Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah (Forschungen zum Alten Testament. 2. Reihe Book 71) 9783161533426, 9783161533419, 3161533429

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

71

Simeon Chavel

Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah

Mohr Siebeck

Simeon Chavel, born 1969; 1992 BA in English Literature; 1994 MA in Religious Studies; 2006 PhD Biblical Studies; 2006 – 09 Lecturer in Hebrew Bible at the Department of Religion, Princeton University; since 2009 Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

e‑ISBN PDF 978‑3‑16‑153342‑6 ISBN 978‑3‑16‑153341‑9   ISSN 1611‑4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduc‑ tions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp und Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements

This work stems from my doctoral dissertation, Law and Narrative in Four Oracular Novellae in the Pentateuch: Lev 24:10 – 23; Num 9:1 – 14; 15:32 – 36; 27:1 – 11, written in Hebrew under the direction of Israel Knohl in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and approved 31 December 2006. Its origins lie in a recommendation by David Elcott, educator and friend, who kept a fruitful, excit‑ ing, and – little did I know it then – anchoring conversation going throughout what for me were formative years. In the summer of 1994, serendipity having brought us together at a weekend retreat in Bloomington, Indiana, he recommended I read Robert Cover’s celebrated essay “Nomos and Narrative” and consider the ways in which sto‑ ries, norms, and practices interact in community life and identity. A few months after that, Yair Zakovitch of the Hebrew University accepted me as a pre-doctoral student in Biblical Studies and substantially helped craft my intellectual trajectory, curricular path, and analytical approach. In 1998, Israel Knohl accepted me as a doctoral advisee, guided my dissertation with warmth and wisdom, and after its completion has contin‑ ued to offer concrete support and encouragement. Baruch Schwartz, from the very first time I contacted him, in the spring of 1994, and ever since, has persistently gone beyond all call of duty to help advance my thought, my work, and my career. Ronnie Goldstein, Itamar Kislev, Noam Mizrahi, Michael Segal, and Amram Tropper were ideal colleagues and friends, who read different parts, talked over different ideas, and left each his own valuable imprint. At two separate critical moments in the preparation of the dissertation, and in different ways, Emanuel Tov and Peter Machinist each quite selflessly facilitated my work; I remain deeply appreciative to both. Since then, Joel Baden, a regular conversation partner of uncommon sense, has enhanced the project in manifold ways. Jeffrey Stackert, a model colleague in every conceivable way, indeed a role model, has helped both to advance its ideas and to nudge it to completion. For financial support of the dissertation, I am indebted to the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, the Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University, and the Office of the Rector at the Hebrew University. For support of its preparation for publication, I am indebted to the Office of the Dean at the University of Chicago Divinity School, specifically, the good graces of Margaret Mitchell. My students Cathleen ChopraMcGowan, Marshall Cunningham, Jessie DeGrado, Jordan Skornik, and in particular the indefatigable Liane Marquis provided essential assistance in the preparation of this manuscript; I deeply appreciate their commitment to the project and their diligence. I am grateful to Bernd Janowski, Mark Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann for having

VI

Acknowledgements

accepted this work for publication in the Forschungen zum Alten Testament II series, and to Henning Ziebritzki and his team for their professionalism throughout the process of bringing it to print. Shimon Gesundheit, in all his generosity of spirit and intellectual creativity, has had an unimaginably thick and rich impact upon the project and my ability to complete it, most palpably in the chapter on Num 9:1 – 14, but also through‑ out and on the work as a whole. To all these people: K‫שׂיתֶ ם ַה ֶח ֶסד‬ ִ ‫שׁר ֲע‬ ֶ ‫ְב ֻּרכִים ַאתֶ ּם לַיהוה ֲא‬ ‫ ַהזֶּה‬K. Finally, I have drawn inspiration from my parents, who raised me in a dynamic home of tradition, culture, and individualism, in which good questions are valued over easy answers, and who remain steadfast and fruitful readers of all my work: K‫מוסר אבי‬ ‫שמעתי תורת אמי לא נטשתי‬K. From my wife’s parents, who embody a most unique mixture of warmth, devotion, adventure, and resolve in all spheres of life, and take up others in their embrace: K‫עֹולָם ֶחסֶד י ִ ָ ּבנֶה‬K devotion builds worlds. From my friends A. B., J. G., J. T., and A. W. & T. W., K‫רעים אהובים‬K. And most of all from my wife, who has devotedly made a large part of her life’s work enabling my life’s work and who does so much for so many, always finding ways to make a difference, for individuals, for community, and for causes broadly: Kּ ְ‫שׁת ַחי ִל ַאת‬ ֶ ‫שעַר ַע ִמּי ִכּי ֵא‬ ׁ ַ ‫יֹודֵ ַע ָכּל־‬K. With love, gratitude, and admira‑ tion I dedicate this book to Audrey: Swells of water could never quell love Rivers even could never overrun it For adamant as Death is love Persistent as the Pit is passion Its flares, flares aflame, are an Immortal blaze

K‫בה‬ ָ ‫אֶת־הַָא ֲה‬

‫ ַמי ִם ַר ִבּים ֹלא יּוכְלּו ְלכַּבֹות‬K K‫ה‬ ָ ‫שטְפּו‬ ׁ ְ ִ ‫ּונְהָרֹות ֹלא י‬K K‫בה‬ ָ ‫ ִכּי־ ַעזָּה ַכ ָ ּמוֶת ַא ֲה‬K K‫קנְָאה‬ ִ ‫שׁאֹול‬ ְ ‫שׁה ִכ‬ ָ ‫ ָק‬K K‫הבֶתְ יָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְל‬ ׁ ַ ‫ש ֵפּי אֵׁש‬ ׁ ְ ‫שפֶי ָה ִר‬ ׁ ָ ‫ ְר‬K

Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Identity of the Criminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Oracular Novella and the Holiness Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 35 48 67 81 88

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Location of the Oracular Novella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) The influence of Exodus 12 and the rest of the Priestly History . . . . . . . . . b) Points of contact with Deuteronomy 16 and Deuteronomistic Literature . . . 4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93 98 116 119 119 141 148

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Form of the Oracular Novella and Other Priestly Texts about the Sabbath 2. The Relationship with the Oracular Novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

165 173 181 185

Novella  IV.  Num  27:1 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Source-Critical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Original Novella in Num 27:1 – 7a, 11b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6 . . . 4. The List of Inheritors in Num 27:8b – 11a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Complete Novella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Num  36:1 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Ruth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

196 202 211 214 235 242 243 243 250

VIII

Table of Contents

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography . 1. Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Oracular Novellas and the History of the Priestly History . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Form of the Oracular Novellas and the Priestly History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Law and Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

257 257 261 263 265

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

271

Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Source Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Biblical Versions, Ancient Translations, and Rabbinic Comments . . . . . . . II. Ancient Literature and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Medieval Commentaries and Modern Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Critical Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Literary Motifs and Legal Topoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Oracular Novella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Rhetorical Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

319 319 319 340 342 350 350 351 352 353

Preface

Segments of this work have been presented elsewhere, some as part of the process of analyzing the texts and working out the ideas, others as crystalized versions after the fact. With respect to Lev 24:10 – 23, the idea that each of the major works comprised by the Torah recounted a crucial failing of Israel at the pinnacle of revelation and the inference that in the Yahwistic history this failing consisted of the Israelites rioting to rush the mountain upon which Yahweh presented himself to them were presented in a lecture, “Revelation and Sin at Sinai According to the Pentateuchal Sources,” at The Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 12 – 17 August, 2001. A compressed version of the interpretation of the significance of cursing the deity and of the literary structure of the oracular novella appeared in the third volume of Jacob Milgrom’s commentary to Leviticus in the Anchor (Yale) Bible series (2001), as “Appendix D” to Leviticus 24 (pp. 2140 – 2145). The correlations between the story of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 and the oracular novella and their place within the overall structure of the texts that make up Leviticus were presented (in Hebrew) in a lecture, “Leviticus as a Book,” at the Evening in Honor of Prof. Jacob Milgrom, The Van Leer Institute, Jerusalem, April 27, 2003. The historical side of the question of Num 9:1 – 14 – what circumstances stand behind the unusual idea of a secondary, make-up date for the Pesaḥ – was published as “The Second Passover, Pilgrimage and the Centralized Cult,” in the Harvard Theological Review 102 (2009) 1 – 24. A concentrated version of the chapter on Num 15:32 – 36 was presented as “Num 15:32 – 36 – A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary Production,” at the European Association of Biblical Studies and the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Vienna, 22 – 26 July 2007, and published in S. Shectman and J. Baden, eds., The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009) 45 – 55. The argument that Num 27:1 – 11 plays an important role in the legal hermeneutics and synthesis that undergird the plot of the story of Ruth was developed further and presented as “Law and Narrative in Ruth and the Pentateuch,” at the Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Amsterdam, 22 – 26 July 2012. A crystallized version of the entire dissertation was presented as “Oracular Novellae – Between Priestly Law and Priestly Narrative,” at a conference organized

X

Preface

by Klaus-Peter Adam, Friedrich Avemarie, and Nili Wazana, Law and Narrative: On the Relationship Between Abstract Legal Sentences and Case Narratives, PhillippsUniversität, Marburg, September 7 – 9, 2009, and published soon after in Clio – A Journal of Literature, History and the Philosophy of History 39 (2009) 1 – 27 under the title: “‘Oracular Novellae’ and Biblical Historiography: Through the Lens of Law and Narrative.” The study in this work, as conceived and carried out, lent itself to pursuing a wide variety of legal texts, topics and aspects. Many points of interpretation and perspec‑ tive, reframed, went into a chapter that provides an introductory overview of the legal literature in the Hebrew Bible, in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible – Introductions and Studies, edited by Zipora Talshir (2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2011) 1.227 – 272 (in Hebrew). It seems warranted to note that the chapter on Lev 24:10 – 23 was completed in 1998, only a few years after the English publication of Israel Knohl’s highly influential work, The Sanctuary of Silence. Since then much has been published regarding the Holiness Code, the Priestly texts related to it, the Priestly literature as a whole, and the hypothesis or form of hypothesizing best suited to the Torah. Only a few items or aspects have direct bearing on the analyses here, which are more narrowly delineated and focused. Several direct treatments of Lev 24:10 – 23 have appeared as well. So far as I can judge, none preempt the argument here or undermine it. I have attempted to update the chapter in appropriate measure.

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

Four passages in the Torah share a cluster of characteristics that recurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. They make up a distinct group of texts and represent a unique type of narrative. The set of texts comprises Lev 24:10 – 23, about the name and person of the deity; Num 9:1 – 14, about performing the Pesaḥ; Num 15:32 – 36, about observing the Sabbath; and Num 27:1 – 11, about land inheritance. These four passages – all prose narrative – have the same incidental character, essential plot, and structure; employ a specialized diction; portray in an unusually specific manner Moses’ precise role in the legislative and judicial process; straddle the fence between law and narrative; demonstrate a distinct method for generating law and establishing it thereafter; and give distinctive expression to certain elements that stand at the base of communal identity. Cast fully in this light, they may reflect back upon critical theory of the composition of the Torah and help illuminate some core features, and possibly origins, of one of its sources. The four passages have barely earned recognition as a distinct group of texts or enjoyed corresponding analysis, from ancient times to modern scholarship. Where there has been awareness of the four as a group, it has usually expressed itself in a narrow focus on one or two of its aspects, not on the shared form as a whole. Philo, in his work On the Life of Moses, gathers together the four episodes on account of the special quality of Moses’ prophecy and of his legislative acts presented in them, and treats them as a distinct set (§§ 192 – 245).1 One particular homily that recurs among the Palestinian Aramaic Targums brings the four episodes together as modeling the proper behavior of a judge.2 Within Rabbinic literature, this homily stands alone.3 Other Rabbinic sources either treat the stories singly or in conjunction with additional biblical episodes, such as Phineas’ zealotry in Num 25:1 – 18 or the purity laws transmitted through Eleazar rather than Moses in Num 31:21 – 24.4 In any case, from a more 1   Loeb, 2.545 – 573. On the significance and history of this section within the composition On the Life of Moses, see Daniel-Nataf, Philo, 203 – 212, esp. 206 – 209. 2  See Tg. Yer. at Lev 24:12; Tg. Ps‑J., ibid.; Tg. Neof., ibid., Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5; and the Frg. Tg. P at Lev 24:12 and V, ibid., Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5. For an initial literary analysis of the homily and musings on its original point of interpolation, see Levy, Targum Neophyti 1, 2.44 – 47, 73 – 74. 3   Shinan remarks on the point explicitly (“The Aggadah,” 213 – 214). 4   A midrash that appears in the later collection “Three and Four” speaks of six cases (Eisenstein, Otsar Midrashim, 2.539 § 6; Wertheimer, Batei Midrash, 2.65 § 50). In the opposite direction, a Talmudic statement illustrating a principle about the interrelationship between law and history mentions

2

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

comprehensive, detailed perspective, one that takes in all the various aspects that are found in the four passages and demarcate them as a group, the Rabbinic sources essentially concentrate only on a single point common to the four passages and develop it in a particular direction. They do not respond to the complete phenomenon as such.5 In modern research, scholars frequently mention a selection out of the four, in varying permutations. Representing a most extreme illustration of the general inconsistency, Martin Noth comments on Lev 24:10 – 23 and refers to Num 15:32 – 36; at Num 9:1 – 14 he mentions none of the other episodes; at Num 15:32 – 36 he refers to Lev 24:10 – 23 and Num 9:1 – 14; and in his comment on Num 27:1 – 11 he cites all three other cases.6 Jacob Weingreen undertook studies of three of the passages – Lev 24:10 – 23; Num 15:32 – 36; and 27:1 – 11 – entirely leaving out of all his discussions the Pesaḥ of the second month in Num 9:1 – 14.7 In the other direction, some expand the canvas to include one or more additional passages, such as the Gileadite appeal regarding tribal allotments in Num 36:1 – 12, which merely follows up the case in 27:1 – 11, or the laws given by Eleazar in the war against the Midianites, in 31:21 – 24.8 Tikva Frymer-Kensky counts the four, the Gileadite follow-up, and also David’s division of the spoils of war in 1 Sam 31:22 – 25 – but excludes Moses’ version of David’s law in Num 31:25 – 28.9 Others draw up lists that altogether blur the lines that serve to define the four passages as a group, overlooking one and including others. Otto Eissfeldt, for example, passes over Lev 24:10 – 23 in silence and in its place mentions Num 31:21 – 24 and 36:1 – 12.10 What is more, introductions and broad overviews regarding prophecy, law, or the figure of Moses tend not to refer

together only the episodes of the wood-gatherer and of the daughters of Zelophad (b. B. Bath. 119a – b; b. Sanh. 8a). (The principle appears in several different formulations; the correct one seems to be “merit is added by the meritorious by working out through them episodes of merit appropriate to emerge through them, and demerit by the liable by working out through them episodes of demerit appropriate to emerge through them;” see t. Yoma 4:12; Lieberman, 2.253 ll. 54 – 56.)  5   Curiously, several scholars of Rabbinic literature and thought have used the four stories as an artificial rubric in which to discuss various midrashim that are unrelated to each other directly, but are linkable to each other indirectly through their connections to one or two of the four stories; none are related to all four. See, from a narrow point of view, Heschel, Torah min ha-shamayim, 2.220 – 223; from a broader perspective, Bamberger, “Revelations of Torah after Sinai,” 104 – 109; surveying comprehensively early sources relating to the four episodes: Shinan, “The Story of the Woodgatherer.”  6   Leviticus, 179; Numbers, 71, 117, 211.  7   In chronological order of publication: “The Case of the Woodgatherer;” “The Case of the Daughters of Zelophchad;” “The Case of the Blasphemer.” Likewise, Zakovitch, Introduction, 88 – 89; Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 180 n. 9. 8  For a good example, see Levine, Numbers, 1.78 – 79; also Crüsemann, The Torah, 98 – 103. A recent work of traditional, pre-critical outlook and aim gathers together the four and the story of Kozbi, Zimri and Phineas in Numbers 25, and notes a mnemonic made of the five Hebrew letters with final form, K‫מנצפ"ך‬K, each of which can stand for an identifying word of a different one of the stories: K,‫מקושש‬ ‫ כזבי‬,‫ פסח שני‬,‫ צלפחד‬,‫נוקב‬K (Koperman, Nit‘almu mimmenu halakhah, foreword).  9  HANEL, 979; she refers to them as “legal storyettes.” Westbrook discusses all these instances, including the Mosaic version of David’s law, and calls them “difficult cases” (“Law Codes,” 261 – 264). 10   Introduction, 32.

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

3

to the passages, despite the oracular nature of the laws generated in them; generally speaking, it appears that, as a distinct group, the four passages have “slipped between the cracks.”11 Michael Fishbane represents an important exception. In his work on intertextual reuse and interpretation within the biblical corpus, he interrelates the four episodes as an organic, cohesive group, categorizes them formally and conceptually, and briefly analyzes them each in the light of the others.12 Picking up on the themes of prophecy and of law noted by Philo and by the homily in the Targumim and considering them from the point of view of the textualizing, interpretive impulse that drives their mutual engagement, Fishbane analyzes all four of these narratives of legal decisions and legislation for the correspondence in them between the oracular jurisprudence portrayed in the text and the legal draftsmanship that, in a mode of inner-biblical exegesis, produced the text. In a sense, this work picks up where Fishbane has left off.13 It elaborates the level of similarity between the four and develops further the significance of bringing prophecy and law together in the form of legal oracle. To the degree that it does so, it also raises awareness of the additional dimension of these texts – their narrative frame. Together with that, the study also considers them more directly in the context of their literary setting within the Torah. The result of viewing the four passages specifically as a type of narrative and of locating them within their immediate literary context leads the study to an alternate theoretical frame – the analysis of law and narrative from the perspective of literary genre and sociology – and draws several different kinds of conclusions about the light these four texts can shed upon their source within the Torah. Most prominently and in definitional terms, all four passages are stories.14 The narrative in each case tells of the generation of law – whether new law, amendments, 11   The bibliography is voluminous. Take the following as sufficiently representative: Pedersen, Israel, 1.406 – 410; 2.102 – 197, esp. 103 – 104, 157 – 164, 190 – 191; Eichrodt, Theology, 1.74 – 115; Johnson, The Cultic Prophet; Haran, Temples and Temple-Service; Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice; Cryer, Divination, esp. 286 – 295; Jeffers, Magic and Divination, esp. 52 – 56, 58 – 65, 216 – 221. 12   Biblical Interpretation, 98 – 104, 236 – 237. 13   Several years after Fishbane’s work appeared, Crüsemann added an historical dimension to the analysis of the passages. He discussed the four episodes together with the Gileadite one, dated them all to the Persian era, and claimed they reflect legal practice in the absence of kingship; however, he also then conceded both that the outline of the precise institution eludes him, since Moses rather than Aaron the priest resolves cases, and that one cannot rule out of hand that such an institution might in fact have had its origins in the period before the Babylonian exile (The Torah, 98 – 107). The literary form of a set of texts may indeed suggest a setting or institution within society, but it makes a weak basis for inferring one particular historical period or situation, since forms outlive the original circumstances that produce them. In addition, various unknowns make any such assumptions precarious at the practical level too, for instance, whether the biblical authors meant to mirror their own times or to portray what they saw as prehistoric or ancient, and whether various institutional configurations replaced each other in historical sequence or coexisted, dominated separate spheres of life, and ebbed and flowed in popularity and power as changing historical and social circumstances facilitated. 14   For useful definitions, descriptions and analyses, see Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 1 – 4; Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law, 1 – 22.

4

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

or specifications and clarifications. As appropriate to storytelling, the generation of law comes about as a consequence of specific circumstances – in these four instances, an event that has taken place or a situation that has arisen within the community. To formulate it from a different perspective, in these four stories an individual or community-wide problem finds its resolution in legislation. And to put it in starker generic terms, in all four texts a story achieves its climax with law. The plot progresses through a scheme of several stages: in a given setting, the community – either as a whole or through particular members – faces a problem not anticipated or covered by the laws revealed to this point; parties approach Moses; Moses turns to Yahweh; Yahweh provides instruction; Moses transmits it to the people; the people carry it out. The four stories differentiate themselves into two subtypes. There are two “action” episodes, in which an individual behaves outrageously and a group of Israelites representing the community as a whole witnesses the act and brings the perpetrator to Moses (Lev 24:10 – 23; Num 15:32 – 36), and there are two “situation” episodes, in which a confluence of forces threatens the place of a group of Israelites within the community and the group approaches Moses with a claim (Num 9:1 – 14; 27:1 – 11). The diction employed to mark and shape the different stages of the plot also differs somewhat between the two subtypes and helps demarcate them. The two action-episodes set themselves in the context of all Israel, which establishes the oppositional thrust that will fulfill itself in the legislation (Lev 24:10 K‫ בתוך‬. . . ‫ויצא‬ ‫בני ישראל‬K; Num 15:32 K‫ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר וימצאו איש‬K). Israelites representing the collective outrage – either an unspecified group (Lev 24:11) or those who caught the violator in the act (Num 15:32) – conduct the criminal to the authorities (Lev 24:11 K ‫ויביאו אתו אל משה‬K; Num 15:33 . . .K K‫ אל משה‬. . . ‫)ויקריבו אתו המצאים אתו‬. The criminal is put in holding (Lev 24:12 K‫ויניחֻהו במשמר‬K; Num 15:34 K‫ויניחו אתו במשמר‬K) for the purposes of divine instruction (Lev 24:12 K‫לפר ֹש להם על פי יהוה‬K; Num 15:34 K‫כי לא פ ֹרש מה י ֵעשה לו‬K). In appropriately authoritative speech forms – the imperative and the infinitive absolute – Yahweh hands down his verdict, and, corresponding to behavior deemed outrageous by the camp, he determines reciprocal behavior outside the camp that will express collective outrage – death by stoning (Lev 24:14 K‫ ורגמו אתו‬. . . ‫הוצא את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה‬ ‫כל העדה‬K; Num 15:35 K‫מות יומת האיש רגום אתו באבנים כל העדה מחוץ למחנה‬K). Closing the circle, the people do precisely as told, which the narrator reports in the very words of Yahweh’s decision (Lev 24:23 K‫ויוציאו את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה וירגמו אתו אבן‬K; Num 15:36 K‫וי ֹציאו אתו‬ ‫כל העדה אל מחוץ למחנה וירגמו אתו באבנים וימת‬K). The narrator then also follows up by emphasizing in his own words the key element of Israel’s fulfillment of Yahweh’s will (Lev 24:23 K‫ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K; Num 15:36 K‫כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K). The two situation-episodes also take place in the context of all-Israel events (the Pesaḥ in Num 9:4 – 5; the census in Num 26:2, 53). In the face of these all-Israel events, groups within Israel recognize that as principles currently stand and circumstances have befallen them they face certain exclusion from the community. In one case, the author has the narrator speak and set up the stage in detail (Num 9:6) prior to the direct speech of the characters (v. 7). In the other case, the author holds the narrator’s tongue and has the group itself speak and convey all relevant information (Num 27:1 – 4). In

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

5

both cases, no one conducts the group to the authorities; rather, the group approaches Moses on its own initiative and on the strength of its own conviction (Num 9:6 K‫ויקרבו‬ . . .K ‫ ;לפני משה‬Num 27:1 – 2 . . . K‫ ותעמדנה לפני משה‬. . . ‫ותקרבנה‬K) and makes its argument (Num 9:7 K‫ויאמרו‬K; Num 27:2 K‫לאמר‬K). The two different groups articulate the heart of the matter – isolation from the larger community of Israel – using the same terms, and both do so in the form of a rhetorical question (Num 9:7 K‫ בתוך בני ישראל‬. . . ‫למה נגרע‬K; Num 27:4 K‫ מתוך משפחתו‬. . . ‫למה יגרע‬K). Again, the narrative of the two stories differs in assigning speech to the narrator or to the characters, but in both cases the author has someone verbalize that divine instruction will ensue (Num 9:8 K‫ויאמר משה עמדו ואשמעה‬ ‫מה יצוה יהוה לכם‬K; Num 27:5 K‫ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני יהוה‬K), which corresponds to that stage in the action-episodes in which the criminals are put into holding until Yahweh hands down judgment. The four stories show a certain variety between them regarding the specific segments of the plot structure. One story lacks a decision for the case at hand and moves directly to the positive formulation of the law; it also does not note the fulfillment of Yahweh’s law (Num 9:1 – 14). Another story only legislates for the present case, without an abstract, statutory formulation for subsequent generations (Num 15:32 – 36). In a third, the narrative provides no set of background details specific to the story in order to set it up, but rather relies on the immediately preceding episode as having established the general context; furthermore, what the narrative does add to that assumed background, in order to pivot from the general situation to the specifics of the petition, it reveals only after the action has begun, putting those elements into the mouths of the characters (Num 27:1 – 11). The fourth story (Lev 24:10 – 23) has all the elements of the paradigm, but one element seems to appear out of order (v. 11b; compare Num 27:1). Those structural plot-elements or stages in the story that do appear in more than one narrative can diverge relatively widely from each other in magnitude. For instance, the background section in one story covers five verses (Num 9:1 – 5), whereas in another it comprises one short sentence in a single half-verse (Num 15:32b). The formulas and terms that govern the movement within the narrative from stage to stage likewise show variation. In the two action-stories, people bring the criminal before the authorities that they may pronounce judgment and specify punishment. In one story the narrative employs the term K‫ויביאו‬K and the people bring the criminal to Moses alone (Lev 24:11), while in the other the narrative uses the term K‫ויקריבו‬K and the people bring the criminal before Moses, Aaron and the entire assembly (Num 15:33). The clause relaying that the criminal was placed in holding appears once with a suffixed accusative pronoun, K‫ויניחֻהו במשמר‬K (Lev 24:12), and a second time with the independent form, K‫ויניחו אתו במשמר‬K (Num 15:34). Such forms and instances of divergence do not gainsay the uniform skeletal structure and terminology that give the shared plot its shape and its texture in all four cases. On the contrary, variability constitutes one of the normal characteristics of a repetitive or patterned compositional technique or template.15 Moreover, such shifts may very well 15

  Note, for instance, the variability in the narrative of creation in Gen 1:1 – 2:4a.

‫‪6‬‬

‫‪Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas‬‬

‫‪Num  15:32 – 36‬‬ ‫‪K‬ויהיו בני ישראל‬

‫במדבר‪K‬‬

‫‪Plot Element‬‬

‫‪Lev  24:10 – 23‬‬ ‫‪K‬ויצא איש בן אשה ישראלית והוא בן איש‬ ‫מצרי בתוך בני ישראל ויִּנצו במחנה בן‬ ‫הישראלית ואיש הישראלי‪K‬‬

‫ויקלל‪K‬‬

‫‪K‬וימצאו איש מקשש עצים ביום‬ ‫השבת‪K‬‬

‫‪K‬ויק ֹב בן האשה הישראלית את השם‬

‫‪K‬ויַּקריבו אתו המצאים אתו מקשש‬ ‫עצים אל משה ואל אהרן ואל כל‬ ‫העדה‬

‫‪K‬ויביאו אתו אל משה‪K‬‬ ‫‪K‬ושם אמו שֹלמית בת דברי למטה‬

‫‪K‬ויניחו אתו במשמר כי לא פרש מה‬ ‫י ֵעשה לו‪ ,‬ויאמר יהוה אל משה‪K:‬‬

‫‪K‬ויניחֻהו במשמר לפר ֹש להם על פי יהוה‪,‬‬ ‫וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר‪K:‬‬

‫דן‪K‬‬

‫‪SETTING‬‬

‫‪PROBLEM‬‬ ‫‪APPROACH‬‬

‫‪CLAIM‬‬

‫‪"K‬מות יומת האיש‪ ,‬רגום אתו‬ ‫באבנים כל העדה מחוץ‬

‫למחנה"‪K‬‬

‫‪ORACULAR‬‬ ‫‪INQUIRY‬‬

‫‪"K‬הוצא את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה וסמכו כל‬ ‫השמעים את ידיהם על ראשו ורגמו אתו כל‬ ‫העדה‬

‫‪CASE RULING‬‬

‫‪K‬ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר‪ :‬איש איש כי‬ ‫יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו ונ ֹקב שם יהוה מות‬ ‫יומת רגום ירגמו בו כל העדה כגר כאזרח‬ ‫בנקבו שם יומת‪ ,‬ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם‬ ‫מות יומת ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת‬ ‫נפש ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן‬ ‫י ֵעשה לו שבר תחת שבר עין תחת עין שן‬ ‫תחת שן‪ ,‬כאשר יתן מום באדם כן י ִנתן בו‬ ‫ומכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת משפט‬ ‫אחד יהיה לכם כגר כאזרח יהיה כי אני יהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם"‬

‫‪STATUTORY‬‬ ‫‪LAW‬‬

‫‪K‬‬

‫‪K‬‬

‫‪K‬וי ֹציאו אתו כל העדה אל מחוץ‬ ‫למחנה וירגמו אתו באבנים וימת‬ ‫כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‪K‬‬

‫‪K‬וידבר משה אל בני ישראל‪ ,‬ויוציאו את‬ ‫המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה וירגמו אתו אבן ובני‬ ‫ישראל עשו כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‪K‬‬

‫‪FULFILLMENT‬‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫‪Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas‬‬

‫‪Plot Element‬‬

‫‪Num  27:1 – 11‬‬

‫‪Num  9:1 – 14‬‬

‫‪SETTING‬‬

‫[‪]chap. 26‬‬

‫‪K‬וידבר יהוה אל משה במדבר סיני בשנה‬ ‫השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים בחדש‬ ‫הראשון לאמר‪" :‬וְיעשו בני ישראל את‬ ‫הפסח במועדו בארבעה עשר יום בחדש‬ ‫הזה בין הער ַ ּבי ִם תעשו א ֹתו במ ֹעדו ככל‬ ‫חקתיו וככל משפטיו תעשו אתו"‪ ,‬וידבר‬ ‫משה אל בני ישראל לעש ֹת הפסח ויעשו‬ ‫את הפסח בראשון בארבעה עשר יום‬ ‫לחדש בין הער ַ ּבי ִם במדבר סיני ככל‬ ‫אשר צוה יהוה את משה כן עשו בני‬ ‫ישראל‪K‬‬

‫‪PROBLEM‬‬

‫‪K‬ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם‬ ‫ולא יכלו לעש ֹת הפסח ביום ההוא‪K‬‬

‫‪APPROACH‬‬

‫‪K‬ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד בן חפר בן גלעד‬ ‫בן מכיר בן מנשה למשפח ֹת מנשה בן‬ ‫יוסף‪ – ‬ואלה שמות בנ ֹתיו‪ :‬מחלה נ ֹעה‬ ‫וחָגלה ומִלכה ותרצה‪ – ‬ותעמדנה לפני‬ ‫משה ולפני אלעזר הכהן ולפני הנׂשיאִם‬ ‫וכל העדה פתח אהל מועד לאמר‪K:‬‬

‫‪K‬ויקרבו לפני משה ולפני אהרן ביום ההוא‬ ‫ויאמרו האנשים ההמה אליו‪K:‬‬

‫‪CLAIM‬‬

‫‪"K‬אבינו מת במדבר והוא לא היה בתוך‬ ‫העדה הנועדים על יהוה בעדת קרח כי‬ ‫בחטאו מת ובנים לא היו לו‪ ,‬למה יגרע‬ ‫שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו‬ ‫בנים? תנה לנו אחֻזה בתוך אחֵי אבינו"‪K‬‬

‫‪"K‬אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם‪ ,‬למה נגרע‬ ‫לבלתי הקריב את קרבן יהוה במעדו‬ ‫בתוך בני ישראל?"‪K‬‬

‫‪ORACULAR‬‬ ‫‪INQUIRY‬‬

‫‪K‬ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני‬ ‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה לאמר‪K:‬‬

‫יהוה‪K‬‬

‫‪CASE RULING‬‬

‫‪"K‬כן בנות צלפחד ד ֹבר ֹת‪ ,‬נת ֹן תתן להם‬ ‫אחֻזת נחלה בתוך אחֵי אביהם והעברת‬ ‫את נחלת אביהן להן‪K‬‬

‫‪STATUTORY‬‬ ‫‪LAW‬‬

‫‪K‬ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר‪ :‬איש כי‬ ‫ימות ובן אין לו והעברתם את נחלתו‬ ‫לבתו ואם אין לו בת ונתתם את נחלתו‬ ‫לאחָיו ואם אין לו אחים ונתתם את‬ ‫נחלתו לאחֵי אביו ואם אין אחים לאביו‬ ‫ונתתם את נחלתו לשארו הקר ֹב אליו‬ ‫ממשפחתו וירש א ֹתה"‪K‬‬

‫‪FULFILLMENT‬‬

‫‪K‬והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת‬ ‫‪K‬כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬

‫משפט‪K‬‬

‫‪K‬ויאמר אלהם משה‪" :‬עמדו ואשמעה מה‬ ‫יצוה יהוה לכם"‪ ,‬וידבר יהוה אל משה‬ ‫לאמר‪K:‬‬

‫‪"K‬דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר‪ :‬איש איש כי‬ ‫יהיה טמא לנפש או בדרך רחקה‪ ,‬לכם או‬ ‫לדרתיכם‪ ,‬ועשה פסח ליהוה בחדש השני‬ ‫בארבעה עשר יום בין הער ַ ּבי ִם יעשו אתו‬ ‫על מצות ומר ֹרים יאכלֻהו לא ישאירו‬ ‫ממנו עד בקר ועצם לא ישברו בו ככל‬ ‫חקת הפסח יעשו אתו‪ ,‬והאיש אשר הוא‬ ‫טהור ובדרך לא היה וחדל לעשות הפסח‬ ‫ונכרתה הנפש ההִוא מעמיה כי קרבן‬ ‫יהוה לא הקריב במעדו חטאו ישא האיש‬ ‫ההוא‪ ,‬וכי יגור אתכם גר ועשה פסח‬ ‫ליהוה כחקת הפסח וכמשפטו כן יעשה‬ ‫חקה אחת יהיה לכם ולגר ולאזרח‬ ‫הארץ"‪K‬‬

8

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

prove to contribute to the poetics of the specific narrative within which they appear and to hold relevance for its meaning, without necessarily having intended to influence the understanding of the other stories or of the shared form that underlies them all.16 Additionally, differences could reflect literary or textual changes that occurred in any or all of the narratives, at any of the stages in their development. In any case, the frame they share remains uniform and stable. The chart above lays out the structure of the four stories stage by stage, to afford a direct impression of the overwhelming degree of consistency between the four texts, which the variations between them do not have the strength to deny and which no other texts share.17 The chart does not present the narratives in the order in which they appear in the Torah, but rather in pairs according to their subtypes, the two actionepisodes – cursing the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 and gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36  – and the two the situation-episodes  – deferring the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 and the inheritance of daughters in Num 27:1 – 11. Among all the episodes and passages that scholars have thrown in with these four stories or with a selection of them, that of the Gileadites in Num 36:1 – 12 makes a certain amount of sense. It continues the case of the daughters of Zelophad in Num 27:1 – 11, and accordingly the Gileadites speak in similar terms as the women. Other speakers, including the narrator, likewise continue the speech patterns and concepts of the case. Nevertheless, the Gileadites do not come forward so much to inquire about a new topic or situation as to mount a counter-petition against a preceding ruling. The counter-petition does not constitute a fifth independent incident, but rather directly continues an existing case, even though in the biblical text many passages separate the two passages from the each other. Indeed, the author of one of the scrolls found in the caves of Qumran by the Dead Sea elected to place the two episodes side by side so that the one follow immediately on the heels of the other – (4Q365 frag. 36); indications suggest that other authors did likewise (4QNumb).18 Moreover, the structure, sequence, and linkages of the narrative in Num 36:1 – 12 – the “stuff” of the passage – really do not conform to the scheme and realization of the narratives of the inheriting women and the other three topics, but rather diverge. Accordingly, it suffices to consider the passage an extension of the case of the daughters of Zelophad and analyze it in that context. Categorically speaking, the four stories might fall under the general category of etiological narrative and be considered alongside those stories said to describe the rise 16

  See Alter’s discussion of “type-scenes” in The Art of Biblical Narrative, 55 – 78.   The difficulties posed by the genealogical note in Lev 24:11b in the approach segment (artificially put there on the model of Num 27:1) and by the sequence of clauses in Num 27:11b in the fulfillment segment are treated below in the full analyses of each of the texts. 18   For 4Q365, see DJD 13.310. The state of the preservation of the fragment prevents one from knowing whether the author pulled the counter-petition back to Num 27:1 – 11, deferred the original petition to the beginning of Numbers 36, or even moved them both somewhere else within the sequence of the book of Numbers. For 4QNumb, see DJD 12.262 – 264; the fragment with Numbers 36 has room after v. 2 for ten lines and after v. 4 for another twelve, which in a reasonable exercise, the editor, Nathan Jastram, filled in on the basis of Num 27:2 – 11. 17

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

9

of a normative practice. Such a view, though, does not do justice to the uniqueness of the four stories as a group. Three characteristics limit the sharpness and utility of such a categorization. First of all, as a general rule, in the broader set of instances, the combination of the narrative with the law, custom or norm has an artificial, forced character. Literarily speaking, the two elements do not depend on each other. Rather, they have been conjoined mechanically such that one can still separate them from each other without affecting the coherence of the narrative. The statements that Israelites do not eat the sinew of the thigh as a result of the “low blow” dealt Jacob by his divine wrestling opponent, in Gen 32:25 – 33; that it became the custom to mourn Jeptah’s daughter in commemoration of the personal tragedy that befell Jeptah’s family in the aftermath of his victory over the Ammonites, in Judg 10:17 – 11:40; or that it became law to share the spoils of war after David’s recovery of the wives and property that had been taken captive by the Amalekites, in 1 Sam 30:1 – 25 – when removed, such comments in the narrator’s voice leave no gaps in the remaining story, either in the immediate flow, or in the larger plot beforehand or afterward. In whatever way these normative elements in the stories add dimensions of meaning to the stories by the very fact of their presence, and to whatever degree together as a whole they create a set of audience identity-markers in general, the stories absorbed them in limited fashion and do not have them integrated productively into the larger narrative flow. In some cases, the etiology may have even entered the text secondarily.19 Moreover, more often than not, the narrative in these instances does not in fact explain the norm or practice as the text describes it, in all its particulars, but only establishes an historical anchor, as it were. What kind of thought-process, for example, leads from a visibly limping Jacob, a human being whose entire leg suffers dislocation, to a culinary prohibition against an invisible, internal component of an animal’s leg? Secondly, in such etiological moments, Yahweh does not legislate, make demands, or signal his assent to the norm. Indeed, most such stories do not even state that the character involved instituted the norm or practice, only that Israelites behave in a certain way on account of what befell that character. Thirdly, in many of these cases, the norm serves a commemorative function. Moreover, the text does not speak as if creating the norm, but rather presupposes its existence and creates its commemorative aspect by linking it to the incident narrated. In sharp contrast to these sorts of etiological statements within narrative materials, in the four stories of the generation of law – Lev 24:10 – 23; Num 9:1 – 14; 15:32 – 36; and 27:1 – 11 – the law functions as the climax of the story. Remove it and rob the story of its resolution, the logic of its parts and flow, its very reason for being. The heart of the plot in each case consists specifically of consulting Yahweh for immediate instruction, to gain his divine decisions and legislation, which will serve as law forever after. 19   On etiologies and their secondary place in the scheme of the history of stories, see Bright, Early Israel, 91 – 100; Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 11 – 45 (= Gesammelte Studien, 77 – 118). On the interpolated status of the etiologies mentioned above, see Dillmann, Genesis, 359; Zakovitch, Introduction, 89.

10

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

In this spirit, there is more to note about these stories, with respect to the character of the narrative, the quality of the storytelling. Several scholars have articulated well the unusual combination of minimalist telling and restraint, on the one hand, and maximizing significance and implication, on the other – the economy – that characterizes biblical narrative and the dynamic, engaging reading process it engenders.20 This trait, it still needs be said, does not apply to all biblical narrative, or to all of it equally. Suffice it here to call attention to the fuller form of story-telling – providing richer detail, internal perspective, and colorful narrator commentary – in the story of Amnon and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13, in the very heart of what most consider the jewel and quintessence of biblical historiographical narrative. In the opposite direction, the four stories of the generation of new law push the tendency towards narrative economy to its spartan extreme. The narrative dimension is so minimal as to provide almost no information, from the points of view of the setting, the characters, their motives and deeds, the amount and quality of detail, the plot, and the narrator’s own self-restraint. Rather, the narrative hews that much more perceptibly to the scheme that underlies all of them and gives them their shape. The narrative of the man who curses the deity, for instance, jumps directly into the fistfight and cuts immediately to the curse. The entire description takes up a mere verse and a half (Lev 24:10 – 11). Just how does there come to be in Israel of the exodus generation a man of Egyptian parentage? The author leaves it entirely to the imagination of the audience – for whom the story, of course, would be telling of far-distant times. So too the parallel story, in which a single verse simply states that Israelites caught a man gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num 15:32). The story of the make-up Pesaḥ in the second month relates its core information in a half-verse: people with death-impurity could not perform the Pesaḥ (Num 9:6). The daughters of Zelophad have little to say about their father, other than that he died without having had sons and that he did not participate in the group challenging Moses and Aaron (which second comment may itself not have been original to the story), with no information whatsoever about themselves (Num 27:3). The statements about having carried out Yahweh’s instructions are similarly abrupt. This minimal style has caused commentators some consternation. Traditional and critical scholars alike have sought to flesh out the stories by uncovering, as it were, deeply buried details. They scour the text for any hint or irregularity by which to insert into the story additional details and thereby thicken it. In this manner they turn the skeletal stories of a deliberately minimalist storytelling quality into pregnant and allusive ones, in which characters have rich backgrounds and motives, and events participate in a web of connections across the larger sequence of stories within the Torah.21 Such 20   Gunkel, Genesis, xxiii – xlviii; Auerbach, Mimesis, 1 – 20; Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 143 – 162; Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 321 – 364. 21   The story about cursing the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 serves as an example of this kind of fillingin. On the matter that led to the fight, compare Kalisch, Leviticus, 525, 527; Bertholet, Leviticus, 85; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.87; Elliger, Leviticus, 333; Seeligmann, “Ger,” 546 – 547. On the parents of the curser, see Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 361; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2107, 2110. For even fuller reconstruction, see Mittwoch, “The Story of the Blasphemer,” 387 – 388.

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

11

attempts to fill in what the stories omit reflect an assumption about the definition of narrative, about its shape and purpose. According to this assumption, regardless of any internal defining features or indications of a role within a larger, delimited literary context, biblical narratives – their shape and ways of creating and conveying meaning – should conform to a predetermined notion of fullness. However, in the case of the four stories, the skeletal style and self-contained orientation do not require restoration of a fuller set of details and allusions. Nor, for that matter, do they bespeak an author lacking in imagination, talent, time, or writing materials. They reveal the author’s purpose. The minimalist style of the four stories works deliberately and single-mindedly to lay the groundwork for the laws that constitute the climax. The author of the story about cursing the deity, for instance, cared only to establish the law in paradigmatic terms, the incident that led to its origin, its legislation, and its application.22 The author had no interest in developing the narrative beyond that scheme. He employed a minimalist style sufficient – better: well-suited – to tie together in a direct fashion the law and the incident that gave rise to it. Given this approach to understanding the focused and selective character of the four stories, one should pay close attention to the specific details that the author chose to provide as deliberately chosen and intended to signify. Perhaps the most notable features are (1) the legal climax in each narrative and (2) the sets of terms that construct the stages in the plot and orient them towards the legislation. For instance, the expressions K‫קר"ב‬K, K‫עמ"ד‬K, K‫פר"ש‬K, K‫פי יהוה‬K, and K‫שמ"ע‬K recur in mild variation as keywords or as a core of basic terms, and establish the law specifically in an oracular context, namely, a context of consulting the deity for instruction. Such a context does not in and of itself stand out in biblical literature. Formal inquiry and instruction, whether to resolve dispute or otherwise gain knowledge, occur in a range of texts, in different genres, and regarding different situations. Examples include: to learn about an ominously turbulent pregnancy, in narrative (Gen 25:21 – 23); to resolve a local dispute, in law (Deut 17:8 – 13);23 and to ascertain the fate of the nation, in prophecy (Ezek 14:4 – 11).24 However, in the four stories in Lev 24:10 – 23 and Num 9:1 – 14; 15:32 – 36; 27:1 – 11, this oracular element – the consultation framed and construed as law and specifically 22

  Bertholet, Leviticus, 84.  In its present form, the passage seems unable to decide before whom the disputing parties bring their case, a judge (K‫ש ֵפט‬ ֹׁ K) who announces (K‫נג"ד‬K) a decision (K‫ש ָ ּפט‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִמ‬K) or a priest (K‫כ ֹּ ֵהן‬K) who issues (K‫יר"ה‬K) instruction (K‫ּתֹורה‬ ָ K). A similar problem occurs in the law of the unaccounted-for corpse, which has elders and priests (Deut 21:1 – 9). Indications suggest that in the case of the unaccounted-for corpse the priests were added secondarily and that in the law of the difficult case the priests constitute the original element. 24   See Pedersen, Israel, 1.406 – 410; 2.102 – 197. For a convenient survey of the relevant passages and their categorization, see Budd, “Priestly Instruction.” Similar is the use made by Saul and David of mantic equipment in the book of Samuel, for example, 1 Sam 14:18 – 19. But in all these instances, consultation of the priest occurs not for the benefit of the private individual, but in the context of and with immediate implications for the entire nation as such, namely, for national and political purposes. See Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 173 – 193. In the four stories under discussion, the state of the nation of Israel, its fundamental structure and fortunes, are not under threat, and they do not change as a result of the divine legislation, which stays concentrated at a very narrow level. 23

12

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

as divine law – defines the shape, trajectory, and style of the four stories to their very core. In this light, then, I call the group of four stories “oracular novellas” – “novellas,” on account of both their short-story form and the legal innovation in them,25 and “oracular,” on account of the means that achieves the new law and that also gives the story-form as a whole its particular diction and shape.26 The oracular aspect of these four novellas points to another element that binds them as a group and sets them off to some degree from other texts – the role played by Moses and the image given him. Moses stands in a pivotal position in all these stories, as the channel of communication between the people and Yahweh, the one who transmits divine law. The narrative never fails to highlight this position of Moses and it does so at the key transitional points. Indeed, Moses does not serve as a judge in these stories, or, for that matter, as a kind of wonder-worker, but specifically as an oracular intermediary. The Hebrew Bible contains additional texts that portray Moses in this way. In Exod 33:7 – 11, the narrator describes a tent that Moses kept outside the camp for oracular consultations. People seeking divine guidance or audience (K‫כל מבקש יהוה‬K) would go out there, Moses would follow, and Yahweh under cover of cloud would join Moses and express his will or impart his knowledge.27 In Exod 18:13 – 26, Moses tells 25   On the history of the term novella in literature and the definition of the genre, see OED Online, s. v. “novel,” etymology and § 4a (accessed October 18, 2012); Cudden, Dictionary of Literary Terms, 641 – 642; EBOAE, s. v. “novel,” http://search.eb.com/eb/article-50989 (accessed December 13, 2009); and Schellinger, Encyclopedia of the Novel, s. v. “novella.” For the history of the term in law, see Shumaker and Longsdorf, The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, 770; OED Online, s. v. “novel,” § 5 (accessed October 18, 2012); EBOAE, s. v. “Roman law: The law of Justinian” (accessed December 13, 2009). 26   Fishbane refers to the stories as “oracular responsa” (Biblical Interpretation, 102 ff.). The difference is not great, but a responsum need not innovate in the law and the term responsum does not convey the narrative (and historiographical) cast of the text that gives the law its context and shape. Licht uses the term novella alone, in the sense of supplementary law (Numbers, 3.66), which does not suffice to convey the oracular dimension. The term “precedent” (Patrick, Old Testament Law, 179 – 180) is entirely too broad and, again, does not express the oracular element; moreover, the stories do not merely contain an incident and the ruling on it, but also abstract formulations of law. See OED Online, s. v. “precedent,” § 1c (accessed October 18, 2012); EBOAE, s. v. “precedent” (accessed December 13, 2009); in legal literature, see Walker, The Oxford Companion to Law, 977 – 980, esp. 980; in British law, see Curzon, Dictionary of Law, 324; and in American law, see Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 1214 – 1215. For the argument that private oracular inquiry had an impact on forms of narrative, see Long, “2 Kings III and Genres of Prophetic Narrative;” idem, “Divination as Model for Literary Form;” also Cryer, Divination, 306 – 323. 27  The presence of this passage in its current context, interrupting the sequence and formulated as habitual, has long posed a problem. Baden argues that the words K‫מהר חורב‬K at the end of v. 6 actually belong to this passage as its beginning (“On Exodus 33,1 – 11”), and Stackert argues that originally it came before the story within Numbers 11 about authorizing the seventy elders to share his burden and substitute for oracular inquiry (“The Tent of Meeting;” “Moses and the Politics of Future Prophecy”). The narrative includes the element that the people would stand and watch the proceedings (Exod 33:8, 11), which follows up Yahweh perceptibly responding to Moses before the people (19:9, 19) to establish Moses’ authority ahead of the lawgiving and covenant ceremony (Exodus 20 – 24). In a similar passage, Moses’ encounter with Yahweh on Mount Sinai gave his face a permanent glow, which he would show the Israelites whenever he had new instructions to transmit to them (Exod 34:29 – 35); see Haran, “The Shining of Moses’ Face;” also Aster, The Unbeatable Light, 340 – 341.

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

13

Jethro (vv. 15 – 16) that the people come to him seeking divine help (K‫לדרש אלהים‬K), and he solves their suits and disputes (K‫ושפטתי בין איש ובין רעהו‬K) by notifying them of the deity’s rulings and instructions (K‫והודעתי את חקי האלהים ואת תורתיו‬K). Jethro’s suggestion (vv. 17 – 23) to establish a multitiered judicial institution for case resolution does not aim to eliminate the oracular inquiry through Moses entirely. Jethro only means to restrict such inquiry to those cases that defy human ability to achieve effective resolution28 and in this manner to gain control over the overwhelming number of cases solved through the person of Moses.29 The Hebrew Bible also has additional figures who function in this capacity, not as judges applying their own knowledge and experience, but as mediums who bring about resolution and guidance by enlisting divine assistance or channeling divine insight and guidance – Deborah and Samuel. The author of the story of Deborah describes her with the expression K‫אשה נביאה‬K (“a prophetess”), and depicts her sitting under or at the foot of a palm tree, to which Israelites “ascend” seeking decisions and pronouncements: K‫ למשפט‬. . . ‫ויעלו אליה‬K (Judg 4:4 – 6). Samuel is famous throughout Israel for his reliability as a K‫נביא‬K (“prophet”) of Yahweh (1 Sam 3:20); he makes a circuit through Benjamin for the purposes of resolving situations and pronouncing decisions (1 Sam 7:15 – 17), and not unlike Jethro’s advice to Moses, he aims to effect a transition to his sons, whom he sets up as judges (8:1 – 2). Priests – people who regularly and recognizably serve at acknowledged sites of enduring divine significance – also function in this capacity, according to a variety of texts: the law of dispute resolution in Deut 17:3 – 8; the law of the suspicious husband in Num 5:11 – 31; the prophecy about the integrity of future priesthood in Ezek 44:23 – 24; implicitly, the law of contested ownership and theft in Exod 22:6 – 8;30 and perhaps Moses’ “blessing” of the tribe of Levi, whose members show no favoritism when engaged in dispute resolution, in Deut 33:8 – 11.31 A series of prophecies demonstrates how long the ideal endures that people persistently seek out divine insight, knowledge, and instruction (e. g. Hos 10:12; Isa 58:2). The figure of the king offers an illuminating contrast. Narrators, characters, and prophetic figures alike say he enjoys penetrating insight and powers of discernment of divine caliber 28   Compare Deut 17:8. Other cases of insufficient evidence include Exod 22:6 – 8; Num 5:11 – 31, esp. vv. 13 – 14. 29   On the oracular aspect shared by the four stories and the passage about Jethro’s advice, see Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 98, 236 – 237. See also Seebass, Numeri, 154; Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 180 n. 9. 30   See Westbrook, “Deposit Law,” 391 – 393, 397. 31  In this direction, see Tg. Onq. at v. 9: K‫דעל אבוהי ועל אמיה לא רחים כד חבו מן דינא ואפי אחוהי ובנוהי לא‬ ‫נסיב‬K. Scholarship since, both traditional and critical, has predominantly understood the verse as an historical reference. Note the Targums that have both: Tg. Yer. and Frg. Tg. P: K‫לאבוי ולאימיה לא נסב אפין‬ ‫בדינא וית אחוי לא חכים בעובדא דעיגלא‬K. Particularly clever is the maximal historicizing in Frg. Tg. V: K‫לאבוי‬ ‫ולאימיה לא נסב אפין בדינה דתמר וית אחוי לא חכם בעובדא דעיגלא ועל בנוי לא קנא רחמין בעבדא דזימרי‬K. See the discussion in Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 422 – 423. Note, though, that his argument, that if the verse refers only to family members then it must not have a judicial theme (since it would then imply that one can pervert justice for people outside the family), does not consider the possibility that the verse speaks of the most extreme case: Levites do not favor anyone, even their own closest family members (compare Deut 13:7 – 12).

14

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

and can resolve dilemmas, assess situations, and provide guidance directly (2 Sam 14:17; 19:28; 1 Kgs 3:3 – 28; Isa 11:1 – 5).32 In the four oracular novellas, Moses does not employ mantic equipment or other means, like the ‫ם‬K ‫אּורים ותֻ מי‬K (ᵓûrîm and tummîm) consulted by Joshua before Eleazar the priest (Num 27:15 – 23), the priestly cocktail given the woman suspected of adultery (5:11 – 31), or the bunch of almond branches laid inside Yahweh’s tabernacle (17:16 – 26). Similar to Deborah, to Samuel, to Moses in the texts that describe his consultation-tent outside the camp (Exod 33:7 – 11; Num 12:5 – 9; Deut 31:14 – 15, 23), as well as to the string of many texts that has Moses talking with Yahweh at Yahweh’s palatial tent in the center of the camp (Exod 25:22; 29:42; 30:6; 34:29 – 35; Lev 1:1; esp. Num 7:89) – Moses in the oracular novellas simply hears Yahweh’s voice.33 Against the picture drawn on this broader canvas, the four oracular novellas stand out in an additional respect. The other texts either refer to resolving conflict and dispute by having recourse to divine insight and knowledge, namely, they do not concern law and legislation proper, or else, where they do concern law and legislation, the initiative generally comes from Yahweh and not in response to particular circumstances. In the oracular novellas, by contrast, the people approach Moses in order to receive divine laws on new topics (Lev 24:10 – 23), to amend existing laws (Num 9:1 – 14), and even to change existing norms and assumptions (Num 27:1 – 11). Accordingly, in contrast to the extended series of laws, rules, and regulations revealed by Yahweh to Moses that characterize the bulk of the Torah, in these stories Yahweh does not initiate these meetings or the topics of conversation – Moses does, as the circumstances indeed warrant.34 Long ago Philo and more recently Fishbane delineated the four passages as a distinct group of texts on account of the portrayal in them of Mosaic prophecy and legislation. Philo emphasized the prophetic dimension and perceived the legal aspect as a subset, a particular kind of realization of the prophetic mode. Fishbane gave priority to the legal dimension and perceived the prophetic, oracular aspect as a subset, a manner of legal generation and a mode of legal discourse. This study subsumes both elements under yet another dimension of the text, that which constitutes it and determines – at 32   As in 2 Samuel 14, this bit of royal self-promotion is put to manipulative use by a character aiming to sway the king, which puts the king at an ironic disadvantage vis-à-vis the audience, in 2 Samuel 7. On the explicit motif comparing the king’s penetrating insight and ability to discern to that of a divine agent, see Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil.” 33   See also Van Dam, Urim and Thummim, 180 n. 9; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2112. Careful comparison of Num 7:89 with Exod 34:29 – 35, esp. v. 34, indicates a debate as to whether Moses would enter Yahweh’s own chamber and talk with him face to face (as in Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10; also Num 12:8), or stand outside it and hear his instructions through the curtain (following implications of Exod 40:34 – 35; Lev 9:23 – 10:3; 16:1 – 34). 34  Between the two poles stand descriptions like 2 Kgs 22:12 – 20, when inquiry of Ḥulda regarding the scroll found in the temple holds meaning for the nation as such, but takes place without oracular equipment, only through the speaking prophetess. Ezekiel appears in a similar light (14:1 – 3; 20:1). The oracle in MT 2 Sam 21:1 K‫אל שאול ואל בית הדמים‬K, which is short, rhythmically balanced, and somewhat opaque, might represent a response achieved through mantic equipment. (The continuation, K‫על‬ ‫אשר המית את הגבע ֹנים‬K, would belong to the narrator, who explains to the narratee the significance of the oracular reply David received; see Chavel, “Compositry and Creativity,” 26 n. 10.)

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

15

least as far as a literary feature can do so – its primary mode of self-presentation as an articulating and affecting entity: its genre. Viewing the four texts primarily as narrative and contemplating their contents in that framework lends additional clarity to the roles and relationships between law and prophecy both within the stories, namely, within the “oracular novella” type of story, and consequently with respect to each other. These stories – historiographical narrative – about law legislated in a particular prophetic mode bring together the most essential elements of biblical thought and configure them in a unique or uniquely crystallized construction. In sociological terms this literary construction is expressive. As many have put it, community identity regularly experiences and manages the tension between its sense of consistency over time, its longevity, and its need to adapt its constitutive elements to changing circumstances whether within the community or outside it, in short, to refresh itself.35 Such tension and its management find relatively distinct expression in the oracular novellas, according to their two subtypes, the action-episodes and the situation-episodes. In the stories of the man who curses the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 and the man caught violating the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36 – the two action-episodes – the community faces a direct, active threat to its integrity. Though normative sensibilities react to the action as an illegitimate one severe enough to warrant exclusion from the community, legislation had not covered the action, either at all or sufficiently. To preserve its sense of coherence and continuity, the community must formally redraw its boundaries or impress them more forcefully and expel the violator. The initiative to tackle the situation – impelled, it seems fair to say, by a sense of outrage laced perhaps with fear – comes from the community at large, represented by those in immediate proximity to the violation, whether they heard the curse (Lev 24:11, 12, 14) or witnessed the violation of the Sabbath (Num 15:32 – 34). Both action-episodes conclude with divine instruction and legislation that gives new, explicit expression to the limits of community membership and highlights the point by requiring death for the violators – outside the camp (Lev 24:14, 23; Num 15:35 – 36). The two situation-episodes – in one of which impure people cannot participate in Israel’s first, commemorative Pesaḥ in the wilderness (Num 9:1 – 14), while in the other a man who dies without having produced sons will not merit defining a distinct family plot in Canaan (Num 27:1 – 11) – feature a different configuration. Specific members of the community face exclusion from the community due to an unhappy confluence of norms and developing conditions that adversely affect them by implication and in response to no actions of their own. In these two stories, affected members themselves mount an appeal for changing the laws in one way or another so as to allow them to remain in the community.36 The respective petitions affect future generations by providing for them in advance. They need never revisit the issue, only act in accordance 35   See Moore, “Epilogue;” Smith, “Sacred Persistence;” Levinson, “The Human Voice in Divine Revelation.” 36  Note the fitting use of K‫גר"ע‬K in both texts (Num 9:7; 27:4); see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 98 – 99.

16

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

with the stipulations. The petitioners’ continued membership never comes under question. Animated by a mood of sympathy and protection rather than outrage, these two stories drive towards the legislation that will redraw the limits of community participation more broadly so as to retain its members. The divine quality of the legislation in all four oracular novellas functions to sustain the sense of identity in the face of potential perception of discontinuity, of rupture. This sociological perspective on legal innovation makes it easier to appreciate more fully one of the distinctive features of the oracular novellas, the deity’s responsiveness to developments on the ground even within the highly detailed system he himself devised.37 This aspect is particularly perceptible in the two situation-episodes – cases of petition by those impure at the time of the Pesaḥ (Num 9:1 – 14) and by the daughters of Zelophad (Num 27:1 – 11). In the first case, the impure only go so far as to describe the predicament and its disproportionate result, in a rhetorical question that leaves resolution hanging in the air: K‫– למה נגרע לבלתי הקרב את קרבן‬ ‫אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם‬ !?‫יהוה במעדו בתוך בני ישראל‬K (Num 9:6 – 7). In the second case, the women similarly pose a rhetorical question, but then take the extra step of proposing, even demanding, a specific form of resolution: K‫– למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך‬ ‫ ובנים לא היו לו‬. . . ‫אבינו מת במדבר‬ !‫משפחתו כי אין לו בן?! תנה לנו אחזה בתוך אחי אבינו‬K (27:3 – 4), and this additional element seems to elicit a direct response from Yahweh, who first evaluates it as correct then repeats their very words as his own directive: K‫– נתן תתן להם אחזת נחלה‬ ‫כן בנות צלפחד ד ֹבר ֹת‬ ‫בתוך אחי אביהם‬K (vv. 6 – 7). In the two action-episodes too, Israelites bring the criminal to Moses – as the narrator explains in his own words – to ascertain by divine means what to do with him or to him (Lev 24:12; Num 15:34). Describing divine responsiveness in these terms does not mean to emphasize the level of personification for the deity as an amiable fellow, but to shed light on the way the author or authors imagining the deity in this manner create space for developments in the human sphere generally and in their society in particular. In this respect, the text is not so much about the past as it is the present, and awareness of this dimension of literary composition plays a crucial role in attempting a fuller comprehension of how it works, of its poetics. Within modern theories about the composition of the Torah, the sociological expressiveness of the oracular novellas takes on additional significance. A modern, critical reading of the Torah understands it as an incomplete, inconsistent, and even incoherent narrative, best explained as a composite work produced by the partial combination of different pieces of Israelian (i. e., northern) and Judean (i. e. southern) literature.38 According to the so-called “documentary hypothesis” – which to my mind remains the best overall hypothesis for explaining the problems of narrative posed by the Torah – one can resolve the Torah mainly into three separate works of historiography and one 37

  In this direction, see Watts, “The Legal Characterization of God,” 12.   One’s ability to abstract a coherent story – a plot, set of characters, climax and all the rest – has no bearing on the integrity of the narrative, because, of necessity, by definition, abstraction involves prioritizing, selecting, and ignoring. For the crucial difference between story – an abstraction organized chronologically, an object – and narrative – the telling of a story, the story as told, a process or event – see Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 1 – 28, esp. 3 – 4, also 86 – 105. 38

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

17

collection of materials distinctively related to each other: the Yahwistic, Elohistic, and Priestly histories and the Deuteronomic corpus (conventionally referred to by the letters J, E, P, and D, respectively).39 Scholars have unanimously and consistently identified the four oracular novellas as a part of the Priestly history. In the combined Torah, the oracular novellas always come in the midst of stretches of Priestly text; they speak in the Priestly idiom; they employ and develop Priestly concepts; and presume and advance the story told in the Priestly history.40 At its heart, the Priestly history tells the story of Yahweh’s tent that Yahweh has Israel set up for him in its midst and in which he dwells.41 A mass of instruction and legislation attends its construction, and, once set up, it will serve as the locus of all instruction and legislation ever after. The narrative of the history highlights repeatedly, at several critical junctures, the centrality to the character of the tent not of sacrifice and not of purgation, but of the oracular transmission of divine will in the guise of law (Exod 25:21 – 22; 29:42 – 46; 30:6, 34 – 37; 34:29 – 35; Num 7:89; 17:16 – 19). Hence its distinctive cluster of terms around the notion of meeting and speaking, of counsel: the action K‫יע"ד‬K; the place K‫אהל מועד‬K; the object deposited there, the K‫עדות‬K; and the body of people around it, the K‫עדה‬K.42 Hence the choice to have Yahweh invoke the fact that 39   For recent work advancing the documentary hypothesis, see Schwartz, “The Torah;” Baden, J, E, and the Redaction; idem, The Composition of the Pentateuch. For an overview of the legal material by document, see Chavel, “Biblical Law.” My notion of history, or of a work of history, draws on and combines Huizinga’s definition of history, “the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past,” which recognizes: (a) the distance between the time and circumstances of the historian and the time described in the work, (b) the implicit identification of the historian and his audience with the subjects of the historical work, and (c) the constructive nature of the endeavor (“A Definition of the Concept of History”), together with White’s categorization of the “history proper” or the “fully realized history” as having the form – the drama, completeness, and coherence – of fictional narrative (“The Value of Narrativity”). For the Deuteronomic corpus as a sixth-century BCE collection of seventh-century BCE texts closely related to each other, a delineation of the separate texts and their contents, and a description of the process by which they came to look as they now do, see Haran, The Biblical Collection, 2.40 – 93. This view of the Torah as the product of the interweaving of four works does not exclude the possibility that any of those works will have undergone processes of expansion or that the combined Torah also underwent supplementation. Those of us who think the documentary hypothesis best accounts for the narrative of the Torah must still contend with the problem of identifying the continuation and conclusion of each of the three histories. 40   Consult any of the introductions or commentaries, e. g., Driver, Introduction, 159. Vroom appears to have misunderstood the claims in Chavel, “Oracular Novellae and Biblical Historiography,” 16 – 17, in this regard (“Recasting Mîšpāṭîm,” 28 n. 4). 41   For an insightful discussion of important aspects of the Priestly history, see Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 59 – 65. In Nihan’s view, the Priestly history originally concluded with the laws of Leviticus 16 and never told of Israel and Yahweh’s tent continuing on to Canaan (ibid., 66 – 68, 379 – 382, also 20 – 58). 42  On the K‫עדות‬K see Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 114 – 130, esp. 126 – 127. On K‫מועד‬K (with a different angle on the productive roots in the Priestly history), see idem, “Miqraʾ Qodesh,” 13 – 15. In notable contrast to the Priestly history, the Elohistic history and the Deuteronomic corpus have Yahweh revealing all Israel’s laws to Moses once and for all on a mountain in the wilderness (Exod 20 – 23; Deut 4:10 – 14; 5:1 – 27). In the Elohistic history, Moses does regularly pitch a tent, but only after the lawgiving concludes rather than to facilitate it; he pitches it outside the camp rather than in its center; his attendant Joshua mans it, remaining inside it day and night, rather than Aaron and his sons and

18

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

he speaks to Moses at the tabernacle, just as he mentions the daily offering that otherwise would represent the hallmark of stable divine presence (Exod 29:38 – 42). Hence Yahweh’s definition of the cherubic cover of the chest with the K‫עדות‬K inside it as the space at which he will be manifest to Moses (K‫ונועדתי לך שם‬K) and from which he will speak to him (25:21 – 22). And hence the permanent reminder on Moses’ face of communicable divine will ever at the ready within the camp (34:29 – 35). In the terms of the analysis developed here, one can go so far as to say that the four oracular novellas represent the template and features that make up the Priestly history stripped down to their essentials and crystallized in miniature form: narrative organized around a legal climax; community organized around divine rules; and a deity who issues rulings in response to newly emergent facts and circumstances. It is at this fractal-like point that the Priestly history may disclose the most intimate, most cherished self-perception of its author or authors not as a class of people set apart to live in the presence of the deity and wait on him, but as those who on account of their proximity and service communicate his vital, animate will – that is, his vitalizing, animating will – to the society around.43 Even in this respect, within the Priestly history, the four oracular novellas establish a pole along a spectrum. Not all the legal sections that come in the wake of an event in the Priestly history correlate quite so tightly with the narrative. For instance, the Pesaḥ laws in Exod 12:1 – 24 serve both to effect the exodus and to commemorate it, but nothing in the Priestly exodus story foreshadows them, anticipates them, or requires them as such.44 In Leviticus 10, after Yahweh incinerates Nadab and Abihu for having their highly regimented access to the tabernacle; it only serves private oracular consultation and other camp-management purposes, rather than law-giving proper let alone sacrifice; and Yahweh does not dwell in it, but descends to it from above for the purpose and duration of any such consultation (Exod 33:7 – 11; Num 11:11 – 12, 14 – 17, 24 – 30; 12:1 – 15; Deut 31:14 – 15, 23). On the two different tents, see Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 260 – 275; also Knohl, “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting.’” In the Deuteronomic corpus, all change is categorically ruled out of bounds (5:32; 28:14) and impossible (18:9 – 22); like the Elohistic history, the Deuteronomic corpus only entertains case resolution (17:8 – 13). 43  The Priestly history presents Moses as a provisional, transitional founder, whose legacy persists through his brother’s line. Moses sees images of the tabernacle, receives instructions about it, oversees its construction, and inaugurates it by preparing and sanctifying Aaron and his sons to serve there – and to take control of all functions for good (note esp. Num 3:1 – 4). This presentation extends to Moses’ service as the oracular medium, but he persists in the role (see Exod 34:29 – 34; Num 7:89), presumably because it only requires a single person, whereas the administration of the tabernacle requires a full complement of people, which necessitates Aaron and his sons taking over responsibilities immediately. The roundabout formulation of Num 31:21 K‫ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא הבאים למלחמה זאת חקת‬ ‫התורה אשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K might indicate that the idea of Moses’ persistence in the role as oracular transmitter of new law until his death did not take hold completely or uniformly throughout the Priestly history: the author here either initially forgot it or debated it, but it was then (rein)stated clearly through the last two or five words. For a full argument about the conception and portrayal of Moses in the Priestly history, see Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses, 168 – 190. 44   Indeed, indications can lead to the conclusion that only an editing hand has connected the earliest layer of the laws to the exodus story. On their all belonging to the Priestly work and representing different layers of activity in the production of the work – pre-existing, compositional, and editorial – see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 44 – 67, 95. The one text that does bear striking correspondences

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

19

approached the newly inaugurated tabernacle with unacceptable materials, K‫אש זרה אשר‬ ‫לא צוה אתם‬K (vv. 1 – 7),45 he issues a prohibition to Aaron against drinking alcoholic beverages before entering the tabernacle or engaging in other significant activities (vv. 8 – 11).46 This seeming non sequitur has generated a range of interpretive responses, from the inebriation of Nadab and Abihu at the time of their offense47 to a disordered text or even a secondary insertion tacked on in the wrong place.48 Moreover, immediately after that, Moses and Aaron debate and resolve together several questions regarding the offerings, questions in which the unforeseen situation of death at the tabernacle itself seems to play a role (vv. 12 – 20), and even these legal clarifications simply do not stand as the climax or purpose of the story, only its second-order aftermath. Likewise, in Numbers 16 – 18, a bloc of laws about Levite control of and accountability for popular access to the tabernacle, which serve to ensure a baseline level of tabernacle-compound purity,49 follows the very different story in which Koraḥ leads a rebellion against the exclusive Aaronide priesthood. In between, serving as the bridge that leads from one to the other, the Israelites complain that they cannot survive in Yahweh’s presence (17:27 – 28). The result implies that Yahweh accepts his people’s appeal and in response to it establishes laws that will cushion their proximity to him by transferring accountability for their trespass to the Levites. But as the narrative stands, from a topical point of view, the segment as a whole still appears relatively tangential to the Koraḥ episode.50 The story of the manna in Exodus 16 (vv. 1 – 3, 6 – 25, 31 – 36), in which Yahweh details the subordination of food preparation to the Sabbath, probably constitutes one of the most integrated of Priestly episodes in terms of law and narrative. In a kind of commentary format, after every Israelite speech or other action comes a reaction by Moses that comments, issues instructions, or otherwise registers normative implications. However, the story does not in fact explain the rise of the Sabbath or any of its specific laws; it only depicts how, given the institution of the Sabbath, the to the Pesaḥ and as the Torah stands now appears to prefigure it, namely, the ghastly tale of Yahweh’s attack on Moses in Exod 4:21 – 26 (Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 107 – 122), bears an even more comprehensive set of correspondences to that of the divine attack on Jacob in Gen 32:4 – 33:16; neither of these texts belongs to the Priestly history and both seem to belong to the Yahwistic history. 45   Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.595 – 600. 46   Though none appear to have read it this manner, the text indicates that the narrator cites Yahweh in vv. 8 – 9 then in his own words expands upon Yahweh’s speech with his own viewpoint in vv. 10 – 11: not only when engaging in divine service must priests not have drunk wine but also in pronouncing pure or impure and in giving Israel divine instruction. As such, it represents one of the most robust character-moments of the narrator in the Priestly history, in which the narrator mainly comes to the front to emphasize a point of significance for the narratee of his history (e. g. Exod 12:41 – 42; Lev 7:37 – 38). 47   Knobel, Exodus und Leviticus, 430; Levine, Leviticus, 61. See already the midrash cited by Rashi, ad loc. 48   Kuenen, Hexateuch, 82, 85 n. 21; Dillmann, Exodus und Leviticus, 516; Carpenter and HarfordBattersby, Hexateuch, 2.154; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.611, 614, 615. 49   Milgrom, Studies, 5 – 33. 50   See Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 91; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.216; compare Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 99; also Licht, Numbers, 2.120 – 121.

20

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

Israelites enjoying the benefit of the miraculous manna applied the Sabbath laws to it.51 Though these and other cases in the Priestly history all highlight well law and lawgiving as an essential, constitutive feature of Israel’s ongoing story, the degree of interdependence between the laws and the narrative in any given discrete episode does not reach the level of the four oracular novellas.52 The four stories define themselves by the new law that serves as the climax of the plot. The combination of law and narrative represents an a priori, defining, and essential feature of the composition. Indeed, to state it again, in their form, their plot, their characterization, and their terminology, the four oracular novellas dramatize the core of the Priestly historiosophy: the communication of divine will in articulate speech to create, maintain, and advance both Israel as a nation and the world as a whole. Moreover, they illustrate law as an ongoing affair, the verbal, dynamic mode by which Yahweh continues to interact with Israel and its changing fortunes. Conceiving the four texts of Lev 24:10 – 23; Num 9:1 – 14; 15:32 – 36; and 27:1 – 11 as a group of oracular novellas raises a number of questions about them and several avenues of inquiry to pursue. First of all, given the formal and conceptual qualities shared by the four oracular novellas, what, if anything, links the four topics treated – cursing the deity, impurity and the Pesaḥ, gathering wood on the Sabbath, and inheritance by daughters? Do they share any underlying theme or other feature, some common denominator that can explain why these four topics and only these four topics 51   This character of the story as depicting without being explanatory suits the likelihood that originally it stood further on in the Priestly history – at some point after Numbers 14 – when the Israelites have known the Sabbath for quite some time. For the argument regarding its relocation, see Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story.” To his arguments add the following: According to the Priestly history, the Israelites leave Egypt with plenty of sheep and cattle (Exod 12:37 – 38), the dairy products and occasional meat of which would have served them through the year at Sinai until they build the tabernacle and set out for Canaan (note Exod 12:1 – 6; 40:1, 17; Num 10:11) on a journey that should have taken a matter of weeks (to judge by Deut 1:1 – 2; 1 Kgs 19:1 – 8) or perhaps months (according to Jacob’s considerations in Gen 33:13). It is upon hearing they will wander forty years (Num 14:29 – 35) that the Israelites panic about insufficient food (Exod 16:2 – 3). The consequential logic and immediate timing of the complaint by the people in this story match those of the Priestly story of the revolt against Moses and Aaron and its aftermath within Numbers 16 – 18. Notably, in both cases, Yahweh accepts the logic behind it and resolves the problem. Though the Priestly history states that the Israelites left Egypt with sheep and cattle, it leaves it tacit that they had all the non-perishable materials needed to construct the tabernacle (Exodus 35 – 40) but also perishable, non-replenishing produce (Leviticus 8 – 10; Numbers 7); perhaps – in another story in which events occasion the transmission of rules and regulations – the goods won from the Midianites at the other end of the period, before the Israelites enter Canaan, is illustrative (Numbers 31, at vv. 20 – 23, 48 – 54). In any case, the people’s panic at the thought of insufficient produce despite their capacity for dairy and limited meats manifests well the profoundly agrarian mindset of the Priestly authors. The headline of the ʿomer and first-fruit rules and observances (Lev 23:9 – 22), the headlines of the grain and liquid offerings (Num 15:1 – 16, 17 – 26), and the location of the calendar of holidays sacrifices that includes grain and wine components (Numbers 28 – 29) all demonstrate a keen awareness that rules and practices dependent on agricultural crops are inappropriate for a long stay in the wilderness. Relatedly, note the headlines for the laws of house-rot (Lev 14:34), tree-produce (19:23), and sabbatical years (25:2). 52   So noted Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2102.

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

21

warranted dramatic narrativization in the restrained manner of the oracular novella? Can such a theme be identified at the level of the composition of the Priestly history, or do indications point to a concerted set of interpolations? The lack of a single overarching explanation of the four topics, a single thread linking them all to each other, would lead either to tradition-historical speculation or to reconstructing stages in the literary development of the Priestly history, and in both cases, analysis would treat each oracular novella substantively as unrelated to the others, as separate literary events. In this situation, one would have to ask whether the stories were composed in isolation from each other or whether any has an intertextual dimension. Relatedly, following Knohl’s analysis and view in particular, most scholars hold the Priestly history itself to have developed in at least two major stages and divide the text into two major groupings of material. They debate the extent of the literary activity in each stage and in additional ones. Do the four oracular novellas all belong to any one of the layers or blocs typically discussed, whether at the compositional or editorial levels; do they break across the lines; or do they represent separate Priestly literary activity? Moreover, do they show influence of any of the other sources in the Torah? Thirdly, the Priestly history includes scores, even hundreds of laws in list format. What does the choice to craft for the four sets of laws in the oracular novellas their own dedicated stories aim to contribute to their understanding? The question gains force from the fact that in at least three of the four instances, the choice creates a measure of narrative difficulty in the flow of the larger history. What interpretive or other gains make the cost in storytelling worth it? Who would find the oracular novella significant as a form of historical storytelling? On top of the difficulties in narrative continuity between the novellas and the materials around them, does the location of each of the oracular novellas within the running text serve an expressive function? Fourth, the oracular novellas present their legal decisions as innovations. It remains to analyze and compare the level of innovation in each one of them. Do they articulate in a vacuum, work against an assumption, or interact with an explicit background? Do they elaborate, amend, qualify, or reject? Do they interact only with the Priestly history, within its world of concepts, or with recoverable Israelian or Judean practice? Do they all do the same thing or does each one aim at a different kind of result? What light can the conclusions shed on the oracular novella as a form of story? Fifth, as a story that presents a case requiring legal resolution, the oracular novella can achieve resolution in at least one of two ways. Either Yahweh issues a direct ruling on the case, in the terms of the case, for the immediate audience, and thereby sets precedent for the future, or else he legislates abstract law on the matter, in greater detail, without reference to the specific case at hand. The four oracular novellas do not take one tack. The story of the man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath contains only a case ruling (Num 15:35), in the story of the deferred Pesaḥ Yahweh only pronounces abstract law (Num 9:9 – 14), and the other two novellas have both forms of resolution (Lev 24:13 – 22; Num 27:6 – 11). What does each form of resolution convey conceptually? What does the choice as to which one to provide indicate? And when both appear, how do they interact with each other – in complementary or some other fashion?

22

Introduction: Four Oracular Novellas

This study proceeds by analyzing each oracular novella on its own, following leads in whatever direction seems warranted by the features of the particular text. The study does not hew to a single form of analysis, but employs whatever data and interpretive aids are deemed useful for elucidating the meaning and the means of the text. Subsequent chapters may refer back to previous ones, but only to help highlight a distinctive feature through the force of comparison. After the four analyses are concluded, the study tallies up the results and attempts to synthesize them and draw farther-reaching inferences for the four texts as a defined group, for the Priestly history, and for the author or authors that produced it.

Novella I.

Lev 24:10 – 23 According to the story in Lev 24:10 – 23, a man of mixed Israelite and Egyptian parentage went out into the midst of the Israelite camp and embroiled himself in a fistfight with a full-blooded Israelite.1 During the course of the brawl, the Egyptian Israelite uttered some kind of a curse involving Yahweh’s name. Onlookers within earshot brought the perpetrator to Moses, then put him in holding in anticipation of the word that would come from Yahweh instructing them what to do in the matter. K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ‫י‬

‫ ְבּתֹוְך ְ ּבנֵי‬ – ‫וְהּוא ֶבּן־אִיׁש ִמצ ְִרי‬ – ‫ש ָׂר ֵאלִית‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה י‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַו ּי ֵצֵא ֶבּן־ ִא‬K 2 K ‫אלִי‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫ש ָׂר ֵאלִית ְואִיׁש ַה ּי‬ ְ ִ ‫ ַו ּי ִנָּצּו ַ ּב ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה ֶבּן ַה ּי‬K K‫לל‬ ּ ֵ ‫שׁם ַוי ְ ַק‬ ּ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר ֵאלִית אֶת־ ַה‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה ַה ּי‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַויִּק ֹּב ֶבּן־ ָה ִא‬K – ‫שֹׁלמִית ַבּת־דִ ּב ְִרי ְל ַמ ֵטּה־דָ ן‬ ְ ‫שׁם אִּמֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ְו‬ – ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַו ּי ָבִיאּו א ֹתֹו אֶל־מ‬K K‫פּי יהוה‬ ִ ‫שמָר ִלפְר ֹׁש ָלהֶם עַל־‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ַ ּב ִ ּמ‬3‫ ַו ּי ַנִּיחֻהּו‬K

(10) (11) (12)

Yahweh responded in a two-fold manner, first rendering a verdict for the specific case at hand, then, with an eye towards the future, formulating a statute. He stated that the one who cursed shall die by stoning and that there shall be established a new, permanent law on the subject:

1  The verb K‫יצ"א‬K does not suggest that the Egyptian Israelite entered the camp from outside, where he dwelled because of his foreign blood and status, and attempted to pitch his tent in it, as many claim (e. g. Kalisch, Leviticus, 325). Rather, it indicates that he left his private residence for the public space, namely, in order to start a fight there. So Ḥizzequni, on the strength of Num 16:27 and Prov 25:8; see also Num 27:17, 21; Judg 2:15; 4:14; 1 Sam 8:20; 17:8, 35; 18:15; 23:15; 24:15; 26:20; 29:6; 2 Sam 2:13; 5:24; 2 Kgs 5:2; Jer 37:5; Zech 14:3; Ps 68:8; 108:112; Ruth 1:13; Dan 11:11, 44; 1 Chr 14:15. For the physical connotations of the verb K‫נצ"ה‬K, Baentsch points to Exod 2:13; 21:22 (Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 420). Paul distinguishes it from K‫ריב‬K, a verbal altercation (Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 74 nn. 1, 3). See further Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2106 – 2107. 2  Two scrolls from Qumran have the reading K‫האיש הישראלי‬K (4QLevb 20 ii 6; 11QpaleoLev iii 6), like LXX: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ Ισραηλίτης. SP contains the equally legitimate K‫איש ישראלי‬K. Scholars generally reason that MT came about by assimilation of K‫איש ישראלי‬K (as in SP) to the immediately preceding K‫בן‬ ‫הישראלית‬K (Bertholet, Leviticus, 85; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 420; Hartley, Leviticus, 404), in which case, the Qumran scrolls and LXX represent corrections to the version preserved by MT. However, the prefixed article K‫ה־‬K also serves to denote the indefinite subject “some, a certain” (Bertholet, Leviticus, 85, Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 420; Hartley, Leviticus, 404), so that both SP and LXX may very well reflect secondary emendations. 3  Ehrlich repoints the text K‫ויניחֵהו‬K (Randglossen, 2.87), presumably on the assumption that if the people brought the man to Moses, Moses then would be the one to put him in holding. But other textual versions attest the plural (11QpaleoLev K‫ויניחו אתו‬K; LXX ἀπέθεντο). In any case, the people could have done it at Moses’ bidding, and the narrative does not trouble itself to say so expressly.

24

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ָכּל־‬

K:‫לּאמ ֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K ‫ַש ֹ ְמעִים אֶת־י ְדֵ יהֶם עַל־ר ֹאׁשֹו ו ְָרגְמּו א ֹתֹו‬ ּׁ ‫הֹוצֵא אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה ְו ָסמְכּו כָל־ה‬K :‫ש ָׂראֵל תְ ּדַ ֵבּר לֵאמ ֹר‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K K‫חטְאֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂא‬ ָ ָ‫ ְונ‬5‫ ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו‬4‫אִיׁש אִיׁש‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ָרגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־‬,‫שׁם־יהוה מֹות יּומָת‬ ֵ ‫וְנֹקֵב‬K 6 K.‫שׁם יּומָת‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־‬K

(13) (14) (15) (16)

The legislation did not conclude at this point, but continued with a series of laws on murder and damages that looks tangential: ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות‬K ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫שׁן ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ֶׁ K 8 K ‫מנָּה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֶכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K 9 K ‫כּה ָאדָ ם יּומָת‬ ֶ ‫ּו ַמ‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ ִכּי ֲאנִי יהוה אֱֹלהֵי‬,‫ ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח י ִ ְהי ֶה‬,‫ש ַפּט ֶאחָד י ִ ְהי ֶה ָלכֶם‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִמ‬K 7 K ‫נָפֶׁש‬

K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

(17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)

The story then gets back on track in the conclusion, which relates that the Israelites did as Yahweh had commanded and stoned the culprit to death.

4  LXX represents only one K‫איש‬K; literary data discussed below strongly suggest this minus came about secondarily, most likely through haplography. 5   LXX reads θεόν, without the possessive pronoun; for evaluation and implications, see the discussion below. 6  LXX reads τό ὄνομα κυρίου. According to Seeligmann, the tetragrammaton had been indicated by the abbreviation K‫י‬K, which then fell out by haplography due to the immediately following word K‫יומת‬ K (Studies in Biblical Literature, 326 n. 14 [= Gesammelte Studien, 455 n. 11]). SP has K‫השם‬K. Looked at together, the two versions suggest like-minded attempts to deal with a difficult text. But MT reflects the abbreviated style of a resumptive repetition and, furthermore, the real significance attributed to names. See further on these issues in the discussions below. 7  According to Baentsch, the expression K‫נפש תחת נפש‬K accidentally migrated from its original location at the end of v. 17 to its current location at the end of v. 18 (Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421). Galil argues that the migration came about because laws were written each one on its own separate line (“The Story of the Blasphemer,” 179). But the versions support MT, and epigraphic evidence makes the idea of separate laws on separate lines anachronistic. In the manuscripts, sentences and even words break across lines, according to the width of the scroll; in one copy, even the tetragrammaton itself runs from one line to the next (4QpaleoDeutg). In one copy of Deuteronomy (4QDeutq 32:41d – 43) and one of Job (4QpaleoJobc), lines match stichoi, but these passages are poetic and one should not generalize on their basis with respect to legal and other texts. For the meaning of K‫נפש תחת נפש‬K in its current location, see the discussion below. 8   LXX does not have this sentence. Most likely, it dropped out by haplography. 9  LXX has the fuller reading: ὅς ἄν πατάξῃ ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀποθάνῃ θανάτῳ θανατούσθω, which would represent: K‫מכה אדם ומת מות יומת‬K. A copy of Leviticus at Qumran supports MT: K‫ומכה אדם יו[מת‬K (4QLevb 20 ii 24). So does the fact that vv. 17 – 18 do not spell out K‫ומת‬K, which is indicated already by the use of K‫נפש‬K; moreover, the overall style of vv. 20 – 21 is to recapitulate in abbreviated form the contents of vv. 17 – 19. (On the paragraph as a whole, see the discussion below.) The extended reading in LXX likely came about through supplementation of the original shorter form on the basis of Exod 21:12 – in the Hebrew original that the LXX translator rendered (Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators, 92).

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23 K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר מ‬K ‫וַּיֹוצִיאּו אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ‬K K‫בן‬ ֶ ‫וִ ַּי ִ ְּרגְּמּו א ֹתֹו ָא‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת־מ‬ ֶ ‫ש ָׂראֵל עָׂשּו ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ְ ִ ‫ּו ְבנֵי־י‬K K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫ַל ַ ּמ‬

25 (23)

This episode, which appears within the boundaries of what earlier generations of scholars identified as a separate literary entity within the Priestly history – Leviticus 17 – 26 – raises a long, variegated series of questions.10 It contains problems in its language, its narrative flow, its consistency, its sources, and its location. Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the story consists of the series of laws in vv. 17 – 22.11 To many scholars, these laws appear to mark a substantial tangent within the story, interrupting the thematic flow in it. Yahweh gets carried away, as it were, and once he legislates for the case at hand, the case of an offense against him involving his name, he continues on to topics that appear unrelated. The story concerns cursing Yahweh (or some kind of verbal offense), whereas the series of laws in vv. 17 – 21 treats physical damage to people and their animals.12 The main part of the story focuses on a religious crime and its punishment – death by stoning – whereas the series of laws in vv. 17 – 21 centers on the human juridical theme or principle of “measure for measure.” This seeming ill-fit has raised the suspicion among scholars that the series in vv. 17 – 21 constitutes a secondary insertion. The suspicion gains strength in the light of the formal shape of the series, constructed as a palistrophe:13 K‫מת‬ ָ ‫– מֹות יּו‬ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם‬K ‫ נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת‬,‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫– י‬ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ,‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫– ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ – ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫– י‬ ‫ּו ַמ ֶכּה ְב ֵהמָה‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫– יּו‬ ‫ּו ַמ ֶכּה ָאדָ ם‬K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫נ‬

1 2 3 3 2 1

The repetition that characterizes the paragraph distinguishes the paragraph from its context, which form of demarcation can easily suggest an added element. In addition, as an extended series of repetitions in inverted sequence, the shape of the paragraph recalls the chiastic resumptive repetition, a device often attributed to editors. Moreover, the paragraph concludes in v. 22 in classic fashion, by applying the laws equally to 10   See Driver, Introduction, 47 – 59, 145 – 153; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 1.141 – 152; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence; Joosten, People and Land; Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 17 – 33; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2.1319 – 1443; Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 395 – 401, 545 – 575. 11   So, still, Vroom, “Recasting Mîšpāṭîm,” 28 – 29. 12   So did Gerstenberger put it (Leviticus, 366). 13  All those who note the palistrophe put the talionic formula K‫שבר תחת שבר עין תחת עין שן תחת שן‬K in the center of the structure and set the formula apart as the structure’s one unrepeated element (e. g. Willis, “Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus,” 68 – 69). But the formula qualifies and completes the sentence about disfigurement that immediately precedes it, exactly the way in the previous verse K‫נפש‬ ‫תחת נפש‬K qualifies and completes the sentence about compensation for killing an animal. See further below.

26

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

‫אזרח‬K (native) and K‫גר‬K (resident alien)14 alike and invoking Yahweh as their enforcer: ‫ כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬,‫ כגר כאזרח יהיה‬,‫משפט אחד יהיה לכם‬K.15 The principle, together with the reference to Yahweh’s name, had already appeared immediately beforehand, in v. 16, which to some scholars gives their recurrence in v. 22, again, the look of a resumptive repetition.16 On the other hand, the resumptive repetition generally has an abbreviated form, not an expanded one. In fact, the majority of scholars has not tended to define v. 22 as a resumptive repetition. Rather, most have taken it as an additional component in the palistrophe, part of its outermost pair, vv. 15b – 16 and v. 22:17 ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו ְונָ ָשׂא ֶחטְאֹו וְנֹקֵב שֵ ׁם־יהוה מֹות יּומָת ָרגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־ ָה ֵעדָה ַ ּכ ֵגּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־ ֵשׁם‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות יּו‬K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת נ‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם יּו‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫מִשְ ׁ ַפּט אֶ חָד יִ ְהיֶה ָלכֶם ַ ּכ ֵגּר ָכּאֶ ז ְָרח יִ ְהיֶה ִכּי אֲ נִי יהוה אֱ ֹלהֵי‬K

K‫יּו ָמת‬

1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1

Indeed, in the eyes of many scholars, the palistrophe encompasses far more of the passage, action segments as well as legal ones, specifically, Yahweh’s command in v. 14 and its fulfillment by the people in v. 23a: K. . .

‫ַש ֹ ְמעִים אֶת־י ְדֵ יהֶם עַל־ר ֹאׁשֹו ו ְָרגְמּו א ֹתֹו ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה‬ ּׁ ‫מ ֲחנֶה ְו ָסמְכּו כָל־ה‬ ּ ַ ‫הֹוצֵא אֶ ת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶ ל־מִחּוץ ַל‬K

K‫שׁם יּו ָמת‬ ֵ ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו ְונָ ָשׂא ֶחטְאֹו וְנֹקֵב ֵשׁם־יהוה מֹות יּומָת רָ גֹום י ִרְ גְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־ ָה ֵעדָה ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאזְרָ ח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־‬K

K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות יּו‬K ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן ַ ּתחַת ַעי ִן ֵשׁן ַ ּתחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר ַ ּתחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִ ֵתּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע ֶשׂה ּלֹו‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם יּו‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ש ַפּט ֶאחָד י ִ ְהי ֶה ָלכֶם ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח י ִ ְהי ֶה ִכּי ֲאנִי יהוה אֱֹלהֵי‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִמ‬K K‫בן‬ ֶ ‫מ ֲחנֶה וִ ַּיִ ְּר ְגּמּו א ֹתֹו ָא‬ ּ ַ ‫ וַּיֹוצִיאּו אֶ ת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶ ל־מִחּוץ ַל‬. . .K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫נ‬

1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1

Still others expand the palistrophe and the number of its segments even further, beginning as far back as v. 13 and concluding in v. 23b, the narrator’s reports in his own voice that Yahweh issued instructions to Moses and that the people carried them out:18 14

 So rendered for now. See the discussion of the terms K‫אזרח‬K and K‫גר‬K below.  On the meaning of the expression K‫אני יהוה‬K, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 2.1517 – 1518. 16   So, for example, Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 97 n. 7, 101 n. 41. On the resumptive repetition, see Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 53 – 61 (= Gesammelte Studien, 127 – 136). 17   Willis breaks this added correlation down further; in his view, the statement that includes the equal applicability clause in v. 16 corresponds to the expanded version of it in v. 22a alone, while the law of cursing God in v. 15b correlates with Yahweh’s self-declaration in v. 22b (“Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus,” 69 – 71). If anything, the action described in v. 16 – some form of articulation of Yahweh’s name – matches Yahweh announcement of his own name in v. 22b. 18   Compare Lund, “Chiasmus,” 119 – 120; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 33 – 34; Wenham, Leviticus, 311 – 312; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 101 n. 41; Paran, Priestly Style, 171; Hartley, 15

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23 K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֵ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶ ל מ ֹשֶ ׁה‬K ‫ַש ֹ ְמעִים אֶת־י ְדֵ יהֶם עַל־ר ֹאׁשֹו ו ְָרגְמּו א ֹתֹו‬ ּׁ ‫הֹוצֵא אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה ְו ָסמְכּו כָל־ה‬K K‫בּר לֵאמֹר‬ ֵ ַ‫ש ָׂראֵל תְ ּד‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫שׁם־יהוה מֹות יּומָת ָרגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־‬ ֵ ‫שׂא ֶחטְאֹו וְנֹקֵב‬ ָ ָ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו ְונ‬ ‫שׁם יּומָת‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות יּו‬K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫– נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת נ‬ ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫חת‬ ַ ּ ַ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן ת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ֶ – ‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ‫שׁן‬ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫ ַעי ִן‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם יּו‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ש ַפּט ֶאחָד י ִ ְהי ֶה ָלכֶם ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח י ִ ְהי ֶה ִכּי ֲאנִי יהוה אֱֹלהֵי‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִמ‬K K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר מ‬K K‫בן‬ ֶ ‫וַּיֹוצִיאּו אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה וִ ַּי ִ ְּרגְּמּו א ֹתֹו ָא‬K K‫צ ָוּה יהוה אֶ ת מ ֹשֶ ׁה‬ ִ ‫ּו ְבנֵי־יִשְ ָׂראֵ ל עָׂשּו ַכּאֲ שֶ ׁר‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ָכּל־‬

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

From a purely formal point of view, such schemes would appear to find an organic place for the legal paragraph in vv. 17 – 21 within the texture of the passage. The result complicates the assumption of its interpolation19 and makes the question of its thematic connection with the larger passage all the more pressing. Still, scholars have struggled to identify a substantive connection. Willis’ recent suggestion, that together the laws call attention to the principle of talion and signal its relevance for understanding the crime of the story, cursing the deity, and its punishment, makes good sense and warrants further consideration.20 With regard to the main part of the passage, it comprises, as said, two elements – legal statements (in directly quoted speech) and the events that frame them (in the narrator’s voice). Each one of these elements has aspects that require explanation and clarification. Likewise for the kind of relationship they share between them – the cohesiveness, coherence, and consistency. The complex nature of the problem typically leads to a dead end exited only through its point of entry, namely, by circular reasoning, or by jumping to untraceable conclusions.21 The law consists of two statements. One concerns the action denoted by the root ‫קל"ל‬ K (“curse” or “insult”) done to the direct object ‫ם‬ K ‫אלהי‬K (“God” or “the deity”); it assures that one who does so will “bear his crime” ‫ן‬K ‫נש"א עו‬K (v. 15). The second law concerns Leviticus, 407; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 175 n. 23; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2128 – 2130. These scholars do not compare the qualitatively different forms of repetition in the legal section and in the action segments: In the legal section, the content of each law repeats itself, which neither conveys new substance nor advances the plot of the story. In the action segments, certain formulations – roots and word order – correlate with each other, but the sum total of the repeated elements contains all new substance – new action as opposed to repeated speech, specifically, the fulfillment of instructions – which pushes the plot forward. The difference calls attention to the palistrophe in the laws as pure artifice and necessitates an explanation of its function in the text. Compare Willis, “Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus,” 71. 19   So noted Willis, ibid. 20   Ibid., 73 – 74. 21   For the list of problems and a survey of approaches see Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 532 – 536.

28

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

the action denoted by the root ‫ב‬K "‫נק‬K (typically “pronounce” or “pierce”) done to the name Yahweh, and decrees death by stoning for one who does this action (v. 16). The statements lack any clear points of contact, linguistic or substantive, which leaves the relationship between them entirely uncoordinated. Do they treat two totally distinct actions, two variations of the same basic action,22 a single action in two alternate formulations,23 or a single action formulated first in general (v. 15) then in particular terms (v. 16)? To resolve this dilemma entails overcoming several difficulties and points of ambiguity in the statements. First of all, scholarship has not achieved a consensus regarding the meaning of the root K‫קל"ל‬K used in the first statement. At one end of the spectrum, Weinfeld explains every instance of K‫קל"ל‬K in the Hebrew Bible as a curse, namely, a verbal articulation with some kind of power to cause substantive harm beyond defamation, shame, and the like to a specific target.24 At the other end of the spectrum, Brichto argues that, representing the inverse of the expression for “God-fearing, moral,” in which the root K‫יר"א‬K takes the direct object K‫אלהים‬K, the expression in which the root K‫קל"ל‬ takes the direct object K‫אלהים‬K refers to immoral, “God-spurning” behavior.25 Many scholars approach the material on a case-by-case basis and identify many instances, including the one under discussion, as cases in which the root refers to impious, irreverent, abusive speech,26 and in the case of the novella – blasphemy.27 22   Most scholars hold this possibility; see for example, R. Aḥai in Mek. de R. Ishmael, Misphatim § 5; R. Meir and R. Isaac Nappaha in b. Sanh. 56a; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.87 – 88; Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 119 – 120; Wenham, Leviticus, 311; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 110; Porter, Leviticus, 193; Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 228; Levine, Leviticus, 166; and, following Levine, Hartley, Leviticus, 404, 408 – 409. See also Milgrom, Leviticus 3.2116 – 2118. Compare Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 101, and Joosten, People and Land, 69. 23   Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 362 – 365; Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 539 – 540. 24   Weinfeld, “Curse;” see his entire comprehensive and clear entry (cols. 185 – 192). See also Bekhor Shor, 24:16; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Driver, Deuteronomy, 301 – 302; Gevirtz, “Curse,” 749; De Vries, “Blasphemy;” Harrelson, “Blessings and Curses;” Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 362. 25  The Problem of “Curse,” 143 – 165. The general thrust of his argument is that K‫קל"ל אלהים‬K, a verbal articulation that generates harm, is essentially suicide, especially in a monotheistic context; thus there is no reason to prohibit it explicitly or mention it at all in the Hebrew Bible (idem, 147, 164 – 165). This opinion and others like it (see, for example, Urbrock, “Blessings and Curses;” Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 538), which reconstruct sociological phenomena by weighing them against the consistency of extended theological lines of thought, seem untenable. In this direction, see, e. g., Aitken, Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 18 (but compare his comments, § 6.B.3). 26  See the Targums: K‫חרף‬K (Tg. Neof.), K‫בזי‬K (Frg. Tg. P and V), K‫זלל‬K (Sam. Tg. A and J), K‫רגז‬K (Tg. Onq., Tg. Ps.‑J.). For the terms, see Jastrow. See also Rashi on Deut 21:23: K‫כל לשון של קללה שבמקרא לשון הקל‬ ‫וזלזול‬K; Ibn Janaḥ, Book of Roots, 447 K‫הקוף והלמד הכפולה‬K; BDB 866 K‫קלל‬K; Kalisch, Leviticus, 529 (on the basis of Exod 5:2; 2 Kgs 18:30, 35); Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.87 (on the basis of 2 Sam 16:7, 9 and Exod 21:17); Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 119 (on the basis of Job 40:4; Gen 16:4 – 5; 1 Sam 3:13); Porter, Leviticus, 193; Wenham, Leviticus, 311; Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 539; Aitken, Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 230 – 242, also 39; Kamionkowski, “Leviticus 24,10 – 23,” 77 – 79 (who interprets Lev 20:9, about parents, this way as well, but does not explain the difference in punishment). 27   Many discussions employ the terms “curse” and “blaspheme/blasphemy” interchangeably, e. g., Westbrook and Wells, Everyday Law, 71; Hiers, Justice and Compassion, 69, 101 – 102. Such usage

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

29

Secondly, the formulation K‫אלהיו‬K in this law (v. 15), namely, the use of the construct noun together with a pronominal suffix rather than the absolute noun K‫אלהים‬K, has attracted scholars’ attention. They debate whether the presence of the pronominal suffix conveys some distinct emphasis and targets a particular case. Fishbane, for example, argues that the law imagines the resident alien cursing his own personal god, not Yahweh.28 Patently, this view draws on the conditional detail of the story, that the criminal has an Egyptian father, although the law does not allude to it or give any indication that it refers to such a delimited case. Equally, of course, one could interpret the pronominal suffix without any connection to the resident alien and gods other than Yahweh, as rhetorical, conveying the shock that one would curse one’s very own deity, not unlike the formulation of the law about cursing one’s parents in Lev 20:9. In another direction, LXX in fact reads here θεὸν, without the pronominal suffix, which raises the concrete possibility that MT came about through copyist error, in this instance dittography of the first letter of the next word: K‫ונשא‬K. In any case, one must coordinate the two versions. In the second legal statement (v. 16), the expression K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ + ‫נק"ב‬K (“pronouncing” or “piercing” “the name”) has proven resistant to clarification.29 Its meaning hangs on the root K‫נק"ב‬K, with every possibility affecting differently the object K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ K. One opinion holds that K‫נק"ב‬K means “articulate” and K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ K – “name” – refers to the ineffable name of Yahweh. The law, in other words, prohibits pronouncing Yahweh’s name.30 A variation on this opinion, influenced either by the immediately preceding law or by the circumstances in the narrative, restricts the prohibition by adding to the case of articulating Yahweh’s ineffable name a particularly detrimental or inappropriate context.31 A different can create confusion and can even give the impression of a deliberate attempt to fuse separate phenomena for the sake of convenience in the face of difficult texts. As a result, all sorts of problems arise in the interpretation of distinct expressions such as K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K, K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫קל"ל‬K, and K‫קל"ל אב ואם‬K. The terms “blaspheme” and “blasphemy,” deriving from Greek βλασφημέω (LSJ 317, and 69 in the supplement section), refer to impious speech (OED Online s. v. “blaspheme” §§ 1 – 3; “blasphemy” § 1 [accessed October 18, 2012]). The noun and verb “curse” have no clear etymology at all, but for the most part refer to an utterance intended to activate divine or so-called supernatural forces against someone or something (OED Online s. v. “curse, n.” §§ 1a, 2a, 4a, b; s. v. “curse, v.” §§ 1a, 2a); those cases that suggest usage along the lines of blaspheming (OED Online s. v. “curse, v.” § 3) are essentially biblical or biblically inflected ones and attest to the antiquity of the problems posed by the biblical text, by the similarities between the phenomena, and by their cultural legacy. Analysis of the biblical text would do well to aim to distinguish between the terms and concepts. Gevirtz notably distinguishes in this manner (“West-Semitic Curses,” 140). In German, Ehrlich distinguishes between lästern and fluchen (Randglossen, 2.87). Westbrook adds to the definition of blasphemy the notion of the public (“Punishments and Crimes,” 549). In this vein, see Levy, Blasphemy, a comprehensive and interesting summary of the legal history of blasphemy in England and America. 28   Biblical Interpretation, 101; in his wake, developing the idea further, Joosten, People and Land, 69. For a list of those holding this position, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2115. 29  See the convenient summary in Aitken, “K‫נקב‬K II;” idem, Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 213 – 219. 30   See LXX; Tg. Onq.; Rashi; Ibn Ezra; and Rashbam. 31   Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 536 – 537; Scharbert in TDOT 9.551 – 553, at 552.

30

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

approach claims that the root K‫נק"ב‬K developed a secondary semantic set under the influence of the similar, related root K‫קב"ב‬K – “to curse.”32 In this case – so the argument goes – the object K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ K does not suit the action and in fact, for rhetorical purposes, stands in for a different object, the proper name “Yahweh.” It would cut too strongly against the religious grain and grate too harshly against the pious ear to juxtapose the name “Yahweh” with the root K‫נק"ב‬K “curse” as its direct object. The author therefore substituted the common noun K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ K for it. In the first half of the verse, the author interposed K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ K as a noun governed by “Yahweh,” whereas in the second half K‫ ֵשׁם‬K replaces “Yahweh” entirely, as an oblique, generic reference to it.33 In this direction, some see the interposition and substitution of K‫שׁם‬ ֵ K as the result of secondary, editorial activity.34 Others advance an alternate process, in which an editor substituted K‫נק"ב‬K for K‫קב"ב‬K, the original formulation.35 In the opposite direction altogether, some scholars understand the expression K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ + ‫נק"ב‬ as cursing the name Yahweh, and explain that in the ancient conception, the name has its own substantive quality to it such that one can in fact curse it.36 As if this bewildering variety of opinions itself does not suffice to indicate the difficulty of the text, each one of the theories expressed encounters its own obstacles, in particular when it comes to situating the laws against the background of the story that frames them. For instance, the narrative describes the crime: K‫ את השם ויקלל‬. . . ‫ויקב‬K (v. 11). One cannot tell which root stands behind the verb K‫ויקב‬K (either K‫נק"ב‬K or K‫קב"ב‬K); whether K‫ויקלל‬K is transitive or intransitive and if transitive what the direct object is; or how to relate the two verbs K‫ויקב‬K and K‫ויקלל‬K to each other. If the verb K‫ויקב‬K derives from the root K‫קב"ב‬K,37 then the verse appears redundantly to use two different verbs for the 32  Ibn Janaḥ, Book of Roots, 316 K‫הנוף והקוף והבית‬K; Qimḥi, Book of Roots, 225 K‫נקב‬K; Bekhor Shor, ad. loc.; Kalisch, Leviticus, 529; BDB 666 K‫נקב‬K II; Chapman and Streane, Leviticus, 134; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 262; HALOT 1.718 – 719 K‫נקב‬K, and the references therein; also Fishbane, Studies in Biblical Magic, 277 – 278. For the meaning of the verb K‫קב"ב‬K, itself no small problem, see BDB 866 K‫קבב‬K II; HALOT 2.1060 K‫קבב‬K; especially Aitken, “K‫קבב‬K;” Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 220 – 229. 33  Weingreen points to Deut 28:58 and Isa 30:27 as additional examples of such usage in the Hebrew Bible (“The Case of the Blasphemer,” 122). Comparable usage of K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ K with the antonym K‫בר"ך‬ K undermines this conjecture; see Ps 72:19; 96:2; 100:4; 103:1; 113:2 (= Job 1:21); 145:1, 21; Dan 2:20; Neh 9:5. 34   See the detailed discussion in Geiger, The Bible and Its Translations, 169 – 179, esp. 176 – 177. See also Bertholet, Leviticus, 84; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 420. 35   Bertholet, Leviticus, 85; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 121 – 122; Porter, Leviticus, 193 – 194; and Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 228. 36  Kalisch, Leviticus, 528 – 529. A private Sumerian letter from around 1700 BCE provides a distant example: a man wills that the name of his acquaintance’s personal god should perish; see Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 157. For a discussion of the phenomenon and its rationale in the ancient Near East in general, and examples from Egypt in particular, see: Frankfort and Frankfort, “Myth and Reality,” 21 – 22; for a detailed treatment of the Hebrew Bible, see Pedersen, Israel, 1.245 – 259, esp. 256 – 257. Kamionkowski describes the deity’s name as a portal through which the lay Israel has access to him, and the action denoted by K‫נק״ב‬K as a kind of piercing, penetrating or breaching that diminishes that portal (“Leviticus 24,10 – 23,” 79 – 80). 37   Bertholet, Leviticus, 85; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 121 – 122; Porter, Leviticus, 193 – 194; and Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 256 – 257.

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

31

same action, cursing. This consideration led to one strained suggestion that the use of 38 K‫ויקלל‬K serves to clarify the meaning of the rare root K‫קב"ב‬K. The solution does not remove the problem; it only begs the question. Moreover, those who identify K‫קב"ב‬K as the root do so on the basis of Aramaic and its influence on Hebrew verb forms,39 but the root remains without unambiguous attestation both in the Hebrew Bible and outside of it.40 The closest form appears in an ambiguous term found in only a few, narrowly defined contexts – the Balaam story (Num 22:11, 17; 23:8, 11, 13, 25, 27; 24:10) and Wisdom literature (Prov 11:26; 24:24; Job 3:8; 5:3).41 Furthermore, maintaining the coherence of the passage would then require positing that a corresponding change took place within the law, since v. 16 explicitly uses the root K‫נק"ב‬K.42 In order to explain the imagined changes made to the text, scholars have had recourse to ideological or religious developments43 or historical backgrounds,44 none of which find expression in the biblical, epigraphic or archaeological records.45 It remains entirely debatable whether indeed over the centuries Yahweh’s name increasingly attained greater dignity or awe or holiness or that its pronunciation was somehow formally or officially prohibited. The author of the story of Ruth, writing deep in the Persian period,46 with extensive knowledge of sources in the Torah, the Former Prophets, and the Latter Prophets and extensively engaging them, did not scruple to depict just about everyone – Boaz, Naomi, Ruth, Boaz’s harvesters, and the women of Bethlehem47 – all pronouncing 38

  Bertholet, Leviticus, 85.   See GKC § 67g. 40  See Aitken, “K‫קבב‬K,” 114 – 116 (§§ 1 – 2), 118 (§ 5); Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 220 – 223 (§ 1); Crawford, Blessing and Curse, 10 – 11, esp. 101, 106 – 109, 133 – 134; Ringgren in TDOT 12.480 – 481, at 480. Gevirtz reconstructs the root in the inscription of ṣlḥ bn brk (“West-Semitic Curses,” 152 n. 7). Compare the certainty expressed by Greenfield (“Some Phoenician Words,” 157 – 158). 41  As noted by Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 534 – 535; Aitken, “K‫קבב‬K,” § 5.A.4; idem, Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 226 – 227 (§ 5.A.2, 4); Crawford, Blessing and Curse, 15 (he does not mention Prov 24:24). Aitken reviews the opinion that the root is dialectical in biblical Hebrew and wonders whether the author of Numbers 22 – 24 has Balak and Balaam use it in order to match or mark their regional origins (Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 27, 40, 227 – 228 [§ 6.2 – 3]); one might suggest the same for Job and Eliphaz, following Ginsberg, “Job,” 350 – 351; Greenstein, “The Language of Job,” at 653 – 656. Greenfield already expressed the view for both Balaam and Job (“Some Phoenician Words,” 157 – 158). 42  Indeed, such a change has no textual support. To the contrary, the Sam. Tg., in its two main versions, resists harmonizing vv. 11 and 16. MS A translates v. 11 with K‫ואגאה‬K and v. 16 with K‫ בקסומה‬. . . ‫ומקסם‬ and MS J employs K‫לעט‬K in v. 11 and K‫ הכרזה‬. . . ‫וכרז‬K in v. 16 – even though this weakens the connection between the story and the law. 43   Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 121 – 122; Porter, Leviticus, 193 – 194; Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 256 – 257. 44   See Noth, Leviticus, 179; Elliger, Leviticus, 333; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 364. 45   In this direction, see Crawford, Blessing and Curse, 231. 46   For the dating of the story see, e. g., Zakovitch, Ruth, 14 – 35. 47   In order of appearance, Naomi: 1:8, 9, 13, 20 – 21; 2:20; Ruth: 1:17; Boaz: 2:4, 12; 3:10, 13; Boaz’s harvesters: 2:4; the townsmen: 4:11 – 12; the townswomen: 4:14. So too the narrator: 1:6; 4:13. The only characters who do not invoke Yahweh are Orpah and Peloni Almoni, the only two figures with speaking parts who elect (reasonably, not maliciously) not to throw their lot in with the risky project of rehabilitating Elimelek’s household. 39

32

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

Yahweh’s name rather freely, in everyday conversation, in entirely prosaic circumstances; nor did the author cleverly seek to convey as much without actually transcribing Yahweh’s name. In fact, the point undercuts any argument that Lev 24:16 has something to do with an ancient Judean idea about the ineffable quality of Yahweh’s name, namely, even for those who see the current form of the text as the original one. The suggestion that under the influence of K‫קב"ב‬K, the root K‫נק"ב‬K took on a secondary set of meanings parallel to K‫קב"ב‬K and K‫קל"ל‬K does obviate some of the problems, such that one need not reconstruct a non-existent text or a debatable historical background. But this meaning for the root has no prior attestation among Semitic languages, and the suggestion raises up again the problem of the redundancy of the description of the action in the story, K‫ את השם ויקלל‬. . . ‫ויקב‬K, in v. 11.48 For those who begin with the premise that the phrase K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K refers to enunciating a name and understand the law to prohibit one from enunciating Yahweh’s name, one difficulty arises from the impression that whether the expression K‫קל"ל אלהים‬K refers to a malediction or even to a disrespectful utterance, the narrative consistently refers to the criminal condemned to death as K‫ ַה ְ ּמ ַק ֵ ּלל‬K (vv. 14, 23), never as *K‫הנקב‬K, which emphasis makes K‫קל"ל אלהים‬K sound more drastic than enunciating Yahweh’s name, yet the law states that for the crime of K‫קל"ל אלהים‬K one “bears his crime” (K‫ונשא חטאו‬K), and even if the underlying conception assumes that at some point the burden will crush him,49 the result and the formulation seem less harsh than the death penalty explicitly decreed for the crime of K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K.50 Secondly, distinguishing the law of K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K this sharply from the law of K‫קל"ל אלהים‬K intimates that in the story, the criminal has committed two separate violations. The narrator, however, nowhere unambiguously indicates that the crime comprised a double violation. It would appear that this problem stands behind the opinion of those scholars who interpret the prohibition against K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K as a variant, subtype, or qualification of K‫קל"ל אלהים‬K, in the sense that it specifies a particularly heinous kind of curse (K‫קל"ל אלהים‬K), one that articulates Yahweh’s personal name (K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫)נק"ב‬ rather than a generic one or a title.51 This interpretation too, however, has its share of 48  Due to the fact that the biblical author paired the root K‫נק"ב‬K with the object (K‫שם (יהוה‬K but not the root K‫קל"ל‬K, several scholars have drawn the conclusion that the verb K‫נק"ב‬K conveys a more abstract nuance (Hartley, Leviticus, 208 – 209; Paran, Priestly Style, 171, n. 25; see also Harrelson, “Blessings and Cursings”). Indeed, the Targums (with the exception of Tg. Onq.) employed a variety of words that emphasize the negative character of K‫נק"ב‬K but nonetheless do not arrive at the level of K‫קב"ב‬K: Tg. Neof. at vv. 11, 16: K‫גד"ף‬K ; Tg. Yer. at v. 11, Tg. Ps.‑J. at vv. 11, 16; Frg. Tg. P and V at v. 11: K‫חר"ף‬K; and Sam. Tg. MS A at v. 16: K‫קס"ם‬K. Interestingly, all these terms for disparagement belong to the semantic field of constructive cutting (see Jastrow 214 K‫גדף‬K; 505 K‫חרף‬K; 1396 K‫קסם‬K; compare Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 121 K‫גדף‬K; 215 K‫חרף‬K). The same applies to K‫נק"ב‬K, which has the base meaning “to bore a hole, pierce” (or “mine, excavate, quarry, hew;” so Koller, Semantic Field of Cutting Tools, 143 – 152 esp. 149) but can also connote the action or attitude of disparagement. Interestingly, Jastrow interprets the reconstructed root K‫קב"ב‬K as meaning “to hollow out” (1307). 49   See Exod 28:43; Num 18:22; see Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 21. 50  See, e. g., Kamionkowski, who infers K‫ שם‬+ ‫נק״ב‬K to be more serious than (K‫קל״ל (אלהים‬K, but does not account for the narrator denoting the criminal by the participle of K‫קל״ל‬K (“Leviticus 24,10 – 23,” 79). 51   See R. Meir and R. Isaac Nappaḥa in b. Sanh. 56a; R. Aḥai in the Mek. de R. Ishmael, Mishpatim § 5; Luzzatto, ad. loc.; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.87 – 88;

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

33

difficulties. First of all, the expression K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K remains fundamentally ambiguous as to whether the name constitutes the object of the curse or the means of the curse. The Rabbis maintained both options simultaneously, when they stated (piously substituting Yossi for Yahweh) that the formula of the curse is: “Yossi smite Yossi” (m. Sanh. 7:5).52 Clearly, this view represents no more than a clever way to deal with both the puzzling nature of the text and the logical conundrum of what a human being can invoke to curse the deity in a manner that has any effectiveness or significance to it in a belief system that imagines only one divine entity or one divine agent of unmatchable power. Additionally, were the aspect of the crime that pushed the criminal from one who “bears his crime” to one sentenced to death the enunciation of Yahweh’s name, one would expect the narrative to stress this more aggravated character of the crime. The story, though, gives the opposite impression. Repeatedly, it refers to the criminal as K‫המקלל‬K “the curser,” and in the account of his crime, the cursing comes last, such that the stress falls on it and not on the enunciating: K‫ את השם ויקלל‬. . . ‫ויקב‬K. Were the cursing of the deity the fundamental crime and the enunciation of his name a qualification of it – as a very serious type – the discourse should have reversed the elements, and mentioned first the cursing then the enunciating of Yahweh’s name. Even if the two verbs together indicate simultaneity,53 still, the narrative does not make it explicit that the one who cursed cursed the deity. Rather, the formulation leaves enough room for one to gain the impression that the Egyptian Israelite cursed someone else – his adversary, as some scholars argue,54 or Moses, as claimed in a midrash.55 Such a reading dissociates the law in v. 15, which speaks explicitly of cursing the deity. Some scholars advocate reading the text even more disjunctively; they argue that whereas the law in v. 15 speaks clearly about K‫נק"ב‬K “enunciating,” K‫ויקב‬K in the action segment derives from K‫קב"ב‬K and refers to cursing,56 and, moreover, that in fact the law entered the text secondarily. In having triggered a series of suggestions about changes in the text, this web of interlocking ambiguities leads to the question of the literary sources and the compositional integrity of the passage as a whole. Scholarship has proposed quite a few different literary-critical analyses of the text, many of which are predicated on the distinction between the Priestly sets of texts H and P, mainly on the older model of H as an early set of Priestly materials – the Holiness Code in Leviticus 17 – 26 and a few stray passages elsewhere in the Torah – incorporated into the larger Priestly history, Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 119 – 120; Wenham, Leviticus, 311; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 110; Porter, Leviticus, 193; Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 228; Levine, Leviticus, 166, and, following him, Hartley, Leviticus, 404, 408 – 409. 52   This view is picked up and followed by Livingston, “The Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11.” 53   See Paul, “Biblical Analogues,” 348 – 349; and similarly, Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 533. 54   See, for example, Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 110; Brichto, The Problem of “Curse”, 146; Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 18. 55  See Leḳaḥ Ṭov (136): K‫ויקב את השם ויקלל את משה‬K, which may very well have Exod 22:27 in mind. 56   Blank, “The Curse,” 84; Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 121 – 122; Porter, Leviticus, 193, 194; Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 228.

34

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

P, at the time of its composition. Most scholars, for instance, argued with respect to Lev 24:10 – 23 that P created the frame story around an H set of laws; they debated to which layer the statutes in vv. 15 – 16 belong, the earlier H laws or the subsequent frame narrative of P. Since the publication of Israel Knohl’s Sanctuary of Silence in English in 1995, the argument for reversing the order such that H post-dates P has gained widespread, nearly universal assent – variations on the precise scheme and nature of literary interaction notwithstanding – which opens up additional avenues for the analysis of the history of the text. The possibility also exists that no such historical stratification of the text can resolve its manifold difficulties. An additional factor in the analysis of the text may reside in the laws of the Covenant Code in Exodus 21 – 23. That series of laws contains parallels to the topics of cursing the deity (Exod 22:27), of calling out in desperation (22:20 – 26), of murder, a fight, bodily harm, and the principle of talion (21:12 – 27), and of the destruction of another’s animal (21:37 – 22:3).57 Scholars have often had recourse to the laws of the Covenant Code to explicate the meaning of the set of laws in the oracular novella. Above all, they have seen the correlation between the series of laws guided by talion in Lev 24:17 – 21 as bearing a direct literary relationship with the laws of the Covenant Code. The use and meaning of talion in each case, though, still needs to be worked out with greater precision. Regarding the oracular novella as a distinct unit within a larger literary context, a number of features and anomalies stand out. First of all, from the point of view of theme, the novella appears to sever the flow of calendrical or temporally defined laws, practices, institutions, and concepts in Lev 23:1 – 24:9 and 25:1 – 26:2.58 By all accounts, it has no substantive connection to the passages immediately surrounding it. For those who consider the set of laws in Leviticus 17 – 26 to have some form of literary and historical integrity as a distinct unit of text, it might be taken as significant that the form of the passage – an episode with action and consequences – stands alone within it, since otherwise in this text the narrator reports divine speech and instructions;59 likewise, the distinctive combination of legal and narrative forms is unique throughout the canonical unit Leviticus.60 In terms of the running discourse, the effect of the story breaking in with the waw-consecutive verb of narrative sequence K‫ ַויּ ֵ ֵצא‬K (at 24:10) suggests that the narrator means to convey that it was precisely at this point in Yahweh’s delivery of instructions to Moses that this event took place, but the discourse of the narrator does not go about controlling this effect. This formulation and flow seems all the more odd, because beginning the sentence with a wayyiqṭōl verb followed by the subject, rather than the subject followed by the qāṭal form (e. g. *K‫ובן אשה ישראלית‬ ‫ יצא בתוך בני ישראל‬. . .K or *K‫ ואיש יצא בתוך בני ישראל והוא בן אשה ישראלית‬. . .K), mitigates the 57   To be precise: Exod 21:37 + 22:2b – 3. For the analysis of Exod 21:37 – 22:3, see Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.241 – 242. 58   Noted, for example, by Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 496. 59   E. g., Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 227. 60   Elliger, Leviticus, 330. Willis denotes Leviticus 11 – 27 to mark the uniqueness of the narrative (“Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus,” 68), which seems arbitrary.

1. The Identity of the Criminal

35

impression of mid-speech interruption or temporal coordination, and conveys rather a simple sequence of events. In vv. 10 – 13 the narrator does not state or otherwise indicate that Yahweh had been in the midst of giving Moses instructions or that Moses had been in the midst of transmitting them to Israel, and in 25:1 neither the narrator nor Yahweh expresses a return to the interrupted topic. From the larger point of view of the entire Priestly history, this event occurs while Israel is encamped at Sinai and Yahweh transmits all his laws and instructions to Moses, sometime after the inauguration of the tabernacle. The history tells of several other events, activities, and episodes linked to Mount Sinai too – Moses ascends the mountain to receive the instructions regarding the tabernacle and descends with a glowing face (Exod 31:18* + 32:15* + 34:29 – 35);61 the tabernacle is constructed and inaugurated (Exodus 40; Leviticus 8 – 9), at which time Nadab and Abihu offend the deity, who kills them, and Moses and Aaron debate the implications for the inaugural procedures (Lev 10:1 – 7 + 12 – 19); the tribal leaders bring gifts that will serve the needs of the tabernacle (Numbers 7); and the Levites replace the firstborns to carry out additional tabernacle duties (Numbers 8) – but the cursing of the deity is the only one that lacks all substantive connection to the events and the legislation of Sinai, again, as if to the narrator the episode transpired at Mount Sinai entirely by chance.62 On these grounds, many scholars have preferred to cope with an inscrutable editor and identified the story as an insertion.63 A few scholars seem to have resorted to the odd claim that historically speaking the events described in the passage really did take place at precisely that moment, right after the legislation of the laws in 23:1 – 24:9, with no real connection.64 Others have despaired of resolving the question of the location of the passage altogether.65

1. The Identity of the Criminal As described in the introduction, the narrative provides precious little detail regarding the episode. Therefore, those details that it does offer stand out even more sharply as significant. One such detail concerns the identity of the criminal. His Egyptian roots appear already at the outset of the narrative, K‫והוא בן איש מצרי‬K (v. 10a); the details concerning his Israelite roots appear further along, K‫ושם אמו שֹלמית בת דברי למטה דן‬K (v. 11b). Notably, the identity of the character does not figure at all in the case of the man who violated the Sabbath, in Num 15:32 – 36, or in the case of the impure people who requested a special dispensation regarding the Pesaḥ, in Num 9:1 – 14. In the case of 61

  The verse attribution follows Schwartz, “The Priestly Account.”   As Schwartz indicates (ibid., 114). 63   See, e. g., Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 512. 64   See Mittwoch, “The Story of the Blasphemer,” 386 – 89; Wenham, Leviticus, 308 – 309. 65  See Ibn Ezra on 24:10 (s. v. K‫האיש הישראלי‬K); Bertholet, Leviticus, 84 – 85; Chapman and Streane, Leviticus, 132; Eissfeldt, Introduction, 236; Magonet, “‘Halacha’ and ‘Aggadah,’” 655; Levine, Leviticus, 164; Hartley, Leviticus, 396; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 355. 62

36

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

the inheriting daughters, in Num 27:1 – 11, the identity of the petitioners holds central significance both for the plot, namely, the division of the land by family, and for its historical background, in that towns in the territory of Manasseh bore names of the petitioners. Taken together, these variable data indicate that specifying the identity of the protagonist does not represent an automatic, inherent feature of the narrative form. It does not mechanically reflect a general tendency to name. Rather, when included, such identification serves specific aims within the particular story in which it occurs. Presumably, the precise point at which the narrative conveys the information holds meaning as well. In the case of Lev 24:10 – 23, scholars have seized upon the detail given about the identity of the criminal as the key to the episode. They infer a connection to the “rabble” that joined the Israelites in their departure from Egypt (Exod 12:38), and understand this ethnic identity to have generated confusion about the applicability of the law to him. It is obvious, goes the thinking, that the punishment for cursing the deity is stoning, but is that law restricted to the “pure” Israelite or does it apply to the gēr and the “half-Israelite” as well?66 According to this view, the identity of the criminal constitutes the central point of the entire episode. From the perspective of the form of the text, the story achieves its climax with legislation and was composed for its sake. If the question Moses must treat centers on the identity of the criminal, on his status as a gēr, then it indicates that the law will treat this aspect of the case and that the novella was constructed on its account. Furthermore, scholars speculate that in the background of the story stands the period of the return from exile in Babylon, when many such gērs lived in Judea. The question of the status of the gēr, they reason, held great importance for the author of the passage and explains why he composed a complete and complex story about it.67 In this direction, certain structural aspects of the passage may give the impression of highlighting the gēr. However, when looked at closely, these very aspects point in other directions too. The determination will have to depend on other factors and signals within the narrative. Within the legislative section, the gēr is mentioned twice, once at the end of laws of crimes against the deity in vv. 15 – 16 and again after the laws about damage and death in vv. 17 – 21. In the sequence of laws about crimes against the deity in vv. 15 – 16, the gēr appears as the final element that conveys new content, after which the law concludes by restating that one who perpetrates the crime of K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K must die. The specific formulation constitutes an instance of the rhetorical trope of the “circular inclusio.”68 66   For example, Kalisch, Leviticus, 525; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Noth, Leviticus, 179; Porter, Leviticus, 193 – 194; Joosten, People and Land, 68 – 69; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2111; Vroom, “Recasting Mîšpāṭîm,” 27 – 28, 32 – 33. 67   See Noth, ibid.; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 364; Elliger speaks more generally about the “late” period in which the presence of foreign immigrants increased in Israel, a phenomenon which, according to him, is already reflected in Deuteronomy 23 (Leviticus, 333). 68   For the identification, delineation, and analysis of this literary device and its poetics, see Paran, Priestly Style, 49 – 97.

37

1. The Identity of the Criminal

In accordance with the syntax of this structural device, the penultimate clause could depend either on the independent clause that precedes it or on the repeated element, also an independent clause, that follows it. Arguably, this syntactical ambiguity draws attention to the clause at this position, which lends it added force and significance:69 K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ָכּל־‬

‫וְנֹקֵב שֵ ׁם־יהוה מֹות יּומָת ָרגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו‬K ‫כַ ּ ֵגּר כָ ּאֶ ז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־שֵ ׁם יּומָת‬K

Focusing in specifically on the law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K and the repetition in it brings out another way in which one might see the gēr to be situated significantly. Taken as a whole, the law both opens and closes with the essential statement of capital punishment. Within this frame, the law specifies three particulars: manner of death (stoning), agent of death (the nation, congregation, or representative body), and, in the climactic final position, the applicability of the law (gēr and ʾezrāḥ alike). K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

General: Provision 1 (manner of execution): Provision 2 (agent of execution): Provision 3 (applicability of law):

‫וְנֹקֵב שֵ ׁם־יהוה מֹות‬K K‫י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו‬

‫ ָרגֹום‬K

K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ָכּל־‬K

K‫כָ ּאֶ ז ְָרח‬ K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

General:

‫כַ ּ ֵגּר‬K

‫ ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־שֵ ׁם‬K

The second legal section, vv. 17 – 21, lays out laws of damages. As illustrated above, this section has the shape of a palistrophe. Immediately after it, in v. 22, comes a complete sentence that combines the applicability of the laws to the gēr together with the classic signature of Yahweh’s godship over Israel, namely, as the one who makes and enforces their laws.70 Because the laws in vv. 15 – 16 already mentioned the inclusion of the gēr, the effect of repeating this element creates a kind of refrain, which, again, might give it emphasis and significance: K‫חטְאֹו‬ ֶ

‫שׂא‬ ָ ָ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו ְונ‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫שׁם־יהוה מֹות יּו‬ ֵ ‫וְנֹקֵב‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ָרגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ ַ ּכ ֵגּר ָכּאֶ ז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־שֵ ׁם יּו‬K

‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות‬K ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם יּו‬K K‫היֶה‬ ְ ִ‫מִשְ ׁ ַפּט אֶ חָד יִ ְהיֶה ָלכֶם ַ ּכ ֵגּר ָכּאֶ ז ְָרח י‬K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫נ‬

K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫אֱֹלהֵי‬

‫ ִכּי ֲאנִי יהוה‬K

69   Awareness of the trope and its poetics takes precedence over an alternate suggestion, that the subordination of the penultimate, “equal applicability” clause to the final clause aims to preclude its misinterpretation as stipulating that the gēr must participate in the stoning of the criminal. 70   See Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1517 – 1518, also 2.1326.

38

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

One could push this kind of structural analysis further in a way that adds a complementary dimension. The expanded nature of the second instance of the inclusion of the gēr, its juxtaposition with the signature self-declaring conclusion K‫אני יהוה אלהיכם‬K, and its possible syntactical subordination of the signature conclusion by the motive particle K‫ ִ ּכי‬K, together all lend the gēr-clause additional weight. They also give it the character of a climactic conclusion to the entire legal paragraph: K‫חטְאֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂא‬ ָ ָ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו ְונ‬K ‫שׁם‬ ֵ ‫שׁם־יהוה מֹות יּומָת ָרגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־‬ ֵ ‫וְנֹקֵב‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות יּו‬K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת נ‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם יּו‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫מִשְ ׁ ַפּט אֶ חָד יִ ְהיֶה ָלכֶם ַ ּכ ֵגּר ָכּאֶ ז ְָרח יִ ְהיֶה ִכּי אֲ נִי יהוה אֱ ֹלהֵי‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

All these structural and stylistic aspects of the clauses regarding the gēr appear to throw extra light on it as of particular importance within the context of the story. On the other hand, this viewpoint, according to which the text in fact concerns itself with the status of the gēr, has never, in the end, shed any direct light on the relationship between the two groups of laws in vv. 17 – 21 and in vv. 15 – 16. Scholars have regularly felt constrained to explain this relationship along other lines. Similarly, as surveyed briefly above (and as will be elaborated below), the argument that the status of the gēr constitutes the raison d’être of the composition of the text has not led to a clear view of the crime depicted. Scholarship continues to be characterized by disagreements with regard to each one of the problems. The root of the verb K‫ ַויִּּקֹב‬K, the meaning of the expression K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K, the relationship between the two laws of vv. 15 and 16 and their meaning, and the definition of the crime in the story – all these elements have continued to generate basic debates, the arguments of which remain unsatisfying. So, for instance, the suggestion to understand the formulation “his god” K‫אלהיו‬K in the law of cursing in v. 15 literally, as if it refers specifically to a gēr who cursed his own god.71 The idea that a text, Priestly or other, within the Torah should fear for the respect of gods other than Yahweh and through the law legislate a punishment for one who would show them disrespect is extremely difficult to countenance.72 Moreover, understanding the story as if it centers on the subject of the gēr and the Egyptian Israelite exemplifies one such gēr faces difficulties from several different 71   Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 101; Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes,” 59, 61; Nihan, “Resident Aliens and Natives,” 115 esp. n. 15, 130 (compare his comments, 124 – 127 esp. n. 54, that Lev 17:8 – 9 forbids the gēr to sacrifice to his gods and “besides, in Lev 17 and elsewhere in H it can hardly be said that the emphasis is placed upon the resident alien’s freedom to observe his own practices in Israel’s land;” his compromise position, that the gēr may continue to worship his deities so long as he does not offer them sacrifices, p. 130, does not delineate what he thinks the author considered such worship to entail). 72   See already Bertholet, Leviticus, 85; also, Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2115.

1. The Identity of the Criminal

39

directions. Logically, it remains perplexing in what way the status of the gēr would come under question such that it necessitate a dramatic working out in its own dedicated episode. Any actions considered crimes against the deity and therefore prohibited to Israelites doubtlessly are so considered when performed by anyone else too, gēr or otherwise, and outlawed accordingly. All relativizing notions of tolerance for offenses against Yahweh are anachronistic and inconsistent with the Priestly history and, in fact, with biblical literature as a whole. A different author has Pharaoh deny knowledge of Yahweh and refuse to acknowledge him precisely in order to doom Pharaoh to the consequences of such a pronouncement (Exod 5:1 – 2). In the Priestly conception in particular, the gēr must abide by all prohibitions by virtue of the fact that he lives in physical proximity to Yahweh.73 In this regard, there is no reason to consider the laws of vv. 15 – 16 any differently than any other prohibitions, as if uniquely relevant to the gēr or as warranting their own dramatic illustration in narrative form. This sense that the passage as a whole seems redundant since a brief law would have sufficed already found implicit expression in a midrash that draws the conclusion that the law applies to all “sons of Noah,” namely, to all people, not just Israel and its gērs.74 In fact, the idea that the gēr requires special, explicit attention in the law stands on the premise that in some sense the gēr contains a substantive, consequential degree of otherness with respect to Israel, and this status of the gēr as foreign – enduringly so – finds manifold expression in the Priestly history.75 Yet the narrative of the oracular novella strikingly fails to employ any of the markers of gēr-hood to identify, define or characterize the criminal. On the contrary, when it comes to the substantive, consequential part of the criminal’s identity the narrative consistently highlights his Israelite affiliation and, if anything, signals that it considers him Israelite. The Priestly history employs many ways to indicate the otherness of the gēr: in the common comparison with the ʾezrāḥ (Exod 12:19, 48 – 49; Lev 16:29; 17:15; 18:26; 19:34; 24:16, 23; Num 9:14; 15:29, 30, esp. 13 – 16);76 by juxtaposing the gēr with “someone from the members/household of Israel” in casuistic formulations (Lev 17:8, 10, 13; 20:2; 22:18); and by representing the gēr as one of two separate addressees of the law (Lev 17:12; Num 19:10; 35:15). Significantly, in some instances, Yahweh formulates his law in direct, second person address to the Israelites and refers to the gēr in third person (Lev 17:10 – 14;77 Num 15:14 – 16). Other biblical texts, outside the Priestly history as well as within it, mark the gēr by coordinating it with 73   Accordingly, one should not interpret expressions equating the gēr and the ʾezrāḥ as aiming to promote the social equality of citizens and foreigners. Rather, such expressions convey the conception that residence in the deity’s vicinity requires particular behavior from all people equally. The gēr must refrain from all forms of behavior that would cause the deity to leave Israel’s midst. In addition to this base set of behavior and practices, a special set of requirements applies to the ʾezrāḥ alone. See Joosten, People and Land, 61, 63 – 64, 70. 74   See b. Sanh. 56a – 57a; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 101. 75   See Seeligmann, “gēr.” 76  See Galil’s discussion of the terms K‫אזרח‬K and K‫גר‬K (“The Story of the Blasphemer,” 178 – 179). 77   As noted by Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.711.

