Numbers/Bamidbar 1 – "male . . . 20 and up . . . able to go to war"

[When we first read this book and discovered that only male Israelites were included in the ‘census’, the women among us understandably took offense. We had already soured over the fact that the practice of having multiple wives and concubines was tolerated in the patriarchal culture of YHWH’s chosen people, the worst record being the supposedly “wise” King Solomon.

 

Again, this is where understanding the culture of those times is important — notice the wording in the title of this post. The women, children and the elderly, probably the slaves as well as foreigners, not to forget the Levites —were not counted because what was important in the census is the population that would fight the battles for the multitude wandering in the desert.  Surely, such a formidable number of nomads travelling with their God posed a threat to the nation groups they would encounter in the desert of Sin.  If those encounters were friendly, no problem; if they were threatening, then able-bodied males naturally would fight the battles to defend who? Well, the women, children, elderly and whoever else was not allowed to fight.  This was our initial understanding, deduced mainly from the criteria given for the numbering.

 

Later we learned that tribal lines were traced only through the male population, so it still made sense that the census would focus on the same pattern of previous genealogies listing only the names of fathers and sons. That is what the culture dictated at the time and the practice probably affected later generations.  

 

Until recently, wives would take on their husbands’ surname, losing their individuality and identity in becoming simply Mrs. so-and-so but at least, concubinage is illegal in democratic society.  With the institution of marriage currently being threatened by same-sex demands to be legalized, single women are choosing to retain their family surname instead of taking on their husband’s.  But enough of this diversion.  Are you ready to tackle the book that most bible students would rather not read?  Take heart, this IS an interesting and important book!  Best to discover for yourself . . . read on.

Our interpretation the running commentary in Pentateuch & Haftarahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz shown in [parenthesis]; all others are S6K commentary. Translation is EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses.—Admin1]

—————————————————

Chapter I.  MUSTERING THE PEOPLE

One month after the erection of the Tabernacle, Moses is commanded to muster all the men of military age, i.e. those twenty years of age and upwards.

The total number of adult males is given in v. 46 as 603,550.  This number is exactly the same as the number of individuals who paid the poll-tax six months previously—possibly because the census was taken once only, and that at the time of the taking of the poll-tax.  All that is commanded in the present chapter may only be ‘to prepare a classified return of the census already taken, with a view to the proper arrangement of the tribes in camps, as their wanderings were about to begin’ (H.Adler).

———————————————

Bamidbar/Numbers – 1 

1 Now YHVH spoke to Moshe in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Appointment,
 on the first (day) after the second New-moon, in the second year after their going-out from the land of Egypt, 
saying: 

tent of meeting.  The Tabernacle (the place ‘where I will meet with you’ to speak there unto thee; Exod. XXIX,42), the Tent of revelation.

2 Take up the head-count of the entire community of the Children of Israel, 
by their clans, by their Fathers’ Houses,
according to the number of names, 
every male per capita; 

take ye.  The plural is used because the command is to be carried out by both Moses and Aaron; see next v.

take ye the sum.  equivalent to : Prepare a classified return of the census already taken.  It is not quite synonymous in (Leviticus) III, 15,40, when the command is merely to number the first-born of the Levites.

all the congregation.  Exclusive of the Levites.

their families.  Their clans—subdivisions of a tribe.

father’s houses. Their septs, subdivisions of the clans. Both ‘family’ and ‘father’s house’ have each a wider and a narrower sense.

by their polls.  lit. ‘skulls’, individual persons, as in the English poll-tax or head-money.

3 from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces in Israel: 
you are to count them (for battle) according to their forces, 
you and Aharon. 

to go forth to war.  Or, go forth to service. number them by their hosts.  As military men: the march towards Canaan was to be that of a disciplined nation and not  a rabble of runaway slaves (Luzzatto).  The aged, infirm, and maimed were therefore exempted from the numbering, as were those under twenty years of age.

4 And with you let there be a man,
 a man per tribe, 
(the) man (who is) head of his Fathers’ 
House he is (to be). 

a man of every tribe. Twelve assessors, the head-man of each tribe, were to assist in the work of numbering.

5 Now these are the names of the men who are to stand with you: 
for Re’uven: Elitzur son of Shedei’ur; 

Elizur.  ‘God is my rock.’  Of the 24 proper names here given, 9 contain the Divine name El, God; 3 the name Tzur, Rock–a frequent appellation for God; and in 3 Shaddai occurs.  Shaddai is usually translated ‘Almighty’ and derived from a Heb. root ‘to overpower.’ It has also been derived from the Arabic which means ‘to heap benefits’, and ‘to reconcile persons at enmity with one another’.  This idea of beneficence and peace is amply borne out by the passage in Genesis in which Shaddai  occurs (Gen. VII,1; VII,3; XLIII,14).  The meaning conveyed by them is that of a Friend and Protector, who watches over the Patriarchs, shepherds them and bestows upon them and their descendants great moral and material good.  Shaddai can therefore be translated ‘Dispenser of benefits’ (Baron David Gunzburg in Revue des Etudes Juives LVII).

Shedur.  ‘Shaddai is a light.’

6 for Shim’on: Shelumi’el son of Tzurishaddai; 

Shellumiel.  Either ‘at peace with God,’ or, ‘my friend is God’ (Hommel).

Zurishaddai.  My Rock is Shaddai.’

7 for Yehuda: Nahshon son of Amminadav; Numbers 1:8 for Yissakhar: Netan’el son of Tzu’ar; 

Nahshon.  ‘Serpent,’ Animal names are common in all lands; cf the Germanic names, Wolf, Bear, etc.

Amminadab. ‘The (divine) Kinsman is generous.’

9 for Zevulun: Eliav son of Heilon; 

Nethaniel. ‘God hath given.’

9 for Zevulun: Eliav son of Heilon;

Eliab. ‘God is Father.’

10 for the Sons of Yosef: for Efrayim: Elishama son of Ammihud; for Menashe: Gamliel son of 
Pedahtzur; 

Elishama. ‘God hath heard.’

Ammihud. ‘The (divine) Kinsman is glorious.’

Gamaliel. ‘God is my reward.’  In later times, it was the name of many famous rabbis.

Pedazhur. ‘The Rock hath redeemed.’

11 for Binyamin: Avidan son of Gid’oni;

Abidan. ‘The Father hath judged.

12 for Dan: Ahi’ezer son of Ammishaddai; 

Ahiezer. ‘The (divine) Brother is a help.’

Ammishaddai. ‘The people of Shaddai.’

13 for Asher: Pag’iel son of Okhran; 

Pagiel. ‘The lot or fate of (i.e. given by) God.’

14 for Gad: Elyasaf son of De’uel; 

Eliasaph. ‘God hath added.’

Deuel. Or, ‘Reuel’ (II,14). ‘God is a friend.’ Both forms seem to be an abbreviation of Daruel (Luzatto).

15 for Naftali: Ahira’ son of Einan. 

Ahira. Shortened form of Ahirea ‘the (divine) Brother is a friend.’

These names are invaluable documents of early life in Israel, and throw light on the religious feelings of the ancient Israelite.  They are genuine and trustworthy, as they can each be paralleled in Babylonian and Arabian inscriptions.  If, as alleged by hostile critics, these names were merely made to pattern and the product of the age of Ezra, they should be met with in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.  This, however, is not the case; and, in fact, such characteristic names as those compounded with amim, Zur, and Shaddai are never found  in post-Exilic times.  ‘It is quite certain that the names contained in the lists in the Book of Numbers cannot be rightly assigned to any other period than that of Moses’ (Hommel).

16 These are the (ones) called-by the community, 
the exalted-leaders of the tribes of their fathers, 
heads of the divisions of Israel are they. 

elect of the congregation. Summoned as the congregation’s representative men.

princes. Chiefs.

the thousands. A ‘thousand’ denotes a large division of the people for judicial or military purposes (II Sam. XVIII,1; compare the similar use of the Old English word ‘hundred’.)

17 Now Moshe and Aharon took these men, who were indicated by name, 
18 and the entire community they assembled, 
on the first (day) of the second New-moon; 
they declared-their-lineage according to their clans, by their Fathers’ Houses, 
as numbered by name, 
from the age of twenty years and upward, per capita,

on the first day.  The classifying of the returns egan, but was not necessarily completed, on that one day.

they declared their pedigrees. Investigated the dates of their birth, to ascertain whether they were over 20 years of age; or, their pedigrees were written down (Ibn Ezra).

19 as YHVH had commanded Moshe; 
thus he counted them (for battle) in the Wilderness of 
Sinai. 
20 Thus they were: the Sons of Re’uven, firstborn of Israel, 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name, per capita, every male from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 

generations. Descendants.

