will, to endow !"#$ %!!& / ')( "* +!

.,-"&. 0/ 01( 2 3!0/ '(

%!?7S 4-5 "!P2 #A!R0'# #0"K .6 04' !53 %'( "( 6+ 0/ 78/ (! 092 +#
T#<? (components) %!6!3 53 "+ F/ '/ %'? (1 ,82: :;'/ <2/ 0= >+ 23 6!>3 ?=
?!"#$ %!!& P?<P? %'6 ,0"K?' .6"( @( -?-! <@= 1+ -A-0-<!>0 3 "=
#0 'AP? !"#$ %!!&P ,%!6!G"?' %'? (2
?!0"K?' UHKU2 Q!H#? .6B( '/ ->09" 0C( (A
?%!0M0M' ,%G<782 ,%'!? (3 %-2&. %2/ &( 092 !53 -<-0"+ 13
?'P#"!' ,%G<782 , !'? (4 - 6D( 3A E0( 2+ F/ '/ +#
%!!& 2P <#AP"S' <0 (compare) 4#>+ '/ .-8 (;?3 <2: G: 0. F/ '/ '"( >+ (A
!H&!2 HA0##!2 ,0! !8A2#'' "!!M' 2P# !"#$
<!62 (relate) 4H&. /!<+ '3 '0##P'6 .,6# 60 #!"4H
( 0. ?= "I/ '* >: 82: :;'/
:"!P6 !P!2P' .#!63 0( 6 /J <0: '0( "(
(was permitted) "I/ '* >: 82: :;'" /
#!"4H
( 0. ?= .,1( "+ K( '2( @9. ' 092 ,"L( H* ?+ 5/ ,K&( M+ 3!
".#!63 0( 6 /J <0: '0( "( ,%!13 "/ %!?(!3 !&/ 04'
,0! 2P %'"60 2P #<&A? "#!M2# .''( 5( #! (A!@= "-0 8@/ ,6-N1/ '0( "(
:HA0##!2
1674-1607 ,!8A2#' "!!M ,HA0##!2 ,0! .#!0( M( 0O M: 2+ >!"-'
3 0!'3 '/ '@( )( '/ <0: 26( 0.
Jan Lievens: Abraham's Offering %!83 2-A
( %'=
.%1( 23 1+ <2: G: 0. ?4
/

'AG' <8#67 :'P#"!

inheritance, - ')( "* +!
legacy ; inherited feature
"#G6' #A6 - -A-0-<!>0 3 "=
.#!!& Q#H6 ,#<AKR <72 - #!?(!
( 69 "@. 1/
.P!P! ,,KR
= - 6C(
to fall, to drop - ">/ (A
to be loosen, to be - "I/ '*
untie
(biblical) - "4H0=
chain, fetter
to become darker - ''( 5(
to bequeath, to - >!"-' 3
 Pollution, Purification, and i

Purgation in Biblical Israel

Tikva Ftymer-Kensky
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Major and Minor Pollutions

T he ideas of pollution, purity, and purification were fundamental concepts of

biblical Israel. The desire for purity was so intense that a major social class, the
priesthood, was entrusted with the task of determining and giving instruction about
purity and impurity. Pollution, the lack of purity, could affect individuals, the
temple, the collectivity of Israel, and the land of Israel itself. Some forms of pollution
could be eradicated by rituals; the performance of these purifications and expiations
was a major function of the priesthood. The pollution caused by the performance of
certain deeds, however, could not be eradicated by rituals; Israel believed that the
person intentionally committing these acts would suffer catastrophic retribution
Wrongful acts could cause the pollution of the nation and of the land of Israel, which
could also not be “cured” by ritual. There was therefore an ultimate expectation of
catastrophic results for the whole people, the “purging” of the land by destruction
and exile. Pollution was thus thought to be one of the determinants of Israel’s history
and the concepts of pollution and purgation provided a paradigm by which lsrae
could understand and survive the destruction of the Temple. The idea of pollution
was such an important part of Israel’s world-view that its Primeval History, its story
of origins, was also seen as a story of cosmic pollution and purgation.
The simplest type of impurity is the impure state of the levitical laws. If an
individual comes into contact with a polluting substance, that person becomes
impure for seven days or more, in the case of major pollutions, or until the evening,
for minor pollutions. During the period of his impurity, the polluted individual is
highly contagious. He must avoid contact with others and must take care to avoid
coming into contact with the sacred.
External causes (things) normally cause only minor contamination. The chief
exception to this is death. Corpse-contamination is a most virulent pollution.
Contamination for seven days results not only from contact with a corpse but from
being in a tent when someone dies, and even from contact with the human bones bt
graves of a corpse-defiled person (Num 19: 11, 14, 16); everyone involved in
purification rituals suffers minor contamination. In the ideal camp of the desert,
therefore, corpse-defiled people were to stay outside the camp for seven days (Num
31: 19). The other major external pollutant is the disease of leprosy (Leviticus
13-14). The leper’s contamination is considered so intense that he must dwell
outside the camp, alone, and he must indicate his condition by tearing his cl
growing a mustache, leaving his hair disheveled, and calling out, “Unclean, un
400
(Lev 13: 45-46). He remains impure for seven days after the leprosy is pronounced
healed. We are not informed what happens to an individual who comes into contact
with a “leper” (assuming of course that he does not contract the disease from casual
contact); we might speculate that he would become impure, perhaps for the major
period of seven days. Other external causes of pollution (see chart below) cause only
minor pollution.
The extremely defiling nature of corpses has been explained as an attempt to
avoid a cult of the dead (Wold 1979: 18). However, there may be a more fundamen-
tal reason: in Israelite cosmology it was considered vitally important to maintain the
structure of the universe by keeping all distinctions (boundaries) firm (Douglas
1966: 53). The boundaries between life and death are crucial and no individual who
has had contact with the world of death can be part of life. y e must therefore stay in
limbo-outside the camp-for seven days and undergo a special ritual (sprinkling
with the “waters of impurity,” Numbers 19) to enable him to rejoin the life-group.
Before he has spent his time in limbo and been readmitted to the group he belongs at
least partially to the world of death. The severe isolation of the leper may also be
related to this distinction between life and death (in addition to its value as a medical
quarantine). If the disease was at all similar to modern leprosy, its effect in an
advanced state was similar to the decomposition of a corpse; the biblical association of
leprosy and corpses is expressed in Num 12: 12, where the leprous Miriam is
compared to one born dead and half decomposed. The afflicted individual, like one
who has been in contact with a corpse, might have been considered to be in a
no-man’s land between two realms which must be kept rigidly apart. It may be
relevant that disheveled hair and rent clothes are a sign of mourning (Lev 10: 6); the
leper may be mourning his own “death.” The ritual that the healed leper undergoes
before he can reenter the camp (Lev 14: 4-7) may also indicate that this blurring of
the demarcation between life and death lies behind the virulence of the contamination
of leprosy. Two clean birds are taken, one of which is killed over a bowl with running
water. The living bird is dipped in the blood of the dead bird, the leper is sprinkled
with the blood of the slain bird, and the living bird is let loose in the field. The
formal similarity between this ritual and the ritual of the Day of Atonement is
apparent: both involve two creatures, one of which is killed and the other set free. In
the case of the leper, the symbolism focuses on the living bird who has been in contact
with death (dipped in the blood of the killed bird) and is then set free; so too the leper
has been set free from his brush with death. The leper may then return to the camp,
although he is still impure and must remain outside his rent seven days before
undergoing a ritual of readmission and resuming normal life (Lev 14: 10-32).
The other major pollutions are caused by emissions from the human body. The
most enduring is that of childbirth (Leviticus 12). Birth of a male child renders a
woman impure for seven days, birth of a female for fourteen days. After this period,
although no longer impure, the mother is not totally pure and must avoid the realm
of the holy for an additional 33 days for a male and 66 days for a female. This
additional semi-impure period is known as the period of blood-purification (dmy thrh
Lev 12: 4, alsoymy lhrh 12: 4). N o reason is given why a male pollutes his mother
only half as long as a female pollutes hers: one might speculate that the necessity of
having the circumcision on the eighth day made it impossible for the period of full
impurity to last more than seven days after the birth of a male child, but why should
F r y m e r - K e n r k y : P o l l u t i o n i n Biblical Israel
the birth of a female contaminate for fourteen? The lengthy transitional period
(“purification”) after childbirth is unique. Although childbirth involves emissioa of
blood and other fluids, and therefore could be expected to contaminate, like mensttu-
ation, for at least seven days, this does not explain why the contamination of
childbirth lingers on, at least partially, after the seven- or fourteen- day period has
elapsed. It may be that, like the person who has touched death, the person who has
experienced birth has been at the boundaries of lifehon-life and therefore cannot
directly reenter the community. She therefore must undergo a long period of
transition before she can reapproach the sacred.
The other two causes of major pollution are menstruation, and genital discharge
for males and females (Leviticus 15). Menstruation pollutes a woman and any man
who has intercourse with her for seven days after (apparently from the onset of
menstruation); genital discharge pollutes for seven days after the discharge has
disappeared. The reason for the severity of this pollution, or for its cause, is not quite
clear. In her pioneering- study of impurity,
- . Douglas II
- sunnested that the human body
served as the symbol for the body politic. Since Israel, as a hard-pressed minority, W&
careful to maintain its boundaries, that which entered the body was carefully
regulated, and that which left was a polluting agent (1966: 124, see 1975: 269).
Douglas explicitly assumes (1966: 5 1, 124), that all bodily emissions were consid-
ered polluting. This, however, is not indicated in the Bible. O n the contrary, only
emissions from the genitalia were considered polluting agents. Despite the fact that
food (entry into the body) was carefully regulated, the excreta involved in the
digestive process-saliva, urine, feces-are not mentioned as polluting. Dekcation
is supposed to take place outside the ideal camp (Deut 23: 15-15) but individuals
excreting or even touching feces are not considered defiled until evening nor is it
prescribed chat they must bathe. Even those emissions that might be considered
somewhat diseased-nasal discharge, sputum, pus-are not mentioned as polluting
agents. The most conspicuous human emission absent from the list of polluting
agents is human blood (or, for that matter, any blood). Blood, of course, may not be
eaten. However, despite the fact that menstrual blood is a major contaminant, and
that (innocent) bloodshed is the most important pollutant of the land (see below),
ordinary blood is not mentioned as a contaminant. Bleeding or touching blood is not
considered polluting, and people who are wounded and bleeding are not defiled and
are not forbidden to come to the temple or to partake of sacrifices. The only bodily
emissions that pollute are those involved with sex: menstrual blood and discharges as
major pollutants, ejaculation (with or without intercourse) until the evening. The
reason that these are considered polluting must lie in the social relations between men
and women and in the culture’s attitude towards sex.
Minor pollutions are generally contracted from external causes: contact with
impure things, such as the carcasses of unclean animals, or contact with something
that has become unclean through contact with someone under a major pollution, or
contact with someone who is polluted with a major pollution. The only intetnally-
caused minor pollution mentioned is caused by seminal discharge through ejaculation
or fornication. For convenience, I include a chart of the minor pollutions mentioned
in the levitical laws.’
The prime characteristic of the major pollutions is their contagion. People who
have a major pollution can defile others, making them impure for the duration of the
402 F r y m e r - K e n s k y : P o l l u t i o n in Biblical Israel 40

