Cult and Character: Purification Offerins. Roy Gane

CULT AND CHARACTER

CULT AND CHARACTER

Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy

Roy E. Gane

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns

2005

ç

Copyright 2005 by Eisenbrauns.All rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gane, Roy, 1955–Cult and character : purification offerings, Day of Atonement, and

theodicy / Roy E. Gane.p. cm.

Includes indexes.ISBN 1-57506-101-5 (hardcover : alk. paper)1. Purity, ritual—Judaism. 2. Yom Kippur. 3. Bible. O.T. Leviticus—

Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Theodicy. I. Title.BM702.G35 2005296.4

u

9—dc222005009783

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the Ameri-can National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for PrintedLibrary Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

†‘

Dedicated to my teacher,

Jacob Milgrom

whypb htyh tma trwt

(Malachi 2:6)

Dedication

One evening in the 1980s, Prof. Jacob Milgrom relaxed with his studentsduring a break in the “Advanced Biblical Hebrew Texts” seminar that he con-ducted in his Berkeley home. To explain his preoccupation with Leviticus, hetold us a story about a yeshiva student who noticed that his teacher was study-ing a certain page of Talmud. On a subsequent day, the student was surprisedto find the rabbi perusing the same page. When he inquired why, the teachersimply responded: “I like it here.”

Since that evening in Berkeley, Milgrom has moved through the sacrificialand purity instructions of Leviticus 1–16 and on to the legislation of chapters17–27. But now it is the student who lingers. I am still pondering the sacri-fices, especially the

tafj

(purification offering) and the ceremonies of YomKippur. Why? “I like it here.”

Before participating in Milgrom’s seminar, I had no interest in Leviticuswhatsoever. Without the inspiration, mentoring, and example of scholarshipthat he has provided through his teaching and published writings, the presentbook would never have been contemplated, let alone written. So this humbleoffering is respectfully and affectionately dedicated to Jacob Milgrom.

vii

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiiAbbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xivIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Part 1Ritual, Meaning, and System

1. The Locus of Ritual Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Ritual actions have no inherent meaning 4Ritual = activity + attached meaning 6A structural approach is inadequate for identifying ritual

meaning 9The meaning/function of a ritual is the goal assigned to its

activity system 12A “ritual” is an activity system with a special kind of goal 14Systems theory concepts can aid interpretation of Israelite

rituals 18The biblical text provides instructions for physical

performance and interpretations of activities 21Conclusion 24

2. The System of

tafj

Rituals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

In the final form of the biblical text, the Day of Atonement rituals function within the larger system of Israelite rituals 25

Challenges to the unity of Leviticus 16 do not prevent consideration of the Day of Atonement rituals as a system 31

Scholars present diverse interpretations regarding the role of the special Day of Atonement services 37

Conclusion 42

Part

2Purification Offerings Performed throughout the Year

3. Outer-Altar Purification Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

The ritual procedure includes some activities that are mentioned in the text and others that are not 47

The overall goal/meaning of an outer-altar purification offering for sin is to purge evil on the offerer’s behalf, prerequisite to forgiveness 49

Contents

viii

Activity components contribute to the overall goal 52Conclusion 70

4. Outer-Sanctum Purification Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

The ritual procedure includes some activities that are mentioned in the text and others that are not 71

The sevenfold sprinkling of blood “before the veil” is performed in front (east) of the incense altar 72

The overall goal/meaning of an outer-sanctum purification offering for sin is to purge evil on the offerer’s behalf, prerequisite to forgiveness 80


5. Purification-Offering Flesh: Prebend or Expiation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

When priests eat the flesh of purification offerings at which they have officiated, they contribute to expiation 91

The priests participate with

Yhwh

in bearing the culpability of the people 99

Conclusion 105

6. Purification Offering: Purgation of Sanctuary or Offerer? . . . . . . . . . 106

Physical ritual impurities are purified from offerers 112Moral faults are purified from offerers 123The special Day of Atonement purification offerings remove

moral faults and physical impurities from their offerers through purgation of the sanctuary 129

Some purification-offering formulas refer to removal of either moral faults or physical ritual impurities from offerers 130

An outer-altar purification offering purges the outer altar at the time of its initial consecration 130

Inner-sanctum purification offerings on the Day of Atonement purge the sanctuary and its sancta 133

On the Day of Atonement, a nonsacrificial goat for Azazel is an instrument to purge the moral faults of the Israelites by carrying them away 136

Following initial decontamination of the altar, purification offerings throughout the year, except for the inner-sanctum sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, only purge their offerers 136

Conclusion 142

7. Pollution of the Sanctuary: Aerial or Only by Direct Contact? . . . . . 144

Some serious moral faults pollute the sanctuary from a distance when they are committed 144

Milgrom’s “miasma” theory is based on his general theory of the

tafj

sacrifice, which generalizes from specific cases of automatic defilement 151

Contents

ix

Only inner-sanctum purification offerings on the Day of Atonement can remove automatic defilement 154

Automatic defilement is nonmaterial in nature 158“Legal” and “biological” approaches to sin are intertwined in

the purification-offering system 160Conclusion 162

8. Blood or Ash Water: Detergent, Metaphorical Carrier Agent, or Means of Passage? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Purification-offering blood uniquely serves to carry away contamination 164

In outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings, the offerer is the source of defilement carried by the blood 167

A purification offering transfers imperfection in mitigated form from the offerer to

Yhwh

’s sanctuary 176Water mixed with ashes of the red cow can be directly applied

to persons because it is not already carrying their impurity 181

Impurity of participants in the red cow ritual comes from persons to whom the ash water is subsequently applied, rather than constituting some kind of super-sanctity 186

The verb

rpk

metaphorically expresses removal of an impediment to the divine-human relationship 191

Conclusion 197

9. The Scope of Expiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Physical ritual impurities and moral faults are related but distinct 198

Nondefiant sinners can receive the benefit of expiation through sacrifice, but defiant sinners cannot 202

Conclusion 213

Part

3Phases of

rpk

10. Inner-Sanctum Purification Offerings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

On the Day of Atonement, five main rituals are structurally bound together as a unified system 217

Two inner-sanctum purification offerings form a unit 221The purification-offering procedure includes some activities

that are mentioned in the text and others that are not 222Two performances of the inner-sanctum purification-offering

paradigm are interwoven and then merged 229The inner-sanctum purification offerings purge ritual

impurities and moral faults from the three parts of the sanctuary on behalf of the priests and laity, and reconsecrate the outer altar 230

Contents

x

The inner-sanctum purification offerings accomplish

rpk

that is beyond forgiveness 233


11. The Purification Ritual of Azazel’s Goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

The live goat is banished from the sanctuary court to the wilderness 242

The overall goal of the ritual with Azazel’s goat is to banish moral faults from the Israelite camp 243

Confession and leaning two hands serve to gather the moral faults and transfer them to Azazel’s goat 244

The

tafj

of Azazel’s goat is a unique, nonsacrificial “purification ritual” 246

Purgation (

rpk

) on the live goat returns the moral faults of the Israelites to their source: Azazel 261

Conclusion 265

12. Two Major Phases of Sacrificial

rpk

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Some scholars have argued for one phase of sacrificial

rpk

267The one-phase theory is not adequately supported by the

biblical data 273There are two phases of sacrificial

rpk

for expiable sins 274The two-phase theory accounts for data that would otherwise

be problematic 277Conclusion 284

13. Trajectories of Evils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

The words

[vp

,

tafj

, and

ˆw[

represent distinct categories of evil 285

Categories of evil have different dynamic properties 291Categories of evil follow different trajectories 298The purpose of the Day of Atonement is to preserve the justice

of

Yhwh

’s administration 300Conclusion 302

P

art

4Cult and Theodicy

14. Divine Justice and the Cost of Kindness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

The Day of Atonement is Israel’s judgment day 305The Israelites are to demonstrate their continuing loyalty

to

Yhwh

on the Day of Atonement 310Moral cleansing beyond forgiveness recognizes the need for

loyalty to endure 316

Contents

xi

Yhwh

’s kindness/mercy carries a cost of judicial responsibility 318

Conclusion 323

15. Divine Presence and Theodicy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

The Israelite cult involves theodicy on the corporate level 324

Yhwh

meted out retributive justice from his sanctuary 329Ritual remedies for human imperfection enact theodicy 331Conclusion 333

16. Loyalty and Royalty in Hebrew Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

Numbers 14 illustrates divine sin-bearing 334Some narratives concerning David and Solomon describe a

two-phased treatment of offenses, with loyalty as the decisive factor in the ultimate verdict 337

Conclusion 353

17. Yearly Accountability in Mesopotamian Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

The Nanshe New Year 355There are similarities between the Nanshe New Year and the

Israelite Day of Atonement 356There are differences between the Nanshe New Year and the

Israelite Day of Atonement 360The Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring 362There are similarities between the Babylonian ceremonies of

Nisannu 5 and the Israelite Day of Atonement 363There are differences between the Babylonian ceremonies of

Nisannu 5 and the Israelite Day of Atonement 370Final days of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, like

the Israelite Day of Atonement, involve accountability for loyalty and determination of destiny 374

Conclusion 378

18. Conclusion: Cult and Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

Index of Authors 383Index of Scripture 387

Contents

xii

xiii

Acknowledgments

To Jacob Milgrom goes the primary credit for stimulating and equippingme to tackle this daunting project. Thanks are also due to other members ofmy Ph.D. committee—Profs. Anne D. Kilmer, Frits Staal, and Ruggero Ste-fanini—for their contribution to the 1992 dissertation (“Ritual DynamicStructure: Systems Theory and Ritual Syntax Applied to Selected AncientIsraelite, Babylonian and Hittite Festival Days,” University of California atBerkeley)

1

that laid much of the methodological foundation for the presentwork.

I am grateful for encouragement, feedback, and ideas from BaruchSchwartz (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Richard Davidson (my depart-ment chair at Andrews University), Moise Isaac (my student at AndrewsUniversity), Constance Gane (my wife), and Glenn Hartelius (Santa Rosa,California). My secretary—Kathy Ekkens—and a succession of research as-sistants—Jan Sigvartsen, Oleg Zhigankov, Wann Fanwar, Afolarin Ojewole,and Gregory Arutyunyan—have facilitated collection of secondary sourcematerial.

My wife and daughter, Constance and Sarah, have given loving supportand patient toleration through the long and grueling gestation and birth ofthis book. Last and foremost, I thank God for his Torah and for the opportu-nity to learn from it.

1. Now published as

Ritual Dynamic Structure

(Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion2; Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004).

xiv

Abbreviations

General

Akk. Akkadian

Ant.

Josephus,

Antiquities of the Jewsb

. Babylonian Talmud

Ber. Berakot

CD Cairo Genizah copy of the

Damascus Document

cstr. constructFr. FrenchH Holiness documents, sources, or redactions

Ó

ag.

Ó

agigahHor. Horayot

infin. infinitive

Ker. Kerithotm

. Mishnahmasc. masculine

Mena

˙

. Mena

˙

ot

MT Masoretic Text

neb

New English Bible

njb

New Jerusalem Bible

njpsv

New Jewish Publication Society Version

nrsv

New Revised Standard Versionobj. objectobv. obverseP Priestly documents, sources, or redactions

Pesa

˙

. Pesa

˙

im

pf. perfect tense/aspectpl. pluralposs. possessiveprep. prepositionpron. pronoun/pronominalrev. reverse

Ro

s

Ha

s

. Ro

s

Ha

ss

anah

rsv

Revised Standard Version

S

ebu.

S

ebuºot

sing. singularsubj. subjectsuff. suffix

t

. Tosefta

Abbreviations

xv

Taºan. TaºanitTem. TemurahTg. Onq. Targum Onqelosy

. Jerusalem Talmud

Zeba

˙

. Zeba

˙

im

Reference Works

AA American Anthropologist

AB Anchor Bible

ABD

D. N. Freedman, ed.

Anchor Bible Dictionary.

6 vols. New York, 1992AfOBei Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft

AHW

W. von Soden.

Akkadisches Handwörterbuch.

3 vols. Wiesbaden, 1965–81AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANET

J. B. Pritchard, ed.

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.

3rd ed. Princeton, 1969ANETS Ancient Near Eastern Texts and StudiesAOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament

AoF Altorientalische Forschungen

AOTS Augsburg Old Testament StudiesASORDS American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation SeriesATA Alttestamentliche AbhandlungenATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch

AThR Anglican Theological Review

ATS Alttestamentliche StudienAUSDS Andrews University Seminary Dissertation Series

AUSS Andrews University Seminary StudiesBBR

H. Zimmern.

Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion

. Leipzig, 1901

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs.

Hebrew and English Lexicon

of the Old Testament.

Oxford, 1907BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken

JudentumBETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

Bib Biblica

BibB Biblische BeiträgeBibT Bibliothèque ThéologiqueBIS Biblical Interpretation SeriesBKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament

BM Beth Miqraª

(or

Beth Mikra)BN Biblische NotizenBO Bibliotheca Orientalis

BRLJ Brill Reference Library of Judaism

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BSem Biblical SeminarBSC Bible Student’s Commentary

Abbreviations

xvi

BTB Biblical Theology BulletinBZ Biblische Zeitschrift

CAD

The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago

. Chicago, 1956–CahRB Cahiers de la Revue bibliqueCB Century BibleCBC Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CHL Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum

CJ Conservative JudaismCOS

W. W. Hallo, ed.

The Context of Scripture

. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997–2003CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism

CTM Concordia Theological MonthlyCTQ Concordia Theological QuarterlyDARCOM Daniel and Revelation Committee SeriesDSB Daily Study BibleEAC Entretiens sur l’Antiquité ClassiqueEgT Église et théologieEncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972ErIsr Eretz IsraelETSS Evangelical Theological Society StudiesEvQ Evangelical QuarterlyEvT Evangelische TheologieExpBib The Expositor’s BibleExpTim Expository TimesFAT Forschungen zum Alten TestamentFOTL Forms of the Old Testament LiteratureFRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen

TestamentsGKC E. Kautzsch, ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Trans. A. E. Cowley.

2nd ed. Oxford, 1910HALOT L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. and ed. M. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden, 2001

HAT Handbuch zum Alten TestamentHKAT Handkommentar zum Alten TestamentHS Hebrew StudiesHSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten TestamentesHTR Harvard Theological ReviewHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualIB G. A. Buttrick et al., eds. Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York, 1951–57IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and PreachingIDBSup K. Crim, ed. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume.

Nashville, 1976IJT Indian Journal of TheologyInt Interpretation

Abbreviations xvii

IRT Issues in Religion and TheologyITC International Theological CommentaryITL International Theological LibraryJAGNES Journal of the Association of Graduate Near Eastern Students of the

University of California at BerkeleyJANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia UniversityJAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJCS Journal of Cuneiform StudiesJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJM P. Joüon. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Trans. and rev. T. Muraoka.

Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome, 1991–93JQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman

PeriodsJSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement SeriesJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement SeriesJSQ Jewish Studies QuarterlyJSS Journal of Semitic StudiesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesKTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. Die Keilalphabetischen

Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976LBC Layman’s Bible CommentaryLBS Library of Biblical StudiesLes LesonénuLHC Layman’s Handy CommentaryMTZ Münchener theologische ZeitschriftNAC New American CommentaryNCB New Century BibleNEchtB Neue Echter BibelNIB The New Interpreter’s BibleNICOT New International Commentary on the Old TestamentNIVAC NIV Application CommentaryOBO Orbis Biblicus et OrientalisOBT Overtures to Biblical TheologyOr OrientaliaOTG Old Testament GuidesOTL Old Testament LibraryOTM Old Testament MessageOtSt Oudtestamentische StudiënPAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish ResearchQD Quaestiones disputataeRB Revue bibliqueRevExp Review and Expositor

Abbreviationsxviii

RevQ Revue de QumranRIDA Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquitéRlA Erich Ebeling et al., eds. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin, 1928–SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium SeriesSBONT The Sacred Books of the Old and New TestamentsSCR Studies in Comparative ReligionSFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of JudaismSJLA Studies in Judaism in Late AntiquitySJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old TestamentSJT Scottish Journal of TheologySKGG Schriften der Königsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft, geistes-

wissenschaftliche KlasseSM Studia MoraliaSÖAW Sitzungen der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in WienSR Studies in ReligionSSAOI Sacra Scriptura Antiquitatibus Orientalibus IllustrataSSN Studia Semitica NeerlandicaST Studia TheologicaTDOT G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry, eds. Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament. Trans. J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. Grand Rapids, 1974–

THAT E. Jenni and C. Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Munich, 1971–76

ThT Theologisch TijdschriftTLJS Taubman Lectures in Jewish StudiesTLOT E. Jenni and C. Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old

Testament. Trans. M. E. Biddle. Peabody, Massachusetts, 1997TMC The Torah: A Modern CommentaryTOTC Tyndale Old Testament CommentariesTWOT R. L. Harris and G. L. Archer, eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old

Testament. 2 vols. Chicago, 1980TynBul Tyndale BulletinUBL Ugaritisch-biblische LiteraturUBSHS United Bible Societies Handbook SeriesVT Vetus TestamentumVTSup Vetus Testamentum, SupplementsWBC Word Biblical CommentaryWMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen TestamentYOS Yale Oriental SeriesZABR Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische RechtsgeschichteZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche WissenschaftZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der

älteren KircheZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

xix

Introduction

Through the swirling smoke of Aaron’s incense, and of scholarly theories,the present volume steps toward the meaning enacted on µyriPUKIh" µ/y, “theDay of Purgation,” commonly known as Yom Kippur or “the Day of Atone-ment.” Leviticus 16, which prescribes the rituals of the great Day, could betermed the inner sanctum of the Torah. Here alone, at the heart of themiddle book of the Pentateuch, the high priest approaches the center of an-cient Israelite religion: the deity Yhwh in his awesome Holy of Holies.

Leviticus 16 portrays the character of Yhwh, not by theological assertions,narrative, or even poetry, but by instructions for cultic deeds to be performedin his presence.1 The effects of these rites on Yhwh’s sanctuary and commu-nity profile harmony between divine justice and kindness.2 Yhwh’s way ofdealing with imperfect people of various kinds of character demonstrates hisown holy character.3

By treating moral evil both as relational/legal breach and as pollution, theIsraelite system of tafj rituals (“purification offerings” = so-called “sin offer-ings”) addresses both the standing and the state of Yhwh’s people. This sys-tem shows the way not only to freedom from condemnation, but also tohealing of character, which is defined in terms of loyalty to Yhwh. Freedomand healing come together on the Day of Atonement, when freedom fromcondemnation previously granted is affirmed at Yhwh’s sanctuary for thosewho show themselves loyal to him. In the process, the Israelite cult character-izes Yhwh as a just king.

1. H. Gese aptly describes “cult” as “worship in ritual procedures” (Essays on Bib-lical Theology [trans. K. Crim; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981] 100).

2. See the observation of M. Douglas that she finds in Leviticus “no conflict be-tween internal versus external religion, or justice versus ritual. As I read it, Leviticusmakes a truly brilliant synthesis of two equations: justice of people to people, and jus-tice of people to God” (“Holy Joy: Rereading Leviticus—The Anthropologist and theBeliever,” CJ 46 [1994] 10; cf. 13–14; cf. F. Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and SocialHistory of Old Testament Law [trans. A. W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996] 306).

3. Cf. Ps 77:14[13]—ÚK<r]D' vd,QOB" µyhIløa”, “O God, your way is in holiness” (or “inthe sanctuary”); 97:2—/as}KI ˆ/km} fP:v‘mIW qd,x<, “righteousness and justice are the foun-dation of his throne.”

Introductionxx

The present work has grown out of part of my 1992 University of Californiaat Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation entitled “Ritual Dynamic Structure: SystemsTheory and Ritual Syntax Applied to Selected Ancient Israelite, Babylonianand Hittite Festival Days.” During my dissertation research regarding the Dayof Atonement, I discovered key evidence pointing to two major phases of sac-rificial purgation (piºel of rpk) for each expiable sin, both of which are accom-plished through tafj sacrifices. The first phase removes the sin from theofferer (Lev 4, etc.), and the second removes the same sin from the sanctuaryon the Day of Atonement (ch. 16).

My understanding of the tafj is heavily indebted to Jacob Milgrom’smonumental contribution, lavish citation of which is necessary in any serioustreatment of this topic. I accept as ineluctable his conclusion that this sacri-fice belongs to a ritual system that was actually performed in preexilic timesand that reflects profound theological and ethical principles. I also follow histranslation of tafj as “purification offering” and acknowledge defilement ofthe sanctuary from a distance in some cases of wanton sin. At the same time,my two-phase interpretation of purification-offering function (= symbolicmeaning/purpose; see pp. 12–18, esp. p. 13) significantly departs from Mil-grom’s now-famous general tafj theory, according to which all such sacri-fices purge the sanctuary or parts thereof, so that only one phase of sacrificialexpiation remedies any given sin.

During the decade following completion of my Ph.D., I have continued totest, refine, and expand my interpretation of purification offerings and theDay of Atonement. In addition to further ritual analysis, examination of He-brew terminology, and interaction with scholarly literature, I have sought im-plications for the character of Israel’s deity and religion: What difference doesit make whether there are one or two phases of purgation for a given sin? If asecond phase of rpk follows forgiveness, what is its function? Does purgingthe residence of Yhwh, the theocratic King, have meaning that goes beyondmaintaining his presence among his people?

My conclusions are derived from exegetical study of Hebrew ritual texts,informed by controls to ritual analysis that I developed in the course of disser-tation research through critical examination of existing ritual theories and byadapting Brian Wilson’s systems theory approach to human activity systems.4

Although I am the first, to my knowledge, to explicitly apply General Systems

4. R. Gane, “Ritual Dynamic Structure: Systems Theory and Ritual Syntax Ap-plied to Selected Ancient Israelite, Babylonian and Hittite Festival Days” (Ph.D. diss.,University of California at Berkeley, 1992); now idem, Ritual Dynamic Structure (Gor-gias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004).

Introduction xxi

Theory to the study of ritual activity systems in this way,5 I do not regard thisas the dominant aspect of my methodology.

The present work first identifies the locus of meaning attached to ritual ac-tivity systems in general and then applies this methodological basis to the an-cient Israelite system of tafj rituals. Detailed consideration of purificationofferings performed throughout the year sheds light on the way in which theyremedy moral faults and physical ritual impurities by removing these fromthe offerers. Analysis of the Day of Atonement rituals, including terms for theevils that they purge, shows that they provide a second major phase of rpk forexpiable moral faults. This phase constitutes a corporate judgment for thecommunity, through which Yhwh is cleared of judicial responsibility for hav-ing forgiven guilty people. Yhwh’s vindication results in moral clearing forthose who continue to demonstrate loyalty to him, but he rejects those whoare disloyal. These dynamics bring into focus the character of Yhwh, whoseapproach to ensuring the loyalty of his people basically parallels that of someIsraelite monarchs and Mesopotamian deities. For a more detailed preview,see the table of contents, which (at the risk of clarity!) lists my main points asfull sentences.

In the scope and trajectory of the purification-offering process, I havefound that the way Yhwh’s cult relates to the imperfections of his peopleshows concern for maintaining his justice when he pardons the loyal but con-demns the disloyal. Thus my alternate tafj system ultimately affirms Mil-grom’s seminal insight that theodicy is at the foundation of the Israelitesacrificial system. “It is found not in utterances but in rituals, not in legal stat-utes but in cultic procedures—specifically, in the rite with ˙a††aªt blood.” 6

5. Others have applied systems theory concepts to relationships between cultic andsocial/cultural systems. See, e.g., F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time andStatus in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 14–15, 19,22. Gorman does recognize that a ritual process can include several distinct “seg-ments,” each of which completes one step of the process (p. 68 n. 1). He also acknowl-edges that, within a sociocultural system, a “ritual system is made up of a number ofdistinct rituals that are related by similar forms, symbols, conceptual categories, and/or purposes” (p. 19). R. Payne points out an ascending hierarchy of systems: “the par-ticular ritual, the ritual tradition, the religious tradition, the religious culture and thesociety” (The Tantric Ritual of Japan: Feeding the Gods, the Shingon Fire Ritual [‡ata-Pi†aka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 365; Delhi: International Academy of IndianCulture and Aditya Prakashan, 1991] 198).

6. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 260; repr. from“Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 397.

Introductionxxii

Part 1

Ritual, Meaning, and System

3

Chapter 1

The Locus of Ritual Meaning

Interpretation of the ancient Israelite ritual system is sufficiently challeng-ing to require methodology that is based on viable ritual theory.1 Before be-ginning to investigate the biblical text in order to discover the meaning/

1. On conceptual issues involved in theories regarding ritual and ritualization andperspectives for analyzing them, see C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York:Oxford University Press, 1992); idem, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1997). Compare the cautions of G. Kirk regarding use of gen-eralizing ritual theories (e.g., of Mary Douglas, Evans-Pritchard, Leach, Hubert andMauss) that do not account for many of the details found in rituals (“Some Method-ological Pitfalls in the Study of Ancient Greek Sacrifice,” in Le Sacrifice dans l’Antiq-uité [ed. J. Rudhardt and O. Reverdin; EAC 27; Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1981] 41–90).D. Wright points out that attempts to distinguish ritual from nonritual activities on thebasis of “objective” criteria, such as formality and connection with supernatural pow-ers, fail by either overdefining or underdefining the phenomenon of ritual (Ritual inNarrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the UgariticTale of Aqhat [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2001] 9). The difficulty of formu-lating an adequate, comprehensive definition of everything that could be consideredritual is compounded by the facts that there are degrees of “ritual” (R. Grimes, RitualCriticism: Case Studies in Its Practice, Essays on Its Theory [SCR; Columbia, SouthCarolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1990] 13), and the broad scope of ritualstudies “reaches from ritualization among animals through ordinary interaction ritualto highly differentiated religious liturgy. It includes all types of ritual: celebrations,political ceremonies, funerals, weddings, initiations, and so on” (p. 9). Rather than at-tempting to define “ritual,” Grimes prefers to deal with the nature of ritual by iden-tifying its “family characteristics,” only some of which appear in specific instances.These variable characteristics, none of which is unique to ritual and therefore defin-itive, include: performed, formalized, repetitive, collective, patterned, traditional,highly valued, condensed, symbolic, perfected, dramatic, paradigmatic, mystical,adaptive, and conscious. “When these qualities begin to multiply, when an activitybecomes dense with them, it becomes increasingly proper to speak of it as ritualized,if not a rite as such” (p. 14; cf. 13, 15). “Ritual is not a single kind of action. Rather,it is a convergence of several kinds we normally think of as distinct. It is an ‘impure’genre. Like opera, which includes other genres—for example, singing, drama, andsometimes even dancing—a ritual may include all these and more” (p. 192; repr.from “Infelicitous Performances and Ritual Criticism,” Semeia 41 [1988] 104–5). Onmethodological problems involved in theories regarding the sacrificial category ofrituals, see A. Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East(ASORDS 1; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975) 3–17.

Chapter 14

function of tafj rituals, including those performed on the Day of Atonement,we must ask where the meaning of a ritual resides. Is it to be found in the physi-cal activities themselves, as prescribed or described by the text, or in the inter-pretations of these actions, cryptic as they may be, that the text provides?

Since rituals involve activity, the ideal way to study them is by direct obser-vation. But our only access to ancient rituals is through texts, which only re-flect rituals, without fully capturing the ritual experience. Since we mustview such rituals through the filter of texts, our quest for the locus of their rit-ual meaning must take into account both the nature of ritual itself and thenature of ritual text.2 As R. Grimes points out, investigation of ritual as perfor-mance should inform readings of ancient ritual texts even though usualmethods of field study, which are difficult enough, are not possible, “becausein all but the most bookish traditions, ritual texts exist to serve ritual enact-ments, not the other way around.”3

Ritual actions have no inherent meaningExamination of ritual actions alone cannot yield their meaning because

actions have no inherent meaning. F. Staal, a ritual theorist specializing inVedic rituals, demonstrates this by showing that a given ritual action can havemore than one meaning.4

In the Israelite cult we can adduce an example of polyvalence that willlater play a pivotal role in our analysis of purification-offering function. In theouter sanctum of the Israelite sanctuary, the high priest sprinkles blood seventimes “before the veil” as part of purification (tafj) offerings on behalf ofhimself and of the community, respectively (Lev 4:6, 17). During the specialDay of Atonement purification offerings, he sprinkles blood seven times inthe inner sanctum (16:14–15), the outer sanctum (v. 16b—abbreviated), andon the altar in the courtyard (v. 19). Although 4:6 and 17 do not state themeaning of their sevenfold sprinklings, 16:16a explains such aspersions in theinner sanctum as effecting purgation (rpk) of this area from the impuritiesand moral faults of the Israelites. Later in the same ritual, however, v. 19

2. F. Gorman remarks that “it would be helpful if J. Milgrom clarified his under-standing of the nature of ritual. For example, what constitutes a ritual or ritual activity?Are rituals to be understood in terms of their performance and enactment or primarilyin terms of the ideas to which they point?” (review of “Leviticus 1–16: A New Transla-tion with Introduction and Commentary, by Jacob Milgrom,” JBL 112 [1993] 326).

3. Grimes, Ritual Criticism, 9.4. F. Staal, Rules without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras and the Human Sciences (New

York: Peter Lang, 1989) 127–29, 131, 134, 330.

The Locus of Ritual Meaning 5

attributes another meaning to the sevenfold sprinkling on the outer altar: to(re)consecrate (vdq) it.5 Thus, the same activity carries two related but dis-tinct functions in the same ritual.6 Obviously this activity did not simply haveone inherent meaning. Thus T. Vriezen was inaccurate when he claimed thatthe sevenfold sprinklings in Lev 4 and 16:14–15 “resemble each other somuch, that another conclusion cannot well be possible than this, namely:these ceremonies have all the same meaning: they are a manner of hallowingthe blood.”7

F. Staal explains the variability of relationships between actions and mean-ings: the activity itself has no inherent meaning, but it can carry meaningthat is assigned to it from a source such as culture or religious authority.8 Ex-amples of this principle are familiar to anyone who has experienced morethan one culture. The meaning (or lack of meaning) of a given gesture, suchas shaking the head from side to side or holding out the hand in a certain way,depends on how it is interpreted within a given culture. M. Wilson refers to“ ‘cultural idioms,’ accepted forms of expression, which frequently recur,” butgoes on to point out that, “though one learns the symbolism of a culture asone learns the language, and is aware that certain forms of expression arecommon, one cannot predict with certainty what symbols will be used in aritual, any more than one can predict what symbols a poet will use.”9 Simi-larly, B. Malina points out that sacrifice is symbolic behavior, and symbols“are notorious for being polyvalent, fused, and multi-meaninged.”10

Recognizing that ritual actions have no inherent meaning aids ritualanalysis by sparing us the trouble of searching for some “holy grail” of essen-tial meaning and by keeping us from unjustifiably importing meaning from

5. A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the FirstCentury (LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) 266; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; NewYork: Doubleday, 1991) 1033, 1037–38.

6. T. Vriezen regards the sprinkling in the inner sanctum as consecration and onthe outer altar as lustration (“The Term Hizza: Lustration and Consecration,” OtSt 7[1950] 228–33). F. Gorman recognizes that the function of sprinkling varies from oneritual to another, but he takes the purpose of this act as purification both in Lev 16:14and in 19 (Divine Presence and Community: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus[ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997] 9).

7. Vriezen, “The Term Hizza,” 232.8. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 127–29, 134, 137, 140, 330; cf. Milgrom, Leviti-

cus 1–16, 279: “Ritual substances have no intrinsic force: they are powered by the willof God.”

9. M. Wilson, “Nyakyusa Ritual and Symbolism,” AA 56 (1954) 236; cf. 229, 237.10. B. Malina, “Mediterranean Sacrifice: Dimensions of Domestic and Political

Religion,” BTB 26 (1996) 37; cf. Wilson, “Nyakyusa Ritual,” 237.

Chapter 16

one context to another because we incorrectly assume that the function ofidentical actions must be the same. For example, we should not importthe meaning of one sevenfold sprinkling of blood (Lev 16:14–16) or another(v. 19) from the special Day of Atonement context to Lev 4, assuming that inthe latter passage the same kind of activity must also purge or reconsecratepart of the sanctuary.11 In fact, we will find that it serves another functionin Lev 4.

N. Kiuchi states at the outset of his investigation into the purification offer-ing that we know little about the meaning of this ritual because the text sel-dom refers explicitly to the meaning of its activities.12 His solution is asfollows: “Nevertheless, we shall endeavour to point out some hints in the textitself. In the case of multiple interpretations the criterion for choice will bewhether a suggested interpretation can be coherently applied to the same actsin other contexts.”13 This is a sensible and helpful procedure, provided that itslimitations are kept in mind. The danger is interpretive leveling by importingmeaning from one context to another. Kiuchi implies some kind of controlwhen he refers to the need for coherence, but scholars have produced differ-ent kinds of coherence that imbue mutually exclusive interpretations with ap-pearances of logic and heuristic effectiveness. How do we validly controlcoherence? We will pursue this question below.

Ritual = activity + attached meaning

While I agree with Staal that actions, including ritual ones, have no inher-ent meaning (see above), I part company with him when he goes on to arguethat, because activities are intrinsically meaningless and rituals consist simplyof rule-governed activities, rituals must be intrinsically meaningless.14 Even

11. W. Gilders criticizes Milgrom: “his work on ritual and sacrifice lacks adequatetheoretical reflection on the nature of ritual and its symbolic-communicative func-tion. Milgrom seems, generally, to assume that ritual acts are univalent” (Blood Ritualin the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,2004] 3–4). Compare A. Schenker’s response to Milgrom, who builds his general the-ory of tafj sacrifices on explicit indications of Lev 16 that special sacrifices of thisclass purge the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (“Interprétations récentes et di-mensions spécifiques du sacrifice ˙a††at,” Bib 75 [1994] 60; cf. 61). We will reviewMilgrom’s approach in detail later in this volume.

12. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning andFunction (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 17–18.

13. Ibid., 18.14. Staal concludes: “Ritual may be defined, in approximate terms, as a system of

acts and sounds, related to each other in accordance with rules without reference to


though in some cases it may be true that a ritual is performed only because itis the “tradition” to do so,15 all ritual has some kind of meaning or it is not rit-ual.16 Physical activities alone do not constitute ritual or set it apart from non-ritual activity. Some kinds of nonritual activity systems, for example, games,entertainment, music, and dance, can also involve lack of concern for practi-cal results and be governed by rules. So it is not enough to know that ritualactivities are rule-governed and impractical.17

I would contend that, even if a ritual is “fossilized” in the sense that itsmeaning has been lost, the tradition of performing it as a ritual is remem-bered because at some time in the past it was believed to do something overand above the physical cause and effect of its activities. If an activity systemwas never believed to have any kind of “efficacy,” whether religious, magical,social, or otherwise, I would not regard it as a “ritual,” at least not in the fullsense of the word.

Without some kind of attached meaning, we would not know that ritualactivities constitute a cohesive activity system, let alone a ritual. Because ac-tivities such as leaning one hand on the head of a sacrificial animal (e.g.,Lev 4:29) and applying its blood and suet to an altar (vv. 30–31) do not con-tribute to any recognizable practical goal, their presence in an activity systemcannot be justified on purely physical grounds. Physical activities alone areinadequate for unifying and bounding activity systems that constitute rituals.So rituals must consist of physical activities plus meaning that is attached tothem.18 In this sense we can say that ritual consists of symbolic activity.19

But in this context the term “symbolic” should not be taken to mean “virtual

15. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 115–16, 134. However, E. Vogt points out that,although the most common response of a Mesoamerican native informant to a fieldresearcher regarding the significance of a ritual is “it’s the custom,” such informantscan take so much for granted that it does not occur to them to explicate ritual signif-icance. In a particular case, “Their response to further interviews were to the effectthat ‘anyone in his right mind knows that!’ ” (Tortillas for the Gods: A Symbolic Anal-ysis of Zinacanteco Rituals [Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1976] 1, 2, 4).

16. Cf. L. Grabbe, Leviticus (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 43; cf. 75.17. R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure (Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Pis-

cataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004) 43–45; cf. Kirk, “Some Methodological Pitfalls,”54–55.

18. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 18–23, 50–60.19. Cf. F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly

Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 19, 22–25.

meaning” (Rules without Meaning, 433); cf. idem, “The Meaninglessness of Ritual,”Numen 26 (1975) 2–22.

Chapter 18

unreality.” As F. H. Gorman recognizes, when Aaron places the sins of thepeople on Azazel’s goat (16:21), this

is not “simply” a symbolic act. The sins are ritually placed on the goat so thatit may carry them into the wilderness (certainly not a symbolic carrying,which, if taken to extremes, might eventuate in a symbolic goat!). The highpriest actualizes or concretizes the sins through confession and puts themon the goat, which carries them into the wilderness, away from the camp.20

In other words, in ritual a nonmaterial entity (e.g., sin) can be treated as if itbelongs to the material domain, so that it can be subject to physical interac-tion and manipulation.

A certain collection of activities makes up a “purification offering” becausethe Israelite religious system has attached meaning to physical activities thatwould otherwise be incoherent and meaningless. This concept has importantcorollaries:

1. The religious system can assign different meanings to a given activity.21 For example, aside from the different functions of blood aspersions in Lev 16:14–16, 19 (see above), the suet of a well-being offering is presented to Yhwh as an hV≤aI, “food gift” (3:3–5, 9–11, 14–16), but the suet of a purification offering is not (e.g., 4:8–10, 19, 26, 31, 35).22

2. A given activity can carry more than one meaning at the same time. For example, an officiating priest’s privilege and duty of eating purification-offering flesh (6:19[26], 22[29]) can simultaneously function as appropriation of his agent’s commission for carrying out a transaction between Yhwh and the offerer (7:7) and contribute in some way to expiation (10:17). It is not necessary to argue for one of these functions to the exclusion of the other (see ch. 5 of the present work).

3. Different activities can carry the same meaning. Thus a grain offering can function as a tafj sacrifice (5:11–13) in place of a living creature (cf. vv. 6–10).23

20. Gorman, Divine Presence, 97.21. Cf. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 127–29, 134, 330.22. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 161–62; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3; Neukirchen-

Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–) 1:65; cf. 3:188. For the idea that hV≤aI refers to agift (cf. Ugaritic ªitt) rather than to a “fire offering” (derived from vaE, “fire”), whichdoes not account for the biblical range of usage, see J. Hoftijzer, “Das SogenannteFeueropfer,” Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von WalterBaumgartner (VTSup 16; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 114–34; G. R. Driver, “Ugaritic andHebrew Words,” Ugaritica 6 (1969) 181–84.

23. Regarding ritual placement of one or two hands on the head of an animal,Kiuchi states a solid theoretical premise from which to begin investigation: “the


4. We are as dependent on a ritual tradition to provide us with meanings at every stage of development as we must rely on that tradition for rules governing performance of activities. When it comes to the ancient Israelite system of rituals, we have no viable choice but to accept indications of meaning in our primary source of information: the biblical text. From the perspective of the Pentateuch in its final form, the religious authority who fixed the activities and meanings of the Israelite ritual system was Yhwh himself, through the mediation of Moses.24 Applying blood to the altar had no inherent efficacy. Its rpk function derived solely from the authority of Yhwh.25

Closely related to the concept just described, Yhwh was believed to haveassigned ritual roles to physical objects that have no inherent meaning. Forexample, Yhwh established the function of the outer altar as an object towhich blood was applied (cf. Lev 17:11). This explains why the altar had tobe consecrated to him before this function could commence (Lev 8:11, 15).Since meanings of the altar and blood derive not from their intrinsic qualitiesbut from Yhwh’s mandate,26 E. Gerstenberger is wrong when he asserts re-garding Israelite animal sacrifices: “As is the case among other peoples, bloodis considered to be a magical substance efficacious in and of itself.”27

A structural approach is inadequate for identifying ritual meaning

Advocating a structural approach, P. Jenson reacts against “dynamistic” rit-ual interpretation that “attributes the effectiveness of a ritual to the power ofthe particular symbols and actions of which it is comprised”:28

24. Cf. R. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in ExegeticalMethod (FAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 6.

25. A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs,Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 242.

26. Regarding the blood, compare A. Schenker, Versöhnung und Sühne (BibB 15;Freiburg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981) 108.

27. E. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. D. Stott; OTL; Louisville,Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 59–60.

28. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 151.

difference in form as such does not necessarily imply a difference in the meaning ofthe gesture” (The Purification Offering, 113). In her study of African rituals, M. Wilsonfound: “Contrary to the commonly accepted idea that ritual is more stable than the in-terpretation of it, we found the same conceptions expressed in varying ritual forms”(“Nyakyusa Ritual,” 229).

Chapter 110

Instead of an atomistic approach, it is preferable to begin with the move-ment and structure of the sacrificial ritual as a whole, since this larger con-text should determine the primary significance of the individual symbols.The value of a structural approach is that it looks for patterns at the level ofthe complete ritual. The symbols and actions will be combined in such away as to communicate the nature and purpose of the sacrifice. Certainmeanings of a multivalent symbol will not be stressed in a ritual in whichthey are unnecessary.29

The advantage of such a structural methodology is that it takes into accountthe fact that rituals are hierarchical systems of activity in which individualactivities are included and shaped by higher-level goals to which they areintended to contribute (see below). Thus the full significance of an individ-ual ritual or ritual activity can only appear within the context of the ritual sys-tem to which it belongs.30 Jenson recognizes that the variety of functions/meanings borne by many common ritual activities arises from the variety ofcontexts in which they appear.31 Therefore the analyst should begin from thecontextually conditioned top of the systems hierarchy rather than workingfrom the bottom up by starting with the individual activities.

While the structural approach is attractive, it is inadequate by itself. AsStaal has pointed out, actions have no inherent meaning. So whether you be-gin from the top of a collection of activities or from the bottom, meaning willnot appear as the sum of the parts if these parts consist exclusively of physicalactions. In fact, because activity systems are defined by their goals, we maynot know that one constitutes a ritual system at all unless we have some clueregarding its goal.

For example, suppose we observe a man washing his feet outside a reli-gious shrine on a hot day. Is he (a) cooling himself, whether or not he entersthe shrine, (b) making sure that he will not soil the carpet in the shrine whenhe enters, (c) ritually purifying himself preparatory to worship, or (d) engag-ing in a core act of worship? Even if we continue to watch the man’s subse-quent behavior, without knowing how his actions fit into his world view, wewill remain unsure whether his actions constitute a complete activity systemor belong to a larger activity system, let alone whether they are ritual in na-

29. Ibid., 152.30. Wilson, “Nyakyusa Ritual,” 229; M. Douglas, “Deciphering a Meal,” Implicit

Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology (London: Routledge, 1975) 231–51;D. Wright suggests that such a structural or contextual approach should be applied tothe Israelite states/situations of impurity (“Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writ-ings of the Bible,” Koroth 9 [1988] 192).

31. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 152.


ture and, if so, what they might mean. How can we even begin to employ astructural approach, unless we import one or more a priori assumptions thatinvalidate our analysis from the outset, when we do not know whether we arelooking at the top or the bottom of a ritual or nonritual activity hierarchy?

Jenson admits that a structural approach may not provide all the answersand suggests that a historical approach may be better suited to dealing withanomalies:

There is a conservative tendency in the cult to preserve actions and symbolswhen their original function has ceased, although it is also the case thatthe symbols can be reinterpreted in a way consistent to the new context.Further, the meaning of individual symbols may transcend the specific pur-poses of a ritual.32

Granted that rituals can undergo fossilization and/or reinterpretation,33 doesa diachronic perspective account for that which a structural approach can-not? Returning to the above illustration, suppose we revisit the shrine afterfive years on another summer day and observe the same man performing thesame action, except that after he bathes his feet he also washes his hands. Willthis diachronic information shed light on the boundaries of the activity sys-tem and its symbolic meaning, if there is any? No, because a change fromone unknown to another unknown does not yield something that is known.

If we know that a man washing part of his body is a practicing Hindu, Bud-dhist, Muslim, Jew, or Christian, or something else, we may be able to narrowdown the options because he participates in the current phase of a living tra-dition to which we have access. We can even test our results by asking theman what he is doing. But how do we interpret an ancient ritual when wecannot even physically observe its performance, let alone discuss its signifi-cance with someone who participates in the tradition to which it belongs?

D. Davies, who employs a structuralist anthropological approach, explic-itly presupposes that the form, that is, symbolic patterning, of Israelite ritualsprovides their meaning when they are viewed within their covenant con-text.34 Thus Davies acknowledges the need for a conceptual element (cove-nant) provided by the Israelite world view. It is true that, within the Torah,

32. Ibid.33. H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in

Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 56.34. D. Davies, “An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus,” ZAW 89 (1977) 392. For

the idea that cultic expiation should be understood within the context of an interper-sonal covenant between God and Israel, see L. Shelton, “A Covenant Concept ofAtonement,” WTJ 19 (1984) 92–96.

Chapter 112

cult and covenant are inextricably linked.35 The divine covenant with thepatriarchs and the nation of Israel provides background for the special mani-festation of that relationship through the residence of Yhwh among the Israel-ites at the tabernacle. Continuation of Yhwh’s Presence there depends onobservance of his laws, including those that directly relate to the cultic centerby regulating the ritual system. However, unless the functions/meanings ofthe ritual forms themselves are understood to a certain degree, such an over-arching covenant context appears too general to supply adequate specificityto our interpretation of the rituals.

The meaning/function of a ritual is the goal assigned to its activity system

It almost goes without saying that a ritual is an activity system. But the factthat rituals share properties with nonritual activity systems has profound im-plications for ritual analysis.

In B. Wilson’s study of nonritual human activity systems, he points out thatthe goal/raison d’être for such a system is to accomplish a particular transfor-mation through an activity process.36 So it is not the activities that define thesystem but the goal that determines which activities are necessary to achievethe desired change.

The concept just described applies to ritual activity systems, which are alsodynamic transformation processes.37 For example, we found earlier that Lev

35. On the complex relationship between the Israelite covenant and cult, see, e.g.,B. J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” inTexts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. Fox et al.;Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 131; cf. 130, 133–34.

36. B. Wilson, Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications (Chichester:Wiley, 1984) 16, 26.

37. Cf. H. Hubert and M. Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function (trans. W. Halls;Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964; orig. 1898); A. van Gennep, The Rites ofPassage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960); V. Turner, The Ritual Process:Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine, 1969); I. Gruenwald, Rituals and RitualTheory in Ancient Israel (BRLJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 2003) vii–viii, 14–17, 25–26, 188, 198–201; Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 215–27. Elsewhere Gorman builds upon vanGennep’s work on rites of passage to suggest a general typology/taxonomy of priestlyrituals: (1) Rituals of founding, such as the consecration and inauguration of the sanc-tuary described in Lev 8–9, create a normative state. (2) Rituals of maintenance, suchas those of the cultic calendar in Num 28–29, maintain a preexisting order. (3) Ritualsof restoration, such as rituals of purification, accomplish restoration to the normativestate (“Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status,” in History and In-terpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes [ed. M. Graham, W. Brown, andJ. Kuan; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993] 47–64). Cf. A. R. S. Kennedy


16:16 expresses the goal of special purification offerings: to purge the innersanctum from ritual impurities and moral faults. The goal is to effect transfor-mation (purging) through activities, namely, by sprinkling blood (vv. 14–15).The goal defines the activities that are included and the way they are per-formed. Achieving the goal constitutes the basic function/raison d’être of theritual, which is the same thing as the meaning assigned to it by religious au-thority. There may be higher-level functions within the society, but this is thebasic function.

Like other human activity systems, rituals are contructed hierarchically,with smaller systems constituting components of larger systems. Systems ateach level are defined by their goals, with subgoals defining subsystems.Thus on the Day of Atonement, a pair of elaborate purification offerings havethe overall goal of purging from the entire sanctuary the impurities andmoral faults of the Israelite priesthood and laity (Lev 16; for summary, seev. 33). These sacrifices include subsystems that achieve the smaller goals ofpurging the inner sanctum (v. 16a), the outer sanctum (v. 16b), and the outeraltar (vv. 18–19).

Within each system, at each hierarchical level, activities can have differentrelationships to achievement of the relevant goal. An activity may be prereq-uisite to another activity that fulfills the goal, or it may be postrequisite. Forinstance, slaughtering an animal (4:29) is prerequisite to application of itsblood to the horns of the altar (v. 30a), following which pouring out the re-maining blood at the base of the altar is postrequisite disposal (v. 30b).

Understanding the nature of ritual enhances our sensitivity to ritualtexts. A. Noordtzij says that Lev 16:25–28, prescribing the burning of tafj

suet on the altar, disposal of carcasses, and personal purification of ritual as-sistants on the Day of Atonement do not appear to preserve the chronologi-cal order of the activities and takes this to indicate the composite characterof the chapter.38 But he fails to understand that the activities in question aresimply postrequisite to the core procedures involved in purging the sanctu-ary by blood and banishing moral evils from the camp to the wilderness ona live goat (vv. 14–22).

38. A. Noordtzij, Leviticus (trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1982) 170.

and J. Barr on the reparation (µva; so-called “guilt”) offering: “The occasion of thesacrifice may then reasonably be held to be restoration or reintegration to normalityafter an offence” (“Sacrifice and Offering,” Dictionary of the Bible [ed. J. Hastings; rev.ed. F. C. Grant and H. H. Rowley; New York: Scribner’s, 1963] 875).

Chapter 114

A “ritual” is an activity system with a special kind of goalAs is well known, definitions of ritual and rite are legion.39 As a beginning

example, we can cite F. Gorman, who follows anthropological theory whenhe defines ritual as “a complex performance of symbolic acts, characterizedby its formality, order, and sequence, which tends to take place in specific sit-uations, and has as one of its central goals the regulation of the social or-der.”40 He explains: “Ritual is a way of enacting meaning in one’s existence inthis world. It is a way of construing, actualizing, realizing, and bringing intobeing a world of meaning and ordered existence. Ritual is, thus, seen as ameans of enacting one’s theology.”41

Working with Nyakyusa culture, M. Wilson distinguishes between cere-monies and rituals, and in the process points out a crucial additional aspectof ritual:

In short, a ceremony is an appropriate and elaborate form for the expressionof feeling, but a ritual is action believed to be efficacious. A ritual is oftenemedded in ceremonial which is not held to be necessary to the efficacy ofthe ritual but which is felt to be appropriate. Both ritual and ceremonialhave a function in rousing and canalizing emotion, but ritual, by relatingits symbols to some supposed transcendental reality, affects people moredeeply than a ceremony, which some will describe as “mere play-acting.”42

So that which sets ritual apart is the fact that it is “action believed to be effi-cacious” through symbolic relationship “to some supposed transcendentalreality.”43

In my study of rituals as activity systems and analysis of complex ancient Is-raelite, Babylonian, and Hittite religious rituals, I have found Wilson’s defini-tion of ritual to be confirmed.44 I realize that in some kinds of ritual theelement of reference to “some supposed transcendental reality” may not haveto do with belief in one or more supernatural beings.45 Nevertheless, even insecular ritual there is some kind of transcendence. A ritualized version of an

39. For analysis of a wide variety of approaches, see Bell, Ritual Theory.40. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 19.41. Ibid., 232.42. Wilson, “Nyakyusa Ritual,” 240; cf. B. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural

Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986)139–42.

43. See Turner, The Ritual Process, 106; cf. 105.44. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure.45. Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 9–11. As Grimes has shown, the Western idea that

“ritual” is inherently related to belief in supernatural beings or powers does not neces-sarily apply in other cultures (Ritual Criticism, 12).


activity, such as a meal, may be similar and related to the mundane version ofthe same activity. As C. Bell articulately puts it, the former can be distin-guished as follows:

a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privi-lege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, ac-tivities. As such, ritualization is a matter of various culturally specificstrategies for setting some activities off from others, for creating and privi-leging a qualitative distinction between the “sacred” and the “profane,” andfor ascribing such distinctions to realities thought to transcend the powers ofhuman actors.46 [italics mine]

Ritual or ritualized activity does not merely communicate as a kind of signlanguage. Rather, it is believed to do something that changes reality in a waythat goes beyond the constraints of cause and effect that operate in activitiesbelonging to the mundane physical world that are susceptible to manipula-tion by the performers.

While I admit that my theory of ritual is undoubtedly shaped and limitedto a certain degree by the parameters of the ritual phenomena that I have an-alyzed, which belong to the religious systems of certain ancient Near Easterncultures,47 I offer my working general definition as a heuristic modernabstraction to facilitate focused reflection, at least within the ancient NearEastern context:

This definition draws most closely from M. Wilson, C. Bell, and my Ph.D. re-search, in which I recognized that human rituals are human activity systemsthat accomplish transformation processes.48

46. Bell, Ritual Theory, 74; cf. 90–91; cf. Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 12–14.47. On the effect of culture on recognition of “ritual” as such, see Bell, Ritual The-

ory, 205–6.48. In my dissertation I developed a tentative, working definition of an individual

ritual: “An ‘individual ritual’ is a formulaic activity system carrying out an individual,complete cognitive task transformation process in which an inaccessible entity is in-volved.” With this I also presented a less-technical wording: “An individual ritual is anactivity system of which the components/subsystems are fixed in terms of their inclu-sion, nature, and relative order, and that carries out an individual, complete transfor-mation process in which interaction with one or more entities ordinarily inaccessibleto the material domain takes place” (Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 61). By “formu-laic” or “fixed” activity, I did not mean that every detail of performance is necessarily

A ritual is a privileged activity system that is believed to carry out atransformation process involving interaction with a reality ordinarilyinaccessible to the material domain.

Chapter 116

A religious ritual is a ritual that involves belief in a deity. The ancientIsraelite sanctuary rituals investigated in the present volume obviously belongto this type. In biblical religion, the deity Yhwh is ordinarily inaccessible, be-yond reach of the earthly material domain (cf. Job 11:7), unless he chooses tomake himself accessible (e.g., Gen 18). Therefore, scientific investigation ofphenomena such as rituals should take into account what M. Douglas refersto as the “non-Newtonian physics” upon which religion rests:

Spiritual beings are so-called just because they are non-corporeal, and soenjoy the powers of ubiquity, invisibility and knowledge of what will hap-pen at a later time. They can also confer these powers on their adepts. Thisdimension has to be accepted by the anthropologist if there is going to beany understanding by explanations, excuses and accusation.

Anthropologists are not happy about using the word “supernatural” to de-scribe religious beliefs which defy the way we see the laws of nature. Forone thing, we should not use a vocabulary which assumes that ghosts andangels are not natural.49

A sacrifice is a religious ritual in which something of value is ritually trans-ferred to the sacred realm for utilization by a deity. This is close to V. Valeri’sdescription of sacrifice as “any ritual action that includes the consecration ofan ‘offering’ to a deity.”50 See also B. Malina’s definition: “sacrifice is a ritualin which a deity or deities is/are offered some form of inducement, renderedhumanly irretrievable, with a view to some life-effect for the offerer(s).”51

49. M. Douglas, “Holy Joy: Rereading Leviticus—The Anthropologist and the Be-liever,” CJ 46 (1994) 7.

50. V. Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii (trans.P. Wissing; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) 37.

51. Malina, “Mediterranean Sacrifice,” 37; cf. 38–39 for implications of this defini-tion. J. van Baal distinguishes between “offering” and “sacrifice”: “I call an offeringany act of presenting something to a supernatural being, a sacrifice an offering accom-panied by the ritual killing of the object of the offering” (“Offering, Sacrifice andGift,” Numen 23 [1976] 161; cf. 177). But this definition of sacrifice raises a problem.

specified but simply that activities are specified at least to some extent, to varying lev-els of detail. The very existence of ritual prescriptions and descriptions indicates thisfactor, without which there would be no limits to the kinds of activity that could ac-complish a given efficacy. Neither did I intend my use of the term “formulaic” to im-ply “formality,” by contrast with “informal” activity. Notice that both in my dissertationand in the present volume I use the term ritual with reference to specific enactments,which are what Grimes would call “rites” when he distinguishes between “rite,” “rit-ual,” and “ritualizing”: A rite is a specific enactment; ritual is “the general idea ofwhich a rite is a specific instance,” and ritualizing is the process of cultivating ritesfrom activities that can be viewed as potential ritual (Ritual Criticism, 9–10).


I agree with Gorman that the relationship between the biblical ritual textsand the system of belief behind them is complex, so that a ritual enactmentmay be believed to affect the interrelated states of an individual, society, thecosmos, and the deity.52 But I would emphasize that the ritual effects are be-lieved to result from interaction with the supramundane. This kind of inter-action explains why a ritual packs such an evocative punch: not only is itsmeaning acted out as potent dramatic expression, it is also believed to resultin transformation that nonritual activity cannot achieve.53

Returning to our illustration of the Day of Atonement purification offer-ings that purge the Israelite sanctuary, we see that, unlike nonritual activitysystems, the ritual goal is not achieved as a natural physical result of its activi-ties. Slaughtering an animal, putting its blood on various parts of a dwellingand its furniture, and then burning the suet and carcass (Lev 16:11–28) donot accomplish any kind of cleansing in physical terms. To the contrary, theseactivities create a mess and are impractical and wasteful, transforming a live,valuable animal into bloodstains, smoke, and ashes, none of which are put topractical use. Nevertheless, the text informs us that the goal of another trans-formation is achieved at a higher level: nonphysical pollution, consisting ofritual impurities and moral faults, is purged from the sanctuary of supramun-dane Yhwh on behalf of the Israelites (vv. 16, 18–19, 33). While the activitiesthemselves do not produce this goal through physical cause and effect, as theywould be expected to in ordinary life, they serve as a vehicle for transforma-tion that takes place on the level of symbolic meaning.

The symbolic meaning involved in achieving the goal of the special puri-fication offerings was part of a conceptual system that called for belief. To ac-cept the rules and efficacy of the rituals, the priest and his people would need

52. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 37–38.53. Cf. E. Leach regarding religious ritual: “the purpose of religious performance

is to provide a bridge, or channel of communication, through which the power of thegods may be made available to otherwise impotent men” (“The Logic of Sacrifice,” inAnthropological Approaches to the Old Testament [ed. B. Lang; Philadelphia: Fortress,1985] 137; cf. H. Hubert and M. Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function [trans.W. Halls; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964; orig. 1898] 97).

In Lev 5:11–13, an offering of grain explicitly serves as a tafj, which is the functionalequivalent of a tafj sacrifice consisting of a sheep or goat (v. 6). So the grain servesas a sacrifice, but obviously it is not subject to “ritual killing.” True, part of it is burnedon the altar (v. 12), but any attempt to regard this destruction as equivalent to slaughterfounders on the fact that part of a tafj goat or sheep is also burned on the altar (4:31,35) subsequent to slaughter (vv. 29, 33, respectively). So “sacrifice” involves ritual trans-fer to a deity for his/her utilization, whether killing is needed or not.

Chapter 118

to believe in the existence of Yhwh, the reality of the pollution that neededto be removed, and the effectiveness of the prescribed ritual actions requiredto carry out the desired transformation.

Systems theory concepts can aid interpretation of Israelite rituals

As mentioned in the introduction, my 1992 Ph.D. dissertation developed acontrolled methodology of ritual analysis that incorporated an adaptation ofB. Wilson’s systems theory approach to human activity systems.54 The pri-mary usefulness of applied systems theory for this kind of study is to highlightproperties of rituals, many of which have been recognized by scholars such asR. Knierim,55 in light of known properties of nonritual human activity sys-tems. I do not hereby import an alien methodology in an attempt to fill gapsin our understanding of ancient Israelite rituals.56 Rather, I simply recognizethat the category of human activity systems includes human rituals and there-fore contend, with C. Bell, that the latter should not be treated as isolatedphenomena:

When returned to the context of human activity in general, so-called ritualacts must be seen first in terms of what they share with all activity, then interms of how they set themselves off from other practices. . . . ritual actsmust be understood within a semantic framework whereby the significanceof an action is dependent upon its place and relationship within a contextof all other ways of acting: what it echoes, what it inverts, what it alludes to,what it denies.57

While the present work includes only a fraction of the explicit theoreticaland methodological detail and technical language contained in my disserta-

54. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure; cf. Wilson, Systems.55. R. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in Exegetical Method

(FAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck] 1992).56. So I do not plead “guilty” to charges leveled by N. Lemche, “On the Use of

‘System Theory’, ‘Macro Theories’ and ‘Evolutionistic Thinking’ in Modern OT Re-search and Biblical Archaeology,” SJOT 2 (1990) 73–88. C. Queen concludes his ex-tensive critique of systems theory: “The contribution of systems theory in religiousstudies, both in its experiments and applications to date, and in its heuristic potentialfor future development, lies in its unique ability to integrate the findings of many dis-ciplines, to respect the worlds of meaning which they purvey, and to place all of thisin a non-dogmatic, but irreducible Context that is the source of religious experience”(“Systems Theory in Religious Studies: A Methodological Critique” [Ph.D. diss.,Boston University, 1986] 294).

57. Bell, Ritual Theory, 220; cf. 221.


tion, prominent properties of ritual activity systems and their goals, whichhave already been introduced in earlier sections of this chapter, implicitly in-form all of my ritual analyses:

1. Achieving its goal of carrying out a given transformation constitutes the function of a given ritual, which is the same thing as its meaning.58 So by telling us the goal, the text supplies the function/meaning. There may be higher-level social functions, but this is the basic function.

2. The goal defines the ritual and its boundaries because activities included in the ritual are those that contribute to its goal.59

3. Like other human activity systems, a ritual accomplishes physical transformation.60 However, carrying out such transformation does not achieve the goal of the ritual as a natural physical result. Rather, ritual activities serve as a vehicle to accomplish a higher-level transformation.61

4. Acceptance of the efficacy and rules of an Israelite ritual requires religious belief in harmony with a conceptual system, of which the ritual serves as an expression. As presented in the Bible, the Israelite ritual system is an “open system” in the sense that it interfaces with the cultural environment of the Israelite community. This environment includes the “suprasystem” constituted by the Israelite religion of Yhwh, of which the ritual system is a part.62

5. Like systems in general, rituals are structured hierarchically, with smaller systems constituting wholes embedded in larger systems.63 At each level, a “whole possesses distinctive emergent properties—properties not possessed by the parts comprising the whole.”64 In the Israelite system of rituals the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its

58. See Gruenwald, Rituals, 198–99: “Meaning is created in relation to, and as aresult of, transformation.”

59. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 30–32, 52–53, 79–82. Regarding the definingrole of goals in nonritual activity systems, see Wilson, Systems, 26–31.

60. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 29–42; Wilson, Systems, 15–16, 25–42.61. On ritual activity as a vehicle for interpreted function, see my Ritual Dynamic

Structure, 51–53.62. For an explanation of such systems concepts from a (nonritual) social-systems

perspective, see J. Norlin and W. Chess, Human Behavior and the Social Environment:Social Systems Theory (3rd ed.; Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997) 31–33.

63. Staal, Rules without Meaning, 101. Regarding systems hierarchy in general, see,for example, J. van Gigch, Applied General Systems Theory (2nd ed.; New York:Harper & Row, 1978) 66.

64. Norlin and Chess, Human Behavior, 31.

Chapter 120

parts. A ritual or ritual complex achieves its goal only if it is performed in its entirety, with its activities in the proper order.65

6. Like a higher system, a subsystem is defined by its goal, which is carried out by a transformation process.66 Activities that bring subgoals to completion, which could be termed “goal-activities,” are more significant than other tasks that are prerequisite or postrequisite to them. But such tasks also belong to subsystems because they make necessary contributions to their goals.67

In the service of ritual theory that informs exegesis, systems theory can aidus in grasping implications of terminology in ritual texts. For instance, in Lev16:25, the high priest is to burn the suet of “the purification offering”(taF:j"h"), singular, on the altar. Scholars have been confused by the fact thatthis verse mentions only one purification offering in spite of the fact that ch.16 elsewhere prescribes two such sacrifices to purge the sanctuary on the Dayof Atonement: a bull on behalf of the priests and a goat for the laity. The sin-gular “purification offering” here does not need to indicate confusion in thetext68 or an earlier stage of diachronic development, at which only one tafj

sacrifice was performed.69 Rather, taF:j"h" is collective, referring to the com-plex consisting of both sacrifices, which are interwoven and then mergedwhen their bloods are simultaneously applied to the outer altar (vv. 18–19).So the singular simply acknowledges unity at a higher level of systems hierar-chy, as in Exod 30:10 and Num 29:11, where the same complex is calledµyriPUKIh" taF"j", “purification offering (sing.) of purgation.”

65. See, for example, Lev 10:16–18, where Moses was concerned that the inaugu-ral purification offering on behalf of the community was invalidated because thepriests had not eaten the flesh. Cf. m. Yoma 5:7, where performance of Day of Atone-ment procedures that violates their stipulated order accomplishes nothing at all.

66. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 33–34, 37–42; Wilson, Systems, 31–35.67. I agree with Knierim that in Lev 1 sacrificial actions differ in function, but I do

not see “a qualitative differentiation between sacrificial acts proper and supporting,practical acts necessary for the procedure” (Text and Concept, 55; cf. 54, 56). Knierimrecognizes that in terms of moving forward to fulfillment of the goal of the ritual,“none of the prescribed steps may be missing. Each is equally important. And moreare not necessary” (p. 89). So we can say that all of the acts are properly sacrificialbecause they all contribute to the activity system, which is a sacrifice.

68. M. Noth introduces confusion when he notes: “In v. 25 a missing remark aboutthe sin offering of vv. 3ba, 6, 11–14 is subsequently brought in. As this now means onlyone sin offering, the sin-offering goat of vv. 9, 15 is ignored. Contrast vv. 27, 28, wheresomething more is said about the parts left over from both sin-offering animals”(Leviticus [OTL; London: SCM, 1965] 126).

69. K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 216.

spread is 6 points short


The biblical text provides instructions for physical performance and interpretations of activities

D. Baker points out that ritual texts belong to the linguistic category of pro-cedural texts, which are goal oriented.70 As G. Anderson recognizes, biblicaltexts provide two kinds of information regarding ritual procedures: instruc-tions for physical performance of activities and interpreted goals of these ac-tivities.71 To interpret an ancient Israelite ritual properly, we must distinguishbetween the two levels of information.

For example, in Lev 4 a common Israelite who realizes that he has inad-vertently violated a divine command is required to offer a female goat as a pu-rification offering (v. 28). Verses 29–31a stipulate a series of physical activitiesto be performed in the courtyard of the sanctuary: the sinner lays one handon the head of the victim and then slaughters it. The priest puts some of itsblood on the horns of the altar and pours out the rest of the blood at the baseof the altar. The suet is removed from the carcass and the priest burns it onthe altar. Verse 31b states the goal of all this, not on the level of physical causeand effect, but on the higher level of interpreted meaning: “Thus the priestshall effect purgation on his behalf, that he may be forgiven.”72 Notice thatthe text does not explain each action individually. Rather, it provides the over-all conceptual framework for the activity system as a whole, to which theindividual actions contribute.

Among ritual texts, B. Levine and W. W. Hallo have distinguished betweenprescriptive texts, which tell how rituals should be done, and descriptive texts,which describe how ritual performances were actually carried out on par-ticular occasions.73 The language of a ritual text reveals its prescriptive ordescriptive nature. For example, Lev 4:22–35 is clearly prescriptive because itssections begin with conditional clauses (rva . . . , “When . . .” [v. 22]; µaw . . . ,“If . . .” [vv. 27, 32]) and continue with clauses governed by perfect consecu-tive or imperfect verbs, which provide instructions for a purification-offering

70. D. Baker, “Leviticus 1–7 and the Punic Tariffs: A Form Critical Comparison,”ZAW 99 (1987) 192–93; cf. R. Longacre, An Anatomy of Speech Notions (Lisse: Peterde Ridder, 1976) 199–206.

71. G. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings: Old Testament,” ABD 5:883.72. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday,

2000) 1272; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 227.73. B. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” JCS 17 (1963) 105–11; idem, “The

Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85 (1965) 307–18; idem andW. W. Hallo, “Offerings to the Temple Gates at Ur,” HUCA 38 (1967) 17–58; cf.Baker, “Leviticus 1–7,” 193; A. Rainey, “The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Rit-ual Texts,” Bib 51 (1970) 485–98, but Rainey refers to Lev 1–7 as descriptive (486–87).

Chapter 122

pattern/paradigm that governs any number of specific performances. The de-scription in 9:8–21, on the other hand, has imperfect consecutive or perfectverbs, referring to a sequence of activities that Aaron and his sons did (hc[)at a one-time cultic event: inauguration of the sanctuary.74

Although Leviticus does not provide sufficient detail to serve as a hand-book for priests that guides every detail of performance,75 Knierim has shownthat biblical ritual prescriptions are presented in the “procedural law” sub-genre of “case law” and have the purpose of standardizing the essential stepsof legitimate performance so that rituals can accomplish the purposes forwhich they are intended.76 The structure of such a text “is determined by itsfocus on the goal of the completed ritual itself.”77

Specification of ritual actions in prescriptive texts is loose in four ways:78

1. Prescriptive texts do not include all actions that must, of practical necessity, be performed. The text’s presentation is selective and serves its interpretation of activities, according to its perspective. For example, Lev 16 does not tell us when the high priest retrieves from the inner sanctum the pan of burning coals and incense that he takes there before performing blood manipulations on and before the ark cover (vv. 12–13; but see m. Yoma 7:4).

2. They control activities at various levels of detail, often sketching flows of activities with broad strokes, without providing finer points of performance at the lowest hierarchical levels. Thus while 16:14 precisely indicates how the high priest is to sprinkle blood in the inner

74. Ibid., 495. Milgrom provides a rule of thumb: “It is important to realize that thedescriptive ritual always uses the verb ºa¶â and the prescriptive ritual uses a differentverb” (“The Two Pericopes on the Purification Offering,” in The Word of the LordShall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His SixtiethBirthday [ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns,1983] 212). However, Num 15:24 exceptionally uses hc[ in a prescriptive context. Le-vine points out that, whereas Ugaritic, Assyrian, Hittite, and postbiblical Jewish ritualdescriptions had the purpose of preserving reports of rituals that could guide subse-quent cultic performance, Lev 8 and 9 record the unique events involved in com-mencement of the Israelite cult (“The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts,” 313–14; cf.Rainey, “The Order of Sacrifices,” 485, 496–97).

75. Grabbe, Leviticus, 38; cf. 74.76. Knierim, Text and Concept, 31, 65, 94–97, 98–106; cf. Gorman, The Ideology of

Ritual, 25–27. For R. Rendtorff the function of the texts for ensuring proper perfor-mance explains why they say little about the meanings of the sacrifices (The Old Tes-tament: An Introduction [trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 98).

77. Knierim, Text and Concept, 89; cf. 64–67, 90.78. Cf. ibid., 25–27, 46–54, 60–61, 87–88.


sanctum, v. 8 does not say exactly how he is to cast lots over two goats to select their respective ritual roles.

3. The order in which activities are presented in a ritual prescription does not always indicate the chronological sequence of their performance. For instance, on the Day of Atonement the high priest and his assistants can perform some tasks simultaneously (16:21b–28).

4. A ritual activity paradigm may be subject to adaptation in different contexts. While noncalendric/private burnt offerings require the gesture of leaning one hand on the head of the victim before slaughter (Lev 1:4), calendric burnt offerings performed on behalf of the priests and laity on the Day of Atonement (16:24) most likely do not need such identification of transferring ownership.

When the biblical text provides the overall goal of a ritual (e.g., Lev 4:31b;see above), gaps in our knowledge regarding details of physical actions, suchas the precise manner of slaughter or removal of suet, do not pose a seriousproblem for interpretation of the overall function/meaning of the ritual, pro-vided that we are content with the meaning supplied by the text. G. Andersonsuggests:

Perhaps what is biblical about biblical sacrifice is not only the historicalrealia presumed by the texts, but also the interpretation of sacrifice in thepresent canonical form of the texts themselves. After all, it is this canonicalform which presented itself to the earliest interpreters of the Bible.79

I agree with Anderson, except that I would delete the initial “perhaps.”Knierim adopts the same attitude toward Lev 1: “We speak about the writ-

ers’ transformation of a concept into a text, not into an action, and interpretthe concept of an observed text, not of an observed performance.”80 He un-derlines an interpretive distancing of the biblical texts from actual perfor-mance: “the prescription of a ritual in a text is not identical with thedescription of an observed ritual, let alone with a performed ritual itself.”81

Unless we recognize and respect our limitation in this regard, we will invari-ably contaminate analysis by importing a priori elements from our own worldview into our interpretation of ritual meaning.

If we have a prescription or description of ritual activities but no extant in-dication of the meaning attached to them, we are stuck with a major prob-lem. In such a case we may guess on the basis of analogies with similar

79. Anderson, “Sacrifice,” 883.80. Knierim, Text and Concept, 17; cf. 18.81. Ibid., 19–20.

Chapter 124

activities for which interpretations are available, but we should acknowledgethat we are guessing and that such a tentative interpretation necessarily im-ports elements that are to a greater or lesser extent foreign to the ritual contextin question. This is not to say that analogical guessing is unscientific. Similarlogic is necessary and rigorously applied in laboratories and hospitals whencritical decisions must be made in spite of insufficient evidence. But over-looking holes in evidence or treating guesses as solid is unscientific. Some-times the most definitive conclusion is: “We don’t know.”

ConclusionThe present chapter has outlined the theoretical framework informing my

approach to analysis of ancient Israelite rituals. On this basis, my quest formeanings of purification offerings and Day of Atonement rituals will espe-cially focus on isolating and closely examining the language of goals that areindicated by the biblical text.

25

Chapter 2

The System of tafj Rituals

Before exploring the function of the tafj system of rituals, includingthose of the Day of Atonement, we must address the question of whether theserituals were intended to function as a system at all. For many scholars, differ-ences within Lev 16, where the Day of Atonement procedures are prescribed,and between this chapter and the rest of Leviticus have prevented considera-tion of complementary ritual function.1 They maintain that the texts record-ing the rituals of the Day of Atonement and of other days were written bydifferent authors belonging to variant ritual traditions, and therefore, the ritu-als that they reflect would not have operated together within the same system.

Because our discussion will encounter the “PH” factor, throughout thepresent work my references to “P” and “H” facilitate citation of relevant in-terpretations of other scholars who use these conventions with reference to“priestly” and “holiness” documents, sources, traditions, schools, or redac-tions. While my work is likely to have implications for pentateuchal criticism,my intention is to understand the theological meaning of the rites underdiscussion rather than to enter the ongoing debate regarding the existence,nature, and extent of P and H.2

In the final form of the biblical text, the Day of Atonement rituals function within the larger system of Israelite rituals

While critics agree that Lev 1–16 is “P” material and acknowledge that inits final form these chapters present an integrated system of rituals,3 theyidentify diachronic layers of P authorship within this block. This approach

1. Cf. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaningand Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 144. In his comment on Lev16:18, N. Snaith admits: “We cannot marshal all the statements concerning altars andsacrifices and holy places into one coherent scheme” (Leviticus and Numbers [CB,new ed.; London: Nelson, 1967] 115).

2. For a similarly noncommital approach, see L. Grabbe, Leviticus (OTG; Shef-field: JSOT Press, 1993) 18.

3. See, e.g., R. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in ExegeticalMethod (FAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 103.

Chapter 226

impedes consideration of complementary function because it is assumed thatrituals prescribed/described by different authors would not originally be in-tended to work together as a system.

For example, J. Wellhausen regarded all of Exod 25–Lev 16 as Priester-codex, but not all of it as Q, the original source of P. He argued that Q did notknow an incense altar, and so he regarded Lev 16, where it is not mentioned,as belonging to Q. But he assigned passages such as Exod 30:1–10 and Lev4:3–21, where the incense altar appears, to later, secondary material. Accord-ing to this influential view, the Day of Atonement as legislated in Lev 16 didnot include purification of the incense altar, and it could not have had afunction complementary to the kind of purification offering that appears in4:3–21 because the latter ritual form was not yet known.4 I. Knohl supportsWellhausen’s approach by stressing that, whereas Lev 9 and 16 refer to thealtar of burnt offering with the nonspecific term “the altar,” Lev 4 carefullydistinguishes between the two altars.5

Wellhausen did not take into account the possibility that Lev 9 does notneed to mention the incense altar because it is not part of the ritual, and

4. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher desAlten Testaments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963; orig. 1885) 136–39, 147–49; cf. idem, Pro-legomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994; repr. of 1885)65–66; A. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition ofthe Hexateuch (trans. Wicksteed; London: Macmillan, 1886) 87 n. 23, 312; P. Hei-nisch, Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT 1; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1935) 77; cf. 74–75;Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 115. J. Porter maintains that the sprinkling of blood onthe ark cover “corresponds to the rite of 4:7 and in later times the ‘altar of incense’ alsofigured in the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement (cp. Exod. 30:10)” (Leviticus[CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976] 130).

5. I. Knohl, “The Sin Offering Law in the ‘Holiness School’ [Numbers 15.22–31],”in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. Anderson and S. Olyan; JSOTSup 125;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 195–97. Knohl also regards Exod 30:10 and Num 15, in-cluding the purification offering law in vv. 22–31, as belonging to H (for him HS =“Holiness School”), which he places later than P (“The Sin Offering Law,” 197–203).On Exod 30:10 he explains: “Verse 10 seems to have been added by HS editors, whowere attempting to add the incense altar to the list of appurtenances that are purifiedin purification rites, described in Leviticus 16. This altar is not mentioned amongthe ritual objects that must be purified. Support for this hypothesis comes from thephrase ‘once a year,’ common to our verse and the HS editorial addition in Lev 16:34”(The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minneapolis:Fortress, 1995] 29). Important for Knohl’s exclusion of the incense altar from the Dayof Atonement sacrifices is his identification of the altar referred to in Lev 16 as the altarfor burnt offerings (with Ibn Ezra on v. 18 and Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry,87 n. 23), against the view of the sages that it is the incense altar (Knohl, The Sanctu-ary of Silence, 29 n. 62; cf. idem, “The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Sab-bath and the Festivals,” HUCA 58 [1987] 87–88 n. 66).

The System of tafj Rituals 27

ch. 16 does not explicitly name it simply because v. 16:16b abbreviates theprescription for the procedure in the outer sanctum: “and thus he shall do forthe Tent of Meeting.” So his diachronic argument was from silence. In an-swer to Knohl, it could be that, since Lev 9 and 16 do not need to speak ex-plicitly of the incense altar, their language lacks an adequate reason todifferentiate between the two altars.

C. Meyers argues against Wellhausen’s view that the prescription for theincense altar in Exod 30:1–10 is secondary to and therefore later than the con-ceptualization of the tabernacle in chs. 25–29. She points out that “archaeo-logical materials and biblical passages external to P indicate that the incensealtar would have been part of the tabernacle/temple cult.”6 Therefore, place-ment of 30:1–10 outside chs. 25–29 is to be explained not in terms of the late-ness of a legitimate incense altar, but because of the function of the incensealtar in relation to the inner logic of the tabernacle texts. Whereas the othertabernacle furnishings are carefully placed in their respective zones of sanc-tity, the incense altar in the middle of the sanctuary has functions relating notonly to the outer sanctum, where it is located, but also to the other zones: theholy of holies and the outer altar in the court. Therefore, separate placementof the prescription for the incense altar, rather than with instructions for thetable and lampstand in the outer sanctum, helps to preserve the graded co-herence of the tabernacle according to bounded realms of sanctity.7

6. C. Meyers, “Realms of Sanctity: The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Incense Altar inthe Tabernacle Texts of Exodus,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Mena-hem Haran (ed. M. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 37; contraJ. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press,1994; repr. of 1885) 65–67. Also contra Wellhausen, R. Rendtorff holds that Exod30:10 must be seen together with Lev 16:18–19 (Leviticus [BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–] 3:163, 213); cf. D. Hoffmann, who refers to 1 Kgs6:22 and 7:48 as proof that there was a golden altar in Solomon’s temple (Das Buch Le-viticus [Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6] 453). A. Finn’s argument against the idea that theincense altar was a later addition was not as sophisticated as that of Meyers: he suggest-ed that, if this object were of secondary importance, placement of the instructions forits manufacture in Exod 30, along with other necessary items such as the laver, wouldhave been appropriate. Cases in which incense was burned on pans or censers (Lev10:1; 16:12; Num 16:6, 7) were exceptional and do not prove that there was no altar forthe regular burning of incense (“Notes and Studies: The Tabernacle Chapters,” JTS16 [1915] 471–76).

7. Meyers, “Realms of Sanctity,” 37–46. Meyers’s argument is strengthened by acorrect understanding of Heb 9:4, which she misunderstands (with the nrsv andmany others) to mean that the incense altar is inside the Holy of Holies (p. 45). Thersv accurately reflects the Greek here: “Behind the second curtain stood a tentcalled the Holy of Holies, having (e ßcousa) the golden altar of incense and the ark ofthe covenant” (Heb 9:3–4; emphasis and Greek mine). This passage simply reflects

Chapter 228

It is well known that Lev 16 employs some unusual terminology, mostprominently vd,QO (vv. 2, 3, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27) and vd,QOh" vD'q}mI (v. 33) with ref-erence to the holy of holies, which is elsewhere called µyvd;Q ’h" vd,qO (e.g.,Exod 26:33–34).8 On the basis of such differences, critics have regarded atleast part of this chapter as produced by a phase of authorship distinct fromthe phase that generated other parts of Lev 1–16.9

J. Milgrom recognizes the uniqueness of Lev 16 but contends that its com-bination of ritual purging and expulsion of evil is preexilic in origin, as con-firmed by early attestation of the purgation-expulsion nexus in the ancientNear East. He maintains that the Day of Atonement procedures are intendedby the biblical text to be functionally integrated with the other P rituals in adynamic system.10 An important part of his support is to demonstrate how thetafj sacrifices can work together as a system: two kinds of purification offer-ings outlined in Lev 4, which include applications of blood on the outer altarand in the outer sanctum, functionally complement the special tafj sacri-fices of the Day of Atonement, which extend blood applications all the wayinto the inner sanctum (Lev 16).11

8. E.g., M. Noth, Leviticus (trans. J. Anderson; OTL; London: SCM, 1965) 120,126; K. Aartun, “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mitVarianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag,” ST 34 (1980) 76–77.

9. Because the inner sanctum is simply vdqh in Lev 16:2–28, Milgrom holds that“this terminological anomaly is one of the many reasons for regarding vv 2–28 as com-prising a discrete literary unit that was not originally composed by the author or redac-tor of P” (Leviticus 1–16 [AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991] 1013); cf., e.g., Noth,Leviticus, 118; cf. 117, 119; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 115.

10. See Milgrom’s massive study in Leviticus 1–16, esp. on Lev 4 and 16; cf. idem,“Day of Atonement as Annual Day of Purgation in Temple Times,” EncJud 5:1384–86.

11. Idem, Leviticus 1–16, 257–58; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Pic-ture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 390–99. For other treatments of the tafj sacri-fices, including those of the Day of Atonement, as a coherent system, see, for example,Rendtorff, Leviticus, 3:219–20; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering; D. Wright, The Dis-posal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and MesopotamianLiterature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); A. Marx, “Sacrifice pour lespéches ou rite de passage? Quelques réflexions sur la fonction du ˙a††aªt,” RB 96(1989) 27–48; F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in thePriestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); A. Schenker, “Inter-prétations récentes et dimensions spécifiques du sacrifice ˙a††at,” Bib 75 (1994) 59–70; idem, Recht und Kult im Alten Testament (OBO 172; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag /Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 113–22, repr. from “Keine Versöhnung

1 Kgs 6:22b: bh:z; hP:xI rybID]l"Arv≤a“ j'BEz]MIh"Alk:w], “even the whole altar that belonged tothe inner sanctuary he overlaid with gold.” Here it is emphasized that the incense altarhas a function that pertains to the inner sanctum, even though it is located in theouter sanctum. This supports Meyers’s point: among the tabernacle furnishings, theincense altar was unique in that its function transcended its bounded location.

spread is 12 points long


In further support of the functional integration of the Day of Atonementrituals is the fact that instructions regarding them depend on informationfound elsewhere.12 For one thing, these instructions presuppose a fully oper-ational sanctuary and corps of cultic personnel, as described elsewhere in thePentateuch. M. Rooker comments on Lev 16:

The literary dependence on the previous revelation given to Moses is, how-ever, everywhere apparent. The chapter presumes the content of the previ-ous section, Leviticus 11–15, particularly 15:31, where uncleanness defilesthe sanctuary. The Day of Atonement sacrifices purify the sanctuary fromthis defilement. As will be shown, one of the main accomplishments of theDay of Atonement is the purification of the tabernacle (16:15–19). Butmore than this, the Day of Atonement presumes the laws for sacrifice (Lev1–7) and the role of the priesthood (Lev 8–10); laws from both of these sec-tions are critical for the execution of the Day of Atonement rituals.13

Following are more specific ways in which the Day of Atonement prescrip-tions in Lev 16 depend on other pentateuchal passages in the final form ofthe text:

1. Leviticus 16:1 introduces the Day of Atonement within a narrative context by mentioning the death of Aaron’s sons, which occurred during the inauguration of the sanctuary (10:1–2). So at least in the final form of the text, the overall narrative framework of Leviticus embraces the complex of rituals that purge the sanctuary.14

2. Leviticus 16:2 refers to God appearing in a cloud upon the ark cover. This theophanic cloud is described more fully in Exod 40:34–38 and Num 9:15–22.

12. Cf. B. Baentsch, who lists a number of connections between Lev 16 andother “P” passages (Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri [HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1903] 379–80).

13. M. Rooker, Leviticus (NAC 3A; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000) 212.14. While Lev 16:1, referring to the death of Aaron’s sons, links the law-giving of

ch. 16 to the narrative of ch. 10, the appropriateness of the present placement of theregulations regarding purities in chs. 11–15 before those of the Day of Atonement inch. 16 has long been recognized by critics (e.g., Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry,148; S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament [ITL; NewYork: Scribner’s, 1897] 46; Noth, Leviticus, 14). J. Watts explains the placement of theDay of Atonement prescriptions within the arrangement of Leviticus, which “followstopical logic: the day’s ceremonies presuppose both the sacrificial instructions of Le-viticus 1–7 and the purity regulations of chs. 11–15, and they form a climactic conclu-sion to the entire complex of cultic law. So the logic of list overrides the chronology ofstory” (Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch [BSem 59; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1999] 87).

ohne Anerkennung der Haftung für verursachten Schaden: Die Rolle von Haftungund Intentionalität in den Opfern tafj und µva,” ZABR 3 (1997) 164–73.

Chapter 230

3. Leviticus 16:16b abbreviates the prescription for blood manipulations in the outer sanctum by referring to the procedure followed in the inner sanctum, where blood is applied once to the ark cover (tr,POK") and seven times in front of this object (vv. 14–15). However, the outer sanctum has no ark cover. So where should the blood go? Exodus 30:10 specifies the altar of incense in the outer sanctum as the recipient of blood from “the purification offering of purgation” (µyriPUKIh" taF"j"), which is to be performed once a year.15

4. Leviticus 16:16 and 21 assume knowledge of various kinds of evil that affect the sanctuary, that is, twamf, “impurities” (cf. chs. 11–15), twafj, “sins” (cf. chs. 4–5), and twnw[, “culpabilities” (e.g., 5:1, 17).

5. Leviticus 16:24 (cf. vv. 3, 5) requires burnt offerings, without specifying their procedure. The instructions in ch. 1 regarding this class of sacrifices must be assumed. Notice also the close association between purification and burnt offerings on behalf of the priests and laity in ch. 16, in harmony with the frequent combination of these kinds of sacrifices elsewhere (5:7–10; 9:7–16; 12:6, 8; 14:19–20, 31; 15:15, 30; Num 6:11; 8:12; 15:24–25).

6. Leviticus 16:27 states that the carcasses of tafj animals are to be incinerated “outside the camp.” Leviticus 4:12 specifies the precise location of these disposals.

References or allusions to the Day of Atonement outside Lev 16 reinforcethe concept that its solemn rites belong to the larger system of Israelite culticpractices.

1. As mentioned above, Exod 30:10 says that the incense altar is to be purged once per year with blood from the “purification offering of purgation.” This refers to the tafj procedure prescribed in Lev 16.

2. Leviticus 20:3 and Num 19:13, 20 indicate that some serious violations of cultic laws, including through wanton neglect, defile Yhwh’s sanctuary when they are committed. These verses do not explain how the sanctuary is cleansed from such pollution, but the rituals of the Day of Atonement are an obvious solution.16

15. For the rendering “the purification offering of purgation,” see Milgrom,Leviticus 1–16, 1059.

16. Ibid., 257–58. A. Rodríguez and A. Treiyer have argued that the defilement ofthe sanctuary referred to in Lev 20:3 and Num 19:13, 20 does not need to be purgedfrom the sanctuary through the Day of Atonement rituals because it is cleansed by thedestruction of the sinners themselves (A. Rodríguez, “Transfer of Sin in Leviticus,” in


3. In the context of instructions for Israelite festivals, Lev 23:27–32 emphasizes the Day of Atonement requirements for the Israelites to practice self-denial and abstain from work (cf. 16:29, 31), adds penalties for noncompliance (23:29–30), labels the tenth day of the seventh month as µyriPUKIh" µ/y, “the Day of Atonement” (v. 27; cf. v. 28), and mentions the reason for the requirements: purgation (rpk) on behalf of the Israelites (v. 28b). This echoes 16:30, which states the same motive. However, the rpk procedure appears only in 16:11–28.17

4. In Lev 25:9, the Jubilee year begins “on the tenth day of the seventh month, on the Day of Atonement.”18

5. Numbers 29:7–11 includes the tenth day of the seventh month, that is, the Day of Atonement (cf. Lev 16:29), in a calendar of festival days on which sacrifices supplementing the regular burnt offering are to be performed on behalf of the community. On this day the people are to practice self-denial (Num 29:7; cf. 16:29, 31), and a tafj goat is to be offered in addition to the “purification offering of purgation” (v. 11; cf. Exod 30:10; Lev 16:11–28).19

Challenges to the unity of Leviticus 16 do not prevent consideration of the Day of Atonement rituals as a system

In 1876, H. Oort made the first systematic attempt to separate the legisla-tion of Lev 16 into different strata. He took the original law to consist of the

17. Cf. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 312.18. Cf. ibid.19. Cf. ibid.; Rendtorff, Leviticus, 3:214. D. Baker suggests that µyriPUKIh" taF"j", “the

purification offering of purgation,” in Num 29:11 could be the full name of the non-calendric tafj sacrifice prescribed in Lev 4, “since that is the function of the sacrificethere” (“Leviticus 1–7 and the Punic Tariffs: A Form Critical Comparison,” ZAW 99[1987] 195 n. 31). This idea could be supported by comparison with Num 5:8, whereµyriPUKIh" lyaE, “the ram of atonement,” refers to an µva, “reparation offering,” also a non-calendric expiatory sacrifice, which is prescribed in Lev 5:14–26[6:7]; 7:1–7. However,because the cultic calendar of Num 28–29 deals with calendric rituals, µyriPUKIh" taF"j"

in 29:11 does not refer to a noncalendric sacrifice, in agreement with Exod 30:10,where µyriPUKIh" taF"j" purges the horns of the incense altar only once per year. So thismust be the special, annual tafj prescribed in Lev 16.

The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy [ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM3; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986] 169, 174–77; A. Treiyer, “TheDay of Atonement as Related to the Contamination and Purification of the Sanctu-ary,” in The Seventy Weeks, 198–99, 204–6). It is true that some kinds of serious sinsthat defile the land or the community are purged by the deaths of the sinners whohave lived there (Num 35:33; Deut 17:7; 32:43). But there is no evidence that thesanctuary is cleansed in this way.

Chapter 232

material dealing with purgation of the sanctuary (vv. 1–4, 11b–14, 16, 18a, 19,23, 24a, 25a, and 29a). This would have been expanded by incorporation ofother legislation regarding expiation for the people.20 Subsequent attempts toisolate the original nucleus of the chapter and trace the diachronic develop-ment of its character began with those of B. Stade, I. Benzinger, N. Messel,and S. Landersdorfer.21

Implications of the composite approach for ritual analysis are profound: IfLev 16 evolved through such literary synthesis of originally independent tra-ditions and accretion of layers,22 its rituals would not have been intended tofunction together as a cohesive system complementing cultic procedureselsewhere in Leviticus.

While the idea that Lev 16 is composite has been influential, it has notproven to be definitive. Already A. Kuenen responded to Oort:

In my opinion the cleansing of the sanctuary and that of the people—which surely belong to each other, since the uncleanness of the peoplepollutes the sanctuary (cf. Ezek. xlv. 18–20)—were alike dealt with by the

20. H. Oort, “De Groote Verzoendag,” ThT 10 (1876) 142–65.21. B. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1888) 2:258; I. Benzinger, “Das Gesetz

über den Grossen Versöhnungstag Lev. XVI,” ZAW 9 (1889) 65–89; N. Messel, “DieKomposition von Lev. 16,” ZAW 27 (1907) 1–15; S. Landersdorfer, Studien zum bibli-schen Versöhnungstag (ATA 10; Münster: Aschendorff, 1924) 14. In the introduction tohis own critical investigation of Lev 16, K. Aartun provides a helpful, brief sketch ofresearch history (“Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mitVarianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag,” ST 34 [1980] 74–76). Among criticaltheories, A. Treiyer identifies eleven kinds of divergent conclusions regarding the liter-ary development of Lev 16 [The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment fromthe Pentateuch to Revelation (Siloam Springs, Arkansas: Creation Enterprises, 1992]108–10).

22. R. de Vaux, for example, maintains that the text of Lev 16 was worked over sev-eral times and combines rituals that differ in origin: An expiation for the sins of thepriesthood and the people is linked, apparently artificially, with an expiation for thesanctuary. To this combined levitical ritual is added the ancient custom of Azazel’sgoat, which has been exorcised so that its efficacy is due to Yhwh, before whom it isinitially presented (Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament [CahRB 1; Paris: Gabalda,1964] 86–87); cf. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus, 77–80; T. Vriezen, “The Term Hizza:Lustration and Consecration,” OtSt 7 (1950) 223–31; H. Cazelles, Le Lévitique (LaSainte Bible; 2nd ed.; Paris: Cerf, 1958) 78–79; K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen:Mohr, 1966) 14, 200–217; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 109–10, 115; Aartun, “Stu-dien,” 73–109; B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Suhnetheologie derPriesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament(WMANT 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 266–71. A. Rodríguezsupplies bibliography for and against the unity of Lev 16 (Substitution in the HebrewCultus [AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979] 112nn. 2–3).


original lawgiver himself. The attempt to separate the two has accordinglyfailed. . . . The order of the ceremony in Lev. xvi. answers, mutatis mutan-dis, to Lev. ix.; while Lev. xiv. 6, 7, 52, 53 are analogous to Lev. xvi. 20b–22,the sending away of the goat ‘for Azazel;’ so that from this point of viewlikewise we find nothing to militate against the unity and originality ofLev. xvi.23

S. R. Driver also reacted:

though the proposed analysis is very suggestive, it may be doubted whetherthe stages through which the ritual passed are fully represented by it: v. 33(cf. 23:28b) appears to presuppose more special rites than the nucleus ofthe ch., as thus defined, makes provision for.24

M. Noth found that, because of the complexity of the material, “all attemptshitherto at factual and literary analysis have not led to at all convincing re-sults. But the fact itself, that the chapter came into being through an elabo-rate process of growth, is generally recognized and accepted.”25

J. Porter identifies a coherent literary structure in Lev 16: vv. 1–10 are con-cerned with preliminaries, vv. 11–28 detail the principal ceremonies, andvv. 29–34 comprise “a final systematizing summary.”26 The idea that the chap-ter comprises an introduction, body, and conclusion explains at least some ofits repetitions and discontinuities. At the same time, Porter sees in the contentof Lev 16 a combination of “three distinct ritual concerns, each of which

23. Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry, 86 n. 23; cf. 82.24. Driver, An Introduction, 47; cf. S. R. Driver and H. White, The Book of Leviti-

cus (SBONT 3; New York: Dodd, Mead, 1898) 79–80. A. Chapman and A. Streaneconcluded a review of attempts by critics such as Oort, Benzinger, Bertholet, Stade,and Messel to trace the redactional development of Lev 16: “it will be noticed thatwhat to one critic appears primary is secondary in the estimation of another, and thata group of verses which is treated as a whole by one is disintegrated by others. It shouldbe also remembered that keen and competent critics (e.g., Kuenen) were content toleave the chapter as a whole. From these facts it seems that two inferences may fairlybe drawn: (1) that the ceremonial here prescribed is put forward in a developed formas suitable for a single occasion; and (2) that an examination of the existing text doesnot supply a sufficiently firm basis for tracing the steps of its development” (The Bookof Leviticus [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914] 166). Compare B. Eerd-mans, except that he regarded Lev 16:29–33, directed to the Israelites rather than justto the high priest, as not originally belonging to Lev 16 (Das Buch Leviticus [ATS 4;Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1912] 73–76). While A. Noordtzij does not believe thatthe final form of Lev 16 was put together all at once, he finds insufficient evidencefor dating literary layers to different times (Leviticus [trans. R. Togtman; BSC; GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1982] 164, 170, 172; cf. 6).

25. Noth, Leviticus, 117.26. Porter, Leviticus, 124. While Porter has a solid grasp of the structure of Lev 16,

Noth is confused (Leviticus, 121; cf. 123–24).

Chapter 234

originally had its own background and significance”: rules for the high priestto enter the inner sanctum, rituals of purification, and the ritual of Azazel’sgoat that carries away the sins of the people.27

While N. Kiuchi does not attempt to deny the theory that Lev 16 is a com-posite literary structure, he holds “that the atonement theology expressedthrough the ritual in Lev 16 is far more coherent than has hitherto beenthought.”28

Critics commonly regard vv. 29–34 as a later appendix/insertion becausethese verses (1) shift from third-person to second-person plural address,(2) employ some unusual language, such as vd,QOh" vD'q}mI for the inner sanc-tum in v. 33 rather than vd,QOh", which appears in vv. 2, 3, 16, 17, 23, 27, and(3) parallel 23:26–32 in that they fix the Day of Atonement to a particulardate and require self-denial and rest from work.29 W. Kornfeld holds thatvv. 29–34 took these elements (calendric placement, self-denial, rest) fromthe Holiness Code (23:26–32).30 According to Milgrom, purgation of thewhole sanctuary (vv. 1–28) was originally an emergency measure from anolder P source, rather than an annual event with a fixed date,31 and 16:29–34a (plus Exod 30:10) is tacked on from H, whom he believes (with I. Knohl)to be the final redactor of P.32 “To sum up, an ancient rite for purging thesanctuary was restructured by Israel to include the purging of the nation’ssins, then fixed as an annual observance for the Tenth of Tishri and, fi-nally—after the Exile—supplemented by prescriptions for self-denial.”33

For Knohl, the original PT (= “Priestly Torah”) version of Lev 16 coveredthe full prescription for purification rites (vv. 1–28), without establishing aspecific date for the procedures.34 Quite similarly to Kornfeld and Milgrom,he concludes that the end of the chapter was added by editors belonging to

27. Porter, Leviticus, 124.28. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 143; cf. 162.29. See, e.g., Noth, Leviticus, 117, 126; Elliger, Leviticus, 14, 201, 207, 209, 217;

A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sach-liches (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968) 2:58; Aartun, “Studien,” 98–99.

30. W. Kornfeld, Levitikus (NEchtB 6; Würzburg: Echter, 1983) 66.31. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1061–63; idem, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York:

Doubleday, 2000) 1347; cf. A. Dillmann, who identified an initial emergency: desecra-tion of the sanctuary by Nadab and Abihu (Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus [Leipzig:Hirzel, 1897] 571).

32. J. Milgrom, “Atonement, Day of,” IDBSup, 83; idem, “Day of Atonement asAnnual Day of Purgation,” 1386–87; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 62–63, 1053–54; 1062–65;idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1343; cf. D. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:74–75; Knohl,The Sanctuary of Silence.

33. Milgrom, “Day of Atonement as Annual Day of Purgation,” 1387.34. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 28; cf. idem, “The Priestly Torah,” 87.



what he calls the “Holiness School” (HS). He attributes this passage to HS onthe basis of similarities with the wording of portions of the Day of Atonementpassage in ch. 23 that he ascribes to HS, the fact that in 16:29 the sojourner isenjoined to observe the law, as elsewhere in HS material, and use of ter-minology distinct from terminology used earlier in the chapter (e.g., vD'q}mI

vd,QOh" in v. 33).35 The HS editors “bracketed their addition with the resump-tive repetition of the phrase, ‘And this shall be to you a law for all time’ (v. 29a,and almost identically in v. 34aa).”36

F. Gorman acknowledges that vv. 29–34 are usually considered a later ad-dition because of their shift to second-person plural address. But he views thesummary in these verses as an important level of tradition that would be sig-nificant for understanding the chapter’s structure of meaning even if ele-ments of the present text were originally separate.37

Whatever the actual history of the Day of Atonement procedure and textprescribing it may be, there is no doubt that this is “one of the most complexrituals to have reached us from any ancient society.”38 But the fact that someother ancient Near Eastern ritual texts reflect highly elaborate cultic perfor-mances39 recommends caution before we assume that such a ritual couldonly develop by literary accretion.

Supporting the unity of the text at least in its final form, W. Warning hasfound that a tenfold distribution of the verb awb, “come,” enhances thestructural cohesion of Lev 16:2–28.40 More significantly, he identifies a chias-tically arranged sevenfold structure involving repetition of the noun dgb, “gar-ment” (vv. 4, 23, 24, 26, 28, 32ba, 32bb), which crosses the boundary betweenvv. 1–28 and 29–34.41

In a paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the Society of BiblicalLiterature in Denver,42 B. Schwartz grappled with a number of key textualissues and thereby made a compelling case for the unity of Lev 16 and the rit-uals that it prescribes. His main points are as follows:

35. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 27–28, 105; cf. idem, “The Priestly Torah,”86–92.

36. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 28; cf. idem, “The Priestly Torah,” 87.37. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 63, 66–67, 71–73.38. B. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publica-

tion Society, 1989) 99. My detailed analysis of the Day of Atonement ritual complexin comparison with elaborate Babylonian and Hittite festival days supports Levine’s as-sessment (R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure [Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion 2;Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004] 288–326.

39. See, e.g., ibid., 229–323, 360–68, 391–423.40. W. Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus (BIS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 124–26.41. Ibid., 87–88.42. Paper title: “The Literary and Ritual Unity of Leviticus 16.”

Chapter 236

1. Contra the popular view that the Day of Atonement ceremony (ch. 16)somehow has the purpose of remedying evil brought about by the tragic de-mise of Nadab and Abihu (ch. 10), Schwartz argues against a strong concep-tual connection between chs. 10 and 16. In 16:1 the words “after the death ofthe two sons of Aaron . . .” are spoken by the narrator, rather than by God toMoses and/or Aaron. So rather than warning the priests on the basis of tragicprecedent, these words merely indicate that the instructions in ch. 16 weregiven after Nadab and Abihu died. The words “when they drew near” only de-scribe, but do not explain, the circumstances of their death. They did not diebecause they “came near to Yhwh,” and neither would the priests die if theyapproached him to minister in the tabernacle.

2. Since v. 1 only provides the narrator’s explanation of the sequence inwhich the laws were given—ch. 10, followed by ch. 16, and then chs. 11–15to explain the impurities that would be cleansed by the sanctuary—they pro-vide no evidence for stages of textual development. Therefore, Schwartz con-cludes that the arrangment of material is that of the original priestly author.

3. Against the idea that the Day of Atonement ceremonies were originallyan “entrance ritual,” by which the high priest could gain access to the placewhere Yhwh was enshrined, Schwartz contends that the priest would not de-sire to make such a dangerous approach but was required to do so for the nec-essary task of purifying the inner sanctum so that Yhwh’s residence therecould continue.

4. Against the theory that vv. 29–34a, specifying an annual date and requir-ing self-denial and rest, are later than the rest of Lev 16 and stem from H,Schwartz dismisses alleged terminological and stylistic inconsistencies with Pin these verses as inconclusive, shows that P often gives instructions before ex-plaining their purpose (cf. esp. Num 19), and points out that active participa-tion of those whose impurities and sins are being ritually purged by a tafj

sacrifice would be essential for P.

Even if a composite prehistory of Lev 16 and/or the rituals that it reflectswere proved, which it is not, the fact that the final form of the biblical textpresents the Day of Atonement rituals together as a system that is functionallyintegrated within the larger system of Israelite rituals would justify synchronicstudy at this stage of literary presentation.43 As R. Knierim observes, “Old Tes-

43. Cf. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 2:160; 3:219–20; idem, “How to Approach Leviticus,”Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Bible andIts World (ed. D. Assaf; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990) 16; Kiuchi,The Purification Offering, 144–45; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 197. Commenting on the


tament scholarship has recognized the need for taking the final text seriouslyin its own right, regardless whether one claims for it an author, a redactor, ora composer.”44

An investigation into the meaning/function of a ritual at a stage for whichevidence is extant need not be crippled by lack of a solid prehistory any morethan semantic study of a word should be fatally flawed by insufficient etymo-logical background. Linguists have demonstrated that the way in which aword is used in a given period determines its meaning during that period.While etymology is interesting and important, it is not a safe guide to mean-ing.45 Similarly, the origin of a ritual does not determine some kind of invari-able essential meaning but, rather, the meaning of a given ritual activityresides in the way it is used and understood by a particular group of peopleaccording to the system of concepts that belongs to their cultural system.46

Normative ritual meaning can be fixed by a religious authority, including onebelieved to be a deity, such as Yhwh. But although this meaning may be heldto originate from a source outside of or transcending the culture in which theritual operates, it nevertheless functions within the cultural context.47

Scholars present diverse interpretations regarding the role of the special Day of Atonement services

Among those who interpret the Day of Atonement services within the func-tional context of the Israelite ritual system, there is a bewildering variety of

44. R. Knierim, Review of “The Book of Leviticus. By Gordon J. Wenham,”Encounter 44 (1983) 308.

45. See, e.g., J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM / Phila-delphia: Trinity, 1961) 107–60.

46. R. Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus24,3–8,” ZAW 101 (1989) 369–70, 389; cf. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, esp. 14–19.

47. Glenn Hartelius (Santa Rosa, California) suggests that ritual is between cultureand the transcendent (personal communication).

fact that Milgrom’s Leviticus commentary “deals with the level of meaning found inthe text’s final form,” G. Anderson approves: “Perhaps nowhere more than in the Bookof Leviticus could such a methodological presupposition be better founded, for no-where else in the Bible has source criticism been more controversial and harder to em-ploy than here” (Review of “Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation withIntroduction and Commentary,” CBQ 55 [1993] 762). Along similar lines, F. Crüse-mann says that “the text should first be interpreted, even in its details, in conjunctionwith the entire P system” (The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old TestamentLaw [trans. A. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996] 313 n. 186), and Watts contendsthat “methodologically the text must be read sympathetically (i.e., described as itstands) before historical questions and evidence can be adduced from it” (ReadingLaw, 132).

Chapter 238

opinion. J. Calvin viewed the Day as providing simply a yearly reaffirmationon the corporate level of expiation that has already been granted to individualIsraelites throughout the year.48 However, many scholars have understood itsunique procedures to serve as a dynamic complement to the other sacrificesby providing one or more aspects of expiation that have not already beenreceived.

Of the latter group, some see the role of the Day of Atonement rituals asremoval of imperfections that have not already been remedied by expiatorysacrifices,49 whether (1) because these evils have not been recognized,50 or(2) because they are too serious to remove through other sacrifices (e.g.,m. Yoma 8:8; t. Yoma 4.7). Emphasizing the latter reason, Milgrom explainsthe tafj sacrifices of the Day of Atonement as uniquely purging from thesanctuary pollution that has been caused by the “aerial” penetration of wan-ton, unrepented sin all the way into the inner sanctum, thereby complement-ing the function of purification offerings throughout the year that remedylesser penetrations of inadvertent offenses to the outer altar or outer sanc-tum.51 Similarly, R. Rendtorff holds that on the Day of Atonement “the sanc-tuary is cleansed from the impurity caused by all the happenings for whichatonement could not be made,”52 that is, from the kinds of evil for which the

48. J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Formof a Harmony (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) 1:313–14.

49. G. Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Leviticus (New York: Ivi-son & Phinney, 1857) 164; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 385; A. Clamer, Lévi-tique, Nombres, Deutéronome (La Sainte Bible 2; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1946) 127.

50. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1952 [orig. 1874]) 2:394–95; C. Feinberg, “The Scapegoat ofLeviticus Sixteen,” BSac 115 (1958) 320; A. Schenker, “Interprétations récentes,” 67.Schenker places the function of the Day of Atonement rituals within the context ofhis proposal for the ways in which the Israelite expiatory system deals comprehensive-ly with various categories of sin, including intentional sin (burnt offering), inadvertentsins of commission (purification offering), and inadvertent sins of commission thatremain undetected for a long time (reparation offering; “Der Unterschied zwischenSündopfer cha††at und Schuldopfer ascham im Licht von Lv 5,17–19 und 5,1–6,”Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Con-gress, Leuven 1989 [ed. C. Brekelmans and J. Lust; BETL 94; Leuven: Leuven Uni-versity Press, 1990] 121–23). C. Ginsburg believes that the Day of Atonement is “anannual supplement and completion” of the other cultic practices in that it atones forimperfections and sins that have been mixed up with and have tainted even the sa-cred worship throughout the year (Leviticus [ed. C. Ellicott; LHC; Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1961] 146).

51. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257–58; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly‘Picture of Dorian Gray.’ ”

52. R. Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. John Bowden; Phila-delphia: Fortress, 1985) 146.



offender is condemned to extirpation or death, without an opportunity to re-ceive the benefit of sacrificial expiation.

M. M. Kalisch emphasized a general kind of imperfection, which wouldbe difficult to recognize and remedy in a tidy way: the Day of Atonement “isessentially the institution of sin-offerings concentrated and intensified,”53 butunlike those sacrifices, its expiation “did not concern special offences, but thehuman weakness in general which cannot be admitted into a communion ofGod except by an act of grace and mercy.”54

Recognizing the comprehensive language of Lev 16:16 (µt:aFøj"Alk:, “alltheir sins”; cf. vv. 21–2) and unique usage of rhf for moral cleansing in v. 30,some have held that the Day of Atonement remedies all sins with which theIsraelites soil themselves during the course of the previous year.55 Alongthese lines, F. Crüsemann finds that the reiteration of “all” (lk) in this chap-ter (vv. 16, 17, 21, 30, 34) in connection with a variety of important terms forsin emphasizes the comprehensiveness of the atonement and elimination ofthe nation’s sins.

Of course, the restrictions of Lev 4:2 or 4:13 have been overcome. We areno longer dealing exclusively with sins committed unintentionally, thismeans all sin. There can be no doubt, on the basis of the overall view ofpriestly theology, that an annual, complete cleansing of the entire nation iswhat is intended.56

Similarly, A. Schenker believes that the blood applications of the specialsacrifices of the Day of Atonement have the same function for forgiveness asin other tafj sacrifices, but without limitation in coverage of guilt.57 At thesame time, the blood purifies the cult, signifying that God himself must healit from damage done to it through human fallibility. In this way Yhwh restoresthe integrity of his relationship with Israel at the beginning of each year.58

53. M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament,with a New Translation: Leviticus (2 vols.; London: Longman, Green, Reader, andDyer, 1867–72) 2:174.

54. Ibid., 1:173. Cf. E. Gerstenberger: “Through transgressions against the com-mandments, the community of faith was continually heaping guilt upon itself; andbecause God dwelled in his house in the midst of this flawed and guilt-ridden people,some portion of the substance of that sin was also bound to come into contact withand taint the sanctuary despite all cautionary measures” (Leviticus: A Commentary[trans. D. Stott; OTL; Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996] 218).

55. See rabbinic sources cited by A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in theRabbinic Literature of the First Century (LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) 302.

56. Crüsemann, The Torah, 314.57. A. Schenker, Versöhnung und Sühne (BibB 15; Freiburg: Katholisches Bibel-

werk, 1981) 114.58. Ibid., 114, 116; cf. 113.

Chapter 240

Some scholars have argued that the Day of Atonement rituals provide asecond stage of atonement (rpk) with regard to all or at least some of the sameimperfections for which a first stage has already been accomplished throughindividual expiatory sacrifices. Thus A. Rodríguez summarizes with regard tothe tafj sacrifice: “Through the ritual sin is brought to the sanctuary. Thereit is kept until its final removal on the Day of Atonement.”59 J. H. Kurtz foundthe language of Lev 16:16 to indicate that the Day of Atonement ceremonyremedies “all the sins of the whole nation without exception, known or un-known, atoned for or not atoned for.”60 Similarly, S. Kellogg included in thescope of the Day of Atonement both sins that have already been handled byordinary tafj sacrifices and those that have been overlooked.61

In Kiuchi’s understanding, the instructions in Lev 4–5 enable the Israelitesto attain forgiveness for their individual sins during the time between one Dayof Atonement and another, but the basic yearly purification from all their sins(16:30, 34) is connected with the crucial purification of the sanctuary.62 Hemaintains that “all the sins over a certain period of time are envisaged as beingatoned for again on the day of Atonement by the most potent blood manipu-lation.”63 For him this is not only repetition, but completion of a process:

it is possible to hold that by purifying sancta Aaron bears the guilt associ-ated with uncleanness, and that he lays it on the head of the Azazel goatwhen he confesses the sins of all the Israelites. On this interpretation theAzazel-goat ritual can be seen to meet the demand in Lev 10.16–20 that theguilt Aaron bears as the head of the house must be removed.64

According to Kiuchi, the high priest’s blood manipulations in the outersanctum for his own sin or that of the community (Lev 4) serve as a provi-

59. A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs,Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 136; cf. 219, 305–7; cf. G. F. Hasel, “Studiesin Biblical Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement / / Cleansing and Sanctuary,”The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (ed.A. Wallenkampf; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981) 93–107; idem, “Studiesin Biblical Atonement II: The Day of Atonement,” The Sanctuary and the Atonement,115–25; Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment, 147–212.

60. J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; Minne-apolis: Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 386.

61. S. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (EB; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900) 257,259.

62. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 156–59; cf. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 3:222.63. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 159.64. Ibid., 163. Cf. the less-complicated interpretation of G. Knight that, after all the

sacrifices for specific sins and impurities, the once-per-year sacrifice of Yhwh’s goat as-sures the Israelites that God indeed forgives sins, and the ritual with Azazel’s goat deals


sional, temporary measure, foreshadowing full elimination of their grave sinsthat requires the special purification offerings of the Day of Atonement.65

The conclusion of the instructions for the purification offering on behalf ofthe high priest (4:10–12) lacks a notice that he receives expiation (rpk), suchas appears at the end of other prescriptive units (vv. 20, 26, 31, 35). So hisneed for expiation, foreshadowed by sprinkling blood in the outer sanctum asclose to the inner sanctum as possible (v. 6), is fulfilled on the Day of Atone-ment, when he receives rpk by bringing blood into the inner sanctum to theark cover (16:14; cf. vv. 6, 11).66 Thus the high priest’s case is unique in thathis sin is treated twice by tafj sacrifices, but he receives expiation onlyonce, on the Day of Atonement.

The view of C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch is a sort of hybrid that combinesdifferent interpretations. They regarded the single applications of blood fromthe bull and goat upon the ark cover, the incense altar, and the outer altar onthe Day of Atonement as expiating the sins of the priests and laity corpo-rately, just as tafj sacrifices throughout the year expiate for individuals. Onthe Day of Atonement the expiation is greater in that blood is taken into theinner sanctum, the “throne room” of Yhwh, to obtain true reconciliationwith him in his direct presence. However, Keil and Delitzsch assigned an-other kind of meaning to the sevenfold sprinklings in the two apartments andon the outer altar: to expiate these parts of the sanctuary from the sins of theIsraelites.67

B. Baentsch had a different hybrid. The blood manipulations of the tafj

bull on behalf of the priests purify the priests themselves, but the blood of thegoat for the people purges the sanctuary (16:15–19), which has been infectedduring the course of the year by the sins and impurities of the surroundingIsraelites to the extent that these evils have not already been remedied by ex-piatory sacrifices in the course of the year. He views the ritual of Azazel’s goat

65. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 129; cf. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 3:162–63.66. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 126–30; cf. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 2:159–60; cf.

3:173, 221, 224.67. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 399–402. They saw the cleansing of

the sanctuary as expiation in the sense that “the sin-destroying virtue of the blood”works on objects in the same way that it works upon persons and identified the un-cleanness of the Israelites that is purged from the sanctuary as “the ideal effluence oftheir sins, which had been transferred to the objects in question” (p. 402). For the ideathat Day of Atonement expiation is greater because blood is brought closer to Yhwh,cf. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 264; Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 215.

with the effect of sins that remains after forgiveness (Leviticus [DSB; Edinburgh: SaintAndrew / Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981] 92; cf. 88, 91).

Chapter 242

(vv. 20–22) as purifying the people from all the sins (not only the cultic ones)that they have committed in the last year.68

ConclusionWhatever the prehistory of the pentateuchal cultic legislation may have

been, the final form of the biblical text presents its rituals throughout the yearand on the Day of Atonement as a functionally integrated system. Amid on-going debates regarding the authorship/redaction of passages such as Lev 4and 16 and diachronic relationships between them, we can justify a syn-chronic approach that investigates the meanings of the rituals as the final text,our primary source of data, presents them.

The vast array of scholarly opinions regarding the special role of the Dayof Atonement services reveals the vexing complexity of this topic, which iscrucial for understanding the nature of ancient Israelite religion. We are leftwith major questions: Do the Day of Atonement procedures duplicate orcomplete the rpk process accomplished by expiatory sacrifices earlier in theyear? If the latter, does this completion treat only evils that have not alreadybeen remedied, or does it deal with at least some of the same sins a secondtime to provide a kind of rpk that goes beyond forgiveness? In the remainderof this book, I will relentlessly pursue solid answers to these questions.

68. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 381, 383–85.

Part 2

Purification Offerings Performed throughout the Year

45

Chapter 3

Outer-Altar Purification Offerings

Throughout the year, two basic kinds of purification offering were re-quired to remedy inadvertent sins when the sinners realized what they haddone.1 If the “anointed priest,” that is, high priest,2 or the entire communityhad sinned (Lev 4:3–12, 13–21, respectively), the sacrificial blood was to bemanipulated in the outer sanctum of the Sacred Tent (vv. 6–7, 17–18).3 Onthe other hand, if a chieftain or commoner had sinned (vv. 22–26, 27–35,

1. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 261–64; cf. idem,“Two Kinds of ˙a††aªt,” VT 26 (1976) 333–37.

2. It is true that anointing oil was applied to ordinary priests (Exod 29:21; 40:14–15;Lev 8:30). But Aaron, the first high priest, had a special anointing (Exod 29:7; Lev8:12), and in Lev 6:15[22] it is clear that “the anointed priest” is the high priest inAaron’s line of succession (cf. Exod 29:29–30).

3. On the basis of Exod 29:12 and Lev 9:9, 15, where Aaron performs “outer altar”rather than “outer sanctum” purification offerings on behalf of himself and the com-munity, N. Messel claimed that at an earlier time the purification offering of the highpriest and the community did not involve blood applications inside the Sacred Tent(“Die Komposition von Lev. 16,” ZAW 27 [1907] 9; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 581,636–37; B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Pries-terschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament [WMANT 55;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982] 227–28). However, the rituals inExod 29 and Lev 9 are required for their contribution to the unique processes of initialconsecration and inauguration of the cult (cf. F. Gorman, Divine Presence and Com-munity: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus [ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997] 62; N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaningand Function [JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987] 44–46). It is true that else-where the requirement for performance of a purification offering is generated by anoccasion of sin, when that sin becomes known to the offerer. So it is difficult to arguethat the consecration and inauguration purification offerings are only for suspectedsins (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 581). However, like calendric purification offerings per-formed at festivals (Num 28:15, 22; 29:5, 11, etc.), the time when the consecration andinauguration sacrifices were performed was preset by Yhwh rather than being deter-mined on an ad hoc basis by the offerer(s) in response to the requirement for remedy-ing a specific sin. So perhaps we can understand the difference in the loci of bloodapplications in terms of ritual function, without resorting to a diachronic resolutionand/or a theory of differing authorship (for such a source theory, see of course, J. Well-hausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testa-ments [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963; orig. 1885] 136–37).