40

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

“foreignness” K‫נכ"ר‬K, whether explicitly (Exod 2:22; 18:3) or implicitly (Gen 23:4; Exod 22:20; 23:9; Lev 19:33 – 34; Deut 10:19; see also 23:8),78 and with the itinerant K‫אר"ח‬K (Jer 14:8; Job 31:32). A synthetic view of biblical references may suggest the fuller identity-construction to which the gēr stands as other79 – a complex trope of shared body-ness comprising bloodline (affiliation in time) together with territory (affiliation in space), specifically, the notion of “the people on its land.”80 The gēr may have one component or the other 78   See also Gen 15:13; 21:34; 2 Kgs 8:2 – 3 (which indicates that the “Shunammite woman” did not intermingle at all and, in particular, did not marry); Jer 14:8; Ps 105:23 (in which the usage of the name “Ham” opposite “Jacob” intends to emphasize the unbridgeable gulf between them). 79   Typically, scholars analyze the gēr across the corpora in biblical literature against historical institutions, events, and developments mentioned in those corpora, mainly on the assumption that each and every reference to the gēr and related social statuses directly reflects specific historical circumstances, characterizes a stage of across-the-board societal development, and has little to no meaning with reference to the genre of the piece of literature in which it appears, the fiction or fictional setting of the text, and the cultural, “social-locational,” or institutional perspective that orients it. The approach leads to the identification of multiple insertions of layers, single verses, and half-verses; builds speculation upon speculation; and lends itself to circular reasoning, especially since all historical reconstructions of Israelian and Judean society and their developments almost entirely depend on the biblical texts, often the same ones. See, e. g., Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity, esp. 225 – 319 (within the larger rubric of ethnicity or ethnic sentiments); Ramírez Kidd, Alterity and Identity, esp. 35 – 84 (despite his claim to the contrary, p. 13); Achenbach and others, The Foreigner and the Law, in particular the articles by Achenbach, Albertz (who misleadingly and ill-advisedly goes so far as to label eighth century BCE native Judeans xenophobic, p. 54), Wöhrle, and Nihan (who dismisses the relevance of Gen 23:4 and Exod 6:3 on the imprecise and confused grounds they are narrative [in P] and not legal [in H], p. 112). The elusive nature of the specific historical conditions standing behind each of the literary works in the Hebrew Bible and behind each of those works’ own internal developments and versions precludes such finely tuned analysis and more often than not renders it circular. One cannot take it for granted that whether the target population comes from Israel in the eighth century BCE, Judea in the seventh, Babylon, Judea, or the regions around Judea in the sixth, or anywhere else in any other period makes any difference at all in the basic construction of the category. Surely, one author can emphasize the stereotypical legal vulnerability of the gēr, as in the Covenant Code, another can stress the economic straits, as in the Deuteronomic corpus, and a third can highlight his ethnic or national otherness while entertaining the less common scenario of his economical success, as in Genesis 23 and Leviticus 25 of the Priestly history (the one championing Abraham’s blessed figure, the other consistent with the kind of learned theorizing engaged in throughout Leviticus 25), without any historical, sociological, or legal change in the basic phenomenon having taken place. Namely, the various texts give insufficient grounds to draw the conclusion that they reflect changed historical circumstances; such conclusions must be based on other criteria and then imposed on the analysis. Accordingly, note that the general inference that the Priestly history throughout presents a socio-economically successful gēr – if indeed correct – suits the fundamental notion of the Priestly history that, barring the effects of noxious behavior, one’s proximity to the deity should yield health and bounty. In the Priestly history, Yahweh does not assume the gēr to engage in noxious behavior any more than he considers the average Israelite as law-abiding. As a matter of method, it presents a problem to pass over this literarily internal, coherent explanation for an external, historical one of limited evidence and possibly circular argumentation. 80   See especially, from the perspective of political theory and still in process: Grosby, Biblical Ideas of Nationality Ancient and Modern; “Biblical ‘Nation;’” and above all “Political Anthropology and the Bible” – from which the following comments take their inspiration and upon which they build. The complex trope also correlates well with two of the kinds of lore about ethnic origins discussed by Sparks and compared profitably to Greek materials – descent and migration (Ethnicity and Identity). Compare Ramírez Kidd, who specifies two elements, the legal status of the gēr and his subordination

1. The Identity of the Criminal

41

as well as neither. In the Priestly history, the gēr, a foreign arrival in the community’s midst and upon its land, may have territoriality without blood,81 and stands over against the native-born ʾezrāḥ.82 The trope functions in different ways at different points in the Priestly history of Israel’s origins. In negotiation with the Hittite natives Abraham speaks of himself with the expression K‫גר ותושב‬K – a hendiadys marking the migrant or immigrant settler, the transplant, the counterpoint of the ʾezrāḥ, and of secondary, subordinate status: K‫עמכם‬K (Gen 23:5). Yahweh, who promises to begin a new bloodline with Abraham, refers to the territory that will define the new line as the one to which he has moved and in which he moves about: K‫מגוריך‬K (Gen 17:4 – 8; also Exod 6:4). The trope continues to apply in Egypt, where in Egyptian eyes Israel would be considered the gēr – a foreign element in its land – and Israel would view itself as having bloodline but not territory: it is a people in a foreign land (Exod 6:2 – 8). In the wilderness, en route from Egypt to Canaan, properly configured around Yahweh’s tabernacle, Israel prefigures life in the land; accordingly it has its share of prefigurative gērs – the mixed multitude that joined them as they left Egypt (12:37 – 38). An instructive illustration of the way the Priestly historian employs the category of the distinct gēr in laws given in the wilderness for application to life in the land, in both the substance of the law and its formulation, exists in the laws of land-redemption (Leviticus 25). In this series of laws, as elsewhere in the Priestly history, the term K‫גר‬K to Israelite law (Alterity and Identity, 24 – 25). Though he represents the culmination of a long-developing trend in biblical scholarship (ibid., 1 – 11), the facts on which he bases this scheme – usage of the verbal and nominal forms of K‫גו"ר‬K (ibid., esp. 13 – 33) – simply cannot suffice to warrant it; indeed, the very concept of legal status as a constitutive element of gēr-hood remains debatable. First of all, in context, usage of the verbs and nouns is more immediately explicable as a function of point of view (Israelite in Israel’s land), and the categories or typologies are more immediately explicable as a function of social and economic realities (landless, clan-less, vulnerable and exploitable foreigners). Secondly, that Israelian and Judean society had something like top-down or externally-located legal status and standing before the law, rather than de facto, traditional, and conventional, itself requires argument. In this direction, see the considerations of Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity, 238 – 242, although too many other factors in his analysis complicate his own application of them, e. g., ibid., 243 – 253. 81   Nihan reasons through points of seeming emphasis and ambiguity in Leviticus 25 that according to its conception the gēr may not purchase Israelite land, or rather Israelites may not sell to him (“Resident Aliens and Natives,” 123 – 124, 129 – 130). However, in addition to the debatable analysis of the text, it is difficult to imagine what kind of servitude the author would have had in mind other than working the land, especially in Leviticus 25 and the Priestly history as a whole, which are so thoroughly driven and conditioned by an agrarian conception of society, in both their realistic (or reflective) and idealistic (or constructive) elements. 82  The term K‫אזרח‬K may originate in the Priestly tradition. It appears almost exclusively in the Priestly history. Otherwise, it appears once in Ezek 47:22, in a passage that awards territory to the gēr who has had children in the land and makes him into an ʾezrāḥ. It appears again in singularly Priestly fashion in Josh 8:30 – 35, a patently derivative passage that makes sure to have Joshua fulfill the commandments given to Moses in Deuteronomy 27 (see Nelson, Joshua, 115 – 120). The term K‫אזרח‬K appears a third time in Ps 37:35, where explicitly it denotes something organically related to the land (Ben Yehuda, Dictionary of Hebrew, 1.134 – 135), but the verse has proven an interpretive crux and scholars consistently emend K‫אזרח‬K to K‫ארז‬K or K‫ארזי‬K, which conforms to LXX κέδρους (e. g. Hitzig, Die Psalmen, 210 – 211; Seybold, Die Psalmen, 154 – 155), although the presence of a series of variants in LXX (ἐπαιρόμενον [K‫מתעלה‬K] for K‫מתערה‬K and τοῦ Λιβάνου [K‫לבנון‬K] for K‫רענן‬K) complicates its utility, while the analysis of Hakham (Psalms, 1.213) makes MT less impossible and less unlikely than normally stated.

42

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

appears alongside that of K‫תושב‬K (vv. 35, 45, 47, as well as 23; also Num 35:15).83 Moreover, the law of the slave in this series draws a sharp distinction. One may not treat the purchased Israelite as a slave; on the contrary, for all intents and purposes he constitutes no slave (vv. 39 – 43, 46b). However, Israelites may purchase foreign slaves or permanently hold foreigners who live in their midst – K‫הגרים התושבים עמכם‬K – even if they have dwelled there several generations (vv. 44 – 46a). In addition, the series of laws in the chapter tracks a deterioration, from selling parcels of land (vv. 25 – 28), to borrowing resources (vv. 35 – 38), to complete destitution and selling oneself into slavery (vv. 39 – 54).84 This final stage divides itself into two cases, selling oneself to an Israelite (vv. 39 – 46) and selling oneself to a gēr (vv. 47 – 54). The very fact of describing the two cases in this way demonstrates the degree of the otherness of the gēr. Moreover, the diction in the protasis lays stress on the difference between “your brother” K‫אחיך‬K the Israelite (vv. 39, 46, 47) and the gēr tôšāḇ, who is no brother at all (v. 47).85 The distinction stands behind the choice to place the case of selling oneself to a gēr at the very end of the series. The case represents the most degrading deterioration in the situation of the Israelite, who must sell himself to a gēr rather than an Israelite “brother.”86 The distinction manifests itself in legal substance as well: so many more degrees of relation must apply themselves to the redemption of the Israelite enslaved (compare vv. 47 – 49 with vv. 25, 39 – 41). Despite the many ways in which biblical texts in general and the Priestly history in particular can mark a gēr or someone with a meaningful degree of gēr-hood, the narrative of the oracular novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 does not employ any of them to designate the criminal. On the contrary, it emphasizes his participation in Israelite identity. For instance, not once does it employ the noun K‫גר‬K or the verb K‫גו"ר‬K. It does not coordinate him with the wilderness version of the gēr – the mixed multitude of Exod 12:37 – 38. Note well, the narrative does not make him a full Egyptian who himself joined the Israelites, but half Egyptian – the son of an Egyptian whose continuing connection to the Israelites the narrative leaves entirely out of the picture (v. 10). Moreover, the narrative remarks on this Egyptian dimension only once towards the beginning of the episode, immediately after having introduced him as the son of an Israelite woman, and does not return to it. Indeed, rather than emphasize this Egyptian affiliation, the description of the incident refers to the criminal repeatedly as “the son of the Israelite woman” (twice in v. 10 and once in v. 11), until Yahweh speaks, from which point the text denotes him with reference to the crime he committed, K‫המקלל‬K (vv. 12, 23). Note how the author elects to have the narrator first introduce the character as “a son of an Israelite woman” and only afterwards fill in the nationality of his father. After that, the 83

  Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, outside the Priestly history, see Ps 39:13.   On the cases, see the discussion in Wells, “The Quasi-Alien in Leviticus 25.” 85  The singular use of the unusual noun K‫עקר‬K in v. 47 to refer to the descendant of the original gēr, rather than a more regular term like K‫בן‬K or K‫זרע‬K or even K‫צאצא‬K, may intend to convey a negative connotation of unnatural descent and duration in the land by satirically evoking the sense of sterility. So, apparently, Ben Yehuda, Dictionary of Hebrew, 9.4682 (missed by Tur-Sinai, ibid. n. 2). 86   See the discussion of these issues in Joosten, People and Land, 54 – 73. 84

43

1. The Identity of the Criminal

narrative returns to the criminal’s Israelite affiliation and designates him, in growing expansiveness, first as “the son of the Israelite (f.)” K‫בן הישראלית‬K (v. 10b), then as “the son of the Israelite woman” K‫בן האשה הישראלית‬K (v. 11a), until in a kind of crescendo it spells out his mother’s full identity, with name, patronymic and Israelite tribe: K‫ושם אמו‬ ‫שלמית בת דברי למטה דן‬K (v. 11b): Verse 10a: Verse 10b: Verse 11a: Verse 11b:

K‫מצ ְִרי‬ ִ

‫ש ְׂר ֵאלִית וְהּוא ֶבּן־אִיׁש‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה י‬ ּ ָ ‫ ֶבּן־ ִא‬K K‫אלִית‬ ֵ ‫ש ְׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫ ֶבּן ַה ּי‬K K‫אלִית‬ ֵ ‫ש ְׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה ַה ּי‬ ּ ָ ‫ ֶבּן־ ָה ִא‬K K‫טּה־דָ ן‬ ֵ ‫שֹׁלמִית ַבּת־דִ ּב ְִרי ְל ַמ‬ ְ ‫שׁם אִּמֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ְו‬K

This Israelite identification appears in every clause of the segment, in vv. 10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, and it also functions to frame the scene, in vv. 10a and 11b, defining its extent and marking its limit before the story moves to the legislative part, in vv. 12 – 23. Other than the three times the gentilic “Israelite” appears in this story, it appears nowhere else in the Priestly history and only once more in the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam 17:25; see also LXX Ps 87:1; 88:1).87 Also, use of the gentilic contrasts with Priestly usage in another story involving non-Israelite affiliation and obnoxious actions (Num 25:6 – 15). In that instance, the narrative introduces the action in the initial stage using the partitive phrase K‫איש מבני ישראל‬K (v. 6), and subsequently employs the construct phrase K‫איש‬ ‫ישראל‬K (vv. 8, 14). These data strongly suggest the deliberate and significant character of the Israelite gentilic used to give the criminal in Lev 24:10 – 23 his definition. In sum, one should conclude that the story does not intend to depict a gēr for the purposes of introducing legislation about a gēr. Rather, as a legal narrative, it establishes and confirms the Israelite identity of the criminal and it does so precisely for its paradigmatic value and comprehensive applicability. The gēr and the ʾezrāḥ mentioned together in v. 16 at the end of the laws of deity-oriented offense in vv. 15 – 16 and again in v. 22 after the death-and-damage laws of vv. 17 – 21 appear at those points in the same manner and with the same purpose that they do in other important laws throughout the Priestly history,88 namely, to confirm the applicability of the law to the gēr.89 Therefore, 87

  See Joosten, People and Land, 33 n. 24.   (1) Concerning the Pesaḥ: regarding its general observance, either at the usual time or at the approved alternate time (Num 9:14), and regarding the requirement that only the circumcised may partake of it (Exod 12:48 – 49); (2) in the prohibition against eating leaven during the festival of unleavened bread (Exod 12:19); (3) in the requirements of self-deprivation and cessation from labor on the Day of Purgation (Lev 16:29 – 31; see also Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 27 – 28); (4) concerning the sabbatical year in which the land may not be worked (Lev 25:6); (5) concerning all matters of sacrifice: [a] its restriction to the tabernacle (Lev 17:8); [b] the prohibition against consuming blood (Lev 17:10 – 13) with the implications for the impurity of animals found dead or mangled (Lev 17:15); [c] the requirement to sacrifice unblemished animals (Lev 22:18); [d] the presentation of grain and wine offerings with animal offerings (Num 15:14 – 16); [e] the defiling effects of gathering the ashes of the red heifer (Num 19:10); (6) regarding sexual relations (Lev 18:26); (7) in the prohibition against serving Molek (Lev 20:2); (8) in the case of a sin committed either accidentally or with intent (Num 15:26, 29, 30); (9) in the establishment of cities of refuge (Num 35:15). 89   The point makes it unnecessary to propose that the curser’s status as the son of a mixed marriage demonstrates that the law applies to both Israelites and foreigners together (e. g. Joosten, People and Land, 69 n. 196). 88

44

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

as in so many other instances, the laws of offense directed against the deity state simply and plainly, with no fanfare or special emphasis, “as for the ʾezrāḥ so for the gēr (see Josh 8:33) and “one law shall you have” (see Num 9:14; 15:15, 16).90 If the Egyptian facet of the criminal’s identity plays no role in the law that constitutes the climax and raison d’être of the story, then it serves a different function within the story – a rhetorical or ideological one. As noted, the narrative begins by pointing out that the figure whose actions it will depict has an Egyptian father (Lev 24:10). This information prepares the reader for the kind of action the character will engage in and explains it. In a story about an offense directed at the deity – and as an act of speech by its very nature it conveys intent – it stands to reason that the person engaging in such heinous behavior has Egyptian roots.91 Regarding the criminal’s Danite pedigree in particular, scholars have identified it as a secondary element, generally without attempting to explain why it was added specifically at its current point in the text.92 Some have suggested that the family information and its location somehow represent a stage within the unfolding of the plot.93 One way or the other, scholars mainly see it as an interruption in the text. However, one need not see it so. As pointed out above, the information appears in v. 11, at the end of first stage of the plot, “the incident.” It fills out the figure of the criminal, giving it a fuller backdrop, and affects the audience no less than the information given at the beginning of the episode, about his Egyptian father. Together, the two notices about the criminal’s Danite and Egyptian heritage frame the account of his offense to the person of the deity with formative elements regarding his identity. Within the Priestly history, the story does not depict the person Dan, people from the tribe, or the tribe as a whole in a negative light. In general, the history does not establish a negative tribal background for any of its failed figures to explain their behavior – Aaron’s sons (Lev 10:1 – 3), the leaders who scouted Canaan (Num 13:1 – 15), the unidentified Sabbath-breaker (15:32 – 36), Koraḥ the Levite (16:1), or Zimri the Simeonite (25:14). On the one hand, the history seems to convey the overall message that anyone can fail – as even a Moses can. On the other hand, it does seem appropriate at least to speculate about the author’s choice of tribe, and the traditions or historical 90   Likewise, there is no need to resort to arguments such as that the difficulty lies in the fact that the curser is neither a foreigner nor a full Israelite, and the question is what to do in the case of such a person (Kalisch, Leviticus, 525, Elliger, Leviticus, 333 – 334; Porter, Leviticus, 193; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 101). The law is not specific to the half-Israelite; rather, as in all other the laws that stipulate about the gēr, Yahweh addresses his law to the Israelites then comments on its applicability to the gēr. The case of the half-Israelite would naturally and logically fall under existing categories. To put it differently, it cannot be taken for granted that the author even conceived a category as the half-Israelite. In this context, it is appropriate to stress that a story whose very purpose is intended to generate a law and illustrate it should have linguistic and substantive consistency. Finally, the clever cases straddling categories and criteria, like Exod 21:22 – 25, 35, characterize casuistic series, not the straightforward style of the Priestly history. 91   Similarly, Joosten, People and Land, 85. 92   Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 420; Noth, Leviticus, 180. 93   Elliger, Leviticus, 334.

1. The Identity of the Criminal

45

circumstances that led to it. In this case, the paired frame has the effect of suggesting shared causality: that the character could bring himself to offend the deity in the manner in which he does results from his Egyptian and Danite legacy. For authors living after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel, the tribe of Dan appears to have offered itself as a convenient figure to depict shocking activity. Just such an exploitation of Dan exists in Judges 18, which portrays a violent and religiously renegade Dan slaughtering a peaceful people94 and corruptly establishing a cultic center that endures to the end of the northern kingdom’s days.95 An alternate or additional consideration, one that seems more likely or at least better contextualized within the story and within the Priestly history as a whole, is the semantic evocation of the root K‫דו"ן‬K germane to the story’s focus on law. That the genealogy and other affiliations of the criminal serve less to govern or otherwise define the substance of the law than to conjure associations and affect the audience may find support in the string of names that identifies the criminal’s mother. It would go entirely too far to develop on the basis of the names a proper backstory, but the names – K,‫שלמית‬ ‫ דן‬,‫דברי‬K – evoke the semantic roots and fields K‫ דו"ן‬,‫ דב"ר‬,‫של"ם‬K, which express together the heart of law, specifically case law, and the legal project. Again, the narrative provides no guidance whatsoever regarding the precise nuance or even the tenor of the roots, all of which have a wide range of connotations spanning the positive and negative poles as well as the different stages of the legal process. Nevertheless, in calling attention to the legal theme of the story, the string of names slows the action down and creates a deliberate, self-referential thematic pivot to the resolution that will come through divine instruction, beginning in v. 12b.96 94  Reading K‫אדם‬K as opposed to the Targums’ rendering of K‫ארם‬K which has been accepted by many modern scholars. See Malamat, “The Journey of the Danites,” 149 – 163, in particular 153 n. 12. 95   See Levine, Leviticus, 166; and, in particular, Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2110. 96  Leuchter argues (“The Ambiguous Details,” esp. 434 – 448) that the entire narrative constitutes a Priestly – H – reworking of a prior narrative in which each element encodes an aspect of an historical situation and together all the elements mount a polemical attack. The criminal who abuses the divine name refers to Solomon, who misappropriated the divine name when he claimed to have established it in the temple (1 Kgs 8:16 – 20, 43 – 44) – a sacrilege that leads to stoning K‫ אבן‬+ ‫רג"ם‬K (compare 1 Kgs 12:18 and Lev 24:23); the Egyptian father represents Solomon’s relationship with Egypt (e. g. 1 Kgs 3:1); and the mother K‫שֹלמית בת דברי‬K, recalling both the K‫שּולמית‬K of the Song of Solomon (7:1) and the town K‫לו־דבר‬K from which Bathsheba hails (2 Sam 9:4 – 5 + 1 Chr 3:5), corresponds to Bathsheba. The tribal affiliation of Dan shows the polemical narrative most likely to belong to the last decades of the eighth century BCE (after which Bethel takes over as the polemical target) and to have Hezekiah – a second Solomon – in mind too in reaction to his urbanization and centralization program. The key resides in the term used for the crime, K‫קל"ל‬K, which, in differing so markedly from H’s term K‫חל"ל‬K in Leviticus 17 – 26, indicates that the narrative had a prior form from which it derives. Notably, Willis already gave expression to the continuity and coherence between the concepts of K‫חל"ל שם‬K and K‫קל"ל‬K (“Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus,” 70), which precludes the need to draw any source-critical implications from the change in terminology. Indeed, even Nihan, who like others sees the novella as a later interpolation, considers whether the relationship between the concepts of K‫חל"ל שם‬K and K‫קל"ל‬K served to draw it to its present location (From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 513, also 99). In any case, the magnitude of the synthesis, the amount of conjecture, and the number of assumptions required to achieve this complex interpretation make it preferable to aim to explain the narrative in the terms of the Priestly history.

46

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

From a methodological point of view, the approach that focuses on the gēr as the crux of the legal narrative works tacitly if not explicitly from the assumption that Moses knew the law of Exod 22:27, “Do not curse Elohim,” but had doubts as to whether it applied to the gēr too. Behind this assumption stands another one, according to which every set of laws in the Torah contains amendments and novel elements with respect to prior sets, and formulates its innovations by taking knowledge of the prior laws for granted rather than repeat them. The different sets are to be read, as it were, side by side and interpreted in complementary fashion as if within the same narrative. The prohibition against cursing the deity was already known from the law of Exod 22:27,97 and according to the analogy with cursing one’s parents (21:17; Lev 20:9), the punishment for it was understood to be capital. Therefore, scholars have inferred that one should look to the one exceptional aspect, the gēr as the justification for the composition of the story. According to a similar theory, the prohibition in Exod 22:27 does not stipulate an explicit result, especially – so the argument goes – because it did not entertain the possibility of the eventuality ever coming to pass. Only after the Egyptian Israelite cursed the deity did the necessity to legislate explicitly arise.98 In that case, then, it may have been the punishment itself that Moses did not know and which warranted, according to this line of reasoning, the composition of the episode. However, such forms of reasoning confuse the world of the characters within the story with the world of the author who composes it. The author has no surprises. Relatedly, one must explain well why the author imagines the deity to consider humans, his cherished Israelites, capable of every manner of evil except this one. Moreover, to assume that the sets of laws within the Torah were formulated so as to supplement and complete each other, or that any such complementarity plays a formative role in the construction of their respective framing narratives, requires ignoring what that framing discourse claims. In each of the sources of the Torah that presents divine law, whether the narrative histories or the collection of Deuteronomic speeches and episodes, the rhetoric and the historical view of each text emphasize that the laws listed in that text constitute the only ones received by Israel from Yahweh; they and they alone represent Yahweh’s will and upon their observance alone does Israel’s future depend. Therefore, the point of departure must be that whatever is important to the worldview of the author comes to expression in the work. In constructing a view of history, each author takes nothing for granted, but rather includes every element he considers to belong to that world, or every element he considers essential to constructing it. Duplication of laws across the different works and lack of correlation between them should not on their own trigger questions in this respect. 97   According to Gerstenberger (Leviticus, 365 – 366) and others, the prohibition would have been obvious to the community. By this reasoning, one should conclude that the presence of all the laws and other persuasive utterances in the Priestly history implies that for the audience not one of them was understood as obvious. Such an approach leads to the absurd inference that Israelites debated or were divided about the acceptability of cursing the deaf and placing a stumbling block in the way of the blind, and the Priestly history advocated for one of the positions (Lev 19:14). 98   Philo, “On the Life of Moses,” § 2.203; Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, on 24:12; Baentsch, ExodusLeviticus-Numeri, on 24:12; Elliger, Leviticus, 333; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 366.

1. The Identity of the Criminal

47

In the light of this understanding of the narrative independence of the legal codes from each other, one should not engage in overly fine legalistic reasoning to ascertain the precise aspect of the case that baffled Moses and sent him to seek an oracle.99 On the contrary, the Priestly history never portrays Moses as legislating or judging.100 Rather, he serves exclusively as the divine mouthpiece, a tool of divine communication. For example, on the day of the initiation of the tabernacle and its priesthood, there arises a question about eating the purification offering, Moses submits to the reasoning of his brother Aaron – the priest – and admits that Aaron’s argument is preferable to his own (Lev 10:16 – 20).101 Indeed, the high tones in which the author of the episode cast the dialogue between Moses and Aaron convey the author’s own investment in it and valuation of the positions: the effect of Moses’ accusatory question and Aaron’s retort in a rhetorical question creates a pointedly dismissive attitude towards Moses’ reasoning and role in the technicalities of ritual practice and comprehension of the divine. One can see how the author goes so far as to set up Moses to be overruled by Aaron. Ensuring that the initiation procedures continue accurately after the fatal divergence by Aaron’s sons, Moses twice stresses, “as I was commanded” (v. 13) and “as Yahweh commanded” (v. 15), then concludes with the powerful words, “as I commanded” (v. 18),102 at which point Aaron replies and concludes with the loaded words, “Would that be right in the eyes of Yahweh!?” (v. 19) The author has the narrator note Moses’ assent – in Aaron’s very words (v. 20). Moses transmits; Aaron understands and applies.103 Accordingly, one should not examine the case of the oracular novella for subtleties and cruxes that went beyond Moses’ abilities and prevented him from resolving it himself. Moses turns to Yahweh to hear an entirely new law, because the people approached him with an entirely new scenario not covered in the law. This is what the narrative conveys when the narrator says that the people placed the criminal in   99   Contrast e. g Vroom, who refers to this and the other three novellas as “‘hard case’ legal narratives” (“Recasting, Mîšpāṭîm,” 28). 100   See Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 123. 101  For an explanation of the dispute between Moses and Aaron, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.635 – 640; Milgrom takes the midrashic connotation of the root K‫שמ"ע‬K from the Rabbis (based on 1 Kgs 3:9; see ibid., 640). Moses also remains completely passive during the shocking public act of the leader of the tribe of Simeon in Num 25:6 – 13. It is only Phineas – the priest and grandson of Aaron – who is able to rouse himself to respond. 102  SP supports the consonants K‫צויתי‬K of MT, but allows for the passive “as I was commanded.” However, LXX ὅν τρόπον μοι συνέταξεν κύριος (*K‫כאשר צוה לי יהוה‬K) differs markedly from its rendering in v. 13 οὕτω γὰρ ἐντέταλταί μοι (MT K‫כי כן ֻצ ֵוּיתִ י‬K) in a way that cannot be retroverted directly into a biblical Hebrew expression and looks inflected by the problematic rendering in v. 15 ὃν τρόπον συνέταξεν κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ (MT K‫כאשר צוה יהוה‬K plus *K‫את משה‬K or K‫למשה‬K in the midst of Moses’ own speech), all of which suggests that the active form of MT is the primary reading. 103  Compare Moses’ anger (K‫קצ"ף‬K) at various other infractions and violations by general Israelites in Exod 16:16 – 20 and Num 31:1 – 20. Note the marked similarity between Lev 10:16 – 18 and Num 31:14 – 16: K‫ויקצף‬K + pointed question + K‫הן‬K. In this context, Aaron’s superior reasoning in the one story (Lev 10:19 – 20) and the unique emphasis on Eleazar’s transmission of the law in the other (Num 31:21 – 24) might appear to correlate with each other as well, but several factors make the case complex and debatable.

48

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

holding K‫לפרש להם על פי יהוה‬K (24:12), namely, to decide the case by divine oracle. This waiting for Yahweh’s revealed directive realizes in narrative terms the Priestly conception that the laws come directly from Yahweh and he alone legislates. This narrative expression for this Priestly conception is part of the relating of a law in a narrative constructed precisely so as to reach its climax in legislation. In sum, the Egyptian roots of the criminal do not serve as the source of Moses’ perplexity, the factor that confounded his legislative or judicial sense. Giving the criminal an Egyptian father serves a completely different, ideological function – to explain the disturbing fact that an Israelite could come to offend the person of his deity in this most direct manner. Split between vv. 10a and 11b, the two parts of the criminal’s parentage frame the crisis part of the episode and color his action. Placing him in holding in the end of v. 11 serves as a fitting pivot to the divine instruction that constitutes the episode’s climax and will bring resolution.

2. The Crime Without the implications and misdirections created by the common understanding of the role and significance of the criminal’s status as a gēr, and focusing instead on the topic of cursing as significant to the Priestly history in its own right, one can turn to the question of what actions the story means to describe. Understanding the passage hinges on the roots K‫קל"ל‬K and K‫נק"ב‬K, the verb K‫ויקב‬K, the relationship of the two laws in vv. 15 and 16 to each other, and the relationship between the laws of vv. 15 – 16 and the depiction of the crime in vv. 10 – 12. As detailed above, the passage poses a knot of difficult problems in respect to these four points requiring explication. A way in may be afforded by source-texts, prior texts upon which the Priestly author appears to have drawn in order to compose the two laws in vv. 15 and 16. Identifying such sourcetexts may shed some light on their terms and original meaning, on the logic and very idea of bringing them together in a single passage, and the manner in which they have been combined to work together in coherent fashion, with respect to both their juxtaposition and their place in the passage as a whole. The law of cursing the deity in Lev 24:15 has a parallel in the Covenant Code: ‫ם‬ K ‫אלהי‬ ‫לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאר‬K (Exod 22:27). The meaning of this law, too, has come under debate in traditional commentaries and modern critical research. Does ‫ם‬K ‫אלהי‬K refer to the divine or human sphere? What is the meaning of the root ‫ל‬K "‫קל‬K? And who is the ‫א‬K ‫נשי‬K?104 104  See the Rabbinic sources as well as traditional and critical exegesis. It is also worth noting van der Toorn’s proposal that K‫אלהים‬K here refers to deceased forefathers, namely, the family gods (Family Religion, 233). The hypothesis relies on Brichto’s interpretation of Exod 20:12 as referring specifically to the fathers and mothers who have already died and whose names must be remembered and pronounced (“Kin, Cult, Land,” 29 – 32, esp. 30 – 31). The likelihood is greater that Exod 20:12, along with 21:15, 17, aim to protect elderly parents (compare Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.242). Arguably, usage of K‫אלהים‬K for dead ancestors does stand behind an original form of Exod 22:19 that prohibited offering to the dead (so Chavel, ibid., 1.247 – 248; compare Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 70 – 71; Zakovitch, Introduction, 92 – 93; Houtman, Exodus, 3.214 – 216; Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 202).

2. The Crime

49

The parallelism within this law should play the determinative role in its interpretation and indicate that the law treats a single topic, cursing the forces or entities essential to an ordered life, “cursing God and king.”105 Namely, although all the ancient translations render the verse otherwise,106 ‫ל‬K "‫קל‬K and ‫ר‬K "‫אר‬K have the same meaning, and they refer to a verbal articulation with the power – one way or another – to have a direct adverse effect. Because of the fact that the verb ‫ר‬K "‫אר‬K never takes the object ‫ם‬ K ‫אלהי‬K in the Hebrew Bible, whereas ‫ל‬K "‫קל‬K does so three times, scholars have typically inferred ‫ל‬K "‫קל‬K to refer to a less severe act. The difference in crudeness or tone, though, need not imply any difference whatsoever in the basic meaning, action, or significance (as any survey of terms and expressions for sexual intercourse in English makes quite clear).107 Alternation between the two roots ‫ל‬K "‫קל‬K and ‫ר‬K "‫אר‬K to denote the same single specific historical event in the episodes of the garden of Eden and of the flood within a single narrative history indicates their equivalence. In response to the violation of the prohibition on eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Yahweh declares to the man: ‫ה‬K ‫ארורה האדמ‬ ‫בעבורך‬K, and in response to Noah’s sacrifice after the flood, Yahweh undoes this curse: K ‫לא אֹסִף לקלל עוד את האדמה בעבור האדם‬K (Gen 3:17; 8:21; also 5:29). Providing one of the clearest depictions of cursing, replete with relevant terminology (‫ע‬K "‫שב‬K, ‫ר‬K "‫אר‬K, ‫ה‬K ‫)לפני יהו‬, Joshua pronounces that whoever rebuilds Jericho will do so at the expense of his children (Josh 6:26), and when in the days of Ahab, Hiel of Bethel rebuilds Jericho the terms of Joshua’s pronouncement realize themselves (1 Kgs 16:34). Some texts that include pronouncements or other expressions refer only to the state of being accursed without specifying a particular manifestation (e. g., Deut 27:15 – 26). What kind of adverse effect these ancient authors thought their characters or their audiences could have hoped to have had on the deity remains unclear, but an author can always find the act of cursing the deity outrageous, dangerous, and worthy of elimination. In several instances, close analysis turns up studied reuse of material from the Covenant Code in the Holiness Code.108 This reuse has a distinctive quality to it, for careful comparison reveals a variety of readerly motivations and adaptations, and no particular set takes priority over any other. At one end of the spectrum stands restricted stylistic adaptations; at the other end, wholesale appropriation that both redirects a legal 105  Scholars commonly view the title K‫נשיא‬K as reflecting a pre-monarchical position analogous to ‫מלך‬K. Rofé argues that it constitutes a late term that authors employed instead of K‫מלך‬K and which editors often employed to replace it, and that an editor may have done so here (“Qumranic Paraphrases,” 169 – 174, esp. 174). For this instance, Wright makes the literarily sensitive and theoretically strong claim that the author of the composition that includes the Covenant Code, namely, the Elohistic history, employed the archaizing term K‫נשיא‬K precisely to match the pre-monarchical setting of the larger composition (Inventing God’s Law, 127, 169, esp. 297 – 298, but note that he seems there to misunderstand Rofé’s argument). In either case, K‫נשיא‬K and K‫שופט‬K too show signs of having been conceptualized by biblical authors with kingship in mind, as variations of it or alternatives to it. Relatedly, the very notion of “cursing God and king” goes hand-in-hand with the institution of kingship and does not suit either a pre- or a post-monarchical setting. 106  LXX: οὐ κακολογήσεις; Onqelos: K‫לא תקיל‬K; Tg. Ps.J.: K‫לא תקילון‬K (see Jastrow, K‫קלה‬/‫קלי‬K I, 1375; K‫קלל‬K, 1377 – 1378); Tg. Neof.: K‫לא תבזון‬K. 107   See Blank, “The Curse,” 83 – 84; Aitken, Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 28 – 29. 108   See Paran, Priestly Style, 29 – 40; Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 116 – 164.

50

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

paragraph towards the establishment of a new institution and engages in systematic specification and qualification. Seen comprehensively, the Holiness Code treats the Covenant Code as a trove of existing formulations and conceptions available for reuse as it sees fit on a case-by-case basis. Importantly, through all the alterations and adaptations, semantic usage emerges as quite stable. Analyzing several instances in some detail will help demonstrate the point and establish a comparison set. The law of the sabbatical year in Leviticus 25 offers a particularly rich first example.109 Illustrating the “sabbath of Yahweh” (v. 2), the law states: K‫שש שנים תזרע שדך ושש‬ ‫שנים תזמר כרמך ואספת את תבואתּה‬K (v. 3). This formulation suffers disagreement in both gender and number, since the feminine singular pronominal suffix in the third segment of the string (MT: K‫תְ ּבּוָאתָ ּה‬K) matches neither the fact of two antecedents (K‫שדה‬K and K‫כרם‬K) nor their masculine gender. This mismatch may reflect an historical process by which an earlier version of the text has been appropriated and revised, but only partially. The Covenant Code states in strikingly similar terminology and form: K‫שש שנים תזרע את ארצך‬ ‫ואספת את תבואתה‬K (Exod 23:10), and in this earlier formulation the feminine singular pronominal suffix refers suitably to a lone, feminine antecedent, K‫ארץ‬K. The Priestly author appears to have aimed to add specificity to the earlier law, by replacing the general term K‫ארץ‬K with two major classes of cultivated land, K‫שדה‬K and K‫כרם‬K,110 and adding the appropriate annual activity for the K‫כרם‬K, pruning, since one only plants the K‫כרם‬K once. Having reworked the source-text by expanding and updating the first clause, the author merely repeated the second clause.111 Exod 23:10 Lev 25:3

K‫אֶת־תְ ּבּוָאתָ ּה‬

K‫אֶת־תְ ּבּוָאתָ ּה‬

ּ ָ‫וְָא ַספְת‬K ֶ ‫ֶת־ַאר‬ ְ ‫שנִים תִ ּז ְַרע א‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁׁש‬ ֵ ‫ ְו‬K K‫צָך‬ ּ ָ‫שנִים תִ ּזְמ ֹר ַכ ְּרמֶָך וְָא ַספְת‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁׁש‬ ֵ ‫שׂדֶ ָך ְו‬ ָ ‫שנִים תִ ּז ְַרע‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁׁש‬ ֵ K

Moreover, the Priestly author appears to have found the idea for this specifying expansion in the text of the Covenant Code itself. The law there concludes by expanding its own applicability from crops planted on annual basis to those planted once only and pruned afterwards: K‫כן תעשה לכרמך לזיתך‬K “so shall you do for your vineyard (and) for your olive grove” (Exod 23:11).112 Notably, all the other elements in the law from the Covenant Code recur in the Priestly law, in their original sequence, with elaborations 109   Compare, e. g., Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 179 – 181; Zakovitch, Introduction, 93 – 94; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2152 – 2162, esp. 2154 – 2155; above all Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 113 – 141. 110  The two appear together as a pair throughout the Hebrew Bible in texts of different genres and from different periods, but note especially Lev 19:9 – 10. Levine states that, despite Exod 23:11, the term K‫כרם‬K can refer to the olive grove (Leviticus, 170); for such usage, Milgrom cites Judg 15:5 K‫כרם זית‬ (Leviticus, 3.2157). However, biblical authors generally saw fit to distinguish between K‫כרם‬K and K‫זית‬K (in addition to Exod 23:11, see Deut 6:11; Josh 24:13; 1 Sam 8:14; 2 Kgs 5:26; 18:32; Amos 4:9; Neh 5:11; 9:25) and scholars generally recommend emending Judg 15:5 to K‫כרם וזית‬K, which corresponds to LXX (e. g., Burney, Judges, 369). 111  Even if K‫שדה‬K and K‫כרם‬K can be marked as feminine and even if the singular pronominal suffix of K ‫תבואתה‬K can refer to the two antecedents distributively, such a formulation still looks more like the result of decisions about how much of a preexisting formulation absolutely requires adjustment, rather than a formulation from scratch. In this direction, see Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 117. 112   For an argument that this clause was added to the law secondarily, see Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.246.

2. The Crime

51

and amplifications in characteristic Priestly idiom, specifying and updating the language. For instance, the Priestly law expands the continuation of the law in the Covenant Code – K‫והשביעת‬K (Exod 23:11) – to make it more precise: K‫ובשנה השביעת‬K (Lev 25:4a).113 Whereas the Covenant Code continues immediately with transitive verbs, namely, actions that characterize the seventh year, the Priestly law first adds a qualification of the year: K‫שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ שבת ליהוה‬K (ibid.).114 Only then does it continue with the list of actions that demonstrate what the law intends, and this list it revises for concreteness. In place of the general terms K‫תשמטנה ונטשתה‬K with their unspecified objects (Exod 23:11a), it explicitly negates the particular activities (K‫ קצ"ר‬+ ‫זר"ע‬K and K‫ בצ"ר‬+ ‫זמ"ר‬K) appropriate to the two kinds of cultivatable land (K‫שדה‬K and K‫כרם‬K) and their produce (K‫ספיח קציר‬K and K‫ענבי נזיר‬K) in the two major seasons of preparation and harvest: K‫שדך לא תזרע וכרמך לא תזמר את ספיח קצירך לא תקצור ואת ענבי נזיריך לא תבצר‬K (vv. 4b – 5a).115 Again the Priestly author pauses to denote the character of the year as such: K‫שנת שבתון יהיה לארץ‬K (v. 5b), then continues with the next topic treated by the Covenant Code – the purpose and implications of the law. The Covenant Code states the purpose: K‫ואכלו אביני עמך‬K, and rounds out the discussion by describing what happens with the leftover crops, which emphasizes that even these must not be gathered in: ‫ויתרם תאכל חית השדה‬K (Exod 23:11a). This segment undergoes a more robust transformation. The Priestly law supplies a name for the crops that grow in this year and does so through the key-root K‫שב"ת‬K, much as it did for the seventh year itself: K‫ הארץ‬K‫והיתה שבת‬ ‫לכם לאכלה‬K (Lev 25:6a).116 It also alters the purpose of the law such that it does not target 113  The elliptical expression K‫והשבי ִעת‬K that opens the passage in Exod 23:11, K‫והׁשביעִת תׁשמטנה ונטׁשתה‬ ‫ואכלו‬K etc., can be interpreted in two ways. Either it indicates the seventh year (i. e., K‫ובשנה השביעת‬K), in which case the antecedent to the pronominal suffixes, K‫תשמטנה ונטשתה‬K, is the word K‫ארץ‬K in v. 10a; or else it indicates the produce of the seventh year, referring back to K‫תבואתה‬K in v. 10b, and the antecedent to the pronominal suffices is the produce. It seems that the author of the Priestly law in Lev 25:1 – 7 saw the problem and gave voice to both possibilities. After the discussion of the six years in v. 3, the text says in v. 4a, at the parallel point to the original law, “in the seventh year” (K‫ובשנה השביעת‬K); when the text continues with instruction for eating in v. 6a, it again opens with the same elliptical wording, “and you will have the sabbath-produce of the land (K‫שבת הארץ‬K) to eat” – where K‫שבת הארץ‬K also corresponds to the Covenant Code’s K‫השביעת‬K. The author of Neh 10:32 (who combines the laws of Exodus 23, Leviticus 25, and Deuteronomy 15) appears to have read the text in this manner, but the text of Lev 25:1 – 7 gives no indication that its author did. Compare the discussion from the perspective of the suffixes and their antecedents in Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 130 – 132. See further nn. 116 and 120 below. 114   On the syntax of the entire sentence as indicating the intertextual process by which it was composed, see Stackert, ibid., 118 – 119. 115  Possibly, the double construction K‫תשמטנה ונטשתה‬K is what motivated the author to discuss the two steps of cultivating the land: first, sowing and pruning; second, reaping and gathering. From this point of view, note Ehrlich, who claims that K‫תשמטנה‬K and K‫ונטשתה‬K refer to separate antecedents – the first to K‫ארצך‬K and the second to K‫תבואתה‬K (Literal Meaning, 1.184; Randglossen, 1.359). 116  The Medieval commentaries debate how to explain the usage. Saadia: “whatever grows in the land that is left alone;” Rashi: “from what is left out there (K‫השבות‬K) you may eat, but you may not eat from what is secured (K‫השמור‬K);” Ibn Ezra: “whatever it (the land) produces on its own;” Ramban: “the produce of the sabbatical (K‫תבואת השבת‬K) because the sabbatical (K‫השבת‬K) is not (an) edible (thing).” Following Ramban, Milgrom adds that the elided element, K‫תבואה‬K, appears explicitly in the corresponding segment in v. 7: K‫תהיה כל תבואתה לאכל‬K (Leviticus, 3.2159).

52

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

the destitute but encompasses all human residents and the animals too. In line with the Priestly conception of society and land, it replaces the expression “the destitute of your people” K‫אביוני עמך‬K by terms that specify both the foreign origins of the destitute and their specific place with Israel’s landed society, K‫ולשכרך ולתושבך הגרים עמך‬K. And it formulates it all in the signature Priestly trope, the circular inclusio: K‫לך ולעבדך ולאמתך‬ ‫ולשכרך ולתושבך הגרים עמך ולבהמתך ולחיה אשר בארצך תהיה כל תבואתה לאכל‬K (Lev 25:6b – 7). Lev  25:3 – 7

Exod  23:10 – 11 ָ K‫שׂדֶ ָך‬

‫שנִים תִ ּז ְַרע‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁׁש‬ ֵ K ‫שנִים תִ ּזְמ ֹר‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁׁש‬ ֵ ‫ ְו‬K K‫ספְתָ ּ אֶת־תְ ּבּוָאתָ ּה‬ ַ ‫וְָא‬K ּׁ ְ ‫שנָה ַה‬ ּׁ ָ ‫ּו ַב‬K K‫שבִיעִית‬ K‫בּת לַיהוה‬ ָ‫ש‬ ׁ ַ ‫ָָארץ‬ ֶ ‫ש ָבּתֹון י ִ ְהי ֶה ל‬ ׁ ַ ‫ש ָבּת‬ ַׁ K K‫שׂדְ ָך ֹלא תִ ז ְָרע ְוכ ְַרמְָך ֹלא תִ ז ְמֹר‬ ָ K K‫ִיריָך ֹלא תִ בְצֹר‬ ֶ ‫ִירָך ֹלא תִ קְצֹור ְואֶת־ ִע ּנְבֵי נְז‬ ְ ‫אֶת ְספִי ַח ְקצ‬K K‫ָָארץ‬ ֶ ‫ש ָבּתֹון י ִ ְהי ֶה ל‬ ׁ ַ ‫שנַת‬ ְׁ K ָ ‫ָָארץ ָלכֶם לְָא ְכ‬ ֶ ‫ש ַבּת ה‬ ׁ ַ ‫ ְו ָהי ְתָ ה‬K K‫לה‬ K‫מְך‬ ּ ָ ‫שבְָך ַהגָ ִּרים ִע‬ ָ ‫שכ ְִרָך ּולְתֹו‬ ׂ ְ ‫לְָך ּו ְל ַעבְדְ ָּך ְו ַל ֲאמָתֶ ָך ְו ִל‬K K‫לאֱכֹל‬ ֶ ‫ַּארצֶָך תִ ּ ְהי ֶה כָל־תְ ּבּוָאתָ ּה‬ ְ ‫שׁר ְב‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ִל ְב ֶהמְתְ ָּך ְו ַל ַחיָּה ֲא‬K K‫מָך‬ ֶ ‫ַכ ְּר‬

K‫צָך‬ ֶ ‫ֶת־ַאר‬ ְ ‫א‬

‫שנִים תִ ּז ְָרע‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁׁש‬ ֵ ‫ ְו‬K

K‫אֶת־תְ ּבּוָאתָ ּה‬

ְ ‫ּונְ ַט‬ K‫שׁתָ ּּה‬

K‫מָך‬ ּ ֶ ‫ַע‬

ּ ָ ‫ַה‬ K‫שׂדֶ ה‬ K‫לז ֵיתֶ ָך‬ ְ

ּ ָ‫וְָא ַספְת‬K

K‫עת‬ ִ ‫שבִי‬ ּׁ ְ ‫ ְו ַה‬K

‫ש ְמ ֶטנָּה‬ ׁ ְ ּ ִ‫ת‬K

‫וְָאכְלּו ֶאבְיֹנֵי‬K

‫ ְוי ִתְ ָרם ת ֹאכַל ַחיַּת‬K ‫שׂה ְלכ ְַרמְָך‬ ֶ ‫ ֵכּן־תַ ּ ֲע‬K

Significantly, the Priestly author has not revised the law of the Covenant Code to offer an improved formulation of it, but has cannibalized it to formulate an entirely new institution. Granting the premise that the Covenant Code intends to support the destitute on a regular basis, not once even seven years, the law in Exod 23:10 – 11 likely has in mind a seven-year rotation among one’s own fields; namely, every year one sets aside a portion of one’s fields for the poor. The Priestly history already contains its own version of just such a law – one that parallels the law of the Covenant Code but remains literarily distinct from it – in Lev 19:9 – 10 (also 23:22): K– ‫צכֶם‬ ְ ‫ַאר‬ ְ ‫ּו ְב ֻקצ ְְרכֶם אֶת־ ְקצִיר‬K ‫ִירָך ֹלא‬ ְ ‫שׂדְ ָך ִלקְצ ֹר   ְו ֶלקֶט ְקצ‬ ָ ‫ֹלא־תְ ַכ ֶלּה ְפַּאת‬K K‫קט‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ְוכ ְַרמְָך ֹלא תְ עֹולֵל        ּו ֶפ ֶּרט ַכ ְּרמְָך ֹלא תְ ַל‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ ֶל ָענִי ְו ַלגֵּר תַ ּעֲז ֹב א ֹתָ ם ֲאנִי יהוה אֱֹלהֵי‬K

K‫קט‬ ּ ֵ ‫תְ ַל‬

By sharp contrast, the series of laws in Leviticus 25 constructs a separate institution, one that recurs every seven years not every year, affects one’s entire landholdings at once rather than a portion at a time, and a priori includes in its scope the wealthy as well as the poor and even animals – all the creatures created on the sixth day of creation, who live off the land (Gen 1:24 – 27).117 117  See Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 304. Rather than a rotation as determined by the farmer, Stackert thinks the law presumes a separate cycle for each and every plot and parcel according to the time of their acquisition (personal communication). With respect to what precisely the law means to enjoin, Stackert argues that in the seventh year one must still do the work of sowing all fields and disconnecting all the produce and then leave it all there for the destitute; a linchpin of the argument, on the basis not only of biblical usage but also the Akkadian cognate, is that the verb K‫שמ"ט‬K means to

2. The Crime

53

At the heart of this institution sits the Priestly Sabbath, an institution of symbolic inactivity that likewise does not aim to give respite to the ceaselessly working dependent – as it does according to Deut 5:14 K‫למען ינוח עבדך ואמתך כמוך‬K – but to attest Yahweh’s creation of the world (Exod 31:16 – 17; also 20:11).118 The etymological root K‫שב"ת‬K appears precisely seven times in the paragraph (Lev 25:2 [2x], 4 [3x], 5, 7)119 and serves to name and characterize the institution (vv. 2, 3, 5). Even in this respect, the Priestly law appears to have found a textual source in the Covenant Code or to be responding to another textual feature in it. Immediately following the law in the Covenant Code comes the law of a weekly day of respite, and the two laws share the same formal threefold structure of cardinal “six” – ordinal “seventh” – purpose clause (marked by K‫ו־‬K and K‫למען‬K respectively):120

remove, strip, cut (Rewriting the Torah, 129 – 135). The terms of the law in Lev 19:9 – 10 and the absence of K‫שמ"ט‬K from Lev 25:1 – 7 support the plausibility of his interpretations; that said, Exod 23:10 – 11 does not signal such a delimitation, the view raises unanswered questions – for instance, whether the clock on inherited land (probably the majority situation) continues from the previous generation or starts over – and in Deut 15:1 – 11 K‫שמ"ט‬K has nothing to do with removing, stripping and the like, but with letting go and leaving alone. Houtman argues that the juxtaposition of the law in Exod 23:10 – 11 with the law of the Sabbath in v. 12 and the formal similarities between the two laws require that substantively they match as well, namely, that like the Sabbath law, the preceding law envisions six years of working all lands followed by a seventh year in which no land at all is worked (Exodus, 3.251 – 255, esp. 251 – 252). On its own terms, the argument is simply not compelling. There is no principle by which one can restrict or control the implications of juxtaposition in biblical legal literature. Varieties of correspondence serve to create the sense of deliberate juxtaposition, and varieties of juxtaposition invite varieties of implication – legal, thematic, and other. See, e. g., the laws juxtaposed in vv. 4 and 5. Furthermore, rejecting the “social maintenance” motive as secondary and, for all intents and purposes, as incoherent with the stipulations of the law leaves Houtman no choice but to resort to far-fetched concepts that have no expression in the biblical text whatsoever (ibid., 253). The relationship to the Sabbath law of v. 12 – the formal similarities in immediate juxtaposition – should settle the issue that the motive is precisely that of relief for the destitute and the dependent. Where the one employs the independent conjunction K‫למען‬K (v. 12), the other conveys it through the prefix waw on a verb: K‫ואכלו‬K (v. 11); and just as the one includes animals to ensure that the landowner allow his subordinates a true day of relief (v. 12), so the other includes the animals to guarantee the farmer leave all the food for the entire season (v. 11). 118   On the compositional history of these Priestly passages, see the recent discussion in Stackert, “Compositional Strata.” 119   Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2159; on the seven-fold use of roots and phrases in the Holiness Code and related Priestly texts, see ibid. 2.1323 – 1325. 120  To be more specific: in both the cardinal “six” is in construct with absolute terms for time periods (K‫ ימים‬// ‫שנים‬K) and followed by 2nd sing. verbs (K‫ תעשה‬// ‫תזרע‬K), and the ordinal “seventh” is followed by followed by 2nd sing. verbs (K‫ תשבת‬// ‫תשמטנה‬K). Stackert’s discussion of the phonological relationship between the roots K‫שמ"ט‬K and K‫שב"ת‬K (Rewriting the Torah, 120) suggests an additional facet of the correspondence between the two juxtaposed laws along the lines of an earlier discussion (n. 113 above): all the points of correspondence between the two laws could support the view that K‫והשביעת‬K refers to the year (*K‫ובשנה השביעת‬K) and not the seventh round of yield (*K‫והתבואה השביעת‬K). Still, the fact that the author created the ambiguity by leaving out a natural clarifying element, together with the fact that a concept noun like K‫תבואה‬K is not quantifiable and therefore lends itself to elliptical formulation, balance the argument in the other direction.

54

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

ּ ָ‫ֶת־ַארצֶָך וְָא ַספְת‬ ְ ‫שנִים תִ ּז ְָרע א‬ ׁ ָ ‫וְשֵ ׁׁש‬K ‫ש ְמ ֶטנָּה‬ ׁ ְ ּ ִ‫ ְוהַשְ ּׁבִיעִת ת‬K K‫לז ֵיתֶ ָך‬ ְ ‫שׂה ְלכ ְַרמְָך‬ ֶ ‫שׂדֶ ה ֵכּן־תַ ּ ֲע‬ ּ ָ ‫וְָאכְלּו ֶאבְיֹנֵי ַע ֶמָּך ְוי ִתְ ָרם ת ֹאכַל ַחיַּת ַה‬K K‫שׂיָך‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ַמ ֲע‬ ֶ ‫שֵ ׁשֶ ׁת יָמִים תַ ּ ֲע‬K K‫שׁבֹּת‬ ְ ּ ִ‫ּובַּיֹום הַשְ ּׁבִיעִי ת‬K K‫הגֵּר‬ ַ ‫ׁשֹורָך ַוחֲמ ֶֹרָך ְוי ִ ּנָפֵׁש ֶבּן־ ֲאמָתְ ָך ְו‬ ְ ‫ ְל ַמעַן י ָנּו ַח‬K K‫אֶת־תְ ּבּוָאתָ ּה‬

K‫שׁתָ ּּה‬ ְ ‫ּונְ ַט‬

Perhaps because of the existence of the Priestly law supporting the poor in Lev 19:9 – 10 (and 23:22), the author of the law in 25:1 – 7 inferred that just as the formal scheme of the law of feeding the poor matches the model of the law of weekly rest, so should – or might – its substance be modeled upon it and subordinated to it.121 In the light of this rather long and involved argument demonstrating that the law in Lev 25:1 – 7 bears an immediate literary relationship to Exod 23:10 – 11, and that the relationship encompasses a wide range of adaptations, several additional examples of literary relationships between the Holiness Code and the Covenant Code come to light. By comparison, these instances appear less extensive and far-reaching, but they are complementary and, on that account, additionally illuminating in that they establish a spectrum of reuse rather than one particular type. One example is the law of the treatment of the gēr in Exod 22:20 and Lev 19:33 – 34.122 The two versions of the law are extremely similar, and where the Priestly version diverges, it does so with classic Priestly formulas and formulations. Lev  19:33 – 34

Exod 22:20 ‫ ְוכִי־י ָגּור אִתְ ָּך ֵגּר‬K K‫ֹלא תֹונּו א ֹתֹו‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ּ ְ‫ ְ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח ִמ ֶכּם י ִ ְהי ֶה ָלכֶם ַהגֵּר ַהגָּר אִת‬K K‫כּמֹוָך‬ ָ ‫וְָא ַהבְתָ ּ לֹו‬K ִ ‫ ִכּי־ג ִֵרים ֱהיִיתֶ ם ְבּאֶ ֶרץ‬K K‫מצ ְָריִם‬ K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲאנִי יהוה אֱֹלהֵי‬K ֶ ‫ַּאר ְצ‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ K‫כם‬

K‫חצֶּנּו‬ ָ ‫תִ ְל‬

K‫מצ ְָריִם‬ ִ

K‫ ְו ֵגר‬K ‫ֹלא־תֹונֶה וְֹלא‬K

‫ ִכּי־ג ִֵרים ֱהיִיתֶ ם ְבּאֶ ֶרץ‬K

The Covenant Code has an apodictic statement fronted by the direct object and followed by a motive clause. The Priestly law recasts it as a casuistic statement.123 It adds the standard formula for equal applicability but here employs it as the very subject of the law.124 To the prohibition on exploitation (K‫ינ"ה‬K) it adds the opposite statement found earlier in the legal series about treating one’s peer with dignity and graciousness (v. 18 K‫ואהבת לרעך כמוך‬K) and applies it now to the gēr (v. 34 K‫ואהבת לו כמוך‬K). It repeats verbatim the motive clause that the Israelites were themselves gērîm in Egypt. Then it concludes 121  In Stackert’s view, the expressions K‫שבת ליהוה‬K, K‫שבת שבתון‬K, and K‫שנת שבתון‬K, the list of dependents (namely, K‫עבד‬K, K‫אמה‬K, K‫שכיר‬K, and K‫תושב‬K all falling under the category of K‫הגרים עמך‬K), and usage of K‫שבת‬K – all betray, each in its own way, that the Priestly author also took inspiration from Deuteronomic texts and concepts and adapted them in the process of constructing this law (Rewriting the Torah, 120 – 121, 122, 123 – 125, 125 – 127). 122   Compare to Joosten’s formulation and comments, People and Land, 59 – 60, 61. 123   Compare Exod 12:48; Num 9:14; 15:14. 124  For the expression K‫כאזרח מכם יהיה‬K, see also Exod 12:48; Lev 24:22; Ezek 37:22; for the expression K‫הגר הגר אתכם‬K, Num 15:16; Ezek 37:23. See also: Exod 12:49; Lev 16:29; 17:10, 12, 13; 18:26; Num 15:26, 29; 19:10; Josh 20:9; Ezek 37:22.

55

2. The Crime

with the classic signature of Yahweh’s self-declaration.125 Tellingly, this Priestly law retains an arresting discursive feature, the shift mid-speech between singular and plural address that characterizes the law in the Covenant Code.126 Another example is the law of cursing one’s parents in Exod 21:17 and Lev 20:9. The heart of the law contains the same elements in both formulations, capital punishment for cursing one’s parents. Lev 20:9

Exod 21:17 K‫ְואֶת־אִּמֹו‬

‫שׁר י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֶת־ָאבִיו‬ ֶ ‫ ִכּי־אִיׁש אִיׁש ֲא‬K ‫ דָ ּמָיו‬,‫ ָאבִיו ְואִּמֹו ִק ֵלּל‬,‫מֹות יּומָת‬K

K‫ּבֹו‬

K‫ְואִּמֹו‬

‫ּו ְמ ַק ֵלּל ָאבִיו‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫מֹות יּו‬K

The Priestly formulation in Lev 20:9 recasts the law from participial form (K‫ומקלל אביו‬ ‫ואמו‬K) to casuistic form – with the distinctive, Priestly doubled subject (K‫איש איש‬K) suited to heading a list (K‫איש איש אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו‬K).127 It repeats the description of the criminal action in inverse order, namely, with the direct objects preceding the verb, for the purpose of rhetorical emphasis (K‫אביו ואמו קלל‬K).128 And it declares the criminal’s guilt, emphatically absolving the community of his death (K‫דמיו בו‬K). All these aspects – casuistic formulations, rhetorical repetitions and inversions, various motive clauses – appear in the laws that immediately follow this one (vv. 10 – 21), so that casting the law about cursing one’s parents in this manner integrates it into the list, clarifies its position as the head of the list, and draws on its character to color the list as not merely proscribing certain sexual relations, but establishing the integrity of family and household more broadly and subsuming procreative activity under it.129 One can view the laws of cursing the deity in Exod 22:27 and Lev 24:15 against this broader background of varied Priestly reuse of material from the Covenant Code. Specifically, the Priestly formulation has the look of another Covenant Code law dressed in Priestly garb.130 Similar to the transformation of the law of cursing one’s 125   See Lev 18:2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 30; 19:2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37; 20:7, 8, 24, 26; 21:8, 12, 15, 23; 22:2, 3, 8, 9, 16, 30, 31, 32, 33; 23:22, 43; 24:22; 25:35, 55; 26:1, 2, 13, 44, 45. 126  Note the differences from Deut 10:19 K‫ואהבתם את הגר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים‬K, formulated entirely in 2nd pl. address and with the direct object marker K‫את‬K. 127  The stipulation K‫איש אשר‬/‫איש כי‬K and the double subject K‫איש איש‬K appear only in the Priestly history; see: Exod 36:4; Lev 15:2; 17:3, 8, 10, 13; 18:6; 20:2, 9; 21:18; 22:4, 18; 24:15; 27:2; Num 1:4, 44; 4:19, 49; 5:12; 6:2; 9:9, 10; 27: 8; 30:3; Ezek 14:4, 7. In addition: Lev 21:9; Num 5:20; Ezek 33:2. On the origin of the formula K‫כי איש איש אשר‬K that is found in the law on cursing parents, see Chavel, “At the Boundary.” 128   See also Paran, Priestly Style, 39 – 40; 49 – 97 (esp. 64), 114 – 116. 129   Compare Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 141 – 142, 270 n. 85 and elsewhere. For another example of the reuse of Covenant Code material in the Priestly history, also from Leviticus 25, see, e. g., Levinson, “The Birth of the Lemma;” idem, “The Manumission of Hermeneutics,” 305 – 316. In my view, the law of sacrifice in Lev 17:1 – 9 rejects directly that of Exod 20:18 – 22, specifically as interpreted by Chavel, “Altars and Priests in Exodus 20.” The nature of the relationship between Leviticus 22 and Exod 22:28 – 30 is more tenuous. 130   As the following scholars recognize: Bertholet, Leviticus, 84; Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 120 – 121; and perhaps also Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421. On the thematic connections between each of the laws in this section and the parallel sections in the Covenant Code, see: Jackson, “Talion and Purity,” 120 – 121.

56

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

parents, this revision replaces the apodictic formulation of the Covenant Code with a casuistic one, places it at the head of a list of laws (24:15 – 21), and gives it the distinctive doubled subject K‫איש איש‬K. In this instance, the apodictic formulation of the Covenant Code did not state a result, namely, a punishment, so the Priestly author added the bearing of sin (K‫ונשא חטאו‬K), which functions well to provide this kind of “gap-filling.” Schwartz has demonstrated that one should understand the expression of “bearing sin” (K‫נש"א חטא‬K) literally, such that it signifies that the criminal bears upon his shoulders the burden of the crime committed until its cumulative effect overwhelms him and crushes him, as Cain, in a non-Priestly text, says: K‫גדול עוני מנשא‬K (Gen 4:13).131 By its nature, the expression does not convey the magnitude of the crime borne or when it will finally crush the criminal. Therefore, it serves well to round out a law in its revision from one that does not specify an outcome to one that does.132 In noteworthy contrast, in other instances of reuse, when the Covenant Code specified a punishment, the Priestly version has maintained it, in its terms: compare Exod 21:12, 17 and Lev 20:9; 24:17, respectively.133 The story of Naboth in 1 Kings 21 may provide indirect support. To paint Jezebel as wicked, royalty as abusive, and Naboth as the victim without recourse, the narrative employs stock motifs, specifically, the combination of greed, false accusation and testimony, and murder – favored in Prophetic, Psalmodic, and Proverbial texts alike – and it includes among them the cursing of God and king as liable to death by stoning (vv. 9 – 13). If death by stoning for cursing God and king represents a common motif, then the lack of punishment in Exod 22:27 – when the Covenant Code knows well how to specify punishments and motives of various kinds – and the corresponding gap-filling of the Priestly law look all the more distinctive and linked to each other. There is another possible point of reuse and sign of revision. As noted already, Lev 24:15 LXX has θεόν, reflecting the absolute noun *‫ם‬K ‫אלהי‬K, whereas MT and SP read ‫ו‬K ‫אלהי‬K with pronominal suffix. The Holiness Code regularly formulates the noun ‫ם‬ K ‫אלהי‬K with pronominal suffixes; by contrast the absolute form, especially as a proper name with inherent determination, almost never appears – not just in the Holiness Code, but in the Priestly history as a whole after the revelation of Yahweh’s name in Exodus 6.134 Significantly, wherever MT Leviticus has the pronominal suffix so does LXX, and where θεóς occurs in LXX as a plus vis-à-vis MT, it always has the pronominal suffix.135 The 131

  “The Bearing of Sin,” 21. See also the Priestly texts, Exod 28:43; Num 18:22.  For other examples of the addition of the phrase K‫נש"א עון‬K or K‫נש"א חטא‬K to laws or rules of conduct that do not specify a particular penalty, see: Lev 5:1 (Milgrom, Leviticus 1.293 – 297, and esp. 314 – 315; cf. Prov 29:24); Lev 17:15 – 16 (cf. Lev 11:39 – 40; 22:8; and also Exod 22:30; Deut 14:21); Lev 19:17 (cf. Prov 10:18; 26:26; 27:5). 133  According to Joosten, the Priestly law changed the wording of the law from K‫איש‬K to K‫אדם‬K in order to extend the law’s purview to all humanity (People and Land, 78). This view would have to address the need for the inclusion formula in v. 22. An alternate suggestion would be that the change aimed to include the Israelite woman. 134   See Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 169 – 170. 135  Exceptions, which do not affect the point: at Lev 2:13 MT K‫ברית אלהיך‬K has LXX διαθήκης κυρίου; at 18:21 MT K‫שם אלהיך‬K LXX has τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἅγιον. Plusses: Lev 2:13; 11:44; 19:12, 14, 32. 132

2. The Crime

57

complete stylistic uniqueness of the absolute form in LXX at 24:15 strongly suggests that it represents the original form of the text. If original, it makes it likely that the Holiness Code retained the absolute form of ‫ם‬K ‫אלהי‬K in this one instance because it derived it from an outside source, Exod 22:27. In this case, MT and SP came about either through scribal error, like a substitution of waw for mem triggered by the next word, ‫ונשא‬K, or else through stylistic leveling. The literary relationship between the laws of the Covenant Code and the Holiness Code provides strong grounds that just as K‫קל"ל‬K is synonymous with K‫אר"ר‬K in the Covenant Code, so does it bear that meaning in the Holiness Code, namely, a verbal articulation intended – expressing the will – to cause harm against the target’s person or essence.136 It also triggers awareness of a set of correspondences between the oracular novella as a whole and other laws, motifs, and topoi in the Covenant Code (see further below), and prepares the ground for approaching the next law, Lev 24:16. A common opinion among scholars holds that the law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K continues the law of cursing the deity as an additional aspect of it, such that the sequence between the two laws indicates that one who curses the deity using any name other than Yahweh merely bears his crime, whereas one who curses with his proper name dies by stoning.137 However, the formulation of the law cuts in the other direction. In the Priestly history, subordinate legal paragraphs or further specification of cases are formulated casuistically with such terms as “and if” (K‫ וכי‬,‫ואם‬K), whereas the law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K appears differently, as participle plus punishment, K‫ונקב שם יהוה מות יומת‬K, like the brief series in Exod 21:12 – 17 and also in 22:17 – 19:138

136  The LXX translators as well as Philo (“On the Life of Moses,” §§ 2.196, 198 – 199) consistently rendered the root with the Greek verb καταράομαι and the noun κατάρα – an understanding that fits with this interpretation. See LSJ s. v. ἀρά, 233; κατάρα and καταράομαι, 908. From Rabbinic discussions of the laws in this section, it is clear that the Rabbis too interpreted the meaning of K‫קל"ל‬K in this manner. Compare m. Sanh. 7:4, 5, 8, also the clear discussion in b. Sanh. 56a, which concludes that the terms K‫נק"ב‬K and K‫קל"ל‬K both amount to cursing the deity (in their idiom: K‫ברכת השם‬K). Similarly, a discussion in b. Sanh. 66a and the parallel midrash in Mek. de R. Ishmael (Mishpatim § 5) group together Exod 22:27; Lev 19:14; 20:9. Both interpret these passages on the premise that K‫קל"ל‬K means either cursing the deity (again, K‫ברכת השם‬K) or else uttering a curse that causes harm through the use of the name – but not contempt. See also the comment by R. Meir in m. Sanh. 6:4 on the ambiguous clause K ‫כי קללת אלהים תלוי‬K in Deut 21:23: “Namely, why is this one hung? Because he ‘blessed’ the Name.” 137   E. g., Scharbert in TDOT 9.552. 138  Wright notes the set of three in 22:17 – 19 as a unit in terms of both its style and its role in the Covenant Code as an appendix to what precedes it; he recognizes that v. 17 differs in grammatical and syntactical form from vv. 18 – 19 (Inventing God’s Law, 199 – 204), but his suggestion that originally the result in v. 17 had a different vocalization as 3rd fem. sing. Qal: K‫ֹלא תִ ְחיֶה‬K restores a greater measure of parallelism (ibid., 160, and see Gen 31:32; Exod 19:13; 2 Kgs 10:19; Zech 13:3). Rofé makes the strong conjecture that in the law in v. 18 K‫כל‬K “any” originally qualified the animal not the criminal: *K‫שכב עם כל בהמה‬K (Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible, 240), as in Lev 18:23; 20:16; Deut 27:21. In this case, a bit of stylizing emerges between the initial words of all three laws with K‫ש ֹׁ ֵכב‬ serving as the pivot: it has alliteration with K‫מכשפה‬K in one direction (roots K‫כש"ף‬K and K‫שכ"ב‬K) and assonance with K‫ז ֹ ֵב ַח‬K in the other (Qal masc. sing. participle vowel pattern).

58

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23 K. . .

‫ ַמ ֵכּה אִיׁש ָומֵת מֹות יּומָת‬K ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאבִיו ְואִּמֹו מֹות‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫מֹות יּו‬K . . . K‫וְגֹנֵב אִיׁש‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ּו ְמ ַק ֵלּל ָאבִיו ְואִּמֹו מֹות יּו‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

K‫ח ּי ֶה‬ ַ ְ‫שפָה ֹלא ת‬ ׁ ֵ ‫ ְמ ָכ‬K ‫ ָכּל־שֹׁכֵב עִם־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה מֹות‬K K. . . ‫לאֱֹלהִים יָח ֳָרם‬ ָ ‫ז ֹ ֵב ַח‬K

The kind of sequence that characterizes the two laws in Lev 24:15 – 16, a casuistic law followed by a participial one, almost never appears in the Priestly history. Moreover, when it does appear, it does not express a relationship of general formulation and specific detail, general rule and qualification, or case and sub-case, but rather the transition to an entirely new case.139 In particular, one should compare the unit of laws in vv. 17 – 21, which is the direct continuation of the laws in vv. 15 – 16. In this section, as in the Priestly history generally, the participle does not mark a subordinate case or subparagraph, but a new case altogether:140 ‫וְאִ יׁש ִכּי יַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות‬K ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫וְאִ יׁש ִכּי־יִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ַכּאֲ שֶ ׁר יִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K K.‫כּה ָאדָ ם יּומָת‬ ֵ ‫ּו ַמ‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫נ‬

In addition, indications suggest that also this law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K in v. 16 has a base form that has undergone distinctive Priestly stylizing. The form of stylizing, though, differs from that of the law of cursing the deity that immediately precedes it, in v. 15. This difference in stylistic updating strengthens the impression that at a basic level the law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K in v. 16 has an independent quality to it, standing on its own apart from the law of cursing the deity in v. 15. Participially formulated laws have a particularly laconic quality about them, which can invite expansion. Scholars have pointed out that the laws in Exod 21:12 – 17 have attracted additions of various kinds, for example, the distinction between accidental and intentional homicide, in vv. 13 – 14,141 or the specific scenarios of kidnapping, namely, whether the criminal was caught through the buyer or before any sale, in v. 16.142 They have identified additions on the combined grounds of aesthetics and 139

  See Lev 22:4 ff.; Num 19:11 – 13, 21b, 22; 31:17 – 20; 35:30 – 34; 36:8 – 9.   See Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 540 n. 24. 141   E. g. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch, 38 – 41; Zakovitch, Introduction, 94 – 95. One substantive point infrequently raised is that vv. 13 – 14 contradict the implications of vv. 18 – 19, whereas without vv. 13 – 14, vv. 12 and 18 – 19 cohere (Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.246 – 247; compare Schwienhorst-Schönberger, ibid., 213 – 231, esp. 226 – 227; contrast Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 163 – 165). 142   Daube, Studies in Biblical Law, 89 – 95, esp. 95; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 188 – 189; Zakovitch, Introduction, 97 – 98; compare Houtman, Exodus, 3.150 – 152; Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 198 – 199. 140

2. The Crime

59

substance. An instance in Exod 22:19 has text-critical evidence, attests the process and the motives, and strongly supports the overall approach.143 In the same manner, one should identify Lev 24:16 as an amplified version of a base law. The core of the law, in v. 16a, has a participial form, K‫ונקב שם יהוה מות יומת‬K, which diverges from Priestly legal idiom, whereas the clauses that follow, in v. 16b, all consist of typical Priestly legal elements in their contents, terminology, and style: the stoning (K‫רג"ם‬K) of the criminal at the hands of the congregation (K‫עדה‬K); the equal application of the law to the gēr (K‫כגר כאזרח‬K);144 and the conclusion that repeats the initial clause to emphatic effect in the form of the circular inclusio. The style of this Priestly recasting of an earlier form of a law differs markedly from the Priestly style of recasting in the case of the law of cursing the deity in v. 15. That law was given a new, casuistic form altogether so that the structure of the law changed, but in essence the contents remained the same. This law remained in its original form, but had several new elements tacked on: the manner of death, the agents involved in it, and the applicability of the law. The argument does not mean to lead to the conclusion raised by some145 that the law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K in v. 16 and the elements in the story related to it represent a set of secondary additions to the passage. Without these verses and elements, the text has several problems of varying severity. First of all, the formal law of cursing the deity establishes “bearing sin” as the result of the crime (v. 15), whereas Yahweh’s ruling on the case demands death by stoning (vv. 13 – 14) and the people carry it out (v. 23). Secondly, it seems appropriate to expect the author to dramatize a legal topic and compose an entire narrative episode to illustrate a case or a principle more powerful and extreme than one that yields the general and somewhat bland result of “bearing of sin.”146 Indeed, the Priestly history has a noticeable penchant for the dramatic, one might say even a vested interest in it. Divine fire incinerates Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1 – 2); fire consumes (Koraḥ and) the two-hundred and fifty rebels (Num 16:35); divine plague ravages the fickle, accusatory nation (17:6 – 15); Phineas drives a blade through Zimri and Kozbi in a single thrust (25:6 – 8a, 14 – 15); the Midianites earn nothing less than all-out war and complete destruction (25:16 – 19; 31:1 – 10). Thirdly, the remaining description of the crime in the crisis section – either K‫ויקלל‬K alone or K‫ויקלל‬ ‫את השם‬K – would be either even more ambiguous or else altogether anomalous, respectively.147 In the light of these considerations, the idea of splitting the two laws into separate strata does not recommend itself. Rather, one should conclude that the author 143  The different versions of MT and SP and their combination in a double version in LXX A indicate that the original law contained only the shared words K‫זבח לאלהים יחרם‬K, which most likely referred to dead ancestors; see Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.247; compare Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 70 – 71; Schwienhorst–Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch, 316 – 322; Zakovitch, Introduction, 92 – 93; Houtman, Exodus, 3.214 – 216; Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 202. 144   See Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Bertholet, Leviticus, 84, 85; Noth, Leviticus, 180. 145  Blank (“The Curse,” 84); Weingreen (“The Case of the Blasphemer, 121 – 122); Porter (Leviticus, on 24:11, 16); Gabel and Wheeler (K“The Redactor’s Hand,”K 228). 146   It does not even state that the bearing of sin ends with the death of the curser, as Exod 28:43 and Num 18:22 do. 147  Compare 1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9; Ps 10:3 (K‫ יהוה‬. . . ‫ברך‬K).

60

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

of the story formulated the two laws in uncoordinated fashion precisely in order to signal a certain distinctiveness between them, specifically, that they relate to separate phenomena. What action, then, does the law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K refer to? One consideration is that without the law of cursing the deity and without the narrative that frames the two laws together, no reason would exist to interpret the law of K‫נק"ב שם‬K other than literally, namely, a prohibition on articulating Yahweh’s name. However, it is unlikely that such a prohibition would extend to any and all circumstances. As noted already, the author of a text as late as Ruth had no qualms about depicting just about everyone in town invoking Yahweh’s name for just about any everyday reason. Nor did the author scruple to render the references to Yahweh in direct, unmediated fashion, with no circumlocutions. Presumably, then, the law of Lev 24:16 has a particular set of circumstances in mind.148 An additional consideration is the rather large set of terms that exists in biblical Hebrew for designating the shameful, disparaging nature of a remark or action. Ready examples include K‫בז"ה‬K, K‫גד"ף‬K, K‫חר"ף‬K, and K‫נא"ץ‬K. The fact that none of the terms in the group appears in the novella tends to indicate that the negative nature of the utterance in Lev 24:16 is not primarily the creation or perception of insult, denigration, the denial or undermining of standing per se – in this case superior standing and authority. The circumstances imagined, then, seem more specific. Little evidence exists to recreate the circumstances assumed by the law concretely, fully, and securely, but elsewhere within the Hebrew Bible a diverse set of texts evinces the idea that Yahweh’s name was conceived to have a kind of potency, such that one invoking it in certain misfortunate circumstances can rain calamity down on the community without regard for the righteous, or can even use it to focus calamity on a particular target.149 In one striking instance, the prophecy in Amos 6:1 – 14 decrying the debauched gatherings of Israelian social elites in their seemingly impregnable fortresses threatens that any house of ten people (compare Gen 18:20 – 33) will draw Yahweh’s attention and destruction so massive that those who survive, when sorting out the horrible mess, will urgently repress the instinct to utter Yahweh’s name in horror lest it bring on another round of calamity.150 Another reflex of the notion occurs in the story of Elisha’s graduation from attendant to master, which has him advance in 148   The approach taken to interpreting this law resembles that taken by Jackson to interpreting legal material in the Hebrew Bible generally (Wisdom-Laws, 24 – 29). 149   Greengus (Laws in the Bible) begins a chapter on the legal topos he calls “Unlawful Address of Supernatural Powers” (257 – 273) by positing:

There was widespread belief, both in ancient Israel and among her neighbors, that tangible harm could result from rituals and other practices, which invoked supernatural powers in order to aid or accomplish aggressive acts against others. There was a fear that the unleashing of such forces was in itself a dangerous activity, which might cause harm to others in the community (257). His discussion, though, which covers some of the material treated below, does not elaborate and apply this insight and never properly distinguishes cursing, blaspheming and other forms of invocation from each other. 150   See Paul, Amos, 216 – 217.

2. The Crime

61

stages: first, he must stand his ground and watch Elijah ascend to the sky in a fiery chariot (the deity’s, to judge by Ezek 1; 8; 10; 11); then he must gradually demonstrate mastery of Yahweh’s name (2 Kings 2). Accordingly, Elisha watches as Elijah leaves, and calls him (vv. 1 – 12); then, retracing his recent steps with Elijah, at each station he wields Yahweh’s name in efficacious fashion: first, while striking with Elijah’s cloak and invoking Elijah’s name to split the Jordan (vv. 13 – 14), then while throwing the natural substance salt to make water around Jericho drinkable (vv. 19 – 22), and finally, with less forethought and nothing but a glance at Jericho’s ungrateful youths taunting him for his baldness so that two bears come out of the woods and maul them (vv. 23 – 24).151 Though a bit less explicit and direct, a third instance seems present in the covenantal rules, regulations and guidelines Moses is to transmit to Israel, in Exodus 21 – 24. Yahweh warns that the cry to him (K‫ והיה כי יצעק אלי‬,‫)כי אם צעק יצעק אלי‬ by the vulnerable who is exploited and abused and without recourse will bring about the nation’s total ruin; the scenario imagines the helpless to blurt or bellow Yahweh’s name out of pain and vexation (Exod 22:20 – 26).152 The fact that immediately afterwards (v. 27), Yahweh prohibits the equivalent of “cursing God and king” (K‫אלהים לא‬ ‫תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאר‬K) led Ibn Ezra to view the juxtaposition as significant and to infer a narrative sequence or at least an associated topos: the vulnerable who has no recourse will be the one to curse God and chieftain.153 What these three sources share in their depictions is the instinctive blurting out of the deity’s name, in a way that wholeheartedly but nearly mindlessly expresses the compulsion to activate special forces. In the text of Amos 6, the prophet indicates that Yahweh knows of this natural instinct among Israelites and declares that the fear he will instill in them will overwhelm it; they will become frightfully mindful.154 In the text of 2 Kings 2, the narrative depicts a more mechanistic instance, in which Yahweh the character does not figure; rather his name is itself fully potent and its effect immediate. The anger that activates it so viciously makes Elisha’s complete mastery of it dread indeed. In the text of Exodus 22, the author portrays Yahweh in fully personified, deliberate terms as hearing the exclamation of his name, noting the widow and orphan who did the exclaiming, and replying with divine – that is, poetic – justice by making a nation of widows and orphans (see further below).155 151   On Elisha’s glance, see Rofé, The Prophetical Stories, 17. For analysis of the story, see Zakovitch, “Exegetical Circles in Biblical Narrative.” For analysis of the series of Elisha stories and their general character, see Rofé, The Prophetical Stories, 13 – 51, esp. 13 – 19. For additional examples of the potent invocation of Yahweh’s name, see, e. g., Ps 20:8; 44:6; 118:10 – 12. For an invocation of Yahweh’s name for good, without fear of danger, see 2 Kgs 5:11. Other examples suggest that invoking Yahweh’s name adds to the power of other phenomena, such as praying to Yahweh for a particular action or outcome; see, e. g., Num 16:24 – 28; 2 Chr 14:10 – 11. On the significance of the glance for Balaam and Ezekiel, see Haran, The Biblical Collection, 3.345 – 346. 152   On this passage, see Ben-Dov, “The Poor’s Curse.” 153   Compare Deut 15:6 – 11; 24:14 – 15; also Gen 18:20 – 21. 154  See the pairing of fear of Yahweh and mindfulness of his name in Mal 3:16 ‫ו‬K ‫ליראי יהוה ולחשבי שמ‬K. 155   In this regard, the complementary analytical surveys by Blank (“The Curse,” 73 – 83) and Crawford (Blessing and Curse, esp. 231 – 233) turn up a relevant tendency in the Hebrew Bible and

62

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

Presumably, several different notions stand behind the phenomenon at once, but like moderns, ancients did not and could not fully harmonize or coordinate them: that divinity manages human justice, meting out punishment where needed; that human misfortune is such punishment; that misfortune often befalls a large group of people in a way the defies the sense of measured punishment; that calling the name of the deity draws the deity’s attention; that divine attention can be dangerous; and that names, including or especially divine names, have potency. It is precisely the lack of total systematization that allows for shifting emphases in the different conceptions and portrayals.156 The author of the book of Job constructs an immensely fraught, high-stakes scenario out of just this unwieldy set of phenomena and ideas. Job, mindful even of his children cursing God in their heart of hearts (1:5), faces the misfortune due the most outrageous sinner. The Opposer predicts such misfortune will drive Job to curse Yahweh to his face (1:11; 2:5), Job’s wife tells Job to put himself out of his misery by cursing God and bringing death upon himself (2:9), the narrator says rather tantalizingly that Job did not sin with his lips (2:10), and Yahweh dresses down Job’s friends for failing to speak correctly of him as Job did (42:7). In a story with a fully personified Yahweh, Job’s curse would be the exclamation that seeks help of the deity against the deity, uttered in desperate circumstances, but mindfully and deliberately.157 One very similar instance occurs within the Priestly history itself. Faced with the incineration of his two sons, directly at Yahweh’s hand, in public, at the single most significant of moments in Israel’s history, and told almost baitingly the dreadful truth that such is the risk of working in Yahweh’s immediate proximity, Aaron held his peace: K‫וידם אהרן‬K (Lev 9:23 – 10:3). The narrator’s remark emphasizes Aaron’s self-restraint, his mindfulness, his overwhelming awareness of Yahweh – an essential quality for one ever in the deity’s presence. in Iron II extra-biblical inscriptions. Blessings invoke Yahweh by name as the subject or agent, whereas curses avoid naming him altogether or add circumlocutions like K‫לפני יהוה‬K. Bear in mind, though, that all such blessings and curses target other human beings, never the deity himself – the topic of the oracular novella. Namely, the data do not lead to the conclusion that the law in v. 15 refers to cursing the deity in general terms, while the law in v. 16 refers to cursing him by name. 156   The reductive and now confusing term “magic,” however used, cannot do justice to the range of ways in which the different authors make use of the topos of the dangerous exclamation and would lead in one way or another to the exclusion of Exod 22:20 – 26 and the sources cited below from the discussion. For two different recent works that demonstrate its problematic use and utility, see Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 1 – 69, esp. 4 – 6, 11 – 35, also 426 – 429 (to his list of portrayals of magical activity, at 23 n. 31, in particular Exod 17:11 – 12, add Josh 8:18+26, on which see Rofé, “Joshua Son of Nun,” 358 – 364, at 361 – 362), and Dolansky, Now You See It, Now You Don’t, 14, 99 – 100, 105 – 107. 157  For a strong argument that the book of Job concerns precisely the topic of speech about Yahweh, see Greenstein, “Truth or Theodicy.” In a sense, Job’s situation represents the inverse of that in 1 Samuel 2 – 3: Eli the priest at Shiloh begs his wicked sons Hophni and Phineas to mend their ways, with the pithily-put piece of wisdom that in a fight between men God can mediate and adjudicate, but when a man goes up against Yahweh, all is lost (1 Sam 2:22 – 25) – and indeed all is lost (4:10 – 22). Many scholars advance an old Jewish tradition (e. g. Rashi; Qimḥi; Joseph Kara; Joseph Kaspi) that Yahweh said of the wayward sons that they cursed him [‫י‬K [‫מקללים ל‬K (in 3:13), and following LXX θεὸν emend the text: ‫ם‬K ‫מקללי‬ ‫[א]לה[י]ם‬K (e. g. Budde, Samuel, 28), which makes the inversion even richer (though the context has also led the Medievals to understand ‫ם‬K ‫מקללי‬K as “scorning” and the moderns to emend improbably to ‫ם‬K ‫ ְמ ִק ִלּי‬K).

2. The Crime

63

Though at a remove from first millennium BCE Canaan, several sources from third and second millennia BCE Mesopotamia help round out the picture of the kind of phenomenon, scenarios, and responses argued for here. In one of the copies of Ur-Namma’s record of great deeds as king, Ur-Namma (21st cent. BCE, Ur) states he eradicated evil, violence, and cries of “Utu” – the Sumerian name of the sungod, god of justice – which signals desperation and a cry for miraculous salvation.158 Several decades later, in his own similar record of accomplishments, Lipit-Ishtar (20th cent. BCE, Isin) makes the very same claim twice, including that he made cries of “Utu” downright offensive.159 These texts, together with a Sumerian work about Inanna, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, in which the oppressed cry “Utu,”160 have led Thorkild Jacobsen to infer that the name Utu was conceived to have potency, such that a person in dire straits might utter it to extricate him- or herself, but doing so could lead to general calamity, for which reason the kings identified it as itself a source of evil and banned its utterance.161 Decrees by Ninurta-apil-Ekur (12th cent. BCE, Assur) regarding life in the palace include one quite similar to the case of Lev 24:10 – 23: if palace women are pummeling each other (aḫāʾiš idūkāni) and in the course of their fight (ina ṣaltišina) one blurts out the deity’s name with evil mind, to evil end (šu[m il]e ana masikte tazzakrūni), she shall have her throat slit.162

158   MS C lines 47 – 49; see especially Wilcke, “Kodex Urnamma,” 311: “Wehgeschrei;” also Roth, Law Collections, 17: “cries for justice;” Frayne, Ur III Period, 49: “(any cause for) complaint.” 159   Roth, Law Collections, 33: “taboo;” Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 1.81: “forbidden.” 160   Available online as “Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld,” lines 151 – 165, at: http://etcsl. orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1814.htm (accessed 28 August 2013). 161   Treasures of Darkness, 134, 212. 162  Citations follow Roth, Law Collections, 201 – 202 (¶10). CAD renders the text about the women: “who pronounce the name of a god for blasphemy” (s. v. masiktu, 10.323b – 324a, at 324a); Roth: “[who . . .] fight among themselves and in their quarrel blasphemously swear by the name of the god” (ibid.). These renderings assume much. The terms of the law do not on their own indicate swearing or blasphemy, the context does not require them, and the qualifying clause ana masikte does not necessarily function to classify the type of utterance; rather it can convey the mindset or intent of the woman who does the uttering. The similarly formulated decree that follows (¶11) has too many crucial gaps to provide direct help, but it is significant that in place of ana masikte it employs ana la kitte “with dishonest mind, to dishonest end.” On the one hand, the parallel formulations support that ana masikte conveys mindset or intent; on the other hand, the specific expression ana la kitte indicates a very different case, one focused on the deliberate insincerity in the act of invocation, as opposed to the dangerous wholehearted exclamation of the previous decree. Compare, too, Greengus, Laws in the Bible, 260 – 261. It should be noted that Ben-Sira 23:7 – 13 concerns false oaths, perjury and conspiracy, not desperate exclamation. The text of community guidelines found at Qumran, Serek Hayaḥad (1QS), has a passage (VI 26 – VII 2) that refers to mentioning “the glorious name” (K‫)יזכיר דבר בשם הנכבד‬, cursing (K‫קלל‬K), and blurting out in distress (K‫להבעת מצרה‬K), but gaps and difficult syntax make the relationship between the clauses a matter of debate (online: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/community [accessed 29 August 2013]). Taken as a whole, the passage seems to rule out pronouncing the name Yahweh in all circumstances, from cursing to prayer, and its list of scenarios appears to consider “in distress” as distinct from cursing. See, e. g., Licht, Rule Scroll, 160 – 161; contrast Smelik, “The Use of K‫הזכיר בשם‬K,” on this and related texts.

64

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

Together, the biblical and Mesopotamian sources surveyed suggest that the law of Lev 24:16a meant to prohibit the kind of utterance of Yahweh’s name that can bring calamity on the community. From this point of view, the expression K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫נק"ב‬K looks particularly suited to the phenomenon, especially when viewed alongside the expression K‫שם‬ ׁ ֵ ‫חל"ל‬K used throughout Leviticus 18 – 22. Both expressions belong to the semantic field of physical “cutting.”163 Both, by metaphorical extension, also take the direct object of “name” with a negative connotation. And both suggest a particular line of reasoning about the exclamation of Yahweh’s name, one that combines the essential justness of the deity, on the one hand, with a very human-like personality, on the other. Specifically, if the exclamation of the deity’s name can cause inequitable disaster, then it must be due to the fact that it rouses the deity and grabs his attention in a piercing or grating manner that induces a distracted, irritated, less-than-fully considered reaction – a distinctly different one than that of the calm deity who punishes in due measure and of the patient deity who mercifully bears a portion of the crime and metes out punishment over time.164 The author of the novella put the law into Priestly form, put it alongside the prohibition of cursing God – also formulated in Priestly terms but differently from the law of exclaiming the name Yahweh – and constructed the story on the basis of both. In this respect, the author has gone beyond the juxtaposition of topics found in the Assyrian palace decrees to blend the two phenomena and topoi in a single story. It stands to reason that the author of the passage understood the two phenomena as intimately related – understood there to be two distinct phenomena that in certain crucial ways need to be considered together – and aimed to assert and advance this view.165 From the point of view of contents, the law of cursing in v. 15, based on an apodictic formulation with no result, added a Priestly formula indicating that one will most assuredly “bear the consequences” of the action, while the second one explicitly decreed capital punishment for the violator. On the assumption of a deliberate, expressive author, rather than a haphazard, unthinking one, this juxtaposition of the two laws, whose contents seem similar but whose formulations differ, serves to signal correspondence, equivalence, and even mutual clarification. To wit, when all is said and done, there is no difference between cursing the deity and exclaiming his name, and one who does such an action will bear the crime and should receive capital punishment. All the variables and variations fall under a single legal rubric: affecting one’s surroundings through speech addressing the divine realm in negative tones, connotations, or denotations with particular potency.166 163  For K‫נק"ב‬K, see 2 Kgs 12:10; Hab 3:14; Job 40:26. For K‫חל"ל‬K, see the parallelism in Isa 51:9, the double-entendre in Ps 74:7, and also Job 26:13. 164   From this perspective, the petitionary type of psalm appears as an adaptation of the topos of the desperate exclamation, in which the petitioner represents him- or herself as truly desperate – underwater and beset by enemies all around – and calls on Yahweh rather articulately and in measured cadences for extrication and salvation, which helps ensure measured and accurate response. For important insights on divine patience, see Muffs, Love and Joy, 9 – 48, esp. 16 – 24, 41 – 42. 165   Relatedly, litigants in a suit – claimants and defendants alike – would often prefer to concede rather than take an oath; see, e. g., Westbrook, “Deposit Law,” 392. 166   Compare Lee, “Leviticus 24:15b – 16.”

65

2. The Crime

The narrative that frames the laws and determines the meaning of the laws lends force to this understanding of the purpose and effect of juxtaposing them in the narrative’s center. Indeed, the identification and blending of the two laws takes place already in the language of the story in the action segment that precedes them. An overwhelming majority of scholars claim that the framing narrative represents a secondary layer with respect to the laws; namely, its author constructed the narrative to present two already formulated laws.167 Again, it entails no stretch to suggest that the author constructed the story on the basis of the contents and terms of the laws and through their narrativization signaled the extent of their mutual, reciprocal relationship. One indication comes from two important points in the story. Both determinative voices in the story, Yahweh in his case ruling (v. 14) and the narrator in his report of Israel’s execution of the ruling (v. 23), refer to the criminal in the terms of the first law as the one who cursed (K‫המקלל‬K) and combine that with the capital punishment (K‫רג"ם‬K) explicitly and exclusively found in the second law. The fact that Yahweh’s case ruling in v. 14 precedes the two abstract laws in vv. 15 – 16 indicates that these laws merely articulate formally and in greater detail the gist of his ruling. When the narrator’s summary repeats the language of Yahweh’s case ruling and says they did just as Yahweh had commanded Moses, in v. 23, it intimates that the “stoning” of a “curser” refers to the abstract laws and fulfills all their terms and conditions. In effect, then, the frame in vv. 14 and 23 treats the two abstract laws in vv. 15 – 16 as a single law. K:‫לּאמ ֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K ‫הֹוצֵא אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ‬K K‫מעִים אֶת־י ְדֵ יהֶם עַל־ר ֹאׁשֹו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ַש‬ ּׁ ‫ ְו ָסמְכּו כָל־ה‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ו ְָרגְמּו א ֹתֹו ָכּל־‬K K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫ַל ַ ּמ‬

K:‫בּר לֵאמ ֹר‬ ֵ ַ‫ש ָׂראֵל תְ ּד‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K ‫שׂא‬ ָ ָ‫אִיׁש אִ יׁש ִכּי־יְ ַק ֵלּל אֱ ֹלהָיו ְונ‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫שׁם־יהוה מֹות יּומָת ָרגֹום י ְִר ְגּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־‬ ֵ ‫וְנֹקֵב‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫שׁם יּו‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־‬K K‫חטְאֹו‬ ֶ

K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר מ‬K ‫וַּיֹוצִיאּו אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ‬K K‫בן‬ ֶ ‫ ַויִ ְּר ְגּמּו א ֹתֹו ָא‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת מ‬ ֶ ‫ש ָׂראֵל עָׂשּו ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ְ ִ ‫ּו ְבנֵי־י‬K K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫ַל ַ ּמ‬

(13) (14)

(15) (16) (23)

This understanding of the way the resolution segment of the narrative mixes the language and contents of the two laws that make up its heart in order to signal their fusion into, for all intents and purposes, a single law sheds additional light on the crisis 167  Bertholet, Leviticus, 84; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 420; Noth, Leviticus, 179; Eissfeldt, Introduction 235 – 236; Elliger, Leviticus, 330; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 110; Chapman and Streane, Leviticus, 132; Porter, Leviticus, 193; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 361 – 365. There is no reason to accept Blank’s opinion that three different verbs serve in the passage, and each has a different meaning (“The Curse,” 83 – 84); rather, the verb K‫ויקב‬K in the story derives from K‫נק"ב‬K in the law, as the following have observed: Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer,” 118; Paul, “Biblical Analogues,” 348; Hartley, Leviticus, 404; Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited,” 535.

66

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

segment that opens the narrative. In this segment too, the narrator describes the crime of the Egyptian Israelite by using the terminology of both abstract laws: K‫ את‬. . . ‫ויקב‬ ‫השם ויקלל‬K (v. 11). The reversed order of the actions (K‫נק"ב‬K followed by K‫קל"ל‬K) with respect to their sequence in vv. 15 – 16 (K‫קל"ל‬K followed by K‫נק"ב‬K) indicates the intent of correlating them,168 their equality relative to each other, and ultimately their identification with each other. Note the following segment of anonymous dialogue in the Talmud (b. San. 56a): “I submit: Scripture said (both) K‫ויקב‬K and K‫ויקלל‬K, indicating that K‫נוקב‬K is K‫קללה‬K.” “Well, maybe one must violate both (to be liable, i. e., they are separate actions)?” “Don’t even consider it. The verse says, ‘Take the one who cursed,’ and it does not say, ‘Take the one who exclaimed and cursed,’ so you see that they are one and the same.”

Several second-order literary features seem to be in play as well. As said, isolating the relevant terms that depict the criminal action and placing then in sequence brings out two features, their chiastic arrangement, K‫– נק"ב‬ ‫– קל"ל‬ ‫– קל"ל‬ ‫נק"ב‬K, and the fact that they occur in pairs – one pair in the crisis section (v. 11) and the other pair in the abstract laws that issue from it (vv. 15 – 16). These features help bind the different elements together, the narrative frame and the laws. Moreover, throughout the entire narrative, in all their varying formulations, the two roots K‫נק"ב‬K and K‫קל"ל‬K occur a total of seven times (vv. 11, 14, 15, 16, 23), which further interlocks the whole text and strengthens the identification and amalgamation of the two kinds of speech with each other, namely, cursing and exclaiming.169 Rabbinic midrash brings the matter full circle: Moses utters Yahweh’s name to kill the Egyptian beating a Hebrew in Exod 2:11 – 12170 and this Egyptian is the father of the Egyptian Israelite who curses the deity and exclaims his name in a fight in the midst of the camp in Lev 24:10 – 23.171 The deliberateness with which the author places two differently formulated laws in the center of the text, suggests their equivalence, then blends their language in the narrative around them stands in studied and illuminating contrast with the slippage of terminology in colloquially-constructed speech in scenes like Shimei’s cursing of David and its aftermath (2 Sam 16:5 – 13; 19:17 – 24; 1 Kgs 1:8 – 9). Such texts as those reflect how naturally the various phenomena and terms tend to blend into each other in certain circumstances.172 By that very measure, they throw the oracular novella into relief as carefully constructed to make a statement. Taking all the signs together, the novella attests the intellectual project of the Priestly author, working to split hairs at

168   On the related phenomenon of chiastic quotation, see Seidel, “Parallels,” 1 – 97, esp. 2; Talmon, “Textual Study,” 358 – 381; Beentjes, “Inverted Quotations,” 506 – 523. 169  Recall the use of K‫שב"ת‬K seven times in Lev 25:1 – 7 noted above, and see the list of instances in Milgrom, Leviticus, 2.1323 – 1325. 170   Exod. Rab. § 1:33, 34. 171   See ibid., § 1:33; Lev. Rab. § 32:4 (2.742 – 745). 172  Mitchell makes the important note that stereotyped word-pairing of antonyms – in other words, idioms – do not follow etymology: the noun K‫קללה‬K stands opposite K‫ברכה‬K ; the passive participle K‫ארור‬K serves opposite K‫ברוך‬K; and beside the verb K‫בר"ך‬K one finds a range of roots (The Meaning of BRK, 42).

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement

67

one level of conceptualization and to depict their affinity and overlap at another.173 This concern for definition and second-order analysis or classification coheres entirely with the spirit of the Priestly history. The artistry that one can identify at work creating a coherent whole out of multiple mutually-informing elements in a veritable tour de force – in the terminology and formulation, in the substance, in the narrative structure, in the genres, and in the concepts – strongly indicates that whoever juxtaposed the two abstract laws with each other also composed the narrative that frames them. Law here provides narrative with subject matter, or an arena in which to tell a story, and the manner of storytelling it generates or warrants differs markedly from that of other arenas and their realizations of the narrative impulse. As a matter of intent, deliberately, it takes on a gaunt form, one that accentuates features as maximally significant and excludes the softening, smoothening ones that can round out and fill in a picture. And it does so in order to lead ever so clearly and directly to the abstract law that constitutes its heart. In this case, the construction of that heart, the two juxtaposed laws about cursing the deity and exclaiming his name, advances the deliberate argument that they amount to the same crime (see further below).174

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement Scholarship tends to identify the bloc of laws in vv. 17 – 21 as a foreign implant in the framework of the story of the cursing of the deity, or, at the very least, to claim a very weak connection between the legal bloc and the broader story. A variety of suggestions has been made. Common opinion has it, for instance, that an editor added this sequence of laws in vv. 17 – 21 to the laws of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name in vv. 15 – 16 as an aside, tangentially. The capital punishment of vv. 15 – 16 attracted a 173  Contrast Blank, “The Curse,” esp. 84; his linguistic analysis of different speech formulas illuminates much, but the historical assumptions – that their first attestations in biblical literature reflect the periods of their origin, that biblical authors had clear concepts of the distinctions between each and every type, which did not blend into each other, and that the text of Lev 24:10 – 23 has undergone significant stages of revision in line with linear developments of the phenomena – are problematic. Compare Gerstenberger, who maintains that the story reflects two parallel versions of the same tradition. Thus, the law of the curser and the law of articulating the name Yahweh are simply two laws on the same subject – slightly different, but nonetheless parallel on the whole (Leviticus, 362 – 365). His conclusions concerning the historical context of the passage – a preacher addressing a congregation – far overreach and are anachronistic. 174  This Priestly oracular novella is not the only text in the Hebrew Bible to fuse the different phenomena. The passage in Isa 8:21 makes use of the stock scene, with its cluster of motifs, of the ravaged and ravenous who fumes, reaches the boiling point, and curses: K‫וקלל במלכו ובאלהיו‬K. It combines the scenario of desperation with the act of cursing – marked by the root K‫קל"ל‬K – and with the objects God and king. However, its use of an ambiguous object marker, the preposition K‫ב־‬K, leaves it unresolved whether God and king are the direct object of the curse or the means for accomplishing it. Just like the depiction of the Egyptian Israelite in Lev 24:10 – 11, the language does not do enough to distinguish cursing and exclaiming from each other.

68

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

bloc of laws that opens (and closes) with murder and the capital punishment for it.175 Gabel and Wheeler mark an extreme position along the spectrum of opinions. They argue that the laws belong to the original layer of story and attest that in its first formulation, the Egyptian Israelite killed his opponent, but due to many expansions and alterations, one can no longer reconstruct all the layers, some of which by this point have left behind the slightest of traces, and the latest of which introduces the law of v. 16 in order to prohibit any and all articulation of Yahweh’s name. They see the contribution of their analysis as leading to the awareness that all the different editors and revisers satisfied themselves by intervening in the text without troubling themselves to leave behind a coherent version it.176 In their opinion, in the current text the laws in vv. 17 – 21 have no discernible connection with the rest of the episode. Contrary to the conception of the story as centered on the topic of various gērs and half-Israelites and their status, the story serves the purpose of introducing and working out the main topic treated in it explicitly and in detail in both the narrative and legal sections – the cursing of the deity and exclamation of his name. In the same vein, the bloc in vv. 17 – 21 sits where it does not because of one characteristic that links it up mechanically and tangentially with the rest of the passage, but because as a whole it bears on the main topic, advances the discourse on it, and sheds its own particular light on it. Accordingly, the bloc does not offer a sequence of related but ultimately isolated laws, but rather makes up a coherent whole, a single expressive unit. This holistic approach recommends returning to the structure of the bloc, the palistrophe noted above, namely, the repetition of the first three laws in inverted order: K‫מת‬ ָ ‫– מֹות יּו‬ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם‬K ‫ נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת‬,‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫– י‬ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ֶ ,‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫– ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו‬K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ – ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫– י‬ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫– יּו‬ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם‬K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫נ‬

1 2 3 3 2 1

The artifice of this structure, which has no discursive disjunctures, should lead to the conclusion that a single author constructed the paragraph as a unified symmetrical passage. Note the abbreviated form of the repetitions. Bodily harm, the center pair, goes from eighteen words (K‫ שבר תחת שבר עין‬,‫ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן עשה לו‬ ‫תחת עין שן תחת שן‬K) to seven (K‫כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו‬K); animal bloodshed, the next pair out, from six words (K‫ נפש תחת נפש‬,‫ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה‬K) to three (K‫;)ומכה בהמה ישלמנה‬ and homicide, the framing pair, from eight words (K‫ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם מות יומת‬K) to three (K‫ומכה אדם יומת‬K).177 In all three legal sentences, abbreviation removes all form of 175

  For example, Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 92 n. 7.   Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand,” 227 – 229. 177  For other examples of the framing expression . . . K‫ כן‬. . . ‫כאשר‬K, where it does not represent simple imitation or adaptation but rather the logic of retribution, the principle of “measure for measure,” see: Judg 1:7 (with wordplay on the name Jerusalem as “City of Payback”); 15:11; 1 Sam 15:33; Jer 5:19; Zech 7:8 – 14, esp. 13. For opposition to the principle, see: Prov 24:29; for the case of repayment: 1 Sam 26:24. 176

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement

69

qualification from both the protases and the apodoses. Human bloodshed appears first in full casuistic form, qualifying the blow to any human as fatal (K‫ואיש כי יכה כל נפש‬ ‫)אדם‬, with the emphatic result clause, the infinitive absolute + Hofʿal of the same root (K‫מות יומת‬K); but then it appears again in participial form, without qualifications, and only the Hofʿal verb in the result clause (K‫ומכה אדם יומת‬K). Similarly, the law of animal bloodshed first qualifies the blow (K‫ומכה‬K) as fatal (K‫נפש בהמה‬K) and specifies payment (K‫ישלמנה‬K) in the same terms (K‫נפש תחת נפש‬K); the repetition removes all these interpretive cues (‫ומכה‬ ‫בהמה ישלמנה‬K). The human disfigurement law initially has the elaborate form of a full casuistic statement (K‫ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו‬K) with an apodosis that comprises a superfluous statement of equivalence (K‫כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו‬K when K‫כן יעשה לו‬K would have sufficed) and a threefold list exemplifying the principle (K‫שבר תחת שבר עין תחת עין שן תחת שן‬K); the repetition strips the law down to the bare minimum necessary, to the point where it relies on the syntactical proximity to the first iteration to elide the explicit subject (‫כאשר‬ ‫יתן מום‬K) and even replaces the object (K‫עמיתו‬K) by a shorter synonym (K‫אדם‬K). The consistency in the style of the abbreviations is a manifest sign of an author’s handiwork. By its very nature, the deliberate symmetrical structure of vv. 17 – 21 marks the bloc as a distinct unit by separating it from whatever lies outside the structure, in this case, the laws of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name in vv. 15 – 16. Scholars who have attempted to include vv. 15 – 16 in the structure have had to resort to correlating the signature Priestly conclusion in v. 22 that applies the law to everyone living on the land equally and in which Yahweh declares himself, K‫משפט אחד יהיה לכם כגר כאזרח‬ ‫יהיה כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬K, with the highly attenuated form of such a signature in the laws of vv. 15 – 16 that precede it, K‫כגר כאזרח‬K. But the second, full iteration belongs to the paragraph that it concludes, whereas the first one, by virtue of its incorporation into the previous legal sentence on exclaiming Yahweh’s name and its syntactically dependent status within the sentence, does not. Exemplifying the struggle – recognizing on the one hand the integrity of the unit as a whole but unable to encompass all the parts in a single structure on the other – Fokkelman ruptures the formulation of the laws in vv. 15 – 16, such that only the “equal applicability” formula of v. 16b corresponds to that of the full version in v. 22, while the chief part of the abstract laws in vv. 15 – 16a, together with Yahweh’s case ruling in vv. 13 – 14, constitute one grand element corresponding to the fulfillment report in v. 23.178 This sundering and realignment of parts, however, makes of the most important element of the entire text, the laws of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name, an outlier, a unit with no corresponding element – without locating it as the center of the structure. Furthermore, v. 16b repeats the contents and terminology of v. 16a in a way that creates a balanced frame, in particular, the Priestly circular inclusio, so that one cannot divide them from each other structurally. The only attempt to incorporate these laws into the structure likewise founders. Milgrom matches up the references to the deity in vv. 15 and 16 with Yahweh’s

178

  Narrative Art in Genesis, 33 – 34; so, too, Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 175 n. 23.

70

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

signature self-declaration in v. 22.179 But this view isolates the references to the deity entirely from their context, making the correlation wholly artificial and fundamentally at odds with the precise, substantive repetition that characterizes vv. 17 – 21. Many years earlier, Lund already offered an intermediate view, arguably the best suggestion out of all of them, correlating v. 16 with the first half of v. 22 because of the “equal applicability” formula and v. 15 with the second half of v. 22 on account of the name of Yahweh that features in them both.180 But even this suggestion does not overcome the problems of a shift from the actual repetition of law in vv. 17 – 21 to general thematic correlations. Hartley’s view suffers the same tension between approaching the unit as one single paragraph with a single structure and the mismatch between some of the parts he would like to include in it. Nevertheless, he does advance one important insight, that vv. 15 – 16 make up a single unit together, a distinct pair, while the laws in vv. 17 – 21 comprise a separate legal paragraph.181 Indeed, by setting aside any attempt to force the laws of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name in vv. 15 – 16 into a particular preconceived overarching structure, one can describe two distinct paragraphs in positive terms. One, in vv. 17 – 21, comprises a rather precise brand of palistrophe and in fact is constituted by it, whereas the other, in vv. 15 – 16, contains a sequence of two laws formulated each in its own way with no attempt to coordinate them with respect to each other or to indicate any relationship between them beyond the juxtaposition itself (the narrative does this work in the “action” segments, as described above).182 Viewed in this manner, the two paragraphs share certain structural features. Each begins with a casuistic law in the Priestly style, K‫איש כי‬K, and follows it with a participial law. The two statements equating the gēr and the ʾezrāḥ (vv. 16b, 22a), which scholars have sought to correlate with each other, belong rather each one to a different paragraph, and each one appears at the end of its paragraph. In other words, the two different paragraphs conclude with the “equal applicability” clause, and the clauses serve to mark the conclusion. They do so, again, in different ways. In the second paragraph, the “equal applicability” statement appears as an independent clause and it stands outside the palistrophe altogether. In the first paragraph, the statement sits organically inside the law of exclaiming Yahweh’s name as a dependent clause, as part of the circular inclusio that shapes the law, and as a specification of both the participial subject K‫ונ ֹקב‬K that opens the law and the pronominal object K‫בו‬K in the immediately preceding clause that specifies the manner of death. In effect, then, the “equal applicability” statements function together with the limited use of repetition to indicate the presence of two distinct paragraphs. The two distinct paragraphs together share a single colophon, as it were, the signature self-declaration of Yahweh (v. 22b). In concluding the two paragraphs with a single 179

  As is emphasized in the table in his commentary, Leviticus, 3.2128.   “Chiasmus,” 119 – 120. 181   Leviticus, 407. 182  Noted by Netziv on Lev 24:16 – 17; also Baal ha-Turim. For another juxtaposition of cursing (‫קל"ל‬K) and striking (‫ה‬K "‫נכ‬K), see Gen 8:21: ‫י‬K ‫ לא אסף להכות את כל ח‬. . . ‫לא אסף לקלל עוד את האדמה בעבור האדם‬K. 180

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement

71

stroke, the signature self-declaration joins the opening in v. 15a that introduces the two paragraphs (K‫ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר‬K) in incorporating them under the single rubric of Yahweh’s pronouncement of statutes. K‫לֵאמֹר‬

‫ש ָׂראֵל תְ ּדַ ֵבּר‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K K‫חטְאֹו‬ ֶ

‫שׂא‬ ָ ָ‫א) אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו ְונ‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫שׁם־יהוה מֹות יּו‬ ֵ ‫) וְנֹקֵב‬1 )‫ב‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫) רגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־‬ ָ K2 K‫מת‬ ָ ‫)  ַ ּכ ֵגּר ָכּאֶ ז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־שֵ ׁם יּו‬K1

‫)  ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות‬K1 ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫) ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K2 K‫חת‬ ַ ּ ַ‫שבֶר ת‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫)  ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬K3 K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ֶׁ K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫)  ַ ּכ ֲא‬K3 K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫) ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K2 K‫מת‬ ָ ‫) ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם יּו‬K1 K‫היֶה‬ ְ ִ‫מִשְ ׁ ַפּט אֶ חָד יִ ְהיֶה ָלכֶם ַ ּכ ֵגּר ָכּאֶ ז ְָרח י‬K ֶ ָ‫נ‬ K‫פׁש‬

ָ ‫יּו‬ K‫מת‬

K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫אֱֹלהֵי‬

‫ ִכּי ֲאנִי יהוה‬K

Further indication that the author has conceptualized the two paragraphs as two separate topoi comes from the crisis segment of the story. The action opens with a fistfight between two men (v. 10b: K‫וינצו במחנה‬K), which finds expression in the second paragraph.183 The scene culminates with one of them – the one losing the fight presumably – exclaiming the name Yahweh and cursing (v. 11a: K‫ ויקלל‬. . . ‫ויקב את השם‬K), which leads to the legislation of the first legal paragraph. However, the narrative does not describe the outcome of the fight – neither death nor disfigurement, nor, for that matter, the death of an animal. The Israelites bring the criminal to Moses not on account of the damage he caused, but on account of his act of desperation. Yahweh, then, does not take the opportunity to legislate on bloodshed and disfigurement in order to rule on the case at hand, but for a different reason. The effect of defining, distinguishing from each other, and juxtaposing the two legal paragraphs within a single discursive rubric creates a correspondence between them and signals that they interact with each other and inform each other conceptually. One should interpret them in light of each other. Specifically, in this case, in which the story as a whole concerns cursing the deity and exclaiming his name, not bloodshed and disfigurement, the author has included the laws of vv. 17 – 21 in order to shed light on the laws of vv. 15 – 16 and on the theme of the entire text more broadly, not vice-versa. The laws of bloodshed and disfigurement in vv. 17 – 21 treat actions that impact primarily subjects of mundane quality, creatures, and only indirectly, by implication, the deity. The laws of cursing the deity and exclaiming the name Yahweh in vv. 15 – 16 and the theme of the entire passage concern actions that involve the deity directly. The author, then, employs the laws of human interaction to shed light on the laws of interaction between human and deity – a conceptual undertaking of the kind that suffuses the entire Priestly history. The symmetrical form of the laws in vv. 17 – 21, a palistrophe, does not only serve to set the laws apart as a distinct bloc to be analyzed then utilized; it also contains its own expressive poetics, indicating how to conceptualize 183

  Noted by Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 514.

72

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

behind the laws and infer the ideas that animate them. By the nature of its shape, the palistrophe calls attention to two sets of constituents in particular, those that frame all the others, namely, the outermost pair of elements and the element at the center, which can comprise a single constituent as well as a pair. The constituents in between, which move verbally between the outermost and innermost pairs and effect a transition between them, can help indicate the conceptual move from one to the other and establish a conceptual spectrum. The outermost pair serves an additional, transitional function in that it creates the break from the discourse that precedes the palistrophe and the return to it. This role suggests that the outer pair plays the chief part in qualifying the main theme upon which the palistrophe as a whole comments. From this point of view, the remaining constituents within the palistrophe function to sharpen the ideas in the outermost pair. In the case of the vv. 17 – 21, the outermost pair consists of the law of homicide; it states that one who kills another human being – “strikes fatally” (K‫נכ"ה נפש‬K) – shall be put to death. The innermost pair treats non-fatal damaging strikes – disfigurement of the human body (K‫נת"ן מום‬K) – and states that whatever the damage, the striker shall receive precisely as he has given, with a list of three examples (K‫– עין תחת‬ ‫שבר תחת שבר‬ ‫– שן תחת שן‬ ‫עין‬K).184 The two laws together establish a concept of talion for blows with enduring effect on the human body. The middle pair, about a deathblow to an animal, illustrates another facet of homicide, not the blow to the body and its affect on the body as such, namely, on its shape, but the shedding of its blood. The sense of transition occurs through the mixed nature of its formulations, which creates something of a logical or legal anomaly. The event, the case, is expressed in the terms of homicide (‫נכ"ה נפש אדם‬ // ‫נכ"ה נפש בהמה‬K). The result, though, differs – compensation (‫מות‬ // ‫ישלמנה‬ ‫יומת‬K). Moreover, the result clause continues with a qualification (K‫נפש תחת נפש‬K) that, in one direction, matches the substance of the law of homicide and, in the other, conforms to the examples provided by the law of disfigurement (K‫– שן‬ ‫– עין תחת עין‬ ‫שבר תחת שבר‬ ‫תחת שן‬K). The case of animal bloodshed, though, neither entails disfigurement, which only applies to the human shape, nor results in talion, since it specifies restitution.185 Formally, the effect establishes a transition from homicide to disfigurement through animal bloodshed. Substantively, the effect subordinates the law of animal compensa184   I venture the speculation that the list has one or both of the following two dimensions: the level of disfigurement as perceived visually and the damage to the body’s functionality, especially as imagined in agricultural terms. A broken limb, paradigmatically an arm or leg, will stand out most to the eye and affect most one’s ability to work; a missing or blinded eye will be less arresting in both senses, but hardly unimpactful; and the tooth will be a matter largely of shame and inconvenience. 185   This problem led several scholars to interpret the law as indicating that the killer must give the injured party a substitute animal rather than monetary compensation (Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.88; Porter, Leviticus, 194 – 195). In another direction, elsewhere, in Lev 17:1 – 5, the Priestly history gestures towards putting useless or forbidden animal bloodshed into the normative category of bloodshed; it applies the language of bloodshed from Gen 9:6 to the slaughtering of an animal appropriate for sacrifice (mainly domesticated animals) if its blood will not be cast on the altar. See also Weinfeld, “The Change in the Conception of Religion,” 1 – 17, esp. 4; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.49, 710 – 713; 2.1456 – 1458; Schwartz, “‘Profane’ Slaughter,” esp. 21 – 22; idem, Holiness Legislation, 70 – 71.

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement

73

tion to the rubric of talion and implies that the one feature linking it, making it conceptually worthy of subordination to talion, is bloodshed.186 Homicide, by implication, has two separate facets or combines two kinds of attack, bloodshed and disfigurement, and marks the most extreme instance of both; note that the idiom for bloodshed, 187 K‫נכ"ה נפש‬K, means literally “strike the throat.” The capital punishment established here for homicide emerges as distinctly called for, as a result that expresses the ultimate significance of homicide. The concern for the image of the human being and for blood manifested and developed in this passage appears elsewhere in the Priestly history. In the story of the creation of the world, the author has both the deity and the narrator state that human beings are deliberately shaped like the deity (Gen 1:26 – 27; importantly, compare Ezek 1:26 – 28). When the unbridled violence that characterizes the animate beings overwhelms their original license regarding food (Gen 1:28 – 30), undercuts the deity’s life-producing essence and work, soaks the earth with blood, and pollutes it (6:9 – 13), the deity first floods the earth, which washes it clean (7:17 – 24), then establishes a new set of protocols that will ensure effective procreation and vitality (9:1 – 17). From this point on, human beings may shed the blood of animals in order to eat them, but they must not consume the blood itself (vv. 3 – 4).188 Also, all shedding of human blood, by animal as well as by fellow human being, will now be treated on a case-by-case basis by the deity himself (vv. 5 – 6).189 The concern for the shedding of the blood of 186  There is therefore no warrant for assuming that the expression K‫נפש תחת נפש‬K originally came after the homicide law (so Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 421; Galil, “The Story of the Blasphemer,” 179). In fact, the expression K‫נפש תחת נפש‬K in effect serves as a single conclusion for both cases pertaining to killing, both of which employ the term K‫נפש‬K, and marks the shift to the case of nonfatal injury (so Ibn Ezra). This distinction between killing and maiming occurs through the legal terminology itself. Murdering a person and killing an animal, on both sides of the palistrophe’s axis, are indicated by the root K‫נכ"ה‬K, whereas for disfigurement, the root K‫נת"ן‬K is used. From this point of view, it is tempting to identify in the four qualifications together studied reuse of the list in Exod 21:23b – 24. The author took the first case, K‫נפש‬K, from unintentional homicide and applied it to the cases of bloodshed; he took the next four cases, K‫– רגל‬ ‫– יד‬ ‫– שן‬ ‫עין‬K, collapsed K‫יד‬K and K‫רגל‬K into a single abstract category, K‫שבר‬, inverted their order, and applied them to disfigurement (note Deut 19:21 K‫– רגל‬ ‫– יד‬ ‫– שן‬ ‫– עין‬ ‫נפש‬K); he left out the three types of wounds in v. 25 since they do not fall under the same categories. 187  For K‫נפש‬K as “throat” see Ps 69:2 – 4; TDOT 9.502, 504 – 505; HALOT 1.712. 188  In this verse, which requires no emendation (e. g. Ehrlich, Randglossen, 1.39), K‫נפש‬K does not mean “soul” or “life” (e. g., ibid.) but “throat” and the clause K‫בנפשו דמו‬K is an asyndetic relative one: “However, animal-meat, the blood of which is (still) in its throat, you may not eat.” This interpretation takes the throat as the bloodiest body-part and as representative of the entire animal’s body. It is this reading that should stand behind the view that the Priestly author has Yahweh require all human beings to drain meat of its blood before eating it. For K‫נפש‬K as “throat,” the means of consumption and seat of craving, note its distinctive uses in the expressions K‫או"ה נפש בשר‬K in Deut 12:21 and K‫נפש הגר‬K in Exod 23:9. As the site of appetite, it serves as the seat of will (e. g. Gen 23:8), the compulsion to action (paradigmatically movement), vitality (e. g. Gen 1:20, 24), and the person as a whole (Lev 2:1); see Johnson, Vitality of the Individual, 1 – 22; Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 10 – 25; TDOT 9.504 – 517; also BDB 659 – 661; HALOT 1.711 – 713. Note that in Gen 9:5, K‫נפש‬K means “life, vitality” (and the preposition K‫ל‬K marks the relationship between the nouns around it: “with respect to”). The use of K‫נפש‬K in Leviticus 17 has no bearing on these verses; see further below. Compare the commentaries, e. g., Knobel, Genesis, 97; Westermann, Genesis, 1.464 – 465. 189   See Mek. de R. Ishmael, Yitro § 8 (p. 233 ll. 9 – 14, Horovitz ed.).

74

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

human beings, superimposes a motive clause, has an added dimension to it of primary significance – the disfiguring of the divine image (v. 6). In its way, every homicide calls to mind an attack on the deity and conjures up the revolting, anarchic image or notion of a slain deity. K‫אֶדְ רֹׁש‬

‫ ְואְַך אֶת־דִ ּ ְמכֶם ְלנַפְש ֹׁתֵ יכֶם‬K ‫ ִמיַּד ָכּל־ ַחיָּה‬K K‫– אֶדְ ר ֹׁש אֶת־נֶפֶׁש הָָאדָ ם‬ ‫מיַּד אִיׁש ָאחִיו‬ ִ – ‫ּו ִמיַּד הָָאדָ ם‬K K‫פְך‬ ֵ ּׁ‫ש‬ ָ ִ ‫שֹׁפְֵך דַ ּם הָָאדָ ם ָבָּאדָ ם דַ ּּמֹו י‬K K‫שׂה אֶת־הָָאדָ ם‬ ָ ‫ ִכּי ְ ּב ֶצלֶם אֱֹלהִים ָע‬K K‫שּׁנּו‬ ֶ ‫אֶדְ ְר‬

Though not said explicitly in the laws of bloodshed and disfigurement in Lev 24:17 – 21, the same idea animates that legal paragraph, that the human body reflects and evokes the divine.190 Notably, the protocol regarding the shedding of the blood of animals undergoes further modification in the Priestly history. Once the tabernacle stands and Yahweh descends from afar to dwell in it, Israelites must bring to the tabernacle all the animals permitted them for eating (paradigmatically life-supporting types) and slaughter them there, where the priests can collect their uniquely useful blood (Leviticus 17; also 8 – 9; 16). Any animal slaughter taking place outside the tabernacle precincts, which in Canaan would amount to slaughter in one’s own locale, is described and conceptualized in similar terms to those used in the aftermath of the flood: K‫דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם‬ ‫שפך‬K (see 17:4; compare Gen 9:4 – 6, also 6:9 – 13), and anyone who does so will bear the burden that will crush them and eliminate them from the congregation (Lev 17:1 – 5). In the oracular novella in Lev 24:10 – 23, placing the laws of bloodshed and disfigurement – paradigmatically homicide – alongside the laws of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name, and signaling through formal means a parallelism between the two topics, establishes the conceptual framework within which to understand the cursing of the deity and exclamation of his name: a parallel or analogy.191 More 190   It also mimics the divine body in further cultivating the world it finds itself in, changing the landscape and making things grow, to sustain life, just as the deity did. In my understanding of the Priestly history at Gen 1:1 – 2:4a (Chavel, “Imagined Beginnings”), the distinguishing feature of the human body that makes it divine is precisely that which differentiates it from all other creatures: that it needs only two legs to stand and in place of forelegs has arms and hands, which allow it further to harness and exploit and cultivate the world that the deity has fashioned. The author signals this categorical view in the schematic distinction made between animals – including birds! – who eat vegetation and human beings who eat what grows on trees (vv. 28 – 30). On the appropriation of ancient Near Eastern royal discourse, especially Assyrian, and the application of it to all humanity in Gen 1:26 – 27, see e. g. Sarna, Genesis, 12. Note, though, that if the language of shape and image refers to the anatomy of human beings as a species and differentiates it from other species of creatures, its use in 5:3 refers to facial resemblance and expresses differentiation of families from each other within the human species (contrast e. g. Gunkel, Genesis, 113). For a convenient survey of the history of opinions and approaches to the famous phrase, see Westermann, Genesis, 1.147 – 155. 191  The Rabbis seem to have interpreted similarly, given their determination that the single significant expression of cursing the deity was K‫יכה יוסי את יוסי‬K (“May Yossi smite Yossi”) – a formula that draws on the legal language of bloodshed in the passage: K‫ומכה‬K (m. Sanh. 7:5). Cf. the discussion in Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2120 – 2121.

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement

75

specifically, to the degree that the juxtaposition indicates a logical or analogical relationship between the two sets of actions, it functions to explain the capital punishment for cursing the deity and exclaiming his name. In other words, the juxtaposition uses the shared capital punishment to help conceptualize the meaning of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name. The principle of talion that directs the cases of bloodshed and disfigurement, when applied to the case of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name or employed as a lens for considering it, suggests that one view cursing the deity and exclaiming his name as an attack on the person of the deity. It warrants explaining talion further. From an historical perspective and in theoretical terms, several scholars have understood the principle of talion in Hammurabi’s laws (and the Hebrew Bible) to mark a development, a positive turning point, in legal history and in society. In their view, the earliest stages of civilization consistently attest compensation for damages of all kinds and indicate that all such damages, including bodily harm, remain a private affair between individuals.192 The community as such takes no stand and has no standing other than as the forum in which damage and compensation – appeasement – might take place. The introduction of physical harm, especially disfigurement, as a form of punishment, in which the damaged party does not receive any tangible compensation or replacement value, implies that the damage affected not merely the individual but the community as such, as an entity with legal standing, that can suffer harm and outrage and demand retribution. It marks, in other words, the conception of the community as a moral entity and agent.193 Although the chronological sequence between the legal texts, namely, Hammurabi’s and those that preceded it, necessitated a new analysis of talion, the historical component of the argument rests on a faulty premise, that the various texts, be they prescriptive or descriptive, accurately represent practice on the ground and legal thought at that time. Subsequent studies have compared these texts with court records, contracts and the like; assessed the series of legal paragraphs as a legal system; and taken careful note of the discourse that introduces and follows them – all of which together led to the conclusion that the legal texts cannot be taken as the publication of a newly imposed law, as a record of imposed law, as a record of law as it was practiced, as a collection of definitive precedents, or even as a guidebook for the judiciary. First and foremost, in one literary configuration or another, the texts belong to the expressive category, making claims about identity, history, posterity, religion and the like. Namely, when assessing the appearance of talion in legal series, one should draw conclusions primarily regarding the specific authors and their thoughts about law and society.194 In terms 192   See the laws of Ur-Namma §§ 18 – 22; Eshnunna §§ 42 – 47, also §§ 53 – 57; and the Hittite collection §§ 7 – 9, 11 – 18 (Roth, Law Collections, 19, 65 – 68, 218 – 220). 193   See Diamond, “An Eye for an Eye;” Finkelstein, “Ammiṣaduqa’s Edict,” 98. On the human equality implicit in the law, see Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 76. 194   For the Mesopotamian tradition, in addition to Finkelstein, “Ammiṣaduqa’s Edict,” see Bottéro, Mesopotamia, 156 – 184; Hurowitz, Inu Anum ṣīrum; Veenhof, “Evidence for Old Assyrian Legislation;” idem, “Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes;’” Charpin, Writing, Law, and Kingship, 71 – 82; for the biblical, Chavel, “Biblical Law,” esp. 1.227 – 237; also Wells, “What Is Biblical Law?” Contrast Westbrook, “Law Codes,” whose missing evidence simply begs the question.

76

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

of legal history, or sociology, as David Daube has postulated, there are no justifiable grounds for assuming anything other than that (any) society will have had both punishment and compensation for various situations from its beginning.195 These points of critique, far from undermining the insight that talion indicates complex thought about law, strengthens the ground to advance the insight further. In as much as the law of talion creates additional damage and does so in a kind of symmetry of actions or objects, it turns primarily on an aesthetic logic and sensibility, which suits a constructed, imagined entity like a community. Invoking categories other than the mathematics of livelihood and sustainability, it manifests poetic justice, precisely the kind that stands out against the technical sophistication paraded in the laws of Hammurabi, the Covenant Code, the Deuteronomic corpus, and the Priestly history, but which serves time and again such masters of community imagining and rhetoric as the Prophetic authors and the narrative historiographers of the Hebrew Bible. Additional reflexes in the legal material of the Hebrew Bible exist in those cases in which the punishment fits the crime but not the damage. For instance, when two men fight (K‫כי ינצו אנשים יחדו‬K) and the wife of one intervenes, probably out of desperation (‫להציל את בעלה‬K), by crushing the other man’s privates, she has her hand cut off (Deut 25:11 – 12). The result resembles slitting the throat of the brawling palace woman who in desperation exclaimed the deity’s name (Middle Assyrian palace decree §10). In both instances, one undoes an irrevocable act or balances an irreplicable one symbolically by breaking the medium of the evil deed and preventing it happening again.196 Apart from whatever traditions of practice made up the legal topography of the Rabbis, this uncontrolled, expressive, poetic nature of talionic and figurative justice led them explicitly to distance themselves from it – by showing its impracticability to 195

  Studies in Biblical Law, 102 – 103.  Akin to the way verbal pronouncement, specifically wordplay, creates correspondence and symmetry in 1 Sam 15:26, 27 – 28, 33; 2 Sam 12:7 – 12; also Amos 8:1 – 2; Jer 1:11 – 12, cutting the woman’s hand may create correspondence with her act on linguistic grounds, if the term K‫כף‬K can also refer to a woman’s privates (see Jer 4:31), as if the implied result clause says *K‫כפּה תחת מבֻשיו‬K on the model of K‫עין תחת עין‬K (compare Eslinger, “The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler,” 272 – 277, who takes the law to mean K‫כף‬K literally as a case of direct talion). Such usage of K‫כף‬K continues in Rabbinic literature; see Ben Yehudah, Dictionary of Hebrew, 5.2480b – 2481a. Note also the ruling for a similar case in the Middle Assyrian law A § 8 (Roth, Law Collections, 156 – 157): if she crushes one testicle, she loses one finger; if both testicles, both her eyes or her breasts (the text is missing; see Paul, “Biblical Analogues,” 336 – 337). For additional instances of poetic justice and symbolic disfigurement – excluding straight capital punishment for various serious crimes – see Hammurabi §§ 25, 192 – 205, 209 – 210, 218, 226 – 227, 229 – 232 (esp. 230), 253, 282; Middle Assyrian laws A §§ 4, 5, 9, 15, 20, 24, 40, 53, 55 (also 18, 19) and palace decrees §§ 2, 5, 17, 20, 21. Tellingly, in the case of a man striking a pregnant woman who miscarries and dies, Lipit-Ishtar §§ d – e stipulates capital punishment for the man, whereas Hammurabi §§ 209 – 210 has the man’s daughter put to death. Middle Assyrian law A § 59 strongly implies that some instances of disfigurement, in particular maiming the nose and ears, did not function so much to symbolize the crime as to inflict immediate pain and enduring shameful reminders. The Hittite laws seem to have no examples of the phenomenon (including § 44a, but see possible traces in 101, 121), beyond maiming the noses and ears of slaves (§§ 95, 99), perhaps because of the differing purpose of the collection; note especially the dry sexual laws (§§ 187 – 200a). For all the texts cited, see Roth, Law Collections. 196

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement

77

the point of absurdity – and to declare all such instances in fact quantifiable and a matter of compensation (b. B. Qam. 83b – 84a). Significantly, poetic justice occurs in less grisly situations too, such as the shamed name of the brother who will not perpetuate his dead brother’s name (Deut 25:5 – 10),197 which gives rise to precisely such a character named K‫פלני אלמני‬K “Anonymous” (Ruth 4:1). The most extreme case, downright Prophetic in character, occurs in the midst of the Covenant Code, the set of stipulations upon which Yahweh’s covenant with Israel rests (Exod 21:1; 24:3 – 8). The instance concerns not the adjudication of a particular event, but a state of abusing the economic-legal system as a whole and violating the notion of justice altogether. In Exod 22:20 – 23, a complex passage about exploiting the vulnerable, Yahweh avers that the cry of widow and orphan will make of Israel a nation of widows and orphans; if the experience of national gēr-hood did not suffice to sensitize Israel, the experience of nationwide bereavement will. Poetic justice will lead to the very dissolution of the nation.198 The numerical component that plays a role in the Covenant Code instance – the singular cry will yield multiple ones – highlights that the legal system has yet another result or measure that expresses the magnitude of certain kinds of damage, in particular damage to someone’s means of sustenance. Stolen farm and travel animals, which are hard to replace and train, stolen means like a boat, stolen land – such damage regularly fetches multiples that range from strongly dissuasive two, three, four and five all the way up to an unachievable thirty.199 In the light of this ability to express through economic terms and means the magnitude of the damage and in the light of the technical legal virtuosity displayed in so many of the ancient laws and legal collections, the turn to poetic justice, to literal and figurative talion, indicates a case that defeated the author’s ability to propose what he considered a satisfactory – that is, justified and accountable – outcome in (socio‑)economic terms, that is, a case of a qualitatively different character. The turn to poetic justice recognizes that, given certain social values and legal aims, the economic component that dominates the legal system has limits in establishing redress and parity.200 197   Clearly, the author put the cases of levirate marriage and a woman grabbing a man’s privates in immediate sequence for the thematic association between them; on the sequence in 25:1 – 12, see Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.261. For levirate marriage and additional cases without physical damage that may qualify as instances of figurative, talionic law, see Rofé, Deuteronomy, 186 – 187. 198  Note how the vulnerable is referred to in the singular in v. 22 (K‫ צעקתו‬. . . ‫ צעק יצעק‬. . . ‫אתו‬K), like the gēr of v. 20, and the punishment, a nation of widows and orphans in v. 23, corresponds to the class of the vulnerable in v. 21. 199  See Exod 21:37; in Roth, Law Collections: Sumerian Laws Handbook of Forms § 3 ll. 10 – 15 (p. 49); Laws of Hammurabi §§ 8, 253 – 256, 265 (pp. 82, 128 – 130); Neo-Babylonian Laws § 7 (pp. 145 – 146); Middle-Assyrian Laws B § 8 (pp. 178 – 179); Hittite Laws § 57 – 70 (pp. 226 – 227). As an apodictic law, the prohibition on taking millstones as a pledge for a loan in Deut 24:6 specifies no result, but Ehrlich notes the deliberate wordplay on K‫חב"ל‬K, which rhetorically creates a correspondence between the action of taking the millstones as a pledge and killing a person (Literal Meaning, 1.355). See Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.241 – 242. 200   There is nothing necessary or inevitable about this phenomenon. See the many comparable Hittite laws, which consistently propose monetary compensation (e. g., §§ 7 – 9, 11 – 16, in Roth, Law

78

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

The capital punishment of a murderer represents the most extreme instance, and in the Hebrew Bible, the Priestly history gives it its fullest, most organic and perfectly balanced expression, in the passage cited already above: K‫שפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך‬K (Gen 9:6). The very words used to describe the act of homicide, K‫שפך דם האדם‬K, recur in reverse order to describe the result, the death of the killer, K‫באדם דמו ישפך‬K, which, conceptually, works to balance the initial action and reverse its effect.201 The legal reasoning is embedded in the pivot between the action and the counteraction, the word that begins the reversal, the preposition K‫ב־‬K, which in this instance means, “on account of”: “The shedder of the blood of a person – on account of that (killed) person shall his (the shedder’s) blood be shed.”202 As opposed to the tight, pithy formulation of the talionic principle of bloodshed in Gen 9:6, the series of laws in Lev 24:17 – 21 gives expression to the talionic principle in several different ways. First, the text offers an agglomeration of three different cases – human bloodshed, animal bloodshed, disfigurement – which all work by the same logic of damage for damage. Second, in two of the cases – animal bloodshed and disfigurement – the text qualifies the result with a formula that offers examples, namely, clauses that combine explicit modeling and, again, agglomeration of cases (v. 18b K‫נפש‬ ‫תחת נפש‬K; v. 20a K‫– שן תחת שן‬ ‫– עין תחת עין‬ ‫שבר תחת שבר‬K). Third, the case of disfigurement articulates the principle in general, abstract terms (v. 19b ‫ו‬K ‫כאשר עשה כן י ֵעשה ל‬K; v. 20b Collections, 218 – 219). The author(s) of this collection did not seek to express the irreducible, unquantifiable aspects of any given scenario. 201   See Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 35. 202  Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 1.27. In the light of this reading of Gen 9:6, which clarifies that in v. 5 Yahweh says he will do the accounting for animal and human killers alike, Milgrom argues that the passage stands at odds with Num 35:30 – 31: according to Gen 9:5 – 6, the deity holds the killer to account, whereas in Num 35:9 – 34 human beings do (Leviticus, 1.705). But the author of Numbers 35 may have considered bloodshed another of the many topics that undergo qualification once Yahweh moves from his place beyond the sky to the tabernacle built by Israel on the earth. Specifically, what Yahweh planned for humanity in the wake of the flood will continue to hold for non-Israelites, but for Israelites, a different system will take hold. Note how the author reuses the language of Gen 9:6 in Num 35:31 – 34 and adapts it to give human adjudication a rationale based on the circumstance of living on land in Yahweh’s proximity. In this direction, compare the discussion of Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 57 – 96, esp. 75 – 78. It seems appropriate here to point out that the same logic explains the adaptation of Gen 9:3 – 6 together with Lev 11:1 – 8, 13 – 24 in Leviticus 17. According to the scheme of Leviticus 17, those qualitatively far from Yahweh and his tabernacle continue to eat all animals and drain their blood; Israelites who go out into the wild for game must cover the drained blood (v. 13). Those in Yahweh’s defined vicinity must only eat typologically non-violent, life-sustaining animals; however, shedding their blood on the ground fouls it and falls under the normative category of bloodshed (vv. 4, 10; following Gen 1:28 – 30; 6:9 – 13). To eat them (following Gen 9:3 – 4), one must share them with Yahweh and avoid fouling his grounds by putting the blood on the altar (Lev 17:1 – 7), which also serves as a ransom (v. 11; following Gen 9:5 – 6). In this context, note the deliberate activation of the multiple senses of K‫נפש‬K: in Lev 17:10, 12, 15 the person as “throat;” in v. 11 “life,” first in the sense of “vitality,” then in the sense of “self,” then in the sense of “living entity;” and in v. 14, first “vitality,” then either “vitality” again (with K‫ב‬K marking essence) or “throat” (with K‫ב‬K as preposition “in”), then “vitality” again. Compare the many commentaries and discussions on these difficult and contested verses. The statement in Deut 12:23 sounds similar but actually puts the matter differently: “The blood is (the seat of) vitality and you should not eat the vitality with the animal-meat.”

