Leviticus (OTL): A Commentary (The Old Testament Library) 0664226736, 9780664226732

Citation preview

LEVITICUS

THE OLD TESTAMENT LIBRARY Editorial Advisory Board JAMES L. MAYS CAROL A. NEWSOM DAVID L. PETERSEN

Erhard S. Gerstenberger

ILIEVTI1LTIC1U§ A Commentary

Westminster John Knox Press LOUISVILLE • LONDON

Translated by Douglas W. Stott from Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus (Das Alte Testament Deutsch, 6), published 1993 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen. ©1993 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, in Gottingen. English translation© Westminster John Knox Press 1996 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396. Scripture quotations from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible are copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and are used by permission. Translator's Note: The New Revised Standard Version has provided the basic point of departure for rendering Professor Gerstenberger's own translation of the text of Leviticus. Depending on his reading, the text presented here will diverge to varying degrees in both substance and style from that text; in cases where the two readings essentially coincide, the text of the NRSV is largely maintained. Publisher's Note: The publication of this work was made possible through the assistance of INTER NA TIONES, Bonn. I Die Herausgabe dieses Werkes wurde aus Mitteln von INTER NA TIONES, Bonn, gefOrdert. Book design by Jennifer K. Cox First American edition 1996 Published by Westminster John Knox Press Louisville, Kentucky This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39.48 standard. i§ PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

02 03 04 05 -- 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 0-664-22673-6

To the students of the Department of Evangelische Theologie at the Philipps University, Marburg

CONTENTS

Preface to the German Edition

ix

Bibliography

xi

1. Introduction

1

1. Difficulties in Reading the Bible

1

2. "Leviticus": A Book?

2

3. The Congregation: Cult and Life

6

4. The Authors: Priests, Levites?

10

5. Subsequent Influence of Cultic Law

14

6. The Structure of the Book of Leviticus

17

Excursus: The Holiness Code

18

2. Sacrificial Regulations (Leviticus 1-7)

1. The Meaning of Sacrifice

20

20

2. The Burnt Offering (Lev. 1)

21

3. The Cereal Offering (Lev. 2)

37

4. The Meal Offering (Lev. 3)

45

5. Sin and Guilt Offerings (Lev. 4-5)

52

6. Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion (Lev. 6-7)

79

3. The Beginnings of Worship (Leviticus 8-10)

96

1. Ordination and Consecration (Lev. 8-9)

96

2. Rebellion and Correctives (Lev. 10)

114

4. Purity and Purification (Leviticus 11-15)

128

1. Overview

128

2. Dietary Prescriptions (Lev. 11)

129

viii

Contents 3. The Parturient (Lev. 12)

147

4. Dangerous Skin Diseases (Lev. 13:1-46)

153

5. Mold on Garments (Lev. 13:47-59)

169

6. Purificatory Sacrifices (Lev. 14: 1-32)

173

7. Moldy and Fungous Stonework (Lev. 14:33-57)

188

8. Bodily Discharges (Lev. 15)

194

9. Purity and Hygiene

209

5. Atonement Festival and Sacrificial Blood (Leviticus 16-17)

211

1. The Great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16)

211

Excursus: The Temple Edifice

214

2. Sacrificial Blood (Lev. 17)

234

6. Regulations for Living (Leviticus 18--20) 1. Sexual Taboos (Lev. 18)

245 245

2. The Community and Daily Life (Lev. 19)

258

Excursus: Israelite Legal Traditions

264

3. Punishable Acts (Lev. 20)

286

Excursus: Administration of Justice

302

7. Priestly Matters (Leviticus 21-22)

305

1. Personal Qualifications (Lev. 21)

305

2. The Proper Use of Sacrifice (Lev. 22)

320

8. Festivals and Free Years (Leviticus 23--25) 1. The Festival Calendar (Lev. 23)

334

2. Problems concerning the Cult (Lev. 24)

354

3. Free Years (Lev. 25)

369

9. Conclusion (Leviticus 26-27)

334

399

1. Blessing and Curse (Lev. 26)

399

2. Appendix and Transition (Lev. 27)

436

Index

447

PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION

No one can write a biblical commentary alone. Through the years, many people have accompanied my commentary on the book of Leviticus, particularly students in the department of Evangelische Theologie at the Philipps University in Marburg. Hence, it is to them that I dedicate this volume. By name and as representatives of the many others, I would like to mention that particular noteworthy group who worked through my manuscript during 1986/87 and critically discussed it with me: Alexandra Kopf, Silke Schrom, Frank Schtirer, Kerstin Ulrich, and Manfred W emer. In the final stages, Ingeburg Radparvar and Julia Conrad provided intensive additional help with the computer version of the text. Many thanks! E.S.G. Easter 1993

BIBLIOGRAPHY

a. Commentaries to Leviticus; Jewish Sources Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4. Ttibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1966. Kornfeld, Walter. Leviticus. Die Neue Echterbibel6. Wtirzburg: Echter, 1983. Maier, Johann. The Temple Scroll. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplemental Series 34. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus I-I6. Anchor Bible III. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1991. Neusner, Jacob. Sifra: The Rabbinic Commentary on Leviticus. Vol. 1: The Leper: Leviticus 13:I-I4:57. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Noth, Martin. Leviticus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965. Rendtorff, Rolf. Leviticus. Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament 3.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. Wenham, GordonJ. The Book of Leviticus. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988. b. Monographs on Old Testament Cultic Institutions and Cultic Law Crtisemann, Frank. Die Tara: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1992. Di::iller, Johannes. Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des A/ten Testaments in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung. Munster: Aschendorff, 1917. Fritz, Volkmar. Tempel und Zeit: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift. Wissenschaftlich Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977. Gunneweg, Antonius H. 1. Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionshi/dung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jiidischen Kultpersonals. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 89. Gi::ittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

xii

Bibliography

Haran, Menahem. Temple and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Janowski, Bernd. Siihne als Heilsgeschehen. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Milgrom, Jacob. Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. Rendtorff, Rolf. Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alten Israel. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. Rost, Leonhard. Studien zum Opfer im Alten Israel. Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 113. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1981. Seybold, Klaus, and Ulrich B. MUller. Sickness and Healing. Biblical Encounter Series. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981. Zimmerli, Walther. "'Heiligkeit' nach dem sogennanten Heiligkeitsgesetz." Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 493-512. c. Cults in the Ancient Orient Beyerlin, Walter, ed. Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. Kaiser, Otto, ed. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. 3 vols. Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1982-92. Keel, Othmar. "Kanaanaische Siihneriten auf agyptischen Tempelreliefs." Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 413--469. Klengel, Horst. Festritual fiir Telipinar von Kaslar. Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi 53. Berlin: Gebriider Mann, 1983. Kiimmel, Hans Martin. Ersatzrituale fiir den hethitischen Konig. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967. Menzel, Brigitte. Assyrische Tempel. 2 vols. Studia Pohl 10. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981. Pritchard, James, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Ringgren, Helmer. Die Religionen des Alten Orients. Das Alte Testament Deutsch Erganzung, Sonderband. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. - - -.. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973. [A partial translation of the preceding.] Tarragon, Jean-Michel. Le culte a Ugarit. Paris: 1. Gabalda, 1980. Weippert, Helga. Paliistina in vorhellenistischer Zeit. Handbuch der Archaologie. Vorderasien, Band 1. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1988.

Bibliography

xiii

d. Anthropological and Sociological Studies (outside Israel) Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966. Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (19I5). New York: Free Press, 1965. Eliade, Mircea, ed. The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987. Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Girard, Rene. Das Ende der Gewalt. Trans. from the French. Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1983. ---.The Scapegoat. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1986. Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1967. Simmons, Leo W., ed. Sun Chief" The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1942. Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process. Chicago: Aldine Press, 1969.

e. History and Theology of the Cult Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion. 2 vols. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Anderson, Gary A. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in their Social and Political Importance. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Bourdillon, M.F.C. and M. Fortes, eds. Sacrifice. London: Academic Press, 1980. Burkert, Walter. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993. Fohrer, Georg. Glaube und Leben im Judentum. Heidelberg: UniversiUitstaschenbticher, 1979. Gammie, John G. Holiness in Israel. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Jahwe-ein patriarchaler Gott? Traditionelles Gottesbild undfeministische Theologie. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1988. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Understanding the Old Testament. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. Haag, Herbert. Vom alten zum neuen Pascha. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1971. Henrix, H. H., ed. Judische Liturgie: Geschichte, Struktur, Wesen. Quaestiones disputatae 86. Freiburg: Herder, 1979.

xiv

Bibliography

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Religion og Kultus. English trans., Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1981. Otto, Eckart and Tim Schramm. Festival and Joy. Biblical Encounter Series. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. New York/London: Oxford University Press, 1958. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1962-65. Rowley, Harold H. Worship in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967. Smith, William Robertson. The Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions. New York: Schocken Books, 1972. London: A. & C. Black, 1894. Utzschneider, Helmut. Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 77. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961. Wilms, Franz-Elmar. Freude vor Gott: Kult und Fest in Israel. Regensburg: Pustet, 1981.

f Historical and Social Background Ackroyd, Peter. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968. - - - , . Israel under Babylon and Persia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Dalman, Gustaf. Arbeit und Sitte in Paliistina. 7 vols. Gtitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1928. Kippenberg, Hans G. Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judiia. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 14. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Kreissig, Heinz. Die sozia!Okonomische Situation in Juda zur Achiimenidenzeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1973. Weber, Max. Ancient Judaism. New York: Free Press, 1967. Weinberg, Joel P. "Die Agrarverhaltnisse in der Btirger-Tempel-Gemeinde der Achamenidenzeit." In Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im alten Vorderasien, ed. J. Harmatta, 473-86. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1976.

1. Introduction 1.1 Difficulties in Reading the Bible If before reading a text a person does not first clearly determine just what sort of text it is, misunderstanding is unavoidable. A text is able to communicate only those particular signals and information that are commensurate with its essential character, its origin, use, and intentions. We deal every day with a wide variety of texts: telephone books, novels, business letters, newspaper reports, advertisements, owner's instructions, traffic signs, cooking recipes. From experience we know how to classify each individual type of text within our daily realities, how to decipher these texts, and we know what they have to say to us. Woe to the person who takes as a joke the warning label "poison" on a bottle, or who reads an invoice as a love letter. Because priestly duties occupy such a central position within the third book of Moses (cf. Lev. 1-10; 16; 21), it is called Liber Leviticus in the Latin tradition (after the model of the Greek tradition): "Book concerning Levitical Matters." This name obscures the distinction between priests and Levites as clearly delineated, for example, in Num. 4; Deut. 18: 1-8; 1 Chron. 23-26; 2 Chron. 35:1-19. Hence, this later name already derives from a misleading interpretation and represents an early example of how a prejudiced perspective can reclassify a text itself. How much more difficult must it be for us, given our historical distance, to understand these ancient witnesses correctly! They already seem inaccessible to us, since from our own experience we are familiar neither with the older textual types (genres) nor with the customs and rites they discuss. Who among us has dealt with sacrifices and purity prescriptions, or with temple service and taboo regulations? Even Jews living in the immediate sphere of influence of the Hebrew Bible often feel alienated from the priestly laws. 1 Complaints from every quarter, extending even into scholarly commentaries, insist that the strictly cultic orientation of the third book of Moses makes it an unusually dry piece of writing. Such complaints prove how alien and distant this part of the Bible has become to contemporary readers, and how poorly developed is our own capacity for comprehending past situations of life intellectually and emotionally. We presuppose, usually unconsciously (and this is a universally human phenomenon that can be explained sociopsycho1. Cf. Athlaya Brenner, The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); Max Joseph, "Zeremonia1gesetz," Jiidisches Lexikon, 412, ed. G. Herlitz and B. Kirschner (Berlin: Jiidischer Verlag, 1930) 1564-67.

Introduction

2

logically), that our own life circumstances and conceptual habits are the "right" ones, and are the standard by which all ages and cultures are to be measured. Such cultural and religious egocentrism leads especially in the sanctified sphere of worship to a dissociation from cultic practices deviating from our own. We become fully conscious of the Bible's strangeness in this respect when we read in the third book of Moses about animal slaughter, blood rites, atonement services, dietary restrictions, and so on. The alien quality of the "Levitical" customs associated with worship resulted in the Christian tradition largely excluding the book of Leviticus from its collection of sermon texts, from confirmation instruction, and from Bible study in general. And even more: Incomprehensible rites such as dietary commandments (Lev. 11) or purity regulations (Lev. 12-15) nourished the feeling of superiority over "the Jews," thereby strengthening antisemitic prejudices. Christians misused the book of Leviticus, in addition to other Old Testament texts, to make the Jewish faith despicable. 2 If, however, we take into consideration the different social and cultural circumstances of the biblical period, that is, the strangeness of ancient priestly traditions as well, and if we are prepared to seek out comparable experiences from contemporary life, then we will not so easily be deterred from reading the third book of Moses. On the contrary, healthy curiosity may result. How did the ancient Israelites understand their own behavior in relation to Yahweh in the intimate life of worship? What connections did they establish between worship and daily reality? We anticipate that "this book is one that particularly reveals something of the living variety and historical development of the whole system of worship in Ancient Israel," 3 and that something of the explosive power of the Yahweh faith-power transcending ceremonial law proper-is yet visible and accessible to experience.

1.2 "Leviticus": A Book? According to contemporary literary understanding, Leviticus is not a "book" at all, but rather a fairly artificial excerpt from a larger narrative and legislative work, sewn together like a patchwork quilt from many different, individual pieces. In Ex. 19:1-2, the people of Israel arrive during their wilderness wanderings at the mountain of God; there, after a terrifying theophany, they receive a great many instructions, laws, admonitions, and plans (cf. Ex. 20-23; 25-31; Lev. 1-7; Num. 1-2; etc.). The departure from Mount Sinai and the continuation of the march come only in Num. 10:11-34. Remarks about the wanderings in Ex. 40:36-38 and Num. 9:17-23 are of a general nature 2. Cf. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Understanding the Old Testament, 18ff., 115ff., !99ff. 3. Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), Preface.

Introduction

3

("they customarily set out," "they would go onward"), and follow descriptions of the appearances of clouds and fire at the tabernacle. "Leviticus" deals with events between Israel's arrival at the mount of God and its departure, and thus consistently presupposes Israel's sojourn in Yahweh's proximity. This excerpt from the giving of the law at Sinai continues the traditions of Exodus 19-40 and itself is continued uninterrupted in Numbers 1-10. The delimitation of this particular portion (why was the division not made after Ex. 35 or Num. 10?) and its characterization as a "book" seem arbitrary, and probably coincide with the division of the writings of Moses into five parts ( = Torah, Pentateuch). Practical considerations regarding the public reading of these writings during worship probably provided the impetus. This division into the "Pentateuch" (five books) took place sometime between the fifth and third centuries B.C.E., since the Greek translation (Septuagint) is just as familiar with it as are the even older holy scriptures of the Samaritans, who split off from Judaism proper. Both the Hebrew and the Greek tradition named the third book of Moses in its own way. The Hebrew scribes followed ancient oriental convention in naming it according to its beginning word, "he called" (wayyiqrii'; Lev. 1: 1), while the designation given by the Greek-speaking scribes refers to the content, "the Levitical (book)''; that is, the traditions collected here are part of the responsibilities of the "Levitical" priests. But is this really a reference to those "Levites" who performed the lower temple duties during the later Old Testament period (cf. 1 Chron. 23:28-32)? This must remain an open question, since the third book of Moses makes no mention of hymnic praise, a typically Levitical activity (cf. 1 Chron. 23:30), but does indeed mention sacrificial institutions (1 Chron. 23:3lf.), institutions from which according to other passages the simple Levites were specifically excluded (1 Chron. 23:28-29; cf. Num. 3:6-9). Hence we see that the name of the third book of Moses already offers us information concerning the book's history of transmission. One might also add that the ascription of the Pentateuch to Moses is known only from much later Jewish tradition (Josephus, first century C.E.). The style and content of the third book of Moses betray even more than do its various names the long growth process traversed by the entire tradition of the Pentateuch. We must decisively distance ourselves from what is for us the self-evident notion that the biblical books were written down in a single sweep by one or only a few authors. The emergence of this sort of "book" must be sought rather in the liturgical use of the sacred texts, which went on for centuries. The actual genesis of such a book takes place in ever new stages of composition, collection, and interpretation, in both oral and written transmission, alteration, and restructuring of the texts. Growth stages or "rings" emerge which to a certain degree precise and exact study of the biblical books is able to distinguish.

4

Introduction

To be sure, at first glance the external form of the third book of Moses exhibits strict uniformity. God speaks to Moses and in some instances also to Aaron, and through these two (prophetic-priestly?) spokespersons makes his will known to the people of Israel. Altogether, the expression "he spoke to Moses" occurs thirty-five times. Although this expression seems to occur at peculiarly asymmetrical intervals (compare the intervals between Lev. I: I and 4:1, and between 8:1 and 10:8, with the shorter ones between Lev. 7:22 and 7:28 or 23:23 and 23:26), it nonetheless is clearly conceived as an element of division. All the material collected together in this book is divine discourse, mediated to the community by Moses (and Aaron). Occasional concluding notices associated with main or secondary sections initially strengthen the impression of self-enclosure and of legislative acts following immediately upon one another. A precise analysis of textual details, however, leads to the opposite conclusion. Not a single chapter in this book has been composed in a single sweep or by a single hand. Various stages of redaction, different concerns, and different theological conceptions are everywhere discernible, something our detailed exegesis will show clearly. In general we can say that as a rule, the later collectors, who were concerned with the role of Moses (and Aaron) as mediators and with the legitimation of the cultic prescriptions as the revelation of Yahweh, brought together much-and extremely eclectic-older material (cf., for example, the interpretation of Lev. 16; 18; 19). Of course, we would love to know in which or for which situation in life the extant prescriptions were collected. Initially, the question of the genre and social origin of the third book of Moses can be answered only by conjectures. Certain clues suggest it came about within the framework of an early Jewish (postexilic) worship service centered either on reading or on preaching. First, there is the framing formula already mentioned, "Yahweh spoke to Moses," emphasizing God's verbal communication with his people. The interpretative formula "this is the law" (cf. Lev. 6:2, 7, 18 [9, 14, 25E]; 7:1, 11, 37; 14:2, 32, 54, 57, and five additional occurrences), the passages directly addressing a congregation in the admonitory fashion of a sermon (cf. Lev. 18:30; 19:19, 37; 20:22; 22:31; etc.), the theological interest in the sanctification of the people (cf. Lev. 19:2), in the cultic purity and absolution of every member of the congregation (cf. Lev. 15), in the implementation of justice and righteousness in Israel (cf. Lev. 24:22)-these and other elements might be additional evidence suggesting the provenance of the texts of the "Priestly Source" within congregational situations (see section 1.3, "The Congregation: Cult and Life"). But what is the "Priestly Source"? Since the end of the nineteenth century, when Julius Wellhausen presented his theory of the origin of the Pentateuch,

Introduction

5

scholars have discussed this "Three- or Four-Source Hypothesis." 4 According to this hypothesis, the Mosaic Pentateuch is composed of what were originally independent portrayals of Israel's early history, namely, the Yahwistic, Elohistic, Deuteronomic, and Priestly works. What is known as the Priestly Source (P) is the latest literary stratum, dating to the fifth century B.C.E.; it is the most easily recognizable source in the conglomeration of Pentateuch texts because of its distinctly formed language, content, and theology. 5 According to this view, the third book of Moses belongs from its first to its last word to the Priestly Source, or at least to its immediate sphere of influence. The authors responsible for P spun the thread from the creation narrative (Gen. 1: l-2:4a), through the genealogies and Flood Narrative (Gen. 5-10; the text is blended with other source components and secondary expansions), the traditions of the patriarchs and the exodus (focal points include Gen. 17; 23; Ex. 6:2-12; 7:1-13), to the revelation at Sinai.6 There, at the mount of God, Israel stands before its God and receives especially the instructions for building the "tent of meeting," its appurtenances, and for organizing its personnel (Ex. 24: lSb-29:46). This line reaches its high point with the official consecration of the sacred tent, conceived as the prototype of the Jerusalem temple (Lev. 8-9; 16). Accordingly, after the establishment of 1. the sabbath in creation (Gen. 2:2f.), 2. permission to eat flesh and prohibition against consuming blood (Gen. 9:3f.), and 3. circumcision (Gen. 17) and Passover (Ex. 12: 1-20), the authors of the Priestly Source are crucially concerned with anchoring the sacrificial cult at the sanctuary established by Yahweh in Israel's early history. In the process, they are also concerned with legitimizing the Aaronite priesthood.? During the past two decades, the hypothesis of a self-enclosed Priestly narrative has been increasingly called into question. Various scholars prefer to explain the origin of this late stratum in the Pentateuch on the basis of the general processes involved in tradition: Texts are collected and then altered according to their use by a certain group of people. 8 This traditio4. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, I 96 I) 23-27. 5. Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). 6. According to Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972) 8-19. 7. Cf. Ex. 28f.; Lev. 8:f.; cf. Helmut Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. 8. Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplemental Series 89 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990).

Introduction

6

historical view-as opposed to a literary view-makes it considerably easier to understand the colorful collection of texts in the third book of Moses. Literary analysis tried to isolate a narrative strand of the P editorial circle. The purely legal sections such as Leviticus 1-7; 11-15 were usually viewed as secondary insertions. However, if a text grows like a tree in annual rings, then one can free oneself from the notion of an ordered, continuing narrative and focus on the thematically centered growth of individual textual groups. The complex in Ex. 25-31; 35-40; Lev. 1-10 is apparently a thematic circle of this sort, to which were added other textual collections such as the impurity regulations in Leviticus 11-15 or blocks of what is known as the "Holiness Code" in Leviticus 17-26. For after the dedication of the sanctuary, the question of necessity became urgent concerning the kind of cultically flawless behavior that was both pleasing to and worthy of God. Thus the text grew in both oral and written tradition, and during a later stage was divided artificially into "books" (scrolls) and lectionary sections according to the quantity of its reading material. Here "Leviticus" actually represents the smallest and most awkward section within the Pentateuch, something also evident in the number of weekly lectionary sections that were probably fixed sometime during the final pre-Christian centuries. In the three-year Palestinian sabbath lectionary cycle, the third book of Moses provided 23-25 sections. 9 1.3 The Congregation: Cult and Life The real addressee of the third book of Moses is a colorless "someone," "any of you," a member of the people of Israel (Lev. 1:2). Who is this? It is the anonymous member, "any person" in the postexilic community of faith, just as in Ezek. 18 or Ps. 15 and I sa. 33: 14-16. Although this "someone" is in all instances genuinely responsible for making a decision, this is not a lone individual, but rather someone imbedded in the common community of faith. He or she does not have to make the decision whether or not actually to join, in contrast to the situation in Josh. 24 or Deut. 29: !If. (12f.E); Ruth I: 16f. But in daily life, this person is constantly put into situations in which a decision must be made involving proof of loyalty to God. Personal names, people of actual flesh and blood, hardly appear in the third book of Moses. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and lthamar all remain shadowy, paradigmatic priest or mediator figures. Even the person who blasphemes Yahweh and is condemned to death (Lev. 24:10-23) remains anonymous, and only his mother's name is subsequently given for some unknown reason (v. 11). Of 9. Hebrew si!darfm; Genesis = 43; Exodus = 29; Numbers = 32; Deuteronomy = 27; cf. Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 132-39.

Introduction

7

course, one can argue that the anonymous "anyone," "he," "someone" all derive from legal language to the extent that this language is not addressing cases of precedence. In connection with the admonitory addresses to the community and to the individual members in it, however, the impression does arise that in the third book of Moses the individual is consciously being addressed within the community of faith. This individual, along with the congregation itself, is to remain on the correct path. Hence, let us try to imagine the life circumstances of the Jewish congregation member during the fifth century B.C.E. What did orientation through the divine word, mediated by Moses, mean for this person? Unfortunately, the sources of information concerning Jewish daily life during this period are sparse, though the writings preserved under the names of Ezra and Nehemiah, and possibly also some late addenda to the prophetic books, do allow some conclusions. The Jewish legal documents and letters found in Elephantine, an island in the Nile River, offer a glimpse into the life of that particular Jewish military colony in Persian service. We can limit ourselves to a few remarks. The Jews of the Persian age were subjects of a relatively tolerant world power, one that everywhere allowed them to carry on their national cult, and in some instances even provided them with the external means and ordinances for the establishment or strengthening of the Yahweh cult (cf. Ezra 6f.). King Cyrus of Persia (559-530 B.C.E.) entered Babylon in the year 539 B.C.E., after the capital of the aging world empire had surrendered without a battle. And even more: He was greeted as a liberator by the Babylonian priests, who had lived in an irreconcilable conflict of interest with their own king Nabonidus, and by the deported Jews (cf. Isa. 45:1-4). Cambyses, Cyrus' son, ruled eight years (530-522 B.C.E.), and probably continued in its essentials Cyrus's policy of religious tolerance, a policy whose goal was to grant religious freedom to the subjugated peoples within the huge empire, and to reestablish and protect national cults and sanctuaries. Then Darius I (522-486 B.C.E.) spent several years quelling revolts, after which he was able to subject the Persian empire to profound administrative, economic, and legal reforms. During this period, the Yahweh temple in Jerusalem was rededicated (515 B.C.E.; cf. Ezra 6: 15-18). Under the protection of this world power, the small nation of Yahweh believers restored its national-religious symbol, and the symbolic power of the second temple, which represented the center of cultic life until 70 C.E. (i.e., for 585 years), continues to exert an unimagined impact even today. On the other hand, all these subjugated peoples had to pay tribute for maintenance of the central Persian power. That is to say, the world power Persia engaged in healthy exploitation of these subjugated peoples (cf. Is a. 26: 13). The Jews' economic and political dependence, however, did not prevent

8

Introduction

social tensions from increasing or urbanization and stratification 10 from advancing among the Jewish people themselves. Quite the contrary was the case: While a few members of the Jewish cultic community were able to amass fortunes and obtain influential positions through their collaboration with the Persians, the mass of the population had to make do with a more or less unstable existence. II Against this social backdrop, it is quite understandable that especially the poorer classes among these inhabitants turned to religious life with increased fervor. The older Yahweh religion had indeed included numerous supports for the hope that God would bring about a new righteousness and would rid the world of corruption, misery, idolatry, falsity, and war. Postexilic Old Testament texts speak an unmistakable language. In building upon Yahweh's intervention on behalf of the poor and oppressed (cf. Neh. 5; Pss. 9/10; 37; 49; 73; Isa. 63:7-64:11 [64:12E]), they betray something about the structure of the Jewish communities during that period. These communities consisted to a large extent of the economically weak, that is, offamilies who had gone bankrupt as a result of the enormous tribute pressures, or who were in danger of losing their economic independence. Hence, just as economic distress quite frequently influenced the external image of the Jewish community during the fifth century, so also did the Yahweh faith characterize its inner disposition. The God of Israel had punished his people through the Babylonian exile, and then had offered them new chances for life (cf. Isa. 40-55; Jer. 30-33). All thanksgiving and veneration was now due this God, who after all had indeed proven loyal amid the people's own powerlessness, and had ultimately conquered the world powers. With Israel now reduced to a community of faith, its life before God became focused on the family, on the community within the village, city, or military camp-in short, on the sphere of one's fellow human beings. Only here could the Jews in the Persian Empire preserve their identity as a people, and for just this reason their horizon of faith was primarily the family and local congregation. Even though Yahweh had become the one universal God, 12 world-historical concerns were at first of little interest to believing individuals and their intimate groups. The congregation member inquired concerning those aspects of God's will that addressed the believer directly, and the Torah of Moses provided a comprehensive if not exhaustive response. Which foods am I allowed to eat? When am I making myself impure, and thus unable to participate in worship? If the occasion arises, how do I perform sacrifices correctly? What ex10. Cf. Hans G. Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judda. 11. Cf. Neh. 5; Heinz Kreissig, Die sozialdkonomische Situation in Juda zur Achiimenidenzeit. 12. Cf. Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Jahwe-ein patriarchaler Gou? Traditionelles Gottesbild undfeministische Theologie.

Introduction

9

pectations does Yahweh have with regard to my social deportment within my surroundings? The allegedly priestly collections of regulations in the third book of Moses also came into being amid these and similar questions. The certainty of hearing the unbroken voice of Yahweh himself in these instructions for a salutary life with God-mediated through the appointed speakers and congregational leaders standing in the succession of Moses- gave to the Jewish people the power and self-awareness to withstand centuries in the Diaspora. The law, given through Moses, was for them "a lamp to my feet" and "a light to my path" (Ps. 119: 105; this entire psalm is actually a single hymn to the law). In the third book of Moses we are able to look into this law itself. From our own perspective, Leviticus consists of a peculiar mixture of the most primitive taboo regulations, intricately refined purity regulations, and lofty ethical norms. Such judgments, however, derive completely from our own life circumstances, and as such are unsuitable for evaluating rules for life actually at home in antiquity. In the third book of Moses, cultic and ethical instructions are found mixed in an undifferentiated fashion, quite commensurate with notions of God prevalent at that time; or better: they have been transmitted down to us from the very beginning in this integrated condition. Together, these two types of standards for life constitute "the law," and members of the fifth-century Jewish congregation would not understand our need to differentiate between the two. For them, such fixed regulation of all areas of life-or of the theologically relevant ones-would be necessary for life, and would bring about happiness. "The ordinances of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb" (Ps. 19: 1Ob-11 [9b-1 OE]). The postexilic believer in Yahweh would find support in the law of Moses as passed down by tradition and continually developed within the congregation itself, that is, in ceremonial, civil, and ethical law. The third book of Moses represents an excerpt from this law. The structures of the early Jewish community have not yet been thoroughly researched. We must direct our attention to the congregation of the capital city Jerusalem, one claiming the leading role and doubtless encompassing families of high rank and name (cf. 1 Chron. 9:3-16; Neh. 3). The priestly families belonged to this congregation, as did important Levitical clans. Nehemiah and Ezra functioned as Persian commissioners in Jerusalem, and during the fifth century B.C.E. were able to enhance further the city's political and religious status against that of its rival Samaria, and to tum it into the spiritual Mecca for all Judaism within the Persian Empire. Rural congregations must have existed around Jerusalem, congregations about which those in the center of Jerusalem often spoke disparagingly (cf. Ezra 9: lf., 11; 10:2, 11; Neh. 10:29, 31f. [28, 30f.E]). And far away, in foreign countries, congregations formed-in part quite strong ones-that did not wish to resettle in Palestine when the opportu-

Introduction

10

nity arose in 539 B.C.E. Such diaspora groups were especially strong and active in Babylonia and Egypt. For over a thousand years, up to and even beyond the Islamic conquest, both these countries made significant contributions to Jewish culture, philosophy, and theology. All of the Jewish communities in Palestine and in foreign countries were officially "theocratic" organizations: God was their king, not some human monarch. God's rule, however, was always mediated through human beings. Thus priests, Levites, and scriptural authorities were the community leaders. How did this operate in actual practice? Although strictly speaking the priests were responsible only for the pure temple service in Jerusalem, they participated actively in internal Jewish politics (taxation and foreign policy, of course, were conducted by the Persians). Outside Jerusalem, other "stations" must have taken over leadership functions, perhaps the "scriptural authorities," since the Torah itself, as the proclamation of Yahweh's will, constituted the focal point of all religious concerns (cf. Ps. 119). However, clan and city elders also played an important role. Of special significance for us is the thesis that during the postexilic period the congregational assembly of the Jews commenced with prayer, scripture reading, addresses, and blessings, as portrayed in Nehemiah 8. Commentaries speak of a prototype of the synagogal worship service. 13 Torah instruction is prescribed for the entire people, for men, women, and children. The temple becomes a "house of prayer," and is no longer a slaughterhouse (cf. Isa. 56:7; 66:3). Although the sacrificial service continues, a completely new and independent spiritual center has arisen within the worship service of prayer and instruction, a service oriented toward the Torah; and the bearer of this new center is the local congregation. 14

1.4 The Authors: Priests, Levites? Rarely do Old Testament writings contain genuine names of authors. At the time there existed no copyrighted, protected spiritual or intellectual property, and all texts that were passed on-orally or in written form-were intended for actual use, not for a bookshelf or archive. Nonetheless, given our own cultural conventions, we would like to know more about these authors and tradents. A text with no spiritual owner is like a stray dog-commanding little respect, and viewed with mistrust. So who does stand behind these postexilic collections of cultic laws so conspicuous all the way through the first four books of Moses (cf. Gen. 9:1-7; 17: 1-22; Ex. 2:3-20; 25-29; Num. 3:40-10: 10; etc.)? 13. Cf. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Nehemia, Kommentar zum Alten Testament 19/2 (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1987) !!Of. 14. Cf. Menahem Haran, "Temple and Community in Ancient Israel," in M. V. Fox, ed., Temple in Society, (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1988) 17-25.

Introduction

11

After 539 B.C.E., the Persians allowed the deported Judeans to return home. Those who returned were able to rededicate the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as early as 515 B.C.E. (Ezra 6). This represents the beginning point for the history of postexilic Judaism. In the home country, and in place of an Israelite state, a Jewish confessional community was able to emerge with a relatively independent inner constitution and legislation. Officially commissioned by the Persians, Nehemiah and Ezra secured the establishment of the Jewish commonwealth during the course of the fifth century (cf. Neh. 2-6; Ezra 7; Neh. 8). Although colonies of emigrants and deportees in Babylonia and Egypt did indeed continue to exist, and even to increase in number and significance, nevertheless a Jewish society structured theocratically according to divine law and guided essentially by the theologians of the time came into being in the ancestral land of Palestine under the rule of the high power Persia. Its center was the holy city Jerusalem. Its sphere of influence included especially the Persian province Judah, founded under Nehemiah, but reached even further to include the most remote diaspora communities seeking to maintain their association with the "mother temple." What we see emerging here is thus a church model: A people constitutes itself worldwide on the basis of a religious confession; it organizes itself under spiritual leadership (Levites, priests, scribes, scriptural scholars, elders, ultimately under Persian supervision), and necessarily assumes the form of a temple congregation-obliged as it is to renounce any development of direct political or economic power. This simultaneously generates on the one hand the necessity for global cohesiveness and unity of faith, and on the other those particular centrifugal forces that emerge, for example, from within the special interests of the diaspora regions over against the spiritual center. The real community of life for the people of that age was doubtless the family or clan, within which those closely related through the lineage of the husband worked to earn their upkeep, either on their own property, as day laborers for large property owners, or in trades or the service of the state. The families of a particular locality sent their elders to the local advisory assembly, which considered matters of common interest, for example, legal questions. In addition to the legal assembly, however, a "church assembly" must also have developed during this period in Palestine and in the Diaspora (cf. Neh. 8), encompassing the men and women of each locality. This assembly of Yahweh believers played a decisive role in the history of Judaism, focusing on the reading of the Torah and on prayer, and directed apparently by elders and scriptural scholars. The texts from Elephantine and later from Qumran represent extrabiblical witnesses to early Jewish congregational organization. Scholars usually associate the development of the priestly literary strata, especially the book of Ezekiel and what is known as the Priestly Source, with the ruling priestly classes in Jerusalem. There the temple was situated, and there alone-according to Deuteronomy 12-could sacrifices be offered. The cultic

12

Introduction

monopoly resided in the capital city, and all "church" regions had to focus on the sacrificial service in Jerusalem. At a later period, this was carried out in practice by the regular delegation of congregation members to Jerusalem (what are known as the Maamads, literally "place of standing," a group of representatives).15 What is more logical than to seek the responsible compilers and tradents of cultic texts exclusively in the vicinity of the temple itself? As persuasive as this line of argument sounds, it nonetheless disregards the astonishing diversity of the traditions collected together in the book of Leviticus, as well as their possible provenance in community worship. A great many practical questions also remain unanswered. Is it likely that the sacrificial priests in the central sanctuary were interested in the entire course of daily life of congregation members even in the most distant Jewish colonies? Read Leviticus 19, and while reading try to associate it with the centralistic perspective of the Jerusalem priestly class. Presumably, the cultic and theological attention of the center in Jerusalem was concentrated on the rites in the temple itself and on its functioning. From the other perspective, one can easily imagine that the spatially far-flung Jews were enormously interested in their homeland, and above all with its spiritual symbol, the temple, and its ritualistic regulations. God's presence in the temple and in his chosen city was a fundamental article of faith especially for exiles and those living in the Diaspora (cf. Ps. 137). As members of the Jewish community of faith, even those living far from Jerusalem symbolically referred their own faith to the capital and its temple (cf. Ps. 84). Hence it should come as no surprise that even diaspora congregations engaged in temple remembrances and symbolic temple rituals (e.g., blessings and purifications). Additional observations, some already alluded to above, are of significance as well: a. Our attempt to classify the priestly texts of the Old Testament involves a period in which readings from the Torah were very likely already being conducted (cf. Deut. 29-31; Neh. 8). Is it likely that these readings really originated at the central sacrificial temple, in addition to the daily offerings and the attendant ceremonies? Are sacrificial service on the one hand, and worship based on the word on the other, even conceivable together at all (cf. Ps. 50)? Can scripture reading not be better understood as a kind of substitution for sacrificial services in the outlying communities? b. The third book of Moses overwhelmingly addresses the entire people of Israel, the congregation of Yahweh. It does not contain the specialized or secret knowledge of a priestly caste. Not even the regulations in Lev. 21:1-15 regarding the priest's own conduct can be understood in an exclusive sense; they are intended rather as an incentive for every person to strive for the highest de15. Cf. Is mar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 190; Mishnah Ta 'an., 4.2.

Introduction

13

gree of sanctification (cf. Ex. 19:6; Lev. 19:2: "You shall be holy; for I am holy"). This appropriation and cultivation of priestly thinking simultaneously shows both the dependence and the independence of the local congregations situated far from Jerusalem. c. Old Testament narrative works-the Deuteronomistic history from the sixth century, the Priestly Source around 500 B.C.E., and the Chronicler's history from the fourth century-all attach great importance to the "people" oflsrael and to their participation in worship (cf. merely the presence and witness of the people in Deut. 29:1 [2E]; its obligation to Yahweh in Deut. 29:9-14 [10-15E]; 30; its festivals in Leviticus 23; 2 Chron. 30; its active engagement in Neh. 8:6; etc.). What is decisive is that the worship of the exilic-postexilic congregation, in its essentials, depends on the presence and participation of men, women, and children, 16 while the preexilic sacrificial celebrations were the responsibility only of the priesthood itself, and took place under the exclusion of the public. d. What role did the Levites, the lower clerics, really play in Jerusalem and in the country, and beyond this possibly also in the diaspora congregations? We must pose this question even though they appear explicitly in the third book of Moses only on the very periphery (Lev. 25:32-34). The Levites were responsible for the lower temple duties (cf. I Chron. 23:28f.) and for the singing of psalms (cf. 1 Chron. 23:30; 15: 15-22). Did they belong perhaps to the group of spiritual leaders within the local congregations? The singing of hymns was doubtless not a privilege reserved for the Jerusalem cultic congregation or the sacrificial priests. These considerations make it improbable that the cultic legal collections originated at the exclusive initiative of the Jerusalem priests. We must in some way take into account the participation of the postexilic confessional community itself, which largely constitutes the addressee of these collections. Perhaps these congregations-including the distant diaspora groups-were represented in this long process of collection of the cultic traditions by men of Levitical and priestly lineage, such as the exiled theologians in Babylonia (cf. Ezra 2:36-42, 61-63; Neh. 7:39-45, 63-65). In any event, it is extremely important that we recognize the orientation even of priestly texts toward congregational structures. It is not just the temple organization itself or the elite priestly caste in Jerusalem that stands behind the third book of Moses. These texts reflect in varying degrees the life of postexilic congregational groups, and not merely the organizational elements of the Jerusalem temple. The sanctuary was originally not designed for congregational participation; sacrificial service was essentially a priestly ritual excluding participation by the congregation (cf. Ezek. 16. lsmar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy; Menahem Haran, Temple and Temple Service in Ancient Israel.

14

Introduction

46:1-1 0; 46:20). If, however, the reference group originally intended for a text was more likely the postexilic congregation, then one is better advised to seek the text's authors among groups connected with that congregation. Our information suggests that during this particular diaspora period these were not necessarily the priests and high priest in Jerusalem. Then who among the congregational leadership did engage in writing and in the collecting of worship traditions? Their own duties restricted the priests to Jerusalem. "All of Israel" was scattered throughout the world. Apparently, men from priestly families always and everywhere enjoyed considerable respect, even if they were not able to engage in their profession. Thus Ezra (probably secondarily) is given high-priestly lineage. 17 In reality he was a "scribe of the law of the God of heaven" (Ezra 7:12, 21). As evidenced by the entire Jewish tradition, a person versed in scripture and the law did not have to have priestly blood in his veins. This alleged priestly lineage is intended to underscore Ezra's reputation and authority, not establish it. The conclusion is that any male Israelite could serve as congregational leader. Hence those men who really did have expertise in the Torah took over the cultivation of tradition and probably also the liturgical tasks associated with worship.

1.5 Subsequent Influence of Cultic Law Whenever we read the Bible, we are always standing at the end of a long process of interpretation. What earlier readers recognized, thought, and reformulated, is extremely important for the development of our own theological opinions. This is why we must deal with the long history of influence traversed by the book of Leviticus. We will concentrate on the influence exercised by Jewish "ceremonial" or "ritual" law. Cultic regulations are always tenacious, often remaining in effect despite completely altered circumstances. When in the fourth century B.C.E. the "Samaritan" group (establishing a counter-temple on Mount Gerizim in the province of Samaria), and in the second century B.C.E. the Qumran community in its desert settlement at the northern end of the Dead Sea, broke away from Jerusalem and established cultic independence, the two "sectarian" communities appropriated for themselves, along with the entire Pentateuch, the third book of Moses as well. How were they able to make use of these cultic regulations that were actually bound to the Tabernacle = Jerusalem temple? The Samaritans simply reinterpreted them with reference to their own sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. The Qumran members seem to have held fast in principle to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, though they denigrated the official priesthood there 17. Cf. Ezra 7: 1-15; Ezra, "the scriptural scholar and expert in the law, thus acquires priestly credentials," Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Ezra, Kommentar zum AI ten Testament 19/1 (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1985) 123.

Introduction

15

as a "brood of Satan." In any event, a "Temple Scroll" has also come to light in the caves near Khirbet Qumran; it contains the Levitical regulations of the Old Testament in a new order and with considerable expansion, though it does not challenge Yahweh's dwelling place, Jerusalem. 18 This river of tradition, put into motion by the Old Testament cultic laws, continued on. The need for ritual purity and for complete agreement with the will of God, like the impulse to find and preserve one's Jewish identity in the interpretation of the law, dominated the communities even after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Imposing collections of interpretative literature emerged in the Mishnah and Talmud over the centuries, literature whose center and reference point are precisely the laws of the Pentateuch in their totality, and not merely the ethical norms. Although sacrifice was no longer practiced after A.D. 70, the cultic purity commandments remained in effect. Of course, in slaughtering animals for home consumption and for the Passover celebration, the old rules for sacrifice were followed to the extent that they were applicable. For the rest, orthodox Jews hoped and still hope for the reestablishment of the temple and for a resumption of regular animal sacrifice. Christian tradition has often arrogantly distanced itself from the sacrificial practices of the Old Testament, and has strictly rejected the ceremonial legislation of the Jews. It has rendered suspicious and disparaged the Jews' entire practice of worship as well as their devotion, and through such religious slander has prepared the ground for discrimination and persecution. 19 Perhaps the annihilation camps of the Nazi period would not have been so easily possible without this sort of centuries-long poisoning of the religious climate and the destruction of the religious soul of the Jewish people. This depressing idea must disturb us even more if we compare Christian reality with this theoretical rejection of Jewish rites, since simultaneous with such hostile distancing from Jewish ceremonial law, countless elements of the very same cultic legislation found their way into the rites and cult of Christian congregations and the official church. A.H.J. Gunneweg summarizes this schizoid development in the following words: The Christian church is to imitate the pattern in ancient Israel before Christ, where priests and levites were ministers in worship, taught the people, offered prayers and made sacrifices .... In this way a Christian clergy came into being, alongside which the universal priesthood of all believers was no more than a theoretical entity. According to the Old Testament model, sacrifice was the prerogative of the clergy. Accordingly, the eucharist was now understood as a sacrifice. And since the Old Testament law requires daily sacrifice, the Christian

18. Cf. Johann Maier, The Temple Scroll, 59: "Hence the harshest criticism of the current Temple was quite consistent with the strongest affirmation of the Temple cult." 19. James Parker, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (London: Soncino Press, 1934).

16

Introduction priest now offered the sacrifice of the mass every day. Sacrifice in turn needs an altar; church buildings were arranged liturgically and built accordingly. And just as at one time the tent of meeting was the place where Yahweh made himself present, so now Christ dwelt in the tabernacle which housed the transformed hosts. Since Israel had kept the sabbath, and the strict observance of feast days had been a confessional act, it was now important to hallow Christian festivals. The privileged and exclusive status of priests and levites in the Old Testament was transferred to priests and deacons, and the bishop now took the place of the high priest. Just as the eucharist was interpreted in terms of the Old Testament sacrifices, so baptism was interpreted as a rite of initiation after the model of circumcision. Nor were the financial aspects of these analogies ignored: tithes were given to Christian priests as they had once been given to the house of Aaron.2o

We Christians thus have been horribly ungrateful sons and daughters of our ancestors in faith (or are still). We have been glad to serve as the heirs of our parents in faith-without admitting it either to ourselves or to the world-while delivering them over to constables and henchmen. We have lacked and still lack a clear, calm vision of the continuity between the Jewish and Christian religions. Only with a composed and anxiety-free consideration of our own dependency on Jewish ceremonial law can we come to appreciate that every community offaith necessarily develops rites and customs functionally comparable to those priestly-congregational regulations from the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. At the same time, one can also recognize the dangers inherent in any loyalty to the law, namely, the possible mechanization of faith and the self-righteousness that lurks right behind (cf. Pss. 40:7 [6E]; 50:8-15; Amos 5:21-24; Rom. 2; Gal. 2-5). "Hearing is better than sacrifice; hearkening better than the fat of rams" (1 Sam. 15:22b). Our evaluation of the cultic and ethical norms presented in the third book of Moses should also bear in mind that this book probably came about within the hortatory, didactic work of the early Jewish community, and thus represents only a specific sector of the overall life expressions of Jewish faith. Other biblical texts, especially from the psalms, prophets, and wisdom writings, should be added to complete this picture of faith. Our search for analogous life expressions within contemporary Christian and Jewish faith will have to focus on mutually corresponding elements. Jewish ceremonial law corresponds to our own church ordinances, liturgical prescriptions, and church laws in all their confessional variations. All these ordinances are conceived with an eye to one's own identity and delimitation over against others. Every recognized statute serves to preserve the group that generates it. As a rule, ritual ordi20. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Understanding the Old Testament, 107f.

Introduction

17

nances, like ethical norms, function as stabilizers, as instruments of ecclesiastical and social self-preservation. Now, social self-preservation, like personal self-preservation, is a two-edged sword. Over against other, different groups, its effects are restrictive, inhibiting, and dangerous. The burning question is thus whether the God-given ordinances of each epoch and each human group should not always be accompanied by prophetic or gospel-oriented criticism if God's will is to attain even a modest degree of realization among human beings. A review of the suitability and theologicallegitimacy of any given ritual ordinance thus should not be viewed from some abstract spiritual vantage point, but rather must, as it were, be integrated from the beginning into every system of ordinances. Exactly, that is, as seems to be the case in Leviticus 25: The year of release, sabbatical year, and Year of Jubilee counter the actual social and economic order. In this sense, the Old Testament cultic organization is just as questionable as is the early Christian or any other Christian organization up to the present. However, can a church at once both live according to its ordinances and leave room for prophetic voices? This fundamental question, too, will accompany us in our reading of the third book of Moses.

1.6 The Structure of the Book of Leviticus In the first part of the book we can discern an intentional, planned organization of material. The mandate to build the "tabernacle" ( ohel mo'ed; "tent of meeting" = model for the later Jerusalem temple) is given in great detail in Exodus 25-31. After the intermezzo with the golden calf and the renewal of the tables of the law (Ex. 32-34), the construction plans are carried out (Ex. 35-40). All that is missing now are the precise instructions for sacrifice (Lev. 1-7), and then the sanctuary can assume its role and be put into use with a great sacrificial festival (Lev. 8-9). The account of the negligent behavior of the sons of Aaron regarding sacrifice (Lev. 10) is added as an admonition to the priests and people (cf. the "wickedness of the sons of Eli" in 1 Sam. 2: 12-26). One must deal carefully with the sacred, following every regulation exactly. The text does not indicate why then the purity commandments, which after all do have direct significance for the sacrificial practices (Lev. 11-15; cf. also Lev. 21-22), are then appended rather than being placed prior to the inaugural service. Are differences between priests and laity playing a role here, such that significance is attributed to an adherence to the purity regulations only after the beginning of the temple services? The important priestly regulations in Leviticus 21f. would then come clearly too late. No, we must rather recognize that the many successive tradents and scribes involved with the sacred texts brought together material from different origins, and in this

introduction

18

process of transmission were no longer able to establish an exact chronological or logical order. The Pentateuchal material is often organized without any order at all. Old buildings exhibit a similarly disparate structure after several renovations. The collection in Leviticus 16-26 thus seems to derive from an extended process of collection and interpretation that is no longer transparent and probably took place quite independently of the composition of the first fifteen chapters. Thematically, we encounter here a greater variety of motifs. The annual festivals (Lev. 16; 23; 25), appropriate behavior within the family and one's immediate social sphere (Lev. 18; 19), a chapter of blessings and curses, asappended in other legal collections as well (Lev. 26; cf. Deut. 28), and the priestly regulations already mentioned (Lev. 21-22)-these are the main contents. The whole, however, or at least Leviticus 17-26, is held together by the familiar requirement, "you shall be holy ... "(Lev. 19:2; 20:7, 26; cf. 21 :6f.), and for this reason it is usually called the "Holiness Code" (though the requirement to be holy already also appears in Lev. 11 :44f.).

Excursus: The Holiness Code There are no direct references to any formerly independent "Holiness Code"; by contrast, compare Exodus 24:7, which at least mentions a "Book of the Covenant," later identified with Ex. 21:1-23:19. This "behavioral codex" 21 has been disclosed on the basis of peculiarities of language and content, and is named after the "requirement for holiness." The composition of the book of Leviticus apparently becomes more easily explainable if one assumes that Leviticus 17-26 was appended later as a self-enclosed block of older material. However, because the "theology of holiness" also elsewhere includes the people of Israel as a "holy" community (cf. Ex. 19:4-6; Lev. 11:44f.; Deut. 7:6), the hypothesis of an original Holiness Code stands or falls with a certain understanding of the literary genesis of the Pentateuch. Anyone seeking evidence of a conscious literary structuring of these texts must presuppose an intentional activity of collection and composition, and needs a redactional edifice such as the Holiness Code (which Karl Elliger separates further into four main redactions). In contrast, anyone accepting that the books of Moses originated as a more fortuitous emergence of tradition within the framework of the use of texts in worship will view the Holiness Code as a wishful phantom of scholarly literature.2 2

So we have before us a quite colorful collection of regulations, one whose previous history we will illuminate through specific analysis. Leviticus 27 is 21. Designations for the collection differ; cf. "Prescriptions for Practical Holiness," in Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 239. 22. Cf. Volker Wagner, "Zur Existenz des sogennanten 'Heiligkeitsgesetzes,' Zeitschriftfiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 ( 1974): 307-16; Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 145.

Introduction

19

then apparently an addendum or perhaps an old transition to the material now collected together in the fourth book of Moses. The following thematic structure emerges for the third book of Moses:

1-7

Sacrificial regulations (types of sacrifice; instructions for offering sacrifices)

8-10

Inaugural service at and in the tent of meeting (consecration; sacrifice; ordination; divine epiphany; negligence and striving for power on the part of Aaron's sons)

11-15

Purity commandments (dietary laws; causes of impurity; sexual defilement; reestablishment of cultic purity)

16-17

Main festival and main regulation concerning sacrifice (annual atonement of guilt; contra blood consumption)

18-20

Regulations for the life of the community (sexual taboos; social norms; community discipline)

21-22

Priestly regulations (purity; unblemished condition; consumption of offerings and sacrifices)

23-25

Sacral calendar (festivals and holy days; blasphemy; release of debts)

26-27

Conclusion and continuation (blessing; curse; regulations pertaining to vows; devoted gifts)

Our commentary will translate and explain the individual subsections of these thematic blocks and collections, and then discuss their sociotheological significance.