wait day. People with a major pollution can also defile things which, in turn, can do6
source of till wash other people for the day. The levitical laws do not indicate whether a person under
verse uncleanness action of a person evening clothes bathe minor pollution can himself defile during the day that he is impure. Our assumptio
Lev 11:24,27 carcass of unclean would be that a person with a minor pollution cannot defile, because otherwise there
touching X
animal would be no end,3 and because we would expect some warning if minor dehlemen
11:25,28 carcass of unclean carrying X was contagious. This is indeed the way later Jewish law understood the issue o
animal contagion.
1 1 31 carcass of creepy- touching X These pollutions are contagious, but they are not dangerous. No har
crawly
expected to come to the individual who has become impure in any of these ways,
11:39 carcass of clean touching X
animal is there a hint that a man who, e.g., touches his menstruating wife would suffer h
11:40 carcass of clean carrying X or fail in his crops, only that he himself will become impure for the day. The o
animal characteristic of t m 3 , “pollution,” is contagion; the only misfortune associated wit
11:40 carcass of clean eating X the condition is isolation from the people and alienation from all things
animal The condition of impurity becomes actively dangerous to the individual only w
14:46 leprous house entering while sealed X
before examination comes into contact with the sacred. Since the impure can defile the sacred, the s
14:47 leprous house eating, sleeping in W2 must be protected. This goal may be accomplished by direct means such as
15:s man with discharge touching bedding of X guards to prevent the visibly impure from approaching the Temple (2 Chr 23:
15:G man with discharge sitting on seat of X is also achieved by a belief that catastrophe will strike whoever approaches th
15:7 man with discharge touching person of , x
15:10 man with discharge touching something that while impure: an impure priest who eats the sacred portions (Lev 22: 3
I
, x
has been under impure person who eats a sacrifice of well-being (Lev 7: 20-21),4 an
t comes to the Temple while impure. As long as the polluted individual
(e.g., saddle)
15: 10 man with discharge carrying something that X realm of the sacred he is not expected to suffer any harm: he waits out hi
has been under pollution, performs appropriate purification and readmission rituals, and retur
15:ll man with discharge being touched by with X
unwashed hands ordinary membership in the community. There is only one threat inherent in thes
15:16 ejaculation X pollutions. Since they are contagious, there is a danger that the contagion will s
15: 18 fornication X throughout the community, thus effectively isolating the entire community
(for m and f) contact with God.Since the community believes its well-being to be dependent on its
15:19 menstruant touching X relationship to God, alienation from God could present impossible danger.
15:21 menstruant touching Gdding of X
15:22 menstruant touching seat of There is no onus attached to these pollutions, no idea that they r
X
15:26-27 woman with touching bedding or X forbidden or improper actions, no “guilt” attributed to the impure. Acts
discharge seat of prohibited are not said to result in an impure state. On the contrary, ma
17:15 carrion eating X which result in the polluted state are natural functions which cannot
Without childbirth (a major pollutant) and sexual intercourse (a mino
action of a priest society would cease to exist. Avoidance of intercourse and childbirth is, moreoveri
22:4-7 impure person touching X - X avoidance of the explicit command to procreate. Similarly, corpses must be dis
22:4-7 ejaculation having; possibly touching X - X
22:5 unclean animal touching X - X of properly even though contact with the corpse results in major pollution. The
22:5 unclean person who touching X - X must come into contact with the dead-only the Holy has to be kept separate
can make unclean it. Even priests may attend the deceased of their immediate family, and then re
Num 19:6-7 red cow putting hyssop, cedar and X x x in limbo until their corpse-contamination is over (Lev 21: 1-6). Only the H
crimson into fire of
(Lev 21: 10-1 1) and the Nazirite (Num 6: 6-7) must avoid all corpses.
action of a person falls down dead right next to the Nazirite, the contamination of the dea
19:8 red cow the vow and terminates his period as a Nazirite (Num 6: 9-12). There is,
burning X x x
19:lO red cow gathering ashes of X x no question of moral culpability for such inadvertent contact with death.
waters of impurity touching _
19:21
-_
X The only instance in which there was any moral opprobrium attached
19:2 1 waters of impurity sprinkling (X)* - polluted state is the case of the leper. In narrative portions of the Bible, leprosy
19:22 corpse-defiled person touching X _x _ premature death or Raret) is a divine sanction imposed for the commission of ce
404
wrongs: on Miriam for her affrontery against Moses (Num 12: 10-15), Gehazi for
wrongfully taking money from Naaman (2 Kgs 5 : 27), and Uzziah for presuming to
offer incense by himself (2 Chr 26: 19-21). Since the tradition records instances in
which leprosy was a divine punishment, there may have been a tendency to suspect
lepers of wrongdoing. This, however, is simply folk suspicion, much as in nineteenth-
century social philosophy the poor may have been suspected of being “shiftless.” The
formal tradition of Israel attached no blame to lepers, only impurity. Ritual pollu-
tion, even in the case of lepers, was not a moral issue.
The lack of wrong-doing involved in these pollutions distinguishes them from
other forms of pollution which do convey a moral message. Biblical Israel had two
separate sets of what anthropologists would consider “pollution beliefs”: a set dis-
cussed extensively as pollutions in the Priestly laws, since the priests were responsible
for preventing the contamination of the pure and the Holy; and a set of beliefs that we
might term “danger beliefs.” The deeds that involve these danger beliefs differ
fundamentally from the deeds that result in ritual impurity. There is a clear
implication of wrong-doing, for the individual has placed himself in danger by doing
something that he and the people have been expressly forbidden to do; the danger is
seen as a divine sanction for the deed. Unlike the ritual pollutions, which last a set
period, the danger caused by these deeds is permanent (until the Catastrophe strikes).
The ritual pollutions may have accompanying rituals of purification and readmission;
the danger pollutions cannot be ameliorated in this way, although there is a sense that
repentance and sacrifice can avert some if not all of the calamity. The state induce! by
committing one of these infractions is also not contagious. No one can become
impure by contact with someone who has committed one of these wrongful acts. One
does not share the danger of an adulterer or of someone who has eaten blood by
touching him. There is no immediate danger to others in allowing these people to
walk around, and therefore there are no prescribed patterns of avoidance. There is,
however, an ultimate danger to the people, for if too many individuals commit these
deeds, then the whole society might be considered polluted and might thus be in
danger of a collective catastrophe.
When an individual commits one of these wrongful catastrophe-deeds, the
catastrophe may not be specified, but rather indicated by the phrase n.b ’t ‘wnw, “he
shall bear his penalty,” a phrase which always indicates divine punishment (Zimmerli
1954: 8-1 1; Frymer-Kensky forthcoming). More often, the individual may be set to
be nkrt, “cut off”, a phrase which may appear alone (e.g., Lev 20: 18) or with the
nf. ’t ‘wnw warning (e.g., Lev 20: 17). This &ret provision is an integral part of the
priestly understanding of purity and was probably understood to mean the extirpation
of one’s
The deeds that entail the h r e t sanction are acts against the fundamental
principles of Israelite cosmology; in particular, acts that blur the most vital distinc-
tion in the Israelite classificatory system, the separation of sacred and profane. The
protection of the realm of the sacred is of prime importance in Israelite thought in
view of the belief that God dwells among the children of Israel. Since he is holy, they
must be holy (Lev 11: 44, 45; 19: 2; 20: 7, 26) and must not contaminate the
camp, temple, or land in which he lives. The protection of the realm of the sacred is a
categorical imperative in Israel: it must be differentiated, not only from the impure,
but also from the pure, which serves almost as a buffer zone between the sacred and
F r y m e r - K e n s k y : P o l l u t i o n in Biblical I s r a e l
the defiling. Violating the distinctions between sacred and profane disrupts the entire
system. The violator is therefore expected to incur the &ret penalty; i n other words
his deed is expected to result in calamity to his entire lineage through the direc
intervention of God (“automatically”) and without necessitating societal action. Thi
belief in automatic retribution protects the realm of the sacred by deterring acts
which would encroach upon it.
The protection of the sacred was the prime purpose of the &ret penalty. Israel
considered itself a holy nation which was to keep itself distinct from other nationst
failure to keep this distinction by not performing circumcision would result in k m t
(Gen 17: 14). The direct contamination of the sacred by approaching sacred t
while impure, as in the case of eating sacred offerings while impure, results in
(Lev 7: 20-21; 22: 3-9). The spread of impurity threatens the sacred by elimin
ing the “buffer-zone”; thus failure to be cleansed from corpse contamination res
in karet (Num 19: 13, 20), while failure to be cleansed from the lesser contami
caused by eating carrion results in the doer “bearing his punishment” (& ’t
Lev 17: 15-16). Unauthorized contact with the sacred is believed to result i
(Num 4: 18-20, cf. 1 Sam 6: 19; 2 Sam 6: 6-7). Holy objects must not be
subverted: lay persons, though pure, may not eat the holy offerings. The blood (Lev
7: 27; 17: 10, 14), the sacrificial suet (Lev 7: 25), the oil of installation (Exod
30: 33), and the sanctuary incense (Exod 30: 38) are all protected from profane
consumption by the karet belief; the holy altar is thus maintained as the only proper
place for slaughter (Lev 17: 4) and sacrifice (Lev 17: 9). Even the prohibition against
eating sacrificial offerings on the third day (Lev 7: 18; 19: 8), which seems to us to
be an excellent hygiene measure, is explicitly understood to be a matter of profaning
God’s holy offering (Lev 19: 8) and is therefore believed to incur the bret sanction.
Similarly, the distinctions between sacred and profane time are a crucial part of the
structure of Israelite thought and failure to maintain the characteristic distinctions of
holy time results in karet: eating &nq on the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exod
12: 15-19); working on the Sabbath (Exod 31: 14); working and eating on the L h y
*
of Atonement (Lev 23: 29-30); not performing the Passover sacrifice at its appointed
time (Num 9: 13).
In all of these instances the function of the &ret belief is clear: it serves as a
divine reinforcement of the boundaries between sacred and profane by providing a
sanction for acts which violate these boundaries but which are not normally provided
with legal sanctions. This is also its function in the two instances of &ret-belief
which do not ostensibly involve sacredprofane distinctions, the prohibition against
sleeping with one’s sisters (Lev 20: 17) and the prohibition against sleeping with a
menstruating woman (Lev 20: 18, the only instance in which a deed is believed to
result both in a temporary pollution and in karet). The two provisions are part of a
group of sexual laws establishing the limits of permitted sexual contact. One subset
(Lev 20: 10-16) consists of relationships which society acts to punish with the death
penalty. The other subset (Lev 20: 17-2 1) of relations which society apparently will
not punish, but which it seeks to prevent by threat of supernatural sanction, i.e.,
danger beliefs: sexual intercourse with a sister or menstruant by &ret, with one’s aunt
by unspecified danger (niy ’t <wnw), with one’s uncle’s wife or brother’s wife
childlessness. In Lev 18: 29, in what seems to be a general statement, all forbidde
sexual relations are sanctioned by karet.

