Pollution and Purification-The Sin Concept in the Hattat Ritual of the Yom Kippur Festival of...
33
Pollution and Purification: The Sin Concept in the hattat Ritual of the Yom Kippur Festival of Leviticus 16. Scott Edward Miles Submitted on 9th May 2011 to fulfill the requirements of the module TH3401 as part of Level 3 of the BA (Hons) Theology course at London School of Theology This is version 2 (26th August 2011) which incorporates minor changes in response to comments and suggestions from the supervisors. Supervised by: Dr. Jean-Marc Heimerdinger and Dr. Graham McFarlane
-
Upload
scott-edward-miles -
Category
Documents
-
view
93 -
download
0
Transcript of Pollution and Purification-The Sin Concept in the Hattat Ritual of the Yom Kippur Festival of...
Pollution and Purification:
The Sin Concept in the hattat Ritual
of the Yom Kippur Festival of Leviticus 16.
Scott Edward Miles
Submitted on 9th May 2011 to fulfill the requirements of the module TH3401
as part of Level 3 of the BA (Hons) Theology course at
London School of Theology
This is version 2 (26th August 2011) which incorporates minor changes in
response to comments and suggestions from the supervisors.
Supervised by:
Dr. Jean-Marc Heimerdinger
and
Dr. Graham McFarlane
Contents:
Introduction.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11. Leviticus and Ritual.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! 1.1:The Purpose of Ritual.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1! 1.2: Sacred Ritual Space.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3! 1.3: The psychosocial impact of Ritual.! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3! 1.4: Symbolism and meaning of Ritual in Leviticus.! ! ! ! ! 5
!!!!!!!!!!!1.5: Two controlling Lexemes: !"#$%& and .'()*+,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1.5.1:a!"#$%&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1.5.2:a.'()*+,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!82. The Cosmic Problem: Impurity and Sin.! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8! 2.1: pure and impure, holy and common.! ! ! ! ! ! 9! 2.2: Impurity and sin.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11! 2.3: Categories of Moral Impurity: Hattat, Pesha and Avon.! ! ! ! 11
!!!!!!!!!!!2.3.1:a.!"#$%&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12
!!!!!!!!!!!2.3.2:a.-%.()!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12
!!!!!!!!!!!2.3.3:a./0#-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12! 2.4: Milgrom and the Miasma Theory of Sancta Pollution.! ! ! ! 123. The Ritual Solution: Yom Kippur.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 15! 3.1: Sacred Time, Sacred Space.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! 15! 3.2: The vestments and ablutions of the high priest.! ! ! ! ! 15! 3.3: The Bull and the Goat:The Purification of the Sancta.! ! ! ! 17! 3.4: The Goat for Azazel: Disposal of sins.! ! ! ! ! ! 18! 3.5: The vestment removal and second ablutions of the high priest.!! ! 20! 3.6: The Burnt Offerings.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 224. The Ritual Results.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 23! 4.1: Repentance, Forgiveness and the Psychological Transformative Effect.! 23Conclusion.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 25Appendix A: Considerations of the text of Leviticus 16! ! ! ! ! 26! Nomenclature! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26! Canonical Context: References and Omissions! ! ! ! ! 26! Formal Analysis of Leviticus 16! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26Bibliography.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28! 1: Primary Text.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28! 2: Rabbinic sources.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28! 3: Secondary Sources.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 29
Introduction
Leviticus 16 presents to the reader the ritual performance of Yom Kippur which constitutes
the pinnacle of the Levitical ritual system. Its annual performance cleanses the sancta of
sins and impurities,while the Israelite people receive forgiveness: they are both atoned for.
The following study will focus exclusively on the atonement and sin concept within this
particular ritual performance and the impact and effect it would have had upon the
Israelites who participated. The study will argue that the purification of the sancta, with the
unique !"#$%#&'-goat rite, forms the central focus of the ritual performance, as well as
explaining how the impurities and sins are seen to metaphysically accumulate upon the
sancta and are removed and disposed of. The ritual performance can then be read in the
context of the cosmic worldview of the Israelite people which will be drawn out of the
Jewish Bible, with special focus on the priestly literature. This cosmic worldview is complex
and is structured as movements between different statuses: from holy to common, from
pure to impure, with impurity and holiness being dynamic forces. It will be shown that from
this biblical context the symbolic meanings of the ritual components can be discovered and
understood, providing the reader with a systematic symbolic ritual performance through
which to view a priestly understanding of atonement. Further to this biblical study it will be
suggested that ritual performance should be seen as having a psychosocial transformative
effect. The ritual performance embodies the concepts of sin, forgiveness and atonement,
functioning as a vivid display of the interplay between the symbolic cosmic worldview and
the effects of sin on individuals, relationships within the community, and relationship to
God.
1. Leviticus and Ritual
1.1: The Purpose of RitualRitual is most basically understood as an action, or schema of actions, that has a meaning
attached to it.1 As Gane makes clear, the actions do not have intrinsic meaning
themselves, it is the meaning placed upon the action that is important; !all ritual has some
kind of meaning or it is not ritual. Physical activities alone do not constitute ritual or set it
apart from nonritual activity. Some kinds of nonritual activity systems, for example, games,
entertainment, music, and dance, can also involve lack of concern for practical results
governed by rules."2
1
1 Gane, Cult, 6.2 Ibid., 7.
Ritual theory has enjoyed a varied history of study. From the early myth-ritual formulations
of William Robertson Smith,3 through the psychoanalytic work of Freud,4 and into the
social-structural theories of Gluckman5 and Turner,6 the field of ritual theory has ill-defined
boundaries and concepts. This is due in part to the nature of the anthropological and
ethnographical study of a vast number of cultures around the world, past and present. The
myth-ritual school is limited as !a single ritual pattern became the key to unlocking the
meaning of a wide spectrum of ancient and modern cultural activities and artifacts."7 The
social-structuralist model is found wanting, as the ritual symbols !were clearly embedded in
elaborate systems that appeared to have their own logic, and the relationship of this logic
to social organization was obviously not simple and direct."8
Current thought regarding ritual has moved !from a focus on what social reality may be
represented (and maintained) by a symbol to a focus on what the symbol means
(communicates) within the context of the whole system of symbols in which it is
embedded."9 It is no longer the aim of ritual theorists to create a universal system of how
rituals came into being, or to tie them rigidly to a society or myth system. Rather, it is a
more fluid understanding of ritual; it tries to understand what a ritual means in a certain
cultural context and ascertain its purpose. This school of thought is known as practice-
theory. Bell elucidates two of its main features. Firstly, !ritual is frequently depicted as a
central arena for cultural mediation, the means by which various combinations of structure
and history, past and present, meanings and needs, are brought together in terms of each
other,"10 and secondly, it is !concerned with what rituals do, not just what they mean,
particularly the way they construct and inscribe power relationships."11 In light of this it is
useful to make reference to Gane"s own definition of ritual; !A ritual is a privileged activity
system that is believed to carry out a transformation process involving interaction with a
reality ordinarily inaccessible to the material domain."12
2
3 Smith, Lectures.4 Freud, !Totem" in Origins.5 Gluckman, Essays.6 Turner, Dramas. 7 Bell, Ritual, 21.8 Ibid., 59.9 Ibid., 61.10 Ibid.,83.11 Ibid.12 Gane, Cult, 15.
1.2: Sacred Ritual SpaceYom Kippur requires an understanding of sacred/ritual space. J.Z. Smith"s work on sacred
space suggests that !ritual is... a mode of paying attention... It is this characteristic... that
explains the role of place as a fundamental component of ritual: place directs attention."13
Sacred space is the place in which a ritual activity occurs, but, conversely, it is also the
very act of performing the ritual that makes the space sacred.14 He suggests that the
sacred space becomes the physical embodiment of the cosmic order, and thus itself
carries meaning in the same way as the ritual activities themselves. !Ritual represents the
creation of a controlled environment where the variables (the accidents) of ordinary life
may be displaced precisely because they are felt to be so overwhelmingly present and
powerful. Ritual is a means of performing the way things ought to be in conscious tension
to the way things are."15
1.3: The psychosocial impact of RitualRituals, thus, are a schema of actions with meanings attached to them. When performed
they create, explain and transform the cosmic view. This performance, rather than being
an empty enactment of actions with symbolic meaning, is seen as having a dynamic
psychosocial effect upon the participants. It is the performance of enacting the
transformation within the cosmic view which gives these rituals their efficacy. !One of the
chief characteristics of ritual symbolism in Leviticus is the inseparableness of a symbol
from what it symbolizes: the two are considered one... the flesh of the sin offering and
what it symbolizes are one... If the ritual is performed, its symbolic meaning is also fulfilled
before the Lord."16 The ritual is important to the participants as it physically and visibly
demonstrates the transformation that is happening, or has happened, in the metaphysical
or relational realm.17 The Levitical view insists upon both the ritual performance, as well as
fulfilling what it symbolises."18 In essence ritual performance should be seen in part as a
way of teaching truth, but also, through this, as way of transforming an individual"s or
community"s way of thinking. Kiuchi summarises !Thus spiritual matters are conveyed by
tangible objects for educational purposes: in order for the people to learn what sacrifice is,
they need to bring a costly animal, or in order that they may learn what holiness is, many
3
13 Smith, Place, 103.14 Ibid., 105.15 Ibid., 109.16 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 31.17 Ibid., 32.18 Ibid., 31-32.
restrictions are made, some of which will cost their physical lives."19 Gruenwald takes this
line of thinking further, and describes the psychological influence of rituals. He states that
!the body is positively involved in making the mind achieve things that only the rituals do.