21 their count, of the tribe of Re’uven: six and forty thousand, and five hundred. 
22 For the Sons of Shim’on: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
those of his count, as numbered by name, per capita, 
every male from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
23 their count, of the tribe of Shim’on: nine and fifty thousand, and three hundred. 
24 For the Sons of Gad:
 their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name, 
from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
25 their count, of the tribe of Gad: 
five and forty thousand, and six hundred and fifty. 
26 For the Sons of Yehuda: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name,
 from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
27 their count, of the tribe of Yehuda: four and seventy thousand, and six hundred. 
28 For the Sons of Yissakhar: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name, 
from the age of twenty years and upward, everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
29 their count, of the tribe of Yissakhar: four and fifty thousand, and four hundred. 
30 For the Sons of Zevulun: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name, 
from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
31 their count, of the tribe of Zevulun: seven and fifty thousand,
 and four hundred. 
32 For the Sons of Yosef: 
For the Sons of Efrayim: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name, from the age of twenty years and upward,
 everyone going out to 
the armed-forces: 
33 their count, of the tribe of Efrayim: forty thousand and five hundred. 
34 For the Sons of Menashe:
 their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name,
 from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
35 their count, of the tribe of Menashe: two and thirty thousand,
 and two hundred. 
36 For the Sons of Binyamin: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name,
from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
37 their count, of the tribe of Binyamin: five and thirty thousand, and four hundred. 
38 For the Sons of Dan: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House,
 as numbered by name,
from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
39 their count, of the tribe of Dan: two and sixty thousand, and seven hundred. 
40 For the Sons of Asher: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, 
as numbered by name,
 from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
41 their count, of the tribe of Asher: one and forty thousand, and five hundred. 
42 For the Sons of Naftali: 
their begettings by their clans, by their Fathers’ House, as numbered by name, 
from the age of twenty years and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces: 
43 their count, of the tribe of Naftali: three and fifty thousand, and four hundred. 
44 These are the accountings which Moshe and Aharon and the leaders of Israel counted,
(the) twelve men-one man per Fathers’ House were they- 
45 they were, all those accounted for of the Children of Israel by their Fathers’ House,
 from the age of twenty and upward, 
everyone going out to the armed-forces in Israel, 
46 thus they were, all those accounted for:
 six hundred thousand and three thousand and five 
hundred and fifty. 
47 But the Levites, by the tribe of their fathers, were not counted in the midst of them. 

47-54.  The Levites, a summary of their duties and their place in the camp; see further in III and IV.

were not numbered.  ‘The Levites are the Divine King’s Legion, and are hence worthy to enjoy the distinction of a separate census’ (Rashi).

48 YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying: 
49 Mark, the tribe of Levi you are not to count,
 their head-count you are not to take up in the 
midst of the Children of Israel. 
50 But you, make the Levites accountable for the Dwelling of Testimony, for all its implements 
and for all that belongs to it:
 they are to carry the Dwelling and all its implements, they are to attend to it, 
and around the Dwelling they are to camp. 

tabernacle of the testimony.  A fuller description for the Tabernacle or Dwelling in which the ‘tables of the testimony’ (Exod. XXXI,18) were deposited; i.e. the two stone tablets of the Decalogue, that were placed inside the Ark, and were a testimony that the Divine Presence dwelt in Israel.

51 When the Dwelling moves on, the Levites are to take it down, 
and when the Dwelling is encamped, the Levites are to set it up; 
the outsider who comes-near is to be put-to-death! 

common man. I.e. a layman; here the word means one who was not a Levite.  In III,10, the same term refers to one who does not belong to the priesthood.

draweth nigh.  With the object of concerning himself with the service of the Levites, in connection with the Holy Tent and its furniture.

put to death. ‘But not by a human tribunal’ (Talmud).

52 The Children of Israel are to camp, 
each-one according to his encampment, each-one 
according to his banner-contingent, by their forces. 
53 But the Levites are to camp around the Dwelling of Testimony-
that there be no fury against the community of the Children of Israel- 
and the Levites are to keep the charge of the Dwelling of 
Testimony. 

the Levites . . . round about the tabernacle. Constituting a body-guard, to prevent the non-Levite from coming into contact with the holy vessels

keep the charge . . . testimony. Perform the duties devolving upon them in connection with the Sanctuary.

54 The Children of Israel did according to all that YHVH commanded Moshe, thus they did. 

 

Numbers/Bamidbar – 5 – No contamination, defilement, impurity in the camp . . – Introduction

[This INTRODUCTION is from Pentateuch & Haftarahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz.]

 

THE BOOK OF NUMBERS
NAME. The oldest name for the fourth book of the Pentateuch is ‘the Fifth of the Musterings’; i.e., that one of the five of Moses which describes the numbering of the Israelites. Later it came to be known by the fourth word in the opening sentence במדבר Bemidbar, ‘In the Wilderness’—a name that lends a unity of time and place to be varied happenings and laws in the Book. The current English designation Numbers is derived from the Septuagint.

 

CONTENTS.
In contrast with Leviticus, which is almost entirely legislative in character, Numbers, like Exodus, combines history and law. The greater portion of the Book is devoted to the vicissitudes of the Israelites in their wanderings after the exodus till, thirty-eight years later, they are about to enter the Holy Land.
Numbers is no mere chronicle of the outstanding events during the journey in the wilderness.
  • It interprets these events,
  • and shows forth the faithful watchfulness of God in every distress and danger,
  • as well as the stern severity of the Divine judgments against rebellion and apostasy.
  • In addition to the story of this discipline,
  • it records the laws and ordinances given during that journey;
  • laws relating to the Sanctuary,and such civil and political ordinances as would enable the Israelites to fulfill the task God assigned to them among the nations.
    • the camp,
    • and the purification of life;
DIVISIONS.
1. Chapters I-X, 10 contain the laws and regulations given in the wilderness of Sinai:
  • the first census,
  • the choice of the Levites,
  • the laws concerning the ordeal of jealousy,
  • the Nazarites,
  • the Menorah,
  • and the Supplementary Passover.
  • This section also includes the account of the consecration of the Altar and the Priestly Blessing.
2. Chapters X, 11-XXI
  • cover the thirty-eight years’ wandering till the arrival at Moab.
  • They relate the incident of Taberah,
  • the ‘Graves of Lust’,
  • the appointment of the seventy elders,
  • the punishment of Miriam,
  • the mission of the Spies,
  • the rebellion of Korah,
  • the sin of Moses,
  • and the conquest of the Amorite kingdoms.
  • This section contains the command concerning Tzitzis
    • and the ritual of the Red Heifer.
3. Chapters XXII-XXXVI describe the final happenings in Moab—
  • the Testimony of Balaam to Israel’s might,
  • the zeal of Phinehas,
  • the appointment of Joshua as the successor of Moses,
  • the Midianite war,
  • and the settlement East of Jordan.
  • Alongside these events, we have the commands concerning the second census,
  • festival offerings,
  • and vows;
  • the itinerary from Egypt to Jordan;
  • and a group of laws in connection with the impending occupation of Canaan.
  • This second of Numbers forms the transition to Deuteronomy, the Fifth Book of Moses.
ADDITIONAL NOTE TO NUMBERS
VOWS AND VOWING IN THE LIGHT OF JUDAISM
The Rabbis fully endorsed the Biblical demand for man uncompromisingly to honour his word, whether accompanied by a vow or not. Their position on this matter is absolutely clear:
‘Let they yea be yea, and thy nay be nay.
He who changes his word commits as heavy a sin as he who worship idols;
and he who utters an untruth, is excluded from the Divine Presence.’
A vow to be valid must be uttered aloud;
it must be made voluntarily, without any compulsion from without;
and the person making it must be fully conscious of its scope and implications.
A man may impose a restriction upon himself by vow; he cannot so restrict others.
Vows whose fulfillment is rendered impossible by force majeure are void.

 

Scripture discourages vowing.
‘If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee’ (Deut. XXIII, 23):
‘Be not rash with thy mouth …Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay’ (Eccl. V, 1, 4).

 

The post-Biblical teachers, whether in Alexandria, Palestine, or Babylon, shared this attitude towards vows.
Philo declares:
‘The word of the good man should be his oath, firm and unchangeable, founded steadfastly on truth. Therefore vows and oaths should be superfluous. Some men make vows out of wicked hatred of their fellow men; swearing, for example, that they will not admit this or that man to sit at the same table with them, or to come under the same roof. Such men should seek to propitiate the mercy of God, so that they may find some cure for the disease of their souls.’

 

The Rabbis were equally zealous in their attempt to dissuade men from vowing.
‘Do not form a habit of making vows,’ was an ancient Tannaite teaching;
while Samuel, the great teacher in Babylon, roundly declared: ‘He who makes a vow, even though he fulfill it, is called a rosho, a wicked man.’

 

In the time of the Mishnah, the habit of taking vows was considered a sign of bad breeding, and affected the honour of the vower’s parents, just as swearing would nowadays point to a man’s low origin. One exception was admitted. The making of vows was tolerated, when it was done in order to rid oneself of bad habits, or in order to encourage oneself to do good; but—says the Shulchan Aruch—even in such cases one should strive for the desired end without the aid of vows.
‘Even vows for charitable purposes are not desirable. If one has the money, let him give it straightway without a vow; and if not, let him defer his vow until he have it.’

 

The fact must, however, be recorded that the mass of the people did not rise to these moral heights, and the popular Oriental passion for vow-making continued unabated. And just because the Rabbis assigned such sacredness to the spoken word, they were faced with a grave problem. For altogether aside from imbecile and rash minds, men in time of danger or under momentary impulse would make vows which they could not fulfill. These self-imposed obligations or abstentions might clash with man’s domestic duties, or interfere with his proper relations to his neighbours. In such cases, the Rabbis would consider it their duty to afford a man the facility, under certain definite conditions and restrictions, of annulling his thoughtless or impossible vows. Such annulment could never be effected by himself, but only by a Beth Din of three learned men in the Law, after they had carefully investigated the nature and bearing of the vow, and had become convinced that its purpose was not, on the one hand, self-improvement; nor did it, on the other, infringe upon the rights of others.