406
Pollution of the Temple
Fundamental to the function of the karet-belief is the idea that the sacred can be
defiled and that there is a needs to protect it from such contamination. The temple in
particular, as the site of God’s presence, needs such protection. It could be defiled by
enemies (Ps 79: l), corpses (Ezek 9: 7), and idols or idolatrous practices (Jer 7: 30;
32: 34; Ezek 5 : 11). It could also be defiled by impure people: by those who came to
the temple while ritually impure (Lev 15: 31), and those who indulged in Molech
worship and then came to the temple (Ezek 23: 38-39). Moreover, those who have
not purified themselves of corpse-contamination (Num 19: 13, 20) or who have
indulged in the abominations of the Gentiles (2 Chr 36: 14) are said to have defiled
the temple, either because they came in an impure state or simply because they spread
impurity.
The temple may also be defiled indirectly, from a distance. As Jacob Milgrom
has explained (Milgrom 1976a), the Priestly image of the temple is that of a “Picture
of Dorian Gray.” The sanctuary can become polluted without direct contact with
impurity. All misdeeds pollute the outer altar, misdeeds of the whole people or of the
High Priest pollute the shrine, and wanton sin pollutes the adytum. This pollution of
the temple would result in alienation from God, for God will not tolerate the pollution
of his home: this alienation would have serious historical consequences.
There is, however, a cure for such pollution. The temple cult is meant to expiate
and atone for misdeeds. O n an individual level, there is a danger-belief that inadver-
tently committing an infraction results in the doer “bearing his punishment”; if,
however, he brings an offering, the danger will be lifted (“it shall be forgiven him,”
Lev 5: 17-18). Individual and national sacrifices, particularly the 4atF.t sacrifice,
purify the temple from the pollution caused by misdeeds (Milgrom 197 la, 197 Ib,
1976a, 1976b). And the Day of Atonement rituals were intended both to purify the
people (the Azazel Goat) and to cleanse the temple from the pollution caused by the
people (Milgrom 197 IC). Within limits, therefore, the pollution of the temple could
be rectified by ritual means.
Pollution of t h e People and the Land
&ret is usually mentioned alone or together with nf. ’t cwnw: specific legal
sanctions are not mentioned. The exception to this is the “gruesome threesome” of
apostasy: idolatry, child-Molech service and necromancy. All three of these acts
constitute serious apostasy from God and are thus sanctioned by kavet, in each
instance by the unusual formula hRrty(w), “I (God) will cut (him) off,” in which the
divine nature of the sanction is manifest (Molech-service, Lev 20: 5; necromancy, Lev
20: 6; idolatry, Ezek 14: 8). These offenses, moreover, are particularly grave in that
they strike at the very basis of Israel, its relationship with God. The society cannot
wait passively for divine action, but is commanded to punish the offender actively.
The punishment meted out in all three cases is stoning (Molech-service, Lev 20: 2-6;
necromancy, Lev 20: 27; idolatry, Deut 13: 7-12; 17: 2-7). This is a form of
execution without an executioner, i.e., one in which the whole people act as the
executioner since the people as a whole and the world-order on which they depend
have been endangered (Finkelstein 1981: 26-27). Stoning is limited in the laws to
these three instances of apostasy, to the disobedient son (Deut 21: 18-21), the
Frymer-Kenrky: P o l l u t i o n i n Biblical Israel 407
non-virgin bride (Deut 22: 20-2 l), and both partners in the seduction ofan engaged ,
girl (Deut 22: 23-24). The corporate execution of the offender indicates the collec-
tive responsibility of the people for the act. It is extended to the protection of the
sacred by three cautionary tales that are included in the narrative portions of the
Hexateuch; the tales of the blasphemer (Lev 24: 10-16), of the man who violated the
Sabbath (Num 15: 32-36), and of the man who took from the &rem (Joshua 7). In
all three stories the violator was stoned; whether these stories had the force of law, and
whether there was any intent to prescribe stoning for violating the Sabbath or
blasphemy, is unknown.
The provision for stoning in Deuteronomy is accompanied by the phrase “you
shall exterminate the evil from your midst” (wbrt hrc mqrbk), which implies that
should society not act to punish the offender, the evil would in some way be imputed
to it. This phrase is not limited to cases which demand stoning: ignoring a divine
judgment (Deut 17: 12), murder (Deut 19: 11-13), fdse witness (Deut 19: 16-21),
adultery (Deut 22: 22), and kidnap-and-sale (Deut 24: 7) must all be punished by
society in order to exterminate the evil from its midst. These provisions (and the
concept of exterminating evil from the midst of the people) may pre-date the book of
Deuteronomy and may be part of an ancient criminal corpus (LHour 1963).
The concern about collective responsibility indicated by the stoning laws and
the birurtz provisions can also be expressed in the language of pollution. Necromancy
is considered polluting (Lev 19: 3 l), as are Molech-worship (Ezek 20: 26, 30-31)
and idolatry (Ezek 14: 11; 20: 3 1; cf. 22: 3-4; 23: 7-38). All forms of apostasy
pollute the people, and this pollution does not disappear with time (Josh 22: 17).
Sexual immorality is also a polluting agent: rape (Gen 34: 5, 13, 27), incest with
one’s daughter-in-law (Ezek 22: 1 l), and adultery (Num 5: 11-31; Ezek 18: 6,
11, 15). Adultery, moreover, results in the pollution of both parties (Lev 1 8 20), as
does bestiality (Lev 18: 23). All the improper sexual acts of Leviticus 18 are
tonsidered defiling to both the people and the land (Lev 18: 24). Murder, which is
explicitly described as polluting the land, is not said to “pollute” the people in this
terminology. It is clearly contaminating (McKeating 1975), but its contamination is
expressed by the phrases dzm nZqE, “innocent blood” (Deut 19: 13; 21: B), and
dzmmim. General misdeeds and sins are also categorized as polluting the people (Ps ‘
106: 39; Ezek 14: 11; 20: 43), though this may be a late extension of the pollution
concept as it refers to the people. Ultimately, the people are considered as having
become polluted; at the Restoration, according to Ezekiel, they will be purified by
God (Ezek 36: 25; 37: 23).
There is no “cure” for the pollution engendered by these immoral acts, no ritual
purification that can be performed until the sprinkling of pure water by God at the
Restoration. The progressive pollution of the people by these deeds is thus like the
most catastrophic pollution, that is, the pollution of the land.6 The crimes of the
people are considered to pollute the very earth of Israel Uer 2: 7; Ezek 36: 17), and
certain acts are explicitly termed contaminants. Bloodshed (Ps 106: 38) is a major
pollutant, as is everything connected with it, such as leaving the body of a n executed
murderer exposed (Deut 2 1: 22-23), accepting composition for murder (Num
35: 31-34), or letting accidental murderers go free from the city of refuge ( N u
35: 32). Idolatry pollutes (Ezek 36: 181, and so do such wrongful sex acts as the
illicit sexual relations proscribed by Leviticus 18, whoredom (of the individual, tev
19: 29; of the nation-as-female, Jer 3: 9; Ezek 23: 171, and adultery and remarriage
408
to a previous wife who has been married in the interim (Deut 24: 1-4). These three
classes of pollutants-murder, sexual abominations, and idolatry-pollute both the
people and the land. In later theology, they are the cardinal sins that a Jew must die
rather than commit and from which (according to James in Acts 15) it is incumbent
on all nations to refrain. The results of performance of these sins are catastrophic, for,
as Rabbinic sources recognized, they (together with unfulfilled public promises) bring
drought (y. Ta.un. 3: 3 = 6 K ) , and they (together with the nonobservance of the
Sabbath and the Sabbath and Jubilee years) bring exile to the world (6. Sabb. 33a).
These acts have catastrophic results because they pollute the land that God
protects as his own. Israel based its right of possession of its land on the idea that God
dispossessed the original inhabitants because of their misdeeds. This concept is found
in both the Deuteronomic and Priestly traditions. According to Deuteronomy, it was
not the goodness of Israel that caused God to give it the land, but the evil of the
nations living there (Deut 9: 4-5). Its right of occupation is therefore contingent on
its actions. Israel is warned against performing the abominations of the nations that
God dispossessed: passing children through fire, and engaging in magic, divination,
and necromancy (Deut 18: 9-12). The Priestly tradition is also quite explicit that
the abominations of the nations made them lose the land. Leviticus 18 lists the sexual
abominations practised by the dispossessed nations, warns the people not to become
polluted by them as the nations did, and explains that the land had become polluted
by its inhabitants, that God had exacted the land’s punishment’ and that the land had
thereupon vomited out its inhabitants. Israel is warned not to do these actions lest the
land become polluted and vomit it out; people who engage in these abominations are
“cut off’ from the people (kuvet). In Leviticus 20, some of these sexual abominations
are reiterated, Molech-service and necromancy are added to the list, and the people
are again reminded that they are inheriting the land, that the previous inhabitants
who did these abominations are being expelled, and that the land might vomit Israel
out, too (Lev 20: 22-25).
Israel thus considered the non-pollution of the land a matter of national survival.
The people are warned not to pollute the land by letting murderers go free or
allowing accidental murderers to leave the city of refuge (Numbers 35: 3 1-34), by
leaving the corpses of the executed unburied (Deut 2 1: 22-23), or even by permit-
ting a man to remarry his divorced and since remarried wife (Deut 24: 1-4, cf. Jer
3: 1-4).
The pollution of the land cannot be rectified by ritual purification. In the case of
murder, the law explicitly states that the blood of the slain cannot be expiated except
by the blood of the shedder. The only ritual at all connected with the pollution of the
land is the ritual of the decapitated heifer, the cegl2 ~ 9 p (Deut 2 21: 1-9; see
Patai 1939-40, Roifer 1961, Zevit 1976). This is clearly designed to avert the
contamination of the land and the people by a murder whose perpetrator cannot be
found. Although the people cannot properly expiate the blood of the slain, by
performing this action they may eradicate ( b y ) the blood-contamination.
The pollution of the land may build up and ultimately reach a point beyond the
level of tolerance, when a cataclysm becomes inevitable. There can be no “repen-
tance” in the face of such pollution; it should be noted that repentance is seen as a
privilege that is not automatically available. The concept of pollution was thus
understood as one of the motive principles of Israelite history: the pollution of the
F r y m e r - K e n r k y : Pollution in Biblical Israel 403
land cleared the way for Israel to enter it; its pollution during their occupation
presents a major danger. The idea of pollution was a major theoretical paradigm 3
which enabled Israel to absorb and survive the eventual destruction of the state. It
existed alongside, but is not identical to, the better known theoretical explanation of
the destruction, the legal paradigm of misdeed and punishment.
By the time of the prophets, Israel is seen as a land which has become polluted.
In the Deuteronomic historian, there is a stress on the abominations performed by the
disinherited peoples set into the record that the people or their kings performed these
abominations (1 Kgs 14: 24; 2 Kgs 16: 3; 21: 2); the destruction of Samaria is
attributed to its having acted like the dispossessed nations (2 Kgs 17: 7-8). At the
time of the Assyrian threat, Hosea viewed Israel as a contaminated people and land
(Hos 5 : 3; 6: 10); the term used, np’, is later applied to Judah (Ezek 36: 18; Ps
106: 38). The land is seen as defiled, 4np (Isa 24: 5; Ps 106: 38). The people have
polluted the land (Jer 2: 7; Ezek 36: 4), they have defiled it (Jer 3: 9). The land of
Israel is described as full of blood (Hos 6: 8). Judah is described as full of &md,
“unlawfulness” (Ezek 8: 17; 12: 19, see discussion below) and bloodshed (Ezek
7: 23; 9: 9), murderers (Hos 6: 8), gods (Isa 2: 8), and adulterers Uer 23: 10); the
city is full of &ms (Etek 7: 23) and blood (Ezekiel 22; Nah 3: 1). Judah and
Jerusalem are described as whores (Hos 1: 2; Isa 1: 21; Jer 2: 20; 3: 3; Ezekiel
16: 30-35; chap. 23; Mic 1: 7; Nah 3: 4). By the time of the destruction the
nation is portrayed in the image of the ultimate defiled woman, the menstruant (Ezek
36: 17; probably Lam 1: 8, nydh, and Ezra 9: 11) and, even more, the menstruant
whose skirts have become soiled with blood (Jer 13: 22, reading nCgo*&t$ i.&zyih;
cf. Lam 4: 14). Even the ultimate image of defilement, the image of the leper, is
applied to the nation, who sits alone (Lam 1: 1; cf. Lev 13: 46) and before whose
priests one must call “Impure, impure” (Lam 4: 15; cf. Lev 13: 45). In the face of
such pollution, the temple and its cult could not be enough to save Israel, and this
qecessitated the land being destroyed and the people sent into exile. The Exile is thus
seen as a necessary result of the pollution of Israel.
T h e Exile a n d the Flood
The Exile was necessitated by the polluted state of the land. I t was not,
according to this paradigm, an act of vengeance or even a result of anger. It was also
not intended to be a final destruction of the people. The prophesies of doom ate
frequently accompanied by mention of the remnant which is to be saved and restored
to the land. In this respect the Exile resembles the Flood, which also allowed a
remnant-Noah-to be rescued and restored. The connection between the Exile and
the Flood, moreover, is not simply a matter of destruction and restoration. As
narrated in Genesis, the Flood is the grand cosmic paradigm of the Exile. Genesis has
taken the ancient flood story and the old structure of a “primeval
Genesis 1-9) and retold it in the light of Israel’s ideas about pollution
the Genesis story, the prerequisites of human existence are laws. Man
evil impulses and man without law polluted the world to such an exten
had to bring the flood to erase the pollution that man had brought (
1977).
With this reinterpretation of the flood story, the Flood was seen as a cos
4 10
paradigm of the Exile, and the retelling of the story of the Flood became a way for
Israel to assimilate its own fate. We must, of course, ask when Israel looked at the
Flood in this light. There is no reason to look for a late postexilic date for this. Source
analysis cannot provide a solution. Genesis 9 is conventionally assigned to P, but I
would not like to venture to date the material in P, nor do I believe it likely that the J
version of the flood did not conclude with a remedy for the cause of the flood,
although J’s remedy, which may also have been laws, is lost to us. Pollution ideas are
certainly not new to Israel, and there is no reason to suggest that the purity laws are
late, even though they are preserved primarily in P. The characteristic Israelite notion
that the pollution of the land leads to its desolation is already attested in Hosea.
Hosea describes Gilead as defiled with blood (6: 8), defiled by the doing of perversion
and by “whoredom” (6: 9-10). Furthermore Hosea states that because Israel has
become defiled it will be desolated (5: 3, 9 , note the key words hznyt, npn’ and fmh).
The concept of pollution as a historical force is thus attested long before the Exile: it
may be an innovation of Hosea, or it may already have been part of Israelite
cosmology.
The idea that misdeeds pollute the land is also attested in Isa 24: 5-6, part of
the “Isaian apocalypse”: “And the land was defiled under itssinhabitants for they
transgressed the teachings, violated the laws, and broke the ancient covenant.
Therefore the curses consumes the land and the inhabitants pay the penalty.” There
is some question about the dating of this passage; despite the conventional wisdom it
should probably not be taken as postexilic since Jer 23: 10 appears to be dependent
on it. Certainly the idea of the pollution of the land is well established by the time of
Jer 3: 1-9. We therefore do not have to look for a postexilic date for the understand-
ing of pollution as a motive force in Israel’s history or for the retelling of the Flood
story as a case of cosmic pollution. It is possible that the anticipation and/or
experience of the Assyrian threat and the experience of the destruction of the northern
kingdom led to a profound awareness of the pollution problem and occasioned a
retelling of the Flood story in light of it. The belief in the corruptibility of the land of
Israel and the catastrophic consequences of such corruption may even be earlier than
the Assyrian period, for all we know.
There is also no reason to think that the midrashic perception of the Flood and
the Exile as parallel events is an exilic innovation. I am tempted to take Hos 6 : 7 as
evidence that Hosea, who clearly believes that the pollution of Israel will lead to its
desolation, also saw a connection between this destruction and the primeval cata-
clysm. The translation of 6: 7a, whmh kdm .brw bryt, as “They like men have
transgressed the covenant” seems needlessly weak and obscure. In the context of the
pollution described in 6: 8-10 it may be more proper to translate, “They like Adam
have transgressed the covenant” and see an indirect allusion to antediluvian events.
Jeremiah, who is so conscious of the pollution of the land (Jer 3: 1-9), also uses
cosmic parallels. A cosmic paradigm, i.e., the Flood, seems to underlie the so-called
‘Jeremian apocalypse” in Jer 4: 23-27. Jeremiah here describes the coming military
destruction of Israel (cf. 4: 20-21) in terms that are clearly reminiscent of Genesis 1;
he depicts the event as a reversal of creation: the world is returned to chaos
(tohi wzbohs), there is no more light in the skies, the mountains are quaking and
there are no more people. In this vision, however-as at the original, cosmic
undoing of creation (the Flood)-the destruction will not be final: “All the land will
F r y m e r - K e n r R y : Pollution in Biblical Israel 411 ‘*,I.
be made desolate, but I will not finish it off completely” (Jer 4: 27). This passage h
been understood-or misunderstood-as an apocalyptic vision, bur to understand it
this way it was necessary to posit later accretions to the passage (Eppstein 1968). The
context, however, makes it clear that we are dealing with the imminent destruction
of Israel rather than a future cosmic upheaval. It may be that the use of the cosmic
symbolism of the primeval parallel in such passages as this and the “Isaian apoca-
lypse” of Isaiah 24 laid the groundwork and provided the symbolic imagery for the
later development of universal apocalyptic.
The parallelism between the Flood and the destruction is well developed by
Ezekiel, and the early chapters of Ezekiel are replete with flood imagery, particularly
with the repetitive statement that the land is full of &m-s(Ezek 7: 23; 8: 17; and
cf. 12: 19; 45: 9; for the Flood story, Gen 6: 11) and with the emphatic use of the
term q& (Ezek 7: 2-7, esp. w 2-3: “Thus says the Lord to the land {or (?) ground?]
of Israel, The qF; is come, the qit on the four corners of the earth; now the qij is
upon you and I send my anger against you and judge you as your ways”; and cf. v 6;
for Genesis, see 6: 13). Another allusion to the primeval story may be the marking on
the forehead of those not to be killed (Ezek 9: 4-5), possibly an allusion t o the mark
of Cain.
The parallelism between the Flood and the Exile does not involve only pollution
and destruction, but also additional themes which are an inherent part of the parallel.
The Flood and the Exile were necessary purgations; they were not ultimate, perma-
nent destructions. Just as mankind was saved from permanent destruction by Noah’s
survival, so too God will not exterminate the people, but will rescue a remnant to
begin again. The Flood and the Exile are also not viewed as repeatable acts. The Flood
is immediately followed by God’s promise not to bring a flood again (Gen 9: 11). It
is significant that the one explicit reference to the Flood outside of Genesis 1-9 occurs
in a passage dealing with the Restoration of Israel. In this passage (chosen by Jewish
tradition as the prophetic reading to accompany the liturgical recitation of the
Genesis Flood story), the Flood paradigm is taken as assurance that, just as the Flood
was to be a unique occurrence, so too God will not again punish the people of Istael:
“As the waters of Noah this is to me, about which I swore that the waters of Noah
would not (again) pass over the earth; so too I swear that I will not get angry at you
and rebuke you” (Isa 54: 9).
The Flood was not to be repeated because it was followed, not only by the
restoration of mankind, but by the establishment of a new order, the “reign of law.”
I Jeremiah and Ezekiel (possibly anticipated by Hosea) develop the concept of the Exile
in line with this cosmic parallel. They consider the destruction the result of the
I pollution of the land, and see it as followed, not only by the restoration of the
remnant, but by the inauguration of a new order. The Flood inaugurated t h e rule of
law: mankind’s evil impulses were recognized, and therefore laws were given to
educate and restrain it. This would prevent the pollution of the earth and eliminate
the need for a future flood. This reliance on law culminated in the covenant of Sinai,
in which one people (Israel) was given a more elaborate and demanding set of laws,
with the expectation that this would enable it to be a holy people entitled to live in
God’s country. However, the covenant of Sinai was “broken.” The misdeeds of the
i
people polluted Israel, and God had to exile the people. The land had to rest; after the
purgation (evacuation of the land) it needed time to recuperate. As the impure
412
individual becomes pure after a set period of time even without purification rituals, so
too time can eliminate the impurity of the land.’ After the land has “fulfilled its
Sabbaths” (2 Chr 36: 21; cf. Lev 26: 32-45; see Ackroyd 1968: 153, 242) God will
restore the people. He will purify them (Jer 33: 8; Ezek 36: 25, 33) and reestablish
relations with them; he will be their god and they will be his people (Jer 3 1: 32-33;
Ezek 36: 28).
There will be fundamental changes at the restoration, for the world after the
Exile is to be different from the world before it, just as the world after the Flood was
different from the antediluvian world. There is a radical change in the mechanism of
sin, for the new stress on individual retribution (Jer 3 1: 29-30; Ezekiel 1 1: 16-2 1;
14: 12-23; chap. 18; 33: 12-20) represents a reversal of the concept of the national
responsibility of Israel for the sins of its members (see Weinfeld 1976), and a removal
of the idea of the build-up of pollution across generational lines. In this context it
may be significant that Ezekiel’s formulation of this change refers to the proverb
which is spoken about the “land/ground of Israel.”
The renewed relationship with restored Israel is to be established by a covenant
which is called a “new covenant” (Jer 3 1: 3 l), an eternal covenant (Jer 32: 40), and a
“covenant of peace” (Ezek 34: 25). This covenant is fundamenfally different from the
Noahide covenant and from its typological extension, the Sinai covenant (see Jer
31: 32 for its differences from Sinai). The Covenant of Ndah and even more the
Covenant of Sinai were covenants of law to be studied and obeyed. At the time of the
“new covenant,” however, no one will have to study the laws anymore; everyone will
know the law (Jer 3 1: 33-34). The law of God will be engraved on the heart (Jer
3 1: 33); everyone will have a “new heart and a new spirit” (Ezek 36: 26). Internal
law is not ‘‘law.’’ This radical change is projected for the Restoration after the Exile.
After the Flood, God instituted the rule of law to cope with man’s evil instincts.
These instincts, part of the nature of man, would continue to exist, but they would be
held in check by an increasingly detailed set of laws. To Jeremiah and Ezekiel, this
approach to the problem of evil and the pollution of the world has failed. Io Man’s evil
instincts were not effectively restrained by law, even by the Law of Sinai and God’s
ongoing instruction by history and the prophets. Israel continued to do evil and
ultimately, as in the time before law, the microcosm of Israel became so polluted that
another cataclysm, the Exile, became necessary to destroy that polluted world. In the
restored Israel, therefore, the attempt to control man’s instincts will be abandoned.
Instead, God will effect a fundamental change in the nature of man: his evil impulses
are to be eradicated, the “law” internalized, and he is to receive a “new heart and a
new spirit.”
It should be noted as a postscript that this search for an alteration of man’s
spirit, with the concomitant abandonment of the Law as the agent of God’s instruc-
tion, was later developed in the early Christian Church. Israel, however, ultimately
rejected this vision of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in that it never abandoned its belief in the
ability of the Law to control man’s evil instincts. The Law in all its ramifications
became the defining characteristic of the Judaism that emerged after the biblical
period.
Frymer-Kensky: Pollution in Biblical I s r a e l 413
I
I
Notes
I
1. This is not a complete picture, for the laws do not mention all cases. An example is the status
of the person who eats impure food. In the case of carrion we know that the ordinary people (unlike the
priests) were not forbidden to eat it; however, they would become impure until evening and must bathe
and wash their clothes (Lev 17: 15-16). In the case of impure animals we know that lay people were not
to eat them (Lev 20: 25), and we therefore do not hear of the pollution of such people (as discussed
below, pollution terminology is not applied to those who do forbidden acts). The question is the status
of the person who eats food that has been tainted by contact with an impure person, given especially that
f meat rendered impure should be burned (Lev 7: 19). From Hosea we know that whoever eats impure
food will himself become impure (Hos 9: 3-4). The laws, however, do not discuss what happens to the
person who eats impure food. We can only assume that the resultant pollution would be minor, like that
from eating carrion. .. I)
2. Assumed but not explicitly mentioned.
3. There is clearly a desire to prevent infinite contagion in the provision in Lev 14: 36 that all
things in a house suspected of ”leprosy” be removed before the house is examined, so that they will n6t
be “made unclean”: the contagion does not start until the declaration, rather than with exposure prior to
the determination of impurity.
4. From Num 9: 10 i t is clear that impure people (here, specifically from corpse-Contamination)
may not perform the Passover sacrifice; calamity is not explicitly mentioned.
5. The major study of karet is that of Wold (1979), who realizes that br ct should be seen in the
context of the purity laws, and who argues convincingly that it means extirpation of one’s lineage. The
- I _
2 .
analysis of karet presented here does not always agree with Wold’s.
6. Although the emphasis in Deuteronomy is on the pollution of the people and that of the
Priestly sections on the pollution of the land, this may simply be a question of style; one should note that
Lev 18: 24 mentions the pollution of the people and Deut 21: 1-9 is concerned with the pollution of
the land as well as the people; Deut 21: 22-23 is clearly concerned with the pollution of the land. See
also the discussions by Weinfeld 1973 and Milgrom 1973.
7. This punishment is probably drought, infertility and famine. According to Israel, rain, so
necessary to Israel’s agriculture (Deut 11: 11) is to be withdrawn in case of apostasy (Deut 11: 13-17).
Drought is a clear indication of chastisement ( 1 Kings 17-19; Amos 4: 7; Isa 5 : 6; Jeremiah 14; Ezek
22: 2 4 ) . Even after the Restoration, the infertility and drought prevalent are attributed t o Israel’s failure
to rebuild the temple (Hag 1: 6-11). See also Ackroyd 1968: 157, Roifer 1961: 136 and Patai 1939.
8. The “curse” probably also refers to drought and famine. See n. 7.
9. It may be particularly relevant that women do not have fixed purification rituals. Although
both men and women are to bathe after intercourse, women become pure after their set period of
impurity for menstruation and childbirth: there is no mention of bathing. In light of the feminine
conception of the land, one would expect that the land too would have to wait out its impureperid, and
that time alone would make it pure.
10. It is difficult to say whether the idea of the new covenant originated with Hosea. Hosea clearly
anticipated a Restoration, with a covenant and God betrothing Israel forever (Hos 2: 20-2 1); nothing,
however, is said about fundamental changes in the covenant or in the people. P‘
,
References
Ackroyd, Peter
1968 Exile and Restoration: A Study of H c h Thought in tbc Sixh Centuty
B . C . Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press.
Douglas, Mary
1966 Purity and Danger: An Amdysu of Conccptr of Pollution utzd T a b . Near
York: Praeger.
1975 Implictt Meanings London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. I
-. 1975. Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia. Pp. 65- orites are attested as part of the Artem
77 in Unify and D i m @ . ed. H. Coedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. was present in the temple of Artemis a
Baltimore. 1384).
Klein. J. 198 I. Three Sufgi Hymns. Ramat-Can. The reference in Acts 19 is in the
Kramer. S. S . 1963. Cuneiform Studies and the History of Litera- clerk” of Ephesus in his calming of a
ture: T he Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts. PAPS 107: 485- ens to riot against Paul. The clerk arg
327. offending Artemis when he denounce
-. I969a. The Sacred hfamuge Rile. Bloomington. hands” (Acts 19:26). As a meteorite,
-. l969b. Inanna and Sulgi: 4 Sumerian Fertility Song. Iraq stone was not man-made, but could
31: 18-23. workmanship (Williams Acts BPNTC
-. 1983. La mariage sacri a Babylane. Paris. the meteor need not have been vie
Kutscher, R. 1990. T he Cult of DumuziTTammuz. Ramat-Gan. Artemis; the meteorite in the temple
Labat. R. 1939. La caractire wligieux de la royatli qro-babyloniennc. was actually a quite small stone (Gk
Paris. Cadbury 1979: 250).
Lambert, Si.. and Tournay. J.-R. 1952. Les statues D. G, E et H de
Gudea. RA 46: 75-86. Bibliography
Lambert, Q’. G . 1966. Divine Love Lyrics from the Reign of Abi- Lake. K.. and Cadbury, H. J. 1979. Comme
eSuh. .MI0 I?: 41-56. ofrhe Apostles, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson a
-. 1973a. T he Problem of the Love Lyrics. Pp. 98-135 in of Christianity 1. Grand Rapids.
WiiQ and Diversity. ed. H. Coedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. RO
Baltimore.
-. 1975b. The Cult of IJtar of Babylon. CRRA 17: 104-6.
Loretz. 0. 1964. Zum Problem des Eras in Hohenlied. 62 8: 191- SACRIFICE AND SACRIFI
216. INGS. This entry consists of two arti
Matsushima. E. 1985. Le lit de SamaS et le riiuel du mariage a the Israelite practices of sacrificial off
I’Ebabbar. AcSuv~7: 129-37. the OT. and the second focuses upon
-. 1987. Le rituel hierogammique de Nabic. AcSum 9: 13 1-75. practices were understood and adap
-. 1988. Les rituels du mariage divin dans le documents ings.
Accadiens. AcSum 10: 95-128.
hleek. T. J. 1924. Babylonian Parallels to the Song of Songs. JBL OLD TESTAMENT
43: 245-32. The main biblical references to cult
Moortgat. A. 1949. Emmuz: Der Lttaslerblichktsglaube in der altonen- in the Priestly (P) section of the Pent
talischen BiUhmt. 8erlin. Leviticus and Yumbers. This cultic p
Reisman. D. 1973. lddin-Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hvmn../CS 25: subject of harsh prophetic critique.
185-20’2.
Komer, \V. H. P. 1963. Sumerirche “Konigshymnen“ der Isin-Zett. A. The Problem of Sacrifice
Leiden. I . General Concerns
Sefati. Y. 1985. Low Songs in Su&n Liferature: Critical Edition a/ 2. Social Science Explanations
Qe Duinuri-lnannaSongs. Diss. Bar-llan (in Hebrew). 3. Social Science and Biblical Scho
Thureau-Dangin. F. 1921. Rituek Accadiens. Paris. 4. Biblical Sacrifice as Cultic Rea
JACOB KLEIN nomenon
B. Sacrifice and Offering: Some Basi
C. Development of Terminology
SACRED MEALS (GRECO-ROMAN). See . 1. T h e Problem of P
MEAL CIjSTOMS (GRECO-ROMAN SACRED MEALS). 2. The Development of Cultic Vo
D. Sacrifice in P
1. The Animals
SACRED STONE. The “sacred stone which fell from 2. The Technique of Sacrifice
the sky” (Acts 19:35) was an object of worship in the temple 3. Literary Genres in P
of Artemis at Ephesus. The Greek is one word. diopeti5, lit. 4. The Basic Types of Animal Sac
“fallen from the sky.” and the meaning of the passage is a. Burnt Offering (‘8ki)
therefore somewhat obscure. It probably refers to a mete- b. Peace Offering (f2kmitn)
orite to which the Ephesian worshippers of Aftemis at- c. Purification Offering f!u?@t
tached significance and which they worshipped in their d. Reparation Offering (’Gam
temple. E. Prophetic Critique
Although no ancient source mentions such a meteor in E The Scripturalization of the Cult
the Artemis temple at Ephesus (Munck Acts AB, 196), 1. Biblical Sacrifice in the Second
meteorites were often venerated by the Greeks and Ro- 2.
mans. A meteorite which had been brought to Rome from . Example: The Interpretation
Offering in Second Temple Jew
Pessinus was worshipped as a symbol of the Great Mother, 3. T h e SacrificialSystem in Canon
Cybele (Lake and Cadbury 1979: 250), and a meteorite 4. Biblical Sacrifice in Jewish and
called ,the Palladium was venerated at Troy (ibid.). Mete-

