A Study of Hata' and Hatta't in Leviticus 4-5 (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 3161480554, 9783161578526, 9783161480553

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Herausgegeben von Bernd Janowski und Hermann Spieckermann

2

ARTI BUS

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi

5

A Study of Hätä and Hattet in Leviticus 4-5

Mohr Siebeck

NOBUYOSHI KIUCHI, born 1953; 1986 Ph.D. in Theology from the Council for National Academic Awards (College of St. Paul and St. Mary in Cheltenham / The Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Study); presently Professor of Old Testament at Tokyo Christian University, and minister

ISBN 3-16-148055-4 978-3-16-157852-6 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. © 2003 by J. C. B. Möhr (Paul Siebeck), P. O. Box 2040, D-72010 Tübingen. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg/N. Printed in Germany.

Foreword This study has grown out of my struggle with the Leviticus text for a decade or so. It is about a topic familiar to all humanity, that is, sin. It, however, focuses on one important Hebrew root ht\ yet not all of its derivations are the object of inquiry, but only hata' and hatta't. The term 'sin' has been used comprehensively, as referring to various other so-called sin-terms such as peScf, cawon etc. As the present study will bring home to the reader, this has so often obscured the particular aspects of each term. Sin is something that everyone does not desire to face. All the more so if it is one's own. Yet, in a true sense the Hebrew Bible appears to talk about human sin from Genesis 3 to its end, so that without a precise understanding of the nature of human sin, much of the Scripture seems to lose its significance for the reader. It is one of my convictions that I had after having worked on these particular terms hate? and hatta't that these terms really constitute a cornerstone that has been neglected despite all its importance. More personally, I have been surprised on two counts. One, though I started the study just with an intention of clarifying the meanings of the terms, it turned out that it was a study of humanity or more poignantly of myself. Two, it turned out that the present work became a sort of revision of my idea on the purification offering that I submitted nearly fifteen years ago, in The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, Sheffield 1987. As the reader will notice, I have altered my view on some of the points on the purification offering and the matter of sin and uncleanness. Special thanks are due to the editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament for accepting this work into its second series and to the publisher Mohr Siebeck for their labor to complete this production. It is my sincere desire that through this small work the reader will see more what human nature is like, and how sin continues to distress the present world. Fuchu, Tokyo August, 2002

N. Kiuchi

Table of Contents Introduction

1

Chapter 1 The meanings of hätä' and hattä't in Lev 4-5

5

1.1

*sgg (ägh) and its related terms

5

1.1.1

*5gg (ägh)

5

1.1.2

Lev 5:17-18

1.1.3

Non-mention of *sgg (sgh) in Lev 5:1-4

10

1.1.4

*sgg (Sgh) and hätä'

14

1.2

hats'

16

1.3

mä'al and hätä'

18

1.4

A proposal for the meanings of hätä' and hattä't

24

1.5

The nature of the breach of one negative commandment

27

1.6

The scope of the miswöt

30

1.7

Lev 16 :16, 21

32

1.8

Num 15:22-29

34

1.9

The meaning of hattä't

41

1.10

The hattä't offering in other legal contexts

42

1.10.1

Hattä't

42

1.10.2

Lev 19:20-22 The case of a betrothed slave-girl

48

1.10.3

Num 5:5-8 The reparation offering for an inter-human case

49

Chapter 2 2.1

min

for purification, consecration and dedication

The meanings of hätä' and hattä't outside legal contexts

7

51

A reexamination of the meaning 'to miss' for hätä'

51

2.2

An overview of the related terms of hätä' and hattä't

56

2.2.1

Related terms of hätä'

56

2.2.2

Related terms of hattä't

59

2.3

Not concrete acts but the description of the whole person

60

2.3.1

hätä'

60

2.3.2

hattä't

67

VIII 2.4

Table of contents Unconscious hypocrisy in hata' and hatta't

72

2.4.1

hata'

72

2.4.2

hatta't

78

2.5

Tentative conclusion

83

Chapter 3 Distinguishing the two offerings

85

3.1

Redefining the "sins" of the two offerings

85

3.2

A paradox of the two offerings

90

3.2.1

A paradox

90

3.2.2

A further paradox

92

3.3

Conclusion

96

Appendix A

Preliminary considerations on the idea of uncleanness

101

Appendix B

The meaning of hitte5

107

Appendix C

The meaning of hithatta'

119

1.1

hitte', hithattd' and the accompanying ritual acts

120

1.2

hitte' and hithatta' in Num 19

121

1.2.1

Verse 12

122

1.2.2

Verse 13

123

1.2.3

Verse 19

124

2.1

Job 41:17

125

3.1

Conclusion

126

Bibliography Indices

129

Scripture Index

133

Author Index

139

Hebrew Word Index

140

Subject Index

143

Abbreviations I. Miscellaneous Hiph.

Hiphil

Hithpa.

Hithpael

LXX

Septuagint

MT

Massoretic Text

Niph.

Niphal

P

Priestly source

Pi.

Piel

*

Hebrew root

II. Bible ESV

abbreviations

translations

English Standard Version

JPSV

Jewish Publication Society Version

NASB

New American Standard Bible

NEB

New English Bible

NTV

New International Version

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

REB

Revised English Bible

RSV

Revised Standard Version

III. Publications AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary

BBB

Bonner Biblische Beiträge

BDB

F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

BKAT

Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament

DCH

D.J. A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical

Hebrew

X

Abbreviations

DDD

K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

Deities and Demons in the Bible G-K

E. Kautzsch and A.E. Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar

HAL

W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten

HALOT

L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the

IBHS

B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical

Testament Old Testament tr. by M.E.J. Richardson Hebrew

Syntax ICC

International Critical Commentary

JBTh

Jahrbuch fur Biblische Theologie

Joüon-Muraoka

P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew

JPS

Jewish Publication Society

JSOTS

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

NDBT

T.D. Alexander and B.S. Rosner (eds.), The New Dictionary of Biblical

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTTE

W.A VanGemeren (ed.), The New International Dictionary of the Old

OBO

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

Theology

Testament Theology and Exegesis OTL

Old Testament Library

RB

Revue Biblique

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

THAT

E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handwörterbuch Alten

TWA T

zum

Testament

G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten

Testament

VT

Vetus Testamentum

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

ZAH

Zeitschrift für

ZA W

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche

Althebräistik Wissenschaft

Introduction The question of what "sin" means is related to the very foundations of world religions. Particularly in Judaism and Christianity expiation for sins and redemption of the sinful constitute the starting point for one's salvation. It is not too much to say that the whole lifestyle of a believer rests on what kind of understanding he adopts on the idea of "sin." Reading Leviticus, the present writer has long felt that the common English term sin is somewhat inexact for the Hebrew hats' and its related terms. 1 Below is a small contribution, if it is one, towards a reappraisal of the Hebrew terms hats' and hattSt. In reviewing the occurrences of those terms, various aspects of "sin" have emerged, chief among them is a new understanding of the lexical meaning of the terms. We shall start from Lev 4-5 as the section appears to be most delicate in the usage of hdtS, hatta't, and other related sin-terminologies. Indeed, terms relating to so-called sin appear to be meticulously differentiated in Leviticus 4-5. For instance, they raise a natural question why the root hP is used for some parts, and the root 3sm is used for other. This question no doubt has the bearing on the difference between the purification offering (or sin offering) and the reparation offering (or guilt offering). 2 This short study aims at defining the meaning of hdtS in its relation to *sgg (sgh) and macal, thereby shedding a new light to the nature of the purification offering and reparation offering. It is clear that the section on the purification offering ends in 5:13, and that

1 For Gentian 'Sunde' see R. Knierim, Hauptbegriffe, 56, 66-67. Knierim proposes 3 'sich verfehlen' for hata , and 'Verfehlung' for hatta't; J.Milgrom, Leviticus 1 - 1 6 , 229. Passages adduced for the meaning 'miss, forfeit' will be discussed in chapter 2. 2 We will use the term 'purification offering' for hatta't and 'reparation offering' for 'aSam in the following discussion. The qualification of the former appellation is, in a sense, the main theme of this study. For a discussion over the appellation see Rendtorff, Leviticus, 220-21. The central question is how the same term hatta't can refer to "sin" and a purificatory offering, or how the two distinct ideas, sin and uncleanness, are integrated in the mind o f the ancients. For a recent discussion on the relationship between ritual impurity and moral impurity, see J. Klawans, Impurity, 21-42; J. Sklar, Atonement, 134—49; A. Schenker, Anlasse 45 no. 2.

Introduction

2

the section on the reparation offering starts from 5:14.3 The remarkable fact is that the root 3sm appears more frequently in the later section of 4:1-5:26, though hâtâ' appears for all the cases. Thus, the verbal form >â$ëm appears in 4:13, 22, 27; 5:2, 3, 4 2 , 5 for the purification offering and in 5:17, 23 for the reparation offering. The verb 'âSam appears in 5:19 twice. The noun form } âSâm appears for the first time in 5:6 and then occurs with increasing frequency afterwards, i.e., in 5:7, 152, 16, 18, 19, 25. On the other hand, while the noun hatttft and the verb *hP occurs frequently in ch. 4, they gradually disappear and shift to the root 3sm. In the section on the reparation offering, the root ht3 occurs only in the verbal form and not in the noun form. It is also remarkable that the noun hattâH never appears for the reparation offering. This implies that the reparation offering does not deal with hattâ't (commonly translated 'sin'). Thus, if what the reparation offering deals with was conceived as "sin," whatever the understanding of the English term, the subtle nuance of hattâH tends to be neglected. Ordinarily the term hâtâ' has been translated 'sin,' 'commit a sin,' or 'sich verfehlen,' but the English equivalents have become too vague to explain the above linguistic phenomenon. Moreover, the use of the term 'sin' seems to have been used mostly in reference to a 'violation of the commandment,' that is, conduct of a person. It is dubious if this conduct-oriented understanding of "sin" does justice to the Biblical data on the use of hats'. Some exegetes have indeed felt that the common translations such as 'sin' or 'pécher' do not correspond to the Hebrew hâtâ'. Thus, R. Péter-Contesse comments on Lev 4:2 as follows, Le champ sémantique du verbe KQn ne correspond pas exactement à celui de «pécher» en français. Il ne s'agit pas avant tout d'une notion morale, liée à la connaissance subjective d'une loi. C'est d'abord une notion relationnelle. Comme le suggère l'étymologie, il y a à la base l'idée de «manquer/ne pas atteindre le but» (voir p.ex. Es 65.20; Jb 5;24). De là découle le sens de «ne pas être dans une relation juste et normale avec quelqu'un ou quelque chose», et en fin de compte avec Dieu. 4 3 The term 'a$am in 5:6, 7 seems to mean 'reparation' ; it is not the name of the 'aSam offering, just as hatta't means both "sin" and the offering that deals with it (see 4:3,14, 23, 28-29). Cp. Schenker, Anlasse, 49-50; Verfehlungen, 249-54 and a response by Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2446-49.

R. Peter-Contesse, Levitique 1-16, 75. That hata' in Lev 4-5 has more than a moral sense is also noted in R. Peter-Contesse & J. Ellington, Handbook, 46. They comment, "the prime meaning of the Hebrew word used for "sin" here is not a moral one, as if breaking 4

Introduction

3

It seems that this understanding by Péter-Contesse represents the view of the large majority of exegetes of hâtâ3 in such a context. Yet the definition is still vague and it is not clear how the sense differs from another sin-term such as peScf which appears to be concerned with mainly the breaking of personal relationship. Thus, re-examination of the term is required in several senses. In order to grasp the exact sense of the verb hâtâ\ it is necessary to probe into the relationship between the verb on the one hand, and the root sgg (sgh) and miïal on the other. We begin the examination by first determining the sense of *§gg. As these terms appear in the rest of the Hebrew Bible as well, reference will be made to those occurrences to give an overall picture of the term in question. The course of the discussion I take in the following is as follows. First I will examine the meaning of hâta3 by scrutinizing its related terms such as Sâgag, yâdaF and ne'lam mimmennû. In so doing I will propose a meaning of hâta3, simultaneously making sure that this meaning fits in well with all the legal cases in Leviticus and Numbers. Then I will test the meaning in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Based on the examination of all the occurrences of hâta3 and hattâ% significant passages will be interpreted with our new proposal for the meaning of those terms vis-à-vis the conventional meaning 'to sin' or 'to miss.' When it is confirmed that those Hebrew terms really have these meanings, we will grapple again with the terms in Lev 4-5 in an attempt to explore the difference between the purification offering and the reparation offering. Lastly, I will address myself to the significance and challenge of the conclusion to moderns in the light of all the arguments. English translations following the Hebrew text are, unless otherwise indicated, mine. In dealing with the Biblical text, account will be taken of the general literary genre in which the term in question occurs, but throughout the inquiry any arguments regarding source-critical matters will be left out, partly because the date of the text in question is not the object of our task, and partly because, as a specific commandment of the Law. It conveys rather the idea of breaking a relationship." Cp. R. Koch, Sünde, 4 4 - 4 8 ; P.A. Bird, Genesis 3, 23.

4

Introduction

our inquiry will show, the basic sense of hata 3 does not seem to have changed. It came as a sort of surprise to find that a term so crucial in forming one's understanding of salvation has received so scant an attention throughout the ages. The last few decades have seen the appearance of significant commentaries on Leviticus, both from Jewish and Christian sides, and it is evident that such works have contributed to the understanding of the message of the book. 5 Yet the impression cannot be denied that more meticulous inquiry into the other so-called sin-terminology should be done in the future.

5 For example, J.R. Porter, Leviticus (1976); G.J. Wenham, Leviticus (1979); R.K. Harrison, Leviticus (1980); B.A. Levine, Leviticus (1989); J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (1992); R. Peter-Contesse, Levitique 1 - 1 6 (1993); P. J. Budd, Leviticus (1996); F.H. Gorman, Leviticus (1997); R. Rendtorff, Leviticus 1:1-7:38 (1985-1992); J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1 - 1 6 (1991), 17-23 (2000), 2 4 - 2 7 (2001).

