Ritual Dynamic Structure 9781463204006, 1463204000

Citation preview

Ritual Dynamic Structure

Gorgias Studies in Religion

1

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on all aspects of religion in both the ancient and modern worlds. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution towards the study of religion. Studies on Judaism, Islam and early Christianity and Patristics have their own series and will not be included in this series.

Ritual Dynamic Structure

Roy E. Gane

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܙ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0400-6

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2004 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress Printed in the United States of America

“Every activity of the Day of Atonement that is stated according to the fixed order — if he did one activity before its fellow, he has done nothing at all.” (m. Yoma 5:7)

to my wife and daughter, Connie and Sarah

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents

v

Abbreviations

xiii

Preface

xvii

Abstract

xix

Introduction

1

1. Ritual Theory

3

2. Methodology

7

3. Application to Additional Ritual Traditions 1. “Intrinsic Activity” Perspective

10 13

1.1. Preliminary Establishment of an Activity Outline

14

1.2. A Ritual as a Dynamic System Carrying Out a Process

18

1.3. Systems Theory Concepts and Methodology 1.3.1. Introduction to General Systems Theory 1.3.2. “Human Activity Systems” Analysis 1.3.2.1. Conceptual Model 1.3.2.2. “Root Definition” 1.3.2.3. “Systems Language”

23 23 26 27 30 33

1.4. A Systems Approach to Ritual Activity: Intrinsic Activity Analysis of the Israelite Burnt Offering

35

1.5. “Ritualness” and the Criterion of Concern for Rules Rather than Results

43

1.6. Ritual as “Formulaic Activity”

45

1.7. Types of Intrinsic Activity Transformations 1.7.1. Step-Constituted 1.7.2. Physical Position-Constituted (Choreography) 1.7.3. Sound-Constituted (Music)

47 47 49 49

v

vi

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 1.7.4. Language-Constituted

1.8. Conclusion 2. “Cognitive Task” Perspective

49 50 51

2.1. A Modified Theory of Ritual 2.1.1. A “Cognitive Task” Level of Abstraction 2.1.2. “Entity Inaccessibility” 2.1.3. A Tentative Definition of “Ritual”

51 51 54 57

2.2. Some Implications of the Modified Theory of Ritual 2.2.1. Religious and Magical Authority 2.2.2. “Ritualism” 2.2.3. Ritual, Language, and Meaning

64 64 65 66

2.3. Defining Boundaries Between Ritual and Nonritual Activity 2.3.1. Determining Whether or Not an Activity Belongs Within a Ritual System 2.3.2. Boundary Definition Problems

68

2.4. Ritual Hierarchy

75

2.5. Cognitive Task Analysis of an Individual Ritual: the Israelite Burnt Offering

79

2.6. Conclusion

92

3. “Ritual Syntax” Perspective

68 70

95

3.1. “Ritual Syntax” as Developed by F. Staal 3.1.1. A Syntactic Approach to Analysis of Ritual Activity 3.1.2. “Rules” That Account for Syntactic Structures Found in Ritual 3.1.2.1. Recursive “Self-Embedding” Rules 3.1.2.2. Recursive Insertion Rules 3.1.2.3. Recursive Phrase Structure Rules 3.1.2.4. Transformational Rules to Express Modification of Embedded Units in Certain Contexts 3.1.3. Syntactic Relations Between Ritual Units 3.1.4. Syntactic Similarity Between Ritual and Music

96 96

102 103 104

3.2. The Contribution of R. Payne to “Ritual Syntax”

106

3.3. Application of a “Ritual Syntax” Approach to the Israelite Burnt Offering 3.3.1. Abstracting Syntactic Structure 3.3.2. Syntactic Rules and Features 3.3.3. Paradigm Boundaries

108 108 110 112

97 97 98 99

CONTENTS 3.4. Conclusion 4. Israelite “Day of Atonement”

vii 113 115

4.1. OWNERSHIP TRANSFER RITUAL 4.1.1. Lot Ritual 4.1.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.1.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.1.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

118 118 118 119 122

4.2. OFFERING RITUALS 4.2.1. Accompanying Cereal Offering 4.2.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.2.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.2.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 4.2.2. Regular High Priestly Cereal Offering 4.2.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.2.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.2.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 4.2.3. Accompanying Drink Offering 4.2.3.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.2.3.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.2.3.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 4.2.4. Drink Offering Inside the Tent 4.2.4.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.2.4.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.2.4.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 4.2.5. Incense Ritual 4.2.5.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.2.5.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.2.5.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 4.2.6. Lamp Ritual 4.2.6.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.2.6.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.2.6.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

122 122 122 123 124 124 124 126 127 127 127 128 128 129 129 131 132 132 132 133 134 134 134 136 136

4.3. OFFERING + REMOVAL RITUAL 4.3.1. Calendric Burnt Offering 4.3.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.3.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.3.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

137 137 138 138 138

4.4. REMOVAL + OFFERING RITUALS 4.4.1. Festival Purification Offering 4.4.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.4.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective

138 138 139 143

viii

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 4.4.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 4.4.2. “Purification Offering of Purgations” 4.4.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.4.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.4.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

154 154 155 172 184

4.5. REMOVAL RITUALS 4.5.1. Priestly Personal Purification Preparatory to Entering Outer Sanctum or Officiating at Altar 4.5.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.5.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.5.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 4.5.2. High Priestly Personal Purification Preparatory to Officiating “Purgations Complex” 4.5.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.5.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.5.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

190 190 191 192

4.6. REMOVAL + COMMUNICATION RITUAL 4.6.1. Azazel’s Goat (so-called “Scapegoat”) Ritual 4.6.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 4.6.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 4.6.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

192 192 192 194 197

5. Babylonian New Year Festival, Fifth Day

186 186 186 189 189

199

5.1. OFFERING RITUALS 5.1.1. Regular Morning Meal for Be4l and Be4let 5.1.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.1.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.1.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 5.1.2. Regular Afternoon Meal for Be4l 5.1.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.1.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.1.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 5.1.3. Afternoon Meal of Nabû 5.1.3.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.1.3.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.1.3.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 5.1.4. Burnt Offering to Divine Luminaries 5.1.4.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.1.4.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.1.4.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

202 202 202 203 204 204 205 207 208 209 209 209 210 210 210 212 214

5.2. COMMUNICATION RITUALS 5.2.1. Prayer to Be4l

214 214

CONTENTS

ix

5.2.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.2.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.2.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 5.2.2. Prayer to Be4let 5.2.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.2.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.2.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

216 216 218 218 219 220 221

5.3. REMOVAL RITUALS 5.3.1. Personal Purification of the High Priest 5.3.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective Perspective 5.3.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective Perspective 5.3.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 5.3.2. Personal Purification of the King 5.3.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.3.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.3.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 5.3.3. Purification of the Temple 5.3.3.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.3.3.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.3.3.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

221 221 221 222 223 223 223 223 225 225 225 226 227

5.4. REMOVAL + COMMUNICATION RITUALS 5.4.1. Purification of the Ezida Cella of Nabû 5.4.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.4.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.4.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 5.4.2. Second (“Golden Heaven”) Purification of the Ezida Cella 5.4.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.4.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.4.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

228 228 229 230 234

5.5. “RITE OF PASSAGE” 5.5.1. Reconfirmation of the King 5.5.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 5.5.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 5.5.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

238 238 240 241 242

6. Hittite Telipinu Festival, Fourth Day 6.1. OFFERING RITUALS 6.1.1. Meat + Drink Offering 6.1.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 6.1.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 6.1.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

234 235 236 238

245 247 247 249 252 254

x

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 6.1.2. Meat + Bread + Drink Offering 6.1.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 6.1.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 6.1.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

254 255 259 260

6.2. REMOVAL + JOURNEY + COMMUNICATION RITUAL 6.2.1. Purification of the Sancta 6.2.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 6.2.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 6.2.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

261 261 264 273 277

6.3. FEAST RITUAL 6.3.1. Feast 6.3.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective 6.3.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective 6.3.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective

278 278 280 280 286

7. Ritual Complexes

287

7.1. RITUAL COMPLEXES BELONGING TO THE ISRAELITE DAY OF ATONEMENT 288 7.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective: Order in Which Individual Rituals are Performed 288 7.1.1.1. Order in Which Regular Rituals are Performed 288 7.1.1.2. Order in Which Festival (Additional) Offerings are Performed 295 7.1.1.3. Order in Which Rituals Special to the Day of Atonement are Performed 296 7.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective: Identification of Ritual Complexes 297 7.1.2.1. Logical Relationships Between Individual Rituals 297 7.1.2.2. Decomposition of the “Day of Atonement Complex” 300 7.1.2.3. Structure of the Purgations Complex 303 7.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective 305 7.1.3.1. Hierarchical Structure of the Day of Atonement 305 7.1.3.2. Syntactic Relations in the Day of Atonement Complex 310 7.2. RITUAL COMPLEXES BELONGING TO THE FIFTH DAY OF THE BABYLONIAN NEW YEAR FESTIVAL OF SPRING 319 7.2.1. Cognitive Task Perspective: Identification of Ritual Complexes 319 7.2.2. Ritual Syntax Perspective 323

CONTENTS 7.3. RITUAL COMPLEXES BELONGING TO THE FOURTH DAY OF THE NINTH YEAR TELIPINU FESTIVAL 7.3.1. Cognitive Task Perspective: Identification of Ritual Complexes 7.3.2. Ritual Syntax Perspective CONCLUSION

xi

324 324 325 327

1. Demonstration of Aspects of Staal’s Ritual Theory in Ancient Near Eastern Ritual

327

2. A Modified Theory of Ritual

329

3. Application of the Modified Theory of Ritual

331

4. General Comparisons between the Selected Festival Days in Terms of Ritual Dynamic Structure

335

5. Final Remarks

337

Appendix I: Critique of Hubert and Mauss

339

1. An “Abstract Scheme”: A Common Dynamic

339

2. Problems with the “Abstract Scheme”

341

3. Basic Errors Behind the Problems

344

Appendix II: The Ninth Year Telipinu Festival

347

The Text Preparation Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Inventory Belonging to (An)other Telipinu Festival(s)?

352 352 353 353 355 358 361 362 363 364

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

Index of Biblical Sources

375

Index of Rabbinic Sources

387

General Index

389

ABBREVIATIONS 11QT AA AB AHW Akk. ANET Ant. AoF ASTI AUSS b. BA BDB Bib Bo. CAD CBQ chap(s). Chron Deut Eccl Engl. ErIsr Exod Ezek

Temple Scroll (from Qumran) American Anthropologist Anchor Bible W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965-81 Akkadian Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969 Josephus, Antiquities Altorientalische Forschungen Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Andrews University Seminary Studies Babylonian Talmud Biblical Archaeologist F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Corrected ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953 Biblica field numbers of tablets excavated at Boghazköi The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Edited by A. L. Oppenheim et al. Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago, 1956Catholic Biblical Quarterly chapter(s) Chronicles (in 2 Chronicles) Deuteronomy Ecclesiastes English Eretz-Israel Exodus Ezekiel xiii

xiv Gen Heb. Hitt. HUCA Isa JAGNES JAOS JBL JCS JNES Jon Jos Jos. Ki KUB Lev m. MTZ NJPS Nr. Num obv. pl. Ps rev. RHA RSV Sam SCR sing. t. TDOT

UF v(v). VT

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE Genesis Hebrew Hittite Hebrew Union College Annual Isaiah Journal of the Association of Graduate Near Eastern Students Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jonah Joshua Josephus Kings (in 1 Kings or 2 Kings) Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi (Berlin, 1921) Leviticus Mishnah Münchener theologische Zeitschrift New Jewish Publication Society Version of the Bible tablet number Numbers (biblical book) obverse plural Psalm reverse Revue hittite et asianique Revised Standard Version of the Bible Samuel (in 1 Samuel or 2 Samuel) Studies in Comparative Religion singular Tosefta Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H. –J. Fabry. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974Ugarit-Forschungen verse(s) Vetus Testamentum

ABBREVIATIONS VTSup ZAW

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xv

PREFACE The present volume is a lightly edited refinement of my 1992 University of California, Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation titled “Ritual Dynamic Structure: Systems Theory and Ritual Syntax Applied to Selected Ancient Israelite, Babylonian and Hittite Festival Days.” I originally worked toward publishing a heavy revision, but in the process, my understanding of the Israelite purification offering system radically expanded. So the project evolved into a separate book with a different purpose: Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005). Because Cult and Character and some of my other publications (e.g., Leviticus, Numbers [NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004] and “Schedules for Deities: Macrostructure of Israelite, Babylonian, and Hittite Sancta Purification Days,” AUSS 36 [1998]: 231-244) refer to and build upon various aspects of my dissertation, it appears logical to make this ground-breaking work available. I am grateful to George Kiraz of Gorgias Press for facilitating its publication. Many thanks are due, first to the members of my dissertation committee, all from the University of California, Berkeley: Jacob Milgrom (chair), Anne D. Kilmer, Ruggero Stefanini, and Frits Staal. Prof. Milgrom has inspired me with an abiding interest in ritual and an awareness of the ways in which ancient Israelite rituals are interrelated as a system. His approach to biblical interpretation has exerted a profound influence on my scholarly development. As a participant in his graduate Hebrew seminar for a number of years, primarily studying the biblical book of Leviticus, I was especially impressed by his careful treatment of ancient evidence, examination of a wide range of possible solutions to any given problem, and openness to consideration of new ideas. The importance of his published work for the present study of ritual dynamic structure is amply attested in the numerous citations of his writings found in these pages. His generous support and xvii

xviii

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

constructive criticism as my major advisor during the course of this project have been indispensable. Prof. Kilmer has provided fine instruction in Akkadian, suggestions with respect to the present work, and warm encouragement and wise counsel throughout the years of my doctoral study. She introduced me to the work of Prof. Staal, setting in motion the course of events that led to my choice of ritual dynamic structure as a dissertation project. Prof. Stefanini has given excellent instruction in Hittite, comments on my dissertation, and continued support. Through his writings and private dialogue with me, Prof. Staal has made a major impact upon my approach to ritual. His logical view of ritual as rule-governed activity having syntactic structure provided the initial impetus as well as a vital part of the foundation for the present work. I am grateful to Glenn Hartelius, who cheerfully spent many hours chewing with me on a host of problems that arose in the course of this project. Especially valuable was his feedback with regard to abstract questions of ritual theory, including his inspired suggestion that I look into General Systems Theory, which led to my definition of rituals as human activity systems. A number of other individuals have contributed ideas and bibliographic references. These include Richard Payne of the Institute of Buddhist Studies at Berkeley, Baruch Schwartz of Tel Aviv University (now at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Moshe Weinfeld of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tzvi Abusch of Brandeis University, and some teachers and fellow students at the University of California, Berkeley: Chana Kronfeld, Isaac Kikawada, Margo Kitts, and Michael Hildenbrand. Members of my family and many friends have assisted and encouraged me in more ways than I can recount. I am especially indebted to my wife, Constance Gane. In addition to her steadfast support through more than a decade of graduate study and three years of dissertation research, she has contributed formatting and proofreading. The biblical scholarship of my father, Dr. Erwin Gane, inspired me to pursue the study of ancient texts. Remarkable financial generosity of the late Norman Albert enabled me to finish my Ph.D. in 1992 rather than some years later.

ABSTRACT The first part of this work (chaps. 1.-3.) develops a theory of ritual and a methodology for applying this theory to specific rituals. In agreement with F. Staal, rituals are hierarchically organized activity systems, of which the components/subsystems are fixed with regard to their inclusion, nature, and relative order. Therefore, like other human activity systems as described by B. Wilson, rituals can be analyzed in terms of physical causes and effects, that is, from an “intrinsic activity” perspective. That which differentiates a ritual from nonritual activity systems and establishes its unity is the fact that it is interpreted by a ritual tradition as achieving its goal through a particular kind of “cognitive task”: a transformation process in which interaction with an entity or group of entities ordinarily inaccessible to the material domain takes place. A “ritual complex” is a unit in which two or more such processes are carried out. Once the “structure” of an individual ritual or ritual complex, consisting of activity components and logical relationships between them, has been determined through “intrinsic activity” and “cognitive task” systems analyses, the syntactic framework of the structure can be abstracted and studied in the manner demonstrated by Staal in the context of Vedic ritual. In the second part of this work (chaps. 4.-7.), the theory and methodology developed in the first part are applied to rituals belonging to selected ancient Near Eastern festival days, namely, the Israelite Day of Atonement, the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, and the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu in H}anh~ana and Kašh}a. These rituals can be categorized according to the dynamics of the transformations that carry out their goals. For example: 1. An ownership transfer ritual transfers ownership of a material object unit to an ordinarily inaccessible party. xix

xx

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

2. An offering ritual transfers a material object unit to an ordinarily inaccessible party for his/her utilization. 3. A removal ritual transfers an inaccessible entity from a unit consisting of one or more persons, objects or structures. 4. A communication ritual transfers information to an ordinarily inaccessible party. By investigating first the individual rituals and then the ritual complexes that make up the three selected festival days, it has been possible to assess the overall purpose and structure of each ritual day. All three include purification rituals that are special to those days, festival rituals that occur on other festival days as well, and two blocks of regular/daily ritual activities that are separated from each other by the special purification rituals. Through examination of syntactic structures abstracted from ritual units belonging to the selected festival days, it has been shown that several syntactic relations identified by Staal in the context of Vedic ritual (embedding, insertion, omission, modification of a smaller unit when it is inserted into a larger unit, simultaneity, and interruption) and two relations pointed out by R. Payne in Japanese Tantric Buddhist ritual (repetitive embedding and interweaving) are also found in ancient Near Eastern ritual.

INTRODUCTION If rituals are to be studied in a scientific manner, the nature of ritual must be understood. As perceived by H. Hubert and M. Mauss (Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice, 1898; Engl. transl. 1964), an essential aspect of sacrifice is its dynamic structure, that is, structure that is characterized by change through time (Hubert and Mauss 1964: 45, 48). The potential importance of this insight for ritual studies cannot be overestimated. Although Hubert and Mauss fell short of their central goal—to develop a generally applicable theory of sacrifice based upon a common dynamic (see Appendix I)—they pointed out some key aspects of ritual dynamic structure: 1. A sacrifice carries out a dynamic, purposeful process involving interaction with a transcendent sphere (p. 97). 2. The order of activities in a sacrifice is fixed: “From the moment that it has begun, it must continue to the end without interruption and in the ritual order” (Hubert and Mauss, p. 28). 3. Sacrifices can be embedded in “more complex formulas” (Hubert and Mauss, pp. 16-17). In general, Hubert and Mauss contributed awareness that ritual dynamic structure exists and the idea that a phenomenon such as ritual should be defined in terms of a common dynamic. Above all, their legacy is to leave a tantalizing challenge: Is there such a common dynamic? In more recent years, Frits Staal of the University of California, Berkeley has pursued the basic insights of Hubert and Mauss by pioneering an approach to ritual that he terms “ritual syntax.” In his recent book, Rules Without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras, and the Human Sciences (1989), which incorporates and expands upon

1

2

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

much of his earlier work in the field of Vedic ritual,1 Staal argues the following: 1. Ritual consists of rule-governed activity (Staal 1989: 260, 452). That activities are rule-governed means that they exhibit regularities for which rules may be postulated to account for them (ibid.: 58). 2. The concern of ritualists is with performing activities in a certain manner according to rules rather than with achieving results in any possible manner. Staal comments on the Vedic agnipran[ayana (“transporting the fire”) ritual: What is essential in the ceremony is the precise and faultless execution, in accordance with rules, of numerous rites and recitations. The result is important, but it has only ritual use and can only be reached in the ritually prescribed manner (ibid.: 132).

3. A ritual activity has no inherent meaning (ibid.: 131), as indicated by the fact that a given ritual activity can carry various functions (ibid.: 127-9, 134, 330). If ritual has no intrinsic meaning, it is unlike language, of which semantics is an integral component (ibid.: 140). Meanings have been attached to ritual activities, primarily by religious systems, but these meanings and, a fortiori, the social functions of rituals, are secondary and extrinsic to ritual (ibid.: 137, 140). On the basis of his theory of ritual, Staal’s provisional definition of “ritual” is as follows: “Ritual may be defined, in approximate terms, as a system of acts and sounds, related to each other in accordance with rules without reference to meaning” (ibid.: 433). If ritual is “rule-governed,” but lacks semantic rules, what kind of rules govern it? The answer, according to Staal, is: syntactic rules (ibid.: 101ff). Thus, whereas Hubert and Mauss sought to abstract from sacrifices a generally applicable scheme of sacralizationdesacralization (see Appendix I), Staal abstracts “syntactic structures” from rituals, that is, systems of nonsemantic logical Staal’s investigation of ritual has included personal observations of surviving forms, most significantly a performance in 1975 of the Vedic Agnicayana ritual by Nambudiri brahmins in South India. This performance is described by Staal in AGNI. The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar (1983). 1

INTRODUCTION

3

relationships between hierarchically ordered ritual components, which can be expressed with symbols and tree diagrams. For further discussion of ritual syntax methodology and syntactic relations between ritual units that have been exposed by Staal and R. Payne (“Feeding the Gods: The Shingon Fire Ritual,” 1985), see chapter 3. Staal has demonstrated that syntactic structure is a basic component of ritual. Therefore, in the present work, each of my ritual analyses will include investigation from a “ritual syntax perspective.” Staal has greatly expanded our understanding of ritual structure. As he recognizes, his theory of ritual represents a provisional basis for further progress and must be tested, expanded, and applied systematically to various ritual traditions (ibid.: 150, 189, 434, 447, 449). In the next few pages, I will introduce the main areas of innovation to be developed in the present work. These fall under the rubrics of ritual theory, methodology, and application of the theory and methodology to ritual traditions not investigated by Staal, that is, those of the ancient Israelites, Babylonians, and Hittites.

1. RITUAL THEORY In the area of ritual theory, I explore the relationship between ritual activity and meaning. My logical starting point is the question: If a ritual is a system, what unites it and determines its boundaries? Consider the following activities, carried out on the Esagila temple in Babylon by an exorcist during the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring: ...he sprinkles the temple with water from a well on the Tigris and a well on the Euphrates. He makes the copper bell(?) sound forth shrilly in the temple. He makes a censer and a torch pass through the interior of the temple (lines 341-3; see chap. 5.).

These activities can be viewed objectively, without reference to meaning, in terms of physical causes and effects only, that is, as “pure activity” (Staal 1989: 131) or what I call “intrinsic activity.” An analysis from an “intrinsic activity perspective” can deal with important aspects of structure, such as the sequence of activities:

4

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 1. sprinkle water on Esagila temple 2. make sound with copper bell(?) in Esagila temple 3. pass censer and torch through middle of Esagila temple

However, there are basic aspects of structure for which an intrinsic activity analysis does not suffice: unity and boundaries. Are there three separate rituals here, or is there one, or is this group of activities part of a larger ritual? Without knowing what constitutes a single, complete ritual, it is impossible to abstract a syntactic structure with unity and boundaries that are not arbitrary. If, of course, we implicitly accept ritual unit boundaries established by the relevant ritual tradition (see ibid.: 79, 85, 87-8, 101, etc.—e.g., Is[t[i and Soma sequences, Agnis[t[oma, Paśaubandha and Darśapu4rn[ama4sa rituals), we can pursue a structural analysis from that point without further reference to meaning. However, such boundaries are likely to be based upon attached meaning rather than activity criteria alone. If so, without an a priori dependence upon attached meaning, syntactic analysis cannot proceed and it should be acknowledged that attached meaning is not excluded from the overall definition and analysis of ritual. Even if it could be established that the three Babylonian activities cited above constitute a single, complete activity system, how do we know that this is a ritual activity system? In what does its “ritualness” reside? Staal has suggested the criterion of concern for rules rather than with results (ibid.: 132). However, knowing that sprinkling water, sounding a bell, and walking around with a censer and torch are rule-governed does not necessarily mean that they are ritual activities. They could function in the context of another kind of rule-governed activity, such as a drama or a game. Up to this point, in order to demonstrate an intrinsic activity perspective, without reference to interpretations attached to actions, I have intentionally disregarded the clear indication of the Babylonian text with regard to the purpose of the above activities: “...he (the exorcist) purifies the temple” (line 340). The three activities, by themselves, contribute together to the purification of the temple. Thus, they constitute a single ritual. The idea that these activities purify the temple goes beyond the boundaries of cause and effect that can be analyzed without reference to meaning. Sprinkling a small amount of water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, etc., are inadequate or ineffective for purifying a temple from ordinary physical pollution, but they are interpreted as

INTRODUCTION

5

removing another kind of impurity, that is, they are believed to do something that goes beyond physical cause and effect. In other words, the activities carry out a task on the cognitive level.2 There is no question that the interpretation, which is a kind of “meaning,” is not intrinsic to the activity, but rather is attached to it. However, without the interpretation, the activities would not be unified and bounded as a single, complete ritual. Therefore, it appears that a “cognitive task” component should not only be acknowledged as an a priori, but must necessarily be incorporated into the theory and analysis of ritual as a key criterion for defining ritual unity and boundaries. Thus far, a ritual can be defined as a rule-governed activity system that carries out a “cognitive task.” However, this definition does not adequately deal with the question of “ritualness” mentioned above because it does not separate rituals from some other phenomena, for example, certain kinds of legal transactions: Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was the manner of attesting in Israel. So when the next of kin said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself,” he drew off his sandal. Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. Also Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from the gate of his native place; you are witnesses this day” (Ruth 4:7-10; RSV).

According to rules of social convention, the act of removing one’s sandal and giving it to another was interpreted in this context as accomplishing a “cognitive task”: the transfer of a legal right 2

E. T. Lawson and R. McCauley recognize a cognitive level at which ritual activities can be understood and develop a mode of analysis applicable to that level (Lawson and McCauley 1990: 77-136). While their analytical methodology is adapted from linguistics and other cognitive sciences, my own methodology is adapted from general systems theory (see chaps. 1.-2.).

6

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

and/or obligation carrying practical consequences. Is this ritual? If so, every conventional transaction activity in which a token, including modern paper money, is used would have to be regarded as ritual. Of course, this could be called “legal ritual” to distinguish it from “religious ritual,” such as the Babylonian example cited earlier, which is governed by rules established by religious authority. Apart from differences in authority, there is a fundamental distinction between the Babylonian and Israelite examples. In the Israelite transaction, a material symbol is used in a transfer of rights and obligations regarding property and a wife, which belong to the material domain. While the rights and obligations themselves are intangible relationships, because these relationships are between material entities, that is, persons and/or things, the results of transfer are manifest in the tangible world. For example, Ruth becomes the wife of Boaz and bears him a son (Ruth 4:13). The purification of the Esagila temple in Babylon, on the other hand, is concerned with removal of ritual impurity, which is not only intangible; it is a nonmaterial entity rather than a nonmaterial relationship between material entities. As a nonmaterial entity, ritual impurity is inaccessible to interaction with the material world and to empirical investigation. However, ritual activity functions on the “cognitive task level” to bridge the gap between the material domain, in which the activity is performed, and the nonmaterial domain, in which the ritual impurity resides, in order to affect the impurity. In order to interact with an inaccessible entity, special activity is needed, which is governed by special rules and differs from activity dealing with physical entities. Even though ritual activities are performed correctly according to the relevant ritual rules, whether or not they successfully accomplish their desired goal cannot be demonstrated in the material domain, but must be believed, based upon acceptance of a ritual conceptual system. Therefore, to a nonbeliever, ritual can appear impractical, absurd, and wasteful. Removal of ritual impurity is only one kind of “cognitive task” interaction with an inaccessible entity. Examples of other kinds are sacrifice, that is, an offering transaction between a human (i.e., material) party and a transcendent party who is ordinarily inaccessible to the material domain, and formulaic prayer, that is, a

INTRODUCTION

7

rule-governed communication directed by a human being to an ordinarily inaccessible party. Dynamics of these and other kinds of ritual interactions will be analyzed in the present work. Because “cognitive task” interaction with an inaccessible entity is the basic dynamic common to essential categories of activity phenomena that are generally regarded as “ritual,” I propose that the presence of this dynamic indicates the “ritualness” of a rule-governed activity system. Therefore, a definition of ritual should include reference to this dynamic. Other kinds of activities, for example, legal transactions in which tokens are used, should be called something other than “ritual.” The “cognitive task” function of a ritual must be distinguished from its social function. For example, whereas the cognitive task function of the Babylonian ritual cited above is the removal of ritual impurity from the temple in preparation for later ritual events of the New Year Festival (see chap. 5.), the social function of the ritual would likely have to do with its being regarded by the Babylonians as contributing to their well-being by removing evil that is disturbing to their gods and consequently threatens the continued residence of the gods with the Babylonians (see Milgrom 1991: 256, 258-9). Since the present work is confined to dynamic structure within rituals, I will make no attempt to analyze rituals in terms of their respective social functions.3

2. METHODOLOGY In this work, I adapt to ritual activity analysis an “applied general systems theory” methodology developed by Brian Wilson of the Department of Systems at the University of Lancaster for investigating “human activity systems,” especially those relevant to

3

Thus my approach fundamentally differs from that of F. Gorman, who is concerned with social functions of ancient Israelite rituals. Gorman includes a theory of social function in his definition of ritual: “‘Ritual’ as used here refers to a complex performance of symbolic acts, characterized by its formality, order, and sequence, which tends to take place in specific situations, and has as one of its central goals the regulation of the social order” (Gorman 1990: 19).

8

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

business management. Until now, to my knowledge, “systems theory” has not been applied to analysis of ritual activity structure.4 Some key elements of Wilson’s methodology, outlined in his book titled Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications (1984), are as follows: 1. A conceptual model is an important analytical tool. A model cannot fully represent a situation, but rather represents an aspect of, or something believed to be relevant to, a situation (B. Wilson 1984: 8). 2. A model of a human activity system represents a transformation process (ibid.: 25). 3. Since a system of activities can be described as carrying out more than one transformation process, depending upon the point of view from which it is perceived, Wilson incorporates the “point of view” variable into his analysis through a “root definition” that does the following: ...attempts to capture the essence of the system being described. A root definition is hence more than a mere statement of the objectives of the system. It incorporates the point of view that makes the activities and performance of the system meaningful...What the analyst is doing, in this kind of analysis, is choosing to view the situation in particular ways and, through the subsequent process of modelling each system, exploring the implications of the views taken (ibid.: 3031).

4. In models of activity systems, activity components should be expressed as verbs (ibid.: 24). 5. The goal/raison d’être of a human activity system is to achieve through activities the particular transformation that has been defined” (ibid.: 16, 26). 4

R. Payne has suggested that systems theory should be applied to the relationship between rituals and social organization. He points out, for example, an ascending hierarchy of systems: “the particular ritual, the ritual tradition, the religious tradition, the religious culture and the society” (Payne 1985: 217). Payne’s idea that systems theory can be applied to ritual is highly significant. Not anticipated by him was the possibility that systems theory may be applicable to analysis of ritual activities themselves.

INTRODUCTION

9

6. Wilson makes a distinction between two kinds of analysis, which he terms “primary task analysis” and “issue-based analysis.” In a “primary task analysis,” “...one is choosing to model a version of the situation that, it can be argued, is close to agreed perceptions of reality” (ibid.: 86). For example: ...irrespective of the particular view held of the nature of a prison, there would be basic agreement that a prison could be taken to be ‘a system for the receipt, storage, and despatch of prisoners’ (ibid.: 87).

By contrast, an “issue-based” analysis would pursue the implications of various perceptions of a prison as a punishment system, a society protection system, an education system, etc. (ibid.: 85-86). Because Wilson’s methodology deals with basic aspects of activity dynamics and because of its adaptability to different kinds of activities and points of view with respect to them, it is well suited to analysis of ritual dynamic structure. In my application of this approach, a given ritual is first analyzed from an “intrinsic activity perspective,” which corresponds to what Wilson would call a “primary task” point of view. Next, the ritual is approached from a “cognitive task perspective.” This is “issue-based analysis” concerned with implications of the interpretive point of view indicated by the ritual text. Examination from each of these perspectives necessarily includes formulation of a root definition, an overall transformation model, and a hierarchical model of the activities that carry out the overall transformation. From the intrinsic activity and cognitive task hierarchical models, a syntactic model can be abstracted. As discussed above, the fact that a ritual is a single, complete system on the intrinsic activity level depends upon the unity provided by the cognitive task interpretation. This is not contradicted by the fact that Wilson can define unity and boundaries of systems on the “primary task” level. The systems studied by Wilson are nonritual, achieving their unifying goals through ordinary patterns of cause and effect. A ritual, on the other hand, is not restricted to ordinary cause and effect. Therefore, its goal cannot be safely reconstructed from knowledge of its uninterpreted activities alone. The fact that cognitive task interpretations assigned to ritual activities by religious traditions are

10

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

world-view dependent means that a subjective element is built into rituals. The purpose of the present work is to learn about rituals through analysis of their dynamic structure. Analysis is an intellectual pursuit that aids the modern learning process. It is not an end in itself, nor does it represent the way in which an ancient ritual participant would view the activities.

3. APPLICATION TO ADDITIONAL RITUAL TRADITIONS As material for analysis, I have chosen the rituals of three festival days belonging to three discrete ancient Near Eastern ritual traditions: the Israelite Day of Atonement, the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, and the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Telipinu Festival in H~anh~ana and Kašh~a, in descending order of structural complexity. Reasons for this selection are as follows: 1. F. Staal’s syntactic approach has not previously been applied to ancient Near Eastern rituals. It will be possible to determine whether or not syntactic features that he and R. Payne have pointed out in contexts of Vedic Indian and Buddhist Japanese rituals are found in the ancient Near East. 2. Investigating rituals belonging to more than one tradition tests a theory of common ritual dynamics in a way that could not be accomplished within the bounds of a single tradition. 3. Since the three festival days are rich in the variety and complexity of their ritual structures, they are fertile ground for the study of ritual dynamic structure. 4. Because the three festival days present challenging interpretive problems, it is possible to demonstrate the contribution of my approach to interpretive problem-solving. 5. The festival days are similar in theme: each involves special purification of sacred precincts and/or sancta, along with maintenance of regular offerings. Therefore, there is an opportunity to demonstrate the contribution of my approach to comparative study. In the present work, I am concerned with synchronic analysis of rituals as their activities and interpretations of those activities are presented in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Hittite texts. I do not deal with historical questions such as whether or not the rituals were actually performed as prescribed or described, how they may have

INTRODUCTION

11

been performed at an earlier time, or what earlier cognitive task interpretations may have been assigned to those activities. Since the selected rituals are accessible only through ancient texts, which present problems such as abbreviated prescriptions or descriptions, terminological difficulties, and lacunae, reconstruction of rituals through exegesis (primarily close reading) necessarily occupies considerable space. The goal of this exegesis, which is preliminary to analysis of ritual dynamic structure, is to establish as efficiently as possible a viable outline of activities, not to deal with all possibilities suggested by interpreters.5 The chapters of this work divide themselves into two parts. The first, comprised of chapters 1.-3., develops ritual theory and methodology. In this part, the Israelite burnt offering of herd and flock animals (Lev 1:3-9, 10-13) serves as the primary example. The second part, consisting of chapters 4.-7., applies the theory and methodology developed in the first part to the Israelite Day of Atonement, the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, and the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Telipinu Festival in H~anh~ana and Kašh~a. The conclusion summarizes the contribution of the present research to the study of ritual dynamic structure. Appendix I critiques the approach of H. Hubert and M. Mauss to ritual dynamic structure. Appendix II provides my English translation of the entire Hittite Ninth Year Telipinu Festival, hitherto available only in German.

5

With regard to the Israelite rituals, the Anchor Bible series commentary of J. Milgrom on Leviticus 1-16 (1991) has not only greatly facilitated the activity reconstruction process, but has also clarified “cognitive task” interpretations attached by the biblical text to ritual activities.

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE F. Staal defines a ritual as “a system of acts and sounds, related to each other in accordance with rules without reference to meaning” (Staal 1989: 433). That a ritual is “a system” implies that it has structure formed by logical relationships (ibid.: 79-80, 85ff), and this structure is hierarchical, with smaller units embedded in higher units (ibid.: 101). That a ritual is governed by rules incorporates the ideas that it is fixed with regard to the inclusion of activity components, their nature, and their order, that is, it is what I would call a “formulaic activity system” (see below), and the primary concern is with following rules rather than with achieving results (ibid.: 132). “Without reference to meaning” implies that ritual cannot be defined in terms of any inherent meaning (ibid.: 131), and meanings associated with ritual are secondary and extrinsic to ritual (ibid.: 137, 140). This chapter tests Staal’s theory of ritual through an attempt to analyze a ritual as a system that is fixed by rules without reference to meaning. If a ritual can be defined without reference to attached meaning, it should be amenable to “applied systems analysis” without such meaning, that is, what I would call “intrinsic activity systems analysis.” The chapter is divided into the following sections: 1. Preliminary establishment of an activity outline. 2. A ritual as a dynamic system carrying out a “process.” 3. Systems theory concepts and methodology. 4. A systems approach to ritual activity: intrinsic activity analysis of the Israelite burnt offering. 5. “Ritualness” and the criterion of concern for rules rather than results. 6. Ritual as “formulaic activity.” 7. Types of intrinsic activity transformations. 8. Conclusion. To maintain continuity and focus discussion of ritual theory in chapters 1.-3., each of these chapters will deal with the same primary example: the Israelite burnt offering (‛o4lâ) of herd and flock 13

14

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

animals, which is outlined as a private, voluntary offering in Leviticus 1:3-9, 10-13. This example is relevant to chapter 4. on the Israelite Day of Atonement, during which public, calendric burnt offerings occur in three contexts: “regular” (ta4mîd) rituals performed in the morning and evening on every day of the year (Num 28:2-8), additions to the regular offering that are performed on festival days (29:8-11), and in the ritual complex that is unique to the Day (Lev 16:24). Analysis of ritual dynamic structure from the intrinsic activity perspective begins with an outline of activities performed. Any fieldwork or text exegesis necessary for arriving at such an outline is preliminary. Since ancient Near Eastern rituals are accessible only through texts, preliminary establishment of activity outlines in the present work will be through exegesis.

1.1. PRELIMINARY ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ACTIVITY OUTLINE Turning now to the Israelite burnt offering, Leviticus 1 is composed of three “paragraphs” prescribing the correct procedure for offering private burnt offerings of herd animals (i.e., bovines; vv. 3-9) and flock animals (i.e., sheep and goats; vv. 10-13), as well as birds (vv. 14-17). Since the bird ritual differs significantly from the rituals dealing with quadrupeds and since no birds are offered in the public rites of the Day of Atonement, only the first two procedures are considered in this chapter. Reproduced here is J. Milgrom’s translation of Leviticus 1:313, with the difference that specific activities following preliminary conveyance of animals to the sanctuary are presented in bold type: The Burnt Offering: From the Herd (3) If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance on his behalf before the Lord. (4) He shall lean his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf, to expiate for him. (5) The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and dash the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. (6) The burnt offering shall be flayed and quartered. (7) The sons of Aaron

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

15

the priest shall stoke the fire on the altar and lay out wood upon the fire. (8) Then Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the quarters, with the head and suet, on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar. (9) Its entrails and shins shall be washed with water, and the priest shall turn all of it into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord. From the Flock (10) If his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock, of sheep or of goats, he shall offer a male without blemish. (11) It shall be slaughtered on the north side of the altar before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar. (12) When it has been quartered, the priest shall lay out the quarters, with the head and suet, on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar. (13) The entrails and the shins shall be washed with water and the priest shall present all of it and turn it to smoke on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord (Milgrom 1991: 133).