What the mind generates has meaning, although the manner in which we approach and
assess the nature of this meaning is through, and in, behavioural gestures."20 The two are
inseparably linked, and both are intended to bring about transformation. A change in
behaviour or status is embodied in a ritual performance; the ritual performance
symbolically embodies the change in behaviour or status. However, as ritual performances
are symbolically loaded, the !human action is not logically and pragmatically connected to
what it is expected to do. The connections between the means (rituals) and the expected
results become effective in a special “cosmos”... This “cosmos” brings together the mind
that is behind the ritual act and the situation or condition addressed by the ritual."21 The
ritual symbols are part of a cosmic worldview in which individuals and communities exist.
This cosmic worldview should be seen as having an !ontology that one cannot but define
as paradigmatic in a metaphysical sense."22 This cosmic worldview is basically a set of
symbols which find their ontology in the performance of rituals. It is the symbolic nature of
such a metaphysical cosmic worldview that allows the individual to mentally project ideas
and effect in themselves a transformative change as response. !The human mind
dynamically activates behavioural actions to accomplish certain desired aims in a sui generis condition."23 The desired effects are the transformation !that a ritual performance
brings about, whether in the performing person, in his physical or social environment or
status, or–in a religious context–in a particular deity or to whom the ritual has been
addressed."24 Gruenwald would like to distance ritual and religion, and asserts that !rituals
function beyond and apart from theology and other ideational components and, at times, in
spite of them."25 He further comments that !the basic explanation of religious rituals is not
grounded in theology, but in an indigenous form of expression of the human mind. This
means that rituals are autonomous extensions of the human mind, regardless, at this
moment, of the question, in which areas of human activity they evolve."26 While this is true,
and it is beneficial for us to realise that ritual theory functions independently of theology, in
4
19 Ibid., 32.20 Gruenwald, Rituals, 152.21 Ibid., 154-155.22 Ibid., 155.23 Ibid.24 Ibid., 175.25 Ibid., 143.26 Ibid.
the instance of studying Yom Kippur the cosmic worldview to which the ritual functions is
theological in nature, and as such theological considerations are justified.
1.4: Symbolism and meaning of Ritual in LeviticusUnderstanding the effects of ritual performance is profitless if the symbolism of the ritual
components is unknown. The challenge of Leviticus is that the text does not explain in any
depth, if at all in some cases, the symbolic meaning of the ritual components. Gruenwald
discusses this difficulty, saying !these documents tell us, in an explicit manner, very little
that is usable for scholarly purposes. The texts which incorporate prescriptions or
descriptions of rituals speak of processual actions."27 It is common for the Levitical ritual
texts to describe only the physical actions to be performed. Due to this Watts
acknowledges that it is necessary for !interpreters of ritual texts [to] seek explanations on
the basis of the ritual acts themselves,"28 but highlights the danger that !when the texts do
not provide symbolic explanations of the rituals they describe, interpreters find themselves
open to the charge of imposing symbolic systems not intrinsic or necessary to the
rituals."29 To overcome this problem Gruenwald suggests that !the ritual theory of each
ritual is its embedded logic. This logic endows each ritual with with an inner coherency that
binds the segmented details into a functioning Gestalt."30 Such a view is unintelligible, as in
its quest for symbolic meaning it fails to embrace the nature of symbolism. By focussing
too much on the psychological aspect of ritual he claims that !ritual theory relates to the
coherent logic that makes rituals do what the mind wants them to do."31 Unfortunately he
fails to notice that a physical action does not intrinsically relate to an obvious symbolic
meaning, and symbolic meanings cannot be discerned by the matrix of the actions within a
ritual performance.32 Gruenwald goes so far as to claim that !there is no room for the
inevitable inclusion of theological considerations... people doing rituals, in their specifically
religious configuration, do not necessarily have a theology that creates for them a required
context,"33 but that !ritual activity indues the conceptual framework that creates the
metaphysics of the “cosmic order.”"34 As a result he concludes that !discussing biblical
texts from their exegetical, text critical, hermeneutic, historical, or theological perspectives
5
27 Ibid.28 Watts, Ritual, 9.29 Ibid., 9-10.30 Gruenwald, Rituals, 2.31 Ibid.32 Gane, Cult, 10.33 Gruenwald, Rituals, 3.34 Ibid., 156.
is of limited use to our goal."35 This view must be rejected as the most likely place to
discover the symbolic meanings of the ritual components is in the worldview of the people
who perform the ritual. The symbolic meaning of the Yom Kippur ritual components are
related to the !cosmic order" described in the Jewish Bible. As Talmon has stated,
regarding comparative study, !the interpretation of biblical features-whether of a
sociopolitical, cultic, general-cultural, or literary nature-with help from innerbiblical parallels
should always precede the comparison with extrabiblical materials."36 Here, Kiuchi"s view
is more tenable, as he states !these symbolic meanings are rarely spelled out in Leviticus,
except for the meaning of blood in 17:11...an appropriate approach [is therefore]... to take
the present form of the OT as the database upon which exegesis must be done, in so far
as this area belongs to theology rather than historical study."37 Within this, however, there
is a necessity for a hierarchy of texts. First, the priestly literature should be considered,
and then, secondly, the wider Jewish Bible. This method is, of course, based on the
!assumption that the Israelite"s basic view of various symbolic meanings did not change
easily over time."38 As a further source, it is beneficial to consider the Rabbinic materials as
well. They are useful in providing explanations where the text is silent, but as will be seen
below, these interpretations must be weighed against the primary database of the Jewish
Bible.
1.5: Two controlling Lexemes: !"#$%& and '()*+,
As seen above, by using priestly literature as our starting point we can begin to decipher
the purpose of the ritual performance. Two lexemes are central to understanding the Yom
Kippur ritual. The first, ($%)*+, is the nomenclature of the offering given in the ritual, and the
second, ,-./01, as suggested by Watts, is one of the few explicit explanations of ritual found
in the priestly literature.39 The semantic field of these words, when defined, guide the
symbolism of the ritual components.
6
35 Ibid., 180.36 Talmon, Literary, 48.37 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 30.38 Ibid., 31. 39 Watts, Ritual, 130.
1.5.1:a!"#$%&
The standard translation of this lexeme is sin offering,40 but as Milgrom comments !this
translation is inaccurate on all grounds: contextually, morphologically and etymologically."41
A better translation is purification or purgation offering. Contextually the ($%)*+ is given in
situations where sin is not in view: after childbirth (Leviticus 12), completing the nazirite
vow (Numbers 6) and after the altar construction (Leviticus 8).42 Kiuchi maintains the
translation of sin offering but does so because of his understanding of sin. In his construct
!#$%$&... does not refer to a violation of any specific commandment, but apparently refers to
the condition of of the sinners heart... it has an existential meaning... “to hide oneself.”"43
Thus, he concludes that !the function of the sin offering is to uncover the offerer"s heart."44
While this understanding forms a universal system for the root $2+, it neglects the textual
evidence that presents two distinct meanings in its semantic field: purification and sin.45
The contextual evidence is reinforced as !morphologically, [($%)*+] appears as a pi'el
derivative... its corresponding verbal form is not the qal, “to sin, do wrong” but always the
pi'el... which carries no other meaning than “to cleanse, expurgate, decontaminate.”"46
Further, Kiuchi"s view fails to take into account the ancient Near Eastern context of Israel,
where it !was part of a cultic continuum which abounded in purifications both of persons
and buildings, especially sanctuaries."47 Further, it is congruent with the Levitical worldview
which focuses in part upon the status of pure and impure. It is best, then, to understand
($%)*+ as purification offering, the ritual means by which the cosmic problem is dealt with.