Chapter 1

The meanings of

hata3

and hattet

in Lev 4-5

In order to approach the meaning of hats' in Lev 4—5 we start from relatively less problematic terms, viz., the roots sgg and mcl in relation to hata3, and then consider the unique aspects of hätä\

1.1 *sgg (sgh) and its related terms 1.1.1 *Sgg (Sgh) In Lev 4-5 we are given the words Sägäh and £"gägäh, which may help to clarify the meaning of hätä\ The qal Sägäh occurs 17 times in the OT; Lev 4:13; Num 15:22; I Sam 26:21; Isa 28:73; Ezek 34:6; 45:20; Ps 119:21, 118; Job 6:24; 19:4; Prov 5:19, 20, 23; 19:27; 20:1. Qal Mgag occurs 4 times; Lev 5:18; Num 15:28; Ps 119:67; Job 12:16. It is agreed that those verbs basically mean 'err inadvertently,' 'go astray.' 1 As has been pointed out, the root sgh(sgg) concerns an uncontrollable movement. The 'uncontrollableness' and 'inadvertence' are what characterize these roots. Thus, it could be observed from Job 6:24 and Isa 28:7 that it describes a situation in which a person 'strays' from a right course while considering that he does not think so. In other words, when one Sägäh (Mgag), one is objectively in a wrong course or situation but subjectively he does not think so, rather he may well think that he is in the right path. These general features of this term also apply to those passages in Lev 4-5 where Sägäh (Mgag) appears. In Lev 4 *sgh appears with regard to the violation of any of the Lord's commandments. bnpn ™ T | T -

- i :TnT a ^- : iv : wer: • ba-ifcr m —r : b T : •

T

o*o• t 4:13

: lottfNi nrewrri6 itfk mm ntera-^o nna ifewi ** T !

1

T V T ••

V

T

:

: •

T •

- -

T :

Cf. J. Milgrom, SEGAGAH, 122-32; R. Knierim, JUÜ, 869-72; T. Seidl, nití/Mtí, 1058-65.

6

Ch. 1 hätä'and hattä't in Lev 4-5

Here yiSgu is explicated by weneclam — *Ser lö' te^äsenäh. Unintentional erring from a certain Lord's commandment is described as hahattä't *Ser haf3u 'äleyhä in v. 14. It may thus be possible to equate the meaning of yiSgü with that of häf'ü, but the following example shows that there is some difference between Sägäh and hätä'. rrf^N m m n t e r r b s a nnx nöwi a o m w m n m 4:22 rmtfa n r f c w n - i i t f x T

V:

T

:

:

•

T

•

••

-

-

T

T

:

T T J

T :

T V:V

'

T

V

• T

T

V

••

V

Here, yehetä' is explicated by w'cäsäh — biS'gägäh, which appears to suggest that hats' means 'inadvertently failing to obey any of the Lord's prohibitive commandments,' and that it has inadvertence as a semantic element. But that the latter is not the case is indicated by the phrase hätä' bi$egägäh in 4:2 and 5:15 where hätä' is distinct from the idea of *sgg. It seems that the sense of Sägäh is exemplified most clearly in v. 13 where yiSgu is further explicated by bnpn T | T -

t j j o - i m d^uji nrfc?j?n->6 - m m m nisErbsra n n x iton T T

-

: V :

T

V

T ••

V

T

:

:

•

T

•

-

-

T

:

The word däbär lacks an article. Therefore it is not to say that yiSgu is hidden, but that the indefinite 'a thing' is hidden from the eyes of the assembly. This means that the clause ne'lam ff. is a circumstantial clause and explains the yiSgü. Here it could be observed that the agent of Sägäh knows his own act but is unconscious of the act of violating the Lord's prohibitive commandment. For the meaning of neHam min, see below. In four verses, 4:2,22,27; 5:15, hätä' is followed by biS'gägäh, which indicates that the sense of hätä3 is distinct from that of the root idea of *§gg (*§gh). Thus, hätä} itself does not mean 'sin inadvertently,' though Lev 4 deals with inadvertent "sins." Inadvertence does not appear to constitute an intrinsic semantic element of hätä'. Rather, inadvertence is expressed by *sgg (*Sgh) and that is just a circumstantial condition when someone hätä'. This suggests that there are cases of "sin" which are not inadvertent, and indeed there are, e.g., Lev 5:21-23. It is probable that the principal sense of the root sgg (sgh) is erring inadvertently; 'to err unintentionally, or inadvertently,' and biSegägäh 'inadvertently' or 'unintentionally.' Below we shall take a look at the relevant passages in an attempt to differentiate the two terms in Lev 4-5 more exactly.

Ch. 1 hâta' and hattâ't in Lev 4-5

7

Thus, Sagag is a general term meaning 'to err' from something, describing from an objective point of view an overall course of a person who goes astray. It is not restricted in the religious matters such as the Lord's commandments as Isa 28:7 suggests. The person who goes astray is not conscious about his own total situation in relation to the right course, even though he is aware of what he is doing (I Sam 26:21; Job 6:24). 1.1.2 Lev

5:17-18

It seems that this understanding of the term suits the difficult prescription of Lev 5:17-18. It reads,

mrr nteB-^n nna nnfrm xann -o• tfarDNi 5:17 T : : • T • - ~ T : T T • : : i3is mT iTl: Dtfxi rtrfcwn *6 \ m •• T : ~T : T V T •• V -S s

jrorr^ fib

r6o3i « . .

.

an^b - T

Kim

v: v

v v

jiterrp nran b ^ K'orn 5:18 :

^tr-ittfa T T V

irmtf bv iron T : • I

-

vbu T T

nasi V • :

These verses have posed an exegetical crux to scholars because of their similarity to the cases of the purification offering in chapter 4 (cp. 4:13, 22).2 Here we restrict our discussion to the lexical meaning of *sgg, setting aside the discussion about the nature of the case itself, which will be made later.3 The crucial problem is in v. 17b which is repeated in v. 18b after Siggato *$er Sagag. In this connection it is necessary to consider the concept of yadac in Lev 4-5 more systematically. In Lev 4 a certain "sin" is inadvertently committed, but since a person knows and admits it later, is it not evident that he can remember the act? This means that, though vague, the knowledge of his own 2

Probably because of the difficulty the proposal has been made from ancient times that together with the case in w . 14-16 this case in vv. 17-19 forms "a single case of accidental poaching upon sancta: the first part, real; the other, suspected." Milgrom, S E GÂGÀH, 123. However, there is neither a textual problem, nor is there any need to assume so. We take the case in w . 1 7 - 1 9 as distinct from the case in vv. 14-16 as we argue throughout this study. Cf. Schenker, Unterschied, 115-18; Interprétations, 65-66. 3

In the following discussion we assume that 'àSëm means to 'realize guilt' rather than to 'be guilty' or 'be held guitly.' See Milgrom, Cult, 3-12; Kiuchi, Purification, 31-34; Rendtorff, Leviticus, 152-53; J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, 62. This rendering is also adopted by JPS and ESV.

Ch. 1 hata' and hattä't in Lev 4-5

8

act is in his consciousness before he realizes his guilt. Then what is the situation of a person in 5:17-19, where he is said, Id3 yadcf 1 Since the person realizes his guilt, it is evident that he still remembers his act. This leads us to question the common assumption regarding the concept of yadcf in Lev 4-5 that if he does not know he cannot remember his act. On this assumption some exegetes have assumed that 5:17-19 deals with some unknown sin.4 But it must be asked in what sense the knowing is meant. There is a hint in Lev 5:1. urn iK n * n IN nv Kim Here the text should be translated 'if he is a witness, either he has seen it, or he has learned about it.' 5 In other words, yadcf here means an experiential knowledge as it is subordinated under ced ('witness'). When this meaning is applied to hu' Id3 yadcf in Lev 5:17-19, it means that the person does not know about his own act as an experiential knowledge, and this leaves room for the possibility that he knows it in his subconsciousness. Therefore, there is no need to consider that since he does not know, the "sin" is unknown. As long as the person realizes his own guilt, the knowledge must be stored in his subconsciousness, so that it somehow can be remembered later. All the occurrences of yadcf in Lev 4-5 make sense on this assumption (see below). The question is whether wHo'yadcf in v. 17b refers to the ignorance of the Lord's commandment or the ignorance of the act itself. It seems that the clause welo> yadac refers to both: The person does not know what he did. In this sense the clause wHo* yadcf is different from the phrase bifgagdh in 4:13, 22. Here in 5:17b the clause w7oJ yadcf refers even to his act itself. In other words, not only is he unconscious of the Lord's commandment, but he is also unconscious about his own act. How should the clauses wehlV lo'yadac in v. 18b be understood syntactically? It is a circumstantial clause and adds an explanation to the concept of Sagag that precedes it. This means that there is $egagah of a kind in which a person knows his own act but does not know it constitutes a violation of a certain divine prohibitive commandment as in Lev 4, but there is also such a S'gagah as here in which a person does not know not only that he has violated a divine 4

Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 332-33, 361-63; Schenker, Anlässe, 4 5 - 6 6 , esp.53-55; P. Budd, 2 5 6 - 5 9 and n. 3 on p. 257. 5

On

>ö-'ö

cf.

HAL 19.

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

9

commandment but he also does not know his own act. In terms of clarifying the concept of *sgg, it is germane to ask whether *sgg here indicates that a person does not know even his own act. The question is: Is what is meant by the circumstantial clause w'hu? Id* yadcf part of the concept of *sgg? In my view it is not. It is crucially important to see in 5:17-19 a further stage of the cases in Lev 4, that is, the person does not know even his own act: *Sgg simply states his going astray. This understanding has implications for the concept of *sgg in Lev 4, for the cases there imply that the person knows his own act. However, in 4:14, 23, 28 the fact that the root ydc appears only at the end of the protases suggests that until then the person has not known the "sin." Thus, there are degrees in human consciousness. And in this connection it would be in order to address the meaning of ne'lam min in Lev 4:13 and 5:2, 3, 4. It means to 'be hidden from,' but more importantly it refers to a particular aspect of not knowing. Considering that the phrase is contrasted with yadac in 5:3, 4, and that yadcf has the same meaning in Lev 4-5, to 'know in the surface of one's consciousness,' the phrase means to 'be hidden from one's surface consciousness.' Because a certain commandment of the Lord is not taken as important by a person, that commandment and his violation of it disappear from his surface consciousness. With these comments on yadcf and neclam min in view, it could be posited that *sgg means to 'go astray inadvertently.' It presumes an initial ignorance of a certain act constituting a "sin," but in view of Lev 5:17-19 where the person is not even conscious about his own act, it can be surmised that in Lev 4 the person vaguely knows his own going astray in his consciousness. It would do, at this stage, to confirm that w^hu') l(P yadcf is different from Sagag, but that the both presume the knowledge of an act, but in different degrees; the person in 5:17-19 is not conscious about his act at all, whereas the person in Lev 4 is conscious about his act, but unconscious about his "sin." Now that the meaning of Sdgag(Mgah) is established, it is in order to consider the semantic relationship between Sagagand hata3. As mentioned above, hata' appears in all the cases of the purification offering and the reparation offering. It appears on the surface that those are synonymous, but it has also been suggested above there is some difference.

Ch. 1 hata1 and hatta't in Lev 4-5

10

In chapter 4, vv. 13-14 and vv. 22-23 appear to indicate that hata3 is synonymous with Sagag(Mgdh), because one can read in such a way that hata', as it stands at the beginning of the protases and is explicated by the following, refers to the state of a person going astray until realizing his guilt. Lexically, hata3 appears to be no different from Sdgag in a context such as this, which discusses a violation of a certain commandment of the Lord. But, on the other hand, as pointed out above, it is discernible from the phrase hata' biS'gagah (4:2, 27; 5:15) that the sense of hata' is distinct from the idea of *sgg (sgh). In this connection, it would be helpful to consider Lev 5:1—4, in which *sgg(sgh) does not appear, to see what *sgg(sgh) is not. 1.1.3 Non-mention

of *Sgg (Sgh) in Lev

5:1-4

Sagag does not appear in Lev 5:1-4, a section on the so-called graduated purification offering. Before answering why the term does not appear we need to comment on the meaning of each protasis. The text runs as follows; i n T1T I n n *T nT I n ni?•• x m

:

n ^T NT b p|

T

:

T

:

K To v n m s• vsnV V s 5:1 : V

jiaii? K iTwT i : T J •1- N I V D N•

It is clear that this case addresses a situation in which a person, knowing a truth or fact, does not testify, which is a deliberate act. A circumstance is given 'while he hears the curse Qdldh).' The curse is one that accompanies the covenantal oath, which assumes that the divinity is involved. 6 The reason why the term 'aSem is not mentioned as in vv. 2, 3, 4 would be that the person, by not testifying, already realizes his guilt. So it is enough to state, 'he bears his guilt.' 5:2, 3, 4 These verses have posed a crux to exegetes, but they also provide some clues to the meanings of *sgg, yadac and hata'. r b- r: m i x n Nt D•• B: r pT n- r ^- r :u•n: i a a n" t sT i mT -T b a Ta : v m i t tv f a • : - • XDtp wri"!

Q^i]

n f

iK

tfs: Tk v v

5:2

^ i ?

6 Since this case addresses a deliberate negation of the curse, some exegetes judge that this verse is out of place. E.g., J.R. Porter, Leviticus, 41. See, however, Peter-Contesse, Levitique, 86. Indeed, this case appears more serious than the cases in chapter 4 or the following three cases in 5:2, 3, 4, but our sense of 'seriousness' ought to be challenged as we argue in the following.