Chapter 346

respectively), blood was to be applied to the outer “altar of burnt offering” inthe courtyard (vv. 25, 30, 34). Thus we can refer to the two kinds of tafj sac-rifices as “outer-sanctum” and “outer-altar” purification offerings.

Not performed throughout the year was a third kind of purification offer-ing, reserved only for the Day of Atonement, during which the high priest ap-plied blood in the inner sanctum, as well as the outer sanctum, and to theouter altar (Lev 16:14–19). While this special sacrifice is termed µyriPUKIh" taF"j",“the purification offering of atonement” (Exod 30:10; Num 29:11), for conve-nience we can label it the “inner-sanctum” purification offering.

For now we will focus on the offerings performed throughout the year.Further differentiating the outer-altar and outer-sanctum kinds was the factthat an officiating priest was to eat the remainder of an outer-altar offering(Lev 6:19[26], 22[29]) unless the sacrifice was on behalf of himself (9:8–11).But an outer-sanctum offering was never to be eaten by the officiant, in thiscase the high priest (6:23[30]).

Our task in this chapter and the next is to investigate the way in whichthe two kinds of purification offering carried meaning in the form of goalsassigned to their activities. Since the blood applications of the outer-altaroffering are simpler, I will begin with analysis of this type.

The prescriptive paradigm for noncalendric outer-altar purification offer-ings appears three times in Lev 4:22–35 to allow for variations with regard tothe offerer and the animal victim. A chieftain was to offer a male goat (vv. 22–26), but a commoner was to bring either a female goat (vv. 27–31) or a femalesheep (vv. 32–35). Since the meaning and activities performed in each caseare the same, we can focus on the sacrifice of the chieftain and refer to thatof the commoner as necessary.

Below is Jacob Milgrom’s translation of Lev 4:22–26, with instructions forritual activities shown in italics and indications of meaning attached to theseactivities in bold type. Note that following preliminary conveyance of the ani-mal to the sanctuary, where it is undoubtedly examined by cultic functionar-ies to determine that it is unblemished (4:23; cf. 22:18–25) and therefore fitfor its ritual function, activities belonging to the ritual proper begin in v. 24.4

22When the chieftain does wrong by violating any of Yhwh’s prohibitivecommandments inadvertently, and he feels guilt 23or he is informed of thewrong he committed, he shall bring as his offering a male goat without

4. Unlike W. Kaiser (“The Book of Leviticus,” NIB 1:1010), I do not find in the texta (formal) presentation of the victim before hand-leaning as the initial component ofa sacrificial ritual.

Outer-Altar Purification Offerings 47

blemish. 24He shall lean his hand upon the goat’s head, and it shall beslaughtered at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered, before Yhwh:it is a purification offering. 25The priest shall take some of the blood of thepurification offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar ofburnt offering; and (the rest of) its blood he shall pour out at the base of thealtar of burnt offering. 26All of its suet he shall turn into smoke on the altar,like the suet of the well-being offering. Thus shall the priest effect purgationon his behalf for his wrong, that he may be forgiven.5

The ritual procedure includes some activities that are mentioned in the text and others that are not

Reconstructing the activity procedure begins with ritual activities explic-itly mentioned in the text. In Lev 4:22–26 these include:

lean hand on head of animalslay animalput some blood on horns of outer altarpour remaining blood at base of altarburn suet on altar

Verse 26 abbreviates by referring to the well-being (µymlv) offering for speci-fication of the suet parts of the chieftain’s goat to be turned into smoke on thealtar.6 This refers to 3:14b–15, which details the suet of well-being offeringgoats:

14. . . the suet that covers the entrails and all the suet that is around the en-trails; 15the two kidneys and the suet that is around them on the sinews; andthe caudate lobe on the liver, which he shall remove with the kidneys.7

In addition to the activities explicitly prescribed in Lev 4:22–26, the followingmust be included in the chieftain’s purification offering:8

5. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)1272; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 227.

6. M. Noth mistakenly takes the economy of abbreviations referring to the well-being offering procedure that recur in the context of instructions for purification offer-ings (Lev 4:10, 26, 31, 35) to indicate that the purification offering is a special kind ofwell-being offering (Leviticus [trans. J. E. Anderson; OTL; London: SCM, 1965] 37).

7. Translatation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1270; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 203.8. Leviticus 2:13b requires salt with every offering. However, the addition of salt is

not included in the procedural paradigm of any pentateuchal ritual, suggesting thatthe activity is preliminary to the commencement proper of a given ritual. This is sup-ported by Ezek 43:24, where two animals are presented before Yhwh, that is, broughtto the court of the temple, priests throw salt on them, and then they are sacrificed as aburnt offering. In m. Tamid 4:3, Ezekiel’s procedure is not followed: the regular burntoffering and its cereal accompaniment are salted after the animal is cut up into pieces.

Chapter 348

1. Collecting/receiving the blood from the animal at the time of slaughter is necessary before the priest can apply it to the altar. Although the Pentateuch never explicitly refers to this activity, it does appear in connection with burnt offerings in 2 Chr 29:22.

2. The fact that the suet is burned on the altar implies that it is first removed from the animal. Leviticus 4:31 and 35 prescribe such removal in the context of purification offerings on behalf of commoners (cf. vv. 8–9, 19 and 3:4, 9, 15).

3. The priest must present (hipºil of brq) the blood, that is, formally convey it, to the altar before he applies it there (cf. 1:5).9

4. The priest must present the suet to the altar before he burns it there (cf. 1:13).

5. The officiating priest must eat the meat of the outer-altar purification offering (6:19[26], 22[29]).

The fuller list of activities included in the outer-altar purification offeringis as follows:

lean hand on head of animalslay animalcollect bloodpresent blood to outer altarput some blood on horns of altarpour remaining blood at base of altarremove suetpresent suet to altarburn suet on altareat meat

In terms of mere physical cause and effect, the collection of activities justlisted is an inefficient way to feed a priest: leaning one hand on the head ofan animal and applying its blood and suet to an altar have no practical func-tion in the mundane sphere. Such “impracticality” is common in ritual be-cause the goal of a ritual transcends what can be achieved through ordinaryphysical means alone.10 There is an important sense in which a ritual goalmay be regarded as practical, but this involves a higher level of practicality,

9. On the hipºil of brq for cultic conveyance/presentation, see R. Gane andJ. Milgrom, “br'q: qarab,” TDOT 13:142–43.

10. R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure (Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Pis-cataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004) 43–44, 55, 58; cf. F. Staal, Rules without Meaning:Ritual, Mantras and the Human Sciences (New York: Peter Lang, 1989) 132.

spread 6 points long


such as reestablishing good relations with a deity in order to receive his bless-ings instead of punishment.11

The overall goal/meaning of an outer-altar purification offering for sin is to purge evil on the offerer’s behalf, prerequisite to forgiveness

In Lev 4:24, 26 we find indications of the goal/meaning (bold type) attachedto the activities (italics) that belong to the chieftain’s purification offering:

24He shall lean his hand upon the goat’s head, and it shall be slaughtered atthe spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered, before Yhwh: it is a purifi-cation offering.26All of its suet he shall turn into smoke on the altar, like the suet of the well-being offering. Thus shall the priest effect purgation on his behalf for hiswrong, that he may be forgiven.12

The goal of the ritual is to offer a purification offering to Yhwh that accom-plishes purgation on behalf of the chieftain, who has committed a wrong, sothat he may receive forgiveness. In v. 26 the concluding formula has two parts:

/taF:j"mE ˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw], Thus shall the priest effect purgation on his behalffor his wrong,

/l jl"s}niw], that he may be forgiven.13

11. Although an Israelite could bring a well-being offering for the primary practicalpurpose of providing himself with meat, this ritual also involved the higher level of in-teraction with Yhwh, and it had some elements that are impractical from a mundanepoint of view, including hand-leaning and the requirement that the animal must beslaughtered at the sanctuary, where the blood must be dashed against the sides of thealtar and the fat must be burned on the altar (Lev 3; cf. 17:1–9). Because ritual canhave a higher level of practicality and it does rather than simply expresses, R. Wuth-now’s distinction between ritual expressive activity and nonritual instrumental activity(Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis [Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1987] 99–109) does not work. See the critique of Wuthnow’s view byD. Wright (Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and RetaliationRites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat [Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2001] 10–11)and the critique of the noninstrumental element in V. Turner’s definition of ritual, byR. Grimes (Ritual Criticism: Case Studies in Its Practice, Essays on Its Theory [SCR;Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1990] 13).

12. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1272; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 227.13. On the two-part structure of such concluding formulas, see B. Janowski (Sühne,

250–54) and R. Rendtorff, who points out that the final element /l jl"s}niw] appears onlyin Lev 4–5 and Num 15:22–31 for the purification offering and in Lev 19:20–22 for thereparation (µva) offering (Leviticus [BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1985–] 3:176, 216).

Chapter 350

So in this case, which deals with a moral fault, purgation (rpk) is prerequisiteto forgiveness (jls).14

Basically the same rpk § jls goal appears in the concluding formulas ofthe subsequent prescriptions for outer-altar purification offerings of common-ers, whether the victims are female goats (v. 31) or sheep (v. 35). The only dif-ference between the goals of the rituals for the chieftain and the commoneris the status of the beneficiary: chieftain versus commoner. This differencehas a very minor impact on the ritual, affecting only the kind of victim—malegoat versus female goat or sheep—but not the physical activities performed,except that the physical nature of a sheep also requires removal, presentation,and burning of its fat tail along with other suet portions (4:35; cf. 3:9). HereLeviticus makes an important statement: however exalted a chieftain may bein his society, in terms of his cultic status before Yhwh he is only slightlyabove a commoner.

Outer-altar (but not outer-sanctum) purification offerings, coupled withburnt offerings, are also required for severe physical ritual impurities, whichare not moral faults (e.g., Lev 12:6–8; 14:19–20, 22, 30–31; 15:14–15, 29–30).As a result of such sacrifices, offerers receive purity rather than purgationprerequisite to forgiveness. For example, in Lev 12:7 the goal formula for theparturient’s ritual is: h:ym<D; rqOM}mI hr;j“f:w] h:yl<[: rP<kIw], which Milgrom renders:“and effect expiation on her behalf, and then she shall be pure from hersource of blood.”15

Because the tafj sacrifice is used for purification from physical impuri-ties as well as sins, in accordance with the fact that the piºel of the root afj

can be employed in the privative sense of “un-sin” for physical ritual purifi-cation, in which moral faults could not possibly be in view (Lev 14:49, 52—purification of a house),16 it is clear that tafj as a designation for a kind ofsacrifice has taken on the broader meaning “purification offering” (i.e., puri-fication from sins or physical ritual impurities). It does not mean simply “sinoffering,” a common translation that is misleading. Translating the word as

14. On cultic rpk performed by the priest as prerequisite to (but not causing) for-giveness granted by God, see, for example, Rendtorff, Leviticus, 3:179–80, 218, 223;B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms inAncient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 65–66; idem, Leviticus (JPS Torah Com-mentary: Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 23.

15. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1284; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 742.16. B. Levine explains the piºel: “The noun ˙a††aªt itself is based on the Piºel stem

of the verb ˙-†-ª, which means ‘to err, betray, offend.’ Quite often, the Piºel stem con-notes the undoing of what the simple stem conveys. On this basis, ˙a††aªt means ‘re-moval of sinfulness, purification’ ” (“Leviticus, Book of,” ABD 4:314).



“sin offering” implies that the tafj deals only with sin and is the only sacri-fice to do so.17

In ch. 6 I will investigate further the rpk formulas in cases of sin and physi-cal ritual impurity to settle a debated question that is crucial for understand-ing the function of the tafj sacrifice, especially regarding the relationshipbetween purification offerings performed throughout the year and those ofthe Day of Atonement. The question is: when the priest carries out the goalof a purification offering by effecting purgation (piºel of rpk) on the offerer’sbehalf, what does he purge? Does he remove evil from the altar to which heapplies the blood or from the offerer who has sinned or has been in a state ofphysical ritual impurity?

For now we will move on to the second part of the chieftain’s goal for-mula. In Lev 4:26 the passive expression “that he may be forgiven” (nipºal ofjls) does not explicitly identify the one who grants forgiveness.18 However,since the case involves violation of one of Yhwh’s commandments (v. 22), theimplied forgiver must be Yhwh himself. As Yhwh’s representative, the priesteffects purgation by performing the ritual, but he has no authority to forgivethe chieftain. This accords with use of the verb jls, “forgive,” elsewhere: itnever has a human subject but always refers to pardon granted directly byGod,19 a kind of forgiveness that only God can give.20

By providing for forgiveness through sacrifice, Yhwh mercifully openedthe way for pardon even before the sinner recognized his offense.21 However,

17. A. R. S. Kennedy and J. Barr, “Sacrifice and Offering,” Dictionary of the Bible(ed. J. Hastings; rev. ed. F. C. Grant and H. H. Rowley; New York: Scribner’s, 1963)874; J. Milgrom, “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?” VT 21 (1971) 237–39; idem,Leviticus 1–16, 253–54; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 161.

18. Cf. 4:20, 31, 35; 5:10, 13; Num 15:25, 26, 28.19. Cf. BDB 699; HALOT 1:757; P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms,

Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 105; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1994) 143–44 n. 48; S. R. Driver, “Propitiation,” A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. J. Has-tings; New York: Scribner’s, 1911) 4:128; J. Hausmann, “jl"s: sala˙,” TDOT 10:259;D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6) 186; K. Koch, “Sühneund Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit,”EvT 26 (1966) 226, 331; C. Macholz, “Das ‘Passivum divinum,’ seine Anfänge im Al-ten Testament und der ‘Hofstil,’ ” ZNW 81 (1990) 247–53, esp. 248; M. Noth, Leviticus(trans. J. E. Anderson; OTL; London: SCM, 1965) 41; Rendtorff, Leviticus, 3:176.

20. Macholz points out that jls is like arb, “create,” in that it takes only the deityas subject (ibid.). At the end of his study of acn in relation to other terms for forgive-ness, including jls, G. Olaffson concludes that forgiveness is much more than “re-moval of guilt and the barrier that exists between God and man” (“The Use of n¶ª inthe Pentateuch and Its Contribution to the Concept of Forgiveness” [Ph.D. diss., An-drews University, 1992] 301; cf. 302–7).

21. Cf. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice, 158–60.

Chapter 352

unlike the purity that inevitably results from acceptable (i.e., properly per-formed) rites provided for by Yhwh to remedy physical ritual impurities (e.g.,Lev 12:7, 8), forgiveness for moral faults did not automatically result from thepriest’s activities; “only God determines their efficacy.”22 Therefore it is im-plied that forgiveness was “conditional, as we may suppose would be under-stood by the more spiritual Israelites, on the penitence of the offerer.”23

Although we naturally tend to think of forgiveness in legal terms, anothermetaphor may stand behind jls.24 The Akkadian cognate salahu refers tosprinkling water or other substances for purificatory or apotropaic purposes, or“to moisten, wet, saturate a dressing.”25 Although Biblical Hebrew uses the rootonly in an extended sense that has to do with restoration of the divine-humanrelationship, the original basic idea may have been “washing away” sin.26

Activity components contribute to the overall goalNow that we have a basic sense of the overall goal of the chieftain’s purifi-

cation offering that unites the activity system and defines its boundaries, weare ready to consider component parts of the sacrifice. Subsystems clusteraround treatment of the blood and suet. In each of these subsystems, activitiesprogress to complete a subgoal. On the level of activity alone, these subgoalsare merely to apply blood and suet, respectively, to the altar. However, we willfind that goals of activity components contribute to the overall ritual goal ofpurgation, which transcends the ordinary physical effect of the activitiesalone.

We can outline the chieftain’s sacrifice as a hierarchical activity system(see figure, p. 53). Notice that within the “apply blood to altar” subsystem, thegoal is achieved by the penultimate activity: “put some blood on horns of al-tar.” We can call this the “goal activity.” The last activity of the same sub-system, “pour remaining blood at base of altar,” is postrequisite disposal (seebelow). In the “burn suet on altar” subsystem, the goal activity is the finalone: “burn suet on altar.”

22. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 245 on Lev 4:20; cf. idem, Numbers (JPS Torah Com-mentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 123–24; A. Büchler, Studiesin Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (LBS; New York:KTAV, 1967) 461; E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. A. Heathcote andP. Allcock; New York: Harper, 1958) 295–96.

23. S. R. Driver, “Propitiation,” 131; cf. Jacob, Theology, 289; A. Schenker, Versöh-nung und Sühne (BibB 15; Freiburg: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981) 110.

24. L. Grabbe recognizes that more than one metaphor for removing sin appears tobe operating (Leviticus [OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993] 42).

25. CAD 15:85–86.26. Cf. Levine, Leviticus, 24; J. Stamm, “jls sl˙ to Forgive,” TLOT 2:797–98.



How do leaning one hand on the head of the animal, slaying the animal,applying blood to the altar, applying suet to the altar, and eating the remain-ing meat contribute to achieving the overall goal of the ritual, which is topurge inadvertent sin on behalf of the chieftain? We will consider each ofthese activities/subsystems in order.

Leaning hand on head of animalIn the Israelite sacrificial system, the cases in which the biblical text spec-

ifies leaning one hand27 on the head of a victim are those in which the iden-tity of the offerer, to whom ownership of the victim is attributed and thereforeto whom the benefits of the sacrifice accrue, needs to be indicated.28 Thegesture is required for noncalendric offerings of herd and flock animals,whether the offerer is an individual (e.g., burnt offering—Lev 1:4; well-beingoffering—3:2, 8, 13; purification offering—4:4, 24, 29, 33), a group within thecommunity (burnt offering—Exod 29:15; Lev 8:18; Num 8:12; purificationoffering—Exod 29:10; Lev 8:14; Num 8:12), or the community as a whole(purification offering—Lev 4:15; cf. 2 Chr 29:23).

27. Not two hands; against m. Mena˙. 9:8.28. For the “identification of ownership” theory as opposed to other views, see,

for example, D. Wright, “The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bibleand in Hittite Literature,” JAOS 106 (1986) 433–46; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 151–53; cf. Schenker, Versöhnung und Sühne, 105; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Lifeand Institutions (trans. John McHugh; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Livonia, Michi-gan: Dove, 1961) 416; idem, Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament (CahRB 1; Paris:Gabalda, 1964) 29.

Outer-Altar Purification Offering

lean hand on head of animalslay animalapply blood to outer altar

collect bloodpresent blood to outer altarput some blood on horns of altarpour remaining blood at base of altar

burn suet on altarremove suetpresent suet to altarburn suet on altar

eat remaining meat

Chapter 354

The “ownership” view of sacrificial hand-leaning is supported by the word-ing of Lev 1:4, the only place where the text interprets the gesture with onehand: “He shall lean his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it maybe acceptable on his behalf, to expiate for him.”29 Here in the context of theburnt offering, acceptance of the offering on behalf of the offerer rather thansomeone else depends on the performance of hand-leaning. Even if anotherperson leads the animal into the sanctuary courtyard, the gesture eliminatesany possible doubt regarding the identity of the owner/offerer.

When an offering is not a herd or flock animal but a bird or a grain item,no leaning of the hand is specified (e.g., Lev 1:14–15; 2:2, 8), even in purifi-cation offerings for sin (5:7–13). This correlates with the fact that carryingsuch a small offering in the hand and then handing it directly to the priestwould allow for no ambiguity regarding the identity of the offerer.30

The prescription for the reparation (µva) offering in Lev 7:1–7 does notspecify hand-leaning, perhaps because this sacrifice of a ram could be con-verted into a money payment (5:15, 18, 25[6:6])31 that was handed directly tothe priest.32 However, it appears that hand-leaning should have been per-formed if a ram was offered.

I have found no evidence that hand-leaning is required in calendric sacri-fices. It is true that most prescriptions for such sacrifices are severely abbrevi-ated (e.g., Lev 23; Num 28–29), which seems to allow for the possibility thathand-leaning was performed, even though it is not mentioned. But in the de-tailed prescription for unique inner-sanctum purification offerings on theDay of Atonement, no hand-leaning is mentioned (Lev 16:11, 15), so it is nota required part of the ritual procedures.33 There would be no potential ambi-guity regarding the identity of the community of offerer(s) in such calendriccases because the offerer(s) and their victims would have “appointments”with Yhwh.34

29. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1268; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 133;italics supplied for emphasis.

30. Wright, “The Gesture of Hand Placement,” 439.31. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of

Repentance (SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 15.32. Wright, “The Gesture of Hand Placement,” 439 n. 34; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–

16, 151, 326–27.33. So, against Rendtorff (Leviticus, 1:32), it is not true that all detailed rituals for

animal sacrifices in Exod 25–Num 10 begin with hand-leaning.34. According to m. Mena˙. 9:7, hand-leaning is not included in community/pub-

lic rituals, except in the cases of the outer-sanctum purification offering of a bull onbehalf of the community (Lev 4:15) and the goat that is sent away to Azazel on theDay of Atonement (16:21). The latter is not an exception with respect to leaning one


The “ownership” theory applies to occurrences of hand-leaning in allkinds of sacrifices, including well-being offerings (Lev 3:2, 8, 13), which arenot mandated for expiation (piºel of rpk) of sins or impurities.35 It alsoagrees with the fact that persons with severe physical ritual impuritiesundergo preliminary cleansing through agents such as the passage of time(12:4–6; 15:28), time + ablutions (15:13), or time + ablutions + additionalritual activities (14:4–9) before performing their sacrifices.36 So the conta-gion of physical ritual impurity is already removed before sacrificial hand-leaning is performed, which makes it difficult to maintain that this gesturedefiles animals by physical contact in the same way that people defileobjects and other people while their sources of impurity are active (cf. Lev15:4–12, 26–27).

35. J. Matthes, “Der Sühnegedanke bei den Sündopfern,” ZAW 23 (1903) 118–19;Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 151–53; idem, “The Modus Operandi of the Óa††aªt: ARejoinder,” JBL 109 (1990) 112; Wright, “The Gesture of Hand Placement,” 438–39.

36. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 254; S. Rattray, cited by Milgrom, “The Modus Ope-randi of the Óa††aªt, 113.

hand because in this case two hands are used. The former, on the other hand, is suchan exception: when the elders of the community lean their “hands” on the head of thebull (4:15), they presumably use one hand each (R. Péter-Contesse and J. Ellington,A Handbook on Leviticus [UBSHS; New York: United Bible Societies, 1990] 54). Sothis exception to the community/public “rule of thumb” calls into question the ade-quacy of a distinction between public and private for this purpose. Milgrom deals withthe community’s bull as follows: “the former can hardly be called public: it is broughtfor the aggregate sins committed by the individual members of the community. Therabbinic tradition may, however, be perfectly right in connection with the fixed offer-ings of the calendar, which, representing no individual(s) in particular, would nothave required hand-leaning” (Leviticus 1–16, 153). A simpler solution would be to dis-tinguish between noncalendric sacrifices that require hand-leaning (e.g., the commu-nity’s bull) and calendric sacrifices that do not require hand-leaning (see, e.g., Num28–29). Hand-leaning is omitted in the Lev 9 description of the cultic inauguration.Perhaps it was actually performed but not included in the description because Lev 9focuses on activities that are connected with the altar (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 571).On the other hand, perhaps hand-leaning was not performed because the inaugu-ration ceremonies were calendric in the sense that they took place at a time set byYhwh, even though they constituted a one-time event. In 2 Chr 29:22 lack of hand-leaning in noncalendric burnt offerings on behalf of the community that were part ofa special complex of sacrifices ordered by Hezekiah to meet a special need is strange(pointed out to me by J. Milgrom). This omission does not appear to be simply an ab-breviation in the text because the next verse explicitly mentions hand-leaning as partof the purification offerings that followed (v. 23). We could suggest that hand-leaningis noted in connection with the purification offerings because in this case the gesturewas performed by representatives of the community, as in Lev 4:15, due to the speci-ficity of the expiation (cf. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 1:39). Hand-leaning in the burnt offer-ings would be less worthy of mention if they were simply performed by the priests.

Chapter 356

There is more to hand-leaning than simple identification of ownership.The owner is the giving party in a transaction.37 Thus hand-leaning signifiesthe end of ownership.38 From this point on, the animal is dedicated to Yhwh,as shown by the fact that his specified procedure, which begins with hand-leaning, allows for no turning back: the next activity must be the slaughter ofthe animal, and so on. So between hand-leaning and slaughter, a legal trans-fer of ownership from the offerer to Yhwh takes place.39

Whether or not hand-leaning is required in a particular sacrifice, it is thegiving over of the offering as a whole through proper performance of the rit-ual in its entirety that accomplishes the transaction (i.e., transfer of value)with Yhwh (see, e.g., Lev 1:9; 4:20, 26, 31, 35).40 To use systems terminology,the property of efficacy only emerges at the hierarchical level of the whole ac-tivity system, not at the level of its components.41

We can summarize thus far: when hand-leaning is performed, it identi-fies the offerer/owner of the victim, to whom the benefits of the sacrifice ac-crue, within the context of transferring the offering material from the offererto the deity.

Some have argued that in the context of a purification offering, hand-leaning transfers defilement or guilt from the offerer to the animal.42 Accord-

37. Cf. F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the PriestlyTheology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 121–22; Schenker, Versöhnungund Sühne, 105.

38. A modern analogy would be the signature that an automobile owner places onthe title for his vehicle as part of the transaction by which he sells the car. The signa-ture alone does not transfer the vehicle, but by legally identifying the one who has theright to give up this property in exchange for money, the signature contributes to thetransfer process by directing and legitimating it.

39. Cf. R. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in ExegeticalMethod (FAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 36–40, 80. The fact that the offerer may per-form one or more subsequent ritual actions does not contradict this. Once the animalis the property of the deity, a participating offerer must deliver it to Yhwh for his utili-zation according to his rules.

40. H. C. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47(1976) 31–35. R. Knierim basically agrees but distinguishes between “the act of theanimal’s legal transpropriation through the dedication to its sacrificial death, symbol-ized by the firm pressing down of the hand, and the subsequent implementation ofthis legal transpropriation through the animal’s physical transfer to Yahweh” (Text andConcept, 80). For the idea of hand-leaning as dedication for the sacrificial role that in-volves death, see J. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin;Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 95, 102.

41. Compare the rabbinic view that performing ritual actions properly and in thecorrect order is essential to their validity (e.g., m. Zeba˙. 4:2; m. Yoma 5:7).

42. E.g., E. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. D. Stott; OTL; Lou-isville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 73; M. Noth, Leviticus (trans. J. E.Anderson; OTL; London: SCM, 1965) 38–39; A. Rodríguez, “Transfer of Sin in


ing to J. Porter, commenting on “lay his hand on its head” in Lev 4:4, thisview is supported by vv. 11–12, in the context of the outer-sanctum purifica-tion offering. Here “the sin-laden animal is unclean and thus must be taken‘outside the camp’ to avoid contamination and destroyed. Only the blood andthe fat which, because of the life-force in them, are immune to the defile-ment of sin, can be offered to God.”43

Porter’s interpretation does not adequately account for several factors: thecarcass of the outer-sanctum purification offering must be disposed of in a“pure place” (Lev 4:12), the one who incinerates it requires no subsequentpurification (contrast 16:28, on the Day of Atonement), the flesh of the outer-altar purification offering is most holy and is to be eaten in a holy place by theconsecrated priest rather than incinerated (6:19[26], 22[29]),44 and purifica-tion offerings of birds and grain are expiatory but require no hand-leaning(5:7–13). Furthermore, hand-leaning is required in the burnt offering of herdanimals (1:4), which is wholly consumed on Yhwh’s altar (vv. 8–9) except forthe hide (7:8), and the gesture is also required for the well-being offering (3:2,8, 13), which is not expiatory in the usual sense (no piºel of rpk in Lev 3;but cf. 17:11) and which is eaten by the offerer (7:15–21).

Leviticus 16:21 is the strongest and most common support for the transfertheory. Here the high priest leans his hands on Azazel’s goat in order to transferall the moral faults of the Israelites to it.45 However, Ibn Ezra (on 1:4) alreadypointed out that this use of two hands on the goat that is sent away differs fromthe sacrificial form of the gesture, which uses one hand.46 So the nonsacrificialcase of Azazel’s goat is not a reliable guide to the function of sacrificial hand-leaning. R. Péter emphasizes the difference between sacrificial use of onehand (= one per person in 4:15), expressing identification of the offerer, anduse of two hands for transfer in nonsacrificial contexts.47

43. J. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 38;cf. Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 73.

44. Missing this point, Gerstenberger assumes that, after the description in v. 11,“the three following paragraphs more or less silently presuppose this concluding ritual(vv. 21, 26, 35)” (Leviticus, 73). His inclusion of v. 21, which explicitly prescribes(rather than silently presupposes) incineration of the carcass, is inexplicable.

45. P. Patterson uses this as evidence for penal substitution (“Reflections on theAtonement,” Criswell Theological Review 3 [1989] 317–18).

46. Against the traditional view that both hands were used in sacrifices (m. Mena˙.9:8).

47. R. Péter, “L’imposition des mains dans l’Ancien Testament,” VT 27 (1977) 48–55; cf. Janowski, Sühne, 209–10, 215–21; Schenker, Versöhnung und Sühne, 115.

Leviticus,” The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy (DARCOM 3;Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986) 180–83, 188.

Chapter 358

To defend the transfer theory in order to support a substitutionary interpre-tation of atonement, W. Kaiser argues that in the original consonantal text, wdy

in Lev 1:4 and elsewhere could have represented a dual form (wd;y;), referringto two hands, even though the MT invariably vocalizes this form as singular(/dy;).48 However, he does not give adequate weight to the fact that only in16:21 does the text unambiguously specify two hands on a ritual animal byusing the numeral yTEv‘, “two of ” his hands. This unique specification in aunique ritual indicates that the ritual of Azazel’s goat is unique in requiringtwo hands.

A. Dillmann pointed out a problem with the idea that sin and guilt aretransferred to purification offerings by means of hand-leaning in the sameway that evil is transferred to Azazel’s goat: If that were true, purification of-ferings would be impure as is Azazel’s goat (cf. Lev 16:26), but the fact is thattheir flesh is most holy (6:22[29]), which accords with the fact that their suetis placed on the altar.49 Dillmann’s observation also has relevance to Porter’sview of 4:11–12 (see above).

J. Kurtz found that only Lev 16:21 requires hand-leaning to be accompa-nied by simultaneous confession. He takes this to indicate that “here, and no-where else, the imposition of hands was to be regarded as a laying on of sin.”50

Granted that 5:5 (cf. Num 5:7) also stipulates verbal confession in connectionwith a purification offering, but J. Milgrom explains that this confession pre-cedes bringing the sacrifice to the sanctuary (cf. Lev 5:6).51 Somewhat differ-ently from Kurtz, H. Gese and B. Levine understand the transfer of sins in16:21 as accomplished by the confession alone.52 In any case, the transfer toAzazel’s goat is not accomplished by leaning two hands alone; the highpriest’s confession is necessary for this.53

It appears that each form of the hand-leaning gesture, that is, with one ortwo hands, participates in some form of transfer by designating an animal tohave a particular ritual function with respect to one or more persons. Azazel’sgoat may need two hands for a quantitative reason: this identification is greater

48. Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” 1:1011.49. A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897) 459.50. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 99.51. J. Milgrom, “The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance,” RB 82 (1975) 194; idem,

Cult and Conscience, 108; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 302.52. H. Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology [trans. K. Crim; Minneapolis: Augsburg,

1981] 105–6; B. Levine, “µyrwpk,” ErIsr 9 (Albright Volume; 1969) 94.53. Cf. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, 580; Hoffmann, Das Buch Le-

viticus, 456; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 118; Milgrom, “The Priestly Doctrineof Repentance,” 195 n. 32.


in that it is involved in transfer of the collective moral faults of all Israelites54

and/or perhaps because Azazel’s goat is identified in a special way with thesins of the Israelites.55 However, the transfers to which the two forms of hand-leaning contribute are qualitatively different:56 In sacrifice the transfer movesownership from the offerer to Yhwh. By contrast, leaning two hands on thehead of Azazel’s goat does not identify departing ownership of the animal. Ithas already been transferred from the Israelite community that provided it(Lev 16:5) to Azazel through manipulation of lots, the result of which is sig-nified by placing the lot “belonging to Azazel” on the animal (vv. 8, 10).57 Inthis case the transfer only moves the sins of the people to the goat (v. 21).

For Christians the stakes involved in the interpretation of hand-leaning arelower than some (e.g., Kaiser) have thought. For one thing, hand-leaning asidentification of ownership does not rule out the idea that this identificationcontributes to transfer of the sacrifice as a whole to Yhwh. For another, in thebook of Hebrews Christ’s substitution is based on the fusion of two cultic rolesin him: as priest he takes the sins of others upon himself and as victim he diesfor those sins (Heb 7:23–28; 9:11–14, 23–28; 10:1–14).

Slaying an animalIn the famous “abstract scheme of sacrifice” published by H. Hubert and

M. Mauss in 1898, slaughter of the victim is viewed as releasing its “spirit”from the profane world. Thus slaughter is identified as “the culminating pointof the ceremony,” “the supreme act,” the highest point of sacralization.58

The theory of Hubert and Mauss may apply to Hindu sacrifice, whichformed the primary basis for their study, and to sacrifices belonging to some

54. N. Snaith interpreted leaning two hands quantitatively in another sense: “tomake doubly sure of the transference of the sin” (Leviticus and Numbers [CB, new ed.;London: Nelson, 1967] 115).

55. Cf. M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testa-ment, with a New Translation: Leviticus (2 vols.; London: Longman, Green, Reader,and Dyer, 1867–72) 2:212.

56. Surveying the various theories of hand-leaning, K. Mattingly argues that themeaning of this gesture of status change is contextually conditioned, cannot be ex-plained by one theory alone, and can carry more than one kind of meaning in a givensituation (“The Laying on of Hands on Joshua: An Exegetical Study of Numbers27:12–23 and Deuteronomy 34:9” [Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1997] 146–72).

57. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1019–20.58. H. Hubert and M. Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function (trans. W. D. Halls;

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964 [orig. 1898]) 19, 32–33, 35, 44–45. A. vanGennep has found the scheme of Hubert and Mauss, which includes entry, ascent,and descent, to be similar to that of a “rite of passage” (The Rites of Passage [Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1960] 184).

Chapter 360

other ritual traditions.59 But it does not accurately reflect ancient Israelitesacrifice, even though Hubert and Mauss used this ritual system extensivelyto illustrate their scheme.60 In an Israelite sacrifice, the animal must be slainso that its blood and body can be utilized, but slaughter is a relatively lowpoint in terms of sanctity: it involves no contact with the most holy altar andthus can be performed by a layperson (e.g., Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:24, 29,33). By contrast, the application of blood and placing of animal pieces on thealtar fire, which occur later, must always be performed by a consecratedpriest. As S. R. Driver and H. White noted (coincidentally also in 1898),“more importance is given to the sprinkling of the blood than to the killingof the victim.”61

The fact that slaughter is not the defining element of Israelite sacrifice isconfirmed by the fact that in this ritual tradition a sacrifice does not neces-sarily include slaughter at all and, on the other hand, a nonsacrificial ritualcan include killing a victim. Therefore, the presence or absence of slaugh-ter is not a valid criterion for determining whether or not an Israelite ritualis a sacrifice. The following paragraphs present the evidence behind thisconclusion.

An offering of grain, which is not slaughtered, can be a purification offer-ing that serves as the functional equivalent of an animal sacrifice (Lev 5:11–13). Hubert and Mauss included vegetable (including grain) offerings amongsacrifices, but only when at least part is destroyed.62 In order to count such anoffering as the functional equivalent of a “victim,” they regarded destructionas the equivalent of slaughter.63 In the context of Israelite sacrifice, there aretwo difficulties with this approach.

1. While placing all or part of an Israelite grain offering on the altar fire(Lev 2:2, 9; 6:15–16) results in destruction of the material, this is not the func-

59. R. Payne has applied the scheme to the goma sacrifice belonging to the JapaneseTantric Buddhist tradition and found it to be generally suitable, although with somereservations (The Tantric Ritual of Japan: Feeding the Gods, the Shingon Fire Ritual[‡ata-Pi†aka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures 365; Delhi: International Academy of IndianCulture and Aditya Prakashan, 1991] 192–93).

60. See my critique of Hubert and Mauss in Ritual Dynamic Structure, 339–45.Nor does the scheme apply to the African rituals investigated by L. de Heusch (Sacri-fice in Africa: A Structuralist Approach [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985]3–4, 6–7); compare criticism of the theoretical centrality of sacralization by J. vanBaal, who refers to ethnographic research in simpler societies (“Offering, Sacrifice andGift,” Numen 23 [1976] 161).

61. S. R. Driver and H. White, The Book of Leviticus (SBONT 3; New York: Dodd,Mead, 1898) 66.

62. Hubert and Mauss, Sacrifice, 12.63. Ibid., 34.



tional equivalent of slaughter in an animal sacrifice. An animal is slaughtered(1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13, etc.) and later in the ritual it is placed on the altar fire(1:8–9, 12–13; 3:5, 11, 16, etc.). Placing an offering on the fire, whether itconsists of animal parts or grain, constitutes an act of delivery to the deity thatis separate from slaughter.

2. The bread of the presence is clearly a sacrifice, that is, an offering ritual.The bread (µj<l<) plus its accompanying frankincense is designated hw;hyl" hV≤aI,“a food gift to Yhwh” (Lev 24:7), and is given over to the sacred domain. Likeanimal sacrifices at the outer altar, the bread is µj<l<, “food” of God (21:8, 17,21, 22; 22:25; cf. Num. 28:2).64 However, the bread of the presence is a pre-sentation offering: it simply rests on the golden table inside the sanctuary, afterwhich it is eaten by the priests (Lev 24:5–9).65 None of it is destroyed. It is truethat the frankincense functions as a “memorial” (v. 7), which presumablymeans that it is burned when the bread is taken from the table.66 But only theincense is burned, and it is difficult to imagine how this could be viewed as a“victim.”

An Israelite ritual that involves the killing of an animal is not necessarily asacrifice. In Deut 21:1–9 an unsolved murder calls for a ritual in which aheifer’s neck is broken in a wady and elders of the city located closest to themurder victim wash their hands over the carcass, addressing Yhwh with adenial of their guilt and a prayer that he not hold Israel guilty. But althoughYhwh is involved, the ritual does not involve transfer of the animal to him.There is not even a gesture in the direction of his sanctuary, such as there isin the “red cow” ritual (Num 19:4). So the Deut 21 “killing ritual” cannot bea sacrifice.67 It is a nonsacrificial elimination rite having the goal of removingmoral culpability.68 Reinforcing its nonsacrificial nature is the mode of

64. Cf. R. Gane, “ ‘Bread of the Presence’ and Creator-in-Residence,” VT 42 (1992)181–82.

65. Presentation offerings are well attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East.See, e.g., ANET 208, 325, 343–44; COS 1:218, 427–36, 442–43; A. Blackman, “TheSequence of the Episodes in the Egyptian Daily Temple Liturgy,” Journal of theManchester Egyptian and Oriental Society (1918–19) 27–53; A. L. Oppenheim, An-cient Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964) 188–93. Note that,when a presentation offering included meat, slaughter was obviously prerequisite.

66. Gane, “Bread of the Presence,” 196.67. J. van Baal explains that his definition of sacrifice “does not permit the use of

the term sacrifice for killing rituals (a term introduced by Jensen, 1951) that are nei-ther preceded nor followed by the presentation of the object of the rite to a supernat-ural being” (“Offering, Sacrifice and Gift,” 161).

68. D. Wright, “Deuteronomy 21:1–9 as a Rite of Elimination,” CBQ 49 (1987)387–403.

Chapter 362

slaughter: breaking the animal’s neck (v. 4) rather than sacrificial slaughterthat produces blood.69

While slaughter of a victim is not a defining element in Israelite sacrifice,there is no question that this activity is important. At the moment of slaughterthe blood drains away, carrying away with it the life by which rpk on the altaris accomplished (cf. Lev 17:11). Slaughter is also prerequisite to burning thesuet on the altar and priestly consumption of the meat, which carry subsidiarymeanings (see below). So slaughter is basic to an animal sacrifice and itsmeaning is realized through subsequent activities.

Applying blood to the outer altarThe purification offering is the sacrifice in which blood plays the most im-

portant role. By contrast with other sacrifices, in which blood is dashed onthe sides of the outer altar (Lev 1:5; 3:2; 7:2, etc.), the blood of a purificationoffering is applied to the horns of an altar, whether the outer altar in the caseof an outer-altar offering (4:25, 30, 34), the incense altar in the outer-sanctumoffering (vv. 7, 18), or both in the inner-sanctum offering (16:16b, 18). Sincehorns are the highest parts of an altar, applying blood there makes the bloodprominent in a vertical direction, in which smoke of sacrifices or incensegoes up toward the deity in heaven (cf. Ps 11:4).70 Because a purification of-fering uniquely emphasizes blood in this way, and application of blood to analtar signifies expiation (piºel of rpk; cf. Lev 17:11), it is clear that a purifica-tion offering emphasizes the expiatory value of blood.71

That purification offerings are notable for their expiatory power is shownby the fact that, in the cultic calendar of Num 28–29, the words µk<ylE[“ rPEk"l},

69. Ibid., 391. On sacrificial slaughter as slitting the throat, see Milgrom, Leviticus1–16, 154–55.

70. Cf. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 216; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch deny this con-cept, holding that the reason for placement on the horns is “because the signifi-cance of the altar, as the scene of the manifestation of the divine grace andsalvation, culminated in the horns, as the symbols of power and might” (BiblicalCommentary on the Old Testament [trans. J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1952; orig. 1874] 2:304). Since both ideas appear to have merit, I see them as com-plementary rather than mutually exclusive. On the significance of upward move-ment in the burnt offering, see Knierim, Text and Concept, 83. Inspired by Knierim,Milgrom observes: “The structure of the sanctuary as well as the correspondingmovement of the sacrificial procedure is upward. This stands in contrast to the wor-ship of chthonic deities where the movement is conversely downwards” (J. Mil-grom, review of “Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in ExegeticalMethod, by Rolf P. Knierim,” HS 35 [1994] 170).

71. Cf. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 175; de Vaux, Les Sacrifices, 83.


“to effect purgation for you,” appear only with regard to the goats sacrificedas purification offerings (28:22, 30; 29:5, etc.), not with the additional burntofferings.72

While the blood is part of the sacrifice, in that it comes under the own-ership of Yhwh along with the rest of the animal, it is not delivered to himin the form of smoke.73 This likely has something to do with the dietary lawthat prohibits consuming blood with meat (Lev 17:10, 12; Deut 12:16, 23–25). The basis for this prohibition is stated in Lev 17:11: “For the life of theflesh is in the blood” (cf. v. 14; Gen 9:4–6). The fact that the blood isdrained out of a sacrificial victim before it is burned on the altar implies thatthe concept of life in the blood operates in sacrifices. It would make sensethat, as the Creator of life, only Yhwh has a priori control over life-bearing

72. The nature of the expiation provided by purification offerings for the commu-nity on new moons and festivals is not clear from Num 28–29. Rabbinic views regard-ing the efficacy of these sacrifices concentrate on rpk for impurity, such as fordefilement of the temple and its sancta (m. Sebu. 1:4–5; t. Sebu. 1.3; cf. Büchler,Studies, 428 n. 1). Some modern scholars have suggested that these purification offer-ings may remedy human faultiness in general rather than applying to specific cases(A. Bonar, A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, Expository and Practical [5th ed.;London: Nisbet, 1875] 301; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 59; A. Rodríguez, Sub-stitution in the Hebrew Cultus [AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews Uni-versity Press, 1979] 108). Along somewhat similar lines, P. Jenson suggests that in casessuch as Lev 8:14–17; 9:8; and Num 8:8, where purification offerings do not seem todeal with specific sin or impurity, they may “be part of a comprehensive ritual to in-sure that purification is complete or fully assured” (Graded Holiness: A Key to thePriestly Conception of the World [JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992] 157; cf.156). However, in view of the fact that other purification offerings deal with specificsins rather than sin in general (cf. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 2:302–3),Kurtz has argued that the festival purification offerings were to expiate certain sinsthat had not been expiated because they were not known (Sacrificial Worship, 212).

73. Leviticus 3:16b–17 is sensitive to this: “All suet is the Lord’s . . . you must noteat any suet or any blood.” The text does not say: “All suet and all blood are the Lord’s.”While there is a sense in which sacrificial blood is the Lord’s, suet and blood belongto him in different ways, as shown by their respective ritual treatments: suet is used asa food gift for Yhwh when it is burned on his altar (Lev 3:3–5, 9–11, 14–16a), but bloodis never burned on the altar (cf. R. Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The RitualSymbolism of Exodus 24,3–8,” ZAW 101 [1989] 383). Because Kaiser misses the dis-tinction between parts of a sacrifice in terms of use, he assumes that because the bloodof a burnt offering was part of the sacrifice, “part of it was thrown ‘on’ the altar ‘roundabout’ or ‘on all sides’ ” (“The Book of Leviticus,” 1:1012). For other examples of sac-rificial portions not used by Yhwh, see the “bread of the Presence” (Lev 24:9) andcompare the three-party apportionment of the well-being offering between Yhwh, thepriest, and the offerer (Lev 3:16; 7:15–36; cf. Gane, “Bread of the Presence,” 198).

spread one pica short

Chapter 364

blood.74 But by excluding the blood from the part of the sacrifice that heutilizes,75 Yhwh sets an example of respect for life.76

Making a sacrifice “kosher” in the biblical sense would require only thedraining and disposal of the blood (cf. Deut 12:16). Disposal of excess purifi-cation-offering blood is accomplished by pouring it out at the base of theouter altar (Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).77 However, blood is applied to the outeraltar (vv. 25, 30, 34) or to the outer sanctum and the incense altar (vv. 6–7, 17–18) before disposal of the remainder takes place. So it follows that applicationof the blood serves a goal over and above mere disposal.

74. Cf. Knierim, Text and Concept, 57; A. Schenker, “Das Zeichen des Blutesund die Gewissheit der Vergebung im Alten Testament,” MTZ 34 (1983) 200–202.D. McCarthy concludes that “the reservation of blood to God because it was life”appears to be uniquely Israelite (“The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88[1969] 176).

75. Cf. Schenker, “Das Zeichen des Blutes,” 211–13.76. Cf. y. Ros Has. 1.3: “Said Rabbi Eleazar: for the king the law is unwritten.

Customarily, a king of flesh and blood issues a decree. If he wants, he observes it; ifhe wants, others observe it. But the Holy One Blessed be He is not thus, rather Heissues a decree and observes it first. What is the proof? They shall keep my precept . . .I am the Lord (Leviticus 22:9). I am He who kept the precepts of Torah first” (trans.E. Goldman; The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Expla-nation [ed. J. Neusner, W. S. Green, and C. Goldscheider; CSHJ 16; Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1988] 43).

77. Noth, Leviticus, 39; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 238. F. Gorman argues that in theconsecration purification offering the blood placed on the horns of the altar purgesthe altar and the blood poured out at the base of the altar (re-)consecrates it (Lev 8:15).He then attempts to explain 16:19 similarly but acknowledges the problem that herethe high priest does not pour out the blood at the base of the altar. His solution is tomake the sevenfold sprinkling before the ark cover (16:14) the functional equivalentof pouring blood at the base of the altar (The Ideology of Ritual, 86–89). However, in8:15 /hv´D]q "y]w', “thus/then he consecrated it” most likely refers to consecration withanointing oil (cf. Exod 29:36), possibly as a summary statement recalling Lev 8:11(Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 523–24). Furthermore, Gorman does not account for thefact that 16:16, explaining the blood manipulations prescribed in vv. 14–15, refers onlyto purgation (rpk), not to (re-)consecration. Nor does he consider that v. 16b implies asevenfold sprinkling in the area of the outer sanctum, with the same effect. Whereasthe ark cover and incense altar (cf. Exod 30:10) receive one application of blood each,the outer altar receives two, and it is precisely here that both purgation and (re-)conse-cration are mentioned, corresponding to both the placement of blood on the hornsand the sevenfold sprinkling on the altar itself (Lev 16:18–19; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1037). Possibly explaining the lack of pouring blood at the base of the altar here isthe fact that there are many more blood manipulations in the Day of Atonement ritualthan in the normal purification offering, so there may not be any remaining blood thatrequires disposal. Gorman wants to see more than disposal in pouring the blood at thebase of the altar because the “priests would not include this action in the contextof ritual prescriptions if it did not have ritual significance” (Divine Presence and


Leviticus 17:11 confirms that blood application is more than disposal.Here Yhwh states that he has assigned the sacrificial blood on the altar somekind of expiatory (rpk) function. While the primary focus in Lev 17 is onwell-being offerings, the only class of sacrifices from which offerers are per-mitted to eat the meat (cf. vv. 3–6),78 the role of blood as agent of rpk inv. 11 suggests that blood in the context of other sacrifices also makes a specialcontribution to rpk. We have already found this to be true for purification of-ferings (see above). The nature of the rpk in a given sacrifice depends, ofcourse, on the goal of that ritual. In the case of the chieftain’s outer-altar pu-rification offering, the rpk goal is stated in 4:26: /taF:j"mE ˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw],“Thus shall the priest effect purgation on his behalf for his wrong.” Our fur-ther investigation of this goal in ch. 6 will shed additional light on the role ofthe blood in this ritual.

Burning suet on the altarIn a purification offering, as in a well-being or reparation offering, only the

suet is burned on the altar. The suet is transferred to Yhwh in the form ofsmoke, as indicated by the facts that the smoke is “a pleasing aroma” (j'jOyni j'yre)to Yhwh (Lev 4:31) and all suet belongs to him (Lev 3:16).

Although the suet portions of a well-being offering constitute an hV≤aI,“food gift” (Lev 3:9–11, 14–16), the suet of a purification offering does not.No purification offering is called an hV≤aI.79

If the suet of a purification offering is food that is transferred to Yhwh, butit is not a gift, what is its function? Milgrom comments on Lev 4:35: “Thelogic is clear: the Lord is surely pleased with the offering of the repentantwrongdoer (v 31), but it is not a gift; it is his humble expiation.”80 While a pu-rification offering could be regarded as a gift in the broader sense that it is

78. J. Milgrom, “A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11,” JBL 90 (1971) 152–53;H. C. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47(1976) 27. Rendtorff regards the declaration of a rpk function of the blood in Lev17:11 as providing a reinforced interpretation of the reason for the prohibition ofeating blood (Leviticus, 3:169).

79. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 161–62, 253.80. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 253; cf. Büchler, Studies, 452; Rendtorff, Leviticus,

1:65.

Community: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus [ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997] 36). This is a problematic assumption. For one thing, what do we mean by “rit-ual significance”? It would be difficult to sustain the notion that every prescribed cul-tic action carries some kind of theological freight. For example, what about theremoval and disposal of ashes from the outer altar (Lev 6:3–4[10–11]), which has thepractical function of enabling the altar to keep burning (cf. v. 5[12])?

Chapter 366

something given to Yhwh, it is not a gift in the more common sense, becauseit is not voluntary. Rather, it is a mandatory payment of an obligation or“debt” to Yhwh,81 whose order has been violated.82 This explains why a puri-fication offering belonging to the same ritual complex as a burnt offeringmust be performed before the latter (see, e.g., Lev 9:7–16):83 a debt must bepaid before a gift can be accepted.84

The interpretation just presented appears to be contradicted by the factthat the suet of a mandatory reparation offering (µva) is called an hV≤aI, “foodgift” (Lev 7:5). However, reparation offerings are distinguished from purifica-tion offerings in that the former are required in cases of offenses that create lit-eral/quantifiable debt, which calls for literal restitution if possible.85 This

81. Cf. G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford:Clarendon, 1925) 58. Kurtz also refers to debt and obligation but takes this to apply inall sacrifices (Sacrificial Worship, 97).

82. On the question of “harm” to the deity, who is “duty-bound to uphold themoral order of the universe,” see R. Cover, “Sin, Sinners: Old Testament,” ABD 6:38.

83. On the difference between the procedural order, in which the purification of-fering is actually performed first (e.g., Lev 9), and the administrative order, in whichthe burnt offering is listed first (e.g., Num 28–29), see A. Rainey, “The Order of Sacri-fices in Old Testament Ritual Texts,” Bib 51 (1970) 494–98; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16,488. Notice that, although Lev 16 is prescriptive, its order is procedural, with the inner-sanctum purification offerings on behalf of the priests and lay community, respectively(vv. 11–19), preceding the burnt offerings on behalf of the same offerers (v. 24).

84. Cf. t. Parah 1.1; Kennedy and Barr, “Sacrifice and Offering,” 875. G. A. Ander-son echoes Milgrom’s approach to the purification offering when he claims that thissacrifice comes first because it “cleanses the sacred appurtenances so that they are ableto receive the subsequent sacrifices” (“Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings: Old Testa-ment,” ABD 5:880). Kurtz explained the order on the basis of the relative placementof the climax activities within the respective rituals: the high point of the purificationoffering is application of blood, which comes earlier in the ritual than the high pointof the burnt offering, which is the (final) act of burning (Sacrificial Worship, 174–75).

85. Cf. Rashi on Lev 5:4; M. Rooker, Leviticus (NAC 3A; Nashville: Broadman &Holman, 2000) 122. Péter-Contesse and Ellington refer to these sacrifices as “repay-ment offerings” (A Handbook on Leviticus, 70); K. C. Hanson renders this “culpabilityoffering” (“Sin, Purification, and Group Process,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Es-says in Honor of Rolf Knierim [ed. H. T. C. Sun et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997]175), but if Knierim is right that the basic idea of the root µva “is the obligation, theduty, the liability, that results from incurring guilt” (“µv…a: ªasam Guilt,” TLOT 1:193),the translation “liability offering” would be more accurate. More specifically definingthe liability for which the µva sacrifice makes reparation, Milgrom distinguishes be-tween the purification and reparation offerings as follows: “The ̇ a††aªt expiates for thecontamination of the sanctuary and its sancta by both severe impurities and moraltransgressions. The ªasam expiates for the desecration of the sanctuary and its sancta(including God’s personal sanctum—his name)” (Leviticus 23–27 [AB 3B; New York:Doubleday, 2001] 2450). Note that in Lev 5:17–19, even though a debt is incurred, res-titution is not possible because the offender does not know how much it is.


reparation occurs before the reparation offering is performed (5:16, 24[6:5]).Since reparation offerings follow debt payments, their suet can be called“food gifts.” Purification offerings, on the other hand, constitute rather thanfollow payment of debt.86 They are required for violations of divine com-mandments or serious ritual impurities, evils for which no restitution can bemade in money or in kind. Therefore, their expiatory power is necessarilygreater than that of reparation offerings. This difference between the twokinds of sacrifices correlates with the distinction between their blood manip-ulations: whereas purification-offering blood is placed on altar horns, repara-tion-offering blood is dashed on the sides of the altar (7:2), as in burntofferings (1:5, 11).87

Earlier we found that in a purification offering an activity emphasis onblood corresponds to a goal emphasis on expiation (rpk). Now we see that suetconstitutes a kind of mandatory payment to Yhwh resulting from “debt” in-curred by the evil that requires expiation. So the function of the suet com-plements that of the blood. While the blood plays a special role in achievingthe overall goal of a purification offering, as emphasized by the explicit con-nection between blood manipulations and rpk in some passages (e.g., Lev6:23[30]; cf. 8:15; 16:14–20, 27), it is the entire ritual, including the suet “debtpayment,” that is necessary for achieving rpk, as shown by other passages inwhich rpk formulas summarize effects of entire rituals (e.g., 4:20, 26, 31, 35).88

A. Schenker elevates the importance of purification-offering suet by sug-gesting that the original point of departure, and therefore the essential activ-ity, of the tafj sacrifice is the symbol of a gift offered as a sign of reparation,compensation, and appeasement. His reasons are that in 1 Sam 26:19 a ritefor appeasing Yhwh is called a hj:n]mI, “gift,” and in Lev 5:11–13 a hjnm (grainoffering) serves as a tafj sacrifice.

For Schenker the application of blood to the altar in a private tafj can-not signify purification because the blood is not placed in contact with theofferer. Rather, the blood manipulation supplements the sacrifice proper as

86. Cf. A. Médebielle, “Le symbolism du sacrifice expiatoire en Israël,” Bib 2(1921) 300–301.

87. A. Rodríguez, Substitution, 190–91.88. Cf. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice,” 30–33, 35; P. Garnet, “Atonement

Constructions in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls,” EvQ 46 (1974) 145;Rendtorff, Leviticus, 1:37. This point is missed by Kaiser, who states regarding the burntoffering: “The atoning work is completed in the sprinkling of the blood” (“The Bookof Leviticus,” 1:1012). While Christians who interpret Leviticus in light of the NewTestament tend to emphasize Christ’s blood, Jesus spoke of his atoning sacrifice interms of both his flesh and his blood (Matt 26:26–29; John 6:53–58; 1 Cor 11:23–26).

Chapter 368

an illustration of what the sacrifice accomplishes, in the same way that thebanishment of Azazel’s goat in Lev 16 illustrates the function of the two spe-cial tafj sacrifices performed on the Day of Atonement.

According to Schenker the fact that the tafj sacrifice deals with both sinsand ritual impurities is due to a factor that these evils share in common: bothare incompatible with Yhwh and therefore require reparation in the form ofa rite of absolution or of purification. The same word tafj, “sin,” refers totwo negative realities: sin and, by analogy, pollution; and to two ritual reali-ties: pardon from sin and, by analogy, purification from impurity. In this waySchenker argues for the traditional translation of tafj as “sin offering,”against Milgrom’s “purification offering.”89

Schenker presents a coherent explanation for the fact that the word tafj

refers both to sin and to a ritual that remedies either sin or ritual impurity,both of which are, indeed, incompatible with Yhwh. But there are a numberof problems with his approach:

1. It is methodologically risky to put too much weight on nontechnical,narrative use of a term (hjnm in 1 Sam 26:19) for interpretation of the techni-cal usage that appears in ritual law.

2. Leviticus 5:11–12 emphasizes by repetition that the tafj offering ofgrain is a tafj expiation, not a hjnm gift, although it is hj:n]MIK", “like thehjnm,” in that the remainder belongs to the priest (v. 13). The fact that the sac-rifice consists of grain, the usual material of the hjnm, does not make it ahjnm. So this is not a case in which a hjnm functions as a tafj, as Schenkerwould have it. He has overlooked a fundamental principle of ritual theory:the function of a given ritual object is assigned by the ritual authority ratherthan being inherent in its physical nature.

3. Schenker’s assertion that the blood cannot purify the offerer because itis not brought into direct physical contact with him/her is based on the sameidea that leads Milgrom to the conclusion that the tafj sacrifice purifies theobject(s) to which its blood is directly applied.90 Schenker does not reckonwith the fact that ritual is not subject to constraints operating in the materialworld.

4. The notion that the blood manipulation is a tacked-on illustration likethe ritual of Azazel’s goat91 fails to do justice to the elevated attention paid to

89. A. Schenker, Recht und Kult im Alten Testament (OBO 172; Freiburg: Univer-sitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 12–20.

90. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 254–58.91. On the ritual of Azazel’s goat as an illustration, see Schenker, Versöhnung und

Sühne, 115–16.



blood in the activities belonging to tafj sacrifices and misrepresents thecomplementary function of the ritual of Azazel’s goat, which we will explorein ch. 11.

5. Even if it were conclusively established on linguistic grounds that thetafj sacrifice should be rendered “sin offering,” its ritual function is topurge/purify, as shown by the piºel of afj, “un-sin/purify,” in explanations oftafj sacrifices (Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15; Num 19:19—rehydrated ashes of thered cow tafj).92 In ch. 6 we will find stronger evidence: the privative prepo-sition ˆm following rpk in core goal-formulas of purification offerings (e.g.,Lev 4:26; 5:6, 10; cf. 16:16) shows that these rituals accomplish rpk “from” sinor ritual impurity. The first instance is in the goal formula for the chieftain’spurification offering (4:26), which the njpsv renders: “Thus the priest shallmake expiation on his behalf for (ˆm) his sin, and he shall be forgiven.” Theniv, nrsv, and Milgrom also translate ˆm as “for.”93 The nkjv and nasb expressthe same idea with “concerning” and “in regard to,” respectively. The njb,

however, has a different rendering: “to free him from (ˆm) his sin” (emphasismine). We will find that this interpretation is correct. So I agree with Mil-grom that the primary function of a purification offering is some kind of re-moval, although I differ with him regarding the object of this purification.For me, at least, the rendering of tafj as “purification offering” does notmean that purification from physical ritual impurity is primary but that ineach case some kind of evil is removed/purified, whether this evil consists ofor results from a moral fault or a physical ritual impurity. Therefore, I preferto retain Milgrom’s “purification offering,” which avoids the implication of“sin offering” that physical ritual impurities remedied by such sacrifices aremoral faults.

In my response to Schenker I do not discount the fact that the suet as“debt” payment is an integral and important part of the ritual meaning. But Iplace this concept within the framework of removing evil, which is especiallysignified by manipulation of the blood.

Eating the remaining meatEach Israelite sacrifice as a whole is transferred to Yhwh. However, when

a priest officiates on behalf of someone else, there is a secondary transactionin which Yhwh transfers to the priest(s) a prebend/perquisite that constitutesan “agent’s commission” for carrying out the primary transaction between

92. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 253.93. For Milgrom’s translation, see above, referring to his Leviticus 17–22, 1272; cf.

idem, Leviticus 1–16, 227.

Chapter 370

Yhwh and the offerer (cf. 7:34).94 In a burnt offering, the prebend is the hideof the animal (7:8). In a grain offering it is everything except a handful thatis burned on the altar as a memorial portion (2:2–3, 9–10; 7:9–10). In a well-being offering it is the breast and right thigh (7:31–35). In a purification orreparation offering, it is the remaining meat (6:19[26], 22[29]; 7:6–7). Thefact that the remaining meat of a purification offering functions as a prebendis confirmed by 7:7, where this portion is mentioned among prebends ofother sacrifices (vv. 7–10). So priestly consumption of the remaining meat isnot simply to get rid of it. Consequently, it is not functionally equivalent todisposal of purification-offering carcasses by incineration when a priest offi-ciates on behalf of himself or a group in which he is included (cf. 4:11–12,21; 8:17).95

In outer-altar purification offerings for sin, the remaining meat is morethan a prebend. The priest’s privilege and duty of eating the flesh (Lev6:19[26], 22[29]) simultaneously functions as appropriation of his agent’scommission and as contributing in some way to expiation (10:17).96 It is notnecessary to argue for one of these functions to the exclusion of the other. Wewill devote ch. 5 to this debate.

ConclusionThus far we have found that an outer-altar purification offering carries

out the goal of removing evil (sin or ritual impurity) on behalf of the of-ferer through activities that identify the offerer as the party transferring thevictim to Yhwh (hand-leaning), effect purgation (blood), make a debt pay-ment to Yhwh (suet), and award an agent’s commission to the officiatingpriest (meat).

94. Compare the three-party apportionment of the well-being offering amongYhwh, the priest, and the offerer (Lev 7:15–36; Gane, “Bread of the Presence,” 198).

95. Cf. D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible andin Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987) 132.Against N. Snaith, who argues that a priest involved either personally or corpo-rately in the sin for which the sacrifice is brought does not eat the meat because hecannot consume (i.e., dispose of ) his own sin (“The Sin-Offering and the Guilt-Offering,” VT 15 [1965] 74–75).

96. B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1903) 325, 337, 352–53; Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus, 213, 298; Milgrom,Leviticus 1–16, 622–25, 636–39; cf. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 133 n. 22.

71

Chapter 4

Outer-Sanctum Purification Offerings

In the purification offering of a bull on behalf of the high priest (Lev 4:3–12) or the entire community (vv. 13–21), the high priest applies blood in theouter sanctum of the Sacred Tent, and the remainder of the animal is dis-posed of by incineration. Such an outer-sanctum purification offering is re-quired only when the high priest or the community inadvertently violate adivine command (v. 2). The ritual paradigms for these offerers are the same,with the qualification that in the sacrifice for the community the representa-tive elders rather than the high priest perform the hand-leaning (v. 15).

The outer-sanctum purification offering differs from the outer-altar type inseveral respects. First, the victim is a bull, the most expensive sacrificial ani-mal. Second, the high priest must officiate the ritual. Third, and most impor-tant, the blood is sprinkled seven times “before the veil” in the outer sanctumand daubed on the horns of the incense altar rather than on the horns of theouter altar. Fourth, the remaining meat is incinerated rather than eaten bythe officiating priest.

The ritual procedure includes some activities that are mentioned in the text and others that are not

We will focus on the high priest’s purification offering and refer to that ofthe community as necessary. Activities explicitly prescribed in Lev 4:3–12 forthe high priest’s sacrifice include:

lean hand on head of animalslay animalbring some blood into outer sanctumdip finger in blood and sprinkle blood seven times in front of (inner) veilput some blood on horns of incense altar pour remaining blood at base of outer altarremove suetburn suet on altarcarry remainder of animal to clean place outside campincinerate remainder of animal

Chapter 472

Two additional activities must be included by practical necessity: as in theouter-altar type, the blood must be collected before it can be applied, and thesuet must be presented/conveyed to the altar so that it can be burned there.The fuller list of activities performed in the outer-sanctum purification offer-ing is as follows:

lean hand on head of animalslay animalcollect bloodbring some blood into outer sanctumdip finger in blood and sprinkle blood seven times in front of (inner) veilput some blood on horns of incense altar pour remaining blood at base of outer altarremove suetpresent suet to altarburn suet on altarcarry remainder of animal to clean place outside campincinerate remainder of animal

The sevenfold sprinkling of blood “before the veil” is performed in front (east) of the incense altar

The location of the sevenfold sprinkling of blood vd,QOh" tk<rOP: yneP}Ata<, “be-fore the veil of the holy (place)” (Lev 4:6), or simply tk<rOP:h" yneP} taE, “before theveil” (v. 17), is not immediately apparent. The combination yneP}(A)ta<, which Ihave translated “before,” appears only here with the hipºil of hzn, “sprinkle,”and tk<rOP:, “veil.” Consequently, it is not surprising to find some differences ofinterpretation as early as the Mishnah and Talmud. Applying the instructionsin Lev 4:6 and 17 to the context of the Day of Atonement, the Mishnah reads“on (l[) the veil” (m. Yoma 5:4). But the Babylonian Talmud records the viewthat the sprinkling was meant to be toward (dgnk) the veil rather than on it, al-though no harm would be done if the blood reached the veil (b. Yoma 57a).

Some modern scholars have sided with b. Yoma 57a and others withm. Yoma 5:4. For example, B. Baentsch held that the blood should be sprin-kled in the area before the veil.1 J. Kurtz argued against this position becauseit implies that the most holy blood would be trodden beneath the feet of thepriests, thereby becoming profaned.2 His objection is weakened by the facts

1. B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-precht, 1903) 323.

2. J. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; Minneapolis:Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 215 n. 1.


Outer-Sanctum Purification Offerings 73

that the entire area of the sanctuary was holy (8:10), including its earth floor(Num 5:17), and the priests were consecrated (Lev 8:30), with their feet in-cluded in the ordination ceremony (8:23–24—pars pro toto). Furthermore,compare Num 19:4, where the priest sprinkles purification-offering blood (ofthe red cow) seven times toward the sanctuary from a location outside thecamp, with no concern that the blood would necessarily gravitate to unconse-crated ground, where it could subsequently be trodden by any man or beast.

Since the location of the sevenfold sprinkling is potentially important forthe meaning of the activity and the relationship between the outer-sanctumpurification offering and the special purification offerings performed only onthe Day of Atonement, we must enter the debate. In Biblical Hebrew, ta< canbe combined with yneP}, the construct form of µyniP:, “face, surface, front, etc.,”in either of two ways: (1) ta< can function as the direct object marker, withµyniP: as object;3 (2) ta< can mean µ[I, “with,” in the prepositional combinationyneP}(A)ta<, literally, “with the face of,” which is roughly equivalent to ynep}lI, “be-fore.”4 In the majority of instances, prepositional objects of yneP}(A)ta< are thedeity or various persons.5 In only three instances other than Lev 4:6 and 17,the verses in question, prepositional objects are inanimate things: a city (Gen33:18), “the holy (place/precinct)” (Lev 10:4), and the temple (2 Kgs 16:14).

Thus far, yneP}(A)ta< in Lev 4:6 and 17 could be either (1) the direct objectta< with µyniP:, “surface,” meaning that the high priest sprinkles the veil di-rectly, or (2) a preposition having the sense of “before,” meaning that the highpriest sprinkles in front of, but not directly on, the veil. The first possibility ispractically eliminated by the fact that elsewhere sprinkling (hipºil of hzn) di-rectly “on” an object or person is never indicated in Biblical Hebrew with ta<

plus direct object but, rather, by the preposition l[" alone (5:9; 16:15, 19)6 orin the combination yneP}Al[" (16:14). Therefore, we should take yneP}(A)ta< in 4:6and 17 to be a prepositional usage that is roughly equivalent to ynep}lI.7 This

3. Gen 2:6; 31:2, 5; Exod 34:35; Job 42:9; 2 Sam 14:20; 2 Kgs 18:24; Isa 36:9; 2 Chr9:23.

4. For functional equivalence between ta</taE and µ[I, see the parallel between Job1:12, where the adversary (ˆf:C…h") departed hw;hy] yneP} µ[ImE, “from before Yhwh,” and 2:7,where the same adversary departed hw;hy] yneP} taEmE, also “from before Yhwh.” ThatyneP}Ata< is approximately synonymous with ynep}lI is indicated by comparison between1 Kgs 10:8, referring to Solomon’s servants standing Úyn,p:l}, “before you” (addressed toSolomon), and 12:6, speaking of the elders who used to stand hmOløv‘ yneP}Ata<, “beforeSolomon.”

5. For example, Yhwh (Gen 19:13, 27; Exod 32:11; 34:24), Eli (1 Sam 2:11), or theking of Moab (1 Sam 22:4).

6. Cf. Exod 29:21; Lev 6:20; 8:11, 30; 14:7; Num 8:7; 19:18, 19.7. Cf. Tg. Onq. at Lev 4:6, 17: atkwrp µdq.

Chapter 474

idea is strengthened by comparison with 16:14 and 15, where the high priestsprinkles blood seven times ynep}lI, “before,” the ark cover in the inner sanctumon the Day of Atonement.

Sprinkling “before” something means that the person performing the ac-tion is facing it. Because sprinkling involves movement away from the body,that which is sprinkled necessarily moves in the direction of that which theperformer is facing. But by itself yneP}(A)ta<, like ynep}lI, refers only to the locationof the action in relation to a spatial reference point. It does not carry the mean-ing “toward” in the sense of indicating that the motion of the gesture is in thedirection of the veil and therefore the inner sanctum.8 This weakens the no-tion that the sevenfold sprinkling “before the veil” is an indirect functionalequivalent of sprinkling on the ark cover in the inner sanctum.9 With thehipºil of hzn, “to sprinkle,” the meaning “toward” is carried by the prepositionla<, whether alone (Lev 14:51) or in the combination jk"noAla< (Num 19:4).

If tk<rOP:h" yneP} taE means “before the veil,” where is this in relation to the al-tar of incense, which is tk<rOP:h" ynep}lI, “before the veil” (Exod 30:6)?10 In otherwords, what is the relationship between yneP}(A)ta< and ynep}lI when their preposi-tional object is tk<rOP:h"? The sevenfold sprinkling in Lev 4:6 and 17 does notapply blood to the altar of incense, which receives its blood by a separate actof daubing on its horns (vv. 7, 18). Since all other blood manipulations in pu-rification offerings at the sanctuary take place along its central axis betweenthe ark (16:14–15) and the outer altar (e.g., 4:25, 30, 34), with the altar of in-cense in between (4:7, 18; cf. Exod 30:10), the sprinkling would be performedeither in front of or behind the incense altar, rather than to one side of it.

I have come to the conclusion that the sevenfold sprinkling “before theveil” should take place in front of (i.e., east of) the incense altar. This locationfarther from the ark than the incense altar is indicated by two factors: First,the similar sevenfold sprinkling in the inner sanctum on the Day of Atone-ment is performed in front of (i.e., east of) the object that is located in that

8. Against C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament(trans. J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 [orig. 1874]) 2:303; A. Clamer, Lévi-tique, Nombres, Deutéronome (La Sainte Bible 2; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1946) 47–48.

9. Against Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 216; N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering inthe Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1987) 124–26.

10. The additional designation hw;hy] ynep}lI, “before Yhwh,” in Lev 4:6 and 17 doesnot help us here. This expression can refer to a location in the forecourt (e.g., 1:3) orin the outer sanctum (e.g., Exod 30:8), even when something is placed on one sideor another of the sanctuary’s central axis (Lev 24:4—lampstand; v. 8—bread of thepresence).


area on the central axis of the sanctuary, in this case the ark (Lev 16:14, 15).Verse 16b abbreviates the prescription for the high priest’s subsequent activi-ties in the outer sanctum: d[E/m lh<aOl} hc≤[“y ' ˆkEw], “and he shall do likewise forthe Tent of Meeting,”11 that is, the outer sanctum. Performing a sevenfoldsprinkling in front of the incense altar would fulfill this instruction to purgethe outer sanctum in the same manner as the inner sanctum. C. F. Keil andF. Delitzsch are on target here:

For these words can only mean, that in the same way in which he had ex-piated the most holy place he was also to expiate the holy place of the tab-ernacle, in which the altar of incense took the place of the ark of thecovenant of the most holy place; so that the expiation was performed by hisputting blood, in the first place, upon the horns of the altar, and then sprin-kling it seven times upon the ground in front of it.12

Second, when the high priest sprinkles seven times in the inner sanctum(16:14, 15), he contributes to purging (rpk) that area (v. 16a).13 The words“and he shall do likewise for the Tent of Meeting” (16b) indicate that he alsopurges the area of the outer sanctum. Milgrom comments:

In other words, the shrine should be purged in the same manner as the ady-tum. Specifically, one object (the incense altar) is to be purged by directcontact with the purgation blood, and the rest of the shrine is to be purgedby a sevenfold sprinkling of the purgation blood on the shrine floor.14

For Milgrom the important thing here is that in the outer sanctum, as in theinner sanctum, there would be a single application of blood to an object anda sevenfold sprinkling on the floor.

Notice that Exod 30:10 makes explicit what can be deduced from Lev 16alone: of the three items of furniture in the outer sanctum (incense altar,

11. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)1293; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 1010.

12. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 2:400–401.13. Kiuchi reasons that in Lev 16:14–15 the sprinkling of blood on and before the

ark cover is directed only to that object and therefore the meaning of rpk in v. 16,which affects the entire inner sanctum (vdq), does not refer to these activities (The Pu-rification Offering, 92). But how does the high priest accomplish rpk for this portionof the sanctuary if not through at least one of the sprinklings, which are the only bloodmanipulations performed here?

14. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1034. Similarly, when Milgrom renders “against theveil” in Lev 4:6, 17 (Leviticus 17–22, 1271–72; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 226), he means“toward the veil,” without the blood touching the veil (p. 234). Note that he refers tothe outer sanctum as the “shrine” and the inner sanctum as the “adytum.”

Chapter 476

table, lampstand), the one that is purged by the blood of a special purificationoffering once a year is the incense altar.

In agreement with m. Yoma 5:4–5, Milgrom assumes that sprinkling withreference to the veil is closer to the ark than the application of blood to thehorns of the incense altar (see below).15 However, he follows Josephus (Ant.3.243) and Ibn Ezra (on Lev 16:18) in identifying the altar “before Yhwh” inv. 18 as the outer sacrificial altar in the court.16 Thus he rejects the tradition,accepted by a number of modern scholars, that in this verse the high priestexits (axy) only from the holy of holies to the outer sanctum, so that the altarin this context is the golden altar of incense, which is described in Lev 4:18with the same terminology: hw;hy] ynep}lI rv≤a“ j'BEz]MIh", “the altar that is beforeYhwh” (m. Yoma 5:5; Sipra, A˙are 4:7).17 According to this interpretation, thewords “and he shall do likewise for the Tent of Meeting” in 16b refer only tosprinkling with reference to the inner veil (m. Yoma 5:4) and do not includesubsequent application to the incense altar, which is specified in v. 18.

Since 16b already puts the high priest in the outer sanctum, how couldanyone interpret the high priest’s exit in v. 18 as a movement into this area?18

Following v. 16b, v. 17 stipulates that nobody is permitted to be in the Tent ofMeeting when the high priest enters the inner sanctum (vd,QO) to effect purga-tion there until he exits (/taxE, infin. of axy), that is, from the inner sanctum.Identifying this exit with the exit prescribed a few words later at the beginningof v. 18 yields the conclusion that the altar in v. 18 must be the incense altar.

15. Ibid., 1034–35, 1038; cf. R. Rendtorff, who emphasizes that the blood wouldbe sprinkled in the closest possible proximity to the inner sanctum (Leviticus[BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–] 2:158; cf. 159, 160), andG. J. Wenham, “The Theology of Old Testament Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice in the Bible(ed. R. Beckwith and M. Selman; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) 83; W. Gilders, BloodRitual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Press, 2004) 114–15, 117.

16. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1036.17. H. L. Strack, Die Bücher Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (Munich: Beck, 1894) 335;

D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6) 450; B. D. Eerdmans,Das Buch Leviticus (ATS 4; Giesen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1912) 76–77; J. Gammie,Holiness in Israel (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 39–41; B. Levine, Leviticus(JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 103–5;C. Meyers, “Realms of Sanctity: The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Incense Altar in the Tab-ernacle Texts of Exodus,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to MenahemHaran (ed. M. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 42–43.

18. Kurtz pointed out that the exit of the high priest in Lev 16:18 (ax:y;w]) must befrom the outer sanctum because he has been in that area performing the activities pre-scribed in abbreviated fashion in v. 16b and referred to in the summary statements ofvv. 20, 33 (Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament, 392–93); cf. A. Dillmann, DieBücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897) 579–80.



The view that the altar in v. 18 is the inner one is defective on severalcounts. For one thing, v. 17 is a parenthetical instruction, referring back tothe high priest’s activity in the holy of holies (vv. 12–16a), which does notmove the ritual process forward. Although v. 16b carries the ritual into theouter sanctum, it is logically placed before v. 17 in order to abbreviate the pro-cedure in this area (“he shall do likewise”) with reference to the immediatelypreceding instructions regarding the inner sanctum. So when ritual progressresumes in v. 18, the exit and altar here should be based on v. 16b, bracketingout v. 17. Moreover, v. 20 indicates that the high priest purges three maincomponents of the sanctuary: inner sanctum, outer sanctum, and altar (i.e.,outer altar; cf. v. 33). If vv. 18–19 refer to the golden altar in the outer sanc-tum, where is the prescription for purgation of the outer altar? Additionally,v. 18 refers to the high priest’s exit directly to the altar in order to carry out adouble manipulation of blood on it. This does not allow for the high priest tosprinkle blood on/toward the inner veil following his exit from the holy ofholies and before he puts blood on the incense altar.

Milgrom is right: the altar “before Yhwh” in v. 18 is in the court. This isthe same as the altar “before Yhwh” in v. 12, which must be the sacrificial al-tar, because only this one had fire continually burning on it (cf. 6:5–6[12–13]).19 Once the high priest exits to the court and applies blood to the outeraltar (vv. 18–19), he simply stays in the court to perform the ritual of Azazel’sgoat (vv. 20–21). This explains why the text does not need to specify an exitbetween treatment of the altar and the live goat ritual.

So far so good. However, Milgrom’s correct identification of the altar inv. 18 generates a difficulty: in order to preserve an unbroken progression ofmovement away from the ark, he must have the sevenfold sprinkling towardand close to the veil in the outer sanctum precede the single application ofblood to the incense altar. This 7 + 1 sequence reverses the 1 + 7 pattern es-tablished in the inner sanctum (vv. 14–15).20 But he justifies the 7 + 1 se-quence in the outer sanctum on the basis of 4:6–7 and 17–18, where theouter sanctum purification offering provides a precedent for the 7 + 1 pat-tern,21 and finds the result to be satisfying: a symmetrical introversion in the

19. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1025. Notice that, since both altars are hw;hy] ynep}lI, inLev 4:18 specification of the incense altar requires further identification: lh<aOB} rv≤a“

d[E/m, “that is in the Tent of Meeting.”20. Ibid., 1034–35, 1038.21. Ibid., 1035. D. Wright also understands Lev 16:16b as likely referring back to

the activities detailed in 4:5–7, 16–18 (The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites inthe Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature [SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars,1987] 16).

Chapter 478

purgation of the inner sanctum (= adytum), outer sanctum (= shrine), andouter altar on the Day of Atonement (16:14–19):22

adytum shrine altar1 + 7 7 + 1 1 + 7

This interpretation is logical, based on biblical evidence, and aestheticallyattractive. But in 16:16b the word ˆk, “likewise,” unambiguously refers to theimmediately preceding prescription belonging to the same ritual complex—that is, the single application of blood to the ark cover and sevenfold sprin-kling in front of that object (vv. 14–16a).23 The rabbinic tradition insistingthat 16:16b refers to the 1 + 7 pattern established in the holy of holies(b. Yoma 56b) correctly interpreted this aspect of the ritual.24

So how is it possible to have a 1 + 7 pattern in the outer sanctum if Mil-grom is right that the incense altar receives only the single daubing of bloodrather than the double application specified in vv. 18–19, which refer to theouter altar? There are two options here: (1) If the location of the sevenfoldsprinkling is behind (i.e., west of) the incense altar, between the altar and theinner veil, the high priest must first daub blood on the horns of the incensealtar and then move closer to the ark in order to perform the sevenfold sprin-kling. This option is unacceptable for two reasons: First, it is not faithful tothe pattern set in the inner sanctum—blood application to an object andthen in front of that object. Second, it disrupts the otherwise consistent out-ward progression of blood applications away from the ark, which the rabbisand Milgrom have been careful to maintain, albeit in different ways.

(2) The sevenfold sprinkling is performed in front of (i.e., east of) the in-cense altar. This works. As in the inner sanctum, the high priest applies bloodonce to an object, in this case the incense altar, and sprinkles seven times in

22. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1038.23. Compare Lev 16:15, which abbreviates to some extent by referring to previous

activities in the same complex (v. 14). By using different phraseology, 16:16b couldeasily have referred to the outer-sanctum purification offering paradigm with its 7 + 1pattern (4:6–7, 17–18): See, for example, 4:10, where part of the high priest’s personalpurification offering is explained on the basis of explicitly mentioned similarity withwell-being offering procedure, and vv. 20–21, where the prescription for disposing ofthe purification offering of the community abbreviates by referring to the previousinstructions regarding the high priest’s bull (cf. 9:15).

24. However, this tradition understood the 1 + 7 blood applications in the holy ofholies and outer sanctum to be sprinklings performed once upward plus seven timesdownward (cf. m. Yoma 5:3–4).



front of that object, meaning in the main part of the outer sanctum. This pro-vides stronger support for Milgrom’s insight that the sevenfold sprinkling af-fects the area of the outer sanctum than his own placement of this bloodmanipulation in the peripheral space between the incense altar and the veil.

The parallel between blood manipulation in the outer sanctum on theDay of Atonement and in the high priest’s personal purification offering forinadvertent sin, both of which involve sevenfold sprinkling and application ofblood to the incense altar suggests that the sevenfold sprinkling in the highpriest’s outer-sanctum offering also affects the area. But what about the expres-sion tk<rOP:h" yneP} taE in Lev 4? Doesn’t this necessitate a location closer to theinner veil than the incense altar? The answer is: no. Aside from Lev 4:6 and17, inanimate prepositional objects of yneP}(A)ta< are places/areas: a city (Gen33:18), the holy place / precinct (Lev 10:4), or the Solomonic temple (2 Kgs16:14). To be yneP}(A)ta<, “before,” one of these areas is to be located in an adja-cent area. Strictly speaking, the tk<rOP:, “veil,” of the sanctuary in Lev 4:6 and17 is an object that is not an area. So in this sense yneP}(A)ta< here is excep-tional. However, the primary function of the tk<rOP: is to establish the limit ofthe outer sanctum and thereby to delineate the area of the inner sanctum bystretching across the interior width of the sanctuary.25 Thus sprinkling “beforethe veil” means, in effect, sprinkling in the area in front of and adjacent to theinner sanctum.26 In this way yneP}(A)ta< economically alludes to the area of theinner sanctum while specifying the veil in front of which the high priest is toperform the physical activity of sprinkling the blood. This allusion would notbe conveyed by a designation of location referring to the altar of incense,such as “before the altar of incense.”

Genesis 33:18, Lev 10:4, and 2 Kgs 16:14 indicate that something yneP}(A)ta<,“before,” an area is located somewhere in an adjacent area. So the fact that inLev 4:6 and 17 the sevenfold sprinkling is performed in the outer sanctum infront of the inner sanctum does not rule out the possibility that the incensealtar may be closer to the inner sanctum than the sevenfold sprinkling.

So why does the text employ yneP}(A)ta< rather than ynep}lI, which can also re-fer to location in an adjacent area?27 Probably because the incense altar is

25. R. Gane and J. Milgrom, “tk<rOP: paroket,” TDOT 12:95–96. Compare the Akka-dian cognate parakku, which can refer to the shrine or cella of a deity, and the verbparaku, “to go/lay/place across, to bar” (AHW 2:827–29).

26. This interpretation is viable whether vd,QO in vd,QOh" tk<rOP: (Lev 4:6) refers to theinner sanctum (Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 124–25) or the outer sanctum(Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 234). The tk<rOP: belonged to both areas.

27. E.g., Gen 23:17; Exod 14:2, 9; 29:10; Lev 3:8, 13; 4:14.

Chapter 480

placed tk<rOP:h" ynep}lI (Exod 30:6), and use of the same preposition for the lo-cation of a sprinkling that is not performed on that altar could be confusing.Possible additional evidence for location of the sevenfold sprinkling in themain part of the outer sanctum may be found in the fact that the incensealtar is tk<rOP:h" ynep}lI, “before the veil,” tr,POK"h" ynep}lI, “before the ark cover”(Exod 30:6), and tdu[Eh: ˆ/ra“ ynep}lI, “before the ark of the covenant” (40:5),which indicates that this altar is relatively closer to the veil than the tableand lampstand, which are simply tk<rOP:l" ≈WjmI, “outside the veil” (Exod26:35, 27:21, 40:22; Lev 24:3).28 Accordingly, N. Sarna locates the incensealtar “just outside the curtain that veils the Holy of Holies.”29 If this is true,the proximity of the incense altar to the veil could make it difficult for thehigh priest to sprinkle blood in the fairly small area between these objectswithout consistently applying the blood directly on (l[") rather than before(yneP}[A]ta<) the veil.30 Of course, this indirect argument is weakened by thelack of biblical evidence regarding the precise distance between the incensealtar and the veil.

The overall goal/meaning of an outer-sanctum purification offering for sin is to purge evil on the offerer’s behalf, prerequisite to forgiveness

The end of the prescription for the high priest’s ritual does not explic-itly state that this sacrifice effects purgation (rpk) of sin on behalf of thehigh priest. However, this is implied by the facts that the sacrifice is a pu-rification offering to and before Yhwh for inadvertent sin (Lev 4:3–4, 6–7)and parallels the outer-sanctum purification offering of the community,which also remedies inadvertent sin and has this overall goal: µh<lE[“ rP<kIw]

µh<l: jl"s}niw] ˆhEKOh", “Thus the priest shall effect purgation for them that theymay be forgiven” (v. 20).31 This is basically the same goal that we found inv. 26 for the chieftain’s outer-altar purification offering: purgation (rpk)prerequisite to forgiveness (jls). The only difference between these goalsis the beneficiary: the community in one case and the chieftain in the

28. Spatial relationships within the sanctuary are defined with reference to thetk<rOP: (Gane and Milgrom, “tk<rOP: paroket,” 12:96).

29. N. Sarna, Exodus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1991) 193; cf. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem:Magnes, 1967) 391.

30. Interestingly, b. Yoma 57a records the claim of a rabbi that he saw in Rome theveil of the Second Temple with blood stains on it.

31. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1272; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 227.


other. The former requires an outer-sanctum offering and the latter an outer-altar offering.

Milgrom builds on Abravanel to argue that in Lev 4:3–21 “the purificationoffering of the high priest and the community comprise a single case. Thehigh priest has erred in judgment, causing ‘harm to the people’ (v 3) whereby,in following the high priest’s ruling, the people also err.”32 But A. B. Ehrlichregards the words µ[:h: tm"v‘a"l} in Lev 4:3 as explaining the effect of the highpriest’s sin rather than a restriction to only some of his sins: every offense ofthe high priest would also cause the people to incur guilt.33 D. Hoffmann ar-gues that there is no distinction between the high priest’s official and privatelives. Because he represents the nation, even his private sin brings guilt onthe people of Israel.34

Hoffmann recognizes that the words wl jlsnw are lacking at the end of thepericope prescribing the high priest’s purification offering (v. 12). However,from the appearance of these words in v. 20, at the end of the pericope regard-ing the sacrifice for the community, he derives the conclusion that the highpriest’s sacrifice must also result in his being forgiven: if the entire commu-nity, including the high priest, receives forgiveness through a purification of-fering, a fortiori the high priest will receive expiation when he alone offers thesame sacrifice.35

Whether Milgrom or Hoffmann is right, both agree that the high priestreceives rpk § jls within the context of Lev 4. Kiuchi, however, has an-other idea. Because the high priest cannot bear his own guilt, he cannot re-ceive expiation (rpk) at this stage, even though the sanctuary is partiallypurified by the blood manipulations that he performs (vv. 6–7). His expia-tion must await the bearing of his sin by Azazel’s goat on the Day of Atone-ment. Thus, uniquely, the high priest’s “purification-atonement spans two

32. Ibid., 241; cf. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 2:303. B. Levine ar-gues that fear and extreme need induced by misfortune often motivate people to seekexpiation. So he is tempted to translate Lev 4:3a: “If the anointed priest commits anoffense to the misfortune of the people” (Levine, review of “Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus1–16,” Bib 74 [1993] 285).

33. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachlichesund Sachliches (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968) 2:13.

34. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus, 176–77; cf. m. Hor. 2:1–2; Rashi on Lev 4:3;Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 213–14 n. 1; M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and CriticalCommentary on the Old Testament, with a New Translation: Leviticus (2 vols.; Lon-don: Longman, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1867–72) 1:312; A. Dillmann, Die BücherExodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897) 461, citing Lev 10:6.

35. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus, 186.

Chapter 482

different occasions (Lev 4.3–12 + Lev 16.14ff.).”36 According to Kiuchi, theinadequacy of the Lev 9 ritual to cope with the priestly sin of Nadab andAbihu also implies a need for more potent atonement for the high priest,the head of the priestly house, and thereby for all Israel, on the Day ofAtonement.37

Notice that Kiuchi, like Milgrom, treats the purification offerings as a co-herent, dynamic system,38 albeit a different one. The idea that atonementinvolves a ritual process accomplished in two stages, with completion of theprocess on the Day of Atonement, is a significant and intriguing idea to whichwe will return in a major way.

Several problems with Kiuchi’s interpretation prevent me from adoptingit. First, in each of the other cases in Lev 4, completion of ritual rpk is pre-requisite to forgiveness (jls) granted by Yhwh (vv. 20, 26, 31, 35). So if Kiu-chi is correct, the high priest should also receive forgiveness followingcompletion of his rpk on the Day of Atonement. But alas, there is no evi-dence that the Day of Atonement rituals provide forgiveness for anyone: Sur-prisingly, there is not a single instance of the root jls in Lev 16 or any of theother Day of Atonement prescriptions (23:26–32; Num 29:7–11)! Rather, therpk benefit on this day for the Israelites, including the high priest, is somekind of purification (rhf; Lev 16:30). We will explore the implications of thisin a subsequent chapter of the present work.

Second, on the Day of Atonement, Azazel’s goat carries away the moralfaults of all Israelites together (16:21–22). So at this time the sins of the highpriest are bundled up with those of everyone else, without a hint that he re-ceives a special second stage of rpk that they do not also receive at this time.

Third, the high priest performs rpk on (l[) the nonsacrificial goat for Aza-zel (16:10), which serves as a vehicle of elimination. There is no indicationthat this kind of rpk benefits the Israelites in the way that sacrificial rpk does.

Fourth, later I will argue that the only purification offerings having thegoal of purifying the sanctuary and its sancta are those performed at the initial

36. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 127–28; cf. R. Péter-Contesse and J. Elling-ton, who take the atonement formula (“the priest shall make atonement for them/him”) to represent a discrete ritual gesture that the high priest would not likely per-form on himself (A Handbook on Leviticus [UBSHS; New York: United Bible Socie-ties, 1990] 52). This interpretation of the formula fails to distinguish between the twolevels of ritual data provided by the text: instructions for performance of physical ac-tivities and interpretation of those activities. If the formula refers to a separate activity,how is it performed?

37. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 83–85, 159.38. Cf. ibid., 162.


consecration of the altar (Exod 29:36–37; Lev 8:15) and at the purgation ofthe sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16, 18–19).39 If I am rightabout this, and if Kiuchi is right that the high priest himself receives no rpk

as a result of his Lev 4 sacrifice, what does the ritual accomplish—nothing?Thus far we have found that the goals of outer-altar and outer-sanctum pu-

rification offerings for inadvertent sin are basically the same: purgation (rpk)prerequisite to forgiveness (jls), except that the beneficiaries are chieftain/commoner and high priest/community, respectively. So the outer-sanctumtype remedies inadvertent sins of community-wide rather than individualscope, due to the fact that the sin is that of the high priest (the cultic repre-sentative of the community) and/or the community itself. This vastly widerscope explains the superiority of the outer-sanctum procedural system interms of victim, officiant, location, and activities. It requires the most expen-sive victim (bull), the highest cultic functionary (high priest), blood applica-tions inside rather than outside the Sacred Tent, and performance of twoblood applications (sevenfold sprinkling and daubing on the incense altar)rather than one.

Numbers 15:22–26 presents another ritual for an inadvertent sin of thecommunity, consisting of a purification-offering goat accompanied by aburnt-offering bull. Verse 25 shows that the goal is the same as in Lev 4: pur-gation (rpk) prerequisite to forgiveness (jls).

At first glance Num 15:22–31 appears to contain a second set of generalrules governing purification offerings.40 G. A. Anderson contends, in agree-ment with the Temple Scroll but against rabbinic interpretation (e.g., m. Hor.2:6), that vv. 22–26 are more likely than Lev 4:13–21 to express a general rulebecause special applications of purification offerings for the community pre-scribe goats rather than bulls (Lev 9, 16; Num 28–29), in accordance with therule of Num 15 rather than that of Lev 4.41 However, he somewhat overstatesthe problem of the relationship between Lev 4 and Num 15.

First, while Anderson properly contrasts the bull in Lev 4 to the corre-sponding male goat for a purification offering in Num 15, he does not ade-quately take into account the fact that in the latter passage a burnt-offeringbull must accompany the purification-offering goat. So in each passage thereis a bull. Therefore, the sacrifices of the community in Lev 4 and Num 15

39. With A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; BerrienSprings, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 123, 128–29, 137.

40. G. A. Anderson, “The Interpretation of the Purification Offering (tafj) in theTemple Scroll (11QTemple) and Rabbinic Literature,” JBL 111 (1992) 19.

41. Ibid., 19–24, 32–34.

Chapter 484

are quite similar in quantitative terms. As we have already shown, purifica-tion offerings have enhanced blood manipulations and hence greater expia-tory power than burnt offerings. The descending gradation of victims in Lev4, from a bull for the high priest or the community (vv. 3–21) to a male goatfor a chieftain (vv. 22–26) and then a female goat or sheep for an individual(vv. 27–35) indicates that a bull is a greater sacrifice than a goat. On this basiswe could argue that the burnt offering in Num 15 compensates for the factthat the purification offering is a goat, a lesser victim than the bull in Lev 4.

That the burnt offering quantitatively supplements the expiation effectedby the purification offering, resulting in what amounts to a greater purifica-tion offering for the entire community, is clear from comparison betweenNum 15:22–26 and vv. 27–29, where the functional equivalent in the less-serious case of an individual sinner consists only of a female goat for a purifi-cation offering, with no accompanying burnt offering. See also Lev 5:7–10,where a sacrifice of two birds, one as a purification offering and the other asa burnt offering, carries the same function as a single purification offering ofa female sheep or goat (v. 6).42 The purpose of the burnt-offering bird is tosupplement the quantity of the purification-offering function;43 it carries noindependent qualitative significance. The fact that the two birds are a unit isshown by the fact that the rpk formula is stated only once, after completionof the second ritual (burnt offering), thereby covering both rituals (Lev5:10).44 It is true that a burnt offering expiates (Lev 1:4; 16:24; cf. 14:20; Job1:5; 42:8), but in combination with a purification offering, the function of aburnt offering is subsumed under that of the purification offering to provide agreater purification offering.45 The fact that individual activity systems, such

Leviticus 4:13–21 Numbers 15:22–26purification offering (greater)bull (greater)

purification offering (greater)goat (lesser)+

burnt offering (lesser)bull (greater)

42. Notice that the blood of the purification-offering bird, as in burnt offerings ofbirds, is applied to the side of the altar rather than to its horns (v. 9; cf. Lev 1:15).

43. Cf. Levine, Leviticus, 29; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 304.44. Cf. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 3:177.45. B. Janowski (Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priester-

schrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament [WMANT 55;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982] 192) and Rendtorff (Leviticus, 1:38)hold that a burnt offering expiates only when it is combined with a tafj sacrifice.



as purification offerings and burnt offerings, can operate together to formhigher-level systems, which we could call “ritual complexes,” arises from thefact that rituals are hierarchical.

Anderson’s second overstatement is his characterization of Num 15:22–31as containing a general rule for the purification offering (see above). For onething, this legislation is not self-standing because it does not say how the pu-rification offering is to be performed; at least in the present form of the text,it depends on Lev 4:13–21 for the activity paradigm. For another, Num 15:22–26 prescribes a ritual complex consisting of two kinds of sacrifices: purifica-tion offering and burnt offering. So this passage is closer to what Andersoncalls a “particular application” in the sense that its focus is on the remedy fora kind of case, an inadvertent fault, rather than on a particular activity para-digm, the purification offering.

The problem with regarding Num 15:22–26 as a particular application isthe fact that Lev 4 deals with the same kind of case: inadvertent sin. In a laterchapter we will consider the possibility of differentiation between Lev 4 andNum 15 in terms of subcategories of inadvertence, but we will find insuffi-cient evidence to make such a distinction. So it appears that Num 15:22–26does not present a general rule for the purification offering or a particularapplication of such to another kind of case but, rather, a diachronic modifi-cation of one aspect of the general rule when the offerer is the whole commu-nity: instead of a bull, which is also the victim for the high priest in Lev 4, thecommunity must now bring a male goat. To compensate for this downgrad-ing of the purification offering, the community must offer a supplementarybull as a burnt offering.

Naturally we want to know why the ritual for the community was changed.What difference does it make whether there is a purification-offering bull ora goat plus a burnt-offering bull, and what would motivate a shift from one tothe other? One obvious difference is that Num 15 establishes a ritual distinc-tion between the purification offering of the high priest and that of the com-munity, which are both bulls and therefore equal in Lev 4. But why such achange? Does it lie in the narrative context of the book of Numbers, wheresins of the community, including conflict with the high priesthood, featureso prominently in close proximity to ch. 15?46 Does it have to do with a

46. Rabbinic exegetes (e.g., Rashi, Ramban) have explained that Num 15:22–26calls for a special ritual because in this case the sin has the effect of breaking “all thesecommandments” (v. 22). In their view such breach of the covenant could only resultfrom idolatry. However, it is difficult to see how the community could inadvertentlycommit idolatry (G. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC;

Chapter 486

difference or change in the scope of tafj sacrifices as legal remedies?47 Wecannot pursue this intriguing question further in the present work.

Anderson’s third overstatement is his interpretation of “high-handed” sinin Num 15:30–31 as advertent sin. This yields a simple contrast between ex-piable inadvertence in vv. 22–29 and inexpiable advertence in vv. 30–31, thelatter being a very harsh measure.48 But as we shall see later, not all advertent/intentional sins are “high handed”—that is, defiant. So rather than ruling outthe possibility that any deliberate sin could be expiated through sacrifice(against Lev 5:20–26[6:1–7]), Num 15:30–31 makes explicit what could bededuced from the silence in Leviticus regarding the sacrificial expiability ofdefiant sin.49

47. On the relative legal scope of Lev 4 versus Num 15:22–31 in terms of a distinc-tion between prohibitive and performative commandment violations, see Milgrom,Leviticus 1–16, 264–69. While Lev 4 clearly deals with prohibitive commandments,this aspect of Num 15 is debated. For example, Ibn Ezra argued that Num 15:22 refersonly to violation of performative commandments, but Ramban emphasized the com-prehensive coverage of the same verse, which speaks of failing to do any of Yhwh’scommandments, implying prohibitive as well as performative ones.

48. Anderson, “The Interpretation of the Purification Offering,” 19, 30–31.49. Anderson finds that the Qumran sect used Num 15:22–31 as a general rule to

decide whether a member should be regarded as apostate, and therefore expelledfrom the community, or not (ibid., 32–33; quoting 1QS 8:21–9:2 as an example).In basic harmony with the tenor of Num 15:30–31, a sin hm:r; dy;B}, “with a highhand,” was treated with extreme seriousness as apostasy. However, even if the Qumran

Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1981] 130), as shown by the lengths to which Ram-ban must go to imagine scenarios of unwitting apostasy, such as a child who was takencaptive and grew up unaware of his Jewish identity. A. Toeg attempts to account forthe difference between the purification offerings of the community in Lev 4 and Num15 by regarding the latter as containing an interpolation (“Numbers 15:22–31—Mid-rash Halakha,” Tarbiz 43 [1974] 8–10 [Hebrew]). M. Fishbane accepts Toeg’s idea thatthe Num 15 passage is based on Lev 4 but stresses the magnitude of the change inNum 15:22–31: “Indeed, the expansion of an older law dealing only with uninten-tional transgression of negative prohibitions to the unintentional transgression of everyone of the commandments, and the corresponding transfer of the penalty of trk fromspecific transgressions to the wilful and high-handed violation of any particularcommandment, is a quantum development” (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel[Oxford: Clarendon, 1985] 193). I. Knohl responds negatively to Toeg’s approach butretains the priority of Lev 4: “The language of the text in Numbers 15 deviates com-pletely from the language in Leviticus 4. . . . This is no exegetic insertion but rather arevised and renewed version with only a weak affinity to the original text!” (“The SinOffering Law in the ‘Holiness School’ [Numbers 15.22–31],” in Priesthood and Cult inAncient Israel [ed. G. A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1991] 195). Knohl goes on to explain the difference as due to Lev 4 belongingto the “Priestly Torah” and Num 15 as a later version of the ritual law by the “HolinessSchool” (pp. 195–203).


Activity components contribute to the overall goalWe can outline the outer-sanctum purification-offering paradigm pre-

scribed in Lev 4:3–12 and 13–21 as a hierarchical activity system:

Hand-leaning, slaughter, and burning suet on the outer altar are performedin the same manner as in the outer-altar purification offering. Since the over-all goals of the outer-sanctum and outer-altar types are the same, except forthe cultic status of their respective beneficiaries, we can assume that the con-tributions of these activities to achievement of the overall goals are the same.But differences in blood manipulations and treatment of remaining animalparts must be further investigated.

Applying blood in outer sanctumThe combination of sprinkling seven times tk<rOP:h" yneP} taE, “before the

veil” (Lev 4:6, 17), that is, east of the incense altar in the main area of theouter sanctum (see above), and daubing blood on the horns of the incensealtar serves as a more-powerful functional equivalent of putting blood on the

Outer-Sanctum Purification Offeringlean hand on head of animalslay animalapply blood in outer sanctum

collect bloodbring some blood into outer sanctumdip finger in blood and sprinkle seven times in front of (inner) veilput some blood on horns of incense altar pour remaining blood at base of outer altar

burn suet on (outer) altarremove suetpresent suet to altarburn suet on altar

dispose of remainder of animalcarry remainder of animal to clean place outside campincinerate remainder of animal

community harshly interpreted all advertent sins as high-handed apostasy, as Andersonimplies (ibid., 32), this does not necessitate reading their definition of hm:r; dy;B} into thebiblical text.

Chapter 488

horns of the outer altar.50 Therefore it is clear that each of the two kinds ofblood applications contributes to expiation before Yhwh.51

Earlier we found that putting blood on the horns, that is, the highestpoints, of the outer altar or incense altar elevates the importance of the ex-piatory blood in a vertical direction, in which smoke of sacrifices or incensegoes up toward Yhwh at his heavenly place of enthronement (cf. Ps 11:4).The outer-sanctum paradigm highlights the blood even further: uniquelyamong sacrifices performed at times other than the Day of Atonement, itsblood-manipulation subsystem is expanded by addition of the sevenfoldsprinkling, and it is extended in a horizontal direction to within the tent,closer to the place of Yhwh’s enthronement in the holy of holies above theark cover (Exod 25:22; Num 7:89) or the cherubim on the ark (1 Sam 4:4;2 Sam 6:2).52

50. Cf. Janowski, Sühne, 235.51. Against the theory of T. Vriezen that in a purification offering of special sanc-

tity, sprinkling blood (hipºil of hzn) originally served to consecrate it in preparationfor expiatory application (ˆtn) of the blood (“The Term Hizza: Lustration and Con-secration,” OtSt 7 [1950] 201–35; cf. M. Noth, Leviticus [trans. J. E. Anderson; OTL;London: SCM, 1965] 39). Because Lev 16:19 has blood sprinkled seven times on theouter altar outside the Sacred Tent, where Vriezen does not see the need for specialconsecration of the blood preparatory to expiation, he interprets this as an exceptionalact of lustration that represents a later stage of the text (pp. 230–31; cf. 233). Janowskihas opposed Vriezen on several grounds, including the reverse ̂ tn § hZ;hI sequence inLev 16:18–19 (Janowski, Sühne, 226–27; cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 120,122–30; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 233). However, Janowski (Sühne, 227 n. 211) andMilgrom (Numbers [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Soci-ety, 1990] 158, 440; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1037–40) accept the idea that sevenfoldsprinklings enact consecration in certain contexts: Num 19:4, where the priest sprin-kles blood from the red cow seven times toward the sanctuary from a location outsidethe camp, and (for Milgrom) Lev 16:19, where the high priest explicitly (re-)conse-crates the outer altar. Kiuchi, however, interprets the sprinkling in Num 19:4 “as anindirect way of purifying the Tent” in the sense that this and other observances of pu-rification rules regarding corpse contamination prevent the defilement of the sanctu-ary, which, according to vv. 13, 20, would otherwise occur (The Purification Offering,124). While this suggestion is attractive in that it places the purpose of the sprinklingfirmly within the framework of the purificatory goal assigned to the red cow ritual, itis hard to see how later prevention of the sanctuary’s defilement through applicationof the rehydrated ashes of the cow to a corpse-contaminated person (vv. 13, 20) soneatly explains the sevenfold sprinkling of blood, before the cow is burned, in terms ofindirect purification of the sanctuary. Prevention by one action is not indirect purifi-cation by another. Prevention is prevention, not a form of purification. Maybe Kiu-chi’s theory is worth pursuing, but in its present form a conceptual gap (or two) needsto be filled in.

52. Cf. 2 Kgs 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Ps 80:2[1]; 99:1; Isa 37:16.



The expanded, extended use of blood in the outer-sanctum ritual cor-relates with greater expiatory power, which is needed to remedy a fault ofcommunity-wide magnitude. From comparison with the outer-altar type, wecan deduce an underlying principle: the more serious the situation in termsof the cultic status of the sinner, the more intimate and elaborate the transac-tion with Yhwh to make amends.53

Disposing of remainder of the animalIn the outer-sanctum purification offering, the remainder of the animal is

taken outside the camp and incinerated, rather than eaten (Lev 4:11–12, 21).Presumably the reason for such disposal is the fact that this ritual type in-volves the high priest, not only as officiant, but also as offerer, whether indi-vidually or as a member of the community (cf. m. Hor. 2:2). Except in thecase of a well-being offering, which carries a lower grade of sanctity,54 an of-ferer is not permitted to benefit from his own sacrifice.55 This rule is implicitin 9:11, where the inaugural outer-altar purification offering on behalf ofAaron (and presumably his family; cf. 16:6, 11) is incinerated outside thecamp. See also 6:16[23]: “So every cereal offering of a priest shall be a totaloffering; it shall not be eaten.”56 When a sacrifice expiates for sin, as is alwaysthe case with an outer-sanctum purification offering, the principle that an of-ferer may not benefit from his own sacrifice effectively eliminates the possi-bility that he could indirectly benefit from his own sin.57

Leviticus 6:23[30] rules that applying blood in the outer sanctum and eat-ing the flesh are mutually exclusive. This does not mean that eating the fleshis permitted in every outer-altar purification offering, as shown by the case of

53. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 172–73. This was missed by Noth, whosetheoretical historical stages of development from a general and unified purification of-fering obscure his understanding of the rituals (Leviticus, 37–41).

54. See, e.g., Num 18:9–11, 18–19; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 204.55. H. Cazelles, Le Lévitique (La Sainte Bible; 2d ed.; Paris: Cerf, 1958) 39;

Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, 463; Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 237–38.56. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1275; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 379.57. Ibid., 264; cf. idem, “Two Kinds of ˙a††aªt,” VT 26 (1976) 337; Kiuchi, The

Purification Offering, 134–35; N. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (CB, new ed.; Lon-don: Nelson, 1967) 17. This is simpler than the theory of Levine, who argues that Lev4 represents a redactional combination of two different kinds of sacrifices: First, thereis a riddance rite by which impurity resulting from a severe offense committed by thehigh priest or community is eliminated from the camp and destroyed. Second, the riteof the chieftain or commoner propitiates God and compensates the priests for theirservice with portions that they consume (Leviticus, 18–19, 21).

Chapter 490

the inaugural sacrifice mentioned above (9:11). Correctly performed inciner-ation of this outer-altar offering for the priests, which was the counterpart ofthe outer-altar offering for the community (v. 15) that the priests should haveeaten under normal circumstances (10:16–20), undermines Kurtz’s explana-tion that outer-sanctum offerings (uniquely) had to be incinerated becausethey were too holy even for priestly consumption.58

ConclusionThus far we have found that an outer-sanctum purification offering carries

out the goal of removing inadvertent sin of community-wide scope on behalfof the offerer(s) through activities that identify the offerer(s) as the party trans-ferring the victim to Yhwh (hand-leaning), effect superior purgation (bloodin outer sanctum), make a debt payment to Yhwh (suet), and dispose of theremaining animal material that includes what would otherwise be the“agent’s commission” (meat) for the officiating high priest, who is denied thisbecause he simultaneously plays the role of an offerer.

58. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 237.

91

Chapter 5

Purification-Offering Flesh: Prebend or Expiation?

In our investigation of the outer-altar purification offering, we found that apriest who officiates such a sacrifice on behalf of another Israelite receives theremaining meat as a prebend/perquisite that functions as an “agent’s commis-sion” for carrying out the primary transaction between Yhwh and the offerer(Lev 6:19[26], 22[29]; 7:6). Here we will take up the question of whetherpriestly consumption of the meat additionally and simultaneously plays somekind of role in effecting purgation (rpk) on behalf of the offerer.

When priests eat the flesh of purification offerings at which they have officiated, they contribute to expiation

Those who regard the purification-offering flesh as a priestly perquisitethat lacks an expiatory role use a variety of arguments. I will describe andparry these in the following paragraphs, arriving at my own conclusion in theprocess.

J. Kurtz and A. Dillmann have viewed the “most holy” status of purifica-tion offerings (Lev 6:18[25], 22[29]; 10:17) to be incompatible with the ideathat they carry evil.1 Later we will find this argument to be undermined by6:20–21[27–28], where most holy purification offerings are uniquely and par-adoxically treated as if they are impure.2

Dillmann observed that in Lev 4 atonement is achieved (vv. 20, 26, 31, 35)without any indication that it depends on the priest’s eating of the meat. Ac-cording to his reading of the text, following the forgiveness granted in ch. 4no further extermination of sin is needed.3 He did not give adequate weightto the fact that eating the meat is postrequisite. It takes place after the core

1. J. H. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; Minne-apolis: Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 228–30; cf. 240–41; A. Dillmann, DieBücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897) 463–64; cf. 517.

2. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 403–4.3. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, 464.

Chapter 592

activities of the ritual are completed and may be postponed until a regularmealtime, but it is required nonetheless (10:17; cf. 16:26–28) and therefore isa contributing part of the ritual that effects purgation. The fact that priestlyconsumption of the meat appears in 6:19[26], 22[29] among special instruc-tions for the priests, rather than in ch. 4 with the earlier ritual activities, is dueto the fact that it involves only the priests. This does not mean that the eatingactivity was not a necessary component of the ritual.4 Once the suet wasburning on the altar, the offerer could go on his way assured of expiation pre-requisite to divine forgiveness, as indicated by the rpk formulas in ch. 4, trust-ing that the priest would finish whatever remained to be done.

K. Elliger reacts to the narrative of Lev 10. He finds here that the expiatoryefficacy of the peoples’ purification offering was not invalidated by priestlyfailure to consume its flesh, which can be taken to imply that eating the meatdid not contribute to the expiation.5 However, while it is true that the sacri-fice was not invalidated, this departure from the prescribed procedure wasconditioned by exceptional and extreme extenuating circumstances, namely,the execution of Aaron’s sons by Yhwh when they performed ritual activitythat “misfired” or “backfired” (literally! see vv. 1–2).6 Abstaining from themeat was not simply a ritual mistake but a deliberate choice based on Aaron’sreflection on the implications of his sons’ execution for his own status beforeYhwh and therefore the status of the priestly house of which he was the head(v. 19).7 Aaron’s idea here, which Moses accepted (cf. v. 20), seems to havebeen that he and his remaining sons were unworthy to enjoy their prebendfor mediating a sacrifice on behalf of others on the very day that the priestlyhouse had so notably fallen under divine condemnation. In any case, it isclear that maintenance of the offering’s validity in this context does not tell usthat under normal circumstances failure to eat the flesh would not invalidatethe offering as an infelicitous performance that failed to achieve its goal be-cause of misexecution.8

4. Against N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Mean-ing and Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 130.

5. K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 139; Cf. Kiuchi, The Puri-fication Offering, 49.

6. Cf. R. L. Grimes, Ritual Criticism: Case Studies in Its Practice, Essays on Its The-ory (SCR; Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1990) 207;repr. from “Infelicitous Performances and Ritual Criticism,” Semeia 41 (1988) 118.

7. Cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 73, 75–77.8. Moses initially criticized the performance not because one ritual action (in-

cineration) was substituted for another (eating) but because he judged the ritual tobe incomplete without priestly consumption of the meat (Lev 10:16–18). On ritual

Purification-Offering Flesh: Prebend or Expiation? 93

N. Kiuchi contends against the possibility that atonement can be retroac-tively invalidated:

Furthermore it must be borne in mind that the idea that atonement can beannulled or invalidated after it is made is not mentioned in the cultic law,and that more immediately both Moses and Aaron appear to assume in Lev10.16ff. the validity of the atonement in Lev 9. Therefore one cannot saythat the atonement of priests in Lev 9 was invalidated by the sin of Nadaband Abihu.9

It is true that the atonement for the priests was not invalidated by the sin ofNadab and Abihu. But in Lev 10 it was expiation for the people, not for thepriests, that was in question. Moses had no qualms about completion of thepriests’ purification offering of a calf (cf. 9:8–11); it was the goat for the non-priestly community that concerned him (10:16; cf. 9:15). Furthermore, atissue here is not whether the expiatory (rpk) process for the people could beretroactively invalidated after it was completed but whether it was completedbefore the last action connected with that expiatory ritual was properly per-formed.10 The magnitude of Moses’ reaction (10:16–18) indicates his percep-tion that, if the priests did not correctly complete the purification offering, thepeople would suffer some kind of loss even though Yhwh had already mani-fested his acceptance of the victim by consuming the suet in theophanic fireon the altar (Lev 9:24).

Some arguments against an expiatory function for priestly consumption ofmeat relate to the terminology of Moses’ angry words to the priests in Lev10:17, which Milgrom renders: “Why did you not eat the purification offeringin the sacred precinct? For it is most holy, and he has assigned it to you toremove the iniquity of the community to effect purgation on their behalf be-fore Yhwh.”11 Taking “it” in “for it is most holy” as referring to the purificationoffering in general, including the earlier application of blood, Kiuchi con-cludes that the last part of this verse means “that through the bloodmanipulation the priests bear the guilt . . . of the congregation.”12 Kurtz

9. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 75.10. Regarding the invalidating effect of a mistake in the course of a ritual, see

m. Yoma 5:7.11. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)

1281; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 596.12. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 49; cf. 51–52.

failure, see Grimes, Ritual Criticism, 191–209, esp. 200 on “hitches,” that is, “mis-executions in which the procedures are incomplete”; repr. from “Infelicitous Perfor-mances,” 103–22

Chapter 594

emphasizes that, while 10:17b uses the words “and he has assigned it to you”(µk<l: ̂ t"n; Ht:aOw]), this part of the verse does not refer to eating.13 B. Janowski con-tends that “to remove the iniquity of the community” (hd;[Eh: ˆ/[“Ata< tac´l:),explained by “to effect purgation on their behalf ” (µh<ylE[“ rPEk"l}), means thatthe priests are to bear guilt in a mediatorial role for the Israelites by ac-complishing expiation for them by means of the purification offering (as awhole).14

To evaluate this cluster of arguments, let’s begin with Kurtz. His denialthat eating is in view in 10:17b violates the implication clearly conveyed bythe structure of Moses’ words in this verse:

Why did you not eat the purification offering taF:j"h" Ata< µT<l}k"a“Aalø ['WDm"

in the sacred precinct? µ/qm}BI

For it is most holy, awhI yKI

and he has assigned it to you µk<l: ˆt"n; to remove the iniquity of the community hd;[Eh: ˆ/[“Ata<< tacEl:

to effect purgation on their behalf before Yhwh. hw;hy] ynep}lI µh<ylE[“ rPEk"l}

Aside from the overall bipartite structure, with a question (. . . ['WDm") followedby a motive clause (. . . yKI) that concludes with parallelism defined by infini-tives (. . . rPEk"l} . . . tacEl:), notice a chiasm that binds the motive clause to thequestion:

µT<l}k"a“ Amn Bmn B

µk<l: ˆt"n;n A1

Correspondence between the B elements is obviously formed by repetitionof vdq. A corresponds with A1 in the sense that each contains a verb andsecond-person plural address, referring to the priests. So A1 µk<l: ˆt"n;, “he hasassigned to you,” serves as the structural functional equivalent of A µT<l}k"a“,“did you eat.”

13. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 242–43.14. B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priester-

schrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (WMANT 55;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 239 n. 272. For such explanatory useof the infinitive with the preposition l (here rPEk"l}), see GKC §114o. For the idea thatthe community’s sin is taken away by the sacrifice itself (as a whole) rather than by theeating, see long ago J. von Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis (2nd ed.; Nördlingen, 1859)2/1:281.

vd,QOh"µyv¥d;q: vd,qø

Ht:aOw]

vd,QOh"µyv¥d;q: vd,qø



Lest there be any doubt that the equivalence between A and A1 is inten-tional, let us observe a second chiasm that frames the first:

taF:j"h" Ata<< µT<l}k"a“xmnmmµk<l: ˆt"n; Ht:aOw]

In this graphic display (cf. above), ht:aOw] (“and it”) stands opposite its anteced-ent, taF:j"h"Ata<< (“the purification offering”), and the A and A1 elements are op-posite each other, reinforcing the idea that the words “and he has assigned itto you” refer to the question “Why did you not eat the purification offering?”So against Kurtz, the last part of the verse does have to do with eating the meat:“he has assigned it to you” means “he has assigned the purification offering toyou to eat.” But the text does not need to repeat the verb “eat” (lka) here be-cause the context implies this. Rather, the rest of the verse gives the higherlevel goal/function of the physical activity of eating, namely, “to remove theiniquity of the community to effect purgation on their behalf before Yhwh.”