7
40 ESV, NCV, NEB, NIV, NRSV; translates as sacrifice for your sins; TNIV and NET footnote as purification offering;The Message translates as absolution offering.41 Milgrom, Studies, 67.42 Ibid.,43 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 36.44 Ibid., 37.45 Levine, Presence, 101.46 Milgrom, Studies, 67.47 Ibid., 68-69;
!!!!!!!!!!!1.5.2:a'()*+,
The traditional translation of this lexeme is to atone, yet this obscures the broad semantic
range.48 Alternatives include cover, wipe off or purge,49 Douglas understands it as cover,50
similar to the Arabic kafara,51 while it is also seen as a derivative of ,-345 meaning
ransom.52 Importantly, it is sometimes synonymous with ($%)*+.53From the options Milgrom
concludes that !kipp(r means !purge" and nothing else, as indicated by its synonyms ḥiṭṭē͗ and tihar,ʼ54 but contextually it must be seen in a broader sense. It is noted that !the verb
usually appears near the end of the regulations for a particular ritual. It does not describe a
particular act, but rather characterizes the entire set of priestly actions in regard to that
offering as kipper."55 The meaning of ,-./01 encapsulates the process and result achieved by
actions and rituals it is related to. By analysing the occurrences and context of ,-./01 Kiuchi
concludes that !kipper is a supernym of ,*602, 7"89, and $")0+,... it expresses some act
which enables progression from uncleanness to cleanness, from cleanness to holiness
and from uncleanness to holiness"56 as well as !the cultic kipper [having] :;' $7< as a
semantic component."57 ,-./01, while having no better translation than the traditional atone,
should be seen as the descriptive term for actions and rituals which deal with the human
relationship with God: the process of rectifying the cosmic problem.
2: The Cosmic Problem: Impurity and Sin
Now that the foundational ideas have been surveyed it is possible to approach the text
concerning Yom Kippur, Leviticus, and related Israelite cult ideas, to understand the
cosmic problem that is being addressed in the ritual process. The Pericope gives us two
reasons for the necessity of the ritual. As seen in vv. 16, 21, 30 and 33,58 (1) the people of
Israel are impure (6%$=>?2) due to their iniquities (:@%'), transgressions ('*A-.) and sins
8
48 Kiuchi, Purification, 95.49 Ibid., 94.50 Douglas, !Atonement" in JSQ, 116, as cited in Gane, Cult, 192.51 Gane, Cult, 193.52 Ibid.53 Levine, Presence, 101-102.54 Milgrom, !Israel"s Sanctuary" in Review Biblique, 391.55 Watts, Ritual, 134.56 Kiuchi, Purification, 97-98. Kiuchi prefers the lesser used term supernym, where most linguists would use
the term hypernym.57 Ibid., 99.58 Verse references throughout without book or chapter number refer to Leviticus 16.
(($%)*+), and that, (2) their impurity (6%$=>?2) has polluted the sancta, that is, the adytum,
the tent of meeting, and the altar.59
2.1: pure and impure, holy and commonThe cosmic worldview found in Leviticus describes four states that people or objects can
take: holy (ABC) and common (!4+), pure (,@6%2) and impure (6%$=>?2)60 (alternatively
translated as clean and unclean).61 Within these two sets of binary states !two of them can
exist simultaneously: pure things may be either holy or common; common things may be
pure or impure."62 However, what is holy can never be impure, and never comes into
contact with the impure.63 Things that are impure can be purified to become clean, clean
things can be sanctified to become holy; conversely, holy things can be profaned,
becoming clean, and polluted to become unclean.64 The holy and the impure, as Milgrom
explains, are dynamic forces: the holy can move into the realm of the common by
sanctifying what is clean, and conversely, the impure can extend its reach within the
common by polluting what is clean.65 It is this dynamic nature of the impure that gives rise
to the need for a purity system: a codification of what is clean and unclean, what is holy
and common. Poorthius and Schwartz comment that !in the priestly view Israel is turned
into a sacred entity by God"s presence. Holiness is therefore received from God, but
maintenance of purity will keep God from leaving his people, according to the priestly
view."66 It was necessary for the Israelites to maintain a state of being clean, working
against the force of impurity, so that impurity would not diminish the holy, and that by
sanctification God could make them holy.67 Impurity is said to be dynamic because it is
transferable, it is contagious, and as such it is imperative for the Israelites to avoid all that
is impure.68 Some things are intrinsically impure, such as certain animals, but this is not
contagious, but must be avoided.69 Impurity can also be temporary, and this is seen as
contagious. Impurity in this category includes !contact with corpses, childbirth, disease,
9
59 Throughout I will follow Milgrom"s terminology (used in his Leviticus commentary from the Anchor Bible
series) for the three types of sin and the three structural levels of the sancta. This is not an indication of
!correctness" but due to Milgrom"s extensive work being the epicenter of recent scholarship in this area. The
adytum is referenced as the !holy of holies" or the !sanctuary" by other scholars. 60 Milgrom, !Dynamics" in Purity, 29.61 Ross, Holiness, 245.62 Milgrom, !Dynamics" in Purity, 29.63 Ibid.64 Wenham, Leviticus, 19.65 Milgrom, !Dynamics" in Purity, 29.66 Poorthius and Schwartz, !Purity" in Purity, 10.67 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1002.68 Wenham, Leviticus, 20.69 Ibid., 21.
discharges (chs. 11-15), and various sins including illicit sexual intercourse (ch. 18) and
murder (Num. 35:33)."70 Temporary impurity can be dealt with by following the prescribed
purification rituals, those with severe contagious impurity may be quarantined or sent
outside of the camp.71 What impurity is remains a difficult exegetical issue. !The cultic
meaning of impurity is neither literal nor entirely metaphorical. It is connected to the human
body and its relation to the holy. As such it transcends both as a merely outward physical
phenomenon and a totally inward psychic experience."72 Poorthius and Schwartz suggest
that !the way Leviticus defines purity is related to the general structure of the cosmos and
can be understood from the perspective of the covenants between God and creation."73
Impurity is then not a substance, but an interaction of spheres of life, it is sociological:
!impurity would not be something intrinsic or “ontological”, but rather related to a specific
group."74 Wenham, however, views impurity as a being related to normality, !the greater the
deviation from the norm the greater is the degree of uncleanness and the difficulty of
cleansing."75 He fails, however, to outline what this normality actually is. Milgrom, however,
notes that !the bodily impurities...focus on four phenomena: death,... blood,... semen,...
and scale disease. Their common denominator is death."76 In relation to the dietary laws,
Milgrom notes that they are arbitrary. He relates this to his thesis by stating that they !serve
a larger, extrinsic purpose... to treat animal life as inviolable except for a few animals that
may be eaten."77 Milgrom"s suggestion gives an overarching system to impurity, and,
importantly, shows that while impurity may be a theological concept, it must be viewed as
more than symbolic in the ritual system, as mentioned previously. Milgrom summarises
elsewhere !It should be kept in mind that the priestly purity rules... comprise a symbolic
system representing the forces of life and death. Israel is enjoined to choose life and
eschew death. This lofty but abstract goal is concretized by the rite of purification."78
10
70 Ibid.71 Ross, Holiness, 246. 72 Poorthius and Schwartz, !Purity" in Purity, 5.73 Ibid., 8-9.74 Ibid., 9.75 Wenham, Leviticus, 21.76 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1002.77 Ibid.78 Milgrom, !Dynamics" in Purity, 31.
2.2: Impurity and sinWith an understanding of impurity in mind, its relation to sin must now be understood. As
mentioned previously, sins can cause someone to become impure,79 but the two are not
synonymous, as !unclean does not necessarily mean sinful or loathsome."80 As Klawans
states, !the Hebrew Bible addresses two distinct types of defilement, the first caused by
natural and largely unavoidable bodily functions (“ritual impurity”), and the second brought
about by certain sins (“moral impurity”)."81 While it may be true that two impurity
classifications can be seen, they must be understood in the larger context of an
overarching system. For ritual impurity, purification rituals and ablutions are prescribed, but
the ($%)*+ offering is as well. The understanding of this offering will be examined in depth
later, but briefly to make the point here, the usual translation of !sin offering" is misleading
as the ($%)*+ is given at points where sin is not readily in sight. Poorthius and Schwartz
note that !Hattat traditionally translated as “sin offering”, might denote a state of impurity
that is not actually to be equated with sin. Both the purification of a woman after childbirth
(Lev 12) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Num 4) require a hattat sacrifice."82 It is
clear that it is not possible to separate sin from the purity system, but it is still necessary to
view sin as being a unique category within the purity system. Milgrom states how dealing
with sins differs functionally in the purification system, saying !sins were certainly classified
as unclean; and when sin was the reason, the ritual necessarily required confession and
forgiveness as part of the purification process."83 Sins act like impurity, but require
repentance to deal with them.