2. Sacrificial Regulations (Leviticus 1-7) 2.1 The Meaning of Sacrifice Sacrificial offerings have been part of religious ritual since time immemorial. Skeletal remains from the Stone Age attest the custom of presenting animals to the deity, presumably a development of hunting rites. 1 By all rights, the slain animal belongs to the deity (cf. Ps. 50:10f.). The hunter receives it from the lord or mistress of animals, and returns part of it or an entire specimen either symbolically or as actual divine nourishment. Such receiving and returning is continued in the agrarian cultures. Portions of the harvest and of livestock, indeed, occasionally even one's own children, belong to God (cf. Ex. 22:28f. [29f.E]). Other motives for sacrificial offerings were added during the course of time. The appropriation of the life force of the sacrificial animal; the frenzy of killing; participation in God's power of blessing and the fellowship of the cultic group attaching to the sacrificial meal; the reconciliatory and expiatory effects of offerings and of the spilling of blood: these and other impulses can be surmised behind the practice of sacrifice. Unfortunately, however, neither Old Testament texts nor any texts from the ancient Orient offer us "modems" any adequate explanation of the central event of the worship service of antiquity, namely, the offering of sacrifice. Hence, our attempts to delineate the three notions of offering, community, and atonement as the comprehensive motives represent merely modem rationalizations, and function only in a limited fashion as aids to understanding that cannot completely illuminate the mystery of sacrifice. 2 Sacrifice was doubtless practiced in Israel from the very beginning. The assertion that Israel did not offer sacrifices in its early period misses the mark (cf. Jer. 7:22f.; Amos 5:25), although the sacrificial practices of seminomadic shepherds probably did indeed differ from the holiday ceremonials of farmers and livestock herders. Prior to settled life, Israelite groups probably performed blood rituals such as those whose muted reflection we encounter in the Passover ritual (cf. Ex. 12:2lf.). Such sacrifices served to protect the group, especially in times of transition and seasonal wanderings. It is also quite possible that communal I. Cf. Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual. 2. Cf. also Marcel Mauss, The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies; Rene Girard, Das Ende der Gewalt; idem, The Scapegoat.

Leviticus 1

21

sacrifice was performed in which the extended family unit participated (cf. l Sam. 1:4; 20:6, 29). Communion with the clan god was being celebrated already during the pre-Yahweh period in the sacrificial meal, and similar sacrificial celebrations were probably conducted at various occasions: in the case of illness, vows, thanksgiving (cf. also the annual clan celebration in l Sam. 20:6, 29). Authentic documents from the period prior to the settlement of protoIsraelite groups, however, have not been preserved, and we must rely on conclusions drawn from the aforementioned texts, texts that in any event already presuppose an agrarian lifestyle. With the transition to agricultural life, however, the sacrificial practices in Israel probably underwent profound changes. The most noble sacrificial material became the ox, and the performance of the sacrifice shifted increasingly to local and regional sanctuaries with their professional priestly groups. Sporadic sacrifices were increasingly replaced by rituals and celebrations fixed in the course of the year by sowing and reaping (cf. Lev. 23), and the Israelites largely appropriated the customs, ceremonies, and institutions of worship dictated for the agricultural year among their Canaanite neighbors. Hos. 2:7-10 (5-SE) reveals that many sought good fortune among the Canaanite fertility gods. Through his prophet, Yahweh insists that Israel "does not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the wine, and the oil" (v. 10 [8E]). The suspicion is correct that the entire sacrificial institution in the temple in Jerusalem derives basically from Canaanite models. The present thematic block deals with the-or with the essential-types of sacrifice performed in Israel's tradition. The inner connection and the tensions between the individual textual units are clear. Burnt offerings, cereal offerings, and (slaughtered) animal offerings are addressed in the first three chapters of Leviticus, with the second chapter deviating at least stylistically from the first and third. The next two chapters (Lev. 4-5) deal with expiatory offerings. Then all these offering types are discussed once more in Leviticus 6-7 from a slightly different perspective, and the previously unmentioned "praise" or "thanksgiving offering" (todd) is added along with several essential regulations. We see that the section concerning types of sacrifices or offerings exhibits tensions in its overall composition, and in several individual texts within this section we will encounter even additional growth strata.

2.2 The Burnt Offering (Lev. 1)

Translation 1:1 [Yahweh] summoned Moses and spoke with him from the tent of meeting: 2 Speak to the Israelites, say to them: When any of you brings an offering to Yahweh, then you shall bring a livestock animal, ox or sheep [or goat] as your offering. 3 If the offering is a burnt offering of an

2.2 The Burnt Offering

22

ox, you shall offer an unblemished male animal. You shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, for acceptance in your behalf before Yahweh. 4 You shall lean your hand on the head of the animal, and it shall be acceptable in your behalf and will effect atonement for you. 5 The ox shall be slaughtered before Yahweh. The sons of Aaron, the priests, shall offer the blood. They shall dash the blood against all sides of the altar that is before the entrance to the tent of meeting. 6 The burnt offering shall be flayed and cut into the prescribed pieces. 7 The sons of Aaron, the priests, shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. s Then they shall arrange the parts, with the head and the fat, on the wood upon the altar fire. 9 But its entrails and its legs shall be washed with water. Then the priest shall tum all of it into smoke upon the altar. This is a burnt offering, a gift, a soothing aroma for Yahweh. 10 If your gift for a burnt offering is from the flock, from the sheep or goats, your offering shall be an unblemished male animal. 11 It shall be slaughtered on the north side of the altar before Yahweh. The sons of Aaron, the priests, shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar. 12 It shall be cut into the prescribed pieces, including head and fat. The priest shall arrange them on the wood upon the altar fire. 13 But the entrails and the legs shall be washed with water. Then the priest shall present all of it and tum it into smoke on the altar. This is a burnt offering, a gift, a soothing aroma for Yahweh. 14 If your offering to Yahweh is a burnt offering of birds, you shall present a turtledove or a simple pigeon. 15 The priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head, and tum it into smoke upon the altar. Its blood shall be drained out against the side of the altar. 16 He shall remove its crop with its excrement and throw it at the east side of the altar, in the place of ashes. 17 He shall tear it open by the wings without severing it [its body]. Then the priest shall tum it into smoke on the altar, upon the wood that is over the fire. This is a burnt offering, a gift, a soothing aroma for Yahweh.

Why Burnt Offering?

The first chapter treats in three sections the most solemn and consummate offering of that time, one with which Israel possibly became familiar from its Canaanite neighbors, since it does not correspond to the inherent customs of hunters or shepherds. 3 An entire animal, with the exception of the skin (cf.

3. Cf. Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual.

Leviticus 1

23

Lev. 7:8), is given over to the sacrificial fire so that it may ascend to God. It becomes a burnt offering ('old) or whole offering (kiilfl, cf. Ps. 51:21 [19E]; Latin: holocaustum = something totally burned, holocaust). Great events were celebrated with burnt offerings (cf. Gen. 8:20; I Sam. 6: 14; 7:9; 2 Sam. 6: 17; I Kings 8:64; etc.). Total burning was also the indicated form for possible human sacrifices (Gen. 22:2; Judg. 11:31; 2 Kings 3:27), and perhaps even derives from such. Occasionally, however, the burnt offering was also vehemently criticized (cf. Ps. 50:8; Isa. 1:11; Amos 5:22). In contrast to such criticism, Leviticus 1 engages in no reflection whatever concerning the occasion and justification for the burnt offering, rather simply presupposing that "a person" must present such high offerings at the given time. Neither is the authority mentioned that decides in favor of the burnt offering from among other possible kinds of sacrifice. Presumably the priest determines in any given instance which sacrifice is appropriate. He stands opposite the one bringing the sacrifice. The focus here is exclusively on "private sacrifice," not on the "official" sacrifices taking place regularly (and according to the same ritual?) in the temple (cf. Num. 28f.). The circumstances and motivating factors of the individual Israelite who comes to the sanctuary with an animal are completely disregarded. The only questions of interest to the textual tradent are: How does one proceed with the sacrificial animal presented as a burnt offering? Who is to perform the necessary procedures? Where does the sacrifice take place? The basic concern is to perform the sacrifice correctly (Latin rite), that is, according to the applicable regulations, that "it may be acceptable before Yahweh" (v. 3; cf. Lev. 19:5; 22:19-21). The smoke of the sacrifice is an "appeasing aroma" for Yahweh (vv. 9, 13, 17; cf. Gen. 8:21; Luther renders this as "pleasant aroma," following the Greek translation), and it effects "atonement" (v. 4; cf. Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35). The burnt offering, presented either by a family or for reasons of the state, is thus one special means, along with or before other types of sacrifices, of entering into a connection with even an angered deity. As much as the main interest of the text of Leviticus 1, namely, the careful regulation of the central sacrificial procedure, does indeed come clearly into view, all the more peculiar is it on the other hand that essential partial aspects as well as all the attendant and preparatory actions attaching to sacrifice are ignored. The time of the sacrifice apparently plays no role, the locale is not mentioned directly, the requisite utensils and instruments are hardly mentioned, and the circle of participants remains unclear. Although accompanying words or songs certainly belong to such sacrificial activity, they appear in our texts just as little as do the obligatory purifications, prayers, and confessions of the participants in the cult (cf. 1 Sam. 21 :Sf. [4f.E]). Many ritual instructions from the ancient Orient are considerably

24

2.2 The Burnt Offering

more informative in this respect, 4 and even occasional rituals in the Old Testament betray more details concerning the course of the ceremony (cf., e.g., Lev. 16; Num. 5:11-31; 19: 1-9; Deut. 21: 1-9). So why this extreme restriction to a few central procedures? Is it merely that the officiating priest be reminded of the significance of his role as patron for the blood rite? What becomes of the sphere of responsbililty attaching to the layperson, the member of the congregation, who in all the prescriptions of Leviticus 1-7 is the real director of the sacrifice? Let us consider these questions in our analysis and try, step by step, to get closer to an answer.

Analysis [1:1-2] The divine instructions for the correct performance of sacrifices come to the entire people oflsrael by way of Moses. The two introductory verses serve, as it were, as a superscription for all the following sacrificial regulations, at least till chap. 3, and more probably up to and including chap. 7. For Lev. 7:37f. contains a concluding notice corresponding to a certain extent to the beginning text in 1:1-2. Although the sequence and designations for the various kinds of sacrifice do not completely concur with the expressions and order of the regulations found in chaps. 1-5 and then again in chaps. 6--7, the concluding remark in Lev. 7:37f. does nonetheless refer to 1: 1-2. These apparently constitute the framework enclosing the collection of sacrificial regulations as a whole, even though different views concerning Yahweh's mode of revelation ("from the tent of meeting," 1:1; "from Mount Sinai," 7:38) do come to expression. Neither do the repeated discourse introductions (cf. Lev. 4:1-2; 5:14; 6:1-2 [8-9E]; 6:12 [19E]; 6:17 [24E]; 7:22-23; 7:28-29) and concluding formulae to the individual regulations (cf. Lev. 1:17; 2:15; 3:17; 5:19, etc.) change the fact that the entire block of sacrificial prescriptions in its final form does belong together. It is merely further subdivided within itself (with individual sections deriving possibly from what were formerly independent traditions) and incorporated as a whole into the larger context of the Sinai story and the Pentateuch. The language of this introduction is extremely revealing. That is, the author changes perspective and performs a change of position. He initially reports from a distance: "Yahweh summoned Moses ... spoke with him" (v. 1). He then passes over into direct discourse in order to lend appropriate weight to the divine commission: "Speak to the Israelites ... " (v. 2). At this point, one would expect a legal text with an objective formulation such as "if someone ... then he shall ... ," as is consistently the case in the original textual material of 4. Cf. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, vol. 2; Walter Beyerlin, Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 174-84; Erich Ebeling, Die akkadische Gebetsserie "Handerhebung" (Berlin: Akademie, 1953).

Leviticus 1

25

Leviticus 1-7. Not so in this introduction. The text continues to follow the situation of personal address: "When any of you ... " (v. 2); it is thus charging Moses as the representative of his people, and is not following exclusively the dialogue scene "God speaks with Moses." This expansion of the scenery, the inclusion of the congregation, does not happen by chance, but is rather consciously intended by the final collector of the sacrificial regulations; for the stylistic change from the objective mediation of divine sacrificial commandments to the personal "you" (singular or plural) admonitions permeates more or less strongly the entire section on sacrifice (cf. the second person plural: Lev. 2:11f.; 3:17; 7:23-26, 32; second person singular: Lev. 2:4, Sf., 7f., 13, 14f.; 6: 14, 18 [21, 25E]). This direct admonition can everywhere be clearly distinguished from the objective style of the ritual regulations. The direct address of the people or of the congregation is similarly thrown into relief in the book of the covenant in an ancient legal collection (Ex. 20-23), and Deuteronomy is largely cast in the form of direct address. This stylistic peculiarity must have some significance. Since it is utterly alien to the original texts of the law in both the legal and the cultic sphere-where in the world are legal books composed in direct, admonitory address?-and since it is everywhere recognizable as a late reformulation of and framework around older regulatory material, it must be traced back to the final authors and collectors of these texts, who had in mind their own situation involving the mediation of these commandments. They want to say to the congregation of their own time: These commandments were given for you (cf. also Deut. 29:9-14 [10-15E]; 30:11-14)! For you, who here and now are hearing these words! The second person address, directed to the people, thus reflects the attempt to anchor current cultic regulations in the distant past and in Israel's wilderness period, while at the same time keeping them relevant for the present. Other Old Testament passages betray a consciousness of the fact that the sacrificial institutions of the temple were not even known yet during the time of Moses (cf. Jer. 7:22; Amos 5:25). This is further proof that the Levitical process of the giving of the law was projected back into the founding period of Israel. Why did the final author refer so emphatically to Moses? Why did he not at least have the sacrificial prescriptions mediated through Aaron, who after all was considered by later tradition to have been the progenitor of the priesthood? Indeed, Aaron and his descendants do play a prominent role in the cultic sections of the Pentateuch (cf. Ex. 6:32; Lev. Sf.); the preeminent role of Moses, however, is everywhere maintained. He is the recipient of revelation and its mediator; the priesthood is temporal and substantively subordinate. First and foremost, Yahweh aided his entire people and made his ordinances known to them-so in the second book of Moses; only then did the cultic operations with their finely organized priesthood emerge (Ex. 25ff.). Thus it is that the Aaronids appear in the sacrificial laws as the accountable priests (Lev. 1:5ff.;

26

2.2 The Burnt Offering

2:3, 10, etc.), but appear in the introductory formula only twice in a subordinate position (Lev. 6:2, 18 [9, 25E]). With whom does the author of the textual collection identify? In whose footsteps is the author following? Would it not have been easy, had it been commensurate with his needs, to place Aaron into a more prominent position? Given the fact that Moses dominates in the sacrificial laws, and that it is then logically he who installs Aaron into his office (chap. Sf.), must we not conclude that the author and "editor" of the sacrificial prescriptions places value on the ultimate authority of the mediator of the revelation, namely, Moses? The author also has those of Yahweh's ordinances relating to the innermost cultic sphere come strictly through Moses (v. 1). The man Moses receives Yahweh's solemn "summons" (v. 1; cf. Ex. 19:3; 24:16), and is commissioned to pass on the divine message from the sanctuary (or from Mount Sinai). Anyone placing the nonpriest Moses so emphatically into the central position cannot be representing exclusively priestly interests. Furthermore, anyone who as the final collector and editor is collating regulations of this sort, and is insisting on their accurate transmission, in all probability already has written sources available, and is in tum passing on in written form the contemporary message with which he is commissioned. This would accord well with the author's previously observed tendency to incorporate retroactively into the older texts the direct address to a community. We thus suspect that these sacrificial regulations are to be read aloud to the congregation, and are to be understood as the sacred revelations of the period of Moses. In this framework to the sacrificial laws we observe an age in which the postexilic congregation was already hearing God's word read aloud, probably in the celebration of worship. The frequent repetition of the revelatory and commissioning formula (nine times in the sacrificial regulations alone, see above) repeatedly emphasizes to the listening congregation: These prescriptions were originally given through Moses, and are valid, unchanged, for all of "you," that is, for the congregation of the postexilic period. [3-9]5 The general introduction applied to all types of sacrifice; now the first specific theme is addressed, namely, the burnt offering, first that of an ox. The other sacrificial animals follow in vv. I 0-17. The following points are mentioned, and allude to the basic pattern of a sacrificial rite, at least to the extent the author considers it of significance: Selection of the sacrificial animal (criterion: unblemished male; v. 3b) Transfer of sin through hand leaning (v. 4) Immolation (v. Sa) 5. Cf. Rolf Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus I :1-9 (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1992).

Leviticus 1

27

Blood aspersion (v. 6) Flaying and dividing the animal (v. 6) Altar preparation (v. 7) Burning of the main parts of the animal (v. 8) Cleansing of the entrails, and so on (v. 9a) Burning of"the whole" (animal) (v. 9b) Every single step of this ceremony, of course, is laden with significance, and derives from centuries or even millennia of practice. We will first discuss the individual sacrifices, and then return to the basic pattern of the burnt offering ceremony itself. First, let us point out a few particularities. The ox was the most valuable domesticated and sacrificial animal not only in Israel itself, but in the entire Syrian-Canaanite sphere. Cattle breeding is possible only for sedentary farmers, since these animals are unable to endure the burdens of nomadic life. For the farmer, however, they guarantee the necessities of life, above all through their milk production and as an occasional source of meat. Furthermore, oxen of any age are desirable objects of trade. Hence the wealth of a family is figured according to the size of its herd (cf. Gen. 32: 15f. [14f.E]; Job 42:12), and in most inventories the ox heads the list of valuable possessions (cf. Gen. 32:6 [5E]; Ex. 20: 17). A person's most valuable possession, however, must also be the special (festival) gift for Yahweh (cf. Num. 28: 11-29:39). Hence as a rule, the ox sacrifice stands at the top of the sacrificial lists and ordinances after Israel becomes a settled people (cf. Lev. 3:1-5; 22: 19; Deut. 12:6). Giving up to God a healthy ox as a burnt offering, without even partaking of it in a meal (as is presupposed for the sacrifices in chap. 3), would represent something like opening a vein for the person presenting the offering, comparable today only to the surrender of a portion of one's wealth. Presumably, only affluent farmers during good times were in a position to do this. A second characteristic of the regulations for the ox burnt offering is that the author or collector of the text speaks somewhat more extensively here. The author is concerned with the sacrificial goal of "finding favor," or "being accepted." These theological key words are complemented by the notion of "effecting atonement" (kipper, v. 4b), a notion important for the entire third book of Moses. The verb kipper occurs fourteen times in the chapters on sacrifice, thirty-six additional times in the book of Leviticus (with a strong concentration in chap. 16), and forty-three additional times in the remaining Old Testament. That is, the fifty occurrences in the third book of Moses are juxtaposed with forty-three passages in the remaining Old Testament. This distribution proves the central significance attaching to the propitiatory sacrificial practice at least for certain redactors of the priestly tradition. 6 The concern is with the 6. Bernd Janowski, Siihne als Heilsgeschehen.

28

2.2 The Burnt Offering

extinguishing of sin and guilt, which is the goal of the cultic rites. The same concern is then picked up once again in the concluding notice of v. 9: "This is an appeasing offering for Yahweh." So also in v. 13 and v. 17. Accordingly, the burnt offering, regardless ofthe animal involved, should- primarily? in the opinion of the final redactor?-atone guilt. Peculiarly, this indication of purpose does not also mention the sacrificial occasions themselves, as is the case, for example, in 1 Kings 8:31-51 or Lev. 4-5. [10--17] The two following sections (vv. 10-13 and vv. 14-17) address, in parallel language and structure, the smaller sacrificial animals, sheep (or goats) and doves. This alludes quite clearly to the varying lifestyles and economic status of those conducting the sacrifices. Only the fairly affluent farmer or property owner is able to offer an ox. Less wealthy persons must tum to the "poor man's cow," namely, the sheep or goat, the most precious possession of the poor according to 2 Sam. 12:1,4. In the seminomadic early period there were no other sacrificial animals (cf. Gen. 22:13; Judg. 13:19; Ezek. 12:3-5). According to Lev. 5:7; 12:8; 14:21, the choice of sacrificial animal depends on the economic status of the person bringing the sacrifice. For example, the offerings of the tribal princes in Num. 7:10-88 are commensurate with their status; although they encompass great numbers of cereal offerings, burnt offerings, sin offerings, and thanksgiving offerings, they do not include the offerings of the lowest social class. If the poor decimate their own domestic animal holdings, they will be unable to engage in any livestock farming at all; hence, they must tum here to the lesser animals: pigeon and turtledove, either domesticated or wild. Such birds were apparently easier to come by, and only Lev. 5: 11 addresses the case of a person unable even to provide doves or pigeons. Hence the gradation of sacrificial animals-ox, sheep, dove-probably reflects a social scale corresponding approximately to the social reality of the time. Although the social engagement of the priestly or Levitical circles is unmistakable here (cf. chap. 25), a certain blemish does nonetheless seem to attach to the offering of the lesser person. Although the presentation of doves as a substitutionary or casual offering may very well have been quite customary (cf. Lev. 12:6; 14:22; 15:14, 29; Num. 6:10), here, in the chapter on the burnt offering, that is, among the most solemn and weighty offerings, the gift of a dove or pigeon appears a bit lost. Furthermore, despite the same basic underlying sacrificial procedure, it nonetheless is clearly set off from the ox and sheep sacrifices both stylistically and as regards content. Verse 14 does indeed begin in a manner similar to v. 3 and v. 10, but it soon becomes entangled in the superfluous repetition of the expression "your offering" (usually omitted in translations). Then, in vv. 15-17, the priest abruptly and exclusively takes over the entire performance of the sacrifice, though certainly not just because it would be difficult to collect the small amount of dove blood after the slaugh-

Leviticus I

29

ter. Does it not seem as if all cultic privileges have been withdrawn from the economically less well-endowed? Do those presenting only doves or pigeons for the highest sacrifice represent the cultically less esteemed congregation members, perhaps slaves, women, or foreigners? Or is this unfounded speculation, and is the author merely offering a schematic listing of the entire range of all possible burnt offerings, as does the author who in Gen. 8:28; 15:9 presents a summary enumeration of sacrificial animals? The relatively special position of vv. 14-17 does in any case make us wonder. The birds allowed as burnt offerings are treated differently than the quadrupeds. Killing with the bare hand (in Hebrew literally: "pinching off' the head) instead of butchering; squeezing out the blood onto the side of the altar; removal and disposal of the crop (which ends up in a rubbage heap, the "place of ashes," situated east of the altar itself); tearing open by the wings instead of dividing the body-all these are procedures that cannot be understood merely on the basis of a bird's anatomy. The basis might more likely be an independent tradition, perhaps distantly related to some special veneration of the dove. For example, dove cults are known from Syria, and Gen. 8:8-12 and 15:10 both presuppose special significance attaching to these birds.

The Burnt Offering Rituals Accordingly, the standard procedure of a burnt offering, or, more precisely, the innermost core of such an offering, is to be sought in vv. 3-13. This is already clearly expressed in v. 2, and can be attested by occasional sacrificial texts in the historical books and the psalms (cf., e.g., 2 Sam. 6: 13; 1 Kings 8:63; Ps. 50: 13): The ox and sheep are the real sacrificial animals, and of the two, the latter doubtless represents the older, more original offering. The instructions regarding the sheep or goat (vv. 10-13) are briefer, simpler, and less reflective. Yet even these rules in their present condition have been influenced by their priestly transmission, and probably also reworked. That is, they fix an order of lay and priestly actions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Layperson: Selection, presentation of the animal (v. 10) Layperson: Immolation at the north side of the altar (v. lla) Priest: Aspersion of blood round about the altar (v. 11 b) Layperson: Division of the animal (v. 12a) Priest: Burning of certain parts (v. 12b) Layperson: Washing of entrails and shins (v. 13a) Priest: Burning of entrails and shins (v. 13b)

The steps constituting such presentation concur with other Old Testament and extra-Israelite sacrificial procedures: The animal is brought to the sacred

30

2.2 The Burnt Offering

place, killed there, and conveyed to the deity. The situation of the burnt offering and the participation of laity and priests, however, reveal certain peculiarities. The leading of the sheep (or the goat, v. 10) out of the secular and into the sacred sphere is already an act laden with significance. It is designated throughout this chapter (1:3, 10, 14) by the same word that can mean "present an offering." This "bringing forth" = "presentation" of the animal heralds the entire ceremony. Preparatory or accompanying gestures of consecration were doubtless necessary so that both participant and sacrificial animal might "be found acceptable" (cf. v. 3b ). This is attested also by the required first class of sacrifice (v. lOb). Although the hand leaning associated with the ox ritual (v. 4) is absent at the sheep and goat sacrifice, it seems important enough for the tradents, and also customary in any case for all quadruped sacrifices (cf. Ex. 29:10, 15, 19; Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 5, 24, 29, 33; 8:14, 18, 22; 16:21), that we may add it following v. 10. Such hand placement is unattested only for dove or pigeon sacrifice, and was perhaps superfluous since the offerer already held the animal in hand when bringing it to the altar. This hand placement symbolizes the close connection between participant and offering and the transfer of the burden of sin to the offering. The slaughter (v. l1a) is carried out by slitting the throat and letting the blood of the unanesthetized animal, that is, by kosher butchering (the Hebrew word used here is Siil}af). Fear of the forbidden consumption of blood (Lev. 17: 10-14) prompts this method of killing. It presupposes the fettering or forceful grasping of the animal, which in mortal fear tries to defend itself. Whereas in the case of the ox sacrifice at the beginning the text spoke indeterminately of presentation "before the tent of meeting" and "before Yahweh" ( vv. 3, 5; but vv. 5-9 then already speak more precisely of the "altar," cf. Ex. 29:42), now the altar is specified as the sacrificial site (v. 11a). This refers to the altar of burnt offering standing exposed before the temple area, understood under the conditions of the wilderness wanderings in Ex. 27:1-8; 38:9-20. In reality, however, a wooden frame, no matter how well covered with copper plating, could not withstand the heat of a burnt offering. Hence the tradents are probably referring to a stone-earth altar in the court of the Jerusalem temple,? but theoretically alter it for the wilderness period into a wooden frame, yet in specific instances speak only of "the altar," and not of an "altar of acacia wood" (chaps. 1-7). Why Lev. 1: 11 a speaks expressly of the "north side" of the altar is a mystery. Is the side turned away from the sun a place of darkness and dread? Blood aspersion and the stepwise burning of the animal (vv. 11 b, 12b, 13b) are rites reserved for the priest. Regarding blood, an ancient notion may ap7. Cf. Helga Weippert, Paldstina in vorhe/lenistischer Zeit, 473f.; N.H. Gadegaard, "On the so-called Burnt Offering Altar in the Old Testament," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 ( 1978) 35-45; Ezek. 43:13-17; 2 Kings 16:10-13.

Leviticus 1

31

ply: The element of life belongs to God, and must be returned to him (Lev. 17; Deut. 12:16, 23-25). At the same time, however, an understanding of atonement is present that exercises a strong influence even into Christianity. The blood of the sacrifice appeases God, just as a valuable offering is able to assuage his anger (cf. 4:5-7). In the present chapter, the blood collected at the slaughter is then completely cast round about against the altar stand. The priest then carries the animal, which the offerer has quartered, to the altar. Although the fire (cf. v. 7) is not mentioned again, it is clear that the priest alone is authorized to perform the entire burning procedure, first the hindquarters and head, doubtless in a strict order, and then the cleansed entrails and leg parts. In some sacrifices, the latter have special significance (cf. Ex. 12:9), though neither are the entrails merely refuse, but rather in part a delicacy or ritually important constituent part of the sacrifice. Among the Sudanese Dinka and Nuer, the stomach contents (chyme) of an ox are occasionally used "sacramentally. "8 Each individual act here had its own profound significance, one sanctified through long tradition, and the entire ceremony doubtless was not performed in silence. A comparison with sacrificial rites in tribal societies is extremely instructive, even if one can never adduce complete coincidence. E. E. EvansPritchard, for example, describes Nuer ceremonies having the following elements: presentation, consecration, invocation, immolation. The invocation of God over the consecrated sacrificial animal can be accentuated, can continue for hours and even intensify during the actual slaughter of the animal. H ymnic singing may also accompany the sacrificial ceremony. Whole offerings, that is, those during which no part of the sacrificed animal is used by human beings, seem to have been extremely rare among the Nuer.9 The Meaning of the Whole Offering What value did the temple congregation around 500 B.C.E. ascribe to the burnt offering? In Leviticus 1-3 it is emphatically placed in the first position, and in other cases as well, the burnt offering occasionally heads up a list of sacrificial types (cf. l Kings 8:64; 2 Kings 16: 13; 2 Chron. 13:11; Jer. 33: 18; Amos 5 :22). This concurs with our general impression: In various Old Testament strata, the burnt offering is the typical sacrifice performed at the Jerusalem sanctuary (cf. l Kings 8:64; Ezra 3:2-7). This estimation is somewhat at odds with the emphatic declaration that the temple was allegedly a "house of prayer for all nations" (Isa. 56:7; cf. l Kings 8. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion, 214. 9. Ibid., 208-20.

32

2.2 The Burnt Offering

8:22-53). Be that as it may, the burnt offering is the most frequently mentioned type of sacrifice in the Old Testament. In some passages one allegedly can observe the introduction of this "complete donation" of an animal to Yahweh within the growth strata of the various texts. According to the oldest narrative, Gideon (Judg. 6) and Manoah (Judg. 13) intended to bring a cereal offering. Later tradents turned this into a burnt offering (Judg. 6:26, 28; 13:19-23). 10 In late cultic literature, the burnt offering appears as a daily presentation, and as one officially required on all festival days (Ex. 29:38-42; Num. 28-29); the number of animals sacrificed seems to have continually increased (cf. 1 Kings 3:4), and the burnt offering itself penetrates into the private sphere as well. Tradition avers that some vows were discharged with a burnt offering (cf. Judg. II :31, 39; Ps. 66: 13-15) or that urgent pleas to Yahweh for healing or deliverance were underscored with such total offerings (cf. 1 Sam. 7:9f.; Ps. 20:4 [3E]). Complete incineration is even mentioned as a thanksgiving offering and act of confession (cf. Ex. 20:24; Judg. 6:26, 28). In the specifically "priestly" traditions, a special development seems to take place that at first glance contradicts these findings. The "sin offering" (cf. Lev. 4) dislodges the burnt offering into the second position (cf. Ex. 29: 10-18; Lev. 9: 15-17; Ezek. 43: 18). But this appearance is misleading: At consecration rituals, atonement is necessary before the regular sacrificial service can begin, which Ezra 3:3 and Ezek. 43:18 in concurrence designate in principle as the presentation of burnt offerings. Furthermore, the sin offering, described in detail in Lev. 4:1-5:I3, seems to be merely a variation of the burnt offering. It is a total offering at which the blood and fat remain at the altar of Yahweh, while the rest of the cadaver is carried to a place of ashes outside the temple precincts, where it is burned (Lev. 4: II f., 21 ). If this is correct, then we can view the "sin offering" as a further postexilic development of the older "burnt offering." Individual comparisons between the rites and purported goals in Leviticus 1 and 4, including a consideration of the burning of fat mentioned in Leviticus 3, support this interpretation. Both an analysis of the sacrificial prescriptions as well as general considerations of cultic practice at large, however, do prompt us to view somewhat more skeptically the Old Testament accounts concerning the significance, frequency, and scope of burnt offerings. Several reservations need to be addressed: a. Sacrificial institutions underwent a development in the Old Testament itself11 during which, it seems to me, the burnt offering moved increasingly into the foreground. When, for example, in the literary redaction of Judges 6 and Judges 13 one discerns a transformation of the cereal/freewill offering into a 10. Leonhard Rost, Studien zum Opfer im A/ten Israel, 17ff. II. Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im A/ten Israel.

Leviticus 1

33

burnt offering, 12 the later (perhaps exilic?) interest in the "highest" type of sacrifice clearly emerges. Countless passages speak stereotypically about the burnt offerings that were often presented in great numbers at the occasion of assemblies of the people, and in the later strata a daily burnt offering at the temple is made the rule (cf. Ex. 29:38-42; Num. 28:3-8; 2 Kings 16:10-18; 2 Chron. 13: !Of.; Ezra 3:3, 5). This much is certain: The theological estimation of the burnt offering was extremely high in the exilic-postexilic period. b. Did this correspond to actual sacrificial practice? Was the burnt offering also highly significant for the private household? We can only speculate. Economic factors must be considered, in both the private and the official sphere (contrasting the two cultic spheres is not always meaningful). Like no other type of sacrifice, the burnt offering constituted a complete economic loss for the offerer. It was placed at God's disposal alone. It was not able to take over the other important functions of sacrifice, such as the establishment of fellowship or the support of the cultic apparatus. Neither the interests of the priests nor those of the community were preserved in these points. The naked annihilation of goods makes economic "sense" only when the pressure of production becomes too great. This might be applied to contemporary, chemically amplified agricultural production in the European Community, but not to ancient Israel. c. Private sacrifices by individual families, as presupposed in Leviticus I, were presumably rarely if ever performed as sacrifices of complete burning. Burnt offerings are sooner comprehensible for the collective community on holidays. The daily burnt offering of Ex. 29:38-42; Num. 28:3-8, which is doubled compared with 2 Kings 16:15 ("burnt offering in the morning, and cereal offering in the evening"), represents a tremendous burden in and of itself. Where are more than seven hundred sheep or goats without blemish to be found yearly merely for this regular temple service? Who cut and delivered the quantities of wood required for the burning? Where were the voluminous quantities of ash and bone remnants of the incinerated animals taken? How many of Jerusalem's inhabitants would have stood the stench continually emanating from the altar? d. The thesis of the Canaanite origin of the burnt offering and of the nomadic origin of the cereal (or animal) offering prompts us to exercise caution. We too easily fall into the black-and-white cliche of a pure Yahweh religion becoming infected with pagan superstition through contact with the inhabitants of the settled countries. The question of origin is best left open. The sacrificial literature of the ancient Orient (which is a thousand times more extensive than that of the Old Testament) offers hardly any evidence for the whole burning of sacrificial animals. 13 1 Kings 18, the sacrifice of Elijah and the priests of Baal 12. Leonhard Rost, Studien zum Opfer im A !ten Israel, 17ff. 13. Cf., e.g, Manfred Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, "Ugaritische Rituale und Beschworungen," Texte aus der Umwelt des A/ten Testaments, 2.300-57; Jean-Michel Tarragon, Le culte ii Ugarit.

34

2.2 The Burnt Offering

on Mount Carmel, does not constitute proof of "Canaanite" total burning: The manners of sacrifice are conceived in complete parallel and in no way represent a stumbling block. Our conclusion: The completely burned sacrifice is probably an Israelite peculiarity. Its preeminent significance especially in the later period of the Old Testament derives above all from the theological and literary need to emphasize complete devotion to Yahweh. We must presumably evaluate the burnt offering regulations as regards their theological significance above all, and not primarily as regards their assertions regarding actual practice. One thing, however, is clear enough: In Leviticus 1 the tradents are regulating a type of sacrifice that demands the complete surrender of the animal (the "offering," so vv. 2, 10, 14). They are familiar with the custom of "total burnt offerings" in extreme situations. In the distant, ideal wilderness period, Moses allegedly received the regulations for such whole offerings, and Aaron performed them. Now, however, Israel is strewn to the four winds, and the burnt offering hardly has any concrete significance in the private situation of their distress. Yet these regulations are highly significant as a perception of the ancestors' devotion to Yahweh; as an example of the cooperation of priest and laity; as a legitimation of the sacred functions and privileges of the current priests; and as a concurrence with the following (chap. 5) claims for support. We can easily imagine a time in which the Israelite father or eldest of the clan determined the entire sacrificial procedure, such as Abraham (Gen. 22), Noah (Gen. 8:20), or Manoah (Judg. 13). The participation of the priest, and his exclusive responsibility for the altar rites, emerged slowly, and only over the course of centuries after the establishment of the monarchy and the imperial cult. Now, after the exile, and with the rededication of the temple in the year 515 B.C.E., the priests also have a decisive voice. The author probably wants to emphasize and secure this, and this is why from 1:5 on he introduces quite intentionally the priest or priests as acting subjects. The blood rite and the burning of the animal on the altar are reserved for them. According to Lev. 17:10-14, blood is the seat of life, and for that reason belongs to God the creator alone. It is under no circumstances permitted to serve human consumption. Dealing with the blood of life demands the most extreme caution, and only the consecrated priest can assign it over to God at the altar. The holy place stands under his sole supervision and care; the layperson, because of lesser "holiness" (cf. chap. 21), would sorely disturb the altar sphere. We notice how Christian views still valid today concerning the special consecration and commission of the priest have their origin here. In the preexilic period this qualitative, fundamental separation of priests and laity did not exist. Two questions emerge. First, did the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem (cf. Deut. 12) not by itself lead to a monopolization of the priestly office? And

Leviticus 1

35

second, how could the Israelite bring his burnt offering to the central cultic site if the congregations were strewn over the whole known world? Concerning the first: Indeed, it was only through the strict centralization of the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem that provincial priests and family heads were robbed of their sacrificial functions (cf. 2 Kings 23:5, Sf.). This monopolization of the cult was probably carried out in its full extent only after the exile, and not already under King Josiah. 14 Concerning the second: Theory and practice do not seem quite to coincide in the third book of Moses. The requirement of presenting an offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting, that is, at the one holy site and through the mediation of the one Aaronid priesthood, disregards the dispersal of the postexilic communities. It is astonishing in any case that in 1:3-13 the layperson is yet allowed to carry out the slaughter of the sacrificial animal; in a later period, this, too, was performed by priests or Levites (cf. I Chron. 23:21; 2 Chron. 29:34; 35:11: Ezek. 44:1 ). The sacrificial laws in the third book of Moses, as far as the training and privileges of the priestly class are concerned, occupy the middle ground. Cultic interdiction has not advanced so far that the earlier autonomous father or clan chief has to watch the sacrificial procedure at the central altar in utter passivity. We can conclude from this that the authors of the burnt offering regulations were extremely concerned with securing priestly privilege, also and especially when the early Jewish congregation must be viewed as the consistent co-addressee of these regulations. In an age relatively alienated from the sacrificial cult, it was doubtless especially difficult to maintain the claims of the central priesthood. The other concern already mentioned above, namely, that of attaining appeasement and atonement through the burnt offering, must now also be viewed in the light of the priestly organization. The ritual of transfer of sin through "hand leaning" (cf. Lev. 16:21) and the double mention of purpose (vv. 3, 4) evince an essential theological interest. Inappropriate behavior and impurity on the part of congregation members must be cultically neutralized, or "covered," so that a sanctified life is possible. Behind this theology of atonement we discern a heightened consciousness of sin. Whereas in some exilic and nonpriestly Old Testament texts (e.g., Pss. 44; 89; Job) one openly encounters the question of Yahweh's own "guilt" in the misery of his people and his believers, certain other circles-precisely during the postexilic restoration period- focused on self-accusation exclusively. Israel alone sinned before Yahweh; this is why it has been punished through subjection and banishment (cf. Ezra 9; Neh. 9; Pss. 78; 106). The priestly circles at the central sanctuary consider themselves responsible for the entire people in and around Jerusalem 14. Cf. Ernst Wiirthwein, Die Bucher der Konige, Das Alte Testament Deutsch 11/2 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 455f., 463f.

2.2 The Burnt Offering

36

as well as in the Diaspora. Ideally, they are to effect perpetual atonement through daily sacrifices (cf. Num. 28: 1-8). They are, as it were, the spiritual purifiers on duty, and they perform this service later in strict correspondence even with the most distant congregations. According to the Mishna (Ta'an. iv.2), delegations from the various "church" provinces regularly attended the sacrifice in Jerusalem. Similarly, a prayer and lectionary service was conducted at the time of the daily sacrifice in the home region of the current "Maamad" (group of representatives). Furthermore, even today the Jewish community of faith celebrates a high day of atonement once a year, one which-as long as the temple was still standing-summarized once again, as it were, the regular sacrifices after the scapegoat ritual (Lev. 16). Today this "Yom Kippur" is a day of penitence and repentance without bloody sacrifice. Of course, amid all these atonement rituals one can indeed question the extent to which they function not only as an expression of collective guilt consciousness and the need for purification, but also as a legitimation and promotion of the spiritual leadership controlling the atonement procedures. We will return to this question later (cf. the discussion of chap. 21). Burnt offerings are particularly solemn and consummate presentations to God. How can this form of offering be explained? How is it that the sacrificial smoke can be an "appeasing aroma" for Yahweh? Human beings are from the very beginning oriented toward giving and receiving. People know that they live from that which is given or bestowed, and out of gratefulness and respect they return to the deity to which they consider themselves bound a portion of these bestowed provisions. We encounter a variety of sacrificial customs in Israel's surroundings exhibiting the features of a gift: food for the gods; the surrender of firstfruits; libations; burnt offerings. 15 The Old Testament itself contains traces of almost every sort of offering attested among ancient Near Eastern peoples. Israel, too, "anthropomorphizes" Yahweh, and even the priests themselves speak quite anthropomorphically and in an "earthly" fashion about "food for God" (cf. Lev. 21:6, 21f.). But the sacrificial smoke-does it, too, have something to do with such provisioning with food? Does it represent a manner of providing nourishment corresponding to the ethereal essence of God? Is it compensation for human guilt? Or does this stereotypically recurring expression (cf. Ex. 29:18,25, 41; Num. 15:3,7, 10, 13, 14, 24; Ezek. 20:41) refer merely to the pleasant aroma of burning flesh-a terrible notion for us? What kind of God is this that can be influenced by such gifts? A consideration of the polemic against sacrifice and idols in the Old Testament itself (cf. 1 Kings 18:22-29; Pss. 50:7-15; 51:18 [16E]; 115:6) reveals that our own horrified questions do not derive merely from a modem, altered view of life. Nonetheless, this question concerning Israel's God, who like the gods of the 15. Cf. Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East.

Leviticus 2

37

world at that time as a whole did require and accept bloody sacrifice, should first be posed against the background of the ancient oriental world itself. Despite any spiritualization of theological thinking, the Old Testament, even during the period of restoration after the exile, developed an understanding of God completely commensurate with that of the ancient Orient at large (and one that was universally human?). It incorporates the principle of "gift" and "countergift"16 into its theological thinking. Yahweh becomes the superior master who opens up all the possibilities of life; in return, like all known rulers, he demands tribute and complete devotion. Can the message of the delivering, merciful God that seems so central elsewhere in the Old Testament exist alongside this understanding (cf. Ex. 1-15; Ps. 103)?

2.3 The Cereal Offering (Lev. 2) Translation When anyone presents a cereal offering to Yahweh, it shall be of semolina; the worshiper shall pour oil upon it and put frankincense on it, 2 and bring it to Aaron's sons, the priests. The priest shall take a handful of semolina and oil, and all of the frankincense, and shall turn this sacrificial portion [literally "memorial offering"] into smoke on the altar: a gift, a soothing aroma for Yahweh. 3 And what is left of the cereal offering shall belong to Aaron and his sons. It is most holy, because it comes from Yahweh's sacrificial gifts. 4 When you present a cereal offering baked in an oven, it shall be ring-shaped semolina cakes from unleavened (dough) mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil. s If your offering is grain prepared on a griddle, it shall consist of semolina mixed with oil, and be unleavened. 6 You shall break it in pieces, and pour oil upon it: It is a cereal offering. 7 If your offering is grain prepared in a pan, it shall consist of semolina and oil. s You shall bring to Yahweh cereal offerings prepared in any of these ways. Hand them over to the priest, who shall take them to the altar. 9 The priest shall remove a portion of the cereal offering ["the memorial offering"] and turn it into smoke on the altar. It is an offering, a soothing aroma for Yahweh. 10 What is left of the cereal offering shall belong to Aaron and his sons. It is most holy, because it comes from Yahweh's sacrificial gifts. 2:1

11 No cereal offering that you bring to Yahweh shall be prepared with leaven, for you must not use as an offering for Yahweh anything fermented or any honey. 12 You may present it to Yahweh as an offering of firstlings,

16. Cf. Marcel Mauss, The Gift.

2.3 The Cereal Offering

38

but it shall not come upon the altar as a soothing aroma. 13 You shall season with salt every cereal offering; never allow the salt of the covenant with your God to be absent from your cereal offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt. 14 If you bring to Yahweh cereal offerings from the first harvest, you shall roast ears on the fire, prepare a dough of milled grain, and present this as a cereal offering of the firstlings. 15 You shall add oil to it and lay frankincense on it. It is a cereal offering. 16 The priest shall tum to smoke a portion [literally "the memorial offering"] of grain and oil as well as all the frankincense: an offering for Yahweh.

The Language The peculiarly personal language in chap. 2 has already caught our attention: From v. 4 on, the addressee is consistently the offerer(s). This style is alien to legislation as such, and is comprehensible only in a situation involving recitation before a listening congregation or individual. Apparently, this directly addressed counterpart is to be informed concerning the correct preparation of the vegetable cereal offering. In this chapter, too, the priest appears as the one who performs the actual altar service, that is, the rite of burning, but he clearly moves into the second position. All our attention is directed to the offerer(s). Again, two separate parts can be distinguished in the section comprising vv. 4-16, a section formulated as direct address. Verses 4-10 constitute instruction to an individual, though they contain relatively few verbs of action (e.g., in v. 6 and v. 8). Instead, clauses defining, describing, and setting conditions dominate: "it shall consist of semolina" (v. 7), "it is an offering ... " (v. 9). Three subcases are introduced in vv. 4, 5, 7 with conditional clauses. This entire passage organizes the composition and preparation of cereal offerings. In contrast, the second section (vv. 11-16) is concerned more with preventing (frequent?) mistakes in preparing the sacrificial materials. Nothing leavened may be added to the dough, but salt must always be included (vv. 11-13). This more strongly admonitory piece is initially (vv. 11f.) cast in the plural, but is then followed by a more instructive regulation, again in the singular, concerning the offering of firstlings (vv. 14-16). Verses 1-3 are thrown into relief against the overall section of personal instruction by their objective character concisely fixing the essential conditions. Only v. 1 addresses the preparation of the offering, its formulation recalling the conditional clauses in Lev. I :3, 10, 14. The characteristic feature, of course, is the fundamental introduction: "When anyone presents ... " (cf. Lev. 4:2; 5:1; similarly in 1:2a). The basic ingredients semolina (according to other interpreters: fine flour), oil, and frankincense are mentioned; the concluding for-

Leviticus 2

39

mula "it is a cereal offering" has perhaps been omitted from the end of v. I. But this already covers the entire preparation. The main emphasis falls on the priest's activity in vv. 2-3. The instructions in v. 2, concluded by a declarative formula, are directed to the altar servant. The assignment formula in v. 3 is also directed to this servant, and a longer attributive clause has been added qualifying the priestly share of the sacrifice. Hence, this chapter's brief initial passage, like essential parts of chaps. I and 3, is interested in priestly privileges and the provisioning of priests (cf. also vv. 8-10, 16). In contrast, vv. 4-15, cast in personal terms, serve lay instruction. Hence the growth of the text can already be discerned in its language. Originally these may have been domestic instructions for the correct preparation of baked goods for the simple cereal offering within the family circle. These are contained in vv. 4-8 and 13-15 (cf. Jer. 7:18). This popular offering then became primarily a supplement to animal offerings, now under priestly supervision. The expression "a burnt offering with its cereal offering" is characteristic of this situation (cf. Lev. 23: 18; Num. 7:87; 15:3; Judg. 6: 19; l Kings 8:64). Above all, it became one of the priesthood's main sources of income (vv. 3, 10; 24:9). Verses l-3 are positioned at the beginning of the chapter on cereal offering to set the general principles: In a general fashion both the kind and the quality of the offering materials are specified, along with their distribution into portions to be burned or to be consumed.

Semolina, Oil, and Additional Ingredients The preparation of the sacrifice is the responsibility of the directing participant, and this is still the case even in the postexilic period, since the text's final redactors changed nothing in this regard. At the same time, we can surmise that offerings of semolina and oil belong to the oldest agricultural sacrifices (cf. Gen. 4:3: Cain brings an offering from the fruits of the field). The finest products of grain and olive cultivation are indeed semolina and oil, the basic foodstuffs of the population at that time. Semolina was produced through careful sifting of ground wheat, and because of its purity was more expensive than flour. 17 The production of oil from olives by means of various pressing procedures has been attested in the East for millennia. From flour or semolina and oil one makes bread wafers ( l Kings 17: 12). A person naturally offers to God a portion of the basic food, either at the beginning of the harvest or at special occasions not requiring the more valuable animal sacrifice. Such offerings of daily foodstuffs were customary among many peoples. 17. Cf. 1 Kings 5:2 (4:22E); Ezek. 16:13; concerning the production in contemporary Palestine, cf. Gustaf Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paliistina, 3.276-99.

40

2.3 The Cereal Offering

In chap. 2 we have before us a late version of the cereal offering prescriptions. It allows three different modes of preparation: ringbread baked in an oven (v. 4), wafers prepared on a griddle (v. 5; cf. 1 Chron. 23:29; Ezek. 4:3), and semolina dumplings fried in a pan (v. 7). The various fire sites and cooking utensils suggest differing lifestyles. As a rule, the baking oven stood out in the open, and was part of a farmyard. One used a baking griddle and pan (or pot) at a hearth inside the home, that is, more likely in the city (cf. Ezek. 40:20). Excavations have revealed that after the Middle Bronze Age (after 2000 B.C.E.), urban houses regularly had a round, sunken fireplace on which foods were prepared. The smoke from this open fire in the house was, of course, not at all pleasant. 18 Cooking in the home, however, seems to have been more convenient than in the narrow courtyard (if such was still available at all). We are unable to determine why only the bread cake was crumbled and oil poured on it anew. Presumably some older custom is at work here: One simply does it this way, and really gives it no more thought. Regarding additional ingredients to the cereal offering, our text considers leaven and salt, though the former is completely excluded if portions of the cereal offering are to be burned according to the highest sacrificial ritual (cf. chap. 1). In vv. 4 and 5, it already became clear that only unleavened goods could be used for baking and frying. This is commensurate with ancient custom (cf. Judg. 6:19), and a later redactor expressly adds this prohibition yet again (v. 11). Fermented or lightly fermented ingredients (honey!) are cultically incompatible with the burnt offering altar (cf. Ex. 23:18). The punctiliously precise adherence to this prohibition in the passover rite (cf. Ex. 12:8, 15; the "sweeping out" of what is leavened belongs even today to the Jewish passover festival) illustrates for us how important the clean separation of opposing spheres has been from time immemorial. 19 We can compare this perhaps with efforts undertaken to keep an operating room sterile. The other additional ingredient, salt, is vigorously demanded (v. 13; cf. Ezek. 43:24). Table salt is precious, vital, is probably viewed as a healing substance and as a symbol, and is thus to be added to the offering to God (the priests also desired salted food; cf. Job 6:6). The association of salt with the covenant (v. 13; cf. Num. 18:19; 2 Chron. 13:5) may represent an ancient tradition, and may derive from the use of salt at the occasion of welcoming a guest (cf. Ezra 4: 14; Gen. 14: 18; in the East, bread and salt are sometimes offered instead of bread and wine). This common enjoyment of salt establishes a personal bond, a relationship of solidarity. The cereal offering of the firstfruits (vv. 14-16) occupies a special position. 18. Cf. Prov. 10:26; Kurt Galling, Biblisches Reallexikon, 2d ed. (Tilbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1977) s.v. "Herd," "Ofen." 19. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danf?er.

