The wording of verse 2 argues against the second interpretation, however. The statement \u201cFor I appear in the cloud\u201d explains the restriction of entry. Aaron is normally prohibited from entering the Holy of Holies precisely because that is where God\u2019s kavod abides. Furthermore, identifying the cloud as the incense cloud would not accord with the purpose of the incense in this case. The incense cloud in verse 13 protected the High Priest when he came into God\u2019s immediate presence, whereas in this verse the cloud envelope, represented by the kavod itself, protected God, so to speak.<\/p>\n
PREPARATIONS FOR PURIFICATION (vv. 3\u201310)<\/p>\n
The main celebrant in the purification of the sanctuary was the High Priest. Although he was assisted at certain points in the proceedings, the efficacy of the entire ritual depended primarily on him. He prepared himself by bathing his body and donning his special white linen vestments. For the rites of purification, he provided, out of his own resources, a young bull for the sin offering. The Israelite community, for its part, provided two he-goats and one ram for a burnt offering. The bull was to be used in securing expiation for the sins of the priesthood, and one of the he-goats, selected by lot, became the sin offering of the people. The other he-goat was not slaughtered. It became the scapegoat, to be driven into the wilderness.<\/p>\n
3. Thus only shall Aaron enter the Shrine Hebrew be-zo\u02bet yavo\u02be is emphatic: \u201conly in this way shall he enter \u2026\u201d\u2014strict adherence to the prescribed procedures and the use of proper materials are indispensable to the efficacy of the purification rites.<\/p>\n
4. He shall be dressed in a sacral linen tunic The regular vestments of the High Priest, described in 8:7f., were made of gold and rare gems and woven of costly dyed fabrics. For the rites described here, the High Priest donned unadorned white linen vestments that were fashioned especially for the occasion and that, undoubtedly, were of particular significance. They symbolized the abject state of the High Priest, the representative of the Israelite people, in seeking expiation of sins and making confession. Although the text does not say where the High Priest was to don his vestments and perform his ablutions, it is probable that these procedures were performed in a screened area near the Tent of Meeting.<\/p>\n
5. And from the Israelite community \u2026 two he-goats Sin offerings on behalf of the entire community usually consisted of large cattle, as, for example, in 4:1\u201321; those offered by individual Israelites were usually from the flocks, as in 4:22f. The Yom Kippur ritual was an exception\u2014he-goats from the flocks served as sin offerings for the entire people.
\nIt is not entirely clear why both of the he-goats, the scapegoat and the one designated \u201cfor the LORD,\u201d were referred to as sin offerings. Perhaps it is because at this point the lots had not yet been cast to determine which he-goat would be marked \u201cfor the LORD\u201d and which \u201cfor Azazel.\u201d Potentially, then, both were sin offerings. Verses 9\u201310 explain that only the he-goat marked \u201cfor the LORD\u201d served as an actual sin offering.<\/p>\n
6. Aaron is to offer his own bull This statement is anticipatory. This is what Aaron would do at the appropriate time. On the formulation kipper be\u02bfad, \u201cto make expiation for, on behalf of,\u201d see Comment to 4:20, where several indirect-object constructions with kipper are discussed.<\/p>\n
7. Aaron shall take the two he-goats and let them stand before the LORD A note to the translation explains that the Hebrew text reads ve-laka\u1e25, \u201cHe shall take,\u201d but that the sense of the verse is clearer if the antecedent \u201cAaron\u201d is inserted, based on its occurrence at the beginning of verse 8.
\nHebrew he\u02bfemid, \u201cto station\u201d (see v. 10), is used with respect to persons who were made to stand in the presence of the Lord, near the altar, when purificatory rites were about to be performed on their behalf. God was to view them and find them deserving of purification.
\nIn this case the two he-goats were stationed near the altar so that one could be chosen by lot as a sacrifice and the other one could be selected as the scapegoat. Further on in the proceedings, in verses 19\u201320, as the High Priest pronounced the confessional over the designated scapegoat, he also \u201cbrought it near\u201d to the altar. The verb he\u02bfemid designates preparatory acts, whereas hikriv, \u201cto bring near, offer,\u201d may signify the act of sacrifice itself or merely moving an object nearer to the altar, as it does in verse 20.<\/p>\n
8. and he shall place lots upon the two goats On the utilization of lots in ancient Israel, see Comment to 8:8.<\/p>\n
one marked for the LORD and the other marked for Azazel One lot bore the inscription le-YHVH, \u201cfor the LORD,\u201d and the other the inscription la-\u02bfaza\u02bezel, \u201cfor Azazel,\u201d that is, belonging to the Lord and to Azazel, respectively. Archaeological excavations have unearthed many objects with names inscribed on them, with the prepositional lamed indicating the names of their owners.
\nThe precise meaning of Hebrew \u02bfaza\u02bezel, found nowhere else in the Bible, has been disputed since antiquity and remains uncertain even to the present time. Over the centuries, exegesis of this name has followed three lines of interpretation. According to the first, Azazel is the name of the place in the wilderness to which the scapegoat was dispatched; the term is taken as synonymous with \u02beerets gezerah, \u201cinaccessible region,\u201d in verse 22. Verse 10 may also suggest this interpretation. When translated literally it reads: \u201cand send it [the he-goat] off to Azazel, to the wilderness.\u201d Yoma 67b understands \u02bfaza\u02bezel as \u201ca fierce, difficult land,\u201d taking the first part of the word to mean \u02bfazz, \u201cstrong, fierce.\u201d According to the second line of interpretation, Azazel describes the goat. The word \u02bfaza\u02bezel is a contraction (notarikon) comprised of \u02bfez, \u201cgoat,\u201d and \u02beazal, \u201cto go away,\u201d hence \u201cthe goat that goes away.\u201d This interpretation occurs in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate and underlies the rabbinic characterization sa\u02bfir ha-mishtallea\u1e25, \u201cthe goat that is dispatched,\u201d in Mishnah Yoma 6:2. This is, in fact, the interpretation that led to the English rendering \u201cscapegoat\u201d (from \u201cescape goat\u201d), which first appeared in Tyndale\u2019s English translation of the Bible in 1530.
\nBoth of the above interpretations are contrived. The third line of interpretation is preferable. Azazel in later myth was the name given to the demonic ruler of the wilderness. The derivation of the word is uncertain, but the thematic relationship of Azazel to the se\u02bfirim, \u201cgoat-demons,\u201d of 17:7 suggests that the word \u02bfez, \u201cgoat,\u201d is represented in it. The form \u02bfaza\u02bezel may have developed through reduplication of the letter zayin: \u02bfez-\u02beel, \u201cmighty goat,\u201d was pronounced \u02bfezez\u02beel and, finally, \u02bfaza\u02bezel. The ritual of the scapegoat is discussed in Excursus 4.<\/p>\n
9. the goat designated by lot for the LORD The idiom \u02bfalah \u02bfalav ha-goral, literally \u201cthe lot came up for him\/it,\u201d is an idiom for describing the outcome of casting lots. It probably indicates that the side of the lot bearing the affirmative sign came up on top. The working of lots is explained in the Comment to 8:8.<\/p>\n
which he is to offer as a sin offering Rather, \u201cand he shall designate it a sin offering.\u201d Assigning an animal as a sacrifice was a formal act accompanied by a declaration. The Sifra, cited by Rashi, explains the procedure as follows: \u201cWhen he [the High Priest] places the lot upon it [the goat] he gives it a name and states: To the Lord as a sin offering (le-YHVH \u1e25atta\u02bet).\u201d No such formulas have survived from biblical times.<\/p>\n
10. shall be left standing alive The text emphasizes that the he-goat designated for Azazel was not slaughtered in the manner of a sacrifice as was the other goat, which was designated as a sin offering. Its disposition represented a different means of securing expiation, according to Ramban.<\/p>\n
to make expiation with it The idiom le-khapper \u02bfalav, translated \u201cto make expiation with it,\u201d is actually perplexing, as used in this verse. Almost without exception, kipper \u02bfal has to do with the use of sacrificial blood as a means of expiation, which is clearly not the case here. The scapegoat was not part of the expiation rites proper and was not slaughtered. It was merely stationed alongside the other goat and, like it, selected by lot.
\nTraditional commentaries express diverse views regarding this statement, which they recognize as representing exceptional usage. Targum Jonathan translates: \u201cto atone for the sinfulness of the people, the House of Israel,\u201d in which case the preposition \u02bfalav, \u201cupon it,\u201d refers to the people, not the goat. Rashi notes that the verb kipper invokes confession, not only atonement, so that this verse could refer to the confession pronounced \u201cover\u201d the scapegoat, as prescribed in verse 21. Ibn Ezra emphasizes function: \u201cThat the goat takes on itself the expiation.\u201d This is closer to what is being proposed here. The goat was an instrument of expiation\u2014no rite of expiation involving blood was performed near it.<\/p>\n
and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel The scapegoat was not an offering to Azazel; it was being dispatched to his realm, the wilderness.<\/p>\n
THE PURIFICATION OF THE SANCTUARY (vv. 11\u201319)<\/p>\n
In anticipation of the purification of the sanctuary, chapter 16 sets forth the necessary procedures for those rites. The most notable feature was the unique practice of bringing sacrificial blood into the Holy of Holies. It was there that the Ark, with its sculptured lid, the kapporet, stood. The kapporet was envisioned as God\u2019s throne and the Ark as His footstool as He sat astride the cherubs of the kapporet.
\nThe High Priest first slaughtered the bull he had provided for the sin offering on behalf of the priesthood. He then drained its blood into a bowl that was held by an assisting priest until it was needed. This detail of the procedure, unmentioned in the Torah text, is supplied by Mishnah Yoma 4:3. Next, the High Priest took a fire pan full of coals from the altar of burnt offerings and two handfuls of a special incense and made his way toward the Holy of Holies. He ignited the incense, which filled the sanctuary with smoke, and left the fire pan just inward of the parokhet curtain. He was now ready to bring the blood of the sin offering into the Holy of Holies. He left the Holy of Holies momentarily, took the bowl of bull\u2019s blood, and reentered the Holy of Holies, where he sprinkled some of the blood once over the eastern side of the kapporet. On his way out, he left the bowl on a stand provided for that purpose. The same procedure was repeated with the blood of the he-goat, provided by the people as their sin offering.
\nThe preceding reconstruction of the purification procedures is based on a fusion of the biblical and mishnaic evidence, as preserved in Mishnah Yoma 5:3.
\nAt this point the text of 16:16 specifies: \u201cAnd he shall do the same for the Tent of Meeting.\u201d This was interpreted by Mishnah Yoma 5:4 to mean that the High Priest sprinkled some of the blood from each of the two sin offerings onto the outer side of the parokhet curtain, a practice known from Leviticus 4:16\u201317. Mixing the blood of the bull and the he-goat into one bowl, he proceeded to purify the golden incense altar that stood just outside the parokhet curtain, as the aforementioned Mishnah Yoma explains. He did this by \u201capplying\u201d blood to each of the four horns of the incense altar and, then, by sprinkling the rest of the blood on the altar seven times.
\nThe purification of the sanctuary was thus completed in two stages, represented first by the bull and then by the he-goat, or to put it in another way, by the sin offering of the priesthood and of the people, respectively. It represents the only instance in the priestly laws of the Torah in which sacrificial blood is brought into the Holy of Holies. What we observe is the purification, or sealing up, of a route of entry leading inward from the incense altar to the parokhet curtain to the Ark and kapporet. This unique procedure was necessitated by the entry of a mortal being, the High Priest, into the Holy of Holies\u2014an act required for the proper purification of the sanctuary but one that, at the same time, endangered that very condition of purity.<\/p>\n
11. Aaron shall then offer his bull of sin offering Nothing was actually placed on the altar at this point. The verb hikriv, \u201cto offer,\u201d here indicates that the bull was slaughtered and prepared for sacrifice. The actual sacrifice is described in verse 25. Our verse follows up on the preparations already initiated in verse 6. Once the bull provided by the High Priest was designated a sin offering, it was called par ha-\u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201cthe bull for the sin offering.\u201d A similar formal designation occurs in 8:18: \u02beel ha-\u02bfolah, \u201cthe ram for the burnt offering.\u201d<\/p>\n
to make expiation for himself and his household The construction kipper be\u02bfad previously appeared in verse 6. Here, again, the text anticipates the purpose of the sin offering in advance of its actual performance.<\/p>\n
12. And be shall take a panful of glowing coals scooped from the altar before the LORD Fire pans were used for several purposes, as is explained in the Comment to 10:1. Here, the designation \u201cthe altar before the LORD\u201d must refer to the altar of burnt offerings in the sanctuary courtyard, since the High Priest brings the coals from there into the sanctuary. In another context, in verse 18, the golden incense altar is referred to in the same way as \u201cthe altar that is before the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
finely ground aromatic incense The prescription for blending this incense is provided in Exodus 30:34\u201338. The same blend was used for the daily incense offering, ordained in Exodus 30:26. The rabbinic tradition explains that for the rites of purification on Yom Kippur, the incense was ground more finely than usual.<\/p>\n
13. the cover that is over [the Ark of] the Pact The term kapporet, \u201ccover,\u201d is explained in the Comment to verse 2. Hebrew ha-\u02bfedut, \u201cthe Pact,\u201d is an abbreviation of \u02bearon ha-\u02bfedut, \u201cthe Ark of the Pact,\u201d a term frequently used in the Tabernacle texts (for example, in Exod. 25:22; 26:33), but also occurring in other passages, such as Leviticus 24:3. The Ark is referred to in this way because \u201cthe tablets of the Pact\u201d (lu\u1e25ot ha-\u02bfedut) were deposited in it, as is stated in Exodus 31:7.<\/p>\n
lest he die The incense cloud served to protect the High Priest while he stood in the immediate area of God\u2019s kavod, \u201cpresence.\u201d Incense was widely used as an apotropaic substance, or means of protection. In Numbers 17:11\u201313, we read that Moses instructed Aaron to burn incense in a fire pan to protect the Israelites from a plague sent against them by God, who had become enraged at the rebellion of Korah and his group. Aaron stood with the incense \u201cbetween the dead and the living,\u201d and the plague subsided.
\nIn the ritual of Yom Kippur, the High Priest drew extremely close to God\u2019s throne in the Holy of Holies and was therefore in danger\u2014even though he had committed no wrongdoing and was in the Holy of Holies in accordance with God\u2019s instructions. As discussed in the Comment to 1:4, all who stand in God\u2019s presence are in need of expiation in order to avert His wrath.<\/p>\n
14. and sprinkle it with his finger Sprinkling sacrificial blood was a frequent procedure. Mishnah Yoma 5:3 interprets the verse to mean that the High Priest sprinkled the blood once over the kapporet and seven times in front of it. The first sprinkling was done with an upward motion and the other seven sprinklings, with a downward motion. Verse 15 adds that these rites were repeated, using some of the blood from the he-goat provided by the people.<\/p>\n
16. of the uncleanness and transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins Uncleanness is equated with sinfulness; thus, according to the biblical conception, sinfulness was regarded as a form of impurity. The verb \u1e25itte\u02be, literally \u201cto remove the sin,\u201d effectively means \u201cto purify,\u201d as in 14:52.<\/p>\n
which abides with them in the midst of their uncleanness This was the concession made by God out of His love for Israel. He allowed His people to build an earthly residence for Him, on condition that its purity be strictly maintained. In a very real sense, this was the primary purpose of the entire biblical ritual of Yom Kippur.<\/p>\n
17. nobody else shall be in the Tent of Meeting On the occasion of this ritual, only the High Priest, who had undergone meticulous purification for his role on Yom Kippur and who held a special status, was permitted inside the Tent. At other times, ordinary priests officiated in the larger section of the Tent, where the menorah, the presentation table, and the altar of incense stood.<\/p>\n
18. he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD In verse 12, \u201cthe altar before the LORD\u201d referred to the altar of burnt offerings; here, according to the context, it must refer to the incense altar. The sense of \u201cgoing out\u201d should, therefore, be understood not as an indication that the High Priest left the Tent itself, but only that he came out of the Holy of Holies to the outer chamber of the Tent.<\/p>\n
19. Thus he shall cleanse it \u2026 and consecrate it The verb tihher, \u201cto cleanse, purify,\u201d describes a variety of acts. Purification in this instance was accomplished by the use of sacrificial blood from the sin offerings, although blood has no real cleansing properties. (Water, for instance, does, and it was also frequently used in the purification process, along with detergent, in laundering clothing. As a process, fire also purifies. Even oil, used in rites of consecration, possesses cleansing properties, as noted in the Comment to 8:2.) But, all acts of purification went beyond whatever physical properties were possessed by the substances employed and expressed notions of a religious character. In the case of blood, the religious factor is more conspicuous than it is with respect to other substances that have actual cleansing power. It is therefore preferable to translate tihher as \u201cto purify\u201d rather than as \u201cto cleanse.\u201d The root t-h-r has, as its primary connotation, a physical purity, like that of the sky or of pure metals, such as gold, which contain little or no alloy. It is also said of the pure water of springs.
\nThe verb kiddesh, \u201cto consecrate,\u201d often figures in the initial dedication of sacred places and persons. Here, the rites performed on Yom Kippur served to reconsecrate the sanctuary, thus restoring it to its pristine state of purification.<\/p>\n
THE DISPATCH OF THE SCAPEGOAT (vv. 20\u201322)<\/p>\n
After completing the purification of the sanctuary by means of the blood rites, the High Priest turned his attention to the second mode of purification, that of riddance. Repeatedly, the scapegoat is referred to as \u201cthe live goat,\u201d emphasizing the difference between its manner of disposition and that of the sin offerings, which were slaughtered.
\nThe High Priest laid his hands on the scapegoat and confessed over it the sins of the people, not his own transgressions or those of the priesthood. (Those would be adequately expiated by the blood rites associated with the sin offering of the priesthood and by the final destruction of parts of that offering by fire outside the camp, as set forth in verses 23\u201328.) The scapegoat served only the people, not the priesthood itself. By laying his hands on the scapegoat, the High Priest transferred to it the sins of the people, which were carried with it into the wilderness, to a land of no return.<\/p>\n
20. shall be brought forward The scapegoat was brought near to the altar of burnt offerings. It stood facing the entrance of the courtyard, from which it would depart.<\/p>\n
21. and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites The verb hitvaddah, from the root y-d-h (or v-d-h), means \u201cto reveal oneself\u201d and connotes the opposite of concealment. Originally, the confessional enumerated the various sins in order to expose them. Once isolated in this way\u2014identified by name\u2014the sins could be exorcised. Ancient peoples believed that sinfulness, like impurity, was an external force that had clung to them; it was necessary, therefore, to \u201cdrive out,\u201d or detach, sins. This view is expressed in the literal wording of an ancient prayer preserved in Psalms 65:4:\u201cAll sorts of sins have overwhelmed me: it is you, O Lord, who will wipe them away!\u201d
\nThere was undoubtedly a formula for the confessional that was used in biblical times, although the priestly laws of the Torah preserve very little recitational material. A later version of the confessional, still recited in the traditional Jewish liturgy, is preserved in Mishnah Yoma 4:2f. An earlier confession is found in Daniel 9:4f.<\/p>\n
a designated man The exact meaning of Hebrew \u02beish \u02bfitti is uncertain. The noun \u02bfet means \u201ctime, appointed time.\u201d The sense here is \u201ca person available at a specific time.\u201d According to Mishnah Yoma 6:3, a priest was assigned this task in order to make certain that the scapegoat did not return to the settled area. The Bible does not provide information on what, if anything, was done with the scapegoat in the wilderness. Mishnah Yoma 6:6, 8 also records the later practice of hurling the scapegoat from a cliff.
\nThe verb shilla\u1e25 may mean \u201cto set free,\u201d but when used with reference to animals it more likely means \u201cto drive.\u201d This translation more accurately conveys the role of the person designated to accompany the scapegoat.<\/p>\n
RITES SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISPATCH OF THE SCAPEGOAT (vv. 23\u201328)<\/p>\n
After the High Priest had performed all the rites of purification and had dispatched the scapegoat, he removed his white linen vestments, bathed, and donned his golden vestments. He then sacrificed the two burnt offerings (one for himself and one for the people), each consisting of a ram. He placed the fatty portions of the two sin offerings, along with the burnt offerings, on the altar. Those parts of the two sin offerings not burned on the altar were taken outside the camp and burned to ashes.
\nIn addition to the High Priest, two other persons were required to undergo a form of purification: the man designated to accompany the scapegoat and the person who attended to burning the remaining parts of the sin offerings outside the camp. Both were required to bathe before returning to the camp because they had become contaminated in the process of performing a riddance ritual. Similarly, we read in Numbers 19:8 that the person assigned to burn the red heifer outside the encampment was required to bathe; he too had become impure in the process of performing a riddance ritual. Although this may seem paradoxical, it is not. Animals used in riddance rituals had taken on the impurities transferred to them and anyone having contact with such required purification.
\nBoth the High Priest and the people offered a burnt offering, following a pattern characteristic of the Israelite cult. The burnt offering was an invocation; it sought God\u2019s favorable attention and confirmed the purification of His people. In the initial purification of the sanctuary, recorded in chapters 8\u201310, we also observe that once burnt offerings had been accepted, worship of God could legitimately take place.<\/p>\n
23. And Aaron shall go into the Tent of Meeting Since antiquity, commentators have been puzzled by this statement. Taken literally, it means that Aaron was to reenter the Tent, disrobe, and leaving his vestments, proceed in a nude state to the place of bathing, as indicated in verse 24. This procedure is hardly conceivable. The law of Exodus 20:26 expressly forbids exposure of nakedness near the altar. Exodus 28:42\u201343 indicates that the priestly vestments were fashioned in such a manner as to avoid possible exposure of private parts.
\nThe sages were, of course, fully aware of this problem. Yoma 32a states that the chapter records the proper order up to verse 23. However, the first part of verse 23, in which Aaron is instructed to enter the Tent, is out of order and belongs after verse 25\u2014that is, Aaron was to disrobe after he had already performed the burnt offerings and had placed the fatty portions of the sin offerings on the altar. Rashi also refers to this talmudic interpretation. The purpose of Aaron\u2019s reentry later was to retrieve the fire pan that he had left in the Holy of Holies, as is explained in Mishnah Yoma 7:4.
\nThis interpretation leaves certain questions unanswered. If the reentry of the High Priest is deferred to the end of verse 25, how is it that in verse 24 we read that he is to \u201ccome out\u201d? Come out of where? To put it simply: The acts prescribed in verses 23\u201324 would seem to be in their proper sequence, but they are improper in themselves. A change of vestments would be appropriate following purification rites, and so would ablutions. What is improper is the place of the acts, inside the Tent, since disrobing there would constitute a serious breach of propriety. To resolve this problem it is necessary to assume that certain details are left unspecified in our chapter. We have already observed this in other connections. In such instances, we may employ later, rabbinic descriptions and specifications, so long as we bear in mind that the Mishnah is describing a temple in Jerusalem, whereas chapter 16 is speaking of a tentlike structure surrounded by a courtyard. With this understanding, the following reconstruction of the acts of the High Priest is proposed.
\nAfter dispatching the scapegoat, the High Priest was standing near the altar of burnt offerings, in the courtyard. He proceeded to a screened area, adjacent to the Tent, where he disrobed, bathed, and donned his golden vestments. Mishnah Middot 5:3 and Mishnah Yoma 3:3 refer to a bureau in the temple complex on whose roof was a place for ablutions, called beit ha-tevilah, \u201cthe place of immersion.\u201d One assumes that in the Tabernacle described by the priestly tradition there was also an area for disrobing and bathing, acts quite frequently called for in the performance of the sacrificial cult.
\nOn this basis, we would have to understand the opening words of verse 23, u-va\u02be \u02beaharon \u02beel \u02beohel mo\u02bfed, to mean \u201cAnd Aaron shall approach the Tent of Meeting,\u201d not that he was actually to enter it at that point. The Hebrew idiom ba\u02be \u02bfel usually means \u201cto enter,\u201d but the proposed translation is acceptable. Similarly, in verse 24, the words \u201cthen he shall come out\u201d would refer to the egress of the High Priest from the screened area, not to his exit from the Tent altogether. To summarize: Verses 23\u201324 are best understood as recording that the High Priest approached the Tent, entered a screened area, disrobed, bathed, and donned his golden vestments; he then left that area to perform the burnt offering. There was no need for him to enter the Tent itself.<\/p>\n
24. making expiation for himself and for the people The \u02bfolah, \u201cburnt offering,\u201d was not directly involved in the rites of expiation. This is a general statement referring to all that the High Priest had done by way of expiation, rather than to the \u02bfolah specifically.<\/p>\n
25. The fat of the sin offering The fatty portions of the sin offerings, the bull and the he-goat, were burned on the altar, and the rest was burned outside the camp. This procedure is first prescribed in 4:8\u201310, 19, 20.<\/p>\n
26. He who set the Azazel-goat free shall \u2026 bathe Rather, \u201cHe who drove out the Azazel-goat.\u201d The requirement to bathe before reentering the camp applied to various impure persons, including those impure by reason of disease.<\/p>\n
27. whose blood was brought in to purge the Shrine Rather, \u201cwhose blood was introduced to perform rites of expiation within the Shrine.\u201d The formula le-khapper be- means \u201cto expiate in, within,\u201d indicating where the rites are to be performed. The sense of \u201cpurging the Shrine\u201d is conveyed by the direct object construction, as in verse 20: le-khapper \u02beet ha-kodesh. Reference to bringing blood inside the Shrine emphasizes the distinction between this rite and the sin offerings of lesser gravity. The same distinction between the two types of sin offerings is made in 4:11\u201312, 21; 6:23; and 10:18.<\/p>\n
DESIGNATION OF AN ANNUAL ATONEMENT DAY (vv. 29\u201334)<\/p>\n
Up to this point in chapter 16, nothing has been said about when or how often the sanctuary was to be purified. Nor has there been instruction regarding the conduct required of the Israelite community on such occasions. Common sense would prompt us to assume that periodic purifications were necessary once the sanctuary was in operation. Indeed, verses 29\u201334 supply this information. Addressed to the entire people, not only to the priesthood, they ordain an annual Day of Atonement for all time and provide regulations to govern the conduct of the people on that day. Verse 30 states that, through the purification of the sanctuary, the entire people was relieved of its iniquities.<\/p>\n
29. a law for all time What is ordained here is to be practiced in all future generations. Similar provisions occur throughout Leviticus, as in 3:17, 6:11, and in this chapter in verses 31 and 34.<\/p>\n
In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month Until a relatively late period in biblical history, the months of the year were counted from the spring season, the month of Passover, which was the first month. The seventh month was, therefore, the month of the autumn Sukkot festival and, of course, of Yom Kippur. It is not known with certainty exactly when the counting of the months shifted to the autumn of the year, so that Yom Kippur and Sukkot would, accordingly, occur in the first month of the year, then named Tishrei.<\/p>\n
you shall practice self-denial In biblical literature the idiom \u02bfinnah nefesh always connotes fasting, as Ibn Ezra observed and as we may deduce from the contexts of Isaiah 58:3, 10 and Psalms 35:13. Mishnah Yoma 8:1 interprets self-denial to involve five abstentions: from food and drink, bathing, use of oil or unguent on the body, wearing leather shoes, and sexual intercourse.<\/p>\n
and you shall do no manner of work In verse 31, the Day of Atonement is called a Sabbath, on which work is forbidden. But, even on festival days, labor was forbidden. This is repeated for emphasis in the laws of chapter 23, where Yom Kippur appears in the list of annual festivals.
\nIncluding the alien in the prohibition of labor follows a characteristic pattern in the laws of Leviticus, whose purpose was to legislate for a religious community or network of communities. If resident aliens, such as merchants and craftsmen, were to continue their daily pursuits, the Israelite community would be affected as well. Aliens were not, however, expected to practice self-denial, only to honor the day by abstaining from work. Aliens who wished to take part in annual celebrations, such as the Passover, could do so only if their males had been circumcised, and the rites in which they then participated would have to be performed in the manner proper for Israelites. The considerations underlying this law governing non-Israelites undoubtedly guided the founders of the modern state of Israel to declare the Sabbath the weekly day of rest and to proclaim the festivals and holy days of the year national holidays, throughout the land.<\/p>\n
30. For on this day atonement shall be made for you The name yom ha-kippurim (or yom kippur) is suggested by this verse and by 23:27\u201328. This verse introduces the purification of the people. (Until this time, the purification of the sanctuary had been the object of the various rites.) It is probably for this reason that the verse enjoys such prominence in the liturgy of Yom Kippur until this day.<\/p>\n
31. a sabbath of complete rest The construction shabbat shabbaton has the force of a superlative. This is explained by Rashi in his comment to Exodus 31:15: \u201cScripture doubled its wording to indicate that it [= the Sabbath] carries the prohibition of all manner of labor, even the preparation of food necessary for subsistence. The same is true of the Day of Atonement, of which it is also said:shabbat shabbaton\u2014for all forms of labor are prohibited on that occasion, as stated in Leviticus 23:32. But, regarding the festivals, it says only that on the first day and the eighth day a shabbaton occurs (not shabbat shabbaton), indicating that Israelites are prohibited from any type of laborious toil, but may prepare food to sustain life.\u201d
\nWords ending in -on tend to have an abstract sense. Thus, zikkaron means \u201cmemorial,\u201d herayon, \u201cpregnancy,\u201d and so forth. On this basis, shabbaton would mean \u201crestfulness.\u201d As Rashi, in his comment to Exodus 31:15 puts it:menu\u1e25at margo\u02bfa, \u201ca rest of relaxation.\u201d<\/p>\n
32. The priest who has been anointed and ordained On the meaning of mille\u02be yad, \u201cto fill the hand, appoint,\u201d see Comment to 8:22.<\/p>\n
He shall purge the innermost Shrine This verse illustrates the rule that in the priestly laws, the verb kipper, \u201cto purge,\u201d takes the direct object only when said of inanimate objects, such as the altar, the sanctuary, and so forth. When said of persons, or even of sacrificial victims, kipper takes an object of preposition in constructions such as kipper \u02bfal, \u201cto make expiation over, for.\u201d In this verse it is the Shrine that is being purged, so the construction with the direct object is used: ve-khipper \u02beet ha-kodesh, \u201che shall purge the Shrine.\u201d
\nThe primary sense of the verb kipper is \u201cto wipe off, cleanse,\u201d essentially a physical process, like cleansing with detergents or abrasives. In the biblical conception, expiation was not an automatic result of performing certain acts. Purification resulted because God accepted the acts of the priests and of the people and granted expiation. The same is true of forgiveness, as we read in 4:31: \u201cThus the priest shall make expiation for him, and he shall be forgiven.\u201d As a result of God\u2019s acceptance of the rites of expiation one is forgiven by God.<\/p>\n
34. And Moses did as the LORD had commanded him The syntax of the Hebrew is unusual. Literally, it reads: \u201cAnd he did as the LORD commanded Moses.\u201d The sense is clear, nonetheless. Formulas of compliance are quite frequent in the priestly laws of the Torah. They epitomize the piety of the early Israelites and of their leaders, who were swift to obey God\u2019s commandments. Such formulas also emphasize the doctrine that all of the details of the cult were communicated directly by God to Moses at the very beginning of Israel\u2019s history as a people.<\/p>\n
The Pursuit of Holiness (17:1\u201326:46)<\/p>\n
Chapters 17\u201326 of Leviticus constitute a distinct unit whose dominant theme is holiness. For this reason the section has been known by the name \u201cHoliness Code,\u201d a term first used by A. Klosterman in 1877. The thematic unity of the Code is further enhanced by the unique style that characterizes these chapters.
\nThe central idea of the Holiness Code is that the people of Israel bears the collective responsibility to seek to achieve holiness, as expressed in 19:2: \u201cYou shall be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy.\u201d This idea, rarely encountered in the rest of Leviticus, is here stated repeatedly and emphatically. Given the prominence of the idea of a holy people, the laws and commandments are usually addressed to all of Israel, not merely to Moses, Aaron, or the priesthood. Virtually all sections of the Holiness Code open with the injunction to speak to the Israelite people; chapters 17, 18, 19, 20, and 22 begin in this way. Elsewhere in Leviticus, by contrast, the people of Israel is addressed collectively on matters of ritual practice, exclusively. This is true in 1:2, 4:1, and 7:28, all of which prescribe the proper modes of sacrifice. And in 11:2 the entire people is instructed on the matter of forbidden foodstuffs.
\nThe Holiness Code, with its emphasis on the interdependence of all Israelites in every aspect of life, including their history and shared destiny, resembles the other two major collections of laws and commandments found in the Torah, the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:19\u201323:33) and the Deuteronomic laws (primarily Deut. 12\u201328). These similarities may be tabulated graphically as follows:<\/p>\n
Theme
\nHoliness Code
\nBook of the Covenant
\nDeuteronomy<\/p>\n
Prologue: proper modes of worship
\nLev. 17
\nExod. 20:19\u201323
\nDeut. 12<\/p>\n
Epilogue: blessings and execrations
\nLev. 26:3\u201346
\nExod. 23:20\u201333
\nDeut. 27\u201330<\/p>\n
Duties that pertain to the land
\nLev. 19:9f.; 25
\nExod. 23:10\u201311
\nDeut. 15; 24:19\u201322; 26<\/p>\n
A calendar of sacred occasions
\nLev. 23
\nExod. 23:12\u201319
\nDeut. 16:1\u20137<\/p>\n
Following is a brief outline of the Holiness Code. More detailed information is provided in the introductory Comments to the individual chapters and sections: (1) The Prologue (chap. 17). (2) Commandments governing forbidden sexual unions\u2014incest, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality, etc. All such forbidden acts are designated to\u02bfevah, \u201cabhorrent things,\u201d inconsistent with holiness (chap. 18). (3) A code of religious and secular laws, including matters pertaining to agriculture, testimony, social ethics, and certain rituals associated with sacrifice (chap. 19). (4) A legally formulated restatement of chapter 18, with the addition of some new laws (chap. 20). (5) Ordinances governing the priesthood in matters of ritual purity, marriage, and the physical prerequisites of officiating in a priestly capacity (21:1\u201322:16). (6) Requirements for sacrificial animals and regulations for the shelamim offering that was frequently brought by individual Israelites (22:17\u201333). (7) A liturgical calendar of the year\u2019s festivals and sacred occasions, including the Sabbath (chap. 23). (8) Several laws regarding the eternal light, the bread of display, talion, and blasphemy. In addition there is a priestly account of an instance of blasphemy during the lifetime of Moses (chap. 24). (9) Laws governing agriculture and the ownership of land, including the law of the Sabbatical year. This section concludes with an admonition against idolatry (25:1\u201326:2). (10) The Epilogue (26:3\u201346).<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 17<\/p>\n
PROLOGUE: PROPER FORMS OF WORSHIP (vv. 1\u201316)<\/p>\n
Chapter 17 introduces the Holiness Code. Verses 1\u20139 state the requirement that all sacrifices be offered at the one, legitimate altar, located near the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Verses 10\u201312 prescribe the proper disposition of sacrificial blood, to which is added the prohibition against consumption of all blood. Verses 13\u201315 require that the blood of animals and fowl caught in the hunt be drained and covered with earth. Finally, verses 15\u201316 prohibit the eating of flesh from carcasses of animals that died or were torn by beasts.<\/p>\n
2. and to all the Israelite people These ordinances are addressed not only to the leaders and the priesthood but to the people as a whole.<\/p>\n
This is what the LORD has commanded This characteristic formula in the priestly texts expresses the idea that all of the details of worship and ritual were directly commanded by God.<\/p>\n
3. if anyone of the bouse of Israel The complete formula \u02beish \u02beish mi-beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cany man of the house of Israel,\u201d occurs only in this chapter (also in vv. 8 and 10) and in Ezekiel 14:4, 7. The characterization of the Israelite people as \u201cthe house of Israel,\u201d occurs very frequently, however, in the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, where it expresses the close relationship and common descent of Israelites, even in exile.<\/p>\n
slaughters an ox or sheep or goat The precise wording \u201can ox or sheep or goat\u201d recurs in 22:27, where it also relates to laws of sacrifice.
\nBecause the Hebrew verb sha\u1e25at, \u201cto slaughter,\u201d has two meanings, its specific usage in this verse is of crucial importance for an understanding of the chapter as a whole. The verb can mean \u201cto slaughter,\u201d in the general sense. In that case, the verse would indicate that whenever an Israelite slaughtered an animal for whatever reason\u2014including for food\u2014that act of slaughter had to be carried out at the one, legitimate altar located at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The verb can also mean \u201cto slaughter a sacrifice.\u201d As such, the sense would be that all sacrifices had to be made at the legitimate altar; but the general slaughter of animals for food, which is nonsacrificial, would be permitted anywhere.
\nThe significance of verses 3\u20134 has been debated since late antiquity. It was always apparent that verses 3\u20134 could be taken to contradict the laws of Deuteronomy 12:15f. The latter clearly state that the Israelites were allowed to slaughter animals for food without recourse to the sacrificial altar, so long as they took care to drain the blood from the slaughtered animal and refrained from eating blood. Such nonsacrificial slaughter of animals for food became known in the later Jewish tradition as ha-sho\u1e25et \u1e25ullin, \u201cone who slaughters nonsacrally.\u201d
\nThus, the question of whether Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12 agree or disagree on the permissibility of nonsacral slaughter away from the altar hinges on the meaning of the verb sha\u1e25at in this verse. This issue was the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Ishmael. Ishmael held that Leviticus 17 intended to forbid all forms of slaughter away from the central altar and that subsequently the Torah, in Deuteronomy 12, granted a dispensation permitting what had earlier been forbidden. Clearly, he understood the verb in its general sense. Akiba insisted, on the other hand, that the Torah had never forbidden nonsacral slaughter and that the intent of Leviticus 17 was that only slaughter was permissible, but not the \u201cstabbing\u201d to death of animals, called ne\u1e25irah in Hebrew. Understanding the verb sha\u1e25at in its narrow, technical sense of sacrificial slaughter, Akiba was of the view that chapter 17 did not require all slaughter of animals for food to be sacrificial in character. Only animals intended for sacrifice had to be slaughtered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.
\nThe Sifra, commenting on 17:3\u20134, adopted the main thrust of Akiba\u2019s view: \u201cIsraelites are liable under the law governing one who slaughters and offers sacrifices in the open field, but the gentiles are not.\u2026 Furthermore, gentiles are permitted to build a bamah (high place) anywhere and ascend to the heavens!\u201d The Sifra thus understood Leviticus 17 to refer specifically to matters of sacrifice, not to ordinary slaughtering for food, in which case Deuteronomy 12 did not permit something that the Torah had earlier forbidden. Both chapters, then, require essentially the same procedure: sacrifice restricted to one, legitimate altar. This interpretation seems to be borne out by the Sifra\u2019s exegesis of chapter 17, according to which verses 5\u20137 provide the rationale for verses 3\u20134. Thus, in verse 5, the purpose of the law was to prevent sacrifices \u201cin the open field.\u201d Similarly, the Sifra understands verses 8\u201310 to represent a restatement of verses 3\u20137, meaning that one who \u201cslaughters\u201d (in the language of verse 3) is identical to one who \u201coffers\u201d (in the language of verse 8).