3. The Laws of Bloodshed and Disfigurement

79

K‫בו‬

‫כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן‬K). In this light, the symmetrical shaping of the paragraph too, like an object in a mirror, reflects the talionic principle. This compound expression of talion highlights rather forcefully its centrality for understanding the paragraph, specifically, for the role it should play in the analysis of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name and of the capital punishment that results. The analogizing, though, should not completely overwhelm and obliterate the differences between the two paragraphs. In the cases delineated in vv. 17 – 21 a person effected damage, fatal or disfiguring, to a body, human or animal. It remains a question whether the author imagines the curser and exclaimer to affect the divine body and name. Nowhere does the Priestly history hint at a notion that creatures can affect the deity’s image, its shape or its substance, only his senses, either grating on them or pleasing them.203 To judge by indications throughout the Hebrew Bible, the name is precisely that part of a person that can endure on earth and make that person continually or repeatedly present, and the trope applies to divinity as well.204 Within the Priestly history, the Holiness Code highlights the precious nature of Yahweh’s name – and its vulnerability to an activity denoted by the verb K‫חל"ל‬K, which means both desecration and diminishment.205 As the most substantive aspect of Yahweh’s personhood vulnerable to human harm, Yahweh’s name correlates with the blood of his creatures and the human figure. In this view, the principle of talion comes closer to fleshing out an organic logic between the crime and the punishment in vv. 15 – 16. Seen from a different angle, in asserting that the capital punishment for cursing and exclaiming follows the model of talion, the specific use of talion here may actually resemble more the invocation of talion in the case of the plotting witness or accuser in Deut 19:16 – 21.206 First of all, that case does not, strictly speaking, represent a case of talion – correspondence of damage or even of means – but figurative justice that turns on intent: the appropriation and abuse of the organ of justice for an unwarranted result leads the organ of justice to apply that result to the abuser, to turn intent back upon itself. The law states as much in the clear, general terms of a principle: K‫ועשיתם לו‬ ‫כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו‬K (v. 19). The invocation of talion that comes after the principle also seems to signal this awareness when it substitutes the preposition K‫ב־‬K for K‫תחת‬K that classically indicates correspondence: K‫– רגל ברגל‬ ‫– יד ביד‬ ‫– שן בשן‬ ‫– עין בעין‬ ‫נפש בנפש‬K (v. 21).207 Secondly, the list of model examples that conveys talion does not actually 203  For the sense of smell, note the sacrificial expression K‫ריח ניחוח‬K; blood seems to have a pungent odor to Yahweh. For the sense of sound, note the gently tinkling bells on the high priest’s robe that announce his presence and track his movement inside the tabernacle (Exod 28:31 – 35). For the sense of sight, see also Schipper and Stackert, “Blemishes, Camouflage, and Sanctuary Service.” On modern analysis of the conception of the senses in biblical literature, see Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture. 204   E. g. Pedersen, Israel, 1.245 – 259, esp. 255 – 257; with critical eye, DDD, 610b – 611a, also 763b – 764a. 205   Lev 18:21; 19:12; 20:3; 21:6; 22:2, 32, as emphasized by Kamionkowski, “Leviticus 24,10 – 23,” though then pushed further. 206   For the argument that the text concerns an accuser rather than a third-party witness, see Wells, The Law of Testimony, 133 – 147. 207  Compare Exod 21:23 – 25; Lev 24:18 – 20; Deut 21:14; also Gen 4:25; 22:13. Note especially 2 Kgs 10:24, in which failing to kill someone is punishable by death – K‫נפשו תחת נפשו‬K.

80

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

apply to the case. Surely, the plotting witness sought to have the victim killed (e. g. for a grudge or to gain his land) or to extort money or goods, not to have him maimed.208 Indeed, in the Deuteronomic laws just what kind of suit would lead to the loss of an eye, tooth, hand or leg? The only such case is itself one of poetic justice and it concerns only a hand (25:11 – 12). The invocation of talion in the case of the plotting witness or accuser, then, aims to assert that although the case does not in fact concern successful murder or extortion, it should nevertheless be resolved as if it did, on the conceptual model of “eye for eye etc.”209 From this point of view, the author of the oracular novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 has made double usage of talion. He constructed cases of theoretically applicable talion, in vv. 17 – 21, on the model of Hammurabi’s laws; but through formal signals of structure and placement he also applied all those laws together as one single expressive talionic formula to comment on a legal topos, in vv. 15 – 16, that is not truly resolved by talion but should be understood on its model, as in the law of the plotting witness in Deut 19:16 – 21. This long and involved analysis of the construction, inner-poetics, and role of the bloc of laws of bloodshed and disfigurement within Lev 24:10 – 23 has implications for the discussion of the literary integrity – the authorship – of the oracular novella. Scholars commonly identify some significant element of the novella as secondary. Most often they identify either the legal paragraph in vv. 17 – 21 or the narrative itself, as if vv. 17 – 21 had already existed as a literary text; in some cases, though, they question specific elements of the core, the legal paragraph in vv. 15 – 16 with perhaps related elements in the narrative. The many different aspects of Lev 24:10 – 23 analyzed and integrated into a single coherent framework, conceptually and narratively, together with the many telltale indications of Priestly authorship, make it theoretically sound and preferable to see the entire passage as the work of a single author. The number of topoi, motifs, and ideas that have parallels in the Covenant Code – a fight, cursing God and exclaiming his name, the juxtaposition of cursing with murder (see Exod 21:12 – 17), and talion – strongly suggests that the author has taken much inspiration from the Covenant Code, selected many of its elements, put them into the framework of the Priestly history with its ideas about the blood of animal and human, the figure of human and deity, and the name of the deity, and synthesized them into a single coherent oracular novella.210

208   In Westbrook’s analysis, Exod 22:6 – 8 covers just this scenario and its punishment of paying double the value of the falsely claimed item is talionic (“Deposit Law,” 391 – 393, 397); Wells collects and analyzes Mesopotamian cases (The Law of Testimony, 147 – 155). 209  Poetic justice of this kind – intent turned back upon itself – features in the Prophetic literature. A positive example, of reward, turns on wordplay (K‫בית‬K) in 2 Sam 7:4 – 12. The law of Exod 21:22 – 25 is a more complicated one in all its aspects, but its appeal to talion appears to work on the model of Deut 19:16 – 21 in that it indicates a case whose resolution lies along figurative lines. 210   See Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 513 – 520. The author of a scroll of excerpts from the Torah found at Qumran (4Q366) seems to have placed the talion of Lev 24:17 – 21 next to the law of slavery in Lev 25:39 – 46 (see frag. 2), which restores or mimics the juxtaposition of talion and slavery in Exod 21:22 – 27 (see DJD 13.339).

4. The Story

81

4. The Story The author of the Priestly history and those who supplemented the work included many highly significant laws, but for the overwhelming majority of them, they did not compose distinctive events and portray the circumstances that led specifically to their particular generation, legislation and proclamation. It sufficed to include them as part of the general lawgiving that issues from the tabernacle, just as it did for other biblical authors to provide one setting for the law codes they introduced – the divine mount or the land of Moab. Why construct a story to depict how and why the law of cursing the deity and exclaiming his name arose? The quality of the narrative presses the question. The barebones style, which does not develop the characters’ setting, motives, identities or personality, makes it clear that the author has not constructed it as rich site of thought-provoking and entertaining mimesis, as a “good” story. The relentless focus on just those details that affect the law indicates that the story exists entirely and exclusively for the sake of the law, and makes it difficult to appreciate what additional value it has for the larger Priestly history, as a narrative history. What motive or conception stands behind this kind of composition of narrative? One source of reflection on the question comes from the other major compositions combined together in the Torah. Each of these works contains a string of parallel elements – Israel’s coming to or setting up a holy site, Yahweh’s appearance there, his issuance of instructions and establishment of norms, Israelite sin at a crucial moment, divine punishment, a crisis about how the relationship between Israel and Yahweh will continue, and a mechanism that will alleviate the immediate pressure caused by Israelite sin.211 The story in Lev 24:10 – 23 represents an additional variation on this theme, which suggests that its author conceived such an episode to constitute an essential part of Israel’s history and composed his version of it in the terms warranted by the Priestly version of Israel’s history.212 The Elohistic history binds Israel to Yahweh in a covenant established on the basis of the exclusive worship of Yahweh, conceived as the core of its conceptual world and the law that animates all others. It defines this core by two prohibitions, one against worship of any other gods and another against worship of Yahweh through crafted representation, whether in celestial, mundane, or marine figuration (Exod 19:4 – 6; 20:2 – 4, 19; 22:19; 23:23 – 24, 32 – 33). By implication, any such figure employed to worship Yahweh amounts to worship of other gods. According to the history, while Moses receives these stipulations and the rest of the covenant in writing, namely, engraved on two stone tablets (24:12 – 15, 18b), Israel sets up an altar at the base of the mountain, constructs a golden calf, and celebrates round it or before it there (32:1 – 8). 211   Compare on this Toeg, Lawgiving at Sinai, 144 – 159; Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 103 – 134. 212   The Deuteronomic story draws directly on the Elohistic story; see Haran, The Biblical Collection, 2.154 – 164, 200 – 206, as well as 72 n. 58 and the references there; also Baden, J, E, and the Redaction, 153 – 172.

82

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

Namely, at this most critical moment, Israel violates the most fundamental aspect of its covenant with Yahweh.213 Moses works to restore the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. First, he persuades Yahweh not to destroy the nation (vv. 9 – 14); subsequently, he challenges him to exercise patience (vv. 31 – 32). Yahweh agrees, stating he will restrain himself for now and concentrate on those who sinned, but is liable to recall the outrage and lash out in a future violation (vv. 33 – 35). Presumably, the passage of time and evidence of Israel’s devotion will pacify Yahweh and build goodwill.214 By all indications, the Yahwistic story has only been preserved in fragmentary state. Moreover, recent research suggests that the Yahwistic history never included a lawgiving proper.215 Nevertheless, it still appears possible to reconstruct the Yahwistic conception and story.216 In the identifiable verses that remain, Moses and Yahweh discuss repeatedly the limits of the people’s access to Yahweh, specifically, the concern that they not cross the boundaries of Mount Sinai, upon which he will appear (Exod 19:11 – 13, 20 – 25; 24:1 – 2, 9 – 11bα).217 In the aftermath of a now-missing offense committed by Israel, Moses and Yahweh continue to discuss this issue (33:12 – 23; 34:2 – 3). From the insistent recurrence of this theme, it appears that in the conception in the Yahwistic history, Israel’s relationship to Yahweh was constituted by his physical presence in their midst, and it told of Israel violating the guidelines established for keeping their distance from the mountain upon which he had descended (all of which bears strikingly similarities to the Priestly history). To judge by Moses’ reaction (32:26 – 29), the extent of their rioting to gain a glimpse of Yahweh and approach him surpassed the original provisions – which were formulated with respect to isolated individuals and predicated on the expectation that they could be killed in the act and prevented (19:11 – 13)218 – and fulfilled Yahweh’s 213   For the degree to which the description of the sin matches the commandments word for word, compare Exod 32:1 – 6 with 20:2 – 4, 18 – 22 and 24:3 – 8, 11bβ. 214   Cf. Muffs, Love and Joy, 9 – 48, esp. 16 – 24. On the principle of deferral of punishment in the book of Kings, see Japhet, Ideology of Chronicles, 138 – 142. 215   Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 12 – 67. 216   For a source-division and a clarification of the various thrusts, see Schwartz, “The Priestly Account;” idem, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai?” However, one should not identify the laws in Exodus 34 as part of the Yahwistic history, but as a late rewriting of the Elohistic calendar in Exodus 23 that incorporates Priestly and Deuteronomic materials and ideas; see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 12 – 43. 217  The difference in verbs employed reflects the different limits that are permitted: the elders ascend (K‫על"ה‬K) the mountain, whereas Moses approaches (K‫נג"ש‬K) Yahweh (24:1 – 2, 9). In the aftermath of the sin, Yahweh insists that Moses alone should ascend (K‫על"ה‬K) the mountain (34:2 – 3). In light of this distinction, MT 34:2 explains, “Moses alone approached Yahweh, and they did not approach him; and the people did not go up with him” (K‫ונגש משה לבדו אל יהוה והם לא יגשו והעם לא יעלו עמו‬K), which differentiates Moses from the rest of the people: he alone approached (K‫נג"ש‬K), in contrast to the elders, who only ascended (K‫על"ה‬K) with him, and in contrast to the people, who were not allowed even to ascend. By contrast, LXX μετ᾽ αὐτῶν (i. e. K‫עמם‬K in place of K‫עמו‬K) specifies exactly how far each portion of the people went: Moses approached (K‫נג"ש‬K), but the elders did not, and the people did not even go up (K‫)על"ה‬ with the elders. Both of the variants are comprehensible, and each can be argued to have arisen due to dittography. 218   Compare Gen 3:24. Again, there is a striking similarity to the conception of the Priestly history; moreover, in the Yahwistic history the Levites beat back the Israelites from the designated boundary, and in the Priestly history the people express their frustration with Yahweh’s presence in the camp

4. The Story

83

worst predictions (v. 21). Notably, the delimitation of divinity and the various ways in which Yahweh differs from and is inaccessible to humanity represent a significant theme elsewhere in the Yahwistic history – most distinctly in the episodes of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:4b – 3:24), the sterile intimacy between divine males and human women (6:1 – 4), and the Tower of Babel (11:1 – 9),219 and it resurfaces explosively at this most mythic of moments, divine self-presentation before the people. As in the story of the golden calf, so in the Yahwistic story too, the question arises, how the majestic deity, who is justified in broad, non-discriminating reactions against offense to his person, can sustain a relationship with his people, who are doomed to give such offense. In this story, Yahweh initially suggests that he withdraw from the people (Exod 33:1 – 3), but Moses rejects this solution as constituting too qualified a relationship with Israel (vv. 12 – 16); so, as in the golden calf story, Yahweh next offers to exercise patience and self-restraint, which will manifest itself in concentrating his anger on offenders and in parcelling out their punishment piecemeal over time (vv. 17 – 23; 34:2 – 3, 4b, 5 – 8). Just as in these two stories – of Israel’s golden calf and, as reconstructed, of Israel’s encroachment – Israel violates a definitive feature of its relationship with Yahweh, so in the Priestly history. The Priestly story of divine self-presentation and presence unfolds slowly in several different stages. First, Moses ascends Mount Sinai to the fiery deity that has descended upon it (Exod 24:16 – 18a). There he receives instructions for the construction, furnishing, and staffing of the tabernacle (25:1 – 31:17). Yahweh then gives Moses an ʿēḏūṯ, perhaps a form of certification validating the plans Moses will relay to the people (31:18). Moses descends Mount Sinai with the ʿēḏūṯ (32:15a), his face permanently glowing from the close encounter with Yahweh (34:29 – 35).220 After the construction of the tabernacle (35:1 – 40:33), Yahweh enters it (40:34 – 35). From there he summons Moses and relays the laws of sacrifices (Lev 1:1 – 7:38), then commands him to prepare for the investiture of the priests (8:1 – 36), at the end of which process (9:1 – 22) another self-presentational event takes place (vv. 23 – 24). Moses and Aaron emerge from the tabernacle, stand before the people, and bless them, at which point Yahweh appears before them, enshrouded in his usual cloud, and emits fire that ignites the meat on the outer altar. Awestruck, the people fall on their faces and cry out. Precisely at this climactic, mythic moment, when Yahweh has inaugurated his dwelling in the midst of the people and confirmed before their very eyes his satisfaction, Nadab and Abihu approach Yahweh, carrying fire-pans filled with incense alight with alien fire, namely, coals taken from an unsanctioned source.221 Stoked and incensed, Yahweh incinerates them (10:1 – 2). and the dangerous boundaries required to maintain him there, so Yahweh charges the Levites with the responsibility to guard the tabernacle boundary – at their own peril (Num 17:27 – 18:7). See Milgrom, Studies, 5 – 59. Additionally, just as the Levites earn and possibly require divine protection and consecration in the Yahwistic history, so too Phineas in the Priestly (Num 25:10 – 13). 219   See Gunkel, Genesis, 23 – 24, 32 – 33, 56 – 60, 96, 98, 99, 100 – 101. 220   On all these passages see Schwartz, “The Priestly Account,” 111 – 120, 126 – 128. On Moses’ glowing face, see Haran, “The Shining of Moses’ Face.” 221   See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.597 – 598.

84

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

This story illustrates perfectly the core concept of the Priestly history, the principle of gradation and order. According to the theology and phenomenology of the Priestly history, the deity dwells in the innermost room of the tabernacle. The deity’s presence generates around itself bands of decreasing holiness, and the tabernacle, the system, and all the rules – in the full sense of measures, guidelines, and standards – serve to circumscribe the presence and maintain the purity of the inner core by regulating the state and approach of the human beings in its proximity. Trespassing Israelites, bearing untreated violations across the lines, allow impurity to breach and sully the core, which draws out or unleashes Yahweh’s devastating fire. In other words, all variables, all elements – person, place, time, measure, object, and action – must proceed according to divine plan; any variation can cause massive damage. Not as mere rhetoric does the Priestly history repeat time and again how the Israelites did precisely as Yahweh instructed Moses. The episode with Nadab and Abihu illustrates the most severe violation of all the various hierarchies – at the climactic moment, specifically, the initiation of the deity’s earthly abode, precisely when he has revealed himself and indicated his satisfaction; by his most intimate attendants; in the entryway of his abode, in his immediate presence; with what is supposed to be the most pleasing of offerings.222 Like the other histories, the Priestly history too develops a mechanism to negotiate between the purity needed to maintain the deity’s blessed presence and the impurity created by Israel and brought into his precincts (Leviticus 16). Yahweh will suffer impurities and sins to accumulate for one year, at the end of which time a priest will eradicate them. To purge the tabernacle of impurity and restore its pristine condition, the priest will use the blood of a bull and the blood of the goat designated by lot “for Yahweh.” The sins, by contrast, he will transfer to the goat designated by the same lot “for Azazel,” which goat will then be sent to the wilderness, away from the camp with Yahweh at its center. The worst kinds of sins will continue to burden those who 222  Smelling the aroma of the sacrifice approximates the way in which the deity enjoys the gifts offered to him. The fire and not the deity himself is the entity that “consumes” (K‫אכ"ל‬K). If the burntoffering (K‫עולה‬K) is used to attract the deity’s attention (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 22 – 27) through the scent of the offering in the smoke, then incense exemplifies the most salient – and pleasing – burnt-offering (K‫עולה‬K). For the common expression K‫ריח ניחוח‬K see also: Gen 8:21; Amos 5:21. For an analysis of the meaning of Ezek 6:13; 16:19; 20:28, 41 in this regard, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.163. Scholars have devoted much discussion to the problem of defining the specific offense of Nadab and Abihu. For a review of opinions and a deconstructionist analysis, see Greenstein, “Deconstruction,” 56 – 64. Suffice it here to repeat the observation that the Priestly history does not include an individual incense-offering in its sacrificial system. In Lev 16:12 – 13, the priest lights incense in his personal censor from the coals of the altar as a smoke-screen between himself and Yahweh (see Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 178, 244). In Num 17:11 – 15, Aaron takes coals from the altar, lights the incense in his censor, and goes out into the camp with it in order to stop the plague that has broken out among the people. Coals that are not from the altar bring death and disaster, not only in the case of Nadab and Abihu but also to the entire rebellious group in Num 16:4 – 7, 16 – 18, 35. Explicit opposition to the practice of individuals personally offering incense is indeed expressed in Ezekiel (see 8:9 – 12). Within the Priestly history, opposition to the status of incense as a personal offering may stand behind the formulation of Lev 16:1 in MT and SP K‫בקרבתם לפני יהוה‬K “when they approached Yahweh” (see Exod 16:9) as opposed to LXX ἐν τῷ προσάγειν αὐτοὺς πῦρ ἀλλότριον (*K‫בהקריבם אש זרה לפני יהוה‬K) “when they brought / offered (with) strange fire before Yahweh” (see Lev 10:1, 19).

4. The Story

85

committed them, but will not threaten the camp as a whole.223 As in the other histories, the means for maintaining Yahweh’s blessed presence comprise patience, deferral, transfer, and translation; in this instance, though, the configuration involves priests, their conceptions, and their activities, not prophets and their methods. One can view the story of Lev 24:10 – 23 alongside these three stories of paradigmatic failure at a climactic moment. Moreover, a series of specific correlations with the story of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 9 – 10 in particular gives the oracular novella the look of a deliberate complement. The story of Nadab and Abihu features the chief priests, “anointed with the oil,” inside the tabernacle, offering incense, with the fallout treated by priests and the consequences debated by Moses and Aaron (10:3 – 20). Namely, it focuses on people, items, and space out of the reach of the non-Aaronide Israelites, elements that they may know about and the significance of which they embrace, but to which they have themselves no direct access and over which they have no control. In the story, with all the dramatic activity, the role of the people consists of observing from afar, then falling on their faces in awe. In a direct contrast, the story in 24:10 – 23 features some Israelite, somewhere in the camp, at some unspecified, context-less point in time, with the unmediated power of his mere voice, effecting a grave crime against the person of Yahweh, not only in earshot of other Israelites, but within their very grasp and within their power to set aright – first by bringing the criminal to Moses and putting him in holding, then by stoning him to death, in accordance with Yahweh’s ruling. Within the Priestly history of the tabernacle, the author of this story has composed an episode from the perspective of the congregation – a tale for the camp.224 It is tempting to entertain the possibility that the correlation between the two stories extends to the context in which they occur, specifically, divine self-presentation. The story of Nadab and Abihu explicitly and by internal design takes place in connection with Yahweh’s appearance before the people, whereas the story of the Egyptian Israelite does not. However, several factors make it possible that within the timeline of the Priestly history the event described in Lev 24:10 – 23 occurs on the very same day as that described in chapters 9 – 10. The number of laws given to Moses between the two episodes does not preclude the two events occurring on the same day. The laws of sacrificing exclusively at the tabernacle, in chapter 17, with the logic provided for them, dictate they belong to the inauguration of the tabernacle. Literarily, the unique repetition in 17:2 of the phrase that opens the inauguration in 8:5, K‫זה הדבר אשר צוה יהוה‬, underscores the synchronization. Indeed, additional passages with laws and activities explicitly or implicitly date themselves to the tabernacle’s inauguration in Numbers 7 – 10. Like the stories of the golden calf at the divine mount in the Elohistic history, the rushing of Mount Sinai (as reconstructed) in the Yahwistic history, and the unauthorized form of approach at the tabernacle in the Priestly history, the story of the cursing 223   For this interpretation of the actions performed on the Day of Purgation, see Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin.” 224   See Netziv on Lev 24:16; Douglas, “The Forbidden Animals,” 11.

86

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

of the deity and the desperate exclamation of his name in the midst of the camp in Lev 24:10 – 23 provides a mechanism to manage the continued presence of the deity. This mechanism differs markedly from the other stories, especially the regimented ritual of Leviticus 16, but it reflects well the Israelite-wide scope of the story. It is the judicial system itself. The author of this story has taken the idea of rules, measures, and guidelines as the mediating system entailed by Yahweh’s presence – the troping of divine will as law – and pushed it forward into the formal, practical, and human arena of the legal system. The Israelites participate in all stages of this form of resolution – apprehending the offender and bringing him to Moses, putting him in holding, hearing Yahweh’s verdict, and carrying it out. Working through this system activates Yahweh’s patience, or better: amounts to an expression of it. As in the forms of resolution in the stories of the golden calf and of the encroachment of the holy mountain, such a system isolates the criminal, determines and enacts punishment, and thereby saves the community at large. In the configuration in this story, however, concentrating punishment specifically on those who acted offensively does not result from a single, distinct act of divine patience, a choice at one point in time to act in gracious self-restraint, but belongs to the very essence of the legal system, constituting an inherent feature and aim of it. From this perspective, too, the inclusion of the laws in vv. 17 – 21 suits the context, since their topic represents the heart of law, the formal recognition and maintenance of the integrity of life, limb, and property, and the centrality of the human being in the enterprise, even in a text focused on the attack on Yahweh’s personhood. Viewing the oracular novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 in this manner, as a camp-oriented complement to the tabernacle-oriented story of Nadab and Abihu deliberately shaped to correlate with the story of Nadab and Abihu at specific levels, sheds new light on the various details of the punishment of the criminal – beyond the simple fact of his death – including even one interesting, anomalous aspect. In addition to the entire community stoning the criminal to death, which punishment appears in both the casedecision and the abstract law, Yahweh’s case-decision also determines that those who heard the curse must lay their hands on the curser’s head. This action constitutes one of the important, efficacious activities on the Day of Purgation. There it functions to transfer the sins of the people onto the goat that will go to Azazel. Without this transferral and expulsion, the unregulated accumulation of sins will cause Yahweh to abandon the tabernacle, with devastating effects for Israel (Lev 16:20 – 22).225 Similarly, when those who heard the offensive outburst of the Egyptian Israelite lay their hands on him – they and not a priest – they concentrate the force of the obnoxious speech, transfer it to the criminal, and save the camp. Like the goat sent out to the wilderness where it will die, they take the curser, with the curse, outside the camp where they will kill him and neutralize the curse.226 The fact that hand-laying does not recur in any 225  Note the clear description of the author: K‫ ונתן אתם על ראש השעיר‬. . . ‫והתודה עליו את כל עונת בני ישראל‬ ‫ ונשא השעיר עליו את כל עונתם‬. . .K (Lev 16:21 – 22). 226   That offensive actions do leave real traces in the settlement – on the land and the people – see Lev 15:31; 16:29 – 34; 18:24 – 30; 20:22 – 25; 22:24b; 23:27 – 29; 26:38, 43.

4. The Story

87

other punishment in the Holiness Code, the writings related to it, or elsewhere throughout the Priestly history strongly recommends Leviticus 16 as the source of it, and dovetails with all the other indications that the author has composed the story by considering all the components of the story of Nadab and Abihu in chapters 9 – 10 and the purgation protocols of chapter 16.227 Moreover, it represents a kind of literal realization of the idiom K‫ דמיהם בם‬/ ‫דמיו בו‬K that expresses the accountability of a criminal for his or her own death and which appears elsewhere in the Holiness Code, in the “household integrity” laws of Leviticus 20 (vv. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 27). One can extend the series of correlations to include an additional set of images and motifs – fire and voice. In Lev 9:23 – 10:7, the means of divine self-presentation at the inauguration of the tabernacle, the matter with which Nadab and Abihu trespassed, and the manner of their death all consist of fire, either the fire that shoots out from within the cloud that envelopes Yahweh (K‫אש מלפני יהוה‬K)228 or the “alien fire” (K‫אש זרה‬K), and these draw the bulk of the attention, discursively in quantitative terms and dramatically in the terms of the scene as it plays out. A less visible and commanding motif is that of the voice. The preparations inside the tabernacle complete, Moses and Aaron together exit and bless the people (told briefly: K‫ויברכו את העם‬K), which follows immediately with Yahweh’s impressive appearance (K‫ ותצא אש מלפני יהוה ותאכל‬. . . ‫)וירא כבוד יהוה‬. Struck with awe by this appearance, the Israelites cry out (briefly noted: K‫וירנו‬K), but then Nadab and Abihu’s alien fire and Yahweh’s fiery result follow immediately and dominate the scene (K‫ ותצא אש מלפני יהוה ותאכל‬. . . ‫ אש זרה‬. . . ‫ ויקרבו‬. . . ‫ אש‬. . . ‫ויתנו‬K). Moses and Aaron then speak, with Moses forcefully quipping (K‫הוא אשר דבר‬K) and Aaron remaining forcefully silent (K‫וידם‬K), but then the incinerated bodies come into view and become the point of focus (K‫ יבכו את השרפה אשר שרף יהוה‬. . . ‫ וישאם בכתנתם‬. . . ‫שאו את אחיכם‬K). The author of the oracular novella in 24:10 – 23 latches on precisely to just the element of voice as a key motif, and makes it the centerpiece of another episode of paradigmatic sin – highly significant speech with the power to bring calamity upon the community – and its resolution by divine word, as emphasized pivotally: K‫לפרש להם על פי יהוה וידבר‬ ‫יהוה‬K (vv. 12 – 13). This emphasis in the oracular novella on the legal system, on divine instruction and Israelite fulfillment, finds expression in the formal shape. The narrative frame in Lev 24:10 – 15a, 23 resembles the layout of the laws of bloodshed and disfigurement in vv. 17 – 21 in that it bears a variety of palistrophic structuring. In prose narrative, 227   This set of intertextual relationships of the story of the curser to the story of Nadab and Abihu and the procedure of the Day of Purgation qualifies its use as the basis from which to understand the laying on of two hands, as Wright has done (“The Gesture of Hand Placement”). The laying on of hands, as observed above, does not appear again in the entire Hebrew Bible as part of the procedures for crime and punishment, so it is difficult to argue that in fact it represents a permanent feature of the procedure. (The closest instance occurs in the procedure for the unknown homicide in Deut 21:1 – 9.) Viberg does not offer an opinion on Lev 24:10 – 23 in his study of legal symbolism (Symbols of Law), apparently because he considers it to be a cultic and not a legal matter. 228  For the nuance of this expression, compare the Aramaic idiom K‫מן קדם ד־‬K, and see Klein, “The Preposition K‫קדם‬K (‘Before’).”

88

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

defined by a chronological sequence of discrete actions (involving change), the character of the palistrophe must differ from that of a list, in this case a list of laws. It cannot have true and full repetition; by definition, circumstances within the world of the characters have changed. But prose narrative can repeat distinctive terminology or broad formulations, thematic elements, and imagery and motifs – whether in the same sequence or in reverse – and such forms of repetition can have poetic value.229 Discussions above already detailed and illustrated the very close correlations in language, actions, and stage of the story that characterize vv. 10 – 15a, 23 and how these correlations serve to frame the abstract laws in vv. 15b – 22 that follow the specific case decision in v. 14: K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ָכּל־‬

K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K ‫ַש ֹ ְמעִים אֶת־י ְדֵ יהֶם עַל־ר ֹאׁשֹו ו ְָרגְמּו א ֹתֹו‬ ּׁ ‫הֹוצֵא אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה ְו ָסמְכּו כָל־ה‬K K‫בּר לֵאמֹר‬ ֵ ַ‫ש ָׂראֵל תְ ּד‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ ִכּי ֲאנִי יהוה אֱֹלהֵי‬. . . ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי‬K K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר מ‬K K‫בן‬ ֶ ‫וַּיֹוצִיאּו אֶת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶל־מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה וִ ַּי ִ ְּרגְּמּו א ֹתֹו ָא‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת מ‬ ֶ ‫ש ָׂראֵל עָׂשּו ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ְ ִ ‫ּו ְבנֵי־י‬K

1 2 3 4 '3 '2 '1

In a quintessentially Priestly manner, Yahweh’s spoken command and Israel’s active fulfillment of it constitute the essence of the palistrophe. In the context of the particular emphasis of the oracular novella on the legal system, the palistrophe exemplifies and amplifies the cooperation, the partnership between Yahweh and Israel that defines the legal system, in which Israel seeks divine guidance and carries it out to the letter.

5. The Oracular Novella and the Holiness Code Having laid out so far an argument for the conceptual, thematic and legal coherence of the oracular novella and for its literary integrity, it remains to analyze its relationship with the Holiness Code and its location within it. On one side of the story stand the list of holidays of Leviticus 23 and the laws of the daily-lit candelabra and the weekly-replaced bread in 24:1 – 9. On the other side follow the laws of the sabbatical and jubilee years in chapter 25. Looked at generally, one can characterize chapters 23 – 25 by the theme of time and cyclicality – the annual, weekly and daily cycles of 23:1 – 24:9 and the seven- and fifty-year cycles of chapter 25. A sign of this shared framework seems to exist in the opening and conclusion of the series of texts, 23:1 – 3 and 26:2, which both make distinctive use of the Sabbath. Moreover, the term K‫שב"ת‬K runs through the series as a keyword – in several of the holidays (23:11, 15 – 16, 24, 32, 39), as the organizing principle of the bread (24:5 – 9), and throughout the

229   For studies on the subject, see Radday, “Chiasm;” Avishur, Studies in Biblical Narrative, 11 – 136.

5. The Oracular Novella and the Holiness Code

89

paragraph of the sabbatical year both explicitly and implicitly (25:1 – 7).230 In the light of this rather tightly woven series of passages, the oracular novella about a man who curses the deity and desperately exclaims his name stands out as fairly anomalous.231 Indeed, to put it somewhat tongue in cheek, one might have expected the similar oracular novella about a man violating the Sabbath to appear here rather than in Num 15:32 – 36 and this oracular novella about a verbal attack to have appeared there, where the immediate context, vv. 30 – 31, discusses raising one’s hand against Yahweh (K‫ביד רמה‬K) and besmirching him (K‫את יהוה הוא מגדף‬K). These and other difficulties stand behind the scholarly assumption that the story in Lev 24:10 – 23 represents a secondary insertion by an editor.232 However, its ideas, its style, and its method of working make it entirely of a piece with the Holiness Code. Indeed, no compelling reason exists to prevent seeing the complete novella as an original part of the Holiness Code. As argued, composition of the narrative begins, one may say, with the two laws in vv. 15 and 16. Like several other laws in the Holiness Code, the law about cursing the deity was formulated with the Covenant Code in mind, revising it in accordance with Priestly style and conceptions, but less as a matter of improving the Covenant Code formulation than of drawing upon it as source material. The law of exclaiming Yahweh’s name also appears to have undergone classic Priestly reformulation, from a brief participial formulation to one that specifies details, mentions applicability to the gēr, employs aesthetic repetition, and bears the shape of the circular inclusio. So too the law of homicide and the principle of talion, which having appeared in the Covenant Code reappear in the Priestly story in accordance with stylistic tendencies and ideas that characterize the Holiness Code: the protasis K‫איש כי‬K; the significance of animal bloodshed; applicability to the gēr; the concluding declaration K‫אני יהוה אלהיכם‬K; and the palistrophic arrangement. The narrative frame, constructed on the basis of the laws, employing their terms and developing their concepts, makes out of their two central roots, K‫קל"ל‬K and K‫נק"ב‬K, key-roots that together appear a total of seven times, another feature of texts in the Holiness Code.233 Most important, the Holiness Code is defined entirely by its concern for the holiness and awe of Yahweh, for the desecration – K‫חל"ל‬K (semantically related to K‫נק"ב‬K and probably K‫קל״ל‬K too)234 – of Yahweh’s name, and for the various violations that impact the community and the land, all from a perspective focused on the nation in its 230   See Warning, Literary Artistry, 92 – 94. According to Milgrom, the second thread that runs through 23:1 – 24:9 is the innovation that the people are responsible for supplying the animals and materials for the various necessities of the festivals and activities dictated in the list (Leviticus, 3.1951, 2082). For further development in that direction, see Milgrom, “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics.” 231   Compare Warning, who ignored this fact in organizing his discussions around chapter divisions rather than literary units and episodes (Literary Artistry, 92 – 94). 232   So, e. g., Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 496, 512 – 513. 233   So Warning has already observed (Literary Artistry, 96). For the concentrated use of symmetrical structures and sevenfold schemes in the Holiness writings, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 2.1319 – 1325. 234   See already Willis, “Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus,” 70; compare Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 513, also 99.

90

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

encampment and in its direct relationship with the deity. The narrative of the Egyptian Israelite who curses the deity and exclaims his name treats precisely these very topics, in a way that weaves them into an organic whole, and gives them full, concrete, and dynamic expression. In one and the same moment, the criminal violates all the essential values of the Holiness Code. A plain Israelite manifests complete disregard and lack of awe and desecrates Yahweh’s name in the most direct, strongest way possible. His act hovers threateningly over those who heard it and over the community at large. At the same time that the concept, imagery, and specific action of the hearers laying their two hands upon the curser before his death parallel those of the high priest laying his two hands on the head of the goat that will be sent to Azazel in Leviticus 16, the handlaying seems also to draw on and realize a Holiness Code idiom for accountability (‫דמיו בו‬K and the like). Indeed, the compound notion of blood and accountability expressed by the idiom both holds together the entire legal bloc in 24:17 – 21 and drives its applicability to the notion of cursing the deity and exclamation of his name in vv. 15 – 16. And the underlying thrust of the novella as a whole accords fundamentally with the concern in the Holiness Code for the perceptible impact of sin on the community and the land, with the legal system that will manage it, and with the punishments that will undo it or neutralize it.235 In addition to these manifold points of contact and continuity between the oracular novella and the Holiness Code, the novella gives material, dramatic, and dynamic shape to the constitutive ideas of the Holiness Code. In narrative, the shift from extensive reported speech of Yahweh that contains extensive series of laws to a more present third-person narrator who portrays action, multiple characters and speakers, problems and resolution, in which both Yahweh and the narrator engage in compound artistry, punctuates the Holiness Code as an intended climax. In the terms of the Priestly history: the ideas expressed in this segment of Yahweh’s speech come to fruition and fulfillment in the episode that follows it. Note that the novella bears a particular relationship with Leviticus 18, rounding out points of emphasis that first appear there. The term K‫חל"ל‬K first occurs in 18:21, continues in a string of occurrences in the ensuing chapters (19:8, 12, 29; 20:3; 21:4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 23; 22:2, 9, 15, 32), and makes its final appearance in the intensified form ‫ קל"ל‬+ ‫נק"ב‬K in the story in Lev 24:10 – 23 (at v. 11). The motif of Egypt, especially Egyptian depravity, appears several times in the Holiness Code, in several various ways and to varying degrees of emphasis – as the heading of the laws of illicit sexual activity (18:3), as the site of Israel’s gēr-hood (19:34), and again as the paternal roots of the villain of the story (24:10). In the same vein, a similar parallel, a more radical and disturbing one, may connect the curser’s Danite maternal roots (v. 11) with the Canaanites that appear alongside the Egyptians in Lev 18:3 (and reappear in vv. 24 – 30; 20:22 – 24). As considered above, the Egyptian and Danite origins of the curser 235   With the same idea of looking for a comprehensive relationship with the previous episodes based on the idea that the curser manifests (the antithesis of) their central concepts, see Abravanel, at 150; Luzzatto, at 429.

5. The Oracular Novella and the Holiness Code

91

together frame the description of his actions and suggest that together they contributed to them. Likewise, Egypt and Canaan together contextualize the depraved actions prohibited in Leviticus 18, in a pairing and correlation emphasized through stylistic repetition followed by a single summary, similarly formulated, that refers to both jointly:236 ֵ ‫ְ ּכ ַמ ֲע‬ ‫שבְתֶ ּם־ ָבּּה‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫שׁר י‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬K‫שׂה א ֶֶרץ־ ִמצ ְַריִם‬ ‫ֹלא תַ עֲׂשּו‬K ֵ ‫ּו ְכ ַמ ֲע‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁר ֲאנִי ֵמבִיא אֶתְ כֶם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬K‫שׂה א ֶֶרץ־ ְ ּכנַ ַען‬ ‫ֹלא תַ עֲׂשּו‬K ‫ש ָמּה‬ K‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ּו ְבחֻק ֹּתֵ י‬ ‫ֹלא תֵ לֵכּו‬K

As noted above, just such a degrading linkage between Dan and Canaan seems to take place in the critical story of Judges 18. Not only, then, does the story of the cursing exclaimer dramatically realize the fundamental ideas animating the Holiness Code, in particular those that characterize chapters 18 – 22, but it bears distinctive connections that make it a part of the literary frame and fabric. Indeed, beneath the strong echo of “Egypt and Canaan” one may also hear in Lev 24:10 – 23 reverberations of the full set of depraved actions that characterize them in Leviticus 18 – 20.237 Even more tightly, the frame opened in 18:1 – 5, including the reference to Egypt in v. 3, the emphasis on fulfilling Yahweh’s commandments, the high-stakes declaration K‫אני יהוה‬K, together with the threads constituted by the action K‫חל"ל שם‬K and the quality K‫קד"ש‬K, which begin in 18:21 and 19:2, respectively, and continue like a drumbeat through chapters 19 – 22, all come together with a rhetorical flourish in a climactic close in 22:31 – 33: K‫כם‬ ֶ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ּ ִ‫ְמקַד‬

K‫אנִי י ְה ָוה‬ ֲ ‫שׂיתֶ ם א ֹתָ ם‬ ִ ‫שמ ְַרתֶ ּם ִמצְֹותַ י ַו ֲע‬ ׁ ְ ‫ּו‬K ‫ש ָׂראֵל ֲאנִי י ְהוָה‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁתִ ּי ְבּתֹוְך ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ּ ַ‫שׁי ְונִקְד‬ ִ ְ‫שׁם קָד‬ ֵ ‫וְֹלא תְ ַח ְלּלּו אֶת־‬K K‫אנִי י ְה ָוה‬ ֲ ‫הַּמֹוצִיא אֶתְ כֶם ֵמא ֶֶרץ ִמצ ְַרי ִם ִלהְיֹות ָלכֶם לֵאֹלהִים‬K

And after a brief set of topics with fewer of the same concerns and concepts but linked primarily by the fairly germane notions of K‫מקרא קדש‬K – the voicing of sanctity – and of 238 K‫שבת‬K – temporally defined work-cessation – in 23:1 – 24:9, the cluster of elements in 22:31 – 33 comes to life in 24:10 – 23 in a dramatic illustration in the oracular novella about offense against the person and name of Yahweh – K‫קל"ל‬K and K‫נק"ב שם‬K – in the mouth of an Egyptian Israelite.239 236  The first two independent clauses are formulated as: comparative particle + sgl. object in construct + “land of GN” + relative clause + negation + 2nd pl. verb K‫עש"ה‬K. The single-clause summary that follows repeats the structure of particle + object in construct + negation + 2nd pl. verb. But the two previous instances of sgl. K‫מעשה‬K now add up to pl. K‫חקֹת‬K, the previously differentiated but equivalent K‫ארץ מצרים‬K and K‫ארץ כנען‬K are now referred to simultaneously as an undifferentiated plural in the pronominal suffix K‫־הם‬K, and the expression of mimicry shifts from comparative, fixed “doing”: K‫ כמעשה‬+ ‫עש״ה‬K to dynamic, willed, (self‑)subordinating “going”: K‫ בחקת‬+ ‫הל״ך‬K. 237   See the two midrashim on this in Lev. Rab. §§ 32:4 – 5 (2.742 – 744, 749 – 749). 238  On the expression K‫מקרא קדש‬K as referring to a proclamation of holiness and its place in Priestly thought, especially in Leviticus 23, see Schwartz, “Miqraʾ Qodesh,” 15 – 18. For the importance of K ‫שבת‬K and its relation to K‫קד"ש‬K in the preceding parts of the Holiness Code, note Lev 19:2 – 3. 239  Douglas correlates the malformations (K‫מום‬K) in Leviticus 21 – 22 and in 24:19 – 20 (“Forbidden Animals,” 19 – 20), but one refers to a condition for human and animal proximity and service to the deity whereas the other refers to the infliction of damage on humans.

92

Novella  I.  Lev  24:10 – 23

The matter can be put in the narrative terms of the different historiographical works. In the Yahwistic history, Yahweh emphasizes several times that Moses must warn the Israelites not to encroach the borders of the mountain, to the point that Moses questions Yahweh’s repetitiousness (Exod 19:10 – 15, 20 – 25). If, as argued, the crime depicted was precisely Israelites clamoring for a closer look at the deity, then it turns out that Yahweh was anxious for good reason; he knows his creatures. Likewise, Yahweh places repeated emphasis on the significance of his name and the importance of maintaining it precisely because he knows how easily his creatures can demean it; and so, in the novella, occurs. This view of the oracular novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 as bringing matters essential to the Holiness Code to a head dovetails with unrelated indications that it may once have served as the conclusion of the text. The laws of the sabbatical-year, the jubilee-year, land-sale, and slavery that follow the oracular novella begin, in 25:1, with the heading K‫וידבר יהוה אל משה בהר סיני לאמר‬K. On the one hand, such a remark by a narrator (not to be confused with the author) does not build upon, follow, or know the running narrative that precedes it, according to which Yahweh has moved from the sky into the tabernacle built for him at Mount Sinai and has been speaking to Moses fairly continuously from it ever since (Exod 40:17 – Lev 1:1). On the other hand, the remark functions to attribute the speech that follows to a particular moment known from tradition or from a different specific text and to accord it all the authority and attending ideas linked with that moment. Namely, the reference to Mount Sinai is not so much geographical as motivic and traditionary. It has the character, then, of the beginning of a scroll asserting its place in the Priestly history, more precisely, its general place among the scrolls that comprise the Priestly history.240 In this case, the oracular novella of Lev 24:10 – 23 will have originally concluded a scroll that contained the chapters preceding it – whether the main part of the Holiness Code, all of it, or even going further back into the Priestly history. In formal terms, the narrative episode climaxing with law serves to punctuate the series of divine speeches issuing law upon law, by representing the key concepts and features dramatically. Historiographically and normatively, it highlights and models the essential role played by law and the legal system in the camp.

240   Compare, e. g., Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.88: Elliger, Leviticus, 333; Milgrom, Leviticus 1.437 (cf. 3.2151 – 2152). It would be rash, however, to jump to the conclusion on this basis that the text that begins in Lev 25:1 was composed subsequent to the Holiness Code and under, as it were, its influence, and not contemporaneously or, for that matter, even beforehand with closely related ideas in mind and expressions at hand.

Novella II.

Num  9:1 – 14 The set of actions and activities denoted by the term Pesaḥ represents one of the most detailed, developed, and discussed topics by biblical authors. It appears in Exodus 12 at two different points in the narrative, in Exodus 23 (possibly) and 34, in Leviticus 23, in Numbers 9 and 28, in Deuteronomy 16, in Joshua 5, in 2 Kings 23, in Ezekiel 45, in 2 Chronicles 30 and 35, in Ezra 6, and in subtle ways elsewhere. It recurs in 1 Esdras 7, Jubilees, and even papyri and ostraca from Elephantine.1 Moreover, indications suggest that many of the biblical texts have undergone repeated revision and supplementation, radically so in some cases, all of which attests to ongoing deliberation and debate regarding its proper configuration and precise meaning.2 The analysis below aims to locate the oracular novella about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ in Num  9:1 – 14 among some of these other texts and conceptions. According to the oracular novella in Num 9:1 – 14, in the beginning of the second year since Israel’s exodus from Egypt (v. 1) and around the time of the tabernacle’s inauguration (Exod 40:2, 17; Leviticus 8 – 9; also Numbers 7 – 8), Yahweh issued the command that the Israelites ready themselves for the Pesaḥ on the fourteenth of that month (Num 9:2 – 4).3 When the day of the Pesaḥ arrived, several people approached Moses (and Aaron),4 explained that because they recently contracted corpse impurity they will be excluded from participation in the Pesaḥ, and petitioned him about it (vv. 5 – 7). Moses inquired of Yahweh, who ruled that anyone impure or K‫בדרך רחקה‬K “a far way off” at the time of the Pesaḥ will make it up by performing it one month later, in the following month of the year (vv. 8 – 14).

1   A comprehensive survey of all of the appearances of the Pesaḥ can be found in Segal, Hebrew Passover, 1 – 77. 2   See Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 43 – 222. 3   There is no reason to determine that Yahweh commanded Moses on the first of the month. If it was on the tenth of the month, one might have expected the text to indicate this explicitly (cf. Exod 12:3 + 6; Josh 4:19 + 5:10). 4  The disappearance of Aaron in vv. 7 – 9 and the inconsistency between the singular pronoun K‫אליו‬ K (v. 7) and the plural of Moses and Aaron (v. 6) indicate that the expression K‫ולפני אהרן‬K in v. 6 was inserted secondarily (Gray, Numbers, 84; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 493; Holzinger, Numeri, 35; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.137 – 138). It may be that Aaron was added to the episode as a partial assimilation to the incident of Zelophad’s daughters, in which the petitioners stand “before Eleazar” (Num 27:2); elsewhere it takes a priest to affirm impurity, but this is only for discoloration of various kinds (Leviticus 13 – 14), not for uncontrolled discharge of fluids (Leviticus 15) or corpse impurity (Numbers 19).

94

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

In its form and in its contents, the passage has several segments: (1) the performance of the Pesaḥ outside Egypt, in the wilderness, in vv. 1 – 5; (2) a legal question posed at the time of the Pesaḥ, in vv. 6 – 8; and (3) the law of the “make-up” Pesaḥ in the second month.5 The first segment (vv. 1 – 5) recounts that one year after the exodus from Egypt, Yahweh commanded Israel to perform the Pesaḥ in the wilderness. As expected, Moses relayed the instructions to Israel, and Israel faithfully carried them out. This modest section appears simple, straightforward and complete. All its expressions belong to classic Priestly idiom, and the story advances smoothly, again, according to the classic, ideal Priestly narrative pattern: notice of divine speech to Moses, with date, to start the story off (v. 1), the content of the speech (vv. 2 – 3), Moses’ transmission of the contents to Israel (v. 4), and Israel’s implementation of the directive, along with a stereotyped notice about the comprehensive and precise quality of Israel’s compliance (v. 5).6 K‫לֵאמֹר‬

‫שנִית ְלצֵאתָ ם ֵמא ֶֶרץ ִמצ ְַרי ִם ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ה ִָראׁשֹון‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫שנָה ַה‬ ּׁ ָ ‫שׁה ְבמִדְ ַבּר־סִינַי ַ ּב‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K K‫א ֹתֹו‬

8 K ‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ְ ‫אֶת־ ַה ָ ּפסַח‬ 9

‫ש ָׂראֵל‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְויַעֲׂשּו ְבנֵי־י‬K ‫שׂר־יֹום ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַהזֶּה ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם תַ ּעֲׂשּו‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ְב‬K 10 K ‫פטָיו תַ ּעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ָּ ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְבּמֹעֲדֹו ְ ּככָל־חֻק ֹּתָ יו ּו ְככָל־ ִמ‬K 11 K ‫פסַח‬ ּ ָ ‫ַה‬

K‫סִינַי‬

 5

7

(1) (2) (3)

‫ש ָׂראֵל ַלעֲש ֹׂת‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר מ‬K

(4)

‫שׂר יֹום לַח ֹדֶ ׁש ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם ְ ּבמִדְ ַבּר‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ָב ִּראׁשֹון ְב‬12‫ ַו ּי ַעֲׂשּו אֶת־ ַה ֶ ּפסַח‬K K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה ֵכּן עָׂשּו ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת־מ‬ ֶ ‫ ְכּכ ֹל ֲא‬K

(5)

  Milgrom in Milgrom and Avishur, Numbers, 60.   Concerning this typical character, see further Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 130. It is possible that this quality is one of the reasons for the many variants in this text.  7   There is no necessity for the many suggestions to emend this opening (for a convenient survey, see Kahana, Bamidbar, 27) or to reconstruct a previous version of the story (e. g., Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46); see the discussion below.  8  SP K‫מועדיו‬K, here and in vv. 3 and 7, reflects and anticipates the second date of the Pesaḥ that will be legislated in what follows. It seems likely that the plural form appeared first in v. 13, with the understanding that the verse refers to one who missed both the primary and secondary Pesaḥ dates, and then from there it entered the other verses. See further below.  9  Instead of K‫הזה‬K, which also appears in 4QLev-Numa (DJD 12), LXX reads: πρώτου (K‫הראשון‬K), seemingly due to vertical dittography from v. 1 K‫בחדש הראשון‬K, in the Hebrew text from which LXX was translated (in the Greek the expressions in vv. 1 and 3 are different). Following K‫הזה‬K in 4QLev-Numa is K‫ביום‬K (after which the text is cut off). Apparently, the scribe was confused by the following letters, K‫בין‬ ‫ה‬K (from K‫בין הערבים‬K), and read them as K‫ביום‬K. 10  SP K‫יעשו‬K in the initial clause of this verse seems like an instance of assimilation to v. 2, especially since this divergence does not recur in the final clause. LXX maintains the 2nd sing. *K‫תעשה‬K throughout the verse. It is possible that this reflects a sense that when Yahweh turns directly to Moses in order to give him information, he must do so in the singular and not in the plural. For other arguments that MT is original, see Paran, Priestly Style, 90 n. 94. See further below concerning this verse. 11  Because of the late language of v. 4, Ehrlich identifies it as secondary (Randglossen, 2.137). However, late language appears in additional verses, and it seems that the style in the direct transition from v. 3 to v. 5 is deficient to some extent, that is, v. 5 lacks an explicit subject. Although v. 4 is lacking in Tg. Ps.‑J., it may be that the verse was dropped because of the similarity between K‫תעשו אתו‬K in v. 3 and K‫ויעשו את‬K in v. 5. 12  This opening is missing in LXX, apparently due to the repetition of K‫פסח‬K in the end of v. 4 and in the end of this clause (either in the translation or in its source).  6

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

95

The second segment (vv. 6 – 8), which begins classically with the narrator’s K‫ויהי‬K, turns to the details of the day’s activities and recounts what in essence amounts to an exception to the preceding conclusion about the comprehensive and precise fulfillment of Yahweh’s instructions, in v. 5. This segment relates that in actuality one wrinkle did arise, people did bring a problem before Moses, and he did have to seek from Yahweh oracular guidance. Similar to the way in which the “crisis” segment of the oracular novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 concludes with the people putting the criminal in holding while Moses seeks a divine oracle (v. 12 K‫לפרש להם על פי יהוה‬K), Moses’ words to the petitioners to wait while he receives word (Num 9:8 ‫ם‬K ‫עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה יהוה לכ‬K) signal the end of the section or scene, and accordingly the text then moves to Yahweh’s response. ‫שׁר הָיּו ְט ֵמאִים ְלנֶפֶׁש‬ ֶ ‫שׁים ֲא‬ ִ ָ‫ ֲאנ‬13‫ ַו ּי ְהִי‬K K‫בּּיֹום הַהּוא‬ ַ ‫וְֹלא־יָכְלּו ַלעֲׂשת־ ַה ֶ ּפסַח‬K K‫בּּיֹום הַהּוא‬ ַ ‫שׁה ְו ִל ְפנֵי ַאהֲר ֹן‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַו ּי ִק ְְרבּו ִל ְפנֵי מ‬K K‫אלָיו‬ ֵ ‫שׁים ָה ֵה ָמּה‬ ִ ָ‫וַי ֹּאמְרּו ַה ֲאנ‬K K‫לנֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם‬ ְ ‫ ֲאנַחְנּו ְט ֵמאִים‬K K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫ ָל ָמּה נִגָ ַּרע ְל ִבלְתִ ּי ַהק ְִרב אֶת־ק ְָר ַבּן יהוה ְבּמֹעֲדֹו ְבּתֹוך ְ ּבנֵי י‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫וַי ֹּאמֶר ֲא ֵלהֶם מ‬K 14 K ‫לכֶם‬ ָ ‫ש ְמעָה מַה־י ְ ַצ ֶוּה יהוה‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִעמְדּו ְו ֶא‬K K‫ָאדָ ם‬

(6) (7) (8)

The third segment (vv. 9 – 14) begins in typical fashion, noting that Yahweh spoke to Moses “as follows” (v. 9). It cites Yahweh’s speech, the laws of offering the Pesaḥ on a secondary date, which first lay out the dispensation, then stipulate for an intentional miss, then conclude, again, in typical fashion, by noting the applicability of the laws of the Pesaḥ to the gēr as to the ʾezrāḥ (vv. 10 – 14). Notably, the segment does not close with a final remark that the impure Israelites indeed performed the Pesaḥ in the following month “according to all its rules and all its regulations” (v. 3), “according to all that Yahweh commanded Moses” (v. 5), “according to the entire ruling of the Pesaḥ” (v. 12), or “according to the ruling of the Pesaḥ and its regulation” (v. 14), as is said with respect to the primary Pesaḥ celebration, in its appropriate month (v. 5).15

13  LXX and SP read the plural here (καὶ παρεγένοντα and K‫ויהיו‬K, respectively), but “when the verb precedes it often does not maintain the gender and number (of its subject),” so Mendelssohn, Bamidbar, 48a; see further GKC § 145o, q; Joüon-Muraoka § 150j, q. Indeed, it seems that there is a phenomenon of textual witnesses correcting forms of this kind; see Tov, Textual Criticism, 91. 14  LXX περὶ ὑμῶν (*K‫עליכם‬K) and the versions of Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.‑J. (K‫על דילכון‬K) do not attest variants but are rather interpretive; see especially 2 Sam 14:8. In any case, it may be that K‫לכם‬K has an accusative meaning here (Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 493). See further Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 297; Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 136 – 137, concerning vv. 8, 10. On the accusative K‫ל‬K, see Joüon-Muraoka § 125k. 15   Such a conclusion would have advanced the story explicitly and deftly from the first month to the middle of the second month, a few days before the departure for Canaan (10:11). On its absence, see below.

96

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

K‫לֵאמֹר‬ K‫לַיהוה‬

K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶל מ‬K ‫ש ָׂראֵל‬ ְ ִ ‫דַ ּ ֵבּר אֶל ְ ּבנֵי י‬K

‫שׂה ֶפסַח‬ ָ ‫ ְו ָע‬17‫ ָלכֶם אֹו לְד ֹר ֹתֵ יכֶם‬16‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ִ ְהי ֶה־ ָטמֵא ָלנֶפֶׁש אֹו בְדֶ ֶרְך ְרחֹקָה‬K K‫בי ִם יַעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ּ ַ ‫שׂר יֹום ֵבּין ָהע ְַר‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫שנִי ְב‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫ ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַה‬K K‫כלֻהּו‬ ְ ‫עַל־מַּצֹות ּומְר ִֹרים י ֹא‬K K‫קר‬ ֶ ֹּ ‫שאִירּו ִמ ֶמּּנּו עַד־ב‬ ׁ ְ ַ ‫ֹלא־י‬K K‫בּרּו־בּו‬ ְ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ִ ‫ ְו ֶעצֶם ֹלא י‬K K‫פסַח יַעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ּ ֶ ‫ ְ ּככָל־ ֻח ַקּת ַה‬K ‫ ֹלא־ ָהי ָה ְוחָדַ ל ַלעֲׂשֹות‬19‫שׁר־הּוא טָהֹור ּובְדֶ ֶרְך‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬18‫ ְו ָהאִיׁש‬K K‫בּמֹעֲדֹו‬ ְ ‫ ְונִכ ְְרתָ ה ַה ּנֶפֶׁש ַההִוא ֵמ ַע ֶמּי ָה ִכּי ק ְָר ַבּן יהוה ֹלא ִהק ְִריב‬K K‫האִיׁש הַהּוא‬ ָ ‫שׂא‬ ּ ָ ִ ‫ ֶחטְאֹו י‬K

K‫סח‬ ַ ‫ַה ֶ ּפ‬

K‫לַיהוה‬

‫שׂה ֶפסַח‬ ָ ‫ ְוכִי־י ָגּור אִתְ ּכֶם גֵּר ְו ָע‬K ‫ש ָפּטֹו ֵכּן‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְ ּכ ֻח ַקּת ַה ֶ ּפסַח ּו ְכ ִמ‬K K‫ָָארץ‬ ֶ ‫ ֻח ָקּה ַאחַת י ִ ְהי ֶה ָלכֶם ְו ַלגֵּר ּו ְל ֶאז ְַרח ה‬K K‫שה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫י ַ ֲע‬

(9) (10) (11) (12)

(13)

(14)

Ehrlich evaluated the secondary date established for offering the Pesaḥ as “an innovation unlike any other in the entire Torah” – and justly so.20 There exists no other such commandment, especially within the framework of the holidays, that if unfulfilled enjoys a secondary opportunity for fulfillment on another date. The very concept of a holiday, K‫מועד‬K, stands on the basis of the holiness – the unique distinctiveness – of time, the restricted significance given to any particular point along the calendar. Therefore, one whom fate prevented from performing the observances connected with one such date should not have an alternate date set aside. In theory, the idea that one can make up the Pesaḥ offering on a secondary date stands in some tension with the idea that sacrifices and other rituals draw no small part of their power from the calendrical or otherwise temporal aspect that defines and organizes them.21 In Mesopotamia such a secondary make-up date has no parallel or counterpart.22 Hittite ritual law expressly rules the possibility out of bounds, forbidding it as of the utmost disrespect to the divine order.23 The oracular novella on the secondary date of the Pesaḥ contains an additional, 16  Regarding the dot that over the letter he in MT K‫דרך רחקה‬K, and the connection between it and the expression K‫דרך רחקה‬K, see Geiger, The Bible and Its Translations, 119, and the discussion below. 17  The reading K‫לדריכם‬K in 4QLev-Numa is characteristic of the Hebrew of the Qumran scrolls. On the phenomenon, see Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 67 – 68 (§ 330.3a). Apparently the identical form in the Aramaic translations points to Aramaic influence. 18  The noun is not definite in SP or LXX (K‫ואיש‬K and καὶ ἂνθρωπος respectively); see Num 19:14 – 20, esp. v. 20. For MT, see Deut 17:8 – 12. It is tempting to see the wording in SP and in LXX as original, because of the Priestly character of Numbers 19 and because the addition of the definite article is more likely than its dropping out. 19   LXX adds μακρᾷ. For the significance, see below. 20  Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 1.254. 21   For a brief critical review of the comprehensive work of Eliade in this area, see Smith, Map Is Not Territory, 88 – 103; for an extreme case when the Pesaḥ served as the sole focus of the complete calendar in ancient Christianity, see Smith, To Take Place, 88. 22   See Cohen, Cultic Calendars. 23   In “Instructions for Temple Officials,” § 9; see ANET, 208 – 209; COS, 1.217 – 221, esp. 219.

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

97

related innovation. In promoting the secondary date for the Pesaḥ, it makes the Pesaḥ so significant and its performance so essential that one who neglects to observe it suffers the consequence denoted by the verb K‫כר״ת‬K.24 The treatment below will analyze the oracular novella as a literary unit and the dating scheme promoted by it, and attempt to account for the innovations within it. First of all, according to the majority opinion in scholarship, the story in Num 9:1 – 14 represents an interpolation in its present location within the sequence of the Priestly history, and it was written subsequent to the history. It depends, so the argument goes, on the text about the Pesaḥ in Exodus 12. This opinion bases itself on a series of phenomena and considerations. For instance, the date at the head of the narrative (Num 9:1), in the beginning of the first month, makes the story out of chronological order, since the book of Numbers opens at the beginning of the second month (1:1). The story stands within a series of secondary passages, namely, 7:1 – 10:10. It contains anachronistic or anomalous material in the context of the wilderness, in 9:10, 13, 14. The language contains late features, such as K‫בחדש‬K in v. 3; K‫וידבר לעשות‬K in v. 4; and K‫בראשון‬K in v. 5. Its concepts are relatively late and reflect conditions in the Babylonian exile or afterwards in Judea, including the designation K‫קרבן יהוה‬K, in vv. 7, 13; the idea of performing the Pesaḥ in the wilderness, in vv. 1 – 5; and the idea that one can make up the Pesaḥ if one missed it, in vv. 6 – 13. The contents of the story depend literarily on other Priestly texts that are themselves secondary, specifically, Num 9:12 depends on Exod 12:46; moreover, they reveal a stage of greater development socially and in religious law than their predecessors, as suggested by a comparison of Num 9:14 with Exod 12:47 – 49.25 This point of view requires evaluation. The historical questions regarding the secondary date established for offering the Pesaḥ have not yet merited a conclusive solution. Such open questions include the source for the idea, the circumstances that give rise to it, and any relationships it may have with the delayed Pesaḥ conducted by Hezekiah as described in 2 Chronicles 30 and with the festival celebrated by Jeroboam as described in 1 Kgs 12:32 – 33. Relatedly, the literary quality of the novella needs to be analyzed. (a) Was it composed in a single literary act or in several stages? (b) Narratively, how does it fit into the Priestly history and its sequence? (c) Qualitatively, how does it fit into the Priestly and non-Priestly literature of the Hebrew Bible, with respect to its language, laws, 24  Note well: the noun K‫ ָכ ֵּרת‬K appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible; using the noun to denote what in the Hebrew Bible is depicted through the verb K‫כר״ת‬K is anachronistic and carries misleading connotations and implications. 25   For example, Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 161 (§ 40.5d), and see further in the commentaries. In the opinion of Smith (Parties and Polities, 181), Num 9:14 represents a more advanced stage than Exod 12:47 – 49 in that it assumes that the definition of the gēr already involves circumcision. For if the conclusion includes the gēr in the law of the second Pesaḥ, it is a sign that this alien is subject to the laws of Pesaḥ from the start. One can add the fact that the impure approaching Moses in the camp (v. 6) fits the concept that is reflected in the case of the red heifer in Numbers 19, that those who are impure from contact with the dead need not leave the camp. This notion contradicts the explicit law in Num  5:1 – 4 (cf. Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 1.253). There are indications that the case of the red heifer is later than the case of the sending away of the impure. See Milgrom, Numbers, 442 – 443.

98

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

and historical conceptions? The analysis below first treats the literary aspects of the text itself, then goes on to reconstruct the history or historical circumstances of the idea it promotes.

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative What kind of relationship characterizes the sequential chain of the three segments? Do they bear a strong level of interdependence, or are they fairly self-contained and merely juxtaposed with each other? In terms of source material and context, have any elements been incorporated and perhaps adapted from elsewhere, or have all of them been composed for their current point in the Priestly history? In literary-historical terms, do they belong to the same moment of composition, or has the chain of three segments developed over time? The first segment, about the Israelites performing the Pesaḥ in the wilderness, bears such a stereotypical character that it appears not to introduce any new elements to Priestly conceptions or idiom. The conclusion in v. 5 merely repeats in different order, in a single voice (the narrator’s), and in past tense the elements that appear in vv. 1 – 2 – Yahweh’s speech to Moses, the location of the Israelites in the Sinai wilderness, and the performance of the Pesaḥ at its proper time: Verse 5

Verses 1 – 2 ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת־מ‬ ֶ ‫ ְכּכ ֹל ֲא‬K ‫ ְ ּבמִדְ ַבּר סִינַי‬K ‫ ָב ִּראׁשֹון‬K ‫ש ָׂראֵל‬ ְ ִ ‫ ֵכּן עָׂשּו ְ ּבנֵי י‬. . . ‫ ַו ּי ַעֲׂשּו אֶת־ ַה ֶ ּפסַח‬K ‫שׂר יֹום לַח ֹדֶ ׁש ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ְב‬K

K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫אֶל־מ‬ K‫מצ ְַריִם‬ ִ

‫ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה‬

K‫בּר־סִינַי‬ ַ ְ‫ְבמִד‬

‫שנִית ְלצֵאתָ ם ֵמא ֶֶרץ‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫שנָה ַה‬ ּׁ ָ ‫ ַ ּב‬K K‫בּח ֹדֶ ׁש ה ִָראׁשֹון לֵאמֹר‬ ַ K‫סח‬ ַ ‫ש ָׂראֵל אֶת־ ַה ָ ּפ‬ ְ ִ ‫ְויַעֲׂשּו ְבנֵי־י‬ K‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ְ

From this hermetically self-contained frame one might infer, as does, for instance, Ibn Ezra (at v. 1), that the story serves to convey paradigmatically that the Israelites performed the Pesaḥ during all their years in wilderness. After all, one can equivocate regarding the implications of the Priestly passages in Exod 12:24; Lev 23:5; and Josh  5:10 – 11.26 Lest one suspect that Israel did not perform the Pesaḥ in the wilderness, this notice in the Priestly history serves to confirm they did.27 26   Concerning the Priestly origin of Exod 12:24, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 44 – 95, esp. 58 – 73. On Josh 5:10 – 11, see Kuenen, Hexateuch, 103 – 104 n. 48; Carpenter and HarfordBattersby, Hexateuch, 2.327 – 328; Nelson, Joshua, 74 – 75, 80. 27   There is no contradiction with Exod 12:25 – 27a (compare Ramban on Num 9:1), for this passage is not Priestly but rather a late mixture inflected with both Priestly and Deuteronomic idioms (see Kuenen, Hexateuch, 167 – 168 nn. 3 – 4; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 72 – 75, esp. 74; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 102; Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 269 [§ 60.6c]; Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 64 n. 44). If, as Gesundheit argues, Exod 12:14 – 17 was added to the description of the Pesaḥ of Egypt in order to transform the Pesaḥ into a festival of unleavened bread for future generations (ibid., 79 – 84), then it is possible that vv. 25 – 27a was added as a counter-response that distinguishes

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

99

Scholars have sought indications that the section constitutes an entirely independent, self-contained passage and that it once stood at a different point within the Priestly history. In their opinion, the indication for this view exists in the beginning of Yahweh’s speech in v. 2, specifically, the way the citation of the divine commandment begins with a verb formulated as wĕyiqṭōl: K‫ ְויַעֲׂשּו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו‬K. Taking the initial ‫וְ־‬K as a conjunction, they understand the formulation as problematic, and infer that the entire text once stood elsewhere, where it continued an earlier portion of a fuller divine speech.28 According to these scholars, the fact that the passage describes an event that belongs to the first part of the first month and currently sits in a larger section that describes events that belong to the second month, namely, between 1:1 and 10:11, makes the passage out of place and supports their view that the passage once stood at an earlier point in the Priestly history. However, in fact, the formulation of the opening verb as wĕyiqṭōl poses no linguistic problem whatsoever and does not signal that the passage went through any sort of dislocation or relocation within the Priestly history. It simply represents modality – encouragement, wish, and the like.29 To take one example, in Gen 27:27 – 28,30 Isaac comments to himself on the wonderful aroma of the field coming off Jacob’s clothes: 31 K‫ראה ריח בני כריח שדה אשר ברכו יהוה‬K, perhaps to induce the power of blessing, then he between what Israel practiced in the wilderness and the Pesaḥ in the land: when they enter the land they will reestablish the observance of the Pesaḥ as it was first described (compare ibid., 83). For a similar adjudication between two overlapping sets of laws, according to which one set belongs to the period of the wilderness and the second applies from the settlement in the land, compare: the instructions for (unleavened) flour and dough gifts in Num 15:1 – 13, 17 – 21 with those for unleavened flour and fresh-produce gifts in Lev 2:1 – 13, 14 – 16 (see also Lev 6:7 – 11 and Num 17:27 – 18:19, esp. 18:11 – 13); the instructions regarding violation remedies in Num 15:22 – 26, 27 – 29, 30 – 31 with those in Lev 4:1 – 12, 13 – 21, 22 – 26, 27 – 35; and the calendar of gifts in Numbers 28 – 29 with the calendar of gifts and practices in Leviticus 23 – all of which might turn on agricultural produce being inappropriate for the wilderness. For a similar argument about the daily gift construed differently in Exod 29:38 – 42; Num 28:3 – 8, on the one hand, and Lev 6:12 – 16, on the other, see Gesundheit, “The Development of the Tamid,” 148 – 149. Most take the phenomenon to indicate serial recomposition and interpolation. On Numbers 15 generally, see already Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 175; Kuenen, Hexateuch, 96 n. 38, 309 n. 28; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.210 – 211. On Num 15:22 – 29 in particular, see Toeg, “A Halakhic Midrash;” Milgrom, “Two Pericopes,” 211 – 215; Knohl, “The Sin Offering Law,” 1 – 10; idem, Sanctuary of Silence, 162 – 163. On Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 8 – 45. 28  Dillmann, Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46; Kuenen, Hexateuch, 93 n. 32; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 175. Compare the discussion in Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 129 – 131. 29   See Joüon-Muraoka § 177l; also: Driver, A Treatise, 54 (§ 50). Kellermann (Priesterschrift, 130 – 131) turns to Lev 16:2; 22:2; 24:2 in order to confirm the style of such an opening, but these texts are not parallel; he seems to have confused the difference between direct and indirect quotation, on the one hand, and direct and indirect address, on the other. 30   Ehrlich (Randglossen, 2.137) referred to this text, but he gave a harmonizing interpretation of the form (see already Rashi, Rashbam, and Sforno on Gen 27:27, and Sforno on Num 9:2). For the modal interpretation of Gen 27:27, see Saadia; Qimḥi, 27; Dillmann, Genesis, 330; Driver, Genesis, 258. 31  Ibn Ezra, 27:27: “K‫ראה‬K – speech to himself.” Sforno, 27:27: “K‫וירח את ריח בגדיו‬K – to unloose his soul with the pleasure of an aroma . . . K‫ויברכהו‬K  – similar to ‘and it happened that as the musician played, the hand of Yahweh came upon him’ (2 Kgs 3:15);” Knobel compares this to Gen 8:21 (Genesis, 227).

100

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

turns to Jacob to pronounce his blessing, and begins with a modal verb formulated as wĕyiqṭōl: ‫־לך האלהים מטל השמים ומשמני הארץ ורב דגן ותירש‬K‫ ְויִתֶ ּן‬K. The phenomenon exists in Num 20:3,32 also 1 Sam 24:20, likewise 2 Sam 24:3; 1 Kgs 18:23; 2 Kgs 7:13; Ps 5:12;33 119:41.34 A very similar instance, not only with respect to the specific formulation, but also with respect to the subject matter and role within the text, occurs in Exod 12:3: K‫להם איש שה לבית אבת שה לבית‬K ‫ ְויִקְחּו‬K‫בעשר לחדש הזה‬. Moreover, several indications in the text, internal and external, lead away from the suggestion that the passage serves to confirm that indeed the Israelites performed the Pesaḥ in the wilderness. They point, rather, toward a different function, the establishment of the setting for the situation that will ensue, in Num 9:6 ff.35 From the point of view of its literary shape – formulaic introduction by the narrator, Yahweh’s instructions in a speech to Moses, and formulaic conclusion reporting their fulfillment – the section resembles other sections within the Priestly history, for instance, the construction of the tabernacle, the inauguration of the altar, and the organization of the camp. These sections appear in this manner in the Priestly history not simply to make a point about the past, but rather to convey the significance of laws and patterns as paradigmatic, as precedent, as normative ever after. In the case of the Pesaḥ, what particular performative aspect does the story serve to highlight as paradigmatic? According to the literary cues within the history itself – without turning to theories about the text developed externally to it, such as its exilic provenance and its aim to promote the Pesaḥ offering outside the land – the most prominent, concrete, practical element consists of the utterly unique provision that will issue from the observance of the Pesaḥ in that paradigmatic first time in the wilderness – a “make-up” date. In addition, the section comprises five verses – not an insignificant chunk of text in biblical terms – yet as narrative, especially as Priestly narrative, it does not accomplish much. Yahweh commands, Moses transmits, the people perform. The story does not provide one detail from all the rich and varied Pesaḥ regulations laid out in Exod 12:1 – 24. In Gray’s understated description: “The author of the present section shows no very vivid realization of the passover in the wilderness.”36 Among all the formulaic, highly stylized verses that make up the passage, only a single, isolated detail stands out – the date of the Pesaḥ. Yahweh’s instructions cited to Moses conclude with reference to this detail: K‫ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו‬K (Num 9:2). Likewise, the conclusion of the section emphasizes Israel’s punctilious performance of the Pesaḥ, K‫ככל‬ ‫אשר צוה יהוה את משה כן עשו בני ישראל‬K (v. 5b), yet out of all the many details of observance 32

 Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 1.279.   For these examples and more, see Joüon-Muraoka § 177l. 34   See Maimoni on Gen 27:28. Translated thus in Wellhausen, Psalms, 131; Ehrlich, Psalmen, 306; NJPS. It is clear that the poet wished to begin every sentence within the stanza with waw, but this does not necessitate that every case of the waw is merely artificial. Note that the poet did not open any sentence in the stanza with nouns, only verbs. It may be that this conscious choice is due to the modality and the variety of nuances of this kind of verb. 35  Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 129 – 132. 36   Numbers, 83. 33

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

101

suggested by the statement, again, only one merits specification – the date: K‫ויעשו את‬ ‫הפסח בראשון בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בין הערבים‬K (v. 5a).37 Consistent with this narrow focus, in the next section the impure Israelites do not approach Moses before the date of the fourteenth, during the preparations for the Pesaḥ in the days leading up to it, but rather on the significant date itself (v. 6): K‫הַהּוא‬

K‫בּּיֹום הַהּוא‬ ַ ‫וְֹלא־יָכְלּו ַלעֲׂשת־ ַה ֶ ּפסַח‬K ‫שׁה ְו ִל ְפנֵי ַאהֲר ֹן ַבּּיֹום‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַו ּי ִק ְְרבּו ִל ְפנֵי מ‬K

In other words, other than Yahweh’s giving of instructions, all the action in the narrative takes place on the one significant day, and even Yahweh’s instructions themselves only serve to highlight that date.38 This emphasis on the date of the Pesaḥ points to the significance of the date and of the concept of a calendrical date to the passage overall and its message.39 Contrary to the next step one might naturally take in considering the significance of the date, oddly but importantly the text never coordinates it with the date of the exodus from Egypt. After the narrator’s formulaic opening in v. 1, which locates the coming speech and event in the Sinai wilderness and dates it according to the exodus, K‫וידבר יהוה אל משה במדבר סיני בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים בחדש הראשון לאמר‬K, the exodus from Egypt never resurfaces in any of the three sections of the episode.40 Even the motive clause for the consequence of K‫כר״ת‬K that will befall the person who would opt out of performing the Pesaḥ altogether, K‫כי קרבן יהוה לא הקריב במעדו‬K, fails to mention the exodus that took place after the original Pesaḥ and in essence as a result of it (v. 13). Given that within the story, for these Israelites the exodus occurred a mere year earlier and referring to it would have strong rhetorical force, its omission appears meaningful. Indeed, even in v. 1 the reference to the exodus does not appear in direct connection with the commandment to observe the Pesaḥ; it serves only to establish the precise year.41 The concept, then, of the date of the Pesaḥ highlighted in vv. 1 – 5 does not look backwards toward the exodus from Egypt, but forward to the date that will come in for discussion. It lays the groundwork for the segments to follow, the problem raised by the impure Israelites who could not offer the Pesaḥ K‫ביום ההוא‬K “on that day” (v. 6). Accordingly, echoing the formulation of Yahweh’s instructions (v. 2), the petitioners 37  The text in v. 3, which according to indications is an addition (see below), continues the trend. Compare the detail of the first half of the verse: K‫בארבעה עשר יום בחדש הזה בין הערבים תעשו אתו במעדו‬K, with the broad generality of the second half: K‫ככל חקתיו וככל משפטיו תעשו אתו‬K. 38   One might also infer that they became impure on the same day; otherwise, why wait until the day of the Pesaḥ rather than ask their question immediately upon contracting impurity? Indeed, such is the opinion in Sifre Zuta, at v. 6 (cf. below on v. 6, in Sifre Num. § 68, and in Tg. Ps.‑J.). 39   The influence of such a strong focus is evident in the book of Jubilees as well; see 49:1 – 2, 7, 10 – 12, 14, 15, 19. 40  Licht, Numbers, 1.140. 41   The passage concerning the Pesaḥ in the book of Jubilees takes care to establish this connection between the importance of the date and the history; see 49:2. Note that Exodus 12 describes what will happen that evening but it does not relate the events as they happen, while the book of Jubilees completes this description retrospectively (in the midst of tendentious changes).

102

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

themselves appear to give explicit emphasis to the date as the core element of their suit: K‫( למה נגרע לבלתי הקרב את קרבן יהוה במעדו‬v. 7). In theory, missing the opportunity to fulfill their obligation regarding the Pesaḥ speaks for itself, and their argument requires no such qualification – except to highlight it as of particular significance. To sum up, the first segment of the oracular novella, in vv. 1 – 5, focuses intently upon the primary date of the Pesaḥ and lays palpable stress upon it because it will feature as the very point of innovation in the regulation that will issue from the episode. This date serves as the basis for the “make-up” date that will result – exactly one month later. Indeed, the second and third segments maintain the emphasis on the date of the Pesaḥ. This thread, then, ties the segment about the Pesaḥ performed in the wilderness, in vv. 1 – 5, to the next two segments as their background.42 So did Ehrlich put it: In actuality, there is no need for this notice here about the Pesaḥ performed at its proper time; it is only mentioned in order to afford an opportunity to say, “There were people with corpse impurity etc.,” because from that incident the matter developed and the laws of the secondary Pesaḥ were given.43

The second segment of the oracular novella, in vv. 6 – 8, begins by describing the circumstance that certain Israelites could not participate in the Pesaḥ due to their having contracted corpse impurity. In essence, it backtracks to admit to an exception to the conclusion of the previous section, in v. 5, that Israel did all that Yahweh commanded and performed the Pesaḥ on its date. The section relates that these impure people approached Moses to pose their problem, and he replied that they should wait while he receives a response from Yahweh. At both of its ends, its beginning and its end, the section clearly has no standing as an independent text. The formulation draws from the previous section and relies upon it, as exemplified by the narrator’s use of the deictic particle in the expression K‫( ביום ההוא‬twice, in v. 6). The expression refers to a known day, a day named explicitly, and this antecedent occurs only in the previous section.44 More generally, the entire account in the second section presupposes some prior, larger setting, and no compelling reason exists to posit an alternative to the one present, in vv. 1 – 5. The section concludes in anticipation of closure not yet achieved and which will first come in the third section. When Moses tells the petitioners to await Yahweh’s response, K‫עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה יהוה לכם‬K (v. 8), the formulation simultaneously applies to the audience and says, “stay tuned.” From the point of view of its stress, this section too gives special place to the date of the Pesaḥ, just like the first section preceding it. Additionally, one should take note of the lack of narrative detail in this section. For instance, it does not provide the names of the impure Israelites petitioning Moses. It does not describe the circumstances under which they contracted corpse impurity – who 42   Given the segment’s construction out of stereotypical expressions and style, one expects the conclusion in v. 5 to refer to the subject explicitly in a fuller and more formal manner: “And the Israelites did so, etc.” Perhaps it is a case of overreaching to suggest that the end of v. 5 does not mention the explicit subject “Israelites” in order to hint subtly at the fact that not all of the Israelites actually performed the Pesaḥ, and in this manner to transition to the coming segment. 43   Literal Meaning, 1.253. 44  Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 129.

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

103

died, when, from what cause, and where. The account does not specify what relationship the impure Israelites bore to the corpse – or, for that matter, to each other. Did they belong to a single family and contract corpse impurity together in a natural way, or were they distantly related Israelites who chanced upon a corpse at the same time? Indeed, the story allows for the possibility that they did not even contract impurity together, but separately, from different corpses, in different places, on different days, each with his or her own story. From this dearth of information it stands to reason that this section serves entirely (1) to dramatize the problem of an Israelite who through no fault of his or her own, for perfectly legitimate reasons, cannot participate in the Pesaḥ45 and (2) to anchor the resolution that will follow – the secondary date for the performance of the Pesaḥ – in the mythical period of divine lawgiving, the wilderness period.46 From its opening, its end, its style, and its contents, then, all the indications point to vv. 6 – 8 as a pivotal, transitional section that manages the shift from the Pesaḥ performed by all Israel in the first month to the Pesaḥ of private individuals (and presumably their immediate households) in the second month. The mutual dependence of the first and second sections on each other – the first leads into the second and the second presupposes the first – leads to the conclusion they have been composed together.47 In the light of their shape as unresolved narrative and as stages laying the groundwork for the legal innovation that will follow in the third section, one should understand them to have been composed for the purpose of providing the narrative background to the legal innovation. It remains to ascertain, then, the character of the relationship between the two sections that, for all intents and purposes, make up the “action” portion of the passage, in vv. 1 – 8, and the third section, the amendment to the regulations about the Pesaḥ, in vv. 9 – 14. Do indications suggest that the third section once existed in some form without the narrative preceding it and the narrative was positioned ahead of it, or that the author who composed the first two sections composed the third as well? The condition of K‫דרך רחקה‬K (lit. “a far road”) in the law (v. 10) would seem to represent a main focal point in this question. In the story, the people prevented from participating in the Pesaḥ all suffer from impurity. None mention a problem of range – living too far, or having broken a leg, or being too old. As the Rabbis pointed out: “Yahweh spoke to Moses as follows: Speak to the Israelites as follows: Any man should he be impure by way of a corpse” – this is a provision that was asked about; “Or on a distant road” – this is a provision that was not asked about.”48 45  Compare the discursive style in the section on the Pesaḥ ahead of the exodus from Egypt. After establishing the principle of “one lamb per household” K‫שה לבית‬K (Exod 12:3), Yahweh continues to speak as if asking himself about the principle and then answering: “And if a household be too small for one lamb, it (that household) shall take one together with its closest neighbor(ing household)” K‫ואם ימעט‬ ‫שׂה ולקח הוא ושכנו הקרב אל ביתו‬ ֶ ‫הבית מהיות ִמ‬K (v. 4). 46   See Ezek  20:1 – 26, 33 – 38; also Jer  34:13 – 14. 47   In regards to the same conclusion, Kellermann remarked that there are no differences of style between them that justify their separation into different layers (Priesterschrift, 131). 48   Sifre Num. § 69.

104

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

Moreover, the very condition of range and proximity is entirely anomalous in the wilderness setting, at odds with the larger story, and anachronistic – like the concluding provision that applies the law to the gēr in v. 14, which can only hold meaning once Israel enters, possesses, and settles in the land of Canaan.49 Apparently, one ancient interpreter sensed the anachronism and responded to it by inserting the expression K‫לכם‬ ‫או לדרתיכם‬K after the first instance of the range provision, in v. 10. This qualification, which distinguishes between the current generation (K‫לכם‬K) and future generations (‫לדרתיכם‬K), occurs nowhere else in the Priestly history, which otherwise employs the expressions K‫לדרתיכם‬K or K‫לדרתם‬K to refer to both simultaneously – the present generation that receives the laws for the first time and those who will follow them – as indistinguishable from each other. The formulation K‫לכם או לדרתיכם‬K offsets the current generation as markedly different from those that will follow.50 In this spirit Ibn Ezra commented: K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ ָל‬K –

with respect to corpse impurity; ‫אֹו‬K – with respect to corpse impurity and range.

K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫לְד ֹר ֹתֵ י‬

From the theoretical perspective of the relationship between law and narrative, the situation in this oracular novella presents an interesting, complex case. On the one hand, it embodies and models the power of narrative to direct the meaning of law. On the other hand, an interpolator updated the language in a way that restricts the story’s ability to determine its meaning. Within the critical framework specific to analysis of biblical texts, the difficulties connected with the range-provision that distinguishes the law from the narrative leading up to the law have led scholars to several different conclusions. Milgrom argues that only secondarily did the abstract law enter the text with the story, and the addition of the law aimed precisely to alter and expand the terms of the story.51 In other words, specifically for the sake of the provision of range – the distinctive element – did someone add the law to the story. However, the law serves as the climax of the story; moreover, the story ends rather abruptly. In notable contrast to the oracular novella about the man who cursed the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 and, for that matter, the related novellas about gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36 and inheritance by daughters in 27:1 – 12, the storyline does not pick up after the lawgiving and conclude by relating that the impure performed their private Pesaḥ observances on the fourteenth 49

 Noth, Numbers, 64.  Note that despite the presence of abstract, casuistic wording in the parallel novellas, they have no such qualification; it does not appear in the episode of the curser (Lev 24:15 – 22) or in the episode of Zelophad’s daughters (Num 27:8 – 11), or, for that matter, in the counter-suit by the Gileadites (Num 36:8 – 9). Additionally, the definition is formulated in the second person plural, as opposed to the third person singular, which characterizes the remainder of the law. See also the discussion in Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 124 – 125. On the history of the term, see Hurvitz, Linguistic Survey, 98 – 101. A similar addition appears in LXX in v. 14, as well as in 15:14: ἐν τῇ γῇ ὑμῶν (K‫בארצכם‬K), probably based on Lev 19:33. Cf. Exod 12:48. 51  Milgrom, Numbers, 68. He also thinks that the transition from a specific case to a broader rule shows that a real case stands behind the law. See also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 102 – 104. 50

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

105

day in the second month just as Yahweh commanded Moses. The story, then, simply cannot exist without the law, and the suggestion that the law represents a secondary addition to the story is entirely untenable.52 Others identify just the limited expression K‫או בדרך רחקה‬K as a secondary insertion.53 The particle K‫או‬K does sometimes serve as a technical or quasi-technical signal of scribal expansion.54 If correct with respect to this instance, then one must also identify as an insertion the corresponding clause in v. 13, K‫ובדרך לא היה‬K, in the subparagraph that clarifies that the provisions are restrictive, not loosely illustrative, and that any other reason behind failing to perform the Pesaḥ leads to K‫כר״ת‬K. Likewise, in the light of the analysis of the clause K‫לכם או לדרתיכם‬K in v. 10 as secondary, one would have to identify that expression as an insertion on top of an insertion. So far no one has gone so far as to claim that such a series of successive insertions exists in this text.55 Analysis below will make it unnecessary to do so. Indeed, concern for the calendrical or seasonal integrity of offerings and the idea of range as one of several possible excuses by an offerer for delaying an offering have precedent and are not quite so anomalous.56 In marked contrast to the Priestly text, a set of Hittite temple regulations rules range out of bounds as legitimate grounds for such delay, warning temple functionaries: You who (are) the temple officials: if you do not perform the festivals at the time of the festivals; (if) you do the spring festival in fall, (or) the fall festival in spring, (or) if the right time for doing the festival (has) arrived, and he who is to do it comes to you . . . and he seizes your knees, (saying,) “The harvests (are) before me,” or a marriage or a journey or some other matter. “Let me off. Let that matter finish for me, and when that matter is finished for me, I will do the festival thus:” Do not do according to the wishes of (that) man. He must not persuade you. Do not conduct business concerning the will of the gods.57

A bribed temple functionary who allows such deferral of an obligatory offering on any of these illegitimate grounds can expect to suffer the punishment due him: (If) a man persuades you, and you take payment for yourselves, the gods will demand it of you at a later time. They will stand in evil against your spirit, wives, children, (and) servants.58

52

  For example, Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46.  Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 492; Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 17; see also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 103. 54   See Fishbane, ibid., 170 – 171. 55   The only exception to this is Ashley, Numbers, 179. 56  Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 43 – 44 n. 162. 57   “Instructions for Temple Officials,” § 9; COS 1.219 (translated by G. McMahon). See also ANET, 208 – 209. McMahon comments that the verb that he translated by “persuade” (freely, as indicated by his use of italics) is a medio-passive of the verb “to see,” i. e., to appear (before). Throughout the ancient Near East expressions for looking are used in the context of a visit to the temple or the palace, which typically would feature gifts (see Chavel, “The Face of God,” 7 – 22, esp. 20 – 22). It seems therefore that when the Hittite law speaks about “conducting business,” it refers to gifts such as these and has in mind a form of bribery. 58   “Instructions for Temple Officials,” § 9; COS 1.219. 53

106

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

A third opinion proposes that the law once existed without the story and that the author who composed the story took up only one of its provisions and spun the story out of it.59 The possibility of such a scenario does exist and the discussion below will present an argument on its behalf, but it remains unclear that the clause K‫או בדרך רחקה‬K can suffice to support it, for a single author could have worked in precisely the same manner, constructing the story and the law, and working only with one of the provisions he plans to include in it – especially since in this case, as pointed out above, the provision of range would place a large burden on the author. By definition, the author could only have Israelites claiming to be out of range at the time of the Pesaḥ approach Moses after the time of the Pesaḥ, which would undercut the kind of unity of time and action towards which the author, by all indications, appears to have worked.60 Moreover, the very provision does not appear to fit the larger history in which the story features. In the context of the Priestly history, who in the wilderness would wander from the camp too far to return in time for the Pesaḥ? Who would do so in the first year since the exodus, at Mount Sinai, with Moses about to erect the tabernacle or having just done so? More generally, there really exists no reason to presume that a story dramatizing a legal matter must represent every one of its possible provisions and facets.61 The clause K‫או בדרך רחקה‬K cannot provide the grounds for assessing the quality of the relationship between the two parts of the passage, the event, in vv. 1 – 8, and the lawgiving, in vv. 9 – 14. In the cautious formulation of Segal: “It is unlikely that any importance should be attached to the fact that the single qualification of vv. 6 – 7 is extended to two in vv. 10, 13.”62 A consideration noted tangentially above, developed more fully for its worth on its own terms, might have sufficient weight to tilt the scales on the question of the diachronic relationship between the narrative and the law in the passage. As pointed out, the first two sections of the story, in narrative terms, depend on each other and on the divine response that constitutes their climax and conclusion. In contrast, again, the formulation of the legal section is entirely self-contained and does not rely at all on the sections that precede it and lead up to it. Neither the narrator nor Yahweh, the only two voices in the section, refer to the events that have generated the current speech or to the impure Israelites awaiting the legal response (explicitly in v. 7: K‫עמדו ואשמעה‬K). As in so many other paragraphs in the Priestly history – paragraphs that list laws but without a triggering incident – the narrator reports that Yahweh spoke to Moses: 59  Holzinger, Numeri, 35; Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 129, who relied on a further distinction between K‫נפש‬K in v. 10 and K‫נפש אדם‬K in vv. 6 – 7, but this distinction is inconclusive. 60  In this direction, the Rabbis already understood the purpose of the story to be to illustrate the alacrity of Moses where the people are concerned, when he says, “Wait, so that I may hear what Yahweh commands concerning you” (K‫עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה יהוה לכם‬K; Num 9:8); likewise the story of the daughters of Zelophad: “And Moses brought their case before Yahweh” (K‫ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני יהוה‬K; Num 27:5). See the midrash in the Targums. 61  Segal, Hebrew Passover, 199 n. 3; cf. Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 131 – 132, also in regards to the story of the curser in Lev 24:10 – 23. 62   Hebrew Passover, 199 n. 1.

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

107

‫וידבר יהוה אל משה לאמר‬K (v. 9), cites Yahweh telling Moses that he should instruct the people as follows: K‫דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר‬K (v. 10a), continues the citation with Yahweh’s series of regulations (vv. 10b – 13), and concludes with a standard, unremarkable statement by Yahweh about the applicability of the law to the gēr (v. 14) – all, again, with no reference to the cause behind this particular set of regulations, to the immediate narrative situation. The text of the legal section does not depend on the incident that presents itself as having led to it, does not draw upon it, and does not show any sign of familiarity with it. Comparison with the other three oracular novellas throws the partial, incomplete character of the narrative outline of the novella about the secondary date for performing the Pesaḥ into high relief. In all three of the other oracular novellas Yahweh first makes explicit reference to the characters in the story who await his judgment, the case requiring it, and the terms defining it. In the instance of the daughters of Zelophad (Num 27:1 – 11), he reacts to the case at hand, mentions the daughters by name, and formulates his decision as a direct response to their specific query: K‫כן בנות צלפחד דברת‬K (v. 7a), going so far as to cast the decision (v. 7b) in the very terms of their petition (v. 4b). Daughters of Zelophad (v. 4b): Yahweh (v. 7b):

K‫ָאבִינּו‬

K‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ֲאבִי‬

‫תְ ּנָה־    ָלּנּו  ֲא ֻחזָּה      ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי‬K ‫נָת ֹן תִ ּתֶ ּן ָלהֶם ֲא ֻחזַּת נַ ֲחלָה ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי‬K

Similarly, in the story of the man caught violating the Sabbath (15:32 – 36), Yahweh hands down a case ruling the formulation of which presupposes the account of the incident: K‫מות יומת האיש‬K (v. 35), with oblique reference to “the man” depicted anonymously in the story (vv. 32 – 34).63 Likewise for the case of the man who cursed the deity and exclaimed his name in desperation (Lev 24:10 – 23). Yahweh issues a specific case ruling: K‫הוצא את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה וסמכו כל השמעים את ידיהם על ראשו ורגמו אתו כל‬ ‫העדה‬K (v. 14). Only after this specific ruling, which refers explicitly to the case described beforehand, does Yahweh formulate abstract laws (Lev 24:15 ff.; Num 27:18 ff.). In all these cases, the decision to the immediate case at hand serves as a transition that links the abstract law to the narrative case. In the oracular novella about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ such a transitioning section does not exist. One can detail further how this transition from the specific case to the abstract formulation works, which makes its omission in Num 9:1 – 14 more palpable and significant. The style of the transition represents the abstract law as the intended and explicit continuation of the law formulated as the decision for the case. Yahweh says, K‫ואל בני‬ ‫ישראל תדבר לאמר‬K (Lev 24:15; Num 27:8), rather than begin in more formal, disjunctive, isolated terms, such as K‫דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם‬K64 or K‫דבר אל בני ישראל לאמר‬K65 and other 63   For the sake of narratological precision: the text is elliptical in that, in fact, Yahweh does not refer to the event narrated in real time in vv. 32 – 24, but rather to the case that Moses presented to him, in the narrative “gap” between v. 34 and v. 35. 64   Fourteen times: Lev 1:2; 15:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10; 25:2; 27:2; Num 5:12; 6:2; 15:2, 18, 38; 33:51; 35:10. 65   Ten times: Exod 31:13; Lev 4:2; 7:23, 29; 11:2; 12:2; 23:24, 34; Num 9:10; Josh 20:2.

108

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

introductory formulations like them.66 Again, compare the follow-up passage about the Gileadites, in which the narrator presents Yahweh’s abstract law only in Moses’ voice, as he relays Yahweh’s decision to the petitioners (Num 36:5 – 9): K‫ויצו משה את בני ישראל‬ ‫ כן מטה בני יוסף דברים זה הדבר אשר צוה יהוה לבנות צלפחד לאמר‬:‫על פי יהוה לאמר‬K. Seen against this group of parallel passages, the other oracular novellas, the law of the deferred Pesaḥ stands out. It does not make use of this kind of transition and it does not refer back to the narrative setting, the impure people awaiting divine instruction in response to their question. The legal section of the passage opens with a formulation that suits the beginning of something new. Similarly, as noted briefly above, each one of the other oracular novellas concludes by stating that Israel carried out Yahweh’s instructions. This formal statement serves to complete the narrative arc. In each episode, the first stage of the story, the background, relates the event or the circumstances that precipitate the crisis and the oracular question posed. In the second stage, the climax, Yahweh gives his reply – instruction. The third stage, the conclusion, describes the Israelites acting or having acted in accordance with Yahweh’s will. Put more abstractly, the structure of these texts, their narrative arc, consists rather starkly of cause (a crisis), Yahweh’s intervention and guidance, and effect (resolution). In the story of the curser, the narrator describes the criminal receiving the punishment due him: K‫ויוציאו את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה וירגמו אתו‬ ‫אבן ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K (Lev 24:23). In the case of the Sabbath violator, the narrator concludes the story by relating his punishment too: K‫ויציאו אתו כל העדה אל‬ ‫מחוץ למחנה וירגמו אתו באבנים וימת כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K (Num 15:36). This narrative tendency to bring the story full circle in explicit manner characterizes as well the episode of the daughters of Zelophad and its follow-up in the episode of the Gileadites – somewhat emphatically, at that. Clearly, after Yahweh accepts the petition of the daughters, the story cannot conclude by narrating in present story-time that the daughters went and took as inheritance their father’s portion as Yahweh had ruled, since the Israelites have yet to enter Canaan (36:13); the tribes of Reuben and Gad did not yet pose their request to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan (Numbers 32*; Josh 17:1 – 7).67 Still, the episode manages to conclude with the statement: K‫והיתה לבני‬ ‫ישראל לחקת משפט כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K (Num 27:11).68 Likewise, in the passage in which the Gileadites submit a counter-petition and Moses relays that Yahweh determined that indeed Zelophad’s daughters should marry their cousins, there appears in rather emphatic detail the proleptic conclusion (36:10 – 12): K‫שׁים‬ ִ ָ‫ְלנ‬

66

K‫חד‬ ָ ‫שׁה ֵכּן עָׂשּו בְנֹות ְצ ָל ְפ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת־מ‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K ‫וַתִ ּ ְהי ֶינָה ַמ ְחלָה תִ ְרצָה ְו ָחגְלָה ּו ִמ ְל ָכּה וְנֹעָה ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד ִל ְבנֵי ד ֹדֵ יהֶן‬K K‫שׁים‬ ִ ָ‫שׁה בֶן־יֹוסֵף הָיּו ְלנ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ש ְפּח ֹת ְ ּבנֵי־ ְמנ‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִמ ִ ּמ‬K K‫הן‬ ֶ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ֲאבִי‬ ׁ ְ ‫וַתְ ּהִי נַ ֲחלָתָ ן עַל־ ַמ ֵטּה ִמ‬K

  Sensitivity to the different formulations undergirds the midrash in Sifre Num. § 134 (178 ll. 8 – 9).   Marquis, “The Composition of Numbers 32,” carries out a careful source-critical analysis of Numbers 32, isolates the Priestly narrative within it, and shows it did not include (the “half-tribe” of) Manasseh. 68   On this complex text, see the discussion below in the chapter on the daughters of Zelophad. 67

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

109

Particularly telling, at no specific time or place, in no specific set of circumstances other than generally taking place after the Israelites left Egypt, Yahweh instructs Moses and Aaron in the “rule of the Pesaḥ” (Exod 12:43 – 49). Though the Israelites have completed the Pesaḥ just a short time earlier and are nowhere near the date of the next one, and though the terms of the rules patently apply to conditions in Canaan, which still lay in the future, the author has the narrator state that the Israelites did indeed perform the Pesaḥ according to these rules (v. 50). With respect to this characteristic too, against the style and internal dynamic of the oracular novellas and other Priestly episodes to achieve full narrative closure and highlight the compliant nature of the Israelites, the episode about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ does not conclude by stating that one month later the impure made sure to fulfill the terms of Yahweh’s response to their query and perform the Pesaḥ enjoined upon them. In this instance, moreover, such a conclusion would elegantly serve the interests of the narrative flow within the broader history by advancing time from the first month, when this event and other matters take place (Numbers 7 – 8), to the second month, when the Israelites break camp and embark on their journey to Canaan (10:11 ff.).69 These omissions, namely, the case ruling that refers directly to the narrative, a transition to the abstract law, and a compliance report that achieves narrative closure, all together tend to indicate that the text of this oracular novella has a literary history to it, that it developed in stages. It appears that the law, which makes no reference to the story that introduces it and the discourse of which does not depend upon it, existed once apart from it and independently of it.70 The author who sought to incorporate the law as a part of the Priestly history by giving it a narrative introduction did not take the trouble to fill in all the narrative components.71 An additional indication of this literary history may exist in the clause K‫ועשה פסח‬ ‫ליהוה‬K in v. 10. This clause stands at exactly that point in the law between the hypothetical case and the decision ruled for it, in such a way as to raise the question whether it belongs to the case outlined immediately before it in v. 1072 or, against the present versification and Masoretic notation, to the ruling that continues in vv. 11 – 12,73 namely, whether the verb K‫שה‬ ׂ ָ ‫ ְו ָע‬K formulated as wĕqāṭal belongs to the protasis and 69   The absence of this conclusion renders the possibility of reading the whole story in the pluperfect (as is the strategy of Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 129; see also Segal, Hebrew Passover, 192, 199) rather unconvincing. Without a clear indication in the episode itself that the main story takes place in the second month and all of the rest is in the realm of analepsis, the context cannot provide such, especially in this case, where the previous chapters are also dated before the first of the second month (cf. 7:1 with 1:1) and there is no internal hint that they are narrated from the point of view of the second month or any other “future” point. See further Gray, Numbers, 82. 70   The lack of data about such prior stages and authors’ use of such prior materials cannot gainsay the literary evidence. This matter will return in the discussions of Num 15:32 – 36 and 27:1 – 11. 71   See Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 90. 72  Mendelssohn, Bamidbar, 50a; NJPS; JPS; Fox, Five Books of Moses; Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 294, 297; Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 137. 73   LXX (Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 137); Noth, Numbers, 65. Such is the division of Tg. Ps.‑J.; Segal, Hebrew Passover, 58. See also: Buber, Die Fünf Bücher der Weisung, and many other translations, for example: NJB; JB; NKJV; NRSV; RSV; KJV; NIV.

110

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

conveys intent to do the Pesaḥ or begins the apodosis and conveys the command to do the Pesaḥ. Reading the clause as a command that begins the apodosis gives the apodosis the classic Priestly shape of the circular inclusio. condition: result:

K‫א ֹתֹו‬

K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ִ ְהי ֶה־ ָטמֵא ָלנֶפֶׁש אֹו בְדֶ ֶרְך ְרחֹקָה ָלכֶם אֹו לְד ֹר ֹתֵ י‬K ‫שׂר יֹום ֵבּין ַהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם יַעֲׂשּו‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫שנִי ְב‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫ְועָשָ ׂה ֶפסַח לַיהוה ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַה‬

However, it also makes it difficult to separate the law from the story that precedes it in vv. 1 – 8, for the protasis skips over the most important element to the determination of the case – the Pesaḥ that the impure and the far away cannot perform. Between K ‫לדרתיכם‬K and K‫ועשה‬K one seeks a clause on the order of *K‫ולא יכל לעשות הפסח במועדו‬K (see v. 6). Such an ellipsis relies on the knowledge of the story that has led up to the law. This conclusion could then indicate a synchronic relationship between the two passages. The story leads to the law and finds its resolution in it, and the elliptical formulation of the law relies on the facts already presented in the narrative. However, this kind of gapped formulation, which leaves out precisely the definitive element of the case, does not suit an abstract legal formulation, meant for subsequent generations as such. Comparison with the oracular novella about the daughters of Zelophad will prove illuminating. Without the crucial clause K‫ובן אין לו‬K the ruling legislated would read nonsensically as such, regardless of the context that would render it intelligible: K‫ והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו‬. . . ‫איש כי ימות‬K (Num 27:8). Moreover, good reasons exist to read the clause as the final part of the protasis and expressing volition or intent,74 and to see the apodosis as beginning first in v. 11. condition: result:

K‫לַיהוה‬

‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ִ ְהי ֶה־ ָטמֵא ָלנֶפֶׁש אֹו בְדֶ ֶרְך ְרחֹקָה ָלכֶם אֹו לְד ֹר ֹתֵ יכֶם ְועָשָ ׂה ֶפסַח‬K K‫בי ִם יַעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ּ ַ ‫שׂר יֹום ֵבּין ַהע ְַר‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫שנִי ְב‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫ ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַה‬K

First of all, within the law of the secondary date of the Pesaḥ, the author has included a subsequent section that warns about failing to perform the Pesaḥ, and he formulated it as the mirror image of the initial set of conditions described in the protasis in v. 10. Verse 13: Verse 10:

K‫סח‬ ַ ‫ַה ֶ ּפ‬

‫ְוחָדַ ל ַלעֲׂשֹות‬ ‫שׂה ֶפסַח‬ ָ ‫ְו ָע‬

K‫לַיהוה‬

‫ּובְדֶ ֶרְך ֹלא־ ָהי ָה‬ . . . ‫אֹו בְדֶ ֶרְך ְרחֹקָה‬

‫טָהֹור‬ ‫ָטמֵא ָלנֶפֶׁש‬

‫שׁר־הּוא‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ָהאִיׁש ֲא‬K ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ִ ְהי ֶה־‬K

Correlating with the impure person and the one far away in the protasis in v. 10, the warning in v. 13 discusses the pure person and the one not too far away. Then the warning in v. 13 explains the key element “and refrained from doing the Pesaḥ.” This matter of intent correlates with the last clause in v. 10 and represents its negative, which demonstrates that it belongs with the protasis and means, “and intended to do the Pesaḥ.” A parallel formulation in Exod 12:48 further supports this understanding of the last clause of Num 9:10. Coming at the end of a section of Pesaḥ rules, including who may 74  It seems that R. Akiba also understood in this manner: “[The text] speaks of the ‘impure of corpse’ (K‫טמא מת‬K) and of the ‘too distant’ (K‫דרך רחוקה‬K). Just like the impure of corpse wished to do but could not, so too the too-distant wished to do but could not” (t. Pes. 8:2; Sifre Num. § 69). For the phenomenon of a verb of action which expresses intent, will, and so on, without implementation, see Joüon-Muraoka § 119w.

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

111

participate in the Pesaḥ (vv. 43 – 45), the law states: K‫וכי יגור אתך גר ועשה פסח ליהוה המול‬ ‫לו כל זכר ואז יקרב לעשתו והיה כאזרח הארץ וכל ערל לא יאכל בו‬K. Were the clause K‫ועשה פסח ליהוה‬ K the beginning of the apodosis, the law would then command all immigrants to perform the Pesaḥ and moreover to circumcise all male members of their households. In addition to the anomaly of such a law in the Hebrew Bible, the specific details of the formulation of the law also speak against it. All four of the clauses that follow the words K‫ועשה פסח ליהוה‬K and comprise the apodosis focus only on circumcision; moreover, the stress conveyed by the double conjunction K‫ואז‬K “and then” indicates not only the conditionality of circumcision for participation in the observance of the Pesaḥ, but also that this very conditionality represents the real topic of the law. Taken together, these aspects of the formulation demonstrate that circumcision as a condition for participation in the Pesaḥ represents the only topic of the law. Here too, then, the phrase K‫ועשה‬ ‫פסח ליהוה‬K belongs to the protasis and conveys the protagonist’s intent:75 condition: result:

K‫ּבֹו‬

K‫פסַח לַיהוה‬ ֶ ‫שׂה‬ ָ ‫ ְוכִי־י ָגּור אִתְ ָּך גֵּר ְו ָע‬K ‫ָָארץ ְוכָל־ע ֵָרל ֹלא־י ֹאכַל‬ ֶ ‫הִּמֹול לֹו כָל־זָכָר וְָאז יִק ְַרב ַלעֲש ֹׂתֹו ְו ָהי ָה ְ ּכ ֶאז ֶַרח ה‬K

Likewise, the statement about the equal applicability of the law to the gēr in Num 9:14 parallels quite clearly the one in Exod 12:48 – 49: Exod  12:48 – 49: Num 9:14:

K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ְבּתֹו ְכ‬ K‫ָָארץ‬ ֶ ‫ה‬

‫ּתֹורה ַאחַת י ִ ְהי ֶה ַל ֶאז ְָרח ְו ַלגֵּר ַהגָּר‬ ָ . . . ‫שׂה ֶפסַח לַיהוה‬ ָ ‫ ְוכִי־י ָגּור אִתְ ָּך גֵּר ְו ָע‬K ‫ ֻח ָקּה ַאחַת י ִ ְהי ֶה ָלכֶם ְו ַלגֵּר ּו ְל ֶאז ְַרח‬. . . ‫שׂה ֶפסַח לַיהוה‬ ָ ‫ ְוכִי־י ָגּור אִתְ ּכֶם גֵּר ְו ָע‬K

In this case, too, the clause K‫שׂה ֶפסַח לַיהוה‬ ָ ‫ ְו ָע‬K belongs to the protasis and refers to the intent of the gēr.76 In noting the place of the clause K‫ועשה פסח ליהוה‬K throughout the legal paragraph about the secondary date for the Pesaḥ in Num 9:9 – 14, it emerges that the paragraph has three balanced parts, each of which has a protasis defined by the clause – the main topic, the warning, and the conclusion:77 Verse 10: Verse 13: Verse 14:

K‫לַיהוה‬

‫שׂה ֶפסַח‬ ָ ‫ְו ָע‬ ‫ְוחָדַ ל ַלעֲׂשֹות‬ ֶ ‫שׂה‬ ָ ‫ְו ָע‬ K‫פסַח לַיהוה‬

K‫סח‬ ַ ‫ַה ֶ ּפ‬

. . . ‫אֹו בְדֶ ֶרְך ְרחֹקָה‬ ‫ּובְדֶ ֶרְך ֹלא־ ָהי ָה‬

‫ָטמֵא ָלנֶפֶׁש‬ ‫טָהֹור‬

‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ִ ְהי ֶה־‬K ‫שׁר־הּוא‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ָהאִיׁש ֲא‬K ‫ ְוכִי־י ָגּור אִתְ ּכֶם גֵּר‬K

What all this reasoning works to determine is that, formulated in this manner, the law remains discursively independent of the narrative that frames it. It does not refer back to it or presuppose anything said in it. An additional consideration supports the argument. In this instance, one can make a fairly strong case as to why an author would add a story to the law. Without the story, 75  Mendelssohn, Shemot, 68a – b; Joüon-Muraoka, ibid.; see further Num 15:14: K‫וכי יגור אתכם גר‬ ‫ ועשה אשה ריח ניחוח ליהוה כאשר תעשו כן יעשה‬. . .K. Also there, it appears that the clause K‫ ליהוה‬. . . ‫ועשה אשה‬ belongs to the condition, for the question in the passage is not whether or not the gēr brings an offering but rather what would be its laws. This direction is indeed highlighted by a four-fold repetition in the continuation of the law (vv. 14b – 16): K‫ חקת עולם‬. . . ‫ הקהל חקה אחת לכם ולגר הגר‬. . . ‫כאשר תעשו כן יעשה‬ ‫ תורה אחת ומשפט אחד יהיה לכם ולגר הגר אתכם‬. . . ‫לדרתיכם ככם כגר יהיה לפני יהוה‬K. 76  Mendelssohn, Bamidbar, 50b. 77   See further Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 139; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1973.

112

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

the law does not by itself have a natural opportunity within the running Priestly history in which to make its appearance.78 From the point of view of the subject matter, one would instinctively consider Exodus 12, the Pesaḥ in Egypt, the most appropriate location for the topic of the secondary date of the Pesaḥ. Indeed another series of rules about the Pesaḥ already appears there (vv. 43 – 50). But locating the secondary Pesaḥ date in this text would create a glaring anachronism, since basic aspects of it entail concepts that the Priestly history has not developed or even mentioned yet – impurity and sacred offerings. The Priestly history does not introduce these concepts until after the construction of the tabernacle, almost one year after the Pesaḥ in Egypt and the exodus; the connection between them, that an impure person may not partake of a well-being offering, first appears among the rules publicized once the tabernacle went up, in Lev 7:20 – 21. The impure know they cannot partake of the Pesaḥ meat because it falls under the rubric of sacred offerings.79 Likewise, the first passage to emphasize the connection between such offerings and their one designated site appears in Leviticus 17, which describes slaughter (K‫זב״ח‬K) outside the tabernacle precincts “in the open fields” (K‫על פני השדה‬K) as oriented towards “goat demons” (K‫לשעירים‬K), and prohibits it entirely (vv. 1 – 7). In the passage in Exodus 12 about the Pesaḥ in Egypt, impurity goes unmentioned and plays no role, and slaughter and all the other activities described indeed take place in and around the home.80 From Leviticus 17 and on, the list of holidays in chapter 23 would seem to present itself as a logical candidate. However, one can understand why an author might balk at including the elaborate law of the secondary Pesaḥ date in it. The calendar does not mention anything about the Pesaḥ other than the date; it does not describe it, list any of its laws or activities, or note its significance: K‫בחדש הראשון בארבעה עשר לחדש בין הערבים‬ ‫פסח ליהוה‬K (v. 5). It would create quite an anomalous imbalance, to say the least, to have following this reticent, oblique statement of one short verse an entire paragraph several verses long about a contingency in its performance. More generally, calendars do not generally have the character of complex series of casuistic paragraphs and sub-paragraphs organized topically, logically, and juridically like legal collections. In the main, Leviticus 23 appears as a list of apodictic statements or entries organized by date. The paragraph of the secondary date of the Pesaḥ, by contrast, bears a classic casuistic formulation. The exception within Leviticus 23 does not undermine the likelihood of this kind of thinking having passed through the mind of an interpolating author. The one paragraph formulated so as to open with a subordinate temporal clause, the one on the ʿōmer of grain and the first-fruit in vv. 9 – 22, does not expand upon a topic treated already in general terms beforehand; rather it serves to present the subject in its entirety. Moreover, it does not cover a hypothetical circumstance that may or may 78   This does not mean that an interpolator cannot have added laws to an existing text in a most mechanical fashion; clearly there are additions of this kind. But it should not be surprising to come across an interpolator who cared about this aspect of his work. 79  Knobel, Exodus und Leviticus, 439. 80   On the differences between the Pesaḥ in Exodus 12 and the Pesaḥ in Numbers 9, see further below.

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

113

not affect any given Israelite; it simply demarcates the first moment when the practice must go into effect. Finally and most importantly, it does so because, whereas other practices legislated in the Priestly history are presumed to go into effect immediately, this one does not; it must wait for entry into the arable land of Canaan.81 Nowhere else in the Priestly history does the topic of the secondary date of the Pesaḥ fit as it does in these, and in these, as said, its inclusion would cause various kinds of literary anomalies – historiographical, logical, and stylistic. One can readily imagine, then, why an author would consider it worthwhile to provide the law with a narrative frame that would incorporate it into the running history. Locating it in the wilderness generally situates it in the mythic period when Yahweh gave Israel all its laws. The specific dates of the episode, an inseparable part of the story, fit right in with the Priestly chronology. Moreover, the date together with the story anchor the law in the first Pesaḥ since the exodus from Egypt, namely, at the earliest possible moment of relevance and applicability, which signifies that it constitutes an integral part of the Pesaḥ itself, not a tangential aspect of it. The location of the episode within the Priestly history derives from the Priestly historiographical principle that the cult and the system supporting it first begin with the tabernacle.82 The cluster of indications and considerations worked out above gives particular credence to the argument that an author added the specific narrative component of the passage to the law in order to lay the historical groundwork for the law. The style of the story, barebones and constructed from the terms and concepts of the law it means to introduce, matches that of the curser in Lev 24:10 – 23. In contrast, however, once the text reaches the climax of the episode, the legislation about the deferred Pesaḥ, it ends abruptly, dispensing altogether with the narrative elements of the case ruling, the transition to abstract law, and the conclusion. This lack of closure diverges rather markedly not only from the curser episode, but from the Priestly historiography more generally, and suggests a different author, one who adds to the history secondarily, even if the law itself may have predated it. The conclusion that the passage comes from a secondary hand does not differ significantly from mainstream scholarly opinion, but the argumentation and the conclusion that the law represents the original element do.83 Importantly, the analysis has the additional result that the elements in the passage that mark it as linguistically late all occur in the story, not in the law, which opens up the possibility that the idea or practice of a secondary date for the Pesaḥ does not represent a particularly late innovation, but might have an earlier origin.84 From the point of view of the Priestly historiography and its ritual principles, this story about the first Pesaḥ celebrated since the exodus from Egypt, which anchors any laws about it at the first possible point, gives unequivocal expression to the utter uniqueness of the Pesaḥ as performed in Egypt, to its anomalous character. The novella 81

  See the discussions in Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 8 – 45; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1947 – 2080.   Concerning this historiographical principle, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 34 – 38, 338 – 341. 83   Kellermann drew the same conclusion, but on different grounds (Priesterschrift, 129 – 132). However, the main difference between the conclusions here and those of Kellermann is in fact in the analysis of the laws; see below in comparison to ibid., 124 – 128. 84  Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 90. See already Licht, Numbers, 1.135, 138 – 139. 82

114

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

represents the first instance in the Priestly history in which the performance of the Pesaḥ depends on purity and on access to a specific site, and it is the only text to link these stipulations to the first Pesaḥ in the wilderness – as a function of the existence of the tabernacle and the rules and regimens that derive from it. So explained Rashbam (at v. 2): “Because the Pesaḥ in Egypt lasted only one day and was unlike the rest of the sacred offerings, now, when the tabernacle has been constructed, it has become necessary to command that they perform it according to its essential observance for (subsequent) generations and not according to the Pesaḥ in Egypt.”85 This idea of the Pesaḥ having a different character after Egypt occurs in other biblical sources. According to the Deuteronomic literature, the Pesaḥ should change with the construction of the temple, whether that should take place immediately upon entering the land of Canaan or only after achieving respite and security from all enemies (11:31 – 12:12; 16:1 – 8).86 So also intimates the calendar in Exod 34:10 – 26, the frame of which connects it to entry into the land (vv. 11 – 16, 18, 21 – 22, 24, 26).87 In fact, within the historiographical tradition, circumstances did not make the changed character of the Pesaḥ possible until Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 4:20 – 5:5, 16 – 19; 8:56), and the Pesaḥ only underwent the desired alteration in the days of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:21 – 23) or Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 30). By contrast, in the narrative about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14, the Pesaḥ already changes its character only one year after the exodus from Egypt, at its first observance in the wilderness. Within the Priestly history, Exod 12:14 – 28 presents a confusing or ambiguous text. The sequence within vv. 14 – 20 could give the impression that after the exodus from Egypt the Pesaḥ will change by combining with a practice of eating unleavened bread for seven days. But in the continuation of the text, the law at v. 24 explicitly demands that the Pesaḥ continue forever according to its configuration in Egypt. The set of laws in vv. 43 – 49 speaks of eating the Pesaḥ in the home (v. 46). And Lev 23:5 – 6 present the Pesaḥ and the Festival of Unleavened Bread as two sets of separate practices, even if chronologically juxtaposed. In other words, the Priestly history shows something of an ongoing debate about the character of the Pesaḥ, and Exod 12:14 – 20 did not determine directly or with finality the kind of change it would undergo.88 By contrast, the passage in Num 9:1 – 14 has the Pesaḥ change by submitting it to impurity laws and physical access to the site of its performance, as a function of the construction of the tabernacle at which all sacrifices must take place. Although extra-biblical literature from the Persian and Hellenistic periods shows extremely thin interest in the secondary date of the Pesaḥ – an interest limited, practically speaking, to the holiday calendars of Qumran, the purpose of which consists precisely of listing significant dates89 – the clear and sharp distinction made by the 85

  See too Aaron b. Elijah, Keter Torah, 4.12a.   See Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 10 – 13. 87   On the edited and late character of this calendar, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 12 – 43. 88   See the comprehensive, masterful treatment of Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 76 – 95. 89   See: 4Q319 – 321 (DJD 21), and also, in less obvious manner, in line 27 of 11QPsa (DJD 4), according to the calculations of Talmon (in DJD 21.15). 86

1. The Composition of the Three Segments of the Narrative

115

novella between the Pesaḥ in Egypt and the Pesaḥ in subsequent generations succeeded to dominate the Pesaḥ tradition. The book of Jubilees backdates the distinction all the way to the Pesaḥ in Egypt, and deftly formulates the matter to emphasize that after Egypt, only the date of the Pesaḥ will continue and those laws that do not contradict the sacrificial system of the temple, whereas the laws connected with the home observance of the Pesaḥ will become obsolete already in the wilderness and ever after (49:1 – 21). Likewise, in a famous passage in the Mishnah, the Rabbis distinguished between “the Pesaḥ of Egypt” and “the Pesaḥ of (subsequent) generations” (m. Pes. 9:5).90

90   The argument does not treat, depend upon, or affect the question whether, in the wake of the centralization of sacrifice, the people kept no Pesaḥ whatsoever, or, despite centralization, kept the Pesaḥ at home, continuing, presumably, something akin to whatever it is that Exod 12:1 – 11, 21 – 24, 43 – 49 might attest to. Having mentioned it, though, suffice it here to survey briefly the meager evidence for a domestic Pesaḥ beyond Exodus 12: It would go too far beyond the available evidence to draw any conclusions from the “Pesaḥ Papyrus.” The existing text contains neither the word Pesaḥ nor any description of an associated rite, the weight in the text falling substantially on the technical details relating to leavened foods during the period of the fifteenth to the twenty-first days of the month (compare lines 4 and 5 – 9). Indeed, the very scheme of the fourteenth day of the month, on the one hand, and the fifteenth to the twenty-first, on the other, that presumably emerges from lines 4 – 9, and which could suggest some independent content specific to the fourteenth, does not in fact hold up under scrutiny. In lines 4 – 5, all that remains of the relatively small amount of space originally dedicated to the fourteenth – less than a single line – specifies only that one count fourteen days. Taken together with the calendrical framework explicitly defined in line 8 as “from sundown [sic!] until the twenty-first,” the counting of fourteen days looks like nothing more than a run-up to the evening at the end of the fourteenth and the prohibition against leaven that begins then, exactly like the counting of forty-nine days that leads up to the Pentecost on the fiftieth in Lev 23:14 – 15. Precisely such a calendrical rubric, defined by the same emphasis on leavened foodstuffs, appears in Exod 12:18 – 20 and, with slight differences in the specific date, in Ezek 45:21. In this direction, see the relevant comments in Segal, Hebrew Passover, 7, 9 – 10, 221 – 224; Lindenberger, Letters, 61 – 62; on Exod 12:18 – 20, see the instructive analysis in Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 84 – 89. Likewise, no evidence can be gleaned from the ca. 500 BCE ostracon that says, “Tell me when you will be doing the Pesaḥ” (on which reading see Sukenik and Kutscher, “A Passover Ostracon,” 55 – 56; Segal, Hebrew Passover, 8; Lindenberger, Letters, 48). The text gives no indication of any rite performed on the Pesaḥ, and could refer to the same week of prohibited leaven. Yet another fifth century BCE ostracon (for the text of which see Dupont-Sommer, “Sur la fête de la Pâque,” 45; Segal, ibid.) seems to link the term Pesaḥ with inspecting vessels, which suggests that the name has come to designate the week of unleavened foods. The Rabbis use just such a nomenclature; see, for instance, m. Pes. 2:2 – 4; 3:1. Again, in the absence of other evidence, the vehement tone with which the later book of Jubilees stresses the temple provenance of the Pesaḥ in 49:9 – 21 does not warrant inferring a live polemic against a domestic Pesaḥ (for the text, see Charles, Jubilees, 256 – 257; Vanderkam, Jubilees, 317 – 324). Qumran writings do not reflect any awareness of such a practice; the Temple Scroll, for that matter, a sectarian document, explicitly locates the Pesaḥ in the temple courts (col. XVII ll. 7 – 9; Qimron, The Temple Scroll, 27). Rabbinic literature, too, seems ignorant of a domestic Pesaḥ; see, for instance, m. Pes. 4:4; 5 – 9. Finally, Num 9:1 – 14 itself betrays no signs of having been formulated against Exod 12:1 – 24; to the contrary, its terms and conditions, in the regulations as well as in the non-regulatory, action-segments of the narrative, consistently target one who fails to bring the Pesaḥ altogether, not one who does so away from the tabernacle, K‫על פני השדה‬K “in the open” (Lev 17:5).

116

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

2. The Location of the Oracular Novella The precise location of the novella about the secondary Pesaḥ date creates something of a problem in that the story appears out of chronological order. The date at the head of the novella, the first month of the second year (Num 9:1), has the episode taking place before what occurs in the chapters that open the book of Numbers, which fall under the dated heading of the first day of the second month (1:1). The character of the novella as an interpolation within the history sharpens the problem. If an author composed the oracular novella specifically to add it into the Priestly history, why not add it at a point before Num 1:1?91 The idea that the interpolator could not add it somewhere in Exodus or Leviticus because those scrolls were somehow closed, namely, seen to be in a kind of final form that should not be tampered with, must be discounted at the very outset as fundamentally anachronistic; the idea is totally belied by the wide range of revisionary activity attested in the scrolls found at Qumran, in which one encounters all manner of manipulation of received text, from small insertions to large-scale excerpting to comprehensive re-composition. Accordingly, one cannot date an interpolation into a less than optimal scroll based on the closed status of an otherwise more suitable scroll. Does, then, the novella have some particular connection to the textual materials in its immediate vicinity? A natural and widespread explanation for the specific location of the novella within the Priestly history claims that the secondary date of the Pesaḥ, the fourteenth day of the second month, determined where it should go, not the date at the head of the passage, when Yahweh first broached the subject of the first Pesaḥ in the wilderness. The date of the fourteenth in the second month precedes by only a few days the date when the Israelites embark on their journey to Canaan, the twentieth of the second month (10:11). Namely, only a few days after the impure Israelites held their make-up Pesaḥ the Israelites began their trek to Canaan.92 But this explanation has its share of difficulties. First, as previously noted, the entire episode occurs on the fourteenth of the first month, other than Yahweh’s initial instructions, which he issued a few days beforehand. Not a single verse moves the events forward to the fourteenth of the second month, when those who had been impure presumably carried out the instructions Yahweh gave in response to their petition.93 Even the general signature remark that the Israelites did as Yahweh commanded, which would implicitly point to the fourteenth in the second month, does not appear. Secondly, two additional passages sit between that of the secondary date of the Pesaḥ, in 9:1 – 14, and that of the departure of the Israelites, in 10:11 – the descriptions of the cloud (9:15 – 23) and of the trumpets (10:1 – 10) – and these two passages too are at best dated to the 91

 Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 37 – 38.  Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46. Segal goes the farthest by stating the extreme position in this direction. According to him, the whole matter of the leaders in Numbers 7 occurs in the second month so that “despite the dating of the opening words of Num 9:1 to the first month,” the legislation concerning the secondary date of the Pesaḥ occurs in the second month as well, the day after the dedication of the leaders (Hebrew Passover, 192, 199). However, his interpretation is very problematic. 93  Gray, Numbers, 82; see also Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 129. 92

2. The Location of the Oracular Novella

117

construction of the tabernacle (9:15). The effect breaks any presumed chronological sequence, even an abstract one, between the performance of the Pesaḥ on the fourteenth of the second month and the departure on the twentieth. Just as the materials about the tabernacle compound in chapters 7:1 – 9:14 describe separate sets of events each of which begins roughly with the completion of the tabernacle and continues for distinct extents of time, so too the cloud and trumpet passages open with a note of a practice that had begun back when the tabernacle was put up and a set of instructions given, but give no sense of any specific forward motion of the narrative. One would do better simply to see the novella of the secondary date of the Pesaḥ as part of a string of texts with sets of instructions all dated to the same period, when the tabernacle first went up. Within the framework of the Priestly history as a running narrative, the effect of dating the various sets of rules and regulations to the time when the Moses and the Israelites constructed and inaugurated the tabernacle establishes a series of correlations. The laws were transmitted not long after the sacrificial laws of Leviticus 1 – 7 – dated to the week of consecration – and together with the various laws of Leviticus 10 – 24 – dated to the first, inaugural day. With respect to the Pesaḥ, this coordination means the form of the sacrifice will be experienced and understood as a direct application of the laws just revealed, a natural reclassification of it as a tabernacle offering. Seen thematically, the sequence of texts beginning in Numbers 6 corresponds to other descriptions of altar inauguration in the Hebrew Bible. The group of elements in this unit – the blessing of the people (6:22 – 27); the inauguration of the altar (chapter 7), furniture and utensils (8:1 – 4), and personnel (8:5 – 26); the public celebration (9:1 – 14); the manifest appearance of the deity (9:15 – 23); and the making of trumpets (10:1 – 10) – recurs with only slight variation in the description of temple inaugurations by Solomon (1 Kgs 5:15 – 8:66), Jeroboam (12:26 – 33), Hezekiah (2 Chronicles  29 – 30), Josiah (2 Kgs  22:1 – 23:25; 2 Chr  35:1 – 19), Zerubavel (Ezra 3:1 – 13), and the Judeans who returned from Babylon (6:13 – 22).94 Still, to a certain degree one might restrict this view of the texts to the bloc as a whole, rather than include the specific order of the passages within it. Moreover, the passages describing the cloud and the trumpets really relate to the journey, not the inauguration of the tabernacle. The cloud served to signal to the Israelites when to make camp or to break camp; while they walked, it indicated the direction in which they should go (9:17 – 23). The trumpets likewise heralded and coordinated their travel (10:2, 5 – 6). By contrast, the primary and secondary Pesaḥ dates bear no connection whatsoever to the Israelites’ journey to Canaan. This distinction between the topics in these passages helps explain the location of the oracular novella about the Pesaḥ before those of the cloud and the trumpets. It also helps clarify a thematic demarcation between topics connected to the journey, which begin with the cloud, in 9:15 – 23, and topics connected to the tabernacle or the camp around it, to which the novella about the secondary Pesaḥ date belongs and which – so it now seems – it serves to conclude.

94

  Compare Hurowitz, Temple Building.

118

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

The novella about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ can be viewed as concluding two sets of texts at one and the same time. One set consists of the gifts offered by the tribal leaders, in chapter 7. If one imagines the author taking advantage of the expression “on the day of” in this instance to use it in its literal sense, then, chronologically, the tribal leaders complete their gifts on the twelfth or thirteenth of the first month (7:1, 10, 84, 88, which link up with Exod 40:1, 9 – 11, 17: Lev 8:10 – 11), and on the fourteenth the Israelites celebrate the Pesaḥ (Num 9:1 – 4). In this reading, two weeks of high-profile gift-gifting by each of the tribes of Israel until all have donated to the tabernacle culminate with a camp-wide, all-Israelite celebration, the Pesaḥ.95 The second set of texts comprises chapters 5 – 6. Chronologically, these chapters, together with chapters 1 – 4, belong to a different period, the second month (1:1); they take place after the celebration of the Pesaḥ in the first month and Yahweh’s decision that the impure celebrate it one month later. Thematically, though, chapters 1 – 4 describe a census and the configuration of the camp, which connects directly with the journey in 10:11 (or 9:15), whereas chapters 5 – 6 contain sets of instructions given by Yahweh, which are linked by the concept of impurity, and this concept recurs in climactic fashion as the central concern of the novella on the secondary date of the Pesaḥ. Arranging all the materials in this sequence has the result of giving added significance to the oracular novella about the Pesaḥ, in that it binds the preceding passages together in a more integral way. The Pesaḥ novella takes the main themes of the two sets of texts, impurity in chapters 5 – 6 and offerings in chapters 7 – 8, and brings them into dramatic juxtaposition with each other as central principles or forces in the constitution and existence of the community and its constituent members. The various forms of impurity treated in chapters 5 – 6 all repel from the camp and threaten to tear it apart, while the offerings centered on the proper functioning of the tabernacle in chapters 7 – 8 draw into the camp and bind its parts together. The story in 9:1 – 14 presents a dramatic portrayal of the conflict between the offerings that bind and the impurity that pulls apart. As the petitioners put it: K‫ בתוך בני ישראל‬. . . ‫למה נגרע‬K. Like the construction of the narrative out of the laws that mark and make up its climax, so too the role played by the text in dramatizing the central themes of preceding chapters brings to mind the story of the desperately exclaiming curser in Lev 24:10 – 23. That story presented in narrative form a portrayal of the theme treated by the chapters that precede it and which it concludes, the sanctification and desecration of Yahweh’s name. Together, in other words, the two novellas suggest a deliberate method of literary work, in which a group of laws around a theme or set of themes reaches its climax in a narrative about a particularly significant variety of that theme.

95   That said, Liane Marquis has made a persuasive argument in a colloquium paper (March 2014) that according to the logic and flow of the Priestly history, the tribal leaders begin bringing their gifts only once Aaron and his sons are fully invested, on the seventh day, and they conclude bringing their gifts on the eighteenth.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

119

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella Given the innovative impulse that drives the law establishing a secondary date for the Pesaḥ, at least as the narrative presents it, the question arises regarding the degree to which the novella conforms to other texts about the Pesaḥ, their views and presuppositions. Within the Priestly history, one especially significant cluster of texts about the Pesaḥ exists in Exodus 12 (at vv. 1 – 24, 43 – 50). Additional references to the Pesaḥ occur in the calendars of Leviticus 23 (at v. 5) and Numbers 28 – 29 (at 28:16) and in the story of Israel’s entry into Canaan (Josh 5:10 – 12). Outside the Priestly history and of debated impact upon it, treatments appear in Exodus 34 (at v. 25) and Deuteronomy 16 (at vv. 1 – 8). To what degree does the oracular novella about the Pesaḥ draw upon these texts literarily, presuppose their ideas about the Pesaḥ, and innovate against them or in their spirit? This question is all the more pressing in the light of the analysis above, which determined the legal independence of the secondary date of the Pesaḥ from the Priestly laws of Exodus 12, its conceptual affinity with the Deuteronomic law, and its resemblance to the Priestly calendars. a) The influence of Exodus 12 and the rest of the Priestly history One may establish generally that the entire novella, the narrative frame together with the legal core, employs concepts, terminology, and formulations that appear throughout the Priestly history. So, for example, the doubled subject (K‫איש איש‬K) followed by a relative pronoun (K‫ ו־‬,‫ אשר‬,‫כי‬K), to open a casuistic law, in Num 9:10;96 the punishment K‫כר"ת‬ as formulated in v. 13 (K‫ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מ־‬K),97 including the shift from the masculine noun for person, K‫איש‬K, to the feminine one, K‫נפש‬K,98 and the expression of “bearing sin” (‫נׂש"א חטא‬K);99 the use of the construct form, in which the dependent noun refers to an element of the sacrificial system and the independent noun is Yahweh – K‫קרבן יהוה‬K – in vv. 7 and 13;100 the emphatic formulation of v. 13;101 the term ʾezrāḥ together with the gēr in the “equal applicability” clause, in v. 14;102 the pair K‫חקה‬K and K‫משפט‬K as a general  96   See Lev 15:2; 17:3, 8, 10, 13; 18:6; 20:2, 9; 22:18; 24:15; Num 5:12; 30:3 (LXX); also Ezek 14:4, 7.  97   See Gen 17:14; Exod 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 18:29; 22:3; Num 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20.  98   See Lev 17:10; 22:3; Num 5:6; 19:20; for this phenomenon, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 87, 90.  99   See Lev 19:17; 20:20; 22:9; 24:15; Num 18:22, 32; also Ezek 23:49; for the phenomenon, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 21. 100  See K‫אשי יהוה‬K in Lev 2:3 and elsewhere; K‫מזבח יהוה‬K in Lev 17:6; K‫מקדש יהוה‬K in Num 19:20; on the phenomenon, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 70 n. 30, 97, 106 – 110. For examples outside of Priestly literature, see 1 Sam 2:17 (K‫מנחת יהוה‬K); Mal 1:7 (K‫שלחן יהוה‬K); Zeph 1:8 (K‫זבח יהוה‬K); Ps 14:4 (K‫לחם יהוה‬K). 101   See Lev 19:8; 20:17; Num 15:30 – 31; also: Lev 20:9, 18; Num 19:13, 20; etc. 102   See Exod 12:19, 48 – 49; Lev 16:29 – 31; 17:8, 10 – 13, 15; 18:26; 20:2; 22:18; 24:16, 22; 25:6; Num 15:14 – 16, 26, 29, 30; 19:10; 35:15; also Ezek 47:22 – 23. Concerning the term ʾezrāḥ, see Joosten, People and Land, 35 – 36; on the formula for the inclusion of the gēr, Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 21.

120

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

reference to all the particular laws in a given topic, in vv. 3 and 14;103 and more.104 Moreover, the overwhelming majority of these characteristics belong mainly to the set of supplementary texts within the Priestly history – in Knohl’s terms, the literature of the “Holiness School.”105 From the perspective of the historiography, the very fact of noting the performance of the Pesaḥ in the wilderness sets this text apart. The Priestly history does not provide a portrayal of Israel observing any other holiday in the wilderness.106 This fact does not create a contradiction. The Priestly history includes a statement that the Israelites left Egypt loaded with sheep and cattle (Exod 12:37 – 38), so they could bring offerings on holidays. The Priestly story about Israel’s observance of the Pesaḥ when they first enter into the arable land of Canaan (Josh 4:19; 5:10 – 12)107 gives no indication 103  See Lev 18:4, 5, 26; 19:37; 20:22; 25:18; 26:15, 43; also throughout the book of Ezekiel. Concerning the expression with the construct relation, as appears in Num 27:11; 35:29, see chapter 4, below. In the Deuteronomic corpus, the two are part of a triad: K‫חקה משפט ומצוה‬K; see Deut 8:11; 11:1; 30:16. 104   To complete the list see Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 493; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 21, 90. 105  Baentsch, ibid.; Knohl, ibid. 106  In Leviticus 16, Yahweh gives Moses instructions about how Aaron should cleanse the tabernacle and Israel of impurity and sin, after which the narrator concludes: K‫ויעש כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K (Lev 16:34b). Given the interpolated character of vv. 29b – 31, 34a, the remark may originally have referred either directly to Aaron, to an indirect subject, or, as Jeffrey Stackert thinks on the model of Num 31:31, to Moses (personal communication). Note that nowhere in the instructions, not in the frame, the particulars, or the conclusion, does Yahweh instruct Moses to have Aaron perform the cleansing immediately as a result of impurity now infesting the tabernacle. The link to the deaths of Nadab and Abihu in v. 1 serves only as a prompt for the protocols – the reason and regulations – for entering the tabernacle: they entered with an aroma, apparently for the purpose of pleasing Yahweh and perhaps with the plan of entering the holy of holies, and Yahweh clarifies the only reason ever to enter is to purify it and that can only take place in a specific manner (K‫עת‬K “time” in the sense of circumstances and conditions). In this light, the conclusion in v. 34b does not necessarily state that Aaron carried out the procedure (or that the procedure was carried out) immediately. With the addition of vv. 29b – 31, 34a, the meaning of the conclusion shifts and does state that the procedure was carried out year by year ever after; given the nature of the added material, one should see this effect as intended. In Stackert’s view, v. 29a belongs to the added material and v. 34a to the original composition, so that the procedure would have been annual in the original composition too (personal communication); in this case, it would seem fair to assume the pristinizing event to occur at the beginning of every new year and reenact or re-inaugurate the deity’s dwelling in the tabernacle (Exod 12:1 – 2; 40:1 – 2, 17, 34; see Ezek 45:18 – 25), which would raise questions about the Pesaḥ and about the shift to the seventh month in Leviticus 23; Numbers 28 – 29. Compare Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.1011, 1013, 1061 – 1063. In any case, there is no story here about how the Israelites performed the Day of Purgation any specific year in the wilderness. With respect to the Sabbath, about which the Priestly history narrates in Num 15:32 – 36 and within Exodus 16 (see Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story”), it is clear that its standing is different. The Sabbath does not depend upon any particular set of circumstances or conditions – one simply counts seven days – and it has no active requirements (Num 28:9 – 10, following 22:1; 26:3, 63, comes at the end of the wilderness period, right before Israel enters Canaan). Its observance is therefore not obviously of the same order as that of the Pesaḥ, and its recounting does not gainsay the uniqueness of recounting the Pesaḥ observance. 107  Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 120; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.327 – 328.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

121

that the observance itself marks a departure from prior habit and a new beginning, as if the Israelites had not performed the Pesaḥ all their years in the wilderness. Rather, the Pesaḥ observance in that text serves the historian as a fitting way to have the Israelites formally register the transition to agricultural life. Moreover, the observance conforms to what the Priestly history relates, that when Moses publicized Yahweh’s instructions ahead of the Pesaḥ in Egypt he concluded by noting its regular, perpetual commemoration: K‫ושמרתם את הדבר הזה לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם‬K (Exod 12:24). This understanding of the Priestly history as tacitly conveying that the Israelites performed the Pesaḥ every year in the wilderness matches the view it also conveys that in general the Israelites made offerings from the time they and Moses put up the tabernacle throughout the entire wilderness period. For example, the altar law in Leviticus 17 establishes rules to be applied immediately to the eating of meat, which since the time of Noah had gone unregulated and unqualified, save for the single stipulation that consumers drain the meat of its blood (Gen 9:3 – 4). Moses’ transmission of the law of Leviticus 17 renders this near blanket allowance null and void for Israel forever after, and the series of new rules comes into effect, including that Israelites must bring their domesticated quadrupeds – sheep, goats and cattle – to the tabernacle for slaughter there, with designated portions given to tabernacle personnel for their various uses.108 In the same way, behind the classification of the offerings and the specification of their details when the tabernacle goes up and Yahweh descends to reside in it (Exod 40:17 – Lev 7:38) stands the assumption that the Israelites will begin making offerings immediately. Accordingly, the inauguration takes place with a variety of offerings (Leviticus 8 – 10) – and not as a one-time event at the conclusion of which offerings will cease – but with materials donated precisely for continued use (Numbers 7), just as warranted by an “inauguration.”109 In this context, both topically and chronologically, the Pesaḥ seems just the item called for to complete the range of inaugural events and activities that have taken place over the course of several weeks. All the rituals and other actions during this time focused on and orbited around the investiture of the priests, which concludes with them handling purification, whole-burnt and goodwill offerings (Leviticus 8 – 10). The tribal leaders who brought their donations, every day for twelve days running, gave them to the priests for their use (Numbers 7). Israel, so to speak, dedicates the entire tribe of Levi that they may assist the priests (Numbers 8). Fittingly, the inauguration of the tabernacle comes to a dramatic, climactic close with all Israel performing the Pesaḥ. This idea in the Priestly history that the Israelites made regulated offerings to Yahweh at his sanctioned and sanctified structure throughout their time in the wilderness stands out in high relief when contrasted with other, non-Priestly passages and depictions in the Hebrew Bible. Some of these indicate that Israel offered in entirely unregulated fashion, helter-skelter (Deut 12:8 – 12). Others claim that Israel 108   For an analysis of the chapter, see Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 37 – 128; for vv. 3 – 7, see ibid., 66 – 96. 109   See also Lev 7:28 – 34, 37 – 38; and elsewhere.

