Part 11
7:22—38 has a set of miscellaneous instructions. Formally, it consists of two speeches of YHWH to Moses, and it seems to form a sort of appendix or supplement to instructions on the various sacrifices: w. 22-7 prohibit the eating of any fat or blood, under pain of the penalty of being 'cut off (nikrat, also in 7:21). This expression of being 'cut off has been much debated but without a clear resolution (e.g. Levine 1989: 241— 2; Milgrom 1991: 457-60). In some passages it refers to an early death, perhaps because of judicial punishment (Lev 20:2—3). Others have argued that passages with the expression generally imply divine punishment, not human. Some passages envisage that one's line of descendants would be cut off, not necessarily involving human action (i Sam 2:30-4; Ps 109:13; Mai 2:12; Ruth 4:10). w. 28—36 talk specifically of the well-being offering, but the main theme concerns those portions of the animal which are due to the priests: the breast and the right thigh. In Leviticus the maintenance of the priesthood is alluded to only in chs. 6—7, plus a brief discussion of tithing of animals (see at LEV 27:26—7). But the priesthood could nothave been supported on portions of sacrifices alone, and other P passages speak of tithes and other support; see the discussion in Grabbe (1993: 70—2). w. 37—8 are a concluding summary for the entire section on sacrifices, i.e. chs. 1—7; cf 1:1-2.
(10:1-20) w. 1-7 describe the death of Nadab and Abihu as a result of offering 'alien fire' ('eszard) on the altar. The episode is very puzzling since the 'sin' of the two sons is never clearly indicated, with the result that the passage generated many explanations in later Judaism (Hecht 1979-80; Kirschner 1982—3). Thus, as with the Golden Calf episode, one must ask what lies behind the story. Those who date this part of Leviticus late usually look for some event in the exilic or postexilic period. For example, Noth (1977) thought he saw internal disputes between different priestly groups. However, others are willing to ascribe the background to one or other event during the time of the monarchy. Milgrom (1976) suggests that it is a polemic against private offerings of incense. There are textual and archaeological indications that it was common for Israelites to offer incense to God in their homes and elsewhere outside the Jerusalem temple. Those who believed in cult centralization would have disapproved of this practice. Thus, a graphic story like that in Lev 10 would serve as a salutary reminder that private incense offerings were fraught with danger, w. 6-7 command Aaron and his other sons not to mourn for Nadab and Abihu. This is parallel to the passage in 21:10—12 which forbids the high priest to mourn for his near kin. w. 8—n give a general instruction about not drinking alcohol when on duty in the sanctuary, another possible occasion for divine punishment for a serving priest, w. 12-20 use the the death of Aaron's sons related in the previous verses to discuss a particular situation—the question of consuming the offerings in a time of mourning.
(Chs. 8-10) describe the initiation of Aaron and sons into the priesthood and an unfortunate episode relating to priestly service in the sanctuary. Chs. 8—9 concern the ceremony in which Aaron and his sons were anointed and consecrated to their offices. There is general agreement that this is a priestly fiction; that is, these chapters do not describe an actual event involving a literal Aaron and Moses in the wilderness of Sinai. On the other hand, these chapters may tell us something about priestly belief or practice. Leviticus seems to envisage the anointing of Aaron and his sons as a once-only event, setting apart their descendants to the priesthood forever, as apparently does Exodus (29:9; 40:15). But each new high priest was customarily designated by anointing (Lev 6:22 (HB 6:15)). The lengthy ritual described in Lev 8-9 has many characteristics of what is often referred to as a 'rite of passage' (Gennep 1960). This is an anthropological term for rites which take place as a person passes from one stage to
(Chs. 11-15) f°rm an important section on ritual purity and pollution. An explanation now almost universally rejected is that the various laws in this section have hygiene as their basis. Although some of the laws of ritual purity roughly correspond to modern ideas of physical cleanliness, many of them have little to do with hygiene. For example, there is no evidence that the 'unclean' animals are intrinsically bad to eat or to be avoided in a Mediterranean climate, as is sometimes asserted. For a further discussion, see LEV 0.3-4.
LEVITICUS 100
primarily about the carcasses of unclean animals, not the animals themselves. Then, w. 41—5 are about the swarming things which had not really been discussed in w. 1-23. Despite a somewhat coherent structure, though, most critics have seen evidence of growth and supplementation here. Further evidence of this is found in w. 43—5 which use language reminiscent of H: 'be holy as I am holy', w. 41—5 discuss the 'swarming things', which seem to be a miscellaneous collection of small animals regarded as abhorrent by the Israelites, w. 46—7 are a summary of the chapter.
(11:1-47) describes the clean and unclean animals. Eating was very much involved with purity. Certain things were not to be eaten. The Israelite was especially to be concerned about the types of animal considered fit for consumption and how they were to be prepared. Lev n (paralleled by Deut 14) lists the various animals available for food and those to be avoided. There are some difficulties here because it is not always clear which animals were being referred to. The standard treatment of this chapter is now the study by Houston (1993). He argues that the animals allowed or forbidden under Israelite law were generally those similarly permitted or prohibited in the surrounding cultures. The laws of the Pentateuch thus reflect and systematize the general habits not only of the Israelites but also of their north-west Semitic neighbours. Thus, the animals permitted or forbidden seem to have come first, and the criteria for distinguishing them were worked out only subsequently. The presentation in this chapter is an intellectual exercise, a learned attempt to systematize and provide formal criteria and probably had little practical significance (Houston 1993: 231).
(Ch. 12) gives directions about the purity procedure which follows childbirth. The first form of impurity for women listed in Leviticus is that of childbirth. If a woman bore a boy, she was unclean for 7 days, until the circumcision of the boy on the eighth day. For another 33 days she was not unclean as such (i.e. passing on uncleanness to others who had contact with her) but was not allowed to come into the sanctuary or touch any holy thing.
These periods were doubled for the birth of a girl: 14 days and 66 days. The allotted period was completed and purity restored with a lamb for a burnt offering and a pigeon or dove for a sin offering. A poor person could substitute two pigeons or doves, one for the burnt offering and one for the sin offering.
In w. 2-12 the mammals and sea life are fairly easy to identify. For mammals (w. 2—8) two questions are asked: 'Does it chew the cud?' 'Does it have cloven hooves?' If'yes' is the response to both these, the animal can be eaten; if'no' to either or both, it is off limits. A few borderline cases are mentioned to clarify the situation: the pig has cloven hooves but does not chew the cud; the camel chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves; the hare might be thought to chew the cud, because of the movements of its jaws, but it has no hooves. In scientific terminology, mammal food is limited to the ruminating bi-hooved ungulates. The practical implications were that edible mammals were limited to those offered on the altar and to their wild counterparts. Although pigs are attested in many areas of Palestine (Hilbner 1989), the number seems to have declined fairly rapidly during the Iron Age. There is almost no evidence for their being used for sacrifice
(Chs. 13—14) discuss a variety of skin diseases under the general Hebrew term ofsara'at. Although this is often presented in older English translations as 'leprosy', the modern condition of leprosy is limited to Hanson's disease; by contrast, it is not clear that modern leprosy is even covered by the ancient disease; in fact, there is some question as to whether Hanson's disease was known in the Mediterranean world before the Hellenistic period. Also, some objects can be infected with 'leprosy'.