\nIn the ritual texts of the Torah the verb sh-\u1e25-t never has the general sense of \u201cslaughtering\u201d that it has in other, less detailed biblical texts. In 22:26f., for example, in a formulation identical to that found here, we read that the offspring of large and small cattle may not be \u201cslaughtered\u201d until the eighth day after birth, at which time they first become acceptable as sacrifices. In keeping with this understanding, the verb sh-\u1e25-t may replace z-v-\u1e25, \u201cto celebrate a sacrifice.\u201d Compare, for example, the laws concerning the paschal sacrifice. Exodus 23:18 uses the verb z-v-\u1e25; the almost verbatim restatement in Exodus 34:35 uses the verb sh-\u1e25-t.
\nIt is proper, therefore, to view the verb sh-\u1e25-t in this verse as a term for sacrificing and to conclude that there is basic agreement between Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12. Nonetheless, a large body of scholars, following Rabbi Ishmael, continues to regard Leviticus 17 as representing an earlier stage in the history of Israelite worship, when all slaughter of animals for food had to be of a sacral character.<\/p>\n
4. to present it as an offering to the LORD The formula le-hakriv korban, \u201cto present an offering,\u201d is typical of the priestly texts of the Torah. The term korban itself is generic, designating various types of offerings that are \u201cbrought near.\u201d<\/p>\n
before the LORD\u2019s Tabernacle This verse primarily concerns the place of sacrifice; it is to be restricted to the Tabernacle altar.<\/p>\n
bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood Elsewhere the idiom shafakh dam, \u201cto shed blood,\u201d refers to homicide, usually intentional murder. Its usage here in the case of an individual who slaughters a sacrifice improperly is exceptional and an example of hyperbole. According to Hoffmann, it serves to dramatize the extreme seriousness of improper sacrifice.
\nWhen this verse is compared with Genesis 9:1\u20136, an interesting difference emerges. Genesis 9:1\u20134 grants permission to humans to consume the meat of living creatures, so long as no blood is eaten. Immediately following this dispensation, in verses 5\u20136, is the statement that all who shed the blood of other humans shall be put to death. The two situations are thus contrasted: It is permitted to slaughter animals for food but prohibited to shed blood. In our verse, slaughter of animals for sacrifice at the wrong site is equated with the shedding of blood. As is often the case, biblical statements draw on other, preceding verses, lending a different nuance to traditional language.<\/p>\n
that man shall be cut off from among his people Excursus 1 explains the penalty called karet, \u201ccutting off.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. in the open Hebrew \u02bfal penei ha-sadeh does not mean \u201con the ground,\u201d but rather \u201cin the open field.\u201d It is the opposite of \u201cin a tent\u201d or \u201cin town.\u201d The Israelites had formerly offered sacrifices both inside and outside the camp (ma\u1e25aneh), the term used in verse 3 for the area of Israelite settlement. In Judges 6:21 and 13:19, we read of sacrifices offered on rocks. Elsewhere, we find local and private altars in use during the early periods of Israelite history. It was difficult for the legitimate priesthood to regulate such cult sites, where idolatry and other improper activities might take place.<\/p>\n
that they may bring them before the LORD, to the priest According to Ibn Ezra this is the rationale for prohibiting sacrifice away from the Tabernacle altar, as conveyed in the words of verses 3\u20134 above. In other words, sacrifices should be offered by a proper priest at the sole, legitimate altar.<\/p>\n
and offer them as sacrifices of well-being to the LORD Rather, \u201cas sacred gifts of greeting.\u201d This rendering is explained in the Comment to 3:1. The shelamim offering became the foremost type of zeva\u1e25, especially for individual donations. The intent of this verse is that Israelites must present their offerings as proper shelamim at the Tabernacle altar.<\/p>\n
6. that the priest may dash the blood Concern for the proper use of sacrificial blood is basic to the regulations of chapter 17, especially in verses 10f. Except for sacrifices burned to ashes on the altar, most other sacrifices were divided between the altar fire and humans. The altar received the blood and the fatty portions of animal sacrifices, and priests, and sometimes donors, received other portions of the sacrifices. For a detailed outline of these allotments, see introductory Comment to chapters 6\u20137. The formula le-rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25, \u201cof a pleasing odor,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:8.
\nThe designation of the Tabernacle altar as mizba\u1e25 YHVH, \u201cthe altar of the LORD,\u201d is significant. It is based on the view that there is only one, legitimate altar at which the God of Israel may be worshiped. Similarly, Deuteronomy 12:27, 16:21, and so forth designate the one, legitimate altar to be erected in the settled land as mizba\u1e25 YHVH \u02beeloheikha, \u201cthe altar of the LORD your God.\u201d In the ritual texts, this unique altar is usually referred to simply as ha-mizbea\u1e25, \u201cthe altar,\u201d there being no need to specify that the altar is the Tabernacle altar, that fact being understood.<\/p>\n
that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons after whom they stray The ancient worship of goat-demons (se\u02bfirim), thought to be rulers of the wilderness and associated with illness and death, is discussed in the Comment to 16:8 and in Excursus 4.
\nThe regulations of chapter 17 refer to the milieu of the Sinai wilderness during the period that preceded the entry of the Israelites into Canaan. At that time it would have been important to uproot prior religious customs and to enforce strict adherence to the monotheistic religion of Israel. As the rabbis put it: \u201cit was difficult in their perception to withdraw from idolatry.\u201d
\nThe verb z-n-h, \u201cto go astray,\u201d in this verse is appropriate in the context of the early wilderness period. Although the verb literally means \u201cto commit harlotry,\u201d its various connotations and those of its derivatives afford insight into the religious mentality of biblical writers. In most of its occurrences the verb is used metaphorically to express disloyalty and betrayal, conveyed as marital infidelity. The most frequent image is that of the unfaithful wife or the woman of bad character who sells herself to her lovers. Placing unwarranted trust in them, she finds herself abandoned by them in her hour of need. This image is employed to characterize Israel\u2019s repeated behavior as a people, although it may be applied to any other people as well. In Isaiah 23:15\u201318, for example, the city-state of Tyre is called a harlot because of its typically deceitful mercantile dealings. In most cases, however, reference is to Israel, God\u2019s chosen people, who is likened to a bride. At certain periods of her history, she showed great fidelity, but at other times she betrayed God by turning to idolatry. She also entered into alliances with other nations who later failed her in a time of need. Against this background, use of the verb z-n-h here to characterize the worship of goat-demons reflects a concern for the proper worship of God and urges the avoidance of all practices that may lead to idolatry.<\/p>\n
This shall be to them a law for all time On the significance of this formula, see Comment to 3:17.<\/p>\n
8. If anyone of the house of Israel This is a restatement of verses 3\u20135. Here, however, there is no ambiguity as to the intent of the law. Its purpose is to outlaw sacrifices anywhere except at the Tabernacle altar. The verse also includes the \u201cresident stranger\u201d (ger) in this prohibition.<\/p>\n
10. partakes of any blood There are several statements in the Torah forbidding the consumption of blood. In this chapter, the prohibition is explicitly related to the performance of the cult: Sacrificial blood is to be dashed against the altar as God\u2019s share of the sacrifices along with the fatty portions of the sacrificial animals. It serves to secure expiation for the Israelites. But, like Genesis 9, the statement goes beyond the cultic basis for prohibiting the consumption of blood in forbidding kol dam, \u201call blood,\u201d a point noted by Rashi. Violation carries the penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community of Israel. The active verb ve-hikhratti, \u201cI shall cut off,\u201d is used instead of the usual passive form of the verb, as in verses 4 and 9, making it absolutely clear that the punishment comes directly from God.<\/p>\n
11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood This is repeated in verse 14, and similar formulations occur elsewhere in the Torah. Thus, Deuteronomy 12:23 states: \u201cFor the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh.\u201d Genesis 9:4 implies the same rationale for not eating blood: \u201cYou must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.\u201d<\/p>\n
and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar Rashi states: \u201cBlood represents life, and it can therefore expiate for life.\u201d Basic to the theory of sacrifice in ancient Israel, as in many other ancient societies, was the notion of substitution. The sacrifice substituted for an individual human life or for the lives of the members of the community in situations where God could have exacted the life of the offender, or of anyone else, for that matter. Indeed, all who stood in God\u2019s immediate presence risked becoming the object of divine wrath. But substitution could avert the danger, with sacrificial blood being especially instrumental because it was the symbol of life.
\nThis explains the specific intent of the Hebrew formula le-khapper \u02bfal nafshoteikhem, \u201cfor making expiation for your lives.\u201d Literally, this formula means \u201cto serve as kofer (ransom) for your lives.\u201d God accepts the blood of the sacrifices in lieu of human blood. The practice of offering blood on the altar may have been very ancient, harking back to the worship of chthonic deities of the netherworld. In biblical religion, it appears to have been an act of contrition, an acknowledgment of God\u2019s power over life and death.
\nSubstitution was allowed only in cases of inadvertence. Where the offense against God had been intentional, ritual expiation did not apply. This distinction corresponds to the norms of biblical criminal law, which allowed no ransom for the life of a murderer. A bridge between the two systems, the criminal and the cultic, can be observed in Deuteronomy 21:1\u20139. When the corpse of a slain person whose murderer was unknown was discovered outside the territorial jurisdiction of any town, a quasi-sacrificial rite was required. Since no established community could be held accountable for the act of murder, it became necessary to deal with it in a manner that satisfied at least the religious abhorrence of bloodshed. A young heifer was decapitated near a flowing stream, and its blood poured into the water so that it flowed into the earth. Had this not been done, the earth would not have \u201caccepted\u201d the blood of the murdered person, just as in Genesis 4:10\u201313, the earth \u201cprotested\u201d at having the blood of Abel, slain by Cain, poured over it because Cain had gone unpunished.
\nThis legal case clearly illustrates how animal blood can substitute for the life of an offender in situations where criminal penalties cannot be imposed. The use of sacrificial blood on the altar has a similar effect in cases of unintentional religious offenses.<\/p>\n
it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation Alternatively, \u201cfor it is the blood that effects expiation in exchange for life.\u201d This clause has been interpreted in various ways and is critical for a proper understanding of the entire Israelite sacrificial system. Ibn Ezra understands it as follows: \u201cBy means of the \u2018life\u2019 that is in it, it (meaning \u2018the blood\u2019) effects expiation.\u201d This interpretation has been accepted by modern scholars and probably underlies the given translation, which takes the prepositional bet in the word ba-nefesh to be bet instrumentii, \u201cthe bet of means.\u201d Expiation is effected by means of blood.
\nThe alternative rendering takes prepositional bet as bet pretii, \u201cthe bet of price.\u201d There is a subtle but significant difference between the two functions. Bet pretii occurs in legal statements, where its meaning is clear. In Exodus 21:23 we read nefesh ta\u1e25at nefesh, \u201ca life in place of a life.\u201d But in Deuteronomy 19:21 the same provision is restated as nefesh be-nefesh, \u201ca life in exchange for a life.\u201d
\nIn our passage, blood is considered efficacious because it represents life, not because it has special properties. Creatures cannot live without blood, and killing is expressed as shedding blood. On this basis, the blood of the sacrifice offered on the altar is the \u201clife\u201d of the sacrifice and can stand in place of human life. God accepts it in lieu of human life and grants expiation or refrains from wrath.<\/p>\n
12. No person among you shall partake of blood This is a restatement of the blood prohibition, for emphasis. These prohibitions of consumption of blood provide the scriptural basis for later regulations in historical Judaism governing the slaughter and preparation of meat. To this day, the purpose of such ritual practice is to remove the blood from meat.<\/p>\n
13. And if any Israelite \u2026 hunts down an animal or bird \u2026 be shall pour out its blood The Masoretic text has mi-benei yisra\u02beel, (literally) \u201cof the Israelites,\u201d but the Samaritan version has mi-beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cof the House of Israel,\u201d as in verses 3, 8, and 13. The Septuagint, however, agrees with the Masoretic reading, which diverges from the pattern of the chapter as a whole. The blood of all animals and fowl caught in the hunt must be drained of blood before the meat may be eaten. This is also implied in the laws of Deuteronomy 12:15\u201316, 22f., where we are told that the meat of slaughtered animals may be eaten in the same way as one may eat the meat of animals caught in the hunt, the deer and the gazelle. The law in both cases forbids eating any of the blood, and it does not require an act of sacrifice for what is caught in the hunt. Despite the fact that Deuteronomy 12 goes further in its provisions than does this code\u2014explicitly stating that animals slaughtered for food need not be sacrificed\u2014it is likely that both codes operated on the same principle.<\/p>\n
14. For the life of all flesh\u2014its blood is its life This is yet another restatement of the principle that blood represents life.<\/p>\n
Any person \u2026 who eats what has died or has been torn by beasts Hebrew nevelah means \u201ca dead animal.\u201d This is precisely established by its Akkadian cognate napultu, which in the ancient Mesopotamian dictionaries is translated by mitti or mittitum, \u201cdead body.\u201d Hebrew terefah, \u201ctorn flesh,\u201d is derived from the verb t-r-f, which in biblical usage always describes the action of wild beasts or those resembling them in their rapaciousness. The two prohibitions of nevelah and terefah are frequently listed together because dead flesh would often come from an animal that had been killed by wild beasts.
\nThere are two aspects to these prohibitions: (1) Eating flesh of carcasses or torn animals is forbidden, and (2) tactile contact with carcasses renders one impure and requires purificatory ablutions. Leviticus 5:25 includes contact with carcasses in a list of inadvertent or neglectful sins that obligate the offender to bring a sin offering and confess his wrongdoing.
\nHere, we find the duty to bathe and launder one\u2019s garments. Laundering was a procedure often included in rites of purification.<\/p>\n
16. he shall bear his guilt The legal significance of this formula is explained in the Comment to 5:1.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 18<\/p>\n
Definition of the Family<\/p>\n
Chapter 18 is the most systematic and complete collection of laws within the Torah dealing with the subject of incest and other forbidden sexual unions. It outlines in detail which unions among relatives within the ancient Israelite clan are forbidden on grounds of incest, adultery, and so on; and in so doing, it indirectly defines the limits of the immediate family. By way of contrast, marriages within the extended clan, called mishpa\u1e25ah in Hebrew, were actually encouraged.
\nChapter 18 seeks to draw that critical line of distinction between the immediate family and the larger clan. The underlying concern of its laws is the continuity of the Israelite family over successive generations. The immediate family was formed by a man who married one or more wives, thereby initiating the process of procreation. This conception of the family explains why the regulations governing sexual behavior were addressed to the male as the head of the family. The biblical family was organized along patrilineal lines; that is, a person was related primarily to his father and to his father\u2019s kin. Although primacy was given to relationships on the paternal side, the system nonetheless afforded the mother and her kin a certain status as well, as we observe in the laws of chapter 18. Excursus 5 provides further discussion of the Israelite family.
\nTwo principles govern the definition of incest in the code of chapter 18 and throughout the rest of the Torah: (1) she\u02beer, \u201cflesh relations,\u201d sometimes known as consanguineal or blood relations and (2) \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness,\u201d a euphemism for sexuality. The nuclear family was founded on six she\u02beer relatives: mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister. We learn this indirectly from the code of purity governing the Israelite priesthood. According to 21:2\u20133, an ordinary priest, usually forbidden to defile himself through contact with a corpse, was, nevertheless, permitted to attend to the burial of any one of these six relatives. The she\u02beer relationship is extended in 18:12\u201313 to include the sister of one\u2019s father or mother.
\nThe she\u02beer relatives are in a different category from members of the family related by affinity, those who become a man\u2019s relatives by marriage. (A man\u2019s wife is his affinal relative par excellence and her sisters and her children from other marriages are also included in this category.) The basic principle regulating sexual union with affinal relatives is conveyed by the term \u02bfervah. The only exception is levirate marriage, which, according to Deuteronomy 25:5\u201310, dispenses with the prohibition of \u02bfervah in cases when a brother dies without leaving a male heir. In such an event, it is actually incumbent on a man to marry his brother\u2019s widow.
\nThe interaction of these two principles, she\u02beer relationship and \u02bfervah (exclusive sexual access), account directly and by extension for all of the prohibited sexual unions within the Israelite family. Their scope was, in addition, affected by the polygamous character of the Israelite family. A man who was married to more than one wife would bring into the range of potentially prohibited marriages a large number of women from the clan, or tribe, than would be the case under a monogamous system. As an example, a man with several wives could not marry the sister of any one of them while that wife was alive. Further discussion of family structure is found in Excursus 5.
\nChapter 18 is one of three legal collections in the Torah that deal in detail with incest and sexuality. Leviticus 20 restates chapter 18 in almost all of its particulars, and Deuteronomy 27:20\u201323 enumerates prohibitions of the same sort. But each of these texts is formulated in a distinctive way. Deuteronomy 27:20\u201323 is part of an execration, its dicta expressed as: \u201cCursed be he \u2026\u201d or \u201cAny man who.\u2026\u201d As is typical in legal codes, Leviticus 20 specifies penalties for each of the offenses. By contrast, chapter 18 represents a series of commandments formulated in a style similar to the Decalogue: \u201cDo not \u2026\u201d or \u201cThou shalt not.\u2026\u201d Although there is comment on the nature of the offenses and their gravity, no specific penalties are stipulated, as they almost always are in legal codes.
\nA subject not discussed explicitly in any of the codes is the status of children born out of incestuous or adulterous relationships. Deuteronomy 23:3 forbids a bastard (mamzer) or his direct descendants to marry within the Israelite community (kahal), but the term mamzer is never defined legally. In the biblical period Israelite children of uncertain paternity\u2014those born out of incest and adultery or to harlots\u2014were undoubtedly ostracized. In Judges 11:1\u201312 we read that Jephthah, who was a harlot\u2019s son, was driven away from home by the legitimate sons of his father. Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 defines the status of children in terms of the circumstances surrounding their conception, that is, in terms of which prohibitions had been violated; thus the status of mamzer is applied to offspring born out of adultery or incest. But, according to Jewish law, one born out of wedlock (when there is not adultery or incest) is not considered a mamzer.
\nChapter 18 opens (vv. 1\u20135) and closes (vv. 24\u201330) with admonitions that state the consequences of transgressing against God\u2019s commandments in the area of forbidden sexual activity. Such offenses would undermine Israel\u2019s right to the land of Canaan and would eventually bring about the exile. The main section of the chapter may be divided into three classes of forbidden sexual activity: (1) incest (vv. 6\u201316); (2) unions with women who are closely related to each other (vv. 17\u201318); and (3) other forbidden sexual activity, including adultery (vv. 19\u201320, 22\u201323). Verse 21 stands out as a special prohibition of Molech worship. It may have been included here because the Molech cult involved the sacrifice of children.<\/p>\n
2. Speak to the Israelite people The regulations of chapter 18 were meant to govern the conduct of the entire people.<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God Chapter 18 begins and ends (v. 30) with this assertion, which, with variations, appears frequently as a recurrent theme in the Holiness Code. It emphasizes that all of the commandments come directly from God and are to be obeyed with utmost strictness.<\/p>\n
3. You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt \u2026 or of the land of Canaan This statement is puzzling in a code dealing primarily with incest, since there is no explicit evidence that incest was widespread in Canaan or Egypt. At certain periods in the history of ancient Egypt, it was the custom among the royal class to encourage brother-sister marriages. This was not likely to be imitated by the common people of another culture. Some of the tangential prohibitions of chapter 18, however, such as homosexuality and bestiality, were apparently quite common in Canaanite culture.<\/p>\n
nor shall you fallow their laws Elsewhere, injunctions against following the laws or practices of other nations refer primarily to idolatry. Thus, in 2 Kings 17:7\u20138, \u1e25ukkot ha-goyim, \u201cthe laws of the nations,\u201d refer specifically to the worship of other deities. It is likely, therefore, that here the injunctions against following the laws of the nations represent generalizations rather than precise, historical references. The references to the sexual misconduct characteristic of the former inhabitants are probably to be attributed to the vehemence of the negative attitude of the priestly literature toward pagan ways of life. It would be in character for the priestly codes to enlarge on the sense of revulsion toward idolatrous religions, going beyond mere references to idolatry itself.
\nThe full significance of the association between incest and the sins of the Canaanites is conveyed in the closing admonition of verses 24\u201328. There, possession of the land is made contingent on the quality of family life; should the land be defiled it would reject the Israelites as it had the former Canaanites.<\/p>\n
4. My rules alone shall you observe, and faithfully follow My laws The terms \u1e25ok, \u1e25ukkah, and mishpat are often used synonymously in exhortations such as this. And yet, in its original meaning mishpat differs considerably from \u1e25ok and \u1e25ukkah. When these latter are used technically, they express the recording and promulgation of the law, since they derive from the verb \u1e25-k-k, \u201cto engrave, inscribe.\u201d The term mishpat, on the other hand, derives from the verb sh-f-t, \u201cto judge, pronounce judgment.\u201d It refers primarily to rules, or norms, that govern the judicial process and to laws that are decided as part of that process.
\nThe Hebrew verb h-l-kh, \u201cto go, walk,\u201d is often used to connote adherence to God\u2019s commandments. It expresses a metaphor, common to many literary traditions, of life as a journey on which one embarks or a path on which one walks. God\u2019s commandments direct a person in the right path and represent the \u201cway\u201d in which one should \u201cwalk.\u201d There is nothing particularly theological about this metaphor, which may characterize any course of action, so long as it is considered to be normative, or proper.<\/p>\n
5. by the pursuit of which man shall live The simple sense of the clause va-\u1e25ai ba-hem, \u201che shall live by them,\u201d is that one should live his life in accordance with God\u2019s laws and commandments and that he should obey them all his life or while he is alive. This clause has, however, stimulated other interpretations reflecting its unusual syntax and its semantic nuances. Syntax allows us to understand this clause as one of result: \u201cthat man shall perform, so that [as a result] he may acquire life by them.\u201d Performance of God\u2019s laws and commandments holds forth the reward of life, whereas their violation threatens man with death. This interpretation is the basis for the traditional understanding of our verse by later commentaries, which state that observance of the commandments is rewarded by life in the world to come. We also find a nuanced rabbinic interpretation that stresses the sanctity of life itself: va-\u1e25ai ba-hem ve-lo\u02be she-yamut ba-hem, \u201cThat one may live by them, not that one should die because of them.\u201d In situations directly threatening human life, one should set aside the commandments in order to preserve human life. This principle was known as pikkua\u1e25 nefesh, \u201cthe sparing or rescue of human life.\u201d<\/p>\n
6. None of you shall come near anyone of bis own flesh to uncover nakedness This verse contains terms of reference that are essential for a proper understanding of the legislation of chapter 18 as a whole. The Hebrew verb k-r-v, \u201cto come near, approach,\u201d often has the connotation of sexual intercourse. The terms most in need of interpretation are she\u02beer, \u201cflesh,\u201d and \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness.\u201d The simple meaning of she\u02beer is \u201cmeat, food,\u201d as we learn from Exodus 21:10, where this word refers to the food a man must provide for a slave girl in his charge. This is also the meaning of the Akkadian cognate \u0161\u00eeru. Much in the way that basar, \u201cmeat,\u201d approximates the sense of blood relative, so she\u02beer is used to characterize consanguineal relatives within the family. This meaning is also conveyed by the Ugaritic cognate \u1e6far. The composite term she\u02beer besaro, literally \u201cthe flesh of his flesh,\u201d is a redundancy, used for emphasis. The noun \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness,\u201d is a euphemism for sexuality that is related to the verb \u02bf-r-h, \u201cto uncover,\u201d and is cognate with the Akkadian adjective eru(m), \u201cempty, bereft, naked.\u201d To \u201cuncover nakedness\u201d means \u201cto have sexual intercourse.\u201d
\nVerse 6 is an opening statement that establishes a general category to be spelled out in the following verses. A basic rule of rabbinic hermencutics states: \u201cThe general category includes only what is in its specific components.\u201d As applied to our case, this means that the circle of forbidden, incestuous relatives could not be extended to include any who are not explicitly mentioned in the laws of chapter 18. The only exception is a man\u2019s own daughter, who is, of course, forbidden to him sexually, but who is not listed among the incestuous relations. The law does mention granddaughters, however (v. 10), and it is to be assumed that since a daughter is more closely related than a granddaughter, she would be forbidden, a fortiori. The daughter is one of the six she\u02beer relations listed in 21:2\u20133.<\/p>\n
7. Your father\u2019s nakedness, that is, the nakedness of your mother This verse forbids sexual relations with one\u2019s natural mother, according to Ramban. The prefixed vav in the word ve-\u02bfervat is to be translated \u201cthat being the nakedness of.\u201d It does not add another element, but rather defines further what immediately preceded it. This vav is, therefore, called \u201ccircumstantial.\u201d In this case, \u02bfervat \u02beavikha means \u201cthe nakedness reserved for your father, belonging to your father.\u201d Only one\u2019s father has access to one\u2019s mother\u2019s sexuality. This is also the meaning of \u02bfervat, \u201cthe nakedness of,\u201d in the following verse.<\/p>\n
8. the nakedness of your father\u2019s wife This refers to one who has sexual relations with a wife of his father who is not his own mother. By so doing, he would also uncover his father\u2019s \u201cnakedness,\u201d namely, the nakedness of a woman who had been reserved for his father. This regulation most obviously applied in polygamous societies, but it also related to cases of divorce. A man may never marry his father\u2019s divorc\u00e9e. The sin of Reuben, as recounted in Genesis 35:22 and referred to in Genesis 49:4, was that he cohabited with one of his father\u2019s wives.<\/p>\n
9. The nakedness of your sister\u2014your father\u2019s daughter or your mother\u2019s, whether born into the household or outside Targum Onkelos renders this verse as follows: \u201cwho is born from your father by another woman, or by your mother from another man.\u201d This rendering takes the definition moledet bayit \u02beo moledet \u1e25uts, \u201cwhether born into the household or outside,\u201d as parenthetical and redundant, not as adding another category. In other words, \u201cyour father\u2019s daughter\u201d was born into your household, whereas your mother\u2019s daughter was born outside of it at a time when your mother was not part of your father\u2019s household. On this basis, moledet bayit of our verse is equivalent in meaning to moledet \u02beavikha, \u201cborn to your father,\u201d in verse 11. Elsewhere, Hebrew moledet usually refers to place of birth. The provisions of verse 11 partially duplicate those of this verse.<\/p>\n
10. The nakedness of your son\u2019s daughter, or of your daughter\u2019s daughter It is not entirely clear why the prohibition of union with one\u2019s own daughter was not made explicit, but it is obvious that such a union would have been incestuous, as noted in the introductory Comment and in the Comment to verse 6.<\/p>\n
11. The nakedness of your father\u2019s wife\u2019s daughter This is an alternative way of formulating verse 9, namely, \u201cyour father\u2019s daughter,\u201d a half sister with whom one shares a common father but not the same mother. The overlapping of verses 9 and 11 has attracted critical attention since talmudic times. In Yevamot 22b, Rabbi Yose b. Judah, noting the presence of the word \u201cwife\u201d in verse 11 and its absence in verse 9, concludes that verse 9 is speaking of a daughter born of one\u2019s father\u2019s mistress, not wife! Verse 11 would refer, then, to a legal half sister. This is unlikely, however, because chapter 18 does not deal with the institution of concubinage. Hoffmann understands verse 11 differently, as adding a prohibition to verse 9. In his view, verse 9 forbids marriage only to a full sister or at least to one with the same mother, whereas verse 11 adds the prohibition of a sister with whom one shared only a common father, and who was less closely related. This, too, is a forced explanation that would require understanding verse 9 as \u201cyour father\u2019s daughter, or only your mother\u2019s daughter,\u201d which is not what the verse says.
\nIt is preferable to concede that there was some overlap or repetition in chapter 18 rather than to distort the simple sense of verse 9 in order to preserve a semblance of consistency within the chapter.<\/p>\n
12\u201313. the nakedness of your father\u2019s sister \u2026 the nakedness of your mother\u2019s sister The two sides of the family are differentiated, with the two aunts mentioned separately. Their relationship represents an extension of the she\u02beer principle. Verse 14 adds an affinal aunt, the wife of one\u2019s uncle.<\/p>\n
14. the nakedness of your father\u2019s brother: do not approach his wife The formation \u02bfervat \u02bea\u1e25i \u02beavikha, \u201cthe nakedness of your father\u2019s brother,\u201d means the sexual access to his wife. This is explained in verses 7\u20138, regarding the meaning of the term \u02bfervah.<\/p>\n
15. the nakedness of your daughter-in-law Hebrew kallah, like its Akkadian cognate kallatu, basically means \u201cdaughter-in-law.\u201d Nevertheless, usage was fluid. Viewed from the perspective of the son\u2019s generation, the kallah was the \u201cbride,\u201d just as the masculine counterpart \u1e25atan means both \u201cson-in-law\u201d and \u201cbridegroom.\u201d<\/p>\n
16. the nakedness of your brother\u2019s wife; it is the nakedness of your brother Here again, as in verses 7\u20138, \u02bfervah refers to sexual access. The \u02bfervah of one\u2019s brother is the nakedness of the brother\u2019s wife, who is forbidden in marriage. Deuteronomy 25:5\u201310 provides a significant exception. In the event a man dies without leaving a male heir, his brother is commanded to take the widow in order to produce an heir and assure the continuity of his brother\u2019s \u201cname.\u201d This is known as levirate marriage.
\nVerse 16 completes the primary list of incestuous relatives. Verses 17\u201318 deal with two cases where marriage into the family engenders additional prohibitions, on the principle that certain of the she\u02beer relatives of a man\u2019s wife are also forbidden. This combines the affinal and consanguineal principles, so that a man may not marry his wife\u2019s daughter nor her granddaughters. In effect, the cumulative provisions of Leviticus 18 and 20 and of Deuteronomy 27 prohibit marriage with three generations of the wife\u2019s she\u02beer relatives: her mother, her sister (in verse 18, which follows), and her daughter. This is even extended to a fourth generation, with the prohibition of her granddaughters. Whereas Leviticus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 27:23 project the prohibition back to the parent generation and forbid marriage with one\u2019s mother-in-law, our text looks forward and forbids marriage with the daughter and granddaughter of one\u2019s wife.
\nThe new JPS translation understands the form sha\u02bearah as an abstract feminine noun meaning \u201ckindred, kinship,\u201d the sense being that the wife\u2019s daughters and granddaughters are part of her kinship circle. One could, however, vocalize the word she\u02beerah with a mappik (dot) in the final heh of the word, and render it \u201cher flesh.\u201d Actually, such a reading makes sense because the basis of these prohibitions is that a wife\u2019s daughter and her granddaughter are her she\u02beer relatives.<\/p>\n
17. it is depravity Hebrew zimmah, from the root z-m-m, \u201cto plot, conspire,\u201d usually refers either to sexual immorality or, as a metaphor, to Israel\u2019s infidelity in committing idolatry.<\/p>\n
18. Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister Hebrew li-tsror reflects the noun tsarah, \u201crival wife,\u201d which, in turn, derives from the verb ts-r-r, \u201cto assail, attack.\u201d In polygamous marriages, the interests of the several wives inevitably conflicted.<\/p>\n
and uncover her nakedness in the other\u2019s lifetime The syntax requires clarification. The literal sense is \u201cto uncover her nakedness (that is, the wife\u2019s sister\u2019s nakedness) in addition to her, during her lifetime (that is, the wife\u2019s lifetime).\u201d The preposition \u02bfal in this statement has the same meaning as \u02bfal nashav, \u201cin addition to his wives,\u201d in Genesis 28:9. Marrying two sisters would create an extremely unhealthy rivalry. The prohibition continues so long as the first sister remains alive, even if she had been divorced from the man in question. It is not certain why the text dispenses with the rule of permanent prohibition in this case.<\/p>\n
19. Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness Rather, \u201cduring her period of impurity.\u201d As has been noted, the polar terms tame\u02be, \u201cimpure,\u201d and tahor, \u201cpure,\u201d do not describe sanitary conditions, but, rather, ritual conditions. This prohibition, which initiates the section on sexual activity other than incest, is distinctive in that it governs a man\u2019s sexual relations with his own wife. On the precise meaning of Hebrew niddah, \u201cperiod of menstruation,\u201d see Comments to 12:2 and 15:19.<\/p>\n
20. Do not have carnal relations with your neighbor\u2019s wife The literal Hebrew formula for impregnation is \u201cto place your layer of semen\u201d (natan shekhovtekha le-zera\u02bf). The offspring of an adulterous union was undoubtedly illegitimate. Apart from the immorality of adultery, children born out of such unions were stigmatized. The prohibition of adultery is basic to biblical law and religion. It is included in the Decalogue, in Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18, where it is associated with the commandment not to covet one\u2019s neighbor\u2019s wife. The prophets of Israel were likewise very vocal in its condemnation. The act of adultery also became the basis for a widely used prophetic metaphor expressing the poignancy of Israel\u2019s faithlessness. According to that metaphor, it is Israel, the bride, who is wayward.<\/p>\n
21. Do not allow any of your offspring to be offered up to Molech Rather, \u201cDo not dedicate any of your offspring to Molech.\u201d The verb n-t-n used in this statement may mean \u201cto devote, dedicate\u201d as an offering to a deity. Molech is the name given to a deity worshiped by some of Israel\u2019s ancient neighbors. According to 2 Kings 23:10, King Josiah destroyed a cult site in the environs of Jerusalem where children had been sacrificed to Molech during the earlier reign of Manasseh, king of Judah. The biblical evidence on the subject of the Molech cult is difficult to interpret clearly and has occasioned controversy among biblical scholars. These problems are explored in Excursus 7.<\/p>\n
22. Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman Hebrew mishkevei \u02beishshah means literally \u201cafter the manner of lying with a woman\u201d by the introduction of the male member. Male homosexuality is associated with the ancient Canaanites, if we are to judge from biblical literature. Two biblical narratives highlight this theme, one about the men of Sodom in Genesis 19, and the other concerning the fate of the concubine at Gibeah in Judges 19. Although Gibeah was an Israelite town, the story clearly implies that Gibeah\u2019s Israelite residents had descended to the abominable ways of the surrounding Canaanites.
\nBoth of these accounts place the phenomenon of male homosexuality in a particular context: xenophobia. This extreme fear of strangers induces a community to attack visitors. In both of the stories cited here, the form of attack was homosexual assault. It is also thought that the pagan priests, called kedeshim, regularly engaged in homosexual acts. The term me\u1e25ir kelev, \u201cthe pay of a dog,\u201d mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:18\u201319, refers to the wages of a male prostitute, who usually serviced men, not women, in ancient societies. Male homosexuality is called to\u02bfevah, \u201cabhorrence, abomination,\u201d a term that occurs frequently in the admonitions of Deuteronomy. It occurs no fewer than four times in this concluding section of our chapter. In Genesis 46:34 and Exodus 8:22, it serves to characterize what Egyptians considered abhorrent, principally pastoral pursuits. There has been considerable speculation as to why lesbianism is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah. In due course, rabbinic interpretation added this prohibition, as well.<\/p>\n
23. Do not have carnal relations with any beast \u2026 and let no woman lend herself to a beast This is the only instance in chapter 18 where a commandment is addressed to the woman. Elsewhere in the laws the second person masculine singular form of address is consistently employed. Here, the statement speaks, as well, of what a woman may not do. In ancient Israel women would have had little access to men on their own initiative, but would have had the opportunity to engage in bestiality with animals if they chose to. It is understood, of course, that such conduct was forbidden to both men and women, as is explicit in the formulation of 20:15. Hebrew tevel, \u201cperversion,\u201d derives from the root b-l-l, \u201cto mix.\u201d The sense is that sexual activity between man and beast is a forbidden \u201cmixture\u201d of the species.
\nWith this the laws of forbidden sexual activity are complete. The closing section (vv. 24\u201330) is an admonition against violating any of the sexual prohibitions stated in the chapter.<\/p>\n
24. Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways The prohibited sexual acts set forth in chapter 18 fall within the scope of impurity. Although incest and the other sexual offenses involve interpersonal relations, they are also offenses against God.<\/p>\n
25. Thus the land became defiled The interdependence of the people and the land is a prominent theme in prophetic teaching. Those who violate the code of family life commit an outrage that defiles the land\u2014which, in turn, will spew them out. This is, of course, one way of explaining the exile of a people from its land, a threat intrinsic to chapter 18. It is as though the land, personified, is angered by its defilement at man\u2019s hand.
\nExile is punishment for an abhorrent way of life, not only as regards Israel, but also for all other nations. So, for example, until the prior inhabitants of Canaan reach the limit of their sinfulness, the Israelites cannot occupy their land, and the fulfillment of God\u2019s promise of Genesis 15:16 must be delayed: \u201cAnd they shall return here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.\u201d In the admonition of chapter 18, this theme is applied to Israel itself.<\/p>\n
26. neither the citizen nor the stranger who resides among you The goal of establishing a holy community required that all who lived within it, both Israelites and aliens, uphold a standard of proper sexual behavior. Here, as in other instances, the admonition is worded so as to include non-Israelites.<\/p>\n
29. such persons shall be cut off from their people On the penalty known as karet, \u201ccutting off,\u201d see Excursus 1. Possibly, this statement requires that foreign enclaves in the Land of Israel also banish members of these groups who violated the sexual laws governing Israelites. This is suggested by the third-person formulation: \u201cfrom their people.\u201d<\/p>\n
30. You shall keep My charge On the specialized connotations of Hebrew mishmeret, \u201ccharge,\u201d see Comment to 8:35.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 19<\/p>\n
The Laws of Holiness<\/p>\n
Kedoshim<\/p>\n
Chapter 19 may be characterized as a brief torah (instruction). It states the duties incumbent on the Israelites as a people and includes a wide range of laws and commandments that are representative of the basic teachings of the Torah. More specifically, it echoes the Ten Commandments. These features were noted by the ancient sages. In Leviticus Rabba 24, we read as follows: \u201cSpeak to the entire Israelite people and say to them: \u2018You shall be holy.\u2026\u2019 Rabbi Hiyya taught: These words inform us that this section is to be read before the people in an assembly. And why is it to be read before the people in an assembly? Because most of the essential laws of the Torah can be derived from it. Rabbi Levi said: Because the Ten Commandments are embodied in it.\u201d The midrash then proceeds to list a series of parallels between chapter 19 and the Ten Commandments. Some of the parallels require homiletical license, but even according to the strictest exegesis the following can be established:<\/p>\n
Leviticus 19
\nThe Ten Commandments<\/p>\n
Reverence for parents (v. 3a)
\nHonoring parents (no. 5)<\/p>\n
The Sabbath (v. 3b)
\nThe Sabbath (no. 4)<\/p>\n
Idolatry (v. 4)
\nIdolatry; worship of other Gods (no.2)<\/p>\n
Stealing and deceitful conduct (vv. 11a, 13, 15, 35)
\nStealing (no.8)<\/p>\n
False oaths (v. 12)
\nFalse oaths (no. 3)<\/p>\n
\u201cI am the LORD your God who freed you from the land of Egypt\u201d (v. 36)
\n\u201cI am the LORD \u2026\u201d (no. 1)<\/p>\n
There are, in addition, further parallels of a less precise nature to be noted in the Comments.