 

For not all vows or oaths could be absolved.
A vow or oath that was made to another person, even be that person a child or a heathen, could not be annulled except in the presence of that person and with his consent; while an oath which a man had taken in a court of justice could not be absolved by any other authority in the world.  Far from being animated by a loose regard for morality, the annulment of vows ordained by the Rabbis has an ethical intent, that of saving persons who have made virtually impracticable vows from the guilt of breaking them, and of preventing the hardship and injustice which their fulfillment would entail upon others (Z. Frankel, Schechter).

 

KOL NIDRE
The formula for the annulment of vows that ushers in the Service on the Eve of the Day of Atonement refers to such vows which we had voluntarily promised to the Almighty, and had not kept, or the fulfillment of which might prove to be beyond our ability to carry out.
‘But it does not in the least possible degree affect the promises or obligations entered into between man and man, as the latter can only be dissolved by the mutual consent of the parties, nor can it absolve any man from an official oath’ (Editor’s note, Sephardi Eve of Atonement Prayer Book).

 

The Kol Nidre has had a curious history.
‘The awe and solemnity with which it is pronounced, the beauty and pathos of the threefold chant, the scattered millions of Israel gathered in every synagogue in the world, are sure signs that the words of the prayer, written like an old inscription, are full of meaning; beneath them lurks a thought that is God-inspired, a conception of the sanctity of Truth’ (Editor’s note, Ashkenazi Eve of Atonement Prayer Book, in ‘The Service of the Synagogue’). And yet its introduction was opposed by some Gaonim over a thousand years ago: it was recast, though not improved, by a noted rabbi in the eleventh century; and has been a welcome weapon in the hands of anti-Semites, who, in defiance of all truth and justice, have used it to prove to their hate-blinded followers that ‘the word of a Jew cannot be trusted.’

 

The pioneers of Reform Judaism abolished it a century ago: and every now and then voices are raised in Orthodox communities that, in view of the misunderstandings to which it has given rise, the time has come for its official removal from the Festival Prayer Book. I append the reply I sent to an Overseas Congregation which recently submitted this suggestion to me.

 

‘Proposed alterations in the Liturgy, even of its non-essential portions, call for the greatest care and consideration. The question of altering the Kol Nidre prayer especially bristles with difficulties. Chief among them is this: the prayer as it stands has for centuries been a weapon of malicious attack by enemies of Israel. If, in consequence, the prayer is abolished, we are held as pleading guilty to their charges, and by our action seem to justify these charges. Historic Judaism has, therefore, ever braved these misrepresentations. Conscious of the sacredness and inviolability which attaches to an oath in Jewish Law and life, it indignantly repudiates the construction its maligners place upon this Prayer, and proclaims that the dispensation from vows in it refers only to those in which no other persons or interest are involved; and that no private or public vow, promise or oath which concerns another person, is implied in the Kol Nidre.’

 

‘One further consideration. Recent historical studies have shown the Kol Nidre to be a unique memorial of Jewish suffering and repentance. It arose in Spain, as a result of the Jewish persecutions by the West Goths, in the seventh century. Entire Jewish communities were then doomed to torture and the stake, unless they forswore their Faith, and by the most fearful oaths and abjurations bound themselves nevermore to practice any Jewish observances. In this way, even when better times came and the fury of the oppressor abated, the unfortunate members of those communities felt themselves perjured before God and man if they returned to their Holy Faith, or kept even the most sacred of its Festivals. It was to ease the conscience of these crushed and distracted men and women, that the Kol Nidre was formulated. In view of this origin of the prayer—which has only recently become known and which alone explains all its anomalies—various congregations on the Continent that had formerly abolished the Kol Nidre have reintroduced it, realizing that the awakening of historic memories, and the forging of links with the past, are vital factors in Jewish traditional life and worship.’

A Literary Approach to Yahushuwa’/Joshua and Shophtiym/Judges

Image from amazon.com

Image from amazon.com

[When a commentator chooses to lump two books together in one study, there must be good reason.  And that might be because the connection between the two books is established since Shophtiym/Judges demonstrates the immediate albeit unexpected consequences of taking possession of the ‘promised’ Land as narrated in detail in Yahushuwah’/Joshua—-consequences that are quite disappointing to readers of today.  

 

We wonder with an air of self-righteous judgment: how could a people—so privileged with experiencing individually and communally the benefits and blessings attendant to a covenant with the all-powerful Creator/God—fail so dismally, so soon, so fast?  Could we have done any better?  Easy to say in hindsight, after reading the whole history of Israel not in a so-called ‘history book’  but in their Tanakh!  Indeed, what nation would record the worst about themselves in their own sacred scriptures?  

 

This commentary is from Pentateuch and Haftarahs; please remember that the commentators from this resource come from a non-Jewish background, hence their reference is mostly the ‘Old Testament’ of the Christian Bible.  Additionally, since the approach is from a literary intent, the focus is more on format, symbolism, narrative movement, etc., as though these historical accounts are creative works.

 

To us, the very fact that literary critics have bothered to scrutinize the Hebrew Scriptures is evidence that writers of antiquity were not mindless crude recorders of cold facts; critics do take notice of literary conventions used in retelling stories of conquest and tribal governance amidst the overarching themes relating to covenant conditions and the character of Israel’s God, YHWH. In so doing, literary critics enable clueless readers of today to understand that there IS, after all, order and connection in the seemingly thrown-in hodgepodge of stories which teach consistent lessons amidst wise and unwise choices resorted to by protagonists. There is no theological agenda, only the text is scrutinized, and that is a perspective readers are seldom exposed to when reading Scripture.

 

There is much to learn from these critics, surprise, surprise . . .  so don’t give up reading this series.  If we have bothered to type, reformat, highlight these posts to share with our website visitors, it is because they are worth the read!–Admin1.]

 

—————————————-
Joshua and Judges – David M. Gunn
Formal Connection and Plot
Viewed simply, the Book of Joshua recounts the entry of the people of Israel into the Promised Land, Canaan, the land of the Amorites / Canaanites.
  • It takes up the story—a story running from Genesis to 2 Kings—where Deuteronomy leaves off:
    • the people have left Egypt, the land of bondage,
    • crossed the Red Sea,
    • received the law of YHWH at Sinai,
    • journeyed in the Wilderness,
    • taken possession of land east of the Jordan(Num. 32),
    • and now stand ready to possess the rest of the promise.
  • As the Book of Deuteronomy culminates in the death of Moses,
    • so the Book of Joshua will culminate in the death of Joshua.
  • Thus it will begin “after the death of Moses” (Joshua 1:1),
    • just as the Book of Judges in turn will begin “after the death of Joshua” (Judges 1:1; cf. 2 Sam. 1:1).
Chapters 1-12 tell of the ensuing war in a relatively expansive style marked by descriptive detail and reported speech, though pared toward the end to some skeletal reporting speech (see 10:28-39) intimating the characteristic prose of the next section, chapters 13-22.

 

Woven into the Jericho and Ai accounts are first the measured, ritualistic account of the crossing of the Jordan, and then the story of Achan’s transgression and execution, while another story of deception, the Gibeonites’ covenant, links easily with the end of the campaign (“Now the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai,” 9:3 [AR]); similarly linked are the main succeeding episodes (for example, “Now it came to pass, when Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem heard that Joshua had taken Ai …,” 10:1 “And it came to pass, when Jabin king of Hazor heard  …,” 11:1. A summary listing of the kings defeated and land possessed east and west of the Jordan, brings the constant movement of the narrative (with its reiterated verbs of passing over/on/across, going up, retuning / turning back, and so on) to a pause.

 

Chapters 13-22 are set off formally in parenthesis, as it were (“Now Joshua was old and advanced in years,” 13:1 [AR], resumed at 23:1, 2), as if formally to declare a halt, a shift from the narrative of action to the rhetoric of listing and ordering. As in Numbers (or Chronicles), listing subdues narrative here, building a land and community out of names and connectives, though occasionally narrated speech and activity push though, as when Caleb (14:6-15) and the daughters of Zelophehad (17:3-6) remind Joshua of special treatment promised by Moses, or the tribe of Joseph grumbles at its lot (17:14-18), or surveyors are sent out on behalf of seven reluctant tribes (18:2-10). But we miss something of the book’s special texture if we allow our taste for action or character development to deflect us from this more static, administrative, prose. For out of it arises a powerful sense of the myriad elements that constitute “the people.” “Israel” takes on substance, as does the task at hand; for the challenge to Israel is to translate those lists and allotments into an actual community in actual possession of the Promised Land.  The taking of Jericho and Ai and the other campaigns dramatically recounted in chapters 1-12 sweep us along in a vision of easy success.

 

Chapters 13-21 implicitly suggest that occupation involves much more. They also establish a sense of ambivalence which will not readily be resolved. Instructions for allotting each tribe’s “inheritance,” issued earlier by Moses in the prescriptive, Wilderness period (Num. 34), are now scrupulously fulfilled—perhaps.

 

Our grasp of narrative time tends to slip with this prose.
  • Are we dealing with the ideal of the actual?
  • And within what time frame—with reference to narrated time, the narrator’s time, or the implied reader’s time—might that actuality be located?
  • Or do we slide between prescription and fulfillment?
Chapters 23-24 bring the book to a close with a report of all Israel gathering, programmatic speeches by Joshua and YHWH (related by Joshua), the people’s renewed commitment to the Covenant, and Joshua’s brief dismissal of the people to their inheritance, followed by his death.
—————————————————
Viewed simply,
  • Judges is an account of Israel’s earliest occupation of the Promised Land,
  • in the period before the rise of the monarchy,
  • the period which has become known from the major characters of the book as the Period of the Judges.