of the “town [her religion practices animal sacrifice any longer, the
A hich threat- legacy of those practices perdures. Yet this legacy is not
it Paul is not always so easy to understand, for the two traditions have
\ “made with been both attracted to and repelled by the image of slain
temis sacred animals being offered up within the sacred precincts of
>uperhuman the holy temple. There is perhaps no better reflection .of
I n addition, this ambiguity than the work of M. Maimonides (1135-
an image of 1204). On the one hand, Maimonides was an assiduous
3ele at Rome systematizer of every detail of the sacrificial system as it
1. Lake and was reflected in Jewish tradition. In his Mishhneh Tmah,
Maimonides organized ail the legal decisions that had
accumulated rather haphazardly about sacrifice in biblical
and rabbinic literature. No other compiler of Jewish law
i. 4 of The Acts gave sacrifice this type of attention. Yet in his Guide for the
,e. Beginnings Perplexed, Maimonides speaks discursively about the sacri-
ficial system, nearly condemning it. In his evaluation he
cites the standard prophetic critique of sacrificial worship
( I Sam 15:22; Isa 1 : l l ; Jer 7:22-23) and says that sacrifi-
cial worship was never G o d s primarv desire for human-
OFFER- kind (Twersky 1972: 332-34). The laws were given to
first suneys Moses because the people needed them to counteract the
outlined in attractions of contemporary paganism.
ise sacrificial Scholars have long been perplexed over this double-
iie N T writ- niindedness on the part of Maimonides. Yet his perplexity
’ h i k e s at the verv root of what most modern readers of
the Bible at least implicitly believe about the sacrificial
system. On the one hand there is the feeling of responsi-
e are found bilitv toward the sacrificial material in the Bible-it must
:specially in be organized. systematized, and understood-yet on the
.\as also the other hand there is the constant uncertaintv as to its true
religious significance. This uncertainty was very nicely
summarized by Origen in a remark he made in a homily
on the book of Numbers (Homilia 27). He noted that if you
took a person whom you wished to instruct in the funda-
mentals of piety and faith and proceeded to instruct him
in the laws of sacrifice, he would turn away from such
cxtual Phe- teaching and react as one “who refuses food that is not
fitting (et tanquam non sibi aptum cibum r e m a t ) . ” Sacrificial
ions practice remains a foreign and obtrusive element to the
present-day interpreter. This problem is compounded by
the fact that sacrificial practice constitutes a good portion
of the Torah. the first five books‘of the Bible. Even more
telling is its redactional placement; it is at the very heart of
the Sinaitic legislation (Leviticus 1-9 et passim). Unlike
other oddities of the biblical narrative that can be avoided
because of their infrequency, the large corpus of sacrificial
lore demands the interpreter’s attention.
For many students of the Bible, the motif of sacrifice
finds religious value in its symbolic role: the act of animal
sacrifice is understood to reflect the b o d between God and
humanity. -But such a general observation of symbolic
value fails to satisfy. One wishes to know more concretely
. why animal sacrifice? Could not the bond between human-
’eriod kind and God be represented in another ritual form?
I’uri fication 2. Social.Science Explanations.T h e mystery of sacrifi-
es cial practice also troubled early anthropologists and
bective prompted the opening of a whole new era of comparative
Tradition research. T h e problem with the earliest theorists is that
they often desired to account for this particular cultic
:hinking of one such theorist. Sir Ed
was to expose the false premises of all
in his exploration of social evolution.
sacrifice was “a gift made to a deity a
(1871, 2: 375). Thus, Tylor reduce
primitive formula of self-aggrandizem
so that you will give in turn”). This
devoid of moral value in its original
Tylor all religions developed from a
mism that viewed the spiritual worl
morality. Only at a far later stage did
~piritualmeaning surface. On a simil
of Frazier (1890) that all sacrifice aro
slaying a “divine king.” His ritual mu
aid the crops. Frazier believed that t
was only at a later date spiritualized,
the divine king were developed.
One other thinker we might inclu
Robertson Smith (1889). His work c
from that of Tylor and Frazier on the
saw the religious impulse behind sacrif
For Smith, sacrifice began as an act of
animal that represented both the trib
tribe’s consumption of the flesh of thi
means of experiencing a communion
the tribe; thus the life of the comm
The primary goal of the sacrifice
mystical: it enhanced the feeling of un
and provided a moment of communio
folk and their god. Only far later in
human culture, under the influence o
fice come to be thought of as a gif
theory, like those of Tylor and Frazie
one. Like other anthropologists from
tury, Smith believed that religious sa
ken down to one original impulse f
permutations could be traced.
The gift theory of Tylor was subje
at the hands of Hubert and Mauss in
(1899). This work continues to com
respect among anthropological theor
the starting point for all modern dis
lem. Hubert.and Mauss argued again
anistic theory of Tylor (do ut des). On
agreed with Tylor in seeing sacrifice a
the deity. Yet, on the other hand, they
cial victims fashioned a link betwee
sacral worlds. The animal becomes
because it partakes of both realms: its
physical world whereas its life belo
realm. This mediator, the sacrificial v
fied with the sacrificer (Hubert and
individual who makes the sacrifice) du
consecration. As Valeri notes (1985: 6
be a commodity, a mere utilitarian ob
an oi$ectiw fm.” Certainly one of t
work of Hubert and Mauss is their em
of the sacrificial rite. The process begi
sacralize the time, place, and officiant
killed and consumed. Finally ritual
profane world.
One problem with the gift theory is that it fails to
account for the asymmetry of the sacrificial process. How
is it that the human being can give so little (a single animal)
and receive so much (the promise of divine blessing in its
many varied forms)? Here one is greatly aided by recent
anthropological theories of gift giving: the gods establish
their superiority by giving more than they receive. But
there is another level of meaning here as well. There is a
degree of equality in the exchange because “the value of
the thing given is inversely proportional to that of the
giver. In other words, for a god, giving much is gwing
little: for man. giving little- i s giving much. Hence man’s
small gift to the god i s as valuable as god’s big gift to man,
but at the same time this equivalence of the gifts signifies
and establishes the nonequivalence of the givers, of god
and man. It is in this way that reciprocity can coexist with
hierarchy and that the sacrificial exchange can represent
the gods’ superiority over men” (Vaferi 1985: 66).
3. Social Science and Biblical Scholarship. Our survey
of anthropological scholarship has to be severely curtailed
for the purposes of this essay, but the reader should know
that much work still remains to be done here by the biblical
scholar. We have only surveyed those theories which have
directly affected past biblical research. More recent con-
ceptualizations have not been discussed (e.g., Girard 1977:
Burkert 1983: Valeri 1985). By and large, biblical scholar-
ship has not kept up with the theoretical work of recent
anthropology. The handbooks on biblical sacrifice gener-
ally do one of two things: they either dismiss all or most of
previous research.as not applicable to the special case of
the Bible or take up an evolutionary model such as that of
Tylor or Frazier and apply the lower forms to Israel’s ANE
neighbors and the higher forms to Israel. The second
strategy is especially dangerous. Such apologetic tenden-
cies, besides being historically suspicious..are of marginal
value theologically. T h e presumption of such thought
seems to be that the biblical cult is odd on its own terms,
and only in comparison to a cleariy inferior Vmlage can
any theological value be extracted.
One prominent evolutionary model that has been p o p
ular in biblical handbooks is the motif of sacrifice as food
for the gods. God is portrayed in this model as an anthro-
pomorphic being who requires daily sustenance like any
human being. Against this primitive mode of religious
thought, some scholars have chosen to juxtapose the more
evolved form of religion found in the Bible:
If I am hungry, will I nottell you?
For the earth and what fills it are mine.
Do I eat the flesh of bulls,
the blood of goats do 1 drink?
Sacrifice to God praise!
Fulfill, to the Most High, your vows! (Ps 50: 12-14)
To be sure, this psalm explicitly says that YHWH needs no
food. But before quicklv concluding that the Bible’s ac-
count of sacrifice is on a higher evolutionary level, one
must account for the ‘enormous amount of evidence that
portrays Israelite sacrifice as food for YHWH. Countless
texts from every period describe YHWH’s sacrifices as
sacrifices can be called “YHWH’s foo
burnt offerings is said to be “a sweet
of this is dismissed by some biblica
relics of Israel’s pagan past. No accou
that these terms and phrases are free
gmra (cultic and epic narratives, p
Israel’s literature in all periods.
The boldness of such an argume
can point to a few isolated poetic
YHWH’s freedom from human nee
must dismiss dozens of other texts fr
as unrepresentative, or as relics fr
Moreover, even the presumption tha
ceptualizations of sacrifice uniforml
gods required food needs to be ret
on the development of the Gilgame
damaging evidence for the simplist
by some biblical scholars (1982: 224-2
Assyrian reworking of this.epic show
to downplay, if not altogether delete
gods’ need for food. What are we to
this late text representative of a new
spective on sacrificial rites? If so, w
the subsequent Mesopotamian ma
Assyrian and Babylonian ritual tex
are still described as food for the g
quent descriptions simply ancient re
say with any certainty is that in Meso
ate groups inveighed against an ove
characterization of the deity. Mutatic
lical material. The likelihood that thi
a generalizable philosophical princip
is very remote.
It would be preferable to see sac
etzlity. Various explanations of its fu
and what a given writer enunciates
literary needs and genre of the write
the rabbinic period the notion tha
sacrifices could find a literary settin
binic tendency to avoid anthropom
halakic discussions which explicitly
sumption of the sacrificial fare to tha
of R. Ishmael ad Exod 23:15). What
demonstrates is that even the Rabbi
could say both that sacrifice was fo
God needed no food. A4Utati.s mut
Israelites and the Babylonians. The
an evolutionary development from
rhinking to a d o r e spiritual and eth
but rather the literary genre in whic
was found (myth, hymn, liturgical f
these linguistic forms or language g
minology of Wittgenstein, had its ow
of sacrifice. This multiuahq need
than has been hitherto provided ? ...
discussion of sacrifke is dependent o
sacrifice can be reduced to one ess
course of che present essay, we wi
further this notion of multiple levels
4. Biblical Sacrifice as Cultic R
nomenon. -All treatments of sacrifi
ars as ancient the particular practitioners. This research paradigm in- nowhere does it become a generic t
le fact is made volves two distinct but interrelated programs of investiga- cause blood sacrifice was such an im
)duced into all tion. First would be the construction of a history of Israel’s Israelite religion, this term for anim
and more) of cultic worship from its origins in the patriarchal period to the technical meaning of sacrifice.
its conclusion in the beginning of the Second Temple The root zbh also appears in the H
ar. While one period under Ezra and Nehemiah. Having established this mizhZa!z. Although the term literally
that speak of historical grid, the various data from the P source and slaughter,” it functions in the OT t
i as food, one from other ritual materials scattered throughout the for- where each sacrifice is formally offe
riety of genres mer and latter prophets (especially Ezekiel 40-48) are that animals are slaughtered, liquids
archaic past. then placed in their proper temporal setting. This method grains are burned. Indeed, we might
-Israelite con- has produced significant results in terms of assessing the Bible as those oblations which are bu
imed that the function of biblical sacrifice in ancient Israelite culture. tially) at the altar (mtzbiuh). These wo
Tigay’s work But the cost of this methodology has been that the role of offering (‘Ski), the “peace offering
has provided sacrifice in the final form of the biblical text, or the grain offering (nunhi),as well as the
sarisons made canonical function of the material, has received scant (one and reparation offerings (’&ism). O
-96). The late could say almost no) attention. The effects of this are donations, though brought to the
ded tendency manifold. As one enters the Second Temple era. sacrifice sometimes presented at the altar, a
:rences to the becomes as much a textual enterprise as one of actual way at the altar and so are not sa
f this shift? Is practice; the study of the sacrificial system begins to de- include the tithe (n~a‘&ftr),firstfruits
Iotamian per- velop a level of significance independent, though not in- offering {t?nCpi), and the heave-offe
r make of all separable, from cultic practice. Evidence of this approach eral, those offerings we have design
ke the Neo- to sacrifice as a textual phenomenon is already present. in higher sanctity (“most holy”) than th
.ein sacrifices mce, in some pieces of what has come to be cailed “inner gory of offerings (“holy”).
* these subse- biblical exegesis” (Toeg 1974; Fishbane 1985). It becomes
: most we can a full-blown reality in such documents as Jubilees and the C. Development of Terminology
certain liter- Temple Scroll. not to mention the fifth division of the Every modern study of biblical sa
ropomorphic Mishnah. “sacred (of-ferings).”.Ill of these sources seek to attempt to define the development
s for the bib- reconstruct a model of sacrifice that is not simply reflective biblical terms for sacrifice. Indeed,
lately became of actual practice, but results from learned exegesis of the nition can be so acute in respect to ce
er civilization Bible in its final canonical form. This creation of an ideal, studies begin and end with nothing
exegetical model of sacrifice we prefer to label “the scrip- philological discussion. Though the
a multivnlent turalization of the cult” and it will be discussed below definition of individual sacrifices is
ould coexist. (section F). more general problem of understand
‘ected by the in the Bible is also not easv to unders
tion. Even in B. Sacrifice and Offering: Some Basic Distiactions 1. The Problem of P. Ever since th
Y consumed Thomas Aquinas defined the distinction between offer- biblical studies scholars have noted
3 of the rab- ing and sacrifice as one of “genus” and “species.” Offering sacrificial terminology of the‘ P sour
There exist constitutes the more general category of gift or oblation, the rest of the OX We could summar
human con- while sacrifice is a specialization of this category which of P’s sacrificial vocabulary along
tity (iMekhzfta entails a more specific means of delivery to the deity. For immense technical vocabulary that va
of material Aquinas. the act which separated sacrifice from offering narrative ‘sources;. (2). much of P’
rannaittc era was “immolation.” In Latin, immolun does not mean “to vocabulary that is central to the P sy
od and that destroy” as its English cognate would suggest. but “to from the rest of the Bible or used
the biblical sprinkle with sacrificial meal.” For Aquinas, though, what fashion; and (3) P’s sacrificial v
riable is not constitutes “immolation” varies with the substance being weighted toward rituals of atonemen
, prelogical offered: whereas an animal may be killed, liquids are used these data to derive very distin
of relig.lon. poured out and foodstuffs such as grains and fruits are results.about the value of the P code
ilar concept burnt (Turner 1977: 190). As Turner observes: “In Scho- Wellhausen, the vast technical vocab
tc.). Eash of lastic terminoloav. oblation can be taken as the matter,
I,
“externalization’: of the cult. For P,a
use the ter- immolation as the form of sacrifice.” sacrifice is no longer a spontaneouc a
lar ideology This IS a useful typology for biblical sacrifice as well. as it was in JE, but rather a presctlbed
re attention though one should note that such a distinction is not nity (WPHI, 103). Second, the fact
theoretical explicitly made in the bjblical vocabulary. The Bible does rituals and their distinctive vocabula
mption that have two basic terms for offering: mznhri (in the non-P the preexilic narrative and historic
:ept. In the materials) which means simply “gift,” and q6rbdn (in P) Wellhausen’s strongest arguments th
to develop which implies something “brought near” (namely, to the of the postexilic period. Finally, P’s e
ation. altar). These words are genenc terms which include everv atonement, in a manner that is unp
:xt~UaiPhe- type of sacrifice or oblation. There is no single term which biblical narrative, indicated to Wellh
cal scholars dehnes how. or in what manner, an offering becomes a of guilt Jews of the earlv Second Te

