The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature

Author(s): David P. Wright

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 106, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1986), pp.
433-446
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/602103
Accessed: 29-01-2018 15:12 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/602103?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GESTURE OF HAND PLACEMENT IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
AND IN HITTITE LITERATURE'

DAVID P. WRIGHT

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

This article discusses the meaning of hand placement gestures in the Hebrew Bible and Hittite
ritual literature. It accepts the conclusion of R. Peter (VT27 [1977] 48-55) that there are two forms
of the gesture in the Old Testament, one performed with two hands on persons in nonsacrificial
contexts and the other performed with one hand on animals in sacrifice. It is argued here that the
two-handed form serves to designate who the recipient of the ritual action is, while the one-handed
form serves to ritually attribute the offering animal and concomitant sacrificial acts to the one who
performs the gesture. A similar gesture among the Hittites, like the one-handed rite in biblical
sacrifice, serves to attribute the offering material and offering act to the one who performs hand
placement.

THE GESTURE OF PLACING ONE'S hand on the head of a gesture. Part of the reason for this lack of agreement is
person or animal described in the Hebrew Bible has that, until recently, investigators largely operated under
been the subject of quite intensive study. In particular,
the assumption that the same form prevailed in all
scholars have expended rather indefagitable efforts in hand placement rites in the Old Testament. The basis
attempting to determine and explicate the meaning of for this assumption may have been due, in part, to
the act. Many articles and portions of books, not to interpretations similar to that of the early Jewish sages
mention commentaries, have been devoted to this who stipulated that the explicit mention of two hands
purpose.' But despite all this inquiry, there has been
in no
Lev. 16:21 was a banyan 'av to all other hand
general consensus regarding the significance of the

Gabalda, 1925); D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic

] This article is an expansion and reworking of part of an Judaism (London: The U of London and the Athalone Press,
article I wrote in collaboration with Jacob Milgrom on the 1956) 224-46; B. S. Easton, "Jewish and Early Christian
verb simak which is appearing in the Theologisches Wbirter- Ordination," Anglican Theological Review 5 (1922-3): 308-
buch zum Alten Testament. I thank W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 19; 6 (1923-4): 285-95; A. Ehrhardt, "Jewish and Christian
the editors of the TWbA T, and Jacob Milgrom for their kind Ordination," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5 (1954): 125-
permission to publish this expanded treatment. On hand 38; W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testament, 6th ed., 2
placement in the Bible and Hittite literature see my disserta-vols. (Stuttgart-Gbttingen: Eherenfried Klotz Verlag, and
tion The Disposal of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1959) 1: 100-2; J. Fitzmyer, The
Bible with Reference to Similar Phenomena in Hittite and Genesis Apocrvphon (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971)
Mesopotamian Cultures, U of California, Berkeley, 1984 140-41; B. Janowski, Sfihne als Heilsgeschehen (Neukircken-
(soon to be published in the Society of Biblical Literature Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 198-221; H. Lesetre,
Dissertation Series), chapter 1, section 1.4.2 and notes 6 and "Imposition des mains," Dictionnaire de la Bible 3 (1912):
118. A form of this article was read as a paper at the Annual 847-50; J. Licht, "semika," Entsiqlopedvah Miqra'it 5 (1968):
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Dec. 9, 1984, in 1052-55; E. Lohse, Die Ordination im Spatjudentum und im
Chicago. Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
2 On hand placement in the Old Testament and in Jewish195 1); J. A. MacCulloch, "Hand," Encyclopedia of Religion
and Christian tradition, see K. Bahr, Symbolik des mosdischenand Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, 6 (1951): 492-99; H. Mantel,
Cultus, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1839) 1: 288-93, "Ordination and Appointment in the Period of the Temple,"
304-7, 338-43; J. Behm, Die Handauflegung im Urchristen- HTRev 57 (1964): 325-46 (cf. Tarbiz 32 [1963]: 120-35); J. C.
tum (Leipzig: Deichert, 191 1); M. Bernoulli, "Imposition des Matthes, "Der SSuhnegedanke bei den Sundopfern," ZAW 23
mains," Vocabulaire biblique (Neuchatel-Paris: Delachaux (1903): 97-119; P. A. Medebielle, Lexpiation dans l'Ancien et
and Niestle S.A., 1954) 130-31; J. Coppens, L'imposition des le Nouveau Testament (Rome: Institute biblique pontifical,
mains et les rites connexes dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris: 1923); B. J. van der Merwe, "The Laying on of Hands in the

