence among them, but only on condition that the Israelite sanctuary be maintained in a state of purity. God\u2019s forgiveness, coming at the end of the expiatory process, can be anticipated only after the purification of the sanctuary is satisfactorily accomplished.
\nThis chapter presents us with difficult problems not only because of the complexity of the rituals themselves but also because certain verses anticipate rites to be performed further on, whereas others merely recapitulate what has already occurred. The chapter may be divided into six sections that present a reconstruction of the complete Yom Kippur ritual. Here the Commentary draws heavily from talmudic literature, which often preserves descriptions of very ancient rites and fills in details absent from the chapter itself.
\nVerses 1\u20132 introduce the rites prescribed in chapter 16 by referring to the untimely deaths of Nadab and Abihu, the two sons of Aaron who improperly entered the sanctuary, as recounted in chapter 10. This reference served as an admonition to the priesthood since the purification of the sanctuary required the High Priest to enter its innermost part. If extreme care were not exercised in this endeavor, he risked death.<\/p>\n
1. after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they drew too close The offense of Aaron\u2019s sons is discussed in the Comment to 10:1.<\/p>\n
2. Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come at will into the Shrine Hebrew be-khol \u02bfet, literally \u201cat any time, at all times\u201d is not to be taken to mean that the High Priest was never to enter the Holy of Holies, which would contradict the procedures of this chapter, but, rather, that he was only to enter the Holy of Holies on this unique occasion. In this context, Hebrew ha-kodesh refers to the innermost part of the sanctuary, whereas the entire structure is called \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, \u201cthe Tent of Meeting.\u201d This is evident from verse 16.<\/p>\n
into the Shrine behind the certain That is to say, on the inward side of the parokhet, the name given to the curtain that divided the Shrine, or Holy of Holies, from the larger area first encountered upon entering the sanctuary. The layout of the Tent of Meeting, or Tabernacle, is described in the Comment to 1:1.<\/p>\n
in front of the cover that is upon the ark The Hebrew term kapporet, \u201ccover,\u201d has been variously explained. As described in Exodus 25:17\u201322, it was a sculptured lid for the Ark, fashioned with two cherubs facing each other. It was called kapporet because of its function in the expiatory process, not because of its physical function as a covering for the Ark. The Septuagint renders kapporet by Greek hilast\u0113rion, \u201cinstrument of propitiation.\u201d The lid of the Ark was called kapporet, a noun that derives from the verb k-p-r, \u201cto wipe clean, purify,\u201d hence \u201cto expiate,\u201d because it was God\u2019s seat of mercy whence atonement was granted.<\/p>\n
for I appear in the cloud over the cover Most of the traditional commentaries\u2014including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Rashbam\u2014understood the cloud (\u02bfanan) to refer to God\u2019s presence (kavod). This was also the rendering of Targum Jonathan. As explained in the introductory Comment to chapters 8\u20139, the kavod was depicted as a cloud with fire burning inside it. The cloud pervaded the sanctuary and was visible above it. By contrast, certain talmudic sources identify the cloud of this verse with the \u201ccloud of incense\u201d produced by the High Priest inside the Shrine, as described in verse 13. If that is the case, then verse 2 anticipates what is to follow and is stating that God appeared to the High Priest only when the incense cloud had filled the Shrine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE COMMENTARY TO LEVITICUS The Principal Types of Sacrifice (1:1\u20137:38) Va-yikra\u02be Chapters 1\u20137 constitute the first section of the Book of Leviticus. They outline the basic modes of sacrifice, listing and describing the several classes of offerings to be presented to God in the sanctuary. Chapters 1\u20135 are addressed to the general populace\u2014to individual Israelites … <\/p>\n