(13:1—59) Various skin afflictions are listed in w. 1—46, along with the priestly response to them. The main function of the priest was to examine any affliction or inflammation brought to him, isolate the individual if it looked like the real disease, check again after seven days, and finally pronounce the afflicted person whole or leprous. Despite the length of the regulations, they are fairly repetitive, with slightly different criteria for scaly patches, burns, boils, and so on. As with Lev n, the text is not dealing with medical treatment or hygiene but rather with ritual. What is being discussed is not how to treat the various diseases under the rubric sara'at but only how to recognize them and how to view them from the point of view of cultic purity. The medical question was no doubt of concern in Israel but it is not within the scope of the discussion here. The job of the priest was to pronounce on ritual purity and impurity, and the text gives some guidance on how to decide whether the person is clean or not, but he was not treating the disease as such. Even the isolation was not a quarantine for purposes of preventing the spread of the disease but only a way of allowing it time to develop or recede so an authoritative pronouncement could be made about it. In w. 47-59 the infected object is a piece of cloth or leather. This is an additional complication to the identification of the disease(s) falling under the generic term sara'at. This section appears to deal with mould or fungus infections. From a medical point of view, there is no connection between these
(even where they were eaten), with the possible exception of some special rites to underworld gods. However, it should be noted that pigs were included in these particular sacrifices because they were unclean, rather than that they were declared unclean because of being used in cults, as so often asserted
(Houston 1993: 253). So the Israelite avoidance of pork fits with the general practice in the west Semitic area.
Consumption of sea creatures is restricted to those that have fins and scales (w. 9-12). No animals are named, but it is clear that some fish (those without scales), all crustaceans, and most other fresh and saltwater animals are forbidden. The birds are hard to categorize because not all can be positively identified (w. 13-19). Nevertheless, the majority of those which can be recognized are carnivorous or scavengers. Other flying things are also discussed here, including the bat (unclean) and some insects. A few insects could be eaten, mainly of the locust, cricket, or grasshopper type (w. 20-3). This concession of some insects seems to be because of common dietary habits among the people, since insects seem to have been forbidden in the parallel passage in Deut 14:29 (Houston 1993: 236). w. 24-40 seem to repeat earlier instructions, with quadrupeds again (w. 24-8), followed by a long section on 'swarming things' (w. 29—45). However, some sort of structure does emerge with a closer look, since w. 24-40 are
LEVITICUS IOI
clean after 7 days. In this case, though, there was a significant difference, for she had to make a sacrifice. On the eighth day she was to bring two pigeons or doves, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering.
and the skin diseases otherwise dealt with. This reinforces the view that something other than pathological conditions is in the mind of the writer.
(14:1—53) In w. 1—32 a good deal of space is devoted to the question of re-entry into the cultic community once the disease is cured. A major feature was a ritual in which two birds were taken, one killed but the other released into the open country. As is obvious, this ritual has certain features in common with the scapegoat ritual, especially the use of two creatures, one of which is slain and the other released (see further at LEV 16). The cured person then had to wash himself and his clothes, shave off his hair, and remain outside his tent (though within the camp) for a further 7 days. He then presented three lambs (one for a guilt offering, one for a sin offering, and one for a burnt offering), a cereal offering, and a quantity of oil. Some of the blood of the guilt offering and some of the oil was put on different parts of the former sufferer's anatomy. A poor person need bring only one lamb (for the guilt offering), two turtle-doves or pigeons (for the sin and burnt offerings), the cereal offering, and the oil. The range of offerings required in this case is paralleled only by those required for the nazirites to finish their vow (Num 6:1320). w. 33—53 envisage that a house could get sara'at, in the same way as a piece of cloth or leather. Again, it seems to be some sort of fungus which the writer has in mind. As with a person, the cleansing would be completed with the ceremony of the two birds.
(16:1—34) describes the atonement for sanctuary and people popularly known as the 'scapegoat ritual'. The central core of the ritual was the ceremony with the two goats. One goat was for God and one was for 'Azazel' (on this word, see at v. 8), the choice being determined by lot. This ceremony differs from most of the cultic rituals in having the sins of the people placed on a live animal rather than sacrificing one and putting its blood on the altar. Part of the peculiarities of this chapter may arise from its origins. A variety of possibilities have been suggested, the most recent seeing parallels—and perhaps even the origin—of the rite in southern Anatolia and northern Syria (Janowski and Wilhelm 1993). Expiation rituals in the Hittite and Hurrian texts have some striking points in common with the scapegoat ritual (ibid. 134-57; Wright 1987: 31-60). v. i connects the chapter back to the regulations about the priests in chs. 8—10, linking it with the one proper occasion when a priest (limited to the high priest) could appear before God in the Holy of Holies. That is, whereas Adab and Abihu had acted improperly (though their sin is never specified) and had been punished by death, the right ceremony at the right time could allow the right priest to come into God's actual presence, w. 2-14, before the high priest could come into God's presence, he first had to offer a bull as a sin offering for himself and his household. Then he went inside the veil and placed incense on the coals of his censer to make a cloud of smoke and hide the ark, thus protecting himself from God who was seated on top of the ark, and sprinkled the blood of the bull on the ark. This was all to atone for his own sins. Before this was done, however, two goats were chosen to perform separate roles by lot (w. 7-10). One goatwas for YHWH, the other for 'Azazel' (v. 8). What was this Azazel? Unfortunately, it remains an enigma. No explanation is found in the text of Lev 16, and the word does not occur elsewhere in the OTor early inscriptions. Various etymologies have been proposed, but none is clearly compelling. Later Jewish tradition identified Azazel with the leader of the fallen angels (Grabbe 1987). Although this identification may itself be the result of exegesis, scholars have often proposed that Azazel represents some sort of demonic figure. This is suggested by the context as well as later Jewish interpretation. While accepting this interpretation as the one which developed in Judaism, Janowski and Wilhelm (1993: 161-2) argue that the original meaning of the word was 'for (the elimination of) God's wrath', w. 15—19, after the priest had sacrificed for himself and his family, he next sacrificed the goat on whom the lot for God had fallen. This goat became a sin offering and was sacrificed and the blood sprinkled on the ark, which atoned for the holy place (polluted because of the sins of the people). The altar was atoned for by sprinkling on it the blood from both the bull and goat. w. 20-8, in the rituals earlier in the chapter the various sacrifices had been used to atone for the sins of the high priest himself and then to cleanse the sanctuary of impurities because of the sins of the people. Now a unique ceremony takes place in which the sins of the people
(15:1-30) deals with a variety of genital discharges, normal and abnormal, for both men and women, w. 2—24: a number of discharges were regarded as more or less normal, because they were a part of everyday life, and the person becoming polluted by them would be purified by washing and the passage of time. There was no requirement to offer a sacrifice. First to be treated, in w. i—16, are men. If there is an abnormal emission of semen or other penile discharge, the man (zab) becomes impure. The pollution is passed on to anyone touching him or anything on which he sits, as it is also if he spits on anyone or touches anyone without first washing his hands. The person so polluted was required to bathe in spring water, wash his clothes, and would become clean with the going down of the sun. A normal discharge of semen in marital intercourse (w. 16—18) was also polluting, though less contagious than an abnormal discharge. The man and woman both were to wash themselves and remain unclean until evening. Any cloth or leather object on which semen fell was also to be washed and remain unclean until evening.