433

This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
434 Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.3 (1986)
placement rites; i.e., this passage taught that all other
hand placement rites were to be performed with two
hands.3 A further assumption was that since all the
rites had the same form, they should also have the
same meaning. Thus scholars often applied one prin-
ciple, usually the notion that the rite effected a transfer
of evil or positive virtues, to all instances of hand
placement. But if for most researchers the rite on the
Day of Atonement provided a basis for a generalization
thought to be valid for all instances of hand placement,
for others, such as K. Elliger, it was to be understood
as an exception to the rule; that is, only in this
particular rite two hands were to be used. However,
Elliger did not provide the difference with any real
significance.4 Still other scholars doubted that the
same principle should apply to all examples of hand
placement. Consequently they postulated that in some
cases one principle should apply while in other cases
another principle was operative (see below).
Old Testament," Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in
Suid-Afrika 5 (1962): 34-43; A. Metzinger, "Die Substitutions-
theorie und das aittestamentliche Opfer mit besonderer
Berucksichtigung von Lev 17,11," Biblica 21 (1940): 159-87,
247-72, 353-77; L. Moraldi, Espiazione sacrificali e riti
espiatori nell ambiente biblico e nell'Antico Testamento
(Rome: Pontificio istituto biblico, 1956) 253-61; J. Newman,
Semikhah (Ordination): A Study of its Origin, History
and Function (Manchester: Manchester U Press, 1950);
R. Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alten
Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967) 68-73,
93, 101, 155, 214-5, 236, 249, 253-4; A. M. Rodriguez,
Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus and in Cultic- Related
Texts, diss., Andrews U, 1980, 193-99; A. Rothkoff, "Se-
mikhah," Encyclopaedia Judaica 14 (1972): 1140-42, 1143-
47; M. H. Shepherd, "Hands, Laying on of," IDB 2 (1962):
521-22; H. P. Smith, "The Laying-on of Hands," American
Journal of Theology 17 (1913): 47-62; W. R. Smith, The
Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions (New
York: Schocken, 1972) 422-23; F. Stolz, "SMK, stuet7en,"
THA T2 (1976): 160-62; R. de Vaux, Les Sacrifices de IAncien
Testament (Paris: Gabalda, 1964) 29 = Studies in Old Testa-
ment Sacrifice (Cardiff: U of Wales Press, 1964) 29-30;
P. Volz, "Die Handauflegung beim Opfer," ZA W 21 (1901)
93-100; T. C. Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het
Oude Testament (Wageningen: H. Veenman en Zonen, N.V.,
1966) 297-98, n. 3; H.-D. Wendland, "Handauflegung: bib-
lisch," RGG, 3rd ed., 3 (1957): 53-54.
3 Sifra, Ahare Mot, Par. 4:4. Cf. B Men. 97b; M Men. 9:8.
4 K. Elliger, Leviticus (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [P. Siebeck],
sdmak, the verb used in all of the other examples we are
1966) 215- 16, and n. 19. He says that the rite with two hands
is only almore forceful or emphatic way of performing the rite.
stretching his hands out over the congregation in Lev. 9:22.
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Such was the state of the study of the subject when,
in 1977, R. Peter provided us with his ground breaking
examination regarding the form of the rite.5 By simply
examining the various instances of hand placement, he
found that there were two distinct forms. One was
found in nonsacrificial contexts and was performed
with two hands, while the other was found only in
sacrifice and was performed with one hand. The distinc-
tion in form allowed Peter to give each a separate
meaning. For him, the two-handed gesture indicated
transfer, such as the transfer of authority from Moses
to Joshua (Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9) or the transfer
of sins to the scapegoat (Lev. 16:21-22), while the
single handed gesture indicated an identification be-
tween the offerer and animal. The offerer thereby
affirmed that it was he who was offering the animal
and that he was offering himself by means of the
victim.6
The purpose of the present study is to reexamine the
meaning of these two forms of hand placement in the
Hebrew Bible. I agree with Peter that there are two
forms of the gesture, one sacrificial and one non-
sacrificial. But the interpretation of the two forms
needs correction. To do this we will first consider the
meaning of the two-handed form of hand placement
and then pursue a discussion of the meaning of the
one-handed form.7 The discussion of sacrificial hand
placement will be augmented by a study of a similar
rite among the Hittites. We will find that the Hittite
gesture has a meaning similar to that of hand place-
ment in biblical sacrifice and will therefore help con-
firm the validity of the interpretation that I will adopt
for the gesture in biblical sacrifice.
A. The two-handedform: The two-handed form of
the gesture is found in the scapegoat ritual, in the
installation of Joshua as Moses' successor and as a
' R. Peter, "L'imposition des mains dans l'Ancien Testa-
ment," VT 27 (1977): 48-55. Peter's conclusions about the
form were anticipated by J. Milgrom, "Sacrifices and Offer-
ings, OT," IDB Supplement (1976): 765. Janowski 199-200
reviews carefully the evidence of the one and two-handed
forms. Because of the textual difficulties in Num. 27:18, 23
and the ambiguity of Lev. 24:14 (see below), he refuses to
decide how many hands were used in these examples.
6 Peter 52.
7 Left out of consideration in the body of this paper is the
hand placement in Gen. 48:14, 17, 18 which is a means of
blessing. This example uses the verbs Kim and sit rather than
considering. Related to hand placement for blessing is Aaron's
 WRIGHT: The Gesture of Hand Placement 435
preliminary to the execution of a blasphemer. The Day
of Atonement prescriptions state explicitly that Aaron
is to place both his hands on the goat (Lev. 16:21). The
case of Joshua's installation is less clear. In Num. 27:18,
God speaks to Moses and tells him to put his hand
(yaddkk, singular) on Joshua, but in the fulfillment
section (v. 23), Moses puts both hands (yaddw, dual,
fully spelled) on him. The most probable solution is to
read ydk in v. 18 as a defectively spelled dual. Such a
reading is supported by the Greek which has a plural in
both instances. The related passage, Deut. 34:9, also
has the dual.8 The case of the blasphemer is ambiguous.
Since the subject of the rite is plural (witnesses), the
object (hands) is necessarily plural (Lev. 24:14) and,
hence, does not reveal how many hands were to be
used by the witnesses. In the present study, I will
operate under the assumption that, since this is not a
case of sacrificial hand placement, the witnesses were
to each place two hands on the culprit.9
Peter and others understand the rite in these cases to
signify transfer. That is, by the rite sin, authority,
blessing, pollution or some other quality is transferred
from the one who performs the gesture to the recipient
of hand placement. Though this interpretation is close
to the truth in the cases of the scapegoat and Joshua's
installation, I believe that it is ultimately incorrect. The
rite as found in the execution of the blasphemer
suggests another meaning more appropriate to all three
examples.
1. According to Lev. 24, a blasphemer is to be taken
outside the camp where those who witnessed his
transgression lay their hands on his head. He is then
corresponds to the witnesses throwing the first stones
8 Peter 49-51. We must admit that the LXX's plural in v. 18
in Deuteronomy. This suggests that hand placement
may simply be a harmonization to v. 23. Compare the
opposite resolution in the Samaritan where in v. 23 and Deut.
34:9, the dual is changed to a singular (cf. BHS on v. 23). See
Peter for detail on the versional attestation.
9 Though I will be attempting to observe a common meaning
for all two-handed rites in the Bible (as well as, below,
attributing a single meaning to the examples of one-handed
rite in sacrifice and a single meaning to all cases of the hand
gesture in Hittite texts), we must be aware that a symbol
(which includes ritual acts and gestures) though having a
single form in a given culture need not always have a constant
meaning in that culture. Different contexts can lend to a
symbol different meanings (cf. R. Firth, Symbols: Public and
Private [Ithaca: Cornell U Press, 1973] 190, 260). Thus it is
theoretically possible that the two-handed rite in these cases
may have different meanings (and so with the several ex-
amples of the one-handed gesture, and with the examples of
the Hittite gesture).
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
stoned by the congregation. This example of hand
placement has been interpreted, summarily speaking,
in two ways. Some see the rite as the means of
transferring the pollution of blasphemy which has
contaminated the hearers back to the blasphemer. 1
The other interpretation is legal in nature and views the
rite as a means whereby the witnesses designate the
blasphemer as guilty of the crime and worthy of death.
By it the witnesses symbolically confirm their testimony
to the community and also acknowledge their respon-
sibility in the death of the criminal."
The legal interpretation appears to be the correct
one for several reasons. First, there is no indication
elsewhere in the Bible that blasphemy causes pollution
to fall on those who hear it. Such an idea seems to be
an invention here to make sense of the rite as a rite of
transfer. Secondly, the laws in Deuteronomy regarding
the execution of apostates show a procedure that
witnesses are to follow which is parallel to the pro-
cedure in Lev. 24 and which therefore helps explain the
rite in that chapter. When an apostate deserves stoning,
he is taken to the city gate and there the witnesses
initiate his execution by throwing the first stones
(Deut. 17:7; cf. 13: 10). The community does not join in
the execution until after the witnesses begin. Having
the witnesses begin the punishment emphasizes their
responsibility in the death of the apostate, especially in
the case their testimony is false. 12 Note the similarity to
the procedure in Lev. 24 where the culprit is taken
outside the camp, receives hand placement by the
witnesses, and is then stoned by the whole con-
gregation. When we compare the two procedures point
by point, we see that hand placement in Lev. 24
has a meaning similar to the witnesses throwing the
first stones.'3 Thirdly, the hand placement of the elders
conspiring to falsely accuse Susanna of adultery,
'0 Besides Peter 53, see Behm 139; Daube 226; Lesetre 849;
J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology (Berkeley: U of
California Press, 1970) 57, n. 214; H. P. Smith 54.
" Licht 1054; Matthes 105; Merwe 40; Moraldi 256-57.
12See the commentators on these passages.
13The similarity of the phraseology in Deut. 13:10; 17:7
where the witnesses' hands are to be upon the culprit and Lev.
24:14 where the witnesse lay their hands upon the culprit is
striking. Is it possible that D is reinterpreting the hand
placement of the tradition represented by Lev. 24, changing
the witnesses' responsibility from merely affirming their
testimony by hand placement to actually initiating the execu-
tion (a stronger deterent against false testimony)?
 436 Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.3 (1986)
though not exactly the same as Lev. 24,'4 supports the
legal interpretation of hand placement in the case of
the blasphemer (Susanna 34). The elders in an assembly
of people at the house of Susanna's husband lay their
hands on her and, apparently at the same time, give
their (false) testimony. Clearly hand placement in
Susanna has a legal function of demonstrating who the
guilty party is and cannot be interpreted as a means of
transferring pollution or the like. In view of the
foregoing reasons, then, the legal interpretation of the
gesture in Lev. 24 must be the correct one.
2. Moses' placement of his hands on Joshua has been
understood as the means whereby Moses transferred
authority and blessing to Joshua (Num. 27:18, 23;
Deut. 34:9). Admittedly, the result of this rite is the
transfer of administrative honor and glory (hod,l5
Num. 27:20) and the spirit of wisdom (Deut. 34:9) to
Joshua. But if the meaning of the rite in the case of the
blasphemer is instructive here, the imposition of hands
on Joshua should not be understood as the means of
transfer. That is, blessing and authority do not flow
from the person of Moses through his arms to Joshua.
Rather, the imposition of hands serves to designate
Joshua as the focus of the ritual action; the rite
demonstrates who is to receive Moses' authority and
glory. The rite, understood this way, has also the
function of demonstrating to the community before
which the installation ceremony occurs (cf. Num.
27:19, 22-23) that Joshua is Moses' legitimate succes-
sor. In this it is like the rite in Lev. 24 which demon-
strates to the community who the guilty party is.
3. According to the prescriptions for the Day of
Atonement, Aaron is to lay his two hands on the head
of the goat which has been designated for Azazel
(Lev. 16:21) and confess over the animal all the
transgressions and crimes of the Israelites thereby
placing (ndtan) them on its head. Though this ritual
results in the placement of the sins on the goat's head,
it should not be considered a transfer of sins in a strict
sense. That is, the sins are not passed from Aaron
through his hands to the goat. Aaron never carries or
embodies these evils. Consequently, one cannot say
that sins are transferred. Rather, the placement of the
sins is effected by both the hand placement gesture
which designates where the sins are to rest and the
spoken confession which concretizes the sins which
then fall on the head of the goat.
14In Lev. 24, handlaying follows the conviction of the
blasphemer, while in Susanna, the witnesses give their testi-
mony while performing the gesture (vv. 34-40) before con-
viction (v. 41).
'5 See G. Warmuth, "h6d," TWbA T 2 (1974-7): 375-79.
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
In summary, I freely admit that there is a fine line
between my interpretation that hand placement in the
case of Joshua and the scapegoat is the means of
demonstrating who the focus of ritual action is and the
interpretation of others that the rite effects transfer.
Both explanations end with the same result; authority
or sins have been placed on the recipients. My reason,
however, for interpreting the gesture in these cases this
way is due to the act in the case of the blasphemer
which cannot be interpreted as a means of transfer. If
we understand the gesture as the means of designating
the focus of ritual action as suggested most clearly by
Lev. 24, then all three cases make sense together. The
act is like a demonstrative pointing finger. In the case
of the blasphemer it signifies: "This one is guilty; he is
worthy of death." In the case of Joshua it signifies:
"This one is to be my successor; he is to receive my
authority." In the case of the scapegoat it signifies:
"This goat is the recipient of the sins of this people."
B. The one-handed form in sacrifice: In contrast to
the foregoing rites where two hands are used, hand
placement in sacrifice is executed by placing only one
hand on the head of the animal.'6 The passages dealing
with individuals' sacrifices make this clear (Lev. 1:4 [cf.
LXX v. 10]; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 24, 29, 33). These passages
indicate that immediately before the animal is slaugh-
tered, the offerer lays his (or her'7) hand (singular) on
the animal's head. Other instances of hand placement
in sacrifice have "hands" (plural) in the text, but this is
only because the subject is plural, each person laying
one hand on the animal (Exod. 29:10, 15, 19; cf. Lev.
8:14, 18, 22; Lev. 4:15; Num. 8:12; 2 Chron. 29:23). An
additional case which must be subsumed under this
category is the hand placement which the Israelites
perform on the Levites (Num. 8:10; see below).'8
16 Targ. Jon. on Lev. 1:4 says it is to be performed with the
right hand.
'7Rabbinic literature stipulates that women were generally
not to perform hand placement on sacrifices (M Qid. 1:8;
Men. 9:8; B Gitt. 26b; see L. J. Archer, "The Role of
Jewish Women in the Religion, Ritual and Cult of Graeco-
Roman Palestine," in Images of Women in Antiquity, eds.
A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt [Detroit: Wayne State U P, 1983]
273-287, esp. 279; 1 thank my colleague Daniel Blickman for
this reference.) There is no evidence in the Bible that women
were restricted from performing this rite, or from sacrifice in
general, except, of course, when they were prevented because
of personal impurity.
18 The question arises whether all or only some sacrifices
receive hand placement. It is specifically mentioned with an
individual's burnt offering (Lev. 1:4), well-being offering (3:2,
 WRIGHT: The Gesture of Hand Placement 437