I
1; Each element of Wellhausen’s system has come under
i /
i attack. Dussaud (1941). on the basis of comparing Phoe-
nician cultic tariffs from the early 1st millennium, dem-
onstrated that an elaborate list of technical sacrificial vo-
cabulary was not sufficient grounds for labeling the
Priestly system as late or unique in the ancient world. Such
lists were present among Israel’s nearest neighbors. Wein-
feld has carried this argument even further, noting that
Wellhausen was “unaware of the existence of ordered,
institutionalized cultic centers in the great cultural centers
of the ancient Near East. All cult was based on ceremonial
precision” (1983: 96) As to the problem of P’s “unique”
interest in rituals of atonement, Thompson’s (1963) studv
showed that atonement is also an operative sacrificial cate-
gory outside of P Even more important is Weinfeld’s
demonstration that the great cultural centers of the an-
cient world (1983. 105-6) had appropriate terminology
for sacrifices of purification and atonement. These types
of sacrifice were an accepted norm for ancient ritual, and
thus P’s interest in them is hardly extraordinary The fact
that only P records these sacrifices tells us more about P’s
interest than P’s date. We might add that Weinfeld’s point
can be strengthened by noting how the technical cultic
vocabulary of Ugaritic 15 distributed among its various
literarv genres. Here, too, as Tarragon (1980) and Ander-
son ( 1987) have noted, the technical sacrificial terminology
of the sacrificialtexts is quite variant from the terminology
of the epic and mythic materials. Not onlv d o the meanings
of various sacrificial terms vary from one genre to another,
but each genre has its own unique terminology Just as P’s
vocabulary stands out in relation to J, E, and D, so also the
Ugantic sacrificial tariffs stand out from the Baal myth or
the epic of King Kirta. The differences cannot be ex-
plained on purelv historical grounds. the nature and
genre of the text in question IS an equally if not more
important conditioning factor
2. The Development of Cultic Vocabulary. The devel-
opment of cultic terminology in the Bible must be seen in
a broader perspective than simply the distinctions between
. P and non-P usage. To be properly appreciated it must be
seen in its overall NW Semitic (or Canaanite) context, that
is, in relation to Israel’s closest cultural relations (Ugarit.
Phoenma, Xramea, Ammon, and Moab). To illustrate how
Israel’s culuc terminology is related to these contiguous
cultures. we will trace the development of the cultic term
Ifllnhri
The<Hebword m i h i has two very different meanings in
the 01 On the one hand it can refer to the specific “cereal
offenng” (so the P source. so Leviticus 2) or it can simply
mean “gift,” including even noncultic donations. In Phoe-
nician, the term only appears in cultic tariffs, and like the
usage in P refers to the cereal offering. At Ugarit the
specialization proceeded in another direction. The term
occurs at least three times in economic texts referring to
some type of secular payment (CTA 14.1; KTU 4.91; and
in the Ras Hani matenals).
In the past, it has been typical to explain the different
levels of meaning for m i d in the Bible in historical terms.
The specialization of the term in the P source (cereal
offering) IS seen as a postexilic development. Inherent in
postexilic document, its technical te
postexilic origin. This view has a numb
most severe being the widespread usag
meaning “cereal offering” in the preex
Phoenicia and Israel (Ancfsr 2:430).
seems safe to say that the meaning
offering” could coexist.
How can we account for these varian
side by side? It is well known in anthrop
which possess religious specialists also
explanations of ritual and mythic mo
explanations are often very different
nonspecialist. In cultures where these
to write, the extensive recording of te
ther contributes to the development o
cation schemes (Goody 1977: 74-1 1 I).
schemes were necessary for temple rev
tures being accounted for. This ability
for more precise conceptual and lexi
gave much greater visibility to categorie
these classification schemes were very
development of a sophisticated social s
not generally relevant to the daily affa
citizen.
How is this relevant for mi&? For th
the term mi& meant a “gift,” most o
the temple. Because the economic base
was dependent on grain, the min& pa
temple was usually grain. This basic
refined by priestly specialists. A typi
need not be specific regarding these
contributed a tenth of whatever it was
the priests-who had to deal with a va
and pastoral gifts and revenues-needed
taxonomy $0 to order their experience
impetus for this ordering came from
tariffs (Levine 1963; 1965). In order to
with the income of the temple, a prec
contributions had to be in place. This
need to specialize further a term like
(which was most often grain) to “a cere
The development of a specialized
should be seen as both an inner-Israe
Semitic phenomenon. In its early proto
the root had the broad generic con
During the Iron Age, or perhaps a b
specialistsin Phoenicia and Israel used
the most basic cultic offering, the cere
specialization was uneven: its earlier
vived even into postexilic literature
Ugarit. already in the Bronze Age,
ahowed a limitation of meaning to a
sense.
The specialization of meaning for c
portant ramifications. In any one pa
terms for sacrifice can become quite sp
As a result of this learned procedure of
occurs within the cult the priestly v
quite idiosyncratic. This idiosyncratic
fication system is paradigmatic of all m
in the ancient world. It does not reflect
.I: term tninhb The special usages of any one cult center cannot be .pre- tabernacle that was erected there (E
eriod in both dicted on the basis of the archaic meanings of the perti- eyes of the P source, all this materi
:ier words, it nent cultic terms. The specialization of m i d from “gift” equally applicable to the domain of th
and “cereal to “cereal offering” is paradigmatic of this. The sacrificial act consisted of six
In summary, we can say that the P code’s interest in be divided into two groups: those w
lings existing classifying the broad array of sacrificial donations made to by the layperson who offered the an
that societies the temple does not reflect a crudely materialistic view of were restncted to the priests. Layper
ery technical the cult as Wellhausen and von Rad (ROTT 1: 259-60) for (1) bringng the animal to the
hese learned believed. Instead it represents the maturation and individ- hands on the animal, and (3) slau
those of the uation of the biblical cult. Each cultic center in the ANE (included cutting up the animal and
:lists are able developed its own very intricate system of sacrificial cate- the insides, see Lev 1:6, 9). The pri
.evenues fur- gories and terminology. In the realm of Canaanite culture, for (4) tossing the blood, ( 5 ) burning
irate classifi- what separates each center from the other is the unique of the animal), and (6) disposing of t
classification configurafion of the various sacrificial offerings. Thus the three actions of the layperson took pl
ind expendi- development of the Priestly vocabulary is part of a larger the tent of meeting, a spot where the
ssify allowed movement to develop a specialized and unique cultic iden- witness the Lord’s “consumption”
mdaries and tity that one sees in other cultic centers in the Iron Age. 9:23-24). T h e fact that the laypeople
m s . Though actions 1-3 can be seen from the d
‘tant for the D. Sacrifice in P Those actions which the layperson w
I-e,they were 1. The Animals. As a general rule, h e sacrifices can be writer identifies with the third perso
[he common broken down into two categories in regard to which ani- lay his hand . . .” (Lev 1:4). Those ac
mals were used: those sacrifices which specifically required was to perform are rendered: “an
ion Israelite, a particular animal for each and every sacrificial occasion, priests, shalt present the blood.. .” (L
+ft given to and those which required a range of different animals of the hand-laying rite, which is so ba
:lelite societv depending on the social standing or economic status of the process of atonement in the exp
yiven to the the individual offerer. In the former class we can place the long been obscure to scholars. It ha
was further burnt offering, the peace offering, and the reparation gested that the rite of hand-laying
lean farmer offering, while in the latter class we would place the two the animal belonged to the owner
,: he simply forms of purification offering. theory pertains to the generally pre
oduced. But It would not be accurate to say that the requirements for me hand on the animal. The except
agricultural the burnt offering, peace offering, and reparation offer- two hands on the day of atonemen
‘re elaborate ing were rigidly fixed; there was room for variability, but differently. In this case, the act of la
oubt a large the variability was not similar to that reserved for the fied a particular animal as the recipie
>le lists and purification offering. For the burnt offering one had to The actions which only the priest c
:ieaningfullv offer a male animal from the herd or flock, or a bird blood and burning theanimal) were
con of cultic (turtledove or pigeon). T h e peace offering could be either occur at the altar. Because only th
explain the a male or female from the herd or flock. The reparation access to this location, the respons
?-om“a gift” offering was always a ram, except for the Nazirite who theirs. Blood manipulation varied fr
ing.” became impure, who had to bring a lamb. The reparation fice, With the burnt, reparation, and
4 for mink offering was also unique in that most of the time this blood was tossed around the altar. In
i broad NW sacrificial requirement could be converted into an equiva- purification offering required tha
cmitic form, lent in silver. In contrast to these requirements, the laws daubed on the horns of the altar and
.n of “gift.“ for the purification offering in Lev 4: 1-23 conform strictly out at the base of the altar in the
‘r. the cultic to the socidstandzngof the offerer. The priest, community, commoner. For the priest or the en
d to express ruler, and individual had their own requirements that blood was first sprinkled seven times
:ng. But this could not be varied. T h e additional situations for the sanctuary and then put on the horns
usage sur- purification’offering listed in Lev 5: 1-13 articulate a sep- altar. The remainder was poured o
11. While in arate system altogether. In this material, the requirements outer altar. In certain cases the pries
jse material for the purification offering are graded in accord with the to eat the sacnfice (cereal offering a
.I‘ economic e c m a i c stunding of the offerer. . ing).
The animals used for sacrifices were domestic animals. Disposal rites were different for
ims has im- Even though there were wild animals that were fit for burnt offering, of course, had no di
dialect the consumption according to the iaws of kairut (e.g.. the hart, sacrifice was burned on the altar. Fo
id technical. gazelle, roebuck, wild goat, ibex, antelope, and mountain disposal rites varied, seemingly in
ation which sheep; Deut 145) these animals ?re never used for sacri- Thus the peace offering, which w
rv becomes fices. What was fit for game was evidently not.suitable for (“hdy”). could be eaten for tw days
iplex classi- the altar. the third, whereas the purification s
iltic centers 2. The ’khaique of Sacrifice. Before begmning our had to be eaten on the same day (W
4v material- . formaldiscussion it is worth noting that since the P code laws (Lev 7:16-18) of disposal also