Against Kiuchi and Janowski, “the purification offering” (taF:j"h") in viewhere is not the ritual-activity system as a whole, which includes the bloodmanipulation, but rather the remainder of the animal that can be eaten, asshown by the fact that taF:j"h" is the direct object of the verb lka, “eat.”Moreover, µk<l: ˆt"n;, “he has assigned to you,” does not refer to Yhwh’s assign-ing the victim to the priests so that they would apply the blood to the altar.By the time of the blood manipulation, the animal had been transferred toYhwh, but when Yhwh assigns (ˆtn) something sacrificial to the priests, heallots a portion of the offering material to them as a prebend (cf. Lev6:10[17]; 7:32, 34, 36).

In Lev 10:17, the words awhI µyv¥d;q: vd,qO, “it is most holy,” come after yKI,“for,” as part of the reason why the priests should have eaten the sacrifice.There is no yKI between awhI µyv¥d;q: vd,qO and the remainder of the verse (e.g.,“It is most holy because [yKI] he has assigned it to you to remove the iniquity”)to suggest, as Hofmann does, that the purpose of these final words is to affirmthat the sacrifice is most holy for the reason that it has already had an expia-tory function.15 Compare 6:9–10[16–17], where Yhwh gives (ˆtn) the remain-der of the most holy grain offering (hj:n]MI) to the priests, who are to eat it in aholy place—that is, in the sanctuary court. Its most holy status is not due to aprior blood rite or expiatory function, which do not exist, but rather, the mostholy status determines the location of the eating.

15. Ibid.

Chapter 596

It is true that the contribution of eating to the expiatory goal is not thesame as that of daubing the blood on Yhwh’s altar or burning the suet on it(see further below). But Kiuchi overreaches when he asserts that “eating thehattat does not belong to the atoning process.”16 As Milgrom now recognizes,if this action were merely a prebend, it would be difficult to explain Moses’anger at Aaron’s sons in Lev 10:16–1817 or the fact that Lev 10:17 singles outpriestly use of the purification offering but not prebends of other sacrifices, asrequired.18

Thus far we cannot escape the conclusion, reached by a number of in-terpreters, that priestly consumption of sacrificial flesh is an integral part ofthe purification-offering ritual and makes some kind of contribution to ex-piation.19 It is not merely priestly enjoyment of compensation for service al-ready rendered, including applying the blood to the altar. B. Levine is rightthat the priestly meal of purification-offering meat accomplishes boththings at once.20

On the basis of the words hd;[Eh: ˆ/[“Ata<< tac´l:, “to remove the iniquity ofthe community,” in Lev 10:17, some scholars who accept an expiatory func-tion for eating the meat maintain that it accomplishes this goal by remov-ing evil that has been absorbed by the flesh. For example, C. F. Keil andF. Delitzsch comment on Lev 10:17:

“To bear the iniquity” does not signify here, as in chap. v. 1, to bear andatone for the sin in its consequences, but, as in Ex. xxviii.38, to take the sinof another upon one’s self, for the purpose of cancelling it, to make expia-tion for it. . . . This effect or signification could only be ascribed to the eat-ing, by its being regarded as an incorporation of the victim laden with sin,whereby the priests actually took away the sin by virtue of the holiness andsanctifying power belonging to their office.21

16. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 72; cf. 163, where he denies that eating theflesh is part of the tafj ceremony.

17. Communication cited by D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: EliminationRites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1987) 133 n. 22; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 635–40.

18. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 623, 636–38.19. Sipra, Shemini 2:4; Ibn Ezra on Lev 10:17; B. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah

Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 62; now Milgrom,Leviticus 1–16, 622–25, 635–40; see further below.

20. Levine, Leviticus, 62; cf. idem, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult andSome Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 104, 107.

21. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [trans.J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952; orig. 1874] 2:355; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16,623–25, 637–39.


Along the same line, Y. Kaufmann suggests that eating and incineratingpurification offerings are alternative ways of eliminating dangerous impuri-ties.22 Milgrom develops this approach further in light of ancient Near East-ern background and his general tafj theory (see ch. 7 below), explaining:

By requiring that the ˙a††aªt be eaten, Israel’s priests were able to affirmthat the power to purge the sanctuary does not inhere in a ritual but issolely dependent on the will of God. Moreover, they backed up their con-viction by their act: they ate the ˙a††aªt and were willing to suffer the con-sequences if their conviction proved wrong. Yet their faith was not withoutits limits: the ˙a††aªt prescribed for the deep pollution of the sanctuary,when its blood was brought into the shrine, continued to be burned. Thepollution incurred by Israel’s brazen sins and impurities, which had in-fested the very seat of the Godhead in the Holy of Holies . . . was just toolethal to be ingested.23

Here Milgrom distinguishes between eaten outer-altar and noneaten outer-sanctum and inner-sanctum purification offerings by levels of severity withwhich their flesh is affected by the evils that these sacrifices remove.24

Whereas he formerly held that at the lowest level “the impurity is not trans-ferrable to the ˙a††aªt and, hence, it is eaten by the priests for their ser-vices,”25 he now accepts limited transferability, emending his statement to:“the impurity transferred to the ˙a††aªt is slight and, hence, the latter is eatenby the priests for their services.”26 This change does not disturb Milgrom’stheory that the eaten and noneaten kinds of purification offering are distin-guished both by degrees of impurity that they handle and by the fact that theformer provides a priestly prebend but the latter does not.

Since the principle that the priests could not benefit from their own expi-atory sacrifices, which Milgrom cites to show why the consecration and inau-guration purification offerings on behalf of the priests were incinerated eventhough their blood was only applied to the outer altar (Exod 29:14; Lev 8:17;9:11),27 also explains why the outer-sanctum offerings could not be eaten, it isnot necessary to assume a priestly motivation of fear (from limits of faith) re-garding ingestion of this higher level of impurity (see above). But what about

22. Y. Kaufmann, tylarcyh hnwmah twdlwt (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1937–56) 1:568.23. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 637.24. B. Levine makes a sharper distinction between what he regards as two origi-

nally distinct ritual types: incinerated tafj sacrifices are rites of riddance, but eatentafj sacrifices are gifts of expiation (In the Presence, 103–8).

25. J. Milgrom, “Two Kinds of ˙a††aªt,” VT 26 (1976) 336.26. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 263.27. Milgrom, “Two Kinds,” 337; Leviticus 1–16, 264.

Chapter 598

the inner-sanctum purification offering on behalf of the community on theDay of Atonement (Lev 16)? Unlike the outer-sanctum offering for the com-munity in 4:13–21, the inner-sanctum ritual does not have the high priest in-cluded in the offering party. Rather, the high priest performs a parallelsacrifice for himself and his household (cf. ch. 9). Since the high priest wouldnot benefit from his own sacrifice if he were to eat the community’s tafj

goat, why is it incinerated (16:27)? Is this due to fear of lethal pollution?Granted, priestly fear of a high level of pollution was a real possibility with

the inner-sanctum offering. But is this the motivating factor behind the culticlegislation? Below we will begin to raise another possibility, to be further de-veloped in later chapters of the present work: consumption of purification-offering flesh serves to involve the officiating priest in the process by whichYhwh extends forgiveness to the offerer. The inner-sanctum offerings, on theother hand, which are tightly interwoven together and merged into a higher-level ritual unit that benefits all Israelites, are distinguished from outer-altarand outer-sanctum offerings by the fact that they purge the communal sanc-tuary and its sancta (for the benefit of everyone, including the priests) ratherthan those who offer these sacrifices, thereby accomplishing a post-forgive-ness stage of rpk (16:16, 18–19, 30, 33).28

A. Rodríguez raises the expiatory significance of eating the flesh to aunique level. Observing that the outer-sanctum purification offering has asevenfold sprinkling in front of the veil but the outer-altar offering has con-sumption of the meat by the priests, he states that “the ritual of the eating offlesh can take the place of the ritual of the sprinkling of blood.”29 But his no-tion that these activities are functional equivalents founders on Lev 9:8–11,where the inauguration offering on behalf of Aaron (and his sons) involvedonly application of blood to the outer altar. It had no sprinkling of blood in-side the Sacred Tent, and it was correctly incinerated rather than eaten. The

28. Compare the fact that, during the consecration service, although Moses offici-ated an outer-altar purification offering belonging to the priests (not including himselfas offerer), he did not take the flesh of this sacrifice for an agent’s commission (8:14–17) in the way that he received the breast of the ram of ordination (v. 29). This couldbe explained by the concept that the purpose of the purification offering was to purifythe communal altar for the benefit of everyone, including Moses (v. 15). Alternativelyor additionally, while Moses was not permitted to eat a most holy purification offeringreserved for the Aaronic priests (cf. 6:19[26], 22[29]), he could partake of the some-what less-sacred ordination offering, which shared some characteristics with holy well-being offerings as well as with most holy sacrifices (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 527).

29. A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs,Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 135; cf. 136.


inaugural context does not discount the import of the fact that the flesh wasnot eaten: the purification offering of the community, also performed at theouter altar without sprinkling in the Tent (cf. v. 18), should have been eatenand would have been except for the tragic deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev10:16–20). So the difference between eating the flesh and not eating it wasnot due to the presence or absence of sprinkling blood in the outer sanctum;rather, it was due to the difference between whether the offerer(s) consisted ofpriests or laypersons.

As mentioned above, the reason for the incineration rather than eating ofthe priests’ inaugural purification offering is the principle that a priest offici-ating his own expiatory sacrifice cannot benefit from it.30 The rule in 6:23[30]that no purification offering may be eaten if its blood is brought into theTent excludes priestly consumption of the meat in outer-sanctum or inner-sanctum purification offerings; it does not say that every outer-altar purifica-tion offering must be eaten, as Rodríguez assumes. When Moses cites thisrule in 10:18 to assert that the priests should have eaten the inaugural offer-ing because its blood was not brought inside the sanctuary, he is saying thatan outer-altar purification offering of the community (not of the priests) shouldbe eaten.

The priests participate with Yhwh in bearing the culpability of the people

In Lev 10:17b the purpose of Yhwh’s assigning the purification-offeringflesh to the priests is:

to remove the iniquity of the community hd;[Eh: ˆ/[“Ata<< tacEl:

to effect purgation on their behalf before Yhwh. hw;hy] ynep}lI µh<ylE[“ rPEk"l}

The parallel syntax here—prep. l + infin. cstr. + reference to the community(hd;[Eh: / pron. suff. µh<-)—strongly conveys the impression that the two ideasare intended to be synonymous.31 The ritual activity of eating the flesh is nec-essary for the priests to remove (infin. of acn) the iniquity (ˆw[) of the people,and by so doing, the priests effect purgation on their behalf. While the earlierritual activities also made vital contributions to the overall rpk accomplishedby the ritual (9:7, 15), nothing is said about the priests’ removing the iniquity

30. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 580, 636.31. Cf. Ibn Ezra on Lev 10:17; G. Olaffson, “The Use of n¶ª in the Pentateuch and

Its Contribution to the Concept of Forgiveness” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University,1992) 263.

Chapter 5100

of the people until 10:17b, where this aspect of rpk is carried out through eat-ing the flesh.

To interpret v. 17b it is important to remember that removal of iniquity byeating the flesh is not indispensable for completion of rpk in every kind ofpurification offering. Outer-altar offerings of priests and all outer-sanctum of-ferings are incinerated rather than eaten, but they achieve the same overallgoal of purging evil on behalf of the offerer(s), prerequisite to forgiveness byYhwh (4:20; 9:7). So in sacrifices at which the priests officiate solely for thebenefit of others (excluding all outer-sanctum offerings), the aspect added byeating the meat is a special kind of priestly participation in the primary rpk

transaction between Yhwh and the offerer(s), at the same time that thepriests act upon a secondary transaction by using the “agent’s commission”that Yhwh has assigned to them. This priestly participation goes beyond theofficiation involved in non-eaten purification offerings.

Whatever the precise meaning of ˆw[ acn in Lev 10:17 may be, this dy-namic would apply only to purification offerings for moral faults.32 In outer-altar purification offerings for severe ritual impurities, which are not acts ofsin, presumably no ˆw[ would be involved, and in such cases the remainingflesh would function only as a priestly prebend.33

By eating the flesh, the priests serve as a mediatorial bridge between theIsraelites and Yhwh: by taking the iniquity of the people that they would oth-erwise continue to bear (cf. 5:1), the priests identify with them.34 By remov-ing that iniquity, the priests identify with Yhwh, who removes iniquity (Exod34:7).35 Thus the priests intimately participate in the process through whichYhwh extends forgiveness to his people.

32. A. Rodríguez, personal communication.33. Because Keil and Delitzsch insisted that the flesh of the eaten tafj functions

only to bear and remove the iniquity of the community and not as a priestly prebend,they were constrained to regard the incineration of the noneaten (outer-sanctum) pu-rification offering as carrying significance over and above simple disposal (BiblicalCommentary, 306–7).

34. P. Bovati points out: “Intercession is the more effective the more it takes thecriminal’s part, shouldering the guilt and asserting total solidarity with the person andfate of the guilty” (Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in theHebrew Bible [JSOTSup 105; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994] 132).

35. On the fact that Exod 34:7 expresses the reverse of Lev 5:1, see R. E. Friedman,Commentary on the Torah (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) 326. D. Hoffmannmakes the connection between sinners bearing their burden of ˆw[ and priests remov-ing ˆw[ (Lev 10:17) when they eat the flesh of tafj sacrifices (Das Buch Leviticus[Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6] 213–14). On priests as agents of Yhwh, see S. Hills, “A


A. B. Ehrlich maintains that ˆw[ acn means “bear responsibility” (cf. Num18:1), rather than “remove sin/guilt,” and refers to the priestly burden of puri-fying the sanctuary on behalf of the people, for which the priests are rewardedby the prebend of meat.36 This idea suffers from three shortcomings: First, theneutral word “responsibility” fails to sufficiently convey the negative implica-tions of ˆw[.37 Second, as Kiuchi points out, “it is inadequate to assume in thecontext of Lev 9 that the sanctuary was defiled by the congregation before thepurification ritual.”38 Third, in 10:17b the plain sense of the preposition l intac´´l:, “to bear/remove,” is that of purpose,39 indicating that the eating servesas the activity vehicle for priestly bearing of ˆw[ rather than simply as a perqui-site for earlier bearing of officiating responsibility.

In spite of the problems with Ehrlich’s view, his understanding of acn inthe sense of “bear” rather than simply “remove” is true to the meaning of thisword. As R. Knierim observes, Hebrew does not make a terminological dis-tinction between bearing the consequences of one’s actions and bearingthem for someone else. The difference is expressed only by the change of sub-ject.40 When combined with an understanding of ˆw[ in the sense of negativeresponsibility, the resulting idea is “bear culpability” (see further below).

The priests receive a reward for their service on behalf of the people thatcarries with it an onerous responsibility: bearing their culpability. Naturallythe questions arise: What happens to the priests as a result of bearing this cul-pability? Do they get rid of it, and if so, how and when?

Baruch Schwartz contributes precision to our discussion by interpretingthe ˆw[ acn crux in Lev 10:17 in light of other passages in which ˆw[ acn ap-pears in the priestly material (including “H”). While the expressions ˆw[ acn,[vp acn, and afj acn (“bear iniquity, bear transgression, bear sin”) show up

36. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachlichesund Sachliches (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968; orig. 1909) 2:37; cf. Milgrom, “Two Kinds,”333–34. But note that Milgrom has changed his mind (see above). W. Zimmerli placesˆw[ acn in Num 18:1 in the category of priests’ bearing responsibility for the sanctuaryand the priesthood, but he puts Lev 10:17 and Exod 28:38 in the category of carryingaway the indebtedness of the people (“Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede desEzechiel,” ZAW 66 [1954] 9–10, incl. 9 n. 3).

37. R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn,1967) 220 n. 88; cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 50–51.

38. Ibid., 50.39. Ibid., 48.40. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe, 51–53.

Semantic and Conceptual Study of the Root KPR in the Hebrew Old Testament withSpecial Reference to the Accadian Kuppuru” (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University,1954) 278–80.

Chapter 5102

in contexts having to do with consequences of offenses on the one hand orforgiveness on the other, they do not have the two distinct meanings “forgivesin” and “suffer punishment,” as is often maintained. Rather, they meta-phorically refer to the objective fact of legal guilt in terms of bearing or car-rying sin, conceiving of wrongdoing as an object to be hauled around as aburden.41

When a sinner bears his own sin, ˆw[ acn, [vp acn, and afj acn denotehis culpability, indicating that he deserves and may suffer the consequences,if there are any.42

However, when and if another party—most often, but not necessarily,God—‘bears’ the sinner’s burden, it no longer rests on the shoulders of thewrongdoer; the latter is relieved of his load and of its consequences, onceagain if such there be. In this second usage, the ‘bearing’ of the sin by an-other is a metaphor for the guilty party’s release from guilt. The phrase hastwo uses, but only one meaning.43

In light of Schwartz’s interpretation, in Lev 5:1 a person who has sinned (verbafj) is in a dangerous state of bearing his own culpability (ˆw[ acn) until/unless he is relieved of it through sacrificial expiation officiated by a priest(v. 6).44 But Schwartz recognizes that some offenses are inexpiable, so in thesecases sin-bearing is permanent.45

According to Schwartz, the two uses of [vp/afj/ˆw[ acn are distinguishedfrom each other not only by their subjects (sinner himself or someone else)but also by the senses in which they employ acn, “bear.” When there is con-sequential sin-bearing, the sinner carries the weight of his own sin, whichmay crush him and lead to his death by human or divine agency if it remainsunremedied. But if this culpability is transferred to someone else, the second

41. B. Schwartz, “arqmb afj/[vp/ˆ/[: acn ?hrwpfml jnwm ˆyb hm,” Tarbiz 63 (1994)149–71; idem, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates andGolden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literaturein Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; WinonaLake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 8, 15; idem, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in thePriestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 57–59, 62 [Hebrew]; cf. E. Jacob, Theology ofthe Old Testament (trans. A. Heathcote and P. Allcock; New York: Harper, 1958) 291;A. von R. Sauer, “The Concept of Sin in the Old Testament,” CTM 22 (1951) 716–17; K. Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” TDOT 10:559; cf. 550–55.

42. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 9–15; idem, The Holiness Legislation, 59;cf. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe, 52. Knierim regards ˆw[ and µva as dealing withtwo distinct elements, even when they relate to the same situation: ˆw[ refers to theweight or burden (of guilt) and µva “expresses the element of obligation (with re-spect to the resolution of guilt)” (“µv…a: ªasam Guilt,” TLOT 1:192).

43. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 9; idem, The Holiness Legislation, 59; cf. 62.44. Cf. Zimmerli, “Die Eigenart,” 11–12; Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” 559–60.45. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 12–13, 15, 21.


party does not bear its weight because it disappears. In this case acn means“bear” in the well-attested sense of “carry off, take away, remove.”46

Because Lev 10:17 refers to the priests’ bearing the ˆw[ of the communityrather than their own culpability, Schwartz renders hd;[Eh: ˆ/[“Ata<< tac´l: in thiscontext: “to carry away the transgressions(s) of the community.”47 So thepriests take away the culpability of the people, the weight of which they donot subsequently bear.48 The priests accomplish this through a ritual processthat is termed rpk, “purgation,” as confirmed by the synonymous parallelismin v. 17, recognized by Ibn Ezra, between hd;[Eh: ˆ/[“Ata<< tac´l: and µh<ylE[“ rPEk"l},“thereby purging [them] on their behalf.”49 Milgrom agrees that ˆw[ acn heremeans taking away evil, as reflected by his translation of hd;[Eh: ˆ/[“Ata<< tacEl::“to remove the iniquity of the community” (see above).50

Schwartz is convincing, except that he does not adequately support theidea that culpability transferred to someone other than the sinner simplyvanishes. Since the consequences for the secondary sin-bearer are not explic-itly stated in pentateuchal cultic contexts, how do we know that this partydoes not temporarily carry culpability in some sense?51 K. Koch affirms:“Part of the task of priests and Levites, however, is to remove ºawon fromIsrael or from the sanctuary itself, to ‘bear’ that ºawon representatively, andby virtue of their own inherent quality to render it harmless (Ex. 28:38; Lev.10:17; Nu. 18:1, 23).”52 By “their own inherent quality” that renders thepriests immune to harm, Koch is referring to the divinely derived holinessconferred on the priests and their vestments at their consecration.53

46. Ibid., 10; cf. 13; idem, The Holiness Legislation, 59–60.47. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 16; cf. LXX here: ªna ajfevlhte . . . , “in order

that you should take away. . . .”48. Schwartz understands Exod 28:38 similarly: “It is not that Aaron ‘takes upon

himself ’ the liability, or worse, the punishment, for the cultic sins of the community;rather, he is charged with their removal, their elimination” (“The Bearing of Sin,” 16).

49. Ibid.50. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1281; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 596.51. Outside the Pentateuch, Schwartz notes as exceptional Isa 53:4–12, where Yh-

wh’s servant bears the weight of culpability for others, and Lam 5:7, where descendantsbear the ˆw[ of their ancestors, an idea that appears to be countered by Ezek 18:19(“The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” 10 n. 25). For the idea that there aretwo possibilities regarding the fate of evils that are transferred to the sacred domain ofthe sanctuary, see N. Zohar on impurities that are transferred from persons to Yhwh’saltar: either Yhwh immediately destroys them or they remain there until the Day ofAtonement (“Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of tafj

in the Pentateuch,” JBL 107 [1988] 615).52. Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” TDOT 10:559; cf. Rodríguez, Substitution, 132–34.53. Cf. Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” 560. On priestly immunity, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16,

623, 638–39, 1048.

spread one pica long

Chapter 5104

If the ˆw[ were to remain on the priests, who are immune to its conse-quences, when would they get rid of it? Koch’s next sentence reads: “Further-more, the high priest is also able through confession and leaning a hand onthe animal’s head to transfer the ºawon to that animal such that the ‘scape-goat’ is now the one bearing it (Lev. 16:21f.).” 54 This is an intriguing connec-tion, to which we will return later when we trace the trajectories of terms forevil that appear in Lev 16:16, 21.

W. Zimmerli distinguishes between expressions of direct, divine sin-bearingwith Yhwh as subject, which refer to forgiveness in noncultic contexts, andcultic usage, which includes priestly consumption of purification-offeringflesh (10:17).55 So even if noncultic instances show no aftereffect for Yhwh,56

can we assume the same to be true when a human priest bears ˆw[ on behalfof another person as a result of carrying out expiation that is prerequisite todivine forgiveness?57

The close parallel between the language of Exod 34:7, in which Yhwh isha:F:j"w] [væp<w; ˆ/[: ac´no, “bearing iniquity and transgression and sin,” and Lev10:17, in which his priest bears ˆw[, indicates that there is a close relationshipbetween the two. Koch observes: “Use of the term ºawon is one exampleamong many demonstrating that the legislative concerns of the Priestly docu-ment focus on institutionalizing God’s own activity in removing guilt ratherthan fostering some sort of nomism.”58 It appears that, by eating the flesh, thepriests participate in the process through which Yhwh grants forgiveness. Ifthere is a distinction between divine and human sin-bearing on behalf of an-other, it is most likely to be sought in the difference between the divine and

54. Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” 559.55. W. Zimmerli, “Zur Vorgeschichte von Jes. LIII,” Congress Volume: Rome, 1968

(VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 239.56. Regarding God bearing sin for people, R. Knierim states that he possesses power

to remove a load of offenses without suffering from their destructive power (Die Haupt-begriffe, 52).

57. Zimmerli comments on Isa 53 that here the bearing of guilt does not indicatethe guilt-bearing of God but in the sense of Lev 16:22 and 10:17 it has to do withthe vicarious guilt/punishment-bearing of a man, the Servant of Yhwh (“Zur Vorge-schichte,” 240). Olaffson argues that the effect on a secondary “carrier” can “be safelyassumed in light of what happens to those who bear their own iniquities: suffering, dis-ease, and/or death” (“The Use of n¶ª,” 216). This assumption does not take into ac-count the possibility that secondary carriers in passages such as Lev 10:17 may haveimmunity.

58. Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” 560; compare Milgrom on “to remove the iniquity of thecommunity” in Lev 10:17: “True, the subject is man, not God, but in this case it is thepriest who serves as the divine surrogate on earth and exclusively so in the sanctuary”(Leviticus 1–16, 623).


human natures of Yhwh and his priests, respectively, in terms of the kind(s)of immunity to evil that they possess. In later chapters we will pursue furtherthe issue of cultic immunity and the dynamics of ̂ w[ in relation to other kindsof moral evil.

ConclusionThe structure of Lev 10:17 shows that priestly eating of purification-

offering meat as a prebend is an integral, if postrequisite, part of the ritual andcontributes to the expiatory process. When a priest bears the culpability of asinner as Yhwh’s servant and representative, he participates in the process bywhich Yhwh frees the sinner from culpability by bearing it for him.

106

Chapter 6

Purification Offering: Purgation of Sanctuary or Offerer?

Now we return to the crucial question: whom or what does a purificationoffering purify? We have found that in Lev 4:26 the goal of the chieftain’stafj sacrifice is formulated /taF:j"mE ˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw], which Milgrom renders:“Thus shall the priest effect purgation on his behalf for his wrong.”1 The sinthat is removed by the ritual belongs to the chieftain (“his wrong”) becausehe violated one of Yhwh’s commandments (cf. v. 22). But it is not immedi-ately certain where the sin is located when the sacrifice purges it. Is it on/inthe chieftain himself or on the altar to which the priest applies the sacrificialblood?

I agree with F. Gorman that at “the most general level, kpr means ‘to dealwith disruptions in the divine-human relations.’ ”2 But adding one or moreprepositions qualifies the meaning. In the present context, to effect purgationon behalf of (l[ rP<KI) someone or something for/because of (preposition ˆmI)an evil belonging to the offerer (here /taF:j", “his wrong”) appears to free himfrom that evil. In fact, there is a close parallel between this verse and 16:16,in which the high priest purges (l[ rP<KI) the inner sanctum of/from (ˆmI) theimpurities and moral faults of the Israelites. This means that he purges theevils (i.e., the effects of the evils on the sanctuary) from the inner sanctum.Noticing this parallel, A. Büchler interprets the prepositions in Lev 4:26: “l[

1. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)1272; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 227.

2. F. Gorman, Divine Presence and Community: A Commentary on the Book ofLeviticus (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 16. Here Gorman uses “disrup-tions” to cover both sins and physical ritual impurities. Cf. S. Hills, who finds thepiºel of rpk to “imply a break in a relationship between two persons, and denote anact which overcomes that break. In all but one instance (Gn. 32:20) the relationshipinvolved is ultimately that between God and man (even in Pr. 16:14 and Is. 47:9)”(“A Semantic and Conceptual Study of the Root KPR in the Hebrew Old Testamentwith Special Reference to the Accadian Kuppuru” [Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins Uni-versity, 1954] 287).

Purification Offering: Purgation of Sanctuary or Offerer? 107

refers to the person who committed the sin and for whom the priest is aton-ing, and ˆm points to the sin from which he is cleansed.”3

In his seminal 1970 and 1976 articles entitled “tafjh ˆbrq dyqpt” (“TheFunction of the Óa††aªt Sacrifice”) and “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Pic-ture of Dorian Gray,’ ” respectively, Jacob Milgrom challenged the prevailingassumption that the tafj sacrifice cleanses its offerer: “The rendering of˙a††aªt as a purification (or purgation)-offering leads automatically to the ques-tion: whom or what does it purge? Herein lies the first surprise: it is not theofferer of the sacrifice.”4 Milgrom supports this conclusion with three points:

1. Impurity is removed from the offerer before performance of the purification offering. In a case of physical ritual impurity it is removed by ablution. In a case of spiritual impurity it is removed by inner purification (i.e., repentance).5

2. Use of the purgative blood “is confined to the sanctuary, but it is never applied to a person.”6

3. When the object of purgation is non-human, the piºel of rpk can take a direct object, but when the object is a person, “it is never expressed as a direct object but requires the preposition ºal or beºad, both signifying ‘on behalf of ’. . . . This means the purgation rite of ̇ a††aªt is not carried out on the offerer but only on his behalf.”7

Milgrom wastes no time in getting to the next logical step:

If not the offerer, what then is the object of the ˙a††aªt purgation? Theabove considerations lead but to one answer: that which receives the pur-gative blood, i.e., the sanctuary and its sancta. By daubing the altar with the˙a††aªt blood or by bringing it inside the sanctuary (e.g., Lev., XVI, 14–19),

3. A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the FirstCentury (LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) 266; cf. A. Treiyer, “The Day of Atonement asRelated to the Contamination and Purification of the Sanctuary,” in The SeventyWeeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy (ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washing-ton, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986) 216–17.

4. J. Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83(1976) 390; repr. in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill,1983) 75; idem, “tafjh ˆbrq dyqpt” [“The Function of the Óattaªt Sacrifice”],Tarbiz 40 (1970) 1; idem, Numbers [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JewishPublication Society, 1990], 444; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 254.

5. Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 390; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 254. On the sinner’sremorse prior to bringing his expiatory sacrifice, see idem, Cult and Conscience: TheAsham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 7–12.

6. Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 391; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 255.7. Idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 391; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 255–56; idem, “d[B/l[ rP<KI,”

Les 35 (1970) 16–17 [Hebrew].

Chapter 6108

the priest purges the most sacred objects and areas of the sanctuary on be-half of the person who caused their contamination by his physical impurityor inadvertent offense.8

By concluding that purification offerings always purge the sanctuary and itssancta and never their offerers, Milgrom lays the foundation for his general˙a††aªt theory.

In this chapter of the present work, we will cross the “continental divide.”By arriving at a different answer to the question of whom or what purificationofferings purge, we will begin to wend our way to a revised (but by no meanstotally different) theological understanding of this sacrifice.

Milgrom is right when he says that “a study of the kipper prepositions is de-cisive.”9 In fact, of the areas of investigation addressed by his three points,only study of these prepositions can be decisive because only this deals withthe language of the formulas that express the goal(s)/meaning(s) assigned topurification-offering activity systems. Prior purification of the offerer by ablu-tion or repentance does not rule out the possibility that he may need somekind of additional purgation through sacrifice. Application of ˙a††aªt bloodonly to the sanctuary and its sancta, but never to the offerer, is physical activ-ity, which has no inherent meaning. In light of our earlier investigation of thelocus of ritual meaning, the meaning of the activity is determined solely bythe goal assigned to it. True, there is a striking correlation between the factthat purification-offering blood is never physically applied directly to personsand the fact that the goal formulas of purification offerings avoid expressingpersons as direct objects of rP<KI. But this indirectness does not ineluctablyyield the conclusion that purification offerings never remove evils from per-sons. It may simply mean that for some reason purgation of a person, in con-trast to a nonhuman object, cannot be direct.

Without further ado, let us plunge into the rP<KI formulas. We will find thatthe matter is indeed decided by the syntax of a preposition, but not one thatMilgrom includes in his “decisive” study or that Levine considers in his per-ceptive analysis of the syntax of rP<KI, with which I mostly agree, as far as itgoes.10 The overlooked preposition is ˆmI, to which Milgrom devotes only pass-ing notes in his Leviticus 1–16 commentary.11

8. Idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 391; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 256.9. Idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 391; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 255.

10. B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Termsin Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 63–67. Compare the lack of ˆmI in B. Ja-nowski’s syntactic analysis (Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie derPriesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament [WMANT55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982] 107–10).

11. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 251, 303, 307, 857–58, 926.



As a reference point for subsequent discussions, we can begin by tabulatingcomponents of language governed by rP<KI in pentateuchal prescriptions/de-scriptions of purification offerings, plus the results of rP<KI if they are given (seetable 1).12 Most of these expressions constitute complete formulas, but some-times an infinitive of rP<KI continues a formulaic clause governed by anothermain verb (see below). Aside from the references at the far left (E. = Exodus,L. = Leviticus, N. = Numbers), the columns are to be read from right to left,following the Hebrew order. In the far right column (rpk + subject), ellipses(. . .) indicate the location of words placed in the next column for purposes ofclassification. For example, ˆhEKOh" µh<lE[“ rP<kIw] is represented: | ˆhEKOh . . . rP<kIw]

µh<lE[“. The two shaded columns provide labels for the kind of prepositional ob-ject or direct object (S = sanctuary/sancta, O = offerer) and the kind of case(C = consecration, P = physical ritual impurity, M = moral fault). Not in-cluded are occasional additional elements, such as parts of clauses precedinginfinitival forms of rP<KI (e.g., E. 29:36—wyl:[: Úr]P<k"B} j'BEz]MIh"Al[" t:aFEjIw]), tem-poral and instrumental specifications (e.g., E. 30:10—wyt:nor]q"Al[" ˆrOh“a" rP<kIw]

µyriPUKIh" taF"j" µD'mI hn;V…B" tj"a"), or supplementary description/identificationof the high priest (L. 16:32—ˆhEk"l} /dy;Ata< aLEm"y] rv≤a“w' /taø jvæm}yiArv≤a“ ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

wybIa: tj"T").Notice that, in terms of the order in which components appear, this table

reveals a high degree of syntactic consistency. Aside from some reversal inword order between the two columns at the far right, as indicated by ellipses,the other elements consistently appear in the same order. Variety is achievedby inclusion or omission of components following rpk. So instances that ex-press parallel functions/goals, as shown by matching labels in both shadedcolumns, can include different components without introducing distinctionsin terms of rpk function.

For example, while Lev 4:26 includes /taF:j"mE in the “evil∞prep.” column,vv. 20 and 31 do not. This does not mean that a chieftain (v. 26) receives rpk

benefit that differs from that of the community (v. 20) or a commoner (v. 31),all of which bring purification offerings to remedy their moral faults. Rather,the chieftain’s formula simply provides another piece of information. Sowhether we regard the formula in v. 26 as expanded or the others as abbrevi-ated makes no difference. The point is that the parallel formulas are function-ally equivalent, and therefore a component expressed in one instance (e.g.,/taF:j"mE) is understood in the others to the extent that the cases are similar.

12. I am grateful for the Accordance Bible software program, which has greatly fa-cilitated the present project.

Chapter 6110

Table 1. Components of Language Governed by rP<KI

ref.

kindof

case result evil∞prep. locus

kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.E. 29:36 C S wyl:[: Úr]P<k"B}

E. 29:37 C S j'BEz]MIh"Al[" rPEk"T}

E. 30:10 M+P wyt:nor]q"Al[" ˆrOh“a" rP<kIw]

E. 30:10 M+P S wyl:[: rPEk"y]

L. 4:20 M µh<l: jl"s}niw] O µh<lE[“ ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 4:26 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"mE O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 4:31 M /l jl"s}niw] O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 4:35 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"Al[" O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 5:6 M /taF:j"mE O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 5:10 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"mE

af:j:Arv≤a“

O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 5:13 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"Al["

af:j:Arv≤a“

hL<aEmE tj"a"EmE


L. 6:23 M vd,QOB" rPEk"l}

L. 7:7 M/P rv≤a“ ˆhEKOh"

/BArP<k"y]

L. 8:15 C S wyl:[: rPEk"l}

L. 9:7 M O d["b}W Úd]["B"

µ[:h:

rPEk"w]

L. 9:7 M O µd;[“B" rPEk"w]

L. 10:17 M hw;hy] ynep}lI O µh<ylE[“ rPEk"l}

L. 12:7 P rqOM}mI hr;h“f:w]

h:ym<D;

O h:yl<[: rP<kIw]

L. 12:8 P hr;hEf:w] O h:yl<[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 14:19 P /ta:m}FUmI O rhEF"MIh"Al[" rP<kIw]

L. 14:31 P hw;hy] ynep}lI O rhEF"MIh" l[" ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

L. 15:15 P /b/ZmI hw;hy] ynep}lI O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 15:30 P Ht:a:m}f¨ b/ZmI hw;hy] ynep}lI O h:yl<[: ˆhEKOh . . . rP<kIw]

L. 16:6 M+P O d["b}W /d[“B"

/tyBE

rP<kIw]

L. 16:10 M wyl:[: rPEk"l}

L. 16:11 M+P O d["b}W /d[“B"

/tyBE

rP<kIw]

L. 16:16 M+P yneB} taOm}F¨mI

laEr;c‘yi

µh<y[Ev‘PImIW

µt:aFøj"Alk:l}

S vd,QOh"Al[" rP<kIw]


L. 16:17 M+P vd,QOB" rPEk"l}

L. 16:17 M+P O d["b}W /d[“B"

d["b}W /tyBE

laEr;c‘yi lh"q}AlK:

rP<kIw]

L. 16:18 M+P S wyl:[: rP<kIw]

L. 16:20 M+P S vd,QOh"Ata<<

d[E/m lh<aOAta<w]

j'BEz]MIh"Ata<w]

rPEK"mI


L. 16:30 M µk<t}a< rhEf"l}

µk<ytEaFøj" lKOmI

hw;hy] ynep}lI

Wrh:f}TI

O µk<ylE[“ rPEk"y]

L. 16:32 M+P ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

L. 16:33 M+P S vD'q}mIAta<<

vd,QOh"

d[E/m lh<aOAta<w]

rP<kIw]

L. 16:33 M+P S j'BEz]MIh"Ata<w] rPEk"y] . . .

L. 16:33 M+P O µynih“Koh" l["w]

µ["AlK:Al["w]

lh:Q:h"

rPEk"y] . . .

L. 16:34 M µt:aFøj"AlK:mI O laEr;c‘yi yneB}Al[" rPEk"l}

L. 23:28 M+P hw;hy] ynep}lI

µk<yhEløa”

O µk<ylE[“ rPEk"l}

N. 6:11 M af:j: rv≤a“mE

vp<N;h"Al["E

O wyl:[: rP<kIw]

N. 8:12 P O µYiw il}h"Al[" rPEk"l}

N. 8:21 P µr;h“f"l] O µh<ylE[“ ˆrOh“a" . . . rPEk"y]w'

N. 15:25 M µh<l: jl"s}niw] O td'[“AlK:Al["

laEr;c‘yi yneB}

ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

N. 15:28 M O vp<N,h"Al["

ha:f}j<B} tg,g,Vøh"

ynep}lI hg;g;v‘bI

hw;hy]

ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

N. 15:28 M /l jl"s}niw] O wyl:[: rPEk"l}

N. 28:22 M/P? O µk<ylE[“ rPEk"l}



Table 1. Components of Language Governed by rP<KI (cont.)

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.

Chapter 6112

Obviously the pronominal suffix in /taF:j"mE specifically refers to the chieftain,and this identification would not be implied in vv. 20 and 31.

Physical ritual impurities are purified from offerersWe can quickly arrive at a basic answer to the question of whether purifi-

cation offerings always purge the sanctuary and its sancta by abstracting andanalyzing the instances that deal with physical ritual impurity (“kind of case”= P) in which the object of the preposition following rP<KI refers to the offerer(“kind of obj.” = O). We will focus on the “evil∞prep.” and “result” columnsin table 2.

Considering these passages in order, we start with Lev 12:7, the case of themother who has recently given birth. Here the result of the rpk process ac-complished by a purification offering paired with a burnt offering (cf. v. 6) isexpressed: h:ym<D; rqOM}mI hr;h“f:w] . Milgrom renders these words: “and then sheshall be pure from her source of blood.”13 Here he translates the prepositionˆmI in rqOM}mI as “from” because there is no other viable option. Milgrom onlyobliquely explains the sense of “from” in this context by citing Sipra, Tazriaº3:6: “This teaches us that all the blood she sees issues from the source.”14 Butfollowing hr;h“f:w], “and then she shall be pure,” ˆmI does not refer to impureblood coming “from” its genital source. Rather, the real force of ˆmI here canonly be privative,15 a usage derived from the overall concept of separationthat is basic to this preposition (cf. GKC §119v; JM §133e):16 as a result of the

13. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1284; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 742.14. Ibid., 761.15. See H. C. Brichto on Lev 4:35 (sic v. 26) and 15:15, 30 (“On Slaughter and Sac-

rifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47 [1976] 31, 33). For a similar interpretation ofˆmI in such contexts, see S. R. Driver, “Propitiation,” A Dictionary of the Bible (ed.J. Hastings; New York: Scribner’s, 1911) 4:130; N. Füglister, “Sühne durch Blut: ZurBedeutung von Leviticus 17,11,” in Studien zum Pentateuch (ed. G. Braulik; Vienna:Herder, 1977) 148; P. Garnet, “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament andthe Qumran Scrolls,” EvQ 46 (1974) 141; S. Lyonnet, and L. Sabourin, Sin, Redemp-tion, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study (AnBib 48; Rome: Pontifical BiblicalInstitute, 1970) 130–31, 133–34. On the privative use of ˆmI, see, for example, B. K.Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake,Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 214 (§11.2.11e). The privative interpretation does not ap-ply to ˆmI in Exod 30:10 (µyriPUKIh" taF"j" µD'mI), where the object of the preposition isblood rather than a kind of evil. Here the usage appears to be instrumental (cf., e.g.,njpsv: “with blood of the sin offering of purification”; emphasis mine). Garnet reads itas partitive (“Atonement Constructions,” 145).

16. For similar use of ˆmI with reference to separating (piºel of rhf, “purify,” or sbk,“wash”) evils from persons, see the following verses (trans. njpsv):

Ps 51:4[2], ynirej“f" ytIaF:j"mEW yni/[“mE ynisEB}K" hBEr]h", “Wash me thoroughly of my iniquity,and purify me of my sin.” Notice the chiasm in which the piºel verbs rhf and sbk



priest’s performing rpk on her behalf (h:yl<[:), the parturient becomes pure inthe sense that she is freed/separated “from” (ˆmI) her physical ritual impurity,which is identified in terms of its physical cause as her “source of blood.” Thisdoes not refer to physical healing, of course, because her flow of blood had al-ready stopped before she brought her sacrifices (vv. 4–6). Rather, the sacrifi-cial process removes residual ritual impurity from her.

The syntax of the goal formula in v. 7 consistently specifies the parturientherself (i.e., the offerer) as the beneficiary of the sacrifice and the “patient”

Table 2. Physical Ritual Impurities Purified from Offerers

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.L. 12:7 P rqOM}mI hr;h“f:w]

h:ym<D;

O h:yl<[: rP<kIw]

L. 12:8 P hr;hEf:w] O h:yl<[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]


L. 14:31 P ynep}lI

hw;hy]

O rhEF"MIh" l[" ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

L. 15:15 P /b/ZmI ynep}lI

hw;hy]


L. 15:30 P Ht:a:m}f¨ b/ZmI ynep}lI

hw;hy]

O h:yl<[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

N. 8:12 P O µYiwil}h"Al[" rPEk"l}

N. 8:21 P µr;h“f"l} O µh<ylE[“ ˆrOh“a" . . . rPEk"y]w'

are functionally equivalent and the evils ˆw[, “iniquity,” and tafj, “sin,” are alsoparallel.Jer 4:14, µl"v…Wry] ËBElI h[:r;mE ysIB}K", “Wash your heart clean of wickedness, OJerusalem.”Jer 33:8, rv≤a“w' ylIAWaf}j: rv≤a“ µh<ytE/n/[“Al/kl} yTIj}l"s:w] ylIAWaf}j: rv≤a“ µn;/[“AlK:mI µyTIr]h"fIw]

ybI W[v‘P:, “And I will purge them of all the sins which they committed against Me,and I will pardon all the sins which they committed against Me, by which they re-belled against Me.”Ezek 36:33, µk<ytE/n/[“ lKOmI µk<t}a< yrih“f" µ/yB}, “When I have cleansed you of all youriniquities.”Neh 13:30, rk:neAlK:mI µyTIr]h"fIw], “I purged them of every foreign element.”

Compare 2 Chr 34:3, in which the piºel of rhf with ˆmI expresses purgation of places:t/kSEM"h"w] µylIsIP}h"w] µyriv´a“h:w] t/mB:h"AˆmI µl"v…Wrywi hd;Why]Ata< rhEf"l} ljEhE, “he began topurge Judah and Jerusalem of the shrines, the sacred posts, the idols, and the mol-ten images.”

Chapter 6114

upon whom the ritual process is interpreted as acting. The word hV…aI,“woman” (cf. v. 2), is the antecedent of the pronominal suffix attached to thepreposition l[ that immediately follows rpk. This suffix functions as the ob-ject of the preposition and as the indirect object of the verb, indicating thatthe parturient benefits from this instance of rpk. How does she benefit? The“woman” is also the subject of the qal stative verb hr;j“f:, “she shall be pure,”which means that it is her state that the ritual affects. Lest there be any doubtabout that, the “woman” is also the antecedent of the possessive pronominalsuffix in h:ym<D; rqOM}, “her source of blood.” She was the one who had the sourceof impurity in herself (i.e., in her body). There is nothing here about purga-tion of the altar on behalf of the woman. The purification offering, quantita-tively supplemented by the burnt offering, has the goal of purging residualphysical ritual impurity from the parturient herself.17

We have already found an exception to Milgrom’s rule that the purificationoffering always purges the sanctuary and its sancta and never the offerer. Nowwe can move on to see if there are any other exceptions. In Lev 12:8, the resultis hr;hEf:w], simply an abbreviation of the formula in v. 7. In 14:19 we find thatthe offerer and beneficiary is rhEF"MIh", “the one being purified” following hisscaly skin disease. As in 12:7, the offerer is referred to by the object of thepreposition l[, which is also the indirect object of rpk. Also as in 12:7, therefollows an expression that includes the preposition ˆmI + a term for impurity +a possessive pronominal suffix having the word for the offerer as its anteced-ent. But in this case /ta:m}FUmI does not belong to a subsequent result clausethat is signaled, for example, by waw + another main verb (cf. hr;h“f:w] in 12:7).Rather, the prepositional phrase constituted by /ta:m}FUmI forms an integralpart of the clause governed by rpk. So I have placed it in the “evil∞prep”column.

In Lev 14:19 the crucial question arises again: what is the syntactic func-tion of the preposition ˆmI? In this context, Milgrom renders the formula/ta:m}FUmI rhEF"MIh"Al[" rP<kIw]: “and effect purgation for the one being purified forhis impurity” (emphasis mine).18 He explains:

for his impurity. mi††umªatô, in other words, which he inflicted on the sanc-tuary. The mem here is causative (e.g., Gen 16:10; 1 Kgs 8:5; Jer 24:2; Prov20:4; Paran 1989; cf. GKC §1192 [sic 119z]). See especially mé˙a††aªtô ‘for

17. My conclusion here agrees with that of A. Rodríguez, Substitution in theHebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press,1979) 104–5.

18. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1289; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 828.


his wrong’ (4:26; 5:6, 10; 16:34; Num 6:11); mizzôbô ‘for his discharge’(15:15).19

It is true that the causative sense of ˆmI is solidly attested. It is also true that in-dividuals who offer outer-altar or outer-sanctum purification offerings needrpk “because of ” or “for” their imperfections. But is this the meaning in Lev14:19? If it is, the same meaning should work in the result clause of 12:7,which contains parallel syntax to express a parallel concept: remedy for evilbelonging to the offerer. Plugging a causative sense of ˆmI into 12:7, we try ren-dering h:ym<D; rqOM}mI: “because of (or ‘for’) her source of blood.” This is accept-able by itself. But add the preceding word: h:ym<D; rqOM}mI hr;h“f:w], “and then sheshall be pure because of her source of blood.” This is nonsense that inverts theintended meaning. Only privative “from” fits here.

Is it possible that ˆmI means one thing in 12:7 and another in 14:19? Unlikethe latter, 12:7 has ˆmI + evil in a separate result clause that begins with hr;h“f:w].But because these formulas are parallel in terms of “kind of obj.” (O = offerer)and “kind of case” (P = physical ritual impurity), they express goals that arefunctionally equivalent, to the extent that these cases are similar. The casesdiffer in terms of the kinds of offerers (parturient versus person healed fromscaly skin disease) and the kinds of impurity (genital flow of blood versus scalyskin disease) to be remedied, but the basic dynamics are the same. So even ifwe took the ˆmI in 14:19 to be causative, comparison with 12:7 shows that wewould still need to understand a privative kind of result, which in the case of14:19 would be: /ta:m}FUmI rhEf:w], “and then he shall be pure from his impurity.”Confirmation that rpk for the offerer in 14:19 results in the change of his stateto one of purity (root rhf) is found in identification of the offerer as rhEF"MIh",“the one who is being purified.” Compare the next verse, where the summaryformula following instructions for accompanying burnt and grain offeringsthat complete the same ritual complex is: rhEf:w] ˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw], “And the priestshall make expiation for him. Then he shall be pure” (v. 20).20

The bottom line for Lev 14:19 is that a privative meaning of ˆmI in /ta:m}FUmI

makes perfect sense in this context, where the idea of removing evil from theofferer is implied anyway. Therefore, there is no reason to complicate theplain sense by understanding this preposition differently than in 12:7, wherethe privative meaning is positively required.

Reinforcing our conclusion with regard to 14:19 is N. Kiuchi’s cogent ob-servation that, because the scale-diseased person is declared pure (rhf) at

19. Ibid., 857–58.20. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1289; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 828.

Chapter 6116

each of three successive stages of ritual purification (vv. 8, 9, 20), meaningthat he is pure enough for that stage, it must be the person himself who is un-dergoing purification. If at the outset only the sancta, but not the person,needed purification, why would the second and third stages be necessary?21

Thus far we have concluded that ˆmI + evil has the same privative forcewhether it appears in the “evil∞prep.” column as part of the rpk process itselfor as part of the result. It is logical that an offerer who receives rpk “from” aphysical ritual impurity becomes pure “from” that impurity.

In Lev 14:31 hw;hy] ynep}lI rhEF"MIh" l[" ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw] parallels 14:19 in terms ofwording, except that the “locus” hw;hy] ynep}lI appears instead of “evil∞prep.”/ta:m}FUmI, but it parallels v. 20 (ˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw] rhEf:w]) in terms of usage as a sum-mary formula following completion of the purification, burnt, and grain offer-ings. The basic meaning of the formula is the same: the priest performs rpk

on behalf of the offerer, thereby purifying him from residual impurity.In Lev 15:15 and 30, dealing with genital discharges, we find fuller for-

mulas: ˆmI + evil as an “evil∞prep.” component (/b/ZmI and ht:a:m}f¨ b/ZmI, re-spectively) as in 14:19, in addition to hw;hy] ynep}lI. Regarding v. 15, since theman has already been cleansed/healed (rhf) in the sense that his physicalmalady has ceased (v. 13), /b/Z (“his discharge”) in v. 15 must refer to residualritual impurity resulting from the discharge.22 Not only is the formerly un-well person the owner of the ritual impurity, this impurity resides in hisbody, which has been a source of contamination to persons and objects withwhom/which he has come in contact (vv. 4–12). So when the priest effectspurgation on his behalf from his discharge, the ritual impurity is removedfrom the individual himself.23

As H. C. Brichto has recognized, the preposition ˆmI in Lev 15:15 and 30 isprivative.24 He is consistent in that he similarly interprets this preposition inLev 16:16, where the inner sanctum is purged of/from (ˆmI) the uncleannessesand moral faults of the people.25 Brichto’s understanding of ˆmI as privative ac-cords with Milgrom’s interpretation of the noun tafj, “purification offer-

21. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning andFunction (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 60.

22. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 921; cf. idem, “Ablutions,” Die Hebräische Bibelund ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag(ed. C. M. E. Blum and W. Stegemann; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1990) 90; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (trans. and abridg. M. Greenberg;Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) 107.

23. Cf. Hills, “A Semantic and Conceptual Study of the Root KPR,” 209.24. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice,” 33.25. Ibid., 34.


ing,” as derived from the privative piºel verb aFEjI, “purify,” which can describethe effect of the tafj sacrifice (Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15; Ezek 43:20, 22, 23;45:18).26 A “purification offering” accomplishes some kind of purification,that is, removal of something undesirable, and ˆmI indicates what is removed.

Since the factors relevant to ˆmI in 14:19 also apply in 15:15 and 30, I agreewith Brichto that the preposition must be privative here. This means that thepriest effects purgation on his/her behalf from his/her (impure) discharge,against Milgrom’s “for his discharge” and “for her impure discharge.”27 No-tice that these formulas refer to the specific kind of impurity removed fromthe offerer, as in 12:7, rather than simply using the general term for impurityby itself, as in 14:19 (/ta:m}FUmI).

Milgrom’s note on “effect purgation on his behalf, for his discharge” in15:15 is fascinating and revealing:

To my knowledge there are only four cases in which the expression kipperºal is followed by min: me˙a††aªtô ‘for his wrong’ (4:26; 5:6, 10); mi††umªatô‘for his impurity’ (14:19); mizzôbô ‘for his discharge’ (15:15; cf. v. 30b); andmi††umªot bénê yi¶raªel ûmippisºêhem ‘of the impurities of the Israelites andtheir transgressions’ (16:16). The mem is causative (see the NOTE on14:19). The fact that all four cases deal with the ̇ a††aªt rather than the otherexpiatory sacrifices (ªasam, ºolâ, and min˙â) is significant. They explain thatthe ˙a††aªt is required because it has adversely affected the sanctuary. Theindividual’s ethical “wrong” (see the NOTES on 4:2), the impurity of theperson with scale disease (chap. 14) or abnormal discharge (chap. 15), andthe physical impurities and moral iniquities of collective Israel (chap. 16)have this in common: they are responsible for the pollution of the sanctuary(see chap. 14, COMMENTS A, B, C; chap. 16, COMMENT F).

The fact that the text pinpoints the reason for the sacrifice as mizzôbô(and in the case of scale disease, mi††umªatô, 14:19) merits notice. One bear-ing physical impurities, even the most severe kind, is not accused of sin; hissacrifice is not me˙a††aªtô ‘for his wrong’ (4:26). Above all, the purpose ofthe sacrifice is not wénisla˙ lô ‘that he may be forgiven’ (4:31, 35).28

The second paragraph is completely on target: ˆmI + physical ritual impurityidentifies the reason for the sacrifice, and this reason is distinguished fromsin that requires forgiveness (see further below). I would add that for me the

26. J. Milgrom, “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?” VT 21 (1971) 237; idem,Leviticus 1–16, 253; cf. D. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:72; On the privativepiºel, see GKC §52h.

27. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1291–92; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16,902–3.

28. Ibid., 926.

Chapter 6118

reason is specified in a privative framework expressing the need to get rid ofthe evil in question.

Milgrom’s first paragraph is problematic. First, there are other instances ofl[" rP<KI followed by ˆmI. Two are in the “evil∞prep.” category immediately fol-lowing the object of the preposition l[":

Lev 16:34a: µt:aFøj"AlK:mI laEr;c‘yi yneB}Al[" rPEk"l}

Num 6:11: vp<N;h"Al[" af:j: rv≤a“mE wyl:[: rP<kIw]

Perhaps Milgrom did not include Lev 16:34a because he attributes vv. 29–34ato H.29 In any case these passages, which we will consider later below, do notaffect the outcome of our discussion differently than those cited by Milgrom.However, we have already found that in Lev 12:7, where ˆmI + physical ritualimpurity is embedded in a result clause that is governed by the verb rhf

following l[" rP<KI, the ˆmI can only be privative. Another example is 16:30,µk<ytEaFøj" lKOmI µk<t}a< rhEf"l} µk<ylE[“ rPEk"y], which Milgrom renders: “shall purga-tion be effected on your behalf to purify you of all your sins” (emphasismine).30 As in 12:7, Milgrom translates ˆmI as privative because there is noother choice, without identifying it as such: “of all your sins” means “from allyour sins” (cf. 12:7—“from her source of blood”; see above). While 16:30,which Milgrom also assigns to H, involves factors that are unique to the Dayof Atonement, my point here is that its use of ˆmI in language closely followingrpk is consistent with what we find elsewhere in pentateuchal cultic law.Most likely Milgrom did not include 12:7 and 16:30 because they have ˆmI

governed by rhf rather than rpk. But I contend that these passages are rele-vant and should be taken into account.

The second problem with the first paragraph of Milgrom’s note on 15:15 isinconsistency. He renders ˆmI in 4:26; 5:6, 10; 14:19; 15:15, 30 by “for,” inagreement with his assertion that this preposition is causative. But when hecomes to 16:16, “for” suddenly changes to “of ”: “of the impurities of theIsraelites and their transgressions.”31 This is the same privative “of ” = “from”that we found in his translation of v. 30. Why the switch? Why not stick withthe causative sense of ˆmI throughout these instances, as BDB (497–98) hasdone? Leviticus 16:16 and 30 are in the context of the Day of Atonement

29. Ibid., 62, 1064–65.30. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1294; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1011.31. See Milgrom’s translation of 16:16a in Leviticus 17–22, 1293: “Thus he shall

purge the adytum of the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all oftheir sins” (emphasis mine); cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1010.


ceremonies, regarding which vv. 16, 18, 20, and 33 explicitly state that thesanctuary and its sancta are purged by means of special purification offerings(see further below). So there is no need for Milgrom to avoid the privativesense of ˆmI here. In fact, this reading reinforces his contention that purifica-tion offerings remove evil from the sanctuary and its sancta. But taking ˆmI thesame way in other contexts would be devastating to his thesis that purificationofferings always purge the sanctuary and its sancta rather than the offerer.

The third problem is Milgrom’s statement that the cases of l[" rP<KI fol-lowed by ˆmI “explain that the ˙a††aªt is required because it has adversely af-fected the sanctuary.” In light of the next sentence, “it” here refers toimpurity or sin. How do these cases explain that? All of them “deal with the˙a††aªt rather than the other expiatory sacrifices.” So how does this fact ex-plain that purification offerings in all of these cases function to remove pol-lution from the sanctuary? This is the function of all purification offeringsaccording to Milgrom’s general tafj theory, which has become an assump-tion. The reasoning is circular, with the evidence shaped to, rather thanshaping, the conclusion.

Milgrom makes a sharp distinction between the sense of rpk in the con-text of the tafj, where it means “purify/purge,” and other kinds of sacrifices,in which he interprets the verb in the more general sense of “atone” or “ex-piate.”32 It is remarkably ironic that the privative sense of ˆmI, which Milgromspecifically avoids, is strong confirmation, perhaps even the strongest, that heis right in regarding only tafj sacrifices as “purification offerings.” Othersacrifices, such as burnt and reparation offerings, also accomplish variouskinds of rpk on behalf of (l[/d[b) offerers (e.g., Lev 1:4; 5:16, 18, 26[6:7]);16:24), so rpk by itself or with l[" does not set goal formulas of tafj sacri-fices apart. What does make purification-offering formulas unique is exactlywhat Milgrom points out in his note on 15:15 (see above): ˆmI + evil. But itis not simply that remedying evil is the raison d’être of the purification of-fering. This goes without saying if a ritual is expiatory, and thus it is impliedfor reparation offerings, which also remedy specific evils (Lev 5:14–26[6:7]).The fact that ˆmI is privative, expressing the idea of removal, and that ˆmI + evilfollowing and syntactically governed by rpk (i.e., in the “evil∞prep.” col-umn of my table) occurs only in formulas of tafj sacrifices, which uniquelyhave blood applied to the horns rather than sides of an altar, proves that onlythese sacrifices target specific evils for removal/purification in this way.

32. Ibid., 1079–83.


Chapter 6120

What I just stated would appear at first glance to be negated by Lev 19:22,which we can analyze by referring to table 3. Although this formula differsfrom any encountered thus far in that every slot is filled (including “locus”),this is no problem. The difficulty is found in the words immediately followingˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw], which I left out because they identify the instrument of ex-piation: µv…a:h: lyaEB}, “with the ram of reparation offering.” As a result of thisprerequisite reparation offering, a man who has had sexual relations with abetrothed slave girl is forgiven af:j: rv≤a“ /taF:j"mE, which Milgrom renders: “ofhis wrong that he committed.”33 As in Lev 12:7 and 16:30, ˆmI + evil can onlybe privative because it is embedded in expression of the result. Again, theprivative meaning is reflected in Milgrom’s translation.

Setting aside the matter of authorship, regarding which Milgrom takes thebetrothed slave girl pericope (vv. 20–22) to be a P insertion in H anyway,34 weare stuck with the dilemma that a reparation-offering formula has a privativeˆmI, which seems to pull the rug out from under the uniqueness of the tafj

sacrifice as a purification offering. But this is the apparent exception thatproves the rule and sharpens its parameters. The fact that ˆmI shows up here inthe “result” rather than the “evil∞prep.” column of a moral (M) case makesall the difference: ˆmI expresses removal of evil through forgiveness (passivenipºal of jls) that is accomplished directly by God, not through the prereq-uisite sacrificial rpk process itself. The fact remains that only formulas oftafj sacrifices have privative ˆmI + evil in the “evil∞prep.” slot governed byrpk, meaning that only tafj sacrifices purify.

Concluding our investigation of formulas in cases of physical ritual impu-rity, Num 8:12 and 21 express the goal of the same tafj sacrifice, which issupplemented by an accompanying burnt offering. This combination of sac-rifices forms a small ritual complex contributing rpk to the larger complex in-volved in purification of the Levites’ work force.

If we needed a clincher for our argument that tafj sacrifices purify theirofferers in some instances, Num 8:21 would be it. Uniquely among formulasof tafj sacrifices for physical ritual impurity, this one expresses the result ofrpk with the preposition l + the infinitive of rhf + pronoun referring to the(collective) offerer, in this case the Levites as a group: µr;h“f"l}, “to purifythem.” Here the verb rhf does not simply express the resultant state of purityfrom evil belonging to the offerer(s), as the qal form does in Lev 12:7 and 8

33. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1298.34. Ibid., 1676.


(h:ym<D; rqOM}mI hr;h“f:w] and hr;hEf:w], respectively). Nor does rhf in Num 8:21 ap-pear in a clause subsequent to the one that is governed by rpk. Rather, µr;h“f"l}

is in the transitive piºel stem, with the pronoun referring to the offerer(s) func-tioning as direct object, in the same clause as rpk. So ˆrOh“a" µh<ylE[“ rPEk"y]w'

µr;h“f"l}, “and Aaron effected purgation on their behalf to purify them” meansthat the sacrificial rpk process acted upon the Levites for the purpose of(prep. l + infin. cstr.; cf. GKC §114g) removing impurity from them. An al-ternate rendering, “and Aaron effected purgation on their behalf, purifyingthem” (cf. GKC §114o), would have the same net effect.

Lest there is doubt that the formula in Num 8:21 refers to the purification-offering component of the ritual complex that purifies the Levites’ work force,which is explicitly mentioned only in vv. 8 and 12, examination of vv. 6–21will confirm this. Verse 6 states that the Levites are the object of the overallprocess of cleansing (µt:aO T:r]h"fIw], “and purify them”). Verse 7 begins to spec-ify Moses’ role (cf. v. 5) in the procedures: “This is what you shall do to themto cleanse them: sprinkle on them water of purification, and let them go overtheir whole body with a razor, and wash their clothes; thus they shall becleansed” (njpsv). When the Levites and the community have assembled atthe sanctuary, the Levites are to be presented as an “elevation offering,”thereby separating them from the other Israelites for the service of the sanctu-ary (Num 8:9–11, 13–15). Additionally, two bulls are to be sacrificed on be-half of the Levites, “one as a purification offering and the other as a burntoffering to Yhwh, to expiate for the Levites” (v. 12; cf. v. 8).

Verse 21 summarizes the fulfillment of Yhwh’s instructions: “The Levitespurified themselves35 and washed their clothes; and Aaron designated them

Table 3. The Privative Result of a Reparation Offering

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.

L. 19:22 M /l jl"s}niw]

/taF:j"mE

af:j: rv≤a“

/taF:j"Al["

af:j: rv≤a“

ynep}lI

hw;hy]


35. The nrsv reads here: “purified themselves from sin.” But in this context physicalritual impurity is in view: “Bathing cleanses them of minor impurities; the purificatorywater, of corpse contamination; the purification bull—of their severe impurities”(Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 278).


Chapter 6122

as an elevation offering before the LORD, and Aaron made expiation forthem to cleanse them” (njpsv). This verse refers to the three components ofthe cleansing process:

1. “The Levites purified themselves [hitpaºel of afj] and washed their clothes” refers to the instructions in v. 7, including application of the “water of purification” (taF:j" ymE).

2. “Aaron designated them as an elevation offering” refers to vv. 9–11, 13–15.

3. “Aaron made expiation for them to cleanse them” (ˆrOh“a" µh<ylE[“ rPEk"y]w' µr;h“f"l}) refers to rpk, effected by the purification and burnt offerings, which combine into what constitutes a greater purification offering, the rpk goal of which appears earlier in v. 12: “to expiate for the Levites” (µYiw il}h"Al[" rPEk"l}).

The cleansing (rhf) at the end of v. 21 cannot refer to or include applicationof the “water of purification” because that was performed by Moses, notAaron (see vv. 5–7). Nor can it refer to the Levites’ shaving and launderingtheir clothes because those activities were performed by the Levites them-selves, not by Aaron. We cannot escape the conclusion that the rpk providedby the purification offering, supplemented by a burnt offering, purified the of-ferers (i.e., the Levites themselves) before they began service connected withthe sanctuary and its sancta (v. 15).

Having examined the goal formula of each purification offering dealingwith physical ritual impurity in which the object of the preposition followingrpk refers to the offerer, we have found a consistent pattern: the sacrifice re-moves impurity from the offerer. In these instances there is no evidence thatthe sacrifice purges the sanctuary and/or its sancta.

Anyone who persists in arguing that the sanctuary or one of its compo-nents is purified will be constrained to admit that this interpretation requiresassumption of an ellipsis, such as jbzmh l[/ta immediately following rpk, sothat the formulas would be understood to be (reading from right to left):

(offerer∞impurity∞ˆm) offerer∞l[ [jbzmh l[/ta] rpk

He [i.e., the priest] shall purge [the altar] on behalf of the offerer (from his/her impurity).

However, there is simply no evidence to support such an ellipsis. Althoughthe biblical text is fully capable of expressions such as jbzmh ta rpk (Lev16:20, 33) and jbzmh l[ rpk (cf. 8:15; 16:18), we have not found and will not


find (see below) a single verse in which such an expression is combined withofferer∞l[ (or offerer∞d[b, also “on behalf of the offerer”).

Moral faults are purified from offerersNow we turn our attention to goal formulas of tafj sacrifices for moral

faults (M), in which objects of prepositions following rpk refer to offerers (O).Although Lev 6:23[30] has nothing in the obj.∞prep. column from which wecan specify the “kind of obj.,” this verse clearly fits here because it refers to theouter-sanctum type of purification offering, for which Lev 4:20 provides theformula in the case of the community (see table 4).

These formulas differ from those dealing with physical ritual impurities infive respects.

1. Whereas rpk is always followed by l[ in cases of physical impurities,formulas concerned with moral faults also employ the preposition d[b, “onbehalf of ” (Lev 9:7). Milgrom has pointed out that d[b appears in contextsthat include officiating by the high priest on behalf of himself (9:7; 16:6, 11,17, 24).36 So it appears that lack of d[b in formulas of tafj sacrifices that aresolely for physical impurities is due to the lack of a case in which a priest re-flexively removes his own physical impurity by simultaneously functioning asofferer and officiant.

2. Whereas the “evil∞prep.” element in formulas for physical impuritiesuses only the preposition ˆm (14:19; 15:15, 30), the corresponding elementwith moral faults can have the preposition l[: /taF:j"Al[", “concerning hissin” (4:35); hL<aEmE tj"a"EmE af:j:Arv≤a“ /taF:j"Al[", “concerning his sin that hesinned from among one of these” (5:13).

3. Some “evil∞prep.” elements in formulas for moral faults include rela-tive clauses consisting of or beginning with af:j:Arv≤a“ following the word forevil: af:j:Arv≤a“ /taF:j"mE, “from his sin that he sinned” (5:10); Arv≤a“ /taF:j"Al["

hL<aEmE tj"a"EmE af:j:, “concerning his sin that he sinned from among one ofthese” (5:13). While it would seem obvious at first glance that /taF:j" (“hissin”) is af:j:Arv≤a“ (“that he sinned”), use of the verb from the same root afj

shows that the moral evil remedied by the rpk process is an act rather than animpure state. Notice that in Num 6:11 the noun tafj is lacking: af:j: rv≤a“mE

vp<N;h"Al[", “from that which he sinned concerning the corpse.” So af:j: rv≤a“

functions here as the object of the preposition ˆm.4. Except for Lev 16:30, the “result” is forgiveness (jls) rather than purity

(rhf). This is understandable in light of the difference between the two

36. Ibid., 255–56; idem, “d[B/l[ rP<KI,” 16–17.

Chapter 6124

kinds of cases: whereas a physically impure person needs purification, a sin-ner needs forgiveness.37 The exceptional rhf in 16:30 shows that, once ayear on the Day of Atonement, the Israelites receive purification from their

Table 4. Moral Faults Purified from Offerers

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.L. 4:20 M µh<l: jl"s}niw] O µh<lE[“ ˆhEKOh . . . rP<kIw]

L. 4:26 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"mE O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 4:31 M /l jl"s}niw] O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 4:35 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"Al[" O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]



af:j:Arv≤a“


L. 5:13 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"Al["

af:j: Arv≤a“

hL<aEmE tj"a"mE


L. 6:23 M vd,QOB" rPEk"l}

L. 9:7 M O d["b}W Úd]["B"

µ[:h:

rPEk"w]

L. 9:7 M O µd;[“B" rPEk"w]

L. 10:17 M ynep}lI

hw;hy]

O µh<ylE[“ rPEk"l}


µk<ytEaFøj" lKOmI

hw;hy] ynep}lII

/rh:f}TI


L. 16:34 M µt:aFøj"AlK:mI O laEr;c‘yi yneB}Al[" rPEk"l}


vp<N;h"Al["

O wyl:[: rP<kIw]

N. 15:25 M µh<l: jl"s}niw] O td'[“AlK:Al["

laEr;c‘yi yneB}

ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

N. 15:28 M O vp<N,h"Al["

ha:f}j<B} tg,g,Vøh"

hg;g;v‘bI

hw;hy] ynep}lI

ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

N. 15:28 M /l jl"s}niw] O wyl:[: rPEk"l}

37. Cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 256, 760.



sins (pl. of tafj). This further supports Milgrom’s conclusion that tafj sac-rifices function as “purification offerings”: ultimately the Israelites receivepurification (rhf) from their sins through the special tafj sacrifices of theDay of Atonement, just as they receive purification (rhf) from their physicalimpurities throughout the year.

5. As mentioned in our earlier investigation of the outer-altar purificationoffering, the verb jls, “forgive,” is always passive nipºal, indicating that it isGod rather than the priest who grants forgiveness. Thus the rpk process atwhich the priest officiates does not automatically result in forgiveness. Rather,this process is only prerequisite to the direct divine decision. In tafj sacri-fices for physical impurities we found no such articulation between theagency of the priest as Yhwh’s representative and that of Yhwh himself: sacri-ficial rpk performed by the priest simply results in purity (rhf).38

Differences 1 and 3–5 can be understood in terms of distinctions betweenthe two kinds of cases: physical states of ritual impurity versus faulty moralacts. But we have not explained the second difference, which is most relevantto us here: the preposition l[, “concerning,” along with ˆm in the evil∞prep.column. Milgrom regards the two prepositions as equivalent, supporting hiscontention that ˆm is causative.39 Since there is no privative l[, he must beright, if they are indeed synonymous. However, we cannot overlook thestrong syntactic parallel between use of ˆm in cases of moral faults and use ofthe same preposition in cases of physical ritual impurities, where we havefound a privative sense to be required (see table 5).

In physical and moral cases, ˆm occupies the same position in the evil∞prep. column. So like Milgrom (see quotation above),40 I see no reason tointerpret ˆm differently in moral cases. However, whereas he takes ˆm to becausative, I have found that in cases of physical ritual impurity the preposi-tion must be privative. This implies that it is also privative in moral cases.But Lev 16:30 provides direct evidence that is overpowering: ˆm follows theverb rhf in the “result” column, where it can only be privative, as in 12:7.Milgrom renders 16:30: “For on this day shall purgation be effected on yourbehalf to purify you of all your sins; you shall become pure before Yhwh.”41

Leviticus 16:30 is stronger than 12:7 because it has rhf in piºel, followed bythe direct object that refers to the collective offerer (here the entire Israelite

38. Ibid., 760.39. Ibid., 251.40. Ibid., 926.41. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1294 (emphasis mine); cf. idem, Le-

viticus 1–16, 1011.

Chapter 6126

community) as in Num 8:21 (the Levites). The conclusion is inescapable:the rpk process removes moral faults from the offerer(s). Consequently, ˆmand l[ in the evil∞prep. formulaic position are not synonymous. While theformer is best rendered “from,” the latter means “concerning,” a more indi-rect idea found only with moral faults, but not with the less abstract physicalritual impurities.

Milgrom seems to be uncomfortable with the implications of Lev 16:30:

The purgation rites in the sanctuary purify the sanctuary, not the people.Yet as the sanctuary is polluted by the people’s impurities, their elimination,in effect, also purifies the people. The reference to purification could alsobe to the scapegoat, which expressly carries off the people’s sins into the wil-derness (v 24 [sic, v. 22]). To be sure, purity is effected by the elimination ofimpurity (12:8; 14:7, 9, 20, 31; 15:13, 28). Instead, it is the people’s partici-pation in this day through their self-purgation that is probably meant. . . .This metaphoric use of †iher is another sign of the authorship of H.42

So which is it? Does purification here result from the purgation of the sanc-tuary by tafj sacrifices, the scapegoat ritual, or the people’s self-purgation by

Table 5. Use of ˆmI in Cases of Physical Impurity and Moral Faults

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.L. 12:7 P rqOM} mI hr;h“f:w]

h:ym<D;

O h:yl<[: rP<kIw]

L. 14:19 P /ta:m}FU mI O rhEF"MIh"Al[" rP<kIw]

L. 15:15 P /b/Z mI hw;hy] ynep}lI O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 15:30 P Ht:a:m}f¨ b/Z mI hw;hy] ynep}lI O h:yl<[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 4:26 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j" mE O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 5:6 M /taF:j" mE O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 5:10 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j" mE

af:j:Arv≤a“



µk<ytEaFøj" lKOmI

hw;hy] ynep}lI

Wrh:f}TI


L. 16:34 M µt:aFøj"AlK: mI O laEr;c‘yi yneB}Al[" rPEk"l}

N. 6:11 M af:j: rv≤a“ mE

vp<N;h"Al["

O wyl:[: rP<kIw]

42. Ibid., 1056.



practicing self-denial (v. 29)? Purgation (rpk) is made “upon” (l[) Azazel’sgoat (v. 10; see below), but nowhere does the text indicate that this ritual ex-piates for the people or purifies them. In v. 30 the purification of the peopleprovides the motivation for (yKI, “for/because”) rather than being the result ofthe people’s self-denial, so this possibility is also ruled out. Therefore we can-not avoid the implication that µk<ylE[“ rPEk"y], “shall purgation be effected onyour behalf,” in this verse refers to the goal/function of the special purifica-tion offerings, which effect purgation for the Israelites by purging the sanctu-ary (v. 33). Use of the piºel of rhf in v. 30 accords with the other evidencepresented above. Purification offerings purge (rpk) offerers on the Day ofAtonement, as on other days. The difference is that on the Day of Atonementthe sanctuary and its sancta are also purged, resulting in the purification(rhf) of the Israelites from sins for which they had earlier received forgive-ness (jls) but not cleansing (e.g., 4:20, 26, 31).

We have found that some formulas dealing with moral faults include l[,“concerning,” in the “evil∞prep.” position, but for physical impurities onlyˆm appears in this slot. This distinction appears to correlate with the differencebetween the respective natures of the two kinds of evils: a moral fault is an actin historical time, concerning which the sinner bears a “load” of ˆw[, “culpa-bility” (Lev 5:1), and therefore “concerning” which and “from” which expia-tion is required through ritual rpk (cf. v. 6—/taF:j"mE, “from his sin,” includingthe culpable sin in v. 1). A physical ritual impurity, on the other hand, is a lin-gering state simply located in the body, “from” which it must be removed.

We now have a conclusion with regard to the chieftain’s purification offer-ing (4:26): the function of his sacrifice is to purge evil from him (with the njb),pending forgiveness by Yhwh.43 In v. 31 a shorter version of the formula withregard to the commoner’s purification offering (wyl:[: rP<kIw]), which does not in-clude reference to the sin, expresses the same function.44 Whereas Milgrom

43. A. Dillmann interpreted the preposition ˆm in /taF:j"mE of Lev 4:26 as causa-tive, “because of his sin,” and regarded /taF:j"Al[" in 4:35; 5:13 (cf. v. 18—/tg;g]v¥ l[");and 19:22 as equivalent, thus confirming the causative meaning. But he added thatthe privative sense of ˆm (so that his sin is no longer on him) is also possible, and inpassages such as 16:34 and 19:22 this is preferable (Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus[Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897] 468). Similarly, B. Baentsch suggested the privative as analternative to a causative interpretation of /taF:j"mE in Lev 4:26 (Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri [HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903] 325–26). Note that inthe context of Brichto’s interpretation of rpk, this verb with privative ˆm would referto removal of an imbalance between the sinner and Yhwh by means of a compositoryoffering that restores equilibrium in the relationship (“On Slaughter and Sacrifice,”27–28).

44. The longer form with evil∞ˆm appears in 4:26, later than the shorter form inv. 20. Compare this with the fact that the term bybIs:, “round about,” appears only later,

Chapter 6128

has taken “offerer∞l[ rpk” in v. 31 (cf. v. 20) as the basic formula to whichevil∞ˆm is an exceptional addition to be interpreted separately,45 I havetreated the fuller formula “evil∞ˆm∞offerer∞l[ rpk” in v. 26 as a unit be-cause it functions as a unit: l[ rpk expresses the remedy for the evil that fol-lows ˆm. Therefore, I have reached agreement with B. Levine regarding animportant aspect of the tafj sacrifices in Lev 4–5: “The object of the ̇ a††aªt,usually translated ‘sin offering,’ was to remove the culpability borne by the of-fender, that is, to purify the offender of his guilt (4:1–5:13).”46

H. Maccoby has pointed out that, when a chieftain has a sin removed fromhim by his purification offering (4:26), it is the same sin that he committed(af:j”y,; v. 22), not another sin of polluting the altar.47 Milgrom replies in de-fense of his theory:

Maccoby fails to take into account that the latter verb is a qal whereas theformer is a piºel. The expression /taF:j"mE ˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw] (4:26) is preciselyequivalent to /ta:m}FUmI rhEF"MIh"Al[" rP<kIw] (14:19). Thus, /taF:j"mE refers to hisimpurity, not to his sin. His repentence (µv´a:w]) has wiped out his sin. Whatremains is its contaminating effect, necessitating a purification offering.48

But Milgrom has overlooked a crucial distinction between the two passages.Although “evil∞prep.” is functionally equivalent in the two passages, the na-ture of the evil is different. Of course Lev 14:19 refers to impurity: it is a caseof purification from physical ritual impurity resulting from scaly skin disease,which must be removed from the person after he/she has healed. But 4:26 isa case of moral fault, so it is this kind of evil that must be removed from thechieftain. If there is any doubt that a purification offering for a moral wrongremoves the same sin that was committed, it is dispelled by Lev 5:10, where

45. Ibid., 857–58, 926; cf. R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–) 3:186; Brichto interprets /taF:j"mE in Lev 4:35 (sic v. 26)as an addition to the rpk formula but expressing the idea that the offerer is absolved of(privative sense) his offense (“On Slaughter and Sacrifice,” 31).

46. B. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia: Jewish Publica-tion Society, 1989) 18; cf. 23–24.

47. H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place inJudaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 178–79.

48. J. Milgrom, “Impurity Is Miasma: A Response to Hyam Maccoby,” JBL 119(2000) 732; see now idem, Leviticus 23–27, 2462.

in Lev 8:15 and 16:18. Regarding bybIs:, A. Rodríguez has concluded that “when-ever the blood is put all around the horns of the altar it cleanses the altar. But when theblood is simply put on the horns something else is intended” (Substitution in the He-brew Cultus [AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979]138; cf. 137). Milgrom responds that whether or not this term appears is of no conse-quence; the meaning is the same (Leviticus 1–16, 255).


the relative clause af:j:Arv≤a“ identifies the sin remedied by a purification of-fering plus a supplementary burnt offering as “that he sinned/committed.”

The special Day of Atonement purification offerings remove moral faults and physical impurities from their offerers through purgation of the sanctuary

A number of purification offerings that remedy both moral faults and ritualimpurities (M + P) have formulas in which the offerer(s) is/are represented bythe object of the preposition l[ or d[b following rpk (see table 6). All of theexamples in table 6 refer to the special tafj sacrifices of the Day of Atone-ment, which purge (rpk/rhf) the sanctuary from (ˆm) the uncleannesses andmoral faults of the priests and the nonpriestly community (Lev 16:16, 18–19;see below). These formulas do not have anything in the “evil∞prep.” or “re-sult” columns to indicate that this purgation removes the evil from the offer-ers themselves. But in our consideration of formulas dealing with physicalimpurities or moral faults separately, we have found that the object of thepreposition following rpk has consistently referred to the “patient” of purifi-cation, from which evil is removed. To reinforce the idea that the Day ofAtonement purification offerings remove evil from the people on whose be-half they are performed, we have already found that Lev 16:30 expresses suchremoval of sins (pl. of tafj) from (ˆm) the entire community. So with regardto these unique purification offerings I agree with Milgrom when he says that,“as the sanctuary is polluted by the people’s impurities, their elimination, ineffect, also purifies the people.”49

Table 6. Removal of Evils from Offerers through Purgation of Sanctuary

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.

L. 16:6 M+P O /tyBE d["b}W /d[“B" rP<kIw]

L. 16:11 M+P O /tyBE d["b}W /d[“B" rP<kIw]

L. 16:17 M+P O /tyBE d["b}W /d[“B"

lh"q}AlK: d["b}W

laEr;c‘yi

rP<kIw]

L. 16:33 M+P O µynih“Koh" l["w]

lh:Q:h" µ["AlK:Al["w]

rPEk"y] . . .

L. 23:28 M+P hw;hy] ynep}lI

µk<yhEløa”

O µk<ylE[“ rPEk"l}

49. Idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1056 (see above).

Chapter 6130

Some purification-offering formulas refer to removal of either moral faults or physical ritual impurities from offerers

Leviticus 7:7 sets forth a similarity between the reparation offering andthe outer-altar purification offering, whether it remedies sin or physical im-purity: the remainder of the victim belongs to the officiating priest. In thisverse the preposition following rpk is instrumental b, so /B means “with it,”that is, the animal by means of which expiation is made. Although l[ plusa suffix referring to the offerer is lacking here, we already know that outer-altar purification offerings remove sins or impurities from their offerers (seeabove). Below we will find an exceptional outer-altar sacrifice that purgesthe altar, but it was performed on the unique occasion of consecration byMoses rather than by an Aaronic priest, and the formulas clearly mark the al-tar as the beneficiary. So it is safe to assume that 7:7 has to do with purgationof evil from an offerer. In formulas for additional festival purification offer-ings in the cultic calendar of Num 28–29, the offerers receiving the benefitof rpk are the Israelites (pl. suff. as obj. of l[). We are not told whether thesecalendric sacrifices, for which the requirement is detached from specificcircumstances, remove from the people their moral faults, ritual impurities,or both.

An outer-altar purification offering purges the outer altar at the time of its initial consecration

A purification offering performed on each of seven successive days purgesthe outer altar, which is part of the sanctuary (S), in connection with its initialconsecration (C) by anointing (cf. Lev 8:11; Exod 29:36–37). In each of theseverses, the object of the preposition l[ following rpk refers to the altar in thecourt. With the possible exception of Lev 8:15, where l[ may indicate the

Table 7. Removal of Either Moral Faults or Physical Ritual Impurities

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.

L. 7:7 M/P rv≤a“ ˆhEKOh"

/BArP<k"y]





location of subsequent sacrifices of various kinds “upon” the altar (see be-low), these expressions indicate that the altar itself, rather than a human of-ferer, receives the rpk. That application of purification-offering blood purgesthe altar itself is confirmed by the fact that in 8:15 j'BEz]MIh", “the altar,” is the di-rect object of the piºel verb afj: j'BEz]MIh"Ata< aFEj"y]w', “decontaminating the al-tar.”50 The parallel formulation in Exod 29:36 has the preposition l[, ratherthan the direct object, following the verb afj: j'BEz]MIh"Al[" t:aFEjIw], “and youshall perform decontamination on the altar.” The next words show that thisdecontamination benefits the altar itself and constitutes, or at least contrib-utes to, a kind of rpk: wyl:[: Úr]P<k"B}, “when you effect purgation for it.” This pur-gation by blood is linked to what follows: /vD]q'l} /taO T:j}væm:W, “and you shallanoint it in order to consecrate it.”

Purgation of the altar at the time of its initial consecration (cf. Lev 8:11)raises some questions: First, why do the priests perform hand-leaning on theanimal (v. 14) if its blood purges the altar rather than them? It appears thatthis gesture, identifying the priests as offerers, implies that they receive somekind of secondary rpk benefit, as ch. 16 explicitly indicates with regard to theDay of Atonement sacrifices that primarily purge the sanctuary (vv. 6, 11, 17,33; see above). However, it is doubtful that the initial decontamination of thealtar can expiate for specific sins of the priests because the altar is undergoingthe process of qualification for its function.51

Second, what sin or impurity of the priests necessitates purgation of the al-tar by means of a purification offering on this occasion? The text simply doesnot specify. Milgrom suggests the possibility that, during the consecrationweek, while the priests were confined within the sanctuary compound in close

Table 8. Purgation of Outer Altar at Consecration

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.

E. 29:36 C S wyl:[: Úr]P<k"B}

E. 29:37 C S j'BEz]MIh"Al[" rPEk"T}

L. 8:15 C S wyl:[: rPEk"l}

50. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1278; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 493.Note that this instance of the piºel must be distinguished from Ht:aO aFEj"m}h", “who offersit as a purification offering,” in Lev 6:19[26], where the direct object (“it”) refers to thesacrificial animal rather than the altar.

51. Cf. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 42.

Chapter 6132

proximity to the altar (cf. 8:33–35), they may have incurred some unavoidablephysical impurity that polluted the altar.52 In any case, there is a close con-nection between the fitness of the priests and the fitness of the altar on whichthey are subsequently to officiate. The consecration purification offering atwhich Moses officiated (vv. 14–17) uniquely preceded inauguration of purifi-cation offerings at which the Aaronic priesthood officiated (9:8–11). Thereforewe cannot assume, as Milgrom does, that every subsequent outer-altar tafj

sacrifice works in the same way to purge the altar.The third problem is the summary at the end of 8:15: wyl:[: rPEk"l} Whv´D]q"y]w',

where consecration (vdq) effects purgation (rpk), reversing the expected or-der of verbs that is found in Exod 29:36–37, where purgation by purification-offering blood is mentioned before consecration by anointing with oil. Com-pare also the order in Lev 16:18–19, where the altar is purified (rpk/rhf) andthen reconsecrated (vdq) by successive blood applications on the Day ofAtonement. Milgrom renders the final clause of Lev 8:15: “Thus he conse-crated it to effect atonement upon it”53—that is, to effect atonement upon thealtar in the future, when various kinds of sacrifices are offered literally uponit (following Rashi and Ibn Ezra).54 Whether or not this should be acceptedas the best option is inconsequential to the outcome of the present study, sowe will not expend further energy on the problem except to point out that, ifMilgrom is right, l[ rpk in Lev 8:15 does not refer to purgation/decontami-nation of the altar itself, by contrast with usage in Exod 29. Hence, our tableentry for Lev 8:15 would allow for subsequent cases of moral faults or physicalritual impurities (M/P) remedied by purification offerings (among other sac-

Table 9. The Future rpk Option for Leviticus 8:15

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.

L. 8:15 M/P wyl:[: rPEk"l}

52. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 522. S. R. Driver attempted to explain: “the altar,prior to its consecration, is regarded as affected by the natural impurity of humanworkmanship, which has to be removed” (“Propitiation,” A Dictionary of the Bible[ed. J. Hastings; New York: Scribner’s, 1911] 4:131). But if Driver were right, wewould expect similar decontaminations for all other parts of the sanctuary, as in thecomprehensive rites of the Day of Atonement.

53. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1278; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 493.54. Ibid., 524–25.


rifices), and we would shift wyl:[: from the “obj.∞prep. or direct obj.” slot to“locus” (table 9).

Inner-sanctum purification offerings on the Day of Atonement purge the sanctuary and its sancta

Special tafj sacrifices performed once per year on the Day of Atonementpurge the inner sanctum (vd,QO/vd,QOh" vD'q}mI, “Holy/Holiest Part”), outer sanc-tum (d[E/m lh<aO, “Tent of Meeting”), and outer altar (jBEz]mI) from the moralfaults and physical ritual impurities (M + P) of the priests and the nonpriestlycommunity (table 10). That purgation affects components of the sanctuary (S)is unambiguously indicated by the syntax: such components are referred to bythe object of the preposition l[ (Exod 30:10; Lev 16:16, 18) or direct object(Lev 16:20, 33) following rpk. So in this kind of context following rpk, theconstructions with l[ and with the direct object appear almost functionallyequivalent, as we found following the piºel of afj in the parallel formulationsof Exod 29:36 (j'BEz]MIh"Al[" t:aFEjIw]) and Lev 8:15 (j'BEz]MIh"Ata< aFEj"y]w'). The differ-ence is that l[ emphasizes that benefit is “for/concerning” something and the

Table 10. Inner-Sanctum Offerings Purge the Sanctuary

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.

E. 30:10 M+P wyt:nor]q"Al[" ˆrOh“a" rP<kIw]

E. 30:10 M+P S wyl:[: rPEk"y]


µh<y[Ev‘PImIW laEr;c‘yi

µt:aFøj"Alk:l}



L. 16:18 M+P S wyl:[: rP<kIw]

L. 16:20 M+P S vd,QOh"Ata<<

d[E/m lh<aOAta<w]

j'BEz]MIh"Ata<w]

rPEK"mI


L. 16:32 M+P ˆhEKOh" rP<kIw]

L. 16:33 M+P S vD'q}mIAta<<

vd,QOh"

d[E/m lh<aOAta<w]

rP<kIw]

L. 16:33 M+P S j'BEz]MIh"Ata<w] rPEk"y] . . .

Chapter 6134

direct object indicates that the ritual goal is accomplished through activity(blood manipulation) directly applied to the object (part of the sanctuary).55

While persons benefit from tafj sacrifices, as indicated by l[ (see above),they never appear as direct objects of rpk in purification offering formulassimply because blood from this kind of sacrifice is never applied directly topersons.56 We will explore the reason for this in our next chapter.

I have included instances having nothing in the “obj.∞prep. or directobj.” slot (Exod 30:10; Lev 16:17, 27, 32) because their contexts indicate thatthey are dealing with the same kind of rpk activity that purges the sanctuary.Thus Exod 30:10 specifies rpk on the horns of the incense altar (wyt:nor]q"Al[",“upon its horns”) by applying purification-offering blood there once a year.In the same verse, by the same activity, Aaron “shall effect purgation for it”(wyl:[: rPEk"y])—that is, for the golden altar. Leviticus 16:17 and 27 refer to theblood manipulations located vd,QOB" (“in the [most] Holy Place”), which areprescribed in vv. 14–15 and for which the goal formula appears in v. 16. Theword rpk in v. 32 is resumptively repeated in v. 33.

Earlier we pointed out that the repeated preposition ˆm in the “evil∞prep.”column of Lev 16:16 (in taOm}F¨mI and µh<y[Ev‘PImIW) is privative, in agreement withMilgrom’s rendering of the first part of this verse: “Thus he shall purge theadytum of the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all oftheir sins” (emphasis mine).57 Exegeting Milgrom’s translation, the first “of ”(in italics) means “from” and does double duty to cover ˆm both in taOm}F¨mI andin µh<y[Ev‘PImIW: “. . . of the pollution and [of the] transgressions.” The meaningof the verse is that the blood manipulations performed by the high priest re-move the ritual impurities (taOm}F¨) and two kinds of moral faults (µh<y[Ev‘PI,“their transgressions,” and µt:aFøj", “their sins”) belonging to the Israelitesfrom the inner sanctum. Notice that this formulation provides specific iden-tification of evils removed, in contrast to the verses dealing with the initialpurification of the outer altar (see above).

Leviticus 16:16a parallels but also differs from other formulas havingprivative ˆm in the “evil∞prep.” position (table 11). Variables that are incon-sequential to the present discussion include the presence or absence ofˆhEKOh" (“the priest”) as the subject of rpk, occasional mention of the location

55. Cf. Levine, Leviticus, 23–24, 110. Notice that the only instances of ta rpk arein the summary statements of Lev 16:20, 33, where there are multiple direct objects,namely, the three components of the sanctuary: inner sanctum, outer sanctum, and(outer) altar.

56. Cf. Levine, In the Presence, 64–65.57. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1293; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1010.


hw;hy] ynep}lI (“before Yhwh”), and the result /l jl"s}niw] (“and he shall be for-given”) in cases in which moral faults are removed from individuals. Butsignificant for us here are the facts that in each instance the preposition l[

follows rpk, the object of this preposition refers to the beneficiary forwhom/which the rpk activity is performed, and the object of the privativepreposition ˆm refers to moral (M) or physical (P) evil that the rpk activityremoves from the beneficiary. Furthermore, in each case except for Lev16:16, the beneficiary (obj. of l[) is the same as the one to whom the evilbelongs, as indicated by the possessive suffix on the term for evil (Lev 4:26,etc.), and/or the subject of the verb af:j: in a relative clause following ˆm(5:10; Num 6:11). So evil is removed from its personal source. Leviticus16:16, however, is unique in two interrelated respects: First, the beneficiaryis part of the sanctuary (S) rather than a person in the role of offerer (O).Second, that which is removed from the sanctuary to benefit it does notbelong to the sanctuary and was not caused by it. As Milgrom has elo-quently affirmed, the source of the sanctuary’s defilement is the Israelites.58

Table 11. Leviticus 16:16a and Parallel Formulas with Privative ˆm

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.L. 4:26 M /l jl"s}niw] /taF:j"mE O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]



af:j:Arv≤a“



L. 15:15 P /b/ZmI hw;hy] ynep}lI O wyl:[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]

L. 15:30 P Ht:a:m}f¨ b/ZmI hw;hy] ynep}lI O h:yl<[: ˆhEKOh" . . . rP<kIw]


laEr;c‘yi

µh<y[Ev‘PImIW

µt:aFø j"Alk:l}


L. 16:34 M µt:aFø j"AlK:mI O laEr;c‘yi yneB}Al[" rPEk"l}


vp<N;h"Al["

O wyl:[: rP<kIw]

58. Ibid., 260–61.

Chapter 6136

On the Day of Atonement, a nonsacrificial goat for Azazel is an instrument to purge the moral faults of the Israelites by carrying them away

We will investigate the unique ritual of Azazel’s goat (the so-called “scape-goat ritual”) in ch. 11, finding that although it is a tafj, here “sin ritual”(Lev 16:5), it is not a sacrificial “purification offering.” We will also find thatwyl:[: rPEk"l} in Lev 16:10 means that purgation is performed “on it” (i.e., lo-cated on the goat; table 12) when the high priest confesses over it the accu-mulated moral faults of the Israelites while leaning both his hands on itshead and then dispatches the animal to Azazel in the wilderness (vv. 10, 21–22). Obviously it would make no sense to interpret wyl:[: in 16:10 in the usualsense of “on behalf of it,” which would mean that the sins of Israel would bepurged from the goat itself.

Following initial decontamination of the altar, purification offerings throughout the year, except for the inner-sanctum sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, only purge their offerers

Having systematically analyzed the rpk formulas relevant to tafj sacri-fices, we can sharpen our conclusions through some counterpoint with andbetween the positions of Milgrom, N. Kiuchi, and J. Gammie regarding therpk prepositions. Milgrom argues:

Finally, a study of the kipper prepositions is decisive. . . . In the context ofthe ˙a††aªt, kipper means “purge” and nothing else, as indicated by its syn-onyms ˙i††eª and †ihar (e.g., 14:51; cf. chap. 16, COMMENT F; Ezek43:20, 26). When the object is nonhuman, kipper takes the preposition ºalor b or a direct object. For example, all three usages are attested in thepurging of the adytum on the Day of Purgation (16:16, 20), and they mustbe understood literally, for the kipper rite takes place on (ºal) the kapporetand on the floor before it, in (b) the adytum, or it can be said that the entireroom (ªet) is purged (kipper; cf. also 6:23; 16:10, 33; Exod 30:10). . . . Whenthe object of kipper is a person, however, it is never expressed as a direct ob-ject but requires the prepositions ºal or beºad. Both signify “on behalf of ”(16:6, 24, 30, 33; Num 8:12, 21), but they are not entirely synonymous. The

Table 12. Azazel’s Goat on the Day of Atonement

ref.

kindof


kindof

obj.

obj.∞prep.or

direct obj.rpk

+ subj.L. 16:10 M wyl:[: rPEk"l}


difference is that ºal can only refer to persons other than the subject, butwhen the subject wishes to refer to himself he must use beºad (e.g., 9:7;16:6, 11, 24; Ezek 45:22). This distinction is confirmed by Job 42:8: “Offera burnt offering for yourselves (béºadkem) and Job, my servant, will inter-cede on your behalf (ºålêkem).” . . . This means the purgation rite of the˙a††aªt is not carried out on the offerer but only on his behalf.59

Most relevant to our discussion is the usage of the preposition l[ in relationto the direct object (which can be marked by ta) and the preposition d[b,“on behalf of.”60 As Milgrom points out, ta rpk is only used with nonhumanobjects and refers to applying purgation directly to them (Ezek 43:26; 45:20;cf. 43:20). The phrase d[b rpk is only used with persons and indicates thatpurgation is done on behalf of them even though the physical activity of pur-gation is not performed directly on them. The expression l[ rpk appears withboth objects and persons. The question is: what does l[ rpk mean?

For Milgrom, the deciding factor is whether l[ rpk is used with nonhu-man objects or persons. With nonhuman objects he takes l[ in this contextto mean literally “on” (Lev 16:16),61 but he understands l[ rpk with personsas almost synonymous with d[b rpk. Thus, in formulas such as those of 4:26,31 and 35, which express goals of outer-sanctum and outer-altar purificationofferings performed throughout the year, he interprets l[ rpk with persons as“on behalf of.”62

59. Ibid., 255–56; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 391, repr. Studies in Cultic Theol-ogy, 76; idem, “tafjh ˆbrq dyqpt,” 2–3; cf. idem, “d[B/l[ rP<KI,” 16–17. Janowski doesnot find the difference between l[ and d[b to be as great as Milgrom claims (Sühne,188–89 n. 23). But Kiuchi acknowledges that “it cannot be denied, as Milgrom has ob-served, that, unlike l[ rpk, d[b rpk appears in contexts where its subject is the objectof atonement, though atonement is made for the whole people as well” (PurificationOffering, 89).

60. Use of the preposition b is not in question. Following rpk it either has a loca-tive function, relating to a place “in/at” which purgation is performed (Lev 6:23[30];16:17, 27), or an instrumental function that relates to the animal victim “with” whichatonement is made (7:7; Num 5:8).

61. Kiuchi finds this meaning to fit Exod 29:36, 37; 30:10; Lev 8:15; 16:18, but hefinds it problematic for Lev 16:16, where the object of the preposition is vd,QOh", “the(most) holy place,” apparently a room. He reacts: “Since ‘on, over’ is unlikely to bethe meaning of l[ in this passage, it is also dubious whether the general distinctionbetween human and non-human objects can be justified” (ibid., 90). However, theobjection that vd,QOh" is a room is not sustainable because v. 16 provides the goal ofthe blood applications performed in and for the inner sanctum, which are literally/spatially “on” (l[) (the surface of) the ark cover and before that object—that is, onthe ground of the inner sanctum in front of it (vv. 14–15; with Milgrom, above).

62. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1272–73; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16,227–28.

Chapter 6138

It is true that purification offerings operate “on behalf of ” their offerers, asshown, for example, by the use of d[b in Lev 9:7. It is also true that tafj

blood is not physically applied to offerers, which explains why ta rpk cannotbe used in such contexts.63 But Milgrom goes further by importing excep-tional aspects of meaning/function from the consecration and Day of Atone-ment cases—in which the sanctuary and its sancta are purged on behalf ofthe offerer(s)—into all other purification offerings. Consequently, he deniesthat rpk l[ has to do with removal of evil from offerers.

Kiuchi tentatively concludes that the meaning of l[ rpk is the same—“atone for”—whether it is followed by a sanctum or a person, and that the se-mantic range of this expression covers that of the more specific expressionsta rpk and d[b rpk, which also mean “atone for” but are used with sanctaalone and persons alone, respectively.64 Thus, while Kiuchi recognizes somedifference between human and nonhuman objects, he finds Milgrom’sclearly defined semantic distinction between l[ with nonhuman objects andl[ with persons to be artificial and argues “that Aaron can make atonement(or expiate) for sancta.”65 He maintains that ta is required “simply because itis followed only by sancta and not because kipper denotes ‘purging’.”66

Kiuchi also objects to Milgrom’s sharp distinction between the meaning ofrpk in the context of the purification offering, where Milgrom says that itmeans “purge,” and in the contexts of other sacrifices, where he interprets theverb as having evolved into the more general meaning “atone/expiate” (seeabove). Kiuchi argues instead for a homogeneous understanding of rpk asdealing both with impurity and guilt.67

63. Garnet suggests: “Neither persons nor sins are construed as the direct object.The reason seems to be that cultic atonement is still a propitiation, albeit conceivedin a rather spiritual way. Man cannot be the object of it. He is only the beneficiary.The action of the verb takes place on behalf of (ºal) the offerer and it can be thoughtof as clearing or cleansing him from (min) his sin” (“Atonement Constructions,” 141).Regarding the instances in which the sanctuary and the altar are direct objects of rpk

(Lev 16:20, 33), Garnet suggests that the idea of propitiation is also present, “since thereason for the need to cleanse this is the contamination due to Israel’s sin (viz. thatwhich displeases God)” (p. 140). He finds no difference in meaning between use ofta rpk and l[ rpk with sancta, both of which appear in Lev 16:18–20, “since theclause in vs. 20, where kipper is used with ªeth, simply summarizes the statements ofvss. 16 and 18, where it is used with ºal” (p. 142; cf. 144).

64. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 93.65. Ibid., 92; cf. 91, 93.66. Ibid., 93.67. Ibid., 101.


Kiuchi’s idea that l[ rpk always means essentially the same thing avoidsMilgrom’s hypothesis that rpk in the context of the purification offering rep-resents an earlier stage of conceptual evolution than rpk in the context ofthe burnt offering,68 which is complicated by the fact that the burnt offeringis the earlier sacrifice.69 Furthermore, Kiuchi’s argument for consistency issupported by the parallel in Lev 14 between the formulas for persons and forhouses: rhEf:w] ˆhEKOh" wyl:[: rP<kIw], “Thus the priest shall make rpk for him, andhe shall be clean” (v. 20; cf. v. 31), and rhEf:w] tyiB"h"Al[" rP<kIw], “so he shall makerpk for the house, and it shall be clean” (v. 53). Here l[ rpk with a personand l[ rpk with a nonhuman object are functionally equivalent.

On the debit side, Kiuchi has not adequately taken into account Lev16:16a, where l[ rpk followed by vd,QOh", “the [most] holy place,” is then fol-lowed by ˆm + evils that are removed by the rpk activity. Here l[ rpk with anonhuman object clearly means “purge/purify,” as Milgrom says it does. So ifthe meaning of l[ rpk within the context of the tafj sacrifice is consistent,as Kiuchi claims, l[ rpk followed by a human object should indicate purga-tion/purification of the person(s), as we have found confirmed by privative ˆmin these kinds of instances (e.g., 4:26). Thus we could render l[ rpk: “effectpurgation for/on behalf of . . . ,” as Milgrom does, but with the understandingthat the relevant evil is removed from the human or nonhuman object re-ferred to by the object of the preposition l[. The phrase d[b rpk means thesame thing, but is only used with persons. The expression ta rpk means “(di-rectly) purge” and appears only with nonhuman objects because for somereason, to be considered in ch. 8 of the present study, tafj blood cannot bephysically applied to persons.

While l[ rpk in purification-offering formulas refers to removal/purgation,it does not have this meaning with other kinds of sacrifices. Only in purifica-tion-offering formulas is l[ rpk colored by the additional privative idea: rpk

(ˆm) . . . l[. Since the privative sense of removal is an addition indicated bythe explicit or implied presence of ˆm, it seems obvious that the most funda-mental sense of l[ rpk does not include the concept of removal/purgation;instead, (ˆm) . . . l[ rpk is subsumed under basic l[ rpk. In other words, al-though the basic force of l[ rpk can remain consistent, its usage with purifi-cation offerings is unique. We cannot pursue the fundamental sense of l[ rpk

68. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1079–83.69. The burnt offering is attested in early patriarchal narratives (Gen 8:20; 22:2, 7,

8, 13) before the purification offering was introduced in the context of texts dealingwith services of the wilderness sanctuary. Milgrom himself affirms the well-knownchronological priority of the burnt offering (ibid., 174–77).

Chapter 6140

here, but it would probably look something like “make amends on behalfof. . . .”70

Kiuchi finds the following:

there exist two types of hattat ceremony behind the various constructions.One could be called “the usual kipper rite” in which the priest (or Aaron)makes atonement for himself, the whole congregation, the leader and theindividual (e.g., Lev 4). The other could be called “the special kipper rite”in which Aaron (or Moses) makes atonement for sancta on special occa-sions such as the consecration days and the day of Atonement. Each ofthese two types of ceremony also forms its text-group. The former includesLev 4:1–5:13 and the relevant sections in Lev 12–15; the latter includesExod 29; Lev 8–9 (10), 16.71

While I basically agree, I would more precisely distinguish between the twogroups of rituals according to whether persons or sancta appear as indirect ob-jects of rpk. On this basis, the only rituals that fit in the sancta-purificationcategory are the initial purification of the altar (Exod 29:36–37; Lev 8:15) andthe purgation of the sanctuary and its sancta on the Day of Atonement (Exod30:10; Lev 16:16, 18, 20, 33).72 In these cases the sanctuary and/or its sanctafollow ta rpk as direct object (Lev 16:20, 33) or l[ rpk as indirect object(Exod 29:36–37; 30:10; Lev 8:15; 16:16, 18). In all other instances, includingthe inaugural sacrifices of Lev 9 (see v. 7; cf. 10:17; correcting Kiuchi), l[ rpk

or d[b rpk is followed by one or more persons as indirect object.In support of the special nature of and correspondence between the initial

purification of the outer altar and the tafj sacrifices on the Day of Atone-ment, I observe that the altar undergoes sanctification (piºel of vdq) only inthe rituals represented by Exod 29:36–37 (cf. v. 44; 40:10); Lev 8:15 (cf. Num7:1), and Lev 16:19.73 Notice that, whereas the initial purification of the altaris expressed with the piºel of afj, “purify” (Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15), Lev 16:19

70. Compare Milgrom’s understanding of rpk in the context of sacrifices otherthan the tafj: “The meaning here is that the offerer is cleansed of his impurities/sinsand becomes reconciled, ‘at one,’ with God” (ibid., 1083).

71. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 93–94.72. Cf. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 179–80.73. Cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 129. However, Kiuchi takes the excep-

tional use of l[ with aFEjI in Exod 29:36 to refer to the offering of the tafj sacrificerather than to the purification of the altar (pp. 95–96). Nevertheless, the parallel withLev 8:15 makes it clear that the altar is indeed purified on this occasion. Notice thatthe piºel of vdq does not appear in connection with the purgation of the inner andouter sanctums on the Day of Atonement, apparently because their holiness wasmore protected from the imperfections of the people than the outer altar in the court(cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1039–40).


has the piºel of rhf as functional equivalent (ª below). Thus the order of piºelverbs used in goal formulas for the initial purification of the altar (8:15) andthe order for the altar’s purification and reconsecration on the Day of Atone-ment (16:18–19) exhibit the following pattern, in which rpk chiasticallyframes the verbs for purification (afj/rhf) and consecration (vdq).

In purification-offering formulas, we have found that rP<KI and aFEjI can befollowed by nonhuman direct objects. While rP<KI in such a context neverappears with a human direct object, in Num 19:19 the direct-object suffixfollowing aFEjI refers to a person purified from corpse contamination who re-ceives direct physical application of water containing ashes from the red cow,which is a tafj sacrifice (v. 9).74 Unlike rP<KI and aFEjI, rh"fI has persons as di-rect objects even when physical ritual actions do not come in direct contactwith them (Lev 16:30; Num 8:21). So rh"fI denotes the purification process ona level of interpreted meaning that does not make distinctions based on thedirectness or indirectness of physical activity relative to the ritual goal.

J. Gammie finds that Milgrom “has failed to establish (1) that human be-ings are not purged with the ‘purgation offerings’ and (2) that every ‘purgationoffering’ purges a portion of the sanctuary or sancta.”75 Gammie contends thatpurification offerings “purge from their sins or uncleannesses the person orpersons in whose behalf they were presented (see esp. Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35;5:6).”76 I agree with Gammie’s overall conclusion regarding purification offer-ings throughout the year, not including the initial decontamination of thealtar and the inner-sanctum sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, which pri-marily purge the sanctuary. However, I would take issue with two details of hisinterpretation: (1) Following a traditional view, Gammie incorrectly regardsthe altar in Lev 16:18–19 as the altar of incense, so that there is purificationof the outer altar only at the time of its initial consecration (Exod 29:36–37),

Leviticus 8:15 16:18–19

rpk

afj Ÿ rhf

vdq = vdq

rpk

74. The phrase l[ aFEjI + person(s) is not attested in the Bible.75. J. Gammie, Holiness in Israel (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 39; cf. Kiu-

chi, The Purification Offering, 60, on stages in Lev 14, cited above.76. Gammie, Holiness in Israel, 39.

Chapter 6142

but not on the Day of Atonement.77 (2) Gammie argues the following with re-gard to passages such as Lev 4:1–5:13:

kipper takes the preposition ºal instead of ªet for a very good linguistic rea-son, namely, to remind the reader that from which the person or thing hasbeen purged, namely, sin or uncleanness. Thus ºal is frequently followedby min (e.g., Lev. 4:26; 5:6) and even when min is absent the very use of ºalcarries with it the reminder that there is a purgation from something; theparticle ªet would not convey this meaning. See also Lev. 12:8; 14:19.78

The phrase l[ rpk could serve as a reminder that something is removedonly because it serves as the functional equivalent of a longer version of theformula in which ˆm carries a privative sense. It is the presence or impliedpresence of ˆm, not a difference between l[ and ta, that is the determiningfactor.

Gammie concludes with a fascinating observation, which tracks with myearlier remarks to the effect that some interpretations rejected by Milgrom ac-tually provide strong support for aspects of his overall understanding of thepurification offering.

Under Milgrom’s view the slate was constantly being wiped clean, so tospeak, with every sin offering. Under the view argued above, the sanctuaryfor the priestly writers was far more a portrait of Dorian Gray than Mil-grom’s own theory would allow. The sin offerings purged the people fromtheir sins, but only the sin offerings once a year on the Day of Atonementpurged the tent of meeting and only the sin offerings at ordination purgedthe outer altar. Thus we may conclude: Sanctuary and sancta indeed re-flected the state of the people’s sinfulness precisely because the uncleannessesthat the former accrued were not removed at every ˙a††aªt offering.79

Conclusion

I agree with Milgrom that the tafj sacrifices at the intitial consecrationof the altar (Exod 29; Lev 8) and on the Day of Atonement (Exod 30:10; Lev16) have the function of purging the sanctuary and its sancta on behalf oftheir offerers. But controlled syntactic analysis of the rpk formulas that statethe goals/functions/meanings of the various kinds of purification offeringshas forced me to the inescapable conclusion that all other purification offer-ings (discounting the ritual of Azazel’s goat, which is not an offering) removeevil from their offerer(s), rather than from the sanctuary, as Milgrom claims.

77. Ibid., 39–41.78. Ibid., 40 n. 61.79. Ibid., 41.


In subsequent chapters we will find reinforcements for this conclusion, theimplications of which reach to the core of the dynamic meaning behind theIsraelite sacrificial system. Regarding the relative positions of Milgrom, Kiu-chi, and Gammie, I am in basic agreement with Gammie, and I am in somerespects between Kiuchi and Milgrom.

144

Chapter 7

Pollution of the Sanctuary: Aerial or Only by Direct Contact?

How does the sanctuary become contaminated so that it must be purged(ta/l[ rpk) on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16–18, 20, 27, 32–33)? Ouranalysis of prepositions and objects following rpk (ch. 6 of the present work)both points to this question and narrows the range of solutions.

Some serious moral faults pollute the sanctuary from a distance when they are committed

In Lev 20:3 and Num 19:13, 20 (cf. Lev 15:31), where evils pollute thesanctuary from a distance when they are committed, J. Milgrom has foundhis answer to the question of how the sanctuary becomes polluted. Leviticus20:3 presents God’s reaction to a person who gives any of his children to thedeity Molek: “And I myself will set my face against that man and cut him offfrom among his people, because he dedicated his offspring to Molek, thusdefiling my sanctuary and desecrating my holy name” (emphasis mine).1

Numbers 19:13 expresses the results of disobeying Yhwh’s command tohave oneself purified from corpse contamination:

Whoever touches a corpse, the body of a person who has died, and doesnot cleanse himself, defiles the Lord ’s Tabernacle; that person shall be cutoff from Israel. Since the water of lustration was not dashed on him, he re-mains unclean; his uncleanness is still upon him. (njpsv; cf. v. 20; empha-sis mine)

Here the evil that defiles the sanctuary when it occurs is not the physical rit-ual impurity of corpse contamination itself 2 but the moral fault of wantonlyneglecting to remedy the impurity. Incurring the ritual impurity of corpsecontamination is not a sin except for priests and Nazirites (Lev 21:1–4, 11;

1. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)1299, except that I have added “to Molek” (Ël<MOl"), which was somehow left out.

2. Contra B. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 457.

Pollution: Aerial or Only by Direct Contact? 145

Num 6:6–7).3 But neglecting purification when Yhwh requires it constitutesdisobedience. This is no mere inadvertence expiable by a purification offer-ing; as in Lev 20:3 the individual is “cut off ” (nipºal of trk) from Israel, thatis, he/she suffers the divine penalty of extirpation.4 Compare Lev 15:31,where neglect to be separated from genital impurity through the ritual proce-dures prescribed in ch. 15 carries the penalty of death for defilement of thesanctuary, apparently including defilement from a distance.

As recognized by Milgrom and N. Kiuchi, in Num 19:13 and 20 thesanctuary is not defiled unless a corpse-contaminated person commits theserious sin of wanton neglect to undergo purification.5 Although the hu-man corpse is a powerful source of impurity,6 there is no indication thatcorpse contamination by itself defiles the sanctuary albeit to a lesser degreethan wanton neglect. Only if a person fails to avail himself/herself of the rit-ual remedy does the condemnation of extirpation fall for failure to obeyYhwh’s command regarding decontamination. So in this case defilement ofthe sanctuary is a delayed reaction. There is no delayed reaction in Lev20:3, however, because Molech worship is a sin of commission rather thanneglect.

3. Compare Num 6:11, where a Nazirite has sinned (af:j:) inadvertently by incur-ring corpse contamination through circumstances out of his control when someonesuddenly died in close proximity to him (cf. v. 9). Here performance of a purificationoffering and a burnt offering provide rpk (v. 11), but this is not to purify the Nazirite’sphysical ritual impurity from him (cf. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in thePriestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function [JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1987] 55) or to purge this evil from the sanctuary (contra J. Milgrom, Cult and Con-science: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance [SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill,1976] 127; idem, Numbers [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1990] 47). Nor does the physical ritual impurity itself constitute a kind of sin,an idea that blurs the distinction between the two categories (contra Kiuchi, The Puri-fication Offering, 55; cf. A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus [AUSDS 3;Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979] 104). Rather, the Naziritehas committed a moral fault by violating Yhwh’s command not to incur corpse con-tamination (cf. vv. 6–7). True, he did not intend to violate the command, but it was aviolation nonetheless. As a nondefiant fault, it is expiable by sacrifice.

4. Cf. D. Wold, “The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth” (Ph.D. diss., Univer-sity of California at Berkeley, 1978) 251–55; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; NewYork: Doubleday, 1991) 457–60; idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1420–21, 1729–30, 1733–34. InLev 20:2–3 the Molek worshiper incurs two terminal punishments: trk in addition todeath by stoning (vv. 2–3). So trk goes beyond death by stoning.

5. J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num. XIX),” VT 31 (1981) 71;Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 124.

6. H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place inJudaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 1–3.

Chapter 7146

While I agree with N. Kiuchi that the sevenfold sprinkling of blood fromthe red cow toward the sanctuary (Num 19:4) has to do with purificationrather than consecration,7 his idea that this “can be viewed as an indirect wayof purifying the Tent”8 does not follow. The red cow ritual, including thesevenfold sprinkling, could not purify the sanctuary even indirectly, whateverthat means. The reason is that defilement from a corpse would not affect thesanctuary unless the decontamination rite were not performed, a circum-stance punishable by extirpation (trk), for which there is no ritual remedy(see further below).

Like a corpse-contaminated person, an individual who has committed anexpiable moral fault has an opportunity to utilize the appropriate ritual remedyand thereby escape the condemnation that is otherwise inevitable (e.g., Lev4–5). However, if a sinner who is aware of his sin wantonly neglects to bringthe proper sacrifice, he continues to bear his culpability (ˆw[ acn; cf. Lev 5:1)and presumably the penalty would be terminal, as in Num 19:13 and 20.9 Byanalogy it appears that such wanton neglect in a case of expiable sin woulddefile the sanctuary when it occurred, as in a case of corpse contamination,but the biblical text does not say this.

H. Maccoby attempts to qualify the requirement for purification fromcorpse contamination: “Only before entering the Temple was it imperative forthe average person to perform the sprinklings which purified from corpse-impurity.”10 This agrees with his view of the purity code as “a kind of palaceprotocol or etiquette, observed in the court of a monarch, but not required out-side the confines of the palace.”11 Maccoby admits that there might be someurgency even away from the sanctuary in cases of major impurity: “a leper hadto expedite his purification so that he might return to the community, and apelvic discharger so that he (she) might resume normal intercourse.”12

It is true that the sanctuary was the “palace” of Yhwh and that in significantrespects its protocol could be compared with that of a palace belonging to a

7. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 123–24.8. Ibid., 124.9. Cf. B. Schwartz: “Since no penalty is ever spoken of along with ‘bearing sin’

other than death (by divine or human agency) and karet (always a divine punishment),it must be that sin-bearing, unremedied, may lead to death” (“The Bearing of Sin inthe Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish,and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom [ed. D. Wright,D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995] 13).

10. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 27; cf. 170.11. Ibid., 9, 206.12. Ibid., 170.


human king. It is also true that the primary relevance of impurities was thenecessity to keep them separate from the holy realm (see, e.g., Lev 7:20–21;12:4). But Maccoby’s assumption that ordinary Israelites were required to pu-rify themselves only when they were about to contact sacred areas or objectsis not in the biblical text.13 The community defined in relation to Yhwh’ssanctuary/temple was to observe distinctions between the pure and the im-pure—not that life outside the sacred precincts could be totally pure at alltimes, but apparently so that the people would treat purity as the state of equi-librium compatible with the nature of the holy deity residing among them.

In Lev 15:31 obedience to God’s instructions regarding ritual impurities isa serious matter: “You shall set apart the Israelites from their impurity, lestthey die through their impurity by polluting my Tabernacle which is amongthem.”14 D. Hoffmann interpreted this to mean that only an impure personwho enters the sacred precincts is condemned to death.15 Similarly, since Lev15:31 refers to death rather than extirpation, H. C. Brichto suggests that theverse “anticipates death as a possible risk incurred by defiling the sancta bymaking contact with them in a state of impurity.”16 However, Kiuchi rightlychallenges as unnecessary the assumption that death results from actual entryof the impure person into the sanctuary.17

How do persons in the above cases pollute the sanctuary? Simply by dis-obeying God’s cultic commandments, either by (apparently wanton) neglectof the purity rule that protects the holy realm from corpse contamination(Num 19:13, 20) or by participation in an alternate worship system that hon-ors another deity, such as Molek, at the expense of their children (Lev 20:3).

Ezekiel 23:37–39 speaks of the temple’s defilement when wanton sinnerscome there to worship Yhwh, thereby adding hypocrisy and direct pollutionof the sanctuary to their sins (cf. Jer 7:9–11, 30–31). But there is no indicationin Lev 15:31; 20:3; Num 19:13 and 20 that defilement of the sanctuary occurs

13. Maccoby’s view raises problems, such as the rationale for purification of an im-mobile “leprous” house (Lev 14:33–53), unless it is assumed that something sacredwould be brought into the house.

14. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1292; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 903.Kiuchi argues that in this verse, as in Num 19:13, 20, pollution of the sanctuary iscaused by failure to observe the purity laws rather than by contraction of the physicalritual impurity itself (Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 61–62).

15. D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6) 430. Hoffmannconnected Lev 15:31 with the warning in 16:2 regarding the high priest’s entrance intothe holy of holies (cf. p. 433).

16. H. C. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47(1976) 33.

17. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 61–62.

Chapter 7148

only if wrongdoers physically enter the sacred precincts, whether during orafter the time when they commit their sins.18

In Lev 20:3 and Num 19:13 and 20 the offenders are “cut off ” (trk) because(yKI; Num 19:20) thus/thereby (ˆ["m"l}; Lev 20:3) they have defiled (piºel pf. ofamf; Num 19:13, 20) the sanctuary. The effect is simultaneous with thecause.19 It is this effect on the sanctuary, which does not depend on the sin-ner’s direct contact with sacred places or things, for which he/she receivespunishment.

If defiling the sanctuary depended on going there, a person neglecting pu-rification could avoid extirpation simply by staying away. But the “teeth” ofthe law reach further: punishment for defilement of the sanctuary resultingfrom neglect is inevitable, implying that such neglect inevitably defiles thesanctuary.

We must remember that we are investigating the world of ritual. In thematerial realm, an object or person is necessarily moved from point A topoint B and then from point B to point C, and so on. But the genius of rit-ual is that it can involve human interaction with transcendent or non-material entities such as God, sins, and ritual impurities, which are notsubject to mundane material constraints. This stretches our imagination,even in our modern technological age. Although we have telephones, ra-dios, television, and now the Internet, human physical contamination can-not be instantly transmitted in this way. Your computer may contract adevastating digital “virus” spawned halfway around the world, but yourbody cannot even catch a minor cold when you talk to a sick person on thetelephone.

If we entertain the possibility that the real point of ritual is not physicalmovements but changes in relationships between parties and other entitiesbelonging to the mundane and supramundane realms, we can find analo-gies for instantaneous transfers. For example, when members of PresidentReagan’s government engaged in illegal Iran-Contra activities, they simul-taneously created a problem for Reagan’s reputation. Similarly, a Molek

18. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257–58; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 394; idem, “The Graduated Óa††aªt of Leviti-cus 5:1–13,” JAOS 103 (1983) 251; D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: EliminationRites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta:Scholars, 1987) 19 n. 10; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 61–62.

19. It appears that the Qumran community made an additional application ofthis principle: sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman pollutes the temple(CD 5:6).


worshiper in the land of Israel would automatically, by his very actions, castthe divine ruler of his land into disrepute.

In defending the rabbinic understanding of Num 19:13, according towhich a corpse-contaminated individual defiles the sacred precincts only if heor she enters it without proper purification (t. Sebu. 1.8; cf. Rashi on Num19:13),20 Maccoby does not see why the Torah should prohibit entrance intothe sanctuary/temple in an unclean state (Lev 12:4) if impurity behaves as Mil-grom postulates (“Since impurity acts at a distance, it is just as offensive to beimpure outside the Temple as in it”).21 Milgrom responds that deliberate con-tact with holy things in the sacred precincts while in a state of impurity resultsin immediate death by divine or human agency (Lev 10:1–3; Num 18:1–7)rather than the delayed penalty of extirpation incurred for such contact out-side the sanctuary (Lev 7:20, 21).22

I must agree with Milgrom that there is a great difference between havinga state of impurity inside the sanctuary versus outside it. The former necessar-ily brings impurity into direct contact with the sacred; the latter does not.There is no punishment simply for being impure outside the sanctuary. Eventhough sacrifices are required for purification from severe physical impurity,this is not punishment for wrongdoing and the cost is far less than death or ex-tirpation, indicating a much lower degree of offensiveness to Yhwh.

Related to the rabbinic view of Maccoby is that of G. Wenham: “Thus thedeath of someone in the camp could pollute all those in it, and this woulddefile the tabernacle of the Lord (13, 20) unless preventive measures weretaken.”23 Presumably Wenham means that the contamination would spreadthrough the camp by physical contact and sooner or later an affected personwould unknowingly contaminate the sanctuary. But the text does not hint atsuch an indirect effect on the sanctuary. Milgrom’s conclusion with regard toLev 20:3 and Num 19:13, 20 remains unrefuted: sins pollute the sanctuaryfrom a distance when they are committed.

Maccoby justifies inclusion of the rabbinic qualification that in Num19:13 the corpse-contaminated person defiles the sanctuary only “if he should

20. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 167. This view is also accepted by A. Rodríguez,“Transfer of Sin in Leviticus,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature ofProphecy (ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Insti-tute, 1986) 169, 173–76.

21. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 170.22. J. Milgrom, “Impurity Is Miasma: A Response to Hyam Maccoby,” JBL 119

(2000) 731.23. G. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC: Leicester:

Inter-Varsity, 1981) 145.

Chapter 7150

enter it,” which Milgrom rejects, by referring to other biblical passages inwhich Milgrom allows for ellipses.24 But Milgrom counters that the principleof ellipsis is dangerous if applied indiscriminately to make arguments fromsilence. He demonstrates that purported ellipses are not created equal butmust be considered on a case by case basis and can be accepted as genuineonly if they “are either derivable from the text or are fleshed out elsewhere,”which Maccoby’s 19:13 ellipsis is not.25

Because Maccoby contends that sin with regard to impurity is incurredonly when a person who knows himself to be impure enters sacred areas orcomes in contact with sacred foods (see above), he concludes with regard toother circumstances: “Even to remain in a state of impurity is not a sin.”26 Sohe regards Milgrom’s idea that impurity grows to become sinful if purificationis delayed as an eisegetical assumption of an ellipsis: “if purification is de-layed.”27 Milgrom effectively counters that the principle of delay is derivedfrom the text: Lev 5:2–3 and 6–13 require a “graduated” (= rabbinic “ascend-ing and descending”) tafj sacrifice for minor impurities, which ordinarilyneed no sacrificial remedy, implying a delay between initial contraction ofthe impurity and the time when the Israelite’s awareness of it reawakens.28 In17:16 there is serious culpability for neglecting to purify oneself from the mi-nor impurity of eating from a carcass. “Why? Not because he might enter thesanctuary while impure. His very neglect to purify himself is sinful and pun-ishable. The only possible reason, I submit, is that his minor impurity will be-come major and pollute the sanctuary.”29

At this point we must be careful to avoid confusing the categories of physi-cal ritual impurity and sin. Milgrom’s theory that delayed purification ofphysical ritual impurities causes/allows them to become major impuritiescould be taken to assume quantitative growth of the same impurities. But herecognizes that in Lev 5 the graduated purification offering is for the inadvert-ent (and therefore expiable) disobedience of neglecting purification,30 asshown by the fact that it effects purgation with regard to the sin that the per-son has committed (emphasized by af:j: rv≤a“, “that he has sinned/commit-ted”), prerequisite to forgiveness (vv. 6, 10, 13), rather than from physical

24. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 172–74.25. Milgrom, “Impurity Is Miasma,” 729–30.26. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 38, cf. 172, 174.27. Ibid., 174; cf. 189–91.28. Milgrom, “Impurity Is Miasma,” 730.29. Ibid.30. Ibid., 731.


impurity so that he/she becomes pure (cf. 12:7–8; 15:15, 30). So the growth ofimpurity during delay is not simply quantitative; it involves a qualitative trans-formation from physical ritual impurity to moral fault.

Milgrom’s “miasma” theory is based on his general theory of the tafj sacrifice, which generalizes from specific cases of automatic defilement

Generalizing from the special cases of cultic sin in Lev 20:3 and Num19:13 and 20, Milgrom deduces that other kinds of imperfections, includingexpiable inadvertencies and some serious physical impurities, always defilethe sanctuary when they occur.31 Integrating this concept with the gradationof locations in which purification-offering blood is applied to the sanctuary—outer altar, outer sanctum, and inner sanctum—he concludes that the moreserious the sin, the deeper it penetrates into the sanctuary, where its pollutionmust subsequently be remedied by tafj blood applied to the same loca-tions.32 This accords with his conclusion regarding rpk with prepositions ordirect objects: purification offerings always purge components of the sanctu-ary to which their blood is physically applied. Thus Milgrom crystallizes hisgeneral theory of the tafj sacrifice:

The dynamic, aerial quality of biblical impurity is best attested by itsgraded power. Impurity pollutes the sanctuary in three stages: (1) The in-dividual’s inadvertent misdemeanor or severe physical impurity pollutesthe courtyard altar, which is purged by daubing its horns with the ˙a††aªtblood (4:25, 30; 9:9). (2) The inadvertent misdemeanor of the high priestor the entire community pollutes the shrine, which is purged by the highpriest by placing the ˙a††aªt blood on the inner altar and before the pa-roket (4:5–7, 16–18). (3) The wanton unrepented sin not only pollutes theouter altar and penetrates into the shrine but it pierces the veil and entersthe adytum, housing the holy Ark and kapporet, the very throne of God(cf. Isa 37:16). Because the wanton sinner is barred from bringing his

31. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 256–58; idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 392–94; interest-ingly, long ago A. F. Ballenger reached the same conclusion with regard to expiablesins by generalizing from the same passages (Cast Out for the Cross of Christ [River-side, California: A. F. Ballenger, 1911?] 58–62).

32. In “Two Kinds of Óa††aªt,” VT 26 (1976) 336, Milgrom explains the differencebetween eaten and burnt tafj sacrifices in terms of degrees of purgation. The sacri-fice that is eaten by the officiating priest purges only the outer altar after it is affectedby a minimal incursion of impurity caused by the inadvertentent fault of an individ-ual. But the burnt purification offering removes dangerously contagious impurity thathas penetrated into the outer sanctum and adytum. Because the carcass may be in-fected during the process of purgation, it cannot be eaten by the priest.

Chapter 7152

˙a††aªt (Num 15:27–31), the pollution wrought by his offense must awaitthe annual purgation of the sanctuary on the Day of Purgation, and it con-sists of two steps: the purging of the adytum of the wanton sins and thepurging of the shrine and outer altar of the inadvertent sins (Lev 16:16–19).Thus the entire sacred area or, more precisely, all that is most sacred . . . ispurged on Purgation Day (yôm hakkippurîm) with the ˙a††aªt blood.

In this way the graded purgations of the sanctuary lead to the conclusionthat the severity of the sin or impurity varies in direct relation to the depthof its penetration into the sanctuary.33

I agree that moral faults have a defiling effect that must be removed and thatthis pollution affects the sanctuary.34 Even H. Maccoby, who argues that rit-ual “is about holiness, not about morality,” acknowledges: “yet it is also aboutmorality at a second remove, for holiness is for the sake of morality.”35 WithMilgrom, I would contend that holiness and morality are more integrally con-nected because morality is part of holiness and some Israelite rituals are aboutmorality.36

According to Milgrom, three sources of severe ritual impurity automati-cally (i.e., apart from human will) generate impurity that affects the sanctu-ary “aerially” as a kind of “miasma” (i.e., from a distance without directcontact): the parturient (Lev 12), the person with an abnormal genital dis-charge (ch. 15), and the scaly-skin diseased (so-called “leprous”) person (chs.13–14). Milgrom’s conclusion that these sources automatically generate “mi-asma” is based on his general purification-offering theory, according to whichpollution of the sanctuary has already taken place whenever the tafj sacri-fice is prescribed.37 Since purification offerings at the sanctuary are normallyrequired to remedy these three impurities, even though no sin of neglect isinvolved, Milgrom concludes that these physical impurities themselves pol-lute the sanctuary.

Milgrom regards the corpse-contaminated person as a bearer of weaker im-purity than the sources of automatic “miasma” because the former is notobliged to offer a purification offering at the sanctuary.38 It makes sense thatcorpse contamination is weaker because, unlike the other cases of major im-purity, it is secondary. The primary source is the corpse itself, which is dead,

33. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 393.34. Against Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 171, 176, 191–92.35. Ibid., 204; cf. 205.36. See, for example, J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday,

2001) 2440–46.37. Milgrom, “Impurity Is Miasma,” 730.38. Idem, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 71–72; idem, Numbers, 443.


and thus only defiles within an enclosed space (Num 19:14–15; cf. v. 18), sothat it does not threaten the sanctuary.39 Milgrom concludes:

Only live humans generate unbounded miasma. The miasma is creatednot through magic, but by disobedience. Either the person violates (eveninadvertently) any of the divine commandments . . . or he refuses or ne-glects to undergo purification (e.g., 5:2–13; Num 19:13, 20). Only if hehimself is the source of severe (ritual) impurity (e.g., bearing certain genitalor skin diseases) do we find a residue of automatically generated miasma.Otherwise, it is only the product of the human will.40

While corpse contamination carried by living persons is secondary, itspower should not be underestimated.41 For one thing, it is only in connectionwith corpse contamination that purification procedures necessitate a priortafj sacrifice (the red cow to provide ashes) performed outside the camp(Num 19:1–10a), which suggests caution to keep this kind of defilement awayfrom the sanctuary.42 Furthermore, it is precisely here that automatic defile-ment is attested in connection with treatment of a specific kind of physical rit-ual impurity (vv. 13, 20).

Also based on Milgrom’s general tafj theory is his deduction that, whileLev 17:16 does not say that the bearing of culpability for neglecting to purifyoneself from the impurity of eating from a carcass is due to pollution of thesanctuary from a distance, it may be assumed on the basis of Num 19:13 and20, where this mode of contamination is explicit.43 However, in order to

39. Idem, “Impurity Is Miasma,” 731; see now idem, Leviticus 23–27, 2460.40. Ibid.41. T. Frymer-Kensky emphasizes the extreme severity of corpse contamination,

which brought a person in contact with the world of death (“Pollution, Purification,and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth [ed. C. L.Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983] 399–400.Cf. D. Wright on Num 19:13, 20: “Since corpse contamination does not normallypollute the sanctuary, one might think the sanctuary pollution here is on a par withthe sanctuary pollution that is caused by inadvertently delayed non-sacrificial impu-rities according to the implications of Lev. 5.2–3—that is, that the outer altar of thesanctuary is what is polluted. But the rhetoric of Num. 19.13, 20 is much strongerthan that in Lev. 5.2–3 and hints that a greater pollution occurs” (“The Spectrumof Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel [ed. G. A. Andersonand Saul M. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991] 161). On the rab-binic view of the corpse as “the Father of Fathers of Impurity,” see H. Harrington,The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations (SBLDS143; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 147–50.

42. Cf. F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the PriestlyTheology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 196, 199.

43. Milgrom, “Impurity Is Miasma,” 730–33.

Chapter 7154

control the transfer of information from Num 19 to Lev 17, it is appropriate toask the question: does Lev 17 have to do with the same kind of pollution asNum 19? It is true that both are delayed physical ritual impurities, but theformer is initially a minor, one-day impurity (Lev 17:15), and the latter is ini-tially a major, seven-day impurity (Num 19:11–12, 14, 16, 19). The fact thatpollution of the sanctuary at a distance is only mentioned in connection withthe initially severe case of corpse contamination means that assuming this dy-namic in the initially minor case of Lev 17 is to argue on shaky ground be-cause it is the reverse of a fortiori reasoning. But Milgrom has anotherargument left: In Lev 17:16 the impurity for which purification is delayed hasbecome sinful and dangerous, which shows that it has grown into a form thatpollutes the sanctuary from a distance as miasma.44 How does he know this?Because according to his foundational general tafj theory, all sins pollutethe sanctuary in this way.

Only inner-sanctum purification offerings on the Day of Atonement can remove automatic defilement

Milgrom holds that all purification offerings throughout the year removepollution that has already reached the sanctuary automatically/aerially atthe time when a sin or severe ritual impurity occurred. However, this dy-namic of defilement is attested only in certain kinds of serious cultic offenses:Molek worship and non-indadvertent neglect to undergo purification fromsevere physical ritual impurity. The penalties for these offenses are terminal,whether extirpation (Lev 20:3; Num 19:13, 20) or death (Lev 15:31).45 Fol-lowing condemnation to such punishment, no sacrificial expiation prereq-uisite to forgiveness is available to benefit the individual offender, eventhough contamination of the sanctuary must be removed by the special pu-rification offerings on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16). It is true that theseinner-sanctum sacrifices purge the sanctuary on behalf of the priestly andlay communities. However, contrary to ubiquitous misconception, no cor-porate or individual forgiveness (jls) is attested in the Bible as a goal of theDay of Atonement rituals (see ch. 10 of the present volume).

The fact that automatic defilement and sacrificial expiation benefiting thesinner are mutually exclusive rules out importation of the former into pas-

44. Ibid., 730.45. Rodríguez, “Transfer of Sin,” 105 n. 1. On the seriousness of such cases, see

D. Wright, “Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible,” Koroth 9(1988) 186; idem, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” 161–63.


sages such as Lev 4–5, 12–15 to explain how the sanctuary becomes defiled inconnection with purification offerings for expiable inadvertent offenses orsevere physical ritual impurities. The fact that automatic defilement does notoperate in cases of sin or impurity for which the sinner or impure person canreceive the benefit of rpk excludes this dynamic from all cases remedied bypurification offerings performed on days other than the Day of Atonement.

In Lev 15:31 and Num 19:13 and 20, punishable defilement of the sanctu-ary occurs only when physical ritual impurity is not handled properly—thatis, when there is a sin with regard to this impurity. Therefore, there is no clearevidence for automatic defilement of the sanctuary by any kind of physicalritual impurity itself.46

My conclusion regarding automatic defilement is confirmed by the purifi-cation-offering formulas analyzed in the previous chapter (ch. 6) of this book:outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings purge (rpk) evils from(privative ˆm) their offerers, rather than from the sanctuary. So in these kindsof cases, moral faults or physical ritual impurities could not have affected thesanctuary from a distance when they occurred. Following the initial conse-cration of the sanctuary, only the inner-sanctum sacrifices of the Day ofAtonement, which purge the sanctuary, could remedy automatic defilement.So although the tripartite gradation of Milgrom’s general tafj theory (seeabove) is neat and symmetrical, the first two gradations (outer altar and outersanctum polluted automatically by expiable inadvertent faults) do not work.

I agree with Maccoby that the purpose of purification offerings for sinthroughout the year is to expiate the sin of the offerer as “part of a process of‘atonement’ or reconciliation with God”47 rather than to cleanse the sanctu-ary. In the next chapter (ch. 8), I will also agree with him that the cleansingof the sanctuary includes removal of defilement that has affected it “throughthe operation of the sacrificial services themselves.”48 But I do not restrict themode of the sanctuary’s pollution in Num 19:13 and 20, as Maccoby does, tothe knowing or unknowing entrance of impure priests or lay Israelites into thesacred precincts.49 Leviticus 20:3 and Num 19:13 and 20 deal with defile-ment of the sanctuary when certain serious cultic sins occur. However, there

46. With Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 61–62.47. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 171; cf. 178–80, 192.48. Ibid., 180.49. Ibid. Interestingly, according to m. Óag. 3:7–8, which Maccoby cites (pp. 187–

88), contamination of movable Second Temple vessels by direct contact was removedby immersion in water (cf. Lev 6:21[28]; 11:32; 15:12, 17; Num 31:23) rather than bythe blood of purification offerings.

Chapter 7156

is no contradiction with the formulas of outer-altar and outer-sanctum purifi-cation offerings because these formulas do not apply in Lev 20:3 and Num19:13 and 20. Here the wrongdoers are simply condemned to extirpation(trk), with no possibility of receiving the benefit of sacrificial expiation. Nei-ther do such formulas apply to Lev 17:16, where the person who neglects pu-rification simply bears his culpability (/n/[“ ac…n;w]), which would presumablylead to terminal punishment (see above). So if we were to establish a con-nection between Num 19:13 and 20 and Lev 17:16 in order to argue withMilgrom for automatic transfer of evil in the latter (see above), it would beon the basis that both deal with inexpiable offenses.

The bottom line is that I continue to agree with Milgrom that Lev 20:3and Num 19:13 and 20 involve some kind of automatic dynamic. My differ-ences with him concern the mode of the sanctuary’s defilement by evils thatare expiated by outer-altar and outer-sanctum tafj sacrifices.

Whether Milgrom continues to agree with himself is another question. Inhis recently released Leviticus 17–22 commentary, he now shows surprisingambivalence concerning the idea of pollution from afar in Lev 20:3:

Whereas physical impurity in P pollutes the sanctuary from afar (vol.1.254–61), H’s metaphoric impurity apparently pollutes only by directcontact. This can be deduced from the fact that the land can be pollutedonly by those living in it. To be sure, the worship of Molek pollutes thesanctuary (20:3), ostensibly from afar, but Ezek 23:29 [sic 23:39] relatesthat Molek devotees (in the Valley of Hinnom below the Temple) wouldalso worship in the Temple on the same day and thereby pollute by directcontact.50

To complicate matters further, while Milgrom has continued to defend aerialmiasma in Num 19:13 and 20 against Maccoby (see above), he agrees withI. Knohl that v. 13 probably belongs to H, although he does not find adequateevidence for Knohl’s opinion that v. 20, where the terminology is somewhatdifferent, should also be attributed to H.51 In Leviticus 17–22 Milgrom re-gards Lev 15:31, regarding the physical ritual impurity of genital discharges,as “P’s only explicit statement” that evil pollutes the sanctuary.52 However,earlier in the same volume he attributes this verse to H, again with Knohl.53

If Lev 15:31; 20:3; and Num 19:13 go to H, and if H’s metaphoric impurity

50. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1353; cf. 1374, 1379–80, and esp. 1734–35.51. Ibid., 1344; cf. I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the

Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 93–94, 105.52. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1734.53. Ibid., 1343; cf. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 69–70, 105.


apparently defiles only by direct contact, Milgrom is left with Num 19:20 asunambiguous evidence for his miasma idea.

Without entering the debate with respect to attribution of material to P orH, I note that Lev 16:16 strongly implies support for the existence of one kindof pollution that affects the sanctuary from a distance. It is called [væP<, usuallytranslated “transgression.” In pentateuchal ritual law, this term appears onlyin 16:16 and 21, where the “transgressions” of the Israelites are purged fromthe sanctuary on the Day of Atonement by inner-sanctum purification offer-ings and from the camp by the ritual of Azazel’s goat. In ch. 13 we will pursuethe trajectories of the various categories of evil, but here it suffices to ask rhe-torically: How did the “transgressions” get to the sanctuary if not in the“aerial” manner indicated by the plain sense of Lev 20:3; Num 19:13 and 20?By “plain sense” I mean: without importing assumptions from sources such asEzekiel.

P. Jenson recognizes that Milgrom’s immediate defilement may apply tosome kinds of cases but not others, and Kiuchi may also be correct that thesanctuary is contaminated when a person comes there to be purified. Jensonsuggests: “It may be that Milgrom is right for general corporate contexts(e.g., Lev. 15.31), whereas Kiuchi is right for the ritual response to individ-ual impurity.”54

While I think Jenson’s idea is potentially productive, the corporate versusindividual distinction here can be misleading because Lev 15:31 undoubt-edly also refers to the obligation of individuals to be purified when necessary.Moreover, 20:3 and Num 19:13 and 20 address individual sins that are explic-itly said to defile the sanctuary, that is, simply by their commission. Neverthe-less, the corporate/individual distinction could hold up in the sense that allsins for which individual expiation at the sanctuary is allowed defile the sanc-tuary when that ritual remedy is performed (with Kiuchi), but sins that are in-expiable on the individual level and thus can be ritually dealt with only bycorporate removal from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement defile thesanctuary when the sin is committed (with Milgrom).55

54. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 157 n. 2, referring to Kiuchi, The Purifi-cation Offering, 61.

55. Outside the corpus of pentateuchal ritual texts, Jeremiah describes the effect ofidolatrous sins perpetrated by Judah:

The guilt (tafj) of Judah is inscribedWith a stylus of iron,Engraved with an adamant pointOn the tablet of their hearts,And on the horns of their altars. (Jer 17:1; njpsv).

Chapter 7158

Automatic defilement is nonmaterial in natureAs an alternative to Milgrom’s miasma approach, Maccoby offers the fol-

lowing possibility:

if, at one time, the whole “camp” (not just the sanctuary) was regarded asholy, then it is understandable that, when this view was reigning, to remainin a state of impurity was regarded as undesirable. Even minor impuritieswould need to be washed off quickly, not because such delayed impuritiesaccumulated and formed a miasma that flew through the air until itreached the sanctuary, but because they polluted a holy area (the camp)just by staying where they were.56

The fact is that the Pentateuch simply does not specify the way in which theserious cultic offenses of dedication to Molek and neglect to purify fromcorpse contamination are transferred to the sanctuary. This gap in our knowl-edge need not trouble us, however, because we are dealing with the world ofritual, which is not limited by constraints operating in the mundane materialsphere.

That Israelite rituals are not bound by mundane rules of physical causeand effect is confirmed by other examples:

1. In Num 19:14–15, persons and open vessels in a tent where someone has died become unclean, whether or not they directly contact the corpse.57

56. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 186; compare A. Büchler, who held with regardto Num 19:20 that the mere presence of the corpse-contaminated individual in God’scamp defiles the sanctuary (Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature ofthe First Century [LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967] 265).

57. While Maccoby rejects Milgrom’s miasma theory in Num 19:13 and 20 andelsewhere, he acknowledges communication of corpse impurity at some distancethrough empty space by the “tent” principle—that is, being present in the same en-closed space (Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 4, 6–7, 16, 20–22, 32–33, 141–48). Mac-coby also points out that defilement by carrying an object that has been under aperson with a pelvic discharge (Lev 15:10), regarded by the rabbis as applying a forti-ori in cases of corpse impurity, can occur even without direct contact (pp. 7–8).

At first glance this could be taken to mean that according to Jeremiah idolatry in gen-eral, without restriction to Molek worship, pollutes the horns of the altar. However,apart from the fact that this is a prophetic metaphorical expression rather than a goalformula of a ritual text, it is “their altars” that are polluted, rather than Yhwh’s legiti-mate altar belonging to the centralized cult of the temple in Jerusalem. Nevertheless,this passage is interesting in that it suggests Jeremiah’s awareness of correspondencebetween the peoples’ moral condition and the ritual state of cultic objects, to whichMilgrom has eloquently drawn our attention (“Israel’s Sanctuary,” 397–98; Leviticus1–16, 260; cf. 288 on Jer 17:1).


2. “Uncleannesses” (taOm}F¨) of the Israelites must be purged from the inner and outer sanctums on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16), even though purification offerings for physical ritual impurities throughout the year only involve the outer altar.

3. On the Day of Atonement, applying blood of inner-sanctum purification offerings to limited parts of each sanctum and of the outer altar (Lev 16:14–19) cleanses the entire tripartite sanctuary (vv. 20, 33).

4. Carcasses of inner-sanctum purification offerings, which are never brought in direct contact with the sanctuary’s pollution inside the Tent or on the outer altar, are nevertheless polluted by the sanctuary’s defilement and so contaminate those who dispose of them (Lev 16:27–28).

5. Those who participate in the burning of the red cow become ritually impure even though its ashes only contact corpse contamination at a later time (Num 19).

6. A scale-diseased (so-called “leprous”) house contaminates all that is contained in it,58 but this contamination does not take effect until the priest inspects the house and verifies that it is, in fact, ritually impure. Anything removed from the house before that point is exempt from defilement (Lev 14:36). So, although this pollution has a physical manifestation (cf. vv. 34–35), its “contagious” effect on contents of the house is legal rather than physical in nature.59 No material change in the contents is wrought by impurity suddenly unleashed at the moment of the priest’s pronouncement. Rather, the status of the contents simply goes with the status of the house. A partial analogy could be found in modern real estate law, according to which movable property belonging to a seller must be removed from his house before the close of escrow transfers ownership of the house, and any contents thereof, to the buyer.

That dynamics such as these defy ordinary norms of cause and effect is simplysymptomatic of the fact that rituals reflect a conceptual system that transcendsphysical considerations. Consequently, with H. Maccoby I feel no compul-sion to regard defilement as a kind of physical substance or force, such as gas,miasma, radiation, or electricity.60 However, although I do not accept Mil-grom’s view of Israelite impurity as “a physical substance, an aerial miasma

58. For contamination within an enclosed space, compare communication ofcorpse impurity by the “tent” principle in Num 19:14–15.

59. Ibid., 126–28.60. Ibid., 19–22, 169.

Chapter 7160

that possessed magnetic attraction for the realm of the sacred,”61 I could agreethat it is quasi-physical, and his recognition of impurity’s dynamic naturehelps to put us on a productive track: because the defilement in question isconceptual, it can have an effect through space in the sense that it causes achange of state to occur at a distance.62 Words such as miasma or ray63 maybe helpful as metaphors for explaining to the modern mind a dynamic thatconnects objects located at some distance from each other, provided it is clearthat in our ritual context they do not refer to literal physical substances subjectto physical constraints in the material world, such as the time it takes formiasma or even radiation to spread.64

“Legal” and “biological” approaches to sin are intertwined in the purification-offering system

Already in Studies in Sin and Atonement, published in 1927, A. Büchlerused miasma, a Greek word for pollution, to describe an early Hebrew con-ception of sin as a kind of deadly sickness that infects the sinner and hiswhole neighborhood, creating a need for cleansing and healing.65 This ap-proach to sin reflects the realization that sin “is something deeper than anoffense at law, a breach of a regulation. . . . The sin and the sinner were iden-tified, and must be separated. Much more drastic and positive remedies wererequired than legal process could supply. It was more than the ‘anger’ of anoffended deity that sin involved, or the damage done his ‘honor’ that must beoffset by placating words or deeds (as in mediaeval theology).”66

Rather than attempting to separate the “legal” and “biological/purifica-tory” approaches to sin in pentateuchal ritual law by establishing that one orthe other is “correct” or “original,”67 I see both as inextricably interwoven to-gether. The “legal” aspect has quasi-biological ramifications, and the “biolog-ical” is at the same time legal.

61. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 392.62. J. Porter recognized: “In the priestly theology, sin is an objective, quasi-physical

thing—hence, even if committed inadvertently, its consequences cannot be avoided—and so not sharply distinguished from defilement or uncleanness” (Leviticus [CBC;Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976] 37).

63. “Ray” is Maccoby’s suggested analogy (Ritual and Morality, 18–19, 22), whichMilgrom regards as even better than his own “miasma” (“Impurity Is Miasma,” 733).

64. Cf. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 22.65. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement, xxvi–xxvii.66. Ibid.; cf. xxviii–xxix.67. Büchler suggests on the basis of comparative history of religion that the earliest

conception of sin was contamination and that this “preceded and underlay both theancient Hebrew and the ancient Greek religions” (ibid., xxvi).


For example, inadvertently breaking one of Yhwh’s laws (e.g., Lev 4:2, 13,22, 27) clearly has legal implications. But the remedy is a purification offeringthat purges (rpk) the moral pollution from (privative ˆm) the offerer, followingwhich he/she is forgiven (jls) by Yhwh (4:20, 26, 31, 35). Also, on the Dayof Atonement, the accumulated moral faults of the Israelites are purged from(ˆm . . . rpk) Yhwh’s sanctuary, resulting in the moral purification of thepeople, provided that they obey Yhwh’s commandments to practice self-denial and abstain from work (ch. 16). Perhaps the clearest symbiosis betweenthe legal and purificatory aspects is found in the ritual of Azazel’s goat: thehigh priest (legally) confesses while leaning both hands on the goat, therebytransferring the sins of Israel to it (16:21). After the goat carries away this toxicload, the man who has come in close contact with it by leading it into the wil-derness must purify himself (v. 26).

Since the cult uses animals and application of material substances at aphysical structure, it naturally lends itself to expression of the “biological.”But the legal is also physically represented at the sanctuary, indeed in themost revered location, in the form of law tablets encased within the ark of thecovenant (Exod 25:16, 21; 40:20).

Why should the cult treat sin with such ambivalence? Sin is a complexphenomenon, so its effects must be addressed in a complex way. The “legal”and “biological” are metaphors for a larger reality, in which sin affects rela-tionships and states involving the sinner and God, God’s law, and the sinner’senvironment, including consequences that can occur in the physical world.Remedies for sin address these relationships and states. It is not enough tospeak of freedom from legal condemnation on the one hand, nor does recog-nition of physical or psychological “healing” suffice on the other hand. Legalterminology in the context of relationships involved in cultic expiation refersto, or at least implies, more than it would in the nonritual realm of humanjurisprudence. Conversely, terms of pollution, implying a kind of “sickness,”refer to more than physical “curses” eventuating from sin. They also have todo with the deleterious effects of human evil on divine-human relationships.This explains why sin can pollute like miasma, but in cases such as the “lep-rous” house, this pollution can behave more like a legal category than aphysical substance subject to constraints operating in the material world (seeabove on Lev 14:36).

As Büchler keenly observed, expressing the remedy for sin in terms ofcontamination and cleansing keeps its legal aspects from becoming “lega-listic.” When Isaiah uses language of cleansing to urge for repentance andconversion (1:16–20), it “is no legalistic notion of release from penalty, or

Chapter 7162

cancellation of guilt, but something vastly deeper in human experience, andfar deeper in the history of the human race, namely cleansing within, theresolution to ‘sin no more,’ the power to cease from sinning and be acceptedbefore the God of all Righteousness and Goodness.”68

By bringing together the views of sin as legal wrong and sin as pollution,the Israelite ritual system addressed not only the legal standing of Yhwh’speople but also their moral state. It showed the way not only to freedom fromcondemnation, but also to development of healthy character. We will find theclimax of this combination in observances of the Day of Atonement, whichaffirmed freedom from condemnation for those of loyal character (Lev16:29–31). In the process, the great Day affirmed the just character of Israel’sdivine King.

ConclusionSome cultic sins defile the sanctuary when they are committed, that is, au-

tomatically, by what could be called a metaphorical/conceptual miasma orray that is not subject to physical constraints (Lev 20:3; Num 19:13, 20; cf.Lev 15:31). However, sacrificial rpk through outer-altar or outer-sanctum pu-rification offerings, prerequisite to forgiveness, is not available to the offendersin such cases. While the sanctuary and camp are cleansed of such evils on theDay of Atonement (cf. Lev 16), the sinners themselves are condemned to ter-minal punishment. Therefore, in harmony with our prior conclusion regard-ing rpk formulas (ch. 6 above), Milgrom’s theory that purification offeringsthroughout the year (Lev 4–5, 12–15, etc.) cleanse the sanctuary from evilsthat function as miasma to aerially pollute it when they occur does not work.We must look for another way that the sanctuary can be affected by expiablesins and physical ritual impurities.

68. Ibid., xxx.

163

Chapter 8

Blood or Ash Water:Detergent, Metaphorical Carrier

Agent, or Means of Passage?

J. Milgrom has pointed out an important correlation between the physicalactivity of purification offerings and their ritual goals: purification-offeringblood is never physically applied to a person, and persons are never direct ob-jects of the verb rP<KI in goal formulas of purification offerings. From this heconcludes that these sacrifices never purify their offerers.1 Rather, their bloodis “the ritual detergent employed by the priest to purge the sanctuary of theimpurities inflicted upon it by the offerer of the sacrifice.”2

In our study of the purification-offering formulas (ch. 6), we concludedthat in most instances these rituals do purify their offerers. This raises thequestion: Why don’t formulas of tafj sacrifices that purify their offerers havethese persons as direct objects of rP<KI in the same way that nonhuman objectscan function as direct objects (cf. Lev 16:20, 33)? Is this because purification-offering blood is not physically applied directly to persons as it can be to non-human objects? If so, what prevents its application to persons?

We have found that purification-offering blood purges the sanctuary onlyin two exceptional cases: initial decontamination of the outer altar, prereq-uisite to its consecration, and the inner-sanctum sacrifices of the Day ofAtonement.

Another purification offering that is exceptional in terms of the function ofits blood is the red cow ritual. Although explicitly labeled a “tafj” (Num19:9, 17), the entire cow is burned outside the camp, away from the sanctuary,after the officiating priest sprinkles some blood seven times toward the sanc-tuary (vv. 4–5). If we continue to identify purification-offering paradigms ac-cording to the loci of their blood applications, this is an “outside the camp”purification offering. The ashes of the cow, which include the rest of the

1. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 255–56; cf. idem,“Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 390–91.

2. Idem, Leviticus 1–16, 256; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 392.

Chapter 8164

blood (v. 5), are stored and later applied in water directly to persons who in-cur corpse contamination.

In the present chapter, we will first investigate dynamics involved withblood of outer-altar and outer-sanctum offerings, which remove moral faultsor physical ritual impurities from their offerers at the sanctuary. In the pro-cess, we will address a question raised by our conclusion regarding automaticdefilement of the sanctuary (ch. 7): If expiable evils do not pollute the sanc-tuary at the time when they occur, do they subsequently pollute it, and if so,how? Then we will examine the unique and paradoxical red cow ritual.

Purification-offering blood uniquely serves to carry away contamination

Why is tafj blood never physically applied to persons? On certain oc-casions, bloods of several other kinds of sacrifices are applied to persons.These include burnt and well-being offerings when the covenant betweenYhwh and Israel was established at Sinai (Exod 24:5–8), a µyaILUMI, “ordina-tion,” sacrifice for the priests (Lev 8:22–24), and a reparation offering (µva)for a person who has been healed of scaly skin disease (14:12–14, 25).3

It is clear why the covenant and priestly ordination sacrifices include ap-plication of blood to persons. In these cases the blood is also applied to an altarof Yhwh. Thus the rituals establish a blood connection, with life or death con-sequences, between the human parties and Yhwh.

Like the priests when they are ordained, the person healed of scaly skindisease receives blood on his extremities: right ear, right thumb, and rightbig toe. Also like the priests, he has oil applied to him along with blood(Lev 14:17–18, 28–29; cf. 8:30). Oil is applied to the same extremities of theformerly scale-diseased person, thereby overlaying the blood. But the priestsand their vestments are sprinkled by a combination of anointing oil andblood taken from the altar, which convey sanctity and consecrate the priests(8:30). For the formerly scale-diseased person, who receives neither anoint-ing oil nor blood from the altar, the goal is to effect rpk for (l[) him (14:18,

3. In Lev 14:6–7 the blood of a slain bird, diluted in “living” (i.e., fresh) water,is sprinkled seven times on a person healed from scale disease as part of his first-day purification ritual. But this is not a sacrifice. It is not labeled as such, it is per-formed away from the sanctuary, and no ritual connection with the sanctuary ismade (cf. D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible andin Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature [SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987]79 n. 10; F. H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in thePriestly Theology [JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990] 171).

Blood or Ash Water? 165

29).4 Notice that, even though the blood of the reparation offering is di-rectly applied to the body of the offerer, the goal formulas in 14:18 and 29refer to the person indirectly by a pronoun following the preposition l[,rather than as the direct object.

Like the reparation offering of the formerly scale-diseased person, most pu-rification offerings effect rpk for (l[) persons. In fact, such a purification of-fering immediately follows application of reparation-offering blood and oil tothe formerly scale-diseased person (v. 19; cf. vv. 30–31). So why is purification-offering blood never physically applied directly to persons?

In the chapter on rpk formulas (ch. 6 above), we have already found aclue: only tafj sacrifices have privative ˆm + evil in their rpk goal formulas.A reparation offering can have privative ˆm + evil as a result provided by Yhwh

directly (following jls in Lev 19:22) but never as a rpk goal of the sacrificeitself. So although my argumentation differs from Milgrom’s, my conclusionagrees with his on this matter: only a purification offering accomplishes pur-gation of evil. The ritual complex for the formerly scale-diseased person isparticularly instructive: of the three animal sacrifices that effect rpk for (l[)him (i.e., reparation, purification, and burnt offerings), only the purificationoffering accomplishes purgation /ta:m}FUmI, “from his impurity.” “Here, then, isincontrovertible proof that the ˙a††aªt decontaminates, purifies, and must berendered ‘purification offering,’ . . . and the verb kipper in this context has thespecific meaning of ‘purge.’ ”5

The idea that purification offerings have unique dynamic properties is con-firmed by Lev 6:20–21[27–28], which provides instructions concerning theouter-altar tafj sacrifice:

20Whatever touches its flesh shall become holy; and if any of its blood isspattered on a garment, the bespattered part shall be laundered in a holyplace. 21An earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken; if it has beenboiled in a copper vessel, that shall be scoured and flushed with water.6

Milgrom comments on the spattering of blood on a garment in v. 20[27]:

The garment does not become holy by coming into contact with the bloodof the purification offering. Instead of being confiscated by the sanctuary, as

4. The text does not say what is done with the remainder of the reparation-offeringblood. Presumably it is dashed on the sides of the altar to complete the sacrifice (cf.Lev 7:2). So it appears that at least in some sense this would (re-)establish a connectionbetween Yhwh and the offerer.

5. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 857.6. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)

1276; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 379–80.

Chapter 8166

would any object that is rendered holy, it is restored to its former status byhaving its so-called holiness effaced through washing. Thus the garment isactually treated as if it were impure, for it is impure clothing that always re-quires laundering (e.g., 11:25, 28, 40; 15:5–8, 10–11). This ambivalence ofthe purification offering, which will be present in even sharper form in thefollowing verse, should occasion no surprise. The ability of the purificationoffering to impart impurity has already been noted. . . . For its blood, hav-ing absorbed the impurity of the sanctum upon which it is sprinkled, nowcontaminates everything it touches. This characteristic of the purification-offering blood is the key that resolves the paradox of the Red Cow in Num19 . . . and it is vital to understanding the annual purgation of the sanctuaryon Yom Kippur.7

From Milgrom’s perspective, purification-offering blood always removes pol-lution from that to which it is physically applied, in this case the outer altar.For him this explains why such blood is treated as as an impure controlledsubstance in Lev 6:20, even though, paradoxically, it belongs to a most holysacrifice: the blood has purged the altar by absorbing its impurity. Becausethe blood now carries impurity, when it spatters on a garment, it contami-nates a spot that must be washed off in order to cleanse the garment.8 In Mil-

7. Ibid., 403–4; “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num. XIX),” VT 31 (1981) 64; cf.Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 129–32; in the Temple Scroll (26:10), on the Day ofAtonement the high priest must wash the blood of the people’s inner-sanctum purifi-cation-offering goat from his hands and feet. Milgrom points out that this innovationcorroborates the idea that purification offerings carry defilement (Leviticus 1–16, 1064).

8. Cf. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 129–31. Notice Milgrom’s argument,quoted above (Leviticus 1–16, 403), that impurity rather than holiness is removed be-cause the latter would cause the garment to belong to the sanctuary permanently. Tosupport the idea that contagious holiness cannot be removed, M. Haran cites Num17:3[16:38], where the censers of Korah and his company were hammered into sheetsas plating for the altar because they had become holy and therefore could not be takenfrom the sacred precincts (Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel [Winona Lake,Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1985] 176). Thus Haran and Milgrom counter the popular the-ory that the washing in Lev 6:20–21 is to remove holiness. For example, C. F. Keil andF. Delitzsch regarded this washing as avoiding profanation of holy blood that wouldoccur if it were carried out of the sanctuary on sprinkled clothes, or holy flesh if com-mon food were prepared in the same vessel (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testa-ment [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952; orig. 1874] 2:321–22. For the holiness-removaltheory, cf. M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament,with a New Translation: Leviticus (2 vols.; London: Longman, Green, Reader, andDyer, 1867–72) 1:335; A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel,1897) 486; S. R. Driver and H. A. White, The Book of Leviticus (SBONT 3; New York:Dodd, Mead, 1898) 69; B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT 1; Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903) 336; D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Pop-pelauer, 1905–6) 238–39; P. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT 1; Bonn: Hanstein,1935) 37–38; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh;



grom’s system it is logical that such blood is never applied to a person, be-cause its function is to purify part of the sanctuary rather than the offerer.9

In outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings, the offerer is the source of defilement carried by the blood

Milgrom assumes that the blood becomes impure from contact with thealtar before it spatters on the garment, most likely “that of the priest whoperforms the blood rite.”10 But the text does not qualify the spattering inthis way. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how spattering from an altar onto

9. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 255–56. According to Milgrom, contact between a per-son and a tafj sacrifice would be inconsequential because lKO in Lev 6:20 (lKO vD;q}yi

Hr;c…b}BI [G'yiArv≤a“; cf. v. 11[18]) means “whatever,” not “whoever”: “Whatever touches itsflesh shall become holy.” For Milgrom, in P sancta transmit holiness only to inanimateobjects, not to persons (pp. 443–51; idem, “Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum,”in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980 [VTSup 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981] 278–91; cf. D. Hoff-mann, Das Buch Leviticus, 238). Levine interprets lKO here (cf. v. 11) as referring topersons but not because they would contract sancta contagion. Rather, anyone whotouches tafj flesh must already be in a holy state before this contact occurs (Leviti-cus, 37–38, 40). However, this is not the sense conveyed by the imperfect of vdq (Mil-grom, Leviticus 1–16, 445).

10. Ibid., 403.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Livonia, Michigan: Dove, 1961) 461; J. Porter, Leviticus(CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 131. N. Kiuchi argues thatsince only the affected part of the garment must be washed in v. 20, that which iscleansed away must be holiness rather than impurity. “For if it were uncleanness, thislaw might well have prescribed that all the clothes should be washed” (The Purifi-cation Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function [JSOTSup 56;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987] 136; cf. R. Péter-Contesse and J. Ellington regardingthe scouring and rinsing of a bronze vessel in v. 21[28] (A Handbook on Leviticus[UBSHS; New York: United Bible Societies, 1990] 89). It is true that elsewhere wholegarments must be laundered (piºel of sbk) because they have been worn by impurepersons (11:25, 28, 40; 13:6, 34; 14:8, 9, 47; 15:5–8, etc.) or because of “disease” thatoriginates in the garments themselves (13:54, 58). But in 6:20 the situation is different:something coming from outside a garment contacts part of it. A. Baumgarten placesthis verse within the context of his theory that impurity is deviation from a normallevel of purity: If someone contacts the excessive holiness of sacrificial blood in thecourse of fulfilling his ritual role, “he and his garments must be cleansed” (“The Par-adox of the Red Heifer,” VT 43 [1993] 445). His approach raises a serious question:Why does this cleansing apply only to the purification offering and not to other most-holy sacrifices as well? Without arguing for sancta contagion, B. Levine explains that,because blood or flesh of the tafj sacrifice could only be used for its intended sacri-ficial purpose, leftover material (cf. 7:15–18 of well-being offerings) could not remainon other objects (Leviticus [JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1989] 40; cf. Rashi on 6:21; Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus, 239–40). Thismakes good sense, but again, why isn’t the rule formulated in such a way that it isgenerally applicable to other sacrifices as well?

Chapter 8168

a garment could occur within the context of a purification offering.11

Because blood is a sticky substance, when a priest would use his finger toput/daub (ˆtn) it on the horns of the outer altar (Lev 4:25, 30, 34) or incensealtar (vv. 7, 18), it would not ricochet off one of the horns onto another ob-ject. Given the small amount of blood that can be applied with a finger, itmight run down the horns a little but would not drip from them onto an-other object.

It is true that the priest disposes of the remaining blood at the base of theouter altar (4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34), but he does this by pouring it out (˚pv) ratherthan dashing it (qrz), as he does in burnt, well-being, and reparation offerings(e.g., 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2). Although tafj blood on the horns of an altar orat the base of the outer altar could get on the garment of a person by directtouching, whether careless or otherwise, this is not what Lev 6:20 is talkingabout. The verb is hzn, “spatter” or “sprinkle” (HALOT 1:683; cf. BDB 633),which means that the blood travels at least some distance through the air.Here hzn is qal, as in 2 Kgs 9:33 and Isa 63:3, indicating that the blood simplyspatters, without the control by human action that would be indicated if theverb were causative hipºil (e.g., when the priest sprinkles blood seven timesbefore the veil; Lev 4:6, 17). So in 6:20 the spattering on a garment is simplyan accident.

The time when spattering on a priest’s or layperson’s garment could occuris when blood spurts from the animal at the moment of slaughter or splashesfrom the collection vessel on the way to the altar.12 So we must seek anotherexplanation for the way in which tafj blood becomes a carrier of impurity.

N. Zohar contends that the purification offering, including its blood, can-not be defiled by absorbing impurity from the sanctuary because Lev 6:20refers to contamination caused by blood that has not yet been used for purifi-cation. The flesh and blood bear impurity before part of the blood is appliedto part of the sanctuary. Therefore the source of the impurity is not the sanc-

11. The instruction for purifying a blood-spattered garment appears in connectionwith the outer-altar purification offering, of which the flesh is cooked in a vessel andeaten. However, because this rule is set in the context of a paragraph that applies topurification offerings in general (Lev 6:17–23[24–30]), it would also regulate acciden-tal spattering of blood in an outer-sanctum purification offering (cf. m. Zeba˙. 11:1).

12. According to m. Zeba˙. 11:3, only blood that has been collected in a vessel andis fit for sprinkling must be washed from a garment. But other ways in which bloodcould get on a garment—including spattering from the neck of the animal, from thehorn or foundation of the altar, or someone gathering blood that was poured on thepavement—do not require washing.



tuary but the offerer himself.13 This is part of his argument toward the conclu-sion that purification offerings throughout the year remove sin contaminationfrom their offerers rather than from the sanctuary.

Zohar’s other points of support for his conclusion are as follows:

1. Whereas Milgrom and others restrict the reference of Lev 17:11 to the well-being offering, this verse applies to the purification offering and indicates that “blood, by virtue of its nature as animation-essence, was appointed by God to be applied to the altar, to atone before him on behalf of the people’s vpn.”14

2. In the purification offering, laying one hand on the head of the animal has basically the same meaning as when the high priest lays two hands on the head of the live goat on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:21): “it marks the transference of the sin-contamination from the person to the animal.”15 The distinction between the two hand gestures “reflects the difference of intensity involved. To the scapegoat intentional sins are being transferred, sins that are more deeply imbedded in the sinners’ vpn and require stronger dissociation, as opposed to the unintentional sins involved in the tafj ritual, for which the laying of one hand suffices.”16

3. Sin/impurity would reside in the vpn (spiritual) aspect of a sinner more than in his physical aspect. Therefore, when this evil is transferred to the animal, thereby contaminating the whole animal, it would especially affect its vpn, which is equated with its blood (Gen 9:4, etc.).17 Zohar interprets the transfer to the animal as “a process of dissociation: the sinner, regretting his sin and wishing to be rid of its residual impurity, casts it away from his person and objectifies it in a receptacle of blood. The spiritual purging which Milgrom rightly stresses in his Cult and Conscience is not an external precondition for ritual atonement, but rather is coextensive with it and indeed

13. N. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics oftafj in the Pentateuch,” JBL 107 (1988) 612.

14. Ibid., 617; cf. 611.15. Ibid., 612–13.16. Ibid., 615 n. 31; cf. 613 n. 24; E. Gerstenberger also explains the double hand-

leaning as intensified transference of sins (Leviticus: A Commentary [trans. D. Stott;OTL; Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996] 220).

17. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 613.

Chapter 8170

inseparable from it.”18 By presenting God with the disowned sin in the blood, the sinner shows his remorse and seeks forgiveness.19

4. In light of his interpretation of hN;F<j"a“ in Gen 31:39 as referring to Jacob’s having brought/transferred another animal to take the place of one of Laban’s flock that was killed, Zohar takes the basic meaning of the verb afj to be “replace/displace/transfer.” “Hence the cultic usage: the purification process effected by the tafj involves a series of substitutions/transfers. The contamination is transferred from the sinner to the animal (which is thereby substituted for him), and thence to the blood, and finally to the sanctuary.”20

Zohar suggests two possibilities for the fate of defilement once it has beentransferred to Yhwh’s altar. Either Yhwh completely annihilates the impurityon contact or “the residues of contamination, having been disowned and thusrendered less powerful, are heaped up at the altar, contained (but not eradi-cated) by God’s superior spiritual power, and finally removed to Azazel by theyearly general cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.”21

Milgrom counters Zohar with seven points:22

1. The explicit context of Lev 17:11 is that of the well-being offering.2. Zohar’s dichotomy between body and soul is foreign to the Hebrew

Bible.3. Zohar’s claim that hand-leaning implies transfer of contamination does

not accord with the facts that some sacrifices motivated solely by joy require this activity and some expiatory sacrifices do not require it.

4. The word hN;F<j"a“ in Gen 31:39 is a notorious crux in a nonpriestly text, which contextually and linguistically does not support Zohar’s idea that the piºel of afj means “replace/displace/transfer” rather than “remove sin.”

5. Zohar fails to recognize the fundamental ritual principle of pars pro toto (“part for all”) by which absorption of impurity by the blood of a purification offering could result in defilement of the entire carcass.23

18. Ibid., 614.19. Ibid.20. Ibid., 616. In n. 34 Zohar makes the qualification that he refers to substitution

only in the sense that the defilement adheres to the animal rather than to the offerer.21. Ibid., 615.22. J. Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi of the Óa††aªt: A Rejoinder,” JBL 109 (1990)

111–13.23. Cf. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 130.



6. Against Zohar’s argument that the source of defilement must be the sinner himself because the purification offering defiles before its blood is applied to the altar, Milgrom cites the red cow tafj sacrifice (Num 19), in which the pars pro toto principle operates in time as well as space: subsequent use of the ashes for purification defiles those involved in their preparation (vv. 7–8, 10).24 “Therefore, there can be no difficulty with the notion that the infected ˙a††aªt blood acts retroactively to impart impurity to objects which it (or the carcass) contacts even before it purifies the altar (Lev 6:20–21).”25 Milgrom also argues that the sinner could not be the source of contamination because he must be purified before bringing his sacrifice to the sanctuary.

7. Zohar obscures the basic antithesis of holiness and impurity in ancient Israelite cult.

I agree with Milgrom on his points 2–5 but would heavily qualify point 1. Itis true that in context the primary focus of Lev 17:11 is on the well-being of-fering. However, the rationale in this verse—that blood carries life and there-fore the Lord has assigned it to ransom human lives on the altar—stands notonly behind the prohibition against eating the blood of well-being offeringsbut also behind the prohibition against eating blood in general (vv. 10, 12; cf.vv. 13–14; 3:17; 7:26–27).26

The same rationale is also logically behind the command to bring offeringsin general to the Lord’s altar in the sanctuary (17:3–9). It is true that thematter of offerers eating (meat with) blood is irrelevant to sacrifices otherthan well-being offerings, especially burnt offerings (v. 8), from which noth-ing at all is eaten, not even by officiating priests. However, bringing thesesacrifices to the sanctuary is of crucial importance (cf. 1:3, 5, 11, 15; 4:4, 14,29, 33; 7:2).27

I agree with B. H. McLean that Zohar’s exegesis is flawed by his interpreta-tion of the sacrificial purification offering in light of the nonsacrificial ritualof Azazel’s goat.28 Furthermore, I find Zohar’s treatment of the need to

24. Cf. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 62–72.25. Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi,” 113.26. Cf. W. Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power (Balti-

more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) 21–22, 168.27. R. Gane, Leviticus–Numbers (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) 304;

cf. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 186–89; A. Schenker, “Das Zeichen des Blutesund die Gewissheit der Vergebung im Alten Testament,” MTZ 34 (1983) 203, 213.

28. B. H. McLean, “The Interpretation of the Levitical Sin Offering and the Scape-goat,” SR 20 (1991) 351–56.

Chapter 8172

cleanse the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement to be fuzzy. He explains:

What God’s presence in the sanctuary cannot tolerate is people clinging totheir sins, refusing to disown them. Such wanton infidelity is unbearable,and—if Milgrom’s notion of “magnetic” contamination is correct—it is thiswhich necessitates the purging of the sanctuary. But the purging is notachieved magic-wise by sprinkling a myseriously efficacious “ritual deter-gent” (= blood), but by presenting God with the concretely disowned sininvested in the blood.29

This approach raises several questions that Zohar does not answer: Are wantonsins the only category of sins that defile the sanctuary? If so, why are two termsfor moral faults used in Lev 16:16 ([vp and tafj) and three in v. 21 (ˆw[, [vp,and tafj), and where do we see evidence that the blood used to cleanse thesanctuary on the Day of Atonement represents sin that is disowned? Disownedby whom—the wanton sinners themselves? Can non-wanton sins also defilethe sanctuary? If so, how does this happen, given that they are disowned andthus tolerable in God’s presence?

Despite all the above criticisms of Zohar’s argumentation, in the followingdiscussion I will reach agreement with his overall conclusion, albeit by a sig-nificantly different route. There is a functional parallel between washingblood from a garment (Lev 6:20[27]) and treatment of a vessel in which puri-fication-offering flesh is boiled. Like the blood in relation to a garment, theedible flesh is implicitly treated as impure because it imparts impurity tovessels (v. 21[28]; cf. 11:31–33),30 even though it is most holy. The flesh thatis boiled for the officiating priest to eat is contaminated in spite of the fact thatit never goes on the altar; only the suet is placed there (see, e.g., 4:26, 31, 35).So, whereas it was necessary to ask whether the blood becomes impure beforeor after it is applied to the altar (see above), the same question with regard tothe flesh is preempted by the fact that it never touches the altar and thereforecannot receive impurity from this source by direct contact.

We have found that both the blood and the flesh carry some kind of pollu-tion. The flesh also imparts holiness (Lev 6:20a[27a]),31 apparently by virtueof prior contact by other parts of the same animal, that is, the blood andYhwh’s suet portion, with the altar (pars pro toto).32 But the remainder of thesame verse does not say that the blood similarly conveys holiness to a garmenton which it spatters. If the flesh, which itself does not contact the altar, be-

29. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 614–15.30. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 132.31. Compare with Lev 6:10–11[17–18] about a baked grain offering.32. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 443–44; idem, “Sancta Contagion,” 278–79.


comes holy when other parts of the same animal contact the altar, the bloodwould also become holy when some of it is applied to the horns of the altar.So why does the text not speak of the blood conveying holiness to a garmenton which it sprinkles? The simplest answer is that from the time when theblood is applied to the altar it stays there, so any contact with a garment is be-fore that point—that is, before the blood gains contagious holiness from thealtar.

Milgrom has pointed out the ambivalent/paradoxical nature of the purifi-cation offering, which is a most holy sacrifice (Lev 6:18[25]):33 its blood andflesh contaminate, but at the same time they are holy. So holiness and impu-rity, which elsewhere in the Israelite cultic system are opposites that are notto be brought together (e.g., Lev 7:20–21; 15:31),34 converge in the tafj sac-rifice: “Thus Scripture was forced to tolerate the contradictory notion thatthe technique of purging the sanctuary of its impurities—the purification of-fering—could simultaneously be a most sacred offering and a source ofimpurity.”35 A special instance of this paradox is found in the uniquely holy

33. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 403–4.34. See, e.g., ibid., 616–17, 731–32; idem, “Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of

Impurity,” Semeia 45 (1989) 106; H. Ringgren,” amEf: †ameª,” TDOT 5:331.35. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 406; cf. idem, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 64;

repr. Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1983) 87; idem, Num-bers (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 439;A. Rodríguez, “Transfer of Sin in Leviticus,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and theNature of Prophecy (ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Re-search Institute, 1986) 196; Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 129–34; idem, “Purifica-tion from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19–24,” VT 35 (1985) 216 n. 9.Contra the heated assertion of S. A. Geller: “Surely the contact of the impurity of sinwith the purity of sanctity would, like the collision of matter and anti-matter, destroythe cosmos!” (“Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of the Priestly Work of thePentateuch,” Prooftexts 12 [1992] 106). Also against the argument of N. Snaith that, be-cause tafj blood was holy, it had to go to God, “but it could not go on to the altarbecause it was bad (sin) and thus was disposed of at the base of the altar” (“The Sin-Offering and the Guilt-Offering,” VT 15 [1965] 76). He mistakenly views the disposal(˚pv) of purification-offering blood at the base of the altar as the functional equivalentof dashing (qrz) blood against the sides of the altar in other sacrifices and does not ad-equately take into account the fact, which he mentions on the previous page, thatsome of the same blood was applied to the altar itself on its horns (p. 75). That theblood was contaminated (not “bad”) did not prevent its application to the altar. In alater publication Snaith attempted to reconcile this difficulty by interpreting the appli-cation of purification-offering blood to the horns of the altar: “to render the sin-bloodritually clean enough to be disposed of and got rid of at the base of the altar of burnt-offering” (“The Sprinkling of Blood,” ExpTim 82 [1970–71] 24). However, he has nobiblical support for this idea. Working from an assumption similar to that of Snaith,de Vaux holds that the defilement of an animal, for example, the scapegoat, with the

Chapter 8174

inner-sanctum purification offerings of the Day of Atonement, in which theblood absorbs defilement from the sanctuary, and the carcasses subsequentlycontaminate those who dispose of them (Lev 16:27–28).36

D. J. McCarthy has brought attention to the equivocal significance ofblood in the ancient Near East (including Israel): it is associated with life/strength on the one hand and bloodshed/death on the other.37 At first glancethis contrast would appear to support the coexistence of holiness and impu-rity in the purification offering, with holiness linked to life and impurity con-nected with death. But McCarthy goes on to argue that in Israel the darkersymbolism of blood remained outside the cult and “Israel always associatedblood with life in a ritual context.”38 Accordingly, since a purification offeringis most holy, it is associated with life. Nevertheless, it also somehow carrieshuman impurity in a way/form that does not neutralize its holiness, just as lit-eral blood in a living organism sustains life with oxygen and nutrients but alsothrough purification by carrying away waste products.

We cannot avoid Zohar’s main point: purification-offering blood is notrendered impure by contact with the altar. Therefore, its defilement mustcome from the offerer.39 This agrees with the evidence I have presented ear-

36. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 101.37. D. J. McCarthy, “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL

92 (1973) 205.38. Ibid., 208.39. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 612.

sins of the people makes it unworthy to be sacrificed (Ancient Israel, 416, 419, 459,509; cf. R. J. Burns, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers [OTM 3; Wilmington, Delaware: Mi-chael Glazier, 1983] 200). But what about the inner-sanctum purification offerings,the blood of which purges the sanctuary? These holiest of all sacrifices are not disqual-ified by their intended function of purging from the sanctuary the [vp faults (“trans-gressions”) of the Israelites in addition to their “uncleannesses” (pl. of hamf) andtafj faults (“sins”; Lev 16:16, 19), as a result of which they convey impurity to thosewho incinerate their carcasses (v. 28). A fortiori the outer-altar and outer-sanctum pu-rification offerings performed throughout the year, which remedy only faults of thetafj category or impurity (root amf) but not [vp faults, and which do not requirepurification of those who dispose of their carcasses (cf. 4:12, 21), would not be dis-qualified by their sin-bearing role. A. Médebielle contended that, although purifica-tion offerings are charged with sins, they are not contaminated by them because thatwhich the victim bears is punishment (within the context of penal substitution) andthe sins are obliterated when the sacrifice contacts Yhwh’s altar (“Le symbolism dusacrifice expiatoire en Israël,” Bib 2 [1921] 294–95). However, he does not take into ac-count the contamination of the sacrifice implied in Lev 6:20–21[27–28]. It is true thatthe handler of Azazel’s goat also becomes impure (16:26). But it is not the bearing ofevil that disqualifies this live goat from being a sacrifice. Rather, it is not a sacrifice be-cause it is sent away from Yhwh as a vehicle of elimination rather than given over tohim for his utilization.



lier that outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings remove evil fromtheir offerers. P. Jenson also recognized that priestly atonement results in thecleansing of persons and observed: “While blood is not applied to the personrequiring purification, there may have been practical reasons for this.”40

Now we can identify a conceptual (if not “practical,” in physical terms)reason why the blood of a purification offering would not be physically ap-plied to its offerer: this blood is already carrying his/her defilement, whetherit results from sin or ritual impurity.

Since the exceptional purification offering that initially decontaminatesthe altar (Lev 8:14–17) apparently does not remove evil from its offerers, atleast not primarily (cf. ch. 6 above), its blood can absorb from the altar impu-rity that “is assumed to be present before the common becomes holy.”41 Inany case, it is clear that this ritual, which is officiated by Moses, is not in viewin 6:20[27], where Aaron and his sons officiate (v. 18[25]).

The corporate inner-sanctum sacrifices on the Day of Atonement are ex-ceptional in that they purge the sanctuary and its sancta by direct applicationof blood, thereby cleansing the people from their sins (Lev 16:30).42 Beforethe blood is applied to the sanctuary, it is not contaminated by imperfectionsremoved from the people because in this case their cleansing is a secondaryresult of the sanctuary’s purgation.43

The cleansing (rhf) of the people from sin on the Day of Atonement(Lev 16:30) differs from removal of imperfections through individual offer-ings during the year because on the Day of Atonement those who knowthat they have sinned are already either forgiven (jls) through sacrifice(e.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31) or bearing condemnation for which there is no rit-ual remedy, as a result of defiant/wanton sinning (Num 15:30–31; cf. Lev20:3). Persons who know that they have had severe physical ritual impuri-ties during the year are already either pure (rhf) from application of ap-propriate remedies (e.g., Lev 12:7, 8) or condemned to death or extirpationas a result of neglecting the remedies provided by Yhwh (15:31; Num 19:13,20). So the moral cleansing on the Day of Atonement does not purge sin as aprerequisite to forgiveness, nor does it provide physical ritual purity bypurging persons of their impurities.

40. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 157.

41. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, 43.42. Contrast Lev 14, where treating persons and houses requires separate applica-

tions of blood.43. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1056.

Chapter 8176

How does an outer-altar or outer-sanctum purification offering becomecontaminated by the offerer so that its blood somehow pollutes part of thesanctuary? Apparently it is because the offerer has a connection with his of-fering as its owner and transfers ownership to Yhwh, as affirmed by thehand-leaning gesture when this is required (see ch. 3 above). It is true thatin a private sacrifice of a herd or flock animal the offerer physically contactshis animal at least by leaning his hand on its head (e.g., Lev 4:4, 15, 24, 29,33). If the sacrifice is a bird or a grain item, the offerer holds it in his handbefore giving it to the priest (5:8, 12). However, I argue that it is the depart-ing ownership connection rather than the physical contact itself that is thepoint. Remember that we are dealing with ritual, which involves meaning/function that transcends the physics otherwise operable in the materialworld. In any case, the fact that hand-leaning is not required in every caseshows that this gesture is not indispensable for transferring evil from the of-ferer to his/her offering.44

Now we can understand how the purification offering could purify its of-ferer without direct physical application of blood to the person. It is not sim-ply the blood that acts as a detergent. Rather, the offering material as a whole,whether it consists of an animal or grain item, absorbs evil from the offerer,thereby purifying him/her.

A purification offering transfers imperfection in mitigated form from the offerer to Yhwh’s sanctuary

If an offerer is already pure before coming to the sanctuary, what isthere left for a tafj sacrifice to remove from him/her? As we have seen inch. 6 above, N. Kiuchi has pointed out that a scale-diseased person is de-clared pure (rhf) at each of three successive stages of ritual purification(Lev 14:8, 9, 20). This means that he is pure enough for that stage, but hispurity at an earlier stage does not make a later stage unnecessary.45 Signif-icantly, while the first and second stages involve various nonsacrificial rit-uals, including ablutions, it is the third and highest stage on the eighthday that is achieved through a complex of sacrifices (vv. 10–20), includinga purification offering (v. 19). So a purification offering removes a kind ofresidual impurity that is left even after other means of purification havebeen carried out.

44. Against A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; BerrienSprings, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 218.

45. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 60.


Through outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings performedat the sanctuary, imperfection removed from offerers is transferred toYhwh’s sanctuary. Now the imperfection, in a contained/controlled form, isin his “ball park,” that is, it is his problem.46 This would readily explain atleast some of the need to purge the sanctuary and its sancta on the Day ofAtonement.

I have come by a different route to the same conclusion as Zohar: tafj

sacrifices purge their offerers of pollution that is transferred to Yhwh at hissanctuary, and this defilement is later removed from the sanctuary on the Dayof Atonement.47 Consequently, with Zohar, I am stuck with the dilemma ofthe incompatibility between Yhwh’s holiness and the imperfection of the Is-raelites. C. Hayes articulately enunciates the problem:

Essentially Zohar would have us believe that the ˙a††aªt sacrifice is pre-mised on the idea that the Israelites, in order to rid themselves of the con-tamination caused by their sin or certain physical conditions, carry thatcontamination continually into the sanctuary, the abode of the holy Godwhose very essence is incompatible with that which is impure!48

B. van der Merwe voices an objection similar to that of Hayes: if sin weretransferred to an animal, it would become ritually impure and therefore unfitfor sacrifice on the altar.49

In response, Hayes and van der Merwe do not take into account the indi-cation of Lev 6:20–21[27–28] that tafj sacrifices carry some kind of impu-rity (see above), perhaps in a weakened, residual form, or the possibility thatthe ritual fitness of the victim could be immune to the evil targeted by thesacrifice. We have found that Milgrom’s theory, like mine, also paradoxicallyrequires purification-offering blood to be a carrier of contamination caused

46. A. A. Bonar explained that the altar needed to be purified because every sin hadbeen laid down there (A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, Expository and Practi-cal [5th ed.; London: Nisbet, 1875] 310). The notion of substitutional exchange/inter-change, according to which there is a bidirectional transfer of purity from the animalto the offerer and impurity from the offerer to the animal and thence to the sanctuary(E. Jacob, Theologie de l’Ancien Testament [BibT; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé,1968] 236; A. Treiyer, “The Day of Atonement as Related to the Contamination andPurification of the Sanctuary,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature ofProphecy [ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C., Biblical Research Insti-tute] 234–36) is unnecessary.

47. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 609–18.48. Cited by Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi,” 113.49. B. van der Merwe, “The Laying on of the Hands in the Old Testament,” New

Light on Some Old Testament Problems: Papers Read at 5th Meeting of Die O.T.Werkgemeenkap in Suid-Afrika (1962) 39.

Chapter 8178

by the Israelites, even though the offering is most holy.50 The difference iswhether the defilement goes aerially from the people to the altar and theninto the blood (Milgrom) or from the people into the blood and then to thealtar (Zohar and myself). In either case Yhwh’s sanctuary, the sphere of holi-ness, survives an incursion of human defilement that accumulates through-out the year. Were this not the case, there would be no reason to cleanse thesanctuary on the Day of Atonement from the ritual impurities and moralfaults of the Israelites (Lev 16:16). Human pollution does not negate the ac-ceptability, holiness, or purity of the purification offerings, interrupt the holyfunction of the sanctuary,51 or disqualify its priests.52 However, the immunityof the cult has its limits: the sanctuary must be purified once per year.

J. Matthes criticized the idea that purification offerings carry sin, citing thefact that they must be eaten in a holy place or incinerated in a pure place.53

But his argument founders on the fact that the carcasses of the inner-sanctumpurification offerings are also incinerated outside the camp, undoubtedly atthe same pure place specified in Lev 4:12, and those who dispose of them be-come impure through this contact (16:27–28). So defilement of these ani-mals, which in any case must be much more severe than that carried by otherpurification offerings, does not rule out their disposal in a pure place.54

It is true that one who brings a purification offering to the sanctuary shouldalready have undergone preliminary physical purification or the moral purifi-

50. Compare the physical function of blood as a carrier in living organisms. Theparadoxical nature of the tafj sacrifice answers objections of J. Kurtz (SacrificialWorship of the Old Testament [trans. J. Martin; Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980;repr. of 1863] 228–30) and D. Kidner (“Sacrifice: Metaphors and Meaning,” TynBul 33[1982] 134–35) to the idea that sins are transferred to most holy sacrifices.

51. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 119; G. F. Hasel, “Studies in Biblical Atone-ment II: The Day of Atonement,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, His-torical, and Theological Studies (ed. A. Wallenkampf; Washington, D.C.: Review andHerald, 1981) 99; Treiyer, “The Day of Atonement,” 220; cf. J. Calvin, Commentarieson the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1996) 1:318.

52. Rodríguez, Substitution, 133–34, 217–18; “Transfer of Sin,” 195. Gorman de-scribes the hazardous liminal function of the priests as mediators between the cate-gorically distinct states of the holy and the profane, the pure and the impure (TheIdeology of Ritual, 139). On the high priest’s immunity to the effects of purgation rites,see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1051–52 . Wright views this as a concession and citessimilar concessions in the priestly legislation, such as not requiring priests to batheafter they perform purification offerings (The Disposal of Impurity, 132).

53. J. Matthes, “Der Sühnegedanke bei den Sündopfern,” ZAW 23 (1903) 112.54. Compare Milgrom’s distinction between the purity of the place where purifica-

tion offerings are incinerated (Lev 4:12; cf. 6:4[11]; Num 19:9) and the contaminationof the purification offerings themselves (“Two Kinds of Óa††aªt,” VT 26 [1976] 334–35).


cation of repentance, but this by no means rules out the offerer as the sourceof the defilement.55 Rather, preliminary purification downgrades the toxicityof pollution so that, although Yhwh permits it to be temporarily present at hishouse, which is highly sensitive to impurity, it does not create the damagingreaction that otherwise accompanies interaction between impurity and holi-ness (e.g., 7:20–21).

The concept that pollution is permitted in the sanctuary only at “trace lev-els” and in eviscerated, contained form accords with Rodríguez’s observationthat “nowhere in Leviticus are we told that the blood of the ˙††ªt is un-clean.”56 Kiuchi concludes that impurity produced by physical causes ormoral faults should be distinguished from impurity in sancta: “For sancta (in-cluding sacrifices) are never said to be ‘unclean’ (amf), though they can beso envisaged (e.g., Lev 15:31; 16:16). Moreover, the distinction seems neces-sary to avoid the contradiction that sancta are simultaneously holy and un-clean.”57 The fact that sancta are not described as unclean even though theycan be defiled (piºel of amf in Lev 15:31) and uncleannesses can be removedfrom them (taOm}F¨ in 16:16) indicates the sensitivity of the biblical text inavoiding the implication that the sancta are disqualified.

The text’s sensitivity does not wipe out the paradoxical implication thatmost holy sancta can bear impurity in some form. That defilement of thesanctuary is significant is indicated by the tremendous weight attached to thepurgation rituals of the Day of Atonement, whereby the imperfections of theIsraelites are removed from the sanctuary.58 Yhwh’s holiness cannot toleratean excessive accumulation of defilement.59 Once per year his sanctuary mustbe made totally clean.

Why would Yhwh mandate the defilement of his sanctuary throughouter-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings? Obviously it is not agood thing for the sanctuary to be defiled,60 as shown by the facts that othermodes of defiling it, which are not controlled by sacrifice, are to be strenu-ously avoided (cf. Lev 15:31; 20:3; Num 19:13, 20), and its pollution mustbe removed on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). Yhwh prefers that evils beacknowledged, brought meekly to the sanctuary, and turned over to himrather than left to run wild and rampage into the sphere of holiness. Further

55. Contra Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi,” 113.56. Rodríguez, Substitution, 191 n. 2.57. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 140.58. Cf. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification,” 615.59. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 258–61; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 396–99.60. Cf. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 207.

Chapter 8180

on, we will explore the profound implications of the necessity to turn expi-able evils over to Yhwh.

Now we can address Kiuchi’s question: “But why does the priest applyblood to sancta, if the sancta are not defiled?” His answer is to “assume thatuncleanness is envisaged in the sancta when an unclean person stands beforethe Lord, i.e., at the entrance of the Tent, and that when the priest purifiesthe sancta, the unclean person becomes clean concurrently.”61 But we havefound no evidence that outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offeringspurify the sancta at all. My answer is that the priest applies blood to sancta be-cause sacrificial purification of the offerer necessarily involves transfer of his/her evil to Yhwh.

My answer gives birth to a further question. If the moral faults that mustbe removed from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16) includewanton sins transmitted to the sanctuary from a distance during the year (cf.20:3; Num 19:13, 20), it is easy to see how these could affect the inner sanc-tum as Milgrom has proposed.62 But how do the uncleannesses (taOm}F¨) of theIsraelites get into the inner sanctum and outer sanctum so that they must bepurged from there (Lev 16:16)? Purification offerings for physical ritual impu-rities throughout the year only involve the outer altar; they never include ap-plication of blood inside the Sacred Tent, let alone in the inner sanctum. Inthis regard it makes no difference whether defilement of the outer altar by rit-ual impurities occurs aerially (Milgrom) or through outer-altar tafj sacri-fices (Gane). The question is: How do these impurities affect the rest of thesanctuary?

The pars pro toto (“part for all)” principle resolves the problem: the outeraltar is an integral part of the sanctuary, so when it is affected, the whole sanc-tuary is affected.63 The same dynamic principle functions on various levels inthe Israelite ritual system. Thus, according to my theory, applications of bloodto parts of the outer altar (horns) and outer sanctum (“before the veil” andhorns of the incense altar) result in contamination of the entire outer altar

61. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 61.62. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 393; cf. Wright, The

Disposal of Impurity, 20.63. Kiuchi attempts to explain the defilement of the inner sanctum with the sins of

lay Israelites by arguing (1) that these individuals make up the whole people and (2) inLev 4 the outer-sanctum purification offering of the whole community foreshadowsthe Day of Atonement ritual in that its sevenfold sprinkling “before the veil” (vv. 6, 17)is directed toward the inner sanctum (The Purification Offering, 157–58; cf. 125–26).However, Kiuchi’s easy transition from the individual level to that of the entire com-munity and his interpretation of the sprinkling as virtually if not physically located inthe inner sanctum are forced.



and outer sanctum as units. This corresponds to the fact that when the parspro toto principle operates in reverse on the Day of Atonement, applicationsof blood to limited parts of the inner sanctum, outer sanctum, and outer altarcleanse each of these components as units (Lev 16:14–16, 18–19; cf. vv. 20,33). Exodus 30:10 clearly shows how the pars pro toto principle works on anindividual sacred object: by putting blood on the horns of the incense altaronce a year with the purification offering of purgation, the high priest (Aaron)purges the altar. That is, by applying blood to its extremities, he cleanses thewhole altar.64

Given the lack of an explicit biblical statement, A. Rodríguez speculateson the way that sin transferred to the priest by eating the flesh of the tafj

sacrifice (cf. Lev 10:17) is transferred to the sanctuary: “It is quite probablethat there was another ritual by which the sin the priest bore was transferredto the sanctuary. This could have been easily done through a ˙††ªt offered byhim.”65 But the outer altar is an integral part of the sanctuary, and recognitionof the pars pro toto principle liberates us from the need to suppose that an evilfor which blood is applied only at the outer altar (and the flesh is not eaten bya priest if he is the offerer [9:11]!) must make its way into the Sacred Tent viasome kind of physical transfer.66

Water mixed with ashes of the red cow can be directly applied to persons because it is not already carrying their impurity

The red cow ritual produces ashes to be later mixed with water and applieddirectly to persons in order to remove their corpse contamination (Num 19:9–12). The ashes contain the hide, flesh, blood, and dung of the cow, along withcedar wood, hyssop, and crimson yarn (vv. 5–6).67 The reddish hide of thecow, crimson yarn, and perhaps also the cedar wood emphasize the color red,

64. Cf. Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi,” 112.65. Rodríguez, Substitution, 142–43 n. 1.66. A. A. Bonar suggested that defilement of the inner sanctum occurred on the

Day of Atonement. When the high priest, representing the guilty Israelites whose pres-ence at the sanctuary defiled its courts, brought their case before the Lord, this act“was reckoned as a defilement. Therefore, there was need of a cleansing; and this tookplace when their representative was accepted, and all he confessed was thoroughly for-given” (A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, 308; cf. G. Bush, Notes, Critical andPractical, on the Book of Leviticus [New York: Ivison & Phinney, 1857] 159). However,there is no evidence that purgation of the Sacred Tent was necessitated by the en-trance of the high priest or that he came there to obtain forgiveness. He approachedYhwh to purge a sanctuary already defiled because it resided with the Israelites in themidst of their impurities (16:16).

67. Compare the use of cedar wood, crimson yarn, and hyssop in the nonsacrificialritual for purification of a scale-diseased person (Lev 14:4, 6).

Chapter 8182

in keeping with the fact that the “water of purification” (hD;ni ymE; vv. 9, 13, 20–21) contains and functions like blood.68 Use of this liquid is unique for a pu-rification offering in that it is applied directly to the body of the person carry-ing the evil to be remedied. Unlike blood applications to parts of thesanctuary in other tafj sacrifices, this lustration constitutes the first contactbetween the person receiving the benefit and the animal victim. Clearly thespecial ash water functions as a ritual “sponge” to absorb contamination fromthe person.

Even though the burning of the cow takes place before the rehydratedashes are applied to the person, those who participate in the burning of thecow and storage of the ashes contract a mild impurity (Num 19:7, 8, 10). Thisis the paradox of the red cow: it defiles pure persons but later purifies impurepersons.

If the relative chronology were reversed, we could say that contaminationremoved from impure persons is absorbed by the cow and secondarily defilesthe ritually pure persons who are involved in burning it. In fact, this is howMilgrom interprets the ritual.69 But there are two major questions: First, howis impurity transferred to the whole cow from the small amount of ashes sepa-rated from it and applied to the corpse-contaminated person? Second, howdoes burning the cow make pure persons impure before the ashes come incontact with the person carrying corpse contamination?

The two questions are related. Both have to do with gaps involved in thetransfer of impurity, one in terms of space and the other in terms of time. Re-

68. J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 63; idem, Numbers, 440. In Israel-ite cult, this ritual is unique in that it involves burning blood (G. Wenham, Num-bers: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1981] 146).H. Maccoby attempts to resolve the unique relationship between purity and impurityin the red cow ritual by resorting to diachronic speculation supported by comparisonwith other religions. Emphasizing the femaleness of the cow and the fact that else-where in Leviticus hD;ni refers to menstruation, he arrives at the notion that the “RedCow is the last vestige in the religion of the Israelite Sky-God of the earth-goddess”(Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism [Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1999] 112; cf. 105–11, 113–17). But in Num 31:23, as inch. 19, hD;ni ymE refers to water for eliminating corpse contamination rather than men-strual impurity (D. P. Wright, “Purification from Corpse-Contamination,” 214–15n. 6). Compare the functionally equivalent taF:j" ymE in 8:7. B. Levine suggests thatHebrew hdn is cognate to Akk. nadû, “hurl, cast off,” and is therefore a variant of hzn,“to spatter.” If so, when hD;ni signifies menstruation (e.g., Lev 12:2, 5; 15:19, 20, 24–26, 33) it could refer to the physiological process of “spilling” blood (Numbers 1–20[AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993] 463–64).

69. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 62–72; idem, Numbers, 438–43.



garding the latter, D. Wright has suggested that the burning of the red cowdefiles “prospectively, before actual use in purification.”70 This idea is relatedto the fact that on the Day of Atonement the carcasses of inner-sanctumtafj sacrifices defile their handlers (Lev 16:28) even though the carcassesare not brought into contact with the defiled sanctuary or with the blood thatis brought in to cleanse it. According to Milgrom, this is because the defile-ment of the sanctuary “is dangerously contagious. In being purged by the˙a††aªt blood it is likely to infect the carcass itself, which therefore has to beburned.”71 So in effect, defilement leaps from the sanctuary to the carcasses.If it can leap in space (Milgrom), then it can presumably leap in time(Wright).

In my view, the red cow ritual is not an exceptional purification offering inthe sense that it is for the purification of persons72 but because it involves di-rect application of liquid to persons. This liquid, consisting of rehydratedashes, contains blood (Num 19:5) and serves as an indirect functional equiv-alent of blood in other purification offerings.73 It could be argued that directapplication of the ash water is possible because, unlike manipulation of bloodin other purification offerings, it is done outside the sanctuary precincts. Butmore to the point is the fact that this water is not already carrying impuritybefore it is applied to the corpse-contaminated person. When the contact oc-curs and the ash water absorbs the impurity, it is as though this pollution istransmitted back through time and space to the burning of the cow so thatthose involved in the process, including the officiating and supervising priest,become impure (vv. 7–8, 10).

Corpse contamination is transferred from the infected person to the ashwater and to the whole cow of which the ashes are a part (pars pro toto), andfrom there to the persons involved in the ritual process of burning the red cow.In other purification offerings, moral faults or physical ritual impurities followthe same overall trajectory from the offerer to the animal, but in these casesan offerer contacts his whole animal at the outset rather than part of it in liquidform. Then the liquid, blood, is applied to the outer altar or outer sanctumand incense altar, rather than to the person. In this way the blood, carryingthe moral or physical impurity, affects the sanctuary. Since these outer-altaror outer-sanctum purification offerings are performed at the sanctuary, the

70. D. Wright, “Heifer, Red,” ABD 3:116.71. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 263; cf. idem, “Two Kinds,” 336.72. Against Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 205.73. Cf. ibid., 212–13.

Chapter 8184

officiating priest is immune to the impurity. However, if he eats the flesh of apurification offering for a moral fault, he does secondarily bear ˆw[, “culpabil-ity” (Lev 10:17; cf. 5:1).

Why in the red cow ritual does the absorption of impurity go from the liq-uid part back to the whole animal rather than the reverse, as in other purifi-cation offerings? Aside from the economy of using one animal to treat manycases of corpse contamination so that grieving relatives of dead Israelites arespared expenses of offering sacrifices, the red cow ritual avoids bringing corpsecontamination into any contact with the sanctuary. This tafj (Num 19:9, 17)is performed outside the sacred precincts, and the only interaction with thesanctuary, which is necessary to make the ritual a sacrificial one, is aerial innature: the priest sprinkles some blood from the cow seven times toward thesanctuary (Num 19:4).74 Correspondingly, the only way corpse contaminationcan affect the sanctuary is also aerially, through the moral fault of neglectingto receive purification by means of the ash water (Num 19:13, 20). If this in-terpretation is correct, it nails down the exceptional nature of automatic de-filement and its inapplicability to expiable evils, for which we argued in thelast chapter (ch. 7): the red cow ritual is the only tafj sacrifice in connectionwith which automatic defilement is mentioned, and this defilement only oc-curs when the impure person does not receive the benefit of the sacrifice.

Milgrom’s recourse to the red cow ritual (Num 19) to preserve the ideathat defilement of the blood in Lev 6:20[27] comes from the altar (see above,against Zohar) is beset by a factor that renders it inapplicable to the temporaldynamics of other purification offerings. He identifies the problem himself:

The priest who throws the cedar, hyssop, and crimson yarn into the fire(v. 6) is unclean as are the persons who set the cow on the fire (vv. 5, 8) andcollect the ashes (v. 10). However, neither the slaughterer of the cow (v. 3)nor the priest who consecrated its blood (v. 4) is said to have become un-

74. On the sacrificial nature of the red cow ritual, see Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship,423; Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 63–68; repr. Studies in Cultic Theology,86–90; cf. idem, Numbers, 438–42. Wright points out the exceptional nature of thesacrifice in having some elements that occur elsewhere in nonsacrificial rituals(“Heifer, Red,” 115). Those who have (in my opinion wrongly) concluded that the redcow is not a sacrifice include G. B. Gray (Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theoryand Practice [Oxford: Clarendon, 1925] 59–60), A. Schenker (Recht und Kult im AltenTestament [OBO 172; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-precht, 2000] 15), and S. Wefing, who confidently dismisses the words awhI taF:j", “it isa purification offering,” in Num 19:9 as secondary (“Beobachtungen zum Ritual mitder roten Kuh [Num 19.1–10a],” ZAW 93 [1981] 354; cf. 349).



clean. The difference is one of time: Only those who come into contactwith the red cow after the consecration of its blood become unclean.75

Since Milgrom regards the sprinkling of blood toward the tabernacle, whichhe interprets as consecration of the blood, as the functional equivalent of ap-plying blood to the altar in other purification offerings,76 we would expect pro-leptic defilement in altar sacrifices to begin from the point when the blood isapplied to the altar. But as we have seen earlier, the blood is defiled before itcomes into contact with the altar. Why? Perhaps it could be argued that thisis due to a difference in ritual function. The ashes of the red cow, which con-tain blood (Num 19:5), are later applied directly to persons and objects out-side the sanctuary (vv. 11–22), unlike the blood of other purification offerings,which is applied to the altar.77 But if this is the rationale for proleptic defile-ment, it would undermine the equation between sprinkling the blood of thered cow toward the sanctuary and putting blood on the altar in other purifica-tion offerings, which is important for Milgrom to establish that the red cow rit-ual is a sacrificial form of tafj.78

There is a good reason for proleptic defilement in the red cow ritual.Uniquely in Israelite cult, the ashes of this animal have not yet been broughtinto contact or identification with any of the cases of impurity that they areto remedy. This dynamic does not operate in other purification offerings.Milgrom acknowledges the uniqueness of the red cow: “That the ˙a††aªt sys-tem was artificially imposed upon this ritual is betrayed by the fact that thosewho prepare the ashes . . . become unclean even though the ashes have notyet been used.”79 Whether we accept the notion of artificiality or not, it isproblematic to impose this unique proleptic quality on the rest of the purifi-cation-offering system.

75. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 67; idem, Numbers, 440–41.76. Idem, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 66; idem, Numbers, 440. On sevenfold

sprinkling as consecration of the blood, see T. Vriezen, “The Term Hizza: Lustrationand Consecration,” OtSt 7 (1950) 201–35, esp. 214–18. Similarly, Gorman suggeststhat this sevenfold sprinkling is to prepare the blood and cow for further ritual use (TheIdeology of Ritual, 84).

77. Milgrom finds that this unique aspect of the red cow ritual has pre-Israelite par-allels (“The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 68; Numbers, 441).

78. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 66–67; idem, Numbers, 440–41;cf. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 202–3. Contrast the goat for Azazel, which is anonsacrificial tafj (Lev 16:5), and the nonsacrificial elimination ritual outsidethe camp in Deut 21:1–9, which is not a tafj at all.

79. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow,” 72.

Chapter 8186

Impurity of participants in the red cow ritual comes from persons to whom the ash water is subsequently applied, rather than constituting some kind of super-sanctity

Judging as implausible the proleptic defilement suggested by Milgromand Wright (see above), A. Baumgarten turns instead to a possibility he findsin Milgrom’s interpretation of the second bath of the high priest on the Dayof Atonement (Lev 16:24).80 Milgrom sees no evidence that the high priestwashes because he has been contaminated by the preceding ritual activities,including the ritual of Azazel’s goat.81 Rather, he understands the bath asremoving super-holiness contracted by the high priest when he entered theinner sanctum.82 This is an exceptional case because he holds that “P haseffectively and permanently eliminated the contagion of sanctums to personsby its formula kol-hannogeaº yiqdas ‘whatever (not whoever) touches (it) willbecome sanctified’ (Exod 29:37; 30:26–29; Lev 6:11, 20).”83

F. Gorman agrees with Milgrom regarding the high priest’s second bath.He places it within the context of a rite of passage as marking the high priest’sexit to normality from a marginal status, during which he had entered the in-ner sanctum and confessed over Azazel’s goat, thereby contacting the diamet-rically opposed dynamic qualities of holiness and defilement.84

Baumgarten’s innovation is to relate the concept of excessive sanctificationto the anthropological theory of M. Douglas that impurity is a state occupyingan anomalous position with regard to the sacred85 and then to bring togetherwithin a coherent theoretical framework the various cases in which this con-cept applies.86 For him “impurity is understood as deviance from the norm—

80. Baumgarten, “The Paradox,” 442–44, 446.81. Contra, e.g., Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 405; A. Clamer, Lé-

vitique, Nombres, Deutéronome (La Sainte Bible 2; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1946)129; H. Cazelles, Le Lévitique (La Sainte Bible; 2d ed.; Paris: Cerf, 1958) 81–82;R. Clements, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1970) 2:46.

82. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1048; cf. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 385–86;Porter, Leviticus, 131; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 137; Gerstenberger, Leviticus,223. Because the high priest, unlike the handler of Azazel’s goat, must bathe in a holyplace, Matthes concluded that he must wash off holiness rather than impurity (“DerSühnegedanke,” 113).

83. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1431; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 443–56.84. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 90–95.85. Cf. M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and

Taboo (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966).86. By expanding the scope of desanctification rituals, Baumgarten follows de Vaux,

who placed in this category the washing of vessels used for boiling tafj flesh, the highpriest’s second full washing on the Day of Atonement, and the personal purifications of


in either of the two possible directions.”87 Thus Baumgarten takes the highpriest’s second bath to be “a rite of passage needed to return the High Priestto the level of normalcy after his encounter with the sacred. For him to puton his own clothes and rejoin the people without such a rite would be an in-tolerable intrusion of the sacred into non-sacred realms.”88

Applying the same principle to the red cow, Baumgarten reasons that itsburning does not pollute the participants with the impurity of the corpse-contaminated person, whose equilibrium is restored to the “normal”/purelevel by sprinkling with the ashes of the cow. Rather, the impurity of the par-ticipants results from the fact that they begin the burning ritual from a stateof purity, that is, from the line of normalcy in relation to the sacred, and theritual raises them “further above the line than they ought to be; hence theyare rendered impure. They therefore need to undergo bathing, washing theirclothes and waiting until sunset before they are pure, i.e., back at the safepoint of lack of anomaly.”89

Along the same line, the inner-sanctum tafj carcasses are incineratedoutside the camp

because they are so sacred, and burning them in the normal manner wouldintroduce a higher degree of holiness into the camp than can be tolerated.Furthermore, the man who incinerates them needs to cleanse himself in or-der to remove the high level of sanctity (not impurity) he has acquired inthe process, a degree too high with which to live in normal realms.90

Baumgarten’s theory of rituals that “raise status, by means of adding vitalsacred power,”91 which he thinks may apply to the entire category of tafj

sacrifices except that of the Nazirite when his/her term is completed (Num6:14),92 is attractive in that it provides a consistent explanation for several

87. Baumgarten, “The Paradox,” 445–46.88. Ibid., 446; cf. Porter, Leviticus, 131; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1048–49; J. Hart-

ley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992) 242; D. P. Wright, “Day of Atonement,”ABD 2:73.

89. Baumgarten, “The Paradox,” 445.90. Ibid., 447. When Baumgarten says here “sanctity (not impurity),” I assume that

he limits his use of the term “impurity” to the kind that falls below the line of normalcy.Otherwise he would contradict his earlier assertion that either of two extremes—beingcloser to or farther from the sacred than appropriate—“can appropriately be classifiedas impure” (p. 445).

91. Ibid., 449.92. Ibid., 449–50.

the assistants who lead Azazel’s goat into the wilderness and incinerate the inner-sanc-tum tafj carcasses, as well as the participants in the red cow ritual (Ancient Israel, 461).

Chapter 8188

problematic ritual phenomena without postulating gaps in space or time.However, aside from incorrectly obscuring the fundamental distinction be-tween the impure and sacred domains in Israelite cult,93 Baumgarten’s the-ory raises several serious questions. First, why does the high priest’s secondbath (v. 24) come after he performs the ritual of Azazel’s goat in the court-yard (vv. 20–22)? If Baumgarten were correct, we would expect the bath tooccur immediately after application of the purification-offering blood to thealtar (vv. 18–19)—that is, as soon after his emergence from the Sacred Tentto “rejoin the people” as possible.

The delay between the high priest’s completion of the purification offer-ings and his washing simultaneously weakens an alternative view that thehigh priest purifies himself from defilement contracted in the course of purg-ing the sanctuary by the two special purification offerings.94 Another factorneutralizes both this alternative and the notion that the high priest purifieshimself from defilement contracted through placing the sins of the Israeliteson Azazel’s goat. The high priest “is immune to the impurity that he re-moves,”95 as shown by the fact that he subsequently deposits his special linenvestments in the outer sanctum and bathes in the sacred precincts (vv. 23–24).

Gorman tries to rescue the desanctification theory from the problem of de-lay by saying that the high priest must perform the ritual of Azazel’s goatwhile in his marginal status. But he acknowledges the conceptual complexityinvolved in the high priest’s becoming polluted with sin while carrying super-sanctity.96 His explanation is: “Aaron embodies the breakdown of the normal

93. J. Milgrom, “Confusing the Sacred and the Impure: A Rejoinder,” VT 44(1994) 555–57.

94. See references above in n. 81. At one time Milgrom held this view (“TwoKinds,” 336). However, he has subsequently adopted the interpretation of desanctifica-tion (see above). A. Treiyer attempts to mitigate the problem of delay by stressing con-tinuity between the purification offerings and the ritual of Azazel’s goat: “After havingpurified himself and the priesthood—by the blood of the bull from all the sins of thepeople that the priests had assumed during the year—and the sanctuary by the bloodof the goat, the high priest would bear upon himself all the sins taken from the sanc-tuary. In this manner he would be viewed as being lightly contaminated. His hands,still bloodstained, would be placed upon the head of the scapegoat. All the sins wouldbe transferred in this way to the desert, blotted out completely from sanctuary andpeople” (The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment from the Pentateuch to Rev-elation [Siloam Springs, Arkansas: Creation Enterprises, 1992] 199; cf. 57, 171). How-ever, Treiyer does not take into account either the high priest’s immunity or thedifference between the lists of evils removed by the purification offerings and Azazel’sgoat, respectively (Lev 16:16, 21).

95. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1048.96. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 92–95.


boundaries of order and structure in his marginal status in order that throughthe ritual he enacts he may reconstruct the world of order and meaning andwell-being.”97

A second problem with Baumgarten’s theory concerns his assessment ofthe inner-sanctum tafj carcasses as “the remains of sacrifices which pro-vided the extraordinary powerful cleansing agents used to purify the sanctu-ary.”98 How did these carcasses, which were not taken into the sanctuary orbrought into contact with the outer altar, become so sacred? Third, if theinner-sanctum animals are so extraordinarily sacred that they are regardedas “impure,” how could suet from the same animals be burned on the outeraltar (v. 25)? Fourth, why is the one who leads away Azazel’s nonsacrificialgoat, a kind of tafj (cf. Lev 16:5), required to purify himself (v. 26)? Baum-garten admits that in this case defilement contracted by the handler may beimpurity from the goat.99

It is true that Ezek 44:19 requires priests to remove their vestments whenthey go out from the temple to the people, so that they may not transmit ho-liness to the people. But whatever the precise meaning here may be, there isno solid evidence for Baumgarten’s theory in pentateuchal ritual law. All ofthe cases that he adduces can be explained more simply. To start with thehigh priest’s second washing (Lev 16:24a)—this is required to renew his puri-fication preparatory to subsequent officiation at the altar (vv. 24b–25) becausethe nonsacrificial ritual of Azazel’s goat has interrupted the continuity of hissacrificial officiation (cf. Exod 30:20). Compare the fact that a physician mustscrub again before resuming surgery. This is not a unique case of immersionafter sacrifice;100 it is immersion before sacrifice.

Gorman is right in pointing out the correspondence between the firstbathing of the high priest, before he puts on his special linen garments (Lev16:4), and his second bathing, after he takes them off (vv. 23–24). These bathsbracket the unique inner sanctum and Azazel’s goat tafj rituals, duringwhich the priest wears special linen garments and following which he returnsto his usual ornate garments.101 So it does appear that in some sense the high

97. Ibid., 94.98. Baumgarten, “The Paradox,” 447.99. Ibid.

100. Contra Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1048. It is true that in the Temple Scroll(26:10) there is washing after the blood-manipulation segment of the inner-sanctumsacrifice and before the ritual of Azazel’s goat, but it is an additional purification, andthe high priest only washes his hands and feet.

101. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 90.

Chapter 8190

priest is involved in a communal rite of passage. But there is no firm groundfor Gorman’s idea that this ritual complex radically violates normal rules bybringing dynamic holiness from the most holy place into contact with defile-ment in the court. Methodologically, it is appropriate to look for a solutionwithin the rules of the ritual system itself before filling the void with anthro-pological theory of marginality/liminality derived from study of other ritualsystems.

The inner-sanctum tafj carcasses can easily be explained by the pars prototo (“part for all”) principle. The animals are viewed as units, so that some-thing affecting part of an animal impacts the entire animal. When purifica-tion-offering blood is applied to the contaminated sanctuary on the Day ofAtonement, the carcasses are affected by that contact, and those who handlethem contract ritual impurity because the animals are viewed as units eventhough their components are separated.102

Like the carcasses on the Day of Atonement, the entire red cow is affectedby application to that which is contaminated—in this case, persons. However,it is a unique instance of the pars pro toto principle in that the cow’s unity tran-scends not only a gap in space but also in time so that the burning sacrificebears future impurity, as if treatment of persons with its ashes has already oc-curred. As G. André puts it, “Clearly the uncleanness that the ashes are meantto remove is associated with them proleptically.”103 It is as though corpse con-tamination travels back in time and space through the ashes of the cow to itsincineration, where the impurity goes up in smoke. As in the disposal of inner-sanctum carcasses, this incineration takes place outside the camp, destroys aritual “sponge” that is polluted (cf. Lev 16:27) because a derivative of the sameanimal is applied to something/someone in order to remove defilement, andthose who participate in the burning become impure.104 Like automatic de-

102. Cf. Milgrom, “Confusing,” 557–58. On the pars pro toto principle in Israelitecult, see Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi,” 112–13; Wright, The Disposal of Impurity,130; Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 81. This kind of ritual synecdoche is a promi-nent feature of the ritual system. For example, applying blood to part of an altar affectsthe entire altar (Exod 30:10; Lev 8:15). In the consecration ceremonies described inLev 8, applying anointing oil or blood to parts of priests affects them as whole persons.With regard to the carcasses, Gilders suggests a “simpler” answer: “impurity drivenfrom sancta found its way inevitably to the carcass of the animal” (Blood Ritual, 130).In any case, the net effect is the same.

103. G. André, “amEf: †ameª,” TDOT 5:333. Kiuchi’s suggestion that “the personwho burned the heifer became unclean because he had had contact with the sym-bolic death of the red heifer” (The Purification Offering, 138; cf. 139–40) is unneces-sary and lacks support.

104. There are also differences between the inner-sanctum and red cow tafj pro-cedures: The inner-sanctum tafj carcasses are simply disposed of after they absorb



filement, the pars pro toto dynamic transcends constraints of time and spaceoperating in the material world. Remember that we are in the world of ritualhere.105

The verb rpk metaphorically expresses removal of an impediment to the divine-human relationship

Milgrom’s hypothesis that outer-sanctum and outer-altar purification offer-ings purge the sanctuary and its sancta rather than their offerers is founded toa significant extent on the idea that tafj blood purges that which it directlycontacts. This, in turn, is largely based on the assumption that similar appli-cations of purification-offering blood must mean the same thing in Lev 4 asthey do in Lev 16, where they explicitly purge that to which the high priestphysically applies the blood, namely, the sanctuary. The underlying presup-position is that a given ritual action carries the same meaning in one contextas it does in another.106 However, we should keep in mind a fundamentalprinciple of ritual theory: a physical action has no inherent meaning, andtherefore, a given action can carry different meanings in different contexts,even within the same ritual.

For example, whereas a sevenfold sprinkling in the inner sanctum on theDay of Atonement purges an area of the Sacred Tent (Lev 16:14–16a), thesame activity performed on the outer altar in the course of the same ritual re-consecrates it (v. 19).107 The fact that the sanctuary and its sancta are purgedwhen blood is applied to them on the Day of Atonement does not necessarilymean that applications of blood to them at other times have the same func-tion. The decisive factor for the meaning/function of a ritual activity systemis the goal assigned to it by the authority governing the ritual tradition to

105. Milgrom, “Confusing,” 557–58.106. Rodríguez is off target when he attempts to distinguish between the sevenfold

sprinkling before the veil in Lev 4 and the eight sprinklings in the inner sanctum pre-scribed by Lev 16 (Substitution, 129). In Lev 16 there is a single sprinkling on the arkcover, due to the fact that it was not an altar with horns, followed by a sevenfold sprin-kling in front of it (vv. 14–15), which is comparable to the sevenfold sprinklings beforethe veil in Lev 4:6, 17.

107. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1037.

ritual impurities and moral faults that have already been purged out of the sanctuary.The ashes of the red cow, on the other hand, are saved and later applied to personsin order to purify them from corpse contamination. Burning the red cow constitutesthe core of its ritual, but disposal of the inner-sanctum carcasses is only a postrequisiteritual task. On the Day of Atonement, sevenfold sprinklings of blood are directly ap-plied to parts of the sanctuary (Lev 16:14–16, 18–19), but in the red cow ritual a sev-enfold sprinkling of blood is only in the direction of the sanctuary (Num 19:4).

Chapter 8192

which it belongs. When it comes to an ancient Israelite ritual, we are depen-dent on the biblical text to interpret the activities for us (see ch. 1 above).

A. Schenker has noticed that in the Israelite cult the same sacrificial cate-gory can serve different functions. So nothing obligates us to interpret the pu-rification offering in Lev 4 as purifying the sanctuary, which this chapter doesnot mention, simply because this kind of sacrifice has that function else-where.108 Nevertheless, I retain the rendering “purification offering” for tafj

because a ritual carrying this designation always has a purifying function ofone kind or another, whether to purify a person from sin109 or severe bodilyimpurities or to purge the sanctuary and camp on the Day of Atonement.

In the context of the purification offering, the piºel verb rP<KI always indi-cates the goal of activity rather than prescribing a specific physical activity,such as application of blood to sancta.110 This distancing between rpk andthe physical act through which it is accomplished distinguishes the Hebrewverb from the Akkadian cognate kuppuru, which in ritual contexts generally,but not always, refers to physical-wiping activity directly applied to the per-sons or things from which evil is removed.111 There is a close connection be-tween medical and ritual uses of kuppuru.112 I suggest that the distancing ofHebrew rpk from the concrete sense of wiping is due to the fact that the forceof rpk combines two models for dealing with evil: the medical/biological andthe legal (see above, ch. 7).

Mary Douglas argues that “cleanse” is a misleading translation of rpk andprefers the old rendering “cover” on the basis that in Leviticus the “thingsthat are listed as needing atonement are exemplified by bodily leakages and

108. A. Schenker, “Interprétations récentes et dimensions spécifiques du sacrifice˙a††at,” Bib 75 (1994) 60.

109. Cf. R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-lag, 1985–) 3:220.

110. F. Maass, “rpk kpr pi. to atone,” TLOT 2:626.111. S. Hills, “A Semantic and Conceptual Study of the Root KPR in the Hebrew

Old Testament with Special Reference to the Accadian Kuppuru” (Ph.D. diss., JohnsHopkins University, 1954) esp. pp. 147–49, 214, 291–93. On kuppuru, cf., e.g., B. Le-vine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in AncientIsrael (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 123; B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Stu-dien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und imAlten Testament (WMANT 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 29–60; Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 291–99; CAD K 179. Wright points out some in-stances of kuppuru that “appear to reveal an abstraction of the literal meaning yielding‘purify, purge’ without indication of actual wiping” (The Disposal of Impurity, 292).

112. Hills, “A Semantic and Conceptual Study,” 94–95, 147; Wright, The Disposalof Impurity, 291–92; CAD K 179.



disease, so clearly not cases in which dirt has to be removed or surfaces pol-ished.”113 “According to the illustrative cases from Leviticus, to atone meansto cover, or recover, cover again, to repair a hole, cure a sickness, mend a rift,make good a torn or broken covering.”114 In a “ring composition” structure ofLeviticus that has ch. 19 as its midpoint, Douglas finds a series of damagedcovers, including human skin, garments, and walls of a house. These lead upto and serve as figures for the violated sanctuary, which stands for “the protec-tive covering of God’s righteousness.”115 “The meaning of physical purity anddefilement would be to model the protective covenant with God and itsbreach.”116

In Douglas’s view, the purpose of sacrificial blood is to repair the breach inthe covering/protection provided by Yhwh’s covenant, which is assailed atcertain vulnerable points by sins against righteousness.117 “When the cover-ing of the universe has been rent, it is not the person who did the deed whoneeds urgently to be washed but the covering that needs repair.”118

The thesis of Douglas is profound and carefully worked out from an an-thropological perspective. I could also cite other biblical passages where sinresults in a need to be covered or recovered, such as Gen 3:6–7 and Zech 3:3–5, and mention the fact that Neh 3:37 uses the piºel verb hsk, “cover” (sk"T}Ala"

µn;/[“Al[") as the functional equivalent of rpk in Jer 18:23 (µn;/[“Al[" rPEk"T}Ala").119

We can certainly agree that moral or physical evil damages the protectivedivine-human relationship. But the crucial linguistic fact remains that in Le-viticus, rpk goal formulas of purification offerings include privative ˆm + evil,referring to removal of evil from the offerer (see above ch. 6). This meaning iscloser to that of Akkadian kuppuru than to Arabic kafara, “cover.”

Whether the origin of the verb rP<KI should be sought outside Hebrew,within Hebrew as a denominative of the noun rp<KO, “ransom” or “compositorypayment” (see, e.g., Exod 30:11–16),120 or both, it seems impossible to ex-plain the semantic range of rP<KI without allowing for the possibility that somemeanings of the word are derived by extension or metaphorical usage, a factor

113. M. Douglas, “Atonement in Leviticus,” JSQ 1 (1993–94) 116.114. Ibid., 117–18.115. Ibid., 123.116. Ibid., 126.117. Ibid., 129; cf. 128.118. Ibid., 123.119. Maass, “rpk,” 625.120. See, e.g., L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1955) 147–48; cf. 143–46, 149–51; H. C. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice,Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47 (1976) 26–28, 34–35.

Chapter 8194

that diminishes the relevance of etymology.121 As S. R. Driver sagely observedwith regard to the Arabic and Akkadian derivations, “it does not greatly sig-nify, in explaining it, whether we start from the idea of covering over or fromthat of wiping out: in either case, the idea which the metaphor is intended toconvey is that of rendering null and inoperative.”122

Although the etymology of rpk is less than certain and the verb expressesa conceptual range for which no single English word is entirely appropri-ate,123 it is enough for our purposes to understand that it signifies the removalof some impediment to the divine-human relationship, prerequisite to com-pletion of reconciliation. This may be removal of debt or culpability by meansof compository payment or removal of ritual impurity through purification.124

As Driver pointed out, “ ‘make atonement’ (at-one-ment, reconciliation) mayexpress a consequence of kipper, but it is not what the word itself denotes.”125

This is supported by the fact that in a purification or reparation offering, rpk

performed by a priest is followed by divine forgiveness, expressed by the nipºalof jls (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, etc.; 5:16, 18, 26[6:7]; 19:22). How could forgivenessfollow reconciliation? Ritual rpk must be something preceding completion ofreconciliation/atonement: removal of that which comes between the divineand human parties and thereby stands in the way of reconciliation.

The idea that rpk is prerequisite to reconciliation accords to some extentwith nonritual use of the verb exemplified in Gen 32:21[20], where Jacobsays to himself before meeting Esau: “Let me rP<KI his face with the presentthat goes before me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps he will lift upmy face.” Here rpk refers to that which Jacob can do to take away Esau’sground for hatred against him. However, while this is assured because it isunder Jacob’s control, reconciliation is not assured, because it depends onEsau’s reaction. Similarly, performance of cultic rpk does not automatically

121. On rP<KI, see, e.g., Levine, In the Presence, 55–77; cf. 123–27; Janowski, Sühne,esp. 95–102; B. Lang, “rP<KI kipper,” TDOT 7:288–303; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1079–84; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 87–109. S. R. Driver concluded that rP<KI is al-ways used metaphorically (“Propitiation,” in A Dictionary of the Bible [ed. J. Hastings;New York: Scribner’s, 1911] 4:128–29).

122. Ibid., 128; cf. 131.123. Cf. Hills, “A Semantic and Conceptual Study,” 287–91. Wright summarizes:

“The verb has a general meaning of ‘appease; propitiate; expiate’ and when used withthe purgation offering has more the notion of ‘purify’ though the other meanings canbe present” (“Day of Atonement,” 72–73).

124. See Gilders’s broad rendering of rpk as “effect removal” (Blood Ritual, 29,135–38, 177–78).

125. Driver, “Propitiation,” 131.



result in reconciliation with God.126 While it is performed with reference toGod at his altar, the actions through which it is accomplished are carriedout in the human arena: “God is neither the subject nor the object of theverb.”127 Reconciliation is possible only by direct involvement of Yhwh’svolition, as signified by the verb jls, “forgive.” Purification offerings are nota form of magic.128

Since I interpret outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings as re-moving evil from persons in order to restore their status with Yhwh followingwhat could be regarded as a “liminal” period of a disturbed divine-human re-lationship,129 I agree with A. Marx when he views the object (including indi-rect object) of the verb rpk as always indicating the beneficiary of a givenritual, whether that beneficiary is the individual, the community, the altar, orthe sanctuary.130 But Marx overemphasizes the idea of “passage,” which hefinds to be the common denominator of the various circumstances in whichpurification offerings are performed. He regards this class of sacrifices as com-prising a system of “rites of passage” for the Israelite community, which coversvarious kinds of transitions, including reintegration of sinners or impure per-sons, transition from the secular state to the sacred state, the return of theNazirite from holiness to his normal state,131 and regular alternations of time.Furthermore, he interprets combinations of purification and burnt offerings

126. Notice that cultic use of rpk differs from that of Gen 32 in that the formerdoes not have the aggrieved party (i.e., God) as the object of this verb.

127. P. Garnet, “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the QumranScrolls,” EvQ 46 (1974) 148.

128. Cf. A. R. S. Kennedy and J. Barr, “Sacrifice and Offering,” in Dictionary of theBible (ed. J. Hastings; rev. ed. F. C. Grant and H. H. Rowley; New York: Scribner’s,1963) 875.

129. While Wright follows Milgrom’s general tafj theory, he agrees with the riteof passage idea in regard to “tolerated impurities”: “acquiring one of these impuritiesis not a punctual or static matter, but one involving a linear progression through time:first contracting impurity, then being impure for a period of time, then purifying. Andthis process is one of movement into a threatening and restricted state—a liminalstate—with consequent movement therefrom. . . . The experience of impurity is atype of rite de passage with stages of separation, marginality (or liminality), and reinte-gration (or reaggregation). The process of impurity, like other rites de passage, is statusdetermining” (“The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in AncientIsrael [ed. G. A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1991] 173, incl. n. 3; cf. 174). However, the rules regarding more serious “prohibitedintentional impurities” generally “seem to leave one in perpetual liminality” (p. 174).

130. A. Marx, “Sacrifice pour les péchés ou rite de passage? Quelques réflexionssur la fonction du ˙a††aªt,” RB 96 (1989) 45.

131. Cf. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 51.

Chapter 8196

as working together to provide dynamics of passage. Purification offeringseffect separation from the previous state, and burnt offerings accomplish ag-gregation to a new or renewed state. Consequently, Marx suggests that the“purification offering” should be termed “sacrifice of separation.”132

Some problems with the system of Marx are as follows:133

1. Purification offerings can be involved in rites of passage, such as conse-cration ceremonies (e.g., Lev 8:14–17), and within the conceptual system ofIsraselite ritual they do change states of persons or things. However, “passage”is not a defining functional trait of this category of sacrifices because it is notunique to them. Burnt offerings can also be involved with purification offer-ings in transitions of state (see below), and a burnt offering is included in theconsecration ceremonies (e.g., vv. 18–21) along with the special ordination(µyaILUMI) sacrifice (vv. 22–28), which is primarily if not exclusively a rite ofpassage. Like purification offerings, a reparation offering accomplishes rpk,thereby removing an impediment to the divine-human relationship, prerequi-site to reconciliation when forgiveness is granted directly by Yhwh (5:16, 18,26[6:7]; 19:22). Even well-being offerings provide some kind of rpk (17:10–12).

2. In Lev 5:6–13 and Num 15:24–28, lone purification offerings and com-binations of purification offerings with burnt offerings are functionally equiv-alent. Therefore, if it is true that purification offerings are rites of passage,they must not be limited to separation. In the passages just mentioned,whether or not a burnt offering accompanies a purification offering is due toquantitative considerations. The burnt offering supplements the quantity ofoffering material and thereby brings the expiatory power of the purificationoffering up to its requisite level, either by enhancing the lesser offerings ofpoor persons (Lev 5) or by expanding the scope of a purification offering toembrace the entire community (Num 15).134

3. While it is true that purification offerings are involved in consecration,this is because they serve a purifying function that is prerequisite to transitionto a state of enhanced intimacy with Yhwh, whether a holy state (e.g., Lev

132. Marx, “Sacrifice pour les péchés,” 37–48. The classic work on “rites of passage”is A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).Cf. E. Leach’s attempt to apply similar concepts (including liminality, separation, andaggregation) to sacrifice in general (“The Logic of Sacrifice,” in Anthropological Ap-proaches to the Old Testament [ed. B. Lang; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 136–50).

133. Cf. J. Milgrom’s penetrating critique of Marx: “The Óa††aªt: A Rite of Pas-sage?” RB 98 (1991) 120–24; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 289–92.

134. Cf. Milgrom, “The Óa††aªt: A Rite of Passage?” 122.

page is a pica short


8:15)135 or a status of authorization for levitical service (Num 8:5–22; see esp.vv. 8, 12, 21). However, the consecration activity par excellence is not the pu-rification offering, whether alone or in combination with the burnt offeringbut, rather, the application of holy anointing oil (Exod 28:41; 29:7; 30:30;40:13, 15; Lev 8:12, 30).136

4. It is true that in the cultic calendars of Lev 23 and Num 28–29, calen-dric purification offerings are prescribed in connection with important timesof the year, and these performances are not mandated by specific needs forpurification. However, there is no warrant for disconnecting their functionfrom the basic idea of purification carried by their tafj label and the goalverb rpk (Num 28:22, 30; 29:5).

ConclusionThe fact that purification-offering blood contaminates (Lev 6:20[27]) be-

fore it is applied to the sanctuary and/or its sancta can be explained by itsfunction to remove sin or physical ritual impurity from the offerer. However,three purification offerings are exceptional: initial decontamination of the al-tar, inner-sanctum sacrifices on the Day of Atonement, and the red cow ritualperformed outside the camp.

Milgrom has reconstructed a general paradigm of purification-offering dy-namics on the basis of the exceptional initial purification of the altar andinner-sanctum offerings, in which tafj blood purges the sacred objects and/or areas to which it is physically applied. But we have found that this kind ofpurgation does not apply in outer-altar and outer-sanctum sacrifices. I agreewith Milgrom that individual expiable sins throughout the year have commu-nal consequences in that they pollute the sanctuary.137 However, whereas heholds that outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings purge the sanc-tuary from the sins that have already polluted the sanctuary, I contend thatthese sacrifices result in mitigated pollution of the sanctuary, which mustconsequently be purged on the Day of Atonement.

135. For my suggestion about how the Nazirite’s final purification offering servesthis function in relation to culmination of his/her holy status, see on Num 6:14 and 16in my Leviticus, Numbers (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) 535.

136. Milgrom, “The Hattaªt: A Rite of Passage?” 121.137. Cf. K. C. Hanson, “Sin, Purification, and Group Process,” in Problems in Bib-

lical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. H. T. C. Sun et al.; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1997) 177.

198

Chapter 9

The Scope of Expiability

In this chapter we investigate the nature of evils that can be removed fromofferers through noncalendric outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification of-ferings. We have already found that the outer-altar type deals with moralfaults and severe physical ritual impurities of individual Israelites, and outer-sanctum sacrifices remedy moral faults of the high priest or the community.We have also found that, whereas tafj sacrifices accomplish purification(rhf) from bodily impurities, in a moral case, achieving the ritual goal onlyserves as a prerequisite to divine forgiveness (jls). So more is at stake whenmoral faults are concerned.

Here we are concerned with two questions:

1. How do physical ritual impurities relate to moral faults?2. What kinds of moral faults can or cannot be removed from offerers by

tafj sacrifices? In other words, what are the limits of expiability for moral faults?

Physical ritual impurities and moral faults are related but distinct

A purification offering can remedy a state of severe physical ritual im-purity (Lev 12:6–8; 14:19, 22, 31, 15, 30, etc.), contraction of which is permit-ted1 but purification from which is required before contact with sacredobjects or areas, in order to safeguard the boundaries of holiness connectedwith the Presence of Yhwh at the sanctuary (e.g., 7:20–21; cf. 15:31). Suchimpurity is a category belonging to a conceptual system and should not beconfused with ordinary dirtiness2 or literal pathological conditions encoun-tered in the practice of medicine,3 which are subject to mundane constraintsof cause and effect that operate in the material world.

1. D. Wright, “Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible,” Koroth9 (1988) 181–84.

2. H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place inJudaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 154.