The meaning of hand placement in sacrifice has been
the most discussed aspect of the gesture in the Old
Testament. The major views put forward have been a
combination of the notions of transfer (of good and
bad characteristics of the offerer), the identification of
the offerer with the animal, dedication and attribution
of ownership, with the substitution, communion and
gift theories of sacrifice. I classify the various views
here into five categories for the sake of review.'9
(a) According to some, the imposition of the hand
transfers the sin or guilt of the offerer to the animal.
The animal, now bearing the offerer's guilt, is put to
death as his substitute."
(b) Others think that the gesture serves to transfer
the offerer's personality to the animal or merely to
identify the animal as the offerer (signifying "this is
me"). The animal then becomes a substitute for the
offerer, suffering death in his place.2'
(c) Similar to the foregoing is the view that the
gesture effects a transfer of the offerer's personality or
emotion, or effects an identification of the animal with
the offerer. But instead of substitution, the death and
offering of the animal is the means whereby the offerer
offers himself to God as a gift.22
(d) Others turn away from interpreting the act as a
means of transfer or identification and view it as
indicating the dedication of the animal or as the means
of designating the animal as a gift to God.23
(e) Finally, for others the gesture demonstrates the
offerer's ownership of the animal in either a material or
ritual sense, or both.24
Views (a) through (d) cannot be accepted. View (a)
suffers for many reasons a few of which I summarize
here: (1) It is informed by the substitution theory of

8, 13), and purification offering (4:4, 24, 29, 33); with the
sacrifice which is untenable.25 (2) Its main support is
priestly initiates' purification offering (Exod. 29:10; Lev.
8:14), burnt offering (Exod. 29:15; Lev. 8:18), and ram of
consecration (Exod. 29:19; Lev. 8:22); with a purification 21 Cf. Bernoulli 130; MacCulloch 494; M. Noth, Das
offering brought for a sin by the community (Lev. 4:15); and
dritte Buch Mose, Leviticus (Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck and
in one descriptive passage with a public purification offering
Ruprecht, 1962) 13.
(2 Chron. 29:33). Making a conclusion from this scanty 22 Noth 13 in addition to seeing handlaying, originally with
evidence, it appears that all individual offerings (of large the hatid't, as a means of transfer of personality thereby
animals) receive handlaying (this would include the reparation making the animal a substitute, suggests that later when the
offering with which the rite is not mentioned, cf. Lev. rite was applied to all offerings it became the symbol of giving
5:14-26; 7:1-7; see note 34 below), while all public offerings, oneself to God. See Elliger's view in n. 20; also Behm 136-39;
except for a public purification offering, do not receive the A. Bertholet, Leviticus (TUbingen and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr
gesture. The Mishnah stipulates that all individual sacrifices [P. Siebeck], 1901) 2-3; Janowski 218-21; Lesetre 848; Peter
(of large animals) receive handlaying, except the firstling, 51-52.
tithe and Passover offering, while public offerings do not, 23 See Bahr 1: 341; Bernoulli 130; Eichrodt 1: 100-102;
except for those in Lev. 4:13-21 and possibly Num. 15:24 Matthes 118-19; Merwe 40; Moraldi 262-64; Rothkoff 1140;
(Men. 9:7; cf. Men. 5:7; Zeb. 10:2). Stolz 162 (only with the burnt and well-being offerings).
'9 For other summaries of views, see D. Hoffmann, Sefer 24 Peter 51-52; Vriezen 297-98, n. 3; and see de Vaux,
Wayyiqra', 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1953) 1: below. There are some other miscellaneous views regarding
87-89; Licht; Merwe; Shepherd. the meaning of the gesture. For example, Philo, De Spec. Leg.
20 There are, as may be expected, variations to this particular
1: 203-4, says that handlaying with the burnt offering is
interpretation. Volz, sensing the difficulty that a transfer accompanied
of by a disclaimer of guilt, thus making it a sign of
sins does not make sense with the well-being or burnt the offerer's blamelessness. H. P. Smith believes it originally
offerings (see below), postulates that originally the rite was an act by which the offerer partook of the sanctity of the
occurred only with the (Iaqdtt) sacrifice and signified trans- victim, but now in P is "simply the essential part of the act of
fer. Later it was adapted to the burnt and well-being offerings, slaying." Licht 1054-55 observes that since the Bible is silent
but there did not have the significance of transfer (cf. Stolz about the meaning of the rite, and since it occurs generally
162). Medebielle 40, 147-50, 157 holds that the penalty the with offerings of individuals, the offerer himself determined
offerer deserves, not his guilt, is transferred. Elliger 34 what the meaning of the rite was. Similarly, Daube 224-29
believes that hand placement was possibly originally part of suggests that "by leaning your hands on somebody or some-
the burnt offering rite and indicated a transfer "von seelichem
thing, . . . you were pouring your personality into him or it."
Fluidem" to the animal. The offerer thereby became identified The exact nuance this took was determined by the context or
with the animal and through the sacrifice the offerer gave the type of ritual. Cf. Stolz 162.
himself as a gift to God. Later in P the gesture was applied to 25 For refutations of the substitution theory and this mean-
all offerings and indicated a transfer of sin. ing of hand placement, see, in particular, Metzinger. See also

This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
438 Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.3 (1986)

the hand placement rite in Lev. 16:21. We have already the view that a confession of guilt took place at the
seen that the form of that rite (performed with two time of hand placement. There is no evidence, however,
hands) is different from the one-handed gesture in that confession took place at that time. The few
sacrifice. Hence a difference in form suggests a priori a examples of confession with a sacrifice place the
possible difference in meaning. Furthermore, the scape- confession before the sacrifice is even brought (Lev.
goat rite is not a sacrifice; it is merely a rite of 5:5; Num. 5:7).3? For the reasons expressed above, Lev.
elimination and therefore cannot be used to interpret 16:21-22 cannot be used as an example of confession
hand placement in sacrifice.26 (3) It is difficult to apply with a sacrifice.
the idea of the transfer of guilt in the case of the well- View (b) obviates some of the problems of (a) in that
being offering since it is not an expiatory offering like it does not use Lev. 16:21-22 for support, nor does it
the purification (Qattd't) and reparation ('dsam) offer- require that hand placement be accompanied by con-
ings, and to a certain extent the burnt offering.27 (4) If fession. But ultimately it suffers in other respects like
transfer of sin is the meaning of hand placement, it is (a). It is informed by the substitution theory of sacrifice.
difficult to understand why a purification offering or It does not explain the presence of hand placement
burnt offering commuted to a bird (Lev. 5:7- 1; with the well-being offering, nor the lack of it with
1:14-17) do not receive the gesture. Surely if this offerings commuted to birds. Also, this theory per-
interpretation were correct, we would expect to find ceives slaughtering to be the climax (or at least one of
the gesture in these cases, since the birds are slaugh- the highly significant rites) of the ritual.
tered and blood is put on the altar as in the case of View (c), since it avoids the substitution theory,
larger animals.28 (5) If the animal were being put to makes sense of the gesture with the well-being offering.
death for the offerer, the slaughter would be the high This interpretation does not require hand placement to
point of the sacrifice. However, the prescriptions be accompanied by confession. And it does not depend
indicate quite clearly that the blood rites and the on Lev. 16. But this view, despite its strengths, is not
placement of the meat and fat pieces on the altar are acceptable since it operates according to a version of
the climax of the sacrifice. When expiation is present, the communion theory of sacrifice; that is, that through
it is effected by the manipulation of the blood, not by sacrifice, an offerer mystically approaches God. This
the slaughter.29 (6) The view of transfer of sin or theory has no real foundation in the biblical text.31
penalty by hand placement is usually accompanied by Furthermore, view (c) does not explain the lack of
hand placement with birds.
View (d) is closer to the truth since it avoids the
theories of substitution and communion and operates
Eichrodt 1: 100; Milgrom, "Sacrifices" 764; de Vaux 29, n. 3;
Vriezen 297-98. according to the more correct gift theory of sacrifice.
But in my view, (e) provides the best interpretation.
26 See my dissertation, chapter 1, sections 1.1.3 and 1.1.4;
Elliger 212; Janowski 209-10; H. Kummel, "Ersatzk6nig und
The specific manner in which I understand it is best
expressed in the words of Roland de Vaux:
Siindenbock," ZA W.80 (1968): 311.
27 On the nonexpiatory nature of the well-being offering, see
In placing his hand on the animal's head, the offerer
Milgrom, "Sacrifices" 769-70. The burnt offering is char-
attests that this victim is his indeed, that the sacrifice
acterized in P as expiatory (Lev. 1:4; 9:7; 14:20; 16:24; cf. Job
which is about to be presented by the priest is offered
1:5; 42:8), but it has a wider use and may be brought for
in his [the offerer's] name, and that the benefits
fulfillment of vows or as a freewill offering (Lev. 22:18-25;
accruing from it will return to him.32
Num. 15:3) like the well-being offering (Lev. 7:11-18; 22:21;
Num. 15:3).
28 A similar problem may be cited in the case of the that the ha((dat sacrifice, the major expiatory sacrifice, does
purification offering commuted to a cereal offering which not cleanse the person, but the sancta (e.g., the altar and parts
does not receive hand placement (Lev. 5:11-13). But one may of the Tabernacle) which the offerer's sins have polluted. See
argue that it does not receive the gesture since it is highly "The Function of the Hattnt Sacrifice," Tarbiz 40 (1970): 1-8
irregular (i.e., it does not have the features of slaughtering and (Hebrew); "kipper callbecad,' Leshonenu 35 (1970) 16-17
blood manipulation). On this problem, see Fichrodt 1: 100; (Hebrew); "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly'Picture of Dorian
Matthes 97-99; Metzinger 256. Gray,"' RB 83 (1970): 390-99; "Sacrifices" 763-71.
29 See Eichrodt 1: 100; Metzinger 181-83, 256; de Vaux 29, 30 See J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
n. 3; Vriezen 300-301. Another erroneous conception which is 1976) 108-10; Moraldi 258-59.
often part of the substitution theory is that sacrifice serves to 3' Milgrom, "Sacrifices" 764, 769.
cleanse a person from sin. J. Milgrom has conclusively shown 32 De Vaux (Engl. trans.) 28-29.