It is formally linked with the Book of Joshua

  • not only by that opening phrase, “after the death of Joshua,”
  • but also by its recapitulation of Joshua 24:28-31 (dismissal and death) in Judges 2:6-9 (and cf. 2:21-22 with Joshua 23), following the reiteration of still more Joshua material in Judges 1.

The book finds its continuation

  • in 1 Samuel (according to the Hebrew Bible)
  • or Ruth
  • and then 1 Samuel (according to the ancient Greek versions and the Christian Bible).
Whereas Joshua appears to have a recognizable, if loosely constructed, plot—
  • Israel crosses into the Land
  • and surmounts major obstacles (in the form of fortified cities and indigenous peoples),
  • the Land falls within its grasp
  • and tribal territories are allotted—

Judges coheres less obviously in linear or cause-and-effect terms.

  • It has often been described as a rather randomly assembled anthology of tales,
  • at best an illustration of a cyclical pattern ofexpressive of an editor-compiler’s rigidly determinative theology of reward and punishment.
    • sin,
    • oppression,
    • repentance,
    • and salvation,

But so to describe it is to miss or misread three salient features of the book (to which we shall return later).

  • First, a determinative pattern of response by God is neither explicit in the so-called editorial framework or formula passages (such as 2:11-19) nor inherent in the tales themselves.
  • Second, the tales mesh through shared motifs and themes.
  • Third, there is a discernible tendency for the models of leadership and community developed in the earlier books (Numbers-Joshua) as well as in the opening stories of Judges itself (such as Othniel and Ehud) to become increasingly blurred and distorted as the book continues.
    • As we bear in mind that YHWH intends to test the people’s allegiance by means of the impinging “nations” (chap. 2), and as we recall the fierce injunctions against forsaking YHWH (cf. Joshua 23-24 and Deut. 28-29),
    • we may begin to see that this deterioration creates a tension transcending the constituent tales and so at least a potential plot for the whole book.
    • Will the promise of the Land be revoked and the people cast out?
Judges 1:1-3:6 introduces the whole book.
  • It first recounts what appear to be the final stages of the taking of the Land, thereby partly recapitulating Joshua, though the focus is now upon the inhabitants of the Land who were not dispossessed (see 1:27-36).
    • This focus is then developed in theological terms by—
      • an angel of YHWH,
      • by YHWH himself,
      • and by the narrator:
    • Israel’s coming to terms with the Canaanites–
      • has endangered its relationship with YHWH
      • and will lead to further deterioration,
      • spelled out in summary fashion in 2:11-19, which we may recognize (by the end of the book) as a theological abstract of the whole work.
The next section, 3:7-16:31,
  • recounts the tales of the judges (some are called “saviors”) who judge Israel or deliver the people (some do both) from oppression:
    • Othniel (3:7-11);
    • Ehud (3:12-30);
    • Shamgar (3:31—hardly a tale);
    • Deborah (and Barak) (chaps. 4-5);
    • Gideon (chaps. 6-8) together with the “king,”
    • Abimelech (chap. 9);
    • Tola and Jair (10:1-2, 3-5);
    • Jephthah (10:6-12:7);
    • Izban,
    • Elon,
    • and Abdon (12:8-10, 11-12, 13-15);
    • and Samson (chaps. 13-16).
  • Six extended accounts accounts are interspersed with six brief notices in the pattern 1:2:3 (Shamgar:Tola and Jair:Izban, Elon, and Abdon).
    • This pattern in the minor accounts corresponds to the noticeable lengthening of the major tales, the inverse of what we saw in Joshua. One effect, perhaps, if focal, placing the culminating story of Samson in a special relationship with the story of Jericho and drawing attention to the movement that occurs between the taking of Jericho and the taking of Samson, at the center of which lies the “completion” (in fact, noncompletion) of the taking of the Land (Judges 1) and the theological formulations of Judges 2.
Linking the major episodes is a rhetorical framework (so-called) comprising some or all of six elements (they occur within 2:11-19 and recur within the episodes starting at 3:7, 3:12, 4:1, 5:1, 10:6, and 13:1):
(1) Israel does what is evil in YHWH’s sight;
(2) YHWH gives/sells the people into the hand of oppressors;
(3) Israel cries to YHWH;
(4) YHWH raises up a savior/deliverer;
(5) the deliverer defeats the oppressor;
(6) the Land has rest. In fact this formula is as varied as it is constant, not only because in some cases certain elements are redundant in the particular context, but also because the pattern of responses is itself by no means adhered to rigidly.

 

Thus neither the Gideon nor the Samson story depicts the Land as regaining “rest,” nor, in the Samson story, do the people any longer remember to cry to YHWH, and, furthermore, Samson himself dies in captivity to the oppressor (in contrast to element 5). This framework, therefore, establishes a norm which can then be undermined, offering us strategic interpretive clues both to the associated tales and to the work as a whole.

 

Another set of rhetorical connectives within the central section of Judges derives from a pervasive chronological scheme, while also detectable is a certain spatial coherence.
  • Echoing (though not precisely) the sequence in chapter 1, from south to north, Judah to Dan, are the tribal affiliations of the protagonists in chapters 3-16, from Othniel the Judahite to Samson the Danite.
  • With Samson in chapters 13-16, however, we are not in the north, Dan’s eventual location, but in the middle (west), the allotted territory;
  • that location allows to unfold the subsequent story of Micah and the northward migration of the Danites in chapters 17-18. The disjunction here between list and tale is thematically significant,
    • underlining the failure of Dan in the face of the inhabitants of the Land,
    • a paradigm of Israel’s failure.
Simplest among connecting devices, in classic paratactic style, are,
  • first, the crucial variation of the introductory formula “And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of YHWH” (2:11 [AR]),
    • to read “And [they] again did [or “they continued to do”]
    • what was evil in the sight of YHWH” (3:12[AR]; cf. 4:1, 10:6, 13:1);
  • and, second, the use of the phrase “and after [him]”
    • to introduce and integrate sequentially the “minor” judges (3:31; 10:1, 3; 12:8, 11, 13).

These devices are akin to several deployed in Joshua 1-12:

  • first, as a connector of larger episodes,
    • the narrator uses an introductory formula
    • such as “And it came to pass, when all the kings which were beyond the Jordan … heard” (Joshua 9:1; see also 10:1, 11:1);
  • second, for the listing of brief campaign notices while retaining an action sequence,
    • the narrator uses chain repetition such as “And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon … and smote it … as he had done to Lachish. And Joshua went up from Eglon …unto Hebron … and smote it … as he had done to Eglon” (10:34-37 [Ar]).
Association connectors, such as motifs or wordplay, are numerous. Some of these work to associate adjacent or nearly adjacent episodes; others function over much broader extents.
  • In the first category is–
    • Ehud’s killing of an unsuspecting Eglon, with the unexpected weapon “thrust” (taqa’) into the king’s belly (3:21),
    • paralleling Jael’s killing of an unsuspecting Sisera with the unexpected weapon (a tent peg) “thrust” (taqa’) into the king’s temple (4:21);
    • or the “worthless fellows” (‘anashim reqim) who support Abimelech (9:4),
    • paralleled by Jephthah’s followers in the next story (11:3).
  • Likewise the Nazirite vow,
    • implicit in the angel’s speech to Samson’s mother (13:3-5),
    • conjures recollection of Jephthah’s fateful and fatal vow in the preceding story (11:30-31).
  • In another case,
    • the song (chap. 5) that crowns the prose account of Jael’s exploit (chap. 4;
    • the two are usually treated as discrete sources by biblical critics) brings the prose narrative of Sisera’s death unto focus by wordplay as well as by precise repetition. “He asked for water—milk she gave” (5:25 [AT]) distills the irony of the more prosaic 4:19 (“and he said to her, ‘Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty’; and she opened the skin of milk and gave him some to drink” [AT].
    • In the prose account Jael drives the tent peg into Sisera’s temple (raqah, 4:21, 22);
      • the song picks up the term and plays on the syllable raq and the sound q, especially through the guttural h (hard, as in Scottish “loch”). “She crushed his head [ro’sh], / and shattered and struck through [halaf; cf.halav, “milk”] his temple [raqah]” (5:26 [AT]);
      • to Sisera’s mother the wise women respond reassuringly: “Are they not finding / and dividing [halaq] the spoil? / —a womb [raham], two wombs [rahmatayim], / per head [ro’sh], per hero; / spoil of dyed-stuff for Sisera, / spoil of dyed-stuff, shot-stuff [riqmah], / dyed-stuff, two pieces of shot-stuff [riqmatayim], / for the neck of the spoiler” (5:30 [AT]).
As with the framework passages, motif parallels serve not only a formal cohesive function but also a typical heuristic purpose, in this case inviting comparative evaluation by drawing attention to similarities and contrasts in situations and characters.