i . .
disposal rites in general, see Wright (1987).
3. Literary Genres in P. a. General Matters. The P
source has brought together a variety of materials into its
sacrificial program from different time periods and per-
haps even variant sacred sites. Scholars often argue that
because certain of these sources can be shown to be preex-
ilic, the P source as a whole can be safely anchored in the
preexilic period. See PRIESTLY (“P”) SOURCE. One
should not be so quick to reach such a solution. The date
of the final redaction of the P source is an issue indepen-
dent of the date of its constituent materials.
Scholars have noted the variety of materials that are
found within the P source. The most basic source division,
which all are agreed upon, is that between the Holiness
Code (Leviticus 17-26) and the rest of P. it has been
generally assumed that H is earlier than P, but recently
Knohl (1988)has offered weighty arguments for presum-
ing the reverse, Within the P source itself there is further
evidence of different lavers of source material. One may
wish to compare the classic doublet regarding the purifi-
cation offerings in Leviticus 4 and Num 15:22-31. (see
below); other doublets can also be found. One stream of
scholarship has taken the evidence of the doublets as a
starting point for reconstructing the complex tradition
history of the OT sacrificial materials (Rendtorff 1967;
Elliger, Lmitims HAT). Although this method worked very
well in narrative sources of the Pentateuch and has
achieved a rather high degree of consensus, the same
cannot be said for the sacrificial material. There simply is
not enough data within these sources or in extrabiblical
sources to reconstruct with any certainty the question of
literary history. In proof of this, one need simply to
compare the vastly different reconstructions found in the
work of Elliger. Rendtorff. and .Noth (Leviticus OTL). Per-
haps the most convincing treatment of the tradition his-
tory of the P source and its variant sources is that of
Knohl.
Another method of analyzing the sacrificial material in
P has been employed by J. Milgrom. Working from the.
assumption that the source material of P cannot be recon-
structed, and that the material presents itself, on the
whole, as a complete system,-Milgrom has opted to inter-
pret OT sacrifice on the basis of the final redactional form
of the P source. Thus, when Milgrom investigates the
meaning of the purification or reparation sacrifices, he
does not ask which treatment of it in the Bible is earliest,
nor does he look for inconsistencies or contradictions as
signs of literary seams in a particular pericope. Rather,
&lilgrom assumes that the P material as a unit has suffi-
cient integrity to be treated as a whole. Thus, the meaning
of the purification or reparation offering, for example,
can only be grasped when each pericope is read and
explained as though it was part of a complete system.
Milgrom’s method has achieved some remarkable re-
sults, especially in regard to the purification and repara-
tion offerings. His work is especially helpful to those
working in Second Temple sources because his emphasis
on how the P material presents itself in its final redactional
shape provides a smooth transition to the type of interpre-
tation one finds in Second Temple sources; Others,
grounds that it is not sufficiently historica
The 1988 study of I. Knohl has call
some of Milgrom’s assumptions about the
the P material. ‘4s mentioned above, Knoh
than P. But just as important, Knphl fin
for the H source outside of Leviticus 1
that H material can be readily identified
understanding of sacrifice that is quite dif
Knohl is correct (and he marshals a good
in support of his thesis), many of the inte
of Milgrom will have to be rethought.
In summary, one can say that the sacri
is approached in very different ways and t
has emetged as to what the most app
might be. Readers of this literature must b
what the operative assumptions are of a
preter before assessing his particular und
b. Descriptive and Prescriptive Ritual
the exact stratification of P’s source ma
matter of debate, significant work has b
variant Stfze tm Leben of some of this mate
B. Levine, has distinguished himself as an
tive interpreter of O T sacrificial ritual a
environment. He advanced the thesis, whi
widely accepted, that sacrificial instructio
ken down into one of two types: the de
prescriptive (1965). Working from sac
found in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and the
gued that descriptive texts describe wha
specific cultic occasion. As a result these
narrative format. Prescnptive texts, on th
not describe an actual ritual: rather the
must be brought for a certain ritual. In t
rial good examples of prescriptive texts
Numbers 7: 28-29, while Leviucus 8-9
nature. Levine argued that behind the n
bers 7 was an actual archival record of
which, “in its simplest terms, is an acco
income resembling numerous similar acc
opotamia” (1965:317); whereas the origin
9 were actual reports of ritual occasions
quently adapted into narrative accounts’’-
A. F. Rainey (1970)took Levine’sresults
and noted that such a form-critical dist
count for the different order of sacrifi
ritual texts. Rainey notes that the orde
Leviticus 8-9 is different from Number
former indudes a progression from the p
ing to burnt offering while in the latter
is found. Rainey argues that the prope
procedure is that found in the descriptlv
thesis finds resounding support in the na
the leper: “And on the eighth day he sh
lambs without blemish,’and one ewe
without blemish, and a cereal offering .
Because the burnt offering must be a m
1:lo), whereas the purificauon offering f
is a female (Lev 4:32). the order of this p
burnt offering and then purification off
the actual performance of the ritual is des
order is found: the punfication offering
nto question Nazir was to furnish (Num 6:14-15) and the pram$tiue desert. The inauguration of the prie
nogeneity of text which describes their execution (Num 6: 16-17). ficial altar, and as a consequence, th
tes H earlier The results of this form critical distinction between “glory of the L o r d (Lev 923) to all
ew evidence descriptive and prescriptive lists is also important for un- very heart of Israel’s relation to its
1. He argues derstanding the meaning of OT sacrifice. The purification the drama of Israel’s relationship
contains an sacrifice is first because it prepares the way for full sacrifi- mated. So important was this momen
nt from P. if cial communion: it deals fully with any tinge of sin that that rabbinic midrash retold this m
of evidence may separate the divine presence from the worshipper. imagery (Sifra ad Lev 9:23).
ive readings Once the rite of purification had been completed, the In summary one can say that the T
burnt offering, which was an offering given over totally to rules for the performance of individ
matter in P God, could be offered. Only then could peace offerings be flcular appltcafwns for the individua
o consensus given wherein the people at large would rejoice before sacrifices. General rules for all of th
ate method their Lord (Deuteronomy 12). primarily found in one location,
rful to note e. Redaction of Sacrificial Material in P. When one first general rules tell everything one nee
icular inter- looks at the P source in its entirety, the laws of sacrifice to administer the burnt offering. i
nding. seem to be ordered in a rather haphazard way. Beginning bring the animal, how to lay on hand
E. Although in Exodus 25 and continuing to the end of Numbers the to handle its blood, how to prepare
I remains a sacrificial laws of P are interwoven among the various burn on the altar. The section close
one on the narrative materials of J and E. i t is difficult, especially in “This is the law of the burnt offerin
)ne scholar, Numbers, to understand what was the editorial function ing, of the purification offering, of
cially sensi- of this structure. Yet there are clear signs of editorial ing, of the consecration offering, and
#t the ANE design within this larger framework. One might note the which the Lord commanded Moses
r since been structure of Exodus 25-Leviticus 9. Exodus 25-40 is the 7 :37-38).
ild be bro- narrative which describes the delivery of the architectural In its present canonical shape, the
ve and the plans for the tabernacle to Moses (Exodus 25-3 1) and the are viewed as the basic rules for how
11 material subsequent execution of those plans (Exodus 35-40). This performed. One must be careful to n
Levine ar- particular section comes to a climax with the appearance rules, on their own, are very artificial
spired at a of the divine presence (“glory of the Lord”) in the Taber- a complete system of sacrificial ritua
t exist in a nacle (Exod 40:34-38). After the tabernacle has been up each sacrificial type individuall
r hand, do revealed, the laws of sacrifice are laid out in a very general isolated entity. It is only rarely tha
islate what way (Leviticus 1-7). Concluding this section is the narrative only a burnt offering or cereal off
d i d mate- of the ordination of Aaron and the ceremony of the eighth individual offering on its own term
t found in day (Leviticus 8-9). This final section concludes with the but its particular combination within
criptive in first appearance of the Lord to the entire gathered throng the rest of the laws of sacrifice in t
e of Num- of Israelites: viewed as the specific ritual applicat
offerings stract and general rules of Leviticu
sanctuary Moses and Aaron then went inside the Tent of Meeting. doublets to Leviticus 1-7, such as Nu
from Mes- When thev came out, they blessed the people; and the 5:5-8). The specific applications of
eviticus 8- Presence of the Lord appeared to all the people. Fire Leviticus 1-7 can be grouped into
re “subse- came forth from before the Lord and consumed the foundational sequences (ordination
324). burnt offering and the fat parts of the altar. And all the [Leviticus 8-9, Numbgrs 81, dedicat
:p further people saw, and shouted, and fell on their faces” (Lev [Numbers 7)); (b) festival laws and t
could ac- 9:23-34). offering” (Leviticus 16; 23; Number
nd in OT cific rituals pertaining to the life cy
crifices in The importance of this narrative has been underesti- childbirth (Leviticus 12), “leprosy” (L
-29. The mated by biblical scholars. In many respects it reflects thc of the Nazir (Numbers 6), impurity
ion offer- very center of the P document. Whereas prior to thc 15:13-15). corpse defilement (Numb
hrse order revelation at Mt. Sinai, God had appeared to his choser 4. The Basic Types of Animal Sac
inistrative Only sporadically, now this divine presence could be rou ing (%&). The Heb term for “bu
I Rainey‘s tinized and made available on a regular basis: “An altar oj literally, “an offering of ascent” or “a
Pgarding earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burn (Levine 1974: 6). The noun is used w
two male offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and you1 root hC&h “to make ascend an
year old oxen; an tvery place where I cause my mame to be remembered 1 to guess why this name is appropri
‘V 14:lO). will come to you and bless you” (Ex& 20:24). offering. The %!d sacrifice was on
The climax of the P narrative in the completion of thc burnt on the altar and so its smoke-
.wrship rites commanded at Mt. Sinai contrasts rathei was directed toward the heavenly rea
sharply with the climax of the epic narratives of the Pen was thought to have “inhaled” it. T
tateuch. In the Israelite epic, the climax of the narrative i: offered along with accompanying ce
found outside the Pentateuch in the settlement traditions iags (Num 15:i-10). In Ugarit thi
Whereas JE was interested in highlighting the role of thc called f@, that is “(totally) burnt.”