This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 WRIGHT: The Gesture of Hand Placement 439
Thus an identification between the offerer and the
animal takes place, not a substitutionary identification
of "this is me," but rather an attributive identification
of "this is mine." The attribution is such that no matter
who works with the sacrifice, the animal and sacrificial
acts performed with it will always be considered as
ritually pertaining to the offerer who imposed the
hand.
This interpretation makes sense in view of the fact
that handlaying is the first and one of the few rites
required of the offerer.33 The offerer does not need to
slaughter the animal. And certainly the offerer cannot
perform the rites at the altar. These are only to be done
by the priests. By simply imposing the hand on the
animal, the one bringing the sacrifice signifies that it
belongs to him or her. The rest of the rite may then
continue without the direct participation of the offerer.
This interpretation allows us to make sense of the
lack of hand placement with birds and cereal offerings
(cf. Lev. 1:14-17; 2; 5:7-10, 11-13). These offerings
are small and can be carried by the offerer alone in his
or her hand. The offerer brings these items and gives
them directly to the priest. The presentation of the
small offerings in the hand of the offerer is enough to
designate the offering as pertaining to that person. No
hand placement rite is therefore necessary.34 In con-
trast, one can imagine that with the larger quadrupeds,
3 The implication of "his hand" or "their hand" in the
prescriptions is that the offerer, not a stand-in, must perform
the gesture. Rabbinic tradition states that handlaying cannot
be performed by anyone but the offerer (M Men. 9:8,9; Sifra,
Wayyiqra' 4:2; B Men. 93b). Slaughtering, however, may be
done by someone other than the offerer or priest. This is
indicated by Lev. 4:15 where elders of the congregation
impose their hands (wesdmjk6. . 'et yjdehem) but the
ensuing slaughtering is prescribed with a singular verb
(wesdhat) without a subject, and by Lev. 8:14-15, 18-19,
22-23, where Aaron and his sons impose their hands on
various animals, but the slaughtering is described with a
singular verb (wayyishdt) without a subject (Moses is not the
subject of this verb). The verb describing slaughtering in these
cases is to be translated impersonally: "it shall be" or "it was
slaughtered." Rites connected with the altar, such as applying
blood or burning pieces of offerings, are performed by the
priests (see, for example, Lev. 1:5, 8-9). Other acts that must
be performed by the offerer include the presentation of the fat
pieces and breast of the well-being offering and the elevation
of the breast (Lev. 7:28-34).
34 J. Milgrom, Cult 15, n. 48, notes that handlaying is
surprisingly missing in the 'ds'am prescriptions. He suggests
that since the offerer could bring the monetary equivalent of
this offering, the gesture was not needed. The fuller reason
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
several persons may have been required to move a
stubborn animal into proper position, or in the case of
a woman bringing an offering (cf. Lev. 12) other men
may have led the animal into the sanctuary court.
Confusion as to who was actually bringing the animal
may have ensued. Therefore, hand placement needed
to be performed with the larger animals to initiate the
sacrifice and allay any possible confusion of attribution.
Finally, we observe that the hand placement per-
formed by the Israelites on the Levites in Num. 8:10 is
to be interpreted by the principle of attribution. This is
evidenced by the terminology and the larger rite
surrounding their dedication which is sacrificial in
character. The Levites are brought before the Tent of
Meeting and before the Lord (v. 9a Wjhiqrabta 'et
hakjwiyyim lipne '5hel m6ocd; v. 10 wehiqrabtd 'et
halkwiyyim lipne yhwh; cf. Lev. 1:3; 3:1; etc.); hand
placement occurs (v. lOb); finally, Aaron performs an
"elevation" rite with the Levites which is described as
being from the Israelites (v. 11 a wehjnip 'ahdrhn 'et
halkwiyyim teniupd lipne yhwh me'et be-ne yisrael; cf.
Lev. 7:30; 9:21; etc.). The gesture here serves to demon-
strate that the Levites are the Israelites' offering to God
and that the benefit of the dedication of the Levites and
their ensuing service is to accrue to the Israelites.34a
C. Hand placement in Hittite texts:35 We now turn
our attention to examples of a hand gesture from
why the gesture is not needed is now clear: the money is in the
hand of the offerer and therefore attribution of it is not
disputable. (I thank Milgrom for bringing this to my atten-
tion.)
34a M. Weinfeld has suggested to me (private communica-
tion) that attribution may be present in Exod. 29:24-25
(= Lev. 8:27-28) where Moses puts fat pieces and breads on
Aaron's and his sons' hands (in order to perform an elevation
rite) and then takes them and offers them.
35 I give special thanks to Harry A. Hoffner who critiqued
this section on hand placement in Hittite literature and who
provided me with a number of additional examples of the
gesture from his (CHD) files. I also thank Ruggero Stefanini
for his critique of an earlier form of this study.
The abbreviations used for Hittite materials in the follow-
ing follow H. G. Guterbock and H. A. Hoffner, eds., The
Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the U of
Chicago, 1980), vol. 3/1: xxi-xxiv. In addition to these
abbreviations, certain of the text names used below, and
additional items not found in the CHD, are explained as
follows: Ambazzi = CTH 391, partially trans. by A. Goetze,
ANET 348-49; Ashella = CTH 394, trans. by J. Friedrich,
"Aus dem hethitischen Schriftum," Der Alte Orient 25 (1925):
1 1- 13, partially trans. by 0. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite
440 Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.3 (1986)
ancient Anatolia which has a meaning almost identical
to that of sacrificial hand placement in the Bible. The
Hittite literary corpus contains numerous examples of
this gesture. But despite this fact, to my knowledge,
very little has been written about it, either by itself or
as it might relate to the biblical rite.36 Because of this
lack of treatment and so that we will be able to
perceive fully the similarity of the meaning of the
Hittite gesture to that in the Bible, we need to enter a
somewhat detailed discussion regarding the form and
meaning of the Hittite gesture.
The language used to describe hand placement in-
dicates that there are two forms the gesture may take.
An examination of the phraseology used to describe
the rite will show the divergent forms.37 The act is
usually described with the phrase: subject QA TAM
"subject places the hand."38 This phrase can vary by
including the enclitics -gan or -kan: -gan subject
QA TAM dai "subject places the hand on"39 and -kan
Religion (Oxford: Oxford U P, 1977) 49, H. KUmmel, "Ersatz-
konig" 310-1 1; Malli = CTH 402, ed. and trans. by L. Jakob-
Rost, Das Ritual des Malli aus Arzawa gegen Behexung
(Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1972); Mastigga = CTH 404, ed.
and trans. by L. Rost, "Ein hethitischen Ritual gegen Famili-
enzwist," MIO 1 (1953): 345-79; Mursilis Sprachlahmung =
CTH 486, ed. and trans. by A. Goetze and H. Pedersen,
Murgilis Sprachlahmung (Det Kgl. Danske Videnkabernes
Selskab, Hist-fil. Meddelelser 21/ 1) (Copenhagen, 1934);
StBoT 28 = 1. Singer, The Hittite KILAM Festival (Wies-
baden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984); StBoT29 = G. Beckman,
Hittite Birth Rituals, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1983); Tunnawi = CTH 409, ed. and trans. by A. Goetze and
E. H. Sturtevant, The Hittite Ritual of Tunnawi (New Haven:
American Oriental Society, 1938).
36 G. Furlani, La religione degli Hittiti (Bologna: N. Zani-
chelli, 1936) 203-4, 219, n. 125; A. Goetze, KI92; Licht 1055;
Moraldi 40-43; Rodriguez 216.
3 The following discussion of terminology is not meant to
be an exhaustive account of all the syntactic variations. For
example, attention will not be paid to the position of subject
and object. The intent is to give a sufficient accounting of the
terminology so as to perceive the forms the rite took.
38 LUGAL-Ug QA-TAMda-a-i: KUB 10.8 i 7'; 10.9 3'; 10.26 iii
6'-7'; 11.35 ii 16, 22, 27; KBo 4.9 ii 52; 11.49 i 4'; 30.54 i 15';
StBoT 13 i 21; StBoT 12 i 51-52 = StBoT25 #25 vs. i 50'-1';
StBoT 12 ii 2, 8, 19-20, 25, 38, iii 2-3; Bo 2078 i 8 (cited in
StBoT 12: 75); StBoT25 #52 i 13', #75 rs. 4'; StBoT28 l.c v 4',
l.j ii 37'; Bo 181 iv 9 (edited by H. Otten, ZA 53 [1953] 177);
perhaps also KUB 20.83 iv 8. In IBoT 2.34 8' LUGAL-ug (?)
QIA- TAM ME-i.
39 [LUGAL-us-sa-a]n QA-TAM da-a-i KBo 11.51 iv 13 (cf.
StBoT28 I.j.B v 21); similarly KBo 30.56 iii 30'; nu-us-sa-an
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
subject QA TAM dai "subject places the hand."40 The
object that receives hand placement is usually implied
from a preceding phrase where the object is explicitly
mentioned.4' Where the object is not expressed in the
preceding phrase, the object of the gesture is explicitly
stated with the dative-locative case42 or with ANA
(representing the Hittite dative-locative case) plus the
43
noun.
In the cases with the syntax just described we are
probably to understand that the one performing the
gesture actually contacted the object receiving the
gesture with his or her hand.44 But contact was not
absolutely necessary for the correct performance of the
QA- TAM ti-an-zi Mastigga i 19'; similarly iii 50-51, 57; KBo
2.3 iii 14 (= ANET 351); KBo 23.12 i 9'; UGULA LU.MES
GlSBAN?uR-ma-a?-?a-an ki-ig-se-ra-an da-a-i KUB 11.34 iv
5-6.
40 LUGAL-ug-kan QA-TAM da-a-i KUB 2.13 ii 49 (cited in
StBoT 12: 74-75); iii 16.
41 In many cases an officiator "holds forth" (para ep-; in
KUB 11.34 iv 4 we find ga-ra-a ka[r-ap-zi]) objects to another
who then performs the gesture on them (e.g., LU.MESAZu 3
NINDA.KUR4.RA EM-SA LUGAL-i pa-ra-a ap-pa-an-zi LUGAL-
us QA-TAM da-a-i "the AZU-priests hold forth to the king
three sour loaves; the king places the hand (on them)" StBoT
13 i 21; see the examples in notes 38-40). Since the object has
been mentioned in the para ep- clause, it need not be
mentioned again in the next clause describing hand place-
ment. In Mursilis Sprachldhmung, the bull over which Mursili
places his hand is mentioned in the preceding clause (vs.
15-16).
42 nu-ug-ga-an NINDA.KUR4.RA-i QA- TAM da-a-i "he places
the hand on the thickbread" KBo 21.85 i 45'.
nu-ug-ga-an LiSILX. SU.DU8.A A-NA SAG.DU.ME? GUD
KUBABBAR QA- TAM da-a-i "the cupbearer places his hand on
the heads of the silver bull (rhytons)" KUB 20.83 iii 11' 12',
paralleled by StBoT 28 I.j.B v 14-18; nam-ma-kdn A-NA
UDU.SIR.HI.A EN.MES KARAS QA- TI-SU-NU ti-ya-an-zi "then
the leaders of the army place their hands on the rams" Ashella
vs. 18; nu-kan A-NA GUD pu-u-hu-ga-ri su-an QA-TAM-
MA da-a-is "he placed the hand on the substitute bull in the
same way" Mursilis Sprachlahmung vs. 21-22; nu-us-sa-[a]n
BE-EL SISKUR.SISKUR A-NA UDU QA-TAM da-a-i "the of-
ferer places his hand on the sheep" KBo 24.66 iii 16'; similarly
KUB 32.49b ii 12'.
44 That direct contact is intended when the adverb tuwaz or
other modification (see below) does not occur is suggested by
KUB 30.41 i 11'-14'; "The chief cook holds forth tuhhuessar
('incense'). The king places his hand. The chief palace servant
gives a cloth to the king. The king wipes his hands" ((11') ...
UGULA LUIMUHALDIM (12') [tuih-h]u-i-sar pa-ra-a e-ep-zi (13')