Leviticus 2

41

Since it is bound by a fixed date, and is presented from the newly harvested grain and thus without more sophisticated processing, it probably represents a secondary addition to the circle of half-burnt offerings (cf. Lev. 23:17-21). Nonetheless, it was appended to chap. 2, perhaps on the basis of the exception regulation in v. 12. This offering of the firstling, whose preparation on the field of harvest is still almost discernible ("roast on the fire," v. 14), represents in substance the most original type of agricultural offering. Thanksgiving for the yields of the harvest and a petition for the continued fruitfulness of the fields coincide here (cf. Ex. 23: 16; Num. 18: 12f.). Gustav Dalman observed how during the harvest and after threshing, Palestinian farmers under Turkish rule made tithes to the poor, the sanctuary, and the state. 20 Throughout the entire chapter, the third, independent sacrificial element added to semolina and oil is frankincense (vv. 1, 2, 15, 16). It is probably also presupposed wherever the priest merely "turns the offering to smoke," producing thus "an appeasing aroma for Yahweh" (vv. 9, 11, 12). This inclusion of the cereal offering into the altar rite performed by the priest probably represents a later development. According to the present text, however, all cereal offerings are integrated into the temple liturgy. Frankincense, made of the costly resin of the "frankincense tree," was imported from distant lands (Boswellia thurifera and other species indigenous to Arabia, Africa, and India; cf. Isa. 60:6; Jer. 6:20). Frankincense was something used exclusively for sacral purposes (cf. Ex. 30:37f.; 1 Chron. 9:29; Neh. 13:4-9). Only this frankincense made the cereal offering into a genuine burnt offering presentation, placing the simple vegetable offering into the category of the "most holy" (vv. 3, 10; cf. Ex. 30:36) and turning it into "a soothing aroma for Yahweh" (vv. 2, 9, 12). Meaning and Background of the Cereal Offering The most important question for us concerns the social and cultic context to which the regulations of chap. 2 applied. This inquiry includes an attempt to understand the meaning of the cereal offering. In the early period, the cereal offering was the farmers' offering to their tutelary deities. Food, just as it was present for human beings, was placed at the holy site. The deity participated in the human meal. This custom continued in the temples of the high religions, which had extensive clothing and food rites for the divine images. 21 Providing food for God out of feelings of gratitude and 20. Gustaf Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, 3.60-66; 165-87. 21. Cf. Helmer Ringgren, Die Religionen des alten Orients, 37ff. (Egyptian religion); idem, Religions of the Ancient Near East, 81 ff. (Babylonian and Assyrian religion); 158ff. (West Semitic religion).

2.3 The Cereal Offering

42

obligation is thus the original intention of this sacrifice. It continues symbolically, but is transferred to the presentation of prayer and song (cf. Ps. 50:7-15) and thus spiritualized and individualized. But the basic intention is preserved: Let us sing, and bring to the Creator Goods and gifts; whatever we have, May it all be an offering to God! The best goods are our hearts, thankful hymns are frankincense and ram in which he is most pleased.22

The officials received a large portion of the cereal offering as their daily food ration (cf. vv. 3, 10). Along with the meat portions from certain other types of sacrifice (cf. Lev. 7:31-34), what were often large familial groups lived off this indirect assessment. Eighty-five priests once worked at the sanctuary at Nob alone ( 1 Sam. 22: 18). The tithing of the tenth probably established itself only gradually next to the offering portions for the priests, particularly also in those congregations that because of their distance from the Jerusalem temple were no longer able to engage in any regular sacrificial cult (cf. Deut. 14:22-29; Num. 18:20-24). The cereal offering thus originally represented the daily bread also of the temple personnel as well as their attendant families (cf. the discussion of Lev. 6:7-11 [14-18E]). Only the frankincense and a small, symbolic portion of the semolina/oil mixture, called the 'azkiira (Luther: "memorial offering"; NRSV: "token portion," vv. 2, 9, 16), is placed on the altar. The Hebrew term betrays the purpose of the offering: The deity is to be invoked and summoned by name, hizkfr. 23 The superscriptions to Psalms 38 and 70 might be referring to such "invocation offerings." It is no accident that in Num. 7:10-83-the enumeration of dedication offerings for the altar-the cereal offering emphatically stands in the first position. As unpretentious as the grain offering is (as far as material value is concerned, Lev. 5: 11-12 classifies it even beneath the dove offering), even in the late temple services it maintained its important function as an invocation of God. Besides the provisioning of the priests, the proper performance of the sacrificial rite itself is naturally also a matter of debate in this chapter. Unfortunately, the instructions are on the whole quite sparse. The directing participant is to know how the cereal offering may be prepared so that it is acceptable. We will leave in abeyance the question whether v. 1 is really re22. Paul Gerhardt, 1666. 23. Cf. Willy Schottroff, Gedenken im A/ten Orient und im A/ten Testament Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Allen und Neuen Testament 15, 2d ed. (Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967) 337.

Leviticus 2

43

ferring to the preparation of raw dough, or is intended rather as a kind of basic recipe for the three types of preparation mentioned. While vv. 14f. similarly indicate the ingredients of the firstling offering, vv. 4-7 discuss the manner of preparation, which in any case does produce a more stable sacrificial material. As in chap. 1, the actual burnt offering ritual is then performed by the priests. But here, too, we learn only summarily that the officiant removes the symbolical sacrificial portion and bums it on the altar (vv. 2, 9, 16). In chap. 2, the cautionary measures appropriate to cultic activities are far more concerned with the preparation of the offering itself, that is, the layperson's activities, than with the priestly ceremonial. Similarly, the ritual burning of the 'azkard is specified less precisely regarding individual acts and location than in chaps. 1 and 3. The conclusion itself suggests that the prescriptions for the vegetable cereal offering were also not written down exclusively for priests and Levites. Of course, the extensive direct address characterizing Leviticus 2 strengthens this opinion. Where and how was a text exhibiting these formal and substantive characteristics used? If the singular and plural forms of direct address "you" in vv. 4f. are not irreconcilable, but represent rather one and the same situation of instruction, then we can only surmise that this chapter in all probability represents early Jewish congregational instruction. When the rebuilt temple was dedicated in 515 B.C.E., new cultic institutions also had to be put into effect corresponding to the altered conditions (Israel's incorporation into the greater Persian empire; dispersion of Israelites). Above all, however, the structures of spiritual leadership and the religious responsibilities and procedures had to be established in a binding fashion for all Israelites, since now Israel existed only as a religious community. Leviticus 2 also belongs to this situation of rebuilding. The cereal offering has been taken out of the familial sphere and integrated into the most sacred priestly system. Although an offering portion may always have been burned in Israel (cf. Gen. 4:3-5; Amos 5:21f.), the cereal offering now belongs on the one hand to the sacrosanct expiatory offerings, and on the other to the priestly income, and is completely expropriated from familial use. Only the firstling offering at the harvest seems to be excepted from this system. All this betrays an organizational will manifesting itself in a new estimation of the ancient cereal offering. It betrays Israel's new priestly-congregational structure. It betrays a penetrating didactic intention incorporating ancient traditions into the new, now exclusively religiously determined society. And it betrays a worship situation in which the listening congregation is directly addressed and made aware of its obligations and rights. Can we assume that this text comes directly from the Jerusalem temple community? Although the temple is not explicitly mentioned, it is consistently presupposed. Where else was a Jew in the fifth century supposed to offer a

44

2.3 The Cereal Offering

sacrifice? Or might we surmise that cereal offerings, in contradistinction to animal sacrifices, were also possible outside the temple precinct, that is, in the Diaspora? Censing on the burnt offering altar was just as centralized as was slaughter (cf. Deut. 12: 11-14, though the cereal offering is not mentioned; Jer. 41:5: Do these men intend to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem or Mizpah?). No, the temple in Jerusalem was probably the exclusive sacrificial site for Israel, even if perhaps other cultic sites were more or less tolerated, such as that on the Nile island ofElephantine. 24 Nevertheless, the admonitory and juridically informative text of chap. 2 is addressing not only the Jerusalemites around 500 B.C.E.; it is also directing itself to the distant congregations, either to clarify for them the sacrificial regulations applying to the case of a visit to the spiritual capital, or to foster and secure in a larger sense the consciousness of solidarity as a temple community and the inner orientation of ali diaspora Jews toward Jerusalem (cf. Ps. 137). Perhaps the sacrificial instructions in the ritual portion are so vague because they were also read aloud in Jewish worship services far away from Jerusalem itself, where the concern was more with the orientation of the congregation itself than with any specific instruction concerning an actual cereal offering.

Sacred Bread Contributions to the deity from one's daily food are attested in many religions. Bread, the primary foodstuff in the ancient areas of grain cultivation in the "fertile crescent," occupies a special position (cf. also Lev. 24:5-9). The naive, extremely ancient notion was probably that gods, like human beings, also need nourishment. In the myths of Ugarit, the gods conduct great feasts. 25 As a matter of fact, several late Old Testament traditions speak unaffectedly of such divine nourishment, though this is admittedly then consumed representatively by the priests (cf. Lev. 7:31-36). The ancient Israelites did not perceive any contradiction in speaking about food for God and about its use by the priests. God needs food; he is close to human beings. He participates in human reality. Hence contributions and offerings, including those of the most ordinary sort, could be viewed as connecting elements. Yahweh believers, out of thanksgiving and a feeling of fellowship, placed at the disposal of their God the basic foodstuffs from their harvest in the fields (Lev. 2:14). The perpetually recurring presentation of the sacred bread (cf. Lev. 24:5-9) guaranteed the continuing provisioning of God and of the priests. How could human beings 24. Cf. Albert Vincent, La religion des judeo-aramiens d'Elephantine (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1937). 25. Cf. Wolfram Herrmann, "Gotterspeise und Gottertrank in Ugarit und Israel," Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 ( 1960) 205-16.

Leviticus 3

45

not allow the deity to partake of the annual blessing of the harvest? First the (messengers of the) gods are entertained and fed (Gen. 18:1-8). How, on the other hand, could God not grant to his adherents in times of need a portion of his unique "heavenly nourishment" (cf. Ex. 16:11-36; Pss. 78:24f.; 105:40)? The simplest meal- the eating of bread- unites human beings with God. Against this background, the Christian eucharist also acquires a larger dimension. "The bread which we break, is it not communion in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10: 16). It is the bread (not the sacrificial flesh) that supplies the symbol for communion with God. The body of the "Son" who was executed on behalf of the world is compared with the bread of which both God and human beings partake daily (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:23f.). We are living in a long tradition of sacred bread.

2.4 The Meal Offering (Lev. 3) Translation If the offering is a meal offering, and you offer a male or female ox, you shall offer one without blemish before Yahweh. 2 You shall lean your hand upon the head of your animal and slaughter it at the entrance of the tent of meeting. The sons of Aaron, the priests, shall dash the blood against all sides of the altar. 3 From the meal offering you shall bring a gift for Yahweh, namely, the fat covering the stomach cavity, and all the fat around the entrails; 4 and the two kidneys along with the fat that is on them; the fat on the loins and on the liver lobes, which you shall separate it off at the kidneys. s The sons of Aaron shall turn these into smoke on the altar, upon the burnt offering that lies on the wood and fire. It is a gift, a soothing aroma for Yahweh.

3:1

If your offering is from the flock and is intended as a meal offering for Yahweh, then it shall be a male or female animal. You shall present an unblemished specimen. 7 If you present a young ram as an offering, then you shall place it before Yahweh. s You shall lay your hand upon the head of the animal and slaughter it before the door of the tent of meeting. The sons of Aaron shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar. 9 You shall take from the meal offering a gift for Yahweh, namely, the fat, that is, the entire broad tail: you shall separate it off close to the coccyx. With that the fat covering the stomach cavity and all the fat on the entrails, 10 and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, the fat on the loins and on the liver lobes-you shall separate it all off at the kidneys. 11 The priest shall turn these into smoke on the altar: It is a food gift for Yahweh.

6

2.4 The Meal Offering

46 12

If your offering consists of a goat, you shall bring it before Yahweh,

lay your hand on its head, and slaughter it before the tent of meeting. The sons of Aaron shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar. 14 You shall bring from it your gift as a portion for Yahweh, namely, the fat covering the stomach cavity and all the fat on the entrails, 15 the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, the fat on the loins and on the liver lobes-you shall separate it off at the kidneys. 16 The priest shall tum these pieces into smoke on the altar: a food gift that serves as a soothing aroma. All fat belongs to Yahweh. 17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood. 13

The Meal Offering

Structure, word choice, and emphases in chap. 3 betray that here the same circles of tradents were at work as in chap. I. Yet the subject is now a different type of sacrifice. The Hebrew double name zeba~ seliimfm, literally perhaps "slaughter in the manner of the concluding sacrifice" (other interpretations: "peace offering"; "salvific offering"; "thanksgiving offering") simultaneously both conceals and reveals the character of this specific sacrifice. The name conceals because the text itself says nothing about the nature and meaning of the presentation, focusing rather only on priestly interests (see below). We must know that the "slaughtering," in addition to the "cereal offering," originally represented the cultic means of expression for the faith of the simple person and of nomadic and farm families. At special occasions in the family and village unit, an animal from the flock was slaughtered with a religious ceremonial, and a festive meal celebrated. Thus in 1 Samuel9 (cf. esp. vv. 12f., 23f.) the men come together at a banquet on the sacred high place or in the sacred grove to honor the "seer" Samuel. Sacrificial celebrations in or for the entire family take place at regular intervals or at special occasions, such as the fulfillment of a vow or thanksgiving for deliverance from mortal danger (cf. 1 Sam. 1:3f.; 20:6; 2 Sam. 15:7f.). At these occasions, all the family members participate in the meal. One can visualize how they all sit around the cooking pot and delight in the rare meal of meat ( 1 Sam. 1:4; 2: 13-15). In a word, in Israel's early period (as in almost all tribal societies without any central political and religious authorities) the meal offering was the most important andessential worship event. Relationships and life forces were consolidated and renewed in this sacramental communion with the tutelary god of the family and in one another's company. Unrestrained joy, especially at the sumptuous food and drink, and the experience of the divine presence and of blessing-all this characterized such celebrations (cf. Ex. 24:9-11; Ps. 22:27 [26E]).

Leviticus 3

47

The sacrificial prescription in Leviticus 3 does not mention this. Although it does presuppose the festival meal of sacrificial fellowship (cf. Lev. 7: 15-21), it is a celebration taking place under the supervision of the priests (cf. 1 Sam. 2: 12-16). Apparently, at some point the seliimfm sacrifice (or seliimfm rite), one highly valued by the priests, was incorporated into the ancient familyfellowship sacrifice (zebaf:t), perhaps during the period of the exile. Because it involved blood and altar rites, this sacrifice could be performed according to the applicable statutes only by a consecrated priest; eventually, it received the double name zebaf:t seliimfm. 26 The typically priestly features of this ritual now occupying the foreground include: the laying on of hands for the purpose of transferring sin to the sacrificial animal (cf. Lev. 1:4; 16:21); blood aspersion around the altar (cf. Lev. 1:5; 4:5-7; 17:11); the burning offat on the altar (cf. Lev. 4:8-10; 7:3-5). Each individual rite has its own history and significance, and is variously attested in religious history. The laying on of hands transfers power through corporeal contact. Blood aspersion has an apotropaic and expiatory effect. The burning of fat belongs to the direct presentations to the deity as a direct and immediate gift. The latter two rites are to be carried out at the altar itself. Its "performance ... by the priest makes a zebaf:t into a zebaf:t seliimfm." 27 Priestly theology and the priestly view of the world are evident in the combination and systematization of these rites. The sacrifice provides access to the absolutely holy and pure God and thereby to true life. The priests are the indispensable mediators of salvation for the congregation (cf. chaps. 8-10). The normal sacrificial animal for a family celebration in Israel was probably a goat or sheep (cf. 1 Sam. 9:22-24: a single animal apparently sufficed for thirty men), though the ox is also mentioned as an animal suitable for the family meal offering (1 Sam. 1:24f.). A specimen of small livestock is appropriate for a smaller group. The ox presupposes more than thirty participants at the meal. The substance of Leviticus 3 emphasizes the sheep and goat (vv. 6-16). Might the oxen offering (vv. 1-5) have been added by the priestly redactor for reasons of parity with chap. 1?

Yahweh's Portion In its present form, Leviticus 3 organizes the prescriptions for the meal offering into three paragraphs, exactly as in chap. 1, except that the third section does not focus on the dove offering, but rather on the goat as the sacrificial animal in contradistinction to the young male sheep (compare vv. 12-16 with vv. 26. So Rolf Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im A/ten Israel, 149-68. 27. Ibid., 163.

48

2.4 The Meal Offering

6-11 ). The first position is again occupied by the sacrificial animal of the more affluent person, namely, the male or female ox (vv. 1-5). Some exegetes interpret the fact that both sexes are expressly allowed (vv. 1, 6) as an indication of the private character of the cultic act, since on! y male sacrificial animals are permitted at the highly official priestly burnt offerings (Lev. 1:3, 10). However, tolerance for female sacrificial animals is not all that unequivocal even in this third chapter. Despite the general formula "male or female" (v. 6), Lev. 3:7 speaks only of the ram. Be that as it may, the sacrificial prescriptions for the meal offering are restricted to an extremely small framework. The main focus in the three, stereotypically recurring paragraphs is doubtless the parts of the sacrificial animals withdrawn from common consumption and presented to Yahweh as a "gift" or "food gift" ("food offering by fire," so NRSV). This reduced interest and the extremely limited point of view are striking, and betray the authors and tradents of this text. Most important to them are the essential fatty parts of the sacrificial animal. Even today, among the desert dwellers of the Near and Middle East, fat is a delicacy. The Israelites were presumably largely vegetarians, and the consumption of meat was an exception for festival occasions. Hence people also yearned for meat as nourishment and for animal fat-despite or precisely because of the great temperature variations in the course of the day and year. And the fat portions of a roast were considered the best (cf. 1 Sam. 9:23f.); it was precisely from these best portions, however, that one brought sacrificial offerings to Yahweh. This fat (the text specifies precisely which portions are to be understood as such) must be carefully extracted from the slaughtered sacrificial animal. To this are added kidneys and liver parts, organs which play a special role for the theologian of antiquity. In human beings they function as contact points for the divine. God "tests the kidneys," the innermost center of a person's being, as he does the heart (cf. Ps. 7:10 [9E]; Jer. 11:20; 17:10). Among the Babylonians, the liver and liver lobes of sacrificed animals served as the basis for divining the future. They assumed that the gods had encoded messages in the liver's convolutions, curvatures, and deformations, messages that the expert could decipher. The two organs most immediate to God are thus returned to the Creator, just like the blood, "in which life resides" (cf. Lev. 17:11, 14). Peculiarly, the heart is never mentioned in connection with the sacrificial prescriptions. Was it eaten along with the sacrificial animal? Does this reflect perhaps an ancient hunting custom through which a person sought to appropriate the power of the slain animal ?28 Equally peculiar is the general prohibition against blood and fat consumption at the end of chap. 3 (cf. Lev. 7:22-25; 17:10-14 ). First, it deviates sty!28. Cf. Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual.

Leviticus 3

49

istically. The second person plural address already betrayed in chap. 2 the presence of a special redactor influenced by the admonitory language of the synagogue. Second, v. 17 presupposes not the centralized temple community, but rather dispersion into (autonomous?) settlements and congregations. Third, this sort of absolute prohibition against eating blood and fat seems utterly illusory. Whatever prompted the tradents to append to the unconditional prohibition against consuming blood an equally total prohibition against eating fat? In 1 Sam. 9:24, the fat tail is still a highly prized food for the guest of honor. In Lev. 3:9, it is reserved for Yahweh alone, together with the fat of the stomach cavity and entrails. The concluding prohibition in v. 17 forbids human beings from making any use of animal fat. This constitutes a clear intensification of the demands of Yahweh and his cultic servants. In contrast, the layperson does not participate in any way in the blood rite (vv. 2, 8, 13), and for this reason remains a shadowy figure (cf. Lev. 4:5-7). The first two points need additional clarification. Concerning the first: The second person plural in v. 17 is its only occurrence in chap. 3, introducing a didactic, admonitory tone into the dry sacrificial regulations. The decisive sentence reads literally: "All fat and all blood you shall not eat" (v. 17b ). It seems to pick up and expand, in a typically priestly formulation, the impersonal norm from v. 16: "All fat belongs to Yahweh." An older form of this prohibition might be found in Lev. 19:26: "You shall eat nothing with blood." Does the key to chap. 3 reside in these strict prohibitions against consuming blood and fat? If so, then the tradents would have transformed an original prohibition with the Hebrew syntactical structure "you shall not eat blood," expanding it to "you shall not eat any fat or any blood." And the meal offering, which always served as a religious focal point for the smaller fellowship (family, clan, neighbors), now becomes an illustrative event: blood and fat are taken over by the priest, who through his most sacred act constitutes fellowship with Yahweh and also constitutes the Aaronite congregation Israel. The ancient formulations of the clan norm still shimmer through in Gen. 3:1; Ex. 12:9; Deut. 12:23; 14:3,2l;Judg.l3:4, 7; 1 Kings 13:9,17,22. Thepriestlytradents, who for the familiar reasons of purity and holiness (cf. Lev. 11-15) were extremely concerned with correct foodstuffs, are inclined to emphasize the forbidden food through prior placement and generalization (cf. Gen. 9:4; Ex. 12: 15, 20; 22:30 [31E]; Lev. 7:23, 26; 11:4,8, 11; 17:14; 22:8, 12; Num. 6:4; to be sure, similar formulations are also found in the cultic commandments of Deuteronomy: Deut. 12:16; 14:7f., 10, 12; cf. Judg. 13:14; Ezek. 24:17). Concerning the second point: Consideration of the dispersed congregations in a text conceived from the perspective of the central sacrificial site is extremely noteworthy. The fellowship offering, and especially the prohibition against the consumption of blood and fat, are to be followed "in all your dwelling places" (v. 17). How is that possible? It is possible only if secular

50

2.4 The Meal Offering

slaughter is allowed (so already Deut. 12; but what happens outside Jerusalem to the animal's fat?) and if the Diaspora identifies inwardly with the temple customs. The fixed formula "in all your dwelling places" occurs additionally nine times (Ex. 12:20; 35:3; Lev. 7:26; 23:3, 14, 21, 31; Num. 35:29; Ezek. 6:6). It possibly represents a diaspora formula, and will concern us again especially in our discussion of the festival calendar in chap. 23.

The Role of the Priests The "priest" or the "sons of Aaron" are consistently the dominant actors in the sacrificial ritual. The directing participant is still visible in the basic framework of these regulations, presenting, slaughtering, and preparing the animal, and also separating off from the cadaver the parts reserved for Yahweh. But this person has no name, not even an unequivocal designation such as "owner of the animal," "offerer," "petitioner," "member of the congregation," or anything similar. The participant appears only incidentally, hidden as an anonymous "he" in the verbal forms. Chapter 3 in its entirety probably refers back to the formless "someone" in chaps. 1 and 2 (literally: "a human being" "anyone, some person"). All the more clearly and intensively, on the other hand, do the priests emerge in chap. 3 (vv. 2, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16). The first instance sounds full, respectful, and deferential toward titles: "the priests, sons of Aaron." In theremaining instances, this is then a bit more modest and varied: "the sons of Aaron" or "the priest." We notice who is important in this section. The priests dash the blood against the altar, and they "tum it into smoke on the altar." Their mediating function for the people over against the holy God is of central importance. Everything revolves around this service of mediation, as in chap. 1. And what, more precisely, is the purpose of this altar service? The final sentence in each of the three packets of prescriptions states this clearly: Yahweh's portion in the meal offering, extracted from the sacrificial animal, is a "sacrificial offering" for God that apparently is to have an "appeasing" effect on him (vv. 5, 11, 16; cf. Lev. 1:9,13, 17). The expression "soothing aroma," occurring more than sixty times, is found almost exclusively in priestly statutes. Does this concentration allow the conclusion that the priestly authors were obsessed with the idea of having to appease Yahweh? Because of all the sins and transgressions of his adherents? 29 Is this referring to the appeasement of a genuinely angered God? Or merely to prophylactic influence on Yahweh intended to prevent angry withdrawal from occurring in the first place (cf. Lev. 15; Job 1:5)? Some ancient custom may be reflected in the practice of offering certain parts of the sacrificial animal to God on the altar even at joyous occasions of sacrifice. These texts have systematized this custom and made it the focal 29. Cf. Lev. 4-7; Bernd Janowski, Siihne als Heilsgeschehen, 198-265.

Leviticus 3

51

point, and at an extremely high cost to the family meal offering. What does the expanded expression "food gift" (vv. I, 16) mean? An inclination to coin artificial terms and to appropriate archaic notions becomes visible here. The incinerated sacrificial portions serve as Yahweh's food. God must be able symbolically to sate himself on the aroma (cf. the vehement contradiction of Psalm 50). In any event, these priestly efforts at keeping the world in order through sacrificial worship are impressive. Because the priests and their activity at the altar constitute the central focus to such a high degree here, the transmission of this text is almost certainly to be found in part in priestly circles. Professional, specially trained experts were responsible for the sacrificial services at well-known sanctuaries even before the exile, such as the family of Eli in Shiloh ( l Sam. l-2) and the numerically strong priestly family of Nob (l Sam. 21:7 [6E]; 22:11-19). In Judges 18, the tribe of Dan acquires by force a recognized priest for a tribal sanctuary yet to be established in the new settlement. The responsibility of priests for the sacrificial institutions of a larger community, one able to guarantee the support of these specialists, is thus set in tradition. The exclusive, monopolized control exercised by a priesthood at a central sanctuary, however, did not exist in Israel before the reestablishment of the temple. This creates new conditions and is based on a new theology. All religious and cultic questions that might arise in Israel are now- at least theoretically-resolved only by the central authority in Jerusalem. Although from the beginning of cultic centralization a purely secular sacrificial slaughter performed at one's dwelling place was probably permitted as an exception, one exclusively serving the purpose of nourishment (v. 17; cf. Deut. I 2: l5ff., 20ff.), still every regular sacrifice had to be presented at the central sanctuary. The centralization prescription expressly demands: "Then you shall bring everything that I command you to the place that Yahweh your God will choose as a dwelling for his name: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and your donations and all your choice votive gifts that you vow to Yahweh" (Deut. 12: 11 ). This assigns a unique position to the priests at the central sanctuary. In the sacrificial prescriptions of Leviticus 3, the priestly prerogative regarding blood and incineration (or incense) rites is given strong expression. Beyond this, however, the text remains silent, saying nothing further about priestly status or priestly privileges; it does not even mention the priest's compensation, that is, the portion of the sacrificial animal he is allowed to claim, or some possible financial remuneration (cf. Lev. 5:13, 14). And yet the entire temple apparatus lived from this priestly portion. Did the priests basically receive the skin of the sacrificial animal for their service (cf. Lev. 7:8)? Do entire types of sacrifice and tribute belong to them (cf. Lev. 2; 7:9; Ezek. 44:29ff.)? Is their portion as applicable specifically to the meal offering fixed

52

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

at certain pieces of meat (cf. Lev. 7:3lff.; Sam. 2:12-17)? However the priests' payment was determined, it did constitute an essential element of the temple economy. Just as important, and equally connected with these economic considerations, was the theology of the priesthood, about which we will learn more in the following chapters (cf. esp. Lev. 7).

Priests and Laity The question arises anew concerning the significance these priestly work instructions possessed for the congregation. What is immediately visible is the strict distribution of tasks during the performance of the sacrifice itself. Certain rites are reserved for the priest, and the layperson must be familiar with these quite independent of his own dwelling place in order to act accordingly. Does this exhaust the meaning of the sacrificial laws? Did the chapters comprising Leviticus 1-7 then not serve as a lectionary for the early Jewish worship service at all, as we assumed earlier (see section 1.2, "Leviticus: A Book?"), but rather as an esoteric priestly agenda? We can hardly assume this. Hence, the sacrificial legislation must also have possessed significance for the listening lay congregation beyond the immediate sacrificial occasion. Perhaps the main message mediated along with the priestly sacrificial regulations was quite simply this: Both before and for Yahweh one must distinguish carefully between the sacred and the profane. Blood and fat are the most important parts of the slaughtered animal, and belong to Yahweh (cf. Ezek. 44: 15). This distinction also involved social consequences. Just as the sacrificial material itself had to be distinguished with painstaking exactitude, so also were there ecclesiastical distinctions between priests and laity, Jews and non-Jews, men and women. The classes and groups in Israel were all oriented toward God in different ways (cf. Lev. 21).

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings (Lev. 4-5) The guiding question in chaps. 1-3 was: How does one correctly present a burnt, cereal, or meal offering? Now a different concern comes into the foreground: Which offering does a person bring who is to atone for guilt? The presentation thus explicitly possesses a therapeutic function. If, however, we are expecting a precise diagnosis of the "catalogue of sins" and a respective brief notice concerning the necessary types of sacrifice (something to this effect: for defilement through contact with a dead animal one offers the burnt offering of a dove) then we will be disappointed. The "transgressions" are indicated only in a general fashion in chap. 4, and not until chap. 5 do they acquire contours; and the previously discussed sacrificial designations play no role at all. Instead, new names appear: sin and guilt offerings.

Leviticus 4-5

Translation 4:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2 Speak to the Israelites: When anyone transgresses unknowingly against the commandments of Yahweh, with regard to things one may not do, and does something that is prohibited:

If it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, he shall present to Yahweh for the sin that he has committed a young unblemished bull as a sin offering. 4 He shall lead the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting before Yahweh, lay his hand on the head of the bull, and slaughter it before Yahweh. 5 Then the anointed priest shall take some of the blood of the bull and bring it into the tent of meeting. 6 The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before Yahweh, at the veil of the holy of holies. 7 Then the priest shall smear some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before Yahweh that is in the tent of meeting. The rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 8 He shall remove all the fat of the bull of the sin offering, namely, the fat covering the stomach cavity, and all the fat on the entrails, 9 the two kidneys with their fat, the fat on the loins and on the liver lobes, which he shall remove at the kidneys: 10 just as these are removed from the ox of the meal offering. The priest shall tum them into smoke upon the altar of burnt offering. 11 But the skin of the young bull and all its flesh together with the head and legs, entrails and dung, 12 thus the entire bull cadaver, he shall carry out to a pure place outside the camp, the ash heap. There he shall bum it on a wood fire. At the ash heap it shall be burned.

3

13 If the whole congregation oflsrael errs unintentionally, and the matter (initially) escapes the notice of the assembly, and they do any one of the things that by Yahweh's commandments ought not to be done and incur guilt, 14 when the sin that they have committed then becomes known, the assembly shall offer a young bull for a sin offering. They shall bring it before the tent of meeting. 15 The elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before Yahweh and slaughter the bull before Yahweh. 16 The anointed priest shall bring some of the blood of the bull into the tent of meeting, 17 and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before Yahweh, at the veil of the holy of holies. 18 Then he shall smear some of the blood on the horns of the altar that stands before Yahweh in the tent of meeting. All the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 19 He shall remove all the fat (of the

53

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

54

bull) and turn it into smoke on the altar. 20 He shall do with the bull just as is done with the (first) bull ofthe sin offering; he shall do the same with this. Thus shall the priest effect atonement for them, so that they are forgiven. 21 He shall carry the bull cadaver outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull. It is a sin offering for the assembly. 22 When a congregational leader sins, doing unintentionally any one of all the things that by commandments of Yahweh, his God, ought not to be done, and incurs guilt, 23 or if the transgression he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring as his offering an unblemished male goat. 24 He shall lay his hand on the head of the goat and slaughter it at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered before Yahweh. It is a sin offering. 25 Then the priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and smear it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering. 26 All the fat, however, he shall turn into smoke on the altar, like the fat of the meal offering. Thus shall the priest effect atonement for him for his transgression, so that he is forgiven.

21 If anyone of the

ordinary people among you sins unintentional! y in doing any one of the things that by Yahweh's commandments ought not to be done and incurs guilt, 28 or if a sin you have committed is made known to you, then you shall bring as your offering an unblemished female goat for the sin you have committed. 29 You shall lay your hand upon the head of the sin offering and slaughter it at the place of the burnt offering. 30 Then the priest shall take some of the blood (of the animal) with his finger and smear it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and he shall pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. 31 But he shall remove all its fat, exactly as the fat is removed from the animal of the meal offering. The priest shall turn it into smoke on the altar, as a soothing aroma for Yahweh. Thus shall the priest effect atonement for you, so that you are forgiven. 32 If your sin offering is to be a lamb, you shall bring an unblemished female animal. 33 You shall lay your hand on the head of the sin offering and slaughter it as a sin offering at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered. 34 The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and smear it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering. 35 But he shall remove all the fat, just as the fat of the lamb is removed from the meal offering. The priest shall turn it into smoke on the altar, as an offering for Yahweh. Thus the priest shall effect atonement for you with regards to the sin you have committed, so that you are forgiven.

Leviticus 4-5

When any of you sin in that you have heard a public adjuration totestify and- though able to testify as one who has seen or learned of the matter-does not speak up, you are subject to punishment. 2 Or when any of you touch any impure thing, whether the carcass of an impure beast or the carcass of impure livestock or the carcass of an impure swarming thingand are unaware of it, you have become impure, and are guilty. 3 Or when you touch human impurity-any impurity by which one can become impure-and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall be guilty. 4 Or when any of you utter aloud a rash oath for a bad or a good purpose, whatever people utter in an oath, and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall in any of these be guilty. s When you realize your guilt in any of these, you shall confess the sin that you have committed. 6 And you shall bring to Yahweh, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, a female from the flock, a sheep or a goat, as a sin offering. Thus shall the priest effect atonement for you for your sin.

S:I

But if you cannot afford a sheep, you shall bring to Yahweh, as your penalty for the sin that you have committed, two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering. s You shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the sin offering, wringing its head at the nape, without severing it. 9 He shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering on the side of the altar, while the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. 10 The second pigeon he shall prepare as a burnt offering according to the regulation. Thus shall the priest effect atonement for you for the sin that you have committed, so that you are forgiven. 7

11 But if you cannot afford two turtledoves or two pigeons, you shall bring as your offering for the sin that you have committed one tenth of an ephah of semolina for a sin offering. You shall not put oil on it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. 12 You shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop up a handful of it as its "memorial portion," and turn it into smoke on the altar, as a gift for Yahweh. It is a sin offering. 13 Thus shall the priest effect atonement for whichever of these sins you have committed, so that you are forgiven. The offering belongs to the priest, like the cereal offering. 14 Yahweh spoke with Moses: IS When any of you commit a trespass and sin unintentionally in any of the holy things of Yahweh, you shall bring, as your guilt offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into silver by the sanctuary shekel; it is a guilt offering. 16 And you shall make restitution for the holy thing in which you were

55

56

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

remiss, and shall add one-fifth to it and give it to the priest. The priest shall effect atonement for you with the ram of the guilt offering, so that you are forgiven. 17 If any of you sin without knowing it, doing any of the things that by Yahweh's commandments ought not to be done, you have incurred guilt, and are subject to punishment. 18 You shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, or the equivalent, as a guilt offering; and the priest shall effect atonement for you for the error that you committed unknowingly, so that you are forgiven. 19 It is a guilt offering, for you have incurred guilt before Yahweh. 5:20[6:11 Yahweh spoke to Moses: 21[21 When any of you sin and commit a trespass against Yahweh by deceiving a neighbor in matter of a deposit or a pledge, or by robbery, or if you have defrauded a neighbor, 22[3] or have found something lost and lied about it-if you swear falsely regarding any of the various things that one may do and sin thereby-23[4] when you have sinned and realize your guilt, and would restore what you took by robbery or by fraud or the deposit that was committed to you, or the lost thing that you found, 24[51 or anything else about which you have sworn falsely, you shall repay the principal amount and shall add onefifth, to the person who entrusted it to you, on the day you bring the guilt offering. 25[6] And you shall bring to the priest, as your guilt offering to Yahweh, a ram without blemish from the flock, or its equivalent, for a guilt offering. 26[71 The priest shall effect atonement for you before Yahweh, so that you are forgiven because of any deed through which you have incurred guilt.

Atonement Atonement acts such as blood rites, fat incineration, and the explicit declaration "thus shall the priest effect atonement for you," occur in high concentration in the two chapters Leviticus 4-5. Although they also occur sporadically in the adjoining texts, and then with strong concentration again in Leviticus 16-17, the present section nonetheless represents a core text of the priestly effort at the elimination of sin and guilt. We will see that in spite of this, it does not offer a complete catalogue, but rather only a selection of atonement cases determined by the contemporary social and "ecclesiastical" situation. Defilement that settles on sacred objects like dust, inexplicably and unavoidably, also is not considered here (cf. Lev. 8: 15; Ezek. 43:18-26). The text focuses above all on atonement for unintentional transgressions (Lev. 4:2; 5:14, 20 [6: lE], etc.). These are, however, treated with a thoroughness and care

Leviticus 4-5

57

clearly revealing the enormous importance they held for the congregations at that time. With what were the priests' atonement acts concerned? What is the purpose of the instructions in these two chapters? A look at Israelite tradition can clarify the background. The point of departure for the atonement offering is in every case a disrupted relationship with God. Just as various kinds of ill feeling and quarrels can arise among human beings, so also can the relationship between God and human beings sometimes be blocked or poisoned. A cloud of mistrust and irritation can form that continues to beget misfortune almost in the manner of "self-generation." That is, the disruption consists not only of ethically, legally, and rationally discernible transgressions against commandments, affronts to God, power plays, and so on, and results not only in easily classified punishments and predictable compensation measures; rather, it often has more profound, almost magical roots, roots that in any case are hidden to our waking consciousness. This evil that someone sets into motion "unknowingly" can be just as lethal for the perpetrator and the community as any conscious crime. What can the community and its religious representatives do to redress this disrupted relationship with God, and "clear the air"? It is difficult to explain rationally such ritualistic efforts at atonement. From biblical accounts of atonement situations, however, we are able to uncover the connection between rite and disrupted reality. Any misdeed, great or small, provokes God's anger. "Your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground," Yahweh says to Cain (Gen. 4:10). The deity is disturbed, enraged-not only in a legal sense, but as a whole person-at the blood deed, since the rules of human coexistence, which the deity guarantees, have been ruptured. The deed represents not only a legal breach, but also an insult, a disrespect for solidarity, and boundless arrogance on the part of the perpetrator. Yahweh must react as a person, and this can occur only in the form of chastising judgment visited upon the area polluted by such evil. This condemnation thus does not emerge from any court procedure involving a consideration of evidence and pronouncement of judgment; it emerges as an almost "automatic" counterreaction on the part of God against the destruction of positive life circumstances. Every act of misbehavior must thus elicit insecurity and anxiety among human beings, since the fateful punishment precipitated by God can occur at any moment. We recognize the mood preceding the outbreak of catastrophe even in a sober legal text such as Deut. 21: 1-9: If a slain person is found within the boundaries of a village, the inhabitants are directly affected, regardless of whether they are legally responsible for the deed or not. God's wrath will unload itself upon the contaminated area unless the community immediately takes countermeasures. A similar situation obtains in the narrative 2 Sam. 21:1-14. From an enduring famine David concludes that Yahweh's own chastising hand is at work. He clarifies the suspected cause of guilt and orders a belated meting out of justice as an atonement for old guilt. Even if this possibly represents merely a retroactive legitimation of the political

58

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

murder of Saul's descendants, the story does nonetheless clearly show how the atonement mechanism functioned. Even old, neglected, long unrecognized guilt must be expurgated, with human lives if necessary. The story of Jonah may serve as a contrasting parallel. For the people of Nineveh, penitence with sackcloth and ashes suffices to ward off the disaster decreed by God (Jonah 3:5-10). In another story involving David, the king recognizes his "grievous" guilt, asks for forgiveness, but must then choose one of three possible punishments from God (2 Sam. 24:10-17). The author is saying that sometimes a transgression cannot simply be forgiven; it must be atoned for through some counter-action. In this case, seventy thousand Israelites are the sacrifice (v. 15), and the distress prompted by such mass death becomes visible: God himself puts a stop to the massive killing (v. 16), and David protests against making the people pay for his personal sin (v. 17). Thus the atonement setting itself can be quite varied, and the ritual measures extremely different. What these stories have in common, however, is the insistence that the necessary atonement is supposed to appease the enraged deity, to reestablish its goodwill, but also-and especially-to dismantle and neutralize the poisonous substance of guilt.

As a rule, atonement procedures usually call for material gifts to the deity. And indeed, atoning gifts also play a significant role among human beings themselves (cf. Gen. 32:7-22 [6-21E]; 33:8-11). The gift annuls damages, signals a lowering of the status of the giver, secures the position of the recipient, makes amends, creates joy, and renews fellowship. Furthermore, the material actually used in the atonement act often possesses atoning significance in and of itself. The blood and fat used in the priestly atonement practice are not merely gifts to Yahweh (see below). Ancient notions of a power capable of expurgating sin underlies many rituals. The fact that as a rule the confession of sin, the verbal acceptance of guilt, also occupies a central place in atonement rites emerges more (because of its self-evident nature?) from narratives (cf. 2 Sam. 12:13; 19:19-21 [18-20E]; 24:10, and elsewhere) than from the ritual texts themselves. The present section mentions the confession of sin only once (5:5). The story of the ark's return to the Israelites vividly illustrates how equivocal many situations of distress actually were, and how difficult under certain circumstances a determination of the appropriate atonement measures could be (1 Sam. 6: 1-8). The Philistines recognize that the mysterious collapse of their own statue of the deity in the temple at Ashdod is caused by the influence of the ark God Yahweh. This deity taken as spoils of war proves to be more powerful (1 Sam. 5: 1-7). The question now is what to do in this situation. Removal of the ark to the neighboring cities of Gath and Ekron (1 Sam. 5:8-1 0) seems only to make the plagues worse. Hence it must be returned to its home locale. Although the return itself already constitutes an admission of guilt, the problem remains concerning how one should behave before the insulted deity, how

Leviticus 4-5

59

one is to make amends to it. The priests and diviners, that is, the religious functionaries, must find an answer to these vital questions of ritual ( 1 Sam. 6:2-8), since they are, after all, responsible for the diagnosis and therapy of any suffering associated with God. They order atonement gifts-gold representations of pestilence tumors and voles- which possess the character of gifts by virtue of their value, and which as symbols of the pestilence at the same time are to develop powers capable of eliminating disaster. The homeopathic principle "equal heals equal" is at work here in a mystical-magical form. Although the priests of the Philistines hope for success, they are not absolutely certain that their treatment will help (vv. 5, 9). They also appeal to their people's consciences to carry out the ritual sincerely and voluntarily (v. 6). Furthermore, for them the entire diagnosis will prove effective only through the success of these ritual measures (v. 9). We see: atonement procedures are not schematically fixed beforehand; from case to case they demand intensive theologicalliturgical reflection and new, responsible decisions. Numerous atonement acts and atonement gifts are known to us through textual and representative materials from the ancient Orient. Animal blood also plays an important role in some rites (e.g., in Hittite religion), though hardly the central role it possessed in the Levitical sacrificial prescriptions and then later, in a completely different way, in the Hellenistic mystery cults. In any event, in chaps. 4-5 we have before us ritual texts in which the atonement of guilt depends primarily on using the blood of various sacrificial animals. 30 The priest smears it on the four "horns" of the main altar, that is, on its raised corners (Lev. 4:25, 30), or on the side of the altar (5:9), pours it out at the base of the altar (Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30,34 and elsewhere), and in special cases performs an extraordinary rite in the interior of the (temple-)tent at the smaller incense altar. In this context, the sprinkling of blood seems during the course of time (and perhaps only in the priestly-theological imagination?) to have been displaced from the altar of burnt offering in the temple court into the sanctuary itself, and to the veil before the holy of holies (cf. Lev. 16: 14ff.). The incense altar in the temple and especially the holy veil were probably not originally conceived with blood rites in mind. Be that as it may, our main question remains: Why is the blood of the sacrificed animal so decisively important? How is it supposed to influence God? After all, in other Old Testament passages Yahweh decisively rejects bloody sacrifice. He wants neither to drink sacrificial blood nor to eat sacrificial flesh (cf. Ps. 50: 13; Isa. 1:14). This blood gift to Yahweh actually cannot be illuminated logically, for prehistoric notions of faith are resonating in this rite. As is the case among other 30. Cf. the parallel texts Lev. I 6:5; I 7:6, I Iff.; Num. 19:4; for sin offerings without the blood rite, cf., e.g., Num. 15: 12-29; also Othmar Keel, "Kanaanaaische Siihneriten auf agyptischen Tempelreliefs."

60

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

peoples, blood is considered to be a magical substance efficacious in and of itself.31 Hence with blood one can expurgate the powers of death and eliminate the stain of sin (cf. Ex. 4:25; l2:7ff., 22f.). These older ideas and practices apparently acquired new currency during just this postexilic period in which the Levitical sacrificial laws were reformulated. Contemporaneous theological reflection also found a rational explanation for the ancient magical rite: "For the life of the body is in the blood, and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement'' (Lev. 17: 11). Lev. 17: 14 repeats this fundamental thesis once more: "The life of all flesh is its blood." Blood is thus the preeminent substance of life (according to Gen. 2:7, the breath of life cannot so easily be manipulated). This life force can redeem a life given over to death, and for that reason can also eliminate defilement and reestablish sundered fellowship. Both the author of the sacrificial laws and their audience seem to have taken as their point of departure the legal principle "a life for a life" (Ex. 21 :23; Lev. 24: 18-20), and to have appropriated without excessive reflection these ancient magical notions concerning the efficacy of blood. Subsequent Jewish and especially Christian theology then developed a broad atonement faith perspective associated with blood symbolism. The self-surrender of a human life for the atonement of transgressions is found already in Isa. 53:5-7, and then in numerous variations in the New Testament writings. "The blood of Jesus Christ makes us free of all sins," says the author of the first letter of John (1 John 1:7), and many voices from the New Testament period then concur (cf. Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 12:24; 13:12; 1 Peter 1:19; Rev. 5:9). The theological foundation was laid during the postexilic period for this theology of atonement whose significance continues into the present. Israel had grievously sinned before Yahweh, had had to bear the punishment of defeat and exile, and now, in the new phase of religious reorganization, had to guard against new sins. Hence the priests at the reestablished Jerusalem temple engaged in atonement procedures to a degree probably inconceivable during the preexilic period. The texts of the book of Leviticus were redacted to a certain degree in this sense; that is, they were amplified with an eye to what at the time was considered to be the necessary special atonement obligation. 32 Traditional notions and customs were appropriated and in part reinterpreted, with the blood of the sacrificial animal acquiring central significance. The smearing of the altar, the sevenfold sprinkling of blood, the assignment of the "entire" remain31. Cf. Hans Wissmann, "Blut. religionsgeschichtlich," Theologische Realenzyklopadie (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980) 6.727-29. 32. Cf. Lev. I :4f., II; 3:2, 8, 23; Rolf Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im A/ten Israel, 97-102.

Leviticus 4-5

61

ing blood to Yahweh, who is probably conceived as being present in the altar-all this represents remnants of a much earlier, pre-Israelite period, though the interpretation given these blood rites in the present context reflects contemporary Israelite thinking. Something similar applies to the "fat rites" occupying the second most important position in these texts. This may involve a different, competing tradition appropriated and reinterpreted in the present context. Fat incineration does, of course, play an important role both in the burnt and especially in the fellowship offering (cf. Lev. 1:6; 3:3-5). Originally, this fat as the particularly desirable portion of the sacrificial animal was assigned to God, and despite all asseverations to the contrary made by later theologians, the fat offering itself derives from the notion that the deity must be fed. The entire ancient Orient attests such feeding of the gods, and complete meals usually were served to them daily, meals that occasionally could be consumed representatively by the priests. 33 In priestly Israelite theology, fat incineration as a "soothing aroma for Yahweh" (cf. Lev. 3: 16) also acquires an atoning function, and it is not inappropriate to recall that a sumptuous meal does indeed create a harmonious mood, procuring for the host and chef the goodwill of the diner. From the previous discussion we can easily see that the priests in Jerusalem also fostered the cult of atonement for their own, highly personal reasons. It is true that at least according to the present regulations no great portion of the slaughtered animal of the sin offering was assigned to them, since in the cases presupposed by Leviticus 4 the sacrifice-except for the blood and fat-had to be incinerated literally even "to the last hair" (Lev. 4: 11f.). Although this was certainly regrettable in view of the income and living standard of these cultic officials, we do hear in chap. 5 that at the atonement of a rash oath the priestly portion comprises what is usual "as in the cereal offering" (Lev. 5: 13), and the figuring of the monetary value of the sin offering (Lev. 5:25 [6:6E]) also evinces an interest in the economic situation of the priests. This determination of the priestly portion of the atoning sacrifice, however, is not the only element contributing to its significance from the priestly perspective. What is decisive is the social and religious status it creates for the priest, who becomes de facto the indispensable mediator between God and human beings. The formula "thus shall the priest effect atonement, so that you are forgiven," one repeated and emphasized, betrays the central function of the priesthood (Lev. 4:20, 26, 35; 5:6, 13, 16, 18, 26 [6:7E]). Divine forgiveness is mediated through priestly acts. Although this in no way minimizes the fact that it is ultimately God who becomes active for his people in these priestly actions, nonetheless the atonement effected according to these fixed rituals is not a "salvific event" brought about in a one-sided fashion by God alone, as Protestants would like to believe 33. Cf. Helmer Ringgren, Die Religionen des a/ten Orients, 37-39 et passim.

62

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

on the basis of their doctrine of justification. 34 No, as in many other religions, the mediation of grace through human specialists is also fixed in the priestly actions of the Levitical texts of the Old Testament. This by no means automatically disqualifies these views as "theologically false." Their existence is first of all a historically verifiable fact. The result, however, has been that cult functionaries occasionally become rigid in this mediating role and lose the flexibility and relativity characterizing the Philistine priests (2 Sam. 6); they put themselves autocratically into God's place and claim the last word concerning life and death, salvation and condemnation. Whenever this has happened (and it continues to happen today), what is actually the much older and in many respects more human model of the "priesthood of all believers" is both betrayed and distorted. And at this point, too, resolute resistance must always be mounted against such clericalism and official presumption by spiritual functionaries of all kinds. The atoning activity of priests cannot be permitted to become the monopoly and privilege of a single caste. "Inadvertently" The present textual section restricts itself initially to the atonement of unintentional transgressions against the commandments. This is stated in the superscription to the overall section (4:2), and this specification is then repeated in various formulations (4:13, 22, 27; 5:2, 3, 4, 14, 17, 18). This emphasis on inadvertent sins immediately prompts the question: What happened in the case of intentional transgressions? Were all attempts at atonement doomed from the very beginning in such instances? The book of Leviticus provides no direct answer, and the remaining Old Testament texts also hardly reflect theoretically on the subject. Only a single passage provides a brief reference to the problem: After a discussion of "inadvertent sins" quite in the style of these Leviticus chapters, the conclusion to Num. 15:22-29 states: But the person who does wrong intentionally, whether a native or a sojourner, affronts Yahweh, and shall be cut off from among the people. Because of having despised Yahweh's word and broken his commandment, such a person shall be utterly cut off and bear the guilt. (Num. 15:30f.)

The priestly conception thus clearly aims to establish two main categories of sin. Inadvertent transgressions can be atoned; intentional ones cannot. The section just cited renders the qualification "intentional" quite vividly with the expression "with a high (raised) hand" ("highhandedly," so NRSV). A survey of the non-priestly biblical tradition, however, quickly reveals that neither the specialized priestly expression for intentional sin nor the distinction between 34. Cf. Bernd Janowski, Siihne als Heilsgeschehen.