11

Ch. 1 hats' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

Kirn lag»

H3 x n w - ¡ m i n a p t : b b b D-JN riKaa? ur. •*

T

ix :

-

5:3

T

kc£>3"! - i p b b b T ^ r f ? ix inn 1 ? trnsc?? Kt?3!? u n ^ n •o 2 / 9 3 5 : 4 : n'pKtt n n- x- bs nttfai i n- , T_ K i m: israra obvn rwntiz a nT Tx nT . . . . . . •• T : v • - : v s T s • The problem in interpreting these protases is how we should understand w'neHam 7

mimmennu

w'hu3

tame3 in v.2 and weneclam

mimmennu e

w'hu3

yadcf

c

in v.3. First of all, there is a great difference in how w ne lam mimmennu should be translated; 'and it is hidden from him' or 'and it became hidden from him.' In the former the very touching of the unclean thing is unconscious, whereas in the latter, that is in the knowledge of the person but later escaped his mind. Also questionable is how the clauses w'hu1 tame5 in v.2 and wehu3 yadcf in vv. 3, 4 should be understood; do they describe a situation after neclam mimmennu, or a situation concurrent with the initial act? To these questions the fact should be borne in mind that, though the interpretation of the nature of the cases is difficult, the three verses present the same syntactic structure. Therefore, we could approach the nature of the cases in vv. 2-4 based on this syntactic feature. The following arguments can be offered; (1) The clause wehu3 tame3 in v.2 is unlikely to mean 'he has

become

unclean'(NIV,RSV,NRSV,ESV); tmc Qal qatal refers to the state of the person being unclean (JPSV, NASB, REB cf. Lev 11:4,5,6; 13:44, 46 etc.) unlike yitma3 in v.3 which means to 'become unclean.' Therefore the clause is circumstantial to the preceding. It seems that such a syntactical understanding of the verse affects the understanding of the syntax of vv. 3 - 4 as the latter have the same construction. (2) In v. 3 the verb yadcf appears in contrast with the preceding neclam mimmennu. However, if the yadac refers to his subsequent knowledge of his act after neclam mimmennu, the mention of 3a&em ('realize guilt') makes yadcf superfluous in view of 4:22-23, 27-28 where options are presented, that is, either realizing guilt or being informed by others. 3a$em presumes the knowledge of "sin." (3) The cases in vv. 3, 4, in which wehu3 yadcf appears, seem to solve the syntactic questions in regard to the 3 relationships: (a) between the clauses wehu3 tame3 (v.2), wehu3 yadcf (vv. 3, 4) on the one hand, and the initial acts;

7 For my former view on this issue which I alter here, see Purification 27-31. For a response see Schenker, Anlasse, 48 no. 7.

12

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

(b) between the clauses w'hu' tame0 (v.2), wehu3 yadcf ( w . 3, 4) on the one hand, and neclam mimmennu on the other; (c) between the initial acts and neclam mimmennu. (a) As mentioned in (1) above, the clause wehuD tame3 (v.2) lends support to the interpretation that the clause refers to the initial act, thus the same appears to apply to the relationship between wehu>yadac (vv. 3, 4) and the initial acts. The case in v. 4 appears to corroborate with this, because it is unlikely that a rash oath is uttered unknowingly. Certainly there is a possibility that an oath is made light-mindedly. But that is why the case is qualified wehu3 yadcf. The latter clause signifies that the person does know that he made some utterance which is an oath in character but does not think that it was an oath which had such a solemn nature as described in the protasis. (b) If w'hu? yadcf does not mean 'and he has known it,' but rather 'but he knows it' and it is related to the preceding, we would have to envisage anyway a situation in which w'hu3 yadcf concurs in time with ne'lam mimmennu. This poses no problem because yadcf means to 'know in the surface consciousness.' Thus, it is entirely possible that w'htf yadcf is circumstantial to neclam mimmennu, or to the initial act. (c) The clause ne'lam mimmennu in w . 2, 3, 4 resembles necelam dabar me'ene haqahal in 4:13. It has been pointed out above that in 4:13, it is syntactically circumstantial to the preceding yiSgu. In 5:2, 3, 4, however, it is hard to decide whether or not the clause describing what takes place in the mind of the person concurs with the act or follows the act. If the phrase is to be taken as referring to what happened after the initial act, it practically means that the person forgets it. But it is more likely that just as necelam fF. in 4:13 explicates the preceding, in 5:2, 3, 4, it also explicates the initial act. Further, Num 5:13 presents the same syntactic trait and probably, as in Num 5:13, neclam min here describes a situation concurrent with the initial act. Yet is it conceivable that a person makes a rash oath, while that is hidden from him, but he knows about it? The clause neclam mimmennu in vv. 2, 3, 4 does not mean that the person does not know about his act. Take, for instance, the case of v. 2. The situation that the clause describes is that the person does not recognize that what he has touched was unclean, but he is conscious that he touched the animal corpses. Similarly, in v. 4 the person does not recognize that what he said was an oath in the name of the Lord, but he knows what he said. In both cases the person does not question his own act but is conscious that he did or said so. This is the situation that the clause neclam mimmennu

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

13

describes, and in this sense it appears close to the idea of *sgg, but there is a difference as will be mentioned below. At any rate, such a situation happens so often in our lives; lip-service, vain promises, light-minded remarks. But insofar as he is conscious about his initial act he can remember it later. To the best of the present author's knowledge, all the commentators understand that the "sin" in 5:2-4 lies in failing to do what should be done; performing a purificatory ritual (vv. 2, 3) and fulfilling am oath (v.4).8 Thus, J. Milgrom argues that the sin constitutes in the prolonged impurity and nonfulfilment of the oath. However, as argued above, it seems difficult to assume some time lapse between the initial act and the clause neclam mimmennu. In addition, might it not be that the assumption of the time lapse is derived from one's tendency to assume that the "sin" lies in failing to fulfill the oath? All in all, the above arguments seem to support the interpretation that both w'hu3 yadcf and ne'lam mimmennu are circumstantial to the initial acts. We propose then to translate, for instance, v. 4 as follows; "or if anyone utters with his lips a rash oath to do harm or to do good, any sort of rash oaths that people swear, and it is hidden from him but he knows it, and realizes his guilt," Additional explanation would be in order regarding v. 2 dealing with touching unclean animal corpses. Here not wehu> yadcf, but w'hu? tame3 appears, so it is not stated explicitly that the person knows about his act, while the same syntactic structure with vv. 3, 4 as well as the realization of his guilt demands that the person appears to know he is unclean even before he realizes his guilt. It seems that the initial act of touching the animal is done consciously as mentioned above. When he touches the animal, he is not clear that he is unclean. In this case, he knows in his subconsciousness about his touching the unclean animal. The same goes to v. 3, but in v. 3 yadcf is used instead of tame7 perhaps to stress a greater awareness of the initial act. Since ne'lam mimmennu does not mean unconscious touching of the animal corpse, but rather the phrase has room for the knowledge about it, the case of v. 2 addresses not whether the touching was accidental, but that the animal corpse being unclean is hidden from the person (note the contrast between *tm3 which is repeated four times and neclam mimmennu). Thus, the situation that 8 See A. Noordtzij, Leviticus, 66; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 310-14; Rendtorff, Leviticus, 191; Schenker, Verfehlungen, 254-59.

14

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

he is unclear about his being unclean when he is clearly unclean is condemned here. To understand this case one must assume the human knowledge in the unconscious realm. Once an act is performed consciously, it may be stored in the unconscious realm and can be remembered later. With the survey of the four cases in vv. 1-4 we can point out the degrees of a person's knowledge about his own actions. The first case in v. 1 is a deliberate one. The second to the fourth are graded increasingly; the second (v. 2) assumes a subconsciousness knowledge, the third and fourth ( w . 3^1) add to it more awareness by saying 'but he knows it.' The three cases in vv. 2, 3, 4 deal with situations in which a person has a contact with the unclean or makes an oath with different degrees of awareness, and later realizes his guilt. In all this, nothing is mentioned about the failure in observing the purificatory rules or fulfilling the oath, though traditionally the latter has been considered as constituting a "sin." Therefore it is highly possible that the section 5:1—4 gives us the key to the meaning of hata3] it has something to do with the whole situation of the inside of a person being hidden. 1.1.4 *$gg (Sgh) and hataJ Now such conditions in Lev 5:2-4 do not suit the basic idea of *sgg (sgh) for the following reason. The idea of *sgg (sgh) relates to inadvertent violation of the Lord's prohibitive commandment, meaning to 'go astray.' Therefore when it is said that a person realizes his guilt and knows it, he knows that he has been going astray, and that does not mean that he has been unconscious about his concrete act. A person in Lev 4 does not know that he hata' while he knows what he does. However, the cases in 5:2-4 do not deal with 'going astray' from the prohibitive commandments. They rather focus on the situation of the same person in which the initial concrete act is obscured in his consciousness. The negation of the right conduct (v.l), unclear consciousness about the Lord's ordinance on uncleanness (vv. 2-3), and the use of the divine name light-mindedly constitute the content of "sin." These are not the case of *sgg (sgh) in that the person knows with varying degrees of awareness about the potential cause of the "sin," while in *§gg (sgh) the person does not know where the problem lies. Further, it seems that it is just in this situation that the essence of hata' lies, because the situation is called hata3 and hatta't in 5:5, 6, 10. On the other hand, this kind of offense gives some hint regarding the sense

Ch. 1 hätä' and hattä't in Lev 4-5

15

of hätä3 that while hätä3 in chapter 4 consists in 'doing any of the Lord's prohibitive commandments,' in 5:1-4 the hätä3 is done within the heart and mind of the person. This suggests that the term hätä3 should not be translated by English terms like "fail/miss/do wrong,"norordinary renderings'sin' 'commit a sin' or German 'sündigen' clarifies what hätä3 is, or what 'sin' means, for these renderings are not only too general and inexact, but cannot refer to the cases of 5:1^4. That the term hätä3 refers to both doing and being negligent of one's own act indicates that its basic sense is independent of both of them, or embraces the both. Similarly, if the term hätä3 is an intransitive verb, it is unlikely that it means 'miss' for it requires some object. But this, in turn, confirms the above assumption that hätä3 is distinct in meaning from *sgg, and that if hätä3 is the same in meaning in all the cases for the purification offering and the reparation offering, it is not a hyponymy of *§gg but is distinct from the root idea of *sgg; hätä3 has no inadvertence as a semantic element. The overlapping semantic element of hätä3 and *sgg is that a person is unconscious about his violating a certain commandment of the Lord.

It is now confirmed that *§gg (sgh) means to 'go astray, err' which describes a person's whole course objectively. The term presumes that the person does not think that he is in the wrong course. Now if *sgg (sgh) itself has this sense, its synonym hata3 must have a sense very close to it. It must also have 'going astray' as a semantic element.

16

Ch. 1 häta' and hattä't in Lev 4-5

1.2 hata3 min We begin considering the meaning ofhats' by paying attention to the syntactical features of the term. First, not only in Lev 4-5 but in all the occurrences in the OT is the term hats an intransitive verb except for several debatable cases, and it never takes a direct object except for internal objects such as hatta% It frequently takes prepositions le, cal, b', and min, among which I'YHWII is most frequent. The grammatical subject is always humans. And it is obvious in nearly all the cases that the term means something wrong done before the Lord. In connection with the meaning of hats' special attention should be drawn to the fact that the term takes min in Lev 4:2; 5:13, 15, 16, but that the ordinary sense of the preposition does not fit, if the usual translation 'sin' is the meaning of hats'. For instance, 4:2 runs as follows.

:nanD nnatt nfewi nrfcwnTIBntfx mrr nistt ^ára rmeá xanrHS UÍB: T ••

••

-

-

..

T

T

:

T

V

T

v

••

T

s

:

•

•

T T

:

•

T

v: V

There are three min in this verse. The third min clearly means 'from.' The problem is the first and the second min. The first min is translated 'against' (KJV, Luther) or 'in' (NIV, NRSV) or 'in regard to' (JPSV). However, these meanings are ordinarily not found for the preposition min. 9 Milgrom, for instance, takes the first min as partitive. 10 He takes the min in 5:13, 24 similarly. However, while the meaning 'against' is unlikely, the partitive sense is also unlikely, particularly in 5:13, which reads,

- n^N» rinxn xameto inxarrbi? irán r^i? -em . . . . . .

_

_

..

T

T

V

T

-

I ••

-

T

T

v

•

:

Since here the min is followed by'ahatme'elleh ("one of these"), it is improbable that min is partitive. Indeed, if min is immediately followed by a plural noun such as in mikkdl hattcfebot ha'elleh in Lev 18: 26, 29, the min would be partitive. But "one" before min is indivisible. Therefore, the first min in 4:2, which has the same syntactical construction, is not partitive, either. In the whole OT there are only three occurrences in which >ahat or }ehad 9 10

Cf. IBHS, 11.2.11; Joiion-Muraoka 133 e.

However, Milgrom (Leviticus 1-16, 226) translates, "When a person inadvertently does wrong in regard to any of the Lord's prohibitive commandments by violating any one of them.". In this translation the partitive sense appears to be applied to köl rather than to min which corresponds to "in regard to." See Rendtorff, Leviticus, 149.

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta'l in Lev 4-5

17

are prefixed by min which does not mean origin. They are, Lev 4:2; 5:13; Ezek 1 8 : 1 0 . Among these cases, only in Lev 4 : 2 and Ezek 1 8 : 1 0 does min follow c asah.n If there is no textual problem in the two passages, there seems to remain only one possibility, that is, to take the second min in 4:2 meaning 'away from,' and the verb casah as intransitive. It is agreed that min has the basic idea of separation; it means sometime 'from' but other times 'away from.' 12 Here there would be no problem if we take the verb ahat mimmiswot YHWH. The idea is created then that one nepeS violates one prohibitive commandment and hats'.20 Why does one nepeS violate one prohibitive commandment and he is unaware of the fact? It is because in it the person asserts his own will by justifying himself somehow. Certainly, the Leviticus text does not give us an explanation about what happens in the human heart when he hats', but would it not be the natural course of the human mind and heart that when a person behaves in his own way, including doing what is good in his sight, a certain commandment that conflicts with it becomes out of his sight, while he is aware of all the commandment that he keeps? Thus, hypocrisy characterizes his whole existence and in this chapter it is unconscious. A person who hata' could be termed an unconscious hypocrite, so to speak. Since a person is unconsciously hiding from one divine commandment and thus from the Lord, it is no use in saying that he did not intend to hide himself from the Lord, because his whole existence is already hidden from the Lord from the outset. It is, thus, no wonder that a violation of one prohibitive commandment equals a violation of all the prohibitive commandments. This is, in the ritual of the purification offering, symbolized by offering a hatta't sacrifice which represents or identifies the offender. It redresses the hiding of self, and not the particular wrong act that was done (see below). Up till now the English 'sin' has been used in reference to a violation of a

20 It may be highly significant to observe that nepeS comes as the subject of hata'. Besides Lev 4 - 5 see Num 15:27; 17:3 and Ezek 3:21^ 18:4, 20; Hab 2:10; Ps 41:5; Prov 8:36;19:2; 20:2. In the context of Lev 4 - 5 , the fact that its synonyms 'adam and 't$ appear along with nepeS seems to imply that the three terms are distinct in sense and not used just for stylistic variations (cp. Lev 5:1 with 5:3, 4 for nepeS and 'adam, Lev 17:10 with 17:11 for nepeS and 'OS). The sense relations between the three terms will be discussed elsewhere, but, at least in the priestly literature, it must be said that it is inappropriate to translate the three terms without paying attention to a nuance that each of them may inherently has. Also it can be observed that nepeS often appears as the object of hata'. See Hab 2:10; Prov 20:2. For the nature of the grammatical relation between nepeS and hata' see 2.1.1 below. Rendtorff has underscored the fact that nepei is associated with the karet penalty in the wake of the failure of so-called cultic regulations. See Rendtorff, noefoeS, 212ff. Although an extensive discussion will be necessary to define the meaning of nepeS, particularly regarding Lev 17:10-11, it seems to the present writer that nepei means 'soul' rather than 'person' in such contexts as Lev 4 - 5 and Lev 17:11a, and that if a nepeS hides himself against the Lord and does not realize his guilt, it/he is lost forever before the Lord.