[LUG]AL-us-sa-an QA-TAM da-a-i GAL DUMU.EGAL (14')
 WRIGHT: The Gesture of Hand Placement 441
rite. Sometimes the description of the gesture occurs
with the adverb tuwaz "at a distance": -9an subject
tuwaz QA TAM dai or -gan subject QA TAM tuwaz
dai "subject places the hand from a distance over/
toward."45 The adverb tuwaz indicates the one perform-
ing the act may do it from a relatively remote position.
A birth ritual also indicates that the rite may be
performed from a distance. At several points in the
ritual is contained the instruction: nammaggan QA TAM
harnauipara dai "moreover, she (i.e., a woman who is
apparently in the late stages of pregnancy) puts forth
her hand on the birthstool."46 This seems to indicate
direct contact. If, however, at one point in the ritual
she is found to be impure, she remains outside the
room in which the birthstool is and performs the
gesture from a distance: nammaggan ara[iza] iarnaui
QA TAM para dai "moreover, out[side] she puts forth
her hand toward the birthstool."47
One might wonder if the two forms of the gesture
(one with contact and the other without) carry two
different meanings. This is doubtful. Because both
descriptions are used in the same ritual contexts (i.e.,
with offering materials) both certainly had the same
meaning.
As for the number of hands to be used in the gesture,
it appears that only one hand is employed since the
attestations regularly use the singular QA TAM (or its
equivalent).48
Further respecting the form of the rite, there are
descriptions of multiple hand placement. In one
instance the king places his hand three times toward a
tapisana-vessel from which a LUGUDUJ priest libates
three times to the god Zababa, one gesture for each
libation.49 In other rites describing a multiple per-
LUGAL-i GAD-an pa-a-i LUGAL-ug SU.MES-SU a-a-an-si. That
the king needs to wipe his hands shows contact was made. On
the problems of this example of hand placement, see note 57.
45 LUGAL-us-sa-an tu-u-wa-a[z] QA- TAM da-ai KUB 25.1
iii 7-8 (here the chief cook holds forth three pairs of kisdu-
containers to the king from a distance; the king remains in his
place and does the gesture from a distance. See also KUB 2.10
i 16-20 (= KBo 14.33 i 1'-3'); KUB 10.75 ii 7'-8'; 25.14 i 40;
51.73 rs. 8'-9'; StBoT25 #46 vs. 7'-8', #89 6'-7', #127 rs.? iii 8',
#129 4', 6', #147 rs.? 12'; StBoT28 L.e.3 iii 4'. Cf. n. 49.
46 StBoT29, text H ii 34-35, iii 2-3, 40-41. One instance in
this lacks the preverb para (iii 33-34), but this does not
appear to be performed differently than the other cases.
47 StBoT 29, text H iii 36-37.
48 Sumerogram gu-an Mursilis Sprachlahmung vs. 16, 21,
rs. 9 keggeran KUB 11.34 iv 5-6.
49 KUB 25.36 v 4 (= V. Haas, KN 206): LUGAL-Ug tu-az
QA- TAM 3- Uda-[i].
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
formance of the gesture, the iterative form of the verb
dai- is used. In one ritual, for example, three NINDA.
KUR4.RA loaves are broken up; the king's gesture is
described in the iterative. It apparently intends that the
king perform the gesture three times, once on each
loaf.50
Finally in connection with the form, there is a text in
which the offerer places his hand which holds a dagger
on the auli- (an internal organ) of a ram and a bull. On
this, see below.
The context of the majority of the instances of hand
placement in Hittite texts is that of making offerings. A
wide range of offering materials receives the gesture.
Breads, cheese and grain products receive hand place-
ment and then are broken up into pieces or are
scattered as offerings to various gods.5" Similarly, wine
and other drinks receive the gesture and are then
libated.52 Slaughtered animals and meats also receive
lnu NINDA.KUR4.RA.HI.A 3-us-pat QA- TAM-MA pdr-gi-
an-zi LUGAL-ga-ag-ga-an QA-TAM QA-TAM-MA zi-ik-ki-
iz-zi KBo 21.85 i 47'-49'. In StBoT25, #104 vs. ii 8'-10', (at
least) four items are taken (dagkanzi; iterative) and receive
hand placement (zikk[izz]i) by the king. The iterative of dai-
used here appears to intend that each item receive a separate
hand placement gesture. See also the dai- iteratives in KUB
20.90 iv 9'-1 1' (the holding forth gesture is described with
para appiskizzi; also the manipulation of the vessel which
received the gesture is in the iterative, line 11 '); 25.14 i 37'-49'
(of several loaves of bread each offered individually; the
iterative para appiskizzi is used); 46.9 iv 1-4 (with iterative
para appiskizzi); 51.73 rs. 8'-9'; KBo 30.153 ii 10 (on this
passage, see below).
5' Breads: NINDAtunnaptu- KBo 11.51 iv 12; StBoT28 l.j.B v
20; NINDA.KUR4.RA = NINDAhargi- StBoT 13 i 20-22 (sour
thickbread); Mastigga i 17-21, iii 49-53, 56-59; KBo 2.3 iii
12; StBoT 12 i 52-56 (black in color) cf. ii 48; StBoT 25,
#127 rs.7 iii 71; NlNDAharzazuta- KUB 11.35 ii 14-16; Bo 2708
i 5, 7 (cited in StBoT 12: 75); NINDAhali- StBoT28 l.j ii 35'-7';
Cheese: GA.KIN.AG Mastigga i 17-18, iii 49-53; KBo 2.3 iii
12-16; Grain products: memal(groats) KUB 11.35 ii 21-25.
52GETN "wine" KBo 4.9 ii 51-iii 3; StBoT 12 ii 7-12, iii
2'-4'; Mastigga i 17-21, iii 49-53, 56-59; cf. StBoT25 #52 i
12', 14', #129 8', 10'; walhi- (a cultic drink) StBoT 12 ii 1-6.
Sometimes only a container is listed without mention of its
contents: DUJGhalwatalla- Bo 2708 i 4-8 (cited in StBoT 12: 75);
DUGkattakurant- KUB 11.35 ii 26-27; SAG.DU.MES GUD KUBAB-
BAR "silver bull heads" KUB20.83 iii 9'-iv 3; StBoT28 l.j.B v
15 (see n. 43). Cf. StBoT28 l.c v 1'. A difficult case is Bo 181 iv
7-9 (Otten, ZA 53 [1959] 177). Something (the signs for the
object are unclear) of the god Zulumma is held up to the
king on which he does hand placement. Otten says that the
broken signs are something like [G*]SDIM4. Hoffner (private
442 Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.3 (1986)
the rite and are then distributed.53 Hand placement is
performed on livers, but it is not known from the
examples if they are subsequently broken up or offered
in some other way.54 Besides these foods, trays and
baskets, apparently full of foods, receive hand place-
ment.55 The gesture also occurs with live animals which
communication) suggests reading GESPU "fist." If this latter
reading is correct and since this "fist" is made of silver,
perhaps we have here a vessel, possibly containing food or
drink, receiving the gesture. The text breaks off so we do not
know what is done with the object.
3 z"kattapala- KBo 30.56 iii 28'-35'. In KBo 23.12 rs.
7'-15' a bird is killed (?ipant-) after which a LIJAzu holds it
forth so the offerer can do hand placement. The heart, wing
and body of the bird are offered by another LU'AZU.
54 lZUNiG.GIG StBoTii 24-25. After the king performs hand
placement, the liver is "taken forth" (para udai) and is given
to the cupbearer. After that, the scene changes without
specifying what is done with the liver. Cf. also KUB 10.79
8-11. In KBo 30.54 i 14'-15' the king does the gesture over a
liver. The text changes subjects without saying what is done
with the liver. Other cases of hand placement with livers are
too broken to determine what is done with them (StBoT 25,
#89 6', #46 vs. 7'; StBoT 28 l.e.3 iii 2'-7'). There are many
passages which detail how a liver is treated as an offering,
though without hand placement. In a series of offering
acts--libation, bread breaking, etc.-the king is to cut up a
heart and liver on top of broken bread (StBoT 12 ii 17-19,
20-22, 23-26, 27-30, 31-34, 35-37, 38-41). The chief cook
puts a NINDApargulfi- on the hearth and cuts up upon it a
cooked liver and heart (iii 16-20). In an offering of appease-
ment to the Sun-god, a cooked liver and heart are cut up on
broken bread (StBoT 2 rs. 6-8). In an offering to the Sun-
god, a lamb is slaughtered. Its ear, liver, heart and thigh, all
cooked, are laid upon thin bread (Malli iv 13-16). The
welwila-gods are offered cooked flesh and a liver and heart
cut up upon thin bread (iv 21-26). Also see Tunnawi iv 30, 39
and Goetze's and Pedersen's remarks on this passage. For
giving livers which have received hand placement to cultic
functionaries, possibly as prebends, see note 68.
55 In StBo T 12 ii 38-40, three GISzal(u)wani-trays are brought "Hethitisch tuhhueggar," MSS 1 (1956) 63-70, and H. Otten,
in from the temple of the Sun-god. The king performs hand
placement and then they are taken back to the temple.
Nothing is said about what may be on the trays. E. Neu, in an
excursus on the meaning of G'szal(u)wani- (StBoT 12: 73-76),
gives examples where these trays are laden with foods and
receive hand placement. In KUB 2.13 iii 44-50, TU7apalzel
("ein Topfgericht," HW 54) is placed on a zal(u)wani- and
then receives the gesture by the king. The chief cook gives it to
the halliyari- functionaries. In another example (Bo 2708 i
4-8), NlNDAharzazuta-bread is held forth to the king by means
tuhhueggar and tuhg- (RHA 22/74 [1964] 107) suggested that
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
are to be offered in some way.56 Once we find it with
tuhhuessar incense.57
The manner in which the gesture was performed
with these objects, especially the inanimate items,
reveals the meaning of hand placement in Hittite texts.
The king or queen, a cultic functionary, a patient in a
magical rite or a lay person making an offering places
his or her hand over or toward an item which is held up
to him or her by another cultic functionary or which is
otherwise set before him or her. After hand placement,
of the zal(u)wani-tray and the king performs hand placement.
In the AN.TAH.SUM festival (KUB 25.1 iii 4- 10), the chief cook
holds forth to the king three pairs of kigdu-containers for
hand placement. In the "Fete du mois" two pairs(?) of
KANNU vessels are held forth to the king for the gesture. On
top of these vessels lies wagata-bread (KUB 2.10 i 16-
20 = KBo 14.33 i 1'-3'). See also StBoT 28 l.j ii 31'-34',
36'-37'. That the zal(u)wani- and kigdu- containers receive
handlaying without their contents being specified is no
anomaly in view of the fact that other vessels containing
liquids which receive the gesture are listed in rituals without
mention of their contents (see n. 52).
56 Besides the examples treated below (Mursilis Sprachlah-
mung and Ashella) and the example from a version of the
Mastigga ritual referred to in note 79, see KUB 32.49b ii
12'-15'; KBo 24.66 iii 16'.
57 KUB 30.41 i 11'-14'. This case of hand placement may not
be on a par with the other examples treated in this article.
Other rituals with similar sequences (where tuhhueggar is
given to the king or queen who then wipe their hands) use the
verb tuhg- ("cut off" (?)) instead of QA TAM dai (KBo 4.9 ii
20-25, 29-36; cf. KUB 10.4 i 2'-4'; 10.11 ii 4'-8'; 11.35 ii 3-8).
In these latter rituals, the tuhhueggar manipulation appears to
be for the purifying of the king's or queen's hands. This same
meaning must therefore apply to the tuhhueggar rite described
with QA TAM dai. This interpretation is buttressed by the fact
that a hand washing (with ME QA TI) and wiping rite occurs
in proximity to the tuhhueggar rites (KUB 30.41 i 5'-7'; KBo
4.9 ii 13-19; KUB 11.35 ii 6-8) and by the fact that
tuhhueggar is used in other contexts as a purifying substance
(see the instances brought together by A. Kammenhuber,
StBoT 13: 26-27). The difficulty with this example of hand
placement is that, since it is used for purification of hands, it
is unique among all the other examples of the gesture which
have the function (as I will explain in detail, below) of ritually
attributing the offering material and the action performed