3. L. Grabbe, Leviticus (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 52.

The Scope of Expiability 199

A tafj sacrifice providing rpk for physical ritual impurity results inphysical ritual purity (rhf). Forgiveness (jls) is not needed, because con-tracting a bodily impurity does not, by itself, constitute a moral fault.4 How-ever, inexpiable wanton failure or expiable inadvertent failure to followYhwh’s commands regarding bodily impurities, whether by contracting animpurity that he prohibits (Lev 18:19; 20:18; 21:1–4, 11; Num 6:6–7, 9–12),contacting something holy while in a state of impurity (Lev 7:20–21; 22:3–7), or failing to undergo timely ritual purification (5:2–3; Num 19:13, 20),is moral fault.5

Physical ritual impurities are not moral evils. In Lev 14 “the non-moralnature of ‘leprosy’ is shown by the fact that it can affect fabrics and housesas well as humans.”6 Since some impurities, such as scaly skin disease (so-called “leprosy”; Lev 13–14) and genital fluxes (Lev 15), are contracted in-voluntarily and thus unavoidably, their bearers could not be held account-able for moral violations. Childbirth, which generates severe impurity (Lev12) and results from voluntary sexual intercourse that causes a light impu-rity (Lev 15:18), is necessary for the divinely ordained existence of humansociety (cf. Gen 1:28; 9:1).7

D. P. Wright demonstrates that, although terms for moral faults are notused with reference to bodily impurities, these categories appear to havecloser connections than we would expect. For example:8

4. J. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; Minneapolis:Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 416–17, 420; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–) 3:176, 216–17.

5. J. Milgrom, “The Graduated Óa††aªt of Leviticus 5:1–13,” JAOS 103 (1983) 251–52; idem, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 310–13; D. Wright, TheDisposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and MesopotamianLiterature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 19 n. 9. For a clear analysis ofdistinctions between the various kinds of impurities, including between tolerated andprohibited categories, see idem, “Two Types,” 180–93; idem, “The Spectrum of Priest-ly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A. Anderson and Saul M.Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 150–81.

6. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 121; cf. F. Gorman, Divine Presence and Commu-nity: A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus (ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997)88. It is true that outside the cultic legislation “leprosy” could be a divine punishmentfor sin (Num 12:10; 2 Kgs 5:27; 15:5; 2 Chr 26:19–21), but even in those cases the skindisease itself is not sin but an impure condition that results from sin.

7. T. Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,”in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor;Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 403–4; Wright, “The Spectrum,” 157,171; Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, vii–viii.

8. Wright, “Two Types,” 191; idem, “The Spectrum,” 152, 165; cf. J. R. Porter, Le-viticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 37; H. Ringgren, “amEf:

Chapter 9200

1. Inadvertent “sins” are similar to permitted impurities contracted involuntarily in that they do not involve conscious commission.

2. The same kind of sacrifice (outer-altar purification offering) is required to purge (rpk) both sins and some permitted impurities.9

3. Moral faults generate a kind of ritual impurity.10

In what appear to be diverse categories of evil, whether causing them is tol-erated or prohibited, Wright finds a spectrum of impurity that “comprehendsall adverse conditions or actions, unintended or intended, that are deleteriousto what is holy. . . . If all these conditions or actions are not sins, they all areat least a threat to what is holy and hence must either be, when serious, avoided,or when less grave, controlled. For the Priestly writer, all the defilement-creatingconditions were of the same conceptual family.”11 Thus Wright’s taxonomy ofevils sensitively recognizes commonality between categories while acknowl-edging differences between them. N. Kiuchi’s approach is also well balanced:while he finds a clear distinction between tafj, “sin,” and physical ritual im-purity, he concludes that these categories are not incompatible with each other.A tafj “is a kind of uncleanness, produced on a dimension different from thatof natural uncleanness.” Therefore, “there is no essential distinction betweenpurification and expiation.”12 G. André is less successful when he blurs bound-aries by saying: “Instances of outward uncleanness require purification throughwater, but sometimes a ceremony of expiation is also needed because the un-cleanness can be understood as sin and guilt.”13

It appears that the relationship between moral faults and physical ritualimpurities can be further clarified by considering their respective relation-ships to death. Moral faults that are inexpiable, including wanton neglect ofrequired sacrifices for expiable evils, lead to terminal/irrevocable destructive

9. Cf. S. R. Driver, “Propitiation,” in A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. J. Hastings;New York: Scribner’s, 1911) 4:132.

10. Cf. Levine, Leviticus, 19. See esp. Lev 16:26, where the handler of Azazel’sgoat, which carries only moral faults (vv. 21–22), must perform ablutions to purifyhimself.

11. Wright, “Two Types,” 191; cf. idem, “The Spectrum,” 165; Porter, Leviticus, 37;Cover, “Sin, Sinners,” 34–35.

12. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning andFunction (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 65; cf. 64, 66.

13. G. André, “amEf: †ameª,” TDOT 5:331.

†ameª,” TDOT 5:332; B. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia:Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 19; J. Milgrom, “Rationale for Cultic Law: TheCase of Impurity,” Semeia 45 (1989) 106–7; R. C. Cover, “Sin, Sinners: Old Testa-ment,” ABD 6:34–35.


punishment: the death of the sinner and/or the divine penalty of trk, “cut-ting off ” (that is, most likely, extirpation of his line of descendants; e.g., Lev20:2–3; Num 15:30–31; 19:13, 20).14 Physical ritual impurities, on the otherhand, are generated by an existing human state of mortality that must be keptseparate from Yhwh.

A number of scholars have recognized that the concept of death appearsto be the common denominator between the various tolerated physical im-purities that appear in pentateuchal ritual law.15 But H. Maccoby percep-tively qualifies the role of death: because discharges from the reproductiveorgans that are not physically dangerous cause impurity, but life-threateningloss of blood from a wound is not impure, he concludes that ritual impuritymay be “an expression of the birth–death cycle that comprises mortality.”16

“The human cycle of procreation and death must be excluded from therealm of the eternal God, who creates life without suffering death.”17 Sowhereas moral faults cause death (cf. Rom 6:23), physical ritual impuritiesarise from an existing state of mortality, which, according to Gen 3, has bur-dened the human race as a consequence of the moral fault of disobediencecommitted by Adam and Eve (cf. Rom 5:12, 14).

14. Cf. D. Wold, “The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth” (Ph.D. diss., Uni-versity of California at Berkeley, 1978) 251–55; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 457–60;B. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates andGolden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literaturein Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; WinonaLake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 13.

15. E.g., N. Füglister, “Sühne durch Blut—Zur Bedeutung von Leviticus 17,11,”in Studien zum Pentateuch (ed. G. Braulik; Vienna: Herder, 1977) 158; Kiuchi, ThePurification Offering, 63; André, “amEf: †ameª,” 331; Wright, “The Spectrum,”177; Milgrom, “Rationale for Cultic Law,” 103–9; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 767–68,1002–3; idem, “The Rationale for Biblical Impurity,” JANES 22 (1993) 107–11, esp.109–10; idem, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 1371; idem, Le-viticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 2457. Cf. F. Gorman’s interpreta-tion of a ritual purification (from scaly skin disease) as effecting the individual’spassage from death to life (The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in thePriestly Theology [JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990] 152–53, 162–79).

16. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 49; cf. esp. 31–32, 48, 50, 207–8; Milgrom ac-cepts Maccoby’s qualification: “I now realize that I must amend my theory: not allblood from living persons is an impurity source, only reproductive blood. Now my the-ory of life/holiness versus death/impurity . . . is actually strengthened. The zab andzabâ (blood) are functionally equal. Their issue produces life; their loss wastes life”(Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2463). Similarly, Gorman attributes the impurity of sexualintercourse to an ambiguous situation in which life and death are brought together(Divine Presence, 92). Cf. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 417–20.

17. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 60.

Chapter 9202

We have found that the purification offering treats both moral and physi-cal aspects of restoration,18 which correspond to the two areas of benefit pro-vided by Yhwh according to Ps 103:3—ykIy]a:lUj“T"Alk:l} apEroh: ykIne/[“Alk:l} j'lESOh",“who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases” (nrsv). Whensuch a sacrifice remedies a physical impurity that arises from a mortal statethrough no unlawful intent, the ritual function is more compatible with a“medical” perspective than with a “legal” one. The fact that the same kind ofsacrifice provides rpk for violation of a divine command that incurs “legal”liability to Yhwh reflecting damage to the relationship with him suggests thatthe concern is with moral “healing” in the process of fulfilling the legal, thatis, relational, obligation.19

Nondefiant sinners can receive the benefit of expiation through sacrifice, but defiant sinners cannot

An outer-altar or outer-sanctum purification offering can remedy liabilityto Yhwh (but not liability to human persons or society) incurred by an in-advertent (roots hgv/ggv) violation20 of an ethical or ritual commandment(hw;x}mI) of Yhwh when the sin becomes known to the sinner (Lev 4:2, 13–14,22–23, 27–28; Num 15:22–24, 27).21 Leviticus 5:1–13 lacks terms for inad-

18. Milgrom, “Rationale for Cultic Law,” 106.19. So pentateuchal ritual law is not legalistic! (cf. A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and

Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century [New York: KTAV, 1967]xxv–xxx). S. Hills reminds us of the broader implications of moral healing. In the He-brew Bible there is a strong connection between “God’s personal attitudes of wrathand mercy and man’s concrete, bodily existence. To be under God’s wrath and cursemeant for one to feel it in his body, in weakness, disease, and failure. To enjoy God’sfavor, to possess his blessing, meant to be strong, full of health and success. Thus, ifKPR is the turning aside of divine anger, it must, at the same time, mean healing ofthe body and restoration of fortune, it must mean health and strength and prosperity,and such is the fact everywhere stressed (therefore the problem of Job and Ps. 73)” (“ASemantic and Conceptual Study of the Root KPR in the Hebrew Old Testament withSpecial Reference to the Accadian Kuppuru” [Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University,1954] 272). At the same time, operation of the “medical” model does not negate indi-vidual legal responsibility (cf. G. Roy Sumpter, “Crime, Individual Culpability andPunishment,” JETS 16 [1973] 223–27).

20. Milgrom holds that hggv does not refer to unconsciousness but, rather, to ac-cidental violation of the law or deliberate action without knowledge of its wrongfulnature (“The Cultic hggv and Its Influence in Psalms and Job,” JQR 58 [1967] 115–25; esp. 118). Levine summarizes the two related aspects of inadvertence under-stood by the rabbis: “(1) inadvertence with respect to the facts of law; and (2) inadver-tence with respect to the nature of the act” (Leviticus, 19).

21. Milgrom maintains that the category of religious commandments (t/x}mI)includes ethical as well as ritual laws enforceable only by God, but not civil laws


vertence but provides for a “graduated” tafj sacrifice,22 following confes-sion (v. 5), to expiate for cases that could be classified as sins of omission/neglect,23 including failure to testify (v. 1) and forgetting (wnmm µl[nw, “and itescapes him”) the need to perform a duty to Yhwh (vv. 2–4).24

To sharpen our perspective, it is helpful to compare an Israelite’s legal lia-bility to Yhwh with a modern American’s liability under United States law.As in U.S. law, Israelite negligence was culpable when the offender had a le-gal duty to act. However, unlike parties responsible for most U.S. crimes,which require the defendant’s unlawful state of mind to accompany a volun-tary unlawful act, Israelites were accountable to Yhwh for violations of whichthey were unaware when they committed them. In a sense these inadvertent

22. On the graduated (rabbinic, lit., “ascending and descending”) tafj in Lev5:1–13, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 307–18; cf. Levine, Leviticus, 28–29.

23. Levine distinguishes between sins of commission in Lev 4:1–35 and of omis-sion in 5:1–13 (ibid., 19–20, 25–28); cf. Rendtorff, Leviticus, 189–90.

24. On forgetting in vv. 2–4, see Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 30.

enforceable by man (Leviticus 1–16, 230). Cf. M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and CriticalCommentary on the Old Testament, with a New Translation: Leviticus (2 vols.; London:Longman, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1867–72) 1:170, 187; D. Hoffmann, Das BuchLeviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6) 175; Levine, Leviticus, 18. However, N. Snaithhas asserted that “no sin-offering had anything to do with deliberate sin or with sin inthe moral and ethical sense. The sin-offering had to do with accidental breaking oromission of the ritual laws of uncleanness” (“The Sprinkling of Blood,” ExpTim 82[1970–71] 24). Similarly, in differentiating the thought of the “Priestly Torah” fromthat of the “Holiness School,” I. Knohl contends that in the conception of the former,the divine commandments are exclusively ritual in nature and have nothing to dowith the sphere of social ethics (“The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Ideo-logical Aspects,” in Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, DivisionA: The Bible and Its World [Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990] 52;idem, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minne-apolis, Fortress, 1995] 175). Against Knohl, Milgrom effectively defends an ethical P(Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2440–46): “For example, would P’s theology allow a de-frauder who voluntarily returned his stolen object without taking an imprecatoryoath (cf. 5:20–26; Knohl 1995: 239–40) to be exempt (after paying his civil fine) fromany responsibility to atone before God?” (pp. 2440–41). Regarding Lev 5:20–26, Mil-grom remarks: “P imposes a 20 percent fine for each case of fraud. Furthermore, thedefrauder must pay the fine to his victim before he makes restitution to God (theªasam) for the false oath (Milgrom 1976a 110–11). Clearly, even if the cases were notcompounded by a false oath, P would have maintained the 20 percent fine for the sinagainst man ( jus)! Can there be any doubt that in P’s system, though not expressedin P’s cultic legislation, is hidden an entire regimen of ethics?” (p. 2442). CompareD. Davies, who views Israel’s holiness in terms of an ordered network of social relation-ships and finds that “the holiness of God in Leviticus is a conception which is ex-pressed in ethical terms as well as in terms of perfection and completeness” (“AnInterpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus,” ZAW 89 [1977] 398; cf. 396–97).

Chapter 9204

violations could be compared to “strict liability offenses” in the modern legalspheres of torts and criminal law, for which liability is imposed even whenthere is no fault involving unlawful intent.25

As mentioned above, moral faults include violations of Yhwh’s regulationswith regard to physical impurity. If such a violation is unintentional, it may beremedied by a purification offering (Lev 5:2–3, 6; Num 6:9–12), but other-wise, the offender is subject to divine punishment (Lev 7:20–21; 20:18; 22:3;Num 19:13, 20).26

In Num 15:30–31 a person who sins “high-handedly” (hm:r; dy;B}; i.e., de-fiantly), is condemned to extirpation (trk), by contrast with inadvertent sin-ners, who can offer purification offerings and be forgiven (vv. 22–29).27 AsK. Koch recognizes, this contrast between expiation and extirpation indi-cates that they are mutually exclusive: an extirpated sinner is barred fromthe benefit of sacrificial rpk, even though the death of such a person mayaccomplish a kind of rpk for the rest of his/her community by purging it ofthe evildoer (Num 25:13).28

In the contrast between treatment of the two kinds of sin in Num 15—inadvertent versus defiant sin—we find a basic principle of Israelite culticjustice: Yhwh provides the opportunity for sacrificial rpk prerequisite to for-giveness only for those whose sins are not committed in defiance againsthim. Sacrificial rpk is a privilege granted by Yhwh, not an inalienable right.

Inadvertent sin is by definition nondefiant, because the sinner does notknow that he is violating a divine command (cf. Lev 4:13–14, 22–23, 27–28).In legal terminology, inadvertence automatically rules out the possibility ofmens rea, an unlawful state of mind on the part of the offender, that accom-panies the actus reus, the unlawful act.29 However, some moral offenses expi-able by tafj sacrifices are not inadvertent (5:1–4).30 Nevertheless, each of

25. See “Criminal Law and Procedure,” 4–6, and “Torts,” 14, 38–39, legal summa-ries in WestWeek West Bar Review (Washington, D.C.: West Publishing, 1996), cour-tesy of Rita D. Giebel, Attorney at Law.

26. Cf. Wright, “Two Types,” 184–87.27. Compare with the parallelism between Ps 19:13[12] and 14[13], where t/aygiv‘,

“errors/inadvertent sins,” are grouped with t/rT:s}Ni, “hidden things” (v. 13), and µydiZe,“insolent/presumptuous ones,” appear with [væP<, “transgression” (v. 14; J. Calvin,Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996] 341).

28. K. Koch, “Sühne und Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zurnachexilischen Zeit,” EvT 26 (1966) 331–32.

29. Cf. “Criminal Law and Procedure,” 4–5.30. Cf. A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Berrien

Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 148.


these expiable cases involves some kind of mitigating factor that establishes itsaffinity with inadvertent sins rather than with defiant violations.31

As exegetes have recognized, if Num 15 means that inadvertent sins can beexpiated (vv. 22–29) but intentional/advertent sins cannot (vv. 30–31), this pas-sage conflicts with texts indicating that at least some deliberate sins are expi-able, whether through a purification offering (Lev 5:1, 5–6) or a reparationoffering (Lev 5:20–26[6:1–7]; Num 5:5–8).32 Some scholars have attempted toresolve this tension by interpreting the faults in Num 15:22–29 as nondefiant

31. Ibn Ezra mitigates the offense in Lev 5:1 by saying that the witness forgot totestify but later remembered. However, the text does not indicate such a qualification.A. Spiro suggests that in this verse an individual witnesses another person contactingimpurity or pronouncing an oath (cf. vv. 2–4) and fails to remind that person of hiscondition or oath when he forgets. Although the sin of the witness is deliberate andtherefore requires confession and repentance, it is not serious because it has not yetled to a violation by the second person, who may contact something sacred in astate of impurity or break his oath (A. Spiro, “A Law on the Sharing of Informa-tion,” PAAJR 28 [1959] 95–101). But vv. 1–4 are formulated as discrete cases, thereis no indication in v. 1 that withholding testimony concerns an action of anotherperson that has not yet led to sin, and Spiro does not explain why such a witnesswould be culpable when he hears an adjuration/imprecation (v. 1), apparently callingfor testimony. A. Schenker attempts to downgrade the seriousness of withholding testi-mony by placing it in the category of “intentional sins without malice,” as opposed to“intentional sins with malice” (cf. Lev 5:21–24[6:2–5]; “Once Again, the ExpiatorySacrifices,” JBL 116 [1997] 698–99). But the biblical text does not indicate malice orits absence in these cases as it does in connection with distinctions between first-degree murder and manslaughter (Num 35:20–23; Deut 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11).

32. Cf., e.g., J. Herrmann, Die Idee der Sühne im Alten Testament: Eine Untersu-chung über Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Wortes kipper (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905) 96;P. Saydon, “Sin-Offering and Trespass-Offering,” CBQ 8 (1946) 397; J. Milgrom, “ThePriestly Doctrine of Repentance,” RB 82 (1975) 186–200; idem, Cult and Conscience:The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 108–10; idem, “Atonement in the OT,” IDBSup 80–81; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 301; idem,Leviticus 17–22, 1425; G. A. Anderson, review of “Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: ANew Translation with Introduction and Commentary,” CBQ 55 (1993) 763. N. Snaithinterprets the tafj sacrifice as having to do with unwitting (hggvb) offenses andcases in which the offense is “hidden” (µl[n) from the sinner, and the µva sacrifice(for which he suggests the label “compensation-offering”) as dealing with faults thatcause damage, whether deliberate or unwitting. So he has no difficulty recognizingthat Lev 5:20–26 deals with deliberate sin remedied by an µva (“The Sin-Offering andthe Guilt-Offering,” VT 15 [1965] 73–74, 77–80). However, grasping the difficulty thatin Lev 5:1 the offense for which a tafj sacrifice is required (cf. v. 6) is neither un-witting nor hidden from the sinner, Snaith nevertheless maintains that it falls withinthe scope of the purification offering because it does not involve property damage andthe text does not say that the sinner deliberately refused to speak up (p. 80). Elsewherehe categorically asserts that “no sin-offering had anything to do with deliberate sin”(“The Sprinkling of Blood,” 24). But if the sin in 5:1 is neither unwitting nor “hid-den,” what else could it be if it is not deliberate?

Chapter 9206

sins of error/weakness (roots hgv/ggv), whether inadvertent or intentional, asopposed to defiant sins in vv. 30–31.33 However, P. Saydon points out thatsuch a broad interpretation of words from the roots hgv/ggv in Num 15 is in-consistent with their usage in Lev 4–5, where inadvertence is in view.34

Since Milgrom finds that in Priestly texts instances of required confessionby the sinner (including Lev 5:5; Num 5:7) coincide with cases of deliberatesins expiable by sacrifice, his solution is to regard confession as a legallyweighted expression of repentance that reduces deliberate sins to the categoryof inadvertent sins in order to render them expiable (cf. b. Yoma 86b).35 Thus,following rabbinic interpretation (e.g., b. Sebu. 13a), Milgrom understandsNum 15:30–31 as barring sacrificial atonement to the unrepentant sinner,“but not to the deliberate sinner who has mitigated his offense by his repen-tance.”36 “All deliberate sins are regarded as presumptuous unless they aretempered by subsequent acts of repentance, such as voluntary confession andrestitution specified by Lev 5:20–26; Num 5:5–8.”37

33. See, e.g., C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testa-ment (trans. J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 [orig. 1874]) 2:303; A. B.Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament (8th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1952[1st publ. 1907]) 315; A. Clamer, Lévitique, Nombres, Deutéronome (La Sainte Bible2; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1946) 46; R. H. Elliott, “Atonement in the Old Testament,”RevExp 59 (1962) 24. For A. Médebielle the antithesis in Num 15:22–31 betweenhg;g;v‘ and hm:r; dy; sins is a simple contrast between expiable and inexpiable offenses,respectively. He describes the former as “error” that comprises the vast range of faults,more or less serious, more or less voluntary, which have their source in human frailty.These include all the kinds of moral evil that appear in Lev 16: [vp, tafj, and ˆw[.But he regards hm:r; dy;, “high-handed,” sin as another category, the only class of sinsthat cannot be expiated through sacrifice, because of their exceptional gravity as auda-cious and scandalous sins that openly attack the authority of the king of Israel, com-mitted with an unpardonable malice (L’Expiation dans L’Ancien et le NouveauTestament [SPIB; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1923] 85).

34. Saydon, “Sin-Offering,” 395.35. Milgrom, “The Priestly Doctrine,” 195–205; idem, Cult and Conscience, 119–

27; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 301–2, 373–78. While Lev 5:20–26 deals with deliberate sinswithout calling for confession, Milgrom regards this case as paralleled and supple-mented by Num 5:6–8, where the requirement of confession is added (“The PriestlyDoctrine,” 192–93). Although Milgrom includes Lev 16:21 as an instance of confes-sion for deliberate sin that is expiable by sacrifice (ibid., 200; idem, Leviticus 1–16,301), this case does not really belong here because the ritual of Azazel’s goat is non-sacrificial in nature, as Milgrom recognizes: “It is not an offering to God but an elimi-nation of sin” (“The Priestly Doctrine,” 195 n. 32). As G. A. Anderson has shown, therabbis and the Qumran community developed different answers to the question of de-liberate sins (“The Interpretation of the Purification Offering [tafj] in the TempleScroll [11QTemple] and Rabbinic Literature,” JBL 111 [1992] 17–35).

36. Milgrom, “The Priestly Doctrine,” 196; idem, Cult and Conscience, 109–10.Cf. Rashi and Ramban on Num 15:31.

37. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2449.



But how is it possible to understand Num 15:30–31 as referring to a sinnerwho lacks post hoc repentance? These verses only describe the nature of thesin when it is committed: “high-handed,” that is, defiant, as in Exod 14:8,38

and as Milgrom recognized when he interpreted hm:r; dy;B} in Num 15:30:“in open defiance.”39 As Milgrom has also acknowledged, vv. 30–31 do notmandate confession for high-handed sins against God, which would beexpected if a remedy through repentance were possible in such cases.Furthermore, F. Crüsemann contends that because the cases of intentionalsin in Lev 5:20–26 and Num 5:6–8 are presented in such detail, we shouldnot generalize them as models for other cases that are also expiable, even bythe rituals of the Day of Atonement:

We find no example by which serious infractions of the fundamental culticorder—especially for cases for which “cutting off ” is prescribed—can byconfession and repentance be included among the offenses covered by thecomprehensive forgiveness of the Day of Atonement.40

Like Milgrom, A. Rodríguez and M. F. Rooker attempt to introduce a lackof post hoc repentance into Num 15:30–31, but they do this by assuming thatthe concept is included in the definition of “high-handed” sin. This assump-tion is based on their misunderstanding of Lev 16:16 and 21, where tafj

rituals accomplish rpk for all the iniquities (pl. of ˆw[), transgressions (pl. of[vp), and sins (pl. of tafj) of the Israelites. Not perceiving that the µy[vp

can be removed from the sanctuary and camp without providing rpk thatbenefits those who commit them (cf. v. 30—moral cleansing only for tafj

sins), they conclude that the Day of Atonement rituals provide sinners withexpiation even for these most serious sins.41 Since this interpretation leavesno room for sin that is irrevocably inexpiable by cultic means at the time

38. A. Schenker, Recht und Kult im Alten Testament (OBO 172; Freiburg: Uni-versitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 120–21 n. 18.

39. J. Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publica-tion Society, 1990) 125.

40. F. Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law(trans. A. W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 318; cf. Levine, Leviticus, 3. Mil-grom has seen the possibility that expiability of intentional offenses may be limited tothe kinds of cases specified in Lev 5 and Num 5:6–8, apparently repented crimesagainst man (letter to Wright, 1989, cited in Wright, “The Spectrum,” 160 n. 3).Wright adds: “One can further note that stories such as those in Lev. 10.1–3; 24.10–23and Num. 15.32–36 read as if repentance for deliberate affronts against God was notpossible in the priestly conception” (ibid.).

41. Rodríguez, Substitution, 148; M. F. Rooker, Leviticus (NAC 3A; Nashville:Broadman & Holman, 2000) 53–55, 219; cf. A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus undLeviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897) 460.

Chapter 9208

when it is committed, Rodríguez and Rooker must explain “high-handed” sinin terms of what happens later: lack of repentance.42

Understanding that Milgrom introduces the notion of deliberate unrepen-tance into Num 15:30–31, A. Phillips responds:

Though the sinner who acted “with a high hand” may have behaved “bra-zenly,” there is nothing in the text to indicate that he necessarily remainsunrepentant: in contrast to Lev. v. 20–6, he is simply not given the chanceto repent. Num. xv. 27ff. merely contrasts those who act unwittingly withthose who act deliberately.43

Phillips’s solution to the conflict between Num 15 and Lev 5 is to regard theproblematic cases in the latter as exceptions motivated by a practical concern:because the deliberate offenses in Lev 5:1 and 5:20–26, involving neglect totestify and fraudulently possessing property by swearing falsely, are (presum-ably) undetectable by the community, the Priestly legislators sought to en-courage their perpetrators to confess by ensuring that they would be rewardedby extreme leniency: they could receive expiation and remain within thecommunity.44

Phillips refines the discussion by showing that, because confession is re-quired in Lev 5, the offenses are likely undetectable, and he recognizes thatthe “high-handed” category of Num 15 would not include all deliberate sins.However, he has not succeeded in getting the undetected deliberate sinneroff the Num 15:30–31 hook. Just as Milgrom imports unrepentance into thispassage, Phillips reads detectability into it. There is nothing in these verses toprove that a “high-handed” sin is necessarily detectable by unaided humanagency. Indeed, it is God himself who sees to it that the sinner is brought toterms sooner or later, as indicated here by the punishment of trk (cf. Lev20:3).45 The secret defiant sinner (e.g., Achan in Josh 7) can run, but he can-

42. Thus Rooker harmonizes Leviticus and Numbers with the New Testamentconcept of unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit (citing Heb 10:26–31; Leviticus,54–55).

43. A. Phillips, “The Undetectable Offender and the Priestly Legislators,” JTS 36(1985) 149.

44. Ibid., 150; cf. 148. Although confession is not specified in Lev 5:20–26, it doesappear in the parallel law of Num 5:6–8 (see above), and in any case, some kind ofacknowledgment of the sinner as such would be necessary before performance of rep-aration. B. Levine adds that incentive for disclosure would benefit the wronged party,who would otherwise have no way to recover lost property if the defendant lied underoath (Numbers 1–20 [AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993] 187).

45. Cf. D. Wold, “The Meaning of the Biblical Penalty Kareth” (Ph.D. diss.,University of California at Berkeley, 1978) 251–55; Levine, Leviticus, 241; Milgrom,


not hide! It could be argued that human detectability could play a role inwhether or not a sinner manages to engage the cooperation of a priest to offi-ciate an expiatory sacrifice on his behalf. But even if an overtly or covertly de-fiant sinner succeeds in going through the proper expiatory motions, Num15:30–31 serves notice that such ritual activity is null and void as far as Yhwh

is concerned.A. Schenker is close to Phillips in that he sees sacrificial expiation as avail-

able for inadvertent sins and secret intentional faults for which confession isneeded but not for wrongs committed openly and shamelessly. Unlike Phil-lips, he distinguishes between expiable and inexpiable deliberate sins accord-ing to the way in which their commission reflects the attitude of the offender,rather than whether they are detectable or not.46 Schenker emphasizes a dis-tinction between “high-handed” and simple intentional sin:47 the idea ofsimple deliberateness would lack sufficient force in the passages where hm:r;

dy;B}, “high-handedly,” describes the manner in which the Israelites departedfrom Egypt (Exod 14:8 and Num 33:3). The same adverbial sense that suitsthis context also fits in Num 15:30: openly, boldly, shamelessly.48

In support of Schenker’s view of “high-handed” sin, we could add thatcommitting an intentional offense could be expressed simply by a notice thatthe offender knows ([dy) that he is committing a sin. But the language ofthese verses (“high-handedly . . . for he has despised the word of Yhwh”) ap-pears to describe an “in your face” kind of offense that goes significantly be-yond a simple deliberate moral lapse. Such defiance is a personal affront toYhwh (v. 30—πDeg'm} aWh hw;hy]Ata<<, “he reviles Yhwh”); it is rebellion againsthim, his authority, and his covenant.49 While even nondefiant sin brings the

46. A. Schenker, “Das Zeichen des Blutes und die Gewissheit der Vergebung imAlten Testament,” MTZ 34 (1983) 205.

47. Idem, “Interprétations récentes et dimensions spécifiques du sacrifice ˙a††at,”Bib 75 (1994) 65, 69.

48. Idem, Recht und Kult im Alten Testament (OBO 172; Freiburg: Universitäts-verlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 121.

49. From passages in which dy is combined with the verb µwr (1 Kgs 11:26–27;Mic 5:8[9]; Deut 32:27; Exod 17:11), C. J. Labuschagne finds that hm:r; dy;B}, “high-handedly,” is associated with human “strife, rebellion and fighting. . . . The origin ofthe expression is without any doubt the physical gesture of the raised hand, with orwithout a weapon in it, which indicates that one is triumphantly determined tofight and to win” (“The Meaning of beyad rama in the Old Testament,” Von Ka-naan bis Kerala [Fs. J. P. M. van der Ploeg; AOAT 211; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker /Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982] 146; cf. 145). Labuschagne goes on

Leviticus 1–16, 457–60; cf. B. Schwartz, hrwtbv tynhwkh hqwjb µynwy[ :hvwdqh trwt

(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) 52–57.

Chapter 9210

sinner’s loyalty to Yhwh into question, disrupts the divine-human relation-ship, and thereby damages the perpetrator and the community,50 such moralevil is not rebellious in the same sense.

B. H. McLean refers to the most serious sins as “premeditated with dispas-sionate forethought.”51 B. Levine similarly explains: “In a legal context, beyadramah connotes premeditation and contrasts with bisegagah ‘inadvertently’,in other words, without prior intent.”52 However, while premeditation un-doubtedly impacts the gravity of a wrong (cf. Num 35:20–23; Deut. 4:42; 19:4,6, 11), this factor does not appear to be an essential component of a sin thatis disqualified from sacrificial expiation. Although the blasphemer commit-ted a direct affront to Yhwh on the level of a “high-handed” sin and wasstoned to death with no opportunity for pardon (Lev 24:11–16, 23),53 the factthat he did this during the heat of a brawl (v. 10) would make it difficult tosustain the notion that premeditation, let alone “dispassionate forethought,”led to his blasphemous utterance.

The fact that sacrificial expiation is available for some intentional/deliber-ate sins (Lev 5:1, 5–6, 20–26) but not for intentional faults that are defiant/pre-sumptuous (Num 15:30–31) indicates that the category of intentional sinscontains two subcategories, one expiable and the other inexpiable. Acts of gen-

50. Cf. K. Kinghorn, “Biblical Concepts of Sin,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 1(1966) 22, 25–26; E. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. D. Stott; OTL;Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 57.

51. B. H. McLean, “The Interpretation of the Levitical Sin Offering and theScapegoat,” SR 20 (1991) 348.

52. B. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 398; cf. Rashi onNum 15:30.

53. The blasphemer was executed by human agency even though his sin wasagainst God, not because it was less grave than defiant sin punishable by trk, butbecause its effect on the community, like that of Molek worship (cf. Lev 20:2–3),demanded immediate redress (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 460; idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1420, 1422).

to conclude: “In Num. 15:30 the expression has a weakened meaning: ‘deliberately’,but it is not impossible that here also it still retains something of its original force andconnotes the idea ‘ready to commit rebellion’, ‘defiantly’ ” (p. 148). On the serious na-ture of “high-handed” sin as provocation, rebellion, and cause of damage to the cove-nant, see A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of theFirst Century (LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) 307–8, 456; R. de Vaux, Les Sacrificesde l’Ancien Testament (CahRB 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1964) 85 n. 2; Porter, Leviticus, 37;R. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980) 31; cf. 172; Crüsemann, The Torah, 319. The negative connotation ofraising the hand is clear in the Akkadian letter YOS 3.25: “Why in the world did youlift your hand against the king . . . ?” (A. L. Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia[Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967] 190).


uine repentance, that is, voluntary confession and restitution, are crucial com-ponents of the remedy for expiable intentional sins. But whether or not anintentional offense is expiable or inexpiable in the first place is determined bythe nature of the sin, before any remedial steps can acceptably take place.

I would take issue with an aspect of Schenker’s interpretation. It is true thatwhen the Israelites defied Pharaoh by “high-handedly” leaving Egypt, they didso openly rather than secretly (Exod 14:8; Num 33:3). However, when an Is-raelite defies Yhwh “high-handedly” (Num 15:30–31), what is open to Yhwh’sview is not necessarily open to other members of the Israelite community.This is exemplified by the intentional sin of Achan, which he hid from his fel-low Israelites but which was revealed by Yhwh and treated as if it were “high-handed” (Josh 7). Since some intentional sins kept secret from other humanbeings are expiable but others are not, such secrecy by itself is not a determin-ing factor for expiability.54

Rather than attempting to have the two categories of sin in Num 15:22–31(expiable inadvertent and inexpiable defiantly deliberate) cover all cases, I ac-cept a gap between them in the area of nondefiant deliberate sins, which aredealt with in Lev 5. The latter category is expiable through sacrifice, on con-dition that repentance is demonstrated through voluntary confession55 if apurification offering is required (Lev 5:5) or voluntary confession and restitu-tion if a reparation offering is required (5:23–24[6:4–5]; Num 5:7).56 If thefactors of secrecy and undetectability show up in connection with expiableintentional sins, their main significance is to show that confession is volun-tary, arising from accountability to God even when accountability to mancannot be enforced.57

With regard to Lev 5:1, because this case of undetectable deliberate ne-glect is graciously associated with cases of forgetfulness (vv. 2–4), implyingthat it is nondefiant, it is brought under the scope of the tafj sacrifice.58

54. Also contra Milgrom, Numbers, 125.55. Unlike Achan’s forced acknowledgment (Josh 7:19–21).56. On the powerful interpersonal dynamics involved in confession between hu-

man beings, analogous to confession to God, see M. Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer(Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies: Sixth Series; Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1983) 24–30.

57. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 184–86, 201; Levine, Leviticus, 28.58. According to A. Marx, the scope of the tafj sacrifice is restricted to cases in

which one or the other of two conditions apply: (1) The sin is committed hg;g;v‘BI,which he interprets as accidentally, without premeditation (Lev 4:2, 22, 27; Num15:24–29). (2) The sin is committed unconsciously, being hidden (µl"[}n,) from the sin-ner (Lev 4:13; 5:2–4; “Sacrifice pour les péchés ou rite de passage? Quelques réflex-ions sur la fonction du ̇ a††aªt,” RB 96 [1989] 29–30). The outline of Marx is neat and

Chapter 9212

Perhaps this amnesty recognizes the potential risks and/or conflicting inter-ests involved in testifying and encourages witnesses with misgivings to aid thelegal process, even after a delay.59

It appears that the factor of delay is a common denominator between allmoral faults expiable by noncalendric outer-altar or outer-sanctum tafj sac-rifices. Whether a person commits an inadvertent offense that he/she fails torecognize until later (Lev 4), delays giving required testimony (5:1), or forgetsa duty to Yhwh (5:2–4), there is delay between the violation and its ritualremedy.60

Lest a “gap theory” of Num 15:22–31 appear too strange, we can pointout that the unique pronouncement regarding defiant sins (vv. 30–31) ap-pears to be the main thrust of this legislation, which is placed between nar-ratives of communal rebellion recorded in chs. 14 and 16 and immediatelypreceding a narrative concerning an inexpiable offense committed by an in-dividual (15:32–36).61 In this context it makes sense that the inadvertent-defiant opposition in vv. 22–31 would be contrastive (rather than necessarilycomprehensive) in order to emphasize the gravity of the covenant-defying,“high-handed” category.62 Placement of purification-offering legislation inNum 15:22–29, immediately preceding the warning against “high-handed”sin in vv. 30–31, supports B. Levine’s observation: “The covenant, and theonly-to-be-expected violations of it represent the larger framework withinwhich the ˙a††aªt sacrifice functioned.”63

I have found no real contradiction between Lev 5 and Num 15. The dif-ference between the two passages is in terms of their legal scope. Whereas the

59. On leniency to encourage confession, see Phillips, “The Undetectable Of-fender,” 150.

60. On the graduated tafj (Lev 5:1–13) as the remedy for the wrong of prolongingimpurity (vv. 2–3), see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 310–13.

61. Cf. G. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leice-ster: Inter-Varsity, 1981) 130–31; P. J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Waco, Texas: Word,1984) 173–74.

62. See Wright’s observation that suffering lesser impurities would remind theIsraelites of the threat of serious impurities (“Two Types,” 192).

63. B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Termsin Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 103. Levine compares the Hebrew verbafj, “sin,” with its Akkadian cognate ha†û, “to err, be at fault, betray,” which can referto treaty violations (Levine, Leviticus, 19; cf. In the Presence, 102–3).

logical, but it is somewhat more neat than the biblical data. For example, he does notadequately take Lev 5:1 into account. Here failure to testify is included in the scope ofthe purification offering (cf. vv. 5–6) even though its commission is neither hg;g;v‘BI norµl:[}n,.


former has to do with the intermediate category of nondefiant deliberate sins,the latter deals with the outer inadvertent and defiant categories. So I find un-necessary the various attempts to harmonize these passages by adjusting thesemantic parameters of terms for sin or introducing factors such as post hocrepentance.64

ConclusionWhile moral faults and physical ritual impurities are related, they remain

distinct categories. The former are violations of Yhwh’s commandments, butthe latter arise from a human state of mortality.

Numbers 15:22–31 asserts that, although Yhwh will extend mercy to theinadvertent sinner through sacrifice, no such remedy is possible for the defi-ant sinner, who is irrevocably and irredeemably condemned to the terminalpunishment of extirpation (trk). The point of this passage is not to divide theentire range of possible offenses down the middle into inadvertent and advert-ent categories but to highlight the severity due to rebels by contrasting it withthe leniency available to sinners at the other end of the spectrum.

It is true that in biblical narratives Yhwh can directly extend mercy to pre-sumptuous sinners who repent (e.g., Manasseh; 2 Chr 33:12–13), and in Ezek18:21 Yhwh promises amnesty to the wicked who repent.65 However, there isno indication that the mediation of the cult is envisioned as reversing terminalcondemnation of defiant sinners. In subsequent chapters we will find, in agree-ment with Crüsemann (see above), that this observation holds true even forthe awesome services of the Day of Atonement, including the high priest’scomprehensive confession over Azazel’s goat and subsequent banishment ofthe animal in order to purify the Israelite camp collectively of all moral faults(Lev 16:21–22).

64. Cf. my “Numbers 15:22–31 and the Spectrum of Moral Faults,” in Inicios, para-digmas y fundamentos: Estudios teológicos y exegéticos en el Pentateuco (ed. G. Kling-beil; River Plate Adventist University Monograph Series in Biblical and TheologicalStudies 1; Libertador San Martín, Entre Ríos, Argentina: Editorial Universidad Adven-tista del Plata, 2004) 149–56.

65. Compare the fact that in some texts (Exod 32:30; Ps 65:4[3]; 78:38; 79:9; Dan9:24) rpk is only a divine act rather than the result of human cultic performance(F. Maass, “rpk kpr pi. To Atone,” TLOT 2:631).

Part 3

Phases of rpk

217

Chapter 10

Inner-Sanctum Purification Offerings

Observing that the prescriptions for the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 arestrategically placed at the heart of the central book of the Pentateuch, S. A.Geller suggests that the chapter is “the gateway to the hidden sanctum of P’stheology.”1 While the Day of Atonement was not the greatest of Israelite cer-emonial days in terms of the quantity of sacrifices specified for it (cf. Num 28–29), its unique character sets it at the pinnacle of Israelite cultic observance.2

On the Day of Atonement, five main rituals are structurally bound together as a unified system

Verses 1–2 of Lev 16 introduce the ceremonies that are unique to the Dayof Atonement3 within a narrative framework as originating from Yhwh “afterthe death of the two sons of Aaron,” at the time when the sanctuary was inau-gurated (cf. Lev 10:1–2). Geller suggests that this introduction is a literaryclue to focus on the blood manipulations in the Holy of Holies rather than onthe bloodless ritual with the so-called “scapegoat.”4

1. S. A. Geller, “Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of the Priestly Work ofthe Pentateuch,” Prooftexts 12 (1992) 97–124. On the centrality of ch. 16 in the ar-rangement of material in Leviticus, see W. Shea, “Literary Form and TheologicalFunction in Leviticus,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy(ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986)138, 146–51; J. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word, 1992) xxxiv–xxxv, 217, 224;W. Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus (BIS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 86–87. Ofcourse, literary structure can be viewed on more than one level. See the “ring” struc-ture of Leviticus proposed by M. Douglas (“Poetic Structure in Leviticus,” Pomegran-ates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, andLiterature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom [ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hur-vitz; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995] 247–55, esp. 253) and endorsed byJ. Milgrom (Leviticus 17–22 [AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000] 1364–65), in whichch. 19 is the central turning point.

2. Cf. G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford:Clarendon, 1925) 306–7.

3. Excluding the regular daily (Exod 27:20–21; 29:38–42; 30:7–8; Num 28:1–8)and weekly (Lev 24:1–9) rituals and additional sacrifices performed similarly on otherfestivals (Num 29:7–11).

4. Geller, “Blood Cult,” 105–6.

Chapter 10218

Verses 3–10 outline preparations for the rituals of the day, including assem-bling certain animals at the sanctuary (cf. 9:1–5), the personal ritual purifica-tion of the high priest by washing his whole body, and designation of therespective ritual roles of two goats through the use of lots. Leviticus 16:11–28prescribes the main ritual procedures, including core activities (vv. 11–25)and tasks that are postrequisite to Azazel’s goat and purification-offering ritu-als (vv. 26–28). The chapter concludes in vv. 29–34 with commands for allIsraelites to practice self-denial and abstain from work on this tenth day of theseventh month because of the special rpk that is performed for them, bothpriests and laity, and for all parts of Yhwh’s sanctuary.

In vv. 11–25, the high priest officiates over five main Day of Atonementrituals:5

1. Two elaborate purification offerings, using a bull on behalf of the highpriest and his household and a goat on behalf of the lay community, are in-terwoven with each other. That is to say, the second ritual begins before thefirst is completed, and similar activities belonging to the two rituals alternate.When the mixed bloods of both animals are applied together to the outer altar(vv. 18–19), the rituals are merged. The blended purification offerings func-tion together as a higher-level activity system called µyriPUKIh" taF"j", “the puri-fication offering of purgation” (Exod 30:10; Num 29:11; see further below).6

Only during this exceedingly solemn ritual complex on the tenth day of theseventh month is the high priest, and no other, permitted to enter the awe-some inner sanctum of the sanctuary, which in this chapter is called simplyvd,QOh", “the holy (place)” (Lev 16:2, 12–16a). Because these tafj sacrificesuniquely involve blood applications in the inner sanctum, I have referred tothem as “inner-sanctum purification offerings.”

2. The high priest makes a verbal confession over a goat designated for“Azazel” (so-called “scapegoat”) while leaning both his hands on its head,and then the goat is led away into the wilderness by an assistant (vv. 20–22;cf. v. 10). The live goat is provided by the lay community (v. 5) but functionsfor all Israelites (v. 21), including the priests.

3. Following the ritual with Azazel’s goat, the high priest offers twoburnt offerings of rams, one on behalf of the priests and the other on behalf

5. Not counting the lot ritual (vv. 8–10) or any ablutions of the high priest, suchas his second full bath in v. 24.

6. W. C. Kaiser (“The Book of Leviticus,” NIB 1:1112) and P. Jenson (“The Leviti-cal Sacrificial System,” in Sacrifice in the Bible [ed. R. Beckwith and M. Selman;Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995] 36) mistakenly identify µyriPUKIh" taF"j" in Num 29:11 withthe scapegoat ritual.

Inner-Sanctum Purification Offerings 219

of the laity (v. 24; cf. vv. 3, 5). Not stated in Lev 16, but required by Num15:1–16, are a grain and drink offering to accompany each burnt offering(cf. Num 29:8–11).

In the Israelite system of rituals, only the special Day of Atonement cere-monies involve what P. Jenson has termed “two extreme poles of the spatialdimension of the Holiness Spectrum”: the Holy of Holies (purification offer-ings) and the wilderness (Azazel’s goat).7

The ritual of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:20–22) and the burnt offerings (v. 24)interrupt the inner-sanctum purification offerings after their blood manipula-tions (vv. 14–19) and before the burning of their suet/fat (v. 25), which is fol-lowed by disposal of their carcasses by incineration outside the camp (v. 27).8

So the purification offerings provide a framework within which the Azazel’sgoat ritual and the two burnt offerings are embedded. Thus all five rituals arestructurally bound together as a unified system. This system is embeddedwithin the larger system comprising all rituals performed on the tenth day ofthe seventh month, including regular rituals (Exod 30:7, 8; Num 28:1–8) andadditional festival offerings (Num 29:7–11).

Of the five rituals unique to the Day of Atonement, the basic carriers ofqualitative meaning are the two purification offerings and Azazel’s goat.9 Themeaning of the burnt offerings on behalf of the priests and laity is subsumedunder that of the purification offerings on behalf of these offerers, respectively.As elsewhere when these two kinds of sacrifices are coupled on behalf of thesame offerer, the burnt-offering token “gift” enhances the efficacy of the puri-fication-offering token “debt payment” in a quantitative sense, making whatamounts to a greater purification offering (cf. Lev 5:6–7; Num 15:24–28).10

7. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 201–2.

8. While m. Yoma 6 (see esp. 6:6–7) retains the biblical order, the Temple Scrollavoids interruption of the tafj sacrifices by placing the burning of their suet and dis-posal of their carcasses before the high priest commences the ritual of Azazel’s livegoat (26:7–11).

9. Compare Geller, who supports the conclusion that the entrance into the innersanctum to manipulate blood and the scapegoat ritual must bear the special meaningof the Day of Atonement on the basis that these are the only rites unique to the day(“Blood Cult,” 104–5).

10. Cf. S. R. Driver, “Propitiation,” in A Dictionary of the Bible (ed. J. Hastings;New York: Scribner’s, 1911) 4:131. So it is unnecessary to seek a separate significancefor such a burnt offering, as some scholars do. For example, A. F. Rainey interpretscombinations of purification and burnt offerings as representing expiation followed byconsecration (“The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts,” Bib 51 [1970]498, esp. n. 5). In his analysis of Lev 8, F. Gorman explains such a pair as purging the

Chapter 10220

Thus the burnt offerings are an integral, although fuctionally secondary, partof the system of rituals involved in the purgation of the sanctuary on the Dayof Atonement.11

Although Lev 16 provides considerable detail, it economizes in severalways:

1. Leviticus 16 does not mention some activities that must logically beincluded for practical physical reasons. For example, blood must be col-lected at the time of slaughter (cf. 2 Chr 29:22; m. Yoma 4:3) so that it canbe manipulated.

2. Leviticus 16 assumes a fully operational cultic system and knowledge ofrules that operate throughout it. For example, the high priest would purifyhimself by washing his hands and feet with water drawn from the sacred laverbefore each period of officiation at the altar or entrance into the Sacred Tent(cf. Exod 30:17–21).12

3. Leviticus 16 abbreviates by referring to patterns of activity previously setup in the same ritual complex. In v. 16b the text prescribes blood manipula-tions to be performed in the outer sanctum, called here the “Tent of Meet-ing” (i.e., the rest of the Tent),13 by saying simply that he shall do likewise forthe Tent of Meeting. Here “likewise” (ˆkE) refers back to the pattern of activi-ties specified for the inner sanctum (vv. 14–15).

11. The Temple Scroll (25:15–16) recognizes that the burnt offerings accompanythe special tafj complex. Contra B. Levine, who explains the reference to rpk inconnection with the burnt offerings in Lev 16:24: “The ºolah, ‘burnt offering,’ was notdirectly involved in the rites of expiation. This is a general statement referring to allthat the High Priest had done by way of expiation, rather than to the ºolah specifically”(Leviticus [JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989]108). Also contra Geller, who interprets the high priest’s performance of burnt offer-ings in his usual vestments (v. 24) as immediate resumption of the regular cult (“BloodCult,” 107). In the very next verse the high priest burns the suet of the inner-sanctumpurification offerings on the altar (v. 25), showing that he has not yet resumed his regu-lar cultic activity.

12. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 1017.13. R. Péter-Contesse and J. Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus (UBSHS; New

York: United Bible Societies, 1990) 250; compare Lev 4:7, where rP:h" µD'AlK:, “allthe blood of the bull,” refers to the remainder of the blood that had not alreadybeen used (cf. v. 18), and v. 12, where rP:h"AlK: refers to “all the rest of the bull.”

sanctuary (purification offering) and then providing a gift to Yhwh to secure right re-lations with him, averting divine wrath caused by the offense of sin (burnt offering;The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology [JSOTSup 91;Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990] 126–27). Such approaches fail to account for the fact thatan unaccompanied tafj sacrifice can be functionally equivalent to a purification–burnt offering pair (Lev 5:5–6; Num 15:24, 27).


4. Leviticus 16 assumes knowledge of a ritual paradigm presented earlierin Leviticus: v. 24 calls for two burnt offerings but provides no instructions fortheir performance. These instructions appear in Lev 1.14

Now we turn to more-specific analysis of the inner-sanctum purificationofferings. In the following chapter we will examine the ritual of Azazel’s goat.

Two inner-sanctum purification offerings form a unitAs mentioned above, the two special purification offerings performed on

the Day of Atonement, one on behalf of the priests and the other on behalf ofthe lay community, are designated as µyriPUKIh" taF"j", “the purification offeringof purgation” (Exod 30:10; Num 29:11). Several factors support the idea thatthis construct expression, which refers to a single tafj sacrifice, must coverboth rituals:

1. In Exod 30:10 the high priest purges the incense altar once a year byperforming purgation on its horns with blood of “the purification offering(tafj, sing.) of purgation.” In Lev 16:14–16 and 18–19, bloods of bothinner-sanctum purification offerings are used once a year to purge the sanc-tuary and its sancta, including the outer sanctum where the incense altar islocated (v. 16b).

2. In Lev 16:25 the high priest burns the suet of taF:j"h", “the purificationoffering” (sing.), clearly referring to both purification offerings collectively.15

3. The offerings stipulated in the cultic calendar of Num 28–29 are per-formed on behalf of all Israelites, including the priests. In this context, it canbe assumed that “the purification offering (tafj, sing.) of purgation” in v. 11should also be on behalf of all Israel. In Lev 16 this coverage is accomplishedby means of the two inner-sanctum rituals, one on behalf of the priests andthe other on behalf of the rest of the people.

The collective singular “purification offering of purgation” refers to the rit-ual complex that contains both tafj rituals. Compare use of the singularhl:[O, “burnt offering,” in Num 28–29 for two or more regular or additionalburnt offerings that form a burnt-offering complex and are performed onbehalf of the same offerer, all Israel (28:3, 6, 10, 11, 19, 27, etc.).

14. The lack of details in Lev 16 regarding the burnt offerings disturbed A. A. Bonar,who concluded that on the Day of Atonement “the Lord wished to fix the attention ofall upon the sin-offerings” (A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, Expository andPractical [5th ed.; London: Nisbet, 1875] 301).

15. Compare Targum Onqelos’s plural atwfj here. K. Elliger unnecessarily specu-lates that the singular in the MT could indicate that originally only one tafj was of-fered (Leviticus [HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966] 216).

Chapter 10222

There is a special reason for referring to the “purification offering of pur-gation” complex as a unit: although the two tafj rituals are performed onbehalf of different offerers, they are structurally bound together by interweav-ing and merging. By contrast, the two burnt offerings in Lev 16:24, one on be-half of the priests and the other on behalf of the community, are mentionedseparately because they are simply juxtaposed.

Some have interpreted the plural form µyriPUKIh" (see also Exod 29:36; 30:16;Num 5:8) as an abstract of rpk.16 Alternatively it could be understood as anintensification of rpk.17 In any case, in the context of µyriPUKIh" taF"j" on theDay of Atonement, there is also an element of real plurality. Multiple purga-tions (more than one rpk) remove evil from the inner sanctum, the outersanctum, and the outer altar (Lev 16:16, 18; cf. vv. 20, 30, 33, 34).18

The offering of µyriPUKIh" taF"j", performed only on the tenth day of the sev-enth month, may well have given µyriPUKIh" to the biblical name of the day:µyriPUKIh" µ/y, “the Day of Purgation(s)” (23:27–28; 25:9).19 Perhaps µyriPUKIh" µ/y

is an abbreviation for µyriPUKIh" taF"j" µ/y, “day of the purification-offering ofpurgation.”

The purification-offering procedure includes some activities that are mentioned in the text and others that are not

Apart from some abbreviation (see above), Lev 16 outlines both inner-sanctum purification offerings in detail to indicate unique aspects of these rit-uals and to show relationships between their alternating activities. Followingthe use of lots to designate which goat belongs to Yhwh and which is for Aza-zel (vv. 8–10), the high priest turns his attention to his bull and slaughters it

16. E.g., BDB 498; W. Gilders translates “removal” (Blood Ritual in the HebrewBible: Meaning and Power [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004] 29), butHALOT 1:495 renders “act of atonement.”

17. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 2022. Re-garding the plural of intensification, see GKC §124e.

18. J. Milgrom, Advanced Biblical Hebrew Texts seminar, University of Californiaat Berkeley, 1982; cf. I. Schur, Versöhnungstag und Sündenbock (CHL 6/3; Helsinki:Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1933) 13, 31.

19. Cf. J. Milgrom, “Atonement, Day of,” IDBSup, 82. K. Aartun interprets µyriPUKIh"

in this context as plural: “den Tag der Sühnungen,” the Day of Atonements (“Studienzum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualge-schichtlicher Beitrag,” ST 34 [1980] 89). Milgrom renders “the Day of Purgation” (e.g.,Leviticus 1–16, 1009, 1059). The term rwpyk µwy (Yom Kippur), the modern name of theday, is a relatively late development. In early rabbinic literature the plural form (µwy

µyrwpkh) still predominated (cf. M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the TalmudBabli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [New York: Judaica, 1975] 657).


(v. 11) to begin the purification offering on behalf of himself and his house-hold.20 Activities explicitly included in this tafj paradigm are listed below.In Lev 16 there are two interwoven performances of the same paradigm, firstwith the bull for the priests and second with a goat on behalf of the lay com-munity (vv. 11–19, 25, 27–28).

In terms of activities, the two performances are identical, except that thehigh priest burns incense in connection with the first tafj (vv. 12–13) butnot the second (v. 15). Without offering incense, the high priest cannot en-ter the inner sanctum to manipulate blood there without being struck dead(v. 13). It appears that when he enters, he places the censer in the innersanctum (cf. m. Yoma 5:1–2) and leaves it there until he completes theinner-sanctum blood manipulations belonging to the second ritual.21 Thusthe results of the incense activities performed during the first ritual remainfor the second.

In the outline of paradigm activities below, the incense activities thatbelong only to the first performance are indicated in italics. Note that all ac-tivities up to and including the burning of the suet are performed by thehigh priest. Concluding tasks having to do with disposal of the carcasses areperformed by (apparently lay) assistants.22

slay animaltake censer of burning coals from outer altar, and incensebring censer and incense into inner sanctumset (i.e., burn) the incense on the firetake bloodbring blood into inner sanctum23

20. Since the high priest has already brought (byriq}hI) his bull before the lot ritual(v. 6), he does not need to move it again before the main ritual phase begins with itsslaughter. The word byriq}hI, lit., “bring near,” at the beginning of v. 11 is simply re-sumptive repetition in the text (cf. R. Rendtorff, Leviticus [BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985–] 219), transferring the focus of ritual attentionfrom the goats to the bull. On the hipºil of brq for preliminary conveyance to a rituallocus, as in v. 6, see R. Gane and J. Milgrom, “br'q: qarab,” TDOT 13:142–43.

21. Leviticus 16 does not say when the high priest removes the censer. If he doesnot do this as soon as he completes the blood applications in the inner sanctum andmoves to the outer sanctum, he must enter the inner sanctum later to retrieve the cen-ser (so m. Yoma 7:4).

22. For ritual participation by assistants not specified as priests, see vv. 21, 26; Num19:8–9.

23. With regard to the community’s goat, the text specifies that the high priestmust bring the blood into the inner sanctum (Lev 16:15). Practical necessity dictatesthat such conveyance must also be part of the bull sacrifice for the priests. The high

Chapter 10224

sprinkle blood eastward on ark coversprinkle blood in front of ark cover 7 timesperform blood manipulations “likewise” in outer sanctumexit with blood to outer altar24

take bloodput blood on four horns of outer altarsprinkle blood on outer altar with finger 7 timesplace suet on outer altartake remainder of carcass (hide, flesh, dung) outside campincinerate remainder of carcasslaunder clothesbathe in water25

Notice that no hand-leaning is included (see vv. 11, 15). If it were part ofthese rituals, the inner-sanctum tafj for the community would have the ges-ture performed by the elders (cf. 4:15), and such participation would surelybe worthy of notice. Lack of hand-leaning here can be explained by the factthat the Day of Atonement rituals are calendric (16:29; cf. 23:27, 32) and thusrequire no identification of the respective offerers.26

The following additional activities, not mentioned in Lev 16, wouldbelong to the inner-sanctum purification-offering paradigm:

24. Because exiting to the outer altar brings the blood to it, no separate activity ofpresenting/conveying the blood to the altar (cf. Lev 1:5) is necessary. On identificationof the altar in 16:18 as the outer one, see pp. 76–77 above.

25. Laundering and bathing here refer to a variable number of personal purifica-tions, depending upon how many assistants participate.

26. See pp. 54–55 above. My interpretation differs from that of G. F. Hasel, whosays that this absence of hand-leaning shows that these sacrifices purge that to whichtheir blood is applied rather than cleansing the offerer (“Studies in Biblical Atone-ment II: The Day of Atonement,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, His-torical, and Theological Studies [ed. A. Wallenkampf; Washington, D.C.: Review andHerald, 1981] 128 n. 33). According to m. Yoma 3:8 and 4:2, on the Day of Atonementthe high priest leans two hands on his bull and confesses before and after the lot ritualby which the roles of the two goats are determined. However, he does not performthese activities on the community’s goat (5:4). While double hand-leaning and con-fession are attested in Lev 16:21 in connection with Azazel’s goat, there is no biblicalwarrant for their performance with the high priest’s bull. This tradition appears to bebased at least partly on the assumption that the high priest’s bull is a private ratherthan community offering (m. Tem. 2:1), and therefore hand-leaning is required.Again, as noted above, pp. 54–55 n. 34, the public/private distinction does not work.

priest would probably do this separately from carrying coals and incense into the in-nersanctum (so m. Yoma 4:3; 5:3) because it would be awkward for him to manage allof these items at once.


1. “Collect blood” must be done at the time of slaughter (cf. 2 Chr 29:22; m. Yoma 4:3).

2. “Exit from inner sanctum to court” would presumably follow placement of the censer in the inner sanctum, so that the high priest could get the bull’s blood from the court and take it into the inner sanctum (Lev 16:13–14; cf. v. 15).27

3. “Exit with blood from inner sanctum to outer sanctum” comes between the blood manipulations in the two rooms.

4. “Mix bloods of the two animals” is necessary before the high priest can put “some of the blood of the bull and of the goat” on the altar (v. 18; cf. m. Yoma 5:4).28

5. “Pour remaining blood at base of outer altar” would dispose of the remainder after the blood applications are completed (cf. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34).29

6. “Remove suet” must be done before the suet can be burned on the altar (cf. 4:8–9, 19, 31, 35).

7. “Present suet to outer altar” transfers it to the place where it is burned (cf. 1:13).

8. As we mentioned earlier, the prescription for blood manipulations in the outer sanctum is abbreviated: “ and he shall do likewise (ˆkEw]) for the Tent of Meeting” (16:16b). N. Kiuchi recognizes that “likewise” refers to the precedent set in the inner sanctum:30

14He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his fin-ger on the kapporet on its east side; and in front of the kapporet he shallsprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times . . . 15band manipu-late its blood as he did with the blood of the bull; he shall sprinkle it uponthe kapporet and before the kapporet.31

There is a 1 + 7 pattern here: one sprinkling on the tr,POK", which is the slabof gold on top of the ark of the covenant (cf. Exod 25:17, 21) and seven

27. It seems out of the question to imagine that the priest could manage to carry acontainer of blood into the inner sanctum along with the censer full of coals andincense to put on it. The incense activities would occupy both hands.

28. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1037.29. I assume that some blood would remain after the various applications to the

sanctuary and its sancta (so m. Yoma 5:6) even though there are many more bloodapplications in the inner-sanctum tafj sacrifices than in other purification offerings.

30. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning andFunction (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 128.

31. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1293; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1010.

Chapter 10226

sprinklings in front of this object. By following this “once on object andseven times in front of that object” precedent, we can reconstruct the bloodapplications to be performed in the outer sanctum.

While there is no tr,POK" in the outer sanctum, there is another object therethat is also located along the central west–east axis of the santuary: the incensealtar. So the abbreviation in v. 16b, requiring performance of blood manipu-lations in the outer sanctum in the same way as they are carried out in the in-ner sanctum implies the existence of the incense altar.32 Exodus 30:10explicitly identifies this as the object that receives the blood of the “purifica-tion offering of purgation” once a year by a single application to its horns.33

The 1 + 7 precedent indicates that the high priest should follow the singleblood application with a sevenfold sprinkling in front of the same object, inthis case in front of the incense altar. My reasoning from “likewise” in Lev16:16b was anticipated by J. Kurtz, who concluded: “a sprinkling was to takeplace once upon the altar of incense, and seven times in front of it.”34

As mentioned in ch. 2 above, I. Knohl follows Wellhausen and others inregarding Lev 16 as earlier than Exod 30:10 because the former does notmention the incense altar. With regard to Lev 16 he notes:

Verses 17 and 20 state that the Priest atones for the tent of meeting, butthere is no explanation of how he conducts the atonement. In any event,it is incorrect to claim that the text is hinting at atonement for the incensealtar as in Exod. 30.10. If this were so why wasn’t this altar mentioned ex-plicitly? Furthermore, the verse in Exod. 30.10 is a kind of supplement tothe annual Day of Atonement ceremony described in Lev. 16.35

32. Cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 183 n. 75.33. The blood is put on its horns because it is an altar, unlike the ark cover, which

receives blood by sprinkling (Lev 16:14–15), an action that avoids physical contactbetween the high priest and this holiest of all the sancta. As part of J. Wellhausen’sargument that the incense altar, construction of which is first prescribed in Exod 30:1–10, was not known by the original P source, he pointed out that in Lev 16 incense isburned in a censer and there is no mention of the incense altar (Die Composition desHexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963;orig. 1885] 138); cf. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches,Sprachliches und Sachliches, vol. 2—Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium [Hildesheim:Olms, 1968] 56). However, even if an incense altar were present in the outer sanctum,a censer would be needed to produce a cloud of incense in the inner sanctum (cf.B. D. Eerdmans, Das Buch Leviticus [Alttestamentliche Studien 4; Giessen: AlfredTöpelmann, 1912] 76–77). Furthermore, perhaps it would not be appropriate to usethe incense altar for burning incense during this complex of ceremonies when the al-tar itself is an object of purgation.

34. J. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; Minneapo-lis: Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 392; cf. 393.

35. I. Knohl, “The Sin Offering Law in the ‘Holiness School’ [Numbers 15.22–31],” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan;



Even if we were to accept that Exod 30:10 is a supplement and even if we donot know why the altar is not mentioned explicitly, it is not true that “there isno explanation of how he conducts the atonement.” The explanation is anabbreviated one, apparently simply for the sake of economy, but it is an expla-nation: ˆkE, “likewise” (Lev 16:16b). The meaning of the abbreviation is quiteclear, except for scholars who have already decided that there was no incensealtar when the prescription was given. Knohl’s argument (and Wellhausen’s)is based upon what the abbreviation does not explicitly state. This is a kind ofargument from silence.

In the present form of the text there is a close relationship between Exod30:9–10 and Lev 16 with regard to incense and blood. Exodus 30:9 prohibitsuse of unauthorized incense (hr;z; tr,fOq}) on the incense altar. Then v. 10 pre-scribes the yearly purgation of this altar with the blood of µyriPUKIh" taF"j", “thepurification offering of purgation,” applied to its horns. These two ele-ments—proper use of incense and application of taF"j" blood, in the sameorder—are the essential elements of the procedure for purging the sanctuaryin Lev 16:12–19. Moreover, there is a connection between Exod 30:9 andLev 16:1, the narrative introduction to the Day of Atonement prescriptions,via Lev 10:1.36 In Lev 10:1, Aaron’s sons took censers and laid incense(tr,fOq}) on unauthorized fire (hr;z; vaE) that was in the censers. Whatever theprecise nature of the offense here, it is related to the prohibition in Exod 30:9against use of hr;z; tr,fOq}. At the beginning of the instructions for the Day ofAtonement, Lev 16:1 mentions the death of Aaron’s sons, which could betaken as an implicit warning for Aaron to avoid death when he approachesYhwh, who appears in a cloud (ˆn;[:; v. 2).37 To enter the inner sanctum,Aaron must properly generate a cloud of incense (tr,fOQ}h" ˆn'[“) from a censerto prevent his death (vv. 12–13).

We have found that “likewise” in Lev 16:16b calls for a single applicationof tafj blood to the horns of the incense altar, followed by a sevenfold sprin-kling in front of it. If my interpretation of tk<rOP:h" yneP} taE, “before the veil,” in

36. See Schur, who connects the Lev 10 tragedy with the requirement for self-denial on the Day of Atonement (Versöhnungstag, 38).

37. Jenson notes that “there may be a contrast between his censing and the illegit-imate incense offered by Nadab and Abihu” (Graded Holiness, 200 n. 4).

JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 196 n. 3. For the idea that Exod 30:10 isa supplement, see A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel,1897) 571. Knohl tentatively attributes this verse to H on the basis of “the phrase ‘oncea year,’ common to our verse and the HS editorial addition in Lev 16:34” (The Sanc-tuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minneapolis: Fortress,1995] 29; cf. 105).

Chapter 10228

4:6 and 17 is correct, sevenfold sprinklings of blood in the outer sanctumare also performed in front of the incense altar within the context of outer-sanctum purification offerings (see ch. 4). This correlates with the fact thatother blood applications required by Lev 4 and 16 are performed in the samelocations on the Day of Atonement as they are during the rest of the year: onthe incense altar (Lev 4:7, 18; 16:16b; cf. Exod 30:10) and on the outer altar(Lev 4:25, 30, 34; 16:18–19).

Below is the full list of activities included in the inner-sanctum purifica-tion-offering paradigm, including the reconstructions discussed above. Again,italics indicate activities included only in the first performance.

slay animalcollect bloodtake censer of burning coals from outer altar, and incensebring censer and incense into inner sanctumset (i.e., burn) the incense on the fireexit from inner sanctum to courttake (basin of) bloodbring blood into inner sanctumsprinkle blood eastward on ark coversprinkle blood in front of ark cover 7 timesexit with blood from inner sanctum to outer sanctumput blood on four horns of incense altarsprinkle blood before veil (in front of incense altar) 7 timesexit with blood to outer altarmix bloods of the two animalstake (basin of) bloodput blood on four horns of outer altarsprinkle blood on outer altar 7 timespour remaining blood at base of outer altarremove suetpresent suet to outer altarplace suet on outer altartake remainder of carcass (hide, flesh, dung) outside campincinerate remainder of carcasslaunder clothesbathe in water


Two performances of the inner-sanctum purification-offering paradigm are interwoven and then merged

In table 13, activities belonging to the ritual with the high priest’s bull areplaced on the left and alternating activities belonging to the ritual of thecommunity’s goat are on the right. Activities belonging to both rituals, in-cluding concluding merged tasks that do not differentiate between the two

Table 13. The Two Inner-Sanctum Purification Offerings

High Priest’s Bull Both Community’s Goat

slay animalcollect bloodtake censer of coals, and incensebring them into inner sanctumset incense on fire exit to courttake (basin of) blood bring blood into inner sanctumsprinkle blood on ark coversprinkle in front of ark cover 7x

exit to courtslay animalcollect bloodtake (basin of) bloodbring blood into inner sanctumsprinkle blood on ark coversprinkle in front of ark cover 7x

exit with blood to outer sanctumput blood on incense altarsprinkle blood before veil 7x

put blood on incense altarsprinkle blood before veil 7x

exit with blood to outer altarmix bloods of the two animalstake (basin of) bloodput blood on horns of outer altarsprinkle blood on outer altar 7xpour remaining blood at altar

baseremove suetpresent suet to outer altarplace suet on outer altartake carcasses outside camp burn remainder of carcasseslaunder clothesbathe in water

Chapter 10230

animals by stipulating that the suet and carcass of the bull should be treatedbefore those of the goat, are placed in the middle.38 Note that we have added“exit to court” in the “both” column as the transition from initial applicationof the bull’s blood in the inner sanctum (Lev 16:14) to the slaughter of thecommunity’s goat (v. 15). As before, italics indicate activities only belongingto the bull ritual.

The inner-sanctum purification offerings purge ritual impurities and moral faults from the three parts of the sanctuary on behalf of the priests and laity, and reconsecrate the outer altar

A. Chapman and A. Streane found that the Day of Atonement service iscomplicated, and its rituals “seem designed to illustrate more than one ideain connexion with atonement and purification.”39 Their observation is con-firmed by vv. 6, 11a, 16, 17b, 18a, 19b, 20a, 30, 32–34 of Lev 16, which indi-cate that the goal of the inner-sanctum purification offerings is to purge (piºelof rpk with l[ or direct object; compare piºel of rhf in v. 19) the three partsof the sanctuary—inner sanctum, outer sanctum, and outer altar—from (ˆm)the impurities and moral faults of the Israelites on behalf of (d[b/l[) thepriests and laity,40 who are thereby purified (rhf, v. 30),41 and to (re)conse-crate (piºel of vdq) the outer altar (v. 19).

38. Postrequisite activities are lumped together after core portions of all rituals arecompleted. Although disposal of the carcasses (v. 27) must occur after the suet is re-moved from the animals so that it can be burned on the altar (v. 25) and before thosewho incinerate the carcasses purify themselves (v. 28), this disposal could take placebefore the handler of Azazel’s goat purifies himself (v. 26). The latter activity would beperformed sometime after he releases the goat in the wilderness (v. 22; J. Milgrom,personal communication). Among postrequisite activities, those pertaining to the rit-ual of Azazel’s goat may be mentioned first (v. 26) because the core of this ritual iscompleted (v. 22) before that of the inner-sanctum tafj complex (v. 25).

39. A. Chapman and A. Streane, The Book of Leviticus (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1914) 166.

40. Compare Ezek 45:18–20, where there is a threefold purification of the templeon the first and seventh days of the first month, but in this passage the three places ofblood application are the doorpost of the temple, the four corners of the altar’s ledge,and the post of the gate of the inner court.

41. Milgrom comments: “as the sanctuary is polluted by the people’s impurities,their elimination, in effect, also purifies the people” (Leviticus 1–16, 1056). Kiuchiobjects to Milgrom’s clear-cut distinction between purification of sancta and of per-sons in Lev 16 on the basis of v. 33, where “the sancta kipper is somehow equivalentto, or parallel to, the kipper on behalf of the priests and the people” (The Purifica-tion Offering, 93). However, in this verse ta rpk takes the three parts of the sanctuaryas direct objects because the blood is physically applied to them, but purification ofthe people is expressed with l[ rpk. Although these sacrifices benefit the people, thepreposition l[ acknowledges that this benefit is not direct in the same way. B. Levine



Purging the sanctuary purifies the Israelites because its condition andfate is theirs. If their sins accumulate too much in Yhwh’s sanctuary, hisresident Presence (cf. Exod 25:8) will abandon them (cf. Ezek 9:3; 10:4,18–19; 11:22–23).42

There are two crucial differences between the inner-sanctum purifica-tion offerings and the tafj sacrifices belonging to the outer-altar and outer-sanctum types, which are performed on other days.

1. In our study of rpk goal formulas (ch. 6), we found that throughout theyear outer-altar or outer-sanctum purification offerings remove evil from (rpk

with l[, optionally followed by privative ˆm) their offerer(s), but on the Day ofAtonement the inner-sanctum sacrifices remove evil from (rpk with l[ ordirect object, optionally followed by privative ˆm) sacred areas or objectsbelonging to the sanctuary.

2. Throughout the year, rpk for physical ritual impurity results in the pu-rity (rhf) of the offerer (e.g., Lev 12:7–8; Num 8:21), and rpk for sins is pre-requisite to forgiveness (jls; e.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35). But on the Day ofAtonement, purgation (rpk) of the sanctuary from ritual impurities andmoral faults results in purity (rhf) for the people from their sins (16:30). AsA. Büchler pointed out, only the Day of Atonement purification offeringseffect purity from sin.43

The Israelites do not receive purity from their physical ritual impurities onthe Day of Atonement, presumably because they have already received it di-rectly through rituals earlier in the year. But remedying sin is another matter.First it requires sacrificial rpk, then divinely granted forgiveness (jls), and fi-nally communal purification (rhf) on the Day of Atonement. Therefore, onthe Day of Atonement the people reach the rhf stage of rpk with regard totheir sins that is equivalent to the rhf stage reached earlier in the year with

42. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 258–61; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 396–99; cf. Hasel, “Studies in Biblical Atone-ment II,” 119; B. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pome-granates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law,and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, andA. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 21.

43. A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the FirstCentury (LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) 263.

explains that, by practicing self-denial and abstaining from work, the Israelites identifywith the purification of the sanctuary, and thus a purification of them is effected(“Leviticus, Book of,” ABD 4:315). This seems to complement Milgrom’s view: thepeople are purified as they identify with the cleansing of the sanctuary that is accom-plished for their benefit.

Chapter 10232

regard to their ritual impurities.44 This is evident in the striking parallel be-tween Num 8:21, expressing the rhf goal of an outer-altar purification offer-ing that removes physical ritual impurity from the Levites, and Lev 16:30,stating the rhf benefit of the communal Day of Atonement rituals with re-gard to sins of the entire community:

Num 8:21: µr;h“f"l} ˆrOh“a" µh<ylE[“ rPEk"y]w', and Aaron effected purgation on theirbehalf to purify them.

Lev 16:30: µk<t}a< rhEf"l} µk<ylE[“ rPEk"y], . . . shall purgation be effected on yourbehalf to purify you.45

In each of these verses, rpk for the collective offerer (Levites or whole com-munity) cleanses (piºel of rhf) them.

Milgrom agrees with Knohl in regarding Lev 16:30 as part of an H interpo-lation (vv. 29–34a)46 and notes that in this verse H uses rhf in the sense ofmoral purification, as opposed to P, which only speaks of forgiveness (jls).47

Elsewhere Milgrom explains:

H’s metaphoric use of P’s cultic terms is highlighted by †ameª. In P, it is rit-ual impurity; in H, moral impurity. Ritual impurity (P) is remediable by rit-ual purification, but moral impurity is irremediable. It is a capital crime,punishable for the individual by karet and for the community by exile.”48

Since the amf–rhf opposition earlier in Leviticus has to do with physical rit-ual impurity rather than with moral faults, the use of rhf in 16:30 does ap-pear at first glance to accord with Milgrom’s characterization of H. But herethere is a major difference from irremediable moral impurity in Milgrom’s H:rhf expresses the remedy of purification from moral impurity. So whateverthe redactional status of this verse may be, its terminology simultaneouslyexpresses an exceptional ritual efficacy and serves as a bridge to the concep-tual world of the following chapters.

The contrast between expiable sins purified from the people in 16:30versus inexpiable faults dealt with later in Leviticus is due to the respective

44. Rendtorff misses this final outcome, stating rather that in Lev 16 rpk itself is thegoal for which Aaron offers his tafj (Leviticus, 218).

45. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1294; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1011.46. Ibid., 62–63, 1064–65; idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1343; cf. Knohl, The Sanctuary of

Silence, 27–28, 105; idem, “The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Sabbathand the Festivals,” HUCA 58 (1987) 86–92. Knohl also regards Num 8:21 as belongingto an H passage (The Sanctuary of Silence, 71–73, 85, 93 n. 115, 105), but Milgromthinks there is inadequate evidence for this (Leviticus 17–22, 1340–41, 1343–44).

47. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 37.48. Idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1326. On the difference between these kinds of impu-

rity, see also J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2000) 22–31.



natures of these moral evils. In 16:30 they are tafj sins, which up to thispoint in Leviticus are inadvertent or otherwise nondefiant sins (e.g., Lev 4–5),but the irremediable offenses to which Milgrom refers are more serious (e.g.,Lev 18:20, 23–25, 27–28, 30; 19:31; 20:3; etc.).49

The inner-sanctum purification offerings accomplishrpk that is beyond forgiveness

As early as the Second Temple period, it has been thought that the opu-lent rites of the Day of Atonement, combined with the people’s repentanceexpressed through self-denial, provide forgiveness on a grand scale from vari-ous kinds of moral faults.50 Importing terminology from Lev 4:20–21 regard-ing the outer-sanctum purification offering for the community to express thegoal of the inner-sanctum sacrifice of the people’s goat on the Day of Atone-ment, Temple Scroll 26:9–10 reads:

hmhl jlsnw lhqh µ[ lwk l[ wb rpkyw awh lhqh tafj, (for it is) the sin offer-ing for the assembly; and he shall atone with it for all the people of the as-sembly, and they shall be forgiven.51

Surprisingly, the verb jls, “forgive,” does not appear even once in any of thebiblical Day of Atonement prescriptions (Lev 16; 23:26–32; Num 29:7–11).52

This fact alone constitutes a major difference between the purification

49. Ibid., 1422: “Thus the alleged difference between H and P regarding the natureof expiation has to be sharply modified. H, after all, speaks of advertent, unrepentantsins (18:24–30; 26:14–39). P, however, deals with inadvertent violations, which are ex-piable by sacrifice. But P also posits—as can be derived from its laws—that advertentsins committed by the community result in Israel’s exile (vol. 1.258–64).”

50. Cf. m. Yoma 8:8–9; b. Yoma 86a; J. Herrmann, Die Idee der Sühne im Alten Tes-tament: Eine Untersuchung über Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Wortes kipper (Leipzig:Hinrichs, 1905) 93; A. Médebielle, “Le symbolism du sacrifice expiatoire en Israël,”Bib 2 (1921) 281; idem, L’Expiation dans L’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament (SPIB;Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1923) 85; S. Neches, As at This Day (New York:Bloch, 1930) 10; S. Y. Agnon, Days of Awe (New York: Schocken, 1948) 211–14; C. D.Ginsburg, Leviticus (ed. C. J. Ellicott; LHC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961) 150;A. Schenker, Versöhnung und Sühne (BibB 15; Freiburg: Katholisches Bibelwerk,1981) 112, 114–15; Levine, Leviticus, 100; Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” 999, 1113–14; F. Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law(trans. A. W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 318; M. Rooker, Leviticus (NAC3A; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000) 212, 219.

51. Translation by Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soci-ety, 1983) 2:117.

52. Cf. L. Morris, “The Day of Atonement and the Work of Christ,” ReformedTheological Review 14 (1955) 12; Rendtorff, Leviticus, 180; cf. 212, 217–18, 221;Shea, “Literary Form,” 166; G. Olaffson, “The Use of n¶ª in the Pentateuch and ItsContribution to the Concept of Forgiveness” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1992)201; Geller, “Blood Cult,” 107.

Chapter 10234

offerings of the Day of Atonement and those that remedy sins throughout therest of the year. The purity accomplished for the people on this day is rpk be-yond forgiveness.53

It seems that the idea of forgiveness on the Day of Atonement has comefrom a combination of powerful sources. First, it is (incorrectly) assumed thatrpk through a tafj sacrifice always results in forgiveness. Second, it is (in-correctly) assumed that, when Azazel’s goat bears the iniquity/culpability ofthe people (Lev 16:21–22), this implies that they receive forgiveness. Third, itis (incorrectly) assumed that in v. 30, which links cleansing from sins withrpk, the moral purification (rhf) of the people through observance of theDay of Atonement involves or at least implies the granting of forgiveness atthat time.54 This idea is reinforced by the close association between unclean-ness and sin in v. 1655 and between rpk and rhf in goal formulas of purifica-tion offerings that remedy physical ritual impurity (12:7–8, etc.), combinedwith the fact that Ps 51 (vv. 4[2], 9[7], 12[10]) and the prophets use rhf formoral purity/purification (e.g., Jer 33:8; Ezek 36:33).56

M. Weinfeld informs us of another source for the idea of forgiveness onthe Day of Atonement. The jubilee announced on the Day of Atonement(Lev 25:9–10) “underwent a process of spiritual metamorphosis during theSecond Temple period, so that the proclamation of freedom brought aboutnot only the physical liberation of slaves and of land, but also the liberationof the soul and its restoration to its pure source.”57

Since the terminology of 16:16 and 21 indicates that the Day of Atone-ment rituals deal both with rebellious ([vp) and nondefiant (tafj) sins,

53. Shea, “Literary Form,” 166.54. So H. Ringgren, “rh"f: †ahar,” TDOT 5:295. Notice the prominence of Lev

16:30 in traditional confessions for the high priest (m. Yoma 3:8) and over Azazel’s goaton behalf of the entire community (m. Yoma 6:2).

55. Idem, “rh"f: †ahar,” 293.56. Cf. ibid., 294–95; F. Maass, “rhf †hr To Be Pure,” TLOT 2:484–85. Jeremiah

33:8 is particularly potent because it has the verbs rhf and jls in parallel to expressYhwh’s remedy for moral faults, using all three roots for sin(ning) that appear in Lev16:16, 21: [vp (“transgress[ion]”), afj (“sin”), and ˆw[ (“culpability”). Interestingly,arrangement of these roots in Jer 33:8 reflects the pattern of their occurrence in Lev16:16, 21 (repetition of two roots followed by addition of the third) but with a differentorder (including reversal of [vp and afj), aside from the fact that Jeremiah placesafj and [vp in relative clauses that define the ˆw[. (Read from right to left.)

afj∞[vp∞ˆw[ (hdwth, “confess”; v. 21) afj∞[vp (rpk, “purge”; v. 16) ∞Lev 16[vp∞afj∞ˆw[ (jls, “forgive”) afj∞ˆw[ (rhf, “purify”) ∞Jer 33:8

57. M. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East(Jerusalem: Magnes / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 208; cf. 209–12.


postbiblical prayers and confessions assume that God forgives these categorieson Yom Kippur.58 But this understanding of the Day of Atonement has re-sulted from interpretive development beyond the plain sense of Leviticus.

Interestingly, Milgrom’s general theory of tafj sacrifices also has rpk afterforgiveness for an act of sin. However, in this case initial forgiveness resultsfrom repentance and is granted before the offerer brings his outer-altar orouter-sanctum purification offering, which is needed to purge (rpk) the sanc-tuary, prerequisite to additional forgiveness for the negative effect of the sinon the sanctuary.59

Activity components contribute to the overall goalOrganizing the inner-sanctum purification offering paradigm hierarchi-

cally into subsystems of activity dealing with incense, blood applied to thethree parts of the sanctuary, suet, carcass, and purification of assistant(s), wecan outline the ritual procedure as shown on p. 236. The function of theinner-sanctum purification offerings is reflected by the structure of their ac-tivities. Interweaving and merging indicate a close relationship between thetwo rituals (see table 13),60 which operate together on behalf of the entirecommunity of Israel, including both priests and laity. The order of blood ma-nipulations shows that primary significance is accorded to treatment of eachof the three sacred areas in descending order of sanctity.61 It is more importantto complete the blood manipulations in each area before moving to the nextarea than it is to maintain the continuity of each individual ritual. Thus thebloods of both animals are applied to the inner sanctum, then to the outersanctum, and finally to the outer altar. The principle of descending sanctityalso requires that the priests’ sacrifice be performed before that of the people.

After the blood applications to the inner sanctum, outer sanctum, andouter altar, the suet is burned on the outer altar, and then the carcasses are in-cinerated outside the camp. So the entire inner-sanctum purification-offeringcomplex progresses outward through four areas:

inner sanctum § outer sanctum § outer altar § outside the camp

58. Ibid., 208–9.59. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 256.60. M. Noth obscures this relationship with his contention that Lev 16:15, prescrib-

ing manipulations of the blood of Yhwh’s goat in the inner sanctum that exactly cor-respond to the procedure with the blood of the high priest’s bull, is secondary materialbecause it specifically refers to v. 14 (Leviticus [trans. J. E. Anderson; OTL; London:SCM, 1965] 123–24).

61. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 204.

Chapter 10236

Inner-Sanctum Purification Offeringslay animalapply blood

collect bloodburn incense

take censer of burning coals from outer altar, and incensebring censer and incense into inner sanctumset (i.e., burn) the incense on the fireexit from inner sanctum to court

apply blood, cont.62

take (basin of) bloodapply blood in inner sanctum

bring blood into inner sanctumsprinkle blood eastward on ark coversprinkle blood in front of ark cover 7 times

apply blood in outer sanctumexit with blood from inner sanctum to outer sanctumput blood on four horns of incense altarsprinkle blood before veil (in front of incense altar) 7 times

apply blood to outer altarexit with blood to outer altarmix bloods of the two animalstake (basin of) bloodput blood on four horns of outer altarsprinkle blood on outer altar with finger 7 times

pour remaining blood at base of outer altarburn suet on outer altar

remove suetpresent suet to outer altarplace suet on outer altar

dispose of remainder of carcasstake remainder of carcass (hide, flesh, dung) outside campincinerate remainder of carcass

purify assistant(s)launder clothesbathe in water

62. Why is the slaughter and collection of blood not performed after the returnof the high priest from burning the incense in the inner sanctum, thereby avoidingthe interruption of activities involving the blood? Treatment of the bull at the begin-ning shows that the ritual is primarily concerned with that object rather than withthe incense.


This macrostructural movement correlates with the overall function of thecomplex: to purge evils out of the sanctuary, that is, from the inside out, as a“housecleaning job.”63 If the two rituals were perfomed separately rather thaninterwoven, the progression from the inner sanctum outward would be re-peated, thereby weakening the finality of its completion.

In the process of purging the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, theblood manipulations inside the Tent differentiate between the offerers—thatis, priests and laity. But outside the Tent, application of mixed bloods to theouter altar (Lev 16:18–19), burning of suet (v. 25), disposal of carcasses (v. 27),and purification of assistants (v. 28) do not make such a distinction (seeabove). Similarly, the ritual of Azazel’s goat outside the Tent banishes themoral faults of all Israelites (v. 21), including those of the priests.

Burning IncenseBy enabling the high priest to enter the inner sanctum so that he can per-

form blood manipulations there, the activities connected with burning in-cense (Lev 16:12–13) contribute to the goal of the inner-sanctum purification-offering complex. The incense is apotropaic,64 providing a cloud of smokethat shields the priest from Yhwh’s lethal glory (cf. Exod 33:20) to achieve theexplicit goal “that he may not die” (Lev 16:13).65

Numbers 17:11[16:46] indicates that cultic incense can have an expiatoryfunction: Aaron used incense to effect rpk for the Israelites in order to savethem from an outbreak of Yhwh’s wrath as manifested in a plague (cf. vv. 12–13).66 This suggests that, when incense is burned regularly in the sanctu-ary throughout the year to sweeten the atmosphere of Yhwh’s residence, it

63. Cf. Shea, “Literary Form,” 155.64. Cf. P. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT 1; Bonn: Hanstein, 1935) 74; Le-

vine, Leviticus, 104; idem, “µyrwpyk, ” ErIsr 9 (Albright Volume; 1969) 93; Noth, Leviti-cus, 123. Levine also views the applications of sacrificial blood to objects and spacesinside the sanctuary as apotropaic: “perhaps in order to seal up his route of egress andthus protect the shrine from defilement” (“Leviticus, Book of,” 315). However, the textprovides no evidence that these blood manipulations had such a function.

65. Since incense by itself would be inadequate for providing such a smoke screen,we can assume that on this occasion it is mixed with a special smoke-producing sub-stance (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1030–31).

66. On pentateuchal narratives in which rpk serves as protection against divineplagues, see M. Barker, “Atonement: The Rite of Healing,” SJT 49 (1996) 5. J. Mil-grom has pointed out to me that there is also a propitiatory aspect to purificationofferings, as shown by the fact that within a ritual complex such a sacrifice is per-formed before a burnt offering: propitiation is prerequisite to acceptance of a gift bythe deity (cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 488; A. F. Rainey, “The Order of Sacrifices inOld Testament Ritual Texts,” Bib 51 [1970] 494–98).

Chapter 10238

mitigates the offensiveness of Israel’s imperfection to Yhwh, who dwells withthe people in the midst of their pollution (cf. Lev 15:31; 16:16).67 Similarly,it appears that, when the high priest burns incense as he enters especially in-timate proximity to Yhwh on the Day of Atonement, he mitigates the offen-siveness of himself and also that of the people whom he represents beforeYhwh (cf. Zech 3:1–5).

Applying BloodEarlier we found that, in the outer-altar purification offering, blood is ap-

plied only to the outer altar. In the outer-sanctum offering, blood manipula-tion is expanded and extended into the outer sanctum. In the yearly inner-sanctum purification offerings, the blood-application portion of the ritual isgreatly augmented, and horizontal movement toward the deity extends as faras possible: the high priest takes blood into the inner sanctum, where hesprinkles it on the ark cover and seven times in front of the ark cover (vv. 14–15). He performs similar purgative applications in the outer sanctum (v. 16b;Exod 30:10) and then puts blood on the horns of the outer altar and sprinkleson the altar seven times (Lev 16:18–19).

By sprinkling seven times on the outer altar rather than in front of it, thehigh priest breaks the pattern set in the inner sanctum and followed in theouter sanctum. The courtyard in front of the outer altar needs no purgationbecause it has not been consecrated with anointing oil as the altar and thetabernacle with its contents have been (Lev 8:10–11; cf. Exod 30:26–29; 40:9–11).68 Following purgation (rpk/rhf) of the altar by application of blood toits horns, the second application by sevenfold sprinkling restores its sanctity(vdq) (v. 19b; cf. Exod 29:36–37).69

The outer altar is the only one of the sancta that is reconsecrated on theDay of Atonement. Milgrom explains its unique need for this: “Manifestly,the altar, the most vulnerable target of the unending impurities generated byIsrael . . . would become so polluted that its very holiness was endangered.Hence, a periodic rite of consecration was prescribed.”70 Of course he isthinking of automatic defilement, but in my view it would be true that theouter altar had the closest connection with faulty Israelites as the place where

67. Compare the noncultic use of incense (K. Nielsen, Incense in Ancient Israel[VTSup 38; Leiden: Brill, 1986] 90).

68. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1036–37.69. Ibid., 1037.70. Ibid., 1040.


the overwhelming majority of purification offerings would be performed inorder to remove evil from individuals throughout the year.71

Burning SuetLeviticus 16 does not directly indicate the goal/function of burning the

suet of the inner-sanctum purification offerings (v. 25). In the context of theouter-altar and outer-sanctum rituals, we found that offering suet constitutesa kind of mandatory payment to Yhwh resulting from “debt” incurred by eviloriginating with the offerers (chs. 3 and 4 above). The same meaning makessense in the Day of Atonement context, except that here the evil has beenlocated in the sanctuary rather than in/on the offerers.

Disposing of CarcassesAs in the outer-sanctum tafj sacrifice, the remainder of the inner-

sanctum purification offerings must be disposed of rather than eaten (Lev16:27). One basic reason appears to be the same: the high priest is not permit-ted to gain benefit from a sacrifice that involves him as offerer. But the appli-cation of this principle in Lev 16 is different. In Lev 4 the high priest ispresumably included in the sinful community that offers an outer-sanctumoffering (vv. 13–14), but in ch. 16 he is not included in the lay communitythat offers a goat for an inner-sanctum purification offering (vv. 5, 15). How-ever, the sacrifice of this goat is interwoven and then merged with that of hisbull. From the time when the bloods of the two animals are mixed and ap-plied together to the outer altar (vv. 18–19), the two rituals are fused as one,called taF:j"h", “the purification offering” (v. 25), that is, µyriPUKIh" taF"j", “thepurification offering of purgation” (Exod 30:10; Num 29:11). This is a ritualcomplex consisting of two sacrifices (see above), but in Israelite cult it isunique in that the rituals become inextricably intertwined as “conjoinedtwins.” From the point of merging at the outer altar, the high priest cannot of-ficiate for the community without simultaneously officiating for himself, sotreatment of the two carcasses must be the same: disposal by incineration. Hecannot benefit from the community’s goat because its ritual belongs to thespecial complex that also includes the sacrifice of his bull.

71. Cf. Bonar, A Commentary on the Book of Leviticus, 310. It is tempting to sug-gest that the altar needs double treatment because it is used for burnt and reparationofferings in addition to purification offerings. It is true that these sacrifices fulfill expi-atory functions, but there is no evidence that their blood carries pollution as does theblood of purification offerings (Lev 6:20–21[27–28]; D. Wright, The Disposal of Im-purity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature[SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987] 130–31; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 403–6).

Chapter 10240

There is an additional reason to incinerate both the high priest’s bull andthe community’s goat: unlike tafj sacrifices performed at other times, thesefunction as ritual “sponges” to purge evils from the sanctuary. So incineratingthem not only rules out benefit to the high priest; it eliminates the evils, ex-cept that in some sense the moral faults survive to be further eliminated tothe wilderness by means of Azazel’s goat.

Purifying Assistant(s)Any assistant who participates in disposing of the inner-sanctum tafj car-

casses must purify himself by laundering his clothes and bathing (Lev 16:28).This is understandable if these animals, presumably with the exception ofthe suet burned for Yhwh on his altar (v. 25), function as ritual “sponges” toabsorb the ritual impurities and moral faults purged out of the sanctuary (cf.v. 16). While the carcasses themselves never directly contact the pollutedsancta, the animals are regarded as units: purgative application of their bloodto the sanctuary contaminates their carcasses pars pro toto. So a person sub-sequently contacting such a carcass contracts impurity.72

While the inner-sanctum purification offerings purge the sanctuary of theritual impurities and moral faults of the Israelites (v. 16), Azazel’s goat carriesaway only moral faults (v. 21). So apparently the ritual impurities are de-stroyed when the carcasses laden with them are incinerated.73 The moralfaults are tougher to eradicate. They remain to be driven away on the livegoat, polluting its handler in the process (v. 26).74

ConclusionOn the Day of Atonement, a tightly woven ritual complex consisting of

two elaborate purification offerings on behalf of the priestly and lay commu-

72. Denying contamination by contact of such an assistant or the assistant wholeads Azazel’s goat into the wilderness (v. 26), Kurtz attempted to explain the require-ments for purification of these individuals on the basis of the fact that they went out-side the camp, the place of purity, where they could have become defiled withoutknowing it (Sacrificial Worship, 415). But there is no evidence that simply going a dis-tance from the camp could cause a person to be contaminated or that purification inthese cases was for defilement that was only potential.

73. Cf. B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some CulticTerms in Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 103; Schwartz, “The Bearing ofSin,” 17 n. 55.

74. Cf. ibid., 17–18. P. Bovati observes: “When a crime has been committed, it be-comes part of history; inscribed forever on reality” (Re-Establishing Justice: LegalTerms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible [JSOTSup 105; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1994] 159).


nities, respectively, purges the ritual impurities and moral faults of the Israel-ites from the three parts of Yhwh’s sanctuary: inner sanctum, outer sanctum,and outer altar. While purifying (rhf) a person from severe physical ritualimpurity is accomplished in one major stage of ritual rpk by a noncalendricouter-altar purification offering, cleansing a person/party from tafj, “sin,”requires two major phases of rpk: First, a noncalendric outer-altar or outer-sanctum purification offering purges (rpk) the moral evil from the offerer,prerequisite to Yhwh’s forgiveness (jls). Second, the corporate purgation(rpk) of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement results in the moral cleansing(rhf) of the people.75

75. Cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 157; Shea, “Literary Form,” 165–66.

242

Chapter 11

The Purification Ritual of Azazel’s Goat

When the high priest finishes purging the three components of the sanc-tuary—inner sanctum, outer sanctum, and outer altar—through the blood-manipulation phase of the inner-sanctum purification offerings, he turns hisattention to the live goat that has been standing in the courtyard following itsdesignation by lot “for Azazel” (Lev 16:20; cf. v. 10). While the activities in-volved in the ritual of Azazel’s goat are relatively simple, their goal/meaningis rich and in some ways elusive. Our aim here is to penetrate the significanceof this ritual enough to assess its basic purpose and its relationship to the inner-sanctum sacrifices.

The live goat is banished from the sanctuary court to the wilderness

Leviticus 16:20–22 prescribes the system of activities belonging to the rit-ual of Azazel’s goat. First the high priest confesses the moral faults of all Is-rael over the goat while leaning both his hands on its head. Then an assistantleads the goat from the court of the sanctuary into the wilderness, where hereleases/abandons it, after which he must purify himself. We can list theseactivities as follows:

lean both hands on head of goatspeak while keeping hands on head of goatbanish goat into wildernesslaunder clothesbathe in water

Note the following clarifications:

1. “Bringing forward” (byriq}hI) the goat (v. 20b) is simply a transition to the beginning of the individual ritual (cf. v. 11). It is not presentation to the altar.

2. Uniquely in the Israelite ritual system, the high priest (here Aaron) leans both hands, not just one hand, on the head of the goat. He confesses while remaining in this posture.

The Purification Ritual of Azazel’s Goat 243

3. Putting the sins on the head of the goat (v. 21) is the interpreted function of confessing while leaning both hands. It is not a separate physical activity. Likewise, “the goat shall carry upon it all their iniquities” (v. 22) explains the purpose of “it shall be sent off ” (v. 21).

4. Because the impurity necessitating personal purification of the assistant is contracted from his participation in the ritual, this purification can be regarded as a postrequisite part of the ritual.

The overall goal of the ritual with Azazel’s goat is to banish moral faults from the Israelite camp

The basic function of the procedure with Azazel’s goat is to transport allof the culpabilities, transgressions, and sins of the Israelites away fromtheir camp to the wilderness, where they are obviously supposed to remain(Lev 16:21–22). Thus nonmaterial evils are treated as if they can be loadedonto an animal and toted away on this “tote-goat” as if it were materialbaggage.

Verses 5, 8, 10, and 26 provide additional data. Like the goat slain on behalfof the lay community, the tote-goat serves as a tafj, that is, some kind of pu-rification ritual (v. 5). But whereas the goat to be slain is designated “forYhwh,” the live goat is “for Azazel” (v. 8) and is “stationed alive before Yhwh

to perform expiation upon it by sending it off into the wilderness to Azazel”(v. 10).1 So the goal is to free the Israelites’ camp of their moral faults by trans-ferring them to Azazel, who/which is in the wilderness. By contacting Azazel’sgoat, which functions as a contaminated vehicle for transporting moral evils,the man who leads it into the wilderness becomes ritually impure and mustundergo purification before reentering the camp (Lev 16:26). As pointed outby D. Wright, the close relationship between sin and ritual impurity is espe-cially clear in this instance, where sin causes impurity.2

The core dynamics of the ritual, not including postrequisite purification ofthe assistant, involve two phases of transfer:

1. Confess: transfer moral faults to the goat.2. Banish: transfer moral faults, which are on the goat, to the

wilderness.

1. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)1293; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 1009.

2. D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittiteand Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 19; cf. 18,79; idem, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:73.

Chapter 11244

We can outline the ritual hierarchically as follows:

Confession and leaning two hands serve to gather the moral faults and transfer them to Azazel’s goat

While the text says only that the high priest confesses over the goat (Lev16:21), we can assume that this speech is addressed to the injured party,namely Yhwh, against whose commandments the Israelites sinned.3

Elsewhere in the Israelite ritual system, confession is required in some pre-scriptions for purification and reparation offerings (Lev 5:5; Num 5:7). Butconfession simultaneous with leaning two hands on the victim appears onlyin the corporate ritual of Azazel’s goat.

Some scholars, such as R. Péter, B. Janowski, D. Wright, and J. Milgrom,have made a qualitative distinction between transfer with two hands on Aza-zel’s goat versus identification of the offerer with one hand.4 Keil and De-litzsch, on the other hand, did not regard the difference as essential, “but thelaying on of both hands rendered the act more solemn and expressive.”5 A. B.

3. So m. Yoma 6:2; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 303 on Lev 5:5.4. See, e.g., R. Péter, “L’imposition des mains dans l’Ancien Testament,” VT 27

(1977) 48–55; B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie derPriesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (WMANT55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 209–10, 215–21; D. Wright, “TheGesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature,” JAOS 106(1986) 433–46; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 151–52.

5. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (trans.J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 [orig. 1874]) 2:404 n. 1; cf. N. Kiuchi, ThePurification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function (JSOTSup56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 113; K. Mattingly, “The Laying on of Hands onJoshua: An Exegetical Study of Numbers 27:12–23 and Deuteronomy 34:9” (Ph.D.diss., Andrews University, 1997) 139–43. A. Rodríguez tentatively argues for twohands in the sacrificial ritual, thereby leveling the distinction between one and twohands, on the basis of Num 27:18 and 23, where God commands Moses to lay hishand (sing.) on Joshua (v. 18), but then Moses laid his hands (pl.) upon him (v. 23):“In the light of Num 27:18, 23, it may be suggested that, while descriptive cultic textsemploy the singular, the actual performance of the ritual involves both hands, as in

The Purification Ritual of Azazel’s Goatconfess while leaning both hands on head of goat

lean both hands on head of goatspeak while keeping hands on head of goat

banish goat into wildernesspurify handler of the goat

launder clothesbathe in water



Ehrlich views the distinction as quantitative, with two hands used on Azazel’sgoat because it is to bear numerous sins of the entire community.6 Similarly,C. D. Ginsburg has linked the use of both hands with the fact that the animalfunctioned for both the priests and the lay community.7

While I agree with those who hold that leaning one hand signifies identi-fication of the offerer as owner of the victim, I would suggest that the twokinds of hand-leaning have a common denominator: each signifies a (differ-ent) kind of identification that is involved in transfer. Both require additionalactions for transfer to take place. But the respective identifications and trans-fers differ qualitatively. When one hand is used, the following activities trans-fer the victim from the offerer to Yhwh for his utilization. When the highpriest places two hands on Azazel’s goat, this act combined with simultaneousconfession transfers moral faults to the goat. The role of double hand-leaningis not to identify ownership, which has already been established by the lot rit-ual, but to identify the route of transfer as it takes place. So whereas the iden-tification gesture with one hand precedes transfer, the gesture with two handsis an integral part of the transfer process.

The respective functions of the two kinds of hand-leaning are shaped bythe ritual contexts in which they appear. So perhaps two hands indicate quan-titative heightening (cf. above) while the context establishes a qualitative dif-ference in function.

Confession plus double hand-leaning appears to be the means by whichthe sins of the entire nation are transformed from abstraction, as if out of theair, into a concentrated, quasi-spatially containable form, gathered to the highpriest, and channeled through his hands to the goat.8 Although he is immune

6. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachlichesund Sachliches (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968) 2:56; cf. N. Zohar, who works back fromthe idea that two hands signify transfer in Lev 16:21 to the conclusion that leaningone hand indicates transfer of less evil (“Repentance and Purification: The Signifi-cance and Semantics of tafj in the Pentateuch,” JBL 107 [1988] 612–13, 615 n. 31).

7. C. D. Ginsburg, Leviticus (ed. C. J. Ellicott; LHC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1961) 155.

8. Cf. K. Koch, “Sühne und Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischenzur nachexilischen Zeit,” EvT 26 (1966) 229; F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual:Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1990) 94. Wright avoids the idea that the sins are transferred through the high priest:

Lev 16:21” (Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus [AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs, Michigan:Andrews University Press, 1979] 197). However, neither Num 27:18, 23 nor Lev 16:21is a sacrificial ritual. If Lev 16:21 is taken to exemplify sacrificial practice, it violatesRodríguez’s distinction because it is prescriptive (= Rodríguez’s “descriptive”) ratherthan an actual performance.

Chapter 11246

to this evil, no wonder he leans his hands before commencing the confession,so that the toxic flow will immediately pass from him!

The requirement of confession, which makes the transfer depend on morethan simple physical contact, is symptomatic of the fact that moral faults areless directly treatable than physical ritual impurities. Compare outer-altarpurification offerings, which can remove physical ritual impurities from per-sons (e.g., Lev 12:6–8; Num 8:12, 21) but can only serve as prerequisites todivine forgiveness for moral faults (Lev 4:26, 31, 35; Num 15:26, 28).

Moral faults are dangerous, as shown by the bipartite structure of the com-plex of rituals unique to the Day of Atonement. The transition between thetwo parts of this complex occurs just after the release of Azazel’s goat and issignaled by the high priest’s change of garments from the plain linen garb re-quired for entering the inner sanctum to his usual ornate vestments (vv. 23–24a).9 The fact that he does not change from his special linen clothes untilhe has officiated the ritual with Azazel’s goat, which involves neither the Tentnor even the outer altar, implies that the process of removing moral faultsfrom the sanctuary and then to the wilderness is an urgent one that must notbe interrupted. With the release of Azazel’s goat in the wilderness (Lev16:22b), the period of greatest danger is over.

The tafj of Azazel’s goat is a unique, nonsacrificial “purification ritual”

Expulsion of moral evils by means of a goat, serving as a ritual “vehicle,”involves its conveyance to the wilderness and disposal by abandonment

9. Ibid., 1048. The high priest’s humble linen garments are appropriate within thecontext of the rite of passage that he enacts (idem, “The Priestly Consecration [Leviti-cus 8]: A Rite of Passage,” in Bits of Honey: Essays for Samson H. Levey [ed. S. F. Chyetand D. H. Ellenson; SFSHJ 74; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993] 60). For association ofthe linen garments with humility or penitence, among other concepts, see S. H.Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (EB; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900) 262; W. Korn-feld, Levitikus (NEchtB 6; Würzburg: Echter, 1983) 63; M. F. Rooker, Leviticus (NAC3A; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000) 215. For the idea that the high priest un-dergoes a rite of passage, see B. Jürgens, Heiligkeit und Versöhnung: Levitikus 16 inseinem literarischen Kontext (Herders Biblische Studien 28; Freiburg: Herder, 2001)67–72.

“Aaron never carries or embodies these evils. Consequently, one cannot say that sinsare transferred. Rather, the placement of the sins is effected by both the hand place-ment gesture which designates where the sins are to rest and the spoken confessionwhich concretizes the sins which then fall on the head of the goat” (Wright, “TheGesture of Hand Placement,” 436; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1043).


there.10 Because no part of the goat is offered to Yhwh for his use, this is nota sacrifice; it is simply an elimination ritual.11 The biblical prescription doesnot call for the death of the goat.12 It must simply be sent away as a ritual “gar-bage truck” carrying controlled toxic waste to Azazel.

Azazel’s precise nature is elusive, and the uncertain etymology of thisdesignation does not help.13 The common understanding of Azazel as

10. For Hittite and Mesopotamian parallels, see Wright, The Disposal of Impurity,45–72, esp. 57–60 on the Hittite Ambazzi and Huwarlu rituals, which most closelyparallel the Israelite ritual “in that they use live animals as bearers of the evil and lackthe motif of substitution” (idem, “Day of Atonement,” 74); cf. M. Weinfeld, “Socialand Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near EasternBackground,” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Ses-sions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies/ Perry Foundation for Biblical Research, 1983) 112–14; A. Treiyer, The Day of Atone-ment and the Heavenly Judgment from the Pentateuch to Revelation (Siloam Springs,Arkansas: Creation Enterprises, 1992) 258–65. On Hittite parallels, see O. R. Gurney,Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy,1976; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977) 47–52; J. C. Moyer, “Hittite and IsraeliteCultic Practices: A Selected Comparison,” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays onthe Comparative Method (ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue; WinonaLake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 33–35. For an apparent Ugaritic parallel, in whichan elimination ritual involves driving a goat to a distant place, see K. Aartun, “Eineweitere Parallele aus Ugarit zur kultischen Praxis in Israels Religion,” BO 33 (1976)288; cf. O. Loretz, Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel (UBL 3; Alten-berge: CIS-Verlag, 1985) 35–49.

11. Y. Kaufmann states: “It is not conceived, then, as an offering but as a vehiclefor carrying off sin. What the community sends to Azazel is not so much the goat asthe sin it bears” (The Religion of Israel [trans. and abridg. M. Greenberg; Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1960] 114); cf. Janowski, Sühne, 210. While Azazel’s goatrepresented a demon in early Jewish interpretation (Enoch literature, Apocalypse ofAbraham, rabbinic literature), with which Rev 20 has important connections, in earlyChristian tradition (Barnabas, Tertullian), the goat was a symbol of Christ (L. Grabbe,“The Scapegoat Tradition: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation,” JSJ 18 [1987] 152–67). John Calvin regarded the live goat as a bloodless sacrifice paired with the slaingoat to typify another means of making atonement to God “when Christ, ‘being madea curse for us,’ transferred to Himself the sins which alienated men from God” (Com-mentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony [GrandRapids: Baker, 1996] 1:320; cf. 316–17, 319).

12. Perhaps so that it would not be regarded as a sacrifice. However, according tom. Yoma 6:6, in Second Temple times the unfortunate goat was killed by pushing itover a cliff, undoubtedly to prevent it from returning to areas of human habitation.

13. On possible interpretations of the name Azazel (Lev 16:8, 10, 26), including ref-erence to a place, a personal being such as a demon or deity, or an abstraction signifyingremoval or one who removes, see C. L. Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Six-teen,” BSac 115 (1958) 324–33; B. Levine, “µyrwpyk,” ErIsr 9 (Albright Volume; 1969)94 n. 42; idem, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1989) 250–53; H. Tawil, “ºAzazel The Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative

Chapter 11248

“(e)scapegoat,” referring to the goat itself, is ruled out by the fact that the ani-mal is sent “to Azazel” (Lev 16:10, 26). Obviously the goat would not be sent

Study,” ZAW 92 (1980) 43–59; Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 21–22; Milgrom, Le-viticus 1–16, 1020–21; Treiyer, The Day of Atonement, 231–58; Jürgens, Heiligkeit, 81–91. In agreement with the tradition that in the Second Temple period Azazel’s goatwas driven to a place of jagged rocks, over which it was driven to its death (m. Yoma6:6), and following clues from Saºadyah and ªAbû Saºîd, G. R. Driver understands Aza-zel as “jagged rocks/precipice,” an intensive form derived from the Semitic root ºzz,which has also yielded Arabic ºazâzu(n), “rough ground.” “The choice of the lots then,is between that cast ‘for the Lord’ and that cast for ‘(the) rugged rocks, (the) precipice’(taken as a proper name): the first goat was slaughtered on the spot as a sacrifice to theLord, the second was taken into the wilderness to the precipice called ‘Azazel’ or‘jagged rocks’ and driven over them to its death, carrying the sins of the people withit” (“Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,” JSS 1 [1956) 98). While Driver’s ex-planation is attractive linguistically, it appears excessively influenced by postbiblicaltradition and does not adequately take into account the indication in Lev 16 that Aza-zel is a personal being, as shown by the parallel between “belonging to Yhwh” and“belonging to Azazel” (v. 8). However, this does not rule out the possibility that theword Azazel originated from the root ºzz as Driver argues, but that in Lev 16 it is usedas a (possibly pejorative) representation of what is at least in some sense regarded as apersonal being. In any case, there is no indication in Lev 16 that the goat is led to aprecipice called Azazel and driven over it to its death. Rather, the goat belonging toMr. Azazel (i.e., possibly Mr. Very Rough Ground) is simply led into the wildernessand released there to fend for itself in an inhospitable, rough place that is cut off (Lev16:22) from the ordering of human civilization and agriculture. Since the wildernessis a place of disorderliness, which in the moral realm manifests itself in the moralfaults that are laid on the goat, we could say that responsibility for actions of chaos weresent to Mr. Chaos in the realm of chaos (cf. D. Davies, “An Interpretation of Sacrificein Leviticus,” ZAW 89 [1977] 394–95). O. Loretz suggests a linguistic relation to theUgaritic divine name ºzbºl, which is listed in KTU 1.102, line 27 (Leberschau, Sün-denbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel [UBL 3; Altenberge: CIS-Verlag, 1985] 56–57).M. Görg connects Azazel with the Egyptian god Seth and suggests that Azazel is de-rived from Egyptian ºd· + dr/l, a noun + passive participle for which he provides theapproximate rendering: der beseitigte/ferngehaltene Schuldige (“the culprit removed/kept away”) (“Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel-Ritus,” BN 33 [1986] 14).However, B. Janowski argues that Görg’s theory does not fit the context of Lev 16,where Israel rather than Azazel is guilty (“Azazel—biblisches Gegenstück zum ägyp-tischen Seth?: Zur Religionsgeschichte von Lev 16,10.21f.,” in Die Hebräische Bibelund ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag[ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. Stegemann; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-lag, 1990] 102–8. As an alternative, B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm interpret the Hurrianterm aza/ushi in light of the Akkadian sense of the root ºzz as referring to divine angerand thus explain the original “Azazel” ritual as expelling a goat in order to overcomedivine anger (“Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt: Zur Religionsgeschichte desAzazel-Ritus Lev 16,10.21f,” in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Klein-asien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament [ed. B. Janowski, K. Koch, and G. Wilhelm;OBO 129; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993]134–62; cf. Janowski, “Azazel: Biblisches Gegenstück,” 108–10). W. W. Hallo points outthat nakkussis, a Hittite technical term for an animal that was loaded with impurities



to the scapegoat.14 However, partial illumination comes from the lot cere-mony that determines the respective roles of the two goats provided by thecommunity (vv. 7–10).

Use of lots to determine the respective ritual roles of animals is uniquehere in Israelite ritual.15 The purpose of this preliminary procedure cannotbe explained by the need to differentiate between two creatures of the samekind, even when they are provided by the same party and one is slain whilethe other is released alive. Compare the bird ritual for purification of a scale-diseased person, in which one bird is slain and the other is set free (14:4–7),but no lots are needed.16 The reason for the lot ritual “before Yhwh” (16:7)on the Day of Atonement is that he must decide the roles of the goats throughwhat appears to be chance.17

Through the lot ceremony, one goat is designated hwhyl, “for Yhwh” (i.e.,“belonging to Yhwh”) and the other is lzaz[l, “for Azazel” (i.e., “belongingto Azazel,” v. 8).18 So Yhwh and Azazel are legal parties capable of ownership.

14. C. D. Ginsburg, Leviticus, 151. S. A. Geller tries to make sense of sending thegoat to the Goat as a possible product of polemical intent on the part of P against therealm of magic (“Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of the Priestly Work of thePentateuch,” Prooftexts 12 [1992] 106). Long ago S. R. Driver and H. A. White pointedout that “the rendering scape-goat, derived through St. Jerome from Symmachus, iscertainly incorrect: it does not suit v. 26, and implies a derivation opposed to thegenius of the Hebrew language, as though Azazel were a compound word (‘the goinggoat’ = Heb. ºez ªozel). Moreover, the marked antithesis between for Azazel and forJhvh does not leave it open to doubt that the former is conceived as a personal being”(The Book of Leviticus [SBONT 3; New York: Dodd, Mead, 1898] 81).

15. Roles of other animals are decided by offerers before they bring them to thesanctuary.

16. Compare Lev 5:7–10 and 14:22, 30–31, where a single offerer brings two birdsof the same kind, but no lots are cast to determine which is to function as a purifica-tion offering and which is to be a burnt offering.

17. Cf. E. Leach, “The Logic of Sacrifice,” in Anthropological Approaches to theOld Testament (ed. B. Lang; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 148; H. Maccoby, Ritualand Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1999) 86. For divine selection/identification through lots inthe Bible, see, for example, Josh 7:14–18; 1 Sam 10:20–21.

18. For the l of possession, see Isa 38:9; Hab 3:1; Ps 3:1; BDB 513; HALOT 1:509.Archaeologists have found many objects, especially seals, with the inscribed names oftheir owners immediately preceded by the l of ownership (Levine, Leviticus, 102). Thelots placed on the two goats apparently indicate their new owners, which have justbeen determined through the casting of lots, so that the animals will not subsequently

of a penitent and sent on its way, etymologically “appears to be composed of ‘to letgo’ (nakk-) and the abstract suffix (-si), providing a parallel to one of the proposed ety-mologies for azazel, the ‘goat that departs’ ” (“Leviticus and Ancient Near EasternLiterature,” in B. J. Bamberger, Leviticus [New York: Union of American HebrewCongregations, 1981] 744); cf. M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions,” 114.

Chapter 11250

The fact that Yhwh is supernatural could be taken to imply that Azazel is alsosome kind of supernatural being.19

Yhwh’s goat is sacrificed as a tafj, “purification offering” (v. 9) on behalfof the community, but the other goat remains alive, to be sent “to Azazel intothe wilderness” (v. 10; cf. vv. 21–22). Whatever the precise nature of “Azazel”may be, v. 10 identifies him as the party who receives the live goat. Now itmakes sense that only Yhwh can designate the respective roles of the twogoats: “otherwise, if the high priest chose the animals, it would appear that heand the people he represented were offering an animal to Azazel.”20

While the lot ceremony transfers ownership of the goat from the commu-nity to the mysterious “Azazel,” the animal is not an offering to him.21 Rather,the live goat transports Israelite moral faults to Azazel, who ends up with thisnoxious load.22 The ritual is a singularly unfriendly gesture toward Azazel.It would be like sending someone a load of chemical or nuclear waste. Be-cause Yhwh is the authority who commands the Israelites to perform theritual (vv. 1–2), it appears that Azazel is his enemy. Therefore, it is likely thatAzazel is some kind of demon23 and that his presence in an uninhabited re-

19. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 88–89.20. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1020.21. Cf. P. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT 1; Bonn: Hanstein, 1935) 75; Korn-

feld, Levitikus, 64–65. M. Noth viewed the ritual of Azazel’s goat as ambiguous: “thegift to Azazel should then have had the apotropaic purpose of warding off this redoubt-able desert demon and the dangers that he threatened; whilst the burdening of thehe-goat with Israel’s trespasses meant the cleansing and atoning removal of these tres-passes. Thus it might be asked whether the whole rite had not already had a history be-fore it came into the cleansing ritual of Lev. 16” (Leviticus [trans. J. E. Anderson;OTL; London: SCM, 1965] 125). However, there is no evidence that Azazel presentedsuch danger to the Israelites.