\nIn Ezekiel 22:6\u201312 we find a prophetic condemnation of the Israelite people and its \u201cprinces\u201d that refers to some of the laws and commandments set forth in this chapter as well as to those characteristic of other parts of the Holiness Code. In most cases, the parallels are so precise that a literary connection between chapter 19 and Ezekiel 22:6\u201312 is most probable. In the prophecy there is reference to the following six items prominent in chapter 19: (1) humiliation of parents, (2) cheating strangers, (3) despising Sabbaths and sacred offerings, (4) depravity, (5) defrauding one\u2019s own kinsfolk, and (6) baseness. Chapter 19 thus emerges as a major biblical statement on the duties of the Israelite people. The entire people is addressed in the plural, and all of what is said relates directly to the opening statement: \u201cYou shall be holy.\u2026\u201d The emphasis on duties basic to collective existence stands out in bold relief; the concept of \u201ca kingdom of priests and a holy nation,\u201d expressed in the words of Exodus 19:6, is the unifying theme of chapter 19.
\nThe composition of the chapter requires some comment. It is organized around a series of primarily apodictic statements: \u201cDo not \u2026\u201dor \u201cYou shall.\u2026\u201d Each is of one to three verses in length and usually concludes with the formula \u201cI the LORD am your God\u201d or simply \u201cI am the LORD.\u201d This collection employs both second and third person formulations and both singular and plural forms of address. Taken as a whole, it appears to have been compiled from previously recorded laws and commandments, which have been preserved in their original form. Both the introduction and conclusion are utterly brief when compared with other chapters in the Holiness Code, lending this chapter a dramatic quality.<\/p>\n
2. The LORD spoke to Moses \u2026 You shall be holy Rather, \u201cYou must be holy!\u201d The verse is distinctive in that it provides a rationale for a commandment: Israel must be holy because God is holy. To have a close relationship to God, the people must emulate God. As one of the sages put it: \u201cIt is comparable to the court of a king. What is the court\u2019s duty? To imitate the king!\u201d In theological terminology this doctrine is known as imitatio dei, \u201cthe imitation of God.\u201d For further discussion, see Excursus 6.<\/p>\n
3. You shall each revere his mother and bis father, and keep My sabbaths Literally, \u201cEach one, his mother and his father, you shall revere.\u201d In biblical Hebrew, sentences beginning with \u02beish, \u201ca person,\u201d may shift to second person address, as is the case here. More significant is the fact that mother precedes father, whereas elsewhere father usually comes first, as one would expect in a patrilineal society. There are a few exceptions to the normal pattern, however, suggesting that in familial contexts, deference is shown to the mother. In 21:2, one\u2019s mother comes first in a list of consanguineal relatives. In Genesis 35:18 we observe that the name given a newborn child by its mother is recorded prior to the name given by the father. The traditional resolution of the unusual order evident in our verse is based on a comparison with the Fifth Commandment, where father precedes mother. The two statements, when combined, amount to an equitable estimation of both parents.<\/p>\n
4. Do not turn to idols The Hebrew idiom \u02beal tifnu \u02beel, \u201cDo not turn to,\u201d conveys the sense of reliance on a power, human or divine. It is frequently used with reference to idolatrous tendencies. The etymology of Hebrew \u02beelil, \u201cidol,\u201d is uncertain. Some derive it from \u02beal, \u201cnothingness,\u201d as in Job 24:25. Others take it as a diminutive form of \u02beel, \u201cgod, deity,\u201d used derogatorily. The form \u02beelil also occasionally functions as an adjective rather than as a noun. In Job 13:4 we find rofe\u02beei \u02beelil, \u201cineffectual physicians,\u201d and in Jeremiah 14:14 kesem ve-\u02beelil, \u201can empty divination.\u201d These usages seem to argue for the derivation from \u02beal, \u201cnothingness.\u201d<\/p>\n
molten gods Hebrew massekhah derives from the verb n-s-kh, \u201cto pour into a mold, cast.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. When you sacrifice an offering of well-being Rather, \u201ca sacred gift of greeting.\u201d Verses 5\u20138 contain the first of the casuistic statements in chapter 19. They are addressed primarily to the individual Israelites who donated shelamim sacrifices to God. The basic rites associated with this sacrifice are set forth in chapter 3, in 7:11\u201334, and in 22:21, where there are further provisions for making the offering. This abundance of information is not without problems, however. According to 7:11\u201334, the shelamim could be used for three purposes: as a votive offering (neder), as a voluntary offering (nedavah), and as a thanksgiving offering (todah). When we examine the provisions of 7:11\u201334 more closely we discover, however, that the thanksgiving offering is distinct from the other two. It is accompanied by two kinds of grain offerings, one of which is made from leavened dough. Furthermore, the flesh of the todah could be consumed by priests and donors only on the same day as its presentation, whereas in the other two types of shelamim, the flesh could be consumed until the morning of the third day. There is also the difference that in 22:21\u201325 the todah is separated from the other types of shelamim.
\nIn summary, the todah retained distinctive features even after being incorporated in the general category of shelamim sacrifices. The code of 7:11\u201334 appears to represent the outcome of a process of development and change. Our code and that of 22:21f. represent an earlier stage and do not subsume the todah under the category of shelamim offerings. This is so because the codes of Leviticus were arranged according to a topical order that was not meant to reflect the inner development of ritual but, rather, to instruct the priesthood and the Israelites on proper procedures. It is therefore quite understandable that in the later chapters of Leviticus one may find statements that reflect earlier stages of cultic development.<\/p>\n
so that it may be accepted on your behalf On the sense of Hebrew li-rtsonkhem, \u201con your behalf,\u201d see Comment to 1:3.<\/p>\n
6. It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it For similar procedures and terminology, see 7:15\u201318 and Comments to those verses.<\/p>\n
8. And he who eats of it shall bear his guilt See Comment to 5:1.<\/p>\n
for he has profaned what is sacred to the LORD \u2026 Hebrew kodesh, \u201csacred,\u201d and the plural kodashim often have the sense of \u201csacred offering(s).\u201d The Hebrew verb \u1e25illel, \u201cto render profane, impure,\u201d is related to the noun \u1e25ol, \u201cunsanctified, profane.\u201d
\nThe penalty of being \u201ccut off\u201d (karet) is added to the admonition here. In 7:18, which deals with the same ritual requirements as this passage, no mention is made of it.<\/p>\n
9. When you reap the harvest of your land Verses 9\u201310 require that some produce from the harvest of field and vineyard be given to the poor and the stranger. In all, four types of gifts are specified: two from the grain harvest and the corresponding two from the vineyards. The two allocations of grain are pe\u02beah and leket.
\nRegarding pe\u02beah, \u201cthe corner, edge\u201d of the field, there is no limit or minimum as to the space or quantity to be left unharvested in the corners of the field. Tradition set the minimum at one-sixtieth of the yield, according to the Mishnah Pe\u02beah 1:1\u20132. The Mishnah recommends taking into consideration several factors, such as the abundance of the yield, the overall resources of the owner of the field, and the current needs of the poor.<\/p>\n
Leket, \u201cgleanings,\u201d is a collective noun. Mishnah Pe\u02beah 4:10 defines leket as that which falls to the ground during reaping. It was the practice in ancient Israel, as in the ancient Near East generally, to cut the stalks of grain with one hand while catching what was reaped with the other. This technique is alluded to in Psalms 129:6\u20137: \u201cLet them be like grass on roofs \u2026 that affords no handful for the reaper.\u201d Whatever the reaper failed to catch in his other hand fell to the ground. This is what is known as leket, to be left ungathered. A description of gleaning by the poor in ancient Israel is preserved in the Book of Ruth 2:3, 7. There it is told how the poor of Bethlehem, Ruth among them, followed along in the rows of grain after the reapers.<\/p>\n
10. You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen fruit The two allocations to the poor and the stranger from the vineyards are: \u02bfolelot and peret. \u02bfolelot, \u201cgrape clusters not fully grown,\u201d are defined according to Mishnah Pe\u02beah 7:4 as grapes that have neither katef, \u201cthe developed top of the cluster,\u201d having small stems branching out from the main stem, nor natef, \u201cthe developed bottom part of the cluster.\u201d Such underdeveloped growths cannot properly be termed \u02beeshkol, \u201ca cluster,\u201d and must consequently be left unpicked until they mature. At that time, only the poor and the stranger may pick them. Peret is \u201cfruit that falls to the ground during picking,\u201d as defined in Mishnah Pe\u02beah 7:3. Such fruit is to be left ungathered.<\/p>\n
for the poor and the stranger On the term ger, \u201cstranger,\u201d see Comments to verse 33 and to 17:8. In 23:22 we find a similar law. The term \u02bfani, one of several used in biblical Hebrew to characterize the poor, expresses the suffering, deprivation, and miserable state of the poor.<\/p>\n
11. You shall not steal This parallels the Eighth Commandment.<\/p>\n
you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another This approximates the import of the Ninth Commandment: \u201cYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.\u201d Here the verb lo\u02be teshakkeru, literally \u201cYou shall not lie,\u201d is used, and in the Ninth Commandment, the noun sheker in the designation \u02bfed shaker, \u201ca false witness.\u201d The law of 5:21\u201324 prescribes the expiation, restitution, and penalties required of one who acts deceitfully in this way.<\/p>\n
12. You shall not swear falsely by My name Both the Mishnah and the Sifra assume that our passage and the Third Commandment are parallels. A comparison of the two passages is instructive. Both employ the verb nishba\u02bf, \u201cto swear, take an oath.\u201d But the Third Commandment uses the adverbial la-shav\u02be, whose meaning is not completely clear, whereas our passage uses the adverbial la-shaker, \u201cfalsely,\u201d whose meaning is precise. Mishnah Shevu\u02bfot 3:8f. defines shav\u02be as that which differs from what is generally accepted as true, which contradicts fact or reality, or which projects an impossibility. Thus, shav\u02be is an aspect of falsehood.<\/p>\n
profaning the name of your God Oaths are sworn in God\u2019s name, and one who swears falsely treats God\u2019s name as if it were not holy. This is the sense of the verb ve-\u1e25illalta, literally \u201cyou will profane,\u201d in our verse. God\u2019s \u201cname,\u201d or renown, and the awe in which He is held are diminished by those who fail to revere Him. Profanation of God\u2019s name occurs as a result of false oaths and also as a result of improper sacrifice, the neglect of purity, and the practice of idolatry, the latter being an extreme affront to God. Conversely, obedience to God\u2019s laws sanctifies His name. In later Jewish literature we encounter the notion of \u1e25illul ha-shem, \u201cthe desecration of God\u2019s name,\u201d which refers to acts that bring dishonor on God\u2019s people, Israel, or upon His Torah.<\/p>\n
13. You shall not defraud your fellow. The terms \u02bfoshek, \u201cfraud,\u201d and gazel, \u201crobbery,\u201d are explained in the Comment to 5:22.<\/p>\n
The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning Hebrew pe\u02bfullah, \u201cwages,\u201d actually connotes both the effort and its reward, both labor and the compensation paid for labor. Hebrew sakhir, \u201chired worker,\u201d is usually one paid for a particular job or for his time.<\/p>\n
14. You shall not insult the deaf The Hebrew verb killel, \u201cto insult,\u201d literally \u201cto treat lightly,\u201d reflects the adjective kall, \u201cslight, of little importance.\u201d It is often used in contrast to kibbed, \u201cto honor, treat with respect,\u201d and barekh, \u201cto bless.\u201d What is \u201clight\u201d is worth less than what is \u201cheavy.\u201d In Hebrew to be \u201cheavy\u201d and to be \u201chonored\u201d are related concepts. Elsewhere the verb killel may have the more severe connotation \u201cto curse, blaspheme,\u201d as in 24:14. Speaking ill of the deaf is especially reprehensible because it is taking unfair advantage of another\u2019s disability.<\/p>\n
or place a stumbling block before the blind Compare Deuteronomy 27:18: \u201cCursed be he who misdirects a blind person on his way.\u201d
\nLater Jewish tradition interpreted the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind as embodying a general norm of behavior. One should not tempt another person by preying on his weakness, his \u201cblindness,\u201d so to speak, or mislead one who cannot properly \u201cperceive\u201d the facts of a situation.<\/p>\n
You shall fear your God This admonition seems especially appropriate for offenses that cannot be detected and that, therefore, are readily concealed. The deaf cannot hear what is being said about them, and the blind cannot see who causes them to stumble. But God sees and hears on their behalf and will punish their tormentors.<\/p>\n
15. You shall not render an unfair decision The several commandments stated together in the verse represent still another instance of \u201cthe general followed by the specific.\u201d In other words, favoring the poor in judgment and giving preferential treatment to the rich are specific examples of the general category of unfair judgment.
\nHebrew lo\u02be ta\u02bfaseh \u02bfavel literally means \u201cDo not commit an injustice.\u201d Hebrew \u02bfavel is synonymous with resha\u02bf, \u201cwickedness,\u201d mirmah, \u201cdeceit,\u201d and \u1e25amas, \u201cviolence.\u201d Its antonyms are \u02beemunnah, \u201ctrustworthiness,\u201d and mishpat, \u201cjustice.\u201d<\/p>\n
do not favor the poor In the pursuit of justice there can be no favoritism, even toward those for whom we have instinctive sympathy and who are otherwise deserving of our aid. This is stated in Exodus 23:3: \u201cnor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute.\u201d
\nThe Hebrew idiom lo\u02be tissa\u02be penei literally means \u201cDo not lift up the face of.\u201d An honored leader may be known as nesu\u02be panim, literally \u201cone whose face is uplifted,\u201d or nasi\u02be, literally \u201cone elevated, raised above others,\u201d hence \u201ca prince.\u201d<\/p>\n
or show deference to the rich Hebrew gadol means \u201ca great person,\u201d but the context favors translating \u201crich\u201d in contrast to dall, literally \u201cone lacking in resources, poor.\u201d<\/p>\n
judge your kinsman fairly On the sense of Hebrew \u02bfamit, \u201cneighbor,\u201d see Comment to 18:20.<\/p>\n
16. Do not deal basely with your countrymen Rather, \u201cDo not act as a merchant toward your own kinsmen.\u201d This dictum remains ambiguous. Hebrew rakhil has usually been related to rokhel, \u201cmerchant.\u201d The idiom lo\u02be telekh rakhil has been interpreted to mean that one should not move about in the manner of a merchant, who is presumed to be privy to secret dealings and gossip. This is how the sense of talebearing developed in postbiblical Hebrew.
\nIn Jeremiah 6:28 and Ezekiel 22:9, rakhil is equated with acts of corruption and betrayal, even with murder. As a consequence, many traditional commentators, among them Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Rashbam, and Rashi, relate the verbal root r-kh-l to r-g-l, \u201cto spy.\u201d
\nThe Sifra preserves the following interpretation: \u201cThat you not act as a merchant who merely loads up his horse and departs.\u201d Now, Hebrew be-\u02bfammekha means \u201camong, with your kinsmen.\u201d Perhaps the sense is that in dealing with one\u2019s own kinsmen one should not be \u201call business,\u201d interested solely in profit, but, rather, considerate and friendly. Merchants were often foreigners who felt no close ties to those with whom they did business. The passage, nevertheless, remains problematic.<\/p>\n
Do not profit by the blood of your fellow This part of the verse is also difficult to interpret because of the problems in ascertaining the sense of the Hebrew idiom lo\u02be ta\u02bfamod \u02bfal, literally \u201cdo not stand over, by, near.\u201d
\nThere have been three principal suggestions. The first, \u201cto stand aside, to stand by,\u201d has the sense that one ought not to stand by inactively when one\u2019s neighbor\u2019s life is in danger. This is the interpretation of the Sifra, followed by Rashi and others. Targum Yerushalmi understands this statement in a similar way: \u201cDo not be silent concerning the \u2018blood\u2019 of your comrade when you know the truth in a legal case.\u201d The second suggestion takes the Hebrew to mean \u201cto conspire against, act against.\u201d Thus, Targum Onkelos reads: \u201cDo not rise up against the life of your comrade\u201d (Aram. la\u02be tekum \u02bfal dama\u02be de-\u1e25avrakh). This is similar to the interpretation of Ibn Ezra: \u201cOne ought not to join forces with murderers.\u201d \u201cTo stand over\u201d has this sense in several biblical passages. The third explanation of the Hebrew is \u201cto survive by means of, subsist, rely on.\u201d Ehrlich compares Ezekiel 33:26: \u02bfamadta \u02bfal \u1e25arbekha, \u201cYou have relied upon your sword for survival,\u201d with Genesis 27:40: \u02bfal \u1e25arbekha ti\u1e25yek, \u201cYet by your sword shall you live.\u201d This last interpretation is the one expressed in the translation, and it best fits the immediate context. One ought not pursue one\u2019s own livelihood in a manner that endangers another or at the expense of another\u2019s well-being.<\/p>\n
17. You shall not bate your kinsfolk in your heart Verses 17\u201318 constitute a unit. The context suggests the interpretation that an individual should not allow ill feelings to fester; rather, he should confront his kinsman and admonish him directly, in this way avoiding grudges and vengeance that breed hatred. Moreover, a proper attitude promotes love for one\u2019s neighbor. The opening statement (v. 17) contrasts with the conclusion (v. 18) as hate contrasts with love.<\/p>\n
Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him Rather, \u201cReprove your neighbor so that you will not incur guilt on his account.\u201d As the sages put it: \u201cWoe unto the wicked person, and woe unto his neighbor!\u201d One may eventually suffer by being closely involved with wrongdoers, and it becomes necessary to protect oneself when close associates go astray. There is also the suggestion that, beyond self-interest, civic responsibility requires a person to admonish others out of concern for others and for the community as a whole. This line of interpretation is adopted by Ramban and is most often cited by the ancient sages. In the Damascus Covenant, one of the compositions known as The Dead Sea Scrolls, the duty to admonish fellow members of the community went so far as to require one to report wrongdoing on the part of others to a special examiner.<\/p>\n
18. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen Hebrew tikkom derives from the verb n-k-m, \u201cto take vengeance,\u201d and tittor from n-t-r, \u201cto keep, guard, retain.\u201d The sense is that one ought not to keep alive the memory of another\u2019s offense against him.<\/p>\n
Love your fellow as yourself The prefixed lamed in le-re\u02bfakha indicates the direct object. The sage Hillel paraphrased this commandment in a negative formulation: \u201cWhat is hateful to you, do not do to your comrade.\u201d Rabbi Akiba, quoted in the Sifra, once commented as follows on \u201cLove your fellow as yourself\u201d that \u201cthis is a central principle in the Torah\u201d (zeh kelal gadol ba-torah).<\/p>\n
19. You shall observe My laws On the meaning of Hebrew \u1e25ok, \u201claw,\u201d see Comment to 18:4. This statement introduces the particular laws that follow.<\/p>\n
You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind Hebrew tarbi\u02bfa is from the root r-b-\u02bf, \u201cto crouch, lie down.\u201d The Hifil form used here means \u201cto cause to crouch, to allow to lie down,\u201d hence \u201cto mate.\u201d
\nHebrew kil\u02beayim has been variously explained. It is most probably cognate with Ugaritic kl\u02beat, \u201cboth,\u201d said of both hands, and with Akkadian kilallan, \u201cboth, a pair.\u201d On this basis, Hebrew kil\u02beayim would mean \u201ctwo kinds (together).\u201d It is used of animals, plants, grain, and cloth.
\nThe etymology of Hebrew sha\u02bfatnez, \u201cmixture,\u201d is not known. In Deuteronomy 22:11, it is defined as a fabric woven of linen and wool. The specifics of rabbinic law on this verse are treated extensively in the tractate Kilayim of the Mishnah.<\/p>\n
20. If a man has carnal relations with a woman who is a slave The law of verses 20\u201322 is topically related to the Seventh Commandment because it hinges on the legalities of adultery, even though adultery is not actually involved here.
\nOn the sense of Hebrew shikhvat zera\u02bf, here rendered \u201ccarnal relations,\u201d see Comment to 18:20.<\/p>\n
and has been designated for another man Rather, \u201cand has been assigned in advance to another man.\u201d The Hebrew adjective ne\u1e25refet can now be explained precisely. It is cognate with Akkadian \u1e2bar\u0101pu, \u201cto be early, arrive early.\u201d On this basis ne\u1e25refet would mean \u201cassigned in advance,\u201d that is, in advance of redemption or manumission. Compare Judges 5:18, literally \u201cZebulun is a tribe that precipitously exposed itself to death\u201d (\u1e25eref nafsho la-mut). This verb is unrelated to the more frequent Hebrew verb \u1e25eref, \u201cto blaspheme, slander.\u201d<\/p>\n
there shall be an indemnity The term bikkoret, \u201cindemnity,\u201d occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. It is probably cognate with the Akkadian verb baq\u0101ru, \u201cto make good on a claim, to indemnify.\u201d Biblical bikkoret is therefore also related to mishnaic hevker, \u201cproperty over which one has relinquished his claim.\u201d In our verse, the term bikkoret designates the actual payment imposed on the responsible party.
\nSome legal background is required by way of explanation. The law of Exodus 21:7\u201311 allows a father to sell his preadolescent daughter as a slave to another Israelite. This was usually done out of extreme deprivation or indebtedness. When the slave girl reached marriageable age, her master was required to do one of three things: marry her himself, designate her as his son\u2019s wife, or allow her to be redeemed. This last option was interpreted to mean that the master could pledge the girl to another Israelite. Although Exodus 21:8 prohibits the master from selling the girl to a non-Israelite, it does not prohibit such arrangements as would involve another Israelite man. The latter would redeem the girl by a payment to her master and take her as his wife.
\nThe situation projected in our passage is as follows: An Israelite slave girl, here called shif\u1e25ah, was pledged by her master to another Israelite man. The designation had already been made, but had not been finalized by payment to the girl\u2019s master or, possibly, the man had not yet claimed his bride. Legally, the girl was still a slave and unmarried. If at this point, an outsider had carnal relations with her, he would have caused a loss to her master because, no longer a virgin, she would be less desirable as a wife, and the prospective husband would undoubtedly cancel the proposed marriage.
\nIn parallel circumstances, Exodus 22:15\u201317 stipulates that one who seduced a free maiden who was not yet pledged as a wife had either to marry her himself or pay her father the equivalent of the marriage price (mohar). In our case, the option of marriage was ruled out because the girl had been pledged to another man\u2014leaving only one way to deal with the situation. The man who had had carnal relations with the girl had to pay an indemnity to her master to compensate him for his loss. Presumably, since the marriage was called off, and the young woman rendered undesirable, the owner would have to continue maintaining her in his household.<\/p>\n
21. But he must bring \u2026 as bis guilt offering to the LORD An \u02beasham, \u201cguilt offering,\u201d is required here in addition to the indemnity because an act of defilement had been committed: a violation of holiness. The woman had been promised to another, and even though the union was not adulterous, it was, legally speaking, more than merely an act of seduction. In rabbinic sources, this guilt offering is known as \u02beasham shif\u1e25ah \u1e25arufah, \u201cthe guilt offering of the predestinated slave woman.\u201d<\/p>\n
22. shall make expiation for him On the meaning of the verb kipper, \u201cto expiate,\u201d see Comment to 4:20.<\/p>\n
23. When you enter the land Verses 23\u201325 represent yet another casuistic passage, projected into the future.<\/p>\n
and plant any tree for food On Hebrew le-ma\u02beakhal, literally \u201cfor eating,\u201d cf. Genesis 2:9, 3:6, and so forth.<\/p>\n
you shall regard its fruit as forbidden Rather, \u201cYou shall trim its fruit in the manner of a foreskin.\u201d The syntax is unusual. Literally, this clause would read: \u201cYou shall trim its foreskin as foreskin (va-\u02bfaraltem \u02beet \u02bforlato). Here, we have a cognate accusative, that is, the verb and the object derive from the same root. Later on in the passage we find the masculine plural noun \u02bfarelim, \u201cin a state of uncircumcision.\u201d Is this formula to be understood graphically, as involving physical acts, or figuratively, as the JPS translation conveys?
\nIn biblical usage, the adjective \u02bfarel and the noun \u02bforlah usually connote physical conditions that may have moral or religious ramifications. They may describe \u201cthickening about your heart,\u201d which prevents the heart from experiencing proper attitudes, as in Deuteronomy 10:16. The metaphor is based on a real physical condition. Or, one may say, as in Jeremiah 6:10, that the ear is \u201cblocked\u201d by the earlobe, so that one is prevented from hearing God\u2019s words. Exodus 6:12, 30 speaks of \u201cuncircumcised\u201d lips that make articulate speech difficult. In these cases, as well, the metaphor has its origin in a physical condition.
\nIn applying the above usages to the fruit of trees and vines, the sense is to \u201ctrim\u201d or \u201cremove\u201d certain growths. A good case can be made for understanding the law as requiring the trimming of trees and vines. Targum Onkelos merely reflects later interpretation in translating \u201cYou shall remove its fruit\u201d in the same way that it renders the noun \u02bfarelim, later on in the verse, as \u201cfruit removed for destruction.\u201d As a matter of law, rabbinic exegesis taught that fruit of the first three years be burned. Trimming may have been the actual intent of biblical law.<\/p>\n
24. set aside for jubilation The functional sense of Hebrew kodesh is \u201cdevoted, set aside.\u201d Hebrew hillulim, \u201cjubilation,\u201d occurs in only one other biblical passage, Judges 9:27: \u201cThey [the Shechemites] went out into the fields, gathered and trod out the vintage of their vineyards, and [literally] celebrated rites of jubilation (va-ya\u02bfasu hillulim). They entered the temple of their god \u2026 they ate and drank.\u201d
\nThe noun hillulim derives from the same root as hillel, \u201cto praise,\u201d but this verb has differentiated meanings, some positive and others decidedly negative. Thus, holelot means \u201crevelry\u201d as an improper pursuit. These various forms of the same root share in common the onomatopoetic quality of \u201ch-l-l,\u201d which actually transmits a sound. On that basis, the jubilant shouting at the time of the grape harvest is called hillulim. However, out of context this term does not inform us of the propriety of the celebration. So, hillulim in Judges 9:24 connotes a pagan rite, whereas the code in Leviticus obviously enjoins the Israelites to rejoice before the Lord, as they devote the fruits of the fourth year.
\nA similar celebration was envisioned by a prophet of the exile. God would soon restore Jerusalem and no longer permit Israel\u2019s enemies to eat up her grain or drink her wine. Thus, Isaiah 62:9: \u201cBut those who harvest it shall eat it, and [literally] celebrate jubilantly (ve-hillelu) before the LORD, and those who gather it shall drink it in My sacred courts.\u201d<\/p>\n
25. that its yield to you may be increased Increase of yield is God\u2019s blessing.<\/p>\n
26. You shall not eat anything with its blood Verses 26\u201328 contain several prohibitions against practices characteristic of the pagan Canaanites and other idolators. Hebrew lo\u02be to\u02bekhlu \u02bfal ha-dam, \u201cYou shall not eat anything with its blood in it,\u201d is a rare formulation occurring only here, in 1 Samuel 14:32\u201334, and in Ezekiel 33:25, which is reminiscent of our verse. It represents an alternate way of stating the prohibition of blood consumption, which we have already encountered several times in Leviticus. The preposition \u02bfal means \u201ctogether with,\u201d which is often its meaning in the ritual texts.
\nCommentators, traditional and modern, have generally realized that the account in 1 Samuel 14 was basic for a proper understanding of our verse. During one of the Philistine wars, the Israelites suffered a setback (1 Sam. 14:24). King Saul, leader of the Israelites, hoping to turn the unfavorable tide of battle, adjured the people by a vow not to partake of the spoils taken from the enemy until nightfall, as an act of expiation. The people, weak and exhausted by combat, and unaware of Saul\u2019s ban against eating spoils, followed the example of Saul\u2019s own son, Jonathan, and began to slaughter cattle taken in battle: va-yo\u02behklu ha-\u02bfam \u02bfal ha-dam, \u201cThe people ate [the meat] with its blood in it\u201d (v. 32). They slaughtered the cattle on the bare ground, without recourse to an altar and without draining the blood.
\nTo prevent more consumption of blood, Saul, following very ancient customs, used a local rock as an altar. He ordered that animals be brought to that spot for proper slaughter and, in this way, reminded the people that the blood of animals was to be dashed on the altar and drained from them before the flesh could be eaten. The account in 1 Samuel 14 thus describes quite vividly what is meant by eating meat with its blood in it. In our verse, the prohibition against eating blood is formulated apodictically, leaving no room for exceptions and providing no explanations, such as are found elsewhere in chapter 17 and in Deuteronomy 12.
\nSome commentators, including Ramban, express the view that eating blood was a magical act, on the order of the other magical practices prohibited in verses 26\u201328.<\/p>\n
You shall not practice divination or soothsaying Some have interpreted Hebrew lo\u02be tena\u1e25ashu as reflecting a denominative verb based on na\u1e25ash, \u201csnake,\u201d since snakes were employed in pronouncing charms. More likely, however, the verb ni\u1e25esh is related to the verb l-\u1e25-sh, \u201cto whisper, pronounce an incantation.\u201d In Hebrew, nun and lamed can interchange phonetically. All we know from the Bible about the manner of pronouncing incantations is that goblets were used in the process.
\nHebrew ve-lo\u02be te\u02bfonenu, \u201cand do not practice soothsaying,\u201d may be related to reading the omens of the clouds, since in Hebrew, the word for cloud is \u02bfanan. We possess extensive information on the ominous role of clouds in ancient Near Eastern divination. The forms of clouds, their times of appearance, their movements and positions, and the heavenly bodies they obscure were all factors in interpreting omens. Isaiah 2:6 refers to Philistines as engaging in such practices.<\/p>\n
27. You shall not round off the side-growth on your bead Hebrew pe\u02beah, \u201cside-growth,\u201d is the same word used in verse 9 to designate the corner, or edge, of a field. Hebrew lo\u02be takkifu, \u201cyou shall not round off,\u201d derives from the verb n-k-f, \u201cto encircle.\u201d Certain peoples who inhabited desert areas are referred to as ketsutsei pe\u02beah, \u201cmen with their side-growth cut off.\u201d<\/p>\n
or destroy the side-growth of your beard Tearing out the hair of one\u2019s beard, as well as of the head, was a custom associated with mourning over the dead.<\/p>\n
28. You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead In Elijah\u2019s contest with the cult prophets of Baal, recounted in 1 Kings 18, we read that the pagan priests gashed themselves as they called upon Baal to answer their prayers. Hebrew nefesh may connote a dead body as well as a living person.<\/p>\n
or incise any marks Hebrew ka\u02bfka\u02bf remains unexplained, though its meaning is clear in context. Hebrew ketovet incorporates the verb k-t-v, \u201cto write,\u201d which is also said of incising on stone, so that it could designate some form of tattoo.<\/p>\n
29. Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot The verb \u1e25illel, earlier encountered in verse 11, means \u201cto defile, profane.\u201d Harlotry was a violation of holiness that resulted in a status similar, for example, to cultic defilement of sacred objects. The verb zanah has many connotations, and although harlotry is not necessarily tantamount to adultery, an adulteress may be referred to as zonah, thus characterizing her infidelity as being similar to the promiscuity of a harlot.<\/p>\n
lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity In biblical idiom \u201cland\u201d may connote the people of the land, as is the intent here. On the sense of Hebrew zimmah, \u201cdepravity,\u201d see Comment to 18:17.<\/p>\n
30. You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary See above, in verse 3, and the restatement in 26:2. In Ezekiel 22:8, \u201cMy sabbaths\u201d is paralleled by kodashai, \u201cMy sacred things,\u201d namely, sacred offerings.<\/p>\n
31. Do not turn to ghosts and do not inquire of familiar spirits On the sense of Hebrew \u02beal tifnu \u02beel, \u201cdo not turn to,\u201d see verse 4. Hebrew \u02beov is of uncertain origin. It was a part of the magic known to the pagans of Canaan. In 1 Samuel 28:3f., it is related that King Saul, after having outlawed recourse to mediums, actually consulted a woman known as ba\u02bfalat\u02beov, \u201ca sorceress,\u201d who conjured up the ghost of the prophet Samuel from the earth. In Isaiah 29:4, we read: \u201cYour speech shall sound like a ghost\u2019s (ke-\u02beov) from the ground.\u201d Reference is to spiritualist communication with the dead in the netherworld. Hebrew yid\u02bf oni is usually thought to derive from the verb y-d-\u02bf, \u201cto know, be familiar with,\u201d which yields the translation \u201cfamiliar spirit,\u201d namely, the spirits of deceased relatives or intimates.
\nThe verb tevmkkeshu, \u201cinquire of,\u201d suggests that we are dealing with oracular inquiry or augury. Elsewhere we also find the verbs d-r-sh and sh-\u02be-l, \u201cto inquire of,\u201d used in connection with the \u02beov and yid\u02bf oni.<\/p>\n
to be defiled by them Recourse to such magical practices, typical of idolatrous religions, renders one figuratively impure.<\/p>\n
32. You shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old On the sense of the Hebrew verb h-d-r, \u201cto show deference,\u201d see verse 15. According to later rabbinic law, one was required to show deference to the elderly by caring for them.<\/p>\n
you shall fear your God See Comment to verse 14. Respect for the elderly is the sign of a decent society; in a society where proper behavior has broken down, the young fail to respect their elders.<\/p>\n
33. When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him The Torah, and the Bible generally, emphasize the duty to treat resident foreigners as fairly as one is commanded to treat a citizen. Verse 10 includes the ger, \u201cstranger,\u201d among those entitled to the leftovers of the harvest. The ger referred to in the Bible was most often a foreign merchant or craftsman or a mercenary soldier. This term never refers to the prior inhabitants of the land; those are identified by ethnological groupings, such as Canaanites and Amorites, or by other specific terms of reference.
\nIn the biblical ethos, the importance of being considerate to foreign residents drew added impetus from the memory of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt\u2014Israelites should be able to empathize with the alien. In fact, because of xenophobic attitudes, which could lead to extreme acts of violence against strangers, most ancient societies had laws protecting foreign merchants, officials, and others.
\nHebrew lo\u02be tonu, \u201cdo not wrong,\u201d usually connotes economic exploitation, the deprivation of property, or denial of legal rights. It was used with particular reference to those who suffered from lack of legal redress, such as the poor, the widow and the orphan, along with the foreigner.<\/p>\n
34. as one of your citizens Hebrew \u02beezrab, and the fuller designation \u02beezra\u1e25 ha-\u02bearets, \u201cthe permanent resident of the land,\u201d are terms of uncertain etymology. It has been suggested that \u02beezra\u1e25 was originally a botanical term for a tree or plant that is well rooted in the soil. We read in Psalms 37:35: \u201cwell-rooted like a robust native tree\u201d (ke\u02beezra\u1e25 ra\u02bfanan). If this derivation is correct, an \u02beezra\u1e25 is one whose lineage has \u201croots\u201d in the land, one who belongs to the group that possesses the land. However, the term \u02beezm\u1e25 is never applied to the prior inhabitants of Canaan.<\/p>\n
35. You shall not falsify measures The Hebrew reads: \u201cYou shall not commit an injustice.\u201d See Comment to verse 15.<\/p>\n
of length, weight, or capacity Hebrew middah is a general term for all sorts of measurements. Here it refers to surface, area measurement, whereas mesurah is a term for liquid capacity.<\/p>\n
36. You shall have an honest balance \u2026 Similar admonitions occur in Deuteronomy 25:14\u201315 and Ezekiel 45:10. The ancient scales (mo\u02beznayim) had an upright, on which two cups or plates were balanced. In one was a stone or iron weight (\u02beeven), and the other held the goods to be weighed. Hebrew \u02beefah, as a dry measure of capacity, was equal to one-tenth of a \u1e25omer; and, as a liquid measure of capacity, was equal to the bat, which contained approximately twenty-two liters. Hebrew hin was a liquid measure equal to one-sixth of a bat, or approximately 3.6 liters. These are merely specific examples of weights and measures, intended to illustrate the general rule requiring honesty.<\/p>\n
I the LORD am your God \u2026 This statement resembles the First Commandment in its emphasis on the liberation from Egypt.<\/p>\n
37. You shall faithfully observe The two Hebrew verbs u-shemartem va-\u02bfasitem do not refer to two separate acts but rather reinforce each other: \u201cYou shall take care to perform.\u201d<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 20<\/p>\n
The Family in Religious Context
\nChapter 20 reformulates the essential content of chapter 18 on the subject of incest and forbidden sexual activity. It also reflects certain themes known from chapter 19. There are, however, two main differences between chapters 18 and 20.
\nIn the first instance, the contents of chapter 18 are for the most part formulated apodictically, as categorical imperatives (\u201cDo not \u2026,\u201d \u201cYou shall \u2026,\u201d etc.). As is normally true of apodictic texts, a penalty is not specified for each offense. There is only a collective penalty, formulated within the overall framework of the admonition against pagan worship. Chapter 20, on the other hand, is formulated casuistically in the form of case law (\u201cIf \u2026,\u201d \u201cWhen \u2026,\u201d etc.). Thus, in addition to an overall admonition, it provides specific penalties, often of a capital nature, for each offense.
\nThe second, major difference between chapters 18 and 20 concerns their characterizations of pagan religions. Chapter 18 speaks out, in verses 1\u20133, against the ways of the Canaanites and Egyptians, a theme referred to only briefly in chapter 20, in verse 26. Chapter 20 opens with a major statement against the cult of Molech (vv. 1\u20135), a subject that had been only mentioned once before, in 18:21. The introductory statement is followed in verse 6 by a prohibition against necromancy, a theme addressed again in verse 27. The chapters\u2019 distinctive perspectives must surely reflect their different historical backgrounds. What is common to both chapters is the assumed connection between pagan worship and sexual degeneracy\u2014both are regarded as the causes of exile.