with it to the one performing the gesture. In view of the other
examples of hand placement, we would like to see the incense
(at least in the case of KUB 30.41 i I I '- 14' with QA TAM dai)
offered in some way. Interestingly, H. Guterbock in a note on
 WRIGHT: The Gesture of Hand Placement 443
the functionary who held up the item or another
functionary who is present, rarely, if ever, the person
who did the hand placement,57a performs the breaking
of the bread or cheese, the libating of the liquids or the
distribution of the other materials. Three cases will
exemplify this:
The chief cook holds Uorth to the king a bla]ck
libation container of wine. The king places the h[an]d.
The chief cook libates to the god three times be[fore
the wall].58
This example then continues with libations at other
locations by the chief cook. The second example runs:
The cupbearer places (his) hand on the silver bull
heads (i.e., rhytons). The tahiyali-functionaries libate
out of the two silver bull heads.59
after the hand purification rite the tuhhueggar could have
been burnt despite the silence of the texts. Along this line, we
note a ritual where the king "cuts off" some tuhhueggar held
up to him, wipes his lips with it and then puts it in a cloth. A
temple worker then carries this away (KUB 20.59 i 16'-2 1').
This carrying away may imply some sort of offering (see
below, and notes 64-66). Unfortunately, the evidence does
not allow us to move beyond speculation in this case. On
tuhhuesgar and tuhg-, see also J. C. de Moor, "Frustula
Ugaritica," JNES 24 (1965) 355; S. Alp, "Hititlerin Dinsel
Tbrenlerinde Kullanilan Temizlik Maddesi tuhhueggar Uzer-
inde bir inceleme," Belleten 46/182 (1982) 247-59.
57a The only example I know of where the offering appears
to be done by the one making the gesture is KUB 10.15 iii
10'-14': (10') UGULA LU.MES GISBAN?UR I NINDA.KUR4.RA GAL
(I1 ) LUGAL-i pa-ra-a e-ep-zi (I 2') LUGAL-Ug QA- TA M da-a-i
ta-an pdr-Ki-ya (13') LUGAL-ug-za EGIR-pa A-SAR-SU (14')
e-ep-zi, "The chief of the table-men holds forth one large
thickbread to the king. The king places the hand. He breaks
it. The king takes his place again." Upon first inspection it
appears that the king is the subject of the bread breaking.
This understanding, however, is not completely certain. Note
that in line 13' the text restates "king" as the subject. This may
imply that someone other than the king is the subject of the
preceding verb (parsiya). Also the situation described by the
passage where the chief table-man holds forth the bread to
the king indicates that the bread is still in the possession of thehere the action para ep- to the king after which the king
functionary after hand placement; there is no indication that
it has been given to the king. That the bread is still in the
functionary's possession may imply that he, not the king,
performs the breaking. see note 62, below.
58 StBoT 12 ii 7-8; cf. iii 2'-6'.
'9 KUB 20.83 iii 9'-iv 3 (cf. KUB 25.1 iii 61 -iv 3); parallel toment. In the section just preceding this, the gesture occurred
StBoT28 I.j.B v 14-19.
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
And the third example:
The Old Woman takes one so[ur loaf of thickbread] of
one handful, one che[ese] and one jug of wine. She
hol[ds] them forth to the offerer(s). They place their
hand on. She breaks up the loaf of thickbread and the
cheese and she libates the wine.
These offerings of appeasement are followed by a
prayer to the Sun-god enlisting his help.
These examples and others6' where hand placement
is performed on or toward an object by one person but
the actual dispensing of the offering food is performed
by another lead us to the meaning of the gesture. Hand
placement attributes the offering and offering act to
the offerer. Though another functionary performs the
actual distribution of the offering, the offering is to be
ritually attributed to the one who performs the gesture.
To put it analogically, hand placement is the signature
on a letter delivered to the god by means of a cultic
postman. When the god receives the letter, he recog-
nizes that it is from the one who signed the letter (i.e.,
the one who performed the gesture), not from the
postman who delivered it.62
This interpretation of hand placement is given fur-
ther confirmation by an example from outside the
scope of sacrifice. In a ritual where a patient shoots an
60 Mastigga i 17'-20'; cf. iii 49-53, 56-59; KBo 2.3 iii 12-14.
61 See KBo 4.9 ii 51-iii 3; 11.49 i 2'-10'; 21.81 i 43'-49';
23.12 rs. 7'- 15' (see note 53); 30.56 iii 28'-35'; KUB 10.9 2'-5';
11.35 ii 14-20, 21-25, 26-28; 25.14 i 37'-49'; 25.36 v 1-8
(= Haas, KN 206); StBoT 13 i 10-24; StBoT 12 i 51-56, ii
1-6, 19-23; StBoT28 L.c v I'-6'.
62 This interpretation is alluded to by Goetze, KI92; cf. also
Furlani 219 and n. 125. This understanding of the gesture is
supported by the apparent lack of the rite by the king when he
himself libates, breaks bread or otherwise disperses offerings
(for a possible exception, see note 57a): libating StBo T 12 i 16,
27, 29, ii 14-15, iii 20', 26' 33', 43', 48', 53', iv 14'; StBoT 13 iii
5-7, 9, 13; KBo 11.51 iii 12'; 4.9 iii 18; breaking bread StBoT
12 i 23, 26, ii 36, 44, iii 16' 18', 22', 23', 28', 28', 30', 35', 40', 45',
50', 55'; StBoT 13 ii 17-19, 20-22, 23-26, 27-30, 31-34,
35-37, 38-40, iii 4, iv 3-5, v 2'-4', 8', 14', 19', 24'-25', 29', 42',
vi 4', 13'; KUB 2.5 iv 7-8, 17-18, vi 11-12; 11.35 ii 9-12 (note
himself breaks bread with no hand placement); 25.1 v 25, vi
34; KBo 11.51 iii 14', 17', iv 3; liver and heart cutting StBo T 13
iii 17-19, 20-22, 23-26, 27-28, 31-34, 35-37, 38-40. Some-
times the gesture is missing where it is expected. For example,
in StBoT 13 i 25-30, the LUAZU libates without hand place-
with bread which was then broken by the LU AZU.
444 Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.3 (1986)
arrow (which probably signifies the dispatch of evil) we
read: "The offerer, if a male, . . [ . .. ] he shoots (the
arrow) by himself. But if a female, she places her hand
on the bow and the LUAZU shoots (the arrow)."63 It
appears that the woman, since she does not shoot the
bow herself, places her hand over it to show that the
shooting pertains to her.
Examples that deviate somewhat from the preceding
paradigm of hand placement must now be explained.
One difficulty is that in a few cases, objects that receive
the gesture are removed from the ritual scene without
any description about what is done with them. Such
laconsim makes it difficult to perceive the presence of
the idea of attribution. For example, in one ritual a
zal(u)wani-tray, probably full of offering foods, is
brought from the temple to the king who performs
hand placement on it. The tray is then taken back to
the temple without any statement about what then
happens to it.64 In another example, kigdu- containers,
also probably filled with foods, receive the gesture, and
afterwards are carried out. Again we are not told how
they are consequently treated. Finally, in another
ritual, tunnaptu-bread, after hand placement, is carried
66
away. The text is silent about its subsequent handling.
In each of these cases we are probably correct in
understanding that the foods were distributed as offer-
ings. If so, they provide no exception to the meaning of
the gesture in sacrificial contexts outlined, above.
Another difficulty is found in texts where an object,
after receiving hand placement, is given to cultic
functionaries. In one passage, a cook takes a liver on
which the king placed his hand and gives it to a
cupbearer.67 In another, a chief cook gives a zal(u)wani-
tray with TU7hapalzel which received the king's hand to
the halliyari-singers. Though one might understand
63 KUB 29.8 ii (8) ... nu EN SISKUR.SISKUR ma-a-an LU nu rams on which they performed hand placement. See also
x[two or three signs] (9) a-pa-a-si-la gi-i-e-iz-zi ma-a-na-a?
SAL-ma (10) nu-u?-4a-an A-NA GISBAN QA-TAM da-a-i
LUAZu-ma (11) fi-i-e-iz-zi (cf. H. Hoffner, "Symbols for
Masculinity and Femininity," JBL 85 [1966]: 331, n. 27; D. H.
Engelhard, Hittite Magical Practices: An Analysis, diss.,
Brandeis U, 1970, 40). Cf. this usage to 2 Kings 13:15-17.
64 StBoT 12 ii 38-40; see n. 55.
65 KUB 25.1 iii 4- 10; see n. 55.
66 KBo 11.51 iv 12-13. For a text with a similar problem, see
hand gesture (we do not find a person the object of the gesture
n. 54. See also KUB 2.10 i 16-21 (= KBo 14.33 i 1'-4').
67 StBoT 12 ii 24-25.
68 KUB 2.13 ii 44-50. KUB 10.26 iii 6'-8' and 25.36 v this
34-41
is a different gesture with a different meaning.
are examples where livers that receive the king's hand are
given to various priesthood and royal functionaries. These
livers may be prebends of the functionaries or may have been
distributed as offerings by them.
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
that the cultic officials distributed these foods as
offerings after receiving them, it is perhaps better to
view these foods as perquisites of the functionaries
deriving from the king. The principle of attribution by
hand placement can in any case be in force here
denoting the king as the source of the gifts.
A case of hand placement whose meaning is not
immediately clear is found in a birth ritual to which we
referred earlier in our discussion of the form and
language of the rite.69 In this ritual, which appears to
delineate preparations for giving birth, an expectant
mother at various points throughout the ritual bows
down70 to the birthstool which is being prepared for
her parturition and puts her hand forth on or toward
it. The nonsacrificial context of this gesture and the
fact that the terminology of these prescriptions is
somewhat different than that in other cases (see above)
suggest that perhaps the gesture carries another mean-
ing here. One might think that by it the woman
dedicates the stool or that by it the woman shows deep
respect for the stool which has a unique ritual status.
But the notion of attribution is also possible here. The
woman by hand placement identifies the stool as hers;
she identifies it as the object she will use in giving birth.
An unusual example of hand placement is found in
KBo 15.33 iii 11-12. A ram and bull are brought up
and purified for a sacrifice. The ritual then continues:7'
69 See notes 46 and 47.
70 Bowing is often found in the context of hand placement.
In StBoT 12 ii 24, the king bows (aruwaizzi) before hand
placement. It is not clear here, however, if this is connected
with the gesture, or if it is the concluding act of the foregoing
set of rites. In Mursilis Sprachlahmung (vs. 16-17), bowing
(appan hinkata) follows hand placement. In the Ashella ritual
(vs. 23-24), the army's leaders bow (appan hinganzi) to the
StBoT28 l.e.3 iii 5'; KUB 2.13 ii 44-50 (63); 10.79 6-10; 20.90
iv 12'; KBo 30.54 i 12'-15'. It is not clear to me yet if the
keggeran pai- gesture done with bowing in KUB 20.90 iv
12'-13' is to be considered among our examples of hand
placement gestures. If Hoffner's interpretation (private com-
munication) that NIN.DINGIR in line 13' is dative is correct,
then this gesture is performed by the DUMU.EGAL toward a
person (the NIN.DINGIR). This anomaly of a person receiving a
described with QATAM dai-) and the unique language (not
only keggeran pai-, but the use of menahhanda) suggest that
' (9) na-ag-kdn '1EN E-TIM A-NA DI?KUR URllku-li--ig-na
si-pa-an-ti (10) nu UDU.SIR GUD.MAH-ya lUh.MESMIUHALDIMpdr-
ki-ya-an-zi nu A-NA lU'EN E- TIM(1 1) GIR.IHI.A ZABARpi-an-zi
nu-ug-ga-an L-f'EN E-TIM SA UDU.SIR (12) SA GUD.MAH-va
 WRIGHT: The Gesture of Hand Placement 445