30

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

certain commandment or the like (OED), i.e., as a heavily conduct-oriented understanding. 21 However, hata.3 appears to refer to what happens in the human heart and mind, rather than to human conduct. 2 2

1.6 The scope of the miswot I. Knohl is of the opinion that the divine prohibitive commandments in Lev 4 are restricted to the cultic/ritual realm. 23 While it is truly questionable whether crimes should be handled in the sanctuary, it must be asked in what relation the term miswot stands over against other terms such as huqqdt and miSpatim. Milgrom, while giving a caution against making a distinction between cultic and ethical commandments, holds the view that the term miswot refers to only religious commandment punishable only by God, and not something handled in the human court, and that each of these terms has its distinct realm of reference and apparently does not overlap. 24 However, the term miswot seems to be a comprehensive term which can include the other two, viz., huqqdt and miSpatim.25 Lev 26:14 says, : n ^ n n l s a r r b a nx ^ n

^

wptfn NVdki

Here, the obedience of the people is explicated by "not doing all these commandments." Obviously, 'all these commandments" refers to all the commandments that have been spoken through Moses till 26:2. Further, the next verse, 26:15, is illuminating;

21

Such a tendency appears to be common both in Judaism and Christianity. Cf. A.

Biichler, Atonement; I. Heinemann, NO!"!, 99-103; S. Lyonnet & L. Sabourin, Redemption; H.A.G. Blocher, Sin, 7 8 2 - 8 3 . 22 Therefore, the recognition of guilt which is expressed by 'diem is not easy. Various factors such as diseases and calamities may well be indicating the presence of hatta't. But the large majority of the cases in the Hebrew Bible show how rare the individual or the people of Israel came to recognize it, and repent of it. 23

I. Knohl, Sanctuary, 138 no. 55, 225-30.

24

Milgrom, Leviticus 1 - 1 6 , 21-26, 230, followed by Budd, Leviticus, 81. In general, commentators have not paid attention to the scope of miswot here. 25 In the Pentateuch the tern miswot occurs in Exod 15:26; 16:28; 20:6; Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:17; 22:31; 26:3, 14, 15; 27:34; Num 15:22, 39, 40; 36:13.

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

31

• 5 0 2 3 bsm DKI l o x n n ^pHa-ONi i : "•rr-n-ng D3"|?n ? ' n t e a - ^ s - n ^ nicyx? i n ! ?? i ? Here the four terms huqqot, miSpatim, miswot and berit appear in an ascending degree of generalization. In this context, at least, miswot clearly includes huqqot and miSpatim, and the b'rit concerns all the miswot. While the occurrence of the noun miswot is limited in Leviticus, the verb siwwah should also be taken into account, for what the Lord siwwah can be taken as miswah. Seen this way, Leviticus would contain a number of miswot; it refers to all the regulations in 6:2-7:35 (see 7:38); ch.8 (see w . 5, 36); ch.9 (see vv. 6, 7); ch. 16 (see v. 34); ch. 17 (see v. 2); ch. 24 (see v. 23). These concern mostly ritual matters, but, in fact, as miswot in 26:14, 15 suggests, all the commandments in the book of Leviticus. Therefore, it is no wonder that in 27:34 the book is concluded by "These are the commandments (miswot) that the Lord commanded {siwwah) to the Israelites through Moses in Mount Sinai." By the miswot this last verse of the book refers not just to the contents of ch. 27 but to all the preceding.26 Distinct from the question what 'all the prohibitive miswot' refer to, but closely related to it, is the general assumption among exegetes that the "sin" in Lev 4 or for the purification offering is light in culpability compared with the cases for the reparation offering. It is generally assumed that the "sin" in Lev 4 is light because it is inadvertent, and this implicit assumption appears to affect the total evaluation of the two offerings, the purification offering and the reparation offering, part of which seems to be reflected in the minimization of the scope of all the prohibitive commandments. At this point, I would like simply to point out some crucial issues relating to the above assumption for discussion in the future. It is true that the "sin" for the reparation offering appears grave in that it concerns the Lord's holy things or the Lord himself. But, despite that, it must be borne in mind that the term Sagag (Sagah) describes the total going astray of a whole person, and that, when the noun Segagah is rendered 'inadvertence,' it qualifies the verb hdta} and by no means it means 'light mistakes or error' as 'unwittingly' tends

26 It is not to say that miswot always incudes huqqim and miSpatim. Rather passages such as Lev 26:15, Num 36:13, Deut 4:40, 26:17, 27:10 suggest that miswot has some specific semantic element on the same level as huqqim and miSpatim. The whole issue on the sense relations between the three terms should be reexamined in a comprehensive way.

32

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

to imply. Here, as we have argued above, the very understanding of hata3 has also affected one's evaluation of the "sin" in Lev 4-5. On the other hand, though the relationship between the rules in Lev 4-5 and the so-called civil law is an important topic to be explored further, it is questionable whether the "sin" that ought to be handled in the court is graver than the "sin" which is dealt with by offering an animal sacrifice. The term 'grave' certainly reflect one's observation of the punishment inflicted on the wrongdoer. But it may not be the case that the "sin" which is grave in human eyes is not always grave in the Lord's eyes. For instance, if a person committed a crime that deserves the karet penalty, that can be hidden from the judiciaries, and the person escapes any penalty. But the cutting off from the people, that is, the people of God, may mean not just expulsion from it, but absolute and eternal. Here arises another important question, that is, the question regarding death. It is not within the scope of the present study to inquire into it. But it should be pointed out that the expiatory ritual concerns the matter of life and death before the Lord, and not physical death. The ritual for the so-called healed leper typically exemplifies this. If a person physically recovers, which means that he gains more life, he is still in need of purification, which assumes that he is still in the domain of death before the Lord. It is, on the other hand, certainly true that this spiritual life and death are closely related to each other, but it seems that the assumption that the ritual deals with physical death, so that the offense leading to the death penalty is gravest of all may not be always true, because the law appears to assume living corpses, as it were. In the following, particularly in chapter 3, an important aspect which is germane to these issues will be shown through the examination ofthe differences between the purification offering and the reparation offering.

1.7 Lev 16 :16, 21 On the Day of the purification offering plays a central part in expiating the "sin" of the whole people, including the priestly house. It has been debated what kind of "sin" the blood ceremony deals with. The central passage is v. 16 which runs; • n r t a r r ^ arryttfapi ^»ofer

nKrpar? c n p r r b y

^ i n ? a n x p & n nyira bnk*? ni?ip_ p i :

Ch. 1 hdta' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

33

The crucial exegetical point is how we should understand the phrase lekol hatto'tam, in particular, how hatta't is related to peSac which appears only in this chapter in Leviticus. While RSV, NRSV and REB translate 'because of their transgressions, all their sins' (RSV, NRSV), "their acts of rebellion, that is, of all their sins" (REB), thus almost equating the peScf 27 and hatta't, JPS's translation 'transgression of the Israelites, whatever their sins' appears to see some force of the preposition l" in lekol. Milgrom translates 'transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins,' understanding peSac to refer to the brazen sins or "the Israel's moral violations."28 Here are questions regarding the meaning of peM and the prepositional phrase I'kol. The meaning of I'kol depends on the meaning of peScf. However, in fact, the meaning of hatta't has not been so clear until now as I have argued above. Now although peSac can be translated 'rebellion,' passages such as Gen 31:36 and 50:17 suggest that it can be committed inadvertently. Moreover, the term so often occurs along with hatta't (Gen 31:36; 50:17; Lev 16:16, 21; Josh 24:19; Isa 43:25; 44:22; 58:1; 59:12; Ezek 21:29; 33:10; Amos 5:12; Mic 1:5, 13; 3:8; 6:7; Ps 25:7; 32:5; 51:5; 59:4; Job 13:23; 34:37: Dan 9:24), that it is reasonable to infer that these two terms describe objectively two distinctive human negative attitudes to God. Here in Lev 16:16, 21 pe$ac is related to hatta't by the preposition f . Grant that more study should be needed for the term peSac, it can be stated safely, according to our finding regarding the meaning of hatta't, that only hatta't is addressed to in Lev 16:16, 21, and that it means 'hiding oneself.' The whole ritual on the day of atonement, therefore, does not deal with the "sin" that the reparation offering deals with. 29 Thus, it can be confirmed that the whole ritual deals with hatta't. Up till now, however, the meaning of the term has been taken as "sin," particularly inadvertent sins. But because of the ambiguity of the English "sin" the debate has not been settled.30 Our new understanding of hatta't indicates that the ritual expiates people's hiding themselves for a year, and that it does not deal with expiation of their outward conduct or its recompensation. 27

On pe$cf see Knierim, Hauptbegriffe, 113-176; H. Seebass, pasac, 791-810.

28

Milgrom, Leviticus 1 - 1 6 , 1034.

29

Here I alter my former view regarding the scope of atonement on the day of atonement, which I expressed in Purification, 187 n.49. 30

42.

Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1034; Averbeck,"123,701-702; Klawans, Impurity, 2 1 -

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

34

Characteristically, in v. 21 the term hipvaddah appears, a point that indicates that the 'hiding oneself is what is dealt with by the blood of the purification offering (cf. Lev 5:5). Further, as mentioned above,wonot in v. 21 means the guilt of the Israelites' hiding themselves, and not of any particular conduct. The guilt and the rebellion that accompanies hatta't are devolved upon the Azazel-goat, and it is sent away into the wilderness. Though a later tradition concerned even what should happen to the goat,31 the point of the ritual seems to lie in that it is not killed, but rather kept alive bearing the guilt and rebellion of the people, that is, the punishment of the people. The goat functions to be the visible evidence that the people has hid themselves for a year. Here on our understanding of the term hatta't the ritual on the day of atonement expiate the people's hiding themselves.

1.8 Num 15:22-29 The section deals with the "sins" of the community and an individual Israelite, and the way of their expiation. The literary and legal relationship between this pericope and Lev 4:1-5:13 has been discussed by some scholars. The major differences are as follows; (1) That Numbers passages deal with only the community's and individual's cases unlike Lev 4 where four cases are dealt with; an anointed priest, the whole congregation, a leader, and an individual. (2) In the Numbers passage, the offering for the community's fault is first the bull burnt offering and then goat purification offering. The bull was offered in Lev 4 for a purification offering. Facing the apparent discrepancies between the two pericopes, Ibn Ezra was of the opinion that the Numbers passage deals with only positive commandments while Leviticus passage deals with negative commandments. While the latter is correct, the former is artificial as the totality of the Lord's commandments is emphasized in Num 15:22-23, 39, 40. Thus, as Milgrom concluded, the Numbers pericope deals with both negative and positive commandments. However, this standpoint contains in itself a challenging element for exegetes, for the following regulations address what appears to be a "sin," whereas the idea is usually precluded by exegetes that a man commits a "sin" with regard to some divine positive commandment.

31

Cf. Porter, Leviticus, 41; D. Hoffmann, Leviticus, 456.

Ch. 1 hata' and hattâ't in Lev 4-5

35

On the other hand, literary dependence of this pericope on Lev 4 is obvious in its terminologies and ideas. As for terminology, the root *sgh and *sgg, and kol hammiswot are common in both pericopes. That the ritual itself is omitted suggests that the Numbers passage assumes Leviticus passage. Regarding the idea in Lev 4:2 that breaking one commandment equals to that of all the prohibitive commandments, it is, in Num 15, further stressed in such a way that all the commandments, not just prohibitive but positive as well, ought to be observed. This is obviously the expansion of the scope of the divine commandment, ending up with a higher standard. Although modern scholars have dealt with the literary relationship between Lev 4 and Num 15 from a source-analytical perspective, it is highly likely that the above literary dependence is simply grounded on a historical reality. All those differences can be explained when we take account of the new situation that these regulations attempt to cope with. Numbers 15 comes after Num 14 where the people's complaint was voiced and the sentence of 40 years's wondering was passed on them. As a new start, these regulations attempt to make the law on hataJ more severe with regard to the people and the individual. The basic principle of Lev 4 is the same in Num 15, but facing the new situation the lawgiver found it necessary to apply the principle to a different situation, which was worse than what Lev 4 envisaged, particularly with regard to the people as a whole and the individual, while the principle regarding the priest and the leader remains the same. Further, prescription on the deliberate "sin" is added in v. 30. It is thus reasonable to infer that the ritual prescription for the "sins" of the whole community and the individual in Lev 4 are practically cancelled and replaced by the one in Num 15. 32 We are concerned to see how observance of the divine commandments are expressed, and how the terms §gh* (*sgg) and hata? are used in this material. Firstly, as mentioned above, vv. 22-23 state that the Israelites are to observe 'all the commandments that the Lord commanded through Moses and this includes not only prohibitive commandments as in Lev 4 but positive ones. Moreover, on closer inspection the emphasis in each pericope is rather 32 This is not to say that the ritual in Lev 4 - 5 lost its significance. The initial will o f the Lord to the Israelites was set out in Lev 4 - 5 , but with the growing manifestations of the people's stubbornness, the scope of the commandments is broadened. Such a development can be compared to the situation that the harder the Pharaoh's heart became, the more numerable the Lord's signs and wonder became; the more stiff-necked he became, the more heavier the Lord's punishment became, which culminated with the killing of the Egyptian firstborns. Cf. also the description o f the history of the Israelites set out in Lev 26.