\nThe grouping of the laws in chapter 20 reflects legal distinctions. Verses 1\u201316 deal with capital offenses, whereas verses 17\u201321 concern violations for which the penalty is being \u201ccut off\u201d from the Israelite community. This penalty is imposed for certain marital violations that were not considered sufficiently severe to warrant punishment by death. These included marriage with half sisters (v. 17), with aunts (v. 19), and with any woman who had once been married to one\u2019s brother (v. 21).<\/p>\n
2. Say further to the Israelite people Literally, \u201cAnd to the Israelite people say.\u201d The inverted syntax is for emphasis, to reinforce the idea that what follows is addressed to the entire people. The initial, prefixed vav, \u201cAnd,\u201d suggests that the provisions of this chapter are additions to what had already been stated in chapter 18.<\/p>\n
Anyone among the Israelites The Hebrew reads mi-beneiyisra\u02beel, \u201cfrom among the Israelites,\u201d rather than mi-beit yisra\u02beel, \u201cfrom the household of Israel,\u201d as in 17:3, 8. These two terms are virtually synonymous in priestly literature, although each has a history of its own. On the formulation \u02beish \u02beish, \u201cany man,\u201d see comment to 17:3.<\/p>\n
or among the strangers residing in Israel See Comments to 16:9 and 17:8 on the matter of resident aliens and their legal status. The worship of other gods was forbidden to all who resided in the Land of Israel, whether or not they were Israelites.<\/p>\n
who gives any of bis offspring to Molech On the name Molech (or Moloch) see Comment to 18:21 and Excursus 7. In 18:21, we find a similar injunction, formulated as lo\u02be titten le-ha\u02bfavir, \u201cyou shall not devote for handing over.\u201d The verb n-t-n more precisely connotes devotion to a god in both passages.<\/p>\n
shall be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones The Hofal form of the verb, yummat, \u201che shall be put to death,\u201d means execution by human hands. The Hebrew term \u02bfam ha-\u02bearets, \u201cpeople of the land,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 4:27. It usually refers to those citizens who have a voice in the affairs of the community. The Hebrew verb r-g-m is used specifically to describe what is done with stones; they are either thrown or hurled with a slingshot. Elsewhere, stoning is the penalty for blasphemy as well. The question arises as to how the sentence was to be carried out. In Deuteronomy 17:1\u20137 we also read that one convicted of worshiping other gods is to be stoned. There it is stipulated that the witnesses for the prosecution should cast the first stones, to be followed by others of the community. This suggests that the execution took place subsequent to a trial and was under judicial control.<\/p>\n
3. And I will set My face against that man and will cut him off The Hebrew idiom ve-nattati panai be-, \u201cI will set My face against,\u201d expresses the intent to punish. In the Hebrew Bible, it is said only of God Himself, and it incorporates the notion of God\u2019s \u201cface\u201d or \u201cpresence\u201d as a potent force that can either assist or punish. Here, the \u201ccutting off\u201d of the offender is expressed by an active transitive form of the verb, ve-hikhratti, \u201cI will cut off.\u201d God is the subject who \u201ccuts off.\u201d This provides further support for what has already been said, that the penalty known as haret was complex and could be understood both as a divine punishment and as an action taken by the community. In the case before us, the punitive process is twofold. The community is commanded to put the offender to death. Should it fail to do its duty, God will punish the offender in His own way. This dynamic is further clarified by the provisions of verses 4\u20136 below.<\/p>\n
and so defiled My sanctuary and profaned My holy name The profanation of God\u2019s name is explained in the Comment to 19:12. A central doctrine of the ritual legislation is that pagan worship, however manifested, rendered the sanctuary impure. Such practices usually involved either the introduction of pagan cult objects into the sanctuary or their installation near it. This obviously polluted the sanctuary. But, even in the absence of actual physical intrusion, the very act of disobedience to God by members of the community effectively defiled the sanctuary, which stood within the settlement. The purity of the sanctuary, which was not only a function of physical condition, was endangered by any actions that aroused God\u2019s wrath, whether or not actual contact had occurred.<\/p>\n
4. should shut their eyes What the community neglects to do, God will do! The verb he\u02bfelim, \u201cto shut [the eye],\u201d is idiomatic for negligence.<\/p>\n
5. Against \u2026 his kin \u2026 in going astray after Molech Hebrew mishpa\u1e25ah, \u201cclan\u201d (\u201ckin\u201d), designates the basic sociological unit in ancient Israelite society. It is presumed that the clan tends to act together in matters of worship, following the way of its leaders. The verb z-n-h, \u201cto go astray,\u201d essentially connotes sexual waywardness and is proverbial as a metaphor for the worship of other gods.<\/p>\n
6. And if any person turns to ghosts This verse restates casuistically what has been commanded in 19:4, where the term \u02beov, \u201cghost,\u201d is explained. Although the death penalty is not stipulated in this verse, it is stated in verse 27, as though in retrospect. This law is part of the section (vv. 1\u201316) that deals with capital offenses. According to the Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4, the necromancer is liable to the death penalty. Furthermore, verses 2\u20134, which deal with similar offenses, also stipulate the death penalty. It is likely, therefore, that verse 6 is abbreviated.<\/p>\n
7. You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy This verse restates 19:2, and its command is repeated, for emphasis, in verse 26.<\/p>\n
FORBIDDEN SEXUAL UNIONS (vv. 8\u201321)<\/p>\n
8. You shall faithfully observe My laws Compare 18:20 and 19:37 for similar statements.<\/p>\n
I the LORD make you holy See Comment to 11:44, where this statement is discussed.<\/p>\n
9. If anyone insults his father or his mother See Comment to 19:14.<\/p>\n
his bloodguilt is upon him Hebrew dam, \u201cblood,\u201d and the plural damim often connote the death penalty. (See further in vv. 11\u201313, 16, 27.) In Deuteronomy 18:18, a case involving murder is referred to simply as dam.<\/p>\n
14. If a, man marries a woman and her mother Compare 18:17.<\/p>\n
both be and they shall be put to the fire The unusual feminine object pronoun \u02beethen, \u201cthem,\u201d occurs thirteen times in the Hebrew Bible. The usual form is \u02beotan.
\nDeath by fire bore a special relationship to forbidden sexual behavior. According to 21:9, the daughter of a priest who degrades herself by harlotry is to be punished in this manner. And in the account of Genesis 38:24, Judah threatened his daughter-in-law Tamar with death by fire when he learned that she had become pregnant while awaiting levirate marriage, an offense tantamount to adultery.<\/p>\n
15\u201316. If a man has carnal relations with a beast \u2026 If a woman approaches any beast Compare 18:23, where the commandment concerns a woman who has sexual relations with a beast.<\/p>\n
and you shall kill the beast In the law of Exodus 21:28\u201329, it is ordained that a bull who has gored a man to death must be put to death. Here, however, the danger is not of the same sort; the punishment in this case derives from the notion that animals, like humans, also bear guilt. As we are told in Jonah 3:7\u20138, the herds and flocks of Nineveh participated in the repentance of the city, along with the king and citizenry. The same attribution of moral norms to the animal kingdom is expressed in the Flood stories of Genesis 6:7 and 9:5. Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4 explains that it would be unseemly to allow an animal that had been involved in the corruption of a human being to be seen walking about. This theme is also discussed in Excursus 2, \u201cThe Meaning of the Dietary Laws.\u201d<\/p>\n
17. If a man marries bis sister Compare Leviticus 18:9, 11 and Deuteronomy 27:22. The verb l-k-\u1e25, \u201cto acquire\u201d as a wife, is a legal term for marriage. In 18:9, 11, the prohibition is expressed in terms of sexual access rather than legality, as it is here.<\/p>\n
it is a disgrace Hebrew \u1e25esed, as it is used here, is unrelated to the noun \u1e25esed, \u201csteadfast love, kindness,\u201d found so frequently in the Bible. This is an instance of homonyms, two words written alike and that sound alike, but that have no etymological connection. In this verse, \u1e25esed is cognate with Aramaic \u1e25esda\u02be and Syriac \u1e25esda\u02be, \u201cignominy, disgrace.\u201d In Genesis 30:23, Targum Onkelos renders Hebrew \u1e25erpah, \u201cshame,\u201d as \u1e25asda\u02be.<\/p>\n
they shall be excommunicated in the sight of their kinsfolk This is a way of expressing banishment.<\/p>\n
18. If a man lies with a woman in her infirmity Intercourse with a menstruating woman is forbidden, as stated in 18:19. Hebrew davah means \u201cill, infirm.\u201d In the continuation of this verse, we encounter several other Hebrew terms that require explanation. The noun makor, \u201csource, spring,\u201d also refers to the source of the blood flow in the case of a menstruating woman, as is explained in the Comment to 12:7. The verb he\u02bferah, \u201che uncovered,\u201d is related to \u02bfervak, \u201cnakedness.\u201d<\/p>\n
19. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother\u2019s sister Compare 18:6, 13\u201314.<\/p>\n
20. If a man lies with his uncle\u2019s wife \u2026 they shall die childless Compare 18:13\u201314. The association between childlessness and being \u201ccut off\u201d from the community is explained in Excursus 1.<\/p>\n
21. If a man marries the wife of his brother, it is indecency Compare 18:16. Hebrew niddah means \u201cmenstruation, a menstruating woman.\u201d Here this term is extended to mean \u201cdisgrace, indecency.\u201d The application of this image to socioreligious situations derives from the widespread metaphaor of Israel as a faithless bride.<\/p>\n
POSSESSION OF THE LAND (vv. 21\u201327)<\/p>\n
22. You shall faithfully observe all My laws This statement introduces the closing admonition of verses 22\u201326, which is only loosely connected to the specifics of the rest of the chapter. Similar language is to be found in 18:24\u201328.<\/p>\n
23. I abhorred them The Hebrew verb used here is k-w-ts, \u201cto abhor,\u201d which elsewhere conveys the sense of extreme frustration and dislike.<\/p>\n
24. You shall possess their land The Hebrew verb y-r-sh, \u201cto possess,\u201d belongs to the ancient vocabulary expressing the collective rights of the Israelites to the land of Canaan. Although the verb eventually appropriated the additional meaning of \u201cinherit,\u201d its primary sense had nothing necessarily to do with inheritance. Thus, God allotted the land of Canaan to the people of Israel, \u201cto possess\u201d as its estate, and it was then divided, clan by clan; only once this process was under way did inheritance become a factor.<\/p>\n
a land flowing with milk and honey This is a well-known characterization of the land of Canaan in biblical literature. Hebrew devash, \u201choney,\u201d usually refers to the nectar of trees. As such, this depiction projects a land with plentiful, milk-producing herds and flocks and abounding in fruit trees, especially the date palm.<\/p>\n
who has set you apart from other peoples Although the distinctiveness of Israel is a major theme in biblical literature, it is rare to read that God actively \u201cseparates\u201d Israel, a notion conveyed by the Hifil verb hivdil, \u201cto divide, separate.\u201d In the following verses, the separateness of Israel, involving their duty to live differently from other nations, is the stated rationale for the requirement to observe the dietary laws, which are the subject of chapter 11.<\/p>\n
25. So you shall set apart the clean beast from the unclean As has generally been advocated, it is more precise to render the Hebrew terms tabor and tame\u02be as \u201cpure\u201d and \u201cimpure,\u201d respectively, rather than as \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cunclean.\u201d The conditions described by these terms are defined by the laws of purity, not by any specific notion of hygiene or physical cleanliness. In this instance, the Israelites must carefully differentiate between the pure and the impure, in emulation of God\u2019s ways. He had set them apart; they must do likewise.<\/p>\n
You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves The Hebrew verb sbikkets means \u201cto make something unfit, to consider it unfit.\u201d<\/p>\n
26. You shall be holy \u2026 See verse 7.<\/p>\n
27. A man or woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit The insertion of this verse at the conclusion of chapter 20 is rather puzzling, since it seems to be an afterthought. Its addition here may have been occasioned by the omission of the death penalty from the earlier reference to this subject in verse 6.<\/p>\n
Laws Governing the Priesthood (21:1\u201322:33)<\/p>\n
Emor<\/p>\n
Chapters 21 and 22 of Leviticus differ significantly from the rest of the Holiness Code (chaps. 17\u201326) in that they are addressed primarily to the priesthood, not to the Israelite people as a whole. This orientation reflects the special content of these two chapters. They deal with the following subjects: (1) laws of purity, which prohibit priests from having contact with the dead; (2) marital restrictions imposed on the priests; (3) the requirement of physical soundness for the officiating priesthood; and (4) the prerequisites for partaking of \u201csacred donations\u201d allocated to the priests as their food. In addition, paralleling the requirement of physical soundness for priests is the requirement that sacrificial animals also be free of physical defects.
\nThe varied laws of chapters 21 and 22 are organized as follows: Both the code for ordinary priests (21:1\u20139) and the code for the High Priest (21:10\u201315) begin with funerary regulations and conclude with marital restrictions. This establishes a symmetry. Logical sequence is evident in subsequent sections of these two chapters, as well. Thus, 21:16\u201324 enumerates the bodily defects that render a priest unfit to officiate in the sacrificial cult, whereas 22:1\u20139, immediately following, deals with priests who become impure, but whose unfitness is only temporary. Finally, 22:10\u201316 states the privileges of the priesthood. Only they, not lay Israelites, may partake of \u201csacred donations.\u201d Taken as a whole, the section from 21:16 to 22:16 addresses the two basic issues of who may officiate in the sacrificial cult and who may partake of sacred donations.
\nIn 22:17\u201333, the remaining section of this unit, we find a collection of diverse ordinances applicable to Israelites who participate in religious life by donating sacrificial offerings. All sacrificial animals must be complete (possessing all limbs and organs) and without blemish (22:17\u201325); newborn animals may not be sacrificed until they are eight days old; and an animal may not be sacrificed on the same day as its mother (22:26\u201328). In conclusion, 22:29\u201333 prescribes special regulations governing the thanksgiving offering (todah), which was a sacrifice frequently donated by individual Israelites.
\nThree subjects discussed in chapters 21\u201322 deserve special comment: the office of the High Priest, the marital and funerary restrictions imposed on the priesthood, and the general requirement of physical soundness, for priests and sacrificial offerings alike.
\nBoth the funerary and the marital restrictions express the concern that priests preserve the purity of their persons. Priestly impurity, which resulted from contact with the dead and from impure marriages, could, in turn, render the sanctuary itself impure. Although the impurity of corpses affected everyone, it was permissible for an Israelite to become impure, when necessary; such an individual could then be restored to purity by following the proper procedures. Priests, by exception, were not similarly permitted, except in the case of an ordinary priest, who was granted a dispensation when one of his close relatives died. The High Priest, however, was prevented from attending even the burial of his own parents. In effect, this law eliminated a funerary role for the Israelite priesthood. There can be little doubt that this fact, resulting from the attribution of extreme impurity to the human corpse, reflects the abhorrence felt in ancient Israel toward the cult of the dead. Worship of the dead was a widespread phenomenon in the ancient Near East, as it was elsewhere; and priests, as officiants in religious cults, usually had a prominent funerary role\u2014as was not the case in the monotheistic religion of ancient Israel.
\nThe marital restrictions imposed on the priesthood set an ideal standard for a wife: a virgin, usually from one\u2019s own patrilineal clan or tribe. Although mandated for the High Priest, a dispensation was granted to the ordinary priest to marry a widow, but not a divorc\u00e9e or harlot. This last restriction must be explained, especially as regards the divorc\u00e9e. (The prohibition against marrying a harlot requires no explanation.) In Mosaic law, summarized in Deuteronomy 24:1f., the only clear grounds for divorce was serious sexual misconduct, as explained in the Comment to verse 7. Sexual immorality was a religious sin, an offense against God, in addition to its obvious interpersonal offensiveness. Consequently, a divorced woman was stigmatized and considered unfit for marriage to a priest.
\nThe last subject of these chapters, the insistence on physical soundness, both for officiating priests and for sacrificial victims, reflects the notion that God, demanding the very best, would be offended were any blemished or imperfect person or animal to come unto His immediate presence. Nevertheless, even though a disfigured priest could not officiate in the cult, he was not denied his priestly emoluments. There is a marked correspondence between the physical defects that render a priest unfit to officiate and those that render a sacrificial animal unacceptable, as this chart illustrates.<\/p>\n
Priest
\nSacrificial Animal<\/p>\n
Blindness
\nBlindness<\/p>\n
A broken arm or leg
\nOne injured or maimed<\/p>\n
Scurvy
\nScurvy<\/p>\n
A boil-scar
\nA boil or scar<\/p>\n
A limb too short or too long
\nA limb extended or contracted<\/p>\n
Crushed testes
\nCrushed, bruised, torn, or cut testes<\/p>\n
A growth in the eye
\nA wen<\/p>\n
The code for the priesthood presented in chapter 21, in particular, bears a striking correspondence to Ezekiel 44. Specific similarities are noted in Comments to the relevant verses.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 21<\/p>\n
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS (vv. 1\u201324)<\/p>\n
1. None shall defile himself for any [dead] person among his kin Similar provisions occur in Ezekiel 44:25: \u201c[A priest] shall not defile himself by entering [a house] where there is a dead person. He shall defile himself only for father or mother, son or daughter, brother or unmarried sister.\u201d The term nefesh, \u201c[dead] person,\u201d occurs in a more explicit form in verse 11 as nefesh met, \u201ca dead body.\u201d
\nThe precise sense of Hebrew \u02bfam is crucial for understanding the provisions of this chapter. It can designate an entire people or a more limited group. In chapter 21, its consistent meaning is \u201ckin.\u201d In verses 1\u20134, the social context is the clan. As a general rule, an ordinary priest may not become defiled by contact with the dead of his own clan, but he may for those members of his clan who are most closely related to him. Attending to the burial of clan relatives was a traditional duty.<\/p>\n
2. except for the relatives that are closest to him Alternatively, \u201cExcept for his \u2018flesh\u2019 relatives, who are closest to him.\u201d The meaning of Hebrew she\u02bfer, \u201cflesh,\u201d as a kinship term is explained in the introductory Comment to chapter 18.
\nThe adjective karov, \u201cnear,\u201d can function as a noun with the meaning of \u201crelative.\u201d Originally, it expressed physical proximity as well as familial closeness, since extended families often lived together. Thus, according to verse 3, a sister who marries and leaves the family domicile is no longer \u201cclose\u201d because she belongs to another family. Note that here, mother precedes father in the list of she\u02beer relatives, as is true in 19:3, in the commandment to revere one\u2019s parents.<\/p>\n
3. also for a virgin sister, close to him because she has not married The sister is \u201cclose\u201d until she marries and goes to live with her husband\u2019s family. Then, presumably, there would be others to attend to her burial. According to the Sifra, even a betrothed woman who still resides in her father\u2019s household is considered \u201cclose.\u201d The idiom \u02beasher lo\u02be hayetah le-\u02beish, \u201cwho has never \u2018belonged\u2019 to a man\u201d refers to the legal status of a woman in marriage and to sexual union in marriage.<\/p>\n
4. But he shall not defile himself as a kinsman by marriage Hebrew ba\u02bfal be-\u02bfammav, literally \u201ca husband as one among his kin,\u201d is difficult and has been so regarded since late antiquity. The simple sense is that a priest, in the role of husband, is not permitted to attend to the burial of his wife. A man\u2019s wife is not his consanguineal relative, but his affinal relative, that is, she is related to him through marriage. All six relatives at whose death a priest may render himself impure are \u201cflesh\u201d relatives\u2014his parents, his brother and sister (under certain conditions), and his son and daughter. Rashbam explains this statement as follows: \u201cNo husband (ba\u02bfal) from among the \u2018kinship\u2019 [of the priesthood] (be-\u02bfammav) may defile himself for his wife.\u201d This is, however, a forced explanation.
\nWe can presume that normally an Israelite was responsible for attending to his wife\u2019s burial. A rabbinic tradition cites Genesis 2:24 in this regard: \u201cHence a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh (basar \u02bee\u1e25ad).\u201d This was taken to mean that a man\u2019s wife was to be treated as a \u201cflesh\u201d relative in certain respects. Both Abraham and Jacob personally attended to their wives\u2019 burials, which suggests that it was a husband\u2019s duty to do so. But in the case of a priest, purity took precedence and could be set aside only for attending to strictly consanguineal relatives. At a later period, a basis was found in the law to allow the involvement of a priest in his wife\u2019s burial. As Maimonides explains: \u201cAs regards the wife of a priest\u2014one must render himself impure, even against his will; but the duty to render himself impure is only by enactment of the Scribes. They (the Scribes) gave her (the wife of a priest) the status of \u2018a dead person whom one is commanded to bury\u2019 (met mitsvah).\u201d This means that this duty is not ordained in the Torah. It was reasoned by the sages that situations might arise where such a woman\u2019s only heir would be her husband, and if he failed to attend to her burial, there would be no one else to do so.<\/p>\n
and so profane himself The Hebrew verbal form le-he\u1e25allo, \u201cto profane himself,\u201d is rare. It derives from the root \u1e25-l-l, \u201cto profane, render unfit.\u201d It is a Nifal form with reflexive force, which means, as Ibn Ezra observes, that the action is projected onto oneself.<\/p>\n
5. They shall not shave smooth A similar prohibition is stated in Ezekiel 44:20. The verb k-r-\u1e25, \u201cto make one\u2019s head bald,\u201d derives from the noun kor\u1e25ah, \u201cbaldness, bald spot,\u201d and the adjective kerea\u1e25, \u201cbald.\u201d It connotes the removal of all hair from the pate or from a section of it, either by shaving or by pulling out the hair at its roots. Deuteronomy 14:1 prohibits all Israelites from doing this, but it is understandable that this code should emphasize this prohibition with respect to the priests. Like gashing, shaving the hair and pulling it out were rites of mourning in ancient Canaan that Israelite religious leaders sought to prevent.<\/p>\n
6. They shall be holy to their God See Comments to 18:21 and 19:12; and see 22:32 for comparable statements.<\/p>\n
offerings by fire On the sense of Hebrew \u02beisheh, \u201coffering by fire,\u201d see Comment to 1:9.<\/p>\n
the food of their God, and so must be holy Sacrificial offerings are often called le\u1e25em, \u201cfood,\u201d and at least in a symbolic sense are considered food for God. The priests must observe strict codes of purity because they are the ones charged with performance of the rites of the sacred cult.<\/p>\n
7. defiled by harlotry The translation takes the Hebrew zonah va-\u1e25alalah as a hendiadys, the use of two words to express a single concept, hence, \u201cdegraded by harlotry.\u201d This corresponds to the wording in verse 14, where we read zonah \u1e25alalah, \u201ca degraded harlot.\u201d
\nThe later tradition created a category of unfit priests called \u1e25alalim, \u201cdegraded priests,\u201d which also included the sons and daughters of priests who had violated certain rules of the priesthood. This is not explicitly provided for in the laws of the Torah. However, it may be suggested by verse 15, where it is said, apropos of the High Priest, \u201cthat he may not profane (ve-lo\u02be ye\u1e25allel) his offspring.\u201d
\nThe rabbinic tradition also provides various definitions of zonah, \u201charlot.\u201d This term is most often applied to a woman habitually given to harlotry, not to one who may have lapsed on a particular occasion.<\/p>\n
nor \u2026 one divorced from her husband The law prohibiting priests from marrying divorced women persisted into later Judaism. It was adopted by the Christian church for its clergy, who were consecrated; and was also applied to Christian kings. There is a specific reason for this ban, which explains why the divorc\u00e9e and the harlot are mentioned together. Hoffmann explains that this priestly ban helps to clarify the view of the House of Shammai as to the grounds for divorce. In the law of Deuteronomy 24:1, it is stipulated that a man may divorce his wife if he discovers in her behavior literally \u201csome matter that was sexually improper\u201d (\u02bfervat davar), which was taken to mean that only the presumption of marital infidelity constituted legal grounds for initiating divorce. In an effort to broaden the grounds for divorce, the House of Hillel, whose view is reported in Gittin 90a, departed from the original sense of \u02bfervat davar in maintaining that \u02bfervah, \u201cnakedness, sexuality,\u201d was not the only \u201cmatter\u201d (davar) that could serve as grounds for divorce. So, although this wider interpretation became normative in later Judaism, it was not originally envisioned in the laws of the Torah. In biblical times, it is likely that divorce always involved a charge by the husband of infidelity. If that charge was made when the marriage was first consummated, the husband had to substantiate it in accordance with the law of Deuteronomy 22:13\u201314. At other times, a husband could subject his wife to an ordeal if he suspected that she was pregnant by another man, as we read in Numbers 5:11\u201331. If there was adequate testimony to prove adultery on the wife\u2019s part, she was subject to the death penalty under the law of Deuteronomy 22:23\u201324. In most cases, however, there was insufficient evidence to condemn a woman under this law. There was, however, sufficient motivation for a husband to charge his wife with adultery, thereby accomplishing what he truly sought\u2014divorce.<\/p>\n
9. defiles herself through harlotry The verb te\u1e25el literally means \u201cto perform a degrading act, to cause defilement.\u201d It derives from the same root as le-he\u1e25allo, \u201cto profane himself,\u201d in verse 4.<\/p>\n
it is her father whom she defiles; she shall be put to the fire The behavior of a priest\u2019s daughter reflects on her father\u2019s sacral office. Death by fire indicates the seriousness of the offense. When Jacob\u2019s son Judah learned that Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was pregnant at a time when she was awaiting levirate marriage, he said: \u201cBring her out \u2026 and let her be burned\u201d (Gen. 38:24). It seems, therefore, that it was the custom to impose death by burning in the case of serious sexual offenses.<\/p>\n
10. The priest who is exalted above his fellows According to Hoffmann, the full title ha-kohen ha-gadol me-\u02bee\u1e25av, \u201cthe priest who is \u2018greater\u2019 than his brothers,\u201d is abbreviated as ha-kohen ha-gadol, \u201cthe chief priest.\u201d The full title helps to define the status of the High Priest, so-called, whose distinction derives from two factors. He is the only priest to receive unction with the \u201coil of anointing,\u201d according to the primary laws of Leviticus, and he wears unique vestments.<\/p>\n
and who has been ordained On the sense of the technical idiom \u201cto fill the hand,\u201d see Comments to 8:28, 33.<\/p>\n
shall not bare his bead or rend his vestments A similar prohibition against baring the head appears in Ezekiel 44:20. On the meaning of the two verbs para\u02bf, \u201cto bare the head, dishevel the hair,\u201d and param, \u201cto tear,\u201d see Comment to 10:6, where these traditional signs of mourning are explained.<\/p>\n
11. He shall not go in where there is any dead body The wording of this verse is strange. Usually, the Hebrew construction ba\u02be \u02bfal means \u201cto advance against,\u201d or \u201cto befall\u201d a person, or even \u201cto appear\u201d at a particular time. In Ezekiel 44:25, which contains the same law, the usage is slightly different, namely, ba\u02be \u02bfel, \u201cto enter, go in.\u201d The two Hebrew prepositions \u02beel and \u02bfal are often interchangeable, however, and the same meaning may be intended in both statements, here and in Ezekiel. On the other hand, the preposition \u02bfal can mean \u201con account of, because of,\u201d in which case this verse could be rendered: \u201cHe shall not enter [anywhere] on account of a dead body,\u201d namely, to attend to a dead body.<\/p>\n
he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother In the Hebrew, the word order is inverted for emphasis. The indirect object precedes the verb: \u201cEven for his father or mother he shall not defile himself.\u201d<\/p>\n
12. He shall not go outside the sanctuary The High Priest may not leave the sanctuary even for the purpose of attending to the burial of close relatives, including his own parents. The impurity that would result from his contact with the dead would defile the sanctuary upon his return. In effect, he could never purify himself so completely as to avoid the danger of contaminating the Holy of Holies. Hebrew mikdash, \u201choly place, sanctuary,\u201d is a basic term for a building that served as a sanctuary.<\/p>\n
for upon him is the distinction of the anointing oil of his God The translation \u201cdistinction\u201d for Hebrew nezer precisely reflects the etymology of this word. The Hebrew verb nazar means \u201cto set apart, devote,\u201d from which we have nazir, \u201cone who has vowed to abstain from, to avoid\u201d certain foodstuffs or activities or \u201cone who is distinguished, set apart from others\u201d by position. Once before, in 8:9, the Hebrew term nezer ha-kodesh was translated \u201cthe holy diadem.\u201d In that context, reference is to the frontlet of gold worn by the High Priest on certain occasions. Functionally, nezer can connote a crown or diadem, which is a symbol of distinction, but that is not the derivation of the term itself.<\/p>\n
13\u201314. He may marry only a woman who is a virgin.\u2026 Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife Again, the term \u02bfam, \u201ckin,\u201d refers specifically to the priestly clan, as was true in verses 1 and 4. This means that the High Priest must marry a virgin from a priestly family. Verse 15 reasons that if he were to marry outside the priestly kinship, he would profane \u201chis offspring among his kin\u201d (zar\u02bfo be-\u02bf amav). They would be unfit to serve as priests. Ezekiel 44:22, in a similar law, permits the High Priest to marry any virgin \u201cfrom the offspring of Israel\u201d (mi-zera\u02bf yisra\u02beel).<\/p>\n
17. No man of your offspring throughout the ages who has a defect Hebrew mum, \u201cdefect, blemish,\u201d is used with respect to both humans and animals. A mum may be the result of an injury, as is indicated in 24:19\u201320.<\/p>\n
shall be qualified to offer the food of his God On the sense of Hebrew le\u1e25em, \u201cfood,\u201d as a way of referring to sacrificial offerings, see Comment to verse 6. Priests who are physically unsound are deprived only of the right to officiate in the cult, not of their emoluments, since it is through no fault of their own that they suffer from such defects.<\/p>\n
18. no man who is blind, or lame The Hebrew adjective \u02bfivver, \u201cblind,\u201d may refer to a person who has only one good eye or who has lost one eye; it does not necessarily connote total blindness. The adjective pissea\u1e25, \u201clame,\u201d refers to one who cannot walk properly, who cannot \u201cstraddle.\u201d It can refer to a person who is lame in one leg. Custom frowned on the entry of anyone who was crippled into the sacred precincts of the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
or has a limb too short or too long The pair of adjectives \u1e25arum \u02beo saru\u02bfa has been interpreted variously. Hebrew saru\u02bfa clearly means \u201cextended, raised\u201d according to the Sifra. If a contrast was intended, \u1e25arum should mean \u201ctruncated, shortened.\u201d The Akkadian verb ar\u0101mu (also written \u1e2bar\u0101mu) means \u201cto cover, stretch over,\u201d as by a membrane or by flesh. It is used in medical texts to describe birth defects. On this basis, Hebrew \u1e25arum may designate one whose skin was stretched over an unnaturally short limb.<\/p>\n
19. a broken leg or a broken arm Normally, such injuries would be permanent because broken limbs were not set properly in ancient times.<\/p>\n
20. or who is a hunchback, or a dwarf The adjective gibben, \u201chunchback,\u201d is related to the noun gavnunnim, \u201ccrass, rocky terrain,\u201d which occurs in Psalms 68:17\u201318, and also to Late Hebrew gabbenet, \u201ca hunch\u201d on the back. The Hebrew adjective dak most often means \u201cthin,\u201d but on the basis of Akkadian cognates, we know that its basic meaning is \u201csmall,\u201d which is its sense here.<\/p>\n
or who has a growth in his eye, or who has a boil-scar, or scurvy Hebrew tevallul is explained in Bekhorot 28b as \u201ca white line in the pupil of the eye.\u201d This term derives from the root b-l-l, \u201cto mix, pour over,\u201d and in Akkadian the cognate bal\u0101lu may mean \u201cto be spotted.\u201d It is so used in omens, with reference to the color of animals and humans.
\nHebrew garav, \u201cboil-scar,\u201d is cognate with Akkadian gar\u0101bu, a kind of eczema or scab, perhaps a form of dermatitis. The noun yallefet is explained in Bekhorot 41a as \u201cflaky skin,\u201d a condition reported as prevalent in Egypt.<\/p>\n
or crushed testes Hebrew meroa\u1e25 \u02beeshekh literally means \u201cone whose testicles are rubbed, crushed.\u201d The noun \u02beeshekh occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible, but it is cognate with Akkadian i\u0161ku and Ugaritic u\u0161k. Deuteronomy 23:2 forbids a man with this condition to marry within the Israelite fold because he would be unable to beget children.<\/p>\n
21. No man \u2026 shall be qualified to offer the LORD\u2019s offering by fire Literally, \u201cNo man shall approach so as to offer.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
22. He may eat of the food of his God A physically defective priest was prohibited only from officiating; he was not denied his emoluments. The intent was to prevent his presence in the holy precincts where sacrifices were offered\u2014at the altar of sacrifice or inside the Shrine proper.<\/p>\n
23. He shall not profane these places sacred to Me The plural mikdashai, \u201cMy holy places,\u201d is somewhat unusual, but we can compare Jeremiah 51:51: mikdeshei beit YHVH, \u201cthe sacred areas of the LORD\u2019s House,\u201d as well as Psalms 68:36: mi-mikdasheikha, \u201cwithin your holy places.\u201d This rendering underscores the spatial factor, the question of where the defective priests would have been stationed were they officiating in the cult.<\/p>\n
24. Thus Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites. We are not told what Moses said because the verb has no object. This verse, a postscript, serves to link the special provisions of chapter 21 with the rest of the Holiness Code. In stating that these laws are addressed to all the Israelites, the spirit of inclusiveness so characteristic of the Holiness Code is retained, even though chapter 21 deals with matters of specific concern to the priesthood.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 22<\/p>\n
SACRED DONATIONS (vv. 1\u201333)<\/p>\n
2. Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations \u2026 lest they profane My holy name The Hebrew is unusual. Literally, the verse reads: \u201cInstruct Aaron and his sons to separate themselves from the sacred donations of the Israelite people (lest they profane My holy name) which they consecrate to Me.\u201d For a smoother reading, the translation shifts the parenthetical clause, which intrudes on the normal sentence structure, to the end of the verse.
\nThe verb ve-yinnazru literally means \u201cand let them separate themselves.\u201d Rashi and Ibn Ezra both compare this verse with 15:31 ve-hizzartem \u02beet benei yisra\u02beel, literally \u201cYou shall cause the Israelite people to avoid.\u201d
\nThe verses that follow provide the details of what such avoidance entails. The first rule is that impure priests may not come into contact with sacred donations.<\/p>\n
3. while in a state of uncleanness The Hebrew reads ve-tum\u02beato \u02bfalav, \u201chis uncleanness being upon him.\u201d The sense is circumstantial.<\/p>\n
partakes of any sacred donation Rather, \u201cwho shall approach any sacred donation.\u201d The verb yikrav, used in this statement, means \u201cto approach,\u201d and it is preferable to retain the literal sense of the original Hebrew. The purpose of this law was to prevent impure priests from having physical contact with consecrated offerings, lest they defile them. In fact, that is why impure priests are not allowed to partake of them in the first place.<\/p>\n
that person shall be cut off from before Me The wording differs from the usual formulation. Normally, one is \u201ccut off\u201d from his kin or people. Here, the idea is that God directly objects to the nearness of impure priests and does not wish them to stand in His presence.<\/p>\n
I am the LORD This frequent refrain in the Holiness Code often concludes a section of laws or commandments.<\/p>\n
4. No man of Aaron\u2019s offspring \u2026 shall eat The formulation \u02beish \u02beish often introduces the positive statement \u201cany man.\u201d It may, however, imply negation when the verb in the main clause is negative, as it is here: lo\u02be yo\u02bekhal, \u201cshall not eat.\u201d The negative formulation makes this statement apodictic; it issues an unconditional command.<\/p>\n
who has an eruption or a discharge Verse 4a begins a sequence of impurities, ordered from most to least severe, that continues through verse 5. The Hebrew adjective tsaru\u02bfa (or metsora\u02bf) describes a person who suffers from a skin ailment known as tsara\u02bfat, usually rendered \u201cleprosy.\u201d The symptoms and purification of this ailment are the subjects of chapters 13 and 14. Hebrew zav describes a person who has experienced a bodily discharge. The verb zav means \u201cto flow.\u201d Procedures relevant to such conditions are set forth in chapter 15.<\/p>\n
of the sacred donations until be is clean This section poses two related problems of interpretation. We must first determine the precise meaning of kodashim, \u201csacred donations,\u201d a term that can apply to various types of offerings of greater and lesser sanctity. Then, too, we must clarify the meaning of the verb yithar, \u201che shall become pure.\u201d This verb is variously used to refer to progressive stages in the cycle of purification. Here, kodashim designates sacrificial offerings of which a priest may partake only when he is pure. Therefore, the verb yithar must refer to the final purification of an afflicted priest, which occurs only after sacrifices are offered on the eighth day. Hoffmann points out that this requirement is made explicit in 14:20 and 15:13\u201315, with respect to both the tsaru\u02bfa and the zav. After the seven-day cycle, the sufferer is called, in the terminology of the Mishnah, me\u1e25ussar kippurim, \u201cone who lacks expiation.\u201d The period of impurity is over, if the ailment has healed, but rites of purification have yet to be performed.<\/p>\n
4b\u20135. If one touches anything made unclean by a corpse A person who comes into contact with the corpse of another Israelite is known as teme\u02be met, \u201cone impure because of a corpse.\u201d This impurity is so severe that even a vessel that comes into contact with a corpse is rendered impure. According to Numbers 19:10\u201312, anyone, priest or lay Israelite, who has contact with a person impure in this way, in turn, becomes impure as well.<\/p>\n
or if a man has an emission of semen This law is explained in the Comments to 15:15\u201318.<\/p>\n
or if a man touches any swarming thing This type of impurity is explained in the Comments to 11:24, 29\u201330.<\/p>\n
or any human being by whom he is made unclean\u2014whatever his uncleanness This law concerns a person, in this case a priest, who touches another person who is in a state of impurity for any of a variety of reasons, including the impurity of a tsaru\u02bfa or a zav. Whereas verse 4a concerns persons who are themselves the source of impurity, verses 4b\u20135 concern persons whose impurity is transmitted to them by contact with others who are impure.<\/p>\n
6. the person who touches such A priest who touches persons and vessels that are impure, but who was not initially impure himself, needs only to bathe and wait until after sunset in order to be restored to a pure state. In Mishnah Zeva\u1e25im 12:1, such a priest is known as tevul yom, \u201cone who immerses on the same day.\u201d<\/p>\n
unless he has washed his body On the procedure involved, see Comment to 8:6.<\/p>\n
7. As soon as the sun sets Hebrew u-va\u02be ha-shemesh is circumstantial: \u201cthe sun having entered.\u201d The \u201centering\u201d of the sun reflects the ancient cosmology, wherein the sun enters its house of the night and passes through to the East; from there it \u201cgoes forth\u201d at dawn. This is expressed in Ecclesiastes 1:5: \u201cThe sun rises, and the sun sets\u2014\/And glides back to where it rises.\u201d The time of the entrance of the sun is usually understood as the time when darkness falls.<\/p>\n
for they are his food It would be unfair to deprive priests of their \u201cdaily bread\u201d any longer than absolutely necessary. Furthermore, partaking of sacrifices by the priests, especially expiatory offerings, was considered indispensable to the efficacy of these offerings.<\/p>\n
8. He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts A similar statement occurs in Ezekiel 44:31: \u201cPriests shall not eat anything, whether bird or animal, that died or was torn by beasts.\u201d In 17:15, this same prohibition is addressed to all Israelites, and similar commandments are addressed to the Israelite people in Exodus 22:30 and Deuteronomy 14:21. It is likely, therefore, that this very ancient prohibition was repeated for emphasis in the laws addressed specifically to the priests. There is no basis for concluding that they once applied only to priests and were later extended to all Israelites, as some modern students of biblical religion maintain.<\/p>\n
9. They shall keep My charge The Hebrew term mishmeret, \u201ccharge,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 8:35.<\/p>\n
lest they incur guilt thereby and die for it Rather, \u201clest they bear the punishment of the offense, on that account, and die for it.\u201d The sense of \u201cbearing punishment\u201d is discussed in the Comment to 5:1, where it is explained that the same term that describes the offense itself may also convey the punishment incurred. In 5:1 the term for \u201coffense\u201d is \u02bfavon, whereas here it is \u1e25et\u02be, but the meaning is the same.<\/p>\n
10. No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. Hebrew zar, here translated \u201clay person,\u201d is a relative term, whose precise meaning depends on context. The basic sense is \u201coutsider, stranger, one who is hated.\u201d It may refer to a nonpriest, as is the case here, to a non-Levite, or a non-Israelite.
\nThe singular kodesh functions as a collective noun: \u201csacred donations,\u201d and is interchangeable with the plural kodashim, used in preceding verses.<\/p>\n
No bound or hired laborer of a priest shall eat of the sacred donations Essentially, the Hebrew term toshav means \u201cresident\u201d and it may refer to foreign residents, as well. It is, however, a term having diverse socioeconomic connotations. In 25:35f., 47f., the toshav is one who was seized in default of debt and then compelled to \u201creside\u201d in the home of the creditor until he worked off his obligation. This explains the translation \u201cbound laborer.\u201d Hebrew sakhir merely designates a \u201chired\u201d laborer, one who works for wages, as is explained in the Comment to 19:13.