 

Similar functions are effected by various long-range connectors,
  • such as the seizure of the fords at the Jordan (Ehud, Gideon, Jephthah)
  • and the associated motif of the quarrel between east Jordan and west Jordan tribes (Gideon, Jephthah).
  • The latter motif also finds prominent expression in Joshua (chap. 22)
  • and in turn associates with a civil war motif in Judges (involving, in addition, the Abimelech story and burgeoning into the account of the war against Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead, in chaps 20-21).
  • At the level of scene or episode, too, we find significant connection:
    • for example, the angel’s visitation to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13 (Samson)
    • strongly recalls the beginning of Gideon’s story in chapter 6
    • (which in turn evokes the paradigm of Moses at the burning bush in Exod. 3:1-12).
Chapters 17-21 have often been viewed as a supplement to Judges with only superficial connection to the main body of the book. To be sure, the chronological scheme and the framework passages cease with the story of Samson; nor is there any further mention of a judge. Yet the term coda might better describe this section which does have strong thematic links with the rest of the book (see the last section of this essay). (At the formal rhetorical level the introductory formula in 17:1 perhaps links with 13:2, the outset of the Samson story.) Other repetitions bind chapters 17-21 internally.

 

Thus the prefatory “In those days there was no king in Israel” (18:1)
  • associates the tale of Micah and the Danites
  • with the succeeding one of the Levite and his concubine (see 19:1) and then serves a double function:
    • as a concluding comment enveloping the larger tale (chaps. 19-21) into which the Levite/concubine story grows and as an invitation to continue reading into the next book.
    • Or we may observe that the young Levite of Bethlehem who journeys to the hill country of Ephraim in the one story (17:7-8) gives place in the other to the Levite sojourning in the hill country of Ephraim, who journeys to Bethlehem (19:1-3).
Thematic Connection: Joshua-Judges 3
Viewed simply,
  • Joshua is an account of the Israelites’ entry into the Promised Land,
  • Judges as account of their initial period of occupation.

As we have already seen, however, such a description allows little glimpse of what enlivens these books, little clue to their singular complexities—and it is in the complexities that we often discover thematic significance.

 

One major source of complication is a question that begins to arise in Joshua and is focused sharply in Judges 1-2, namely, did the Israelites wholly succeed in possessing the Land?
Biblical scholars have been accustomed to discern two disparate views of the occupation:
  • whereas Joshua presents an account of a devastating and successful conquest, all but eliminating the native population,
  • Judges reflects a more gradual process, including a crucial failure to dislodge significant Canaanite elements.

Yet this is an overly neat division, for elements of a story of partial occupation appear in Joshua itself.

Certainly the Joshua narrator seems to assert explicitly YHWH’s total fulfillment of his promises regarding the Land.
  • For example, “And YHWH gave to Israel all the land which he had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and settled in it… Not a word broken of every good word which YHWH had spoken to the house of Israel; all arrived” (21:43-45 [AT]) is echoed by Joshua’s own words near the close of the book (23:14-15).
  • Yet already by the end of chapter 9 we are aware that the Gibeonites remain, protected by an Israelite covenant;
    • from 11:22 we learn that none of the Anakim were left in the land of the people of Israel—except in Gaza, Gath, and Ashod!
    • Likewise the Geshurites and Maacathites “dwelt in the midst of Israel to this day” (13:13 [AT]), as did “the Jebusites with the people of Judah at Jerusalem to this day” (15:63 [AT]),
    • while the Canaanites of Gezer, not driven out, “dwelt in the midst of Ephraim to this day and became forced labor” (16:10 [AT]; see also 17:11-12).
  • At this point we should recall that, according to the prescriptions for implementing the promise (such as Deut. 7:1-2, 20:16-18), possession of the Land means
    • not only dispossession of the inhabitants
    • but also their total removal.
“So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord [had] said to Moses,” we read in 11:23.
Yet in 13:1, as the book shifts into its second phase (chaps. 13-21), YHWH intimates to Joshua that “there remains a great extent of land to possess” [AT], and if we observe both the temporal ambiguities fostered by the allotment accounts and the sporadic itemizing of the remnant nations, we shall be the less surprised to discover by chapter 18 that seven tribes still await even the process of allotment, let alone have taken possession of their inheritance. “How long,” says Joshua to the reluctant tribes, “will you make no effort to enter and take possession of the land, which YHWH, the God of your fathers, has given to you?” (18:3 [AT]).

 

Faced with this range of tempering voices we may find ourselves concluding that the intimations of sweeping victory are perhaps to be taken as implying strict geographic limitations (“he took all that particular part of the land”), are at the very least the language of hyperbole, are even, conceivably, ironic.
Once attuned to the voices of incomplete fulfillment, we are bound to review what may have earliest passed unremarked.
  • The preservation of Rahab and her family is, of course, an infringement of the command to “devote” (“put to the ban,” “utterly destroy”) those given into Israel’s hand (see Deut. 7:2, 20:10-18). No matter that the agreement reached by the spies seems reasonable and reciprocal;The uncompromising execution of the Israelite Achan and his company (chap. 7) for infringing the prohibition against taking booty reinforces the point.
    • it is an illegal covenant according to the rules governing the war of occupation,
    • the law of YHWH,
    • the law just mediated by the voice of Moses the servant of God in Deuteronomy,
    • the law that lies at the heart of God’s (splendidly concentric) exhortation to Joshua at the beginning of his book (1:5-9)
    • to do according to the law which Moses commanded
    • so that he might successfully bring the people to inherit the Land.
  • The sparing of the Canaanite Rahab compromises the law.
  • It is the beginning of the account of how the Canaanite remained in the Land.
  • Likewise the sparing of the Canaanites of Gibeon becomes another episode in the story of Israel’s failure wholly to possess the Land. That agreement, too, contravenes the letter of the law.
At the heart of YHWH’s speech to Joshua at the opening of the book is the law.
At the heart of Joshua’s final speeches at the closing of the book (chaps. 23-24) is—-the issue that above all else links law and Land in the commandment to dispossess the inhabitants completely  (23:6-8; see also 24:14-15, 19-20):
And be very strong [says Joshua] to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses … that you do not go amongst these nations, these remnant ones with you; and you shall not call to mind the names of their gods and you shall not swear by them and you shall not serve them and you shall not bow down to them, but rather to YHWH your God you shall cling, as you have done today.    [AT]

 

The speech resonates with others before it, most strikingly with Deuteronomy 20:17-18:
And you shall truly devote them to destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as YHWH your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done for their gods, and you sin against YHWH your God.   [AT]

 

The issue concerns the essence of the covenant that binds YHWH and people (hence both speeches in chaps. 23-24 issue naturally in the covenant of 24:25).
  • Will Israel forsake YHWH for other gods?
  • The injunction against a remnant expresses a fundamental pessimism on YHWH’s part:On the other hand, the covenant itself is an expression of optimism, as is the promise which gives shape to our story.
    • only a people living in a world sealed off from the world seems to promise much hope of an enduring loyalty;
    • a people rubbing shoulders with other peoples with other gods will inevitably break faith.
  • Of central interest, therefore, is how this optimistic God will confront the realization of his pessimism.
In the gap between the rhetoric of fulfillment and the rhetoric of incompletion we discover a confluence of basic questions.
  • Is the promise of the gift of land to the ancestors truly unconditional?
  • Or does the punishment consequent upon the people’s failure strictly to observe YHWH’s commandments override the promise?
  • Does success depend upon adherence to the law (cf. Joshua 1:8)?
  • If YHWH as covenant God allows modification or compromise of the divinely ordained commandments (cf. Rahab or the Gibeonites or the conscription of remnant Canaanites), will not this latitude threaten the very relationship that the commandments are designed to preserve, namely that YHWH alone is Israel’s God?
  • If the story of Achan models the strict application of covenant justice, what prospect is there that the people, whose propensity for backsliding has been amply narrated in the preceding books, will ever enter the Land to inherit the gift, let alone remain in it?

We are but a narrative stone’s-throw away from the devastating curses that buttress the book of the Law (Deut. 28:15-68; cf. Joshua 23:15-16 and 24:19-20), prominent among which is the threat of forcible removal from the Land.

 

Yet the gift is gratuitous, the law buttressed also with blessings (Deut. 28:1-14).
The task of realizing the promise is immense in human terms, as Joshua 13-21 makes eminently plain, but a matter of merely mundane proportions in divine terms. It is truly a gift, as the narrator and YHWH are at pains to point out:
No person shall be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.     (Joshua 1:15 [AR])
See, I have given unto thine hand Jericho … and the wall of the city shall fall … (6:2; see also 8:1; 10:10-11; 10:29, 32)
And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel.   (10:42; see also 24:11-12)

 

As even Joshua gropes cautiously for the gift (“And Joshua the son of Nun sent two men secretly from Shittim as spies, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho” 2:1 [AR]—how appallingly reminiscent of that earlier, disastrous mission in Num. 13), as Israelites treat with Canaanites, as Achan seeks the security of mammon, and as seven tribes tarry at the boundaries of the Land, we are aware that the gift is still being proffered after a journey through many books filled with much reluctance and much searching for more tangible securities than the elusive presence of YHWH.

 

In other words, a further complicating factor in that confluence of factors is —
YHWH’s already abundantly narrated loyalty, mercy, and propensity for compassion.
In the gap between fulfillment and nonfulfillment we discover also the tension between divine justice and mercy.
YHWH is slow to anger and abundant in loyalty,
forgiving iniquity and transgression;
but he will not hold them innocent,
visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children,
upon the third and upon the fourth generation” (Num.14:18 [AT]; cf. Deut. 5:8-10).

 

The tension in that formulation is also one of the central tensions in the books of Joshua and Judges.
The issue of fulfillment and nonfulfillment is focused sharply in Judges 1-2, where the equilibrium shifts decisively toward the latter despite the ostensible premise upon which the story continues to be built, namely that the Land has indeed been occupied, the gift now received.

 

Located at the center of the two books, these chapters, together with Joshua 23-24, take on a somewhat programmatic quality, influencing our reading both forward and backward.