exiles (8:35). Levine has argued that the %.42 sacrifice
should be understood as one which attracted the deity’s
attention and invoked the deity’s presence for a particular
ritual occasion. Such a theory would nicely explain the
usage of the ‘6.42 for the purposes of divination when the
deity’s response to an urgent plea was desired, as in the
case of Balaam’s oracles (Numbers 21-24). or the usage of
the ‘6U by Elijah as a means of testing which prophetic
group truly “had YHWH’s attention” so to speak (1 Kings
18). It would also explain the usage of the ‘d& as a term
for child sacrifice, which was thought in some circles to
show one’s consummate devotion to the deity (2 Kgs 3:26-
28) and hence worthiness of divine assistance. Milgrom
has argued that the ‘6U was the earliest form of atonement
Another level of meaning present in the ‘I%% is that of a
gift to the deity. Of course the gift is not just any type of
gift but a gift that the deity consumes, a “soothing odor.”
The consumable gift was thought to be in many respects
the food of the deity. Just as the temple was conceived to
be the deity’s home, complete with furniture and other
appurtenances, so this divine home had its hearth, the
altar. The daily sacrifices for the deity are described in
Exod 29:38-42 (cf. Num 28:3-8 and Ezek 46:13-15).
These sacrifices took place both in the morning and the
evening and consisted of the %&(lamb) along with a cereal
and drink offering. It was called the tam& offering in
rabbinic sources because scripture says it was to be offered
“continually (amid) . . . throughout your generations”
(Exod 29:42). It is no accident that kxod 29:42 continues
to require the sacrifice “at the door of the tent of meeting
before the Lord, where I will meet you, to speak there to
you.” This timid sacrifice was symbolic not only of the
deity’s meal, but by extension, of the deity’s presence
among the people. No greater cukic calamity could be
the severing of the divine-human re
b. Peace Offering {&imfm). Th
pretation of this sacrifice has bothe
years. It seems clear that at least th
this sacrifice: zebah, &h&it?himinr, an
of the development of these term
Rendtorff (1967). The Sl‘ldmim see
of an earlier zebuh sacrifice. One
zebuh, “slain sacrifice,” refers to any
In spite of its name, which is quite
designation often occurs in the pai
type of usage there can be no d
specificallyto the f8himim offering.
The sacrifice has commonly bee
offering” but this IS certainly an
tells us precious little about the natu
what is peaceful about this sacrifi
peace refers to a harmonious relatio
ity and God. R. Smith went eve
symbolized a communion between
have argued that the peacefulness
pact, either between God and huma
different peoples. Of course the le
SZkmirn (Slm) does mean “peace,” an
formed from this root in Hebrew
covenantal relations. Yet each one
locate the function of the jZ’l6mim
has not been persuasive. In the cas
dictum that usage IS a more imp
meaning than etymology is certainl
(1) Types. In the P source the jtk
down into three subtypes (Lev
“thanksgiving” sacrifice, the ne&,
the ntddd, “freewilloffering.” All o
a very important role in the life of
constituting the basic form of sac
days ( 1 Sam 1:3-4;Deut 12:ll-12),
an important role in the ritual of la
giving that is so prominent in the
the Ighimirn are the pes&, “passove
nation” sacrifices. Although the pa
in a different manner (it is roasted
ing to Exod 12:9), it is a sacrifi
consume. The mtllt2’im sacrifice is p
like the Sthimin, the significant dif
blood is applied to the ear, thumb,
priest (Exod 29: 19-34).
The pesah, mUS’im, and M sa
eaten on the very day they were of
i’Lhimim types. This is certainly du
former rites are all obligatory on
flesh must be consumed within one
level of sanctity. The other SZhimlim r
and so the prescriptions for consu
the remains were more lax.
(2) Usage. One, negative conclus
even a cursory look at the StEmh
that the sacrifice had nothing to
Though the fat and certain other
were burnt on the altar as a “pleasi
was sprinkled on the altar, nowhe
trs for many to be used for human consumption (Lev 17: 1-7) in the P this is the function of the sacrifice.
can refer to system. case of the parturient instead of the
rhis history The role of human consumption constitutes the primary formula of forgiveness we read: “
1 treated by level of meaning for this sacrifice and helps to explain why perform purgation for her (ki@&) a
special type the ‘6ld and the %!&thi are routinely paired in biblical (Lev 123). The rabbis also noted thi
)t infer that (and Ugaritic) ritual. The c61i was the sacrifice that consti- partunent] brought, are nevertheles
icial animal. tuted the basic nourishment for the deity, while theSthmim permitting her to partake of consecr
this sacrifice in turn nourished the people. This was recognized by the expiatory” (Ker. 26a).
: crili. In this rabbis (see the discussion of the Mekhilta cited in A.3 (1) Puscation and atonement. T
zebah refers above), who explicitly compared these .two offerings on tion of the !@@’f challenges us to r
exactly this point. Indeed so formative was the notion of the &.tri’t in rituals that seem to have
.d as “peace celebratory eating to the &?l&nfrn that the rabbis even Can these rituals also be understo
Zndering. it labeled one application of the SZ&imim sacrifice the “cele- sense? Milgrom has argued the affir
dcrifice. Just . bration sacrifice” (Snlmi-iim&). the atonement rituals found in Le
L)mesay the The celebrative role of the S t l a m h is certainly its most Leviticus 16. Milgrom pays particula
een human- prominent feature. If we define the it&imbas a celebrative of blood manipulation in each of
and said it sacrifice we not only can explain its presence in the rituals here, for it is the blood itself which
89). Others of thanksgiving and fulfillment of vows but we can also agent. In light of this fact, it is signi
I covenantal understand its role on feast days. In many texts in the blood is never placed upon the indivi
ply between Bible the command “to celebrate” (LGm6uh) can only refer himself was being cleansed, one wou
>f the term to the obligation to consume the SZl&nim. So prominent is be placed on him or her. Instead, th
cases nouns this association that the rabbis themselves say: “ ‘celebra- various cultic appurtenances. Even
ian refer to tion’ means nothing other than consuming the flesh (of variability of this blood ritual with re
.ittempts to the &?him).” Rabbinic materials also further subdivided the sinner. Leviticus 4 makes very
: etymology the Sticimim to include both the &g@ sacrifice, the sacrifice between the status of various classes
:mim, Gray‘s that all Israelite males were obligated to consume during vertent sins of the priest and comm
,rminant of the three pilgrimage festivals, and the fin&? sacrifice inore serious than the sins of the
i:1-20). (?al?r&.hntG) which all Israelites, male and female, were to commoner or a ruler. Most serious o
e is broken consume therein (Sifie 138). offenses of any kind. In each of thes
he t6dL or Because the it‘lrimini were emblematic of’ moments ofjoy ness of the sin becomes more pron
rifice,” and or celebration, the f2‘kitnim could be, in certain circum- brought closer to the very inner sa
fices played stances. banned for days of public mourning. This appears holies. Thus the blood used for the
tal. Besides to be the logic of Isa 22:12-14. Isaiah reports that the on the altar of the burnt offering Q&
.!it o n feast Lord had called for public mourning, yet Israel was slaying se (Lev 4:30). The blood used for th
also played -her fatlings and rejoicing. Such a practice does not seem of the community as a whole is plac
ind thanks- to have been uniform in Israel, for on pther occasions itself, sprinkled on the veil separati
<- similar to f t d t n f m were offered at times of public mourning. In from the outer chamber and placed
Pirn. “ordi- regard to these latter examples, though, one should note Finally, the blood of the purificat
:s prepared that the Sd&tim were offered in conjunction with the burnt Kippur, which atones for advertent
\ed accord- offering and, as Milgrom (EncBib 7: 244) has demon- the sense of pefa‘ in Lev 16:16), IS s
lsrael must strated. it was the ‘81% that held the primary role in these the mercy seat” within the holy of ho
.tost exactly rites. Milgrom has argued that this seq
wg that the c. Purification Offering (hand’t). Lev 4: 1-5: 13, Num usage of blood in respect to the grid
he Aaronid 15322-31, et pmim refer to this offering. The traditional shows that what is being purged is
translation of this term has been “sin offering.” This sinner, but the effects of sin, i.e. cul
:all to be translation, followed by the LXX, is based on etymological sanctums within the sanctuary. Sinc
e the other considerations. The. Hebrew root lit’ means “to miss the stood to be a purging agent, one wo
ct that the mark. to sin.” Yet as hfilgrom (1983a: 67) and others have to receive this material if the prim
that their
~

noted, the term would better.be understood as referring ritual were to eliminate hidher sinf
to a higher I to the process of purification. This seems clear from the understanding would accord well w
obligatory verb used in conjunction with !tu.@’t, lZ-/uz!!s?’. This verbal the purificatory role of the !u,@’t
disposal of form is best understood as a Picel privative which conveys those suffering from discharge: “Th
the sense of “cleansing, purging,” or purifying an object. people of Israel separate from their
x g e s from Even more important is the fact that the h!@’t offering die in their uncleanness by defiling
:he Bible is oftentimes is used in situations that have no relation to sin. in their midst” (Lev 15:31, cf. Nu
atonement. For example. consider the cases of the parturient ‘(Leviti- conceived in this fashion, becomes “
he sacrifice cus i2), the person suffering from a discharge (Leviticus an aerial miasma which possessed m
I the blood l5), the Nazirite who completes a vow of abstinence (Num- the realm of the sacred” (Milgrom 1
.ir of these bers 6). or the installation of a new altar (Leviticus 8). In cation offering is desgned to remov
. .
 ary. This understanding of the process of atonement is
quite distinct from previous theories (Gese 1981; Janowski
1982) which hold that the process is primarily concerned
with removing sin from the sinner. Whereas the latter
stress the role of substitutionary death in the atoning
process, Milgrom stresses the role of purification%
Stated in this general way, Milgrom’s,argument is very
persuasive. Things become more difficult when Milgrom
attempts to argue that the purification offering has no role
whatsoever in removing human sin. Indeed scripture itself
says that the purification rite is performed sp that the
sinner may be forgiven (Lev 4:20, 26, 31). Yet Milgrom
contends that the forgiveness is not for the sinful act per
se but rather for the cunseQuence of the act, the contamina-
tion of the sanctuary. How then is the actual act of the
individual sinner forgiven? Milgrom argues that the for-
giveness of the original sin itself is accomplished by a
feeling of remorse. This feeling is indicated in the biblical
text by the use of the verb ’a& (Lev 4:13, 22, 27), which
Milgrom translates “tofeel guilty.” But there are problems.
If such an important atoning function is present in the act
of feeling remorse, why is this term absent in Num 15:22-
31? Or why is it absent in the case of the priest (Lev 4: 1-
12)?This situation is complex and does not offer any easy
solution. Certainly Milgrom’s work is an important contri-
bution, but loose ends still abound.
(2)The Performance of the Purification Offering. The
purification offering varies across four classes of individ-
uals: priest. congregation, ruler, and individual. (Lev 5 : 1-
13 constitutes a special case which we will not have room
to discuss.) Not only does the act of blood manipulation
vary over these four classes, but so do other elements of
the ritual. The four classes can actually be reduced to two
groups: (1) priest and congregation, and (2) ruler and
individual.
The performance of the purification offering has six
discrete steps: (1) the animal is brought to the tent of
meeting; (2) the offerer lays on hands; (3) the anima1.k
slain; (4) the blood rites are performed; (5)the animal’s
remains are disposed by burning or are eaten; and (6) a
forgiveness formula is cited which formally closes the
atonement process. Within this schema there are two ele-
ments which serve to highlight and distinguish the offer-
ings of the priesdcongregation from those of the prince/
individual. First, the blood and disposal rites are per-
formed differently depend-ing on whether one is handling
the animals of the priesdcongregacion or the princehdi-
vidual. For the priesdcongregation the blood is brought
into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times on the veil
that stands in front of the holy of holies and then is daubed
on the horns of the incense altar (Lev 4:5-7a; 16-18a).
The remainder of the blood is poured out at the base of
the altar reserved for the burnt offering which is outside
.-thetent proper (Lev 4:7b 18b). The fat of the bull as well
as certain organs are burned at the altar of the burnt
offering (Lev 4%-10; 19-20); the remainder of the ani-
mal, including its edible flesh, is burned outside the camp
(Lev 4:ll-12; 21). For the princdindividual, the rite is
quite different. The blood is applied to the horns o f the
outer altar and then poured at its base (Lev 4%; 30). The
6:24-30). It is difficult to know how
eating the meat Is this an act of
burning of the bull, or is the cons
quisite of the priesthood?
This asymmetry has been note
these data to reconstruct two origin
that lie behind our present text.
congregation, he believes, is a “pu
to safeguard the sanctuary and its
from contamination” (1974: 103).T
to the peace offering and origina
with the process of purification; r
“to expiate certain of the offens
Israelites, individually, and even of
chiefs.” A later redactor artificially
pieces of tradition. Levine’s hypo
from the theory of Milgrom. Tho
Levine’s hypothetical reconstructi
been correctly criticized by Milgro
of the problematic posed by the p
holds and has not been adequately
own integrative reading.
(3) Order. The purification
brought in conjunction with othe
the first sacrifice to be offered
conjunction with other sacrifices s
’&ft?m. The reasons are quite ob
offering cleanses the sacred appu
are able to receive the subsequent
the purification offering is listed a
28-29). This is not an exceptio
Rather this phenomenon results fr
ary genre of the sacrificial list. De
the purification offering in the se
prescriptive lists which describe t
put the purification offering first (
d. Reparation Offering (’&am).
erally been translated “guilt offerin
predicated on etymological consid
can often mean “to be, feel guilty
shown (1976). though feelings of
atonement process, the basic featu
function as a means of reparation
which one “offers” (hiqrib), the ’ E
hZfib). Also, unlike other sacrifice
verted into a monetary equivalent
Of all the offerings in the P syste
difficult to understand. Indeed sum
that even the P school no longer
tiveness between the ’Zim and th
imaginable historical reconstructio
the reparation offering and the p
been posed. Needless to say, no o
has emerged. ’
The most detailed recent study
ing is that of Milgrom (1976). In
represents a major advance ove
offers a persuasive hypothesis as
and purification offerings should
one should be-aware that his p.rop
 yacrifice should be listed: i1) the act of misappropriating hand, deals with cases where inadve
parallel to the or misusing an item of sacred value (Lev 5:14-16); ized or made known to the offende
i simply d per- (2) sinning inadvertently .and not knowing it (Lev 5: 17- appears to presume a case wherein
19); (3) swearing falsely in regard to damages done to from either a guilty conscience or, pe
m e . who uses another person (Lev 5:20-26-Eng 6: 1-7); (4) the rite of- the effects of divine retribution but
arate offenngs purification of the leper: (5) the rite of renewing the vow cause. In the ANE there are many c
of the priest/ of the Nazirite who has become unclean (Num 6:lO-12); rials that deal with this exact problem
I nte intended (6) having sexual relations with a slave who has been an individual felt the effects of som
lng priesthood betrothed to another man (Lev 19:20-21). the presumption was that the individ
r rite IS similar Milgrom sees a thread of continuity between cases 1, 3, deity in some way. On the basis of th
nothing to do and 5. In each case something sacred to the deity has been Milgrom suggests that Lev 517-19
b function was violated. T h e first case is most obvious; it explicitly says same way. In this regard its.redacti
e ‘people,’ of the person has misused a sacred item. As Milgrom ob- Lev 514-16 is quite understandabl
i ’ b , the tribal serves, this text is very similar in function to the problem dealt with a known infraction against
independent of desanctifying an animal that is unfit for sacrifice which with a supposed or alleged infraction
utte different is discussed in Lev 27:9-13. Lev 27:9-13 charges a penalty In summary, one could say that
ral aspects of for this desanctification, a penalty equaling the value of between the purification and repara
eak and have the animal plus one-fifth. Milgrom believes that it is not the purification offering deals with
IC description coincidental that Lev 5:14-16 charges the same penalty while the reparation offering deals
m of the text for misusing a sacred item. In both cases we are dealing sacred items. Though not every exa
by Milgrom’s with a situation where an item’s sacred status has been can‘be explained this way, the overw
l
profaned. Lev 25:9-13 stipulates the charge imposed for
is generally the right to do this, whereas Lev 5:14-16 stipulates the E. Prophetic Critique
E. It is always It has been common for Christian
penalfy imposed for the crime. The case of swearing falsely
IS offered in denigrate the entire enterprise of
can also be grouped here because a false vow necessarily
* %lei and the
entails a misuse of the divine name which was originally scholar went so far as to describe the
purification invoked by the person in question. indeed as Milgrom “self-help.” This obvious importatio
$0 that thev demonstrates, violation of vows and desecration of sacred Lutheran reading of a Pauline soter
In some lists items are created as parallel phenomena in ANE legal unacceptable to biblical critics of
?ki(Numbers materials. Finally, the case of the Nazirite who has become (Stendahl 1963). In any event, there
Tenera1 rule. unclean also represents a case in which a sacred item has why Christian treatments of biblic
rticular Iiter- 1
been sullied. In this case it is the Xazir himself who had much time as they do on the issue
sts often put become like a priest himself and hence “holy to the Lord” critique of the sacrificial system: it c
ion, whereas (Num 6:8). As Milgrom shows, the example of the Nazir of the fundamental tenets of Mos
order alwavs has a formal parallel with the case of land dedicated to the interpreters, these prophetic critici
Dove) sanctuary (Leviticus 27). Both are a result of a,vow: both tine observance of the law in all its
ing has gen- are for a limited period of time: but most importantly important as a more general stance
inslation was both vows can be prematurely terminated and have similar one’s God. If one can thus find a foo
ie root ’Gitm penalties for doing so. Whereas the Nazir brings an ’GZrn, for questioning the validity and pe
dilgrom has the donor of the land must provide the equivalent of the OT law, then the Pauline imperat
tegral to the entire value of the land plus an additional 20 percent (in given as a temporary measure (Gal
acrifice is Its other words, the equivalent of the ’Sdm). so out of line with the O T itself.
ier sacrifices *
The example of the leper and the betrothed slave girl Perhaps it was just this’type of th
2yed” (filltm, are the most difficult for‘Milgrom’s theory. Neither are Milgrom to read at least one proph
can be con- said to have violated a sacred item in any way. Milgrom different manner (cf. other example
paid. tries to explain the case of the leper on the grounds that 23: Isa I: 11-14; Amos 5:21-23; M
z is the most elsewhere in the ANE and in the Bible leprosy is often the contends that the prophetic critique
lave claimed result of a serious sin against the sancta of a particular is not a radical questioning of the
the distinc- deity. On these grounds Milgrom suggests that the leper (1983a: 119-21). Milgrom’s hypot
h o s t every *
must bring an ’Gam because he suspects he may have so intriguing when one realizes that
ationshlp of offended the deity. The slave girl cannot be accounted for Jeremiah which he addresses is pe
iffering has in this theory (Schwartz 1986). oughgoing cultic critique in the Bibl
consensus The case of a person sinning and not knowing it also
provide9 some problems. The text in question (Lev 5: 17- Thus says the Lord of hosts, the
ation offer- 19) is sa similar in wording to the material in Leviticus 4 your burnt offerings to your sacri
ts his work that some scholars haw suggested that this material is a For in the day that I brought the
tudies. He *
doublet of the purification rite that has been misplaced by Egypt, I did not speak to your fath
reparation the P editor. Milgrom presumes that the P source.knew concerning burnt offerings and sa
mated. but what it was doing when it put this narrative here. The mand I gave them, ‘Obey my voi
iccount for crucial feature that separates Lev 5:17-19 from the puri- God . . .’ ” (Jer 7:21-23).
writer indicates that not onfy will a
unforgivable in terms of any cultic
penalty will also be severe, banishmen
nity. The threat of banishment is
to the prophetic warning of exi
striking is the P writer’s extension of c
stlz in this fashion. Elsewhere in the P
used very sparingly and only for the m
Here, however, any advertent sinne
Toeg argues that this text, which pre