Leviticus 4-5

63

errors that can and cannot be atoned plays an essential role. Indeed, one must look hard to find an example of the intentional violation of the sacral sphere. Such would include A chan's theft of the "devoted things" (Josh. 7: l; cf. l Sam. 15) and the violent repression of the temple cult by Antiochus IV (l Mace. l :54-64; these events also constitute the background of Dan. 7:24f.). The psalms occasionally mention cynical blasphemers who consciously disregard the sacred ordinances (cf. Pss. 10:3-ll; 14: l ). The characterization of several kings and queens comes close to the model of an antidivine figure (cf. Ahab and J ezebel, 1 Kings 21 :25; Athaliah, 2 Kings 11:15; Manasseh, 2 Kings 21:2-15), though the historical texts-differently than, for example, in the mythical portrayal of Ezek. 28:1-10-seem to shrink from any unequivocal identification of a human being with evil itself. Although an inclination to contradiction, presumption, and arrogance toward God is ascribed to human beings (cf. Gen. 6-9; 11: 1-9), the result is not, as Num. 15:30 prescribes and the priestly tradition graphically portrays in several instances, the merciless extirpation of the intentional perpetrators (cf. Lev. 20:1-18; 24:10-23; Num. 15:32-26; 16: 1-35). This sharp distinction between deeds that can and cannot be atoned thus seems to have been cultivated especially in priestly circles, though even there it was not consistently maintained (cf. Num. 12:1-15) and was also not always amalgamated with the legal concepts of "intentional" and "unintentional." In any event, Lev. 24: lOff., for example, does without these categories. It simply states: Whoever does wrong with regard to what is sacred must "bear his punishment" and die (vv. l5f.; in what follows, namely, the older section vv. 17-20, only the severity of the deed itself, figured according to the damages inflicted on a person, is decisive). The search for "intentional" sins in the Old Testament thus leads us to suspect that in actual practice this criterion was of significance at most to the priests, and was otherwise hardly a factor. And in the priestly conduct of office itself, the distinction between "intentional" and "unintentional" can be of significance only as regards atonement rites, and not for passing judgment on perpetrators. Yet because this conceptual pair does not really qualify deeds concretely, providing instead only a psychological component difficult to verify, every individual case of transgression against the commandments remains basically unclear. Each must be analyzed individually. Perhaps the primary purpose of introducing "intentionality" is to establish the priests as authorities with the power of decision. An analysis of the present text, which is concerned in a one-sided fashion with "non-intentionality," may provide us with further information and conclusions in this regard. Since the classification of "intentional" sins is treated in such a varied and inconsistent fashion, one expects the same to be the case regarding its counterpart, "inadvertent" transgressions. They, too, do not constitute any homogeneous, clearly definable entity in this text. Appearances are already deceiving

64

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

in the relatively self-enclosed chap. 4. The tradents want to be precise; for each new paragraph they stipulate that it involve "inadvertent" transgressions (vv. 2, 13, 22, 27), and that the transgression consist of "an act against the commandments of Yahweh, with regard to things one may not do" (v. 2). What degree of ignorance or intentionality is meant here? To which commandments or collections of commandments is this text referring? Are the ten commandments meant, or later Judaism's 613 "you shall (not)" prescriptions, 35 or some collection of specialized regulations, such as the sexual taboos in Leviticus 18 or the purity commandments of Leviticus 11-15? Lev. 24:10ff. presents as a typical example the prohibition against blasphemy, though not with the same wording as Ex. 20:7 and Deut. 5:11. Num. 15:32 takes as its example the sabbath commandment. These two examples, however, represent norms against which one can hardly transgress "inadvertently." The indefinite formulation "do something that Yahweh has forbidden" is thus revealing, concealing the fact that many of Yahweh's commandments can only be violated consciously; a reading of a chapter such as Leviticus 19 from this perspective is instructive. The questionability of the maxim of treating "inadvertent" violations becomes even more clear in chap. 5. Whereas the fourth chapter speaks stereotypically of unconscious errors not defined more specifically, the fifth chapter does try to describe such transgressions more specifically, referring to characteristic features of the applicable case facts. The forbidden acts are of extremely differing types, and include the violation of a person's obligation toreport a transgression (5:1), the generation of cultic impurity (5:2f.), and rash oaths (5:4); the chapter also alludes to errors in connection with "Yahweh's sacred gifts," 36 and in a third section to the illegal appropriation of goods through fraud, extortion, or false oaths (5:21-24 [6:2-5E]). One can, of course, consider the possibility that because of differences in content, Lev. 5:14-26 (5: 14-6:7E) is no longer to be considered part of the preceding textual section at all. This might also be supported by the new discourse introductions in 5:14, 20 (6:1E) and the absence of any concluding summary after 5:26 (6:7E) such as "these are the laws applying to inadvertent transgressions." Three observations seem to suggest rather that the authors of chap. 4 appended different materials in the following chapter to the prescriptions for unintentional errors. We have already mentioned the consistent emphasis on the priestly atonement function (5:6, 10, 13, 18, 26 (6:7E), a strong indication that Lev. 4:1-5:26 (6:7E) constitutes a unit, even if the motif of restitution (5: 16, 23f. [6:4f.E]) added in the last two sections (5: 14ff.) originally has noth-

35. Cf. Jsmar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, 174f. 36. Lev. 5: 15; the story ofUzzah, who dies after touching the ark in an act actually conceived as assistance, begs the question just how one was able to violate the sacred inadvertently and without danger in the first place (2 Sam. 6:6f.; cf. Isa. 6:5).

Leviticus 4-5

65

ing to do with priestly atonement. Second, the qualification "inadvertent" is also maintained, with some modification, through the two chapters. The expression used throughout chap. 4 surfaces again in 5:15, 18. To this one can add the substantive approximations "touch, bump something accidentally" (5:2f.); "a deed remains concealed, then becomes known" (5:2, 3, 4, 17); and "fail to notice it" (5:l7f.). The variety of designations betrays the conceptual effort expended by the tradents. In the case of atoneable errors, should one more strongly emphasize knowledge, will, or the unexpected element of accident? Or in the end was the disposition of the perpetrator at the time of the deed unimportant? Did ultimately only the deed itself count, and the damage inflicted on one's fellow? The final section, Lev. 5:20-26 (6: l-6:7E), actually contains no references whatever to "inadvertence," and instead speaks clearly about conscious misdeeds in the social sphere. However-and this is the third consideration-the primary perspective of the atoning sacrifice does extend to the conclusion of Leviticus 5. One can indeed ascertain alterations at this point: the Hebrew term "sin offering" (IJa!!ii't: 4:3, 14, 24 etc.) is gradually replaced by the expression "guilt offering" (a sam: 5:15-19, 25-26 [6:6-7E]); the substance of these two designations, however, can hardly be distinguished. Both are concerned with liberating from the contamination of sin generated by the perpetrator's misbehavior. Accordingly, the cases in Lev. 5:21-24 (6:2-5E), which actually fall completely outside the definition of "inadvertent" transgressions, are also included in the catalog of sin offerings, a fact that can be viewed as a victory for theological reason. The narrow system of "intentional" and "inadvertent" transgressions, geared toward the privilege of priestly decision, is both artificial and dogmatically abstract, and by no means suffices for the actual practice of atonement, that is, for reestablishing disrupted life circumstances. Structure and Content

[5:20--26 (6:1-7E)] This concluding section to our text is the one most strongly thrown into relief through form and content against the priestly ordinances in 4:1-5:19. It shows us once again just how the priestly tradents dealt with the material of tradition, which they then incorporated into their own conceptions. It also betrays, however, what was important to the listening congregation to whom these sacrificial prescriptions were read during worship services. Lev. 5:21-24 (6:2-5E) is framed by purely priestly statements indebted to the already familiar notions of revelation (5:20 [6: lE]): Yahweh speaks to Moses, cf. "Analysis" in section 2.2) and to the atoning and mediating functions of the priest (5:25f. [6:6f.]). Although the enframed textual core has been formed stylistically by the priestly tradents, its content still shows its

66

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

old, non sacral countenance. It speaks-a bit convolutely, but still comprehensibly-about crimes of fraud that in and of themselves actually fall under the jurisdiction of"secular" authority. During the preexilic period, the elders in the gate made decisions concerning the punishment of such offenses. 37 In the postexilic community, specially entrusted people may possibly have dealt with such internal problems (cf. Ex. 18; Deut. 17:8-13; 2 Chron. 19:5-11). What sort of evidence is addressed? The text contains two lists. The first (5:2lf. [6:2f.E]) enumerates three main cases: 1. disavowal (of deposited, entrusted, or stolen goods); 2. exploitation of one's fellow; 3. disavowal of a lost possession subsequently found. All three cases can be aggravated by false oaths sworn by the guilty person in order to conceal the facts. This short section lacks formal unity, repeating and intensifying the central statement ("disavowal") in v. 22a (6:3a) such that a diffuse impression emerges. The second enumeration of restitutions in v. 23 (6:4) is much more compact and original, allowing us to reconstruct a list of four prohibitions: You shall not rob (cf. Lev. 19:13; Prov. 22:22; Ezek. 18:7) You shall not extort (cf. Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:14; Jer. 7:6; Zech. 7: 10) You shall not disavow something deposited (cf. Lev. 19:11; Josh. 7: 11; Hos. 4:2) You shall not keep for yourself lost objects belonging to someone else (cf. Ex. 22:8 [9E]; Deut. 22:3) Such catalogs of prohibitions played an enormous role in the ancient Orient in the rearing of youth and as a moral code for urban communities, guaranteeing social and economic coexistence. When these basic norms were violated, the appropriate courts had to step in. The priestly tradents of the Leviticus text appropriated into their collections numerous norms associated with the social aspects of life (cf. chaps. 18; 19; 25, etc.), and were thus by no means oriented toward purely spiritual concerns. In the present instance, they even maintained the acts of restitution (5:23f. [6:4f.E]), but then added the guilt offering regulation (5:25f. [6:6f.E]), of paramount importance to them in connection with the atonement offering laws themselves, and greatly emphasized the priestly task of atonement. What prompted them to do this? The parallel texts we have adduced, especially those from the collections of norms in Exodus 22, Leviticus 19, and Deuteronomy 24, doubtless derive from the secular legal sphere. Did priestly and Levitical circles incorporate the power of legal adjudication into chap. 5, possibly with an eye on actualizing a kind of theocracy? Little of this is evident.

37. Cf. Ludwig Kohler, Hebrew Man (Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1956) 127-50.

Leviticus 4-5

67

The payment of restitution in the fraud cases depicted seems not to belong at all to the priest's sphere of responsibility. The completely general stipulation is "he shall restore" (vv. 23f. [6:4f.E]). How full, in contrast, does the other leitmotif resonate: "the priest shall effect atonement"! No, this inclusion of socioethical norms does not necessarily derive only from the priestly class's lust for power. Congregational interests may also be providing the background here. Postexilic religiosity, grounded in the Torah, perceived "secular" transgressions, just like any violation in the sacral sphere, to be contaminating and in need of atonement. The priests were responsible for such atonement. Hence, one dealt with such crimes, as was always the case, with legal means, and then additionally a guilt offering was presented, except that this offering fell under the purview of the priesthood, enhancing their prestige. An additional possible interpretation emerges when we assume that Leviticus texts played a role not only at the Jerusalem sanctuary (there perhaps least of all), but everywhere in Jewish worship services. As a recited sacred text in a congregational assembly, far from the temple itself, all these sacrificial prescriptions were like a dry drill. Sacrifices were allowed only at a single site, namely, at the central sanctuary. But most Jews did not live in Jerusalem, and apart from the high festivals only very few Jerusalemites themselves assembled at this chosen cultic site. In all probability, readings and prayer took place outside of and far from the Jerusalem temple itself. If this is true, then Lev. 5:20-26 (6: 1-7E) represents not the incorporation of secular norms into the central cult, but rather quite the reverse, namely, a kind of fictitious sacralization of life in the Diaspora. The sacrificial regulations and rituals would then possess "only" nominal or passive religious value. Their language did reveal something about the spiritual dimension of daily transgressions, and we will consider this question more thoroughly in our discussion of the "Holiness Code" (chaps. 17-26). As described above, the idea of restitution of damages predominates in the concluding passage 5:20-26 (6:1-7E). Selected offenses regarding possessions and having to do with fraud and extortion are considered in need of atonement. But why specifically these? Why is there no mention either of bodily harm, violations against marriage and family order, or legal misrepresentation, offenses otherwise censured in the Old Testament and in part also of interest in Leviticus 18-19; 25? Do these violations against another's possessions serve merely as examples for many other crimes through which one similarly would "sin"? [5:14-19] This section, too, exhibits a certain independence, evident in the introductory formula in v. 14 and in the concluding remark in v. 19. It is itself subdivided further into two regulations. The first case involves the atonement for errors against the "holy" or Yahweh's "holy things" (5:15). Is this referring to something like a profanation of sacred food (cf. I Sam. 21:7

68

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

[6E])? In connection with the rules for eating sacrificial gifts, Lev. 22:14 contains a regulation possibly supporting this suspicion: "Anyone who eats of the sacred donation unintentionally, that person shall add one-fifth of its value to it, and give the sacred donation back to the priest." Perhaps the reference is also merely to contact with sacred objects, which become useless through contact with the secular world. The indication of value in "sanctuary shekels" shows the great extent to which the temple also represented the economic center in the ancient Orient. In fifth-century Israel, one shekel represented about twelve grams of silver, or about $4.15 today, though in antiquity precious metals were rarer than today, and thus even more expensive. Lev. 5:15f. focuses on the profanation of the sacred, while by contrast Lev. 5: 17-19 speaks in a general fashion of the violation of one of God's commandments, just as did 4:27f. Does this represent an accidental repetition resulting from scribal error? Or is precisely the omission of any ritual description the crucial element? In that case, the central focus would no longer be priestly atonement (5: I 6, I 8), but rather restitution of damages and an appropriate payment to the officiating priest. This would amount to a replacement of animal sacrifice by the payment of the equivalent monetary value. How else might one pay a twenty percent increase in the price of a ram? Martin Noth considers it possible that the ram offering in this section is now intended only symbolically, and possibly already refers to a monetary fee figured at the value of a ram. 38 With what, however, was the priest in such a case then to effect atonement? [5:1-13] As already mentioned, the perspective changes in chap. 5. The circle of addressees is now no longer specified as in chap. 4. In all the cases addressed, one assumes the perpetrator is similarly "anyone," the indefinite "someone" from the congregation. In any event, Lev. 5: I follows upon 4:27 in its formulation, and even the presentation of offerings in 4:23ff. is continued in substance in 5:6ff. The focus is now on the deed itself instead of on persons. What is the result of guilt that needs atonement? With what can persons defile themselves? Peculiarly, failure to report a crime perpetrated on one's fellow occupies the first position (5: I). Collusion or complicity is thus the transgression here, though it must be precisely specified: Someone hears how an unknown person is cursed publicly; the person knows about the deed, knows the identity of the perpetrator, knows where that person is, and yet keeps all this silent. Although the ancient procedure of pursuit and punishment in cases of public cursing may seem somewhat curious to us, it was customary in many societies, and was also practiced in Europe in the form of ecclesiastical banning and state proscription. In the Old Testament, malediction served on the 38. Martin Noth, Leviticus, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965) 47.

Leviticus 4-5

69

one hand as the self-efficacious punishment of the guilty person, then on the other hand, as in this instance, probably served that person's conviction and condemnation. Judges 17:2 is a vivid example of the first function. Eleven hundred pieces of silver were stolen from Micah's mother. She curses the thief, not suspecting that it was her own son. He comes forward, and she reverses the damage through a pious donation (vv. 3-5). The situation is a bit different in 1 Sam. 14:24. In a situation of distress, Saul swears an oath for both himself and his troops to fast during the entire day of battle. He will surrender any potential transgressor of this injunction to God's judgment, not suspecting that his son Jonathan has not heard of the oath and will eat wild honey. Hence Jonathan is condemned to death, especially since in retrospect he considers his father's oath to be absurd (vv. 27-30). Despite this, however, he does not die, since the people "redeem" him (vv. 43-45). Unfortunately, the text does not say how and whereby this redemption is effected. However, both narratives are highly significant for us, since they mention examples of guilt compensation transcending the sin offering. Finally, in Ps. 109:18, we learn something about the terrible destructive power of a curse. The person suffering distress prays against his tormentors: "He clothed himself with cursing as his coat; may it soak into his body like water, like oil into his bones." The entire remaining section of Ps. 109:6-20 is a single, mighty imprecation against the wicked person.

We see that the Old Testament, like many other societies and occasionally also our own, deals with the public condemnation of a perpetrator. In the same breath it both condemns complicity and demands the denunciation of the perpetrator, for the good of society, of course. This exhortation to collective responsibility was protected against abuse neither then nor today, and the "civil code" of ancient Israel thus demands harsh punishment for false accusation (cf. Ex. 23:1-2; Deut. 19:15-21; 17:2-7). This Leviticus text, however, is not interested in false accusation at all. It demands only the religious elimination of the guilt of collusion. It does not specify whether such witnessing applies to all kinds of transgressions or possibly only to crimes of clear religious relevance. Political denunciation is a topic, for example, in 1 Sam. 21:8 (7E) + 22:9f.; cf. 1 Sam. 26: I. Sin resulting from contact with impure objects or persons is a frequently mentioned problem (Lev. 5:2-3; cf. 11-15; 21:1-4, etc.). Impurity is transferable and infectious, whereas holiness is not, at least not to this degree (Hag. 2:12-14). Anything dead is laden with the power of death, and for that reason it does, in a special way, render a thing or person "impure," that is, incapable of dealing with the holy, the power of life itself. Hence every impurity must necessarily be removed from the environment of the congregation and of the Yahweh believer; we ourselves similarly try to remove stains from our clothing. 39 39. Cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger.

70

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

A rashly spoken, thoughtless oath is another occasion for a guilt offering. Why? Playing with fire, that is, with destructive power, places both the careless person and the surroundings into extreme danger. Every oath is, after all, a conditional self-imprecation: "May I fall over dead if I do/fail to do this or that," and so on. Whoever is unable to keep the condition uttered in the oath negligently sets loose these powers of curse. Sooner or later that person, too, will fall victim to them, and this simultaneously means endangerment and harm to the community; to that extent, every private oath is a public matter. Within the section on sin offering, the confession of guilt appears only in this passage (5:5), and is otherwise also rare in the book of Leviticus (cf. 16:21; 26:40). For us, the admission of error, acknowledgment of guilt, and a statement of remorse belong irrevocably to the act of atonement, and ample Old Testament witnesses speak similarly (cf. 1 Sam. 15:22-31; Ps. 51; Isa. 61:1-3 ). The sin offering prescriptions speak only in extremely rare instances about the personal disposition of the "guilty" person. In the parallel texts Lev. 6:17-7:10 (6:24-7: JOE) and Num. 15:22-29 we find not a trace of any confession of sin. Such confessions do, in contrast, appear in prayer and psalm literature (cf. Ezra 9; Neh. 9; Ps. 106), though in these cases it involves admissions of conscious transgressions, usually apostasy from Yahweh. The social status of the guilty person, also of concern in chap. 1, now becomes the second leitmotif of the sacrificial prescriptions in Lev. 5:1-13, in addition to the consideration of case facts. The stages of possible sacrificial gifts extends from the pigeon-the "poor man's" sacrifice-to flour offerings. And precisely in connection with this, the least of all contributions to atonement, we find that the officiating priest cannot do without his compensation (5:13). According to Lev. 6:17-7:10 (6:24-7:10E), the sin and guilt offerings can be eaten except for those mentioned in 4:3-21 in connection with the first group of persons. If one does not wish to argue that this betrays the mendacity of the priestly caste, which leads the congregation to believe that the substance of sin inhering in the sacrificial flesh is highly dangerous, then the only explanation is that the priests themselves, thanks to their proximity to the holy and possibly as a result of perpetual atonement, are able to live with this burden. Be that as it may, some doubt remains. In all ages and all cultures and religions, those in power have as a rule established special privileges for themselves in dealing with sources of danger. [4:1-35] This extensive text establishes the sin offering ritual in four paragraphs structured in corresponding pairs. Manifold references to the sacrificial prescriptions of Leviticus 1 and 3 demonstrate its close relationship with those preceding chapters. The "place where the burnt offering is slaughtered" (vv. 29, 33) also serves the presentation of the sin offering. The rituals of blood aspersion and fat incineration follow the model of what is customary for the burnt and meal offering (cf. vv. 10, 26, 31, 35), though the distribution of priestly

Leviticus 4-5

71

ceremonies to the altar of burnt offering and the small altar in the temple interior (cf. vv. 5-10) is modeled after chap. 16 (where the blood aspersion takes place even in the holy of holies). The authors' intention becomes clear: They view the traditional sacrificial institutions primarily from the perspective of "elimination of sin." The occasion for sacrifice in Leviticus 4 is consistently the (unintentional) "transgression" or "sin" (segaga: vv. 2, 13, 22, 27). As indeterminate as the erroneous behavior itself remains, with all the more theological exactitude is it measured against the standard of Yahweh's commandments. Here, unlike Numbers 15, the focus is not primarily on direct violations of a traditional commandment, but rather on violations as such. Whoever does something disallowed according to the expression of Yahweh's will, must present a "sin offering" (~a!fa: t). The name of this sacrifice derives thus from human transgression or wrong (f:lii!ti), and might be explained as a "de-wronging" of such "wrong,"40 or such that the sacrificial animal representatively takes the substance of sin upon itself (the laying on of hands), thus neutralizing the sin. 41 A similar understanding of the atoning power of sacrificial animals is found in Num. 19:9-13. A red heifer is slaughtered and burned according to a specific rite. Its ashes are able to remove impurities attaching to human beings. Leviticus 4 thus interprets the sacrifice in the light of human sin and the necessity of atonement. This is where the heart of the theologians of the time beats, the compelling evidence for which is the extremely high concentration of vocabulary relating to sin and atonement in chaps. 4-16. A listing of these textual blocks prompts the question of the origin of the textual complex itself, "sin and guilt offering" in the larger sense. We have seen at every step that this complex did not come about in a single sweep as the composition of a logically proceeding author. We must take leave of the notion that these texts were composed by book authors, in the modem sense, writing according to a specific outline. The literary organization of any one possible redactor becomes increasingly lost in the maze of reworkings undertaken by subsequent editors. It is the task of analysis to disclose just how emphases change from section to section, how bracketing and references are generated within the text, and how tensions emerge and are then overcome. Commentators, especially Martin Noth and Karl Elliger, have employed astonishing perspicacity in extracting individual redactional levels out of the present text as a whole. Yet even they must admit again and again that ultimate certainty cannot be attained regarding the individual strata and individual authors. Indeed, only in exceptional instances can one distinguish with certainty later from earlier material. 40. Karl Elliger, Leviticus, 69. 41. Klaus Koch, "chii!ii'," Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980) 317.

72

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

Hence we are better advised to consider the other model of textual origins as outlined in our introduction. The sin offering regulations came about over a longer period of time through use in worship situations. A germ cell of such prescriptions may indeed be the priestly instruction to a person intending to present a sacrifice. The type of transgression must be determined and the appropriate atonement mediated. The result of such inquiry is to be passed on to the client (cf. other inquiries of priests: I Sam. 23:9-12; Hag. 2:10-14). This Leviticus section, however, is already far removed from the original query schema and priestly response. The priests are already tied to a comprehensive, extremely complex set of instructions that Yahweh and Moses mediate to the people of Israel (Lev. 4: If.) This means that the postexilic congregation, understanding itself as Israel, as the holy people of Yahweh (Ex. 19:4-6; Lev. 11 :44; 19:2), is the accountable group standing behind these texts. It either collected these regulations concerning sin offerings itself according to its worship needs, or had them collected. The passages now before us grew together not according to some author's individual logic, but rather according to historical, liturgical, community-oriented logic, and did so in a manner that in part can be reconstructed and in part remains impenetrable. These are worship instructions that have been collected together in "agenda." We have already alluded to the various fields of interest that follow upon or interpenetrate one another. In a larger sense the focus is on sin and atonement and on the role of the priest. More detailed problems then emerge: the various groups of persons involved; the various possible offenses; conscious or inadvertent transgression; sacral and profane sins; the meaning of interpersonal norms; restitution guidelines; atonement; and so on. This textual complex grew with and from these centers of inquiry of interest to the congregation, and not according to the literary ambition of individual authors. A different evaluation of its content and significance emerges from this insight. Hierarchy

How are the different parts of Leviticus 4-5 related, and what social structure do they reveal? The fourth chapter speaks quite precisely about different groups of persons who inadvertently commit a completely undefined violation against an equally indeterminate divine commandment. The text mentions one after another the "anointed priest" (this is probably the high priest, cf. Lev. 21: 10), the "entire congregation," a "congregational leader," and "any person from the people" (vv. 3, 13, 22, 27). Their inadvertent transgressions require quite similarly structured atonement rites involving only slight variations. The individual actions of the sacrificial participant and the priests are for the most part already familiar from chaps. 1-3, though precisely in the case of the regulations for atonement offerings these actions constitute a self-enclosed whole

Leviticus 4-5

73

lacking only the reference to recitation and song. The laying of hands upon the sacrificial animal (vv. 4, 15, 24, 29; cf. Lev. 3:2, 7, 12) is a transferal gesture; the continuum of sin flows over to the animal, which is then killed representatively for the perpetrator (cf. the driving out of the scapegoat in Lev. 16:2022). People today also transfer their guilt complexes to "scapegoats": Mr. Clean then eliminates these complexes by pursuing, tormenting, and destroying the "scapegoat."42 This is how psychologists and psychoanalysts describe the ancient ritual in its present versions. The slaughtering of the sacrificial animal constitutes the moment of assignation to the deity (vv. 4, 15, 24, 29), and the notion of giving or presenting seems to come to the fore. The priest then performs his atonement rites, the blood aspersion and pouring, the fat incineration, and finally the cadaver itself must be incinerated outside the sacred precinct in a cleansing action. Precious meat is destroyed because any consumption of food laden with sin and impurity is dangerous. 43 Interestingly, the decontamination of the holy sphere is described precisely only in v. 11, within the framework of the first sin offering prescription; the three following paragraphs more or less silently presuppose this concluding ritual (vv. 21, 26, 35). The most important element, however, is that the atonement offering regulations refer to groups of persons. "High priest" (Lev. 4:3-21) and "congregation of Israel" (4:13-21), then "congregational leader" (naif; 4:22-26) and "any person of the people" (4:27-35) are juxtaposed, the first group taking precedence over the second. A sin committed by the priests or the people of Israel is more grievous than transgressions committed by individuals from the normal local congregation. In the first case, a valuable young animal must be sacrificed; it is slaughtered at the "entrance to the tent of meeting," immediately before the door to Yahweh's house. With its blood the priest then performs the exclusive atonement rites in the interior of the sanctuary, where Yahweh's holiness is present in its highest concentration. The removal of the animal's cadaver is mentioned explicitly only in connection with this group. The high priest and the congregation Israel thus represent the holy cultic assembly, as in Leviticus 8-9; 16. Why is the "anointed priest" alone mentioned, and not the entire priesthood and Levitical entourage? Presumably, the high priest is mentioned as the person primarily responsible for cultic life at the sanctuary. Especially at the great atonement festival, which is to effect the annual high atonement of Israel (chap. 16), the high priest functions representatively for the entire priesthood (Lev. 16:33). Hence these first two sin offering regulations deal with Israel as a cultic community, probably with the 42. Cf. Rene Girard. Das Ende der Gewalt. 43. Neither would we eat taboo things or irradiated foodstuffs; cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger.

74

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

congregation assembled at worship. Their wrongs must be atoned with a preeminent sacrifice. A different procedure applies to the second pair, "congregational leader" and "member of the congregation." But first a word about our translation. which naturally involves an entire interpretation. The Hebrew word nasf is usually rendered as "prince" or "tribal prince," a translation drawing support from texts in which the nasf does indeed have a tribal (military) function (cf. Num. 2; 7). However, since these texts date from a period in which the tribal organization no longer possessed political significance, the title naif can at most represent a recollection from Israel's early period (cf. Ex. 22:27 [28E]; 1 Kings 11:34). The majority of textual occurrences, however, date from the exilic-postexilic period, and that forces us to inquire concerning the contemporary meaning of this leadership designation. Whom did the authors of these texts call niisf during their own age? 1 Kings 8:1 or Num. 3:24-35 show clearly that clan-related functions might play a role regarding the intended "office." Peripheral mention of priestly tasks relating to the niisf is also made in dreams for the future (Ezek. 45: 16f. ). The Leviticus passage in question discloses the following tasks and structures: The responsibilities of the ntisf reside below the level of the people itself; he is not involved with sacral rites, is emphatically distinguished from the high priest, and is classified along with the individual Israelite. Ezek. 45:9-12 would include the maintenance of justice among his duties. All this prompts the conclusion that the nasf exercised leadership functions in local postexilic congregations. Just as the office of the high priest (Lev. 4:3) is projected unhesitatingly back into the period of Moses, so also the figure of the "congregational leader." The atonement rites for inadvertent transgressions on the part of the congregational leader and congregation members are characteristically different than those for high priests and the cultic congregation. The sacrificial animal is taken from the small livestock flock. Slaughtering, blood rite, and fat incineration all take place at the main altar before the temple. The blood rite consists in smearing the horns of the altar, and the formulation "bring as an offering" (Lev. 4:23, 28, 32) recalls the normal expressions used between Lev. 1:2 and 3:14, distinguishing itself clearly from the expression "lead forth a young bull" (4:3, 14 ). In short: The atonement takes place on a different level, and less significance is attributed to it. Although goats and sheep are indeed the traditional primary sacrificial animals of nomadic peoples and small farmers, in connection with the present texts their material and spiritual value is simply lower than that of a bull. And that female animals are prescribed shows once again the diminution of quality from the priestly perspective. Extremely important sacrifices allow only male animals (cf. Lev. 1:3, 10). Outside of worship and the temple sphere, the congregation can become defiled in the person

Leviticus 4-5

75

of its leader or any one of its members through a transgression against the commandments. The atonement sacrifice, performed by the priest and consisting in a goat or sheep (female specimens), removes the disruption. The fact that violations against "Yahweh's commandments" are addressed equally in connection with these two spheres, namely, the sacral and the secular, means that the two life spheres are connected through the (written and binding) law. The Torah of Moses (cf. Lev. 26:46) is equally binding for the great cultic assembly Israel as for the daily life of the local congregation.

Theological Content In the ancient Orient and the Old Testament, atonement means the removal of detrimental elements, a reestablishment of disrupted order, a reconciliation with the deity, the elimination of anxiety among those who have incurred guilt, and the opening of new life possibilities. If we are to understand correctly this and similar evidence from the text, then we must (a) ascertain the particular standpoints and perspectives out of which it originated, and at the same time (b) determine as precisely as possible the social structures and realities of life in which it was transmitted and used and interpreted ever anew. Most commentaries presuppose without question that at least the sacrificial laws in the book of Leviticus were composed entirely from the perspective of priestly interests. The ubiquitous strong emphasis on the priestly orientation of the individual regulations supports this, as does the fact that the priests are the only or at least the main actors (the word "priest" occurs in chaps. 4-5 altogether twenty-nine times; "Yahweh" appears twenty-seven times). Their ritual activities and their income occupy the central position. The language seems circumstantially sacral, theologically measured, and occasionally autocratically authoritarian (compare the imperatives of the instructions and the unconditional nature of the statements). Nonetheless, a whole series of observations militates against any exclusively priestly perspective attaching to the sin offering regulations. We can pick up on the literary comments discussed earlier. Although the priests are indeed considered at great length, they are not themselves the subjects of the didactic and admonitory discourse. They are subordinated to Moses, and Moses is anything but the prototype of a priest. The hierarchical levels are: Yahweh, Moses, Israel (cf. Lev. 4: 1), and only in exceptional instances is Aaron, the primal representative of the Israelite priesthood, either juxtaposed with or subordinated to Moses (cf. Lev. 6:13 [19E]; 9:12; 16:12). In any case, Moses remains the highest authority. It is he who receives the Torah, who passes it on to the whole people; the Torah itself is the binding connective, including for the priesthood. Even though the priests advance in tradition into readers of the Torah (cf. the "priest" Ezra: Neh. 8:2) and probably also often presented

76

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

themselves in practice as "masters of scripture," theoretically they are subordinated to the Torah and obligated to serve the congregation-as similarly understood in various forms by later Christian clerics. It is also highly significant that the sin offering prescriptions in these two chapters have not been formulated exclusively from the perspective of the officiating priests. It is also difficult to imagine this textual complex serving as a handbook for the internal use of the priesthood, since it does not include the necessary "insider knowledge." An understanding of blood rites and fat incineration does not suffice for the execution of the priestly office. On the other hand, in the course of reading we cannot fail to notice how the concerns of the community itself emerge more and more. Lev. 4:1-21, especially as regards the rites in the temple itself, offers a bit of secret procedure. Then, however, the text opens itself, places the altar of burnt offering into the center of attention (an altar the congregation itself could view), and moves increasingly into the daily life of the people. If, as is likely, priestly interests are behind the distinction between "conscious" and "inadvertent" transgressions, then we must take note: These interests are imposed, and are not maintained through the text. The preceding arguments need not be repeated; what is certain is that the congregation of offerers itself had a considerable influence on the regulations of Leviticus 4-5. To be sure, the priestly claims were integrated to a large extent into this congregational interest in the possibilities for atonement. We are experiencing a congregation that has internalized the priestly mediating function within the atonement ritual. Second, the question arises concerning the overall social reality in which texts come into being. We know a little about his from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and to this we can add bits of information from Isaiah 56-66, Haggai, Zechariah, and possibly from certain psalms. The people of Israel lived under Persian foreign rule, yoked into the military and economic organization of the greater empire, and yet within a more or less generously tolerant religious space. The economic burden was harsh. 44 The dispersion of Judeans to the four winds and the absence of any political self-determination were difficult for those who resisted assimilation into foreign cultures and religions. A feeling of identity emerged among the widely scattered Jews, a consciousness of solidarity, and a yearning for Jerusalem (cf. Pss. 87; 137) and for the temple (cf. Ps. 84: 11 [ 1OE]: "For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere"). Faith in the one God Yahweh, visible and efficacious in Torah, circumcision, and sabbath, united even Jews living far from one another. The temple in Jerusalem became the geographical center, the magnetic pole for the widely scattered Jewish community of faith. Letters from the Jewish 44. Taxes! Cf. Hans G. Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Juda.

Leviticus 4-5

77

colony in upper Egypt provide an eloquent testimony to this. 4 5 Without a doubt, in the fifth century B.C.E. the Jews began to organize themselves into congregations, and to reestablish or cultivate their connection with Jerusalem. And since the "correct" sacrificial cult could be celebrated only in Jerusalem (cf. Deut. 12), those in the Diaspora had to make do with assemblies lacking any sacrifice, assemblies probably characterized instead by a reading of the Torah, prayer, song, and admonition. One can certainly assume, however, that such assemblies also made mention of the temple and its rites. Even the community in Qumran concerned itself intensively with the temple, the priesthood, and the temple rituals. 46 This identification even with the temple cult was so strong that the diaspora congregations eventually began celebrating the important worship occasions "from a distance," quite apart, of course, from any efforts to maintain direct contact with the sanctuary through pilgrimages to the great annual festivals. Nehemiah 5 probably portrays the economic situation of the Jewish communities fairly accurately. 47 A small upper class was juxtaposed with a relatively large population contingent consisting of impoverished farmers. Israel's historic experiences in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. resulted in a heightened consciousness of guilt. Witnesses to this include the great penitential prayers in Ezra 9, Nehemiah 9, and Daniel 9, and the summary historical observations of the sort found in 2 Kings 17; 23:25-28; Jeremiah 19; 25; Ezekiel 20; or Psalms 78; 89; 106. Certainly other texts could be adduced from this period, texts full of courage and hope (cf. Ruth; Isa. 40-55; 60-62; Jer. 30f.; Ezek. 36f.). Nonetheless, the depressed mood of a guilt-ridden congregation is frequently perceptible, a mood apparently also reinforced by the spiritual leaders. From both Ezra and Nehemiah we find evidence of public demonstration of penitence (Ezra 9:3; Neh. 1:4 ). The penitential prayers reach far back into the period of the ancestors and lament in a blanket fashion Israel's disobedience and culpability. Foreign domination is viewed as Yahweh's punishment for Israel's own disloyalty. From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been handed over to the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as is now the case. (Ezra 9:7)

When consciousness of sin is nourished in this oppressive way by political and economic developments of the age, the inclusion of hidden, 45. Cf. Walter Beyerlin, Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 254f. 46. Cf. Johannes Maier, The Temple Scroll. 47. Cf. Hans G. Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Juda.

78

2.5 Sin and Guilt Offerings

unknowingly committed sin comes as no surprise. Other ancient oriental penitential prayers similarly refer formulaically to "conscious and inadvertent sin. " 48 Against this background, then, the Jewish community standing under such pressure and tension tried through atonement rituals to free itself from the causes and consequences of its own transgressions. The texts under discussion here serve this limited purpose alone. They do not claim to develop any overall theological conception. They demonstrate what during that period was considered to be the necessary engagement of sacrificial animals, that is, of the element of offering, and the role of the priests in the ritual. They hint at the inner participation of distant fellow believers in the central cult in Jerusalem. The central theological question is how such efforts at (let us employ our own terminology in order to illustrate what is involved) cleansing, disinfection, decontamination, reconciliation, revivification, and so on, are to be evaluated. Are they theologically legitimate? Or should they be classified as utopian hope? At the level of priestly theology and professional activity, Israel's faith opted for attempting a perpetually enacted purification of sin. At the level of prophetic proclamation this same attempt looked different, and if not necessarily more "ethical," then at least more focused on social, legal, and personal issues. Other attempts at reestablishing lost, whole, balanced life circumstances can be found in the prayer cult that developed both with and next to the sacrificial cult. The priestly oriented congregational group, however, opted for the atoning sacrificial cult. They believed themselves capable of eliciting Yahweh's compassion with gifts, incense, and rites, and of combatting both the perversity of the world and evil itself. Despite its inclination to fall prey to a hierarchical desire for power, an element of truth may well inhere in this theological orientation. It seems to me to correspond most closely in our own age to the political and economic undertaking of cleansing one's own society from ruinous forces that have been turned loose and are now threatening to become independent. Here and there such mythical-magical-religious rites may yet or again be useful. A cross placed in Bergen-Belsen, a memorial service conducted in Auschwitz have atoning character. Such cleansing from spiritual "burdens ofthe past" takes place above all, however, wherever cooperation occurs with an atoning purpose and for the sake of reestablishing disrupted relationships.49

48. Cf. Adam Falkenstein and Wolfram von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (Zurich: Artemis, 1953) 298-300: penitential prayer to Marduk. 49. Concerning the psychosocial effect of scapegoat rituals. cf. Rene Girard, The Scapegoat, and the discussion of Leviticus 16.

Leviticus 6-7

79

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion (Lev. 6--7) After Leviticus 1-3 and 4--5 we encounter a third collection of sacrificial regulations addressing the previously discussed sacrificial types from different perspectives. Although the central focus is on the priestly portions, attention is also given to correct priestly clothing, the maintenance of the altar fire, and the holiness of sacrificial flesh and of the temple. We find that diverse cultic concerns are combined in a living process of tradition. The final editors to whom the present text can be traced now focus on what was important to them, organizing it into a whole primarily from the perspective of priestly provisioning (7:35f.).

Translation Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2(9) Give to Aaron and his sons the following instructions: This is the prescription for the burnt offering. It shall remain on the hearth, on the altar, all night until the morning. The altar fire shall be kept burning. 3(10) The priest shall put on his linen vestments and his linen breeches to cover his body. He shall take away the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering on the altar, and discard them beside the altar. 4(11) Then he shall take off his linen vestments and put on other garments and carry the ashes out to a pure place outside the camp. 5(12) But the altar fire shall be kept burning, it shall not go out. Every morning the priest shall add wood to it, lay out the burnt offering upon it, and tum into smoke the fat pieces of the meal offering. 6(13) A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar; it shall not go out.

6:1(8)

This is the prescription for the cereal offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it before Yahweh at the altar. 8(15) The priest shall take a handful of semolina and oil and all the frankincense that is on the cereal offering, and he shall tum it into smoke on the altar. It is an appeasing aroma, a "memorial offering" for Yahweh. 9(16) Aaron and his sons shall eat what is left of it. It shall be eaten unleavened, in a holy place. In the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it. 10(17) It shall not be prepared with leaven. I have given it to them as their portion of my offering. It is most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. 11(18) Every male among the descendants of Aaron may eat of it. This is a decree valid for all your generations regarding Yahweh's gifts. Whoever else touches them is given over to the sanctuary.

7(14)

12(19) Yahweh spoke to Moses: 13(20) This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall bring to Yahweh on the day of their anointing: one-tenth

80

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion

of an ephah of semolina as a regular cereal offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening. 14(21) You shall prepare it on a griddle with oil; you shall bring it well stirred. You shall crumble the cereal offering and present it to Yahweh as an appeasing aroma. 15(22) The officiating anointed priest from among Aaron's descendants shall perform the sacrifice. It is a perpetual due (granted) by Yahweh. It must be turned entirely into smoke. 16(23) Every cereal offering of a priest shall be such a whole offering; it shall not be eaten. 17(24) Yahweh spoke to Moses: 18(25) Speak to Aaron and his sons: This is the prescription for the sin offering. The sin offering shall be slaughtered before Yahweh at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. 19(26) The priest who presents it shall eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. 20(27) Whoever else touches the flesh shall be given over to the sanctuary. And if any blood is spattered on a garment, you shall wash the bespattered piece in a holy place. 21(28) An earthen vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken. If it has been boiled in a copper vessel, that shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 22(29) Every male member of a priestly family may eat of it; it is most holy. 23(30) But no sin offerings shall be eaten from which any blood has been brought into the tent of meeting for atonement in the sanctuary; it shall be burned with fire.

This is the prescription for the guilt offering; it is most holy. 2 At the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered, they shall slaughter the guilt offering, and its blood shall be dashed against all sides of the altar. 3 All the fat of the animal shall be presented, the broad tail and the fat covering the stomach cavity, 4 as well as both kidneys and the fat that is on them and on the loins, and the liver lobes, which shall be removed at the kidneys. 5 The priest shall turn it all into smoke on the altar, an offering for Yahweh, it is a guilt offering. 6 Every male member of a priestly family may eat it; it shall be eaten in a holy place; it is most holy. 7 One and the same prescription shall apply to the sin offering and the guilt offering. They shall belong to the priest who effects atonement with them. 8 So, too, the priest who offers anyone's burnt offering shall keep the skin of the sacrificed animal that he has offered. 9 Every cereal offering that is baked in an oven, and whatever is prepared in a pan or on a griddle, shall belong to the priest who presents it. 10 But any cereal offering prepared with oil or dry shall belong to all of Aaron's sons equally.

7:1

u This is the prescription for the meal offering that one presents to Yahweh. 12 If you present it for thanksgiving, then with the animal of the thank offering you shall also offer ringcakes mixed with oil and unleav-

Leviticus 6-7

ened bread wafers spread with oil as well as semolina mixed with oil. 13 Besides this you shall add leavened ringcakes to his offering, in addition to the meal or thanksgiving offering. 14 From each sacrificial offering you shall present a portion as a contribution [literally: something lifted off, separated] for Yahweh. Otherwise it belongs to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the sacrificial animal. IS The flesh of your meal offering of thanksgiving shall be eaten on the day of its presentation; you shall not leave any of it until morning. 16 If it is a votive offering or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day of its presentation. But the rest may also be eaten on the following day. 17 What is then left of the flesh shall be burned with fire on the third day. 18 If the flesh of the meal offering animal is eaten on the third day, then the offerer will not find favor, the offering will not be credited to you. The flesh is impure, and whoever eats of it shall incur guilt. 19 Flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burned up. Anyone who is pure can eat (unobjectionable) flesh. 20 But anyone who is impure and eats flesh of a meal offering belonging to Yahweh will be cut off from the people. 21 Anyone who touches anything impure, whether an impurity among human beings or among great and small animals, and who nevertheless eats flesh of the meal offering belonging to Yahweh, that person shall be cut off from the people. Yahweh spoke to Moses: 23 Speak to the Israelites: You shall not eat the fat of the ox, sheep, or goat. 24 The fat of dead or torn animals may be put to any use, but you may not eat it. 25 Any of you who eats the fat of an animal from which one takes an offering for Yahweh shall be cut off from your people. 26 You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements. 27 Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off from your kin. 22

Yahweh spoke to Moses: 29 Speak to the Israelites: Any one of you who presents a meal offering for Yahweh shall give to Yahweh your portion of the meal offering. 30 Your own hands shall bring Yahweh's offering, namely, the fat of the breast and the entire breast, and you shall swing it back and forth before Yahweh. 31 The priest shall turn the fat into smoke on the altar, but the breast shall belong to Aaron or to his descendants. 32 The right thigh of the animals of your meal offerings you shall give to the priest as his due. 33 Whoever among the sons of Aaron presents the blood and fat of the meal offering shall have the right thigh for a portion. 34 For I have taken the breast of the swing offering, and the thigh that is offered, from the Israelites, from their meal offering, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his descendants. This is an eternal law among the Israelites. 28

81

82

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion 35 This is the portion allotted to Aaron and to his descendants from the offerings for Yahweh, once they have been brought forward to serve Yahweh as priests. 36 Yahweh commanded on that day that this portion be given to them, when only they were anointed among the Israelites. It is an eternal law for their descendants. 37 These are the prescriptions for the burnt offering, the cereal offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the offering of ordination, and the meal offering, 38 which Yahweh gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. He did this on the same day that he commanded the Israelites to bring their offerings to Yahweh, in the wilderness of Sinai.

Structure

This section, like the preceding ones, came into being through a lengthy process of transmission. Nonetheless, several structural features are easily discernible. The monotonous sentence "this is the prescription (toni) for ... " occurs five times alone (Lev. 6:2, 7, 18 [9, 14, 25E]; 7:1, 11). The sequence of the sections so introduced is with one exception (the displacement of the meal offering) the same as in chaps. 1-5, namely, burnt offering, cereal offering, sin offering, guilt offering, and meal offering. It thus seems reasonable to view these two chapters as an addendum to the collection comprising chaps. 1-5. The collectors or authors probably wanted to address topics they felt were too cursorily treated previously within the parameters of sacrificial legislation, or topics that had recently acquired new significance. Leviticus 1-5 seems extremely complex because it was formulated from differing points of view; in contrast, the basic framework of Leviticus 6-7 seems fairly self-enclosed. Hence a reversed sequence of origin for the two textual groups is hardly conceivable; that is, chaps. 1-5 cannot have developed from Lev. 7:37. The schema of the five introductions with "this is ... "is interrupted once, and is no longer in effect after Lev. 7:20 at the latest. Although the interruption (Lev. 6:13-16 [20-23E]) does indeed resemble the toni-formula ("this is the offering of Aaron ... ," v. 13 [20E]), it nonetheless functions quite differently and has a content differing from that of the tora sections. Furthermore, the form of personal address in the second person singular appears abruptly here (v. 14 [21E]). The continuation of the five prescriptions in Lev. 7:22-34 is rendered in part from a more general point of view. Lev. 7:21 already deals with general impurity, 7:22-27 with the prohibition against eating fat and blood (cf. Lev. 17), and 7:28-34 with the priestly portion of the meal offering, as if this important concern were not adequately treated in 7:11-20. The second person plural forms of direct address (vv. 23-26, 32) are also significant, occurring only in the continuation. The entire textual complex concludes with an explicit summarization of all

Leviticus 6-7

83

the cases presented (cf. Lev. 14:54-56), here in the correct sequence and already with the inclusion of "Aaron's offering," which is of a different type (Lev. 6:12-16 [19-23E]): "These are the prescriptions ... " (7:37). Interestingly, the Hebrew uses the singular tora, meaning that the individual regulations are summarized under the overriding concept "law" (of Yahweh) and viewed as a unit. It is also striking that 7:35f. offers a different summarization than 7:37f. Although the two concluding comments exhibit largely parallel structures, the first concentrates exclusively on priestly provisioning, while the second presents the types of sacrifices provided for the people. Does this indicate that, again, two authors or redactors were at work? The author of 7:35f. then likely modified the tara-collection in favor of priestly compensation claims. Yet another structural feature is the frequently used (cf. Lev. 1:1) introductory formula "Yahweh spoke to Moses .... "It, too, occurs five times, though with a different distribution (Lev. 6: I, 12, 17 [8, 19, 24E]; 7:22, 28). The torah for burnt offerings and cereal offerings (6: 1-11 [6:8-18E]) exhibits such a discourse introduction, as do the sin, guilt, and meal offering regulations (6: 177:21 [6:24-7:21E]). The offering of Aaron in 6:12-16 (19-23E), with its beginning formula, seems like an insertion, and the two continuations in 7:22-26, 28-34 also have their own discourse introductions. If the offering of ordination for Aaron really does represent a secondary insertion at this point, then one can easily imagine that the original five torah regulations once stood under only a single discourse introduction, namely, Lev. 6:lf. (8f.E). After the insertion of 6:12 (19E) (the altered situation leads to a shortening of the formula), it would then have been repeated in full in 6: 17f. (24f.E): "Yahweh spoke ... : Say to Aaron ..."The original sacrificial regulations would then have been intended for the Aaronids. In contrast, the discourse introductions in 7:22f. and 7:28ff. are directed to all of Israel. Priestly Portions The provisioning of spiritual personnel was and is an important concern in most religious bodies. Since in this particular textual complex it is one of the main concerns (cf. Lev. 7:36f.), it seems reasonable to survey the entire section with this question in mind. The burnt offering regulation (Lev. 6:1-6 [6:8-13E]) mentions only the altar fire and the priestly garments during the incineration rites. No "compensation" of the priest takes place here, since the entire animal is given over to the fire (cf. Lev. 1:1-9). Things change shortly thereafter. In the section on the guilt offering (7: 1-1 0) we suddenly encounter the stipulation that at the regular burnt offering the priest can claim the animal's skin (7:8). Does the burnt offering regulation lack a corresponding passage?