the NIN.DINGIR
The householder consecrates72 them (i.e., theplaces her hand several times (iterative
animals)
to the Weather-god of Kuliuisna. The cooks set up the of dai-; see above). If the text intends this order, we
ram and the bu11.73 They give bronze daggers to the should perhaps interpret the gesture as indicating
householder. The householder places (his) hand with a attribution of the libation to the NIN.DINGIR retro-
dagger on the auli- (i.e., the spleen or other internal actively. But there is some doubt whether the ritual
organ74) of the ram and the bull. really intends this sequence of events. The iterative
form of the verb dai- is used to correspond to four
The cooks slaughter them at the altar. A cook who can separate libation acts. We should perhaps understand
run (?75), to him they there give a dagger. When he the iterative not as intending a group of hand place-
finishes the slaughter of the portion at the ukturi- of ment gestures performed after the libations, but as
the god,.... intending, parenthetically almost, that as the libations
are made, the NIN.DINGIR is to do the gesture for each
The use of the knife by the householder, though unique one. Thus the gesture could precede each libation act.
in comparison to the other forms of hand placement, A text which needs to be reexamined in the light of
presents no real problem. It appears that the house- the preceding investigation is "Mursilis Sprachlah-
holder by placing his hand holding the knife on the mung." Mursili, troubled by a speech problem, in-
animals symbolically slaughters or offers the animals quired by oracle to find out which god was responsible
to the god. The cooks, however, step in and actually for his condition and, apparently, how to correct it. It
perform the slaughter and offering. The gesture with was determined, among many other things, that he
the dagger therefore attributes the slaughtering and should send a substitute bull (GUD puhugari-'7) to be
offering of the animal to the householder though burned at Kummani. The bull was decorated and
others actually perform it. Mursili placed his hand on it (vs. 9-17). It is doubtful if
One text provides a difficulty in that it seems to the gesture here is to be understood as a means of
place the gesture after the making of libations, not transferring Mursili's personal evil to the animal.78 Nor
before the act of offering as in the other cases we have does it symbolically identify the bull as being Mursili,
examined.76 In it the LLSANGA performs four libations. despite the context of substitution. The idea of attribu-
After the description of the libations, the text says that tion already laid out supplies sufficient explanation.
Mursili by the gesture identifies the animal as his
substitute offering;79 by it he signifies that it ritually
a-tu-Ii-vla GiR ZABAR-it QA- TAM da-a-i (13) L1.MESMUHALDIM-
belongs to him. This is particularly significant in the
ma-as is-ta-na-a-ni hu-kdn-zi nu kui-i LIMMUHALDIM hu-i-ma-
an-zi (14) tar-ah-zi nu-ug-si a-pi-ya GIR pi-an-zi ma-a-ah-ha-
an-ma (15) &A DINGIR-LIM uk-tu-u-ri SA HA.LA hu-ki-eg-gar 77 The word puhugari- "substitute" is related via Hurrian, to
ttuh-hu-ug-zi.... Akkadian puhu "substitute"; cf. KUmmel, StBoT 3: 81-82;
72 HW2 translates the phrase here: "Der Hausherr opfert sie"
Gurney 55.
(A: 629b). Perhaps we are to understand that the animal was 78 Furlani 219, n. 125; Moraldi 40; M. Vieyra, "Rites de
killed by the householder. The term gipant-, however, does purification hittites," RHR 119 (1939): 136.
not necessarily intend the killing of the animal. When verbs of 79 Note the emphasis here in on his, not on substitute. To
slaughtering follow it (in our text huek- in line 13), the reiterate, the rite does not signify a substitutional equivalency
meaning "consecrate" or "dedicate" is suggested for it. See between Mursili and the bull (i.e., "this bull is Mursili"). It
Goetze, "Hittite gipant-," JCS 23 (1971) 88-92. If this under- designates the one to whom the animal as an offering pertains.
standing is correct, then the placement of the knife on the The ritual in KBo 24.1 + KUB 32.113 i 21'-27' (a version of
auli- of the animals may be only symbolic. the Mastigga ritual) where a sheep is designated as a nakuggi
For this translation, see HW2 A: 629b. "substitute" (on this term, see N. van Brock, "Substitution
74 See H W2 A: 627-31 (particularly 628b-629b); J. Puhvel,rituelle," RHA 17/65 [1959] 126-30; Gurney 52-58) and the
Hittite Etymological Dictionary, vols. 1-2 in one vol. (Berlin- offerer places his hand on it is to be understood as a means of
New York-Amsterdam: Mouton, 1984) 229-32. designating the animal as the offerer's substitute in a way
75 J. Friedrich (HW 3.Erg. 16) reads the infinitive huimanzi
similar to the example in Mursilis Sprachlahmung. Note that
(from huwai- "laufen") with a question mark following. One in this text the animal is not killed, but simply "led/let forth"
wonders if the -ma- sign should be read -ku- yielding the (para tarna-). Afterward the SAL?U.GI takes it, perhaps as a
infinitive huikuanzi (from huek- "slaughter") and the transla- payment for her service. Though hand placement can be
tion: "A cook who can slaughter, to him they there give a connected with the giving of prebends (see above), I do not
dagger." believe it is here connected with the Old Woman receiving the
76 KBo 30.153 ii 5-10. animal.