36

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

different. In Lev 4, as has been argued, infringement of one divine prohibitive commandment equals to that of all the prohibitive commandments. Here, this passage stresses observing all the commandments, including positive commandments without mentioning violation of one of them. It goes without saying that the latter is simply assumed. It seems that such a positive formulation not only assumes the negative formulation in Lev 4, but also it is in accordance with the positive and forward-looking spirit that permeates the chapter. Before the discussion of its legal relationship with Lev 4 we need to contemplate the phrase casah 'et kol hammiswot in v. 22. n'pxn n i m T ^ m

-pi

Except in Num 15, the phrase casah }et (kol) hammiswot (hammiswa) appears in the whole legal part of the Pentateuch only in Lev 4:13, 22, 27; 5:17; 22:31; 26:3, 14, 15, and in these instances casah is interchangeable with Samar (Lev 22:31; 26:3). This meaning of easah is natural because the commandments are both positive and negative. According to our interpretation, the rules in Lev 4 are themselves part of kol hammiswot. And it is probable that the urge to keep all the commandments of the Lord in Lev 26:15 is stated in this sense. This means that even if the whole congregation errs inadvertently and violates any one of the divine prohibitive commandments, as long as they perform the ritual as prescribed in Lev 4, it follows that the congregation has kept the miswdt. Indeed, kol hammiswot includes commandments like the Ten Commandments, and if one breaks any one of them, he is short of observing kol hammiswot . But there is given, in Lev 4, a means of remedy for that, which is also part of kol hammiswot. Thus, kol hammiswot in Num 15:22 is said in a level different from Lev 4:2. The Numbers' pericope stresses observance of all the commandments, including, and based on, Lev 4 which stresses infringement of one prohibitive commandment. Having said this, it is rather self-evident that in Numbers 15 not observing all the commandments means breaking one of them. All this can be shown in the following chart.

37

Ch. 1 hátá' and hattà't in Lev 4-5

Num 15:22-29

Lev 4

Purification ritual hata>

Purification rituals hata 5

Prohibitive commandments

All the commandments

Prohibitive commandments

\ I

/ Positive \ commandments

It should be stressed that kol hammiswot in Num 15:22 includes positive divine commandments while deviation from them is expressed by Sagah and hata\ Either by limiting the sense of miswot to "cultic" regulations, or particularly by construing the sense of hatd' as a conduct-oriented term, exegetes throughout the ages have tended to understand tacitly that not observing the positive commandments does not constitute a "sin" ; it is understood that Sagah and hatS are terms not used in relation to positive commandments. However, this is not true. First, it cannot be gainsaid that the phrase "all the commandments" includes positive commandments, as argued above. Second, the conduct-oriented understanding of hats' such as 'break a divine commandment' or the like has made it difficult for exegetes to ponder the possibility that one hats' in connection with certain divine positive commandment. If hatS means 'hide oneself,' then it is not an infringement or negligence in regard to a certain divine commandment that is at issue, but the fact that a community or an individual hides itself or himself from the Lord is what is at the heart of the legislation. In fact, there is no mention of any concrete act by the community or the individual in this pericope, because whatever the act, it is the intention of the legislator to stress that one becomes totally led astray when the community or the individual does not observe all the divine commandments. As this pericope has positive divine commandments in view, the whole legislation demands a perfect observance of all the commandments; any state short of that indicates that the community or the individual is in the state of hata\ That is why, in the case of the community,

38

Ch. 1 hàtà' and hattà't in Lev 4-5

the offering to be brought to the sanctuary is the burnt offering which symbolizes peoples's dedication as well as the hattà't. In offering a bull burnt offering, the due for the officiating priest is omitted. It is worth having a close look at the formulation of the cases for the community and the individual who hats' at vv. 24-28. Firstly, vv. 24-26 runs as follows; npa~ia i s mi?n _ ! ?D ] T T

I V

~

T "

T

TOUT

T

T

S

T T

!

¡ i n t o r r a n TJJD OK m m

'

T

:

V V

T "

T

•

n n a D-'tjr-pjifeN a s t rs à a iaoii i n m a i mm*? n f n mn*? T V

• •

•

:

T

•

-

:

• :

T

:

•

T

~

•

rhiib

T T

s

T

T V

T

~

:

jon m a c r - o n n b nSoai ^ n t y ^ a n m ? - ^ - ^ i n a n n s m T T

T

T :

•

:

•

mm

-

T

V

:

••

T

:

-

:

• :

••

T

:

•

"

:

-

T

-

I -

-

V

anxesm mm 1 ? n t f x a:i3np-nK w a n

•

T

T

-

:

T

-

V

•

T T

:|T

V

•

••

•

:

•

T T

T :

•

T

:

T

-

•• -

S

••

T

:

•

— :

T :

25

:

am ••

:

: n u e i 3 a r n - W ? "o c a i r n nan n ó i ^ n i ? 1 ^ a n n i r ^ r ò n ^ i TT

24

:

nnx

-

:

•

26

:

It can be observed that hattà't is never used to express the sense "sin." The latter is expressed by S'gagah which occurs three times. The term hattà't is reserved for expressing a 'purification offering' but not used for expressing "sin." Nor does the verb hàtà' appear here. Thus, it is evident that this pericope deliberately avoids using the term hattà't for "sin." This indicates that when the community commits a "sin," it is not considered as their hiding themselves, but as inadvertence (cf. Lev 5:17-19). The same tendency can be found in the next prescription on the expiation for a "sin" of the individual. : nxan'p n n a t r n a rj? n r r n p r n naactfa h b o d n n x E t e r c x i 1

TÒi? nsa- ?s m m ^ a b naattfa natana naa&n tfsan-^» m•• a n- n sv m• : vv ~ v v T

T

••

T

:

••

:

•

T T

:

•

T

S

V

:

I

fib T

V

:

•

-

-

T

T

:

T -

•• -

:

T : V

jmuttfa T I

I

28

n^oi]

a z h m m n n a n n i n o a i n a nan nabi ^ a••nrt:r •'•^ a:a' n n m n V

27

'

29

T

rto'vb V

T

If it is an individual who sins inadvertently, he should present a yearling she-goat as a purification offering, and the priest will make expiation before the Lord for that person, who will then be forgiven. For anyone who sins inadvertently, there must be one law for all, whether native Israelites or resident alien. (REB) It is to be noted that

nepeS3ahat

teh'tà'

biS'gàgàh

in v. 27 is further explicated

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

39

by hannepeS haSSogeget b'het'dh biSegagah. In the phrase b'het'dh, *ht5 should be vocalized as MT or ho fa, as suggested by the BHS margin. If het'ah is the feminine form of het, it is a hapax. But if it is to be read hot'ah, the phrase means 'in her hiding herself.' The meaning of het is usually given 'error, fault.' (HAL) The latter phrase could be translated 'the person (or soul) going astray in his fault inadvertently.' However, what does bi$8egagah modify? It is unlikely that it modifies haSSogeget since that would be redundant syntactically. It seems reasonable to take it as modifying b'het'dh, which means that hefah is a verbal noun of hata'. Thus, we proposes to translate the phrase hannepeS haSSogeget behet'ah bi$egagah 'the nepeS going astray in hiding himself inadvertently.' Though the formulation of v. 27 resembles that of Lev 4:27, a couple of features point that here *sgg is deliberately more emphasized than *hP. The idea of inadvertence is clearly stressed in 'one nepeS that goes astray in his hiding himself inadvertently.' The twice-repeated root §gg emphasizes that though the act is hata' it is inadvertently committed. The order of the words suggests that the legislator's concern about the 'straying soul' outranks his concern about 'hiding oneself (ht5).' In other words, while *sgg in Lev 4 simply describes the nature of "sin," and it is rather subordinated under hata', here it is used personally and directly with nepeS. Thus, in the phrase 'the nepeS that goes astray in hiding himself inadvertently' the idea is stressed that by hiding oneself his whole being goes astray. Further, the last phrase in v.29 'la'dseh biSegdgah' indicates that the idea of inadvertence is more to the fore than *hp in this whole case of the individual's "sin." Indeed, the last phrases of the concluding remarks in v. 26 and v. 29 emphasize that the nature of the "sin" of the community and the individual is inadvertence, while the term hatta't in the sense of "sin" or "hiding oneself' does not appear in both cases. As we will consider the above semantic relationship between *sgg and hata' in connection with the case in Lev 5:17-19 later (chapter 3), S'gagah means 'inadvertence' which is less than 'hiding oneself in terms of culpability. Therefore, it seems that the "sin" here is more leniently evaluated. The reason for the lenient handling of the "sin" is not far to seek. First, this prescription on "sin" is intended to bring into sharp focus the prescription on the deliberate "sin" that follows at v. 30. Second, it is highly likely that with the positive commandments in view, the community will have more occasions to offer the purification offering as they presumably go astray more frequently.

40

Ch. 1 hats' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

With regard to the sacrificial animals for the "sin" of the community and the individual, this has presented to exegetes a riddle because of the order of the mention of the offerings and the allocation of the animals to the two kinds of offerings, the burnt offering and the purification offering: Normally the purification offering is mentioned and offered first, whereas here the order is reverse. Further, a cow is assigned for the purification offering in Lev 4, but here it is assigned for the burnt offering, while a goat is assigned for the purification offering. These features tend to be utilized by scholars to support part of their literary analysis, but as mentioned above, it is possible that the legislator simply changed the law in Lev 4 to conform to the changing situation. Firstly, the assignment of a bull to the burnt offering here suggests that the Lord demands a total dedication of the people first, and that he deems the "sin" as a secondary matter. Though this contradicts ordinary practice and principle, this could be taken as the Lord's concession in view of the observance of all the commandments, positive and negative. Secondly, the Lord's concession is particularly reflected in that a goat, which is assigned for the purification of the "sin" of the leader in Lev 4, is here assigned for a purification offering for the community; for the purification of the community' s "sin" a more inexpensive animal would do. The animal for the "sin" of the individual is a female goat in Num 15, and in this respect there is no difference between Num 15 and Lev 4. But the age of the animal is specified, one year old. It is not clear what this age qualification signifies. However, it should be pointed out that it is found with reference to various occasions such as the eighth day service, the Nazirite vow and so on, which mark 'newness' or 'beginning.' 3 3 1 would like to propose that it signifies dedication of the worshipper, as one year is the youngest, representing a new start. If so, the purification offering for the individual has also the element of the burnt offering, though another animal is not required as in the case of the community.

33

Kiuchi, Purification, 58.

Ch. 1 hätä' and hattä't in Lev 4-5

41

1.9 T h e m e a n i n g o f h a t t e t In the section of the purification offering 4:1-5:13, what a person has done is called hattä't (4:3, 14, 23, 26, 28, 35; 5:6, 10, 13), and this term occurs no more in the section on the reparation offering. Since the verb hätä3 means 'hide oneself (against the Lord)' the noun hattä't must mean something related to it. Presumably it could mean 'hiding oneself.' The question is what the relationship between the two terms is. This question may qualify the meaning of hätä\ As mentioned above, hätä' refers to the entire course of a person beginning with doing or not doing some act till the realization of the guilt. This means that hätä' is ingressive in sense and that the noun hattä't describes the state of hiding oneself. The duration of time assumed for hätä3 indicates that it is not a perfective verb. For though it can be said, "he hid himself," this does not mean that the hiding oneself is completed, but that he entered into the state of hiding himself. The verb is an inchoative one and suggests the continuation of the state of hiding oneself. Then it is easily assumed that the noun form hattä't describes not just the beginning of 'hiding oneself,' but the whole course of the continuation of the state of the person. We propose that it means 'hiding oneself.' A more significant difference between the two terms may be reflected in the fact that while the term hattä't appears in Lev 4 and 5:1-13, it does not for the case of the reparation offering in 5:17-19 where a person is completely unaware of his own act, not to mention that he is unaware of the act constituting a violation of a certain divine prohibitive commandment. Since in the latter the term hattä't does not appear, it may be asked why the legislator did not use the term, and instead stressed the inadvertence (*sgg). To this question we turn in the following discussion. At least, it must be kept in mind that the term hattä't does no bear the connotation of inadvertence, as the four cases in 5:1—4 indicate that they are not ones of inadvertence. With regard to the translation of hattä't for the name of an offering, it may seem necessary to reconsider the name, for if hattä't means 'hiding oneself,' then the sacrifice must be the one that deals with it. We propose that ha.ttä't has something to do with 'uncovering.' Until today it has been assumed that the noun hattä't derives from the Piel hittP which means 'de-sin' or 'purgate.' While the interpretation that hattäH is derived from hitte* may be right, the latter meaning may well have been conjectured from the function of the offering

Ch. 1 hatay and hatta't in Lev 4-5

42

being purificatory. However, the interpretation that hittP has those meanings would become debatable particularly on our proposal that hata? means to 'hide oneself.' In fact, it is more likely that hilts' means to 'uncover,' and that the name of the offering has something to do with uncovering. Traditional derivation: hata3 ('sin')

hitte' ('de-sin, purgate') hatta't (purification/sin offering)

New proposal: hata' ('hide oneself)

hitte' ('uncover')

hatta't (hiding oneself) (uncovering)

However, we set aside further discussion of this for a separate occasion as it needs more extensive treatment on the nature of the sancta, and their relationship with the sacrificial blood. A preliminary survey of the relevant passages will be given in Appendix B . 3 4 For the purpose of this study we use the rendering 'the purification offering.' Ultimately the matter does not much affect the following discussion insofar as the function of hatta't remains to purify the sancta.

1.10 The hatta't offering in other legal contexts It should be reiterated at the outset that the occurrences of the purification offering, hatta't, extend to contexts other than Lev 4:1-5:13, mostly in cleannessuncleanness regulations. Moreover, the number of the occurrences far exceeds the one in Lev 4:1-5:13. This fact indicates that the purification offering in Lev 4:1-5:13 should not be considered as the standard by which to assess other occurrences. 1.10.1 Hatta't for purification, consecration and dedication The possibility that hatta't means 'hiding oneself appears to be enhanced when we turn to other occurrences of the hatta't offering, i.e., in the ordination

34

See Appendix B.