\nOnly one who is a priest\u2019s property or a member of his immediate family may eat of the sacred donations that were apportioned to the priests. The toshav of a priest was not his property, but more like an indentured servant; and one\u2019s hired laborer was also an employee, not a slave.<\/p>\n
11. but a person who is a priest\u2019s property by purchase \u2026 and those that are born into his household may eat of his food Hebrew kinyan kaspo, \u201cone purchased by his silver,\u201d is a way of referring to slaves, whereas yelid beito, \u201cborn into his household,\u201d designates the children of one\u2019s slaves. By definition, these terms refer to non-Israelites, because Israelites could not be owned as slaves by other Israelites, according to the law of 25:42\u201346.<\/p>\n
12. If a priest\u2019s daughter marries a layman A priest\u2019s daughter derives the privilege of partaking of the priests\u2019 food from her father, who is responsible for her care so long as she resides in his domicile. If she marries a member of the priesthood, her entitlement then derives from her husband. But if she marries outside the priesthood, there is no basis for her enjoying this privilege. As in verse 10, Hebrew zur here designates a nonpriest.<\/p>\n
she may not eat of the sacred gifts Hebrew terumat ha-kodashim is a unique combination of terms and requires clarification. The term terumah means \u201clevy, collected donation, what is raised.\u201d It may refer to voluntary contributions or to obligatory levies. The term itself informs us that the sacred materials had been \u201craised\u201d; the context determines on what basis. Here, terumat ha-kodashim refers to priestly emoluments having the status of \u201clesser sanctity.\u201d Most sacrificial offerings were restricted to the priests themselves and were to be eaten only in sacred precincts. They could not be shared with other members of the priestly families. This is not the sense here.<\/p>\n
13. and without offspring, and is back in her father\u2019s house as in her youth Rather, \u201cshe may return to her father\u2019s house.\u201d According to biblical law, a widow or a divorc\u00e9e without children was compelled to rely on her father or her brothers for support. A widow did not inherit her husband\u2019s estate; his sons or, if he had no sons, his daughters fell heir to it. Similarly, a childless, divorced woman had no claim on her husband\u2019s estate. (In later Judaism, the settlement contained in the ketubbah, \u201cwrit of marriage,\u201d protected women in such circumstances.) This verse ordains, therefore, that the daughter of a priest who had been married to a nonpriest could regain her privileges within her original, priestly family. Once returned, she partakes of the priestly emoluments as she had done before her marriage, according to Hoffmann.<\/p>\n
14. if a man eats of a sacred donation unwittingly This law refers to an ordinary Israelite who inadvertently partakes of what properly belongs only to the priesthood. This law is structured along the lines of the law of ma\u02bfal set forth in 5:14\u201316.<\/p>\n
he shall pay the priest for the sacred donation The entire payment, including the penalty of one-fifth of the estimated value of the misappropriated property, is referred to as ha-kodesh, \u201cthe sacred donation.\u201d Once remitted, it all became the property of the priest. In ritual texts, \u201cthe priest\u201d (ha-kohen) usually refers to the priest in charge at the time. Rabbinic law introduced the principle of tovat hana\u02beah, \u201cthe right to provide a benefit.\u201d In many cases, the Israelite in question could select the priest to whom the required payment would be remitted.<\/p>\n
15. But [the priests] must not allow the Israelites \u2026 Rather, \u201cFor the priests must not profane the sacred donations of the Israelites, which they collect for the LORD, by bringing upon them (the Israelites) the punishment for eating such sacred donations.\u201d Rashi understands this as an admonition to the priesthood not to allow ordinary Israelites to partake of sacred donations. The priests, responsible for maintaining proper storage and accurate accounting procedures, were to police themselves in order to prevent priests, who might be so tempted, from dealing in sacred donations to their own advantage. Such individuals would have to be punished appropriately.
\nHebrew \u02bfavon \u02beashmah is a unique combination of terms. In the Comment to 4:3 it is explained that \u02beashmah may connote \u201cblame\u201d or \u201cpunishment\u201d for a forbidden act as well as the act itself.
\nThe verb ve-hissi\u02beu, \u201cthey bring upon,\u201d derives from the root nasa\u02be, \u201cto bear, carry.\u201d The offender \u201cbears\u201d the punishment for his acts, but when others neglect their responsibility, they cause Israelites to bear such punishment.<\/p>\n
16. for it is I the LORD who make them sacred This postscript can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It is God who ordained that the priests are sacred or (2) it is God who declared that the donations are sacred.<\/p>\n
18. When any man of the house of Israel The character of the formula \u02beish \u02beish, \u201cany man,\u201d is explained in the Comment to verse 4.<\/p>\n
or of the strangers in Israel Non-Israelites also donated sacrificial offerings to the God of Israel. In the ancient Near East, it was customary to pay respect to the god of the host country. Solomon\u2019s prayer, preserved in 1 Kings 8:41\u201343, refers to the stranger from a distant land who, impressed with the renown of the God of Israel, wishes to worship Him in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
a burnt offering as his offering for any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings The burnt offering (\u02bfolah), in addition to being the mainstay of the public cult, also served as an individual sacrifice, often brought as a votive, or freewill, offering. The terms neder, \u201cvotive offering,\u201d and nedavah, \u201cfreewill offering,\u201d are explained in the Comment to 7:16.<\/p>\n
19. it must, to be acceptable in your favor Hebrew le-ratson, \u201cfor acceptance,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:3.<\/p>\n
a male without blemish, from cattle or sheep or goats The sense is alternative\u2014either large or small cattle. Compare the formulation further on, in verse 27.<\/p>\n
20. You shall not offer any that has a defect Deuteronomy 17:1 states the same requirement: \u201cYou shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep that has any defect of a serious kind.\u201d<\/p>\n
21. And when a man offers, from the herd or flock, a sacrifice of well-being Rather, \u201ca sacred gift of greeting.\u201d Verses 21\u201325 specify that a sacred gift of greeting (shelamim) may not have defects. The disqualifying defects are then enumerated in detail.<\/p>\n
for an explicit vow Rather, \u201cto set aside a votive.\u201d The Hebrew verb le-falle\u02be means \u201cto set aside\u201d and is explained in the Comment to 27:2, where its importance in the votive system is discussed.<\/p>\n
22. Anything blind, or injured, or maimed In the introductory Comment to chapters 21\u201322, the correspondences between those physical defects that render a priest unfit to officiate in the cult and those that render a sacrificial animal unfit are tabulated in detail. Only terms that do not occur in chapter 21 are explained here.
\nHebrew shavur means \u201cbroken,\u201d and \u1e25aruts means \u201ccut off, incised,\u201d hence, \u201cmaimed.\u201d Hebrew yabbelet is related to tevallul, \u201cwen, a growth in the eye,\u201d in 21:20.<\/p>\n
23. You may, however, present as a freewill offering an ox or a sheep with a limb extended or contracted \u2026 Hebrew kalut literally means \u201cdrawn in.\u201d The provisions of verse 23 are exceptional in that they distinguish between the requirements for a freewill offering and those applicable to a votive, which are more stringent. Elsewhere no such distinction is made. This disparity is understandably troubling to traditional commentators. Ramban interprets the term nedavah loosely to mean a voluntary contribution to the sanctuary, not intended for use as a sacrificial offering on the altar. For this reason, the requirements of soundness were eased. More likely, however, the less stringent requirements in the case of the nedavah had to do with the entirely voluntary character of this offering. It was not obligated by any prior commitment, as was the votive pledge (the neder), nor was it even occasioned by the duty to thank God for something He had done for the worshiper.
\nThe language of this law is also somewhat distinctive. The Hebrew reads nedavah ta\u02bfaseh \u02beoto, \u201cYou shall make of it a freewill offering.\u201d But in such contexts Hebrew \u02bfasah may mean \u201cto perform a rite, offer a sacrifice.\u201d This is so in Exodus 12:48, where ve-\u02bfasah pesa\u1e25 means \u201cand he performs the paschal sacrifice.\u201d Compare, for example, Leviticus 14:19; 16:24. On this basis we should translate: \u201cYou shall perform it as a freewill offering.\u201d<\/p>\n
24. [with its testes] bruised or crushed or torn or cut The substance of this law does not differ appreciably from that of 21:20, but the terminology is different. Hebrew ma\u02bfukh means \u201crubbed, crushed\u201d and is synonymous with meroa\u1e25 \u02beashakh, \u201cwith crushed testes,\u201d in 21:20. Hebrew katut means \u201cpounded, pulverized, crushed,\u201d and natuk means \u201cdetached, torn off.\u201d Hebrew karut literally means \u201ccut off,\u201d hence, \u201ccastrated.\u201d<\/p>\n
You shall have no such practices in your own land The new JPS translation joins verse 24b to what follows, implying a general prohibition of abhorrent practices that applied to all the defects enumerated in verses 22\u201324. It is more likely that reference here is specifically to the conditions listed in verse 24a, namely, genital mutilation, or gelding, of animals\u2014things one \u201cdoes\u201d to an animal. By contrast, the defects listed in verses 22\u201323 are more likely congenital in nature or the result of injury.<\/p>\n
25. nor shall you accept such [animals] from a foreigner Verse 25 concludes this section of the legislation and refers to all the defects listed in verses 22\u201324. Resident non-Israelites might want to sell animals to Israelites or contribute them as their own offerings. Such animals are subject to the same regulations as those originally belonging to Israelites.<\/p>\n
for they are mutilated, they have a defect Hebrew mosh\u1e25atam bam literally means \u201ctheir mutilation is in them.\u201d This connotes a distortion of normal physical form. The postexilic prophet Malachi (1:14) states the matter as follows: \u201cA curse on the cheat who has an [unblemished] male in his flock, but for his vow sacrifices a blemished animal to the LORD!\u201d<\/p>\n
27. When an ox or a sheep or a goat For another instance of this unusual combination see 17:3. Newborn animals may not be sacrificed until the eighth day after birth.<\/p>\n
28. no animal \u2026 shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young The law forbids such sacrifice even after eight days. Traditionally, this prohibition has been explained as expressing compassion for living creatures. It has been understood to apply only to female animals, \u201cmothers,\u201d and their male offspring (Heb. beno, [literally] \u201cits son\u201d). Practically speaking, male animals account for the majority of sacrifices. This interpretation is cited by Rashi, Maimonides, and others.<\/p>\n
29. sacrifice it so that it may be acceptable Verses 29\u201330 present a separate law for the thanksgiving offering, which is here treated as distinct from the shelamim.<\/p>\n
30. It shall be eaten on the same day In the Comments to 19:5\u20138, it is explained that the thanksgiving offering is subject to different rules.<\/p>\n
31. You shall faithfully observe My commandments This concluding statement is typical of ritual legislation in the Torah.<\/p>\n
32. You shall not profane My holy name In verse 2 above, the laws began with the same admonition.<\/p>\n
33. I who brought you out of the land of Egypt As in 19:36, reference is made, at the conclusion of ritual legislation, to God\u2019s act of liberating the Israelites from Egyptian bondage\u2014the basis of His demand for obedience to His laws and commandments.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 23<\/p>\n
The Calendar of Sacred Time<\/p>\n
Leviticus 23 is a calendar of the annual festivals celebrated in biblical times. As such, it represents the primary statement on the religious festivals in the priestly tradition and, hence, is a highly important source. In conformance with biblical tradition, this calendar also includes the Sabbath, even though it is not, technically speaking, a calendrical festival.
\nActually, the Torah preserves three calendrical traditions, corresponding to its three principal collections of laws: the Book of the Covenant, Deuteronomy, and the ritual legislation. Each expresses its own distinctive concept of the festivals, usually conveyed by the precise name given to each occasion. The calendar of Exodus 23:12\u201319, part of the Book of the Covenant, focuses on the Sabbath and on the three pilgrimage festivals: \u1e25ag ha-matsot, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Fast of Unleavened Bread\u201d; \u1e25ag ha-katsir, \u201cthe Spring Harvest Pilgrimage\u201d; and \u1e25ag ha-\u02beasif, \u201cthe Pilgrimage of Ingathering.\u201d The calendar of Deuteronomy 16:1\u201317 names the pesa\u1e25; \u1e25ag ha-shavu\u02bfot, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Festival of Weeks\u201d in the late spring; and \u1e25ag ha-sukkot, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Festival of Booths\u201d in the autumn. Numbers 28\u201329 include the daily and Sabbath celebrations and those for the New Moon and all the festivals and holy days. The present chapter and Numbers 28\u201329 together constitute a detailed register of the sacrifices required throughout the year. In addition, Exodus 34:17\u201326 preserves a brief calendar that is related in form and content to Exodus 23:12\u201319.
\nThe contents of chapter 23 may be outlined as follows:<\/p>\n
A superscription, or title (vv. 1\u20132)<\/p>\n
The Sabbath (v. 3)<\/p>\n
A second superscription (v. 4)<\/p>\n
The paschal sacrifice and the matsot festival (vv. 5\u20138)<\/p>\n
Offerings from the new grain crop, during a seven-week period of counting (vv. 9\u201322)<\/p>\n
The first day of the seventh month, a day of commemoration with loud blasts of the shofar (vv. 23\u201325)<\/p>\n
The tenth of the seventh month, the Day of Atonement (vv. 26\u201332)<\/p>\n
The Sukkot festival beginning on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (vv. 33\u201336)<\/p>\n
A summary statement (vv. 37\u201338)<\/p>\n
Further laws for the Sukkot festival (vv. 39\u201343)<\/p>\n
A postscript (v. 44)<\/p>\n
The above outline, especially the two superscriptions, shows the composite character of chapter 23. The Sabbath law has been appended to the beginning of the calendar proper, and verses 39\u201343 have been similarly added at the end, after it seemed that the calendar was complete. This latter passage provides additional regulations about the Sukkot festival, including the only statement preserved in the Torah explaining the requirements to dwell in booths during the festival of ingathering and to use greenery in its celebration.
\nVerses 9\u201322 are also highly significant, for they ordain detailed offerings from the new grain crop. They also highlight the importance of the Sabbath day in calculating time.<\/p>\n
THE SABBATH (vv. 1\u20133)<\/p>\n
2. Speak to the Israelite people The sacred occasions, the Sabbaths and festivals, are to be observed by all the people; they are not merely of concern to the priesthood nor relevant solely to the sacrificial cult of the sanctuary. This introductory statement sets the tone for the entire chapter, whose provisions inform the people, as well as the priests, about how the Sabbath and festivals are to be observed.<\/p>\n
These are My fixed times, the fixed times of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as sacred occasions The Hebrew term mo\u02bfed, \u201cset time,\u201d derives from the root y-\u02bf-d, \u201cto set, designate\u201d a time or place. The dates of the festivals and the regularity of a Sabbath every seventh day were set by God, and yet the Israelites are also commanded to proclaim them as sacred. These two acts are not contradictory but, rather, complementary. The sanctity of the Sabbath and festivals is not achieved by God\u2019s act alone. It requires a combination of divine and human action.
\nThere is, however, a problem in using the term mo\u02bfed with reference to the Sabbath. Elsewhere in the ritual legislation it usually designates an annual occurrence. A mo\u02bfed occurs at the same time each year; its annual date must be \u201cfixed.\u201d There is, however, no need to \u201cfix\u201d the time of the Sabbath, which is not, strictly speaking, a calendrical phenomenon, as Rashi has pointed out. Furthermore, biblical usage regularly differentiates between shabbat, \u201cthe Sabbath,\u201d and mo\u02bfed, as in verses 37\u201338 of our chapter, which speak of the \u201cset times of the LORD\u201d as being \u201capart from the sabbaths of the LORD.\u201d Accordingly, the use of mo\u02bfed for the Sabbath is most likely to be explained by the influence of the langauge of verse 4 upon that of verse 2.
\nHebrew mikret\u02be kodesh, here rendered \u201csacred occasion,\u201d is a somewhat ambiguous term original to the Holiness Code. The verb k-r-\u02be may mean \u201cto proclaim\u201d or \u201cto summon, invite.\u201d Accordingly, one could render mikra\u02be kodesh as \u201ca sacred assembly, convocation,\u201d indicating that on an occasion so designated, the community is summoned for common worship and celebration.<\/p>\n
3. On six days work may be done This statement emphasizes three norms of conduct basic to the observance of the Sabbath: (1) the prohibition of mela\u02bekhah, \u201cwork,\u201d (2) the sanctity of the Sabbath, and (3) the requirement that the Sabbath be observed in all Israelite settlements. The formulation of verse 3, especially use of the passive verb te\u02bfaseh, \u201cmay be done,\u201d closely resembles similar statements in Exodus 12:26; 31:5; and 35:2. The active formulation ta\u02bfaseh, \u201cyou shall do,\u201d is more common.
\nHebrew mela\u02bekhah, \u201cwork,\u201d derives from the root l-\u02be-k, \u201cto send, dispatch, assign,\u201d now attested in Ugaritic. The noun mal\u02beakh, \u201cmessenger, angel,\u201d also derives from this root. On this basis, mela\u02bekhah is best translated \u201cassigned tasks, what one is sent to do.\u201d The main object of the Sabbath law, in this respect, is to avoid performing one\u2019s daily tasks on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
a sabbath of complete rest Hebrew sbabbat shabbaton is superlative, literally \u201cthe most restful cessation\u201d from assigned tasks. The Sabbath is to be observed by a greater abstinence from daily tasks than is required on the festivals. On seasonal festivals, one refrains from work primarily to be free to celebrate, whereas on the Sabbath, the very object is rest.
\nThe term shabbat means \u201cto desist, cease, be idle.\u201d The Sabbath day is, consequently, a hiatus in the regular progression of daily labor. It enables a person literally to \u201ccatch his breath\u201d (hinnafesh), the verb used to describe God\u2019s rest on the Sabbath of Creation.
\nIn other contexts, the term shabbat may connote a \u201csabbath,\u201d namely, an occasion that resembles the Sabbath, such as the last year in the seven-year sabbatical cycle or a week, which ends on the Sabbath day. Hebrew shabbaton expresses that which is like the Sabbath and as such designates the Day of Atonement and other occasions, including the first and seventh days of festivals.<\/p>\n
it shall be a sabbath of the LORD The translation conveys the sense of prepositional lamed, which connotes possession: \u201ca Sabbath belonging to the LORD.\u201d The Sabbath belongs to God, just as festivals are said to be \u1e25ag le-YHVH, \u201ca pilgrimage festival belonging to the LORD.\u201d On such occasions, one should not pursue his own affairs but should devote himself to spiritual matters. This is stated most clearly in Isaiah 58:13\u201314: \u201cIf you refrain from trampling the sabbath,\/From pursuing your affairs on My holy day;\/If you call the Sabbath \u2018delight,\u2019\/The LORD\u2019s holy day \u2018honored\u2019;\/And if you honor it and go not your ways\/Nor look to your affairs, nor strike bargains\u2014\/Then you can seek the favor of the LORD.\u201d There is the subtle implication that on the Sabbath one is to worship God in special ways, though nothing in the way of special sacrificial rites is specifically ordained here.<\/p>\n
throughout your settlements This stipulation occurs frequently in the ritual legislation. It emphasizes the fact that the Sabbath is to be observed by the community of Israelites in their houses and is not solely a celebration to take place in the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
THE FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD (vv. 4\u20138)<\/p>\n
This section of the calendar ordains that the paschal sacrifice is to be offered on the fourteenth day of the first month, in the early evening. The Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the fifteenth day and lasts seven days. The first and seventh days are designated sacred assemblies, when work is forbidden. There is mention of an offering by fire on each of the seven days, but no details about it are provided. Unleavened bread is to be eaten, and all leaven avoided for seven days, beginning at the time of the paschal sacrifice.<\/p>\n
4. These are the set times of the LORD \u2026 each at its appointed time Each festival is to occur at the same time every year.<\/p>\n
5. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month This is the dating system that was in use during much of the biblical period, especially in the formulation of official records and laws. The operative unit of time was the lunar month (\u1e25odesh), not the week; and the months of the year were designated by ordinal numbers: the first month, \u2026 the seventh month, and so forth. The counting began in the spring of the year. There is both biblical and extrabiblical evidence that other calendrical systems were also in use during the biblical period, but Leviticus 23 does not refer to them. For further discussion of the month names in the various systems of recording time in biblical Israel, see Excursus 8.<\/p>\n
at twilight Hebrew bein ha-\u02bfarbayim is ambiguous. The translation \u201ctwilight\u201d understands it as designating the period of time between sunset and nightfall, approximately one and one-third hours in duration. As a dual form \u02bfarbayim expresses two \u201csettings\u201d: sunset and a later \u201csetting\u201d that follows\u2014nightfall. Mekhilta Bo\u02be 5 presents the view of Rabbi Nathan that bein ha-\u02bfarbayim is the time after the sun begins to incline toward the west, after the sixth hour of the day. In a hypothetical twelve-hour day that begins at 6:00 A.M. and concludes at 6:00 P.M., this would mean that the time period called bein ha-\u02bfarbayim begins at noon. Mishnah Pesa\u1e25im 5:1 tells us that during the period of the Second Temple, the paschal sacrifice was offered on the altar at approximately nine and a half hours into the day, immediately following the second daily offering (tamid), which was scheduled earlier on Passover eve. This was near the midpoint of the second half of the ideal twelve-hour day that begins at 6:00 A.M. and concludes at 6:00 P.M. Again, this is before twilight. There is no similar information available about practices in earlier periods of antiquity.
\nHere, the term pesa\u1e25 refers to the sacrifice not to the festival. Actually, the accepted name \u201cPassover\u201d is a misnomer because the verb pasa\u1e25 in the Kal stem does not mean \u201cto pass over, skip over,\u201d but rather \u201cto straddle, hedge.\u201d Thus, we read in 1 Kings 18:21, [literally] \u201cHow long will you keep on straddling (pos\u1e25im) the two branches?\u201d In other words, pasa\u1e25 means to stand with one leg on one branch and the second leg on the other. In the notes to Exodus 12:11, 23, the new JPS translation cites this interpretation as an alternative to \u201cpassover offering\u201d for Hebrew pesa\u1e25. It notes the rendering \u201cprotective offering.\u201d Thus, we also read in Exodus 12:23: \u201cFor when the LORD goes through to smite the Egyptians, He will see the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, and the LORD will protect the door and not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home.\u201d
\nMekhilta Bo\u02be 7 cites Isaiah 31:5: \u201cLike the birds that fly, even so will the LORD of Hosts shield Jerusalem, shielding and saving, protecting (pasoa\u1e25) and rescuing.\u201d In such terms, the paschal sacrifice commemorates God\u2019s protection of the Israelites. The details of the paschal sacrifice are presented in Exodus 12\u201313.<\/p>\n
6. and on the fifteenth day of that month the LORD\u2019s Feast of Unleavened Bread Rather, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Feast of Unleavened Bread of the LORD.\u201d The Hebrew term \u1e25ag is crucial for a proper understanding of the biblical festivals and their development. \u1e24ag means \u201cpilgrimage,\u201d and wherever this term is used to characterize a festival, it refers to an actual pilgrimage, either to a nearby or to a faraway cult site. The duty to undertake a pilgrimage is known in a number of other religions, most notably in Islam, where the Arabic term \u1e25ajatun, cognate with Hebrew \u1e25ag, designates a holy pilgrimage. This means that any festival called \u1e25ag could not be fully celebrated at one\u2019s home, but required one\u2019s presence at a cult site. In earlier times, the pilgrimage might have brought a family to a nearby altar, but subsequently Deuteronomy ordained that all sacrificial offerings were to be brought to one, central Temple, which necessitated a much longer pilgrimage for most Israelites.
\nThere is some ambiguity as to how long the pilgrimage, itself, was to last. In the case of the autumn festival the formulation is clear: verse 34 explicitly states that the pilgrimage is to last for seven days. The same is to be understood here. The pilgrimage lasted for as long as unleavened bread was eaten, namely, for seven days.
\nThe meaning of Hebrew matsot, \u201cunleavened bread,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 2:4.<\/p>\n
7. the first day you shall celebrate a sacred occasion Rather, \u201ca sacred assembly.\u201d (See Comment to verse 3.) On the first and seventh, or last, day of the festival, work is forbidden. The community celebrates together. On the intervening days, normal work may be carried on, if necessary, although the celebration continues.<\/p>\n
you shall not work at your occupations The composite term mele\u02bekhet \u02bfavodah, literally \u201cassignment of labor,\u201d is somewhat redundant.<\/p>\n
8. Seven days you shall make offerings by fire to the LORD The Hebrew term \u02beisheh, \u201coffering by fire,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 1:9. Here, the precise character of the offerings by fire is not specified. The same general reference occurs in the laws for the celebrations of the seventh month. These sacrifices are to be offered on the sanctuary altar. The laws of Numbers 28\u201329 enumerate which offerings are to be brought on each occasion. This is the import of the introductory statement in Numbers 28:3: \u201cThese are the offerings by fire that you are to present to the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
OFFERINGS FROM THE NEW GRAIN CROP (vv. 9\u201314)<\/p>\n
In this section, two offerings taken from the new crop are prescribed: \u02bfomer and bikkurim. The first, \u02bfomer, is the offering of a \u201csheaf\u201d of new barley. As originally intended, the priest was to offer it on the morrow of the first Sabbath subsequent to the seven-day festival. New grain could not be eaten until this offering was made. It constituted desacralization, a rite that gives to God the first of the new crop, thus releasing the rest of it for ordinary human use.
\nBeginning on the day of this offering, a period of counting is initiated. Seven full \u201csabbaths,\u201d or weeks, are counted off. On the fiftieth day, the second offering of meal of new wheat, baked into leavened loaves, is offered in the sanctuary as bikkurim, \u201cfirst fruits.\u201d It consists of grain furnished by the Israelite settlements. That day is a sacred assembly on which work is forbidden. Here, it is not designated \u1e25ag, \u201cpilgrimage,\u201d as it is in Deuteronomy 16:10, a significant difference.
\nThis section concludes with a paraphrase of 19:9\u201310, requiring Israelites to leave the edges of their fields and their gleanings from the grain harvests for the poor and the stranger.<\/p>\n
10. When you enter the land Compare such introductory statements as 14:34; 19:23; etc.<\/p>\n
you shall bring the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest Hebrew \u02bfomer means a bundle of stalks, bound together after reaping. Reference is to a sheaf of barley, which is the first grain to ripen in the spring. This sheaf is to be brought to \u201cthe priest,\u201d that is, the particular priest who officiates at the rite in the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
11. He shall elevate the sheaf Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 5:1 describes the procedure employed in the days of the Second Temple as follows: \u201cHow is one to do this? He inserts his two hands underneath the objects being offered and carries them to and fro. He lifts them up and lowers them.\u201d The purpose of such rites was to show the offering to God, so that it might be accepted.<\/p>\n
on the day after the sabbath The Hebrew words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat, repeated in verse 15a, are problematic because it is not specified which Sabbath is intended. The accepted rabbinic interpretation is that here shabbat does not refer to the Sabbath day but means something similar to shabbaton in verse 39, that is, a time of resting. This characterization applies both to the Sabbath and to festivals. This interpretation is explained in the Sifra \u02beEmor 23:11, 15: mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat\u2014mi-mo\u1e25orat yom tov, \u201con the morrow of the Sabbath\u2014on the morrow of the festival.\u201d Targum Onkelos explains mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat in the same way, as does the Septuagint to 23:11: t\u00ea epaurion t\u00eas pr\u014dt\u0113s, \u201con the morrow of the first day (i.e., the first day of the festival).\u201d Although this interpretation resolves a difficulty in the text, it does not convey its simple sense. It has been suggested that the words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat in verse 11 and in verse 15a represent an abbreviation of the phrase mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat ha-shevi\u02bfit, literally \u201cuntil the morrow of the seventh \u2018sabbath\u2019 of days\u201d in verse 16 below. Verses 15\u201316 use the term shabbat in the sense of \u201cweek\u201d; verse 11 uses the abbreviation shabbat in its normal sense of a particular day, the Sabbath. This would require that seven \u201csabbaths\u201d of days (shabbatot) would pass during the period of fifty days. It is therefore suggested that the words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat here and in verse 15a were glosses inserted to ensure that the period of counting the seven weeks would begin on the day after the Sabbath. If this analysis is accurate, the text of verse 11 should probably read as follows: vehenif \u02beet ha-\u02bfomer lifnei YHVH li-retsonkhem yenifennu ha-kohen, \u201cHe shall present the sheaf before the LORD; for acceptance on your behalf the priest shall present it.\u201d<\/p>\n
12\u201313. On the day that you elevate the sheaf The burnt offering (\u02bfolah) was often accompanied by a grain offering (min\u1e25ah) and a libation (nesekh), as prescribed here. The measure of grain required here is twice the usual amount, perhaps to emphasize the signal importance of grain in this celebration.<\/p>\n
14. Until that very day \u2026 you shall eat no bread Hebrew \u02bfetsem, \u201cbone,\u201d may mean \u201cthe thing, itself; the essence.\u201d With prefixed bet, be-\u02bfetsem means \u201cin the same, in the very.\u201d For the meaning of Hebrew kali, \u201cparched grain,\u201d and karmel, \u201cfresh ears,\u201d see Comment to 2:14. Until God receives a share of the new grain crop, none of it may be used by humans.<\/p>\n
throughout the ages in all your settlements Compare verse 3 above and verse 31 below.<\/p>\n
THE SHAVUOT FESTIVAL (vv. 15\u201322)<\/p>\n
15\u201316. And from the day on which you bring the sheaf \u2026 the day after the sabbath Referring to the Comment to verse 11 above, it should be repeated here that the words mi-mo\u1e25orat ha-shabbat may be a gloss. The original text may have read: u-sefartem lakhem mi-yom havi\u02beakhem, \u201cAnd you shall count off, from the day on which you bring.\u201d This is how the text of the Temple Scroll from Qumran reads. The offering is known as \u02bfomer ha-tenufah, \u201cthe sheaf for the presentation.\u201d In biblical usage, when the term shabbat refers to a week and not an occasion it probably always connotes a sabbatical week. This is certain in chapter 23 and in the Holiness Code generally. In 25:8 sheva\u02bf shabbetot shanim means \u201cseven septenaries,\u201d namely, seven cycles of seven years, each of which ends with a sabbatical year, when no planting or harvesting may be done. On this basis, sheva\u02bf shabbatot in verse 15 must mean \u201cseven weeks of days.\u201d This indicates, in effect, that the period of counting begins on the day after the first Sabbath, the first Sunday subsequent to the beginning of the festival.<\/p>\n
an offering of new grain In the Comment to 2:14 it is explained that this offering of new grain (min\u1e25ah \u1e25adashah) is distinct from the grain offering, also of the new harvest, brought by individual Israelites. Both offerings, however, are to be of the best semolina wheat.<\/p>\n
17. You shall bring front your settlements two loaves On the use of unleavened bread in altar offerings, see Comment to 7:13. The rule is that no leaven could ascend the altar. Since no part of the offering ordained here\u2014presented before God to be viewed and accepted\u2014ascends the altar, it was made of \u1e25amets, \u201cleavened dough.\u201d<\/p>\n
18. With the bread you shall present Here, the preposition \u02bfal means \u201ctogether with, in addition to.\u201d The offerings prescribed in verses 18\u201320 are typical of those included in composite public rites, where several different sacrifices are offered together to constitute a more elaborate celebration. The animals, both small and large, are to be offered as burnt offerings and are accompanied by the grain offerings and libations.<\/p>\n
19. You shall also offer one he-goat as a sin offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. The various types of sin offerings are discussed in the introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135. An explanation of the shelamim sacrifice, preferably rendered \u201csacred gift of greeting,\u201d is provided in the Comment to 3:1. The reason a \u1e25atta\u02bet, \u201csin offering,\u201d is required on this occasion is unclear. It may perhaps be related to the periodic need to restore the people to a state of cultic purity. This is the only occasion on which the shelamim sacrifice is offered on a scheduled basis, as part of the public cult.<\/p>\n
20. The priest shall elevate these\u2014the two lambs\u2014The object pronoun \u02beotam, \u201cthem,\u201d refers to the two yearling lambs of verse 19.<\/p>\n
they shall be holy to the LORD, for the priest In the first instance, these offerings are the Lord\u2019s, but He commands that they be allotted to the priests. As the Talmud states: \u201cThe Lord has acquired it and has given it to the priests.\u201d Sections of the shelamim are usually reserved for the donors of the sacrifice as well. That is the rule of 7:28f., but it applies only to private offerings. Our law represents the only instance of the shelamim as part of the public cult. For this reason, all sections not burned on the altar are designated for the priests. One could say that this unique shelamim is treated by the law as a most sacred offering.
\nThe essential offerings set forth in verses 9\u201322, in celebration of the new grain crop, reflect a widely known mode of worship in which burnt offerings played no part. Sacrifice is, instead, by presentation, the object being that God views the sacrifice, and in that way accepts it. (In the burnt offering, God, so to speak, \u201cbreathes in the smoke\u201d that rises from the fire.) It is likely, furthermore, that verses 12\u201313 and 18\u201320, which specify certain burnt offerings in addition to the presentation offerings for the initial and final celebrations of the new grain crop, are later developments. They do not represent the earliest form of celebrating these occasions and may have been added in order to bring the code of verses 9\u201322 into conformity with what subsequently became the full regimen of offerings.<\/p>\n
21. On that same day you shall bold a celebration In this verse, the Hebrew verb u-kera\u02betem is derived from the noun mikra\u02be, \u201cassembly,\u201d and means literally \u201cyou shall proclaim an assembly.\u201d This interpretation is required by the syntax of the Hebrew, which would not be balanced if the verb k-r-\u02be were understood in its usual sense of \u201cto proclaim.\u201d<\/p>\n
22. And when you reap the harvest of your land This verse paraphrases 19:9\u201310. It is appended here because of its topical connection with the harvest.<\/p>\n
THE FIRST DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH (vv. 23\u201325)<\/p>\n
This section ordains the celebration of three major sacred occasions occurring during the seventh month: (1) the first day of the seventh month (which in the later tradition becomes the Jewish New Year); (2) the Day of Atonement; and (3) the Sukkot festival.<\/p>\n
24. In the seventh month, on the first Any of the month \u2026 a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts. Note the same system of dating in verse 5 above and subsequently in verses 27, 33, and 39. Hebrew zikhron teru\u02bfah means literally \u201ccommemoration by blasting\u201d the shofar. The same designation of this occasion occurs in Numbers 29:1. The sounding of horns had various functions in ancient Israel, as well as elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Usually, it was a method of assembling the people before moving on to a new location or of mustering troops for battle. There were cultic uses as well. Horns were blasted when sacrifices were offered, and they were used by Temple musicians. In our text, the horn was blasted to announce the forthcoming pilgrimage festival, which occurred two weeks after the first day of the month. Thus we read in Psalms 81:4 literally, \u201cBlow the horn on the New Moon,\/on the full moon for the day of our pilgrimage festival.\u201d Chapter 23 presents this occasion as a day of rest and of sacred assembly. It is not conceived of as a New Year at this stage, but, rather, as an occasion preliminary to the Sukkot festival.<\/p>\n
DAY OF ATONEMENT (vv. 26\u201332)<\/p>\n
The Commentary to 16:29\u201334 presents a detailed discussion of the rites ordained for this occasion. The introductory Comment to chapters 4\u20135 contains further clarification of the Hebrew verb kipper, \u201cto expiate, atone,\u201d and the noun kippurim, \u201cexpiation, atonement.\u201d<\/p>\n
27. Mark, the tenth day of this seventh month Hebrew \u02beakh, \u201cmoreover,\u201d here translated \u201cMark,\u201d is often used in the ritual laws for emphasis. Compare verse 39 below.<\/p>\n
you shall practice self-denial As explained in the Comment to 16:31, self-denial refers to fasting.<\/p>\n
28. you shall do no work The prohibition of labor is repeated for emphasis in verse 30 below.<\/p>\n
29\u201330. shall be cut off \u2026 I will cause that person to perish This is the only instance in the priestly codes of the Torah where God is said to cause the offender to perish. The closest we come to this notion is in 17:10 and in 20:3\u20136, where God is said to cut off the offender from the community.<\/p>\n
32. It shall be a sabbath of complete rest for you See Comment to verse 3 above.<\/p>\n
from evening to evening, you shall observe this your sabbath The phrase me-\u02bferev \u02bfad \u02bferev, \u201cfrom evening to evening,\u201d appears only in this verse; it is not said of any other sacred occasion, even the regular Sabbath. Indeed, it is uncertain as to whether in biblical times the Sabbath and the festivals began on the prior evening, as became the custom in later Judaism. In the laws of Passover and the matsot festival (vv. 5\u20138), the paschal sacrifice is indeed offered on the eve of the fifteenth day, and that event effectively marks the beginning of the festival as a whole. But the paschal offering was, after all, unusual in this very respect, for sacrifices in celebration of sacred occasions were typically offered in the morning.
\nTraditionally this verse has been interpreted as setting the norm for the entire gamut of festivals in the Jewish religious calendar, namely, that the celebration commences the previous evening. This fact notwithstanding, the uniqueness of the provision \u201cfrom evening to evening\u201d in connection with the Day of Atonement might suggest that the practice in this case was exceptional. The issue revolves around the definition of yom, \u201cday,\u201d in Genesis 1. The repeated phrase \u201cthere was evening and there was morning\u201d regarding the days of Creation could be taken to mean that where ritual legislation refers to a particular \u201cday\u201d of the month, it means a day extending from evening to evening. Rashbam notes, however, that this formula could be taken to mean that the second day and those following it began at dawn. In fact, his view has much to recommend it because there are many indications that in biblical Hebrew usage yom, \u201cday,\u201d meant the daylight hours. On this basis the requirement regarding the Day of Atonement was probably unique, and it is likely that, except for Passover, all other festivals, even the Sabbath, began at dawn in biblical times. Rabbinic halakhot clearly determined that the Sabbath and festivals commence with the evening.