F. The ScripturaiiZation of the Cul

1. Biblical Sacrifwe in the Second

rabbinic literature beginning with th

react to this material in one of two

Temple writings p
ns that in one Judaism, but precious little about biblical sacrifice. Simi- expansions are unmarked and only n
ie also can find larly, the Temple Scroll can teach us a lot about the sect at. ing the Chronicler’s expansions with
his text, the P Qumran and its sectarian outlook, but very little about the Other times, the expansions are form
‘ertent sins be nature of biblical sacrifice. formula “as it is written in the Tor
hires, but the On the one hand, there is no doubt that such a statement subtle forms of exegetical harmonizat
n the commu- contains a good bit of truth, There is a wide gap between such texts as the Chronicler’s treatme
e conceptually Hellenistic philosophical circles in Alexandria and the which the passover sacrifices should
perhaps more ritual of blood sacrifice practiced in Solomon’s Temple in text, the Chronicler says Israel shou
nalty to all who Jerusalem. Yet the emphasis on the realia of blood sacrifice “cooked in water” (2 Chr 35:13).This
this penalty is within the temple of Solomon as the sole determinant of “roasted in fire” in the JPSV.But w
einous of sins. what constitutes biblical sacrifice is a bit odd and tenden- uneasy disjunction between the comm
be banished. tious. Behind this emphasis is the mistaken notion that Exod 12:8 and Deut 16:7. T h e form
tself as simply biblical sacrifice is, in its truest form, the historically recon- the latter boiling. What is importa
Id as a form of structed entity of critical scholarship and archaeology. One purposes is not simply that the Chron
he P writer to may construe the matter in a very different manner alto- two conflicting traditions, but the m
ne (1985) has gether. Perhaps what is biblical about biblical sacrifice is appropriates this sacrificial law. No lo
led additional not only the historical realia presumed by the texts, but simply with the realm of temple real
and its role in also the interpretation of sacrifice in the present canonical not reading back Second Temple pr
legal enforce- form of the texts themselves. After all. it is this canonical form Temple text) but the inner-biblical,exe
which presented itself to the earliest interpreters of the cultic i&al. The exegesis is being per
i d Fishbane’s Bible. that no longer function as simple p
iere. What is But there is more at stake here than simply taking care cult. These materials are viewed at a se
tself there are to note the final canonical form and its impact on early from the cultic realia. They have now
:hat one finds biblical interpreters. As is becoming increasingly self-evi- tory sacrificial prescriptions which m
ce, in and of dent, the boundary that separates the postbiblical from exegetical artifice.
id typological the biblical period is becoming increasingly hard to draw 2. Example: The Interpretation of
ncepts of the (Fishbane). The transition from what constitutes the “bib- fering in Second ’LempleJewish Sour
nce has to do lical” to the “postbiblical” period is an extended and, to a of the “scripturalization of the cult”
er than with degree, overlapping one (VanderKam 1984). In other the exegetical development of the pu
spiritual her- words. the sharp distinction made by Stendahl (IDB 1: the P code. This general description o
418-32) between what a text meant (in the biblical period, in two different places in P (Leviticu
by its origmal author) and what it nzeam (to subsequent 31), and thus constitutes a classic exa
interpreters) must be blunted on purely historical critics have labeled a doublet. Levit
Period. The grounds. purification offering in terms of f
more expan- OT scholars are increasingly familiar with the fact that groups (priest. congregation; princ
itness in the as scripture is being redacted and set in its final form, Numbers I5 in terms of two (congr
tes extensive there is already significant interpretative work being done The most important difference is tha
originate in by the compilers of that literature. Both at the level of that the congregation bring a bull
nistic sources gross organization of the antecedent tradition into biblical offering while Numbers 15 requires
s. Philo). Of books and at the more refined level of textual transmission, cation offering and a bull for a bur
found in the important hermeneutical shaping of the biblical tradition tional scholarship has attempted to s
ational state- is taking place. Materials have ceased to be malleable oral as historically primary and the other
pplementary traditions, w even written traditions that can be discarded opment. Tdeg (1974) has correctly cr
e Palestinian or reworked at will; instead what is evolving are fixed ology. Though such methods have be
IIC commen- written corpora that are interpreted by a variety of tech- erable success in the narrative portion
‘e tended to niques raqging from such simple means as framing them the data for comparative historical a
i certain in- between introductory or concluding formulae (Fishbane abundant, they often fail in the cul
tual practice 1985) to full scale proto-midrashim (Toeg 1974). In be- because of a paucity of comparative d
have certain tiveen these poles we might place the phenomena of ascrib- example of the purification offering,
$0Milgrom). ing various literary works such a$ the Psalms or the Wis- nious-solution to the problem of th
spersions on dom material to various biblical figures. What this tells us two texts which has in turn been pick
olar. i n this is that attention to the methods of early exegesis may give expanded by Fishbane. Instead of see
understood us insights into the very methods used by the compilers of a later historical practice than the ot
uished from the canon. the text of Num 15:22-31 is a systema
ucttble lines The interchange between the final composition of the of Leviticus 4. No longer are we spea
lard Second BibIe and its early interpretation is becoming increasingly .cultic practice but rather’of learned rep
bearing on well known for narrative and poetic material. It has not canon of textual mutcrinl. *
have mean- been so readily recognized in the sacrificial material. One Toeg’s argument is predicated on
md Temple obvious reflex of this movement has been the expansion the author of Numbers 15 recognize

- .
tion. Num 15:22-31 was understood to
idolatry (nc. Hot 26).Thus the dange
of general prescriptions was defused
that this exegetical decision is a very pr
the Mishnaic system of sacrificial aton
matter of its being found in just a fav
the entire tractate of Horayot depends
decision, as do whole sections of other
The TS, on the other hand, has und
as a special application of the purific
Numbers 15 as the general
tures of the TS make this
midrashic reading of Num l5:24b the
concluded that each purificatian offer
cereal and a drink offering. This exeg
was then applied to every application
offering in the TS. Second, the TS un
liar detail of Lev 4: 14 which required
tion bring a bull as a special applicatio
the rite of ordination. This fact can
manner in which the TS expresses the
the ordination sacrificesof the priest a
both cases the TS expresses its laws o
basis of the distinctive dictio
the priest) and 4:13-21 (the
why the day of ordination
application of the ritual found in Le
because of the unusual summary statem

This is the law of the burnt offe

offering, of the purification offering
offering, of the consecration, and of

This verse summarizes .what has jus

detail over Lev 1: 1-7:36. However, the
note that no mention of tiw comecratzon
the previous seven chapters. To be su
mention of how Aaron and his sons
cereal offering at the ordin
how the animals in particu
textual anomaly has been e
faulty transmission of the text. Again,
though this explanation may be fine
not do justice to the meaning of t
ie should note of the irregularities that caught the eye of the author of sents a mode of demonstrating
nent feature in the TS. its method of understanding those irregularities is Rather, this i s a commandment th
cnt. It is not a quite different. The differences in detail which arise in in the present. For the reader of
nkholh. Indeed, the Torah’s presentation of the purification offering are Temple period the question had
this exegetical attributed to variant historical levels of the tradition. arti- which animal does the congregati
dtes. ficial fusings of disparate sacrificial lore, and even occa- tion offering? The author of the T
,)od Leviticus 4 sionally faulty transmission of the biblical text. This the rabbis another. As is true f
I offering and method of analysis presumes that the present state of the purification offerings; so also for
;I fc.). TIVO fea- text is not the starting point for analysis, rather that the moved historically on the one han
the basis of a earlier hypothetically reconstructed levels of the tradition the other-this is the legacy of bib
hor of the TS constitutes the most valid entry point for the biblical canonical form.
nust include a scholar to begin his or her work. 4. Biblical Sacrifice in Jewish a
J N u m 1524b A more appropriate model of exegesis that would allow It has recently been argued that
le purification the biblical scholar to move from the biblical text to a treatment of the sacrificial syste
iood the pecu- document like the TS or the mishnaic tractate Hornyot destruction of the temple in 70 C
the congrega- must presume a mode of analysis that understands the exegetical superstructure of the t
i t pertained to
Torah as a systemic whole. Perhaps the closest analogy to ings has been explained as an a
)raven bv the
the type of exegesis would be the model of canonical world of the destroyred temple. No d
$withrespect to exegesis advocated by Childs (IOTSI and others. Childs’ to such a suggestion. Indeed the e
ngregation. In own formulation of the task of biblical exegesis demands of the temple in the Mishnah wa
mation on the that the reader take seriously the final canonical form of can find the rabbis, in the context
? (the case of the text as a way of recovering what the earliest shapers of speaking of the sacrificial cultus a
One may ask the Bible intended. We would argue that the mode of tion (Bregman 1978). This “as
3 particular analysis thar Childs’ presupposes, which seeks to under- speech continues to influence read
I-2 I . Perhaps stand the text in categories that are not purely historical, until the. present day. As the an
)f. Lev 7 3 7 : is the best starting point for understanding the conceptual notes, the textual details of the
horizon of-earlv exegetes like the author of the TS. It is discussed in the present tense in
of the cereal not a fact that the author of the TS was paying particular study groups (luiburoth). Moreov
he reparation attenticn to the process of canonical shaping as much as limited to rote citation of diverg
.ace offerings. he was working within the constraints of the canonical rabbinic opinions. but rather the w
product. What modern scholars dismiss as textual acci- is, in part, composed atresh (Hei
I itemized in dents of omission are details of- highest significance to liaburair. He writes: “As we reviewe
ul reader will earry readers of‘the Bible. priests would make in their rit
q is found in It is most important to note the legacy of biblical sacrifice sacrifices. I could begin to see all
ere is a brief in its final canonical form. There is a certain tension in more clearly. It was evident my p
perform the this form which must be appreciated. On the one hand, around the table were walking int
c) mention of we can see as a result of historical criticism that the canon- Temple Mount with all the assura
: reated. This ical shapers were selective in regard to what they put in they came to a discussion of the sp
! n g due to a the text. At no time in Israel’s cultic.history did this book altar and wondered aloud whethe
iust note that as a collective whole function as a priest‘s manual. Or. to his wrist in that act, it took only
cally. it does
: in its final
lie author of
- put it another way. the canonical shapers did not choose
one particular historical expression of Israel’s cultic expe-
their own memory to see preci
carried out: But‘ this memory wa
rience as normative. In a very‘real sense this selectivity origin; it was a memory acquire
ihe existence demonstrates that the cultic material of the Torah is “one many years of review had allowed
.e\’ 1: 1-7:36. step removed from the actual historical activity of the cult“ ancient Temple and alrar in their m
I this rite be (Childs 1986: 160). But, on the other hand, these statutes priests and worshippers” (p. 62)
are presented, in their final literary or canonical form. as haburofhthe transformation of bib
Irspective. It perpetual laas tliai cannot be periodiwd. We could summarize ple-practice to exegetical artifice
done is very . this dilemma in the following manner: biblical sacrifice in has been “scripturalized.”
lie only dif- its final canonical form consisted of disparate and frag- The movement by the rabbis to
wd the rela- mentary cultic materials which were presented en masse as system from that of a physical r
Intrary fash- a perpetual coherent system. Nowhere can this be better reality was enormously successful
I application illustrated than in the example of Leviticus 4 and Num whether this project is to be under
the.general 15:22-31. Here we have materials that are one step re- to the events of 70 C.E. If the data
I common to moved from the cult and thus make any systematic histor- the TS reflect a more general phe
.I puzzle left
aterial. The .{ ical reconsr-ruction‘verydifficult. Witness the many varied
and often self-contradictory solutions of modern scholar-
period era. then we can safely as
refashioning of the sacrificial syst
)r of the TS ship regarding their historical priority, none of which can derway in the pre-70 period. For C
e sense that claim an overwhelming consensus. Yet for the earliest ing of the cultic systeh led to the
-‘theSinaitic readers of the Bible, this text presents itself as a perpetual the particularities of the books of
 Knohl. I. 1988. The Conceptma of nd C
and in the Holiness School. Diss., Jerusalem
Kbhler, L. 1957. OM T ~ & w m Thaology.
t Lon
Kraus, H. J. 1965. Wwshtp in Israd. Richmo
Levine, B. 1963. Ugaritic DemipUve Ritual
-. 1965. The Descnptive abernacle T
JAOS 85: 307-18.
- 1974. In the Presence of thc Lord. Leid
Milgrom, J. 1976. Cult and C m c z m e . Leide
Studies in Cultic Theology and
The Two Pertcopes on the
Pp. 211-15 in WLSGE

Texts. Bzblica 5 1 : 485-98.

Rendtorff, R. 1967. Studicpl ZUT Geschuh& &
Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Schwartz. B. 1986. A Literary Studv of th

Jerusalem.
Smith, W. R. 1889. Lectures on thc o
York. 1969.
Snauh, S . 1957. Sacrifices in the Old Testam
Stendahl. K. 1963. The Apostle Paul and
science of the West. HTR 56: 199-215.
Tarragon, J. M de. 1980. Le cult a Opn
pratrqw en cunelfonncs alpha&tques. Pan
Thompson, R. J. 1963 petllunce and Saw@
the Leurbcal Law Leiden.
Tigav, J. 1982. The Euolution of the Gilgamesh
Toeg, .\ 1974 Numbers 15,22-3I-M1drash
1-10.
Turner. l’1977 Sacrifice as Quintessential
Abandonment?HR 17. 189-215.
Tberskv. 1 1972 A Maimontdes Re& k
Tvlor, E. B. 1871. Pnmstrve Culture. 2 sol
Yaleri. V. 1985. Kingship and Sacnfrce.Ch
VanderKam.J 1984 Enoch and theCrowth of
CBQMS 16. Washington.
pin
Israel. ZAW 88:
- 1983. Social on
.95
of the Etghth WorM Congmss o f J w h Stud

Zebah). In the gentile world the practic