This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
446 Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.3 (1986)
ritual context. The animal is being sent forth to a rite at
which Mursili will not be present. The gesture insures
that though he be not present the benefit of the
sacrifice will accrue to him.
One last example of hand placement in Hittite texts
comes from the ritual of Ashella for ridding an army of
a plague. It has a difficulty and a solution similar to
those of the Mursili text. When a plague errupts, each
leader of the army prepares a ram. The animals are
decorated with various cords and stones, and are tied
up overnight with a request to the divinity causing the
plague that he be appeased with the rams. The animals
are eventually driven into the open country, to the
border of the enemy, with another request that whoever
finds the animals might receive the plague. Before the
animals are sent out, however, the leaders of the army
perform hand placement on them.80 This example of
the gesture has been understood by most investigators,
perhaps under the influence of Lev. 16, as effecting a
transfer of the plague from the army, via its leaders, to
the animals.8' This is not correct. The placement of
hands is accompanied by a verbal declaration which
helps explain the meaning of the act:
Whatever god has caused this plague-now, behold,
the rams are standing; they are very fat in liver, heart
and member. Let the flesh of humans be hateful to
him! Moreover, be appeased with these rams!82
In this speech there is no reference to a transfer of evil
as one finds in the confession with the biblical scape-
goat or in the Hittite Ambazzi ritual where the prac-
titioner, after attaching to a mouse a bowstring
symbolic of the patients' pollution, declares: "I have
taken away from you evil and I have put it on the
mouse. Let this mouse take it to the high mountains,
the deep valleys and the distant ways!"83 Instead, hand
placement in the present ritual is accompanied by a
prayer invoking the god to receive and attack the
choice, pleasing rams rather than the humans. The
animals are thus appeasement and substitute offerings
to the angry divinity to divert his plagueful wrath away
from the army. With the obfuscating notion of transfer
removed from consideration and the idea of appease-
ment brought into its proper place, the meaning of the
hand placement gesture becomes clear. It is to be
understood much like the other examples as a means of
designating that the animals are the army leaders'
80 KUB 9.32+ vs. 11-31; the hand gesture occurs in lines
18ff.
81 Gurney 49; Kimmel, StBo T 3: 192.
82 Lines 19-23.
8 Ambazzi ii 37-40.
This content downloaded from 170.239.102.188 on Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:12:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
choice offerings which are given to the god in exchange
for themselves.84
Let us summarize and conclude. I have argued that
the hand placement gesture in Hittite ritual texts is to
be interpreted similarly throughout; it serves to ritually
attribute the object receiving the gesture and the ritual
acts subsequently performed with it to the one who
performs the gesture. I of course do not deny that the
particular contexts in which the gesture is found will
give to it certain nuances in meaning. But the basic and
main meaning found in all examples appears to be that
of attribution. The meaning of the Hittite gesture is
similar to that of handlaying performed with one hand
in biblical sacrifice which also serves to attribute the
animal and accompanying sacrificial acts to the one
who does hand placement. By drawing a comparison
between the Hittite and biblical gestures I do not
intend to imply that there is some sort of genetic or
historical relatonship between the two. It is possible
this is so. But such a connection could only be estab-
lished by a broader study of Hittite and biblical ritual
forms which shows the similarity to be more than
coincidental and by substantial evidence indicating
how ritual forms were mediated from one culture to
the next.85 The value, rather, of this present study is
that of showing that the meaning of handlaying in
biblical sacrifice as a way of designating ritual owner-
ship is a viable and valid interpretation of this ritual
symbol.
84 Another "anomalous" example of the gesture may be
mentioned which, because of its fragmentary nature, is placed
in a note. In KBo 30.70 3'-6' it is possible that both the king
and a priest do hand placement in succession on the same liver
((3') [... UGULA] l' MESMUHALDIM UZ"NIG.GIG LUGAL[-i] (4')
[pa-ra-a e-ep-zi LUG]AL-uS tu-u-az QA-TAM da-[a-i] (5')
[UGULA LUMESMUHALDIM L]USANGA-i "ZL'NIG.GIG pa-4a-a] (6')
[e-ip-zi LIJSANGA-i4 Q]A-TAM da-a-i; restorations from Hoffner,
private communication). If the gesture by two people is done
on the same liver, it may be compared to biblical hand
placement in sacrifice where several people place their hands
(albeit at the same time) on an animal, thus attributing it to
the whole group and not just an individual. But the Hittite
passage is very fragmentary. It may be that two separate livers
receive the gesture. (If Hoffner's restorations are correct, it is
interesting to note that the king does the gesture at a distance
(tuwaz), while the priest does not.)
85 On possible historical connections between Hittite and
biblical cult and ritual, see M. Weinfeld, "Social and Cultic
Institutions in the Priestly Source Against their Ancient Near
Eastern Background," Proceedings of the Eighth World Con-
gress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions, Bible Studies and
Hebrew Language (Jerusalem, 1983) 102-3.