\nChapter 23 thus represents the Day of Atonement as a day of complete rest, a Sabbath in that respect, on which an offering by fire was presented and on which Israelites were to fast and otherwise deprive themselves, the object being to secure expiation of sins. Recalling the complex legislation of chapter 16, it is worth repeating here that the tenth day of the seventh month was essentially a day on which the sanctuary was purified, and all violations of its purity expiated through various religious rites. Undoubtedly, scheduling this occasion only a few days prior to the major pilgrimage festival of the year ensured that the sanctuary and, hence, the people would be restored to a state of fitness in time for the celebration of the autumn Sukkot festival.<\/p>\n
THE SUKKOT FESTIVAL (vv. 33\u201344)<\/p>\n
This section combines two laws for the Sukkot festival: a seven-day observance and a concluding celebration on the eighth day. Like the matsot festival in the spring of the year, the first and seventh days of Sukkot are sacred assemblies on which work is forbidden. Offerings by fire are ordained for each of the seven days. Verses 39\u201343 provide further features: Greenery is to be used in the celebration, and the Israelites are to dwell in booths. Although Deuteronomy 16:13 also calls this occasion \u201cthe Feast of Booths,\u201d it does not provide any rationale for the name of the festival or for the related commemorative practice, such as is given here.<\/p>\n
34. On the fifteenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Feast of Booths to the LORD Hebrew sukkah, \u201cbooth,\u201d derives from the verb s-kh-kh, \u201cto cover over,\u201d as would be said of branches. It designates a small, often impermanent structure that is covered on top, but that may be only partially enclosed on its sides. In Genesis 33:17 there is reference to a \u201cbooth\u201d used as a stall for livestock, and in Isaiah 1:8, to a \u201cbooth\u201d for watchmen in a vineyard.<\/p>\n
36. On the eighth day \u2026 it is a solemn gathering Hebrew \u02bfatseret, \u201csolemn gathering,\u201d is a variation of \u02bfatsarah, a term that designates religious gatherings, such as public fasts. According to Deuteronomy 16:8, as well as the ritual legislation, the \u02bfatseret consistently comes at the conclusion of a prolonged celebration. This undoubtedly prompted the Septuagint to render it by Greek exodion, \u201cfinale, recessional.\u201d Etymologically, this term derives from the verb \u02bfatsar, \u201cto detain, restrain, confine,\u201d and may refer to the fact that the people are kept together for an additional day.<\/p>\n
37. Those are the set of times of the LORD \u2026 on each day what is proper Hebrew devar yom be-yomo, \u201con each day what is proper,\u201d is an administrative formula, originally employed in delineating disbursements of food and other materials. It is also appropriate for listing offerings prescribed for particular occasions.<\/p>\n
38. apart from the sabbaths of the LORD, and apart from your gifts Hebrew mattanah, \u201cgift,\u201d usually indicates a voluntary presentation. The formulation here resembles that in several of the laws of Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n
39. when you have gathered in the yield of your land This is the basis for the older name of the festival, used in Exodus 23:16 and 34:22: \u1e25ag ha-\u02beasif, \u201cthe Pilgrimage Festival of Ingathering.\u201d<\/p>\n
40. The product of hadar trees There is no positive horticultural identification of a tree, or a type of tree, called hadar. Words probably related etymologically to hadar connote beauty and majesty. Hebrew \u02bfets hadar, \u201chadar trees,\u201d is a general category that is followed by the specification of three beautiful trees: (1) kappot temarim, \u201cpalm branches,\u201d (2) \u02bfanaf \u02bfets \u02bfavot, \u201cbranches of leafy trees,\u201d and (3) \u02bfarvei na\u1e25al, \u201cwillows of the brook.\u201d This greenery symbolizes the abundance of water and oases and the beauty of the Land of Israel. Traditionally, the \u201cfruit of the tree\u201d has been taken to be the citron (\u02beetrog). It is a much later addition to the Sukkot celebration.<\/p>\n
you shall rejoice before the LORD your God This is the only festival prescribed in chapter 23 on which rejoicing is explicitly commanded. In the festival calendar of Deuteronomy 16, rejoicing is also mentioned in connection with the Feast of Weeks (v. 11). Elsewhere we read that sacrificial worship in the Temple is an occasion for rejoicing. It is not clear just why the Sukkot festival is singled out here, although it may be because Sukkot was the most prominent of the ancient pilgrimage festivals.<\/p>\n
41. You shall observe it as a festival of the LORD Rather, \u201cyou shall observe it as a pilgrimage festival of the LORD.\u201d The pilgrimage is to last seven days.<\/p>\n
42. all citizens in Israel Hebrew \u02beezra\u1e25, \u201ccitizen,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 19:34.<\/p>\n
43. that I made the Israelite people live in booths According to Exodus 12:37, Sukkot is the name of the first stop on the exodus route from Egypt. A double entendre may have been intended: God brought the Israelites to Sukkot when He led them out of Egypt, and He also made them dwell in sukkot, \u201cbooths,\u201d at that time.<\/p>\n
44. So Moses declared Rather, \u201cHe commanded.\u201d As the leader of the people, Moses ordered that the Israelites observe the set times of the Lord. The two passages dealing with the Sukkot festival, verses 33\u201338 and verses 39\u201344, may be differentiated according to their content. The former passage deals with the public celebration of the festival in the sanctuary in the manner of the statements regarding the Passover, the first day of the seventh month, and the Day of Atonement. The latter passage addresses the Israelite families and commands them to provide themselves with certain kinds of greenery and to dwell in booths.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 24<\/p>\n
A Collection of Laws<\/p>\n
Chapter 24 is a brief collection of diverse religious laws concerning the kindling of lamps in the sanctuary, the rows of bread displayed before God in the sanctuary, and laws governing blasphemy and other serious crimes. A number of other features of this chapter warrant special comment. There is, first of all, a statement on the \u201claw of retaliation\u201d (lex talionis), similar to what we find in Exodus 21:23\u201325 and Deuteronomy 19:21. This subject is discussed in Excursus 9. In addition, verses 10\u201312 preserve a didactic narrative about an incident of blasphemy, which serves as a background to the legislation on the subject. This recorded incident occasions two further items of interest: a reference to incarceration as a form of detention; and a divine revelation that was needed for an immediate purpose.<\/p>\n
THE KINDLING OF THE MENORAH (vv. 1\u20134)<\/p>\n
Command the Israelite people \u2026 clear oil of beaten olives The Hebrew adjective zakh, \u201cclear, pure,\u201d is used to indicate the purity of ingredients. The verb k-t-t means \u201cto pulverize, crush, grind,\u201d and the particular form katit is passive: \u201cbeaten.\u201d In the Rashi to Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 8:4, it is explained that olive oil from the first of three pressings was called zakh in the period of the Second Temple. This same law regarding the kindling of the lamps is restated in Exodus 27:20\u201321. The traditional commentaries were understandably troubled by the precise repetition. Rashi explains that our passage represents the essential statement of the specific law, whereas the Exodus passage is part of the monumental general description of the Tabernacle.<\/p>\n
for kindling lamps regularly The Hebrew word tamid, whether used as an adjective or as an adverb (cf. in v. 3), has the sense of regularity. It does not mean \u201cforever, always.\u201d In practice, the lamp in the sanctuary burned only from evening to morning, as verse 3 states explicitly. The requirement that the lamp be lit in all generations is not conveyed by the word tamid, but by the formula \u1e25utkkat \u02bfolam le-doroteikhem, \u201cIt is a law for all time throughout the ages.\u201d<\/p>\n
3. the curtain of the Pact The composite term parokhet ha-\u02bfedut is best translated \u201cthe curtain of [the Ark of] the Pact.\u201d The term parokhet is explained in the Comment to 4:6. In its portrayal of the sanctuary, priestly literature clearly differentiates between the inner and outer sections of the enclosed sanctuary. Behind the parokhet stood the Ark, known in some texts as the \u201cArk of the Pact\u201d (\u02bearon ha-\u02bfedut, or simply ha-\u02bfedut), in which rested the \u201cTablets of the Pact\u201d (lu\u1e25ot ha-\u02bfedut).<\/p>\n
4. He shall set up the lamps on the pure lampstand The actual instructions for fashioning of the lampstand are ordained in Exodus 25:31\u201339. It was to be made of pure gold, of one solid piece that was hammered into shape. It had seven branches. According to 1 Kings 7:49 there were ten lampstands in the Solomonic Temple. They stood in two rows in front of the inner sanctum, which was called devir. This corresponded to the position of the one lampstand in the sanctuary.
\nThe noun menorah derives from ner, \u201ca light,\u201d and its form suggests that its basic meaning is \u201cthe place of light,\u201d hence, \u201clampstand.\u201d Whatever details are known about the menorah of biblical times come from textual descriptions. Artifacts unearthed in archaeological excavations represent the later models of the menorah that ultimately became prominent graphic symbols of Judaism and of the Jewish people.<\/p>\n
THE ROWS OF BREAD (vv. 5\u20139)<\/p>\n
5. You shall take choice flour Rather, \u201csemolina flour.\u201d The bread presented as an offering on a table inside the sanctuary is elsewhere known as le\u1e25em ha-panim, \u201cthe bread of display,\u201d or as le\u1e25em ha-tamid, \u201cthe regularly [offered] bread.\u201d As explained in the Comment to 2:4, Hebrew \u1e25allah means \u201ca round loaf.\u201d The amount of flour used for each loaf was two-tenths of an \u02beefah, or about 2.2 liters.
\nThe practice of displaying bread in the sanctuary is very ancient. There is a reference to this offering in an account from the early career of David. While fleeing from Saul, David and his men arrived at the sanctuary of Nob and were given some of the bread of display to eat. According to ritual legislation, only priests were permitted to partake of these consecrated loaves and, then, only within sacred precincts. In the aforementioned story, the priest at Nob had to be assured that David\u2019s fighting men were pure before he permitted them to eat of the bread of display.
\nAs noted by Ibn Ezra, the twelve loaves clearly represent the Twelve Tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n
6. Place them on the pure table \u2026 in two rows Hebrew ma \u02bfarekhet, \u201cset, row,\u201d led to the designations of the bread of display as le\u1e25em ha-ma\u02bfarekhet, \u201cthe bread of the row,\u201d and \u02bferekh le\u1e25em, \u201ca row of bread.\u201d The same terminology is used to designate a battle line.<\/p>\n
7. With each row you shall place pure frankincense Frankincense (levonah) was also an ingredient of the incense. Here, its function was that of a \u201ctoken portion\u201d (\u02beazkarah). In most of the grain offerings prescribed in priestly legislation, a small amount of flour was scooped up by the officiating priest and then placed on the altar to burn. That constituted the \u201ctoken portion.\u201d This case is exceptional, as Rashi comments, \u201cfor none of the bread went to the \u2018Most High,\u2019 but rather, the frankincense was burned when they removed it (the bread) each sabbath.\u201d
\nIn effect, two different modes of sacrifice are reflected in the prescribed manner of offering the bread of display. The loaves themselves were a presentation to God for which no altar of burnt offerings was used. The bread was viewed by God and, by this means, accepted by Him. Subsequently, the loaves were apportioned to the priests. In an effort to adapt this widespread mode of sacrifice to the more distinctive method of burning offerings on the altar, frankincense was to be burned near the loaves of bread; just as with other offerings of grain, a small amount of flour was burned on the altar. God was pictured as inhaling the aroma of the burning frankincense, which served as \u201can offering by fire.\u201d
\nThe preposition \u02bfal means \u201cnear, together with,\u201d not \u201con, upon.\u201d In Mishnah Mena\u1e25ot 11:5, we are told how the frankincense was burned during the period of the Second Temple. Two containers (bazikhin) were placed near the rows of loaves for this purpose.<\/p>\n
8. He shall arrange them before the LORD regularly every sabbath day In Hebrew, repetition is a way of expressing regularity. Thus, be-yom ha-shabbat, be-yom ha-shabbat, \u201con the Sabbath day, on the Sabbath day,\u201d means \u201cevery Sabbath,\u201d just as ba-boker, ba-boker, \u201cin the morning, in the morning,\u201d means \u201cevery morning\u201d in Exodus 29:39. Note that here, tamid designates a weekly, not a daily procedure, which was the case in 6:13.<\/p>\n
9. for they are his as most holy things from the LORD\u2019s offerings See Comment to 2:3.<\/p>\n
LAWS GOVERNING BLASPHEMY AND OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES (vv. 10\u201322)<\/p>\n
10. There came out among the Israelites This begins a brief narrative that serves to introduce the law governing the crime of blasphemy in verse 13. The point is made that the blasphemer was not a full-fledged Israelite, but was of mixed parentage, in contrast to the person with whom he fought, \u201cthe Israelite man.\u201d Hebrew va-yinnatsu connotes physical fighting. In the heat of the fight, the man of mixed parentage blasphemed.<\/p>\n
11. pronounced the Name in blasphemy The Hebrew verb n-k-v, which also occurs in verse 15, literally means \u201cto pierce,\u201d and by extension, \u201cto specify, pronounce explicitly, identify.\u201d Targum Onkelos renders it in Aramaic as u-faresh, \u201che pronounced explicitly.\u201d The force of the two verbs taken together\u2014va-yikov \u2026 va-yekallel, literally \u201che pronounced \u2026 he cursed\u201d\u2014is to make of the later verb an adverbial phrase: \u201che pronounced by cursing blasphemously.\u201d Hebrew ha-shem, \u201cthe Name,\u201d is an abbreviation of shem YHVH, \u201cthe name of the LORD,\u201d as it appears in verse 15. This implicit way of referring to God as \u201cthe Name\u201d became proverbial in later Jewish literature.
\nThe genealogy of the blasphemer in this incident is certainly significant. His Israelite mother came from the tribe of Dan, associated with the northern cult at the temple of Dan, which the Jerusalemite priesthood considered illegitimate.
\nA prohibition against blasphemy is preserved in the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 22:27). That the penalty for blasphemy is death, as stated in biblical law, is intimated in Job 2:9, where we read that Job\u2019s wife urged him to end his life, which had become insufferable, by committing blasphemy.
\nThis section, which continues through verse 12, recounts a rare instance of incarceration, similar to what is recorded in Numbers 15:34. In both passages, the term mishmar, \u201cguardhouse,\u201d is used; and in both instances, detention was necessary until God provided a specific communication regarding the appropriate penalty, an act conveyed by the verb p-r-sh, \u201cto state clearly, specify.\u201d The specific communication from God specifying the penalty to be imposed on the blasphemer serves to dramatize the concept, basic to priestly literature, that all the particulars of religious law were communicated by God to Moses. In another instance, Moses was urged to detain two persons, but he refused to do so.
\nPenal incarceration as the actual punishment for a crime was seldom the norm in the ancient Near East. There were, however, debtors\u2019 prisons and those where slaves were held, often on the estates of large landowners and kings. These guarded facilities served as living quarters from which escape was difficult.<\/p>\n
14. Take the blasphemer outside the camp Capital sentences were executed outside the area of settlement. This was due, at least in part, to the impurity attached to a corpse. It was also because the taking of a human life, even though by judicial process and required by law, was regarded as a horrendous act. In the laws of Deuteronomy (17:5), one convicted of a capital offense was to be taken to the gates of the city to be executed. Naboth the Jezreelite, who had been wrongly condemned to die, was nevertheless executed outside the city, according to custom.<\/p>\n
and let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head Biblical law considers hearing, not only seeing, to be a form of witnessing, especially where the act involved consists primarily of speaking audibly, as with blasphemy. On the same basis, one attests to hearing the pronouncement of vows. Conversely, one who has not actually heard an oath is not bound by it. When two parties to a contract make mutual commitments, God hears them and holds them responsible.
\nThe entire community has a responsibility to root out blasphemy because it adversely affects everyone, even if it is committed by a single individual. Such a direct affront to God awakens His anger.
\nThe laying on of hands, as explained in the Comment to 1:4, symbolizes the transfer of authority and has both cultic and legal functions.<\/p>\n
15. Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt The formulation \u02beish \u02beish, \u201canyone, any man,\u201d is characteristic of the Holiness Code. The idiom nasa\u02be \u1e25et\u02be is synonymous with nasa\u02be \u02beavon, \u201cto bear the punishment of a sin, or offense.\u201d<\/p>\n
16. The whole community shall stone him; stranger or citizen Non-Israelites are responsible for acts considered vital to maintaining the religious character of the community. Therefore, offenses that threaten that overall religious character are punishable, even when committed by non-Israelite residents.<\/p>\n
17. If anyone kills any human being, he shall be put to death. Similar laws involving precise retaliation for murder and bodily injury occur in Exodus 21:23\u201325 and Deuteronomy 19:21. They are stated here because of their legal relationship to the death penalty imposed for blasphemy. One who kills a human being intentionally must pay with his life. The law code of Numbers 35:9\u201334 stipulates exceptions to this rule, for cases of accidental manslaughter.<\/p>\n
18. One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it Biblical criminal law consistently differentiates between human life and the life of animals. Restitution can be made for destruction of livestock, even if intentional. This is stated most explicitly in verse 21.<\/p>\n
life far life That is to say, the assessed value of the animal destroyed or of another animal provided in place of the one killed.<\/p>\n
19. If anyone maims his fellow Hebrew mum, \u201cblemish, injury,\u201d here refers to a permanent condition\u2014the loss of a limb, an eye\u2014or a break that does not mend, as is specified in the following verses. The same term, mum, is used in 21:17 and 22:20f. to describe disqualifying defects in priests and sacrificial animals.<\/p>\n
20. fracture for fracture, \u2026 The injury he inflicted on another shall be inflicted on him The full implications of retaliatory punishment for injuries are explored in Excursus 9.<\/p>\n
22. You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike The Hebrew term mishpat means \u201cnorm of justice, standard.\u201d The same rules apply whether the offender or the victim are Israelites or resident non-Israelites. This stipulation must be made explicit because of the practice, in certain legal systems, of judging resident aliens by a different law. Extraterritoriality was not endorsed by biblical law in cases of killing or bodily injury, nor in cases of blasphemy.<\/p>\n
23. Moses spoke thus to the Israelites It was important to record the actual compliance of the Israelites with God\u2019s command.<\/p>\n
The Principles of Land Tenure (25:1\u201326:2)<\/p>\n
Be-har<\/p>\n
Chapter 25 of Leviticus is the only code of practice on the subject of land tenure in ancient Israel that is preserved in the Torah. This unique collection of laws and commandments governs the permanent rights of landowners and the legalities of the sale and mortgaging of land. There are also laws regarding indebtedness and indenture, a system of repaying debts through one\u2019s labors. In chapter 25, the seventh year, when fields are to lie fallow, is called the \u201cSabbatical year\u201d; and after a cycle of seven Sabbatical years\u2014every half century\u2014there is to be a Jubilee year.
\nThe basic biblical theory of land tenure is expressed in verses 23\u201324: \u201cBut the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me. Throughout the land that you hold, you must provide for the redemption of the land.\u201d Its fundamental tenet is that the land of Canaan belongs to God, who had granted it to the Israelites as an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201ctenured land, land holding.\u201d It is not theirs to dispose of as they wish; it could not be permanently alienated. Israelite landowners who were compelled by circumstances to sell their land or to mortgage it to pay their debts retained the right to redeem, or retrieve, it. If the original owner raised the necessary funds, the creditor or purchaser was required to restore it to him; and, as a last resort, the land reverted to the original owner on the Jubilee. In effect, all transfers of land designated as \u02bea\u1e25uzzah became long-term leases and were not to be considered final sales.
\nChapter 25 guarantees the rights of individual landowners in contrast to the more ancient system of ge\u02beullah, \u201credemption,\u201d that sought to retain ancestral land within the clan. According to that system, the redeemer, a relative within the clan, gained title to the land he had redeemed out of his own resources, for preventing loss of land to the clan as a whole was deemed more important than protecting the rights of any individual owner. Chapter 25 represents a significant adaptation of the ancient system of redemption. The redeemer from the same clan was commanded to restore the land to its original owner, as concern shifts from the clan to the individual owner.
\nIndeed, land tenure is at the heart of the chapter, which does not provide for a moratorium on debts every seventh year, as does the law of Deuteronomy 15; nor does it require the release of indentured servants every seventh year, as do both Deuteronomy 15 and Exodus 21. Both of the latter chapters are primarily concerned with the alleviation of poverty. By contrast, according to the system embodied in chapter 25, a maximum of fifty years could elapse until relief was forthcoming. Undoubtedly, it was expected that by rendering sales and mortgages of land conditional and of limited duration and by guaranteeing the right of retrieval by original owners, the debilitating process of disenfranchisement could be stemmed.
\nIn the agrarian societies of the past, virtually all indebtedness was associated with the land. One borrowed for the purpose of securing seed, implements, or work animals and to defray the cost of hiring laborers. The loan was to be repaid after the harvest. If the crop failed, or if the borrower, for whatever other reason, found himself unable to repay his debt, the next step was mortgaging or selling land. And, as a consequence, one who no longer had land to pledge or sell was often forced to indenture himself or his children in order to work off the debt. Hence the strong admonitions in chapter 25 against the abuse of fellow Israelites who had been indentured. If an Israelite became indentured to another Israelite and no redeemer came to his assistance and he, himself, could not repay his debt, there was no recourse except to await the Jubilee, when a general \u201crelease\u201d was declared. The only exception stated in verses 47f. was when an Israelite became indentured to a non-Israelite. In that event, an additional effort was to be made on the part of his entire clan to redeem him.
\nExcursus 10 considers exactly how the legislation of this chapter fits into the historical development of economic institutions in biblical Israel, as seen against the background of the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 25<\/p>\n
THE SABBATICAL YEAR AND THE JUBILEE (25:1\u201323)<\/p>\n
The seventh year in a continuous cycle of years is called the sabbatical year (just as the seventh day is the Sabbath). In that year, the sowing and reaping of fields, as well as the pruning and picking of vines, are prohibited. What grows naturally is for the taking, by man and beast (vv. 1\u20137).
\nEvery fiftieth year, a Jubilee (yovel) is proclaimed. On that occasion there is to be \u201crelease\u201d (deror), by which all tenured land reverts to its original owners, and all indentured Israelites return to their homes. The agricultural prohibitions of the sabbatical year also apply (vv. 8\u201312).
\nAll sales of land are to be considered leases, not final sales. The cost of the lease, for any who desired to \u201cbuy it out,\u201d is to be computed in terms of crop years, namely, the number of crop years remaining until the next Jubilee. This section concludes with an additional admonition against violating the laws of the sabbatical year; it emphasizes the rewards of obedience to the law (vv. 13\u201322).<\/p>\n
2. When you enter the land \u2026 the land shall observe a sabbath of the LORD Exodus 23:10\u201311 also commands the abandonment of agricultural land every seventh year, in somewhat the same terms. The salient difference is that only in the Holiness Code is the seventh year called a sabbath. (As well, only here is the fiftieth year, the Jubilee, called a sabbath.) The application of the sabbatical idea to measuring time is basic to chapter 23, where, in verses 15\u201316, the seven weeks of counting prior to Shavuot are called shabbatot, \u201csabbaths.\u201d Those are weeks of days, whereas here we are speaking of weeks of years, of seven-year cycles. The land is personified\u2014it, too, tires and requires rest.<\/p>\n
3. Six years you may sow your field Compare the wording in Exodus 23:10: \u201cSix years you shall sow your land.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
and six years you may prune your vineyard Hebrew kerem, \u201cvineyard,\u201d is a term that may also designate olive groves, although in Exodus 23:11 olive groves and vineyards are listed as two items.
\nPruning was essential for assuring the growth of the grapes. There were two prunings each year, one in the winter, or rainy season, when the shoots that had not produced grapes the previous year were snipped off, and a second in June or July, when the new blossoms had already appeared.
\nThis latter trimming is precisely described in Isaiah 18:5: \u201cFor before the vintage, yet after the budding,\/When the blossom has hardened into berries,\/He will trim away the twigs with pruning hooks,\/And lop off the trailing branches.\u201d<\/p>\n
and gather in the yield That is, the yield of \u201cthe land\u201d (ha-\u02bearets) in verse 2.<\/p>\n
4. the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest On the composite term shabbat shabbaton, \u201ca sabbath of complete rest,\u201d see Comments to 16:31 and to 23:3.
\nAllowing the land to lie fallow every seventh year helped to reduce the amount of sodium in the soil, especially where irrigation was employed. This subject is treated in Excursus 10.<\/p>\n
5. You shall not reap the aftergrowth of your harvest Hebrew safia\u1e25, \u201caftergrowth,\u201d refers to what grows naturally the following season from seeds that had fallen to the ground during reaping. Maimonides clearly explains this in his commentary to Mishnah Kilayim 2:5: \u201cAt times, some of the plant grows a second and even a third time after reaping. That which grows a second time is called safia\u1e25, and after a third time, sha\u1e25is. This is described in Isaiah 37:30: \u2018This year you eat what grows of itself (safia\u1e25), and the next year, what springs from that (sha\u1e25is), and in the third year sow and reap and plant vineyards and eat their fruit.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
the grapes of your untrimmed vines Rather, \u201cthe grapes of your forbidden vines.\u201d Hebrew \u02bfinvei nezirekha occurs only here. The translation \u201cuntrimmed vines\u201d is correct, functionally speaking, because vines were not to be trimmed during the Sabbatical year. Underlying this strange idiom is the law of the Nazirite (nazir) in Numbers 2:11\u201312. The Nazirite may not partake of anything that grows on the vine, probably a very ancient prohibition. Samson\u2019s mother is instructed that her son is not to drink intoxicants, for he is to be a Nazirite of God (Judg. 13:7), and the prophet Amos (2:11\u201312) castigates the people for giving Nazirites wine to drink. It may have been proverbial in ancient Israel to refer to grapes that grew naturally during the Sabbatical year as \u201cNazirite\u201d grapes. This may be implied in the comment of Ramban: \u201cAnd the vine which was not worked was called nazir, because one is to set it aside, and separate it from himself, as if it were not his own.\u201d<\/p>\n
6. the hired and bound laborers who live with you Both terms, sakhir and toshav, are subject to varying interpretations, according to context. Hebrew sakhir usually refers to a laborer who works for wages, whereas toshav often designates a foreign \u201cresident,\u201d a merchant or laborer. This is suggested here by the words ha-garim \u02bfimmakh, \u201cwho live with you.\u201d In the ancient Near East, as in other parts of the world, laborers were often billeted on the estates of their employers, and this was especially true of foreign laborers. This practice also helps to explain the translation \u201cbound laborer\u201d for Hebrew toskav. In verse 35 we read of one Israelite \u201cholding\u201d another as one would a \u201cforeign resident\u201d (ger toshav).
\nVerse 6 states that one\u2019s hired and bound laborers are entitled to join in gathering what grows naturally during the Sabbatical year, just as are one\u2019s slaves. The owner of a field, grove, or vineyard may also gather in this way, so long as he does not act as an owner, but just as another Israelite, taking his turn.<\/p>\n
7. and your cattle and the beasts in your land may eat all its yield Verses 6\u20137 recall Exodus 23:11, where we read that owners of fields must leave the natural growth of the land for the needy among the Israelites and for the beasts, as well. The reference to beasts symbolizes the freedom characteristic of the Sabbatical year: Man and beast are free to roam about and gather their sustenance.<\/p>\n
8. You shall count off seven weeks of years This mirrors the wording of 23:15\u201316, where we read of seven weeks of days.<\/p>\n
gives you a total of forty-nine years The Hebrew idiom ve-hayu lekha literally means \u201cthey shall be for you,\u201d but the sense is \u201cthey shall total, amount to.\u201d<\/p>\n
9. Then you shall sound the horn loud Hebrew teru\u02bfah is the term for the sustained, loud blast of the shofar.<\/p>\n
in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month The sounding of the shofar five days before the autumn harvest festival of Sukkot served to proclaim the advent of the Jubilee. According to 23:27 (and 16:29) this was the day of Yom Kippur. There is an obvious problem in this statement: The year of the Jubilee is said to begin in the seventh month of the year. Two calendars, each with its own history, are reflected in this verse. The year of the Jubilee began in the autumn, whereas the calendar in regular use numbered the months from the springtime, as prescribed in Exodus 12:1\u20132.<\/p>\n
10. and you shall hallow the fiftieth year. The Jubilee year is to be hallowed just as the Sabbath day is hallowed. The verb kiddesh, \u201cto sanctify, hallow,\u201d is customarily used to convey the sanctification of the Sabbath; by using this verb in connection with the Jubilee, a parallelism between the two occasions is created.<\/p>\n
You shall proclaim release throughout the land for all its inhabitants The Hebrew term deror has conventionally been rendered \u201cfreedom, liberty.\u201d More has been learned about it in recent years, however. Hebrew deror is cognate with Akkadian andur\u0101ru, which designates an edict of release issued by the Old Babylonian kings and some of their successors. This edict was often issued by a king upon ascending the throne and was a feature of a more extensive legal institution known as mesharum, a moratorium declared on debts and indenture. The Akkadian verb dar\u0101ru, like Hebrew d-r-r, means \u201cto move about freely,\u201d referring in this instance to the freedom granted those bound by servitude. In Jeremiah 34:15, we read that, as the Chaldeans approached Jerusalem, King Zedekiah ordered the people to release their indentured servants, to proclaim a deror, \u201crelease.\u201d In Isaiah 61:1, the Judeans exiled in Babylonia are to be freed under terms of a deror as they are restored to their land. The biblical laws of the Jubilee year thus incorporate Near Eastern legal institutions of great antiquity.<\/p>\n
It shall be a jubilee for you Hebrew yovel means both \u201cram\u201d and \u201cram\u2019s horn.\u201d The fiftieth year is called \u201cJubilee\u201d because its advent is proclaimed by sounding the ram\u2019s horn.<\/p>\n
each of you shall return to his holding This refers primarily to families who were evicted from their homes and farms due to foreclosure and who had been unable to repay their loans. This situation is clearly projected in verses 13\u201317 and, again, in verses 25\u201328.
\nThe term \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201ctenured land, land holding,\u201d is the key to a proper understanding of chapter 25 as a whole. It receives considerable attention in Excursus 10. Here, it suffices to emphasize the rule that an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah is settled and worked by permission of the rulers of the land. Verse 23 states:\u201cFor the land is Mine,\u201d namely, the Lord\u2019s. God granted the Israelite people the land of Canaan as its \u02bea\u1e25uzza\u1e25. The Israelites are God\u2019s tenants, so to speak. They do not possess or rule the land as a result of conquest, and they do not have the right to dispose of it as if it were entirely their own. This is the basic theory of land tenure expressed in the legislation of chapter 25, and it is the foundation for the laws governing sale and purchase of most real estate owned, in the usual sense, by Israelites.<\/p>\n
and each of you shall return to his family Rather, \u201cto his clan.\u201d The Hebrew term mishpa\u1e25ah designates the basic socioeconomic unit in ancient Israel. It was more inclusive than the immediate family, which is the unit whose parameters are reflected in the incest laws of chapters 18 and 20.
\nUnderstood in terms of Exodus 21:2f. and Deuteronomy 15:12f., this means that indentured Israelites, compelled to live on the estates of their creditors, would be free to return to their own homes. In those other legal statements we read of the master \u201cdismissing, freeing\u201d his indentured servants, allowing them to return home. In 2 Kings 4:1f. we are told how a certain creditor sought to take a woman\u2019s son away from home to work as an indentured servant.<\/p>\n
11. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you The syntax of the Hebrew is somewhat unusual. Literally, it reads: \u201cIt is a Jubilee, the fiftieth year\u2014it shall be for you.\u201d<\/p>\n
you shall not sow See Comments to verses 4\u20135 regarding the formulation of this commandment.<\/p>\n
12. you may only eat the growth direct from the field This is the sense of min ha-sadeh, \u201cfrom the field.\u201d The same wording occurs in Exodus 23:16, in the context of harvesting directly from the field. Here, the owner of fields and groves is forbidden to harvest his yield in the usual way, but must leave it for all to eat. He may, of course, join in with others to gather food, but not in the status of an owner.<\/p>\n
13. In this year of jubilee, each of you shall return to his holding This is a general, introductory statement. It is followed by a delineation of the specific conditions under which a person was likely to lose possession of his land in the first place.<\/p>\n
14. When you sell property to your neighbor The verb timkeru, \u201cyou sell,\u201d is in the plural, whereas la-\u02bfamitekha has a singular suffix. Such fluctuations of syntax occasionally occur in biblical Hebrew. The term \u02bfamit, \u201cneighbor,\u201d refers to a fellow Israelite and would not be used to designate a non-Israelite. This law only applies to transfers of property among Israelites.
\nHebrew mimkar literally means \u201cwhat is sold,\u201d namely, \u201cpossessions, property.\u201d Compare Ezekiel 7:13: \u201cFor the seller shall not return to what he sold (ha-mimkar).\u201d<\/p>\n
you shall not wrong one another The verb honah connotes economic oppression or fraud, as is explained in the Comment to 19:33. Ezekiel (45:9f.) admonishes the princes of Israel not to \u201coppress\u201d the people in matters of land and currency. How to avoid fraud in land transfers is explained in the following verses.<\/p>\n
15. In buying from your neighbor The value of leases on the land was to be computed in terms of crop years. Since all land that was \u201csold\u201d would revert to its original owners at the next Jubilee, the price was to be equivalent to the number of crops the purchaser would realize from the land before that occasion. The same principle operated in the case of indentured Israelites, as we read in verse 50, regarding the period of time they would continue to serve. Thus, if at the time of the sale only a few years remained, the cost of the lease would be relatively small.<\/p>\n
16. the more such years, the higher the price you pay \u2026 Rather, \u201cThe more the [remaining] years, the higher you may fix its purchase price, and the less the [remaining] years, the lower its purchase price. For he is actually selling you a number of crop years.\u201d The term miknah, \u201cpurchase, what is purchased,\u201d is known from Jeremiah 32:11, where we find sefer ha-miknah, \u201cthe deed of purchase.\u201d Our verse restates the rule set forth in verse 15 that \u201csales\u201d of agricultural land held as an \u02bea\u1e25uzznh are, legally speaking, leases.<\/p>\n
17. Do not wrong one another, but fear your God This repeats, for emphasis, the statement of verse 14. It is characteristic of the Holiness Code to exhort the Israelite people to act out of fear of God, especially in matters that do not lend themselves easily to enforcement. Only those who realize that God sees all and will punish even secret transgressions of His laws will resist the temptation to try to get away with their sins and their crimes.<\/p>\n
18. Tou shall observe My laws Verses 18\u201322 interrupt the continuity of the legislation governing the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee year. This subject is resumed in verse 23, which then concludes this section of chapter 25. Verse 23 takes up where verse 17 leaves off: After stipulating the rules for the sale of land, verse 23 reemphasizes the point that such sales are not final. Verses 18\u201322 constitute, therefore, an exhortation to obey God\u2019s laws and commandments, with the promise of security and abundance as a reward for such obedience.<\/p>\n
that you may live upon the land in security Here, and in verse 19, Hebrew la-veta\u1e25, \u201cin security,\u201d describes a situation in which a people is safe from attack and need not fear invasions. It is customarily a feature of the covenantal promise to Israel, expressed most emphatically in the Book of Deuteronomy. In Judges 18:7f. we find a description of a people living \u201csecurely.\u201d The residents of Laish in southern Phoenicia never expected an inland attack and consequently were overwhelmed by the tribe of Dan without recourse to fighting. The Israelite people will subdue its enemies all around, so that they may live securely, without fear, as we read in Deuteronomy 12:10:\u201cWhen you cross the Jordan and settle in the land that the LORD your God is allotting to you, and He grants you safety from all your enemies around you and you live in security (beta\u1e25)\u201d<\/p>\n
19. the land shall yield its fruit and you shall eat your fill Along with security will come fertility and abundance. Hebrew sova\u02bf, \u201cplenty, satiety,\u201d is a term with an interesting history in the ancient Near East. It occurs in royal inscriptions relating the achievements of kings who provided well for their peoples. In the Hebrew Bible, it frequently pertains to God\u2019s promise of blessing, since God is the ultimate provider of His people. This reference to abundant fertility links verse 19 to verses 20\u201322, which pertain to the Sabbatical year rather than to the Jubilee itself. Verses 20\u201322 take their cue from the theme of abundance.<\/p>\n
20. \u201cWhat are we to eat in the seventh year, if we may neither sow nor gather in our crops?\u201d Hebrew hen, \u201cif,\u201d is merely a different form of the conditional particle \u02beim. This verse projects the anxiety of the people. They are assured that the crop of the sixth year will be so abundant that it will last beyond the end of the seventh year, when they would normally rely on a new crop. The sense is: \u201cWhat are we to eat at the end of the seventh year and well into the eighth year?\u201d<\/p>\n
21. I will ordain My blessing This and verse 22 are the response. Until the crop of the eighth year is harvested, you will have sufficient food from the \u201cold\u201d crop, namely, that of the sixth year. The language recalls Deuteronomy 28:8: \u201cThe LORD will ordain blessings for you.\u201d The Hebrew verb tsivvah, \u201cto command, ordain,\u201d has as its primary sense \u201cto dispatch, send.\u201d God employs the forces of nature, which are under His control, to provide for His people.<\/p>\n
so that it shall yield a crop sufficient for three years The verb \u02bfasah may connote \u201cproducing\u201d crops or fruit. Compare Psalms 107:37: va-ya\u02bfasu peri tevu\u02beah, \u201cthat yield a fruitful harvest.\u201d<\/p>\n
22. you will still be eating old grain Compare 26:10, where Hebrew yashan, \u201cold grain,\u201d contrasts with \u1e25adash, \u201cnew grain.\u201d<\/p>\n
23. But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim The text returns to its principal subject: the status of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land as inalienable. Hebrew li-tsemitut does not mean \u201cin perpetuity.\u201d We now know its precise meaning from the Akkadian contracts discovered at Ugarit. In these documents, the descriptive term tsamit (or tsamat) means \u201cfinally handed over.\u201d This term establishes that the sale recorded is final and that the property sold is irretrievable. A clause will often read tsamit adi d\u0101r\u012bti, \u201cfinally handed over to all generations.\u201d The sale is permanent, because it is final and concluded at the full price. This clause corresponds to the formula appearing in verse 30 of our chapter. That formula deals with sales of urban dwellings that become final if not redeemed within one year: li-tsemitut la-koneh \u02beoto le-dorotav, literally \u201cfinally handed over to the one who purchases it, to his generations.\u201d Our verse states that sales of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land are not of that status; they are not li-tsemitut.
\nAs was true of the institution of \u201crelease\u201d (deror), prescribed in verse 10, we find in the term tsemitut another instance of very ancient terminology in chapter 25. The repeated emphasis in our legislation on computing the price of the land in terms of crop years also relates to the fact that in the Akkadian contracts from Ugarit, property \u201cfinally handed over\u201d is at the full price. Not so \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land.<\/p>\n
you are but strangers resident with Me The Israelites\u2014merely God\u2019s tenants in the land of Canaan\u2014do not have the right to alienate the land.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL LAWS REGARDING LAND TENURE AND INDENTURE (25:24\u201355)<\/p>\n
As we have seen, the permanent alienation of land classified as \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201ctenured land,\u201d is prohibited. It is stressed here that clan relatives are obligated to redeem the lands of their relatives in the event of sale or foreclosure. One whose own fortunes improved was then duty-bound to redeem his own land by paying off the remainder of the creditor\u2019s, or purchaser\u2019s, lease. But even if no redemption was possible, the land reverted to its original owner at the Jubilee (vv. 23\u201328).
\nUrban real estate, located within city walls, was exempt from the general rule. It could be redeemed for only one year after its sale; afterward it was considered permanently alienated. Two other, related provisions are included in the legislation. Village dwellings, where no walls encompass the settlement, were subject to the general rule, and could still be redeemed after one year; they reverted on the Jubilee, just like agricultural land. As regards the holdings of the Levites, property within the Levitical cities could be redeemed indefinitely, but the enclosed areas adjacent to the Levitical cities could never be sold in the first instance. They were effectively removed from the sphere of economic activity (vv. 29\u201334) and held in trust for the Levites.
\nWe then encounter three related laws governing indebtedness and indenture, (1) If one Israelite becomes indebted to another, he may not be charged any form of interest on his debt. (2) If one Israelite becomes indentured to another, he may not be treated as a slave and must be given his freedom in the Jubilee year, at the latest. (3) If an Israelite becomes indentured to a non-Israelite, efforts must be undertaken by the entire clan to redeem him as soon as possible. If not redeemed, such an indentured Israelite gains his freedom at the next Jubilee, along with his wife and children (vv. 35\u201355).