The activities (in bold type) included in these two paragraphs are outlined below: BURNT OFFERING OF HERD ANIMAL (LEV 1:3-9) lean one hand on head of animal slay animal present blood to altar dash blood against sides of altar flay animal dismember carcass stoke altar fire lay wood on altar lay (i.e., burn) quarters, head, and suet on fire wash entrails, shins lay entrails, shins on fire

16

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

BURNT OFFERING OF FLOCK ANIMAL (LEV 1:10-13) slay animal dash blood against sides of altar dismember carcass lay quarters, head, and suet on fire wash entrails, shins present all lay entrails, shins on fire Note two points: 1. The style of the text is to present activities sequentially. However, it appears that the officiant(s) could stoke the altar fire and lay out the wood while the offerer or another person flays (removes the skin) and dismembers/quarters the animal. 2. Activities performed with the quarters, etc., and the entrails, etc., are identical. Laying out the quarters, head and suet “on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” (vv. 8b, 12b) means that they are burned, that is, turned to smoke. It is this effect that is stated in connection with the entrails and shins, which must also be laid on the fire. Of course, it takes time for pieces of an animal to burn up. Leviticus 6:2 speaks of the evening burnt offering continuing to burn on the altar all night until the morning. This does not mean that the ritual continues all night. A ritual ends with the last ritual activity, which in the case of a burnt offering is the placement of the pieces on the altar fire by the priest. The paragraph prescribing the burnt offering of flock animals (vv. 10-13) is abbreviated. However, v. 13 adds presentation of the entrails and shins. These differences, except for leaning one hand on the head of the animal, can be resolved from an intrinsic activity perspective. First, even without reference to vv. 3-9, performance of all activities omitted in vv. 10-13, except for the hand leaning, could be inferred from practical necessity: The blood would have to be taken (“presented”) to the altar to be manipulated there; before being dismembered, the animal would have to be flayed; and the fire would necessarily be arranged before the parts of the animal could be placed on it. Second, in the burnt offering of a flock animal, the presentation of entrails and shins, that is, bringing them to the altar, is necessary before they can be burned there.

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

17

Such presentation would also be necessary in a burnt offering of a herd animal. Inclusion of hand leaning in the burnt offering of a flock animal cannot be assumed from an intrinsic activity perspective because the gesture does not contribute, in terms of physical cause and effect, to the process of transforming the animal. However, leaning one hand on the head of a herd animal is tied to the cognitive task goal of the ritual: “He shall lean his hand...to expiate for him” (v. 4). Since the burnt offering of a flock animal is presumably also performed at least partly to gain expiation, it can be assumed that hand leaning would be performed in this case as well. If hand leaning is performed in the burnt offering of a flock animal, activities included in the two sacrifices are identical, with one qualification: whereas flock animals must be slaughtered “on the north side of the altar” (v. 11), larger herd animals can be slaughtered anywhere in “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (v. 3), that is, the courtyard of the sanctuary (Milgrom 1991: 147-8). Two further activities must be included: 1. At the moment of slaughter, that is, when the throat of the animal is slit (Milgrom 1991: 154-5), the priest would need to collect the blood in a basin so that he could then present it at the altar (see 2 Chron 29:22—“and the priests received/collected the blood”). 2. After the fire is tended and before the quarters, head, and suet are arranged on the altar, these parts would be “presented,” that is, brought to the altar. Indeed, the words in Leviticus 1:13, “...and the priest shall present all,” may apply not only to the entrails and shins, but also to the pieces placed on the altar earlier. Inclusion of an act of presenting the quarters, etc., is supported by comparison with the public burnt offering performed at the inauguration of the cult (9:12-14), in which the sons of Aaron pass him the animal pieces, just as they pass him the blood. Leviticus 2:13b states that salt must be offered with all offerings to YHWH. The addition of salt is not included in the activity outline of any ritual, including the burnt offering, suggesting that the activity is preliminary to the commencement of ritual. This is supported by Ezekiel 43:24, where two animals are presented before YHWH, that is, brought to the court of the

18

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

temple, priests throw salt upon them, and then the animals are sacrificed as a burnt offering.6 Listed below are the activities to be performed in the private burnt offering of four-legged animals, that is, the burnt offering paradigm applicable to herd and flock animals. On the basis of the above discussion, collection of blood and presentation of quarters, etc., are included. PRIVATE BURNT OFFERING OF QUADRUPED ANIMALS lean one hand on head of animal slay animal collect blood present blood to altar dash blood against sides of altar flay animal dismember carcass stoke altar fire lay wood on altar present quarters, head, suet to altar lay quarters, head, and suet on fire wash entrails, shins present entrails, shins to altar lay entrails, shins on fire

1.2. A RITUAL AS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM CARRYING OUT A PROCESS Now that a basic activity outline of the Israelite burnt offering is established, intrinsic activity analysis can begin. Since this analysis will not take meaning into consideration and since the term “burnt offering” is an interpretation of activities, a kind of meaning attached by the biblical text, “burnt offering” will be used throughout the remainder of the chapter simply as a convenient way to refer to a particular group of activities. It is not assumed here that the group constitutes a single, complete ritual merely because it is called a “burnt offering.” 6

M. Tamid 4:3 does not follow Ezekiel’s procedure: The regular burnt offering and its cereal accompaniment are salted after the burnt offering animal is cut up into pieces.

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

19

The basic question here is this: If the “burnt offering” group of activities is a system defined without reference to meaning, how are this system, its components, and logical relationships between them defined on the basis of activity alone? Immediately apparent is the fact that the activities produce change in the material world through time: They contribute together to the progressive physical transformation of an animal. At the beginning of the process, the animal is alive and whole. At the end of the process, it is dead and broken down into parts. The fact that the activities contribute together to a dynamic process, that is, a process involving change through time, suggests that they are united as some kind of dynamic system. However, because systems are hierarchical, we do not know yet whether the system constitutes a single ritual, is a subsystem of a larger ritual, or is comprised of more than one individual ritual. A process that breaks down an object as does the burnt offering can be called an “analytic process.” The breakdown of a burnt offering animal and separate treatment of its parts can be illustrated as follows: Burnt Offering Analytic Process animal lean hand slay animal collect blood present blood dash blood flay dismember carcass present quarters... lay quarters...

blood hide quarters...

altar wash entrails... present entrails... lay entrails...

entrails…

When the offerer leans his hand on the head of the animal at the beginning of the ritual, the animal is whole. Then the blood is separated from the rest of the animal, the hide is separated from

20

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

the remainder of the carcass, and finally, two remaining groups of parts are separated from each other. The hide does not receive further ritual treatment, but simply belongs to the officiant. The blood and two groups of parts are transferred to the altar and deposited there. Treatment of the constituents of the animal in separation, transfer, and deposit phases can be outlined as follows: Blood separation: slay animal, collect blood transfer: present blood to altar deposit: dash blood on sides of altar Quarters, head and suet separation: dismember carcass transfer: present quarters, head, and suet to altar deposit: lay quarters, head, and suet on altar Entrails and shins separation: dismember carcass transfer: present entrails and shins to altar deposit: lay entrails and shins on altar Since the “transfer” and “deposit” activities involve the altar, a priest must perform them.7 “Separation” activities” can be performed by laypersons.8 7

Only a priest is permitted to officiate at the altar (Num 18:1-7; on this passage, see Milgrom 1970: 19-20), but a priest can be an offerer (Lev 4:3-12; 6:12-16), i.e., the person providing the offering material and to whom the benefits of the ritual accrue. 8 The verbs for flaying (removing skin), quartering and washing the entrails and shins are impersonal. These singular verbs, following plural verbs referring to action by the priests, can be interpreted literally to have the offerer as their (singular) subject. However, performance of these actions was permitted to any ritually pure Israelite (Milgrom 1991: 156). “Public sacrifices, though, were flayed and quartered by the priests and, under emergency circumstances, by the Levites (2 Chron 29:34; 35:11)” (Milgrom 1991: 156). Furthermore, while the literal sense of the text indicates performance of slaughter by the offerer (“...and he shall slaughter,” in a string of verbs whose subject is the offerer), Milgrom’s translation reflects the idea that another person could perform this activity also: “anyone was permitted to perform the immolation...That the slaughtering could be done by anyone is proven by the text of the priestly consecration service: although Aaron and his sons thrice perform the hand leaning rite (yisme6kû; plural), the slaughtering is described each time

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

21

It appears that within the overall system, activities are grouped into subsystems, but on what basis? Since the treatment of an animal is clearly central to the process, it would seem logical to define parts of the process in terms of the objects that are treated, that is, parts of the animal. The breakdown of the animal follows the following hierarchy of “object units,” that is, objects or groups of objects treated together: whole animal

blood

body

hide

carcass

quarters...

entrails...

On this basis, it could be argued that activities within the system should be hierarchically arranged according to their treatment of “object units”:

as wayyišh[at[, singular, which can only be rendered as ‘and it was slaughtered’ (8:14-15, 18-19, 22-23)” (Milgrom 1991: 154). Because the purpose of the hand leaning is to identify the offerer of the animal (see chap. 2.), it is imperative that he perform this activity himself, even if he delegates other activities to someone else.

22

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

PRIVATE BURNT OFFERING OF QUADRUPEDS 1. treat whole animal 1.1. lean one hand on head of animal 1.2. slay animal 2. treat parts of animal 2.1. treat blood 2.1.1. collect blood 2.1.2. present blood to altar 2.1.3. dash blood against sides of altar 2.2. treat body 2.2.1. flay animal (= separate hide) 2.2.2. treat carcass 2.2.2.1. treat quarters... 2.2.2.1.1. dismember carcass 2.2.2.1.2. present quarters, head, and suet to altar 2.2.2.1.3. lay quarters, head, and suet on fire 2.2.2.2. treat entrails... 2.2.2.2.1. wash entrails, shins 2.2.2.2.2. present entrails, shins to altar 2.2.2.2.3. lay entrails, shins on fire Although this analysis is based upon a criterion, namely that of the most obvious “object units,” it is inadequate in several respects: 1. It does not include two activities belonging to the activity outline (see above) that do not directly treat the animal: stoke altar fire and lay wood on altar. 2. The generic verb “treat” does not adequately describe segments of the activity process because it does not define their nature with a sufficient degree of specificity. 3. The analysis does not take into account factors in addition to object units that affect logical relationships between activities, for example, differences with regard to the physical effect of activities upon object units. Thus “lean hand” and “slay animal” are both performed on the whole animal, but while the former does not physically affect the animal, the latter begins the physical analytic process. Such differences do not mean that logical relationships do not exist between the activities, but rather that relationships are not as tight as would be concluded from consideration of object units alone.

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

23

Since analysis based upon the “object unit” criterion is inadequate, a better criterion must be sought. The discipline of “applied general systems theory” offers such a criterion: “activity goal.” In fact, application of “systems theory” concepts and methodology can facilitate analysis of ritual activity systems in a number of ways. Because readers of the present work may not be acquainted with systems theory, I include in the next section a brief general introduction to this burgeoning science, followed by a discussion of “human activity systems” analysis. Consideration of the Israelite burnt offering will be resumed in the following section.

1.3. SYSTEMS THEORY CONCEPTS AND METHODOLOGY 1.3.1. Introduction to General Systems Theory General systems theory (GST) is an interdisciplinary school of thought (Davidson 1983: 9) that is concerned with relationships between systems and their components. Although some key concepts included in GST may be traced to earlier European philosophy (Davidson 1983: 29; Gigch 1978: 56), the discipline as such has developed within the last few decades from the hypothesis of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972) “that there are natural laws of organization governing systems on all levels of existence” (Davidson 1983: 23). GST is an approach that searches for such laws (ibid.: 23), attempts “to discover how structures yield their functions” (Glassman 1975: 35) and views problems in the light of “knowledge about systems in general” (Davidson 1983: 24). GST does not claim to solve problems, but rather to aid clarity of thought in regard to the nature of those problems (ibid.: 25). “Systems theory complements rather than substitutes for traditional analytical and research approaches” (Melcher 1975: 6). Central to GST is the concept of “system,” which may be defined as “an assembly or set of related elements” (Gigch 1978: 2). A system is a manifestation of something intangible, but quite real, called organization. A system, like a work of art, is a pattern rather than a pile. Like a piece of music, it’s an arrangement rather than an aggregate. Like a marriage, it’s a relationship rather than an encounter...In a system, one and one equals two plus. The plus is the relationship signified by the connective

24

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE word and, as in Laurel and Hardy, Gilbert and Sullivan, or Bonnie and Clyde. In systems thinking, the fundamental reality is the relationship of parts, not the substance. The crucial aspect is form. Rodin’s The Thinker is equally pensive in marble, brass or clay... (Davidson 1983: 27-28).

Bertalanffy extended the concept of “wholeness” present in the organismic thinking of biologists, for example, the idea that only whole organisms are viable living systems, to systems characterized by organized complexity through his principle of “emergence” (B. Wilson 1984: 20). ...systems have characteristics that emerge from the interaction of their parts, the way wetness emerges from the interaction of two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen. The same holistic magic occurs when a composer arranges notes to form a musical composition...The Nobel laureate poet of India, Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941), expressed the principle of emergence when he wrote: “By plucking her petals, you do not gather the beauty of the flower” (Davidson 1983: 28-29).

Because there is a holistic dimension that is lost when wholes are broken down into parts, Bertalanffy argued that synthesis is necessary in addition to analysis (Davidson 1983: 30). Interdependent systems9 operate within a hierarchical framework: systems are embedded in larger systems and are composed of interrelated “subsystems,” which are themselves systems made up of subsystems. Systems at each level of integration function as wholes with respect to their parts and parts with respect to higher level wholes (Gigch 1978: 66). We can add that systems are also wholes in relation to other systems of the same hierarchical level. Relative hierarchical levels are designated as “higher” or “lower,” depending upon their relative levels of 9

Interdependence means, for example, that A affects X, but X also affects A (Melcher 1975: 6). Interdependence functions between components of various sizes, i.e., belonging to hierarchical levels that are relatively higher or lower. Therefore, in relation to the current scientific debate over causal control, GST is compatible with the view that causation works “both ways, upward and downward as well as sequentially” (Sperry 1987: 20).

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

25

generality or detail. Wilson explains this idea in the context of human activity system models: It is usual that the highest level in the hierarchy contains a broad description of the situation (low resolution) while the lower levels contain increasingly more detailed descriptions of less and less of the situation being modeled (high resolution) (B. Wilson 1984: 273).

“Decomposition,” that is, analysis of a system into its subsystems, progresses downward to the lowest level of “elementary subsystems” (Gigch 1978: 66, 378). “Composition” progresses upward, synthesizing systems into larger systems until the boundary between the largest system and the “environment” (see below) is reached (ibid.: 3, 23). With regard to its relative hierarchical position, a subsystem is the same as a system, except for the level of detail that it represents. Therefore, the level said to be that of systems, as opposed to subsystems or higher systems is a matter of choice (B. Wilson 1984: 27). Choice of a level of detail is tied to the definition of a given problem to be investigated and the selected mode of investigation. Each problem to which GST is applied requires its own systems boundaries (Gigch 1978: 17), that is, boundaries defining systems of various levels (ibid.: 23). Gigch distinguishes between what he calls “total” and “whole” systems, of which the boundaries depend upon relationships to given problems: 1. A “total system” is a single unit of which the subsystems are united by something in common, called by Gigch “a common goal” (ibid.: 24), which is central to the problem at hand. 2. A “whole system” includes the total system plus all other relevant systems, which are regarded as affecting or being affected by the problem. Remaining systems are excluded and constitute what is called the “environment” (Gigch 1978: 15, 24). Since bounding systems depends upon problem definition, which is a matter of choice, it is clear that in a sense “the boundaries of a system are always determined by the investigator, with reference to his own purposes, never by nature” (Kuhn 1975: 39). This does not mean that nature can be ignored. Constraints and guidelines are placed upon boundary definition according to the kind(s) of system(s) to be investigated, the kinds of interactions

26

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

operative between and within them, and the mode of investigation to be used (Kuhn 1975: 39, 44). In a general sense, a system is bounded by listing the components that are in it as distinct from those which are not. The three main criteria for the distinction, i.e., for defining the boundary, are spatial, functional, and analytic. Spatial boundaries include the skin of the human, the wall of a house, or the geographic lines dividing nations. The functional criterion includes all components that perform a certain function and excludes others—the stomach but not the ear in the digestive system, the engine and drive-train but not the lights in the propulsion system of a car. The analytic criterion includes all components that can be understood through a given type of analysis—the lights, ignition, wiper motor, and horn, but not the clutch or wheel bearings, in the electrical system. Which criterion is to be used also depends on the purposes of the investigator (Kuhn 1975: 39-40).

Other boundary concepts are as follows: 1. A boundary may be viewed as “an area across which movement occurs with greater difficulty” (Milburn 1975: 53). 2. A hierarchical framework implies successive boundaries (ibid.: 54). 3. A boundary may be selective, that is, it “may exist for some substances, or persons, or aspects—but not for others” (ibid.: 53). 1.3.2. “Human Activity Systems” Analysis Since rituals performed by human beings10 belong to the category of “human activity systems,” existing GST work on the dynamics of nonritual human activity systems can contribute to our understanding of ritual dynamic structure. In his book titled Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications (1984), Brian Wilson presents results of his experience since joining the Department of Systems of the University of Lancaster. Questions of how to deal with management problems have stimulated a major research program at Lancaster University that “has led to a particular

10

On animal ritualism, see chap. 2.

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

27

process of analysis based upon the use of a particular concept: the human activity system” (B. Wilson 1984: 1). Wilson’s approach to analysis of a human activity system (HAS) may be summarized as “learning about activity situations through analysis of dynamic structure.” Basic to this analysis and relevant to analysis of ritual structure is a “systems language,” a mechanism by which a HAS can be described and represented. This systems language consists of two linked ideas: conceptual model and “root definition.” 1.3.2.1. Conceptual Model Modeling is of fundamental importance to analysis of systems because models “uncover and reflect” relationships among variables (Gigch 1978: 269). Wilson defines “model” as follows: A model is the explicit interpretation of one’s understanding of a situation, or merely of one’s ideas about that situation. It can be expressed in mathematics, symbols or words, but it is essentially a description of entities and the relationships between them. It may be prescriptive or illustrative, but above all, it must be useful (B. Wilson 1984: 8).

Modeling “is only part of a process of analysis and not the outcome” (ibid.: 8). A model cannot fully represent a situation, but rather represents an aspect of, or something believed to be relevant to, a situation (ibid.). The real world is extremely complex and models of situations in the real world cannot be expected to reproduce that degree of complexity. A model is always a simplification. Because of this, any modeling activity must include an explicit statement of the assumptions that must have been made about the real world in order that a model can be derived at all. These assumptions may be about the choice of boundary of the situation being modeled, or that certain variables may be ignored in relation to others, according to the nature of the investigation (ibid.: 272).

There are various kinds of models, including iconic, analogic, analytic, and conceptual types (ibid.: 8-9). Wilson is primarily concerned with models of human activity systems, which belong to the “conceptual” category (ibid.: 9). He prefers pictorial

28

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

expressions of his models because the information contained in them “can be processed in parallel whereas information contained in prose can only be processed in series” (ibid.: 10). A model of a “human activity system” (HAS) must be appropriate to its properties. Basic concepts influencing modeling are as follows: 1. A HAS can be decomposed into two subsystems: ...a system of activities and, since those activities are undertaken by people, a social system whose boundary is coincident with the HAS boundary...Although it is usually the case that a HAS is modeled as the system of activities, it must not be forgotten that one is also defining an accompanying social system (ibid.: 24-25).

In the system of activities, elements are activities, and relationships between them are logical dependencies: For example if one activity within the model is ‘convert raw material into products’, it can be argued that this should be preceded by the activities ‘decide what products to make’ and ‘obtain raw material’. Hence, ‘convert raw material’ can be said to be logically dependent upon the other two activities (ibid.: 26).

In the social system, elements are people doing the activities and relationships are interpersonal (ibid.: 25). Relationships between elements are crucial. Without a minimum degree of “connectivity” between each entity, a set would not be a system at all (ibid.: 26). Wilson is primarily concerned with systems of activities. He does, however, show how to convert an “organizationindependent” model into an “organization-dependent” model “by drawing boundaries around sets of activities representing the areas of authority of the relevant people” (ibid.: 89). Since my study of ritual is confined to investigation of systems of activities, I will not attempt to apply “organization mapping” to ritual. 2. In models of human activity systems, activity components are expressed as verbs (ibid.: 24). verb 1

verb 2

verb 3

verb 4

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

29

Note that the diagrams I include in connection with Wilson’s methodology are my adaptations of his models for the sake of clearly communicating concepts relevant to analysis of ritual dynamic structure. A system of activities “can be described as an interacting set of subsystems or an interacting set of activities” (ibid.: 23). Each activity/subsystem, represented by a verb, may be redefined as a system on another level of detail and modeled as a set of activities (ibid.: 23). The above diagram lists verbs only by number without qualification. Because the semantic element is lacking, the diagram is strictly syntactic. In fact, if we use an upper case letter, for example, “S”, to designate the “system” and numbers or lower case letters for activities/subsystems, we can depict the same information through a tree diagram of the form used by Staal (e.g., Staal 1989: 105-6; see chap. 3.): S

1.

2.

3.

4.

While such a representation would be useful for Staal’s syntactic approach, Wilson’s GST approach is concerned with relationships requiring additional qualification. Thus, rather than verb 1, verb 2, etc., he uses specific verbs in clauses. For example: plan and control production, provide utilities and production resources, convert raw materials into products (B. Wilson 1984: 23). 3. A HAS model represents a transformation process. “This means that the set of activities contained in the model represent that interconnected set of actions necessary to transform some input(s) into some output(s)” (ibid.: 25). Therefore, a basic transformation model like the following (cf. ibid.: 25)

30

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

transformation process

input(s)

output(s)

can be expanded to show activities as presented below (cf. ibid.: 16):

transformation process activities

input(s)

1

2

3

output(s)

The goal/raison d’être of a HAS “is to achieve the particular transformation that has been defined” (B. Wilson 1984: 26). The close relationship between systems goals and definitions must be emphasized: goals are achieved by defined transformations corresponding to them. In the next section on “root definitions,” it will become clear that activity systems are defined in terms of their goals, or, more precisely, in terms of how particular transformations carry out certain goals. 1.3.2.2. “Root Definition” A system of activities can be described as more than one transformation process, depending upon the point of view from which it is perceived. Wilson refers to this point of view as “worldview” (German Weltanschauung), “i.e., that view of the world which enables each observer to attribute meaning to what is observed” (ibid.: 29). He incorporates the “world-view” (W) variable into a HAS model through a “root definition” that attempts to capture the essence of the system being described. A root definition is hence more than a mere statement of the objectives of the system. It

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

31

incorporates the point of view that makes the activities and performance of the system meaningful...What the analyst is doing, in this kind of analysis, is choosing to view the situation in particular ways and, through the subsequent process of modeling each system, exploring the implications of the views taken (ibid.: 30-31).

For example, a manufacturing enterprise could be viewed as carrying out any of these transformation processes (ibid.: 30): customer demand

transformation

customer demand met through satisfactory products

need to utilize resources efficiently

transformation

need met through efficient utilization

business needs

transformation

needs met by achieving satisfactory return on investment

The dynamic inherent in each of these transformations can be expressed as follows: demand/need → transformation → demand/need met Root definitions corresponding to the first two of the above transformations can be stated: A system to meet the market needs for a particular range of products within the constraints of the production resources. A system to achieve the efficient utilization of production resources whilst maintaining secure employment and acceptable working conditions of employees (ibid.: 30).

Wilson emphasizes that what is modeled is “a view of what exists” rather than “what exists.” (ibid.: 31). HAS models are intellectual constructs that

32

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE are derived by defining the minimum, necessary set of activities at a particular level of detail (resolution level) for the system to be that described by the root definition. So that, whereas the root definition describes what the system is, the conceptual model describes the set of activities that the system must do to be the system so defined (ibid.: 31).

Note two points: 1. Although a real-world situation has a mixture of worldviews (Ws) and transformation processes, “a root definition should contain one transformation process and should have 100% commitment to a single W.” (ibid.: 45). 2. Because activity systems are hierarchical, each activity/subsystem in a model can be modeled as a system through application of a root definition (ibid.: 31). While W must always be included in “issue-based analysis,” this is not the case with what Wilson calls “primary task analysis.” In a “primary task analysis,” it is sometimes possible to formulate a root definition that may be said to be independent of W (ibid.: 87): ...one is choosing to model a version of the situation which, it can be argued, is close to agreed perceptions of reality. Thus, if an organization is concerned with manufacturing cars, one can actually observe that components enter the organization and cars emerge. Hence it may be argued that a certain set of activities must exist (irrespective of how they are done) in order that the transformation can take place. Thus, when carrying out a primary task analysis, the root definition chosen will lead to the model of a notional system which can be related very directly either to an organization as a whole or to a well established task carried out by a section, department, or division of the total organization (ibid.: 86)

An example of a primary task root definition independent of W concerns the nature of a prison, “‘a system for the receipt, storage, and despatch of prisoners’” (ibid.: 87). By contrast, an “issue-based” analysis would pursue the implications of various Ws, for example, views of a prison as a punishment system, a society protection system, an education system, etc. (ibid.: 85-86).

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

33

Note two aspects of interface with my approach to ritual analysis: 1. Primary task analysis corresponds to what I call “intrinsic activity analysis.” Issue-based analysis corresponds to what I call “cognitive task analysis” (see chap. 2.). 2. My use of the word “meaning” in connection with ritual is closely related to Wilson’s definition of “issue-based” analysis: “meaning” attached to ritual activity is a world-view dependent (i.e., subjective) perception of that activity. This meaning is distinct from language meaning (see chap. 2.). 1.3.2.3. “Systems Language” Two linked ideas: root definition and conceptual model, function as a “systems language,” a mechanism by which a HAS can be described and represented. According to Wilson, a model of a HAS begins as a model of a transformation process (ibid.: 37). Through a root definition, a second model is produced, which depicts the first level activities/subsystems necessary for achieving the transformation. Since this model represents “an expansion of the transformation process,” “it must be possible to trace that transformation through the activities” (ibid). Each activity represents a sub-transformation process for which lower level activities can be necessary. Therefore, through root definitions relevant to each first level activity, a third model can be produced that shows the minimum necessary activities belonging to a second level of detail/resolution at a lower hierarchical level (ibid.: 171). The process can continue through indefinitely many levels of decomposition. Wilson’s description of conceptual model development is unclear in one important respect. While it is true that modeling begins with an invariable conceptual template—the idea that there is a transformation process—any qualification as to the nature of input(s) and output(s) depends upon the root definition and generally (except in some cases of primary task models) incorporates the W variable. Therefore I prefer to start the modeling process with an overall root definition:

34

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE root definition

transformation

input(s)

output(s)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - root definition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1

3

2

- - - - - root definition - - - - root definition - - - - root definition- - - - - -

1

3

2

1

1

2

2

3

3

Wilson points out some possible pitfalls in the use of systems language: ...sparse root definitions leading to sparse conceptual models…still logically defensible but not very useful (ibid.: 46). ...phrases are included in a root definition in order to make the system so defined highly particular to the real-world situation being analysed. Yet when the conceptual model is derived, no activities exist which make reference to these phrases. (ibid.: 47). ...the language of activities is verbs. Models are often produced in which a mixture of verbs and nouns appear. Consistency of language needs to be maintained since, if a noun appears, this may mean that

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

35

a real-world constraint (in terms of a particular ‘how’) has been introduced which may not be defensible on the basis of the root definition” (B. Wilson p. 47).

By “nouns appear,” Wilson refers to nouns, rather than verbs, representing essential components of the system. Nouns may legitimately appear in verb-governed clauses (e.g., “convert raw materials into products”) or outside systems boundaries as constraints (e.g., “competition,” “policy constraints,” “technological constraints,”; cf. ibid.: 41, 47).

1.4. A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO RITUAL ACTIVITY: INTRINSIC ACTIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE ISRAELITE BURNT OFFERING Wilson’s concepts and methodology as described above can be applied to the Israelite burnt offering. In this chapter, we are concerned with “intrinsic activity” analysis, which is “primary task” analysis. The burnt offering group of activities can be tentatively defined from an intrinsic activity perspective as follows: Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to transform a live herd or flock animal into bloodstains on the altar, hide, smoke from the altar, and ashes on the altar. In this root definition, the nature of the overall transformation is indicated in terms of input and outputs and it is implied that activities are grouped according to their function with regard to the various outputs. However, this definition must be modified. The manner in which the intrinsic activity process is carried out is affected by the fact that the process must be amenable to interpretation as carrying out a cognitive task transformation (see chap. 2.). For example, the activities of leaning one hand on the head of the animal and washing the entrails and shins are intrinsic activities belonging to the ritual, but they are not necessary for generating the outputs stated in the above root definition. That is, their inclusion in the ritual cannot be justified from an intrinsic activity point of view. A modified statement of the root definition takes into account the influence of the cognitive task transformation on the intrinsic activity transformation: Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to transform a live herd or flock animal into bloodstains on the altar, hide, smoke from the altar, and ashes on the altar, within constraints imposed at the cognitive task level of abstraction.

36

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Transformation: The root definition is relevant to the following transformation:

input(s): live animal

perform transformation

output(s): bloodstains on altar hide smoke ashes on altar

cognitive task constraints

Note: 1. “Cognitive task constraints” here are influences on the intrinsic activity system rather than part of it. 2. “Perform transformation” is an abbreviation for: “transform a live animal into bloodstains on the altar, hide...” It is not appropriate to express the intrinsic activity transformation process as “perform burnt offering” because “offering” implies concepts and dynamics that are not purely intrinsic activity. 3. The intrinsic activity root definition and transformation account for the activity components in the sense that they make those components necessary, but they do not explain what those components “mean.” Logical dependencies operating in the material world govern the order in which the components, including those necessitated by the cognitive task interpretation, are performed: 1. Performance of hand leaning before slaughter, when the physical process of breakdown commences, makes possible identification of the offerer with the object unit, that is, the animal (see chap. 2.), while it is still a whole object unit. 2. The animal must be slaughtered before its blood can be manipulated. 3. Since the blood comes out immediately at slaughter, the blood is treated first, before the rest of the animal. 4. Flaying before dismembering facilitates the latter and avoids destroying the hide, which belongs to the priest. 5. The animal carcass could conceivably be burned on the altar as a whole. However, without the use of a crane, it is easier to transfer a carcass, especially that of a large herd animal, to the altar in pieces. This factor justifies the inclusion of the

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

37

dismembering/carving activity before the pieces are placed on the altar. 6. Burning the animal upon the altar requires prior tending of the altar fire, which is accomplished in two steps: stoking and laying wood on the fire. Thus, while the animal constitutes the primary object unit that is broken down and treated in an analytic process, fulfillment of the goal and some sub-goals (to burn the quarters...; to burn the entrails...) of this process requires treatment of the altar fire, which constitutes a secondary/collateral object unit. 7. Although the entrails and shins cannot be burned on the altar until they are washed, presumably to remove the dung (see chap. 2.), other parts of the animal can be transferred to the altar as soon as the fire is ready. Therefore, the animal parts are presented to and placed on the altar fire in two installments: parts not affected by dung, followed by parts from which dung must be washed. Decomposition: The burnt offering activity system, carrying out an overall transformation process, can be decomposed into subsystems unified by sub-goals that define sub-transformations. Since goals unify systems/subsystems at every level of hierarchy, a hierarchy of goals serves as the generally applicable criterion for decomposition or composition of systems. If subsystems belonging to an activity system are performed sequentially, rather than simultaneously, these subsystems correspond to progressive stages in the overall transformation carried out by the system. That is to say, one subsystem picks up the process where the last left off. Thus the sequentially ordered subsystems of the burnt offering are as follows: 1. Root definition: A system to lean one hand on the head of an animal. Transformation: hand not yet leaned on head → lean hand on head of animal → hand having been leaned on head 2. Root definition: A system to slay the animal. Transformation: animal alive → slay animal → animal dead

38

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 3. Root definition: A system to put bloodstains on the altar. Transformation: blood draining from animal → manipulate blood → bloodstains on altar

4. Root definition: A system to separate the hide from the rest of the animal. Transformation: hide on animal → flay animal → hide separate 5. Root definition: A system to transform the carcass of the animal, but not its dung, into smoke from the altar and ashes on the altar. Transformation: uncleaned animal unburned → burn remainder of carcass, except for dung → cleaned animal burning The transformation processes in subsystems 1. and 4. correspond to activity steps prescribed by the text. These subsystems, especially flaying, could conceivably be decomposed further, but the text prescription does not specify their components. Thus these activities represent the lowest specified level of detail, that is, the level at which the activity is fixed. Below this level, variation is permissible and there can be no analysis of fixed activity structure. Whether or not the five subsystems represent the level of detail specified by the text, they can be called “activities,” have their own goals that can be expressed in root definitions, and carry out transformations that constitute segments of the overall burnt offering transformation. In this sense, at their own hierarchical level, all of the subsystems are “goal activities.” However, not all of these activities achieve outputs called for at one hierarchical level higher, as expressed in the overall root definition, namely, bloodstains on the altar, hide, smoke from the altar, and ashes on the altar. Achieving these outputs is the goal of the overall transformation. Since subsystems 3., 4., and 5. achieve the outputs, these activities can be called “goal activities” in a special sense for which the term will be employed throughout the present work. Because subsystems 1. and 2. precede the achievement of these outputs, they can be called “prerequisite activities.” The reason for the inclusion of 2. is clear: an animal must be

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

39

slaughtered before its blood can be manipulated, its hide removed, and its carcass burned. As pointed out above, activity 1. (hand leaning) cannot be justified from an “intrinsic activity” perspective. Its inclusion is necessitated by the “cognitive task” interpretation, which will be discussed in the next chapter. The third and fifth subsystems can be decomposed to a second, lower level of subsystems. By now, the relationship between root definitions and transformations is clear, so this decomposition can be presented in terms of transformations alone: 3. blood draining from animal → manipulate blood → bloodstains on altar 3.1. blood draining from animal → collect blood → blood in container 3.2. container of blood next to animal → present blood to altar → container of blood next to altar 3.3. blood in container by altar → dash blood against sides of altar → blood on sides of altar 5. uncleaned animal unburned → burn remainder of carcass, except for dung → cleaned animal burning 5.1. carcass whole (aside from hide) → dismember carcass → carcass in pieces 5.2. altar fire unprepared → prepare altar fire → altar fire prepared 5.3. quarters, head, suet unburned → burn quarters, head, suet on altar → quarters, head, suet burning 5.4. uncleaned entrails, shins unburned → burn cleaned entrails, shins on altar → cleaned entrails, shins burning Except for 5.2.-4., these components correspond to activity steps prescribed by the text. The respective goals of subsystems 3. and 5. are achieved in 3.3. and 5.4., the last components of each subsystem. Thus, within 3. and 5., 3.3. and 5.4. are “goal activities,” preceded by “prerequisite activities.” It is already clear that prerequisite-goal dynamics operate at various levels of hierarchy. Remember that whether an activity is a prerequisite or goal activity depends upon its relationship to the goal of the (one level) higher system to which it belongs.

40

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

5.2.-4. can be decomposed to a third level, at which the level of detail represented by the text prescription is reached: 5.2. altar fire unprepared → prepare altar fire → altar fire prepared 5.2.1. altar fire unstoked → stoke altar fire → altar fire stoked 5.2.2. wood not on altar → lay wood on altar → wood on altar 5.3. quarters, head, suet unburned → burn quarters, head, suet on altar → quarters, head, suet burning 5.3.1. quarters, head, suet away from altar → present quarters, head, suet to altar → quarters, head, suet at altar 5.3.2. quarters, head, suet not on fire → lay quarters, head, suet on fire→ quarters, head, suet on fire 5.4. uncleaned entrails, shins unburned → burn cleaned entrails, shins on altar → cleaned entrails, shins burning 5.4.1. entrails, shins unwashed → wash entrails, shins → entrails, shins washed 5.4.2. entrails, shins away from altar → present entrails, shins to altar → entrails, shins at altar 5.4.3. entrails, shins not on fire → lay entrails, shins on fire → entrails, shins on fire In 5.2., 5.3., and 5.4., the last components of each (5.2.2., 5.3.2., and 5.4.3., respectively) are “goal activities,” preceded by “prerequisite activities.” The decomposition of the Israelite private burnt offering from an intrinsic activity perspective can be depicted by a hierarchical model:

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

41

perform transformation

2 slay animal

1 lean hand

3.1 collect blood

3.2 present blood

3.3 dash blood

3 manipulate blood

5.1 dismember

5 burn carcass

4 flay carcass

5.2 tend fire

5.3 burn quarters

5.4 burn entrails

...

5.2.1 stoke fire

5.2.2 lay wood

5.3.1 present quarters

5.3.2 lay quarters

5.4.1 wash entrails

5.4.2 present entrails

5.4.3 lay entrails

The same information can be more simply presented in a hierarchical outline: PERFORM TRANSFORMATION 1. lean one hand on head of animal 2. slay animal 3. manipulate blood 3.1. collect blood 3.2. present blood to altar 3.3. dash blood against sides of altar 4. flay animal 5. burn carcass, without dung 5.1. dismember carcass 5.2. prepare altar fire 5.2.1. stoke altar fire 5.2.2. lay wood on fire

42

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 5.3. place quarters, head, suet on altar 5.3.1. present quarters, head, and suet to altar 5.3.2. lay quarters, head, and suet on fire 5.4. place cleaned entrails, shins on altar 5.4.1. wash entrails, shins 5.4.2. present entrails, shins to altar 5.4.3. lay entrails, shins on fire

This outline, representing a “human activity systems” approach to “intrinsic activity,” lacks the deficiencies inherent in the outline presented near the beginning of this chapter, which was based upon consideration of “object units” alone. The earlier outline did not include the two activities involved in tending the altar fire, used the imprecise verb “treat,” and did not take into account factors in addition to object units that affect logical relationships between activities. “Human activity systems” analysis lacks these defects because it is based upon consideration of goals achieved through transformations, which are the central factors that determine relationships between activities and that establish the relative significance of secondary factors, such as “object units.” There remains a fundamental question with regard to my systems analysis of the burnt offering: Is this an “individual ritual,” less than an individual ritual, or more than an individual ritual? In other words, how does ritual hierarchy relate to systems hierarchy? There are reasons for not simply assuming that the burnt offering is an individual ritual: First, the goal of the burnt offering transformation is peculiar: “to transform a live herd or flock animal into bloodstains on the altar, hide, smoke from the altar, and ashes on the altar.” Although the transformation process is unified on the input end by an overall “object unit,” that is, a whole animal, the goal/output end is not unified and must be stated in terms of several sub-goals: “...bloodstains...smoke...,” etc. Only a generic expression that says nothing about the specific nature of the activity, for example, “perform transformation,” can comprehensively express the overall goal. Since a system is unified by a single goal, rather than on the basis of treating a single “object unit” (see above), and since the burnt offering appears to have multiple goals, there is doubt as to whether the burnt offering is a single system at all.