122

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

offered nothing at all (Jer 7:22; Amos 5:25; possibly Deut 12:2 – 7). Likewise with respect to the Pesaḥ (2 Kgs 23:22; 2 Chr 35:18; perhaps also Exod 12:25 – 27a; compare Neh 8:17),110 regarding which, as pointed out above, the Priestly text of Exod 12:24 demands regular, annually recurring observance, from Israel’s exodus from Egypt and ever after. The fact that the novella about the deferred Pesaḥ begins by narrating the Israelites’ performance of their first Pesaḥ since the unique and pivotal one they performed when they left Egypt generates the expectation that the text will make explicit reference to the Pesaḥ in Egypt and to the Priestly text that describes it, Exodus 12. Points of contact ostensibly occur in both the “action” and legal segments of the passage: (1) The three provisions specified in Num 9:11 – 12 all appear in Exodus 12 (vv. 8, 10, 46): Numbers 9 Exodus 12 v. 11b v. 12a v. 12b

K‫כלֻהּו‬ ְ ‫י ֹא‬

‫עַל־מַּצֹות ּומְר ִֹרים‬K ‫שאִירּו ִמ ֶמּּנּו‬ ׁ ְ ַ ‫ֹלא־י‬K K‫בּרּו־בֹו‬ ְ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ִ ‫ ְו ֶעצֶם ֹלא י‬K

K‫קר‬ ֶ ֹּ ‫עַד־ב‬

v. 8 v. 10 v. 46

K‫כלֻהּו‬ ְ ‫י ֹא‬

‫ּומַּצֹות עַל־מְר ִֹרים‬K ‫וְֹלא־תֹותִ ירּו ִמ ֶמּּנּו‬K K‫בּרּו־בֹו‬ ְ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ִ‫ ְו ֶעצֶם ֹלא ת‬K

K‫קר‬ ֶ ֹּ ‫עַד־ב‬

Additionally, the expression K‫חקת הפסח‬K that appears in Num 9:12, 14 occurs in only one other biblical text, Exod 12:43, in the heading to that entire Pesaḥ paragraph. (2) The segment that concludes the novella, the statement in Num 9:14 declaring the equal applicability of the law for the gēr, bears a striking resemblance to the segment on the gēr in the set of Pesaḥ regulations in Exod 12:43 – 49: Numbers 9 Exodus 12 v. 14aα K‫גר‬ ֵּ ‫ ְוכִי־יָגּור אִ תְ ּכֶם‬K v. 48aα K‫גר‬ ֵּ ‫ ְוכִי־יָגּור אִ תְ ָּך‬K K‫פסַח לַיהוה‬ ֶ ‫ ְועָשָ ׂה‬K K‫פסַח לַיהוה‬ ֶ ‫ ְועָשָ ׂה‬K v. 14aβ K‫שה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ש ָפּטֹו ֵכּן י ַ ֲע‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְ ּכ ֻח ַקּת ַה ֶ ּפסַח ּו ְכ ִמ‬K v. 48aβ – b K‫לעֲש ֹׂתֹו‬ ַ ‫הִּמֹול לֹו כָל־זָכָר וְָאז יִק ְַרב‬K K‫ָָארץ ְוכָל־ע ֵָרל ֹלא־י ֹאכַל ּבֹו‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ָהי ָה ְ ּכ ֶאז ְַרח ה‬K v. 14b K‫ָָארץ‬ ֶ ‫ ֻח ָקּה ַאחַת יִ ְהיֶה ָלכֶם ְו ָל ֵגּר ּו ְל ֶאז ְַרח ה‬K v. 49 K‫ּתֹורה ַאחַת יִ ְהיֶה ָלכֶם לָאֶ ז ְָרח ְו ָל ֵגּר ַהגָּר ְבּתֹו ְכ ֶכם‬ ָ K

(3) The date of the Pesaḥ on the fourteenth day of the first month and its specific time “in the evening” (K‫בין הערבים‬K) in Num 9:3, 5, 11 appear first in Exod 12:6, when Yahweh gave the instructions about them (see also v. 18). 110  Compare the comment of Ramban on Num 9:1. Deut 12:2 – 7 can best be appreciated through a comparison with 12:8 – 12. The former makes no mention of Israel and its actions, but rather attributes abominable practices to the nations of Canaan, whereas the paragraph in vv. 8 – 12 acknowledges that the Israelites did “each as he saw fit” (v. 8) – because they had not yet reached “safety and security” (v. 9). For the distinction between the two sections, see Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 10 – 13; further Chavel, “The Literary Development of Deuteronomy 12,” 305 – 311. There is no need to interpret the passages in Amos and Jeremiah as saying only that the sacrifices brought by the Israelites in the wilderness period were not important (e. g., McKane, Jeremiah, 173 – 174), or to offer other harmonistic interpretations (such as Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.482 – 485, following Qimḥi on Jer 7:22). On the contrary, the emphatic tone of Lev 7:37 – 38 – if it is not a misleading holdover from the process of the composition of the Priestly history – strongly suggests that they serve to contradict a conception that the Israelites did not offer sacrifices in the wilderness (cf. Milgrom, ibid., 437 – 439); see further Paul, Amos, 193 – 194, and the literature cited there.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

123

(4) The commandment to the Israelites to ready themselves for the observance of the Pesaḥ that will take place a few days hence (Num 9:1 – 2) evokes the relationship between the tenth of the first month, when Israel designates and protects a lamb, and the fourteenth, when Israel uses that lamb for the Pesaḥ, in Egypt (Exod 12:3, 6). (5) Presumably, the catch-all expressions that appear in both the action and lawgiving segments of the passage – K‫ככל חקתיו וככל משפטיו‬K in v. 3, K‫ככל חקת הפסח‬K in v. 12, and K‫כחקת הפסח וכמשפטו‬K in v. 14 – have their antecedents in Exodus 12, the only texts to provide details worthy of reference. Scholars have summed up the matter accordingly: “. . . the Passover legislation of P (Ex. 12.1 ff), to which the present passage is very closely related with regard both to language and contents,” and “In their formulation, Num 9:1 – 14 bear close affinity to Exodus 12, one of the principal statements on the celebration of the paschal sacrifice.”111 However, careful analysis of each and every one of the points of contact or resemblance between Num 9:1 – 14 and Exodus 12 turns up either a secondary insertion into Num 9:1 – 14 or a false similarity. In fact, viewing the text of Num 9:1 – 14 – without the alleged interpolations – alongside all the Priestly texts about the Pesaḥ reveals, first of all, that Exod 12:1 – 24 deviates significantly from all the other texts, primarily the calendars in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29, and, secondly, that in both its segments Num 9:1 – 14 aligns with the calendars, against Exod 12:1 – 24. Moreover, indications lead to the conclusion that the Priestly calendars attest a response to Exod 12:1 – 24 and postdate it,112 which means that although Exod 12:1 – 24 existed when the author of the novella in Num 9:1 – 14 composed it, and although Num 9:1 – 14 depicts the first Pesaḥ performed since the one done in Egypt, the text of Exod 12:1 – 24 did not have a direct influence on the novella, in terms of its style, terminology, or conception. Rather, the calendars in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29 did. Had the author of the novella relied directly on the text of Exod 12:1 – 24, then even in the case that he intended to stress only one aspect of the Pesaḥ and even be that an aspect that itself does not appear in Exod 12:1 – 24, still, one would expect to find some clear imprint of Exod 12:1 – 24 – in the topics treated, no matter how perfunctorily, in the sequence, or in the diction. Such signs, however, do not exist. (1) The three laws and the general clause in vv. 11 – 12 The three laws in vv. 11 – 12, in the legal segment of the novella, provide the strongest argument for the direct dependence of Num 9:1 – 14 on Exodus 12. Two of the laws match the laws given ahead of the performance of the Pesaḥ in Egypt. The law in Num 9:11 about eating the Pesaḥ meat together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, K‫על מצות ומררים יאכלהו‬K, not only repeats the law of Exod 12:8 K‫ומצות על מררים יאכלהו‬K, but even improves upon its jarring syntactical style, by transposing the two particles, the 111

 Noth, Numbers, 70; Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 293, respectively.   On the lateness of the holiday calendars in comparison to the Pesaḥ laws in Exodus 12, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 84 – 89. 112

124

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

conjunction K‫ו־‬K and the preposition K‫על‬K, with the result of subordinating both the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs to the preposition.113 The prohibition in Num 9:12 against allowing the meat to endure beyond the one night, K‫לא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר‬K, corresponds perfectly to the prohibition in Exod 12:10, K‫ולא תותירו ממנו עד בקר‬K, save a lexical substitution of the root K‫שא"ר‬K for the root K‫ות"ר‬K. The prohibition in Num 9:12 against breaking any of the bones, namely, of quartering the roasted animal, K‫ועצם לא ישברו בו‬K, also appears in Exodus 12. In MT, it only appears in the set of Pesaḥ instructions given after the Israelites left Egypt with an eye towards their entry into the land, in v. 46: K ‫ועצם לא תשברו בו‬K. LXX, however, attests it as belonging to the instructions given prior to the exodus, in v. 10, after the prohibition against leaving the meat over until morning: καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, retroverted simply enough into biblical Hebrew: *K‫ועצם לא תשברו בו‬K. In addition to these three laws, the expression K‫חקת הפסח‬K in Num 9:12 that functions to encompass all the laws left unspecified though still in force, also serves as the heading to the set of instructions regarding the Pesaḥ given after the exodus, Exod 12:43 – 49: K‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה ואל אהרן לאמר זאת חקת הפסח‬K. This group of detailed provisions in Num 9:11 – 12 including the general clause that concludes them bears several marks that taken together identify them as a secondary insertion into the text. These marks include an abrupt change in address from singular to plural; a shift from the central topic of the passage as a whole to a tangential one; a derivative, exegetical, midrashic character; and a resumptive repetition around the set of diverging clauses. In both its segments – the action in vv. 1 – 8 and the oracular decision in vv. 9 – 14 – the novella focuses intently on the date of the Pesaḥ as the central concern. In the legal segment, this emphasis comes to formal expression in the structure and formulation. The provision treating non-compliance in v. 13 corresponds precisely to the main provision in vv. 10b – 11a – in terminology, form, sequence, and emphasis. It repeats every element of the protasis in v. 10b, one by one, in order, directly and clearly. When it comes to the apodosis in v. 11a, which details the date of the deferred Pesaḥ and notes its performance, the apodosis of the non-compliance provision, in v. 13b, inverts the order of the corresponding elements, which creates a concluding chiasm and in this fashion generates emphasis. Moreover, the provision in v. 13b also transforms the components of the apodosis of v. 11a into a motive clause for the specific punishment for non-compliance, and locates the motive clause in between the two parts of the punishment, with the effect of offsetting and further highlighting the content of the motive clause as especially significant. Verse 13

Verses 10b – 11a K‫האִיׁש‬ ָ ‫ ְו‬K ‫שׁר־הּוא‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬K K‫היָה‬ ָ ‫ּובְדֶ ֶרְך ֹלא־‬K K‫סח‬ ַ ‫ ְוחָדַ ל ַלעֲׂשֹות ַה ֶ ּפ‬K K‫טָהֹור‬

113

K‫אִיׁש אִיׁש‬K ‫ ִכּי־י ִ ְהי ֶה־ ָטמֵא‬K K. . . ‫אֹו בְדֶ ֶרְך ְרחֹקָה‬K ֶ ‫שׂה‬ ָ ‫ ְו ָע‬K K‫פסַח לַיהוה‬

ֶ ֶ‫ָלנ‬ K‫פׁש‬

  See Levinson, Deuteronomy, 84 n. 94; Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 80 n. 83.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella K‫ה‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ַע ֶמּי‬

‫ ְונִכ ְְרתָ ה ַה ּנֶפֶׁש ַההִוא‬K ‫ ִכּי ק ְָר ַבּן יהוה ֹלא‬K K‫בּמֹעֲדֹו‬ ְK K‫האִיׁש הַהּוא‬ ָ ‫שׂא‬ ּ ָ ִ ‫ ֶחטְאֹו י‬K

K‫הק ְִריב‬ ִ

ּ ַ ‫ָהע ְַר‬ K‫ביִם‬

125

‫שׂר יֹום ֵבּין‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫שנִי ְב‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫ ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַה‬K K‫יַעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬K

By all measures, all these moves, which create singular emphasis on the date of the Pesaḥ and on its very performance, look deliberate. Within this carefully prepared, tight structure and formulation of vv. 10b – 11a and 13, the fragmentary enumeration of select details of the Pesaḥ in vv. 11b – 12 anomalously and distractedly diverges to tangential matters. Commentators have noted that the three provisions break the flow of the law and constitute a divergence. Furthermore, they have not succeeded to explain the specific provisions chosen for mention, and consider them in a general fashion to illustrate the sense of the final clause K‫ככל חקת הפסח‬K “the entire set of Pesaḥ laws,” in v. 12b. No attempt to classify each law as representing all the details in a given subtopic about the Pesaḥ performance does so in a satisfactory manner. It appears, rather, that all three laws have an exegetical character. First, the sequence of instructions in Exodus 12 gives the impression that eating unleavened bread together with the Pesaḥ meat, as enjoined in v. 8, has something to do with the fact that the Pesaḥ leads into or in fact begins the festival of unleavened bread, as arises from vv. 14 – 20. However, to judge by the way the passage of Pesaḥ deferral focuses exclusively on the Pesaḥ itself and on the delimited date of its observance – the evening of the fourteenth of the first month or the second – the author of the novella held the opinion that the deferral of the Pesaḥ by one month for the individual who could not observe it (and for that person’s immediate family) has no impact on the festival of unleavened bread. The impure and the distant must still observe the festival of unleavened bread in the first month, at its appointed time, together with the rest of the nation (so m. Pes. 9:3; t. Pes. 8:7). The question, then, arises as to whether the deferred Pesaḥ will accordingly have a different character, whether its laws will differ from that observed in the first month. Must one still eat the Pesaḥ meat together with unleavened bread (and bitter herbs)? Answers the provision in Num 9:11b – by way of, as said, improved formulation – yes: K‫על מצות ומררים יאכלהו‬K. Similarly, according to the laws in Exodus 12, families must match their numbers to the amount of meat and consume all of it during that significant evening; anything left over they must burn (vv. 3b – 4, 10). It stands to reason that the requirement to roast the animal as opposed to boiling it and the corresponding prohibition against quartering it help prevent any of the meat from escaping consumption and eradication by morning (vv. 8 – 9). A question arises. When a restricted household performs a deferred Pesaḥ it will not succeed to consume all the meat in one evening: can they quarter the meat and save some of it for subsequent days? Answer the provisions in Num 9:12, by way of chiastic reordering, no and no: K‫לא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר ועצם לא ישברו בו‬K.114 114   The ancient sources already recognized that the prohibition against the breaking of bones is connected to the subject of allowing meat to remain overnight, namely, as a way to prevent it. The

126

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

The exegetical character of the laws in Num 9:11 – 12, in their formulation as well as their content, as direct responses to questions about the provisions of Exodus 12 considered in the light of the new circumstances of the deferred Pesaḥ, distinguishes them from the otherwise single-minded focus of the passage as a whole with even greater force and suggests that they derive from a second hand. In addition to the difference in contents, substance, and focus, several formal features set the three laws apart and mark them as significantly distinct. In terms of voice, the three laws address the audience in the plural, whereas the rest of the laws addresses the audience in the singular.115 Compare, for instance, K‫איש איש כי יהיה טמא‬K, K‫ועשה‬K, K‫והאיש‬ ‫אשר הוא טהור ובדרך לא היה‬K, and K‫וחדל‬K in vv. 10, 13 with K‫יעשו‬K, K‫יאכלהו‬K, K‫ישאירו‬K, and K‫ישברו‬K in vv. 11 – 12.116 This shift in address may reflect the new focus on the particular family LXX to Exod 12:10, as mentioned, placed the prohibition against breaking the bones in the middle of the prohibition against leaving meat overnight: οὐκ ἀπολείψετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωὶ καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὰ δὲ καταλειπόμενα ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωὶ ἐν πυρὶ κατακαύσετε. Mek. de R. Ishmael thought it entirely self-evident; at Exod 12:10 it reasons: “K‫ועצם לא תשברו בו‬K (v. 46) – Why is this said if it has already said: K‫ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה‬K (v. 8)?” (§ 15 [p. 55 ll. 11 – 12]). The arrangement of the laws in Jubilees 49:13 suggests that the prohibition against the breaking of bones ensures the roasting of the animal, for it is impossible to put the whole animal into one pot. This is also the direction taken by Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 297; Propp, Exodus 1 – 18, 418 – 419; see Mic 3:3; Ezek 24:3 – 5. In Exod 12:46, which is focused on another law, there is no ban against meat lasting overnight; rather, there is a ban against allowing it outside the house, and the ban against breaking the bones is explained in light of it: K‫בבית אחד יאכל‬K, K‫לא תוציא מן הבית מן הבשר חוצה‬K, K‫ועצם לא תשברו בו‬K  – to ensure that they would eat it together in the house it is forbidden to remove any of the meat outside the house, and so that they would not remove any of the meat outside the house it is forbidden to break the bones of the animal. (As Knobel already saw, this focus on preventing meat from leaving the house serves the thrust of the paragraph as a whole, which aims to restrict the Pesaḥ to the circumcised [Exodus und Leviticus, 91]). In any case, the apotropaic-symbolic explanations that have captured the imagination of most scholars (e. g., Loewenstamm, Exodus Tradition, 197 – 206, esp. 204) have no real basis, as Propp acknowledges (above). The explicit opinion of the author of the book of Jubilees (49:13) in this direction is not evidence for the original biblical explanation, for it is possible that this opinion was formed at a late stage as the result of a textual error (see Vanderkam, Jubilees, 320). On the contrary, it confirms how natural such thinking might be in the face of obscure laws, particularly ritual laws, and especially here, in the context of the Pesaḥ, when there already exists in it an apotropaic element (Exod 12:13, 22 – 23). The perplexity regarding the meaning of the prohibition against the breaking of bones stands behind a different midrash, which stresses the unusual and unique character of the prohibition; see Mek. de R. Shimon b. Yoḥai, ad loc. (p. 36 ll. 24 – 25) and Mek. de R. Ishmael, § 15 (p. 56 ll. 2 – 4). 115  Compare Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 125, whose synchronic solution is forced and whose parallels are not convincing. An elegant synchronic interpretation was proposed by Isaacus Reggio; according to him, the plural K‫יעשו אתו‬K refers back to the one who is impure and the one who is far away (Book of the Law of God, 49). 116  It is plausible, therefore, that Num 9:11 was written originally in the singular, K‫יעשה אתו‬K. Cf. Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 126, who did not identify the resumptive repetition, took the general expression in v. 12 K‫ככל חקת הפסח‬K as the conclusion, and concluded that the original law contained vv. 11 – 12 only and v. 13 was added afterwards, despite the fact that he acknowledged the uniformity of style between v. 13 and the text preceding it. However, his distinctions between v. 13 and v. 11, such as between K‫דרך רחקה‬K and K‫דרך‬K (ibid., 126 – 127), do not necessarily lead to an addition; see ibid. Schwartz showed that the two-sided formulation (K‫ ואם תעשה‬. . . ‫לא תעשה‬K and K‫ ואם לא תעשה‬. . . ‫תעשה‬K) is a feature of the Holiness School (“Holiness Legislation” in his terms and conception; The Holiness Legislation, 49 – 50 and nn. 33 – 36).

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

127

that must defer the Pesaḥ due to impurity or distance. Lexically, as pointed out, the exegetical repetition of the prohibition against allowing any meat to endure to morning replaces the technical term K‫תותירו‬K with the general synonym K‫ישאירו‬K. Elsewhere, the Priestly history does not employ the verb K‫שא"ר‬K, but rather the root K‫ות"ר‬K.117 In the light of the fact that the rest of the novella employs exclusively Priestly terminology and style, the anomalous use of the verb K‫שא"ר‬K suggests a later hand. Finally, an indication exists in the frame of the three provisions. The words K‫יעשו אתו‬ appear twice, once in v. 11a, as the conclusion to Yahweh’s response to the question posed, right before the detailed provisions, and again in v. 12b, as the conclusion to the detailed provisions: v. 11a: v. 11b: v. 12aα: v. 12aβ: v. 12b:

K‫א ֹתֹו‬

‫שׂר יֹום ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם יַעֲׂשּו‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫שנִי ְב‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫ ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַה‬K K‫כלֻהּו‬ ְ ‫עַל־מַּצֹות ּומְר ִֹרים י ֹא‬K K‫קר‬ ֶ ֹּ ‫שאִירּו ִמ ֶמּּנּו עַד־ב‬ ׁ ְ ַ ‫ֹלא־י‬K K‫בּרּו־בֹו‬ ְ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ִ ‫ ְו ֶעצֶם ֹלא י‬K K‫פסַח יַעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ּ ֶ ‫ ְ ּככָל־ ֻח ַקּת ַה‬K

The repetition serves in classical fashion to mark the return to the main topic of the passage, the deferral itself of the Pesaḥ. In the light of the various ways in which the detailed provisions diverge from the form and focus of the passage, this resumptive repetition looks like it functions to facilitate the incorporation of an interpolated bloc of text. Part of formulating an effective frame may even have included rephrasing the initial instance from the singular, *K‫יעשה אתו‬K, in order to help shift the focus to the family and the provisions that apply to the manner in which the family performs the deferred Pesaḥ. (2) The general references in vv. 3 and 14 Two additional general references to the full body of rules and regulations about the Pesaḥ appear in the novella, one in the action segment, when Yahweh commands Israel to perform the primary Pesaḥ: K‫ככל חקתיו וככל משפטיו תעשו אתו‬K (v. 3), the other at the end of the legal segment and of the entire novella, with respect to the gēr: K‫וכי יגור אתכם גר‬ ‫ועשה פסח ליהוה כחקת הפסח וכמשפטו כן יעשה‬K (v. 14). Widespread opinion on these general expressions has it that the author means by them to refer to Exodus 12 and its laws – like the similar expression in Num 9:12.118 Several considerations undermine the significance of these expressions as references to the specific laws of Exodus 12. First of all, the premise of the deferred Pesaḥ rests on new facets of Israelite camp life that by definition change the character of the Pesaḥ and make up the very topic of the passage – the existence of the tabernacle and the attending system of concepts, rules, and practices. Impurity does not feature at all in the Pesaḥ in Egypt, yet due to the tabernacle and the incorporation of the Pesaḥ into 117

  As Kellermann also saw (Priesterschrift, 126).   See Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 38. Snaith thinks that the references allude to Exodus 12; 34:25; and Deut 16:1 – 7 (Leviticus and Numbers, 218, in the note to v. 1); see also Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 293. Ashley lists Exod 12:2 – 11, 21 – 27, 43 – 49; Lev 23:5 – 8 (Numbers, 177). 118

128

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

its system, impurity may now and forever prevent one from performing the Pesaḥ at its time and require deferring it by one month. Of necessity, then, within the context of the Priestly history, the general references to all the rules and regulations of the Pesaḥ in vv. 3 and 14 have a mediated, indirect, even undefined, character. Secondly, indications suggest that both references belong to larger interpolations. In the case of the general reference in v. 3, note the inexplicable shift in Yahweh’s address when instructing Moses what command to transmit to the Israelites. Yahweh begins by addressing Moses directly and referring to Israel in the third person, in v. 2. The continuation features an abrupt change, in which Yahweh speaks to Moses about Moses and Israel together, in direct address, in v. 3. v. 2:

K‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ְ

v. 3a: v. 3b:

K‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ְ

‫ ְויַעֲׂשּו ְבנֵי־יִשְ ָׂראֵ ל אֶת־ ַה ָ ּפסַח‬K

‫שׂר־יֹום ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַהזֶּה ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם תַ ּעֲׂשו א ֹתֹו‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ְב‬K K‫פטָיו תַ ּעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ָּ ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְ ּככָל־חֻק ֹּתָ יו ּו ְככָל־ ִמ‬K

The content formulated in direct address in v. 3 elaborates the two elements of the primary instruction that Israel do the Pesaḥ at its time in v. 2. The date specified in v. 3a, the fourteenth of the first month in the evening, provides detail for the elliptical formulation of the primary instruction “at its time,” in v. 2. The general command to perform the Pesaḥ according to all its rules and regulations in v. 3b rounds out the picture and clarifies what doing the Pesaḥ means in the primary instruction in v. 2.119 Indicating this direct, expansive relationship, each clause concludes with the very words of the corresponding primary instruction that it aims to amplify; moreover, both do so somewhat redundantly and even awkwardly, in a forcible manner that only calls attention to the tight connection with the primary instruction: v. 2:

K‫סח‬ ַ ‫אֶת־ ַה ָ ּפ‬

K‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ְ

v. 3a: v. 3b:

‫ש ָׂראֵל‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְויַעֲׂשּו ְבנֵי־י‬K K‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ְK

‫שׂר־יֹום ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַהזֶּה ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם תַ ּעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ְב‬K K‫פטָיו תַ ּעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬ ָּ ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְ ּככָל־חֻק ֹּתָ יו ּו ְככָל־ ִמ‬K

The inverted order of the core elements of the expansion K‫– עׂש"ה‬ ‫מועד‬K with respect to the core elements of the primary instruction K‫– מועד‬ ‫עׂש"ה‬K  – a common feature of expansive material – helps emphasize the literary relationship between them by incorporating them all into a single balanced and closed structure. Notably, from another perspective, a second set of inverted repetitions, overlapping with the first, comes into view, one that does create some additional awkwardness in style, but further binds the whole together as a single complex structure. Whereas the primary instruction in v. 2 begins with the verb and subject (in indirect address) K‫ויעשו‬K and continues with the topics of concern (the Pesaḥ and the time of its performance), both components of the expansion in v. 3 first provide the specification, then repeat the verb and subject (in direct address) together with the pronominal object, K‫תעשו אתו‬K: 119

LXX.

  Therefore, there is no need to emend the text following the leveling textual variants in SP and

129

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

Verse 3 K‫א ֹתֹו‬ K‫א ֹתֹו‬

‫תַ ּעֲׂשּו‬ ‫תַ ּעֲׂשּו‬

Verse 2 ‫שׂר־יֹום ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַהזֶּה ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ ‫ש ָ ּפטָיו‬ ׁ ְ ‫ְ ּככָל־חֻק ֹּתָ יו ּו ְככָל־ ִמ‬

‫אֶת־ ַה ָ ּפסַח‬ K‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ְK

‫ ְויַעֲׂשּו ְבנֵי־יִׂשְ ָראֵ ל‬K

Significantly, all the various characteristics bundled together in this piece of text – abrupt shift in address from indirect to direct, elaboration of the subject matter, lemmatic anchoring, chiastic reformulation, and other literary devices – recur together in another Priestly passage, likewise on the Pesaḥ, and there too they signal secondary material interpolated into a preexisting text: Exod 12:4 – 6a with respect to v. 3, and vv. 9 – 10, 22 – 24 with respect to vv. 6b – 8.120 The interpolation of Num 9:3 after v. 2 serves two functions, or, to put it more cautiously, has a doubled effect. First of all, it amplifies the oblique contents of v. 2, rounding out the picture of what Yahweh said to Moses – what, to the interpolator, surely he must have said – so that it both specify with precision and achieve comprehensiveness. Secondly, in doing so, it also supplies a more perfect match for the narrator’s report that Israel performed the Pesaḥ in full compliance with Yahweh’s instructions, in v. 5:121 Verse 5 K‫סִינָי‬

Verse 3

K‫סח‬ ַ ‫ ַו ּי ַעֲׂשּו אֶת־ ַה ֶ ּפ‬K ‫שׂר יֹום לַח ֹדֶ ׁש ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם ְ ּבמִדְ ַבּר‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ָב ִּראׁשֹון ְב‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫אֶת־מ‬

‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה‬ ֶ ‫ ְכּכ ֹל ֲא‬K K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫ ֵכּן עָׂשּו ְ ּבנֵי י‬K

ּ ַ ‫ָהע ְַר‬ K‫ביִם‬

‫שׂר־יֹום ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש ַהזֶּה ֵבּין‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ְב‬K ְ ‫תַ ּעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬K K‫בּמֹועֲדֹו‬ ָּ ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ּו ְככָל־ ִמ‬ K‫פטָיו‬

‫ ְ ּככָל־חֻק ֹּתָ יו‬K K‫תַ ּעֲׂשּו א ֹתֹו‬K

The second general reference to all the rules and regulations pertaining to the Pesaḥ appears in the signature Priestly formula that subsumes the gēr under the rubric of Priestly rules and regulations, in v. 14, at the conclusion of the novella as a whole. In this instance, the entire provision appears secondary. Similar to the case of the expansion in v. 3, in this concluding statement Yahweh speaks to Israel, in second person direct address, K‫חקה אחת יהיה לכם‬K, which makes an abrupt, inexplicable shift from the formulation of the provisions immediately preceding it, in vv. 10 – 13, in which Yahweh speaks about Israel, in third person indirect address.122 Notably, whereas the general reference to all the Pesaḥ rules in v. 12 uses only the single term K‫חקה‬K to denote the Pesaḥ rules (K‫ככל חקת הפסח‬K), the provision in v. 14 about the gēr who aims to perform 120  Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 46 – 73. The basic phenomenon here, a chiastic transition from a law in the third person plural indirect address to the second person plural direct address, was identified by Paran also in Exod 14:2; Num 5:2 – 3; 10:2 – 10; 15:38 – 41; 35:1 – 8; he defined it as a method of composition (Priestly Style, 71 – 73, 91 – 94). However, Gesundheit succeeded in adapting it as a tool for distinguishing between layers. 121   The addition of v. 3 gave to the passage in vv. 1 – 5 the elaborate pattern identified by Avishur: a – b – 1 – 2 – 3 – c – 1 – 2 – 3 – b – a (Milgrom and Avishur, Numbers, 60). However, one should not automatically prioritize the presence of a pattern in order to argue that v. 3 is not secondary. The weight of linguistic problems, the well attested interpretive impulse, and the signs of editorial work take precedence. 122  Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 127. Inexplicably, he did not implement this criterion within vv. 10 – 13 themselves.

130

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

the Pesaḥ employs the paired terms K‫חקה‬K and K‫משפט‬K (K‫כחקת הפסח וכמשפטו‬K),123 just as the expansion in v. 3 does (K‫ככל חקתיו וככל משפטיו‬K).124 From the point of view of its contents, the provision in v. 14 is completely oblique, its intent unclear and its connection to the rest of the passage quite loose. As formulated, it leaves unclear whether it assumes that the gēr must perform the annual Pesaḥ and serves to extend the assumption so that the laws of the deferred Pesaḥ apply to him as well. Morton Smith argues for just such a reading, considers even further that such an assumed obligation must also presume that any gēr undergoes circumcision, and draws the conclusion that the provision must come from a later period than the Pesaḥ law in Exod 12:47 – 49, in which, on the contrary, the gēr only requires circumcision in order to participate in the Pesaḥ.125 Smith’s reconstruction, though, faces a serious problem. The concept of requiring a gēr to undergo circumcision understands the act of circumcision to turn the gēr into an Israelite, in which case no reason would exist to include a special declaration that all laws apply to him. He would already fall under the categories of K‫בני ישראל‬K and K‫איש איש‬K as the addressee of the laws, in v. 3. If, contrary to Smith’s difficult position, the provision in v. 14 does not rest on the assumption that the gēr must perform the Pesaḥ and the provision has a close relationship to the contents of the passage as a whole, then the general character of the formulation of the provision might seem to imply that it makes applicable to the gēr the entire set of rules legislated in the preceding paragraph about the Pesaḥ. Specifically, should the gēr plan to perform the Pesaḥ, he must perform it according to all its particular regulations – including the maintenance of a state of purity and the performance in the designated location. A seemingly absurd implication of this reading would ensue, according to which, should the gēr plan to perform the Pesaḥ but find himself unable to do so for reasons either of impurity or inaccessibility, he would have to perform it one month later. Could the mere intent turn voluntary participation into an obligatory one? Such a possibility seems far-fetched, if not downright untenable. It seems inescapable, then, that one should read the provision in v. 14 in very restricted, disconnected terms. It means to state only that the gēr who would perform the Pesaḥ must do so according to its rules. It does not apply to him the deferral of the Pesaḥ – or the punishment for failing to perform it. In this reading, the provision really has no substantive connection to the law legislated in vv. 9 – 13 or to the topic of the novella as a whole, Pesaḥ deferral. Rather, it bears only a loose, artificial relationship to it. Once the novella raises the topic of the Pesaḥ, even if to discuss some particular aspect of it, it may as well note the applicability of all its laws to the gēr who would perform it. The extremely tangential character of the provision together with its divergent form of address – indirect – give it too the look not merely of a compositional 123

  Ibid., 127 – 128.   Ibid., 128; see also the different views in Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 38; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 47; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 492, 494; Holzinger, Numeri, 35. 125  Smith, Parties and Politics, 181. 124

131

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

afterthought but of an interpolation, not unlike the way side-tracking and abrupt shifts in address characterize interpolated matter elsewhere in the novella and in the Priestly history generally. In sum, one cannot take it for granted that either of the two general references to all the rules and regulations of the Pesaḥ in vv. 3 and 14 simply and obviously points to the specific contents of Exodus 12 or conveys what precisely the author of the novella had in mind regarding the configuration of the Pesaḥ. (3) The date of the Pesaḥ In the segment in which Yahweh tells Moses to instruct the Israelites to perform the Pesaḥ, the first one since the Pesaḥ during the exodus from Egypt, Yahweh specifies its designated date, the fourteenth day of the first month (v. 3) and the people hold it then accordingly (v. 5). Without doubt, the date of the deferred Pesaḥ in the legal segment of the passage, the fourteenth day of the second month, derives from the primary date on the fourteenth in the first (v. 11). The date of the fourteenth first appears in the instructions given regarding the original performance of the Pesaḥ, in Egypt, in Exod 12:3 – 6. According to the instructions the Israelites must select their Pesaḥ animal on the tenth and guard it until the fourteenth in the evening, when they must slaughter it. The precise formulation of the date in the novella, with respect to both the primary and deferred Pesaḥ, matches less the discursive one of Exod 12:3 – 6 than the rigid calendrical listing found elsewhere in the Priestly history and in Ezekiel: Exod 12:3 – 6

Lev 23:5 Num 9:5 Num 9:11 Num 28:16 Ezek 45:21

K. . .

‫ ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ָ ּבי ִם‬K ‫ ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם‬K ‫ ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ַ ּבי ִם‬K

‫שׂה ַל ָ ּבי ִת‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ְלבֵית־ָאב ֹת‬ ֶ ‫ ֶ ּבעָש ֹׂר לַח ֹדֶ ׁש ַהזֶּה ְויִקְחּו ָלהֶם אִיׁש‬K K‫ה ּז ֶה‬ ַ ‫שׂר יֹום לַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬ ָ ‫ַאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫שמ ֶֶרת עַד‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְו ָהי ָה ָלכֶם ְל ִמ‬K K‫ביִם‬ ּ ָ ‫ש ָׂראֵל ֵבּין ָהע ְַר‬ ְ ִ ‫שחֲטּו א ֹתֹו כ ֹּל ְקהַל עֲדַ ת־י‬ ׁ ָ ‫ ְו‬K ‫לַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬ ‫לַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬ ‫לַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬K ‫לַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬K

‫שׂר‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ ‫שׂר יֹום‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ ‫שׂר יֹום‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ ‫שׂר יֹום‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ ‫שׂר יֹום‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬

K‫ה ִָראׁשֹון‬

‫ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש‬

K‫ב ִּראׁשֹון‬ ָ

K‫שנִי‬ ּׁ ֵ ‫ַה‬

‫ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש‬ ‫ּובַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬ K‫ב ִּראׁשֹון‬ ָ

K‫ה ִָראׁשֹון‬

Within the context of the narrative of the Priestly history, namely, according to its sequence of divine speeches, the formulation in Num 9:5, 11 is of a piece with Lev 23:16, a law given by Yahweh around the same time, possibly on the same day even, and probably does not owe anything to Yahweh’s speech to Moses in Egypt about how to prepare the Pesaḥ roughly one year earlier.126 Indeed, the dates in the novella reflect the calendrical formulation in failing to mention the date of the tenth. Given that Yahweh speaks to Moses several days in advance, one would expect the narrative to mention the tenth, whether in the voice of 126  The wording of Num 9:3 is close to Exod 12:18, but there it marks the time for eating the unleavened bread. On the relationship of these verses to Exod 12:6, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 76 – 95. The wording in Josh 5:10 K‫ויעשו את הפסח בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב‬K corresponds to Exod 12:18 K‫בראשון בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב תאכלו מצת עד יום האחד ועשרים לחדש בערב‬K.

132

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

Yahweh or the narrator. Such awareness of the framework created by the tenth and the fourteenth does appear in another segment of the Priestly history, according to which Israel crosses the Jordan River on the tenth and performs the Pesaḥ on the fourteenth (Josh 4:19; 5:10). Without any mention of the tenth, the fact that Yahweh speaks to Moses several days in advance of the Pesaḥ has more the character of a reminder for Israelites to ready themselves than a concrete implication about anything specific to the Pesaḥ to take place in the interim (compare Exod 19:10 – 11; Josh 3:5). A midrash goes so far as to conclude that a priori the law of the tenth pertained exclusively to the Pesaḥ in Egypt (m. Pes. 9:5). Likewise, the specific hour of the Pesaḥ, the evening (K‫בין הערבים‬K), that appears in both Exod 12:6 and Num 9:5, 11 holds very different significance in each text. In Exodus 12, slaughtering in the evening has an inherent connection to the events taking place that night and to the function of the Pesaḥ within those events. Slaughtering and roasting in the evening provides the Israelites with potent blood and fresh meat to protect them inside their homes while death and devastation rage without (vv. 12 – 13, 21 – 23).127 No such conditions attend the evening of the fourteenth one year later. Moreover, no other details of the Pesaḥ merit pointing out. From this point of view mentioning the hour of the Pesaḥ – several times (Num 9:2 – 3, 5, 11) – has something of an extraneous character.128 If the narrator can take for granted all the other details of the Pesaḥ and omit them, why not this one? Going one step further, the way the formulation of the date corresponds in particular to the Priestly calendars suggests that, rather than hint at the dramatic events surrounding the original Pesaḥ and unique to it, explicitly noting the evening reflects the incorporation of the evening hour into the larger system of offerings. Notably, in the list of institutional offerings made throughout the year, the evening appears alongside the morning as part of the definition of the daily offering (Num 28:3 – 4, 7 – 8). This seeming assimilation of elements of the Pesaḥ to the larger system of offerings goes together with the application of the purity and proximity requirements to the Pesaḥ, which stand at the heart of the novella and, as said above, reflect the presence of the tabernacle and the subordination of the Pesaḥ to the system that supports it.

127  In the continuation of Exodus 12, v. 18 already begins speaking in terms of K‫ערב‬K and not K‫בין‬ ‫הערבים‬K, when its intention is to deal with a different matter, namely defining the connection between the hour of the Pesaḥ and the seven days of unleavened bread. The concept K‫בין הערבים‬K is no longer of interest. See Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 84 – 88. 128  It seems that the absence of the defining element K‫בין הערבים‬K and its alternative K‫בערב‬K (Deut 16:4, 6; Jos 5:10) in the Pesaḥ celebrations described in the Chronistic literature – those of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 30), Josiah (2 Chronicles 35), and the returnees (Ezra 6) – reflects cultic centralization. A small number of priests and Levites would not be able to complete by night the slaughter of so many sacrifices and the throwing of their blood on the one and only altar if their time is limited to the end of the day. Because of this, the Rabbis reinterpreted the expressions K‫בין הערבים‬K and K‫ערב‬K from twilight to the second part of the hours of daylight (see m. Pes. 5:1; Mek. de R. Ishmael § 5 [p. 17 l. 13 – p. 18 l. 3). Therefore, one cannot rely on the Rabbis for a determination of the original meaning of the expressions K‫בין הערבים‬K and K‫ערב‬K, which are more or less synonymous. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1968 – 1970.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

133

In the same vein, the novella lays particular stress on the concept of the “designated time” K‫מועד‬K. The term appears four times (vv. 2, 3, 7, 13); the date of the fourteenth in the month appears three more times (vv. 3, 5, 11); and two references to “that day” ‫ביום‬ ‫ההוא‬K occur (v. 6). This focus on the concept of a designated date, too, differs from Exodus 12 and aligns with the calendars in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29. The central term K‫מועד‬K does not appear at all in Exodus 12,129 whereas the lists in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29 revolve around it. Again, Exodus 12 gives the date significance by contextualizing it in the events taking place at that time and then using it for the periodic recollection of those events. In the novella, by contrast, the focus on the designated time shifts from the historical context to the calendar per se, as in the calendars of Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29. This kind of conceptualization, and only this kind of conceptualization, can consider the possibility of a deferral and set a make-up date one month later, the only significance of which is the formal, artificial echo of the number fourteen. One gains the impression that the expression used to denote the performance of the Pesaḥ, the root K‫עש"ה‬K, which has only the most general connotation, likewise reflects the calendrical thinking and interests that appear to characterize the novella, in stark contrast to the ritual concerns fronted so deliberately and richly in the text of Exodus 12. Expressions with K‫עש"ה‬K occur throughout the novella, in both the action and legislative segments – eleven times in fourteen verses (vv. 2, 3 [twice], 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). This general usage represents a simple way of referring to everything other than the real focus of the passage, the designated time of the Pesaḥ. In this respect too the formulation of the passage parallels the calendars, which say nothing about the Pesaḥ other than its date; they do not employ so much as a verb to qualify its performance:130

129

  So noted Licht, Numbers, 1.140.  See further: Josh 5:10; Deut 16:1; 2 Kgs 23:21, 22, 23; a fifth century potsherd from Elephantine: K‫שלח לי אמת תעבדן פסחא‬K (ll. 8 – 10; see Sukenik and Kutscher, “A Passover Ostracon,” 53 – 56; Lindenberger, Letters, 48); a fifth century letter from Elephantine is reconstructed as follows: K‫]ופסחא עב]דו‬K (l. 5; see Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 60 – 65; Lindenberger, Letters, 66). Compare the language connected with the Pesaḥ of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 30), the Pesaḥ of Josiah (2 Chronicles 35), and the Pesaḥ of the returnees (Ezra 6:19 – 20), which use the two verbs K‫שח״ט‬K (Ezra 6:20; 2 Chr 30:15, 17; 35:1, 6, 11) and K‫עש״ה‬K (Ezra 6:19; 2 Chr 30:1, 2, 3, 5; 35:1, 16, 17, 18 [2x], 19). It seems that in those texts, the verb K‫עש״ה‬K reflects the source, 2 Kgs 23:21 – 23, while K‫שח״ט‬K serves the purpose of reinterpreting Exod 12:6, according to which the Israelites slaughter the Pesaḥ, in a way that transfers the slaughter from their hands to the hands of the Levites. With Exod 12:6 compare 2 Chr 30:15 – 20; 35:3 – 6, 10 – 15; Ezra 6:19 – 20. One can trace an arc: in the Pesaḥ of Hezekiah the Levites slaughtered the Pesaḥ for the people because they were not pure (2 Chr 30:13 – 19); in the Pesaḥ of Josiah the slaughter of the Pesaḥ by the Levites was determined to be correct procedure (35:3 – 6); and in the Pesaḥ of the returnees, the Levites slaughtered the Pesaḥ as a fixed state of affairs (Ezra 6:19 – 21). Note that, outside of these events, the verb K‫שח״ט‬K does not appear in Chronicles; instead, the verb is K‫זב״ח‬K. The additional verb that actually appears in the novella is K‫קר"ב‬K (H stem), alongside the unique expression K‫קרבן יהוה‬ (vv. 7, 13). However, it seems that the two clauses in which the phrase is found are secondary. See the good discussion in Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 126 – 127, although he concludes that all of v. 13 is an addition, and he does not discuss v. 7; and see further below. 130

134

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

Lev 23:5 Num 28:16

‫ ֶ ּפסַח ליהוה‬K ‫ ֶ ּפסַח ליהוה‬K

‫ֵבּין ָהע ְַר ָ ּבי ִם‬

‫לַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬ ‫לַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬

‫שׂר‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬ ‫שׂר יֹום‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ְב‬

K‫ה ִָראׁשֹון‬

K‫ה ִָראׁשֹון‬

‫ַבּח ֹדֶ ׁש‬ ‫ּובַח ֹדֶ ׁש‬

In the Priestly texts about the Pesaḥ in Egypt in Exodus 12, by contrast, the root ‫ה‬K "‫עש‬K does not appear at all in connection with the Pesaḥ,131 but rather a group of concrete terms appears – taking ‫ח‬K ‫לק״‬K (vv. 3, 4, 5, 21), slaughtering ‫ט‬K ‫שח״‬K (vv. 6, 21), eating ‫ל‬K ‫אכ״‬K (vv. 4, 7, 8 [twice], 9, 11 [twice]), and more. The diction of Num 9:1 – 14, then, confirms its disinterest in all the details of the Pesaḥ in Egypt, which, as the text in Exodus 12 that describes them enjoins, are meant to be commemorated by the performance of the Pesaḥ in subsequent years (Exod 12:24 – 27a) – its disinterest in all the details, that is, but one, the date. The distance of the oracular novella from the text of the Pesaḥ in Egypt and its alignment with the Priestly calendars contain several levels of significance and implications. The analysis of the diction and formulations in the novella helped crystalize its single-minded focus. In the context of the Priestly history, it brought out the impact on the Pesaḥ of Israel’s construction of the tabernacle, specifically, the assimilation of the Pesaḥ to the comprehensive system that regulates sacred offerings and access to the tabernacle. In addition, beyond the level of the world within the Priestly history, a conceptual gulf and debate emerges between the text of the Pesaḥ in Egypt in Exodus 12, on the one hand, and the rest of the Priestly holiday texts, including Num 9:1 – 14, on the other, regarding the relationship between the Pesaḥ and the seven day festival during which one eats unleavened bread.132 The text of Exodus 12 appears to state that in future generations Israelites will perform the Pesaḥ on the evening of the fourteenth: (vv. 6 + 24) and at the same time begin a period of seven days during which they eat unleavened bread: (v. 18): Verse 6: KVerse 18:

K‫ביִם‬ ּ ָ ‫ָהע ְַר‬

‫ש ָׂראֵל ֵבּין‬ ְ ִ ‫שחֲטּו א ֹתֹו כ ֹּל ְקהַל עֲדַ ת־י‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׂר יֹום לַח ֹדֶ ׁש ַהזֶּה ְו‬ ָ ‫ַאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫שמ ֶֶרת עַד‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְו ָהי ָה ָלכֶם ְל ִמ‬K ‫ש ִׂרים לַח ֹדֶ ׁש ָ ּבע ֶֶרב‬ ְ ‫שׂר יֹום לַח ֹדֶ ׁש ָ ּבע ֶֶרב ת ֹּאכְלּו מַּצֹות עַד יֹום ָה ֶאחָד ְו ֶע‬ ָ ‫ַּאר ָ ּבעָה ָע‬ ְ ‫ ָב ִּראׁשֹון ְב‬K

Furthermore, the text variously indicates that the two sets of practices, the Pesaḥ and the eating of unleavened bread, belong to or make up a single complex of practices. One eats the Pesaḥ together with unleavened bread: K‫ומצות על מררים יאכלהו‬K (v. 8), and unleavened bread will serve to commemorate the series of events and experiences from which the Pesaḥ draws its name: K‫ושמרתם את המצות כי בעצם היום הזה הוצאתי את צבאותיכם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים‬K (v. 17a; see also vv. 14, 24).133 131  It appears only in the routine and characteristic conclusion that occurs throughout the Priestly history: K‫וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל כאשר צוה יהוה את משה ואהרן כן עשו‬K (Exod 12:28). The law of circumcision in vv. 43 – 50, in which the term K‫עש״ה‬K appears (vv. 47, 48), does not belong to the Pesaḥ of Egypt at all. In terms of the story, according to v. 37, the Israelites had already performed the Pesaḥ and departed from Egypt, and in terms of the concepts, all the expressions K‫בן נכר‬K, K‫עבד איש מקנת כסף‬K, K‫תושב ושכיר‬K, K‫גר‬ ‫הגר בתוככם‬K and K‫אזרח הארץ‬K are not at all suitable to the conditions of the Israelites in Egypt and in the wilderness, but instead clearly reflect the circumstances of settlement in the land (note the shared terminology with Gen 17:10 – 14). 132   Furthering the analysis of Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 44 – 95. 133   Such a complex framework recurs, incidentally, in MT Ezek 45:21 and Deut 16:1 – 8. See further: Exod 13:1 – 10; 23:15; 34:18 + 25. See Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 19 – 20; and especially Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 84 – 89.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

135

The holiday calendars, by contrast, list the Pesaḥ and the Festival of Unleavened Bread side by side, but separate them by date as two distinct entries. The Pesaḥ takes place on the fourteenth of the first month and the Festival of Unleavened Bread on the fifteenth (Lev 23:5 – 6; Num 28:16 – 17). The calendars do not note points of contact, shared elements, or connections of any kind, or coordinate them in any other way, beyond their simple juxtaposition in the calendar. Looking at it from the point of view of Exodus 12, the scheme of dates implies rather clearly that whatever unleavened bread a person eats together with the Pesaḥ does not forge any formal or conceptual connection between the Pesaḥ and the Festival of Unleavened Bread.134 Similarly, the Pesaḥ observed by Joshua does not commence a period of seven days of unleavened bread, but rather represents its own event and practice; only on the morrow do the Israelites begin to eat unleavened bread – notably, not as a commemoration of the exodus from Egypt, but because they entered Canaan just in time to begin enjoying its natural produce (Josh 5:10 – 12).135 134  Based on the lack of details regarding the Pesaḥ sacrifice and as a result of the centralization of the cult, Segal thinks the expression K‫פסחא עב]דו‬K] in the Pesaḥ letter from Elephantine had nothing to do with the offering, but rather referred to the week of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Hebrew Passover, 221 – 224). That is to say, in his opinion, the letter reflects a complete integration of two concepts, Pesaḥ and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. This approach can be sharpened by noting three facts together discussed already above: (1) the word K‫פסח‬K is completely reconstructed; (2) the “paragraph” dealing with the fourteenth (ll. 4 – 5) has no space to describe activities or a ritual; and (3) the framework that encompasses the counting of fourteen days (ibid.) and the duration of the festival from the setting of the sun (on that day) until the twenty-first day (l. 8) indicates that all the writer of the letter intended to say is that one counts to the fourteenth day and then the festival begins – exactly like the counting of forty-nine days until the beginning of the fiftieth day, in Lev 23:14 – 15. In other words, the letter may indicate that the offering of the Pesaḥ had ceased to be practiced, at least for those far away. Note that this system of dates, together with the same emphasis that the letter places on the prohibition of leavened bread, match Exod 12:18 – 20 (see further Ezek 45:21). In any case, the circumstances of the community of Elephantine are different – far from Jerusalem and with its own temple – and it is not certain how the Pesaḥ would have been understood and developed in such a situation. Compare, e. g., Nihan, From Priestly Torah, 572 – 575. The Chronistic literature distinguishes between the Pesaḥ and the Festival of Unleavened Bread as two different institutions, each with its own unique purposes, practices, and experiences. The Pesaḥ serves in the dedication and purification of the Jerusalem temple and as an expression of belonging and unity amongst the people (2 Chr 29:1 – 30:20; 34:1 – 35:19; Ezra 6:16 – 21), while the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is always mentioned in abbreviated fashion at the margins of the Pesaḥ as a kind of appendix (2 Chr 30:21; 35:17b; Ezra 6:21), is celebrated in order to illustrate the great joy of the people (2 Chr 30:21 – 27; Ezra 6:22), in a kind of parallel to the festival performed by Solomon (1 Kgs 8:65 – 66; 2 Chr 7:4 – 10). The one reference to the Pesaḥ with the title “Festival of Unleavened Bread” in the narrative of the Pesaḥ of Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:13) is exceptional, and it does not fit at all in a context that is devoted completely to the Pesaḥ alone in all respects, such that it appears suspiciously secondary. 135  Nevertheless, it seems that the narrative of the Pesaḥ of Joshua indeed reflects the text of Exodus 12 and is based on it. First of all, the beginning of the Pesaḥ of Joshua is found in Josh 4:19, which says that the Israelites went up from the Jordan on the tenth of the month, and they perform the Pesaḥ on the fourteenth (5:10). This framework of dates appears exclusively in Exod 12:3, 6. In addition, the narrative of Joshua (5:10) denotes the time of the Pesaḥ as K‫ערב‬K, which matches Exod 12:18 (see also Deut 16:6), and not as K‫בין הערבים‬K, which appears in Lev 23:5; Num 9:3, 5, 11 (see also Exod 12:6). Moreover, the full expression K‫בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב‬K in Josh 5:10 matches exactly Exod 12:18 K‫בראשן בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב‬K. Also, the eating of the unleavened bread “on this very

136

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

Like the description of the Pesaḥ observed by Joshua, the law of the deferred Pesaḥ never mentions the Festival of Unleavened Bread. As the Mishnah puts it: “What distinguishes between the Pesaḥ of the first month and of the second? The first has the prohibition against seeing or having access (i. e., to leaven or leavened foodstuffs), whereas the second – unleavened bread and leavened food are (both) with him in the house” (m. Pes. 9:3). Indeed, the entire novella does not refer to the Festival of Unleavened Bread, even the section about the Pesaḥ in the first month. It notes no prohibition against leaven and leavened foodstuffs.136 In this respect, the novella resembles the holiday calendars in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29. In these lists, the Pesaḥ stands alone, lasts just the one day (or is limited to the end of that day), the fourteenth of the first month, is not designated a festival (K‫חג‬K) or a holiday (K‫מקרא קדש‬K) and does not have a work prohibition. Only the day that follows the Pesaḥ, the fifteenth day of the month, begins a period of seven days defined as a festival (K‫חג‬K), on the first and seventh days of which one may not engage in work (K‫מקרא קדש‬K), and throughout which one eats unleavened bread (Lev 23:5, 6 – 8; Num 28:16, 17 – 25).137 This break in the conception of the relationship between the Pesaḥ and the Festival of Unleavened Bread recommends revisiting the alleged shift in the Pesaḥ, in Priestly historiographical terms, from its configuration in Egypt to its assimilation to the requirements of the tabernacle once the Israelites construct it. The domestic slaughter of the animal, consumption of its meat, and manipulation of its blood do not represent a variation of a system that undergoes mild qualification once the tabernacle comes into existence. Rather, the configuration of actions and space reflects a conceptual orientation around the home that opposes diametrically the system that orients all activities towards the tabernacle due to Yahweh’s presence there. Moreover, it cannot suffice to restrict the domestic Pesaḥ, in the terms of the Priestly historiography, to Egypt and day” K‫בעצם היום הזה‬K (Josh 5:11) correlates with Exod 12:17 K‫ושמרתם את המצת כי בעצם היום הזה הוצאתי את‬ ‫צבאותיכם מארץ מצרים ושמרתם את היום הזה לדרתיכם חקת עולם‬K. The eating of the unleavened bread K‫בעצם היום‬ ‫הזה‬K (Josh 5:11) as if it is the day of the exodus and the day of the Pesaḥ, when it is also said to have been eaten “the next day” K‫ממחרת‬K (ibid.), also reflects the trajectory of the text in Exod 12:18 – 20, which seeks to form a continuum between the time of the Pesaḥ and the eating of the unleavened bread, as if the calendrical day begins the night beforehand (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1967 – 1968; Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 84 – 88). The unleavened bread eaten by Joshua and Israel is not said to be in the framework of a “Festival of Unleavened Bread,” but it reflects both a connection to Exodus 12 and a grappling with it. In this light, the effect is that it appears as if the assertion in Exod 12:17 that the eating of unleavened bread is a K‫חקת עולם‬K, the observance of which falls upon every generation (K‫)לדרתיכם‬, was fulfilled by the following generation at the first opportunity. On that very same day they ate unleavened bread. Compare Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 145 – 151, and see the reservations of Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2056 – 2063. 136  The sole clause about eating unleavened bread – even if, as some would insist, it is connected to the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 219; Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 80 n. 82, 82 – 84) – represents a secondary interpolation, as argued above. The distinction drawn by the Rabbis between “the Pesaḥ of Egypt” (K‫פסח מצרים‬K) and “the Pesaḥ for the Generations” (K‫פסח‬ ‫)דורות‬, namely that “the Pesaḥ of Egypt is eaten hastily in one night while the Pesaḥ for the Generations is a custom for all seven (days),” stems from the replacement of the diurnal calendar by the nocturnal calendar (compare Exod 12:14 – 20; Deut 16:1 – 8; Ezek 45:21). 137   See further Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1971 – 1972.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

137

explain the configuration as Priestly speculation regarding what a Pesaḥ would have to look like before the existence of a tabernacle.138 Nor can one maintain that the Priestly historian took over a tradition or even an existing practice about a domestic Pesaḥ and, through the history, claimed its relevance for Egypt alone. Immediately after describing how to dab the blood around the entry to the home (Exod 12:21b – 22) in order to keep out the destroyer (v. 23), the text enjoins Israelites to continue to perform the Pesaḥ in this configuration for all generations to come (v. 24): K‫סח‬ ַ ּ‫ַה ָפ‬

actions:

‫שחֲטּו‬ ׁ ַ ‫ש ְפּח ֹתֵ יכֶם ְו‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁכּו ּוקְחּו ָלכֶם צ ֹאן ְל ִמ‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬K ‫ּו ְל ַקחְתֶ ּם ֲאגֻדַ ּת אֵזֹוב ּו ְט ַבלְתֶ ּם ַבּדָ ּם‬K K‫סף‬ ּ ָ ‫שׁר ַ ּב‬ ֶ ‫שׁתֵ ּי ַה ְמּזּוז ֹת מִן־הַדָ ּם ֲא‬ ְ ‫שׁקֹוף ְואֶל־‬ ְ ‫ ְו ִהגַּעְתֶ ּם אֶל־ ַה ַ ּמ‬K K‫קר‬ ֶ ֹּ ‫וְַאתֶ ּם ֹלא תֵ צְאּו אִיׁש ִמ ֶפּתַ ח־ ֵבּיתֹו עַד־ב‬K K‫סף‬ ּ ַ ‫שׁר־ ַ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ֲא‬

function: injunction:

K‫מּזּוזֹת‬ ְ ‫ַה‬

K‫הַז ֹּאת‬

‫שׁתֵ ּי‬ ְ ‫שׁקֹוף ְועַל‬ ְ ‫ ְו ָעבַר יהוה ִלנְג ֹּף אֶת־ ִמצ ְַרי ִם ו ְָרָאה אֶת־הַדָ ּם עַל־ ַה ַ ּמ‬K K‫לנְגֹּף‬ ִ ‫שחִית לָב ֹא אֶל־ ָבּתֵ ּיכֶם‬ ׁ ְ ‫ּו ָפסַח יהוה עַל־ ַה ֶפּתַ ח וְֹלא י ִתֵ ּן ַה ַ ּמ‬K

K‫לם‬ ָ ‫שמ ְַרתֶ ּם אֶת־הַדָ ּבָר ַהזֶּה ְלחָק־לְָך ּו ְל ָבנֶיָך עַד־עֹו‬ ׁ ְ ‫ּו‬K ‫שמ ְַרתֶ ּם אֶת־ ָהעֲב ֹדָ ה‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁר דִ ּ ֵבּר ּו‬ ֶ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן יהוה ָלכֶם ַ ּכ ֲא‬ ֶ ‫ָָארץ ֲא‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ָהי ָה ִכּי־תָ ב ֹאּו אֶל־ה‬K

One of the name-derivations embedded in this passage highlights and perpetuates the domestic essence of the Pesaḥ. The name Pesaḥ (v. 21) derives from the action K‫פס"ח‬K that Yahweh did at the K‫פתח‬K “entrance” of the K‫בית‬K “house” to keep the destroyer out (v. 23): the pesaḥ is a peṯaḥ or peṯaḥ habbāyiṯ ritual. In other words, the author takes the domestic character of the Pesaḥ as a given, considers it conceptually definitive, through paronomasia generates an historical derivation around it, and leaves it to posterity in the text. Nothing in the text or about it bespeaks any assumption or expectation that in concept and practice the Pesaḥ belongs or should belong to a centralized system at the tabernacle, subsumed under it and assimilated to it. The domestic configuration of the Pesaḥ returns and comes in for new emphasis in Exod 12:43 – 50. In this text, Yahweh introduces a series of laws about who may and may not count as part of the household and participate in the Pesaḥ. Permanent subordinates like the slave (K‫עבד איש מקנת כסף‬K) and independent non-Israelites like the gēr must undergo circumcision; uncontrolled, semi-dependent figures like the temporary hired hand (K‫תושב ושכיר‬K) are ruled out. Furthermore, the laws also advance a practical aspect that keeps all household members inside the house for the entire time: K‫בבית אחד‬ ‫יאכל לא תוציא מן הבית מן הבשר חוצה ועצם לא תשברו בו‬K “In a single house shall it be eaten (entirely). Do not take any of the meat outside of the house. And not a bone shall you break of it.” The coherence of the different laws as aspects of a single complex concept – the house and household, or the “home” – is signaled by the label given to the series: K‫חקת הפסח‬K “the rule of the Pesaḥ” (see Num 19:2; 31:21). The text bears clear signs of being a secondary insertion. It lacks location within and connection to the narrative, coming sometime after the Israelites left Egypt (Exod 12:37 – 38), in the 138   For this description as a function of the performance of the Pesaḥ before the construction of the tabernacle, see Knobel, Exodus und Leviticus, 92 – 93; Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 102; Haran, Ages and Institutions, 135 – 136 (=  idem, Temples and Temple-Service, 347 – 348).

138

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

midst of the narrator’s crescendo about Israel having left Egypt (vv. 40 – 42); it lacks topical relevance, since it is oriented entirely towards conditions in the land; and a resumptive repetition frames it (vv. 40 – 42, 51). Moreover, an editorial logic can be advanced for it: (1) the thematic connection between foreigners who joined the Israelites as they left Egypt (K‫ערב רב‬K) and foreigners who have joined Israel in its land either as slaves brought and sold there (K‫עבד איש מקנת כסף‬K) or on their own (K‫תושב ושכיר‬K, ‫גר‬K), and (2) the thematic placement of a text formulated for life in the land at the point in time when the journey there begins, despite the fact that its precise location in the narrative interrupts the discourse and creates the sense of dislocation. The secondary character of this text that does not so much defend the general idea of the domestic Pesaḥ as control certain aspects of it illustrates that the idea did enjoy some purchase within the Priestly circle. At the same time, the Priestly history elsewhere refers to the Pesaḥ rather tacitly. The calendars provide a minimal line-entry, noting merely that on the date of the fourteenth of the first month – K‫פסח ליהוה‬K, namely, something called a Pesaḥ of or for Yahweh takes place (Lev 23:5; Num 28:16). The three facts that the text does not label it a festival (K‫חג‬K), as opposed to the Festival of Unleavened Bread (K‫חג המצות‬K) in the next verse, that the text does not refer to prior descriptions and prescriptions,139 and that it assigns two different dates to the two calendrical items, make it very difficult to infer whether the author considers the Pesaḥ a domestic or tabernacle affair and what specific activities characterize it. As described, the Pesaḥ observed by Joshua adds no further information (Josh 5:10). Biblical and early Jewish non-biblical literature related to the Priestly history suggests taking the ambiguous silence in the Priestly history as deliberate and expressive. The prophecy in Ezekiel, at least as MT preserves it, presents the term Pesaḥ as referring to a week during which one eats unleavened bread (45:21). Blood-dabbing takes place on the first and on the seventh of the month at various points in the future temple compound by a priest and by K‫איש שגה ופתי‬K, respectively,140 for cleansing purposes with the blood of a purification bull (vv. 18 – 20) – all appropriate to the divine house and household. Persian-period historiography (2 Chr 30:1 – 20; 35:1 – 19; Ezra 6:19 – 20), patently under Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic influence (Deut 16:1 – 8; 2 Kings 21 – 23) as well as Priestly, describes only temple-centered Pesaḥ observances, and variously dismisses the idea of a domestic Pesaḥ and its blood manipulation.141 The trend continues as late as the Hellenistic period, in Jubilees 49. When it comes, then, to the novella about deferring the Pesaḥ, in Num 9:1 – 14, the omission of references to the Pesaḥ as configured in Egypt in the texts of Exod 12:1 – 24, 43 – 50 and the application to the Pesaḥ of categories such as purity and proximity 139  Compare such references with respect to the Pesaḥ in Num 9:3, 12, 14 (K,‫ככל חקתיו וככל משפטיו‬ ‫ כחקת הפסח וכמשפטו‬,‫ככל חקת הפסח‬K) and with respect to the wholly burnt offering and attending produce offerings in Lev 5:10, 16; 9:16; Num 15:24; 29:6, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 37 (K‫ כמשפטם‬,‫כמשפט‬K). 140   Probably, the one represents the fully mindful who would not sin wantonly and the other the mindless who cannot sin wantonly. 141   On the Pesaḥ of Hezekiah in 2 Chr 30:1 – 20, see below.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

139

(compare 2 Chr 30:15 – 20) align the assumptions of its author over against the conception of a domestic Pesaḥ. Indeed, for the author of the passage on the deferred Pesaḥ, Leviticus 17 establishes, with no hint of exceptions, that the Israelite slaughtering and consuming a domesticated quadruped of the flock or herd must bring it to the tabernacle (vv. 3 – 4) as a wellbeing offering, which includes having its blood tossed over the altar and its fat burned upon it (vv. 5 – 6)142 and renders it subject to purity laws (7:19 – 21). The Pesaḥ fits this bill, perhaps specifically as the thanksgiving variety.143 Moreover, within the narrative of the Priestly history, the Pesaḥ performed in the wilderness, according to Num 9:1 – 5, represents one of the first offerings by Israel since the construction of the tabernacle and marks the original application of its categories and regulations to the Pesaḥ in practice. Given this context, one might expect some reference to the new character of the Pesaḥ, some acknowledgment, whether in the mouth of the narrator, Yahweh, or Moses. Indeed, the general references to performing the Pesaḥ “according its rules and statutes” carry a tone of familiarity and dispatch rather than noteworthy novelty. The omission and tone likely reflect the quality of the passage as a secondary insertion, one that is attuned more to the normative conceptions that arise from the history than to the narrative of the history per se and that is focused intently on the innovation it would make within the normative concepts – the deferral of the Pesaḥ, for reasons of impurity or proximity, by one month. The novella about the deferred Pesaḥ has one additional way in which it diverges from the domestic Pesaḥ of Exodus 12, aligns with other passages in the Priestly history, and presumes the assimilation of the Pesaḥ to the tabernacle system – the punishment of K‫כר״ת‬K. Simply in terms of formulation, the text about the domestic Pesaḥ in Egypt refers to the entity from which one will be cut off with the proper noun Israel: ‫מעדת ישראל‬ / ‫ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מישראל‬K (Exod 12:15, 19), whereas the oracular novella employs the common noun “nation,” K‫ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מעמיה‬K (Num 9:13), as do the overwhelming majority of instances in the Priestly history (Gen 17:14; Exod 36:14; Lev 17:20, 21, 25, 27; 18:29; 19:8; Num 15:30).144 More substantively, according to Exod 12:14 – 20, K‫כר״ת‬K has no connection to the Pesaḥ and the rules of its observance in Egypt that fateful night (or subsequently); rather, one suffers K‫כר״ת‬K for eating leaven or leavened foodstuffs in the seven-day period during which one expressly may not do so in the generations after the exodus.145 In Num 9:13, by contrast, the threat of K ‫כר״ת‬K hangs over anyone who could have performed the Pesaḥ – they were neither impure nor out of range at the time of its observance – but simply neglected to do so. The week without leaven, as said, never comes up for discussion in this text.146 142   See Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 47; Milgrom, Numbers, 69, 372. Cf. Licht, Numbers, 1.139. 143   Compare Exod 12:10 with Lev 7:15; 22:29 – 30; contrast Lev 7:16 – 18; 19:5 – 7. For characteristics shared, actually, by the burnt offering, see Knobel, Exodus und Leviticus, 92 – 93. 144  Except for Lev 22:3 K‫מלפני‬K; Num 19:20 K‫הקהל‬K; Num 15:31, in which there is no partitive at all; and Num 19:13 K‫ישראל‬K, as in Exodus 12. 145  Gray, Numbers, 84; Licht, Numbers, 1.132. 146  Indeed, it is tempting to consider the possibility that the idea that an impure person who eats meat of the wellbeing offering will suffer K‫כר״ת‬K (Lev 7:20 – 21) not only suggested to the author of the

140

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

In sum, the description of the Pesaḥ outlined in Egypt and made obligatory for generations ever after (Exod 12:1 – 24, 43 – 50) offers the richest, most detailed view of the Pesaḥ. Other Priestly texts (Lev 23:5; Num 28:16; Josh 5:10) and even later texts under Priestly influence (Ezek 45:21; 2 Chr 30:1 – 20; 35:1 – 19; Ezra 6:19) give very little information about the Pesaḥ. In addition, the oracular novella about deferring the Pesaḥ – specifically, Yahweh’s instruction to Israel, at the beginning of the first month of the second year since the exodus from Egypt, that they perform the Pesaḥ a few days hence on the fourteenth day of the month (Num 9:1 – 2) – presupposes the connection between the Pesaḥ and the exodus, the normative, commemorative force of the Pesaḥ in subsequent years, and Israel’s familiarity with the terms of the Pesaḥ. Likewise, the formulation of the law of the deferred Pesaḥ (vv. 10b, 11a, 13) assumes knowledge of the obligation and specifics of the Pesaḥ. Nevertheless, the novella manages not to use expressions that come from Exod 12:1 – 24 to refer to the narrative of the pivotal context of the origin of the Pesaḥ, or to reflect the specific conceptions about how to perform it. On the contrary, the constitutive concepts behind the deferred Pesaḥ and the story of its origin – the purity and the access to a particular locale required for its performance – contradict the stipulations of Exod 12:1 – 24. The emphasis on the date as an element of significance in and of itself; the particular formulation of the date; the lack of concern for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which, by implication, remains entirely unaffected by the deferral of the Pesaḥ; and the silence regarding the manipulation of the blood – all these align the novella with the Priestly calendars in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29 and other Priestly and subsequent texts. The exception of the three concrete details in the midst of the law about deferring the Pesaḥ only serves to prove the rule. Their formulation closely follows corresponding verses in Exodus 12, and the exegetical ways in which they deviate from Exodus 12 demonstrate their direct dependence on it. Such sudden adherence to the text of Exodus 12 highlights, with the force of contrast, the level of dissociation from Exodus 12 in the rest of the novella. Indeed, they bear the classic convergence of signs of an interpolation: tangential contents, divergent address, and resumptive repetition in the frame. Several conclusions, complicated ones, come to the fore as a result of the analysis. First of all, there exists a development or divergence within the Priestly texts: Exod 12:1 – 24, 43 – 49 on the one hand, and the calendars in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29 and all the others, on the other. Secondly, the chief part of the novella in Num 9:1 – 14 goes along with the bulk of the Priestly texts. Third, just as the conceptions and formulations in the Priestly texts bear signs of having developed subsequent to those of Exodus 12,147 so, by extension, does Num 9:1 – 14. Fourth, bearing deferred Pesaḥ passage that the impure may not eat of the Pesaḥ variety of the wellbeing offering (Num 9:6 – 7), but also played something of a creative role in developing the inverted idea unique to the Pesaḥ – a required rather than a voluntary brand of wellbeing offering – that the pure who does not eat of it will suffer K‫כר״ת‬K (v. 13). Compare Ashley, Numbers, 180. In this direction, see already Jub 49:15. 147  First of all, the expression K‫מלאכת עבודה‬K that appears throughout the holiday calendars in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 – 29 (Lev 23:7, 21, 25, 35, 36; Num 28:18, 25, 26; 29:1, 12, 35)

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

141

its own signs of having entered the Priestly history secondarily,148 the novella about the deferred Pesaḥ appears to have developed subsequent to the Priestly calendars (and Josh 5:10). b) Points of contact with Deuteronomy 16 and Deuteronomistic literature Precisely in the ways that the novella about deferring the Pesaḥ differs from the Priestly calendars and stands out from the Priestly history altogether it also appears to resemble the Pesaḥ paragraph in Deut 16:1 – 8 and treatments in the Deuteronomistic literature. The distinctive characteristics of the novella within the Priestly history and their affinities with non-Priestly sources warrant probing and analysis, especially because a significant number of scholars sees Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic influence throughout the entire novella.149 On close inspection the evidence for such influence does not seem all that compelling. First of all, the clear and undeniable way in which the novella considers the Pesaḥ as a consistent part of the system of offerings in the tabernacle sphere, subject to impurity and to a demarcated locale, sets it apart from the Priestly calendars and even the narrative of the Pesaḥ under Joshua, which, omitting all detail, do not register such a conception. The explicit subordination of the Pesaḥ to the system around a demarcated locale with implications for regulations in performance does figure prominently in Deut 16:1 – 8 and dependent literature, namely, the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic histories. Relatedly, it would seem, Num 9:1 – 14 features several distinctive expressions. Twice (vv. 7 and 13), in both the event and oracle segments of the novella, in the mouths of the petitioning Israelites and of Yahweh himself, the Pesaḥ enjoys the unique denotation K‫קרבן יהוה‬K, governed in unusual fashion by the verb K‫קר״ב‬K (H stem).150 Elsewhere the Hebrew Bible typically has the expression K‫פסח ליהוה‬K, or K‫פסח הוא ליהוה‬K,151 governed presupposes the explicit definition in Exod 12:16 for the character of the work prohibition on a holiday. Secondly, the ambiguity that characterizes the dating system for the Pesaḥ and for the week in which one eats unleavened bread in Exod 12:6, 14 – 19 becomes resolved in the festival calendars of Lev 23:5 – 8 and Num 28:16 – 17. Concerning these and other indications that the festival calendars are later than the passage on the Pesaḥ and the week of unleavened bread in Exod 12:1 – 20, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 44 – 95. 148  Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 37; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.198 – 199; Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 161 (§ 40.5d). Holzinger argued this based upon the condition of K‫דרך רחקה‬K, which matches the “post-exilic” period, when the Jews became merchants (Numeri, 35), but the claim is not at all tenable; see further below. 149   For example, Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 293. 150  Surprisingly, the very same combination, K‫ קרבן יהוה‬+ ‫קר"ב‬K, appears in Num 31:50 in a rather different context. It is not clear whether there is a connection or what it would be. Milgrom remarks that the root K‫קר״ב‬K is not limited only to sacrifices, but rather anything that is dedicated to Yahweh; among his references see Exod 28:1; also Num 3:6 and 18:2; Lev 23:16 = Num 28:26; Num 7:3 (Numbers, 264, 328 n. 64). 151  In the Priestly history: Exod 12:11 (in emphatic form), 48; Lev 23:5; Num 28:16. In the Deuteronomistic literature (characteristically with K‫אלהיך‬K): Deut 16:1, 2; 2 Kgs 23:21, 23; see also the emphatic form in Exod 12:27. In the Chronistic literature: 2 Chr 30:1, 5; 35:1.

142

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

by the verbs K‫עש״ה‬K, K‫שח״ט‬K, or K‫אכ״ל‬K or even K‫לק״ח‬K, K‫בש״ל‬K or K‫זב״ח‬K. It stands to reason that the unique formulation that appears in Num 9:1 – 14 expresses the special status of the Pesaḥ as the sole offering that every family must bring on precisely the same date to the same single location – the centralized offering par excellence, of truly national import.152 Such premier status serves a climactic role in the Deuteronomistic history, in the story of the national Pesaḥ performed under the initiative of Josiah – as never before – in 2 Kgs 23:21 – 23. In this regard, some have seen the expression combining the verb K‫קר״ב‬K (H stem) with the phrase K‫קרבן יהוה‬K as paralleling the Deuteronomic expression in which the verb K‫זב״ח‬K governs the noun Pesaḥ (Deut 16:2, 4, 5, 6).153 The condition of prohibitive distance from the place of the Pesaḥ, introduced in Num 9:10 and repeated in the motivational section, in v. 13, resembles several such conditions among Deuteronomic regulations (Deut 12:20 – 21; 14:24; 19:8; 20:15; also Exod 34:24). The fact that the Deuteronomic laws make robust, arguably systematic use of it, whereas in the Priestly history it serves in a single topic, one that is introduced secondarily, together with the fact that it functions organically and programmatically in the Deuteronomic laws as a way to make the flagship principle of cultic centralization in the land workable, which contrasts with the overall character of the Priestly history, might suggest that in the novella the condition of distance derives from Deuteronomic sources.154 Conditioned by this point to hear Deuteronomic echoes, one might sense an additional instance in the use of the verb K‫עש״ה‬K with the general sense “to do.” In the Priestly novella this verb functions as a catch-all expression that covers the full variety of actions and activities that defines the Pesaḥ. The verb appears in this sense, with this same purpose, in Deut 16:1, at the beginning of the Deuteronomic paragraph on the Pesaḥ.155 These considerations have led scholars to posit Deuteronomic influence on the Priestly novella. Seen as a group, moreover, the considerations appear to take on a combined weight. However, when reviewed carefully on an individual basis, each one of the considerations fails to hold up. Close analysis renders it more cautious to view the Priestly text as working out the same or a similar set of problems as do the Deuteronomic texts, but without evidence of direct literary dependence on them. First and foremost, recognizing that the deferred Pesaḥ presupposes the conditions of cultic centralization does not of necessity lead back to the Deuteronomic text that calls so strenuously and programmatically for cultic centralization. An equal (if not greater) possibility exists that the Priestly novella reflects conditions on the ground, 152  A parallel within the Priestly history can be found in “the first sheaf of the harvest” (Lev 23:9 – 14), which is termed K‫קרבן אלהיכם‬K (v. 14; Sifra, Emor § 11:10), except that it seems originally the sheaf may not have had a uniform date, its measure and quality were not defined, and in its subsequent form it is not brought by each and every person. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1986 – 1987; 1991 – 1996, 2054 – 2056. 153  Knobel, Exodus und Leviticus, 92; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46. 154   Compare in this direction Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 14 – 18, esp. 17. 155   On Deut 16:1, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 96 – 142, esp. 124 – 133.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

143

a time of de facto centralized cult or of cultic centralization the full limits or extent of which are under some measure of debate. The concern for one’s distance from the place in which one would perform the Pesaḥ makes perfect sense in such a scenario. The existence of one and only one legitimate site for Pesaḥ performance puts pressure on one’s ability to participate in it. From the point of view of the literature in which it appears, the idea of distance functions in the Deuteronomic regulations in a crucial capacity as a motif, introducing innovations, legitimating qualifications, or facilitating harmonizations.156 Within the Priestly history, in the case of the deferred Pesaḥ, it neither holds the same pivotal place in the text nor serves with the same force. Introduced by “or” K‫או‬K, it appears as the second of two conditions under which one may defer the performance of the Pesaḥ by one month. Detailed analysis of the historical conditions that gave rise to the idea of a deferred Pesaḥ problematizes the character of the innovation even further (see below). Indeed, as noted above the element of distance as an explicit part of ritual regulations does not make its first appearance with the literature of the Hebrew Bible, in the Deuteronomic or Priestly texts, but occurs already in Hittite regulations – in a context and with a formulation that resemble the deferred Pesaḥ of Num  9:1 – 14.157 More generally, the possibility exists that as a motif worthy of attention, distance from a site designated for ritual activity belongs to a broader milieu altogether, and does not derive purely from centralization. Anchoring the use of the verb K‫עש״ה‬K in Deut 16:1 likewise represents too selective a view of relevant data. Such usage occurs elsewhere in the Priestly history in comparable situations (e. g., Exod 31:16) and looks entirely like a Priestly manner of expression. Moreover, it seems a natural choice when the narrative means to focus on only one detail, the date. With respect to the unique expression K‫קר״ב‬K (H stem) + K‫קרבן יהוה‬K, which appears twice in the oracular novella (Num 9:7, 13), again, the view that it reflects specifically Deuteronomic conceptions and expressions seems schematic at best and fails to take historical considerations into account. Moreover, indications suggest that both instances of the expression represent yet another set of interpolations. At Num 9:7 the impure Israelites petition Moses: K‫למה נגרע לבלתי הקרב את קרבן יהוה‬ ‫במעדו בתוך בני ישראל‬K. In this sentence the petitioners appear to argue that they should not be prevented from performing the Pesaḥ.158 However, as one commentator put it: 156

  See Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 14 – 18.   “Instructions for Temple Officials,” § 9; see: ANET, 208 – 209; COS 1.219. For possible connections between the Priestly history of the Hebrew Bible and the Hittite literature, see: Milgrom, Studies, 50 – 59; idem, Cult and Conscience, 27 – 55; Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions,” 95 – 129, esp. 99 – 107, 110, 113 – 114, 116 – 121, 124; Segal, “Further Parallels,” 265 – 268; Wright, “Gesture of Hand Placement;” Stewart, “A Brief Comparison,” in Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2076 – 2080; also Milgrom, ibid., passim; and with new arguments and interpretations Feder, Blood Expiation. 158  For example, Tg. Onq.: K‫למא נתמנע בדיל דלא לקרבא‬K; Tg. Ps.‑J.: K‫;למא כען נתמנע בגין דלא למיכוס פיסחא‬ Tg. Neof.: K‫למה נתמנע דלא למקרבה‬K; Sam. Tg. J/A: K‫ה ית קרבן יהוה‬/‫ה מקרב‬/‫למה נתבצר לדלא‬K; NJPS: “Why must we be debarred from presenting the Lord’s offering?” 157

144

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

“It is unreasonable to suppose the question to be why they would be prevented, for they themselves state, ‘We are impure.’”159 Namely, they themselves know about states of purity and purity regulations, and it is unreasonable to suppose they would ask to rescind or otherwise alter them. So echo critical scholars: “The men did not need to ask why they were prevented; they knew the reason lay in their uncleanliness;” “That they were not to celebrate the Pesaḥ on the day prescribed for the community the men knew well.”160 Additionally, the sense of the root K‫גר״ע‬K has to do with reduction,161 such that the verb K‫נגרע‬K does not fit the clause that follows, K‫לבלתי הקרב‬K, in particular the preposition K‫ל־‬K, which would seem to require a different action. LXX demonstrates that at least one ancient translator sensed the problem and therefore offered a patently contextual rendering, which, based on the oracular response they would receive further on in the narrative (in vv. 10 – 11), has the odd effect that the petitioners anticipate the divine response and even suggest it: μὴ οὖν ὑστερήσωμεν προσενέγκαι τὸ δῶρον κυρίῳ κατὰ καιρὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν μέσῳ υἱῶν Ισραηλ; (= Shall we not defer the offering of the gift of the Lord according to its time in Israel’s midst?).162 In the various explanations they propose, scholars must fill in much to remove the difficulty.163 One solution to the problem comes from v. 13, where essentially the same precise expression as that in v. 7 appears, in a stylistic chiastic variation: Verse 7:

‫ ְבּמֹעֲדֹו‬K

‫אֶת־ק ְָר ַבּן יהוה‬

‫ִבלְתִ ּי ַהק ְִרב‬

K‫ל־‬ ְ

Verse 13:

‫ ְבּמֹעֲדֹו‬K

‫ֹלא ִהק ְִריב‬

‫ק ְָר ַבּן יהוה‬

K‫כּי‬ ִ

That context affords the expression greater clarity, where it serves as an emphatic explanation for the extreme result of K‫כר״ת‬K that will befall the pure or the nearby who simply neglects to perform the Pesaḥ at its set time. In this light, the claim K‫למה נגרע‬K in v. 7 parallels the result K‫ונכרתה‬K in v. 13.164 Accordingly, one might expect the expression comprising K‫קרבן יהוה‬K governed by the verb K‫קר״ב‬K (H stem) to perform in v. 7 the same rhetorical function that it does in v. 13. Namely, just as it serves as the motive clause for K‫כר״ת‬K in v. 13, so should it serve for K‫גר״ע‬K in v. 7. The impure Israelites, then, would be raising the question, Why should we be cut off for having failed to offer Yahweh’s 159

  Aaron b. Elijah, Keter Torah, 4.12b.  Gray, Numbers, 84 (author’s italics); Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.138 (my translation), respectively. 161  Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46 (verringert, verkürzt werden); Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 493 (eigentlich scheren, abschneiden). There is no example in the Hebrew Bible that requires a different meaning except perhaps Job 15:8, but also there the meaning is not “to prevent.” 162   See Dorival, Les Nombres, 272 – 273; Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 136. 163   For example, Gray, Numbers, 84; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 493; Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 129. 164  The fact that the author used the verb K‫גר״ע‬K in the action segment instead of the verb K‫כר״ת‬K already present in the ruling segment possibly points to some level of coordination with the oracular novella about the daughters of Zelophad, especially Num 27:4, where the verb K‫גר״ע‬K serves much more naturally. In this context, one might also suggest that Aaron was added to the novella of the deferred Pesaḥ (9:6) because of the presence of Eleazar in the novella about the daughters of Zelophad (27:2). 160

145

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

offering at its set time?165 In this case, when they begin by saying, “We are impure,” they do not declare their state of impurity, but go straight to their heart of their claim – lack of culpability: the system itself excludes their participation in the day’s events. This claim does not question the prohibition on performing the Pesaḥ, only their culpability and the result they assume would ensue. In this reading, the root K‫גר״ע‬K maintains the meaning it has elsewhere in the Priestly history (Lev 27:18; Num 27:4; 36:3, 4).166 Indeed, looked at more broadly, the petition parallels that advanced in another of the oracular novellas with greater syntactical and contextual clarity. The daughters of Zelophad ask Moses: K‫למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו‬K (Num 27:4), which quite simply means, Why should our father’s name be cut off from the midst of his family? The use of the parallel verses in Num 9:13 and 27:4 to develop expectations for what 9:7 should say and ideas about what it might mean brings out several additional problems. The first set revolves around the clause K‫בתוך בני ישראל‬K. Both parallel passages, Num 9:13 and 27:4, employ the partitive preposition K‫מ־‬K with the entity from which the threatened party will be cut off:167 Num 9:13: Num 27:4:

K‫ה‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ַע ֶמּי‬

K‫פחְּתֹו‬ ּ ַ ׁ ְ‫מִש‬

‫ ְונִכ ְְרתָ ה ַה ּנֶפֶׁש הַהוִא‬K ‫שׁם־ָאבִינּו מִּתֹוְך‬ ֵ ‫ ָל ָמּה יִ ָג ַּרע‬K

This stylistic and linguistic fact raises the expectation that the impure Israelites petitioning would likewise say K‫ מתוך בני ישראל‬. . . ‫למה נגרע‬K. As formulated, though, the preposition K‫ב־‬K precedes the entity K‫בני ישראל‬K, subordinates it to the immediately preceding clause about offering Yahweh’s offering at the right time, and gives it the opposite sense altogether: “together with” rather than “(separate) from.” Moreover, this alternate formulation has the double effect of shifting the immediate point of culpability from not having performed the Pesaḥ at all to not having performed it together with everyone else, and of undermining the focus on the time of the Pesaḥ as the constitutive feature.168 Indeed, this aspect of the time of the Pesaḥ, in particular the term K‫מועד‬K, stands out. Other than its appearance as part of the one phrase in v. 13, the term does not appear in the oracle section at all. Mainly, it belongs to the action segment, which, as argued above, only came to frame the law secondarily. Whereas the original law appears to have focused on the date of the Pesaḥ solely as the grounds for determining the date of its deferred performance, the frame story added to precede the law accorded the original date of the Pesaḥ greater significance on its own terms, as a bona fide K‫מועד‬K, and thereby lent something of an explanation to the deferral by precisely one month. The series of unique aspects of the clause that recurs with slight variation in vv. 7 and 13 and seems to cause disturbances of various kinds, whether in emphasis, syntax or logic, returns the analysis to the unique reference to the Pesaḥ as a K‫קרבן‬K, qualified 165

 On the causal sense of the particle K‫ל־‬K, see BDB 514 – 515 § 5 f.  Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46. 167   See further Gen 17:14; Num 36:3, 4. 168   Compare Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.138. 166

146

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

immediately by K‫יהוה‬K – in construct with it – and governed by the verb K‫קר״ב‬K (H stem). This phrasing recurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible with respect to the Pesaḥ or any other offering, and seems designed to present the Pesaḥ as the offering par excellence. Taken together, the close, near identical formulation of the two related clauses in vv. 7 and 13, along with their anomalous terms, usages, and syntactical and stylistic difficulties all suggest that the clause has entered the novella secondarily at two points, once in the event segment and again in the oracular ruling. It does not seem unreasonable to reconstruct the petition in v. 7 as having originally said only: K‫למה נגרע מתוך בני‬ ‫ישראל‬K, as one midrash, in its fashion, has done,169 and to speculate that the insertion of the unique clause led to the transformation of the preposition from K‫ב־‬K to K‫מ־‬K.170 In v. 13, the omission of the corresponding clause entails no emendations at all: K‫ונכרתה‬ ‫> חטאו ישא האיש ההוא‬. . .< ‫הנפש ההוא מעמיה‬K.171 In fact, scholars have pointed out nearly all the problems associated with the clause, but they have not succeeded in isolating the specific limits of the clause, recognizing its nearly identical form in vv. 7 and 13, and identifying it as an insertion.172 The insertion adds something significant to the novella. It provides an explicit explanation for the severe result of K‫כר״ת‬K suffered by whoever neglects the Pesaḥ. First of all, of paradigmatic value, the Pesaḥ is Yahweh’s own offering. Secondly, its date has particular meaning.173 Presumably, together these two elements reflect the view of the Pesaḥ as the quintessential national offering. All Israelites must do it at the same time, at the same place, together.174 To summarize the findings so far, then, though some scholars have subordinated the deferred Pesaḥ and the text in which it appears to Deuteronomic influence, no stage 169  Sifre Zuta, at 9:7 K‫– למה אנו נגרעין מישראל‬ ‫למה נגרע‬K “‘Why should we be cut off’ – Why should we be cut off from Israel?” (p. 259 ll. 9 – 10). See too Kahana, Bamidbar, 28. 170  Three options in the matter of the transition from K‫מתוך‬K to K‫בתוך‬K are: (1) A copyist made a typical error, a K‫מ‬/‫ב‬K interchange (for examples, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 247 – 248). (2) A scribe encountered the awkward (but syntactically and rhetorically legitimate) wording that would have been generated by the addition of the explanatory clause K‫לבלתי הקריב את קרבן יהוה‬K between the main clause K‫למה נגרע‬K and the complement K‫מתוך בני ישראל‬K; failing to identify the self-interrupting style and that the prepositional phrase qualifies the opening clause, the scribe assumed that the prepositional clause should be governed by the closest prior verb K‫הקריב‬K and adjusted the preposition accordingly. (3) A scribe, perhaps the one who added the explanatory clause, made a deliberate change, the purpose of which was to express and emphasize the special value of the Pesaḥ in that all Israel offers it together. (More on this idea below.) In the case of each of the first two options, one cannot exclude the possibility that the clause entered its present place accidentally when the intention was to have it added at the end of the argument: K‫למה‬ ‫נגרע מתוך בני ישראל לבלתי הקריב את קרבן יהוה במועדו‬K, though in its current location it could serve legitimately as a parenthetical or self-interrupting remark, whereas in the case of the third possibility, the one who added the clause entered it in its present location with knowing intent. 171  The double formula, in which K‫כר״ת‬K and similar punishments stand alongside the bearing of sin (K‫עון‬/‫חטא‬K), appears in Lev 19:8; 20:17, 20; Num 15:30 – 31. On the meaning of K‫כר״ת‬K, the bearing of K/‫חטא‬ ‫פשע‬/‫עון‬K, and the two together, see Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 52 – 65. 172   E. g., Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46; Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 126 – 127. 173   Cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.138; Licht, Numbers, 1.135, 138 – 139. 174  Licht, ibid., 140.

3. The Literary Background of the Oracular Novella

147

of the text in Num 9:1 – 14 reveals such influence. Rather, it demonstrates ongoing inner-Priestly activity. This conclusion holds for the original law, the frame narrative added to it to facilitate its insertion into the Priestly history, and the successive layers of interpolation in both the event and the oracle segments of the text. The developments attested in the text help sharpen an inner-Priestly debate recognized by scholars about the Pesaḥ – its location, set of rituals, assimilation to the centralized system of offerings, and connection with the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Within this debate, the law that makes up the core of Num 9:1 – 14 and the story added to frame it contain the most explicit expression of the Pesaḥ as a centralized tabernacle offering, but imply a merely calendrical juxtaposition with the Festival of Unleavened Bread, without formal, conceptual or practical merging or mutual impact. As a result, the oracular novella about deferring the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 marks the clearest instance of a sharp distinction in the configurations of the Pesaḥ in Egypt and in subsequent generations ever after.175 Relatedly, these building block stages do not refer even obliquely to the Pesaḥ in Egypt and to the text of Exod 12:1 – 24 that describes it. One set of interpolations in the text, however, does assume the relevance of the details in Exod 12:8 – 10 and seeks to clarify the relationship. Another set of interpolations crystallizes the significance of the Pesaḥ as the quintessential national offering. Worth pointing out in this context, the conceptualization of the Pesaḥ as a centralized, nationalized observance begun at the very first opportunity after the exodus from Egypt represents a more extreme view, or a stronger rhetoric, than that in the Deuteronomic text of Moses’ speeches and in the Deuteronomistic history. The implications of the narrative of Num 9:1 – 14 marginalize the domestic Pesaḥ as a one-time event never repeated in the wilderness or in the land of Canaan. By contrast, the Deuteronomic source first requires the centralization of offerings only after Israel enters the land and achieves security in it (Deut 11:31 – 12:12). According to the Deuteronomistic history, these conditions first materialized in the days of David (2 Samuel 7) and Solomon (1 Kings 3 – 9), which grants a modicum of legitimacy to the idea of a domestic Pesaḥ held by Israel in the land. The text of Num 9:1 – 14, then, betrays no literary influence outside the Priestly history, but it parallels trends in the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic works, and even goes further than them in historiographical terms and in ideological implications. This magnified significance of the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 as the national offering fits the fact that only this text claims that one who does not observe the Pesaḥ suffers K‫כר״ת‬K. 175  In its current context of Exod 12:24, v. 14 there does not clearly mean to institute a change in the character of the Pesaḥ, but rather, among other possible interpretations, to add to the Pesaḥ a festival of seven days in which one eats unleavened bread, a festival that begins the day after. Again, even if the chronological framework of vv. 18 – 20 implies that the festival begins with the ceremony of the Pesaḥ, it does not follow that the worshipper is commanded to go to the tabernacle (or temple) on the fourteenth day and conduct his Pesaḥ there, rather than go only on the fifteenth after he has already conducted his Pesaḥ at home. In any event, according to the festival calendars in Leviticus 23 and in Numbers 28 – 29, the festival does not begin until the fifteenth. Compare Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 84 – 89.

148

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ What, then, were the historical circumstances that led to the development of this rare law of an untimely, deferred Pesaḥ, and what was its purpose? It warrants emphasizing that one should not look to the narrative for clues, but should focus on the law itself. First of all, the tight parallels between the narrative of Num 9:1 – 14 and the narratives of Lev 24:10 – 23; Num 15:32 – 36; 27:1 – 11 (also 36:1 – 12), in terms of structure, terminology, plot, characterization, and conception of jurisgenesis, illuminate the passage as cast in a highly stylized mold. Secondly, its setting in the wilderness period offers no self-evident real-world analogues. Over the years, scholarship has put forward only a few theories. The analysis below offers a critical review of the two most influential and cautiously suggests an alternative to them.176 Building on the fact that, according to 2 Chronicles 30, King Hezekiah must consult with the city elite to hold a belated Pesaḥ rather than draw on Mosaic authority, Ehrlich inferred that the law of the deferred Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 originated in the wake of Hezekiah’s delayed Pesaḥ.177 Chronicles, by implication, preserves an ancient historical memory. Nearly sixty years later (without referring to Ehrlich), Talmon proposed a more ambitious version of this suggestion. To his mind, the festival held by Jeroboam I “in the eighth month” as related in 1 Kgs 12:32 – 33 together with the Pesaḥ held by Hezekiah “in the second month” in 2 Chronicles 30 reflect a northern, Israelian178 agricultural cycle and corresponding calendar, which differ from those in Judea in the south, lagging behind them by a month. The deferred Pesaḥ instituted in Num 9:1 – 14 represents Hezekiah’s politically motivated attempt at incorporating the northern Israelian calendar into that of the Judean south.179 The Hebrew Bible may attest a process by which laws or norms attributed to figures other than Moses earn Mosaic authority only secondarily.180 Calendars, for that matter, are notorious for their political significance – as the story of the change made 176   According to Kellermann, the law of the deferred Pesaḥ emerged within the academic circles in the exile in Babylonia as part of the scholastic midrashic process, with no real connection to any concrete circumstances (Priesterschrift, 133). The suggestion is possible enough on its own terms, but it seems premature and unnecessary to avoid the historical impulse. By contrast, the similarly a-historical legalistic-hermeneutic process posited by Segal appears entirely forced and much too unlikely; see his Hebrew Passover, 199 – 200. 177  Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 1.254. In his opinion, the author of Chronicles reports an historical event, but did not know the law legislated in its aftermath. Ehrlich does not go so far as to state that Num 9:1 – 14 was written after 2 Chronicles 30. For a convenient list of references in Chronicles to the Torah, see Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work, 73 – 121. On the nature of such references, for example, 2 Chr 30:15 – 16, 18, see the important discussion in Japhet, Ideology of Chronicles, 234 – 244, esp. 239 – 244. 178   Talmon did not use the apt term “Israelian.” Ginsberg coined it to refer to the historical polity north of Judea, which differs from the biblical idea of a single Israelite entity (The Israelian Heritage, 1 – 2). 179   Talmon, “Divergencies in Calendar-Reckoning,” 48 – 74. 180   See, for example, Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 37 – 39 (=  Gesammelte Studien, 108 – 111); also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 256 – 261, 530 – 534.

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

149

by Jeroboam I, in 1 Kgs 12:26 – 33, makes deliberately unmistakable. However, even granting the dubious assumption by Ehrlich and Talmon alike that Chronicles can hold so much reconstructive value for an entire historical chapter in the monarchic period, the approach with respect to this particular event contains serious flaws that thoroughly undermine its viability. The assertion of a neat dichotomy between the agricultural cycles in the north (Israel) and the south (Judea) directly contradicts the vast agricultural data compiled anthropologically by Dalman and mined from Rabbinic literature by the botanist Feliks; it confuses geography with topography, kingdoms with highlands and lowlands, atlas with almanac. Rather than distinguishing north from south, agricultural seasons in the southern Levant tend to differentiate the Jordan valley from the central hills and the coastal plains.181 Accordingly, the supposition of two competing fixed calendars emerges as overly speculative and essentially unusable.182 In addition to the problems with the above synthesis, building it upon the text of 2 Chronicles 30 as a reliable historical source encounters several significant obstacles.183 First of all, one can discern no base-text with which to bridge the roughly four centuries between the composition of Chronicles and the events it describes. For one thing, Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ has no parallel material anywhere.184 Likewise, from the very first phrases of the chapter, K‫של"ח על‬K (“sent to”) and K‫אגרות כת"ב על‬K (“wrote letters to”) in v. 1, to the episode’s finale in an inconsistent concatenation of K‫כי‬K clauses culminating in the distinctive syntax of Hezekiah’s prayer in vv. 17 – 19, the language represents not a classical biblical Hebrew base overlaid by the late biblical Hebrew of Chronicles, but rather a stratum fundamentally and consistently late in character, which makes the idea of any pre-existing base-text or orally transmitted memories tendentious in the extreme.185 Secondly, the backbone of the plot of Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ, namely, the relationship he forges with the northern populace, appears highly suspect against the archaeological 181  Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 2.215 – 218; 3.1 – 6; Feliks, Agriculture in Eretz-Israel, 173 – 188, esp. 175 – 179. 182   See Gray, I & II Kings, 292 – 293; Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage, 59. On this specific point, see also the criticisms in Borowski, Agriculture, 41 – 42. 183   For a balanced illustration of how to mine Chronicles for historical data, see Knoppers, “History and Historiography,” 178 – 203. For a critical survey of the history of scholarly positions on the reliability of Chronicles, see Peltonen, History Debated. 184   See, for instance, the lists of correspondences in de Wette, Lehrbuch, 241 – 242; Bendavid, Parallels, 141 – 142, more broadly, 140 – 144, 156; of particular significance: Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew, 27 – 28; also: Endres, Chronicles and Its Synoptic Parallels, 303 – 305. From 2 Chronicles 29 to the end of the book in chapter 35, the ratio between material revised from the book of Kings and unparalleled material radically changes from that in the rest of Chronicles, which makes the historicity of this section highly dubious. Note well how Steven McKenzie’s study, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, stops at 2 Chronicles 28. 185   For several relevant telltale signs of late Biblical Hebrew, see Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, esp. 346 – 354, 403 – 410, 429 – 432; Joosten, “Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew,” 327 – 339 and bibliography; with respect specifically to Chronicles: Polzin, ibid., 28 – 84 (but regarding the placement of numerals, qualify by Weitzman, “Shifting Syntax,” 177 – 185).

150

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

and epigraphical data. Sources indicate that as part of the expulsion of the Israelian populace, Sargon II repopulated the north with foreign elements in successive waves and maintained it actively and intensively.186 Hezekiah’s calling upon the northern populace, even only those Israelians who remained, to celebrate a national festival in the competing capital of Jerusalem would mount a direct, open challenge to Assyrian hegemony. In the light of the repeated Assyrian incursions and major successes in the region, the image of Hezekiah, at an early stage of his reign, reaching out to poke a Judean thumb in the Assyrian eye seems difficult to envision.187 Moving from the historical unreliability of the account in 2 Chronicles 30 to underlying phenomenological suppositions, the view of Ehrlich and Talmon that the deferred Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 reflects Hezekiah’s delayed Pesaḥ in 2 Chronicles 30 takes it for granted that the two texts refer to one and the same phenomenon. However, a careful comparison of Num 9:1 – 14 and 2 Chronicles 30 and the supposed resemblances between them shows that this view involves misleading abstractions that overlook defining aspects and distinguishing details. Careful analysis demonstrates that the two texts describe two completely different and unrelated phenomena; that, accordingly, the texts employ alternate sets of terms; and that, undergirding the distinction, the texts are in total accord with their respective literary environments – namely, the Priestly history and Chronicles, respectively – and never so much as refer to one another. Any apparent points of contact claimed to exist between the two texts evaporate as illusory.188

186   Na’aman and Zadok, “Sargon II’s Deportations;” Wright, “Laws of Hammurabi,” 58 – 67; Miller and Hayes, History, 388 – 390, 403 – 410. 187   Na’aman, “Hezekiah’s Reform,” 179 – 195, at 180 – 181. Hezekiah’s rebellion against Sargon II’s son Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17 – 19:37) would represent a change in policy meant to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the death of the previous king, during the instability assumedly occasioned by it, not evidence of an ongoing struggle emerging now in full-blown proportions. Compare Miller and Hayes, History, 410 – 420, who reapply this “northern initiative” in 2 Chronicles 30 to preparations for war in the wake of Sargon’s death. But they couple this move with centralization of the cult more broadly, which raises more problems than it solves. For further remarks on the problems in taking the story as historical, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 155. In fact, one can fully account for the existence of the story of Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ on hermeneutical grounds alone. The point will have to appear elsewhere, but the hermeneutical touchstones comprise (1) the apparent contradiction between 2 Kgs 18:5 and 2 Kgs 23:25 and historical questions raised by them; (2) Hezekiah’s unique opportunity to undo the damage wrought by Jeroboam I and return to the glorious days of Solomon; and (3) the role of the Levites in the Pesaḥ in Ezra 6:20 (see also 2 Chr 35:2 – 6, 10 – 14). The hermeneutical resolution splits the difference: Hezekiah’s observance is like no other because of its wide participation and overwhelming joy, but technically speaking it has its shortcomings, like a manipulated calendar and impurity, whereas Josiah’s observance was technically flawless, but the dimensions were limited and the mood muted. On Chronicles’ Hezekiah as a second Solomon, see Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology, 174 – 179. On the reunification of Israel and Judea as a constitutive ideological plank in Chronicles, see Japhet, Ideology of Chronicles, 267 – 334. 188   In this vein, note Ehrlich’s remark, “The author of Chronicles did not know the laws of the deferred Pesaḥ; otherwise, he would have said of Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ that it was done in accordance with the Torah” (Literal Meaning, 1.254). The citation in 2 Chr 30:18 could refer to the implicit assumption in Num 9:6, 7, 10 – 11, but much more likely, it points to the explicit prohibition in Lev 7:19 – 20.

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

151

The oracular novella about the deferred Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 establishes a precedent and enacts a permanent law. This law exclusively targets the individual and his household. Taken at face value, the law implies that because missing the Pesaḥ leads to the severe result of K‫כר״ת‬K, it provides for those unable to attend due to circumstances beyond their reasonable control, which rendered them impure or had them too far away at the primary date of the Pesaḥ. The dispensation covers only the Pesaḥ offering itself; the Festival of Unleavened Bread remains firmly anchored to the first month. As a result, the celebrant comes, at the most, just with his own immediate family. The circumstances of Hezekiah’s delay of the Pesaḥ in 2 Chronicles 30 could not differ more. Hezekiah delays the Pesaḥ not on the basis of any law or tradition, but solely and explicitly through human deliberation and consultation capped by his own royal decree. He does so as a limited, one-time decision in response to very specific circumstances (note the palpable relief with which the author stresses that the circumstances did not recur in the Pesaḥ of the returnees, in Ezra 6:19 – 20). These circumstances, moreover, have nothing to do with the ritual qualification or physical ability of any individual to attend the Pesaḥ, but rather reflect the larger socio-political interests of the king, the lethargy of the priests, and the apathy of the people. Hezekiah pushes off the Pesaḥ in its entirety, together with the Festival of Unleavened Bread, even for those people who did come to Jerusalem to celebrate the first time around (2 Chr 30:21 – 22). The priests were not prevented by impurity but rather unmotivated to sanctify themselves (v. 3); indeed, subsequently in the story, impurity prevents no one from participating in the Pesaḥ: Hezekiah’s prayer suffices to cover them (vv. 17 – 20).189 Likewise, the people who did not come to Jerusalem to participate in the Pesaḥ Hezekiah sought to observe were not unable to do so but simply uninterested in doing so (vv. 3 – 12). And the threat of K‫כר״ת‬K never even enters into the discussion.190 189   On the basis of 2 Chr 30:6 – 9, 14; 31:1, it seems safe to conclude further that the Chronicler meant to indicate that the impurity that these Israelites have contracted does not derive from a corpse but from idolatry; so Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 154, 156, 249. On impurity caused by idolatry, see, for example, Lev 18:21 + 24 – 30; 19:31; 20:1 – 7; Jer 2:23; Ezek 20:7, 18, 27 – 31, 43; 22:3 – 4; 36:18; 37:23; Ps 106:34 – 40. On its character, see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26 – 31. 190   This comprehensive set of essential differences between the deferred Pesaḥ of Num 9:1 – 14 and Hezekiah’s deferred holiday precludes the opposite contention as well, that the story in 2 Chronicles 30 represents the extension and application of the law in Num 9:1 – 14, as Fishbane would have it (Biblical Interpretation, 154 – 159, 248 – 249). Indeed, had the author of 2 Chronicles 30 in fact derived the deferred Pesaḥ he described from the deferred Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14, he would have drawn upon such Torah-authority explicitly, as so often occurs precisely in these kinds of legal midrash throughout Chronicles. As said already, it is just this reasoning that led Ehrlich to suggest that the law in Numbers 9 emerged in the wake of Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ as described in 2 Chronicles 30: why have Hezekiah “consult” with local leaders if he could rest on such a pillar as Mosaic authority by citing a passage from the Torah (Literal Meaning, 1.254)? As Fishbane’s study illustrates so trenchantly, exegesis leaves a trail; in this case, though, no signs of it exist. And one cannot use the analogy between the texts as an indication of exegesis, for it is the presence and nature of just this analogy that is under debate. The differences analyzed above suggest that the author of the story in 2 Chronicles 30 did not cite from or even refer to the law in Num 9:1 – 14 because he saw them as two distinct phenomena, analogous perhaps, but with no actual points of contact between them to warrant drawing a direct connection.

152

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

There is one apparent link between the two texts, the close linguistic similarity between clauses in 2 Chr 30:3 and Num 9:6: Num 9:6 2 Chr  30:3

K‫הַהּוא‬

K‫ההִיא‬ ַ

‫וְֹלא־יָכְלּו ַלעֲש ֹׂת־ ַה ֶ ּפסַח ַבּּיֹום‬K ‫ֹלא יָכְלּו    ַלעֲש ֹׂתֹו    ָ ּבעֵת‬K

But the instance is the proverbial exception that proves the rule.191 In Num 9:1 – 14, the clause refers to those who were prevented from coming to perform the Pesaḥ altogether, whereas in 2 Chronicles 30 it describes that minority that did arrive for the Pesaḥ and could have performed it, but was prevented from doing so by Hezekiah because of the majority that did not show up or sanctify themselves. Again, in Num 9:1 – 14, only those prevented from participating in the observance of the Pesaḥ on its primary date observe it one month later; in 2 Chronicles 30, Hezekiah defers the Pesaḥ equally for everyone, as the text declares explicitly: “The king and his officers and the congregation in Jerusalem had to keep the Pesaḥ in the second/next month, for at that time they were unable to keep it,”192 to be precise, at that time they were unable to keep it in the manner preferred by Hezekiah and so decided not keep it at all at that time. Seen in this light, the phenomenon described in 2 Chronicles 30 recalls the wellknown one-time manipulations in the Greek calendar similarly effected for various political, military and social reasons. On these occasions a month has its name changed to the one that had just preceded it, or specific dates are moved backwards or frozen to repeat themselves for extended numbers of days.193 For instance, in order to placate his soldiers and sidestep a tradition against fighting in a particular month, Alexander the Great changed the name of the month to that of the previous one. In the campaign against Tyre he changed the date within the month from the thirtieth to the twentyeighth to make a prophecy of victory that month more credible – and inspiring – to his soldiers.194 Thucydides recounts that in order to avoid a ban on fighting in a sacred month, the Argives counted the twenty-seventh of the preceding month for the duration of their campaign.195 Similarly, when the Athenians needed to delay the festival of Dionysos, they did so by repeating the date prior to that of the festival for four days in a row.196 In an extreme instance, Demetrius wrought havoc on the months in the Athenian calendar in order to have himself initiated into all the mysteries at once, rather than over a period of more than a year and a half.197 These examples culled from the fifth, fourth, and third centuries B.C.E. match the period of the composition of Chronicles.198 The Rabbis referred precisely to this practice, when they censured Hezekiah for intercalating 191

  Contrast Fishbane, ibid.   Italics mine. 193   On the phenomenon, see Price, Religions, 25 – 29. Thanks to Amram Tropper for pointing me to this discussion. 194  Plutarch, Lives Vol. VII, “Alexander,” ch. 16 § 1 – 2, pp. 263 – 265; ch. 25 § 1 – 2, pp. 295 – 297. 195  Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 5:53 – 54. 196  Pickard-Cambridge, Festivals, 65. 197  Plutarch, Lives Vol. IX, “Demetrius,” ch. 26 § 1 – 3, pp. 61 – 63. 198   For additional examples, but without their historical contexts, see Meritt, The Athenian Year, 161 – 165. 192

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

153

the month of Nissan within Nissan itself, turning Nissan into a repeated Adar, in order to delay the date for the performance of the Pesaḥ by one month.199 To put it more succinctly, the law of the deferred Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 has no impact on the calendar itself and describes rather a personal “make-up” date for the individual pilgrim. In stark contrast, the story of Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ in 2 Chronicles 30 tells of an intervention in the national calendar that affects everyone equally and from the very outset was intended to do so. The Pesaḥ – followed by the Festival of Unleavened Bread – takes place on its correct, original date, on the fourteenth of the first month, but that date has been delayed by nearly thirty days by the addition, the intercalation, of a month. From this point of view, one should not be misled by the use of the term K‫שני‬K that modifies the “month” in which they perform the Pesaḥ (vv. 2, 13, 15). In Num 9:1 – 14, the term means “second,” as it does everywhere else in calendar references within the Priestly history. In the light of the above, though, in 2 Chronicles 30 it must mean “other, next.”200 The two texts, then, describe two fundamentally different phenomena unlinked by any relationship, historical, analogical or other.201 One final point remains to be made. Ehrlich and Talmon do not take into account the two provisions explicitly established by the law, namely, that one defers the Pesaḥ on account of having contracted impurity beforehand or having been too far away. Methodologically speaking, any theory about the deferred Pesaḥ should first attempt to anchor itself in at least one of these two provisions. In 1903, Heinrich Holzinger articulated what has remained the most widely held opinion on the matter today: The law very obviously presumes the circumstances of the post-exilic period, when the Jews became a merchant community, who frequently found themselves on business trips.202

This explanation clearly puts decisive emphasis on the provision of distance. Moreover, it is critical to appreciate that Holzinger does not infer a relative rise in the number of people traveling within the local markets of Judea to supplement their resources by bartering or otherwise exchanging their excess produce for other necessities. Rather, he posits a fundamental change in the very nature of the society in Judea, from that of subsistence farmers into an entire community of long-distance traders.203 199  See m. Pes. 4:9; b. Pes. 56a. More stringently, recall the Hittite law: “You who (are) temple officials: If you do not perform the festivals at the time of the festivals; (if) you do the spring festival in fall, (or) the fall festival in spring . . .” (COS 1.219 § 9). Against this background, it seems quite plausible to see in a similar light the month “dreamt up” by Jeroboam I and the sharp derision of it, in 1 Kgs 12:32 – 33, as suggested in Stern, Calendar and Community, 2 – 3. 200   Ibn Janaḥ, Book of Roots, 524 – 525; HALOT 2.1604 – 1605. 201   See also Segal, Hebrew Passover, 200 n. 7, 229; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 939 – 940. 202  Holzinger, Numeri, 35. 203   Similarly, for instance, King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 193 – 194; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2001. In this spirit, note well the following insidious remark by Knauf on the implementation of monotheism in the period of the return from the Babylonian exile (review of Othmar Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems):

[T]he differentiation between truth and reality, operational as it is in the distinction of gods and a true God, presuppose (sic!) most probably the mind’s acculturation to a monetarian economy in which

154

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

Such a radical transformation in the basic structure of a society should leave its imprint on the literature or archaeological record of its time. Yet the scholars espousing the theory of just such a transformation have yet to cite any evidence to support it, biblical or archaeological. On the contrary, the Priestly history to which the oracular novella about the deferred Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 belongs consistently depicts a provincial, patriarchal, agrarian Israel – in the history it writes for retelling, in the laws it says Yahweh legislated for practice, and in its underlying theology and ideology.204 Indeed, Margoliouth’s comprehensive and nuanced survey in 1939 reveals that the Hebrew Bible as a whole – a significant portion of which comes from the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. allegedly at issue – rarely refers to trade, and where it does, it directs itself to the uppermost crust of society, either explicitly or by referring to high-end luxury goods – hardly the reflection of a society broadly and fundamentally engaged in long-range, large-scale trade.205 Margoliouth’s findings lead him further to conclude, “it would appear that till the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, and perhaps even later, agriculture remained the normal occupation of the Israelites.”206 From the standpoint of archaeology, material finds from the period of the return do not indicate the sharp increase in the kinds, amounts, and origins of goods befitting a community gone suddenly from farmer to merchant. Rather, initially, they continue prior, monarchic-period patterns; subsequent growth and change remain moderate and gradual. Surveys, for that matter, have yet to turn up the sizable warehousing depots, distribution centers, and markets appropriate to large-scale, long-distance trade.207 On the contrary, settlement patterns reflect decentralized, rural farming communities.208 Moreover, Judea itself may have been too small and too poor to produce enough to survive, let alone thrive, as a merchant community.209 Historically speaking, biblical literature – prophetic as well as historiographical (e. g. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; Isaiah 49 – 66; Ezra; Nehemiah) – presents a fairly consistent depiction of ongoing internal fighting over resources and identity, weak leadership, and minimal (re)building, which makes it hard to imagine Judeans successfully establishing and maintaining the physical infrastructure and manpower-coordination necessary for constant large-scale travel, shipping, and distribution. Again, the archaeological record strongly suggests that Judea did not even begin substantively to every thing has a value measured and attributed different from its inherent (natural) virtues (e. g., to feed, warm, or protect). So, monotheism might have indeed originated in Jerusalem (or, previously or simultaneously, in the Babylonian support group of the settlers of the Persian period). 204   In this direction, see Joosten, People and Land; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2.1352 – 1357, 1391 – 1393, 1397 – 1404, 1407 – 1414. 205   Margoliouth, “Trade and Commerce,” 944 – 946. Analysis of commercial terms and consciousness in Qohelet exemplifies the point well; see Kugel, “Qohelet and Money,” 45 – 49, esp. 46. 206   Margoliouth, “Trace and Commerce,” 946 § 10. 207   See Stern, “Archaeology of Persian Palestine,” 88 – 114. Granaries found, which reflect the Persian military system (ibid., 113), Carter links to regional trade by which the Persians intended to strengthen Judea and the entire Western frontier; see: “The Province of Yehud,” 139 – 145. 208   Hoglund, “Material Culture,” 18. 209   Carter, “The Province of Yehud.”

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

155

recover from the wholesale destruction caused by the Babylonians until the latter part of the Persian period, in the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E.;210 Jerusalem itself remained extremely small, its population never expanding beyond the spur known as the City of David until the Hellenistic period.211 A large set of studies strongly discounts the viability of the merchant-community model for Judea. Jack Pastor’s socio-economic study of the Persian period highlights subsistence farming as the backbone of the economy.212 The various data brought by Yaron Dan for the period turn the tables on the merchant community conception to depict Judea more as a hub or way-station for foreign merchant communities, particularly Phoenician merchants promoted by Persian interests and backing.213 Ze’ev Safrai’s study of Roman Palestine, reaching back to the Persian period, meets the theory head on and rejects it outright as entirely unfounded and contradicted by the literary evidence not only in Rabbinic sources, but in non-Jewish sources as well.214 Finally, the foregoing concrete considerations benefit from the strength of theoretical support. The very idea of a pre-industrial merchant society, in which large numbers of members regularly travel abroad to distant lands and live primarily by trade, simply does not fit with current models in sociological research. In the overwhelming majority of cases, large-scale, long-distance trade remains in the hands of the wealthiest few, while the average citizen struggles to eke out a subsistence living through agriculture, whether as owner or otherwise.215 With regard to ancient Israel and Judea in particular, Magen Broshi made several important methodological remarks, pointing out that the incredibly high costs of long-distance transportation and distribution, and the luxury-item, non-produce quality of the majority of goods transported and distributed throughout the ancient world deny the likelihood of a Judean merchant community engaged in large-scale commerce.216 Likewise, Richard Horsley reveals such models as anachronistic, having more to do with Western socio-economic history than ancient Near Eastern.217 Taken together, all these literary, archaeological, historical, and sociological analyses uniformly paint in bold strokes a completely different picture of Judean economic life and society than that posited by Holzinger and others. The economic structure of life for Israelians and Judeans in the Iron Age did not undergo fundamental change for Judeans in the Persian period (and beyond): as a community, the majority of Judeans

210

 Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 307 – 311, 323 – 326, 348 – 350, 576 – 582.   Ibid., 434 – 436. 212  Pastor, Land and Economy, 1 – 20, 168 – 170. 213   Dan, “Trade Within,” 91 – 107; see further Stern, “Between Persia and Greece,” 432 – 445; idem, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 379 – 422, 559 – 561. 214  Safrai, Economy of Roman Palestine, 222 – 414, esp. 315 – 316. 215   The classic work on the topic is Finley, Ancient Economy; see also Polanyi, Livelihood of Man. For a collection of essays qualifying Finley’s views, see Mattingly and Salmon, Economies, esp. 3 – 11, a nuanced overview of the significance of the volume for Finley’s theories. 216   Broshi, “On Trade in Ancient Times,” 195 – 201. 217   Horsely, “Empire, Temple and Community,” 163 – 174. 211

156

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

lives first and foremost not by long-distance, large-scale trade, but rather by subsistence agriculture, supplementing material needs through local markets.218 The conception here bankrupted does have one very significant merit, the recognition that one should look only to the terms of the law itself in order to reconstruct its origins and not rely on the narrative currently attending it. The law of the deferred Pesaḥ delineates only two scenarios as warranting a make-up offering – impurity and distance. The story of the legislation of the deferred Pesaḥ, though, tells only of a case of impurity. Now scholarship has not taken the novella prima facie as historical, but the story, by its very presence, can create the impression that it has value for the historical reconstruction of the law. Specifically, it can suggest that at the heart of the law lies impurity, whereas distance constitutes a second-order clause, or even, some scholars go so far as to infer, a secondary one.219 However, it is the larger narrative context of the wilderness that has determined the case related in the story. For the law to emerge from a case of distance simply would not suit the wilderness context, when according to the presuppositions of the larger narrative history the Israelites are always within walking range of the tabernacle. Impurity, by contrast, can occur in any place at any time as the by-product of any normal death and render someone unfit to approach the tabernacle. It was precisely this incongruity between the law’s provision of distance and the larger wilderness context that led Ibn Ezra to parse the unusual phrase in v. 10 “of you or of your posterity” (K‫לכם או לדרתיכם‬K) such that the first part refers to the impure person, while the second part refers to both the impure and the person too far away (ad loc.), and led to the fuller argument above that the phrase is an interpolation designed specifically to bridge this very gap between the law’s provision for distance and its complete irrelevance to the narrative context. In order to set the origins of the deferred Pesaḥ law within the wilderness context, the story had to describe a case of impurity. Moreover, it was argued above that the story itself was created to incorporate the law of the make-up Pesaḥ into this Priestly history. All this means that to reconstruct the origins of the law of the deferred Pesaḥ, one should resist the misimpression created by the story that the weight of the law falls on impurity, and consider the provision of distance as of at least equal significance. What circumstances, then, might lie behind the concept of “distance”? In what historical context would a problem of proximity have led to the legislation of the deferred Pesaḥ? The answer hinges on the meaning of “distance.” For those like Holzinger who would have the law referring to an Israelite away on a journey, “distance” refers to those temporarily far away from home and even homeland. However, at the literary level, the text does not warrant this interpretation. To the contrary, the interpretation 218

  See also Schloen, The House of the Father, 83 – 89, 101 – 104, 140 – 141 and passim.   See Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 492; also Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 103; from a different point of view, Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 17. The conjunction “or” can often serve as a hook by which to add material into an existing text (examples and discussion in Fishbane, ibid., 170 – 172), but not necessarily so, in every casuistic law; the prime impetus for arguing as much in this case ultimately comes from the imbalance created by the story, which throws all its weight behind the issue of impurity. 219

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

157

presupposes a non-centralized, domestic Pesaḥ, which goes so far as to contradict directly the defining concepts of the novella itself. To extrapolate from the novella and apply to reality directly, then, the notion of “distance” in fact would have its sights set on those whose home is permanently out of reasonable range of the real-world site represented by the Priestly history’s tabernacle. As amply demonstrated in the literature of the Hebrew Bible as well as in the material culture recovered by archaeology, for the bulk of the Iron Age, if not all of it even, ancient Israel and Judea were clan- and land-based agricultural societies whose various structures presupposed and depended upon access to local or regional sacred sites. The move to a single temple could wreak havoc on such structures. The Deuteronomic corpus, the Hebrew Bible’s most discursively emphatic call for cultic centralization, attempts to manage just such a radical transformation by anticipating (in its rhetoric, at the very least, if not in historical terms) the manifold shock-waves throughout society this could cause and providing a bulwark against them through legislation.220 Palpably, the single most prevalent problem the texts struggle to overcome consists of the new geographical distance opened up between individual Israelites and the single sacrificial site, namely, the inaccessibility of the one legitimate temple. One can gauge the significance of distance to the program of centralization in the mind of the Deuteronomic authors by the fact that ultimately they themselves come to employ distance as a literary trope for legal innovation.221 Explicitly, one’s distance from the single legitimate sanctuary justifies: local, nonsacrificial slaughter (Deut 12:20 – 28; compare Exod 20:22 – 26, which allows local sacrifice; Lev 17:1 – 7, which rules out local non-sacrificial slaughter);222 exchanging tithe produce and firstborn animals for money in order then to buy fresh goods in the temple city (Deut 14:22 – 26);223 and the establishment of cities of asylum (Deut  19:1 – 10; compare Exod  21:12 – 14).224 Implicitly, it provides the rationale behind a host of changes in many different laws. The Hebrew slave no longer has his ear pierced at a temple, as in Exod 21:6, but rather at the doorpost of his master’s home (Deut 15:17).225 Whereas Exod 22:28 – 29 required the farmer to offer every firstborn 220

  See, for instance, Levinson, Deuteronomy.   See especially Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy, 14 – 18; also Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 257 – 260. 222   Subsequently, the passage in vv. 13 – 19 extended this allowance to the temple city as well; see Chavel, “The Literary Development of Deuteronomy 12.” 223   According to Weinfeld, the dispensation in vv. 24 – 26 applies to the firstborn animals mentioned alongside the tithed produce in v. 23 (Deuteronomy, 215). In this case, a contradiction emerges with 15:19 – 23, which requires one annually to bring to the temple all the male firstborn animals. Knobel interpreted the provision in vv. 24 – 26 to apply only to the tithed produce and not to the firstborn animals (Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 264 – 265); likewise, Dillmann dismissed the presence of the firstborn animals in v. 23 as a tangent mentioned along with the tithe in passing because of their similarity or because they were brought to the temple at the same time (Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 304 – 305). 224   On the development of the cities of asylum, compare Rofé, “Cities of Refuge;” Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 31 – 112. 225  Driver, Deuteronomy, 181 – 185. 221

158

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

animal eight days after its birth, now the farmer may hold on to all the firstborn animals for a single annual visit to the one temple; as a result, the law in Deut 15:19 – 23 must stress 1) that in the costly interim, one may not give in to temptation and work them or shear them; and 2) that in light of the greater likelihood of a blemish developing, one may not bring a blemished animal, which one may as well eat at home like game.226 Distance from the temple also gives the law apt reason to incorporate the warning against vows, the fulfillment of which is now ever more likely to be pushed off and eventually forgotten (Deut 23:22 – 24; see Qoh 5:3 – 4). With the sequestering of priestly mantic and oracular means for administering justice in the one faraway temple, the Deuteronomic law must insist upon the establishment of a local secular judiciary, determine its relationship to the centralized court, and at the same time assiduously assert the authority of the temple court (Deut 16:18 – 20 and 17:8 – 13; compare Exod  22:6 – 8).227 Likewise, in the absence of local shrines to support the landless or otherwise vulnerable people, the Deuteronomic law transfers that responsibility to the laity, demanding repeatedly of them that they remember these unfortunates and provide for them, while the tacit disenfranchisement of local priesthoods turns them from supporters of the unfortunate into a class of unfortunates themselves (Deut 12:11 – 12, 17 – 19; 14:26 – 29; 16:11, 14; 24:19 – 21; 26:12 – 15).228 In the specific context of the festivals, Ginsberg argued that the farmer’s distance from the single temple made it imperative in the Deuteronomic laws that the Harvest Festival close the harvest season (Deut 16:9 – 12) rather than inaugurate it, as in Exod 23:16a. By the same reasoning, the Ingathering Festival must take place not after the gathering in of the harvested crops, as in Exod 23:16b, but only after their having been processed for the coming winter (Deut 16:13 – 15). This distance-driven adaptation had the added result of disconnecting the first-fruits from any specific date altogether; the farmer, by implication, should bring them whenever he happens to have the opportunity, recite the prayer appropriate to the occasion, and return home (Deut  26:1 – 11).229 Within the Priestly history as well, Lev 23:9 – 22 appears to evince a change both in the ʿōmer and in the first-grains from farmer’s gifts to priestly offerings, which effectively erases altogether the popular Pentecost, and it does this precisely for the reason that the average farmer cannot leave his fields in this critical agricultural period.230 226   Regarding vv. 20 – 21, see Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 268; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 310. The connection made here between centralization and the blemish law in vv. 21 – 22 seems to have escaped scholarship. 227  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 233 – 236; Levinson, Deuteronomy, 98 – 143. 228  On temple support of the local poor, see Stevens, Temples, Tithes and Taxes, 131 – 35, 167 – 71. In the phrase “with all the desire of his soul” (K‫בכל אות נפשו‬K) in Deut 18:6 Haran hears the Deuteronomic law’s recognition of the difficult disconnection suffered by a Levite who leaves hearth and home to join the temple priests (Temples and Temple-Service, 61 – 62, esp. 62 n. 6). 229  Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage, 58 – 60. The prayer may very well have undergone a corresponding transformation from communal hymn to individual declaration. 230  Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1981 – 2011, esp. 1986 – 1987, 1991 – 1996, 2006 – 2007, 2009. Note that in his opinion, this change actually took place before centralization, since even a trip to a regional

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

159

By comparison with this list of far-reaching enactments meant to ameliorate the new circumstance of a single legitimate distant temple, the Deuteronomic treatment of the Pesaḥ (Deut 16:1 – 7) achieves almost nothing. Indeed, when seen against the broad variety of adjustments made across social structures and practices for the sake of centralization, the Deuteronomic treatment of the Pesaḥ stands out for failing, or refusing, to make almost any meaningful provision at all. Rather, it remains focused almost exclusively on the demand that one perform the Pesaḥ at the one chosen sanctuary (see vv. 2, 5, 6, 7). The way the text demarcates the conclusion of the Pesaḥ as the time when one returns home resounds with the new substantial character of the journey231 – and makes the total absence of any provisions for it all the more significant: no accommodations here.232 One can recover intellectual ruminations on and responses to the impact of cultic centralization upon society not only from the Deuteronomic laws, but from Rabbinic lore as well. Through a confluence of forces, the Deuteronomic idea came to define Judea of the Persian and Hellenistic periods (to one extent or another), but Rabbinic materials reflecting the circumstances of those periods indicate that the idea of a single temple did not materialize quite the way the Deuteronomic legislators had envisioned and attempted to ensure. Shmuel Safrai’s comprehensive study of Rabbinic sayings, stories and legal comments about the three major pilgrimage festivals reveals that, for most of those periods, masses of people simply did not visit the place of Yahweh’s choosing three times a year. Indeed, so out of step was pilgrimage practice with the pilgrimage laws of the Torah in that time that the Rabbis gave those laws the otherwise bewildering reinterpretation that one actually never need appear at the temple – unless he is already in Jerusalem at the time that a festival begins.233 The main debate as to what, geographically defined, constitutes being “in Jerusalem” at the time of the Pesaḥ comprises two opinions: either (1) “Jerusalem” encompasses whatever sits within a twenty-eight kilometer radius, or (2) “Jerusalem” is none other than the temple itself, and one must already be on the other, holier side of the threshold of the temple precincts to activate the requirement.234 Safrai concludes: temple would take too much time at such an important moment in the agricultural cycle. But one must explain, then, how the rite ever successfully established itself at that critical period in the first place. Here, too, it seems preferable to imagine a change having taken place, one that made the rite that much more difficult to maintain, namely, centralization. 231   See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 155. 232   Levinson argues that the law commands the pilgrim to return home after the first day of the Pesaḥ and observe there the unleavened bread laws (Deuteronomy, 53 – 57). For a strong critique and an alternate reading of the text, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 96 – 149. 233   Safrai, “Pilgrimage Commandment;” repr. with addenda in idem, In the Times of the Temple, 1.43 – 60. Consistent with the centralization framework posited here, Safrai’s survey turns up that the Babylonian Talmud reverts to the straightforward meaning of the pilgrimage passages of the Torah. Since the Babylonian Amoraim lived without any temple whatsoever, they had no motive or determinative realia pushing them to interpret otherwise. 234   See, for example, m. Pes. 9:2; Sifre Num. § 69. According to an amazing anecdote in b. Pes. 70b, one Sage betook himself down south before the onset of Pesaḥ in order to escape the obligation to perform it.

160

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

Tannaitic law, according to most Tannaim, interprets the concept of being too far away in symbolic terms and in practice transforms the Pesaḥ into a voluntary matter.235

As a matter of fact, 2 Chronicles 30, a late-Persian period composition that reflects the ritual conceptions and practices of its time, depicts just this mentality as characteristic of Judea in this period. As stressed above, the people at first did not attend Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ in Jerusalem because they recognized no obligation to do so; in the words of the narrator at the end of v. 5 (and not as part of the preceding proclamation): “not often did they act in accord with what was written,” namely, to congregate in Jerusalem for the Pesaḥ as enjoined by Deut 16:1 – 8 (and illustrated by 2 Kgs 23:21 – 23).236 With this context in mind one may understand as well the series of variants in the textual tradition. At Num 9:10, MT and SP read K‫ בדרך רחקה‬. . . ‫איש איש כי יהיה‬K, according to which the adjective “distant” (K‫רחקה‬K) modifies the immediately preceding noun “road” (K‫דרך‬K): “anyone who is. . .on a distant road.” LXX MS B renders the passage: Ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν γένηται . . . ἐν ὁδῷ μακρὰν, in which case the adverb “distant” (μακρὰν) modifies the verb “is” (ἐὰν γένηται), and, now in apposition to the prepositional phrase “on a road” (ἐν ὁδῷ), serves in an explanatory capacity: “anyone who is . . . on a road, i. e., far away.” Nowhere does this change indicate that the person is only temporarily “on the road,” namely on a journey. In line with the mentality charted by Safrai and portrayed in Chronicles, the text could refer to – indeed target – those living far away on a permanent basis.237 The complete erasure of the adjective “distant” in MT and SP at v. 13 (contrast tellingly LXX) would further expand the bounds of those who can perform the Pesaḥ on the secondary date to include anyone living “on a road,” namely, not in the vicinity of the temple or the temple city. The erasure dot over the letter K‫ה‬K of the word K‫רחקה‬K in MT at v. 10 could have meant to signal either possibility – erasure of the K‫ה‬K alone as in LXX238 or of the entire word as in MT and SP at Num 9:13.239 Safrai never actually ventures an explanation of how this state of affairs – both on the ground and in textual hermeneutics – ever came about. But the very terms of his discourse, together with the text-critical data, could not indicate more clearly that behind it all stands the reality of a single solitary temple physically far from most of the people – to wit, a reality created by cultic centralization. When taken together – the resistance in the Deuteronomic corpus to altering the Pesaḥ to make it easier for the farmer; the fact that in the Persian and Hellenistic 235

 Safrai, In the Times of the Temple, 1.57.   Pilgrimage appears to have enjoyed something of an upsurge in Hasmonean and especially Herodian times. See Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judea, 50 – 58; Schwartz, Imperialism, 40 – 62, 94 – 95. 237  If the variant was created by the translator, it might reflect the circumstances of the Alexandrian community itself, at least rhetorically and ideologically, since in practice an annual Pesaḥ pilgrimage would seem even more distant than for those living within Judea or the provinces immediately around it. More likely, the variant reflects a Hebrew text: K‫ בדרך רחק‬. . . ‫איש איש כי יהיה‬K. 238   So Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 46. 239   So Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 38. 236

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

161

periods, Judeans rarely went on pilgrimage to celebrate the Pesaḥ at the temple; and the Rabbinic reinterpretation of pilgrimage as a voluntary matter – all these elements converge in a mutually illuminating way to point towards an explanation for the rise of the law of the deferred Pesaḥ. The centralized cult in Jerusalem made the distance to the single temple too far for many farmers to trek there with their families for the Pesaḥ, especially in the difficult period towards the unpredictable end of the rainy season on the one hand and the delicate beginning of the grain harvest on the other.240 Sources attest that during these periods of the year, in order to bolster popular participation in the temple Pesaḥ, Judean authorities – quite like Chronicles’ Hezekiah – would intercalate a month depending on precisely these same two factors: if the barley ripened late or the rains made the roads impassable.241 The law of the deferred Pesaḥ attempted to achieve the same result through a different means – by providing individuals with an alternate, secondary date, one month later. In this case, then, the pivotal phrase K‫בדרך רחקה‬K in MT Num 9:10 did not originally mean “on (i. e., in the midst of) a distant journey.”242 Rather, the phrase originally meant “on (i. e., along) a distant road” or perhaps “on a difficult road,”243 in line with the Rabbinic lore cited above about how far from the Jerusalem temple constitutes “too far” for one to be required to bring the Pesaḥ.244 And the shifting textual traditions surveyed above represent not changes in the phrase’s meaning, but rather a series of attempts to remove its ambiguity and refine its sense with greater specificity. What comes to the fore so strikingly in this analysis is the realization that the emphasis in the law of the deferred Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 falls not on sympathetically freeing the Israelite from bringing the Pesaḥ on time, but rather on insisting that he bring it sometime. Like the Pesaḥ law in Deut 16:1 – 8, the deferred Pesaḥ law insists on the obligation to celebrate the Pesaḥ at the temple every year. It denies one’s right to view the sacrifice as a voluntary matter, rejects the standing waiver the people applied to themselves, and refuses to compromise on the annual character of the Pesaḥ. It does not represent the leniency projected by the narrative currently framing it (Num 9:6 – 8), but rather a stringency. To repeat, it is significant that the law of the deferred Pesaḥ is the only biblical text anywhere to state that one who fails to come perform the Pesaḥ will suffer K‫כר״ת‬K. 240   On the unpredictable end of the rainy season, see Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 2.15; on weather conditions as a factor in the extent of any given year’s Pesaḥ pilgrimage, see in general terms Feliks, Agriculture in Eretz-Israel, 186 – 187; in specific terms, Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.1999 – 2001. On the many and varied challenges besetting the farmer during harvest season, see Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 223 – 227; Feliks, ibid., 186 – 188, 194. 241  Zuckermann, Materialen, 39; Bickerman, “Calendars and Chronology,” 65. 242  So, for example, Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 38; Zehnder, Wegmetaphorik, 312 – 315, esp. 312. Compare biblical idiom in Prov 31:14 K‫היתה כאניות סוחר ממרחק תביא לחמה‬K, and Prov 7:19 K‫כי אין האיש בביתו הלך בדרך מרחוק‬K, or even the expression K‫בארץ רחוקה‬K in Deut 29:21; Josh 9:6, 9; 1 Kgs 8:41; 2 Kgs 20:14; 2 Chr 6:36. For a briefer semantic study of K‫דרך‬K, but without specific reference to Num 9:1 – 14, see Muraoka, Semantics, 11 – 37. 243   Compare, for example, Exod 13:17; Deut 30:11 – 14. 244  See m. Pes. 9:2; Sifre Num. § 69; b. Pes. 70b.