2.3: Hattat, Pesha and Avon
In Leviticus three distinct moral impurities, iniquities (:@%'), transgressions ('*A-.) and sins
(($%)*+), are confessed over the !"#$%#&'-goat. As Gane notes, these terms should be seen
as being used !narrowly, and represent distinct categories of evil."84 Despite later texts
suggesting the three terms" !crisp distinctiveness"85 collapse into synonyms, stylistic use in
Leviticus maintains a unique meaning for each.
11
79 Wenham, Leviticus, 21.80 Ross, Holiness, 243.81 Klawans, Impurity, viii.82 Poorthius and Schwartz, !Purity" in Purity, 7-8.83 Ross, Holiness, 244. 84 Gane, Cult, 285.85 Cover, !Sin, Sinners" in AB, 32.
!!!!!!!!!!!2.3.1:a!"#$%&
This term is categorised as an !expiable nondefiant sin... denoting a deed that violates an
existing relationship/ partnership."86 In Leviticus the term is used to denote actions that are
!unconscious, inadvertent, or unavoidable.87 These actions are not deliberate, but if they
are not dealt with by the noncalendrical sacrifices they become :@%'.88
!!!!!!!!!!!2.3.2:a-%.()
This term 89is categorised as an !inexpiable defiant sin." Only found twice within Leviticus,
in the Yom Kippur ritual. Its meaning elsewhere in the Jewish Bible is of !willful,
knowledgeable violation."90 In political scenarios it denotes !breach of allegiance."91
Theologically this meaning is understood as !rebellion against Yahweh."92 Similarly to
($%)*+, this type action can results in :@%', yet there is no noncalendrical sacrifice mentioned
in Leviticus that deals with it.93
!!!!!!!!!!!2.3.3:a/0#-
This term acts in a broader sense and denotes guilt or culpability, whether the action it
describes is inadvertent or not.94 The use of this term, therefore, describes the result of the
($%)*+ or '*A-. actions, denoting the !forensic and psychological" guilt or punishment.95
2.4: Milgrom and the Miasma Theory of Sancta PollutionExactly how moral impurities pollute the sancta is the topic of an influential theory posited
by Milgrom based upon his understanding that !biblical impurity is a malefic force,... that
the ḥaṭṭā͗ t is a purification-offering, not a sin-offering,"96 and that !kipp(r means “purge” and
nothing else, as indicated by its synonyms ḥiṭṭē͗ and tihar."97 Firstly, Milgrom notes that it is
the sancta that is purified by the ($%)*+ blood, seen textually in that !its use is confined to
the sanctuary, but it is never applied to a person."98 From the prescriptions in Leviticus
12
86 Gane, Cult, 292.87 Cover, !Sin, Sinners" in AB, 32.88 Gane, Cult, 293.89 Ibid., 294.90 Cover, !Sin, Sinners" in AB, 32.91 Ibid.92 Ibid.93 Gane, Cult, 296.94 Ibid., 294.95 Cover, !Sin, Sinners" in AB, 32.96 Milgrom, !Israel"s Sanctuary" in Review Biblique, 390.97 Ibid., 391.98 Ibid.
1-15 Milgrom identifies impurities and sins as the two reasons necessitating the ($%)*+
offering,99 but notes that the language indicates that !the impure person needs purification
and the sinner needs forgiveness."100 This difference in language does not demand a
discontinuity in the purpose of the ($%)*+ offering. As Milgrom makes clear, !the inadvertent
offerer needs forgiveness not because of his act per se–... his act is forgiven because of
the offender"s inadvertence and remorse– but because of the consequence of his act. His
inadvertence has contaminated the sanctuary and it is his responsibility to purge it with a
ḥaṭṭā͗ t."101 Thus, it is !by daubing the altar with the ḥaṭṭā͗ t blood or by bringing it inside the
sanctuary [that] the priest purges the most sacred objects and areas of the sanctuary on
behalf of the person who caused their contamination by his physical impurity or inadvertent
offense."102 How the sancta are polluted is explained as !an aerial miasma which
possessed magnetic attraction for the realm of the sacred."103 Even further, Milgrom finds
in the text three levels of Sancta pollution. (1) The altar is polluted by individual Israelites"
inadvertent sins and severe impurity and is cleansed by applying the ($%)*+ blood to the
altar horns.104 (2) The tent of meeting is polluted by the High Priest or community"s
inadvertent sins and is cleansed by applying the ($%)*+ blood to the inner altar and before
the veil.105 (3) The adytum (as well the altar and tent of meeting) is polluted by the
rebellious, unrepentant sins and is cleansed by the annual Yom Kippur ritual.106 The
sancta requires purging as !the God to Israel will not abide in a polluted sanctuary."107
Milgrom"s theory has not won universal acceptance. Maccoby interprets Lev 15:31 as
being conditional, !the verse is saying to the Israelites that they will die in their iniquity if they contaminate the Tabernacle by entering it. This is how the Rabbis understood the
verse."108 He then sees ellipsis in the verses concerning sancta pollution, whereby impurity
polluted the priests, who in turn pollute the sancta.109 The understanding cannot be
accepted on the merit of the Rabbis,110 and a textual argument defeats the proposition.
13
99 Ibid.100 Ibid., 392.101 Ibid.102 Ibid., 391.103 Ibid., 392.104 Ibid., 393.105 Ibid.106 Ibid.107 Ibid., 398.108 Maccoby, Ritual, 173.109 Ibid.110 Milgrom, !Impurity" in JBL, 729.
Firstly, !the outer altar is polluted though the non-priest may not even enter it,"111 secondly
!the adytum is polluted though no man, not even the priest, may enter. Yet despite the fact
that Israelites have had no access, the sancta must be purged...(Lev., XVI, 16)."112
Pollution cannot occur purely by contact as the adytum becomes polluted despite no one
coming into contact with it. He concludes !the pollution of the sanctuary and its sanctums
results from impurity not only by direct contact but wherever it occurs."113
Maccoby"s second critique is how the miasma functions. !If impurity is thought of in this
way, it is hard to understand why impurity operates only when a sin of disobedience has
occurred. Miasma makes sense in a context of real impurity, not in a context of mere
obedience."114 He further states that !the observant Israelite must have been in a constant
state of anxiety about ritual impurity... since the accumulating miasma, increasing the
contamination of the Temple, made more likely the departure of God from his protecting
role."115 Schwartz suggests that !because Israel"s God is repelled not only by physical
defilement– since, as the manifestation of death, it is the antithesis of his being– but also
by sin,... both sin and impurity invade and contaminate the divine abode and that
unchecked they drive the divine presence away."116 This conclusion is based on an
interpretation of 16:16, where !the wāw must be simple conjunctive, and the text indicates
clearly that a double purgation is described: one that removes both impurities and sins."117
As such, the logical next step is that !once [sins] have come into existence, [they] behave
like defilement. But... they do not metamorphose into defilement; rather they maintain their
own essence and are attracted to the sanctuary, in a process distinct from though
analagous [sic] to impurity, whence, like defilement they must be purged by the ($26-
ritual."118 Schwartz maintains an understanding that the sins, along with the impurity, have
a metaphysical existence.119 Maccoby"s critique of fear is non-sensical. The pollution of the
sancta by the metaphysical existence of impurity and sin would be seen as dangerous only
if it were a cumulative, unreconcilable problem. However, the Israelites would find comfort
in the fact that there is a purification rite to remove pollution. For less severe pollution there
14
111 Milgrom, !Israel"s Sanctuary" in Review Biblique, 398.112 Ibid., 394.113 Milgrom, !Impurity" in JBL, 730.114 Maccoby, Ritual, 169.115 Ibid., 168.116 Schwartz, !Bearing" in Pomegranates, 4-5.117 Ibid., 7.118 Ibid.119 Ibid., 15.
are noncalendrical purification rites. For more severe pollution caused by unrepentant
rebellious sins, the annual Yom Kippur ritual is prescribed.
3: The Ritual Solution: Yom Kippur
Drawing together these ideas of ritual theory and the problem of sin and impurity it is
possible to outline the ritual schema and features of Yom Kippur. The symbolism of
different actions can be postulated, using the idea of holy space, liminal considerations,
and the metaphysical nature of impurity and sin in the ritual performance.
3.1: Sacred Time, Sacred SpaceThe locus of the ritual is the sancta: the altar, the tent of meeting and the adytum. The
sancta is deemed sacred space in that it is here that the ritual performance occurs. The
sacred space represents the place where the presence of God dwells, thus symbolically it
is the holy centre to which the miasma of impurity and sin is drawn. The structure of the
sacred space is also symbolic in its presentation of the severity of rebellious sins, whereby
they penetrate furthest into the adytum. This severity is heightened by the time being
made sacred as well. By restricting Yom Kippur to being an annual observance the
pollution of the sanctuary becomes a much more focused issue, with a much greater need
for introspection and remorse for actions. The day itself is separated and made sacred
from other days in that the whole camp would fast and refrain from work.