84

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion

The second prescription concerning the cereal offering (6:7-11 [14-18E]) is an abbreviated version of Leviticus 2; although it initially follows Lev. 2:2-3 almost verbatim, it then emphasizes the sacrificial portions reserved for the priest (6:9-11 [ 16-18E]). This passage accordingly turns out to be somewhat prolix. The indicative statements of Lev. 2:3, 10, which present no individual demands ("what is left shall belong to the priest; it is most holy, because it comes from Yahweh's sacrificial gifts"), are fully preserved in Lev. 6:9a, lOb, lla (l6a, 17b, 18aE) with slight variations. However, they are amplified with restrictive instructions and placed under a new perspective. The sacrificial portion does not simply "belong" to the priest, is not simply at his free disposal, but rather may be "eaten" by him (v. 9a [16aE]). The question of who and under what circumstances someone may eat of the sacrifice also plays a role in the parallel sentences within this textual complex (cf. Lev. 6: 11 b, 16, 23 [ 18b, 23, 30E]; 7:15-20, 22-26). This question reaches beyond the priestly class. Throughout religious history, dealing with things consecrated to the deity has always been highly problematical, and the specific question concerning the consumption of parts of an offering dedicated to Yahweh continues into the discussion of the Christian Eucharist: "Who may partake of this meal?" In the present section, the guarantee of income for the cult personnel ("I have given it to them as their portion of my offering," v. lOa [17aE]) is accordingly amalgamated with permission for consumption. This may have resulted from the fact that the latter concern was the only one in the original version of the text, the regulation for income having been added later. In this case the text easily acquires a new meaning: The priest is allowed to eat of the sacrifice because he is an officeholder consecrated by God (cf. the role played by Catholic priests in connection with communion). The understanding of the priestly office in the present wording of Lev. 6:7-11 (l4-18E) could already support this "salary" claim. This amplification of the older version of the priestly prerogative now influences details as well. The dough may only be prepared unleavened (6:10 [17E]); that is, after the priests "lift off' the Yahweh offering, they are not, for example, allowed to add leavening (e.g., to make it taste better). That the Yahweh offering is to be unleavened does not emerge from Lev. 6:8 (15E), but is indeed clear from Lev. 2:4f., 11. The priest is not to alter his portion; this is inculcated both positively ("eat unleavened," 6:9b [16bE]) and negatively ("not bake with leaven," v. lOa [17aE]), so important is this matter. A similarly strict exclusion of leavened dough is found in the Passover ritual (cf. Ex. 12:15). This probably derives from some ancient taboo against mixing, one that is no longer rationally explainable. 5°

50. Cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger.

Leviticus 6-7

85

Furthermore, the author(s) is (are) concerned with a precise designation of place: A meal consisting of sacrificial portions may be eaten only in the immediate sphere of the sanctuary itself, and not, for example, at home (6:9b [16bE]). This logically excludes (in contrast to Lev. 22:12f.) all female members of the priestly family (v. lla [18aE]), since women had no access to the inner forecourt of the temple (cf. Ezek. 40:46; 42: 13f.). However, since Lev. 22: 12f. expressly admits to the meal any women belonging to the household (and in v. 11 also the slaves), Lev. 6: lla (18aE) must represent a tightening of this more open practice. The priests, or at least the officiating ones, are required to be at the (daily?) sacrificial meal in the temple-a restriction quite inimical to family life. The instructions so presented have a double grounding. First, the words of Yahweh already cited provide a witness to the legitimacy of the priestly privileges. From his own income ("my gifts") God gives to his servants an appropriate portion (6: lOa [17aE]). This corresponds to the emphatic assignment of the "swing breast" to the priests (7:34). In both instances the text abruptly departs from the schema of communication otherwise normal for Leviticus; Yahweh sudden! y speaks in the first person. In chaps. 6--7 these are the on! y appearances of the divine person. This peculiarity is doubtless intended to underscore emphatically the significance of priestly provisioning. This highest authority personally regulates the income of the cult officials. The second justification for the establishment of priestly sacrificial portions resides in the designation "most holy." This form of intensification, "holy of holies" (6: lOb [17bE]), is used only in regard to priestly portions (cf. Lev. 2:3; 6:18 [25E]; 7:1, 6; 10:12; 21:22; 24:8), thus separating in a grandiose fashion out of the cultic events themselves the nourishment of the priests drawn from those offerings. Comparable expressions include probably only the designation of the innermost temple chamber, Yahweh's actual dwelling place, as the "most holy of holies" (Ex. 26:33; 1 Kings 6: 16; Ezek. 41:4), or of the "great" day of rest as the "sabbath of all sabbaths" (Lev. 23:3). In both cases, however, the reference is to things directly and exclusively assigned to God. Leviticus 6, however, designates the salary of priests with this sort of extravagant expression, an indication of the extraordinary position and tasks of the Aaronite priesthood and the high estimation of its compensation. The "formula of perpetuity" in 6:11a (18aE) underscores yet again the future validity and significance of these instructions, here, too, in the form of direct address to the congregation (cf. Lev. 3:17; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3). This formulaic expression could derive directly from an address or reading during worship. It is also used in addresses to the priests themselves (Lev. 10:9; 22:3), in reference to their subordination to the Mosaic laws. The addendum "from Yahweh's gifts" (6:11a [18aE]) seems in every respect to be a belated echo. Indeed, in the original sentence (cf. Lev. 2:3) the

86

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion

corresponding two words in Hebrew belong directly to the expression "most holy," and we could presume a causal connection between the two sentences: "It is most holy because it comes from the gifts for Yahweh." In contrast, Lev. 6:10-11 (l7-18E) separates the two through this "amplification," and also empties them of content through the proleptic assertion "I place it at disposal from my offerings" (v. lOa [17aE]). The concluding sentence of the priestly provisions (v. 11 b [ 18bE]) speaks in a general fashion about the risks involved in touching sacrificial material. We have not yet considered a short expression in v. 10 ( 17E): (one should proceed) "as with the sin and guilt offering." Whence does this reference come, and what does it mean? Leviticus 4-5, the sin and guilt offering regulations, does not mention priestly portions. The reference in Lev. 5: 13b to priestly payment at the cereal offering (Lev. 2:3, 10) stands utterly isolated and not anchored in the overall text itself. Interestingly, it refers to something previously said, while 6: 10 ( 17E)-from within the cereal offering regulation itselfrefers to the following section on the sin and guilt offerings. These three sacrificial regulations (6:7-11, 17-23 [14-18; 24-30E]; 7: 1-10) thus constitute a substantive unity in the opinion of the redactor who is addressing this question of priestly provisioning. And indeed, the meal offering in 7:11-21, the oldest type of sacrifice and the one most deeply rooted in family and clan structures, does prove to be rather awkward as regards the compensation of priests. Lev. 7:14 guarantees to the cultic servant only the right to parts of the accompanying vegetable offering. The demand for a good piece of meat is appended rather circumstantially in a special section, albeit with a certain shamelessness recalling many congressional debates concerning per diem increases (Lev. 7:33f.). An extremely drastic narrative from a much earlier period (1 Sam. 2:12-17) shows that the lawful priestly portion of the offering was disputed. The "worthless" sons of Eli demand only the very best pieces of the meal offering, a sacrifice actually intended for consumption by the participating family (cf. Lev. 3), and even rigorously disregard their own sacrificial prescriptions (l Sam. 2:15f.). Perhaps the present meal offering regulations (Lev. 7:31-34) are trying to stem such extravagant claims. Yahweh's solemn assurance that he has reserved the breast and right thigh of the meal offering animal for the priests, however, means that the priests pocketed an astonishingly high payment for performing the blood and fat rites. In comparison, other "provisioning" stipulations seem modest (e.g., Deut. 18:3-5; Num. 18:8-19; Ezek. 44:29f.), deriving from other situations or circles of transmission, while Lev. 10:12-20 represents a repetition and expansion of the demands presented in chaps. 6-7; we will discuss this topic further in that context. The priestly claims seem- at least in a certain literary stratum- to concentrate on cereal, sin, and guilt offerings. Only in these three sections is the

Leviticus 6-7

87

priestly portion qualified emphatically as "most holy" (Lev. 6: I 0, 22 [ 17, 29E]; 7 :6). The most extensive and self-enclosed treatment of this subject is found in 6:9-11 (16-18E). Related statements in the passages on sin and guilt offerings are more concise, seem in part to be excerpts from 6:9-11 (16-18E), and are also less coherent. Lev. 6:19, 22 (26, 29E); 7:6, for example, speak with similar wording about the "eating" of the sacrificial flesh, something possible for the priest but deleterious for the "layperson." We notice that in the first case regulations concerning certain impurities (6:20f. [6:27f.E]) are inserted between the variously composed "compensation" stipulations. In the second section, the "permission to eat" (7 :6) is followed by the assignment of priestly portions in the unrestricted form familiar from chap. 2: "To him/them ... belongs ... " (7:7-10). Here the sin and guilt offering are initially mentioned as this source of income for the cult officials (7:7). The circumstances under which the offering can be consumed play no role whatever. Following this guarantee, and apparently completely out of sequence, the priestly portions of the burnt and cereal offerings are mentioned (7:8-10). One suspects that 7:7-10 contains a different, perhaps older catalog of provisions. The extremely concise formulation "it belongs to the priest(s)" probably indicates that in the case of an animal sacrifice Yahweh himself laid claim only to the blood and fat, and in the case of a cereal offering only to the frankincense. The remaining sacrificial material was reserved for the priests' use. The cult officials consume it representatively for the deity. Notions such as these are sufficiently documented from Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultic practices as well as from the history of religions in the broader sense. 5 1 Helmer Ringgren describes the feeding of the gods in the Babylonian-Assyrian temples thus: Generally the gods were "served" with two meals a day .... All sorts of food and drink were set out .... It is not said how the god is thought of as availing himself of the food, but we know that a curtain was drawn before the table of the god while he "ate" .... There is evidence that the dishes from the table of the god were sent on to the king to be eaten by him ... the priests had their share of the sacrificial offerings, but there is no clear evidence that they ate any of the food left over from the table of the god. 52

For Egypt he finds: "The sacrificial foods are placed upon the altar, and after the god has eaten them in a 'spiritual' fashion, they serve as the priests' nourishment."53 51. Cf. Helmer Ringgren, Die Religionen des a/ten Orients, 37ff. (Egyptian religion); 192 (Hittite religion); idem, Religions of the Ancient Near East, 81 ff. (Babylonian and Assyrian religion); 158ff. (West Semitic religion); cf. also the Encyclopedia of Religion, e.g., s.v. "food" (James E. Lathan) and "sacrifice" (Joseph Henninger). 52. Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, 8 I. 53. Helmer Ringgren, Die Religionen des a/ten Orients, 38.

88

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion

As already intimated above, these attempts to guarantee the support of the priests then culminate in the meal offering section (7:28-34) and the first summary subscript (7:35f.). Lev. 7:32-36 alone uses several legally significant technical terms for priestly claims that will continue to exert influence in later rabbinic literature: "dedication (that which is set off)" (7:32), "portion" (7:32), "swing offering" (7:34), "eternal law" (7:34, 36), "sacrificial portion" (7:35)all of which attest an advanced stage of theological and economic reflection. The prescriptions for the provisioning of cult personnel in Leviticus 6--7 are thus multilayered and not without internal tensions. This is to be expected, since the history of the Israelite priesthood courses through the centuries in several strands and undergoes several disruptions. 54 What is essential is that at the beginning of the fifth century B.C.E., too, the priests were living in an Israel that was just forming itself into a confessional community, and were thus living from the dues of the congregation and without the sheltering organization of any indigenous state authority. There was no royally sanctioned collector or supervisor of priestly income sources. Although the Persian administration probably did its best to provide for Yahweh's temple as well, it was apparently not always successful. The cultic community obligates itself to pay regular dues (Neh. 10:32-40 [31-39E]: "We will not neglect the house of our God," v. 40 [39E]). This may help explain the emphatic demands found in the present textual complex. Today, too, independent churches must reenforce even within the worship service itself this obligation of a congregation to support its employees. The Punic "sacrificial tariffs" from Marseille and Carthage provide a substantive parallel to the Old Testament provisioning guidelines for priests. These involve inscriptions on stone tablets from the fourth century B.C.E. in which a municipal authority, the thirty-member group organized according to animal type and sacrificial purpose, fixes priestly compensation. The cultic functionary receives the skin, breast, thigh, and possibly certain portions of meat determined by weight; in certain cases he additionally receives cash. What is striking about these compensation lists is their consistently objective style that nowhere attests any sort of direct address. 55 The Congregation

Even if the present textual complex possibly has been composed exclusively in priestly circles, it must of necessity make reference to the congregation supporting those priests, albeit from a priestly perspective. Anyone speak54. Cf. Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Analecta Biblica (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1969); Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester. 55. Cf. Otto Kaiser, Texte aus der Umwelt des A/ten Testaments, 1.264-67.

Leviticus 6-7

89

ing of dues must ultimately address potential donors, and in the book of Leviticus these are the Israelite congregations unified in the community of Yahweh believers. Hence whenever these texts take as their theme sacrifices, rites, and priestly claims, the congregation itself must also make an appearance somewhere. For this reason we must search for clues leading to the community of faith itself. The second concluding subscript (7:37f.) mentions neither priests nor priestly portions. It first enumerates the variously discussed sacrificial types, then groups the burnt, cereal, sin, and guilt offerings together, alongside which the Aaronite ordination offering and the meal offering of the people seem appended. Does this sequence involve a value judgment? Or is it a loose, fortuitous table of contents for the preceding section? Or did this sequence result from considerations of language and sound? The Hebrew text itself is resonant and well balanced (hattora liiola lammin!Jd welaf:ta!fii't weliiaSiim). Whatever the case, 7:37 does not betray any special priestly interest. The same applies to the following, prolix situational description. The "sacrificial torah" (singular) with the indicated sacrificial types was mediated to Moses on Sinai (7:38a). Moses is not the prototype of the priest, but rather Aaron, and Aaron is not mentioned in this reference. And even more: The entire people, the "Israelites," are the recipients of the Sinaitic laws (7:38b ). While the first half of the verse yet mentions Moses as the addressee of Yahweh's Torah, the second half repeats in a weighty final clause: "on the same day he commanded the Israelites to bring their offerings to Yahweh in the wilderness of Sinai." Against all appearances, the subject "he" is probably not Moses, but rather Yahweh, so that this sentence reflects an extremely immediate, direct relationship between God and his people. At most the lawgiver Moses-and not any sacrificial prieststands between Israel and Yahweh. Beyond this we encounter more or less clear traces of the congregation in the text itself, traces with an increasingly characteristic tendency the further one reads in chap. 7. The direct address of the Israelites in the second person plural in 7:23-26, 32 strongly suggests an actual congregational situation departing from the fictitious Moses-Sinai revelation (cf. Lev. 1:2; 2:llf.; 3:17). Indeed, the entire section 7:23-27 is a sermon to the congregation. Fat and blood consumption (beyond the sacrificial site Jerusalem itself, "in any of your settlements" [7:26]) is absolutely prohibited cf. Lev. 17:10-16. Any transgressor faces the death penalty (7:27; cf. 7:20-21). In contrast, use of the plural address in 7:32 is less effective, since the surrounding text is cast not in the style of sermon, but rather of law. The formulation of the individual prescriptions does, however, reveal an increasing orientation toward the congregation from Lev. 6:17 (24E) on. The sections comprising 6:1-6,7-11,12-16 (7-13, 14-18, 19-23E) mention only Aaron and his descendants as actors. Then, however, it becomes increasingly

90

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion

clear that the priests are not directing the sacrifices. Initially passive forms are used: "there where the burnt offering is slaughtered" (6:18 [25E]), "it is eaten" (6:15, 16 [22, 23E]; 7:18), and the initiated knows that laypersons carry out the slaughtering (Lev. I :5, 11, etc.) and eat the sacrificial meal. They then also appear, albeit only in plural verb forms that cannot refer to priests: "they slaughter ... " (7:2), or in unequivocal singulars (7:11-21). Here the normal Israelite is everywhere the acting subject. The focus is always on "his offering," "his gift" to Yahweh. He is occasionally referred as "the offerer" (7: 18, 29), "the eater (whoever eats)" (7: 18), or simply as "the person, anyone" (7: 19, 21, literally: "the flesh" and "the soul"). In short: The early Jewish community at the beginning of the Persian period is pervasively present in these texts, albeit without being named. The priestly authors of the text reckon with and refer to this community. This text does not indicate the economic, social, and cultural conditions in which the congregation found itself. As outlined in our introduction, here we must attempt a reconstruction based on other sources. The central Persian government participated in the reconstruction costs of the Jerusalem temple, which thus became a kind of state sanctuary, and collected the levied taxes with increasing diligence. Apart from a small upper class that collaborated with the Persian administration, the Jews found themselves in sore economic circumstances, at least for a time. 56 Was priestly provisioning perceived as a problem in such times? We do not know for sure. What is certain is that criticism of the priesthood in the rebuilding phase did not take as its point of departure the income of the cult servants, but rather more likely the conduct of the office itself. The prophet Malachi-if this writing is indeed to be dated at that period (fifth century)offers us some examples of this situation. The priests have "broken the covenant of Levi," that is, probably have violated ancient traditions (Mal. 2: 1-9), and apparently for the sake of their own gain have allowed inferior sacrificial animals (Mal. 1:6-1 0); and in general they have contributed to the corruption of cultic institutions (Mal. 1: 11-14; cf. 3:3-5; 3:6-12). So the author (or authors) of this short writing take a consistent stand in favor of a pure, unadulterated cult commensurate with the traditions of old. Unfortunately, we do not know whether the author is presupposing the priestly-Levitical law, though the sharp rejection of inferior sacrificial animals might suggest this. In any case, he also energetically advocates the required tithes to the sanctuary (Mal. 3:8-10; cf. Num. 18:20-32), thereby again supporting the priesthood (or specifically the Levites?). The prophetic writing Haggai gives a similar impression. The populace hesitates with the reconstruction of the temple, probably claiming economic distress (Hag. I :2, 6, !Of.; 2: 16f.). From the priestly point of view, of course, quite 56. Cf. Introduction 1.3, "The Congregation: Cult and Life," and Hag. I :2, II; Neh. 5; Hans G. Kippenberg, Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Juda.

Leviticus 6-7

91

the reverse is the case: Because the populace neglects the temple and cult, the harvests are poor and misery abounds. Both the writings of Malachi and Haggai as well as the sparse historic information from the period (cf. Ezra I :4, 6; 2:68f.; Neh. 1:3; 5) suggest that tensions had arisen between the priesthood and congregations, not least concerning questions of financing the cultic institutions. These also included the priests' claims to adequate compensation. It is not only with regard to the obligation of dues that the congregation comes into view here. Rather, particularly in the pre-priestly strata, it is consistently an active participant in the cult in the person of its individual members and as a whole. Only as such do the cultic purity regulations apply to it. What Leviticus 6-7 says about purity during the sacrificial rituals is only a weak foretaste of the more extensive norms in Leviticus 11-15. Association with the sacrifice itself, however, seems to be the root of the concept of purity. A person approaches God in the sacrificial ceremony. The holy place at which one sacrifices radiates the divine powers capable of snatching away the impure person (cf. Lev. 10). The cautionary measures undertaken in connection with the transport of the wilderness sanctuary and in dealing with it otherwise (cf. Num. 4: 15; 18:3, 7) speak an unmistakable language: They show that priestly thinking has picked up and perfected ancient notions concerning the dangerous nature of the holy (cf. Gen. 28: 17; Ex. 3:5). Hence it is not surprising that these sacrificial laws view the congregation as a secular entity opposed to the holy, and that they pick up traditional, universally familiar rules. "Anyone who is pure can eat the flesh" (7: 19b ). This was probably the wording of the basic rule, one already long followed and attested among many different peoples. Priestly caution and exactitude must of course explain this rule more precisely. "But anyone who is impure and eats ... will be cut off' (7:20). And not even this is enough: A person might argue that he is himself not impure, but has only touched something impure-this possibility, too, divided into three subcases, leads to exclusion (7:21; cf. the debate concerning this question in Hag. 2: 11-13). Apparently inquiries were customary already at an early period in Israel's cultic history in connection with admission of believers to the temple court, and were conducted to prevent pilgrims from bringing this impurity into the holy precincts (cf. Pss. 15; 24; Isa. 33: 14-16). Similar warnings are attested in Egyptian temples, and the custom of purifying or consecrating oneself prior to entering the temple is a worldwide phenomenon. Contemporary tribal societies believe that the impurity of an individual not only can render the community's worship service ineffective, but can even pervert it into disaster. One Hopi Indian relates that the sexual impurity of a tribal member can completely negate the efficacy of the holy dances and ceremonies. 57

57. Leo W. Simmons, Sun Chief: The Autobiography of a Hopi Indian, 148, 152, 184f.

92

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion

This commandment of purity for cultic participants is apparently even intensified in several passages. As Mary Douglas has shown, simply the mixing of different spheres, each of which in the view of antiquity is endowed with its own specific powers, can lead to catastrophe. The notion of "clean" and "dirty" would then already constitute a secondary rationalization. People coming from the sphere of daily life bring with them a different sort of power, one incompatible with that of God and his sanctuary. Careless contact between the secular and the holy can have detrimental effects. The priests also appropriated this ancient, almost magical knowledge for their own purposes. The layperson must take care during the sacrificial ritual not even to touch the holy, regardless of whether that person is pure or impure (Lev. 6:1 lb, 20a [18b, 27aE]). Anyone spattered with sacrificial blood must undergo a ritual cleansing, and any vessels used for the sacrificial meal must either be destroyed or-if they are too precious-be thoroughly relieved of their holiness (6:20f. [27f.E]) so that their renewed secular use at home may not lead to yet another deleterious mixing of the sacred and the profane. The dietary prescriptions for the congregation follow a similar logic. Their roots, too, are probably already ancient and pre-priestly, and their origins lost for us (and certainly also for the Israelites of the sixth/fifth centuries) in obscurity. The first concern is with the time period during which sacrificial flesh may be eaten (Lev. 7:15-18). At most two or three days are at issue. For the regular offering, however-just as with the Passover meal and the eating of the manna in the wilderness-consumption is allowed only on the day of offering itself (7: 15; cf. Ex. 12:7-10; 16: 19). In the case of voluntary special offerings, the sacrificial flesh can also be eaten on the second day (7:16). Hence it is not the corruptibility of the flesh itself that determines this one-day period. On the third day everything that remains of the offering is to be destroyed. Otherwise it causes damage (7: 17f.). These prescriptions are doubtless to be understood from the perspective of the "economy" of the holy. Is its power weakened or perverted by "remaining till the morrow"= overnight (7:15)? Is God's presence guaranteed only at the presentation of the sacrificial animal itself and in connection with the performance of the blood rites? When blood is at issue, the priestly tradents become especially emphatic. This is where their heart is (cf. Lev. 4:5ff.; 17: 10-16). Every animal sacrifice becomes efficacious only through the assignation of its blood to Yahweh, since to him alone belongs the element of life, being utterly removed from any human access. Hence neither may blood be eaten (although precisely the "most holy" portion of the sacrifice, the one belonging to Yahweh, is given over to the consumption of the priest; this explanation is thus inconsistent). This is also why the prohibition against consuming fat and blood receives its own sermonlike section (7:22-27). We do not know whether it was the priestly circles of the second temple who emphasized this prohibition so strongly. The fact is,

Leviticus 6-7

93

all the Old Testament texts dealing with this subject belong to a relatively late period, and this applies to Deut. 12:23 and 1 Sam. 32-34 as well. The latter text is a parade example for a late problem in an early narrative context. That in the present section the prohibition against eating fat is added to that against eating blood derives probably from priestly tradition: The present sacrificial laws did speak in several instances about Yahweh's claim to the fat of the animal (cf. Lev. 3:3f., etc.). Religio-historical comparative material abounds with regard to the special power of blood. In contrast, the absolute prohibition against blood consumption is hardly attested in other communities of faith. In the priestly view, the congregation typically appears as the group obligated to pay, provide support, and keep all the holiness regulations. Their rights and modes of participation as such are not taken as themes, but are acknowledged in part according to traditional patterns, especially in the expression "with one's own hands" (7:30), though probably also restricted in comparison to preexilic tradition. Nevertheless, the congregation remains Yahweh's real addressee (cf. 7:38). Details

It remains to explain a few things that might seem alien to us. These concern almost exclusively priestly service and priestly conduct, and can in part be clarified through references to other passages in the book of Leviticus. Priestly Clothing

[6:3-4 (10-llE)] "Clothes make the person!" This holds especially true for those whose office brings them into contact with God. Texts in the Old Testament from the "Priestly Source" are extremely interested in the official vesture of the cult servants and high priest, and their disposition is fixed even to the last detail (Ex. 28:4-43; 39:1-31). The prescribed clothing must be put on in the correct order especially in the case of the first official acts (Ex. 29:5f.; Lev. 8:7-9). The present section of Leviticus emphasizes only a single aspect: The officiating priest had to wear linen garments (Ex. 28:39-43). This probably represents the oldest tradition, and it seems consciously to exclude wool (the material of nomadic shepherds; Ezek. 44: 17) in favor of linen, a product of cultivated areas. The official vesture must be kept at the holy place and may not come into contact with the secular sphere (Lev. 6:4 [liE]; Ezek. 44: 19). One special function of the linen breeches resonates: It protects the genitals from the divine power present in the altar steps (Lev. 6:3 [IOE]; Ex. 28:42; Ezek. 44: 18). The oldest ritual law (Ex. 20:26) anticipates this cautionary measure by banning the construction of a stepped altar. Although the respective conceptual horizons are naturally worlds

2.6 Types of Sacrifice and the Priestly Portion

94

apart, this protective function of the priestly clothing over against the sacred does recall the protective radiation suits worn in the atomic energy industry. On balance, the clothing of the simple priests in Lev. 6:3f. (!Of.E) is characterized by simplicity and purity, in contrast to the rather pompous, seignorial high-priestly vesture. Altar fire and ashes

[6:2-6 (9-13E)] Only sparse archaeological evidence has been found for burnt offering altars (even the Priestly Source lacks a specific name: mizbeah =place of animal sacrifice). 58 Traces of sacrificial burning in Israel have been found in Beer-sheba and Arad. Our text presupposes for the temple in Jerusalem a daily burnt offering (Num. 28:3-8), thus requiring a perpetually burning altar fire (Lev. 6:5 [12E]), for which the congregation had to provide considerable quantities of wood (Neh. 10:35 [34E]). The laying of the woodpile followed specific rules (Gen. 22:9; Lev. 1:7f.), and the maintenance of the fire required a fire sentry, especially at night (Lev. 6:2 [9E]). The ashes continually had to be removed, something that could occur only in two stages, since only the officiating priest himself was permitted to come into contact with the holy substance. Hence-as long as he still wore his official vesturehe deposited the ashes next to the altar (Lev. 6:3 [lOE]; Lev. 1:16; 4:12), and then, after changing clothes, took them outside to the final place of disposal (Lev. 4: 12; cf. Jer. 31 :40). The tradents considered the correct "cleansing" of the holy to be an extraordinarily important matter. The Temple Forecourt

[6:9 (16E)] Since the Bronze Age, open-air sanctuaries were common in Palestine, and consisted of an altar, possibly a massebah (a stone pillar), an Asherah post, and a sacred grove (cf. Gen. 18:1; 28:18; Judg. 6:25f.; 13:19). The construction of "houses of God" represents a secondary development. However, once a dwelling for God was indeed built (cf. 1 Kings 8:12f., 27), the area before the temple precinct-as a rule enclosed by a wall-acquired special significance. This is where the sacrifices were slaughtered, and where the believers assembled for meals and prayer (cf. I Sam. 1:9f.; 2:13f.). The texts of Leviticus frequently stipulate that sacrifices are to take place "before the door of the tent of meeting" and "before Yahweh" (e.g., Lev. 1:3; 3:1f.). Only in exceptional instances does the designation "court," "forecourt" appear (Lev. 6:9, 19 [16, 26E]; cf. Ex. 27:9-18). The latter expression already derives from the temple architecture of the later period, whereas the former maintains 58. Manfred Gorg, "Brandopferaltar," Neues Bibe//exikon (Zurich: Benziger, !989) 1.323f.

Leviticus 6-7

95

the fiction of a tent without any walled court space. According to Ezekiel 40-42, the forecourts of the Jerusalem temple were characterized by different gradations of holiness and for that reason were accessible only under certain conditions, and then not to everyone. In the innermost forecourt, that is, where the altar of burnt offering stood, only the priests could act ( 1 Kings 7: 12; Ezek. 40:28-47). Later, a more precise distinction was made between the courts of the priests, the Israelites, and the women. 59

59. Concerning the "temple," cf. Volkmar Fritz, Tempel und Zeit: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift; Helmut Utzschneider, Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz.

3. The Beginnings of Worship (Leviticus 8-10) 3.1 Ordination and Consecration (Lev. 8-9) The sacrificial prescriptions-an internally extremely complex collection-conclude with Leviticus 7. The next block of material includes three chapters dealing with the establishment of the sacrificial cult at Mount Sinai (historic retrospective) and at the reconstructed temple in Jerusalem (contemporary reality). The first two chapters are connected by a temporal schema (Lev. 8:33-35: "for seven days"; 9:1: "on the eighth day"), and also are strongly interconnected substantively. Hence we will discuss them together. Leviticus 10 represents a kind of negative foil to the legitimate cult.

Translation Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2 Take Aaron and his sons with him, the vestments, the anointing oil, the bull of the sin offering, the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread. 3 Call together the entire congregation at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 4 And Moses did as Yahweh commanded him, and the congregation assembled at the entrance of the tent of meeting. s Moses said to the assembly: This is what Yahweh has commanded (us). 6 Then Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water. 7 Then he put the tunic on him, fastened the sash around him, threw the robe over him, and put the ephod around him, which he secured to him with the ephod strap. 8 Then he placed the breast satchel around him and put into the breast satchel the oracular stones "light" and "truth." 9 On his head he placed the turban, on whose front side he fastened the gold blossom, the holy diadem, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.

8:1

10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and smeared it on Yahweh's dwelling, and on all the furniture that was in it. Thus did he consecrate them. 11 Seven times he sprinkled oil onto the altar. He anointed the altar and all its utensils, also the laver with its stand, to consecrate them. 12 Then he poured anointing oil on Aaron's head, anointing him, to consecrate him. 13 Then Moses brought forward Aaron's sons, clothed them with the tunics, and fastened sashes around them, and tied headdresses on them, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.

Leviticus 8-9 14 Moses brought forward the bull of the sin offering. Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bull. 15 Moses slaughtered it, took the blood, and with his finger spread it on the horns of the altar round about, purifying the altar; then he poured out the blood at the base of the altar. Thus he consecrated it, by effecting atonement for it. 16 Moses took all the fat that was in the stomach cavity, also the liver lobes and the two kidneys with their fat, and turned them into smoke on the altar. 17 But the bull, its skin, its flesh, and its dung, he burned with fire outside the camp, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.

Moses then brought forward the ram of burnt offering. Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram. 19 Moses slaughtered it and dashed the blood against all sides of the altar. 20 He cut the ram into pieces and turned into smoke the head, body parts, and kidney fat. 21 The entrails and thighs he washed with water and turned the entire ram into smoke on the altar. This is a burnt offering for an appeasing aroma, it is a gift for Yahweh, as Yahweh had commanded Moses. 18

Moses brought forward the second ram, the ram of ordination. Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the ram. 23 Moses slaughtered it, took some of its blood, and smeared it on the lobe of Aaron's right ear, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. 24 Then he brought forward Aaron's sons and smeared blood on the lobes of their right ears, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. The rest of the blood he dashed against all sides of the altar. 25 Then he took the fat and the broad tail, all the fat covering the stomach cavity, the liver lobes and the two kidneys with their fat, and the right thigh. 26 From the basket of unleavened bread standing before Yahweh he took and unleavened ringcake, one cake of bread with oil, and one wafer, and placed them all on the fat parts and the right thigh. 21 He placed all these on the palms of Aaron and on the palms of his sons and swung them back and forth before Yahweh. 28 Then Moses took it back and turned it into smoke on the altar over the burnt offering. This is an ordination offering as an appeasing aroma, it is a gift for Yahweh. 22

Moses took the breast and swung it back and forth before Yahweh; it was Moses' portion of the ram of ordination, as Yahweh had commanded Moses. 30 Then Moses took some of the anointing oil and some of the blood that was on the altar and sprinkled them on Aaron's vestments, and on those of his sons. Thus did he consecrate the vestments of Aaron and also those of his sons. 31 And Moses said to Aaron and his sons: Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and eat it there with the bread that is in the basket of the ordination offerings. For I have 29

97

3 .I Ordination and Consecration

98

been commanded: Aaron and his sons shall eat it! 32 What remains of the flesh and the bread you shall burn with fire. 33 You shall not go outside the entrance of the tent of meeting for seven days, until the day when your period of ordination is completed. For the "filling of your hands" will take seven days. 34 As has been done today, Yahweh has commanded to be done in the future to make atonement for you. 35 You shall remain at the entrance of the tent of meeting day and night for seven days, keeping Yahweh's charge so that you do not die; for so I have been commanded. 36 Aaron and his sons did all the things Yahweh had commanded through Moses. On the eighth day Moses summoned Aaron, his sons, and the elders of Israel, 2 and said to Aaron: Take a bull calf for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and bring them before Yahweh. 3 And say to the Israelites: Take a male goat for a sin offering, a calf and a lamb, yearlings without blemish, for a burnt offering; 4 and an ox and a ram for a meal offering, which you will slaughter before Yahweh, and a cereal offering mixed with oil. For today Yahweh will appear to you. 5 They brought what Moses commanded to the front of the tent of meeting; and the whole congregation drew near and stood before Yahweh. 6 And Moses said: This is the thing that Yahweh has commanded you to do, so that Yahweh's glory may appear to you.

9:1

Then Moses said to Aaron: Draw near to the altar and present your sin offering and your burnt offering, and effect atonement for yourself and for the people; and sacrifice the offering of the people and effect atonement for them, as Yahweh has commanded. s Aaron drew near to the altar and slaughtered the calf of the sin offering, which was for himself. 9 The sons of Aaron presented the blood to him, and he dipped his finger in the blood and smeared it on the horns of the altar; and the rest of the blood he poured out at the base of the altar. 10 But the fat, the kidneys, and the liver lobes of the sin offering animal he turned into smoke on the altar, as Yahweh had commanded Moses. 11 The flesh and skin of the animal he burned with fire outside the camp. 12 Then Aaron also slaughtered the burnt offering animal, and his sons brought him the blood, and he dashed it against all sides of the altar. 13 And they brought him the animal of the burnt offering, cut in pieces, and the head, which he turned into smoke on the altar. 14 He washed the entrails and the legs and turned them into smoke on the altar over the burnt offering. 7

Next Aaron presented the people's offering. He took the goat of the sin offering that was for the people, and slaughtered it, and prepared it as a sin offering like the first one. 16 He presented the burnt offering by 15

Leviticus 8-9

99

arranging it according to the regulation. 17 He presented the cereal offering, and, taking a handful of it, he turned it-in addition to the burnt offering of the morning(?)-into smoke on the altar. 18 He slaughtered the ox and the ram as a meal offering for the people. Aaron's sons brought him the blood, which he dashed against all sides of the altar; 19 and the fat of the ox, the broad tail of the ram, the fat covering the entrails, and the kidneys and liver lobes-20 they laid all the fat upon the breast, and he turned it into smoke on the altar. 21 The breast pieces and the right thigh Aaron swung back and forth before Yahweh, as (Yahweh) had commanded Moses. 22 Then Aaron lifted his hands toward the people and blessed them; and he came down, for he had ended the sin offering, the burnt offering, and the meal offering. 23 Moses and Aaron then entered the tent of meeting, and then came out and blessed the people. Then Yahweh's glory appeared to all the people. 24 Fire came forth from Yahweh and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar; and when all the people saw this, they shouted and fell on their faces. Literary Peculiarities We are accustomed to having extraordinary consecration ceremonies presented in colorful pageantry. We are also familiar with all sorts of accounts concerning such fundamental events, accounts that evaluate these events analytically -either from a psychological or sociological perspective or from within the context of religious studies. How do the authors of Leviticus 8-9 portray the beginnings of the temple cult? What textual genres do we encounter here? How and where was this portrayal of Aaron's "ordination" and of his first official acts read, heard, and considered? It is immediately clear that the tradents considered this to be anextremely decisive and significant episode in the history ofthe Israelite-Jewish community. In all the religions of antiquity, the worship service represents the vital, indeed vivifying, and thus fundamentally significant activity. And even if doubters and scoffers were already present then (cf. Ps. 14; Hag. I :2-11 ), they were in any event vehemently repulsed from the priestly side. The survival both of the individual and of the entire people depends on the correct performance of the sacred sacrificial rites, rites ordained by God himself. This is why the institution of the regular, uninterrupted temple cult is so important to the authors of the book of Leviticus. At every step of the way they emphasize that Moses performed everything exactly "as Yahweh had commanded him" (cf. 8:4, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36; 9:6, 7, 10, 21). Although the adduced passages in part do vary the formula itself, they all use the keyword "order,

100

3.1 Ordination and Consecration

command," and are all conceived as retrospective references to the divine word already issued. The Old Testament rarely attests this high a concentration of legitimating references. Parallels include Exodus 39f., a text that will yet concern us. These retrospective references qualify the present textual block as an account of the performance of previously decreed laws. To which decrees are they referring? Unequivocally to Exodus 29 and possibly also 40:12-15, though 40:16 and 40:34-38 already presuppose the actualization of the entire temple cult, albeit in a blanket sense. To that extent, the two chapters comprising Exodus 39f. stand in a certain competitive relationship with Leviticus 8-9, and we must more carefully reconsider Exodus 28-29, which prescribe with the utmost care the disposition of the priestly vestments (chap. 28) and the entire consecration ceremony for the ordination of priests (chap. 29). The authors at least of Leviticus 8 are visibly concerned with emphasizing the painfully exact observation of the regulations of Exodus 29. Hence they are not in the least oriented toward any possible sequence of events, neither in the Sinai period nor at the end of the sixth century, when the temple was rededicated. They are utterly fixed on the written model of the proclamation of Yahweh's will before them, one composed either by others or by themselves. Leviticus 8 faithfully reproduces, often verbatim, the objects and persons, ritual acts, judgments and emphases of Exodus 29. We can view the two chapters synoptically and examine the degree of this agreement. Leviticus 8, then, does not represent a narrative about any historic event. Rather, this text is a literary composition that perhaps from the very beginning was intended to be read in the worship service. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the sacrificial worship service in the temple of Jerusalem already familiar to its contemporaries was established at Sinai and still proceeds according to the same pattern. No such unequivocal literary model can be discovered for Leviticus 9. But this is quite natural: The regulations of Exodus 25-31 focus only on the material and personal prerequisites for the temple cult, and mention nothing about the premiere of the regular worship service. After the seven ordination days for the priests there is then no eighth day on which the sacrificial cult for the people commences for the first time (cf. Ex. 29:37). Instead, only a general prescription follows concerning the daily burnt offerings to be performed in the future (Ex. 29:38-46). Accordingly, the enactment accounts in Exodus 35-40 do indeed illustrate the preparation of the tent of meeting and all its appurtenances, including the priestly vestments (Ex. 39); the inauguration of the temple, however, does not occur in the great concluding notice of Ex. 39:32-42. It is obviously appended in Exodus 40, but in a different way than one might expect from the preceding chapters and from Leviticus 8-9. The anointing of the priests is mentioned (Ex. 40: 12-16), as well as the installation of the altars, the table of the bread of the Presence, laver, and so on: that is, of the inventory

Leviticus 8-9

101

important for the priests (Ex. 40:22-33). The emphasis in this enactment story, however, is on the tables of the law that are put into the ark (Ex. 40:2-3, 20-21), and on the appearance of Yahweh's glory in the temple (40:33-38). This signals the commencement of the appropriate sacrificial cult for Yahweh, and at the same time the departure from Sinai, in this context completely premature. Hence the first sacrificial worship service for the congregation of the people is itself not actually portrayed. In contrast, Leviticus 9 places great value on the correct commencement of the temple service of the Aaronids after they have been consecrated by Moses in chap. 8. The priests alone must now take responsibility for the celebration of the cult. The action portrayed in Leviticus 9 is complex, yet transparent, despite the many repetitions. Yahweh's order to effect one's own atonement first, and then to present the offering of the people (9:2-7), is followed by its enactment in precisely the following sequence: (a) the sin and burnt offering for the priests (9:8-14); (b) the whole series of offerings presented by and for the people (9: 15-21 ). This doubling of the sacrificial procedures is also provided in Leviticus 17 and at least alluded to in Lev. 4:1-21. This priestly expiation is quite logical within the consecration procedure (8: 14-21). Was it from here that it also came to play a part in the commencement service in chap. 9? In any case, the tradents were concerned with the correct initial celebration of the sacrifice, which they described in a manner closely following the sacrificial laws. How can we describe the uniqueness of these two chapters? A comparison with other great consecration ceremonies in the Old Testament (and beyond) may provide some standards for us. 1 Kings 8 describes the consecration of the first, or Solomonic, temple. This portrayal, too, is multilayered, and derives in its final version from the exilic period (sixth century B.C.E.; Deuteronomistic history). It speaks of a great assembly of the people in the year's most important festival month (8:2), the transport of the ark sanctuary into the temple (8:3f.), and mass offerings to celebrate the important day (8:5, 62-65). According to this portrayal, however, the center of gravity of these festivities is neither the sacrifices nor the ark procession; the center of the literary work and of the liturgical acts portrayed are discourses and prayers, benedictions and admonitions of the person who built and owns the temple, namely, King Solomon. In the passages on sacrifice, he plays the role of the priest, though in the discourse sections the role of a congregational leader (what we would call the church pastor). There is a kind of"inaugural poem for the topping-out ceremony" (8: 12f.), and extensive introductory and concluding blessings (8:14-21, 55-61); both types have already been blended-probably in the course of written and liturgical transmission- with other discourse genres, and thus no longer correspond to the familiar standard forms of the Aaronite blessing in Num. 6:23-26, which even today is still used in Jewish and Christian worship. The imposing main part of this entire ceremony, however, coming after the dedication account in 1 Kings 8, is

102

3.1 Ordination and Consecration

Solomon's praise and intercessory prayer (vv. 23-53), overwhelmingly reflecting the circumstances and concerns of the postexilic community and speaking perhaps not even about the temple itself, but rather about every "house of prayer." 1 Praise of the caring and loyal God Yahweh stands at the beginning (vv. 23f.); followed by the general petition for continued assistance and an open ear to Israel's prayer (vv. 25-30); then by an astonishing collection of specific petitionary cases to be presented at the sanctuary, that they might be answered (vv. 31-51 ). The basic schema is consistent: "If someone is in distress and turns to you, Yahweh, then hear and stand by that person." The situations of distress and culpability involve individual petitioners and the people or community as a whole. Excepting the situation of war presupposed in vv. 33, 44, which sooner belongs to the period of the monarchy, all the cases addressed are characteristic of the early Jewish community. The individual comes with his illness (v. 38), his transgression (v. 31); the foreigner (proselyte?) seeks help from Yahweh (vv. 4lf.); the community laments the lack of rain (v. 35), the presence of pestilences (v. 37). Verses 46-:J 1 even describe the sorrowful history of the exile and prompt the petition for a change of fate. Although all these petitionary situations exhibit an incisive recognition of the necessity for atonement, not a single petition includes the expiatory sacrifices so impressively occupying the central position in the third book of Moses.

The consecration celebrations in Chronicles that reflect the community situation in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. offer a different picture. The account of the bringing of the ark during David's time is already interesting in this respect (1 Chron. 15-16). The parallel text in the Deuteronomistic history (2 Sam. 6) portrays merely the ceremony of the ark procession itself, the dancing and offerings before the ark (2 Sam. 6:5, 13-15). Upon arrival at the goal, the tent sanctuary in Jerusalem, we are told in very few words that David presented "burnt offerings and meal offerings" there and then discharged the people with a blessing and the sacred offering portions, namely, bread, meat, and raisin cakes (vv. 17-19). No great premiere worship service takes place according to this version. The later report of the Chronicler takes a different view. Priests and Levites are already actively involved during the "homecoming" of the ark (1 Chron. 15:2-27), and after their installation in the tent (and also commensurate with the remarks concerning David's cultic activity taken over from the account in Samuel, 1 Chron. 16: 1-3) they celebrate a great, new, "first" (v. 7) worship service. This seems to consist largely of the singing of psalms ( 1 Chron. 16:4-38). In contrast, David directs the highest priest Zadok and his family to provide for the sacrificial service at the royal sanctuary eight kilometers away in Gibeon. This tradition is probably assuming that the tent in Jerusalem was as yet still not a worthy (or possible?) sacrificial site (1 Chron. 16:39f.). However, the preeminent position in this "report" is clearly occupied by the psalm singing of certain Levitical families (cf. 1 Chron. I. Cf. Timo Veijola, Verheissung in der Krise (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982) 179-83.

Leviticus 8-9

103

15: 19-24; 16:4-6, 7-36, 4lf.). Of significance for psalms research is the fact that this report even cites texts from the Old Testament psalter already familiar to us. Families of singers and psalm singing as such push so forcefully into the foreground in the remaining accounts the Chronicler provides of great, epochal worship celebrations that in comparison the priests and their sacrificial service seem to play a secondary role. While it is true that the Chronicler's portrayal of the consecration of the Solomonic temple does follow the Deuteronomistic view of things almost completely (2 Chron. 5:2-7, 11, in comparison with 1 Kings 8: 1-66), similarly emphasizing the discourse parts of the cultic procedures, he nonetheless inserts music and singing with the appropriate specialists at important junctures, indeed even making the priests themselves into trumpeters (2 Chron. 5: 11-13; 7:6). Yahweh's "glory" appears after the miraculous singing and music-making of the temple choir (5: 13). That sacrifice and prayer are not completely excluded by this preference for temple singing is shown by the arbitrary incorporation of the source model in 7:1: Recalling Lev. 9:4b, 6, 23b, 24 and Ex. 40:34, the rather sober observation of 1 Kings 8:54, namely, that Solomon ended his prayer, is dramatically continued with the account of the divine fire that consumes the sacrificial offerings, and with the appearance of Yahweh in "glory." To be sure, wherever the Chronicler himself is composing the consecration ceremony and not relying so heavily on his Deuteronomistic source, his preference for music and song is even more unrestrained. This can be demonstrated briefly in connection with the worship accounts that follow significant reform measures (cf. 2 Chron. 29 and 35). In the first case, the Chronicler has access to the extremely brief annals of 2 Kings 18:1-7 that mention Hezekiah's reform measures, and then to the stories-pointing in the opposite direction-of the faithful and faithless king who suffered and was delivered (2 Kings 18-20). The Chronicler turns this into a liturgical-spiritual renewal: Hezekiah opens the desecrated and neglected temple (2 Chron. 29:3) and addresses the priests and Levites, commissioning them to purify the temple (29:5-11). The execution of this royal order is expansively illustrated (29: 12-19; the concluding report comes in v. 18: "We have cleansed ..."),and now the great worship service can celebrate this renewal in a worthy fashion (29:20-36). A sin offering is performed (29:21-24), and since references to this specific type of sacrifice are rare outside the Priestly Source, one can assume that 2 Chronicles 29 is in some way dependent on the Priestly Source. The blood ceremonies are oriented toward Leviticus 4; 16; 17, and so on, though no special expiation of priests takes place. Then the reader's attention is drawn once again unmistakably to the emphasis on Levitical psalm singing (2 Chron. 29:25-27). This singing is neither a mere supplement nor an inconsequential parallel. The psalm is what first makes offering and worship what they are intended to be:

104

3.1 Ordination and Consecration

Then Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be brought to the altar; and as soon as the burnt offering began, the songs to Yahweh began (also), and the trumpets, led by the instruments of David, king of Israel. The whole assembly worshiped; the singers sang, and the trumpets sounded; all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. As soon as the presentation (of the sacrifice) was finished, the king and all who were present with him bowed themselves and worshiped. Then King Hezekiah and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praises to Yahweh with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. Then they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed down and worshiped. (2 Chron. 29:27-30) 2

The second great worship service is associated with the reforms of King Josiah, and is celebrated as the renewal of the Passover festival (2 Chron. 35: 1-19). The central cultic event is the slaughtering of the Passover lamb and the ensuing family meal (35:7-14). There is such a crush at the temple itself that the Levites must help the priests prepare the sacrificial animals. Only the singers of the family of Asaph carry out their normal service of song. The musicians and singers are provided for by others, so important is their contribution to the worship celebration (35:15). This comparison of the various accounts of consecration celebrations reveals the following: 1. None of these texts is characterized primarily by narrative elements; their primary purpose more likely is to serve as models for a certain understanding of the worship service. Each portrayal emphasizes its own concerns, a situation resulting in extremely one-sided illustrations of worship events. The emphasis, however, is not really on any narrative or informative, and certainly not on any protocol or documentary, portrayal of initial cultic ceremonies. Rather, the discernible basic motif in portraying a consecration celebration is the effort to formulate certain claims or concerns of a specific contemporary group. Behind the high estimation of prayer in the Deuteronomistic portrayal of 1 Kings 8 there stands presumably those circles to whom the prayer services of the exilic period were entrusted. The Chronicler's glorification of psalm singing derives almost certainly from Levitical singer families. Each interest group projects its own expectations into the distant past to ground present forms of worship. 2. The particular text of Leviticus under discussion (chaps. 8-9) is characterized by its strong concentration on priestly consecration and on the first legitimate priestly sacrifice. The one-sidedness of this perspective becomes clear especially in comparison with those texts oriented more toward liturgical word and song. How could the authors and tradents restrict themselves to such a nar2. Translation based on Johann W. Rothstein, in Emil Kautzsch, ed., Die Heilige Schrift Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1923) 662.

Leviticus 8-9

105

row section of the life of worship? Certainly only if everyone knew that these texts did indeed offer only an excerpt from real cultic life, and if the text at issue intended to establish a claim. A person making a claim does not compose a comprehensive portrayal, but rather limits the account to what is essential. Accordingly, in Leviticus 8-9 we are dealing with the claims of priests to their own specific sphere of work and to the special dignity of their office. The temple congregation possibly supports the authority of the priesthood and is creating for itself a position of preeminence before other congregations. Where could such claims have been put into effect? For whom were the prescriptions for priestly work and the portrayal of their ordination intended? Most certainly also for the congregation that had placed this priesthood into service. 3. To what extent do the Leviticus texts describing the first temple service in the wilderness reveal contemporary liturgical material from the early postexilic congregation? We can probably expect only small excerpts from the overall picture, and thus need a comparison and complement from other relevant contemporaneous witnesses. We must also reckon with the fact that the authors of these texts sometimes consciously mention ancient, long-expired customs within their archaizing portrayals, or pass over or neglect features unique to their own age. Nonetheless, this question is of great interest, and we must thus count on it being answerable at least in part. Either directly or indirectly, these Leviticus texts reveal much about the worship service and the inner structure of the early Jewish community.

Elements of Worship Even though the Leviticus texts may well be theoretical compositions intended for readings in worship services, in some way theory does always reflect reality. An understanding of chaps. 8-9 might depend on the extent to which the authors did indeed follow the forms of worship already familiar to them. Only an analysis of the texts themselves can answer this. We will look first at the recurring acts and then at the particular consecration rites. A. Standard Cultic Acts

Every worship service must be prepared conscientiously. Antiquity was especially sensitive regarding this point: The "success" of any cultic event depended on the precise performance of all purificatory and preparatory ceremonies (cf. 2 Chron. 29:34; I Sam. 15: 13-23). This was probably also true of the ordination services for Aaron and his sons. The texts conscientiously and repeatedly emphasize that the sacrificial animals are to be brought forward, that those to be ordained are to be led forward, and that-a peculiarity of the early Jewish community-all the people are to assemble. Commensurate with

106

3.1 Ordination and Consecration

the understanding of the tradents of the Priestly Source, the preparatory stage is often yet subdivided into a corresponding instruction from Yahweh to Moses on the one hand, and the transmission and execution of the divine order by Moses and Aaron on the other. These stages can be observed in Lev. 8:2-6a and 9:1-7. Shorter notices concerning the "bringing forward" and "coming forward" are distributed over the two chapters and introduce each new cultic act. Those responsible for these texts do seem to be consistently more interested in the strict adherence to Yahweh's will than in any emphasis on the demand, no doubt consistently presupposed, for the unblemished holiness of the celebrants. This may indicate that the transmission of this text, too, is undertaken for the assembled congregation (Lev. 8:3f.; 9:3, 15, 18, 22-24). Despite any special qualities attaching to the consecrands, the priests and "people" are from the very beginning inseparably oriented toward each other. A second fixed element consists in the combined sin offering and burnt offering. These two types of sacrifice were stereotypically combined with one another-probably first during the postexilic period-and performed at purification and consecration as well as during cultic festival events. 3 Here this sacrificial combination predominates (Lev. 8: 14-21; 9:8-14 ), belonging as self-evidently to ordination events as does "the amen to the church," transubstantiation to the mass, and the sermon to Protestant worship. The present tradents are concerned with confirming the ritual agreement of the sacrificial events with the prescriptions in Lev. 4:4-12 (sin offering for the transgression of a priest) and Lev. 1: 10-13 (burnt offering of a sheep), as well as with Ex. 29: 10-18, for the blood and fat rites are largely identical in all three textual series. Only Leviticus 4 and 1 exhibit certain variations that possibly suggest separate transmission. The most striking variation is the preeminent position of the old (burnt offering) in the present textual context or-amounting to the same thing-the absence of the f:wf!iii (sin offering) in the collection comprising Leviticus 1-3. In any case, the tradents of Leviticus Sf. want to document that the customary sin offering and burnt offering belong to any ordination celebration. This sacrificial pair is to effect double atonement (8:14-21 and 9:8-14; cf. 9:7), even if the candidates for the high spiritual office undergo yet another quite specific blood rite (8:23f.). The series of sin, burnt, cereal, and meal offerings (9: 15-20) presented by the recently ordained priests consciously follows the offerings presented for the priests (9: 15). This sequence corresponds with some qualification to the enumeration of sacrificial types in Lev. 4: 13ff.; 6:2ff., 7ff. (9ff., 14ff.E); 7: 11ff.. Here the context is not closed. Substantively, the passage 9: 15-20 is 3. Cf. Lev. 14:13,19,22, 31; 15:15, 30; 16:3, 5; Num. 6:11, 16; 8:12; 28:15; 29:5f.; Rolf Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im A/ten Israel, 206, 249.