With regard to women (w. 19-24), the flow of blood caused by childbirth was already dealt with in 12:1-8. The most basic and regular genital discharge was the monthly menstrual period. The time of impurity lasted 7 days even if the actual flow of blood finished sooner. During this time the woman transmitted impurity by direct contact or indirectly via anything on which she sat or lay. The person who touched her or that on which she lay or sat would need to wash himself or herself and his or her clothes and be unclean until evening. A man who had sexual relations with her would be unclean for 7 days. Any other prolonged discharge of blood for a woman also brought on uncleanness on the same order as menstruation (w. 25-30). Ifthe flow stopped, the woman would become
LEVITICUS IO2
w. 8—9 are a separate law and seem to repeat w. 3—7. They may have had a separate existence at one time and thus came to be included in the collection despite some duplication. The penalty of being 'cut off is characteristic of Leviticus (see at LEV 7:2 2—7). w. 10—14 f°cus on the question of blood which is a central element in this chapter. The life of both humans and animals is in the blood (w. n, 14). For that reason, blood should not be eaten but dashed on the altar or poured on the ground and covered with dust. Blood functions as a potent symbol within the sacrificial cult and must be given due weight in any theological discussion of the meaning of the cult (see at LEV 1:4). Schwartz (1991: 55-61) argues that kipper in 17:11 has the meaning of'ransom' and is the only biblical passage where sacrificial blood is said to be a ranson for human life. Elsewhere blood has the quality of purifying or cleansing, so v. n is a unique verse. Because of the characteristic of blood to serve as a ransom for life, its consumption is prohibited.
are removed by the treatment of the goat 'for Azazel'. It was not slain. Rather, the high priest laid hands on it and confessed the sins of the congregation, thus transferring them to its head. The goat was then taken away and sent into the wilderness, bearing away all the sins of Israel on its head. As noted above, the different conceptualization of removing sins in this ritual may be due to its origins.
w. 29-34 summarize the ceremony and associate it with the tenth day of the seventh month. The detailed ceremony of ch. 16 is only at this point connected with the Day of Atonement listed as one of the festivals of Israel (Lev 23). It also specifies that the day should be one of fasting by the people. This suggests that the ritual of ch. 16 may have been only secondarily connected with the Day of Atonement in the list of festivals (Noth 1977). Before this it was likely to have been a ceremony evoked by the high priest whenever it was needed (Milgrom 1991: 1061-5).
Chs. 17—26 form the Holiness Code according to a longterm consensus in scholarship; nevertheless, there have been significant voices raised against this identification. See LEV B. 7 above.
(17:15-16) deals with eating that which dies of itself or is killed by animals. One of the reasons is no doubt that the blood is still in the animal and has not been drained away as required (w. 6, n, 13—14). Surprisingly, though, such eating is not prohibited but only requires the eater to bathe, wash clothes, and be unclean until sunset. No sacrifice is necessary. Priests were specifically prohibited from eating meat not properly slaughtered in Lev 22:8, while Ex 22:31 (HB 22:30) and Deut 14:21 are even more stringent, and prohibit Israelites from eating such meat at all.
(17:1—16) Ch. 17 does not provide a formal introduction to the Holiness Code (assuming one accepts the idea of H). Indeed, Gerstenberger sees chs. 16-26 as a unit separate from chs. i15, and puts ch. 17 in with ch. 16 as a thematic unit on 'the prime festival and the prime rule of the offerings' (1993: 17). The subject of ch. 17 is proper sacrifice; under this heading come the matters of handling blood and of eating meat. The reason for these is that eating of meat is intimately associated with cultic sacrifice in the mind of the writer.
(18:1—30) discusses primarily forbidden sexual relations, in two sets of laws (w. 7—18 and 19—23). Much of this chapter covers what is usually referred to as incest, that is, sexual relations forbidden because of the closeness of kinship of the person involved; however, some other sorts of sexual acts are also mentioned. Sexual relations sit at the heart of social practice within any community. Each society has strict views about which sort are allowed and which are not; these views may change over time and—human nature and passions being what they are—such rules are often breached, but they are still there even in what might seem the most promiscuous of societies. Indeed, promiscuity in one area of a society may be matched by great rigidity in another. Social anthropologists have found that laws about permitted and forbidden sexual relationships are an important clue to attitudes towards relatives and outsiders (cf. LEV ^3-4). In many preliterate societies elaborate codes govern marriage. Often these force exogamy, even if the only source of wives or husbands might be an enemy tribe. Israel's rules here are very lenient (despite the claim that 'the Canaanites' allowed sex with close of kin), allowing even first cousins to marry. Israel was thus an endogamous society. This fits their emphasis on rigid barriers to non-Israelites. Easy marriage between groups internally would, of course, help to prevent any feeling of need for marriage to outsiders.
w. 3-7 cover the law regarding slaughter, requiring that domestic animals be killed at the altar. The reason is that the blood can be disposed of at the altar, and people will not sacrifice to goat demons (w. 6—7). It is generally assumed that this chapter envisages all slaughter as being done at the altar so that the blood can be dashed against the altar and the fat burned on it. The exception to this rule was the case of clean wild animals or birds which could be hunted, killed, and eaten apart from the shrine as long as the blood was drained out onto the earth. If so, all slaughter of domestic animals for food would have to take place in a sacrificial context. How could this be carried out from a practical point of view, if no butchering or eating of meat could be done apart from the shrine? The difficulty is highlighted by Deut 12:20-5 which seems to be changing just such a regulation when it states that profane slaughter is now allowed, as long as the blood is drained out of the animal. This means that Lev 17 must either be an idealized system divorced from reality or have in mind a society small enough in numbers and territory to allow a trip to the altar and back within a day or so. The post-exilic community had just such a size, and the majority of scholars apply this to the post-exilic community (cf Gerstenberger 1993: 216—17). Milgrom, however, argues that the original setting was the pre-monarchic community, which was also quite small and allowed such laws to operate. Another interpretation argues that only the sacrifice of well-being offerings is in mind and that profane slaughter for food was permitted outside the temple (cf. Hartley 1992), though this seems to go against the most obvious meaning of the passage.
w. 1—5: the prohibited relations are framed in two sets of admonitions or paranaetic material (w. 1-5, 24-30). The sections justify the laws by an appeal to the 'abominations' of the Egyptians and Canaanites (w. 3, 24—8). In fact, there is no evidence that these peoples were less moral than the Israelites, nor that their sexual practices were necessarily that
io3 LEVITICUS
respect for the elderly (v. 32); love the resident alien (w. 33—4); have honest scales and measures (w. 35—6).
different. There may have been some differences in definition of what constituted incest among these peoples compared with Israel, as is to be expected, but they had their own strict society codes. (The 'abominations of the Egyptians and Canaanites' is a fiction which still dominates some discussions, especially with regard to Canaanite religion.) On the theological construction of the Canaanites in the biblical text, see Lemche (1991).