Ch. 1 hata3 and hatta't in Lev 4-5

43

of Aaron and his sons (Lev 8), the eighth-day service (Lev 9), the parturient (Lev 12), the so-called leper (Lev 14), the serious cases of sexual discharges (Lev 15), the Nazirite case (Num 6), the dedication of the altar (Num 7), the cleansing of the Levites (Num 8), and the cleansing of the corpse-contaminated person (Num 19). It is generally agreed that no particular "sin" is envisaged on these occasions, and that the offering deals with uncleanness envisaged in the sancta. While this is admitted, however, no satisfactory or consistent reason for the necessity of the purification offering has been advanced, particularly for uncleanness regulations. First and foremost, it should be noted that while in those cases the noun hatta't does appear, the verb hata' does not, except for the Nazirite case (Num 6:11, see below). This is a point at which the purification offering in Lev 4:1-5:13 differs from the one in the above contexts. We shall examine every case of the purification offering to see if there is any principle common to these cases. In Lev 8 Aaron and his sons are ordained for priests. Hatta't offering is included in the prescribed offerings (vv. 2,14—17), so that they are consecrated. Though some commentators assume the presence of "sin," no explicit mention is made of their "sin." 35 Others assume the presence of uncleanness, and this position divides into two types. One assumes the presence of uncleanness as opposed to sin. The other talks about sin without making distinction between it and uncleanness. 36 However, it appears that this uncleanness, if any, is different from the sort of uncleanness when a person is defiled by touching an unclean object. Thus, it is understandable when Porter assumes in this expiatory ritual a sort of preventive measure against defilement. 3 7 I have argued before that this type of hatta't expiates the sort of sinfulness when a person faces the holy. 38 At any rate, the hatta't offering assumes something, presumably uncleanness. But in that case, the uncleanness is not the sort that is labelled as tame'. How can this be explained? A similar problem is presented in Lev 9 (vv. 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, 22), the so-called eighth day service, and similar explanations as above have been offered to the rationale for the hatta't offering. Here not just the people but Aaron and his sons offer their own hatta't offerings, so that the Lord will 35

Noth, Leviticus, 70; Wenham, Leviticus, 141.

36

R.K. Harrison, Leviticus, 98-99.

37

Porter, Leviticus, 66.

38

Kiuchi, Purification, 5 5 - 5 6 .

44

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

manifest himself (vv. 4, 23). It should be noted at this stage that the hatta't offering plays a central role in bringing near the priests and the people before the Lord, though some uncleanness may be assumed as in Lev 8. When it comes to the cleanness-uncleanness regulations (Lev 11-15), recent exegetes have unanimously assumed uncleanness behind the hatta't offering, while older commentators assumed sin and uncleanness without differentiating them. The cases in question are, a mother who gave birth to a child in Lev 12:6, 8; a person who is healed from serious skin disease in Lev 14:13, 19, 22, 31; males and females who become unclean from abnormal discharges from sexual organs in Lev 15:15, 30. Evidently the presence of uncleanness is the reason why the hatta't offering ought to be brought to the sanctuary. But while the hatta't offering in these cases are not for particular "sins," in the current state of scholarship, it has not been explained why the same hatta't offering is presented both for the serious cases of uncleanness and particular "sins." Hence, a proposal has been made regarding the name of the offering. The hatta't offering, which has been traditionally translated a 'sin offering,' should be reconsidered mainly on the ground that it deals with those cases where no specific violation of the Lord's commandment is at issue. Rather, behind all the cases where the hatta't offering is required there exists uncleanness, therefore it is more reasonable to call the offering the purification offering, taking into account its functional aspect. However, the renaming of the offering has not solved the question of the relationship between the so-called "sin" and uncleanness. It is our proposal that such a situation in scholarship has been brought about, because the English word 'sin' is wide of the true sense of hata' and thus hatta't. In order to reply to the question why the hatta't offering is required in those cases, we should first focus on the fact that in these prescriptions of the hatta't offering, the verb hata' does not appear at all. Is it because those cases for uncleanness are "natural" as has often been described? The term "natural" gives the impression that there is nothing wrong about those cases. Yet the offering of the purification offering suggests something is wrong. A more appropriate rationale for the non-mention of the verb is that in the uncleanness regulations, one is put in the unclean state involuntarily. Indeed, the parturient, the so-called leper, persons suffering from abnormal discharges from sexual organs are all not of their will, rather contrary to their will, sometimes. On the other hand, if those complications are deliberately produced, that is an offense to the Lord, which deserves the karet penalty.

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

45

Therefore, the verb hata' does not appear in uncleanness regulations because a person involuntarily becomes unclean. All these considerations suggest in turn that the verb hats' is of voluntary nature. By 'voluntary' I do not mean 'deliberate' or 'willful' but simply involving the will of an agent, and the consequence of the will is not clear in the sight of the agent. It is not certain how far in the process of hata' one is conscious or unconscious about it. All the above reasoning does not make exceptional the Nazirite case in Num 6:1-21, a case which has been an enigma in terms of the rationale for the hatta't offering. In our connection, we need to explore the meaning of hata' in v. 11 and the rationale for the offering that is to be brought to the priest upon the completion of a Nazirite vow. The holiness of a Nazirite (vv, 5, 8) is no less than the holiness of the high priest; both are not allowed to defile themselves in attending the funeral of his parents (Lev 21:11; Num 6:9). Thus, when someone suddenly dies near him, he defiles the holiness and hata' (Num 6:11). It appears that the defilement was involuntarily caused by the death of his relative, so that the verb hata' demands some explanation, if hata' has a voluntary character in the sense stated above. Hata' in v. 11 is associated with both the hatta't offering and the burnt offering on the one hand, and with the reparation offering on the other (v. 12) which deals with the desecration of the holy thing; in this case, his vow embodied in his hair and abstaining from alcohol. However, it is clear that hata' in v. 11 is related to the hatta't as v. 11 explicitly says; clearly the hatta't offering deals with the corpse contamination. As for the meaning of hata' in v. 11 it has been understood either as an inadvertent sin just like Lev 4:2 (J. Licht, P. Budd) or "erring" (Milgrom).39 Can this hata', however, match the concept of sgh (sgg)? For the Nazirite has indeed broken the prohibitive commandment that he ought not to have contact with the death. Yet the sudden and uncontrollable nature of the death of a man is unlike the idea of inadvertence; the Nazirite clearly recognizes the cause of his hata'. It should be noted that in his vow to the Lord he involved his family and abstaining from any contact with death (v.7). Thus, though the defilement itself was accidental, he would have to bear the consequences since avoiding death is already part of his vow. In this sense, the fact that the Nazirite hata' has a voluntaiy character. Another question is why the Nazirite's defilement is here called hata'.

39

J. Licht, Numbers I - X , 91; P. Budd, Numbers, 72; Milgrom, Leviticus 1 - 1 6 , 229.

46

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

Ordinarily hata' is never associated with corpse contamination. There could be no other reason than that the Nazirite is in the holy state; because the holiness was defiled, that constitutes hata.'. One may posit in general that the desecration of holiness constitutes hata3, but why? Is it because that is more serious than simple defilement of lay people? Certainly, it is. But what does "serious" mean? Traditionally, the "sin" has been considered as something beyond uncleanness but on the same level, so that it is assumed that light defilement causes uncleanness while serious one brings a "sin." But on no occasion was a serious case of uncleanness ever called hata'; cf. a mother who gave birth to a child, a so-called leper, and people suffering from abnormal discharges from the genitals, but they were required to bring the hatta't offering. It can be concluded then that when an unclean person has a contact with holiness, which is desecration, that constitutes hata3. Hata' is a term which appears in those cases when God's holiness is violated in some way, through the violation of his positive and negative commandment or breaking of faith with him as in mafal cases. When the cases are not directly related to the divinity, they are not called hata', but simply 'unclean.' When the Nazirite fulfills his vow, he also presents to the Lord a hatta't offering along with a burnt offering, a peace offering, and a reparation offering (Num 6:14). While the ritual is legitimate, the fact that it is a ritual of desecration remains. Thus, though the Nazirite neither hata', nor becomes defiled, he still needs to present a hatta't offering. Does the going back to the secular realm mean becoming unclean? Or is the hatta't offering functioning as a preventive measure or just an embellishment (Licht)? 40 This offering is not for any prior defilement of the Nazirite, but for the very withdrawal from the holy realm. Therefore the assumption of the presence of antecedent uncleanness fails in this case. It seems that the offering deals with the very process of desecration. However, if the desecration is mainly handled by the reparation offering, what is the function of the hatta't offering? Our proposal is that leaving the holy state means hiding oneself from the Lord, and for this a hatta't offering is required. Now with the above interpretation of the hatta't offering inNazirite's case we may be able to explain better the rationale for the hatta't offering in Lev 8 and 9. On the ordination of Aaron and his sons the offering was presented,

40

Licht, Numbers I - X , 86.

Ch. 1 hätä' and hattä't in Lev 4-5

47

because in approaching the holy they are deemed as hiding themselves before the Lord. Indeed, the term hata' does not appear as in the case of the Nazirite upon completion of his/her vow, but naturally so, because Aaron and his sons did not hid themselves voluntarily, and the ritual as a whole is a legitimate one commanded by the Lord. The hatta't offering in Lev 9 can be similarly understood, but in this case, the function of the offering, is clearer. The hatta't offering functions to bring the priests and the people before the Lord. At the end of the ceremony the Lord appeared by burning the sacrifices on the altar (Lev 9:24). This means that the offering has the role of uncovering them before the Lord. In other words, priests and the people are assumed to be in hiding before the Lord. Thus, surveying all the instances of the hatta't offering, they all concord with the idea that the person who offers the hatta't offering is assumed to be hiding himself/herself from the Lord. When a person hides himself/herself by having contact with the divinity, that is, infringing a divine commandment, both negative and positive, the term hata' appears in the prescription. But it is obvious that hiding oneself is not restricted to hata' cases (Lev 4—5; Num 6:11), but is assumed in far more cases, even in "natural" uncleanness. All those people who offer the sacrifice are similar in that they are out of the presence of the Lord. The purification offering is required for the cases in which an unclean person is away from the sanctuary for an extended period of time; the parturient, a month or more, the so-called leper as well as the man and woman suffering from serious discharges from sexual organs for apresumably long time. This is because those cases are deemed serious ones. If not serious, one is just to cleanse himself/herself and waits until evening, for instance. Thus, the connection between the purification offering and the idea of uncleanness is inevitable. However, we cannot explore this question further because it requires an extensive discussion about uncleanness. 41 What is clear is that our proposal for the meaning of hata' being to 'hide oneself and the noun meaning 'hiding oneself finds more support in this area where no specific act of "sin" is envisaged. Until now the hatta't offering has been explained in such a way that it deals with "sin" and uncleanness. However, while the English term "sin" is not suitable for hatta't, as we contend, the state of hiding oneself offers a most natural and fitting sense to the term hatta't in such contexts. For all the people

41

Cf. Kiuchi, Paradox, 505-514. See Appendix A.

48

Ch. 1 hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

who are to offer the hatta't offering do so because they were debarred from approaching the sanctuary for an extended period of time. They are under the lack of the presence of the Lord, so it was fitting for them to express the fact before the Lord at the sanctuary. A-mora\ character of such cases of the hatta't offering has been felt at odds with the idea of ethical "sin" in Lev 4-5, but it was, in fact, only natural because the offering itself expresses inherently something more than or other than, the ethical; it denotes hiding oneself, and in those cases hiding oneself from the Lord. If hatta't were translated "sin" or "sin-offering," then the offering would expiated both the "sin" and uncleanness. However, if it is translated 'hiding oneself,' then the offering is to expiate the hiding oneself both in breaking a divine prohibitive and positive commandment and in becoming unclean. Such an explanation of the hata' and hatta't has a far-reaching implication as to the state of humans before the Lord. As the consecration ritual in Lev 8 and desecration ritual in Num 6 suggest, the human is, as he is, under the lack of the presence of the Lord. If there is no contact with the holy, a person is always in danger of hiding himself/herself as the cleanness/uncleanness regulations indicate. This means that the clean state is just temporary or tentative in nature in front of the holy. It is not a stable state before the Lord; as a matter of fact, all the humans are unclean being under the lack of the presence of the Lord. When this situation is seen together with the demand of the perfect observance of both positive and negative divine commandments, about which Lev 4 and Num 15 regulate, the inference seems to be inevitable that humans are in the abyss of hopelessness, despite various expiatory means to bridge the gap. 1.10.2 Lev 19:20-22 The case of a betrothed slave-girl This case deals with a case in which a man has sexual intercourse with a betrothed slave girl. A difficult question regarding the meaning of biqqoret in v. 20 has been recently elucidated by B. Schwartz that it means "distinction, differentiation" as with the bqr Pi. in Lev 27:33.42 Our question centers around why the man, not being put to death, is required to bring the reparation 42

B. Schwartz, Slave-girl, 241-55; Metaphor, 150 no. 3,4; Holiness, 332-35. In these works, Schwartz does not enter into a discussion on the difference between het and hatta't. SeeDERS, Holiness, 335-37. Cf. also Schenker, Aniasse, 58-59.

49

Ch. 1 hatd' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

offering for the hatta't that he hats' (v.22). This question was not raised by Schwartz, but it is puzzling in that the categories of the purification offering and the reparation offering appear to be blurred here. But do they really so? It is understandable that the man ought to bring the reparation offering, but why his offense is said to be hatta't"? Exegetes have paid no attention to this fact because the clear distinction between hatta't and 'aSam in Lev 4-5 is not taken into account, and particularly that hatta't never appears in connection with the reparation offering in Lev 5:14-26. A key to the question seems to lie in the fact that this case is not dealt with in Lev 4-5. On the one hand, the apparent adultery is not the theme of Lev 4—5; it is close to the cases mentioned in Lev 18, but, on the other hand, it is clear that the man has hid himself from the Lord through the act. Thus, while the reparation offering is required because of the case being close to adultery, the degree of hiding himself is higher than the three cases of the reparation offering in Lev 5:14-26 in that his act was not a direct affront to the divinity. In other words, the nature of the case is a borderline case, and it is called hatta't because of the indirect nature of the illicit case. 1.10.3 Num 5:5-8 The reparation offering for an inter-human case This rule is one for the reparation offering (v.7), but evidently its concern is directed to the maintenance of the community, which is suggested by hatta't ha'adam (v.6, see below) and the supplementary rule in v. 8 that in the case when no redeemer is found, the reparation for the wrong is to go for the officiating priest. V. 6 appears, however, at odds with our definition of hatta't in that if the offense is hatta't, the purification offering is expected.