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

43

Second, according to Numbers 15:1-13, a burnt offering can never be performed by itself, but must be accompanied by a cereal offering and a drink offering. Thus, a burnt offering is one of three components of a fixed unit. It is unclear whether a burnt offering is less than a complete ritual or is one of three complete rituals in what could be called a “ritual complex.” The fact that these problems cannot be resolved from an intrinsic activity perspective is not due to a deficiency in intrinsic activity analytical methodology; it arises from the nature of ritual. Remember that the unity and boundaries of the Babylonian temple purification ritual discussed in the Introduction could not be established without reference to meaning. Of course, if a ritual is performed by itself and includes only one activity, for example, Israelite circumcision (Gen 17:9-14), there is no question as to its unity and boundaries: It must be a single, complete ritual if it is ritual in nature. However, from an intrinsic activity point of view, there will invariably be a question as to unity and boundaries when two or more ritual activities are combined.

1.5. “RITUALNESS” AND THE CRITERION OF CONCERN FOR RULES RATHER THAN RESULTS Upon what criterion can “ritualness” be established? Staal distinguishes ritual from nonritual activity as follows: Ritual exhibits its character of pure activity most readily when it is contrasted with the applied activities of our ordinary, everyday life. In ritual activity, the rules count, but not the result. In ordinary activity it is the other way around. In Vedic ritual, for example, an important ceremony is agnipran[ayana... What is essential in the ceremony is the precise and faultless execution, in accordance with rules, of numerous rites and recitations. The result is important, but it has only ritual use and can only be reached in the ritually prescribed manner... Now contrast this with an ordinary activity. I am about to transport my suitcase from my house to the bus stop, which is about a mile away. There are no rules I have to follow, provided I obtain the desired effect. I may put my suitcase on a skate board. Or my brother may appear on a bicycle, and the two of us use

44

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE this vehicle to transport my suitcase to its intended destination (Staal 1989: 132).

If ritual were the only kind of rule-governed activity, the criterion of concern for following rules of practice rather than seeking results in any possible manner would adequately, without reference to meaning, separate ritual from all other forms of activity. However, as recognized by Staal, various kinds of activity are rule-governed (ibid.: 4). Examples other than ritual that immediately come to mind are games, drama for entertainment, music, dance, legal transactions, and language activities. If activities governed by ritual rules were of a certain intrinsic activity type that appeared only in ritual, a definition of ritual without reference to meaning could exclude nonritual rulegoverned activity by referring to the unique activity type. However, just as it is true that a given activity can carry any of a number of assigned ritual functions (ibid.: 127-9, 134, 330), so it is true that an activity appearing in a ritual context can also show up in a nonritual rule-governed context. Consider, for example, the ancient Israelite ritual gesture of leaning one hand upon the head of an animal (Lev 1:4). It is conceivable that the same gesture could be a prescribed part of a game, a drama, or a legal transaction. Therefore, seeing the gesture and knowing that it is rule-governed is not enough to decide whether it is ritual in nature or not. It is true that in Israelite ritual the gesture is performed in combination with other activities within a fixed sequence (see above). However, there is no compelling reason why such a sequence could not function in a particular cultural context (whether Israelite or non-Israelite) as a kind of rule-governed activity other than ritual. If the same activities can be ritual, drama, games, etc., it is clear that the question of whether those activities are ritual, drama, games, etc., must be decided on the basis of something that goes beyond the activities themselves, namely, the various kinds of meanings that are attached to them. Ritual activities are ritual in nature because they are interpreted as ritual. Dramatic activities (i.e., for entertainment) are drama because they are interpreted as such. While the interpretations are not inherent in the activities, but are attached to them, the interpretations are inherent in ritual, drama, games, etc., because without the interpretations, the various

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

45

kinds of rule-governed activity would not function the way they do.11 The above discussion shows that concern for rules rather than simply results is an inadequate criterion for determining “ritualness” on the “intrinsic activity” level of abstraction. Thus, analysis without reference to meaning is left without a means for distinguishing ritual from nonritual activity. The remainder of this chapter will consider two topics arising from the facts that a ritual such as the Israelite burnt offering is fixed in terms of its activity components, and it is composed of transformations carried out by activities. The topics are: (1) ritual as formulaic activity, and (2) types of intrinsic activity transformations.

1.6. RITUAL AS “FORMULAIC ACTIVITY” Consider the wording of Leviticus 1:3ff: (3) If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance on his behalf before the Lord. (4) He shall lean his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf, to expiate for him. (5) The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and dash the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting... (Milgrom 1991: 133, italics supplied).

Whether or not an Israelite chooses to offer a burnt offering is up to him, but if he so chooses, the activities performed must be carried out in a particular manner according to the prescription/rule. The burnt offering is a kind of “routine,” that is, regular activity, but its regularity is of a special kind: its activities are fixed/rule-governed (cf. Staal, 1989, p. 433) with respect to their inclusion, nature, and relative order. Thus, it can be called a “formulaic” routine: Following the same “formula” results in the activity being repeated in basically, although not necessarily exactly, the same form. 11

On the problem of activities that are regarded as ritual, but which lack particular interpretations, see chap. 2.

46

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

While all rituals are formulaic activity systems, there are other kinds of formulaic activity systems that are not generally regarded as rituals, for example, assembling a machine according to directions, a modern dance routine, or a classical musical performance. Thus “ritual” is a subset of “formulaic activity.” The following diagram shows this relationship, as well as the facts that “formulaic activity is a subset of “routine” and “routine” is a subset of “activity” in general: activity routine formulaic activity

ritual

To be formulaic, activity is not necessarily repeated, but if it were repeated, it would be performed in the same way. For example, Leviticus 9:8ff describes how Aaron, assisted by his sons, performed the rituals that inaugurated the Israelite cult. The activities of the inauguration complex were fixed by formulaic rules (see vv. 1-7, 10b, 16b, 21b) according to which the complex could have been duplicated, but it was appropriate to perform it only once. Relationships between text prescriptions, descriptions, paradigms, and performances should be pointed out here. While Leviticus 1 prescribes the burnt offering, 9:8ff describes the inauguration ceremonies (cf. Rainey 1970). A text prescription reflects the normative model or paradigm governing any number of specific performances; a text description reflects a specific performance. Whereas text prescriptions and descriptions are language, a paradigm is a model of activity and a performance is

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

47

activity. A specific performance can be called a ritual, but a text prescription or description is not ritual; it only reflects ritual.12 Thus, for example, abbreviation in a text prescription does not automatically mean that the ritual it prescribes is modified by abbreviation.

1.7. TYPES OF INTRINSIC ACTIVITY TRANSFORMATIONS Intrinsic activity transformations occur in intransitive as well as transitive human activity processes, whether ritual or nonritual, formulaic or nonformulaic. For our purposes, transitive processes, for example, sacrifices, affect tangible objects through activity. Intransitive processes, for example, reciting formulaic prayers, do not. Activity transformation processes can be divided into at least four types according to the nature of the components that constitute their intrinsic activity dynamic structure. Transitive processes consist of steps. Intransitive processes can consist of physical positions, sounds, or language symbols. All four of the categories that I have identified thus far are found in ritual. For example: 1. The Israelite burnt offering is step-constituted. 2. Bowing performed at the river on the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu in H~anh~ana and Kašh~a (Nr. 8 Obv. II 3’; see chap. 6) is physical position-constituted. 3. Vocal and instrumental music performed during processions to and from a river on the same Hittite festival day (see chap. 6) are sound-constituted. 4. Formulaic prayers offered to the Babylonian deities Be4l and Be4let on the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring (see chap. 5) are language-constituted. The four types can be described as follows: 1.7.1. Step-Constituted A step-constituted activity accomplishes a task involving transformation of a material entity in the material domain, subject to constraints operating in that domain. The activity is stepconstituted because transformation of a material entity by a human 12

R. Grimes states: “Rituals are events; they have lifespans. Only secondarily do they reside in texts, scenarios, scripts, or rubrics” (Grimes 1982: 57).

48

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

performer generally cannot be done all at once, but rather must be accomplished in stages. How many stages are required depends upon the nature of the entity and the efficiency of the performance. If such a transformation can be accomplished by one movement, it is because there is only one stage in the process. A formulaic step-constituted activity process such as the Israelite burnt offering has a fixed framework of steps, within which some freedom is possible below a certain hierarchical level (see above). The extent of such leeway varies between and within processes. The smaller the details that are fixed, the less freedom and the tighter the control. While it may be possible to recognize a minimum group of movements, that is, changes in physical position, necessary to achieve steps, and constraints may govern the order in which the movements are performed, it is not physical positions that constitute the basic components of dynamic structure. If an activity unit consists of one movement, whether it is step-constituted or physical position-constituted should be clear from (1) its context, that is, whether neighboring activities are step- or physical positionconstituted, and (2) whether its intrinsic activity goal is defined in terms of a task or a physical position. Step-constituted transformations effect changes of various kinds in the material world. Objects may be (a) rearranged as independent units, (b) assembled into new wholes, (c) disassembled, (d) depleted (quantitative change) (e) changed in nature (qualitative change), (f) moved from one place or party (person, group of persons, etc.) to another, and so on. An overall step-constituted transformation process can involve lower level transformations of different types. For example, the Israelite burnt offering includes (c) disassembling an animal down into parts, (f) moving animal parts to the altar, (a) arranging wood and animal parts on the altar, (a) rearranged—arranging wood and animal parts on the altar, and (d and e)—depleting the wood and animal parts and changing them in nature by burning them. The effect of a step-constituted transformation on a tangible object may be temporary. For example, in a burnt offering ritual, leaning one hand on the head of an offering animal may temporarily lower the head of the animal somewhat.

1. “INTRINSIC ACTIVITY” PERSPECTIVE

49

1.7.2. Physical Position-Constituted (Choreography) In a formulaic activity that is choreographic in nature, for example, a dance or gymnastic routine, or ritual bowing, the changing physical positions of the performer constitute the components of dynamic structure. Thus choreographic transformations are temporary movements. The cumulative effect of these movements is a dynamic activity pattern that must be perceived and then remembered through time. While step-constituted activities are often regarded as practical “work,” choreographic activities are more likely to be viewed as “expressive.” 1.7.3. Sound-Constituted (Music) Like choreographic activities, music is expressive. If music is not improvised, it is formulaic. In music, sounds rather than physical positions are controlled and form patterns constituting dynamic structure. However, there is a close relationship between musical sounds and movements that produce them or are associated with them, for example, the movements of a modern musical conductor, who does not directly produce any music at all. Vocal music is most often a synthesis of two kinds of activities: music and speech (see below on speech). The musical component provides elements found also in nonvocal music, such as timbre, melody (sequentially ordered pitches), harmony (combinations of simultaneous pitches), rhythm and structural form (musical “syntax”). The speech component provides elements also found in nonmusical speech, such as phonology, language syntax, and semantics. Speech also includes a kind of rhythm that is distinct from musical rhythm. In vocal music, speech rhythm may be accentuated or overpowered by the musical rhythm. 1.7.4. Language-Constituted A language involves a conceptual system in addition to the intrinsic activity by which symbols are produced. Symbolic systems used by language can consist of ordered patterns of sounds, physical positions, or graphic units. Like patterns in choreographic or musical activities, language symbols are not material entities,13 13

A written symbol is generally conveyed through some kind of material medium, e.g., clay, wood, stone, paper. Since material is involved, producing a pattern in the medium is actually step-constituted activity.

50

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

although they are manifest in the material world. Spoken, signed, and written language must be performed, but written language differs from the other two types in that the “audience” need not witness the “performance.” A unit of language can be fixed or “formulaic,” for example, the “pledge of allegiance” to the flag of the United States.

1.8. CONCLUSION In this chapter, an “applied systems analysis” from an “intrinsic activity perspective” has confirmed important aspects of Staal’s theory of ritual: 1. A ritual is a system of which the hierarchical structure is formed by logical relationships. I have clarified the nature of such relationships: Ritual activities/subsystems at various levels of hierarchy are defined by goals, and ritual systems and subsystems carry out transformation processes of various kinds. 2. A ritual is rule-governed in the sense that its activity components, their nature, and their order are fixed. That is to say, a ritual is a “formulaic activity system.” I have not succeeded in confirming the last part of Staal’s definition—“...without reference to meaning” (Staal 1989: 433)— through “intrinsic activity systems analysis.” Because investigation without reference to meaning is inadequate for defining two essential aspects of ritual—the overall unity of a ritual and its “ritualness”—a definition of ritual without reference to meaning is inadequate. Therefore, a modified theory and definition of ritual must be sought.

However, such a pattern is not dependent upon a particular kind of material. It is only a shape, not a substance. The fact that a visual language symbol can be recognizable in the form of light shows that while it must be visible to a material eye, it need not be conveyed through a tangible medium at all.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE The goals of this chapter are to develop (1) a modified theory of ritual that defines an “individual ritual” in terms of its unity, boundaries, and “ritualness,” the areas in which a definition of ritual without reference to meaning is inadequate, and (2) a methodology for applying the modified theory. Again the Israelite burnt offering serves as the primary example. This chapter is divided into the following main sections: 1. A modified theory of ritual. 2. Some implications of the modified theory of ritual. 3. Defining boundaries between ritual and nonritual activity. 4. Ritual hierarchy. 5. Application of the modified theory: cognitive task analysis of the Israelite burnt offering. 6. Conclusion.

2.1. A MODIFIED THEORY OF RITUAL It should be possible to define “ritual” by tracing its affinities through a succession of progressively smaller subsets of “human activity systems” to the point where the nature of its uniqueness can be identified. Thus far, “ritual” has been shown to belong to a subset of “activity systems” that I call “formulaic activity systems.” Now we must discover what sets a ritual apart from other kinds of “formulaic activity systems.” 2.1.1. A “Cognitive Task” Level of Abstraction Chapter 1. analyzed the uninterpreted activities of the Israelite burnt offering. We turn now to the attached meaning provided by the text of Leviticus 1:3-13. Interpretive indications are presented in bold type: The Burnt Offering: From the Herd (3) If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance

51

52

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE on his behalf before the Lord. (4) He shall lean his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf, to expiate for him. (5) The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood... (9) Its entrails and shins shall be washed with water, and the priest shall turn all of it into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord. From the Flock (10) If his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock, of sheep or of goats, he shall offer a male without blemish. (11) It shall be slaughtered on the north side of the altar before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar... (13) The entrails and the shins shall be washed with water and the priest shall present all of it and turn it to smoke on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord (Milgrom 1991: 133).

The burnt offering is clearly unified and bounded as a single, complete ritual by its interpreted function: it is a “food gift”14 for the deity YHWH (rendered “the Lord” by Milgrom). To be a valid offering it must be accepted, and to be accepted, it must be acceptable, that is, performed correctly at the proper location. The benefit received by the offerer as a result of giving the gift to YHWH is expiation. Thus the burnt offering is regarded as accomplishing a transaction between two parties: the offerer and YHWH.15 A transaction involves “intrinsic activity” in the material domain, but this serves as a “vehicle” for an attached meaning that concerns transfer of an ownership relationship with respect to an item of value.16 While the “activity vehicle” takes place in the 14

On this translation of ‚iššeh, see Milgrom 1991: 161-2. cf. this comment by E. Vogt regarding Zinacanteco rituals of Mexico: “Much of what can be described as Zinacanteco ‘religion’ involves symbolic transactions between men and gods in intricate rituals...” (Vogt 1976: 1). 16 Kuhn separates “communication” from “transaction” as follows: “For social analysis, I distinguish communications from transactions, the former a transfer of information and the latter a transfer of value. (For 15

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

53

material world, transfer of the relationship itself cannot take place in the material world because the relationship is nonmaterial. Intangibles like this can be perceived and dealt with on the cognitive level, but it is impossible to interact with them in “intrinsic activity.” A transaction carries out a task in which an intangible is transferred on the cognitive level, that is, it carries out what can be called a “cognitive task.” A transaction activity system can be viewed on two levels of abstraction: (1) on the level of the uninterpreted “activity vehicle,” that is, the “intrinsic activity” level, and (2) on the interpreted level, that is, the “cognitive task” level. It must be emphasized that levels of abstraction are not hierarchical levels: The cognitive task is superimposed on the intrinsic activity; neither is embedded in the other. Because the goal of the system is achieved at the “cognitive task” level, the system is unified and bounded at this level. Since the Israelite burnt offering is unified and bounded by its interpreted function, it is clearly a special kind of formulaic activity system that has a “cognitive task” level. Another kind of “cognitive task” transfer is “communication,” a transfer of information (Kuhn 1975: 44). Human activity systems in which information is transferred can be regarded as having both “intrinsic activity” and “cognitive task” levels. For example, a data-processor performs physical activity at his/her keyboard that transfers nonmaterial information. By contrast, the construction worker across the street also performs physical activity that transfers, but what he transfers is material in nature. Human activity systems functioning as transactions or communications are formulaic only if their activity components are strict analysis, they can be defined as transfers analyzed with respect to their information or value content, respectively). Communication and transaction need not be viewed as interactions between whole persons,...” (Kuhn 1975: 44). “Value” cannot be the same as a material “item of value,” but must be a relationship to such an item because physical transfer of an item of value does not, by itself, constitute a transaction, nor is it necessary in order for a transaction to take place. In fact, in a realestate sale, a transfer of value involves “real-estate,” which by definition is immovable. Kuhn recognizes that transactions are basically cognitive rather than physical functions when he says that communication and transaction need not be viewed as interactions between whole persons.

54

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

fixed. Since our concern here is to define ritual, the relevant questions are: (1) Are there nonritual formulaic activity systems that have a “cognitive task” level? and (2) If so, how can rituals be distinguished from them? The answer to the first question is affirmative: Transaction activity systems as well as communication activity systems are often conducted according to fixed procedures. Aside from the example cited in the Introduction—an Israelite formulaic legal transaction employing a material token (Ruth 4:7-10)—consider the way a modern person withdraws money from an ATM: A transaction activity system with a practical goal requires fixed/formulaic steps established by the bank to ensure that only authorized individuals have access to money accounts. Similarly, fixed login procedures are required to utilize many computer resources, most notably the Internet. Since there are nonritual as well as ritual systems within the category of formulaic activity systems having a “cognitive task” level, our investigation must probe further. 2.1.2. “Entity Inaccessibility” A transaction or communication transfers “relationship” or “information.” Since these objects of transfer are not material entities, they are incapable of interaction with the material domain in which their “activity vehicles” occur (see Kuhn 1975: 40). Even when a transaction employs a material token of a relationship, for example, a sandal (in the story of Ruth), the token does not interact with the relationship; it only represents it. While objects of transfer in transactions and communications are not material entities, the giving/sending and receiving parties in nonritual transactions are material entities who can interact with each other through “intrinsic activity.” However, in the Israelite burnt offering, the receiving party is the deity YHWH, who does not belong to the ordinary material domain and therefore is beyond empirical investigation.17 “Intrinsic activity” is ordinarily incapable

17

cf. one interpretation of Job 11:7—“Can you by searching find out God?”

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

55

of interacting with him.18 To the offerer, YHWH is generally perceived on the cognitive level through belief rather than through physical senses.19 Because achieving the unifying goal of the burnt offering—to offer a gift to YHWH—involves interaction with an ordinarily inaccessible entity on the interpreted, “cognitive task” level of abstraction, activities follow special ritual rules, according to which a healthy animal is methodically destroyed. Most likely this would be regarded as impractical from a nonritual point of view. If this “impracticality” is a symptom of “ritualness,” it is because the impracticality results from a particular dynamic, which may be the unique characteristic of “ritual”: A ritual interprets activity as interaction with an ordinarily inaccessible entity on the cognitive task level of abstraction. In case “entity inaccessibility” in the Israelite burnt offering appears to be an isolated phenomenon, consider further examples from ancient Near Eastern ritual texts: 1. Hittite Offering to Telipinu. On the fourth day of the Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, after the image of the god Telipinu is washed in the river, the following occurs: [The]n the crown prince o[ffers] 1 bovine and 2 sheep to Telipinu [and] they cut [them open]. Then [th]ey [lay asid]e livers and he[arts] and roast them with a broiler, and the crown pr[ince... [and they set] the whole livers and hearts before the god; he libates [bee]r and wine three times. (Nr. 7 Obv. I 22’-26’; see chap. 6).

Later the priests eat the livers and hearts: Four priests of Kašh~a [turn] (their) eyes [toward the river] and sit down and take the liver[s and hearts] and eat (them)... (Nr. 8 Obv. II 7’-9’; see chap. 6).

18

I am not ruling out the possibility of human interaction with the transcendent realm. By “inaccessible,” I mean inaccessible according to ordinary rules of mundane, material interaction. 19 I say “generally” to exclude theophanies, as in Lev 9:23b-24, where at the close of the Israelite cultic inauguration the glory of YHWH appeared to the people and a fire from YHWH consumed the sacrifices on the altar.

56

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

This is a sacrifice, consisting of transaction activity that serves as a vehicle for transferring ownership of material items of value (meat and drink) from a human party to the deity Telipinu, who is inaccessible to the ordinary material domain, but is represented by his material statue. Neither the inaccessible Telipinu nor his statue could function as a receiving party in a normal mundane transaction because he does not belong to the ordinary material world and his statue lacks both volition and the capability to perform activity. Notice that after the deity is regarded as having consumed the meat, the priests benefit from it secondarily. 2. Babylonian Prayer to Be4l/Marduk. On the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, the high priest rises, washes with water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, enters the presence of the god Be4l, and recites a long formulaic prayer, beginning as follows: My Lord, is he not my lord? My Lord,..., is not his name My Lord? My Lord,..., My Lord, king of the countries, My Lord,..., My Lord,..., Is it not My Lord who gives, My Lord who...? (etc.; ANET: 332-3).

While a human priest performs the speech, the audience of the communication is the god Be4l, whose ordinarily inaccessible person is represented by his statue. 3. Israelite Ritual of Azazel’s Goat (so-called “scapegoat”). After purgation of the Israelite sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, the following occurs: (21) Aaron shall lean both of his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all of the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins, and put them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness by a man in waiting. (22) Thus the goat shall carry upon it all of their iniquities to an inaccessible region. When the goat is set free in the wilderness,... (Lev 16:21-22; Milgrom 1991: 1010).

Through activity in the material domain, nonmaterial and therefore inaccessible moral faults are regarded as removed from

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

57

the Israelite camp, transferred to the wilderness, and disposed of there. The sins are not represented by any material symbol, but are treated as “virtual” baggage carried on the goat. 4. Egyptian Magical Curses. Fragments of Egyptian pottery bowls dating from the period of the Middle Kingdom, now located in the Berlin Museum, are inscribed with the names of enemies. The Egyptians smashed the pottery, thinking thereby to break the power of these enemies. Inscribed figurines used for the same kind of magical cursing are in museums at Cairo and Brussels (ANET: 328-9). The smashing activity cannot affect the enemies through natural cause and effect because they are in another location, but the activity is viewed as producing its result through magical analogy in which nonliving objects represent living persons. While it is true that the enemies are out of reach of the activity within the ordinary material domain,20 the activity is linked to a kind of ordinarily inaccessible “power source.” Interaction with this source requires faith in its existence and must involve a cognitive task level. Without such a cognitive task interpretation, an activity that attempts to span an impossible location gap within the material domain is faulty reliance on technology, not ritual. 2.1.3. A Tentative Definition of “Ritual” The formulaic activities described above vary in important respects: 1. They belong to ancient Hittite, Babylonian, Israelite, and Egyptian cultures. 2. While the first three are religious, the fourth is magical. 3. The first functions as a transaction, the second as communication, the third as disposal, and the fourth as magical analogy. 4. While the first, third, and fourth are step-constituted, the second is language-constituted. 5. In the first and second examples, entities ordinarily inaccessible to the material domain are represented by material 20

Leach states that the essential difference between technical and magical action “is that whereas the primitive technician is always in direct mechanical contact with the object that he seeks to change, the magician purports to change the state of the world by action at a distance” (Leach 1976: 30).

58

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

images. In the third, the nonmaterial entity remains unsymbolized. In the fourth, living material entities are represented by nonliving material things. In spite of these differences, the four formulaic activity systems are characterized by the same dynamic that appears in the Israelite burnt offering: Activity is interpreted as interacting with an ordinarily inaccessible entity on the “cognitive task” level of abstraction. According to ordinary rules of interaction, the transformations carried out by these activity systems are dysfunctional due to an accessibility gap. However, a kind of conceptual “bridging” mechanism spans the gap (cf. Leach 1976: 82), yielding functional cognitive task transformations having goals that can be stated as follows: to present a food gift to a deity, to entreat a deity, to dispose of sins, and to destroy enemies (respectively). The cognitive task “bridging” mechanism involves belief/faith in the existence of an inaccessible entity and the ability of a particular ritual activity system, correctly performed,21 to interact with it/him/her. Perceived according to an appropriate conceptual system, ritual has power to achieve what is otherwise impossible. Viewed from an intrinsic activity perspective, the above activity systems are characterized by “short-circuiting,” absurdity, and impracticality: food is given to a nonliving image incapable of eating it, speech is expressed to a nonliving image incapable of hearing it, a goat is sent off to the wilderness carrying nothing, and some pottery is wasted. Of course, the Hittite priests receive practical benefit from the food gift to Telipinu: they eat the meat. So this activity system is not wholly impractical. The examples cited above represent major types of “entity inaccessibility.” 21

As pointed out by Staal in the context of Vedic ritual, anxiety can arise from the fact that ritual mistakes may be difficult to detect: “If I detect a mistake in cooking or calculating, I perceive the result and understand the reason. But if I have made a ritual mistake, I don’t notice any difference and don’t see any reason. I am not even sure whether I made a mistake or not, and there is no way to determine it... The Agnicayana performance of 1975 was followed by a long series of expiation rites, for mistakes that might have been committed. Our anxiety is greatest when we don’t know why we are anxious” (Staal 1989: 135).

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

59

1. Sacrifices in general are transactions involving ordinarily inaccessible receiving parties. 2. Religious formulaic prayers are communications involving ordinarily inaccessible receiving parties. 3. Ritual purifications and disposals remove nonmaterial evils. 4. Magical analogy activities treat material objects in a manner that is regarded as similarly affecting other entities, which are otherwise out of reach of the activities. The fact that these types share a common dynamic characteristic suggests that they belong to the same overall category, from which normal “practicality” is excluded by the characteristic of “entity inaccessibility.” Since I can think of no examples of formulaic activity systems having this characteristic that could not plausibly be considered “ritual,” I conclude my search for a subset of “human activity systems” that can be identified as “ritual” and nothing else. My conclusion that interaction with transcendence is an integral part of “ritual” agrees with the view of M. Wilson. Working with Nyakyusa culture, she distinguishes between “ceremonies and rituals”: In short, a ceremony is an appropriate and elaborate form for the expression of feeling, but a ritual is action believed to be efficacious. A ritual is often embedded in ceremonial which is not held to be necessary to the efficacy of the ritual but which is felt to be appropriate. Both ritual and ceremonial have a function in rousing and canalizing emotion, but ritual, by relating its symbols to some supposed transcendental reality, affects people more deeply than a ceremony, which some will describe as “mere play-acting” (M. Wilson 1954: 240).

I realize that in some kinds of ritual, the element of reference to “some supposed transcendental reality” may not have to do with belief in one or more supernatural beings (Wright 2001: 9-11).22 Nevertheless, there is some kind of transcendence even in secular ritual. While a ritualized version of an activity may resemble the 22

R. Grimes points out that the Western idea that “ritual” is inherently related to belief in supernatural beings or powers does not necessarily apply in other cultures (Grimes 1990: 12).

60

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

mundane version of the same activity, according to C. Bell the former is: …a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, activities. As such, ritualization is a matter of various culturally specific strategies for setting some activities off from others, for creating and privileging a qualitative distinction between the “sacred” and the “profane,” and for ascribing such distinctions to realities thought to transcend the powers of human actors (Bell 1992: 74).

Thus far, my own cryptic definition of ritual is as follows: A ritual is a formulaic activity system characterized by “entity inaccessibility” on the cognitive task level. A less technical wording is: A ritual is an activity system of which the components/subsystems are fixed in terms of their inclusion, nature, and relative order, and in which the activity is believed to interact with an entity that is ordinarily inaccessible to the material domain. This definition is still inadequate because systems are embedded within systems at various hierarchical levels. The designations “system” and “subsystem” (or “activity”) are relative and can be applied to the same unit of activity. Therefore it is possible that a given formulaic activity system characterized by “entity inaccessibility” could function as part of an individual ritual, as a complete individual ritual, or as a ritual complex. While a complete ritual or ritual complex can justifiably be termed “a ritual,” part of an individual ritual cannot. Thus the above definition is incorrect in stating: “A ritual is...” It would be correct to say: “A ritual unit is...” However, the usefulness of such a definition would be compromised by the fact that it provides no hierarchical baseline, without which all ritual hierarchy is relative. What we need is a definition of an “individual ritual,” that is, a single, complete ritual that is not a ritual complex. At this point, discussion of specific examples will provide clarification. In the Israelite cult, personal purification from nonmaterial ritual impurity by laundering clothes and bathing can

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

61

constitute an independent ritual (e.g., Lev 15:5-8, 10-11). Such purification also removes physical impurity, of course, but the fact that a person who has contracted an impurity specified in the ritual law is forbidden to contact things that are interpreted on the cognitive task level as sacred (e.g., 7:20) without the washing and a waiting period (“until evening”; 15:5-8, 10-11) indicates that the function of the washing transcends physical considerations. In other contexts, a personal purification “system” consisting of the same activities can function as a “subsystem.” After some incinerations of Israelite purification offering (h[at[t[a4‚t) carcasses outside the camp, ritual participants must launder their clothes and bathe before they are permitted to re-enter the camp (Lev 16:28; Num 19:7-8, 10). The fact that the ritual impurity necessitating personal purification is contracted through participation in the ritual (see further in chap. 4.) indicates that this purification is subsumed under the sacrifice as a postrequisite part of it. Similarly, the man who releases Azazel’s goat in the wilderness (Lev 16:22) is required to wash his clothes and bathe (v. 26) as a postrequisite part of the ritual. The difference between an independent personal purification, which constitutes a complete “individual ritual,” and a similar purification that is only part of a larger ritual is this: The former carries out an individual, complete cognitive task transformation process in which an inaccessible entity (ritual impurity in this case) is involved. The latter, on the other hand, carries out only part of a transformation process in which an inaccessible entity (also ritual impurity) is involved. Now we are ready to formulate a tentative working definition of an “individual ritual”: An “individual ritual” is a formulaic activity system carrying out an individual, complete cognitive task transformation process in which an inaccessible entity is involved. A less technical wording is: An individual ritual is an activity system of which the components/subsystems are fixed in terms of their inclusion, nature, and relative order, and that carries out an individual, complete transformation process in which interaction with one or more entities ordinarily inaccessible to the material domain takes place.

62

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Below are some specific cases for testing, applying, and clarifying elements of the definition: 1. According to Numbers 15:1-16, an Israelite burnt offering must always be accompanied by a cereal offering and a drink offering. On the Israelite Day of Atonement, nine burnt offerings, with their cereal and drink accompaniments, are performed as festival additions to the regular burnt offering (Num 29:8-10). How many individual rituals are there here? According to Leviticus 1:9, 13, a single burnt offering constitutes a “food gift,” that is, a transaction process in which a cognitive task unit of value is transferred to YHWH. An item of cereal offered on the altar also constitutes a “food gift” (2:2, 9). Therefore burnt and cereal offerings carry out discrete and complete cognitive task transformations; they are individual rituals. Because a burnt offering and its accompanying cereal offering are individual rituals, accompanying libations must also be individual rituals. On this basis, nine burnt offerings on the Day of Atonement, with their cereal and drink accompaniments, adds up to 27 (9 x 3) individual rituals. While Numbers 15:3 speaks of an animal offering as a “food gift,” v. 10 presents a problem by referring to the animal, cereal, and drink offerings together as a “food gift” (sing.). How can three offerings be one “food gift?”23 The answer is that “food gift” here refers to a higher level of ritual hierarchy, namely, a ritual complex consisting of three individual rituals. A similar use of the singular “food gift” occurs in Numbers 28:6, 8, prescribing the morning and evening burnt offerings and accompaniments.24 These are small ritual complexes. A large complex can also be called a “food gift.” For example, in the festival complex of the fifteenth day of the seventh month, a group of 13 bulls, 2 rams, and 14 lambs sacrificed as burnt offerings together make up a single “food gift” (Num 29:13).

23

The NJPS translation attempts a solution by rendering ‚iššeh as plural here: “offerings by fire.” 24 Mention of “food gift” in v. 6, before the additional mention of the libation accompanying the morning offering (v. 7), does not exclude the libation from the “food gift.” Verse 8 clearly includes the libation in the evening “food gift,” which is just like the morning offering.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

63

Like Israelite burnt offerings, a Hittite meat offering to the god Telipinu is accompanied by cereal/grain (bread) and drink (see chap. 6.). However, since there is no evidence that the components of the Hittite food offerings are regarded as having their own cognitive task functions, these subsystems appear to be activities forming one individual ritual rather than individual rituals forming a complex. Granted that my argument here is from silence, I do not wish to go beyond the available evidence. In any case, an internal structural difference between the Israelite accompaniment complexes and the Hittite food rituals should not be overemphasized; the respective cognitive task functions of the two kinds of units within their larger structural contexts are similar. 2. On the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, the Ezida cella of the god Nabû is purified from demonic impurity by a priest. Subsequently, a group of cultic functionaries participate in a system of activities that invokes divine power to purify the cella from demonic impurity (see chap. 5.). Is there one complete cognitive task transformation process here, or are there two? In the first purification, the process deals directly with the impurity. In the second, however, another “inaccessible entity” is involved, namely, a group of gods. Thus there are two distinct transformation processes belonging to two individual rituals. 3. On the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, a ritual procession conveys images representing a group of (ordinarily inaccessible) deities, that is, Telipinu and his fellow deities, to a river, where they are purified. A second procession returns the sancta to the temple of Telipinu (see chap. 6.). Are there three complete cognitive task transformation processes here—first procession, purification, second procession—or one? The raison d’être of the processions is to convey the sancta to and from the location where the purification is performed. Thus the processions belong to a transformation that has as its goal the purification of the sancta. The goal of the transformation is achieved in the middle of the process, with the two processions carrying out prerequisite and postrequisite parts of that process. There is one individual ritual here. Thus far, the definition of an “individual ritual” stated above appears to meet the need for a definition that (1) excludes nonritual forms of activity, (2) indicates the nature of ritual unity, and (3)

64

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

defines a single, complete ritual as opposed to part of a ritual or a ritual complex. This definition is tentative because it is necessarily based upon an incomplete sample of activity types. It will be partially tested in the remainder of the present work through application to selected ancient Near Eastern religious rituals, but much additional testing will be required before it may graduate from “tentative” status.25

2.2. SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODIFIED THEORY OF RITUAL This section discusses implications of the proposed theory of ritual for questions of (1) ritual authority, (2) quasi-rituals lacking cognitive task interpretations, and (3) the relationship between ritual, language, and meaning. 2.2.1. Religious and Magical Authority A ritual is controlled by the authority that governs its activities and their interpretation. Two main kinds of authority26 are: religion and magic. Religious ritual authority has to do with one or more transcendent “personalities” who are regarded as possessing volition27 that is relevant to the rituals governed by the authority. 25

On problems involved in developing ritual theories and defining “ritual,” see, e.g., Grimes 1982: 54ff; Staal 1989: 61-64; Bell 1992. For further development of my theory and definition, and interaction with additional scholars, see Gane, 2005: chap. 1: “The Locus of Ritual Meaning.” 26 Other kinds may exist. 27 A problem is posed by a practice attested in Shingon Tantric Buddhism: ritualized meditation involving visualization of the syllable A, which is regarded as a deity (R. Payne, “Seeing the Source: Ritual Structures of Shingon Meditation,” paper presented at the Western Region meeting of the American Academy of Religion, 1992; I am grateful to R. Payne for sending me a copy of this paper). As Payne points out, “Syllables do not have bodies with which we can identify our own body, they do not speak, nor do they have a mind” (ibid.: 11). Because a syllable does not have a mind, it cannot have volition; thus it cannot function as a party in a transaction or a communication. It may be regarded as a kind of deity, but it is a depersonalized deity. Since a syllable is a nonmaterial pattern, it is appropriate to visualize it in meditation, but it is not appropriate to make offerings to it (ibid.: 10). While this form of

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

65

Magical ritual authority, on the other hand, has to do with “power sources” with which transcendent volition is not involved or is irrelevant to the rituals governed by the authority. Whereas in religious ritual an offerer seeks to maintain or improve his relationship with a deity so that the deity will be favorably disposed toward him, perhaps benefiting him in a material way, a practitioner of magic is regarded as possessing the key, that is, access, to an ordinarily inaccessible power source with which he/she can affect the material world. This “key” is the correct performance of an appropriate activity.28 The power source may belong to a transcendent personality, but volition on the part of that personality is irrelevant; the practitioner has the key. The difference between religious ritual and magic can be illustrated with reference to the Israelite ritual of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:20-22). The inaccessible entity is a nonmaterial package of moral faults. The ritual is for elimination away from YHWH’s sanctuary, not sacrifice that approaches him. However, YHWH’s volition is involved, as shown by the fact that he commands removal of the evil from the Israelite camp once per year on the Day of Atonement because the moral faults are offensive to him. Because YHWH as a volitional being is viewed as the authority for the “scapegoat” ritual, it is religious rather than magical. 2.2.2. “Ritualism” F. Staal mentions “rituals” that are performed simply because it is the “tradition” to do so (Staal 1989: 115-16; 134). Cognitive task interpretations, which provide rationales for the activities, are apparently missing.29 I would suggest that such quasi-ritual activity systems could be termed “ritualism.” meditation is like ritual in that it is formulaic, it is unlike ritual in terms of the nature of its interaction with an inaccessible entity. 28 cf. Grimes’ definition of magical ritual: “Insofar as it is a deed having transcendent reference and accomplishing some desired empirical result, a rite is magical” (Grimes 1982: 45). 29 However, Vogt points out that although the most common response of a Mesoamerican native informant to a field researcher regarding the significance of a ritual is “it’s the custom,” such informants can take so much for granted that it does not occur to them to explicate ritual significance. In a particular case, “Their response to further

66

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

If ritualism activities are like ritual activities on the intrinsic activity level, they cannot be unified and bounded on that level (see chap. 1.). Therefore, when units of ritualism activities are traditionally preserved, it would appear that the unity and boundaries of these units are fossilized remains of a prior stage at which the activities functioned within some kind of subjective framework, for example, practical, expressive, or cognitive task, whether or not “entity inaccessibility” was involved, that is, whether or not the unit was a ritual at the earlier stage.30 2.2.3. Ritual, Language, and Meaning If a ritual can consist of formulaic prayer, which is language communication, is ritual a kind of language, or at least a kind of communication?31 W. Burkert refers to ritual in general as “a form of nonverbal communication, analogous to language at least to some extent” (Burkert, Girard and Smith 1987: 150). He views ritual as “stereotyped action redirected for demonstration.” Both myth and ritual “are dependent on action programs, both are detached from pragmatic reality, both serve communication” (Burkert 1979: 57). He has also stated more directly: “Ritual, as a form of communication, is a kind of language” (Burkert 1983: 29). However, although rituals may include communication activities and conceptually affect participants and observers, rituals in general are not essentially transfers of pattern/information. That is to say, they are not essentially communication. Similarly, legal transactions, in which communication is involved and which may secondarily convey certain concepts through symbolic activity, are interviews were to the effect that ‘anyone in his right mind knows that!’” (Vogt 1976: 1, 2, 4). 30 Since I do not adequately understand cognition among animals, I will not attempt to speculate on the relationship between “ritual” and “ritualism” as I define them and animal “ritualization” (see, e.g., Staal 1989: 135-6). The biological perspective leads W. Burkert to the idea that human ritual “can be interpreted, even within a religious context, as an action pattern redirected for demonstration, sometimes unaltered, sometimes transformed into a purely symbolic action, or even into an artifact” (Burkert 1979: 45; cf. pp. 42-43). 31 That “language” is a smaller category than “communication” is shown by the fact that there are forms of communication, e.g., semiotics, which are not language.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

67

essentially transfers of value rather than information (cf. Kuhn 1975: 44). The difference between “language meaning” and “ritual meaning” is that in language, meaning is information, transferred through symbols or combinations thereof that represent/refer to certain referents (Staal 1989: 140), but in ritual, meaning involves interpretation of activity as interacting with certain inaccessible entities.32 In a formulaic prayer, language meaning occurs within a ritual framework. What makes such a prayer a ritual is not the fact that it is language, but the fact that it is formulaic and it interacts with an ordinarily inaccessible party on a cognitive task level. Ritual meaning is a kind of metaphorical or symbolic meaning, by means of which an inaccessibility gap is spanned (see Leach 1976: 38-39). On the cognitive task level, transcendent and/or nonmaterial entities that are otherwise inaccessible are viewed as accessible through a metaphorical connection that can be stated in its most general form: Inaccessible domain A is accessible domain B.33 Two examples show the operation of this kind of metaphor with respect to the transcendent and nonmaterial domains: 1. Toganoo explains that in Japanese Shingon ritual, “the Jûhachi-dô Sâdhanâ is a ritual that is centered around inviting an honored guest to come to the altar and to there feast on a great banquet” (Payne 1985: 118). The “honored guest” is the ordinarily inaccessible deity. He can be the guest of human beings because his domain is, through metaphor, merged with the human domain. 2. Nonmaterial sins removed by the Israelite ritual of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:20-22) are metaphorically viewed as belonging to the material domain. More specific types of metaphor are found within rituals. For example, a Hittite or Babylonian image is a deity and an Egyptian

32

Because ritual interacts, it can combine various forms of activity, e.g., verbal, musical, choreographic, “into a single experience” (Leach 1976: 41). Language alone cannot do this. 33 Pointed out to me by Glenn Hartelius. cf. Laughlin, McManus, and d’Aquili 1990: 194—“Metaphor is the process by which imagery attained in one domain of experience is used to order, or provide meaning for, events in another domain of experience.”