Leviticus 8-9

107

oriented more toward the prescriptions concerning the burnt, cereal, and meal offerings (Lev. 1-3), as well as the sin offering for the congregation, which is again placed first (Lev. 4: 13-21 ). This means that the congregation participates in the ordination service with what is for them the typical sacrificial offerings and within the requisite ritual parameters. From the priestly perspective, the eating of the sacrificial flesh so important for the people itself (cf. 1 Sam. 2: 13ff.; 2 Chron. 30:22-26; Neh. 8: 12) may be omitted only if the portions assigned to the priest as fixed income are appropriately designated. This is what happens expressly in Lev. 9:21 with reference to 7:31-34. The sacrificial ritual for the atonement of the people, however, belongs to the ordination events and is significant for the consecration of the temple, a fact supported by the benediction activities at the conclusion of the ceremony (Lev. 9:22-23a). This kind of power mediation from Yahweh through the liturgical actors to the congregation itself is a fixed concluding rite-one practiced even today-in worship services involving the active participation of an assembled community of faith. Such bestowal of blessings occurs everywhere in the Old Testament where worship services involving the congregation are at issue: Num. 6:22-27; 2 Sam. 6:17-19; 1 Kings 8:55-61; 2 Chron. 30:27. Such benediction appears connected with the sacrificial meal insofar as it, too, as a blessing, brings full satisfaction and satiation of human needs. We may leave in abeyance the extent to which Yahweh's appearance in the fire (9:24) that consumes the burnt offering (cf. Ex. 40:34; 1 Kings 18:38; 2 Chron. 5: 13; 7: 1) was part of the normal Jewish worship service4 (the incense cloud during mass might represent the last remnant of such a notion). What is certain is that the cloud and fire phenomena are signs that he for whom the house of God was built has taken possession of it. We now tum our attention to the special consecratory procedures at the beginning of the Israelite cult as portrayed by the tradents of the Priestly Source. The Consecratory Procedures This text intends to portray the beginning of the temple cult in the form of an ordination service at the provisional wilderness sanctuary during Israel's legendary early period. It does this not as a protocol of events-far too many details are missing for this to be the case-and indeed not in any narrative sense at all, but rather as a didactic piece emphasizing quite specific details of the liturgical norms practiced in the fifth-century temple community. This is why the general rites discussed above, despite the present, one-time inaugural 4. So Artur Weiser, "Zur Frage nach den Beziehungen der Psalmen zum Kult: Die Darstellung der Theophanie in den Psalmen und im Festkult ( 1950)," in idem, Glaube und Geschichte im Alten Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961 ), 303-21.

3.1 Ordination and Consecration

108

situation, do come into play. The center of gravity, however, does reside in the inaugurations of Lev. 8:6-13 and 8:22-36. A completely linear and unequivocal sequence of the imagined events cannot be reconstructed; this is hindered also by the layered evidence of long transmission periods within the present text. 5 The acting participants (Moses, Aaron, Aaron's sons, the congregation, the people), the series of rituals (ablutions, vestments, anointing, blood rites, swing offering, meals, seven-day period), and especially their respective intentions and purposes (atonement, sanctification, authorization of the priesthood) do not seem seamlessly oriented toward one another. Nonetheless, the main points of such an inaugural celebration, points crystallized through long textual use presumably in worship assemblies, can be recognized very well. Although we need not view them necessarily in any strict temporal sequence, the great arc extending from the commencement ablutions (v. 6) to the "hand filling" and concluding admonition (vv. 33-35) no doubt corresponds to liturgical customs of the exilicpostexilic period. As commanded in Ex. 29:4f., Moses cleanses the priestly candidates Aaron and his sons in a water bath and clothes them with the sacred vestments (8:6-9). Such ablutions have symbolic and hygienic significance even today (cf. Ex. 40:12; 2 Kings 5:10), and are the prerequisite for active participation in cultic life (cf. Lev. l5:5ff.; 16:4,24,26, 28; l7:15f., etc.). The official vestments commissioned in Exodus 28 and prepared in Exodus 39 now can be put on. The cult founder Moses (David assumes this role in the Chronicler's work, cf. l Chron. 15-16; 23-26) thus takes the necessary utensils that have been brought along (Lev. 8: l-5) and proceeds (before the assembled congregation?) to the solemn event of clothing (8:6-9). The proper clothing for holy office was and is extraordinarily important (see also "Details" in section 2.6), and in probably all religions is prepared according to deeply rooted customs and insights of faith. Exodus 28 and 39 pay extraordinary attention to the Aaronite priestly vestments; thus the author of Lev. 8:6-9 can now "clothe the man" with these splendid pieces without further explanation, and can do so in the correct sequence, from the undergarments to the turban with its jewels. He pays most attention to the oracular satchel with the stones called "light" and "truth" (v. 8). Although this was used as an inquiry device for obtaining divine oracles long before the second temple (cf. l Sam. 23 :6-12), for the Aaronite high priest it probably yet possessed only symbolic significance. The head covering is also important to the author (v. 9). A person's "head" is a bodily part conscious of power, and thus it needs special sacred adornment. For the rest, this text merely enumerates, after the equally laconic mention of ritual ablution (v. 6), the garments that are put on. There is not a word about 5. Karl Elliger, Leviticus.

Leviticus 8-9

109

accompanying rites or words to be spoken. It is the appearance of the high priest (cf. Lev. 21:10-15) that is important, not the clothing ceremony as such, which in most liturgical celebrations proceeds under exclusion of the public. So we see that the author is oriented toward the congregation, presenting to it the familiar image of the high priest, an image that, by the way, considerably influenced the official vestments of Christian clerics (until Martin Luther introduced the gloomy jurist's robe into the sacral sphere). The clothing of Aaron's sons is then appended in v. 13. Why? Does the installation of the father, Aaron, as the first and high priest not automatically apply through inheritance to his descendants? Or are they intentionally to be situated one step beneath the current highest office holder (cf. Lev. 10)? In any case, from Moses they receive an official costume that is clearly more simple than, and distinguished further from, that of the high priest through the head adornment, a turban wound high without a diadem. A second step is the anointing of the chief priest. Here the sons of Aaron are intentionally excluded, probably contra the clear witness of a different line of tradition (Ex. 40: 12-15). Only the high priest receives the sacred anointing oil, becoming thereby "sanctified," separated from profane reality, and placed in a position to communicate with God through service in the sacrificial cult (v. 12). Such anointing was originally reserved for kings (cf. 1 Sam. 10: I; 2 Kings 11: 12), but was apparently transferred to the high priest as well with the reestablishment of the temple cult in 515 B.C.E. In any case, Zechariah also associates the highest spiritual shepherd with royal insignia (Zech. 4:1-5, 11-14; 6:9-15; cf. 3:1-5). The current high priest in Jerusalem thereby acquires exceptional authority. It seems a bit strange that this text mentions the anointing of the high priest in the same breath as, and as the culmination of, the consecration of the temple (vv. 10-11). In the first place, the same anointing oil is used for both sanctification rites; in the second, after the extensive descriptions of the temple planning and construction (Ex. 25-27; 30-31; 35-38; 40) one expects a broader consideration of the temple consecration. Has this expectation already been fulfilled by Ex. 40:9f.? Or, on the other hand, did the tradent of Lev. 8:10f. find himself constrained only out of consideration for the anointing prescription in Exodus 40 to relate the completion of the temple sanctification before the anointing of Aaron? Only sparse witnesses attest the anointing of buildings or stones; one thinks particularly of Gen. 28: 18. During anointing, fragrant, "sacred" oil- in Palestine it would be olive oil with aromatic seasonings (Ex. 30:22-33 contains the exclusive recipe) -is poured onto the head of the consecrand from a special, equally sacred anointing vessel (cf. 1 Sam.lO:l; 16:1, 13; 1 Kings 1:39;2Kings9:3,6; 11:12). Theoilflowsover the beard and garments (Ps. 133:2), though it is difficult to conceive how the "anointed" in this ceremony can already be wearing his turban, as is apparently presupposed in Lev. 8:9. There is no trace of any legal significance to the

3.1 Ordination and Consecration

110

anointing in this text, as is sometimes the case with the coronations of kings. Here the sanctifying function predominates. Indeed, over against the legal function this probably represents the original sense of this kind of almost magical act. The sacred oil has a divine, transforming power; it separates out the sanctuary, altar, and the highest priest for Yahweh's service and gives them a portion in the divine inaccessibility (Lev. 8: 10-12). Unauthorized persons who even approach the anointing oil are committing a sacrilege: "Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an unqualified person, shall be cut off from the people" (Ex. 30:33). No wonder this holy act has become a symbol for divinely sanctioned peace and extreme well-being (Ps. 133:2) as well as a model for a variety of consecratory acts all the way to baptism and extreme unction. The most important consecratory act seems to be a special offering occurring only in connection with the induction of priests (Lev. 8:22-30; cf. 7:37; Ex. 29:22-34). Although the customary translation "ordination offering" does address the sense of this rite, it does not indicate that it involves an induction into office with the establishment of a particular compensation class. An ancient blood rite is also incorporated into this quasi- "civil servant" ceremony, and apparently has a purificatory and tutelary function (Lev. 8:23f.) We will examine these two rituals one after the other. The blood rite involves dabbing blood on the ear lobe, thumb, and big toe on the right side of the body, and plays a role in the cleansing of lepers (Lev. 14:10-32), but is otherwise attested neither in the Old Testament nor in other ancient Oriental texts. The rite seems more firmly anchored in the chapter on the treatment of "leprosy" than in the induction of priests; it is associated harmoniously with a solemn oil ceremony (cf. Lev. 14:14-18), one during which, by the way, the remaining oil is also poured out over the head of the person to be cleansed. Based on these findings, one might argue that the smearing of blood on selected body parts has found its way from the provenance of the cleansing ceremony into the priestly consecration. This is also supported by the artificial attempt in the present chapter to append these blood and oil rites onto the induction into office.6 In contrast, the instructions for priestly consecration in Ex. 29:19-37 establishes a continuing connection: smearing of the right body parts with blood, sprinkling of the clothing of Aaron and his sons with a mixture of blood and oil (Ex. 29:20f.). Just what the two-part ceremony is supposed to effect is not indicated. According to the analogy of other blood smearings (cf. Ex. 4:25; 12:22), and based on the evidence of comparable rites among other peoples, blood has a tutelary function. Within the framework of this priestly consecration, the sense of these rites may be first to render the right side of the body, the side especially oriented toward action (righthandedness 6. Lev. 8:30; cf. Karl Elliger, Leviticus, I 10.

Leviticus 8-9

Ill

is considered the norm, cf. Judg. 3: 15), suitable for service to Yahweh; and second, to emphasize the sacredness of the priestly garments. "Extremely ancient notions are carried forward in this custom. It must be the right-hand thumb etc. because the right side is the side of luck. The reason for subjecting the doubly present extremities above, below, and on the side (or in the middle?) to this procedure is presumably that in this way the entirety of the person is affected." 7 The induction into office associated with the special offering (Lev. 8:25-29) is more expansively portrayed. Designation of the sacrificial animal as the "ram of hand filling" (v. 22) alludes to the central motif. "Hand filling" is the official investiture of a priest through a financially powerful employer (cf. Judg. 17:5, 12), and involves primarily the fixing of income. In normal cases, the right thigh and the breast of a sacrificial animal belong to the priest (Lev. 7:32-34), to which are added certain vegetable offerings (Lev. 7: 12-14). These stipulations are uniquely reflected in this present text. The thigh along with the baked goods and the fat of the sacrificial animal (which belongs to Yahweh alone) are first given into the hands of the priest, moved back and forth before Yahweh as a "swing offering" (cf. Num. 6:19f.), and then burned as a holocaust (Lev. 8:25-28). The breast piece of the sacrificial animal is also "swung," that is, solemnly assigned to Yahweh, but then assigned to the officiating sacrificial priest (in this situation it is still Moses) as the legitimate portion (Lev. 8:29). Why are the various pieces assigned to the priest treated differently? This possibly reflects a bit of the changing story of priestly compensation in Israel. In the present combination, the special ritual involving the right thigh is probably intended to indicate that even the priestly portion actually belongs to Yahweh himself, yet on the other hand the priest participates in God's own food by virtue of his elevated office. The priest does not eat the bread of the congregation, but rather of his divine Lord, even if these offerings are brought together a thousand times by the believers. This betrays no feeble selfconsciousness! The induction ceremony is to be maintained for seven days (Lev. 8:31-35). In the ancient Orient and even today in many cultures, important festivals are extended over several days. The rhythm of seven was extremely popular in Israel (cf. Ex. 20:8-11; 23:15; Lev. 23:34-36, 39-43). For an entire week the priests to be consecrated are to remain before the tent of meeting, in Yahweh's immediate proximity, to fulfill their priestly duties (through new sacrifices daily?), and to eat of the holy offerings. Then they are genuinely equipped for service at the temple and before the congregation (Lev. 9). These consecratory events as a whole (Lev. 8:6-13, 22-36) give the impression of having been selected and combined from different sources. A genuine, properly proceeding ordination liturgy cannot really be reconstructed 7. Karl Elliger, Leviticus, I 19.

112

3.1 Ordination and Consecration

here. The selection of consecratory rites is intended to demonstrate that a special holiness attaches to the priests-and above all to their forefather Aaron, the model of the high priest. Clothing, anointing, investiture, and communion with Yahweh all effect this priestly quality. The prescriptions of Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8live on in part in the ordination rites of the Roman Catholic Church. After the final destruction of the temple in the year 70 C.E., there were no longer any fully functioning priests in the Jewish tradition. The descendants of Aaron, however, do enjoy special privileges. 8

Moses, Aaron, and the Congregation The installation of a priesthood takes place for the benefit of a particular religious community. The "entire congregation" allegedly assembles before the tent of meeting and witnesses the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev. 8:3). Aaron's first worship service (Lev. 9) takes place in the presence of, and for, the entire people. Furthermore, the attentive presence of the Yahweh faithful is consistently presupposed during the reading of the text. Who other than the Israelites of the second temple are supposed to hear which special qualifications the current priest has, which acts of support he can expect, and which mediating function he exercises? The congregation itself thus constitutes the really decisive reference point behind these worship texts. In the foreground, however, only Moses and the priests act. It is worth noting that Yahweh's first dialogue partner is not Aaron, but rather Moses. Although in Leviticus 8 he performs the sacrificial rites, the role of priestly forefather is most certainly not to be ascribed to Moses. Let us examine his figure and actions. The scenario in Leviticus 8 is prefigured in Exodus 29. Moses is the officiating priest, a rarity in stories about Moses. Here it must be so because only he has received Yahweh's instructions concerning the installation of the priesthood. There is as yet no consecrated priesthood- thus the presupposition of the authors. And Moses is so close to Yahweh, so permeated by Yahweh's spirit and power, that he does not need any special consecration. Moses is an exceptional figure (cf. Ex. 33:7-11; Num. 11: 16f.; 12:3, 7f.). According to the "priestly" texts, communication between the Israelites and Yahweh proceeds exclusively through him. Moses is the founder not of the priestly office, but rather of the Torah (and according to Deut. 18: 15-19 also the prophetic) office. The first and primary source of life for the community is the mediation of God's will through the Torah. Although great significance is also ascribed to the atoning office of the priesthood, it is dependent on the mediator of the word, Moses. He stands above the priests. But this also means that 8. Cf. S. Ph. de Vries,Jiidische Riten und Symbole (1968) (Wiesbaden: Fourier, 1981) 34-40.

Leviticus 8-9

113

even according to the Priestly Source itself, the priestly office did not possess the highest authority in IsraeliJudah at that time, but rather understood itself as deriving from Moses, that is: from the office of torah. This potentially provided for the possibility of opposing the priesthood through appeal to Moses. Moses and his mediation of the Torah establish and constitute the community of Yahweh believers. Without Yahweh's address to his people, an address coming to Moses and passed on by him, there is no community of faith. The message of the singularly mighty, otherworldly, universal God who chose Israel can be mediated only through the proclamation (reading) of God's will, and not through sacrificial rites. The temple service and sacrificial service are meant to maintain the constituted congregation in the correct disposition. This service is a support for the community of faith, yet as such is also clearly secondary. Primarily, the early Jewish congregation of the fifth century was oriented toward the Torah of Moses (Neh. 8). It reads the (five?) scrolls, sings, and prays. This has both social and theological consequences. This congregation structured around the scrolls of scripture and around the reading of the will of God will recognize as the decisive representatives of the deity precisely the scribes, tradents, and expositors of these scriptures. Ezra is the prototype of the "scribe" and "scriptural authority," even if he is additionally designated as a "priest" (cf. Ezra 8:2). The scrolls of scripture receive the highest veneration, and the authority of the written word of God also rubs off on those who deal with it. According to their own self-understanding, the congregations are those who hear this divine word and obediently serve the God Yahweh. The daily deportment of those who confess Yahweh becomes the criterion of membership in the Torah community. Prayer and adherence to the commandments are expressions of one's confession to Yahweh. The sacrificial practices could not possibly function as this sort of visible sign. For many fifthcentury Jews, the central sacrificial site Jerusalem was inaccessible, and the character of sacrifice as such- name! y, as an atonement of guilt- was oriented toward the reestablishment rather than the establishment of the relationship with God. In its essence, then, the early Jewish community was a religious group welded together through a variety of behavioral rules transmitted in written form emerging from the recognition of the one God Yahweh. That is, it was a confessional community, more a "citizen-Bible-community" than a "citizentemple-community," as it is frequently designated today. Nevertheless, as these texts clearly show, the priests did play a significant role in this community oriented toward the will of God mediated through Moses. Aaron and his sons administer the "office of atonement" serving the perpetual cleansing and repair of the theocratic system. They are also appropriately compensated for their services and enjoy high esteem in the community. Without question, this priesthood was also concerned with portraying its own position as centrally important and with expanding it whenever possible.

114

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives

Office holders in Christian churches still do the same thing today, despite impressive lip service to the "people of God" and to the "priesthood of all believers." What happens when the authority of the priestly mediators is challenged? The next chapter deals with this.

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives (Lev. 10) Leviticus I 0 is closely associated with the preceding two chapters, but is clearly recognizable as an addendum. At least four textual units are added to the inaugural events, probably in an attempt to emphasize certain specifics, to clarify contradictions, and to introduce into the account of the beginnings of sacrificial worship items that had been forgotten or had acquired new importance.

Translation 10:1 Now Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censer, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered impermissible fire before Yahweh, such as he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from the presence of Yahweh and consumed them, and they died before Yahweh. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron: This is what Yahweh meant when he said: Through those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron was silent. 4 Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them: Come forward, and carry your kinsmen away from the front of the sanctuary to a place outside the camp. s They came forward and carried the corpses out of the camp in their tunics, as Moses had ordered. 6 And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar: Do not dishevel your hair, and do not tear your vestments, or you will die and wrath will strike all the congregation; but your kindred, the whole house of Israel, may mourn the burning that Yahweh has sent. 7 You shall not go outside the entrance of the tent of meeting, or you will die; for the anointing oil of Yahweh is on you. And they did as Moses had ordered.

s And Yahweh spoke to Aaron: 9 Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations. 10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the impure and the pure; II and you are to teach the Israelites all the statutes that Yahweh has spoken to them through Moses.

Leviticus 10

115

12 Moses spoke to Aaron and to his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar: Take the cereal offering that is left from Yahweh's offerings, and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is most holy; 13 you shall eat it in a holy place, because it is your due and your sons' due, from the offerings to Yahweh; for so I am commanded. 14 The swing breast and the thigh that is raised you and your sons and daughters as well may eat in any pure place; for they have been assigned to you and your children from the community offerings of the Israelites. 15 The thigh that is raised and the swing breast they shall bring forward together with the fat pieces and swing these back and forth before Yahweh; they are to be your due and that of your children forever, as Yahweh has commanded.

16 Then Moses made inquiry about the goat of the sin offering, and-it had already been burned! He was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's remaining sons, and said: 11 Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy, and he has given it to you that you might remove the guilt of the congregation by effecting atonement on their behalf before Yahweh. 18 But now its blood was not brought into the sanctuary before the countenance (of Yahweh). You should certainly have eaten (the flesh) in the sanctuary, as he commanded (variant reading: as was commanded to me). 19 And Aaron spoke to Moses: See, today they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before Yahweh; and yet such things as these have befallen me! If I were now to eat flesh of the sin offering, would that be good in the eyes of Yahweh? 20 And when Moses heard that, he agreed.

The Addenda Even a cursory reading reveals that Leviticus 10 has been put together by different tradents and groups. The chapter lacks any thematic or stylistic unity, and we everywhere notice breaks, gaps, and doubling. Nadab and Abihu commit a transgression punishable by death-but what? They present incense (v. 1) without authorization(?), at the wrong time(?), using the wrong substances (?). It is as if the author merely wants to allude, for the congregation, to some occurrence such as that in Numbers 16. He seems to presuppose the significance of any priestly transgression. And at the end of the chapter (vv. 16-20) the same theme recurs with a different cast, only this time with a conciliatory resolution, and thus probably from a different tradition. Here, too, the introduction is abrupt and hardly related to the context as such: Moses "is searching" for the he-goat of the sin offering (v. 16) after he himself, in the highest office, has led the opening ceremonies of Leviticus 8-9! The macabre scene in v. 5 does not result in the issuance of any strict

116

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives

warning against false censing (an avoidance of"foreign fire"! cf. Ex. 30:9), but rather quite unexpectedly in an even more austere prohibition against mourning dead relatives. This plays a role for the high priest in Lev. 21:10-12, and according to Lev. 21: 1-3 and Ezek. 44:25 does not apply to the lower stations. An alcohol prohibition for officiating priests is added (vv. 8-9; cf. Ezek. 44:21 ). The general description of service ("instructing Israel concerning what is pure and what is impure," vv. 10-11) similarly finds a parallel in Ezek. 44:23. In the present text of Leviticus it is syntactically only very loosely connected with the preceding material (literally: "keep separate what is impure and what is pure, in order to instruct the Israelites"). Finally, the section comprising vv. 12-15 speaks about priestly portions that must be consumed "in a holy place": in the temple forecourt, beside the altar (v. 12; compare this with Lev. 6:9, 19 [ 16, 26E]), to which, however, family members have no access, at least not female members. The latter are, however, considered along with the others in v. 14. On the whole, chap. 10 gives the impression of generations of zealous guardians of the law having commented on official priestly activities and drawn attention to potential and dangerous deviations. They seem to have before them, as a norm for correct priestly behavior, stories of the chastisement and supervision of unorthodox priestly groups, and catalogs of prohibitions specifically regulating the behavior of cui tic officeholders. Such catalogs can also be recognized in Lev. 21:1-22:16 and Ezek. 44:20-31. The question remains open whether the authors of these remarks and commentary are to be sought in religiously strict priestly groups or, more likely, among the laity.

Priests Also Make Mistakes (vv.l-5, 16-20)

Peculiarly contradictory experiences in dealing with the sacred are addressed in the two framing sections of Leviticus 10. On the one hand, what seems to us to be a tiny violation suffices to deliver the cultic officeholders overto Yahweh's annihilating fire (vv. If.); on the other, an (equally serious?) deviation from the sacrificial prescriptions is treated as a venial transgression prompting no further consequences at all (vv. 16-20). Is God this arbitrary in judging the service of his priests? Or does this involve different priestly groups that with differing motivations and varying success tried to seize for themselves the privileges attaching to the hierarchy? For now we can only surmise that group struggles among the priesthood do indeed provide the background here, just as such struggles come to expression more clearly in Numbers !6f. It just happens to be Aaron's two firstborn sons, Nadab and Abihu (cf. Ex. 6:23) who incur guilt. Now the breach between fathers and deviate sons who reach for the highest power is preprogrammed in human history, and is not just

Leviticus 10

117

something Sigmund Freud brought to our attention. Traces of the generational conflict are also found in the Old Testament: Eli's sons ruin their father's reputation (I Sam. 2: 12-25); Samuel's sons do not follow his example (I Sam. 8:5); David's sons again and again try their hand at insurrection (cf. 2 Sam. 15-19; 1 Kings 1). The theme "son against father" also occurs in the stories of gods and heroes from the ancient Orient and Greece. These in no way involve historical, but rather only typical, events. Ex. 24:1, 9 refer to Nadab and Abihu as Israel's leaders in an extremely prominent position next to Moses and Aaron (and seventy nameless "elders"). No shadow of suspicion yet falls on them. In Lev. 10: Iff. they are representatives of a deviating group. The fact that here as in Ex. 6:23 they are Aaron's eldest sons only heightens the problem. What is their guilt? They fill their censers or coal pans (fiat vessels with a handle, intended for censing and similar in form to our frying pans) with "foreign" (that is, illegitimate) fire. According to Lev. 16:12, the coals with which the censing in the interior of the tent of meeting or temple was to be performed had to be taken from the great altar of burnt offering before the sanctuary. Is this tradent saying that Nadab and Abihu put their "own" coals into their pans instead of coals that had already been "sanctified"? Or was in his opinion the "censing material" not produced and stored according to the appropriate prescription (cf. Ex. 30:34-38)? A violation of one of these strict ritual prescriptions, however, cannot be the real reason for the conflict portrayed here, for in their texts the tradents are processing previous experiences. In the case of Nadab and Abihu, there was a divine death sentence involving death by fire for the guilty parties. Put plainly: A formerly influential, rival priestly group was eliminated. The alleged occasion for their elimination is of no interest as such. One need only allude to it, and not really designate it: transgression against a divine commandment. Thus can a victorious group disqualify a defeated opponent after the power struggle has been won. They violated God's own commandment, and he personally destroyed them. Fortunately, we possess an extensive parallel narrative that clearly reveals to us the internal hierarchical power struggle: Num. 16:1-17:15 (16:1-50E). The priests' censing pans play an important role in this multilayered narrative (cf. Num. 16:6f., 17f.; 17:2-5, llf. [16:37-40, 46f.E]). They serve an atonement ceremony, a censing before Yahweh for the purpose of expurgating sin. Moses summons the opposing parties to this rite so that these claims to legitimacy may be proven through the performance itself. He announces divine judgment (16:6f.). Thus the presentation of the incense offering is not really tested for its cultic correctness, itself becoming rather the means through which the status of the rivaling factions before Yahweh is to be revealed. For the claims of the two groups-Aaron on the one hand, and the clans oflshar, Eliab, and Peleth with their four representatives Korah, Dathan, On, and Abiram on the other-are irreconcilably opposed. Each side accuses the other of having

118

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives

stepped over the line and misused power. "You have gone too far!" each accuses the other (16:3, 7), and the subsequent losers add a theological justification: "All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Yahweh is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of Yahweh?" (l6:3b). According to the one version, the challengers are promptly devoured by the earth (16:31-33), so that in the understanding of the time they "went down alive to the dead" (16:33). According to another tradition they were "consumed by Yahweh's fire" (16:35). At its core, this sentence is identical to Lev. 10:2. It is significant for us that this story of the four opposing temple servants, all of whom come from the tribe of Levi ( 16: l ), and their adherents figured at 250 respected family heads (16:2), recalls efforts undertaken by subordinate cult functionaries to participate in the highest privileges of that period's "clerical class." Korah, whom we know only in a positive sense from the Chronicler's history and the psalms, is the leader of this group of rebels. It seems to me that the tradent or tradents of Lev. l 0: 1-2 have taken the basic motif of the rebellious priestly group that challenges the highest authority and applied it in its most abbreviated form to the Sinaitic consecratory celebrations. The intent was to show the following: (a) Colliding interests were present among the priests even at the very beginnings of Israelite worship. (Compare also the apostasy of the congregation under Aaron's leadership or tolerance in Exodus 32.) (b) The deviants can even have a station high in the hierarchy; Nadab and Abihu do, after all, ultimately stand in second position in the (high) priestly succession. (c) Yahweh decides-as in Numbers l6f.-for the current (high) priest, and in extreme cases also against the latter's own sons, a powerful image for the closely related claims of the opposition. The concluding sentence, "Aaron was silent" (Lev. 10:3 b) points out that in this case the forefather of the priesthood has no plausible explanation for his sons' faulty behavior (cf. by contrast v. 19), and thus is similarly compromised even though he does escape punishment. The theological justification of this fiery death for the sinners is ambiguous, at least according to our understanding. Through demonstrations of fire or power, Yahweh can show himself "holy" to his people; that is, he can visibly demonstrate his impressive power, which he uses or intends to use for Israel. Compare in this regard the concluding sentence and culmination of the consecratory celebration (Lev. 9:24 ), where Yahweh's fire prompts hearty rejoicing. The other side of this majestic holiness, however, is its destructive force that directs itself against all that is impure, impermissible, and contrary to rule. The content of the words cited in Lev. 10:3 was perhaps originally more focused on Yahweh's holy self-manifestation before all Israel. In the present context, it is logically applied to the priesthood and against the deviants. A related saying is found in Ps. l8:26f. (25f.E), which speaks of Yahweh's solidarity with

Leviticus 10

119

the "holy ones," the "loyal," and the "pure," and in a fourth sentence confirms that he also implements his destructive qualities against the "crooked." The "false" incense offering of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu seems like a distant echo of the rebellion ofKorah (Num. 16), which was decided through divine judgment (Num. 16: 17-33). In one stratum of tradition, the censing pans also play a role (vv. 17f.). How is one to evaluate the tradition of such insurrections against the spiritual authority of Moses and Aaron (cf. also Num. 12)? Ernst Bloch, who reads the Bible "against the grain," discovers behind many texts evidence of"socioeconomic agitation" and "political murmuring."9 This is no doubt true. After the return from exile, there were considerable power struggles in Judah also among the priestly classes and in the congregational leadership. This is a religious variation of such "socioeconomic agitation." Leviticus 10: If. apparently reflects the rejection of the claims of a particular group puporting to be descendants of Aaron. 10 As an addendum to the first episode in Leviticus 10 we can remark that the censing pans seem to point to a stratum of tradition unfamiliar with any incense altar in the interior of the tent/temple (cf. Ex. 30: 1-1 0). This special altar is to be strictly distinguished from the altar of burnt offering before the temple outside (Ex. 27: 1-8). Presentations of incense by means of individual coal pans or on the altar itself seem to be mutually exclusive. However, censing on the altar also is subject to strict admonitions against "foreign," impermissible "fire" that is contrary to regulations (Ex. 30:9). Because of his attempt at censing at the inner altar, King Uzziah is punished with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:16-21 ). Does this fact again indicate that the altar tradition and censer tradition have something in common? The coal pans might only refer to an individualized censing practice in which one can make individual figures responsible for their misdeeds. Archaeological evidence in Canaan, however, does show that censing pans were in use only temporarily. Unfortunately, we do not know the details of their use in the second Jerusalem temple. The removal of the corpses (Lev. 10:4f.) is not necessarily an integral part of a portrayal of divine chastisement against one's opponents. Samuel leads the subjected priests of Baal to the brook Kishon and kills them (1 Kings 18:40). Nothing is said about the corpses of the executed. The extensive burial account in 2 Sam. 21: I 0-14, regarding Saul's descendants, is intended to extol David's extraordinary magnanimity. Finally, the proper interment of a dead person was one of the sacred obligations of the relatives. The existence of the deceased in the realm of the dead, among the "fathers," depended on an honorable burial. 9. Ernst Bloch, Atheism in Christianity (New York: Herder & Herder, 1972) 80. !0. Cf. how Islamic "confessions" trace their lineage back to family members of Muhammad: Werner Ende, "Der schiitische Islam," in W. Ende and U. Steinbach, Der Islam der Gegenwart, 3rd ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1991) 70-90.

120

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives

All these considerations, however, have from the very beginning been excluded from the two accounts of the destruction of the priestly opposition. The "gang of Korah" either goes to the underworld with their entire households and possessions, or they are "devoured" by Yahweh's fire (Num. 16:32, 35). In both versions this means that nothing is left behind to be interred. The same applies to Nadab and Abihu. Yahweh's fire "consumes them" (Lev. 10:2a). The continuation "they died before Yahweh" (v. 2b) already seems out of place. How is a person to "die" who has already been consumed by fire? And especially the idea that the still-present corpses were taken away from the camp in their own tunics (v. 5) is utterly incompatible with the miscreants' death by incineration. The conclusion cannot be avoided: The tradents portrayed the execution of Aaron's first two sons (and did so rather carelessly as far as any logical coherence is concerned) in order to introduce an additional group: Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel. In their opinion, these men were closely enough related to those who were executed and had nothing to do with priestly service as such (cf. Ex. 6: 18, 22; Num. 4:15, 17-20: the Levitical Kohathites are merely temple workers); thus they are able to perform the defiling corpse service without danger. The alleged lineage also shows that Mishael and Elzaphan were considered cousins of Korah (Ex. 6:21 ), suggesting perhaps that in Lev. lO:lf. the Korah motif was transferred to Nadab and Abihu. Be that as it may, after the destruction of the first priestly opposition group, the tradents want to address the problem of defilement through contact with the dead. The camp must be kept free of all highly contaminating substances with punctilious exactitude (cf. Num. 5:1-4 ). This is followed by the question concerning the potential defilement of priests through contact with deceased relatives (Lev. 10:6f.). But let us first examine the other example of faulty priestly behavior. The second representatives of the sons of Aaron (cf. also Num. 3:3f.) do not adhere to the commandment of Lev. 6:19, 22 (26, 29E), according to which certain atonement offerings must be eaten in part by the priests. This involves those sacrifices at which no blood is brought into the interior of the sanctuary and there aspersed against the veil before the holy of holies (cf. Lev. 4:5f.; 6:23 [30E]; 10:18). Since every deviation from the prescribed ritual is serious, we again would expect strict punishment of the culpable parties. How far off the mark! As clear as the violation of the hoi y order of things is in this section, just as indulgent are Moses and Yahweh. Aaron's excuse is accepted, though for us it is not easy to understand (v. 19). The priests did correctly present the offerings for their own atonement, and despite this the catastrophe came upon Nadab and Abihu. In view of this occurrence, could Aaron eat of the people's sin offering unencumbered? After all, Yahweh himself interrupted the atonement procedures with the punishment of Nadab and Abihu, and forbade it to the other priests who also had incurred guilt. This is how

Leviticus 10

121

most commentaries understand Aaron's objection, though they do not deny that this interpretation concurs only with much qualification with the events portrayed in Leviticus 8-9. We can get a bit further if with Martin Noth we view the episode of Eleazar and lthamar as a critical complement to the account of the "inaugural service" in light of the preceding legislation (especially Lev. 4 and 6). Later readers and listeners wanted to comply fully with the law. According to the law, a sacrificial worship service was to proceed as follows: I. The priests atone for themselves; this ritual necessarily includes the blood aspersion before the inner veil (cf. Lev. 4: 1-12; 8:14-21; 9:8-14: a combination of these texts contains all the requisite ritual elements). 2. Some sacrificial offerings brought by the people do not require blood aspersion in the sanctuary; in these cases the priests are to consume their sacrificial portions on consecrated ground (cf. Lev. 4:27-35; 6:17-23 [24-30E]; in contrast, the atonement offering in Lev. 4:13-21 takes place with blood aspersion on the veil). The excessively precise commentators found that Lev. 9:9 spoke only of blood rites at the altar of burnt offering, and not of any blood aspersion in the sanctuary. This already constitutes an error, since in the case of the bull of the sin offering for the atonement of the priest, blood must be taken into the interior (Lev. 4:5f.). And even worse, the same thing happens with the sin offering of the people (Lev. 9: 15). In this case, according to Lev. 6:17-23 (24-30E) the priestly portions had to be consumed. They are in no way permitted to be burned, as related in Lev. 9:11 following 4:llf. and then also presupposed in 9:15. A priestly rebuke was in order (Lev. 10:16-20). The fact that this corrective to the portrayal in Leviticus 9 generated several inconsistencies did not bother these strict critics. Who were the accountable actors at the first offering of the Aaronids? How is one to conceive the temporal sequence of these events? What was decisively important to them was the tightening of an essential priestly prescription. But who could be interested in reminding priests of certain norms? This question takes us further. Whereas rival priestly groups became visible in Lev. 10:1-5, in this second episode we more likely must register the presence of congregational concerns. During the exilic period Eleazar and lthamar were the well-known ancestors of current priestly clans (cf. Num. 3: 1-4; 1 Chron. 5:29-40 [6:3-14E]: the leading priests stem from Eleazar in an unbroken line up to the exile). Hence they could not have died because of a transgression. Neither had they ever lost in a struggle with more powerful rivals. Zadok, the most prominent high priest of Jerusalem during the time of David and Solomon, had been taken up into their ancestral line (1 Chron. 5:34, 38 [6:8, 12E]). However, the congregation needed to keep even the most radiant representatives of its spiritual history within human bounds. Even the high priests had to subject themselves to Yahweh's commandments. They received their orders from Moses and were dependent on his

122

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives

opinions. At the inaugural worship service (as at all later sacrificial celebrations as well) the priests were to carry out their highest task, namely, "to expurgate the guilt of the congregation by effecting atonement for them before Yahweh" (Lev. 10:17b). The neglect of this official obligation is virtually the main point of the accusation Moses levels at the dilatory priests (vv. 17-18 is an accusation discourse). While it is true that Aaron's excuse is accepted, it does also contain an admission of faulty behavior and no doubt also is to serve to establish this corrective to the atonement liturgy in favor of the congregation.

Behavioral Rules for Priests (vv. 6-7, 8-11, 12-15) Surrounded by texts criticizing faulty priestly behavior, three sections emerge that more or less directly establish behavioral norms for priests. "You shall not ..."or "you shall ... "is the basic form of these rules. The plural form of address shows that the entire priesthood is being addressed. Lev. 10:6-15 is admittedly a rather loose collection of commandments for priests. The individual prescriptions are usually somewhat prolix, and the thematic selection is rather fortuitous and restricted, involving prohibitions against mourning (vv. 6-7), alcohol (vv. 8-11), and the commandment to consume the sacrificial portions only at an admissible location (vv. 12-15). We find far more extensive and in part also more compact commandment catalogues for the priesthood in Lev. 21:1-22:16 and Ezek. 44:20-31. In Leviticus 19 and 23, for example, we will become familiar with the related genres of cultic and ethical commandment lists for "everyman," that is, for the members of Yahweh's congregation. a. The ceremonial lament for the dead was familiar both in Israel and in the entire ancient Orient (cf. 2 Sam. 1: 17-27). 11 When a person died, the relatives were to conduct a lament before the burial (cf. Gen. 50:3f., 10). The usual rites included weeping, wailing, beating the breast, shaving eyebrows or hair, wearing a sack, or smearing ash on the head (cf. Isa. 22:12; Ezek. 27:29-32; Joel I: 13). The rending of clothes is also mentioned as a sign of mourning for the dead (2 Sam. 3:31; Joel2: 12f.). Only in the book of Leviticus does freely hanging hair appear as a mourning custom. The priestly tradition emphasizes here and in Lev. 21:10 only two particular customs signaling that the mourning person has stepped out of the normal order of things and is now in a condition of dangerous degeneration and thus impure. Lev. 13:45 shows this quite clearly. The person afflicted by a certain skin disease visited by Yahweh himself had to rend his clothes, let his hair hang loose, and conceal his beard; he had to warn others with the cry "impure! impure!" The tradents thus forbade the priest any II. Cf. Hedwig Jahnow, Das hebriiische Leichenlied, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift flir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 36 (Giessen: A. Topelmann, 1923).

Leviticus 10

123

contact with a dead person from his own family, contact that is unavoidable when carrying out interment (cf. Lev. 10:4f.; 21:1, lOf.) Neither did they allow any participation in the mourning rites preceding interment, since there, too, the mourning person might come into contact with the corpse and become contaminated (vv. 5f.) Interment and mourning rites were to be carried out by other Israelites, and the priests were to remain at their place of service (v. 7). By leaving the holy precinct they would not only endanger the completion of the cult, but would in any case become defiled there "outside" and be able to return to altar service only after the requisite ablutions. The overriding concern in this prohibition of mourning for the dead as addressed to all officiating priests is the fear of defilement. It is not a matter, as it is, for example, in Deut. 14:1, of resistance to foreign cultic practices or of any test of loyalty after the motto "let the dead bury their own dead" (Matt. 8:22). No, this text wants to make it impossible for any priest (or perhaps only Aaron and his high priestly descendants?) to come into contact with the impure and antidivine realm of death. Compared with the analogous regulations of Lev. 21:1-4, 10-12; Num. 19:10b-22; and Ezek. 44:25-27 (cf. the analysis in section 7.1, "Defilement Through Contact with the Dead") this prohibition of mourning in Lev. 10:6f. constitutes an expansion of the most severe cautionary measures to include the entire priesthood. A precise comparison between these two verses and Lev. 21:10-12 shows how tradition selectively copied the high priestly text and adapted it to the context of Leviticus 10. The prohibition against contact with the dead (Lev. 21:11 a) was excluded because it was already implied in Lev. 10:4f. A comparison with Ezek. 24:15-24, Yahweh's order to renounce the lament for the dead even in the case of one's own wife, teaches us how extraordinary and, in the human sense, fundamentally unreasonable such abstinence was for priests. b. There are and were religions that employ narcotics and stimulants to attain an encounter with God. Although religious ecstasy was not unknown in ancient Israelite society (cf. 1 Sam. 10:1 0), the use of alcohol as a means to this goal was forbidden. The Nazirites consecrated to God had to abstain from all intoxicating drink as long as their vow remained in effect (Num. 6:2-4). Even expectant mothers who were to give life to a future Nazirite were already subject to the prohibition against alcohol (Judg. 13:4f.). The seminomadic Rechabites, a family especially zealous for Yahweh, scorned wine (Jer. 35:2-6). Intoxicating drink was not conducive to an encounter with God, and for that reason it is strictly and perpetually forbidden to all priests on duty (v. 9). When not on duty, they are accordingly allowed their small glass of wine. This is not a matter of a complete proscription of what under certain circumstances is a deleterious luxury, but rather a matter of the conduct of the priests. The commandment catalog in Ezekiel44 (already cited) contains a simplified prohibition of wine for priests while on duty (v. 21). Drunken priests and prophets are

124

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives

the targets of prophetic mockery (Isa. 28:7-13). As avidly as Yahweh's spiritual gifts were sought, ancient Israel nonetheless attested a deeply rooted mistrust of alcoholic enthusiasm in dealing with the divine (Num. 11; Joel4). The continuation of the alcohol prohibition of v. 9 by a reference to the priests' comprehensive didactic obligation should not be understood primarily from a rational perspective, in the sense of an appeal to the effect "stay sober so you are reasonable when providing instruction." Rather, the tradents want to add to the altar service mentioned in v. 9 an additional, perhaps even more important, area of service. The "distinction" between pure and impure and the "teaching" of all the commandments of God (vv. lOf.) represent the priests' public tasks. Sacrificial service is completely oriented "inwardly," to the sanctuary and Yahweh. Now attention is directed to the people itself, the congregation. What were the functions of the priests of the second temple? Were they already church pastors or pastors of the people in the sense of the later Christian tradition? Because the widespread opinion is probably false that the ancient Israelite priests exercised pedagogical functions and proclaimed "the law of Moses" among the people "from time immemorial," we will limit ourselves to the exilic-postexilic period. We do indeed encounter a broad tradition portraying priest and Levite as a kind of religious instructor. Priests are responsible for all problems pertaining to cultic purity (cf. Lev. 14:57; Deut. 24:8; Hag. 2: 11-14). They are to render decisions in various cases relating to legal questions (cf. Deut. 17:8f.; 2 Chron. 19:8-11), and they are responsible for mediating the entire Torah of Moses (cf. Deut. 31 :9; 2 Chron. 17:7-9). The present text also alludes to this latter, extremely comprehensive, responsibility. In any event, Lev. 10: 11 does mention "all these commandments that Yahweh has imparted to them through Moses." In contrast, v. 10 is referring only to the purity prescriptions and thus constitutes a reference to the following collection of such rules (Lev. 11-15). How are we to understand this alleged pedagogical activity and preaching of the law conducted by the priests in ancient Israel? We must above all guard against projecting our own professional image of the Christian church pastor onto the ancient texts. The ancient Orient no doubt attested a variety of priestly functions. There were, for example, special oracular and conjuring priests. However, neither these vocational images nor the entire preexilic history of the priesthood in Israel as known to us allow any derivation of responsibility for a comprehensive congregational law committed to writing. In Israel, the priesthood was essentially restricted to temple and sacrificial service. Moreover, the period of the monarchy had neither the postexilic congregational structures nor the book of the law of Moses produced within these structures. Thus the comprehensive catechetical task of these priests is at earliest a late, that is, early Jewish phenomenon. Presumably, both before and after the reestablishment of

Leviticus 10

125

the temple in Jerusalem many priestly clans unable to find a place in the Jerusalem temple hierarchy took over other roles of spiritual leadership in the congregations. That as a matter of fact men from priestly lines did indeed play a role in collecting and explaining the ancient traditions may here and there have led to the overall notion that "the priests" were the accountable parties regarding the law of Moses. The reality was different. In 2 Chron. 17:7-9, royal officials are entrusted with the task of teaching. Several Levites and priests are subordinate escorts. Ezra, the great prototype of the scriptural authority, is primarily- the priestly veneer cannot conceal this-the "scribe of the God of heaven," and then also the descendant of a priestly family (cf. Ezra 7:1-6, 11f.; Neh. 8:2, 4). Instead of concluding that such proclamation of the law was always the task of priests, it is more appropriate to say that wherever the Torah office of "the priests" is mentioned, the early Jewish congregation is speaking. Nowhere do we find any formulation of the priestly privilege of Torah stewardship as we do for the clear and exclusive privilege of altar service. This assignment of Torah instruction to the priests is rather a means of subordinating the priestly class to the supervision of Moses. At least this is how Lev. 10: 11 is to be understood. This also relativizes Yahweh's unique address to Aaron in the introduction to the section (v. 8). In the end, Yahweh's instructions refer to the commandments given through Moses, and thus subjects the priesthood to the supervision of the office of scribe, an office closer to the congregation itself. No doubt things stand quite differently regarding the initially mentioned task of keeping separate the sacred and the profane (v. 10). Israel's temple priests, like those of neighboring peoples, were responsible for overseeing the sacred precincts. Eli, for example, challenges Hannah because he believes she is intoxicated (1 Sam. 1:9-14). Ahimelech, the high priest at Nob, is responsible for ensuring that the sacred bread of his temple not be profaned (1 Sam. 21:5-7 [4-6E]). The responsibility of priests for legal questions affecting the cultic sphere is mentioned several times (cf. Num. 5:11-28; 25:6-13; Hag. 2: 11-14). In short, the current temple priest must not only be punctiliously familiar with the cu1tic rules of his sanctuary, and keep the sacred precinct free of any contamination, he must also respond to any inquiries brought by temple visitors and explain what constitutes proper behavior before the God who dwells in the temple area. The present text summarizes all this in the simple sentence that is yet extraordinarily complex in its implications, "You shall separate what is holy and what is profane, what is impure and what is pure" (v. 10; a quite similarly structured sentence is found in Lev. 11 :47). In some Old Testament texts, the word "separate" (hibdfl) is a leitmotif. This is the case in the priestly creation story, in which the zones of life must be separated from one another such that the deleterious powers (the waters of chaos, darkness, night) clearly belong to a single side (cf. Gen. I :4ff.). Lev. 20:22-26 programmatically instructs the

126

3.2 Rebellion and Correctives

congregation to separate itself from the nations, that is, to sanctify itself for and to unite with Yahweh (see the discussion in chapter 7, "Holiness and Residency Requirement"). This commissioning ofthe priests with the "task of separation" (this appears in Ezek. 22:26, 42:20, and 44:23 in an almost verbatim repetition of Lev. 10:10, or at least can be concluded from the text) can be viewed completely parallel with the divine acts during creation and with the basic determination ofthe holy people Israel. By virtue of their office, priests are directly connected with Yahweh's efforts at sanctification. Their commission consists in caring for the sacred site and in serving Yahweh in the holy of holies. Externally, they are to take the official lead in helping to make Israel into a "holy" people. Although the synonymous contrasting pairs "sacred-profane" and "impurepure" suggest a sharp separation of the world into only two opposing spheres, nonetheless a gradation of holiness can be discerned in Israel. Proceeding out from the holy of holies in the temple, the influence of the divine substance decreases the farther one moves away from the center (cf. Lev. 16:20-22). This principle of separating oneself off, the concern with drawing definitive lines, is deeply rooted in the priestly tradition of the Old Testament, and even today has not disappeared among human beings. It seems to be an anthropological constant compelling human beings to create a chasm between themselves and others, and to declare their own sphere so delimited to be "holy" or "the best." 12 c. Leviticus 10:12-15, the third section of commandments, is the longest. As is so often the case, however, prolixity conceals the precise meaning. Are the tradents interested in establishing once more just which portions the priests receive from the offerings of the Israelites?. Verses 13, 14, and 15 refer emphatically to the claims of the Aaronids (cf. Lev. 7:32-34). At issue are portions of the cereal offering (v. 12; cf. Lev. 2:3, 10) and the familiar pieces "swing breast" and "raised thigh" from the community offerings of the congregation (vv. 14f.; cf. Lev. 7:31-34). The vocabulary used in this section is easily distinguished, for example, from the language used previously (Lev. 2:3, 10; 5:13; 6:18f. [25f.E]; 7:14). This may thus involve a parallel tradition that was additionally recorded. The question of portions, however, is decided quite in the sense of the earlier passages discussed in connection with this topic. Or is the emphasis of the section comprising vv. 12-15 not at all on the renewed fixing of the priestly tariffs? The "eating in a holy" -and once in a "pure"- "place" emphatically occupies the center of interest. This theme, too, has already been addressed (cf. Lev. 6:9-11, 19, 22 [16-18, 26, 29E]; 7:6; 8:31). In the context of Leviticus 10, it is more likely that the eating commandment occupies the foreground in vv. 12-15; in this case the text fits well 12. Cf. the discussion of Lev. 19:2; 20:22-26; Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger; Peter Hofstatter, Gruppendynamik (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1957).

Leviticus I 0

127

with the preceding normative statements. Moreover, the theme of "eating in a holy place" is in the air, as it were, and is taken up again in vv. 16-20. But what is unique about the present eating regulations after the instructions, for example, of Lev. 6:9f. (16f.E) and 7:6? The assigned sacrificial portion is to be consumed "beside the altar"- but is that not where in Lev. 1:16 and 6:3 (IOE) the refuse was poured out? The other passages are inclined to speak about the "temple forecourt" (6:9 [l6E]) or in a general fashion about the "holy place" (7:6; so also 10: 13). The second unusual description is "in a pure place" (v. 14). According to Lev. 4:12 and 6:4 (liE) this must be sought outside the sanctuary (and outside the camp?). The reason for this change of setting regarding the consumption of the sacrificial flesh may be that the daughters are now admitted to the meal (v. 14). They, however, are not permitted even to enter the forecourt of the sanctuary. In the parallel texts, only the male family members are permitted to enjoy the sacrificial flesh "in a holy place" (Lev. 6:11,22 [18, 29E]; 7:6). Hence the priestly fathers must take the sacrificial flesh assigned to them and intended for consumption by their family out of the sanctuary itself, but, please, only to a "pure place." This can no doubt include their own homes. The dietary ordinance as a commandment text fits into the series of previous prohibitions and commandments. There is no exact correspondence in the more extensive lists of Lev. 21: l-22: 16 and Ezek. 44:9-31. Instead of the prescription to eat only in a holy/pure place, Lev. 22:10-13 provides a regulation concerning those persons who are either admitted or not admitted to the meal (which probably takes place in the priest's house). In contrast, Ezek. 44:29-31 stipulates the priestly portions of the sacrificial offerings. We can surmise that the tradents of Leviticus l 0 had a larger number of prescriptions before them relating specifically to the office of the priests, yet for this particular passagea later addendum to the account of the inaugural worship service-they made only a quite limited selection.