3.2: The vestments and ablutions of the high priestThe high priest, who is to perform the purification rite in the adytum, has to perform
complete bodily ablutions and put on plain white linen garments in preparation (v. 4). The
bathing is unusual in that the high priest usually only has to wash his hands and feet in
preparation to offer the other sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus. Kiuchi, following his thesis
of covering/uncovering being the issue of Leviticus, understands this as !one of the many
examples where a person, who is holy by calling is still regarded as unclean when he
approaches the Lord... Washing his flesh in water symbolizes his uncovering, which is part
of his personal purificatory rites."120 This does not help explain the unique ablution
requirement, which is also repeated at the end of the sancta purification ritual (v. 23-24a).
!The reason is not difficult to discern; entry into the adytum requires more thorough
purification. It is not amiss here to recall that when Isaiah was admitted into the adytum of
15
120 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 296.
the heavenly temple he required special purification (Isa 6:5-6)."121 The uniqueness of the
entry into the adytum is thus mirrored in the uniqueness of the ablution: to enter the most
holy space of the sancta required a more intense ablution to bring about bodily purification.
The vestments used are also unusual. Wenham notes of the high priest usual vestments,
as described in Exodus 28, that the !beautifully colored materials, intricate embroidery,
gold and jewelry made him look like a king"122 whereas !on the day of atonement he looked
more like a slave."123 These vestments are not the same as those worn by the ordinary
priests (exodus 28:40-43). On this Milgrom states that !The [ordinary priest"s] sash was not
made of pure linen but was a mixture of linen and dyed wool (Exod. 39:29). Moreover, the
high priest"s head covering for this ritual was a turban (mišnepet) and not a migbā͑ â, the
simpler headdress of the ordinary priest."124 As always with ritual texts, the symbolism is
not plain.125 On a practical level, it has been suggested that it !may have been to prevent
soiling the regular high priestly clothing with blood which is sprinkled in abundance in the
ceremony. The reason for the change in clothes may simply be to remove the soiled
clothes and put on the clean, regular high priestly clothing."126 It would seem strange,
however, for a unique set of vestments to be prescribed. If soiling was the issue, then the
plainer ordinary priestly vestments could have been used. That ritual aspects are not
accidental but planned needs to be borne in mind. It is noted that they are referred to as
sacral vestments, signifying they are different, of a higher status, than the usual
vestments. Wenham suggests the symbolism is that !in the presence of God even the high
priest is stripped of all honor: he becomes simply the servant of the King of kings, whose
true status is portrayed in the simplicity of his dress."127 An early explanation fits the
evidence best, where !entry into the adytum is equivalent to admission to the heavenly
council."128 Such imagery of the heavenly host wearing white is found in the priestly writing
in Ezekiel 9, elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures in Daniel 10:5, and in the New Testament
in Revelation 19:14. The symbolism, thus, is of the high priest entering into the presence
of God. This is in accord with the understanding of God"s presence dwelling in the adytum.
16
121 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1017.122 Wenham, Leviticus, 230.123 Ibid.124 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1016.125 Wenham, Leviticus, 230.126 Wright, private communication, quoted in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1016-1017.127 Wenham, Leviticus, 230. 128 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1016; Neusner, Talmud, 197.
3.3: The Bull and the Goat:The Purification of the SanctaThis component forms the first half of the central purification rite of the Yom Kippur ritual
(11-19). The high priest slaughters a bull on behalf of the priests and a goat on behalf of
the people. The high priest then proceeds into the adytum. When in the adytum the high
priest must burn incense creating a cloud to cover the mercy seat. The purpose of the
incense cloud is to protect the high priest, to prevent his death (13), however the
symbolism is contested. Gerstenberger speculates that the action may have evolved from
a practice that was a !simulation of the divine haze through which Yahweh"s appearance
became visible."129 Even if such an origin is true, the symbolism differs here. The cloud is
said to 6%D01 the mercy seat, so shielding it is the obvious function,130 with this shielding to
prevent the high priest from seeing the presence of God.131 Symbolically it is another point
at which the danger and uniqueness of the Yom Kippur ritual is apparent. The act of
removing the impurities is no trivial matter, and entering the adytum is no simple act. The
order of the sprinkling and daubing of the ($%)*+ blood is haphazard and needs to be
interpreted. Following the order of the text the manipulations are as follows. When in the
adytum the high priest sprinkles the ($%)*+ blood of the bull upon the mercy seat, and then
seven times before it, he then repeats the process with the ($%)*+ blood of the goat. He
then does likewise for the tent of meeting. Finally he moves out to the altar and using the
($%)*+ blood of the bull and the goat daubs the four horns of the altar and sprinkles the
($%)*+ blood on it seven times. Whether or not the high priest enters the adytum once or
twice to administer the ($%)*+ blood of the bull and goat can not be deduced from the
text,132 but what can be seen is that for the ($%)*+ blood of the bull and goat are treated
separately when talking about the adytum and tent of meeting, and together for the
altar.133 It is possible to bring together all of these blood manipulations into one numerical
system. !In each sacred space, an object is purged once (Ark, incense altar, sacrificial
altar), followed by a sevenfold aspersion (adytum, shrine, sacrificial altar)."134 For the altars
the purging is achieved by daubing the four horns of the altars with the ($%)*+ blood. Thus,
when all the blood manipulations are counted for the goat and bull manipulations, the total
17
129 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 217.130 Milgrom Leviticus 1-16, 1029.131 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 298; Wenham, Leviticus, 231.132 Kiuchi sees it as one entry, with the double slaughtering in the text as highlighting the difference in the
($%)*+ offerings, Kiuchi, Leviticus, 298; Milgrom, following Mishna Yoma 5:4, sees it as two separate entries,
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1035.133 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1038.134 Ibid.
is forty-nine, this being the product of seven and seven, the number !completion and
perfection."135 The most important symbolic action found in this component of the Yom
Kippur ritual is the movement from the inner to the outer parts of the sancta. Levine
comments that !the purgation performed with the ($26-blood inside the adytum and the
shrine,... decontaminates them of Israel"s impurities and of all its sins. Two distinct
polluting substances are extracted from the sacred sphere."136 The purification starts from
the centre, in the most holy space in God"s presence and moves outwards. This is
necessary for the next component of the Yom Kippur ritual.
3.4: The Goat for Azazel: Disposal of sinsIn the previous ritual component a goat was slaughtered for the people. This goat is in fact
only half of the ($%)*+-offering, as v. 5 indicates a second is required, this second goat has
a unique function to perform. The goats are differentiated by the casting of lots (vv. 8-10);
one is designated for the LORD, and the other for Azazel. The parallel syntactic structure
of vv. 9-10 in the MT indicates that !"#$%#&' should be viewed as a proper noun, being
parallel to 6;6E.137 As the goat is sent away into the ,%FG0H, the dwelling place of demons,
!"#$%#&' should be viewed as the name of a demon.138 However, the etymology of the word
has been contested in many ancient sources, most likely due to the uncomfortable
designation of an offering to a demonic being. These suggestions are not widely accepted
as they rely on speculative etymology which do not lead to an interpretation that is
stronger than the parallel symmetry in vv. 9-10. Firstly, in the LXX it has been translated as
)* +,-,-.,/01, likely by !reading the word as ͑ ēz ͗ āzal !the goat that departs,"139 from
which the English term (e)scapegoat was derived, first being used in Tyndale"s 1530
translation.140Secondly, !"#$%#&' has been seen as a location, connected with the 6I"#=J KL-$.
This interpretation also relies on an alternative reading of the word, understanding it as !“a
rough and difficult place” ...and for its etymology relies... on Arab. ͑ z͑ z."141 If !"#$%#&' is taken
as a proper noun, and assumed to be a demonic designation, then its relation to Leviticus
18
135 Ibid., 1038-1039; 136 Schwartz, !Bearing" in Pomegranates, 17.137 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1020; Kiuchi, Leviticus, 297; The clauses are syntactically similar in all but the
goats" designation. One for YHWH, (6M;6E*! !I@J*6 ;E%!%' 6%!%' ,-A&$ ,E0'N%O*6) the other for Azazel
(!"#$%#&'*! !I@J*6 ;E%!%' 6%!%' ,-A&$ ,E0'N%O*6)138 This is the predominant view in modern scholarship. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 297; Levine, Leviticus, 102;
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1020; Wright, Disposal, 21; et al.139 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1020; Wright, Disposal, 21. 140 Levine, Leviticus, 102. 141 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1020; Interpretation derived from Babylonian Talmud Yoma 67b.