68

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

figurine is an enemy (see section 2.1.2., above). In these cases, inaccessible entities are symbolized by accessible entities.

2.3. DEFINING BOUNDARIES BETWEEN RITUAL AND NONRITUAL ACTIVITY Following the definition of ritual proposed above, there are two basic criteria for distinguishing between ritual and nonritual activity systems. To be ritual, an activity system (1) must be formulaic, and (2) must carry out a cognitive task transformation process in which an inaccessible entity is involved. In attempting to apply these criteria to the definition of boundaries between ritual and nonritual activity, the analyst may encounter three kinds of ambiguities: 1. Whether an activity on the fringes of a ritual system belongs within that system or not may appear ambiguous. 2. Whether a system is formulaic or not may appear ambiguous. 3. Whether or not a system carries out a cognitive task transformation process in which an inaccessible entity is involved may appear ambiguous. The first of these ambiguities will be addressed initially in a theoretical discussion, following which the handling of all three ambiguities will be demonstrated through application of the two criteria given above to specific problems occurring in connection with the Israelite burnt offering and other rituals belonging to the selected ancient Near Eastern festival days. The reason for this example-oriented approach is that the ambiguities tend to arise on a fairly specific level. 2.3.1. Determining Whether or Not an Activity Belongs Within a Ritual System Boundaries of a purposeful activity system can be defined by the extent of control exercised over activities contributing to the goal of that system, as explained by B. Wilson in connection with human activity system (HAS) models: Our concern in developing such models is with purposeful systems and hence that purpose, or objective needs to be made clear. The distinction between purpose, objective, goal mission, etc., is not important here as what we wish to define is the ‘raison d’être’; clearly, in terms of the model, this is to achieve the

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

69

particular transformation that has been defined. It has been found useful to import ideas from control engineering and to define our model of a HAS as a controlled system. This implies that, if our system is to achieve a particular objective, some measure of that degree of achievement must be derived and activities included in the model that make use of the measure to take control action to improve that degree of achievement. This is defined as a measure of performance, and information collected according to that measure will be used by some decision-taking procedure to take control action through control mechanisms. Thus, if the system objective is defined as the satisfaction of a perceived market need, the measure of performance must be related to how well the particular sector of the market is satisfied, i.e., in terms of market share or customer complaints or some combination of the two. Based upon information collected in these categories action can be taken to improve the product or improve the market definition or selling activities...The decisiontaking procedure, defined above, can only take control action within a particular area of responsibility. This area defines the system boundary. If it is undecided whether or not a particular activity should be included in the system, the answer can be obtained by examining the nature of the decision-taking procedure and questioning whether or not the decision-taking procedure has authority over that particular activity. If the answer is yes, then, by definition, the activity is within the system boundary. If the answer is no, then, by definition, the activity is outside the system boundary (B. Wilson 1984: 26-27).

If activity systems boundaries are defined by the extent of control exercised over activities in order to guide those activities toward achievement of systems goals, the question relevant to ritual boundary definition is this: where are boundaries of ritual control? Controllers of ritual are those who carry out or monitor ritual activities in accordance with authoritative formulaic rules. These can be priests or laypersons, but they must know the rules. Since ritual activities are fixed, ritual “control” must be concerned with correctly following the rules rather than deciding how to optimize output in terms of physical cause and effect.

70

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Whether or not a given activity belongs to a particular ritual depends upon whether or not that activity (1) is governed by the formulaic paradigm according to which the ritual is controlled and (2) contributes to the goal of that ritual. Ritual control begins when such a paradigm begins to apply as the standard against which activities are judged. Other activities, for example, raising a sheep to be sacrificed, may contribute in various ways to the goal of a given ritual, but if they are not fixed by the same authoritative paradigm in terms of their inclusion, nature, and order with respect to other activity components, they are not part of the ritual. 2.3.2. Boundary Definition Problems The problems discussed here are selected for their relevance in determining ritual boundaries in the Israelite Day of Atonement, the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, and the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring. 1. Selection of Material for Ritual Use. The beginning of the prescription for the Israelite burnt offering is as follows: (3) If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance on his behalf before the Lord. (Milgrom 1991: 133; bold type supplied).

The first and second verbs here—“offer” (cf. v. 10) and “bring”—translate the same Hebrew verb: the hip‛il conjugation of the root qrb. The clauses governed by these verbs specify two preparatory activities: (1) the offerer must select the proper kind of herd animal, in terms of sex and quality (cf. v. 10), and (2) he must bring that animal to the proper location. Selection is discussed in the present section; on conveyance to the proper location, see the next section. While preparatory selection of offering material must occur before its conveyance to the ritual location, the manner in which selection activity is carried out is not fixed. The selection is not formulaic; thus, it is nonritual preliminary activity. On day four of the Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, personnel responsible for preparing a cultic feast divide animals among themselves: They distribute the slaughtering of sheep and bovines likewise: [the cooks of the crown prince take] one

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

71

bovine and five sheep [likewise;] the butchers take [one bovine] and 20 sheep to butcher; [the lords of the] me[n of ritual] take 70 sheep likewise. The priests of Kašh~a [take] 230 sheep and 10 bovines l[ikewise]. They distribute likewise: The priests take two bovines and 74 sheep; the lord of the house of H~anh~ana takes... The crown prince [sits] before the god [t]o eat. (Nr. 14 Rev. IV 15’-19a’; see chap. 6).

It is possible that these selection activities could have been performed in a fixed order. If so, it could be argued that they are a formulaic part of the ritual meal that follows. However, the emphasis seems to be merely on the number of animals assigned to each preparing party. Thus the selection activities appear to be of a nonritual preliminary nature. A special formulaic selection takes place on the Israelite Day of Atonement. Once a bull for the high priest (v. 3) and two hegoats brought by the community (see v. 5) are in place in the forecourt (vv. 6-7), the following occurs: (8) Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked “for the Lord” and the other “for Azazel.” (9) Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot “for the Lord” to sacrifice it as a purification offering; (10) while the goat designated by lot “for Azazel” shall be stationed alive before the Lord to perform expiation upon it by sending it off into the wilderness to Azazel (Lev 16:8-10; Milgrom 1991: 1009).

Neither the community nor the high priest is entrusted with the responsibility of determining the respective functions of the two goats. This is accomplished by lot, which in the context of ancient Israelite religious culture means selection by (ordinarily inaccessible) YHWH himself (cf. Jos 7:14ff;34 1 Sam 10:20ff; 14:41ff; Jon 1:7; see Milgrom 1991: 1020). It is a ritual. 2. Conveyance of Ritual Material to Ritual Location. In Leviticus 1:3, preliminary conveyance of requisite ritual material, in this case an animal, is included in the text prescription. The activity is necessary and its position with respect to the other activities in the prescription is fixed. However, the conveyance activity is not 34

Lots are not explicitly mentioned here, but it is clear that this was the method used.

72

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

fixed with regard to point of origin. So in this respect it is not of a fixed nature; it is nonformulaic and preliminary to the commencement of ritual activity. Preliminary conveyance should not be confused with conveyance of an item from one part of the sacred area to another in the course of the ritual, for example: The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and dash the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting (Lev 1:5; Milgrom 1991: 133; bold type supplied).

The verb translated “present” here is the same verb that is used for preliminary conveyance: hip‛il of qrb (see above). Two factors identify this priestly presentation as part of the ritual rather than preliminary activity: 1. The movement is formulaic: It has a fixed beginning point—the forecourt of the sanctuary—and a fixed goal location: the altar. 2. The activity follows the hand leaning and slaughter (vv. 45b), both of which are formulaic components of the ritual. Thus the priestly presentation occurs inside the ritual, not at its boundary. 3. Procession. As mentioned above, on the fourth day of the Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, a procession conveys divine images, including that of the god Telipinu, on a carriage to a river, in which the images are purified. Following the purification, a second procession returns the sancta to the temple of Telipinu. These processions are formulaic: their beginning and goal locations are fixed, and presumably also their routes. Formulaic activities belong to the processions if they contribute to them, even if these activities take place before or after the actual movement of the carriage. So harnessing the carriage and moving the sancta to and from the carriage (see chap. 6.) belong to the processions because they are specified steps occurring in fixed order with respect to the other processional activities. The processions are ritual in nature not merely because they serve the goal of the sancta purification ritual; they are regarded as divine journeys, conveying ordinarily inaccessible deities from one place to another. Thus, several activities are performed during the processions that are not necessary for mere conveyance of objects,

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

73

but that suggest interaction with the deities on the carriage: (1) music performed in front of and behind the wagon during both processions (Nr. 7 Obv. I 11’-13’; Nr. 8 Obv. II 17’-18’), (2) kneeling at some point in the return procession (20’), (3) pouring something, perhaps a libation (22’), and (4) wrestling, apparently for the entertainment of the gods (26’). 4. Personal Purification with Water. The first activity prescribed for the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring is the personal purification of the šešgallu- priest with water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers preparatory to his officiation in what is regarded on the cognitive task level as the residence of the high god Be4l/Marduk (see chap. 5.). The fact that the requirement for the activity is based upon the subsequent cognitive task function of the priest indicates that the washing removes more than physical impurity. It removes (nonmaterial) ritual impurity. Furthermore, special water is used. If the formulaic washing were simply for the purpose of normal cleanliness, any clean water would do. The fact that water from the Tigris and Euphrates is used later for sprinkling the temple in order to purify it from ritual impurity (see chap. 5.) emphasizes that personal washing with such water also removes ritual impurity. The personal purification of the high priest is a ritual. A similar “preparatory ritual” is found in the Israelite cult. Israelite priests are required to wash their hands and feet with water before entering the Tent or officiating at the outer altar (Exod 30:19-21), that is, interacting with YHWH on the cognitive task level. As with the purification of the Babylonian high priest, because the requirement is based upon a cognitive task interpretation, ritual rather than merely physical impurity must be in view. That this is the case is emphasized by the stipulation that the washing must utilize special water, drawn from the consecrated laver/basin in the sanctuary courtyard (v. 18). At two points in the part of the Day of Atonement that is special to the day, the high priest must perform additional preparatory personal purification rituals that are more comprehensive in that he must bathe his whole body (Lev 16:4, 24). Laver water is not required for these full washings, but their ritual nature is indicated by the access for which they are required: to go behind the inner veil of the tabernacle (v. 2). If physical cleansing were the only consideration, it would be difficult to

74

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

explain a requirement for full washing rather than simply the washing of hands and feet in order to move a short distance into an apartment delineated by a curtain. However, that apartment is the inner sanctum of YHWH. It is the cognitive task interpretation of going behind the inner veil that calls for the full washing. Thus the purification activity must deal with nonmaterial ritual impurity. On postrequisite personal purifications of ritual participants, see section 2.1.3., above. 5. Dressing of an Officiant. After his special preparatory ritual washing on the Day of Atonement (see above), the high priest must dress: he shall put on a sacral linen tunic, linen breeches shall be on his body, and he shall gird himself with a linen sash, and he shall don a linen turban. These are the sacral vestments he shall put on after bathing his body in water (Lev 16:4; Milgrom 1991: 1009).

Later, when Azazel’s goat has been released in the wilderness (Lev 16:22b), the high priest (Aaron) does the following: Aaron shall go into the Tent of Meeting, take off the linen vestments that he put on when he entered the adytum, and leave them there. He shall bathe his body in water in a holy place and put on his vestments;... (Lev 16:23-24a; Milgrom 1991: 1010).

The vestments must be put on and taken off in a certain order and the dressing activities must take place at a certain point with respect to other activities. However, I would argue that this is nonritual preliminary activity. First, dressing does not involve interaction with an inaccessible entity: No ritual impurity is involved, nor has interaction with the deity YHWH commenced. Second, dressing does not contribute to the goal of the personal purification, so it cannot belong to that ritual. The initial dressing of the priests as part of their consecration (Exod 29:5-6, 8-9; Lev 8:7-9, 13) is another matter. In this case, dressing functions as part of a rite of passage through which the priests become YHWH’s special servants. 6. Consumption of Priestly Perquisites. On the fourth day of the Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, after the image of the god Telipinu is washed in the river and livers and hearts of animals are placed before it, priests consume the livers and hearts:

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

75

Four priests of Kašh~a [turn] (their) eyes [toward the river] and sit down and take the liver[s and hearts] and eat (them)... (Nr. 8 Obv. II 7’-9’ see chap. 6).

A parallel text reads as follows: [Four priests of Kašh~a] turn (their) [eye]s toward the river and [sit down and tak]e(?) [the livers and hearts], and they stand up (Nr. 1 Rev. III 14’-15’).

The priests secondarily consume offering meat portions as their perquisites after primary consumption by the deity has been completed.35 That this formulaic activity is a postrequisite part of the offering ritual is indicated by the special manner in which the meat is to be eaten: The priests must turn their eyes toward the river. The following passage suggests that the river is an active, almost personified source of purity: 7’-8’ they have lifted up the [chatte]ls of the god: pickaxes, shovels and (statues of) the gods H~ate[pinu], the sun god and the weather god, and...away to the pure [river?]. 9’-10’ “zi[du]h~ana” (is) his name; “internally speedy”(?) (is) his name; internally...the river flows (Nr. 7 Obv. I 7’-10’; see chap. 6).

The river is a special means of ritual purification. Ordinary physical cleansing of the sancta could have been accomplished by using any clean water, but the sancta must be conveyed to the river. So whatever the precise significance of turning their eyes to the river may be, the priests appear to participate in an ordinarily inaccessible domain by establishing a visual connection with the river.

2.4. RITUAL HIERARCHY The “individual ritual” level defined above (section 2.1.3.) establishes a “baseline” for ritual hierarchy. A ritual unit carrying 35

cf. the Hittite Instructions for Temple Officials, where in the context of sacred food offered on festivals, it is required that every part of the sacrificial loaves and libations of beer and wine be devoted to the god. After the ritual function of the food has been completed, the priests are permitted to eat it in the temple (ANET: 208).

76

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

out less than such a complete transformation process belongs to a hierarchical level that is lower than that of an individual ritual. We can refer to such a unit as an “activity.” A ritual unit carrying out more than one such transformation process is a higher level ritual complex. Following are some observations with regard to hierarchical properties of activities, individual rituals, and ritual complexes: 1. While every ritual activity must belong to an individual ritual, not every individual ritual belongs to a ritual complex. 2. There is only one “individual ritual” level: An individual ritual cannot be embedded within an individual ritual. However, there can be multiple hierarchical levels of activities and ritual complexes: Activities can be embedded within higher level activities and ritual complexes within higher level ritual complexes. 3. Since relationships between activity units/systems are determined by relationships between their goals (see chap. 1.), the relative hierarchical placement of activities with respect to other activities or ritual complexes with respect to other complexes can be guided by the following principle: If one unit makes an incomplete contribution to fulfillment of the goal that defines another unit, the latter is a higher level unit in which the former is embedded. Repeated application of the principle of “incomplete contribution...” will yield the number of levels intervening between the higher and lower units. 4. While an individual ritual can consist of only one activity, as in the Israelite incense ritual (Exod 30:7-8; on this and other examples, see further in chap. 4.), a ritual complex, by definition, must consist of at least two individual rituals. 5. An activity can have a cognitive task interpretation of its own. Thus laundering clothes and bathing, which belong to certain Israelite purification offerings (see section 2.1.3., above), remove (nonmaterial) ritual impurity from a person. Other ritual activities, such as flaying and dismembering an animal in the Israelite burnt offering (Lev 1:6), do not have their own cognitive task interpretations and thus may not, by themselves, appear to interact with any “inaccessible entity.” Nevertheless, these activities do contribute to the goal of sending an animal up in smoke to YHWH (Lev 1:9). It is the context of such activities within a ritual that makes them ritual rather than nonritual activities.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

77

6. Rituals can sometimes be decomposed down to the level of a single motion, but activities are often fixed above this level. It appears that if a single motion is fixed, it either (1) constitutes an activity, for example, slaying a burnt offering animal (Lev 1:5, 11; see chap. 1.), or (2) is one of a set of repeated motions that constitutes an activity, for example, sprinkling blood seven times (16:14). 7. Ritual complexes can be composed up to the level of a ritual day complex, for example, the selected festival days: the Israelite Day of Atonement, the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, and the fourth day of the Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu. A “ritual day complex” consists of all rituals performed on a given day that are unified in some way as a system. Composition of ritual units above the “ritual day complex” level to the multi-day ritual complex level, for example, the entire Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring and Hittite Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, crosses a break in temporal continuity due to the need for sleep. In ancient Near Eastern cults, ritual activity generally ceased at night and began anew the next morning.36 In the ancient Near East, only in Hittite cult (to my knowledge) is there what could be termed a multi-day super festival ritual complex in which a multi-day festival is embedded: the 38 day long AN.TAH~.ŠUM “festival,” performed in the spring, contains a three-day-long festival, from the sixth to the eighth day, in addition to a number of one-day festivals (Güterbock 1960: 85ff.). Unlike most multi-day festivals, but like the nuntarriyašh~aš festival in the fall, the AN.TAH~.ŠUM was apparently an imperial cultic tour: The Hittite king, often accompanied by the queen, would make the rounds of important Anatolian cultic centers and officiate there in order to maintain the cultic integrity of the empire (Beckman 1989: 103; cf. Ardzinba 1982: 16; 1986: 97-8). “Ritual day complexes” and “multi-day ritual complexes” can belong to higher level systems in which breaks in continuity may occur. For example, the Israelite Day of Atonement, a one day festival, belongs to the Israelite festival tradition (see Lev 23; Num 28-29), consisting of the festivals performed throughout the year 36

This is true, for example, in the Ninth Year Festival of Telipinu, which lasted for six days (see Appendix II). An example of an exceptional night ritual is the Israelite Passover (Exod 12:1-28, 43-51).

78

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

that belong to the Israelite ritual tradition. Ritual structure cannot be composed higher than the “ritual tradition” level, which consists of all rituals belonging to a given religious tradition.37 Even if an individual ritual is not part of any complex, it necessarily belongs to some kind of ritual tradition in which a given authority over ritual activities and their cognitive task interpretations is operative. Levels of ritual hierarchy are listed below, arranged in order from the highest/largest at the top to the lowest/smallest at the bottom: ritual tradition festival tradition super festival ritual complex multi-day ritual complex ritual day complex ritual complex (several levels possible) individual ritual activity (several levels possible) motion Keep in mind the following points: 1. The “festival tradition” and “super festival ritual complex” levels are relevant only to rituals belonging to festivals. 2. The “super festival ritual complex” appears to be attested only in the Hittite ritual tradition. 3. An “individual ritual” necessarily belongs to a “ritual tradition,” but all intervening levels can be absent. While higher levels will be somewhat relevant to my investigation in providing contexts for interpretation, the present study will analyze only units belonging to the lower levels, up to and including the “ritual day complex” level.

37

R. Payne pointed out that rituals belong to a hierarchy of higher level systems: “If this idea of nested systems is applied to rituals, five different systems appear to be nested within each other: the particular ritual, the ritual tradition, the religious tradition, the religious culture and the society...” (Payne 1985: 216-218). Investigation of religious traditions, religious cultures, and societies can be important for some kinds of ritual studies, but since such systems obviously transcend the boundaries of ritual, the structural makeup of these systems is not directly relevant to analysis of ritual dynamic structure.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

79

2.5. COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS OF AN INDIVIDUAL RITUAL: THE ISRAELITE BURNT OFFERING According to the theory of ritual proposed above, a ritual has a “cognitive task” level of abstraction. If so, it should be possible to carry out ritual analysis from a cognitive task perspective. On the cognitive task level, a ritual is an activity system, which means that (1) it has a goal, (2) it can have subsystems, and (3) the goal is achieved through activity. Therefore, in cognitive task analysis, as in intrinsic activity analysis, it should be possible to employ “root definitions” and carry out decompositions into hierarchically ordered activities. The activities through which the cognitive task goal is achieved are the same activities that function on the intrinsic activity level. The difference between the two levels is that whereas the intrinsic activity level leaves activities uninterpreted, the cognitive task level attaches meaning. The cognitive task interpretation involves a conceptual framework within which activities are viewed: The ritual system is regarded as achieving an overall interpreted goal. As discussed above, activities may or may not have their own interpreted sub-goals. The operation of a cognitive task framework is clear in the Israelite burnt offering: The Burnt Offering: From the Herd (3) If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance on his behalf before the Lord. (4) He shall lean his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf, to expiate for him. (5) The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and dash the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. (6) The burnt offering shall be flayed and quartered. (7) The sons of Aaron the priest shall stoke the fire on the altar and lay out wood upon the fire. (8) Then Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the quarters, with the head and suet, on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar. (9) Its entrails and shins shall be washed with water, and the priest shall turn all of it into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord.

80

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE From the Flock (10) If his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock, of sheep or of goats, he shall offer a male without blemish. (11) It shall be slaughtered on the north side of the altar before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar. (12) When it has been quartered, the priest shall lay out the quarters, with the head and suet, on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar. (13) The entrails and the shins shall be washed with water and the priest shall present all of it and turn it to smoke on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord. (Milgrom 1991: 133; bold type supplied).

The burnt offering formulaic activity system is unified by the fact that it carries out an individual, complete cognitive task transformation process in which a food gift is offered to the ordinarily inaccessible deity YHWH/“the Lord” (vv. 9, 13). Thus, the burnt offering is an “individual ritual.” In addition to the idea that a food gift is offered to YHWH, a root definition stating the overall cognitive task goal of the burnt offering should take two factors into account: 1. Acceptance of the food gift by YHWH results in expiation for the offerer (v. 4). 2. The order in which the activities carrying out the cognitive task transformation occur is affected by constraints operating in the material domain, that is, on the intrinsic activity level: a. The animal must be slaughtered for its blood to be manipulated. b. The blood comes out when the animal is slaughtered, so it is logical to manipulate the blood before the remainder of the carcass. c. Removing the hide by flaying facilitates quartering. Now we are ready to propose a root definition, followed by models of transformation and decomposition: Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to offer a food gift of an animal to YHWH in exchange for expiation, within constraints imposed at the intrinsic activity level of abstraction. Transformation: The root definition is relevant to the following transformation:

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

input(s): live animal owned by Israelite who is in need of expiation

offer food gift to YHWH

81

output(s): animal utilized for YHWH on behalf of offerer, whose need for expiation is met

intrinsic activity constraints

The cognitive task interpretation just expressed is in harmony with D. Wright’s understanding of Hebrew sacrifice in terms of implicit analogy/metaphor: Phoros: Just as a human lord is honored, praised, entreated and/or appeased through sumptuous feasts and food gifts, Theme: so the divine Lord is honored, praised, entreated, and/or appeased through sumptuous feasts and food gifts (in sacrifice).38

“Just as..., so...” here refers to an overall analogy. It is not implied that sacrifices are offered in the same manner as gifts are offered to human lords. For one thing, offering a food gift of an animal to a human lord would not involve some activities included in the burnt offering, for example, dashing blood on the sides of an altar. Furthermore, that which would constitute the gift and that which would constitute a by-product of its preparation in the nonritual sphere are inverted in the “impractical” burnt offering. In a nonritual context, roasting meat over a fire produces a primary product consisting of cooked meat. By contrast, ritually burning up meat parts on a fire altar produces ashes, which are a useless byproduct (see Lev 6:3-4).39 In a nonritual context, roasting meat over a fire produces smoke from burning material (wood, etc.) as a byproduct. By contrast, smoke produced by the burnt offering includes smoke from burning meat parts and goes up to YHWH as the 38

D. Wright, “Ritual Analogy in Biblical Sacrifice,” paper read at the 1991 annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Berkeley. 39 The ashes produced by the Israelite “red cow” ritual are useful, but only in further ritual activity (Num 19:9ff). These ashes are not produced on an altar.

82

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

primary product, which is enjoyed by him as a kind of incense: “a pleasing aroma” (1:9, 13).40 He does not eat the food at all; he only smells it. For activities to belong to the Israelite burnt offering, they must contribute to achievement of its cognitive task goal. The role of activities such as slaughter, flaying, quartering, etc., is clear: they are required to prepare the food gift. The reason for washing the entrails and shins is almost as obvious: washing removes the dung, an unacceptable ingredient of food, which is in or on these parts (cf. Lev 4:11; Milgrom 1991: 159). Less apparent are the contributions of leaning one hand on the head of the animal and dashing the blood on the sides of the altar, which are briefly investigated in the following paragraphs. 1. Hand leaning. D. Wright (Wright 1986: 438-9) and J. Milgrom (Milgrom 1991: 152) have argued that leaning one hand on the head of an Israelite sacrificial animal demonstrates the offerer’s ownership of the animal. This interpretation is supported by the wording of Leviticus 1:4—“He shall lean his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf, to expiate for him.” Here, acceptance of the offering on behalf of the offerer, as opposed to someone else, depends upon performance of the hand leaning. In a burnt offering, the owner of the animal is the giving party in a transaction. Thus, hand leaning signifies the end of ownership. From this point on, the animal is dedicated to YHWH, as shown by the fact that YHWH’s formulaic rule of procedure, which begins with the hand leaning, allows for no turning back: the next activity must be the slaughter of the animal, and so on. For an offerer to perform the hand leaning and then take the animal home would be sacrilege. So between the hand leaning and the slaughter, a transfer of ownership from the offerer to YHWH takes place. Although the animal is not yet prepared for utilization by YHWH, he possesses all further rights to it. The animal is, so to speak, irrevocably placed upon his ritual “conveyor belt,” which delivers it to him in an acceptable form. The fact that the offerer performs a number of subsequent ritual actions (slaughter, flaying, 40

The Heb. verb in Lev 1:9, 13 that is rendered “turn into smoke” is the hip‛il of qt[r. The noun qe6t[o4ret, “incense” (see, e.g., Exod 25:6; 30:7; Lev 16:13) derives from the same root.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

83

dismembering, washing entrails; see, e.g., Lev 1:5-6, 9) does not contradict this. The offerer participates according to YHWH’s ritual rules, that is, subject to his authority, in the process of delivering to YHWH the animal that is now the property of the deity. While a transfer of ownership to YHWH occurs in a burnt offering that includes hand leaning, this is only the beginning of the overall offering transaction. This transaction is not completed until the animal is delivered to YHWH in a form regarded as appropriate for divine utilization.41 Hand leaning is not restricted to the burnt offering, but is performed in noncalendric offerings of herd and flock animals in general, whether the offerer is an individual (e.g., burnt offering— Lev 1:4; well-being offering—3:2, 8, 13; purification offering—4:4, 24, 29, 33), a group within the community (burnt offering—Exod 29:15; Lev 8:18; Num 8:12; purification offering—Exod 29:10; Lev 8:14; Num 8:12), or the community as a whole (Lev 4:15; cf. 2 Chron 29:23). When an offering is not a herd or flock animal, but rather a bird or a cereal item, either of which would be carried in the hand (Wright 1986: 439), no identification by hand leaning is required (see, e.g., Lev 1:14-15; 2:2, 8) So although ownership of such a gift is transferred to YHWH, this transfer occurs just before commencement of the ritual rather than within the ritual itself. That is to say, when the ritual begins, it is already owned by YHWH rather than by the offerer. It appears that calendric offerings, which are regular appointments with YHWH, do not require identification of the offerer.42 In Leviticus 16, the special calendric purification offerings 41

The idea that altar sacrifices are regarded as “food” for YHWH is reinforced by references to them as the “food” (leh[em) of God (Lev 21:6, 8, 17, etc.). cf. Num 28:2, where YHWH calls the regular burnt offering of two lambs “...my offering, my food, as my food gifts of pleasing aroma to me.” 42 The Mishnah distinguishes between cases requiring hand leaning and those that do not on the basis of an inadequate criterion—whether an offering is public, i.e., on behalf of the community as a whole, or private. M. Menah[ot 9:7 states that hand leaning is not included in public rituals, except in the cases of the purification offering bull offered on behalf of the community (Lev 4:15) and Azazel’s goat (16:21). The “scapegoat” ritual, of course, is not an exception with respect to leaning one hand on

84

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

on behalf of the high priest and his household and on behalf of the community are outlined in detail, but no hand leaning is mentioned (see vv. 11, 15). If hand leaning were to be performed in the offering on behalf of the community, this activity would necessarily be performed by elders of the community, as in 4:15. Such lay participation would surely be worthy of notice, but no such participation is mentioned (cf. 16:15). Hand leaning is omitted in the description in Leviticus 9 of the inauguration of the Israelite cult, a one-time event. However, the head of an animal: it is a different activity in which two hands are used. The case of the community’s purification offering bull (4:15), however, is a bona fide exception that invalidates the public = community versus private = non-community distinction as a criterion. On the Day of Atonement, according to the Mishnah, the high priest performs hand leaning on his bull with both hands, accompanied by confession, both before and after designation of the two goats by lot (m. Yoma 3:8; 4:2). However, these activities are not performed on the goat that is on behalf of the community (5:4)). While double hand leaning and confession are attested in Lev 16:21 in connection with Azazel’s goat, there is no biblical warrant for their performance, or even for leaning one hand, with the high priest’s bull. The notion that hand leaning of some kind should be performed on the bull appears to be based at least partly on (1) the fact that it is not a community offering (m. Temurah 2:1), and (2) the implied operation of the public/private criterion for distinguishing between cases in which hand leaning is performed and cases in which it is not. Milgrom deals with the purification offering bull (4:15), mentioned as an exception in m. Menah[ot 9:7, by redefining “public” as corporate in the sense of “representing no individual(s) in particular”: “...the former can hardly be called public: it is brought for the aggregate sins committed by the individual members of the community. The rabbinic tradition may, however, be perfectly right in connection with the fixed offerings of the calendar, which, representing no individual(s) in particular, would not have required hand leaning” (Milgrom 1991: 153). However, calendric and noncalendric offerings on behalf of the community are on behalf of the same group. Both are corporate in the sense that one offering is performed for a group. Identifying a corporate offerer by hand leaning (Lev 4:15) does not change the corporate nature of the offering. The difference between the purification offering bull and a community offering in which hand leaning is not required is that whereas the former case relates to particular circumstances, the latter relates to no circumstances in particular because it is calendric.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

85

this does not necessarily mean that it was omitted in the actual performance: The concentration of the entire chapter is upon the altar, as demonstrated by the curtailed description of the sacrificial procedure, which omits nearly every rite that is unrelated to the altar (e.g., the hand leaning) but includes every rite involving the altar... (Milgrom 1991: 571).

Lack of hand leaning in noncalendric burnt offerings on behalf of the community in 2 Chronicles 29:2243 is anomalous. Of course, it should be kept in mind that this passage is a historical description, not a formulation of Israelite ritual law. According to 2 Chronicles 29:20-24, a ritual complex consisting of 7 bulls, 7 rams, 7 lambs, and 7 he-goats was performed at the command of Hezekiah on behalf of “all Israel” (v. 24). The bulls, rams, and lambs constituted a burnt offering (see v. 24) and the goats a purification offering (vv. 23-24). Hand leaning was performed on the purification offering animals (v. 23), apparently by the king and the “princes of the city” (v. 20), functioning as representatives of the community. However, no hand leaning is mentioned in connection with the burnt offering animals (v. 22). Perhaps it could be suggested that while Hezekiah and his priests would have had a clear precedent for hand leaning by representatives in the context of purification offerings on behalf of the community (Lev 4:15), they lacked such a precedent for community burnt offerings.44 43

Pointed out to me by J. Milgrom. No Pentateuchal prescriptive text calls for an offering complex consisting of a burnt offering of 7 bulls, 7 rams, and 7 lambs and a purification offering of 7 he-goats. This unique sacrificial complex was meant by Hezekiah to meet a special need. However, the importance of ritual precedent is shown by the apparent composition of the complex from selected ingredients found in discrete Pentateuchal ritual prescriptions: 1. Burnt offerings of bulls, rams, and lambs, followed by purification offerings of he-goats: Num 28-29 (the cultic calendar). 2. A ritual complex on behalf of the community consisting of a burnt offering (bull) and a purification offering (he-goat): Num 15:22-26. 3. Hand leaning on a purification offering animal by representative of the community: Lev 4:15. In this kind of purification offering as prescribed in Leviticus (4:13-21; cf. vv. 3-12), the blood is applied inside 44

86

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Thus it appears that the burnt offerings were performed as if they were calendric.45 2. Dashing Blood. According to Leviticus 1:5, 11, the blood of burnt offering herd and flock animals is dashed “against all sides of the altar.” This activity must contribute to the offering of a food gift (vv. 9, 13) that results in expiation for the offerer (v. 4). There are two important aspects to this manipulation of the blood: 1. While the blood comes under the ownership of YHWH along with the rest of the animal, it is not part of the final “food gift” that is delivered to him.46 It is likely that this has something to the outer apartment of the sanctuary/temple (vv. 17-18a), the remainder of the blood is disposed of (poured out at the base of) but not applied to the outer altar (v. 18b) and the remainder of the carcass is incinerated outside the camp rather than eaten (v. 21; cf. 6:23). However, while Hezekiah’s purification offering included hand leaning by representatives, the rest of the ritual follows another purification offering paradigm (see 4., below). 4. Application of purification offering blood to the outer altar: Lev 4:25, 30, 34. In this kind of purification offering, no blood is manipulated inside the shrine and the remainder of a given animal is eaten by the officiating priest (Lev 6:19). 45 In Num 15:24, a burnt offering and a purification offering on behalf of the community are prescribed. The burnt offering is not outlined, but comparison with Exod 29:15; Lev 8:18 and Num 8:12, where hand leaning is performed in burnt offerings on behalf of groups, indicates that the Num 15 burnt offering on behalf of the community would include hand leaning. It appears on this basis that the 2 Chron 29 burnt offerings should also have included hand leaning. Another anomaly in this passage is the fact that the burnt offerings were performed before the purification offerings, following the order reflected in administrative prescriptive Pentateuchal ritual texts (Num 15:24; 28:11-15, 19-22, etc.). The order of actual performance, in which purification offerings precede burnt offerings, is indicated by procedural descriptive texts (Exod 29:10-18; Lev 8:14-21; 9:8-16; cf. Num 8:12; see Rainey 1970). 46 On this point, Lev 3:16b-17 is highly sensitive. Following prescriptions for well-being offerings, it is stated that “...all suet belongs to YHWH...you must not eat any suet or any blood.” Why does the text not say “all suet and all blood belong to YHWH”? While there is a sense in which this is true, suet and blood belong to YHWH in different ways, as shown by their respective ritual treatment: Suet is utilized by YHWH as a

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

87

do with YHWH’s dietary law to the effect that the Israelites must not ingest blood with their meat (Lev 17:10, 12; Deut 12:16, 23-25; see Milgrom 1971: 152-3). The basis for this prohibition is stated in Leviticus 17:11a: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood...” (cf. Gen 9:4-6). The fact that the blood is drained out of a burnt offering animal before it is burned/consumed on the altar implies that the concept of life in the blood operates in burnt offerings. By not having the blood included along with the flesh in his offering, YHWH shows his respect for life and sets an example for human beings. 2. Making the burnt offering food gift “kosher” would require only the draining and disposal of the blood. Comparison with Leviticus 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34 shows that ritual disposal of blood at the altar is accomplished by pouring it out at the base of the altar. However, the burnt offering blood is not simply poured at the base, but dashed on the sides. This application of the blood to the altar by the priest expiates for (kipper ‛al) the offerer (Lev 1:4), as shown by Leviticus 17:11, where YHWH states the reason for not eating blood (vv. 10, 12): “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation” (NJPS). As Milgrom has pointed out, the primary focus in Leviticus 17 is on well-being (še6la4mîm) offerings, from which meat is eaten by offerers (see vv. 3-6; Milgrom 1971: 152-3): Well-being offerings must be brought to the sanctuary (v. 5), where their blood is to be dashed against the altar (v. 6) rather than eaten with the meat (vv. 10, 12). However, the reason given in v. 11 stands not only behind the prohibition against blood ingestion, but also behind the command to bring offerings to the sanctuary (vv. 3-9). While the issue of eating blood is irrelevant to a burnt offering, bringing it to the sanctuary is of great importance (cf. 1:3). Therefore the condemnation in Leviticus 17:8-9 of anyone who offers a sacrifice anywhere but at the sanctuary explicitly mentions the burnt offering. Like the well-being offering, the burnt offering must be performed at the sanctuary because that is where the altar is, and the blood must go on the altar because YHWH has assigned

food gift by being burned on the altar (vv. 3-5, 9-11, 14-16a), but blood is never burned on the altar.