Many of these are what we might call civil law, but here they are given a religious sanction and thus brought under cultic law. The motive clause, '(for) I am YHWH', occurs frequently. The laws proper (w. 3—36) are not of a piece because there is some overlap between the various ones. For example, the sabbath is mentioned twice (w. 3, 30). It has been noted that w. ii—18 have a common vocabulary in 'friend' (reaf), 'associate' ('amit), and 'people' ('am) (Wenham 1979: 267). Scholars have noted connections between the Decalogue (Ex 20; Deut 5) and this chapter (Morgenstern 1955). Some have thought they could even find two decalogues (Kilian 1963: 58—9) or a dodecalogue and a decalogue (Elliger 1966: 254), though a good deal of textual rearrangement is required and the precise construction is not agreed on. It is true that the contents of much of the Ten Commandments are echoed here: graven images (19:4 || Ex 20:3); using God's name in vain (19:12 || Ex 20:7); the sabbath (19:3, 30 || Ex 20:8-12); honouring parents (19:31| Ex 20:12); murder (19:161| Ex 20:13); adultery (19:29 || Ex 20:14); stealing (19:11, 13 || Ex 20:15). Lev 19 also has a command against lying (v. n) which might be taken as somewhat parallel to bearing false witness (Ex 20:16). Nevertheless, the wording and even the precise concept is often different, and the order of presentation has nothing in common, and there is much here not in the Ten Commandments. Thus, there is no obvious relationship between this chapter and the Decalogue. Comparison of the OT and the legal material elsewhere in the ancient Near East suggests a large amount of traditional exhortative material widespread in the area. The coincidences between the traditional Decalogue and this chapter are most likely due to this fact.
The following sexual relations are considered off limits for the Israelite male (w. 7—23): first are those 'with his own flesh'
(i.e. near of kin): mother or step-mother (w. 6—7); sister, halfsister, stepsister, or sister-in-law (w. 9, n, 16); daughter-in-law (v. 10, 15); aunt (w. 12-14); a woman and her daughter or granddaughter (v. 17). Other regulations seem to have to do more with what is deemed appropriate: not to take a wife's sister as rival wife (v. 18); not to have sex during the menstrual period (v. 19) or with the neighbour's wife (v. 20), with another male (v. 22), or with animals (v. 23). One should not offer one's children to Molech (v. 21—on this, see further at LEV 20:1—6). Omitted is prohibition of relations with a daughter or a sister. The reason maybe that the laws are phrased to forbid violation of one's father and one's mother (Rattray 1987). Also omitted is any prohibition against homosexual acts between women, though the framers of the laws may not have envisaged that such even existed.
w. 24—30 put blame for exile from the land on the sins of the inhabitants. The Israelite is the object of the command but, as noted above in the general comments on ch. 18, the attribution of such abominable sins to the original inhabitants of the land is not based on any objective criteria. Sexual mores were fairly uniform throughout the ancient Near East. For example, adultery was universally condemned (cf Codex Hammurabi 129-32). Sex with animals seems otherwise unattested in the Near East at this time (Gerstenberger 1993: 232).
(20:1—8) is a section prohibiting seeking after false sources of supernatural aid. It primarily concerns dedicating children to Molech (w. 2-5) but also forbids necromancy (v. 6). The prohibitions about Molech raise two questions: what does it refer to, and why should it be in this collection? There has been much discussion about the first question (cf. Day 1989; Heider 1985). Who or what is Molech? Some have argued that the term refers to a type of sacrifice; others assert that Molech is a deity of some sort. Although recent writings have favoured the latter hypothesis, it cannot be said that the matter is settled. Similarly, the expression 'pass (a child) over to Molech' has been taken to mean only 'to dedicate to' Molech or, more drastically, 'to sacrifice (the child) to' Molech. Again, recent writings have tended to support the latter viewpoint. The same prohibition occurs in a similar series in 18:19-23, but there the writer/editor must have seen a connection between the sexual acts and offering children to Molech. Its presence is more easily explained here in ch. 20. But why is the law included in a series having to do with sexual relations? Perhaps both were seen as threatening to family solidarity (Hartley 1992: 289—90). As its position here indicates, worship of Molech may be a form of seeking the deities of the underworld. Necromancy was another means of gaining help from the dead and the forces associated with death and the netherworld. The precise development of the cult of the dead and its significance is debated (cf. the summary in Grabbe 1995:141— 5), some thinking it was early in Israel's history (Bloch-Smith
(Chs. 19-20) list a set of miscellaneous laws on being holy. The term 'miscellaneous' is used from a modern perspective; no doubt the ancient authors/compilers had their own view and may have arranged the material according to a perfectly logical pattern from their standpoint. The contents of this section have a number of parallels with the Covenant Code (Ex 21:1—23:33) and Deut 12—24, as wgll as with laws known elsewhere in the ancient Near East (on Israelite law in the context of ancient Near-Eastern law, see Grabbe (1993: 23-8) and the bibliography cited there).
(Ch. 19) has a series of laws preceded by an introduction (w. 1—2) and with a concluding verse (v. 37): revere parents (v. 3); unusually, the mother is mentioned first; keep the sabbaths (v. 3); avoid idols (v. 4); law of well-being sacrifice (w. 5—8); leave some of harvest for the poor (w. 9—10); do not steal (v. n); do not lie or deceive (v. n); do not swear falsely (v. 12); do not exploit others: friend, hired person, deaf, blind (w. 13-14); judge justly (v. 15); do not be a slanderer (v. 16); do not hate your fellows but love them (w. 17—18); avoid mixtures (v. 19); if a man has sex with a betrothed slave woman (w. 20— 2); the first fruits of a fruit tree (w. 23-5); do not eat blood (v. 26); do not practice divination (v. 26); do not disfigure yourself for the dead (w. 27-8); do not make your daughter a prostitute (v. 29); keep the sabbaths and honour the sanctuary (v. 30); do not seek to contact spirits of the dead (v. 31); show
LEVITICUS 104
out physical blemish. A number of these defects are described, though they may be only representative. Nevertheless, even priests whose physical deformity or disease prevented them from carrying out their priestly duties were still allowed to eat of the priestly gifts.
1992) while others think it developed only fairly late (Schmidt 1994). What is clear is that in Leviticus, as in other passages (e.g. Deut 18:9—14), the practice of necromancy was known and forbidden, suggesting that it was practised at the time of writing, whenever that was.
(22:1-33) carries on the theme at the end of ch. 21 by giving laws on holy offerings and who may eat of them. Certain portions of the sacrificial animal and other offerings were to go to the priests, as noted in chs. 5-7. These were sacred and to be eaten only by those qualified and only under certain conditions, w. 3—16, the priests and their families who were in a state of purity, and they alone, were to partake of these offerings. The various sorts of uncleanness are specified, but these do not differ from those already known. The basic rule was that only members of the priest's household could eat, including slaves but not hired servants, and unmarried daughters but not married ones. Any unqualified person who ate of holy things had to restore it plus 20 per cent; cf at 5:14-16.