 

To readers expecting neat temporal progression, this prose is puzzling; and indeed, generations of source-critics have ingeniously unscrambled it, removing hypothetical editorial accretions and quite missing any sense of the rhetoric. There is no single way to read this text, but one that helps to expose its coherence (and to account for what otherwise may appear to be some abrupt temporal shifts) takes Joshua 23 and 24 as a starting point and observes some broad measure of correspondence between those chapters and Judges 1:22-36 and 2:1-10, respectively. Within this envelope lies a roughly concentrically shaped account of Judah (and Benjamin) campaigning. Thus the arrangement as a whole appears broadly concentric.
A         YHWH will dispossess the remaining nations; but if Israel should join with them, YHWH will leave them to be a snare leading to the destruction  of Israel from off the Land (Joshua 23).
B         YHWH (via Joshua) recounts Israel’s story from Abraham; Joshua presses the people to choose between God of the gods; the people choose YHWH; a covenant is sworn (24:1-27).
C         Joshua sends the people to their inheritance; he dies and is buried; summary: Israel served YHWH all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua (24:28-31).
D         The bones of Joseph are brought up from Egypt and buried; Eleazar dies and is buried (24:32-33).
E         Judah campaigns (with Simeon) against the Canaanites: Bezek and Adoni-Bezek; Jerusalem; Hebron; Debir—Caleb’s gift (Judges 1:1-8).
F          The descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, settle with Judah in the Wilderness of Judah (1:16).
E’         Judah campaigns (with Simeon) against Zephath, Gaza, etc.;Hebron is given to Caleb; Benjamin does not drive the Jebusites fromJerusalem (1:17-21).
A’         The other tribes fail to dispossess and drive out various groups of inhabitants who are listed (1:22-36).
B’         The angel of YHWH recites the story from Egypt and reproaches the people for having broken the command to make no covenant with the inhabitants; therefore, their gods will become a snare to Israel. The people weep and sacrifice to YHWH (2:1-5).
C’    (1) Joshua [had] sent the people away to take possession of their inheritance;
(2) they [had] served YHWH all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived him;
(3) and Joshua [had] died and been buried (2:6-9).
D’         “And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, who did not know the Lord or the work which he had done for Israel” (2:10 [AR]; cf. “And Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation … And there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph”; Exod. 1:6-8 [AR]).

 

Among various points of exegetical potential exposed by this ordering of the text are,
  • first, the unmistakable decline from the possibility of optimism in and B, to the ominous foreclosing of options, whether by Israel or by YHWH, in A’ and B’;
  • and, second, the establishment of a generational scheme—2:10 parallels, again ominously, the prelude to the story of enslavement in Egypt.

The scheme signals a new story within the greater story. It also has the ambiguous effect of both confirming the nonfulfillment (or partial fulfillment) thread from the Book of Joshua and elevating the Joshua generation to model status.

Whatever the faults of that generation, they turn out to be relative,
bearing no comparison to the sins of the new one;
and this is but the beginning of a downward spiral signaled by the narrator’s unhesitating claim
that each successive generation “behaved worse than their fathers” (2:19 [AT]).

 

Reading 1:27-35 (failure to dispossess) and 2:1-10 (the angel’s accusation of covenant-breaking and his announcement that the nations would become a snare) in terms of the speeches and covenant-making of Joshua 23 and 24, as the concentricity urges us to do, makes evident what is otherwise not explicit in the Judges text, namely the confidently predicted outcome of such behavior on Israel’s part—that Israel will perish from off the Land (23:12-13, 15-16; 24:20).

 

At this point the end of the greater story (in 2 Kings 25) is brought directly into focus for the narrator’s contemporary audience, not because the audience necessarily knows 2 Kings 25, but because it is almost certainly in exile, driven from the Land.

 

In the event, Israelite and Canaanite share the same fate.
Neither deserves the Land.
It is a gift.
That is a sobering perception for the reader who would find satisfaction in a simple story of good against evil (the chosen against the rejected) or find contemporary justification for human action in the model of ruthless dispossession. It perhaps explains why this may be a story for both possessor and dispossessed.

 

The pattern of decline which has already been intimated as the pattern of the new generation is spelled out in 2:11-3:6. Verses 11-13 confirm the fact of apostasy, verses 14-19 tell the spiraling tale which is to be the story of the new book. Repeating verse 14 (“And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel”) at verse 20, the narrator then explains
  • YHWH’s decision to refrain from further aid to Israel
    • in driving out the remnant nations as a decision
    • to “test” Israel,
  • a somewhat ambiguous notion that leaves open
    • whether this is punishment
    • or opportunity for a renewed relationship,
    • or indeed both.

Repeating verse 14 yet again at 3:8, the narrator draws us back once more to the beginning of the spiral and into the first of the stories in the main body of the book, the story of Othniel.

 

Thematic Connection: Judges 3-21
Othniel story is nothing if not skeletal, with just a hint of flesh on the bones—some names, a lineage, a time span.
The people of Israel do what is evil in the sight of YHWH,
forgetting God and serving other gods;
YHWH is angry and sells them into the hand of Chushan-rishathaim (= Chushan-Double-Wickedness?), king of Mesopotamia (“Aram of the Two Rivers,” that is, northern Mesopotamia / eastern Syria);
the people serve that king eight years;
they cry (za’ag, “appeal for help”) to YHWH, who raises up a deliverer, Othniel;
he (YHWH or Othniel—the syntax is, perhaps deliberately, ambiguous; so, too, at 2:18, though not at 2:16) delivers them
YHWH’s spirit comes upon Othniel,
he “judges” them (there are obvious connotations of “rule” in this use of the term) and goes out to war;
YHWH gives the king into his hand so that Othniel prevails over him;
whereupon the land has rest for forty years before Othniel dies (3:7-11).

 

As already remarked, the story buds naturally from the antecedent narrative through verses 7-8, which imitate 2:13-14 and 2:20 (Israel’s evil and YHWH’s anger). The characteristic language of the spiral described in chapter 2—“raise up,” “judge,” “deliver” (or “save”)—is immediately recognizable. Othniel we have met before.

 

The story is a model one not only in the sense that it gives substance or particularity to the abstractions of the chapter 2 summary but also in the sense that it is an ideal paradigm.

 

Othniel is Caleb’s son, a lineage hard to surpass at this point in the story (cf. Num. 14:21-24, 30; Joshua 14:6-15; Judges 1:20). YHWH’s spirit initiates the action, says the narrator, and it is YHWH who gives the enemy king into his hand, inviting favorable comparison with YHWH’s own earlier paradigms of war against the nations in Deuteronomy and Joshua.

 

Above all, we notice that the people, having lapsed into the service of other gods, do belatedly cry for help to YHWH, thereby signaling that they recognize the impotence of their new gods and their dependence upon the sovereign power of YHWH.
Perhaps one reason why the Othniel episode succeeds as a model is that neither Othniel nor the people are allowed any life in it. Flesh out a character or two and there is every probability of their slipping the knots of perfection, especially if their narrator-creator is partial to a story about two people, a god, and a garden.

 

As these tales in Judges expand, so does the picture of imperfect and vulnerable humanity, the imperfections pertaining to judge as well as to people. Moreover, beyond the end of the tale and the book and the larger story of which it is a part stands its contemporary audience, most likely Judean, in Mesopotamia, and highly conscious of that vulnerability. For them the model story of Judah and its Mesopotamian oppressor must have conveyed an especially poignant irony.

 

A sensitivity to variations upon, and development of, the Othniel model can help us to chart our way through the contours of the book. Thus, for example, the absence of that cry for help in the chapter 2 summary becomes immediately apparent in retrospect and the discrepancy proves proleptic. Despite recurrence in the framework to four of the succeeding stories (3:15, 4:3, 6:6-7, 10:10), the cry is significantly absent before the climactic Samson story (the last of the framework stories), where the people not only fail to address their God out of oppression but are even unable to recognize the “judge” upon whom the divine spirit has fallen. The men of Judah (Othniel’s tribe!) give him into the hands of the Philistine oppressors with the exasperated comment (the irony bypasses the characters and is for the reader alone to enjoy) “Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us?” (15:11).

 

Here we are but one remove from the men of Israel who respond to victory over the Midianites by inviting Gideon to “rule over us, not only you but your son and grandson also [that is, rule as a king]; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian” (8:22 [AT]). The reader knows otherwise: it is in fact YHWH who has delivered Israel, by the hand of Gideon (see 7:7, 7:9, or 7:14, where even a Midianite knows this to be so).

 

The consequence of YHWH’s precautions “lest Israel elevate themselves over me, saying ‘My own hand has delivered me” (7:2 [AT]—his motivation for reducing the numbers of Gideon’s troops) has been to deflect the adulation to Gideon! And even Gideon’s reply to the men, “I shall not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; YHWH will rule over you” (8:23 [AT]), while formally insisting one the proprieties, is delightfully reticent on the subject of deliverance. (Also ambiguous, at least momentarily, is whether the reply constitutes outright refusal or conditional acceptance on Gideon’s part, meaning something like “Very well, I accept, but remember that it is not I or my son but YHWH who will truly be ruler”).