22. Cf. Zech 5:5–11.23. See 1 En. 10:4–5. On the Azazel episode in 1 En. 10, including its background,

see P. D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch6–11,” JBL 96 (1977) 220–27. For interpretation of Azazel as an evil being or demon,see G. Bush, Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Leviticus (New York: Ivison& Phinney, 1857) 149; J. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (trans. J. Mar-tin; Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 399–401; H. L. Strack, DieBücher Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri (Munich: Beck, 1894) 334; A. Dillmann, Die BücherExodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897) 577–78; Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus, 74;

be confused (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1019–20). The biblical text does not indicatethe manner in which the lots are to be cast. For the traditional rabbinic description,see m. Yoma 3:9; 4:1. In noncalendric rituals, the giving party indicates his departingownership by leaning one hand on the head of his animal. Placing lots on the headsof the two goats indicates ownership of the recipients—Yhwh and Azazel—but thereis no need to indicate departing ownership in this case because the ritual is a calendricritual.



gion (cf. Lev 17:7; Isa 13:21; 34:14; Luke 11:24; Rev 18:2) represents “the ex-treme opposite of God’s holy presence in the Holy of Holies.”24 However, thenature of Azazel’s personality is not revealed in Leviticus, perhaps to avoidthe danger that some would be tempted to worship him.25 Notice that unlikenon-Israelite exorcisms involving demons, the ritual expels evil to Azazelrather than expelling Azazel himself.26

The goat for Azazel is not a sacrifice. It is not the lack of slaughter thatexcludes it from the category of sacrifices/offerings.27 A sacrifice of grain

24. P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 203. E. Leach notes that the movementof the scapegoat reverses the movement by which Aaron was consecrated as highpriest (“The Logic of Sacrifice,” in Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament[ed. B. Lang; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 149).

25. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 22–25; idem, “Azazel,” ABD 1:536–37; Mil-grom, Leviticus 1–16, 1020–21. G. A. Boyd says of demons in the Old Testament:“Their reality is affirmed, but their autonomy from the will of Yahweh is minimized.Such an emphasis was perhaps necessary at this early stage of biblical revelation in or-der to establish among God’s people the singularity and sovereignty of the Lord in theface of a culture that absolutely denied it” (God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Con-flict [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1997] 83).

26. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 114.27. Contra Ibn Ezra on Lev 16:9; H. Cazelles, Le Lévitique (La Sainte Bible; 2nd

ed.; Paris: Cerf, 1958) 79; Noordtzij, Leviticus, 162–63; G. Hasel, “Studies in BiblicalAtonement II: The Day of Atonement,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Bibli-cal, Historical, and Theological Studies (ed. A. Wallenkampf; Washington, D.C.:Review and Herald, 1981) 120–21; A. Rodríguez, “Sacrificial Substitution and the Old

R. de Vaux, Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament (CahRB 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1964)87; Kornfeld, Levitikus, 64; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1020–21. Keil and Delitzsch,following Origen (Contra Celsum 6:43), thought Azazel must refer to “the devil him-self, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinateevil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but onlythe ruler or head of the kingdom of demons” (Biblical Commentary, 398). CompareKellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 269–70. While A. Noordtzij finds no evidence foridentifying Azazel with Satan, he regards him “as a desert demon that was capable offeeding on an animal laden with the sins of the entire nation of Israel” and notes that“there is no mention at all of any worship or even fear of Azazel. The ceremony ratherforms a strong expression of contempt, for Moses’ contemporaries, who were accus-tomed to presenting offerings to the desert demons (see discussion on 17:1–9), musthave been greatly struck by the fact that it was here Israel’s sins were fed to Azazel”(Leviticus [trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982] 162–63). B. Le-vine regards this rite of riddance “to the domain of Azazel, the demonic ruler of thewasteland (see Lev 17:7)” to have “heavily magical overtones” and to represent “a ves-tige of pre-monotheistic religion, continued by the priests of Israel to dramatize expi-ation” (“Leviticus, Book of,” ABD 4:315). For the theory that the ritual of Azazel’s goatwas incorporated into Israelite religion from pagan practice, see Kaufmann, The Reli-gion of Israel, 114–15; J. L. Mays, The Book of Leviticus, The Book of Numbers (LBC4; Atlanta: John Knox, 1963) 54.

Chapter 11252

functioning as a tafj also lacks slaughter (5:11–13). What makes the live-goat ritual nonsacrificial is the fact that the animal is not given over toYhwh as “an irrevocable gift.”28 In the normative religious system of Israel,it could not be an offering to anyone else, including Azazel (cf. 17:7).29

Even if a gift to Azazel were permissible, the live goat is a vehicle of elimi-nation, not a gift.30

Although Azazel’s goat is not a sacrifice, Lev 16:5 designates the two goatsprovided by the community for the Day of Atonement ceremonies as tafjl,which would ordinarily be translated “for a purification offering.”31 So bothYhwh’s goat and Azazel’s goat are tafj animals (cf. Num 7:87; Lev 9:3; 23:19).

28. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. J. McHugh; GrandRapids: Eerdmans / Livonia, Michigan: Dove, 1961) 452. Elsewhere de Vaux attributesthe nonsacrificial character of the live goat to the fact that it has become impure withthe sins of the people and thus is disqualified from serving as a holy sacrificial victim(Les Sacrifices, 29, 87).

29. Cf. Blome, Die Opfermaterie in Babylonien und Israel (SSAOI 4; Rome: Pontif-ical Biblical Institute, 1934) 105 n. 35.

30. Contra P. Rigby, who argues that, because Azazel’s goat was cut off from itsowner (the Israelites) and dedicated both to Yhwh and to Azazel, it was originally adualistic sacrifice in which the desert serves as the functional equivalent of the altar(“A Structural Analysis of Israelite Sacrifice and Its Other Institutions,” EgT 11 [1980]346–47, esp. n. 82).

31. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1293; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1009.

Testament Sacrifices,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, andTheological Studies (ed. A. Wallenkampf; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald,1981) 138. Like sacrifices, elimination rituals may or may not involve killing. In Deut21:1–9 a heifer’s neck is broken in a nonsacrificial elimination ritual for a case of un-solved murder. On the other hand, Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:20–22) and a bird freed onthe first day of the process by which a person or house healed from “leprosy” is puri-fied (14:4–7, 49–53) are not killed. H. Hubert and M. Mauss erroneously regardedthese rituals as sacrifices (Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function [trans. W. D. Halls; Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press, 1964; French original, 1898] 39). In order to countthe live goat and bird as “victims,” they had to interpret sacrificial destruction broadlyenough to include expulsion without death, and they explained the consecration in-volved in these cases: “In spite of ritual differences the same phenomenon takes placehere as on the altar of the ºolah at Jerusalem, when the victim disappears entirely insmoke before the face of Yahweh. In both instances it is separated and entirely disap-pears, although it is not towards the same regions of the religious world that it proceedsin the two cases” (p. 39). This reasoning stretches consecration beyond reasonable lim-its. There is no indication in the biblical text that the live goat and bird are sent to sa-cred or “religious” regions. To the contrary, they are sent away from the inhabited areawhere Yhwh’s sanctuary is located and where religious activities normally take place.These animals are not transferred to the sacred domain but serve exclusively as ve-hicles for eliminating evil (D. Wright, “Deuteronomy 21:1–9 as a Rite of Elimination,”CBQ 49 [1987] 387–403).


The idea that the nonsacrificial live goat functions as some kind of tafj

in its own right is too astonishing for many interpreters to accept. ThusP. Heinisch views tafjl here as imprecise because only one serves as an of-fering,32 E. Gerstenberger supposes “that v. 5 is not yet referring to the scape-goat rite at all,”33 and J. R. Porter states without giving support: “this showsthe priestly tendency to give a single interpretation to what are actuallydistinct rituals. In fact, only one of the he-goats was used as a sin-offering (cp.verse 9).”34 A. Rodríguez, B. Levine, F. Gorman, and R. Péter-Contesse andJ. Ellington regard Azazel’s goat only as a potential tafj before the selec-tion by lots is made.35

J. H. Kurtz contended that both goats form one tafj, and the ritual withthe second (live) goat completes the expiatory process begun with the first(slain) goat.36 Similarly, S. H. Kellogg explained that, because both goats aredesignated tafj (v. 5) and the live goat is placed before Yhwh (v. 10), the twoanimals constitute one tafj sacrifice to Yhwh, the slain goat showing themeans of reconciliation with God and the live goat setting forth the effect ofthat sacrifice.37 Following this idea, W. Kaiser states:

This one sin offering comes in two parts, since the first goat that dies cannotbe brought back to life to transact the second part of the ritual. It clearly setsforth the teaching that sins are forgiven on the basis of a substitute (the firstgoat), and sins are forgotten and removed from us, as the psalmist said, “asfar as the east is from the west,/ so far has he removed our/ transgressionsfrom us” (Ps 103:12 niv). The first animal pictures the means used foratonement—i.e., the shedding of the blood of an innocent substitute—andthe second animal pictures the effect, the removal of the guilt.38

32. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus, 74.33. E. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. D. Stott; OTL; Louisville,

Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 219.34. J. R. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976)

127.35. Rodríguez, Substitution, 113; Levine, Leviticus, 101; Gorman, The Ideology of

Ritual, 97; R. Péter-Contesse and J. Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus (UBSHS;New York: United Bible Societies, 1990) 244.

36. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 395–96, 404–7, 410–13; cf. D. Hoffmann, Das BuchLeviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6) 441; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary,405. Likewise, S. Landersdorfer argued that the two identical goats form an ideal unityas a single “Sühnopfer,” in which the goat for Azazel has no independent significance(Studien zum biblischen Versöhnungstag [ATA 10; Münster: Aschendorff, 1924] 14).

37. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 266–71; cf. Feinberg, “The Scapegoat,” 322,324; Noordtzij, Leviticus, 161.

38. W. Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” NIB 1:1112; cf. Rooker, Leviticus, 221.

Chapter 11254

As Kaiser recognizes, if the live goat continues the sacrificial process begunwith Yhwh’s goat, it is difficult to maintain that Azazel is some kind of demonbecause Lev 17:7 warns against giving sacrifices to demons. Therefore Kaiserprefers the unviable (see above) traditional approach that “Azazel” is a com-pound word made up of z[, “goat,” and lza, “go away,” yielding the meaning“escape-goat” (= older English “scapegoat”).39

N. Kiuchi accepts the concept that the two goats together form one tafj

and proposes that “the Azazel-goat ritual is a special form of the burning ofthe hattat.”40 He properly recognizes that disposal of the tafj flesh by incin-eration and the ritual of Azazel’s goat are both involved with elimination ofevil within the same overall complex of rituals prescribed in Lev 16.41 How-ever, Kiuchi’s approach is unsatisfactory. Aside from problematic implica-tions with regard to the nature of Azazel that arise from regarding the ritualof his goat as the continuation of a sacrificial process (see above), the ideathat the two goats form one purification offering overlooks the closer rela-tionship between Yhwh’s goat and the bull for the priests, which are com-bined at the next hierarchical level as a single tafj complex (Lev 16:25—singular tafj) called the “purification offering of purgation” (Exod 30:10;Num 29:11). Because the live-goat ritual removes moral faults of all Israelites(Lev 16:21), including priests and lay community together,42 it stands out-side the “purification offering of purgation” and has the same function withrespect to the priest’s bull as it does in relation to Yhwh’s goat on behalf ofthe laity.43

39. Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” 1112.40. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 149; cf. 148, 159, 163.41. Ibid., 134–35.42. See v. 19, where laEr;c‘yi yneB} must include both priests and laity because this

term refers to the offerers of the bull for the priests and Yhwh’s goat for the lay com-munity, the mixed bloods of which are applied to the outer altar (p. 153). Contra Le-vine, who states that Azazel’s goat functioned only for the people, not for the priests(Leviticus, 106).

43. Kiuchi’s hypothesis that, by purging impurity from the sancta, Aaron bears theguilt of the people, which he then places upon the live goat when he lays his handson it and confesses (The Purification Offering, 148; cf. 156), is untenable. He assumesthat the dynamics of Lev 10:17, where a priest bears culpability (̂ w[ acn) as a result ofperforming rpk by means of a purification offering (cf. pp. 49–52, 98–99, 109), operatein connection with the inner-sanctum purification offerings on the Day of Atonement.But 10:17 applies only to eaten tafj sacrifices. There is no evidence that an offici-ating priest likewise bears culpability resulting from officiation of a burnt purificationoffering (contra Kiuchi’s assumption: p. 134), including the inner-sanctum sacrificesthat are incinerated outside the camp on the Day of Atonement (16:27).


A second problem is that, unlike the bird rituals of Lev 14:4–7 and 49–53,in which blood from a slain bird is applied to a live bird that is released, thereis no contact/interaction between the slain bull or goat and the live goat toshow that the live animal simply continues the same process begun withthem.44 Rather than forging a bond between the two goats, the high priest’sconfession on Azazel’s goat indicates that there is no simple transfer by physi-cal contact via the high priest from the slain tafj animals that purge thesanctuary to the live goat. This does not rule out some continuity between theevils removed from the sanctuary and those that are expelled by the live goat,but it shows that the evils removed by the latter and the relationship of theanimal to these evils need not be the same.

44. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 164; cf. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 79.Inexact similarity between the bird rituals of Lev 14 and the goat rituals of ch. 16 iswell recognized. See, e.g., Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 433–34; Landersdorfer, Studienzum biblischen Versöhnungstag, 24; Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 78–79. In 14:49–53, as in ch. 16, defilement is removed from a place of residence, this purgation is ex-pressed with l[ rpk + dwelling (14:53; cf. 16:16, 18) and achieves purity (rhf 14:53;cf. 16:19), slain and live creatures are used, a sevenfold sprinkling utilizes the blood ofthe slain creature (14:51; cf. 16:14–15, 19), and the live creature is sent away (piºel ofjlv; 14:53; cf. 16:10, 21, 22) from the area of human habitation. There are also signif-icant differences (cf. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 79). Whereas the sanctuary’spollution includes moral faults (16:16) and the load of evil borne by Azazel’s goat is ex-clusively moral in nature (v. 21), the house in Lev 14 is cleansed only from a kind ofphysical ritual impurity. The live goat is sent to Azazel, but no such destination is in-dicated for the live bird. Contact between the two birds, already mentioned above, in-dicates that they are used interactively in the same individual ritual, but the inner-sanctum purification offering of Yhwh’s goat and the ritual of Azazel’s goat are discreterituals with distinct goals, even though they belong to the same overall ritual complex.If Azazel’s goat were to complete the process of purging the sanctuary, as the live birdcompletes the process of purging a house, we could expect a notice at the end of 16:22analogous to that which we find in 14:53 after the instruction for release of the livebird: rhEf:w] tyiB"h"Al[" rP<kIw], “Thus he shall perform purgation upon the house, and itshall be pure” (translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1290; idem, Leviticus 1–16,829). A separate bird ritual, parallel to that which remedies the impurity of a house, isprescribed for the ritual cleansing of a scaly-skin diseased person who has been healedfrom this malady (14:4–7), but in ch. 16 the people are cleansed through purgation ofthe sanctuary (v. 30). K. Aartun finds a functional parallel between the independentrituals for purification of persons and houses, respectively, in Lev 14 and the combina-tion of these kinds of purification in ch. 16. He uses this evidence to support the the-ory that originally independent rituals were secondarily reworked into a single Day ofAtonement ceremony (“Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag,” ST 34 [1980] 84–86). However, Aar-tun does not adequately take into account the fact that in Lev 16 purgation of the sanc-tuary and purification of the people are not simply juxtaposed within one ritual.Rather, the latter is the secondary result of the former.

Chapter 11256

A third problem reinforces the second. Whereas the slain purification of-ferings remove impurities and moral faults (Lev 16:16, 19), Azazel’s goat re-moves only moral faults (vv. 21–22). If the latter simply completes the disposalprocess for one or both of the inner-sanctum purification offerings, why doesit not remove exactly the same list of evils?

B. Schwartz agrees with Kiuchi that the live goat constitutes the secondpart of a two-part tafj that carries away moral faults after they have been re-moved from the sanctuary.45 Thus “the scapegoat procedure is an integralpart of the purification of the sanctuary, carrying off the sins that have col-lected there.”46 However, unlike Kiuchi, he does not attempt to make thelive-goat ritual functionally equivalent to disposal of the slain goat’s carcass.He suggests that impurities do not go on the live goat, because they, unlikesins, are not only removed from the sancta but also eradicated by the slainpurification offering.47

Schwartz explains the unique need for driving away sins on a live goatonly on the Day of Atonement as due to the unique purgation of the innersanctum on this day to remove deliberate (for him = “wanton”) offenses fromthat area. Following Milgrom’s theory, according to which such offenses arethe only evils serious enough to penetrate into the inner sanctum,48 Schwartzexplains that, while slain purification offerings alone suffice to eradicate inad-vertent faults and severe ritual impurities, deliberate faults cannot be de-stroyed in this way. They “must be extracted from the shrine, loaded onto thehead of the goat, and driven off into the wilderness.”49

Schwartz avoids some, but not all, of Kiuchi’s weaknesses. As pointed outabove, because the ritual of Azazel’s goat relates to both purification offerings,it cannot simply complete one or the other. Also, there is not a direct ritualtransfer from either of the slain tafj sacrifices to Azazel’s goat.

Schwartz introduces an additional problem when he maintains that onlydeliberate/wanton offenses are purged from the inner sanctum and loadedonto the live goat. In Lev 16:16 and 21 he interprets µt:aFøj"Alk:l} µh<y[Ev‘PI as“deliberate offenses among all their sins” and equates them with the tno/[“ in

45. B. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranatesand Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Lit-erature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz;Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 17–18.

46. Ibid., 20.47. Ibid., 17–18.48. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; cf. idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Pic-

ture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 393.49. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 21; cf. 17–20.


v. 21, which he understands to mean “wanton sins.”50 Thus he attempts to rec-oncile elements belonging to the theory of Kiuchi and that of Milgrom, whoholds that wanton sins penetrate into the inner sanctum, by taking theseverses to indicate only one category of moral evil, deliberate/wanton of-fenses.51 However, as we shall see in ch. 13, the [vp, tafj, and ˆw[ evils arethree discrete categories. Here it suffices to point out that Schwartz’s validcriticism of Levine, Milgrom, and Wright, who treat the waw before µh<y[Ev‘PI

in µh<y[Ev‘PImIW laEr;c‘yi yneB} taOm}F¨mI (“from the impurities of the Israelites and fromtheir rebellious sins”; v. 16) as if it were explicative,52 also applies to his owninterpretation of µh<y[Ev‘PIAlK:Ata<w] laEr;c‘yi yneB} tno/[“ (“the culpabilities of the Is-raelites and all their rebellious sins”) in v. 21. Regarding v. 16 he says that“the waw must be a simple conjunction, and the text indicates clearly thata double purgation is described: one that removes both impurities andsins.”53 But regarding v. 21 he explains: “only the deliberate offenses amongall their sins (µtafj lkl µhy[vp, 16:21), that is, the wanton sins (twnw[,vv. 21–22), are loaded onto the scapegoat.”54 Here he interprets the waw inµh<y[Ev‘PIAlK: ta<w] as explicative when it must, as in the equivalent syntactic po-sition in v. 16, be a simple conjunction, meaning that the live goat carries offboth tnw[ and µy[vp as two distinct categories. But if the tno/[“ are not the sameas the µy[vp, how can the ritual of Azazel’s goat be the second phase of asingle tafj ritual that expels from the camp the same evils that were purgedfrom the sanctuary through Yhwh’s slain goat? There must be a greater artic-ulation between the two goat rituals than Schwartz acknowledges.

Now we are ready to profit from the following observation by Schwartz:

50. Ibid., 18–19.51. Wright’s rendering of µt:aFøj"Alk:l} µh<y[Ev‘PI as “their crimes including all of their

sins” allows for two categories of evil. However, his suggestion that this phrase mayhave been added (following M. Löhr, Das Ritual von Lev. 16 [Untersuchungen zumHexateuchproblem 3; SKGG 2/1; Berlin: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1925] 3) to ex-plain the need for purification of the inner sanctum, namely, because the µy[vp haduniquely penetrated there (The Disposal of Impurity, 18–20, following Milgrom’s sys-tem, on which see ch. 7 above), does not account for why µt:aFø j" should be includ-ed here. So the net effect is essentially the same as for Schwartz.

52. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 7 n. 12, referring to B. Levine, In the Presenceof the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden:Brill, 1974) 76–77; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1033; and Wright, The Disposal of Impu-rity, 18–21. As mentioned above, Wright tentatively regards µt:aFø j"Alk:l} µh<y[Ev‘PI invv. 16 and 21 as an addition to the text.

53. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 7.54. Ibid., 19.

Chapter 11258

Only after having purged the adytum, shrine, and altar of the impuritiesand sins may the priest place the latter on the head of the scapegoat, atransference accomplished by the verbal process of articulating them aloud(v. 21). The inference is clear: the sins can be transferred to the scapegoatat this point and not before, because only now has the priest acquired themhimself. They have been accumulating in the adytum and the shrine, andhe has just released them; now he transfers them to the head of the goat inorder to dispose of them for good.55

This statement is true of the moral evils that are removed both from the sanc-tuary through Yhwh’s goat (Lev 16:16) and from the camp by Azazel’s goat(v. 21): µt:aFøj"Alk:l} µh<y[Ev‘PI. This continuity56 requires that the sanctuary bepurged by means of the slain purification offerings before the [vp and tafj

sins can be banished from the camp on Azazel’s goat. But the high priestdoes not transfer to the live goat the taOm}F¨, “impurities,” released from thesanctuary.57 Conversely, he does not remove from the sanctuary the tno/[“ thathe places on Azazel’s goat. So it is not at all certain that he has acquired thetno/[“ only now through the process of purging the sanctuary.

In light of the above discussion, I conclude that there is both continuityand discontinuity between the slain tafj rituals and the ritual of Azazel’sgoat, which is also called a tafj.58 My position is an alternative both to theview that the evils removed from the sanctuary are simply transferred to Aza-zel’s goat59 and to a hypothesis that originally the evils were directly trans-ferred to Azazel’s goat, parallel to the bird rituals of Lev 14 and other ancientNear Eastern comparative materials.60

Returning to Lev 16:5, we must persist in maintaining that each of the twogoats, individually, is a tafj animal. As M. M. Kalisch pointed out long ago:

55. Ibid., 17.56. Cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 145–47.57. Apparently missing this point, Rodríguez speaks of Azazel’s goat carrying away

impurity as well as sin (Substitution, 118).58. Milgrom and Wright maintain a similar balance between continuity and artic-

ulation. They hold that the Day of Atonement purification offerings and the scapegoatritual belong together in the sense that the former transfer ritual impurities and moralfaults (i.e., impurity resulting from moral faults) out of the sanctuary, and the lattertransfers the moral faults themselves, the cause of the sanctuary’s defilement, from thepeople to the wilderness. Thus, evils are not transferred directly from the sanctuary toAzazel’s goat (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 857, 1033–34, 1043–45; Wright, The Disposalof Impurity, 18, 30).

59. For example, Rodríguez, Substitution, 117–18, 215, 219; Kiuchi, The Purifica-tion Offering, 150–54.

60. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 79–80; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1044, 1082.



Both goats were indeed meant to effect complete obliteration of transgres-sions, and both alike were subjected to the Divine decision of the lot; yet itwould be too much to consider both virtually as one sin-offering presentedto God; the two worked out the desired object in a very different manner;one was a victim intended to atone for sins, the other carried away sinsalready atoned for . . . they implied the acknowledgment of two oppositeand opposing forces in the moral world.61

In spite of the facts that Azazel’s goat is placed “before Yhwh,” showing thatits function is under Yhwh’s control,62 and that it accomplishes a kind ofrpk (v. 10; see below), it is a unique tafj that is not offered to Yhwh.63

Thus the designation tafj in v. 5 should be understood broadly to mean“purification ritual,” an expression that covers both the purification offeringof Yhwh’s goat and the nonsacrificial ritual with Azazel’s goat.64 Since the

61. M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament,with a New Translation: Leviticus (2 vols.; London: Longman, Green, Reader, andDyer, 1867–72) 2:209.

62. See G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford:Clarendon, 1925) 317.

63. Contra Feinberg, “The Scapegoat,” 330–31. By including Azazel’s goat underthe term tafj in v. 5, but by distinguishing it from performance of Yhwh’s goat as atafj (vv. 9–10), the writer of Lev 16 sets up tension that invites comparison and con-trast between the respective roles of the two goats. Geller finds the pair to represent a“ritual merism”: “one goat penetrates, as blood, into the extreme sanctity of the Holi-est Place; the other is expelled to the outermost extreme of the cultic realm” (“BloodCult,” 105).

64. Milgrom explains Lev 16:5: “The he-goat for Azazel was not a sacrifice. Here,then, the term ˙a††aªt may have been chosen for its philological sense ‘that which re-moves sin,’ which precisely defines the function of the scapegoat” (Leviticus 1–16,1018). A. Dillmann came close when he suggested that tafjl in this verse means:“for the removal of the sin” (Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, 576). Gray’s descriptionof the red cow (Num 19), which he did not regard as a sacrifice, would properly applyto the goat for Azazel: “it is not therefore a sin-offering, but it is a means for the re-moval of sin; it is not an expiatory offering, but it is an expiatory object” (Sacrifice inthe Old Testament, 60). To maintain a consistent meaning for the term tafj, K. Kochregards all tafj rituals as nonsacrificial, but to sustain this notion he must assert thatin 4:31 the notice that tafj fat is a j'jOyni j'yre, “pleasing aroma,” to Yhwh is “the resultof textual corruption” (“af:j: cha†aª,” TDOT 4:316). Kaufmann struggled with the na-ture of tafj rituals, stating, “At bottom the ̇ a††ath is no offering at all,” but then goingon to say: “While the ˙a††ath has two faces—one turned toward the holy, the other, to-ward the obscure realm outside the camp—whatever influence it calls down comesfrom the holy alone. That is why the biblical ˙a††ath does have something of the na-ture of a sacrifice to Yhwh” (The Religion of Israel, 113–14). The idea that a tafj

ritually offered to Yhwh for his utilization (excluding Azazel’s goat) is an offering/sac-rifice is supported by J. van Baal’s analysis of the varied and complex roles of the “gift”idea in sacrifice generally (including in modern cultures), involving associations withobligation, reciprocity, and punishment (“Offering, Sacrifice and Gift,” Numen 23[1976] 161–78).

Chapter 11260

latter is nonsacrificial, there is no impediment to the conclusion that “Aza-zel” is some kind of demon.

While the two tafj goats are identical to the point that before the lot rit-ual they are interchangeable, their rituals move in opposite directions:

In terms of the dynamics of the ritual, it seems that in some way harmonybetween God and Israel was restored by means of an extreme and comple-mentary movement in the spatial dimension. During the year various faults(sins and impurities) had compromised the ordered life of Israel. Thesetensions were represented and eventually resolved in terms of the spatialmovement as well as the normal sacrificial action. . . . In the double move-ment of the ritual on the Day of Atonement, all the tensions were gatheredup and dealt with by a decisive purification and elimination.65

Thus, rather than isolating the ritual of Azazel’s goat from the inner-sanctumpurification offerings that purge the sanctuary, as some scholars have done,66

Jenson argues for the unity of the Day of Atonement complex as it is pre-scribed in the final form of Lev 16: “The two parts complement one another,and the unique aspects of the ritual can be understood as consequences of itsunusually comprehensive goals.”67

The “tafj” label applies to a wide variety of ritual paradigms: outer-altarpurification offerings, including grain functioning as a tafj (Lev 5:11–13),outer-sanctum and inner-sanctum purification offerings, the red cow ritualperformed outside the camp (Num 19:9, 17), and now the nonsacrificial pu-rification ritual of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:5). So the tafj category can beviewed as a “super-paradigm” comprising a cluster of individual ritual para-digms. For purposes of analysis, we can suggest that rituals belong to the sameindividual paradigm if they pursue the same goal in basically the same man-ner, that is, their respective activity systems share the same core.68 But notone physical activity is common to all of the tafj rituals. Nevertheless, ex-cept for Azazel’s goat, the victim/material is offered or dedicated in some way

65. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 203.66. For example, de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 507–9; Aartun, “Studien zum Gesetz

über den grossen Versöhnungstag,” 85.67. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 198 (cf. 197).68. I would allow for minor/peripheral variables within the same ritual paradigm,

such as the presence or absence of hand-leaning according to whether a sacrifice iscalendric or not and whether an outer-sanctum purification offering is eaten or incin-erated (the latter if priests are offerers; Lev 9:11). However, differences between theblood manipulations and respective goals of outer altar, outer-sanctum, and inner-sanctum tafj sacrifices are too central and significant to allow for these rituals to beregarded as variations of the same paradigm.


to Yhwh, at least by a sevenfold sprinkling of blood toward the sanctuary(Num 19:4), and at least part of the victim/material is burned.

What unites the otherwise disparate tafj rituals is purification in thebroad sense of removing moral faults and/or physical ritual impurities.69

Such rituals are sacrificial, with one exception: the elimination rite of Aza-zel’s goat.

Purgation (rpk) on the live goat returns the moral faults of the Israelites to their source: Azazel

B. Baentsch viewed the ritual of Azazel’s goat as purifying the people fromall the sins that they had committed during the preceding year.70 It is truethat in Lev 16:10 Azazel’s goat has a kind of rpk function: wyl:[: rPEk"l}. But thisexpression is unique in that the object of the preposition l[ following rpk re-fers here to the animal rather than to the offerer(s) or to the sanctuary and/orits sancta. So the goat is not an instrument to effect rpk on behalf of theIsraelites themselves or to purge the sanctuary.71 Neither can the goat itself bethe beneficiary of rpk. It is abandoned in the wilderness and may perishthere.72 Rather, it is a vehicle of rpk by elimination, as shown by the fact thatin Lev 16:10 wyl:[: rPEk"l}, “to perform rpk upon it,” is paralleled by /taO jL"væl}

hr;B:d]MIh" lzeaz;[“l", “to send it off to Azazel to the wilderness” (cf. vv. 21–22).73

69. Rodríguez, Substitution, 123; Jenson, Graded Holiness, 159. Cf. Gray regard-ing the basic meaning of the verb afj: “ ‘to un-sin’, ‘to eliminate’, whatever the pre-cise means of achieving this in any particular case may be” (Sacrifice in the Old Tes-tament, 63).

70. B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1903) 381, 383–85.

71. See Ramban on Lev 16:21. Kiuchi argues that the antecedent of the third-person masc. sing. pronominal suffix in wyl:[: rPEk"l}, “to make atonement on him,” isAaron, so that the goat is the agent of rpk for the high priest (The Purification Offering,150–51). But this is syntactically unnatural in this verse, where earlier and later 3rd-person masc. sing. pronominal suffixes (in wyl:[: hl:[:, lit., “went up upon it”; and O jL"væl}

/ta, “to send it away”) have the goat as their antecedents.72. Likewise, there is no support for the guess of Driver and White “that the goat

was consecrated to the solemn purpose for which it was employed, as the altar (Ex.29:36; cf. Ez. 43:20) was prepared for use, by a rite of expiation” (The Book of Leviticus,81; cf. Ginsburg, Leviticus, 151). R. G. Crawford maintains that “the scapegoat was ledinto the wilderness not to be punished but to enjoy the freedom of his natural sphere”(“Is the Penal Theory of the Atonement Scriptural?” SJT 23 [1970] 259). Whether thegoat’s fate is viewed as punishment or not, I do not see how a domestic goat, adaptableas its species may be, would fare better in the wilderness than with human care, in-cluding provision of food, water, and protection.

73. Heinisch points out that wyl:[: rPEk"l} is explained in vv. 21–22 (Das Buch Leviti-cus, 74).

Chapter 11262

Thus wyl:[: simply indicates the locus of rpk: “to perform rpk upon it”—thatis, upon the goat (cf. ch. 6 above).74

As a corporate community the Israelites do receive a kind of benefit fromthe ritual of Azazel’s goat. While the ritual does not accomplish rpk for themin the sense that they need further removal of evils from themselves or fromthe sanctuary following the inner-sanctum purification offerings, moral faultsfrom which they have already been separated are removed from their camp—that is, from their presence (cf. Ps 103:12) and from the presence of theirdeity.75 This is the final stage in the process of rpk, removal of evil that inter-feres with the relationship between Yhwh and his people.76 It is not that “thePriestly authors regarded the Scapegoat as a last resort, when all other meth-ods of atonement had failed.”77 Rather, this animal functioned for a kind ofrpk not enacted elsewhere in the tafj system of rituals.

Azazel’s goat bears (acn) the culpability (ˆw[) of the Israelites away fromtheir camp (Lev 16:22). In some other contexts ˆw[ acn can express divine for-

74. See Rashi on Lev 16:10; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 384; Hoffmann,Das Buch Leviticus, 445; P. Garnet, “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testamentand the Qumran Scrolls,” EvQ 46 (1974) 146; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1023. AsDillmann pointed out (Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus [Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897] 576),in Exod 30:10 the object of the preposition l[ following rpk also designates a locus ofritual action, in this case wyt:nor]q"Al[", “upon its (the incense altar’s) horns.” But whereasthis verse goes on to indicate that the rpk application of blood upon the horns of theinner altar purges it (wyl:[: rPEk"y]), there is nothing in Lev 16 to suggest that the highpriest removes evil from Azazel’s goat by confessing over it. To the contrary, followingthis activity the goat bears (acn) the evil into the wilderness (v. 22). The meaning ofwyl:[: is not the instrumental “with (or by means of) it,” which would be expressedthrough the preposition b (cf. Lev 5:16; 7:7; 19:22; Num 5:8; H. C. Brichto, “OnSlaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA 47 [1976] 33). Nor does it re-fer to the slain bull and goat being used to effect rpk “in proximity to it” (so Levine, Inthe Presence of the Lord, 80; cf. G. Hasel, “Studies in Biblical Atonement II: The Dayof Atonement,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theo-logical Studies [ed. A. Wallenkampf; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981]121). As Kiuchi points out, Lev 16:10 refers only to the ritual of Azazel’s goat (The Pu-rification Offering, 149). There is no adequate textual warrant for dismissing wyl:[: rPEk"l}

as a scribal or redactional mistake (contra K. Elliger, Leviticus [HAT 4; Tübingen:Mohr, 1966] 201; Noth, Leviticus, 121; Aartun, “Studien,” 77–78; Janowski, Sühne,185 n. 5) or emending it (so M. Löhr, who suggested that the original sense was some-thing like µ[hAl[ rpkl (Das Ritual von Lev. 16, 2). J. Porter muddies the water: “Thisnot very clear expression is an attempt to assimilate an alien rite to the dominantpriestly sacrificial practice and theology of expiation” (Leviticus, 127–28).

75. A. Médebielle, “Le symbolism du sacrifice expiatoire en Israël,” Bib 2 (1921)290.

76. Cf. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 95, 97–98. Schwartz, “The Bearing ofSin,” 18.

77. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 90.


giveness (Exod 34:7; Num 14:18; roughly equivalent to the indirect ˆw[l jls,“forgive with regard to culpability,” in Exod 34:9; Num 14:19).78 But in Lev16 it is Azazel’s goat, not Yhwh or someone/something serving as his repre-sentative, that bears the sins of Israel. So the ritual of Azazel’s goat does notprovide Yhwh’s forgiveness to anyone in any sense.

Because Azazel’s goat plays no role in the moral purification of the peoplethemselves, whether by separating sins from them or providing them with di-vine forgiveness, the unique moral purification (piºel of rhf) of the peoplefrom their sins (pl. of tafj) to which Lev 16:30 refers must result exclusivelyfrom the purgation of the sanctuary by means of the inner-sanctum tafj sac-rifices, supplemented by the burnt offerings (Lev 16:24).79 It is not the com-bination of these sacrifices with the unique ritual of Azazel’s goat thatgenerates this unique purification. Therefore, in agreement with evidencepresented in prior chapters of the present work, the goals of the inner-sanctumpurification offerings that purge the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement arequalitatively unique. By comparison with other tafj sacrifices, the inner-sanctum offerings do not merely provide a quantitatively magnified/intensi-fied version of the same kind of rpk as Milgrom’s gradation of purificationofferings indicates.80

Why would Yhwh command that the moral faults of his people be ban-ished to Azazel in the wilderness? Leviticus does not say. But the theory thatAzazel is a source of evil or chaos, to which Yhwh has the Israelites returntheir moral faults,81 agrees with biblical evidence for a tempter (Gen 3),with the idea that wilderness areas can be inhabited by µyriy[Ic‘, apparently“goat-demons” (cf. Lev 17:7; Isa 13:21),82 and with the proverbial principle:

78. Cf. G. Olaffson, “The Use of n¶ª in the Pentateuch and Its Contribution to theConcept of Forgiveness” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1992) 264–69.

79. Thus I eliminate a possibility, entertained by Milgrom, that the reference to pu-rification in Lev 16:30 “could also be to the scapegoat” (Leviticus 1–16, 1056).

80. Ibid., 257; cf. “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 393.81. See, e.g., 1 En. 9:6; 10:8; Kalisch, A Historical and Critical Commentary, 208;

Rodríguez, Substitution, 118; Levine, Leviticus, 252; Gorman, The Ideology of Rit-ual, 99. Kurtz adopted an idea that he regarded as an alternative but that may in factbe complementary: the sins of Israel are sent to Azazel so that they will no longerprovide him with grounds for accusing Israel (Sacrificial Worship, 412–13; cf. Zech3:1–3). Kaufmann downplayed the potential of Azazel as a source of danger to theIsraelites: “He is merely a passive symbol of impurity—sin returns to its like” (TheReligion of Israel, 114). It is true that Azazel’s personality is not revealed in Leviticus,but as a personal being antagonistic to Yhwh, he is clearly more than “a passive sym-bol of impurity.”

82. B. Levine, “René Girard on Job: The Question of the Scapegoat,” Semeia 33(1985) 127–28.

Chapter 11264

“Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on the onewho starts it rolling” (Prov 26:27; nrsv).83 Today we would say: “What goesaround comes around,” or “chickens come home to roost.”

In the Bible the “stone-will-come-back” dynamic of cause and effect can beexpressed with active involvement on the part of Yhwh, who puts (ˆtn) evildeeds on the head(s) of perpetrator(s) (e.g., Ezek 9:10; 11:21; 16:43; 22:31).Compare Yhwh’s directions regarding the blasphemer, on whose head thewitnesses to his sin were to lean (˚ms) their hands before he was punished (Lev24:14), thereby identifying him as the one who bore his own culpability (ac…n;w]

/af}j<; v. 15). The parallel with Azazel’s goat is striking: the high priest leans(˚ms) both his hands on the head of the live goat and confesses the faults ofIsrael, thereby putting (ˆtn) them on the head of the goat, and then he sendsthe goat away bearing the culpabilities (ˆw[ acn) of the people (vv. 21–22).84

Now we are prepared to see the high priest’s confession at a higher degreeof resolution. Although his confession is undoubtedly addressed to Yhwh,whose commandments the people he represents have violated, his goal is notto obtain forgiveness (as in Lev 5:5), which has already been granted at anearlier stage of rpk (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35, etc.). Rather, his goal is to transfermoral evils back to where they ultimately came from in the first place. Sothe high priest’s verbal acknowledgment functions as an accusation againstAzazel! By way of analogy, confession of a crime by an accomplice implicitlyimplicates the one who instigated it.

When the Israelites sinned against Yhwh, they were unwitting accom-plices of Azazel, Yhwh’s enemy. As such, they are now witnesses against Aza-zel. Thus the high priest leans his hands on the head of the goat for Azazel,just as the witnesses against the blasphemer laid their hands on his head. Ofcourse, there are some differences between these cases. The witnesses againstthe blasphemer had no part in his crime and performed the hand-leaningthemselves on the head of the perpetrator himself (Lev 24:14), but on theDay of Atonement the high priest represents his people as a group of forgivensinners by leaning his hands, not on Azazel himself, but on a “tote-goat” sentto him. Because the evils originating with Azazel and for which he is respon-sible were committed by the people, they are identified as the culpabilities,transgressions, and sins of the Israelites (16:21; cf. v. 22).

83. Cf. G. Robinson, “A Terminological Study of the Idea of Sin in the Old Testa-ment,” IJT 18 (1969) 122.

84. I am grateful to Moise Isaac, my student, for bringing these terminological af-finities to my attention.


By stoning the blasphemer outside their camp (Lev 24:14, 23), the Israel-ites purged evil that offended Yhwh from their midst. Similarly, Phinehaspurged evil from the camp in order to stop a divine plague among the Israel-ites, by spearing Zimri and Cozbi, an Israelite man and Midianite woman(Num 25:6–8; cf. vv. 14–15).85 By zealously effecting purgation for (l[ rpk)the Israelites in this way (v. 13), Phinehas turned back the wrath of Yhwh

from his people (v. 11). This purgation did not benefit Zimri, even though hewas an Israelite. Rather, the purgation (rpk) was done upon him, the of-fender, and removed him from among the Israelites, just as purgation upon(l[ rpk) Azazel’s goat, the vehicle of the offender, gets rid of the goat (Lev16:10) and Israel’s moral faults along with it.

Deuteronomy 21 is another passage in which rpk refers to purging evilfrom the midst of Israel, without benefit to the offender. Here the elders of thetown nearest to the body of a person whose murderer is unknown perform anelimination ritual with a heifer (vv. 3–6), declare their innocence (v. 7), andpray that Yhwh will absolve them of bloodguilt: laEr;c‘yi ÚM}["l} rPEK", “purge withregard to your people Israel” (v. 8). Whereas the ritual and speech of Deut 21is designed to purge a threat to innocence that is already a reality, it appearsthat the ritual of Azazel’s goat somehow purges a threat to moral cleansing thathas already been received. Only by placing responsibility for the instigation ofevil squarely where it belongs can the high priest sever the people’s tie to Aza-zel and by so doing provide the Israelites with definitive moral security.86

The customary rendering of rP<KI as “atone,” coupled with the powerful as-sociation between “atonement” and substitution in Christian theology, hasobfuscated the meaning of the live-goat ritual for many Christians. But oncewe realize that rP<KI refers to removal of evil and does not specify substitution,which is only one kind of “atonement,” the purification ritual of Azazel’s goatmakes good sense.

ConclusionWhile there is some continuity between the inner-sanctum tafj sacrifices

and the purification ritual of Azazel’s goat, there is also a distinct articulationbetween these rituals. The inner-sanctum offerings purge the sanctuary andits sancta of “impurities,” “sins,” and “transgressions” (Lev 16:16), resulting inpurification of “sins” from the people (v. 30). The impurities are destroyed

85. Compare Deut 13:6[5]; 17:7, 12, and others, where capital punishment purges(r[EBI) moral evil from the midst of the Israelites.

86. See Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary, 404.

Chapter 11266

with the inner-sanctum tafj carcasses, but the “sins” and “transgressions” re-appear along with a third moral fault: “culpabilities,” often rendered “iniqui-ties.” These three require additional containment and banishment to theirsource (i.e., Azazel) by means of a live goat. This unique, nonsacrificial tafj

accomplishes rpk in the sense that it purges from the Israelite camp any re-maining threat to the restored moral state of the people in relation to Yhwh

by severing their unwitting connection to Azazel.

267

Chapter 12

Two Major Phases of Sacrificial rpk

Leviticus 16 states that the special purification offerings performed only onthe Day of Atonement purge (rpk) the sanctuary and its sancta (vv. 16, 18, 19,33). In terms of activity, this purgation is achieved in basically the same man-ner as rpk for persons throughout the year, that is, through application ofblood to the sanctuary and its sancta.1

Some scholars have argued for one phase of sacrificial rpk

In 1859 J. von Hofmann proposed:

Now if the procedure with the blood was the most distinctive peculiarity ofthe sin-offering, the essential purpose must have been, to bring to God whathad been the life of the sacrificial animal, as a payment rendered by its be-ing shed, and by means of that payment to deliver the abode and vicinity ofGod from the defilement which sin had brought upon it.2

In support of the idea that tafj sacrifices in general, both throughout theyear and on the Day of Atonement, remove defilements from the sancta towhich their blood is applied, Hofmann cited Lev 8:15 and 16:16, where thisfunction is specified.3

Similarly, D. Hoffmann argued that sins pollute the altar and the (rest ofthe) sanctuary, thereby alienating them from God (16:16, 19; 20:3). Thefunction of each tafj sacrifice involves purification of the altar (cf. 8:15) orsanctuary through blood to regain communion with God. Inadvertent sins ofindividuals necessitate only purification of the outer altar. Inadvertent sins ofthe high priest or the entire community call for purification of the outer

1. Cf. K. Koch, Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überliefer-ungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung (FRLANT 71 [new series 53];Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959) 94.

2. J. von Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis (2nd ed.; Nördlingen, 1859) 2/1:257–58;trans. J. Martin in J. Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testament (Minneapolis:Klock & Klock, 1980; repr. of 1863) 142.

3. Cf. Kurtz, ibid., 141–42, citing and commenting on the same view, expresseddifferently, in Hofmann’s first edition.

Chapter 12268

sanctum.4 The Day of Atonement, which additionally deals with intentionalsins, has a greater requirement: purification of the holy of holies.5

B. Levine added a dynamic cause of the sanctuary’s pollution:

One becoming impure as the result of an offense against the deity intro-duced a kind of demonic contagion into the community. The more hor-rendous the offense, the greater the threat to the purity of the sanctuary andthe surrounding community by the presence of the offender, who was acarrier of impurity. This person required purification if the community wasto be restored to its ritual state, which, in turn, was a precondition set downby the resident deity for his continued presence among the people.6

For Levine, the purpose of inner-sanctum and outer-sanctum tafj sacrificesis magical protection of the sanctuary and its priesthood from demonic incur-sions of evil. The remainder of the victim must be incinerated, rather thaneaten, in order to rid the camp of impurity that has been actualized in theanimal. On the other hand, the originally distinct outer-altar tafj sacrificesthat are eaten by the priests simply expiate some sins of the people.7

Along the same lines as von Hofmann, Hoffmann, and Levine, but with-out Levine’s demonic or magical elements, J. Milgrom has developed the rit-ual goals expressed in Lev 16 into a general explanation of function applyingto all tafj sacrifices.8 In his tafj system, as in theirs, there is one phase ofsacrificial rpk for each moral fault or severe physical ritual impurity: purga-tion of the sanctuary and/or its sancta.

Milgrom draws on several arguments to build his system, which is remark-ably coherent:

4. D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6) 212–13.5. Ibid., 436.6. B. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in

Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 75.7. Ibid., 74–77, 103–8; cf. idem, “µyrwpyk,” ErIsr 9 (Albright volume; 1969) 88–95;

idem, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,1989) 18–19, 21. But the difference between eaten and incinerated purification offer-ings can be explained more simply by the rule that a priest is not permitted to benefitfrom a sacrifice that functions on behalf of himself, whether as an individual or as partof a group (see chs. 4, 5 above).

8. J. Milgrom, “tafjh ˆbrq dyqpt [The Function of the Óa††aªt Sacrifice],” Tarbiz40 (1970) 1–8; idem, “Day of Atonement as Annual Day of Purgation in TempleTimes,” EncJud 5:1384–86; idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of DorianGray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 390–99; idem, “Atonement in the OT,” IDBSup 78–80; idem, Le-viticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 254–61. W. C. Kaiser is on the righttrack but oversimplifying when he describes this approach as “an extrapolation fromone piece of data in 16:16 retrojected over the whole range of sin offerings” (“The Bookof Leviticus,” NIB 1:1033).

Two Major Phases of Sacrificial rpk 269

1. Blood applications in outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offer-ings have the same implicit goal that Lev 16 makes explicit for similar activitiesin inner-sanctum sacrifices on the Day of Atonement: to purge the sanctuaryand its sancta.

2. The blood of a purification offering purges only that to which it is physi-cally applied, which can be referred to by a direct object in the text: part ofthe sanctuary but never a person.9

3. Milgrom contends that, in cases of physical impurity, such sacrifices donot need to purify their offerers because these persons have already been pu-rified by ablutions. Accordingly, in cases of inadvertent sin, or deliberate sinreduced to inadvertence by confession, offenders are purified, and their actsare forgiven before they bring their purification offerings.10 But this kind ofinner purification is through repentance rather than ritual procedures such asablutions.11 So the common denominator between functions of sacrifices forphysical impurities and moral faults is fulfillment of the offerer’s consequen-tial obligation to purge the sanctuary/sancta from pollution that has alreadyaffected it.12

9. Milgrom, “d[B/l[ rP<KI,” Les 35 (1971) 16. Cf. A. Schenker, “Das Zeichen desBlutes und die Gewissheit der Vergebung im Alten Testament,” MTZ 34 (1983) 199–200; P. Garnet, “Atonement Constructions in the Old Testament and the QumranScrolls,” EvQ 46 (1974) 139, 148.

10. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 254, 256; cf. idem, “tafjh ˆbrq dyqpt,” 1–2.11. Milgrom points out that in Lev 5:5 (cf. Num 5:7), confession precedes bringing

an expiatory sacrifice to the sanctuary (“The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance,” RB 82[1975] 194. H. Maccoby presents an alternative attempt to account for the relationshipbetween repentance and purification offerings. He argues that the function of the sac-rifice “is not to wipe away sin, but to effect reconciliation between the unwitting sin-ner and God. . . . A gap has opened up between the unwitting sinner and God, notbecause he is guilty of actual sin, but because by some unfortunate accident or negli-gence, he has broken a commandment. This gap is closed by the hattaªt, and the clos-ing of the gap is called kippur (atonement). There is no such atonement for adeliberate sin, which must be annulled by repentance and reparation, before it can beatoned” (Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999] 132). Unfortunately for this theory, anunwitting/inadvertent moral fault is still an “actual sin” (called tafj; Lev 4:3, 14, 23,26, 28, 35) and a kind of purification offering atones for at least one sin that is deliber-ate (Lev 5:1, 6). The fact that in Lev 5:5 the sinner must confess before bringing apurification offering indicates that the need for repentance and the right to receive rpk

through a noncalendric purification offering are complementary rather than mutuallyexclusive.

12. Milgrom’s approach does not render sacrificial expiation superfluous for theofferer. Indeed, Milgrom affirms that in priestly texts “for the complete annulmentof the sin, for the assurance of divine forgiveness (sl˙), sacrificial expiation (kpr) isalways required” (“The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance,” 203). Thus rpk through a

Chapter 12270

4. The sanctuary, which reflects the moral state of the people, is defiled asa dynamic consequence of human (not demonic) severe physical impuritiesand sins when they occur (generalizing from Lev 20:3; Num 19:13, 20), whichexplains why they must later be removed from the sanctuary by purificationofferings.

5. Milgrom finds that applications of tafj blood in the inner sanctum onthe Day of Atonement continue a pattern that is begun in outer-altar andouter-sanctum purification offerings during the rest of the year. In Lev 4, sinsof the high priest or the community require application of blood in the outersanctum, while the sins of other individuals require blood only at the outeraltar. There is a well-defined gradation here, proportional to the severity ofsins that leave their marks on the sanctuary: the more serious the offense, themore valuable the victim, the more elaborate the blood manipulation, andthe closer the blood must be brought to the deity who is enthroned at the in-ner sanctum.13 This gradation is completed on the Day of Atonement, whenblood must be manipulated in the inner sanctum14 to deal with an even-more-serious kind of fault: wanton sin, which could not be purged out ear-lier because the wanton sinner is not permitted to bring a tafj sacrifice(Num 15:30–31).

Whereas von Hofmann and Hoffmann maintained that the tafj sacrificepurifies both the altar/sanctuary and the offerer,15 an idea that J. Kurtz andN. Kiuchi have accepted in qualified forms that deemphasize purgation of

13. Cf. J. Herrmann, Die Idee der Sühne im Alten Testament: Eine Untersu-chung über Gebrauch und Bedeutung des Wortes kipper (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905)76; A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897) 462;A. R. S. Kennedy and J. Barr came strikingly close to Milgrom’s theory: “Holinessrequires obedience of heart and observation of the due limits which God has setfor men, and which must be observed throughout His sacral community. Thisshows why there is a gradation in the rituals of the sin offering for different persons;the closer the person to God as the centre of holiness, the more dangerous andcomprehensive the contagion of his offense, and the more deeply the inviolableholiness of God is threatened” (“Sacrifice and Offering,” Dictionary of the Bible[ed. J. Hastings; rev. ed. F. C. Grant and H. H. Rowley; New York: Scribner’s, 1963]874). Note that there is also a more-minor differentiation in terms of cultic statuswithin the outer-altar type: while a commoner brings a female goat or sheep (Lev4:27–28, 32), a chieftain is required to offer a male goat (vv. 22–23).

14. Cf. B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1903) 322.

15. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus, 213.

purification offering does have a kind of secondary effect on the offerer, but it is not toremove sin from the offerer himself


the altar/sanctuary,16 Milgrom denies that this class of sacrifice purifies theofferer. Milgrom’s position results in a major shift of theological emphasis:While Hoffmann speaks of sinners compromising their communion with thepresence of God and then having it restored through tafj sacrifices, Mil-grom focuses on the accumulating pollution of the sanctuary, which, if un-checked, would result in disastrous abandonment of the community byYhwh.

Milgrom’s modus operandi of purification offerings has much to com-mend it:

1. He makes sense of the special Day of Atonement purification offerings as part of a larger, cohesive tafj system.17

2. He recognizes that the [vp (wanton) sins appearing in Lev 16:16 (cf. v. 21) are more serious than the tafj sins and that only inner-sanctum purification offerings can remedy them.

16. Kurtz replied to von Hofmann: “In Lev. xvii. 11 we do not read, ‘I have givenyou the blood upon the altar, to make atonement for the altar,’ but ‘to make atone-ment for your souls.’ But if the sin of the soul is expiated upon the altar, the sin is re-garded as existing upon the altar and defiling it. But the sprinkling of blood, i.e., theexpiation, had reference primarily to the sin; let this be conquered and exterminated,and then eo ipso the altar is delivered from its defilement. Keil and Delitzsch thereforeare wrong in condemning Hofmann’s view without reserve, that is to say, in opposingboth what is false and what is true. That the blood of the sacrifice, when brought tothe altar, purified the altar as well as the person sacrificing, is distinctly stated in Lev.viii. 15” (Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 144). In response to Milgrom’s hypothesis that thepurification offerings in Lev 4:1–5:13 address only the consequential contamination ofthe sanctuary, N. Kiuchi has argued that these sacrifices both remove guilt from theirofferers and purge uncleanness from the altar or outer sanctum (The PurificationOffering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function [JSOTSup 56; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1987] 36, 54, 59, 66). Against Milgrom’s aerial-defilement theory that sinsor physical ritual impurities defile the sanctuary and its sancta when they are commit-ted/incurred, Kiuchi assumes that, aside from the exceptional cases of 15:31 and 16:16and 19, “uncleanness is envisaged in the sancta when an unclean person stands beforethe Lord, i.e., at the entrance of the Tent, and that when the priest purifies the sancta,the unclean person becomes clean concurrently. Thus the hattat blood indeed puri-fies the sancta but not the sancta that have been defiled for a lengthy period” (p. 61;cf. 62). However, there is simply no evidence that outer-altar or outer-sanctum purifi-cation offerings performed by Aaronic priests, following the initial decontamination ofthe outer altar by Moses (8:15), purify the sanctuary or its sancta in any way. Since ter-minology for purgation of the altar in 8:15—l[ rpk + altar—is clearly differentiatedfrom l[ rpk + offerer in goals of other outer-altar purification offerings (cf. ch. 6above), we cannot accept Kiuchi’s inference “by analogy with Lev 8.15, that when thealtar is purified, so is the offerer in Lev 12.6, 8; 14.19, 31; 15.15, 30” (p. 54).

17. D. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:72.

Chapter 12272

3. He takes seriously the automatic dynamic of defilement indicated by Lev 20:3 and Num 19:13 and 20.

4. His gradation logically explains the need for cleansing the inner sanctum. The most serious kind of moral fault pollutes the inner sanctum, even though nobody enters this area earlier in the year.18

5. Milgrom’s idea that the sanctuary reflects the moral state of the Israelites is profound and explains (1) why dynamics of defilement and cleansing cannot be bound by mundane physical rules of cause and effect, (2) how cleansing the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement can result in moral purification of the Israelite people (Lev 16:30, 33), and (3) why an excessively defiled sanctuary would be abandoned by Yhwh (cf. Ezek 9–11).

Milgrom’s one-phase theory of sacrificial rpk is attractive and influential,19

and it carries high-stakes theological implications not only for Jewish religionbut also for Christianity. M. Anderson and P. Culbertson have shown that, ifMilgrom’s view of the kind of rpk provided by the tafj sacrifice is correct,Christians should accept a fundamental paradigm shift: “Contrary to thecommonly held assumption, kaparah is not intended to cleanse the individ-ual from inadvertent sin or physical impurity but solely to cleanse the holyplace from the contamination generated by the individual’s sin.”20 This leadsto the conclusion:

18. Cf. D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and inHittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 20.Long ago A. F. Ballenger regarded the fact that the holy of holies needs cleansing onthe Day of Atonement as proof that the sanctuary is defiled directly by sinning ratherthan by sacrificial blood (Cast Out for the Cross of Christ [Riverside, California: Bal-lenger, 1911?] 62).

19. See, e.g., Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 20; idem, “Day of Atonement,” 72–73; idem, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in AncientIsrael (ed. G. A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1991) 155–56; F. H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in thePriestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 76–77; B. H. McLean,“The Interpretation of the Levitical Sin Offering and the Scapegoat,” SR 20 (1991)345–56; B. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranatesand Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Lit-erature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz;Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 20–21; K. C. Hanson, “Sin, Purification,and Group Process,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim(ed. H. T. C. Sun et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 177; J. Burnside, The Signsof Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 364; London: Sheffield Aca-demic Press, 2003) 164–66.

20. M. Anderson and P. Culbertson, “The Inadequacy of the Christian Doctrine ofAtonement in Light of Levitical Sin Offering,” AThR 68 (1986) 310.



The material concerning atonement in Leviticus 4 and 16 raises seriousquestions about the Christian doctrine of atonement. Atonement is to beunderstood in its Levitical sense as the cleansing of holy space by the highpriest on behalf of a sinner, and not as obliterating the sins of the individ-ual. . . . If atonement is indeed a technical term, we must conclude that Le-vitical kaparah has been lost to Christian theology. What we have today issomething that would have been foreign to Jesus’ understanding of sin, ofsacrifice, of blood, and of the entire process by which one remains faithfulto God.21

The one-phase theory is not adequately supported by the biblical data

Our study has found that some key aspects of Milgrom’s approach cannotwithstand close scrutiny:

1. Because ritual actions have no inherent meaning, applications of bloodin outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings can function differentlyfrom similar blood manipulations in inner-sanctum offerings on the Day ofAtonement, which purge that to which the blood is physically applied—thatis, the sanctuary and its sancta.

2. Our analysis of rpk goals assigned to tafj sacrifices has shown that,apart from the altar’s initial decontamination and the inner-sanctum sacri-fices, purification offerings purify their offerers rather than the sanctuary/sancta.22 So prior ablutions or repentance do not complete the process of pu-rifying the offerer when a tafj sacrifice is required. Rather, the sacrifice ac-complishes the final stage of purification.23 There is no evidence that a

21. Ibid., 315, 322.22. Cf. G. B. Gray: “they were victims by means of which the sins of the men who

offered them were removed” (Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice[Oxford: Clarendon, 1925] 60).

23. That purification of a person can involve a multistage process is most dramati-cally illustrated by Lev 14, where repeated pronouncements of purity (vv. 8, 9, 20) sig-nify completion of successive stages in the purification of the scale-diseased person(Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 60–61). Leviticus 15:13 requires a man healed(rhf) of a genital flux to launder his clothes and bathe, as a result of which “he shallbe pure (rhf).” But he clearly reaches a higher stage of purity on the eighth day by of-fering a purification offering accompanied by a burnt offering. The goal of this ritualcomplex is stated: “thus the priest shall effect purgation on his behalf before Yhwh

from his discharge” (Lev 15:15). Since we already know that this case is one of physi-cal ritual impurity and since rpk followed by privative ˆm indicates “purgation . . .from” (i.e., removal of evil; see ch. 6 above), the text does not need to repeat the state-ment that he is pure (rhf) at this point. Whereas light ritual impurities require onlylaundering clothes, bathing, and waiting until evening (e.g., vv. 5–8, 10), severe impu-rities call for sacrifices. So the sacrifices are related to the ablutions in the quantitativesense that they add purificatory power (cf. ibid., 63, 65).

Chapter 12274

person who commits a sin for which he/she must bring a purification offeringcan receive divine forgiveness (jls) for the sin itself until the prerequisitesacrificial rpk to purge that sin from the offerer is accomplished.24 In pen-tateuchal ritual law, sacrifice is the only mechanism through which forgive-ness can be obtained; there is no indication that repentance alone can resultin forgiveness.25

3. Automatic defilement of the sanctuary when sin is committed is attestedonly in certain kinds of serious cultic sins for which no sacrificial expiation isavailable: Molech worship (Lev 20:3) and wanton neglect to be purified fromcorpse impurity (Num 19:13, 20). Since automatic defilement of the sanctu-ary and sacrificial rpk to benefit the sinner who has caused it are mutually ex-clusive, outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings that provide rpk

for the sinner, prerequisite to divine forgiveness, cannot remedy defilementthat has already reached the sanctuary automatically. So we must discountthe first two steps of Milgrom’s three-step gradation of purification offeringsthat address automatic defilement. Only the inner-sanctum sacrifices on theDay of Atonement could remedy automatic defilement because they purge[vp (wanton) sins from the sanctuary (Lev 16:16). Although these sacrificesindirectly provide for the people a kind of rpk for tafj sins (v. 30), meaningmoral purification (rhf), they accomplish no rpk that is prerequisite to for-giveness for [vp sins.26

The problems just cited by no means invalidate Milgrom’s profoundly sig-nificant conclusion that the Day of Atonement rituals work with other tafj

sacrifices as a dynamic, complementary system that reflects the dynamicmoral state of the Israelites. Nor do these difficulties neutralize the conceptsthat purification offerings provide varying degrees of rpk and that automaticdefilement of the sanctuary is part of the system. These pieces of the puzzleare clearly present. While some remaining pieces are open to question, ourunderstanding of the picture is heavily indebted to Milgrom’s monumentalachievement.

There are two phases of sacrificial rpk for expiable sinsThe next few paragraphs summarize my general theory of tafj rituals.

Whereas [vp (wanton) offenses may be remedied in one sacrificial stage that

24. Cf. ibid., 35–38.25. R. E. Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (New York: HarperSanFrancisco,

2001) 322. 26. Cf. J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press, 2000) 25, 29–30.



purges these evils from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement but does notgain rpk for those who commit them (see above), severe physical ritual impu-rities and moral faults that can be removed from persons throughout the yearrequire two phases of sacrificial purification:

Phase 1. An outer-altar purification offering for a person who is physicallyimpure (amf) purges (rpk) this ritual contamination from (privative ˆm)the offerer, with the result that he/she is pure (rhf).27 An outer-altar orouter-sanctum purification offering for sin purges (rpk) this from (privativeˆm) the offerer, following which Yhwh forgives (jls) the sinner.

Phase 2. The corporate inner-sanctum purification offerings on behalf of thepriestly and lay communities on the Day of Atonement purge (rpk) thesanctuary from (privative ˆm) the physical ritual impurities (taOm}F¨) andtafj sins of the Israelites (Lev 16:16, 19), i.e., the same categories of evilthat have been removed from offerers of purification offerings at the sanc-tuary throughout the year. This purgation of the sanctuary completes theprocess of rpk for tafj sins, as a result of which the corporate group oftafj (but not [vp) sinners are (morally) pure (rhf; v. 30), provided thatthey demonstrate submission to Yhwh by practicing self-denial and ab-staining from work on this day (Lev 16:29, 31; Lev 23:27–32; Num 29:7).28

The people do not need to be purified (rhf) from physical ritual impuri-ties on the Day of Atonement because they have already reached purificationfrom these in Phase 1, unless they have wantonly neglected their ritual reme-dies, in which case they have become wanton sinners subject to inescapabledivine punishment (Num 19:13, 20).

On the Day of Atonement, blood of the inner-sanctum sacrifices is appliedto parts of the sanctuary that have already received blood of outer-altar andouter-sanctum offerings when they were needed earlier in the year: on thehorns of the incense altar, before the veil, and on the outer altar (Lev 16:14–19; cf. 4:6–7, 17–18, 25, 30, 34). So in a sense we can say that applications oftafj blood throughout the year constitute “harbingers” of the cleansing ac-complished on the Day of Atonement.29 But these harbingers do not simply

27. In the exceptional case of corpse contamination, this is accomplished by sprin-kling the rehydrated ashes of the red cow tafj sacrifice (Num 19).

28. Milgrom points out that the high priest’s officiation is not inherently effica-cious, but the people must match his confession with their remorse, as shown by theirself-denial (“Day of Atonement as Annual Day of Purgation,” 1386).

29. R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure (Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Piscat-away, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004) 149. My dissertation did not go beyond this concept.

Chapter 12276

herald more of the same kind of rpk. Blood of outer-altar and outer-sanctumsacrifices conveys to the sanctuary a kind of pollution that has been trans-ferred to the animal from its offerer/owner (cf. Lev 6:20[27]). Blood of theinner-sanctum sacrifices reverses the direction of transfer by purging the im-purities and sins out of the sanctuary. On this I find myself to be in basicagreement with A. Rodríguez, G. F. Hasel, and A. Treiyer.30

Throughout the year, an Israelite is not responsible for bringing a purifi-cation offering until/unless he knows about his sin or severe impurity (e.g.,4:28). We can assume that if he does not recognize such an evil before theDay of Atonement, he simply brings an individual offering later when he un-derstands the obligation that he has incurred. There is no evidence that theDay of Atonement absolves Israelites from their responsibility to offer individ-ual tafj sacrifices for sins or severe impurities when they become aware ofthem. This does not contradict the purity of the sanctuary at the end of theDay of Atonement: The evil had not yet reached the sanctuary (see above).

The following table summarizes the phases of sacrificial rpk that remedywanton sins, physical impurities, and tafj sins:

Following completion of sacrificial rpk, the nonsacrificial purification ritualof Azazel’s goat accomplishes a third stage of rpk for the moral faults (but not

30. A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs,Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 136; cf. 219, 305–7; G. F. Hasel, “Studiesin Biblical Atonement I: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement // Cleansing and Sanctu-ary,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and TheologicalStudies (ed. A. Wallenkampf; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981) 93–107;idem, “Studies in Biblical Atonement II: The Day of Atonement,” in The Sanctuaryand the Atonement, 115–25; Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judg-ment, 147–212.

Kind of evil Phase 1: Throughout Year Phase 2: Day of Atonement

physical ritual impurity rhf for offerer purged from sanctuarytafj sin jls for offerer purged from sanctuary

rhf for offererwanton ([vp) sin purged from sanctuary

Compare with Kiuchi’s similar idea “that the hizzah gestures in Lev 4.6, 17 fore-shadow the hizzah gesture in Lev 16.14–15, expressing the need for the full rite there.Therefore the apparent incompleteness of the rituals in Lev 4.6–7, 17–18 should notbe taken as if nothing substantial was achieved; the rituals are incomplete in the sensethat they foreshadow fuller ones” (The Purification Offering, 129–30). Rather than say-ing that tafj sacrifices on days other than the Day of Atonement are incomplete orfaulty and insufficient (so Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship, 386), I would say that they com-plete the first of two phases of rpk.


physical ritual impurities) of the Israelites: expulsion of these evils from thecamp to Azazel (Lev 16:5, 10, 21, 22).

The two-phase theory accounts for data that would otherwise be problematic

Purgation of the incense altar “once a year” in Exodus 30:10Milgrom has difficulty with Exod 30:10:

The incense altar was purged not just annually but every time the sanctu-ary was seriously polluted by the inadvertent sins of the high priest or theentire community (4:1–21). Why, then, does this text insist (twice) that theincense altar was purged only “once a year”?31

To answer this question, Milgrom suggests that the verse is an editorialaddition, probably from H because of its emphasis on annual observance(cf. 16:29–34a), which “marks the transition of the Day of Purgation froman emergency rite to an annual rite.”32

For me the problem simply does not exist. Exodus 30:10 says that the in-cense altar was purged only “once a year” because it was purged only once ayear. Because I don’t have the problem, I don’t need the conjectural dia-chronic solution.

The expression µt:aFøj" Alk:, “all their sins” (Leviticus 16:16)In Lev 16:16 the inner-sanctum purification offerings purge the sanctuary

from “all” (lk) the tafj sins of the Israelites (cf. vv. 30, 34), that is, apparentlyall of this category of moral faults insofar as they have affected the sanctuarysince the last Day of Atonement.33 In Milgrom’s system, “all” here must belimited to sins that have not already been removed from the sanctuary bymeans of outer-altar and outer-sanctum purification offerings.34 It is true thatin some contexts lk can mean “all the rest of ” (e.g., 4:7, 12, 18).35 However,in Lev 16 there is no evidence for this limitation with regard to the tafj sins.

31. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1062.32. Ibid., 1063.33. Cf. Herrmann, Die Idee der Sühne, 91, 93; Hasel, “Studies in Biblical Atone-

ment II,” 119; A. Marx, “Sacrifice pour les Péchés ou Rite de Passage? Quelques Ré-flexions sur la Fonction du ˙a††aªt,” RB 96 (1989) 36.

34. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; cf. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, 385;Wright, “Day of Atonement,” 73.

35. See, for example, Lev 4:7, where rP:h" µD'AlK:, “all the blood of the bull,” refers tothe remainder of the blood that had not already been used (cf. v. 18), and v. 12, whererP:h"AlK: means “all the rest of the bull,” which was to be incinerated.

Chapter 12278

As N. Kiuchi has observed, the fact that the sanctuary must be cleansedon the Day of Atonement from all sins of the Israelites (Lev 16:16) indicatessome form of redundancy, “since expiation has been made for the same sinson regular occasions (Lev 4.1–5.13),”36 that is, throughout the rest of theyear. This redundancy correlates with redundancy in the ritual activitiesthemselves. As mentioned above, on the Day of Atonement tafj blood isagain applied to sacred loci touched earlier by blood of outer-altar and outer-sanctum offerings. Kiuchi points out that, because sinners receive forgive-ness following purification offerings throughout the year, it is difficult tosolve the problem of the relationship between these rituals and the specialDay of Atonement ceremonies by assuming that the former are lacking invalidity. Rather, he suggests an analogy with the purification of the leper(scale-diseased person), who is purified in stages and is clean enough at eachstage (Lev 14).37

Redundancy suggesting more than one phase of rpk for a given sin is rein-forced by the ritual of Azazel’s goat, by which “all of the iniquities and trans-gressions of the Israelites, including all of their sins,”38 are eliminated fromthe Israelite camp (16:21). Even if it could be said that the inner-sanctumpurification offerings only remedy evils not already purged by other tafj sac-rifices, such a statement could not be made regarding the ritual of Azazel’sgoat, for which there is no counterpart earlier in the year. The fact that [vp

and tafj sins must be released from the sanctuary (v. 16) before they can belaid on Azazel’s goat through the high priest’s confession (v. 21) indicatesenough continuity between the slain and live tafj rituals that the former,like the latter, must have to do with comprehensive accumulations of sin,including sins for which forgiveness has already been granted through an ear-lier stage of sacrificial rpk.

Another unique aspect of the Day of Atonement for which there is nocounterpart earlier in the year is self-denial, which is required precisely be-cause purgation is effected for the people so that all of them become purefrom all their sins through the unique purification offerings that cleanse thethree areas of the sanctuary (16:29–31, 33). Verse 34 summarizes: “to effectpurgation on behalf of the Israelites for all their sins once a year.”39 Thus the

36. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 156.37. Ibid., 156–57.38. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday,

2000) 1294; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1010.39. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1294; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1011.


text bends over backward to emphasize that the unique Day of Atonement rit-uals uniquely deal with all sins of the Israelites.40

Personal purification of an assistant who incinerates carcassesOn the Day of Atonement, incinerating the carcasses of the tafj bull and

goat (v. 27) requires any assistant who performs these tasks subsequently tolaunder his clothes and bathe (v. 28). This is understandable because thesecarcasses have absorbed evils removed from the sanctuary. In Lev 4, on theother hand, one who disposes of an outer-sanctum purification-offering car-cass needs no purification (vv. 11–12, 21),41 which indicates that the animalis not impure. This is difficult to explain if the sacrifice purges the outer sanc-tum, but the problem vanishes if the ritual function is to purify the offerer(s)instead.

Following rabbinic interpretation (m. Parah 8:3; t. Yoma 3.16), Milgromholds that in Lev 4 purification of the assistant is to be assumed on the basisof ch. 16.42 However, the instructions relating to incineration are not other-wise abbreviated in 4:11–12, and the prescription in 16:27 assumes knowl-edge of these verses, not the other way around. Aside from the fact that the listof animal parts is fuller in 4:11 than in 16:27, only 4:12 identifies the locationoutside the camp where incinerations of purification-offering animals are totake place: “a pure place . . . the ash dump.”43 M. Noth notices the “massingof place details” here, including the only occurrence in the Hebrew Bible ofthe full technical term for the place where the fat ashes are to be disposed of:ˆv≤D,h" Ëp<v≤, “the ash dump.”44

When personal purification is specified for ritual participants (Lev 16:26,28; cf. Num 19:7, 8, 10), it is a postrequisite part of the ritual that cannot beassumed on the basis of purely practical necessity. So I do not believe thatLev 4 would have omitted mention of the assistant’s purification simply be-cause this activity is not involved in treatment of the animal.

40. Kurtz argued against scholars who restricted the expiations of the Day of Atone-ment to sins that had been unknown and therefore had remained unexpiated: “Theuniversality expressed so strongly in the words of Lev. xvi. 16 . . . is irreconcilable withthis idea; moreover, the sins which had remained unknown had already been expiatedonce in the numerous sin-offerings of the feasts and new moons. The µyriPUKI of this dayapplied rather to all the sins of the whole nation without exception, known or un-known, atoned for or not atoned for” (Sacrificial Worship, 386).

41. Cf. P. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT 1; Bonn: Hanstein, 1935) 76;Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual, 210.

42. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1053.43. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1271; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 226.44. M. Noth, Leviticus (trans. J. E. Anderson; OTL; London: SCM, 1965) 40.

Chapter 12280

We can derive a methodological principle here. The inner-sanctum puri-fication offerings in Lev 16 are unique in a number of ways, including thefact that they are the only Israelite rituals in which the high priest wears plainlinen vestments, enters the inner sanctum, and performs blood manipula-tions at all three areas of the sanctuary.45 Activities belonging to a unique rit-ual do not provide a reliable basis for reconstructing activities belonging toother rituals. In fact, a unique instruction provided with a unique ritual, forexample, a rule for personal purification of an assistant, is likely included pre-cisely because it applies only in this unique context.

Reversal of blood applications in the outer sanctumInterpreters have assumed that the sevenfold sprinkling in the outer sanc-

tum on the Day of Atonement, covered by the abbreviation “likewise” inLev 16:16b, is located in the same place as in the outer-sanctum purificationoffering, “before the veil” (4:6, 17). They have also assumed that this expres-sion refers to a location west of the incense altar—that is, between the in-cense altar and the inner veil.46

Combining these assumptions results in agreement with Ibn Ezra’s inter-pretation of 16:16b: the high priest sprinkles seven times “before the veil” andthen puts blood once on the horns of the incense altar. This view, with a 7xsprinkling behind the incense altar and a 1x application to the golden altar it-self on the Day of Atonement is fairly comfortable, because it simultaneouslypreserves the 7 + 1 pattern that appears in outer-sanctum offerings (Lev 4:6–7, 17–18) and maintains the consistent progression of blood applications awayfrom the ark, beginning from the ark cover and progressing eastward to theouter altar along the central west–east axis of the sanctuary.

Some dissonance remains. In the inner sanctum the pattern of blood ap-plications is not 7 + 1 but 1 + 7: once on the ark cover and seven times infront of it (16:14–15). Milgrom resolves this tension by proposing a symmetri-cal inversion in the scheme of blood applications performed on the Day ofAtonement: inner sanctum—1 + 7; outer sanctum—7 + 1; outer altar—1 + 7.47 However, this approach does not do justice to the force of “likewise”(ˆkE) in the context of 16:16b, which refers back to the 1 + 7 pattern set in theinner sanctum.

45. Cf. R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1985–) 3:219–20.

46. E.g., idem, Leviticus, 2:158; cf. 159, 160; G. J. Wenham, “The Theology of OldTestament Sacrifice,” in Sacrifice in the Bible (ed. R. Beckwith and M. Selman; GrandRapids: Baker, 1995), 83; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1034–35, 1038.

47. Ibid., 1038.


Earlier we found that, if my interpretation of tk<rOP:h" yneP} taE, “before theveil,” in 4:6 and 17 is correct, sevenfold sprinklings of blood in outer-sanctumpurification offerings are located in front (east) of the incense altar, in themain part of the outer sanctum (see above ch. 4). This agrees with the factthat “likewise” in Lev 16:16b, pointing to the pattern established in the innersanctum (cf. vv. 14–15), calls for a single application of tafj blood to thehorns of the incense altar (cf. Exod 30:10), followed by a sevenfold sprinklingin front (east) of it (see above, ch. 10). Since other blood applications requiredby Lev 4 and 16 are performed in the same locations on the Day of Atone-ment as they are during the rest of the year, such correspondence regardingthe location of sevenfold sprinklings in the outer sanctum is to be expected,in agreement with the assumption mentioned above.

Now we find a surprise, which was recognized by C. F. Keil and F. De-litzsch. Comparison between outer-sanctum and inner-sanctum purificationofferings (Lev 4 and 16, respectively) shows that between them there is a re-versal in the order of blood applications performed in the outer sanctum.48 In4:6–7 and 17–18 the blood manipulations in outer-sanctum offerings are asfollows:

• Sevenfold sprinkling “in front of the veil” (i.e., in front [east] of the incense altar).

• Daubing once on the horns of the incense altar.

Thus the high priest moves westward, toward the ark of the covenant, whereYhwh’s Presence is located (see fig. 1).49

48. While C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch assumed that in both Lev 4 and Lev 16 thesingle applications of blood to the horns of the incense altar represent expiation for thepriests or the community, they concluded that placement of the sevenfold sprinklingfirst in ch. 4 and last in ch. 16 represents a difference in function: whereas the sprin-klings in ch. 16 purify the sanctuary, the same activity in ch. 4 “served as a preliminaryand introduction to the expiation” (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1952; orig. 1874] 2:304). However, while it seems clear that Lev 4and 16 present a difference in meaning, the text does not support the ideas that thesevenfold sprinkling in Lev 4 was simply preliminary or that the single application ofblood to the incense altar in Lev 16 expiates for persons rather than cleansing the sanc-tuary. Kiuchi has noticed another reversal that is less direct: In 16:18–19 blood appli-cations consist of putting (ˆtn) blood on the outer altar and then sprinkling (hZ;hI) it,reversing the outer-sanctum sequence found in Lev 4:6–7 and 17–18, where blood issprinkled (hZ;hI) before the inner veil and put (ˆtn) on the horns of the incense altar(The Purification Offering, 128).

49. This is not contradicted by the fact that, in outer-sanctum purification offerings,following blood applications in the Tent, the high priest goes eastward to pour out the

Chapter 12282

By contrast, reconstruction of the abbreviated prescription in 16:16b showsthat the order of blood manipulations in the outer sanctum is reversed, withmovement away from the ark of the covenant.

• Daubing once on the horns of the incense altar.• Sevenfold sprinkling in front (east) of the incense altar.

This order is in harmony with the fact that the sanctuary is cleansed from theinside out, as we would expect for the “housecleaning” job that it is: innersanctum § outer sanctum § outer altar (see fig. 2).

Rather than Milgrom’s symmetrical inversion within the inner-sanctumofferings themselves, what we have is an inversion or “ritual chiasm” betweenthe blood applications in the outer sanctum during the year—7 + 1—andthose performed on the Day of Atonement—1 + 7.50 This reversal correlateswith evidence presented earlier that, throughout the year, evils are transferredfrom offerers into the sanctuary, toward the ark, but on the Day of Atonementthe same evils are purged out.51 What goes in must come out!

Our present argument for a complementary relationship between the Lev4 and 16 rituals is based on the order of the ritual activities themselves. By

50. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 150, 160–68.51. Cf. Hasel, “Studies in Biblical Atonement II,” 115–16, 118; A. Treiyer, “The

Day of Atonement as Related to the Contamination and Purification of the Sanctu-ary,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy (ed. F. Holbrook;DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute) 217.

Fig. 1. Blood Applications in the Outer Sanctum during the Year (Leviticus 4)

approximate location ofsprinkling of blood seven timesin front of veil

ark

veil

incense altar

table

OUTER SANCTUM= LIVING ROOM basin altar

INNER SANCTUM= THRONE ROOM lamp

12

remaining blood at the base of the outer altar (Lev 4:7, 18). This pouring is not a fur-ther application of blood, in this case to the altar, but simply disposal of the remainder(ibid., 238; Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 147–48).


stripping away the semantic component describing activities in order to de-rive a simple example of the “ritual syntax” approach developed by F. Staal,we can lay bare the logic of the argument (see fig. 3).52 In the reversed order,and therefore direction, of the blood applications in the outer sanctum, wehave found further support for the concept that tafj sacrifices throughoutthe year and on the Day of Atonement, respectively, are complementary, notmerely in the quantitative sense that those of the great Day accomplish

52. F. Staal, Rules without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras and the Human Sciences(New York: Peter Lang, 1989); cf. idem, “Ritual Syntax,” in Sanskrit and Indian Stud-ies: Essays in Honour of Daniel H. H. Ingalls (ed. M. Nagatomi et al.; Dordrecht, Hol-land: Reidel, 1980) 119–42; R. Payne, “Feeding the Gods: The Shingon Fire Ritual”(Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1985). My own dissertation explains the“ritual syntax” methodology (ch. 3) and presents complex structural analyses (with dia-grams) of the sophisticated rituals belonging to the Day of Atonement, the fifth day ofthe Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, and the fourth day of the Hittite NinthYear Telipinu Festival (R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure).

Fig. 2. Blood Applications on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16)

Fig. 3. Blood Applications in Outer SanctumA = sprinkling 7xB = daubing 1x

ark veil

incense altar

table

OUTER SANCTUM= LIVING ROOM

basinaltar

INNER SANCTUM= THRONE ROOM lamp

1 2 3 4 5&6

A B B A

Leviticus 4

tafj

Leviticus 16

tafj

Chapter 12

284

cleansing from more serious evils by extending blood manipulations into theinner sanctum, but in the qualitative sense that inner-sanctum sacrifices ac-complish a second stage of

rpk

with regard to evils handled earlier by outer-altar and outer-sanctum offerings.

Conclusion

Some scholars have maintained that each expiable sin remedied by a pu-rification offering is treated in one phase of sacrificial

rpk

, which removes thepollution of the sanctuary that was caused by the offense when it occurred.However, the biblical data support an alternative view that expiable

tafj

sinsare treated in two major phases: (1) purgation (

rpk

) of the offerers/sinners,prerequisite to forgiveness (

jls

), through noncalendric outer-altar or outer-sanctum sacrifices (e.g., Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35), and (2) purgation (

rpk

) of thesanctuary through calendric, corporate, inner-sanctum sacrifices on the Dayof Atonement, resulting in moral purification (

rhf

) of the people (Lev 16:30).So the results of the two phases of

rpk

for the people are (1) forgiveness (

jls

)and (2) moral cleansing (

rhf

).

285

Chapter 13

Trajectories of Evils

Interpreters have often regarded the three terms for moral faults in Lev16:16 and 21—

[vp

,

tafj

, and

ˆw[

(usually rendered “transgression,” “sin,”and “iniquity,” respectively)—as combining to imply comprehensive treat-ment of sin, but individually imprecise and overlapping in semantic range, inaccordance with usage of these nouns and other words from the same rootselsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exod 34:7; Ps 32:1–2, 5; Dan 9:24).

1

Forexample, H. L. Strack regarded

tafj

, the third word for evil in Lev 16:16, asexpressing the general category, under which the first two terms,

hamf

(“im-purity/uncleanness”) and

[vp

, are subsumed.

2

The words

[vp

,

tafj

, and

ˆw[

represent distinct

categories of evil

Some scholars have perceived that in Leviticus

[vp

,

tafj

, and

ˆw[

maybe used more narrowly and represent distinct categories of evil. For example,R. Knierim recognizes that, although formulaic combination of the three

1. K. Elliger,

Leviticus

(HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 200–201, 205–7, 209;H. Seebass, “

o[væP:

p

as

aº

,”

TDOT

12:145, 148; G. André, “

amEf:

†a

m

e

ª

,”

TDOT

5:333;A. Noordtzij,

Leviticus

(trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982)166; R. Péter-Contesse and J. Ellington,

A Handbook on Leviticus

(UBSHS; New York:United Bible Societies, 1990) 250, 253; P. Jenson,

Graded Holiness: A Key to thePriestly Conception of the World

(JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 207;E. Gerstenberger,

Leviticus: A Commentary

(trans. D. Stott; OTL; Louisville, Ken-tucky: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 220–21; B. Jürgens,

Heiligkeit und Versöhnung:Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext

(Herders Biblische Studien 28; Freiburg:Herder, 2001) 114–15; cf. J. Calvin,

Commentaries on the Four Last Books of MosesArranged in the Form of a Harmony

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) 1:320. On similaritiesbetween general usage of the three major roots for sin (

afj

,

hw[

/

yw[

,

[vp

), see, e.g.,R. Youngblood, “A New Look at Three Old Testament Roots for ‘Sin,’ ” in

Biblical andNear Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor

(ed. G. A. Tuttle;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 201–5. For additional bibliography on attempts to ex-plain the evils dealt with on the Day of Atonement, see A. Rodríguez,

Substitution inthe Hebrew Cultus

(AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press,1979) 114 n. 1.

2. H. L. Strack,

Die Bücher Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri

(Munich: Beck, 1894) 335.

Chapter 13

286

terms (Exod 34:7; Num 14:18; Ezek 21:29[24]; Ps 32:1–2, 5; 59:4[3]; Dan9:24) has the effect of summarizing the totality of moral faults, they are notstrictly synonyms but retain their basic meanings:3 “Each disqualifies ‘sin’ inits own way.”4 N. Kiuchi goes so far as to say that “generally the confusion ofterms such as ‘sin’, ‘guilt’ and ‘uncleanness’ has obscured the whole issue of‘transference of sin/guilt.’ ”5

J. Milgrom points in the direction of discrete categories by distinguishingbetween µy[vp, brazen sins characterized by “open and wanton defiance ofthe Lord,” and twafj, “all of the wrongs except for the pésaºîm.”6

Milgrom interprets the twnw[ heading the list of evils borne by Azazel’sgoat in Lev 16:21 and 22 as “the causes of the sanctuary’s impurities, all ofIsrael’s sins, ritual and moral alike, of priests and laity alike.”7 So for himthe twnw[ do not represent an intermediate grade of severity according to theway in which they are committed.8 Rather, they embrace the other twocategories. Correspondingly, Milgrom interprets the twamf that head thelist of evils in v. 16 as an overarching category: “Here, this term refers to theritual impurities described in chaps. 11–15 and the moral impurities gener-ated by the violation of the prohibitive commandments.”9 So included inthe twamf is pollution caused by the brazen µy[vp as well as by the tafj

sins. The difference between the list of evils purged out of the sanctuary bymeans of the slain, sacrificial bull and goat (v. 16) and the list of evils ban-

3. R. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament (Gütersloh: Mohn,1967) 229–35.

4. R. Knierim, “afj ˙†ª To Miss,” TLOT 1:410.5. N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and

Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987) 115.6. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 1034; cf. 1044—

“pésaºîm, correctly defined by the rabbis as méradîm ‘rebellions’ (t. Yoma 2:5, Sipra,A˙are par. 2:4), for which they cite scriptural proof, 2 Kgs 8:22 (Sipra, A˙are 4:3) and2 Kgs 3:7 (b. Sebu. 12b . . .).” For Milgrom the twafj would presumably include an“accumulation of pollution generated unconsciously,” for which individuals had noresponsibility (idem, “Impurity Is Miasma: A Response to Hyam Maccoby,” JBL 119[2000] 731; idem, Leviticus 23–27 [AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001] 2460). In tra-ditional rabbinic exegesis, [vp is rebellious sin, tafj covers inadvertent sin, and ˆw[denotes presumptuous sin (t. Yoma 2.1; b. Yoma 36b). D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviti-cus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905–6) 174, 446, 448; A. Médebielle, “Le symbolism du sac-rifice expiatoire en Israël,” Bib 2 (1921) 282; Noordtzij, Leviticus, 169; M. Weinfeld,Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: Magnes /Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 209.

7. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1044.8. Unlike t. Yoma 2.1 and b. Yoma 36b, where twnw[ are defined as twnwdz, deliberate

sins.9. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1033; cf. J. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Word,

1992) 240.


Trajectories of Evils 287

ished from the camp on Azazel’s live goat (v. 21) is that the former refers tothe sanctuary’s impurities, meaning the effect of the brazen sins and othersins, and the latter refers to the moral faults themselves, the causes of thesanctuary’s defilement.10

Somewhat similarly to Milgrom, R. Rendtorff takes taOm}F¨ in Lev 16:16 tobe the primary term, with µh<y[Ev‘PI and µt:aFø j" explaining it.11 This interpre-tation requires the waw in µh<y[Ev‘PImIW (“and from their [vp sins”; 16:16) to beexplicative, so that the verse reads: “impurities—that is, brazen sins andother sins” (v. 16). However, an explicative waw here demands the assump-tion that the semantic range of hamf is expanded beyond the physical ritualpollution denoted by this word elsewhere, including in 15:31 at the con-clusion of instructions regarding treatment of bodily impurities. Conversely,expansion of hamf in 16:16 requires the waw to be explicative. So this ap-proach raises the suspicion of circular reasoning.

A. Büchler suggested that, in spite of the conjunctive waw in µh<y[Ev‘PImIW,the last two terms in 16:16 (µy[vp and twafj) qualify the first (twamf) in thatthey refer to defilements (twamf) done deliberately (µy[vp) or unwittingly(twafj).12 However, recognizing that the waw should not be overlooked,Büchler settled on the idea that the three terms are parallel synonyms andproposed further that v. 21 refers to the same evils from a different perspective,“so that iniquities would be identical with uncleannesses. In relation to theSanctuary sins arising from an attitude of slight and contempt are defile-ments, but for him who commits them they are iniquities.”13 This comesclose to anticipating Milgrom’s position (cf. above).

N. Kiuchi levels the distinction between impurities and moral faults inLev 16:16 by arguing in the reverse direction that the impurities are moralfaults committed with regard to physical ritual impurities.14 He proposes that

10. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 857, 1033–35, 1043–44; cf. idem, “Rationale for Cul-tic Law: The Case of Impurity,” Semeia 45 (1989) 107; idem, Leviticus 23–27, 2445,2448; D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hit-tite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 18–20,79. In taking the twamf to be the predominant category in Lev 16:16, Milgrom followsD. Hoffmann, who, however, explained the µy[vp as sins committed with regard tophysical uncleanness, that is, by entering the sacred precincts or eating sacred food,and µt:aFøj"Alk:l} as a more precise designation for µhy[vpmw, like a genitive (Das BuchLeviticus, 448).

11. R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3/3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1985–) 220.

12. A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the FirstCentury (LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) 265.

13. Ibid., 267.14. Compare the view of Hoffmann, cited above.

Chapter 13288

µt:aFøj"Alk:l} in this verse, which he renders “with respect to all their sins,”modifies not only µh<y[Ev‘PI (“their [vp sins”), but also laEr;c‘yi yneB} taOm}F¨ (“theimpurities of the Israelites”), which are therefore limited to violations ofYhwh’s rules regarding physical ritual impurities rather than such impuritiesthemselves.15 In v. 21 he understands ˆw[ as guilt that is a consequence ofsin/uncleanness and suggests: “Furthermore, since the syntactical construc-tion in v. 16a regarding µtafj lkl is the same as that in v. 21a, it seems prob-able that tnw[ in v. 21a expresses the other side of the same tafj. Thisconfirms the inference drawn in Chapter 2 that tafj (sin) consists of ‘un-cleanness’ and ‘guilt.’ ”16 However, aside from the fact that the text does notqualify the twamf in v. 16 as violations regarding impurities, Kiuchi does notadequately justify or clarify his interpretation of the relationship between theµy[vp and the twafj. Are the µy[vp violations of Yhwh’s rules regarding[vp sins? What sense would that make, and where are these rules recorded?

B. Schwartz has another approach. Giving due weight to the fact that thewaw in µh<y[Ev‘PImIW is a simple conjunction, he finds that the text specifies ex-traction of two distinct pollutants from the sacred domain—impurities and[vp sins—rather than impurities including µy[vp.17 However, while he thusdistinguishes between twamf and µy[vp, he takes the µy[vp, which he under-stands to be deliberate offenses, to be a subcategory of twafj, sins in general.18

A great deal hangs on his interpretation of the words µt:aFøj"Alk:l} µh<y[Ev‘PImIW in16:16 (cf. v. 21), which he renders “and among all their sins, of deliberate of-fenses” and adds, “which, of course, are the only type of sin that penetrates theadytum.”19 Here he is assuming Milgrom’s general tafj theory, according towhich evils dynamically invade the sacred sphere to varying degrees in pro-portion to their severity and must subsequently be purged from the parts of thesanctuary to which they have penetrated by purification offerings throughoutthe year and on the Day of Atonement.20

15. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 154–55; cf. J. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 130.

16. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 155–56; cf. 154, 188 n. 57.17. B. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates

and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Lit-erature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz;Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 6–7, 17.

18. Cf. F. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the PriestlyTheology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 82.

19. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 18.20. Cf. ibid., 5–6; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The

Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’ ” RB 83 (1976) 393.



To evaluate the view of Schwartz we must briefly examine µt:aFøj"Alk:l},which appears at the end of the lists of evils in 16:16 and 21. Elsewhere in Le-viticus, when lkl (lit., “to all”) is placed just before a final item in a list, if thisitem includes all of the previous terms in its semantic range, it is a summariz-ing category, as in 11:42: “You shall not eat anything that crawls on its belly,or anything that walks on all fours, or anything that has many legs, comprisingall (lkl) creatures that swarm on the earth, for they are an abomination.”21

However, if the final item following lkl does not include all of the previousones, it represents a separate item to which the list is extended, as in v. 46:“These are the instructions concerning quadrupeds, birds, all living creaturesthat move in the water, and all (lklw) creatures that swarm on the earth.”22

Returning to 16:16, the usage is like that of 11:46 in that µt:aFøj", the finalitem following lkl, cannot be an overall summarizing category because itdoes not include in its semantic range the earlier laEr;c‘yi yneB} taOm}F¨ andµh<y[Ev‘PI.23 Even if it could be argued that twafj include µy[vp, the formerclearly do not include twamf24 because elsewhere in pentateuchal law ha:m}fU

is only physical ritual impurity (5:3; 7:20, 21; 14:19; 15:3, 25, 26, 30, 31; 18:19;22:3, 5; Num 5:19; 19:13). On Lev 14:19 Milgrom reminds us:

The distinction between moral and physical impurity is indicated not onlyby the terms for the causes of the sanctuary’s pollution (†umªâ versus ˙e†ª)but by the consistant use of two different verbs that describe the effect of the

21. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)1284; Hebrew supplied; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 645. Compare the use of lk:l} in Exod28:38; 36:1; Lev 5:3, 4.

22. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1284; Hebrew supplied; idem, Leviti-cus 1–16, 645. Milgrom explains the l in lk:l} here: “The lamed coming at the end ofa series is conjunctive in force, but stronger than the waw and, thus, may also be ren-dered ‘including’ ” (ibid., 689; cf. idem, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I: The En-croacher and the Levite—The Term ºAboda [Berkeley: University of California Press,1970] 64 n. 237, 72 n. 262, 77 n. 279).

23. Kiuchi justly criticizes the common translation “whatever their sins” as impre-cise and aptly describes the most common usage: “lkl basically means ‘with respectto all’ (cf. BDB 514; Orlinsky, Notes, p. 30). The lamed functions to specify what pre-cedes it (see Williams, op. cit., §271) while lk expresses the totality of what follows it.In other words, lkl as a whole functions to specify what precedes it from a differentviewpoint. Cp. Exod 28.38; Lev 5.3–4; 22.18; Num 5.9; 18.8” (The Purification Offer-ing, 187 n. 50). However, Kiuchi does not realize that in Lev 11:46 and 16:16 this in-terpretation does not apply because lkl does not cover the preceding listed items froma different viewpoint.

24. Against the neb and Porter, Leviticus, 130.

Chapter 13290

purgation: physical impurity is purified (†aher); moral impurity is forgiven(nisla˙).25

I would provisionally render Lev 16:16: “And he shall effect purgation forthe (most) holy place from the (physical ritual) impurities of the Israelites andfrom their µy[vp as well as (lkl) all their twafj.”26 Similarly, v. 21 lists “allthe twnw[ of the Israelites and all their µy[vp as well as (lkl) all their twafj.”Therefore, rather than leveling distinctions between these terms and/or sub-suming some evils under others as a number of scholars have done, we mustconclude that physical ritual impurities (twamf) and two separate kinds ofmoral faults (µy[vp and twafj) are purged from the inner sanctum by theblood of the slain tafj animals, and the live goat carries away three distinctkinds of moral faults (twnw[, µy[vp, and twafj).

In 16:16 the privative preposition ˆm, “from,” appears with the first twocategories of evil (taOm}F¨mI and µh<y[Ev‘PImI), but not with µt:aFøj". However, lkl

before this final item extends to it the conditions applying to the earlier termsin the list. So the inner sanctum is also purged “from” the twafj. CompareLev 11:46 (see above), where the last item (Al[" tx<r,Vøh" vp<n, ≈r,a:h:, “creaturesthat swarm on the earth”), following lkl, is a category of creatures governed bythe chapter’s hrwt, “instruction,” as much as earlier items that are in constructwith hrwt, even though lkl breaks the construct chain.

In 16:21 lk, “all/every,” occurs with all three terms for evil. However, inv. 16 it appears only with the final twafj. This should not be taken to indi-cate that the tafj category “is more encompassing by virtue of the additionof the modifier ‘all’.” 27 Compare 11:42 and 46, where similar inconsistencyis stylistic, unaccompanied by evidence for any substantive difference be-

25. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 857. This explains why the root amf is absent in Lev4, which deals with moral faults rather than physical ritual impurities. Milgrom com-ments on this absence: “This is so because the wrongdoer contaminates the sanctuarybut not himself. He remains in a ritually pure state. Therefore . . . he is not contagiouseither to the sacred, to persons or to things. He undergoes no purification rites as dothe physically impure” (Leviticus 23–27, 2466). But the lack of amf in Lev 4 provesonly that in this chapter the offerers are not affected by physical ritual impurity. It doesnot prove that they are not sullied by their moral faults, which must be purged (rpk)from (privative ˆm; v. 26) them (see ch. 6 above).

26. W. Shea misses the function of lkl within the lists of evils in Lev 16:16 and 21and suggests that the twafj here could be “sin offerings” (“Literary Form and Theo-logical Function in Leviticus,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature ofProphecy [ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Insti-tute, 1986] 163–65).

27. Contra Shea, ibid., 163.


tween the relative comprehensiveness of categories marked by lk and thosethat lack lk.

Categories of evil have different dynamic propertiesThe list of evils in Lev 16:16 is abbreviated in v. 19, which specifies the

evils removed from the outer altar by referring only to the first item: yneB} taOm}f¨

laEr;c‘yi. A similar kind of incipit shows up in v. 22, where µt:no/[“ abbreviates thelist of faults confessed upon Azazel’s goat in v. 21, also by mentioning the firstitem.28 Obviously the goat bears into the wilderness (v. 22) all three kinds ofevil placed upon it (v. 21), not just the twnw[.

Now we are ready to make a potentially profound observation. In v. 30 theeffect of purgation (rpk) is to purify (rhf) the Israelites µk<ytEaFøj" lKOmI, “fromall your twafj.” The other two categories are not mentioned here. Lest thisshould appear to be an accident, we also find in v. 34 that the benefit of theDay of Atonement ceremonies for the people only includes purgation (rpk)of the twafj. References to twafj in these verses cannot serve as abbrevia-tions for the lists in vv. 16 or 21 because this category does not appear first ineither list. Therefore, although twamf, µy[vp, and twafj are removed fromall parts of the sanctuary, including the outer altar, and twnw[ (rather thantwamf), µy[vp, and twafj are carried away from the camp on Azazel’s goat,only twafj are cleansed from (privative ˆm) the people on the Day of Atone-ment.29 At first glance this is strange, but the possibility that categories of evil

28. Hoffmann arrived at the same net effect by regarding µt:no/[“AlK: in v. 22 as ageneral expression for all kinds of sin (Das Buch Leviticus, 456). Not grasping thatv. 19 abbreviates, Elliger takes the continuation in v. 16—µt:aFøj"Alk:l} µh<y[Ev‘PImIW—and its parallel in v. 21 to be a generalizing addition of the latest compositional phasethat unsharpens the distinction between twamf (v. 16) and twnw[ (v. 21) and betweenthe respective functions of the two goats by bringing all offenses under the designa-tion twafj, as in vv. 30 and 34 (Leviticus, 200–201, 205–7, 209; cf. Wright, The Dis-posal of Impurity, 18–21).

29. Jenson thinks twafj in v. 30 should be translated “impurities” because the con-text indicates that the primary idea is purification (Graded Holiness, 204 n. 4). It is truethat in the Pentateuch this is the only place where rhf expresses purification fromtafj (cf. elsewhere Ps 51:4[2]; Prov 20:9). But if physical ritual impurities are in viewhere, why doesn’t the text refer to twamf, as in Lev 16:16, rather than using the termtafj, which consistently refers to moral faults in vv. 16, 21, and elsewhere in pen-tateuchal ritual law? Even the common theory that vv. 29–34a stem from anothersource or redaction (H versus P) would be hard pressed to account for such a radicalterminological shift, particularly given the reappearance of twafj in the summary of34a. Are these also physical ritual impurities, as in v. 30? It is far less exegeticallyexpensive to accept that the unique combination of terms in v. 30 expresses a uniqueeffect of what is unquestionably a unique ritual complex.

Chapter 13292

follow different trajectories according to their distinct dynamic propertiesmakes perfect sense in light of comparison with appearances of the same evilsearlier in Leviticus.

We have already found that in pentateuchal law twamf are only physicalritual impurities. Now we will briefly examine the three terms for moral faultsin Lev 16:16 and 21 in order to define more closely the relationships betweenthem in this context. So that we do not arrive at premature conclusions re-garding the rarer terms based upon insufficient evidence, we will begin withthe well-attested tafj category and proceed in descending order of fre-quency to the ˆw[ and [vp categories.

The term tafj, an expiable nondefiant sinIn the Hebrew Bible, including pentateuchal narrative, taF:j" is a broad

term denoting a deed that violates an existing relationship/partnership.30

When one of the partners is Yhwh, it is a general word for sin, whether inten-tional or not.31 A tafj can be a wrongful act itself (e.g., Lev 4:3, 14, 23—with the verb afj) or trouble that results from it (Num 32:23; cf. 12:11).

In general usage the term tafj can apply to serious kinds of offenses forwhich no sacrificial expiation would be available if the cultic system were op-erating (see, e.g., Exod 32:30, 32, 34; cf. Gen 4:7; 18:20; 50:17).32 However, inpentateuchal ritual law33 the tafj category is restricted to expiable nondefi-ant sins, including inadvertent sins (e.g., Lev 4:3, 14, 23, 26, 28, etc.), sins offorgetting to perform a duty to Yhwh (Lev 5:6; cf. vv. 2–4), and some deliber-ate sins (Lev 5:6; cf. v. 1; Num 5:6–7; see also the verb afj in Lev 5:21–23[6:2–4]),34 but excluding sins committed hm:r; dy;B}, “high-handedly,” mean-ing defiantly, for which the wrongdoer is condemned to the terminal divinepunishment of extirpation (trk), without subsequent opportunity for expia-tion (Num 15:30–31; contrast vv. 22–29).35

30. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe, 57–60; idem, “afj ˙†ª To Miss,” 407–9.31. Knierim, Die Hauptbegriffe, 67–68; idem, “afj ˙†ª To Miss,” 409.32. Cf. G. Robinson, “A Terminological Study of the Idea of Sin in the Old Testa-

ment,” IJT 18 (1969) 119–20.33. Not including Lev 26:18, 21, 24 and 28 in covenant curses.34. B. Levine unconvincingly explains the negligence in Lev 5:1 as a form of in-

advertence (Leviticus [JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia: Jewish Publication So-ciety, 1989] 27).

35. R. Rendtorff, Leviticus (BKAT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1985–) 2:149–50; cf. B. Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheolo-gie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament(WMANT 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982) 254–55.



In Lev 16 all twafj are purged from the sanctuary (v. 16) and conse-quently cleansed from the people (vv. 30, 34). We can understand these to beexpiable nondefiant sins, in accordance with use of the term tafj earlier inLeviticus (see above).36 Does this mean that a person who has committed atafj but wantonly neglected to bring a required expiatory sacrifice receivesthe benefit of rpk and forgiveness for his sin on the Day of Atonement? Theevidence indicates a negative answer. In Num 19:13 and 20 wanton neglectto avail oneself of the ritual remedy for an evil (corpse contamination) be-comes an inexpiable wrong in its own right, for which the offender is termi-nally condemned to extirpation (trk).37 Leviticus 5:1, 5–6 show that a sinnerbears his culpability (ˆw[) until he acknowledges his sin and brings his indi-vidual noncalendric sacrifice, which provides rpk that is prerequisite to di-vine forgiveness (cf. 4:20, 26, 31, 35). However, while the corporate rpk of theDay of Atonement provides moral cleansing (rhf) for the people, this is notrpk prerequisite to forgiveness (jls), which does not appear in any biblicalDay of Atonement text.38 So the twafj cleansed from the people on the Dayof Atonement can include expiable nondefiant sins that are already expiatedthrough noncalendric sacrifices,39 but not sins for which sacrifices have beenwantonly neglected.

36. Cf. N. Kiuchi, A Study of Óa†aª and Óa††aªt in Leviticus 4–5 (FAT, 2nd series;Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 84: “Indeed, in Leviticus only expiable ‘sins’ arecalled ˙a††aªt.” In this monograph, Kiuchi introduces and develops a new proposalthat the verb afj means to “hide oneself ” and the noun tafj means “hiding one-self.” For him, such “hiding” refers “to the overall attitude of a person or a communityto the Lord, and not to a concrete violation of the Lord’s commandment,” takes place“in one’s heart and mind,” and “he who hides himself is mostly not aware of that, butrather justifies himself, hence in unconscious hypocrisy” (p. 96).

37. Cf. N. Zohar, “Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semanticsof tafj in the Pentateuch,” JBL 107 (1988) 614 n. 27.

38. The high priest’s confession over Azazel’s goat, along with double hand-leaning,is the means of transferring moral evils to the nonsacrificial animal “vehicle” so thatthey can be eliminated from the camp (Lev 16:21–22), thereby freeing the communityfrom corporate responsibility with regard to any of these sins, whether the sinners them-selves are forgiven or not (cf. Deut 21:1–9). There is no indication that confession ofsins in Lev 16:21 serves to gain pardon for those who committed them (contra the im-plication of m. Yoma 6:2).

39. Cf. A. Rodríguez, “Transfer of Sin in Leviticus,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviti-cus, and the Nature of Prophecy (ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C.:Biblical Research Institute, 1986) 180.

Chapter 13294

The term ˆw[, culpabilityIn the Hebrew Bible ˆ/[: can represent any part of the process of wrongful

act-blame-punishment, whether the act is intentional or not.40 In Lev 1–16,however, ˆw[ is restricted to blame in the sense of “culpability,” that is, conse-quential liability to punishment that an offender must bear (acn; 5:1, 17; 7:18)unless a priest bears it (10:17).41 Here ˆw[ is not distinguished from tafj as aseparate act of sin. This is clear in 5:1, 5–6 where a witness who sins (verbafj) by failing to give required testimony bears his ˆw[, “culpability,” unless/until he confesses what he has sinned (verb afj) and brings a purification of-fering for the sin that he has sinned (af:j: rv≤a“ /taF:j") and the priest effectspurgation on his behalf from his sin (/taF:j"mE). Compare 5:17, where sinning(verb afj) also results in bearing ˆw[. This kind of usage is like that of Ps 32:5,where the construct ytIaF:j" ˆ/[“ means “the culpability of [i.e., resulting from]my sin.”42

The term [vp, an inexpiable defiant sinLike tafj, the term [væp< denotes a morally faulty act (Gen 31:36; 50:17;

Exod 22:8[9]; 23:21; 34:7; Num 14:18) that can result in culpability (ˆw[),as indicated by Jer 33:8, where Yhwh promises to forgive “all their culpabil-ities (twnw[) that they have afj-sinned against me and that they have [vp-sinned against me.” The idea that µy[vp are often actions that break rela-tionships is supported by use of the verb from the same root, which means“rebel” (i.e., cast off allegiance), whether against God (Isa 1:2; 43:27; Jer 2:8;33:8) or an earthly overlord (1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:20, 22).43

40. R. Knierim, “ˆ/[: ºawon Perversity,” TLOT 2:864. For unintentional ̂ w[, Knierimcites Gen 15:16; 19:15; Lev 22:16; Num 18:1, 23. Cf. idem, Die Hauptbegriffe, 237–38,241–42; W. Zimmerli, “Zur Vorgeschichte von Jes. LIII,” Congress Volume: Rome,1968 (VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 239; Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 50.

41. Schwartz convincingly interprets ˆw[ acn and its parallel af}jE acn as meta-phors for “consequential sin-bearing,” that is, bearing of guilt/culpability (“TheBearing of Sin,” 10–15); cf. W. Zimmerli, “Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rededes Ezechiel,” ZAW 66 (1954) 10–12; T. Frymer-Kensky, “The Strange Case of theSuspected Sotah (Numbers V 11–31),” VT 34 (1984) 22.

42. K. Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” TDOT 10:553, 559; cf. E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Tes-tament (trans. A. Heathcote and P. Allcock; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958) 286;A. Schenker, “Der Unterschied zwischen Sündopfer cha††at und Schuldopfer aschamim Licht von Lv 5,17–19 und 5,1–6,” Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Pa-pers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress: Leuven, 1989 (ed. C. Brekelmans and J. Lust;BETL 94; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990) 117.

43. Cf. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (Century Bible, new ed.; London: Nel-son, 1967) 114; G. H. Livingston, “o[væP: (pashaº) Rebel, Transgress, Revolt,” TWOT2:741–42; R. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester:Inter-Varsity, 1980) 173.


G. Robinson applies this meaning to religious contexts, where [vp “indi-cates sin as wanton defiance against the will of God. It exposes the humanmotivation behind the act. It is not simply a mistake; it is a rebellion, a wilfuldisobedience.”44

On the basis of passages such as Exod 22:8, R. Knierim has argued that[vp “was already very early a legal technical term for crimes that were sub-ject to legal penalties.”45 He summarizes theological usage:

Whoever commits pesaº does not merely rebel or protest against Yahwehbut breaks with him, takes away what is his, robs, embezzles, misappropri-ates it. Although it always implies a conscious behavior, the term per sedoes not describe the attitude but the criminal act that consists in removalof property or breach of relationship. As a result, in the OT the most seriousaspect of the sin phenomenon is the offense as breach.46

J. C. de Moor and P. Sanders criticize Knierim for basing his conclusion on“inadmissable etymologizing” and maintain that in Israel, as in Ugarit, thismost severe degree of transgression would involve intentional/open rebel-lion.47 However, it appears that Knierim’s point is not to deny that commit-ting a [vp is accompanied by a rebellious attitude but simply to say that thisterm denotes the act itself.48

Rather than criticizing Knierim, Kiuchi draws a wrong implication bythinking that one who commits [vp is less than rebellious: “It appears thatsince [vp is associated with crimes, in Lev 16.16 µy[vp can include sinswhich the µva offering deals with.”49 But Knierim clearly places [vp crimesagainst God in contexts of rebellion: “Whoever commits pesaº does not merelyrebel or protest against Yahweh” (emphasis mine; see above).

In pentateuchal ritual law, [vp shows up only in Lev 16:16 and 21 in thecontext of the Day of Atonement. No offense that appears earlier in Leviticus,where noncalendric sacrifices to remedy moral faults are prescribed, istermed [vp. This plus the serious nature of wrongs referred to by the noun

44. Robinson, “A Terminological Study,” 113.45. R. Knierim, “[væP< pesaº Crime,” TLOT 2:1034–35.46. Ibid., 1036.47. J. C. de Moor and P. Sanders, “An Ugaritic Expiation Ritual and Its Old Testa-

ment Parallels,” UF 23 (1991) 284, esp. n. 7.48. Cf. Knierim, “[væP< pesaº Crime,” 1033–34; idem, Die Hauptbegriffe, 176–84,

esp. 180.49. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 187 n. 49; cf. A. Treiyer, “The Day of Atone-

ment as Related to the Contamination and Purification of the Sanctuary,” in The Sev-enty Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy (ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3;Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, 1986) 238.

Chapter 13296

[vp and its related verb elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see above) suggestthat µy[vp are inexpiable, by contrast with the expiable twafj. So scholarssuch as Milgrom, Gorman, and Wright identify the µy[vp of Lev 16:16 as theinexpiable “high-handed” category of wrong condemned in Num 15:30–31.50

Dynamic properties of the µy[vp in Lev 16 confirm the gravity of their na-ture. They defile the sanctuary and must be purged from it on the Day ofAtonement (v. 16), but they are not cleansed from the people as are the twafj

(vv. 30, 34), for which rpk can be received throughout the year by means ofnoncalendric expiatory sacrifices. In other words, while the yearly, communalrpk of the Day of Atonement benefits the sanctuary with regard to the µy[vp,the people who have committed these wrongs receive no benefit; they remaincondemned as before.51 Milgrom is right when he says that the “brazen defierof God’s commandments is ineligible for sacrificial expiation (Num. 15:30–31), but the temple must be purged of his sins and impurities.”52 The onlyspecific cases that fit this profile are the cultic offenses of Molek worship(20:3) and wanton neglect to be purified from corpse contamination (Num19:13, 20), both of which short-circuit the ritual system by defiling the sanc-tuary automatically from a distance when they are committed and are punish-able by trk, with no opportunity for ritual expiation.53

While we can safely conclude that the µy[vp of Lev 16:16 are like the“high-handed” category of Num 15:30–31, in that both are committed de-fiantly/rebelliously and therefore the offenders are barred from the benefitof expiation, perhaps the µy[vp are a subcategory of high-handed sins.Only the severe cultic sins regarding Molek worship and corpse contami-nation just mentioned (Lev 20:3; Num 19:13, 20), which we have now iden-tified with the µy[vp, are said to defile the sanctuary when they arecommitted. But the fact that this kind of automatic defilement is not men-tioned in Num 15:30–31 leaves open the possibility that other cases of de-fiant sin do not affect the sanctuary in this way.54 Whereas in 19:20 the

50. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257; idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1425; Gorman, The Ideol-ogy of Ritual, 82; D. Wright, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood andCult in Ancient Israel (ed. G. A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Shef-field: JSOT Press, 1991) 163.

51. Cf. D. Wright, “Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible,”Koroth 9 (1988) 186–89; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 257.

52. J. Milgrom, “Atonement, Day of,” IDBSup, 83.53. A. Schenker has seen the unpardonable case of wanton neglect in Num 19:20

as analogous to “high-handed” sin in Num 15:30–31 (“Interprétations récentes etdimensions spécifiques du sacrifice ˙a††at,” Bib 75 [1994] 67).

54. Wright assumes that all deliberate sins punishable by trk cause pollution ofthe sanctuary, which must be removed by the special Day of Atonement purification



reason (introduced by yk) for extirpation is the fact that the sinner has de-filed Yhwh’s sanctuary (cf. Lev 20:3), in Num 15:30–31 the reason (alsointroduced by yk) for extirpation is the fact that the sinner has despisedYhwh’s word and broken his commandment.

Outside the ritual system, Yhwh can save people from their µy[vp by bear-ing/forgiving, expiating, blotting out, and not remembering these offenses ifthe sinners repent (e.g., Exod 34:7; Num 14:18; Ps 32:1; 51:3[1]; 65:4[3];103:12; Isa 43:25; Ezek 18:22; Mic 7:18; cf. 1 Kgs 8:50; Ps 25:7; 2 Chr 33:1–13).55 However, this clemency is granted directly by Yhwh and goes beyondthe reconciliation that he offers through rituals.56 So the passages just citedshould be clearly distinguished from Lev 16:16 and 21.57 In the cult, includ-ing the awesome rites of the Day of Atonement, there is no provision at all forremoving µy[vp from those who commit them, even if they repent, so thatthey can receive the benefit of forgiveness.58

55. Cf. Seebass, “o[væP: pasaº,” 803.56. A. von R. Sauer speaks of Yhwh’s direct forgiveness of David’s sin, for which

no sacrificial expiation was available (“The Concept of Sin in the Old Testament,”CTM 22 [1951] 711). Such forgiveness of severe sin in narrative is not the same as di-rect forgiveness promised by legislation in Num 30:6[5], 9[8], 13[12], where this is le-niently granted by God without a sacrifice in the case of a woman who is not able tofulfill her vow because it is nullified by her father or husband (cf. J. J. Stamm, Erlösenund Vergeben im Alten Testament: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung [Bern:Francke, 1940) 55, 129.

57. Because Knierim does not make this distinction, he regards cultic expiation asavailable for persons who commit µy[vp (Die Hauptbegriffe, 184).

58. With T. Frymer-Kensky, who has noted in connection with pollution of theland by sinful acts such as murder, sexual abominations, and idolatry: “repentance isseen as a privilege that is not automatically available” (“Pollution, Purification, andPurgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth [ed. C. Meyersand M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983] 408). Contra Knierim,Die Hauptbegriffe, 184; J. Milgrom, “Day of Atonement as Annual Day of Purgationin Temple Times,” EncJud 5:1384–85; Treiyer, “The Day of Atonement,” 211, 238–39.The unforgivability of µy[vp may be implicitly acknowledged by Temple Scroll 26:10–12, which inserts forgiveness (hmhl jlsnw, “and they shall be forgiven”) from Lev 4:20into the goal of the lay community’s purification offering of a goat on the Day ofAtonement (ch. 16) but then replaces µh<y[Ev‘PI, “their [vp sins,” by hmtmva, “theirguilt,” in the list of evils confessed by the high priest over Azazel’s goat (v. 21), appar-ently to avoid the contradiction that µy[vp are forgiven. Because Harrison assumesthat rpk for µy[vp on the Day of Atonement implies that those who have committedthem are forgiven, he attempts to downgrade them: “These latter would be regardedas sins of error or accident if the sinner by true penitence showed that his mis-demeanours were mostly the product of ignorance” (Leviticus, 173). This is similar to

offerings (“Two Types,” 186–87). The Dead Sea community regarded automatic de-filement of the temple as also occurring in the case of intercourse with a menstruatingwoman (CD 5:6).

Chapter 13298

Through sacrifices, God extended pardon with acknowledgment of jus-tice: a cost was involved in the process of composition/reconciliation withhim.59 But the ritual system was inadequate to provide even a token cost ofcomposition in cases of rebellious sin, which were all too frequent in Israel’shistory. Nevertheless, Yhwh forgave repeatedly.60 So Yhwh’s grace was notlimited by cultic constraints.

Categories of evil follow different trajectoriesHaving differentiated between the categories of evil mentioned in Lev 16,

we can further trace their trajectories into the sanctuary before the Day ofAtonement and then out of it and away from the Israelite camp on the greatDay. Table 14 shows that each kind of evil (in order of appearance in Lev16), conceived as a quasi-physical entity,61 has a different pattern of move-ment according to its nature. We will find that these dynamic profiles reflecta variety of relationships to Yhwh.

A hamf, “physical ritual impurity,” is purified (rhf) from an impure per-son by ritual during the year. If the bodily defilement is severe, the ritual pro-cess includes a purification offering to purge (rpk) residual impurity from(optional privative ˆm) the person (Lev 12:7; 14:19; 15:15, 30; cf. Num 8:21—rpk to purify them), in which case this impurity must also be purged from thesanctuary on the Day of Atonement. But such physical contamination is notbanished on Azazel’s goat, presumably because it is destroyed when thetafj carcass into which it has been absorbed is incinerated outside thecamp (Lev 16:27).