:xinn etoan nami mrra bun btinb cnxn nx'tarr^a ww •

-

V V -

T

:

T

:

T

-

-

-

S

*

T T

T

-

T

•

-

^

An exegetical question is how to understand the phrase hattd't ha'adam. The genitive-construct chain in this case should be taken "hatto't against humans." This is not a case of hatta't to the Lord, at least, in a primary sense, though the following phrase linfol macal baYHWH precedes the offense against the fellow Israelites. The whole sentence can be translated, 'when hatta't against humans is done by committing a breach of faith against the Lord, and that person realizes his guilt.' The case envisaged is virtually the same as in Lev

50

Ch. I hata' and hatta't in Lev 4-5

5:21-26. The fraud with a lie is here described as hatta't against humans. Consequently, hatta't in v. 7 can be taken in the same sense. For the traditional understanding of hatta't, by which the term is translated 'sin,' hatta't in'hatta't against humans' has tended to be taken as 'sins to the Lord.' But it is important to remember that a person can hats' not just to the Lord but to humans (e.g., Gen 40:1; 43:9; 44:32). Thus, the remedy for the wrong to the neighbor (v. 7) is done as though he is the Lord. In fact, the regulation stresses the inseparableness between reconciliation with the neighbor, and that with the Lord, a point which was stressed in Lev 5:21-26, but here in a reverse way, from the human side to the divine side.

Chapter 2

The meanings of hatcP and outside legal contexts

hatta't

The question is how far these meanings of hats' and hatta't are distinctive for the so-called priestly writings. Space does not allow us to examine closely all the cases where hata3 or hatta't occurs, but it seems possible to demonstrate to some extent that the idea of 'hiding oneself is what is denoted by hata3. We shall survey significant passages below from the viewpoints of the same semantic features that are found in Lev 4-5. 1. Related terms in the contexts in which hata3 occurs. In particular a search will be made for its synonyms and antonyms. 2. An examination will be made to see if the terms hata3 and hatta't denote more than or other than a violation of one commandment, i.e., just 'doing' or 'not doing' some wrong. 3. An examination will be made to see if the person who hata3 does know his own act but is unconscious that it is a violation of the law.

2.1 A reexamination of the meaning 'to miss' for hata3 A survey of the occurrences of nearly 200 times of hp Qal shows that the verb appears without a direct object in the large majority of the cases which are frequently followed by prepositions such as le and be. When it takes le, it is almost always YHWH that follows it; if not, persons follow after le. Therefore the meaning of hata3 is obviously intransitive, as it has been translated 'sin' except for the case in Judg 20:16 (Hiph.) where it means 'to miss.' There are, however, some cases in which the traditional rendering 'sin' has not been felt suitable for the contexts and translated by a transitive meaning such as 'forfeit' or 'miss.'; they are Job 5:24; Prov 8:36; 19:2.' BDB (306-307) adds Prov 20:2, Hab 2:10 as dubious cases in which the phrase hote3 napSo appears. However, it must be admitted that the material sense 'to miss' is 1

Cf. K. Koch, NOP!, 859-60; Knierim, Hauptbegriffe, 56; HAL I, 292-93; DCH, III,

194; R.E. Averbeck, KBit, 8 7 - 8 8 .

52

Ch. 2 hata' and hatta't outside legal contexts

found only in Judg 20:16 and it is in the Hiphil form. Moreover, is it not methodologically inappropriate for exegetes to see the meaning as the basic meaning of hata3 and to be prompted to see it in other occurrences of hata On the other hand, the problem with the Qal form meaning to 'miss' is that, as BDB shows, it lacks its objects and therefore they must be supplemented from the context. It appears that the meaning 'to miss' for hp Qal was inferred partly because of the one instance in Judg 20:16 where *hP means to 'miss,' and partly because of the opaqueness of the English term 'sin.' It seems necessary to see if ht3 Qal in the above-cited passages really requires such a meaning. Job 5:24

:N£2nn T

V: V

S

I :T

mp31 ^ n a T

-

T

I V

T:

T

T

nyTI

•

T

S

~ T

:

The clause w'ld3 teheta3 is rendered differently in versions; 'and miss nothing'(RSV, NRSV, ESV), 'and find nothing missing' (NIV), '[When you visit your wife] you will never fail.'(JPSV), 'and fear no loss' (NASB), 'and find nothing amiss' (NEB, REB). The meaning 'to miss' may have been required mainly because of the immediately preceding upaqadta naweka. e 3 3 However, it is possible to see in w ld teh'ta the culmination of Eliphaz' delineation of a righteous man, that he "sins" not. Note the sequence of the verbs delineating Job's potential situations; tehabe3, Id* tira3 (v.21), 3al tiro' (v.22), insinuating subtly the potential that Job sinned. Furthermore, given that hata3 means to 'hide oneself,' here is a double semantic echo; hb 5 Niph. ('you will be hidden' in tangible sense) versus hata3('you will not hide yourself), and yare3 versus hata3 (for the latter see below). 2 Prov 8:35-36 appears to present a significant word pair which points to the meaning of hata3 we propose. • " n [kjsd] •'«afc •'rcsfc ^ rnrra p?aTi o p n •'Ktprn : m o inrtK V T

T

-

: -

:

T

2 Tentatively see Exod 20:20 for the idea that fear (yare') of God prevents a man from sinning (hats', hiding oneself).

Ch. 2 hata' and hatta't outside legal contexts

53

RSV, NRSV and JPSV render it "he who misses me," while NASB gives 'he who sins against me.' NIV and ESV render, 'whoever fails to find me,' and 'he who fails to find me' respectively. It appears that m o f i is antithetically parallel to hotf and that the first person pronominal suffix of mos^i is objective case, and this appears to have led the versional translations. 3 The question is whether it is correct to take the pronominal suffix of hdft in the same way. This need not be. It is equally possible to take the suffix as an dative case on the assumption that hata? is intransitive, meaning to 'sin' or better 'hide oneself; 'whoever hides oneself to [against] me.' However, hofi is synonymous with m'san'ay, and, at any rate, this requires the meaning of hotP to be religious. At least, it is not necessary to deduce from this passage that hata,> here means to 'miss.' Prov 19:2 is another passage which has been taken to support the sense of 'to miss' along with the above Prov 8:35-36 and Job 5:24.

The first line poses a syntactic problem in that nepeS comes after beld} J da at. It is difficult to take nepeS as the subject of /o tob, as NRSV translates, since nepeS is a feminine noun. Rather it may be that b'ld' dcfat is placed before nepeS for emphasis; the addition of nepeS can be taken as meaning 'in terms of nepeS,' so the whole line can be translated, 'That the soul has no knowledge "is not good.' (Cf. Prov 16:29; 17:26; 18:5; 20:23; 25:27; 28:21). 'Knowledge' here is unlikely to be simply knowledge but the knowledge of the God, virtually godly wisdom. Then a person without knowledge of God appears to be described as hdteJ in the second line. Here again almost all versions adopt the sense 'to miss' for hdte\ Only the NASB translates "he who makes haste with his feet errs." For instance, the NRSV renders "and one who moves too hurriedly misses the way." Here 'the way' is supplemented. Then is it not possible to translate 'a sinner makes haste with his feet.'? If hotP means 'he who hides himself,' then the line pictures a humorous scene in that he purposelessly makes haste while he hides himself from the Lord. c

3 Knierim, [Hauptbegriffe, 56] deduces the meaning 'sich verfehlen' as the basic meaning of hata' from this passage, observing that here hata' is antithetical to mas a'.

54

Ch. 2 hatâ1 and hatta't outside legal contexts

Prov 20:2 and Hab 2:10 are similar in that the phrase hôte' napSeka [napSo] appears. The phrase is translated 'forfeit one's life' or the like (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, JPSV['risks']). Prov 20:2 :

T a ? ? on: Nïïin i - o ç n p

The second line is usually translated "whoever provokes him to anger forfeits his life" (ESV) or the like. That is, mifabber is taken as a transitive verb. However, it is evidently intransitive, so that mifabb'rô should be taken to mean not 'his raging' but 'he who rages against him.' The pronominal suffix in mifabbero is in a dative case. Then, is it necessary to take hôtP here as transitive meaning 'to miss' or 'to forfeit'? That seems unnecessary if we take napSo as an dative case, meaning 'to [against] his life.' Then, it follows that the phrase means 'whoever rages against him sins against his life' or better 'Whoever rages against him [king] hides himself against his life.' The same expression in Hab 2:10 can be taken similarly. KUirn D 1 ?! t r r s i r r r à j ? 'T!D',3Î? ns?3 n^j;; Syntactically it seems correct to take the agent of hôte3 being the same as the subject of yâ'âstâ at the beginning of the verse. Here again the question arises if hôte3 is a transitive or intransitive verb. Almost all the versions take it as transitive and translate, 'you have forfeited your life' or the like (cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NEB, REB) while JPSV translates 'And guilt for yourself and NASB 'So you are sinning against yourself.' While these translations may be right as to the general meaning of hôte* napSekâ, it would be questionable if it is right when they claim that hôte3 lexically means 'forfeit,' for the understanding appears to stem from failing to discern the semantic relation between hôtiP and napSekd. As in Prov 20:2 the relation is an oblique one, and the whole clause should be translated, 'and sinning [hiding yourself] to your life.' Having surveyed Hab 2:10, Prov 8:35-36, 19:2, 20:2 it could be observed that hôte5 is often collocated with nepeS, and it is likely that hôte3 nepeS is a set phrase. In this light, only in Prov 19:2 are the two words separated over the two lines, a fact which indicates that hôtP is intransitive. The idea of 'hiding oneself against one's own nepe$ deserves attention, for

Ch. 2 hata> and hatta't outside legal

55

contexts

this means, as Prov 8:36, Prov 20:2 and Hab 2:10 suggest, that when a person hides himself against God he simultaneously hides himself against his own nepeS. It is not that a person hata' and then receives some punishment, but that the hata3 itself constitutes punishment. Lastly, *ht° in Isa 65:20b is taken by most versions as meaning 'fall short of,' or 'fail to reach'(IPSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NEB, Luther) taking it as a transitive verb. :^jr

n x o - ] ! KBinm r r a ;

nyjD

The context is the new heaven and the new earth, but the scene is described metaphorically using the common human experience. V. 20b as a whole describes things in the new Jerusalem which are impossible for humanity on this earth. For the understanding of the latter half of v. 20b w'hahote' ff., the idea should be recalled that the wicked die after half of his destined life (Jer 17:11; Ps 55: 24). More importantly, insofar as the lad dies, he is a sinner, as Ezek 18:4 shows. So not only is it impossible for common human experience that the sinner lives up to hundred years, but it is also impossible that the lad dies at the age of hundred. A hundred years old is young by the standard of new Jerusalem. There seems to be nothing to hinder from translating hahotP 'the sinner' or 'one who hides himself.' Moreover the meaning 'fall short of, fail to reach' appears to deviate from the meaning of 'miss, forfeit' which is proposed for other passages. Therefore, it can be concluded that here too *ht3 means to 'hide oneself.' The above survey of the passages which have been advanced as pointing to the meaning of 'to miss, forfeit' for hata> shows that the interpretation lacks sufficient grounds. In all the passages there is no necessity that it be translated 'to miss, forfeit' taking hata3 as a transitive verb. Therefore we conclude that such a meaning is not found in hp Qal but only in the Hiphil form and just once, in Judges 20:16.

56

Ch. 2 hata1 and hatta't outside legal

contexts

2.2 An overview of the related terms of hataJ and hatta't Given the possibility that hata' means ' hide oneself and hatta't means ' hiding oneself,' it will be seen below that they occur in the rest of the Bible in an even more significant way than they have been handled hitherto. In terms of the aspect the verb exhibits the same feature mentioned above, that it has an incipient or inchoative sense suggesting a continuation of the state of 'hiding oneself.' For passages which highlight the ingressive sense of hats', see Gen 20:6; 39:9; 40:1; 42:22; Exod 9:34; I Sam 19:5, and for the duration of the state of 'hiding oneself,' see Gen 43:9; 44:32; Jer 3:25; 44:32; Hos 10:9. In Lev 4-5 we have observed that hatta't appears only for the purification offering and not for the reparation offering, and that it frequently functions as an internal object of hata'. Hence we inferred that in this context it means 'hiding oneself.' We have also observed that hatta't does not connote the idea of inadvertence in 5:1-4, but the cases are called hatta't (5: 6,7,10). Thus, the conclusion in regard to the meaning of hatta't in Lev 4-5 is that the term simply means 'the state of hiding oneself.' We shall examine below how far this inference can be justified in the rest of the Hebrew Bible from the same viewpoints that we had above regarding hata'. In what follows we shall discuss hata' and hatta't separately; first, by listing the related terms and giving general observations, and then arguing that those terms describe not concrete acts but the whole existence of a person, and that the person in question does not know, at least fully, what he is doing in relation to God or his commandment. 2.2.1 Related terms of hata' Related terms of hata' which representative dictionaries give are just insufficient and overlap with our survey below only partially. 4 As in the priestly literature, so in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, hata' appears along with macal (Ezek 14:13; 18:24) and paiaf/peScf (I Sam 24:12; I Kings 8:50; Isa 43:27; Jer 33:8; Ezek 33:12; 37:23; Job 8:4; 35:6 cf. also Isa 1:28; Ps 51:15). As in Lev 4:13, the pair of hata' and sgh Qal/Hiph. occurs also in I Sam 26:21; Ps 119:10-11. Also rsc Qal/Hiph. appears along with

4

Cf. DCH III, 195-96; Koch, NOT, 857-70; Knierim, NO!"!, 5 4 1 - 4 9 .