88

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

it to function there “for making expiation for your lives” (see Schenker 1983: 210).47 As will be demonstrated in chapter 4., the greater prominence of expiation in purification offerings, by comparison with burnt offerings, correlates with the fact that purification offerings have more prominent blood manipulations. Expiation provided by noncalendric burnt offerings differs from that of noncalendric purification offerings in another respect: whereas purification offerings are mandatory to expiate for certain categories of offences, namely inadvertent violation of divine commands and ritual impurities,48 the circumstances creating the need for expiation by means of a voluntary burnt offering are not specified. Before a cognitive task decomposition of the Israelite burnt offering is proposed, the role of the hide, which is removed by flaying, should receive a brief comment. While removing the hide facilitates quartering, it also has its own cognitive task function. The hide is not burned, but rather belongs to the priest who presents the animal parts to the altar (Lev 7:8). So although the hide is part of the whole animal, ownership of which is initially transferred to YHWH (1:3), YHWH does not keep the hide for his own utilization, but transfers it to the priest in a secondary transaction as an “agent’s commission.” That it is YHWH who grants perquisites to priests is explicit in 7:34, where the breast and thigh are taken by YHWH from well-being offerings and given to the priests as their perpetual due.49 Decomposition: Based on the above discussion of contributions made by activities of the burnt offering to achievement of its cognitive task goal, the ritual can now be decomposed from a cognitive task perspective. This decomposition includes the same activities as in the intrinsic activity decomposition presented in the last chapter, but here activities having their own cognitive task interpretations are expressed in terms of those attached meanings. Thus “lean hand” (intrinsic 47

I do not attempt to deal here with issues such as the idea that the blood serves as a ransom (see, e.g., Milgrom 1971: 150-51; Levine 1974: 67-9; Brichto 1976:26-28). On Lev 17:10-12, see Schwartz 1999: 102-120. 48 The “reparation offering” (‚a4ša4m; Lev 5:14-26; 7:1-7) is also offered for a specific offense. 49 On this transaction, see Gane 1992: 198.

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

89

activity) interprets “identify offerer” (cognitive task), “manipulate blood” = “expiate for offerer,” “flay carcass” = “transfer ‘agent’s commission’ to priest,” and “burn carcass” (i.e., place carcass on altar) = “deliver prepared food gift to YHWH.” Notice that Leviticus does not indicate a cognitive task interpretation of “slay animal” by itself. The five first level subsystems as viewed from the cognitive task perspective are as follows: 1. Root definition: A system to identify the offerer in the transaction with YHWH. Transformation: offerer unidentified → identify offerer → offerer identified 2. Root definition: A system to transform a live animal into a dead animal. Transformation: animal alive → slay animal → animal dead 3. Root definition: A system to expiate for the offerer while making the food gift “kosher.” Transformation: offerer not having received expiation → expiate for offerer → offerer having received expiation 4. Root definition: A system to transfer an “agent’s commission” to the officiating priest. Transformation: “commission” owned by YHWH → transfer “agent’s commission” to priest → “commission” owned by priest 5. Root definition: A system to deliver a prepared “food gift” to YHWH. Transformation: unprepared “food gift” for YHWH not delivered → deliver prepared “food gift” to YHWH → prepared “food gift “ delivered to YHWH Subsystems 1., 2., and 4. do not require further decomposition. Subsystems 3. and 5. can be decomposed further as in the intrinsic activity decomposition, but activities below the first level of decomposition do not have their own cognitive task interpretations. Thus cognitive task interpretations at the top of the

90

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

hierarchy provide a framework within which lower level activities are viewed. Below is a model of the cognitive task decomposition of the Israelite private burnt offering. Cognitive task interpretations are in bold type. offer food-gift to YHWH

1 identify offerer

3.1 collect blood

3.2 present blood

2 slay animal

3.3 dash blood

3 expiate for offerer

5.1 dismember

4 transfer comission

5.2 tend fire

5 deliver food gift

5.3 burn quarters

5.4 burn entrails

...

5.2.1 stoke fire

5.2.2 lay wood

5.3.1 present quarters

5.3.2 lay quarters

5.4.1 wash entrails

5.4.2 present entrails

5.4.3 lay entrails

From this model, it is clear that the bulk of the structure is concerned with preparation and delivery of the carcass to YHWH as a “food gift” (first level subsystem 5.). Manipulation of blood in order to provide expiation for the offerer is less prominent (first level subsystem 3.).

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

91

“Offering” and “expiation,” involve two kinds of transfer on the cognitive task level. An offering ritual transfers a material object unit to an ordinarily inaccessible party for his/her utilization. Whatever the precise nature of what is commonly called “expiation” (rendering the verb kipper) may be, it involves a removal of some kind of nonmaterial evil caused by the offerer(s). As will be demonstrated in chapters 4.-6., a removal ritual transfers an inaccessible entity from a unit consisting of one or more persons, objects or structures. Since the Israelite burnt offering includes both “offering” and “removal” aspects, it can be characterized in terms of its dynamics of cognitive task transfer as an “offering + removal” ritual, with the “offering” aspect emphasized over “removal.” Because a purification offering emphasizes “removal” over “offering” (see chap. 4.), it can be classed as a “removal + offering” ritual. Noncalendric animal sacrifices, in which hand leaning is performed, include an additional dynamic: ownership transfer, by which ownership of a material object unit is transferred to an ordinarily inaccessible party. The cognitive task decomposition of the Israelite burnt offering can be presented more simply in a hierarchical outline. In this outline, cognitive task interpretations are presented in bold type. OFFER FOOD GIFT TO YHWH 1. identify offerer 2. slay animal 3. expiate for offerer 3.1. collect blood 3.2. present blood to altar 3.3. dash blood against sides of altar 4. transfer “agent’s commission” to priest 5. deliver prepared food gift to YHWH 5.1. dismember carcass 5.2. prepare altar fire 5.2.1. stoke altar fire 5.2.2. lay wood on fire 5.3. place quarters, head, suet on altar 5.3.1. present quarters, head, and suet to altar 5.3.2. lay quarters, head, and suet on fire

92

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 5.4. place cleaned entrails, shins on altar 5.4.1. wash entrails, shins 5.4.2. present entrails, shins to altar 5.4.3. lay entrails, shins on fire

2.6. CONCLUSION In response to the need demonstrated in the last chapter for a modified theory of ritual, the present chapter has developed a theory according to which the unity, boundaries, and “ritualness” of ritual activity systems are defined on the level of interpretations assigned to activities, that is, the “cognitive task” level of abstraction. What distinguishes rituals from nonritual activity systems in which a cognitive task level operates is the fact that rituals are interpreted as interacting with entities that are ordinarily inaccessible to the material domain, in which their activities are performed. On the basis of the modified theory of ritual, an “individual ritual,” that is, a complete ritual that is not a ritual complex, has been tentatively defined as follows: An “individual ritual” is a formulaic activity system carrying out an individual, complete cognitive task transformation process in which an inaccessible entity is involved. Implications of this theory are as follows: 1. Types of ritual such as “religious ritual” and “magical ritual” can be distinguished according to the kinds of authority that govern their activity systems and cognitive task interpretations. 2. Quasi-ritual activity systems lacking cognitive task interpretations do not belong to “ritual” as such; they can be regarded as “ritualism.” 3. Ritual is not language communication: whereas ritual interacts on the cognitive task level, language represents or refers. Boundaries of a ritual are determined by the extent to which activities contributing to its cognitive task goal are formulaic/fixed. Definition of an “individual ritual” establishes a “baseline” for ritual hierarchy: Individual rituals contain activities, and such rituals combine to form ritual complexes. Higher level ritual complexes include the “ritual day complex,” “multi-day ritual complex,” and so on up to the “ritual tradition.” Application of the modified theory of ritual to investigation of a specific individual ritual has been demonstrated through a

2. “COGNITIVE TASK” PERSPECTIVE

93

systems analysis of the Israelite burnt offering from a cognitive task perspective. In the course of this analysis, the system and its subsystems have been analyzed through “root definitions,” “transformations,” and a “decomposition” in which interpretations assigned by the ritual tradition to the system as a whole and to some of its subsystems/activities are taken into account. An important conclusion resulting from this analysis of the burnt offering is that in terms of its dynamics of cognitive task transfer, burnt offerings in general can be characterized as “offering + removal” rituals and noncalendric burnt offerings also include an “ownership transfer” component. The present chapter and chapter 1. have demonstrated the interdependence of the intrinsic activity and cognitive task perspectives: A ritual activity system as viewed from an intrinsic activity perspective is subject to constraints imposed at the cognitive task level, and vice versa. This interdependence is due to the fact that the cognitive task process must be carried out through intrinsic activities and the intrinsic activities must support the cognitive task interpretation. Further application and testing of the theory of ritual developed thus far will be carried out in chapters 4.-7. in the context of three selected ancient Near Eastern festival days. In these chapters, since the relationships between root definitions, transformations relevant to those root definitions, and verb clauses expressing the dynamic phases of the transformations (e.g., slay animal) are now clear, activities within individual rituals will be expressed only as verb clauses and will be decomposed only in outline format. Analysis from a “ritual syntax perspective,” however, which will be demonstrated in chapter 3., will show decompositions in the form of tree diagrams rather than outlines.

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE Once logical relationships between ritual units have been determined, these relationships can be expressed and analyzed from a “ritual syntax” perspective. “Ritual syntax” as developed by F. Staal in the context of Vedic ritual (Rules Without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras, and the Human Sciences, 1989), and to which R. Payne has contributed in the context of Japanese Tantric Buddhist ritual (“Feeding the Gods: The Shingon Fire Ritual,” 1985), is not a linguistic methodology, but is based upon mathematical and logical principles that have influenced linguistics (Staal 1989: 4, 260). While Staal defines rituals as activity systems (ibid.: 433), he has worked independently from the discipline of “systems theory.” My approach is to subsume “ritual syntax” under “systems theory” and to treat the syntactic perspective as logically dependent upon prior systems analyses from semantic perspectives, that is, the “intrinsic activity” and “cognitive task” perspectives, through which logical relationships between ritual units can be determined. The difference between a “semantic” and a “syntactic” perspective will be explained below. Whereas in chapters 1. and 2. it was necessary to adapt Wilson’s “human activity systems” analysis (see chap. 1.) to investigation of rituals, “ritual syntax” already constitutes a mode of ritual analysis. The present chapter will summarize, and to some extent explain, the work of Staal and Payne50 before “ritual syntax” is applied for the first time, to my knowledge, to an ancient Near Eastern ritual: the Israelite burnt offering. This chapter consists of the following main sections: 1. “Ritual syntax” as developed by F. Staal. 2. The contribution of R. Payne to “ritual syntax.” 50

I am grateful to Staal and Payne for permission to reproduce some of their diagrams.

95

96

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE 3. “Ritual syntax” analysis of the Israelite burnt offering. 4. Conclusion.

3.1. “RITUAL SYNTAX” AS DEVELOPED BY F. STAAL 3.1.1. A Syntactic Approach to Analysis of Ritual Activity As mentioned in the Introduction, F. Staal finds that ritual is like a number of other activities in that it is rule-governed (Staal 1989: 4, 260, 452), that is, it exhibits regularities for which rules may be postulated to account for them (ibid.: 58). So he has investigated the possibility that syntactic rules may operate in ritual. Such an approach deals with “relations between (logical, mathematical, linguistic, or other) expressions...without paying attention to any of the interpretations or meanings that might be assigned to them” (ibid.: 157-8). For example, adopting a syntactic approach, there are indefinitely many ways to view the expression A B C B A. It is part of M N A B C B A N M; it contains a “mirror” pattern—ABC CBA; it consists of five units as does P Q R S T, etc. (ibid.: 58-60). In all of these cases, the structural units are indeterminate with regard to size or kind (ibid.: 160). As in algebra, the letter symbols A B C B A “are devoid of specific meaning. They are ‘abstract’” (ibid.: 157). A semantic approach, by contrast, is concerned with the relations between A B C B A and its possible meanings/referents, which are also of indefinite number. The expression could refer, for example, to numbers, segments, words, musical tones, movements, or activities, including ritual activities (ibid.: 158-9). The difference between the two ways of approaching A B C B A is clear, but how can such an expression be derived from ritual in the first place? ...all such structures are postulated and never correspond exactly to actual facts such as rites. They correspond, if they are adequate, to features that are abstracted from actually existing rites (ibid.: 259; cf. 102).

Implied by Staal’s procedure with regard to examples (e.g., ibid.: 80), is the fact that the initial abstraction of a structural

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

97

model51 or expression that reflects logical relationships found in a given body of material requires a semantic approach. Once the analyst has arrived at a model/expression such as A B C B A, he/she can choose to pursue a semantic or syntactic approach from that point on. If the choice is syntax, the semantic “umbilical cord” is cut: The symbols are viewed as detached from specific referents. In this case, symbols are viewed as representing only themselves and carry no “symbolic meaning” in the sense that language elements (words, etc.) have defined symbolic meanings. 3.1.2. “Rules” That Account for Syntactic Structures Found in Ritual Syntactic analysis of ritual reveals some structures that can be accounted for by recursive “phrase structure” rules or “transformational” rules (see below), not to be confused with the systems “transformations” that can be modeled as part of human activity systems (including ritual activity systems) analysis (see chaps. 1. and 2.). These syntactic structures are similar to those found in language syntax as described by Chomsky and others (ibid.: 108). Other ritual structures, for example, those generated by “self-embedding” (see below), “are unlike any structures found in natural languages or with which linguists are familiar” (ibid.: 259). Types of syntactic rules found by Staal to operate in ritual are as follows: 3.1.2.1. Recursive “Self-Embedding” Rules Recursive rules “generate infinitely many structures by applying and reapplying finite mechanisms” (ibid.: 88). For example, in the Vedic Agnicayana ritual, a number of final rites correspond to a number of initial rites. Between these are central rites. Referring to a final or initial rite as “A” and a central rite as “B,” the overall structure is: AAAAABAAAAA. This and other structures are generated by a recursive rule of the form: B → ABA

51

According to Staal, such a model is “a formal representation corresponding to what Hubert and Mauss called a ‘scheme abstrait du sacrifice.’... The model is identical with respect to these structures to the actually existing rituals, but is less elaborate than the latter. It may look more complex because it is formal...” (Staal 1989: 102).

98

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

The arrow means that when B occurs, it is replaced by ABA. ABA contains B, or B is “embedded” in ABA. Applying this rule to the B that occurs on the right produces AABAA, AAABAAA, AAAABAAAA, etc., by reiterated application of the rule to its own output (ibid.: 87-88). This is a special case of embedding, which can be called “self embedding” (ibid.: 91): that which is to the right of the arrow contains that which is to the left. Thus, the rule can be applied to its own output (ibid.: 42). 3.1.2.2. Recursive Insertion Rules A ritual paradigm can be changed by inserting a ritual or ritual activity into it. Take, for example, the Animal Sacrifice for Va4yu, which can be referred to as “B.” It is inserted in the Agnicayana after the Ritual Preparation of the Ukha4 Pots (A) and before the Election of the Priests (C). The ritual rule that effects this insertion may therefore be written as: AC → ABC (ibid.: 95)

This rule is not recursive in the special sense of being selfembedding. In other words, that which is to the right of the arrow does not contain what is to the left and the same rule cannot be applied to its own output. However, the same type of rule can be applied an infinite number of times to its own output. The following series (my example) shows some simple theoretical possibilities: AC → ABC AB → ADB AD → AED AE → AFE, etc. This series results in: ABC, ADBC, AEDBC, AFEDBC, etc. In a recursive rule of the general embedding type, what is to the right of the arrow in one rule can be to the left in another (ibid.: 108). Thus, AB is on the right in the first rule (in ABC) and on the left in the second, AD is on the right in the second and on the left in the third, and so on. Above is shown a series of insertion rules having the same configuration, although with different symbols. A more complex series (my example) could go as follows:

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

99

AC → ABC BC → BDEFGC EF → EHIJF This generates: ABC, ABDEFGC, ABDEHIJFGC. 3.1.2.3. Recursive Phrase Structure Rules Another kind of “embedding” can be abstracted from the above Animal Sacrifice (B): Confining our attention to the Sa4midheni4 verses, which I shall call E, it consists of various rites preceding these verses, which may be lumped together and referred to as D, and various rites following them, together referred to as F. Thus the Animal Sacrifice B may be represented by DEF...: B → DEF (ibid.: 95).

This is a simple “phrase structure rule” that expresses the relationship between a unit (B) and its paradigm components (DEF). As is the case with paradigm insertions (see above), this type of rule can recur indefinitely (my example): B → DEF D → GHI G → JKL, etc. These three rules generate: DEF, (GHI)EF, and ([JKL]HI)EF, with DEF, GHI and JKL belonging to three different hierarchical levels. The more complex such structures become, the greater the advantage in using tree diagrams (see below) rather than linear representations. Phrase structure rules operate in the Agnis[t[oma, Paśaubandha and Darśapu4rn[ama4sa rituals, which can be referred to as A, P, and D, respectively. This sequence is hierarchical. There is increasing complexity. A person is in general only eligible to perform a later ritual in the sequence, if he has already performed the earlier ones. Each later ritual presupposes the former and incorporates one or more occurrences of one or more of the former rituals. Sometimes these embedded rituals are abbreviated. In general, they undergo modification (ibid.: 101).

100

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Staal adopts the terminology “that each ritual consists of a sequence of rites,” that is, ritual activities, and the convention, “that each ritual marked by a capital letter (such as A, D, P) will consist of rites denoted by small letters, indexed with single numerals...” (ibid.: 103). He does not attempt to define an “individual ritual” as opposed to a “ritual complex.” Simplified linear representations of A, D, and P in the form of phrase structure rules are as follows (ibid.: 104): A → a1 D a2 P a3 D a4 P a5 D a6 P → p1 D p2 D p3 D → d1 d2 d3 Note two points: 1. Recursiveness is shown by the fact that P and D occur both to the right and to the left of the arrow (ibid.: 108). 2. Embedding may involve a syntactic relation that can be called “interruption”: ...an embedded ritual may be interrupted, once or several times, by the ritual in which it is embedded, to be continued or completed afterward. For example, the embedding of P in A assumes the following form: some rites of P are performed, followed by rites belonging to A, after which subsequent rites of P continue, etc. (in a linear description the sequence has to be interrupted...) (ibid.: 108).

The above phrase structure rules can be depicted by tree diagrams (ibid.: 105):

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

101

A

a1

D

a2

P

a3

D

a4

P

D

p3

a5

D

P

p1

D

p2

D

d1

d2

d3

Applying the three phrase structure rules together results in the following hierarchical model of the Agnis[t[oma ritual (or ritual complex) (ibid.: 106):

a6

102

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE A

a1

D

d1

a2

d2

d3

p1 D

d1

P

d2

d3

a3

D

d1

d2

a4

P

d3

p3 p1 D

p2 D

d1

d3

d3

d1

D

d1

p2 D

d2

a5

d2

d2

a6

d3

p3

d1

d2

d3

Additional recursive rules could extend this structure indefinitely. The Indian theorists were aware of this. The ritualists constructed rituals of indefinitely increasing complexity, the sattra rituals. These rituals are often purely theoretical, but this does not diminish their significance as both actual and possible rituals exhibit ritual structure (ibid.: 88)

3.1.2.4. Transformational Rules to Express Modification of Embedded Units in Certain Contexts The above representation of the Agnis[t[oma ritual is a simplification. Actually, some embedded rituals are modified in certain contexts. For example, in ritual D, the first rite, d1, may be assumed to represent the recitation of 15 Sa4midheni4 verses. However, in the second occurrence of D in P, 17 verses are recited, that is, d1 is replaced by a rite d1*. This modification cannot be expressed as d1 → d1*, because this rule would affect all instances of d1.

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

103

What we must do is, replace by d1* only the d1 in the second occurrence of D in P. This can be done by introducing a transformational rule using a different symbol instead of the single arrow →, for example a double arrow ⇒. We have to represent the entire configuration in which d1 occurs since it is not otherwise possible to single out the d1 we wish to single out. This can be done as follows (ibid.: 107): P

p1

D

P

p2

D

p3

d1

d2

d3

p1

D

p2

D

p3

d1 *

d2

d3

In the transformation just illustrated, the context is specified on the left and on the right; in other words, both the following and the preceding ceremonies are specified. Sometimes it is more natural to leave one side unspecified, or to regard it as empty. We might refer to this as the prefixing, suffixing, or mere “adding” of rites (ibid.: 97).

3.1.3. Syntactic Relations Between Ritual Units Staal describes a number of syntactic relations between Vedic ritual units, several of which have been mentioned in the above discussion. These features, like the rules that generate them, can occur in different hierarchical positions, that is, with units of various sizes (ibid.: p. 94).52 1. Embedding. A ritual paradigm unit can be made up of smaller units embedded in it and can itself be embedded in a larger unit (see above).

52

Staal points out to me that some of these syntactic relations may overlap, depending upon how they are defined (written communication). Thus, for example, a unit that is inserted into a larger unit is embedded in it, and a certain amount of simultaneity occurs when units overlap.

104

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

2. Insertion of a smaller unit into a larger one extends the latter (see above). 3. Omission of a smaller unit from a larger one abbreviates the latter (ibid.: 94). 4. Modification of a smaller unit when it is inserted into a larger unit (see above). 5. Overlapping occurs when one unit begins before the previous one has ended (ibid.: 97). 6. Simultaneity occurs when units are performed at the same time (ibid.: 97). 7. Interruption occurs when one unit interrupts another (see above). 8. Mirror-image symmetry occurs when corresponding actions at the beginning and end of a ritual are performed in reverse order (ibid.: 85, 87-8). This structure can be represented as A B C B A. Insertion and omission can operate together to modify the same unit (ibid.: 94). It can be argued that unless they function simultaneously, omission is simply the reverse of insertion. That is to say, whereas a longer paradigm can be regarded as arising from a shorter one by insertion, the same shorter paradigm can be regarded as arising from the longer one by omission (ibid.). A paradigm unit modified by insertion or omission can be regarded as a variation of the same paradigm (ibid.: 80-81, 94) or as another paradigm (e.g., Agnis[t[oma → Agnicayana; ibid.: 92, 94). Staal does not discuss the question of how an analyst can tell when a modified unit becomes another paradigm. Notice that some components of a given paradigm may be fixed, while others may be variable (ibid.: 80). 3.1.4. Syntactic Similarity Between Ritual and Music “When looked at from a syntactic perspective there are numerous similarities between music and ritual” (ibid.: 165). Staal points out five musical structures found in Western music of the second millennium A.D. that are identical to ritual structures occurring in Indian ritual of the second millennium B.C.E.: refrain (e.g., A R - B R - C R - D R -...), cycle (A B C D...A), palyndrome/retrograde/mirror (e.g., A B C B A), overlapping, and threesomes (ibid.: 165-172, 179181). The relationships between these musical and ritual forms are purely structural, independent of any historical factors, and “entitle

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

105

us therefore to use the kind of synchronic treatment that the syntactic approach presupposes and demands” (ibid.: 185). Some musical structures must be expressed by transformational rules rather than linear representations. For example, sonata form has the following structure: A B A’, which originated from the simpler form: ABA, which is found in the Rondo and Minuet. This means that A, whenever it follows B, is replaced by A’... Although the expression ABA... is linear, the expression ABA’... is only apparently so: it has an inner or underlying structure that is not linear. The variation A’ depends on the original statement A, and therefore on the context. However, it does not depend on the immediately preceding context, in which case it would have been possible to express it with the help of a context-sensitive rule of the form: B A → B A’. The variation depends on a context that is further away, which can be expressed by using transformational rules... With the help of such rules, the variation A’ can be introduced by rule structures like the following (ibid.: 172-4):

S

A

B

S

A

A

B

A’

Aside from syntactic similarities, music and ritual are similar in that their units are not symbols that function in semantic systems (ibid.: 176, 188). However, musical and ritual units are bounded in different ways. Whereas, according to my view, ritual activity units are bounded according to their fixed contributions to achievement of goals (see chap. 2.), musical units are bounded by various kinds of cadences, that is, more or less conventional melodic or harmonic gestures for ending musical phrases or passages.

106

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

3.2. THE CONTRIBUTION OF R. PAYNE TO “RITUAL SYNTAX” In his dissertation titled “Feeding the Gods: The Shingon Fire Ritual” (1985), Richard Payne investigated rituals belonging to the Japanese Tantric Buddhist tradition of Shingon, especially the goma sacrifice. Among other approaches, he applied Staal’s “ritual syntax” methodology to these rituals. He found a number of syntactic relations between ritual units that had been pointed out by Staal in the context of Vedic ritual and identified five additional relations: 1. Repetitive embedding. Whereas in language a sentence can be expanded in various ways, for example, by conjunction and disjunction, it appears that in the Shingon rituals, as in the Vedic rituals described by Staal, the only technique by which rituals are expanded is embedding (Payne 1985: 220). Payne identifies a special type of embedding, which he terms “repetitive embedding”: Historically, goma rituals have been written which have as few as a single and as many as nine fire sacrifices. This ability to expand a ritual by embedding the same rite over and over again may be referred to as repetitive embedding (ibid.: 225).

2. Modification of a larger unit when smaller units are inserted into it. Whereas Staal has shown that embedded rites can be modified (see above), Payne finds an instance where the ritual into which rites are embedded, in this case the Kongô Kai ritual, is also modified (ibid.: 222). 3. Interweaving. In Vedic rituals, interruption can occur as a result of embedding one ritual into another (Staal 1980: 131; 1989: 108). When for some reason there is an alternating pattern between segments of such rituals, Payne calls the syntactic feature “interweaving” and demonstrates a graphic representation of it: In the case of the goma this interweaving is for functional reasons, since the purification of the altar hearth logically fits with the purification of the sacrificial offerings, which is the action of the Kongô Kai with which it is matched. If we abbreviate this, using K for the Kongô Kai and G for the fire sacrifices, we can say that G is embedded into K in such a way that the ritual begins with some rites of K, followed by some rites of G, which is not completed

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

107

but rather followed by more rites of K, which are then followed by the completion of G, which is then followed by the completion of K. A simplified schematic of this relation, assuming K has ten rites and G has five, would look like: (Payne 1985: 223) K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10

K1 K2 G1 G2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 G3 G4 G5 K8 K9 K10

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

4. Sequential Symmetry. Payne found “mirror-image symmetry” in Shingon rituals along with what he terms “sequential symmetry,” in which the order of actions at the beginning and end of a ritual is the same (Payne 1985: 224).53 A simple version of such a structure can be represented as A B C A B, in which the sequence A B occurs both before and after C. In some rituals, the types of order are mixed because a small group of actions operates as an autonomous unit that maintains its internal order while occurring within an overall mirror pattern. For example, in the Shido Kegyô, the beginning and ending actions appear as: g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10.... ĝ10 ĝ9 ĝ8 ĝ7 ĝ4 ĝ5 ĝ6 ĝ3 ĝ2 ĝ1 Here, ĝ4 ĝ5 ĝ6 are in a relationship of “sequential symmetry” to g4 g5 g6 within an overall mirror pattern. Notice that Payne uses the convention ĝ1 (with ˆ ), etc., to show that the actions at the end correspond to, but are not identical with, the actions at the beginning (ibid.: 224).

53

In Rules Without Meaning..., Staal refers to this syntactic feature as “surrounding” (Staal 1989: 85-6).

108

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

5. Terminal Abbreviation is a structural characteristic found by Payne in the rituals of the Shido Kegyô, including the goma. This is not the same as the abbreviation that was identified by Staal, but has to do with the relationship between corresponding opening and closing rituals: “Although the rituals are symmetrical, the actions at the end of the ritual that match those at the beginning are usually shorter” (ibid.: 225).

3.3. APPLICATION OF A “RITUAL SYNTAX” APPROACH TO THE ISRAELITE BURNT OFFERING 3.3.1. Abstracting Syntactic Structure The complementary “intrinsic activity” and “cognitive task” systems analyses carried out in chapters 1. and 2. investigated logical relationships between units of the Israelite burnt offering at various levels of hierarchy. These analyses resulted in two decomposition models, equivalent in terms of data to hierarchical outlines, which summarize the relationships found on the intrinsic activity and cognitive task levels of abstraction. From these models, which have the same syntactic structure due to the fact that cognitive task interpretations are superimposed on intrinsic activities, we can abstract the following syntactic model:

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

109

B = burnt offering

B

3.

2.

1

3.1.

3.2.

5.2.1.

5.2.2.

3.3.

5.3.1.

5.1.

5.3.2.

5.

4.

5.2.

5.4.1.

5.3.

5.4.2.

5.4.

5.4.3.

The same structure can be more simply represented by means of a tree diagram:

110

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE B = burnt offering B

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

5.2.1.

5.2.2.

5.3.1. 5.3.2.

5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3.

3.3.2. Syntactic Rules and Features Now that a syntactic model of the Israelite burnt offering has been developed, the following question can be considered: what syntactic rules and/or features operate in the burnt offering, whether or not they have been identified elsewhere by R. Staal or R. Payne? Most obviously, the burnt offering paradigm illustrates “phrase structure rules” and the syntactic feature of “embedding” (i.e., general “embedding,” not “self-embedding”) that is generated by such rules. Phrase structure rules operating together in the burnt offering are as follows: B → 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3. → 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 5. → 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

111

5.2. → 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.3. → 5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.4. → 5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3. Thus 1., 2., 3., 4., and 5. (which Staal would refer to as b1, b2, b3, b4, and b5) are embedded in B. At a lower level of hierarchy, 3.1., 3.2., and 3.3. are embedded in 3., and so on. From the number symbols that I have employed, it is readily apparent that the activities belonging to the individual ritual occur on three hierarchical levels: There are three numbers in 5.3.1., etc., which are separated by decimal points. When a burnt offering is embedded in a larger “ritual day complex,” it is modified by “omission”: What would otherwise be the first activity—leaning one hand on the head of the animal (= 1., above)—is not performed (see chap. 2., section 2.5.). This abbreviation is syntactically conditioned and can be expressed through a transformational rule. In the following diagram, B = burnt offering; D = any ritual day complex; B* = abbreviated burnt offering; and dotted lines = an indefinite number of rituals that can occur before and/or after B*: D

B

B*

Note two points: 1. B* is embedded in the ritual day complex (D) as a fixed part of its paradigm. This embedding is not “insertion” in order to expand D. 2. Activities 1., 2., 3., and 4. belonging to B* would correspond to activities 2., 3., 4., and 5. in B (with 1. of B omitted in B*). Although the syntactic structure of the burnt offering is not symmetrical, it is possible to comment upon its “shape.” With respect to the relative complexity of first level subsystems, the structure is weighted toward the end. This structural shape can be

112

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

readily compared with that of other rituals, whether they belong to the Israelite ritual tradition or not. Interestingly, the syntactic structure of the burnt offering contains some numerical patterns involving the number seven, which is significant elsewhere in Israelite ritual (cf. chap. 7., section 7.1.3.1.): 1. The noncalendric burnt offering is decomposed down to the 14 (= 7 x 2) activity components prescribed by the text (i.e., 1., 2., 3.1., 3.2., 3.3., 4., 5.1., 5.2.1., 5.2.2., 5.3.1., 5.3.2., 5.4.1., 5.4.2., 5.4.3.). 2. There are seven second level activity components (3.1., 3.2., etc.). 3. There are seven third level activity components (5.2.1., 5.2.2., etc.). 3.3.3. Paradigm Boundaries How can an analyst determine when a paradigm is modified to the extent that it becomes another paradigm? Implied in Staal’s discussion of the way in which the Agnis[t[oma ritual is transformed into the Agnicayana (Staal 1989: 92, 94) is the criterion of names supplied by the ritual tradition: When a certain degree of modification takes place, the Agnis[t[oma is called Agnicayana instead. Applying the criterion of traditional names to the Israelite burnt offering, calendric and noncalendric burnt offerings are manifestations of the same paradigm because both are called “burnt offering.” This single paradigm has a variable component, namely, hand leaning. The criterion of traditional names becomes problematic, however, when we come to the Israelite purification offering (h[at[t[a4‚t). This label covers a wide variety of ritual procedures, from the elaborate sacrifices that purge the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:11ff; see chap. 4) to a simple offering of cereal substituting for an animal sacrifice (5:11-13). Even the “red cow” ritual, which is burned outside the Israelite camp, is called a purification offering (Num 19:9). From an intrinsic activity perspective, the only activity that all of these rituals have in common is that at least part of the ritual material is burned, whether on the altar or, in the case of the “red cow,” outside the camp. So referring to “purification offering” as a paradigm stretches the meaning of “paradigm” beyond reasonable bounds.

3. “RITUAL SYNTAX” PERSPECTIVE

113

Leviticus 9:15 indicates that “purification offering” is not regarded by the Israelite ritual tradition as an individual paradigm: Whereas description of a burnt offering is abbreviated in v. 16 by reference to “the prescription,” referring to the prescription in Leviticus 1 (Milgrom 1991: 583),54 a purification offering is abbreviated by reference to another purification offering performed earlier in the same ritual complex (9:15; cf. vv. 8-11). The text cannot say “like the prescription” in connection with the purification offering because the question would immediately arise: which prescription? It would appear that “purification offering” must be viewed as a “super-paradigm” in a hierarchy of paradigms. This hierarchy is one of categorization rather than ritual structure. More specific types of purification offerings, such as the individual rituals mentioned above, represent separate individual paradigms. If comparisons between these paradigms refer to expansion by insertion, abbreviation by omission, etc., it must be kept in mind that different paradigms are being compared, not variable applications of the same paradigm. The fact that individual rituals represent “individual paradigms” suggests an answer to the question of how an analyst can determine when a modified paradigm is modified to the extent that it becomes another paradigm: Rituals belong to the same paradigm as long as they carry out the same cognitive task transformation in basically the same manner, that is, their respective activity systems have a common core. According to this criterion, calendric and noncalendric burnt offerings belong to the same paradigm.

3.4. CONCLUSION This chapter has outlined F. Staal’s “ritual syntax” approach to ritual structure and applied it to the Israelite burnt offering. The syntactic approach, which views elements of ritual structure independently from their referents, consisting of interrelated ritual activities, can be pursued once that structure has been determined through a semantic approach. 54

The same abbreviation is used in Lev 5:10, in this case with reference to the burnt offering of a bird (dove or pigeon), which is prescribed in 1:14ff (Milgrom 1991: 305).

114

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

In the context of Vedic ritual, Staal has postulated several kinds of syntactic “rules” that account for various ritual structures: (1) recursive “self-embedding” rules, (2) recursive insertion rules, (3) recursive phrase structure rules, and (4) transformational rules. Types of syntactic relations between ritual units that have been identified by Staal are: (1) embedding, (2) insertion, (3) omission, (4) modification of a smaller unit when it is inserted into a larger unit, (5) overlapping, (6) simultaneity, (7) interruption, and (8) mirror-image symmetry. Based upon his study of Japanese Tantric Buddhist rituals, R. Payne has contributed a number of syntactic relations: (1) repetitive embedding, (2) modification of a larger unit when smaller units are inserted into it, (3) interweaving, (4) sequential symmetry, and (5) terminal abbreviation. A syntactic model of the Israelite burnt offering has been produced by removing the semantic component from the intrinsic activity and cognitive task decomposition models that were produced in chapters 1. and 2. One syntactic model could be abstracted from the two semantic models because they represent levels of abstraction with respect to the same activities. In the burnt offering as viewed from the “ritual syntax” perspective, we have observed the following: 1. Hypothetical phrase structure rules could be regarded as accounting for the syntactic feature of embedding, and a transformational rule would account for abbreviation of calendric burnt offerings, in which the activity of leaning one hand on the head of the offering animal is omitted. 2. The burnt offering is asymmetrical; it is “weighted” toward the end of the ritual. 3. Unlike differences between several kinds of Israelite purification offerings, the difference between calendric and noncalendric burnt offerings (the hand leaning variable) is not significant enough to regard the two types as manifestations of different paradigms. Because “embedding” of the kind that Staal would regard as generated by “phrase structure rules” is a ubiquitous manifestation of the hierarchical nature of ritual, this syntactic feature will not receive comment in subsequent chapters of the present work.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT” The rituals required on the Israelite Day of Atonement55 are of three kinds with respect to the ritual calendar: 1. A special complex of rituals prescribed in Leviticus 16, which can be called the “purgations complex,” is special to the day. This complex includes two purifications of the high priest’s whole body, a lot ritual, two special purification offerings that together are called the “purification offering of purgations,” the ritual of Azazel’s goat, and two burnt offerings with their accompanying cereal and drink offerings. Before entering the tent or officiating at the outer altar in connection with these or any other rituals, a priest must purify his hands and feet with water drawn from the laver/basin in the court of the sanctuary. 2. Festival offerings, which supplement the regular burnt offering, occur on several festival occasions throughout the year (Num 28-29), including the Day of Atonement. On this day, a group of (in this case nine) burnt offerings with their accompanying cereal and drink offerings are performed along with a purification offering (29:8-11). 3. “Regular” (ta4mîd) rituals are performed morning and evening (i.e., at twilight, literally “between the evenings”; Num 28:4, 8; cf. Milgrom 1990: 239) on every day of the year: a burnt offering with its accompanying cereal and drink offerings, an independent cereal offering of the high priest, an independent drink offering inside the sacred Tent, an incense ritual, and a lamp ritual. I do not include the “bread of the presence” ritual (Lev 24:59), which is performed weekly on the Sabbath.56 This takes place on the Day of Atonement only when the great Day falls on a Sabbath. 55 56

On this name, see below. On this ritual, see Gane 1992.

115

116

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Neither do I include blowing the Jubilee trumpet, which happens only at the commencement of each fiftieth year (Lev 25).57 All rituals performed on the Day of Atonement are calendric, that is, required for the ritual day. Therefore there is no lay participation and the activity of leaning one hand on the head of offering animals is apparently not performed (see chap. 2., section 2.5.).58 Leviticus and Numbers do not directly state the respective order in which the special, festival, and regular rituals are performed on the Day of Atonement, but this order can be deduced from the facts that the regular morning and evening rituals normally begin and end the ritual day and the festival offerings are added to, and therefore presumably performed after, the regular offering of the morning (see chap. 7., section 7.1.1.). Thus, the special Day of Atonement rituals must occur between the festival offerings and the evening regular rituals. On the respective order of the rituals within the special, festival, and regular categories, see further in chapter 7. The present chapter is concerned with the Day of Atonement rituals as activity system paradigms characterized by various kinds of interaction with ordinarily inaccessible entities. Therefore, the order in which the individual rituals (listed with bullets, below) are discussed is determined by their classification with respect to the dynamics of cognitive task interaction: An ownership transfer ritual transfers ownership of a material object unit to an ordinarily inaccessible party. • Lot ritual, which transfers ownership of a goat to YHWH and another goat to “Azazel.” An offering ritual transfers a material object unit to an ordinarily inaccessible party for his/her utilization. In the Israelite ritual system, all offerings are to the deity YHWH. • Accompanying cereal offering. • Regular high priestly cereal offering. 57

On the Jubilee institution, including the problem of what is meant by the “fiftieth year,” see Gane 1990. 58 Leaning two hands on the head of Azazel’s goat by the high priest (see below) is a different gesture.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT” • • • •

117

Accompanying drink offering. Drink offering inside the Tent. Incense ritual. Lamp ritual.