4. Purity and Purification (Leviticus 11-15) 4.1. Overview Like Leviticus 1-7, so also chaps. 11-15 in this book constitute a relatively self-enclosed unit. Some view this collection as an independent composition that at one time was perhaps inserted as a whole into the present context. This conclusion derives first from its thematic unity, and then also from the similar basic structure shared by the individual sections. The polar semantic group "pure-impure," "clean-unclean," along with synonyms and derivatives, constitutes the central thematic focus of the section now under discussion. Both prior and subsequent to this section, this vocabulary occurs only in isolated instances and on the periphery. The reference here is to cultic purity, not-and this is a difficult distinction for us-or at least not primarily to moral or hygienic cleanliness. In antiquity, cultic purity meant being in a condition that physically and spiritually made access to the holy possible. The Old Testament provides impressive witnesses to the fact that ethical qualifications were also considered in cases involving visits to sacred sites (cf. Pss. 15; 24; Isa. 33:14-16). These witnesses, however, were not the decisive ones. This is not a matter primarily of keeping codified norms. The question is whether the adherent to Yahweh is physically and thus also spiritually "synchronized" with the holiness of God. Any person seeking to live together and meet with Yahweh must be thoroughly "compatible" with him. This demand is occasionally expressed thus (by a different circle of tradition?): You shall be holy, for I am holy (cf. Lev. 11:44; 19:2). "Holy" and "pure" are synonymous terms. Only a pure person can approach the holy without penalty. Both qualifications include moral "uprightness." The purity prescriptions in the present collection, however, are initially concerned only with that particular externally determinable purity affecting the individual person and that person's surrounding material world. The question is: Which external circumstances disrupt unanimity with God and lead to dangerous confrontations and explosions of the sort presented in the exemplary episode of Nadab and Abihu (cf. Lev. 10: 1f.)? Anthropologists, too, have confirmed that ancient notions of the compatibility or incompatibility of certain substances are playing a role here. 1 It is remarkable that the holy site itself recedes so strongly in Leviticus 11-15, and indeed can hardly be discerned. The priests who do occasionally I. Cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger.

Leviticus 11

129

appear here are diagnostic and therapeutic specialists, and hardly altar servants. Indeed, the temple's altar is directly mentioned only with extraordinary rarity (14:20). When sacrifices are mentioned, they occur "before Yahweh" (cf. 14:24, 31) or "before the entrance to the tent of meeting" (12:6; 14:23). The main action in these purity laws, however, takes place in and on the house of the "patient," and the priest is often on his way to this patient in order to make a diagnosis or to issue instructions. In many instances, this action takes place with no priestly participation at all. Furthermore, the basic tendency of these purity laws seems focused on private life. Nowhere do they betray the intention of making the lay members of the congregation (who constitute the exclusive focus here) fit for a visit to a worship service or to the temple, that is, of purifying them. This purity is conceived rather within the context of daily and domestic life. Hence cultic purity is not only a prerequisite for visiting holy sites; it is also of significance for the discharge of one's life as such. The second element-formal and compositional self-enclosure-comes to expression most vividly in the introductory and concluding formulae. Six thematic sections begin stereotypically with this more or less expanded introduction: Yahweh spoke to Moses ... (Lev. ll:lf.; l2:lf.; 13:1; 14:1; 14:33; l5:lf.; see chap. 2, "Analysis," concerning Lev. l: l-2). The concluding formula is just as consistent: This is the law ... (Lev. 11:46; l2:7b; 13:59; 14:32; l4:57b; l5:32f.; in one instance (14:2) this expression is even used as the introduction. This sort of formulaic conclusion does not otherwise occur with such regularity. The subdivisions among the sacrificial laws lack such a concluding remark, and only at the end of the entire collection do we read: This is the torah of ... (Lev. 7:37f.). Other concluding remarks to individual paragraphs, though formulated quite differently, are found in Lev. 16:34; 26:46; 27:34. Such introductory formulae for thematic sections are distributed over the entire material from the Priestly Source and are quite characteristic for the book of Leviticus as a whole. By contrast, the concluding formulae are peculiar to the purity prescriptions, suggesting possibly that this particular legal collection once existed independently. The language and style of the six subdivisions are not unified. Here we encounter the various forms of legal, cultic-legal, and didactic discourse. However, precisely this admixture of discourse forms is typical of the genre of the Old Testament legal book, as evidenced in the Book of the Covenant in Deuteronomy, and in large parts of the third and fourth books of Moses.

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions (Lev. 11) Translation 11:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them: 2 Say to the Israelites: From among all the land animals, these are the creatures that you may eat. 3 Any animal that has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed and chews the cud-such you may eat. 4 But among those that chew the cud

130

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

or have divided hoofs, you shall not eat the following: the camel, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is impure for you. 5 The rock badger, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is impure for you. 6 The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is impure for you; 7 The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is impure for you. 8 Of the flesh of these animals you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are impure for you. These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the streams-such you may eat. 10 But anything in the seas or the streams that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and among all the other living creatures that are in the waters- they are inedible for you. 11 You shall not touch them, you may not eat of their flesh, and you are to avoid their carcasses. 12 Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is dangerous for you.

9

13 These you are to avoid among the flying creatures. These shall not be eaten, they are dangerous: the eagle, the lammergeier, the bearded vulture, 14 the kite, the falcon in all its varieties; 15 all varieties of raven; 16 the ostrich, the swallow, the gull, the hawk in all its varieties; 17 the sparrow owl, the fish owl, the ibis, 18 the white owl, the pelican, the griffon vulture, 19 the stork and the heron in all its varieties, the hoopoe, the bat. 20 All small flying creatures with four legs are dangerous for you. 21 But among the small four-legged, winged creatures you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to leap on the ground. 22 Of them you may eat all kinds of locusts, bald locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers. 23 Any small flying animals that do not have four legs are dangerous for you. 24 By these animals you make yourself impure; whoever touches their carcass is impure until the evening. 25 Whoever carries away any part of these must wash his clothes; he will remain impure until evening. 26 Every animal that has divided hoofs but is not cleft-footed or does not chew the cud is impure for you. Anyone who touches them becomes impure. 27 All that walk on their paws, among the animals that walk on all fours, are impure for you. Whoever touches a dead animal will remain impure until evening. 28 Whoever carries away their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening. These animals are impure for you.

29 These

are impure for you among the creatures that swarm upon the earth: the mole, the mouse, the thorn-tailed lizard in all its varieties, 30 the "anaka" gecko, the "ko-ach" lizard, the "letaa" gecko, the "hornet" lizard, the chameleon. 31 These are impure for you among all that swarm; whoever

Leviticus 11

131

touches part of them when they are dead shall be impure until evening. 32 Anything upon which one of them falls when it is dead shall be impure, whether an article of wood or cloth or leather or sackcloth, or any article that is used for any purpose; it shall be put into water and shall be impure until evening. Then it shall be pure again. 33 If one of these animals falls into an earthen vessel, then all that is in it shall be impure. You shall break the vessel. 34 Any food intended to be eaten that comes into contact with the water shall become impure [in it]; and any liquid that could be drunk shall be impure if it was in any such vessel. 35 Anything upon which any part of the carcass falls shall be impure, whether an oven and stove, it shall be tom down; they are impure. They are impure for you. 36 By contrast, a spring or a cistern holding water shall be pure. Only the person who touches the carcass shall be impure. 37 If any part of their carcass falls upon any seed grain set aside for sowing, it remains pure. But if water is put on the seed grain, and such a carcass falls upon it, then the seed grain shall be impure for you. If a domestic animal dies that serves you as food, anyone who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening. 40 Those who eat of the dead animal shall wash their clothes and be impure until the evening; and those who carry the carcass forth shall wash their clothes and be impure until the evening. 41 All creatures that swarm upon the earth: They are dangerous, and shall not be eaten. 42 Anything that crawls on its belly, anything that goes on all fours, and anything that has even more feet among the creatures that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat. They are dangerous. 43 You shall not defile yourselves with any creature that swarms; you shall not make yourselves impure or become impure through them. 44 For I, Yahweh, am your God. Sanctify yourselves therefore and keep yourselves holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming creature that moves on the earth. 45 For I, Yahweh, led you out of Egypt, to be your God. Be holy, for I am holy.

39

This is the law pertaining to land animal and flying creature and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms upon the earth, 47 to make a distinction between the impure and the pure, between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.

46

Structure This discussion involves human nourishment deriving from animals: Which living creatures may the Yahweh believer eat? Which are forbidden for cultic reasons? A comparison with a list of edible animals that is quite similar (Deut. 14:4-20) throws the peculiarities of the present text into relief.

132

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

This tradition classifies the animals at issue into three larger groups: land animals (vv. 2b-8: primarily livestock and game); water animals (vv. 9-12); flying animals (vv. 13-23: birds and insects); creeping animals are appended as a fourth group (vv. 41-43). These subdivisions are traditional, and are found in the creation story (Gen. I :20-25, except that here the sequence and individual classifications are different) as well as in Deut. 14:4-20 and Ps. 8:8f. (7f.E). The earth's surface, water, and air are the three great spheres of life, corresponding to the three-tiered structure of the world at that time. Creatures and powers reside "in heaven above, in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4). Accordingly, animals that potentially may serve as food for human beings are also at home in these spheres (cf. Gen. 9:2-3). However, in contrast to the general instructions in Gen. 9:2f., permitted and forbidden types are to be distinguished. The second half of the chapter is less rigidly organized, and the various perspectives overlap. It addresses additional lists of inedible animals, correctives in the presentation of vv. 2-23, but above all the complex questions concerning possible contamination and its elimination (vv. 24-25). Here the text passes increasingly into solemnly admonitory, sermon-like discourse culminating and concluding in vv. 44-45. "You shall sanctify yourselves ... " (v. 44), representing a highly theological summary of the dietary prescriptions, one that can also, however, be used for condensing ethical norms (cf. Lev. 19:2). It seems that generations of postexilic theologians and congregations have also worked on these catalogues of edible animals and their interpretation, so that the second half of Leviticus II can be read largely as a commentary to the first half. However, as a more precise comparison with Deut. 14:4-20 shows, the older list of edible and inedible animals (vv. 2-23) was also reworked within the context of the "priestly" tradition. Here, too, our overall impression is that the cultic-religious tradition we encounter in the book of Leviticus has come about within the living process of the Israelite-early Jewish community of faith, and reflects the changing life situations of the age, that is, of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. The Origin of Dietary Commandments Before we examine the individual regulations and admonitions, a few remarks concerning the origin of these ordinances may be helpful. One might initially suspect that dietary regulations derive from the elementary necessity prompting primitive peoples at least to distinguish between edible and inedible substances, between those that are harmful to the body and those that nourish it. Even in highly developed areas of the world, it is often still of vital importance for children, mushroom hunters, and those who eat wild herbs to

Leviticus 11

133

recognize and avoid poisonous plants and animals. From the perspective of its developmental history, the original and even today occasionally relevant prohibition was probably: "You may not eat the following things." Now it is quite clear that the dietary regulations in Leviticus II do not represent these sorts of health and survival norms. If they were intended as such, they would not fail to address the crucially important realm of plants. There are probably far more poisonous plants than unwholesome animals. And the present text says not a word about any possible health hazards from "impure" or "dangerous" animals. No, the restriction of these dietary commandments to the animal realm clearly shows that the consumption of animals that must be killed (and whose death has something in common with human dying) was problematical in and of itself. In many cultures one senses an uneasiness with the fact that human beings eat the flesh of other living creatures. 2 In the Old Testament, the priestly tradents present the thesis that in the beginning, human beings were inclined to be vegetarians, and only after the great breach in human history, namely, the flood, did they make the transition to meat consumption (cf. Gen. 1:29f.; 9:1-4). To this is added the cultic question: To whom does wild game in the open natural world really belong? May we simply hunt it without further ado? Who is the master or mistress over the flocks that human beings have acquired? If the meat of animals was a delicacy for hunters and livestock holders, then the deities likely also wanted to participate in the enjoyment of a good roast, and had to be commensurately considered in the selection and composition of daily meals. Hence the human being shared the animal with the deity. In antiquity, offerings and the eating of meat were closely connected, and this particular association continues today in tribal cultures. But it comes as no surprise that the question of edible animals acquired such eminently religious significance, since it does after all include the problem of whether a particular food is pleasing to the deity. Both these considerations- fear of harmful foodstuffs and concern for the appropriate and pleasing nourishment of the deity-combined to generate such catalogues of "inedible" animals. However, they are by no means capable of explaining fully the existence of such lists as those in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Other factors must have arisen that prompted the emergence of such enumerations. In the two lists at issue here, everything leads up to the concluding admonition to be a people "holy" to Yahweh (Lev. 11:44f.; Deut. 14:21 ). That is, these dietary commandments are part of those particular norms that constitute the community itself. At the same time, they delimit the 2. Walter Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, has examined the problem in connection with Greek antiquity. The Hindu-Buddhist cultures offer a great deal of illustrative material related to this theme.

134

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

Yahweh confession in relation to other religions. This concern with establishing and securing the community provides the main impetus for putting together these dietary rules. The earlier motives and purposes are sublated here. A second motive for collecting these dietary rules is the stabilization of the inner organization within the early Jewish community, something Mary Douglas has impressively demonstrated in her study Purity and Danger. Every cultural or religious group construes for itself an ordered sphere of life (in morals, customs, values, etc.) from which disruptive elements are excluded. Whatever is cultically "impure" ("unclean, dirty")-this concept is to be understood not physically or ethically, but rather spiritually, that is, as encompassing disruptive cultic elements of every sort- threatens the proven order. Every people proceeds according to this schema of separating out disruptive elements and of securing existing structures. "One doesn't do that!" Wherever the notion of the unspeakable, the impermissible, the despicable appears, there the purity mechanism is at work. Dietary commandments and prohibitions everywhere belong to the preservation of one's own, ordered world. Although Israel and Judaism did strongly emphasize these notions, such rules can be found among all peoples and strata. Horse flesh was forbidden in the Christian tradition (out of aversion to Germanic cults?), 3 and even today there is still a strong disinclination in Germany regarding the consumption of horse meat. And who among us does not shudder at survival experts who eat worms in front of the television camera? That is, the Jewish dietary prescriptions are relatively alien to us because they have been officially discontinued and proscribed ever since the New Testament period (cf. Mark 7: 15-19; Acts 10:9-16). On the whole, however, Christians have simply created their own purity norms, and not infrequently these were exactly those presented in the Old Testament. 4

Edible-Inedible (vv. 2b-23) This section is governed by the overriding perspective of the cultically motivated edibility of animals from the three great spheres of life. The references to the individual animal species are not consistent. Not a single name is mentioned in connection with the water animals (vv. 9-12), while a great many concrete designations are provided for the winged creatures (vv. 13-23). Peculiarly, the land animals, which after all are of great importance, are only sparsely represented (vv. 2b-8). A certain formal uniformity in the enumeration is unmistakable. Each group of animals is introduced with an identifying sentence: "These are ... (the ani3. Johannes Doller, Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des A/ten Testaments in re/igionsgeschichtlicher Be/euchtung, 172. 4. Ibid., passim.

Leviticus 11

135

mals) that you may (not) eat" (variously cast in the singular or plural; cf. vv. 2b, 4a, 9a, 13a, 21 a). Slight variations in this formula suggest the presence of special developments. This applies especially to v. 13a ("you are to avoid ... "). The variously concluding statements confirm the element of impurity or danger and sometimes repeat the prohibition itself (vv. 8, 11 f., 23). On the whole, then, the list has been structured quite carefully. If we take as our point of departure the assumption that the framing elements of these lists accrued from later transmission-and a glance at the extremely compact enumerations in Deut. 14:3-20 confirms this suspicion- then this section involves first of all individual prohibitions. Among the great land animals, only four inedible animals are enumerated: camel, rock badger, hare, and pig (vv. 4-7). This prohibition is substantively the same as the prescriptions in Deut. 14:7f. But why is there no listing of edible animals as in Deut. 14:4f. (ox, sheep, goat, fallow buck, antelope, roebuck, chamois, bison, aurochs, gazelle)? This series was probably so well known everywhere and so unequivocally fixed by the characteristics in v. 3 (split hoofs; cudchewers) that any actual naming was superfluous. In any event, we encounter only the explicit mention of four forbidden animal families, families only partially covered by the anatomical preconditions for their use. All other possible sacrificial animals are already excluded by the restriction to split hoofs and cud chewing (cf. Isa. 66:3, which mentions a dog sacrifice). This list of edible animals is clearly influenced by the kind of livestock farming common during this period. Ox, sheep, and goat are those particular sacrificial animals familiar to human beings and pleasing to God, and they before all others are considered as possible sources of meat. Several species of game related to domestic animals are added. Excluded are camel, rock badger, hare, and pig. But why specifically these, considering that the meat of these animals was, after all, eaten among Israel's neighbors? Like the ox, the camel was also an important domestic animal. A convincing answer to this question cannot be found. The four proscribed species cannot be understood as totem animals; neither are they really proscribed in a general fashion as symbols of pagan idolatry -contra the appearance suggested by Isa. 65:4; 66:17 of a forbidden swine cult. Rather, apparently an extremely ancient tradition in Israel merely became confessionally fixed. These four species were never familiar to the early Israelites, and the camel was domesticated only late, after the sacrificial customs themselves had become refined. At the end of a long cultic development, the stipulation was that the normal sacrificial animals and meat sources were those listed in Deut. 14:4f.; all other large animals were excluded. A delimitation in relation to contiguous cults may have played a role in the case of the pig or wild boar, which was occasionally used as a sacrificial animal among the Babylonians and Syrians, though this consideration was not of

136

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

primary significance when the list was put together. This more likely reveals a bit of scholarly exactitude. If only animals with split hoofs that chew the cud could serve the Israelites as food, what about those species that fulfill only one of these conditions? The four explanatory sentences in vv. 4-7 demonstrate with fine regularity that both features must be present: Only an animal with split hoofs that also chews the cud may be eaten. The offering of the prohibition list thus represents a single commentary on the principle presented in v. 3. A certain element of pride is evident: We have found the formula for distinguishing precisely between admissible and forbidden animals. Apparent exceptions can easily be referred to the main rule itself if one but understands that rule correctly: It must be split-hoofed cudchewers or cud-chewing split-hoofs. An intensive examination of the anatomy of animal feet and of the digestive process provides the background to this general formula. The errors that crept in-rock badgers and hares, for example, do not chew the cud-are attributable to a false interpretation of animal behavior and in no way diminish our admiration. The early Jewish tradents of this text accomplished an astonishing piece of work before arriving at the formula fixed in this verbal monstrosity that is almost identical in the two texts of Lev. II :3 and Deut. 14:6: "You may eat any completely split-hoofed, cud-chewing animal." The section comprising vv. 2b-8 is not trying to say more than this, and merely elegantly adds a prohibition list-one deriving possibly from ancient tradition-demonstrating the precision of the definition. Each individual prohibited species is once more declared "impure," and the summary concluding sentence in v. 8 is a piece of solemn theological rhetoric: It repeats the eating prohibition, adds a prohibition against touching (one actually not discussed until the second part of the chapter), and declares once more for good measure all four species as "impure." The following section (vv. 9-12) presents with pronounced prolixity and universality a similarly normative basic rule applicable to water animals. Here the tradents probably had it quite easy, since the ancient Israelites were livestock herders and farmers, and never lived in any particularly close relationship with the sea or with other bodies of water plentiful with fish. (Perhaps the Sea of Galilee is not being considered in this text.) This restriction to the occasional consumption of creatures with fins and scales may thus reflect quite naturally given conditions. Probably not even the authors of this text knew about the wealth of the "fruits of the sea" they were missing, as little as did inland Europeans before the invention of refrigeration systems. These admissible and inadmissible fish are not given names, and not even the generic designation "fish" is mentioned, since the formula they found concerning "fins and scales" was much more scientific and made a more precise identification possible. In the immediately following prohibition, neither is even a single one of the inedible living creatures mentioned by name. The tradents prefer the blan-

Leviticus 11

137

ket designation seqe~. a dominant term in the present context that continues into the following paragraphs (cf. vv. 13, 20, 23; then again in vv. 41f.). This expression is usually translated by "abhorrence," or "abomination," and doubtless does approximate this meaning. I have avoided this particular translation because our own feelings of disgust toward unusual animals actually constitute only an individual, odd mood, and consciously no longer have anything to do with mortal danger. 5 The Hebrew terms that go beyond a mere designation of the "impure" focus on the element of dread or threat. Human beings must avoid things offensive to Yahweh; association with such things disrupts therelationship with God. Hence seqe~ (apart from Lev. 11 this occurs only in Lev. 7:21; Ezek. 8:10; Isa. 66:17), siqqu~ (e.g., Jer. 4:1; 7:30; 13:27; 16:18; Ezek. 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7f., 30; 37:23), and t6'eb0. (Deut. 14:3; frequently in Deuteronomy, though also in Lev. 18:22ff. and in Ezek. 5:9, 11; 7:20, et passim) all represent deadly objects or acts that arouse dread, objects before which a person turns away in horror. Accordingly, we do run the risk of misunderstanding the overwhelmingly religious motivation of these witnesses and of drawing them purely into the emotional sphere. Anything that is impure (so in vv. 2lr--8) evokes aversion and disgust (so in vv. 9-23), since it makes a person unfit for both cult and society. This aversion is a defensive reaction against an objective, harmful power. Contact with and the consumption of certain inadmissible animals are harmful. Any admixture of entities and any illicit transfer of powers results in this kind of exclusion. Similarly, the defensive and possibly also denigrating expressions refer only to the undesirable results of such contact, and not to the essence of what are sometimes highly regarded animals. The extremely general prescription concerning water animals is preserved in Deut. 14:9f., except in a shorter, but not more detailed, form. Presumably the tradents did not have access to any older, more specific instructions in this regard. These tradents expend the greatest effort in connection with the various flying creatures. Deut. 14:11-20 and then even more so Lev. 11: 13-23 enumerate an unusually large number of species. Eight of the twenty-four animal names mentioned in Leviticus 11 occur within the Old Testament only here and in Deuteronomy 14; two occur only in Leviticus 11, and five additional names are attested only three times in the entire Old Testament. These statistics also immediately show just how hard it is in each individual case to determine the zoologically correct identity of these animals. Dictionaries and commentaries often do not get beyond approximate conjectures. This entire section seems based on a dual division: After the peculiar introduction in v. 13a and the concluding declaration seqe~ hU; "this is (cultically) dangerous," in v. 20b, v. 21 begins anew with the exceptional allowance "only 5. Such a connection is present at most only subconsciously; cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger.

138

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

this may you eat," words corresponding in the fashion of a mirror-image to the exceptional prohibition in v. 4a. Although those transmitting the Hebrew text also create a caesura between v. 20 and v. 21, the evidence in Deut. 14:11-20 suggests that the regulations concerning birds and winged insects do constitute a unit. That is, a fixed framework obtains here: "You may eat all pure birds" (Deut. 14: 11 ). "All pure winged creatures you may eat" (Deut. 14:20). Between these two representative sentences we find first-and largely identical with the presentation in Leviticus- the list of forbidden birds, and second, the general, extremely concise prohibition regarding insects: "Anything that has wings and crawls shall be impure for you, and you shall not eat it" (Deut. 14: 19). Certainly, an analysis of this text reveals that two traditions have merged here; yet the combined bird-insect text indicates that even before the transmission of Leviticus there existed a prescription catalogue regarding flying creatures, that is, regarding the inhabitants of the air. The tradents of Lev. 11:13-23 worked further on this list, and spoke quite consciously in their introduction (v. 13a) and similarly in v. 21a (the expression here is: swarm of flying creatures) about "flying creatures," and not about "birds," expanding and correcting the regulations regarding the winged insects. Although subsequent scribes tried to separate the two animal groups once again more decisively, the present text nonetheless still clearly betrays the unified basis of the prescriptions regarding flying creatures. 6 Peculiarly, Leviticus 11 does not speak at all about edible birds. There were, for example, doubtless pigeon sacrifices (cf. Lev. 1: 14-17) that in some cases certainly were consumed (cf. Lev. 5:7-13). We saw that Deut. 14:11-20 expressly takes as its point of departure the admission of "pure" birds. Lev. 11: 13ff. will do the same thing, though without stating it as such; for the introduction speaks specifically only of flying creatures "that shall not be eaten, they are (cultically) dangerous" (v. 13a). And then there immediately follows the list of names of twenty species of birds excluded from consumption. These include such extraordinarily respectable animals as the raven (v. 15), which elsewhere appears as a messenger of God (cf. Gen. 8:7; 1 Kings 17:6), or the stork (v. 19), which, though not a bearer of children in the Old Testament, is nonetheless respected because of its wisdom and loyalty (cf. Jer. 8:7). Neither should we forget the respect accorded the mighty eagle (cf. Job 39:27-30; Isa. 40:31). Hence a translation of v. 13a with "these you shall loathe among the winged creatures ... "would be insupportable. A short aside is appropriate here. The society itself in which a child lives inculcates that child with this sort of "disgust" or "loathing." Before a person can even speak, par6. Admittedly, the final dot on the final i for this view of things is not provided, namely, the addition [flying creatures] "of heaven" in v. 13, after the fine systematic beginning made in v. 2b and 9a with "earth" and "water."

Leviticus II

139

ents (of the old school?) make it clear to the little one just what is "pooh-pooh" and should by no means be uttered. Cultic rules within the holy scriptures that confer the epithet "abominable" on certain animals were internalized into the individual, emotional, and secular sphere, and persist even today. The result is that (Christian) west Europeans were able to declare some animals to be mis-creatures. Even the mere sight of small rodents, spiders, and the harmless cockroach cause some people to become hysterical. The willingness to exterminate the "disgusting mis-creatures" lock, stock, and barrel, including through chemical means, can only be explained by this millennia-long acclimation to an exclusion of anything "disgusting." This radical distinction between "pure" and "impure" animals ultimately renders impossible any thoroughgoing reverence for all living creatures and for all of creation (cf. Gen. 1; Ps. 104). 7

The list of inedible birds-to which at the end also the bat is assigned (v. 19b) -stands utterly without commentary except for the introductory sentence in v. 13, with its brief assertion seqe~ hem, "they are (cultically) dangerous." Who was able or obliged to make anything out of a list this extensive? Were hunters supposed to know which species of birds were to be avoided? Deut. 22:6f. shows that the unexpected meal of a bird was, as a matter of fact, highly valued. Here no distinction is made between pure and impure birds. Is this the sober reality of daily life, and does Lev. 11: 13ff. represent merely clever theological musings of scriptural scholars or priests? However we evaluate the text, it does evince the efforts at eliminating access for a hungry or covetous person to a large group of birds. But why? Were all these animals known to be flesh and carrion eaters, so that an Israelite conscious of purity concerns might have become infected indirectly through them with the corpse odor of impure animals? Although this thesis does exhibit a certain degree of plausibility (especially considering the much later discussions of purity in the Mishnah), it would de facto also require a prohibition against eating many other species of birds as well. This list of forbidden birds breaks off abruptly after v. 19. What follows is the sentence that in Deut. 14:19, too, focuses on winged insects. In Lev. 11:20 it is merely subjected to typical linguistic and substantive alterations: "The many winged creatures (literally: the swarm of winged creatures) that go on all fours are (cultically) dangerous." The prohibition of Deut. 14:29, "they shall not be eaten," is omitted, and is replaced by the previously mentioned new beginning with the permitted exceptions. True to their manner of thinking and writing, the tradents first provide a definition of those exceptional insects that are declared edible. These include all those four-legged insects that not only fly, but also are able to move forward by hopping, or by virtue of their leaping legs, that is, probably grasshoppers and crickets (v. 21). Four species are then 7. The relationship to the animal kingdom within the Old Testament is the subject of Bernd Janowski, Ute Neumann-Gorsolke, and Uwe Glessner, eds., Geftihrten und Feinde des Menschen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1992).

140

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

mentioned by name (v. 22). Do these, too, somehow reflect in the fashion of a mirror image the four forbidden greater animals in vv. 4-7? What prompted the change in comparison with Deut. 14: 19? Adaptation to some prevalent eating custom in Israel's proximity? Experience of the distresses of famine forcing them no longer to disdain "even" grasshoppers? During the New Testament period, hermits such as John the Baptist (along the lines of the consecrated Nazirites, who were subject to severe restrictions: Num. 6:2-12) lived in part or largely from "locusts and wild honey" (Matt. 3:4). The ascetic lives from that which the others denigrate! The concluding sentence emphasizes once more that the admissible insects constitute an exception (v. 23). Other four-legged insects (the majority of insects have six or eight legs) are inedible. The recurring expression, "swarm of winged creatures," evokes for us an image approximating that of "vermin." This connotation is possible, but not demonstrable.

Defilement (vv. 24-47) The second half of the chapter-one most commentaries consider appended-differs from the preceding dietary commandments regarding both form and content. With the exception of a small section we will soon discuss (vv. 41-43), it speaks almost exclusively about contamination caused by contact with impure animals or objects, and frequently provides prescriptions for cleansing. The introductions to the various subdivisions are typical: "by the following you shall make yourselves impure" (v. 24a); "these shall be impure for you" (v. 29a). There is no mention of eating; all attention is focused on the condition of impurity, a condition repeatedly evoked in the sections involved. Instructions for its elimination are provided. Even the section comprising vv. 39-40, which does not begin with a warning against impurity, otherwise exhibits this pattern. Only the structure of the subsequent subdivisions (vv. 41-43; vv. 44-45; vv. 46-47) deviate in this regard. First we encounter the passage regarding that "which swarms upon the earth" (v. 41), that is, those small creatures that, in contradistinction to the insects mentioned in v. 20, cannot fly, but rather crawl. These are declared in a blanket fashion to be "dangerous" or possibly "loathsome," and "shall not be eaten." This formulation parallels that in vv. 13 and 20; the introductory sentence is a genuine dietary prohibition, and not a warning against impurity. Verse 42 then repeats the eating prohibition with somewhat different wording, and merely a bit more precisely (those that crawl on their stomachs; those with four and more feet). Furthermore, in both verses the word seqe~ already familiar from vv. 10-23, plays a role in classifying what is forbidden. Only v. 43 moves into the style and conceptional world of warnings against impurity. The two remaining sections (vv. 44f.; 46f.) are summary statements to the

Leviticus II

I4I

entire chapter, bearing the weight of solemn concluding declarations and betraying the basic theological line. First there are two long sentences of justification, both of which are introduced with Yahweh's formula of selfintroduction (vv. 44f.). Then as a direct address to the listeners there follows a positively and negatively formulated exhortation to be holy (v. 44 ), a reference to having been led out of Egypt (a rarity in the book of Leviticus, at least in its prescriptive sections chaps. 1-5), and a renewed exhortation to holiness (v. 45). This particular summons to holiness is the result of a long intellectual and spiritual development, and is an extraordinarily pivotal demand whose influence continues even today in some communities and churches. We will discuss it later in more detail in connection with Lev. 19:2. The conclusion is provided by the previously mentioned formula surveying the entire text: "This is the law ... " (v. 46). This formula is neutral insofar as it as yet says nothing about eating prohibitions or warnings against impurity. Its four animal categories-"large animals," "birds," "water creatures," and "land creatures" -cannot be reconciled with the present text of vv. 2b--43 as regards sequence and delimitations. The section on small winged animals (vv. 21-23) is not mentioned in the subscript, and the remaining text would then have to be ordered according to this subscript as follows: vv. 2b-8 (large animals); vv. 13-20 (birds); vv. 9-12 (water animals); vv. 41--43 (small land creatures). Nevertheless, the chapter should not be reduced to these sections based on the four-part subscript, since in the first place the tradent who added the concluding remark did not simply want to repeat the order of passages with slavish precision. He apparently had in mind a common schema of animal species that as a matter of fact can, after all, be used as a rough characterization of Leviticus 11. Second, he unexpectedly adds a statement of purpose unique in its precision and thoroughness (v. 47), one containing just this double aspect we have already noticed. This law (and here one should note what is actually a reversed order from that of the text itself) is to serve for distinguishing first between impure and pure things and conditions, and second between edible and inedible animals. And this does indeed address the two main concerns occupying the final tradents, concerns actually coinciding as far as they were concerned: Yahweh's holy people must keep itself as pure in every respect as God requires, both in its dietary habits as well as in its normal dealings with animals and with animal carcasses. Thus the central focus of the second half of the chapter is defilement and its elimination (vv. 24--40). Here the guiding perspectives are completely interwoven, an indication of the gradual growth of the text and of the mixed nature of the various interests. The theme of "impurity" was already touched on in the dietary commandments in vv. 2b-23 (cf. the characterization "impure" in vv. 4-8), though there the foreground was occupied by the eating prohibition with its declaration of "loathing." Now the label "impure" dominates the field, and

142

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

the transfer of impurity occurs through external contact. The section comprising vv. 24-28 seems again to focus on the larger animals, although the introduction "with the following you make yourself impure" (v. 24a) remains peculiarly in abeyance. There is unequivocal reference, however, to carcasses that should not be touched. Anything dead has a defiling effect, since it bears the power of death and is lethal to the living. Cursory contact with a carcass leaves behind a slight contaminating effect that then vanishes when evening comes (v. 24 ). But if a person picks up parts of a dead animal-such might, after all, provide welcome supplemental food-and perhaps wraps it in his clothing, then the contact is considered more intensive and requires thorough cleansing (v. 25). Larger animals not subsumed under the dietary rule of v. 3 do not first become "impure" only as carcasses (v. 26). By inference one might surmise that vv. 24f. are referring only to the impurity caused by dead but edible split-hoofed cud-chewers; this suspicion seems corroborated by vv. 27f. Quite according to the schema of vv. 24f., now a new, previously unmentioned species of larger animal is mentioned: quadrupeds "that go on the soles of their feet," that is, that have no whole or cloven hoofs. Obviously this description fits dogs as well as lions and bears. And again, only dead specimens are at issue, where one would, however, expect general impurity after the example of v. 27. Furthermore, it is at least noteworthy that both cursory and more intensive contact results in an impurity lasting only "until evening," and thus no cleansing is prescribed. It is difficult to discern the reasoning behind the different treatment of these three groups, and we must thus also reckon with the possibility that these prescriptions were, purely by chance, not reconciled completely, and that this occurred because the process of transmission itself was not completely consistent or linear. In that case, it would be wholly inappropriate to read into every tiny inconsistency evidence of conscious semantic differences. Even larger animals that include specimens appropriate for sacrifice and food can transfer impurity, and this is especially the case when they are found dead. Verses 39f. contain an addendum directly connected with this theme. This time the explicit issue involves edible animals that have died (but not through kosher butchering). Simple contact defiles until evening (v. 39). What is new here is that the person who consumes the flesh of such "fallen" or "deceased" animals-it is not just lions who according to Brehm, Grzimek, and Sielmann [authors of well-known animal encyclopedias in Germany- Trans.] delight in the unexpected find of a fresh carcass!- also remains impure for only a single day and must undergo the same cleansing rites as the person who has had more intensive contact with the carrion (v. 40). The dietary commandments in vv. 2b-23 avoided any instruction for cleansing after forbidden consumption of meat, and almost give the impression that such violations are irremediable. In v. 40, one particular line of tradition teaches us that an extra-

Leviticus 11

143

ordinarily light penitence was imposed on the consumption of deceased, edible animals. The reality of day-to-day life is stronger than priestly fancies regarding purity. Who, in a steppe region quite definitely lacking a superabundance of foodstuffs, would reject the gift of a deceased or slain animal? It must be used, and a sumptuous banquet no doubt makes the subsequent cleansing less onerous (cf. Lev. 17:15). The greatest danger of cultic defilement, however, does not attach to the larger animals- not to speak of birds and water animals, which in this enumeration are not even mentioned- but rather from the smaller creatures that often prompt mixed feelings even in contemporary human beings. The list of eight kinds of mice and lizards (vv. 29f.) may be merely representative. That is, we notice that the majority of insects (i.e., those that are impure) excluded by vv. 21-23 are not mentioned anywhere. Whoever knowingly and willfully touches these small creatures remains impure until evening (v. 31). This regulation follows the familiar pattern. A much more important question, however, is bothering the tradents, namely, what happens if contact with such an animal takes place involuntarily? As a kind of model case (others are conceivable) the following is chosen and developed along several lines: A small dead animal falls onto a utensil. Does the utensil now become useless to the human being, or even contagious (vv. 32-40)? The ardor with which such cases are thought through and regulated suggests the presences of learned tradents. The Mishnah tractate Toharot treats of these possibilities to an infinitely greater extent. The entire tradition of this difficult material does not attest a particularly acute sense of reality. How often did it likely happen that dead mice and lizards fell onto human utensils? And why is not a word said about contact with such small creatures that are yet alive? The first rule is fairly comprehensive and unspecific: A dead animal defiles though contact any utensil made of wood, textile, leather, or sackcloth. Contaminated objects are to be put completely into water and then at evening can be used again (v. 32). By contrast, earthenware vessels are shattered after such contamination (v. 33). Presumably even today some people will separate out a cooking pot in which a mouse has drowned and use it only as a garden vessel. Even the Israelite women already considered the food contents of such a pot lost (v. 33b). According to a different, more thrifty tradition, one deriving perhaps from times of distress, only a pot's contents in water are contaminated by a small dead animal (v. 34). Water exhibits a certain conductivity for impurity. Dry foodstuffs, say, wheat or lentils, accordingly remain completely unaffected. One simply removed the dead animal, and nothing had happened. So neither was the pot itself affected, and did not need to be shattered. The regulation regarding ovens and stoves seems to contradict this: They must be put out of use and tom down if even a small bit of carrion comes into contact with them (v. 35). Springs and cisterns, on the other hand, remain completely unaffected by the impurity (v. 36). Suddenly, water no longer possesses that power

144

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

of transferal it still had in connection with the cooking pot. As regards grain stores (also commonly stored in large jars), now the regulations for dry entities are again in effect: Only moist seed grain becomes contaminated (vv. 37f.). Because no explanations and grounds for the estimation of impurity and for the conductivity of certain substances are provided, this system is extremely difficult to evaluate. To us it seems arbitrary, and we suspect that a scholarly male imagination, one a bit alienated from reality, is at work here. These men hardly allowed themselves to be restricted in their dogmatic purity concerns by the circumstances and requirements of daily life. But even they realized this much: The water supply was not permitted to be declared impure. They, too, needed this water, so necessary for life. On the other hand, it meant little to them to order the dismantling of cooking areas, since after all, the women would see to it that these were rebuilt. This intellectual work of defining impurity through contact and, when possible, of thwarting it, continued for centuries, ultimately producing some most peculiar results. The rabbinic scholars spend a considerable portion of their energy and time with purity questions. Both the Mishnah and the Talmud contain extensive collections of the germane discussions of guilt whose finer points and motivating factors often escape us. Main points of interest include questions concerning the receptivity of various objects and persons for impurity, the various degrees of contamination, and the role of consciousness and of the will in a person's contact with the impure. This generated discussions of extraordinarily subtle problems: whether the shadow of an impure object contaminates other things; the extent to which food in the mouth of a person who has become contaminated in its own tum can infect an oven; the extent to which a vessel must be shattered so that it no longer qualifies as a vessel, and so on. The number and exactitude of such case studies arouses both admiration and discomfiture. 8 The rabbinic manner of analyzing "impurity" and of arguing about it is already prefigured in Lev. 11:29-38. Ironically-and let this be emphasized one more time to counter any arrogant Christian attitudes- Christians retained their fear of these notions of contamination all the way into the late Middle Ages. "People were also apprehensive about consuming food or about eating or drinking from a vessel that had come into contact with disgusting animals or objects." Thomas Aquinas was the first to put an end to official ecclesiastical warnings against such contamination. 9

Social Background Food and dietary regulations are found among all peoples. Nowhere do people simply eat indiscriminately everything they find. The most simple experience teaches us that anyone who is literally and indiscriminately an "om8. Cf. in the Mishnah section '[oharoth, "Purities," e.g., the tractate Kelim, "Vessels." 9. Johannes Diiller, Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des A/ten Testaments in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, 172.

Leviticus 11

145

nivore" has little chance of survival. The experience of many generations becomes concentrated into unwritten rules: One doesn't eat this or that. One doesn't touch this or that. Externally, these basic norms do not play all that great a role in the Old Testament. The older legends and narrative works do not take eating prohibitions and purity regulations as their theme. Those passages in which the story of the Flood speaks of pure and impure animals (Gen. 7:2, 8; 8:20) probably represent fairly late, exilic insertions. David eats the holy bread at the temple at Nob and remains unchastised because he is sexually pure ( 1 Sam. 21 :5-7 [4-6E]). In one legend of Elisha, a poisonous plant brings "death into the pot," but not an impure animal (2 Kings 4:38-41). During a siege of Samaria "an ass's head" is said to have cost eighty silver pieces, and the starving people allegedly reverted to cannibalism (2 Kings 6:24-31 ). The ass's head is obviously being mentioned as an inferior source of food, yet according to the definition of Lev. 11:3 asses definitely do not belong to the edible animals. In short, not until the late book of Daniel are purity and dietary commandments taken as a narrative theme. The four young Judeans who are to be trained as court servants refuse to accept Babylonian food out of fear of becoming impure (Dan. 1:8-16). Unfortunately, the particular kinds of meat they are expected to eat are not directly identified; only wine appears as a drink to be avoided (cf. Num. 6:3f.). The fact that the four then eat purely vegetarian meals suggests that they rejected all Babylonian meat products. Hence it is possibly the foreign methods of sacrifice and slaughter that are actually rejected (cf. the Israelite regulations in Lev. 17:10-16). Similarly, the brief allusions to a foreign cult at which swine's flesh is eaten also date from a late period (lsa. 65:3f.; 66:3, 17). Hence we must reckon with the possibility that only over the course of time, above all after the collapse of 587 B.C.E., did the dietary commandments and purity rules acquire the status in Israel that they now have in the book of Leviticus. Deuteronomy 14 represents an earlier stage than Leviticus 11, though the exceptional significance attaching to the dietary rules is evident in both texts: They serve to identify one's own group (confession) and to provide a delimitation in relation to the outside. This finds unequivocal expression in the two concluding explanations in Lev. 11:44-47. What kind of religious community recognizes ritual practices as its primary distinguishing feature? We are accustomed to viewing confessions of faith as the foundation of our own ecclesiastical existence. The confessional struggles of the Reformation period were ignited by the formulation of specific truths of faith. Now, although Israel, too, had its own confession of faith (cf. Deut. 6:4), this confession to the one God Yahweh immediately issues in the demand to keep his ordinances (Deut. 6:5-9); and Yahweh's commandments in the completed Pentateuch include, in addition to the highly

146

4.2 Dietary Prescriptions

concentrated Decalogue, also the sacrificial and purity prescriptions of the book of Leviticus, which played no small role in the history of Judaism after the exile. A community that understands itself in this way as a holy people belonging to Yahweh, and that in its daily life-eating and drinking, working and celebrating, loving and hating, praying and singing- tries to actualize religious standards, does indeed need a great many "theologians." A specialized group of leaders must assume the work of reflection and orientation required for areligious permeation of life. Laypersons who must concern themselves with the elementary concerns of earning a livelihood are hardly in a position to do this. Any dealing with traditions and scriptures, the codification of valid norms, and the coordination of the various congregations and population segments presumably was assigned to the main officials. We will find occasion to reflect further on this spiritual professionalization, which was continued in the Christian churches. Despite all this "clericalization" within early Judaism, we should remember that the theocratic model affecting even dietary considerations was initially only a theological theory. Here and there we have possibly seen traces of that other reality, the one attaching to daily life. The real extent to which these ideal dietary and purity rules, rules conceived by a few specialists, were actually kept in the early Jewish communities is something we unfortunately cannot determine. In present-day reformed Judaism and in the Christian traditions since the end of the Middle Ages these Old Testament dietary commandments have been relativized as rules bound to a specific age, and have largely been discontinued.10 Why are the dietary commandments even still in the Bible? Could we use Leviticus as a sermon text? The attempts of Christian interpreters to lend relevancy to these dietary prescriptions 11 are futile. Neither is there anything persuasive in the assertion that the "moral element" in the Mosaic ritual laws elevates them above the ordinances of other religions. 12 We can but draw attention to the function such dietary laws had in antiquity in solidifying a community, and try to find and discuss analogies in our own time. And we must warn against the disastrous consequences of distinguishing between "useable" and "abominable" living creatures. This does, to be sure, evoke two important concerns in the proclamation of the gospel in our own time, and these should be preached also in dialogue both with and against Leviticus 11.

10. Cf. the "modem presentation of the laws and customs for the general public and for use in school" by Rabbi Jacob Berman, Popular Halacha: A Guide to Jewish Living, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Ahva Press, 1982-87). II. Cf. Johannes Doller, Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des A/ten Testaments in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, 231-59. I 2. Ibid., 280.

· Leviticus 12

147

4.3 The Parturient (Lev. 12) Translation 12:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2 Say to the Israelites: If a woman carries a child full term and bears a male, then she shall be impure for seven days. She is impure as when she has her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy shall be circumcised. 4 She will remain yet thirty-three days "in the blood of purification," (i.e.) she may not touch any sacred thing, nor enter the sanctuary, until the days of her purification have passed. s If she bears a girl, then she will be impure for twice seven days as during her menstruation, and she will remain sixty-six days "in the blood of purification." 6 When her time of purification has passed, she shall bring for a son or a daughter a yearling ram as a burnt offering and a pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 He shall offer these before Yahweh and effect atonement for her. Then she will be pure from her flow of blood. This is the law for women who bear a boy or a girl. s If she cannot afford a sheep, then she shall take two turtledoves or simple pigeons, one as a burnt offering, the other as a sin offering. The priest shall effect atonement for her, and she will be pure.

Parturition In comparison with the extensive regulations concerning "leprosy" in Leviticus 13f., childbirth is given an extraordinarily brief treatment. The primary reason is probably that men had nothing to do with parturition itself, and indeed were probably not even allowed to be present under any circumstances. Many tribal cultures practice at just this juncture an absolute separation of the male and female spheres. In almost all Indian cultures of North and South America, for example, hunting is the sphere of responsibility of the man. 13 The presence of a woman, her contact with the hunting weapons, would irreparably disturb the powers of the hunt. Birth is exclusively a female concern. The presence of a man can only cause problems. (Even today, some gynecologists assert the same thing, though in this case based on their experiences with husbands present in the delivery room.) This attitude toward parturition shows once again how the world of antiquity was divided into sexually polar spheres ofpower. 14 As far as we can tell, this also applies to ancient Israel. Women in childbirth 13. Cf. Ruth Underhill, Red Man's Religion: Beliefs and Practices of the Indians North of Mexico (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965). 14. The homogenizing of sexual spheres necessary today does generate serious problems; cf. Elisabeth Badinter, Man/Woman: The One Is the Other (London: Collins Harvill, 1989).

148

4.3 The Parturient

were assisted only by midwives (cf. Ex. 1:13-21). Men were presumably not permitted to practice any medicine for women, a taboo that was first overcome only in modern gynecology. 15 Accordingly, the Israelite husband also had to wait outside the birthing room or at a distance from the place of parturition until the birth of the child was reported to him (cf. Jer. 20: 15). Any assistance to the expectant mother, any care of the newborn child (cf. Ezek. 16:4: severing the umbilical cord, cleansing, rubbing with salt, swathing), possible medicinal and certainly also religious measures-all these activities were theresponsibility of the trained midwives. No wonder, then, that men had no real connection with the process of birth. They were excluded. Childbirth was not part of their experience or conceptual world, and despite a certain relaxation of the element of taboo, this situation remains largely unaltered even today. A glance at theological treatises on the topic of "birth" written by men provides persuasive evidence of the enormous distance between "man" and "parturition."16 Purification Given this male distance, it is understandable that the "defilement" through birth appears as a ritual problem and is presented in this kind of abbreviated form-eleven printed Hebrew lines compared with eighty-four for the treatment of "leprosy." The tradents are interested only in standard cases of a normally proceeding birth of a boy or girl. Complications are not considered, nor is anything said about the midwives and their "defilement." Possible cautionary cultic measures during pregnancy are not mentioned (cf. Judg. 13:4). The primary focus of this text is the circumcision ofthe eight-day-old boy-a topic utterly out of place in this passage (v. 3)-and the woman's requisite purificatory offerings (vv. 6-8). Of course, the duration of the impurity is also of significance (vv. 2, 4f.). All this betrays the male-priestly or male-congregational perspective. The specifics of these regulations concerning the parturient get right to the point. The woman's pregnancy, despite its doubtlessly ritual significance, warrants only one word: "carry full term," "bear fruit" (v. 2a). Then we get to the important issue: "She bears a son"- the dream of every ancient and not so ancient family right up into the industrial age. The birth of the heir (also as applicable to the people Israel) is the topic of many of the patriarchal stories in Genesis; nor can we expect anything different in a patrilineal social structure. 15. Adjuration formulae addressing the case of difficult births and possibly used by midwives are attested from Mesopotamia; cf. Rainer Albertz, Personliche Frommigkeit und offizielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978), 51-55. 16. Cf. the bibliography in Josef Schreiner, "yalad," Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 76.

Leviticus 12

149

The family is continued only in the male line (cf. the book of Ruth), and for that reason, male descendants are important for survival. What ritual consequences does birth have for the mother of the child? She becomes "impure," as if she were having her normal monthly period (cf. Lev. 15:19-24). The birth process with its attendant breaking of water, labor, expulsion of the fetus, bleeding, and afterbirth thus counts ritually the same as monthly bleeding (v. 2b). Men who make distinctions this indeterminate were doubtless not eyewitnesses, and are managing their cultic rites from a maleoriented perspective. Only on the second pass is the uniqueness of birth taken into consideration: The waiting period between the end of "defilement," that is, bleeding, and complete reestablishment of "purity" is longer than after irregular monthly bleeding (v. 4; cf. Lev. 15:28). This period of reprieve for the parturient derives on the one hand from the male fear of "infecting" himself through sexual intercourse with an "impure" woman. The blood discharges of women have always been unnerving and threatening to men, and these priestly tradents have merely systematized and canonized this particular primal fear. On the other hand, this postpartum reprieve also represents protection for the woman. Her organism can recuperate and focus on the infant; she can also concentrate psychologically on her new role as a mother, and she remains out of reach of male sexual desire and the accompanying dangers of infection. When we view the issue in this way, two questions do remain: Why is this reprieve period described with the peculiar expression "remain in the blood of purification" (vv. 4, 5)? Presumably this "purificatory process" is understood as a gradual elimination of even the last remnants of the blood; after an irregular monthly period this lasts seven days (Lev. 15:28), and commensurately longer after a birth. Why is sexual intercourse, which transfers impurity to the man (cf. Lev. 15:24), not mentioned as a ground for this reprieve? Why is there no reference at all to the woman's recuperative needs, which to us today seem to be the only sensible grounds? Indeed, v. 4 considers only two objective motives: During the "period of purification" the woman may touch nothing sacred and may not enter the sanctuary (i.e., the outer temple court accessible to women; cf. the zones of holiness in Ezek. 40f.). This, however, alludes to a certain participation of women in the postexilic cult, though such participation is very difficult to describe concretely. Perhaps the story of Hannah (1 Sam. 1f.) represents a fragmentary example of some later, direct participation of women in the prayer cult. The reference to contact with sacred objects (Lev. 12:4) must be referring to procedures outside the temple itself. In a normal Israelite household of that period, such sacred objects could probably only include those portions of sacrificial offerings taken home for consumption. Or were parts of the Torah as prescribed in Deut. 6:9 and 11:20 already to be found in every dwelling? Be that as it may, the one or at least primary consideration in declaring parturients impure, namely, male "fear of infection," remains

150

4.3 The Parturient

unspoken here. The tradents are so fixated on their own "objective" security system for the divine holiness that they mechanically mention only those two cases of defilement that are of significance to them. Great significance is then ascribed to the purificatory regulations (vv. 6-8), with the "rule for the poor" (v. 8; cf. Lev. 5:7,11; 14:2lf.) clearly appended, since it actually follows the concluding formula in v. 7b. According to the organization of this community, a purificatory offering is due. In thematically comparable narratives we hear nothing of such offerings at the end of a purification period. Hannah presents a thanksgiving offering after the child is weaned, that is, three years later (I Sam. I :21-24 ). Manoah and his wife present a sacrifice after the proclamation of the birth of Samson (Judg. 13: 15-24). In some birth stories, only the bestowing of the child's name is considered worthy of mention (cf. Gen. 21: 1-7; 25:21-26; 30:22f.; 35: 16-18; Ruth 4: 13-17). Based on this evidence, the parturient's purificatory offering may possibly be an invention of the early Jewish period. At most there was a thanksgiving celebration after the birth of a (male) child in the earlier period, as Gen. 21:8 mentions in connection with the time of weaning. The interest in atonement that increased during the sixth and fifth centuries drew the parturient as well into the ritual system. This seems quite logical considering that any irregular monthly bleeding had to be concluded with a dove sacrifice (Lev. 15:29f.). After the birth, the atonement offering was to be primarily a yearling ram; the dove is added, so that the now common combination of burnt and sin offering- both conceived as means of atonement (cf. Lev. 1; 5: 1-13; 9:8-11)-emerges. The sacrificial procedure itself, performed at the appropriate place and by the priests, is not described in detail (vv. 6f.), and was doubtless to be carried out according to the norms laid down in the sacrificial laws. It is interesting that even in texts as late as Leviticus 12, the woman functions as the directing sacrificial participant. It is she herself who presents the animals (vv. 6, 8), and the priest then completes the sacrificial rites. No express mention is made of slaughtering the animal, and it thus remains unclear just who carries out this rite. But even then, it must be unheard of according to practices at that time that women penetrate all the way to the "entrance of the tent of meeting" (v. 6). Miriam, too, is free to come all the way to this point (Num. 12:4f.), a point which, after all, is identical with the site of the altar of burnt offering. Later discrimination forced women out of this zone of holiness.