59. Cf. A. Schenker, “Koper et expiation,” Bib 63 (1982) 32–46.60. As A. Tunyogi has observed, “that a god or gods forgive a series of conscious

and deliberate rebellions is something peculiar to Israel’s faith” (“The Rebellions ofIsrael,” JBL 81 [1962] 385).

61. Cf. B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1903) 381.

Milgrom’s rabbinic approach of downgrading deliberate sins to inadvertencies by posthoc repentance (“The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance,” RB 82 [1975] 195–205; idem,Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance [SJLA 18;Leiden: Brill, 1976] 109–10, 119–27; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 301–2, 374–78; idem, Le-viticus 23–27, 2449), which we examined in ch. 9 above. W. C. Kaiser holds that di-vine forgiveness encompasses every sin (including [vp), except the “high-handed”sin of Num 15:30–31. But to sustain a difference between [vp and “high-handed” sin,he must import the New Testament concept that unpardonable sin is restricted toblasphemy or sinning against the Holy Spirit (“The Book of Leviticus,” NIB 1:1109,1113, 1114).


The twamf purged from the sanctuary may include corpse contamination(and other physical impurities?) for which purification has been wantonly ne-glected (Num 19:13, 20). If so, the physical pollution presumably would haveaffected the sanctuary automatically along with the [vp sin of wanton neglectwhen this sin occurred.62 Also purged would be any physical impurities thathave defiled the sanctuary by direct contact (cf. Lev 15:31).

A [vp, “inexpiable defiant sin,” is cleansed from the sanctuary and ban-ished from the camp on the Day of Atonement, but it is not removed orcleansed from the sinner at any time.

A tafj, “expiable nondefiant sin,” is purged (rpk) from (optional privativeˆm) the sinner by a noncalendric (outer-altar or outer-sanctum) tafj sacrifice(Lev 4:26; 5:6, 10), and on the Day of Atonement it is purged from the sanc-tuary by an inner-sanctum purification offering, thereby cleansing (rhf) thesinner, and is banished from the camp on Azazel’s goat.

An ˆw[, “culpability,” is removed from an eligible (nondefiant) sinner by anoncalendric purification offering so that he no longer bears (acn) it (Lev 5:1,5–6). In eaten purification offerings (excluding a tafj sacrifice officiated bya priest at least partly for himself), officiating priests who eat the flesh bear(acn) the culpability (10:17) in some sense, although they are immune to itseffects.63 They do this as the cultic representatives of Yhwh, who bears moral

Table 14. Movement Patterns of Various Evils

Throughout Year On Day of Atonement

Removed from offerer (Lev 4–5,

12, 14, 15)

Borne by priests(10:17)

Purged from sanctuary

(16:16)

Banished from camp

(16:21)

Cleansed from people

(16:30, 34)hamf hamf

[vp [vp

tafj tafj tafj tafj

ˆw[ ˆw[ ˆw[

62. While the text does not set a time limit, the fact that the penalty of trk inNum 19:13 and 20 is administered by Yhwh implies that he knows when delay con-stitutes wanton neglect.

63. See ch. 5 above. Koch affirms: “Part of the task of priests and Levites, however,is to remove ºawon from Israel or from the sanctuary itself, to ‘bear’ that ºawon repre-sentatively, and by virtue of their own inherent quality to render it harmless (Ex. 28:38;Lev. 10:17; Nu. 18:1,23)” (“ˆ/[: ºawon,” 559). On priestly immunity, see Milgrom,Leviticus 1–16, 623, 638–39, 1048.

Chapter 13300

evils when he extends pardon (ha:F:j"w] [væp<w; ˆ/[: ac´no; Exod 34:7; cf. Num14:18).64 On the Day of Atonement all twnw[, apparently comprising or at leastincluding the culpabilities borne by the priests for the people,65 are trans-ferred to Azazel’s goat through the high priest’s confession and banished toAzazel in the wilderness (Lev 16:21–22; cf. v. 10).66 The twnw[ do not need tobe purged from the sanctuary because they have affected the priests instead.67

The role of Yhwh in bearing moral evils is represented in the cultic sys-tem by his sanctuary and priests together: When sinners receive rpk duringthe year, the sanctuary bears their twafj (Lev 16:16) and the priests bear thetwnw[ that have resulted from the twafj (Lev 10:17). The priests can bearthe twnw[ because these are consequential culpabilities and, as such, theycan be transferred from one person to another (cf. 2 Sam 14:9; ch. 16 be-low). This transferability reflects the legal fact that one person can be con-demned to punishment for a wrong that another person has committed.

The purpose of the Day of Atonement is to preserve the justice of Yhwh’s administration

We have found that several kinds of human evil affect and are affected bythe cult of Yhwh in various ways. For the Israelites, the weightiest distinctionis between expiable and inexpiable moral faults. Since these sins are differen-tiated according to whether or not they are defiant/rebellious in nature, it isclear that for Yhwh loyalty is the bottom line. He does not demand absoluteperfection from mortal, imperfect people, but he does require loyalty. If basi-cally loyal people make mistakes, even some deliberate ones, they have op-portunity for reconciliation with him through sacrificial rpk and subsequentforgiveness. But if they defy him, whether actively or by neglecting the ritualremedies or other requirements that he has commanded, they sever theirconnection with him and irrevocably forfeit their future.

64. Cf. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 9–10.65. Because the twnw[ resulting from expiated twafj are borne separately by the

priests (Lev 10:17), they are separately represented in the list of evils placed on Azazel’sgoat (16:21). But perhaps the twnw[ in this list do not include culpabilities resultingfrom µy[vp, which are not separated from those who committed them.

66. Kiuchi notes the striking correspondence between the bearing of guilt by thepriests and by Azazel’s goat (The Purification Offering, 116). Koch explains: “Further-more, the high priest is also able through confession and leaning a hand on the ani-mal’s head to transfer the ºawon to that animal such that the ‘scapegoat’ is now the onebearing it (Lev. 16:21f.)” (“ˆ/[: ºawon,” TDOT 10:559).

67. B. Levine is partially correct but imprecise when he comments: “By ‘sins’ (Hebºåwônôt) was meant those acts which defiled the sanctuary and its attending priest-hood” (“Leviticus, Book of,” ABD 4:315).


Yhwh’s treatment of people according to their loyalty or lack of it revealsthat his system of justice is sovereign in nature. As A. Büchler pointed out,sin “is basically disobedience and revolt against the divine sovereignty, theKingship of God.”68 We are reminded of King Solomon, who gave Adonijah,Abiathar, and Joab a second chance after they attempted to put Adonijah onthe throne but held them accountable to continuing loyalty to himself(1 Kgs 1–2).

The royal nature of Yhwh’s justice does not exempt him from the need todemonstrate that he accepts responsibility for his decisions. When a personguilty of a tafj brings a sacrifice and receives divine forgiveness, Yhwh tem-porarily bears that tafj in his sanctuary and its consequential ˆw[ on hispriests. Why? Because clemency toward truly guilty people affects the admin-istration of a ruler by calling his justice into question. Compare 2 Sam 14:9,where the woman of Tekoa offers to bear ˆw[ that King David would otherwisebear, so that the king and his throne will be clean (yqIn;) if he absolves her (fic-titious) son of the death penalty for murder (cf. ch. 16 below).

The purpose of the Day of Atonement is not to extend pardon to thosewho have already forfeited it. Rather, it is to preserve the justice of Yhwh’s ad-ministration by clearing it of two kinds of accumulated negative factors:

1. Judicial responsibility with regard to expiable sins that Yhwh has for-given throughout the year. When these twafj are purged from the sanctuary,they are simultaneously cleansed (rhf) from the people in the sense thattheir earlier forgiveness is now vindicated (Lev 16:30). Confirmation of anearlier favorable ruling benefits the defendant along with the judge. Whilethe people need this second phase of rpk for expiable moral faults, they donot need it for twamf. It is true that physical impurities arising from the birth–death cycle of mortality must be purged (rpk) from the sanctuary of immortalYhwh, which remains in this imperfect environment (v. 16). But the peoplethemselves require no further cleansing with regard to their twamf, fromwhich they have earlier been purified (rhf; Lev 12:7–8; 14:20; etc.) ratherthan forgiven.

2. The slanderous effect of rebellious [vp sins, committed by individualswho have been among Yhwh’s people at least nominally. Compare the factthat King David was constrained to distance himself from Joab (2 Sam 3)and ultimately to order Solomon to destroy him in order to absolve thehouse of David from bloodguilt that automatically sullied it when Joab

68. A. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the FirstCentury (LBS; New York: KTAV, 1967) xviii.

Chapter 13302

murdered Abner and Amasa while he was under David’s command (1 Kgs2:5–6, 31–32).

ConclusionHaving previously established that in the Israelite system of ritual expia-

tion there are two major phases of rpk for expiable moral faults, the second ofwhich occurs on the Day of Atonement, I have now traced the trajectories ofdistinct categories of evil—physical ritual impurity (hamf), inexpiable defi-ant sin ([vp), expiable nondefiant sin (tafj), and culpability (ˆw[)—to thesanctuary or priests throughout the year and from them on the Day of Atone-ment. Each kind of evil has a different dynamic profile in relation to the cultaccording to its nature. By treating these evils in different ways, the ritual sys-tem shows that Yhwh extends remedies for impediments to the divine-humanrelationship that are generated by those who are basically loyal to him, but hewithholds such remedies from those whom he rejects because they are dis-loyal to him. So at the heart of the Pentateuch, the Israelite cultic systemcharacterizes Yhwh as a just ruler.

Part 4

Cult and Theodicy

305

Chapter 14

Divine Justice and the Cost of Kindness

Here we expand on the conclusions and implications of preceding chaptersfor the meaning of ritual pollution and cleansing of the Israelite sanctuary. Wehave found that ritual states and processes function as dynamic metaphors forfactors and interactions involved in the relationship between Yhwh and hispeople.1 But what, more precisely, do these ritual metaphors signify?

The Day of Atonement is Israel’s judgment dayThe cult reflects relationships with Yhwh as fates of Israelites are decided

individually throughout the year and corporately on the yearly Day of Atone-ment. In the movement of evils into and out of the Israelite sanctuary, wehave seen a cultic mirror of relationships between Yhwh and various kindsof people (see ch. 13 above). The Israelites are imperfect in two major ways:(1) they are susceptible to physical ritual impurities, and (2) they are proneto commit moral faults. But in their treatment of Yhwh’s commandments,including his instructions regarding remedies for imperfection, Israelitesshow themselves loyal or disloyal to him.

Those who defy Yhwh by flagrantly breaking his commandments or whowantonly neglect the ritual remedies that he provides are disloyal to him.They are terminally condemned when they commit these sins (Lev 20:3;Num 15:30–31; 19:13, 20).2 On the other hand, those who do not defiantlybreak Yhwh’s commandments, who individually receive ritual rpk and di-vine forgiveness for their nondefiant commandment violations, and whoare cleansed from their physical impurities are provisionally loyal3 and

1. Cf. I. Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (BRLJ 10; Leiden:Brill, 2003) 15: “Rituals can be seen as patterns of behaviour that give expression to re-lational attitudes.”

2. Compare rabbinic views that divine judgment takes place before the Day ofAtonement, whether collectively on Rosh Hashanah or individually at times appointedfor people (b. Ros Has. 16a; y. Ros Has. 1.3; see further below).

3. A. Médebielle has pointed out that, through expiatory sacrifices, offerers renderhomage to the Master whom they have offended (“Le symbolism du sacrifice expia-toire en Israël,” Bib 2 [1921] 300).

Chapter 14306

therefore eligible for a further, corporate stage of rpk on the Day of Atone-ment (Lev 16:30).4

On the Day of Atonement there is another opportunity to show loyalty,this time by obeying Yhwh’s commands to practice self-denial and abstainfrom work (Lev 16:29, 31). Meeting these conditions for rpk can benefit onlythose who are provisionally loyal; there is no evidence that such obedienceplays a role in freeing anyone from condemnation to the terminal penaltiesof extirpation (trk) or death.5

Any Israelites who are eligible for rpk on the Day of Atonement but whofail to practice self-denial and/or keep Sabbath at this time, are condemnedto extirpation and/or destruction (23:26–32). So they are ultimately no betteroff than if they had been disloyal from the start. Yhwh wants people who areloyal and remain loyal. It is not enough to have shown loyalty at some time inthe past. Obedience to Yhwh while the high priest officiates on the GreatDay is essential for receiving the benefit of his work.6

Fates of Israelites are affected or even decided throughout the year accord-ing to the ways in which they relate to Yhwh. But separation between trulyloyal and disloyal people is completed on the Day of Atonement. By the endof this day there are only two classes of Israelites: (1) a remnant who are mor-ally “pure,” that is, having no impediments to their relationship with Yhwh

(Lev 16:30),7 and (2) those who have no future with Yhwh and his people

4. M. Anderson and P. Culbertson summarize: “The sacrifice of Yom Kippur re-quires prior restitution for sins committed. If such restitution is not made, the YomKippur liturgy is considered effective for the community as a whole, but not forthose individuals who have failed to make rectification” (“The Inadequacy of theChristian Doctrine of Atonement in Light of Levitical Sin Offering,” AThR 68[1986] 312). The Day of Atonement does not exempt Israelites from bringing theirprivate tafj sacrifices, even if the Day passes before they have opportunity to offerthem (m. Ker. 6:4). Cf. m. Yoma 8:9, where a person must be reconciled to his fellowin order to receive the benefit of rpk on Yom Kippur, just as restitution is prerequi-site to a reparation offering (Lev 5:20–26[6:1–7]).

5. Apparently contra m. Yoma 8:8, where the Day of Atonement atones for serioustransgressions (twrwmjh). A. Noordtzij recognizes that rabbinic exegesis goes beyondpentateuchal law, in which “all” of the sins from which the sanctuary and people arefreed on the Day of Atonement does not include defiant sins, for which the sinner wasimmediately “cut off ” (Num 15:30; Leviticus [trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1982] 169).

6. A. Schenker, Versöhnung und Sühne (BibB 15; Freiburg: Katholisches Bibel-werk, 1981) 114, 116; cf. A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hir-zel, 1897) 581.

7. Cf. H. C. Brichto, “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement,” HUCA47 (1976) 36. Thus the cult reflects a kind of “remnant” dynamic that was repeatedmany times in biblical history: Yhwh purifies a chosen group by removing the disloyalfrom the loyal.


Divine Justice and the Cost of Kindness 307

(23:29–30). So we find that, within the Israelite cultic year, the Day of Atone-ment completes the determination of destinies on the national level and inthis sense can be regarded as Israel’s judgment day.8

The rabbis recognized that the Day of Atonement involves judgment.B. Ros Has. 16a records the opinion that human beings are judged on NewYear (Rosh Hashanah, Tishri 1) and their verdict (ˆyd rzg) is sealed (µtjn) onthe Day of Atonement (Tishri 10). In 16b there is a more complex view,which differentiates between classes of people:

R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Jo˙anan: Three books are opened [inheaven] on New Year, one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thor-oughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly righteousare forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of life; the thoroughlywicked are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of death; the doomof the intermediate is suspended from New Year till the Day of Atonement;if they deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of life; if they do not de-serve well, they are inscribed in the book of death.9

In y. Ros Has. 1.3 a variant form of the same quotation emphasizes that thefully righteous and fully wicked have already received their verdicts by RoshHashanah and clarifies the basis on which the intermediates receive their ver-dicts: “the ten days of repentance between Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippurwere given to them. If they repented, they are inscribed with the righteous;and if not, they are inscribed with the wicked.”10 No wonder these ten dayshave become “days of awe”! Who would be so confident of belonging to thewholly righteous that he/she would neglect repentance, which could tip thescales in favor of a favorable verdict?

The talmudic statements just cited agree on the following:

1. New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement are judgment days.11

2. The divinely administered judicial process involves two components: judgment = investigation, and sentencing. The investigative aspect is

8. Cf. K. A. Strand, “An Overlooked Old Testament Background to Revelation11:1,” AUSS 22 (1984) 322.

9. Translation by M. Simon, Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud:Rosh Hashanah (ed. I. Epstein; London: Soncino, 1983).

10. Translation by E. Goldman, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A PreliminaryTranslation and Explanation (ed. J. Neusner, W. Green, and C. Goldscheider; CSHJ16; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) 42.

11. On implications of these and other rabbinic opinions regarding the judg-ment, according to which judgment and sealing of the sentence are both on RoshHashanah, judgment is on Rosh Hashanah and sentencing at times appointed foreach person, or both judgment and sentencing are at times appointed for each one,see y. Ros Has. 1.3.

Chapter 14308

especially clear in y. Ros Has. 1.3, where judgment on Rosh Hashanah is described: “The Holy One Blessed be He says to the ministering angels: set up the platform, let the defenders rise and let the prosecutors rise.”12

3. On New Year’s Day God reviews people to make basic distinctions between the righteous and the wicked (cf. m. Ros Has. 1:2).

4. The Day of Atonement has a special role beyond distinguishing between people who are clearly righteous or wicked.

By comparison with b. Ros Has. 16a, the more complex view of 16b andy. Ros Has. 1.3 makes the qualification that sentencing on the Day of Atone-ment is functionally relevant only for the intermediate class, because the pro-cess of judgment for the other two classes has already been completed byRosh Hashanah. While the first opinion is that all verdicts are reached on theNew Year, and on the Day of Atonement the same sentences are sealed, thesecond opinion is that the Day of Atonement decides the less obvious fates ofthose who are between the wholly righteous and the wholly wicked. Both ofthese have analogies in human law: sealing sentences can follow verdicts re-garding guilt or innocence, and ambiguous cases can take extra time.

The rabbis import two extrabiblical concepts. First, there is no penta-teuchal evidence that the day of remembrance signified by trumpet blasts(h[:WrT} ˆ/rk}zi) at the beginning of the seventh month (Lev 23:24) is New Year’sDay or a day of judgment.13 A new year that affects human destinies is not al-together lacking in the Pentateuch, but it begins on the Day of Atonementwhen the Jubilee year of release, the fiftieth year, begins after seven sabbatical-year cycles, totaling forty-nine years (Lev 25:8–10).14 Regarding yearly obser-

12. Translation by Goldman, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, 44.13. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 2012–13,

2017–18.14. On the nature and implications of the Jubilee release, see, for example, my

“Laws of the Seventh and Fiftieth Years,” JAGNES 1 (1990) 2–16. The connectionbetween the Jubilee and the Day of Atonement is implicitly reinforced by the factthat the special complex of inner-sanctum purification offerings, through which thesanctuary is purged, includes a total of 49 blood applications, counting applicationsof blood to each horn of the inner and outer altars separately (Lev 16:14–15, 16b, 18–19; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 [AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991] 1038–39). Accord-ing to my calculations there is another numerical correspondence: 50 nonprepara-tory individual rituals are to be performed during the Day of Atonement as a whole.Not including preparatory priestly ablutions (Exod 30:17–21; Lev 16:4, 24) and thelot ritual (vv. 7–10), there are 13 performances of regular rituals (6 1/2 in the morningand the same in the evening; the half is the lamp ritual; Exod 30:7–8; Num 28:1–8),28 of additional festival offerings (1 purification offering + 9 burnt offerings with their


vance of the special Day of Atonement ritual complex that restores the com-munity and theocratic cult of Yhwh in its midst while the community ceaseslabor and expresses humility, some have suggested that it could be viewed asenacting a communal rite of passage that “reflects characteristics of annualnew year festivals.”15 However, since it is on the tenth day of the seventhmonth rather than the first day of the first month (cf. Exod 12:2), it is not NewYear as such. Once postbiblical tradition came to regard Tishri 1 as NewYear’s Day, it was a short step to associate this day with judgment, in accor-dance with enduring ancient Near Eastern traditions that placed judgmentin the context of New Year celebrations.16

Second, the biblical text does not divide people into wholly righteous andintermediate categories. All Israelites who are not already condemned cometo the Day of Atonement together in one category: those who have been basi-cally loyal to Yhwh throughout the year.

Although the rabbinic notion of corporate judgment on Tishri 1 is not inthe Pentateuch, it does agree with the biblical evidence in the sense that somepeople are condemned before the Day of Atonement. The idea that fates aresealed on the Day of Atonement (b. Ros Has. 16a) also reflects biblical data:fates of Israelites who have shown themselves to be disloyal before the Day ofAtonement are sealed on this day in the sense that they are excluded from re-ceiving the benefit of final rpk. On the other hand, fates of loyal Israelites aresealed on the Day of Atonement in the sense that their freedom from con-demnation and reconciliation with Yhwh are confirmed through the ritualsthat purge the sanctuary.

15. F. H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the PriestlyTheology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 61–62, 90–95; cf. A. van Gen-nep, The Rites of Passage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) 178–80.

16. See ch. 17 below; M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the PriestlySource against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background,” Proceedings of the EighthWorld Congress of Jewish Studies; Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies/Perry Foundation for Biblical Research,1983) 116–17; cf., e.g., H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1948) 331; M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East(Bethesda, Maryland: CDL, 1993) 447–48.

accompanying grain and drink offerings; Num 29:7–11), and 9 of special rituals pre-scribed in Lev 16 (2 purification offerings, Azazel’s goat, and 2 burnt offerings withtheir accompanying grain and drink offerings). See R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Struc-ture (Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004)308–9.

Chapter 14310

The Israelites are to demonstrate their continuing loyalty to Yhwh on the Day of Atonement

We have found that for Yhwh the bottom line is loyalty. All Israelites areprone to imperfection, but only those who maintain loyalty to the deity, boththroughout the year and on the Day of Atonement, maintain their beneficialrelationship with him.

Israelites participate in noncalendric sacrifices on their behalf throughoutthe year. But the corporate Day of Atonement ceremonies are performed bythe high priest alone, except that assistants lead Azazel’s goat into the wilder-ness and dispose of the purification-offering carcasses. The rest of the peopleplay no ritual role. Nevertheless, Yhwh requires them to be involved at a dis-tance by showing loyalty to him through observance of two commands regu-lating their activity: they are to practice self-denial and cease from work (Lev16:29, 31; 23:26–32; Num 29:7).17 These instructions contribute to theuniqueness of the day: Yhwh requires self-denial only on the Day of Atone-ment, and apart from the weekly Sabbath, this is the only day on which allwork of any kind is prohibited.

Any residual doubt that the people’s observance is linked to rpk performedby the high priest on their behalf is dispelled by the structure of Lev 16:29–31. The commands for self-denial and keeping Sabbath that are stated in v. 29are reiterated in reverse order in v. 31, with µk<l: ayhI ˆ/tB:væ tB"væ, “It is a super-Sabbath for you” (v. 31),18 serving as the functional equivalent of hk:al:m}Alk:

Wc[“t" alø, “you shall not do any work” (v. 29). Reversal here produces a chiasmbetween vv. 29 and 31.19 These chiastically linked verses frame and thereforehighlight v. 30, which supplies the motive for the stipulations: “For on thisday shall purgation be effected on your behalf to purify you of all your sins;

17. B. Levine comments: “the ceremonial identification of the people with the ac-tual purification of the sanctuary effected a purification of the populace. By fastingand other forms of abstinence, and by declaring this day a twenty-four-hour period ofcomplete rest, the people were involved in the purification of the sanctuary in a mean-ingful way” (“Leviticus, Book of,” ABD 4:315; cf. G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Tes-tament: Its Theory and Practice [Oxford: Clarendon, 1925] 319; J. L. Mays, The Bookof Leviticus, The Book of Numbers [LBC 4; Atlanta: John Knox, 1963] 52; P. Jenson,Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World [JSOTSup 106; Shef-field: JSOT Press, 1992] 201).

18. B. Levine explains that ˆ/tB:væ tB"væ conveys the force of a superlative (Leviticus[JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989] 109).

19. I. Knohl, “The Priestly Torah versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and theFestivals,” HUCA 58 (1987) 86, esp. n. 61; D. Wright, cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1057; D. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:73; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2020.


you shall become pure before Yhwh.”20 Because of what the high priest doeson behalf of the people by purging the sanctuary, thereby morally purifyingthem, they are to practice self-denial and observe Sabbath.

An integral connection between the purgation of the sanctuary and themoral cleansing of people who demonstrate their loyalty on the Day ofAtonement goes against the grain of Milgrom’s argument that the commandsto practice self-denial and abstain from work in Lev 16:29–31 and 23:26–32arise from

H’s premise that sins pollute not only the sanctuary (P’s thesis), but also thesinners themselves, and simultaneously with the purgation of the sanctuary,they must purge themselves. P’s theology of sin, it will be recalled (vol.1.254–61), postulates that the sinner is unpolluted by his sin, but he pol-lutes the sanctuary. H disagrees with P and shifts the emphasis on the Dayof Purgation from Israel’s sanctuary to Israel itself: the quintessence of thisday is self-purgation.21

Chapter 6 above has undermined this thesis by showing that the so-called Pmaterial also has the sinner polluted by his sin, which must be purged (rpk)from (privative ˆm) him by means of a noncalendric expiatory sacrifice.

Leviticus 23:26–32 repeats and stresses the commands to practice self-de-nial and abstain from work on the tenth day of the seventh month. This pas-sage adds several elements.22 First, it provides a name for the day: µyriPUKIh" µ/y,“the Day of Purgation” (v. 27; cf. v. 28). Second, it attaches penalties for non-compliance: extirpation and destruction (vv. 29–30). Third, the duration ofthe observance is specified: from evening on the ninth day of the month untilthe next evening (v. 32).

H. Brongers argues that, because the Day of Atonement provides rpk forall faults of Israel in its entirety, the prohibition of labor and practice of self-denial “are matters of the community, not of individuals.”23 However, whileit is true that the sanctuary rituals are performed for Israel as a community,

20. Translation by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1294; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16,1011.

v. 29v. 30v. 31

deny yourselves do no workMOTIVE: PURGATION

keep Sabbath deny yourselves

21. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2021.22. Cf. ibid.23. H. Brongers, “Fasting in Israel in Biblical and Post-Biblical Times,” OtSt 20

(1977) 16.

Chapter 14312

Lev 23:26–32 makes it crystal clear that any person (vp<N,h"Alk:; vv. 29, 30) whofails to participate according to Yhwh’s directions will be punished by Yhwh

(Ata< awhIh" vp<N,h", v. 30). It is not that the community as a whole will be pun-ished. Rather, one who treats the Day of Atonement like all other days is ex-tirpated or destroyed “from (the midst of) his/her people” (vv. 29, 30). As faras Yhwh is concerned, such an individual “is no longer a member of thecommunity of Israel.”24

Self-denialLeviticus and Numbers do not explain the nature or meaning of the ob-

servance denoted by the command µk<ytEvøp}n'Ata< WN["T} or µk<ytEvøp}n'Ata<< µt<yNi[Iw],literally, “you shall afflict yourselves” (Lev 16:29, 31; 23:27, 32; Num 29:7; cf.Lev 23:29). The nature and function of the activity (or lack of activity) arealso assumed in Num 30:14[13], where a woman’s vow “to practice self-denial” (vp<n; tNo["l}) is subject to the approval of her husband. The fact thathusband-wife relations are involved here suggests the possibility that self-denial could include sexual abstinence.25

For more information regarding self-denial, we must look outside the Pen-tateuch. The piºel of hn[ also appears with vpn in Ps 35:13, where the psalm-ist’s voluntary self-denial to express distress/mourning at the sickness of afriend is carried out by means of fasting while wearing sackcloth and is asso-ciated with prayer. In Isa 58:3 and 5 fasting (µwx) and practicing self-denial(vpn hN;[I) before Yhwh, probably on the Day of Atonement when he requiredthis, are functional equivalents. In v. 5 this behavior is associated with bowingthe head and lying in sackcloth and ashes.

Ezra 8:21 and Dan 10:12 use the hitpaºel of hn[, rather than the piºel ofthis root with vpn, for the reflexive idea of denying oneself. For Ezra and hisgroup of returning exiles, the purpose of voluntary self-denial through fasting(µwx) is to beseech God for a safe journey. Daniel’s self-denial also accompa-nies a petition, in his case to understand a vision. Verses 2–3 describe his be-havior as mourning and specify that he abstained from luxurious food anddrink and from anointing himself, the equivalent of using skin moisturizinglotion.

We have found that when self-denial is voluntary, it is an outward expres-sion accompanying supplication to God at a time of grief, fear, or inner dis-

24. S. Agnon, Days of Awe (New York: Schocken, 1948) 189, citing Siddur ha-Minhagim.

25. Cf. Exod 19:15, where Yhwh commanded the Israelites to abstain from sexualrelations in preparation for his theophany on Mt. Sinai.


tress (Ps 35:13; Ezra 8:21; Dan 10:12).26 Temporary suspension of eating andother normal activities acknowledges human dependence on the power ofthe deity (cf. Dan 5:23), whose aid is humbly requested. Giving up everydayactivities also allows a person to concentrate on God without interrupting thepetitionary mode.27

Returning to the Day of Atonement, the physical observance of self-denialinvolves corporate fasting and other forms of abstinence that are associatedwith mourning, in this case with regard to sins.28 Whereas Daniel’s fast lastedthree weeks and was limited to abstaining from luxurious food and drink(Dan 10:2–3), the one-day observance on the Day of Atonement most likelyentails a total fast. Associated departures from normal activity on the Day ofAtonement could include wearing sackcloth, bowing the head, abstainingfrom oil to anoint oneself, and sexual abstinence. Rather than specifying suchbehaviors, as m. Yoma 8:1 does, the biblical text requires self-denial in generalterms that appear to allow leeway for individual discretion. It could be sug-gested that vpn hN;[I is a technical expression for a cluster of behaviors, but va-riety of usage indicates fluidity of practice beyond fasting. It seems that thefact of self-denial is more important than uniformity among the Israelites inevery detail of observance.

The intended function of mandatory self-denial on the Day of Atonementappears to be basically the same as that of voluntary self-denial at other times:to express humble dependence upon God at a time of special need and to al-low for uninterrupted concentration on him. In this case the need arises from

26. Cf. R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC;Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980) 175.

27. Philo, Special Laws 2.196; R. Péter-Contesse and J. Ellington, A Handbook onLeviticus (UBSHS; New York: United Bible Societies, 1990) 258.

28. B. Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1903) 386. For corporate fasting (µwx) at times of special need, includingtimes when repentance is necessary, see Judg 20:26; 1 Sam 7:6; Joel 1:14; 2:12, 15;Jonah 3:5; Esth 4:16; Neh 9:1; 2 Chr 20:3. On fasting as an expression of mourning(e.g., 1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam 1:12) under various circumstances in Israel and the an-cient Near East, see T. Podella, Íôm-Fasten: Kollektive Trauer um den verborgenenGott im Alten Testament (AOAT 224; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989); cf. Brongers, “Fasting,” 3–7. K. Aartun adducesrabbinic and biblical evidence and Ugaritic and Hittite parallels to show a connec-tion between the Day of Atonement and situations of distress and/or death (“Studienzum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualge-schichtlicher Beitrag,” ST 34 [1980] 88–93). Jewish tradition interprets vpn hN;[I asfasting (see, e.g., Ibn Ezra on Lev 16:29), but J. Milgrom points out that vpn hN;[I,“practice self-denial,” has a broader meaning than µwx, “fast” (“Fasting and FastDays,” EncJud 6:1189; cf. Brongers, “Fasting,” 2–3).

Chapter 14314

the fact that the moral faults of the Israelites have polluted Yhwh’s sanctuary.If their sins continue to accumulate there, they will be left disastrously bereftof his protection and support (cf. Ezek 9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:22–23).29 Power-less to do anything about the problem they have caused, the people can onlyrely on Yhwh’s acceptance of the rituals performed in the sanctuary on theirbehalf.30 Uniquely on this day, self-denial is required as a response to an in-stitutional cultic event because the fate of the entire community depends onit.31 Leviticus does not require the Israelites to make verbal petitions to Yhwh

on the Day of Atonement. But the sanctuary rituals constitute their corporatesupplication for rpk.32 By accompanying the activities of the high priest withtheir self-denial, the people act like pious individuals who voluntarily accom-pany their prayers with self-denial on other occasions.33

By expressing distress for causing evils that have defiled Yhwh’s sanctu-ary34 and humble recognition of dependence on him for restoration from im-perfection, sincere (not hypocritical; cf. Isa 58; m. Yoma 8:9) self-denial servesas an outward sign of inner repentance and desire for continuing moral reha-

29. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 260; repr. from “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 397–98.30. Cf. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 [orig. 1874]) 2:405–6.31. B. D. Eerdmans explains the need for humility and fasting before God on

the Day of Atonement as due to the fact that on this last day of the holy period thatopens the year, God deliberates concerning the fate of the people in the comingyear. Up to this day, the decision of God is not finally determined (Das Buch Leviti-cus [ATS 4; Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1912] 78).

32. Compare the fact that Lev 4 does not require verbal petition or even confessionwith a purification offering for inadvertent sin. The ritual actions constitute the peti-tion for rpk.

33. Gorman identifies “the ritual humbling of the people” as one of the two centralacts of the Day of Atonement, the other being the rpk performance of the high priest(The Ideology of Ritual, 63).

34. At first glance a statement in y. Ros Has. 1.3 appears to represent a rabbinic re-peal of the biblical scenario: “Customarily, a man who knows that he is on trial wearsblack, and wraps himself in black, and lets his beard grow, for he doesn’t know howhis trial will turn out. But Israel is not thus, rather they wear white, and wrap them-selves in white, and shave their beards, and eat, drink, and rejoice. They know thatthe Holy One Blessed be He does for them miracles” (translation by Goldman, TheTalmud of the Land of Israel, 44). Here judgment is associated with rejoicing ratherthan mourning. But presumably this would be the rabbinic judgment day of RoshHashanah, which is not a fast day, rather than the Day of Atonement. It is easy to seehow the rabbis would prefer Rosh Hashanah to be the initial time of judgment ratherthan the Day of Atonement, when powerful mourning behavior could overwhelmeven legitimate confidence.



bilitation.35 Thus the Israelites make a profound statement concerning theirchoice of loyalty to Yhwh and his law.

Cessation of workYearly festival days other than the Day of Atonement can be characterized

as ˆ/tB:væ, “cessation/rest” (Lev 23:24, 39) and carry prohibitions to performhd;bO[“ tk<al<m}, “laborious work” (vv. 7, 8, 21, 25, 35, 36).36 But the Day ofAtonement, like the weekly Sabbath and the sabbatical year, is called tB"væ

ˆ/tB:væ, “Sabbath of cessation” or “super-Sabbath,” and requires complete rest(Lev 16:31; 23:32; cf. Exod 31:15; 35:2; Lev 23:3; 25:4). As on the weekly Sab-bath, all hk:al:m}, “work,” of any kind is prohibited (Lev 16:29; 23:28, 30, 31;Num 29:7; cf. Exod 20:10; Lev 23:3; Jer 17:22).37

Since the prohibition of labor on the weekly Sabbath is due to consecra-tion of the entire seventh day (cf. Gen 2:3; Exod 20:11), it is clear that theDay of Atonement is also totally consecrated. Other festival Sabbaths, onwhich light work is allowed, are consecrated to a lesser degree. The specialsanctity of the Day of Atonement corresponds with the fact that the highpriest enters the holy of holies only on this day. Enacting holiness by total restwould also make it possible for the Israelites to focus fully on their relation-ship with Yhwh, as expressed by their self-denial.

To conclude this section, we have found that Israelites who obey Yhwh’scommands to practice self-denial and keep Sabbath on the Day of Atone-ment express loyalty and submission to him, respect for his holiness, and rec-ognition of the crucial importance of cleansing his sanctuary. In this way the

35. Cf. S. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (EB; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900)261; A. Clamer, Lévitique, Nombres, Deutéronome (La Sainte Bible 2; Paris: Letouzeyet Ané, 1946) 131; Noordtzij, Leviticus, 171. M. Yoma 8:8–9 and b. Yoma 86a–b em-phasize repentance in connection with the Day of Atonement. B. Bamberger rightlynotes that the traditional rendering “afflict your souls” is misleading, but his statementthat Lev 16 “is not concerned with inner contrition” (Leviticus [TMC 3; New York:Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981] 867) should be qualified to read: “isnot explicitly concerned with inner contrition.”

36. On hd;bO[“ tk<al<m} as “laborious work,” not including light household chores, seeMilgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1054–55; cf. idem, Studies in Levitical Terminology, I: TheEncroacher and the Levite—The Term ºAboda (Berkeley: University of California Press,1970) 77–81.

37. B. Jürgens sees this Sabbath as a link between Creation and the Day of Atone-ment, on which partial restoration of the Creation order is represented (Heiligkeit undVersöhnung: Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext [Herders Biblische Studien28; Freiburg: Herder, 2001] 423–29).

Chapter 14316

community of the faithful participates in the great Day so that its efficacy ap-plies to them.38

Moral cleansing beyond forgiveness recognizes the need for loyalty to endure

Why does Yhwh require his people to demonstrate loyalty to him throughtwo phases of ritual rpk, in which evils are transferred into his sanctuary andthen out of it? The Israelites’ need for mercy does not provide an adequaterationale for expiatory sacrifices performed at the sanctuary. Yhwh was able toforgive people apart from the sanctuary cult before it began to function (e.g.,Exod 34:6, 7) and while it was in operation (e.g., 2 Sam 12:13; 2 Chr 33:12–13; cf. 30:18–19). Even when ritual rpk was officiated by priests at the sanctu-ary, it did not accomplish forgiveness but was only prerequisite to forgivenessgranted directly by God (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35).

Why should Yhwh deal with sin through sacrifices at the sanctuary whenhe could do it without such procedures? One possible answer is that the cultwas meant to teach moral values. For example, according to S. Kellogg thepurpose of the Day of Atonement rituals once per year was to expiate sin

in the highest and fullest sense then possible. . . . The fact of such an ordi-nance for such a purpose taught a most impressive lesson of the holinessof God and the sinfulness of man, on the one hand, and, on the other, theutter insufficiency of the daily offerings to cleanse from all sin . . . the sol-emn observances of this day, under God, were made for many in Israel amost effective means to deepen the conviction of sin.39

D. Wright has pointed in the same direction by suggesting that the system ofpurities had a didactic purpose: to teach Israelites the difference betweencategories such as holy, profane, pure, and impure, which they would need tounderstand in order to relate to the resident deity in the proper manner. Rem-edies for lesser impurities would teach about potential danger from more se-vere contaminants that could inflict serious harm on society. “As they focuson these lesser impurities, this Pentateuchal tradition really has the largermoral issues and goals of religion as a major concern.”40 Both physical impu-rities and moral faults are defined in relation to Yhwh and must be remedied

38. Cf. P. Heinisch, Das Buch Leviticus (HSAT 1; Bonn: Hanstein, 1935) 76.39. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus, 259–60.40. D. Wright, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” in Priesthood and Cult in An-

cient Israel (ed. G. Anderson and S. Olyan; JSOTSup 125; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1991) 180; cf. 171–79.


by rituals. The natures and trajectories of the two kinds of evils coincide to asufficient degree that each kind helps to explain the other.

If tafj sacrifices, which remedy sins and physical impurities, contributeto teaching the contrast between divine holiness and human imperfection,how do we account for differences between the trajectories of these evils?Most notably, why does an Israelite need a second major stage of rpk for his/her sins in order to arrive at moral purity (rhf; Lev 16:30) when a noncalen-dric tafj sacrifice for severe bodily impurity completes a person’s physicalpurification (rhf) in only one major stage of rpk (e.g., 12:7–8; 14:19–20;15:15, 30)? What does this difference teach?

Unlike ritual impurities, moral faults raise the question of loyalty to Yhwh.Although expiable (i.e., nondefiant) sins do not sever the divine-human rela-tionship, they create moral imbalance and compromise loyalty. Repentance,as expressed by confession if necessary and expiatory sacrifice as required, in-volves humble acknowledgment of accountability to Yhwh and acceptanceof his gracious provision for restoration. So repentance with sacrificial rpk,which is the precondition for forgiveness, affirms loyalty to Yhwh. In addi-tion, self-denial on the Day of Atonement demonstrates that the penitence,and therefore loyalty, of people who have already been forgiven continue.Thus the Israelite system of rpk, with moral cleansing beyond forgiveness(Lev 16:30), simultaneously recognizes the frailty of human nature, with itspenchant for fleeting repentance, provides assurance that the moral equilib-rium is restored, and encourages long-term moral rehabilitation.41

S. Geller identifies another dimension of reconciliation beyond for-giveness:

the logic of the covenantal relationship between God and Israel requiresthat sins be more than merely “forgiven.” It is a known fact that, despite theproverbial expression, it is impossible really to “forget” offenses one hassupposedly “forgiven.” The memory of the crime remains as a shadow onfuture relations. When two people begin to quarrel, each soon resurrectsthe full inventory of “sins” the other has committed in the past. For thecovenant to remain effective, God must wipe out completely this residualeffect of sin . . . and so renew the pristine nature of the bond. For this pro-cess an expression like “purgation of impurity” would then be a priestlymetaphor.42

41. Cf. H. Cohen, “The Day of Atonement: I,” Judaism 17 (1968) 357; idem, “TheDay of Atonement: II,” Judaism 18 (1969) 86–87.

42. S. Geller, “Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of the Priestly Work of thePentateuch,” Prooftexts 12 (1992) 108.

Chapter 14318

While Geller does not clarify differences between forgiveness extended byhuman beings and forgiveness that is granted by God, his insight has somebiblical support. For example, in the “new covenant” passage of Jer 31, Yhwh

promises to “forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more” (v. 34).The point of remembering no more is not that God needs to develop a self-induced state of amnesia so that he will not be tempted to resurrect wrongsthat he has already forgiven. Rather, this is an anthropomorphic expression ofthe concept that God will do something that goes beyond his initial grant offorgiveness: he will make sin irrevocably irrelevant to the future of the rela-tionship, just as a grievance between two human beings loses its potential forrevival if it is forgotten.43

In the context of Leviticus, we have found that restoration of the divine-human relationship with regard to a given expiable sin is a process that in-cludes two major phases, the first leading up to forgiveness (jls) and thesecond leading up to a kind of moral cleansing (rhf). The process cannotbe completed in one stage because an act of sin calls into question the sin-ner’s loyalty to Yhwh, and full restoration and demonstration of loyalty takestime.

Yhwh’s kindness/mercy carries a cost of judicial responsibilityIn pursuing the question of why Yhwh requires his people to demonstrate

loyalty through two phases of ritual rpk, in which evils are transferred into hissanctuary and then out of it, we have accounted for the need to express con-tinuing loyalty. But why is sacrifice necessary to show repentance, why do for-given sins pollute Yhwh’s sanctuary so that it must be purged on the Day ofAtonement, and why does this purgation result in moral cleansing of forgivensinners?

P. Jenson starts us on a productive track by observing with regard to Lev 16:

The comprehensive phraseology suggests that the scope of the ceremonywas intended to include every kind of sin. This could include even thosewhich may already have been dealt with, from the human side by the civillaw, or from the divine side by direct action. What happens outside the

43. For an illustration of the way in which forgiveness can be revoked while the“debt” is remembered, see a parable of Jesus (Matt 18:23–35). B. Schwartz showsthat in Ezekiel, Israel’s postexilic restoration is through a different process: In spite ofthe people’s lack of repentance, Yhwh restores them and resumes permanentresidence with them (“Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book ofEzekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives [ed. M. Odell and J. Strong;SBLSymS 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000] 43–67).


sanctuary affects in some way what goes on inside, since it is the same Godwho dwells in the sanctuary and who is sovereign over all that Israel does.It would be appropriate to have some sort of cultic ritual which acknowl-edges the implications for God of human sin.44

At the Israelite sanctuary, Yhwh is enthroned above the ark of the covenant(Exod 25:22; Num 7:89; cf. 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2, etc.). So the sanctuary is hisearthly administrative center, and his place of enthronement represents hisauthority, character, and reputation for justice, upon which his rule isfounded (cf. Ps 97:2), just as the throne of a human king stands for his admin-istration (e.g., 2 Sam 14:9).45

In the ancient Near East, including Israel during the monarchy, humankings were responsible for establishing and maintaining justice in society (cf.,e.g., 2 Sam 15:2–4).46 Similarly, in the Pentateuch “the self-characterizationof Yhwh takes the guise of the just king, who must not only promulgate andinterpret law, but enforce it as well.”47

44. Jenson, Graded Holiness, 208.45. Compare the way official dwellings, such as the White House and Buckingham

Palace, represent the reputations of their chief occupants. See the “name” theology ofDeuteronomy, according to which Yhwh’s “name” is to reside at the location hechooses for his sanctuary (12:5, 11, 21; 14:23–24; 16:2, 6, 11). For the idea that Yhwh’sname involves his reputation, see, for example, Ezek 20:9. In Ezekiel, Yhwh’s depar-ture from his temple and subsequent permanent return to a restored temple is moti-vated by his concern for his own reputation (Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View,” 43–67).By saving his people at this time, “Yahweh vindicates the holiness of his profanedname” (G. André, “amEf: †ameª,” TDOT 5:338). Notice that in Leviticus, while God andhis name are never directly defiled (amf; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1735–36), hissanctuary can be defiled (amf; Lev 15:31; 20:3; Num 19:13, 20). The fact that Yhwh’sadministration was at the sanctuary indicates to M. Kline that covenant and cult coa-lesced: “in Israel the cultus absorbed various vital features of covenantal administrationwhich elsewhere were not cultic but matters of state. . . . Yahweh is Israel’s covenantsuzerain; Israel’s covenant lord is the Lord God . . . the palace of the great king is oneand the same as the sanctuary of the vassal’s God. . . . The sacrificial system of the cultwas a means of making amends for offenses against the treaty stipulations and, in gen-eral, it was through Israel’s participation in the cult that they most immediately expe-rienced the covenant as a personal relationship with the Lord God” (The Structure ofBiblical Authority [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972] 49–50).

46. M. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East(Jerusalem: Magnes / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 45–56; for examples of Mesopo-tamian terminology referring to royal justice and mercy, see I. Engnell, Studies inDivine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1967) 194–95.

47. J. Watts, Reading Law: The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch (BSem 59;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 107; cf. 89–106, 108–9, 129; cf. K. van derToorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985) 21.

Chapter 14320

As the divine king, lawgiver, and judge of his people, Yhwh possesses fullauthority to punish or pardon those who violate his law.48 But as an ideal rulerwho desires a reputation for justice and the social stability that goes with it,Yhwh cannot abandon his justice when he condemns or when he forgives.49

He must maintain balance and harmony between justice (e.g., qd,x<) andkindness/mercy (e.g., ds<j< and words from the roots µjr and ˆnj), the twosides of his character (Exod 20:5–6; 34:6, 7; Ps 85:11[10]; 89:14[15]).50

Attempting to uphold kindness without justice would have the unkind results

48. Cf. b. Ber. 12b, which emphasizes the kingship of God in connection withjudgment. On Ugaritic and Hebrew descriptions of deities as kings and judges, seeM. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL8; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990) 281–89. A Namburbi text from Mesopotamia con-tains the following incantation addressing the god Samas:

9. Samas, king of heaven and [earth,]10. judge of the upper and lower regions,11. [lord] of the dead, director [of the living,]12. who saves lives, who . . . ,13. who averts [evil] portents. . . .

(K. 8932 [Tablet LIX], lines 9–13; translation by R. Caplice,“Namburbi Texts in the British Museum. III,” Or 36 [1967] 278–79)

Another Namburbi incantation is particularly interesting for us in that it emphasizesthe role of the deity as judge in the context of a purification ritual (here for freeing aman from a portent of impending evil):

10. Samas, you are judge: judge my case! You are decider: decide for me!11. May the evil of this bird [not] come near, may it not come close, may it

not affect me!12. . . . all evil, the evil mouth, the evil tongue.13. . . . may the evil be released from my body!rev. 4u. . . . [its evil] will not approach [the man or] his house.

(BBR no. 58, lines 10–11; 80–7–19, 91 [Tablet LIX], lines 10–rev. 4u;translation in ibid., 280–81)

49. Watts has pointed out Yhwh’s use of and adherence to internationally recog-nized ideals of justice (Reading Law, 96–98). On the international attraction of Yhwh’sreputation as an equitable judge in Isa 2:1–4, see B. Schwartz, “Torah from Zion: Isa-iah’s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4),” in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition andModernity (ed. A. Houtman, M. Poorthuis, and J. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 21–22.

50. On the unity of love and justice in the character of God, see H. Cohen, “TheDay of Atonement: II,” 84. Words for mercy do not appear in pentateuchal ritual law.Yhwh grants forgiveness when his own preconditions are met through performance ofexpiatory activities that he has legislated. Narrowly speaking, Yhwh shows fidelity inthis context rather than mercy, which would not be legislated. However, in a broadersense Yhwh’s legislation shows mercy in relation to the lofty standard of his holiness.In spite of the gap between his holiness and faulty Israel, he condescends to dwell withhis people in the sanctuary (Lev 16:16b) and to provide remedies for their faults so thatthis intimate relationship can continue. The fact that forgiveness is not automatic(nipºal of jls in Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35) and the ritual remedies are so minor whencompared with the consequences of not performing them (Num 19:11–20; cf. Lev 5:1,



of chaos and unchecked evil.51 Canceling culpability for wrongs without atleast a token reminder of the just retribution that the sinner would otherwiseface could beget wantonness rather than reformation.52

The system of expiatory sacrifices addresses the need for Yhwh to balancejustice and kindness. When a sinner sacrifices a domestic animal that costshim something (Lev 4–5; cf. 2 Sam 24:24; Mal 1:6–14),53 Yhwh’s justice andbenevolence are administered simultaneously. However, this justice is onlyrepresented by a token.54 Even if a price could be attached to restoration ofthe divine-human relationship that is damaged by violation of Yhwh’s law,an animal sacrifice could not pay it because it does not transfer to Yhwh any-thing that he does not already own or that he needs (Ps 50:9–13).55 So whenhe grants forgiveness following sacrifice, he does so as an act of grace in re-sponse to a ritual expression that is incapable of purchasing his clemency(cf. Ps 49:8–9[7–8]). In other words, when Yhwh accepts sacrifices as tokens,it is he who bears the real cost of sin.

It almost goes without saying that a judge should be fair, vindicating theinnocent and condemning the guilty (cf., e.g., Exod 23:6–8; Deut 1:16–17).This applies to Yhwh as judge, as confirmed by Solomon’s prayer when thetemple was dedicated:

51. J. Wenham, The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?(Grand Rapids: Academie, 1985) 63–64, 68–69. Cf. Mesopotamian advice to a king:“If a king does not heed justice, his people will be thrown into chaos, and his landwill be devastated. If he does not heed the justice of his land, Ea, king of destinies, willalter his destiny and will not cease from hostilely pursuing him” (translation by W. G.Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature [Oxford: Clarendon, 1960; repr., WinonaLake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996] 113, lines 1–3; for the Akkadian, see p. 112).

52. Cf. Wenham, The Enigma of Evil, 64–66.53. That the cost of sacrifice is a significant factor is shown in Lev 4 by gradation

in the value of purification-offering animals, proportional to the cultic status of the sin-ners: the high priest or entire community must offer a bull, the most expensive animal,but a chieftain is only required to bring a male goat, and a commoner sacrifices a fe-male goat or sheep. Compare 5:7–13, where a sinner who cannot afford a sheep orgoat as a “graduated tafj” is permitted to offer birds or even a grain offering instead.

54. E. Leach recognizes with regard to animal sacrifices in general: “The materialbody of the sacrificial victim may well be a serious economic cost to the giver of thesacrifice, but, at the metaphysical level, economics is not the issue. What matters isthe act of sacrifice as such, which is indeed a symbol of gift giving, but gift giving asan expression of reciprocal relationship rather than material exchange” (“The Logic ofSacrifice,” Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament [ed. B. Lang; Philadel-phia: Fortress, 1985] 139). Note that we would refer to purification offerings as obliga-tory payments rather than gifts in the narrow sense of voluntary transfers.

55. W. C. Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” NIB 1:1015.

5–6) indicates that they do not fulfill the full demands of justice. Rather, they are to-kens that Yhwh accepts, but he “takes up the slack”—that is to say, he is merciful.

Chapter 14322

hear in heaven and take action to judge Your servants, condemning himwho is in the wrong and bringing down the punishment of his conduct onhis head, vindicating him who is in the right by rewarding him accordingto his righteousness. (1 Kgs 8:32; njpsv; cf. 2 Chr 6:23)

A judge who forgives a guilty person is responsible for such a ruling.56 ButYhwh does precisely that: he forgives guilty people and therefore incurs ju-dicial responsibility, which constitutes a cost of kindness that he chooses tobear.57 This helps to explain why he bears (acn) sins when he forgives (Exod34:7), as represented in the ritual system by the fact that his sanctuary andpriesthood, representing his administration, carry tafj, expiable sin (Lev16:16), and ˆw[, culpability (10:17).

On the Day of Atonement, Yhwh has all effects of human imperfections—physical impurities, defiant sins, and forgiven sins—removed from himself, asenacted by the transfer of evils from his sanctuary and priesthood (16:16, 21).Since pollution of the sanctuary by forgiven sins (twafj) represents Yhwh’sresponsibility for having forgiven guilty persons, removal of this defilementpresumably signifies vindication of his justice with regard to the favorable de-cisions that he has granted them. This clearing of judicial responsibility si-multaneously clears/cleanses (rhf) the forgiven sinners (v. 30) because it isthe rightfulness of their verdicts that has been in question. Vindication of thejudge confirms a prior verdict for the person whom he has freed from con-demnation, provided that the person maintains proper moral standing byshowing respect for authority and by manifesting desire to cause no furthertrouble.58 Thus, while Yhwh has himself cleared of all responsibility, as en-acted by the solemn rituals at his sanctuary, only those who remain loyal tohim, as demonstrated by their self-denial and abstention from work (vv. 29,31), receive vindication.

Obviously Yhwh would not be just if he allowed his clearing to benefitpreviously forgiven sinners who have turned disloyal, as shown by their dis-regard of his commands to practice self-denial and refrain from work. Sohe maintains his justice with regard to them by condemning them to extir-pation/destruction (Lev 23:29–30).

Thus far we have found that the two-phased process of rpk for expiablesins acknowledges and addresses Yhwh’s judicial responsibility for releasingguilty but repentant people from condemnation. On the Day of Atonement,

56. See my discussion of 2 Sam 14 (esp. v. 9) in ch. 16 below.57. Cf. W. Carson, “What It Costs God to Forgive Sin,” Int 4 (1950) 168–75.58. This would be analogous to a superior court judge vindicating the ruling of a

lower court, thereby vindicating the defendant along with the lower judge.


Yhwh’s justice is vindicated, whether those who remain loyal are cleared orthose who now eschew humility and obedience to him are condemned.

Israelites who sin defiantly (Num 15:30–31; cf. Lev 20:3), wantonly ne-glect Yhwh’s remedies for imperfection (Num 19:13, 20), or fail to show loy-alty on the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29–30) have chosen to forfeit Yhwh’skindness. Without anyone to bear their responsibility for them, they mustbear it themselves, all the way to the bitter end of retributive justice.

The fact that certain inexpiable cultic violations defile Yhwh’s sanctuary(Lev 20:3; Num 19:13, 20) so that this [vp pollution must be removed on theDay of Atonement (Lev 16:16) indicates that they temporarily affect Yhwh.But this is not because he forgives them. Rather, such sins defame him be-cause they are committed by people who have been his, at least in the nomi-nal sense that they are within the scope of the very cult that has benefitedthem by maintaining his presence among them. Just as a human leader (e.g.,President Ronald Reagan) is known by the deeds of those under his adminis-tration (e.g., Colonel Oliver North), so Yhwh’s reputation is affected by thebehavior of his people. On the Day of Atonement, removal of µy[vp from thesanctuary indicates that the name of Yhwh is cleared from any residual asso-ciation with inexpiable deeds that have gravely misrepresented him, the per-petrators of which have already been justly condemned. Thus Yhwh’srepudiation of evil is reaffirmed at the same time as his forgiveness of repen-tant, nondefiant sinners is vindicated. Yhwh is just and kind, as he claims tobe. God is great. God is good.

ConclusionAt the Israelite sanctuary, cultic rpk maintains equilibrium between jus-

tice and kindness as Yhwh extends forgiveness and restoration to the faultypeople among whom he condescends to dwell. Sacrifices throughout the yearand the special rituals of the Day of Atonement, accompanied by self-denialand cessation from work, enact a two-phased process of reconciliation be-tween the Israelites and their divine King, in which his holy and balancedcharacter is revealed. On the Day of Atonement, Israel’s judgment day, fatesare sealed as Yhwh sheds judicial responsibility that he has incurred by for-giving guilty people, who share his vindication if they remain loyal, and clearshis name of association with those who have been disloyal, whether before orduring the great Day.

324

Chapter 15

Divine Presence and Theodicy

The ancient Israelite cult has not generally been regarded as a rich sourceof theodicy, which has been defined as “the attempt to reconcile belief inGod with the world’s suffering.”1 For example, a fine collection of essays en-titled Theodicy in the Old Testament, edited by J. Crenshaw, covers the con-fessions of Jeremiah, the book of Job, Ps 73, Sirach, and Qoheleth. However,the genre of ritual texts is not represented.2 In his profound piece on Ps 73,M. Buber does regard v. 17—“Until I came into the sanctuaries of God”—asthe turning point of the psalmist’s struggle to understand how a just Godcould allow the wicked to prosper. But he interprets the verse abstractly, awayfrom the idea that the sacred precincts of the temple (pl. of vdqm; cf. Jer51:51) are loci of theodicy: “This does not mean the Temple precincts in Je-rusalem, but the sphere of God’s holiness, the holy mysteries of God. Only tohim who draws near to those is the true meaning of the conflict revealed.”3

The Israelite cult involves theodicy on the corporate levelUnlike Buber, Crenshaw, as well as J. H. Eaton, H.-J. Kraus, and W. Brueg-

gemann place the psalmist’s pivotal theodicy experience (v. 17) in the literal

1. B. L. Whitney, Theodicy: An Annotated Bibliography on the Problem of Evil,1960–1990 (New York: Garland, 1993) vi. G. Mattingly explains: “Theodicy refers tothe attempt ‘to justify the ways of God to man.’ If a theodicy is successful, it solves theproblem of evil for a particular theological system, showing that the existence of suf-fering is not inconsistent with belief that a morally good God created and rules theworld. In other words, a theodicy seeks to eliminate contradictions from within atheological system and explain why things happen as they do” (“The Pious Sufferer:Mesopotamia’s Traditional Theodicy and Job’s Counselors,” in The Bible in the Lightof Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III [ed. W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones, andG. Mattingly; ANETS 8; Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen, 1990] 312).

2. J. Crenshaw, ed., Theodicy in the Old Testament (IRT 4; Philadelphia: Fortress /London: SPCK, 1983); neither is there a section on ritual texts in A. Laato and J. C.de Moor, eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

3. M. Buber, “The Heart Determines: Psalm 73,” in Theodicy in the Old Testa-ment, 113. See p. 114: “ ‘he comes to the sanctuaries of God.’ Here he receives therevelation of the ‘continually.’ He who draws near with a pure heart to the divine mys-tery learns that he is continually with God.”

Divine Presence and Theodicy 325

sanctuary/temple precincts and find this cultic setting to have significance forhim as the place of Yhwh’s presence.4 Other scholars have implicitly or ex-plicitly connected the Israelite cult with theodicy in various ways. Some havefound the cult linked to Creation and re-creation,5 which are major factors fordiscussion of God’s character in relation to the problem of evil and suffering.6

W. F. Albright regarded the widespread ancient “scapegoat” class of rituals, in-cluding the Israelite ritual of Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:20–22), in which an object,animal, or person was charged with the sin or suffering of a group and thensacrificed or driven off to carry the evil away, as enacting a kind of theodicy.7

A. Rodríguez goes further:

During the Day of Atonement impurity is removed from the presence ofGod, from His sanctuary. It then becomes clear that holiness and impu-rity have nothing in common; that impurity is something foreign to Yah-weh’s nature; and that the Lord Himself is now returning it to Azazel, itsultimate source. What we have here is a cultic theodicy—a ritual justify-ing of God. In spite of the fact that Yahweh forgives the sin of His people,

4. J. Crenshaw, “Theodicy,” ABD 6:445; cf. idem, A Whirlpool of Torment (OBT 12;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 105; J. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (2nd ed.; Shef-field: JSOT Press, 1986) 78; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary (trans. H. C.Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 89, 92; W. Brueggemann, The Message of thePsalms: A Theological Commentary (AOTS; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 121; idem,The Psalms and the Life of Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 64. Brueggemann em-phasizes the importance of this theodicy when he suggests that, “in the canonicalstructuring of the Psalter, Psalm 73 stands at its center in a crucial role. Even if thepsalm is not literarily in the center, I propose that it is central theologically as well ascanonically” (The Psalms and the Life of Faith, 204; cf. 205–9).

5. U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem:Magnes, 1967) 404, 476–77, 483; P. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redactionof Ex 25–40,” ZAW 89 (1977) 375–86; M. Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the En-thronement of the Lord: The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” inMélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. A. Caquotand M. Delcor; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-lag, 1981) 501–12; R. Gane, “ ‘Bread of the Presence’ and Creator-in-Residence,” VT42 (1992) 179–203. S. Geller draws a parallel between the renewal/purification of thecult on the Day of Atonement and return to the pristine state of Creation that Godaccomplished through the Flood (“Blood Cult: Toward a Literary Theology of thePriestly Work of the Pentateuch,” Prooftexts 12 [1992] 113–15, 119, 121–22).

6. J. Crenshaw links Creation and judgment by pointing out that a final judgmentof all mankind “can only come from the Creator of all” (“Popular Questioning of theJustice of God in Ancient Israel,” ZAW 82 [1970] 391; cf. 390).

7. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1940) 252.

Chapter 15326

He remains Holy and can, therefore, challenge Israel to be holy also(Lev 19:2).8

In a seminal study published in Hebrew in 1970, in English in 1976, andincorporated into his monumental 1991 commentary on Leviticus 1–16,J. Milgrom has argued that theodicy plays a central role in Israelite priestlytheology.9 Sins of the Israelites leave marks on the sanctuary that are purgedfrom it by tafj sacrifices throughout the year (e.g., Lev 4) and on the Dayof Atonement (Lev 16). If the sanctuary is not purged in a timely manner,God will abandon it to destruction because he will not dwell in an exces-sively polluted sanctuary. To use the analogy of a nuclear reactor, we can saythat a “critical mass” of evil would result in “meltdown.”

Milgrom concludes:

If this reconstruction of the priestly theology of the ˙a††aªt is correct, thenwe have succeeded in uncovering one of the ethical supports upon whichthe sacrificial system was reared. It constitutes the priestly theodicy. . . . Itis found not in utterances but in rituals, not in legal statutes but in culticprocedures—specifically, in the rite with the ˙a††aªt blood. I would calltheir response the Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray. On the analogy of OscarWilde’s novel, the Priestly writers would claim that sin may not leave itsmark on the face of the sinner, but it is certain to mark the face of thesanctuary; and unless it is quickly expunged, God’s presence will depart.In truth, this teaching is not a startling innovation; it is only an extensionof the doctrine of collective responsibility, a doctrine that, all concur, isbasic to the Priestly theology. It is only natural that they would regard thesanctuary of which they were the stewards as the spiritual barometer tomeasure and explain God’s behavior to his people. They knew full wellthat the prophet was justified in protesting “why does the way of thewicked prosper?” (Jer 12:1), and they provided their answer: the sinnermay be unscarred by his evil, but the sanctuary bears the scars and, withits destruction, he too will meet his doom.10

8. A. Rodríguez, “Transfer of Sin in Leviticus,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus,and the Nature of Prophecy (ed. F. Holbrook; DARCOM 3; Washington, D.C.: BiblicalResearch Institute, 1986) 196.

9. J. Milgrom, “tafjh ˆbrq dyqpt” (“The Function of the Óa††aªt Sacrifice”),Tarbiz 40 (1970) 1–8; idem, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray,’ ”RB 83 (1976) 390–99; repr. in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden:Brill, 1983) 75–84; idem, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 254–61;cf. idem, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance(SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 127–28.

10. Idem, Leviticus 1–16, 260; repr. from “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 397–98.


Leviticus 16:16b supports Milgrom’s idea that, according to the biblical textthe God of Israel would not dwell in a sanctuary excessively polluted by thesins of his people. On the Day of Atonement, having purged the inner sanc-tum from the physical ritual impurities and moral faults of the Israelites, thehigh priest is to do likewise for the outer sanctum, “which abides with themin the midst of their pollution” (v. 16b).11 The quintessentially holy, puredeity abides among an imperfect people. To maintain his presence here, herequires the purification of his sanctuary because the people’s moral andphysical imperfection, which affect his dwelling place, are incompatible withhis nature.12

There are two basic factors behind the Israelite rituals of expiation and pu-rification: (1) inherent antagonism between divine holiness and human im-perfection,13 and (2) God’s desire for a positive relationship with his people.14

If holiness and imperfection were compatible or if God wanted nothing to dowith faulty human beings, rituals to remedy imperfection would be irrelevant.But establishing and maintaining a positive relationship between the holydeity and imperfect people requires controlling boundaries between them(cf. Exod 19:10–15) and remedying human imperfection (cf. Job 42:7–9).15

11. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)1293; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1010.

12. Cf. J. L. Mays, The Book of Leviticus, The Book of Numbers (LBC 4; Atlanta:John Knox, 1963) 52. On the opposition between holiness and impurity, see Milgrom,Leviticus 1–16, 731–32; cf. J. Barr, “Semantics and Biblical Theology: A Contributionto the Discussion,” in Congress Volume: Uppsala, 1971 (VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill,1972) 15–16.

13. J. Milgrom, “Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity,” Semeia 45(1989) 106; cf. W. C. Kaiser, “The Book of Leviticus,” NIB 1:997.

14. In the book of Exodus this relationship is expressed in terms of a covenant es-tablished at Sinai (see esp. chs. 19–31). R. Harrison places the instructions of Leviticuswithin the covenant framework: “these provisions furnish a great deal of informationabout God’s character, and His will for those who are in a covenant relationship withHim” (Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity,1980] 30; cf. 26–27, 29, 31 on Leviticus in general and 176 with regard to the Dayof Atonement. Cf. R. Koch, “Vers une morale de l’Alliance?” SM 6 (1968) 26, 32–36;J. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 8–10;A. Noordtzij, Leviticus (trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 12,166. P. Rigby views Israelite sacrifices as “mechanisms of maintaining and restoring agratuitous covenant relationship with God” (“A Structural Analysis of Israelite Sacri-fice and Its Other Institutions,” EgT 11 [1980] 301; cf. 350).

15. Earthly residence of the deity calls for a special system of safeguards because itbrings the adversarial holy and imperfect domains into a high degree of intimacy. Infact, the two spheres overlap: God’s domain extends from the sanctuary to the Israelitecommunity, which he claims as his special possession within the larger context ofthe entire world, which he also claims (Exod 19:4–6; Lev 20:26). The human sphere

Chapter 15328

The concept that the sanctuary/temple is the dynamic locus of theodicyexplains how the psalmist could comprehend the end of the wicked when heentered the sacred precincts (Ps 73:17). It also accounts for the departure ofthe divine presence from the temple (Ezek 9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:22–23) shortlybefore its destruction and Judah’s collapse. Yhwh’s abandonment of his owntemple was not arbitrary; it was perceived to result from the sins of hispeople.16 On this catastrophe T. Frymer-Kensky observes: “Pollution was thusthought to be one of the determinants of Israel’s history, and the concepts ofpollution and purgation provided a paradigm by which Israel could under-stand and survive the destruction of the Temple.”17

If Milgrom and Frymer-Kensky are right, the Israelite ritual system hasto do not only with the divine attributes and the problem of sin, which areperipheral subthemes of theodicy,18 but also with the core issue of finding

16. M. Greenberg notes that, while Ezek 8:6 may refer to removal or alienationfrom the temple of people committing abominations, some medieval and modern ex-egetes make Yhwh the subject: “so that I must alienate myself from my sanctuary”(Ezekiel 1–20 [AB 22; New York: Doubleday, 1983] 169; cf. 164, 194). Greenbergpoints out that in the ancient Near East it was commonly believed that a temple wasdestroyed because its deity had abandoned it, “whether reluctantly under coercion ofa higher decree (‘Lamentation over the destruction of Ur,’ ANET3, pp. 455ff., ‘. . . overthe destruction of Ur and Sumer,’ p. 617d), or in anger because of the offenses of theworshipers (the Cyrus inscription, ANET3, p. 315c). . . . When, on the other hand, thegods were reconciled and their temples rebuilt, they returned and took up their abodeamong their worshipers again” (pp. 200–201). On accounts of divine abandonment inthe ancient Near East, including that of Ezekiel, see D. I. Block, The Gods of theNations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology (ETSS; 2nd ed.; GrandRapids: Baker, 2000) 114–47. On Yhwh’s judgment and departure in Ezekiel, cf.W. H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (DARCOM 1; Silver Spring,Maryland: Biblical Research Institute, 1992) 18–21. Notice that, in spite of Ezekiel’sconnection with the priesthood, he does not say that Yhwh abandoned his templebecause it had not been properly cleansed by purification offerings from defilement re-sulting from the peoples’ sins. Rather, he sees this departure as resulting from pollutionby pagan cultic practices perpetrated at the temple (Ezek 8; cf. 2 Chr 36:14). Withoutrestoration that included removal of idolatry, ritual purgation of the temple (cf. Ezek45:18–20) would be pointless.

17. T. Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” inThe Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake,Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 399; cf. 403–4, 408–9; cf. R. C. Cover, “Sin, Sinners: OldTestament,” ABD 6:39–40.

18. Whitney, Theodicy, vii, 346–47.

penetrates into the sanctuary, where Israelite priests serve their divine Lord (e.g., Exod30:7–10; Lev 16). “Because the quintessential source of holiness resides with God,Israel is enjoined to control the occurrence of impurity lest it impinge on his realm”(Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 47).


meaning when God permits his people to suffer evil.19 Crenshaw pointsout that this problem was especially intense for Israel: Because of her spe-cial covenant relationship with Yhwh, “Israel knew which God was pun-ishing her.”20

Theodicy is the attempt to defend divine justice in the face of aberrant phe-nomena that appear to indicate the deity’s indifference or hostility towardvirtuous people. Ancient Israel’s conviction that God shaped historicalevents to benefit a covenant nation exacerbated the issue, particularly inthe wake of events associated with 722 and 587 b.c.e.

21

It is true that, “when God punishes Israel for her sins, it is not a contradictionof God’s covenant faithfulness but an outflow of it: because God adheres tothe covenant, he also adheres to its sanctions.”22 Nevertheless, the ubiquitousassumption that good folk fare well23 combined with Israel’s self-perceptionof corporate chosenness and therefore basic goodness made it difficult for thepeople to accept cultic and national “meltdown.”

Yhwh meted out retributive justice from his sanctuaryThe Israelite sanctuary/temple was a center of theodicy. We have found

that the community would meet its doom if Yhwh justly withdrew on ac-count of its depravity. Additionally, individuals and groups within the com-munity could experience Yhwh’s justice, including condemnation and/orretribution, from or at the sanctuary while he resided among them. For onething, the cult barred the wanton/defiant sinner from sacrificial expiation, re-fusing to rescue him from divine wrath (Num 15:30–31). He might manageto prosper for a time as he arrogantly and greedily violates divine norms andsocial justice, thereby challenging a righteous person’s understanding of thecharacter of the deity who tolerates such a state of affairs, but this affront does

19. Cf. Crenshaw, “Popular Questioning,” 380.20. Idem, “Theodicy,” IDBSup, 896; cf. idem, “Popular Questioning,” 384–85.21. Idem, “Theodicy,” ABD 6:444; cf. 447. On similar effects from destruction of

the Second Temple, see R. Kirschner, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to theDestruction of 70,” HTR 78 (1985) 27–46.

22. A. van de Beek, Why? On Suffering, Guilt, and God (trans. John Vriend; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 57.

23. Crenshaw observes: “Even if we refuse to join K. Koch in affirming a ‘sphere ofdestiny’ in which the deed activated a principle that guaranteed punishment for trans-gression, and prefer rather H. Graf Reventlow’s view that God’s freedom transcendsany such nexus of guilt and punishment, the point still stands that priest, prophet andwise man labored under the assumption of a correlation between good conduct andearthly reward” (“Popular Questioning,” 383–84).

Chapter 15330

not go unchecked forever (cf. Ps 73).24 Divine retributive justice may be de-layed, raising questions in the minds of some suffering souls, but without rpk

the evildoer is doomed.Yhwh purged the community by permanently removing wanton sinners,

including violators of cultic holiness. One way he did this was to condemnthem to the penalty of trk, “cutting off ” (e.g., Lev 7:20; Num 15:30–31), thatis, extirpation. On some occasions he immediately destroyed wrongdoers byunleashing destruction from or at his sanctuary headquarters. When Nadaband Abihu offered incense at the sanctuary with unauthorized fire, divine firecame out from before Yhwh and consumed them (Lev 10:2).25 When Korahand his associates added usurpation of priestly function to their rebellion,Yhwh destroyed them too (Num 16). Rebellious complaining that cast doubton God’s reputation and authority could also provoke divine fire (Num 11:1)or plague (Num 11:33; 14:37; 17:11–14[16:46–49]; 25:8–9).

The suspected adulteress ritual is a special case of divinely controlled, con-ditional retribution.26 At the sanctuary the suspected woman is to drink holywater containing some dust from the floor of the holy sanctuary and somecurses stating the consequences if she is guilty (Num 5:17–24). This is a kindof litmus test in which she takes a holy substance into her body. While holi-ness can contact purity with no consequence, it will harm someone who isimpure.27 The ritual enacts a trial by the deity, functioning as judge at hissanctuary. The verdict is shown by the onset or absence of punishment. Aguilty woman does not die, but her reproductive organs are painfully dam-aged so that she cannot conceive (Num 5:27–28). This punishment fits thecrime and is related to the penalty of extirpation, in that it affects a person’sability to have a line of descendants.

24. Cf. W. Brueggemann, “Theodicy in a Social Dimension,” JSOT 33 (1985) 3–25.25. Yhwh answered fire with fire. Ironically, his fire consumed Aaron’s sons just

after fire had come out from before him to consume the inauguration sacrifices (Lev9:24). Thus fire of acceptance was followed by fire of destruction. Cf. N. Kiuchi, ThePurification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function (JSOTSup56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 69; Geller, “Blood Cult,” 109.

26. For an analysis of this ritual and some ancient parallels, see, for example,J. M. Sasson, “Numbers 5 and the ‘Waters of Judgement,’ ” BZ 16 (1972) 249–51.

27. This case deals with moral impurity, but the same principle applies to physi-cal ritual impurity (Lev 7:20). Another test involving contact with holiness appears inNum 16:6–7 and 17–18, where Moses challenged Korah and his company to offer in-cense in order to prove their claim that they were authorized by God to officiate aspriests. They flunked the test, as shown by the fact that divine fire consumed them(v. 35). While their censers became holy, the men could not survive this level of ho-liness because they were unauthorized (17:2–3[16:37–38]).


In addition to retributive justice carried out by himself, Yhwh authorizedthe Israelites to punish individuals who violated his commandments. Need-less to say, when this was capital punishment (e.g., Lev 24:13–23; Num15:32–36), it purged the offender from the community. At least in somecases, destroying sinners could spare the community from God’s wrath. Forexample, by slaying an Israelite man and his Midianite paramour, Phinehaseffected rpk for the community in the sense of saving it from a divine plaguealready underway (Num 25:8, 13).

The case of Phinehas, a priest from the tribe of Levi, reminds us that histribe had gained the right to serve Yhwh at the sanctuary because they had loy-ally carried out his punishment on other Israelites who were running wild atthe time of the golden calf episode (Exod 32:25–29). So the role of the Levitesas cultic personnel served as an ongoing reminder of Yhwh’s retributive justice.

Ritual remedies for human imperfection enact theodicyJ. Crenshaw finds that “one of the first ways of dealing with the problem of

theodicy was to recognize compassion in the deity. In short, sinners thrive be-cause God grants them sufficient time to repent of their transgressions.”28 Inthe context of the Israelite cult, “sufficient time” is given to nondefiant sin-ners, who receive the opportunity to express penitence through sacrifices inorder to receive forgiveness from Yhwh and so escape his condemnation.29

Ritual remedies provided by Yhwh remove imperfections from his faultypeople and from his sanctuary so that he can dwell among them without hisholy presence and retributive justice destroying them.30

Since the expiable moral faults (twafj) and physical ritual impuritiespurged from (privative ˆm) the sanctuary are those of the people (Lev 16:16),which have been removed from (privative ˆm) them at the sanctuary (4:26;12:7, etc.), there is a dynamic relationship between removal of evils frompersons and from the sanctuary.31 Yhwh requires his people to demonstrate

28. Crenshaw, A Whirlpool of Torment, 105.29. Idem, “Theodicy,” ABD 6:446.30. Milgrom explains: “the only effective way to eliminate or, at least, minimize

the danger to the sanctuary is to purge its source—man himself ” (Leviticus 1–16, 289).B. Levine observes: “The priestly system of expiatory sacrifices and purifications wasinstituted largely so as to deal with God’s punitive wrath, and in order to protect indi-viduals and the community in cases where the offense may have been inadvertent, butevocative of divine wrath nonetheless” (Review of “Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16,”Bib 74 [1993] 284). F. Gorman categorizes such expiatory procedures as “restorationrituals,” which he distinguishes from “founding” and “maintenance” rituals (The Ide-ology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology [JSOTSup 91; Shef-field: JSOT Press, 1990] 54–55).

31. Cf. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 157.

Chapter 15332

loyalty to him through two phases of ritual rpk, in which evils are transferredinto his sanctuary and then out of it. These phases enact an equilibrium ofjustice as Yhwh extends forgiveness and restoration to the faulty but loyalpeople among whom he condescends to dwell but withholds restorativeremedies from the disloyal.32 Thus the cult addresses the two aspects of moralfaults recognized by D. Davies:

one relating to the offender who was thrown out of proper relationship bothwith God and his fellow men, and the other to God the offended one,whose integrity or holiness might be brought into question if his covenantpartners were permitted to do whatsoever they willed. Theologically speak-ing, sacrifice is concerned with both of these aspects.33

T. Fretheim has observed that the book of Jonah deals with the question oftheodicy in a fundamental but unusual way: “Are God’s compassionate ac-tions just?”34 For J. Wenham this question is not so unusual after all: “be-cause sin deserves death and we are all sinners, it means that all our merciesare undeserved mercies. Any apparent unfairness in God’s treatment of usarises not because some have too much punishment, but because some of usappear to have too little.”35 We have found that the Israelite cult deals withthis issue on the Day of Atonement, when prior forgiveness is vindicated.

The cult also addresses the justice of God’s condemnatory actions. In thecontext of the expiatory ritual system, “sufficient time to repent” is notgranted to defiant sinners, who have unwisely chosen to sever their connec-tion with Yhwh. Basic to this system is the principle that Israelites subject toretribution and loss of Yhwh’s presence because of their imperfections can es-cape these disastrous effects if and only if they do not cast off their basic alle-giance to him and if they obey his commands to remedy their imperfectionsthrough the cult in the way that he has provided.36 Thus the divine characterand sovereignty are affirmed as human character is revealed.

32. A. Médebielle summarized the principal purpose of the Israelite cult asremoving the distance that separated the holy God from the fallible creature. ForMédebielle, the temple is above all the theater of the justice and holiness of God (“Lesymbolism du sacrifice expiatoire en Israël,” Bib 2 [1921] 300).

33. D. Davies, “An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus,” ZAW 89 (1977) 392–93.While Davies does not recognize that the Day of Atonement deals with the issue ofYhwh’s integrity by delivering a second phase of rpk for forgiven sins, he does empha-size restoration of order on this day (pp. 394–95).

34. T. Fretheim, “Jonah and Theodicy,” ZAW 90 (1978) 227.35. J. Wenham, The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?

(Grand Rapids: Academie, 1985) 70.36. See 2 Sam 24, where Yhwh stayed the retributive plague resulting from David’s

census, initiating the opportunity for the king to offer burnt and well-being offerings


In the present volume I have investigated the underlying function of theIsraelite expiatory system by studying the relationship between purificationofferings performed throughout the year and on the Day of Atonement. Inagreement with Milgrom, I have found that these rituals are intended toremove imperfections that jeopardize continuation of the divine residence.Moreover, in the operation of the cultic procedures I have discovered addi-tional aspects of theodicy so fundamental and far-reaching that I dare say theIsraelite system of tafj rituals is all about theodicy. As we found in the lastchapter, the cultic message is that God is good.

ConclusionAs Milgrom has shown, theodicy is basic to the Israelite sacrificial system

in that continuation of Yhwh’s beneficent presence with the Israelites re-quires yearly purgation of his sanctuary from the accumulated imperfectionsof the people. Yhwh is justified if he abandons his sanctuary to destruction,and his people along with it, because it is their state that has excessively pol-luted his precincts so that they are intolerable for him.

I have demonstrated that the system of purification offerings also enacts atwo-phased process of reconciliation between faulty Israelites and their divineKing, which reveals how he spares loyal ones from retribution without com-promising his justice. By emphasizing the cost of kindness, as represented byrituals at the heart of normative Israelite religion, the cult makes a profoundcontribution to biblical theodicy by portraying Yhwh’s character as he dealswith people of loyal and disloyal character.

at the threshing floor that he purchased from Araunah. 1 Chronicles 21:28–22:1 and2 Chr 3:1 identify the threshing floor as located on Mt. Moriah and also as the site ofthe temple built by Solomon. Thus it appears that from the Chronicler’s perspective,the paradigmatic stories of Abraham and Isaac on Mt. Moriah (Gen 22) and David atthe threshing floor of Araunah come together at the temple (cf. J. Myers, I Chronicles[AB 12; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965] 149; J. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles[NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994] 163). Thus Chronicles implies thatsacrifices performed at the temple altar have to do with Yhwh sparing his people (cf.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel [WBC 11; Waco, Texas: Word, 1989] 287). On the paradig-matic nature of the Gen 22 story, see G. Wenham, “The Akedah: A Paradigm of Sac-rifice,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and NearEastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N.Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 93–102.

334

Chapter 16

Loyalty and Royalty in Hebrew Narrative

Thus far we have examined cultic laws to arrive at conclusions regardingfunctions of tafj rituals. Now we are ready to enrich our perspective bycomparing at least some of these functions with dynamics involved indivine-human and king-subject relationships that are reflected in some bib-lical narratives.

Numbers 14 illustrates divine sin-bearingThe way in which Yhwh bears (acn) sin (Exod 34:7) is illuminated by

Num 14, where Moses quotes Yhwh’s self-characterization back to him justbefore the climax of his intercession for the Israelites when they have rebelledat Kadesh:

17And now, therefore, let the power of the Lord be great in the way thatyou promised when you spoke, saying,

18“The Lord is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiv-ing iniquity and transgression, but by no means clearing the guilty, visit-ing the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and thefourth generation.”

19Forgive the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of yoursteadfast love, just as you have pardoned this people, from Egypt even un-til now. (vv. 17–19; nrsv)

First of all, notice the parallel in v. 19 between hZ,h" µ[:h: ˆ/[“l" an;Ajl"s}, “For-give the iniquity of this people,” and hZ,h" µ[:l: ht:ac…n;, “you have pardonedthis people,” where forgiving (jls) the ˆw[ (iniquity = culpability) of thepeople is functionally equivalent to bearing (acn) it (understood ˆw[) forthem.1 Unlike the priests, who bear the ˆw[ of the people as part of the cul-tic rpk process (Lev 10:17) that is only prerequisite to forgiveness (jls),Yhwh both bears and forgives ˆw[.

1. Compare G. Olaffson’s interpretation of Moses’ intercession for the Israelites inExod 32:32: “Either you, God, na¶aª the wrongs of the people [i.e., forgive them] orlet me na¶aª them and suffer the consequences [i.e., die]” (“The Use of n¶ª in thePentateuch and Its Contribution to the Concept of Forgiveness” [Ph.D. diss., An-drews University, 1992] 261).

Loyalty and Royalty in Hebrew Narrative 335

Forgiveness by Yhwh carries with it a cost that he must bear.2 Comparisonbetween his words in Num 14:11–12 and Moses’ response in v. 19 indicatesone price of pardon: God must continue to pursue his relationship with apeople whose recalcitrance is of biblical proportions. But other factors in thenarrative imply a major additional cost to the deity, which sheds light on themeaning of priestly sin-bearing through eating the flesh of outer-altar purifi-cation offerings (Lev 10:17).

Moses not only appeals to Yhwh’s self-proclaimed and previously demon-strated mercy (Num 14:17–19), he also invokes God’s concern for his own rep-utation among the nations. If he destroys the Israelites, what will that say abouthis ability to bring them into the land that he has promised them (vv. 13–16)?

After Yhwh accepts Moses’ plea by forgiving the people (v. 20), he thenswears that the entire adult generation, except for Caleb and Joshua, will diein the wilderness without reaching the Promised Land. Moreover, he exe-cutes the 10 naysaying spies by means of a plague (vv. 21–38). What kind offorgiveness is this!? Although God overcomes the obstacle to maintaining hisrelationship with the Israelites, his forgiveness does not include forgetting thewrong-doing or removing all its consequences.3 He pardons the nation on thecorporate level in terms of allowing its continued existence with his supportbut purges out those who obstinately refuse to trust in him (cf. v. 11). Yhwh

adamantly refuses to give the Promised Land to rebels.The common denominator between forgiveness of the Israelites as a group

and punishment of rebels among them, reflecting divine concern for mercyand justice, is Yhwh’s reputation. His international standing as a powerfuland just deity would suffer a setback in one way if he failed to fulfill his prom-ise, but his reputation would be conversely compromised if he did fulfill it forpeople who withheld allegiance to his sovereignty as owner of the PromisedLand and failed to acknowledge accountability to his commands.

When Yhwh forgives the Israelites (v. 20), he demonstrates mercy that hehas previously proclaimed to Moses (Exod 34:6–7a; cf. Num 14:18a), but hethereby bears the problem that this mercy can damage his reputation for jus-tice, which he has also proclaimed to Moses (Exod 34:7b—“yet by no means

2. Cf. ibid., 208, 274–75.3. Ibid., 209–12. The fact that jls does not rule out punishment (Num 14:19–24)

leads J. Walton, V. Matthews, and M. Chavalas to conclude that in the context of cul-tic expiation “the concept concerns relationship rather than the judicial issue of pun-ishment. The one who is offering these sacrifices seeks reconciliation with God, notpardon from punishment” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament[Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000] 123).

Chapter 16336

clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity [ˆw[] of the parents upon the chil-dren”; nrsv) and which Moses has reiterated to him (Num 14:18b). His solu-tion for maintaining both mercy and justice in dealing with a nation thatcontains defiant sinners is to preserve the nation but to purge the rebels fromit by slaying the negative spies and making the generation of adults bear theirown culpability in the wilderness (ˆw[ acn; v. 34) until they die (vv. 32–33). Inthis way Yhwh absolves himself of the judicial cost of forgiveness constitutedby the negative impact on his reputation that arises from his pardon of a na-tion that includes sinners who are ineligible for pardon.

In the sense just described, it could be said that Yhwh bears the ˆw[ of thenation as a whole when he forgives it (vv. 18–20), but he removes this ˆw[ fromhimself by transferring it to the rebels (v. 34). Alternatively, Yhwh forgives thenation on the corporate level but simply allows the rebels to continue carry-ing their own ˆw[.4 In any case, Yhwh’s forgiveness of the nation is not theend of the matter; his reputation is a key issue, and ultimately rebels cannotbe cleared from culpability (ˆw[) that leads to punishment.

Here we must remove our sandals and tread carefully. We are not argu-ing for any actual limitation of Yhwh’s sovereignty or defect in his charac-ter. But passages such as Num 14 (cf. Exod 32–33) show that Yhwh cansuffer loss in the world in the form of deteriorating or even destroyed rela-tionships with human beings and/or through negative human perceptionsregarding him.

The idea that Yhwh bears a cost of extending mercy when he bears ̂ w[ andthereby forgives the faulty nation appears related to the fact that the Israelitepriests who bear ˆw[ by eating purification-offering meat (Lev 10:17) partici-pate in the remedial process that Yhwh completes when he forgives faulty butnondefiant and repentant individuals within that nation. Obviously these na-tional and individual scenarios are not the same, but it does appear thatpriestly bearing of culpability (ˆw[ acn) also reflects divine ˆw[ acn that has todo with the cost of clemency to the reputation of Yhwh when he frees guiltypeople from condemnation. The fact that the priests are not punished for theˆw[ that they bear for others5 does not prove that acn in this context means

4. On Num 14:20 Y. Muffs suggests that “the author does not imply a total forgive-ness, but rather the divine resolve to bear the sin of a sinful generation until the timeHe actually punishes them, in other words, until they die a natural death” (Love andJoy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel [New York: Jewish TheologicalSeminary, 1992] 22).

5. B. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish PublicationSociety, 1989) 63.


simply “remove” rather than “bear.”6 Rather, it proves that at some point thepriests are freed of their burden, as Yhwh is from his. As suggested by Koch,it appears that the ˆw[ is removed from the priests when the high priest, rep-resenting the priestly house, transfers this category of evil to Azazel’s goat onthe Day of Atonement and the animal bears it (ˆw[ acn) to the wilderness(Lev 16:22; cf. v. 21).7 Koch’s idea is strengthened by the fact that only in Lev16:22 is ˆw[ acn followed by a prepositional phrase referring to movementaway to another location:8 hr;zeG] ≈r,a<Ala<, “to an inaccessible region.”9

Some narratives concerning David and Solomon describe a two-phased treatment of offenses, with loyalty as the decisive factor in the ultimate verdict

Because the deity transcends everything human, B. Malina observes:

All can be known only by comparison with the human. Thus all God state-ments are analogical. . . . The same is true of all interactions that have Godas one of the interacting partners . . . the superior beings of embedded do-mestic and political religion are described analogically in terms of superiordomestic and political roles, obligations, privileges.10

In the Bible Yhwh is regarded as the divine king (e.g., Exod 15:18; Num23:21; Judg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; Ps 47; 93; 96–99) and therefore the judge whoguarantees justice and maintains order (Ps 82; 96:10–13; 97:2, 8; 98:9; 99:4).So it is not surprising that underlying legal dynamics involved in relationshipsbetween Yhwh and his people parallel relationships between human kingsand their subjects.11 Particularly transparent examples of such parallels are

6. Contra ibid.; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 623–25; B. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates andGolden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literaturein Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; WinonaLake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 10, 16.

7. K. Koch, “ˆ/[: ºawon,” TDOT 10:559; cf. Olaffson, “The Use of n¶ª,” 217–18;Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 84. However, for Kiuchi, that which Aaron bearsand then transfers to Azazel’s goat is the guilt that results from the sin of Nadab andAbihu.

8. Olaffson, “The Use of n¶ª,” 273, 304.9. Translation by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000)

1294; cf. idem, Leviticus 1–16, 1010.10. B. Malina, “Mediterranean Sacrifice: Dimensions of Domestic and Political

Religion,” BTB 26 (1996) 29–30.11. Cf. K. W. Whitelam, “King and Kingship,” ABD 4:42–46; idem, “Israelite

Kingship: The Royal Ideology and Its Opponents,” in The World of Ancient Israel: So-ciological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989) 129–32. M. Greenberg has demonstrated that in

Chapter 16338

found in the biblical narratives of 2 Sam 14 and 1 Kgs 2, which describe howKings David and Solomon dealt with problems involving justice and mercy.

2 Samuel 142 Samuel 14 illustrates the idea that a judge is morally responsible for his

judgments and must maintain justice when he grants clemency to theguilty. Verses 5–7 record the pathetic story of a woman from Tekoa who ap-pealed to King David for legal assistance. She claimed to be a widow whohad two sons, one of whom had killed the other and was consequentlythreatened with capital punishment by clan justice. If he were put to death,she would have no son, so her husband’s name would be extinguished.12

Reticent to release the woman’s son from punishment publicly, David toldher to return home, where he would send the verdict (v. 8). Wisely under-standing David’s hesitation, she offered: “My lord king, may the guilt be onme and on my ancestral house; Your Majesty and his throne are guiltless”(v. 9; njpsv). Satisfied, David granted her request (v. 10) and affirmed his ver-dict with an irrevocable oath: “As the Lord lives, not a hair of your son shallfall to the ground” (v. 11; njpsv).13 Thus the king saved the young man eventhough he was morally blameworthy.14

David’s reactions were genuine because he thought he was judging a realcase. The exchange between him and the woman was based on legal prin-ciples that operated in Israelite society. However, vv. 1–3 tell us that thewoman’s story was fictitious. Joab had commissioned an able actress to re-arrange David’s thinking toward his own son, Absalom, who was in exile be-cause he had orchestrated the death of his brother, Amnon (cf. 2 Sam13:23–38).

12. The result would be equivalent to the penalty of extirpation (trk).13. On the nature of the protection that David guaranteed, see A. Phillips, “An-

other Look at Murder,” JJS 28 (1977) 112–14.14. Cf. E. Bellefontaine, “Customary Law and Chieftainship: Judicial Aspects of

2 Samuel 14.4–21,” JSOT 38 (1987) 63.

the Hebrew Bible petitionary address to a king or some other powerful person isclosely analogous to petitionary prayer to God (Biblical Prose Prayer [TLJS 6; Berkeley:University of California Press, 1983] 20–24). C. Macholz has found a connection be-tween passive address to kings and biblical expression of divinely granted forgivenessby the passive of jls (“Das ‘Passivum divinum,’ seine Anfänge im Alten Testamentund der ‘Hofstil,’ ” ZNW 81 [1990] 247–53, esp. 248, 251–53). There are parables ofJesus (Matt 18:23–35; 22:1–14; Luke 19:11–27) and rabbinic illustrations (e.g., y. RosHas. 1.3; b. Ros Has. 17b; cf. S. Agnon, Days of Awe [New York: Schocken, 1948] 211,220–21) in which kings are analogous to God. Outside Israel, see the Hittite “PlaguePrayers of Mursili II” (COS 1:156–60; cf. ANET 394–96) that address the gods, espe-cially the Storm-god, as lords.


Uriel Simon places the woman’s story in the genre “juridical parable.”Such a parable is “a realistic story about a violation of the law, related to some-one who had committed a similar offence with the purpose of leading the un-suspecting hearer to pass judgement on himself.”15 A judicial parable couldonly trap the hearer if he believed that the story actually happened and if hedid not immediately recognize the analogy with the real situation in which hewas involved.16 Posing as a mother willing to bear blame so that her son couldbe forgiven, the woman from Tekoa cast herself on the mercy of the king,thereby seeking to arouse compassion that he could transfer to his own son.17

The woman’s offer to take blame/culpability (ˆw[)18 on herself and herfather’s house (v. 9) was crucial to her success with David. This did not meanthat she would be her son’s substitute as Abigail had taken upon herself theˆw[ of her guilty husband (1 Sam 25:24). Rather, she would be David’s sub-stitute so that he could be legally “clean” (yqn; cf. Exod 21:28), free fromliability/bloodguilt with regard to the case. She would bear the moral respon-sibility that David as judge would incur if he pardoned a murderer who wascondemned by Israelite law to capital punishment (Exod 21:12; Lev 24:17; cf.Gen 9:6), thereby interfering with the due process of justice administered bythe clan (2 Sam 14:7, 11; cf. Num 35:16–21).19 H. McKeating points out:

15. U. Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable,”Bib 48 (1967) 220–21. Another parable of this sort is the story that Nathan told Davidso that he would condemn himself for taking Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:1–40). UnlikeNathan, the woman of Tekoa assumed a role in the story itself, and her trap had thepurpose of inducing the king to commit himself to clemency (p. 223; H. Hagan, “De-ception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sm 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2,” Bib 60 [1979] 311).

16. Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb,” 221, 223. Thus the woman of Tekoapresented a case involving extenuating circumstances that did not apply to the realcase of Absalom: she was a widow and her guilty son was the only surviving heir(pp. 224–25). These factors were the basis on which she pleaded for flexible applica-tion of the law. “It is not the general custom of blood vengeance that is questionedby the widow but its strict application to her son” (Bellefontaine, “Customary Law,”54). The situation of Absalom was different in other ways, including the facts thatAbsalom did not openly quarrel with Amnon but sought vengeance for the latter’srape of his sister (2 Sam 13:22), Absalom delegated the murder of his half-brother tohis servants (vv. 28–29), Absalom was safely in exile (v. 38), and there is no evidencethat David’s clan was exerting pressure to have him executed.

17. Cf. Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb,” 225.18. For the concept that ˆw[ in this kind of context refers to culpability, compare

Gen 4:13; 19:15; Lev 5:1; Num 14:34; Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin,” 10–15.19. J. Hoftijzer describes this as the usual interpretation and then ineffectively ar-

gues against it, concluding that the woman of Tekoa, like Abigail (cf. 1 Sam 25:24),acknowledged her inferior status by confessing guilt in order to plead for forgivenessfor a guilty relative (“David and the Tekoite Woman,” VT 20 [1970] 424–28). This idea

Chapter 16340

What we deduce from this text is that the untoward consequences whichfollow bloodshed, though they attach themselves in the first instance to theslayer and his family, may be displaced on to anyone who, having the dutyto take legal vengeance, fails to do so, or who, having the power to interfere,prevents vengeance being carried out.20

Showing mercy by forgiving a guilty person has a cost, and David’s responsi-bility was not only to his society; it was also to God.21 But the woman offeredto bear the cost.

Comparing the woman’s speech in 2 Sam 14:9 with Abigail’s use of theterm ˆw[ in 1 Sam 25:24 when she offered to bear responsibility for the offenseof Nabal, her husband, L. L. Lyke suggests that this word may have two impli-cations: “the Tekoite likely both apologizes for her boldness and accepts theguilt associated with her son.”22 However, Lyke does not adequately take intoaccount a crucial difference between Abigail and the woman of Tekoa. Inboth stories there are three parties: a male offender, a female relative as medi-ator, and David. Abigail assumes the ˆw[ of her husband, the offender, beforeDavid acts to determine Nabal’s fate. The Tekoite, on the other hand, offers

20. H. McKeating, “The Development of the Law on Homicide in Ancient Israel,”VT 25 (1975) 59. McKeating also raises the possibility that the woman’s appeal to Da-vid may have been to ensure that the law should be applied normally in view of athreat by the clan to apply it harshly (pp. 50–52). However, Phillips points out thatMcKeating does not account for David’s reluctance to intervene. “For guilt can hardlyfall on David for ensuring that the ‘law should take its normal course’ ” (“Another Lookat Murder,” 112).

21. Bellefontaine, “Customary Law,” 62.22. L. L. Lyke, “King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of

Tradition in Parabolic Narrative” (JSOTSup 255; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1997) 114; cf. 113.

may work in the case of Abigail, but the woman of Tekoa clearly contrasted her blamewith David’s “cleanness,” or lack of culpability (2 Sam 14:9). Because she would bearit, he would not. This implies that, if she did not bear it, he would, and this potentialcould only arise from his involvement in the case as judge. Another unconvincing de-parture from the usual interpretation is that of P. K. McCarter, who finds v. 9 to be“isolated and disruptive in its present location” and says that David simply ignored thewords of the woman recorded in this verse (II Samuel [AB 9; Garden City, New York:Doubleday, 1984] 347; cf. 348). It is true that there are narratives in which persons askother individuals to forgive (acn) their sins ([vp or tafj; Gen 50:17; Exod 10:17;1 Sam 15:25), with no indication that the forgiver would consequently bear a weightof responsibility (J. J. Stamm, Erlösen und Vergeben im Alten Testament: Eine begriffs-geschichtliche Untersuchung [Bern: Francke, 1940] 67). However, these passages differfrom 2 Sam 14:9 in that the wrongdoers simply seek forgiveness for themselves. Thisexplains why transferable culpability (ˆw[) does not come to the surface as it does inthe plea of the Tekoite on behalf of her son and in Abigail’s petition for David to for-give (acn) her transgression ([vp; 1 Sam 25:28), for which she claimed to be culpable(ˆw[; v. 24), but which in fact was her husband’s trespass.



to take ˆw[ that would otherwise be borne by David after he determines thefate of her son. This ˆw[ did originate in the deed perpetrated by the youngman, but here it is ˆw[ that has been transferred by a transaction of pardon, orat least amnesty. The Tekoite woman is bold, but ˆw[ does not have to do withboldness here, because this characteristic is not something that the womanwould bear instead of the king.

Not only did the wise woman of Tekoa recognize the nature of culpability(ˆw[) and its transferability,23 she understood that the king and his throne(2 Sam 14:9) needed to be free from anything that would give rise to a seriouscharge of injustice. The throne obviously represents the royal institution oforder, legitimate authority, and justice, the integrity of which was essentialfor holding the social fabric of the nation together (cf. 1 Kgs 2:12).24

When the woman pointed out that David’s pardon in her case implicatedhim for not restoring his own banished son (2 Sam 14:13–17), the kingshrewdly recognized that Joab had sent her (vv. 18–19). But he took the hintand allowed Joab to bring Absalom back from Geshur (vv. 21–23).

While the Tekoite could free David from blame with regard to her son,there was nobody to free the king with regard to Absalom.25 This may explainwhy David instructed Joab to forbid Absalom to come into the king’s presence(2 Sam 14:24). Such ambivalence backfired, arousing lethal resentment inAbsalom, who made his father pay the cost of mercy by taking his kingdom,along with his concubines (2 Sam 16:15–22).

In the end, David was willing to pay even more to save his son’s life, cry-ing, “O my son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you!” (2 Sam19:1[18:33]; njpsv).26 But because the young man had no lasting loyalty to hisfather or acceptance of the amnesty that he had granted him, as demon-

23. Transferability of blame/culpability is primarily attested in cultic contexts:Exod 28:38; Lev 10:17; 16:21–22. But the fact that it also appears in the noncultic set-tings of 1 Sam 25:24, and 2 Sam 14:9 shows that it is not as foreign to the mundanesphere of life as K. Koch asserts (“Sühne und Sündenvergebung um die Wende vonder exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit,” EvT 26 [1966] 229).

24. Whitelam, “King and Kingship,” 42. Compare the way Americans speak of theWhite House with reference to the administration of the president.

25. There are other ironic comparisons between the woman’s “case” and the realsituation involving Absalom. For example, in order to win the support of the popu-lace, the prince claimed that his provision of justice would be better than that ofDavid (2 Sam 15:2–4). Also, David promised the woman of Tekoa that not a hair ofher son would fall to the ground (14:11), but Absalom met his end at the hand ofJoab when his notably hairy head (cf. v. 26) got caught in a tree, preventing himfrom falling to the ground in order to escape (18:9–15; R. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel [NAC7; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996] 391).

26. Hagan, “Deception as Motif,” 312.

Chapter 16342

strated by his rebellious actions, David’s mercy did not help the young princein the long run.

Similar dynamics operate when Yhwh, as judge, forgives guilty persons.Just as David’s throne represented his authority and justice, so Yhwh’s placeof enthronement at his sanctuary stands for his administration. Just as Davidand his justice needed to be legally “clean” (yqn; 2 Sam 14:9), so God’s jus-tice, represented by his sanctuary, must be justified.27

Narrowing the gap between the context of David and that of Yhwh’s sanc-tuary is use of the root hqn, literally, “be clean,” in the prescription for the cul-tic-legal suspected adulteress ritual. Here nipºal verbs from this root refer toimmunity of an innocent woman from a conditional curse (Num 5:19, 28)and to freedom of the husband of a suspected woman from blame for havingmade a false accusation (v. 31). Verse 31 is particularly telling:

Hn;/[“Ata< aC…TI awhIh" hV…aIh:w ] ˆ/[:mE vyaIh: hQ:niw ]

The man shall be free from culpability, but that woman shall bear her culpability.

Being “clean” from culpability (ˆw[ hqn) is the opposite of bearing culpability(ˆw[ acn). By going through the prescribed procedure, the husband would befree from culpability that he could otherwise incur for slandering his wife (cf.Deut 22:13–19). She, on the other hand, would simply bear her own culpa-bility if she proved to be guilty. So, potentially, ˆw[ can result either from one’sown deed or from one’s judgment of another person.

Although the case of David and the woman of Tekoa differs from that ofthe suspected adulteress in the sense that ˆw[ stems from granting mercy, theterminology and concepts are strikingly similar: if the Tekoite takes the ˆw[,the king will be yqn, “clean,” implying that if she does not do this, she will beyqn in this sense but he will bear the ˆw[.

B. Levine comments profoundly on the legal sense of hqn in the suspectedadulteress ritual:

Ironically, forms of the root n-q-h in biblical Hebrew virtually never referto purely ritual purification. . . . Even when a worshiper states that he haswashed his hands in cleanliness, we are to understand his declaration met-aphorically as referring to avoidance of evildoing (Pss 26:6; 73:13). In otherwords, the semantic progression of the base meaning “to be clean, pure”has gone all the way into another context, that of legal purgation and clear-

27. Compare the terminology of Dan 8:14: vd,qO qD'x}niw ], “then the sanctuary shall becleansed” (njpsv), lit., “. . . be justified” (cf. HALOT 2:1003; BDB 842).



ance from liability or obligation. A similar semantic development is observ-able in the Akkadian verb ebebu ‘to be pure, clear’, which most often relatesto legal circumstances, not to actual cleansing or ritual purification (CADE, 5–7, under ebebu, D-stem ubbubu). So Hebrew naqî means “innocent,exonerated,” just as in Job 4:17 the verb †ahar ‘to be pure’ appropriates theconnotation of being just or righteous: “Can a mortal be more righteous(yißdaq) than God? Can a person be more just (yi†har) than his maker?”

The semantic fields of ritual and moral terms of reference often overlap;they move toward each other in biblical Hebrew usage. Their interaction isone of the most subtle and enlightening features of biblical diction.28

The fact that Yhwh needs his sanctuary, representing his administration, tobe purged/purified (rpk/ rhf) on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:16, 18–19)does not mean that he has done something wrong any more than an innocentwoman vindicated through the suspected adulteress ritual would need innerrestoration from moral impurity. Although the biblical text does not say thatYhwh or his sanctuary is yqn, he maintains his legal purity by clearing onlythose who should be cleared. The case of the suspected adulteress, which headjudicates at his sanctuary, demonstrates that he rightfully acquits (hqn) theright people (Num 5). In Exod 34:7 Yhwh says that he bears/forgives (acn)three moral evils—ˆw[, [vp, and hafj—but he surely does not clear/vin-dicate (hQ<n'y] alø hQen'w]) the guilty (understood). So although he is merciful (cf.v. 6), his justice requires a limit to his mercy.

If Yhwh were to clear those who do not deserve it, he would not be yqn.2 Samuel 14:9 confirms this by implying that a judge who lets a truly guiltyperson off the hook is not yqn. Nevertheless, Yhwh forgives truly guilty peopleat his sanctuary, in spite of the temporary consequences for himself. He is byno means ashamed of his kindness. In fact, it is a hallmark of his character,as proclaimed to Moses (Exod 34:6–7). But it is the ritual system that explainshow Yhwh can maintain his justice at the same time. Although he initiallybears the evils of his people through his sanctuary and their ˆw[ through hispriests (Lev 10:17), in a further stage enacted on the Day of Atonement, hehas his sanctuary purged and the ˆw[ permanently banished to the wilderness(16:21–22). In this way the rituals of the Day of Atonement confirm the right-ness of forgiveness already granted by Yhwh so that his sanctuary is pure andhis people are “clean” from their twafj, that is, expiable and expiated sins(v. 30). This reaffirming function may partly explain why inner-sanctumtafj sacrifices include application of blood in the outer sanctum and at the

28. B. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 208.

Chapter 16344

outer altar (vv. 16b, 18–19), where bloods of noncalendric outer-sanctum andouter-altar purification offerings have already been applied for the same expi-able moral faults.

We have found that, in the narrative of 2 Sam 14, the dynamics of kind-ness and justice parallel to a significant extent the interactions between Yhwh

and his people. As David was to Absalom, Yhwh was to the Israelites. LikeAbsalom, the Israelites sinned. Like David, God forgave them. Unlike David,Yhwh was not constrained by moral weakness due to his own sin or inade-quate wisdom to apply justice and kindness, the two sides of love, withoutcompromising either. But as judge, God was like David in that he was mor-ally responsible for his judgments, including his forgiveness of guilty people.He had to deal with the cost of kindness, and there was nobody to bear it buthimself, as represented by his cult. At the sanctuary, justice and kindnesswere intertwined, reflecting harmonious balance in the character of God (cf.Ps 85:11[10]).

1 Kings 2Relationships between David and Solomon and certain of their subjects

are analogous to relationships between Yhwh and various kinds of Israelites,as reflected in the ritual system.

Just before he died, David charged Solomon:

5Further, you know what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me, what he did tothe two commanders of Israel’s forces, Abner son of Ner and Amasa son ofJether: he killed them, shedding blood of war in peacetime, staining thegirdle of his loins and the sandals on his feet with blood of war. 6So act inaccordance with your wisdom, and see that his white hair does not go downto Sheol in peace.

7But deal graciously with the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, for they be-friended me when I fled from your brother Absalom; let them be amongthose that eat at your table.

8You must also deal with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite fromBahurim. He insulted me outrageously when I was on my way to Maha-naim; but he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I swore to him bythe Lord: “I will not put you to the sword.” 9So do not let him go unpun-ished; for you are a wise man and you will know how to deal with him andsend his gray hair down to Sheol in blood. (1 Kgs 2:5–9; njpsv)

Joab was already condemned for murder (2 Sam 3:29; cf. Num 35:31), andhis execution was inevitable in spite of the fact that David had delayed pun-ishment of the powerful general who had contributed so much to building



his empire.29 Barzillai’s family had loyally assisted the king when he fled fromAbsalom (2 Sam 17:27–29; 19:31–32) and was to be treated accordingly. Thenthere was the difficult case of Shimei. In response to his plea that David for-give him for cursing him when he was going into exile,30 David had sworn toShimei that he would not die (19:19–24[18–23]; cf. 16:5–13), but at the endof his life David expressed second thoughts. It appears that he had pardonedShimei against his better judgment, due to the need for healing politicalwounds after the strife created by Absalom’s coup.31

Notice the order in which David mentioned the three individuals: Joab,Barzillai, and Shimei. This mirrors in reverse the order of events in 2 Sam19–20, as David was returning from exile following his defeat of Absalom:Shimei’s repentance and amnesty (19:17–24[16–23]), David’s gratitude to Bar-zillai (vv. 32–40[31–39]), and Joab’s murder of Amasa (20:8–10).

Between the time that David met Shimei and parted from Barzillai, hewas also approached by Mephibosheth (19:25–31[24–30]), a member ofSaul’s family like Shimei, who had inadvertently offended the king. Whenhe realized his mistake, Mephibosheth expressed his loyalty and remorsethrough self-denial: “He had not pared his toenails, or trimmed his mus-tache, or washed his clothes from the day that the king left until the dayhe returned safe” (2 Sam 19:25[njpsv; 24 in other Eng. versions]). WhenDavid asked why he had not accompanied him into exile, Mephiboshethexplained that he had been deceived and slandered by Ziba, his servant,and he put himself at the king’s mercy (vv. 27–29[26–28]). David acceptedMephibosheth’s plea that he had really been loyal all along and that hisfailure to go with the king into exile had not been due to rebellion on hispart (v. 30[29]).

29. Cf. F. E. Gaebelein et al., eds., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rap-ids: Zondervan, 1988) 4:35.

30. By cursing a ruler, Shimei violated the law of Exod 22:27[28]. Greenberg usesShimei’s request for amnesty (2 Sam 19:20–21) as his primary example of the way inwhich the language of petitionary prayer follows patterns of petitionary speech to apowerful person such as a king (Biblical Prose Prayer, 22–24).

31. See Gaebelein et al., eds., suggesting that David realized that Shimei’s repen-tance was insincere (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 35, 41); J. Walsh reminds usthat according to 2 Sam 19:18[17] a thousand Benjaminites were backing Shimei atthe time when David pardoned him (1 Kings [Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minnesota:Liturgical Press, 1996] 42). Walsh also suggests that Shimei had to die in order to endthe inevitable effects of the curse that he had uttered, which would otherwise harmSolomon (p. 43).

Chapter 16346

Shimei, Mephibosheth, Barzillai, and Joab each had a different relation-ship to David. Although Shimei had been recklessly rebellious, Davidgranted him amnesty. Mephibosheth’s fault had been inadvertent and he wasclearly loyal, so his relationship with the king was restored. Barzillai hadshown nothing but loyalty, but Joab was hopelessly condemned.

David left Solomon unfinished business with regard to three of the fourmen. Joab and Shimei should be brought to justice, but Barzillai’s sons shouldbe invited to eat at Solomon’s table. Apparently Mephibosheth needed noth-ing new, so David did not mention him.32

We are told how Solomon dramatically carried out his father’s wishes withregard to Joab and Shimei, and we can assume that he quietly provided forthe sons of Barzillai. Because Joab had supported Adonijah’s attempt to takethe throne while David was still alive (1 Kgs 1:5–10, 18–19, 24–26), his fatewas linked to that of the prince. When Solomon was acclaimed king byshouting and trumpet blasts (vv. 39–40), he became judge over Adonijah andgranted him conditional amnesty that implicitly applied to his supporters aswell: “If he behaves worthily, not a hair of his head shall fall to the ground;but if he is caught in any offense, he shall die” (1 Kgs 1:52; njpsv).

In this context it is crystal clear that Solomon defined worthiness or wick-edness in terms of loyalty or disloyalty to himself. By attaching the conditionof showing loyalty, thereby making reconciliation provisional, Solomon, in ef-fect, “sentenced Adonijah to probation”33 and thereby avoided the difficultythat David experienced when he granted unconditional reprieves to Absalomand Shimei.34

After David died, Adonijah asked Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, to re-quest for him permission to marry Abishag, who had belonged to David (cf.1 Kgs 1:1–4). Since having a woman belonging to a previous king was a royalprivilege (cf. 2 Sam 16:21–22), Solomon had Adonijah executed for attempt-ing to regain his claim to the throne.35 Because Abiathar had supported

32. He was already eating at the royal table before David fled from Absalom(2 Sam 9:11).

33. J. S. Rogers, “Narrative Stock and Deuteronomistic Elaboration in 1 Kings 2,”CBQ 50 (1988) 399.

34. Cf. B. O. Long, “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah,” JSOT19 (1981) 86–87.

35. Cf. idem, 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL 9; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 50–51. M. Garsiel explains: “While in reality she was not aconcubine in the full sense, inasmuch as her relations with the king were not sexual,in Solomon’s eyes Adonijah is endeavoring to treat her as a true concubine in order togive weight to his renewed attempt to gain the throne” (“Puns upon Names as a Liter-ary Device in 1 Kings 1–2,” Bib 72 [1991] 383).



Adonijah, whose request for Abishag indicated possible renewal of plotting,Solomon banished the priest.

When Joab, who had also backed Adonijah, heard what had happened, heaccurately assumed that he was next. Because he was not a priest, he knewthat his punishment would be like Adonijah’s rather than Abiathar’s. So hefled to the sanctuary and grasped the horns of the altar. When Benaiah, theking’s executioner, summoned him to come out, he refused and retorted: “Iwill die here” (1 Kgs 2:30).36 So Solomon commanded Benaiah:

31. . . Do just as he said; strike him down and bury him, and remove guiltfrom me and my father’s house for the blood of the innocent that Joab hasshed. 32Thus the Lord will bring his blood guilt down upon his ownhead, because, unbeknown to my father, he struck down with the swordtwo men more righteous and honorable than he—Abner son of Ner, thearmy commander of Israel, and Amasa son of Jether, the army com-mander of Judah. 33May the guilt for their blood come down upon thehead of Joab and his descendants forever, and may good fortune from theLord be granted forever to David and his descendants, his house and histhrone. (1 Kgs 2:31–33; njpsv)

By putting Joab to death, Solomon eliminated a dangerous threat to histhrone and at the same time honored David’s wish to have Joab executed formurder. Solomon’s speech to Benaiah expresses his perception of the reasonthat David wanted Joab executed in spite of his long and distinguished mili-tary service. It was not simply a matter of revenge or punishment for killingother generals who were militarily and/or politically important to David. Be-cause David was closely associated with Joab, he was tainted with the latter’sbloodguilt.37 To be more specific, as king and therefore Joab’s superior, underwhose protection Abner and Amasa were when Joab had murdered them, Da-vid was ethically responsible for the actions of Joab and could only free him-self and his house from this burden by exercising his royal judicial authorityto execute Joab.38 “This matter was of great importance to David’s con-science and the integrity of his reign because the murders were not a private

36. See the law of Exod 21:14: “When a man schemes against another and killshim treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death” (njpsv).

37. K. Koch, “Der Spruch ‘Sein Blut Bleibe auf seinem Haupt’ und die israeli-tische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut,” VT 12 (1962) 405–6.

38. Cf. IB 3:32–33; R. Nelson, First and Second Kings (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox,1987) 24; B. Scolnic, “David’s Final Testament: Morality or Expediency?” Judaism 43(1994) 22–23; Walsh, 1 Kings, 41. At the same time, “crimes done to persons forwhom David was responsible were done to him” (S. De Vries, 1 Kings [WBC 12;Waco, Texas: Word, 1982] 35).

Chapter 16348

matter. . . . One might term Joab’s murders as political assassinations. The na-tional interest and conscience were involved.”39

It was not enough for David to declare himself yqn, “clean/guiltless” of Ab-ner’s blood just after Joab murdered him (2 Sam 3:28). Nor was it enough toplace a curse on Joab that called for Abner’s blood to come back on the headof Joab and his house (v. 29; cf. v. 39). In the absence of direct divine punish-ment on Joab, David needed to make sure that the curse of retribution wouldfind its target and thereby irrevocably free his own dynasty from any con-nection with bloodguilt. From his experience with the bloodguilt of Saul re-garding the Gibeonites (ch. 21), David knew well the havoc that unavengedinnocent blood could wreak on a dynasty.40 So he commanded Solomon toseek an opportunity for justice to be fulfilled.41

G. Mendenhall perceives a parallel between the case of Joab and that ofthe woman of Tekoa:

David granted her plea, but only after she specifically took upon herselfand her house the curse, the divine punishment, of a murderer and any-one who protected him (II Sam. 14). Likewise, David protected Joab dur-ing his own lifetime, willing himself to incur the risk involved for thesake of the personal relationship; but in order to protect the dynasty hecommanded Solomon to carry out the demand of the religious law uponJoab (I Kings 2:5ff.).42

We have already found the story of the Tekoite woman, who approached Da-vid on behalf of her murderous “son” at the instigation of Joab, to illustratedynamics involved in Yhwh’s judicial dealings with the Israelites, as enactedin the cult. Now we see similar dynamics in the relationship between David(and his son) and Joab himself as murderer. Like a human king, Yhwh is re-sponsible for condemning the guilty. Wrongdoers whose offenses are inex-piable must bear their own culpability (e.g., Num 15:30–31). Retribution(e.g., extirpation) may be postponed, but it will inexorably come.

39. Gaebelein et al., eds., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 40.40. Cf. Scolnic, “David’s Final Testament,” 21–24.41. Rogers, “Narrative Stock,” 401–2, 410. Scolnic points out that David would

have had an additional concern for Solomon’s protection in view of Joab’s support ofAdonijah (“David’s Final Testament,” 21). J. W. Wesselius questions the motives ofDavid and Solomon on the basis of some complicating elements in the narrative, suchas the fact that, while David was not involved in the deaths of Abner and Amasa, hebenefited from them (“Joab’s Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narra-tive [2 Samuel IX–1 Kings II],” VT 40 [1990] 338–40, 343–45).

42. G. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pitts-burgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955) 18.


Last on David’s final list was Shimei. Because David had accepted his pleafor pardon, at least in the sense of not putting him to death, Solomon couldnot justly execute this potentially dangerous Saulide without establishing an-other legal basis for doing so.43 Consequently, as with Adonijah, he put himon probation:

36 “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and stay there—do not ever go outfrom there anywhere else. 37On the very day that you go out and cross theWadi Kidron, you can be sure that you will die; your blood shall be on yourown head.” 38“That is fair,” said Shimei to the king, “your servant will dojust as my lord the king has spoken.” And for a long time, Shimei remainedin Jerusalem. (1 Kgs 2:36–38; njpsv)

Solomon’s stipulation was not simply arbitrary. Across the Wadi Kidron wasthe territory of Benjamin, Shimei’s tribe. If he returned home, he could workwith his kinsmen to fulfill his earlier curse against David, whom he had al-leged to be a “man of blood” (2 Sam 16:7–8), by restoring the family of Saulto the throne.44

After three years Shimei did leave Jerusalem. He went west rather thanacross the Kidron for the innocent reason of pursuing his slaves, but he haddisobeyed Solomon’s broad interpretation of the command by leaving Jerusa-lem.45 So Solomon had him put to death for this. But in so doing, the kingcarried out his father’s wish. As with Joab, he “killed two birds with one stone.”