An offering + removal ritual primarily functions as an offering (see above), but also transfers an ordinarily inaccessible entity from one or more persons, objects or structures. • Calendric burnt offering, which is primarily a “food gift,” but which also removes unspecified deficiencies or moral faults from the offerer. A removal + offering ritual includes the same dynamics as category 3., except that the emphasis is reversed; it is upon removal rather than offering. • Festival purification offering, which primarily contributes to removal of inadvertent violations of divine commands and ritual impurities from the community. • “Purification offering of purgations,” which primarily removes ritual pollution caused by the Israelites from the sanctuary. A removal ritual transfers an ordinarily inaccessible entity from one or more persons, objects, or structures. • Priestly personal purification of hands and feet preparatory to entering the outer sanctum or officiating at the altar. Removal of ritual impurity is accomplished by the use of a purgative, that is, water. • High priestly personal purification preparatory to officiating the “purgations complex.” Removal of ritual impurity from the high priest’s whole body is by water. A removal + communication ritual transfers an ordinarily inaccessible entity from one or more persons, objects or structures, and transfers information to an ordinarily inaccessible party. • Ritual of Azazel’s goat (so-called “scapegoat”). Removal of moral faults from the Israelite camp is by confession, a kind of communication, along with leaning two hands on the head of the goat, a gesture by which the evils are

118

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE channeled to the material “vehicle,” followed by expulsion and abandonment of the contaminated “vehicle.”

Each ritual will be analyzed from intrinsic activity, cognitive task, and ritual syntax perspectives. Because the interdependence between intrinsic activity and cognitive task levels of abstraction is now clear (see chap. 2.), I do not, for the most part, specify cognitive task constraints affecting intrinsic activity or intrinsic activity constraints affecting the manner in which cognitive task interpretations are carried out.

4.1. OWNERSHIP TRANSFER RITUAL 4.1.1. Lot Ritual 4.1.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective At the beginning of the special ritual complex performed only on the Day of Atonement, when a bull on behalf of the high priest (Lev 16:6, cf. v. 3) and two male goats provided by the community (v. 7; cf. v. 5) have been brought to the sanctuary, the following takes place in the forecourt (literally, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”; v. 7): (8) Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked “for the Lord” and the other “for Azazel.” (9) Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot “for the Lord” to sacrifice it as a purification offering; (10) while the goat designated by lot “for Azazel” shall be stationed alive before the Lord to perform expiation upon it by sending it off into the wilderness to Azazel (Lev 16:8-10; Milgrom 1991: 1009).

Milgrom comments on “shall place lots upon (we6na4tan... ‛al...go4ra4lôt)” in v. 8: The use of the verb na4tan here is unique. Thus the text may not be speaking of the determination of the lots but of their disposition. This interpretation is confirmed by the preposition ‛al. The lots, once determined, are to be placed literally on the heads of the goats so that they will not be confused. In other words, the lots serve as their identification markers... That we are dealing here with the destination of the lot and not its execution is shown by the verb ‛a4lâ in the

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

119

verses that follow (see vv 9, 10). (Milgrom 1991: 101920).

The biblical text does not indicate the precise manner in which the lots were cast. For the traditional rabbinic description of the activity, see m. Yoma 3:9; 4:1. In any case, it is clear that the activity determines the respective roles of two previously interchangeable goats by manipulating two small objects, one marked or otherwise indicating “for YHWH” and the other “for Azazel,” in such a way that human choice does not govern the decision. As Milgrom concludes, it appears that each lot/marker is then placed upon the head of the goat with which it is associated. Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to place markers upon the heads of two goats. Transformation: goats without markers on their heads → place markers on heads of goats → goats with markers on their heads Decomposition: The intrinsic activity system can be decomposed as follows: PLACE MARKERS ON HEADS OF GOATS 1. cast lots 2. place markers on heads of goats Note: The first activity is prerequisite to the second, which is the goal activity explicitly prescribed in Leviticus 16:8. 4.1.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective Casting lots to determine the ritual roles of animals is unique here in Israelite ritual. The procedure cannot be explained by the need to differentiate between two animals of the same kind,59 even when 59

The two burnt offerings on behalf of the priests and the community, which are performed after the ritual of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:24b), utilize one ram each (vv. 3, 5), but lots are not necessary to differentiate between them. Of course, one of these is brought by the high priest (Lev 16:3) and the other by the community (v. 5), so they are already distinguished according to offerer. On the other hand, the two goats, one for a purification offering and the other for Azazel’s goat are both brought by the community (v. 5).

120

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

they are brought by or on behalf of the same offerer60 and one is slain while the other is released alive.61 The cognitive task function of the lot casting can be deduced from the following factors: 1. “For YHWH” (laYHWH) and “for Azazel” (la‛a6za4‚ze4l) mean “belonging to YHWH” and “belonging to Azazel.” The lots placed on the heads of the goats indicate their respective new owners, which have just been determined through the casting of the lots (see Milgrom, p. 1020). Whatever the precise nature of “Azazel” may be, he is clearly identified here as the receiving party in a transaction (see further below). 2. The dynamics of the lot ritual can be compared to the early phase of a private animal sacrifice. In private offerings, ritual roles of animals are decided by offerers before they bring them to the sanctuary. Casting lots also decides the ritual roles of two goats, but it is performed after preliminary conveyance of the animals to the sanctuary. In private offerings, the offerer indicates his/her departing ownership by leaning one hand on the head of the animal (see chap. 2., section 2.5.). Placing lots on the heads of the two goats also indicates a transfer of ownership, but in this case it is two receiving owners who are simultaneously identified: YHWH and Azazel, so that the two goats will not subsequently be confused. There is no need to indicate departing ownership in this case because the ritual is a calendric one. 3. The reason for casting lots is that from the cognitive task perspective, YHWH selects the goats: The purpose of the lots is clearly to leave the selection of the animals to the Lord. Otherwise, if the high priest chose the animals, it would appear that he and the people he represented were offering an animal to Azazel. (Milgrom 1991: 1020).

60

In the “graduated purification offering” (see Milgrom 1991: 292 for this term), there is no need to cast lots when a single offerer brings two birds of the same kind, i.e., doves or pigeons, in order to determine which bird is to function as a purification offering and which is the burnt offering (Lev 5:7-10; cf. 14:22, 30-31). 61 In the bird ritual for the healed scale-diseased person (Lev 14:4-7), one bird is slain and its blood used, while the other is sent off alive. Lots are not used to determine their respective roles.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

121

The fact that YHWH selects the goats has two implications. First, the formulaic activity system comprised of casting the lots and placing them on the animals is ritual in nature because it involves interaction with ordinarily inaccessible YHWH. The system constitutes an individual ritual that is preparatory to the ritual complex consisting of the “purification offering of purgations” and the ritual of Azazel’s goat. Whereas a noncalendric animal sacrifice includes hand leaning as an integral component, the lot ceremony cannot be subsumed under one larger ritual because it is preparatory to two rituals: the special purification offering on behalf of the community and the ritual of Azazel’s goat. Second, because of the ritual nature of the activity, it falls under the rules governing the rituals for which it is preparatory: the high priest must perform it at the sanctuary after purifying himself (see below); it cannot be done by members of the community before they bring the animals. Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to transfer ownership of two goats to YHWH and Azazel, respectively. Transformation: goats owned by Israelites → transfer ownership of goats → goats owned by YHWH and Azazel, respectively Decomposition: The cognitive task system can be decomposed as follows, with cognitive task interpretations, constituting differences to the intrinsic activity decomposition, indicated by bold type: TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF GOATS 1. select goats for YHWH and Azazel 2. transfer ownership of goats to YHWH and Azazel

122

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

4.1.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective Lo = Lot Ritual Lo

1

2

The structure is a simple bipartite one. Aside from “embedding,” which can be accounted for by a phrase structure rule (Lo → 1 2), none of the syntactic features identified by Staal and Payne (see chap. 3.) are in evidence here.

4.2. OFFERING RITUALS 4.2.1. Accompanying Cereal Offering All “food gift” (‚iššeh) animal sacrifices, calendric and noncalendric, require accompanying cereal and wine offerings (Num 15:1-16). This applies to burnt offerings and well-being offerings (v. 3), but not to purification offerings, which are not “food gifts” (Milgrom 1991: 161-2). On the Day of Atonement, cereal and wine offerings on behalf of the community explicitly accompany the regular (Num 28:1-8) and additional (29:8-11) burnt offerings. Although not mentioned in Leviticus 16, cereal and wine offerings must also be understood to accompany the burnt offerings that are special to the day (v. 24b). 4.2.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective In an independent cereal offering of a layperson, a token portion is removed and burned on the altar, and the remainder is a priestly perquisite (Lev 2:1-10; 6:7-11). However, offerings of priests and accompanying cereal offerings are wholly burned on the altar (priest—6:16; accompanying—14:20; cf. 23:13). Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to consume cereal by burning it.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

123

Transformation: cereal → burn cereal → smoke and ashes Decomposition: As in other rituals involving the burning of materials on the altar, the final stage of conveying a cereal item to the altar (Lev 2:8), which can only be performed by a priest, is a fixed part of the ritual paradigm (cf. chap. 2.). Thus, the overall intrinsic activity—“burn cereal,” is composed of two activity components: BURN CEREAL 1. bring cereal to altar 2. burn cereal on altar Note: Of these two activities, the first is prerequisite to the second, which is the goal activity. Once the goal activity is completed, the overall goal of the system is achieved. 4.2.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective In Leviticus 2:2, 9 the token portion of an independent lay offering that is burned on the altar is “a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord.”62 Thus when an accompanying cereal offering is wholly burned on the altar, the whole offering must be a “food gift.” Such a cereal offering supplements a meat “food gift,” just as a human meat dish would be supplemented by a cereal product. At the cognitive task level, bringing an offering item to YHWH’s altar is an act of presentation to YHWH. Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to offer a supplementary food gift of cereal to YHWH. Transformation: supplementary cereal food gift not offered to YHWH → offer supplementary cereal food gift to YHWH → supplementary cereal food gift offered to YHWH

62

Cereal offerings as such are not attributed an expiatory function, but an offering of grain carrying the same function as an animal purification offering (Lev 5:11-13) does expiate (v. 13).

124

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE Decomposition: OFFER SUPPLEMENTARY CEREAL FOOD GIFT TO YHWH 1. present cereal to YHWH at altar 2. offer supplementary cereal food gift to YHWH

4.2.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective C = Cereal Offering C

1

2

The structure, like that of the lot ritual (see above), is bipartite. 4.2.2. Regular High Priestly Cereal Offering 4.2.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective The high priest’s regular cereal offering, an independent ritual, is prescribed as follows: (12) The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: (13) This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall present to the Lord from the time of his anointment: a tenth of an ephah of semolina as a regular cereal offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. (14) It shall be prepared with oil on a griddle. You shall bring it well soaked, and present it as tu4pînê, a cereal offering of crumbled bits, of pleasing aroma to the Lord. (15) And so shall the priest, anointed from among his sons to succeed him, sacrifice it; it is the Lord’s due for all time; it shall entirely go up in smoke. (16) So every cereal offering of a priest shall be a total offering; it shall not be eaten (Lev 6:12-16; Milgrom 1991: 379).

One half of the cereal offering is treated in the morning and the other half in the evening. As with other cereal offerings,

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

125

preparation of the cereal is preliminary to commencement of the ritual (cf. 2:1ff). The high priest is not required to prepare the offering (see 1 Chron 9:31; Milgrom 1991: 397), but only to sacrifice (the verb ‛śh, Lev 6:15) it, that is, to perform a ritual in which it is utilized by YHWH. In that the high priest’s cereal offering is wholly burned on the altar, it is similar to the accompanying cereal offering (see above). Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to consume cereal by burning it. Transformation: cereal → burn cereal → smoke and ashes Decomposition: BURN CEREAL 1. bring cereal to altar 2. burn cereal on altar Note: This outline constitutes a single intrinsic activity paradigm, which governs two performances each day, morning and evening. The amount of semolina required for each performance is roughly one-twentieth of an ephah, that is, half the one-tenth of an ephah stipulated in the text for both performances. For activity analysis of the formulaic paradigm by itself, it is irrelevant that the material for both performances is prepared at a preliminary stage as a single unit63 and regarded on the cognitive task level as a single offering unit. However, the unity of the two performances becomes relevant at the ritual complex level, where individual rituals constitute components of higher level unities. The high priest’s regular cereal offering (singular) is actually a ritual complex that utilizes a “complex object unit,” that is, that which is treated in a ritual complex, made up of one-tenth of an ephah. This ritual complex consists of two identical rituals, each of which utilizes an object unit comprised of approximately onetwentieth of an ephah.

63

That the offering is prepared as a whole tenth of an ephah is emphasized by m. Menah[ot 4:5. Contrast the regular burnt offering, in which there are two sheep, not one, at the preliminary stage.

126

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

4.2.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective The cognitive task function of the high priest’s regular cereal offering differs from that of accompanying cereal offerings. According to Leviticus 6:13, 14, 15, the high priest’s offering is: 1. “...the offering that Aaron and his sons shall present to the Lord...” (v. 13). The high priests in succession (Milgrom 1991: 3967) are the offerers, who perform the ritual on their own behalf. 2. “...of pleasing aroma to the Lord” (v. 14). This food offering benefits YHWH in the form of smoke (cf. 1:9, 13, etc.). Because it is regular food, the offering is performed twice daily. The same two-meal pattern occurs in other regular Israelite rituals (see below) and in regular non-Israelite rituals (see chaps. 5. and 6.). 3. “...the Lord’s due for all time...” (6:15). While this cereal is an offering (v. 13), it is not a “food gift”; it is YHWH’s “due” (h[oq), that is, something that accrues to him on a regular, permanent basis. In other comparable attestations of h[oq, the word refers to perquisites assigned by YHWH to the priests as their dues from offerings brought by the Israelites (Exod 29:28; Lev 6:11; 7:34; 10:13, 15; 24:9; Num 18:8, 11, 19; see Milgrom 1991: 618-19).64 The high priest’s cereal offering, however, does not go from YHWH to the high priest, but from the high priest to YHWH. Whereas the priests have the right to consume the whole of their dues by eating them (Lev 10:12-15), YHWH utilizes the whole of his due in the form of smoke: the cereal is wholly burned. Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to render the high priestly due to YHWH. Transformation: high priestly due to YHWH not yet rendered → render high priestly due to YHWH → high priestly due to YHWH rendered Decomposition: RENDER HIGH PRIESTLY DUE TO YHWH 1. present cereal to YHWH at altar 2. render high priestly due to YHWH

64

The priests are not permitted to benefit from their own offerings to YHWH (Lev 6:16).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

127

4.2.2.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective HC = High Priestly Cereal Offering HC

1

2

Like the rituals analyzed earlier in this chapter, the high priest’s regular cereal offering is bipartite. 4.2.3. Accompanying Drink Offering As discussed above in connection with accompanying cereal offerings, all “food gift” (‚iššeh) animal sacrifices, including burnt offerings but not purification offerings, require accompanying wine offerings (Num 15:5, 7, 10; cf. 28:7-9, 14, etc.). 4.2.3.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective Offering a drink involves pouring it on the outer altar, where the animal pieces and cereal offering are also burned. That the libations are poured on the outer altar is shown most clearly in Exodus 30:9, where it is forbidden to pour a libation on the inner altar. This prohibition would not be necessary if drinks were not poured on the outer altar. As with other items burned on the altar, bringing the drink to the altar is prerequisite to burning it. It would not be necessary for the libation vessel to contact the altar. Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to consume drink by burning it. Transformation: drink → burn drink → vapor Decomposition: BURN DRINK 1. bring drink to altar 2. burn drink on altar

128

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

4.2.3.2. Cognitive Task Perspective Nowhere is a drink offering, by itself, called a “food gift.” However, in Numbers 15:5, 7, 10; 28:7-9, 14, etc., accompanying drink offerings are included in “food gift” complexes, comprised of animal sacrifices plus their cereal and drink accompaniments. It is clear that the drink is a component of a “meal” for YHWH, just as a human meat dish would be supplemented by drink. The fact that YHWH’s drink is consumed in the altar fire limits the anthropomorphism inherent in the ritual. Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to offer a supplementary gift of drink to YHWH. Transformation: supplementary drink gift not offered to YHWH → offer supplementary drink gift to YHWH → supplementary drink gift offered to YHWH Decomposition: OFFER SUPPLEMENTARY DRINK GIFT TO YHWH 1. present drink to YHWH at altar 2. offer supplementary drink gift to YHWH 4.2.3.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective D = Drink Offering D

1

2

Again, this ritual is bipartite.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

129

4.2.4. Drink Offering Inside the Tent 4.2.4.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective Numbers 28:7b prescribes a unique regular libation of še4ka4r, a kind of beverage,65 to be offered baqqo4deš, “in the sanctuary,” that is, inside the Tent.66 The libation utilizes golden vessels that are placed upon the golden table along with the “bread of the presence.” Exodus 25:29 and 37:16 indicate the function of these vessels by the relative clause ‚a6šer yussak ba4he4n, which I render “into which shall be poured out.” Thus, the libatory act is that of pouring a libation (see Num. iv 7) of še4ka4r (Num. xxviii 7b) into the golden vessels, whereupon the vessels with their contents simply remain upon the table until the time comes to replace them with fresh drink.67 This would parallel the presentation type bread offering, which is simply placed/arranged (śym—Lev. xxiv 6; ‛rk—v. 8) on the table until it is changed on the next Sabbath (v. 8) (Gane 1992: 187).

Although the še4ka4r libation accompanies the “bread of the presence” offering in the sense that the two offerings are placed on the golden table inside the tent, the libation does not accompany the bread in terms of the time when its ritual is performed. Whereas the “bread of the presence” ritual takes place once per week on the Sabbath (Lev 24:8), the context in which the še4ka4r libation is prescribed (Num 28:7b) indicates that it is performed

65

Distinguished from ordinary wine (Milgrom 1990: 240). The Akk. cognate šika4ru is “beer” (AHW: III, 1232), which appears, e.g., in daily sacrifices at Uruk (ANET: 343). Syriac še6kar/šakra4 is “strong drink other than wine, esp. a liquor made from dates or from honey” (Smith 1957: 577), i.e., made from sweet fruits—cf. Syriac šakar/šakra4,” sugar” (ibid.). Note that Lev 2:11 prohibits an offering of honey on the outer altar. 66 The two halves of Num 28:7 refer to two different libations, the first a wine offering on the outer altar, accompanying the regular burnt offering, and the second an independent še4ka4r libation inside the Tent (Milgrom 1990: 240). 67 cf. drinks presented daily in golden vessels to the gods of the Mesopotamian city of Uruk” (ANET: 343).

130

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

twice daily like the wine libations accompanying the regular morning and evening burnt offerings (vv. 7a, 8b). No wonder it would be necessary to prohibit libations on the inner altar! Analogy with the treatment of the outer wine libation would suggest that the inner še4ka4r, offered about the same time as the burning (of incense) on the inner altar, should be offered on that altar. However, once the še4ka4r is poured into (nsk b...) the vessels on the table, it is not, according to Exod. xxx 9, then to be poured on (nsk ‛al...) the inner altar. Note that the two prepositions, ‛al and b, characterize the difference between the usual kind of drink offering which is poured on an altar and the unique presentation type libation inside the tent. (Gane 1992: 188).

What happens to the drink when it is replaced is not specified. Since it is not stated that the priests drink the libation after its function inside the Tent is finished, I assume that they do not. In support of this assumption is the fact that secondary consumption of offering material is otherwise unattested in Israelite cult. The “bread of the presence” is no exception. Consumption of this bread by the priests following its ritual function (Lev 24:9) is not secondary consumption: While the bread, with incense placed with it, is offered (on the cognitive task level of abstraction) to YHWH as a “food gift” (v. 7), YHWH utilizes only the incense, but assigns the bread to the priests as their “due” (h[oq, v. 9; Gane 1992: 19697). The lack of a prescription regarding disposal of the drink is not a unique phenomenon: Examples of other ritual items whose disposal must be assumed are: the body of the bird killed on the first day of a healed leper’s purification (Lev. xiv 5-6) and the remainder of the h[at[t[a4‚t bloods manipulated on the Day of Purgations (Lev xvi 18-19; cf. Lev iv 7, 18) (Gane 1992: 189).

The fact that the disposal of the še4ka4r is not prescribed or indicated by ritual precedent suggests that this activity, like the disposal of the leper’s slain bird (Lev 14:5-6; see above) can be regarded as subsequent to the conclusion of the ritual. Disposal of the h[at[t[a4‚t bloods remaining from the “purification offering of

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

131

purgations,” on the other hand, has a precedent within a ritual: Such blood is poured out at the base of the outer altar (4:7, 18). Since the še4ka4r libation consists of pouring the drink into vessels that are on the golden table, the ritual can be defined as follows: Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to pour drink into vessels. Transformation: vessels empty → pour drink into vessels → vessels full of drink Decomposition: The ritual consists of only one activity, which cannot be decomposed into formulaic subunits. Any other activities connected with the ritual are preliminary or subsequent to the ritual itself. It does not appear that an act of bringing/presenting the drink should be included in the ritual: While ritual presentation (hip‛il of qrb or ngš) occurs in connection with the outer altar (e.g., hip‛il of qrb: Lev 1:5, 13, 15; hip‛il of ngš: 2:8; cf. Gane and Milgrom 2004: 142), this activity is not attested in connection with objects of furniture inside the Tent. It should be pointed out that since the drink remains on the table as a presentation offering until it is replaced, the result of pouring it is of relatively long duration. In this regard, compare the effects of other Israelite rituals upon ritual materials: 1. Relatively rapid, variable consumption: cereal offerings, drink offerings on the outer altar. Rapidity of consumption would vary due to factors such as the quantity of wood and other offerings on the altar, weather, etc. 2. Relatively rapid, steady consumption: incense on the inner altar. 3. Slow, variable consumption: animal pieces on outer altar. 4. Slow, steady consumption: oil in lamps. 5. Remaining the same until changed: “bread of the presence” and še4ka4r on the table inside the sacred Tent. 4.2.4.2. Cognitive Task Perspective The cognitive task function of the še4ka4r libation is indicated by the following factors: 1. In Numbers 28:7b, the libation is prescribed along with drink offerings performed at the outer altar, which belong to YHWH’s regular burnt offering “food gift” (see v. 6). Thus the še4ka4r must be a drink for YHWH.

132

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

2. The še4ka4r libation takes place inside the sanctuary, which functions as the earthly residence of YHWH. This function is stated in Exodus 25:8, at the beginning of the prescriptions for building the sanctuary: “...and let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.” In the outer sanctum of the Tent are located the items of YHWH’s furniture that are most recognizably residential: a table, lamp, and incense burner. The regular rituals performed in the outer sanctum, including the daily incense, lamp, and še4ka4r rituals, as well as the weekly “bread of the presence” offering, constitute the work of a servant for his divine Lord (Haran 1985: 216-19). 3. Just as drinks at the outer altar belong with food gifts offered there to YHWH, so the še4ka4r libation inside the Tent corresponds to the “bread of the presence,” which is called a “food gift” (Lev 24:7). However, whereas food and drink at the outer altar are offered at the same time, the še4ka4r libation is not performed at the same time as the “bread of the presence” ritual. Changing the “bread of the presence” takes place weekly, apparently for the sake of a powerful cognitive task constraint: the need to mitigate the anthropomorphism of the ritual statement (see Gane 1992: 199). Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to offer drink to YHWH inside his residence. Transformation: drink for YHWH inside his residence unoffered → offer drink to YHWH inside his residence → drink offered to YHWH inside his residence Decomposition: none. 4.2.4.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective Since the še4ka4r libation consists of only one activity, it is not necessary to diagram its syntactic structure. 4.2.5. Incense Ritual 4.2.5.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective Every morning and evening, regularly, the high priest burns incense upon the golden altar of incense inside the Tent (Exod 30:7-8). The times of burning the incense are connected with those of the lamp ritual: “...he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps, and Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps” (Exod

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

133

30:7b-8a; NJPS). However, the respective order of the incense and lamp rituals is not fixed (see chap. 7.). A significant difference between the two rituals is that whereas the incense ritual paradigm is performed twice daily, the morning and evening lamp activities constitute two phases of a single performance of the lamp ritual paradigm (see below). Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to fumigate a tent by burning incense. Transformation: The transformation can be expressed from two physical points of view: Transformation of the input resource, that is, incense, into the output, that is, sweet-smelling fumes, can be expressed: incense → burn incense → sweet-smelling fumes Transformation of the tent from one state to another can be expressed: tent unfumigated → fumigate tent → tent fumigated Decomposition: Since the ritual consists of only one activity, “fumigate tent,” which is not prescribed in further detail, the activity system cannot be decomposed into formulaic subunits. No preparatory activities are prescribed, so any such activities precede the onset of ritual. 4.2.5.2. Cognitive Task Perspective The incense offered to YHWH is a costly substance, made of frankincense and spices (Exod 30:34-38). In that YHWH receives the incense in the form of smoke, it is similar to the sacrifices burned on the outer altar, which are a “pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Lev 1:9, 13, etc.).68 Burning the regular incense sweetens the atmosphere inside the Tent, which is YHWH’s earthly residence (Exod 25:8), in the morning and evening, when YHWH receives his regular burnt offering “food gifts” (Num 28:2-3, 6, 8). The role of the incense in providing a pleasant domestic odor is analogous to the noncultic use of incense in ancient Israel (Nielsen 1986: 90). 68

Of course, whereas the outer altar sacrifices are the “food (leh[em) of God” (Lev 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22), incense is not. Frankincense is a normal ingredient of cereal offerings (2:1-2; cf. vv. 15-16—first fruits offering) and the incense placed on the “bread of the presence” is included with the bread in an ‚iššeh, “food gift,” (24:7; see Gane 1992: 195-96), but incense alone is not a “food gift.”

134

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Numbers 17:11 (Engl. 16:46) indicates that cultic incense can have an expiatory function: Aaron used incense to “expiate for” (kipper ‛al) the Israelites so that an outbreak of YHWH’s wrath as manifested in a plague should be stopped (cf. vv. 12-13 [Engl. 16:47-48]).69 This case suggests the possibility that by sweetening the atmosphere in YHWH’s residence, the incense that is burned every day in the sanctuary may also have some kind of expiatory function, perhaps mitigating the offensiveness of Israel’s pollution to YHWH, who dwells with them in the midst of their pollution (see Lev 16:16; cf. 15:31). Israel’s impurity would be analogous to an invasive stench that is overcome by a pleasant domestic odor. If this interpretation is on target, the incense ritual can be defined from a cognitive task perspective as follows: Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to sweeten the atmosphere in YHWH’s residence, mitigating the offensiveness of Israel’s pollution to YHWH. Transformation: atmosphere in YHWH’s residence unsweetened → sweeten atmosphere in YHWH’s residence → atmosphere in YHWH’s residence sweetened Decomposition: none. 4.2.5.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective Since the ritual consists of only one activity, it is not necessary to diagram its syntactic structure. 4.2.6. Lamp Ritual 4.2.6.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective Regularly every morning, the high priest “makes good” (hip‛il of yt[b), that is, trims and fills with a fresh supply of olive oil,70 the seven lamps on the golden candlestick in the outer sanctum of the sacred Tent. Every evening, he “makes” them “to go up” (hip‛il of 69

Expiation is close to propitiation here. J. Milgrom points out to me that there is also a propitiatory aspect to purification offerings. When a purification offering is performed in conjunction with other sacrifices, which are “food gifts,” the purification offering comes first (Rainey 1970 on the sacrificial order). Thus propitiation must be made before a gift is accepted by the deity. 70 The oil is brought by the Israelites (Exod 27:20; Lev 24:2).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

135

‛lh), that is, kindles/lights them (Exod 30:7-8; Lev 24:2-3; cf. Exod 25:37; 27:20; Num 8:2-3; Milgrom 1990: 60). In order to clean the lamps in the morning, the high priest apparently detaches them from the lamp stand71 and re-mounts them in such a way that when they are lit, their light is directed in front of the lamp stand (Exod 25:37; Num 8:2). That the hip‛il of ‛lh refers to the kindling rather than remounting of the lamps is indicated by Exodus 27:20 and Leviticus 24:2, where “for kindling” (hip‛il of ‛lh) parallels “for lighting.” Compare Exodus 30:9, immediately following mention of the lamps in vv. 7-8, where the hip‛il of ‛lh refers to the burning of incense. The same verb is used quite frequently elsewhere with reference to the performance of burnt offerings, in which offering material is caused to ascend in the form of smoke (e.g., Exod 24:5; Lev 14:20; 17:8; see BDB: 750). Although the sequence of lamp tending activities progresses from morning to evening, what is important is the result of the goal activity performed in the evening: The lamps produce their light through the night (Exod 30:8). So in terms of their light, their cycle is “from evening to morning” (27:21; Lev 24:3). In this respect, the lamps are similar to the evening regular burnt offering “that stays on the altar hearth all night until morning, while the altar fire is kept burning on it” (6:2; Milgrom 1991: 378-9). Intrinsic Activity Root Definition: A system to light a tent by burning oil in lamps. Transformation: Input resource: oil → burn oil → light Effect on tent: tent unlit → light tent → tent lit Decomposition: There are two steps in the lamp ritual at the prescribed level of detail, each of which is represented by a verb (hip‛il of yt[b and ‛lh, respectively; see above). The first step, accomplished in the morning, is prerequisite to the second, which is performed in the evening:

71

See Num 4:9, where the fact that the lamps are listed separately from the lamp stand indicates that they are separate, detachable pieces (Milgrom 1990: 27, 60).

136

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

LIGHT TENT 1. renew lamps (performed in the morning) 2. kindle lamps (performed in the evening) 4.2.6.2. Cognitive Task Perspective While the biblical text does not clearly indicate a cognitive task interpretation of the regular lamp ritual, the ritual clearly functions within an interpreted setting: in YHWH’s residence. As mentioned above, this and other regular rituals performed by the priest inside the Tent constitute work of a human servant for his divine Lord. While the lamp ritual emphasizes that the sanctuary is like a human dwelling, the lamps remain lit all night.72 YHWH is not a human being who requires sleep (cf. Ps 121:4—“the Guardian of Israel does not slumber or sleep”). As in other rituals (see above), it appears that anthropomorphism is mitigated.73 Cognitive Task Root Definition: A system to light YHWH’s residence. Transformation: YHWH’s residence unlit → light YHWH’s residence → YHWH’s residence lit Decomposition: LIGHT YHWH’S RESIDENCE 1. renew lamps (performed in the morning) 2. light YHWH’s residence (performed in the evening) 4.2.6.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective The evening lamp activities complete rather than repeat the process carried out in the morning. So whereas other regular morning and evening rituals are performed twice per day (see above and below), there is only one lamp ritual per day. The fact that the lamp ritual is split between its morning and evening phases means, in a sense, that it is interrupted by all rituals that come in between.

72

In support of the idea that the lamps did not burn 24 hours per day, see 1 Sam 3:3—“and the lamp of God had not yet gone out.” 73 On a similar theological balance in the “bread of the presence” ritual (Lev 24:5-9), see Gane 1992.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

137

Splitting the lamp ritual achieves symmetry. The purpose of the ritual is to produce light through the night, so lighting the lamps is only necessary in the evening. From a practical standpoint, cleaning the lamps and filling them with oil could be performed in the evening just before they are lit. However, the lamp ritual is one of the regular rituals, and all of the other regular rituals are performed both morning and evening. Beginning the lamp ritual in the morning gives it similar bipartite structure, with respect to the day, as the other regular rituals: La = Lamp Ritual La

1 morning

2 evening

4.3. OFFERING + REMOVAL RITUAL 4.3.1. Calendric Burnt Offering On the Day of Atonement, burnt offerings occur in three contexts: regular rituals (Num 28:2-8), festival additions to the regular burnt offering (29:8-11), and within the complex of rituals that are special to the day (Lev 16:24). The regular and festival addition burnt offerings are performed on behalf of all Israelites.74 The two burnt offerings following the ritual of Azazel’s goat are on behalf of

74

Compare Num 28:2, which is addressed to the Israelites, with 29:8ff, where pl. pronouns have the “Israelites” of 28:2 as their antecedent.

138

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Aaron, that is, the priestly clan,75 and “the people,” that is, the nonpriestly community (v. 24b). 4.3.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective The calendric burnt offerings performed on the Day of Atonement are indicated simply by paradigm title: “burnt offering” (‛o4lâ), without specification of activity components. It can be assumed that activities included in these burnt offerings are the same as those specified in Leviticus 1 with regard to noncalendric burnt offerings, except that hand leaning is omitted in calendric sacrifices (see chap. 2., section 2.5.). For an intrinsic activity root definition, transformation, and decomposition of the burnt offering, see chapter 1., section 1.4. 4.3.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective As shown by Numbers 28:2, a calendric burnt offering (in this case the regular offering), like a noncalendric burnt offering (Lev 1:9, 13) is a “food gift” for YHWH. Thus the cognitive task root definition and transformation of the calendric burnt offering is the same as that developed in chapter 2. (section 2.5.). However, offerers of burnt offerings on the Day of Atonement are groups rather than individuals: the entire community, the lay community, or the priestly clan. The cognitive task decomposition of the calendric burnt offering is the same as that outlined in chapter 2., section 2.5., except that hand leaning is omitted. 4.3.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective From a ritual syntax perspective, the calendric burnt offering is the same as the noncalendric burnt offering (see chap. 3., section 3.3.), but with the first activity (hand leaning) omitted.

4.4. REMOVAL + OFFERING RITUALS 4.4.1. Festival Purification Offering As on other festivals (see Num 28:15, 22, 30; 29:5, 16, etc.) one goat is offered on the Day of Atonement as a purification offering 75

cf. Lev 16:6—Aaron’s purification offering expiates for his household as well as for himself.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

139

(h[at[t[a4‚t; 29:11). Numbers 29:11 makes it clear that the function of this offering as a festival addition is not covered by the “purification offering of purgations” (on which see below).76 4.4.1.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective Numbers 29:11, like other verses in Numbers 28-29 calling for festival purification offerings, provides no outline, referring only to the paradigm title: “purification offering” (h[at[t[a4‚t). This would be no problem if there were only one purification offering paradigm for animals77 (not including birds)78 offered at the sanctuary,79 but there are two possibilities: (1) the paradigm outlined in Leviticus 4:3-12 and 13-21, in which the blood is manipulated in the outer sanctum, and (2) the paradigm outlined in Leviticus 4:22-26, 27-31, 32-35, in which the blood is applied to the outer altar. In support of (1), which can be called an “outer sanctum” purification offering in accordance with the location of its blood manipulation, is the fact that festival purification offerings, like the offering in 4:13-21, are on behalf of the community. However, deciding in favor of (2), an “outer altar” purification offering, is the descriptive evidence provided by Leviticus 9: The inauguration purification offering on behalf of the community (Lev 9:15) was performed like the previous purification offering, in which Aaron applied the blood to the outer altar (Lev 9:9). It is this corporate, general purification offering on behalf of the community that is comparable in function to the festival purification offerings. By contrast, the Leviticus 4:13-21 sacrifice is to be classed with private offerings in the sense that it deals with a particular situation: it expiates from a specific moral offense (v. 13; see chap. 2.). Numbers 29:11 specifies a male goat for the festival purification offering. The basic prescriptive paradigm for the noncalendric “outer altar” purification offering of a male goat is found in Leviticus 4:22-26: lean hand slay animal 76

Num 29:11 assumes knowledge of Lev 16. Excluding Lev 5:11-13—cereal purification offering. 78 Lev 5:7-9—doves or pigeons as purification offering. 79 Excluding Num 19:1-10—red cow purification offering. 77

140

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE put some blood on the four horns of the outer altar pour rest of blood at base of altar place suet on altar

The suet parts to be burned are the same as in the well-being offering (v. 26), that is: (14)...the suet that covers the entrails and all the suet that is around the entrails; (15) the two kidneys and the suet that is around them on the sinews; and the caudate lobe on the liver, which he shall remove with the kidneys (Lev 3:14b-15; Milgrom 1991: 203).