17:7, which prohibits sacrifices to !goat demons" needs to be explained.142 By taking the
priestly literature as our database two conceptual points can be put forward as arguments.
1) Milgrom notes that !the total severance of impurity from the demonic and its
reinterpretation as a symbolic system [reminds] Israel of its imperative to cleave to life and
reject death."143 Likewise, Write argues that there is !a lack of demonic and underworld
mythology in the Priestly disposal rites. The evil removed by these rites is not caused by
the agency of demons. The impurity is impersonal."144 2) Wright proposes that !the goat
does not appear to be a propitiatory offering to Azazel, but only serves as a vehicle for
transporting the sins. Azazel, to whom the goat is sent, is apparently not an active
personality. He is simply a ritual “place holder,” denoting the goal of impurity."145 Thus,
!"#$%#&' should be seen as a depersonalized being, and is symbolically the locus to which
the sins are to be taken by the goat. As a final point, it is unlikely that the priestly writers
would have created a depersonalized demon to which the sins were sent: it would be more
logical for the sins to simply be sent to the ,%FG0H. For this reason Wright concludes that
!Azazel as presented by the text can only be part of the baggage of a rite already in
existence which was taken over by the Priestly writers and reformulated to accord with
Priestly conceptions."146 For the purposes of the Yom Kippur ritual, that this likely a
component of an older ritual is of little consequence, as a new symbolic meaning has been
placed onto !"#$%#&'. The component now acts in a context where !the forces pitted against
each other in the cosmic struggle are no longer the benevolent and demonic deities that
populate the mythologies of Israel"s neighbors but the forces of life and death set loose by
humans themselves through their obedience to or defiance of God"s commandments."147 It
is from this viewpoint that the actions of the high priest must be viewed. He places both his
hands upon the head of the goat, confesses over it all (!%5) the people"s iniquities (:@%'),
transgressions ('*A-.) and sins (($%)*+) as seen in v.21. The !"#$%#&'-goat functions to
remove the sin from the people and take it out into the wilderness; delivering them away
from the sancta and the camp, away from the holy, towards !"#$%#&' who can be seen as
symbolically embodying impurity. The hand-leaning rite differs from those found in other
priestly sacrifices where only one hand is used, not two. Milgrom sees this as being
19
142 !homage to a demon of the wilderness cannot, therefore, be associated with the holiest of the Temple-
rites." Hertz, Leviticus, 156, quoted in Wenham, Leviticus, 234.143 Milgrom, !Dynamics" in Purity, 32.144 Wright, Disposal, 274.145 Ibid., 30.146 Ibid., 73.147 Milgrom, !Dynamics" in Purity, 32.
symbolic of transference of the sins onto the goat, whereas only one hand symbolises the
sacrifice belonging to the offerer.148 Wright would rather see the two hands as symbolising
the focus of the ritual action in a non sacrificial setting.149 The debate is inconsequential for
the understanding here. As v. 21 shows, the high priest !PQ(4$ :R(M<" puts them onto the
goat"s head, and in the context of the metaphysical nature of the sins in the ritual,
transference is in view.150 Accompanying this it is speculated that there was a verbal
confession, now lost as it is not included in the ritual text, however, a confession formula is
found in ancient rabbinic texts.151 Once loaded with the sins the goat is led outside of the
camp by a specified person into the ,%FG0H. While Levine understands this component of
the ritual to refer only to the sins of the people, not the priests,152 it should instead be seen
as being comprehensive for all of Israel. Throughout the ritual there are specific terms for
groups. The priests and the people together are referred to as !"$I=STE EU<=F (vv. 16,
19,21,34); the people excluding the priests are referred to as !"$I=STE EU</=V (W&' (v.5), !*6XY!%5
!"$I=STE (v. 17), P%'%6 (vv. 15, 24) and !%6%Z*6 P*'Y!%5 (v. 33).153 The all encompassing
language of the four-fold repetition of !%5 and the listing of iniquities (:@%'), transgressions
('*A-.) and sins (($%)*+) suggests that we should also see the term for the people as
encompassing everyone.
3.5: The vestment removal and second ablutions of the high priest
After the purification of the sancta and the !"#$%#&'-goat has been dispatched the high priest
is instructed to remove the sacral vestments and leave them in the tent of meeting, and
again undergo a complete bodily ablution (23-24a). This act follows the ablutions found at
the beginning of the sancta purification, a feature that should be kept in mind in its
interpretation. Again this is unusual for the Levitical rituals, as Milgrom notes !this is the
only time that immersion after sacrifice is mentioned." Kiuchi views this second ablution as
!Aaron"s movement from the highest degree of holiness to a lower degree of holiness...
[indicates] Aaron"s hiding from the highest degree of holiness, he is regarded as hiding
himself, i.e. becoming unclean."154 For Kiuchi, the act of moving away from the adytum is a
defiling act, and the high priest must purify himself before continuing with the Yom Kippur
20
148 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 153.149 Wright, !Gesture" in JAOS, 433.150 Levine, Leviticus, 106.151 Mishnah yoma 6:2; 152 Levine, Leviticus, 106.153 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1044.154 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 305.
ritual. As before, Kiuchi"s view does not concur with other ritual purity texts. Firstly, !if [the
high priest] truly were contaminated then he would not be able to continue the ritual but
would have, at least, to wait for nightfall to restore him to a state of purity."155 Secondly, an
argument which is stronger, is found in the Red Cow ritual in Numbers 19:6-7 where !the
one who burns the cow and the one who gathers its ashes are rendered impure, but not
the priest who sprinkles its blood."156 Likewise, in the Yom Kippur ritual, the ablutions of the
high priest are prescribed to be carried out in a holy place, while the assistants who burnt
the carcasses and led away the Azazel goat underwent the usual ablutions outside the
camp which remove impurity (26,28). The text suggests that the high priest has an
immunity to impurity whilst he performs the ritual.157 The Rabbis solved this problem by
setting the point of impurity caused by the carcasses as when they left the courtyard and
the Azazel goat as when it left the city walls.158 While it would be a suitable suggestion
regarding the sancta as sacred space, the Levitical text would suggest otherwise, and that
immunity from impurity is not found in proximity to the sancta. It is the very fact that the
santa is holy that impurity is attracted to it, resulting in the need for the Yom Kippur ritual. If
purification is not the cause for the ablutions, and the preceding evidence is taken into
consideration, it can be concluded that !it is the holiness of the priest that renders him
immune to impurity while he serves in the sanctuary."159 The ablutions, thus, have a liminal
quality: it is !to remove the superholiness that [the high priest] contracted by entering the
adytum."160 Such an idea accounts for the need to ![discard] his supercharged garments
inside the Tent... and for the need to wash when he resumes his usual operations on the
lower level of holiness within the shrine."161 As Gerstenberger summarises, !the
transferable holiness that in the holy of holies passes over to the garments and person of
the high priest... must be washed off again lest it cause harm outside the temple (tent of
meeting) in that sphere of lesser holiness."162 The ablutions here thus form a framing of the
high priest"s liminal movement around his entry into the adytum, into the presence of God.
The sacral vestments physically show that his actions are separate from his usual duties,
and the complete bodily ablutions mark his entry into and out of the holy space and the
presence of God.
21
155 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1051.156 Ibid.157 Wright, Disposal, 218.158 Mishnah Yoma 6:6G; 6:7E-F.159 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1052.160 Ibid., 1048.161 Ibid.162 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 223.
3.6: The Burnt OfferingsWhen the high priest has put on his usual ornate vestments he proceeds to the burnt
offerings on the altar. The prescription is brief, but as Gerstenberger comments 'this
remnant of some ritual prescription also may be an addendum. In overall context, the burnt
offering does admittedly have the effect of providing the final punctuation to festival
events."163 The presence of the burnt offerings in the ritual schema, as always, is
purposeful, despite being brief. The brevity of the prescription is likely due to the correct
procedure being known, or described in depth elsewhere. Thus it is acceptable to view this
as the burnt offering prescribed in Leviticus 1. Kiuchi suggests that !only after the burnt
offering, which symbolizes a total dedication that appeases the Lord"s wrath, does the Lord
accept Aaron and the people."164 While this may be correct, it omits the link between the
purification rite that has been performed previously. Ballentine suggests this symbolic link
by stating that !the procedure serves as a further reminder of the ritual transformation that
has been accomplished. Those once unfit for communion with a holy God now present
gifts that bear witness to a new reality: What they offer has now been ritually “turned into”
an offering that is acceptable and pleasing to God."165 By dealing with the impurity and sin
that had polluted the sancta, and by disposing of the sin, the Israelites have safeguarded
their relationship with God. The correct response is to then offer the daily sacrifices.166 As
Tidball notes !having been set free from sin, Aaron and the people were in a position to
express renewed dedication to God and offer themselves once more to him for obedient
service."167 The symbolism of this act being to !remind Israel that receiving forgiveness had
to be accompanied by both a change of heart and an amendment for life."168
22
163 Ibid., 222-223. 164 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 305.165 Balentine, Leviticus, 133.166 Noordtzij, Leviticus, 170.167 Tidball, Leviticus, 198.168 Ibid.