(20:9-27) has parallels to Lev 19 and, especially, Lev 18. w. 10—21 primarily concern the question of sexual relations between relatives and others, though it is introduced by a prohibition against cursing one's parents (v. 9). These are similar to Lev 18:6-23. w22~6 give the rationale for these laws (the previous inhabitants did these things and the land vomited them out) in a manner parallel to 18:24—30. The section finally ends in a prohibition against necromancy (v. 27). This probably forms an indusio with 20:1-6 (i.e. the chapter begins and ends with the same subject), suggesting that ch. 20 was composed as an independent unit. This implies that the repetition between chs. 18 and 20 is probably due to their being originally separate collections. If so, the final editor included both, despite the parallel material, rather than choosing between them or attempting the difficult task of editing them together. Gerstenberger (1993: 262—6), however, argues that one of the chapters must be dependent on the other, most likely the editor of ch. 20 was dependent on ch. 18; the intention of this revision is to give new perspectives relating to the community.
w. 17—25 link again the bodily perfection of both sacrificial animals and the presiding priests. The first part of ch. 22 covers the priest; this section now specifies that all offerings were to be whole, normal animals without major physical defects. Anything which was blind, injured, maimed, or had certain sorts of disease was rejected. Neither was a castrated animal to be accepted. (The implication is that Israelites did not castrate their animals, contrary to the normal practice of those around them.) An animal with a limb extraordinarily short or long could be accepted for a free-will offering but not for a vow. This was the only explicit concession made about blemishes, though how the rules might be interpreted in practice we do not know. v. 21 mentions only the votive (neder) and the free-will (neddbd) offerings as falling under the wellbeing offering; this seems to differ from the description given at 7:11-18 which also seems to include the thanksgiving offering (todd), though even this is a moot point. See the discussion at LEV 7:11—18. w. 26—30 list another set of miscellaneous laws. A newborn animal was not to be sacrificed until it had been with its mother 7 days (v. 26), nor were it and its mother to be sacrificed on the same day (v. 27). Any thanksgiving offering had to be eaten on the day it was offered, and anything left over after that time had to be burnt (w. 29-30). This agrees with 7:15. w. 31-3 provide a concluding admonition to the chapter.
(21:1—23) Th£ concentration in chs. 17—20 has been the community and people; now the text turns to laws relating primarily to the priests. Formally, the passage is divided into two parts by two speeches by YHWH to Moses. The first speech (w. 1—15) is addressed to all the priests, whereas the second (w. 16-23) is specifically to Aaron. The reason the second speech is addressed to Aaron may be because he (and subsequent high priests) were the ones to decide whom to allow near the holy food (Hartley 1992: 346). Otherwise, all the regulations relate to all the priests, since they were all thought of as descendants of Aaron.
w. 1—9: the presumption is that all Israel is to be holy, but the priests had to be even more rigorous. They were not allowed to defile themselves by contact with a corpse by participating in funerals other than of close blood relatives: only for a mother, father, son, daughter, brother, or an unmarried sister (w. 1—4). They were not to carry out mourning rites by disfiguring their hair, beards, or flesh by cutting it (w. 5-6). They were not allowed to marry a harlot or divorcee, and the priest's daughter who became a harlot was to be burned (w. 7— 9). However, v. 8 makes the holiness of the priests a responsibility of the whole community, w. 10-15, the OTas a whole does not say much about a high priest, though we know that the high priest became very important in Second Temple times (Grabbe 1992: 73—83). Leviticus does envisage a high priest, however, as this and other passages (e.g. Lev 16) show. The special nature of his office is shown by special restrictions which were even more stringent than in 21:1—9: he was not to participate in a funeral, even for a close relative, or engage in mourning rites of any kind; he was to marry only a virgin of his own people, w. 16-23, the regulations about the physical condition of those who could preside at the altar were also rigorous. Just as animals to be sacrificed were to be without physical defect, so the officiating priests were to be with-
(Ch. 23) is one of several lists itemizing the major religious festivals (cf. 11x23:14-17; 34:18-26; Deut 16:1-17), but it tends to be the most detailed and, in the opinion of many, one of the latest. There is also a late list of festivals in Ezek 45:18—25; however, this one is a bit difficult to correlate with the others because it focuses on the duties of the 'prince' and perhaps was not meant to be comprehensive in other respects. The list to be most closely compared to Lev 23 is Num 28—9, however. The conventional view of scholarship has been that Num 289 (a part of the P document) is secondary to Lev 23 (a mixture of P and H). This view has now been stood on its head by Knohl (1995; cf 1987) who argues that H is secondary to P. Specifically, he thinks Lev 23 is an adaptation of Num 28-9 and thus represents the later list. Form-critically, ch. 23 is divided into five commands to Moses for him to speak to Israel: 23:1—8, 9—22, 23—5, 26—32, 33—44. This serves to give each festival an independent treatment, but it also highlights
105 LEVITICUS
sheaf of grain was cut as the first fruits of the harvest and presented before God. In addition, certain specific offerings are enjoined: a male lamb as a burnt offering, a cereal offering of two ephahs of flour mixed with oil, and a quarter bin of wine as a drink offering. This ceremony marked the start of the grain harvest. No bread or grain from the new crop was to be eaten until the first sheaf had been brought. The ceremony took place on the Sunday ('the day after the sabbath') during the days of unleavened bread. In later centuries, the various sects disagreed over whether the 'day after the sabbath' meant the day after the first annual sabbath (the holy day on 15 Nisan) or after the weekly sabbath, but the most natural reading of the Hebrew text was that which interpreted it as the weekly sabbath (cf. Grabbe 2000:141). This date also affected the date of Pentecost.
the fact that the weekly sabbath does not fit easily in the list and draws attention to what seem to be additions made to the original list, especially w. 39—43 (Feast of Booths). For further information on a number of the festivals, see Grabbe (1993: ch. 6). (23:3) the word 'sabbath' is from the Hebrew root s-b-t which means 'rest, cessation'. The basic characteristic of the sabbath was that no work (mela 'ka) of any kind was to be done. What exactly made up that prohibited work is not stated in this passage and is nowhere else spelled out as such. Outside Leviticus one passage notes that work is also prohibited on the holy days except 'that which each person must eat' (Ex
12:16), suggesting that the preparation of food was allowed on these annual sabbaths but not on the weekly sabbath. The sabbath seems to have a long history in Israel and was hardly invented by the Priestly writers, but it is difficult to say how far back the development of sabbath observance can be pushed. It was once common to regard the sabbath as primarily a postexilic innovation. Sabbath observance is emphasized mainly in exilic and post-exilic texts (e.g. Isa 56; Neh 13:15—22). There is also the question of the sabbath passage here, since from a form-critical point of view, v. 3 appears to be a later insertion and not part of the original list. Yet some texts generally acknowledged to be pre-exilic seem to presuppose sabbath observance (Hos 2:11; Am 8:5; Isa 1:13), indicating that it was known and followed in some circles as early as the eighth century BCE. Some have even argued for an earlier observance based on such passages as Ex 23:12 and 34:21 (cf 2 Kings 4:23). Although it does not seem to be clearly attested as early as some of the annual festivals, certain scholars have argued that the weekly sabbath goes far back in Israel's history and is not a late development (see Andreasen 1972; Shafer 1976).