Two additional activities belonging to the paradigm are attested in connection with other “outer altar” purification offerings: 1. “Remove suet” is necessary before the burning of the suet. This activity is prescribed in Leviticus 4:31 in connection with a female goat (cf. vv. 8-9, 19, 35). Removing suet does not require prior flaying and dismembering. 2. “Eat remaining meat,” to be performed after the burning of the suet on the altar, is prescribed in Leviticus 6:19 (cf. v. 22), in the context of directions to priests. This verse specifies that in all “outer altar” purification offerings, the officiating priest must eat the meat in the sacred precincts. It is clear from 10:16-18 that priestly consumption of the remainder of a purification offering must take place on the same day as the rest of the offering. Not indicated in any text is what happens to remaining inedible portions. Perhaps they are incinerated like leftover well-being offering meat (7:17). Three more necessary activities are attested in passages dealing with burnt offerings: 1. “Collect blood” is necessary before it can be manipulated (2 Chron 29:22). 2. “Present blood to altar” is necessary after it is collected and before it is manipulated (Lev 1:5).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

141

3. “Present animal part(s) to altar” is necessary before they are burned on the altar (Lev 1:13).80 In the case of the purification offering, the activity can be labeled: “present suet to altar.” Thus far, the noncalendric “outer altar” purification offering paradigm has been in view. In the festival purification offering, this paradigm would be modified in two respects: 1. Hand leaning would not be included, due to the calendric nature of the offering (see chap. 2.). 2. The remainder of the animal would be taken outside the camp and incinerated, rather than eaten, because it is on behalf of the officiating priests as well as for the rest of the community. Unlike the inauguration complex of sacrifices (Lev 9), in which there were separate purification offerings for the priests (vv. 8-11) and for the community (v. 15), each festival addition complex has only one purification offering (Num 28:15, 22, 30; 29:5, 11, 16, etc.), which must be on behalf of the priests as well as the rest of the community.81 If the officiating priests were to eat the remainder of this sacrifice, they would benefit from an offering that is on behalf of them. Such benefit is forbidden, as implied by the fact that in the priest’s inaugural purification offering, the remainder was incinerated outside the camp (Lev 9:11) rather than eaten.82 On 80

In Lev 3:9, 14, the lay offerer presents his offering, consisting of the suet of the well-being offering. This presentation is to be distinguished from priestly presentation that ends in contact with the altar. 81 This fact was overlooked by m. Zebah[im 5:3, where festival purification offerings are of the “outer altar” type, but, because they are regarded as offerings of the (lay) community only, it is stated that the remainder of the meat is eaten by the priests. 82 Note two points: 1. The fact that the goat of the people’s offering was also burned rather than eaten was due to extenuating circumstances; it was meant to be eaten (see Lev 10:16-20; cf. vv. 1-7). On problems in ritual performance, see Grimes 1988: 103-122. 2. This case, in which the blood is manipulated on the outer altar but the remainder is burned, leads me to label the two basic purification offering paradigms as “outer altar” and “outer sanctum” rather that “eaten” and “burned” (i.e., incinerated outside the camp), respectively (cf. Milgrom 1991: 261-4). Lev 6:23 rules that “outer sanctum” (and “inner sanctum”) purification offerings can never be eaten: “No purification offering, however, may be eaten from which any blood is brought into the

142

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

the disposal of carcasses outside the camp by incineration, see the specifications in Leviticus 4:11-12, 21. According to my interpretation, the activity components included in the festival purification offering are as follows: slay animal collect blood present blood to altar put some blood on the four horns of the outer altar pour rest of blood at base of altar remove suet present suet to altar place suet on altar incinerate remainder of carcass outside the camp We can now propose an intrinsic activity root definition. The qualification “subject to cognitive task constraints” must be included in this definition (cf. chap. 1.) because they affect the activity system in important ways. For example, the blood must be put on the four horns of the altar, the remainder of the blood is poured out at the base of the altar, and the meat cannot be eaten. Intrinsic activity root definition: A system to transform a live goat into bloodstains on the horns of the altar, smoke from the altar, ashes on the altar, and ashes and smoke outside the camp, subject to cognitive task constraints. Transformation: live goat → perform transformation → bloodstains on horns of altar, smoke, ashes

Tent of Meeting to effect purgation in the shrine; it shall be consumed in fire” (Milgrom 1991: 380). This rule does not imply that all purification offerings from which blood is not brought into the Tent can be eaten. Therefore, this verse does not establish “eaten” and “burned/incinerated” as two basic categories of purification offerings. Whether or not an “outer altar” offering can be eaten depends upon whether or not priests are offerers (see above). The “red cow” ritual performed outside the camp is a special case. It is a purification offering (Num 19:9), but it belongs neither to the “outer altar” or “outer sanctum” type; it can be called an “outside the camp” purification offering. As in “outer sanctum” offerings on behalf of priests, it is burned/incinerated (vv. 5-6), but none of it is eaten. Unlike “outer sanctum” offerings on behalf of priests, none of the “red cow” goes up in smoke on the altar.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

143

Since no verb adequately covers the process by which a live goat is transformed into bloodstains on the horns of the altar, etc., I have used the generic expression: “perform transformation.” The need to use such an expression reflects the fact that the system is unified only on the cognitive task level. Decomposition: The system can be decomposed according to intrinsic activity goals and sub-goals as follows: PERFORM TRANSFORMATION 1. slay animal 2. manipulate blood 2.1. collect blood 2.2. present blood to altar 2.3. put some blood on the four horns of the outer altar 2.4. pour rest of blood at base of altar 3. place suet on altar 3.1. remove suet 3.2. present suet to altar 3.3. place suet on altar 4. incinerate remainder of carcass outside the camp 4.1. take remainder of carcass outside camp 4.2. incinerate remainder of carcass Note: 1. At the first level of decomposition, activity 1. is prerequisite, 2. and 3. are goal activities, and 4. is postrequisite disposal. 2. Within 2., activities 2.1.-2. are prerequisite, 2.3. is the goal and 2.4. is postrequisite disposal. 3. Within 3., activities 3.1.-2. are prerequisite and 3.3. is the goal. 4. Within 4., 4.1. is prerequisite to 4.2. 4.4.1.2. Cognitive Task Perspective Since the calendric prescriptions of Numbers 28-29 are addressed to “the Israelites,” that is, the whole community, and the function of the festival purification offerings is “to expiate for you (pl.)” (Num 28:22, 30; 29:5), it is clear that they expiate for the whole community of Israel. While the verses in Numbers 28-29 do not specify the nature of the expiation/removal in terms of what evil is

144

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

removed, other passages show that purification offerings do the following: 1. They expiate from inadvertent violations of divine commands (Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; Num 15:22-23). Expiatory ritual activity carried out by a priest is prerequisite to forgiveness by YHWH (“that they/he may be forgiven”—Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; Num 15:25-26, 28; see Milgrom 1991: 245; 1990: 123-4). As the divine role in connection with such purification offerings, forgiveness is equivalent to acceptance (Heb. root rs[h) in burnt offerings (Lev 1:3-4). 2. They expiate from ritual impurity (Lev 12:6-8; 14:19, 22, 31, etc.). The result is purity; forgiveness is not needed. These passages deal with private purification offerings, which apply to specific cases of inadvertency or ritual impurity. In Numbers 28:22, 30; 29:5, however, it is not specified whether festival purification offerings expiate from inadvertent violations or ritual impurities. It appears that these calendric sacrifices are general in the sense that (1) they cover both inadvertent moral faults and ritual impurity, (2) they apply not to specific cases, but to inadvertencies and impurities in general, and (3) they apply to all Israelites collectively. In the festival calendar of Numbers 28-29, the fact that “to expiate for you” is stated only with regard to the purification offerings (28:22, 30; 29:5) suggests that they are more notable for their expiatory power than are the burnt offerings. The relationship between the cognitive task emphasis of a festival burnt offering and that of a festival purification offering is reflected in the relationship between their respective intrinsic activities. As in the burnt offering, blood from the purification offering is applied to the outer altar and solid parts are burned there. However, there are significant differences, especially with regard to the blood and the pieces burned on the altar:83 1. Blood. Whereas in the burnt offering the blood is dashed against the sides of the altar, in the purification offering, the altar horns (i.e., horn-like projections from the four top corners) are daubed with blood and the remainder of the blood is disposed of 83

There are other differences. In the purification offering, flaying, dismembering, and washing entrails are unnecessary due to the facts that the suet can be removed without dismembering the carcass.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

145

(Milgrom 1991: 238; Wright 1987a: 147-8) by pouring it out (špk) at the base of the altar. Only in purification offerings is blood put on altar horns, the highest parts of an altar, making the blood prominent in a vertical direction, the direction in which smoke of sacrifices or incense goes up to the deity. That the blood is the part of the festival purification offering that is emphasized, giving the ritual greater expiatory significance than the burnt offering, is in harmony with the fact that in other purification offering paradigms, the blood manipulation phase is expanded: In the “outer sanctum” purification offering (Lev 4:3-12; 1321), blood is taken into the Tent and sprinkled seven times before the inner veil (vv. 5-6, 16-17). Then, blood is put on the horns of the inner altar, after which the remainder of the blood is poured out at the base of the outer altar (vv. 7, 18). By comparison with the “outer altar” purification offering, the blood manipulation portion of the paradigm is modified in two ways: (1) it is expanded by the addition of the sevenfold sprinkling, and (2) it is extended in a horizontal direction toward the deity. The expanded, extended blood manipulation correlates with an increase in the expiatory power of the sacrifice: Because the offender is the high priest or the community, rather than simply an individual lay Israelite, the evil that must be expiated is more serious.84 In the most solemn, yearly “purification offering of purgations” (Lev 16:11-19; see below), the high priest takes blood into the inner sanctum, where he sprinkles it on the ark cover and seven times in front of the ark cover (v. 14). In the outer apartment he puts blood on the horns of the inner altar and sprinkles blood seven times (v. 16b; cf. Exod 30:10). Moving to the courtyard, he daubs blood on the horns of the outer altar and sprinkles blood seven times on that altar. Thus the blood manipulation portion of the ritual is greatly expanded and horizontal movement toward the deity extends as far as possible. 84

It could be suggested that the more serious the situation, the more intimate the transaction to make amends. Viewed in human terms, if an ordinary individual wrongs a ruler, he probably does not go into the palace to put things right, but rather settles the account outside with an official who represents the ruler. If, on the other hand, a chief servant or a nation wrongs a ruler, restitution may be delivered more personally.

146

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

The horizontal symmetry of the “purification offering of purgations” suggests that in some sense the functional equivalents of the ark cover, over which the deity resides (Exod 25:22; Num 7:89; cf. Ps 80:2; 99:1; Isa 37:16) are the altar horns, which must be symbols of divinity here, as elsewhere in the ancient Near East (Milgrom 1991: 234-5). 2. Animal pieces burned on the altar. In a burnt offering, all solid parts of the animal, except for the hide and dung, are burned on the altar. In a purification offering, on the other hand, only the suet is burned on the altar. Several factors indicate that the suet is transferred to YHWH in the form of smoke. First, the verb for burning the suet on the altar is the hip‛il of qt[r, “turn into smoke” (Lev 4:26, 31, 35), the same as that employed for prescribing the burning of burnt offerings (1:9, 13; cf. v. 17). Second, Leviticus 4:31 speaks of the smoke as “a pleasing aroma (rêah[ nîh[o4ah[) to YHWH.” Third, 3:16b states that all suet belongs to YHWH. Even though the suet portions of a purification offering are the same as those that constitute a “food gift” (‚iššeh) in the context of a well-being offering (3:14-16; cf. vv. 9-11), these purification offering portions are excluded from the category of “food gifts,” as shown by the wording of 4:35, where they are burned on the altar “with the food gifts of YHWH” (Milgrom 1991: 253). This is in harmony with the fact that no purification offering is called a “food gift” (Milgrom 1991: 161-2).85 If the suet of a purification offering is food that is transferred to YHWH, but it is not a gift, what is its cognitive task function? Milgrom comments on 4:35: “The logic is clear: The Lord is surely pleased with the offering of the repentant wrongdoer (v 31), but it is not a gift; it is his humble expiation” (Milgrom 1991: 253). In other words, the purification offering is mandatory payment of an obligation or “debt” to YHWH. An Israelite can voluntarily bring a burnt offering or a well-being offering, but if he inadvertently violates a divine command or has had a serious impurity, he is obligated to offer a purification offering. This explains why a 85

See Num 15:25, where a burnt offering and a purification offering belonging to the same ritual complex are referred to as a “food gift” and a purification offering. Rather than referring to two food gifts, the verse avoids applying this label to the purification offering (Milgrom 1991: 161).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

147

purification offering belonging to the same ritual complex as a burnt offering must be performed before the latter: the debt must be paid before a gift is accepted (Rainey 1970: 494-8; cf. Milgrom 1991: 488-9).86 The interpretation presented in the last paragraph appears to be contradicted by the fact that the suet of a mandatory reparation offering (‚a4ša4m) is called a “food gift” (Lev 7:5). However, in connection with such an offering, literal payment of a debt occurs before the reparation offering is performed. This prior restitution, including the principal plus 20% interest, is made to the one wronged, whether God in the case of sacrilege against sancta (Lev 5:16), or a person wronged by sacrilege against an oath (v. 24 [Engl. 6:5]).87 Since reparation offerings follow debt payments, they can be called food gifts. Purification offerings, by contrast with reparation offerings, constitute rather than follow payment of debt. They are required for violations of divine commandments or serious impurities,88 evils for which no restitution can be made in money or in kind. Therefore, their expiatory power must be greater than that of reparation offerings. This relationship correlates with the difference between their blood manipulations: Whereas purification offering blood is placed on altar horns (see above), reparation offering blood is dashed on the sides of the altar (7:2), as in burnt offerings (1:5, 11). Thus far, it is clear that in a purification offering, by comparison with a burnt offering, an intrinsic activity emphasis upon blood corresponds to a cognitive task emphasis on expiation, 86

Rainey shows that although burnt offerings are listed first in administrative prescriptive texts such as the cultic calendar of Num 28-29, purification offerings are actually performed before all other offerings, as shown, e.g., by the procedural description of the inauguration ceremonies in Lev 9:7-21. 87 Prior restitution cannot apply when a person only feels guilt with regard to sancta without knowing his error; he/she provides only the sacrifice (Lev 5:17-19). 88 Unlike reparation offerings (see Lev 5:17-19), purification offerings are brought only for known evils (4:14, 22-23, 27-28). The fact that a reparation offering can be offered for an evil that is merely suspected is due to the fact that sacrilege is a more serious evil than inadvertent violation of divine commands.

148

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

and an intrinsic activity de-emphasis upon solid animal parts corresponds to a cognitive task de-emphasis upon food offered to YHWH. The latter point raises a question: Why does payment of an obligation (purification offering) involve transferring much less meat to YHWH than does offering him a gift (burnt offering)? It appears that in the purification offering, the expiatory blood constitutes the main payment; the suet is secondary. There is a close relationship between expiation and debt payment here: Performing expiation, that is, removing an evil, at the same time removes from the offerer a debt to YHWH with respect to that evil. While the special “purification offering of purgations,” performed only on the Day of Atonement, removes evils from the sanctuary and its sancta on behalf of the Israelite community (Lev 16:20, 33; see below), “outer altar” and “outer sanctum” purification offerings contribute to the removal of evils from persons. In Numbers 8:21b, for example, in the context of a description regarding purification of the Levites’ work force, the words “and Aaron made expiation for them to purify them” refer to his performance of two sacrifices prescribed in vv. 8-12, a purification offering and a burnt offering with its cereal accompaniment. Together, these sacrifices expiate for a group of persons, namely the Levites (vv. 12, 21b), thereby purifying them (v. 21b) from serious ritual impurity89 before they begin service in connection with the sanctuary and its sancta (v. 15; Milgrom 1990: 61). What is the “cognitive task” relationship between the special complex of rituals performed on the Day of Atonement— including the “purification offering of purgations” and the ritual of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16)—and “outer altar” and “outer sanctum” purification offerings? Removal of evils from persons through “outer altar” or “outer sanctum” purification offerings results in their being cleansed up to a point. Although Numbers 8:21b states that “Aaron made expiation for them to purify them,” such rituals during the year constitute the first stage in a cleansing process that is completed by the special rituals performed for the Israelites 89

Less severe impurities require only washing with water (see Lev 11:40; 15:5-8, 10, etc.).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

149

collectively on the Day of Atonement: “For on this day shall expiation be made for you to purify you from all your sins; you shall become pure before YHWH” (Lev 16:30). On the Day of Atonement, the “purification offering of purgations” purges the sanctuary of the accumulated “pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins” (v. 16; Milgrom 1991: 1010), and the ritual of Azazel’s goat purges the community of “all of the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins” (v. 21; Milgrom 1991: 1010). It should be pointed out that removal of nonmaterial evil in stages is not unique here in Israelite ritual. A healed scale-diseased person is purified in several stages over an 8-day period (Lev 14). After the ritual activities of the first day, he is readmitted into the camp (or city), but must wait until the seventh day before entering his dwelling (vv. 8-9). Only after offering sacrifices on the eighth day (vv. 10-32) has he fully discharged his obligation with respect to his ritual impurity and, presumably, is permitted to eat sacred food (Milgrom 1991: 849-50). The “purification offering of purgations” and the ritual of Azazel’s goat will be discussed in detail below, but there is a question that is directly relevant to the festival purification offering: If it is the blood that expiates for the offerer in an “outer altar” or “outer sanctum” purification offering, why is the blood applied to parts of the sanctuary to which blood is applied again in the course of the “purification offering of purgations,” that is, on the horns of the outer altar (4:25, 30, 34; cf. 16:18) or “before the veil” and on the horns of the incense altar in the outer sanctum (4:6-7, 17-18; cf. Lev 16:16b; Exod 30:10)? Since it is the blood manipulations of the “purification offering of purgations” (Lev 16:14-16, 18) that purge (kipper ‚et) the sanctuary and its sancta (Lev 16:20, 33), it appears that the applications of purification offering blood on other days of the year constitute harbingers of the cleansing accomplished on the Day of Atonement. These blood manipulations free seriously impure persons and inadvertent sinners from the threat of divine punishment that applies to those who wantonly fail to avail

150

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

themselves of the divinely appointed ritual remedies (15:31; Num 19:13, 20).90 That identical activities, such as the blood applications just mentioned, should have different functions at different times should not be surprising. It is a fundamental fact of the nature of ritual that the same intrinsic activity element can have multiple cognitive task functions (Staal 1989: 127-9, 134, 330). So whereas a sevenfold sprinkling of blood on the floor of the Israelite sanctuary on the Day of Atonement purges an area of the tabernacle (Lev 16:14-16), the same activity performed on the outer altar in the course of the same ritual reconsecrates it (vv. 18-19; see Milgrom 1991: 1037). Compare also the cognitive task function of well-being offering suet, called a “food gift,” with the function of identical suet of purification offerings, which is also burned on the outer altar, but is not called a “food gift” (see above). Two intrinsic activity differences between the “outer sanctum” purification offering and the “purification offering of purgations” correlate with the idea that their respective cognitive task functions are complementary rather than identical: 1. Whereas the direction of blood applications in the “outer sanctum” offering is toward the ark cover (4:6-7, 17-18; see below), in the “purification offering of purgations” it is away from the ark cover (Lev 16:16b—abbreviated, but reconstructed below). The order is reversed. Movement away from the ark cover is the logical direction for purging the sanctuary, the explicit purpose of the Leviticus 16 ritual, but movement toward the ark cover is not. 2. In Leviticus 16, incinerating the carcasses of the “purification offering of purgations” animals (v. 27) requires the personal purification of a lay performer (v. 28), but in Leviticus 4 the same activity (vv. 11-12, 21) does not.91 It could be argued that Leviticus 4 assumes on the basis of Leviticus 16 that personal purification is performed. However, three factors indicate that this is not the case. First, the prescription for the incineration in 16:27 90

Note that the Red Cow ritual (Num 19:1-10) is called a “purification offering” (v. 9). This ritual produces the ashes subsequently re-hydrated as the “waters of lustration,” the aspersion of which purifies from corpse contamination (vv. 11ff). 91 Against rabbinic tradition, which assumes that the rules in Lev 16 apply to the cases in Lev 4 (m. Parah 8:3; t. Yoma 3:16).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

151

assumes knowledge of 4:11-12, not the other way around. Aside from the fact that the list of animal parts is fuller in Leviticus 4 than in Leviticus 16, only Leviticus 4 provides the important specification as to where outside the camp incinerations of purification offering animals sacrificed at the sanctuary are to take place: “A pure place...the ash dump” (v. 12). Second, the “purification offering of purgations” in Leviticus 16 is unique in a number of ways, including the fact that it is the only Israelite ritual involving entrance of the high priest into the inner sanctum. Ritual activities and cognitive task interpretations belonging to a unique ritual do not provide reliable evidence for reconstruction of activities and interpretations belonging to other rituals. In fact, additional information provided with a unique ritual may be provided precisely because that information applies only in that context. On the significance of the personal purification in Leviticus 16 in connection with the impurities removed from the sanctuary, see the discussion below on the “purification offering of purgations.” Third, when personal purification is required for ritual participants, it is a postrequisite part of a given ritual (see chap. 2., section 2.1.3.). Thus I doubt that Leviticus 4 would have omitted mention of the personal purification simply due to the fact that the activity is not involved in treatment of the animal. An example cited in the above discussion of what is purified by purification offerings raises a question that is potentially relevant to festival offerings: Why is a burnt offering involved with a purification offering in the removal of ritual impurity from the Levites’ work force (Num 8)? Comparison between this case and the festival complex of rituals, in which a purification offering is juxtaposed to a group of burnt offerings (29:8-11), may yield clarification as to the role of the festival purification offering. Discussed here are the respective roles of paired purification and burnt offerings, and implications for festival offerings. 1. Roles of paired purification and burnt offerings. The purification and burnt offerings in Numbers 8 function together as a single unit; they constitute a ritual complex. Numbers 15:24-28 shows that with respect to the kind of expiation achieved, such a complex functions like one purification offering. In this passage, whereas an individual offers one animal for inadvertent violation of a divine command (vv. 27-28; cf. vv. 22-23), the community offers

152

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

two animals: a burnt offering as well as a purification offering (vv. 24-26). The burnt offering supplements the quantity of the purification offering. Compare Leviticus 5, where instead of a single purification offering animal (v. 6), an Israelite can bring “two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a purification offering and the other for a burnt offering” (v. 7). The purpose of the burnt offering is to supplement the quantity that is offered (Milgrom 1991: 304). A burnt offering in such a context maintains its “offer food to YHWH” cognitive task function, but as a mandatory offering, its “gift” aspect is de-emphasized. Since a purification offering plus a burnt offering functions as a greater purification offering, the complex that includes both rituals can be called a “purification offering complex.” 2. Implications for festival offerings. There are important differences between festival offerings and the “purification offering complexes” in Numbers 8 and 15: First, a festival purification offering is not paired with a single burnt offering, as in Numbers 8 and 15; rather, it is juxtaposed to a group of burnt offerings. Thus on the Day of Atonement, a bull, a ram, and seven lambs are offered as burnt offerings (29:8) along with the single goat (v. 11). Second, whereas the purification offering complexes in Numbers 8 and 15 deal with specific cases of impurity or inadvertency, festival offerings are general (see above). Third, whereas purification offering complexes are primarily concerned with expiation, the purpose of a “festival complex” is to supplement (see ‛al/milbad, “in addition to”; Num 28:15, 23, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, etc.) the regular burnt offerings (see chap. 7.), which are YHWH’s daily “food gifts” (28:2, 3, 6, 8). So a festival complex emphasizes a “food gift” function with multiple burnt offerings, but includes one purification offering preceding (see above on the order) the burnt offerings, apparently to expiate for any outstanding debts, that is, inadvertencies and impurities, which could hinder YHWH’s acceptance of the large festival gift. From the points just stated, it appears that festival purification and burnt offerings do not function together in purification offering complexes. The burnt offerings do not supplement the purification offering, but rather, the single purification offering adds an expiatory function that is needed in connection with the burnt offerings.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

153

On the basis of the above discussion, we can propose a cognitive task root definition of the festival purification offering. Remember that the offering is a calendric one on behalf of the Israelite community. “Subject to intrinsic activity constraints” must be included. This qualification refers to the fact that the order in which cognitive task subsystems occur is affected by practical considerations, for example, the animal must be slaughtered before its blood is manipulated, the blood is treated first because it comes out immediately at slaughter, and so on. In the purification offering, treating the blood first coincides with the cognitive task primacy of the blood. Cognitive task root definition: A system contributing to the purification of the Israelite community from some kinds of evils, that is, ritual impurities and inadvertent violations of YHWH’s commandments, which are offensive to YHWH and result in debt to him. The system is subject to intrinsic activity constraints. Transformation: Israelites polluted by evil offensive to YHWH → fulfill condition for purification of Israelites from evil offensive to YHWH → condition for purification of Israelites from evil offensive to YHWH fulfilled Decomposition: FULFILL CONDITION FOR PURIFICATION OF ISRAELITES 1. slay animal 2. fulfill condition for purification 2.1. collect blood 2.2. present blood to YHWH at altar 2.3. fulfill condition for purification 2.4. pour rest of blood at base of altar 3. make secondary (token) debt payment to YHWH 3.1. remove suet 3.2. present suet to altar 3.3. make secondary (token) debt payment to YHWH 4. incinerate remainder of carcass outside camp 4.1. take remainder of carcass outside camp 4.2. incinerate remainder of carcass

154

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

4.4.1.3. Ritual Syntax Perspective P = Purification Offering P

1

2

2.1

2.2

3

2.3

2.4 3.1

3.2

4

3.3

4.1

4.2

Abbreviation of the purification offering by omission of initial hand leaning when it is calendric can be accounted for by the same kind of transformational rule that transforms a burnt offering into an abbreviated burnt offering when it is calendric, that is, embedded in a ritual day complex (see chap. 3). By comparison with purification offerings on behalf of lay offerers only, the festival purification offering is modified by substitution of final disposal (4. decomposed into 4.1.-2.) in place of eating the meat (see above). This modification is conditioned by the social function of the offering rather than syntactic factors. By comparison with the burnt offering (see chap. 3.), the purification offering is weighted forward, due to emphasis on the blood rather than the body of the animal. Also unlike the burnt offering, the purification offering has concluding postrequisite activities (4.1.-2.) that follow the burning of animal parts on the altar (3.3.). 4.4.2. “Purification Offering of Purgations” Only once per year on the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev 16:29), during an exceedingly solemn pair of special purification offerings, is the Israelite high priest permitted to enter the inner

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

155

sanctum/adytum92 of the sanctuary (Lev 16:2-3, 5, 12-16a). One of these offerings is a bull on behalf of the high priest and his “household,” that is, the rest of the priestly clan (vv. 6, 11, 17), and the other is a goat for the lay community (vv. 5, 15-16). The biblical name for the complex consisting of both of these purification offerings is “purification offering of purgations” (h[at[t[a4‚t hakkippu4rîm; Exod 30:10; Num 29:11). “Purgations” here translates Hebrew kippu4rîm, from the same root (kpr) as the verb that is usually translated “to expiate” or “to atone” (kipper). The reason for the difference in translation is that here evil is taken away from objects and places rather than persons (see Milgrom 1991: 254-6; 1079-83). 4.4.2.1. Intrinsic Activity Perspective The two purification offerings of purgations are outlined in Leviticus 16:11b-19, 25, 27-28. These rituals are interwoven with each other, that is, the second ritual begins before the first ritual is completed and similar activities belonging to the two rituals alternate (see further in chap. 7.). Because relationships between alternating activities must be indicated, the second ritual must be outlined in detail, except for the blood manipulations in the outer sanctum (v. 16b). Not only are the two rituals interwoven with each other; they are also interrupted by other rituals, namely, the Azazel’s goat, high priestly personal purification, and burnt offering rituals (vv. 20-24). At one point there is a difference between the two performances: a group of activities concerned with burning incense is included in the first ritual (vv. 12-13), but not in the second (v. 15). Without these activities, performed after the slaughter of his bull (v. 11) and before manipulation of its blood in the inner sanctum (v. 14), the high priest cannot enter the inner sanctum without being struck dead (v. 13; see further below). It is clear that when the high priest enters, he places his censer in the inner sanctum (so m. Yoma 5:1-2) and leaves it there until after completion of the inner sanctum blood manipulations belonging to

92

Called the “holy place” (qo4deš) in Lev 16 (see v. 20).

156

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

the second ritual.93 Thus the results of the incense activities performed during the first ritual remain to benefit the second ritual. Following designation of the respective function of the two goats by lot (vv. 7-10), the first purification offering begins with slaughter of the high priest’s bull (v. 11b). Before this occurs, the text says that he “brings the bull near” (hip‛il of qrb, v. 11a), using the verb that can be used either for preliminary conveyance to the ritual locus (Lev 1:3) or for ritual presentation to/at the altar (Lev 1:5, 13; cf. Gane and Milgrom 2004: 142). Since the high priest has already brought the bull before designation of the goats (v. 6), he would not need to move it again before slaughter. Verse 11a is simply resumptive repetition (wiederaufnahme) in the text, transferring the focus of ritual attention from the goats to the bull. Milgrom’s translation of 11a reflects this: “When Aaron shall bring forward his bull of purification offering...he shall slaughter.” Activities explicitly included in the purification offering of purgations paradigm (Lev 16:11b-19, 25, 27-28) are listed below. The variable incense activities, which belong to the first purification offering, are in italics. Notice that the high priest performs all activities up to and including burning of the suet. Concluding activities having to do with disposal of the carcass are performed by lay assistants, indicated in the text by the use of impersonal third person verbs (sing. and pl.).94

93

Lev 16 does not indicate when the censer is to be removed, but it obviously must be done on the Day of Atonement because the high priest is permitted to enter the inner sanctum only on that day in connection with the “purification offerings of purgations.” The most likely time for the removal of the censer seems to be immediately following the blood manipulations in the adytum belonging to the second purification offering. Removal later would require an extra entrance into the inner sanctum (so m. Yoma 7:4). 94 The high priest cannot take the remainder of the animal outside the camp and burn it because this would render him impure (Milgrom 1991: 239). cf. Lev 4:21, where the verbs “take away” and “incinerate” are impersonal. The performers would be lay assistants, as in Num 19:5, 8-9, where laypersons burn the red cow purification offering outside the camp and gather its ashes, and as in Lev 16:21, where a layman leads the live goat into the wilderness.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

157

PURIFICATION OFFERING OF PURGATIONS slay animal take censer of burning coals from outer altar, and incense bring censer and incense into inner sanctum set (i.e., burn) the incense on the fire take (basin of) blood bring blood into inner sanctum sprinkle blood eastward on ark cover sprinkle blood in front of ark cover 7x perform blood manipulations “likewise” in outer sanctum exit with blood to outer altar take (basin of) blood put blood on four horns of outer altar sprinkle blood on outer altar 7x place suet on outer altar take remainder of carcass (hide, flesh, dung) outside camp burn remainder of carcass launder clothes bathe in water Note the following points: 1. “Bring blood into inner sanctum” is specified by the text with regard to the community’s goat (v. 15). This must also be a separate activity in the first ritual. The high priest could not carry a vessel containing the bull’s blood at the same time as a fistful of incense and a fire pan, so bringing the blood necessarily involves a separate trip to and from the court (see m. Yoma 4:3, cited below). 2. “Take (basin of) blood” is based upon Leviticus 16:14, 18b: (14) He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the ark cover... (18b) He shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat and put it upon the horns around the altar (Milgrom 1991: 1010).

In these verses, “He shall take some of the blood” refers to the high priest taking a basin of blood, possibly from an assistant (m. Yoma 4:3; 5:3; Milgrom 1991: 1031). He would take the basin of bull’s blood after returning from burning incense (v. 14) and he would later take a basin into which the bloods of the two animals were mixed (v. 18b; m. Yoma 5:4). Whereas he would bring all of

158

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

the goat’s blood into the Tent (Lev 16:15),95 he would take only some of the bull’s blood in there. This makes sense from a practical standpoint: As a larger animal, the bull has a greater quantity of blood, too much for the high priest to conveniently carry into the Tent. It could be argued that “take some of the blood” refers to taking some blood on the finger in order to manipulate it. This idea is ruled out by comparison with 4:5-6: (5) The anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it into the Tent of Meeting. (6) The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle... (Milgrom 1991: 226; bold type supplied).

Here “shall take some of the blood” refers to taking a basin containing some of the bull’s blood in order to bring it into the Tent. Taking some blood on his finger in order to sprinkle it is expressed with another verb: “dip.” 3. At least in the case of the goat, the high priest must carry the remaining blood as he exits from the Tent to the outer altar (16:18a), due to the fact that he has carried all of the goat’s blood inside (v. 15). Because exiting to the outer altar brings the blood there, no separate activity of presenting the blood to the altar (cf. Lev 1:5) is necessary. The following additional activities, not mentioned in the text of Leviticus 16, must also belong to the paradigm: 1. “Collect blood” occurs immediately after slaughter in any ritual involving blood manipulation (cf. 2 Chron 29:22). M. Yoma 4:3 includes this activity at the beginning of the ritual with the bull: He slaughtered it and received its blood in a basin. He handed it over to him who would stir it while standing on the fourth terrace of the sanctuary, so that it would not congeal (transl. Neusner 1988: 271; Neusner’s outline headings have been omitted here).

2. “Exit from inner sanctum to court” must occur following placement of the incense in the inner sanctum so that the high priest can get the blood in order to take it back into the inner sanctum. 95

“...bring its blood inside the veil,” implying all of the blood (Milgrom 1991: 1033).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

159

3. “Exit with blood from inner sanctum to outer sanctum” comes between the blood manipulations in the two rooms. Since there is only a veil separating the two apartments, this transition is not mentioned by the text. By contrast, moving from the Tent to the outer altar in the court is a significant transition that is specified in v. 18a.96 4. “Mix blood with that of the other animal” (i.e., the animal treated in the other ritual) is necessary before applications of blood to the outer altar (m. Yoma 5:4; Milgrom 1991: 1037). The need for the mixing is indicated by Leviticus 16:18b: “He shall take some of the blood of the bull and of the goat and put it upon the horns around the altar” (Milgrom 1991: 1010; italics supplied).97 Remember that only some of the bull’s blood is taken inside the Tent; the rest remains in the court. Apparently only the part of the bull’s blood remaining from that which was brought into the Tent is combined with the goat’s blood and used for the blood applications to the outer altar (vv. 18-19).98 5. “Pour remaining blood at base of outer altar” (cf. Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). I assume that some blood would remain after the various applications to the sanctuary and its sancta. There are many more blood applications in the “purification offering of purgations” than in other purification offerings. If the high priest dips his finger once for each of the sevenfold sprinklings and for each application to an altar horn, he dips his finger 19 times in the Tent in the course of each special purification offering (1 + 7; 4 + 7), plus an additional 11 times at the outer altar (4 + 7) with the combined bloods of the two animals. Nevertheless, since each time he dips his finger he uses only a small amount of blood, he would not use up all of the blood in this way and would need to dispose of the remainder by pouring it out at the base of the outer altar (so 96

cf. mention of another important exit in Lev 16:24. According to m. Yoma 5:4, the mixing is accomplished by pouring the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat and then pouring both bloods from the full basin into the empty basin that was formerly that of the bull’s blood. 98 The sevenfold sprinkling on the outer altar reconsecrates it (Lev 16:19). The sanctifying power of the blood “derives from being brought inside the Tent—indeed, inside the adytum itself (so the explicit statement concerning the blood of the goat, v 15)” (Milgrom 1991: 1038). 97

160

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

m. Yoma 5:6). Furthermore, he would need to dispose of the part of the bull’s blood that remained in the court. 6. “Remove suet” takes place before this part of the animal can be burned on the altar (cf. Lev 4:8-9, 19, 31, 35). 7. “Present suet to outer altar” transfers the suet from the place where it is removed to the altar, where it is burned (cf. 1:13). In Leviticus 16, the prescription for blood manipulations in the outer sanctum (called the “Tent of Meeting” in Lev 16) is abbreviated: “...and he shall do likewise for the Tent of Meeting...” (v. 16b). Reconstruction of these activities is more complicated than it would appear to be at first glance. In Leviticus 16:16, “likewise” refers to what is prescribed in v. 16a: “Thus he shall purge the adytum of the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins” (Milgrom 1991: 1010). So the high priest’s activities in the outer sanctum purge it too from the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites. The question is, how? Presumably the text would only abbreviate in this manner if the procedure were already known. There are two possible precedents. First is the procedure used in the inner sanctum, which is specified in vv. 14, 15b: (14) He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the kappo4ret on its east side; and in front of the kappo4ret he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times (15b)...and manipulate its blood as he did with the blood of the bull; he shall sprinkle it upon the kappo4ret and before the kappo4ret (Milgrom 1991: 1010).

There is no kappo4ret/ark cover in the shrine, but Exodus 30:10 makes it clear that the altar of incense receives the single application of blood: Once a year Aaron shall perform purification upon its horns with blood of the sin offering of purification; purification shall be performed upon it once a year throughout the ages (NJPS).

Since the (four) horns of the altar are purged, it must be assumed that the high priest daubs blood on them, as in Leviticus 4:7, 18, rather than sprinkling on the altar as he has sprinkled on the ark cover “eastward,” that is, apparently “on its east side”

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

161

(Milgrom 1991: 1032).99 Continuing to apply the precedent set in the inner sanctum would mean that following the application of blood to the horns of the incense altar, there is a sevenfold sprinkling in front of the incense altar, just as the sevenfold sprinkling in the inner sanctum takes place in front of the sacred object located there, namely, the ark cover. The second possible precedent is the procedure prescribed in Leviticus 4 in the context of “outer sanctum” purification offerings. Milgrom translates 4:6-7, 17-18 as follows: (6) The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before the Lord against the veil of the shrine. (7) The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of perfumed incense, which is in the Tent of Meeting, before the Lord... (17) and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle of it seven times before the Lord, against the veil. (18) Some of the blood he shall put on the horns of the altar that is before the Lord in the Tent of Meeting... (Milgrom 1991: 226-7)

If this procedure were followed in the outer sanctum on the Day of Atonement, the sequence of single + sevenfold blood applications would be reversed by comparison with the applications in the inner sanctum: The single application of blood to the horns of the incense altar would follow rather than precede the sevenfold sprinkling. Any resolution to the question of the order in which the blood applications of the “purification offering of purgations” are performed in the outer sanctum is linked to the meaning of ‚et-pe6nê (hap)pa4ro4ket in Leviticus 4:6, 17. Milgrom renders this expression “against the veil” (see above), implying that the sevenfold sprinkling takes place between the veil and the incense altar rather than in front of the incense altar, as would be suggested by the inner sanctum precedent (16:14; see above). 99

Sprinkling, rather than daubing, the blood on the ark cover would not necessitate physical contact between the high priest and this object, the holiest of all the sancta.