\nThis section of Leviticus concludes with a series of commandments, prohibiting idolatry of various sorts and enjoining the Israelites to observe the Sabbath and show respect for what is sacred (26:1\u20132).<\/p>\n
24. you must provide for the redemption of the land After stipulating the basis for computing sales of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land, the legislation now deals with the law of redemption, an alternative that is preferable to the Jubilee. Land should be retrieved as soon as it is financially feasible. The effect of this law is to obligate the purchaser to accept the redemption payment of the original owner. He may not refuse to do so. Verse 24 is a general statement that is followed by a series of situations in which the rule applies.<\/p>\n
25. If your kinsman is in straits The Hebrew verb m-w-kh, which occurs only in this chapter and in 27:8, is probably related to the root m-k-k, \u201cto collapse.\u201d In Late Hebrew we find the form namokh, \u201clow.\u201d The sense is that of \u201creduction\u201d to poverty.<\/p>\n
his nearest redeemer It is preferable to understand Hebrew karov as \u201crelative, one closely related,\u201d within the clan, as is explained in the Comment to 21:2. The order of relatedness is delineated below in verses 48\u201349. An actual redemption of this kind is recorded in Jeremiah 32:6\u201314, although the legalities of that act differ somewhat from the law set forth in this chapter. Here, the object of redemption is to restore the property to one\u2019s relative, who would retain possession of his land within the clan. The redeemer would not possess the land himself.<\/p>\n
26. but prospers and acquires enough to redeem with The Hebrew idiom ve-hissigah yado literally means \u201chis hand reaches,\u201d which is to say that he has the means \u201cat hand.\u201d The idiom mats\u02beah yado has the slightly different meaning \u201che is able,\u201d literally \u201chis hand has overtaken.\u201d The idiomatic formulation creates a practical sequence: A person acquires the means and is therefore able to redeem his land.<\/p>\n
27. he shall compute the years since its sale Hebrew \u1e25ishev, \u201cto record, keep on account,\u201d occurs in 2 Kings 12:16, literally, \u201cBut they do not keep an accounting of the men to whom the silver is remitted for paying the workers, for they work on trust.\u201d This connotation is an extension of the sense of calculating. Ecclesiastes preserves the related forms \u1e25ishavon and \u1e25eshbon, \u201ccalculation.\u201d<\/p>\n
refund the difference Two other usages bear explanation. Hebrew \u02bfodef, \u201csurplus, excess,\u201d is an ancient accounting term, and the verb heshiv, normally \u201cto bring back, return,\u201d may mean \u201cto pay, to refund,\u201d as it does here. The procedure was that one who wished to redeem land he had sold had to pay the purchaser the value of the rest of his lease; that is, he deducted from the price the value of the years the purchaser had already benefited from the land.<\/p>\n
28. it shall be released The Hebrew verb yatsa\u02be used here, which simply means \u201cto go out, depart,\u201d may have the specialized connotation of gaining one\u2019s freedom, changing status, or being released. An indentured servant \u201cdeparts\u201d from his master\u2019s estate, which means that he gains release. Cognates of Hebrew yatsa\u02be in other Semitic languages, such as Akkadian ats\u00fb, may also have this connotation.
\nTo summarize the preceding verses: An owner of land who had sold it under economic stress could redeem it at any time, either through his own resources or those of a clan relative. Implicit in the law is the fact that the purchaser could not refuse the right of redemption.<\/p>\n
29. If a man sells a dwelling bouse in a walled city The law of redemption is limited in the case of urban dwellings. A town, defined as an area surrounded by a wall, is excluded from the tenure system applicable to agricultural land held as an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah. In the ancient Near East, towns and cities had a special status as regards tax exemptions and legal prerogatives. In agrarian societies arable land and, to a degree, pastureland as well were the mainstay of the economy. They accounted for most of the employment in addition to their value as the source of food. In the towns lived the artisans, and those we would today call members of the service professions, which often included members of priestly families. The implications of these realities are discussed in Excursus 10.<\/p>\n
the redemption period shall be a year Literally, \u201cfor days.\u201d Hebrew yamim, \u201cdays,\u201d when used in certain contexts, is a way of indicating a year of days. This is clarified by verse 30, as though by way of explanation: \u201cbefore a full year has elapsed.\u201d Similarly, in 1 Samuel 1:21, zeva\u1e25 ha-yamim is best rendered \u201cthe annual sacrifice.\u201d<\/p>\n
30. shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages Rather, \u201cshall legally become the property of the purchaser.\u201d Here, the sense of Hebrew ve-kam, literally \u201cto stand,\u201d is \u201cto belong to, become the property of.\u201d Compare Genesis 23:20, literally, \u201cAnd the field and the cave within it became the property (va-yakom) of Abraham.\u201d This meaning is rare, but precise, when it occurs.<\/p>\n
31. But houses in villages that have no encircling walls The term used here for \u201cvillages,\u201d Hebrew \u1e25atserim, has an interesting history. It was originally a pastoral term, synonymous with \u201ctents.\u201d Deuteronomy 2:23 relates that the land of the Ammonites in Transjordan was once populated by a people who lived in \u1e25atserim. According to Isaiah 42:11, the Kedemite tribes lived in such encampments in the vicinity of Petra. In the genealogy of Genesis 25:13ff., the clans of Ishmael, who were related to the Kedemites, lived in \u1e25atserim and tirot, \u201ccircular encampments.\u201d Here, reference is primarily to agricultural villages, where there were houses, not tents, and fields, not pastureland.<\/p>\n
shall be classed as open country Rather, \u201cShall be classed as arable land.\u201d The sense of the Hebrew verb ye\u1e25ashev is \u201cto be counted among, considered part of.\u201d Dwellings located in unwalled towns are considered part of the \u02bea\u1e25uzzah of the Israelites and therefore are subject to the general rule governing such lands. They are different from urban dwellings, in general. Hebrew sedeh ha-\u02bearets, literally \u201cthe field of the land,\u201d means, in effect, agricultural land.<\/p>\n
32. As for the cities of the Levites, the houses in the cities they hold The urban dwellings of the Levites within their cities are to be released on the Jubilee and are redeemable, unlike other urban dwellings, which are subject to a different law, according to verse 31. In Numbers 35:1\u201318, we read that the Levites are to be given forty-eight towns, inclusive of the six \u201ccities of asylum\u201d established by the legislation of Deuteronomy 19:2\u20139. These towns are to be considered a surrogate \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, in place of agricultural land. Verse 34 adds that the areas adjacent to the Levitical towns are included in this surrogate \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, an arrangement necessitated by the fact that the Levites were not assigned a territory, as were the other tribes of Israel, as we learn from Deuteronomy 18:1\u20132.<\/p>\n
33. Such property as may be redeemed from the Levites\u2014houses sold in a city they hold\u2014shall be released through the jubilee The parenthetical comment, separated by dashes in the translation, may be a gloss inserted by a later writer to explain the anomalous usage of the verb ga\u02beal in this verse. It usually means \u201cto redeem,\u201d reflecting the system of clan responsibility for assisting needy relatives; but that meaning does not work here because this verse concerns urban dwellings sold or mortgaged by Levites who found themselves in difficult financial straits. The clause \u02beasher yig\u02beal min ha-levi\u02beim should, therefore, be understood to mean \u201cwhich is appropriated from the Levites,\u201d namely, by those who had either purchased it or held it as security for debts. Since the Levitical towns are the surrogate \u02bea\u1e25uzzah of the Levites, properties within them come under the provisions of the \u02bea\u1e25uzzah. As in verse 28, usage of the verb yatsa\u02be, \u201cto depart,\u201d is legal: \u201cto be released, to go free.\u201d<\/p>\n
34. But the unenclosed land about their cities cannot be sold The term translated \u201cunenclosed land (migrash)\u201d originally designated an area for livestock. Like the term \u1e25atserim encountered in verse 31 it came to designate an area used primarily for gardening or agriculture, although the Levites may also have kept their livestock there. Such areas, immediately outside the towns, could not be sold under any circumstances, no matter how severe the economic situation of the Levites. Held in trust for the Levites, they were effectively removed from the context of indebtedness. Perhaps the reason for this exceptional restriction was related to the sustenance that the Levites derived from such plots of land, the only ones they possessed.<\/p>\n
for that is their holding for all time The composite term \u02bea\u1e25uzzat \u02bfolam, \u201ca holding for all time,\u201d is best known from the covenantal promises to the patriarchs and to other leaders of the Israelites. In such contexts, the sense is that the rights conferred by God to the Israelites over the land are permanent, for all time. In verse 46, non-Israelite slaves may be owned by Israelites as \u201cproperty for all time (\u02bea\u1e25uzzah le-\u02bfolam)\u201d Like the land itself, the non-Israelite population of Canaan and the foreigners from surrounding lands were subdued. In our verse, however, \u02bea\u1e25uzzat \u02bfolam is a specific legal term. It is a way of stating that the plots (migrash) of the Levites are protected from liability and remain continuously in the possession of the Levites.<\/p>\n
35. If your kinsman, being in straits, comes under your authority Verses 35\u201338 deal with indebtedness, just as further on, verses 39\u201341 deal with indenture, which is a more severe set of circumstances. The crucial difference between them is that one who possesses property that he can sell or mortgage is still free, but one who has no assets must work off his debts as an indentured servant.
\nThe sense of Hebrew ki yamukh is \u201cif he is reduced,\u201d as is explained in the Comment to verse 25. The idiom u-matah yado occurs only here. Literally it means \u201cif his hand stumbles, buckles.\u201d This image is usually applied to stumbling feet. Here, the sense is not physically graphic, but rather situational: u-matah yado \u02bfimmakh, literally \u201cif he lost his means in dealing with you,\u201d that is, if he became indebted to you. This usage expresses the opposite of ve-hissigah yado, literally \u201chis hand reaches,\u201d in verse 25, or mats\u02beah yado, \u201chis hand overtakes,\u201d in verse 28. Both of those idioms indicate adequate means, whereas matah yado indicates inadequate means.<\/p>\n
and you hold him as though a resident alien On the composite term ger toshav, \u201cresident alien,\u201d see Comment to verse 6. One who mortgaged his land or sold it to another became, in a real sense, a tenant on his own land.<\/p>\n
let him live by your side The same idiom, slightly expanded, occurs in the next verse: ve-\u1e25ai \u02bea\u1e25ikha \u02bfimmakh, \u201clet him live by your side, as your brother.\u201d The precise sense of this idiom is hard to determine. It could be taken to mean that the person involved may not be evicted from his land, but he must be allowed to continue to reside at your side as a member of the community.<\/p>\n
36. do not exact from him advance or accrued interest Literally, Hebrew neshekh means \u201ca bite,\u201d and tarbit means \u201cincrement, profit\u201d on a loan, as noted by Ramban. An alternate form, in verse 37, is marbit. In Exodus 22:24, we read: \u201cExact no interest (neshekh) from them\u201d and in Deuteronomy 23:20: \u201cYou shall not deduct interest (neshekh) from loans to your countrymen.\u201d In late Hebrew we encounter the term ribbit based on the same root as tarbit and marbit. All of these three terms are cognate with Aramaic marbitha\u02be, and probably as well with Akkadian ribbatum, which means \u201cback payment, arrears.\u201d If so, the sense would be the additional payment one owed from the time he borrowed. The fact that in verse 37 neshekh is used with reference to silver and marbit with reference to foodstuffs led Mishnah Bava Metsia 5:1 to define neshekh as a demand for payment in excess of what was lent, and tarbit or marbit as the demand for more grain or foodstuffs than were provided to the borrower. The Mishnah deals extensively with fluctuations in market prices for commodities, from one season of the year to the next. Typically, one went into debt at the time of planting, with the expectation of repaying the debt after the harvest.<\/p>\n
38. I the LORD am your God The God who gave the Israelites a land of their own and freed them from the servitude of Egypt now commands them, in turn, to prevent conditions of servitude among their own people.<\/p>\n
39. If your kinsman \u2026 must give himself over to you Verses 39\u201346 deal with indenture. An Israelite indentured to another must not be treated as a slave. He may not be overworked, and he must be granted release in the Jubilee year. Hebrew ve-nimkar, \u201cto be sold,\u201d must be understood as being handed over to indenture.<\/p>\n
do not subject him to the treatment of a slave Hebrew \u02bfeved has many connotations, all expressive of \u201cserving.\u201d Here, it refers to indenture, not to slavery in the full economic sense of the term.<\/p>\n
40. He shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer For this terminology, see Comments to verses 6, 23, and 35. The legal status of the indentured Israelite is that of an employee.<\/p>\n
he shall serve with you only until the jubilee year This provision differs from the laws of Exodus 21:1\u20136 and Deuteronomy 15:12\u201318, both of which set the limit of service at six years. According to our legislation, indenture may last as long as fifty years. If contrasted with actual slavery, or with serfdom, which continue through the generations, our law is relatively lenient; but compared with the other laws of the Torah, it is most severe and allows for almost lifelong indenture. This could, of course, occur under the laws of Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 15, in cases where the indentured servant insists on remaining with his master for any of a variety of reasons.<\/p>\n
41. Then he and his children with him shall be free of your authority Again, the verb yatsa\u02be, \u201cto depart,\u201d connotes release, freedom. The reference here to the release of the children of an indentured Israelite is significant. Jubilee is all-inclusive and undoubtedly applies to one\u2019s wife and children as well. The law of Exodus 21:1\u20136, in contradistinction, requires that the wife and children of an indentured Israelite, if he married while indentured, would not be released, but would remain with the master. So, our legislation, while allowing for indenture for as long as fifty years, removes all restrictions on the freedom of the indentured person and his family once that period is over. It is noteworthy that the Sifra interprets the following two terms\u2014va-\u02bfavndo le-\u02bfolam, \u201che shall then remain his slave for life,\u201d in Exodus 21:6 and \u02bfeved \u02bfolam, \u201cslave in perpetuity,\u201d in Deuteronomy 15:17\u2014both to mean until the Jubilee, not actually forever. This serves to reconcile the differences between the various laws of the Torah.<\/p>\n
he shall go back to his family and return to his ancestral holding Indentured servants often lived on the estates of their masters. With the Jubilee, land was restored to its original owners, and indentured servants were released. So, an indentured Israelite had a home, once again, to which he could return.<\/p>\n
42. For they are My servants God acquired the Israelites as His \u201cslaves,\u201d by redeeming them from Egyptian bondage. His claim has priority. Israelites, however, should not hold other Israelites in slavery, because they were once slaves themselves.
\nHebrew mimkeret, \u201csale,\u201d is a feminine form of mimkar, which occurs in verse 14.<\/p>\n
43. You shall not rule over him ruthlessly Hebrew be-farekh, here translated \u201cruthlessly,\u201d literally means \u201cwith backbreaking labor,\u201d as Rashi notes. This idiom also evokes the Egyptian bondage: \u201cThe Egyptians ruthlessly imposed upon the Israelites the various labors that they made them perform\u201d (Exod. 1:13\u201314). What the Egyptians did to the Israelites, Israelites ought not to do to one another. Fear of God should assure compliance with His commandments in this regard.<\/p>\n
44. Such male and female slaves as you may have Israelites may own non-Israelite slaves. These may come from either non-Israelite residents of Canaan or from neighboring peoples.<\/p>\n
45. These shall become your property In ancient law, slaves were often regarded as having a legal status parallel to that of land. Just as the land was a \u201cholding\u201d (\u02bea\u1e25uzzah) to be handed down within families, so were slaves.<\/p>\n
46. you may keep them us a possession for your children after you Hebrew ve-hitna\u1e25altem means \u201cto receive as a possession, to be assigned as a possession\u201d and most frequently applies to land. Here, a form of the verb na\u1e25al, \u201cto receive as a possession,\u201d combines with the term \u02bea\u1e25uzzah and with the verb la-reshet, \u201cto appropriate as a possession.\u201d These three terms have independent histories but are here used synonymously. The rights Israelites were granted over their non-Israelite slaves, like those they had over the land, were permanent.<\/p>\n
such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen A contrast is drawn between Israelites and non-Israelites. Israelites are bound together by kinship and cannot be held as slaves by one another. That is the force of the term \u02bea\u1e25, \u201cbrother,\u201d which occurs twice in verse 46.<\/p>\n
47. If a resident alien among you has prospered Verses 47\u201354 deal with a situation in which an Israelite becomes indentured to a non-Israelite. The vocabulary echoes that of verse 25, where the relevant idioms are explained.<\/p>\n
or to an offshoot of an alien\u2019s family Hebrew \u02bfeker, \u201coffshoot,\u201d occurs only here in the Bible. It is related to \u02bfikkar, \u201croot.\u201d Hebrew \u02bfeker is cognate with Aramaic \u02bfqr, a term known from the Aramaic inscriptions of Sfire, in Syria; it is a relatively old term governing family relationships.<\/p>\n
48. he shall have the right of redemption The clan of the Israelite indentured to a non-Israelite bears the responsibility for redeeming their kinsman.<\/p>\n
One of his kinsmen shall redeem him The order of obligation to redeem kinsmen within the clan correlates, in a general way, with the law of inheritance set forth in the account of Zelophehad\u2019s daughters, in Numbers 27:8\u201311. First come brothers, then uncles and cousins, then other consanguineal relatives. These could even include grandchildren, also considered consanguineal relatives in the laws of Leviticus 18:10.<\/p>\n
49. or anyone of bis family who is of his own flesh Not all relatives within the clan are consanguineal. The clan (mishpa\u1e25ah) usually designates a fairly large unit.<\/p>\n
50. He shall compute with his purchaser The dynamics of this system are clarified in the Comments to verses 15\u201316, 27, and 40; they parallel the system employed in determining the value of real estate being redeemed. The computation is in terms of wages (over a period of years) instead of crop years, as is the case in long-term leases.<\/p>\n
53. be shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight The duty to redeem an Israelite relative indentured to a non-Israelite is exceptional. To allow a fellow Israelite to remain indentured to a gentile would be a cruel humiliation; and one was not permitted to remain indifferent in such a situation, which could lead to forfeiture of land mortgaged to debts and its seizure by non-Israelites.<\/p>\n
54. If he has not been redeemed in any of those ways The last recourse is the Jubilee, if all other efforts have failed.<\/p>\n
55. For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants This repeats the statement of verse 42.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 26<\/p>\n
26:1. You shall not make idols for yourselves In 19:4, the term \u02beelil is explained as \u201can object of naught.\u201d Hebrew pesel is a sculptured object, usually representational. The term matsevah, translated \u201cpillars,\u201d is the usual term for stele, usually a stone object, standing upright, and often bearing an inscription.
\nHebrew \u02beeven maskit is difficult to explain precisely. The term maskit occurs in Numbers 33:52, with reference to the pagan iconography of the Canaanites, which the Israelites are commanded to destroy. The Sifra derives maskit from the verb sakhakh, \u201cto cover over,\u201d and explains it as designating a paved area outside a temple, where it was customary to prostrate oneself. Targum Onkelos translates \u02beeven segida\u02be as \u201ca stone for worshiping.\u201d Targum Jonathan renders \u02beeven metsayar as \u201ca decorated stone, one with figures drawn on it,\u201d deriving maskit from the verb sakhah, \u201cto gaze upon, view.\u201d From Ezekiel 8:10\u201312, we could conclude that, indeed, the maskit involved drawn figures\u2014in that case, figures drawn on the walls of temple chambers. Proverbs 25:11 would imply that maskit refers to decorated metal objects. NEB and NJPS have: \u201csilver showpieces.\u201d Despite the uncertainty, clearly the intent of this verse is to forbid pagan cult objects of various sorts. Such are incompatible with the worship of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n
2. You shall keep My sabbaths and venerate My sanctuary This restates numerous commandments on the observance of the Sabbath. The Masoretic vocalization mikdashi, \u201cMy sanctuary,\u201d is not really problematic. Instead of worshiping improperly, Israelites should attend God\u2019s legitimate sanctuary. Nevertheless, it is tempting to vocalize mekuddashai, \u201cMy sacred occasions.\u201d Compare Ezra 3:5: u-le-khol mo\u02bfadei YHVH ha-mekuddashim, \u201cfor all the sacred fixed times of the LORD.\u201d This would tie in well with the emphasis on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 26:3\u201346<\/p>\n
Epilogue to the Holiness Code (26:3\u201346)<\/p>\n
Be-\u1e25ukkotai<\/p>\n
The Epilogue to the Holiness Code is the only composition within the Book of Leviticus that is neither legal nor ritual in character. For the rest, Leviticus is made up of collections of religious law and descriptions of ritual celebrations, all of which are written in formulaic language. In both form and function, the Epilogue is the counterpart of Deuteronomy 28\u201330. Each composition appears after a collection of laws and seems to reinforce the sanction of those laws. Two major principles of biblical religion find expression in these Epilogues: the concept of free will and the doctrine of reward and punishment. Obedience to God\u2019s will brings reward; disobedience brings dire punishment. The choice rests with the people of Israel and its leaders.
\nThe Epilogue may be divided into three sections. (1) The Blessing (vv. 3\u201313): God promises Israel that if His laws and commandments are properly obeyed He will bring peace and prosperity to the land and provide safety from wild beasts. He will enable the population to increase and assure the people of victory over all their enemies. The land will be abundantly productive and free from the ravages of war. The Blessing concludes with God\u2019s commitment to an enduring covcnantal relation with the people of Israel. God\u2019s redemptive power, demonstrated at the Exodus, will be reaffirmed: Israel will be free of oppression. (2) The Execration (vv. 14\u201345): As in Deuteronomy, more space is devoted to the punishments that will befall Israel and the land, should Israel violate or disregard God\u2019s commandments, than is devoted to the Blessing. The Execration is composed in an escalating scale with admonition heaped upon admonition. If the Israelites do not return to God after one series of tragic circumstances, then even more horrible punishments will ensue. Defeat and disease will be followed by natural disasters that threaten the fertility of the land. Wild beasts will prey on the populace and ravage the livestock. These adversities will be followed by invasion, famine, and pestilence. Towns and holy places will be made desolate; human beings will eat the flesh of their children who died of hunger. The ultimate punishment will be prolonged exile in foreign lands and the danger of collective extinction. At this point, a new theme is suddenly introduced: expiation of the sins of the people through the suffering of exile and the anguish of the desolate land. A door is opened to divine mercy and forgiveness. A contrite people of Israel will confess its sins, and, in response, God will remember His covenant and the land. The Epilogue ends with a promise of restoration. (3) A Postscript (v. 46): Verse 46 serves as the conclusion to the entire Holiness Code, which begins in chapter 17.<\/p>\n
THE BLESSING (vv. 3\u201313)<\/p>\n
3. If you follow My laws The Hebrew idiom \u02beim be-\u1e25ukkotai telekhu, literally \u201cif you walk in My laws,\u201d conceives of God\u2019s laws and commandments as the right \u201cpath\u201d of life, a frequent theme in biblical literature. This statement sets the tone for the entire Blessing.<\/p>\n
and faithfully observe My commandments Literally, \u201cobserve and do My commandments.\u201d The two verbs reinforce one another, yielding the sense of thoroughgoing observance.<\/p>\n
4. I will grant your rains in their season In the Land of Israel, as in adjacent areas, rainfall is limited to a fixed season of the year. At other times, there is no rain for months on end. If sufficient rain does not fall at the expected time, the results are more harmful than in temperate climates. This explains the repeated emphasis on \u201crains in their season.\u201d<\/p>\n
the earth shall yield its produce Hebrew yevul refers to all that the earth produces, that comes forth from the earth. The noun yevul derives from the verb y-b-l (or w-b-l), which is most often expressed in the Hifil form \u201cto bring.\u201d<\/p>\n
5. Your threshing shall overtake the vintage There will be so much grain to thresh that the threshing will continue into late summer when the vines are picked, an activity called batsir. Although the verb d-w-sh, \u201cto thresh,\u201d is well attested in biblical Hebrew, the noun dayish is unique to this verse. The closest we come to it is in Deuteronomy 25:4: \u201cYou shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing (be-disho).\u201d<\/p>\n
You shall eat your fill of bread and dwell securely in your land Hebrew la-sova\u02bf, \u201cto satiety,\u201d and the noun sava\u02bf, \u201cabundance,\u201d are proverbial for the blessings of fertility, especially abundant grain. The assurance of security conveyed by Hebrew beta\u1e25 or la-veta\u1e25 is also common to many biblical blessings. In 25:18\u201319 we read that proper observance of the Sabbatical year will also be rewarded by domestic security.<\/p>\n
6. I will grant peace in the land This promise, and all the others included in verses 4\u20136, are closely paralleled in Ezekiel 34:25\u201328.<\/p>\n
and no sword shall cross your land The image of a sword \u201ccrossing\u201d (\u02bfavar) is a rare way of depicting the ravages of war. Its only other occurrence is in Ezekiel 14:17: \u201cOr, if I were to bring the sword upon that land and say, \u2018Let a sword sweep through (te\u02bfavor) the land.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
7. You shall give chase to your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword This statement reinforces the promises that immediately precede it: You shall not suffer from war, but your enemies will.<\/p>\n
8. Five of you shall give chase to a hundred In the poetry of Deuteronomy 32:29, we read: \u201cWere they wise, they would think upon this,\/Gain insight into their future:\/\u2018How could one have routed a thousand,\/Or two put ten thousand to flight,\/Unless their Rock had sold them,\/The LORD had given them up?\u2019 \u201d This is echoed in Joshua 23:10.<\/p>\n
9. I will look with favor upon you When God turns toward His people, they are blessed with victory and prosperity, but when He turns away from them, or turns against them, the result is disaster. We read of this again, in verse 17 of the Execration.<\/p>\n
and I will maintain My covenant with you The Hebrew verb hekim may refer to the initial making of a covenant, or to maintaining in force an already established covenant, or even to fulfilling it. The second sense is the connotation here, where hekim stands in contrast to hefer, \u201cto nullify, abrogate,\u201d in verse 15. The same contrast occurs in Ezekiel 16:59\u201362; it occurs in legal contexts and is also appropriate for describing the commitments of a covenant. In Numbers 30, the same terms are used in defining the obligations of a father to his daughter and of a husband to his wife as regards vows. Depending on the circumstances, a father either \u201caffirms, maintains in force\u201d (hekim) his daughter\u2019s vows or \u201cannuls\u201d (hefer) them. The same is true of a husband.<\/p>\n
10. You shall eat old grain long stored The Hebrew reads yashan noshan, literally \u201cvery old.\u201d A similar thought is expressed in 25:22 with respect to the Sabbatical year. Its observance, including the special provisions for the poor, will result in the reward of an abundance of grain.<\/p>\n
11. I will establish My abode in your midst Hebrew mishkan often refers specifically to the Tabernacle, as in 8:10; but here it has the more general sense of \u201cresidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
I will not spurn you The verb g-\u02bf-l is relatively rare in the Hebrew Bible and, when used together with nefesh, has the sense of intense feelings of abhorrence. This is expressed further on in verses 43\u201344, where g-\u02bf-l is synonymous with m-\u02be-s, \u201cto despise.\u201d The primary image seems to be that of physical spoilage, or filth.<\/p>\n
12. I will be ever present in your midst This is a loose rendering of Hebrew ve-hithallakhti be-tokhekhem, literally \u201cI will walk about in your midst.\u201d In a religious society, the presence and nearness of God are of vital concern and are contingent on the behavior of the people. The notion that God \u201cwalks about\u201d is also conveyed in Nathan\u2019s oracle addressed to David, as we read in 2 Samuel 7:6\u20137: \u201cFrom the day that I brought the people of Israel out of Egypt to this day I have not dwelt in a house, but have moved about (va-\u02beehyeh mithallekh) in Tent and Tabernacle. As I moved about (\u02beasher hithallakhti) wherever the Israelites went.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
I will be your God, and you shall be My people This formal statement defines the covenantal relationship between God and Israel and serves as the legal terms of adoption. Thus we read once again in Nathan\u2019s oracle, in 2 Samuel 7:14: \u201cI will be a father to him [the Davidic king], and he shall be a son to Me.\u201d The reverse of this pledge of adoption, expressing disapproval and rejection of Israel, is found in Hosea 1:9: \u201cFor you are not My people, and I will not be your [God].\u201d<\/p>\n
13. who broke the bars of your yoke The bars (motot) of the yoke (\u02bfol) were tied to the neck of a work animal by means of thongs (moserot). Jeremiah 28:10\u201313 provides a graphic description of a yoke on a human being; breaking the yoke is a metaphor for liberation. The bars of Jeremiah\u2019s yoke are broken and thereby set him free. Yokes are still used in many parts of the Near East today and have not changed much since antiquity. The aptness of the biblical metaphor is apparent. A person who is subjugated, upon whom a yoke is placed, is bent over. Once the bars of the yoke are broken, he can stand at full stature, a position conveyed by the unique word komamiyyut, \u201cin an upright position.\u201d We find a later echo of this verse in the Grace after Meals: \u201cMay the All Merciful One break off the yoke of exile from our necks and allow us to walk at full stature to our land.\u201d<\/p>\n
THE EXECRATION (vv. 14\u201345)<\/p>\n
The Execration often employs the terms and idioms of the Blessing to state the reverse, a literary technique that heightens the opposition of obedience and disobedience. See Excursus 11 for a list of examples.<\/p>\n
15. If you reject My laws It is Israel who creates the unfavorable situation, not God. He promised not to reject His people as long as they remained obedient.<\/p>\n
16. I will wreak misery upon you The Hebrew clause ve-hifkadti \u02bfaleikhem literally means \u201cI shall assign to you, bring upon you by command.\u201d The sense is that God will unleash destruction against His people. As for Hebrew bebalah, it is better rendered \u201cshock, convulsions,\u201d since the verb b-h-l describes physical movement.<\/p>\n
consumption and fever The two medical terms sha\u1e25efet and kada\u1e25at occur elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 28:22. Hebrew kada\u1e25at derives from the verb k-d-\u1e25, \u201cto burn, flare,\u201d said of fire and of \u201cfuming\u201d rage, as, for example, in Deuteronomy 32:22 and Jeremiah 15:14. Hence, \u201cfever.\u201d Hebrew sha\u1e25efet is rendered \u201cconsumption\u201d on the basis of the Arabic cognate, sa\u1e25afa, \u201cto flay, remove the fat,\u201d such as the fat of an animal.<\/p>\n
which cause the eyes to pine Hebrew mekhallot \u02bfeinayim literally means \u201cwhich exhaust the eyes\u201d so that the eyes can no longer see. They will have been worn out by anxious expectation. Similarly, medivot nefesh means \u201cthat cause despair, depression.\u201d The form medivot is an abbreviation of mad\u02beivot. Prolonged illness causes one to despair of ever being healed. Hebrew nefesh often refers to the physical body, or to parts of it, as well as to emotional states.<\/p>\n
you shall sow your seed to no purpose Hebrew la-rik means \u201cin emptiness.\u201d Its usual synonyms are hevel, \u201cvapor, nothingness,\u201d and tohu, \u201cformlessness.\u201d<\/p>\n
Your enemies shall eat it In a situation of blessing, one enjoys the fruits of one\u2019s labors. It is tragic, however, to witness a people deprived of its crops by conquering hordes. The same situation is projected in the Execration of Deuteronomy 28:33, 50\u201351.<\/p>\n
17. I will set My face against you This is the reverse of verse 9 of the Blessing.<\/p>\n
you shall be routed by your enemies The same dire prediction is found in the Execration of Deuteronomy 28:25. The Hebrew verb n-g-f means \u201cto throw back, batter.\u201d In Solomon\u2019s prayer at the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:33\u201334) the hope is expressed that if Israel is ever routed by its enemies as a consequence of its sins, the people will be able to plead for forgiveness in the Temple.<\/p>\n
and your foes shall dominate you The Hebrew verb r-d-h means \u201cto exercise rule.\u201d The same thought is echoed in verses 36\u201337.<\/p>\n
You shall flee though none pursues This is the height of anxiety: the terror of being pursued.<\/p>\n
18. And if, for all that, you do not obey Me This introduces a point of transition in the Execration. We find similar transitions in verses 27, 33, and 37. The conditional formulation brings home the point that God would cause an end to the suffering of the people and the land whenever the people overcame its disobedience and confessed its sins. This was not to occur, however, until after the suffering brought on by a prolonged exile.<\/p>\n
I will go on to discipline you sevenfold for all your sins The infinitive le-yassera means \u201cto rebuke, censure\u201d but also conveys the nuance of imposing punishment. The notion of sevenfold is proverbial in biblical literature and is usually expressed by the adverb shiv\u02bfatayim, \u201cseven times.\u201d<\/p>\n
19. and I will break your proud glory The same image is expressed in Ezekiel 24:21; 33:28, and elsewhere. Hebrew \u02bfoz means \u201cpower, might,\u201d and the combination ge\u02beon \u02bfoz means \u201cpowerful pride,\u201d the pride that comes from having power. The sense is that the land, which was \u201cthe pride\u201d of the people, will be destroyed. This theme is expanded in the following verses.<\/p>\n
I will make your skies like iron The same statement occurs in the Execration of Deuteronomy 28:33 and in the treaties of King Esarhaddon of Assyria, who ruled in the seventh century B.C.E. In these treaties, the king\u2019s vassals are warned that they will be severely punished by the gods of the empire for any violations of the treaties. The sense of the statement is that the rains will cease and the artesian springs of the earth will become dry.<\/p>\n
20. so that your strength shall be spent to no purpose This restates the thoughts expressed in verse 16.<\/p>\n
21. And if you remain hostile toward Me Here, again, is a transition, where the conditions for God\u2019s forgiveness are stated.
\nHebrew keri, \u201chostility,\u201d and the idiom halakh \u02bfim \u2026 be-keri, \u201cto walk with \u2026 in hostility,\u201d are unique to this chapter. Targum Onkelos translates be-kashyu, \u201cwith hardness, obstinacy,\u201d deriving keri from the root k-r-r, \u201cto be cold.\u201d Compare the noun form karah, \u201ccold wave,\u201d in Nahum 3:17, and mekerah, \u201ccool chamber,\u201d in Judges 3:24. The reverse of \u201cwalking in hostility\u201d is \u201cagreeing to obey\u201d (\u02beavah li-shmo\u02bfa) suggesting that keri is synonymous with meri, \u201crebelliousness.\u201d Note the contrast in Isaiah 1:19\u201320: \u201cIf, then, you agree and give heed,\/You will eat the good things of the earth;\/But if you refuse and disobey (u-meritem),\/You will be devoured by the sword.\u201d The notion of meri as \u201crebelliousness\u201d is a major theme in the prophecies of Ezekiel, but the term keri occurs nowhere else in the Bible; hence its meaning remains uncertain.<\/p>\n
22. I will loose wild beasts against you The Hifil form used here, ve-hishla\u1e25ti, is rare in biblical Hebrew. It conveys the sense of \u201cdriving\u201d the beasts through the land. This threat is the reverse of the Blessing stated in verse 6.<\/p>\n
and they shall bereave you of your children The verb sh-kh-l is used specifically to connote the loss of children or with respect to animals, the loss of young. The parallel word, both in Hebrew and in Ugaritic, is \u02beulman, \u201cwidowhood.\u201d Thus we read in Isaiah 47:8\u20139: \u201cI shall not become a widow\/Or know loss of children.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
They shall decimate you Deserted roads are often depicted as a feature of wars and invasion in biblical literature. Compare Lamentations 1:4: \u201cZion\u2019s roads are in mourning.\u201d Similar themes occur in Isaiah 33:8; Ezekiel 30:3\u20134; and in Psalms 107:38.<\/p>\n
23. and if these things fail to discipline you Rather, \u201cand if, after these things, you do not submit to my discipline.\u201d This is another point of transition. Reference is to verse 18, where the theme of \u201cdiscipline\u201d was introduced. The discipline consists of the punishments endured by the people and the land. The Nifal form tivvaseru means \u201cto be disciplined, to submit to discipline.\u201d<\/p>\n
25. I will bring a sword against you to wreak vengeance for the covenant Rather, \u201ca sword enforcing the threats of the covenant.\u201d
\nThe unique clause nokemet nekam berit uses the verb n-k-m and the noun nakam in an unusual sense. Usually nakam means \u201cvengeance,\u201d and the verb occurs in the Nifal meaning \u201cto be avenged\u201d or in the Kal stem, as is the case here, with the meaning \u201cto avenge, wreak vengeance.\u201d Translated in the usual way, our clause would mean that God brings against Israel a sword that exacts vengeance for the violation of the covenant (berit). Yet, Hebrew nekam berit seems to connote some feature of the covenant itself. Commenting on this verse, the Sifra speaks of \u201cnakam that is in the covenant and nakam that is not in the covenant.\u201d It is as though nakam refers to the adjurations and admonitions stated in the terms of the covenant. In Deuteronomy 29:20 we read of \u02bealot ha-berit, \u201cthe oaths of the covenant,\u201d which comprise the section in most treaties that states the penalties for violation. Perhaps the sages of the Sifra were thinking of the statement in the Epilogue of Deuteronomy (28:61) where the Israelites are warned that God will bring afflictions upon them that are not even mentioned in the Execration! This suggests that nakam in our verse does not mean \u201cvengeance,\u201d in the usual sense, but rather the threat of punishment.<\/p>\n
I will send pestilence among you Seeking refuge in cities will be to no avail because pestilence will spread quickly through the crowded towns under siege. The same thought is expressed in Deuteronomy 28:21.<\/p>\n
26. When I break your staff of bread The idiom matteh le\u1e25em, \u201cstaff of bread,\u201d occurs several times in the prophecies of Ezekiel. It is synonymous with mish\u02bfan le\u1e25em, \u201csupport of bread,\u201d in Isaiah 3:1. This is the origin of the aphorism \u201cBread is the staff of life.\u201d<\/p>\n
They shall dole out your bread by weight The same thought is expressed in Ezekiel 4:16: \u201cO mortal, I am going to break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they shall eat bread by weight, in anxiety, and drink water by measure, in horror.\u201d
\nThe verb ve-heshivu, literally \u201cthey shall return,\u201d conveys the sense of \u201cpaying, allocating.\u201d Compare Numbers 5:7: \u201cHe shall make restitution (ve-heshiv \u02beet \u02beashamo)\u201d; and see 25:27.<\/p>\n
27. But if, despite this This is yet another transition, leading into the final round of admonitions.<\/p>\n
29. You shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters The same horror is depicted in Deuteronomy 28:53f. and in Lamentations 2:20. Similar descriptions are found in the Assyrian vassal treaties, as is explained in Excursus 11.<\/p>\n
30. I will destroy your cult places Verses 30\u201331 closely parallel the oracle of Ezekiel 6:3f. This is a cruelly ironic statement: The Israelite warriors and citizenry will be slain at the very altars and cult centers where they offended God by their worship of foreign gods and idols.