162

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

At first glance, the strict approach in this Priestly law appears to diverge widely from that taken with regard to the Pentecost, when Priestly legislators waived the popular requirement altogether by transferring it to the temple priests. In fact, however, the two solutions represent alternate directions in the application of a single shared notion, one that characterizes the Priestly history – the essential, concrete nature and integrity of the dates anchoring the festivals, with which one may not tamper. By contrast, the Deuteronomic laws willingly and deliberately delayed and reconfigured two agricultural festivals. Notably, the Deuteronomic source also immovably fixed the date for Pesaḥ observance, having defined it historically rather than agriculturally.245 Given the historical reconstruction above, then, how does the law’s provision for the impure person fit into the picture? Several possibilities recommend themselves, each of increasing integrality to the specific issue at hand. From the strictly literary point of view, one may take it, at the very least, as a predictable, unremarkable reflex of the law’s Priestly provenance, and marshall in support of this view the absence of the factor of impurity from the comparable Hittite law. From the point of view of systemic logic, one could argue that the provision of impurity serves as the natural, perhaps even necessary, complement to the provision of distance. Together, the two provisions represent and encompass the two categories of obstacles that may prevent any person from participating in the Pesaḥ: the physical and the regulatory. More forcefully, one can make an historical argument, parallel to that for the provision of distance. In the same context of a reality defined by cultic centralization, sanctity would have played no less a role than proximity in alienating the people from the temple cult. In the absence of a local sacred site and easily accessible means for purification, the category of purity/impurity would plummet severely in terms of daily significance and the people’s vigilance would wane. Again, the Deuteronomic laws, written to take into account a centralized cult, provide telling examples. Though it does not appear to have been interpreted so by scholars, Exod 22:30 K‫לכלב תשלכון אתו‬K forbids (or recommends against) touching the impure carcass of a non-ritually slaughtered animal;246 by contrast, the Deuteronomic law forbids consumption alone and explicitly allows one to handle the carcass and sell it 245   This point holds for the current form of Deut 16:1 – 8. If vv. 1, 3, 4, 6b and 8 comprise a series of additions, as convincingly argued by Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 96 – 149, the possibility exists that originally the Deuteronomic source did not hold as rigid a view of the Pesaḥ date and one of the goals of the editors consisted of providing just such a delimitation of the date. 246  Surely, the law in Exod 22:30 does not command one who chances upon a carcass out in the field to pick it up, carry it somewhere, and there toss it to the dogs. Rather, the expression K‫לכלב תשלכון‬ ‫אתו‬K means “you shall abandon it to the dogs” or “you shall leave it for the dogs.” For other instances of K‫של״ך‬K = “expose, abandon, leave untouched,” see Gen 21:15; 37:20 (as opposed to vv. 22, 24 there); Isa 34:3; also 1 Kgs 13:24, 25, 28; Jer 14:16; 36:30; Dan 8:11, several of which were already discussed in Cogan, “A Technical Term for Exposure,” 133 – 135. For a discussion of the semantic extension of verbs from the action itself to the result of that action, see Greenstein, “Trans-Semitic Idiomatic Equivalency,” 329 – 336, esp. 335. Incidentally, according to HALOT (2.1527), the identification of the root K‫של"ך‬K as the Š pattern of K‫הל״ך‬K goes back to C. J. Labuschagne in 1971. In fact, Naftali Tur-Sinai had already made the suggestion twenty years earlier, in 1952; see Ben Yehuda, Dictionary of Hebrew, 14:7167 n. 2.

4. The Historical Background of the Deferred Pesaḥ

163

to the non-Israelite (Deut 14:21).247 What the law had first treated comprehensively on the grounds of sanctity, it subsequently retained in modified and isolated form as a holdover without an integrated rationale.248 By the same token, whereas previously all slaughter of domesticated animals had a sacred aspect to it (as illustrated by 1 Sam 14:32 – 35) that required one to eat the meat of domesticated quadrupeds of the flock or herd in purity (as articulated in 1 Sam 20:24 – 26), the Deuteronomic abolition of local sacred slaughter (Deut 11:31 – 12:28)249 allowed one to eat them in impurity, no different from game (12:15, 22).250 In this desacralized atmosphere, the people could easily slip and arrive at the temple in a state of impurity. Again, Chronicles – which tells of a re-centralized cult and was composed during a period of centralized cult (which is not to assume the exclusive cult for all Jews in all places) – proves illuminating. In its story, the northern masses, displaying just this secularized state of mind, fall into the trap and eat the Pesaḥ in a state of impurity. With no technical, ritual recourse, Hezekiah can only pray to Yahweh and beseech him to accept the people’s good intentions, which the Chronicler has Yahweh do, rather than stipulate a procedural remedy (2 Chr 30:18 – 20). Just as the Rabbis’ reinterpretation of the pilgrimage laws reflected de facto popular practice, in this instance too, the Rabbis formalized in principle the forbearance featured in Chronicles; and they did so specifically with regard to the Pesaḥ, though in extension to other public offerings as well: “impurity is waived in a public setting.”251 Now average Judeans or Jews, who, with the pilgrimage season upon them, suddenly recall the untended impurities that have accumulated, may not have known or anticipated such leniency, expecting rather priestly rigor in the maintenance of temple strictures, and so just as easily have forgone the journey to stay at home. The particular exchange in Hag 2:11 – 13 suggests that priests may very well have questioned pilgrims.252 In such circumstances, the law of the deferred Pesaḥ would insist that, like the distant farmer, the impure may not take impurity as a waiver and settle in his mind 247   The Priestly law allows the average Israelite to eat carrion, but requires proper treatment of the resulting impurity (Lev 11:39 – 40; 17:15). Priests, by contrast, may not contract impurity by eating meat of an animal that did not undergo ritual slaughter (22:8). It remains unclear whether this position reflects centralization or a different conception altogether. See, for instance, the discussion in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 225 – 232. 248   Note how the motive clause about the people’s holiness in Exod 22:30 now frames an entire series of dietary and other laws shorn of the original setting at a sacred site or in sacred circumstances in Deut  14:1 – 21. 249   For the argument that the section begins in 11:31 and not in 12:1, see Rofé, Deuteronomy, 97 – 99. 250   On some of the broader implications of centralization for sacrality, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 225 – 243; compare Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.256 – 265. 251  See m. Pes. 7:4, 6 and 9:4; Sifre Num. §§ 65, 70; and the many discussions in b. Pes. 69a – b, 77a – 80b. 252   In this context, see also lines 4 – 5 of the Aramaic “Pesaḥ Papyrus” from Elephantine: “And from the fifteenth day to the twenty-first day . . . Be scrupulously pure.” For the text, see Lindenberger, Letters, 61 – 63, 65 – 67; for a reconstruction of its historical context, see Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 278 – 282.

164

Novella  II.  Num  9:1 – 14

on coming only the following year; he must fulfill his Pesaḥ obligation one month after the original Pesaḥ date. In conclusion, the law of the deferred Pesaḥ seems to represent a Jerusalem priesthood living in the unintended fallout from the centralization of the cult, unwilling to give up on the Pesaḥ as an annual temple rite. Narrowing down the period in which the priests may first have legislated this law poses a sticky problem that depends on one’s view of several overlapping issues, each of which in its own right represents a series of complex historical and literary cruxes: the historical reliability or probability of the centralization reports in 2 Kings 18 and 21 – 23; the provenance of the Priestly history – its sources, composition, and interpolations; and the character of the Pesaḥ sacrifice and its historical development. Without going into the various problems and theories, suffice it to point out that the language of the original deferred Pesaḥ law argued above to be recoverable through close analysis contains no signs of late biblical Hebrew.253

253

  Noted in Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 90.

Novella III.

Num 15:32 – 36 The third of the four oracular novellas appears in Num 15:32 – 36. In this novella, an Israelite is caught in the act of gathering wood on the Sabbath. He is brought to Moses, who receives from Yahweh the instruction to have the person stoned to death outside the camp. The Israelites duly carry out the ruling. K‫בת‬ ָּ ‫ש‬ ּׁ ַ ‫שׁׁש ֵעצִים ְבּיֹום ַה‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ש ָׂראֵל ַ ּב ִמּדְ ָבּר ַו ּי ִ ְמצְאּו אִיׁש מְק‬ ְ ִ ‫ ַו ּי ִהְיּו ְבנֵי־י‬K ‫שׁה ְואֶל־ַאהֲר ֹן ְואֶל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁׁש ֵעצִים אֶל־מ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ַו ּי ַק ְִריבּו א ֹתֹו הַמ ֹּ ְצאִים א ֹתֹו מְק‬K 1 K ‫שׂה לֹו‬ ֶ ‫שמָר ִכּי ֹלא פ ַֹרׁש מַה־ ּי ֵ ָע‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ַו ּי ַנִּיחּו א ֹתֹו ַ ּב ִ ּמ‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫וַי ֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K K‫האִיׁש‬ ָ ‫מֹות יּומַת‬K K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫ א ֹתֹו ָב ֲא ָבנִים ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ‬2‫ ָרגֹום‬K 3 K ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת־מ‬ ֶ ‫וַיֹּצִיאּו א ֹתֹו ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה אֶל־מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה ַוי ִ ְּרגְּמּו א ֹתֹו ָ ּב ֲא ָבנִים ַויָּמ ֹת ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ָכּל־‬

(32) (33) (34) (35) (36)

1  Concerning the rendering of the passive verbs K‫פרש‬K and K‫יעשה‬K in MT in the active voice in LXX (συνέκριναν and ποιήσωσιν respectively), Wevers remarks, “By using plural active verbs, Num has a more consistent text, making ‘those who found him,’ which was the subject of v. 33, the subject throughout . . . it is simply a matter of leveling the text” (Greek Text of Numbers, 253). In addition, the text according to LXX accords more closely with the corresponding proceedings in Exod 18:13 – 26. According to Jethro’s council, Moses’ role is no longer to judge but rather to bring difficult cases before Yahweh. With this rendering of the subject in LXX, it is not Moses who does not know the law but rather everyone else. It is possible, then, that the changes were made for reasons of far-reaching narrative consistency. 2  SP: K‫רגמו‬K; so too LXX (λιθοβολήσατε) and the Aramaic Targums. Gray dismisses them all as erroneous (Numbers, 183). He does not set out his reasoning, but it appears that he is correct nonetheless. First of all, this reading creates an abrupt break in Yahweh’s response to Moses. He would initially be addressing Moses, but at the end of the speech he would then turn to all the Israelites with the result that the expression K‫כל העדה‬K would not refer to the subject of the verb but rather indicate the vocative (on this see Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 254). Second, the form in the versions looks like a later adjustment of a form that had fallen out of usage. In general, there is no use of the infinitive absolute in late biblical Hebrew; scribes and copyists in later periods adjust this form to other forms appropriate to the context. Compare MT and SP, for example, in Exod 13:3; 36:7; Lev 6:7; Num 23:20; 25:17; Deut 1:16; 27:1; 31:26 (also: Gen 8:3, 5; 41:43; Exod 8:11). On the linguistic phenomenon in SP, see Ben-Hayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition, 5.149 – 161 § 2.14, esp. 152 – 153 § 4. Concerning the same phenomenon in the Qumran Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), see Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, 346 – 348, esp. 347 § 3. See also Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew, 493 – 505. 3   As Seebass argues (Numeri, 154), the multiple variants preserved in the versions at vv. 35 – 36, in the clauses pertaining to punishment and its implementation, all appear to be secondary in light of the so-called chiastic structure of these verses (see further below). For the identification of the structure, Seebass cites an Italian study published in 1973. Lund noted the structure in 1930 (“Chiasmus,” 106), and he refers to a study from 1890 (Boys, Key).

166

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

No one questions that this novella belongs to the Priestly history. Its terminology and concepts illustrate as much quite clearly. Telltale signs include referring to the Israelite body as the K‫עדה‬K (vv. 33, 35, 36); the camp, K‫מחנה‬K, as a definitive locus (vv. 35, 36); the punishment of pelting to death with stones, K‫רג״ם באבנים‬K (vv. 35, 36); and the concluding note that Israel carried out all the instructions that Yahweh commanded Moses to impart and implement (v. 36).4 Like the oracular novellas about cursing the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 and the secondary date of the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14, this one too has been identified by scholars as belonging to a subsequent set of additions made to the Priestly history,5 those stemming from “the Holiness School.”6 In addition to all the characteristics the novella shares with the other three oracular novellas, note the broad interest in the Sabbath demonstrated by the Priestly history, from its original version through its many supplemented texts. If the Priestly history originally contained Gen 2:1 – 4a, a kernel in Exod 31:12 – 17, and Exod 35:1 – 2, subsequent Priestly editors have added Lev 19:3, 30; 23:1 – 3; and 26:2, expanded Exod 31:12 – 17 to bring it to its current shape, and appended Exod 35:3. Note the range of types of literary activity: interpolation of an existing text by richly qualifying material (Exod 31:12 – 17); mechanical insertion and extension (Exod 35:1 – 3); and original inclusion of the Sabbath in the context of larger texts of their own literary integrity that enter the Priestly history en bloc (e. g., Leviticus 19).7 A complete episode about the manna in Exodus 16 (vv. 2 – 3, 6 – 25, 31 – 36) models Sabbath-observance in an agricultural setting (see below); manifold conceptual and literary correlations with texts identified as secondary suggest it may itself belong among them – if it did not play a role in setting their patterns. In Leviticus 25, one such author developed on the basis of the Sabbath – its numerical scheme, its laws, its cosmology, and its theology – a national institution of social and economic interdependence (vv. 1 – 13), and in Leviticus 26 the land of Canaan itself observes it (vv. 34 – 35, 43). The oracular novella about violating the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36 fits into the range of treatments of the Sabbath attested in the supplementary material of the Priestly history. A standalone story appearing in the midst of a concatenation of laws only indirectly related to each other (15:1 – 16, 17 – 21, 22 – 31, 37 – 41), it represents another kind of effort to elaborate on the Sabbath. In contrast to the novella about cursing the deity, which in its composition brought together a variety of sources on a range of topics in order to craft a single complex idea, and in contrast to the novella about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ, the text of which appears to have developed in several stages of differing aims and trajectories (and in contrast to the novella about inheritance by daughters, which too will prove to have a complex literary history), the novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath 4   See the lists in the standard introductions and classical commentaries; a good example can be found in Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.211, and the reference to a complete list in 1.208 – 221. 5   E. g., Kuenen, Hexateuch, 96 (§ 6, n. 38). 6   E. g., Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 121. 7   Compare Stackert, “Compositional Strata.”

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

167

represents a single moment of textual production consistently and efficiently focused on a single topic. Here and there arguments have been raised that this small text – by far the smallest of the four oracular novella – has grown in stages. Dillmann has suspicions about the authenticity of the explanatory clause K‫כי לא פרש מה יעשה לו‬K in v. 34.8 Carpenter raised questions about the stereotypical conclusion K‫כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K in v. 36.9 But the arguments did not gain acceptance or reverberate in scholarship, and rightly so. Neither Dillmann nor Carpenter offered any rationale for identifying these elements as secondary, and without any explicit reasoning to the contrary, the story appears complete, its language consistent, and its focus tight. It contains no literary seams or other indications to suggest editorial activity.10 The omission of an abstract law from this novella raises a question regarding the reason for which it was composed. In the other three oracular novellas, the section with the abstract law constitutes the climax of the narrative, both quantitatively and qualitatively. In practical terms, from the point of view of the application of the law, the section with abstract law in all these cases encompasses situations and circumstances that the narrative does not cover. Should one conclude that this short oracular novella preserves the original form and extent of the original paradigm that stands behinds all four? Fishbane and Milgrom reach just such a conclusion.11 Others argue to the contrary, that this short novella tends to represent the latest of the group, for two reasons. First of all, the novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath comes in the midst of Numbers 15, a text that as a whole has the bearing of a collection of Priestly amendments and innovations with respect to the Priestly lore of the Priestly history.12 Secondly, as noted above, the oracular novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath resembles and, one may say, continues an entire series of inner-Priestly developments with regard to the Sabbath, many of which themselves entered the text in a rich display of editorial methods of expansion. This opinion about the relatively late provenance of the oracular novella about the Sabbath, together with the two literary points undergirding it, call up a second set of questions.13 On the assumption that even without the abstract law, the novella still intends to introduce some new element into the Priestly set of rules and regulations, it has long posed something of a problem to determine what the novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath amends, innovates, or otherwise contributes. In the terms of the story, what in the eyes of the people remained to be determined and what inquiry did  8

  Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86.   Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.211. 10   Robinson’s conclusion that all references to Shabbat in the episode are secondary is unpersuasive. See Robinson, “The Prohibition of Strange Fire.” 11   See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 102 – 104; Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2102 – 2105, esp. 2104 – 2105; cf. also 2.1347 – 1348. 12   Kuenen, Hexateuch, 95 – 96, 307 – 309. 13   The historical considerations voiced in scholarship – for example, in Seebass’ comparison of the conception of the Sabbath, its prohibitions and its punishments as expressed in the case of the woodgatherer to those reflected by those expressed in Nehemiah 13 (Numeri, 155) – depend on extensive historical assumptions which are external to the text of Num 15:32 – 36.  9

168

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

Moses put to Yahweh? Treading, for all intents and purposes, in the footsteps of the Rabbis, modern scholars have run the gamut of possibilities. Kuenen and Ehrlich, for instance, opined that Moses inquired as to whether the activity denoted by the root K ‫קש״ש‬K, “gathering,” fell under or constituted a prohibited category of activity, K‫מלאכה‬K.14 Alternatively, as Dillmann offered, Moses knew to consider K‫קש״ש‬K a prohibited activity, but not whether it was of a serious enough order of magnitude to warrant capital punishment.15 Others, like Mendelssohn, opined that Moses knew K‫קש״ש‬K warranted capital punishment, but not the manner of death.16 Scholars still have not reached consensus on the question, and none seems to have managed to articulate a compelling argument. One obstacle possibly preventing scholars from achieving consensus or proposing compelling arguments stems from the diction and rhetoric of the novella, which give the impression of pulling in different directions at one and the same time. The Rabbis, characteristically formulating their opinions with explicit recourse to textual features, bring this dimension of the problem to the fore with particular clarity. For instance, R. Eliezer understood Moses to have asked whether the activity denoted by the root K‫קש״ש‬K, “gathering,” fell under or constituted a prohibited category of activity, K‫מלאכה‬K, specifically because of the strong declarative style of Yahweh’s case decision, K‫מות יומת האיש‬K, in v. 35.17 At the same time, however, the clause in v. 34 explaining why Moses put the man in holding and sought an oracle, K‫כי לא פרש מה יעשה לו‬K, “because it had not been rendered what should be done to him,” led other Rabbis to conclude that it was the specific manner of death that Moses sought.18 A second difficulty for scholars concerns the nature of the relationship between the novella and other Priestly passages about the Sabbath, in Exod 31:12 – 17 and 35:1 – 3. Any prior opinions about the layers of the Priestly history and their interrelationships will necessarily affect the viewpoint on what the author of the novella in Num 15:32 – 36 would have Moses know already and what he would inquire about in the context of this case. For instance, if the author of the novella knew the Sabbath passage of Exod 31:12 – 17 then in the novella Moses would have only one of the following ambiguities to resolve: the specific manner of the death, in which case composing the novella serves to make this manner explicit;19 whether the activity denoted by the root K‫קש״ש‬K qualifies as a prohibited class of work, in which case the novella aims to provide 14 15

399.

  Kuenen, Hexateuch, 309 n. 28; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.167 – 168.   Dillmann, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 86; McNeile, Numbers, 83; Levine, Numbers  1 – 20,

16   Mendelssohn, Bamidbar, 90a; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86; Gray, Numbers, 182 – 183; McNeile, Numbers, 83; Milgrom in Milgrom and Avishur, Numbers, 95. 17   Sifre Zuta, ad. loc. (p. 288). One should not interpret this statement as indicating that Moses knew that gathering wood was forbidden but was unsure whether or not the punishment for this was death, since, according to Exod 31:14 – 15; 35:2, Moses was already told the punishment for doing any work at all was death. 18   Sifre Num. §§ 113 – 114 (pp. 122 – 123); Sifre Zuta, ad. loc. (p. 288); b. Sanh. 78a – b. 19   Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 79; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86; Gray, Numbers, 182 – 183; McNeile, Numbers, 83.

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

169

a concrete example of K‫מלאכה‬K;20 or the confusing combination of human and divine punishments expressed in Exod 31:14 – 15 – K‫מות יומת‬K on the one hand and K‫ונכרתה הנפש‬ ‫ההוא מקרב עמיה‬K on the other.21 If, alternatively, the author of the novella in Num 15:32 – 36 did not know the passage about the Sabbath in Exod 31:12 – 17, then Moses’ oracular consultation may seek to ascertain the punishment for violating the Sabbath.22 A third possibility raised suggests that the author of the novella in Num 15:32 – 36 sought to clarify the concept of K‫מלאכה‬K expressed only in general fashion in Exod 31:14 – 15, but did not know the law prohibiting fire in particular, in Exod 35:3, and unknowingly created a parallel to it.23 In the most extreme case, one opinion holds that the author of the novella knew all the Priestly texts about the Sabbath, specifically, Exod 31:12 – 17; 35:1 – 3, and aimed to create, within the Torah, what amounts to a Rabbinic-style preventative measure: not just fire is prohibited, as in Exod 35:3, but even gathering wood in preparation for lighting the fire. Moreover, the author gave this measure ultimate authority, for the one who violates it, says Yahweh, is put to death.24 Again, scholars have not succeeded in identifying within the text of the novella any definitive signs in one direction or another that would establish lines of literary dependence between the novella and the other Priestly texts about the Sabbath and, consequently, the true point of emphasis of the novella. Already R. Eliezer exemplified the problem, when he argued that not only did Moses seek to clarify whether the activity of K‫קש״ש‬K counts as K‫מלאכה‬K, as the divine response K‫מות יומת‬K implies, but he also had to ascertain the manner of death, as implied by the continuation of the divine response, ‫רגום אתו באבנים‬K.25 Interestingly, in this context one Karaite interpretation attempted to explain the Rabbinic midrash that claims that the incident of the wood-gatherer actually took place on the second Sabbath after Israel’s exodus from Egypt. According to the Karaite interpretation, the midrash aimed to circumvent all these questions, since by that early point in time, very little had been specified about the Sabbath.26 In modern scholarship Jacob Licht embodies the dead end reached; he presents all the opinions and admits the possibility of each and every one of them.27

20

  Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86; Kuenen, Hexateuch, 309 n. 28.   Seebass, Numeri, 155. 22   McNeile, Numbers, 83; Levine, Numbers  1 – 20, 399. 23   Holzinger, Numeri, 64. 24   See Weingreen, “The Case of the Woodgatherer;” cf. already Noth, Numbers, 117, and following both of them, Sturdy, Numbers, 112; Ashley, Numbers, 291. For incisive criticism of Weingreen, see Phillips, “The Case of the Woodgatherer Reconsidered;” see also: Jackson, “Liability,” esp. 197 – 207 and the conclusions on p. 207. 25   Sifre Zuta, ad. loc. (p. 288). 26  Aaron b. Elijah, Keter Torah, 4.22b. For the midrash, see Sifre Num. § 113 (p. 122). However, it is possible that the midrash is grappling with the problem of the opening line, K‫ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר‬K, which implies that the passage does not sit in a sequence of wilderness stories but rather stands outside of it. See the discussion below. 27   Numbers, 2.106. 21

170

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

Moreover, debates like the one between Dillmann on the one hand and McNeile and Levine on the other illustrate that the two leading questions – what knowledge Moses sought and which Priestly passages the author of the novella knew and presupposed – intersect and overlap, but do not align themselves together in only one way. The three scholars all agreed – by all indications in response to the explanatory clause in v. 34b K‫כי לא פרש מה יעשה לו‬K – that Moses did not know the punishment for gathering wood on the Sabbath, death or something else. They held contradictory opinions, however, on the relationships between the novella in Num 15:32 – 36 and the other Priestly texts about the Sabbath. According to Dillmann, Moses knew all the laws – namely, the author of the novella knew all the related texts – but not how to situate the activity of K‫קש״ש‬K within the system, namely, whether it constitutes a K‫מלאכה‬K serious enough to warrant capital punishment.28 By contrast, in the opinion of McNeile and Levine, the fact that Moses does not know the punishment for violating the Sabbath demonstrates that the novella has no direct relationship with Exod 31:12 – 17; 35:1 – 3, namely, it does not presuppose them; accordingly, the author of the novella did not know those other Priestly texts about the Sabbath.29 To put not too fine a point on the matter, the little, simple-looking novella in Num 15:32 – 36 proves itself to be enmeshed in a knotty set of overlapping issues that goes to the heart of understanding the Priestly history and the layers added to it. One finds oneself at pains to comprehend the aim of composing the novella, to identify its contribution to Priestly ideas about the Sabbath, without first determining one’s position on a host of larger issues. As a result scholars have proposed the full range of possibilities all based on what boil down to personal combinations of a theory about the Priestly history and personal hunches. Similarly, scholars have debated the relationship of the novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 26 to the novella about cursing the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23. The two passages have extensive similarities, worth highlighting in detail: Num  15:32 – 36 K‫בת‬ ָּ ‫ש‬ ּׁ ַ ‫ַה‬ K‫עצִים‬ ֵ

K‫לֹו‬

K‫בר‬ ּ ָ ְ‫ש ָׂראֵל ַ ּב ִמּד‬ ְ ִ ‫ ַו ּי ִהְיּו ְבנֵי־י‬K ‫שׁׁש ֵעצִים ְבּיֹום‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ַו ּי ִ ְמצְאּו אִיׁש מְק‬K

‫שׁׁש‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ַו ּיַק ְִריבּו א ֹתֹו הַמ ֹּ ְצאִים א ֹתֹו מְק‬K ‫אֶ ל־מ ֹשֶ ׁה ְואֶל־ַאהֲר ֹן ְואֶל‬K

K‫העֵדָ ה‬ ָ ‫ָכּל־‬

‫ ַו ּיַנִּיחּו א ֹתֹו ַ ּב ִמּשְ ׁמָר ִכּי ֹלא פ ַֹרׁש מַה־ ּיֵעָשֶ ׂה‬K K‫וַי ֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶ ל־מ ֹשֶ ׁה‬K K‫מֹות יּומַת הָאִ יׁש‬K K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫מ‬ ּ ַ ‫ַל‬

28 29

‫ ָרגֹום א ֹתֹו בָאֲ ָבנִים ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה מִחּוץ‬K

Lev  24:10 – 23 ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ‫י‬ K‫אל‬

‫ש ְׂר ֵאלִית וְהּוא ֶבּן־אִיׁש ִמצ ְִרי ְבּתֹוְך ְ ּבנֵי‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה י‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַו ּי ֵצֵא ֶבּן־ ִא‬K ִ ‫ש ְׂר ֵא‬ ְ ִ ‫ש ְׂר ֵאלִית ְואִיׁש ַה ּי‬ ְ ִ ‫ ַו ּי ִנָצּו ַ ּב ַ ּמ ֲחנֶה ֶבּן ַה ּי‬K K‫לי‬ K‫לל‬ ּ ֵ ‫שׁם ַו ּי ְ ַק‬ ּ ֵ ‫ש ְׂר ֵאלִית אֶת־ ַה‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה ַה ּי‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַויִּק ֹּב ֶבּן־ ָה ִא‬K K‫ ַו ּיָבִיאּו א ֹתֹו‬K K‫אֶ ל־מ ֹשֶ ׁה‬K K‫טּה־דָ ן‬ ֵ ‫שֹׁלמִית ַבּת־דִ ּב ְִרי ְל ַמ‬ ְ ‫שׁם אִּמֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ְו‬K ִ ‫ ַו ּיַנִּיחֻהּו ַ ּב ִמּשְ ׁמָר ִלפְר ֹׁש ָלהֶם עַל־‬K K‫פּי יהוה‬ ֵ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶ ל־מ ֹשֶ ׁה‬K K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֲ ‫מ‬ ּ ַ ‫הֹוצֵא אֶ ת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶ ל־מִחּוץ ַל‬K K‫חנֶה‬ K‫מעִים אֶ ת־יְדֵ יהֶם עַל־ר ֹאׁשֹו‬ ְ ֹ ‫ַש‬ ּׁ ‫ ְו ָסמְכּו כָל־ה‬K ָ ‫ו ְָרגְמּו א ֹתֹו ָכּל־‬K K‫העֵדָ ה‬

  Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86.   McNeile, Numbers, 83; Levine, Numbers  1 – 20, 399.

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

171

K‫בּר לֵאמֹר‬ ֵ ַ‫ש ָׂראֵל תְ ּד‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K ‫שׁם־יהוה מֹות‬ ֵ ‫שׂא ֶחטְאֹו וְנֹקֵב‬ ָ ָ‫אִיׁש אִיׁש ִכּי־י ְ ַק ֵלּל אֱֹלהָיו ְונ‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫שׁם יּו‬ ֵ ‫ ָרגֹום י ְִרגְּמּו־בֹו ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח ְ ּבנָקְבֹו־‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי י ַ ֶכּה ָכּל־נֶפֶׁש ָאדָ ם מֹות יּו‬K K‫פׁש‬ ֶ ָ‫ש ְ ּל ֶמנָּה נֶפֶׁש תַ ּחַת נ‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה נֶפֶׁש־ ְ ּב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫שׂה ּלֹו‬ ֶ ‫שׂה ֵכּן י ֵ ָע‬ ָ ‫שׁר ָע‬ ֶ ‫ ְואִיׁש ִכּי־י ִתֵ ּן מּום ַ ּב ֲעמִיתֹו ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ֵ ‫שׁן תַ ּחַת‬ ֵ ‫שבֶר ַעי ִן תַ ּחַת ַעי ִן‬ ׁ ֶ ‫שבֶר תַ ּחַת‬ ֶׁ K K‫כּן יִנָּתֶ ן ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִתֵ ּן מּום ָבָּאדָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫מ ּנָה‬ ֶ ‫ש ְ ּל‬ ׁ ַ ְ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ְב ֵהמָה י‬K K‫מת‬ ָ ‫ּו ַמ ֵכּה ָאדָ ם יּו‬K K‫כם‬ ֶ ‫ש ַפּט ֶאחָד י ִ ְהי ֶה ָלכֶם ַ ּכגֵּר ָ ּכ ֶאז ְָרח י ִ ְהי ֶה ִכּי ֲאנִי יהוה אֱֹלהֵי‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִמ‬K K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁה אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר מ‬K ֲ ‫מ‬ ּ ַ ‫וַּיֹוצִיאּו אֶ ת־ ַה ְמ ַק ֵלּל אֶ ל־מִחּוץ ַל‬K K‫חנֶה‬ ֶ ‫ ַויִ ְּר ְגּמּו א ֹתֹו ָא‬K K‫בן‬ K‫ש ָׂראֵל עָׂשּו‬ ְ ִ ‫ּו ְבנֵי־י‬K ִ ‫ ַכּאֲ שֶ ׁר‬K K‫צ ָוּה יהוה אֶ ת־מ ֹשֶ ׁה‬

K‫מת‬ ָ ‫יּו‬

K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫מ‬ ּ ַ ‫ַל‬

‫וַיֹּצִיאּו א ֹתֹו ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה אֶ ל־מִחּוץ‬K K‫בנִים ַויָּמֹת‬ ָ ֲ‫ ַויִ ְּר ְגּמּו א ֹתֹו ָבּא‬K K‫אֶ ת־מ ֹשֶ ׁה‬

‫ ַכּאֲ שֶ ׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה‬K

In both of these oracular novellas, an anonymous man referred to simply as an individual, K‫איש‬K, acts with respect to the most general and maximal of public entities, Israel or K‫בני ישראל‬K (Lev 24:10 – 11; Num 15:32). In addition to the initial designation as anonymous K‫איש‬K, both offenders merit a measure of individuation, but one limited to the offensive act that constitutes their individuality, one might say to their infamy – through the fitting participial form in the one, K‫המקלל‬K (Lev 24:14, 23), and through ignominious generic reference, K‫האיש‬K, in the other (Num 15:35). In corresponding fashion, an undifferentiated, collective Israel catches both criminals in the act (Num 15:32; Lev 24:10). In the novella about cursing the deity, the collective also brings him to Moses and puts him in holding, K‫ ויניחהו‬. . . ‫ויביאו אתו‬K (Lev 24:11 – 12). Eventually, Yahweh’s reference to “those who heard” K‫השמעים‬K (v. 14) restricts the audience logically, but designates it exclusively by its role, practically and literally, as audience – again in the participial form suited to do so. Likewise, in the novella about the man gathering wood on the Sabbath, the narrative restricts the immediate audience of the action as dictated by logic, but this audience too appears anonymously, as a single group, again, marked exclusively by its relationship to the act that defines it as the audience in participial form, “those who found him gathering wood,” and the group responds as one, bringing the offender to Moses and perhaps putting him into holding, K‫ ויניחו אתו‬. . . ‫ויקריבו אתו המצאים אתו‬K (Num 15:33 – 34). In both novellas, the audience functions to bring the offender to the authorities – Moses in the one (Lev 24:11), Moses, Aaron and the entire K‫עדה‬K in the other (Num 15:33) – and have him put in him holding (K‫נוח‬K [H stem] + K‫ב־‬K + K‫משמר‬K), which marks the transition to the divine oracle. In both novellas, Yahweh gives nearly identical instructions – death by camp-wide stoning outside the camp (Lev 24:13 – 14; Num 15:35). The narrator notes the fulfillment of Yahweh’s case ruling and does so by reusing the very terms of the ruling (Lev 24:23; Num 15:36). It is difficult to resist noting as well that the roots for the offensive action in both novellas consists of a geminate verb with initial K‫ק‬K – followed by doubled K‫ל‬K in one, K‫קל״ל‬K, and doubled K‫ש‬K in the other, K‫קש״ש‬K – each in a stem (D and the related Polel,

172

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

respectively) that forms the participle with preformative K‫מ‬K, all of which together yields the similar sounding terms K‫מקלל‬K and K‫מקשש‬K. The long list of similarities that characterizes the two novellas has led many scholars, from Knobel on, to see behind them a single author.30 At the same time, notable differences, which stand out all the more in the light of the extensive similarities, indicated to Gray that each one has its own author, one of whom modeled his novella upon that of his predecessor and even copied from it.31 Others yet expressed themselves more cautiously, in less unequivocal terms. Kuenen spoke of a “connection.”32 Dillmann pointed out the extreme similarity of the novella in Num 15:32 – 36 to that in Lev 24:10 – 23, and only specified that it lacks color in comparison to it, mainly because it fails to grant the offender a name (more precisely, a genealogy); in any case, he drew no conclusions.33 One point of similarity between the two novellas constitutes an interpretive crux in its own right and exemplifies the depth of the problems – the term K‫פר״ש‬K that appears in Num 15:34 as it does in Lev 24:12. Scholars have commented much on the appearance and use of the term in Num 15:34, surveying its usage throughout the Hebrew Bible, its continuity in post-biblical literature, and its cognate terms among the Semitic languages. With respect to this term too, though, scholars have failed to reach a consensus. They debate several overlapping issues: first, whether to understand it along the lines of the Akkadian nouns pirištu and purussû “oracular decision” and the verb parāsu “to decide (by oracular inquiry),”34 or with the post-biblical and Aramaic sense “to say explicitly, to clarify;”35 second, whether or not the biblical instances – Lev 24:12; Num 15:34; Ezra 4:18; and Neh 8:8 – all carry the same meaning; third, if not, is there a linear development from one meaning to another. Deciding between all these options and variables can have implications for the larger matter of the textual compositeness of the Priestly history and for ideas about legal means in ancient Israel and Judea. Once again, one finds the deceptively brief, straight-forward, and isolated oracular novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36 enmeshed in all the knotty problems of the Priestly history. 30

  Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 79. See also Kahana, Bamidbar, 49.   Numbers, 182. 32   Hexateuch, 96 (§ 6 n. 38). 33   Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86. 34   Compare Dillmann, ibid. (based apparently on the context, not cognate languages); Haupt, in Paterson, Numbers, 51, on Num 15:34; Holzinger, Numeri, 64 (or so it seems); Elliott-Binns, Numbers, 105; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 98 – 104, esp. 100. For the cognates, see, e. g., AHw s. v. dīnu(m) (1.172 § 4c); parāsu(m) (2.831 § 9); purussû(m) (2.882 § 2); CAD s. v. dânu (3.100 – 101 § 1a 1’ – 2’); parāsu (12.171 – 176 §§ 4 – 5, 8); purussû (12.529 – 533 §§ 1 – 2); CDA s. v. parāsu I (pp. 265 – 266); purussû (p. 279); also Ugaritic prz, in Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 2.684. 35   Heinemann, “Technical Terminology,” esp. 108 – 110; Levine, Numbers  1 – 20, 398 – 399. See also Ashley, Numbers, 291 and n. 8; Seebass, Numeri, 154. For examples of the root in other Semitic languages, see, e. g., AHw, 2.831 § 8 (G‑stem of parāsu); DNWSI, 2.944 prš; 4Q177 1 – 4 11 (DJD 5.67); 4Q512 42 – 44 4 (DJD 7.275); 4Q417 1i 9, 10, 11 (DJD 34.151, 201). 31

1. The Form of the Oracular Novella and Other Priestly Texts about the Sabbath

173

1. The Form of the Oracular Novella and Other Priestly Texts about the Sabbath One lead worth following towards the sought-for conclusions is the distinctive form of this oracular novella in comparison with the other three novellas, in Lev 24:10 – 23; Num 9:1 – 14; and Num 27:1 – 11. It is the form shared by the four novellas together that constitutes the group as such, and it is in the particulars of the form that the novella Num 15:32 – 36 distinguishes itself from the rest. As said, by its nature, the form of the oracular novella highlights law in the moment of lawgiving. The narrative achieves its moment of climax in legislation, not just in the fact of law or even the act of legislation itself, but in the dynamic telling of it and making it law. Moreover, the abstract formulation that follows the specific case-ruling has unique force – particularly strong pull, because the case-ruling sets up a precedent, which speaks to future generations only implicitly, whereas the abstract, timeless formulation and the circumstances raised in it that have nothing to do with the case at hand take future generations expressly into account. For this reason, the sections with abstract law trend towards complexity in the prior novellas. In the novella about cursing the deity (Lev 24:10 – 23), the author composed the abstract law (vv. 15 – 22) by pulling together a diverse set of sources, topics and concepts in order to articulate a complex idea about cursing the deity. In the novella about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ (Num 9:1 – 14), the abstract law (vv. 9 – 14) invited several interpolations, which clarify and extend the basic ideas of the law. Indeed, from the moment of the transition to the oracle (vv. 6 – 8), the impure Israelites disappear entirely from view. The author of the novella dispensed both with the case ruling and with a report about its fulfillment, such that the abstract law alone makes up the legal section and, for that matter, the second half of the novella (vv. 9 – 14). The form of the oracular novella, in other words, pushes beyond merely conveying information to the dynamics of legislation – extension, qualification, and innovation. All the other elements that constitute the narrative, skeletal as they are, set up the abstract law and invite it. Given this understanding of the relationship between the law and the narrative, the fact that the novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath does not feature an abstract law at all stands out as deserving of attention. Attuned to this absence, one Rabbinic midrash sought to insist on its presence nonetheless: “‘Yahweh said to Moses: The man must die’ – for future instances (K‫לדורות‬K); ‘pelt him with stones’ – for this instance (K‫לשעה‬K).”36 However, the narrator has elegantly structured Yahweh’s oracular reply to Moses and the description of Israel fulfilling it, in vv. 35 – 36, as a matched pair, such that the compliance report repeats every element of Yahweh’s instructions in inverse order. The effect, like a rhyming couplet, indicates finality and closure:37 36

  Sifre Num. § 114 (p. 123 ll. 6 – 7).  According to Lund, one should set apart the words K‫ויציאו אתו‬K in the center as a line with no counterpart (“Chiasmus,” 106). From a formal standpoint, he is correct insofar as these words have no counterpart within the chiastic structure. However, from a poetic standpoint, it is difficult to assign any special significance to this line that it should be set apart in the middle of the larger structure. 37

174

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36 K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫אֶל־מ‬

‫    וַי ֹּאמֶר יהוה‬.‫א‬K ‫    מֹות יּומָת‬.‫ב‬K K‫בנִים‬ ָ ‫    רגֹום א ֹתֹו ָב ֲא‬.‫ג‬ ָ K K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫     ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ‬.‫ד‬K K‫חנֶה‬ ֲ ‫    וַיֹּצִיאּו א ֹתֹו ָכּל־ ָהעֵדָ ה אֶל־מִחּוץ ַל ַ ּמ‬.'‫ד‬K K‫בנִים‬ ָ ‫     ַוי ִ ְּרגְּמּו א ֹתֹו ָ ּב ֲא‬.'‫ג‬K K‫     ַויָּמֹת‬.'‫ב‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת־מ‬ ֶ ‫     ַ ּכ ֲא‬.'‫א‬K K‫האִיׁש‬ ָ

It seems reasonable to infer from the skeletal style of the narrative beyond even that of the other novellas and from the absence of an abstract law formulated directly for posterity that the author did not compose this novella for the sake of a fundamental innovation or contribution. Establishing the activity denoted by the root K‫קש״ש‬K under the rubric of prohibited categories of work on the Sabbath – whether as its own category (so Kuenen) or subordinate to another category like burning fire (so Weingreen); determining that it warrants capital punishment (so Dillmann); and all the other possible definitions and clarifications – all these are sufficiently significant to warrant expression in abstract terms directed to posterity, in terms not unlike those of Lev 20:9 *K‫– מות יומת; את השבת חלל! רגום ירגמו‬ ‫ איש איש כי יקושש עצים בשבת‬:‫ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר‬ ‫בו כל העדה מחוץ למחנה‬K. In addition, if the passage does not aim to innovate with respect to one of these legal aspects – the prohibition to engage in the activity of K‫קש״ש‬K, the classification of the activity as work, the level of work, or the appropriate punishment – then it seems reasonable further to infer that the author already knew passages that treated all of these aspects of the law. If the author did not take the trouble to clarify these basic, practical elements, then apparently he felt he had nothing to add with respect to them. Indeed, Zakovitch has pointed the way in this regard, indicating that every single one of the motifs found in the episode has a parallel somewhere else in the Torah – always within the Priestly history.38 It remains only to take the next theoretical step and recognize all the parallels as resulting from direct literary dependence. Namely, in composing the episode in Num 15:32 – 36, the author drew deliberately upon all the other passages. Outlining and analyzing the different connections will help bring out what about the episode stands out as different, namely, where the author made a unique contribution, and the reason for which the author bothered to compose it. 1) The punishment of death determined for violation of the Sabbath occurs in both Exod 31:14 – 15 and 35:2. In this direction, the author’s choice to have Yahweh open his decision with the formal declaration K‫מות יומת האיש‬K and only then specify the details, in contrast to the more discursive style of Lev 24:14, may very well reflect this literary dependence, for the declaration sounds like a direct citation of Exod 31:14, 15. 2) The story takes for granted and builds upon the presupposition that the activity denoted by the root K‫קש״ש‬K constitutes a violation of the Sabbath. Now the Priestly history contains a story that explicitly introduces the prohibition to gather from the fields 38

  Introduction, 88.

1. The Form of the Oracular Novella and Other Priestly Texts about the Sabbath

175

on the Sabbath, with respect to the manna, in Exodus 16.39 A midrash has already remarked on the connection and apparently explained the relationship on the model of Lev 9:23 (K‫בר״ך‬K) + 10:3 (K‫קד״ש‬K): “‘Therefore did Yahweh bless the Sabbath and sanctify it’ (Exod 20:11) . . . R. Isaac said, ‘he blessed it through the manna and sanctified it through the wood-gatherer.’”40 The prohibitions worked out in the two stories comprise two elements, action and materials. The story within Exodus 16 refers to K‫לק״ט‬K “gathering” and K‫מן‬K “manna,” whereas the story in Numbers 15 discusses K‫קש״ש‬K, also “gathering” for all intents and purposes at this point (see further below), and K‫עצים‬K “wood.” From the point of view according to which the two stories have a direct literary relationship, these alternate pairs of elements substitute for each other, serve in the same capacity, and in fact convey the same idea.41 For the Judean audience of the Priestly history, the story in Exodus 16 does not function to prohibit the gathering and preparing of manna. The wondrous circumstances depicted by the story, in which the Israelites enjoy miraculous caring and feeding by Yahweh through the manna he provides, constitute a unique event in the history of Israel. They suit in particular the Israelites’ conditions while they travel in the wilderness, and they belong exclusively to those conditions. The story works to lay down principles that will continue to function once Israel enters Canaan and engages in normal, more natural forms of sustenance, namely, agriculture. In other words, one should not see the story as a kind of myth about Israel’s miraculous, other-worldly beginnings so much as a kind of translation of the conditions of its normal life in Canaan to the terms of a period outside it, in which the principles that govern its life in the land first originated.42 Again, like any historian, the author does not care about Israel’s origins except to the degree that they condition in some way the structure and behavior of the society in the author’s own times. To this end, it seems correct to suppose that the 39   Milgrom, Numbers, 408, 409; cf. Seebass, Numeri, 153. Many have seen Exodus 16 as a Priestly text that has undergone expansion over time; see Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 77 – 79; Kuenen, Hexateuch, 331 – 332 (§ 16 n. 12); Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.104 – 106; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 144 – 156, McNeile, Exodus, 95 – 100; Driver, Exodus, 144 – 154; Beer, Exodus, 87; Childs, Exodus, 271 – 304, esp. 274 – 283; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 17 – 18; Frankel, Murmuring Stories, 1 – 117. This seems unnecessary. A complete Priestly story exists in vv. 1 – 3, 6 – 25, 31 – 36. Rather, an editor appears to have moved it from its original location, after the spies story (Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story”) and a copyist’s error has flipped the two halves of v. 34. 40   Mek. de R. Ishmael, Yitro § 7 (p. 231, Horovitz ed.). 41   Compare Milgrom’s a fortiori argument: “If the Priestly law forbids the gathering of food on the Sabbath even though its consumption is, of course, permitted, how much more so would it forbid the gathering of wood, whose purpose would be for kindling – an explicit sin (Exod 35:3)?” (Numbers, 408). This Rabbinical type of thought-process is not consistent with the system of Sabbath laws reflected in the Hebrew Bible; on this system and the definition of gathering, see below. 42   The method of historical thought in this, imagining a proto-natural and proto-normative moment by translating the natural and the normative, is remarkably consistent with the Priestly reasoning and narrative technique in Genesis 1, on which see Halpern, “Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1.” In another instance of the consistency of Priestly thought, the divine blessing of a double portion on the sixth day of the week (Exod 16:21 – 25) matches that of the sabbatical years in Lev 25:20 – 22.

176

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

author constructs a transparent portrayal, one that he feels he can safely assume the audience will perceive, consider with respect to its own conditions, and apply without straining. Undoubtedly, these “real-world” conditions are those that the Priestly history imagines and projects consistently, in its story, its laws, and conception of the deity – landed extended family engaged in agriculture.43 From this point of view, the manna stands in for all the produce that grows in a person’s fields. According to the logic of the wondrous conditions enjoyed by Israel in the wilderness, no one would have to work very hard to access the manna or make it edible. It falls of its own accord, around the camp, on a daily basis, and the Israelite would simply have to gather it in. The single activity of gathering, then, stands in for all the activities involved in attaining edible or potentially edible growth from the land – plowing, seeding, cutting, bundling, carrying, storing and all the rest. A verse in the Song of Songs illustrates that the root K‫לק״ט‬K does not denote a single, discrete action, but a set of related actions all of which together comprise “gathering:” K‫דודי ירד‬ ‫לגנו לערוגות הבשם לרעות בגנים וללקט שושנים‬K (6:2). The “gathering” in this verse includes a number of different activities conceived to constitute together a single complex, and it occurs in the same locale, cultivated grounds, the fields. By not too subtle implication, then, the prohibition to gather manna from the space around the camp on the Sabbath applies to all the activities involved in gaining crops and storing them. One overlooked reflex of this conceptualization of manna in the wilderness as an idealized field with crops might occur in the so-called historicized or historicizing explanation of the festival of booths given in Lev 23:42 – 43. Towards the culmination of the ingathering season in the seventh month, when the farmer is most conscious of being surrounded by divine bounty and most palpably experiences the sense of security that he has provisions for the winter, Israelites should spend a week – probably an extra week – in their huts so as to correlate the divine bounty of any given year with that ideal period when the Israelites trekked from Egypt to Canaan and lived continually surrounded by divine bounty – manna – and daily they gathered it.44 The translation

43   On the manna as a prefiguration of the blessed produce of the field, “a land flowing with milk and honey,” from a theological standpoint, see von Rad, “The Promised Land,” in idem, Problem of the Hexateuch, 90. A Rabbinic midrash presents the commandment to give an ʿōmer of the first-fruits (Lev 23:10) of the harvest as recognition of the ʿōmer of manna that Yahweh gave to satisfy each person in the wilderness (Exod 16:16); see Pesiq. R. Kah. § 8:1 (1.139), as well as Pesiq. Rab. § 18 (p. 91b). Perhaps the terms, rules, and concepts of sacrifice and tabernacle that seem to lace the manna story contributed to this midrashic connection. In any case, on the provincial perspective, the emphasis on agriculture, and the analogous concerns that characterize the Holiness Code in particular, see the discussion in Joosten, People and Land, 29 – 92, 137 – 168; on the relationship of the Priestly manna story to the Holiness Code, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 17 – 18; on the motif of gleaning in the field in the Hebrew Bible more generally, see, e. g., Lev 19:9 – 10; 23:22; 2 Kgs 4:39; Isa 17:4 – 6; 27:12; Ruth 2. 44   To the degree that the passage depends on the Priestly manna story now in Exodus 16 and the punishment of forty years wandering the wilderness in Numbers 14, the remark is formulated without awareness that it sits at a stage in the story before the decree and the resolution of the problem of a lack of forty years’ worth of food. This loss of narrative perspective supports the long-contended opinion that the passage has been inserted into its current place secondarily.

1. The Form of the Oracular Novella and Other Priestly Texts about the Sabbath

177

is made explicit in the segment when Israel arrives in Canaan and the manna ceases as soon as harvestable produce is available (Josh 5:11 – 12). By the same token, the story of gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36 appears no different at all from the Priestly story of the manna in Exodus 16, merely an alternate but quite parallel encapsulation and translation of a related set of activities into terms appropriate to the setting of the wilderness. Given that the author intends to compose a story about the violation of the Sabbath, activities that involve gathering the manna cannot serve, since the manna does not fall on the Sabbath. What does exist? Wood45 – brush and brake46 – that one can gather from the ground.47 “Alles dies geschieht ohne Werkzeug, und es handelt sich dabei um dürre holzige Sträucher des Wildlandes.”48 Like the manna and its gathering, K‫לק״ט‬K, so brushwood and its gathering, K‫קש״ש‬K, are a wilderness configuration that stands in for an agricultural one in the settled land. The Rabbis of the Talmud sought a precise definition of K‫קש"ש‬K and debated whether it denotes uprooting, cutting, bundling, or carrying.49 On the one hand, they recognized the normative relevance of the story and its logic of precedent by analogy. On the other hand, as a group, all of the actions they considered belong to the larger activity of gathering in from the field. Namely, the Rabbis broke the general activity down into a set of independent activities. But with respect to the Sabbath, this line of reasoning and the massive multi-tiered system they developed do not appear in the Hebrew Bible. Semantically, the root K‫קש"ש‬K connotes all the actions together as the single complex activity “gathering” in the same way that K‫לק״ט‬K does.50 So understood the LXX translators, who used the term συλλέγω to render K‫קש"ש‬K in Num 15:32, 33 as well as the roots 51 K‫לק״ח‬K, K‫לק״ט‬K, and K‫קט״ף‬K elsewhere. Seebass raised several arguments to the effect that one should understand K‫קש"ש‬K to denote specifically uprooting. The main motivation for the argument comes from his basic assumption that the term for activities prohibited on the Sabbath in the Priestly history, K‫מלאכה‬K, denotes specifically hard work. Given this definition, he argues, the story 45   Cf. Seebass, Numeri, 153, 156 – 167. On the connection to Exod 35:3 and other relevant texts, see below. 46   Qimḥi, Book of Roots, 336. See also BDB 905: stubble; HALOT 1.864: pieces of wood, sticks. 47   Ben Yehuda, Dictionary of Hebrew, 13.6268. 48   Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 4.5 – 6. 49   See b. Shabb. 96b; y. Sanh. 5:1, 22d (col. 1289 ll. 19 – 20, Zusman ed.). 50  See Exod 5:2, 7; 1 Kgs 17:10 – 12; LXX: συλλέγω; the Targums to Num 15:32 – 33: K‫גבב‬K (Tg. Onq., Tg. Neof., Tg. Yer., Frg. Tg. P and V [1.98, 196]); Ibn Janaḥ, Book of Roots, 458; Qimḥi, Book of Roots, 336 – 337; Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 79; Luzzatto on 466; BDB 905; Gesenius-Buhl, 733; König, Wörterbuch, 423 – 424; Ben Yehuda, Dictionary of Hebrew, 13.6268; HALOT 2.1154 – 1155; Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 398 – 399. There are some who turn to Zeph 2:1, ‫התקוששו וקושו הגוי לא נכסף‬K, but this passage is difficult to interpret; LXX’s rendering Συνάχθητε κὰι συνδέθητε is unpersuasive. Tur-Sinai interprets the passage to mean K‫הֱיו ישרים‬K (“be righteous!”); see his discussion in Ben Yehuda, Dictionary of Hebrew, 13.6266 n. 5. For a discussion of the meanings of K‫קשש‬K, K‫קש‬K, K‫תבן‬K, and K‫גבבא‬K in the Rabbinic sources, the Targums, and interpretation from the Middle Ages, see Posen, “Kash.” 51   See HRCS 1302; Muraoka, Lexicon of the Septuagint, 529.

178

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

could not depict or concern itself with wood easily gathered up, and legislate for such an activity. Therefore, he turns to Exod 5:7, 12 and 1 Kgs 17:10, 12 and redefines them as depicting intensive work, to wit, uprooting.52 But reading 1 Kgs 17:10, 12 in this manner is quite forced.53 More to the point, the very definition of K‫מלאכה‬K as denoting hard work stands in direct contradiction with the Priestly history, which in Exod 35:1 – 3 includes burning fire as a form of K‫מלאכה‬K. The distinction between the set of prohibitions on the Sabbath and that on the holidays rests precisely on the premise that unqualified K‫מלאכה‬K includes the burning of fire. For holidays Yahweh prohibits only the subset K‫מלאכת‬ ‫עבדה‬K; people may use fire and engage in other activities related to making food immediately edible, K‫אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם‬K (Exod 12:16).54 Accordingly, on the day of the cleansing of the tabernacle (Lev 16:29 – 31; 23:26 – 32), when Israelites must deprive themselves, K‫ נפש‬+ ‫ענ"ה‬K, all work, K‫כל מלאכה‬K, is disallowed (16:29; 23:28). Hence, in terms of terminology, the designation of the day as K‫שבת שבתון‬K (16:31; 23:32) and, in terms of rhetoric, the unusual level of stress laid on the severity and significance of the day’s restrictive character (23:29 – 31). If any kind of classification or conceptualization emerges from all these Priestly texts together, it is one that distinguishes the activities connected with preparing food and making it edible, say, for immediate consumption, from activities around the growing and handling of crops; in spatial terms, it distinguishes between work out in the fields and work in and around the home. Difficulty or intensity does not figure as a criterion in the definition of K‫מלאכה‬K, which removes the motivation to force K‫קש"ש‬K into that rubric. Rather, as argued above, K‫קש"ש‬K denotes the general activity of gathering, whatever the gathering entails. 3) Taking the two passages together – the Priestly story of the manna within Exodus 16 and the Sabbath laws in Exod 35:1 – 3 – the explicit prohibition on fire in 35:3 together with the implicit prohibition on cooking in 16:23 – 25 may have contributed to the idea by the author of the novella that wood-gathering would make a fitting parallel to the manna-gathering. This suggestion does not mean to support Weingreen’s view, that the prohibition on gathering wood serves as a second-order injunction meant to ensure one not violate the prohibition on cooking. Even the Talmudic Rabbis did not go that far, but opted rather to attempt to nail down the verb K‫קש"ש‬K to a single distinct agricultural action or activity. Rather, the suggestion here restricts itself to the literary process by which the author came to the idea to tell a story about gathering wood. One could tighten the narrative connection further, by imagining that the woodgatherer had in mind to use the wood for fire.55 One might even come full circle and 52

  Numeri, 157.   It seems that Seebass’ very phrasing reflects his awareness of this: “In 1 Kön 17,10.12 handelt es sich entsprechend um ein Wegziehen von Hölzen, das eine Frau leistet” (ibid., 157, emphasis mine). 54  Exodus 12:16 creates and establishes the sub-category; Leviticus 23 applies it: compare v. 3 with vv. 5 – 8, 15 – 21, 24 – 25, 34 – 37. See Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 44 – 45. Note the stronger sense of “throat” conveyed by the term K‫נפש‬K in Exod 12:6. 55   Noth, Exodus, 117; Zakovitch, Introduction, 88, on the basis of 1 Kgs 17:10 ff. See especially Jer 7:18. For a comprehensive summary of the connections between wood and fire in the Bible, see Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 4.4 – 5. 53

1. The Form of the Oracular Novella and Other Priestly Texts about the Sabbath

179

claim that the wood-gatherer planned to cook his manna.56 Even in this far-reaching way of tying up the narrative threads, the idea would not be to suggest that the narrative serves to establish a second-order prohibition, wood-gathering, that prevents one from violating the primary prohibition of lighting a fire. The story prohibits gathering from the workable environs of the home, namely, from the fields, like the manna in the fields.57 To sum up, every element and component that plays a role in the plot of the woodgatherer story appears explicitly elsewhere in the Priestly history, and this extensive set of correlations seems to warrant the conclusion that they were all drawn from there. Moreover, to the degree that the wood-gatherer story draws from all those passages together, it seems further appropriate to infer that compositionally it post-dates them. This set of conclusions has the added benefit of bringing into view the unique point of emphasis in the story, its raison d’être. Having outlined the set of parallels between the story and passages throughout the Priestly history, it emerges that one element has no explicit corresponding expression – the form of the criminal’s death, namely, stoning. It seems logical to draw the further conclusion that the author composed the episode for the sake of highlighting this element in no uncertain terms.58 The presence of two separate declarative statements in Yahweh’s verdict (Num 15:35), K‫מות יומת האיש‬K and K‫רגום אתו באבנים כל העדה מחוץ למחנה‬K, each arguably of equal emphatic quality,59 might call this view into question by suggesting two points of emphasis – the fact of the violator’s death and its manner. Several Rabbinic comments, mentioned above, did sense here a doubled focus and responded to it. One comment distinguished between the two statements by taking the first, the pronouncement of death, as a precedent and the second, the manner of death, as meant for this one instance only.60 Another comment understood the two equal formulations as particularly addressed to Moses; he knew neither whether the Sabbath-violator should die nor, in the event he should, by what manner, and Yahweh had to inform him about both.61 But, as argued, the statement of the capital quality of the case derives from Exod 31:14, 15, and one should take its formulation to rest on that passage as no more than a citation, without the intent 56

  Ḥizzequni, at Num 11:8 (p. 453).  In Rabbinic terms, it is possible to illustrate the difference by means of the holiday regulations. On the one hand, cooking and baking are permitted according to the rule K‫אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה‬ ‫לכם‬K (Exod 12:16; see Rashbam’s commentary on this passage). On the other hand, gathering wood is prohibited on the holiday, and it is necessary to prepare all the wood before the holiday, according to the rule K‫כל מלאכה לא יעשה להם‬K (Exod 12:16) as well as the identification of gathering as K‫מלאכת עבודה‬K (Leviticus 23; Numbers 28 – 29). 58   Seebass concludes that this is the most reasonable interpretation, even if it is not, in his view, entirely satisfactory (Numeri, 156). He does not, however, explain what he finds difficult with the interpretation. 59  Both begin with the infinitive absolute, which can convey a direct imperative (K‫רגום אתו‬K) or an indirect injunction (K‫מות יומת‬K). On the phenomenon, see GKC § 113bb; and especially Joüon-Muraoka § 123h, u – v. 60   Sifre Num. § 114 (p. 123 ll. 6 – 7). 61   Sifre Zuta, at v. 35 (p. 288). 57

180

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

to convey any special emphasis. Again, only the stoning of the criminal has no corresponding text among all the other passages about the Sabbath in the Priestly history; therefore, one should identify it as the innovative element that the story serves to establish and highlight. From one point of view, one might characterize the author’s method or motive as exegetical. The texts in Exod 31:12 – 17 and 35:1 – 3 define the violation of the Sabbath as a capital offense, but they omit the details, namely, the manner of death. On the assumption that this detail matters, the story in Num 15:32 – 36 fills in this gap. So, in the main, did Rabbinic commentators understand the relationship between the different texts.62 As illustrated in the context of the story of the man who cursed the deity (Lev 24:10 – 23), the impulse towards this kind of gap-filling, in particular as concerns punishments and other results, characterizes the Priestly history generally, namely, the effect its style has on readers.63 From another point of view, the composition of an entire episode for the purpose of clarifying this detail seems to land somewhat on the far side of the spectrum of forms of scribal exegetical work; interpolations of a variety of exegetical efforts abound. The choice to compose a distinct and complete episode, therefore, suggests that the stoning of the offender holds for the author a particularly high level of significance. Spelling it out goes beyond exegetical explication; it promotes new expressive value, ideological value. The many passages about the Sabbath in the Priestly history reveal the concern to promote the Sabbath and lend it emphasis, both normatively, in terms of the specifics of praxis,64 and conceptually, in terms of its place in the Priestly worldview of the deity, the cosmos, the land, and the people Israel.65 For this reason the important passages about the Sabbath, Exod 31:12 – 17 and 35:1 – 3, come at a pivotal, central point between the instructions Yahweh gives to Moses to build the tabernacle (25:1 – 31:11) and Moses’ transmission of the instructions to Israel and implementation of them (35:4 – 40:33). This location gives the Sabbath a central place in the relationship between Yahweh and Israel: just as Yahweh constructed the world in six days and ceased on the seventh, so Israel should construct his tabernacle for six days and cease every seventh.66 As a form of punishment, stoning to death features 62

  See Bamberger, “Revelations of Torah,” 106 – 107.  In addition, it is possible that the punishment was deduced through the analogy between desecrating Sabbath and serving Molek – the only two crimes which call for both K‫כר״ת‬K and death (compare Exod 31:14 – 15 with Lev 20:2 – 3). Just as the manner of death is stoning in the case of serving Molek, so too is it in the case of desecration of the Sabbath. See further below. 64   Exod 16:23 – 25; 31:14 – 15; 35:2 – 3; Lev 19:3, 30; 23:3, 11, 15; 24:8; 26:2; Num 28:9 – 10; see also Lev 25:1 – 7. 65   Gen 2:1 – 3; Exod 20:11, 12 – 13, 16 – 17; see also Lev 26:24 – 25, 43. 66   Compare Toeg, Lawgiving at Sinai, 144 – 159, esp. 146; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 16 – 17; Milgrom, Leviticus 2.1338 – 1339. These scholars argue that the passages were arranged as part of the editing of the non-Priestly materials in Exodus 32 – 34 together with the surrounding Priestly material. However, such an argument is unnecessary, namely, no immediate literary matters warrant it, and it reflects external considerations and larger theories; it is sufficient and therefore preferable to interpret the location of the passages within the Priestly sequence alone. On the thematic connection between the Sabbath and the house of the deity, see Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord.” 63

2. The Relationship with the Oracular Novella in Lev 24:10 – 23

181

explicitly in only a few select cases: the “giving of one’s seed” to (the) K‫מולך‬K, which contaminates Yahweh’s holy space and desecrates (K‫חל״ל‬K) his holy name (Lev 20:1 – 5; also 18:2); maintaining or serving as the medium for K‫אוב וידעני‬K, namely, means for prognostication through the dead (20:27); and cursing the deity (24:10 – 23) – all activities that impugn Yahweh as the sole source of life and vitality, and attack, as it were, his person. As Sturdy argues, determining the punishment for the violation of the Sabbath to be death by stoning puts the Sabbath on par with these other offenses as obnoxious to Yahweh’s very core.67 Namely, just as the Sabbath has equal significance to the tabernacle, the place of Yahweh’s presence and the focal point for his worship, so violating the Sabbath compares with offenses against Yahweh’s person and essence.68 This insight illuminates another way in which the oracular novella about violating the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36 differs from the other oracular novellas and expands the bounds of their mutual characterization. The novella about cursing the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 introduces an entirely new subject, one that the Priestly history did not treat at all in any way. The novella about the secondary date of the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14 does not raise an entirely new subject, but treats new sets of circumstances that raise the question of the applicability of the law, whether one carries it out altogether. By contrast, the story about violating the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36 does not treat any new conditions, circumstances, or cases; it simply makes explicit an overlooked or even implicit aspect of the classic case in its classic application. This minimal contribution to the terms of the Sabbath law dovetails with the ideological impulse argued above to have motivated the composition of the story.

2. The Relationship with the Oracular Novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 As noted above, Gray raised the possibility that different authors wrote the novellas about the wood-gatherer and the curser. He did not venture an opinion as to which one composed his novella first and which one copied from his predecessor.69 In any case, this possibility raised by Gray has not reverberated much in scholarship. However, the view argued above in detail, that the novella about the wood-gatherer draws upon the many Sabbath passages in the Priestly history, strengthens the case for Gray’s 67  Numbers, 112; see also Seebass, Numeri, 157. The Rabbis already expressed this connection between the Sabbath and these three other offenses. They identified K‫גד"ף‬K (to revile/blaspheme) with ‫קל"ל‬K (Sifra, Emor § 14:1; Jastrow 214), and claimed Num 15:31 has in mind idolatry (apparently on the basis of Ezek 20:27 – 29) as well as the illegitimate mediums (Sifre Zuta, ad. loc.). In this view, the four sins are all depicted together in the one text, one after the other. 68   If one of the motivations to emphasize and illustrate that the punishment for breaking the Sabbath is death is the fact that the people in practice did not observe the Sabbath as the authors of the Priestly history desired, it is possible that the reason for this is bound up in the fact that the Priestly history did not specify an active, constructive way for the people to participate in the Sabbath. See the emphasis on this in McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue, 11 – 42. 69   Numbers, 182.

182

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

suggestion. Specifically, it lays the groundwork for the presupposition that the author of the novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath drew upon the novella about cursing the deity. In this case, the close correspondence between the two in terms of the structure of the story and of its terminology indicate the magnitude and character of dependence, and this dependence comes concretely to the fore in their different usage of the root K‫פר״ש‬K (Lev 24:12; Num 15:34). As noted above, opinions differ on the meaning of the root K‫פר"ש‬K, on whether it means “to render a verdict,”70 “to decide by oracle,”71 or “to say explicitly, to clarify.”72 At the same time, a consensus exists around the assumption that the term bears the same meaning in the two novellas in which it appears.73 It seems that this assumption that the term bears the same meaning in both instances extended itself to all instances in which it appears in the Hebrew Bible, namely, Ezra 4:18 and Neh 8:8. For example, Haupt felt constrained to interpret the instance in Neh 8:8, K‫ויקראו בספר בתורת האלהים‬ ‫מפ ֹרש‬K, in a very forced way, along the lines of “making known the decrees of the deity.”74 Fishbane seems entirely correct when he describes the sense in that instance as “distinctly, clearly.”75 Fishbane, and Dillmann before him, recognized that the usage in Neh 8:8 requires a distinction in the meaning of K‫פר"ש‬K. In some cases, the context requires that it mean “to decide by oracle,” while in others the context requires the meaning, “to clarify, to say distinctly.” On these grounds, they distinguished between Ezra 4:18 and Neh 8:8, on the one hand, and Lev 24:12 and Num 15:34, on the other.76 This conclusion, that the meaning of the term K‫פר"ש‬K changes in the Hebrew Bible depending on the context, can serve as a point of departure for determining the relationship between the novellas about cursing the deity and about violating the Sabbath. Whereas Dillmann and Fishbane distinguished between usage of the term in the Priestly history on the one hand and the other works on the other, careful attention to the usage in Num 15:34 and comparison with Lev 24:12 will lead to a distinction between the two forms of usage in these two Priestly passages. In both novellas, the term appears in a clause that qualifies the statement immediately preceding it, that the people put the offender in holding, but the clauses are not identical. In the novella about cursing the deity, the clause is a purpose clause, which, 70

  Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86.   Haupt in Paterson, Numbers, 51; Holzinger, Numeri, 64; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 98 – 104, 108, esp. 100. 72   Heinemann, “Technical Terminology,” 108 – 110; Levine, Numbers  1 – 20, 398 – 399. See also Ashley, Numbers, 291 and n. 8. 73   Snaith’s formulations give the impression that he intends to distinguish the meaning of Lev 24:12 from that in Num 15:34: the first instance he translates as “should be declared,” whereas the second he translates, “To be made plain.” However, it is not clear how these translations differ one from another (Leviticus and Numbers, 156). 74   In Paterson, Numbers, 51; and again in Guthe, Ezra and Nehemiah, 69. 75   Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 108 – 109. 76   Dillmann observes this in a concise manner (Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86), whereas Fishbane develops the distinction more clearly (Biblical Interpretation, 108 – 109). For an analogous shift, see Abusch, “Alaktu and Halakha.” 71

2. The Relationship with the Oracular Novella in Lev 24:10 – 23

183

temporally speaking, faces forward, looking to the future: K‫ויניחהו במשמר לפרש להם על‬ ‫פי יהוה‬K “they put him in holding, in order to decide for them by Yahweh” (Lev 24:12). The verb K‫פר"ש‬K here refers to the oracular decision they intend to seek, and the expression as a whole means “to decide by oracle.” The case does not entail clarifying something unclear and making an explicit statement about something omitted or left implicit, but rather eliciting articulate divine judgement. By contrast, in the novella about violating the Sabbath the clause in which K‫פר״ש‬K serves is a motive clause, as signaled unequivocally by the particle K‫כי‬K with which it begins. Temporally speaking, the clause faces backwards, looking towards the past: K‫ויניחו אתו במשמר כי לא פרש מה יעשה לו‬K “they put him in holding, because it was not clear, explicit (or: it had not been made explicit) what should be done to him/about him” (Num 15:34). The narrator does not mean to remark that no divine verdict had been given about this scenario before, for the history does not recount any such scenario having arisen before. The intent can only be to explain that no explicit and detailed law exists about the matter; therefore, they did not know how to proceed. One of the benefits of this approach that attends to the difference between the two novellas on this matter is that it can suggest a way to resolve an otherwise unexplained discrepancy between them. The curser comes before Moses alone (Lev 24:11), whereas the wood-gatherer comes before Moses, Aaron, and the entire K‫עדה‬K (Num 15:33). This discrepancy may reflect the different conceptualizations of the proceedings – as made manifest in the different uses of K‫פר"ש‬K. In the case of the curser, the story does not entertain the notion that anyone will consult, compare, or consider closely any particular body of laws. The people bring the criminal to Moses immediately, for the sole, express purpose of receiving divine instruction. In the case of the wood-gatherer, the people bring the criminal to a full, deliberating body of authorities, because they will first check sources like lore and testimony, consider aspects, and debate – the way the K‫עדה‬K functions in the Priestly homicide law in Num 35:9 – 34. In some sense, this projection on the part of the narrator would mirror the method of the novella’s allegedly separate author, who learned the material in the Priestly history, took mental note of the omission of an important detail in them and, based on the material in the history, developed the missing element and a way to contextualize it in concert with the history. Moreover, such an author working from the Priestly history would also likely work with the assumption that Moses, Aaron and the men of the congregation would themselves know the material in the history, the laws that, according to the history, they heard – Moses from Yahweh, and everyone else from Moses – and memorized. On this premise, the author constructs a story that takes it for granted that a criminal comes before the deliberating body so that its members can compare notes on existing lore and determine together that the case, going beyond their ken, warrants a divine oracle.77 77  Fishbane’s somewhat free and consistent rendering of the two clauses with K‫פר"ש‬K reflects his struggle to translate them uniformly, because they do not in fact say the same thing. The clause in Lev 24:12 he renders, “they besought a ruling,” whereas the corresponding clause in Num 15:34 he renders, “because there was no ruling” (Biblical Interpretation, 100).

184

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

Consistent with its own manner of conceptualization and discourse, Rabbinic commentary appears already to have given expression to this way of appreciating the distinctive formulation in this novella:78 They knew with respect to the wood-gatherer that he deserves death, since it says, K‫מחלליה מות‬ ‫יומת‬K (Exod 31:14), but they did not know by what kind of death he should die, since it says, K‫כי‬ ‫לא פרש מה יעשה לו‬K (Num 15:34).

And this kind of checking stands in contrast to the circumstances of the curser: Whereas here it says, K‫לפרש להם על פי יהוה‬K (Lev 24:12), which indicates that they did not know whether or not he deserves death.”

Importantly, LXX likewise remains faithful to the particular context and connotations of each instance and reflects a clear understanding of them as different. For K‫פר"ש‬K in Lev 24:12 it employs the Greek term διακρίνω “to decide, render a verdict,” whereas in Num 15:34 it uses συγκρίνω “to compare, to explain by comparison.”79 The meaning of K‫פר"ש‬K in Num 15:34, then, carries the same meaning that it does in the later literature, in Ezra 4:18 and Neh 8:8, and in subsequent Jewish literature, whereas the usage of K‫פר״ש‬K in Lev 24:12 does not recur in the Hebrew Bible or afterwards. Such linguistic data support the conclusion that the novellas about cursing the deity and gathering wood on the Sabbath come from two different periods and that between the two, the Sabbath text represents the later one. In the light of this conclusion, it emerges that just as the author of the novella about the Sabbath drew upon and interacted with existing passages about the Sabbath in the Priestly history, he also employed the novella about cursing the deity and exclaiming his name, for its basic structure and plot. It served particularly well in this capacity due to the stoning that takes place at its climactic conclusion, through which the author of the Sabbath novella aimed to express the comparable value of the Sabbath. In working from the novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 as a kind of template, the author of the novella in Num 15:32 – 36 repeated its terminology, including K‫פר"ש‬K. However, due to the author’s different method of literary composition and the presuppositions that the method generated regarding the characters in the Priestly history, the repetition of the term K‫פר״ש‬K also came along with a different meaning. The conclusion that the novella in Num 15:32 – 36 post-dates that in Lev 24:10 – 23 dovetails with the conclusion 78

  Sifra, Emor § 14:5.   BDAG 953 – 954, s. v. συγκρίνω, insists on a substantive rather than stylistic distinction. See further on διακρίνω: LSJ 398; Lust, Lexicon, 1.104; TDNT 3.921 – 923, 941 – 943, and esp. 946 – 947; BDAG 231; Muraoka, Lexicon of the Septuagint, 116. On συγκρίνω see: LSJ 1667; BDAG 953. Muraoka interprets συγκρίνω in this passage uniquely, as if it meant here διακρίνω as in Lev 24:12; from the rest of the cases it is clear that Muraoka was influenced by the parallelism between Lev 24:12 and Num 15:34 and did not properly distinguish between them. See, idem, Lexicon of the Septuagint, 527. The data presented in HRCS (διακρίνειν, 304; συγκρίνειν, 1300) confirms the distinction here between the terms and their meanings. One should also note the play on words in the use of the verb συγκρίνω, which has as its base meaning, “to gather, to join together” (LSJ 1667) – since this is the very crime of the wood-gatherer, who was found συλλέγοντα ξύλα, i. e., gathering wood. 79

3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15

185

above that the novella in Lev 24:10 – 23 constituted an original part of the “Holiness Code,” on the one hand, and the common opinion about Numbers 15 in general as a relatively late text within the Priestly history, on the other.

3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15 How should one define the present location and context of the novella about gathering wood on the Sabbath? Scholars have developed several different views. Ehrlich considered it against the backdrop of the story of the spies that immediately precedes it, in Numbers 13 – 14. As he argues it, in reality the statement “because it had not been made clear what should be done to him” addresses Israel’s doubt about their continued relationship with Yahweh, after he determined the Israelites should die in the wilderness. They wondered whether Yahweh had completely canceled his covenant with them such that they need not observe or maintain his laws anymore, or still considered the covenant intact and would continue to hold them to it such that they need handle the case of the violator of the Sabbath under its terms.80 Despite Ehrlich’s methodological statement that one should depart from the approach of the Rabbis (who defined the significance of the story by the question of what aspect of the law Moses did not know) and strike out a new path, in fact, his view simply repeats the traditional one that Numbers 15, which headlines two paragraphs with the condition about Israel arriving in its land (vv. 2, 18), serves to reassure the nation that despite the decree that the current generation would die in the wilderness the larger entity of the nation would persist within the rubric of its relationship with Yahweh and enter the land of Canaan as originally planned.81 Dillmann explained the location of the story of the wood-gatherer according to the narrower context of Numbers 15 itself. In his view, the story illustrates and clarifies the idiom K‫ביד רמה‬K “with raised hand” in v. 30.82 Generally speaking, this interpretation by Dillmann has enjoyed broad acceptance among scholars.83 Against this general 80

  Literal Meaning, 1.268.  Qoh. Rab. § 9:1; on Num 15:2, see Leḳaḥ Ṭov (2.216), Rashi (450, and see the comment of the editor there), Ibn Ezra (3.155); Ramban (2.251). See also the introductory midrash in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 211 § 196. It is worth noting that Ehrlich did not repeat this explanation in his later commentary, but rather offered a different interpretation altogether: that Moses did not know whether gathering wood constituted K‫מלאכה‬K “work” (Randglossen, 2.168). In his interpretation of the passage, Buber also makes recourse to the larger context of Numbers 15 – 18, which is distinguished by the Leitwort K‫קר״ב‬K. The root appears in the story of the wood-gatherer in 15:33: K‫ויקריבו אתו המצאים אתו מקשש‬ ‫עצים אל משה ואל אהרן ואל כל העדה‬K. See idem, Darko shel Mikra, 284 – 299, esp. 288 – 290. Even if one accepts his view, it is far too general to explain the specific location of the passage. 82  Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 86. See already Rabbenu Meyuḥas, Numbers, Num 15:32, under K‫יש אומרים‬K. If this is the case, the illustration is quite literal, or a literalization, in that one who gathers wood naturally lifts the wood up in his hands. On the broader background behind the idiom ‫ביד רמה‬K – threatening with a raised hand that holds a weapon – see Milgrom, Numbers, 125. 83   See, e. g., Gray, Numbers, 182; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 538. 81

186

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

consensus, however, Seebass counts off four indications that the story does not mean to serve in this capacity, namely, as exemplifying the offense done “with raised hand.”84 (1) The punishment of stoning established in the story for violation of the Sabbath represents a far more severe punishment than K‫כר״ת‬K – excommunication in his view – mentioned in vv. 30 – 31. (2) Though the statement in vv. 30 – 31 and the episode recounted in vv. 32 – 36 ostensibly treat the same topic, deliberate offense, the fact remains that the people in the story could not decide the outcome of the case on the basis of vv. 30 – 31 or, for that matter, on the basis of the law of the Sabbath in Exod 31:12 – 17, but required specific instructions from Yahweh. (3) If anything, the episode about gathering wood on the Sabbath exemplifies an alternate idea, that of the willfully rebellious generation, which according to the story in Numbers 13 ff. would have to die in the wilderness. (4) The author has not constructed the story in 15:32 – 36 upon the terms and ideas of the statement in vv. 30 – 31, but rather those in the story of the manna, in Exodus 16. Both stories make use of the tamarisk that characterizes and symbolizes life in the wilderness. One of the stories – so Seebass seems to have in mind – is a story about the manna found by the tamarisk, and the other tells of an episode having to do with the wood of its branches.85 Several of Seebass’ arguments assume far too much, for instance, that K‫כר״ת‬K means excommunication,86 that the story about violating the Sabbath exemplifies exclusively the motif of the rebellious generation, and that the story presumes the hard work of obtaining the wood of the tamarisk rather than gathering easily enough from the ground. Nevertheless, several of the distinctions he raises between the statement in vv. 30 – 31 and the episode in vv. 32 – 36 do highlight the dominant view as too flat, and in need of refinement, for instance, the difference in punishments and the need for special instructions. Milgrom sees in Numbers 15, from v. 21 and on, a series of offenses and corresponding punishments that grows progressively more severe. In his view, vv. 30 – 31 deal with cases of public offense that warrant the most severe divine punishment, K‫כר״ת‬K; the story in vv. 32 – 36 goes one step beyond that, depicting the most extreme case, of the public offense for which the offender receives not only K‫כר״ת‬K but also the most severe punishment of all – death by human hand.87 However, the story makes no mention of K‫כר״ת‬K – a problem compounded by the fact that Milgrom understands the double result of K‫כר״ת‬K and capital punishment in Exod 31:14, the most explicit source for such a double result, to derive from the story of the wood-gatherer.88 In addition to the fact that each one of these suggestions regarding the meaning of the present location of the episode within the Priestly history has its share of difficulties, there exists an overall complicating factor left untreated by all of them – the question 84

  Numeri, 153.   On the manna see Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte, 6.85 – 87; Childs, Exodus, 282 – 283. 86   His discussion of the double punishment in Exod 31:14 – 15 and attempt to interpret Num 15:35 – 36 (Numeri, 157) in the same manner is rather farfetched. Compare the opinions of Milgrom, Numbers, 405 – 408, and Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin.” 87   Milgrom, Numbers, 408 – 410. 88   Ibid., 125 – 126. 85

3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15

187

regarding the historical relationship between the story and all the other materials gathered up in the series eventually demarcated as Numbers 15. Without getting into the compositional history of the whole set of materials, the question should be posed: was the story gathered at the same time as all the rest or inserted into them at a later date? If a later insertion, was it composed for its present location, for a separate composition or context, or, notwithstanding its brevity, as an independent piece? The opening clause of the story, K‫ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר‬K, may serve as the point of departure regarding this question. Dillmann claimed that, according to the most straightforward reading, the one that takes the formulation at face value, the clause indicates a period of time, specifically, the period of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness.89 This reading, though, renders the remark entirely redundant in its current literary context, since the running narrative has Israel unequivocally, quite palpably, in the midst of this very wilderness period. Moreover, as Baentsch pointed out, the perspective changes markedly. The main verbs of the two preceding sections, in vv. 1 – 16 and 17 – 31, verbs in the wayyiqtōl form of narrative sequence, convey or establish a kind of “real-time” view of the events: K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K ּ ָ‫ש ָׂראֵל וְָאמ ְַרת‬ ְ ִ ‫דַ ּ ֵבּר אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K K. . . ‫לכֶם‬ ָ ‫שׁר ֲאנִי נ ֹתֵ ן‬ ֶ ‫שׁב ֹתֵ יכֶם ֲא‬ ְ ‫ ִכּי תָ ב ֹאּו אֶל־א ֶֶרץ מֹו‬K K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ַויְּדַ ֵבּר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K K‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ש ָׂראֵל וְָאמ ְַרתָ ּ ֲא ֵל‬ ְ ִ ‫דַ ּ ֵבּר אֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K K. . . ‫מּה‬ ָ‫ש‬ ׁ ָ ‫שׁר ֲאנִי ֵמבִיא אֶתְ כֶם‬ ֶ ‫ָָארץ ֲא‬ ֶ ‫ ְבּב ֹ ֲאכֶם אֶל־ה‬K K‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֵל‬

(1) (17)

By contrast, the opening in v. 32, whether a statement or a temporal subordinate clause, takes or creates a directly retrospective point of view: “The Israelites were in the wilderness (period), when (or: and) they caught . . .” or “When the Israelites were in the wilderness (period), they caught . . .”90 The same problem exists elsewhere, too, in the story about David and the Gibeonites in 2 Sam 21:1 – 14, which begins: K‫ויהי רעב בימי‬ ‫דוד שלש שנים שנה אחרי שנה‬K “There was famine in the days of David, three years, year after year.” Ehrlich asks with some measure of bewilderment: “K‫בימי דוד‬K In the days of David – why is it said here in this way, when all the deeds in this book took place in the days of David?”91 Accordingly, with respect to the episode in Num 15:32 – 36, Ehrlich felt forced to make the strained suggestion that the opening clause does not mark time but place – either an abbreviated reference to the wilderness of Paran (in line with 12:16; 13:26), or as a contrast to the camp mentioned in the story (15:35 – 36). Furthermore, the second case requires taking the reference to the Israelites in v. 32 as partitive, “When some of the Israelites left the camp and went into the wilderness . . .”92 Seebass pushed this last line of interpretation even further, going so far as to draw the 89

  Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 85 – 86.   Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 538; see also Steuernagel, Lehrbuch, 168 (§ 42.3), 252 (§ 58.1). 91   Literal Meaning, 2.246. 92  Randglossen, 2.167, on v. 32: either one restores K‫מבני ישראל‬K or simply understands K‫בני ישראל‬K as designating some Israelites. 90

188

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

conclusion that if the story has the Israelites out in the wilderness on the Sabbath to find someone gathering wood there, it must not presuppose a prohibition on leaving the camp.93 However, the term K‫מצ״א‬K does not function to convey movement in space, or the intent to seek and discover, but rather the technical, legal sense of catching someone in the act of a crime.94 Moreover, as part of his argument, Seebass makes the unfounded claim that the story recounts an event that took place when the Israelites left Sinai and first reached the wilderness, such that the opening clause in v. 32 means, “When the Israelites arrived at the wilderness”95 – precisely on the order of a Rabbinic midrash that dates the episode to the second Sabbath observed by the Israelites in the wilderness: “K‫ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר‬K – Scripture recounts this to the detriment of Israel, who properly observed only the first Sabbath and the second they desecrated.”96 One simply cannot explain the text according to the assumption that the expression K‫במדבר‬K serves to mark the geographical place in which the event recounted occurred. Any explanation along these lines invariably leads to a forced reading of the text. Similarly, one cannot explain the original purpose of the story within the current literary context – whether defined narrowly or broadly. Taken together, all the indications point to the story aiming to establish or highlight stoning as the specific form of punishment for one who violates the Sabbath, as argued above. No choice exists but to adopt the point of view of Dillmann, that the opening clause in v. 32, K‫ויהיו בני ישראל‬ ‫במדבר‬K, denotes the historical period in which the story takes place, and to draw the composition-historical conclusion from such an opening formulation that the author did not compose the story in or on the Priestly scroll (or set of sequential scrolls) that told of the wilderness period, but on a separate scroll. The author framed the story, namely, established its historical setting, with a period known to his audience as Israel’s wilderness period. “This too took place in the wilderness period,” it declares. Moreover, given all the indications of the story’s Priestly character – its terms, style, concepts, genre, and historiographical presuppositions – together with the way it interacts with so many texts found in the Priestly history – and not with any others – it seems safe and correct further to infer that the opening to the story does not make a general reference to an abstract tradition, but means concretely to call to mind the view of the period as described specifically in the Priestly scroll (or set of scrolls) that depicts it.

93   Numeri, 156. He suggests that in Exod 16:29b too there is also no prohibition against exiting the camp. However, this assertion seems to contradict the text, and Seebass does not explain his position:

Israeliten „Fanden“ einen Mann beim Holzsammeln in der Wüste. Aus dem Wortlaut geht hervor, daß das Verlassen des Lagers nicht also verboten galt (so auch Ex 16,29b), da die Israeliten ihn sonst nicht hätten finden können. All this argumentation is beside the point, at least according to the documentary hypothesis, since Exod 16:26 – 30 is not part of the Priestly history. See e. g., Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story,” 492 – 496. 94   See Iwry, “whnmṣ.” See also Zakovitch, Introduction, 88. 95   Numeri, 154. 96   Sifre Num. § 113 (p. 122); Rabbenu Meyuḥas, Numbers, on 15:32.

3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15

189

This conclusion gains clarity by way of contrast. The closely related story of the Israelite who cursed the deity (Lev 24:10 – 23), which has similar formulations, flow and structure, does not offer any kind of introduction to the incident. It jumps directly into the event, as if it followed directly upon the conclusion of the previous speech by Yahweh (in Lev 24:1 – 9 or, as suggested above, in 22:31 – 33): . . . K‫ויצא בן אשה ישראלית‬ . . . ‫בתוך בני ישראל‬K (24:10). This opening relies upon the broader narrative of Israel encamped at Mount Sinai for its comprehensibility to such an extent that it justifies going so far as to infer that the cursing takes place on the same day that Nadab and Abihu entered the tabernacle and Yahweh incinerated them (9:1 – 10:2). The contrast throws the implications of the introduction of the novella of the wood-gatherer into sharp relief. It establishes the narrative setting of Israel in the wilderness period, the mythic time of divine legislation for Israel, and anchors in it the law, legal practice, or norm that concludes the episode and results from it. That the story has such an introduction indicates that its author initially wrote it on a separate scroll, not the one that had the Priestly version of the events of the wilderness period on it. That the story correlates so specifically with Priestly texts, concepts, and historical assumptions indicates that its author worked from the Priestly scroll(s) with the history, not the subsequent “book of Numbers” of the traditional Torah, and for all intents and purposes further characterizes the author as Priestly.97 The Hebrew Bible contains additional examples of independent compositions situating themselves in a given historical setting found in detail on other, separate scrolls or known from tradition. The story of Ruth begins by situating itself in the pre-monarchic period of judges: K‫ויהי בימי שפט השפטים‬K “It happened in the days in which the judges judged” (1:1). This introduction, or more specifically, the need for such an introduction, only makes sense if its author initially wrote the story on a separate scroll than the one that contains the text that tells of a period of judges, the text that tradition has preserved and bequeathed as “the book of Judges.”98 Similarly, the scroll with the story of Esther 97  The Priestly manna story within Exodus 16 offers an intriguing point of comparison. Its opening too highlights “in the wilderness” (v. 2). However, in that case the narrative begins with a verb that signals continuity with a preceding episode – K‫וילונו‬K – and the localization “in the wilderness” picks up the last element of the episode that allegedly preceded it (see Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story,”), the decree of forty years’ wandering “in the wilderness” in the Priestly story of the spies within Numbers 13 – 14; note the emphatic locations and repetitions of the phrase in 14:29, 32, 33, 35. The reuse of the expression to headline the people’s reaction in the manna story helps focalize the audience and establish the panicked perspective of the Israelites. 98  Na’aman, he-ʻAvar ha-mekhonen et ha-hoṿeh, 105. The self-situation of Ruth in 1:1 stands together with many other pieces of evidence for the story having been written after the scrolls of Judges-Samuel-Kings already existed (see, e. g., Zakovitch, Ruth, 3, 15 – 16, 33 – 35, 46). Significantly, references to this periodization occur in Judg 2:6 – 23; 1 Sam 12:1 – 25; 2 Sam 7:1 – 17; 2 Kgs 23:21 – 23, and the indications are that together these verses create the periodization. The term “judge” as a pre-monarchic or proto-monarchic leader does not appear in the body of the episodes themselves, only in the frame. Indeed, in the Prophetic and Psalms literature king and judge appear as paired terms and cognate concepts (Hos 7:7; Isa 33:22; Ps 2:10; 148:11). Hos 13:10 K‫אהי מלכך אפוא‬ ‫ויושיעך בכל עריך ושפטיך אשר אמרת תנה לי מלך ושרים‬K is no counter-proof. On the contrary, both the logic of the statement and biblical poetic norms would have the relative clause at the end referring to both

190

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

begins by situating itself in a particular period: K‫ויהי בימי אחשורוש הוא אחשורוש המ ֹ ֵלְך‬K “It happened in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who ruled etc.” (Esth 1:1 – 2), and it does so precisely because the text appears in a scroll that does not have the chronicle of this king.99 However precisely it came about – the small size likely being one factor – the novella of the wood-gatherer eventually was included on a scroll with the Priestly wilderness episodes and located logically enough within the sequence. In a comparable instance, the story in which three successive years of famine lead David to turn seven of Saul’s family members over to the Gibeonites for impalement (2 Sam 21:1 – 14) begins, K‫ויהי רעב בימי דוד שלש שנים שנה אחרי שנה‬K “There was a famine in the days of David three years (in a row), year after year” (v. 1). As Fokkelman noted, such explicit contextualization of the episode as having taken place “in the days of David” K‫בימי דוד‬K has the effect of highlighting the distance between the events narrated and the narrator narrating them.100 This sudden sense of perspective marks a break in the running narrative of David, and the way it sets off the narrator as a distinct character differs markedly from the narrative of the series of preceding episodes, in which the narrator seems so close to the narrated101 as to have led generations of scholars – who confused the narrator with the author – to have concluded that he was an eye-witness or received his information from eye-witnesses.102 The sharp shift in the construction of the narrator suggests a shift in author. Namely, the story of David and the Gibeonites king and judge. On these and other grounds, scholars recommend reconstructing an original version: K‫ אשר אמרת תנה לי מלך ושרים‬,‫ וכל שריך וישפטוך‬,‫אהי מלכך אפוא ויושיעך‬K (Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten, 19, 132; Oort, Emendations, 140; BHK, 843; Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 245 – 268, on 267 [= Gesammelte Studien, 293 – 317, on 315]). Note additionally that just as the episode of gathering wood on the Sabbath matches that of Priestly scrolls and lore and on that account should be considered of a piece with them, so too in the case of the story of Ruth, the author seems to have aimed deliberately to evoke the atmosphere of the pre-monarchic period generally and even to make it directly continuous with the episodes at the end of the scroll of the judges (see Zakovitch, ibid., 15 – 16).   99   Whether this is entirely rhetorical is entirely beside the point. 100   See Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 275; and before him Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 2.246. Some other examples in which the narrator’s speech sets the narrator apart from the events narrated appear in 1 Sam 9:9 and, less fully, 2 Sam 1:17 – 18, but these instances do not suggest the presence of a separate work or author; on the contrary, they work to coordinate external data with the running story, a perfectly viable activity for a narrator. So too anticipatory references such as 1 Sam 17:54; 2 Sam 6:23 highlight the narrator as one who knows the entire story at the time of its narration, but pose no challenge to the integrity of the narrator or the narrative. 101   For other, independent ways of distinguishing the story in 2 Sam 21:1 – 14 from the main story of the book of Samuel, see Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, 65 – 66; Kiel, Samuel, 2.500; Alter, The David Story, 330. 102   See, for example, Budde, Samuel, xvii – xviii; Driver, Introduction, 172 – 185, esp. 183 – 184; Kirkpatrick, Samuel, 1.xx – xxi; von Rad, “The Beginning of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel,” in his Problem of the Hexateuch, 166 – 204; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 18, 20; McCarter, I Samuel, 27 – 30; ibid, II Samuel, 9 – 13. Even today there are some who hold to this position, such as Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, although based on more complex argumentation. For the sake of balance, compare: Na’aman, he-ʻAvar ha-mekhonen et ha-hoṿeh; before him Kuenen, who reasoned that biblical historiography began in the 8th century BCE and that its assessment must proceed from this point (The Religion of Israel, 1.12 – 32; applied in 101 – 412; concerning the book of Samuel in particular, 150 – 157, 183 – 185, 191 – 196, 320 – 343).

3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15

191

originally was composed for a scroll without a running story of David and subsequently was copied on to the scroll of David stories that eventually became “the book of Samuel.”103 Importantly, another instance of this complex process of limited composition on a separate scroll with explicit linkage to a main storyline or traditionally known historical periodization exists in the Priestly passage about the seventh year and the jubilee, which begins, K‫וידבר יהוה אל משה בהר סיני‬K “Yahweh spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai” (Lev 25:1). Given the larger Priestly narrative within Exodus 19 – Leviticus 24, which has Israel encamped in the wilderness of Sinai for an extended period as Moses receives many laws and implements those that require immediate fulfillment, the repetition of the present context creates a discontinuity. From this point of view, the reference in the verse to Mount Sinai seems not to specify a particular location, as if this particular set of instructions was given along with those for constructing and outfitting the tabernacle during Moses’ first trip up Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16 – 18a; 25:1 – 31:18*; compare the method for such “backdating” in Num 3:1; 7:1), but rather to designate a period, the year during which Israel encamped at Mount Sinai and significant things took place there. In this case, the reference conveys the perspective of one who considers Mount Sinai as a representative designation of a complete segment of a known story. Such usage indicates a Priestly text written originally with an opening reference to the main story that is written on a different scroll or set of scrolls, and eventually the text is copied into it. The story in Genesis 14 of the military campaign waged by an international coalition of kings against the kings of the Jordan Valley differs a bit, and extends somewhat the variety of such cases. The opening, which situates the campaign in the days of certain figures, does not necessarily indicate the presence of a new narrator and an independent text. (The anachronism of the list, which seems to combine figures spanning several centuries, has no bearing on the point.) One must wait to see how the narrator goes about coordinating the story with the larger narrative framework and integrates it within it. The telltale disjuncture comes further on, in v. 13, when the narrator formally introduces K‫אברם העברי‬K. This formal introduction, following immediately upon a string of episodes all about Abram, creates a jarring redundancy, or disjuncture, in the narrator’s telling and suggests a text written originally for some other context and secondarily inserted among the series of Abram episodes.104 103   Before Rost (and Kiel and Alter), Wellhausen and Budde recognized 2 Samuel 21 – 24 as a collection, compiled from various materials, that was added to the book of Samuel; see Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 260 – 261; Budde, Samuel, ix, 304. See also Kearney, “The Role of the Gibeonites;” Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 40 – 42; Brueggemann, “2 Samuel 21 – 24;” Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 202 – 214; Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis, 36 – 38. 104   It seems likely that the bits about Lot – vv. 12, 14a, and 16bα – result from this insertion. The group of insertions draws on the information in the preceding story that Abram’s kinsman Lot settled in the Dead Sea basin, and simultaneously removes the implication that Abram sought to restore the kings of Sodom and Gemorah and demonstrates his immense loyalty to kin.

192

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

Finally, one might add to this list the case in 2 Kgs 15:27 – 29. First, the text introduces the reign of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel (vv. 27 – 28). Immediately afterwards, it notes a significant event that occurred in his time, but repeats his name and title: “In the days of Pekah king of Israel” (v. 29). The disjuncture in the narrator’s discourse created by the repetition of his formal title rather than the use of the pronoun “his” – as done in 1 Kgs 16:34; 2 Kgs 8:20; 23:29; 24:1 – suggests a text copied into its current place the way the copier found it in its original source. In this instance, the reuse need not indicate a secondary interpolation into a preexisting text. The author of the text that became the biblical text may have excerpted the passage as he composed his work.105 The Hebrew Bible does contain several different coordinating formulas that indicate both that passages were originally formulated for preservation and transmission in contexts unconnected to the scrolls that became the biblical books in which those passages now appear and also that those who added such passages into their present contexts did also aim to adapt them syntactically and stylistically.106 Such coordinating expressions include K‫בימיו‬K “in his days,”107 K‫בימים ההם‬K “in those days,”108 K‫בעת ההיא‬K “at that time,”109 K‫אז‬K qātal “then did,”110 and K‫אז‬K yiqtōl “it was then that.”111 On the one hand, these expressions tend to amplify the presence of the narrator as the speaker of the text, which increases the perception of distance between the time of the narrator and the time of the events narrated.112 On the other hand, the use of pronouns and other deictic terms, which for the most part in these kinds of cases coordinate events chronologically, makes the text dependent on its immediate literary context for its intelligibility. Examples of double formulations illustrate well the fixed character of these coordinating expressions and their function to introduce material brought from a prior context. In one example, two expressions follow impossibly one right upon the other: 105  It seems that an introduction that plays a similar editorial role and indicates a similar process can be found in Prov 24:23: K‫גם אלה לחכמים‬K and 25:1: K‫גם אלה משלי שלמה אשר העתיקו אנשי חזקיה מלך יהודה‬. In these cases, it is possible that the introductions are connected to the arrangement of various collections found in the book of Proverbs and their editing. For a discussion of these collections and their arrangement, see Rofé, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible, 542 – 549 For additional examples of introductions with K‫גם‬K that seem to be editorial, compare 1 Kgs 16:7 with vv. 1 – 6. 106   See: König, Einleitung, 265 (§ 53.2a); Burney, Kings, 35, 187; Montgomery, “Archival Data,” 46 – 52, esp. 49; Loewenstamm, “The Formula Ba‘et Hahi’;” Rabinowitz, “ʾĀZ Followed by Imperfect.” 107   1 Kgs 16:34; 2 Kgs 8:20; 23:29; 24:1. 108   2 Kgs 10:32; 15:37; 20:1. 109   E. g., Deut 1:9, 16, 18; 2:34; 3:4, 8, 12, 18, 21, 23; 4:14; 5:5; 9:20; 10:1, 8; 2 Kgs 8:22; 16:6; 18:16; 20:12; 24:10; Isa 20:2. 110  E. g., Josh 10:33; 1 Kgs 8:12; 22:50; 2 Kgs 14:8; 1 Chr 15:2 (apparently built upon Deut 10:8, which is itself an addition marked by the formula K‫בעת ההיא‬K). Perhaps also: Gen 4:26b; Exod 4:26b. 111   Exod 15:1; Num 21:17; Deut 4:41; Josh 8:30; 10:12; 22:1; 1 Kgs 3:16; 8:1 (cf. also the formula in LXX there); 9:11; 11:7; 16:21; 2 Kgs 8:22; 12:18; 15:16; 16:5. Perhaps also Lev 26:34 – 35. 112   In the prophetic books this formula is put to an entirely different use. See, for example, Jer 33:15; 50:4, 20; Joel 4:1. This does not appear to be an accident but rather a deliberate use of familiar formulas while furnishing them with a new meaning.

3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15

193

113 K‫ביום ההוא אז נתן דויד‬K (1 Chr 16:7). In another, the two expressions come at different ends of the sentence, giving it a kind of frame: Τότε ἀνήγαγεν Σαλωμων . . . ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις (1 Kgs 9:24 LXX). Another such frame appears in 2 Kgs 8:22b: K‫אז‬ ‫תפשע לבנה בעת ההיא‬K. Not all clauses of this type indicate specifically the reuse of a prior text. In some instances, internal features point to a scribe having composed the material specifically to insert it into the text more or less where it stands now. One example is the passage in Josh 8:30 – 35 about the altar set up in Shechem and the ritual carried out there under Joshua, a text constructed entirely through the hermeneutic engagement with Deuteronomic texts.114 Another is the note about Moses having established cities of asylum, in Deut 4:41 – 43, which too seems generated in response to hermeneutical impulses.115 In these cases too, though, the coordinating clauses indicate interpolations. This survey of coordinating formulas, which generally mark the reuse of preexisting material but occasionally mark the interpolation of new material generated hermeneutically, establishes a telling contrast with the starkly disjunctive, uncoordinated openings, which introduce material added to the text from an alternate source. Namely, it helps bring out the character of period-defining phrases like those in Lev 25:1; 2 Sam 21:1; 2 Kgs 15:29; and Num 15:32 as introductions, their affinity to introductory phrases like those of Ruth 1:1 and Esther 1:1, and their implication that the passages they head once stood apart from the texts in which they now appear.116 If indeed, then, an author composed the story in Num 15:32 – 36 on a separate scroll than the one(s) with the running Priestly history, and formulated its opening to attribute the event described in it to a period known from the Priestly history, then its incorporation into Numbers 15 may very well have taken place for any of the thematic reasons raised by Dillmann, Milgrom, and others. It seems fair and useful to consider an editorial logic of sequence that works differently from authorial. An author creates the narrator, the voice that tells the story, taking responsibility for every word uttered by the voice, choosing when to have that voice depart from the simple sequence, and making sure to coordinate such departures syntactically. An author has an immense

113  Concerning the double construction K‫בעת ההיא בימים ההם‬K as a deliberate technique in the book of Jeremiah, see Talmon, “Textual Study,” 355 – 356. 114   See Nelson, Joshua, 115 – 120, esp. 118 (but for a discussion of v. 32, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 161 – 162). It is important to note that this passage appears in different places in the various manuscript traditions of the book of Joshua, which is what confirms its secondary nature in the biblical text. LXX places it between vv. 2 and 3 in ch. 9, and in 4QJosha it appears immediately preceding ch. 5 (DJD 14.147). 115   Rofé, “Cities of Refuge;” also: Nelson, Deuteronomy, 72. Cf. Haran, The Bibilical Collection 2.54 – 58, esp. 57 – 58; note, however, that his arguments do not necessarily contradict what is proposed here. 116  It may be possible to point out a parallel case within the Priestly history in Num 3:1 – 4 – at the end of the passage in this instance, in v. 4: K‫במדבר סיני‬K. Indeed, for entirely different and unrelated reasons the widespread opinion among scholars is that this passage originally belonged to another context or, at the very least, that it is secondary here. See, e. g., Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 15 – 16; Kuenen, Hexateuch, 91 – 92, 94 n. 35; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.187; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 455 – 456.

194

Novella  III.  Num  15:32 – 36

amount invested in the integrity of the storyteller so that the story hangs together as a story. An editor tends to focus much more on isolated elements – topics, themes, ambiguities, gaps, diction – often with the effect of undermining the construction of the narrator, namely, the integrity of the storyteller as a figure in the text. Along these lines three points warrant remark. First of all, as a work produced through hermeneutical engagement with other passages in the Priestly history the story of the man who gathers wood on the Sabbath suits Numbers 15 quite well. Specifically, it follows immediately after the piece about crimes and punishments, in vv. 22 – 31, which presents an alternate version of material in the Priestly history, in Leviticus 4.117 Secondly, in addition to Milgrom’s topical view of the story as representing the most strident of the series of crimes that begins in v. 22, one may also perceive its form to bear significance. As in the cases of the novellas of the curser of the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 and the make-up Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14, the narrative form concludes a list of laws and instructions, even if in this instance the length of the list comes nowhere near the dimensions of the others. Just as those novellas concluded the lists of laws preceding them by dramatizing their main subjects or concepts – the sacrality and desecration of Yahweh’s name in the one, and purity of state and of activity in and around the tabernacle in the other – this story dramatizes the matter of will behind crime and the manner of corresponding punishment. Significantly, the editorial logic that uses the novella about the Sabbath as a dramatic narrativization of a fully deliberate crime establishes the Sabbath as of paradigmatic value – in accordance with the thrust of the novella itself.118 This pivotal placement of the Sabbath in the series of texts in Numbers 15 recalls in a sense the deliberate location of the Sabbath among the instructions for the tabernacle given Moses atop Mount Sinai and carried out at its foot, in Exodus 25 – 31 and 35 – 40.119 It appears as Yahweh’s final topic of instruction, within 31:12 – 17, and the first topic Moses relays to the Israelites, in 35:1 – 3. This placement of the Sabbath conveys its significance to the tabernacle. In conceptual terms, attesting Yahweh’s creation of the world compares with – perhaps precedes – attesting and maintaining his 117

  See Toeg, “Numbers 15:22 – 31,” and Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 189 – 194, 260 – 261.  From this perspective, the logic of editorial linkage and sequence extends into the next segment as well, in vv. 37 – 41, in that it discusses all commandments, recalling them, and keeping oneself from violating them. See y. Ber. 1:4, 3c (col. 9 ll. 10 – 11). Perhaps the placement of the text concerning fringes in vv. 37 – 41 after the novella of the wood-gatherer in vv. 32 – 36 is intended schematically to supply the formal legal segment that is in the other novellas but lacking in this one. On the status of both Shabbat and the fringes as signs (K‫אות‬K), see Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant,” esp. 575 – 580. (Delitzsch’s suggestion to correct K‫לצצית‬K to K‫לאות‬K in v. 39, which Fox brings to bear and further justifies on pp. 578 – 579, has also been proposed by, e. g., Oort, Emendations, 15; BHK, ad. loc., and, according to Ehrlich, “the majority of commentators” [Randglossen, 2.168]). On the phenomenon of Yahweh transitioning mid-speech from referring to Israel in third person to second person – compare vv. 37 – 38 with vv. 39 – 41 – see Paran, Priestly Style, 71 – 73, 91 – 94; on this phenomenon as a way to distinguish between layers of a text, see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 12 – 43. In the light of Gesundheit’s analysis, it is possible that vv. 39 – 41, which bear the theological load that Fox describes, are an addition to vv. 37 – 38. 119   For the Priestly texts in Exodus 32 – 34, see Schwartz, “The Priestly Account.” 118

3. The Relationship with the Texts of Numbers 15

195

presence on earth. As a matter of practice, the placement may indicate that one may not violate the Sabbath in order to build the tabernacle. The location of the Sabbath within Numbers 15 correlates with its location in Exodus 25 – 31 and 35 – 40, especially in the light of the punishment of stoning highlighted by its dramatizing narrativization, which puts the Sabbath on par with other violations seen as offenses to Yahweh’s very person, cursing him (Lev 24:10 – 23) and turning to other would-be divine entities or forces (20:2, 27). Third, from a broader perspective, by attributing the story of the violation of the Sabbath to a time-period identifiable by the wilderness generally, the opening of the story tends to forestall placing the story within one of the narrative segments defined by a specific location, namely, the framework of “Sinai,” which concludes in Num 10:11, that of “Zin,” which begins in 20:1, or that of “the Plains of Moab,” which begins in 21:36. Notably, the general designation of the period as one in which the Israelites wandered within a large general region definable as “the wilderness” follows well upon the usage of this term – almost as a keyword – in the story of the spies that concluded with Yahweh’s decree about precisely such a period: “In this wilderness shall your carcasses fall . . . but your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall roam the wilderness for forty years . . . until the end of your carcasses in the wilderness . . . in this wilderness shall they meet their end and there shall they die” (14:29 – 35). Moreover, as a result of its current location following this conclusion to the spies affair, the story of the Sabbath takes on the appearance of the fulfillment of the decree, a dramatic presentation of the falling of one such violator “in the wilderness.”120 It seems a further plausible conjecture, then, that the novella about one who violated the Sabbath spurred the collection of the pieces now constituting Numbers 15, drove the sequence among them, and determined their placement between the Priestly stories of Numbers 14 and 16. The usage of K‫פר״ש‬K that corresponds to its sense in EzraNehemiah, in contrast with its sense in Lev 24:10 – 23; the knowledge of, and hermeneutical engagement with, so many texts within the Priestly history, most of which belong to secondary layers of it; and the mindset that takes the scroll or scrolls with the Priestly history as a contained, somewhat closed set – all these characteristics mark the story as belonging, in relative terms, to a very late stage of Priestly composition. Its subsequent placement alongside other variegated materials in Numbers 15, some of which also seem to bear a hermeneutical stance towards materials in the Priestly history, and their placement together within the Priestly history between the stories of the spies in Numbers 14 and the rebellions of Numbers 16 – 17 would then belong to an even later stage.

120   Along the same line of thought, because of the placement of the story of the wood-gatherer immediately before the Koraḥ episode, the story’s opening line cuts off the Koraḥ episode from its original setting, in the wilderness of Paran (Num 12:16), and places it at some point and somewhere “in the wilderness,” where it becomes another example of Yahweh’s oath at the end of the story about the spies.

Novella IV.

Num 27:1 – 11 The narrative of the fourth oracular novella, in Num 27:1 – 11, fits integrally into the larger story around it, the Priestly history in particular. During the period in which the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, a man named Zelophad of the tribe of Manasseh died. He had no sons to inherit him, but he had five daughters. When the Israelites camped at the plains of Moab, their last stop before entering Canaan, the time came to establish the smallest family units, the households, that would each receive a portion of the land. The daughters of Zelophad approached Moses and a company of leading figures with a petition for the right to maintain the integrity of their father’s household despite his death, by inheriting the plot he should have received, lest his name unjustly go to oblivion. 2

‫שׁמֹות ְבּנ ֹתָ יו‬ ְ ‫– ְו ֵא ֶלּה‬ 1‫שׁה בֶן־יֹוסֵף‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ש ְפּח ֹת ְמנ‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה ְל ִמ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫וַתִ ּק ְַר ְבנָה ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד ֶבּן־ ֵחפֶר ֶבּן־גִּ ְלעָד ֶבּן־ ָמכִיר ֶבּן־ ְמנ‬K – ‫ ַמ ְחלָה נֹעָה ְו ָחגְלָה ּו ִמ ְל ָכּה וְתִ ְרצָה‬K 3 K ‫פּתַ ח אֹהֶל־מֹועֵד לֵאמ ֹר‬ ֶ ‫שׂיאִים ְוכָל־ ָהעֵדָ ה‬ ִ ְ‫שׁה ְו ִל ְפנֵי ֶא ְל ָעזָר הַכֹּהֵן ְו ִל ְפנֵי ַה ּנ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַתַ ּעֲמ ֹדְ נָה ִל ְפנֵי מ‬K ‫ֹו‬K ‫ ל‬4‫ָאבִינּו מֵת ַ ּב ִמּדְ ָבּר וְהּוא ֹלא־ ָהי ָה בְתֹוְך ָהעֵדָה הַּנֹועָדִים עַל־יהוה ַ ּבעֲדַת־ק ַֹרח ִכּי־ ְב ֶחטְאֹו מֵת ּו ָבנִים ֹלא־הָיּו‬K K‫בן‬ ּ ֵ ‫ש ַ ּפחְּתֹו ִכּי אֵין לֹו‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁם־ָאבִינּו מִתֹוְך ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ ָל ָמּה יִגָ ַּרע‬K K‫אחֵי ָאבִינּו‬ ֲ ‫ ְבּתֹוְך‬6‫־ ָלּנּו ֲא ֻחזָּה‬5‫תְ ּנָה‬K

(1) (2) (3) (4)

1  LXX lacks the words K‫בן מנשה‬K, and in place of the expression K‫בן יוסף‬K it renders: τῶν υἱῶν Ιωσηφ (= K‫לבני יוסף‬K). MT reflects an attempt to unify the style of the text with the word K‫בן‬K; however, the original expression K‫למשפחת מנשה‬K was not deleted, which resulted in the double construction K‫בן מנשה למשפחת‬ ‫מנשה‬K. In the Peshitta, in which the words K‫משפחת מנשה‬K (BHS) are missing, the process completed itself; see already Josh 17:3. Cf. Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 457. For the literary-historical dimension of the subject, see below. 2  LXX reads: τὰ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν (= K‫שמותן‬K). According to Wevers, this is merely a correction of MT, which gives the impression that Zelophad will be the main focus of the story, whereas the focus is actually his daughters (Greek Text of Numbers, 457). SP and 4QNumb K‫ב]נותיו‬K (col. 21 l. 4; see DJD 12.243) agree with MT. See also below. 3  According to Wevers, in MT a verb such as K‫ותאמרנה‬K or K‫ותדברנה‬K is lacking with the result that the emphasis of the text falls on the actions of standing and approaching rather than on the speech; without supplying the verb, LXX restores the correct focus (Greek Text of Numbers, 457 – 458). Milgrom offers the much simpler explanation that this is a case of ellipsis (Numbers, 325 n. 3). Consider the parallel case in Exod 22:7: K‫ונקרב בעל הבית אל אלהים אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו‬K, which must be interpreted according to v. 10: K‫שבעת יהוה תהיה בין שניהם אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו‬K, as in Mek. de R. Ishmael, Mishpatim § 15 (p. 300 ll. 6 – 12). 4  If 4QNumb K‫היה‬K is indeed correct (col. 21 l. 7; DJD 12.243), then its antecedent should be the singular K‫בן‬K. Such a version would reflect a harmonizing change intended to adapt the style of this line to that found in v. 4 (K‫כי אין לו בן‬K) and v. 8 (K‫ובן אין לו‬K). Compare the restoration in DJD’s collation (p. 243) and comments (p. 245). 5  LXX δότε (= K‫תנו‬K) changes the form of the request to match v. 2, in which the women stand before not just Moses but also Eleazer, the elders, and the entire congregation. MT presupposes that the women

197

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

Moses brought the case for resolution by divine instruction, and Yahweh decided in favor of the petition. K‫יהוה‬

‫ש ָ ּפטָן ִל ְפנֵי‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה אֶת־ ִמ‬ ֶ ‫ ַו ּי ַק ְֵרב מ‬K K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַי ֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K K‫פחָד דֹבְרֹת‬ ְ ‫ ֵכּן ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל‬K 7 K ‫אבִיהֶם‬ ֲ ‫נָת ֹן תִ ּתֵ ּן ָלהֶם ֲא ֻחזַּת נַ ֲחלָה ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי‬K ֶ ‫ ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרתָ ּ אֶת־נַ ֲחלַת ֲאבִיהֶן ָל‬K K‫הן‬

(5) (6) (7)

As in the novellas of the curser and the make-up Pesaḥ, Yahweh goes beyond deciding the specific case at hand and establishes a detailed series of laws on the topic, which will function ever after. K‫בּר לֵאמֹר‬ ֵ ַ‫ש ָׂראֵל תְ ּד‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואֶל־ ְ ּבנֵי י‬K ‫ אֶת‬8‫– ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרתֶ ּם‬ ‫אִיׁש ִכּי־י ָמּות ּובֵן אֵין לֹו‬K K‫אחָיו‬ ֶ ‫– ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו ְל‬ ‫ ְואִם־אֵין לֹו ַבּת‬K K‫אחֵי ָאבִיו‬ ֲ ‫– ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו ַל‬ ‫ ְואִם־אֵין לֹו ַאחִים‬K 10 K‫ְוי ַָרׁש א ֹתָ ּה‬ ‫ש ַ ּפחְּתֹו‬ ׁ ְ ‫שאֵרֹו ַה ָקּר ֹב ֵאלָיו ִמ ִ ּמ‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו ִל‬ 9‫ ְואִם־אֵין ַאחִים לְָאבִיו‬K 11 K ‫פּט‬ ָ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ש ָׂראֵל ְל ֻח ַקּת ִמ‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְו ָהי ְתָ ה ִל ְבנֵי י‬K K‫שה‬ ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת מ‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K K‫לבִּתֹו‬ ְ ‫נַ ֲחלָתֹו־‬

(8) (9) (10) (11)

Just the effort to summarize the story of these five daughters already brings to the fore a difference between this novella and the three treated in the preceding chapters, a difference that will prove significant to the analysis of the novella in the discussion to follow. As illustrated above, the previous three novellas have little to no dependence on the specific context in which they appear, such that one can describe what transpires in them and summarize them with almost no recourse to any of the details in the passages immediately preceding or following them. Incipits locating them generally, like “in the period of the wilderness” or “on such and such a date since the exodus from Egypt,” entirely suffice. The character of their specific location within the sequence know that Moses will bring their request before Yahweh and receive the decision from him (see Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 459).  6  SP reads here K‫אחזת נחלה‬K through the influence of v. 7. Concerning the significance of the difference between SP and MT for literary criticism of the novella, see the discussion below.  7  It is not necessary to restore the feminine suffixes in K‫להם‬K and K‫אביהם‬K, as SP does; see GKC § 135o. Concerning the significance of the form for literary criticism of the novella, see below.  8  SP K‫ונתתם‬K results from the influence of the continuation of the law. On the broader issue of the significance of the terms and the development of the text, see below.  9   LXX uses the singular when discussing all of the potential inheritors in vv. 9 – 11a. However, this is only an attempt to unify the style of the section, which opens and closes in the singular, but renders the middle section in the plural. SP matches MT. On the literary-historical context, see below. 10  In contrast to the one-hundred and fifty instances in the book of Numbers in which LXX has the word K‫משפחה‬K translated by the word δῆμος, only here and and in 36:1 does the more general concept φυλή appear. It seems that the translator attempted to widen the meaning of the law here so that it could also apply to the case in Num 36:1 – 12 (Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 462). This phenomenon of scribes of different kinds revising a text to match what will occur later in it was seen in LXX at Num 9:7 and in SP at Num 9:2 – 3. 11   On the problem of who says these words, Yahweh or the narrator, and its relevance for literary criticism of the text, see below.

198

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

of passages – thematic in essence – does not depend, in terms of causality or otherwise, on any particular narrative details. Indeed, in the case of the wood-gatherer on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36, the analyses above picked up strong indications that the author of the novella never imagined it entering the text of the running Priestly history. By way of contrast, the plot of the story of Zelophad’s five daughters fundamentally depends on the specifics of its current location in the text immediately following the census of Numbers 26. Its author has constructed it on the premise that Israel sits now on the plains of Moab and has just conducted a census for the purpose of establishing the number of lots into which they will divide Canaan. Furthermore, it takes the male definition of the genealogy in Numbers 26 as substantive and significant, specifically, as the legal principle behind defining family units, which constitutes the very basis of their petition.12 This dependence extends beyond the level of story, of narrative logic, to the way the novella begins, its opening formulation. Rather than employ any of the classical, formal ways to mark a beginning, like K‫ויהי‬K or a date followed by formally introduced speech, and then gradually develop the background and the plot, the narrative formulates a beginning that follows sequentially and consequentially from what precedes it, with a wayyiqtōl verb of narrative sequence: K‫ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד‬K. Highlighting the direct continuity indicated by the formulation and the deliberateness behind it, essential information to the plot – that Zelophad died and had no sons – first appears later on in the narrative, in the body of the action, and not in the voice of the narrator, but in the voice of the women, as part of the argument in their petition. The character of the narrative about the daughters of Zelophad as continuing directly the narrative that precedes it, namely, as a continuation of the discourse of the text, raises a composition-historical question. Does the novella represent an original element of the census text in Numbers 26 (or a layer of it), or does it represent a supplement formulated specifically for its current location? Additionally, the two narratives, the census in Numbers 26 and the novella about Zelophad’s daughters in 27:1 – 11, share an identical genealogical chain, Manasseh – Machir – Gilead – Hepher – Zelophad, followed by a transition to the five daughters of Zelophad who are then listed by name in the same order (compare 26:29 – 33 and 27:1). Num 27:1

Num 26:29 – 33

.K  . . ‫וַתִ ּק ְַר ְבנָה ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד ֶבּן־ ֵחפֶר ֶבּן־ ִּג ְלעָד ֶבּן־ ָמכִיר ֶבּן־ ְמנַשֶ ּׁה‬K

‫י‬K ‫ִיר‬ ִ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה ָ ּמכ‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְל ָמכִיר ִמ‬:‫ ְ ּבנֵי ְמנַשֶ ּׁה‬K ‫י‬K ִ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַהגִּ ְלעָד‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְלגִ ְלעָד ִמ‬:‫ּו ָמכִיר הֹולִיד אֶת־ ִּג ְלעָד‬K ‫י‬K ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה ֶחפ ְִר‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ְו ֵחפֶר ִמ‬. . . :‫ ֵא ֶלּה ְ ּבנֵי גִ ְלעָד‬K ‫ת‬K ‫ ֹלא־הָיּו לֹו ָ ּבנִים ִכּי אִם־ ָבּנֹו‬:‫ּו ְצ ָל ְפחָד ֶבּן־ ֵחפֶר‬K ‫ה‬K ‫– ַמ ְחלָה נֹעָה ְו ָח ְגלָה ּו ִמ ְל ָכּה וְתִ ְר ָצ‬ ‫שׁמֹות ְבּנ ֹתָיו‬ ְ ‫ ְו ֵא ֶלּה‬K ‫ה‬K ‫– ַמ ְחלָה וְנֹעָה ָח ְגלָה ִמ ְל ָכּה וְתִ ְר ָצ‬ ‫שׁם ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד‬ ֵ ‫ ְו‬K

Does this precise repetition also reflect the process by which the author of the novella of Zelophad’s daughters worked, namely, directly from the census of Numbers 26, or 12   See Sifre Num. § 133 (p. 176 ll. 1 – 6); Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 159 – 160; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 177; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 636.

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

199

might have the genealogies originally looked different to one degree or another but then underwent harmonization? This question has yet to find resolution in scholarship. It appears that the resolution of the above question depends on yet another complicated issue, which too continues to generate scholarly debate – the nature of the relationship between the story of the ruling in Num 27:1 – 11 and the story of its application in Josh 17:1 – 6. That text presents many difficulties of its own – literary, syntactical, geographical, and more – and by all indications looks to have undergone a series of additions and revisions. Making sense of the text, identifying its layers and interests, will involve keeping in mind its relationship to the text of the ruling in Num 27:1 – 11. Reconstructing the development of all three passages – the genealogy in the census in Numbers 26, the case and ruling in Numbers 27, and the implementation of the ruling in Joshua 17 – while remaining duly attentive to the interrelationships among them can help lead to a comprehensive solution. The placement of the novella about Zelophad’s daughters following the census of Numbers 26 has significance from another direction as well. Indications suggest that at one stage of the development of the Priestly history, this incident might have been Moses’ final act of mediating divine legislation before his death – in fact, one of his final acts altogether. In the story that comes immediately after the petition and decision, Yahweh instructs Moses to prepare for his death (Num 27:12 – 14), and Moses initiates the establishment of Joshua as his successor, who will lead the people as they take possession of Canaan and settle in it (vv. 15 – 23). At this point, the narrative lays the expectation that it will next recount Moses’ death, the Priestly narrative of which currently appears within Deut 34:1 – 9.13 This location of the text of the petitioning daughters lends the novella 13  On the addition of Numbers 28 – 36 and the Deuteronomic corpus at this point, see Kuenen, Hexateuch, 97 – 102; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 178 – 179; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 113; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.233; Driver, Deuteronomy, 382 – 383; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 104 n. 49; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 518; also Kislev, Sources and Traditions. Many scholars identify Deut 32:48 – 52 as a resumptive repetition of Num 27:12 – 23 (cf. von Rad, Deuteronomy, 201). However, the question of which of the two texts represents the source and which is the editorial insertion has led to much complicated discussion. See, e. g., Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 179; Holzinger, Numeri, 137 – 138; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 637 – 638; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 172. In opposition to them, see Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, 122; Driver, Deuteronomy, 382 – 385; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 177, 181; Auld, Joshua, Moses, and the Land, 99 – 100; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 293; Perlitt, Deuteronomium-Studien, 123 – 125, 129 – 133. Several indications together point to Deut 32:48 – 52 as the editor’s version: (1) clarification and simplification of complex elements in Num 27:12 – 14 – compare the imperative mood in the expressions K‫ ֻמת‬K and K‫הַאסף על עמך‬K in Deut 32:50 with the sequence of verbs and their meaning in Num 27:12 – 13, and compare the doubled justification in Deut 32:51 K‫ על אשר לא קדשתם אותי בתוך בני ישראל‬. . . ‫על אשר מעלתם בי בתוך בני ישראל‬K with the complex formulation in Num 27:14; (2) signs of presupposing what is recounted in Num 27:12 – 23 and that time has transpired since then – e. g. not recounting Joshua's appointment and the use of the expression K‫בעצם היום הזה‬K in Deut 32:48; (3) knowledge and influence of the Deuteronomic and other sources – e. g., 32:48 K‫בעצם היום הזה‬K, which seems to presuppose the events of 31:1 – 32:47; 32:49 the location K‫הר נבו אשר בארץ מואב‬K; and v. 52 the emphatic statement K‫ושמה לא תבוא‬K as in 34:4. In my analysis, the Priestly narrative in Deuteronomy 34 occurs: in v. 1 K‫> אשר על פני ירחו וירא‬. . .< ‫ויעל משה מערבת מואב‬ ‫> את כל הארץ‬. . . על פי יהוה‬. . .< ‫משה‬K (see Num 20:26, 28; 33:38); and all of vv. 8 (see Num 20:29) and 9 (see Num 27:18;

200

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

particular significance, which warrants explication. Should the novella emerge as a secondary insertion, written, moreover, with the intent that it enter between the census and Moses’ commissioning and authorization of Joshua to lead the people, the changes in the meaning of the sequence of the Priestly history will likewise deserve complex analysis. The legal discussion of inheritance by daughters and the status of the land continues in the story of a counter-petition brought by the clan of Gilead, in Num 36:1 – 12. The entire text constitutes a reaction to that of the original petition and decision and offers a pointed response to it. The connection between the texts is obvious and none debate it, but it still has yet to enjoy a full working-out. Such analysis entails treating the extent and character of the literary dependence on the novella in Num 27:1 – 11, how the author read and interpreted the story of the petition and decision in Num 27:1 – 11, to what degree the decision in 36:1 – 12 diverges from that of the novella in 27:1 – 11, and the discursive strategies and devices employed to supersede or effectively qualify the implications of the ruling in 27:1 – 11. The novella of the daughters of Zelophad, women who inherit, as it were, land, has had an impact on one additional set of topics and texts, which scholarship to date appears entirely to have overlooked: the law of land redemption in Leviticus 25; the law of levirate marriage as laid out in Deut 25:5 – 10 and as dramatized in Genesis 38; and the integration of these topics in the biblical “novel” that goes by the name of its heroine, Ruth. More specifically, the story of Ruth draws clearly enough on land redemption and levirate marriage, but scholarship has not sufficiently explained the gap between the norms in the Torah and those dramatized in Ruth. The story of the rise of the law of female land inheritance – the novella of the daughters of Zelophad in Num 27:1 – 11 – appears to have served the author of Ruth as the channel or the glue that brought them all together. This systematization requires tracing and explication. A broad view takes in a surprisingly wide variety of biblical texts influenced in one way or another by the novella of the daughters of Zelophad in Num 27:1 – 11. The occasion of its analysis here warrants categorizing all the different kinds of influence and relationships. Alongside the intertextual relationships between the novella and other biblical passages stands another, central matter – the legal tradition that preceded the composition of the novella. Did the novella introduce a revolutionary principle or mark another stage in the gradual development of the law? Does it represent an etiology for a somewhat surprising law or a scholastic exercise essentially divorced from real-life practice? The attempt to characterize the innovative element of this novella with any kind of accuracy and reliability will have to take into account a number of different data and factors of various kinds. The Hebrew Bible contains several examples of see also Ex 31:1 – 6; 35:30 – 36:2). Compare e. g. Kuenen, Hexateuch, 102 n. 44, 130 n. 22; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 433 – 434; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 115 – 116; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 129 – 130; idem, Das Deuteronomium, 182 – 183; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 181; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 106; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 308 – 311; the review of opinions and detailed discussion in Perlitt, Deuteronomium-Studien, 123 – 125, 133 – 141; and Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 147 – 148.

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

201

daughters who inherit, or daughters who carry on their father’s name, for example, in 1 Chr 2:18 – 50; 7:14 – 19. Do these texts and their contents come from a period as late as the historiographical work that contains them and presents them, which might increase the likelihood that the author drew on the text of Num 27:1 – 11, or do they preserve earlier traditions of practice that have a longer history, which could increase the possibility of shedding external light on the novella in Num 27:1 – 11? It will also prove necessary to give due consideration to broader sociological aspects, specifically, the complex comprising households, land, inheritance, name continuation, levirate marriage, land redemption, jubilee, etc. – and the place of women in it.14 Additionally, one should assess this issue from the more current, modern critical perspective that aims to recover the character of routine life for segments of the community that traditional scholarship had earlier deemed uninteresting and unworthy of attention.15 Perhaps one of the most dramatic aspects with regard to this topic, archaeologists have discovered among the potsherds of Samaria, in territory of Manasseh as defined in the Hebrew Bible, a number of regions bearing the names of the daughters of Zelophad.16 It remains a question that has not achieved final resolution as to which conclusions one should, or may, draw from these ostraca. 14   Holzinger provides a detailed discussion of the relationship between land, inheritance and the cult of the fathers as a context in which to analyze Num 27:1 – 11 (Numeri, 137); so too Baentsch, though in a more moderate way (Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 635, 636); see also Cooke’s discussion on the phenomenon of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5 – 10 (Ruth, 15). For a maximal approach, see Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land.” Brichto claims that he will analyze Num 27:1 – 11 against this complex background, but his discussion of the episode itself is much more limited – focusing, in fact, on a single limited legal aspect and located in a footnote (16 – 17 n. 22). For a study that does not mention the episode of the daughters of Zelophad, see van der Toorn, Family Religion, 206 – 235. For the perspective that the responsibility for the cult of ancestors fell on sons alone, see Lewis, Cults of the Dead, 173, 177 – 178; for the idea that this was once the responsibility of the eldest, see Milgrom, “The Firstborn.” For the possibility that a father lacking sons could pass this responsibility on to his inheriting daughter (at least at Emar and Nuzi), see Grosz, “Women in Nuzi,” 174; Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters, 198 – 199, 218 – 220, and passim. For the perspective that the tomb plays a role in property inheritance, see von Rad, “The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land,” in Problem of the Hexateuch, 85; Stager, “Archaeology of the Israelite Family,” 23; Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices, 111; van der Toorn, Family Religion, 199, 206 – 211. For Priestly engagement with the cult of the ancestors – polemicizing against it either subtly or obviously – see Bray, “Genesis 23;” Halpern, “Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1.” It should be said that if this issue ever stood behind the tradition about the daughters of Zelophad or the laws it is based on, it is difficult to find it in the present story. 15   On the character of popular religion in the sixth century, see Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree; on the role of women in the cult through the perspective of history of research, see Bird, “The Place of Women;” in the form of a “biography,” see Karel van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave. Two works are particularly rich in their use of sources and bibliography concerning women in Israel and the ancient Near East: Lesko (ed.), Women’s Earliest Records; Dever and Gitin (eds.), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. Concerning the novella of Zelophad’s daughters in particular and the rights of women in Israel and the ancient Near East more generally, see Ben-Barak’s book, Inheritance by Daughters, in which she attempts to trace the lines of development through a comprehensive review of all the relevant texts and documents. 16  Among the ostraca discovered in Samaria, numbers 45, 47, and 66 mention K‫חגלה‬K, and numbers 50, 52, and 64 mention K‫נעה‬K. See Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques, 35 – 38; Renz, Handbuch, with commentary: 1.86 – 106; without commentary: 3.9 – 10; photographs: vol. 3, tables 7 – 8.

202

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

Finally, the compositional history of the novella also has some bearing on the topic of the degree of legal innovation in it – whether the novella represents a single work (like Lev 24:10 – 23) or one that grew in stages, and if one that grew in stages, whether its composition aimed to preserve a preexisting detailed law (as in the case of Num 9:1 – 14) or had the law inserted into it secondarily. For the most part, scholars who have touched on this question have done so partially or schematically, without offering a methodical analysis on solid philological grounds in order to draw defensible conclusions. By its nature, establishing the original contours and extent of the novella would contribute much to identifying its original argument, which could be undermined or lost by interpolations advancing alternate or even opposing interests. As with the other three novellas, the chapter will begin with a literary-critical analysis of the passage and from there move to an analysis of the sources, layers, and stages and all their ideas and arguments.

1. Source-Critical Analysis Like the other three novellas, this one too comes replete with terms and expressions that characterize the Priestly history, especially when clustered.17 Particularly notable are the pair of leading figures, Moses and Eleazar;18 the terms for the community and its leaders, K‫עדה‬K and K‫נשיא‬K; the familial term K‫שאר‬K marked by degree of closeness K‫הקרב‬K;19 the general economic term for landholding, K‫אחזה‬K;20 the locus of divine presence, K‫אהל‬ ‫מועד‬K; and expressions from the legal sphere such as the casuistic opening K‫איש כי‬K followed by conditions marked by K‫ואם‬K21 and the phrase K‫חקת משפט‬K.22 Similarly, the phrases 17   See Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 177; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 636; Holzinger, Numeri, 136 – 137; Gray, Numbers, 397. 18   Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 636; see Num 20:22 – 29; 26:1, 3, 63; 27:15 – 23; 31:6, 12 – 13, 21, 25 – 26, 31, 41, 51, 54; 34:16. It is important to note that several of these texts or references might be editorial insertions, whereas in the episode of the daughters of Zelophad, there is nothing to indicate that the character of Eleazer was added secondarily. 19   On this expression see Paran’s comments (Priestly Style, 269). 20  See especially the terms K‫שאר קרוב‬K, K‫משפחה‬K, and K‫אחזה‬K that appear together as a part of a single social complex in Leviticus 25. 21  See Lev 2; 5:1 – 13; 12; 13; 15; 25:29 – 30; 27; Num 5:5 – 8; 30. The exceptions in Lev 1:3 and 4:3 prove the rule. Indeed, in these instances the opening is not a full case at all but rather a headline for the various cases that follow. On the usage of K‫אם‬K and K‫ואם‬K side by side, see, e. g., Exodus 21 – 22. 22  The expression K‫חקת משפט‬K appears only here and in Num 35:29 (Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 160; Milgrom, Numbers, 233, 294), but there is no reason to doubt its Priestly character (cf. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 636), since it is parallel to the expression K‫חקת התורה‬K in Num 19:2; 31:21. The former designates camp-oriented matters and the latter tabernacle-oriented ones (compare Milgrom, Numbers, 233, 294). See also the Priestly expressions K‫חקת הפסח‬K (Exod 12:43; Num 9:12, 14) and K‫חקת עולם‬K (Licht, Numbers, 3.71). Compare the non-Priestly expression for procedures, protocols, practices, and the like: K‫משפט הבנות‬K (Exod 21:9), K‫משפט הכהנים‬K (Deut 18:3; 1 Sam 2:13), K‫משפט הבכרה‬K (Deut 21:17), K‫משפט המלך‬K (1 Sam 8:9, 11), K‫משפט המלֻכה‬K (1 Sam 10:25), K‫משפט הגאלה‬K (Jer 32:7), K‫משפט הירשה‬ (v. 8); also K‫משפט הזה‬K (Exod 21:31; Josh 6:15), K‫משפט הנער‬K (Judg 13:12). The Priestly history also uses ‫משפט‬K, but possibly with the slightly different nuance of criteria and decisions (Num 27:21; 35:24).

1. Source-Critical Analysis

203

K‫יהוה‬

‫העדה הנועדים על‬K and K‫עדת קרח‬K in v. 3 make explicit reference to the Priestly narrative in Numbers 16 – 17.23 Furthermore, as said above, the setting of the story depends completely upon the census undertaken for the purpose of dividing up Canaan in the immediately preceding text, Numbers 26, which too is Priestly.24 Moreover, the discourse of the novella contains a variety of features distinctive of “the Holiness School,” as Knohl terms it.25 For the most part, scholars have taken the compositional integrity of the oracular novella for granted, without giving indication of having considered otherwise. The few who have engaged in dividing the narrative into separate elements did not do so on reliable philological grounds – the continuity of the discourse – but rather on the basis of schematic, abstract and highly subjective considerations.26 Analysis of the narrative does indeed reveal signs of a compositional history, editing processes that brought the abstract law into the narrative case. However, the author of the novella does not appear to have composed the novella for the purpose of anchoring a preexisting abstract law in the Priestly history and dramatizing the conditions of its legislation. Nor does it appear that the abstract law serves to make explicit and precise the implications of the case ruling. In the instance of this oracular novella, the two elements, the case with its ruling and the abstract law, were written independently of each other, and only secondarily did the abstract law enter the text of the novella.27 Furthermore, in certain central ways, they stand at odds with each other. The deep motivation that drives the women’s petition to inherit their father consists of preserving his name, as they state explicitly.28 The women begin with the presumption that this principle or value requires specifically land, the father’s plot: “Why should our father’s name be obliterated from his family? . . . Give us a landholding among (those of) our father’s brothers” K‫ תנה לנו אחזה בתוך אחי‬. . . ‫למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו‬ ‫אבינו‬K (v. 4).29 The narrative gives no indication that Yahweh did not accept the petition 23

  Gray, Numbers, 397.   See Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 159 – 160; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 177; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 635. 25  According to Knohl, the episode of the cities of refuge in Numbers 35 belongs to the writings of the Holiness School. If so, the expression K‫חקת משפט‬K that occurs in v. 29 there and in Num 27:11 is part of the idiom of the Holiness School. Note that the parallel expression K‫חקת התורה‬K also appears in texts that Knohl has identified as belonging to this school. See Sanctuary of Silence, 92 – 95, 99 – 100. 26   As in the following works: Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.214; Noth, Numbers, 211; Ben-Barak, Inheritance of Daughters, 33 – 99, esp. 52 – 70. Overall, the biblical and extra-biblical material that Ben-Barak gathers, along with her bibliography, is both comprehensive and well-organized; however, her attempt to uncover a straightforward development among various sources, and especially her division of the episode of the daughters of Zelophad into layers (which is the foundation of the study), are both fundamentally problematic and unconvincing. According to Jackson, in the story the daughters are intended to inherit together with their husbands, whereas in the law the women inherit in their place, and thus one should distinguish between the story and the law (“From Dharma to Law,” 498 n. 43). However, this interpretation of the story appears farfetched; indeed, the author of Num 36:1 – 12 understands otherwise. See further below. 27   Cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.214 28   On this value, see Pedersen, Israel, 1.245 – 259. 29   See Milgrom, Numbers, 231. 24

204

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

or took issue with its underlying reasoning or thought it needed some degree of qualification. On the contrary, he declares complete agreement with the terms of their cause: “Justly do the daughters of Zelophad petition” K‫כן בנות צלפחד דברת‬K (v. 7aα).30 The adverb “justly” K‫כן‬K opens the entire speech and establishes its tenor and direction. The rest of Yahweh’s decision comes in a somewhat emphatic formulation that conveys the full measure of his assent to the request, including the value of name-preservation and its importance to the petition. He repeats the terms of the petition word for word (compare v. 7bβ with v. 4): The women: Yahweh:

‫ ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי ָאבִינּו‬K ‫ ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי ֲאבִיהֶם‬K

‫ֲא ֻחזָּה‬ ‫ֲא ֻחזַּת נַ ֲחלָה‬

‫ָלּנּו‬ ‫ָלהֶם‬

K‫תְ ּנָה־‬

K‫תִ ּתֵ ּן‬

‫נָת ֹן‬

Within that precise repetition, he matches their plaintive direct address, K‫תנה‬K, with the strong directive, the imperfect preceded by the infinitive absolute, K‫נתן תתן‬K. Given this full-throated assent, it comes as something of a surprise and seems a significant omission that when Yahweh continues with abstract laws on the topic, in vv. 8 – 11, he leaves out the value of name-preservation altogether. Indeed, the way the list proceeds down the line of potential inheritors suggests that an alternate principle controls it, the one articulated in the final provision, namely, degree of kinship: K‫ונתתם‬ ‫את נחלתו לשארו הקרב אליו ממשפחתו וירש אתה‬K (v. 11a). On its own, the gap between the two sections on the significance of name-preservation to inheritance law may not suffice to indicate editorial processes at work in the novella. However, a second aspect of Yahweh’s discourse in his direct ruling on the immediate case has the character of glue, so to speak. It bears the signs of work done to stitch two texts together. As noted, in v. 7aβ Yahweh repeats the terms of the petition in v. 4 word for word. In other words, he very precisely turns the legal request into legal practice, and he does so after first declaring his evaluation of the petition as sound and right. It therefore comes as a surprise when – before the formulation of an abstract law and still within the initial ruling on the immediate case – Yahweh continues to speak in decisive terms and adds to the ruling: K‫והעברת את נחלת אביהן להן‬K (v. 7b). At first glance, this second clause does not appear to go beyond repeating the first in different words,31 but such a redundancy seems anomalous in a minimalistic narrative form devoted to law and its penchant for economy and precision.32 Moreover, its terms and concepts are confused: Yahweh instructs Moses to “transfer” (K‫והעברת‬K) “Zelophad’s estate” (K‫נחלתו‬K) to his daughters, although Zelophad never held an estate or was ever 30  Sifre Zuta, at 27:7 “K‫כן בנות צלפחד דברת‬K – all that they claimed they claimed well” (p. 318 ll. 2 – 3); Licht, Numbers, 3.70; NJPS: “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just.” For other instances in which K‫כן‬K means “just, right, true” and K‫דבר‬K connotes “plea, suit,” see Milgrom, Numbers, 232, 325 n. 11. 31   See Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 460. 32  The Rabbis already reacted to both Yahweh’s complete and precise repetition of the daughters’ words and the apparent redundancies in the text; see Sifre Num. § 134 (p. 178 ll. 4 – 7). Note that the text presents not one large midrash, but two separate ones – one on the sentence K‫נתן תתן להן אחזת נחלה‬ ‫בתוך אחי אביהם‬K and a second one on the continuation, K‫והעברת‬K etc. Compare the version of the midrash cited in Sifre Zuta, at 27:7 (p. 318 ll. 3 – 4).