(23:15—21) The spring grain harvest began on the Wave Sheaf Day and continued for 7 weeks until the Feast of Weeks. For some reason, though, no specific term ('Feast of Weeks' or otherwise) occurs for this festival in Leviticus. The Feast of Weeks did not fall on a specific day of the month but was counted from the Wave Sheaf Day, reckoning 7 sabbaths. The Feast of Weeks (hagsabu 'ot: Ex 34:22) was on the day after the seventh sabbath, called the fiftieth day when counting inclusively (i.e. including both the starting and finishing day in the total). Hence, in later times the day was given the Greek name ofPentlkoste 'fiftieth (day)', from which the English Pentecost comes. From later Jewish sources, we know that there was disagreement among the various sects about the day of this festival. The dispute concerned whether one counted 7 weeks from a floating annual sabbath on 15 Nisan or 7 sabbaths from the first day of the week, to arrive at another first day of the week. (As noted above, the debate mainly concerned the exact time of the Wave Sheaf Day.) Some translations and lexicons render the Hebrew phrase seba' sabbatot as 'seven weeks', but this would be the only place where sabbat means week in the OT; more likely is that the word means 'sabbath' here as elsewhere. It was only in Second Temple times that the meaning 'week' developed and allowed some sects to try to count from a fixed day of the month. Hebrew usage and later priestly practice indicate that Shavuot was always celebrated on a Sunday as long as the temple stood and only later became fixed on 6 Sivan as it is among most Jews today (Grabbe 1992: 486). Shavuot also had its own specific offerings. Two loaves of bread were baked from flour made from the new grain and presented before God. Unusually, they were to be baked with leaven; this seems the only exception to the requirement that cereal offerings were to be unleavened, though nothing is said about their being burnt on the altar.
(23:5) briefly mentions the Passover, but Leviticus is otherwise silent about this important celebration. This may not be significant if there is a P document since other passages normally labelled P include a lengthy description of the observance, especially Ex 12:1—20. The important point about Leviticus is that Passover is presupposed but intimately tied up with the Festival of Unleavened Bread (23:6-8). This was the 7-day period when only unleavened bread (massot) was eaten and no leavening or leavened products were allowed in the land. The festival was inaugurated by the Passover meal, at which unleavened bread was eaten, on the evening between 14 and 15 Nisan. The first full day (i5th) was a holy day, as was the last day (ist). A major question is when the Passover became associated with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It is now generally admitted that some early traditions do mention the Passover (e.g. Ex 23:18; 34:25). Haran (1962: 317—48) has argued that the Passover was associated with Unleavened Bread from an early time and is already so linked in all the biblical sources. However, his argument that the Passover goes back to a 'nomadic' way of life, with Unleavened Bread arising in settled conditions, is problematic in the light of recent discussion about nomadism and the Israelite settlement (cf. Lemche 1985: esp. 84-163). Haran also makes the point that the Passover in Ex 12 and elsewhere is actually envisaged as a temple sacrifice.
(23:23—5) the first day of the seventh month (Tishri) was a holy day celebrated by the blowing of trumpets. The type of trumpet used is not specified. Another passage usually associated with P mentions a set of silver trumpets to be used for ceremonial occasions and war (Num 10:1—10). One might therefore think of these, but the symbolic blowing may not have been confined to them. The ram's horn (sopar) associated with the festival in modern times may have been a later development or interpretation, but we have no way of knowing. Other than the blowing of trumpets and the command to do no work, nothing further is stated about this day here. Num
(23:9—14) An important day within the festival of unleavened bread was the Wave Sheaf Corner) Day. On this day a symbolic
LEVITICUS 106
father used God's name in a blasphemous way. He was put in custody until God could be consulted. God's judgement was that he be stoned to death by the entire community. Anyone in the future blaspheming with God's name was likewise to be executed by stoning. The commands of YHWH (w. 13— 22) concern not only blasphemy but also causing death to a man (which brings the death penalty) or a beast (compensation has to be paid), and they apply not only to Israelites but also to the resident alien. Within this section is an inset paragraph about life and reciprocation of punishment, otherwise known as the lex talionis. (24:17-22) makes the point of the importance of life, especially human life. The one who kills a person is to be executed. Anyone who kills an animal must make restitution. There is also the principle that injuries were to be compensated by having a reciprocal injury done to the perpetrator, the famous 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. This law has often been misunderstood as if it were a primitive barbaric practice which embarrassed legislators later did their best to soften. In fact, the earlier principle was that a person injuring another was to pay compensation. For example, the earliest Mesopotamian law codes (Eshnuna 42—7; Ur-Nammu 15—19 = A324— 325? || Bffi^—24) have monetary compensation. In the case of an extended family or community, that was the simplest way of handling it. The injured party received some benefit, or at least his family did. On the other hand, the later law codes
29:1-5 lists sacrifices to be offered, though why they should be omitted here is a problem.
(23:26—32) The tenth day of the seventh month was the Day of Atonement (yarn hakkippurim). This passage states that the day is a time of no work, fasting ('you shall afflict your souls'), a holy convocation, with an 'offering of fire' (see at 3:11) to be carried out. No further data are given. Yet we know that the ceremony of the two goats was also associated with this day, as Lev 16 describes in detail. Was the ceremony of Lev 16 once an independent observance which only later became associated with 10 Tishri? Most of the chapter gives no indication of when the ceremony was to take place. It is only towards the end of the chapter (16:29-34) that the ritual is connected with the Day of Atonement known from Lev 23.
(23:33—6, 39—43) The Feast of Booths or Tabernacles (sukkot) was the final festival of the year, celebrated after the autumn harvest (23:33—6, 39—43) on 15—22 Tishri. It probably arose from the practice of farmers who would build a temporary shelter (booth) in the field to sleep in to protect the harvest and maximize the daylight until it was gathered. The people were to take fruit, palm leaves, tree branches, and willows and make booths as a part of the celebration. The first day was a holy day on which no work was to be done, as was the eighth day. As with the Day of Trumpets, no sacrifices are listed for Sukkot in Leviticus. At Num 29:12—39, however, we find that an elaborate series of sacrifices was to take place, with each of the eight days having its own particular ceremony. They followed a diminishing series, beginning with 13 bulls on the first day, 12 bulls on the second, and so on down to 7 bulls on the seventh day. The eighth day had its own separate ceremony. (24:1-9) describes the lamps and the bread of the presence in the foyer of the temple. Why this section and the next (24:10— 23) go here is not immediately apparent, but both 24:2-4 and 24:5-9 relate to the area inside the Holy Place, in front of the curtain separating it from the Holy of Holies. A very pure olive 011 was to be provided to keep the lampstand burning on a regular basis (w. 2-4). (The concept of a perpetual lamp occurs in i Sam 3:3.) There was also to be a table on which 12 loaves (along with frankincense) were to be placed each sabbath. The frankincense was burned at the end of the week, and the priests were allowed to eat the loaves. This was known as the 'bread of presence' or 'show bread'. It is these loaves or something similar which David and his men ate in i Sam 21:1—6. This bread is referred to in passing at Ex 39:36, but it is a puzzle why an actual description is delayed until this point in Leviticus. (24:10-23) discusses the question of blasphemy. Here and there within Leviticus narrative replaces direct commands. In such cases, the episode seems meant to explain what should be done by example rather than just instruction. It is similar to Lev 8-10 which is also a narrative section and, especially, to Num 15:32—6 where a sinner is likewise imprisoned until God decides the punishment for the crime (in this case, the sin is sabbath-breaking). The passage is made of up two sections: a narrative about the blasphemer and his ultimate fate (w. 10-12, 23), and the command of YHWH not only about blasphemy but also other sins (w. 13—22). The narrative tells how a man with an Israelite mother but an Egyptian
(Hammurabi 195—223) evoke the lex talionis for those of equal status (though monetary compensation applies to injury of someone of lower status). The lex talionis was an important advance in jurisprudence for two reasons: first, it made all equal before the law. The rich man could not get away with his crime of injuring another by monetary payment. The 'eye for an eye' principle was a great leveller. Secondly, it marks the stage at which the tribe or state takes over the function of justice from the local community.