 

The narrator teases us further. Gideon’s next action is to behave like a king (“ ‘give me, each of you, the earrings from your spoil’ … and the weight of the golden earrings that he demanded was seventeen hundred shekels of gold,” 8:24-26 [AT]), bringing strongly to mind Moses’ injunction that a king shall not “greatly amass for [AR] himself silver and gold” (Deut. 17:17). In turn we confront a potential apostate, an Aaron at Sinai making a golden calf forged from the gold earrings of his people (Exod. 32). “And Gideon made it into an ephod and put it in his city, in Ophrah [where, ironically, stands Gideon’s altar built to YHWH in the opening phase of the story,6:24]; and all Israel prostituted itself after it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his family” (8:27 [AT]).
“My son will not rule over you,” says Gideon; but the story will recount that very circumstance in the next chapter, the bloody tale of the reign of Abi-melech (= “My Father Is King”!), son of (Gideon =) Jerubbaal (= “Let Baal Contend”; see 8:33).

 

That it is YHWH who delivers,
YHWH who rules,
YHWH who is king inIsrael,
—–is no longer a datum of consequence to the people who now populate the book.
“In those days there was no king in Israel,” observes the narrator in the refrain that punctuates the closing tales (18:1, 19:1), thereby prolonging the irony conjured by Samson’s Judean captors. A similar irony closes the book, too: “In those days there was no king in Israel: people did what was right in their own eyes” (21:25 [AR]). We recall the formula prefacing the model tale, Othniel’s, as well as subsequent tales, but palpably absent from chapters 17-21: “And the people of Israel did what was evil in YHWH’s eyes” (3:7 [AT]; see also 2:11).

 

The evaluative standard is no longer divine, but human and individual.

 

We are a long way from the nation of YHWH that marched in procession past the Ark of the Covenant into the Promised Land.
We are a long way from the decrees of YHWH that doomed Jericho and put Achan to death.
It was YHWH who sold the people into the hand (power) of the king of Mesopotamia, and YHWH who gave the king of Mesopotamia into the hand of Othniel. The issue of sovereignty is, at least in part, a question of power, and the motif of hand/power can be traced throughout the book. It forms, for example, one of the central motifs in the story of Ehud and Eglon (3:12-30), immediately following the Othniel paradigm. Ehud and Benjaminite (that is, the “son of the right hand,” or “right-handed”) is a “man bound, restricted as to his right hand,” that is, left-handed! The people choose to send “by his hand” tribute (minhah, a “present” or “gift,” or indeed an “offering”) to Eglon, king of Moab, whom they have been serving for eighteen years. But Ehud has a short sword secretly strapped under his clothes to his right thigh; reaching for it with his left hand—and so unsuspected of foul play—he thrusts it into Eglon’s belly. Unknowingly the people have sent Eglon, by Ehud’s hand, a “gift” indeed (perhaps a pun is intended—the minhah, “tribute,” may point toward menuhah, “rest” or “resting-place”). Escaping, Ehud summons the people of Israel to follow him, “for YHWH has given your enemies, Moab, into your hand” (v. 28 [AT]).

 

This way of expressing what has transpired invites a telling comparison with that later exchange between Gideon and the men of Israel in 8:22-23. Ehud the deliverer moves our focus (and that of the people of Israel) away from himself to YHWH the deliverer and to the people, who are the true beneficiaries of YHWH’s gift of power.

 

At the heart of Ehud’s deliverance lies the power of words—the narrator’s to shape our perceptions, Ehud’s to ensnare the fat calf (Eglon connotes ‘egel, “calf”). The rare word bari’ (v. 17), meaning “fat,” has occurred before, far back in the larger story but then memorably, six times within Genesis 41, to describe the seven fat cows and ears of corn doomed to be devoured by the seven lean ones (see also 1 Kings 4:23, Ezek. 34:3, Hab. 1:16, Zech 11:16). Eglon and bari are a pregnant combination,” “repent”!) from The Images (or Idols, Pesilim; KJV: “quarries”) near Gilgal. “I have a secret davar for you, king,” he says (3:19 [AT]); and Eglon, expecting perhaps an oracle (davar, “word”) from the gods nearGilgal, commands “Silence!” Ehud’s restatement confirms expectation: “I have a divine word, [devar-‘elohim] for you” (v. 20 [AT]). But the reader reads differently: the “divine word” (or “word of the gods”) is rather the “word of God [YHWH],” or then again, as Ehud draws his sword, it becomes a “thing” (davar) of God. Like the sword which Ehud made for himself, his words are two-edged (“and [the sword] had two mouths,” v.16 [AT]. Thus against expectation is Eglon secured by a “word” that does indeed, for him, spell silence. And so Ehud “passes beyond The Idols” (v. 26 [AT]) and YHWH delivers Israel.

 

The story of Deborah and Barak begins with the relapse of Israel and their being sold by YHWH into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan. Again we are told that the people cried to YWHW for help, “for [Jabin] had nine hundred chariots of iron and had oppressed the people of Israel with violence for twenty years” (4:3 [AT]).

 

A jaundiced reader might wonder at the length of time elapsed before the renewed interest in YHWH and also at the motivation of this sudden interest. It arises out of the oppression, it does not seem to be interest in YHWH for YHWH’s own sake or in recognition of any covenant obligation on the people’s part.

 

The mention of the chariots of iron, moreover, recalls Joshua’s words regarding this same valley of Jezreel: “you shall dispossess the Canaanites, even though they have chariots of iron, even though they are strong” (Joshua 17:18 [AT]). Behind Joshua’s words lie YHWH’s words at the very beginning of his book: “Be strong and bold; for you shall cause this people to inherit the land … [Take care] to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you” (1:6-7 [AT]).

 

The beginning of chapter 4 (vv. 1-3) conveys a sense of the gap between those words of Moses and these people, who, oppressed once more, cry once more to the god of their convenience. The words of YHWH, Moses, and Joshua are but dimly remembered, if at all. The covenant words of Shechem (Joshua 24) are long since broken. It will not be the people who witness against themselves as they swore then (vv. 22-23), but YHWH’s prophet who will first remind them of their disobedience (Judges 6:7-10).

 

Among the most devastating words of the book are Jephthah’s—not his bargaining with the elders to secure headship over the people of Gilead(11:5-11), nor his elaborate exercise in diplomatic rhetoric (vv. 12-27) which ends with the narrator’s laconic observation that “the king of the Ammonites did not listen to Jephthah’s words” (v. 28 [AT]), but the vow uttered to YHWH as he crosses over to the Ammonites, with the spirit of YHWH upon him, to sacrifice whomever or whatever comes forth form the doors of his house to meet him, if YHWH will but grant him the victory.

 

The vow encapsulates one of the great themes of the book (and of the rest of the history), namely the tension between human craving for security and the insecurity risked by allegiance and obedience to an imageless and unfathomable divinity. The larger story holds out blueprints of security
  • a nation (and a system of tribal affiliation),
  • a land,
  • institutions of leadership (judge, king, priest, prophet, and patriarchy)
  • or cult (ark, ephod, and temple)

—only to undermine and fracture them by recounting their fragility, corruption, or irrelevance.

Even the law and commandments are subject to critical review, as the forbearance and compassion of YHWH erode their claim to absoluteness.

 

Here in the Jephthah’s story it is perhaps the insecurity of the rejected “son of Gilead” (see 11:1-3) that goads him to play hostage to fortune in order to secure the victory and headship over the rejecters. (And there is a certain intriguing parallel between the rejection and recall of YHWH in 10:6-16 and of Jephthah in 10:17-11:11).

 

To secure the victory means to secure YHWH. But the compositional scheme exposes the superfluity of the vow by isolating it through ring composition (“he crossed over to the Ammonites,” v. 29 [AT], resumed in v. 32—is there irony here, that the vow should be framed by such potential ambiguity?). The sequence of “passing/crossing on/over” verbs (‘abar) which bypasses the vow in verse 29 is prefaced by the announcement that YHWH’s spirit came upon Jephthah and concludes (v. 32) with YHWH’s gift of the enemy into his hand. That is to say, the movement toward victory has already begun.

 

The vow, however, starts a new plot line; and, line Ehud’s words, those of Jephthah turn out to be two-edged as his daughter comes out (like Miriam at the Red Sea, Exod. 15:20) to meet him—his only daughter, his only child (v. 34; cf. Isaac in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16). Having risked all for the victory, he is unwilling to risk its undoing by offending YHWH through reneging on the vow; and from Jephthah’s perspective the vow-victory sequence has to be captivating.
  • He is a prisoner of his words (“I have opened my mouth to YHWH, and I am unable to return [repent?],” v. 35 [AT]),
  • as he is a prisoner of his understanding of the immutability of both the vow (see Num. 30:1-2) and YHWH.
  • (Is YHWH’s word, too, thus immutable?) Whereas Ehud could return (repent) from the idols with a death-dealing but liberating word, Jephthah is unable to return (repent) from the death-dealing and imprisoning word-idol of his own creation.
  • In consequence,
    • his daughter bears his unjust rebuke (v. 35),
    • speaks what he needs to hear (v. 36),
    • and, receiving no paternal dispensation (see Num. 30:3-5),
    • pays the terrible price of his bargain (for her, no hand from heaven stays the torch)—
    • and wrenches the emotional center of the whole story from Jephthah to herself.
Juxtaposed with the story of the excess word is the farcical account of the neglected word (12:1-6), in which the men of Ephraim rebuke Jephthah for failing to call them and threaten to burn his house over him (as within a few chapters Samson’s “companions” will threaten to burn the Timanite and his daughter, 14:15; cf. 15:6), and forty-two thousand Ephraimites die at the hand of fellow Israelites, slaughtered by a word: “Shibboleth” (12:5-6).