205

1. Source-Critical Analysis

allotted one since his death in the wilderness. The instruction creates a significant discrepancy with the broader setting and specific terms of the case. Indeed, the author formulated the women’s petition with historiographical precision: “Give (K‫תנה‬K) us a landholding (K‫אחזה‬K) among our father’s brothers” (v. 4). They claim a means to perpetuate their father’s name by being allotted land alongside their father’s brothers in his place – not the right to inherit his property.33 An additional episode in the Priestly history, the settlement of Reuben and Gad east of the Jordan, confirms that the language of petition reflects a first-time allotment:34 K‫חזָּה‬ ֻ ֲ‫לַא‬

Num 32:5 Num 32:29

K‫חזָּה‬ ֻ ֲ‫לַא‬

‫ָָארץ הַז ֹּאת ַל ֲעבָדֶ יָך‬ ֶ ‫יֻתַ ּן אֶת־ה‬K ‫ּונְתַ תֶ ּם ָלהֶם אֶת־א ֶֶרץ ַהגִּ ְלעָד‬K

Significantly, the language of transferring (K‫עב״ר‬K H stem) an inheritance (K‫נחלה‬K) appears in the abstract law, in its first case and provision. Indeed, just as the initial clause in Yahweh’s ruling (v. 7aβ) matches the original petition term for term (v. 4), so this divergent second clause of Yahweh’s ruling (v. 7b) matches the opening provision of the abstract law term for term (v. 8bβ). ‫ ָלהֶן‬K ‫ ְלבִּתֹו‬K

‫אֶת־נַ ֲחלַת ָאבִיהֶן‬ ‫אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו‬

ּ ָ‫ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרת‬ ‫ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרתָ ּם‬

K‫לֹו‬

K. . . ‫אִיׁש ִכּי־י ָמּות ּובֵן אֵין‬

(7) (8)

Whereas the first clause of Yahweh’s case ruling draws on the petition, his second clause anticipates, or preempts, the abstract law – still to come – that is formulated for the ideal situation of an Israelite man in possession of his land.35 In the abstract law, the expression of “transferring” the inherited land (K‫עב״ר‬K H stem + K‫נחלה‬K) occurs in the provision that treats the case of a man who dies leaving behind daughters and no sons (v. 8b). The usage sets the provision off from the other provisions in the paragraph (vv. 9 – 11a), which regularly employ the expression of “giving” the inherited land (K‫נת״ן נחלה‬K) to those male kin next in line.36 Given the scenario that gives rise to the case, namely, the definition of family units for the purpose of landallotment in Canaan, and given the appropriate terms of the petition, namely, “giving” the women an initial “landholding” (K‫נת״ן אחזה‬K) – the phrase about “transferring” them “inherited land” (K‫עב״ר נחלה‬K) really has no meaning.37 The problem only grows when it is appreciated that according to the two different contexts, the expression of “giving a landholding” refers specifically to national authorities who would bear responsibility to carry out the ruling in this unique case when Israel is for the first and last time distributed its parcels of land in Canaan, whereas the expression of “transferring an estate” would not presume or require the intervention of national authorities in each and every instance. The law would simply go into effect. Note the distinction in Yahweh’s speech 33

  Compare Jackson, “From Dharma to Law,” 498 n. 43.   For the Priestly narrative in this text, see Marquis, “The Composition of Numbers 32.” 35   Compare Wevers’ harmonizing remark (Greek Text of Numbers, 460). 36  SP, which reads ‫ם‬K‫ונתת‬K in place of ‫ם‬K‫והעברת‬K, eliminates this contrast. On the implications of these two concepts, see further below. 37   On more substantive implications of the difference in terminology, see below. 34

206

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

between the singular direct address to Moses in the case ruling (v. 7: K‫נתן תתן‬K) and the plural address meant for all Israelites in the abstract law (vv. 8 – 11: K‫ ונתתם‬. . . ‫והעברתם‬ . . . ‫ ונתתם‬. . . ‫ ונתתם‬. . .K). All this argumentation aims to focus attention on the second clause of Yahweh’s case ruling, in v. 7b, as giving the impression of having been added in order to serve as a transition between the two segments of the text – the case, which in vv. 4 and 7aβ speaks of K‫נת״ן אחזה‬K, and the abstract law, which in v. 8b speaks of K‫עב״ר‬K H stem + K‫נחלה‬ – in a way that formally implies continuity between them although substantively it belies their coherence. When seen to function in this manner, the added clause in v. 7b sheds light back upon the initial clause that precedes it, in v. 7aβ. It suggests that the current phrase K‫אחזת נחלה‬K also results from this recasting of the text, and once read simply K‫אחזה‬, in line with the language and concept of the petition.38 An additional aspect of the language of Yahweh’s ruling in v. 7 gives second-order support to the argument that originally the initial clause, in v. 7aβ, existed without the second one, in v. 7b. In the initial clause, the pronominal suffixes referring to the women are the typologically masculine mem, whereas in the second clause, the pronominal suffixes are the classically feminine nûn: K‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ֲאבִי‬

‫נָת ֹן תִ ּתֵ ּן ָלהֶם ֲא ֻחזַּת נַ ֲחלָה ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי‬K K‫הן‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרתָ ּ אֶת־נַ ֲחלַת ָאבִיהֶן ָל‬K

This anomalous shift mid-sentence alone suffices to raise the possibility of interference in the history of the text. In the context of the broader argument, that the second clause represents an addition to the text, the shift in pronouns, in particular from the irregular to the regular, lends itself as supporting evidence. Given, then, the conclusion drawn from several different literary cues that the second clause in Yahweh’s case ruling, in v. 7b, represents a secondary addition to the text and that it functions – together with the harmonizing phrase K‫אחזת נחלה‬K in v. 7aβ – artificially to create a sense of continuity and uniformity between the terms of the petition and the ruling in vv. 4 and 7a, on the one hand, and the terms of the abstract law in v. 8b, on the other, it seems warranted to draw the further conclusion that both the novella and the abstract law were formulated without recourse to each other. Namely, at one time, the oracular novella existed without the abstract law, then at a subsequent stage the abstract law, already fully formulated, was added into it. In this case, the clause that introduces the abstract law, K‫ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר‬K in v. 8a, could not stand on its own without contents to follow it, and formulated as it is to follow the preceding law and introduce a new segment, it would belong to the stage in which the abstract law was inserted into the text. 38  The mixed phrase K‫אחזת נחלה‬K appears only once more in the Hebrew Bible: Num 32:32 – also in an editorial context (Holzinger, Numeri, 137), in which the Priestly narrative, which consistently employs the root K‫אח״ז‬K, has been combined with a non-Priestly narrative, which consistently employs the root K‫נח״ל‬K (see Marquis, “The Composition of Numbers 32,” 423 – 424). SP K‫אחזת נחלה‬K at 27:4 reflects the same recognition – that Yahweh repeats the daughter’s speech word-for-word – and seeks to make the language consistent.

207

1. Source-Critical Analysis K. . .

‫וַתִ ּק ְַר ְבנָה ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד‬K . . . ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַתַ ּעֲמ ֹדְ נָה ִל ְפנֵי מ‬K K‫בנִים ֹלא־הָיּו לֹו‬ ָ ‫ ּו‬. . . ‫ָאבִינּו מֵת ַ ּב ִמּדְ ָבּר‬K K‫בן‬ ּ ֵ ‫ש ַ ּפחְּתֹו ִכּי אֵין לֹו‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁם־ָאבִינּו מִתֹוְך ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ ָל ָמּה יִגָ ַּרע‬K K‫אחֵי ָאבִינּו‬ ֲ ‫תְ ּנָה־ ָלּנּו ֲא ֻחזָּה ְבּתֹוְך‬K K‫פנֵי יהוה‬ ְ ‫ש ָ ּפטָן ִל‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה אֶת־ ִמ‬ ֶ ‫ ַו ּי ַק ְֵרב מ‬K K‫לּאמֹר‬ ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַי ֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K K‫פחָד דֹבְרֹת‬ ְ ‫ ֵכּן ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל‬K K‫הם‬ ֶ ‫נָת ֹן תִ ּתֵ ּן ָלהֶם ֲא ֻחזַּ[ת נַ ֲחלָ]ה ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי ֲאבִי‬K K‫הן‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרתָ ּ אֶ ת־נַ ֲחלַת אֲ בִיהֶן ָל‬K[ K‫בּר לֵאמֹר‬ ֵ ַ‫וְאֶ ל־ ְ ּבנֵי יִשְ ָׂראֵ ל תְ ּד‬K K‫לבִּתֹו‬ ְ ‫– ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרתֶ ּם אֶ ת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו‬ ‫אִ יׁש ִכּי־יָמּות ּובֵן אֵ ין לו‬K K‫חלָתֹו לְאֶ חָיו‬ ֲ ַ‫– ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶ ת־נ‬ ‫וְאִ ם־אֵ ין לֹו ַבּת‬K K‫חלָתֹו לַאֲ חֵי ָאבִיו‬ ֲ ַ‫– ּונְתַ תֶ ּם־אֶ ת נ‬ ‫וְאִ ם־אֵ ין לֹו ַאחִים‬K K. . . ]‫פחְּתֹו ְוי ַָרׁש א ֹתָ ּה‬ ּ ַ ׁ ְ‫– ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶ ת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו לִשְ ׁאֵ רֹו ַה ָקּר ֹב אֵ לָיו ִמ ִמּש‬ ‫וְאִ ם־אֵ ין ַאחִים לְָאבִיו‬K K‫לֵאמֹר‬

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

It is tempting to consider the possibility that the provision for the man who has no son but does have a daughter, in vv. 8bβK – 9a, itself entered the abstract law secondarily; that it did so, likewise, to work the abstract law into the context of the novella as a consequence of the ruling given in response to the petition; and even that it came from the hand of the same editor who wrote vv. 7b – 8a. Primarily, the grounds for seeing the provision for the daughter as secondary are stylistic. The provision accounting for a daughter interrupts an otherwise symmetrical and uniform scheme, which comes to light when one views the paragraph without the provision. K‫לְ אֶ חָ יו‬

‫ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו‬ ‫ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו לַ אֲ חֵ י‬ ַּ ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו לִשְ ׁאֵ רֹו ַה ָקּר ֹב ֵאלָיו ִמ ִ ּמ‬ K‫פחְּתֹו ְוי ַָרׁש א ֹתָ ּה‬ K‫ָאבִיו‬

– ‫אִיׁש ִכּי־י ָמּות ּובֵן אֵין לֹו‬K – ‫ ְואִם־אֵין לֹו ַאחִ ים‬K – ‫ ְואִם־אֵין ַאחִ ים לְָאבִיו‬K

In this reconstruction, the framing figures – the son (K‫בן‬K) and the furthest identifiable relative (K‫ וירש‬. . . ‫שארו הקרב‬K) – appear in the singular, whereas those found in between – the deceased’s brothers (K‫ אחים‬. . . ‫אחָיו‬K) and paternal uncles (K‫ אחים‬. . . ‫אחֵי אביו‬K) – appear in the plural. Correspondingly, the framing clauses have unique features that vary mildly from the schematic repetition that characterizes the clauses in between them. The opening clause begins naturally with the Priestly formula K‫איש כי‬K followed by the yiqṭōl verb specifying the main concrete action, K‫ימות‬K. Then the law transitions into the circumstances that generate legal discussion – formulated in this case as a verbless sentence – K‫ובן אין לו‬K. This formulation then determines the form of the subsequent clauses, which repeat: K‫ ונתתם את נחלתו ל־‬. . . ‫ ל־‬. . . ‫ואם אין‬K. The concluding statement extends further than the interim ones. It introduces a variety of terms, K‫ קרב‬+ ‫שאר‬K, K‫משפחה‬, and K‫יר״ש‬K, and it comprises two independent clauses, K‫ וירש‬. . . ‫ונתתם‬K.39 In addition, without the provision for the daughter, the three conditions – the absence of a son, of brothers, and of paternal uncles – each contain three words in varying order (parsing from right to left): 39  The entire unusual expression is set apart to some extent by the repetition of the letters K‫ו‬-‫ר‬-‫ש‬K in the words K‫שארו‬K and K‫וירש‬K in the sentence: K‫שארו הקרב אליו ממשפחתו וירש אתה‬K.

208

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

(object < particle < subject) ‫לו‬K ‫ אין‬K‫ובן‬ (subject < object < particle) ‫אחים‬K ‫ לו‬K‫אין‬ (object < subject < particle) ‫לאביו‬K ‫ אחים‬K‫אין‬

From all these stylistic points of view, the provision for the daughter obliterates the structural and grammatical patterns and controlled variations. It appears in the singular, like the opening and concluding clauses, rather than the plural that characterizes the middle ones – a divergence noticed and treated in LXX.40 Also, instead of a neat three varieties of word-order for three legal sentences, the provision for the daughter matches the sentence order of the clause that follows it – K‫אין לו בת‬K (particle – object – subject) – so that four sentences come in three varieties of word-order. Seen from a slightly different perspective, precisely the two features that spoil the symmetry and patterning of the legal paragraph – the singular formulation of the subject and the sentence wordorder of particle + object + subject – give the provision of the daughter the character of a transition, since the first feature matches the preceding clause and the second feature matches the subsequent one. This transitional formulation, drawing on elements from both, what precedes and what follows, functions to work the sentence into the paragraph – as a secondary element in it.41 To these arguments based on style one can add a subtle substantive one. As noted above, the principle at work in the paragraph appears explicitly in the conclusion – degree of kinship. The list itself makes clear that this principle applies only to males, for it notes a son, brothers, and paternal uncles. Were the provision for the daughter of a piece with the legal principle of degree of kinship, the paragraph would have included sisters, paternal aunts, and possibly even maternal aunts.42 The terminology of the paragraph appears to confirm and even to signal deliberately the isolated, anomalous presence of the daughter in it. Whereas the paragraph speaks consistently of “giving” (K‫נת״ן‬K) the inheritance to the son, brothers, and paternal uncles, it speaks of “transferring” (K‫עב״ר‬K H stem) it to the daughter. Whether the provision for the daughter entered the text of the abstract law in order to help the novella incorporate the paragraph, and, if so, whether it belongs to the same moment as the editing of Yahweh’s ruling in v. 7, prove more difficult to argue with any reasonable measure of confidence. The text lacks telltale indications, leaving one to speculate on the grounds of omissions. Mainly, if the clause regarding the daughter in the abstract law does not provide an explicit motive specifying the reason for its inclusion or the legal principle at work, when it should seem to warrant clarifying itself 40   The LXX attempts to establish a unified structure (cf. Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers, 461) in which the conditions appear in the plural and the result in the singular (vv. 10 – 11a), but the effort was only partial, as the conditions in the first laws remain in the singular (vv. 8b – 9), which reduces its significance. Furthermore, SP confirms MT. See also Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 178; Gray, Numbers, 399. 41   An example of the phenomenon of a composite formulation used for a transition can be found in Exod 12:14; see Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, 79 – 84. 42   See Pedersen, Israel, 1.90 – 91; compare Weingreen, “The Case of the Daughters of Zelophchad,” 519.

1. Source-Critical Analysis

209

over against the rest of the paragraph, then it could indicate that the author presumed it would draw its force and clarity from the case of the novella. However, the lack of explicit coordination between the abstract paragraph and the case petition and ruling from the point of view of legal terms and concepts means that one cannot preclude the possibility that the provision for the daughter had entered the text of the abstract law at a prior stage to their joint incorporation into the oracular novella, and that the motive or principle behind the provision may originally have been different than the preservation of the name of the deceased upon his land through his daughters. Another piece to the puzzle – another element of the novella to examine and potentially unravel with implications for the composition-historical analysis up to this point – comes at the conclusion of the novella, v. 11b: K‫והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת משפט כאשר‬ ‫צוה יהוה את משה‬K. The final clause, “as Yahweh commanded Moses,” must belong to the narrator. As a dependent clause, it should follow a statement by the narrator, which under the circumstances should be a statement about the daughters of Zelophad having acted: *K‫ותעשינה בנות צלפחד‬K or about the land having been given to them: *K‫ותהי אחזת‬ ‫צלפחד לבנתיו‬K. However, no such statement occurs and, as formulated, the independent clause that does come immediately beforehand must belong to the character within the novella speaking immediately beforehand – Yahweh. The formulation of the verb in the preceding clause, wĕqāṭal, represents the holistic, or inchoate, which takes the perspective of the character speaking within the novella, who looks from his current point in time into the future, and conveys the sense, “it shall be.” To convey the retrospective point of view of the narrator, “and it became,” requires the verb-form wayyiqṭōl, in this case, K‫ותהי‬K.43 So, for instance, the depressing conclusion to the story of Jeptah’s vow, in Judg 11:37 – 40:44 K‫כי‬ ִ ֹ ‫שׁים ְו ֵא ְלכָה ְוי ַָרדְ תִ ּי עַל־ ֶהה ִָרים ְו ֶא ְב ֶכּה עַל־ ְבּתּולַי ָאנ‬ ִ ָ‫שנַי ִם חֳד‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׂה ִלּי הַדָ ּבָר ַהזֶּה ה ְַר ֵפּה ִמ ֶ ּמנִּי‬ ֶ ‫וַת ֹּאמֶר אֶל־ָאבִי ָה י ֵ ָע‬ ‫ ִמ ּי ָמִים יָמִימָה תֵ ּ ַל ְכנָה ְבּנֹות‬:‫ וַתְ ּהִי־ח ֹק ְ ּביִשְ ָׂראֵ ל‬. . . :‫ וַתֵ ּלְֶך הִיא ו ְֵרעֹותֶ י ָה וַתֵ ּ ְבְךּ עַל־ ְבּתּולֶי ָה עַל־ ֶהה ִָרים‬. . . :‫ו ְֵרעֹותָ י‬ ‫שנָה‬ ּׁ ָ ‫ַאר ַ ּבעַת יָמִים ַ ּב‬ ְ ‫ש ָׂראֵל לְתַ ּנֹות ְלבַת־יִפְתָ ּח ַהגִּ ְלעָדִ י‬ ְ ִ ‫י‬:K

According to the formulation of Num 27:11bα, then, after Yahweh articulated an abstract law several sub-paragraphs long about inheritance, he also expressed that it should become law in Israel.45 Arguably, such a text poses something of a problem of overkill. Coming after first a case ruling then a detailed law formulated for future generations, such a comment seems superfluous.46 Indeed it diverges from Priestly 43

  See GKC § 144b; and Hatav, Semantics of Aspect and Modality, 70 – 83, esp. 71 – 74.  See Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.215. In order to solve the problem in Num 27:11, he suggests emending the text to K‫ותהי‬K. On Judg 11:9 – 40, see Burney, Judges, 324 – 325. 45   Licht provides examples from Exod 29:9; Lev 16:29, 34; Num 10:8; 35:29 (Numbers, 3.71). See also Num 19:10, 21. 46  It is important to bear in mind that in all of the examples in the previous note – Exod 29:9; Lev 16:29, 34; Num 10:8; 19:10, 21 – the law is formulated as part of a specific case, so that it is appropriate to state its broader applicability as an eternal statute (K‫חקת עולם‬K). The only exception is Num 35:29, which is situated in a context of laws already formulated for future generations; however, the passage treats several unusual situations, which may have caused an editor to feel it necessary to reiterate and emphasize that the statement should constitute a legal statute (K‫חקת משפט‬K): the passage 44

210

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

style elsewhere. The other three novellas lack it, and two of them do contain the note about Israel having carried out Yahweh’s instructions (Lev 24:23; Num 15:36). The follow-up narrative in Num 36:1 – 12, which reopens the discussion seemingly closed in the oracular novella and shows tight intertextual dependence upon it, including deliberate, extensive reuse of lemmas from it, has no corresponding statement. It too stresses that eventually the daughters of Zelophad acted in accordance with the new final ruling (36:10 – 12).47 In other instances of this sort, the conclusion comes after an incident and turns it into a precedent, not after an abstract law.48 In the light of the redundancy of its current location and its attested suitability and usage after incidents, it seems reasonable to suggest that the conclusion belonged to the original form of the novella, in which it followed Yahweh’s ruling, in 27:7a: K‫ נתן תתן להם‬,‫כן בנות צלפחד דברת‬ ‫– והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת משפט‬ ‫אחז[ה] בתוך אחי אביהם‬K. Namely, after pronouncing his specific verdict on the case, Yahweh then expressed that it shall serve as precedent and become law. An advantage of this reconstructed sequence is a tighter connection between the designation of the case as a K‫משפט‬K in v. 5 and the conclusion in v. 11bα that speaks of it as a K‫חקת משפט‬K. It remains to resolve the problem of the dependent clause at the very end of the novella: K‫כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K, in v. 11bβ. The fact that it belongs to the speech of the narrator helped set up that the clause preceding it belongs to the speech of Yahweh. That realization, in turn, leaves this final clause a sentence fragment: a dependent clause with no main clause.49 The last statement in the narrator’s own voice occurs at v. 6, in which he introduces Yahweh’s case ruling, and the concluding clause in v. 11bβ makes diverges throughout, is composed of various materials, has been edited, and has accumulated several additions (see Licht, Numbers, 3.181, 194 – 196; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 170 – 172, esp. 172). Note that v. 12 continues in v. 24a (Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 197 – 198), and that vv. 16 – 23 are fashioned on an independent paradigm (see Milgrom, Numbers, 292). According to Knobel (Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 198) and Licht (Numbers, 3.197), the statement in Num 35:29 is not even a conclusion but an opening to the coming laws. Even as a conclusion, note that it continues the direct address to the Israelites, whereas the clause in the novella does not; Yahweh has ceased dictating the speech Moses will give the Israelites, reverts to addressing him directly, and instructs him alone. 47  A midrash on Num 27:11 shows early attentiveness to this difficulty. It limits the intent of the difficult statement, links it to the clause that stands immediately before it (K‫ואם אין אחים ונתתם את נחלתו‬ ‫לשאר הקרב אליו ממשפחתו וירש אתה‬K), and applies it to resolving a difficulty in that clause – the ambiguity of whether or not K‫הקרב‬K carries the superlative sense (it does). See Sifre Num. § 134 (p. 179 ll. 17 – 18). 48  For parallels see, e. g., Exod 30:21; Lev 16:29a, 34a (arguably); Num 19:10 (without a verb: Exod 28:43; compare Exod 29:9; Num 19:9, in which the formula does not indicate a commandment but a result or definition). In all of these cases, the law is formulated in a way that specifies it as a onetime case or that restricts it to various circumstances, and the conclusion functions to broaden its applicability. For parallels in edited text, see, e. g. Lev 16:34; Num 19:21 (K‫להם‬K refers back to the antecedent K‫בני ישראל‬K in v. 10). On Leviticus 16, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1.1061 – 1065, but note the following modification: v. 29a belongs to the prior stage of the text and vv. 31b and 34a are both resumptive repetitions, each after a segment that highlights a different feature of v. 29b (K‫ענ״י‬K in the one, K‫כפ״ר‬K in the other). Concerning Numbers 19, see the indications presented by Milgrom, but compare his interpretation (Numbers, 437 – 438). 49   Gray notes this problem, but does not solve it; see Numbers, 399, which refers back to p. 9. See also Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.215.

2. The Original Novella in Num 27:1 – 7a, 11b

211

no sense at all coming immediately after it.50 The problem defies easy resolution, and the nature of it leaves no recourse but to conjecture. The follow-up passage to the oracular novella, a counter-petition brought by the Gileadites, concludes with an explicit comment about the daughters of Zelophad (eventually) having fulfilled the terms of Yahweh’s ruling (36:10 – 12). In the light of the extensive set of close correlations between the text of the counter-petition and the text of the oracular novella (see below), it may not go too far to suggest that originally the novella had such a conclusion. Moreover, it may be that once the text of the counter-petition was composed, such a conclusion in the original novella came across as premature and contradictory and warranted omission; they could not fulfill the terms of both the ruling on the original petition and the revised ruling on the counter-petition. Whatever the precise mechanics and steps behind it – one can entertain several equally possible scenarios – it seems likely that the entire final sentence had been marked for omission, but only part of it was left out (the first part) and part of it remained (the second). To summarize, literary-critical analysis of the oracular novella in Num 27:1 – 11 suggests the following scheme. As originally composed, the novella comprised vv. 1 – 7a (with K‫אחזה‬K rather than K‫אחזת נחלה‬K), v. 11bα, a fulfillment clause on the model of 36:10 – 12, and then 27:11bβ. In the next stage, a statutory paragraph was added into the novella – vv. 8b – 11a – which warranted an appropriate opening by Yahweh – v. 8a. Likely at the same stage, though not necessarily so, Yahweh’s case ruling in v. 7a was revised – from K‫אחזה‬K to K‫אחזת נחלה‬K – and expanded – with v. 7b – to correlate more closely with the statutory law in vv. 8 – 11a. Once the follow-up text in 36:1 – 12 had been written to qualify the conclusion reached in 27:1 – 11, the fulfillment clause presumably that had been in the middle of 27:11b, together with the final dependent clause in v. 11bβ, were marked for deletion, but the unintended outcome was that part – v. 11bβ – remained. This separation of the text into several different segments and layers opens up the opportunity, or necessity, to interpret each stage and track the changes in the meaning of the texts from stage to stage.

2. The Original Novella in Num 27:1 – 7a, 11b To sketch a background for the novella, one may begin by turning to the fact that of the five names of this circle of women descended from Manasseh – Maḥlah, Noa, Ḥoglah, Milkah, and Tirzah – at least three denoted cities and regions in Canaan, and according to other biblical texts these fall within the boundaries of the larger (tribal) region of Manasseh.51 According to the book of Kings, Tirzah was the name of a city 50   Carpenter already noticed this narrative roughness; see Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.233. 51   Note also Ḥepher as the name of a region according to Josh 12:17, which makes the name preIsraelite, and according to 1 Kgs 4:10, which seems to locate it in Manasseh.

212

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

in the northern, Israelian kingdom, one connected with royalty and royal intrigue and which even served for a respectable spell as the capital (1 Kgs 14:1 – 18; 15:16 – 21, 33; 16:6, 8 – 10, 15 – 18, 23 – 24; 2 Kgs 15:13 – 14, 16).52 The memory of this city persisted in love poetry, in which it lends a sense of exotic, cultivated beauty, alongside Jerusalem (Song 6:4). The names Noa and Ḥoglah turn up among pottery sherds used for receipts in Samaria as the names of smaller (clan) regions (nos. 50, 52, 64 and 45, 47, 66, respectively).53 In the light of these historical geographical data, the fact that the names turn up together as those of sisters seeking to receive land together in the oracular novella suggests that all five sisters represent geographical entities in the (tribal) region of Manasseh, perhaps adjacent ones. So have archaeologists generally argued.54 It seems reasonable to suppose that affinity between these different districts expressed itself in additional forms as shared traditions, legal or other. One should not rush to claim that the author of the oracular novella composed it for the purpose of explaining the historical fact that five adjoining geographical entities all have feminine names.55 It would mark a distinctive departure from the norms of the Priestly historiography, which really does not engage in etiologies of this type. The kinds of local lore and traditions that feature in the non-Priestly sources of the Torah do not appear in the Priestly history, and, as detailed above, the novella about the daughters of Zelophad has an entirely Priestly character. One cannot identify in it non-Priestly bits of text and make a grounded case for a Priestly revision of prior material. Moreover, etiologies do not appear to emerge and function so simplistically; the move from five feminine names of districts within a single larger region to a story in which those five names reflect inheritance law from Mosaic times requires a few more steps.56 One does better in this instance to hypothesize and reconstruct a series of stages and developments that crystallized in the oracular novella. Such an hypothesis would imagine the first stage as one in which for a mixture of reasons – topographical, economic, political, normative, cultural, and religious – the five regions shared a sense of distinctive mutual affiliation and expressed it in genealogical terms, in this case, specifically as siblings. The feminine form of the names 52   For the history of the city from the tenth century to the sixth century, according to archaeological discoveries and biblical narrative, see de Vaux, “Tirzah;” Gray, I & II Kings, 360; Mazar, Archaeology, 372, 387, 388 – 389, 414 – 415. For a description of its topography and strategical importance, see de Vaux, “Tirzah,” 371; Gray, I & II Kings, 360; Aharoni, Land of Israel, 18 – 19, 22, 44, 47. 53   Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques, 35 – 38, 63 – 65. 54   Ibid., 61 – 65; Aharoni, Land of Israel, 285. See also Borenstein, “Administration and Economy,” 79 – 95. Compare Noth, who argues that the names were all gathered together under a single “headline,” the character of Zelophad, because they all have the same feminine ending (Numbers, 207; see also Schloen, The House of the Father, 163). It is possible that this fact played a role, but it does not appear to have been the main factor, and there is no need to make this sort of argument. 55   On the scarcity of female names in the Hebrew Bible, see Zadok, Anthroponymy and Prosopography, 167. For the estimation that there were in fact quite a few feminine place names, see Nelson, Joshua, 202 n. 3. On the problem of distinguishing between personal and place names, see Zadok, Anthroponymy and Prosopography, 3 – 4. 56   For judicious remarks on biblical etiology, see Bright, Early Israel, 91 – 100; Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 11 – 45 (= Gesammelte Studien, 77 – 118).

2. The Original Novella in Num 27:1 – 7a, 11b

213

could have played a role in the specification of the siblings as sisters, but to the degree that affiliation emerges through contrast with an outsider group or environ one should consider the possibility that the feminine names served as a way to express the internal cohesion over against the surrounding regions. At a subsequent stage, the structure of five sisters having given their names to the five districts warranted narrativization with an eye towards the variation from normal or even normative practice: because Zelophad had five daughters and no sons, his five daughters inherited him. In another development, the character of the story then shifted from description and explanation to prescription, its audience taking it as articulating a norm they should embrace, perhaps even one that marks them off from their neighbors. That this kind of a norm does seem eventually to have characterized the region of Manasseh generally seems indicated by the genealogy of Manasseh in 1 Chr 7:14 – 19, which, compared to the genealogies of other tribes in Chronicles, contains an unusually large number of women.57 Finally, a Priestly author added the tradition into the Priestly history, giving the norm Mosaic authority and national applicability as a law decided upon by Yahweh in response to a petition by these very five women.58 If this hypothesis about the development of the tradition, in both its narrative and legal aspects, is correct, the Priestly law of inheritance by daughters in the absence of sons in the oracular novella would not represent a revolution in Judean inheritance law or mark a major turning point in the standing of women in Judean law and society.59 Rather, it would indicate a complex process of gradual development and widening application. Notably, ancient Near Eastern documentation attests that the problem of a man having only daughters to inherit him recurred regularly as a topic of concern that necessitated treatment.60 Moreover, it defines the four private archives from the fifth century BCE to the second century CE, found in Elephantine and the Judean Desert, as the primary motive behind a host of legal activities and stipulations.61 Namely, one need not take it as a given that the oracular novella initiates legal innovation and represents a sharp pivot. Rather, it represents the coalescence of a continuing concern with a persistent legal and social problem.62 The major contribution of the novella, in 57   From the traditions in 1 Chr 2:21 – 41, which scholars have taken, along with other cases, as illustrations of the ruling in the novella (e. g., Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 159), it seems that the phenomenon passed from Manasseh to Judea. Knoppers maintains that this passage highlights the close connections between Manasseh and Judea (I Chronicles 1 – 9, 306 – 308). For another interpretation of these traditions, see Pedersen, Israel, 1.75 – 76. 58   For another potential example of this phenomenon, compare 1 Sam 30:23 – 25 with Num  31:25 – 27; also 2 Chr 35:4 – 5 with Ezra 6:18; and see too Josh 22:7b – 8. 59   Compare, e. g., Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 635; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2.214; Pedersen, Israel, 1.94 – 95; Licht, Numbers, 3.66 – 67. 60   For a compilation of sources and a convenient summary, see Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters, 157 – 258, 259 – 260, respectively. For the explicit statement that among the many documents pertaining to inheritance found at Nuzi and Emar, the majority deal with this problem specifically, see ibid., 172. 61   Satlow, Jewish Marriage, 204 – 209, esp. 206. 62   Within the Hebrew Bible, see 1 Chr 2:34; 23:22. The problem of a lack of sons – or of children at all – occurs again in Num 3:4; Deut 25:5; 2 Sam 18:18; 2 Kgs 1:17; 1 Chr 2:30, 32, and serves as an

214

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

this case, would lie in the specific legal tradition that it has preserved and articulated for all Israel. In all the other literature and documentation on the matter, the problem is treated on an ad hoc basis; the father must stipulate explicitly that his daughter will inherit him.63 Only this novella articulates as law that in such circumstances daughters inherit fathers.64

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6 If the oracular novella has grown in stages, indications – reviewed here in the order of the text of the novella – point to the original novella having been composed specifically for its present location, as the direct continuation of the census in Numbers 26.65 (1) All the terms and concepts match the Priestly history and build upon it, and the novella is formulated as a part of its sequence. Eleazar, the tribal leaders, the deliberating body, and the spot in front of the opening of the tabernacle all belong unequivocally to Israel’s conditions in the wilderness, after Aaron’s death and before Israel enters the land of Canaan.66 The opening remark of the five sisters, that their father died in the wilderness (v. 3), knows that Israel stands now poised to enter the land at the end of the forty years. Their request that they be given a landholding among their father’s brothers (v. 4) and Yahweh’s reply in the affirmative (v. 7) indicate that the event occurs before the land has actually been divided among the enumerated and designated families or heads-of-family, but that the topic of the division is currently under discussion. (2) The opening K‫ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד‬K (v. 1) does not suit the beginning of a new, independent text, and the novella lacks all indications that it once existed in some other context and was copied into its current location.67 This opening establishes the event important element in many biblical stories, e. g., in the cycles of the three patriarchs in Genesis; the birth of Samson in Judges 13; the birth of Samuel in 1 Samuel 1; the fate of Michal in 2 Sam 6:23; the story of Elisha and the Shunamite woman in 2 Kgs 4:8 ff. and elsewhere. On the motif from several different approaches, see Van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness;” Zakovitch, Life of Samson, 74 – 84. 63   Yoffee, “The Economy of Ancient Western Asia,” 1395 – 1396; Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters, 259 – 261, 268. 64   On these laws and the question of their application, see Ben-Barak, ibid., 160 – 164, 168, 268. See also the discussion in Ben-Barak on the Ugaritic material, which may hint at a parallel practice (ibid., 252 – 256). 65   On the logical connection between the two texts, see already Sifre Num. § 133 (p. 176 ll. 1 – 6); Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 159 – 160; Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 177; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 636. 66   See Sifre Num. § 133 (p. 176 ll. 23 – 25). 67  According to Wevers, LXX *K‫ואלה שמותן‬K (καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα αὐτῶν) in v. 1a is preferable to MT K‫ואלה שמות בנותיו‬K, which implies that it is Zelophad who will be the story’s main focus, whereas it is in fact his daughters (Greek Text of Numbers, 457). However, there is no evidence here of an earlier version of the text that has undergone editing; on the contrary, this is the classic style of biblical narrative, i. e., to open as if the focus were the father when in fact it is his son who will be the protagonist:

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

215

that will be depicted as directly continuous with what preceded, namely, the census in Numbers 26. After the census that determined the distinct family entities that would inherit in Canaan and which were all defined by their male members, K‫ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד‬ 68 K “then the daughters of Zelophad approached.” (3) It seems reasonable to identify the genealogical formulation K‫בן מנשה למשפחֹת‬ ‫מנשה בן יוסף‬K (Num 27:1) as conditioned specifically by the corresponding entry in the census of Numbers 26. This conclusion comes from a comparison of MT and LXX, which differ from each other on two related points. First, MT K‫בן מנשה‬K alongside K‫למשפחֹת‬ ‫מנשה‬K is redundant. LXX does not attest an equivalent of K‫בן מנשה‬K. Second, where MT reads K‫בן יוסף‬K (singular), LXX has the equivalent of K‫בני יוסף‬K (plural: τῶν υἱῶν Ιωσηφ). Retroverting LXX to biblical Hebrew yields K‫למשפח ֹת מנשה לבני יוסף‬K, which by all appearances derives from 26:28, 34, 37. MT, by contrast, seems to reflect an attempt to make the style of the entire verse, 27:1, more uniform such that it employ exclusively K‫בן‬K, but instead of replacing K‫למשפח ֹת מנשה‬K, the gloss K‫בן מנשה‬K entered ahead of it.69 (4) The background that the five daughters give for their petition, that their father “died in the wilderness” K‫מת במדבר‬K (27:3), links up with the end of Numbers 26. After the conclusion of the list of all the families and their numbers, in 26:63, what follows, in vv. 64 – 65, emphasizes that the present census differs completely from the prior one, which was undertaken before Israel set out on its journey to Canaan, i. e., the one(s) presently in Numbers 1 – 2 (and 3 – 4). All those counted in the prior census died in the wilderness on the way, in accordance with Yahweh’s decree about them, “they will die in the wilderness” K‫מות ימתו במדבר‬K (26:65; compare 14:26 – 35 esp. v. 35) and the ones counted in the present census constitute an entirely new generation. In a legal text like the oracular novella, and in the mouths of primary petitioners like the five women, this echoing of the narrator’s words in Num 26:64 – 65 and Yahweh’s words in 14:35 in the petition of the daughters in 27:3 already has a rhetorical function within the legal Judg 13:2 ff.; 1 Sam 1:1 ff.; 17:12 ff. (on this passage, see Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 51 – 52 [= Gesammelte Studien, 125 – 126]); Esth 2:5 – 7 (see also Zakovitch, Life of Samson, 21 – 25; note also that the exceptions to the rule, in Judg 17:1 ff. and 19:1 ff., in which the character first mentioned is in fact the main character, are both stories about anti-heroes that define the end of the book of Judges, while Job 1:1 opens a story of a different genre altogether). This method is also employed in the Priestly history, albeit in its own particular idiom: the opening K‫אלה תולדות‬K + PN is used to introduce a story that is actually about the named man’s son in Gen 11:27; 25:19; 37:2. Significantly, in the Priestly history there is no mention of the K‫תולדות‬K of Abraham and there is no cycle of stories about Isaac. Alternatively, one might argue that Zelophad does indeed stand at the focus of the story even if he is not an active character. For the essence of the daughters’ argument is to continue the name of Zelophad through his allotment because he has no sons; the claim here is not to enhance the rights of daughters but to preserve the father’s legacy. This is the interpretation taken by the midrash in Sifre Num. § 133 (p. 177 ll. 8 – 9): “had he a son would we not petition.” 68  It is possible that this is connected to the way the story unfolds, in that the background to the story is recounted by the daughters as a part of their case and not introduced by the narrator. Compare the three parallel passages, especially the opening to the episode of the wood-gatherer (15:32): K‫ויהיו‬ ‫בני ישראל במדבר‬K. 69  The Peshitta completes the process and omits the expression K‫למשפחת מנשה‬K. See BHK. Compare Wevers, who maintains, as he does generally, that MT reflects the original (Greek Text of Numbers, 457); Holzinger, who suggests understanding the expressions as a double reading (Numeri, 137).

216

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

discourse and begins the process of mounting an argument. In recalling the prior census and Yahweh’s concluding words about the current generation and its predecessor, it puts Zelophad into the framework of that generation as a whole: They died in the wilderness and so did he. They will have plots in Canaan to carry on their names. Why not he? If he had the misfortune not to have had sons, he should not suffer for it. (5) In the next stage of their argument, the women draw a distinction between Zelophad and Koraḥ’s mob, in the middle of v. 3.70 On the one hand, it looks quite connected to another passage in chapter 26, vv. 8 – 11, in terms of both style and contents:71 Num 26:9 – 10 Num 27:3

K‫אִיׁש‬

‫שׁה ְועַל־ַאהֲר ֹן ַ ּבעֲדַ ת־ק ַֹרח ְ ּבהַצ ֹּתָ ם‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר הִּצּו עַל־מ‬ ֶ ‫ִירם ק ְִריאֵי ָהעֵדָ ה ֲא‬ ָ ‫הּוא־דָ תָ ן ַו ֲאב‬K ‫שׁים ּומָאתַ י ִם‬ ּ ִ ‫ָָארץ אֶת־ ִפּי ָה וַתִ ּ ְבלַע א ֹתָ ם ְואֶת־ק ַֹרח ְבּמֹות ָהעֵדָ ה ַ ּבאֲכ ֹל ָהאֵׁש אֵת ֲח ִמ‬ ֶ ‫וַתִ ּפְתַ ּח ה‬K

K‫עַל־יהוה‬

K‫בעֲדַ ת־ק ַֹרח‬ ַּ

‫וְהּוא ֹלא־ ָהי ָה ְבּתֹוְך ָהעֵדָ ה הַּנֹועָדִ ים עַל־יהוה‬K K‫מת‬ ֵ ‫ ִכּי־ ְבחֶטְ אֹו‬K

Both passages elaborate on their respective characters through the emphatic use of the pronoun K‫הוא‬K and contextualize their deaths with reference to Koraḥ’s mob, K‫עדת קרח‬K. In this light, the negative statement in the petition of the daughters, K‫והוא לא היה‬K etc., looks like a deliberate and direct reference to the narrator’s notice in 26:9 – 10 – a reference that argues by implication against considering Zelophad’s death together with the deaths of the rabble-rousers. On the other hand, indications suggest that both passages come from later editors, so that the dependence of 27:3 on 26:9 – 10 cannot provide direct evidence about the composition of the oracular novella as a whole. Suffice it here to make the case regarding 27:3.72 First of all, the frame of the comment about Koraḥ bears the formal marks of an insertion. It introduces the comment with the pronoun K‫הוא‬K, which often serves to open space for new details,73 and it concludes with the word K‫מת‬K in what functions as a resumptive repetition of the clause immediately preceding the comment: K‫אבינו מת‬ ‫ כי בחטאו מת‬. . . ‫במדבר והוא‬K.74 Secondly, the reference to the rebellion clearly interrupts 70  According to Dillmann, in claiming their father died apart from Koraḥ’s mob, the daughters attribute his death to the debacle with the spies (Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 177). However, it is difficult to explain the formulation K‫חטאו‬K with possessive pronoun, which stresses that the crime was specific to him in particular, as Knobel had already observed (Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 159; see also Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 636; cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 231). The Rabbis too recognized this emphasis and hunted for clues for his individual crime. See Sifre Num. § 133 (p. 177 ll. 4 – 5, 6 – 8); Sifre Zuta, at 27:3 (p. 317 ll. 24 – 25). Importantly, Licht emphasizes that the main point of contrasting between Zelophad and Koraḥ’s mob does not directly concern the right to inherit and the loss of this right (Numbers, 3.69). 71   See Licht, ibid., 3. 72   On 26:8 – 11 see below. 73   On the phenomenon, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 44 – 48. 74  A similar example can be found in Num 3:4: ‫ה‬ K ‫וימת נדב ואביהוא לפני יהוה בהקרבם אש זרה לפני יהו‬ ‫במדבר סיני ובנים לא היו להם‬K. For the detail that was added, ‫ה‬K ‫בהקרבם אש זרה לפני יהו‬K (also in Num 26:61), see Lev 10:1 – 2 ‫ה‬K ‫ וימתו לפני יהו‬. . . ‫ויקריבו לפני יהוה אש זרה‬K. For an additional example in which extraneous material was added to a sentence on someone dying with no sons, see 2 Kgs 1:17: ‫ת‬K ‫ בשנ‬,‫וימלך יהורם תחתיו‬ ‫ כי לא היה לו בן‬,‫שתים ליהורם בן יהושפט מלך יהודה‬K. According to Burney, and, in his wake, Cogan and Tadmor, the synchronization with Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat is secondary and the original text read: ‫ם‬K ‫וימלך יהור‬ ‫אחיו תחתיו כי לא היה לו בן‬K. See Burney, Kings, xli – xliv, 263 – 264; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 27.

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

217

the flow of the sequence: K‫ ובנים לא היו לו‬. . . ‫אבינו מת במדבר‬K,75 the very same sequence that appears later in the inheritance law (v. 8: K‫איש כי ימות ובן אין לו‬K) and in the law of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5: K‫כי ישבו אחים יחדו ומת אחד מהם ובן אין לו‬K). It is impossible to miss the artificial feeling of the present sequence (K‫כי בחטאו מת ובן אין לו‬K), the forced character of which is reflected in one interpretation proffered – that he sinned and died and therefore had no sons.76 In the clause as a whole, the emphasis falls on the contrast between Zelophad and those who died in the Koraḥ affair, not on the substance of the main issue: that a man has died with no sons. (6) The core of the argument, which emphasizes the father’s name, “Why should the name of our father be cut off from his family” K‫למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו‬K (27:4), draws part of its literary and conceptual force from the central principle articulated at the conclusion of the census: “According to these shall the land be parceled out as inheritance, by the number of names” K‫לאלה תחלק הארץ בנחלה במספר שמות‬K (26:53). The land will be distributed by name – and Zelophad’s name stands to disappear. The connection to the census in Numbers 26 supported by the above six considerations turns out to have further implications for the analysis of the novella. Scholars have tended to coordinate the story and the legal concepts in it with the institution of levirate marriage as attested in Genesis 38; Deut 25:5 – 10; and Ruth. In one direction, some view the story against the background of the prohibition on a man having relations with his brother’s wife in Lev 18:16 and 20:21, and see in it a polemic against levirate marriage.77 The story does not consider the possibility that one of Zelophad’s brothers could marry Zelophad’s widow, have a son, and pass on to him the right to inherit the plot that Zelophad would have received and thereby carry on Zelophad’s name. In the other direction, others assume the author of the novella to have accepted the premise and rules of levirate marriage, and they therefore assert that, for one reason or another, levirate marriage does not apply: either Zelophad’s wife died or he had divorced her.78 However, one should not juxtapose the two matters, daughters receiving their father’s plot and levirate marriage, and attempt to draw conclusions about the author’s overall stance towards levirate marriage. The two matters respond to separate sets of circumstances and treat completely different kinds of cases. The author of the law of levirate marriage formulated the circumstances of the case with careful precision, “If brothers dwell together” K‫כי ישבו אחים יחדו‬K (Deut 25:5). The clause delineates a very specific situation, in which a father has died and left behind (two) sons, brothers; these brothers do not divide their inheritance, their father’s land, but continue to dwell on it together, which has the effect of maintaining the integrity of the father’s household. A Talmudic source picked up and made explicit the nuance of the root K‫יח״ד‬K, “togetherness, community”: “together K‫יחדו‬K – united K‫מיוחדים‬K on the same plot” 75

  Noth, Numbers, 211.   So suggests Milgrom, Numbers, 231. 77   E. g., Braulik, Deuteronomium, 186. 78   Milgrom, Numbers, 231, 233. 76

218

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

(b. Yeb. 17b).79 The brothers may choose to abstain from dividing the inheritance, or to defer it, for any of a number of reasons – many of which boil down to their fear, at least for the time being, that they will not both be able to subsist on two separate plots. Accordingly, the two biblical stories related to levirate marriage concern an undifferentiated estate. In Genesis 38, Judah, the father in this scenario, has not even died. His sons have not yet established their own households, and everything that takes place falls under his authority and responsibility. He determines whether his daughter-in-law shall submit to levirate marriage, when and with which son. In Ruth, Elimelek takes his entire family from Bethlehem to Moab – his wife Naomi, his sons and his daughters-in-law – where all the males die, so that the land never went through partition. When Naomi returns to Bethlehem, her husband’s entire plot awaits her. During the entire period in which the family dwelled in Moab and the male members died, none of Elimelek’s kin – brothers or cousins – presumed to lay claim to the land, appropriate it, or apportion it, so that its integrity and affiliation remained intact. The circumstances that generate levirate marriage differ fundamentally from those that constitute the scenario of the novella about the daughters of Zelophad, especially when seen in the context of land distribution that defines Numbers 26.80 The story does not presume a background in which Zelophad and all his brothers dwell together on the undifferentiated estate of their father Hepher. Rather, it concerns Zelophad and his living daughters, a piece of land none of them has ever owned, and their right to stand in for him to receive it – on the model of a bequest by a king.

79   See Cooke, Ruth, 14; Westbrook, Property and Family, 17, 118 – 141; Braulik, Deuteronomium, 187; Schloen, The House of the Father, 149; Willis, The Elders of the City, 284 – 286; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 298 – 299. 80  Evidently, the principle of the law of levirate marriage is that every son in a father’s household will himself one day establish his own household. As long as the sons of the family belong to one household, whether the father is alive or dead, they have the ability and responsibility to stand in for each other to fully realize this partially realized potential. Only the division of the father’s estate among the sons separates them into individual households and ends the interchangeability. This view brings into sharp relief two lexical usages in the law. First, the “stranger” (K‫זר‬K) that the law of levirate marriage forbids the wife from marrying (Deut 25:5) includes all family members except the deceased man’s brother. Second, the precise meaning of the expression K‫החוצה‬K (“outside”) is anything outside the household to which she and her husband belonged. It seems that according to the LXX translators and the Rabbis the expression K‫ובן אין לו‬K (Deut 25:5) does not refer specifically to a male child alone but also includes daughters (LXX: σπέρμα δὲ μὴ ᾗ αὐτῷ = K‫וזרע אין לו‬K; see HRCS 2.1282 – 1283; Lust, Lexicon, 2.434; Muraoka, Lexicon of the Septuagint, 518; for the Rabbinic analysis, see Sifre Deut. § 288 [p. 306 ll. 9 – 10]; for a modern argument: Loewenstamm, EM 3.445). In this case, the meaning of the word K‫בכור‬K in Deut 25:6 is properly the first offspring (LXX: παιδίον; see Exod 21:4 – 5; HRCS 2.1047 – 1048; Lust, Lexicon, 2.347; Muraoka, Lexicon of the Septuagint, 429). In this view, the single aim is to continue the father’s line by building his household (K‫בית אב‬K), and this is something that a daughter can do also, as Knobel has already noted on the basis of 1 Chr 2:21 – 24, 34 – 41; Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63 (Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 159). If correct, this interpretation of Deut 25:5 – 10 would provide an additional piece of evidence that the story of the daughters of Zelophad has no connection with levirate marriage at all. Levirate marriage is reserved for someone who had no children at all, whereas Zelophad has been blessed with five daughters.

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

219

It appears that the relationship between the oracular novella, in Num 27:1 – 11, and the census that precedes it, in Numbers 26, is even more complex. In addition to the original novella having given literary shape to its core tradition by working it into the Priestly history and drawing in multiple ways on the census episode and its language in Numbers 26, the novella, in turn, had its own impact on other texts – the allocation of lands to Manasseh, in Josh 17:1 – 6, and the genealogy of Manasseh, in Num 26:29 – 33. Scholars agree that Num 27:1 – 11 has forced a revision of Josh 17:1 – 6 and that it has points of contact with Num 26:29 – 33. However, in the case of Josh 17:1 – 6, they have not yet achieved comprehensive and persuasive resolution of its many problems, mainly because they have not correlated the points of difficulty with the points of revision inspired by the novella, and in the case of Num 26:29 – 33, they have not succeeded to reach consensus on the points of influence and revision altogether.81 The analysis below aims to demonstrate: that the difficulties in both texts stem from editing processes; that the processes were occasioned by the original novella within Num 27:1 – 11 and effected to incorporate its distinctive viewpoints; and, more specifically, that one can trace a sequence from the original novella to Josh 17:1 – 6 and from Josh 17:1 – 6 then to Num 26:29 – 33. The analysis takes as its starting point the fact that in Num 26:29 – 30; 27:1; Josh 17:3 (and in Num 36:1 too), the name Gilead designates a person and this person is the son of Machir. This genealogical scheme, in a chain of three texts, contrasts with other biblical genealogical and geographical traditions. According to one tradition, in Judg 5:13 – 17, Machir and Gilead denote two completely separate tribes, the one on the west side of the Jordan river, the other on the east, without an immediately higher genealogical segment or overarching tribal rubric joining them – Manasseh or other. According to another, far more prevalent tradition in the Hebrew Bible, Gilead serves exclusively to denote a geographical region east of the Jordan and thought of as Manassite, namely, populated by people affiliated with the tribal identity Manasseh. Quite frequently, the name appears determined, “the Gilead” K‫הגלעד‬K, which, if it conveys anything, suggests that first and foremost the term K‫גלעד‬K denotes an outstanding topographical feature. In a tradition preserved in Num 32:39, the people of Machir, or the Machirites, conquer this territory and bring it under Israelite dominion: K‫וילכו בני מכיר‬ ‫בן מנשה גלעדה וילכדה ויורש את האמרי אשר בה‬K.82 A tradition in the very next verse recast the independent clan endeavor as one undertaken within the national scope under Moses’ leadership: K‫ויתן משה את הגלעד למכיר בן מנשה וישב בה‬K (v. 40).83 So too in Moses’ own voice: K‫ולמכיר נתתי את הגלעד‬K (Deut 3:15). In the list of tribal allotments under Joshua, lots determine that the Machirites will receive the Gilead as their portion (Josh 17:1 MT): K‫ויהי הגורל למטה מנשה כי הוא בכור יוסף למכיר בכור מנשה אבי הגלעד כי הוא‬ 81   Some scholars view chapter 26 as the source for all of the names, e. g., Noth, Numbers, 207, 211; Licht, Numbers, 3.69. For the other camp, which argues that the novella influenced chapter 26, see, e. g., Milgrom, Numbers, 230. 82   On the stories of this type, their reconstruction, characteristics, and significance, see Rofé, “Clan Sagas;” idem, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible, 12 – 14. 83   Rofé, “Clan Sagas,” 194.

220

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

‫היה איש מלחמה ויהי לו הגלעד והבשן‬K “The lot went to the tribe of Manasseh for he is the firstborn of Joseph: to Machir firstborn of Manasseh father (i. e. founder or chieftain) of the Gilead for he was a warrior – he had the Gilead and the Bashan.” The difficult syntax of the passage attests its uneasy incorporation of two separate traditions – one of individual heroism and conquest and another of authoritative assignment – which it combines under the alternate, overarching rubric of lots in a national setting.84 In all these different texts, the region already has its name before Israel reaches it – the Gilead – and the segment of Israelites that settles there goes under the name Machir. Indeed, in the extended dialogue between Jacob and Laban in Gen 31:44 – 52 (a concatenation of traditions and possibly texts), the name Gilead long precedes the births of Manasseh and Gilead, and explicitly serves to denote either a topographical feature or an historical event.85 K‫גל‬ ָּ ‫עַל־ ַה‬

‫שׁם‬ ָ ‫ ַו ּי ִקְחּו ֲא ָבנִים ַו ּי ַעֲׂשּו־גָל וַי ֹּאכְלּו‬. . .K ‫ ַו ּי ִק ְָרא־לֹו ָלבָן יְגַר שָ ׂהֲדּותָ א ְויַעֲק ֹב ק ָָרא לֹו‬K K. . . ‫לעֵד‬ ְ ‫שׁמֹו ַּג‬ ְ ‫וַי ֹּאמֶר ָלבָן ַה ַגּל ַהזֶּה עֵד ֵבּינִי ּובֵינְָך הַּיֹום עַל־ ֵכּן ק ָָרא־‬K K‫בּינִי ּובֵינֶָך‬ ֵ ‫שׁר י ִָריתִ י‬ ֶ ‫וַי ֹּאמֶר ָלבָן ְליַעֲק ֹב ִהנֵּה ַה ַגּל ַהזֶּה ְו ִהנֵּה ַה ַמ ֵ ּצבָה ֲא‬K K‫בה‬ ָ ‫עֵד ַה ַגּל ַהזֶּה ְועֵדָ ה ַה ַ ּמ ֵ ּצ‬K K‫עה‬ ָ ‫אִם־ָאנִי ֹלא־ ֶאעֱב ֹר ֵאלֶיָך אֶת־ ַה ַגּל ַהזֶּה ְואִם־ַאתָ ּה ֹלא־תַ עֲב ֹר ֵאלַי אֶת־ ַה ַגּל ַהזֶּה ְואֶת־ ַה ַ ּמ ֵ ּצבָה הַז ֹּאת ל ְָר‬K K‫עד‬ ֵ ‫ַּג ְל‬

In contrast to all these traditions, Num 26:29 portrays Gilead as a person – the son of Machir: “The children of Manasseh: for Machir the Machirite family, and Machir fathered Gilead, for Gilead the Gileadite family.” Likewise Num 27:1: “Zelophad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh.” The scheme in Josh 17:1 is identical to that of Num 27:1. So too Num 36:1: “The family of the sons of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh.” Furthermore, according to the continuation, in Num 26:30 – 33, all the Manassites come from Gilead, since he was the only son of Machir, and Machir was the only son of Manasseh. Namely, if genealogy should correlate with geography, then Gileadites settle on both sides of the Jordan while only one side bears the name of their progenitor. Moreover, the name Gilead does not denote topographical features or recall historical events, but preserves the name of a person, like Jair and Nobaḥ in Num 32:41 – 4286 and Ḥanokh in Gen 4:17, only in this case the ancestor of the people who a priori live well beyond the confines of the region so designated.87 84

  Compare ibid., 194.   On this text and its composition, see Gunkel, Genesis, 339 – 342. 86  Rofé argues that instead of K‫חותיהם‬K (“their camps”) one should read K‫חות הם‬K (“the camps of Ham”); see “Clan Sagas,” 193. 87  Judg 11:1b – 2 has long been taken as a later addition; see Budde, Richter und Samuel, 125 – 126. The interpretation is made on the basis of Gilead not appearing as a personal name in earlier traditions; the late usage of K‫ויולד‬K; and the different meanings of the word K‫אח‬K. See also Moore, Judges, 284 – 285; Burney, Judges, 303 – 304; and esp. Simpson, Judges, 45 – 46. The conclusion in 1 Chr 7:17b, K‫אלה בני‬ ‫גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה‬K, appears to be an editorial insertion, which contradicts what is written in vv. 16 – 17a. Its purpose was to give the fragmentary text some sort of framework, according to which vv. 14 – 17 describes the Manassites on the east side of the Jordan and vv. 18 – 19 – those on the west side. Compare the commentaries, which – problematically – tend to accept v. 17b as the original context of the 85

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

221

This conception of Gilead as a person, the son of Machir, has an intimate connection with the anomalies, difficulties, and contradictions that characterize both Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6 and which signal intensive revision and interpolation in both those texts. First of all, the clause “and Machir fathered Gilead” K‫ומכיר הוליד את‬ ‫גלעד‬K in Num 26:29, an independent clause with full verbal predication, diverges singularly from the list-entry formula used throughout the rest of the chapter, “These are the sons of [PN1]: for [PN2] the [PN2 + gentilic suffix] family K‫ משפחת‬. . . ‫ ל‬. . . ‫אלה בני‬ ‫ י‬. . . ‫ה‬K. This formula holds even in those instances of a single son: Num 26:35 – 37 K‫חנִי‬ ֲ ּ ַ‫הַת‬

Num 26:42 – 43

K:‫פּח ֹתָ ם‬ ְ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ְבנֵי־ ֶאפ ְַרי ִם ְל ִמ‬K ‫ש ַ ּפחַת‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ לְתַ חַן‬,‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה ַ ּבכ ְִרי‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ ְל ֶבכֶר‬,‫שׁתַ ְלחִי‬ ּ ֻ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫לְׁשּותֶ לַח‬K K:‫בנֵי ׁשּותָ לַח‬ ּ ְ ‫ ְו ֵא ֶלּה‬K K‫הע ֵָרנִי‬ ָ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ ְלע ֵָרן‬K K. . . ‫אפ ְַרי ִם‬ ֶ ‫ש ְפּח ֹת ְ ּבנֵי־‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ִמ‬K

:K‫ש ְפּח ֹתָ ם‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ְבנֵי־דָ ן ְל ִמ‬K ‫ש ַ ּפחַת‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫לְׁשּוחָם‬K K. . . ‫פּח ֹתָ ם‬ ְ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫ש ְפּח ֹת דָ ּן ְל ִמ‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ִמ‬K K‫מי‬ ִ ‫ַהּשּׁו ָח‬

Given the otherwise uniform formulaic nature of the list in the chapter, the independent clause about Machir having fathered Gilead in v. 29 formulated as a declarative statement trending further towards narrative on the narrativity scale88 functions to establish a fact – that Gilead is indeed a person and that he fits into the larger Israelite genealogical scheme, specifically, as the son of Machir.89 Given the prevalence of traditions about Gilead as a geographical region, such a declaration seems a tacit admission of that tradition. Moreover, in the context of the Priestly history, in which the narrator and the characters rarely speak in such perceptibly contextual tones and terms, the anomalous formulation together with the purpose of the notice strongly suggest that it represents an interpolated element.90 In addition, the paragraph that lists Manasseh’s genealogy, in Num 26:29 – 34, includes more generations than any other paragraph in the census list – five generations from Manasseh to Zelophad’s daughters. The closest paragraph from this point of view is that of Reuben, which lists four generations. Significantly, in that genealogical preceding verses, and on that basis emend the text. On the gaps, contradictions, and general disjointedness of this difficult text – which Aaron b. Elijah referred to as “confusion” (at Num 26:23, Keter Torah, 4.40b) – see the discussion and references in Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 174 – 179; Knoppers I Chronicles 1 – 9, 454 – 456, 461 – 463. 88   For a clear, insightful, and useful description of narrative that aims to develop a spectrum of narrativity, see Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law, 1 – 22. 89   The clause also appears in the genealogical list of Jacob and his family who descended to Egypt in Genesis 46, at v. 20 LXX, in the context of a large plus that gathers genealogical material and lore from elsewhere (41:45, 50 – 52; 1 Chr 7:14; Num 26:29, 35 – 37 [according to the text of Gen 46:21; 1 Chr 7:6, that Bekher is the son of Benjamin]; Gen 50:23). In this context too, the indicative, predicating formulation of the clause diverges and stands out. 90   So, e. g. Noth, Numbers, 206 – 207.

222

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

branch the last two generations belong to a larger, secondary expansion of the text, in vv. 8 – 11. The elaborating material comes after the standard concluding formula in v. 7, which sums up the genealogical branch of Reuben: K‫אלה משפחת הראובני ויהיו פקדיהם‬.K The elaboration incorporates material from a non-Priestly source, the story of the rebellion against Moses by Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16, in a difficult, harmonizing manner that reveals its author was drawing from the composite, present text of Numbers 16.91 And the expansion begins with a glossator’s hook, the 3rd masc. sing. pronoun K‫הוא‬K, in the sense of “the very same.”92 The correspondence between the Manassite and Reubenite paragraphs in unusual length, when the Reubenite appears to have grown in stages, prompts the inkling that the paragraph on Manasseh also grew in stages and for similar reasons, namely, to incorporate material from elsewhere. Indeed, the formal scheme throughout the census list juxtaposes subordinate segments asyndetically, with preposition K‫ל־‬K. The paragraph of Manasseh begins accordingly: Num 26:29 – 30

:K‫שה‬ ּׁ ֶ ַ‫ ְ ּבנֵי ְמנ‬K ‫ִירי‬ ִ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה ָ ּמכ‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ ְל ָמכִיר‬K K‫לעָדִ י‬ ְ ִּ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַהג‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ ְלגִ ְלעָד‬K K:‫לעָד‬ ְ ִ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ְ ּבנֵי ג‬K K‫קי‬ ִ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה ֶח ְל‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ ְל ֵחלֶק‬,‫ש ַ ּפחַת ָהאִי ֶעז ְִרי‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ 93‫אִי ֶעזֶר‬K K. . .

But midstream, in the middle of the list of Gilead’s sons, the style changes to syndetic linkage with copulative K‫ו־‬K: Num 26:31 – 32

‫ש ַ ּפחַת‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ש ִׂריאֵל‬ ְ ‫וְַא‬K ‫ש ַ ּפחַת‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫שכֶם‬ ׁ ֶ ‫ ְו‬K K‫עי‬ ִ ָ‫שמִיד‬ ּׁ ְ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫שמִידָ ע‬ ׁ ְ ‫ּו‬K K‫חפ ְִרי‬ ֶ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ַה‬ ׁ ְ ‫– ִמ‬ ‫ ְו ֵחפֶר‬K

K‫לי‬ ִ ‫ש ִׂר ֵא‬ ְ ‫הַָא‬

K‫מי‬ ִ ‫ש ְכ‬ ּׁ ִ ‫ַה‬

Notably, this list of six brothers recurs in only one other text, Josh 17:2, as the sons of Manasseh. The syndetic style that breaks in at Num 26:31 – 32 occurs in one more 91   See Kuenen, Hexateuch, 100, 335; Dillmann Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 173; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.231; Holzinger, Numeri, 132. On the two separate stories in Numbers 16, see Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 149 – 168. 92   Compare the genealogy located pivotally in Exod 6:10 – 30. It is framed by a resumptive repetition of vv. 10 – 12 in vv. 28 – 30, it serves to provide the genealogical framework of Moses and Aaron, and it concludes emphatically in vv. 26 – 27 with its own structural integrity and with both 3rd masc. sing. and pl. pronouns:

K‫צבאתם‬

‫הוא אהרן ומשה אשר אמר יהוה להם הוציאו את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים על‬K K‫הם המדברים אל פרעה מלך מצרים להוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים‬K K‫הוא משה ואהרן‬K

Compare Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 53 – 61, esp. 58 (= Gesammelte Studien, 125 – 136, esp. 133). 93  The lack of the preposition K‫ל־‬K before the name K‫איעזר‬K is not anomalous but indicates the first son elsewhere too; see vv. 5 – 6, 23 – 24.

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

223

section in the census list – in the expansion about Dathan and Abiram in the branch of Reuben: Num 26:8 – 10

K‫אלִיָאב‬ ֱ :‫ּו ְבנֵי פַּלּוא‬K ‫שׁה ְועַל־ַאהֲר ֹן ַ ּבעֲדַ ת־ק ַֹרח ְ ּבהַצ ֹּתָ ם‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר הִּצּו עַל־מ‬ ֶ ‫ִירם ק ְִריאֵי ָהעֵדָ ה ֲא‬ ָ ‫– הּוא־דָ תָ ן ַו ֲאב‬ ‫ִירם‬ ָ ‫ נְמּואֵל וְדָ תָ ן ַו ֲאב‬:‫ּו ְבנֵי ֱאלִיָאב‬K K‫לנֵס‬ ְ ‫שׁים ּומָאתַ י ִם אִיׁש ַו ּי ִהְיּו‬ ּ ִ ‫ָָארץ אֶת־ ִפּי ָה וַתִ ּ ְבלַע א ֹתָ ם ְואֶת־ק ַֹרח ְבּמֹות ָהעֵדָ ה ַ ּבאֲכ ֹל ָהאֵׁש אֵת ֲח ִמ‬ ֶ ‫עַל־יהוה וַתִ ּפְתַ ּח ה‬

The two sections on Reuben and Manasseh, then, correspond to each other in two ways. They both shift to an anomalous, syndetic style of listing and in both the shift occurs where they offer enriching material that has correspondences elsewhere in the biblical text. Just as the material in the paragraph on Reuben is secondary, so does the material in the paragraph on Manasseh appear to be, even if it has fewer obvious indications.94 In the case of the paragraph of Manasseh, the syndetic style continues on with Zelophad in v. 33: K‫וצלפחד בן חפר לא היו לו בנים כי אם בנות‬K, which is followed by material that has correspondences with the novella that will follow, in 27:1 – 11.95 This analysis of mere stylistic features offers an additional indication of revision within the paragraph. It remains to ask why the editor of the Manasseh paragraph in the census list thought Gilead the son of Machir and grandson of Manasseh. Why did he create such a lineage – and whence the list of figures in it, namely, Gilead’s children? These children, who do not appear in the oracular novella, lead back to the paragraph on the territory of Manasseh in Josh 17:1 – 6. This text too has its share of difficulties – not merely stylistic discrepancies, but far more substantive difficulties in syntax and in contents – again all around the figure of “Gilead.” First, according to Josh 17:1 – 2, the lots determined that Machir firstborn of Manasseh would receive the Gilead and Bashan territories and that Manasseh’s other sons would settle – so does the interrupted text imply – west of the Jordan. Josh 17:1 – 2

K‫סף‬ ֵ ‫שׁה ִכּי־הּוא ְבּכֹור יֹו‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ַּגֹורל ְל ַמ ֵטּה ְמנ‬ ָ ‫ ַויְהִי ה‬K ‫ ְל ָמכִיר ְבּכֹור ְמנַשֶ ּׁה ( ֲאבִי ַה ִגּ ְלעָד ִכּי הּוא ָהי ָה אִיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמָה) ַויְהִי־לֹו ַה ִּג ְלעָד‬K ‫ע‬K ָ‫שמִיד‬ ׁ ְ ‫שכֶם ְו ִל ְבנֵי־ ֵחפֶר ְו ִל ְבנֵי‬ ׁ ֶ ‫ש ִׂריאֵל ְו ִל ְבנֵי־‬ ְ ‫– ִל ְבנֵי ֲאבִי ֶעזֶר ְו ִל ְבנֵי־ ֵחלֶק ְו ִל ְבנֵי ַא‬ ‫ש ְפּח ֹתָ ם‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ַויְהִי ִל ְבנֵי ְמנַשֶ ּׁה הַּנֹותָ ִרים ְל ִמ‬K K‫פּח ֹתָ ם‬ ְ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה ֶבּן־יֹוסֵף ַה ּזְכ ִָרים ְל ִמ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ְ ּבנֵי ְמנ‬K K‫שן‬ ׁ ָ ‫ְו ַה ָ ּב‬

In this scheme, Machir is not a solitary son, but the eldest of seven, and there is no notice that he had a son “Gilead” (after whom he named part of his portion or whom he named for part of the portion he received). However, in the continuation, Machir had a son named Gilead, who had a son Hepher, who had a son Zelophad, who had five daughters (v. 3): 94

  On the interpretation of genealogical lists, see Wilson, Genealogy and History, esp. 18 – 55.  LXX repeats the preposition K‫ל־‬K (τῷ) before each name, including Zelophad. SP seeks consistency – among the sons of Gilead alone – by taking the opposite approach and replacing the K‫ל־‬K in the entry K‫לחלק‬K (v. 30) with the syndetic conjunction: K‫וחלק‬K. It is possible that SP maintains the original reading, and MT stems from a scribe who opened with the preposition K‫ל־‬K by force of habit and, without correcting it, continued on with the conjunction K‫ו־‬K. 95

224

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11 K‫בּנֹות‬ ָ ‫אִם־‬

‫שׁה ֹלא־הָיּו לֹו ָ ּבנִים ִכּי‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ ְו ִל ְצ ָל ְפחָד ֶבּן־ ֵחפֶר ֶבּן־גִּ ְלעָד ֶבּן־ ָמכִיר ֶבּן־ ְמנ‬K K‫צה‬ ָ ‫שׁמֹות ְבּנ ֹתָ יו ַמ ְחלָה וְנֹעָה ָחגְלָה ִמ ְל ָכּה וְתִ ְר‬ ְ ‫ ְו ֵא ֶלּה‬K

Stylistically, this segment does not so much pick up the thread and thrust of the preceding segment as follow it by force of juxtaposition, since it presents a vertical genealogy rather than a horizontal one, and front-ends the last descendant on it. In substantive terms, oddly enough the five daughters settled – so the text confusingly implies – not in the region of Gilead but west of the Jordan (vv. 4 – 6): K‫לי ַ ְּרדֵ ּן‬ ַ

K‫הַּנֹותָ ִרים‬

‫שׁר ֵמ ֵעבֶר‬ ֶ ‫שׁן ֲא‬ ָ ‫ש ָׂרה ְלבַד ֵמא ֶֶרץ ַהגִּ ְלעָד ְו ַה ָ ּב‬ ָ ‫שׁה ֲע‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ַו ּי ִ ְפּלּו ַח ְבלֵי־ ְמנ‬ ‫שׁה‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫שׁה נָחֲלּו נַ ֲחלָה ְבּתֹוְך ָ ּבנָיו ְוא ֶֶרץ ַהגִּ ְלעָד ָהי ְתָ ה ִל ְבנֵי־ ְמנ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ ִכּי ְבּנֹות ְמנ‬K

Second, according to vv. 1 – 2, Hepher is the son of Manasseh and the brother of Machir, whereas the texts that follow present Hepher as the son of Gilead and the grandson of Machir and the great-grandson of Manasseh. Third, the list of Manasseh’s sons other than Machir in v. 2 (K– ‫– אׂשריאל‬ ‫– חלק‬ ‫אביעזר‬ ‫– שמידע‬ ‫– חפר‬ ‫שכם‬K) matches precisely, in largely the same sequence,96 the list of Gilead’s sons in Num 26:30 – 32: (K‫– חפר‬ ‫– שמידע‬ ‫– שכם‬ ‫– אׂשריאל‬ ‫– חלק‬ ‫איעזר‬K). Josh 17:2 Num 26:30 – 32

K‫שמִידָ ע‬ ְׁ K‫פר‬ ֶ ‫ֵח‬

– ‫– ֵחפֶר‬ ‫שכֶם‬ ׁ ֶ – ‫ש ִׂריאֵל‬ ְ ‫– ַא‬ ‫– ֵחלֶק‬ ‫ ֲאבִי ֶעזֶר‬K

– ‫שמִידָ ע‬ ׁ ְ – ‫שכֶם‬ ׁ ֶ – ‫ש ִׂריאֵל‬ ְ ‫– ַא‬ ‫– ֵחלֶק‬ ‫אִי ֶעזֶר‬K

How did this string of names come to appear in two mutually exclusive segments in the genealogies of Manasseh, and where does it come from? Analysis of the text about the territories of Manasseh in Joshua 17 with reconstruction of the relevant stages of its development can lead to a reasonable resolution of the whole set of difficulties in all the related texts.97 In the first reconstructable stage existed a text, a list of names, that outlined the region of Manasseh west of the Jordan. This text now sits within vv. 7 – 13: K‫ויהי גבול מנשה‬K “The region of Manasseh.” The passage as a whole bears signs of having undergone expansion and revision – more than once even – but the analysis will focus on vv. 1 – 6, which alone directly concerns Num 26:29 – 34 and the oracular novella. In the next relevant stage, the author of the story about the parceling out of the land of Canaan among the Israelites made use of this text tracing the territory of Manasseh, incorporating it into the larger story, its present historical and historiographical context, according to which lots prescribed its extent and limits. The new context necessitated addressing the Manassite region east of the Jordan, a long-known association or configuration of identities. Therefore, the author added Machir. Towards this end, the author distinguished between “Machir firstborn of Manasseh,” who received his share alone on one side of the Jordan, due to his military prowess (thinking, perhaps, it would 96

  See below on the one divergence.   Compare the approaches in research, e. g., Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 130 – 131; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 217 – 218; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 2.347; Holzinger, Josua, 68 – 69; Cooke, Joshua, 157 – 159; Auld, Joshua, Moses, and the Land, 52 – 71, esp. 57, 66 – 67, 93 – 98; and esp. Kuenen, Hexateuch, 106 (§ 6 n. 51); Fritz, Josua, 173 – 174. 97

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

225

stand the Israelites in good stead on their borderland), and “the rest of Manasseh’s sons,” who received their portion all of them together on the other side of the Jordan. Textually, this stage saw the addition of v. 1 and the words K‫ויהי לבני מנשה הנותרים‬K and K ‫למשפח ֹתם‬K in v. 2 ahead of the territory outline that begins in v. 7: Josh 17:1 – 2aβ, 7 ff. K‫שן‬ ׁ ָ ‫ְו ַה ָ ּב‬

K‫סף‬ ֵ ‫שׁה ִכּי־הּוא ְבּכֹור יֹו‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ַּגֹורל ְל ַמ ֵטּה ְמנ‬ ָ ‫ ַויְהִי ה‬K ‫– ַויְהִי־לֹו ַה ִּג ְלעָד‬ )‫שׁה ( ֲאבִי ַה ִגּ ְלעָד ִכּי הּוא ָהי ָה אִיׁש ִמ ְל ָחמָה‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ ְל ָמכִיר ְבּכֹור ְמנ‬K 98 K. . . ‫שׁה‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫– ַויְהִי גְבּול־ ְמנ‬ ‫ש ְפּח ֹתָ ם‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה הַּנֹותָ ִרים ְל ִמ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ ַויְהִי ִל ְבנֵי ְמנ‬K

The generalizing, catch-all phrase K‫בני מנשה הנותרים‬K “the rest of Manasseh’s sons” naturally triggered an expansion that specified who made up this group. The addition took the form of apposition, picking up the initial expression K‫לבני מנשה‬K and elaborating it as K‫לבני‬K + PN, where the name noted is a son of Manasseh, and closes with a formal genealogical, summary conclusion, the independent statement “these are K‫בני‬K PN,” which in this case also employs resumptive repetition of two elements, K‫בני מנשה‬K and K‫משפח ֹתם‬K: ‫ע‬K ָ‫שמִיד‬ ׁ ְ ‫שכֶם ְו ִל ְבנֵי־ ֵחפֶר ְו ִל ְבנֵי‬ ׁ ֶ ‫ש ִׂריאֵל ְו ִל ְבנֵי־‬ ְ ‫– ִל ְבנֵי ֲאבִי ֶעזֶר ְו ִל ְבנֵי־ ֵחלֶק ְו ִל ְבנֵי ַא‬ ‫ ַויְהִי ִל ְבנֵי ְמנַשֶ ּׁה הַּנֹותָ ִרים ְלמִשְ ׁ ְפּח ֹתָ ם‬K K. . . ‫שׁה‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫– ַויְהִי גְבּול־ ְמנ‬ ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ְ ּבנֵי ְמנַשֶ ּׁה ֶבּן־יֹוסֵף ַה ּזְכ ִָרים ְלמִשְ ׁ ְפּח ֹתָ ם‬K

Despite the match between this list and that in the census of Num 26:30 – 32, it is not likely that the author of the expansion in Josh 17:2 took the list from the census in Num 26:30 – 32, because in that context, the text lists the sons of Gilead. In the context of the determination of the tribal allotments of Manasseh, the string lists the sons of Manasseh – and Gilead designates the name of an allotted region, not of any son. The string of names, then, must come from an unknown source, but one that contained a list of a cluster of clans or regions.99 Seeing this snippet of text – the string of names presented in Josh 17:2 as the sons of Manasseh – as an addition with two concluding elements formulated as a resumptive repetition supports Knobel’s sensitive conjecture that originally the verse closed not with K‫בני מנשה בן יוסף הזכרים‬K (“male”) but K‫הנותרים‬K (“remaining”).100 ‫ע‬K ָ‫שמִיד‬ ׁ ְ ‫שכֶם ְו ִל ְבנֵי־ ֵחפֶר ְו ִל ְבנֵי‬ ׁ ֶ ‫ש ִׂריאֵל ְו ִל ְבנֵי־‬ ְ ‫– ִל ְבנֵי ֲאבִי ֶעזֶר ְו ִל ְבנֵי־ ֵחלֶק ְו ִל ְבנֵי ַא‬ ‫ ַויְהִי ִל ְבנֵי ְמנַשֶ ּׁה הַּנֹותָ ִרים ְלמִשְ ׁ ְפּח ֹתָ ם‬K 101 K. . . ‫שׁה‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫– ַויְהִי גְבּול־ ְמנ‬ ‫ ֵא ֶלּה ְ ּבנֵי ְמנַשֶ ּׁה ֶבּן־יֹוסֵף ה[נות]רים ְלמִשְ ׁ ְפּח ֹתָ ם‬K   98   The problematic sequence from v. 2 to v. 7 cannot serve to undermine this reconstruction since, in any case and by any analysis, v. 2 as a subordinate clause must be an introduction to something, yet this main clause does not exist anywhere in the text.   99   It is worth noting that the majority of the names have been found on potsherds from Samaria and have been identified by archaeologists on the western side of the Jordan. See Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques, 29 – 38, 59 – 65; Aharoni, Land of Israel, 277 – 285, esp. 278 – 280, 284 – 285; Borenstein, “Administration and Economy,” 69 – 72, 82 – 85, 95 – 112. 100  Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 444. Ehrlich mentions a manuscript with K‫נותרים‬K (Literal Meaning, 2.29); according to Kennicott, this would be MS 182 (Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, 467). It seems less than likely that this reading preserves the original rather than coincidentally recreates it through a copyist’s error. 101  LXX lacks the expression K‫בני מנשה בן יוסף‬K here and renders instead οὗτοι οἱ ἄρσενες (= K‫אלה‬ ‫הזכרים‬K). On this and other differences, see below.

226

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

Indeed, the redundant stress placed on the maleness of Manasseh’s sons can only have significance as setting up the contrast to the coming discussion of a group of women who too received land within Manasseh, in v. 3. A series of indications suggests that the discussion of the women in v. 3 belongs to a separate stage (see below). The stress on maleness in v. 2 therefore more likely belongs to a separate stage than the insertion of the names of “the rest of” Manasseh’s sons. For instance, were the author of the inserted list of sons in v. 2 also the author of the bit about the daughters of Zelophad in v. 3 and the one who noted the maleness of the sons in order to lay the groundwork for the contrasting group of women, one would would expect him to lay further groundwork by putting Hepher – father of Zelophad – last in the list of sons, or perhaps first, but not fifth out of the six. Note that in the comparable list in Num 26:33 Hepher does appear last and effects an aesthetic transition to the discussion in v. 34 of his son Zelophad, who had daughters and no sons – a deliberate transition that dovetails with another sign of the deliberate disposition of disparate parts noted above, the use of the conjunction K‫ו־‬K.102 Other signs that in the development of Josh 17:1 – 6 the text about the daughters of Zelophad represents a separate stage from the addition of the names of Manasseh’s sons follow. The distinction between eastern and western Manassite territories and the specification of children of Manasseh who inherited their portions on each side led another editor to incorporate the story of the daughters of Zelophad, the direct results of which appear in Josh 17:3 – 4. The author lifted almost all the language directly from the novella in Num 27:1 – 11, reordering it to flow reasonably within its present location as two distinct sections – first the genealogical information then the action – and reattributing material between narrator and characters as needed. Following the genealogical list added in Josh 17:2, the author of vv. 3 – 4 incorporated the genealogical string of Num 27:1a, created an independent clause from the subordinate one in the daughter’s petition in v. 3bβ, and added as another independent clause the list of daughters offered parenthetically in v. 1b. Josh 17:3

Num 27:1 – 3 K‫מכִיר‬ ָ ‫ֶבּן־‬

‫ ְו ִל ְצ ָל ְפחָד ֶבּן־ ֵחפֶר ֶבּן־גִּ ְלעָד‬K ‫ֹלא־הָיּו לֹו ָ ּבנִים ִכּי‬K K‫צה‬ ָ ‫שׁמֹות ְבּנ ֹתָ יו ַמ ְחלָה וְנֹעָה ָחגְלָה ִמ ְל ָכּה וְתִ ְר‬ ְ ‫ ְו ֵא ֶלּה‬K K‫בּנֹות‬ ָ ‫אִם־‬

ּׁ ֶ ַ‫ֶבּן־ ְמנ‬ K‫שה‬

‫וַתִ ּק ְַר ְבנָה ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד ֶבּן־ ֵחפֶר ֶבּן־גִּ ְלעָד ֶבּן־ ָמכִיר‬K ‫שׁמֹות ְבּנ ֹתָ יו ַמ ְחלָה נֹעָה ְו ָחגְלָה ּו ִמ ְל ָכּה‬ ְ ‫ ְו ֵא ֶלּה‬K ָ ‫ ּו‬. . . ‫ ָאבִינּו מֵת ַ ּב ִמּדְ ָבּר‬. . .K K‫בנִים ֹלא־הָיּו לֹו‬

ָ ‫וְתִ ְר‬ K‫צה‬

Putting all the genealogical information first and organizing it logically led to the need to add to the original clause about not having had sons (Num 27:3) the explicit comment that Zelophad only had daughters (Josh 17:3aβ). Then, drawing from the action elements in the original novella, including moving the opening verb K‫ותקרבנה‬K, the author constructed a summary follow-up scene in which the daughters approach the current leadership (Joshua replaces Moses, but comes after Eleazar),103 they recall the original 102

  LXX to Josh 17:2 follows the order of Num 26:30 – 32; see more on this below.   Similarly, in Num 27:19 Eleazar appears before Joshua, namely, it seems that the author knew the textual sequence both of the story of the daughters and Zelophad and the subsequent story of Joshua’s appointment in Numbers 27. 103

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

227

ruling and it is implemented – presumably by Joshua104 – the notice of which matches the terms of the original ruling precisely. Josh 17:4 K‫בּן־נּון‬ ִ

Num 27:1, 2, 4, 6 – 7a

‫ש ַע‬ ׁ ֻ ‫וַתִ ּק ְַר ְבנָה ִל ְפנֵי ֶא ְל ָעזָר הַכֹּהֵן ְו ִל ְפנֵי י ְהֹו‬K K‫שׂיאִים לֵאמֹר‬ ִ ְ‫ ְו ִל ְפנֵי ַה ּנ‬K

ׁ ֶ ֹ ‫יהוה ִצ ָוּה אֶת־מ‬K K‫שה‬ ‫לָתֶ ת־לָנּו נַ ֲחלָה ְבּתֹוְך‬K K‫הן‬ ֶ ‫ ַויִּתֵ ּן ָלהֶם אֶל־ ִפּי י ְהוָה נַ ֲחלָה ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי ֲאבִי‬K K‫ַאחֵינּו‬

ֵ ֹּ ‫הַכ‬ K‫הן‬ K. . .

‫שׁה ְו ִל ְפנֵי ֶא ְל ָעזָר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַתַ ּעֲמ ֹדְ נָה ִל ְפנֵי מ‬. . . ‫וַתִ ּק ְַר ְבנָה‬K ‫שׂיאִם ְוכָל־ ָהעֵדָ ה ֶפּתַ ח אֹהֶל־מֹועֵד לֵאמ ֹר‬ ִ ְ‫ ְו ִל ְפנֵי ַה ּנ‬K K‫אחֵי ָאבִינו‬ ֲ ‫תְ ּנָה־ ָלּנּו ֲא ֻחזָּה ְבּתֹוְך‬K ֵ ‫שׁה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַי ֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־מ‬K K. . . ‫לּאמ ֹר‬ ֶ ‫נָת ֹן תִ ּתֵ ּן ָלהֶם ֲא ֻחזַּת נַ ֲחלָה ְבּתֹוְך ֲאחֵי ֲאבִי‬K K‫הם‬

One significant deviation from the terms of the original novella occurs in the women’s indirect citation of Yahweh’s case ruling. The women had petitioned to receive Zelophad’s allotment “alongside our father’s brothers” K‫בתוך אחי אבינו‬K (Num 27:4) and so did Yahweh rule (v. 7), but the author of the interpolation in Joshua 17 has them recall that “Yahweh commanded Moses to give us our inheritance alongside our brothers” K‫בתוך אחינו‬K (v. 4). Like the reference to “male” sons in the end of v. 2, this deliberate misquotation anticipates further exegetical conclusions that the author will work out in the verses to come. In Josh 17:5 – 6, the author addressed the effect of incorporating the novella from Num 27:1 – 11 into the existing mixed scheme of apportionment, genealogy and territory. First of all, as descendants of Hepher, Zelophad and his daughters belong with all those sons who settled west of the Jordan not east of it with Machir in “the Gilead” – despite the genealogical string Machir – Gilead – Hepher cited in the beginning of Josh 17:3. Indeed, through Zelophad the five daughters stand in for Hepher, which, in the light of the original stipulation in Num 27:4, 7 that they receive their portion “in the midst of their father’s brothers,” here means that they receive their lots alongside the brothers of Hepher listed in Josh 17:2. For this reason the author took the trouble to note that they received five portions alongside those of Hepeher’s five brothers, for a grand total of ten portions west of the Jordan. Namely, rather than receive their estates alongside those of Zelophad’s brothers, as intended in the original novella, the five women receive alongside Zelophad’s uncles, exclusive of Machir, who as firstborn, received his portion all by himself across the river. Moreover, rather than receive a single territory as one, the author counts each woman’s allotment as a distinct one, so that the five daughters balance the five brothers and all together add up to ten. In addition to the possibility that the author knew five separate regions and cities named like the five women, this forced form of reckoning ten portions may also serve to imply 104  It is not specified who gave the land to them, but v. 4 states that it was done according to Yahweh’s declaration (K‫אל פי יהוה‬K), namely, the exact partition of land was decided by lot. It is possible that – again, in accordance with Num 27:21 – the concept is that Eleazar relays Yahweh’s decision concerning the partition and Joshua is the one who implements it in practice. Alternatively, it is also possible that there is an indefinite subject here, as LXX translates: καὶ ἐδόθη. On the indefinite subject and its forms, see GKC § 144d – i; Rabin, “Ancient Versions;” idem, Mashmaʻuyotehen, 39 – 42; Blau, Grammar, § 70.1; Waltke and O’Connor § 4.4.2; Joüon-Muraoka § 155b – i.

228

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

that Machir, who is noted to be the firstborn, receives a precise double portion – the two regions of the Gilead and the Bashan repeated explicitly in v. 5 – altogether making a round twelve. As part of the process of incorporating all this material into the existing text, the author appears to have employed two devices. First of all, as argued above, this author seems to have altered the original form of the resumptive repetition at the conclusion of the addition in v. 2 from “remaining” to “male,” specifically, from K‫בני מנשה בן יוסף‬ ‫הנותרים‬K to K‫בני מנשה בן יוסף הזכרים‬K. This change served to anticipate the balance between the group of male brothers in v. 2 and the group of sisters that would stand in for one of the brothers in v. 3 – a balance that will turn out to have quantifiable significance, for they receive five plots alongside the five of Hepher’s brother, for a total of ten. Namely, from the point of view of the apportionment of the land among Manasseh’s children, there were two groups, Manasseh’s five male sons and his five female descendants who received alongside them like daughters. This notion appears explicitly in v. 6: K‫כי בנות מנשה נחלו נחלה בתוך בניו‬K “Because the daughters of Manasseh received their share together with his sons,” which is likely by the same author. Secondly, like the resumptive repetition at work within v. 2, the phrase K‫בני מנשה‬ ‫הנותרים‬K (“the remaining sons of Manasseh”) closes the entire passage at the end of v. 6 and recalls the phrases that frame v. 2: K‫בני מנשה הנותרים‬K at the beginning and, as this same author adjusted it, K‫בני מנשה בן יוסף הזכרים‬K at its end. The deliberate and artificial nature of the repetition in v. 6 is all the more obvious because of its different referent here – those settling east of the Jordan rather than the west as in v. 2 (and vv. 3 – 5a, 6a) – and because of the mismatch between the plural nouns K‫בני‬K and K‫נותרים‬K and the single son referred to, Machir, in a text that until this point had maintained consistency in its literal usage of K‫בן‬K for “son.” Possibly, the difficult formulation of v. 6, in which the language bears more meanings at once than it should, as it works to introduce material into a somewhat incompatible context, also serves to negotiate an additional contradiction. As noted above, the novella in Num 27:1 – 11 drawn upon by the author of the section in Josh 17:3 – 6 has the genealogical string Zelophad – Hepher – Gilead – Machir – Manasseh, which the author cites directly, in Josh 17:3. The text in Josh 17:1 – 2 has a different scheme, according to which Hepher and his brothers are all the sons of Manasseh and brothers of Machir. Either Zelophad is Machir’s great-grandson or he is his nephew, one or the other. Relatedly, moving from genealogy to geography and presuming the author of the novella to know that the five daughters represent five areas west of the Jordan, the genealogical scheme of the oracular novella in Num 27:1 – 11 implies that Gileadites, who are all Machirites too, settle west of the Jordan, namely, that people settled west of the Jordan are considered Gileadites and Machirites. The scheme in Josh 17:1 – 2 as found by the author of vv. 3 – 6 has all Machirites east of the Jordan (some in a region called “the Gilead”) and other, non-Machirite Manassites west of the Jordan. Perhaps, in using the term K‫בנות מנשה‬K in a complex, non-literal way to indicate patrimony and not blood descent in a genealogy, in v. 6, the author intended to shed light on the comparable and complementary term K‫בני מנשה‬K in v. 2 as meaning something likewise

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

229

non-literal and not blood-genealogical – those who settle apart from where Machir himself settles even though they descend from him. The slippage between the recollection of the women, that they are to receive portions “together with our brothers,” and the narrator’s report that they received “together with their father’s brothers,” in v. 4, contributes to the overall atmosphere of legal rather than literal semantics in the terminology of family relations and descent. Significantly, this entire analysis and proposed resolution of Josh 17:1 – 6 did not have recourse to the material about Manasseh in the census text in Numbers 26. The only element shared by these two sources and unique to them is the genealogical string of six brothers – K‫ שמידע‬,‫ חפר‬,‫ שכם‬,‫ אׂשריאל‬,‫ חלק‬,‫א(ב)יעזר‬K – in Num 26:30 – 32 and Josh 17:2. In the one, they are the sons of Gilead; in the other, the brothers of Machir, all of whom together make the seven sons of Manasseh. It is too farfetched to imagine the author of Josh 17:2 taking the sons of Gilead, grandsons of Machir, and greatgrandsons of Manasseh, and by fiat making them brothers of Machir and sons of Manasseh, while omitting Gilead as a figure altogether. Under the circumstances, it seems more reasonable to suppose that the author of this element in Josh 17:2 knew it from another source no longer recoverable. The question must go in the other direction: how did it enter Numbers 26 under the rubric of Gilead – also from another source or in some exegetically complicated fashion from Josh 17:2? As described above, the Manasseh branch in Numbers 26 contains quite a few anomalies, stylistic and otherwise. In v. 29, it makes Gilead a person, the son of Machir – a tradition known otherwise only in Num 27:1 – 11 (and 36:1 – 12) and Josh 17:1 – 6 – and it gives the segment a unique, emphatic, predicating formulation, K‫ומכיר הוליד את גלעד‬K, which interrupts the flow of the text. In vv. 30 – 32, a genealogy of Gilead is formulated with conjunction K‫ו־‬K rather than prepositional K‫ל־‬K. The branch as a whole goes five generations deep, unlike any other branch in the census list. In the terms of the genre generally and the Priestly story specifically, which concerns the assignment of land, a short tree does not indicate anything about the rate of reproduction, only about the end of, or hiatus in, emerging nodes of affiliation and land assignment, whereas a long tree conveys information about marriage ages and birth rates, and tends to diverge from the focus on affiliation and land allotment. In addition, the elements of this text that make it unique in the context of the census list as a whole appear together elsewhere – in Josh 17:1 – 6: Gilead as son of Machir, the list of six brothers, and the tradition about Zelophad and his daughters. Moreover, from a logical point of view, the text in Numbers 26 integrates all these elements far more smoothly and comprehensibly than one finds in Josh 17:1 – 6. Indeed, the sense given to the whole in Numbers 26 matches what one would have to infer from Josh 17:1 – 6 to make all its disparate and contradictory elements cohere fully. One would not ignore the scheme of Manasseh – Machir – Gilead – Hepher in v. 3, but rather work to incorporate into it all the material of v. 2, which would involve a non-literal reading of the familial terms “son” and “daughter” as expressing legal and geographical relations, tropes of extended affiliation. The result would leave Machir as the only son of Manasseh, leave Gilead as the only son of Machir, and make the six brothers that

230

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

include Hepher into the six sons of Gilead. Seen in this light, the text of Num 26:29 – 33 looks exactly like the product of an exegetical engagement with Josh 17:1 – 6. One can find small, subtle, but nonetheless clear signs of this process in the text of Num 26:29 – 33. All the new, inferred elements and divergences stand at transitional points in the text, and they make up the genealogical scheme, facilitating the flow from segment to segment. One such indication exists in the link between Machir and the band of six brothers – Gilead. In the context of a genealogy formulated largely as a list, the predicating statement, “and Machir fathered Gilead” K‫ומכיר הוליד את גלעד‬K in v. 29, stands out as emphatic. Noth already identified it as an addition to the text.105 The statement creates clarity on a point left ambiguous or confused in Josh 17:1 – 3, whether Machir had a son named Gilead. The heading in Num 26:30 “These are the sons of Gilead” K‫אלה בני גלעד‬K marks a second anomaly, since the sources of the Torah have no tradition about Gilead and his sons, and Noth identified it too as an addition.106 This element establishes the next link in the genealogical chain, again, one that appears ambiguous or confused in Josh 17:2 – 3, whether Hepher and his brothers are sons of Manasseh, brothers of Machir, and the uncles of Gilead, or whether they are the sons of Gilead. A third indication appears in a seemingly slight adjustment in the next segment. In Josh 17:1 – 6, the text moves from the list of Hepher and his brothers in v. 2 to Hepher’s granddaughters, the daughters of Zelophad in v. 3, but in v. 2 Hepher appears in the penultimate position of the list rather than last. On its own, this presents no real difficulty, especially if that list has own its principle of organization, like birth or geography. The text in Num 26:32 switches the location of Hepher and Shemida relative to each other, so that Shemida appears in the penultimate position and Hepher last, which makes for a neater lead-in to the daughters of Zelophad in the next verse (v. 33). This element too has the look of revision, of working with sources and recasting them. As noted above, the use of the conjunction to link the brothers to each other in vv. 31 – 32, which departs from the genealogical style of the text, suggests an element taken over as is from another source, in this case, Josh 17:2, so that moving Hepher to final position in Num 26:32 conveys the knowledge and plan that Hepher’s granddaughters will come next in v. 33, precisely as they do in Josh 17:2 – 3, in a formulation that depends on the list of brothers preceding it in vv. 30 – 32, and in a position, moreover, that marks them as particularly significant, as a focal point. It turns out, then, that in the genealogical text of Numbers 26 the section on Manasseh has undergone extensive revision. The statement that Machir had Gilead, the headline of the sons of Gilead, the list of brothers in vv. 30 – 32, and Zelophad and his daughters in v. 33 – all these derive from Josh 17:2 – 3, either through direct reuse or through inference. Without these elements, all that remains in the Manasseh section of Numbers 26 are Machir and Gilead as the sons of Manasseh in v. 29, and here too one can ask whether Gilead’s presence in the list as a person with a family represents the work of the editor. Such a pairing of Machir and Gilead as brothers, presumably 105

  Noth, Numbers, 206 – 207.   Ibid.

106

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

231

with one representing Transjordanian Manasseh and the other representing Cisjordanian Manasseh, is simply unknown. Deborah’s song does appear to locate the tribe of Gilead in Transjordan and the tribe of Machir in Cisjordan, but it does not recognize or coordinate the two as a distinctly aligned pair. Throughout all the materials in Judges and Samuel, no indication exists of a special relationship between Gilead and MachirManasseh; if anything, Gilead appears connected to Benjamin (Judges 19 – 21; 1 Sam 11; 31:11 – 13; 2 Sam 2:4 – 7; 21:12; see also Obad v. 19). Chronicles links Gilead to Judah (2 Chr 2:21 – 23). Where such a connection between Gilead and Machir does occur, in Num 32:39 – 40 and passages like it, Gilead represents a Machirite portion, not a separate one alongside Machir. So too in the story of the daughters of Zelophad, in which Gilead appears as the son of Machir. Finally, a recent study of the stories of Israelite origins in the Transjordan in Numbers 32 has demonstrated that according to the continuous narrative of the Priestly history the tribes of Reuben and Gad settled in the cities of the Gilead – without Manassites.107 The conclusion seems warranted that the clause of Gilead and his family, K‫לגלעד משפחת הגלעדי‬K, belongs to the set of additions made to the paragraph. According to these calculations and considerations, the original paragraph of Manasseh consisted of one son, Machir and his family, like the paragraph of Dan, but expansion on the basis of Josh 17:2 – 3 made it the longest paragraph of the entire chapter. In geographical terms, the original text could have represented the idea that Machirites settled on both sides of the Jordan. Such a conception has not been explicitly preserved in other biblical texts. Separate texts do locate Machir variously – Judg 5:13 – 17 east of the Jordan and Num 32:39 – 40 west of it – but Num 32:39 has Machir conquering a territory called “the Gilead” from the Amorites, while Judg 5:13 – 17 knows no connection between Machir and Gilead at all. Therefore, it seems more cautious to infer that the original form of the genealogical paragraph in Numbers 26 reflects the conception that Machir settled entirely west of the Jordan, with no connection to (the) Gilead, in line with the Priestly narrative within Num 32:1 – 38 and the materials in Judges and Samuel.108 The winding analyses of the texts and traditions above lead to two significant conclusions. First of all, the set of biblical texts in which Gilead figures as a person, specifically, the son of Machir and the father of Hepher, make up a chain of textual dependence and at the head of this chain stands the oracular novella of the daughters of Zelophad. Num 26:29 – 33 drew upon Josh 17:1 – 3 and grappled with its confused genealogy, geography and terminology, and the confusion in Josh 17:1 – 6 resulted from expansion in vv. 3 – 6 on the basis of Num 27:1 ff. This conclusion fits well with the earlier historical analysis of the legal tradition embedded within the novella, which found that the novella both preserves a marginal tradition in biblical lore – one that itself had undergone development – and works it into the larger Priestly scheme. 107

  See Marquis, “The Composition of Numbers 32,” 408 – 429.   A particularly convenient starting point for disentangling the traditions about Manasseh, Machir, and Gilead and the various genealogies can be found in the clear article: Driver, “Manasseh.” 108

232

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

Because the two analyses do not depend upon each other, but arrived at their respective conclusions independently of each other, they also reinforce each other. Secondly, the analysis of the intertextual relationships between the story about the petition and ruling in Num 27:1 – 11, the story about its implementation in Josh 17:1 – 6, and the census list in Numbers 26 indicates that the novella and the census were not composed together, as part of the same authorial moment. Rather, the census came first, then the novella was composed as a follow-up to it.109 One should note that from the point of view of the location of the novella within the flow of the Priestly history and from the point of view of the narrative background presumed by the narrative of the novella, the novella has been composed and added with due care and deliberation. Attributing the law to Moses, namely, to the quality of his service as legal oracle, in Israel’s mythic period of divine instruction and legislation, prior to the settlement in the land of Canaan, precisely at the moment when the census determined the family units that would receive their allotments there, gives the law of the novella the maximum authority possible. In the terms of the history, Yahweh’s ruling did not change existing practice, only a working assumption, and it came when the definition of family and land first came up for discussion. In this sense, the novella resembles the novella of the make-up date for the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14, which was framed and added to the Priestly history at the earliest possible moment that would establish the practice of the Pesaḥ: the first Pesaḥ in the wilderness, one year after the original Pesaḥ during the Exodus, right after the tabernacle went up and all its rules and regulations became active and binding. For that matter, like all the other novellas, the one about inheritance by women gives narrative shape to a norm or law at the conclusion of a unit dedicated to the topic as a whole. As said, then, adding the story of the daughters of Zelophad after the census in Numbers 26 had a large-scale impact on the text of the census, leading the paragraph on Manasseh to grow from one of the two smallest paragraphs to the largest and on that account giving it a new measure of prominence. In the other direction, in effect the census now functions to lay the groundwork for the novella. First of all, the principle undergirding the census, that inheritance transfers through male sons alone, comes in for direct challenge, or qualification, in the novella. Indeed, the presence of the daughters in the census constitutes quite an anomaly, in particular listing all their names. It would have sufficed to have noted, for example, that Zelophad had no sons, only daughters.110 Their presence, their naming, hints that they have some significance about them, that will play a noteworthy role – a classic case of foreshadowing. Both texts, the census and the oracular novella, share in conceptualizing the distribution of Canaan among Israelite families on the model of the division of a father’s possessions among his heirs, or, as qualified above, receiving a royal bequest.111 For 109   So too concludes Holzinger, though on the basis of different arguments, some of which are persuasive; see Numeri, 137. 110   See 1 Chr 7:15; cf. also 1 Chr 2:30 – 32 with vv. 34 – 35 ff. 111  Concerning the word K‫גורל‬K in this regard, see Westbrook, Property and Family, 17 – 18.

3. The Original Novella and Related Texts: Num 26:29 – 34 and Josh 17:1 – 6

233

the sake of contrast, one may note the terms and concepts connected to the jubilee in Leviticus 25. In that text, Israel does not have ownership of its land. A head-of-household sells the exclusive right to work the land for its produce, and calculates its value based on a predetermined date of that right’s expiration (vv. 14 – 17), but the land itself is never bought or sold (v. 23aα). Rather, Yahweh owns the land (v. 23aβ) and by his grace Israel lives on it as his tenants, K‫גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי‬K (v. 23b); he accords them, by family, the exclusive right to work the land for its produce.112 Accordingly, the text consistently and exclusively employs the term K‫אחזה‬K, never K‫נחלה‬K.113 The novella in Num 27:1 – 11 also employs the term K‫אחזה‬K and, at least in its original form as argued above, without K‫נחלה‬K. The usage reflects the understanding that in general the model of the division of an inheritance only means to go so far, but also that in this case the argument requires greater precision since no one yet has received their portion, much less settled on it, worked it, lived by it, and generally manifested ownership of it.114 The location of the novella has significance for what follows it in the Priestly history as well, namely, vv. 12 – 23. In this passage, Yahweh notifies Moses that he should prepare for his death. Moses suggests that Yahweh first designate Israel’s next leader. Yahweh accedes and has Moses designate Joshua.115 Without the novella about the daughters of Zelophad, this passage about the appointment of Joshua follows nicely upon the determination of the families that will receive land in Canaan. Moses oversaw the establishment of the blueprint and Joshua will implement it and bring it to fruition. The novella does not really interrupt this thematic flow, because it does continue the very same theme of the census, the principles by which initially to apportion Canaan among the Israelites. From the other direction too, just as Moses instigates change or action, so do the daughters of Zelophad – he in the national political sphere and they in the domestic legal sphere. Moreover, both episodes have to do with the settlement of the land. And in both of these episodes, Yahweh shows himself amenable to human initiative and to adapting his original plans, which continues a regular theme of the Priestly history, beginning as far back as the story of Noah. To push the correspondence between the two episodes further, both of them address forms of continuity across generations, forms of heirship, that deviate some from the norm of Numbers 26, male sons. The novella establishes a provision for daughters, while Moses is followed by an unrelated male, Joshua. Within the Priestly history, of all people Moses has no sons listed, in stark contrast with Aaron, whose sons and descendants share with him exclusive management and maintenance of the tabernacle. A genealogical snippet in Num 3:1 – 4 begins by announcing the genealogy of Aaron 112

  Milgrom, Leviticus, 3.2150, 2171 – 2173, 2177 – 2178, 2183 – 2191.   On these terms, see Milgrom, Numbers, 231, 232. 114  The text in Joshua 17 has the inverse. It only employs K‫נחלה‬K, never K‫אחזה‬K. This usage conforms to that of the bloc of Priestly land-division texts as a whole in Joshua, and, if anything, demonstrates the personalization of language among different Priestly authors, even in seemingly technical terminology. 115   For literary-critical analysis of the passage, see Kislev, “The Investiture of Joshua,” esp. 429 – 440. 113

234

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

and Moses, but only presents the sons of Aaron, and even though two of Aaron sons’s die, they warrant being listed alongside the two sons who replace them.116 The case is that much more stark in the genealogy that provides the background for Moses and Aaron before the salvation of Israel from Egypt gets underway (Exod 6:10 – 30). Though Moses commands center stage throughout the process, the genealogy elaborates with respect to Aaron’s family, naming Aaron, his wife, her lineage, and their four sons together (v. 23), but says nothing about the family of Moses. When Yahweh tells Moses to prepare for his death, Moses raises the issue of having a successor, a shepherd to lead the flock, and Yahweh points him to Joshua (Num 27:12 – 23). From this point of view, the texts comprise a threefold series, the norm of male heirship in Numbers 26; the instance of female heirship in Num 27:1 – 11; and succession by an unrelated male in Num 27:12 – 23.117 A midrash gives expression to the direct relationship between the daughters of Zelophad and Moses’ appointment of a successor, in which the daughters’ successful petition triggers Moses’ contemplation of his own situation when faced with Yahweh’s announcement of his coming death:118 May Yahweh appoint (Num 27:16). What led him to request this thing after the series on landholdings? When the daughters of Zelophad got to inherit their father, Moses said to himself, “This is the time for me to press for my needs. If the daughters can inherit, then my sons should inherit my honor.”

In addition to the manifold ways in which the oracular novella suits its immediate context within the Priestly history, it also contributes something to the history overall, even if not by design. It amplifies the bitter irony – and the extent of Moses’ dedicated service – that Moses takes an active part in establishing the guidelines for Israel’s entry into Canaan and settlement there, while he, denied entrance, will die outside. Not only does he carry out all Yahweh’s instructions, but in the novella he must also bring a petition on someone else’s behalf and transmit the oracular response. He witnesses and plays an active role in someone else’s successful appeal to Yahweh on the very matter of continuity between the wilderness and Canaan. His dread comment to Aaron upon 116   This motif, in which two brothers fill the place of two deceased brothers, is also found in the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38. There, according to convention, Pereṣ and Zeraḥ take the place of Er and Onan. See also Gen 4:25, and on its literary history: Knohl, “Cain, the Forefather of Humanity.” 117   The data in the Priestly history (mainly in Exod 6:16 – 26; Num 3:1 – 4; 26:57 – 62) give the impression that Moses did not have any children and perhaps was not even married; see Propp, Exodus 1 – 18, 234 – 236. The background for this viewpoint, if any such background might exist, could be something along the lines of the rivalry that Cross attempts to reconstruct between two houses of priests, each of which identified itself with a different character – the one with Moses and the other with Aaron. On this hypothetical rivalry, see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 194 – 215. Alternatively, it is possible that this emphasis was not intended to deny the legitimacy of another Priestly house but rather to purge Moses’ name – the founder of the tabernacle in the Priestly history – from any connection to the temples and priesthoods rejected with the northern kingdom, an impulse apparently attested in Judg 17:30. Finally, silence about Moses’ family may serve to imply that Aaron’s line would take over Moses’ oracular role. 118   Num. Rab. § 21:15.

235

4. The List of Inheritors in Num 27:8b – 11a

the death of Aaron’s sons returns to haunt him: K‫בקרבי אקדש ועל פני כל העם אכבד‬K (Lev 10:3). Again, a midrash recognizes the poignancy of the moment, locates it in the language of the novella, and gives it sharp expression:119 Yahweh said to Moses: Ascend this mountain of passes (Mount Nebo) (Num 27:12).120 Why did He say this piece after the allotments? Moses Our Teacher heard “Give them” K‫נת ֹן תתן להם‬K and thought the Holy Blessed One had forgiven him. He said to himself, “I am giving Israel its allotments.” So the Holy Blessed One said, “My decree stands: Ascend this mountain of passes etc.”

In the light of the hypothesis that within the Priestly history Yahweh’s instruction to Moses to prepare for his death once continued directly with the narrative of his death currently embedded within Deuteronomy 34, the tragic element highlighted by the placement of the oracular novella in Num 27:1 – 11 comes to the fore even more strongly. According to the hypothesis, Deut 32:48 – 52 constitutes a resumptive repetition of Num 27:12 – 14 and indicates that whatever now sits in between them entered the text secondarily. If the novella about the daughters of Zelophad entered the text before all the material that has deferred Moses’ death, so to speak, then it holds an important place as Moses’ final or penultimate action.121 In this reconstruction, adding the novella at this location highlighted the tragedy of Moses’ situation on the very eve of his death. The circumstances that generated his final act of legislation, or final mediation of divine law, one that acceded to the request of the petitioners, parallel his own circumstances and yet he did not merit the same softening from Yahweh.

4. The List of Inheritors in Num 27:8b – 11a As noted above, the list of inheritors added to the legal segment of the oracular novella at vv. 8b – 11a is formulated in an inconsistent manner, logically and stylistically. It was argued that the clauses related to the daughter who inherits, vv. 8bβ – 9a, were added into a pre-existing passage, which, without them, has symmetry, consistency, and artistry, in its structure, formulation, and language: K‫אחָיו‬ ֶ ‫ְל‬

‫ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו‬ ‫ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו ַל ֲאחֵי‬ K‫פחְּתֹו ְוי ַָרׁש א ֹתָ ּה‬ ַּ ‫ש‬ ׁ ְ ‫שאֵרֹו ַה ָקּר ֹב ֵאלָיו ִמ ִ ּמ‬ ׁ ְ ‫ּונְתַ תֶ ּם אֶת־נַ ֲחלָתֹו ִל‬ K‫ָאבִיו‬

‫ּובֵן אֵין לֹו‬ ‫אֵין לֹו ַאחִים‬ ‫אֵין ַאחִים לְָאבִיו‬

‫אִיׁש ִכּי־י ָמּות‬K ‫ ְואִם־‬K ‫ ְואִם־‬K

First of all, what might the meaning and purpose of this list in vv. 8bα, 9b – 11a have been? Secondly, towards what end did someone add in the clauses about the daughter who inherits in the absence of sons, in vv. 8bβ – 9a? Finally, when added into the oracular novella, how did the list affect its shape and the meaning it conveys? 119

  Num. Rab. § 21:14.   The name Mount Nebo was added by the author of the midrash in accordance with Deut 32:49. 121   Based on the fact that the resumptive repetition in Deut 32:48 – 52 refers back to Num 27:12 – 14 alone, without reference to vv. 15 – 23, Noth concludes that the appointment of Joshua is a secondary addition (Numbers, 213). However, there is no need for this reasoning. 120

236

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

Absence of indications, data, and parallels makes every attempt to reconstruct the original meaning and context of this list extremely difficult. On the basis of what exists of the list and through comparison with its present setting, one can draw out a few features and attempt to infer a background, even if only a partial one. At the risk of stating the obvious: the paragraph deals with the inheritance of land. The noun K‫נחלה‬K appears three times in the three legal sentences of the paragraph – once in each of the three sentences – and the paragraph concludes with the verb K‫יר״ש‬K. As argued above, the paragraph speaks exclusively of male inheritors, it employs the verb K‫נת״ן‬K to denote the action of inheriting, and the logic of the sequence in the series of inheritors is transparent but also given explicit expression in its conclusion: K‫שארו הקר ֹב אליו ממשפחתו‬ “his closest kin from his clan,” which, by definition, can extend to the furthest relative so considered. Namely, the list establishes and coordinates all possibilities in the inheritance of the deceased. Comparison with the oracular novella about the daughters of Zelophad brings out that this list omits any reference to the topic of the preservation of the name of the deceased and shows no interest in it. One should not infer on the basis of this contrast that the author of the piece takes issue with the concept as a value altogether. But it does indicate that in the eyes of the author of the list name-preservation does not have an impact on, is not a factor of legal standing in, the sequence of kin – male kin – who may inherit a man’s land. This stance characterizes another legal institution found in biblical texts outside the Priestly history, levirate marriage. The law in Deut 25:5 – 10, recall, considers a case in which two brothers have deferred dividing their inheritance between them and live together; complication arises when one of the brothers, married but without children, dies; the remaining brother, rules the text, should marry the wife of the deceased, have a child, and so revive his dead brother’s name. Now, on the face of it, the law gives the impression that preservation of the name of dead does have an impact on inheritance. Three times, it states the motive, to prevent the obliteration of the name of the deceased (v. 6), to establish the name of the deceased (v. 7), and to build the house of the deceased (v. 9), and scholars have unanimously understood the principle in this law to affect land-inheritance practice: the son born to the widow and the brother of the deceased will inherit the entire plot of the deceased, whereas when levirate marriage does not take place, the brother of the deceased inherits all.122 However, it must be recognized and pointed out that, just as the concept of preserving the name of the dead does not figure at all in the list of kin in line to inherit land in Num 27:8bα, 9b – 11a, so the law of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5 – 10, which repeatedly mentions the aim and value of preserving the name of the deceased, omits entirely the terms K‫נחלה‬K and K‫יר״ש‬K. Were the preservation of the name of the deceased to depend on the name’s connection to the plot the deceased would have inherited from his father had he lived, the law should have said so explicitly. From the more mundane and 122   See the commentaries, e. g., Braulik, Deuteronomium, 187 ff.; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 231 – 232; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 297 – 299; compare Pedersen, Israel, 1.78 – 81, but see also the following note.

4. The List of Inheritors in Num 27:8b – 11a

237

pragmatic side, the quality and status of land as an essential asset to one’s ability to live would require that a law with implications regarding its ownership – dependent in fact on its ownership – work them out explicitly.123 Indeed, were the inheritance of the land of the deceased subordinate to levirate marriage, it is inconceivable and self-undermining for the law to put the decision of levirate marriage in the hands of the living brother. In the standard understanding, the law speaks loudly to have the name of the deceased preserved, but actually gives the living brother incentive not to perform it and awards him the option not to do so. From a legal point of view, one can hardly call the public event that sullies his reputation a sufficient counter-weight or an effective disincentive. As conventionally understood, this law rather than solve a troubling situation actually exacerbates the set of conditions and puts the living brother’s mettle to the test.124 123  Willis reviewed the relevant anthropological material and found that other societies are consistent in making the economic objectives and implications of levirate marriage explicit (The Elders of the City, 282). In light of this, the silence of the biblical law is even more striking. Pedersen correctly takes the position on principle that it is necessary to interpret according to the text itself and not according to what might be reconstructed, and he illustrates well that it is possible to portray the depths of the concept of “name” without making recourse to the component of land (Israel, 1.78 – 81, 245 – 259). However, in the end, even he could not withstand the impulse to complete the picture by discussing the implications for inheriting the land of the deceased (ibid., 91, 94 – 95). Similarly, Loewenstamm emphasizes that the explicitly declared purpose of the law – indeed, the crux necessary for its understanding – is the continuation of the name of the deceased and the building of his house (EM 3.445), yet nevertheless hedges (ibid., 790): “the law of levirate marriage doubtlessly influenced the laws of inheritance, but it is not evident how it impacted the inheritance sequence, and it is doubtful that the law of the mishna (Yeb. 4:3), which establishes that the levir when he performs levirate marriage inherits brother’s share, is that early.” The same can be said for Satlow, who described the concept of the “house of the father” as an independent, foundational principle in Jewish literature from the Persian and Hellenistic periods and in Rabbinic thought (Jewish Marriage, 3 – 41, esp. 12 – 25), but was unable to interpret the law of levirate marriage without asserting its goal as the preservation of inherited land (ibid., 186 – 188). Willis sought to find reference to inheritance in the term “house” (‫ת‬K ‫בי‬K) in v. 9 (The Elders of the City, 290 – 291), but the expression “to build the house of PN” (‫ת‬K ‫בנ״ה בי‬K) does not correspond to inheritance in the least. For those who have acknowledged it, this problem of the absence of a reference to land inheritance has produced quite a few forced and incomplete interpretations. Tigay, for example, suggests that the inadequate formulation seeks to include the semi-nomadic elements of the Israelite population (Deuteronomy, 483). However, this sort of concern is entirely lacking in the rest of the Deuteronomic corpus. Furthermore, the proposal suffers from a logical breakdown and an internal contradiction. If the very goal of the law of levirate marriage is, as Tigay and other scholars maintain, to provide for the land of the deceased man, why would the law be formulated for those who do not maintain permanent landholdings? Tigay even acknowledges this problem and as a result restricts his proposal to a possibility. See the similar problem in Nelson, Deuteronomy, 297 – 298. In short, the assumption that the true point of the case is actually one that the law does not mention has prevented scholars from engaging with what actually is present in the law. See further below. The fact that the institution of levirate marriage has many forms and very different declared objectives across the range of cultures that practice it – as impressively illustrated by the expansive and diverse material presented by Tigay (Deuteronomy, 483) and even more so by Willis (The Elders of the City, 235 – 250) – only further strengthens the validity of the exegetical principle that one should hew closely to what the text actually says about the matter. 124   A related argument, that the purpose of the law was to keep the property within the family, caused Willis to go astray in his interpretation of the case (The Elders of the City, 287 – 289). Indeed, were this the purpose, the law of levirate marriage would be entirely superfluous since the surviving brother – and certainly not the widow – would inherit the deceased brother’s land; consequently, the land would have remained in the family in the first place.

238

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

A midrash in the name of R. Judah that works explicitly to harmonize the differences between the (complete) text of Num 27:1 – 11 and the text of Deut 25:5 – 10 demonstrates just how glaring the omissions in each one of them are:125 Why should our father’s name be cut off from his family? (Num 27:4). R. Judah says: “It says here (Num 27:4) ‘name’ and it says there (Deut 25:6, 7) ‘name.’ Just as ‘name’ (here) connotes land, so ‘name’ (there) connotes land, and just as ‘name’ there connotes offspring, so ‘name’ here connotes offspring.”

The degree of harmonization in this midrash, which finds lexical channels by which to conduct meaningful legal connotations from one text to the other, registers the level of expectation to find in each text the element missing from it. But all the considerations recommend an alternate understanding of the law of levirate marriage altogether. In this alternate understanding, the law focuses on the widow of the deceased deliberately and meaningfully. It seeks to restrict or prioritize her marriage options for the sake of preserving the name of her former husband, but the law stops there. It does not entertain any other sphere of impact – including, pointedly, land inheritance. If the living brother marries the widow and has with her a son, the living brother will still inherit the entire plot he and his brother had received from their father and had continued to live on together, and the son from the levirate marriage will inherit together with all the living brother’s other children as one of them, not in place of the deceased brother – namely a fraction other than and smaller than half. According to the terms of the law, the son of levirate marriage bears a dual affiliation or dual identity. For the purposes of land inheritance and other economic matters, he belongs to his biological father, but genealogically, fictively, for the purposes of memory, it simultaneously falls to him to carry on the name of his father’s brother. What precisely this responsibility entails, the set of ways in which he might fulfill it, remains unclear. It could restrict itself to bearing the name of the deceased. It could include various memorial activities (note 2 Sam 18:18). Either way, the law evidently considers the situation that calls for levirate marriage one of “a-household-in-themaking nipped in the bud,” when the founding male himself still belongs to another household, namely, as defined by a prior generation. The lack of differentiation between brothers, which really means a lack of differentiation from their father’s household level, allows one brother to step in and replace the other.126 Notably, the concern for 125

  Sifre Num. § 133 (p. 177 ll. 9 – 11); see also Sifre Deut. § 289 (p. 308 ll. 14 – 15).   Several scholars have made overtures in this direction, but none have managed to separate their discussion from the context of land inheritance. See, for example, Willis’ discussion (ibid., 261 n. 62): 126

In the other levirate passages [aside from Gen. 38], concern is expressed over the “name” of the deceased. The present line of thinking implies that an Israelite man did not have his own “name” until he was married. I have not worked out the implications of such an hypothesis, though. I would guess that the acquisition of a “name” is somehow tied to the apportionment of an inheritance by a father as part of his son’s marriage; but we would need specific examples to confirm this. Nelson takes a similar approach, though beginning from another vantage point (Deuteronomy, 298 – 299; and before him, Davies, “Inheritance Rights,” 264 ff.):

4. The List of Inheritors in Num 27:8b – 11a

239

realizing and bringing to completion a partially established household shares the same spirit as the group of laws in Deut 20:5 – 7, according to which men mustered for war may return home if they have laid groundwork for a foundational component of homelife, of civilian productivity, but not yet realized or inaugurated its activation – a house, a vineyard, or a wife. The conception that stands behind the law of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5 – 10 and the list of inheritors in Num 27:8bα, 9b – 11a – the disconnection of the restricted ideal of preserving the name of the dead from the norms of land inheritance – characterizes the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38 as well. In that episode, all about levirate marriage, the father of the household has not died and inheritance is not at issue. Rather than read into the different levels of speakers in the text – the characters and the narrator – motives they do not mention, one should take their statements as sufficiently – that is, fully – representative of the legal conception of the author. Onan refuses to take Tamar because he knows that “the progeny will not be his” (vv. 8 – 9). This sentiment makes sense on its own terms and, on narrative grounds, suffices, conveying Onan’s begrudging and petty attitude towards his dead brother.127 The story of Ruth, based first and foremost on the institution of levirate marriage,128 goes further in putting together the concepts of K‫שם‬K and K‫נחלה‬K (esp. 4:5, 10), and yet it too keeps inheritance a separate matter. It considers itself a tale of K‫גאולה‬K and K‫תמורה‬K (4:7), commerce; accordingly, to mark the categories of action or transaction and the parties that move the land from hand to hand it does not employ K‫יר״ש‬K but K‫קנ״י‬K (4:4, 5, 8, 9, 10), ‫מכ״ר‬K (4:3), and K‫גא״ל‬K (2:20; 3:9, 12, 13; 4:1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14). In a sense, then, the two sets of laws or legal institutions – levirate marriage, as preserved richly in Deut 25:5 – 10, Genesis 38, and Ruth, and land-inheritance, as preserved fragmentarily in Num 27:8bα, 9b – 11a – stem from the same problematic circumstance of a man who dies before having produced a son (who endures), K‫ובן אין‬ ‫לו‬K, and they represent two different sides of the same single coin. One addresses the man’s land, the other the preservation of his name. Both sets of texts share in the viewpoint that preserving the name of the deceased does not entail any changes in or qualifications of the norms of land-inheritance. The original novella argued to be present in Num 27:1 – 7a, 11b does not provide for or consider the unique situation that generates levirate marriage. But it does concern itself with the preservation of a man’s name, and it does work to establish a precedent in The main case (vv. 5 – 6) limits the application of levirate marriage to situations in which the brothers live “together,” that is, as joint tenants on the – as yet – undivided property. The implications of this situation are not completely clear. Could the living brother continue to control or even inherit the whole of the undivided property? It would seem that the deceased has no absolute right of inheritance to part of it and that his widow is completely vulnerable. The surviving brother is free from any absolute duty to divide the property at some future point, for his deceased brother has no son. By refusing to engender such a son, he can remain in control of the whole inheritance. This law seeks to harness public opinion to restrain such an abuse, insisting that it would have negative implications “in Israel” (v. 10; cf. 22:19, 21). 127

  Westbrook, Property and Family, 138.   See Green, “Ruth,” esp. 56 – 59; Zakovitch, Ruth, 21 – 23.

128

240

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

the laws of land-inheritance. Significantly, it subordinates the laws of land-inheritance to the value of preserving a man’s name. One is hard-pressed to ascertain at what stage the clauses regarding transferral to the daughter – vv. 8bβ – 9a – entered the inheritance list of vv. 8b – 11a. Seemingly the simplest argument would identify the sub-paragraph as “glue” meant to incorporate the list into the oracular novella. The fact that the story speaks of five daughters and the list mentions only one should not be taken as evidence to the contrary, because the difference could be understood as stylistically determined: since the list begins with the word “son” in the singular, the “daughter” too is formulated in the singular. At the same time, the possibility equally exists that the provision already belonged to the list of inheritors when the list was added to the novella. For instance, the same kind of traditions preserved in Chronicles, about women as second-order inheritors, placeholders, and the like, could have exerted a similar influence on the inheritance list, in whatever form it had then existed – apart from any knowledge specifically of the oracular novella of the daughters of Zelophad. By the same token, the particular motivation behind the addition of the provision in vv. 8bβ – 9a remains ambiguous and elusive. It could reflect the concern to preserve the name of the sonless father, by one who thought women could effect this preservation. Alternatively, it could aim to protect brother-less women. Or it could give expression to a father’s preference that his immediate offspring, daughters included, inherit him ahead of his brothers and other kin. Whatever the origins of the provision about a daughter in vv. 8bβ – 9a, its very presence in the inheritance list would have legal implications. The editor appears to have given one indication of his specific viewpoint of those implications. The verb used in the provision to denote the transaction that puts the land into the control of the daughter, K‫עב״ר‬K (H stem), differs from that used throughout the inheritance list, K‫נת״ן‬K. The complete, precise formula used – K‫עב״ר‬K (H stem) + direct object + indirect object – has no parallel or correlation in all the civil laws of the Hebrew Bible. It does occur quite a few times in texts describing rituals, and in those instances it denotes transferral from one domain to another, the giving of ownership, and even change in status. More specifically, the ritual transferral involves hierarchy, assigning ownership to a deity, either Yahweh (in righteousness) or one of his loathed competitors (in wickedness):129 Exod 13:12 Jer 32:35 Ezek 16:21 Ezek 23:37

K‫לַיהוה‬

. . . ‫שׁר י ִ ְהי ֶה לְָך‬ ֶ ‫שגֶר ְ ּב ֵהמָה ֲא‬ ׁ ֶ ‫ֶר־רחֶם לַיהוה ְוכָל־ ֶ ּפטֶר‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ַה ֲעב ְַרתָ ּ כָל־ ֶ ּפט‬K K‫לְך‬ ֶ ֹּ ‫ ְל ַה ֲעבִיר אֶת־ ְ ּבנֵיהֶם ְואֶת־ ְבּנֹותֵ יהֶם לַמ‬K K‫הם‬ ֶ ‫ש ֲחטִי אֶת־ ָ ּבנָי וַתִ ּתְ ּנִים ְבּ ַה ֲעבִיר אֹותָ ם ָל‬ ׁ ְ ּ ִ‫וַת‬K K‫לה‬ ָ ‫שׁר יָלְדּו־לִי ֶה ֱעבִירּו ָלהֶם לְָא ְכ‬ ֶ ‫ ִכּי נִאֵפּו וְדָ ם ִבּידֵ יהֶן ְואֶת־גִּּלּולֵיהֶן נִאֵפּו ְוגַם אֶת־ ְ ּבנֵיהֶן ֲא‬K

129  Milgrom, Numbers, 232. See already BDB s. v. K‫עבר‬K (H stem), 718b § 1c “make over.” Deuteronomistic literature has a parallel expression: K‫עב"ר‬K (H stem) + K‫ באש‬+ ‫ בת‬/ ‫בן‬K. See Deut 18:10 – 11; 2 Kgs 16:1 – 4; 17:7 – 17; 21:1 – 7. In two other verses, the expressions K‫עב"ר‬K (H stem) + K‫ל־‬K and K‫עב"ר‬K (H stem) + (K‫ב(אש‬K are used together: Ezek 20:31 and 2 Kgs 23:10. On the texts related to Molek and the cult of the ancestors, see: Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech,” esp. 140 – 154; Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 77 – 78, Paran, Priestly Style, 290 – 292 Heider, The Cult of Molek; Day, Molech; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2.1551 – 1565, 1586 – 1591; Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 185 – 203.

4. The List of Inheritors in Num 27:8b – 11a

241

The same sense seems to be conveyed in a few passages formulated slightly differently: Lev 18:21130 Ezek 20:26

K‫חם‬ ַ ‫ָר‬

K‫לְך‬ ֶ ‫ַמ‬ ֹּ ‫ּו ִמזַ ְּרעֲָך ֹלא־תִ תֵ ּן ְל ַה ֲעבִיר ל‬K ‫ ָו ֲא ַט ֵמּא אֹותָ ם ְ ּבמַתְ ּנֹותָ ם ְ ּב ַה ֲעבִיר ָכּל־ ֶ ּפטֶר‬K

Perhaps the most similar instance to Num 27:8 – though like Ezek 20:26 it does not have an indirect object, namely, the receiver of the gift goes unmentioned – occurs in Ezek 48:14, which uses K‫עב״ר‬K (H stem) together with K‫מכ״ר‬K and K‫מו״ר‬K (H stem): K‫ולא ימכרו‬ ‫ממנו ולא ימר ולא יעביר ראשית הארץ כי קדש ליהוה‬K. In the light of all these passages, which show consistent usage, the provision for the daughter in Num 27:8bβ – 9a appears intended to articulate that the daughter who receives her deceased father’s land out of order and by a different mechanism than K‫נת״ן‬K does so by the mechanism of deliberate (re)assignment with the implication that she does not control its affiliation and use permanently. When she marries, she transfers it to her husband and his male kin group.131 The author of the counter-petition in Num 36:1 – 12 – who encountered the inheritance list, with the provision for the daughter, in the context of the framing novella – understood the entire text in this manner and composed his piece with it in mind, in order to undercut it.132 For the petitioners claim that the ruling creates a mechanism – land transferral from the daughter through her husband to his tribe – that will erode the territorial integrity of her tribe (Num 36:1 – 4).

130  See the use of the root K‫נת"ן‬K in parallel contexts, e. g., Lev 20:2 – 4: K‫ אשר יתן מזרעו‬. . . ‫איש איש‬ ‫ בתתו מזרעו למלך‬. . . ‫ כי מזרעו נתן למלך‬. . . ‫למלך‬K. 131  Westbrook arrives at this conclusion from another direction – on the basis of parallel laws and legal documents from the ancient Near East; see Property and Family, 164. A number of traditions in the ancient Near East existed precisely to prevent this sort of situation. Sumerian laws and a will from Emar restrict the right of a daughter to inherit to unmarried women (Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters, 162 – 164, 216). Practices attested at Nuzi and Emar include: the daughter’s father adopting her husband as a son (ibid., 176 – 180, 211 – 212, and many other examples), adopting the daughter herself as an inheriting son (ibid., 195 – 196, 218 – 224, 226 – 228, 240), and transferring property to the control of a female temple functionary (ibid., 165, 216 – 218, and other examples), which at the very least delayed the problem for a later time and another generation. Milgrom interprets the expression K‫עב"ר‬K (H stem) as meaning that the inheritance passes not to the daughter but through the daughter to her son, the grandson of the deceased (Numbers, 232, 233); see also, from a feminist critical perspective, Davies, The Dissenting Reader, 91. However, it is difficult to find a basis for this interpretation in the actual language of the text. Milgrom raises the additional possibility that the change in idiom – ‫עב״ר‬K in place of K‫נת״ן‬K – is merely a sign that the daughter is an exception to the normal line of inheritance (Numbers, 232); this is also the position taken by Licht (Numbers, 3.70), and it seems that this was already the interpretation of Baentsch (Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 636) and Ehrlich (Randglossen, 2.215). 132   Compare the relevant discussion in Westbrook, Property and Family, 157 – 164, and see further below.

242

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

5. The Complete Novella Inserting the list of inheritors, now in Num 27:8b – 11a, into the framing novella around it, in vv. 1 – 7a, 11b, led to the addition of transitional and harmonizing material. Putting the two texts together within a single literary framework and integrating them by the addition of formal markers signaling uniformity and coherence have the effect that, for the audience of this new, fuller version of the text, the two components qualify each other in a variety of ways. The novella framing the list of inheritors anchors the list in the mythic period of Israel’s establishment, when it first received its laws from Yahweh, through his trusted and reliable intermediary, Moses. The introduction provided to the list by the editor – K‫ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר‬K (v. 8a) – makes the list a continuation of Yahweh’s speech, and, because of the definitive character of the list, a part of the speech that goes beyond the verdict Yahweh just handed down, namely, as a statute. In terms of its legal content, by its incorporation into the novella, which explicitly concerns the preservation of the name of the deceased, the statute now bears this extra dimension of meaning, as the specific way in which to fulfill the verdict Yahweh had given in support of the daughters’ claim and its argument. Namely, within the literary context of the novella, the list of inheritors now reads as a text that presupposes the subordination of inheritance norms to the principle of preserving the name of the deceased. In the other direction, the incorporation of the list of inheritors has an impact on the literary shape of the novella and on its legal significance. Formally and literarily, the presence of the list turns the novella from establishing precedent into the context for statutory law. In this fuller text, Yahweh does not conclude by stating generally that the case should serve as precedent, ‫ט‬K ‫והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת משפ‬K (v. 11bα), but lays out precisely what he has in mind. For those who would work to coordinate real-life practice with the demands of the text – whether the Priestly history or the combined Torah – the move potentially places greater pressure on them, especially when faced with a particularly wide gap between the practice and the text, or between the text and newly arisen needs to adjust practice. Moreover, whereas the agenda of the original novella promoted the daughters fully receiving the land – ‫ו‬K ‫תנה לנ‬K (v. 4); ‫ם‬K ‫נת ֹן תתן לה‬K (v. 7a) – the list incorporated restricts full receipt, ‫ן‬K ‫נת״‬K, to male kin (vv. 9b – 11a), with the result that the women hold the land on something less than a full and permanent basis, ‫ר‬K ‫( עב״‬vv. 8bβ – 9a). It remains difficult to decide whether the editor who inserted the list of inheritors into the novella perceived a difference between them, inferred that the language of the novella was somewhat misleading, and resolved the tension by introducing an entirely new clause about the daughter (vv. 8bβ – 9a) with the term K‫עב״ר‬K (H stem), or whether the clause already existed in the list as the editor found it, so that the problem and its resolution, in a sense, came to the editor ready-made. In either scenario, the difference of the list from the novella, its greater specificity, and its statutory formulation together led the editor to the choice to qualify the novella, namely, to reorient it towards the conception and language in the list. The editor did so by revising Yahweh’s case ruling on the basis of the language of the list. After the initial form of the ruling, which affirmed full receipt of the land (v. 7a), the editor had Yahweh repeat his decision but

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts

243

now with the term K‫עב״ר‬K (H stem), K‫ להן‬. . . ‫והעברת‬K (v. 7b), which in effect portrays Yahweh as correcting himself. Initially, he spoke as the daughters had of K‫נת״ן אחזה‬K, but then he spoke again as if with greater precision of K‫עב״ר‬K (H stem) and K‫נחלה‬K. This addition within the case ruling prepared the groundwork for the change to come in the statutory section. Within the original ruling, the editor also took the absolute noun K‫אחזה‬K and expanded it to the bound phrase K‫אחזת נחלה‬K (v. 7a), again, anticipating the shift in terminology and, moreover, effectively recasting the absolute state of the daughters’ control over the land to a subordinate one, of the kind as laid out in the clause regarding the daughter in the statutory section to come (vv. 8bβ – 9a). With respect to these changes as well, one cannot be certain regarding the ideas and intent of the editor. He may have recognized a debate in conception of inheritance by women, perhaps an implicit debate, and aimed to recast one articulation (the novella) in the light of the other (the list), probably thinking the one (the novella) an imprecise rendition. Or he may have noted the difference in terminology alone and worked to create an equivalence among all the terms for the sake of stylistic uniformity and consistency. Literarily, the editor has created within Yahweh’s ruling an elegant transition from the terms of the original petition to the terms of the statutory law that will serve ever after. In legal terms, however, the result of the double revision of Yahweh’s ruling subordinates the conception, terms, and aim of the original novella to those of the list inserted into it, which creates a rather puzzling situation. First, the passage introduces a set of terms and conceptions and works out a story around them to lead to a conclusion, but then within what seemed like the conclusion, works to undercut them, supersede them with a new set of terms and conceptions, and advance a new conclusion. In legal substance, the final product significantly restricts the extent to which women control the land they receive when their father dies without sons to inherit him.

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts a) Num 36:1 – 12 The passage about the Gileadites in Num 36:1 – 12 presents itself as the sequel to the oracular novella about the daughters of Zelophad, as a counter-suit. The Gileadite petitioners argue that the specific ruling, according to which, on the one hand, daughters inherit or receive the land of their fathers and, on the other, upon their marriage, they transfer the land to the husbands, creates a new problem. Should the daughters marry out of their tribe, the tribe will lose the integrity of its territorial borders (v. 3).133 133  For the opinion that the discussion of tribes (K‫מטה‬K) is artificial and that, in reality, it is actually families that are being discussed, see Westbrook, Property and Family, 20 – 23, esp. 22; and before him Holzinger, Numeri, 173; Licht, Numbers, 3.200 – 201. For the argument that the text originally pertained only to families and was later edited to refer to tribes, see Milgrom, Numbers, 298 (on v. 11), 512. On tribal structures in general, compared to other concepts of social organization, see Pedersen Israel, 1.29 – 39, 46 – 60; concerning Numbers 36 in particular, see ibid., 95.