Ch. 2 hata' and hatta't outside legal contexts

57

hats' in Exod 9:27; I Kings 8:47; Ps 39:2; 106:6; Dan 9:5, 15; II Chr 6:37. The pair of raW and hoteh/hattS' is frequent and occurs in Ps 1:1, 5; 104:35; Prov 11:31. Lastly, hata' is followed by c wh Qal/Hiph. in II Sam 24:17; I Kings 8:47; Ps 106:6; Job 33:27; Dan 9:5; II Chr 6:37. The sequence of hats', c wh Qal/Hiph., rsc Qal/Hiph. (I Kings 8:47; Ps 106:6; Dan 9:5; II Chr 6:37) suggests that these terms describe the same act from three different angles. Also to be added is the close but distinct meaning of r" Qal/Hiph. The case in question appears in I Sam 26:21; II Kings 21:11; Isa 1:4; I Chr 21:17. From Ezek 3:21; 18:20, 24; 33:12; Eccl 7:20 it follows that the righteous {saddiq) is a person who does not hata*. Indeed, hattS'lhotP forms an antonymic relation to saddiq in Ps l:5;Prov 11:31; 13:21,22. The pair with cawon is frequent; it occurs not just in the priestly material (Lev 5:1, 17) but throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible; II Sam 24:10; Isa 1:4; Jer 14:7,20; 16:10; 33:8; Ezek 18:20; Job 10:14; Lam 5:7; I Chr 21:8. Hata? brings with it the guilt for which a man deserves death. Hats' appears in a few passages in which foolishness is said to be the cause of it. They are Num 12:11 ( n o ' a l n u ) , I Sam 26:21 ( h i s k a l t i , 'eSgeh), II Sam 24:10 [I Chr 21:8] ( n i s k a l t i ) . These occurrences suggest that hata' is the matter of the whole existence of a person (see below). Hata' exhibits a few but significant antonymic relations; with yare' in terms of the Lord, which are found in Exod 9:27, 30, 34; 20:20; Num 12:8, 11; I Sam 15:24; II Kings 17:7; Job 2:3, 10; Eccl 8:12; Neh 6:13, with *swb in I Kings 8:33, 35, 47 (ICh 6:24, 26, 37; 7:14), Isa 44:22; Ezek 3:20; 18:21; 33: 12, 14, with *3mn Hiph. in Num 14:11, 40; Deut 1:32, 41; 9:23; II Kings 17:7+14; Ps 78:32; 106:6, 12, 24, with bstah in Hos 10:9, 13; Ps 4:5, 6; 78:22 (32). These antonymic relations will be discussed below in 2.3.1. Though not synonymous or antonymous, hata' appears to be closely related to leb of the people. Passages such as Exod 9:34, II Sam 24:10,1 Kings 8:47, Ps 119:11, Prov 23:27 suggest that human heart is the center of hata'. These and more relevant passages will be discussed below. However, once we assume that hata' means 'hide oneself a group of far more closely related terms emerge. Thus, the following passages can be elucidated more meaningfully than before on this assumption. With regard to *spn, we have the following passages. Ps 119:11

58

Ch. 2 häta' and hatta't outside legal contexts

Prov 13:22

: «Din b^n p'ns'? j ^ i ••urn:}? 'rra;: raico

Hats' is also related to *str. The divine hiding of face (histir partim) which suggests wrath is paralleled to human hätä3 in Isa 64:4, 6.5 Since the phrase is restricted in use to God as the subject, it may form an antonymic relation to häta* whose subject is always humans. Further occurrences of the pair hätä7*str are found in Jer 16:10,17; 33:5,8. One would wonder if this is because hätä' means 'to hide oneself.' It could be assumed in all these cases that a person or the people who hätä3 do know his/their own act but do not know its relevance to the Lord's commandments (I Sam 2:17, 19; 14:38), hence some queries exist about the content of the 'hiding'; Gen 31:36; I Sam 14:38; 20:1; Jer 16:10; Job 13:23. Particularly Jeremiah's question to the people of Judah at the time of the exile shows that they did not know that they had abandoned their Lord, hence, the reason for the disaster (Jer 16:10, cf. 2:35; 44:15-23). Their heart is described as S'rirut leb, which has been translated either "the stubbornness of heart," or "willfulness ofheart."(Jer3:17; 7:24;9:13;11:8;13:10; 16:12;18:12;23:17). Here it is clear that the process of hätä3 transpires in one's heart. Do not the following passages make more sense if we assume that hätä3 means to 'hide oneself?

Job 10:13 10:14

nrir 1 ? --riirr "TI??!?3 ttjs:* n ^ i .).. _ .

•otoai ^mttttfi TiKarrDK .

..

.

T

. -

.

.

T T

Until v.13 Job has uttered bitter complaints on the all-penetrating eyes of God on him and, particularly on the secret of Job's creation with the awareness of his own hattä3t(v.6). At v. 13 Job concludes his complaints by saying that God conceals all those things. The occurrence of säpan in v. 13 is significant if it is contrasted with v. 14 where Job says 3im hätä3ti. Job seems to be saying that while God can hide the secrets of Job's creation, he cannot hide himself, and even if he does, God guards him and would not let his guilt go unpunished. The clause Hm hätä3ti uSemartärii does not talk about committing a particular sin, but about hiding of his whole existence from God.

5

Cf. S.E. Balentine, Hidden.

Ch. 2 hata' and hatta't outside legal contexts 2.2.2

Related

terms of

59

hatta't

Other terms related to hatta't also corroborate with the above observations in 2.2 & 2.2.1 Thus, it occurs as the direct object of verbs such as hats' (I Kings 14:16, 22; 15:30; 16:13, 19; II Kings 21:17; Jer 16:10; Ezek 18:24; 33:16; Neh 1:6), casah (Deut 9:21; I Kings 15:3;16:19;17:22; Ezek 18:14, 21), hitwadddh (Num 5:7; Ps 32:5; Dan 9:20, with cal Neh 1:6; 9:2), ydc Hiph. (Ps 32:5; Job 13:23), ksh Pi., (Ps 85:3), mdhah (Isa 44:22; Jer 18:23; cf also Exod 32:32), zdkar (Isa 43:25; Ps 25:7; Jer 31:34 with 1% paqad (Exod 32:34; Jer 14:10; Hos 8:13; 9:9), glh Pi. (Lam 4:22 with cal). Verbs whose agents are hatta't include masa' (Num 32:23), mhh Niph. (Ps 109:14; Neh 3:37), zkr Niph. (Ezek 33:16), r>h Niph. (Ezek 21:29), spn Qal passive (Hos 13:12),str Hiph. (Isa 59:2). Some comments are in order regarding the occurrences of hatta't. Do not some of the above related terms such as hitwaddah, ydc Hiph., ksh Pi., glh Pi., r3h Niph., spn Qal passive, str Hiph. suggest that they are used just because hatta't means 'hiding oneself'? Other occurrences talk about the punitive side of hatta't, or forgiveness. Hatta't occurs along with the following nouns which are apparently synonymous; peSac (Gen 31:36; 50:17; Josh 24:19; Isa 43:25; 44:22; 58:1; 59:12; Ezek 21:29; 33:10; Amos 5:12;Micah 1:5, 13; 3:8; 6:7; Ps 25:7; 32:5; 51:5; 59:4; Job 13:23; Dan 9:24), alb in.

It should be noted first that according to our proposal, mehatta'ti in v. 4 means 'from my hiding myself.' Thus, the psalmist's plea to 'purify from my hiding myself means essentially to 'uncover my hiding myself.' It seems that this idea is expressed by fhatt^eni in v. 9. Moreover, the language of v. 9 clearly alludes to the ritual for the person healed from sarcfat or the house free from it (Lev 14:49. Cf. 14:4-8). The expression miSMeg ('more than snow') seems to presume one of salient features of saracat, i.e., whiteness.6 Since the person who is now healed has been hiding himself from the presence of the Lord, the purification that he is to go through lies in uncovering him before the Lord. Later in the Psalm the result of the purification is expressed by 'a broken spirit' and 'a broken and contrite heart' (v. 19). Lastly, II Chr 29:24 presents us a challenge to reconsider the meaning of hittP.

•o b K - i f r - b s - b u 1 2 3 ^ nnarran a r a T n a w a r n t r i - o n mcsnizH •

••

T

:

•

T

-

••

-

:

T

••

: •

-

T

T

V

:

~

T"

: nxcsnm n b i y n " ^ a n T

-

-

:

T

T

I ••• V

-

•

~

-m -

R

••

T

T

:

•

S

T

:

This is the only place in the whole Hebrew Bible where hitte' takes 'blood' as its direct object. The idea that the blood is unclean appears unthinkable, while 3et clearly indicates the direct object. Thus, to translate wayehatte>u }et damam hammizbehah "performed the purgation rite with the blood" (JPSV), "made a sin offering with the blood" (RSV, NRSV), "presented their blood on the altar for a sin offering" (NIV) is inappropriate. NIV is unlikely since the previous verse has already mentioned that the hatta't is to be presented. The only possibility should be sought in the direction that hittP is a transitive verb and at the same time close in sense to 'purify' and 'cleanse' but distinct from them. For those such as M. Paran who assume that hittP means to 'purge,' the

5 6

For the structure of w . 3-9 see Auffret, saggesse, 248-52. Kiuchi, Paradox, 507-508.

Appendix B

113

inference would be inevitable that with the passage of time the author's use of the term has already become inexact compared with the precise use in the priestly literature. 7 However, if it is unlikely that the term has not such a meaning as 'purge,' then the whole issue on the meaning of hitte3 must be reconsidered. The overall picture regarding hitte3 is that its objects are a would-be altar, defiled altar or sanctuary, an offering, the animal blood, and unclean persons, while its agents are Moses, the officiating priest, a clean person, and the Lord, and that in some cases the term refers to the handling of blood of the purification offering. The objects of the act of hitte3 can be classified as follows, and they deserve close scrutiny. The objects of hitte3 A. an animal for the hattaH offering (Exod 29:36; Lev 6:19; 9:15) B. (1) the would-be altar (Lev 8:15; Ezek 43:20, 22 2 , 23) (2) the defiled sanctuary (Ezek 45:18) C. a house which was formerly afflicted by saracat but is no longer (Lev 14:49, 52) D. an unclean person (Num 19:19) a psalmist (Ps 51:9) E. the blood of the hattaH offering (II Chr 29:24) First of all it can be inferred from the above observation of the relevant passages that the translation 'to offer the sin offering' is unlikely the meaning of hitte0 in Exod 29:36 and Lev 9:15. See also Ezek 43:20, 22. Moreover, such a translation must overcome the difficulty that in passages such as Exod 29:36 and Lev 9:15 the direct object is the animal ('bull' 'goat') as opposed to 'hattaH'' in Lev 6:19. Ultimately this difference is immaterial but it tells against the translation 'to offer the sin offering' or 'to perform a purification rite,' for these translations are just inexact. We would have to envisage the situation that the object of hitte3 in Exod 29:36 and Lev 9:15 is an animal, rather than hatta3t. If the translation 'to offer the sin offering' must be discarded, the translation adopted for cases other than A, that is, 'purge,' may also have to be questioned, because the latter stands on the assumption that hitte3 cannot

7

Paran, Forms, 251-52.

114

Appendix B

have objects such as an animal for the hattaH offering or its blood, but in fact, it is possible that it can, as we argue below. Second, it can be observed that the term hittP refers to the effect of .the blood manipulation. This is suggested in Exod 29:36 and Lev 6:19, and can be confirmed in Lev 8:15, 9:15, and Ezek 43:20. The dismissal of the sense 'to offer the sin offering' or the like leaves the alternative 'to purge' or 'de-sin,' but it involves the total reconsideration of the term, hence the role of the hatta't offering, because the term then takes objects such as the hatt&t offering, which are assumed to be holy. However, let us examine if the rendering 'to purge' goes well with all the cases. In B (2) and D it is certainly simple to assume the presence of uncleanness, but in the rest it is not so simple. Clearly, except for A and E, the term hittP refers to the processes from the unclean to the clean, and from the common to the holy. For such contexts the question should be asked: How should one translate the processes B, C, D, by the term 'purify' or 'purge'? In D it is clear that hittP differs from taker; the former describes a process while the latter is its result. In Ps 51 verse 4 together with verse 9 indicates that hittP is synonymous with tihar, but distinct from it. The term tihar denotes making something or someone clean, and it is concerned with the state of cleanness, rather than the process leading to it, whereas hitte* is concerned with the very process. Therefore in translating the two terms hittp and tihar a differentiation seems to be required particularly in the ritual context. In this regard the rendering 'purge' is more favorable than 'purify' if the former were adopted for rendering hitte'. In considering the processes, from the unclean to the clean, and from the common to the holy, the former process apparently poses no problem if we translate hitte3 'purge.' But regarding the latter it may appear problematical because the would-be sacrificial animal and would-be altar are not said to be 'unclean.' However, as long as the purification is made by the hatta't offering, it can be safely assumed that the offering deals with the uncleanness. This indicates nothing but that the common, when it is made holy, is considered as unclean. On this understanding it may appear possible to render hitte> in B(l)(2), C, D by 'purge.' But, as we argue below, A as well as E, challenges this approach. Incidentally the case in C is also related to the ritual in Lev 14:2-7. Why

Appendix B

115

does the sarcfat-free house or the person healed from saracat still need purification? To assume the presence of uncleanness in the house or the person is unlikely since the saracat has gone from the house or the person. The only possibility would be that they are in need of purification, and thus deemed as unclean, because they are brought near to the presence of the Lord, though several stages of purification are necessary for the healed person. So interpreted, these cases are substantially the same as the cases of B. Now, because hittP in A has been rendered 'to present a hattaH offering' or the like with the assumption that hitte3 never takes objects which are clean or holy, the meaning has been inapplicable to E. However, can this assumption be warranted? Since A seems to be not different from E insofar as the handling of blood is presumed in all of them, not only should the translation such as "to present a sin offering" be unlikely, but also the assumption would be possible that conceptually the hittP takes blood as the direct object in A as well. In regard to the 'blood' as the object of hittP (E), it may be unthinkable that the blood is the object of hittP if the latter means to 'purge,' because the animal blood is sacred as Lev 17 intimates (see below). However, the cases in A should be seen essentially the same as the case in E, for though the object of hittP is an animal or a hatta't offering in A (Exod 29:36; Lev 6:19, 9:15) it is evident that the hittP-act refers to the blood handling. Therefore, although it is generally posited that the hittP-act concerns the process from the common to the holy or from the unclean to the clean, these are just general contexts and the term essentially concerns the handling of the sacred blood. It goes without saying that the animal blood is not unclean, but, if so, it follows that it is mistaken to assume the presence of uncleanness in the would-be animal for hatta't, as far as it contains blood, which is sacred. At this point the question would become relevant to our inquiry into hitt