\nThe verses contain several archaeological terms of interest. Hebrew bamah, a term for various cult installations, means \u201cback,\u201d as we now know from Ugaritic, where we find bmt p\u1e2bl, \u201cthe back of a mare,\u201d on which goods are loaded. Hebrew bamah has, therefore, two connotations, (1) Topographically, it refers to the high ridges or peaks of mountains, as in Amos 4:13 or in Deuteronomy 32:13. This parallels the sense of the \u201cshoulder\u201d of a mountain, as in Joshua 15:10. (2) Architecturally, it refers to a raised platform or structure, as is the meaning here. The Books of Kings often refer to the bamot, which were tolerated by most kings, but condemned by pious monotheists. Both usages reflect a semantic process whereby the physiognomy of humans and animals is transferred to the inanimate natural world as well as to architecture.
\nThe term \u1e25ammanim is translated \u201cincense altars.\u201d An Aramaic altar inscription from Palmyra contains the words \u1e25mn\u02be dnh w\u02belt\u02be dnh, \u201cthis \u1e25amman and this altar.\u201d On the reverse side of the altar there is a relief depicting two standing men with an incense stand, or altar, placed between them. This would seem to mean that the \u1e25amman was the incense altar itself. In still another Palmyrene inscription we read that someone dedicated \u1e25mn\u02be klh hw w\u02betrh w\u02bep \u1e6dll \u02bedrwn\u02be klh, \u201cthe complete \u1e25amman, with its installation, and even covered the entire chamber with a roof.\u201d This suggests that the \u1e25amman was located within a chamber. The etymology of \u1e25amman may have actually been confused by this recent evidence. Identifying it as an incense altar implied that \u1e25amman derived from the root \u1e25-m-m, \u201cto be hot.\u201d We are now able to determine that this is not so because a word \u1e2bmn is now attested in Ugaritic ritual texts that mention many cultic artifacts. Now, in Ugaritic the verb meaning \u201cto be hot\u201d also occurs, but it is written with a different letter, \u1e25\u0113\u1e6d. (In the Semitic languages, there were originally both \u1e2b\u0113\u1e6d and \u1e25\u0113\u1e6d, but over the course of time, certain languages like Hebrew reduced the alphabet, leaving only \u1e25et. As a result, there is often confusion about the derivation of words written with a Hebrew \u1e25et.) As a consequence, Hebrew and Aramaic \u1e25amman probably have nothing to do with the idea of being \u201chot\u201d; nor is it likely that the Late Hebrew word for \u201csun\u201d (\u1e25ammah) is relevant to the artifact called \u1e25amman. The suggestion that \u1e25ammanim were sun disks must also be discarded. We see, instead, on the basis of the Ugaritic evidence, that we are dealing with the name of an artifact or structure that had an independent origin. This is not to say that a \u1e25amman, \u201caltar,\u201d could not be dedicated to the sun-god in pagan societies, but only to emphasize that this is not the meaning of the word itself.
\nIn the Ugaritic ritual texts we read of offerings brought \u201cat the \u1e2bmn.\u201d The word \u1e2bmn also occurs as part of a personal name, which suggests a possible connection between \u1e25amman and the name of the god Baal-\u1e24amm\u00f4n mentioned in a ninth-century B.C.E. Phoenician inscription from ancient Turkey. The same deity was prominent at Carthage. The cult of Baal-\u1e24amm\u00f4n continued over many centuries. Until recently, it was not known as early as the second millennium B.C.E., but the attestation of this name in Ugaritic, if accurate, may push back the date. It seems quite possible, therefore, that the name of a deity is reflected in the word \u1e25ammanim and that it means literally \u201can altar of \u1e24amm\u00f4n.\u201d The biblical evidence concerning \u1e25ammanim correlates well with that of Ugarit and Palmyra. In 2 Chronicles 14:4 and 34:3 we read that the \u1e25amman was installed \u201cabove\u201d altars and bamot. Whether the \u1e25amman was uniformly used as an incense altar is not entirely clear. In Isaiah 27:9 we are told that the sin of Jacob can be expiated by destroying improper cultic artifacts: \u201cThat he make all the altar-stones\/Like shattered blocks of chalk\u2014\/With no sacred post left standing,\/nor any \u1e25ammanim.\u201d
\nHebrew gillulim, translated \u201cfetishes,\u201d always appears in the plural. It is a derisive term used to characterize pagan statues and probably derives from the root g-l-l, \u201cto roll,\u201d as to roll a stone. From the same root we have the noun gal, \u201ca pile, mound\u201d (also a \u201cwave\u201d of water). Our verse paraphrases Ezekiel 6:4b: \u201cI shall cast your slain before your fetishes (lifnei gilluleikhem).\u201d Here we read ve-natatti pigreikhem \u02bfal pigrei gilluleikhem, literally \u201cI shall place your corpses atop the corpses of your fetishes.\u201d The problem is that elsewhere Hebrew peger refers to the corpse of an animate being and would not apply to a statue or stone object. There is, however, an analogous usage of nevelah, \u201ccadaver,\u201d also a term usually reserved for animate creatures. In Jeremiah 16:18 we read: \u201cBecause they have defiled My land\/With the corpses of their abominations (be-nivlat shikkutseihem)\u201d The lifelessness of pagan statues, and therefore the powerlessness of the would-be deities they represent, is epitomized in Psalms 135:15\u201317: \u201cThe idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men\u2019s hands. They have mouths, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see.\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
and I will not savor your pleasing odors On the meaning of Hebrew rea\u1e25 ni\u1e25oa\u1e25, \u201cpleasing odor,\u201d see Comment to 1:9. God will refuse to accept the offerings of those who have angered Him by violating His commandments. This theme, discussed in Excursus 11, is also present in ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions and treaties.<\/p>\n
32. I will make the land desolate The syntax of the Hebrew is emphatic: \u201cI, Myself, will make the land desolate.\u201d<\/p>\n
so that your enemies \u2026 shall be appalled by it A degree of sensitivity is attributed even to the enemies of Israel and to the deported peoples who will be settled in the land by the conquerors. Like all other ancient people, they, too, will interpret the desolation as a punishment for some horrible offense committed by the Israelites against their God. A similar projection is found in Deuteronomy 29:21\u201323: \u201cAnd later generations will ask\u2014the children who succeed you, and foreigners who come from distant lands \u2026 all nations will ask, \u2018Why did the LORD do thus to the land? Wherefore that awful wrath?\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
33. And you I will scatter among the nations The verb zarah means \u201cto winnow,\u201d and in the Piel stem zerah means \u201cto scatter,\u201d as one scatters chaff to the winds. This verb is used in the prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah to describe dispersion.<\/p>\n
and I will unsheath the sword against you The verb herik used here means \u201cto empty,\u201d referring to emptying the sheath as the sword is drawn. The idiom herik \u1e25erev appears only here and in Ezekiel, where it is used repeatedly.<\/p>\n
and your cities a ruin Hebrew \u1e25orvah has an abstract sense: \u201ca state of ruin.\u201d<\/p>\n
34. Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years In its desolation, the land will lie abandoned for a prolonged period as punishment for not having been allowed to lie fallow every seventh year as was commanded in 25:1f. Had the Israelites obeyed the law of the sabbatical year, the land would not be desolate.
\nIn certain contexts, the verb r-ts-h means \u201cto expiate, make up.\u201d The passive form reflects this meaning in Isaiah 40:2: \u201cthat her iniquity is expiated (ki nirtsah \u02bfavonah)\u201d Here, the form hinsah means \u201cto secure expiation, to make up for.\u201d<\/p>\n
36. I will cast a faintness into their hearts Hebrew morekh, \u201cfaintness,\u201d occurs only here and is probably derived from the root r-k-k, \u201cto be soft.\u201d In Deuteronomy 20:8 the cowardly are called literally \u201cthe soft of heart\u201d (rakh ha-levav) and are considered unfit for military service.<\/p>\n
The sound of a driven leaf The \u201cleaf blown away\u201d (the verb niddaf) by the wind is a vivid description, also found in Job 13:25. The slightest sound will alarm the people, so great is their fear.<\/p>\n
they shall fall though none pursues This repeats the thought expressed in verse 17.<\/p>\n
37. They shall stumble over one another A similar thought is expressed in Jeremiah 46:12b: \u201cFor warrior stumbles against warrior;\/The two fall down together.\u201d<\/p>\n
You shall not be able to stand your ground Hebrew tekumah, unique to this verse, connotes the strength to withstand, to remain standing in the face of attack.<\/p>\n
and the land of your enemies shall consume you A land may be said to devour its inhabitants in the sense that if it becomes unproductive, its population will perish. Ironically, this is how the spies, at least most of them, described the land of Canaan: \u201cThe country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its settlers.\u201d Here, the sense is that the exiled community will be swallowed up by the land of exile and become extinct.<\/p>\n
39. shall be heartsick Hebrew yimmakku means literally \u201cthey will waste away, melt.\u201d One\u2019s eyes may \u201cmelt\u201d in their sockets (Zech. 14:12), as we find with the noun mak, \u201crot,\u201d in Isaiah 3:24 and 5:24. The root m-k-k may be related to m-g-g, which also connotes dread in Exodus 15:14 and Ezekiel 21:20. In Ezekiel 4:17 and 24:23 there is the unusual idiom \u201cto waste away because of transgression (\u02bfavon),\u201d which conveys the meaning that the people will experience severe remorse.<\/p>\n
over the iniquities of their fathers The text actually reads \u201cover the iniquities of their fathers which are with them (\u02beittam).\u201d The realization that they are suffering for the cumulative sins of generations is even more distressing to the exiles. In Lamentations 5:7 we find the same reaction on the part of the Judean exiles: \u201cOur fathers sinned and are no more;\/And we must bear their guilt.\u201d Elsewhere in biblical literature the opposite view is expressed. Thus, Ezekiel in chapter 18 insists that each generation bears responsibility for its own sins.<\/p>\n
40. and they shall confess their iniquity For the sense of Hebrew ve-hitvaddu, \u201cthey shall confess,\u201d see Comments to 5:5 and 16:21.<\/p>\n
in that they trespassed against Me The noun ma\u02bfal and the related verb ma\u02bfal are explained in the Comments to 5:14f. More extended usages, connoting betrayal, occur in Ezekiel 17:20; 18:24; 39:23; and in Ezra 10:2.<\/p>\n
41. and have removed them into the land of their enemies Hebrew ve-heve\u02beti does not mean \u201cremove,\u201d but \u201cbring,\u201d and the use of this verb in the present context is strange. The Septuagint reads kai apol\u00f4, implying a Hebrew text that reads ve-ha\u02beavadti, \u201cI have caused to perish.\u201d It should be noted that the verb \u02beavad is actually used in verse 38 and does not connote complete destruction\u2014for verse 39 speaks of those who survive. To accept the reading ve-ha\u02beavadti would not contradict verse 44, where it is stated that God did not destroy His people in exile. It seems that the verb \u02beavad may describe stages in a process of perishing without implying actual extinction. In fact, certain forms of the verb \u02beavad convey the sense of \u201cscattering, dispersing,\u201d as in Numbers 24:19 and Jeremiah 23:1; 49:38.<\/p>\n
then at last Hebrew \u02beo \u02beaz, literally \u201cor then\u201d may be compared with ki \u02beaz, \u201conly then, surely then,\u201d in Joshua 1:8: \u201cOnly then (ki \u02beaz) will you prosper \u2026 and only then (ve-\u02beaz) will you be successful.\u201d<\/p>\n
their obdurate heart Hebrew libbam he\u02bfarel literally means \u201ctheir uncircumcised heart.\u201d This image is best known from Deuteronomy 10:16, Jeremiah 9:25, and Ezekiel 44:7. Its sense is that of a \u201cthickened\u201d heart. Whenever the image of the foreskin (\u02bforlah) is employed actual physical thickness seems to be involved. The thickened heart cannot feel or think; one whose earlobe is too thick cannot hear God\u2019s words (Jer. 6:10); Moses\u2019 thickened lips made it difficult for him to speak articulately (Exod. 6:12). According to the law of Leviticus 19:23, trees and vines classified as \u02bfarelim are untrimmed.
\nIn exile, the people will submit to God\u2019s will, and their contrition will prompt God to remember His covenant. This theme is expressed in Ezekiel 20:43: \u201cThere you will recall your ways and all the acts by which you defiled yourselves; and you will loathe yourselves for all the evils that you committed.\u201d<\/p>\n
42. Then will I remember My covenant This is a familiar theme. We read in Genesis 9:15 that after the Flood God states that whenever He sees the rainbow, He will remember His promise not to bring destruction on the natural world for the sins of mankind. He acts to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage after remembering His covenant with the patriarchs (Exod. 6:5). Perhaps most appropriate is the statement in Ezekiel 16:60: \u201cNevertheless, I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish it with you as an everlasting covenant.\u201d<\/p>\n
and I will remember the land This statement is unique in Scripture. The personification of the land is, in itself, a frequent theme, but nowhere else is it said that God remembers the land.<\/p>\n
43. For the land shall be forsaken of them The land and the people must both atone, each in its own way. The land atones through its desolation and the loss of its inhabitants; the people atone through exile.<\/p>\n
for the abundant reason that Hebrew ya\u02bfan u-ve-ya\u02bfan is emphatic: \u201cFor the very reason that.\u201d<\/p>\n
44. Yet, even then No matter how disloyal the Israelites have been, the Lord remains their God and will restore them.<\/p>\n
45. the covenant with the ancients Hebrew ri\u02beshonim, \u201cthe former ones,\u201d refers to Israelites who lived in former generations; in this case, to those who left Egypt.<\/p>\n
in the sight of the nations God pledged to redeem the Israelites whom He liberated from Egypt. This He did in the sight of the nations, who witnessed the covenant, so to speak. For this reason, to allow Israel to perish, though the punishment be deserved, would detract from God\u2019s renown. Hence, if Israel shows remorse and mends its ways, God will not cause the entire people to perish. The same thoughts are expressed in Isaiah 52:10 and in Ezekiel 20:9, 14.<\/p>\n
POSTSCRIPT (v. 46)<\/p>\n
These are the laws All that is commanded in chapters 17\u201326, the Holiness Code, comes from the Lord, as transmitted through Moses on Mount Sinai. A similar statement appears at the end of chapter 27, which concludes the Book of Leviticus. From a traditional point of view, it was important to record the source of legislation so that its authority could not be questioned.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 27<\/p>\n
Funding the Sanctuary<\/p>\n
It is likely that chapter 27 was appended to the Book of Leviticus. From a purely textual perspective, the Epilogue (26:3\u201346) would seem to be a suitable conclusion to the book. But in order to include in Leviticus a matter of central importance, the funding of the sanctuary, chapter 27 was added. Maintaining the physical plant of the sanctuary was certainly costly, and it was necessary to provide the materials used in public sacrifice and to support the clergy.
\nThe sources of income, as set forth in this chapter, were of the following kinds: (1) votive pledges in fixed amounts of silver (vv. 1\u20138); (2) votary pledges of animals (vv. 9\u201313); (3) consecrations of urban property, land holdings, and acquired agricultural land (vv. 14\u201325); (4) firstlings (vv. 26\u201327); (5) donations of property that had been acquired under the law of \u1e25erem, \u201cproscription\u201d (vv. 28\u201329); and (6) tithes of produce and livestock (vv. 30\u201333).
\nThe actual goal of the system of funding prescribed in chapter 27 was to secure silver for the sanctuary and its related needs, not, for the most part, to secure the actual commodities that were pledged or consecrated. What was donated could be redeemed, and it was the redemption payment that was sought by the sanctuary in most cases. There were exceptions, of course. For certain reasons \u1e25erem property could not be redeemed; and donated animals that were suitable for sacrifice would be retained by the sanctuary. On the whole, however, the sanctuary preferred silver. The legislation of chapter 27, although couched in traditional terms of devotion, actually worked in such a way as to provide silver for the sanctuary.<\/p>\n
VOTARY PLEDGES IN FIXED AMOUNTS OF SILVER (vv. 1\u20138)<\/p>\n
The custom of pledging one\u2019s valuation in silver to the sanctuary harks back to the actual dedication of oneself, or one\u2019s child, to Temple service. In 1 Samuel 1 we read that Hannah vowed at the sanctuary of Shiloh that if God granted her a son she would bring him to Shiloh, where he would remain in service all his days. When Samuel was born to her, she, indeed, devoted him in this way. Pledging the equivalent of one\u2019s life, according to a scale established by the priesthood, served two ends: the spirit of the ancient tradition was satisfied, and, in practical terms, the sanctuary received necessary funds.
\nA key source for understanding the system of \u201cequivalents\u201d is 2 Kings 12:5\u20136. King Jehoash of Judah required funds for Temple repairs and decided to tap several sources of revenue for this purpose (with kesef understood to mean \u201csilver\u201d): \u201cJehoash said to the priests, \u2018All the silver, current silver, brought into the House of the LORD as sacred donations\u2014any silver a man may pay as the silver equivalent of persons (kesef nafshot \u02bferko), or any other silver that a man may be minded to bring to the House of the LORD\u2014let the priests receive it, each from his benefactor.\u2019 \u201d This is precisely the sort of votary, or sacred pledge, that is the subject of verses 1\u20138 of our chapter. The term \u02bferekh, \u201cequivalent,\u201d is used in the same way in both sources. Our chapter fixes equivalents for persons of various ages and for both sexes.<\/p>\n
2. When anyone explicitly vows to the LORD the equivalent for a human being Rather, \u201cWhen a person vows to set aside a votary offering.\u2026\u201d The preferred translation closely approximates the interpretation of Rashi, Ramban, and the Targum Onkelos. The point is that the verb hipli\u02be, with a final alef, is a variant of the verb palah, with a final heh, a verb whose meaning is clearly known: \u201cto set apart.\u201d The term neder here refers to the substance of the vow, to what is pledged, not to the original pronouncement of the vow; hence the preferred translation \u201cvotary offering.\u201d On the unusual form \u02bferkekha, literally \u201cyour equivalent,\u201d see Comment to 5:15, where this form is explained.<\/p>\n
3. the following scale shall apply<\/p>\n
Age
\nMale
\nFemale<\/p>\n
20\u201360 years of age
\n50 shekels
\n30 shekels<\/p>\n
5\u201320 years of age
\n20 shekels
\n10 shekels<\/p>\n
1 month-5 years of age
\n5 shekels
\n3 shekels<\/p>\n
over 60 years of age
\n15 shekels
\n10 shekels<\/p>\n
The silver content of the shekel is specified in verse 25. Some features of this scale are readily explicable. The age factor reflects productive capacity. Elsewhere, in Numbers 4:3, 32, we find the age of service in the Tabernacle to be between twenty and fifty years of age, but the principle is the same. At the age of one month, a child was considered viable and likely to survive the perils of infant mortality. That is why, according to Numbers 18:15\u201316, first-born sons are redeemed according to this same system of equivalents, beginning at the age of one month. First-born sons did not have to be pledged, of course:They already belonged to God. Gender differentiation may be linked to productivity, it being presumed that a male could earn more than a female. The difference in valuations may also reflect a certain attitude toward women. It is worthy of note, nonetheless, that women could participate in the votive system freely, a fact that is indicated by a number of biblical sources.<\/p>\n
But if one cannot afford the equivalent The verb mukh, \u201cto be in straits,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 25:25.<\/p>\n
he shall be presented before the priest The Hebrew verb he\u02bfemid means \u201cto station, present.\u201d It is also used to describe the presentation of offerings. See Comments to 14:11 and 16:7.<\/p>\n
and the priest shall assess him The Hebrew verb he\u02bferikh, \u201cto evaluate, assess,\u201d is part of the administrative vocabulary of ancient Israel. Thus, King Jehoiakim \u201cassessed\u201d the entire land of Judah when levying taxes to pay for the tribute he owed Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:35).<\/p>\n
according to what the vower can afford Hebrew ka\u02beasher tassig yad ha-noder literally means \u201cwhich the hand of the vower can reach.\u201d The adjustment of valuations, like the allowance for adjusting certain required sacrifices, is a general feature of priestly administration. Allowance was made for reductions when the inability of an Israelite to afford the standard cost of an offering or donation would deprive him of expiation or, as in this case, preclude the performance of a pious act.<\/p>\n
VOTARY PLEDGES OF ANIMALS (vv. 9\u201313)<\/p>\n
One could donate animals to the sanctuary and then redeem them. There was a surcharge of 20 percent over and above the value of the animal, as assessed by the priesthood. These particular laws, and those to follow regarding donations of real property to the sanctuary, point to the administrative functions of the priesthood. The priesthood set the value of the animal, which undoubtedly had an effect on the marketplace as well. All transactions were negotiated in sanctuary weight (v. 25), another factor of economic control.
\nOne who gave of his own property to the sanctuary was held in high esteem. Logically, one should not undo this act by buying back what was devoted. Then, too, what was devoted had already become sacred. Accordingly, a surcharge of 20 percent was imposed on the donor who would seek to recover what had already been consecrated. At the same time, the sanctuary was allowed to profit from the transaction.<\/p>\n
9. If [the vow concerns] any animal that may be brought as an offering to the LORD Traditional commentators disputed the legal import of this statement. The crucial factor is the intent of the donor: If it was to devote an actual altar offering, the donation constituted a valid assignment to \u201cthe altar.\u201d And even though a particular sacrifice was not specified, the law of 22:21f. applied, that is to say, the animal would be accepted as a sacrifice. Once this occurred, no redemption was possible. The contrast between verses 9\u201310 and verse 11 hinges upon the presumed intent of the donor. It was presumed that one who donated an animal of a species unsuitable for sacrifice intended a contribution of the value of the animal, not of the animal itself. For this reason, redemption was allowed. With Maimonides dissenting, the majority view is that the sacrificial votary is the subject of verses 9\u201310.<\/p>\n
10. One may not exchange or substitute another for it The Hebrew verbs hemir and he\u1e25elif mean essentially the same thing: \u201cto substitute.\u201d The nominal term temurah is used in barter or exchange.<\/p>\n
the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy The donor was also at a disadvantage if he sought to substitute another animal for the one donated. It too became sanctuary property.<\/p>\n
11. If [the vow concerns] any unclean animal An impure animal is unfit for sacrifice. Therefore, the donor is presumed to have intended the assessed value of the animal as his pledge, not a sacrificial votary. By payment of the 20 percent surcharge, he may retrieve it. For a definition of \u201cclean\u201d and \u201cunclean\u201d animals (or, more precisely, of \u201cpure\u201d and \u201cimpure\u201d animals) see introductory Comment to chapter 11.<\/p>\n
12. Whether high or low The assessment of the priest stands, even if it exceeds the market price of the animal.<\/p>\n
13. and if he wishes to redeem it The law is stated conditionally, although, in actual practice, it was usually expected that the donor would redeem what he had pledged.<\/p>\n
CONSECRATIONS (vv. 14\u201325)<\/p>\n
The Hebrew verb hikdish means \u201cto consecrate.\u201d It enjoys a wide range of connotations, from the devotion of sacrificial offerings as in 22:2f. to the consecration of the first-born in response to God\u2019s command. In Nehemiah 12:47, we read of \u201cconsecrations\u201d in support of the clergy. In 2 Kings 12:18\u201319 we read of the donations that kings \u201cconsecrated\u201d to the Temple, frequently from the spoils of war. This section of chapter 27 speaks of three specific types of consecrations: (1) urban dwellings, (2) \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land, and (3) acquired agricultural land.<\/p>\n
14. If anyone consecrates his bouse to the LORD According to 25:29f., urban dwellings are not subject to the Jubilee; if not redeemed within a year, they become the permanent property of the purchaser. Here, nothing is said about a time limit, because consecration differs from an ordinary sale.<\/p>\n
so it shall stand In verse 12, the verb employed is yihyeh, \u201cit shall be, stand\u201d; here, yakum has essentially the same functional meaning: \u201cto be in force, to be legally valid.\u201d<\/p>\n
15. he must add one-fifth The formulaic \u1e25amishit kesef \u02bferkekha, \u201cone-fifth of the silver equivalent\u201d (cf. v. 19) replaces \u1e25amishito, \u201cits fifth part\u201d of verses 13, 31. The meaning is the same.<\/p>\n
and it shall be his Hebrew ve-hayah lo connotes possession.<\/p>\n
16. If anyone consecrates to the LORD any land that he holds Rather, \u201cany part of his tenured land\u201d (cf. the translation in v. 21, and see vv. 24, 28). The legal status of the \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, \u201cland holding, tenured land,\u201d is explained in the Comment to 25:25 and in Excursus 10. Chapter 27 differentiates between an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, which belongs to an original owner, and acquired land, which had been transferred to someone other than the original owner.<\/p>\n
its assessment shall be in accordance with its seed requirement The method of delineating plots of arable land by reference to the quantity of seed required in the planting is common to many ancient Near Eastern societies. The formula used here, zera\u02bf \u1e25omer, \u201ca \u1e25omer of seed,\u201d means \u201c[an area sown with] a \u1e25omer of seed.\u201d The term \u1e25omer, from \u1e25amor, refers to \u201can ass, mule,\u201d but the Hebrew term and its cognates in Akkadian and Ugaritic designate a dry measure, equal to the normal load of an ass. Estimates of its bulk vary from 3.8 to 6.5 bushels. According to Ezekiel 45:11f., the most extensive catalogue of weights and measures preserved in the Bible, a \u1e25omer equals ten \u02beefahs. It was equivalent to the kur (Sum. gur, Akk. kurru).<\/p>\n
17. as of the jubilee year At the Jubilee, \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land reverted to its original owners, as mandated in 25:10, 13f. All transfers of such property were, in fact, not final sales, but long-term leases that expired at the next Jubilee. What was being consecrated, in our case, was a lease computed in crop years. At the Jubilee, the sanctuary lost its right to the yields of such lands, which then reverted to their owners. As verses 17\u201318 explain, a full valuation would apply only if the full forty-nine years remained. Anything less would necessitate proportional reductions.<\/p>\n
18. shall be so reduced Hebrew ve-nigra\u02bf is a mathematical term that means \u201cto be subtracted.\u201d<\/p>\n
20. and the land is sold to another The formulation is ambiguous. It could not mean that the donor sold the land after he had consecrated it, for such a sale would not be binding. The sense must be, therefore, that the priesthood sold the land when it became apparent that its donor did not intend to redeem it. Once this occurred, the donor lost his right to redeem it, ever, according to Rashi and Ramban.<\/p>\n
21. when it is released in the jubilee, the land shall be holy to the LORD, as land proscribed If the donor failed to redeem the land prior to the next Jubilee, the initial consecration is considered permanently binding, and the land remains the property of the sanctuary forever: it is holy to the LORD. At the time of the next Jubilee, the sanctuary would be the legal owner. The status of such land is compared to that of \u1e25erem land, land that could never be redeemed. This status is explained in the Comment to verses 28\u201329. In this way, the sanctuary enjoyed a special privilege. In all other cases, according to 25:14f., sales of \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land were never to be final, whereas unredeemed consecrations were. Normally it was guaranteed that land would revert to the original owner at the Jubilee, even if he lacked the means to buy back his land. The legislation of chapter 27 is complex in this regard. On the one hand, it utilized the Jubilee law in computing the value of the land. On the other hand, the privilege of the sanctuary overrode the rights of the original owner.<\/p>\n
it becomes the priest\u2019s holding This accords with the law of Numbers 18:14, which grants all \u1e25erem land to the priesthood.<\/p>\n
22. If he consecrates to the LORD land that he purchased This reflects the provisions of 25:25f. If one is compelled to sell any part of his \u02bea\u1e25uzzah, it reverts to him at the next Jubilee, even if he has been unable to redeem it in the interim. One who purchased \u02bea\u1e25uzzah land on this basis, therefore, was not a full owner. If he subsequently consecrated such acquired land, he had to be prepared to remit its value in silver to the sanctuary at the time of its consecration, plus the surcharge of 20 percent. Otherwise, his consecration would not be accepted in the first place because the field could not be collateral for his donation, as it would have been if it were his true \u02bea\u1e25uzzah.<\/p>\n
23. the proportionate assessment Hebrew mikhsah means \u201ccut, portion.\u201d The sense is that the donor must pay the Temple an appropriate amount in silver, equal to the assessed yield of the crop years remaining until the next Jubilee.<\/p>\n
24. whose holding the land is Rather, \u201cto whom the tenured land belongs.\u201d The consecration of the land by one who had purchased it from its original owner does not affect the primary rights of the original owner.<\/p>\n
25. All assessments shall be by the sanctuary weight The standard known as shekel hakodesh, \u201csanctuary weight,\u201d contained twenty gerahs or \u201cgrains\u201d of silver. There is mention of a royal standard, called \u02beeven ha-melekh, \u201cthe royal \u2018stone,\u2019 \u201d in 2 Samuel 14:26.<\/p>\n
FIRSTLINGS (vv. 26\u201327)<\/p>\n
All Torah traditions know of the idea that the first-born males of man and beast are initially consecrated to God. Although chapter 27 makes no mention of the essential obligation to devote first-born sons, it does deal, as part of its primary concern with Temple funding, with firstlings as a source of such income. Of immediate concern in the chapter is the fact that already at birth, the firstlings of the herds and flocks are sacred. They are not something one can consecrate, for one may consecrate only what he owns.<\/p>\n
26. A firstling of animals, however, which\u2014as a firstling\u2014is the LORD\u2019s This refers to pure animals, suitable for sacrifice. (Verse 27 deals with the firstlings of impure animals.) The Hebrew verb yevukkar is a denominative based on the noun bekhor, \u201cfirstling.\u201d The sense of yevukkar is \u201cto be assigned as a firstling to the Lord.\u201d In Deuteronomy 21:16 we find the active form \u201che may not treat as first-born (yevakker) the son of the loved one.\u201d<\/p>\n
27. But if it is of unclean animals The law is that firstlings of impure animals, unsuitable for sacrifice, may be redeemed on the usual basis. If they are not redeemed, the sanctuary may sell them for silver. No time limit is stipulated. This last provision differs from the law of Exodus 13:13, repeated in Exodus 34:20, requiring that the firstling of an ass (an example of an impure animal) must be either exchanged for a lamb or destroyed. This difference between the two laws regards the legal status of the firstlings of impure animals. According to the legislation of Exodus, the sanctuary administration could not benefit from an impure animal in any way. It could not receive an animal unsuitable for sacrifice. In our legislation, the sanctuary had the right to dispose of impure firstlings profitably. The wording of our law indicates subtly that it reflects the legislation of Exodus. Throughout most of chapter 27, the verb ga\u02beal, \u201cto redeem,\u201d is used. Only here, and in verse 29, is the verb padah, \u201cto redeem,\u201d used, precisely because it is the verb that is used in Exodus 13:13 and 34:20 in a similar matter of law.
\nThe difference between the laws of Exodus and Leviticus on the matter of firstlings also reflects differing administrative practices on the part of the priesthood of the sanctuary. As has been stated, our legislation is aimed at securing silver for the sanctuary, and its provisions indicate the extensive use of currency in the economy at large.<\/p>\n
PROSCRIBED PROPERTY (vv. 28\u201329)<\/p>\n
28. But of all that anyone owns \u2026 nothing that he has proscribed for the LORD may be sold or redeemed In the Comment to verse 21, it is noted that an \u02bea\u1e25uzzah consecrated to the sanctuary, but not redeemed prior to the next Jubilee year, acquired the status of \u1e25erem, \u201cproscribed property.\u201d This verse is the actual statement on the legal status of land and other property that is proscribed; verse 29 gives the law regarding a person condemned under the \u1e25erem.
\nThe verb \u1e25-r-m means \u201cto set apart, denote, restrict\u201d and, in biblical Hebrew, seems always to have a negative or prohibitive connotation; it describes what is to be avoided, destroyed, or forbidden. Its cognates in certain other Semitic languages can connote the positive aspects of holiness as well as the negative.
\nTo designate something as \u1e25erem may mean either that it is to be destroyed completely or that it is to be reserved exclusively for specific purposes associated with the sanctuary. The institution of the \u1e25erem was variously interpreted in biblical Israel. Historically, it was associated with war. It had been a very ancient, pre-Israelite practice to donate the spoils of war to gods, including conquered cities and territories. At times this involved killing off the army of the enemy and even a population that refused to surrender. This practice is known from Mari, a town in Syria, from documents dating to the eighteenth century B.C.E. It was also operative among some of Israel\u2019s contemporary neighbors. King Mesha of Moab, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4 as a contemporary of Ahab, king of northern Israel in the ninth century B.C.E., records in his royal inscription that he proscribed (Moab. h\u1e25rm = Heb. he\u1e25erim) conquered towns to Kemosh, the national god of the Moabites.
\nIn biblical law, the institution of the \u1e25erem is carried over into the context of juridical punishment, where the penalty for worshiping other gods is death. Exodus 22:19 ordains that any person who offers sacrifice to another god is to be proscribed, which is to say, condemned to death. A similar punishment is ordained for the town whose inhabitants collectively participate in the worship of other gods, according to Deuteronomy 13:13f.
\nWhereas these precedents explain verse 29, which concerns a condemned man, there remains a serious difficulty with respect to verse 28. From what we know of the \u1e25erem, it is an imposed condition; one would not speak of voluntarily proscribing a field. Nor did this difficulty go unnoticed by the rabbinic sages and the medieval commentators. Two related explanations are given: First, verse 28 may be speaking of a man who swore to devote his property. Or, second, it may be speaking of one who took an oath in another matter, swearing that if he failed to uphold that oath, his property would be forfeit as \u1e25erem. In either case, the oath, once taken, made of the act of devotion a binding obligation; it was no longer a voluntary act. On this basis, one could translate verse 28 as follows: \u201cBut anything that a man (swears) to devote as proscribed property to the LORD (\u02beasher ya\u1e25arim \u02beish le-YHVH).\u201d In late Second Temple times, this was a common practice. One would state: harei \u02bfalai be-\u1e25erem, \u201cI owe this, under penalty of proscription.\u201d Such oaths were called \u1e25aramim because it was stipulated that the penalty for failure to uphold the oath was the proscription, or confiscation, of one\u2019s property by the Temple.
\nBased on the limited information available concerning the \u1e25erem in biblical times, this interpretation is perhaps the closest we can come to resolving the difficulty in verse 28, but it is far from adequate. One has the impression that there is a background to this law that is unknown to us since it diverges decidedly from the norms applicable to the institution of the \u1e25erem as they are known from other biblical sources.
\nSeveral additional notes on verse 28: The \u201cman\u201d whom one proscribes is undoubtedly a non-Israelite slave, who is considered the property of his owner. And in verse 21, sedeh ha-\u1e25erem would mean \u201ca field that has acquired the status of \u1e25erem.\u201d Such property, according to verse 28, may not be redeemed by the one who devoted it; nor may the sanctuary ever sell it, although it probably could use the revenue from it.<\/p>\n
29. No human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed This law reflects, at least in part, the provisions of Exodus 22:19, which ordain that anyone who worships another god shall be proscribed, that is, condemned to death. (This law is cited here because of its topical relation to v. 28, although it has nothing to do with the subject of income for the sanctuary.) Like the murderer of Numbers 35:31\u201334 who cannot be ransomed (note the verb padah, \u201cto redeem\u201d), one condemned under the law of \u1e25erem must pay with his life.<\/p>\n
TITHES (vv. 30\u201333)<\/p>\n
This chapter speaks of two kinds of tithes: a tenth of the yield of the land and a tenth of the flocks and herds.<\/p>\n
30. All tithes from the land \u2026 are the LORD\u2019s; they are holy to the LORD In its overall effect, this law is consonant with the provisions of Deuteronomy 14:22f., although the matter is stated differently here. In the legislation of Deuteronomy, Israelites are required to set aside a tithe from the produce of the fields and to bring it each year to the central Temple. There, they are to consume it \u201cin the presence of the Lord\u201d as a sacred meal. Those distant from the Temple were to convert the ritual produce into silver and to use that silver to purchase offerings when they arrived at the Temple, which they would then celebrate in God\u2019s presence. This was in addition to the tithe given locally to the Levites. In the later tradition this tithe was called ma\u02bfaser sheni, \u201cthe second tithe.\u201d As of the time it was set aside initially, the tithe, and its eventual equivalent in silver, were preassigned. They belonged to the sanctuary and could not be used for any other purpose. Here, the procedures for the tithe follow the general pattern of the legislation of chapter 27. Redemption imposed a surcharge of 20 percent, as is noted in verse 31.<\/p>\n
32. All tithes of the herd or flock No other Torah legislation ordains a tithe from the annual increments of the herds and flocks. Yet this statement seems to assume the existence of such a law, just as verse 30 assumes the law of tithes from the yield of the field. There are, indeed, indications of such a law as applied to the herds and flocks. In 1 Samuel 8:15\u201317, Samuel warns the people of the burdens of a monarchy. Among the prerogatives of a king, he says, is the right to demand a tenth of the livestock as well as of the produce. In that early law, the tithe is regarded as a royal tax of sorts, whereas here, the tithe is a tax payable to the Levites, as it is in Deuteronomy.
\nThere are more subtle indications of tithing the herds and flocks. Thus, Abraham pledged a tenth of all his possessions to the Canaanite priest-king, Melchizedek, and Jacob similarly pledged a tenth of his wealth at Bethel, in Genesis 14:20 and 34:22, respectively. Both patriarchs were known as owners of large herds and flocks.
\nThe annual increment of the herds and flocks was counted under the shepherd\u2019s staff. Jeremiah (33:13) prophesies that \u201csheep shall pass again under the hands of one who counts them,\u201d and Ezekiel (20:37) uses the term as metaphor, as God states: \u201cI will make you pass under the shepherd\u2019s staff.\u201d<\/p>\n
33. He must not look out for good as against bad The actual tenth animal is to be counted as the tithe, whatever its condition. That very animal is preassigned, as of the moment of its designation as \u201cthe tenth.\u201d It can be neither substituted nor redeemed. Hebrew yevakker means \u201cto search out, examine,\u201d as a shepherd \u201cseeks out\u201d his livestock to examine them. Thus, we read in Ezekiel 34:11\u201312: \u201cFor thus said the Lord GOD: \u2026 I am going to take thought for My flock and I will seek them out (u-vikkartim). As a shepherd seeks out his flock (ke-vakkarat ro\u02bfeh \u02bfedro).\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
THE POSTSCRIPT (V. 34)<\/p>\n
These are the commandments that the LORD gave Moses \u2026 on Mount Sinai This postscript reverts to the opening verse of chapter 25: \u201cThe LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.\u201d It was customary to state, both at the beginning and at the end of major sections, or books, of the Torah, where and when the revelation from God had occurred. The same kind of postscript occurs in 26:46 and in the closing verse of the Book of Numbers, 36:13.<\/p>\n
\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7<\/p>\n
\u05e1\u05db\u05d5\u05dd \u05d4\u05e4\u05e1\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8<\/p>\n
\u05e9\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 \u05de\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05d7\u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05ea\u05e9\u05c1\u05e2\u05d4<\/p>\n
\u05d8\u05c4\u05e0\u05c4\u05e3\u05c4<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05d7\u05e6\u05d9\u05d5 \u05d5\u05d4\u05e0\u05d2\u05e2 \u05d1\u05d1\u05e9\u05c2\u05e8<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd \u05db\u05c4\u05d4\u05c4<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The wording of verse 2 argues against the second interpretation, however. The statement \u201cFor I appear in the cloud\u201d explains the restriction of entry. Aaron is normally prohibited from entering the Holy of Holies precisely because that is where God\u2019s kavod abides. Furthermore, identifying the cloud as the incense cloud would not accord with the … <\/p>\n