4: The Ritual Results
The Yom Kippur ritual brings together in one complex act the themes of forgiveness and
purification under the controlling idea of of ,-./01. But as Watts writes !the priestly writers
clearly depict forgiveness and purification as parallel but different consequences of
atonement."169 How the ritual functions dynamically explains the interplay between these
two themes and how it affects those who participate in the ritual.
4.1: Repentance, Forgiveness and the Psychosocial Transformative EffectThe ritual acts prescribed deal almost exclusively with the impurities and sins that have
accumulated in the adytum, on the tent of meeting and on the altar. It is these substances
as part of the metaphysical cosmic worldview that must be dealt with in order to protect the
holiness of the sanctuary to maintain the presence of God in the centre of the camp. This
acts separately to the repentance that has to happen on the part of the individuals who
take part in the ritual, the priests or the people of Israel. !For [the priestly writers], “carrying
away” sin is not an expression of forgiveness, as it is in the non-priestly writing, but of a
ritual process. P speaks not of the removal of the sin from the offender by the offended
party (whether God or man) but of the removal of sin from the sanctuary."170 It is this
distinction that allows the ritual to be viewed as an embodiment of the internal change that
has happened and the nature of the relationship maintained with God. In the ritual the
($%)*+ blood acts as the ritual detergent and purifies the sancta of impurities,
transgressions and sins, purging the sancta from the most holy adytum out to the tent of
meeting, then to the altar. Then the iniquities transgressions and sins are confessed over
the !"#$%#&'-goat, and when this has been achieved the iniquities are borne into the
wilderness. Schwartz constructs an understanding of the ritual movement by seeing the
sins as being acquired by the priest when in the sancta and then placing them upon the
!"#$%#&'-goat.171 From this he infers that the impurities do not need transferring as they are
not mentioned again, thus they have been eliminated.172 Yet !with sins it is otherwise. They
need to be driven away even after they have been removed from the sancta; purification
alone does not eliminate them."173 To finish off this process Milgrom"s observation that
23
169 Watts, Ritual, 135.170 Schwartz, !Bearing" in Pomegranates, 16.171 Ibid., 17.172 Ibid.173 Schwartz, !Bearing" in Pomegranates, 18.
once confessed, the transgressions and sins become iniquities, and !thereby qualifying
them for sacrificial expiation."174 For the individual, then the sins and the impurity are
!borne by the sinner and need to be cast off, accomplished by the indispensable process
of repentance (remorse, the making of amends, the fast on Purgation Day). They also
penetrate the sanctuary, whence they must also be purged."175 It is through repentance
that the sins borne by the people are forgiven, not by fulfilling the ritual performance.
!Reconciliation is possible only by direct involvement of YHWH"s volition, as signified by
the verb 6
Conclusion
It has been shown that the Israelites" cosmic worldview functions within the symbolic ideas
of the dynamic nature of impurity and holiness, and that these forces affect the status of
individuals and objects. Their status can change between holy and common, and between
pure and impure. These status are a reflection of the interaction between God and
humanity in relation to life giving, or life draining, acts. The three categories of moral
impurity are seen to act like impurity, and that these are of a metaphysical nature in the
cosmic worldview. It is this cosmic worldview which interacts with and makes efficacious
the ritual performance of Yom Kippur. The ritual performance both functions within the
cosmic worldview, deriving symbolic meaning from it, as well as projecting the cosmic
worldview for the participants to fully experience and understand. It is the merging of the
physical and metaphysical worlds that allows the participants to see the consequences of
their sinful acts, which otherwise remain as abstract moments in history. The ritual
performance of Yom Kippur highlights to the participants that sinful acts can be dealt with
only if they are genuinely repented of. Confession and remorse for the past action allow
the sins to be seen seen as inadvertent, and able to be atoned for. Symbolically they are
removed form the holy sancta, and dispatched away into the wilderness by the unique
action of the !"#$%#&'-goat. They are taken away from God and away from the people, but
never destroyed. For the participants in the ritual performance, the risk of their actions is
seen to endanger the presence of God in their midst, but it also dramatically expresses to
them the grace and forgiveness offered to Israel by the same God. The Yom Kippur ritual,
thus, symbolically embodies the relational transaction of forgiveness between God and the
Israelites who show remorse and repentance in regards to breaking the commandments
given by God. This is achieved by envisaging the sins as acting like impurities that must be
purged and dispatched by means of the ($%)*+ offering. By visually seeing the
consequences of sin, and the grace available to them from God, the Israelites are
psychosocially transformed; acts are more cautiously considered, sinful acts avoided, and
the social structure of the Israelites in relation to God are changed for the better.
Word count: 9989.
25
Appendix A: Considerations of the text of Leviticus 16 NomenclatureLeviticus 16 outlines the festival of PE\?.05*6 PN;E, known as Yom Kippur in Jewish tradition,179 and as the Day of Atonement in christian tradition. Milgrom, however, refers to
the festival as the Day of Purgation,180 to follow his understanding of the verb ,31.181 The festival is unnamed in Leviticus 16, but the ritual outlined is clearly in view in the festival lists of Leviticus 23, seen in the repetition of the date, the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev 16:29; Lev 23:26). Throughout the following work the nomenclature Yom Kippur will be used as it follows the tradition linked to the Hebrew text while avoiding the vague translational interpretation of Day of Atonement. The differentiation is mentioned here as all three nomenclatures will be quoted due to the varied use across the scholarly literature.
Canonical Context: References and OmissionsThe pericope has been extensively subjected (directly and indirectly) to the scrutiny of source critical methods in relation to its internal structure and place in the canon.182 Noth comments !It is evident at the first glance that the chapter is in its present form the result of a probably fairly long previous history that has left its traces in a strange lack of continuity and unity about the whole."183 A brief survey of the most important features will suffice for this setting.
Yom Kippur is alluded to in Exodus 30:10 in relation to the Altar of Incense, and in Numbers 28:7-11 as part of a festival list. The link being seen in the former by the
repetition of !once a year" and the plural of PE\/?305*6, and in the latter by the repetition of the date.184 Milgrom suggests that the H redactor brings about a change to the text from an emergency rite to an annual observance of the ritual,185 and that Leviticus 16:29-34a is !an appendix that was tacked onto chap. 16."186
Leviticus 16 also contains unusual lexemes. Only here in Leviticus 16:2-28 is the inner
shrine, the adytum, referred to as AB/C*6, elsewhere it denotes the outer shrine, with ABC
PE0S]^Z*6 denoting the adytum.187 The mention of !"#$%#&$ is unique to this pericope, and '*A-3 only occurs here in Leviticus, but elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures. Both terms will be treated in depth below188
What is more unusual than the textual features is the apparent silence in the rest of the canon concerning Yom Kippur. Apart from the allusive references in Exodus and numbers, the Jewish scriptures do not mention the festival, even in the annual festival lists of Exodus (23:14-17; 34:18-23) and Deuteronomy (16:1-16). This, however, as Harris suggests, could be due to the those mentioned here being pilgrimage festivals,189 while Gerstenberger, who recognises the scope of the problem, leaves it unexplained, and rests
26
179 Kaiser, !Leviticus" in NIB, 1109.180 Throughout Milgrom, Leviticus, Vol. 3, 3A and 3B. 181 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1079-1084. 182 c.f. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, Leviticus 17-22, and Leviticus 23-27; Snaith, leviticus and Numbers; Noth,
history; Noth, Leviticus.183 Noth, Leviticus, 117.184 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1061-1062.185 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1061-1062, 1070-1071.186 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1064.187 Milgrom, Leviticus, Vol. 3, 1013.188 Pesha, section 2.3.2; Azazel, section 3.4.189 Harris, Leviticus, 588.
on the understanding that it only after 70A.D. that any clear explanations of Yom Kippur can be found in Jewish literature.190 Despite the difficulties it is a necessary pericope that cannot be overlooked. It is the pinnacle of the sacrificial system found in Leviticus, and is alluded to in the Epistle to the Hebrews191 in explaining the atoning work of Christ.