Just before the execution, Solomon said to Shimei:

You know all the wrong, which you remember very well, that you did to myfather David. Now the Lord brings down your wrongdoing upon your ownhead. But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall beestablished before the Lord forever. (1 Kgs 2:44–45; njpsv)

Notice the close parallel with Solomon’s earlier statement to Benaiah regard-ing Joab, which referred to the latter’s evil returning upon his own head incontrast to well-being for the Davidic dynasty.46

43. Cf. L. Perdue, “The Testament of David and Egyptian Royal Instructions,” inScripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed. W. W. Hallo,J. Moyer, L. Perdue; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 90–91.

44. J. Gray, I and II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 108–9.45. Cf. ibid., 109; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 28; Walsh, 1 Kings, 62. J. Fokkel-

man suggests that Solomon may have understood the border of the Kidron as pars prototo: “the other paths leading out of Jerusalem are also taboo for Shimei” (NarrativeArt and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (SSN; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981) 1:406.

46. Since R. Yaron has found the same pattern in the Egyptian “Judicial Papyrus ofTurin” from the reign of Ramesses IV, he proposes that it is a kind of fixed formula (“A

Chapter 16350

Shimei’s disobedience to Solomon, by which he broke an oath (1 Kgs2:42), neutralized the earlier amnesty that David had granted him and af-firmed with an oath (2 Sam 19:24[23]). Consequently, what Shimei haddone came back on his own head. Unlike Joab, Shimei had received fromDavid a promise that he would not be punished. So Solomon’s sentence onShimei closely parallels Yhwh’s condemnation of previously forgiven Israel-ites who fail to show loyalty on the Day of Atonement by practicing self-denial and abstaining from work (see Lev 23:29–30).

In the stories of Joab and Shimei there is an air of inevitability.47 Davidrelies on Solomon to punish them, but in order to maintain his justice, Solo-mon waits patiently for them to present him with opportunities to pounce onthem for committing offenses against him. They do not let him down. Thisis not surprising because David has willed their demise, and Solomon speaksof Yhwh as bringing their evil back on their own heads (1 Kgs 2:32, 44).Because of the character of Joab and Shimei, there is really no questionthat they will stumble, and Solomon sees to it that this results in their com-plete fall.

For David and Solomon, the bottom line was loyalty. J. S. Rogersconcludes:

David’s counsel is not that of an embittered, impotent old king seeking per-sonal revenge, but that of a supreme political strategist whose dying chargeto his son and successor consists of specific instructions by which to ensurethe stability of the kingdom. . . . Solomon should act decisively and withoutconcern for the old loyalties his father owed Joab and Shimei, for they can-not be trusted. Retribution is not the issue; calculated political advice basedon experience is.48

47. Garsiel concludes: “By creating a correspondence between names and plot ma-terials, the biblical author evokes an atmosphere of order and coherence which occa-sions a sense of predestination—as if everything had been planned beforehand by theLord and was explicitly or implicitly fitted into the names of characters and places”(“Puns upon Names,” 386).

48. Rogers, “Narrative Stock,” 410.

Ramessid Parallel to 1 K ii 33, 44–45,” VT 8 [1958] 432–33). For the idea of justicewhen evil returns upon the head of its perpetrator, see in narratives of David and Solo-mon: 1 Sam 25:39; 2 Sam 1:16; 1 Kgs 8:32; 2 Chr 6:23. Earlier God metaphoricallybrought the wickedness of the Shechemites down on their own heads (Judg 9:57), butAbimelech’s punishment literally came down on his head in the form of an uppermillstone (vv. 53, 56). In Obad 1:15 notice the parallel between the talionic formula,“As you have done, it shall be done to you” (cf. Lev 24:19; Deut 19:19; Judg 1:7; 15:11),and “your deeds shall return on your own head” (nrsv).


But retribution cannot be separated from the issue of loyalty, on which thestability of the kingdom depended, because retribution would eliminate thosewhom the king could not trust. In an absolute monarchy, justice excludes tol-erance of disloyalty.49

We have found similar principles to operate in the kingdom of Yhwh, asreflected in his cultic system. For him too, loyalty is the bottom line. Punish-ment of wanton sinners may be delayed. Persons who are only outwardly loyalmay escape condemnation for awhile, but ultimately they will fail as Joab andShimei did, and only the truly loyal will remain.50 The evil perpetrated bydisloyal ones will return upon their own heads.

How David and Solomon treated subjects who were loyal (e.g., Barzillai),inadvertently faulty but truly loyal (e.g., Mephibosheth), only outwardlyrepentant (e.g., Shimei and Adonijah), or irredeemably culpable (e.g., Joab)affected the royal reputation for justice. The same is true of Yhwh, who con-demns those who defiantly break his commandments and judges betweenthose who are provisionally/nominally loyal on the Day of Atonement.

K. Koch has argued against the existence of a real doctrine of retributionin the Old Testament.51 He defines retribution narrowly as necessarily in-cluding a judicial process through which a higher authority assesses a per-son’s actions on the basis of an established norm and imposes punishmentfrom outside the actions themselves.52 What he finds in the Old Testament,particularly in the wisdom literature, prophets, and Psalms, is that Yhwh’srole as the higher authority is to bring to completion consequences that havean inherent and inevitable relationship to actions.53 We have certainly ob-served Koch’s “Action-Consequences-Construct” in the downfall of Joab andShimei, in which Solomon characterizes his role as reflecting that of Yhwh

by bringing the inevitably disastrous results of wrongful actions to fruition.

49. Compare the Egyptian instruction for Merikare, which admonishes the king:“Punish with beatings, with dentention, / Thus will the land be well-ordered; / Exceptfor the rebel whose plans are found out, / For god knows the treason plotters, / Godsmites the rebels in blood” (translation by M. Lichtheim, “Merikare,” in COS 1:62);cf. Perdue, “The Testament of David,” 86–87).

50. Cf. Rogers, “Narrative Stock,” 402.51. K. Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy

in the Old Testament (ed. J. Crenshaw; trans. T. Trapp; IRT 4; Philadelphia: Fortress /London: SPCK, 1983; first published in ZTK 52 [1955] 1–42) 57–87. For bibliographyof Koch and reactions to his thesis, see A. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus(AUSDS 3; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979) 223 n. 1.

52. Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution?” 58–61.53. Ibid., 60–82.

Chapter 16352

The same construct of cause and effect is also reflected in the Israelite cul-tic system. Although Koch has not explored the cult on this question in detail,he does mention the fact that key terms for sin, including tafj, [vp, andˆw[, can expresss both sinful actions and their consequences, which impliesthat the consequences are built-in.54 While our earlier discussion of theseterms has found them to have more limited meanings in certain cultic con-texts, consequential sin-bearing is an integral part of the cultic system (seech. 13 above). Koch also cites the suspected adulteress ritual (Num 5), inwhich exoneration or punishment results from the woman’s moral state.55

We can adduce further support for the existence of Koch’s construct in thecult. The fact that Israelite sins affect the sanctuary and can accumulate tothe point that Yhwh abandons it and his people to destruction shows that sin-disaster is a process in which cause inevitably yields a corresponding effectthat Yhwh brings to completion.56

While the “Action-Consequences-Construct” operates in the cult, it is alsotrue that Yhwh holds the Israelites accountable to a previously establishednorm, consisting of his commandments. The ritual procedure of the Day ofAtonement implies a judicial process at an appointed time, as the rabbis rec-ognized (b. Ros Has. 16a, b; y. Ros Has. 1.3). So we cannot view retributionand Koch’s construct as mutually exclusive. Rather, they are complementaryand combine in the ritual system to exhibit Yhwh’s perfect justice. Yhwh doesmete out retribution, but it is not detached from a condemned person’s char-acter and deeds. His judgment is to recognize a person’s nature and choices,as indicated by actions, and destine him/her to reap the consequences.57

The narratives concerning Shimei and Adonijah (cf. Absalom) illustratethat amnesty from punishment does not necessarily lead to abiding loyalty,without which reconciliation cannot last. So granting a reprieve does notbring reconciliation to completion. A later event can result in confirmationor annulment of kindness previously extended. In the cultic system, the later

54. Ibid., 75–78.55. Ibid., 86 n. 56.56. Cf. Koch’s comment on Hos 7:1–2: “By virtue of deity, Yahweh cannot come

close to the people without this very nature triggering the consequences of the sinswhich are exposed by divine presence. The actions of the people have determinedtheir destiny” (ibid., 66).

57. Cf. ibid., 82; Rev 22:11–12. In the present volume I have dealt with an impor-tant question that Koch raised but was not able to pursue: “Finally, what relationshipdoes the completion of actions with built-in consequences have in respect to Yahweh’scultic actions or way of handling the final judgment?” (ibid., 83).


event is the Day of Atonement, when cleansing/vindication of forgiven sin-ners is granted on condition that they show loyalty to Yhwh.

David’s relationship with Yhwh was restored following his sin with Bath-sheba, due to his confession and sincere contrition (see, e.g., 2 Sam 12:13–14; Ps 51). However, I have not found an analogous example of lasting rec-onciliation between David or Solomon and another person following com-mission of a deliberate fault against the king in peacetime.58 This kind ofreconciliation between human beings is difficult to achieve, as illustrated bythe agonizing process through which Joseph came to forgive his brothers forthe appalling wrong of kidnapping him and selling him into slavery (Gen42–45; cf. 37:23–28).59 Because they passed the character tests that he set up,thereby revealing their deep change of heart and sorrow for what they haddone to him, he became willing to reveal his identity in order to forgivethem (45:1–15). But although this pardon was dramatic, it was not the endof the story of reconciliation. After Jacob died, Joseph’s brothers were afraidthat he would carry out delayed revenge. So they asked for reconfirmation ofhis forgiveness (50:15–21).

Joseph’s brothers knew that forgiveness, whether for a deliberate or an in-advertent wrong, can be recalled (cf. Matt 18:23–35). Security for the sinnerrequires confirmation of pardon. Jeremiah acknowledged the same principle.Not only will God forgive his people; he will “remember their sin no more”(Jer 31:34). That is, he will make their sin eternally irrelevant to the divine-human relationship and thereby render forgiveness irrevocable. Accordingly,the two phases of rpk in the Israelite sanctuary correspond to forgiving sin(Lev 4) and making it irrevocably irrelevant (Lev 16).

ConclusionSome biblical narratives illustrate relational dynamics that are encapsu-

lated in the purification-offering system. Numbers 14 highlights the impor-tance of Yhwh’s international reputation, illuminates the problem of judicialresponsibility that he bears when he forgives, and confirms the fact that he ul-timately purges rebels from the community that benefits from his kindness.

Interactions between human kings and their subjects of various kinds ofcharacter, such as are found in 2 Sam 14 and 1 Kgs 2, are analogous in key

58. David did spare Saul’s life on more than one occasion (1 Sam 24, 26), but thisdid not lead to lasting reconciliation. David’s politically astute reconciliations withAbner and Amasa, generals who had been his military enemies, were cut short whenthey were murdered by Joab (2 Sam 3, 19–20).

59. Compare the later law of Exod 21:16, where kidnapping is a capital offense.

Chapter 16354

respects to divine-human relationships enacted in the cult of King Yhwh. Inboth spheres, a king acting as judge incurs judicial culpability (ˆw[) if he al-lows moral evil to go unpunished, and a person’s fate depends on his loyaltyto the sovereign. The loyal are rewarded, the disloyal are condemned, andconditional amnesty can lead to later condemnation if loyalty, as demon-strated by obedience to the monarch, is not maintained.

355

Chapter 17

Yearly Accountability in Mesopotamian Cult

In the ancient Near East, cultic enactment of theodicy was not unique toIsrael. Yearly determination/judgment of human fates by deities appears inMesopotamian festival texts.1 Particularly striking parallels to the IsraeliteDay of Atonement are found in the Sumerian New Year celebration at thetemple of the goddess Nanshe and the Babylonian New Year (Akitu) Festivalof Spring, which were believed to enact renewal of relationships between dei-ties and their human subjects.2

As in the Israelite ritual system, the Mesopotamian cults of Nanshe andMarduk included yearly accountability to their deities, with judgment basedon adherence to divine rules throughout the year and demonstration of loy-alty on a festival day. In each case, continued human enjoyment of divinebenefits was conditioned upon adherence to the cultic and ethical standardsof the deity during the preceding year.3 Thus the justice and sovereignty ofthe deity was affirmed, and the human community was encouraged to upholdthe divinely regulated order.

The Nanshe New YearThe Nanshe Hymn is an Ur III period (ca. 2100–2000 b.c.) Sumerian text.4

A complete edition of the hymn was published with cuneiform, transliteration,

1. M. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source againstTheir Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in Proceedings of the Eighth World Con-gress of Jewish Studies; Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language (Jerusa-lem: World Union of Jewish Studies/Perry Foundation for Biblical Research, 1983)105–9, 116–17.

2. On divine-human renewal at the Ugaritic New Year, see J. C. de Moor, New Yearwith Canaanites and Israelites (Kampen: Kamper Cahiers, 1972) 1:5–10.

3. On the connection between ethics and ritual in Israel and Mesopotamia, seeJ. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 21–26; idem, Leviti-cus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 1400.

4. The third dynasty of Ur began with the reign of Ur-Nammu and ended with thereign of Ibbi-Sin: 2112–2004 b.c. according to conventional chronology and 2047–1940 b.c. according to low chronology (see, e.g., A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East

Chapter 17356

and English translation by W. Heimpel in 1981.5 T. Jacobsen included quitea different rendering in his 1987 collection of Sumerian poetry entitled TheHarps That Once. . . .6 Subsequently, a revised translation by Heimpel has ap-peared in the first volume of The Context of Scripture (1997).7

The Nanshe Hymn is unusual in that it contains only a small amount ofthe kind of content we would expect in a hymn.8 It focuses on two NewYear’s Day celebrations at the temple of Nanshe, called Sirara, in the city ofNina. Jacobsen identifies this city as “the present Tel Zurghul, in the Lagashregion.”9

According to Heimpel’s interpretation, the first part of the Nanshe Hymndescribes preparations for a New Year celebration under Gudea (ca. 2100b.c.), ruler of Lagash. These preparations were unsuccessful because of lackof grain and deterioration of the temple administration. Consequently, drasticreforms in the temple’s economic program were implemented. The secondpart depicts another New Year celebration that was carried out successfully,apparently because the temple reforms were effective. The hymn is mostlikely dated between Gudea and the end of the Nanshe cult in Nina,10 some-time late in the Ur III period.11

There are similarities between the Nanshe New Year and the Israelite Day of Atonement

Comparison between the Nanshe New Year and the Israelite Day ofAtonement, as prescribed in Lev 16 and 23:26–32, shows that basic elementsof the Day of Atonement had early precedents in the Mesopotamian Nanshe

5. W. Heimpel, “The Nanshe Hymn,” JCS 33 (1981) 65–139.6. T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1987) 125–42.7. W. Heimpel, “To Nanshe (1.162),” COS 1:526–31.8. Heimpel, “The Nanshe Hymn,” 66.9. Jacobsen, The Harps, 125. It is possible that the text was intended to be recited

during the New Year celebration (Heimpel, “The Nanshe Hymn,” 68). The NansheHymn does not indicate the season in which New Year’s Day occurred.

10. Heimpel, ibid., 67. 11. Jacobsen, The Harps, 126.

c. 3000–330 bc [London: Routledge, 1995] 1:56, 58, 63). S. N. Kramer recognized thatthe date of first composition may be earlier than the dating of the extant tablets onwhich the text was copied, which he placed in the first half of the second millenniumb.c. (“Mercy, Wisdom, and Justice: Some New Documents from Nippur,” UniversityMuseum Bulletin 16 [1951] 34).


Yearly Accountability in Mesopotamian Cult 357

cult. An initial point of contact with the Day of Atonement is the fact that theNanshe Hymn mentions purgation of the divine residence: “[ ] her houseSirara where water is sprinkled” (line 178).12

More importantly, at the Nanshe New Year, deities judge the rights of hu-man beings to continue enjoying their connections with them and theircults.13 “On the edge of the year, the day of rites,” that is, apparently a NewYear’s Day,14 “Nanshe inspects the reviewing of servants” (line 97). Templeservants who perform their work properly have their yearly contracts renewed,but unfaithful workers are terminated.15 According to Heimpel, the NewYear’s Day review extended beyond servants to other persons, including thepoor, who gained economic benefits from the temple or exemptions fromcontributions to the temple.16

Renewal of yearly contracts at the Nanshe New Year is analogous to theyearly review that takes place on the Isralite Day of Atonement. At this timeIsraelites who are loyal to Yhwh are made “clean” before him (Lev 16:30)—that is, free from impediments to continuation of their relationship withhim—and those who fail to show their loyalty by practicing self-denial andabstaining from work are rejected (Lev 23:29–30). Somewhat like the Day ofAtonement, the Nanshe New Year includes the possibility that persons can be

12. This and subsequent quotations of the Nanshe Hymn are from Heimpel’stranslation in “To Nanshe.” Jacobsen renders lines 178–79: “In her temple Siratr hav-ing sprinkled water in her chamber for the midday nap, having swept it . . .” (TheHarps, 138). These lines do not necessarily mean that Nanshe’s temple is cleansedonly on or for New Year’s Day.

13. While divine judgment takes place during the Ugaritic New Year Festival (U 5V, no. 2, obv. 2–3), de Moor acknowledges that it is not clear who is judged but sup-poses that those who have been unfaithful to the god during his absence are punished(New Year, 1:8; 2:24).

14. See Heimpel, “To Nanshe,” 528 n. 18.15. Compare the review of servants on New Year’s Day in a hymn to the goddess

Inanna (Jacobsen, The Harps, 122). Heimpel comments on the function of NewYear’s Day in Mesopotamia: “A comparison with elements in the New Year’s ritualin Babylon and the so-called Middle Assyrian royal ritual (see RlA s.v. Investitur 4)demonstrates that the function of the New Year’s Day as day of appointments, re-appointments and removal from office . . . was a common Mesopotamian feature”(“The Nanshe Hymn,” 68). Cf. R. Caplice, and W. Heimpel, “Investitur,” RlA 5:141.For other texts in which New Years are days of inspection, see Heimpel, “The Nan-she Hymn,” 110. In addition to yearly reappointment of officials, K. van der Toornpoints out promotion or demotion at the New Year (“Form and Function of the NewYear Festival in Babylonia and Israel,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 [ed. J. A.Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991] 5).

16. Heimpel, “The Nanshe Hymn,” 67–68.

Chapter 17358

cleared, that is, restored/vindicated, to good and regular standing: “The or-deal river in the house of Nanshe clears a person” (line 130).17

The nature of behavior during the previous year is relevant to the judg-ment of temple dependents at the Nanshe New Year. The god Hendursagdoes the following on this day:

He places a good person among good persons,Hands over a bad person to a bad place.He renders judgement for an orphan,he also renders judgement for a widow,(and) he sets right the judgement of a child’s mother. (lines 189–93)

Similarly, we have found that prior behavior also affects the Day of Atone-ment judgment. Only nondefiant sinners, who have already been forgiven ifthey have committed expiable offenses, are eligible for the final stage of rpk

on this day.Individuals dependent on the Nanshe temple are held accountable to

divinely appointed cultic and ethical standards. Cultic standards includeproper performance of temple duties, such as cleaning troughs of dough, thatis, apparently kneading-troughs, and maintaining the fire at night (lines 114–15). Nanshe’s ethical standards prohibit behaviors such as bullying, alteringa boundary, dishonest use of weights and measures,18 and mistreatment ofchildren by their mothers (lines 136, 139, 142–43, 212–23). Like Nanshe’srules, Yhwh’s instructions include cultic and ethical requirements (see, e.g.,Lev 19). Failure to keep any of Yhwh’s commandments is regarded as sin(Lev 4:2).

The Nanshe New Year, like the Israelite Day of Atonement, shows a con-nection between cult and theodicy in that it involves judgment of persons onthe basis of loyalty that must be demonstrated by adherence to the deity’s per-sonal standards. This indicates at least a partial exception to J. Porter’s gener-alization that priestly theology, which emphasizes law, contrasts with religionoutside Israel, in which gods

were usually arbitrary and capricious: they were bound by no rules and aman could never be sure what attitude they would take to his actions. Itwas therefore a great advance when Abraham could ask God, expecting apositive answer, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is just?”

17. Heimpel has interpreted this as an ordeal for those who do not keep Nanshe’srules “and/or for those who have been removed from office” (ibid., 69).

18. Cf. Lev 19:35–36.


(Gen. 18:25), that is, act in accordance with a standard which he himselfhas set and which man can know.19

To have their yearly contracts renewed, Sumerian temple servants must bepresent for inspection at the temple of Nanshe on New Year’s Day:

On the day when the bowls of allotments are inspectedNanshe inspects the reviewing of servants.Did not her chief scribe Nisabaplace precious tablets on (her) knees?She took the gold stylus in hand.For Nanshe she organized the servants in single file. (lines 96–101)

To be eligible for good standing, Israelites are also required to participate ontheir day of judgment by practicing self-denial and abstaining from work(Lev 16:29–31; 23:27–32).

Because the yearly judgment at Nanshe’s temple is regarded as carried outby deities who possess superhuman powers of perception, there is no escapingjustice: “The lady, caretaker of the provinces, Innin, mother Nanshe, seesinto their hearts . . . sees into the heart of the land as if it were a split reed”(lines 163–64, 173). Leviticus 16 and 23, which prescribe the ceremonies ofthe Day of Atonement, do not explicitly mention Yhwh’s perception. But thisis assumed in the threat that anyone who does not practice self-denial will suf-fer the divinely administered penalty of extirpation (Lev 23:29). Someonecould evade human detection, but Yhwh himself would enforce his law.20

Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, Yhwh’s divine perception is made ex-plicit. For example: “The Lord watches over the stranger; He gives courageto the orphan and widow, but makes the path of the wicked tortuous” (Ps146:9; njpsv). Notice the parallel with lines 20–24 of the Nanshe Hymn:

She knows the orphan, she knows the widow. She knows that person op-presses person. A mother for the orphan, Nanshe, a caretaker for the widow,finding a way for houses in debt, the lady shelters the abducted person,seeks a place for the weak.21

Here the special powers of Nanshe enable her, like Yhwh, to help the sociallydisadvantaged who would otherwise suffer injustice (cf. Ps 82).

A solemn tone characterizes the Nanshe New Year. Heimpel describes theatmosphere: “The element of inspection dominates. The element of joy and

19. J. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 9–10.20. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 460.21. For the idea of divine perception in the Bible, see, for example, 1 Kgs 8:39; Ps

1:6; 44:21–22[20–21]; 94:11.

Chapter 17360

happy crowds is missing. This points to (an attempt at) a fresh start in timeswhen negligence, corruption, and greed threatened to ruin the temple.”22

The awesome Day of Atonement is also solemn, a time for Israelites to hum-ble themselves by practicing self-denial while the high priest approaches thepresence of Yhwh in the inner sanctum to purge their sins.

Both in Mesopotamia and in Israel, divine administration of justice isbased on divine rule over a human community. Thus the scope of judgmentcovers a community that is defined in relation to a temple/sanctuary and itsdeity. Nanshe is described as “the lady who [determines] the destiny like En-lil, [who ] on the dais of Sirara” (lines 229–30). She determines fates ofpeople who receive food from her temple (line 96) because she rules them.Similarly, Yhwh rules the Israelites from his place of enthronement in thesanctuary above the ark of the covenant (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15;cf. Exod 25:22; Num 7:89). Therefore he judges them. Psalm 9:8[7] makesthe connection explicit: “But the Lord sits enthroned forever, he has estab-lished his throne for judgment” (nrsv).

There are differences between the Nanshe New Year and the Israelite Day of Atonement

There are, of course, significant differences between the Nanshe New Yearand the Israelite Day of Atonement:

1. The judgment at Nanshe’s temple takes place on New Year’s Day. TheIsraelite Day of Atonement, on the other hand, is the 10th day of the seventhmonth (Lev 16:29). This is not New Year’s Day for the Israelites, except thatthe Jubilee year begins on this day every fiftieth year (Lev 25:9).23

2. The cleaning of Nanshe’s house by sprinkling with water (lines 178) ap-pears to be purification simply from ordinary dirt and perhaps also from somekind of ritual impurity. There is no indication that this activity has a resultlike the purgation of Yhwh’s sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, which re-moves ritual impurities and moral faults generated by the people of the com-munity throughout the year.

3. The Nanshe Hymn explicitly describes divine justice. For example,“On the day when the bowls of allotments are inspected Nanshe inspects thereviewing of servants” (lines 96–97).24 Leviticus, on the other hand, impliesdivine justice through the facts that Yhwh requires his sanctuary to becleansed from the sins of his people in order for him to continue residing

22. Heimpel, “The Nanshe Hymn,” 67.23. See Ezek 40:1, where the 10th day of the month is at New Year (hn;V…h" varø ).24. Cf. lines 189–90.



among them (see Lev 16:16b; Ezek 9:3; 10:4, 18–19; 11:22–23),25 and heclears/cleanses those who show loyalty to him by practicing self-denial andabstaining from work (Lev 16:30) but condemns those who do not (23:29–30).

4. In Israel, wanton sinners, including those who choose to neglect theirritual remedies, are condemned before the Day of Atonement (Lev 20:3;Num 15:30–31; 19:13, 20). The Nanshe Hymn, however, does not provideevidence that contracts of offending temple dependents are revoked on daysother than the New Year.

5. The Sumerian hymn describes judicial investigation leading to verdicts(lines 96–101; see above) that are reached through the testimony of witnesses(lines 107–8) and through investigation by Hendursaga (lines 207–9). Leviti-cus 16 does not explicitly refer to judicial investigation. But the fact that therituals of the day deal with sins of the Israelites against their deity and thepeople become either “clean” or condemned implies some kind of processleading to verdicts. The idea that Yhwh has a judgment involving investiga-tion is explicit elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Qoh 12:14; Dan 7:10—“and bookswere opened”).26

6. In the Nanshe Hymn, clearing from wrong-doing is through ordeal, andthe text does not indicate whether the cleared person was actually guilty orwas only suspected.27 The Day of Atonement procedure deals with actualguilt and involves rituals performed by the high priest, accompanied by self-denial and abstaining from work (Lev 16). More significant than the differ-ence in outward procedure is that of underlying dynamics. In the NansheHymn a person can be cleared on New Year’s Day in a one-step process, butan Israelite who becomes “clean” on the Day of Atonement has already beenforgiven through an earlier phase of rpk.

25. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 260.26. For the idea that Yhwh uses records, see Exod 32:32; Isa 4:3; Ps 69:29[28];

139:16.27. See the ancient Mesopotamian Code of Ur-Namma (or Ur-Nammu) §10 and

§11 and Code of Hammurabi §2 and §132, where a person charged with sorcery oradultery is subjected to an ordeal, through which he is vindicated or condemned ac-cording to whether or not he drowns in the river. Notice that in Code of Hammurabi§2 and §132 the divine determinative is used with the word for the (Euphrates) river,indicating that it functions as a kind of divine judge. H. C. Brichto argues that in theIsraelite trial of the suspected adulteress (Num 5:11–31), although Yhwh functions asjudge and jury due to lack of evidence available to a human court, this is not a trialby ordeal in which the accused is presumed guilty unless proved innocent. Rather,the suspected adulteress is innocent unless proved guilty, and the ritual invokes Yhwh

to indicate his verdict through a sign that coincides with punishment or lack thereof(“The Case of the ‡o†a and a Reconsideration of Biblical ‘Law,’ ” HUCA 46 [1975]64–66).

Chapter 17362

7. Nanshe is assisted by other deities, such as Hendursaga and Nisaba.Yhwh has no other deity to assist him.28 Even if Azazel is a supernatural be-ing such as a demon, he must be Yhwh’s enemy rather than his assistant,because Yhwh has the Israelites send him an unfriendly shipment of theirtoxic moral waste (Lev 16:8, 10, 21–22).

The Babylonian New Year Festival of SpringPartially preserved Akkadian tablets prescribe the rituals of the Babylonian

New Year (Akitu) Festival of Spring, which was to take place during the first11 or 12 days of the month of Nisannu. The text relevant to Nisannu 2–5 waspublished in cuneiform, transliteration, and French translation by F. Thureau-Dangin.29 An English translation of this text by A. Sachs is readily availablein Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by J. B.Pritchard.30 In his 1976 dissertation, G. Çagirgan presents the text dealing withNisannu 2–5, plus fragmentary evidence for the other days of the festival, intransliteration and English translation, followed by discussion.31 In The CulticCalendars of the Ancient Near East, M. Cohen has included translation anddiscussion of extant texts relevant to at least part of each festival day.32 J. Bid-mead includes translation of some portions, along with reconstruction of ritualevents and their social function.33 My own translation of the text relevant today 5 is included in my dissertation along with detailed analysis of the ritualsas activity systems.34

The tablets recording days 2–5 are late, dating to the Seleucid period, andevidence for the other days of the festival as it was performed in Babylon alsodates to the first millennium b.c. (especially Neo-Babylonian). However, theritual procedures are rooted in much earlier Mesopotamian practice, withthe oldest references to á-ki-ti festivals in other cities dating back to the thirdmillennium.35

28. In Ezek 9, the scribe of Yhwh, who participates in the judgment of Judah, is a“man clothed in linen” (vv. 2, 3, 11), apparently an angelic being.

29. F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens (Paris: Leroux, 1921) 127–54.30. ANET 331–34.31. G. Çagirgan, “The Babylonian Festivals” (Ph.D. diss., University of Birming-

ham, 1976) 1–49, 203–33.32. M. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Mary-

land: CDL, 1993) 437–51.33. J. Bidmead, The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in

Mesopotamia (Gorgias Dissertations 2, Near Eastern Studies 2; Piscataway, New Jer-sey: Gorgias, 2004).

34. R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure (Gorgias Dissertations 14, Religion 2; Pis-cataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2004) 199–243, 319–23.

35. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 401; cf. 406–18.


On the 4th day of the Akitu festival, actual celebration of the New Year be-gan with observation of the star Pegasus by a priest, who blessed the templethree times.36

In his morning prayers, the officiating priest, anticipating the confirmationof the king in his office, honours Marduk and his spouse Zarpanitu as thegods who give the holy sceptre to the king and who decree his destiny. Onthis day the populace was free from duty. Unlike other days, the temple wasopen for the general public, allowing private citizens to address their sup-plications directly to Marduk. In the evening, when the worshippers havedeparted and the gods have finished their meal, the sesgallu, the officiatingpriest, recites Enuma elish “from its beginning to its end.”37

The people are free from duty on this day and on some subsequent days ofthe festival,38 just as the Israelites do not work (but by requirement ratherthan by choice) on the Day of Atonement. However, whereas the Babylonianfestival day gave the public special access to Marduk, the Day of Atonementgave only the high priest special access to Yhwh. In fact, while the highpriest was there, even ordinary priests were denied access to the outer sanc-tum (Lev 16:17).

Already on Nisannu 4 of the Babylonian festival we have found interestingparallels and contrasts with the Israelite Day of Atonement. The bulk of ourdiscussion will focus on the next day, Nisannu 5, when preparation is madefor the climactic events of subsequent festival days. On this day special ritualspurify the sacred precincts of Marduk/Bel, the city god of Babylon, and ofNabû, Marduk’s son, and reaffirm the king’s royal status before Marduk.

There are similarities between the Babylonian ceremonies of Nisannu 5 and the Israelite Day of Atonement

Like the Israelite Day of Atonement ceremonies, the Babylonian rituals ofNisannu 5 involve cleansing temple precincts and divine judgment at a yearlytime of renewal, when the religious and social order is reaffirmed.39 Like theIsraelite rituals, the Babylonian rites are of three types with regard to the ritual

36. Van der Toorn, “Form and Function,” 2.37. Ibid., 3.38. Ibid.39. Cf. ibid., 13; idem, “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from

the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study,” in Congress Vol-ume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 339; cf. 343–44. Regarding the Day of Atonement and the Babylonian Akitu festival as yearly timesof renewal, see Porter, Leviticus, 124–25; cf. S. Landersdorfer, Studien zum biblischenVersöhnungstag (ATA 10; Münster: Aschendorff, 1924) 44–54.

Chapter 17364

calendar: regular, festival, and special.40 Regular rituals include personal pu-rification of the high priest with water preparatory to his officiation, prayers,and morning and afternoon “meal” ceremonies to be performed daily forMarduk and his spouse, Zarpanitu/Belet.41 With regard to the ritual proce-dure in Babylon, Nabû’s afternoon “meal” on Nisannu 5 can be regarded asa festival offering. While Nabû was undoubtedly provided with “meals” at hishome temple in Borsippa during the rest of the year, he was fed in Babylonwhile visiting there on festival days, including the afternoon of Nisannu 5, justafter his arrival.42 Rituals special to Nisannu 5 include purification of the Es-agila temple complex of Marduk and the Ezida cella of Nabû, the reconfir-mation of the king before Marduk, and a burnt offering of honey, ghee, andoil placed in a pit, while a white bull stands in front of the pit.43

Milgrom has pointed out several similarities between the 5th day of theAkitu festival and the Day of Atonement:

On both occasions, (1) the temple is purged by rites that demand that thehigh priest rise before dawn (m. Yoma 1:7), bathe and dress in linen, em-ploy a censer, and perform a sprinkling rite on the sanctuary; (2) the im-purity is eliminated by means of slaughtered animals; (3) the participantsare rendered impure; and (4) the king/high priest submits to a ritual ofconfession and penitence.44

Cleansing the Israelite sanctuary involves three stages, dealing with itsthree parts: inner sanctum, outer sanctum, and outer altar. Purifying theBabylonian temple precincts is also a three-stage process: cleansing of thegreat Esagila temple complex as a whole (lines 340–45), which includes

40. R. Gane, “Schedules for Deities: Macrostructure of Israelite, Babylonian, andHittite Sancta Purification Days,” AUSS 36 (1998) 231–36, 239–44.

41. Contents of prayers vary from day to day. Regarding meal ceremonies, see“Daily Sacrifices to the Gods of the City of Uruk” (trans. A. Sachs), ANET 343–45;A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1964) 188–89.

42. Just as the festival offerings of the Israelite Day of Atonement supplement theregular burnt offering to Yhwh (Num 29:8–11), the afternoon “meal” of Nabû comesjust after the regular afternoon meal of Marduk and is closely linked to it, as shown bythe fact that following Marduk’s meal, his table is brought to Nabû (lines 405–6).Whereas the morning meal of Marduk is only briefly mentioned (lines 338–39), the af-ternoon table ceremony of this god is presented in detail (lines 385–403), perhaps be-cause the ritual is modified according to the special festival context.

43. While the offering burns, the king recites a speech addressed to the bull, whichapparently represents a heavenly deity.

44. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1068; cf. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions,”112–13.


the sanctuary of Marduk and his consort, and then two purifications of thesmaller Ezida, the guest cella of Nabû (lines 345b–365, 366–84).

Cleansing the Esagila is accomplished by sprinkling water, sounding acopper bell, and carrying around a censer and torch inside the temple.45 Pu-rification of the Ezida is more elaborate, including not only sprinkling holywater and carrying a censer and torch but also smearing the doors with cedaroil and wiping the cella with the decapitated carcass of a ram.46 As is wellknown, the Akkadian verb here is kuppuru (D stem), “to wipe off, to clean ob-jects, to rub, to purify magically,”47 which is the cognate of Hebrew rP<KI

(piºel), the verb used in Lev 16:16, 18, 20, and 33 for the purging of the Israel-ite sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. Notice that the so-called “kuppururite” is not an independent ritual but a subsystem of activities that belongs toa ritual.48

The functionaries who slaughter the ram and perform the wiping disposeof its head and body by throwing them in the river. After this they must re-main outside Babylon for the remainder of the festival. So it is clear that con-tact with the purgation animal renders them ritually impure, just as Israeliteswho dispose of the purification-offering bull and goat carcasses and lead Aza-zel’s goat into the wilderness become impure (Lev 16:26, 28).

The fact that the purgation of the cella of Nabû is more elaborate than thatof the rest of the temple is understandable in view of the fact that, whereasMarduk’s quarters are his permanent residence, Nabû has not stayed in hiscella since his last visit. As a result of this vacancy, there is a greater possibilitythat demonic impurities have entered to lurk here.

D. Wright comments on wiping the Ezida with the ram’s carcass:

45. Whereas incense is used in the Israelite sanctuary on the Day of Atonement toprotect the high priest (Lev 16:12–13), the Babylonian incense functions as a purga-tive element. Sound, odor, and light produced by bells, censers, and torches can affectlarge spaces, but undoubtedly only a small fraction of the Esagila’s vast surface area isdampened by sprinkling. So it is clear that the sprinkling purifies pars pro toto.

46. Without support, Çagirgan speculates that this purification “is not performedphysically, but in a symbolic sense by moving the sheep’s body inside the temple”(“The Babylonian Festivals,” 210).

47. CAD K 178–79; cf. B. Landsberger, The Date Palm and Its By-Products accord-ing to the Cuneiform Sources (ed. E. Weidner; AfOBei 17; Graz: pub. by the editors,1967) 31–32.

48. S. Hills shows that it is quite common for kuppuru activity to serve as a subor-dinate element within Mesopotamian rituals (“A Semantic and Conceptual Study ofthe Root KPR in the Hebrew Old Testament with Special Reference to the AccadianKuppuru” [Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1954] 127, 158–62).

Chapter 17366

This rite is simply for the transfer and disposal of evils affecting Nabu’scella; it contains no motif of substitution as often appears in Hittite andother Mesopotamian rituals. The carcass of the ram is used to wipe awayevils present in the room (line 354). It thereby becomes saturated with im-purity and must be disposed of properly by casting it into the river (line359). Because the rite only manifests the ideas of transfer and disposal, it isconceptually similar to the scapegoat rite.

Another notable similarity between the two rites is the pollution incurredby the officiants. . . .49

This “transfer and disposal” is one of three different modes of purificationused on the Ezida:

1. Purgatives, including water, cedar oil, incense, and torch light, are ap-plied to the Ezida in order to remove impurity from it.50 Water and cedar oilare applied directly, but incense and torch light create a perceptible effectemanating from a source, without direct application.51

2. The ram’s carcass serves as a vehicle for the transfer of ritual impurityfrom the temple. Once the carcass laden with impurity is away from thetemple, it is discarded in the river. Although both the Babylonian ram andthe Israelite goat for Azazel function as vehicles, they relate to the evils theybear in different ways. Unlike Azazel’s goat that is banished live to the wilder-ness, the ram is slain, its carcass functions as a “sponge” that “absorbs” evil bydirect contact (i.e., by wiping: line 354), it is used to rid sacred precincts ofimpurities, and it does not bear the moral faults of the people.52 To be fairlyprecise, dynamics of the Babylonian activities with the ram are: transfer byabsorption of ritual impurity from what is purified into absorbent material bycontact and conveyance of the contaminated absorbent material away fromwhat is purified, followed by disposal of the contaminated material. It is sig-nificant that the head of the ram, although not wiped on the Ezida, is clearlycontaminated, as shown by the fact that the slaughterer must dispose of it in

49. D. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and inHittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 64. Onsimilarity to the ritual of Azazel’s goat, which is not killed, cf. R. de Vaux, AncientIsrael: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans /Livonia, Michigan: Dove, 1961) 508.

50. These are similar to the agents used for purifying the Esagila, except that cedaroil is used and there is no ringing of a copper bell.

51. In the context of Hittite ritual, Wright refers to purgatives that are applied di-rectly to the “patient” as “detergents” (The Disposal of Impurity, 34–36).

52. Cf. R. de Vaux, Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament (CahRB 1; Paris: Gabalda,1964) 96; D. J. McCarthy, “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88 (1969)169; A. Noordtzij, Leviticus (trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1982) 168–69 n. 17.


the river and then stay in the open country (see above). Thus the animal istreated as a unit of absorbent material: direct contamination of a part is re-garded as contaminating the whole (pars pro toto). Compare the special Is-raelite purification offerings, in which the bull and goat carcasses are impureeven though only the blood of the two animals is directly applied to sacredareas and objects. Azazel’s live goat receives evil from the cultic representa-tive of Israel, the high priest, when he places both hands on its head and con-fesses (Lev 16:21), but the fact that spoken confession is necessary for thetransfer to take place indicates that there is more to it than simply absorption.

3. Incantations remove impurity by exorcising demons (see further below).As Wright perceives, since the complex of slain purification offerings re-

moves evils by absorption and disposal, it is this rather than the ritual of Aza-zel’s goat that most closely parallels the Babylonian kuppuru activity.53 Wecan summarize some similarities between use of the Babylonian ram and thatof the slain Israelite animals:

1. Ritual activities purge a sacred dwelling.2. Animals function as “sponges” to absorb evil nonmaterial entities that

are not represented by any material symbols.3. Animal “sponges” are disposed of away from the sacred precincts—the

Israelite animals by incineration and the Babylonian ram by throwing its head and body into the river.

4. Animals are regarded as units.

“After the purification of the temple” (line 366), a second purification of theEzida involves setting up a kind of canopy called “the golden heaven” and re-citing a “loud cry,” an incantation to exorcise demons from the temple.54 Theincantation states that the gods purify the precincts (line 374). This seems toimply that after one level of exorcism has exhausted its power during the ear-lier stage of purification, the gods complete the task by dealing with any“great evil demon” (line 382) that remains to haunt the premises. So the goalof the human activity is to promote divine purification activity.

53. D. P. Wright, “Day of Atonement,” ABD 2:74. Here Wright states that dispos-al of the Babylonian ram’s carcass and head in the river “removes the impurity thathas been collected in the carcass of the ram.” Cf. Milgrom, who points out the par-allel between burning the purification offering carcasses and elimination of thekuppuru carcass (Leviticus 1–16, 1069).

54. Although the “golden heaven” is not described, it must be some kind of canopy(CAD M/1 136) with a considerable surface area and made at least partly of gold.

Chapter 17368

Later on Nisannu 5, the king purifies himself by washing his hands withwater (line 413) and is brought before (the image of) Marduk/Bel in the Esa-gila temple.55 A remarkable series of activities ensues:

(415–17) When he (i.e., the king) reaches [the presence of B]el, the high priest goes out and takes the scepter, the loop, and the mace [from the king]; he takes his royal crown.

(418) He brings them in [before Be]l;(419) he places them [on] a chair. He goes out and strikes the cheek of

the king.(420) He places . . . behind him. He brings him into the presence of Bel:(421) He pulls . . . (him by) the ears; he makes him kneel down to the

ground.(422) . . . The king says the following once:(423) “I did [not s]in, lord of the countries. I was not negligent toward

you.56

(424) [I did not des]troy Babylon; I did not command its overthrow. (425) [I did not.] . . . Esagil, I did not forget its rituals.(426) [I did not s]trike the cheek of the privileged citizens(427) . . . nor did I bring about their humiliation.(428) [I] . . . for Babylon; I did not destroy its walls.”

(About five lines are missing. What follows belongs to a speech addressed to the king by the high priest).

(434) “Do not fear . . .(435) which Bel has spoken . . .(436) Bel [will listen to] your prayer . . .(437) He will magnify your lordship . . .(438) He will exalt your kingship . . .(339) On the day of the essesu-festival, do . . .(440) In (the festival of) the Opening of the Gate, cleanse [your]

hands . . .57

(441) day and night . . .

55. See Exod 30:19–21, requiring Israelite priests to ritually purify themselves bywashing their hands and feet before approaching Yhwh in the Sacred Tent or begin-ning to officiate at his altar. In light of the Babylonian king’s later speech to Marduk(lines 422–28), it appears that washing his hands may at least partly signify his moralpurity. His readiness to stand before the god depends on the rightness/innocence ofwhat he has done, as represented by the purity of his hands (cf. Ps 24:4; Matt 27:24).

56. Literally, “toward your divine nature.”57. Compare Ps 24, esp. vv. 3–4, 7.


(442) [Bel], whose city is Babylon . . .(443) whose temple is Esagil . . .(444) whose privileged citizens are the people of Babylon . . .(445) Bel will bless you . . . forever.(446) He will destroy your enemy, defeat your adversary.”(447) When he (the high priest) has spoken, the king [regains] his usual

dignity.58

(448) He (the high priest) takes out the scepter, loop, mace and crown and [hands them over] to the king.

(449) He strikes the cheek of the king. When [he strikes] his cheek,(450) if his tears flow, Bel is favorable;(451) if his tears do not flow, Bel is angry:(452) the enemy will rise up and bring about his downfall.59

The experience of the king could be regarded as a yearly “rite of passage.”60

This is not the initial enthronement of the king, but a cyclical reaffirmationof his status as the divinely mandated ruler of Babylon.61 He passes into atemporary liminal state of humility in which his royal status is neutralized,giving up his royal insignia and receiving harsh treatment from the highpriest, after which he returns to his royal state, with his insignia restored. Thefinal blow on the cheek by the high priest serves as an omen of the god’s atti-tude, but it also seems to convey the idea that, although the king is reinstated,he should remember that he owes his kingship to the god. J. H. Eaton takesthe omen of the king’s tears as a reminder “that the beneficial effects of therites were not taken to be automatic. The pleasure of the god could not betaken for granted or coerced.”62

58. Literally, “heaviness of nose.”59. Translation by R. Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure, 238–40.60. Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 333; J. Milgrom, “The

Priestly Consecration (Leviticus 8): A Rite of Passage,” in Bits of Honey: Essays forSamson H. Levey (ed. S. Chyet and D. Ellenson; SFSHJ 74; Atlanta: Scholars Press,1993) 57–61, esp. 59–60.

61. Van der Toorn, “Form and Function,” 13. On cyclical renewal ceremonies as“rites of passage,” see A. van Gennep’s classic, The Rites of Passage (Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1960) 178–81. Milgrom has pointed out parallels between theBabylonian ceremony and humiliation of the senior chief of the Ndembu at his ini-tial installation, as described by V. Turner (Milgrom, “The Priestly Consecration,”58–60); cf. V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Al-dine, 1969) 100–106.

62. J. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (2nd ed.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) 94.

Chapter 17370

The king’s reconfirmation before Marduk involves a kind of judgment ac-cording to divine cultic and ethical standards. Such accountability for loyaltyto the deity somewhat parallels the concern for loyalty on the Israelite Day ofAtonement. In Babylon it is the king who goes before the deity for judgment,just as the Israelite high priest represents his people before Yhwh, alsothrough a rite of passage that involves “entering and exiting the Holy of Ho-lies, into which no man—not even a Moses—may enter.”63

There are differences between the Babylonian ceremonies of Nisannu 5 and the Israelite Day of Atonement

Differences between the Israelite Day of Atonement and Babylonian cere-monies on the 5th day of the Akitu Festival of Spring include the following:64

1. The Day of Atonement takes place in the seventh month (Tishri), in theautumn. The Babylonian festival, on the other hand, is in Nissanu, the firstmonth in the spring. However, at Babylon, as elsewhere in Mesopotamia,there was another such festival in Tashritu (= Tishri), the seventh month.65

M. Cohen explains each of the two “New Year” festivals as marking the be-ginning of a six-month “equinox year” that was common throughout the an-cient Near East, including Israel, where there were major festivals in the firstand seventh months.66 Although the Israelite feasts of Passover and Unleav-ened Bread in the first month (Exod 12; Lev 23:5–8; Num 28:16–25) lackedthe solemnity of the 1st and 10th days of the seventh month, Ezekiel envi-sioned a purification of the temple on the 1st and 7th days of the first month(45:18–20, but see LXX—“first month” and “seventh month”).

2. The Babylonian festival lasts several days, but the Day of Atonementstands alone. Nevertheless, the Day of Atonement may be regarded as the cli-max of the awesome 10 days that begin with the blowing of trumpets on the1st day of the seventh month (Lev 23:23–25).67

63. Milgrom, “The Priestly Consecration,” 60.64. Cf. Weinfeld, “Social and Cultic Institutions,” 113.65. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 451–53; van der Toorn, “Form and Function,” 1.66. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 400–401. For the idea of multiple New Years,

see m. Ros Has. 1:1.67. M. M. Kalisch, A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament,

with a New Translation: Leviticus (2 vols.; London: Longman, Green, Reader, andDyer, 1867–72) 2:175; Landersdorfer, Studien, 3, 44–54; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16,1069; cf. Lev 23:7–8, 35–36, 39; and Num 28:18, 25; 29:12, 35, where the first andlast days of multi-day festivals carry greater significance than intervening days(Wright, “Day of Atonement,” 75).


3. The Babylonian day includes not only purification of the sacred pre-cincts but also a special reconfirmation of the king to prepare for his role onsubsequent ritual days. Day of Atonement ceremonies, on the other hand, donot involve a human king.68 Van der Toorn points out that in Mesopotamiathe Nissanu festival, at the opening of the civil year, entails political signifi-cance that is lacking in the Tashritu festival:

The Assyrian “Astrolabe B” calls Nisan “the pleasant beginning of Anu andEnlil,” traditionally the ruling gods of the pantheon, and says that in thismonth “the king is lifted up, the king is established.” Tashritu, according tothis text, is the time of the “offerings of the holy year,” “when shrines are pu-rified, people and prince are cleansed.”69

If this characterization applies to the Tashritu Akitu festival in Babylon, its re-ligious emphasis on the cleansing of shrines and people would have made ita closer parallel with the Israelite Day of Atonement, on which the sanctuaryand people were purified. Nevertheless, it appears that in Tashritu the Meso-potamian king/prince would have performed a special role, albeit more mutedthan in Nisannu, for which there was no analogy in the Israelite ritual system.

4. Whereas plurality of deities and sacred locations was a factor in themultiplication of Babylonian ritual activities, such plurality did not affectthe Israelite Day of Atonement due to the monotheistic nature of the nor-mative Israelite cult. Yhwh fulfilled all divine roles that were divided amongother deities in other ancient Near Eastern religions. “He alone was theKing and Judge of the world.”70

5. The Day of Atonement is a climactic event within the Israelite culticsystem, but the 5th day of the Akitu festival prepares for a climax that comeslater in the festival. Nevertheless, the importance of the 5th day should not beunderestimated, particularly if B. Sommer is even partly correct when he ar-gues that purification of the Esagila signified its destruction and rebuilding,“and these events served as a synecdoche for the annihilation and recreationof the whole world.”71

68. Some take the fact that all Day of Atonement rituals are performed by thehigh priest to be an indication of a postexilic date (e.g., Porter, Leviticus, 125, 133).Weinfeld, on the other hand, regards the fact that the king plays no role in the Is-raelite festival texts as an indication of premonarchic background (“Social and Cul-tic Institutions,” 122–23).

69. Van der Toorn, “Form and Function,” 2.70. De Moor, New Year, 1:29.71. B. Sommer, “The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing

the Cosmos?” JANES 27 (2000) 91; cf. 85–90.

Chapter 17372

6. Whereas the Israelite sanctuary cleansing constitutes an enactment oftheodicy, the Babylonian purification of temple precincts simply removes im-purity in order to prepare for the roles of gods participating in the festival.

7. Whereas the Babylonian cleansing of sacred precincts includes sprin-kling water, in the Day of Atonement rituals it is blood that is sprinkled forthe purification of the sanctuary.

8. There are a number of differences between the Israelite purification-offering of purgation (µyriPUKIh" taF"j"; cf. Exod 30:10; Num 29:11) complexthat purges the sanctuary and the Babylonian kuppuru activities that con-tribute to purification of the Ezida. Whereas the former is a complex con-sisting of two individual rituals, the kuppuru “rite” is only a subsystem of anindividual ritual.72 Moreover, even though it involves slaughter, the kup-puru is not an offering/sacrifice, does not deal with moral faults, is only oneamong several means by which an area is purified, occurs while the deity isnot in residence, and involves taking the carcass of an animal into the sacredprecincts, where it is wiped directly on the structure. By contrast, in the spe-cial Israelite purification offerings, only the blood is applied to the contam-inated sanctuary in order to purify it.73

9. Whereas Heb. rP<KI in ritual contexts represents the goal/meaning of ac-tivity, Akk. kuppuru denotes the physical activity itself: “wipe/rub” or “purifyby wiping.”74

10. Evils removed by purification rituals are not the same.75 In Babylonimpurity comes from evil spirits, but there is no purification for sins com-mitted by the Babylonian people. In Israel, on the other hand, impuritiesthat affect the sanctuary come from human beings, and the impurities are

72. Cf. ibid., 92.73. Cf. D. J. McCarthy, “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88 (1969)

169. Wright has found that the Hittite ritual of Ulippi is closer to that of the biblicalDay of Atonement in that it uses blood of a sheep that is smeared on the cultic ob-jects (statue, utensils) and temple (wall) of a deity in order to purify them when thetemple is initially dedicated to the god. The carcass is then burned up and may notbe eaten (“Day of Atonement,” 74; cf. H. Kronasser, Die Umsiedelung der schwarzenGottheit: Das hethitische Ritual KUB XXIX 4 (des Ulippi) (SÖAW Phil.-hist. Kl.241/3; Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus, 1963) 30–33, column iv, lines 35–41). While themanner of purgation parallels that of the Day of Atonement, the context of initialdedication puts the Hittitte rite in closer proximity to Lev 8:14–17, where Mosesuses purification-offering blood to purify the outer altar when it is consecrated.Here, as in Lev 16 and in the Ulippi ritual, the carcass is incinerated (8:17) ratherthan eaten.

74. Cf. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 292–94.75. For a thorough study of impurities and their removal in the context of Israelite,

Hittite, and Mesopotamian cults, see Wright, The Disposal of Impurity.

spread 6 pts. long


purged from the sanctuary with moral faults that the people have committed(Lev 16:16).76 There are no incantations to exorcise demons.

11. The speech of the Babylonian king consists of self-righteous denial ofhis own wrongdoing (lines 422–28). He admits no need for moral cleansing.77

Against H. Frankfort, it is not at all “clear that by his penance and confessionthe king cleansed himself of the taint of past sins and thus became fit to offi-ciate in the succeeding rites.”78 Likewise, there is inadequate support in thiscontext for I. Engnell’s assertion that through cultic suffering “the king atonesfor his whole people, whose sin he carries and is responsible for.”79 By con-trast, the speech of the Israelite high priest over Azazel’s goat (Lev 16:21) is areal confession, admitting the moral faults of the entire nation.80 This crucialdifference calls into question Frankfort’s characterization of Nisannu 5 as the“Day of Atonement” for the Babylonian king.81

12. Only the Babylonian king, whose relationships with the gods implic-itly affect the Babylonian people, is “judged” on the 5th day of the Akitu fes-tival. But all Israelites are explicitly in view on the Day of Atonement.Destinies affecting the well-being of the Babylonian people for the comingyear are determined on day 11 of the Akitu festival,82 but there is no evidencethat their actions are judged in the same way that the king’s are taken into ac-count. Nor is there evidence that the Babylonian king represents his people,as does the Israelite high priest, in the sense that he performs purgation ontheir behalf. Furthermore, whereas the Israelite high priest comes humblybefore Yhwh in the process of purifying his sanctuary, the Babylonian king’shumiliation before Marduk in the Esagila is separate from the kuppuru pur-gation of Nabû’s Ezida cella; these events occur in different locations. Soagain, in spite of significant parallels, the 5th day of the Babylonian festivalshould not be regarded as a Babylonian “Day of Atonement.”83

76. Cf. Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel (trans. and abridg. M. Greenberg; Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) 56, 103–5; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1068–69.

77. The Babylonian text does not tell us what would happen if the king were guilty,but the implication is that he would be punished by Marduk.

78. H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1948) 320.

79. I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (2nd ed.;Oxford: Blackwell, 1967) 35.

80. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1069.81. Frankfort, Kingship, 317, 319.82. S. A. Pallis, The Babylonian Akîtu Festival (Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser

12/1; Copenhagen: A. Host, 1926) 183–86, 196–97; W. G. Lambert, “Myth and Ritualas Conceived by the Babylonians,” JSS 13 (1968) 107.

83. Black, “The New Year Ceremonies,” 54, 56.

Chapter 17374

13. Objects of purification differ. The Day of Atonement rituals are con-cerned with purgation of sacred precincts, sancta, and persons. Apart fromsome preparatory priestly and royal ablutions, the Babylonian purifications ofNisannu 5 only deal with sacred precincts.

14. Whereas the Israelite high priest performs the sanctuary purification rit-uals and is apparently immune to defilement through the process, the Baby-lonian high priest cannot even look on the first phase of the Ezida’s purgation(before the “Golden Heaven” ritual) without becoming impure (lines 364–65).

15. Severity of impurity resulting from ritual participation differs greatly.Israelite assistants who lead Azazel’s goat into the wilderness and dispose ofcarcasses contract minor impurity that lasts only until they launder theirclothes and bathe, after which they are permitted to reenter the camp (Lev16:26, 28). Babylonian functionaries who participate in the kuppuru puri-fication of the Ezida are much more severely affected. They must remainoutside Babylon for the rest of the festival—that is, until the 12th day ofNisannu (lines 361–63).

Final days of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, like the Israelite Day of Atonement, involve accountability for loyalty and determination of destiny

Thus far we have focused on Nissanu 5 of the Babylonian New Year Festi-val of Spring. Highlights of subsequent festival days are as follows: After arriv-ing in Babylon on Nissanu 5 and staying overnight in the Urash Gate, the godNabû goes the next day to Ehursagtila, the temple of the god Ninurta, wherehe symbolically slays two rival deities. Then he makes his way to Marduk’sEsagila temple complex, where his triumph is celebrated, and he takes uptemporary residence in his Ezida chapel. The climax of the festival begins onNissanu 8, when the city gods of the kingdom determine a supreme destinyfor Marduk, whom they hail as their king in the presence of the people at thecourtyard of the Esagila. Then the gods, led by the human king, go in proces-sion to the akitu-chapel on the outskirts of the city of Babylon, where theyspend several nights before returning to the Esagila in the city on Nisannu11.84 Within akitu festivals generally, M. Cohen regards this escorting of thegod’s statue into the city from the akitu-house as the essential ceremony, en-

84. Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 335–36; idem, “Form andFunction,” 3–4; cf. J. A. Black, “The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: ‘Tak-ing Bel by the Hand’ and a Cultic Picnic,” Religion 11 (1981) 45–48; Cohen, The Cul-tic Calendars, 439, 447–51.



acting “the basic theme of the festival, i.e., the god has just entered his cityand been declared chief god of the city.”85

Two elements of the final days of the festival are of special significance to us:1. On Nisannu 8, just as the gods pay tribute to Marduk, so the servants of

the human king pledge allegiance to him by kissing his feet when the divineassembly proclaims a happy destiny for him.86 K. van der Toorn adds:

Epistolary documents show that officials from different regions of Babylo-nia were in the capital at the beginning of the year. To them, “the day forreverencing the god” was at the same time an occasion for “the blessing ofthe king.” In keeping with a time-honoured tradition, members of thetemple-personnel and royal servants had to be annually re-appointed; thistook place at the opening of the new year. Depending on their loyalty to theking and their behaviour in office, civil servants could be nominated to ahigher post or be relinquished to an insignificant position. The presence atthe Akitu-festival was sometimes in more than one way a test of allegiancefor dignitaries and vassals, since treaties regulating the royal successioncould be concluded at the same occasion.87

So accountability for loyalty is an important factor in this yearly festival. Sim-ilarly, we have found that the Israelites are accountable for their loyalty toYhwh, as shown before and during the Day of Atonement. However, on thisoccasion all Israelites, not just cultic or civil officials, are required to expresshomage to their divine king through self-denial (Lev 16:29, 31; 23:27–32;Num 29:7). No human king is involved.

2. At the conclusion of the Babylonian festival, the assembly of gods con-venes again in the courtyard of the Esagila and proclaims the destinies forthe coming year.88 Whatever the precise nature of these destinies may be,undoubtedly they are regarded as affecting the prosperity of the kingdomand its people.89 This emphasis on destiny parallels at least to a certain ex-tent the biblical judgment theme of the Day of Atonement and the rabbinicidea of judgment at the New Year (m. Ros Has. 1:2; b. Ros Has. 16a–b;y. Ros Has. 1.3).90

In addition to the usual ceremonies, the Babylonian king could enactan official cancellation of debts (anduraru) at the New Year and release

85. Ibid., 404; cf. 440.86. Van der Toorn, “Form and Function,” 3; cf. 5.87. Ibid., 5.88. Ibid., 4.89. Cf. Frankfort, Kingship, 331–33.90. Cf. ibid., 332.

Chapter 17376

some prisoners.91 This is somewhat similar to the liberty (r/rD]) pro-claimed on the Day of Atonement at the beginning of the Israelite Jubileeyear (Lev 25:9–10).92

Van der Toorn recognizes that in terms of the involvement and merrimentof the people at the multi-day Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring, thiscelebration parallels the Israelite harvest festival of Booths that lasts for a weekplus one day in the autumn, beginning on Tishri 15 (Lev 23:34–36, 39–43),93

which appropriately follows removal of negative aspects of the relationshipbetween Yhwh and his people on Tishri 10, the Day of Atonement. But thereare also parallels between the Babylonian festival and the Israelite obser-vances of Tishri 1 and Tishri 10. On Tishri 1 the Israelites are rememberedbefore Yhwh, the royal guardian of their destiny, by means of a h[:WrT} ˆ/rk}zi,“remembrance of short blasts” (Lev 23:24; cf. Num 10:9; 23:21—Ël<m< t["Wrt},“short blasts of a king,” referring to Yhwh in the war camp of Israel).94 In post-biblical tradition this day became the autumn New Year (Rosh Hashanah).95

Tishri 10 is the Day of Atonement, with which we will find a number of im-portant connections. So it appears that the multi-day Babylonian festivalserves as the functional equivalent, at least for spring, of all three Israelite au-tumn festivals.96

91. Van der Toorn, “Form and Function,” 5, referring to 2 Kgs 25:27–30, whichreports the release of the Judahite King Jehoiachin by the Babylonian King Amel-Marduk a few days before the New Year. On royal cancellation of debts (anduraru) inMesopotamia, cf. CAD A/2 116–17.

92. Cf. R. Gane, “The Laws of the Seventh and Fiftieth Years,” JAGNES 1 (1990)2–16.

93. Van der Toorn, “Form and Function,” 6–8.94. Cf. S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; Ox-

ford: Blackwell, 1962) 1:122. J. Milgrom concludes “that all three festivals of the sev-enth month—the terûºâ call on the first day, the fast day on the tenth, and thecircumambulation of the altar with waving fronds and other vegetation for sevendays, from the fifteenth through the twenty-second—as well as the tradition of a waterlibation offered during these days combine into a single-minded goal: to beseechGod for adequate and timely rain in the forthcoming agricultural year” (Leviticus 23–27 [AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001] 2018; cf. 2043–46).

95. Van der Toorn cites some evidence for a preexilic autumn New Year (“Formand Function,” 7).

96. This would appear to provide additional support for Milgrom’s argument forthe unity of the Israelite festivals of the seventh month (Leviticus 23–27, 2045–46). Heremarks: “My student R. Gane has noticed that the Hittite Telepinu festival, observedin both the fall and the spring, included all the elements that characterize Israel’s au-tumn festivals—solemnity and joy, communal feast and cultic purification—lendingcredence to the possibility that all three festivals compose a single unit” (p. 2045).Black maintains that the complex Babylonian New Year ceremonies developed over a


J. Milgrom argues that the Day of Atonement was originally a joyful cele-bration without a public fast (16:29, 31; 23:27–32; Num 29:7) and the som-ber tone associated with it. His reasons are that the Day of Atonement onTishri 10 was probably the climax of a 10-day New Year’s festival and it wasthe beginning of the Jubilee year of liberty (Lev 25:9–10). Furthermore,m. Taºan. 4:8 describes the Day of Atonement as a happy time, when thedaughters of Jerusalem went out to dance in the vineyards and young mencould choose brides (cf. Judg 21:19–23).97 If Milgrom is right, the early Dayof Atonement had an atmosphere of feasting, rather than fasting, similar tothat which prevailed during much of the Babylonian New Year Festival ofSpring. However, m. Yoma 7:4 shows how celebration could follow solem-nity on the Day of Atonement, so that the two moods can be complementaryrather than mutually exclusive. This passage describes how the high priestcelebrates with his friends when he emerges safely from the temple. At theend of tractate Yoma (8:9), R. Aqiba rejoices for another reason: through the(solemn) events of the great Day, God has purified Israel.98

Although there could be joy on the Day of Atonement, especially every50th year at the time of Jubilee release, in the present form of the biblicaltext joy in the seventh month climaxes with the pilgrim Festival of Booths(Sukkot) rather than on the Day of Atonement. As B. Levine points out,scheduling the Day of Atonement only a few days earlier “ensured that thesanctuary and, hence, the people would be restored to a state of fitness intime for the celebration of the autumn Sukkot festival.”99 The progression of

97. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1066–67; cf. idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1375–76.98. For the idea of God rejoicing on Yom Kippur when he takes away the sins of

Israel, see S. Agnon, Days of Awe (New York: Schocken, 1948) 186, citing SederEliyahu Rabbah I. A much later Jewish story perceptively illustrates a related kind ofDay of Atonement joy: “The Baal Shem Tov, may his merit shield us [18th cent.],once came to a certain city before Rosh ha-Shanah. He asked the inhabitants of thecity, ‘Who is the Reader here during the Days of Awe?’ They said to him, ‘The rabbiof the city.’ The Baal Shem Tov asked, ‘How does he conduct the prayers?’ They saidto him, ‘He chants all the confessions of Yom Kippur with joyful melodies.’ The BaalShem Tov sent after the rabbi and asked him, ‘Why do you sing the confessions joy-fully?’ Said the rabbi to him, ‘Lo, a servant who is cleaning the courtyard of the king,if he loves the king, is very happy cleaning the refuse from the courtyard, and sings joy-ful melodies, for he is giving pleasure to the king.’ Said the Baal Shem Tov, ‘May mylot be with yours!’ ” (ibid., 220–21, citing Or Yesharim).

99. B. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary: Philadelphia: Jewish Publica-tion Society, 1989) 162.

long period as an accretion of several elements from various cults (“The New YearCeremonies,” 49–56). On the long history and development of akitu festivals, see Co-hen, The Cultic Calendars, 400–453.

Chapter 17378

autumn festivals makes good sense: there is a reminder that Yhwh is Israel’ssovereign deliverer (Tishri 1), Yhwh as King judges between loyal and dis-loyal subjects (Tishri 10), and Yhwh celebrates his kingship with his loyalsubjects (Tishri 15–21).100 This logic indicates that a fast is appropriate onTishri 10.

ConclusionWe have found that theodicy plays a role in the Nanshe New Year and in

the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring. However, in these contexts di-vine judgment is separate from the purification of sacred places, unlike the Is-raelite Day of Atonement, in which theodicy is enacted through thecleansing of the sanctuary.101

While there are significant differences between the Babylonian New Yearand the Israelite Day of Atonement, there is sufficient similarity to supportMilgrom’s argument that there is no reason to doubt the antiquity (i.e., preex-ilic origin) of the Day of Atonement.102 An early origin for the Day of Atone-ment is further reinforced by my analysis of parallels between the Day ofAtonement and the Nanshe New Year, which indicates that some basic con-cepts underlying the ancient Israelite Day of Atonement are attested in theancient Near East as early as the end of the third millennium b.c.

103

100. This progression complements rather than contradicts Milgrom’s view thatthe seventh-month festivals contribute to supplication for rain (cf. above). For allblessings, including the rain that is so crucial to their survival, the Israelites depend ontheir divine King and are accountable for loyalty to him.

101. In the ancient Near East, purification of sancta can occur with no apparenttheodicy associated with it, as, for example, in the ceremonies of the 4th day of theHittite ninth-year festival of the god Telipinu. On this occasion several idols and acult pedestal are taken in procession to a river, in which they are ritually washed, andthen returned to the temple of the god (V. Haas and L. Jakob-Rost, “Das Festritualdes Gottes Telipinu in Hanhana und in Kasha: Ein Beitrag zum hethitischen Fest-kalender,” AoF 11 [1984] 43, 46, 55, 58, 60–65, 74, 77–78; P. Taracha, “Zum Fest-ritual des Gottes Telipinu in Hanhana und in Kasha,” AoF 13 [1986] 180–83; Gane,Ritual Dynamic Structure, 261–76; idem, “Schedules for Deities,” 236–39).

102. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1067–71. My “Schedules for Deities” article hasstrengthened this argument by demonstrating macrostructural parallels between theIsraelite Day of Atonement, the 5th day of the Babylonian New Year Festival of Spring,and the 4th day of the Hittite ninth-year festival of Telipinu, which is solidly dated tothe second millennium b.c. Compare the arguments from comparative evidence ad-duced by M. Weinfeld (“Social and Cultic Institutions,” 95–129).

103. This does not mean, of course, that the Israelites borrowed from theNanshe cult.

379

Conclusion: Cult and Character

Behind the veil of the ancient Israelite cultic system is Yhwh’s role asIsrael’s King and Judge. The sanctuary where he is enthroned stands for hischaracter, reputation, and authority. Just as a human king’s “throne” is af-fected by the condition of his subjects, so Yhwh’s “sanctuary” receivesthe impact of human imperfection among the surrounding Israelites. Theirmortality is incompatible with his holiness. Their sins are incompatiblewith his righteousness.

For Yhwh to continue dwelling among his faulty people, his reputationmust be cleared periodically so that it will not become too seriously com-promised. This clearing takes place on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16),when Yhwh’s honor is absolved of any perceived taint with regard to thephysical imperfections (twamf) of the Israelites because they are purified,with regard to the wanton/defiant sins (µy[vp) of the disloyal because theyare condemned, and with regard to the forgiven sins (twafj) of the loyalbecause they have accepted the sacrificial remedies that he has providedand demonstrated their ongoing loyalty and penitence by obediently prac-ticing self-denial and resting from work on the Day of Atonement. While itwould be pointless to demand absolute perfection from a people unable togive it, he can require loyalty that includes acceptance of his remedies forimperfection.

From numerous details of pentateuchal cultic legislation, the presentstudy has established that expiable sins are removed from their offerers by pu-rification offerings throughout the year (e.g., Lev 4), and these are includedamong the evils purged from the sanctuary in a corporate second phase of rpk

on the yearly Day of Atonement (ch. 16). Penetrating a long-standing puzzle,I have found a reason for this second phase: when Yhwh forgives guiltypeople, he incurs judicial responsibility (ˆw[) by creating an imbalance be-tween justice and kindness that affects his reputation as ruler (cf. 2 Sam 14:9).Restoration of equilibrium is enacted through ritual purification of the sanc-tuary, which represents vindication of Yhwh’s administrative justice as hesheds judicial responsibility. As a result, Israelites who show their continuingloyalty to him receive the secondary benefit of moral cleansing/clearing in

Conclusion: Cult and Character380

the sense that the forgiveness already granted them is confirmed when theForgiver is vindicated.

Cultic penitence through sacrifices and related practices in Lev 4–5 and16 is not yet the repentance found later in Leviticus, which is effective evenin exile apart from animal sacrifice (26:40–45). Nor is it the fuller repentanceof the prophets, which stresses reformation of behavior in daily life along withchange of attitude.1 However, by making confession (5:5) and restitution(5:16, 23–24[6:4–5]) conditions for divine forgiveness in some cases expiableby purification or reparation offerings and by requiring a demonstration ofpenitence through self-denial on the part of those whose expiable sins(twafj) have already been forgiven through sacrifice (16:29–31), Leviticuspoints beyond mere freedom from condemnation to moral rehabilitation andrestoration of the whole divine-human shared life experience. The fact thatforgiveness (jls) is granted by the divine will alone (4:20, 26, 31, 35) closesthe door to hypocritical rituals performed by those who presume uponYhwh’s clemency while persisting in their sins.2

While I have found two phases of sacrificial rpk to remedy expiablesins—removal from offerers and then from the sanctuary—by contrast withJ. Milgrom’s purgation of the sanctuary alone, my conclusions provide fur-ther support for his profound idea that theodicy is basic to the Israelite sys-tem of expiatory sacrifices. Not only does decontamination of the sacreddwelling on the Day of Atonement remove evil from the people that would,if left to accumulate excessively, inevitably cause Yhwh to abandon it andthe people to destruction; I have found that the two-phased sacrificial reme-dies available for nondefiant offenses but not for defiant wrongs dramaticallyproclaim that the character of God is just and good.

Although I have interpreted the Israelite ritual system synchronically as itappears in the final form of the biblical text, some historical factors havecome to light. Enactment of theodicy in a cultic context, involving judgmentaccording to the personal standards of a deity, already appears in the NansheHymn, which dates to the end of the third millennium b.c. Legal conceptsof clemency and justice with regard to loyal or disloyal persons, which under-lie the Israelite system of tafj sacrifices and inform its technical terminol-ogy (e.g., ˆw[, “culpability), already play a role in narratives of 2 Sam 14 and

1. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 1425–26.2. Cf., e.g., Isa 1:10–20; m. Yoma 8:9.

Conclusion: Cult and Character 381

1 Kgs 2 concerning David and Solomon, who are notable in the biblical textfor administering justice to their people (2 Sam 8:15; 1 Kgs 10:9; cf. Ps 72).3

The comparisons just mentioned buttress Milgrom’s conclusion that theDay of Atonement rituals could have functioned at an early (i.e., preexilic)date.4 This kind of indirect evidence by no means proves that the biblical rit-ual texts reached their final form in the preexilic period,5 but it does lendsome weight to the possibility that they reflect reality more closely than schol-ars have thought.

3. On the biblical characterization of David and Solomon in this regard, seeM. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem:Magnes / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 45–54.

4. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 1067–71.5. Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-Exilic Date of the Priestly

Material in the Pentateuch,” ZAW 108 (1996) 505–6. On the problem of the relation-ship between the language of the Priestly texts and the cultic reality they represent,cf. J. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 6, 124;R. Rendtorff, “Two Kinds of P? Some Reflections on the Occasion of the Publishingof Jacob Milgrom’s Commentary on Leviticus 1–16,” JSOT 60 (1993) 78–80; Blenkin-sopp, “An Assessment,” 496, 517. P. Budd queries: “One point that needs to be kept inmind in this debate is what precisely we are trying to date. Is it the coming into exist-ence of P, and if so, are we interested in its present or its earliest recognisable form?Or are we dating the point at which P, as part of the Torah, became a pervasive influ-ence in the life of the community?” (review of “Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16,” JSS38 [1993] 142).

383

Indexes

Index of Authors

Aartun, K. 28, 32, 34, 222, 247, 255, 260, 262, 313

Agnon, S. Y. 233, 312, 338, 377Albright, W. F. 325Anderson, A. 333Anderson, G. A. 21, 23, 37, 66, 83, 85–87,

205–206Anderson, M. 272, 306André, G. 190, 200–201, 285, 319Aqiba (rabbi) 377

Baal, J. van 16, 60–61, 259Baentsch, B. 29, 38, 41–42, 70, 72, 127, 166,

186, 261–262, 270, 277, 298, 313Baker, D. 21, 31Ballenger, A. F. 151, 272Bamberger, B. J. 249, 315Barker, M. 237Barr, J. 13, 37, 51, 66, 195, 270, 327Baumgarten, A. 167, 186–189Beek, A. van de 329Bell, C. 3, 14–15, 18Bellefontaine, E. 338–340Benzinger, I. 32–33Bergen, R. 341Bertholet, A. 33Bidmead, J. 362Black, J. A. 373–374, 376Blackman, A. 61Block, D. I. 328Bonar, A. A. 63, 177, 181, 221, 239Bovati, P. 51, 100, 240Brichto, H. C. 56, 65, 67, 112, 116–117, 127–

128, 147, 193, 262, 306, 361Brongers, H. 311, 313Brueggemann, W. 324–325, 330Buber, M. 324Budd, P. J. 212, 381Büchler, A. 5, 39, 52, 63, 65, 106–107, 158,

160–161, 202, 210, 231, 287, 301Burnside, J. 272Bush, G. 38, 181, 250

Çagirgan, G. 362, 365Calvin, J. 38, 178, 204, 247, 285Caplice, R. 320, 357Carson, W. 322Cassuto, U. 80, 325Cazelles, H. 32, 89, 186, 251Chapman, A. 33, 230Chavalas, M. 335Chess, W. 19Clamer, A. 38, 74, 186, 206, 315Clements, R. 186Cohen, H. 317, 320Cohen, M. 309, 362–363, 370, 374, 377Cover, R. C. 66, 200, 328Crawford, R. G. 261Crenshaw, J. 324–325, 329, 331Crüsemann, F. xix, 37, 39, 207, 210, 213, 233Culbertson, P. 272, 306

Davidson, A. B. 206Davies, D. 11, 203, 248, 332Delitzsch, F. 38, 41, 62–63, 74–75, 81, 96,

100, 166, 186, 206, 244, 251, 253, 265, 271, 281, 314

De Vries, S. 347Dillmann, A. 34, 58, 76, 81, 89, 91, 127, 166,

207, 227, 250, 259, 262, 270, 306

Douglas, M. xix, 3, 10, 16, 186, 192–193, 217Driver, G. R. 8, 248Driver, S. R. 29, 33, 51–52, 60, 112, 132, 166,

194, 200, 219, 249, 261

Eaton, J. H. 324–325, 369Eerdmans, B. D. 33, 76, 226, 314Ehrlich, A. B. 34, 81, 101, 226, 245Eleazar (rabbi) 64Elliger, K. 20, 32, 34, 92, 221, 262, 285, 291Ellington, J. 55, 66, 82, 167, 220, 253, 285,

313Elliott, R. H. 206Engnell, I. 319, 373

Index of Authors384

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 3

Feinberg, C. L. 38, 247, 253, 259Finn, A. 27Fishbane, M. 86Fokkelman, J. 349Frankfort, H. 309, 373, 375Fretheim, T. 332Friedman, R. E. 100, 274Frymer-Kensky, T. 153, 199, 294, 297, 328Füglister, N. 112, 201

Gaebelein, F. E. 345, 348Gammie, J. 136, 141–143Gane, R. xx, 7, 14–15, 18–20, 35, 48, 61, 63,

70, 79–80, 171, 180, 223, 275, 282–283, 309, 325, 362, 364, 369, 376, 378

Garnet, P. 67, 112, 138, 195, 262, 269Garsiel, M. 346, 350Geller, S. A. 173, 217, 219–220, 233, 249,

259, 317–318, 325, 330Gennep, A. van 12, 59, 196, 309, 369Gerstenberger, E. 9, 39, 41, 56–57, 169, 186,

210, 253, 285Gese, H. xix, 58Gigch, J. van 19Gilders, W. 6, 76, 171, 194Ginsburg, C. D. 38, 233, 245, 249, 261Goldman, E. 64, 307–308, 314Gorman, F. H. xxi, 4–5, 7–8, 12, 14, 17, 22,

28, 35, 37, 45, 56, 64, 106, 153, 164, 171, 174, 178, 183, 185–186, 188–190, 199, 201, 219, 245, 253, 255, 262–263, 272, 279, 288, 296, 309, 314, 331

Grabbe, L. 7, 22, 25, 52, 198, 247Gray, G. B. 66, 184, 217, 259, 261, 273, 310Gray, J. 349Green, A. 3Greenberg, M. 211, 247, 328, 337, 345Grimes, R. L. 3–4, 14, 16, 49, 92–93Gruenwald, I. 12, 19, 305Gurney, O. R. 247

Haas, V. 378Hagan, H. 339, 341Hallo, W. W. 21, 248Hanson, K. C. 66, 197, 272Hanson, P. D. 250Haran, M. 166Harrington, H. 153Harrison, R. K. 210, 294, 297, 313, 327Hartelius, G. 37Hartley, J. 187, 217, 286Hasel, G. F. 40, 178, 224, 231, 251, 262, 276–

277, 282

Hausmann, J. 51Heimpel, W. 356–360Heinisch, P. 26, 32, 166, 237, 250, 253, 261,

279, 316Hendel, R. 37, 63Herrmann, J. 205, 233, 270, 277Heusch, L. de 60Hills, S. 100, 106, 116, 192, 194, 202, 365Hoffmann, D. 27, 51, 58, 70, 76, 81, 100, 147,

166–167, 203, 253, 262, 267–268, 270–271, 286–287, 291

Hofmann, J. von 94–95, 267–268, 270–271Hoftijzer, J. 8, 339Hubert, H. 3, 12, 17, 59–60, 252

Ibn Ezra, Abraham (rabbi) 26, 57, 76, 86, 96, 99, 103, 132, 205, 251, 280, 313

Jacob, E. 52, 102, 177, 294Jacobsen, T. 356–357Jakob-Rost, L. 378Janowski, B. 32, 45, 49, 57, 84, 88, 94–95, 108,

137, 192, 194, 244, 247–248, 262, 292Jastrow, M. 222Jenson, P. 9–11, 36, 63, 89, 157, 175, 179, 195,

218–219, 227, 235, 251, 260–261, 285, 291, 310, 318–319

Jo˙anan (rabbi) 307Jürgens, B. 246, 315

Kaiser, W. C. 46, 58–59, 63, 67, 218, 233, 253–254, 268, 298, 321, 327

Kalisch, M. M. 39, 59, 81, 166, 203, 258–259, 263, 370

Kaufmann, Y. 97, 116, 247, 251, 259, 263, 373

Kearney, P. 325Keil, C. F. 38, 41, 62–63, 74–75, 81, 96, 100,

166, 186, 206, 244, 251, 253, 265, 271, 281, 314

Kellogg, S. H. 40–41, 246, 251, 253, 315–316Kennedy, A. R. S. 12, 51, 66, 195, 270Kinghorn, K. 210Kirk, G. 3, 7Kirschner, R. 329Kiuchi, N. 6, 8, 25, 28, 34, 36, 40–41, 45, 51,

58, 63, 74–75, 79, 81–83, 88–89, 92–93, 95–96, 101, 115–116, 131, 136–141, 143, 145–148, 155, 157, 167, 175–176, 178–180, 186, 190, 194, 200–201, 203, 225–226, 230, 241, 244, 254, 256–258, 261–262, 270–271, 273, 276, 278, 281, 286–289, 293–295, 300, 330–331, 337

Klawans, J. 232, 274Kline, M. 319

Index of Authors 385

Knierim, R. 9, 18, 20, 22–23, 25, 36–37, 56, 62, 64, 66, 101–102, 104, 285–286, 292, 294–295, 297

Knight, G. 40Knohl, I. 26–27, 34–35, 86, 156, 203, 226–

227, 232, 310Koch, K. 51, 102–104, 204, 245, 259, 267,

294, 299–300, 329, 337, 341, 347, 351–352Koch, R. 327Kornfeld, W. 34, 246, 250–251Korpel, M. 320Kramer, S. N. 356Kraus, H.-J. 324–325Kruspedai (rabbi) 307Kuenen, A. 26, 29, 31–33Kuhrt, A. 355Kurtz, J. H. 40, 56, 58, 62–63, 66, 72, 74, 76,

81, 89–91, 93–95, 178, 184, 199, 201, 211, 226, 240, 250, 253, 255, 263, 267, 270–271, 276, 279

Laato, A. 324Labuschagne, C. J. 209Lambert, W. G. 321, 373Landersdorfer, S. 32, 253, 255, 363, 370Landsberger, B. 365Lang, B. 194Leach, E. 3, 17, 196, 249, 251, 321Lemche, N. 18Levine, B. 21–22, 35, 50, 52, 58, 76, 81, 84,

89, 96–97, 108, 128, 134, 144, 167, 182, 192, 194, 200, 202–203, 207–208, 210–212, 220, 230, 233, 237, 240, 247, 249, 251, 253–254, 257, 262–263, 268, 292, 300, 310, 331, 336, 342–343, 377

Lichtheim, M. 351Livingston, G. H. 294Löhr, M. 257Long, B. O. 346Loretz, O. 247–248Lyke, L. L. 340Lyonnet, S. 112

Maass, F. 192–193, 213, 234Maccoby, H. 11, 128, 140, 145–147, 149–150,

152, 155–156, 158–160, 182, 198–199, 201, 249–250, 262, 269

Macholz, C. 51, 338Malina, B. 5, 14, 16, 337Marx, A. 28, 195–196, 211, 277Matthes, J. 55, 178, 186Matthews, V. 335Mattingly, G. 324Mattingly, K. 59, 244Mauss, M. 3, 12, 17, 59–60, 252

Mays, J. L. 251, 310, 327McCarter, P. K. 340McCarthy, D. J. 64, 174, 366, 372McKeating, H. 339–340McLean, B. H. 171, 210, 272Médebielle, A. 67, 174, 206, 233, 262, 286,

305, 332Mendenhall, G. 348Messel, N. 32–33, 45Meyers, C. 27–28, 76Milgrom, J. 4–6, 8, 21–22, 28, 30, 34, 37–38,

45–55, 58–59, 62, 64–66, 68–70, 75–82, 84, 86, 88–89, 91, 93, 96–99, 101, 103–104, 106–109, 112, 114–121, 123, 125–129, 131–132, 134–145, 147–160, 162–163, 165–167, 169–173, 175, 177–191, 194–197, 199–203, 205–208, 210–212, 217, 220, 222–223, 225, 230–233, 235, 237–239, 243–244, 246, 248, 250–252, 255–259, 262–263, 268–275, 277–280, 282, 286–290, 296–299, 308, 310–311, 313–315, 319, 326–328, 331, 333, 337, 355, 359, 361, 364, 367, 369–370, 373, 376–378, 380–381

Moor, J. C. de 295, 324, 355, 357, 371

Morris, L. 193, 233Mowinckel, S. 376Moyer, J. C. 247Muffs, Y. 336Myers, J. 333

Neches, S. 233Nelson, R. 347, 349Nielsen, K. 238Noordtzij, A. 13, 33, 251, 253, 285–286, 306,

315, 327, 366Norlin, J. 19Noth, M. 20, 28–29, 33–34, 47, 51, 56, 64,

88–89, 235, 237, 250, 262, 279

O’Connor, M. 112Olaffson, G. 51, 99, 104, 233, 263, 334, 337Oort, H. 31–33Oppenheim, A. L. 61, 210, 364Orlinsky, H. 289

Pallis, S. A. 373Patterson, P. 57Payne, R. xxi, 60, 283Perdue, L. 349, 351Péter, R. 57, 244Péter-Contesse, R. 55, 66, 82, 167, 220, 253,

285, 313Phillips, A. 208–209, 212, 338, 340Philo of Alexandria 313

Index of Authors386

Podella, T. 313Porter, J. 26, 33–34, 57–58, 160, 167, 186–187,

199–200, 210, 253, 262, 288–289, 327, 358–359, 363, 371, 381

Pritchard, J. B. 362

Rainey, A. F. 21–22, 66, 219, 237Ramban (rabbi) 85–86, 206, 261Rashi (rabbi) 66, 81, 85, 132, 149, 167, 206,

210, 262Rattray, S. 55Rendtorff, R. 8, 22, 27–28, 31, 36, 38, 40–41,

49–51, 54–55, 65, 67, 76, 84, 128, 192, 199, 203, 223, 232–233, 280, 287, 292, 381

Reventlow, H. G. 329Rigby, P. 252, 327Ringgren, H. 173, 199, 234Robinson, G. 264, 292, 295Rodríguez, A. 9, 30–32, 40, 56, 63, 67, 83, 98–

100, 103, 114, 128, 145, 149, 154, 173, 176, 178–179, 181, 191, 204, 207–208, 244–245, 251, 253, 258, 261, 263, 276, 285, 293, 325–326, 351

Rogers, J. S. 346, 348, 350–351Rooker, M. F. 29, 66, 207–208, 233, 246, 253

Sabourin, L. 112Sachs, A. 362, 364Sanders, P. 295Sasson, J. M. 330Sauer, A. von R. 102, 297Saydon, P. 205–206Schenker, A. 6, 9, 28, 38–39, 52–53, 56–57,

64, 67–69, 171, 184, 192, 205, 207, 209, 211, 233, 269, 294, 296, 298, 306

Schur, I. 222, 227Schwartz, B. J. xiii, 12, 35–36, 101–103, 146,

201, 209, 231, 240, 256–257, 262, 272, 288–289, 294, 300, 318–320, 337, 339

Scolnic, B. 347–348Seebass, H. 285, 297Shea, W. H. 217, 233–234, 237, 241, 290, 328Shelton, L. 11Simon, M. 307Simon, U. 339Snaith, N. 25–26, 28, 32, 59, 70, 89, 173, 203,

205, 294Sommer, B. 371Spiro, A. 205Staal, F. 4–8, 10, 19, 48, 283Stade, B. 32–33Stamm, J. J. 52, 297, 340Strack, H. L. 76, 250, 285Strand, K. A. 307

Streane, A. 33, 230Sumpter, G. 202

Taracha, P. 378Thompson, J. 333Thureau-Dangin, F. 362Toeg, A. 86Toorn, K. van der 319, 357, 363, 369–371,

374–376Treiyer, A. 30–32, 40, 107, 177–178, 188,

247–248, 276, 282, 295, 297Tunyogi, A. 298Turner, V. 12, 14, 49, 369

Valeri, V. 16Vaux, R. de 32, 53, 62, 166, 173, 186, 210,

251–252, 260, 366Vogt, E. 7Vriezen, T. 5, 32, 88, 185

Walsh, J. 345, 347, 349Waltke, B. K. 112Walton, J. 335Warning, W. 35, 217Watts, J. 29, 37, 319–320Wefing, S. 184Weinfeld, M. 234, 247, 249, 286, 309, 319,

325, 355, 364, 370–371, 378, 381Wellhausen, J. 26–27, 45, 226–227Wenham, G. J. 76, 85, 149, 182, 212, 280, 333Wenham, J. 321, 332Wesselius, J. W. 348White, H. A. 33, 60, 166, 249, 261Whitelam, K. W. 337, 341Whitney, B. L. 324, 328Wilson, B. xx, 12, 18–20Wilson, M. 5, 9–10, 14–15Wold, D. 145, 201, 208Wright, D. 3, 10, 14–15, 28, 34, 49, 53–55, 61,

70, 77, 96, 117, 148, 153–154, 164, 166, 170, 172–173, 178, 180, 182–184, 186–187, 190, 192, 194–195, 198–201, 204, 207, 212, 239, 243–248, 251–252, 255, 257–258, 271–272, 277, 282, 287, 291, 296, 310, 316, 365–367, 370, 372

Wuthnow, R. 49

Yadin, Y. 233Yaron, R. 349Youngblood, R. 285

Zimmerli, W. 101–102, 104, 294Zohar, N. 103, 168–172, 174, 177–179, 184,

245, 293

387

Index of Scripture

Old Testament

Genesis1:1–2:3 3251:28 1992:3 3152:6 733 201, 2633:6–7 1934:7 2924:13 3398:20 1399:1 1999:4 1699:4–6 639:6 33915:16 29416:10 11418 1618:20 29218:25 35919:13 7319:15 294, 33922 33322:2 13922:7 13922:8 13922:13 13923:17 7930:16 22231:2 7331:5 7331:36 29431:39 17032 19532:20 10632:21 19433:18 73, 7937:23–28 35342–45 35345:1–15 35350:15–21 35350:17 292, 294, 340

Exodus10:17 34012 37012:2 30914:2 7914:8 207, 209, 21114:9 7915:18 33717:11 20919:4–6 32719:10–15 327

Exodus (cont.)19:15 31220:5–6 32020:10 31520:11 31521:12 33921:14 34721:16 35321:28 33922:8 294–29522:27 34523:6–8 32123:21 29424:5–8 16425–29 2725–Numbers 10 5425:8 23125:16 16125:17 22525:21 161, 22525:22 88, 319, 36026:33–34 2826:35 8027:20–21 21727:21 8028 28928:38 101, 103, 289, 299,

34128:41 19729 45, 132, 140, 14229:7 45, 19729:10 53, 7929:12 4529:14 9729:15 5329:21 45, 7329:29–30 4529:36 64, 69, 109, 117,

131, 133, 137, 140, 22229:36–37 83, 130, 132,

140–141, 23829:37 137, 18629:38–42 21729:44 14030 2730:1–10 26–27, 22630:6 74, 8030:7 21930:7–8 217, 30830:7–10 32830:8 7430:9 22730:9–10 227

Exodus (cont.)30:10 20, 26–27, 30–31,

34, 46, 64, 74–75, 109, 112, 133–134, 136–137, 140, 142, 181, 190, 218, 221, 226–228, 238–239, 254, 262, 277, 281, 372

30:11–16 19330:17–21 220, 30830:19–21 36830:20 18930:26–29 186, 23830:30 19731:15 31532–33 33632:11 7332:25–29 33132:30 213, 29232:32 292, 334, 36132:34 29233:20 23734:6 316, 320, 34334:6–7 335, 34334:7 100, 104, 263, 285–

286, 294, 297, 300, 320, 322, 334–335, 343

34:9 26334:24 7334:35 7335:2 31536:1 28940:5 8040:9–11 23840:10 14040:13 19740:14–15 4540:15 19740:20 16140:22 8040:34–38 29

Leviticus1 20, 30, 2211–7 21, 29, 311–16 25, 28, 2941:1–9 621:3 74, 1711:4 23, 53–54, 57–58, 84,

1191:5 48, 60–62, 67, 168,

171, 2241:8–9 57, 611:9 56

Index of Scripture388

Leviticus (cont.)1:11 60–61, 67, 168, 1711:12–13 611:13 48, 2251:14–15 541:15 84, 1712:2 54, 602:2–3 702:8 542:9 602:9–10 702:13 473 49, 573:2 53, 55, 57, 60–62,

1683:3–5 8, 633:4 483:5 613:8 53, 55, 57, 60–61, 79,

1683:9 48, 503:9–11 8, 63, 653:11 613:13 53, 55, 57, 60–61, 79,

1683:14–15 473:14–16 8, 63, 653:15 483:16 61, 63, 653:16–17 633:17 1714 xx, 5–6, 21, 26, 28, 31,

41–42, 79, 81–86, 91–92, 140, 180, 191–192, 212, 228, 239, 270, 273, 279, 281–283, 290, 314, 321, 326, 353, 379

4–5 30, 40, 49, 128, 146, 155, 162, 206, 233, 321, 380

4:1–21 2774:1–35 2034:1–5:13 128, 140, 142,

271, 2784:2 39, 71, 117, 161, 202,

211, 3584:3 81, 269, 2924:3–4 804:3–12 45, 71, 874:3–21 26, 81, 844:4 53, 57, 171, 1764:5–7 77, 1514:6 4, 41, 72–75, 79, 87,

168, 180, 191, 228, 276, 280–281

4:6–7 45, 64, 77–78, 80–81, 275–276, 280–281

4:7 26, 62, 64, 74, 168, 220, 225, 228, 277, 282

4:8–9 48, 2254:8–10 84:10 47, 784:10–12 414:11 41, 279

Leviticus (cont.)4:11–12 57–58, 70, 89,

2794:12 30, 57, 81, 174, 178,

220, 277, 2794:13 39, 161, 2114:13–14 202, 204, 2394:13–21 45, 71, 83–85, 984:14 79, 171, 269, 2924:15 53–55, 57, 71, 176,

2244:16–18 77, 1514:17 4, 72–75, 79, 168,

180, 191, 228, 276, 280–281

4:17–18 45, 64, 77–78, 275–276, 280–281

4:18 62, 64, 74, 76–77, 168, 220, 225, 228, 277

4:19 8, 48, 2254:20 41, 51–52, 56, 67,

80–82, 91, 100, 109, 112, 123, 127–128, 141, 161, 175, 194, 231, 264, 284, 293, 297, 316, 320, 380

4:20–21 2334:21 70, 89, 279, 2974:22 21, 51, 106, 128, 1614:22–23 202, 204, 2704:22–26 45–47, 844:22–35 21, 464:23 46, 269, 2924:24 46, 49, 53, 60, 1764:25 46, 62, 64, 74, 151,

168, 225, 228, 2754:26 8, 41, 47, 49, 51, 56,

65, 67, 69, 80, 82, 91, 106, 109, 112, 115, 117–118, 127–128, 135, 137, 139, 141–142, 161, 172, 194, 231, 246, 264, 269, 290, 292–293, 299, 316, 331, 380

4:27 21, 1614:27–28 202, 204, 2704:27–31 464:27–35 844:28 21, 269, 276, 2924:28–35 454:29 7, 13, 17, 53, 60, 171,

1764:29–31 214:30 13, 46, 62, 64, 74,

151, 168, 225, 228, 2754:30–31 74:31 8, 17, 21, 23, 41, 47–

48, 50–51, 56, 65, 67, 82, 91, 109, 112, 117, 127–128, 137, 141, 161, 172, 194, 225, 231, 246, 259, 264, 293, 316, 380

4:32 21, 2704:32–35 46

Leviticus (cont.)4:33 17, 53, 60, 171, 1764:34 46, 62, 64, 74, 168,

225, 228, 2754:35 8, 17, 41, 47–48, 50–

51, 56, 65, 67, 82, 91, 112, 117, 123, 127–128, 137, 141, 161, 172, 225, 231, 246, 264, 269, 293, 316, 380

4:36 505 150, 196, 207–208, 211–

212, 2895:1 30, 96, 100, 102, 127,

146, 184, 203, 205, 208, 210–212, 269, 292–294, 299, 320, 339

5:1–4 204–2055:1–13 202–203, 2125:2–3 150, 153, 199, 204,

2125:2–4 203, 205, 211–212,

2925:2–13 1535:3 2895:4 66, 224, 2895:5 58, 203, 206, 211, 244,

264, 269, 3805:5–6 205, 210, 212, 220,

293–294, 299, 3215:6 17, 58, 69, 84, 102,

115, 117–118, 127, 141–142, 150, 204–205, 269, 292, 299

5:6–7 2195:6–10 85:6–13 150, 1965:7–10 30, 84, 2495:7–13 54, 57, 3215:8 1765:9 73, 845:10 51, 69, 84, 115, 117–

118, 123, 128, 135, 150, 299

5:11–12 685:11–13 8, 17, 60, 67, 252,

2605:12 17, 1765:13 68, 123, 127, 1505:14–26 31, 1195:15 545:16 67, 119, 194, 196,

262, 3805:17 30, 2945:17–19 665:18 54, 119, 127, 194,

1965:20–26 86, 203, 205–208,

210, 3065:21–23 2925:21–24 2055:23–24 211, 3805:24 675:25 54

Index of Scripture 389

Leviticus (cont.)5:26 119, 194, 1966 1626:3 1846:3–4 656:4 178, 1846:5 65, 1846:5–6 776:6 1846:8 1846:9 956:10 95, 1846:10–11 1726:11 57, 167, 1866:14–15 77, 1916:15 456:15–16 606:16 896:17–23 1686:18 77, 91, 173, 1756:18–19 77, 1886:19 8, 46, 48, 57, 70, 91–

92, 98, 1316:20 73, 165–168, 172,

175, 184, 186, 197, 2766:20–21 77, 91, 165–166,

171, 174, 177, 2396:20–22 1886:21 57, 155, 167, 1726:22 8, 46, 48, 57–58, 70,

91–92, 986:23 46, 67, 89, 99, 123,

136–1376:23–24 1886:24 1886:25 1896:26 57, 1896:35 577 1407:1–7 31, 547:2 62, 67, 165, 168, 1717:5 667:6 917:6–7 707:7 8, 70, 130, 137, 2627:7–10 707:8 57, 707:9–10 707:15–18 1677:15–21 577:15–36 63, 707:18 2947:20 149, 289, 3307:20–21 147, 173, 179,

198–199, 2047:21 2897:26–27 1717:31–35 707:32 957:34 70, 957:36 958 22, 142, 190, 219, 3698–9 12, 1408–10 29

Leviticus (cont.)8:6 1318:10 738:10–11 2388:11 9, 64, 73, 130–1318:12 45, 1978:14 53, 1318:14–17 63, 98, 132, 175,

196, 3728:15 64, 67, 69, 83, 117,

122, 128, 130–133, 137, 140–141, 190, 197, 267, 271

8:17 70, 97, 131, 3728:18 538:18–21 1968:22–24 1648:22–28 1968:23–24 738:30 45, 73, 164, 1978:33 1318:33–35 1329 26–27, 45, 55, 66, 82–

83, 93, 98, 101, 1409:1–5 2189:7 99–100, 123, 137–1389:7–16 30, 669:8 639:8–11 46, 93, 98, 1329:8–21 229:9 45, 1519:11 89–90, 97, 181, 2609:15 45, 78, 90, 93, 999:18 999:24 93, 33010 29, 36, 92–93, 22710:1 27, 22710:1–2 29, 92, 21710:1–3 149, 20710:2 33010:4 73, 7910:6 8110:16 9310:16–18 20, 92–93, 9610:16–20 40, 90, 9910:17 8, 70, 91–96, 99–

101, 103–105, 140, 181, 184, 254, 294, 299–300, 322, 334–336, 341, 343

10:18 9910:19 9210:20 9211–15 29–30, 36, 28611:25 166–16711:28 166–16711:31–33 17211:32 15511:40 166–16711:42 289–29011:46 289–29012 152, 19912–15 140, 155, 16212:2 114, 18212:4 147, 149

Leviticus (cont.)12:4–6 55, 11312:5 18212:6 30, 112, 27112:6–8 50, 198, 24612:7 50, 52, 112–115,

117–118, 120, 125, 175, 298, 331

12:7–8 151, 231, 234, 301, 317

12:8 30, 52, 114, 120, 126, 142, 271

13–14 152, 19913:6 16713:34 16713:54 16713:58 16714 117, 139, 141, 175,

199, 255, 258, 273, 27814:4 18114:4–7 249, 252, 25514:4–9 5514:6 3314:6–7 16414:7 33, 73, 12614:8 116, 167, 176, 27314:9 116, 126, 167, 176,

27314:10–20 17614:12–14 16414:15 19814:17–18 16414:18 164–16514:19 114–118, 123, 128,

142, 165, 176, 198, 271, 289, 298

14:19–20 30, 50, 31714:20 84, 115–116, 126,

139, 176, 273, 30114:22 50, 198, 24914:25 16414:28–29 16414:29 164–16514:30 19814:30–31 50, 165, 24914:31 30, 116, 126, 139,

198, 27114:33–53 14714:34–35 15914:36 159, 16114:47 16714:49 5014:49–53 252, 25514:51 74, 136, 25514:52 3314:53 33, 139, 25515 117, 145, 152, 19915:3 28915:4–12 55, 11615:5–8 166–167, 27315:10 158, 27315:10–11 16615:12 15515:13 55, 116, 126, 273


Leviticus (cont.)15:14–15 5015:15 30, 112, 115–119,

123, 151, 271, 273, 298, 317

15:17 15515:18 19915:19 18215:20 18215:24–26 18215:25 28915:26 28915:26–27 5515:28 55, 12615:29–30 5015:30 30, 112, 116–118,

123, 151, 271, 289, 298, 317

15:30–31 20915:31 29, 144–145, 147,

154–157, 162, 173, 175, 179, 198, 238, 271, 287, 289, 299, 319

15:33 18216 xx, 6, 13, 20, 22, 25–36,

42, 66, 68, 75, 82–83, 98, 117, 131, 161–162, 179, 191, 217, 219–224, 226–228, 230, 232–233, 239, 248, 254–255, 259, 262, 267–269, 273, 277, 279–281, 283, 293, 295–298, 309, 315, 326, 328, 353, 356, 359, 361, 372, 379

16:1 29, 36, 22716:1–2 217, 25016:1–4 3216:1–10 3316:1–28 34–3516:2 28, 34, 147, 218,

22716:2–28 28, 3516:3 20, 28, 30, 34, 21916:4 35, 189, 30816:5 30, 59, 136, 185, 189,

218–219, 239, 243, 252–253, 258–260, 277

16:6 20, 89, 123, 136–137, 223, 230

16:7 24916:7–10 249, 30816:8 23, 59, 243, 247–249,

36216:8–10 218, 22216:8–15 22416:9 20, 250–251, 25316:9–10 25916:10 59, 82, 127, 136, 218,

242–243, 247–248, 250, 253, 255, 259, 261–262, 265, 277, 300

16:11 31, 54, 89, 123, 137, 221, 223–224, 230, 242

16:11–14 20, 32

Leviticus (cont.)16:11–19 66, 22316:11–24 21816:11–25 21816:11–28 17, 31, 33, 21816:12 27, 7716:12–13 22, 223, 227, 237,

36516:12–16 77, 21816:12–19 22716:13 223, 23716:13–14 22516:14 5, 22, 41, 64, 73–75,

78, 230, 23516:14–15 4–5, 13, 30, 64,

74–75, 134, 137, 226, 238, 255, 276, 280–281, 308

16:14–16 6, 8, 78, 181, 191, 221, 308

16:14–19 46, 78, 159, 219, 275

16:14–20 6716:14–22 1316:15 20, 54, 73–75, 78,

98, 223, 225, 230, 235, 239

16:15–19 29, 4116:16 4, 13, 17, 27–28, 30,

32, 34, 39–40, 62, 64, 69, 75–78, 83, 98, 104, 106, 116–119, 129, 133–137, 139–140, 154, 157, 159, 172, 174, 178–181, 188, 207, 220–222, 225–228, 230, 234, 238, 240, 255–258, 265, 267–268, 271, 274–275, 277–278, 280–282, 285–293, 295–297, 300–301, 320, 322–323, 327, 331, 343–344, 361, 365, 373

16:16–18 14416:16–19 15216:17 28, 34, 39, 76–77,

123, 134, 137, 226, 230, 363

16:18 25–26, 32, 62, 76–77, 119, 122, 128, 137, 140, 222, 224–225, 230, 255, 267

16:18–19 13, 17, 20, 27, 64, 77–78, 88, 98, 129, 132, 141, 181, 191, 218, 221, 228, 237–239, 281, 308, 343–344

16:18–20 13816:19 4, 6, 8, 32, 64, 73,

88, 140, 230, 238, 254–256, 267, 275, 291

16:20 28, 76–77, 119, 122, 133–134, 136, 138, 140, 144, 159, 163, 181, 222, 226, 230, 242

Leviticus (cont.)16:20–21 7816:20–22 33, 42, 218–219,

242, 252, 32516:21 8, 30, 39, 54, 57–59,

104, 157, 161, 169, 172, 206–207, 218, 223–224, 234, 237, 240, 243–245, 254–258, 261, 264, 271, 277–278, 285–291, 293, 300, 322, 337, 367, 373

16:21–22 39, 82, 136, 200, 213, 234, 243, 250, 256–257, 261, 293, 300, 341, 343

16:21–28 2316:22 104, 230, 243, 246,

248, 255, 262, 264, 277, 286, 291, 337

16:23 28, 32, 34–3516:23–24 189, 24616:24 23, 30, 32, 35, 66,

84, 119, 123, 126, 136–137, 186, 189, 219–222, 263, 308

16:24–25 18916:25 20, 32, 219–221,

223, 230, 237, 239–240, 254

16:25–28 1316:26 35, 58, 161, 174,

200, 223, 230, 240, 243, 247–249, 279, 365, 374

16:26–28 92, 21816:27 20, 28, 34, 67, 98,

134, 137, 144, 190, 219, 230, 237, 239, 254, 279, 298

16:27–28 159, 174, 178, 223

16:28 20, 35, 57, 174, 183, 230, 237, 240, 279, 374

16:29 30–32, 35, 98, 127, 224, 275, 306, 310, 312–313, 315, 322, 360, 375, 377

16:29–31 162, 278, 310–311, 359, 380

16:29–33 3316:29–34 33–36, 118, 218,

232, 277, 29116:30 31, 39–40, 82, 98,

118, 120, 123–127, 129, 136, 141, 175, 207, 222, 230–234, 255, 263, 265,272, 274–275, 277, 284, 291, 293, 296, 301, 306, 310, 317, 322, 343, 357, 361

16:31 30–31, 275, 306, 310, 312, 315, 322, 375, 377

16:32 35, 109, 13416:32–33 144

gutters narrowed this page!!!!


Leviticus (cont.)16:32–34 23016:33 13, 17, 28, 33–35,

76–77, 98, 119, 122, 127, 134, 136, 140, 159, 163, 181, 222, 230, 267, 272, 278

16:34 26, 35, 39–40, 115, 118, 127, 222, 277–278, 291, 293, 296

17 65, 15417:1–9 49, 25117:3–6 6517:3–9 17117:7 251–252, 254, 26317:8 17117:10 63, 17117:10–12 19617:11 9, 57, 62–63, 65,

169–171, 33017:12 63, 17117:13–14 17117:14 6317:15 15417:16 150, 153–154, 15618:19 199, 28918:20 23318:23–25 23318:24–30 23318:27–28 23318:30 23319 193, 217, 35819:2 32619:20–22 49, 12019:22 120, 127, 165, 194,

196, 26219:31 23319:35–36 35820:2–3 145, 201, 21020:3 30–31, 144–145, 147–

149, 151, 154–157, 162, 175, 179–180, 208, 233, 267, 270, 272, 274, 296–297, 305, 319, 323, 361

20:18 199, 20420:26 32721:1–4 144, 19921:8 6121:11 144, 19921:17 6121:21 6121:22 6122:3 204, 28922:3–7 19922:5 28922:9 6422:16 29422:18–25 4622:25 6123 35, 54, 197, 35923:3 31523:5–8 37023:7 31523:7–8 370

Leviticus (cont.)23:8 31523:19 25223:21 31523:23–25 37023:24 308, 315, 37623:25 31523:26–32 34, 82, 233, 306,

310–312, 35623:27 31, 224, 311–31223:27–28 22223:27–32 30, 275, 359,

375, 37723:28 31, 33, 31523:29 312, 35923:29–30 31, 306, 311,

322–323, 350, 357, 36123:30 312, 31523:31 31523:32 224, 311–312, 31523:34–36 37623:35 31523:35–36 37023:36 31523:39 315, 37024:1–9 21724:3 8024:4 7424:5–9 6124:7 6124:8 7424:9 6324:10 21024:10–23 20724:11–16 21024:13–23 33124:14 264–26524:15 26424:17 33924:19 35024:21–22 26424:23 210, 26525:4 31525:8–10 30825:9 31, 222, 36025:9–10 234, 376–37726:14–39 23326:18 29226:21 29226:24 29226:28 29226:40–45 380

Numbers5 289, 330, 343, 3525:5–8 205–2065:6–7 2925:6–8 206–2085:7 58, 206, 211, 244, 2695:8 31, 137, 222, 2625:11–31 3615:17 735:17–24 3305:19 289, 342

Numbers (cont.)5:27–28 3305:28 3426:6–7 145, 1996:9 1456:9–12 199, 2046:11 30, 115, 118, 123,

135, 1456:14 187, 1976:16 1977:1 1407:87 2527:89 88, 319, 3608:5 1218:5–7 1228:5–22 1978:6 1218:6–21 1218:7 73, 121–122, 1828:8 63, 121, 1978:9–11 121–1228:12 30, 53, 120–122, 136,

197, 2468:13–15 121–1228:15 1228:21 120–122, 126, 136,

141, 197, 231–232, 246, 298

9:15–22 2910:9 37611:1 33011:33 33012:10 19912:11 29214 212, 334, 336, 35314:11 33514:11–12 33514:13–16 33514:17–19 334–33514:18 263, 286, 294, 297,

300, 33514:18–20 33614:19 263, 334–33514:19–24 33514:20 335–33614:21–38 33514:32–33 33614:34 336, 33914:37 33015 26, 83–86, 196, 204–

206, 208, 212, 22615:1–16 21915:22 85–8615:22–24 20215:22–26 83–8515:22–29 86, 204–205,

212, 29215:22–31 26, 49, 83, 85–

86, 206, 211–21315:24 22, 22015:24–25 3015:24–28 196, 21915:24–29 21115:25 51


Numbers (cont.)15:26 24615:27 202, 20815:27–29 8415:27–31 15215:28 24615:30 207, 209–210, 30615:30–31 86, 175, 201,

204, 206–208, 210–212, 270, 292, 296–298, 305, 323, 329–330, 348, 361

15:31 20615:32–36 207, 212, 33116 212, 33016:6 2716:6–7 33016:17–18 33016:35 33017:2–3 33017:3 16617:11 23717:12–13 23718:1 101, 103, 294, 29918:1–7 14918:9–11 8918:23 29919 36, 154, 159, 166, 171,

184, 259, 27519:1–10 15319:4 61, 73–74, 88, 146,

184, 191, 26119:4–5 16319:5 164, 183, 18519:5–6 18119:7 182, 27919:7–8 171, 18319:8 182, 27919:8–9 22319:9 141, 163, 178, 182,

184, 26019:9–12 18119:10 171, 182–183, 27919:11–12 15419:11–20 32019:11–22 18519:13 30–31, 88, 144–151,

153–158, 162, 175, 179–180, 182, 184, 199, 201, 204, 270, 272, 274–275, 289, 293, 296, 299, 305, 319, 323, 361

19:14 15419:14–15 153, 158–15919:14–18 15319:16 15419:17 163, 18419:18 7319:19 69, 73, 141, 15419:20 30–31, 88, 144–145,

147–148, 151, 153–158, 162, 175, 179–180, 184, 199, 201, 204, 274–275, 293, 296, 299, 305, 319, 323, 361

Numbers (cont.)19:20–21 18220:3 29623:21 337, 37625:6–8 26525:8 33125:8–9 33025:11 26525:13 204, 265, 33125:14–15 26527:18 244–24527:23 24428–29 12, 31, 54, 62–63,

66, 83, 130, 197, 217, 22128:1–8 217, 219, 30828:2 6128:3 22128:6 22128:10 22128:11 22128:15 4528:16–25 37028:18 37028:19 22128:22 45, 63, 19728:25 37028:27 22128:30 63, 19729:5 45, 63, 19729:7 31, 275, 310, 312,

315, 375, 37729:7–11 31, 82, 217, 219,

233, 30929:8–11 219, 36429:11 20, 31, 45–46, 218,

221, 239, 254, 37229:12 37029:35 37030–31 20530:6 29730:9 29730:13 29730:14 31231:19 18231:23 155, 18232:23 29233:3 209, 21135:16–21 33935:20–23 205, 21035:31 34435:33 31

Deuteronomy1:16–17 3214:42 205, 21012:5 31912:11 31912:16 63–6412:21 31912:23–25 6313:6 26514:23–24 31916:2 31916:6 319

Deuteronomy (cont.)16:11 31917:7 31, 26517:12 26519:4 205, 21019:6 205, 21019:11 205, 21019:19 35021 61, 26521:1–9 61, 185, 252,

29321:3–6 26521:4 6221:7 26521:8 26522:13–19 34228:38 9632:27 20932:43 31

Joshua7 208, 2117:14–18 2497:19–21 211

Judges1:7 3508:23 3379:53 3509:56 3509:57 35015:11 35020:26 31321:19–23 377

1 Samuel2:11 734:4 88, 319, 3607:6 3138:7 33710:20–21 24915:25 34022:4 7324 35325:24 339–34125:28 34025:39 35026:19 67–6831:13 313

2 Samuel1:12 3131:16 3503 301, 3533:21 3483:28 3483:29 344, 3483:39 3486:2 88, 319, 3608:15 3819:11 34612:1–40 33912:13 31612:13–14 353


2 Samuel (cont.)13:22 33913:23–38 33813:28–29 33913:38 33914 322, 338, 344, 353, 38014:1–3 33814:5–7 33814:7 33914:8 33814:9 300–301, 319, 322,

338–343, 37914:10 33814:11 338, 34114:13–17 34114:18–19 34114:20 7314:21–23 34114:24 34114:26 34114:31 34215:2–4 319, 34116:5–13 34516:7–8 34916:15–22 34116:21–22 34617:27–29 34518:9–15 34119–20 34519:1 34119:17–24 34519:18 34519:19–24 34519:20–21 34519:24 35019:25 34519:25–31 34519:27–29 34519:30 34519:31–32 34519:32–40 34520:8–10 34524 33224:24 321

1 Kings1–2 301, 339, 3461:1–4 3461:5–10 3461:18–19 3461:24–26 3461:39–40 3461:52 3462 338, 346, 353, 3812:5 3482:5–6 3022:5–9 3442:12 3412:30 3472:31–32 3022:31–33 3472:32 3502:36–38 3492:44 350

1 Kings (cont.)2:44–45 3496:22 27–287:48 278:5 1148:32 322, 3508:39 3598:50 29710:8 7310:9 38111:26–27 20912:6 7312:19 294

2 Kings1:1 2942:42 3503:5 2943:7 286, 2945:27 1998:20 2948:22 286, 2949:33 16815:5 19916:14 73, 7918:24 7319:15 88, 36025:27–30 376

Isaiah1:2 2941:10–20 3801:16–29 1612:1–4 3204:3 36113:21 251, 26334:14 25136:9 7337:16 88, 15138:9 24943:25 29743:27 29447:9 10653 10453:4–12 10358 31458:3 31258:5 31263:3 168

Jeremiah2:8 2944:14 1137:9–11 1477:30–31 14712:1 32617:1 157–15817:22 31518:23 19324:2 11431 31831:34 318, 35333:8 113, 234, 29451:51 324

Ezekiel8 3288:6 3289 3629–11 2729:2 3629:3 231, 314, 328, 361–

3629:10 2649:11 36210:4 231, 314, 328, 36110:18–19 231, 314, 328,

36111:21 26411:22–23 231, 314, 328,

36116:43 26418:19 10318:21 21318:22 29720:9 31921:29 28622:31 26423:29 15623:37–39 14736:33 113, 23440:1 36043:20 117, 136–13743:22 11743:23 11743:24 4743:26 136–13744:19 18945:18 11745:20 13745:18–20 32, 230, 328,

37045:22 137

Hosea7:1–2 352

Joel1:14 3132:12 3132:15 313

Obadiah1:15 350

Jonah3:5 313

Micah5:8 2097:18 297

Habakkuk3:1 249

Zechariah3:1–3 2633:1–5 2383:3–5 193


Zechariah (cont.)5:5–11 250

Malachi1:6–14 321

Psalms1:6 3593:1 2499:8 36011:4 62, 8819:13 20419:14 20424 36824:3–4 36824:4 36824:7 36825:7 29726:6 34232:1 29732:1–2 285–28632:5 285–286, 29435:13 312–31344:21–22 35947 33749:8–9 32150:9–13 32151 234, 35351:3 29751:4 112, 234, 29151:9 23451:12 23459:4 28665:4 213, 29769:29 36172 38173 324–325, 33073:13 34273:17 324, 32878:38 213

Psalms (cont.)79:9 21380:2 8882 337, 35985:11 320, 34489:14 32093 33794:11 35996–99 33796:10–13 33797:2 319, 33797:8 33798:9 33799:1 8899:4 337103:3 202103:12 253, 262, 297139:16 361146:9 359

Job1:5 841:12 732:7 734:17 34311:7 1642:7–9 32742:8 84, 13742:9 73

Proverbs16:14 10620:4 11420:9 291

Proverbs (cont.)26:27 264

Qoheleth12:14 361

Lamentations5:7 103

Esther4:16 313

Daniel5:23 3137:10 3618:14 3429:24 213, 285–28610:2–3 312–31310:12 312–313

Ezra8:21 312–313

Nehemiah3:37 1939:1 31313:30 113

1 Chronicles13:6 8821:28–22:1 333

2 Chronicles3:1 3336:23 322, 3509:23 7320:3 31326:19–21 19929:22 48, 55, 220, 22529:23 53, 5530:18–19 31633:1–13 29733:12–13 213, 31634:3 11336:14 328

New Testament

Matthew18:23–35 318, 338, 35322:1–14 33826:26–29 6727:24 368

Luke11:24 25119:11–27 338

John6:53–58 67

Romans5:12 2016:23 201

1 Corinthians11:23–26 67

Hebrews7:23–28 599:3–4 279:4 279:11–14 59

Hebrews (cont.)9:23–28 5910:1–14 5910:26–31 208

Revelation18:2 25120 24722:11–12 352

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha1 Enoch

9:6 26310:4–5 25010:8 263

Cult and Character: Purification Offerins. Roy Gane

Spiritual

Transcript of Cult and Character: Purification Offerins. Roy Gane