244

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

The text of this counter-suit depends upon the novella in terms of the legal topos, the legal stipulations, and the legal logic at work, continuing the discourse begun in the novella. To do so it draws on the text of the novella, reusing its formulations and turning them to its own advantage. Furthermore, indications lead to the conclusion that it draws upon the amplified, complex form of the novella as well as upon the census in Numbers 26.134 As background for their claim, the Gileadite petitioners describe events from the census in Numbers 26 and the petition by the daughters of Zelophad in Num 27:1 – 11, and the formulation of their claim echoes both those two texts in one compound sentence (36:2):135 K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ‫י‬

‫ּגֹורל ִל ְבנֵי‬ ָ ‫ָָארץ ְ ּבנַ ֲחלָה ְב‬ ֶ ‫אֶת־אֲדֹנִי ִצ ָוּה י ְהוָה לָתֵ ת אֶת־ה‬K K‫לבְנ ֹתָ יו‬ ִ ‫וַאדֹנִי ֻצ ָוּה בַיהוָה לָתֵ ת אֶת־נַ ֲחלַת ְצ ָל ְפחָד ָאחִינּו‬K

The sentence organizes itself as two balanced parts, by repeating a series of terms that begins with respectful reference to Moses as K‫אדנִי‬K, the recollection of a commandment, and noting the source of the commandment, Yahweh, then moves to the topic of giving, K‫נת״ן‬K, a plot of land, K‫נחלה‬K – with slight variation between them. The first part echoes the purpose given by Yahweh for the census he had Moses and Eleazar conduct in Num 26:52 – 56 – the parceling of land by lots; the second part echoes Yahweh’s ruling on the case of Zelophad’s lot in 27:6 – 7. The statement as a whole diverges slightly in reducing the different verbs used in the previous texts – K‫חל״ק‬K in 26:52 – 56 and K‫נת״ן‬ and K‫עב״ר‬K (H stem) in 27:7 – to K‫נת״ן‬K, which binds the topics together more tightly. Aesthetically speaking, repeating that Moses acts by Yahweh’s command gives the two clauses balance, coordinates the two parts with respect to each other, and signals their complementary nature. But it may also function substantively to position these petitioners far apart from all those others of the previous generation who complained about Moses, questioned his decisions and practices, and challenged his legitimacy and authority (Numbers 13 – 14; 16 – 17; 20). Having the petitioners distance themselves from prior troublemakers recalls, and likely took its inspiration from, the part of the argument by Zelophad’s daughters, in which they establish that Zelophad did not die for having taken part in the rabble-rousers’ cause (27:3).136 134   Ehrlich’s classification of the language in the episode of the Gileadites suggests a relatively later dating for it (Randglossen, 2.242 – 243). For other arguments concerning its relative lateness see Milgrom, Numbers, 297 (on v. 3), 511 – 512. That said, the requirement that inheriting daughters must marry within the family can be found in other ancient Near Eastern traditions; see Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters, 158 – 160, 211 – 212, 216 – 217, and elsewhere. 135  It is possible that the variation between the active formulation K‫את אדני צִוה יהוה‬K in the opening part of the verse and the passive formulation K‫ואדני צֻוה ביהוה‬K in the subsequent part of the verse together with the contrast between K‫לבני ישראל‬K in the opening part and K‫לבנתיו‬K in the subsequent part is intended to create a structure of general rule and specific case or perhaps a rule and its exception: Yahweh established that the land must be divided up among the sons, but in the case of Zelophad, the daughters will also receive a portion. 136  Sterring suggests that the daughters refer not only to their father here but also to themselves, so that they will not be perceived as rebelling against Moses or Yahweh’s command (“The Will of the Daughters,” 90 – 91).

245

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts

The genealogical conception of the Manassite tribe and its families also reveals direct dependence on the Manassite paragraph in the census of Numbers 26 and on the genealogy of the five women in the novella of Num 27:1 – 11. The idea to make all the Manassite petitioners into Gileadites, K‫בני גלעד‬K, by definition, presupposes that Gilead has multiple descendants and also that they represent the tribe of Manasseh as a whole. These two presuppositions find clear expression nowhere except the paragraph on Manasseh in the census of Num 26:29 – 32 (as expanded on the basis of Josh 17:1 – 6), and there is every reason to see them as drawn upon it. The lineage that begins the text of the counter-suit in Num 36:1 (the Gileadites – Gilead – Machir – Manasseh – Joseph) matches that in the novella in 27:1 (Zelophad – Hepher – Gilead – Machir – Manasseh – Joseph) and, again, appears to draw directly upon it. The structure and diction of the episode as a whole correspond to that of the novella and further indicate a direct literary relationship between them. Just as the novella begins with the two actions “approaching” K‫קר״ב‬K and “claiming” K‫דב״ר‬K, interspersed first by the subjects then by the addressees or audience, before moving to the substance of the petition, so does the episode of the counter-suit: Stage

Num 27:1 – 2

Num 36:1 – 2

approach subjects

‫וַתִ ּק ְַר ְבנָה‬K ‫ ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד ֶבּן־ ֵחפֶר ֶבּן־גִּ ְלעָד ֶבּן־ ָמכִיר‬K ‫שׁה בֶן־יֹוסֵף‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ש ְפּח ֹת ְמנ‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה ְל ִמ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ ֶבּן־ ְמנ‬K ‫שׁמֹות ְבּנ ֹתָ יו ַמ ְחלָה נֹעָה ְו ָחגְלָה‬ ְ ‫– ְו ֵא ֶלּה‬K K– ‫כּה וְתִ ְרצָה‬ ָ ‫ּו ִמ ְל‬ ready to claim ‫וַתַ ּעֲמ ֹדְ נָה‬K audience ‫שׁה ְו ִל ְפנֵי ֶא ְל ָעזָר הַכֹּהֵן ְו ִל ְפנֵי‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ִל ְפנֵי מ‬K . . . ‫שׂיאִם ְוכָל־ ָהעֵדָ ה‬ ִ ְּ‫ַהנ‬ begin claim . . . ‫לֵאמ ֹר‬K

ָ ‫ֶבּן־‬ K‫מכִיר‬

137

K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ‫י‬

K‫ַו ּי ִק ְְרבּו‬ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ְ ּבנֵי־גִ ְלעָד‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁי הָָאבֹות ְל ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ָרא‬ ֵ ‫ש ְפּח ֹת ְ ּבנֵי יֹו‬ ׁ ְ ‫שׁה ִמ ִ ּמ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ֶבּן־ ְמנ‬ K‫סף‬

ְ ַ‫ַוי ְד‬ K‫בּרּו‬ ‫שׁי ָאבֹות ִל ְבנֵי‬ ֵ ‫שאִים ָרא‬ ׂ ִ ְ‫שׁה ְו ִל ְפנֵי ַה ּנ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ִל ְפנֵי מ‬ K. . .

‫וַי ֹּאמְרּו‬

At the heart of their claim, the daughters of Zelophad posed the rhetorical question (27:4), “Why should the name of our father be cut off ‫ע‬K ‫י ִגר‬K from his family ‫ו‬K ‫מתוך משפחת‬K?” Behind this formulation stands the conception of the immense, perhaps chief, value of preserving the legacy of the father of the household. Zelophad faces the ultimate threat to his legacy – his name going to oblivion, its obliteration. This legacy, the name, draws its strength, its fame and endurance, by being embedded among other names, those of kin, and the integrity of the matrix of names is held together by parcels of land. For 137  Against SP and MT, LXX has a plus here: καὶ ἔναντι Ελεαζαρ τοῦ ἱερέως (= K‫ולפני אלעזר הכהן‬K), and 4QNumb preserves the reading: K‫לפני אל[עזר הכוהן ולפני ה]נשיאים‬K; and similarly in the continuation: K ‫אלעזר ה[כוהן‬K (col. 31 l. 30; col. 32 l. 15; DJD 12.260, 262). Note that the phrase also appears in Num 27:2. It is possible that the mention of Eleazar fell out of Num 36:1 due to haplography. Milgrom suggests that the LXX translator added the phrase in accordance with Num 27:2 (Numbers, 296). One should also consider the possibility that the reference in Num 27:2 is itself an addition that reflects the same motif of “standing before Eleazar” that has been added to vv. 12 – 23 – on which see Kislev, “The Investiture of Joshua.” Continuing this trend of adding characters, 4QNumb has indications that it contained Joshua and perhaps Caleb at Numbers 36 (col. 32 ll. 15 – 16; see DJD 12.262), additions made apparently on the basis of 26:63 – 65.

246

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

the sake of their father’s name, the daughters claim the land, K‫תנה לנו אחזה‬K, in the midst of his kin, K‫בתוך אחֵי אבינו‬K (27:4). The author of the Gileadite counter-suit, recognizing the power of this claim, reused the key term K‫גר״ע‬K, reapplied it from the name of the person to the land, K‫נחלה‬K, redefined the context, the defining matrix, from one of kinship as constituted by blood and manifested in land to one of tribal integrity as constituted by land, and repeated the newly formed clause three times (36:3 – 4): K‫אֲ ב ֹתֵ ינּו‬

‫– ְונִג ְְרעָה נַ ֲחלָתָ ן ִמנַּ ֲחלַת‬ ‫שׁים‬ ִ ָ‫ש ָׂראֵל ְלנ‬ ְ ִ ‫ש ְבטֵי ְבנֵי־י‬ ׁ ִ ‫ ְוהָיּו ְל ֶאחָד ִמ ְ ּבנֵי‬K K‫ע‬ ַ ‫– ּומִג ַֹּרל נַ ֲחלָתֵ נּו יִ ָג ֵּר‬ ‫שׁר תִ ּ ְהי ֶינָה ָלהֶם‬ ֶ ‫וְנֹוסַף עַל נַ ֲחלַת ַה ַ ּמ ֶטּה ֲא‬K K‫אל‬ ֵ ‫ש ָׂר‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְואִם־י ִ ְהי ֶה הַיֹּבֵל ִל ְבנֵי י‬K K‫חלָתָ ן‬ ֲ ַ‫– ּו ִמנַּ ֲחלַת מַטֵ ּה אֲ ב ֹתֵ ינּו יִ ָג ַּרע נ‬ ‫שׁר תִ ּ ְהי ֶינָה ָלהֶם‬ ֶ ‫וְנֹו ְספָה נַ ֲחלָתָ ן עַל נַ ֲחלַת ַה ַ ּמ ֶטּה ֲא‬K

The threefold repetition may border on the gratuitous, but the argument underlying the appropriation and the rhetoric seems to go: If the name of a single man depends on land and is important enough to warrant legal deliberation and qualification, how much more so the collective of men known as the tribe, which depends on all the parcels of lands together: should not that entity be protected by the law? In the stages of the counter-suit that follow, the correlations continue, with a measure of variance. In the novella, Moses brings the petition to Yahweh, K‫ויקרב משה את‬ ‫משפטן לפני יהוה‬K (Num 27:5); Yahweh gives his response, K‫ויאמר יהוה אל משה לאמר‬K (v. 6), in a double formulation that issues a ruling for the case immediately at hand, K‫כן בנות‬ ‫צלפחד ד ֹבר ֹת‬K (v. 7), and articulates statutory law for all future instances, K‫ואל בני ישראל‬ ‫תדבר לאמר‬K (vv. 8 – 11). The episode of the counter-suit does not portray Moses bringing the follow-up petition to Yahweh, and Yahweh’s reply comes to the reader not in a direct quote by the narrator, but in a direct quote by Moses (36:6 – 9). One should not draw any dramatic conclusions from this slight deviation, since the author has the narrator affirm unequivocally that Moses did not develop the verdict himself, but heard it directly from Yahweh (v. 5a), and the author has Moses introduce his ruling accordingly, K‫זה הדבר אשר צוה יהוה לבנות צלפחד לאמר‬K (v. 6a). The deviation, which shifts the focus from Yahweh the decider to Moses the promulgator, may work together with the emphasis laid on the petitioners’ trust in Moses as divine intermediary. Ever reliable, Moses faithfully transmits Yahweh’s ruling, though it qualify the previous ruling and threaten to paint Moses a waffler. The dignity and sincerity accorded all parties involved in an Israelite challenge to a divine ruling represents a marked contrast to the generation of complainers and establishes significant precedent that one may indeed appeal divine oracular law and petition the deity. The shift in focus did not alter the overall structure of the novella mirrored in the counter-suit. Just as Yahweh began by declaring the merit of the argument made by the daughters of Zelophad, K‫כן בנות צלפחד ד ֹברֹת‬K (Num 27:7), so does Moses begin his response, K‫כן מטה בני יוסף ד ֹברים‬K (36:5b). In the novella, Yahweh formulated a double reply, a ruling for the case at hand and a statutory paragraph for all future instances, ‫ ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר‬. . . ‫כן בנות צלפחד דברת‬K (27:7, 8 – 11); likewise, to the Gileadites Moses cites a double reply, K‫ וכל בת י ֹרשת נחלה‬. . . ‫זה הדבר אשר צוה יהוה לבנות צלפחד לאמר‬ . . . ‫ממטות בני ישראל‬K (36:6 – 7, 8 – 9).

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts

247

The repetition that has characterized the text of the counter-suit up until this point, which seems to function both to highlight important ideas and to mark off distinct units, both in the opening remarks of the petitioners (v. 2) and in the heart of their argument (vv. 3 – 4), recurs as a feature in Moses’ citation of Yahweh reply, for the same purposes or to the same effects. The case ruling and the statutory law both conclude with the same statement of principle. Verses 8 – 9

Verses 6 – 7 K. . .

‫ש ָׂראֵל‬ ְ ִ ‫שׁת נַ ֲחלָה ִמ ַמּּטֹות ְ ּבנֵי י‬ ֶ ‫ ְוכָל־ ַבּת י ֶֹר‬K ‫ִירׁשּו בְ ּנֵי יִשְ ָׂראֵ ל אִ יׁש נַחֲ לַ ת‬ ְ ‫לְ מַ עַ ן י‬K K‫חר‬ ֵ ‫וְֹלא־תִ ס ֹּב נַ ֲחלָה ִמ ַמּטֶ ּה ְלמַטֶ ּה ַא‬K K‫כִ ּי־אִ יׁש בְ ּנַחֲ לָ תֹו יִדְ בְ ּקּו מַ ּטֹות בְ ּנֵי יִשְ ָׂראֵ ל‬K

K‫אֲ ב ֹתָ יו‬

K. . .

‫שׁר־ ִצ ָוּה י ְהוָה ִלבְנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד לֵאמ ֹר‬ ֶ ‫זֶה הַדָ ּבָר ֲא‬K

K‫אֶ ל־מַטֶ ּה‬

K‫יִשְ ָׂראֵ ל‬

‫וְֹלא־תִ ס ֹּב נַ ֲחלָה ִל ְבנֵי יִשְ ָׂראֵ ל ִמ ַמּטֶ ּה‬K ‫כִ ּי אִ יׁש בְ ּנַחֲ לַ ת מַ טֵ ּה אֲ ב ֹתָ יו יִדְ בְ ּקּו בְ ּנֵי‬K

The repetition binds the entire response together and signals a conceptual consistency between its two parts, the case ruling and the principle for future cases – similar to but arguably more successful than the consistency achieved at the editorial level in the oracular novella in 27:1 – 11 through the addition of v. 7b. The repetition in 36:6 – 9 also establishes the priority of the principle articulated in it over the previous ruling, in 27:7b, 8b – 9a, and qualifies the logic that undergirded it. The connection between the deceased and his land, the identity expressed by it, has a larger context from which it draws its power, upon which it depends, and to which it is subordinate – the tribe. The principle finds its expression in the term K‫דב״ק‬K, connectivity and cohesion, which represents the positive antithesis to the term K‫גר״ע‬K, severance and obliteration, that stands at the heart of the two petitions, that by the women and that by the Gileadites.138 The extensive appropriation of the terminology of the novella in the counter-suit works towards undermining the novella far more fundamentally than echoes as such together with the rhetoric of the text overall would lead one to believe. All the aspects of the counter-suit intimate that it entails an adjustment to the ruling in the novella. However, the substance of the ruling cited by Moses in the counter-suit, that the women must marry within their tribe, returns to the men of the tribe, who all count as the kinsmen of the deceased, the right to inherit his land. Marriage would not have to follow the sequence of male inheritors in 27:8 – 11, so that a kinsman might end up receiving the land somewhat out of turn, but all potential husbands also belong to the pool of inheritors. In other words, the new ruling curtails the original ruling so dramatically as to allow the woman no more than to determine by way of marriage which of the inheritors will inherit out of order.139 Because inheritors need not maintain the affiliation of the deceased to the land, the ruling also obviates the original aim of the petition by Zelophad’s daughters, which had won over the deity himself: K‫למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך‬ ‫משפחתו‬K (v. 4).

138  On the implications of the echo of Gen 2:24 in Num 36:7, 9 (K‫ידבקו‬K) in the edited form of the Torah, see Sterring, “The Will of the Daughters,” 94. 139   See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 104 – 105.

248

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

The conclusion of the counter-suit in Num 36:10 – 12 continues to engage the novella. The signs are clear enough even if complex. As discussed above, the oracular novella in its present form concludes in 27:11b in problematic fashion. The final clause, K‫כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K, has the narrator speaking. Its form indicates that the narrator is qualifying a prior clause that stated that some action was done. Because the clause is dependent, the main clause that precedes it should also belong to the narrator. However, the preceding main clause – formulated with a wĕqāṭal verb-form: K‫והיתה לבני ישראל‬ ‫לחקת משפט‬K – has Yahweh speaking and continues his speech of vv. 7 – 11a. It seems likely that in between these two clauses once sat the beginning of a fulfillment report by the narrator that the daughters of Zelophad (eventually) received what would have been Zelophad’s land. Note that the follow-up text about the counter-suit ends with just such a comment, in rather expanded fashion, at 36:10 – 12. Note also the reversed order of its elements, first the dependent clause preemptively aligning with Yahweh’s will what is about to be described, then the main clause: K‫כאשר צוה יהוה את משה כן עשו‬ ‫בנות צלפחד‬K (v. 10). This reversed formulation of the standard compliance statement across the Priestly history has the look of an inverted citation – or an inverted rewriting. It suggests that in this segment of the passage too, the author of the passage composed it against the oracular novella, that the novella had a complete corresponding clause to it, and that, as suggested already above, with the composition of the countersuit, the complete compliance statement in the novella created a contradiction and was struck from the record, such that all that remains, in 27:11bβ, is the dependent clause, K‫כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬K. The full alternate conclusion exists in the counter-suit, at 36:10 – 12: General: Detail: Detail: Result:

K‫שׁים‬ ִ ָ‫ְלנ‬

K‫חד‬ ָ ‫שׁה ֵכּן עָׂשּו ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫שׁר ִצ ָוּה יהוה אֶת־מ‬ ֶ ‫ ַ ּכ ֲא‬K ‫וַתִ ּ ְהי ֶינָה ַמ ְחלָה תִ ְרצָה ְו ָחגְלָה ּו ִמ ְל ָכּה וְנֹעָה ְבּנֹות ְצ ָל ְפחָד ִל ְבנֵי ד ֹדֵ יהֶן‬K K‫שׁים‬ ִ ָ‫שׁה בֶן־יֹוסֵף הָיּו ְלנ‬ ּ ֶ ַ‫ש ְפּח ֹת ְ ּבנֵי־ ְמנ‬ ׁ ְ ‫ ִמ ִ ּמ‬K K‫הן‬ ֶ ‫ש ַ ּפחַת ֲאבִי‬ ׁ ְ ‫וַתְ ּהִי נַ ֲחלָתָ ן עַל־ ַמ ֵטּה ִמ‬K

Beyond merely repeating the statement that the daughters did as Yahweh had instructed, the author elaborated by providing details, in a kind of couplet, about whom they married, namely, how in specific terms they carried out Yahweh’s instructions – by marrying their cousins within Manasseh.140 The author also repeated, one more time, the principle that had guided the oracular decision cited by Moses, this time as a result. Detailed analysis of the episode in Num 36:1 – 12 demonstrates the full extent to which this counter-suit by the Gileadites was composed as a direct sequel to the 140  Note the care for classical style in the following four phenomena: change of the verbal forms according to the pattern wayyiqṭōl // qāṭal (K‫ היו‬// ‫ותהיינה‬K); syntactical inversion, according to the pattern verb – complement // complement – verb (K‫ ממשפחת בני מנשה בן יוסף היו‬// ‫ לבני דדיהן‬. . . ‫ותהיינה‬K); change in the complements themselves according to the pattern general // specific (K‫ ממשפחת בני מנשה‬// ‫לבני דדיהן‬ ‫בן יוסף‬K); and dependence of the second clause on the first due to ellipsis of subject (K‫ותהיינה מחלה תרצה‬ ‫ היו לנשים‬// ‫ לנשים‬. . . ‫וחגלה ומלכה ונעה בנות צלפחד‬K). Loewenstamm noted the similarity of 1 Chr 23:21 – 22: K‫ וישאום בני קיש אחיהם‬,‫ ולא היו לו בנים כי אם בנות‬,‫ אלעזר וקיש; וימת אלעזר‬:‫בני מחלי‬K (EM 2.948); however, it is not clear whether one text influenced the other and, in that case, which would have been the earlier and the later, or whether they both independently reflected the same procedure.

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts

249

oracular novella about the daughters of Zelophad in 27:1 – 11. In very detailed form, the sequel engages the terms, legal concepts, social concepts, style, narrative presuppositions, and narrative structure of the novella. Moreover, it engages the full version of the novella, the version that contains the statutory part of Yahweh’s oracular response.141 The author of the sequel took the trouble to create a section that corresponds to the statutory section of the novella, namely, a formulation that speaks to future instances, beyond the immediate case at hand. The term of choice – K‫נחלה‬K (seventeen instances) over K‫אחזה‬K (not once) – also seems conditioned by the fuller version of the oracular novella. The composition of the sequel solved for the author one perceived problem, but it generated three others. The idea that in response to a petition Yahweh could issue a ruling that manages not to take into account all possible variables – even just the obvious ones – and at human prompting must subsequently amend his original ruling creates theological difficulties, not just for subsequent theologians, but within the Priestly history itself. In the history Yahweh does adapt the world he creates, his manner of interacting with it, and the norms that will keep it running, because of the vagaries and challenges posed by the unstable behavior of the animal and human species in it, driven as they are by blood always threatening to boil – as the Priestly narrative of creation and the flood portray. Also systemic, at the Israelites’ prompting Yahweh charges the Levites with the new responsibility to protect the Israelites by guarding his precincts, such that only the willful encroachers be struck down, in Num 17:27 – 18:7. Among the four oracular novellas, the one that seems to have been composed as part of a largerscale section, the “action episode” about cursing the deity and exclaiming his name in desperation, in Lev 24:10 – 23, demonstrates that the extremes of human behavior – Israelite included – continue to catch Yahweh off his guard and can necessitate additional legislation. The two “situation episodes,” in which conditions conspire so as to threaten Israelites with exclusion from the community undesirably, in Num 9:1 – 15 and 27:1 – 11, demonstrate that Yahweh may wait for anomalous situations to arise in order to legislate for them too and amend the system he set up. But even within this instructive range, the Gileadite counter-suit in the sequel to the Zelophad novella represents a distinctly, qualitatively new limit, with far-reaching implications, for it demonstrates that when faced with a situation, when presented with a case, Yahweh issued a ruling without having thought it through sufficiently.142 Perhaps the somewhat surprising emphasis on Moses in 36:3 – 4 subtly reflects the author’s awareness of this difficulty. Secondly, in the terms of the Priestly history, the running narrative gives the impression that much time has transpired between the novella and its sequel, as if it took the Gileadites some time to digest the implications of Yahweh’s ruling in the case of Zelophad’s daughters until they realized the potential problems they might face. One 141

  Compare Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters, 52 – 70.   For an attempt to circumvent this problem, see Milgrom, Numbers, 297 (on v. 5). It is possible that this problem also stands behind the Talmud’s tendency to interpret the episode of the sons of Gilead as a one-time decision or merely as advice; see b. B. Bat. 120a. 142

250

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

would have expected an immediate reaction. The story has no role for this delay, no preparation, no consequence, no explanation, and, for that matter, no claim that the sequel occurred immediately afterwards. Third, even apart from the sense of time passing, the physical distance between two such interrelated episodes in textual terms – several episodes and chapters separate them from each other – suffices to look unusual and draw undo, unproductive, attention to itself.143 As referred to above, some mix of the problems probably motivated the copyist of one scroll found in Qumran to place the two episodes side by side, without so much as a blank space between them, which makes the Gileadites speak up immediately. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of the scroll precludes determining whether the copyist moved the sequel to the novella or moved the novella to the sequel.144 b) Ruth The sequel in Num 36:1 – 12 to the oracular novella in 27:1 – 11 illustrates how one reader, focused narrowly and intently on the novella, considered its legal implications and drew up a counter-suit modeled tightly on the novella in terms of its narrative setting, literary structure, diction, and legal and social concepts. Another biblical text represents a different form of engagement with the novella in Num 27:1 – 11, a text whose author read the novella in the context of many additional biblical texts, considered its legal contents together with those of the other biblical texts, but expressed his understanding of them by putting it into a different, separate, and unrelated literary framework, with its own structure, diction, and poetics – the tale of Ruth. As Yair Zakovitch has demonstrated, Ruth reverberates with materials throughout biblical literature – laws of the Torah; stories in the Torah, the Former Prophets, and Job; pieces in the prophetic literature; wisdom in Proverbs; a genealogical lineage from Chronicles; and possibly a message meant to counter a view expressed in Ezra-Nehemiah.145 One may almost gauge the state of biblical literature at the time of the story’s composition.146 Moreover, beyond knowing biblical literature and evoking it in his writing, the author of Ruth engages it hermeneutically. Indeed, the very plot of the story presupposes – better: performs – a comprehensive synthesis of disparate topoi and texts, closing gaps, harmonizing differences, and resolving contradictions.147 143   Licht too poses these two questions about the textual space and narrative time between the two episodes (Numbers, 3.200). 144   See 4Q365, frag. 36 (DJD 13.310). 145   Ruth, 14 – 16, 18 – 33. 146   This fact, along with the language of the story and several other factors, has implications for the dating of the composition. See ibid., 14 – 35. 147   Concerning the issues of property, inheritance, and marriage, compare, e. g., the approach of Davies (“Inheritance Rights,” and “Ruth IV 5”) and Westbrook (Property and Family). Both assume that all of the different traditions speak of the same institutions, and both employ all of the traditions in order to complete one another and arrive at a single comprehensive picture of the institutions. See, e. g., Westbrook’s programmatic comments, ibid., 11 – 23. Such an approach characterizes

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts

251

The heart of the plot, its target, the marriage of Ruth to Boaz, fulfills two sets of social practices at one and the same time, land redemption and levirate marriage. The text of Ruth relates to the biblical texts that treat these sets of practices, the one in Leviticus 25, the other in Genesis 38 and Deut 25:5 – 10. In this context, Zakovitch has laid out an extensive series of points of similarity between the laws of levirate marriage and land redemption and the story of Ruth, but also a series of significant differences, almost startling in the degree of divergence.148 To reprise his list, with slight variation: (1) The law in Deut 25:5 – 10 restricts the obligation of levirate marriage to the levir, the brother of the deceased husband. In the story of Ruth, by contrast, the obligation applies to the entire line of male kin, in order of degree of kinship. (2) Relatedly, in the law of levirate marriage, the levir’s refusal to fulfill his obligation releases the widow to marry any man, any K‫זר‬K “outsider,” whereas in the tale of Ruth, the widow remains bound to the entire set of obligated men. The refusal of one only passes her to the next in line. (3) At the same time, the tale of Ruth has Boaz laud Ruth for her devotion to Naomi and the line – specifically, for making herself available to Boaz rather than run off with a handsome or rich man – as if her submission to the norm were not a matter of obligation but a voluntary move. (4) The laws of levirate marriage and land redemption maintain a clear distinction between themselves as two separate institutions – a kind of surrogate marriage between man and woman, on the one hand, and the (re)purchase of land (and perhaps cancellation of debt), on the other. The tale of Ruth, though, combines the two such that the kinsman redeems the woman by marrying her and bundles it with purchasing the land. (5) Relatedly, the idea that Naomi inherits Elimelek or returns by default to his land and not, say, to her father’s kin, has no clear precedent in materials from the Torah – compare, for instance, Judah sending Tamar back to her father’s house (Genesis 38) – and, moreover, seems to contradict the implication of Num 27:1 – 11 that Elimelek’s male kin take over his land.149 To explain the set of differences, one should not relate to Ruth as one complete, coherent, independent system, compare it with another such system found in the Torah, and then work to bridge the gap by historical or other forms of conjecture. Rather, commentaries, historical studies, and sociological studies; see, e. g., Braulik, Deuteronomium, 187; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 297 – 300; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 38; Willis, The Elders of the City, 235 – 304, respectively. The most extreme example is Brichto’s article “Kin, Cult, Land.” However, as Zakovitch has stated on this point, there is no reason to assume unity or conformity within the laws (Ruth, 20). Overall, Pedersen’s approach is the most cautious in this respect (Israel, 1.81 – 96). Willis also offered remarks in this direction (The Elders of the City, 251 – 253), but he does not follow his own cautions. As a matter of fact, Westbrook and the others recapitulate exactly the same process that the author of the story of Ruth undertook himself, as will be illustrated below. 148   Ruth, 21 – 24. See also Pedersen, Israel, 1.91 – 94. 149   Cooke, Ruth, 13, 16; Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, 66, respectively. On the widow in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East, see: Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor;” Davies, “Inheritance Rights,” 138 – 139; Hiebert, “‘Whence Shall Help Come to Me?’” Roth, “The Neo-Babylonian Widow.” Perhaps the author means to convey not that Naomi inherits Elimelek but rather that she acts as custodian of his property. For other examples of women custodians, see Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters, 174 – 177, and elsewhere.

252

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

one should approach the material in Ruth as directly responding to the materials in the Torah and interpreting them, as creating a new synthesis on the basis of the materials in the Torah, and as doing so because the materials in the Torah in fact require or invite it: they treat separate topics with little overlap, some friction, and even contradiction between them. Ruth draws its social and legal picture through a palette of intertextual sources blended by a hermeneutical paste. Moreover, though unappreciated so far, indications point to the oracular novella about the daughters of Zelophad in Num 27:1 – 11 as having played a pivotal role for the author of Ruth in considering and effecting his synthesis. As emphasized above, levirate marriage and land redemption are two unrelated and uncoordinated sets of practices in the Torah. Textually, they appear in separate books of the Torah, the one in Leviticus, the other in Deuteronomy. Within the overall narrative of the Torah, one is revealed and transmitted at Sinai (Lev 25:1; 26:46), the other is revealed at Horeb and transmitted at Moab (Deut 4:45 – 6:3). In terms of sources, one belongs to the Priestly history; the other appears in the Deuteronomic collection of speeches by Moses. They have no terminology in common. Keywords in the text about land redemption include K‫אח‬K in its broader sense of kin, K‫משפחה‬K, K‫שאר‬K,150 K‫גא״ל‬K, K‫שו״ב‬, K‫ארץ‬K, and K‫אחזה‬K; the text of levirate marriage has a completely different set: K‫אח‬K in its narrowest sense of brother, K‫מו״ת‬K, K‫יב״ם‬K, K‫לק״ח‬K, K‫שם‬ ֵ ‫מח״י‬K and K‫שם‬ ֵ ‫קו״ם‬K, and K‫בנ״י בית‬K.151 The legal topic, case, and purpose all differ. Land redemption supports the living farmer, one who sold some or all of his land and perhaps himself as well due to hard economic conditions. Levirate marriage functions in very restricted circumstances, in which a married man living on an undifferentiated estate dies without yet having established what counts formally as a full and proper household. The former deals with poverty, land ownership, and means of sustenance; the latter, with death, marriage, and building a family. The particulars differ completely as well. The obligation of land redemption applies to all kin, in order of blood relation, whereas levirate marriage applies only to the blood brother, and even more restrictively, the one who lived on the undivided estate together with the deceased. Anyone else is designated an outsider: K‫איש זר‬K. From this perspective, the oracular novella about the daughters of Zelophad in Num 27:1 – 11 treats yet a third topic, inheritance of land. However, whereas the other two texts have no overlap between them, this one shares something with each of the others, in a way that can invite someone looking at all three topics to merge them, with the novella about land-inheritance functioning like a channel to convey concepts and legal particulars back and forth. First of all, the list of male kin who inherit the land of a relative who has no children, in Num 27:8 – 11, works by the same principle as the list of those who must redeem, according to Lev 25:5, 47 – 49; for all intents and purposes, the two lists look nearly identical; and they employ the same specific terms and overall diction and style. Moreover, essentially, both sets of laws revolve around 150

 On “flesh, body,” as the original meaning of the word K‫שא״ר‬K, see Milgrom, Numbers, 325 n. 21.   With respect to the law of levirate marriage, see Braulik’s literary insights in this direction (Deuteronomium, 186 – 187). 151

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts

253

the most fundamental asset of family life and livelihood, land, organizing its control among concentric rings of kin. One may say that the two sets of laws, land redemption and inheritance, represent the two sides of the same kinship coin, the side of obligation and the side of benefit: those in line to inherit also bear the burden of redemption. A passage about land-purchase under the rubric of redemption gives expression to this conception. Ḥanamel son of Shalum, kin of Jeremiah, says to Jeremiah: “Buy my land in Anatot in Benjamin, because you are in line to inherit and you must redeem” K‫כי לך‬ ‫משפט הירשה ולך הגאלה‬K (Jer 32:8).152 Secondly, the principle animating the entire law of land-inheritance in the oracular novella in Num 27:1 – 11, the preservation and perpetuation of the name of the deceased, equally drives the law of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5 – 10 and the story about it in Genesis 38. The expressions employed in these materials – K‫שם‬ ֵ ‫גר״ע‬K (Num 27:4); K‫שם‬ ֵ ‫קו״ם על‬K (Deut 25:6); K‫שם‬ ֵ ‫מח״י‬K (ibid.); K‫שם‬ ֵ ‫קו״ם‬K (v. 7); K‫בנ״י בית‬K (v. 9); K‫קו״ם‬ ‫זרע‬K (Gen 38:8) – all cohere and convey the same overall conceptualization. Both sets of texts deal with a man’s death in a particular situation, when he has no son: K‫ובן אין לו‬ (Num 27:8; Deut 25:5). The novella, in particular the full version with the statutory section, focuses on managing such a man’s land. The Deuteronomic law provides for his name. Third, in the oracular novella, the daughters of Zelophad petition to maintain control over their father’s land, and such continuity between family and land is the sentiment or principle that undergirds the law of land-redemption. They submit this petition on the specific grounds that it will preserve their father’s name, the sentiment or principle that undergirds the law of levirate marriage as well. These shared aims, concepts, formulas and formulations, these legal symmetries, between the oracular novella, on the one hand, and the texts of land-redemption and of levirate marriage, on the other hand, invite one to read them all in the light of each other and to attribute the specifics of one to the others, to engage in a synthesis of greater or lesser extent. Seen against the background of the novella, which makes the preservation of the name of the deceased dependent upon maintaining his affiliation to a plot of land, levirate marriage would appear to have implications for land inheritance as well: the child born of the levirate marriage, to carry forward the name of the deceased, does so by inheriting the portion of land that the deceased would have received from his father, namely, half the estate. The levir faces a test: perform levirate marriage and inherit only half the estate, or decline levirate marriage, inherit the entire estate, and live with the public opprobrium. In the other direction, one might see land redemption to function not only or chiefly at the socio-economic level but also under the rubric of maintaining the integrity of family identity, of name. It would then require no difficult stretch of legal hermeneutics to draw a further set of related conceptual and literary inferences. First, just as the obligation to redeem land extends beyond the first degree of kinship, so does the obligation of levirate marriage. Second, just as the obligation of land-redemption proceeds in order of degree of kinship, so does the obligation of 152

  Compare Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 3.246.

254

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

levirate marriage. Third, the law of Deut 25:5 – 10 does not mean to restrict and delimit itself to the case described, the undifferentiated levir, but merely to illustrate by way of it, as the closest degree of kinship. Such a reading of Deut 25:5 – 10 as a highly specific case rather than a maximal one would be consistent with biblical case-law elsewhere.153 The author of Ruth seems to have gone through this very process of legal assimilation, reading all the texts in the Torah as elliptical, partial crystallizations of distinguishable facets of a single complex concept – the endurance of the family as an entity with “name” and a piece of land to sustain any given generation and multiple generations. In this manner of hermeneutically driven synthesis it emerges that the text of Ruth has manifold parallels with the texts of the Torah, blends the distinct concepts and laws into composite forms, and places demands far beyond what any one of the texts of the Torah itself considers and requires.154 The very plot of the story revolves around the presupposition that land as a form of sustenance and progeny as a form of perpetuation do not pair up only as a matter of ideology and conceptual symmetry, but as the concrete reality of life and as a matter of practicable law. Launching the story and setting it in motion, the family suffers famine (uselessness of land), exile (loss of land and home), and the death of all its males (loss of name). The story moves through the resolution of these challenges. Word of Yahweh’s blessing upon the land brings Naomi home, and begins the dramatic process of restoring the family name and the productivity of the land.155 The narrative opens with the names Maḥlon and Kilyon, “Disease” and “Devastation,” and comes to rest in a cluster of denominative declarations by the town women, first, about Naomi’s having a source of sustenance and dignity in her old age (v. 15), second, about her having, for all intent and purposes, a son (v. 17), and third, when they name the son Oved, which calls to mind the expression K‫עֹבֵד אדמה‬K “tiller of the earth,” of whom a saying that appears twice in Proverbs concludes, K‫ישבע לחם‬K “he will enjoy food” (Prov 12:11; 28:19), and brings elegant closure to the story set in K‫בית לחם‬K “House of Food.” The laws, legal practices, and norms worked out in the story present Ruth as subject to extended levirate marriage  – marriage meant to preserve the name of 153

  Exod 21:35 is the classic example; see Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 1.241.   Given the interpretive character of the composition, which assimilates three different texts and the subjects treated in them, there is no reason to search for a particular model for Ruth and Boaz’s marriage, either in the Hebrew Bible or in the anthropological material, as, for example, Willis attempts (The Elders of the City, 262 – 267), nor is there any reason to attempt to wonder whether or not the story presents a case of levirate marriage, as, for example, Davies entertains (“Inheritance Rights,” 140 n. 9). It also does not do justice to the material to attempt to offer a sketch of diachronic change on the basis of schematic, generalizing ideas that lack basis in the text, again, as do, e. g., Davies “Inheritance Rights;” idem, “Ruth IV 5;” and Willis, The Elders of the City, 253 ff. (despite his own note of caution, ibid., 235 – 253). Rather, one has the opportunity to follow the exegesis identifiable in the texts to trace the original ideas about the institutions and practices, what the author has changed in them, and the innovations that have resulted. 155  See 1:6; 4:11 – 15, which create a sort of frame for the story. Note also the double entendre in the keywords K‫בית לחם‬K and K‫חיל‬K. 154

6. The Complete Novella and Related Texts

255

the deceased – available to all male kin, in order of degree of kinship. Moreover, a redeemer of land must also take Ruth as a wife. Boaz implicitly explains the logic of these connections when he describes the purpose of the proceedings to “establish the name of the dead on his land” (4:5, 10). This new collocation does not appear in the texts of the Torah, which only attests its parts in uncoordinated isolation from each other, “establishing the name of the deceased” as opposed to “landholding.” The connection between them is implicit in the novella of Num 27:1 – 11, as said, but even there, the author has the daughters maintain a distinction between them in their discourse: the name of the father endures within the larger kin group (v. 4a) and the daughters should receive his land (v. 4b). On account of this innovative quality the author of Ruth portrays the prior redeemer as unaware of the combination of landredemption and levirate marriage and then, upon learning about it from Boaz, unwilling to redeem (4:1 – 6).156 Through this complex view of Deut 25:5 – 10, the author of Ruth may also have derived that though the obligation for levirate marriage extends beyond the levir to additional circles of related men, the woman has no comparable obligation to submit to the extended levels and therefore merits recognition for her devotion in doing so. Ruth has made herself available to serve as a locus of family law and lore, the knot to tie together the pieces threatening to break apart for good. Again, the author puts the conception in the mouth of Boaz, who, upon discovering the extent of Ruth’s devotion and availability, blesses her for submitting herself to him rather than follow one of the young (and handsome) fellows (3:10). An additional instance of the author’s work in this vein occurs with respect to the purchase of the land from Naomi (4:3, 5), which has several possible explanations.157 Possibly, the author understood Leviticus 25 to obligate kin to purchase the land of their impoverished relatives before they it is sold to someone outside the family. Also possible, removing interim sales keeps the narrative simple. Perhaps it satisfies a feeling that the land should have stayed in the family all along and its basic affiliation with Elimelek never come into doubt.158 Finally, it may offer yet another venue by which to portray the devotion to kin and its landed anchor that serves as the main theme of the story and characterizes the family in particular and the town in general.159 Though Elimelek took his family and left for Moab, no one claimed the land or exercised de facto control over it; rather, 156  On the basis of the syntax of 4:5, comparison with 4:9 – 10, and the larger context, one should emend 4:5 K‫ומאת‬K to K‫את‬K or K‫ואת‬K or K‫גם את‬K; see, e. g., Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, 59. Though LXX confirms the reading of MT (rendering K‫ומאת‬K with καὶ παρὰ), it also adjusts the verse (rendering K‫קנית‬K with καὶ αὐτὴν κτήσασθαί σε) in a way that indicates it recognizes the problem of its syntax and contextual logic. 157   On this see Zakovitch, Ruth, 21. 158  Compare Jer 32:6 – 9 (cf. Ehrlich, Literal Meaning, 3.246). For the identification of this passage as late on the basis of literary-critical considerations, see Carroll, Jeremiah, 620 – 623. One linguistic indication of its lateness can be seen in the expanded verbal forms K‫ואקנה‬K and K‫ואשקלה‬K in v. 9, and K‫ואצוה‬K in v. 13; see Joüon-Muraoka §§ 47d, 118v. In any case, these passages in Ruth and Jeremiah stand behind Pedersen’s difficult understanding of the law of land redemption in Leviticus 25; see Pedersen, Israel, 1.83 – 85. 159  Concerning the concept of devotion (K‫חסד‬K) in Ruth, see Zakovitch, Ruth, 9 – 10, 18 – 19.

256

Novella IV.  Num 27:1 – 11

everyone left it for the family’s return. Even when people of the town saw that returning members amounted to one much aged woman and one foreign daughter-in-law, the two of whom together could not possibly hope to work the land and live by it, let alone defend it against encroachers, they did not take advantage. This self-restraint and integrity of the townsfolk in Bethlehem represents a marked contrast to the plight of the Shunamite woman who at Elisha’s own instruction left to ride out seven years of famine in Philistine territory, returned with her one son, found her land long in the hands of others, had to appeal to the king himself, and succeeded, the narrator seems to imply, largely because the king had just asked Elisha’s attendant to regale him with tales of Elisha’s wondrous deeds and just heard about this very woman and her son brought back to life by Elisha (2 Kgs 8:1 – 6).160 The oracular novella in Num 27:1 – 11 plays a mixed role in the formation of the story of Ruth. On the one hand, the novella serves as the linchpin for all the ideas and practices connected with land and with name, and their comprehensive assimilation and synthesis in the story, both in terms of the story’s very plot but also in terms of the specific practices and norms articulated in it. On the other hand, the story of Ruth contains only one expression – in two places – that seems to derive directly from the novella, “establishing the name of the deceased upon his land” (4:5, 10). One should not give this limited level of reference too much significance. The tale does not concern inheritance, but rather abandoned land reclaimed by people who cannot work it and must sell it, as in Leviticus 25. Relatedly, it concerns not an inheriting daughter but a daughter-in-law who could have returned to her own father’s house yet elects to make herself available for extended levirate marriage, as derived from Deut 25:5 – 10 and Genesis 38. One might find it attractive to see a kind of analogy between the daughters’ concern for their father’s name in Num 27:1 – 11 and Ruth’s concern for her father-inlaw’s patrimony and legacy, but this might prove a bit of a stretch since the narrator portrays Ruth as devoted to Naomi not Elimelek. The key, in any case, the element of the novella that drives the massive assimilation and synthesis that makes up Ruth, exists in the daughters’ petition, the heart of which makes land-affiliation an inherent and necessary component in the preservation of a man’s name (Num 27:4).

160   On the similarity between the two stories, see ibid., 30. The coincidence between hearing Elisha’s deeds and Elisha’s appearance to petition recalls the use of coincidence in Esther, especially at 6:1.

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography 1. Review This work set out first and foremost to establish that the four stories about cursing the deity and exclaiming his name in desperation in Lev 24:10 – 23, the need for a secondary date for the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14, gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36, and inheritance by daughters in Num 27:1 – 11 can and should be seen as a distinct group of texts, as four examples of a single type of story, the “oracular novella.” It described their distinctive set of narrative and conceptual characteristics and situated the group within the style and concepts of the Priestly history to which they all belong. The work then analyzed each one with respect to three aspects: (1) its internal coherence and poetics, its compositional history, and its tradition history; (2) its specific location within the Priestly history; and (3) its relationship with other texts in the Priestly history and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and lore outside them. The novella about cursing the deity in Lev 24:10 – 23 was argued, against general opinion, to represent a single complete and coherent composition with no deliberate additions or revisions. Through several linguistic and structural devices, the narrative signals its conceptualization of the actions of K‫קל״ל אלהים‬K and K‫נק״ב שם‬K for all intents and purposes as the same single action – invoking Yahweh’s name in a way that can bring calamity on the community and must be treated with the death of the invoker. The laws that treat other topics – homicide, killing an animal, and disfigurement – work together as a bloc that functions both to cast the crime of K‫קל״ל אלהים‬K and K‫נק״ב שם‬K as an attack on Yahweh’s person and to justify, namely to provide the legal rationale for, the capital punishment. The study argued that in the terms and concepts of the Priestly history the half-Egyptian parentage of the criminal does not make him a gēr and that the nonIsraelite bloodline, as it were, plays no role in the legal aspects of the novella. Rather, the Egyptian element serves narratively and rhetorically together with the criminal’s Danite affiliation to contextualize the crime: only such a one could bring himself to curse the deity and exclaim his name in desperation. The narrative dramatization of the ultimate desecration of Yahweh’s name, of the depravity of Egyptians, and of other related ideas and characteristics that run through Leviticus 18 – 22 strongly recommended viewing the novella as an organic part of the string of the texts that make up the heart of the Holiness Code. Moreover, analysis revealed several important ways in which chapters 25 – 26 and to a lesser degree

258

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography

Lev 23:1 – 24:9 diverge from chapters 18 – 22 and 24:10 – 23, which warranted conjecturing a literary-historical stage in which Lev 18 – 22, perhaps without 23:1 – 24:9, made up a complete textual unit of divine instruction brought to climactic close in a narrative dramatization of its constitutive themes in 24:10 – 23. It should be added that such a sequence could be conceptualized and intended by an author who also bears responsibility for the text of chapter 17 and for placing all these texts after the material that already existed in the Priestly history. When the novella was viewed in the light of the larger Priestly history, a series of correspondences between it and the story of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 emerged, which led to several interrelated suggestions: (1) that it was composed to complement that story in the same way that other formative parts of the Holiness Code complement and extend the Priestly history – by incorporating into its scheme camp life, non-sacrificial matters, law and morality; (2) that it highlights divine patience as an essential feature of Yahweh’s character in the efficacy of the legal system; and (3) that it participates in a larger conception of Israelite fundamental failure at the climactic moment of divine self-presentation – an historical failure of mythic proportions – found not only in the Priestly history, but also in the Elohistic (and Deuteronomic) story of the golden calf at the divine mount and in the Yahwistic story – tentatively reconstructed and proposed here – of the Israelites clamoring to rush Mount Sinai for a better glimpse of and proximity to Yahweh. When it came to the oracular novella about the secondary date for performing the Pesaḥ in Num 9:1 – 14, literary-critical analysis led to the conclusion that the novella had undergone several stages of literary growth and development. The narrative component of the text was argued to have been added to a pre-existing version of the law in order to incorporate it into the Priestly history at the location where the novella now sits. In a thematic juxtapositional logic suitable to an editor, the novella fills a particular role in the string of Priestly texts around it, in two ways. First of all, together the texts in Num 7:1 – 10:10 suggest the stages of the dedication and inauguration of a temple, in the midst of which the oracular novella – about the national performance of the Pesaḥ – would represent the public festival. Secondly, as in the case of the oracular novella about cursing the deity, the Pesaḥ novella can be seen as something of a capstone on the series of Priestly texts in Numbers 5 – 8, dramatizing at one and the same time two themes arguably running through those texts and holding them together – impurity and offerings. Both sections of the novella, the narrative set-up and the statutory law were argued to have incorporated additions of various kinds: aesthetic expansions in the set-up segment; a set of substantive expansions in the law, about the details and extent of the law’s implementation; a pair of matching insertions into the set-up segment and the legal segment, which advance the ideological significance of the Pesaḥ to a new level; and a general statement of equal applicability to the “resident alien” (K‫גר‬K) as to the “native-born” (K‫אזרח‬K). Analysis brought out several important conclusions: (1) that – from the original law, through its narrativization as part of the Priestly history, through clarifying details added to the law, to the pair of ideological insertions – every stage presupposed and

1. Review

259

furthered the idea of a centralized Pesaḥ rather than a domestic one; (2) that the novella and the additions to it represent the fullest, clearest opinion on a debate taking place within the text of the Priestly history, in Exodus 12 and elsewhere, about the proper conceptualization and configuration of the Pesaḥ; and (3) that the original law stipulating a make-up date for the Pesaḥ does not mean to function as a leniency but as a stringency, part of which included its singular claim that one who fails to observe the Pesaḥ will suffer K‫כר״ת‬K. The study reviewed the two dominant theories about the historical circumstances that gave rise to the original law of the make-up Pesaḥ – a naïve one about political exigency in the time of Hezekiah and an uncomfortably nefarious one about accommodation to the rise of Jewish merchant life in the early Persian period – and demonstrated them both to be fundamentally flawed on a variety of grounds. The study argued that the centralization of sacrifice and related activities and the kinds of adjustments (optimistically) made in biblical texts to laws, practices, and the social structure itself offer the closest fit for considering the rise of the law. Insufficient isolatable data and dependence on contested theories about Josiah’s reform, the text of 2 Kings 21 – 23, and the Priestly history made it wiser, in the context of this study, to leave open the question of whether this would have taken place in the late seventh century BCE or the late sixth-early fifth centuries BCE. There were no grounds for seeing any growth and development in the third oracular novella, about gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32 – 36. But analysis led to two fundamental aspects of its composition. First of all, the novella was constructed with a large series of Priestly texts in mind: the form and plot of the novella of the desperate curser (Lev 24:10 – 23) and the topic of Sabbath observance under the conditions of the wilderness (Exodus 16*; 31:12 – 17; 35:1 – 3). The point of writing this brief novella was argued to consist of making explicit the punishment of stoning, which would put Sabbath-violation on par with other practices conceived to contradict Yahweh’s essence, standing, and control: cursing the deity (Lev 24:10 – 23), worshipping Molek (20:1 – 5), and maintaining K‫אֹוב‬K or K‫ידע ֹני‬K (v. 27). The specific usage of the root K‫פר״ש‬K and its difference from the usage in the prior, “parent” oracular novella of Lev 24:10 – 23 were taken a linguistic indication of the relatively late date of the composition of the Sabbath novella. Secondly, it was argued that although the text draws on passages in the Priestly history and presents itself as an episode of that history, originally it was written on a scroll other than the scroll or set of sequential scrolls that comprise the Priestly history, and only subsequently was it copied into the set of sequential scrolls with the Priestly history. Ruth was offered as a strong analogy for the phenomenon, along with other texts. The study developed the point that the novella was physically incorporated into the Priestly history alongside other intertextual, exegetical Priestly texts – now Numbers 15 – in such a way that further promoted the significance of the Sabbath. Although on a much smaller scale than the other oracular novellas, this novella about Sabbath observance, too, dramatizes the theme in the text that immediately precedes it (vv. 22 – 31) – the violation of Yahweh’s laws – and represents the most extreme case.

260

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography

The last oracular novella, on the topic of inheritance by women, in Num 27:1 – 11, yielded yet a fourth model of composition-history. Signs indicated that the novella had been written for its immediate location, after the census in Numbers 26, as a direct continuation of what took place. Analysis suggested that the novella originally had no statutory section, only a ruling on the case, which concluded with Yahweh stating that his decision should set precedent and become law, and then continued with the narrator’s report that the daughters of Zelophad (eventually) did as Yahweh ruled. The original novella was understood to articulate that in the absence of sons daughters may fully inherit fathers, to the point where upon their marriage the land would not pass to their husbands. A combination of unusual evidence (still indirect) from ostraca found in Samaria and from a range of biblical texts justified tradition-historical reconstruction of a law that preceded the oracular novella, to which the novella gave Mosaic authority by including it in the Priestly history. Against the background of archives from the larger region, that law appears to stand out not for having imagined inheriting daughters but for having claimed the de facto standing of it as received law. Another unique tradition argued to be preserved in the novella is that of Gilead as a person. Intertextual analysis led to the conclusion that the difficult text in Josh 17:1 – 6 about the implementation of the law in the oracular novella in Num 27:1 – 11 becomes comprehensible when it is seen, first of all, that it has undergone a series of expansions and, secondly, that one of those layers sought to apply the result of the novella in Num 27:1 – 11 but in doing so created no small amount of confusion between Gilead the region, Gilead the person, and the genealogy and geography of Manasseh overall. The Manasseh segment of the census text in Numbers 26 – the text that attracted the novella of Num 27:1 – 11 to begin with – was shown to have been expanded in the light of Josh 17:1 – 6 in a way that aimed to make sense of its scheme. The statutory law said to have been added into the oracular novella in Num 27:1 – 11 was analyzed as, in effect, significantly undercutting the ruling of the original novella by signaling the provisional nature of the daughter’s hold over the land. The countersuit in Num 36:1 – 12 was shown to have understood the implications of the full form of the oracular novella, namely, that an inheriting daughter transfers the father’s landholding to her husband. Analysis demonstrated just how closely the author of the episode of the counter-suit worked against the novella, reusing its terms, concepts, structure, and rhetoric with the aim of superseding it, and how in effect it completely effaced the ruling of the original oracular novella. The composition of the counter-suit may have necessitated altering the conclusion of the novella, and this adjustment may have been effected imperfectly and resulted in the difficult form that the conclusion has now. The study compared the different texts within the oracular novella of Num 27:1 – 11 and texts related to them by considering the influence that they grant the concept of preserving the name of the deceased over inheritance law. In that context, the study also engaged texts about levirate marriage in Deut 25:5 – 10 and Genesis 38, developing a new view of them as not envisioning any impact on inheritance law. Additionally, it analyzed the manner in which the text of Ruth effects a grand legal synthesis of all these and additional texts, especially Leviticus 25 – a synthesis that grapples with the

2. The Oracular Novellas and the History of the Priestly history

261

overlaps and inconsistencies and produces a system that conforms to no one of the texts within the Torah. The analysis illustrated how the novella of the daughters of Zelophad played a pivotal role in this process.

2. The Oracular Novellas and the History of the Priestly History The study did not systematically address and engage any one particular theory or the multitude of theories about the history of the Priestly history, what it first looked like, how much was added to it, in how many stages, and for what purpose.1 It began with the premise that one should first and foremost identify the priestly work as a history and analyzed the four oracular novellas as episodes within it. None of the episodes challenged the work as a work of history or any of its constitutive elements: the horizon, arc, chronology, events, actors, or themes. Each of the oracular novellas and all of them together amplify and dramatize the presentation of Moses in Exod 34:29 – 35 and Num 7:89 as habitually entering before the deity to hear new instructions as circumstances warrant and transmitting them to the people. The study did make general use of Knohl’s description of various segments of the Priestly history as comprising a distinct group of texts with a particular continuum of ideological and stylistic affinities (“Holiness Writings”), which stems from a specific iteration of the priestly corps (the “Holiness School”) who wrote the texts in this group and added them to the prior corpus of Priestly texts over time.2 Arguably, three of the four oracular novellas advance ideas that are characteristic of this set of texts. The relationship of all four to the Priestly history that preceded them is not uniform. The oracular novella about cursing the deity dramatizes the focus on the deity’s name in Leviticus 18 – 22. Its type of crime and manner of treatment complement the tabernacle-maintenance of Leviticus 1 – 16 – especially of Leviticus 16. The laws and principles at work draw directly on those regarding Yahweh’s animate creatures in Genesis 1; 6 – 9; and Leviticus 17. And historiographically speaking, the episode extends the events of the day of the initiation of the tabernacle in Leviticus 8 – 10. The result does not so much contradict as enrich the formative Priestly notions of the character of divine patience, the activity of divine instruction, and the location of divine presence. In the light of Gesundheit’s analysis of the Pesaḥ in Exod 12:1 – 28,3 the novella about deferring the Pesaḥ represents – indeed creates – the most complex situation. Its historiographical premise, that the Pesaḥ is a distinct offering known to Israel, presupposes the Priestly narrative within Exod 12:1 – 24. Its categorical, configurative premise, that the Pesaḥ is a tabernacle offering of a “wellbeing” (K‫שלמים‬K) variety, depends historiographically on Lev 17:1 – 9 and categorically on Lev 7:11 – 14, 20 – 21, on the 1   For some convenient works illustrating the state of the debate, see Shectman and Baden, The Strata of the Priestly Writings; Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch. 2   The Sanctuary of Silence. 3   Three Times a Year, 44 – 95.

262

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography

one hand, and contradicts the conclusion of the Priestly description of the Pesaḥ in Exod 12:24, on the other. However, rather than polemicizing against the domestic configuration of the Pesaḥ in Exodus 12 or explaining its transformation, the novella in its original form seems simply to ignore it. At the same time, the novella affirms and even promotes the existence, prominence, and significance of the Pesaḥ, which contradicts the implications of those supplemented parts of Exodus 12 that seem determined to replace the Pesaḥ with the eating of unleavened bread (vv. 14 – 20). The unapologetic stance of the novella with respect to the Pesaḥ contrasts with the elliptical references to the Pesaḥ elsewhere within the Priestly history, too, beforehand at Lev 23:4 – 8 and afterwards at Num 28:16 – 25, while the novella’s differentiation between the Pesaḥ and the week or festival of unleavened bread correlates with those other Priestly passages, which juxtapose the two calendrically but separate them categorically. Moreover, a passage supplemented to the novella (vv. 11b – 12) – a prototype of the “halakhic midrash” – presumes some of the domestic aspects of Exodus 12 simply to be operative in the tabernacle configuration without concern for the complete artificiality of it. The fact that no layer of the novella interacts with the interpolated “rule of the Pesaḥ” (Exod 12:43 – 49), which too configures the Pesaḥ domestically, raises the question whether that passage was likewise ignored or not yet interpolated. In sum, attention to the oracular novella about the Pesaḥ makes the implications of Gesundheit’s analysis of the Pesaḥ in Exod 12:1 – 28 even more complex, and any neat division between a first or main edition of the Priestly history, on the one hand, and an aligned group of subsequent “Holiness” writings, on the other, emerges as problematic. With respect to the oracular novella about the Sabbath – its aim to advance the significance of the Sabbath extends a trend found in Exodus 31; Leviticus 19; 26. Its signal, death by stoning, draws together and synthesizes Exodus 31; Leviticus 20; 24. Its narrative scenario of collecting wood and the logic of translating agricultural life into wilderness terms draws on Exodus 16; 35. In terms of the history as a whole, the novella begins a unique series of undated and unlocated events, which as somewhat generalized can give the impression of serving to typify the wilderness period as a whole. This role, however, may have come about by accident. If as argued the novella was initially written on a separate scroll and attributed itself to the history in external, general terms, once incorporated, its distinctive introduction created a break in narrative location and time, implying that the Israelites have journeyed in the meantime. The effect severed the Korah episode and its aftermath in Numbers 16 – 19 from the spies (and manna) episode in Numbers 13 – 14 (and Exodus 16*),4 which took place in Paran. This disconnection created the impression that together the woodgatherer and Korah episodes serve in a representative capacity to characterize the long period of wandering as one of complaint and strife. The fourth novella, about inheritance, depends narratively upon the census taken for the purposes of land-distribution in Numbers 26. Its specific subject and its treatment of the subject – the significance of the name as a locus or medium of human 4

  Following Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story.”

3. The Form of the Oracular Novellas and the Priestly History

263

longevity, the centrality of land to sustainability and longevity, and the connection between them – link up with the focus on land and family integrity and longevity in Leviticus 25. At first glance, the language of the (allegedly) original novella, specifically the expression K‫נת״ן אחזה‬K of the petition, appears to align with that of Leviticus 25 and carries on its conception of Yahweh as lord of the manor-estate (v. 23 K‫כי לי הארץ‬K) with Israel as his tenants (ibid. ‫גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי‬K) or serfs (v. 42 K‫עבדי הם‬K; v. 55 K‫לי בני‬ ‫ישראל עבדים עבדי הם‬K) who are allowed to control designated lots upon his land for the purposes of family sustainability (v. 10 K‫ושבתם איש אל אחזתו ואיש אל משפחתו תשבו‬K; v. 24 K ‫ארץ אחזתכם‬K). But the language of the petition in the novella seems economically-legally precise in historiographical terms: the women request to receive land in their father’s stead, not to inherit him. This novella, then, synthesizes the Priestly history and supplemented, “Holiness” material quite smoothly. From the perspective of this review, the generally consistent form of the oracular novellas stands in contrast with an important variability in agenda and in alignment with other segments or aspects of the Priestly history. The analysis of the four oracular novellas turned up a complexity in the stratification and cataloging of the segments of the Priestly history, and the form of the novella does not lend itself to ideological or other coordination with any one of them.

3. The Form of the Oracular Novellas and the Priestly History While the four oracular novellas share the same general form, they do not necessarily have all the same components in their legal segments, and the legal segments do not necessarily function the same way within the story. There is a notable degree of divergence. In the novella about cursing the deity, the statutory law functions in two ways. It makes explicit the implications of the story and the case ruling, and it includes a separate set of laws that as a bloc – made meaningful by the fact of juxtaposition – sheds conceptual and ideological light on the main topic and law. In the novella about the Pesaḥ, which has no ruling formulated for the case at hand, the statutory law includes details that continue in the direction of the main law and develop it, spelling out various stipulations in the manner of later halakhic midrash (hermeneutical discourse on praxis in Rabbinic sources). In its allegedly original version, the novella about inheritance pushed hard in a particular direction: the daughters petitioning articulate the solution and Yahweh expresses his unqualified acceptance of it, rules on the case in precisely their terms, and declares the ruling to serve as precedent ever after. A statutory section was added together with an extension of the case ruling, and together these undermine the original case ruling and advance an alternate law. The novella of Sabbath violation has no statutory section to speak of and, from the perspective of the other oracular novellas, its case ruling is relatively thin. If anything, the fact that four oracular novellas attest four different approaches to the legal section indicates how vibrant that section was seen to be as a space in which

264

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography

to shape the point of the story and construct and reconstruct its meaning. Far from the formulaic appearance of the oracular novella as a type of story, its legal section, which serves as the narrative climax, comes to life as the section where authors – and editors – work hardest to control the outcome and convey their commitments. The variability attests this. Likewise, the different compositional histories of each of the four novellas, their different locations within the Priestly history, and the lack of coordination between them, all evince a long-lived highly durable literary form. Given the priestly provenance, the durability of the form makes sense. It captures one of the definitive aspects and moments of priestly life, especially vis-à-vis the populace: the answering of questions and the resolution of disputes – in the name of the deity.5 The form in which the oracular novellas are cast in order to be part of the Priestly history gives them the look of historicized versions of priestly records of oracular case-resolution.6 Historical method in general and the literary analysis effected above in particular make it unlikely in the extreme that the four oracular novellas preserve the contents of actual decisions generated through inquiry of priestly oracle. The law of the deferred Pesaḥ was argued to have been initiated by the priesthood; the novella about inheritance by daughters was argued to have preserved prior lore and a decontextualized list; the laws of cursing the deity and of bloodshed and disfigurement were argued to have been generated from a variety of sources including the Priestly history itself; and the law of violating the Sabbath, which too was argued to have been generated from the Priestly history, appears exclusively in the terms of the story, since it has no statutory component. The unlikelihood that the four novellas preserve the contents of any actual oracular verdicts makes the use of the form in four separate topics all the more significant as indicating priestly self-perception and expression. Indeed, as considered at the outset of the study, the Priestly history itself has a plot that climaxes with divine instruction issuing from the tabernacle and is threaded through with references to such communication as a constitutive feature. If the oracular novellas are historicized versions of the form of adjudication-records at the episodic level, which maintain the human initiative, the Priestly history has the form of their origin story, inverting the relationship so that Yahweh largely initiates the mass of legislation, but ongoing inquiry is envisioned – and prized.

5

  Compare Eissfeldt, Introduction, 14.   Examples of records of court cases remanded to divine resolution – namely, judging priests – exist from the eighth and seventh centuries BCE in Assyria (Jas, Judicial Procedures, nos. 1, 7, 10, 11, 27, 36, 47, 48, and pp. 1 – 2, 5, 73). Such cases and decisions are written schematically and laconically – only what would suffice for legal purposes (ibid., 5 – 6) – with familiar terms like qarābu and parāsu, and enter the legal system as evidence and even as precedents (ibid., 76, 97 – 98). For the argument that private oracular inquiry had an impact on forms of narrative within the Hebrew Bible, see Long, “2 Kings III and Genres of Prophetic Narrative;” idem, “Divination as Model for Literary Form;” also Cryer, Divination, 306 – 323. 6

4. Law and Narrative

265

4. Law and Narrative One should not underestimate the significance of the nexus of law and narrative to the oracular novellas, to the Priestly history, to priestly life and conceptualization, or as a formative aspect of societies at large. Generally speaking, two components may be said to constitute community identity, a normative, behavioral one and an intellectual, discursive one. In its essence, the normative, behavioral component has no temporal axis. It focuses on an absolute present, controlling any given moment, in any given circumstance, how one must behave, what one must do. The discursive component makes formative use of temporality – it may even create an important dimension of it if not the whole of it – communicating origins and hopes, the rhyme and the reason.7 Within society and culture generally, one may identify the first component with the world and workings of law, morality, and norm or normativity,8 and the second component with the quest for and control of causality, with genealogy and narrative.9 Literarily, they come to expression differently, the one as legal writing, legislation and legal code, and the other as narrative, legend and history. That said, as manifested and realized in practice, the two elements, the two modes of organizing experience and ideas, appear together in juxtaposition, interrelation, and interaction. They do not exist in isolation from each other. A series of prior thoughts brought together here to express this viewpoint helps to flesh it out. G. W. F. Hegel defined historical writing as the combination of two components, facts and their organization relative to each other, namely, their narration or narrativization. In his definition, the state is a social system, the essence of which consists of laws, norms, and customs supported by a supreme political authority – in other words, a political constitution. Only such a system suits narrative history. It alone requires it; it alone is worthy of it. Only in a state, conscious of the full force of the concept of law, can agreements be attended by the awareness that they must be recorded, with all their circumstances, namely, narrativized.10

 7

  In this direction, see Nasuti, “Identity, Identification, and Imitation.”   On the relevant origins of the term and concept halakhah in “divine decision,” see Abusch, “Alaktu and Halakha.”  9  On the relevant relationship between genealogy and historiography in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature, see Wilson, Genealogy and History. Note the varied use of the term K ‫תולדות‬K through Genesis. At one end of the spectrum, literal usage, see 5:1; 11:10. At the other end of the spectrum, it introduces things that happen, episodes, in 6:9; 25:19; 37:2. For a range in between, see 10:1; 11:27; 25:12. A very extended, perhaps even metaphorical use, occurs in 2:4, with respect to the heavens and the earth. On the role played by genealogies in particular and the genealogical impulse more generally in the development of Greek historiography, see Hornblower, “Introduction,” esp. 7 – 24; Bertelli, “Hecataeus: From Genealogy to Historiography.” On the varieties of comparable sequencing lists and their role in historiography, see Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography. 10   The Philosophy of History, 59 – 63.  8

266

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography

Hayden White advanced and expanded this line of thought: Interest in the social system, which is nothing other than a system of human relationships governed by law, creates the possibility of conceiving the kinds of tensions, conflicts, struggles, and their various kinds of resolutions that we are accustomed to find in any representation of reality presenting itself to us as history.11

On this basis, White proposed that progress in historical consciousness comes together with a growing focus on the legal system. In other words, if every historical story has a moral to it and is granted significance beyond a mere rendering of a series of events then one must conclude that its function consists precisely of learning from the events it recounts.12 Going one step further, White made the more comprehensive claim that the most elemental component of the very genre of narrative consists of law, even when not mentioned explicitly. This element always stands in the background, and one should understand all narrative as a grappling, to one end or another, with law, norm, and authority: Once we have been alerted to the intimate relationship that Hegel suggests exists between law, historicality, and narrativity, we cannot but be struck by the frequency with which narrativity, whether of the fictional or the factual sort, presupposes the existence of a legal system against which or on behalf of which the typical agents of a narrative militate. And this raises the suspicion that narrative in general, from the folktale to the novel, from the annals to the fully realized “history,” has to do with the topics of law, legality, legitimacy, or, more generally, authority.13

In the view of Hegel and White, then, narrative derives from law, responds to it, and promotes it. The relationship described by Hegel and White, though, represents only a single link in a longer chain. On one side of this link, even if narrative depends on law for its development, this generative law itself, according to Carlo Ginzburg, reflects and manifests an underlying, basic narrative thought-process – a semiotic thought process. This thoughtprocess perceives various phenomena as signifying ciphers, as shivers and shards of worlds gone by awaiting and inviting reconstruction and completion. To Ginzburg, the hunter embodies the ancient paradigm of this mode of thought. Identifying traces in the dirt and disturbances in the rocks and trees, and reconstructing through them a sequence of events that has taken place, the hunter astounded those who accompanied him with his ability to narrate the past: “A bear passed by here.”14 Different social situations, each with its own circumstances, actualize this kind of thought in alternate modes of discourse, crystallizing as distinct literary genres, each subordinate to the trajectory of the temporal axis that characterizes its focus and its substance: For the future, there was divination in a strict sense; for the past, the present, and the future, there was medical semiotics in its twofold aspect, diagnostic and prognostic; for the past, there was jurisprudence.15 11

  “The Value of Narrativity,” 14.   Ibid. 13   Ibid., 13. 14   “Clues,” 102 – 5. 15   Ibid., 104 – 105. 12

4. Law and Narrative

267

For Ginzburg, then, narrative thought realized with respect to the past manifests itself in law and the legal system. As jurisprudence – the recovery and description of a full past with imperative force – narrative makes law possible. Law, in turn, provides narrative thought with subject matter and a specific language. On the other side of the link between law and narrative described by Hegel and White, the narrative generated by law and dependent upon it, in turn, frames and subordinates that very law. In a broadly influential essay, Robert Cover argued for the ultimate dependence of law and of a general conception of law upon narrative.16 Law functions as one part of a more comprehensive, more complex whole, a normative world defined by and built with the power of narrative. Cover illustrated the inherent susceptibility of law or law codes to differing and even conflicting interpretations in the absence of a framing narrative. Until a narrative stands in the background and directs interpretation of laws, one cannot determine the laws’ meaning. Put more sharply, without narrative, laws by themselves have no meaning. Cover prominently and deliberately made his case on the basis of Jewish sources, biblical and others. Before him, Hayyim Nahman Bialik gave full, poetic expression to the essential, material continuities between law and narrative in an essay he named “Halakhah ve-Aggadah” after the two discursive modes of Rabbinic poiesis out of biblical matter:17 Law and narrative lore – they are really two which are one, the two faces of a single creature . . . Law is the coalescence, the final and necessary crystallization, of narrative lore; narrative lore is the smelting of law.18

This process, though, is not linear in character, but dialectical and cyclical: The raucous din of the heart’s pull in the rush of its race to the point of its aspiration – that is narrative lore; the resting place, the satisfaction of the pull, its stilling – that is law. Dream runs drawn to resolution, desire to deed, thought to word, flower to fruit – and legend to law. And yet, there within the fruit is embedded already the seed from which a new flower will yet emerge. The law risen to the level of symbol . . . is itself become mother to a new narrative . . . Living, healthy law is narrative that once was or is yet to be, and so the other way around. The beginning and the end of them both are rooted each in the other.19

In this bimodal, self-renewing organism Bialik saw the vitality of a nation and the means for the spiritual renewal of a people. The Torah offers a particularly important and illuminating example of the way communities negotiate and transmit the values with which they identify themselves by 16

  “Nomos and Narrative.” See also Nasuti, “Identity, Identification, and Imitation,” 11.   The Collected Writings, 334 – 49, my translation. Bialik’s piece was first published in the newspapers HaKenesset and Hadashot Ha’aretz, and in English as Hayyim Nahman Bialik, Halachah and Aggadah, trans. Leon Simon (London: Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, 1944). For the definition and derivation of the term halakhah, see Abusch, “Alaktu and Halakhah.” No comparable study appears to exist yet with regard to the term (h)aggadah. 18   The Collected Writings, 334. 19   Ibid. 17

268

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography

variously configuring and reconfiguring their law and their narrative lore with respect to each other. First of all, as a literary entity, the Torah is a complex sequence and varied web of narrative and law. At the heart of it sits a divine lawgiving, in a covenantal framework, situated mythically at Israel’s foundational moment en route from Egypt to Canaan.20 To judge by its multifarious impact – on Persian-period biblical literature (e. g. Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Ruth), varieties of editions of the Torah (e. g. the Samaritan Pentateuch; 4Q364 – 367), on Hellenistic adaptive compositions (e. g. Jubilees, the Testament literature, the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Document), on the Greek and Aramaic translation literature, on the form and content of the Passover seder and haggadah, on the midrashic commentary-collections and the Medieval commentaries, and more – the Torah as a whole, with its complex mixture and interaction of law and narrative, has richly and durably served community identity, whether such identity has been shifting subtly or transforming itself dramatically. Unraveling the composite Torah into its separate sources reveals that the interweaving of law and narrative that characterizes the Torah already exists in most of the prior literary works that were combined to create it, and each one of these pre-biblical, preTorah works presents itself, its legal substance, and its version of early Israelite history differently from the others. More pointedly, each of the works presents a version of Israel’s historical foundations as a nation with law at its center, and they have mutually exclusive ideas about what that law is; about how, precisely, it defines the relationship between Yahweh and Israel and functions within it; and about the conceit that best expresses the nature of that relationship and the place of law in it.21 One may say that the Priestly work brings law and narrative into mutual relation more richly, continuously, and organically than do the others. It weaves a legal, legislative strand into the fabric of the history it narrates, and accentuates the strand at critical junctures that alter the patterns of history as it unfolds. In the beginning, at creation, as Elohim, the deity stands at a great distance from humankind and its world, but gradually he draws closer, and the closer he draws, the greater the number of laws required and generated, until the pivotal moment when Israel reaches Mount Sinai and, as Yahweh, he descends to dwell permanently in Israel’s midst (Exod 19:1 – 2a; 24:16 – 18a; 34:29 – 35; 40:17 – 38; Lev 9:23 – 24; Num 7:89) – which issues in a host of rules, requirements, and regimens all organized around the central conceit of a noble, life-enabling lord (Exod 25:1 – 31:17; 40:1 – 16; Leviticus 1 – 27; Num 1:1 – 10:10). On the historical plane, laws regularly emerge in response to human actions and events and developments of universal scope (Gen 9:1 – 7; compare 1:28 – 30; 6:9 – 22); they shape events and developments of national import and memory (Exod 12:1 – 24); and they provide adjustments on more narrowly focused issues as 20

  See, e. g., Watts, “The Legal Characterization of God,” 3 – 4.   For elaboration, see Chavel, “Biblical Law,” 237 – 265. The point significantly undercuts claims regarding the fact of the combination of law and narrative in the Torah as a whole, the theoretical or chronological priority of one element over the other, or any external sources of influence upon the idea of combining them, e. g., Berlin, “Numinous Nomos.” 21

4. Law and Narrative

269

required (Num 17:27 – 18:7). The work does not portray the deity as one who considers and anticipates every single eventuality and preemptively accounts for them all, but as one who recognizes, or who comes to recognize, that his creation contains random factors that affect him and that to maintain his creation he will have to adapt himself to its variability and unpredictability. All such adaptations take the form of law – spoken, articulate, compelling communication to subordinates. On the cosmic plane, the universe itself pulsates with legal potency from its very inception. The deity – as Elohim – first establishes the character of procreation, sustenance and diet, and even time (Gen 1:26 – 30 and 2:1 – 3). Subsequently, he recasts these features of existence as matters of law and obedience, first for all humanity (Gen 9:1 – 7), then – as El Shaddai – for the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 17). Ultimately – as Yahweh – he reifies them as full-blown, fully articulated law for Israel specifically (Exod 16*; 31:12 – 17; 35:1 – 3; Lev 11;22 17; 18; 20; 23; 24:10 – 23; 25; Num 35:9 – 34). On the theological plane, the work extends the trope of divine will as law far beyond the categories and conceptions of the other works. In the Priestly history, law represents a translation into human categories, formulations and terms of the necessary effect of the presence of the ever-generative God Yahweh upon the world, a user’s manual for retaining that presence and ensuring its life-enabling effects. Seen against this background, the four oracular novellas stand in deep continuity with the Priestly history and with the priestly institution and mindset, giving crystalized shape to their core ideas about the very construction of society. The analysis of the novellas as reflecting different motives, means of composition and incorporation, and periods relative to the Priestly history and to each other makes the continuity in form, plot, and underlying conception even more impressive. It should be added that to the degree that historical vicissitudes in the composition and growth of the different texts do not occlude their shared form and its connection to the social institution from which it appears to derive, the analysis of the four oracular novellas offers a particularly strong instance of the utility and viability of the socalled form-critical perspective. Importantly, the instance demonstrates the need for suppleness and nuance in considering the history of the form and its analysis through stages. The shared form begins life not as a piece of literature – speculative, expressive, affective – but as a mundane, pragmatic device, a record. Once it serves authors as an expressive medium, the form shifts its shape. The historiographers adapt it fully to their needs. Moreover, the form does not evolve from its initial, pragmatic shape along some developmental line of growth. Each literary instantiation begins, as it were, with the original, pragmatic form and actualizes it distinctively with no concern for prior literary appropriations and realizations. The historical relationship argued to exist between the novellas on cursing the deity and violating the Sabbath brings the point home forcefully. The novella on cursing the deity realizes the form in full terms, with

22

  See Douglas, “Forbidden Animals,” 16 – 18.

270

Summary and Conclusions: Oracular Novellas and Priestly Historiography

an extremely rich, complex legal climax and a carefully crafted depiction of the action around it. The novella on the Sabbath models itself on that novella, but employs the opposite, most minimal form. Like the schematic plot and its multifarious realization in narrative, the uniform pragmatic source has manifold realization as literature.23

23   This summary and set of conclusions contrasts sharply with Milgrom’s reasoning that there must have been an ancient narrative tradition of Moses’ indecisiveness concerning these specific four points of law; see idem, Leviticus, 3.2105.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations Aaron b. Elijah

R. Aaron ben Elijah. Keter Torah ṿe-hu perush ʻal ha-Torah. 4 vols. Edited by J. Savskan. Eupatoria: Firkovitz, 1866 – 1867. (Hebrew)

ABD

Freedman, D. N., ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York, New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Abusch, “Alaktu and Halakha” Abusch, Tzvi. “Alaktu and Halakha: Oracular Decision, Divine Revelation.” Harvard Theological Review 80 (1987): 15 – 42. Abravanel

Abravanel, Isaac ben Judah. Commentary on the Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Benei Arabel, 1979. (Hebrew)

Achenbach and others, The Foreigner and the Law Achenbach, Reinhard, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wöhrle, eds. The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil” Ackerman, James S. “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Approach to the Court History in 2 Samuel 9 – 20 and 1 Kings  1 – 2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 41 – 60. Ackerman, Under Every Green Tree Ackerman, Susan. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 46. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1992. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators Aejmelaeus, Anneli. On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993. Aharoni, Land of Israel

Aharoni, Yohanan. Land of Israel in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography. Revised ed. Edited by I. Eph‘al. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 1988. (Hebrew)

AHw

Soden, Wolfram von, ed. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965 – 1981.

Aitken, “K‫דרך‬K”

Aitken, James K. “K‫דרך‬K.” Pages 11 – 38 in Semantics of Ancient Hebrew. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 6. Louvain: Peeters, 1998.

272

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Aitken, “K‫נקב‬K II”

Aitken, James K. “K‫נָ ַקב‬K II.” Pages 101 – 105 in Semantics of Ancient Hebrew. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 6. Louvain: Peeters, 1998.

Aitken, “K‫קבב‬K”

Aitken, James K. “‫ב‬K ‫ ָק ַב‬K.” Pages 114 – 121 in Semantics of Ancient Hebrew. Edited by T. Muraoka. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 6. Louvain: Peeters, 1998.

Aitken, Semantics of Blessing and Cursing Aitken, James K. The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 23. Louvain: Peeters, 2007. Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes” Albertz, Reinhard. “From Aliens to Proselytes: Non-Priestly and Priestly Legislation Concerning Strangers.” Pages 53 – 69 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wöhrle. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative: Revised and Updated. New York, New York: Basic Books, 2011. Alter, The David Story

Alter, Robert. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1999.

ANET

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Ashley, Numbers

Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993.

Aster, The Unbeatable Light

Aster, Shawn Zelig. The Unbeatable Light: Melammu and Its Biblical Parallels. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 384. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012.

Auerbach, Mimesis

Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated W. R. Trask. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1953.

Auld, Joshua, Moses, and the Land Auld, A. Graeme. Joshua, Moses and the Land: TetrateuchPentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation Since 1938. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980. Avishur, Studies in Biblical Narrative Avishur, Yitzhak. Studies in Biblical Narrative: Style, Structure, and the Ancient Near Eastern Literary Background. Tel AvivJaffa: Archaeological Center, 1999.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

273

Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture Avrahami, Yael. The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 545. New York, New York: T & T Clark, 2012. Baal ha-Turim

Reinitz, Yaakov, ed. Commentary on the Pentateuch by Baal ha-Turim (Jacob ben Asher). Bnei Brak: Feldheim, 1971. (Hebrew)

Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud. Vilna Edition. 20 vols. Lithuania, 1880 – 1886. Often reprinted. Now online via the National Library of Israel: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l0.htm.

Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven, Connecticut and London: Yale University Press, 2012. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction Baden, Joel S. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Baden, “On Exodus 33,1 – 11” Baden, Joel S. “On Exodus 33,1 – 11.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012): 329 – 340. Baden, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story” Baden, Joel S. “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010): 491 – 504. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri Baentsch, Bruno. Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 2 – 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Bamberger, “Revelations of Torah” Bamberger, Bernard J. “Revelations of Torah after Sinai: An Aggadic Study.” Hebrew Union College Annual 16 (1941): 97 – 113. BDAG

Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BDB

Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907. Repr., 1975.

Beentjes, “Inverted Quotations” Beentjes, P. C. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible, A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.” Biblica 63 (1982): 506 – 523. Beer, Exodus

Beer, Georg. Exodus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Erste Reihe 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1939.

274

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Bekhor Shor

Bekhor Shor, R. Joseph. Commentaries of Yosef Bekhor Shor on the Pentateuch. Edited by Y. Nebo. Jerusalem: Mosad haRav Kook, 1994. (Hebrew)

Ben Yehuda, Dictionary of Hebrew Ben Yehuda, Eliezer. A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew. 16 vols. Edited by H. Ben Yehuda, M. Z. Segal, and N. H. Tur-Sinai. Tel Aviv: La’am Publishing House, 1948 – 1959. (Hebrew) Ben-Barak, Inheritance by Daughters Ben-Barak, Zafrira. Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal, and Ideological Revolution. Tel Aviv: Merkaz Arke’ologi, 2004. (Hebrew) Ben-Dov, “The Poor’s Curse”

Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “The Poor’s Curse: Exodus XXII 20 – 26 and Curse Literature in the Ancient World.” Vetus Testamentum 56 (2006): 431 – 451.

Ben-Hayyim, Literary and Oral Tradition Ben-Hayyim, Zeev. The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic amongst the Samaritans. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1957 – 1976. (Hebrew) Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew

Bendavid, Abba. Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967 – 1971. (Hebrew)

Bendavid, Parallels

Bendavid, Abba. Parallels in the Bible. Jerusalem: Carta, 1972. (Hebrew)

Berlin, “Numinous Nomos”

Berlin, Adele. “Numinous Nomos: On the Relationship between Narrative and Law.” Pages 25 – 31 in “A Wise and Discerning Mind” : Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long. Edited by Saul M. Olyan and Robert C. Culley. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 2000.

Bertelli, “Hecataeus: From Genealogy to Historiography” Bertelli, Lucio. “Hecataeus: From Genealogy to Historiography.” Pages 67 – 94 in The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Edited by Nino Luraghi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Bertholet, Leviticus

Bertholet, Alfred. Leviticus. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 3. Tübingen and Leipzig: Mohr Siebeck, 1901.

BHK

Kittel, Rudolph, ed. Biblia Hebraica. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909.

Bialik, The Collected Writings

Bialik, Hayyim Nahman. The Collected Writings of H. N. Bialik. Tel Aviv: Vaad Hayovel, 1933. (Hebrew)

Bickerman, “Calendars and Chronology” Bickerman, Elias J. “Calendars and Chronology.” Pages 60 – 69 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume One: Intro-

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

275

duction: The Persian Period. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Bird, “The Place of Women”

Bird, Phyllis. “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus.” Pages 397 – 419 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress, 1987.

Blank, “The Curse”

Blank, Sheldon. “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath.” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950 – 1951): 73 – 95.

Blau, Grammar

Blau, Joshua. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976.

Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 123. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice Boecker, Hans J. Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East. Translated by J. Moiser; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg, 1980. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic

Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Borenstein, “Administration and Economy” Borenstein, Aryeh. “The Administration and Economy of the Manassite Territory at the End of the Israelite Monarcy: In Light of a Renewed Analysis of the Samaria Ostraca.” Pages 61 – 121 in Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting – 1991. Edited by Z. H. Erlich and Y. Eshel. Jerusalem: Reuven Mas, 1991. (Hebrew, with English summary on pp. xi – xiv) Borowski, Agriculture

Borowski, Oded. Agriculture in Iron Age Israel. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1987.

Bottéro, Mesopotamia

Bottéro, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Chicago, Illinois and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Boys, Key

Boys, Thomas. A Key to the Book of Psalms. 2nd rev. ed. Revised by E. W. Bullinger. London: E. W. Bullinger, 1890.

Braulik, Deuteronomium

Braulik, Georg. Deuteronomium II: 16,18 – 34,12. Die Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1992.

Bray, “Genesis 23”

Bray, Jason S. “Genesis 23: A Priestly Paradigm for Burial.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 60 (1993): 69 – 73.

276 Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land”

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Brichto, Herbert C. “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – A Biblical Complex.” Hebrew Union College Annual 44 (1973): 1 – 54.

Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” Brichto, Herbert C. The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 13. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1963. Bright, Early Israel

Bright, John. Early Israel in Recent History Writing: A Study in Method. Studies in Biblical Theology 19. London: SCM, 1956.

Broshi, “On Trade in Ancient Times” Broshi, Magen. “On Trade in Ancient Times: Some Methodological Notes.” Pages 195 – 201 in Commerce in Palestine throughout the Ages. Edited by B. Kedar, T. Dotan, and S. Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and the Israel Exploration Society, 1990. (Hebrew) Brueggemann, “2 Samuel 21 – 24” Brueggemann, Walter. “2 Samuel 21 – 24: An Appendix of Deconstruction?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): 383 – 397. Buber, Darko shel Mikra

Buber, Martin. Darko shel Mikra: ‘iyyunim bedefusei signon ba-Tanakh. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1964.

Buber, Die Fünf Bücher der Weisung Buber, Martin, and Franz Rosenzweig. Die Fünf Bücher der Weisung. Revised ed. Köln: J. Hegner, 1954. Budd, “Priestly Instruction”

Budd, Philip J. “Priestly Instruction in Ancient Israel.” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 1 – 11.

Budde, Richter und Samuel

Budde, Karl. Die Bücher Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau. Gießen: J. Ricker, 1890.

Budde, Samuel

Budde, Karl. Die Bücher Samuel. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 8. Tübingen and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1902.

Burney, Judges

Burney, Charles F. The Book of Judges. London: Rivingtons, 1918.

Burney, Kings

Burney, Charles F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Repr., New York, New York: Ktav, 1970.

CAD

The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago, Illinois, 1956 – 2010.

Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch Carpenter, J. Estlin and G. Harford-Battersby. The Hexateuch. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1900.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Carroll, Jeremiah

277

Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1986.

Carter, “The Province of Yehud” Carter, Charles E. “The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distribution and Demography.” Pages 106 – 145 in Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. CDA

Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd ed. Santag 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000.

Chapman and Streane, Leviticus Chapman, A. T., and A. W. Streane. The Book of Leviticus. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Charles, Jubilees

Charles, R. H. The Book of Jubilees, or the Little Genesis. London: Black, 1902.

Charpin, Writing, Law, and Kingship Charpin, Dominique. Writing, Law, and Kingship in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Translated by Jane Marie Todd. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2010. Chavel, “Altars and Priests in Exodus 20” Chavel, Simeon. “Altars and Priests in Exodus 20.” Lecture delivered at Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, St. Andrews, 7 – 11 July 2013. Chavel, “At the Boundary”

Chavel, Simeon. “At the Boundary of Textual and Literary Criticism: The Case of K‫כי‬K in Lv 20:9.” Textus 20 (2000): 61 – 70.

Chavel, “Biblical Law”

Chavel, Simeon. “Biblical Law.” Pages 227 – 272 in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible – Introductions and Studies. Edited by Zipora Talshir. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2011. (Hebrew)

Chavel, “Compositry and Creativity” Chavel, Simeon. “Compositry and Creativity in 2 Samuel 21:1 – 14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122/1 (2003): 23 – 52. Chavel, “The Face of God”

Chavel, Simeon. “The Face of God and the Etiquette of EyeContact: Visitation, Pilgrimage, and Prophetic Vision in Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish Imagination.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 19 (2012): 1 – 55.

Chavel, “Imagined Beginnings” Chavel, Simeon. “The Imagined Beginnings of the World and of Humanity in Genesis 1 – 3.” Lecture delivered at Imagined Beginnings: The Poetics and Politics of Cosmogony, Theogony

278

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

and Anthropogony in the Ancient World, The Center for the Study of Ancient Religions at the University of Chicago and the Midwest Consortium on Ancient Religions, April 8 – 10, 2011. Chavel, “The Literary Development of Deuteronomy 12” Chavel, Simeon. “The Literary Development of Deuteronomy 12: Between Religious Ideal and Social Reality.” Pages 303 – 326 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, B. J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Chavel, “Oracular Novellae and Biblical Historiography” Chavel, Simeon. “Oracular Novellae and Biblical Historiography: Through the Lens of Law and Narrative.” Clio 39 (2009): 1 – 27. Childs, Exodus

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster, 1974.

Cogan, Imperialism and Religion Cogan, Morton. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19. Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974. Cogan, “A Technical Term for Exposure” Cogan, Morton. “A Technical Term for Exposure.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27 (1968): 133 – 135. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings

Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. Anchor Bible 11. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1988.

Cohen, Cultic Calendars

Cohen, Mark E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1993.

Cooke, Joshua

Cooke, G. A. The Book of Joshua. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918.

Cooke, Ruth

Cooke, G. A. The Book of Ruth. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913.

COS

Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997 – 2002, 2003.

Cover, “Nomos and Narrative” Cover, Robert. “Nomos and Narrative.” Harvard Law Review 97 (1983): 4 – 68. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri

Cowley, Arthur E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

279

Crawford, Blessing and Curse

Crawford, Timothy G. Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age. American University Studies VII: Theory and Religion 120. New York, New York: Peter Lang, 1992.

Cross, Canaanite Myth

Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Crüsemann, The Torah

Crüsemann, Frank. The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress, 1996.

Cryer, Divination

Cryer, Frederick H. Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 142. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

Cudden, Dictionary of Literary Terms Cudden, J. A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Curzon, Dictionary of Law

Curzon, L. B. Dictionary of Law. 6th ed. Harlow, UK: Longman, 2002.

Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte

Dalman, Gustaf. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. 7 vols. 1928 – 1942. Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964. 8th vol. Edited by Julia Männchen. Schriften des Deutschen PalästinaInstituts 3 – 10. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001.

Dan, “Trade Within”

Dan, Yaron. “Trade Within and Trade Without the Land of Israel in Second Temple Times.” Pages 91 – 107 in Commerce in Palestine throughout the Ages. Edited by B. Kedar, T. Dotan, and S. Safrai. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and the Israel Exploration Society, 1990. (Hebrew)

Daniel-Nataf, Philo

Daniel-Nataf, S. Philo of Alexandria – Writings, Vol. 1: Historical Works, Apologetical Works. Jerusalem: Bialik and the Israeli National Academy of the Sciences, 1986. (Hebrew)

Daube, Studies in Biblical Law Daube, David. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947. Davies, The Dissenting Reader Davies, Eryl W. The Dissenting Reader: Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Hants, England: Ashgate, 2003. Davies, “Inheritance Rights”

Davies, Eryl W. “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage.” Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981): 138 – 144, 257 – 268.

Davies, “Ruth IV 5”

Davies, Eryl W. “Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the Go’el.” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 231 – 234.

280

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Day, Molech

Day, John. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

DB

Hastings, James, ed. A Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark; New York, New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1900 – 1904.

DDD

van der Toorn, Karel, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

De Vries, “Blasphemy”

De Vries, Simon J. “Blasphemy.” IDB: 1.445.

Dever and Gitin, Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past Dever, William G., and Seymour Gitin, eds. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past – Canaan, Ancient Israel, and their Neighbors: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29 – 31, 2000. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Diamond, “An Eye for an Eye” Diamond. A. S. “An Eye for an Eye.” Iraq 19 (1957): 151 – 155. Dillmann, Exodus und Leviticus Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. 3rd ed. Edited by V. Ryssel. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 12. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1897. Dillmann, Genesis

Dillmann, August. Die Genesis. 6th ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 11. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1892.

Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. 2nd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886. DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. 39 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955 – 2005.

DNWSI

Hoftijzer, Jacob, and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Handbuch der Orientalistik: Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten 21: 1 – 2. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

Dolansky, Now You See It, Now You Don’t Dolansky, Shawna. Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Biblical Perspectives on the Relationship between Magic and Religion. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Dorival, Les Nombres

Dorival G., et al. eds. La Bible d’Alexandrie: Les Nombres. Paris: Cerf, 1994.

Douglas, “Forbidden Animals” Douglas, Mary. “The Forbidden Animals in Leviticus.” JSOT 59 (1993): 3 – 23.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

281

Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch Dozeman, T., K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz, eds. The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Driver, A Treatise

Driver, Samuel R. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892.

Driver, Deuteronomy

Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. International Critical Commentary 5. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902.

Driver, Exodus

Driver, Samuel R. The Book of Exodus. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911.

Driver, Genesis

Driver, Samuel R. The Book of Genesis. 2nd ed. Westminster Commentaries 1. London: Methuen, 1904.

Driver, Introduction

Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 1913. Repr., The Meridian Library, ML3. New York, New York: Meridian, 1957.

Driver, “Manasseh”

Driver, Samuel R. “Manasseh.” DB: 3.230 – 232.

Dupont-Sommer, “Sur la fête de la Pâque” Dupont-Sommer, André. “Sur la fête de la Pâque dans les documents araméens d’Eléphantine.” Revue des études juives 7 (1947): 39 – 51. EBOAE

Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009. Web.

Ehrlich, Literal Meaning

Ehrlich, Arnold B. The Bible According to Its Literal Meaning. 3 vols. Library of Biblical Studies. Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1899 – 1901. (Hebrew)

Ehrlich, Psalmen

Ehrlich, Arnold B. Die Psalmen. Berlin: M. Poppelauer, 1905.

Ehrlich, Randglossen

Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. 7 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908 – 1913. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1968.

Eichrodt, Theology

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Translated by J. A. Baker. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1961 – 1967.

Eisenstein, Otsar Midrashim

Eisenstein, Y. D., ed. Otsar Midrashim. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Or Hadash, 2002. (Hebrew)

Eissfeldt, Introduction

Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction, Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York, New York: Harper and Row, 1965.

282

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

EJ

Berenbaum, Michael, and Fred Skolnik, eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. 22 vols. Detroit, Michigan: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007.

Elliger, Leviticus

Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966.

Elliott-Binns, Numbers

Elliott-Binns, Leonard. The Book of Numbers. Westminster Commentaries 4. London: Methuen, 1927.

EM

Encyclopedia Miqra’it. 9 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1965 – 89. (Hebrew)

Endres, Chronicles and Its Synoptic Parallels Endres, John C., John B. Burns, and Corrine Patton, eds. Chronicles and Its Synoptic Parallels in Samuel, Kings, and Related Biblical Texts. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1998. Eslinger, “The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler” Eslinger, Lyle. “The Case of an Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy XXV 11 – 12.” Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981): 269 – 281. Exod. Rab.

See: Midrash Rabbah.

Feder, Blood Expiation

Feder, Yitzhaq. Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning. Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 2. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

Feliks, Agriculture in Eretz-Israel Feliks, Yehuda. Agriculture in Eretz-Israel in the Period of the Bible and Talmud: Basic Farming Methods and Implements. 2nd rev. ed. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1990. (Hebrew) Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor” Fensham, F. Charles. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21 (1962): 129 – 139. Finkelstein, “Ammiṣaduqa’s Edict” Finkelstein, J. J. “Ammiṣaduqa’s Edict and the Babylonian ‘Law Codes.’” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 15 (1961): 91 – 104. Finkelstein, “The Ox That Gored” Finkelstein, J. J. “The Ox That Gored.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71/2 (1981): 5 – 89. Finley, Ancient Economy

Finley, Moses I. The Ancient Economy. 3rd ed. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1999.

Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Repr. 1989.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

283

Fishbane, Studies in Biblical Magic Fishbane, Michael. Studies in Biblical Magic: Origins, Uses and Transformations of Terminology and Literary Form. Ph.D dissertation. Brandeis University, 1971. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel Fokkelman, Jan. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 3: Throne and City (II. Sam 2 – 8  & 21 – 24). Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1990. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis Fokkelman, Jan. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975. Fox, Five Books of Moses

Fox, Everett. The Five Books of Moses. New York, New York: Schocken, 1997.

Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant” Fox, Michael. “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in Light of the Priestly ôt Etiologies.” Revue Biblique 81 (1974): 557 – 596. Frayne, Ur III Period

Frayne, Douglas R. Ur III Period (2112 – 2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Frg. Tg.

Klein, Michael L., ed. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources. 2 vols. Analecta Biblica 76. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980.

Frankel, Murmuring Stories

Frankel, David. The Murmuring Stories ofthe Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacredotal Lore. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 89. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Frankfort and Frankfort, “Myth and Reality” Frankfort, Henri, and H. A. Frankfort. “Myth and Reality.” Pages 11 – 36 in H. Frankfort, H. A. Frankfort, J. A. Wilson, and T. Jacobsen. Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1946. Reprinted, Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1949. Fritz, Josua

Fritz, Volkmar. Das Buch Joshua. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.

Frymer-Kensky, HANEL

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Israel.” Pages 975 – 1046 in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, vol. 2. Edited by Raymond Westbrook. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Gabel and Wheeler, “The Redactor’s Hand” Gabel, J. B., and C. B. Wheeler. “The Redactor’s Hand in the Blasphemy Pericope of Leviticus XXIV.” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 227 – 229.

284

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Galil, “The Story of the Blasphemer” Galil, Gershon. “The Story of the Blasphemer.” In Leviticus. Edited by M. Weinfeld. Olam ha-Tanakh. Jerusalem: DavidsonAtai, 1987. (Hebrew) Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary Garner, B. A. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. St. Paul, Minnesota: Thomson-West, 2004. Geiger, The Bible and Its Translations Geiger, Abraham. The Bible and Its Translations in Relation to the Internal Development of Judaism. Translated from the German by Y. L. Baruch. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1949, 1972. (Hebrew) Gen. Rab.

See: Midrash Rabbah.

Gerstenberger, Leviticus

Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996.

Gesundheit, “The Development of the Tamid” Bar-On (= Gesundheit), Shimon. “The Development of the Tamid Offering and Its Place in the Priestly Calendar of Sacrifices.” Pages 143 – 153 in Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies (1999 – 2000) – Division A: The Bible and Its World. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001. (Hebrew) Gesundheit, Three Times a Year Gesundheit, Shimon, Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Gevirtz, “Curse”

Gevirtz, Stanley. “Curse.” IDB: 1.749 – 750.

Gevirtz, “West Semitic Curses” Gevirtz, Stanley. “West Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law.” Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961): 137 – 158. Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage Ginsberg, Harold Louis. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 24. New York, New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983. Ginsberg, “Job”

Ginsberg, Harold Louis, et al. “Job, the Book of.” Pages 341 – 359 in EJ vol. 11.

Ginzberg, “Clues”

Ginzberg, Carlo. “Clues: Roots of an Evidential Paradigm.” Pages 96 – 125 in Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method. Translated by J. and A. C. Tedeschi. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.

GKC

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Revised by E. Kautsch. 2nd ed. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910, 1974.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

285

Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judea Goodman, Martin. The Ruling Class of Judea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A. D. 66 – 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Gray, I & II Kings

Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1964.

Gray, Numbers

Gray, George B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. International Critical Commentary 4. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903.

Green, “Ruth”

Green, Barbara. “The Plot of the Biblical Story of Ruth.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (1982): 55 – 68.

Greenberg, “K‫נסה‬K in Exodus 20:20” Greenberg, Moshe. “K‫נסה‬K in Exodus 20:20 and the Purpose of the Sinaitic Theophany.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 273 – 276. Greenberg, “Some Postulates”

Greenberg, Moshe. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” Pages 5 – 28 in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by M. Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960. Repr., Pages 25 – 41 in Moshe Greenberg. Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought. JPS Scholar of Distinction Series. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1995.

Greenberg, Understanding Exodus Greenberg, Moshe. Understanding Exodus. Heritage of Biblical Israel, 2. New York, New York: Behrman House, 1969. Greenfield, “Some Phoenician Words” Greenfield, Jonas. “Some Phoenician Words.” Semitica 38 (1990): 155 – 158. Greengus, Laws in the Bible

Greengus, Samuel. Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the Ancient Near East. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011.

Greenstein, “Deconstruction”

Greenstein, Edward L. “Deconstruction and Biblical Narrative.” Prooftexts 9 (1989): 43 – 71.

Greenstein, “The Language of Job” Greenstein, Edward L. “The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 651 – 666. Greenstein, “Trans-Semitic Idiomatic Equivalency” Greenstein, Edward L. “Trans-Semitic Idiomatic Equivalency and the Derivation of Hebrew ml’kh.” Ugarit Forschungen 11 (1979): 329 – 336.

286

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Greenstein, “Truth or Theodicy” Greenstein, Edward L. “Truth or Theodicy? Speaking Truth to Power in the Book of Job.” The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 27 (2006): 238 – 258. Grosby, Biblical Ideas of Nationality Grosby, Steve. Biblical Ideas of Nationality – Ancient and Modern. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Grosby, “The Biblical ‘Nation’” Grosby, Steven. “The Biblical ‘Nation’ as a Problem for Philosophy.” Hebraic Political Studies 1 (2005): 7 – 23. Grosby, “Political Anthropology and the Bible” Grosby, Steven. “Political Anthropology and the Bible: GOY and EZRĀCH.” Political Theory. Legal Theory. Classical Jewish Texts. Three interdisciplinary presentations engaging the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic Literature, The University of Chicago Divinity School, February 10, 2010. Grosz, “Women in Nuzi”

Grosz, Kataryna. “Some Aspects of the Position of Women in Nuzi.” Pages 167 – 180 in Women’s Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5 – 7, 1987. Edited by B. S. Lesko. Brown Judaic Studies 166. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1989.

Gunkel, Genesis

Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. 3rd ed. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Repr., Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1997.

Guthe, Ezra and Nehemiah

Guthe, Hermann. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Sacred Books of the Old Testament – The Polychrome Bible 20. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1901.

Hakham, Psalms

Hakham, Amos. The Book of Psalms. Da’at Mikra. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1979 – 1981. (Hebrew)

HALOT

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Study Edition. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Halpern, “Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1” Halpern, Baruch. “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy.” Eretz Israel 27 (2003): 74* – 84*. Halpern, David‘s Secret Demons Halpern, Baruch. David‘s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Bible in Its World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

287

HANEL

Westbrook, Raymond, ed. A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. 2 Volumes. Handbuch der Orientalistik 72. Boston, Massachusetts: Brill, 2003.

Haran, Ages and Institutions

Haran, Menahem. Ages and Institutions in the Bible. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1972. (Hebrew)

Haran, The Biblical Collection Haran, Menahem. The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik and Magnes, 1996 – 2008. (Hebrew) Haran, “The Shining of Moses’ Face” Haran, Menahem. “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography.” Pages 159 – 173 in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström. Edited W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Harrelson, “Blessings and Cursings” Harrelson, W. J. “Blessings and Cursings.” IDB: 1.446 – 448. Hartley, Leviticus

Hartley, John E. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1992.

Hatav, Semantics of Aspect and Modality Hatav, Galia. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. Studies in Language Companion Series 34. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins, 1997. Hegel, The Philosophy of History Hegel, G. W. F. The Philosophy of History. Translated by J. Sibre. Reprinted New York, New York: Dover, 1956. Heider, The Cult of Molek

Heider, George C. The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 43. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.

Heinemann, “Technical Terminology” Heinemann, Isaak. “The Development of the Technical Terminology for the Interpretation of Scripture: II, K‫פרש‬K.” Lešonenu 15 (1947): 108 – 115. (Hebrew) Hertzberg, I & II Samuel

Hertzberg, Hans W. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated by J. S. Bowden. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster, 1964.

288

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Heschel, Torah min ha-shamayim Heschel, Abraham J. Torah min ha-shamayim be-aspaḳlaryah shel ha-dorot. 2 vols. London and New York, New York: Schonzin, 1965. (Hebrew) Hiebert, “‘Whence Shall Help Come to Me?’” Hiebert, Paula S. “‘Whence Shall Help Come to Me?’: The Biblical Widow.” Pages 125 – 141 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by P. L. Day. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress, 1989. Hiers, Justice and Compassion Hiers, Richard H. Justice and Compassion in Biblical Law. New York, New York and London: Continuum, 2009. Hitzig, Die Psalmen

Hitzig, Ferdinand. Die Psalmen. 2 vols. Leipzig: C. F. Winter, 1863 – 1865.

Ḥizzequni

Hezekiah ben Manoah. Ḥizzequni: Commentaries on the Pentateuch. Edited by Charles B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1982. (Hebrew)

Hoglund, “Material Culture”

Hoglund, Kenneth. “The Material Culture of the Persian Period and the Sociology of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 14 – 18 in Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture. Edited by Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 340. London and New York, New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Holzinger, Josua

Holzinger, Heinrich. Das Buch Josua. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 6. Tübingen and Leipzig: Mohr Siebeck, 1901.

Holzinger, Numeri

Holzinger, Heinrich. Numeri. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Tübingen and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901.

Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan Hopkins, David C. The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age. Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series 3. Sheffield: Almond, 1985. Hornblower, “Introduction”

Hornblower, Simon. “Introduction.” Pages 1 – 72 in Greek Historiography. Edited by Simon Hornblower. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

Horsely, “Empire, Temple and Community” Horsely, Richard A. “Empire, Temple and Community – but No Bourgeoisie! A Response to Blenkinsopp and Peterson.” Pages 163 – 174 in Second Temple Studies: 1. Persian Period. Edited by P. R. Davies. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 117. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Houtman, Exodus

Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. 4 vols. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1993 – 2002.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

HRCS

289

Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897 – 1906. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998.

Huizinga, “A Definition of the Concept of History” Huizinga, Johan. “A Definition of the Concept of History.” Pages 1 – 10 in Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer. Edited by R. Klibansky and H. J. Paton. Oxford: Clarendon: 1936. Hurowitz, Inu Anum ṣīrum

Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. Inu Anum ṣīrum: Literary Structures in the Non-Juridical Sections of Codex Hammurabi. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 15. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1994.

Hurowitz, Temple Building

Hurowitz, Victor (Avigdor). I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Hurvitz, Linguistic Survey

Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Survey of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 20. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982.

Hutton, “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited” Hutton, Rodney R. “The Case of the Blasphemer Revisited (Lev. XXIV 10 – 23).” Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999): 532 – 541. Ibn Ezra

Ibn Ezra, Abraham. Commentaries on the Pentateuch. Edited by Asher Vaizer. 3 vols. Jerusalem. Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1976. (Hebrew)

Ibn Janaḥ, Book of Roots

Ibn Janaḥ, Jonah. The Book of Roots (Sefer Hashorashim). Translated by Judah ibn Tibbon. Edited by W. Bacher. Berlin: M’Kize Nirdamim, 1896, Repr. Jerusalem, 1966. (Hebrew)

IDB

Buttrick, G. A., ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962.

Iwry, “whnmṣ”

Iwry, Samuel. “whnmṣʾ – a striking variant reading in 1QIsaa.” Textus 5 (1966): 34 – 43.

Jackson, “The Ceremonial and the Judicial” Jackson, Bernard S. “The Ceremonial and the Judicial: Biblical Law as Sign and Symbol.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30 (1984): 25 – 50.

290

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Jackson, “From Dharma to Law” Jackson, Bernard S. “From Dharma to Law.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 23 (1975): 490 – 512. Jackson, “Liability”

Jackson, Bernard S. “Liability for Mere Intention in Early Jewish Law.” Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971): 197 – 225.

Jackson, “Talion and Purity”

Jackson, Bernard S. “Talion and Purity: Some Glosses on Mary Douglas.” Pages 107 – 123 in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas. Edited by J. F. A. Sawyer. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 227. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Jackson, Wisdom-Laws

Jackson, Bernard S. Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Misphatim of Exodus 21:1 – 22:16. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1976. Japhet, I & II Chronicles

Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1993.

Japhet, Ideology of Chronicles

Japhet, Sara. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. 2nd rev. ed. Translated by A. Barber. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments 9. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1997.

Jas, Judicial Procedures

Jas, Remko. Neo-Assyrian Judicial Procedures. State Archives of Assyria Studies 5. Finland: The University of Helsinki, 1996.

Jastrow

Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. London: Luzac, 1903. Repr., New York, New York: Judaica, 1989.

Jeffers, Magic and Divination

Jeffers, Ann. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 8. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Johnson, The Cultic Prophet

Johnson, Aubrey R. The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1962.

Johnson, Vitality of the Individual Johnson, Aubrey R. The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964. Joosten, “Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew” Joosten, Jan. “The Distinction Between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax.” Hebrew Studies 46 (2005): 327 – 339.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

291

Joosten, People and Land

Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17 – 26. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Joüon-Muraoka

Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2nd ed. Subsidia Biblica 14. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993.

Jubilees

See: Vanderkam, Jubilees

Kahana, Bamidbar

Kahana, Abraham. Bamidbar. Torah, Prophets, and Writings with Critical Commentary. Kiev, 1914; Repr., Jerusalem: Makor, 1969. (Hebrew)

Kalisch, Leviticus

Kalisch, Marcus M. Leviticus. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1867 – 1872.

Kamionkowski, “Leviticus 24,10 – 23” Kamionkowski, S. Tamar. “Leviticus 24,10 – 23 in Light of H’s Concept of Holiness.” Pages 73 – 86 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by S. Shectman and J. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Kasher, Torah Shelemah

Kasher, Menahem M. Humash Torah Shelemah: TalmudMidrashic encyclopedia on the Pentateuch. Vol. 39. Jerusalem: Bet Torah Shelemah, 1985. (Hebrew)

Kearney, “The Role of the Gibeonites” Kearney, Peter J. “The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomic History.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973): 1 – 19. Kellermann, Priesterschrift

Kellermann, Diether. Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 11 bis 10:10. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.

Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum Kennicott, Benjaminus, ed. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionibus. 2 Vols. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1776 – 80. Kiel, Samuel

Kiel, Judah. The Book of Samuel. 2 Vols. Da’at Miqra 8 – 9. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1983. (Hebrew)

King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel King, Philip J. and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Kirkpatrick, Samuel

Kirkpatrick, Alexander F. The First and Second Books of Samuel. 2 vols. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930.

292

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Kislev, “The Investiture of Joshua” Kislev, Itamar. “The Investiture of Joshua (Numbers 27:12 – 23) and the Dispute on the Form of Leadership in Yehud.” Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 429 – 445. Kislev, Sources and Traditions Kislev, Itamar. Sources and Traditions, Structure and Redaction in the Pentateuch: The Account of the Preparations for Entering the Land in the Plains of Moab. Ph.D. dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007. (Hebrew) Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant Kitchen, Kenneth A. and Lawrence, Paul J. N., eds. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Klawans, Impurity and Sin

Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Klein, “The Preposition K‫קדם‬K (‘Before’)” Klein, Michael. “The Preposition K‫קדם‬K (‘Before’) – A PseudoAnti-Anthropomorphism in the Targums.” Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1979): 502 – 507. Knauf, review of O. Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems Knauf, Ernst A. Review of Othmar Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Review of Biblical Literature 05/2008, n.p. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6377_ 6859.pdf Knobel, Exodus und Leviticus

Knobel, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 12. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1857.

Knobel, Genesis

Knobel, August. Die Genesis. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 11. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1860.

Knobel, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua Knobel, August. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1861. Knohl, “Cain, the Forefather of Humanity” Knohl, Israel. “Cain, the Forefather of Humanity.” Pages 63 – 67 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Knohl, “The Sin Offering Law” Knohl, Israel. “The Sin Offering Law in the ‘Holiness School’ (Numbers 15:22 – 31).” Pages 192 – 203 in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Edited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

293

M. Olyan. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 125. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Knohl, “Sabbath and Festivals” Knohl, Israel. “The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and Festivals.” Hebrew Union College Annual 58 (1987): 65 – 117. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence

Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Translated by Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1995. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

Knohl, “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting’” Knohl, Israel. “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting.’” Pages 73 – 79 in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Knoppers, “History and Historiography” Knoppers, Gary. “History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms.” Pages 178 – 203 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Steven L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1 – 9

Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 1 – 9. Anchor Bible 12. New York, New York: Doubleday, 2004.

Koller, Semantic Field of Cutting Tools Koller, Aaron J. The Semantic Field of Cutting Tools in Biblical Hebrew: The Interface of Philological, Semantic, and Archaeological Evidence. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 49. Washington DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2012. König, Einleitung

König, Eduard. Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit Einschluss der Apokryphen und der Pseudepigraphen Alten Testaments. Sammlung theologischer Handbücher Zweiter Teil: Altes Testament 1. Bonn: Weber-Flittner, 1893.

König, Wörterbuch

König, Eduard. Hebräisches und aramäisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchandlung, 1910.

Koperman, Nit‘almu mimmenu halakhah Koperman, Yehudah. Nit‘almu mimmenu halakhah: Iyyunim behalakhot shene‘elmu mimmoshe rabbenu. Jerusalem: Cymberknopf, 1991. (Hebrew) Kuenen, Hexateuch

Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. Translated by P. H. Wicksteed. London: Macmillan, 1886.

294

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Kuenen, The Religion of Israel Kuenen, Abraham. The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State. Translated by A. H. May. 3 vols. Theological Translation Fund Library 3, 4, 7. London/Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1874 – 75. Repr., www.elibron.com: Elibron Classics [no year noted]. Kugel, “Qohelet and Money”

Kugel, James L. “Qohelet and Money.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 32 – 49.

Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll

Kutscher, Eduard Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974.

Lee, “Leviticus 24:15b – 16”

Lee, Bernon P. “Leviticus 24:15b – 16: A Crux Revisited.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 16 (2006): 345 – 349.

Leḳaḥ Ṭov

Buber, S., ed. Midrash Leḳaḥ Tov: ha-mekhuneh Pesiḳta Zuṭarta ʻal Ḥamishah Ḥumshe Torah / yesodo R. Toviyah b. R. Eliʻezer. 2 vols. Vilna: Ram, 1884. (Hebrew)

Lemaire, Inscriptions hébraïques Lemaire, André. Inscriptions hébraïques, Tome I: Les Ostraca. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 9. Paris: Cerf, 1977. Lesko, Women’s Earliest Records Lesko, Barbara S., ed. Women’s Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5 – 7, 1987. Brown Judaic Studies 166. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1989. Leuchter, “The Ambiguous Details” Leuchter, Mark. “The Ambiguous Details in the Blasphemer Narrative: Sources and Redaction in Leviticus 24:10 – 23.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 431 – 450. Lev. Rab.

Margalioth, Mordechai, ed. Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah. 2 vols. New York, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993. (Hebrew)

Levine, In the Presence of the Lord Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Levine, Leviticus

Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989.

Levine, Numbers 1 – 20

Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1 – 20. Anchor Bible 4. New York, New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Levinson, “The Birth of the Lemma” Levinson, Bernard M. “The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation of the Covenant Code’s Manumission

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

295

Law by the Holiness Code (Leviticus 25:44 – 46).” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 617 – 639. Levinson, Deuteronomy

Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Levinson, “The Human Voice in Divine Revelation” Levinson, Bernard M. “The Human Voice in Divine Revelation: The Problem of Authority in Biblical Law.” Pages 35 – 71 in Innovations in Religious Traditions: Essays in the Interpretation of Religious Change. Edited by M. A. Williams, C. Cox, and M. S. Jaffee. Religion and Society 31. Berlin and New York, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. Levinson, “The Manumission of Hermeneutics” Levinson, Bernard M. “The Manumission of Hermeneutics: The Slave Laws of the Pentateuch as a Challenge to Contemporary Pentateuchal Theory.” Pages 281 – 324 in Congress Volume: Leiden, 2004. Edited by André Lemaire. Vetus Testamenum Supplements 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Levy, Blasphemy

Levy, Leonard W. Blasphemy: Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

Levy, Targum Neophyti 1

Levy, B. Barry. Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study. 2 vols. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, Maryland and London: University Press of America, 1986 – 1987.

Lewis, Cults of the Dead

Lewis, Theodore J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Harvard Semitic Monographs 39. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1981.

Licht, Numbers

Licht, Jacob. Commentary on the Book of Numbers. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985 – 1995. (Hebrew)

Licht, Rule Scroll

Licht, Jacob. The Rule Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb). Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1965. Reprinted 1996. (Hebrew)

Lieberman, Tosefta

Lieberman, S., ed. The Tosefta according to Codex Vienna. New York, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955 – 1988. (Hebrew)

Lindblom Prophecy

Lindblom, J. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962.

Lindenberger, Letters

Lindenberger, James M. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. 2nd ed. Writings from the Ancient World 14. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Livingston, “The Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11” Livingston, Dennis H. “The Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11.” Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986): 352 – 354.

296

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Loewenstamm, Exodus Tradition Loewenstamm, Samuel E. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition. Translated by B. J. Schwartz. Hebrew University, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992. Loewenstamm, “The Formula Ba‘et Hahi’” Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “The Formula Ba‘et Hahi’ in the Introductory Speeches in Deuteronomy.” Tarbiz 38 (1968 – 69): 99 – 104. (Hebrew) Long, “2 Kings III and Genres of Prophetic Narrative” Long, Burke O. “2 Kings III and Genres of Prophetic Narrative.” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 337 – 348. Long, “Divination as Model for Literary Form” Long, Burke O. “Divination as Model for Literary Form.” Pages 84 – 100 in Language in Religious Practice. Edited by W. J. Samarin. Series in Sociolinguistics. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House, 1976. LSJ

Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Revised by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

Lund, “Chiasmus”

Lund, Nils W. “The Presence of Chiasmus in the Old Testament.” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46 (1930): 104 – 126.

Lust, Lexicon

Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992 and 1996.

Luzzatto

Luzzatto, Samuel David (Shadal). Commentary on the Pentateuch. Edited by Pinhas Schlesinger. Tel Aviv: Devir, 1965. (Hebrew)

Magonet, “‘Halacha’ and ‘Aggadah’” Magonet, Jonathan. “‘Halacha’ and ‘Aggadah’ in the Bible.” Pages 651 – 660 in The Bible in Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume. Edited by Sara Japhet. Jerusalem: Magnes: 1994. (Hebrew) Maimoni

Maimoni, Abraham. Commentary on the Torah according to Rabbi Abraham ben Moses ben Maimon concerning Genesis and Exodus. Translated by E. Y. Wiesenberg. Edited by S. D. Sassoon. London, 1958. (Hebrew)

Malamat, “The Journey of the Danites” Malamat, Abraham. “The Journey of the Danites in Light of the Exodus and the Overall Israelite Conquest.” Pages 149 – 163 in A. Malamat. Israel in Biblical Times: Historical Essays. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1983. (Hebrew)

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

297

Margoliouth, “Trade and Commerce” Margoliouth, D. S. “Trade and Commerce.” DB: 944 – 946. Marquis, “The Composition of Numbers 32” Marquis, Liane M. “The Composition of Numbers 32: A New Proposal.” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013): 408 – 432. Mattingly and Salmon, Economies Mattingly, D. J. and J. Salmon, eds. Economies Beyond Agriculture in the Classical World. Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 9. London and New York, New York: Routledge, 2001. Mazar, Archaeology

Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000 – 586 B.C.E. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, New York: Doubleday, 1990.

McCarter, I Samuel

McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel. Anchor Bible 8. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1980.

McCarter, II Samuel

McCarter, P. Kyle. II Samuel. Anchor Bible 9. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1984.

McKane, Jeremiah

McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol I. International Critical Commentary 21. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986.

McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath in Ancient Judaism. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 122. Leiden: Brill, 1994. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use McKenzie, Steven. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Harvard Semitic Monographs 33. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1984. McNeile, Exodus

McNeile, A. H. The Book of Exodus. Westminster Commentaries 2. London: Methuen, 1908.

McNeile, Numbers

McNeile, A. H. The Book of Numbers. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911.

Mek. de R. Ishmael

Horovitz, H. S., and Y. A. Rabin, eds. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1970. (Hebrew)

Mek. de R. Shimon b. Yoḥai

Epstein, J. N., and E. Z. Melamed, eds. Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. Sefarim ha-yotsʻim le-or ʻal yede ḥevrat mekitse nirdamim. Jerusalem: Meḳitse nirdamim, 1955. (Hebrew)

Mendelssohn, Bamidbar

Mendelssohn, Moses. Sefer Netivot ha-shalom: Bamidbar. Prague, 1833. (Hebrew)

298

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Meritt, The Athenian Year

Meritt, Benjamin D. The Athenian Year. Sather Classical Lectures 32. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1961.

Midrash Rabbah

Midrash Rabbah on the Pentateuch and the Five Scrolls. New York, New York: Horeb, 1923. (Hebrew)

Milgrom, Cult and Conscience Milgrom, Jacob. Cult and Conscience: The asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 18. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Milgrom, “The Firstborn”

Milgrom, Jacob. “The Firstborn.” IDB: 5.338.

Milgrom, Leviticus

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. Anchor Bible 3, 3A, 3B. 3 vols. New York, New York: Doubleday, 1991 – 2001.

Milgrom, Numbers

Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1990.

Milgrom, “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics” Milgrom, Jacob. “Qumran’s Biblical Hermeneutics: The Case of the Wood Offering.” Revue de Qumran 16 (1994): 449 – 456. Milgrom, Studies

Milgrom, Jacob. Studies in Levitical Terminology, I: The Encroacher and the Levite; The Term 'Aboda. University of California Publications Near Eastern Studies 14. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1970.

Milgrom, “Two Pericopes”

Milgrom, Jacob. “The Two Pericopes on the Purification Offering.” Pages 211 – 215 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Conner. Special Volume Series (American Schools of Oriental Research) 1. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Milgrom and Avishur, Numbers Milgrom, Jacob and Yitzhak Avishur, eds. Numbers. Encyclopedia of the Biblical World. Jerusalem, 1985. Repr., Tel Aviv: Dodzon-Eti, 1993. (Hebrew) Miller and Hayes, History

Miller, J. Maxwell and John H. Hayes. A History of Israel and Judah. 2nd ed. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2006.

Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK Mitchell, Christopher Wright. The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament. SBL Dissertation Series 95. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1987. Mittwoch, “The Story of the Blasphemer” Mittwoch, H. “The Story of the Blasphemer Seen in a Wider Context.” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 386 – 389. Montgomery, “Archival Data”

Montgomery, James A. “Archival Data in the Book of Kings.” Journal of Biblical Literature 53 (1934): 46 – 52.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

299

Moore, “Epilogue”

Moore, Sally F. “Epilogue: Uncertainties in Situations, Indeterminacies in Culture.” Pages 210 – 239 in Symbol and Politics in Communal Ideology: Cases and Questions. Edited by Sally F. Moore and B. G. Myerhoff. Symbol, Myth, and Ritual Series. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1975.

Moore, Judges

Moore, George F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Judges. International Critical Commentary 7. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1894, 1976.

Muffs, Love and Joy

Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York, New York and Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992.

Muraoka, Lexicon of the Septuagint Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets. Louvain: Peeters, 2002. Muraoka, Semantics

Muraoka, T., ed. Semantics of Ancient Hebrew. Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 6. Peeters: Louvain, 1998.

Na’aman, “Hezekiah’s Reform” Na’aman, Nadav. “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995): 179 – 195. Na’aman, he-ʻAvar ha-mekhonen et ha-hoṿeh Na’aman, Nadav. he-ʻAvar ha-mekhonen et ha-hoṿeh : ʻitsuvah shel ha-hisṭoryografyah ha-Miḳraʼit be-sof yeme ha-Bayit harishon ule-ʼaḥar ha-ḥurban. Jerusalem: Hess, 2002. (Hebrew) Na’aman and Zadok, “Sargon II’s Deportations” Na’aman, Nadav and Ran Zadok. “Sargon II’s Deportations to Israel and Philistia (716 – 708 B. C.).” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40 (1988): 36 – 46. Nasuti, “Identity, Identification, and Imitation” Nasuti, Harry P. “Identity, Identification, and Imitation: The Narrative Hermeneutics of Biblical Law.” Journal of Law and Religion 4 (1986): 9 – 23. Nelson, Deuteronomy

Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 2002.

Nelson, Joshua

Nelson, Richard D. Joshua: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Lousiville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

Netziv

R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv). Haʻameḳ davar: A Torah Commentary. 5 vols. Jerusalem: Yeshiva Be’er Yaakov, 1959. (Hebrew)

300 Nielsen, Deuteronomium

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Nielsen, Eduard. Deuteronomium. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.

Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 25. Tübingen: Moh Siebeck: 2007 Nihan, “Resident Aliens and Natives” Nihan, Christophe. “Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation.” Pages 111 – 134 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wöhrle. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. NJPS

Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures – The New JPS Translation. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1985.

Noth, Exodus

Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster, 1962.

Noth, Leviticus

Noth, Martin. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by J. E. Anderson. 2nd ed. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster, 1977.

Noth, Numbers

Noth, Martin. Numbers: A Commentary. Translated by James D. Martin. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1968.

Num. Rab.

See: Midrash Rabbah.

OED Online

The Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://www.oed.com

Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Joaqín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2 vols. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Handbuch der Orientalistik 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Oort, Emendations

Oort, Henricus, ed. Textus Hebraici emendationes quibus in Vetere Testamento Neerlandice vertendo usi sunt A. Kuenen, I. Hooykaas, W. H. Kosters, H. Oort. Leiden: Brill, 1900.

Paran, Priestly Style

Paran, Meir. Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. (Hebrew)

Pastor, Land and Economy

Pastor, Jack. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. London and New York, New York: Routledge, 1997.

Paterson, Numbers

Paterson, James A. The Book of Numbers. The Sacred Books of the Old Testament – The Polychrome Bible 4. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1900.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

301

Patrick, Old Testament Law

Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox, 1985.

Paul, Amos

Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermeneia 30. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 1991.

Paul, “Biblical Analogues”

Paul, Shalom M. “Biblical Analogues to Middle Assyrian Law.” Pages 333 – 350 in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Edited by Edwin B. Firmage, Bernard G. Weiss, and John W. Welch. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant Paul, Shalom M. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Pedersen, Israel

Pedersen, Johannes. Israel: Its Life and Culture. 2 vols. Translated by Aslaug Møller and Annie I. Fausbøll. London: Oxford University Press; Copenhagen: Branner, 1926 – 1940, 1946.

Peltonen, History Debated

Peltonen, Kai. History Debated: The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in Pre-Critical and Critical Research. 2 vols. Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran 64. Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996.

Perlitt, Deuteronomium-Studien Perlitt, Lothar. Deuteronomium-Studien. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Pesiq. Rab.

Ish-Shalom, Meir, ed. Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati. Vienna: Kaiser, 1880. (Hebrew)

Pesiq. R. Kah.

Mendelbaum, B., ed. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana. 2 vols. New York, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. (Hebrew)

Phillips, “The Case of the Woodgatherer Reconsidered” Phillips, Anthony. “The Case of the Woodgatherer Reconsidered.” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 125 – 128. Philo, “On the Life of Moses”

Philo, Vol. VI. Translated by F. H. Colson. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press / London: Heinemann, 1929.

Pickard-Cambridge, Festivals

Pickard-Cambridge, Arthur. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. 2nd ed. Revised by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.

Plutarch, Lives

Plutarch. Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1919 – 20.

302 Polanyi, Livelihood of Man

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Polanyi, Karl. The Livelihood of Man. Edited by H. W. Pearson. Studies in Social Discontinuity. New York, New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist Polzin, Robert. David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History, Part 3: 2 Samuel. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1993. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew

Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. Harvard Semitic Monographs 12. Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1976.

Porten, Archives from Elephantine Porten, Bezalel. Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1968. Porter, Leviticus

Porter, J. R. Leviticus. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Posen, “Kash”

Posen, Rafael B. “Kash, Teven, Gevava.” Sidra 17 (2002): 151 – 181.

Price, Religions

Price, Simon. Religions of the Ancient Greeks. Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Propp, Exodus 1 – 18

Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1 – 18. Anchor Bible 2. New York, New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Qimḥi, Book of Roots

Qimḥi, David (Radaq). The Book of Roots according to Radaq (Radicum liber sive Hebraeum bibliorum lexicon). Edited by J. Biesenthal and F. Lebrecht. Berlin, 1847. Repr., Jerusalem, 1967. (Hebrew)

Qimḥi

Qimḥi, David (Radaq). Commentary on the Pentateuch. Edited by M. Kamelhar. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1970. (Hebrew)

Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1986. Qimron, The Temple Scroll

Qimron, Elisha. The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. Judean Desert Studies. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996.

Qoh. Rab.

See: Midrash Rabbah

Rabbenu Meyuḥas, Numbers

Rabbenu Meyuḥas ben Eliyahu. Commentary on the Book of Numbers. Edited by S. Frailikh. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1977. (Hebrew)

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

303

Rabin, “Ancient Versions”

Rabin, Chaim. “The Ancient Versions and the Indefinite Subject.” Textus 2 (1962): 60 – 76.

Rabin, Mashmaʻuyotehen

Rabin, Chaim. Mashmaʻuyotehen shel ha-tsurot ha-dikdukiyot bi-leshon ha-Mikra uvi-leshon yamenu. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1971 – 72. (Hebrew)

Rabinowitz, “ʾĀZ Followed by Imperfect” Rabinowitz, Isaac. “ʾĀZ Followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redactional Device in Biblical Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984): 53 – 62. von Rad, Deuteronomy

Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Translated by Dorothea Barton. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1966.

von Rad, Problem of the Hexateuch Rad, Gerhard von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. Radday, “Chiasm”

Radday, Yehuda. “On the Chiasm in Biblical Narrative.” Beit Miqra 20 – 21 (1964): 48 – 72. (Hebrew)

Ramban

Chavel, Charles B. ed. Commentaries of the Torah by R. Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban). 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1959 – 1960. (Hebrew)

Ramírez Kidd, Alterity and Identity Ramírez Kidd, José E. Alterity and Identity in Israel: The K‫גר‬K in the Old Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 283. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1999. Rashbam

Rosin, David, ed. The Torah Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir. Breslau: Schottlander, 1882. (Hebrew)

Rashi

Chavel, Charles B., ed. Commentaries of Rashi on the Torah. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1982. (Hebrew)

Reggio, Book of the Law of God Reggio, Isaacus. The Book of the Law of God, including the Five Books of Moses. Vienna: Anton Strauss, 1821. (Hebrew) Renz, Handbuch

Renz, J. Handbuch der althebräische Epigraphik. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.

Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. New Accents. New York, New York: Methuen, 1983. Repr., London: Routledge, 1989. Robinson, “The Prohibition of Strange Fire” Robinson, Gnana. “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel: A New Look at the Case of Gathering Wood and Kindling Fire on the Sabbath.” Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978): 301 – 317.

304

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Rofé, “Cities of Refuge”

Rofé, Alexander. “The History of the Cities of Refuge in Biblical Law.” Pages 205 – 239 in Studies in Bible. Edited by Sara Japhet. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Repr. in Pages 121 – 147 in idem, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Old Testament Studies. London. T & T Clark, 2002.

Rofé, “Clan Sagas”

Rofé, Alexander. “Clan Sagas as a Source in Settlement Traditions.” Pages 191 – 203 in “A Wise and Discerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long. Edited by S. Olyan and R. Culley. Brown Judaic Studies 325. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000.

Rofé, Deuteronomy

Rofé, Alexander. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. Old Testament Studies. London and New York, New York: T & T Clark, 2002.

Rofé, Introduction to Deuteronomy Rofé, Alexander. Introduction to Deuteronomy: Part 1 and Further Chapters. Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988. (Hebrew) Rofé, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible Rofé, Alexander. Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 9. Jerusalem: Simor, 2009. Rofé, “Joshua Son of Nun”

Rofé, Alexander. “Joshua Son of Nun in the History of Biblical Tradition.” Tarbiz 73 (2005): 333 – 364. (Hebrew)

Rofé, “Qumranic Paraphrases” Rofé, Alexander. “Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy and the Late History of the Biblical K‫נשיא‬K.” Textus 14 (1988): 164 – 174. Rost, Succession to the Throne of David Rost, Leonard. The Succession to the Throne of David. Translated by M. D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1. Sheffield: Almond, 1982. Roth, Law Collections

Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd ed. Writings from the Ancient World 6. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1997.

Roth, “The Neo-Babylonian Widow” Roth, Martha T. “The Neo-Babylonian Widow.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 43 – 45 (1991 – 1993): 1 – 26. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth

Rudolph, Wilhelm. Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klaglieder. 2nd ed. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 17. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus Gerd Mohn, 1962.

Saadia

Kafich, Joseph, ed. Commentaries of Our Rabbenu Saadia Gaon on the Pentateuch. Translated by Joseph Kafich. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1963. (Hebrew)

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

305

Safrai, Economy of Roman Palestine Safrai, Ze’ev. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London and New York, New York: Routledge, 1994. Safrai, In the Times of the Temple Safrai, Shmuel. In the Times of the Temple and in the Days of the Mishnah: Studies in the History of Israel. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994. (Hebrew) Safrai, “Pilgrimage Commandment” Safrai, Shmuel. “The Pilgrimage Commandment.” Pages 24 – 41 in S. Safrai, The Pilgrimage in Second Temple Times: An Historical Monograph. Tel Aviv: Am ha-Sefer, 1965. (Hebrew) Sam. Tg.

Tal, Abraham, ed. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition. 3 vols. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1980 – 1983.

Sarna, Genesis

Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Satlow, Jewish Marriage

Satlow, Michael L. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Schellinger, Encyclopedia of the Novel Schellinger, Paul, Christopher Hudson, and Marijke Rijsberman, eds. Encyclopedia of the Novel. 2 vols. Chicago, Illinois: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998. Schipper and Stackert, “Blemishes, Camouflage, and Sanctuary Service” Schipper, Jeremy and Stackert, Jeffrey. “Blemishes, Camouflage, and Sanctuary Service: The Priestly Deity and His Attendants.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2 (2013) 458 – 478. Schloen, The House of the Father Schloen, J. David. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin” Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature.” Pages 3 – 21 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright et al. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Schwartz, Holiness Legislation Schwartz, Baruch J. The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999. (Hebrew) Schwartz, Imperialism

Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2001.

306 Schwartz, “Miqraʾ Qodesh”

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Schwartz, Baruch J. “Miqraʾ Qodesh and the Structure of Leviticus 23.” Pages 11 – 24 in Purity, Holiness, and Identity in Judaism and Christianity Essays in Memory of Susan Haber. Edited by Carl S. Ehrlich, Anders Runesson, and Eileen Schuller. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 305. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Schwartz, “The Priestly Account” Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai.” Pages 103 – 134 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by M. Fox et al. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Schwartz, “‘Profane’ Slaughter” Schwartz, Baruch J. “‘Profane’ Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly Code.” Hebrew Union College Annual 67 (1996): 15 – 42. Schwartz, “The Torah”

Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Torah – Its Five Books and Four Documents.” Pages 161 – 226 in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible – Introductions and Studies. Edited by Zipora Talshir. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2011. (Hebrew)

Schwartz, “What Really Happened” “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai?” Bible Review 13/5 (1997): 20 – 30, 46. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Das Bundesbuch Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. Das Bundesbuch (Ex  20,22 – 23,33): Studien zu seiner Entstehung und Theologie. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 188. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. Seebass, Numeri

Seebass, Horst. Numeri. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 4. Neukirchen – Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995.

Seeligmann, “Ger”

Seeligmann, Isac Leo (Arieh). “Ger.” EM 2.546 – 549.

Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature Seeligmann, Isac Leo (Arieh). Studies in Biblical Literature. Edited by A. Hurvitz et al. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996. (Hebrew); German translation: Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel. Edited by E. Blum. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Segal, “Further Parallels”

Segal, Peretz. “Further Parallels Between the Priestly Literature in the Bible and the Hittite Instructions for Temple Servants.” Shnaton 7 – 8 (1983 – 84): 265 – 268. (Hebrew)

Segal, Hebrew Passover

Segal, Judah B. The Hebrew Passover: From the Earliest Times to A. D. 70. London Oriental Series 12. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

307

Seidel, “Parallels”

Seidel, Moshe. “Parallels between the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Psalms.” Sinai 38 (1955 – 56): 149 – 72, 229 – 40, 272 – 80, 335 – 55. (Hebrew) Repr., Pages 1 – 97 in Seidel. Hiqrei Miqra. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1978. (Hebrew)

Seybold, Die Psalmen

Seybold, Klaus. Die Psalmen. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.

Sforno

Gottlieb, Zev, ed. Commentary on the Torah by R. Obadiah Sforno. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1980. (Hebrew)

Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work Shaver, Judson R. Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work: An Inquiry into the Chronicler’s References to Laws, Festivals, and Cultic Institutions in Relationship to Pentateuchal Legislation. Brown Judaic Series 196. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1989. Shectman and Baden, The Strata of the Priestly Writings The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by S. Shectman and J. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Shinan, “The Aggadah”

Shinan, Avigdor. “The Aggadah of the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch: Some Methodological Considerations.” Pages 203 – 217 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context. Edited by D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

Shinan, “The Story of the Woodgatherer” Shinan, Avigdor. “The Story of the Woodgatherer and Similar Stories Reflected in Midrash, Targum and Piyyut.” Pages 89 – 102 in Studies in Hebrew Poetry and Jewish Heritage in Memory of Aharon Mirsky. Edited by Ephraim Hazan and Joseph Yahalom. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2006. (Hebrew) Shumaker and Longsdorf, The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary Shumaker, W. A. and Longsdorf, G. F. The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary. 3rd ed. Chicago, Illinois: Callaghan, 1940. Sifra

HaCohen, I. M., ed. Sifra ha-Nikra Torat Kohanim. Piotrkow, Poland, 1911. (Hebrew)

Sifre Deut.

Finkelstein, L., ed. Sifre on Deuteronomy. Berlin: Gesellschaft zur Föderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1939. Repr., New York, New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969. (Hebrew)

Sifre Num.

Horovitz, H. S., ed. Sifre ‘al sefer Ba-midbar ve-sifre zuṭa. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966; Repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1992. (Hebrew)

308 Sifre Zuta

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Horovitz, H. S., ed. Sifre ‘al sefer Ba-midbar ve-sifre zuṭa. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1966; Repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1992. (Hebrew)

Simon-Shoshan, Stories of the Law Simon-Shoshan, Moshe. Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishnah. Oxford and New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Simpson, Judges

Simpson, Cuthbert A. Composition of the Book of Judges. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957.

Smelik, “The Use of K‫הזכיר בשם‬K” Smelik, Willem F. “The Use of K‫הזכיר בשם‬K in Classical Hebrew: Josh 23:7, Isa 48:1, Amos 6:10, Ps 20:8, 4Q504 III 4, 1QS 6.27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 321 – 332. Smith, Map Is Not Territory

Smith, Jonathan Z. Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Chicago, Illinois and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Smith, Parties and Politics

Smith, Morton. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. New York, New York: Columbia University Press, 1971.