Formal Analysis of Leviticus 16Following Kiuchi, Leviticus 16 should be taken as an intrinsic part of the message of Leviticus, and not be seen as out of place due to the textual difficulties explored above.192 He states that !it is possible to see the whole chapter as making perfectly good sense when the authorial intention is grasped"193 and that !various threads found until ch. 15 converge in the Day of Atonement ritual... [and] the last section... both draws all of the preceding prescriptions to a conclusion, and adumbrates the content of ch. 17 onwards."194
The majority of the text is of descriptive nature, that is, it describes the ritual process, rather than being a purely prescriptive text, giving a formal list of instructions. levine"s work on descriptive Tabernacle texts can be used to show that this was a descriptive text that was built into the overall narrative of Leviticus by a redactor.195 This is seen by the prescriptive introduction (v. 1), the descriptive ritual text (vv. 2-33), and the compliance formula (v. 34).
The structure of the pericope is suggested by commentators, who all give their own ideological divisions to the text.196 Below is a presentation that aids in viewing it as a ritual text, and follows the concepts that will be explored further in this study.
12 2 Introduction.2-52 2 Preparations for the ritual; animals and vestments.6-102 2 Overview of the ritual process. 11-192 2 Purification sacrifices for the sancta;2 A bull for the priests:11-14.2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A goat for the people: 15-19.20-2222 The live goat for Azazel.23-2822 Alter sacrifices; Purification/ desanctification of participants,29-3422 Regulations for the annual celebration of the festival.
27
190 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 231.191 Hebrews ch. 8-10.192 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 292.193 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 292.194 Kiuchi, Leviticus, 292.195 Levine, !Descriptive" in JAOS 85.3, 310.196 Three differing structures can be seen in Kiuchi, Leviticus, 292; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 1009-101;
Wenham, Leviticus, 228.
Bibliography:1: Primary textElliger, Karl, Rudolph, William et al., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart: Deutche 2 Bibelgesellschaft, 1983 (1966).
The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha with an English Translation by Sit Launcelot Lee Brenton, London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd., 1976.
English Translations, in order of abbreviation. Unless otherwise stated, all English scripture quotations are taken from the NRSV.
Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Containing the Old and New Testaments, (ESV), 2 London: Collins, 2002.
Peterson, Eugene H., The Message Remix: The Bible in Contemporary Language, (The 2 Message), Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2003.
Holy Bible: New Century Version, (NCV), Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2004 (1987).
New English Bible, (NEB), Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1970.
New English Translation, (NET), Biblical Studies Press, 2003. Electronic version accessed 2 via Accordance 8 Bible Software. Also available via http://net.bible.org.
New International Version: Holy bible, (NIV), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1993 2 (1973).
Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books, Anglicized Version, (NRSV), London: 2 Society For the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1989.
Holy Bible: Todayʼs New International Version, (TNIV), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Tyndale, William, David Daniel (ed.), Tyndaleʼs Old Testament: Being the Pentateuch of 1530, Joshua to 2 Chronicles of 1537, and Jonah, In a modern-spelling edition and with an introduction by David Daniel, (Tyndale), New Haven: Yale Unversity Press, 2 1992.
2: Rabbinic SourcesThe Babylonian Talmud: Seder Moʼed Volume III: Yoma, Sukkah, Beẓah, Jung, Leo 2 (Trans.), I. Epstein (ed.), London: The Socino Press, 1938.
Neusner, Jacob, The Mishnah: A New Translation, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2 1991.
Neusner, Jacob, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, Volume 14: Yoma, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1990.
28
3: Secondary SourcesBalentine, Samuel E., Leviticus, (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and 2 Preaching), Louisville: John Knox Press, 2002.
Bell, Catherine, Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2 1997.
Berkouwer, G.C., Philip C. Holtrop (trans.), Studies in Dogmatics: Sin, Grand Rapids: 2 William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971.
Cover, Robin C., !Sin, Sinners" in David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 6, Si-Z, 31-40.
Douglas, Mary, !Atonement in Leviticus" in JSQ, Vol.1, no.2, 1993-1994, 109-130.
Freud, Sigmund, !Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives 2 of Savages and Neurotics" in James Strachey (trans.) The Origins of Religion: Totem and Taboo, Moses and Monotheism and Other Works, London: Penguin 2 Books, 1985 (1913).
Gane, Roy, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy, 2 Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S., Douglas W. Stott (Trans.), Leviticus: A Commentary, (The Old 2 Testament Library), Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996 (1993).
Gluckman, Max, Essays on the Ritual of Social Relations, Manchester: Manchester 2 University Press, 1962.
Gruenwald, Ithamar, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel, Atlanta: Society of Biblical 2 Literature, 2003.
Harris, R. Laird, !Leviticus" in Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositorʼs Bible Commentary with The New International Version of The Holy Bible, in Twelve Volumes, Volume 2 (Genesis-Numbers), Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990, 499-654.
Hertz, J.H., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Leviticus, London: Oxford University Press, 2 1935.
Heschel, Abraham Joshua, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism, London: 2 Souvenir Press, 2009 (1955).
Kaiser, Walter C., !The book of Leviticus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections" in 2 Leander E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreterʼs Bible: General Articles & Introduction, Commentary, & Reflections For Each Book of The Bible Including the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books in Twelve Volumes, Volume I, 1994, 985-1191.
Kiuchi, N., The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function, 2 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.
29
Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi, Leviticus, (Apollos Old Testament Comentary, Volume 3), Nottingham: 2 Apollos, 2007.
Klawans, Jonathan, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2 2004 (2000).
Levine, Baruch, !The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch" in JAOS, Vol.85, No. 2 3, July 1965, 307-318.
Levine, Baruch A., In the Presence of the Lord: A study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974.
Levine, Baruch A., Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, 2 (The JPS Torah Commentary), Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
Maccoby, Hyam, Ritual and Morality: The ritual purity system and its place in Judaism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Milgrom, Jacob, !Israel"s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray" in Revue Biblique, 2 Vol.83, No.3, July, 1976, 390-399.
Milgrom, Jacob, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, Leiden: Brill, 1983.
Milgrom, Jacob, !Impurity is Miasma: A Response to Hyam Maccoby" in JBL 119.4, 2000, 2 729-733.
Milgrom, Jacob, Leviticus 1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 2 (Anchor Bible Volume 3), New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Milgrom, Jacob, The Anchor Bible, Volume 3A, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Milgrom, Jacob, The Anchor Bible, Volume 3B, Leviticus 23-27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Milgrom, Jacob, !The Dynamics of Purity in the Priestly System" in M.J.H.M. Poorthius, and 2 J. Schwartz, (eds.) Purity and Holiness:The Heritage of Leviticus, Leiden: Brill, 2 2000, 29-32.
Neusner, Jacob, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, Volume 14: Yoma, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1990.
Noordtzij, A., Raymond Togtman (Trans.), Leviticus, (Bible Student"s Commentary), Grand 2 Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982. Noth, Martin, Berhard W. Anderson (trans.), A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 2 Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1972.
Noth, Martin, J. E. Anderson (trans.), Leviticus: A Commentary, London: SCM Press, 1977 2 (1965).
30
Poorthius, M.J.H.M., and Schwartz, J., !Purity and Holiness: An Introductory Survey" in 2 M.J.H.M. Poorthius, and J. Schwartz, (eds.) Purity and Holiness:The Heritage of Leviticus, Leiden: Brill, 2000, 3-26.
Ross, Allen P., Holiness to the LORD: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus, 2 Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Smith, Jonathan Z., To take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual, Chicago: University of 2 Chicago Press, 1987.
Smith, William Robertson, Religion of the Semites, New Brunswick: Transaction 2 Publishers, 2002 (1894).
Snaith, N. H., The Century Bible: Leviticus and Numbers, London: Thomas Nelson & 2 Sons, 1967.
Schwartz, B., !The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature" in Wright, David P., Freedman, 2 David Noel, and Hurvitz, Avi (eds.) ,Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 3-22, 1995.
Talmon, Shemaryahu, Literary Studies in the Hebrew Bible: Form and Content, Collected Studies, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993.
Tidball, Derek, The Message of Leviticus: Free to be Holy, (Bible Speaks Today, BST), 2 Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005.
Turner, Victor, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society, Ithaca: 2 Cornell University Press, 1974.
Watts, James W., Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture, Cambridge: 2 Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Wenhan, Gordon J., The Book of Leviticus, (The New International Commentary on the 2 Old Testament, NICOT), London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1979.
Wright, D. P., !The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite 2 Literature" in JAOS Vol. 106, No. 3, July 1986, 433-446.
Wright, David Pearson, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature, SBL Dissertation Series 101, Atlanta: Scholars 2 Press, 1987.
31