(Chs. 25—6) seem to be envisaged as a unit by the author or editor, because they consist of one speech by YHWH to Moses and because they are marked off by an indusio (the phrase 'on Mount Sinai') in the first verse (25:1) and the last verse (26:46). Each of the two chapters has different subject-matter and can be treated separately, but they are also connected in that the punishments of ch. 26 are in part the result of not observing the sabbatical year commanded in ch. 25.
(Ch. 25) describes two year-long observances: the seventh or sabbatical year (year of release: semittd) in w. 2—7, and the jubilee (ydbel) year in w. 8—55. Comparison has been made with the Mesopotamian misarum and the anduraru (Lewy 1958) which go back to the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian periods (early second millennium BCE). Among the points to note are the following: Babylonian anduraru is cognate with the Hebrew dcror release. A king would declare a misarum which was a general declaration of justice. He might also declare an anduraru 'release', which could include a remission of certain taxes, a release of debts, reversion of property to its original owners, or manumission of slaves. It was common for a king to declare such in his first year of reign. The Israelite innovation was to declare a jubilee at regular intervals rather than in the first year of a king as in Mesopotamia. The Akkadian evidence for the misarum and anduraru is generally
107 LEVITICUS
on the third and sixth year out of the cycle rather than forming an independent 3-year cycle. On the matter of tithing in general, see Grabbe (1993: 66-72).
accepted (cf. Finkelstein 1961), but its interpretation in relation to the Israelite institution is not necessarily simple. In solidly argued studies of both the biblical and the Mesopotamian evidence, N. P. Lemche (1976; 1979) found a lot of sloppy comparison in earlier studies. For example, OT material was used to interpret the Old Babylonian which was then used to interpret the Israelite, with clear dangers of circular reasoning. The existence of the practice of a king's granting a release in his first year in the Old Babylonian period proves nothing about the antiquity of the jubilee in Israel which is, after all, somewhat different. Lemche admits some evidence for the antiquity of a seventh fallow year in agriculture, but the development of a sabbatical year with all its social accoutrements seems late.
(25:8—55) describes the jubilee which took place after seven sabbatical-year cycles. The text is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, the jubilee might be thought to coincide with the last year of the seventh cycle (Lev 25:8); on the other hand, it is explicitly said to be the fiftieth year (Lev 25:10—n). If it was indeed the fiftieth year, it would mean two fallow years in a row, yet nothing is said about the effects of such a situation or how to cope with it. The later Jewish Book of Jubilees definitely counts a jubilee cycle of 49 years, showing that the 'fiftieth year' might be counted inclusively (i.e. including both the starting and finishing years in the calculation). It may be that this is what the author of Lev 25 has in mind, but the point is never clarified.
(25:2-7) envisages a basic cycle of 7-year periods or sabbatical years. The last year of this cycle was a year when the land had to be left fallow. No crops were to be sown. That which grew up by itself (volunteer growth) was allowed, and the people could eat it for food on a day-to-day basis, but no harvesting as such was permitted. Of course, by a divine miracle there would be no hardship since the land would produce enough in the sixth year to tide the inhabitants over to the harvest of the crops sown in the new cycle (w. 19-22). In Leviticus the seventh year seems to be primarily an agricultural observance (cf. also Ex 23:10—11). According to some passages, however, loans and the enslavement of Israelites were also cancelled in the seventh year (Deut 15:1-3, 12-15; Jer 34:8-16). If so, the seventh year would have been an integral part of the nation's life, with widespread implications for the economy. On the other hand, there seems to be a contradiction between Leviticus, which sees the year of release as the jubilee, and those other passages which ascribe release to the sabbatical year (see below). This suggests that we find two separate systems, one in which the year of release is the seventh year, and the other in which the year of release is the fiftieth. Those texts which view the seventh year as the year of release do not seem to envisage a jubilee year at all.
w. 13-28, the jubilee was also a fallow year but, according to Leviticus, it was more than this; it was a year of release (also Lev 27:16—24; Num 36:4). Land was to return to its original family. Agrarian land was considered an inalienable heritage granted by God and to be kept in the family in perpetuity. Therefore, the land could not be sold permanently. Any sale was viewed really as a long-term lease which reverted back to the family in the jubilee year. The sale price was determined according to the length of time to the next jubilee, so that the purchaser was really paying for the number of crops obtained before it reverted to the original owners; the less time until the jubilee, the less was paid for the property, w. 29—34 n°te that town property was treated differently and could be transferred without right of repossession, after a probation year in which the seller could change his mind and redeem it. On the other hand, Levitical property was treated like agrarian land in that it would revert to the original owner at the jubilee, w. 35-55 deal with the question of helping the poor and needy among the Israelites by necessary loans, without charging interest. It moves on to the question of debt slavery. Slavery was accepted as an institution (as, indeed, it was in the NT). Foreign slaves could be bought and sold as chattels (w. 44-6), though there were laws which regulated how they were treated (e.g. Deut 21:15—17). But Israelites were not to be treated as slaves. If someone sold himself or his family because of debts or poverty, the person was to be treated as a hired servant. He may also redeem himself or be redeemed by a relative, the redemption price being calculated according to the number of years until the jubilee. If he is not redeemed, he and his family were allowed to go free in the jubilee year. On the question of the release of slaves and cancellation of loans, there is some contradiction between Leviticus and other passages, as already noted above. Lev 25 and Lev 27 are the only descriptions of the jubilee year.
The existence of a sabbatical year is attested in historical sources of the Second Temple period (Grabbe 1991: 60-3). This included a rest from growing crops, at least from the time of the Maccabees (i Mace 6:49, 53; Josephus, Ant. 13.7.4—8.1 ||228—35; 14-16.2 |475). We also know from actual documents found in the Judean Desert that the cancellation of debts and return of property in the seventh year was a known institution (Murabbcfat 18; 24). There is no mention of the jubilee year, however, except in literature such as the Book of Jubilees. The indication is, therefore, that the sabbatical year but not the jubilee was observed in Second Temple times. It is also reasonable to conclude that the seventh year was in some way observed in early post-exilic times, though how much further back it can be projected is a question. Whether the jubilee was ever observed is a matter of speculation.
(26:1-46) is mainly composed of a list of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, and makes a fitting end to the book. An appropriate literary closure of a book such as this is a section which demonstrates the consequences of heeding or not heeding the commands contained in it. A similar conclusion is found in Deut 28. Such blessings and curses are well known from other ancient Near-Eastern literature. International treaties usually ended with a list of blessings and, especially, curses for disobedience (cf. McCarthy 1978:
The tithing cycle is not mentioned in Leviticus (or other P passages) but, if a sabbatical year existed, the tithes of Deut 14-15 would work only if operated on a 7-year cycle. That is, the tithe of the third year (Deut 14:28-9) would have to be coordinated with the seventh year, or it would sometimes fall on the sabbatical year when there was no produce on which to pay tithes. Thus, the tithe of the third year would have been paid
LEVITICUS 108
the final editors of Leviticus may have been reluctant to end with ch. 26. Therefore, Lev 27 may indeed be a later addition but one which the final editors regarded as appropriate and even essential.