Smith, “Sacred Persistence”

Smith, Jonathan Z. “Sacred Persistence: Toward a Redescription of Canon.” Pages 36 – 52 in Imagining Religion – From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago, Illinois and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Smith, To Take Place

Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago University Press, 1987.

Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers Snaith, N. H. Leviticus and Numbers. The Century Bible New Edition. London: Nelson, 1967. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Dictionaries of the Talmud, Midrash, and Targum 2. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990. Sommer, “Reflecting on Moses” Sommer, Benjamin. “Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 601 – 624. SP

Tal, Abraham, ed. The Samaritan Pentateuch. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1994. (Hebrew)

Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity

Sparks, Kenton L. Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1998.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

309

Stackert, “Compositional Strata” Stackert, Jeffrey. “Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath: Exodus 31:12 – 17 and 35:1 – 3.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11/15 (2012): 1 – 20. Stackert, “Moses and the Politics of Future Prophecy” Stackert, Jeffrey. “Moses and the Politics of Future Prophecy.” Prophecy and Politics in the Bible and in Ancient Cultures Conference, University of Haifa, May 28, 2012. Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses Stackert, Jeffrey. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah

Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

Stackert, “The Tent of Meeting” Stackert, Jeffrey. “The Tent of Meeting in the Elohistic Source of the Torah.” Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting, Amsterdam, July 23, 2012. Stager, “Archaeology of the Israelite Family” Stager, Lawrence. “The Archaeology of the Israelite Family.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 260 (1985): 1 – 35. Stern, “Archaeology of Persian Palestine” Stern, Ephraim. “The Archaeology of Persian Palestine.” Pages 88 – 114 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Volume One: Introduction: the Persian Period. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732 – 332 B.C.E.). Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, New York: Doubleday, 2001. Stern, “Between Persia and Greece” Stern, Ephraim. “Between Persia and Greece: Trade, Administration and Warfare in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods.” Pages 432 – 445 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Edited by T. E. Levy. London: Leicester University Press, 1995. Stern, Calendar and Community Stern, Sacha. Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century BCE – Tenth Century CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Indiana Literary Biblical Series. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1987.

310

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Sterring, “The Will of the Daughters” Sterring, Ankie. “The Will of the Daughters.” Pages 88 – 99 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by A. Brenner. Feminist Companion to the Bible 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium Steuernagel, Carl. Das Deuteronomium. 2nd ed. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua Steuernagel, Carl. Deuteronomium und Josua: und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 5 – 6. Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch

Steuernagel, Carl. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen. Sammlung theologischer Lehrbücher. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1912.

Stevens, Temples, Tithes and Taxes Stevens, Marty E. Temples, Tithes and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Ancient Israel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2006. Stewart, “A Brief Comparison” Stewart, David T. “A Brief Comparison of the Israelite and Hittite Festival Calendars.” Pages 2076 – 2080 in J. Milgrom. Leviticus 23 – 27. Anchor Bible 3B. New York, New York: Doubleday, 2001. Stoebe, Das Zweite Buch Samuelis Stoebe, Hans J. Das Zweite Buch Samuelis. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 8. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1994. Sturdy, Numbers

Sturdy, John. Numbers. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Sukenik and Kutscher, “A Passover Ostracon” Sukenik, E. L. and J. Kutscher. “A Passover Ostracon from Elephantine.” Qedem 1 (1942): 53 – 56. (Hebrew) Talmon, “Divergencies in Calendar-Reckoning” Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Divergencies in Calendar-Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah.” Vetus Testamentum 8 (1958): 48 – 74. Reprinted as “The Cult and Calendar Reform of Jeroboam I.” Pages 113 – 139 in S. Talmon. King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Talmon, “Textual Study”

Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook.” Pages 321 – 400 in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F. M. Cross, and S. Talmon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

311

TDNT

Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1965 – 1978.

TDOT

Botterweck, G. Johannes et al., eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975 – 2006.

Tg. Neof.

Diez-Macho, Alejandro, ed. Neophyti I: Targum Palestinense Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana. 6 vols. Textos y Estudios del Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros 7. Madrid and Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1968 – 1979.

Tg. Onq.

Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos. Vol. 1 in The Bible in Aramaic. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1959 – 1973.

Tg. Ps.‑J.

Clarke, E. G., ed. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance. Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1984.

Tg. Yer.

Ginsberger, M., ed. Targum Yerushalmi to the Pentateuch. Berlin, 1989. Repr., Jerusalem, 1969.

Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War, Vol. III. Translated by C. F. Smith. 4 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1919 – 1923. Tigay, Deuteronomy

Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

Toeg, Lawgiving at Sinai

Toeg, Arie. Lawgiving at Sinai: The Course of Development of the Traditions Bearing on the Lawgiving at Sinai within the Pentateuch, with a Special Emphasis on the Emergence of the Literary Complex in Exodus xix – xxiv. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. (Hebrew)

Toeg, “A Halakhic Midrash”

Toeg, Arie. “A Halakhic Midrash in Numbers xv: 22 – 31.” Tarbiz 43 (1974): 1 – 20. (Hebrew)

van der Toorn, Family Religion Toorn, Karel van der. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Leiden: Brill, 1996. van der Toorn, From her Cradle to her Grave Toorn, Karel van der. From her Cradle to her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and Babylonian Woman. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Tosefta

See: Lieberman, Tosefta

312

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Tov, Textual Criticism

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress; Assen; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992.

Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography Tropper, Amram. Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East. Oxford Oriental Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Urbrock, “Blessings and Curses” Urbrock, W. J. “Blessings and Curses.” ABD 1.755 – 756. Van Dam, Urim and Thummim Van Dam, Cornelis. The Urim and Thummim, a Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness” Van Seters, John. “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 401 – 408. Vanderkam, Jubilees

Vanderkam, James C. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510 – 511. Leuven: Peeters, 1989.

Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology Vaughn, Andrew G. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1999. de Vaux, Ancient Israel

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by J. McHugh. 2nd ed. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1965.

de Vaux, “Tirzah”

de Vaux, Roland. “Tirzah.” Pages 376 – 383 in Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Edited by D. W. Thomas. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969.

Veenhof, ”Evidence for Old Assyrian Legislation” Veenhof, Klaas R. “‘In Accordance with the Words of the Stele’: Evidence for Old Assyrian Legislation.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 70 (1994 – 1995): 1717 – 1744. Veenhof, “Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’” Veenhof, Klaas R. “The Relation Between Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’ of the Old Babylonian Period.” Jaarbericht “Ex Oriente Lux” 35 – 36 (1997 – 2000): 49 – 83. Viberg, Symbols of Law

Viberg, Åke. Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament. Coniectanea Biblica 34. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992.

Vroom, “Recasting Mîšpāṭîm”

Vroom, Jonathan. “Recasting Mîšpāṭîm: Legal Innovation in Leviticus 24:10 – 23.” Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012): 27 – 44.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

313

Walker, The Oxford Companion to Law Walker, David M. The Oxford Companion to Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. Waltke and O’Connor

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Warning, Literary Artistry

Warning, Wilfried. Literary Artistry in Leviticus. Biblical Interpretation Series 35. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Watts, “The Legal Characterization of God” Watts, James. “The Legal Characterization of God in the Pentateuch.” Hebrew Union College Annual 67 (1997): 1 – 14. Weinfeld, “Curse”

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Curse.” EM 7.185.

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord” Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord: The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1 – 2:3.” Pages 501 – 512 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henrie Cazelles. Edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions” Weinfeld, Moshe. “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source Against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background.” Pages 95 – 129 in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies – Panel Sessions: Bible and Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. Weinfeld, “The Change in the Conception of Religion” Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Change in the Conception of Religion in Deuteronomy.” Tarbiz 31 (1961 – 1962): 1 – 17. (Hebrew) Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech” Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven.” Ugarit-Forschungen 4 (1972): 133 – 154. Weingreen, “The Case of the Blasphemer” Weingreen, Jacob. “The Case of the Blasphemer (Leviticus XXIV 10 ff.).” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 118 – 23. Weingreen, “The Case of the Daughters of Zelophchad,” Weingreen, Jacob. “The Case of the Daughters of Zelophchad.” Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): 518 – 522. Weingreen, “The Case of the Woodgatherer” Weingreen, Jacob. “The Case of the Woodgatherer (Numbers XV 32 – 36).” Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): 361 – 364.

314 Weitzman, “Shifting Syntax”

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Weitzman, Steven. “The Shifting Syntax of Numerals in Biblical Hebrew: A Reassessment.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 55 (1996): 177 – 185.

Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bücher des alten Testaments. 3rd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. Repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten Wellhausen, Julius. Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt. 3rd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1898. Wellhausen, Prolegomena

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and A. Menzies, Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885. Repr., Cleveland and New York: World Publishing Co., 1957, 1965.

Wellhausen, Psalms

Wellhausen, Julius. The Book of Psalms. The Polychrome Bible 14. London: Clarke, 1898.

Wells, Law of Testimony

Wells, Bruce. The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004.

Wells, “The Quasi-Alien in Leviticus 25” Wells, Bruce. “The Quasi-Alien in Leviticus 25.” Pages 135 – 155 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Reinhard Achenbach, Rainer Albertz, and Jakob Wöhrle. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Wells, “What Is Biblical Law?” Wells, Bruce. “What Is Biblical Law? A Look at Pentateuchal Rules and Near Eastern Practice.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008): 223 – 243. Wenham, Leviticus

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979.

Wertheimer, Batei Midrash

Wertheimer, Sh. E., ed. Batei Midrash. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1980. (Hebrew)

Westbrook, “Deposit Law”

Westbrook, Raymond. “The Deposit Law of Exodus 22,6 – 12.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 106 (1994): 390 – 403.

Westbrook, “Law Codes”

Westbrook, Raymond. “Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes.” Revue biblique 92 (1985): 247 – 264.

Westbrook, “Lex Talionis”

Westbrook, Raymond. “Lex Talionis and Exodus 21:22 – 25.” Revue biblique 93 (1986): 52 – 69.

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

315

Westbrook, Property and Family Westbrook, Raymond. Property and Family in Biblical Law. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 113. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Westbrook, “Punishments and Crimes” Westbrook, Raymond. “Punishments and Crimes.” ABD 5.546 – 556. Westbrook and Wells, Everyday Law Westbrook, Raymond and Wells, Bruce. Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. Westermann, Genesis

Westermann, Claus. Genesis: A Commentary. 3 vols. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg, 1984 –  1986.

de Wette, Lehrbuch

Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher des Alten Testamentes. 6th rev. ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1845.

Wevers, Greek Text of Numbers Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1998. White, “The Value of Narrativity” White, Hayden.“The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality.” Pages 1 – 25 in The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987. Orig. pub. Critical Inquiry 7 (1980): 1 – 27. Wilcke, “Kodex Urnamma”

Wilcke, Claus. “Der Kodex Urnamma (CU): Versuch einer Rekonstruktion.” Pages 291 – 333 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Edited by Tzvi Abusch. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Willis, The Elders of the City

Willis, Timothy M. The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 55. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

Willis, “Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus” Willis, Timothy M. “Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus: The Marriage of Form and Content in Lev 24,13 – 23.” Biblica 90 (2009): 68 – 74. Wilson, Genealogy and History Wilson, Robert. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale Near Eastern Researches 7. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1977.

316

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament Wolff, Hans W. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress, 1974. (German original, 1973) Wright, “Gesture of Hand Placement” Wright, David P. “The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 106 (1986): 433 – 446. Wright, “Laws of Hammurabi” Wright, David P. “The Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23 – 23:19).” Maarav 10 (2003): 11 – 87. Wright, Inventing God’s Law

Wright, David P. Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Wunsch, “Women’s Property and the Law of Inheritance” Wunsch, Cornelia. “Women’s Property and the Law of Inheritance in the Neo-Babylonian Period.” Women and Property in Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Societies, August 2003. Published online. Accessed 4 December 2012: http://chs.harvard.edu/wb/1/wo/nIR80E1qiFwD6Z2 bnb6Omg/0.1 Yerushalmi

See: Zusman, Yerushalmi

Yoffee, “The Economy of Ancient Western Asia” Yoffee, Norman. “The Economy of Ancient Western Asia.” Pages 1387 – 1398 in vol. 3 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Sasson. 4 vols. New York, New York: Scribner, 1995. Repr., Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2000. Zadok, Anthroponymy and Prosopography Zadok, Ran. The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. Zakovitch, “Exegetical Circles” Zakovitch, Yair. “‘Go Up, Baldy! Go Up, Baldy!’ Exegetical Circles in Biblical Narrative.” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 8 (1985): 7 – 23. (Hebrew) Zakovitch, Introduction

Zakovitch, Yair. An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation. Even-Yehuda: Reches, 1992. (Hebrew)

Zakovitch, Life of Samson

Zakovitch, Yair. The Life of Samson (Judges 13 – 16): A Critical-Literary Analysis. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. (Hebrew)

Zakovitch, Ruth

Zakovitch, Yair. Ruth: Introduction and Commentary. Miqra le-Yisrael. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: Am Oved and Magnes, 1990. (Hebrew)

Bibliography: List of Abbreviations

317

Zehnder, Wegmetaphorik

Zehnder, Markus P. Wegmetaphorik im Alten Testament: Eine semantische Untersuchung der alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Weg-Lexeme mit besonderer Berücksichtigung inhrer metaphorischen Verwendung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 268. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999.

Zuckermann, Materialen

Zuckermann, Benedict. Materialen zur Entwicklung der altjudischen Zeitreichnung im Talmud. Jahersbericht des jüdischtheologisches Seminars. Breslau: Preuss & Junger, 1882.

Zusman, Yerushalmi

Zusman, Yaakov, ed. Talmud Yerushalmi. Jerusalem: Acadamy for the Hebrew Language, 2001. (Hebrew)

Source Index I. Biblical Versions, Ancient Translations, and Rabbinic Comments (References are to MT except where noted otherwise) Genesis 1:1 – 2:4  5 n. 15; 74 n. 190 1  175 n. 42; 261 1:20  73 n. 188 1:24 – 27  52 1:24  73 n. 188 1:26 – 30  269 1:26 – 27  73; 74 n. 190 1:28 – 30  73; 74 n. 190; 78 n. 202; 268 2:1 – 4  166 2:1 – 3  180 n. 65; 269 2:4 – 3:24  83 2:4  265 n. 9 2:24  247 n. 138 3:17 49 3:24  82 n. 218 4:13 56 4:17 220 4:25  79 n. 207; 234 n. 117 4:26  192 n. 110 5:1  265 n. 9 5:3  74 n. 190 5:29 49 6 – 9  261 6:1 – 4  83 6:9 – 22  268 6:9 – 13  73; 74; 78 n. 202 6:9  265 n. 9 7:17 – 24  73 8:3  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 8:5  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 8:21  49; 70 n. 182; 84 n. 222; 99 n. 31 9:1 – 17  73 9:1 – 7  268; 269 9:3 – 6  78 n. 202 9:3 – 4  73; 73 n. 188; 78 n. 202; 121

9:4 – 6  74 9:5 – 6  73; 78 n. 202; Mek. de R. Ishmael 73 n. 189 9:5  73 n. 188; 78 n. 202 9:6  72 n. 185; 74; 78; 78 n. 202 10:1  265 n. 9 11:1 – 9  83 11:10  265 n. 9 11:27  215 n. 67; 265 n. 9 14 191 14:12  191 n. 104 14:13 191 14:14  191 n. 104 14:16  191 n. 104 15:14  40 n. 78 16:4 – 5  28 n. 26 17 269 17:4 – 8  41 17:10 – 14  134 n. 131 17:14  119 n. 97; 139; 144 n. 167 18:20 – 33  60 18:20 – 21  61 n. 153 21:15  162 n. 246 21:34  40 n. 78 22:13  79 n. 207 23  40 n. 79 23:4  40; 40 n. 79 23:5 41 23:8  72 n. 188 25:12  265 n. 9 25:19  215 n. 67; 265 n. 9 25:21 – 23  11 27:27 – 28  99 27:27  99 n. 30; 99 n. 31 27:28  100 n. 34 31:32  57 n. 138

320

Source Index

31:44 – 52  220 32:4 – 33:16  19 n. 44 32:25 – 33  9 33:13  20 n. 51 37:2  215 n. 67; 265 n. 9 37:20  162 n. 246 37:22  162 n. 246 37:24  162 n. 246 38  200; 217; 218; 234 n. 116; 238 n. 126; 239; 251; 253; 256; 260 38:8 – 9  239 38:8 253 41:43  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 41:45  221 n. 89 41:50 – 52  221 n. 89 46:20  LXX 221 n. 89 46:21  221 n. 89 50:23  221 n. 89 Exodus 2:22 40 2:11 – 12  66; Exod. Rab. § 1:33 66 n. 170; Exod. Rab. § 1:34 66 n. 170 2:13  23 n. 1 4:21 – 26  19 n. 44 4:26  192 n. 110 5:1 – 2  39 5:2  28 n. 26; 177 n. 50 5:7  177 n. 50; 178 5:12 178 6 56 6:2 – 8  41 6:3  40 n. 79 6:4 41 6:10 – 30  222 n. 92; 234 6:10 – 12  222 n. 92 6:16 – 26  234 n. 117 6:23 234 6:26 – 27  222 n. 92 6:28 – 30  222 n. 92 8:11  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 12  93; 97; 101 n. 41; 112; 112 n. 80; 115 n. 90; 119; 122; 123; 125; 126; 127; 127 n. 118; 131; 132; 132 n. 127; 133; 134; 135; 135 n. 135; 136 n. 135; 139; 139 n. 144; 140; 259; 262 12:1 – 28  261; 262 12:1 – 24  18; 100; 115 n. 90; 119; 123; 128; 140; 147; 261; 268

12:1 – 20  141 n. 147 12:1 – 11  115 n. 90 12:1 – 6  20 n. 51 12:1 – 2  120 n. 106 12:2 – 11  127 n. 118 12:3 – 6  131 12:3 – 4  125 12:3  93 n. 3; 100; 103 n. 45; 123; 129; 134; 135 n. 135 12:4 – 6  129 12:4  103 n. 45; 134 12:5 134 12:6 – 8  129 12:6  93 n. 3; 122; 123; 131 n. 126; 132; 133 n. 130; 134; 135 n. 135; 141 n. 147; 178 n. 54; Mek. de R. Ishmael 132 n. 128 12:7 134 12:8 – 10  147 12:8 – 9  125 12:8  122; 123; 125; 126 n. 114; 134 12:9 – 10  129 12:9 134 12:10  122; 124; 125; 126 n. 114; 139 n. 143; LXX 124; 126 n. 114; Mek. de R. Ishmael 126 n. 114 12:11  134; 141 n. 151 12:12 – 13  132 12:13  126 n. 114 12:14 – 28  114 12:14 – 20  114; 125; 136 n. 136; 139; 262 12:14 – 19  141 n. 147 12:14 – 17  98 n. 27 12:14  134; 147 n. 175; 208 n. 41 12:15  119 n. 97; 139 12:16  141 n. 147; 178; 178 n. 54; 179 n. 57 12:17  134; 135 n. 135; 136 n. 135 12:18 – 20  115 n. 90; 135 n. 134; 136 n. 135; 147 n. 175 12:18  122; 131 n. 126; 132 n. 127; 134; 135 n. 135 12:19  39; 43 n. 88; 119 n. 97; 119 n. 102; 139 12:21 – 27  127 n. 118 12:21 – 24  115 n. 90 12:21 – 23  132 12:21 – 22  137 12:21  134; 137 12:22 – 24  129 12:22 – 23  126 n. 114

Source Index

12:23 137 12:24 – 27  134 12:24  98; 98 n. 26; 114; 121; 122; 134; 137; 147 n. 175; 261 12:25 – 27  98 n. 27; 122 12:27  141 n. 151 12:28  134 n. 131 12:37 – 38  20 n. 51; 41; 42; 120; 137 12:37  134 n. 131 12:38 36 12:40 – 42  138 12:41 – 42  19 n. 46 12:43 – 50  112; 119; 134 n. 131; 137; 138; 140 12:43 – 49  109; 114; 115 n. 90; 122; 124; 127 n. 118; 140; 262 12:43 – 45  111 12:43  122; 202 n. 22 12:46  97; 114; 122; 124; 126 n. 114 12:47 – 49  97; 97 n. 25; 130 12:47  134 n. 131 12:48 – 49  39; 43 n. 88; 111; 119 n. 102 12:48  54 n. 123; 54 n. 124; 104 n. 50; 110; 134 n. 131; 141 n. 151 12:49  54 n. 124 12:50 109 12:51 138 13:1 – 10  134 n. 133 13:3  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 13:12 240 13:17  161 n. 243 14:2  129 n. 120 15:1  192 n. 111 16  120 n. 106; 175; 175 n. 39; 176 n. 44; 177; 178; 186; 189 n. 97; 259; 262; 269 16:1 – 3  19; 175 n. 39 16:2 – 3  20 n. 51; 166 16:2  189 n. 97 16:6 – 25  19; 166; 175 n. 39 16:9  84 n. 222 16:16 – 20  47 n. 103 16:16  176 n. 43 16:21 – 25  175 n. 42 16:23 – 25  178; 180 n. 64 16:26 – 30  188 n. 93 16:29  188 n. 93 16:31 – 36  19; 166; 175 n. 39 16:34  175 n. 39 17:11 – 12  62 n. 156

18:3 40 18:13 – 26  12; 165 n. 1 18:15 – 16  13 18:17 – 23  13 19 – Lev 24  191 19:1 – 2  268 19:4 – 6  81 19:9  12 n. 27 19:10 – 15  92 19:10 – 11  132 19:11 – 13  82 19:13  57 n. 138 19:19  12 n. 27 19:20 – 25  82; 92 19:21 82 20 – 24  12 n. 27 20:2 – 4  81; 82 n. 213 20:11  53; 175; 180 n. 65; Mek. de R. Shimon b. Yoḥai 175 n. 40 20:12 – 13  180 n. 65 20:12  48 n. 104 20:16 – 17  180 n. 65 20:18 – 22  55 n. 129 20:20  81; 82 n. 213 20:22 – 26  157 21 – 23  34 21 – 22  202 n. 21 21:1 77 21:4 – 5  218 n. 80 21:6 157 21:9  202 n. 22 21:12 – 27  34 21:12 – 14  157 21:12  56; 58 n. 141 21:13 – 14  58 n. 141 21:15  48 n. 104 21:17  28 n. 26; 46; 48 n. 104; 55; 56 21:12 – 17  57 – 58; 80 21:12  24 n. 9 21:13 – 14  58 21:16 58 21:18 – 19  58 n. 141 21:22 – 27  80 n. 210 21:22 – 25  44 n. 90; 80 n. 209 21:22  23 n. 1 21:23 – 25  79 n. 207 21:23 – 24  73 n. 186 21:24 61 21:25  44 n. 90; 73 n. 186

321

322

Source Index

21:31  202 n. 22 21:35  254 n. 153 21:37 – 22:3  34; 34 n. 57 21:37  34 n. 57; 77 n. 199 22 61 22:2 – 3  34 n. 57 22:6 – 8  13; 13 n. 28; 80 n. 208; 158 22:7  196 n. 3; Mek. de R. Ishmael 196 n. 3 22:10  196 n. 3 22:17 – 19  57 – 58; 57 n. 138 22:17  57 n. 138 22:18 – 19  57 n. 138 22:18  57 n. 138 22:19  48 n. 104; 59; 59 n. 143; 81; SP 59 n. 143; LXX 59 n. 143 22:20 – 26  34; 61; 62 n. 156 22:20 – 23  77 22:20  40; 54; 77 n. 198; 162 n. 246 22:21  77 n. 198 22:22  77 n. 198 22:23  77 n. 198 22:27  33 n. 55; 34; 46; 48; 55; 56; 57; 57 n. 136; 61; LXX 49 n. 106; Tg. Neof. 49 n. 106; Tg. Onq. 49 n. 106; Tg. Ps.‑J. 49 n. 106 22:28 – 30  55 n. 129 22:28 – 29  157 22:30  56 n. 132; 162; 163 n. 248 23  51 n. 113; 82 n. 216; 93 23:4  53 n. 117 23:5  53 n. 117 23:9  40; 73 n. 188 23:10 – 11  52; 53 n. 117; 54 23:10  50; 51 n. 113 23:11  50; 50 n. 110; 51; 51 n. 113; 53 n. 117 23:12  53 n. 117 23:15  134 n. 133 23:23 – 24  81 23:32 – 33  81 24:1 – 2  82; 82 n. 217 24:3 – 8  77; 82 n. 213 24:9 – 11  82 24:9  82 n. 217 24:11  82 n. 213 24:12 – 15  81 24:16 – 18  83; 191; 268 24:18 81 25 – 31  194; 195 25:1 – 31:18  191

25:1 – 31:17  83; 268 25:1 – 31:11  180 25:21 – 22  17; 18 25:22 14 28:1  141 n. 150 28:31 – 35  79 n. 203 28:43  210 n. 48 29:9  209 n. 45; 209 n. 46; 210 n. 48 29:38 – 42  18; 99 n. 27 29:42 – 46  17 29:42 14 28:43  56 n. 131; 59 n. 146 30:6  14; 17 30:21  210 n. 48 30:34 – 37  17 31 262 31:1 – 6  200 n. 13 31:12 – 17  166; 168; 169; 170; 180; 186; 194; 259; 269 31:13  107 n. 65 31:14 – 15  168 n. 17; 169; 174; 180 n. 63; 180 n. 64; 186 n. 86 31:14  119 n. 97; 174; 179; 184; 186 31:15  174; 179 31:16 – 17  53 31:16 143 31:18  35; 83 32 – 34  180 n. 65; 194 n. 119 32:1 – 8  81 32:1 – 6  82 n. 213 32:9 – 14  82 32:15  35; 83 32:26 – 29  82 32:33 – 35  82 33:1 – 11  12 n. 27 33:1 – 3  83 33:6  12 n. 27 33:7 – 11  12; 14; 18 n. 42 33:8  12 n. 27 33:11  12 n. 27; 14 n. 33 33:12 – 23  82 33:12 – 16  83 33:17 – 23  83 34  82 n. 216; 93; 119 34:2 – 3  82; 82 n. 217; 83 34:2  82 n. 217; LXX 82 n. 216 34:4 83 34:5 – 8  83 34:10 – 26  114

Source Index

34:11 – 16  114 34:18  114; 134 n. 133 34:21 – 22  114 34:24  114; 142 34:25  119; 127 n. 118; 134 n. 133 34:26 114 34:29 – 34  18 n. 43 34:29 – 35  12 n. 27; 14; 14 n. 33; 17; 18; 35; 83; 261; 268 34:34  14 n. 33 35 – 40  20 n. 51; 194; 195 35:1 – 40:33  83 35 262 35:1 – 3  166; 168; 169; 170; 178; 180; 194; 259; 269 35:1 – 2  166 35:2 – 3  180 n. 64 35:2  168 n. 17; 174 35:3  166; 169; 175 n. 41; 177 n. 45; 178 35:4 – 40:33  180 35:30 – 36:2  200 n. 13 36:4  55 n. 127 36:7  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 36:14 139 40 35 40:1 – 16  268 40:1 – 2  120 n. 106 40:1  20 n. 51; 118 40:2 93 40:9 – 11  118 40:17 – Lev 7:38  121 40:17 – Lev 1:1  92 40:17 – 38  268 40:17  20 n. 51; 93; 118; 120 n. 106 40:34 – 35  14 n. 33; 83 40:34  120 n. 106 Leviticus 1 – 27  268 1 – 16  261 1 – 7  117 1:1 – 7:38  83 1:1 14 1:2  107 n. 64 1:3  202 n. 21 2  202 n. 21 2:1 – 13  99 n. 27 2:1  73 n. 188 2:3  119 n. 100

323

2:13  56 n. 135; LXX 56 n. 135 2:14 – 16  99 n. 27 4 194 4:1 – 12  99 n. 27 4:2  107 n. 65 4:3  202 n. 21 4:13 – 21  99 n. 27 4:22 – 26  99 n. 27 4:27 – 35  99 n. 27 5:1 – 13  202 n. 21 5:1  56 n. 132 5:10  138 n. 139 5:16  138 n. 139 6:7 – 11  99 n. 27 6:7  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 6:12 – 16  99 n. 27 7:11 – 14  261 7:15  139 n. 143 7:16 – 18  139 n. 143 7:19 – 21  139 7:19 – 20  150 n. 188 7:20 – 21  112; 139 n. 146; 261 7:20  119 n. 97 7:21  119 n. 97 7:23  107 n. 65 7:25  119 n. 97 7:27  119 n. 97 7:28 – 34  121 n. 109 7:29  107 n. 65 7:37 – 38  19 n. 46; 121 n. 109; 122 n. 110 8 – 10  20 n. 51; 121; 261 8 – 9  35; 74; 93 8:1 – 36  83 8:5 85 8:10 – 11  118 9 – 10  85; 87 9:1 – 10:2  189 9:1 – 22  83 9:23 – 10:7  87 9:23 – 10:3  14 n. 33; 62 9:23 – 24  83; 268 9:23 175 10 – 24  117 10  18; 258 10:1 – 7  19; 35 10:1 – 3  44 10:1 – 2  59; 83; 216 n. 74 10:1  84 n. 222 10:3 – 20  85

324

Source Index

10:3  175; 235; Num. Rab. § 21:14 235 n. 119 10:8 – 11  19 10:8 – 9  19 n. 46 10:10 – 11  19 n. 46 10:12 – 19  35 10:12 – 20  19 10:13 – 16  24 10:13 47; LXX 47 n. 102 10:15 47; LXX 47 n. 102 10:16 – 20  47 10:16 – 18  47 n. 103 10:18 47; SP 47 n. 102; LXX 47 n. 102 10:19 – 20  47 n. 103 10:19  47; 84 n. 222 10:20 47 11 – 27  34 n. 60 11 269 11:1 – 8  78 n. 202 11:2  107 n. 65 11:13 – 24  78 n. 202 11:39 – 40  55 n. 132; 163 n. 247 11:44  56 n. 135; LXX 56 n. 135 12  202 n. 21 12:2  107 n. 65 13  202 n. 21 13 – 14  93 n. 4 14:34  20 n. 51 15  93 n. 4; 202 n. 21 15:2  55 n. 127; 107 n. 64; 119 n. 96 15:31  86 n. 226 16  74; 84; 86; 87; 90; 120 n. 106; 210 n. 48; 261 16:1 – 34  14 n. 33 16:1  84 n. 222; 120 n. 106; SP 84 n. 222; LXX 84 n. 222 16:2  99 n. 29 16:12 – 13  84 n. 222 16:20 – 22  86 16:21 – 22  86 n. 225 16:29 – 34  86 n. 226 16:29 – 31  43 n. 88; 119 n. 102; 120 n. 106; 178 16:29  39; 54 n. 124; 120 n. 106; 178; 209 n. 45; 209 n. 46; 210 n. 48 16:31  178; 210 n. 48 16:34  120 n. 106; 209 n. 45; 209 n. 46; 210 n. 48 17 – 26  25; 34; 45 n. 96

17  73 n. 188; 74; 78 n. 202; 85; 112; 121; 139; 258; 261; 269 17:1 – 9  55 n. 129; 261 17:1 – 7  78 n. 202; 112; 157 17:1 – 5  72 n. 185; 74 17:2 85 17:3 – 7  121 n. 108 17:3 – 4  139 17:3  55 n. 127; 119 n. 96 17:4  74; 78 n. 202 17:5 – 6  139 17:5  115 n. 90 17:6  119 n. 100 17:8 – 9  38 n. 71 17:8  39; 43 n. 88; 55 n. 127; 119 n. 96; 119 n. 102 17:10 – 14  39 17:10 – 13  43 n. 88; 119 n. 102 17:10  39; 54 n. 124; 55 n. 127; 78 n. 202; 119 n. 96; 119 n. 98 17:11  78 n. 202 17:12  39; 54 n. 124; 78 n. 202 17:13  39; 54 n. 124 55 n. 127; 78 n. 202; 119 n. 96 17:14  78 n. 202 17:15 – 16  55 n. 132 17:15  39; 43 n. 88; 78 n. 202; 119 n. 102; 163 n. 247 17:20 139 17:21 139 17:25 139 17:27 139 18 – 22  64; 91; 257; 258; 261 18 – 20  Lev Rab. § 32:4 – 5 91 n. 237 18  90; 91; 269 18:1 – 5  91 18:2  55 n. 125; 107 n. 64; 181 18:3  90; 91 18:4  55 n. 125; 120 n. 103 18:5  55 n. 125; 120 n. 103 18:6  55 n. 125; 55 n. 127; 119 n. 96 18:16 217 18:21  55 n. 125; 56 n. 135; 79 n. 205; 90; 91; 151 n. 189; 241; LXX 56 n. 135 18:23  57 n. 138 18:24 – 30  86 n. 226; 90; 151 n. 189 18:26  39; 43 n. 88; 54 n. 124; 119 n. 102; 120 n. 103 18:29  119 n. 97; 139

Source Index

18:30  55 n. 125 19 – 22  91 19  166; 262 19:2 – 3  91 n. 238 19:2  55 n. 125; 91 19:3  55 n. 125; 166; 180 n. 64 19:4  55 n. 125 19:5 – 7  139 n. 143 19:8  90; 119 n. 101; 139; 146 n. 171 19:9 – 10  50 n. 110; 52; 53 n. 117; 54; 176 n. 43 19:10  55 n. 125 19:12  55 n. 125; 56 n. 135; 79 n. 205; 90; LXX 56 n. 135 19:14  46 n. 97; 55 n. 125; 56 n. 135; 57 n. 136; LXX 56 n. 135 19:16  55 n. 125 19:17  56 n. 132; 119 n. 99 19:18  54; 55 n. 125 19:23  20 n. 51 19:24 39 19:25  55 n. 125 19:28  55 n. 125 19:29 90 19:30  55 n. 125; 166; 180 n. 64 19:31  55 n. 125; 151 n. 189 19:32  55 n. 125; 56 n. 135; LXX 56 n. 135 19:33 – 34  40; 54 19:33  104 n. 50 19:34  54; 90 19:36  55 n. 125 19:37  55 n. 125; 120 n. 103 20  262; 269 20:1 – 7  151 n. 189 20:1 – 5  181; 259 20:2 – 4  241 n. 130 20:2 – 3  180 n. 63 20:2  39; 43 n. 88; 55 n. 127; 119 n. 96; 119 n. 102; 195 20:3  79 n. 205; 90 20:7  55 n. 125; 119 n. 101 20:8  55 n. 125 20:9  28 n. 26; 29; 46; 55; 55 n. 127; 56; 37 n. 136; 87; 119 n. 96; 119 n. 101; 174 20:10 – 21  55 20:11 87 20:12 87 20:13 87 20:16  57 n. 138; 87

325

20:17  146 n. 171 20:18  119 n. 101 20:20  119 n. 99; 146 n. 171 20:21 217 20:22 – 25  86 n. 226 20:22 – 24  90 20:22  120 n. 103 20:24  55 n. 125 20:26  55 n. 125 20:27  87; 181; 195; 259 21 – 22  91 n. 239 21:4 90 21:6  79 n. 205; 90 21:7 90 21:8  55 n. 125 21:9  55 n. 127; 90 21:12  55 n. 125; 90 21:14 90 21:15  55 n. 125; 90 21:18  55 n. 127 21:23  55 n. 125; 90 22  55 n. 129 22:2  55 n. 125; 79 n. 205; 90; 99 n. 29 22:3  55 n. 125; 119 n. 97; 119 n. 98; 139 n. 144 22:4  55 n. 127; 58 n. 139 22:8  55 n. 125; 56 n. 132; 163 n. 247 22:9  55 n. 125; 90; 119 n. 99 22:15 90 22:16  55 n. 125 22:18  39; 43 n. 88; 55 n. 127; 119 n. 96; 119 n. 102 22:24  86 n. 226 22:29 – 30  139 n. 143 22:30  55 n. 125 22:31 – 33  91; 189 22:31  55 n. 125 22:32  55 n. 125; 79 n. 205; 90 22:33  55 n. 125 23 – 25  88 23:1 – 24:9  34; 35; 88; 89 n. 230; 91; 258 23  88; 91 n. 238; 93; 99 n. 27; 112; 119; 120 n. 106; 123; 133; 136; 140; 140 n. 147; 147 n. 175; 178 n. 54; 179 n. 57; 269 23:1 – 3  88; 166 23:2  107 n. 64 23:3  178 n. 54; 180 n. 64 23:4 – 8  262 23:5 – 8  127 n. 118; 141 n. 147; 178 n. 54

326

Source Index

23:5 – 6  114; 135 23:5  98; 112; 119; 135 n. 135; 136; 138; 140; 141 n. 151 23:6 – 8  136 23:6  131; 134 23:7  140 n. 147 23:9 – 22  20 n. 51; 112; 158 23:9 – 14  142 n. 152 23:10  107 n. 64; 176 n. 43; Pesiq. R. Kah. (§ 8:1) 176 n. 43; Pesiq. Rab. (§ 18) 176 n. 43 23:11  88; 180 n. 64 23:14 – 15  115 n. 90; 135 n. 134; Sifra (§ 11:10) 142 n. 152 23:15 – 21  178 n. 54 23:15 – 16  88 23:15  180 n. 64 23:16  131; 141 n. 150 23:21  140 n. 147 23:22  52; 54; 55 n. 125; 176 n. 43 23:24 – 25  178 n. 54 23:24  88; 107 n. 65 23:25  140 n. 147 23:26 – 32  178 23:27 – 29  86 n. 226; Sifra (§ 14:1) 181 n. 67; Sifra (§ 14:5) 184 n. 78 23:29 – 31  178 23:32  88; 178 23:34 – 37  178 n. 54 23:34  107 n. 65 23:35  140 n. 147 23:36  140 n. 147 23:39 88 23:42 – 43  176 23:42  55 n. 125 24 262 24:1 – 9  88; 189 24:2  99 n. 29 24:5 – 9  88 24:8  180 n. 64 24:9 – 10  91 n. 238 24:10 – 23  1; 2; 4; 5; 6; 8; 9; 10 n. 21; 11; 14; 15; 20; 23 – 92; 34; 36; 42; 43; 63; 66; 67 n. 173; 74; 80; 81; 85; 86; 87; 87 n. 227; 89; 90; 91; 92; 95; 104; 106 n. 61; 107; 113; 118; 148; 166; 170; 172; 173; 180; 181; 184; 185; 189; 194; 195; 202; 249; 257; 258; 259; 269; Exod. Rab. § 1:33 66 n. 171; Lev. Rab. § 32:4 66 n. 171

24:10 – 15  87; 88 24:10 – 13  35 24:10 – 12  23 24:10 – 11  10; 67 n. 174; 171 24:10  4; 35; 42; 43; 44; 48; 71; 90; 171; 189; 4QLevb 20 ii 6 23 n. 2; 11QpaleoLev iii 6 23 n. 2; LXX 23 n. 2 24:11 – 12  171 24:11  4; 5; 8 n. 17; 15; 30; 32; 35; 42; 43; 44; 48; 66; 71; 90; 171; 183; Frg. Tg. P 28 n. 26; 32 n. 48; Frg. Tg. V 28 n. 26; 32 n. 48; Tg. Neof. 32 n. 48; Tg. Ps.‑J. 32 n. 48; Tg. Yer. 32 n. 48; Sam. Tg. 31 n. 42 24:12 – 23  43 24:12 – 13  87 24:12  4; 5; 15; 16; 42; 45; 48; 95; 172; 182; 182 n. 73; 183; 183 n. 77; 184; 184 n. 79; 11QpaleoLev 23 n. 3; LXX 184; Frg. Tg. P 1 n. 2; Frg. Tg. V 1 n. 2; Tg. Neof. 1 n. 2; Tg. Ps.‑J. 1 n. 2; Tg. Yer. 1 n. 2 24:13 – 22  21 24:13 – 15  59 24:13 – 14  69; 171 24:13  26; 42; 65 24:14  4; 15; 26; 32; 65; 66; 88; 107; 171; 174 24:15 – 22  88; 104 n. 50; 173 24:15 – 21  56 24:15 – 16  26; 34; 36; 37; 38; 39; 43; 58; 65; 66; 68; 69; 70; 71; 79; 80; 90; Mek. de R. Ishmael 28 n. 22; 32 n. 51; 56 n. 136 24:15  26 n. 17; 27; 28; 29; 33; 38; 48; 55; 55 n. 127; 56; 58; 59; 62 n. 155; 64; 66; 69; 70; 71; 89; 107; 119 n. 96; 119 n. 99; SP 56; 57; LXX 24 n. 4; 24 n. 5; 29; 56; Tg. Neof. 28 n. 26; Sam. Tg. A 28 n. 26; Sam. Tg. B. 28 n. 26 24:16 – 17  70 n. 182 24:16  26; 26 n. 17; 28; 29; 31; 32; 38; 39; 43; 48; 57; 58; 59; 60; 64; 62 n. 155; 66; 68; 69; 70; 89; 119 n. 102; SP 24 n. 6; LXX 24 n. 6; 29 n. 30; Tg. Neof. 32 n. 48; Tg. Onq. 29 n. 30; Tg. Ps.‑J. 32 n. 48; Sam. Tg. 21 n. 42; 32 n. 48 24:17 – 22  24; 25 24:17 – 21  25; 27; 34; 36; 37; 38; 43; 58; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72; 74; 78; 79; 80; 80 n. 210; 86; 87; 90; 4Q366 frg. 2 80 n. 210

Source Index

24:17 – 19  24 n. 9 24:17 – 18  24 n. 9 24:17  24 n. 7; 56 24:18 – 20  79 n. 207 24:18  24 n. 7; 78 24:19 78 24:20 – 21  24 n. 9 24:20 78 24:21  24 n. 8; 24 n. 9; 4QLevb 20 ii 24 24 n. 9; LXX 24 n. 8; 24 n. 9 24:22  25 – 26; 26 n. 17; 37; 43; 54 n. 124; 55 n. 125; 56 n. 133; 69; 70; 119 n. 102 24:23  4; 15; 25; 26; 32; 39; 45 n. 96; 59; 65; 66; 69; 87; 88; 108; 171; 210 25 – 26  257 25:1 – 26:2  34 25  40 n. 79; 41; 41 n. 81; 50; 51 n. 113; 52; 55 n. 129; 88; 166; 200; 202 n. 20; 232; 251; 255; 255 n. 158; 256; 263; 269 25:1 – 13  166 25:1 – 7  51 n. 113; 53 n. 117; 54; 66 n. 169; 89; 180 n. 64 25:1  35; 92; 92 n. 240; 191; 193; 252 25:2  20 n. 51; 50; 53; 107 n. 64 25:3 – 7  52 25:3  50; 51 n. 113 25:4 – 5  51 25:4  51; 51 n. 113; 53 25:5  51; 53; 252 25:6 – 7  52 25:6  43 n. 88; 51; 51 n. 113; 119 n. 102 25:7  51 n. 116; 53 25:10 263 25:14 – 17  233 25:18  120 n. 103 25:20 – 22  175 n. 42 25:23  42; 233; 263 25:24 263 25:25 – 28  42 25:25 42 25:29 – 30  202 n. 21 25:35 – 38  42 25:35  42; 55 n. 125 25:39 – 54  42 25:39 – 46  42; 80 n. 210 25:39 – 43  42 25:39 – 41  42 25:39 42 25:42 263

327

25:44 – 46  42 25:45 42 25:46 42 25:47 – 54  42 25:47 – 49  42; 252 25:47  42; 42 n. 85 25:55  55 n. 125; 263 26  166; 262 26:1  55 n. 125 26:2  55 n. 125; 88; 166; 180 n. 64 26:13  55 n. 125 26:15  120 n. 103 26:24 – 25  180 n. 65 26:34 – 35  166; 192 n. 111 26:38  86 n. 226 26:43  86 n. 226; 120 n. 103; 166; 180 n. 65 26:44  55 n. 125 26:45  55 n. 125 26:36 252 27  202 n. 21 27:2  55 n. 127; 107 n. 64 27:18 145 Numbers 1:1 – 10:11  99 1:1 – 10:10  268 1 – 4  118 1 – 2  215 1:1  97; 109 n. 69; 116; 118 1:4  55 n. 127 1:44  55 n. 127 3 – 4  215 3:1 – 4  18 n. 43; 193 n. 116; 233; 234 n. 117 3:1 191 3:4  193 n. 116; 213 n. 62; 216 n. 74 3:6  141 n. 150 4:19  55 n. 127 4:49  55 n. 127 5 – 8  258 5 – 6  118 5:1 – 4  97 n. 25 5:2 – 3  129 n. 120 5:5 – 8  202 n. 21 5:6  119 n. 98 5:11 – 31  13; 13 n. 28; 14 5:12  55 n. 127; 107 n. 64; 119 n. 96 5:13 – 14  13 n. 28 5:20  55 n. 127 6 117

328

Source Index

6:2  55 n. 127; 107 n. 64 6:22 – 27  117 7 – 10  85 7:1 – 10:10  97; 258 7:1 – 9:14  117 7 – 8  93; 109; 118 7  20 n. 51; 35; 116 n. 92; 117; 118; 121 7:1  109 n. 69; 118; 191 7:3  141 n. 150 7:10 118 7:84 118 7:88 118 7:89  1; 14 n. 33; 17; 18 n. 43; 261; 268 8  35; 121 8:1 – 4  117 8:5 – 26  117 9  93; 112 n. 80; 151 n. 190 9:1 – 14  1; 2; 4; 5; 7; 8; 9; 11; 14; 15; 16; 20; 35; 93 – 164; 93; 97; 107; 114; 115 n. 90; 116; 117; 118; 123; 134; 138; 140; 141; 142; 143; 147; 148; 148 n. 177; 150; 151; 151 n. 190; 152; 153; 154; 161; 161 n. 242; 166; 173; 181; 194; 202; 232; 249; 257; 258 9:1 – 8  103; 106; 110; 124 9:1 – 5  5; 94; 97; 101; 102; 129 n. 121; 139 9:1 – 4  118 9:1 – 2  98; 123; 140 9:1  93; 94; 94 n. 9; 97; 98; 98 n. 27; 101; 116; 116 n. 92; 122 n. 110; LXX 94 n. 9 9:2 – 4  93 9:2 – 3  94; 132; SP 197 n. 10 9:2  99; 99 n. 30; 100; 101; 114; 128; 129; 133; SP 94 n. 8; 94 n. 10; 128 n. 119; LXX 128 n. 119; Sifre Num. (§ 65) 163 n. 251 9:3  94 n. 11; 95; 97; 101 n. 37; 120; 122; 123; 127; 128; 129; 130; 129 n. 121; 130; 131; 131 n. 126; 133; 135 n. 135; 138 n. 139; SP 94 n. 8; 94 n. 10; 4QLevNuma 94 n. 9; LXX 94 n. 9; 94 n. 10 9:4 – 5  4 9:4  94; 94 n. 11; 94 n. 12; 97; 133; LXX 94 n. 12; Tg. Ps.‑J. 94 n. 11 9:5 – 7  93 9:5  94; 94 n. 11; 95; 97; 98; 100; 101; 102; 102 n. 42; 122; 129; 131; 132; 133; 135 n. 135; LXX 94 n. 12 9:6 – 14  100

9:6 – 13  97 9:6 – 8  94; 95; 102; 103; 161; 173 9:6 – 7  16; 106; 106 n. 59; 140 n. 146 9:6  4; 5; 10; 93 n. 4; 97 n. 25; 101; 102; 110; 133; 144 n. 164; 150 n. 188; 152; 245 n. 137; SP 95 n. 13; LXX 95 n. 13; Tg. Ps.-J. 101 n. 38; Sifre Num. (§ 68) 101 n. 38; Sifre Zuta 101 n. 38 9:7 – 9  93 n. 4 9:7  4; 5; 15 n. 36; 93 n. 4; 97; 102; 106; 119; 133; 133 n. 130; 141; 143; 144; 145; 146; 150 n. 188; SP 94 n. 8; LXX 144; 197 n. 10; Tg. Neof. 143 n. 158; Tg. Onq. 143 n. 158; Tg. Ps.‑J. 143 n. 158; Sam. Tg. A 143 n. 158; Sifre Zuta 146 n. 169 9:8 – 14  93 9:8  5; 102; 106 n. 60; LXX 95 n. 14; Frg. Tg. V 1 n. 2; Tg. Neof. 1 n. 2; Tg. Onq. 95 n. 14; Tg. Ps.‑J. 95 n. 14 9:9 – 14  21; 95; 103; 106; 111; 124; 173 9:9 – 13  130 9:9  55 n. 127; 95; 107 9:10 – 14  95 9:10 – 13  107; 129; 129 n. 122 9:10 – 11  124; 125; 144; 150 n. 188 9:10  55 n. 127; 97; 103; 104; 105; 106; 106 n. 59; 107; 107 n. 65; 109; 110; 119; 124; 126; 133; 140; 142; 156; 160; 161; 4QLev-Numa 96 n. 17; SP 160; LXX 95 n. 14; 160; Sifre Num. (§ 69) 103 n. 69; 110 n. 74; 159 n. 234; 161 n. 244 9:11 – 12  109; 122; 123; 124; 125; 126; 126 n. 116; 262; LXX 109 n. 73; Tg. Ps.‑J. 109 n. 73 9:11  96 n. 16; 96 n. 17; 110; 122; 123; 124; 125; 126 n. 116; 127; 131; 132; 133; 135 n. 135; 140 9:12  95; 97; 122; 123; 124; 125; 126 n. 114; 126 n. 116; 127; 129; 133; 138 n. 139; 202 n. 22; Mek. de R. Shimon b. Yoḥai 126 n. 114 9:13  97; 101; 105; 106; 110; 119; 124; 125; 126; 126 n. 116; 133; 133 n. 130; 139; 140 n. 146; 140; 141; 142; 143; 144; 145; 146; 160; SP 94 n. 8; 96 n. 18; 160; LXX 96 n. 18; 96 n. 19; 160; Sifre Num. (§ 70) 163 n. 251 9:14  39; 44; 43 n. 88; 54 n. 123; 95; 97; 97 n. 25; 104; 107; 111; 119; 120; 122; 123;

Source Index

127; 128; 129; 130; 131; 133; 138 n. 139; 202 n. 22; LXX 104 n. 50 9:15 – 23  116; 117 9:15  117; 118 9:17 – 23  117 10:1 – 10  116; 117 10:2 – 10  129 n. 120 10:2 117 10:5 – 6  117 10:8  209 n. 45; 209 n. 46 10:11  20 n. 51; 95 n. 15; 109; 116; 118; 195 11  12 n. 27 11:8  179 n. 56 11:11 – 12  18 n. 42 11:14 – 17  18 n. 42 11:24 – 30  18 n. 42 12:1 – 15  18 n. 42 12:5 – 9  14 12:8  14 n. 33 12:16  187; 195 n. 120 13 – 14  185; 189 n. 97; 244; 262 13 186 13:1 – 15  44 13:26 187 14  20 n. 51; 176 n. 44; 195 14:26 – 35  215 14:29 – 35  20 n. 51; 195 14:29  189 n. 97 14:32  189 n. 97 14:33  189 n. 97 14:35  189 n. 97; 215 15 – 18  185 n. 81 15  99 n. 27; 167; 175; 185; 187; 193; 194; 195; 259 15:1 – 16  20 n. 51; 166; 187 15:1 – 13  99 n. 27 15:1 187 15:2  107 n. 64; 185; 185 n. 81; Qoh. Rab. § 9:1 185 n. 81 15:13 – 16  39 15:14 – 16  39; 43 n. 88; 111 n. 75; 119 n. 102 15:14  54 n. 123; 111 n. 75; LXX 104 n. 50 15:15 44 15:16  44; 54 n. 124 15:17 – 31  187 15:17 – 26  20 n. 51 15:17 – 21  99 n. 27; 166 15:17 187 15:18  107 n. 64; 185

329

15:21 186 15:22 – 31  166; 194; 259 15:22 – 29  99 n. 27 15:22 – 26  99 n. 27 15:22 194 15:24  138 n. 139 15:25  Sifre Zuta 168 n. 17 15:26  43 n. 88; 54 n. 124; 119 n. 102 15:27 – 29  99 n. 27 15:29  39; 43 n. 88; 54 n. 124; 119 n. 102 15:30 – 31  89; 99 n. 27; 119 n. 101; 146 n. 171; 186 15:30  39; 43 n. 88; 119 n. 97; 119 n. 102; 139; 185 15:31  119 n. 97; 139 n. 144; 181 n. 67; Sifre Zuta 181 n. 67 15:32 – 36  1; 2; 4; 5; 6; 8; 9; 11; 15; 20; 35; 44; 89; 104; 107; 109 n. 70; 120 n. 106; 148; 165 – 195; 165; 166; 167 n. 13; 168; 169; 170; 172; 173; 174; 177; 180; 181; 184; 186; 187; 187 n. 92; 188; 193; 194 n. 118; 198; 257; 259; Sifre Num. (§ 113 – 114) 168 n. 18 15:32 – 34  15; 107; 107 n. 63; 15:32 – 33  Frg. Tg. P. 177 n. 50; Frg. Tg. V. 177 n. 50; Tg. Neof. 177 n. 50; Tg. Onq. 177 n. 50; Tg. Ps.-J. 177 n. 50; Tg. Yer. 177 n. 50 15:32  4; 5; 10; 169 n. 26; 171; 177; 185 n. 82; 187; 193; 215 n. 68; LXX 177; Sifre Num. (§ 113) 169 n. 26; 188 n. 96 15:33 – 34  171 15:33  4; 5; 165 n. 1; 166; 171; 177; 183; 185 n. 81; LXX 165 n. 1; 177 15:34  4; 5; 16; 107 n. 63; 165 n. 1; 167; 168; 170; 172; 182; 182 n. 73; 183; 183 n. 77; 184; 184 n. 79; LXX 165 n. 1; 184; Frg. Tg. V 1 n. 2; Tg. Neof. 1 n. 2; Sifre Num. (§ 114) 173 n. 36; Sifre Zuta 168 n. 18 15:35 – 36  15; 165 n. 3; 173; 186 n. 86; 187 15:35  4; 21; 107; 107 n. 63; 166; 168; 171; 179; SP 165 n. 2; LXX 165 n. 2; Targums, Aramaic 165 n. 2; Sifre Num. (§ 114) 179 n. 60; Sifre Zuta 169 n. 25; 179 n. 61 15:36  4; 108; 166; 167; 171; 210 15:37 – 41  166; 194 n. 118 15:37 – 38  194 n. 118

330

Source Index

15:38 – 41  129 n. 120 15:38  107 n. 64 15:39 – 41  194 n. 118 15:39  194 n. 118 16 – 19  262 16 – 18  19; 20 n. 51 16 – 17  195; 203; 244 16  195; 222 16:1 44 16:4 – 7  84 n. 222 16:16 – 18  84 n. 222 16:24 – 28  61 n. 151 16:27  23 n. 1 16:35  59; 84 n. 222 17:6 – 15  59 17:11 – 15  84 n. 222 17:16 – 26  14 17:16 – 19  17 17:27 – 18:19  99 n. 27 17:27 – 18:7  83 n. 218; 249; 268 17:27 – 28  19 18:11 – 13  99 n. 27 18:12  141 n. 150; 18:22  56 n. 131; 59 n. 146; 119 n. 99 18:32  119 n. 99 19  93 n. 4; 97 n. 25; 210 n. 48 19:2  137; 202 n. 22 19:9  210 n. 48 19:10  39; 43 n. 88; 54 n. 124; 119 n. 102; 209 n. 45; 209 n. 46; 210 n. 48 19:11 – 13  58 n. 139 19:13  119 n. 97; 119 n. 101; 139 n. 144 19:14 – 20  96 n. 18 19:20  96 n. 18; 119 n. 97; 119 n. 98; 119 n. 100; 119 n. 101; 139 n. 144 19:21  58 n. 139; 209 n. 45; 209 n. 46; 210 n. 48 19:22  58 n. 139 20 244 20:1 195 20:3 100 20:22 – 29  202 n. 18 20:26  199 n. 13 20:28  199 n. 13 20:29  199 n. 13 21:17  192 n. 111 21:36 195 22 – 24  31 n. 41 22:1  120 n. 106; 199 n. 13

22:11 31 22:17 31 23:8 31 23:11 31 23:13 31 23:20  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 23:25 31 23:27 31 24:10 31 25:1 – 18  1 25:6 – 8  59 25:10 – 13  83 n. 218 25:14 – 15  59 25:14 44 25:16 – 19  59 25:17  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 26  198; 199; 203; 214; 215; 217; 218; 219; 219 n. 81; 229; 230; 231; 232; 233; 234; 244; 245; 260; 262 26:1  202 n. 18 26:2 4 26:3  120 n. 106; 202 n. 18 26:5 – 6  222 n. 93 26:6 – 15  43 26:6 43 26:7 222 26:8 – 11  216; 216 n. 72; 222 26:8 – 10  223 26:8 43 26:9 – 10  216 26:14 43 26:23 – 24  222 n. 93 26:23  221 n. 87 26:28 215 26:29 – 34  214; 221; 224 26:29 – 33  198; 219; 230; 231 26:29 – 32  245 26:29 – 30  219; 222 26:29  220; 221; 221 n. 89; 229; 230 26:30 – 33  220 26:30 – 32  224; 225; 226 n. 102; 229; 230 26:30 230 26:30 SP  223 n. 95 26:31 – 32  222 26:32 230 26:33  223; 226; 230; SP 223 n. 95; LXX 223 n. 95 26:34  215; 226 26:35 – 37  221; 221 n. 89

Source Index

26:37 215 26:42 – 43  221 26:52 – 56  244 26:53  4; 217 26:57 – 62  234 n. 117 26:61  216 n. 74 26:63 – 65  245 n. 137 26:63  120 n. 106; 199 n. 13; 202 n. 18; 215 26:64 – 65  215 26:65 215 27  199; 226 n. 103 27:1 – 11  1; 2; 4; 5; 7; 8; 8 n. 18; 9; 11; 14; 15; 16; 20; 36; 107; 109 n. 70; 148; 173; 196 – 256; 196; 198; 199; 200; 201; 201 n. 14; 207; 211; 219; 223; 226; 227; 228; 229; 232; 233; 234; 235; 238; 242; 243; 244; 245; 247; 249; 250; 251; 252; 253; 255; 256; 257; 260; 4QNumb 8; 8 n. 18; 4Q365 frg. 36 8; 8 n. 18; 250 n. 144 27:1 – 7  211; 239 27:1 – 4  4; 196 27:1 – 2  5; 104; 245 27:1  5; 8 n. 17; 196 n. 1; 196 n. 2; 198; 214; 214 n. 67; 215; 219; 220; 226; 227; 231; 245; 4QNumb 21 4 196 n. 2; SP 196 n. 2; LXX 196 n. 1; 196 n. 2; 214 n. 67; 215; Peshitta 196 n. 1; 215 n. 69 Sifre Num. (§ 133) 198 n. 12; 214 n. 65; 214 n. 66; 215 n. 67; 216 n. 70; 238 n. 125 27:2 – 11  8 n. 18 27:2  5; 93 n. 4; 144 n. 164; 196 n. 3; 196 n. 5; 227; 245 n. 137; LXX 196 n. 3 27:3 – 4  16 27:3  10; 196 n. 4; 203; 214; 215; 216; 217; 226; 244; 4QNumb 21 7 196 n. 4; Sifre Zuta 216 n. 70 27:4  5; 15 n. 36; 107; 144 n. 164; 145; 196 n. 4; 196 n. 5; 203; 204; 205; 206; 214; 217; 227; 238; 242; 245; 246; 247; 253; 255; 256; SP 197 n. 6; 206 n. 38 27:5 – 7  197 27:5  5; 106 n. 60; 210; 246; Frg. Tg. V 1 n. 2; Tg. Neof 1 n. 2 25:6 – 13  47 n. 101 27:6 – 11  21 27:6 – 7  16; 227; 244; Sifre Num. (§ 134) 108 n. 66; 204 n. 32; 210 n. 47 27:6  210; 246 27:7 – 11  248

331

27:7 – 8  207 27:7  107; 197 n. 6; 197 n. 7; 204; 206; 208; 210; 211; 214; 227; 242; 243; 244; 246; 247; SP 197 n. 7; Sifre Zuta 204 n. 30; 204 n. 32 27:8 – 11  104 n. 50; 197; 204; 205; 206; 211; 235; 240; 242; 246; 247; 252 27:8 – 9  207; 235; 240; 241; 242; 243; 247; LXX 208 n. 40 27:8  55 n. 127; 107; 110; 196 n. 4; 197 n. 8; 205; 206; 211; 217; 235; 236; 239; 241; 242; 253; SP 197 n. 8; 205 n. 36 27:9 – 11  205; 235; 236; 239; 242; SP 197 n. 9; 208 n. 40; LXX 197 n. 9; 208; 208 n. 40 27:10 – 11  LXX 208 n. 40 27:11  8 n. 17; 108; 120 n. 103; 197 n. 9; 203 n. 25; 204; 209; 209 n. 44; 210; 210 n. 47; 211; 239; 242; 248; LXX 197 n. 10 27:12 – 23  199 n. 13; 233; 234; 245 n. 137 27:12 – 14  199; 235; 235 n. 121 27:12 – 13  199 n. 13 27:12 235 27:14  199 n. 13 27:15 – 23  14; 199; 202 n. 18l 235 n. 121 27:16 234; Num. Rab. § 21:15 234 n. 118 27:17  23 n. 1 27:18  107; 199 n. 13 27:19  226 n. 103 27:21  23 n. 1; 202 n. 22; 227 n. 104 28 – 36  199 n. 13 28 – 29  20 n. 51; 99 n. 27; 119; 120 n. 106; 123; 133; 136; 140; 140 n. 147; 147 n. 175; 179 n. 57 28 93 28:3 – 8  99 n. 27 28:3 – 4  132 28:7 – 8  132 28:9 – 10  120 n. 106; 180 n. 64 28:16 – 25  262 28:16 – 17  135; 141 n. 147 28:16  119; 131; 134; 136; 138; 140; 141 n. 151 28:17 – 25  136 29:6  138 n. 139 29:18  138 n. 139; 140 n. 147 29:21  138 n. 139 29:24  138 n. 139 28:25  140 n. 147

332 28:26  140 n. 147; 141 n. 150 29:1  140 n. 147 28:12  140 n. 147 29:27  138 n. 139 29:30  138 n. 139 29:33  138 n. 139 29:35  140 n. 147 29:37  138 n. 139 30  202 n. 21 30:3  55 n. 127; LXX 119 n. 96 31:1 – 20  47 n. 102 31:1 – 10  59 31:6  202 n. 18 31:12 – 13  202 n. 18 31:12  199 n. 13 31:14 – 16  47 n. 103 31:17 – 20  58 n. 139 31:20 – 23  20 n. 51 31:21 – 24  1; 2; 47 n. 103 31:21  18 n. 43; 137; 202 n. 18; 202 n. 22 31:25 – 28  2 31:25 – 27  213 n. 58 31:31  120 n. 106 31:41  202 n. 18 31:48 – 54  20 n. 51 31:50  141 n. 150 31:51  202 n. 18 31:54  202 n. 18 32  108; 231 32:1 – 38  231 32:5 205 32:29 205 32:39 – 40  231 32:39  219; 231 32:40 219 32:41 – 42  220; 220 n. 86 32:32  206 n. 38 33:38  199 n. 13 33:48  199 n. 13 33:50  199 n. 13 33:51  107 n. 64 34:15  202 n. 18 35  78 n. 202; 203 n. 25 35:1 – 8  129 n. 120 35:1  199 n. 13 35:9 – 34  183; 269 35:10  107 n. 64 35:12  210 n. 46 35:15  39; 42; 43 n. 88; 119 n. 102

Source Index

35:16 – 23  210 n. 46 35:24  202 n. 22; 210 n. 46 35:29  120 n. 103; 202 n. 22; 203 n. 25; 209 n. 45; 210 n. 46 35:30 – 34  58 n. 139 35:30 – 31  78 n. 202 35:31 – 34  78 n. 202 36  8 n. 18; 243 n. 133; 245 n. 137 36:1 – 12  2; 8; 148; 200; 203 n. 26; 210; 211; 229; 241; 243; 248; 250; 260; LXX 197 n. 10 36:1 – 4  241 36:1 – 2  245 36:1  219; 220; 245; 245 n. 137; LXX 197 n. 10 36:2  244; 245 n. 137; 247; 4QNumb 31 30 245 n. 137; 4QNumb 32 15-16 245 n. 137; SP 245 n. 137; LXX 245 n. 137 36:3 – 4  246; 247; 249 36:3  145; 145 n. 167; 243 36:4  145; 145 n. 167 36:5  246; 249 n. 142 36:6 – 9  246; 247 36:6 – 7  247 36:6 246 36:7  247 n. 138 36:8 – 9  58 n. 139; 104 n. 50; 247 36:9  247 n. 138 36:10 – 12  108; 210; 211; 248 36:10 248 36:13 108 36:16  199 n. 13 Deuteronomy  4QpaleoDeutg 24 n. 7 1:1 – 2  20 n. 51 1:9  192 n. 109 1:16  165 n. 2; 192 n. 109; SP 165 n. 2 1:18  192 n. 109 2:34  192 n. 109 3:4  192 n. 109 3:8  192 n. 109 3:12  192 n. 109 3:15 219 3:18  192 n. 109 3:21  192 n. 109 3:23  192 n. 109 4:14  192 n. 109 4:41 – 43  193 4:41  192 n. 111

Source Index

4:45 – 6:3  252 5:5  192 n. 109 5:14 53 5:32  18 n. 42 6:11  50 n. 110 8:11  120 n. 103 9:20  192 n. 109 10:1  192 n. 109 10:8  192 n. 109; 192 n. 110 10:19  40; 55 n. 126 11:1  120 n. 103 11:31 – 12:28  163 11:31 – 12:12  114; 147 11:31  163 n. 249 12:1  163 n. 249 12:2 – 7  122; 122 n. 110 12:8 – 12  121; 122 n. 110 12:8  122 n. 110 12:9  122 n. 110 12:11 – 12  158 12:13 – 19  157 n. 222 12:15 163 12:17 – 19  158 12:20 – 28  157 12:20 – 21  142 12:21  73 n. 188 12:22 163 12:23  78 n. 202 14:1 – 21  163 n. 248 14:21  56 n. 132; 163 14:22 – 26  157; 157 n. 223 14:23  157 n. 223 14:24 142 14:26 – 29  158 15  51 n. 113 15:1 – 11  53 n. 117 15:6 – 11  61 n. 153 15:17 157 15:19 – 23  157 n. 223; 158 15:20 – 21  158 n. 226 15:21 – 22  158 n. 226 16  93; 119 16:1 – 8  114; 119; 134 n. 133; 136 n. 136; 138; 141; 160; 161; 162 n. 245 16:1 – 7  127 n. 118; 159 16:1  133 n. 130; 141 n. 151; 142; 142 n. 155; 143; 162 n. 245 16:2  141 n. 151; 142; 159 16:3  162 n. 245

333

16:4  132 n. 128; 142; 162 n. 245 16:5  142; 159 16:6  132 n. 128; 135 n. 135; 142; 159; 162 n. 245 16:7 159 16:8  162 n. 245 16:11 158 16:13 – 15  158 16:14 158 16:18 – 20  158 17:3 – 8  13 17:8 – 13  11; 18 n. 42; 158 17:8 – 12  96 n. 18 17:8  13 n. 28 18:3  202 n. 22 18:6  158 n. 228 18:9 – 22  18 n. 42 18:10 – 11  240 n. 129 19:1 – 10  157 19:8 142 19:16 – 21  79; 80; 80 n. 209 19:19 79 19:21  73 n. 186; 79 20:5 – 7  239 20:15 142 21:1 – 9  11 n. 23; 87 n. 227 21:14  79 n. 207 21:17  202 n. 22 21:23  28 n. 26; 57 n. 136 22:19  239 n. 126 22:21  239 n. 126 23  36 n. 67 23:8 40 23:22 – 24  158 24:6  77 n. 199 24:14 – 15  61 n. 153 24:19 – 21  158 25:1 – 12  77 n. 197 25:5 – 10  77; 200; 201 n. 14; 217; 218 n. 80; 236; 238; 239; 251; 253; 254; 255; 256; 260 25:5 – 6  239 n. 126 25:5  213 n. 62; 217; 218 n. 80; 253; LXX 218 n. 80; Sifre Deut. (§ 288) 218 n. 80 25:6  218 n. 80; 236; 238; 253; LXX 218 n. 80; Sifre Deut. (§ 289) 238 n. 125 25:7  236; 238; 253 25:10  239 n. 126 25:9  236; 237 n. 123; 253

334

Source Index

25:11 – 12  76; 80 26:1 – 11  158 26:12 – 15  158 27  41 n. 82 27:1  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 27:15 – 26  49 27:21  57 n. 138 28:14  18 n. 42 28:58  30 n. 33 29:21  161 n. 242 30:11 – 14  161 n. 243 30:16  120 n. 103 31:1 – 32:47  199 n. 13 31:14 – 15  14; 18 n. 42 31:23  14; 18 n. 42 31:26  165 n. 2; SP 165 n. 2 32:41 – 43  4QDeutq 24 n. 7 32:48 – 52  199 n. 13; 235; 235 n. 121 32:48  199 n. 13 32:49  199 n. 13; 235 n. 120 32:50  199 n. 13 32:51  199 n. 13 32:52  199 n. 13 33:7 – 12  13 n. 31 33:9  Frg. Tg. P 13 n. 31; Frg. Tg. V 13 n. 31; Tg. Onq. 13 n. 31 ; Tg. Yer. 13 n. 31 34  199 n. 13; 235 34:1 – 9  199 34:1  199 n. 13 34:4  199 n. 13 34:5  199 n. 13 24:8  199 n. 13 34:9  199 n. 13 34:10  14 n. 33 Joshua 3:5 132 4:19  93 n. 3; 120; 132; 135 n. 135 5 93 5:10 – 12  119; 120; 135 5:10 – 11  98; 98 n. 26 5:10  93 n. 3; 131 n. 126; 132; 132 n. 128; 133 n. 130; 135 n. 135; 138; 140; 141 5:11 – 12  177 5:11  136 n. 135 6:15  202 n. 22 6:26 49 8:18  62 n. 156

8:26  62 n. 156 8:30 – 35  41 n. 82; 193; 4QJosha 193 n. 114; LXX 193 n. 114 8:30  192 n. 111 8:32  193 n. 114 8:33 44 9:2  LXX 193 n. 114 9:3  LXX 192 n. 114 9:6  161 n. 242 9:9  161 n. 242 10:12  192 n. 111 10:33  192 n. 110 12:17  211 n. 51 17  199; 224; 227; 233 n. 114 17:1 – 7  108 17:1 – 6  199; 214; 219; 221; 223; 224; 226; 229; 230; 231; 232; 245; 260 17:1 – 3  230; 231 17:1 – 2  223; 224; 228 17:1  219; 220; 225 17:2 – 3  230; 231 17:2  222; 224; 225; 225 n. 98; 226; 227; 228; 229; 230; LXX 225 n. 101; 226 n. 102 17:3 – 6  228; 231 17:3 – 5  228 17:3 – 4  226 17:3  219; 223 – 224; 226; 227; 228; 229; 230 17:4 – 6  224 17:4  227; 227 n. 104; 229; LXX 227 n. 104 17:5 – 6  227 17:5 228 17:6 228 17:7 – 13  224; 225 n. 98 17:7 225 17:13  196 n. 1 20:2  107 n. 65 20:9  54 n. 124 22:1  192 n. 111 22:7 – 8  213 n. 58 24:13  50 n. 110 Judges 1:7  68 n. 177 2:6 – 23  189 n. 98 2:15  23 n. 1 4:4 – 6  13 4:14  23 n. 1 5:13 – 17  219; 231

Source Index

10:17 – 11:40  9 11:1 – 2  220 n. 87 11:9 – 40  209 n. 44 11:37 – 40  209 13  214 n. 62 13:2  215 n. 67 13:12  202 n. 22 15:5  50 n. 110; LXX 50 n. 110 15:11  68 n. 177 17:1  215 n. 67 17:30  234 n. 117 18  45; 91 19 – 21  231 19:1  215 n. 67 1 Samuel 1  214 n. 62 1:1  215 n. 62 2 – 3  62 n. 157 2:13  202 n. 22 2:17  119 n. 100 2:22 – 25  62 n. 157 3:13  28 n. 26; 62 n. 157; LXX 62 n. 157 3:20 13 4:10 – 22  62 n. 157 7:15 – 17  13 8:1 – 2  13 8:9  202 n. 22 8:11  202 n. 22 8:14  50 n. 110 8:20  23 n. 1 9:9  190 n. 100 10:25  202 n. 22 11 231 12:1 – 25  189 n. 98 14:18 – 19  11 n. 24 14:32 – 35  163 15:26  76 n. 196 15:27 – 28  76 n. 196 15:33  68 n. 177; 76 n. 196 17:8  23 n. 1 17:12  215 n. 67 17:35  23 n. 1 17:54  190 n. 100 18:15  23 n. 1 20:24 – 26  163 23:15  23 n. 1 24:15  23 n. 1 24:20 100

335

26:20  23 n. 1 26:24  68 n. 177 29:6  23 n. 1 30:1 – 25  9 30:22 – 25  2 30:23 – 25  213 n. 58 31:11 – 13  231 2 Samuel 1:17 – 18  190 n. 100 2:4 – 7  231 2:13  23 n. 1 5:24  23 n. 1 6:23  190 n. 100; 214 n. 62 7  14 n. 32; 147 7:1 – 7  189 n. 98 7:4 – 12  80 n. 209 9:4 – 5  45 n. 96 12:7 – 12  76 n. 196 13 10 14  14 n. 32 14:8  95 n. 14; Tg. Onq. 95 n. 14; Tg. Ps.‑J. 95 n. 14 14:17 14 16:5 – 13  66 16:7  28 n. 26 16:9  28 n. 26 17:25 43 18:18  213 n. 62; 238 19:17 – 24  66 19:28 14 21 – 24  191 n. 103 21:1 – 14  187; 190; 190 n. 101 21:1  14 n. 34; 190; 193 21:12 231 24:3 100 1 Kings 1:8 – 9  66 3 – 9  147 3:1  45 n. 96 3:3 – 28  14 3:9  47 n. 101 3:16  192 n. 111 4:10  211 n. 51 4:20 – 5:5  114 5:15 – 8:66  117 5:16 – 19  114 8:1  192 n. 111; LXX 192 n. 111

336 8:12  192 n. 110 8:16 – 20  45 n. 96 8:41  161 n. 242 8:43 – 44  45 n. 96 8:56 114 8:65 – 66  135 n. 134 9:11  192 n. 111 9:24  LXX 193 11:7  192 n. 111 12:18  45 n. 96 12:26 – 33  117; 149 12:32 – 33  97; 148; 153 n. 199 13:24  162 n. 246 13:25  162 n. 246 13:28  162 n. 246 14:1 – 18  212 15:16 – 21  212 15:33 212 16:1 – 6  192 n. 105 16:6 212 16:7  192 n. 105 16:8 – 10  212 16:15 – 18  212 16:21  192 n. 111 16:23 – 24  212 16:34  49; 192; 192 n. 107 17:10 – 12  177 n. 50 17:10  178; 178 n. 53; 178 n. 55 17:12  178; 178 n. 53 18:23 100 19:1 – 8  20 n. 51 21 56 21:9 – 13  56 21:10  59 n. 147 21:13  59 n. 147 22:50  192 n. 110 2 Kings 1:17  213 n. 62; 216 n. 74 2 61 2:1 – 12  61 2:13 – 14  61 2:19 – 22  61 2:23 – 24  61 3:15  99 n. 31 4:8  214 n. 62 4:39  176 n. 43 5:2  23 n. 1 5:11  61 n. 151

Source Index

5:26  50 n. 110 7:13 100 8:1 – 6  256 8:2 – 3  40 n. 78 8:20  192; 192 n. 107 8:22  192 n. 109; 192 n. 111; 193 8:23  192 n. 107 8:29  192 n. 107 10:19  57 n. 138 10:24  79 n. 207 10:32  192 n. 108 12:10  64 n. 163 12:18  192 n. 111 14:8  192 n. 111 15:13 – 14  212 15:16  192 n. 111; 212 15:27 – 29  192 15:27 – 28  192 15:29  192; 193 15:37  192 n. 108 16:1 – 4  240 n. 129 16:5  192 n. 111 16:6  192 n. 109 17:7 – 17  240 n. 129 18 164 18:5  150 n. 187 18:16  192 n. 109 18:17 – 19:37  150 n. 187 18:30  28 n. 26; 18:32  50 n. 110 18:35  28 n. 26 20:1  192 n. 108 20:12  192 n. 109 20:14  161 n. 242 20:24  192 n. 109 21 – 23  138; 164; 259 21:1 – 7  240 n. 129 22:1 – 23:25  117 22:12 – 20  14 n. 34 23 93 23:10  240 n. 129 23:21 – 23  114; 133 n. 130; 142; 160; 189 n. 98 23:21  133 n. 130; 141 n. 151 23:22  122; 133 n. 130 23:23  133 n. 130; 141 n. 151 23:25  150 n. 187 23:29 192 24:1  192; 192 n. 107

Source Index

Isaiah  1QIsaa 165 n. 2 8:21  67 n. 174 11:1 – 5  14 17:4 – 6  176 n. 43 20:2  192 n. 109 27:12  176 n. 43 30:27  30 n. 33 33:22  189 n. 98 34:3  162 n. 246 49 – 66  154 51:9  64 n. 163 58:2 13 Jeremiah 1:11 – 12  76 n. 196 2:23  151 n. 189 4:31  76 n. 196 5:19  68 n. 177 7:18  178 n. 55 7:22  122; 122 n. 110 14:8  40; 40 n. 78 14:16  162 n. 246 32:6 – 9  255 n. 158 32:7  202 n. 22 32:8  202 n. 22; 253 32:9  255 n. 158 32:13  255 n. 158 32:25 240 33:15  192 n. 112 34:13 – 14  103 n. 46 36:30  162 n. 246 37:5  23 n. 1 50:4  192 n. 112 50:20  192 n. 112 Ezekiel 1 61 1:26 – 28  73 6:13  84 n. 222 8 61 8:9 – 12  84 n. 222 10 61 11 61 14:1 – 3  14 n. 34 14:4 – 11  11 14:4  55 n. 127; 119 n. 96 14:7  55 n. 127; 119 n. 96 16:19  84 n. 222 16:21 240

20:1 – 26  103 n. 46 20:1  14 n. 34 20:7  151 n. 189 20:18  151 n. 189 20:26 241 20:27 – 31  151 n. 189 20:27 – 29  181 n. 67 20:28  84 n. 222 20:31  240 n. 129 20:33 – 38  103 n. 46 20:41  84 n. 222 20:43  151 n. 189 22:3 – 4  151 n. 189 23:37 240 23:49  119 n. 99 24:2 – 5  126 n. 114 33:2  55 n. 127 36:18  151 n. 189 37:22  54 n. 124 37:23  54 n. 124; 151 n. 189 44:23 – 24  13 45 93 45:18 – 25  120 n. 106 45:18 – 20  138 45:21  115 n. 90; 131; 134 n. 133; 135 n. 134; 136 n. 136; 138; 140 47:22 – 23  119 n. 102 47:22  41 n. 82 48:14 241 Hosea 7:7  189 n. 98 10:12 13 13:10  189 n. 98 Joel 4:1  192 n. 112 Amos 4:9  50 n. 110 5:21  84 n. 222 5:25 122 6 61 6:1 – 14  60 8:1 – 2  76 n. 196 Obadiah 1:19 231

337

338 Micah 3:3  126 n. 114 Habakkuk 3:14  64 n. 163 Zephaniah 1:8  119 n. 100 2:1  177 n. 50; LXX 177 n. 50 Haggai 154 2:11 – 13  163 Zechariah 154 7:8 – 14  68 n. 177 7:13  68 n. 177 13:3  57 n. 138 14:3  23 n. 1 Malachi 154 1:7  119 n. 100 3:16  61 n. 154 Psalms 2:10  189 n. 98 5:12 100 10:3  59 n. 147 14:4  119 n. 100 20:8  61 n. 151 37:35  41 n. 82; LXX 41 n. 82 39:13  42 n. 83 44:6  61 n. 151 68:8  23 n. 1 69:2 – 4  73 n. 187 72:19  30 n. 33 74:7  64 n. 163 87:1  LXX 43 88:1  LXX 43 96:2  30 n. 33 103:1  30 n. 33 105:23  40 n. 78 106:34 – 40  151 n. 189 108:112  23 n. 1 113:2  30 n. 33 118:10 – 12  61 n. 151 119:41 100 145:1  30 n. 33 145:21  30 n. 33 148:11  189 n. 98

Source Index

Proverbs 7:19  161 n. 242 10:18  56 n. 132 11:26 31 12:11 254 24:23  192 n. 105 24:24  31; 31 n. 41 24:29  68 n. 177 25:1  192 n. 105 25:8  23 n. 1 26:26  56 n. 132 27:5  56 n. 132 28:19 254 29:24  56 n. 132 31:14  161 n. 242 Job  4QpaleoJobc 24 n. 7 1:1  215 n. 67 1:5  59 n. 147; 62 1:11  59 n. 147; 62 1:21  30 n. 33 2:5  59 n. 147; 62 2:9  59 n. 147; 62 2:10 62 3:8 31 5:3 31 15:18  144 n. 161 26:13  64 n. 163 31:32 40 40:4  28 n. 26 40:26  64 n. 163 42:7 62 Song of Songs 6:2 176 6:4 212 7:1  45 n. 96 Ruth  190 n. 98; 200; 217; 218; 239; 250; 254; 256; 259; 260 1:1  189; 189 n. 98; 193 1:6  31 n. 47; 254 n. 155 1:8  31 n. 47 1:9  31 n. 47 1:13  23 n. 1; 31 n. 47 1:15 254 1:17  31 n. 47; 254 1:20 – 21  31 n. 47 2  176 n. 43

Source Index

2:4  31 n. 47 2:12  31 n. 47 2:20  31 n. 47; 239 3:9 239 3:10  31 n. 47; 255 3:12 239 3:13  31 n. 47; 239 4:1 – 6  255 4:1  77; 239 4:3  239; 255 4:4 239 4:5  239; 255; 255 n. 156; 256; LXX 255 n. 156 4:6 239 4:7 239 4:8 239 4:9 – 10  255 n. 156 4:9 239 4:10  239; 255; 256 4:11 – 15  254 n. 155 4:11 – 12  31 n. 47 4:13  31 n. 47 4:14  31 n. 47; 239 Qohelet 5:3 – 4  158 Esther 1:1 – 2  190 1:1 193 2:5 – 7  215 n. 67 6:1  256 n. 160 Daniel 2:20  30 n. 33 8:11  162 n. 246 11:11  23 n. 1 11:44  23 n. 1 Ezra – Nehemiah  195 Ezra 154 2:61  218 n. 80 3:1 – 13  117 4:18  172; 182; 184 6  93; 132 n. 128 6:13 – 22  117 6:16 – 21  135 n. 134 6:18  213 n. 58 6:19 – 21  133 n. 130

6:19 – 20  133 n. 130; 138; 151 6:19  133 n. 130; 140 6:20  133 n. 130; 150 n. 187 6:21  135 n. 134 6:22  135 n. 134 Nehemiah 154 5:11  50 n. 110 7:63  218 n. 80 8:8  172 182; 184 8:17 122 9:5  30 n. 33 9:25  50 n. 110 10:32  51 n. 113 13  167 n. 13 1 Chronicles 2:18 – 50  201 2:21 – 41  213 n. 57 2:21 – 24  218 n. 80 2:30 – 32  232 n. 110 2:30  213 n. 62 2:32  213 n. 62 2:34 – 41  218 n. 80 2:34 – 35  232 n. 110 2:34  213 n. 62 3:5  45 n. 96 5:2  192 n. 110 7:6  221 n. 89 7:14 – 19  201; 213 7:14 – 17  220 n. 87 7:14  221 n. 89 7:15  232 n. 110 7:16 – 17  220 n. 87 7:17  220 n. 87 7:18 – 19  220 n. 87 14:15  23 n. 1 16:7 193 23:21 – 22  248 n. 140 23:22  213 n. 62 2 Chronicles 2:21 – 23  231 6:36  161 n. 242 7:4 – 10  135 n. 134 14:10 – 11  61 n. 151 28  149 n. 184 29 – 35  149 n. 184 29 – 30  117

339

340

Source Index

29:1 – 30:20  135 n. 134 30  93; 97; 114; 132 n. 128; 133 n. 130; 148; 148 n. 177; 149; 150; 150 n. 187; 151; 151 n. 190; 152; 153; 160 30:1 – 20  138; 138 n. 140; 140 30:1  133 n. 130; 141 n. 151; 149 30:2  133 n. 130; 153 30:3 – 12  151 30:3  133 n. 130; 151; 152 30:5  133 n. 130; 141 n. 151; 160 30:6 – 9  151 n. 189 30:13  135 n. 134; 153 30:14  151 n. 189 30:15 – 20  133 n. 130; 139 30:15 – 16  148 n. 177 30:15  133 n. 130; 153 30:17 – 20  151 30:17 – 19  149 30:17  133 n. 130 30:18 – 20  163 30:18  148 n. 177; 150 n. 188 30:21 – 22  151 30:21 – 27  135 n. 134 30:21  135 n. 134 31:1  151 n. 189 34:1 – 35:19  135 n. 134 34:4 – 5  212 n. 58 35  93; 132 n. 128; 133 n. 130 35:1 – 19  117; 138; 140

35:1  133 n. 130; 141 n. 151 35:2 – 6  150 n. 187 35:3 – 6  133 n. 130 35:6  133 n. 130 35:10 – 14  150 n. 187 35:11  133 n. 130 35:16  133 n. 130 35:17  133 n. 130; 135 n. 134 35:18  122; 133 n. 130 35:19  133 n. 130 1 Esdras 7  LXX 93 Ben Sira 23:7 – 13  LXX 63 n. 162 Jubilees  93; 115 49 138 49:1 – 21  115 49:1 – 2  101 n. 39 40:2  101 n. 41 49:7  101 n. 39 49:9 – 21  115 n. 90 49:10 – 12  101 n. 39 49:13  126 n. 114 49:14  101 n. 39 49:15  101 n. 39; 140 n. 146 49:19  101 n. 39

II. Ancient Literature and Documents Sumer Private letter, 1700 BCE  30 n. 36 Records of Ur-Namma  63 Laws of Ur-Namma §§ 18 – 22  75 n. 192 Lipit-Ishtar §§ d – e  76 n. 196 Handbook of Forms § 3 ll. 10 – 15  77 n. 199 Babylon Laws of Hammurabi (LH) § 8  77 n. 199 § 25  76 n. 196 §§ 192 – 205  76 n. 196 §§ 209 – 210  76 n. 196 § 218  76 n. 196

§§ 226 – 227  76 n. 196 §§ 229 – 232  76 n. 196 § 230  76 n. 196 §§ 253 – 256  77 n. 199 § 253  76 n. 196 § 265  77 n. 199 § 282  76 n. 196 Neo-Babylonian Laws § 7  77 n. 199 Eshnunna Laws of Eshnunna § 42 – 47  75 n. 192 § 53 – 57  75 n. 192

Source Index

Assyria Middle Assyrian Laws A § 4  76 n. 196 § 5  76 n. 196 § 9  76 n. 196 § 15  76 n. 196 § 18  76 n. 196 § 19  76 n. 196 § 20  76 n. 196 § 24  76 n. 196 § 40  76 n. 196 § 53  76 n. 196 § 55  76 n. 196 § 59  76 n. 196 Middle Assyrian Laws B § 8  77 n. 199 Assyrian Palace Decrees § 2  76 n. 196 § 5  76 n. 196 §  17  76 n. 196 § 20  76 n. 196 § 21  76 n. 196 Hatti Hittite Laws §§ 7 – 9  75 n. 192; 77 n. 20 §§  11 – 18  75 n. 192 §§  11 – 16  77 n. 200 § 44a  76 n. 196 §§ 57 – 70  77 n. 199 § 95  76 n. 196 § 99  76 n. 196 § 101  76 n. 196 § 121  76 n. 196 §§ 187 – 200a  76 n. 196 Instructions for Temple Officials § 9  96 n. 23; 105; 105 n. 57; 105 n. 58; 143 n. 157 Samaria Samaria Ostraca No. 45  201 n. 16; 212 No. 47  201 n. 16; 212 No. 50  201 n. 16; 212 No. 52  201 n. 16; 212 No. 64  201 n. 16; 212 No. 66  201 n. 16; 212

341

Qumran 1QS VI 26 – VII 2  63 n. 156 4Q319 – 321 (Otot, Mishmarot A/B)  114 n. 89 11Q5 (11QPsa) l. 27  114 n. 89 11Q19 Temple Scroll XVII. ll. 7 – 9  115 n. 90 Elephantine Passover Ostracon  115 n. 90; 133 n. 130 Pesaḥ letter  134 n. 131; 135 n. 134 Pesaḥ Papyrus  115 n. 90 ll. 4 – 5  163 n. 252 l. 4  115 n. 90 ll. 5 – 9  115 n. 90 l. 8  115 n. 90 Greek Philo  1; 14; 46 n. 98; 57 n. 136 Plutarch  152 n. 194; 152 n. 197 Thucydides  152 n. 195 Rabbinic Mishna m. Pes. 2:2 – 4  115 n. 90 m. Pes. 3:1  115 n. 90 m. Pes 4:4  115 n. 90 m. Pes. 4:9  153 n. 199 m. Pes. 5 – 9  115 n. 90 m. Pes. 5:1  132 n. 128 m. Pes. 7:6  163 n. 251 m. Pes. 7:6  163 n. 251 m. Pes. 9:2  159 n. 234; 161 n. 244 m. Pes. 9:3  125; 136 m. Pes. 9:4  163 n. 251 m. Pes. 9:5  115; 132 m. Yeb. 4:3  237 n. 123 m. Sanh. 6:4  57 n. 136 m. Sanh. 7:4  57 n. 136 m. Sanh. 7:5  33; 57 n. 136; 74 n. 191 m. Sanh 7:8  57 n. 136 Tosefta t. Pes. 8:2  110 n. 74 t. Pes. 8:7  125 t. Yoma 4:12  2 n. 4 Palestinian Talmud (Yerushalmi) y. Ber. 1:4 3c  194 n. 118 y. Sanh. 5:1 22d  177 n. 49

342

Source Index

Babylonian Talmud b. Shabb. 96b  177 n. 49 b. Pes. 56a  153 n. 199 b. Pes. 69a – b  163 n. 251 b. Pes 70b  159 n. 234; 161 n. 244 b. Pes. 77a – 80b  163 n. 251 b. Yeb. 17b  218 b. B. Qam. 83b – 84a  77

b. B. Bat. 119a – b  2 n. 4 b. B. Bat. 120a  249 n. 142 b. Sanh. 8a  2 n. 4 b. Sanh. 56a  28 n. 22; 32 n. 51; 57 n. 136; 66 b. Sanh. 56a – 57a  39 n. 74 b. Sanh. 66a  57 n. 136 b. Sanh. 78a – b  168 n. 18

III. Medieval Commentaries and Modern Scholarship Aaron b. Elijah  114 n. 85; 144 n. 159; 169 n. 26; 221 n. 87 Abravanel  90 n. 235 Abusch, T.  182 n. 76; 265 n. 8; 267 n. 17 Achenbach, R.  40 n. 79 Ackerman, J. S.  14 n. 32 Ackerman, S.  201 n. 15 Aejmelaeus, A.  24 n. 9 Aharoni, Y.  212 n. 52; 212 n. 54; 225 n. 99 Aitken, J. K.  28 n. 25; 28 n. 26; 29 n. 28; 30 n. 32; 31 n. 40; 31 n. 41; 49 n. 107 Albertz, R.  38 n. 71; 40 n. 79 Alter, R.  8 n. 16; 10 n. 20; 190 n. 101; 191 n. 103 Ashley, T. R.  105 n. 55; 127 n. 118; 140 n. 146; 169 n. 24; 172 n. 35; 182 n. 72 Aster, S. Z.  12 n. 27 Auerbach, E.  10 n. 20 Auld, A. G.  199 n. 13; 224 n. 97 Avishur, Y.  88 n. 229; 94 n. 5; 129 n. 121; 168 n. 16 Avrahami, Y.  79 n. 203 Baal ha-Turim  70 n. 182 Baden, J. S.  12 n. 27; 17 n. 39; 72 n. 212; 120 n. 106; 175 n. 39; 188 n. 93; 189 n. 97; 200 n. 13; 222 n. 91; 261 n. 1; 262 n. 4 Baentsch, B.  13 n. 29; 23 n. 1; 23 n. 2; 24 n. 7; 28 n. 22; 28 n. 24; 30 n. 34; 30 n. 35; 30 n. 37; 32 n. 51; 36 n. 66; 44 n. 92; 46 n. 98; 55 n. 130; 59 n. 144; 65 n. 167; 73 n. 186; 93 n. 4; 95 n. 14; 98 n. 27; 105 n. 53; 120 n. 104; 120 n. 105; 144 n. 161; 144 n. 163; 156 n. 219; 175 n. 39; 185 n. 83; 187; 187 n. 90; 193 n. 116; 198

n. 12; 199 n. 13; 201 n. 14; 202 n. 17; 202 n. 18; 202 n. 22; 203 n. 24; 213 n. 59; 214 n. 65; 216 n. 70; 241 n. 131 Bamberger, B. J.  2 n. 5; 180 n. 62 Beentjes, P. C.  66 n. 168 Beer, G.  175 n. 39 Bekhor Shor  28 n. 24; 30 n. 32 Ben Yehuda, E.  42 n. 85; 76 n. 196; 162 n. 246; 177 n. 47; 177 n. 50 Ben-Barak, Z.  201 n. 14; 201 n. 15; 203 n. 26; 213 n. 60; 214 n. 63; 214 n. 64; 241 n. 131; 244 n. 134; 249 n. 141; 251 n. 149 Ben-Dov, J.  61 n. 152 Ben-Hayyim, Z.  165 n. 2 Bendavid, A.  149 n. 184; 165 n. 2 Berlin, A.  268 n. 21 Bertelli, L.  265 n. 9 Bertholet, A.  10 n. 21; 11 n. 22; 23 n. 2; 30 n. 34; 30 n. 35; 30 n. 37; 31 n. 38; 35 n. 65; 38 n. 72; 55 n. 130; 59 n. 144; 65 n. 167 Bialik, H. N.  267; 267 n. 17; 267 n. 18; 267 n. 19 Bickerman, E. J.  161 n. 241 Bird, P.  201 n. 15 Blank, S.  33 n. 56; 49 n. 107; 59 n. 145; 61 n. 155; 65 n. 167; 67 n. 173 Blau, J.  227 n. 104 Bloch-Smith, E.  201 n. 14 Boecker, H. J.  3 n. 11 Bohak, G.  33 n. 54; 62 n. 156 Borenstein, A.  212 n. 54; 225 n. 99 Borowski, O.  149 n. 182 Bottéro, J.  75 n. 194 Boys, T.  165 n. 3

Source Index

Braulik, G.  217 n. 77; 218 n. 79; 236 n. 122; 251 n. 147; 252 n. 151 Bray, J. S.  201 n. 14 Brichto, H. C.  28; 28 n. 25; 33 n. 54; 48 n. 104; 201 n. 14; 251 n. 147 Bright, J.  9 n. 19; 212 n. 56 Broshi, M.  155; 155 n. 216 Brueggemann, W.  191 n. 103 Buber, M.  109 n. 73l 185 n. 81 Budd, P. J.  11 n. 24 Budde, K.  62 n. 157; 190 n. 102; 191 n. 103; 220 n. 87 Burney, C. F.  50 n. 110; 192 n. 106; 209 n. 44; 216 n. 74; 220 n. 87 Carpenter, J. E./Harford-Battersby, G.  19 n. 48; 19 n. 50 25 n. 10; 98 n. 26; 99 n. 27; 120 n. 107; 141 n. 148; 166 n. 4; 167; 167 n. 9; 175 n. 39; 193 n. 116; 199 n. 13; 211 n. 50; 222 n. 91; 224 n. 97 Carroll, R. P.  255 n. 158 Carter, C. E.  154 n. 207; 154 n. 209 Chapman, A. T./Streane, A. W.  30 n. 32; 35 n. 65; 65 n. 167 Charles, R. H.  115 n. 90 Charpin, D.  75 n. 194 Chavel, S.  14 n. 34; 17 n. 39; 17 n. 40; 34 n. 57; 48 n. 104; 50 n. 112; 55 n. 127; 55 n. 129; 58 n. 141; 59 n. 143; 74 n. 190; 75 n. 194; 77 n. 197; 77 n. 199; 105 n. 57; 122 n. 110; 157 n. 221; 157 n. 222; 163 n. 250; 254 n. 153; 268 n. 21 Childs, B. S.  175 n. 39; 186 n. 85 Cogan, Mordechai  216 n. 74 Cogan, Morton  162 n. 246; 240 n. 129 Cohen, M. E.  96 n. 22 Cooke, G. A.  201 n. 14; 218 n. 79; 224 n. 97; 251 n. 149 Cover, R.  267; 267 n. 16 Cowley, A. E.  133 n. 130 Crawford, T. G.  31 n. 40 31 n. 41; 31 n. 45; 61 n. 155 Cross, F. M.  234 n. 117 Crüsemann, F.  2 n. 8; 3 n. 13 Cryer, F. H.  3 n. 11; 12 n. 26 Cudden, J. A.  12 n. 25 Curzon, L. B.  12 n. 26 Dalman, G.  149; 149 n. 181; 161 n. 240; 177 n. 48; 178 n. 55; 186 n. 85 Dan, Y.  155; 155 n. 213

343

Daniel-Nataf, S.  1 n. 1 Daube, D.  58 n. 142; 76; 76 n. 195 Davies, E. W.  238 n. 126; 241 n. 131; 250 n. 147; 251 n. 149; 254 n. 154 Day, J.  240 n. 129 De Vries, S. J.  28 n. 24 Dever, W. G./Gitin, S.  201 n. 15 Diamond, A. S.  75 n. 193 Dillmann, A.  9 n. 19; 13 n. 31; 19 n. 48; 19 n. 50; 94 n. 7; 99 n. 28; 99 n. 30; 105 n. 52; 116 n. 92; 139 n. 142; 142 n. 153; 144 n. 161; 145 n. 166; 146 n. 172; 157 n. 223; 158 n. 226; 160 n. 238; 167; 167 n. 8; 168; 168 n. 15; 168 n. 16; 168 n. 19; 169 n. 20; 170; 170 n. 28; 172; 172 n. 33; 172 n. 34; 174; 182; 182 n. 70; 182 n. 76; 185; 185 n. 82; 187; 187 n. 89; 188; 193; 193 n. 116; 198 n. 12; 199 n. 13; 200 n. 13; 202 n. 17; 203 n. 24; 208 n. 40; 214 n. 65; 216 n. 70; 222 n. 91 Dolansky, S.  62 n. 156 Dorival, G.  144 n. 162 Douglas, M.  85 n. 224; 91 n. 239; 269 n. 22 Dozeman, T.  261 n. 1 Driver, S. R.  17 n. 40; 25 n. 10; 28 n. 24; 99 n. 29; 99 n. 30; 157 n. 225; 175 n. 39; 190 n. 102; 199 n. 13; 231 n. 108 Dupont-Sommer, A.  115 n. 90 Ehrlich, A. B.  10 n. 21; 23 n. 2; 28 n. 22; 28 n. 26; 29 n. 27; 32 n. 51; 46 n. 98; 51 n. 115; 72 n. 185; 73 n. 188; 77 n. 199; 78 n. 202; 92 n. 240; 93 n. 4; 94 n. 11; 96; 96 n. 20; 97 n. 25; 99 n. 30; 100 n. 32; 100 n. 34; 102; 102 n. 43; 144 n. 160; 145 n. 168; 146 n. 173; 148; 148 n. 177; 149; 150; 150 n. 188; 151 n. 190; 153; 168; 168 n. 14; 185; 185 n. 80; 185 n. 81; 187; 187 n. 91; 187 n. 92; 190 n. 100; 194 n. 118; 203 n. 26; 203 n. 27; 209 n. 44; 210 n. 48; 213 n. 59; 225 n. 100; 241 n. 131; 244 n. 134; 253 n. 152; 255 n. 158 Eichrodt, W.  3 n. 11 Eisenstein, Y. D.  1 n. 4 Eissfeldt, O.  2; 2 n. 10; 65 n. 167; 264 n. 5 Elliger, K.  10 n. 21; 31 n. 44; 34 n. 60; 35 n. 65; 36 n. 67; 44 n. 90; 44 n. 93; 46 n. 98; 65 n. 167; 92 n. 240 Elliott-Binns, L.  172 n. 34 Endres, J. C.  149 n. 184

344

Source Index

Eslinger, L.  76 n. 196 Feder, Y.  143 n. 157 Feliks, Y.  149; 149 n. 181; 161 n. 240 Fensham, F. C.  251 n. 149 Finkelstein, J. J.  75 n. 193; 75 n. 194 Finley, M. I.  155 n. 215 Fishbane, M.  3; 3 n. 12; 12 n. 26; 13 n. 29; 14; 15 n. 36; 26 n. 16; 26 n. 18; 28 n. 22; 29; 29 n. 28; 30 n. 32; 38 n. 71; 39 n. 74; 44 n. 90; 48 n. 104; 50 n. 109; 58 n. 142; 59 n. 143; 68 n. 175; 104 n. 51; 105 n. 53; 105 n. 54; 136 n. 135; 178 n. 180; 150 n. 187; 151 n. 189; 151 n. 190; 152 n. 191; 156 n. 219; 167; 167 n. 111; 172 n. 34; 182; 182 n. 71; 182 n. 75; 182 n. 76; 183 n. 77; 193 n. 114; 194 n. 117; 199 n. 13; 210 n. 46; 216 n. 73; 247 n. 139 Fokkelmann, J.  26 n. 18; 69; 69 n. 178; 78 n. 201; 190; 190 n. 100 Fox, E.  109 n. 72 Fox, M.  194 n. 118 Frankel, D.  175 n. 39 Frankfort, H./Frankfort, H. A.  30 n. 36 Frayne, D. R.  63 n. 158 Fritz, V.  224 n. 97 Frymer-Kensky, T.  2; 2 n. 9 Galil, G.  24 n. 7; 39 n. 76; 73 n. 186 Garner, B. A.  12 n. 26 Geiger, A.  30 n. 34; 96 n. 16 Gerstenberger, E. S.  10 n. 21; 25 n. 12; 28 n. 23; 28 n. 24; 30 n. 32; 31 n. 44; 35 n. 65; 36 n. 67; 46 n. 97; 46 n. 98; 65 n. 167; 67 n. 173 Gesenius  31 n. 39; 95 n. 13; 227 n. 104; 179 n. 59; 197 n. 7; 209 n. 43; 227 n. 104 Gesenius-Buhl  177 n. 50 Gesundheit, S.  18 n. 44; 82 n. 215; 82 n. 216; 93 n. 2; 98 n. 26; 98 n. 27; 99 n. 27; 114 n. 87; 114 n. 88; 115 n. 90; 123 n. 112; 124 n. 113; 129 n. 120; 131 n. 126; 132 n. 127; 134 n. 132; 134 n. 133; 136 n. 135; 136 n. 136; 141 n. 147; 142 n. 155; 147 n. 175; 159 n. 232; 162 n. 245; 178 n. 54; 194 n. 118; 208 n. 41; 261; 261 n. 3; 262 Gevirtz, S.  28 n. 24; 29 n. 27; 30 n. 40 Ginsberg, H. L.  31 n. 41; 148 n. 178; 149 n. 182; 158 n. 229

Ginzberg, C.  266; 266 n. 14; 266 n. 15; 267 Goodman, M.  160 n. 236 Gray, G. B.  93 n. 4; 100; 100 n. 36; 109 n. 69; 116 n. 93; 139 n. 145; 144 n. 160; 144 n. 163; 165 n. 2; 168 n. 16; 168 n. 19; 172; 172 n. 31; 181; 181 n. 69; 185 n. 83; 202 n. 17; 203 n. 23; 208 n. 40; 210 n. 48 Gray, J.  149 n. 182; 212 n. 52 Green, B.  239 n. 128 Greenberg, M.  19 n. 44 Greenfield, J.  31 n. 40; 31 n. 41 Greengus, S.  60 n. 149; 63 n. 162 Greenstein, E. L.  31 n. 41; 62 n. 157; 84 n. 222; 162 n. 246 Grosby, S.  40 n. 80 Grosz, K.  201 n. 14 Gunkel, H.  10 n. 20; 74 n. 190; 83 n. 219; 220 n. 85 Guthe, H.  182 n. 74 Hakham, A.  41 n. 82 Halpern, B.  175 n. 42; 190 n. 102; 201 n. 14 Haran, M.  3 n. 11; 12 n. 27; 17 n. 39; 18 n. 42; 61 n. 151; 81 n. 212; 83 n. 220; 84 n. 222; 137 n. 138; 158 n. 228; 193 n. 115 Harrelson, W. J.  28 n. 24; 32 n. 48 Hartley, J. E.  23 n. 2; 26 n. 18; 28 n. 22; 32 n. 48; 33 n. 51; 35 n. 65; 65 n. 167; 70; 70 n. 181 Hatav, G.  209 n. 43 Haupt, P.  172 n. 34; 182; 182 n. 71 Hayes, J. H.  150 n. 186; 150 n. 187 Hegel, G. W. F.  265; 265 n. 10; 266; 267 Heider, G. C.  240 n. 129 Heinemann, I.  172 n. 35; 182 n. 72 Hertzberg, H. W.  190 n. 102 Heschel, A. J.  2 n. 5 Hiebert, P. S.  251 n. 149 Hiers, R. H.  28 n. 27 Hitzig, F.  41 n. 82 Ḥizzequni  23 n. 1; 179 n. 56 Hoglund, K.  154 n. 208 Holzinger, H.  93 n. 4; 106 n. 59; 141 n. 148; 153; 153 n. 202; 155; 156; 169 n. 23; 172 n. 34; 182 n. 71; 199 n. 13; 201 n. 14; 202 n. 17; 206 n. 38; 215 n. 69; 222 n. 91; 224 n. 97; 232 n. 109; 243 n. 133 Hopkins, D. C.  161 n. 240 Hornblower, S.  265 n. 9 Horsely, R. A.  155; 155 n. 217

Source Index

Houtman, C.  48 n. 104; 53 n. 117; 58 n. 142; 59 n. 143 Huizinga, J.  17, n. 39 Hurowitz, V. A.  75 n. 194; 117 n. 94 Hurvitz, A.  104 n. 50 Hutton, R. R.  27 n. 21; 28 n. 23; 28 n. 25; 28 n. 26; 29 n. 29; 29 n. 31; 31 n. 41; 33 n. 53; 58 n. 140; 65 n. 167 Ibn Ezra  29 n. 30; 35 n. 65; 51 n. 116; 61; 73 n. 186; 98; 99 n. 31; 104; 156; 185 n. 81 Ibn Janaḥ  28 n. 26; 30 n. 32; 153 n. 200; 177 n. 50 Iwry, S.  188 n. 94 Jackson, B. S.  55 n. 130; 60 n. 148; 169 n. 24; 203 n. 26; 205 n. 33 Jacobsen, T.  30 n. 36; 63; 63 n. 161 Japhet, S.  82 n. 214; 148 n. 177; 150 n. 187; 153 n. 201; 221 n. 87 Jas, R.  264 n. 6 Jastrow, M.  32 n. 48; 49 n. 106 Jeffers, A.  3 n. 11 Johnson, A. R.  3 n. 11; 73 n. 188 Joosten, J.  25 n. 10; 28 n. 22; 29 n. 28; 36 n. 66; 39 n. 73; 42 n. 86; 43 n. 87; 43 n. 89; 44 n. 91; 54 n. 122; 56 n. 133; 119 n. 102; 149 n. 185; 154 n. 204; 176 n. 43 Joüon, P./Muraoka, T.  95 n. 13; 99 n. 29; 100 n. 33; 110 n. 74; 111 n. 75; 179 n. 59; 227 n. 104; 255 n. 158 Kahana, A.  94 n. 7; 146 n. 169; 172 n. 30 Kalisch, M. M.  10 n. 21; 23 n. 1; 28 n. 26; 30 n. 32; 30 n. 36; 36 n. 66; 44 n. 90 Kamionkowski, S. T.  28 n. 26; 30 n. 36; 32 n. 50; 79 n. 205 Kara, J.  62 n. 157 Kasher, M. M.  185 n. 81 Kaspi, J.  62 n. 157 Kearney, P. J.  191 n. 103 Kellermann, D.  94 n. 6; 99 n. 28; 99 n. 29; 100 n. 35; 102 n. 44; 103 n. 47; 104 n. 50; 106 n. 59; 106 n. 61; 109 n. 69; 113 n. 83; 116 n. 93; 126 n.115; 126 n. 116; 127 n. 117; 129 n. 122; 133 n. 130; 144 n. 163; 146 n. 172; 148 n. 176 Kennicott, B.  225 n. 100 Kiel, J.  190 n. 101; 191 n. 103 King, P. J./Stager, L. E.  153 n. 203 Kirkpatrick, A. F.  190 n. 102 Kislev, I.  199 n. 13; 233 n. 115; 245 n. 137

345

Kitchen, K. A./Lawrence, P. J. N.  63 n. l59 Klawans, J.  151 n. 189 Klein, M.  87 n. 228 Knauf, E. A.  153 n. 203 Knobel, A.  19 n. 47; 19 n. 50; 73 n. 188; 99 n. 31; 112 n. 79; 116 n. 91; 126 n. 114; 127 n. 118; 137 n. 138; 139 n. 143; 141 n. 148; 142 n. 153; 157 n. 223; 158 n. 226; 160 n. 239; 161 n. 242; 168 n. 19; 172; 172 n. 30; 177 n. 50; 198 n. 12; 202 n. 22; 203 n. 24; 210 n. 46; 213 n. 57; 214 n. 65; 216 n. 70; 218 n. 80; 225; 225 n. 100 Knohl, I.  18 n. 42; 21; 25 n. 10; 27 n. 18; 34; 43 n. 88; 56 n. 134; 69 n. 178; 99 n. 27; 109 n. 71; 113 n. 81; 113 n. 84; 119 n. 98; 119 n. 99; 119 n. 100; 119 n. 102; 120 n. 104; 120 n. 105; 134 n. 133; 164 n. 253; 166 n. 6; 175 n. 39; 176 n. 43; 180 n. 65; 200 n. 13; 203 n. 25; 234 n. 116; 261; 261 n. 2 Knoppers, G.  149 n. 183; 213 n. 57; 221 n. 87 Koller, A. J.  32 n. 48 König, E.  177 n. 50; 192 n. 106 Koperman, Y.  2 n. 8 Kuenen, A.  19 n. 48; 98 n. 26; 98 n. 27; 99 n. 27; 99 n. 28; 166 n. 5; 167 n. 12; 168; 168 n. 14; 169 n. 20; 172; 172 n. 32; 174; 175 n. 39; 190 n. 102; 193 n. 116; 199 n. 13; 200 n. 13; 222 n. 91; 224 n. 97 Kugel, J. L.  154 n. 205 Kutscher, E. Y.  115 n. 90; 133 n. 130; 149 n. 185; 165 n. 2 Labuschange, C. J.  162 n. 246 Lee, B. P.  64 n. 166 Leḳaḥ Ṭov  33 n. 55; 185 n. 81 Lemaire, A.  201 n. 16; 212 n. 53; 212 n. 54; 225 n. 99 Lesko, B. S.  201 n. 15 Leuchter, M.  45 n. 96 Levine, B. A.  2 n. 8; 19 n. 47; 28 n. 22; 33 n. 51; 35 n. 65; 45 n. 95; 50 n. 110; 84 n. 222; 95 n. 14; 109 n. 72; 123 n. 111; 126 n. 114; 127 n. 118; 141 n. 149; 168 n. 15; 169 n. 22; 170; 170 n. 29; 172 n. 35; 177 n. 50; 182 n. 72 Levinson, B. M.  15 n. 25; 55 n. 129; 124 n. 113; 157 n. 220; 158 n. 227; 159 n. 232

346

Source Index

Levy, B. B.  1 n. 2 Levy, L. W.  29 n. 27 Lewis, T. J.  201 n. 14 Licht, J.  12 n. 26; 19 n. 50; 63 n. 162; 101 n. 40; 113 n. 84; 133 n. 129; 139 n. 142; 139 n. 145; 146 n. 173; 146 n. 174; 169; 169 n. 27; 202 n. 22; 204 n. 30; 209 n. 45; 210 n. 46; 213 n. 59; 216 n. 70; 216 n. 71; 219 n. 81; 241 n. 131; 243 n. 133; 250 n. 143 Lieberman, S.  2 n. 4 Lindenberger, J. M.  115 n. 90; 133 n. 130; 163 n. 252 Livingston, D. H.  33 n. 52 Loewenstamm, S. E.  126 n. 114; 192 n. 106; 218 n. 80; 237 n. 123; 248 n. 140 Long, B. O.  12 n. 26; 264 n. 6 Lund, N. W.  26 n. 18; 70; 70 n. 180; 165 n. 3; 173 n. 37 Lust, J.  184 n. 79; 218 n. 80 Luzzato  32 n. 51; 90 n. 235; 177 n. 50 Magonet, J.  35 n. 65 Maimoni  100 n. 34 Malamat, A.  45 n. 94 Margoliouth, D. S.  154; 154 n. 205; 154 n. 206 Marquis, L. M.  108 n. 67; 118 n. 95; 205 n. 34; 206 n. 38; 231 n. 107 Mattingly, D. J./Salmon, J.  155 n. 215 Mazar, A.  212 n. 52 McCarter, P. K.  190 n. 102 McKane, W.  122 n. 110 McKay, H. A.  181 n. 68 McKenzie, S.  149 n. 184 McMahon, G.  105 n. 57 McNeile, A. H.  168 n. 15; 168 n. 16; 168 n. 19; 169 n. 22; 170; 170 n. 29; 175 n. 39 Mendelssohn, M.  95 n. 13; 109 n. 72; 111 n. 75; 111 n. 76; 168; 168 n. 16 Meritt, B. D.  152 n. 198 Milgrom, J.  10 n. 21; 14 n. 33; 19 n. 45; 19 n. 48; 19 n. 49; 20 n. 52; 23 n. 1; 25 n. 10; 26 n. 15; 27 n. 18; 28 n. 22; 29 n. 28; 36 n. 66; 37 n. 70; 38 n. 72; 39 n. 77; 45 n. 95; 97 n. 101; 50 n. 109; 50 n. 110; 51 n. 116; 53 n. 119; 56 n. 132; 66 n. 169; 69; 70 n. 179; 72 n. 185; 74 n. 191; 78 n. 202; 83 n. 218; 83 n. 220; 84 n. 222; 89 n. 230; 89 n. 233; 92 n. 240; 94 n. 5; 97 n. 25;

99 n. 27; 104; 104 n. 51; 105 n. 56; 111 n. 77; 113 n. 81; 120 n. 106; 122 n. 110; 129 n. 121; 132 n. 128; 136 n. 135; 136 n. 137; 139 n. 142; 141 n. 150; 142 n. 152; 143 n. 157; 153 n. 203; 154 n. 204; 158 n. 229; 161 n. 240; 167; 167 n. 11; 168 n. 16; 175 n. 39; 175 n. 41; 180 n. 65; 185 n. 82; 186; 186 n. 86; 186 n. 87; 186 n. 88; 193; 194; 201 n. 14; 202 n. 22; 203 n. 29; 204 n. 30; 210 n. 46; 210 n. 48; 216 n. 70; 217 n. 76; 217 n. 78; 219 n. 81; 233 n. 112; 233 n. 113; 240 n. 129; 241 n. 131; 243 n. 133; 244 n. 134; 245 n. 137; 249 n. 152; 252 n. 150; 270 n. 23 Miller, J. M./Hayes, J. H.  150 n. 186; 150 n. 187 Mitchell, C. W.  66 n. 172 Mittwoch, H.  10 n. 21; 35 n. 64 Montgomery, J. A.  192 n. 106 Moore, G. F.  220 n. 87 Moore, S. F.  15 n. 35 Muffs, Y.  64 n. 164; 82 n. 214 Muraoka, T.  161 n. 242; 177 n. 51; 184 n. 79; 218 n. 80; 255 n. 158 Na’aman, N.  150 n. 186; 150 n. 187; 189 n. 98; 190 n. 102 Nasuti, H. P.  265 n. 7; 267 n. 16 Nelson, R. D.  41 n. 82; 98 n. 26; 193 n. 114; 193 n. 115; 212 n. 55; 218 n. 79; 236 n. 122; 237 n. 123; 238 n. 126; 239 n. 126; 251 n. 147 Netziv  70 n. 182; 85 n. 224 Nielsen, E.  199 n. 13; 200 n. 13 Nihan, C.  17 n. 40; 25 n. 10; 34 n. 58; 35 n. 63; 38 n. 71; 40 n. 79; 41 n. 81; 45 n. 96; 71 n. 183; 80 n. 210; 89 n. 232; 89 n. 234; 135 n. 134 Noth, M.  2; 2 n. 6; 31 n. 44; 36 n. 66; 36 n. 67; 44 n. 92; 59 n. 144; 65 n. 167; 104 n. 49; 109 n. 73; 123 n. 111; 169 n. 24; 178 n. 55; 203 n. 26; 212 n. 54; 217 n. 75; 219 n. 81; 221 n. 90; 230; 230 n. 105; 230 n. 106; 235 n. 121 del Olmo Lete, G./Sanmartín, J.  172 n. 34 Oort, H.  190 n. 98; 194 n. 118 Paran, M.  26 n. 18; 32 n. 48; 36 n. 68; 49 n. 108; 55 n. 128; 94 n. 10; 129 n. 120; 194 n. 118; 202 n. 19; 240 n. 129 Pastor, J.  155; 155 n. 212

Source Index

Paterson, J. A.  172 n. 34; 182 n. 71; 182 n. 74 Patrick, D.  12 n. 26 Paul, S. M.  23 n. 1; 33 n. 53; 60 n. 150; 65 n. 167; 75 n. 193; 76 n. 196; 122 n. 110 Pedersen, J.  3 n. 11; 11 n. 24; 30 n. 36; 79 n. 204; 203 n. 28; 208 n. 42; 213 n. 57; 213 n. 59; 236 n. 122; 237 n. 123; 243 n. 133; 251 n. 147; 251 n. 148; 255 n. 158 Peltonen, K.  149 n. 183 Perlitt, L.  199 n. 13; 200 n. 13 Phillips, A.  169 n. 24 Pickard-Cambridge, A.  152 n. 196 Polanyi, K.  155 n. 215 Polzin, R.  149 n. 184; 149 n. 185; 191 n. 103 Porten, B.  163 n. 252 Porter, J. R.  28 n. 22; 28 n. 26; 30 n. 35; 30 n. 37; 31 n. 43; 33 n. 51; 33 n. 56; 36 n. 66; 44 n. 90; 59 n. 145; 65 n. 167; 72 n. 185 Posen, R. B.  177 n. 50 Price, S.  152 n. 192 Propp, W. H. C.  126 n. 114; 234 n. 118 Qimḥi  30 n. 32; 62 n. 157; 99 n. 30; 122 n. 110; 177 n. 46; 177 n. 50 Qimron, E.  96 n. 17; 115 n. 90 Rabbenu Meyuḥas  185 n. 82; 188 n. 96 Rabin, C.  227 n. 104 Rabinowitz, I.  192 n. 106 von Rad, G.  176 n. 43; 190 n. 102; 199 n. 13; 201 n. 14 Radday, Y.  88 n. 229 Ramban  51 n. 116; 98 n. 27; 122 n. 110; 185 n. 81 Ramírez Kidd, J. E.  40 n. 79; 40 n. 80 Rashbam  29 n. 30; 99 n. 30; 114; 179 n. 57 Rashi  19 n. 47; 28 n. 26; 29 n. 30; 51 n. 116; 62 n. 157; 99 n. 30; 185 n. 81 Reggio, I.  126 n. 115 Renz, J.  201 n. 16 Rimmon-Kenan, S.  3 n. 14; 16 n. 38 Ringgren, H.  31 n. 40 Robinson, G.  167 n. 10 Rofé, A.  49 n. 105; 57 n. 138; 61 n. 151; 62 n. 156; 77 n. 197; 105 n. 53; 114 n. 86; 122 n. 110; 142 n. 154; 143 n. 156; 156 n. 219; 157 n. 221; 157 n. 224; 163 n. 249; 192 n. 105; 193 n. 115; 219 n. 82; 219 n. 83; 220 n. 84; 220 n. 86

347

Rost, L.  190 n. 101; 191 n. 103 Roth, M. T.  63 n. 158; 63 n. 159; 63 n. 162; 75 n. 192; 76 n. 196; 77 n. 199; 77 n. 200; 251 n. 149 Rudolph, W.  251 n. 149; 255 n. 156 Saadia  51 n. 116; 99 n. 30 Safrai, S.  159; 159 n. 233; 160; 160 n. 235 Safrai, Z.  155; 155 n. 214 Sarna, N. M.  74 n. 190 Satlow, M. L.  213 n. 61; 237 n. 123 Scharbert, J.  29 n. 31; 57 n. 137 Schellinger, P.  12 n. 25 Schipper, J./Stackert, J.  79 n. 203 Schloen, J. D.  156 n. 218; 212 n. 54; 218 n. 79 Schmid, K.  261 n. 1 Schwartz, B. J.  17 n. 39; 17 n. 42; 25 n. 10; 32 n. 49; 35 n. 61; 35 n. 62; 47 n. 100; 55 n. 129; 56; 56 n. 131; 72 n. 185; 81 n. 211; 82 n. 216; 83 n. 220; 85 n. 223; 91 n. 238; 121 n. 108; 126 n. 116; 146 n. 171; 186 n. 86; 194 n. 119; 240 n. 129; 261 n. 1 Schwartz, S.  160 n. 236 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L.  58 n. 141; 59 n. 143 Seebass, H.  13 n. 29; 165 n. 3; 167 n. 13; 169 n. 21; 172 n. 35; 175 n. 39; 177; 177 n. 45; 178 n. 52; 178 n. 53; 179 n. 58; 181 n. 67; 185; 186 n. 84; 186 n. 86; 187; 188; 188 n. 93; 188 n. 95 Seeligmann, I. L.  9 n. 19; 10 n. 21; 24 n. 6; 26 n. 16; 39 n. 75; 148 n. 180; 190 n. 98; 212 n. 56; 214 n. 67; 222 n. 92 Segal, J. B.  93 n. 1; 106; 106 n. 61; 106 n. 62; 109 n. 69; 109 n. 73; 115 n. 90; 116 n. 92; 135 n. 134; 148 n. 176; 153 n. 201 Segal, P.  143 n. 157 Seidel, M.  66 n. 168 Seybold, K.  41 n. 82 Sforno  99 n. 30; 99 n. 31 Shaver, J. R.  148 n. 177 Shectman, S./Baden, J. S.  261 n. 1 Shinan, A.  1 n. 3; 2 n. 5; Shumaker, W. A./Longsdorf, G. F.  12 n. 25 Simon-Shoshan, M.  3 n. 14; 221 n. 88 Simpson, C. A.  220 n. 87 Smelik, W. F.  63 n. 162 Smith, J. Z.  15 n. 35; 96 n. 21

348

Source Index

Smith, M.  97 n. 25; 130; 130 n. 125 Snaith, N. H.  28 n. 22; 33 n. 51; 33 n. 54; 65 n. 167; 127 n. 118; 136 n. 136; 182 n. 73 Sokoloff, M.  32 n. 48 Sparks, K. L.  40 n. 79; 40 n. 80; 41 n. 80 Stackert, J.  12 n. 27; 18 n. 43; 49 n. 108; 50 n. 109; 50 n. 111; 51 n. 113; 51 n. 114; 52 n. 117; 53 n. 118; 53 n. 120; 54 n. 121; 78 n. 202; 79 n. 203; 120 n. 106; 157 n. 224; 166 n. 7 Stern, E.  154 n. 207; 155 n. 210; 155 n. 211; 155 n. 213 Stern, S.  153 n. 199 Sternberg, M.  10 n. 20; 191 n. 103 Sterring, A.  244 n. 136; 247 n. 138 Steuernagel, C.  97 n. 25; 98 n. 27; 141 n. 148; 187 n. 90; 199 n. 13; 200 n. 13; 224 n. 97 Stevens, M. E.  158 n. 228 Stewart, D. T.  143 n. 157 Stoebe, H. J.  191 n. 103 Sturdy, J.  169 n. 24; 181; 181 n. 67 Sukenik, E. L./Kutscher, J.  115 n. 90; 133 n. 130 Tadmor, H.  216,n .74 Talmon, S.  66 n. 168; 148; 148 n. 178; 148 n. 179; 149; 150; 153; 193 n. 113 Tigay, J. H.  159 n. 231; 199 n. 13; 236 n. 122; 237 n. 123 Toeg, A.  81 n. 211; 99 n. 27; 180 n. 65; 194 n. 117 van der Toorn, K.  48 n. 104; 201 n. 14; 201 n. 15 Tov, E.  95 n. 13; 146 n. 170 Tropper, A.  152 n. 193; 265 n. 9 Tur-Sinai, N.  162 n. 246; 177 n. 50 Urbrock, W. J.  28 n. 25 Van Dam, C.  2 n. 7; 11 n. 24; 13 n. 29; 14 n. 33 Van Seters, J.  214 n. 62 Vanderkam, J. C.  115 n. 90; 126 n. 114 Vaughn, A. G.  150 n. 187 de Vaux, R.  212 n. 52; 251 n. 147 Veenhof, K. R.  75 n. 194 Viberg, Å.  87 n. 227 Vroom, J.  17 n. 40; 25 n. 11; 36 n. 66; 47 n. 99 Walker, D. M.  12 n. 26 Waltke, B. K./O’Connor, M.  227 n. 104

Warning, W.  89 n. 230; 89 n. 231; 89 n. 233 Watts, J.  16 n. 37; 268 n. 20 Weinfeld, M.  28; 28 n. 24; 72 n. 185; 143 n. 157; 157 n. 223; 158 n. 227; 163 n. 247; 163 n. 250; 180 n. 65; 199 n. 13; 200 n. 13; 240 n. 129 Weingreen, J.  2; 2 n. 7; 28 n. 22; 28 n. 26; 30 n. 33; 30 n. 35; 30 n. 37; 31 n. 43; 33 n. 51; 33 n. 56 55 n. 130; 59 n. 145; 65 n. 167; 169 n. 24; 174; 178; 208 n. 42 Weitzman, S.  149 n. 185 Wellhausen, J.  98 n. 27; 99 n. 27; 99 n. 28; 113 n. 82; 120 n. 107; 137 n. 138; 175 n. 39; 190 n. 98; 191 n. 103; 199 n. 13; 200 n. 13; 224 n. 97 Wells, B.  28 n. 27; 42 n. 83; 75 n. 194; 79 n. 206; 80 n. 208; 100 n. 34 Wenham, G. J.  26 n. 18; 28 n. 22; 28 n. 26; 33 n. 51; 35 n. 64 Wertheimer, S. E.  1 n. 4 Westbrook, R.  2 n. 9; 13 n. 30; 28 n. 27; 29 n. 27; 64 n. 165; 80 n. 208; 218 n. 79; 232 n. 111; 239 n. 127; 241 n. 131; 241 n. 132; 243 n. 133; 250 n. 147; 251 n. 147 Westermann, C.  73 n. 188; 74 n. 190; 75 n. 194 de Wette, W. M. L.  149 n. 184 Wevers, J. W.  95 n. 14; 109 n. 72; 109 n. 73; 111 n. 77; 144 n. 162; 165 n. 1; 165 n. 2; 196 n. 1; 196 n. 2; 196 n. 3; 197 n. 5; 197 n. 10; 204 n. 31; 205 n. 35; 208 n. 40; 214 n. 67; 215 n. 69 Wheeler, C. B./Gabel, J. B.  28 n. 22; 30 n. 35; 30 n. 37; 31 n. 43; 33 n. 51; 33 n. 56; 34 n. 59; 59 n. 145; 68; 68 n. 175 White, H.  17 n. 39; 266; 266 n. 11; 266 n. 12; 266 n. 13; 267 Wilcke, C.  63 n. 158 Willis, T. M.  25 n. 13; 26 n. 17; 27 n. 18; 27 n. 19; 27 n. 20; 34 n. 60; 45 n. 96; 89 n. 234; 218 n. 79; 237 n. 123; 237 n. 124; 238 n. 126; 251 n. 147; 254 n. 154 Wilson, R.  223 n. 94; 265 n. 9 Wöhrle, J.  40 n. 79 Wolff, H. W.  73 n. 188 Wright, D. P.  48 n. 104; 49 n. 105; 52 n. 117; 57 n. 138; 58 n. 141; 58 n. 142; 59 n. 143; 87 n. 227; 143 n. 157; 150 n. 186 Yoffee, N.  214 n. 63

Source Index

Zadok, R.  150 n. 186; 212 n. 55 Zakovitch, Y.  2 n. 7; 9 n. 19; 31 n. 46; 48 n. 104; 50 n. 109; 58 n. 141; 58 n. 142; 59 n. 143; 61 n. 151; 174; 174 n. 38; 178 n. 55; 188 n. 94; 189 n. 98; 190 n. 98; 214

349

n. 62; 215 n. 67; 239 n. 127; 250; 250 n. 145; 250 n. 146; 251; 251 n. 147; 251 n. 148; 255 n. 157; 255 n. 159; 256 n. 160 Zehnder, M. P.  161 n. 242 Zuckerman, B.  161 n. 241

Subject Index I. Critical Theory authors and editors, nature of  46, 193 – 194 documentary hypothesis  16 – 17 – application of  81 – 85 – Deuteronomic corpus  17; 40 n. 79; 76; 81 n. 212 – Elohistic History  17; 49 n. 105; 81 – 82; 81 n. 212; 85 – Holiness Code/School  25; 33; 49 – 50; 56; 88; 120; 176 n. 43 120; 126 n. 116; 166; 203; 261 – Priestly History – chronology of  97; 99; 116 – 118 – literary history of  21; 33 – 34; 261 – 263 – story and argument of  17 – 18; 18 n. 43; 20 n. 51; 25; 35; 44; 74 n. 190; 76; 83 – 85; 100; 113; 120 – 121; 136 – 137; 175 – 176; 249; 261; 268 – 269 – scrolls of  92; 187 – 192 – relationships between works  46 – Deuteronomic and Priestly  141 – 147; 157 – 160 – Elohistic and Priestly  34; 40 n. 79; 49 – 57; 55 n. 129; 80; 89 – Yahwistic and Priestly  82 n. 218 – Yahwistic History  17; 82 – 83; 85; 92 form criticism  5 – 8; 15 – 16; 107 – 109; 167; 173 – 174; 263 – 264; 269 – 270 interpolation, instances of  113; 116; 123 – 127; 128 – 131; 137 – 138; 140; 143 – 146; 147; 203 – 208; 211; 221 – 226; 230 – 231 interpolation, signs of – break in chronological sequence  97; 111 – 112 – break in form  107 – 108; 109; 112 – 113; 207 – 208; 221 – 223

– break in narrative discourse  137 – 138; 140; 188 – 189; 191, 216 – 217 – deictic pronoun (K‫הוא‬K) 216 – dependence on other secondary text  146 – exegetical character  124; 126; 140; 146 – gap-filling  56 – incoherence of narrator  190 – 191 – inconsistency in person or number  55; 124; 126; 128; 130 – 131; 205 – 206 – interruption of topic  124 – 125; 140 – inversion  128 – 129 – linguistic anomaly  127; 146; 204 – syntactical difficulty  210 – 211 – redundancy  191 – 192; 204; 210 – resumptive repetition  see: Rhetorical Devices: repetition intertextual composition, instances of  122 – 123; 131 – 134; 140; 168 – 170; 174 – 185; 216; 219 – 235; 244 – 249; 251 – 256 law – and narrative  9; 18 – 20; 46 – 48; 65 – 67; 104 – 113; 118; 156; 161; 173; 197 – 199; 234 – 235; 265 – 268 – literature of  75 – 76 – oracular resolution of  11 – 12; 47 – 48; 172; 182 – 185, 264 – records of  264 literary unity, signs of  59 – 60; 65 – 67; 80; 102 narrative – and law  see: law and narrative – definition of  8 – 11; 16 n. 38; 87 – 88 – etiological  8 – 9 – historiographical  10; 15 – motifs see: Literary Motifs and Legal Topoi – Priestly pattern of  94; 106 – story, difference from  3 – 4; 16 n. 38 narrator, voice of  27; 92; 98; 106; 131 – 132; 193; 210

Subject Index

tradition history  92 – Dan, tribe of  44 – 45 – daughters of Zelophad – and geography  211 – 213 – and legal tradition  213 – Samaria Ostraca  201 – Gilead – person  219; 220 – 223; 224; 229 – 231; 260 – place  219 – 221; 223 – 224; 225; 227 – 228; 231 – Manasseh – person  220; 221 – 222; 229 – region of  211 – 212; 219; 224; 226 – tribe of  219; 223; 225 – Moses – role of in oracular novella  12; 13 – Priestly representation of  18 n. 43; 47 – prophetic role of  12 – 13 – Oracular judges  13 – 14 II. Literary Motifs and Legal Topoi ʾezraḥ  39; 41; 41 n. 82; 119; 119 n. 102; 258 animal, killing of  see: blood, shedding of blasphemy  28 – 29; 28 n. 27 blood – animal  72 – 73; 72 n. 185; 73; 74; 78 – human  73 – 74; 78 – shedding of  72; 73; 74 centralization of cult  142 – 143; 157 – 161; 164; 259 compensation by multiples  77 curse  28 – 33; 49; 57; 64; 66 – by deity  49 – in fight  63; 71; 76 – of deity  30; 33; 48 – 49; 55 – 56; 64; 67 n. 174; 68; 71; 74 – 75; 80; 269 – 270 – of king  56; 67 n. 174 – of parents  55 – see also: exclamation, desperate death by stoning for cursing God and king  56 devotion in Ruth  250 – 256 disfigurement  72; 74; 75; 76 n. 196; 78 – 79 divine patience  81 – 85 divine self-presentation  85; 87 exclamation, desperate  29 – 33; 61; 86 – in fight  63; 76

351

– in poverty  61 – in social abuse/of vulnerable  61; 77 – see also: curse false accusation  56 fire and voice: in Priestly history  87 gathering – definition of (K‫ קש׳׳ש‬,‫לק׳׳ט‬K) 176 – 178 – of manna  176 – 177 – of wood  177 genealogy – and geography  219 – 220; 226 – 228 – as legal principle  198 – of character in an oracular novella  35 – 36; 39; 42 – 43; 48; 215 gēr – and slave  42 – as trope  41 – application of law to  43 – 44; 46 – definition of  40 – 41; 97 n. 25 – otherness of  39 – 40 – punishment of  39 – responsibilities of  39; 111; 119 n. 102; 130; 258 – status of  35 – 44; 130 greed 56 hand-laying  86 – 87; 87 n. 227; 90 inheritance – and degree of kinship  204; 208; 236 – by male relatives  205; 207 – 208; 236; 242 – giving/transferring of  205 – 206; 240 – 243 – of land  236 – 240; 252; 253 – 254 – of land by women  200; 205; 213 – 214; 217; 240 – 243 – of women at Emar  241 n. 131 – of women at Nuzi  241 n. 131 homicide  72 – 73; 74; 79; see also: blood, shedding of impurity, effects of  84 – 85 land, redemption of  41 – 42; 200; 251 – 253 magic  62 n. 156 manna  175 – 177; 186 marriage, levirate  200; 217 – 218; 218 n. 80; 236 – 239; 251; 252 – 255 murder 56 name, divine – attack on  29 – 30; 30 n. 36; 64; 75; 89; 257

352

Subject Index

– enunciation of  29; 31 – 32; 60 – 64 – nature of  79 – potency of  60 – use of  31 – 33; 60 – 61; 63; 79; 80; 257 name, human – preservation of  203 – 204; 209; 217; 236; 239 – 240; 242; 245 – 246; 253; 255 oracular consultation  11 – 12; 47 – 48; 172; 182 – 185 Pesaḥ – agricultural connections of  148 – 149; 158; 161 – and historical background  148 – 164 – and holiday calendars  133 – 136; 138 – annual observance of  121; 122 – apotropaic interpretation of  126 n. 114; 137 – as wellbeing offering  139 – centralized  114; 117; 121; 127 – 128; 134; 138; 147; 161; 261 – changes to practice of  114 – 115; 127 – 128; 134; 136 – date of  96 – 97; 101 – 102; 111; 113; 115 n. 90; 122; 124 – 125; 131 – 141; 151 – 153 – domestic  112; 114; 115; 115 n. 90; 136 – 138; 147; 262 – in Egypt  101; 112; 113; 114; 122; 132; 134; 147 – in wilderness  114 – 115; 120 – eligible participants in  110 – 111; 137 – laws of – bones  124; 126; 126 n. 114 – distance  103 – 104; 105; 106; 138 – 139; 142; 143; 153; 156 – 158; 160 – 161 – impurity  112; 118; 127 – 128; 138 – 139; 143 – 145; 151 n. 189; 156 162 – 164; 258 – literary development of  122 – 123; 123 – 141 – meaning of the name of  137 – reception of  138 – time of performance  132; 132 n. 128; 145 poetic justice  61; 76 – 77; 76 n. 196; 80 priests, definition of  13; 85 prophetic adjudication  3; 13; 14; 60 – 61

punishment  5; 46; 62; 86; 139; 165 n. 3; 170; 180 – 181; 194 – bearing of crime (K‫נש׳׳א חטא‬K) 32 – 33; 56 – capital  37; 46; 55; 64; 68; 72 – 73; 74; 76 n. 196; 78; 79; 168; 170; 174; 180; 186; 257 – stoning  23; 179 – 181; 186; 188; 195; 262 – K‫כר"ת‬K 97; 101; 105; 119; 139; 140 n. 146; 144; 146; 147; 151; 161; 180 n. 63; 186; 259 rebellion  19; 150 n. 187; 195; 216 – 217; 222 Sabbath  19 – 20; 53; 88 – 89; 165 – 195; 166; 168 – 169; 180 – 181; 194; 259; 262 – violation of  168 – 169; 174; 177; 180 – 181; 188; 195 – K‫מלאכה‬K 168 – 169; 174; 177 – 178 sabbatical year  50 – 52; 89 sin, Israelite at crucial moment  81 – 85 tabernacle – and sabbath  180 – 181; 194 – 195 – inauguration of  35; 116 – 117; 121 – purpose of  17 – 18 talion  25; 27; 34; 72 – 73; 75 – 77; 79 – 80; 89 Unleavened Bread – festival of  114; 125; 134; 135 – 136; 138; 140; 141 n. 147; 147; 151; 153 – week of  134; 138; 139 wilderness: in Priestly history  195 women, inheritance of  see: inheritance III. Oracular Novella and Holiness Code  88 – 92 and Priestly history  17 – 18; 20; 34 – 35; 83 – 87; 116 – 118; 185 – 189; 214; 234 – 235; 261 – 263; 269 definition of  3 – 4; 11 – 12; 14 – 15 form of  5 – 8; 15 – 16; 94; 107 – 109; 167; 173 – 174; 263 – 264; 269 – 270 language of  11 literary style of  10 – 11 types of – action-episodes  4; 15 – situation-episodes  4 – 5; 15 – 16

Subject Index

IV. Rhetorical Devices analogy 74 chiastic arrangement  66; 124; 144 circular inclusio  36 – 37; 52; 59; 69; 70; 110 crescendo 43 formulas, citation and reference – K‫אז‬K + qātal 192 – 193 – K‫אז‬K + yiqtōl 192 – K‫בימיו‬K 192 – K‫בימים ההם‬K 192 – K‫בעת ההיא‬K 192 – 193 – K‫ויהי בימי‬K 187 – 192 inverted citation  128 – 129; 248 juxtaposition  38; 53 – 54; 55; 64 – 65; 71; 75; 224; 263 legal formulation – apodictic  54; 112 – casuistic  54; 58; 69; 70; 104 n. 50; 112; 119 – double subject (K‫איש איש‬K) 55 – 56; 119 – participial  58; 59; 70

353

– Priestly style of  50 – 54; 58; 59; 69; 70; 109; 126 n. 116 – subordinate paragraphs (K‫ואם‬/‫וכי‬K) 57; 58 names, rhetorical use of  45 numerical patterning: six/seven  53 – 54 pairing 66 palistrophe – use of  25 – 26; 37; 68; 70 – 71; 87 – 88 – interpretation of  71 – 72 parallelism  49; 74 repetition – direct 124 – with expansion  38 – for emphatic effect  204; 246 – framing statements  37 – keyword (or key-root)  51; 53; 66; 88; 89 – by narrator  65 – of colophon  71 – as refrain  37 – resumptive  25 – 26; 124; 127; 138; 216; 225; 228; 235 – stylized 91 – with inversion  124; 128; 173 – 174 – with variation  5; 242 – 243