Feminist Considerations Leviticus 12 and 15:19-30 take the cultic capacity of women as a theme in a way rarely encountered. At issue are laws specifically formulated for parturients (Lev. 12:7b) and menstruants (Lev. 15:32f.; cf. also the "jealousy law" in Num. 5:29). As with all other relevant Old Testament texts and conceptions

Leviticus 12

151

concerning the role of women, here, too, we must carefully evaluate these laws anew, laws passed by men in a patriarchal society . 17 And Old Testament concepts have fixed the position of women in society and the church even up to the present. Altered life circumstances, however, require a profound reevaluation of the relationship between the genders and of external responsibilities. Feminists often -and quite justifiably -perceive these "purity laws" coined specifically for women (see also Lev. 15: 19-30) as potentially discriminatory. Hence Monika Fander, after referring to the sacred power manifesting itself in fertility and death and in all religions also experienced in the element of the sexual, comes to a more negative evaluation of sexuality in Leviticus 15, 18, and 20. "This negative endowment of the concept of purity, one hostile to women, evinces a tendency to correlate impurity and femininity. The onset of such a development can already be found in Lev. 12:1-8." "Contemporary feminists are discussing intensively just how one is to deal with notions of purity and impurity that were virulent then and are still so today." 18 Some feminists judge this even more severely: "Are the natural, lifegiving bodily functions of women (menstruation, pregnancy, birth, and childbed) 'impure,' that is, a contagious disease, as Judaism taught for thousands of years (and as orthodox Jews still do today)? Does being a woman in and of itself constitute a disease?" 19 Such questions emerge from the consternation of women who have experienced their femininity being treated as something disreputable in the wake of biblical notions of impurity. A particularly striking example of this continuing attitude of discrimination in our society ... is the way society deals today with menstruation. Instead of celebrating the commencement of bleeding as a female triumph-as a triumph of having become an adult woman ... or as the expression of vibrant corporeality and sensuality, or as the joy at being able oneself to bring forth life (and thus to be truly creative)-instead of this, girls are inculcated with the notion that their 'period' is something disgusting and dirty that must be carefully hidden, something that causes pain and that prompts them to understand (hetero-) sexuality primarily as a source of danger. ... Advertisements for 'Camelia' [German brand-name for feminine products- Trans.] (and other brands) promise that this filth and odor can be perfectly disguised; corresponding medicines are recommended against menstruation, which is treated like a disease, against pain, emotional onslaughts, and against shortcomings in the workplace and family. Instead of a possible triumph at the commencement of the creditable and worthy life of a woman, the onset of menstruation instead frequently prompts the staging of a shameful, humiliating defeat. 20 17. Cf. Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Jahwem-ein patriarchaler Gott? Traditionelles Gottesbild undfeministische Theologie. 18. Monika Fander, "Reinheit/Unreinheit," in Worterbuch der Feministischen Theologie, ed. E. Gassmann et al. (Giiters1oh: Giiters1oher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1991 ), 349f. 19. Elga Sorge, Religion und Frau, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987), 14. 20. Lising Pagenstecher, "Sexualitat," in Worterbuch der Feministischen Theologie, 373 (with bibliography).

152

4.3 The Parturient

In contrast, some Jewish authoresses emphasize the reverence and mysticism inspired by the Old Testament purity laws, and refer to their tutelary function over against male arbitrariness. 21 Even with the most well-intended estimation, however, it remains undisputed that throughout the history of the Christian interpretation of this Leviticustradition, "female impurity" has become a weighty argument against the cultic equality of women. 22 Why in the first place are menstruation and childbirth viewed as "impure" and surrounded by the corresponding ritual cautionary measures? When presented with the list of "inedible" and "impure" animals (Lev. 11), we are yet able to discern the socially reinforcing function at work, and to identify to a certain extent with the irrational aversion apparently animating ancient people at the thought of certain animals or carcasses. We ourselves are familiar with similar reactions associated with mice, dog flesh, lizards, or spiders. But menstrual blood? Discharges during birth? Whey should these pose any cultic risk? We would do well to reflect on the origin of taboos regarding female flux. It is doubtless not any notion of filth and disdain that prompts the formation of these rites, but rather quite clearly that of power. The world was divided into polar gender spheres. A similar distinction obtains in the sphere of electricity, with positive and negative charges. A regular flow of electricity is useful, while any short circuit generates a dangerous discharge. In the view of antiquity, any unprotected contact between female and male "charges" has catastrophic consequences. Hence especially this female menstrual blood-an extraordinarily unnerving flux associated with the lifegiving womb-is considered dangerous as the bearer of feminine power. It is not allowed to come into contact with the "sacred." Some influence may derive here also from the fact that Yahweh is conceived more as the bearer of the opposing male power. Ezek. 16:6f., on the other hand, sovereignly transcends such considerations: It is God himself who-metaphorically-takes up the foundling and even washes the blood off the young woman (v. 9). Evidence from tribal cultures on various continents attests that in the first place, menstrual blood was considered potentially destructive for the male sphere, and in the second represented in and of itself an enormous magical power. Some medicine men in North America even dared to use this blood as a magical substance. In the case of the text before us, we can assume at least that the (male) authors were yet fully conscious of the power of female blood, and that no notions of filth or inferiority in the modem 21. Cf. Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law (New York: Schocken Books, 1984); Vera Lucia Chahon, A mulher impura: Menstruariio e Judaismo, Serie Universidadae: Psicologia, 21 (Rio de Janeiro: Achiame, 1982). 22. Cf. Dorothea Wendebourg, "Die alttestamentlichen Reinheitsgesetze in der friihen Kirche," Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 95 (1984) 149-74; Ida Raming, The Exclusion of Women from the Priesthood (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1976).

Leviticus 13:1-46

153

sense were associated with its declaration as "impure." And as an aside we might note that other bodily flux, including that of men, was similarly laden with power. 23 The second question must similarly be viewed in the light of the "power" of such discharges: Why is a doubled period of purification required of the parturient after the birth of a girl (v. 5)? The answer: because this female newborn represented a doubled anti power to the (male?) element of the sacred. Fear and caution before this female power are the governing factors behind these regulations, not disdain and discrimination. And by the way, the sums of the days of purification associated with the birth of a boy (7 + 33) and a girl ( 14 + 66) yield the sacred numbers 40 and 2 X 40, and thus also possess a certain symbolic value. 24 At its origin, the "impurity" of the woman is not to be viewed as a sexist interpretation, arising as it does rather from the magical understanding of the sacred and of the taboo associated with the blood of menstruation and childbirth. De facto, however, the frequent "hindrance" of women-decreed, controlled, and evaluated by men (priests)-resulted in their complete exclusion from all cultic activity. Whereas during the preexilic period women had unrestricted access to the sanctuary (l Sam. If.) and possibly participated in priestly tasks (Ex. 38:8; I Sam. 2:22), not to mention the domestic cult as administered by women (Jer. 44: 15-19), concentration on the one, exclusive God Yahweh after the exile resulted in the complete cultic interdiction of the Israelite-Jewish woman. 25

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases (Lev. 13:1-46) Translation 13:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and Aaron: 2 When a person develops pustules, scales, or blemishes on his skin, which tum into a malignant eruption, then he shall be brought to the priest Aaron or to one of his sons the priests. 3 The priest shall examine the skin eruption; if the hair on the affected areas has turned white, and if these places appear to be lower than the surrounding skin, then the eruption is malignant. The priest shall examine him and pronounce him impure. 4 If the blemishes on his skin are

23. Cf. Lev. 15: 1-18; Johannes Doller, Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des Allen Testaments in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, 10-43; among some peoples, rites are associated with spittle, sweat, earwax, urine, and feces. 24. Karl Elliger, Leviticus, 158. 25. Cf. Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Jahwe-ein patriarchaler Gott? Traditionelles Gottesbild undfeministische Theologie.

154

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

white, do not appear recessed, and if the hair has not turned white, then the priest shall quarantine the diseased person for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him (anew); if the eruption is discernibly the same, and has not spread over the skin, then the priest shall quarantine him yet again for seven days. 6 On the seventh day he shall examine him again; if the eruption has now faded and has not spread over the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him pure. It is a benign eruption. The diseased person shall wash his clothes and be pure. 7 But if the eruption spreads yet again on his skin after the priest has pronounced him pure, the diseased person shall seek out the priest again. 8 The priest shall examine him, and if the eruption really has spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him impure. It is a malignant eruption. When a malignant eruption appears on a person, he must be brought to the priest. 10 The priest shall examine him, and if there are white pustules on the skin, the hair has turned white, and raw flesh has formed in the pustules, 11 then it is chronic skin disease on his body. The priest shall pronounce the patient impure; he need not quarantine him, for he is impure. 12 If the eruption breaks out all over the skin and-so far as the priest can see-covers the entire body from head to foot, 13 then the priest shall examine him (closely). If the eruption really does cover the entire body, then he shall pronounce him pure; because it all has turned white, he is pure. 14 But as soon as raw flesh appears on him, he is impure. 15 The priest shall examine the raw flesh and pronounce him impure. The raw flesh is impure, it is malignant. 16 But if the raw flesh recedes and turns white, he shall come again to the priest. 17 The priest shall examine him, and if the eruption has now turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him pure; he is pure.

9

If someone has boils on his skin and they heal again, 19 but in the place of a boil a white pustule or a white to reddish spot forms, then he shall present himself to the priest. 20 The priest shall examine him, and if the eruption appears lower than the skin, and if the hair has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him impure. It is a malignant eruption in boils that have broken out. 21 But if the priest sees that the hair has not turned white, and that the eruption is not lower than the skin and is colorless, he shall quarantine the diseased person for seven days. 22 If the eruption spreads over the skin, the priest shall pronounce him impure; it is a malignant eruption. 23 In the case that the spots remain stable and do not spread, it is the scar of boils; the priest shall pronounce him pure. 18

If someone incurs a burn wound, and a reddish-white or white spot forms during healing, 25 the priest shall examine it. If the hair in the erup-

24

Leviticus 13:1-46

155

tion has turned white and appears lower than the surrounding skin, then it is malignant, and has broken out in a bum wound. The priest shall pronounce him impure; it is a malignant eruption. 26 If the priest finds that the hair in the spots has not turned white, that they are not lower than the skin and have remained colorless, then the priest shall quarantine him for seven days. 21 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him, and if the eruption has spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him impure; it is a malignant eruption. 28 But if the spots have remained stationary, have not spread over the skin, and have remained colorless, then it is swelling from the bum wound. The priest shall pronounce him pure, for it is the scar of a bum. If a man or a woman has an eruption in the hair of the head or beard, then the priest shall examine the eruption; if it appears lower than the skin, and if the hair on it is thin and shiny red, then the priest shall pronounce him impure. It is a scall, a malignant hair and beard eruption. 31 If the priest finds that the scall does not appear lower than the skin, but has no black hairs on it, then he shall quarantine the diseased person for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the eruption; if the scall has not spread, if there is no reddish hair present in it, and if the scall does not appear lower than the skin, 33 then the diseased person shall shave himself, only the scall he shall not shave off. The priest shall quarantine him anew for seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall; if it has not spread on the skin, and if it does not appear lower than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him pure. He shall wash his clothes and be pure. 35 But if the scall does spread on the skin after he has become pure, 36 then the priest shall examine him; if the scall really has increased on the skin, he need not look for reddish hair: The patient is impure. 37 If as far as he can see the scall has been checked and black hair is growing back in it, then it is healed; he is pure, and the priest shall pronounce him pure. 29

30

If a man or woman has spots on the skin, white spots, 39 then the priest shall examine them. If there are pale white spots on the skin of their bodies, then a light eruption has broken out. They are pure.

38

When a man's hair falls out from his head, then he is bald, but he is pure. 41 If the hair falls out on his forehead, then he is bald on the forehead, but he is pure. 42 But if a reddish-white coloring appears on his bald crown or bald forehead, then a malignant eruption has broken out on his bald crown or forehead. 43 The priest shall examine him. If this eruption on his bald crown or forehead is reddish-white, like the malignant eruption of the skin of the body, 44 then he is a man struck (with

40

156

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

malignant eruption). He is impure; the priest must pronounce him impure. His malignant eruption is on his head. 45 As for the person with malignant eruption, who has eruption on him: His clothes shall hang tom on him, the hair on his head shall hang loose, he shall conceal his mouth. He shall cry out, "Impure! Impure!" 46 As long as the malignant eruption remains on him, he is impure. He is an impure person; he shall dwell alone, his dwelling shall be outside the camp.

Medical Evidence Even today, the skin diseases described in Leviticus 13 are frequently considered in blanket fashion to be "leprosy," and are identified with Hansen's disease, the dangerous "lepra" found in tropical regions. This misunderstanding in the past had terrible consequences for those stricken with the disease. They languished away, gradually lost their limbs, were excluded from society (cf. vv. 45f.), could live only in quarantined leper colonies under the care of people who consciously minded these outcasts, these "untouchables," or they barely managed to live as specially clothed beggars. 26 In Lambarene, Albert Schweitzer intervened on behalf oflepers. 27 Now, the illnesses discernible in Leviticus 13 in no way correspond to leprosy. The identification ofleprosy with the skin manifestations described in this chapter, advocated especially by Christians, skin manifestations caused by God and thus prompting exclusion from any fellowship with him and human beings in general, was thus a horrible mistake, quite apart from the fact that Jesus himself certainly had no fear of those sick with leprosy (cf. Mark 1:40f.; Matt. 10:7f.). Indeed, all the maladies classified in Leviticus 13 as contaminating are curable (cf. Lev. 13:37; 14:2f.), whereas in contrast, true leprosy was absolutely incurable given the medical conditions of that time. The reasons making it virtually impossible to identify those diseases attested in the Old Testament with diseases known today, however, lie even deeper. In the first place, these texts never provide any description of the complete course of these illnesses with all their symptoms; in the second, we possess a completely different view of the causes of illnesses and of the distinctions between them. For us, a disease has been identified clearly (and rendered potentially treatable) only when the agent or agents have been found. (In the case of leprosy, the discovery of the agent was made in 1870 by the Norwegian physician G.H.A. Hansen.) Although psychosomatic medicine does urge us to consider the emotional and social causes of disease, it does not prevent us from, on the 26. Cf. Peter Richards, The Medieval Leper and His Northern Heirs (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1977; Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1977). 27. Albert Schweitzer, On the Edge of the Primeval Forest, and More from the Primeval Forest: Experiences and Observations of a Doctor in Equatorial Africa (New York: Macmillan Co., 1948); idem, The Forest Hospital at Lambarene (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1931).

Leviticus 13:1--46

157

whole, following a completely mechanistic-causal understanding of disease: A bacterium or virus attacks a person and causes a series of symptoms that proceed according to a familiar pattern. Treatment intervenes in this chain of cause and effect, interrupts it, and the body overcomes the infection. Not so in antiquity. Although these people, too, sought the causes of diseases, they found them in evil powers, demons, God's anger or willfulness, or the patient's own guilt. In short, illness came about on the basis of the willful decision of a personal being, not of some microscopically small agent that might be conquered through pharmaceutical means. Treatment of the ill thus consisted primarily in attempts to determine the power or force that had "struck" a person with illness, and to prompt this power to release the ill person.

These regulations regarding serious and less serious skin diseases should be read against this background. Although the personal understanding of the causes of disease comes to expression only indirectly (e.g., in the designation of the serious symptoms as a result of being "struck"), we must nonetheless continually keep in mind the ancient understanding of disease. On what did the ancient Israelites base their diagnosis? They could not take a blood profile, nor examine stool or urine samples, and so on. They were limited to careful observation of the external manifestations of an illness, in this case the alterations in a person's skin. This text shows that finely honed techniques of observation and nomenclature stood at their disposal, techniques we no longer can understand in all their details. We simply lack the information necessary for an outsider. But this much is certain: The examining priest observed the spots or flecks visible on the skin of an ill person, and determined their color, size, and their tendency to spread. He had to pay attention to the types of blemishes: Were they raised, recessed, scaly, oozing? It was important to note whether the relevant skin alterations were accompanied by an abscess or boil (v. 18) or a burn wound (v. 24), whether raw flesh appeared around the eruption (v. 10), or whether the infection appeared only in the hair of the head or beard or on a bald spot (vv. 29, 40-42). Bodily hair was also important. Any discoloration of the hair from its original black to pale, reddishyellow, or even white tones was an alarm signal. In short, an examination of the symptoms, one which in uncertain cases had to be repeated after one or even two weeks (vv. 4-6 et passim) was the only known diagnostic method. The text repeatedly mentions "as far as one can see," but not any other examinations of the ill person. The stories of "lepers" transmitted in the Old Testament (Num. 12:9-15; 2 Kings 5; 7:3-11; 2 Chron. 26: 16-21) presuppose this diagnosis and do not mention it directly. (Or is Aaron's "beholding" in Num. 12: lOb alluding to an examination?) These stories merely show all too clearly that the skin eruptions in question are viewed as God's punishment (Num. l2:9ff.; 2 Chron. 26:16ff.). Any healing can occur only if the cause, namely Yahweh himself, rescinds the punishment (cf. Num. 12: l3f.) Hence the real purpose of the priest's diagnosis is to determine whether a given skin eruption is to be viewed

158

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

as resulting from God's direct influence. The criteria he applies would have to be formalized experiential norms deriving from actual practice. If we compare the descriptions of symptoms in chap. I 3 to diseases known today, especially in tropical and subtropical countries, we find that the skin diseases in the third book of Moses have nothing to do with leprosy. And yet according to ancient Oriental sources, genuine "Hansen's disease" must also have existed in this region, since it is attested in imprecatory texts from Mesopotamia and has been confirmed through skeletal remains exhibiting typical deforrnations.28 In Mesopotamia, too, those stricken with the disease were isolated; 29 the variety of symptoms and the unpredictable course of the contagious disease made it much feared, and any religious estimation could only enhance its ostracizing effects. Only today are people gradually freeing themselves from such fear and prejudice. "The danger of contagion is considerably less than presumed in earlier ages, which is why the strict isolation of the ill is no longer customary."30 Although effective medicines against the bacterium [lepraej have been known since about 1940, Christian aid services and missions to lepers nonetheless still have much to do, including the dismantling of religious prejudices. Worldwide the number of those ill with Hansen's disease is about ten million. By contrast, modem medicine has identified the various diseases of Leviticus 13 as psoriasis (scaliness), and occasionally as favus or vitiligo, in addition to some less clear-cut skin diseases with similar symptoms (eczema, erysipelas, growths, eruptions). Psoriasis is a chronic, noninfectious skin disease characterized by well-marked, slightly raised red spots of various sizes, covered with dry, graywhite or silver scales. The infected places itch, and if they are scratched, the scales come off as flakes and reveal a moist, reddish surface with tiny bleeding spots-like insect bites. Vitiligo, or favus, is, from a medical point of view, a much more dangerous disease affecting the skin of the head or the hair itself and causing a yellow encrustation around the individual hairs. It affects the deeper levels of the skin, causes a loss of hair and leaves behind a slick, shiny, thin, white spot.3 1

The Priest's Pronouncement In sacred matters, priests or other religious functionaries always utter a weighty if not the last word, and are viewed as the appropriate specialists. The regulations concerning dangerous eruptions (Lev. 13-14) occupy such a large

28. Cf. Erich Ebeling, "Aussatz," Real/exikon der Assyriologie, vol. I (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1928) 321; Rene Labat, "Geschwulst," ibid., vol. 3 (1957~71), 231~33. 29. Erich Ebeling, "Aussatz," 321. 30. Brockhaus Enzyklopiidie, vol. 13 (Mannheim: F. A. Brockhaus, 1990), 292. 31. Klaus Seybold and Ulrich Miiller, Sickness and Healing, 69~70.

Leviticus 13: I -46

/59

space that we can easily estimate the significance they possessed for that age. And in just this question, the priests have sole responsibility; they are to utter the judgment "pure" or "impure." There is no one to whom one might appeal. The ill person is presented to them-perhaps even involuntarily (vv. 2, 9: passive verb forms). The priest examines the person as a physician does a patient. There are no questions, and protests go unheeded. The priest is the only person who acts and makes decisions. He imposes a seven- or fourteen-day quarantine (vv. 4ff.; 3lff.), and then the irrevocable judgment comes: The priest "pronounces him impure" (ten times in this particular section) or "pronounces him pure" (seven times). We would like to know just how this took place. It is possible that after the examination the priest simply said ":jiira at hf'," "this is saraat," that is, a dangerous skin disease inflicted by Yahweh (cf. the variations of this pronouncement in vv. 3, 8, 11, 15, 20, 25, 27, 30, 42). The corresponding utterance on the other side would be approximately "mispalfat hf'," "this is mispalfat," that is, a harmless eruption no longer identifiable (v. 6). This sort of pronouncement identifying the disease would be the equivalent of our own medical diagnosis following an examination of a tissue sample and classifying a particular tumor as either "benign" or "malignant." This section, however, speaks quite forcibly about pronouncing a patient either pure or impure. This can actually be delivered only in a personal form: "You are impure," or "you are pure." Neither formula is attested in this form in the Old Testament, and at most can be inferred only from the corresponding statements in the third person (vv. 11, 36, 44, 46: "He is impure"; vv. 13, 17, 37, 39, 40,41: "He is pure"). Moreover, in a genuine ritual text, the words to be spoken would also have to be cited verbatim (cf., e.g., Num. 5:29-22: the priest addresses the woman suspected of adultery). This is the case, for example, in Babylonian-Assyrian incantation rituals. In the regulations of the book of Leviticus, however, the ritual utterance directed to the person in question hardly ever appears (cf. the discussion of Lev. 6:5). All these procedures are peculiarly objectified. In the introductory formulae in Lev. 13:1 and 14:1,33, Yahweh's discourse is directed only to Moses and Aaron, and never further to the people itself as in Lev. 11:2; 12:2; 15:2. Do these regulations concerning skin eruptions actually constitute instructions utterly exclusive to priests? Or does just this absence of any verbatim declaratory formula-one that would, after all, be of rnajor significance for the priest- indicate that this text does not really represent genuine ritual instruction after all, but rather something more like illustrative material for a worship lectionary? Both the religious history of various peoples at large as well as other Old Testament evidence attests that in certain instances priests or cult functionaries are called upon as the authorities with decision-making powers. For example, insoluble criminal or legal cases require a divine oracle, which just such priests (or other recognized religious officials) obtain (cf. Num. 5: 12; Deut.

160

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

17:8-13). The case of unsolved murder is extremely interesting (today such cases prompt requests via mass media for investigative help from the public). The elders of a city or settlement are to conduct an atonement rite (Deut. 21: 1-9). Representatives of the priesthood apparently become involved only secondarily, since v. 5 seems strikingly pale and generalized. The real participants are consistently the elders themselves, and this text strengthens the suspicion that priestly mediation was introduced or significantly expanded only late, after the exile. Despite some points of coincidence between legal breaches and defilement, priests as legal authorities and priests as authorities in questions of "sanctity" or "purity" are two functions that again should be distinguished. A priestly inquiry deriving from the second situation is reflected in Hag. 2:10-14. Is the holiness of the sacrificial flesh indirectly transferable through the packing material (v. 12)? In contradistinction to this, is the impurity of a dead person indirectly further transferable through anyone who has touched the dead person (v. 13)? This type of inquiry, now in reference to the first person so afflicted, is found in Leviticus 13f., and was the responsibility of the priests of the second Jerusalem temple. They had to be accessible, and had to set up appointment hours and waiting rooms, inquiry rituals and opinion formulae, attestations and purificatory instructions, and so on. Both the course and the results of such an examination had to be transparent at least to those responsible for it. On the other hand, do these texts really give the impression of clarifying the most necessary procedural questions? Or is this a more abstract and abbreviated discussion about pronouncements of "purity" and "impurity," a discussion carried on from a certain distance? There probably was indeed a priestly authority involved here. Jesus' own instructions to "show yourself to the priest" (Matt. 8:4; Luke 17: 14) reckons quite unaffectedly with an examination and diagnosis at a holy site. One would have to investigate further to determine whether the present text has indeed already been developed into a form of congregational instruction.

Structure and Analysis The large section on "the appearance of eruptions on human beings" (vv. 1-46) is divided into seven subcases; these are variously weighted, and their nuances variously construed. Certain tensions and repetitions, analogies and links show that the section as a whole emerged only gradually rather than in a single sweep. The necessity of considering ever-new symptoms leads both in medicine and in secular or cultic legal activity to a collecting of such regulations. Despite all differences regarding details, they follow the same basic pattern: description of symptoms-diagnosis by the priest, with occasional addi-

Leviticus 13:1-46

161

tiona! references to purificatory measures. The introductory formula in v. 1, considered formally, actually extends beyond the present section up to v. 59. However, since the concluding subscript there refers only to "eruptions on clothing" discussed in vv. 47-58, we can surmise that the concluding remark to vv. 2-44 was lost, or was replaced by the general stipulation concerning treatment of the "impure" (vv. 45f.). The first section (vv. 2-8) deals with "pustules, scales, and blemishes" on the skin of a person's body (v. 2). The Hebrew expressions so translated are attested in the Old Testament only here in Leviticus 13f., and for that reason can hardly be identified now with any accuracy. The first symptom is actually designated only as a "raised area" on the skin, and can include slight swelling as well as small nodules or boils. The second term refers to scurfy, scabbed skin areas, and the third to discolorations. Such general descriptions make it utterly impossible for us to say exactly which skin diseases are meant. These names were probably already inclusive as far as the ancients themselves were concerned, each variously able to include several different diseases. The criteria according to which skin eruptions are evaluated seem simple and persuasive: discoloration of the body hair on the affected area and a recessed appearance of the skin blemish itself. If both conditions are present, then the eruption is malignant and results in a pronouncement of impurity (v. 3). However, a fairly broad margin for error and judgment remains, and for that reason the law already provides for the twofold isolation of the ill person for a period of one week each time (vv. 4-6). And as if that were not enough, even after a conclusive pronouncement of purity, the eruption can become active again and lead to the exclusion of the patient (vv. 7f.). As transparent as this entire procedure seems, at least for us uninitiated readers it is nonetheless laden with unclear elements. For whom were these regulations prepared in the first place? Who is supposed to learn how to recognize and evaluate these disease conditions? The three symptoms themselves were familiar enough to everyone. From v. 4 on, only the "(white, shiny) spots" are discussed, and no more mention is made of scales and pustules. Although the judgment concerning cessation or spread of the disease, concerning the "purity" or "impurity" of the patient, is explained almost scientifically with reference to a few symptoms and their alterations, the evaluation itself is nonetheless ultimately carried out by the priest alone, who has sole responsibility. Why, then, this rather thorough initiation of the listeners into the mysteries of diagnosis? Is perhaps the congregation itself also supposed to reflect concerning the evaluation of these serious skin diseases, diseases resulting in an exclusion from the community (vv. 45f.)? What role at all does the patient play? The person is brought to the priest by others-who can only be immediate family or neighbors (vv. 2, 9). So these

162

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

fellow citizens are present at the examination and diagnosis. 32 Do they represent the congregation? In case of doubt, the patient is quarantined for fourteen days. Where? In the temple (cf. 1 Sam. 21 :8 [7E], where Doeg is "detained before Yahweh" in the temple at Nob, though we presume certainly not with any skin disease excluding a person from the fellowship of God!?), in one's own house, or outside the locality itself (cf. Num. 12:15)? The washing of one's clothes concludes the favorable situation of a pronouncement of purity (v. 6b). What? Is that all? After the lethal suspicion of "impurity" (cf. 14: 1-32)? How can merely a measure this external make one forget what is still potentially possible physical impurity? And we must repeatedly ask: What human condition is really at issue here? And to what purpose is an examination to be conducted and a particular status pronounced? The second section (vv. 9-17) begins substantively (not stylistically) as if it were a doublet of the first: "When a malignant eruption appears on a person ... " (v. 9a). Peculiarly, the case seems-as in v. 2a-already to be ascertained even before the symptoms are mentioned. In both cases we should probably understand this to mean "in the case of suspected malignant eruption." The tradents presuppose a positive diagnosis, not the only such case in the procedural regulations (cf. vv. 4-8; 12-17). Furthermore, only the passage now in question seems first to deal with the "pustules" (elevation; swelling, etc.) that in vv. 2f. collided so severely with the "more deeply lying blemish." In any event, in v. 10 the priest is to evaluate only the "white skin elevation" that also exhibits "white body hair." Previously it was the corresponding skin depression (v. 3). To that extent the regulations do correspond precisely. Now there comes a special feature (we will leave in abeyance whether this is secondary or belongs to the original text): "raw flesh has formed in the skin elevation" (v. lOb). Raw flesh (Heb.: mi~yat basiir hay, "formation of living flesh") usually forms in the scar tissue of wounds. It must thus be older than the fresh skin eruption, which is then forming amid healed eruptions. Why is the text not formulated in a more linear fashion, commensurate with this situation, as for example in vv. 7 or 19? It may be that two parts-a regulation (vv. 9-10) completely parallel to the first case (vv. 2-8), and instructions for evaluating a new outbreak of eruption (vv. lOb-17)-have been fused together. In the present text, the latter completely occupies the foreground. Raw flesh is sufficient cause for an immediate pronouncement of impurity. Verses lOb-17, prolix as they are, say no more and no less. By contrast, we are extraordinarily astonished to learn that those patients are released who are completely covered by white eruption. Miriam is apparently "white as snow" (cf. Num. 12: 10) from her head to her feet, a condition 32. Cf. Erhard S. Gerstenberger and Wolfgang Schrage, Suffering (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980).

Leviticus

13:1~6

163

viewed as a certain sign of Yahweh's anger (Num. 12:9). And here, quite to the contrary, a condition of total eruption leads to a pronouncement of purity (vv. 12f.)? Even the complete "whitening" of the skin on an old scar relativizes the so-certain diagnosis of impurity (vv. 16f.). How are we to understand this? It is possible that the Miriam-pericope comes from a different stratum of tradition. Then one would have to ask only regarding Lev. 13:12-17: Why is a condition of total eruption not considered dangerous, while partial eruption leads to exclusion from the community? Medically this makes no sense. Socially, however, a final consideration for the person already marked by death may stand behind this pronouncement of purity. Cultically, one may surmise a tum to a positive estimation regarding the rare instance when total infection appears. But all this is merely speculation. We do not know why the evaluation turns out this way, since we have no arguments from the ancient priests explaining these judgments. According to Karl Elliger, the two following sections (vv. 18-28) offer the most concrete and coherent prescriptions, and are to be viewed as the core of the entire collection comprising Leviticus 13-15. Moreover, they are structurally fairly parallel and are closely related. A wound (ulcer or bum) provides the point of departure. The hygienic conditions of the time probably often led to infections in open skin areas. If a whitish or reddish discoloration in the affected skin area becomes visible (vv. 19a, 24b), then an examination by a priest is required. Once again, the ill person himself and those around him are responsible for inspecting the symptoms and seeking out the clerics. The two criteria mentioned-recessed appearance of the discolored area and whitening of the hair, v. 3-prompt the diagnosis: impure (vv. 20, 25). Since only vv. 19f. exhibit any tension between an "elevation on the skin" on the one hand, and a "depression on the skin" on the other, and since the whole section speaks otherwise about "blemishes," and not about "elevation," this doubling of expressions in v. 19a may derive from a secondary scribal insertion. Otherwise the two cases are clear: Recessed and discolored areas on older wounds that have already healed-similar to the problematic regarding raw flesh in vv. 10-17 -indicate a malignant eruption. The priest declares the affected person impure. The formula of diagnosis "it is a (malignant) eruption" contains the addendum "broken out in the boil/bum scar" (vv. 20, 25), and v. 25 probably has been expanded through redactional activity into the twofold pronouncement of impurity. In cases of doubt, the priest again places the patient in quarantine for seven days (vv. 21, 26), and repeats the examination. Similar wording-only a bit more extensive in the case of a bum wound-is used in the requirement of a pronouncement of impurity in the case of advancing disease (vv. 22, 27), and of a diagnosis of purity in the case of cessation and a remission of discoloration (vv. 23, 28). Here, too, the case of a bum wound is presented a bit more extensively, though substantively identical with the finding of a boil. The

164

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

prescnpt10n of merely a one-week isolation seems sound and reasonable enough, and makes the twofold quarantine of vv. 4-6 seem like a later, even more cautious treatment of the rule. What is important is that after the unequivocal primary case, the various doubtful cases are treated equally regarding both positive and negative findings. If the findings are harmless, then the patient also receives the pronouncement of purity with the corresponding medical formula: "it is the harmless eruption of a boil or a bum wound" (vv. 23, 28). On the whole, these two textual sections provide a better idea of the ritual procedure than do the other, more abstract and theoretical prescriptions in this collection. The remaining textual units deal not with eruptions on the body itself, but rather on the head, especially on those portions of the skull thickly covered with hair, although vv. 38f. constitute a general insertion speaking once again in a completely undifferentiated and expansive fashion about "skin eruption." What might have prompted the tradents at just his juncture to take as the subject "a man or woman" as opposed to the usual "a man who ... " (v. 29; repeated in v. 38)? Is equality to be demonstrated precisely in such cases involving the hair of the head or beard? Does some male inferiority complex come to expression whenever the issue involves the woman's beautiful long hair, which in men often gives way to baldness (vv. 40-44), an element of shame not quite compensated even by a full beard (cf. 2 Kings 2:23f., the mockery of Elisha and his revenge). Rarely in the legal texts of the Old Testament and ancient Orient are the genders mentioned so artificially in the same breath as here ("an eruption on the head or beard," v. 29). A scant few passages in the Deuteronomic work are comparable (e.g., Deut. 17:2; 29:17 [l8E]) that presuppose a community consisting of men and women. Otherwise, sections within the legal literature of the entire ancient Orient dealing exceptionally and specifically with women are also reserved for women. The real legal authorities in patriarchal societies are always the men. Potential elements of emancipation inhere in this priestly distinction and bringing together of the two genders in a single religious community, the early Jewish "church" (cf. Gen. 1:27; Ex. 35:29; Lev. 20:27; Num. 5:6; 6:2). Man and woman-previously the woman was apparently always "implied as well"; now she is expressly mentioned-are to consult the priest at the appearance of any scurfy areas on the head. The customary symptoms, arecessed appearance of the skin area itself and a discoloration of the black hairs to a pale, straw-like color, aid him in making a quick evaluation. Here these manifestations bear the special name "hair or beard scall," and only in second position do we find the pronouncement "it is a malignant hair and beard eruption" (v. 30b). This catchword possibly indicates that the text has been combined with the preceding regulations of the collection. In cases of

Leviticus 13:1-46

165

doubt there follows, as in vv. 4-6, two quarantines of seven days each (vv. 31-34). The cutting of the hair only after this seven-day isolation is a specific feature of this procedure, and is not explained further. Several Old Testament stories, such as that of the Nazirite Samson (Judg. 16: 16-30; cf. Num. 6:5-9) give us an idea of just how sacred or power-laden a person's hair was thought to be and how carefully one had to deal with it. Perhaps the special significance attaching to hair is also the reason the woman is expressly mentioned here. Actually, this textual section could be concluded after the discussion of the unequivocal and doubtful cases. Overly cautious theologians, however, reflected further, and in v. 7 added a consideration of the case in which new symptoms appear on the patient after the diagnosis. Further spread of the scurf involves a new visit to the priest, a rapid examination only of the spots that have spread, and the immediate pronouncement of impurity. Discoloration of the hair no longer plays a role, since the case is more than unequivocal (vv. 35f.). However, the fact that yet another possibility is presented (an eruption that according to v. 35 has broken out anew has actually already ceased when the priest performs the examination, and is thus harmless [v. 37]) demonstrates more the perfectionism of the scribes themselves, who wanted to present all possible variations, than any real familiarity with reality. For the rest, the tradents failed to note that the long and extensive presentation of the doubtful case contains only a pronouncement of purity (vv. 31-34). Moreover, the whole section vv. 31-37 lacks any express indication of evidence, which is found only in v. 30. Thus an inclination to be comprehensive on the one hand, and a trust in implicit allusions on the other, stand in close proximity here. The concise and extraordinary case description in vv. 38-39 could be an extract from the preceding regulations, or a complementary addendum to them. The tradent who in v. 29 already had mentioned both men and women as congregational members, wants to point out once more that in the case of normal body eruption both genders are meant. He thus mentions infection with white spots as the normal case of suspected skin eruption (v. 38). The criteria of examination are extremely vague compared with the earlier passages. Neither a recessed appearance of the skin nor hair discoloration are mentioned, and only the yellowish-pale color is to be noted. Perhaps the tradents- in view of the instructions already repeated so often for making the diagnosis-are making use here of an extremely abbreviated manner of speaking. In any case, they are no doubt also concerned with facilitating a hasty pronouncement of purity in the case of harmless skin eruption. It has its own name: bohaq, which, however, we can interpret neither etymologically nor medically. This is its only occurrence in the Old Testament. In structure, word choice, and style, this pronouncement of purity (with no doubtful cases mentioned!) constitutes a certain counterpart to the pronouncement of impurity in vv. 29f.

166

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

A final case remains to be discussed: vv. 40-44, eruption in the case of bald persons. It is quite expressly connected with the preceding sections on skin eruptions (v. 43b), so that from the outset we do not expect any full, independent treatment of this theme. Nonetheless, the head as the most noble part of the body is so significant that after the case of hair scales, now skin eruption appearing on bald spots of a male's head is specially mentioned, albeit as an addendum. The listener is first put at ease: The infamous loss of hair alone, either behind or in front, does not yet constitute divine judgment (vv. 40f.). It may well elicit mockery (2 Kings 2:23), and under certain circumstances can constitute cultic defilement (Lev. 21 :5), but it does not principally exclude a person from the community. A reddish-white eruption on a bald spot is otherwise treated like skin eruption (vv. 42-44). This is the first appearance of the personal designation "a man affected by malignant eruption," formerly always translated as "the leper" (v. 44a, otherwise only in v. 45; Lev. 14:3; 22:4; Num. 5:2). This designation will play an important role in the following concluding section. This linguistic link between the two textual passages already secures their relationship to one another, and thus also the character of vv. 40-44 as an addendum. The two concluding verses (vv. 45f.) are of special significance, elucidating the meaning of this collection of prescriptions dealing with skin eruptions. Exclusion from the Community Only from the perspective of the end itself does the purpose of this collection of diagnostic findings become clear. The decisive question regarding any skin deformation or discoloration, one only the priest could answer, was: Is it a malignant or a benign disease? Does it separate a person from God and human beings? If the diagnosis was negative, the priest could issue the pronouncement of innocuity, "he is pure," and the person under suspicion-possibly after one or two weeks' isolation-returned to normal life. But if the diagnosis was "malignant," that is, an eruption imposed by Yahweh himself (as punishment?), then the patient was "impure," that is, no longer tolerable for the community. We certainly should not misunderstand this decision either medically or as regards hygiene related to contagion (although our own exclusion mechanisms operate fundamentally in the same way); it was primarily a religious decision. But it did result in the exclusion of the sick from the community, something stipulated with incisive severity in vv. 45f. The person afflicted by a malignant eruption-picking up the diagnoses from vv. 2-44-is described as someone "on whom the stroke (of God)" is visible (above: "who has an eruption on his person"). This person must alter his or her identity. Tom clothing and disheveled hair characterize such a person as

Leviticus 13:1-46

167

living outside the normal, cultured community (v. 45). Lev. 10:6 and 21:10 mention the same features as signs of mourning for the dead. The person in mourning is also in an uncultured sphere, as it were in the forecourt of death, where other behavioral patterns obtain. Powers hostile to life dominate the scene. Perhaps this external devastation of garb is to make the sufferer unrecognizable or uninteresting for demons as well. A third instruction is added, pointing in the same direction: The ill person is to conceal his mouth (v. 45a). Like other bodily orifices, the mouth is also a potential gateway for evil spirits. Besides this, the person pronounced impure must also bring attention to his condition from afar (v. 45b ), so that a healthy person cannot possibly come into contact with him and become infected with the impurity. All this presupposes that the ill person, with no one but himself to rely on, must find a necessarily paltry, usually inhuman dwelling outside the settlement (v. 46). Like the Gerasene demoniac, such outcasts probably often vegetated away in tombs and caves (cf. Mark 5:2f.). Num. 5:2-3 makes the exclusion of those with skin diseases even more severe by expanding it to include men and women who suffer from some discharge or have become defiled through contact with the dead. Now, is the "purity" of the "dwelling in the wilderness" merely wishful thinking, or does some sort of reality lie behind it? Old Testament evidence concerning skin diseases "dangerous to the public" confirms the suspicion that either temporary or permanent exclusion of those ill with skin diseases genuinely was practiced in Israel. The account in 2 Kings 7:3-10 is relatively unaffected: It mentions as an aside that four "lepers" are the first to notice the withdrawal of the Syrian army, since they live before the city gates. According to 2 Kings 15:5, King Uzziah was "skin-diseased" and lived isolated in a "separated" house. The Chronicler's portrayal dramatically expands this remark. In blasphemous presumption, the king arrogates to himself priestly functions (2 Chron. 26: 16-18). God's response: He immediately sends "scale disease" as punishment, and Uzziah is cast out of the temple as a marked enemy of Yahweh (2 Chron. 26: 19f.: "and they thrust him out quickly, and he himself hastened to go out, because his stroke mark was from Yahweh"). By contrast, the Syrian commander Naaman seems to continue normally with his official duties despite his skin eruption, and not to be subject to any restrictions in his private quarters either (2 Kings 5:1-3). The legend of Miriam (Num. 12:9-15), on the other hand, is not a good witness here, since it is apparently structured completely according to the prescriptions in Leviticus 13 and advocates temporary quarantine, though at the end of the seven days healing is indeed guaranteed, thus avoiding a renewed examination due to an uncertain diagnosis. Extrabiblical evidence strengthens the assumption that persons afflicted by certain skin diseases were indeed isolated in Israel. Herodotus recounts a similar custom among

168

4.4 Dangerous Skin Diseases

the Persians, and skin diseases similar to the malignant eruptions in Leviticus 13 seem to have proliferated in great numbers in Mesopotamia. 33 An even more important fact from religious history at large is that many cultures practice religiously motivated isolation of certain "abnormal" persons. 34 Such exclusion mechanisms serve to protect and keep "pure" one's own community, and develop as a reaction to what seems to be the peculiar or alien appearance or behavior of group members. An investigation into the consequences of (a misunderstanding of) Leviticus 13 is urgently needed, as is a reflection on the possibly religious roots of the contemporary exclusion of certain groups (e.g., the handicapped, homosexuals) that do not fit the normal image of a "healthy" person. It is virtually certain that parallels or even direct connections with chap. 13 would emerge. The care of the sick in clinics and nursing homes, the phenomenon of rooms specially set aside for the dying in hospitals, isolation measures undertaken in accordance with federal laws concerning contagious diseases, resistance to integrating the handicapped into public schools, and the sometimes hysterical fear of AIDS contagion and similar phenomena all derive no doubt in part from the diseases themselves and (to the extent provisions for care are present) from the desire to provide medical help. Another root, however, is the irrational fear of God's punishment, of afflictions, and a fear of death perceivable even in secular situations.

So this collection of diagnoses concerning skin eruptions possesses eminently community-oriented significance within the book of Leviticus. This is not primarily a matter of excluding from the temple persons affected by a "disease of God" and of protecting cultic procedures from the unholy. No, at stake is membership in the residence community itself. That primal fear of persons deformed by skin eruptions, persons thus possibly evincing the anger of the deity, has manifested itself in the prescriptions of this chapter and been expanded by contemporary redactors. The priests' diagnosis is merely the means to an end, the purpose of these case studies being the maintenance of the community of residence and faith in a pure condition. This is why the descriptions of symptoms are kept relatively comprehensible to the public at large. There is absolutely nothing here that qualifies as merely the "professional knowledge" of priests. Every single person is to hear and cooperate in keeping the congregation pure from those marked by Yahweh. The obvious question for us, of course, is just what relationship obtains now between measures undertaken to exclude individuals for the sake of maintaining a group or community on the one hand, and New Testament solidarity with just such weak or sick persons on the other. Jesus himself conspicuously took the part of those excluded from society, and it is also reported that he healed 33. Cf. Johannes Doller, Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des A/ten Testaments in re/igionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, 77-92; Bruno Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien, vol. 2 (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1925), 289f. 34. Cf. James J. Preston, "Expulsion," The Encyclopedia of Religion, 5.233-36.

Leviticus 13:47-59

169

lepers (cf. Mark 1:40--45; Luke 17:11-19). There is no talk from him of any reintegration of the sick into the community, but rather only of the healed being taken up again. However, the New Testament speaks just as little about any active exclusion of the sick. What is certain is that from the very beginning the early Christian church had a strong sense of responsibility for the sick (including those with obvious skin diseases) and took very seriously Jesus' own commission to overcome illness. 35

4.5 Mold on Garments (Lev. 13:47-59) Translation 13:47 When a severe eruption appears on a garment, either a woolen or linen garment, 48 be it on the linen or woolen warp or woof, and similarly on leather or leather articles, 49 and if the eruption on the garment, leather, linen or woolen materials, or leather articles is greenish or reddish, then it is a severe eruption and shall be shown to the priest. 50 The priest shall examine the eruption and shall quarantine the article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he shall examine the eruption (anew); if it has spread on the garment, on the linen or woolen material, or on the leather or leather article, then it is a malignant eruption, and the article is impure. 52 He shall bum the garment, the woolen or linen material or any leather articles on which the eruption appears, for it is a malignant affection. It shall be burned in fire. 53 If the priest finds that the eruption has not spread on the garment, on the linen or woolen material, or on any leather article, 54 he shall order that the article on which the eruption is found be washed. Then he shall quarantine it yet again for seven days. 55 If after the washing the priest examines the eruption (anew), and if in his opinion it has not changed, and has not spread, then the article is impure, and is to be burned in fire. It is "garment eruption" on the front and back sides. 56 If the priest finds that the eruption has become pale after washing, then he shall tear out the area from the garment or leather or from the linen or woolen material. 57 If the eruption returns on the clothing, on the linen or woolen material, or on any leather article, then it is malignant, and the affected piece shall be burned in fire. 58 But the garment, the linen or woolen material, or any leather article that you have washed and from which the eruption has disappeared, you can wash a second time, and it shall be pure.

35. Cf. Klaus Seybold and Ulrich Miiller, "Biblical Concern with Sickness as a Theological Problem: Encounters," Sickness and Healing, 187-94.

170

4.5 Mold on Garments

This is the law for eruptions on woolen or linen clothes, linen or woolen material, or any leather articles, that they can be pronounced pure or impure.

59

What Is "Garment Eruption"?

Although the regulations concerning "malignant eruption on clothes," like the parallel prescriptions concerning "eruptions on buildings" (Lev. 14:3356), are extremely difficult to understand, these two sections of the purity law can at the same time tell us a great deal about the conceptual world of antiquity. We can note first of all that the clothing regulations in vv. 47-59 constitute a self-enclosed thematic unit separated from the surrounding context by the concluding remark in v.59. The subscript once again carefully enumerates just what is at issue: (a) malignant eruption or efflorescence (the same general diagnostic designation-~araat-as in the case of skin eruptions in vv. la, 9a, et passim); (b) clothing of wool or linen; unprocessed materials (the recurring double expression '"woven and processed"- translated above with "linen or woolen material" -has not been explained unequivocally); leather goods of any sort; (c) indication of the law's purpose (the two infinitives at the conclusion "for pronouncing it pure or impure" seem affixed, though they also constitute part of the formulaic concluding remark in Lev. 11:47 and 14:47). The substance of the text is thus fairly clear: Just as on human beings skin eruptions can appear that must be viewed as God's punishment, and that thus are dangerous to the community and result in separation of the affected person, so also can malignant symptoms-that is, symptoms visited by Yahweh-appear on objects associated with human beings. According to the conceptions of these extraordinarily precise tradents, these must be treated literally like human diseases, though their identification seems to be much easier than in the case of human skin diseases. So, when a "malignant," greenish or reddish covering of fungus appears on textiles or leather, then it is "malignant" and must be presented to the priest. This is how tautologically and prejudicially the tradents express themselves in vv. 47-49. Peculiarly, the next step is not, as with the human primary cases (vv. 3, 11, 20, 25, 30), a pronouncement of impurity; rather, as with the doubtful cases applying to human beings, the affected object is isolated (v. 50). At the second examination on the seventh day, only one criterion is considered: Has the covering spread or not? Neither the coloring, recessed character, or odor of the mold layer plays any role here. Its mere spread alone suffices for the priest to confirm impurity (v. 51). The indicated decontamination is complete incineration of the affected article-with consideration given neither to its owner, bearer, or user, nor to the consequences of this act for that person (v. 52).

Leviticus 13:47-59

171

But the doubtful case must now also be considered. What happens if the "eruption" ceases (vv. 53-56)? Textiles or leather must be washed and isolated for another seven days (v. 54). After this, confirmation of an "unaltered" condition suffices for a diagnosis of impurity and a sentence of incineration (v. 55). Only if the affection is found to have receded ("become pale") can the garment or other article yet be saved, though even in such favorable instances the affected area must be "tom out" and destroyed (v. 56). Given the high cost of any scrap of material or leather article, a person in antiquity would much rather have a tom and possibly patched garment than none at all. Verses 57f. are difficult to reconcile with v. 56. Should not, according to this schema, the clothing piece be pronounced "pure" after the mildew spot has been tom out? Yet what immediately follows is the reappearance of the eruption (v. 57), though this would require the passing of a certain period of time (cf. the regulations regarding the recurrence of skin eruption after healing: vv. 7f., 16f., 35-37). By contrast, v. 58 better fits the course of the argument, except that it presupposes the complete disappearance of the mold. However, renewed washing of the article and a pronouncement of purity are quite logical consequences of the diagnosis in the sense of the purity prescriptions. The phenomena thus described are clear enough, involving all sorts of changes appearing in weaves, leather articles, and masonry walls (Lev. 14:33-57; why no mention of wooden objects?) and caused by fungi and bacteria.36 We cannot avoid a scientific explanation of such phenomena: "Mildew or mold" occur only at a certain humidity level and external temperature, though especially "if (such) objects are stored in a damp place with no air circulation. " 37

Mold as a Theological Problem We must first understand the inner conceptual logic of antiquity. Although we are indeed astonished that phenomena occurring on living beings and on objects are simply classified under one and the same category, this was quite self-evident to people in a "prescientific" age (this expression contains considerable modem presumption; here its intention is only to indicate the different manner of thinking and conceptual world of our ancestors). Every object has a soul. Every phenomenon is personal and grounded in will, so why not also such mold formations on textiles and leather articles? The Israelites are by no means alone in such thinking; it is at home in the entire ancient Orient. For 36. Johannes D