172-87). The so-called law codes' often include a similar section. For example, the epilogue to the Code of Hammurabi spells out how the gods will punish the king in various ways for not heeding the marvellous laws which had just been listed (ANET 163-5). Probably the clearest example of an international treaty is that of E sarhaddon (Wiseman 1958; ANET 534— 41). As with the list in Lev 26, the curses tend to dominate, with the blessings listed only briefly.
(27:1—29) Much of this chapter is devoted to the question of vows and consecration of objects and property to God. It was possible to dedicate human beings, animals, houses, and land to God. w. 2—8: if the dedicated object was a person, then he or she had to be redeemed by money. The valuation of the redemption money was according to age and sex and seems to be primarily economic; that is, it is according to how much the person is likely to earn by physical labour. This means that males were worth more than females of a similar age, and adults in their prime were worth more than children, youths, or the elderly, w. 9-13, if an animal suitable for offering had been vowed, it had to be sacrificed, with no substitution being allowed. Any attempt at substitution meant that both the original vow and the substitute became dedicated to God. However, in the case of an unclean animal no sacrifice was possible. Therefore, it had to be redeemed by its valuation plus 20 per cent. w. 14—15, if a house was dedicated, it could also be redeemed by paying its value plus 20 per cent. w. 16—24: land was valued in relation to the jubilee year. In other words, the number of harvests remaining until the jubilee was calculated and the value set according to that number. Inherited land could then be redeemed for its valuation plus 20 per cent. If the owner did not redeem the land and it was sold, however, it was no longer in his power to redeem. Instead it became priestly property. According to Deut 18:1—21, Levites (including priests) were not to own land as individuals. Apparently, though, the temple and priesthood could own land jointly.
w. 1-2 at first sight seem out of place in the context of chs. 25—6. However, they may form a connecting section between the two chapters, w. 3—13 list the blessings for obedience which come first. There seem to be four of these, based on the formal structure (Hartley 1992): rain in due season (w. 45), peace (w. 6—8), fertility (w. 9—10), and God's presence (w. 11—13), though victory over enemies could be said to be a fifth (w. 7-8), judging from the content (Porter 1976). w. 1438 give a much longer and more clearly structured section on the curses for disobedience. Five sections are marked off with the phrase, Tf you (still) disobey, I will punish you sevenfold' or similar words. The desire seems to be to create a crescendo effect, so that the longer the Israelites refuse to obey, the stronger becomes the punishment, multiplying sevenfold each time. This does not seem to be carried through consistently, though there is a sort of climax in the exile from the land. In fact, the individual curses seem to be listed by subject rather than according to any sense of increasing malignancy: defeat in battle (w. 14—17), drought (w. 18—20), wild animals (w. 21-2), war, pestilence, famine (w. 23-6), dire conditions and exile (w. 27-39). Finally, hope is expressed for repentence and a return from captivity (w. 39—45).
w. 31—45 end the chapter with reference to an exile and return, which led many scholars to claim that this shows knowledge of the Exile of the Jews in 587/586 BCE and their return in 538. This may be a correct interpretation, but it is interesting to note that one of the traditional punishments is to have the people of the land taken captive (e.g. Codex Hammurabi, xxvi. 73-80; xxviii. 19-23). If the actual Exile is presupposed, the writer is surprisingly vague about the details; alternatively, the account of the Exile known to him was rather different from that described elsewhere in the OT This suggests that the punishment of exile was a traditional one in such curses and not necessarily to be related to the historical situation, v. 46 forms a concluding piece. Is it the conclusion of ch. 26 only or is it a conclusion to a larger section? Its reference to 'statutes' (huqqim), 'judgements' (mispatim), and 'laws/teachings' (torot) suggest that something larger than a chapter or even a couple of chapters is intended. Thus, this seems to be a concluding formula for the entire book (Hartley 1992: 414).
(We know that such was the case in the Second Temple period.) Land which had been purchased (as opposed to inherited) did not belong perpetually to the purchaser but reverted to the original owner in the jubilee. Thus, if such land was consecrated, it would still go back to the owner in the jubilee, so its valuation without any addition was given to the priests.
w. 26-7, firstling animals belonged automatically to God. This brief mention is all that Leviticus has on the subject. Other passages of priestly instruction fill this out (Ex 13:11—15; 34:19—20; Num 18:15—18): all clean animals were to be offered at the altar, with the appropriate portions burned, but the rest of the meat went entirely to the priests. Unclean animals were more complicated since there seems to be more than one set of instructions. It is clear that they were normally to be redeemed, though Ex 34:20 says this was to be with a lamb, whereas Lev 27:27 states that it is by their monetary value plus 20 per cent. Similarly, if not redeemed, 27:27 says they were to be sold for their assessed value, with the money going to the temple personnel, but Ex 34:20 says the animal's neck was to be broken.
(Ch. 27) describes vows and tithe of livestock. It is also an important chapter about support for the priesthood. The chapter is usually seen as an appendix to the book and not part of the Holiness Code proper. The reason is that ch. 26 makes an appropriate ending with its general blessings and curses and, as noted above, 26:46 fits well as a concluding statement for the entire book. On the other hand, in the present structure of the book ch. 27 is parallel with chs. 1-7 in giving specific halakic instructions. Also, just as Deuteronomy does not end with the blessings and curses of ch. 28, so
w. 28—9 devoted things (herem) belonged solely to God and were not to be made use of by man. They could not be sold or redeemed. A devoted human being was to be put to death. This last statement is puzzling because normally the human beings which belonged to God were to be redeemed. For example, the first-born were to be redeemed for money because their place was taken by the Levites (Num 3:5-13; 18:15).
LEVITICUS
IOQ
Grabbe, L. L. (1987), The Scapegoat Ritual: A Study in Early Jewish
It seems unlikely that an Israelite would be allowed to devote another Israelite to God in this way. Therefore, it is unclear who the devoted person might be who would be put to death; however, there are several examples of prisoners-of-war being slain at God's orders, suggesting that this might be what was in mind (cf Josh 10:24—7; J Sam 15).
Interpretation', JSJ18: 152—67.
(1991), 'Maccabean Chronology: 167-164 or 168-165 BCE?'JBL no: 59-74.
(1992), Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, i. Persian and Greek Periods; ii. Roman Period (Minneapolis: Fortress); British edn. in one vol. (London: SCM, 1994).
(i993), Leviticus, SOTS, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield: JSOT).
(27:30—3) speaks of the tithe of livestock. The tithe of animals is nowhere else referred to in the Pentateuch. They were to be tithed apparently by running them past and cutting out every tenth animal, regardless of whether it was good or bad. If the owner tried to substitute an animal, not only was the original tithe animal still considered as belonging to YHWH but also the substitute. The point was that no substitution was to be made. Nothing is said about how the tithe was to be used. By inference from other passages (2 Chr 31:6), it was to go to the priests as a part of their income. A number of questions arise. Why is not the tithe of animals referred to elsewhere in the OT