162

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

In the “purification offerings of purgations,” the first blood application is performed on the ark cover (16:14) and each successive location of blood application (v. 16—outer sanctum; vv. 18-19—outer altar) is further away from the ark cover than the one before. If the sevenfold sprinkling in the outer sanctum is to be in harmony with this important outward progression, it must take place between the veil and the incense altar if it comes before the blood application to the horns of the incense altar. Alternatively, if the sprinkling follows application of blood to the altar horns, the high priest must perform it in front of the incense altar, at a greater distance from the ark cover than the incense altar. We cannot assume at the outset that the sevenfold sprinkling in the outer sanctum on the Day of Atonement occurs in the same location as in the purification offerings prescribed in Leviticus 4. Even if ‚et-pe6nê (hap)pa4ro4ket in 4:6, 17 is shown to be between the incense altar and the veil, it could be argued that on the Day of Atonement, the inner sanctum precedent means that in the outer sanctum the blood is sprinkled in front of the incense altar. However, if ‚et-pe6nê (hap)pa4ro4ket in 4:6, 17 likewise places the activity in front of the incense altar, the location suggested by the inner sanctum precedent (16:14) would be confirmed. Applying Leviticus 4:6, 17 to the context of the Day of Atonement, the Mishnah understands ‚et-pe6nê (hap)pa4ro4ket to mean: “on (‛al) the veil” (m. Yoma 5:4).100 However, the Babylonian Talmud records the view that the sprinkling was not meant to be on (‛al) the veil, but rather towards (ke6neged) it (b. Yoma 57a). Disagreement between rabbinic sources regarding ‚et-pe6nê is understandable in view of the fact that it appears with the hip‛il of nzh, “to sprinkle,” and with pa4ro4ket, “veil,” only in Leviticus 4:6, 17. In biblical Hebrew, ‚et is combined with pe6nê (construct form of pa4nîm, “face, surface, front, etc.”) in two ways: 1. ‚et functions as the direct object marker, with pa4nîm, “face, surface, front, etc.,” as object: Genesis 2:6; 31:2, 5; Exodus 34:35; Job 42:9; 2 Samuel 14:20; 2 Kings 18:24; Isaiah 36:9; 2 Chronicles 9:23.101 100

The context in m. Yoma 5:4 is the Day of Atonement, but the source is clearly Lev 4:6, 17. 101 There may or may not be a maqqe4p between ‚et and pe6ne. For example: Gen 31:2—‚et-pe6ne; 2 Ki 18:24—‚et pe6ne.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

163

2. ‚et = ‛im, “with” in the prepositional combination ‚et (-) pe6nê, literally “with the face of,” which is roughly equivalent to lipnê, “before.” That ‚et = ‛im in this combination is proven by the parallel between Job 1:12, where the adversary departed me4‛im pe6nê YHWH, “from before YHWH,” and 2:7, where the adversary departed me4‚et pe6nê YHWH, “from before YHWH.” The fact that in prepositional usage ‚et (-) pe6nê is approximately synonymous with lipnê is shown by comparison between 1 Kings 10:8, referring to Solomon’s servants standing “before you (lipnê + object suffix, addressed to Solomon),” and 12:6, speaking of the old men (officials, i.e., high-ranking servants) who used to stand “before (‚etpe6nê) Solomon.”. In the overwhelming majority of instances, prepositional objects of ‚et (-) pe6nê are the deity or various human persons: YHWH (Gen 19:13, 27; Exod 32:11; 34:24, etc.), Eli the priest (1 Sam 2:11), the king of Moab (22:4), and so on. In only three instances other than Leviticus 4:6, 17 (the cases in question), are prepositional objects inanimate things: a city (Gen 33:18), the “holy place” (Lev 10:4), and the temple (2 Ki 16:14). Thus far, ‚et-pe6nê in Leviticus 4:6, 17 could be either (1) the direct object ‚et with pa4nîm, “surface,” meaning that the high priest sprinkles the veil directly, or (2) a preposition having the sense of “before,” meaning that the high priest would sprinkle in front of, but not directly on, the veil. The first possibility is practically eliminated by the fact that sprinkling (hip‛il of nzh) directly “on” an object or person is never indicated in biblical Hebrew with ‚et as direct object, but rather by the preposition ‛al alone (Exod 29:21; Lev 5:9; 6:20; 8:11, 30; 14:7; 16:15, 19; Num 8:7; 19:18, 19) or in the combination ‛al -pe6nê (Lev 16:14—single sprinkling on the ark cover). Therefore we are on more solid ground to take ‚et-pe6nê in Leviticus 4:6, 17 as a prepositional usage that is roughly equivalent to lipnê in 16:14, where the high priest sprinkles blood seven times before/in front of the ark cover. Sprinkling “before” an object means that the person performing the action is facing that object. Because sprinkling necessarily involves movement away from the body, that which is sprinkled moves in the direction of the object. However, ‚et-pe6nê by itself denotes only the location and orientation of such an action; it

164

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

does not mean “toward.”102 With the hip‛il of nzh, “to sprinkle,” the meaning “toward” is carried by the preposition ‚el, whether alone (14:51) or in the combination ‚el-nokah[ (Num 19:4). If ‚et-pe6nê (hap)pa4ro4ket means “before the veil,” where is this in relation to the altar of incense?103 The altar of incense is also “before the veil” (Exod 30:6), but “before” in this case is lipnê. The sevenfold sprinkling in Leviticus 4:6, 17 does not apply blood to the altar of incense, which receives its blood by a separate act of daubing on its horns (vv. 7, 18). So the sprinkling must take place either in front of or behind the incense altar, or to one side of it. The sprinkling is most likely performed in the center of the width of the sanctuary, not to one side of the incense altar. The fact that all other blood manipulations in purification offerings at the sanctuary take place along the central axis between the ark cover (16:14-15) and the outer altar (vv. 18-19; cf. 4:25, 30, 34), with the altar of incense in between (4:7, 18; Exod 30:10— “purification offering of purgations”!), indicates that the sprinkling in question should also be performed on that axis. The incense altar is relatively close to the inner veil, as shown by the way spatial relationships within the outer sanctum are defined with reference to this veil (pa4ro4ket; see Gane and Milgrom 2003: 96). While the incense altar is “before” (lipnê) the veil, the golden table and golden lamp stand placed at either side of the outer sanctum are “outside (mih[ûs[) the veil” (table—Exod 26:35; 40:22; lamp stand—27:21; Lev 24:3). The designation “before the veil” is reserved for the incense altar because it is directly in front of the ark, in the middle of the width of the sanctuary (b. Yoma 33b; Cassuto 1967: 391). With some explanations inserted in parentheses, Exodus 30:6 reads as follows:

102

Against several ancient versions: Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta (see Milgrom 1991: 234). 103 The additional designation lipnê YHWH, “before YHWH,” in Lev 4:6, 17 does not help. When it is used of location in the sacred precincts, lipnê YHWH can refer to a location in the forecourt (e.g., 1:3) or in the outer sanctum (e.g., Exod 30:8), even when location in the outer sanctum is to one side or another of the central axis (Lev 24:4—lamp stand; v. 8— table).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

165

Place it (the altar of incense) in front of (lipnê) the curtain that is over (‛al, “over” as a vertical screen rather than a horizontal covering; see Gane and Milgrom 2003: 96) the Ark of the Pact—in front of (lipnê) the cover that is over (‛al, as a horizontal covering) the Pact—where I will meet with you (NJPS).

The location of the altar of incense directly in front of the ark is reiterated in Exodus 40:5—“And you shall set the golden altar for incense before the ark of the Testimony...” The specification that the incense altar is to be “before the ark cover,” with only the veil separating the two objects, conveys the impression that the incense altar is “just outside the curtain that veils the Holy of Holies” (Sarna 1991: 193), “further inward than the lamp stand and the table, close to the veil” (Cassuto 1967: 391; cf. b. Yoma 33b). If the incense altar is just outside the veil, the high priest could not stand between the altar and the veil and sprinkle blood without applying the blood directly on (‛al) rather than before (‚et-pe6nê) the veil (as recognized by b. Yoma 57a).104 This problem would not arise if he performed the sprinkling in the much larger area in front of the incense altar. There is a close connection between the notion of the Mishnah that the blood was sprinkled directly on the veil (m. Yoma 5:4; see above) and the erroneous view that the altar in Leviticus 16:18 is the golden altar inside the Tent (m. Yoma 5:5). The altar in this verse must be the outer one because the high priest comes out, that is, exits from the Tent, in order to officiate there (see Milgrom 1991: 1036). By taking this to be the inner altar, the Tannaim were led to adopt the interpretation that on the Day of Atonement, the words of Leviticus 16:16—“and he shall do likewise for the Tent of Meeting…”—mean that the high priest sprinkles on the veil “one time upwards and seven times downwards” (m. Yoma 5:4, following the 1 + 7 order established in the inner sanctum), rather than applying blood once to the horns of the incense altar and sprinkling blood seven times.

104

R. Eliezer b. Jose, claiming to have seen the veil of the Second Temple in (the royal treasure in) Rome, stated that it had blood stains on it (b. Yoma 57a). This evidence is interpreted by b. Yoma 57a as the result of the blood accidentally reaching the veil.

166

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Although the Tannaim were mistaken with regard to location of the blood manipulations in Leviticus, they correctly recognized that on the Day of Atonement each successive location of blood application is further away from the ark cover than the one before: Because the 1 + 7 sprinklings in the outer sanctum (Lev 16:16) come before the applications to the altar (vv. 18-19), which they took to be the incense altar, the 1 + 7 sprinklings in the outer sanctum must be located closer to the ark cover than the incense altar. Usage of ‚et-pe6nê with inanimate objects supports the view that the sevenfold sprinkling in the outer sanctum on the Day of Atonement takes place in front of the incense altar. Aside from Leviticus 4:6, 17, when ‚et-pe6nê takes inanimate prepositional objects, they are places/areas: a city (Gen 33:18), the holy place (Lev 10:4), or the Solomonic temple (2 Ki 16:14). To be ‚et-pe6nê, “before,” one of these areas is to be located in an adjacent area. While the inner veil of the sanctuary is not itself an area, by stretching across the interior width of the sanctuary it delineates the area of the inner sanctum (Gane and Milgrom 2003: 96). Thus sprinkling “before (‚et-pe6nê) the veil” (Lev 4:6, 17) means, in effect, sprinkling in the area in front of and adjacent to the inner sanctum.105 This idea would not be conveyed by a designation of location referring to the altar of incense, for example, “before the altar of incense.” That the area of the outer sanctum is in view agrees with the fact that the earlier sevenfold sprinkling in the inner sanctum causes blood to fall to the floor of that area, thereby (on the cognitive task level) purging the inner area (see 16:16a—“Thus he shall purge the adytum”). Milgrom comments on “he shall do likewise” in Leviticus 16:16b: In other words, the shrine should be purged in the same manner as the adytum. Specifically, one object (the incense altar) is to be purged by direct contact with the purgation blood, and the rest of the shrine is to be purged by a sevenfold sprinkling of the purgation blood on the shrine floor (Milgrom 1991: 1034).

If it is the area of the outer sanctum that is purged, it would be appropriate for the sprinkling to take place in the main part of 105

cf. Akk. parakku = shrine/apartment of a deity (AHW: II, 827-8).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

167

this area, in front of the altar of incense, just as the sprinkling in the inner sanctum is located in front of the ark. If the veil rather than the incense altar must be the point of reference for the sprinkling, why not say lipnê (hap)pa4ro4ket instead of using ‚et-pe6nê ? Lipnê can also refer to location in an adjacent area (e.g., Gen 23:17; Exod 14:2, 9; 29:10; Lev 3:8, 13; 4:14). However, because the incense altar is already lipnê (hap)pa4ro4ket (Exod 30:6), use of the same designation for locating a sprinkling that is not on that altar would be confusing. Furthermore, because the semantic range of ‚et-pe6nê with inanimate objects is more restricted than that of lipnê, the former preposition more precisely conveys the proper sense here. If my interpretation of ‚et-pe6nê (hap)pa4ro4ket in Leviticus 4:6, 17 as a location in front of the incense altar is correct, then the inner sanctum and Leviticus 4 precedents are in harmony on the question of where the high priest should perform the sevenfold sprinkling in the “purification offering of purgations.” However, this solution means that the Day of Atonement order of blood applications and the order followed in Leviticus 4 are reversed. On the Day of Atonement, in order to continue the pattern of movement away from the ark cover, the high priest must treat the incense altar before performing the sevenfold sprinkling in front of it: 1 + 7, just as he performed 1 + 7 blood applications in the inner sanctum (16:14). In Leviticus 4, by contrast, the high priest sprinkles seven times at a place that is in front of the incense altar (vv. 6, 17) and then puts blood once on the horns of the incense altar (vv. 7, 18). Thus he moves toward the ark cover. The idea that the blood applications in the Leviticus 4 rituals move toward the ark cover is not contradicted by the fact that in these rituals, following blood application to the incense altar, the remainder of the blood is poured out at the base of the outer altar (vv. 7, 18). This latter act is not an application to the altar, but simply disposal of the remainder (Milgrom 1991: 238; Wright 1987a: 147-8). To conclude this section, rather than J. Milgrom’s symmetrical inversion in the scheme of blood applications performed on the Day of Atonement (inner sanctum—1 + 7; outer sanctum—7 + 1; outer altar—1 + 7; Milgrom 1991: 1038), I have found a symmetrical inversion between the blood applications in the outer

168

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

sanctum prescribed in Leviticus 4:6, 17 (7 + 1) and those performed on the Day of Atonement (1 + 7). We can now list the complete paradigm of the “purification offering of purgations.” Again, italics indicate variables. PURIFICATION OFFERING OF PURGATIONS slay animal collect blood take censer of burning coals from outer altar, and incense bring censer and incense into inner sanctum set (i.e., burn) the incense on the fire exit from inner sanctum to court take (basin of) blood bring blood into inner sanctum sprinkle blood eastward on ark cover sprinkle blood in front of ark cover 7x exit with blood from inner sanctum to outer sanctum put blood on four horns of incense altar sprinkle blood before veil (in front of incense altar) 7x exit with blood to outer altar mix blood with that of the other animal take (basin of) blood put blood on four horns of outer altar sprinkle blood on outer altar 7x pour remaining blood at base of outer altar remove suet present suet to outer altar place suet on outer altar take remainder of carcass (hide, flesh, dung) outside camp burn remainder of carcass launder clothes bathe in water An overall intrinsic activity root definition must include the idea that the activities are subject to cognitive task constraints because there are important aspects of the order that can only be justified at the cognitive task level of abstraction. For example: 1. The high priest is not permitted to enter YHWH’s inner sanctum without burning incense there. 2. Blood manipulations must begin with the ark cover, closest to YHWH, and work back from there.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

169

3. Sprinkling the outer altar with blood must come after application of blood to its horns (see below). Intrinsic activity root definition: A system to (1) transform a live animal into bloodstains on the ark cover, the floor of the inner sanctum, the incense altar, the floor of the outer sanctum, the horns of the outer altar, and on the rest of the altar; smoke from the altar; ashes on the altar; and ashes and smoke outside the camp, (2) fill the inner sanctum with incense, and (3) physically cleanse the clothes and bodies of lay assistants. This intrinsic activity system is subject to constraints imposed at the cognitive task level of abstraction. Transformation: live animal → perform transformation → multiple effects From an intrinsic activity perspective, the ritual is not a single, unified system at all. The system is only unified on the cognitive task level (see below). Decomposition: An intrinsic activity decomposition is based upon recognition of a hierarchy of activity goals. At the first decomposition level, activity goals can be defined with respect to direct objects (or object units), that is, the whole animal, incense, blood, suet, carcass, and the persons of the lay assistants. The blood, suet, and carcass are components of the animal; the incense and the person of the lay assistants are not. At the second level to which the blood manipulations are decomposed, activity goals can be defined with respect to areas that receive the activities: inner sanctum, outer sanctum, outer altar. I have chosen to include entrances and exits of the high priest, which mark transitions in the ritual. These can generally be regarded as directed toward the following activities rather than the preceding ones. However, I have placed “3.4. exit from inner sanctum to court” under “3. burn incense” rather than with “4. manipulate blood, cont.” because the exit is necessary only in the first ritual (on behalf of the priests), when the burning of the incense is performed. While I include entrances and exits within an individual ritual, I do not elsewhere include movements of ritual personnel occurring between individual rituals, which mark transitions/“seams” in ritual complexes, even when these movements are specified (as in Lev 16:24b—“then he shall go out”).

170

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

As before, italics indicate variable activities belonging only to the first purification offering (a bull for the priests): PERFORM TRANSFORMATION 1. slay animal 2. manipulate blood,106 beginning: collect blood 3. burn incense 3.1. take censer of burning coals from outer altar, and incense 3.2. bring censer and incense into inner sanctum 3.3. set (i.e., burn) the incense on the fire 3.4. exit from inner sanctum to court 4. manipulate blood, cont. 4.1. take (basin of) blood 4.2. apply blood in inner sanctum 4.2.1. bring blood into inner sanctum 4.2.2. sprinkle blood eastward on ark cover 4.2.3. sprinkle blood in front of ark cover 7x 4.3. apply blood in outer sanctum 4.3.1. exit with blood from inner sanctum to outer sanctum 4.3.2. put blood on four horns of incense altar 4.3.3. sprinkle blood before veil (in front of incense altar) 7x 4.4. apply blood to outer altar 4.4.1. exit with blood to outer altar 4.4.2. mix blood with that of the other animal 4.4.3. take (basin of) blood 4.4.4. put blood on four horns of outer altar 4.4.5. sprinkle blood on outer altar 7x 4.5. pour remaining blood at base of outer altar 5. place suet on altar 5.1. remove suet 5.2. present suet to outer altar 5.3. place suet on outer altar 6. incinerate remainder of carcass

106

“Manipulate,” i.e., “treat,” translates the Heb. verb ‛śh, which is used in Lev 16:15 for abbreviating what is done with the blood of the goat in the inner sanctum.

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

171

6.1. take remainder of carcass (hide, flesh, dung) outside camp 6.2. incinerate remainder of carcass 7. cleanse lay assistants 7.1. launder clothes 7.2. bathe in water Note two points: 1. The numbers assigned to the activities here are those of the first ritual, which uses a bull on behalf of the priests. This ritual includes 3. burn incense, which is not necessary in the second ritual, using a goat on behalf of the community. In the second ritual, “manipulate blood” is not interrupted: 1. slay animal 2. manipulate blood 2.1. collect blood 2.2. take (basin of) blood 2.3. apply blood in inner sanctum, etc. 2. At the end of the ritual, 7. “cleanse lay assistants” refers to a variable number of personal purifications, depending upon how many lay assistants participate. The ritual paradigm of the special purification offering is rich in the variety of relationships between activities within its subsystems. First, in “3. burn incense,” 3.3. actually accomplishes the burning of the incense, which is the goal of the subsystem; it is a goal activity. The preceding activities (3.1.-2.) are prerequisites and 3.4. is postrequisite. Compare “5. place suet on altar” and “6. incinerate remainder of carcass,” where goal activities (5.3.; 6.2.) are preceded by prerequisite activities (5.1.-2.; 6.1.). In “7. cleanse lay assistants” there is a pair of goal activities, corresponding to two aspects of an assistant—his clothes (7.1.) and his body (7.2.)—but no prerequisite activities are indicated. “Manipulate blood” is more complicated. It is interrupted in the first ritual between the initial prerequisite activity (2. “collect blood”) and the second (4.1. “take [basin of] blood”) by insertion of “3. burn incense.” 4.1. “take (basin of) blood” is followed by goal activities in which the blood is applied to the sanctuary and its sancta (4.2.-4.), after which a postrequisite activity disposes of leftover material

172

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

(4.5.). The three goal activities (4.2.-4.) are subsystems, consisting of prerequisite activities (4.2.1.; 4.3.1.; 4.4.1.-3.) and three pairs of sub-goal activities, which apply the blood (4.2.2.-3.; 4.3.2.-3.; 4.4.4.5.). 4.4.2.2. Cognitive Task Perspective Leviticus 16:6, 11, 16-20, 33 include explicit indications regarding the cognitive task function of the special purification offerings: (6) Aaron shall bring forward his own bull of purification offering to effect purgation for himself and for his household; (11a) When Aaron shall bring forward his bull of purification offering to effect purgation for himself and his household, (16) Thus he shall purge the adytum of the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all their sins; and he shall do likewise for the Tent of Meeting which abides with them in the midst of their pollution. (17b) Thus he shall effect purgation for himself and his household and for the entire congregation of Israel. (18a) He shall then come out to the altar that is before the Lord and effect purgation upon it (19b) Thus he shall purify it of the pollution of the Israelites and consecrate it. (20a) When he has finished purging the adytum, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar... (33) He shall purge the holiest part of the sanctuary, and he shall purge the Tent of Meeting and the altar; he shall effect purgation for the priests and for all the people of the congregation (Milgrom 1991: 1010).

These verses make it clear that the cognitive task goal of the ritual is to restore the purity and sanctity of the sanctuary and its sancta as follows: 1. The ritual purges (kipper ‚et) the two areas of the Tent (vv. 20a, 33a) by performing purgation upon (kipper ‛al) Milgrom 1991: 255-6, 1023) them (v. 16).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

173

2. The ritual purges (kipper ‚et) the outer altar (vv. 20a; 33a), that is, purifies it (pi‛el of t[hr + object suffix; v. 19b), by performing purgation upon (kipper ‛al) it (v. 18a). 3. The ritual (re)consecrates the outer altar (pi‛el of qdš + object suffix; v. 19b). In the process of restoring the cognitive task state of the sanctuary, the rituals expiate for (kipper be6‛ad/‛al) the priests and the lay community (vv. 6, 11a, 17b, 33b). Milgrom comments: “...as the sanctuary is polluted by the people’s impurities, their elimination, in effect, also purifies the people” (Milgrom, 1991: 1056). The importance of this yearly event for the Israelites is due to the fact that if the sanctuary were not periodically cleansed, YHWH could not maintain his residence “with them in the midst of their pollution” (v. 16; see Milgrom 1991: 258-9). While words referring to nonhuman items, including the sanctuary and its furniture, function as direct objects (marked by ‚et) of kipper, words referring to persons do not. This correlates with the fact that the blood, by which the purgation is accomplished, is directly applied to the sanctuary and its furniture, but not to the Israelites (Milgrom 1991: 255). Likewise, the blood applications of the “outer altar” and “outer sanctum” purification offerings are never applied directly to those who offer them. The corporate “purification offering of purgations” purges the sanctuary of the “pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins” (v. 16; Milgrom 1991: 1010). This verse conveys the idea that the corpus of impurities and sins purged at this time is cumulative, that is, since the last Day of Atonement, and comprehensive. This includes impurities and sins for which appropriate ritual remedies were previously performed as a prior stage, and also those impurities and sins for which such remedies were not performed, whether due to ignorance, wanton neglect (Num 19:13, 20), or the fact that a moral fault was too serious for sacrificial expiation (15:30-31). Inclusion of “transgressions,” that is, rebellious sins (pe6ša4‛îm) in the coverage of the “purification offering of purgations” suggests why the inner sanctum must be cleansed. If the inadvertent sin of an individual necessitates a blood application to the outer altar, pending its purgation on the Day of Atonement, and the inadvertent sin of the high priest or the whole community, which is more grave due to its corporate scope, requires a blood

174

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

application to the outer sanctum, it stands to reason that a still more serious rebellious moral fault would pollute the inner sanctum (Milgrom 1991: 257; Wright 1987a: 20). Defilement of the sanctuary in such a case could occur without the sinner entering the sacred precincts (Num 19:13, 20;107 Lev 15:31; 20:3). While the “purification offering of purgations” purges the sanctuary of “the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins” (16:16), the ritual of Azazel’s goat purges the community of “all of the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins” (v. 21; Milgrom 1991: 1010). The “purification offering of purgations” and the ritual of Azazel’s goat belong together (Milgrom 1991: 1044-45),108 the former transferring ritual impurities and moral faults out of the sanctuary and the latter transferring moral faults from the people to the wilderness (Wright 1987a: 18, 30). The ritual impurities are not transferred to the wilderness on Azazel’s goat along with the moral faults. What happens to them? The answer seems to lie in the fact that each lay assistant involved in the incineration of the “purification offering of purgations” carcasses (v. 27) must purify himself (v. 28) due to contact with them. So the carcasses must be laden with ritual impurity. This impurity must have come from the sanctuary. While the carcasses have never entered the tent or come in contact with the outer altar, but are separated from the blood that absorbs the evils, the animals are regarded as units. So contamination of one part (the blood) is regarded as defiling another (the carcasses). However, notice that the suet is burned on the altar after the sanctuary is purged by blood (v. 25), indicating that the suet part of the animal is immune to absorption of impurity. 107

In Num 19:13, 20, that which defiles the sanctuary is not the corpse contamination, but rather the moral fault of negligence with regard to the impurity. This is no mere inadvertence expiable by a purification offering; the individual is “cut off” (nip‛al of krt) from Israel, i.e., suffers the divine penalty (Wold 1978: 251-5). 108 Milgrom comments on Lev 16:21: “This dispatch of the “scapegoat” into the wilderness is as integrally tied to the purgation of the sanctuary as the release (also šillah[) of the bird into the wilderness is tied to the purification rite of the healed scale-diseased person and house (14:4-7, 49-53)” (Milgrom 1991: 1045).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

175

Similar cognitive task dynamics operate in the purification procedures dealing with corpse contamination: The ashes of a red cow, cedar wood, and scarlet thread are burned outside the Israelite camp (Num 19:1-10). Subsequently they function as a ritual “sponge” when they are hydrated as the “water of lustration” and sprinkled directly on contaminated persons and objects (19:11ff). Since the ashes contain the blood of a red cow, reddish cedar wood, and scarlet thread, this “water of lustration” functions like blood. In anticipation of the later contamination of the ritual “sponge,” those who contact the ashes or their ingredients during or after the burning of the cow are impure and must purify themselves (vv. 8, 10, 11). If the “water of lustration” simply functioned as a purgative to wash impurity away, these purifications of participants would not be necessary. The burned cow, part of which becomes ashes and part of which goes up in smoke, continues to function as a unit: When the special ash water contacts that which is contaminated, the water transmits the impurity through space and back through time to the burning of the cow, so that the impurity goes up in smoke. If I am correct in regarding the “purification offering of purgations” as removing ritual impurities by “absorption and disposal,” it is this ritual rather than the ritual of Azazel’s goat that most closely parallels the Babylonian kuppuru rite (see chapter 5).109 On the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, in preparation for arrival of the god Nabû, a goat is decapitated, the body of the goat is taken inside Nabû’s cella and wiped (kuppuru) on the cella, the body and head are thrown in the river, and the ritual participants remain impure for a week. Some similarities to the “purification offering of purgations” are: 1. Ritual activities purge sanctuaries of deities (Milgrom 1991: 1068).

109

D. Wright compares the “scapegoat” ritual with the kuppuru rite (Wright 1987a: 64-5), as does Milgrom, who also points out the parallel between the burning of the purification offering carcasses and the elimination of the kuppuru carcass (Milgrom 1991: 1069).

176

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

2. Animals function on the cognitive task level as “sponges” to absorb ritual impurities, negative entities that are not represented by any material symbols. 3. The Hebrew and Akkadian terms for the purgation activities are cognates: Hebrew—kipper, “purge”; Akkadian— kuppuru, “wipe” (see Landsberger 1967: 31 n. 95). However, whereas Hebrew kipper in ritual contexts interprets activity, thereby contributing to the cognitive task level, Akkadian kuppuru refers to literal, intrinsic activity: “wipe”/”rub.”110 4. The animal vehicles are disposed of away from the sacred precincts—the Israelite animals by incineration and the Babylonian animal by throwing its head and body into the river (Milgrom 1991: 1069). 5. Animals are regarded as units. The Israelite carcasses become impure and contaminate their handlers because the blood of the same animals contacts impurity. The head of the Babylonian goat becomes impure and contaminates its handler because the body of the goat is wiped on the polluted sanctuary. There are, of course, a number of significant differences between the two rituals. For example, unlike the Israelite “purification offering of purgations,” the kuppuru rite is not an offering, does not deal with moral faults, is only one among several means by which the cella of Nabû is purified, is performed while the deity is not in residence, and involves taking the carcass of an animal into the sanctuary, where it is wiped directly on the sanctuary. Thus far, our discussion of the cognitive task function of the “purification offering of purgations” has dealt with the purgative blood manipulations, the disposal of the carcasses, and the purification of lay assistants involved in disposing of the carcasses. Aspects of the ritual not yet considered are the burning of incense, the sevenfold sprinkling of blood on the outer altar to reconsecrate it, and burning suet on the altar. 1. Burning incense. In order for the high priest to enter the inner sanctum, he must burn incense “so that the cloud from the incense covers the kappo4ret that is over [the Ark of] the Pact, lest he die” (Lev 16:13b, Milgrom 1991: 1010). The activities connected 110

Whether ritual kuppuru ever refers to something other than a literal activity is doubtful (see Wright 1987: 292-4).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

177

with the incense contribute to the goal of the “purification offering of purgations”: They enable the high priest to enter the inner sanctum to perform the purification offering blood manipulations there (Lev 16:14). “Burn incense” has no raison d’être apart from that of the purification offering of purgations. Therefore I would regard it as a variable subsystem within the “purification offering of purgations” paradigm rather than an individual incense ritual interrupting that paradigm. As in the regular incense offering (see section 4.2.5.2., above), creating a pleasant smell by burning incense appears to carry an expiatory function. Perhaps the activity mitigates the offensiveness of the high priest’s pollution to YHWH when he enters intimate proximity to the deity.111 The high priest is supplied with a robust motivation for burning incense: to prevent his death. So from this angle, the incense is definitely apotropaic. Leviticus 16 indicates in several ways that death would ensue from incorrect performance of the “purification offering of purgations.” Mention in v. 1 of the deaths of Aaron’s sons, who perished because of their improper ritual performance (cf. 10:1-2), is a potent hint. Then comes a warning that the high priest is not to come into the inner sanctum whenever he chooses, “lest he die” (16:2), followed by instructions for correctly and safely entering the inner sanctum through rituals (vv. 3ff). To emphasize the danger of approaching the ark cover, the warning “lest he die” is reiterated with regard to the need for burning incense (v. 13) 2. Sprinkling blood seven times on the outer altar. As with the inner altar, the outer altar has blood daubed on its four horns (Lev 16:18). After this, it could be supposed that blood would be sprinkled seven times in front of the altar on the courtyard. However, the altar itself receives the sevenfold sprinkling (v. 19). The courtyard was not consecrated with anointing oil like the altar and the Tent (8:10-11), so it is not most holy as they are, and therefore it needs no treatment with blood on the Day of Atonement (Milgrom 1991: 1036-7). 111

B. Levine regards the function of the incense here as apotropaic: the high priest is shielded from an outbreak of divine wrath against a mortal human being who comes into intimate proximity to his Presence (Levine 1969: 93; 1989: 104).

178

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

The second application of blood to the altar is not redundant: It does not purge the altar a second time, but consecrates it (v. 19b), that is, re-consecrates it. J. Milgrom comments on the two applications of blood to the outer altar: The reason for these two discrete acts is explicitly given in this verse: to “purify it” and “consecrate it.” The order of the verbs is crucial, for it corresponds to the sequence of the manipulations. The daubing of the altar horns purifies the altar, and the sevenfold sprinkling of the altar consecrates it. Support for this sequence is found in the prescriptions for the altar’s consecration (Exod 29:36-37): first it is purged (h[it[t[e4‚, kipper) and then it is consecrated (ma4šah[, qidde4š) (Milgrom 1991: 1037).

So the additional application of blood to the altar restores the sanctity of the ritual object that functions as the medium of expiation throughout the year (Milgrom 1991: 1038). In the purgation process, whereas the blood manipulations inside the Tent differentiate between the priestly and lay offerers, applications of mixed bloods to the outer altar, burning suet (v. 25), disposal of carcasses (v. 27), and purification of lay assistants (v. 28) do not. Continuing the decrease in differentiation between offerers, which parallels a decrease in the sanctity of performance locations, the ritual of Azazel’s goat functions on behalf of all Israelites, including the priests, and moves from the sanctuary courtyard to the wilderness (vv. 21-22).112 3. Burning suet. The “purification offering of purgations” is interrupted after completion of the blood manipulations for performance of the ritual of Azazel’s goat (vv. 20-22), a personal purification of the high priest (vv. 23-24a), and two burnt offerings (v. 24b). It is only then that the suet of the purification offering 112

Blood manipulations on behalf of priests and community inside the Tent and then at the outer altar purge the sacred areas from the uncleannesses of the “Israelites” (Lev 16:16, 19). Thus “Israelites” = priests + lay community. The same must be true in v. 21, where the sins of the “Israelites” are confessed over Azazel’s goat. Other terms are used in Lev 16 for the lay community, i.e., excluding the priests: “the community (construct of ‛e4dâ) of the Israelites” (v. 5), “the congregation (construct of qa4ha4l) of Israel” (v. 17), and “the people” (‛am, vv. 15, 24).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

179

animals is burned on the outer altar (v. 25) and disposal of the carcasses is carried out (v. 27). Leviticus 16 does not provide a special cognitive task interpretation of the suet, so it appears that this part of the animal is a token of a debt payment, as in other purification offerings (see section 4.4.1.2., above). If the blood manipulations carry out the primary debt payment, as in other purification offerings, the payment must in this case have something to do with purgation of the sanctuary. It is logical that just as ritual impurities and inadvertent moral faults constitute “debts” to YHWH, necessitating purification offerings at other times (see section 4.4.1.2., above), the pollution of YHWH’s sanctuary by the impurities and sins of the Israelites also constitutes a debt to him, which must be paid on the Day of Atonement. Burning the suet makes the “purification offering of purgations” an offering ritual. By contrast, the Babylonian kuppuru rite has no offering component (see chap. 5.). Before we propose a “root definition” of the “purification offering of purgations,” it should be pointed out that intrinsic activity constraints affect the manner in which the cognitive task goal is achieved. For example: 1. Slaughter comes before blood manipulation. 2. Blood manipulation precedes the burning of suet on the altar because blood immediately gushes from the animal at slaughter. Of course, in this ritual there is also a cognitive task reason for this aspect of order: Blood manipulation is of paramount importance. 3. The high priest makes a separate trip to burn the incense because he has only two hands. 4. Entering a given area must precede activities there. Cognitive task root definition: A system to restore YHWH’s sanctuary to purity and sanctity from the evils of the Israelites by purging it from the accumulated ritual impurities and moral faults of the Israelites and reconsecrating the outer altar, thereby continuing the purification of the Israelite priestly/lay community and paying a debt to YHWH. The cognitive task system is subject to intrinsic activity constraints. Transformation: YHWH’s sanctuary polluted → restore YHWH’s sanctuary → YHWH’s sanctuary restored

180

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE Decomposition: (italics = variable activities) RESTORE YHWH’S SANCTUARY TO PURITY AND SANCTITY 1. slay animal 2. purge evils from sanctuary, beginning: collect blood 3. shield high priest from YHWH 3.1. take censer of burning coals from outer altar, and incense 3.2. bring censer and incense into inner sanctum 3.3. set (i.e., burn) the incense on the fire 3.4. exit from inner sanctum to court 4. purge evils from sanctuary, cont. 4.1. take (basin of) blood 4.2. purge evils from inner sanctum 4.2.1. bring blood into inner sanctum 4.2.2. sprinkle blood eastward on ark cover 4.2.3. sprinkle blood in front of ark cover 7x 4.3. purge evils from outer sanctum 4.3.1. exit with blood from inner sanctum to outer sanctum 4.3.2. put blood on four horns of incense altar 4.3.3. sprinkle blood before veil (in front of incense altar) 7x 4.4. purge evils from outer altar and reconsecrate it 4.4.1. exit with blood to outer altar 4.4.2. mix blood with that of the other animal 4.4.3. take (basin of) blood 4.4.4. put blood on four horns of outer altar 4.4.5. sprinkle blood on outer altar 7x 4.5. dispose of unused remainder of purgation material 5. make secondary (token) debt payment to YHWH 5.1. remove suet 5.2. present suet to outer altar 5.3. place suet on outer altar 6. eliminate contaminated remainder of absorption unit 6.1. take remainder of carcass (hide, flesh, dung) outside camp 6.2. incinerate remainder of carcass

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

181

7. purify lay assistants from contact with contaminated remainder of absorption unit 7.1. launder clothes 7.2. bathe in water Note the following points: 1. In this outline, changes from the intrinsic activity decomposition have been carried only down to the second decomposition level. It should be understood, however, that goal activities within subsystems to which distinctly cognitive task labels have been assigned could be assigned similar labels. For example, under 3. “screen ark cover,” the goal activity is 3.3. “set (i.e., burn) the incense on the fire.” This activity could have been described as 3.3. “screen ark cover.” 2. I have not decomposed the sevenfold sprinklings to the level of individual sprinklings. 3. In some cases there are pairs of goal activities. Thus, 4.2.2. and 4.2.3. accomplish the purgation of evil from the ark cover and the rest of the inner sanctum, respectively, and 4.3.2. and 4.3.3. purge evil from the incense altar and the rest of the outer sanctum. Under 4.4. “purge evils from outer altar and reconsecrate it,” 4.4.4. accomplishes the purgation and 4.4.5. the reconsecration (see above). 4. Since burning the incense (3.) must come before the blood manipulations in the inner sanctum (4.2.), and since the high priest must make an extra trip to burn the incense, we could ask why the slaughter (1.) is not performed after he returns from burning the incense in the inner sanctum, thereby avoiding interruption of activities involving the blood. The problem with such a procedure is that it would emphasize the incense before the bull. Treatment of the bull at the beginning shows that the ritual is primarily concerned with treatment of that object. 5. In the intrinsic activity decomposition of the same ritual presented earlier, relationships between prerequisite and goal activities were shown to operate within lower level subsystems. If we recognize similar relationships on the cognitive task level of abstraction at the higher hierarchical levels, we see the overall cognitive task dynamics. Thus 1. “slay animal” is prerequisite to 2. & 4. “purge evils from sanctuary,” which is a goal subsystem, albeit an interrupted one. 3. “screen ark cover” is also prerequisite to 4.

182

RITUAL DYNAMIC STRUCTURE

Subsystem 5. “ make secondary (token) debt payment to YHWH” carries out a goal. 6. “eliminate contaminated remainder...” is postrequisite to 4. Subsystem 7. “purify self” is postrequisite to 6. So the goal subsystems of the ritual are 2. & 4. and 5. Of these, 2. & 4. is much more elaborate and important, containing as it does the high point of the ritual: purgation of the inner sanctum (4.2.), into which the high priest can enter only once per year. The above investigation facilitates a discussion of the name “purification offering of purgations” (h[at[t[a4‚t hakkippu4rîm),113 which is found in Exodus 30:10 and Numbers 29:11. This name raises some questions. First, since there are two rituals, one on behalf of the priests and the other on behalf of the nonpriestly community, to what does the singular “purification offering” (h[at[t[a4‚t) in this context refer? Several passages support the idea that the singular term must cover both rituals. Compare Exodus 30:10, where the horns of the incense altar are purged once per year by the “purification offering of purgations,” to Leviticus 16, where the bloods of both the bull and the goat are applied to the incense altar. In Leviticus 16:25, the high priest burns the suet of “the purification offering” (sing.), referring both to that of his bull and also to that of the community’s goat. The offerings in Numbers 28-29 are performed on behalf of all Israel—priests as well as the lay community. The words “besides the purification offering of purgations” (29:11) suggest that they, that is, priests and laity, must provide that sacrifice in addition to the festival purification offering. Because the singular covers both rituals, it refers to the ritual complex that contains them. For this kind of usage, see the festival calendar of Numbers 28-29, in which the singular “burnt offering” can refer to multiple burnt offerings within the same complex (e.g., 28:11, 19, 27). There is, however, a special reason for referring to the “purification offering of purgations” complex as a unit: The two rituals are bound together by interweaving and then merged when the applications of blood to the outer altar take place. By contrast, the two Day of Atonement burnt offerings, one on behalf of the priests and the other on behalf of the community, are

113

J. Milgrom renders this name as “the purification offering of purgation” (Milgrom 1991: 1059).

4. ISRAELITE “DAY OF ATONEMENT”

183

referred to separately because they are simply juxtaposed (Lev 16:24). A second question is: Why does the name use the plural “of purgations” (hakkippu4rîm) instead of the singular “of purgation” (kippur)? Perhaps this is at least partly because the rituals effect multiple purgations: in the inner sanctum, in the outer sanctum, and at the outer altar.114 Third, what is the relationship between the name “purification offering of purgations” and the name of the day given in Leviticus 23:27-28 and 25:9: “(the) Day of Purgations” (yôm [hak]kippu4rîm), commonly known as the “Day of Atonement”?115 The ritual, performed only on the Day of Purgations/Atonement, may well have given the special part of its name to this designation for the day, which is the only name for the day that is attested in the Hebrew Bible. Yom Kippu4r, the modern name of the day, is a relatively late development.116 Perhaps “Day of Purgations” is abbreviated from “Day of the Purification Offering of Purgations” (yôm h[at[t[a4‚t hakkippu4rîm).

114

J. Milgrom gave this answer to my question during his Advanced Biblical Hebrew Texts seminar at the University of California, Berkeley in 1982. This idea would not fully explain hakkippu4rîm when it appears in Exod 29:36; 30:16; and Num 5:8 without such plurality. 115 Milgrom renders this name as “the Day of Purgation” (Milgrom 1991: 1009, 1059, etc.). 116 In early rabbinic literature, yo