 

In the Samson story many of the book’s thematic interests coalesce. YHWH’s sovereignty is truly unfettered here. Exposed, too, is the fragility of knowledge, so susceptible to the vagaries and prejudices of perception and the nuances of language.

 

Manoah’s nameless wife, content to recognize the presence of God’s messenger and not even ask his name (13:6), knows far more (and is told far more) than her husband, whose anxious inquiry seeks to secure the future.

 

Key speeches reflect the play and power of words, which have a way of shaping action, whether they be–
  • prescriptive words,
  • riddling words,
  • wheedling words,
  • ingratiating words,
  • or prayerful words.

Conjured by the speech of the visiting angel (13:3-5; see Num. 6:1-20), the Nazirite vow permeates the narrative, and through it the author manipulates both character and reader, exposing and fracturing expectations and norms.

 

Samson, urged on by the spirit of YHWH, battles our expectation of what it is to be dedicated to / by God.

 

The pattern of his life is indeed separation (nazir, “separated,” “dedicated”), but not as we might have assumed.

 

Severed from all enduring relationships, he dies, YHWH’s agent, blind and alone amidst a mocking crowd.

 

We read that Samson “shall begin [yahel] to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines” (13:5; the use of yahel, from the root halal, “begin,” plays appropriately upon the other meaning of the root, “pollute,” “profane”).

 

We look for a “judge”—for an Othniel or Gideon waging a heroic war of independence—and find instead a singular figure destroying, as he pulls down upon the Philistines the temple of Dagon, a god and a theological convention. “Our god has given into our hand Samson our enemy” [AR], they reiterate in 16:23-24. But the reader knows (and an Exilic reader might ponder) that it is not the captor’s but the captive’s god who has given captivity, and that in his death the captive makes known the impotence of Dagon and the power of YHWH.

 

If the Israel of the story recognizes this manifestation of YHWH, we are not told so. The silence is ominous.
On the contrary, the only person to call upon YHWH here—or anywhere—in the story is Samson.
Absent from the exposition in 13:1 is the expected cry by the people for help; subjection, moreover, is no longer “oppression” but a modus vivendi, which quietly mocks Joshua’s tale of the possessing of the Land.
  • So what of the ending of the tale?
  • Does that family burial party (16:31) look upon the temple rubble and reflect upon the author of Dagon’s discomfiture?
  • Is the institution of judgeship then a failure?
  • Has the spiral of decline been broken only to become plummeting descent?
  • Where in all this, for the Israel of the story, lie the beginning of Israel’s deliverance?
The coda (chaps. 17-21) is bleak.
Chapters 17-18 present a parody of the self-made cult. In the Levite, the Ephraimite Micah finds a security. “Now I know that the Lord will do me good, because I have a Levite as priest,” he exclaims with unconscious irony (17:13 [AR]). In the hijacked porta-shrine with its built-in oracle the marauding Danites find security. And at the prospect of a vastly swelled congregation the priest is elated: “And the priest’s heart felt good [AR]; and the took the ephod,” the narrator adds sardonically, “and the teraphim, and the graven image [pesel, ‘image’ or ‘idol,’ recalling the Ehud story, 3:19, 26], and went in the midst of the people” (18:20).

 

The story of the Levite’s concubine (chaps. 19-21) echoes that of Jephthah’s daughter, for she, too, falls victim to idolatrous words. An extended contest in the exercise of offering and receiving hospitality (together with prejudice against the Canaanite Jebusites) leads to the travelers’ late arrival in Gibeah; in turn, the words of hospitality offered by the sojourning Ephraimite lead to the sacrifice of the concubine, when Israelite Gibeah turns out to be the new Sodom. The words and security of hospitality are absolute—if, that is, one is male.  This society is already divided and one part oppressed, without a foreign oppressor and even before the concubine is abused and divided and used as the excuse for the ensuing orgy of civil war and rape.

 

YHWH, consulted only when the vital decisions have been made, plays out with ironic detachment his role as a god of convenience. “Who shall go up first for us to fight against the Benjaminites?” ask the people. “Judah shall go up first,” replies YHWH (20:18 [AT]).
We have come full circle. We are back at the opening of the book (1:1-2),
except that now Israel battles Israel,
and, trapped like Jephthah by rash words,
Israelite men seize Israelite women (chap. 21; cf. 3:6).
The framework passages cease with the opening of the Samson story (cf. 13:1). With chapters 17-21 alien oppression is gone, alien subjection is gone, even the Baals and the Ashtaroth are gone. No more does the narrator need to deploy that formula to remind us that “the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of YHWH.”

 

For these are but stories of Israel “enjoying” the Land, stories growing out of everyday life in the Land—a little family theft, a wandering Levite seeking somewhere to stay, a domestic quarrel, and a matter of hospitality. Here, actualized in devastating detail, is the community whose mundane actuality we glimpsed in the ordering and allotting of Joshua 13-22.

 

The narrator’s earlier refrain is now unnecessary, for these stories are the formula transformed.

Additional Notes to Leviticus/Wayyiqrah – 2 – Prohibited Marriages

[This is from Pentateuch & Haftarahs.]
TABLE OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES
In Force Among Jews To-Day
 
A man may not marry:—A woman may not marry:—
(a) His mother, grandmother, and ascendants; the mother of his grandfather; his stepmother, the wife of his paternal grandfather, and of his ascendants; and the wife of his maternal grandfather.(a) Her father, grandfather, and ascendants; her stepfather; and the husband of her grandmother, and of her ascendants.
(b) His daughter, grand-daughter, great-grand-daughter and her descendants; his daughter-in-law; the wife of his son’s son, and descendants; and the wife of his daughter’s son.(b) Her son, grandson, great-grandson; her-son-in-law, and the husband of her grand-daughter and descendants.
(c) His wife’s mother or grandmother; the mother of his father-in-law and ascendants.(c) Her husband’s father, or grandfather, and the father of her father-in-law—and descendants; and the father of her mother-in-law.
(d) His wife’s daughter or her grand-daughter, and descendants(d) Her husband’s son or grandson, and descendants.
(e) His sister, half-sister, his full- or half- brother’s wife (divorced or widow; see, however, on Deut. XXV, 5, 9); and the full- or half-sister of his divorced wife in her lifetime.(e) Her brother; half-brother; her full- or half-sister’s divorced husband in her sister’s lifetime; and her husband’s brother and her nephew.
(f) His aunt, and uncle’s wife (divorced or widow), whether the uncle be the full- or half-brother of his father or mother 
(g) A married woman, unless Get has been given; and his divorced wife after her remarriage (her second husband having died or divorced her).(g) A married man, unless Get has been given; and her divorced husband after the death or divorce of her second husband.
(h) Anyone who is not a member of the Jewish Faith; the issue of an incestuous union (mamzereth); the married woman guilty of adultery with him; and the widow whose husband died childless, until Chalitzah has been performed. AKohen may not marry a divorced woman, a Chalitzah widow, or a proselyte.(h) Anyone who is not a member if the Jewish Faith; the issue of an incestuous union (mamzer); and the man guilty of adultery with her as a married woman.
[A man may thus marry:—[A woman may thus marry:—
(a) His stepsister, his stepfather’s wife (divorced or widow), his niece; and his full- or half-brother’s or sister’s daughter-in-law.(a) Her stepbrother; and her stepmother’s former husband.
(b) His cousin; his stepson’s wife (divorced or widow); and his deceased wife’s sister.](b) Her cousin; and her deceased sister’s husband, whether of a full- or half-sister.
 (c) Her uncle.]

Additional Notes to Leviticus/Wayyiqrah: 4 – The 'golden rule' is of Jewish origin, surprised?

D. THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGBOUR AS THYSELF
Leviticus XIX, 18
The ‘Golden Rule’ in Judaism.
The world at large is unaware of the fact that this comprehensive maxim of morality –the golden rule of human conduct—was first taught by Judaism.

 

No less a thinker than John Stuart Mill expressed his surprise that it came from the Pentateuch.
Not only is it Jewish in origin, but, long before the rise of Christianity, Israel’s religious teachers quoted Leviticus XIX, 18, either verbally or in paraphrase, as expressing the essence of the moral life. Thus, Ben Sira says, ‘Honour thy neighbour as thyself.’

 

In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs we read:
‘A man should not do to his neighbour what a man does not desire for himself.’

 

Tobit admonishes his son in the words, ‘What is displeasing to thyself, that do not unto any other.’
Philo and Josephus have sayings similar to the above.

 

As to the Rabbis, there is the well-known story of Hillel and the heathen scoffer who asked Hillel to condense for him the whole Law in briefest possible form. Hillel’s answer is, ‘Whatever is hateful unto thee, do it not unto thy fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is explanation.’

 

Targum Jonathan adds to its translation of Lev. XIX, 18 a paraphrase in words almost identical with those of Hillel.

 

In the generation after the Destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Akiba declares ‘“Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself” is a fundamental rule in the Torah,’

 

His contemporary Ben Azzai agrees that this law of love is such a fundamental rule, provided it is read in conjunction with Gen. V, 1 (‘This is the book of the generations of man. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him’);
  • for this latter verse teaches reverence for the Divine image in man,
  • and proclaims the vital truth of the unity of mankind,
  • and the consequent doctrine of the brotherhood of man.
  • All men are created in the Divine image, says Ben Azzai; and, therefore, all are our fellow-men and entitled to human love.
And the command of Lev. XIX, 18 applies to—
  • classes
  • and nations
  • as well as to individuals.

The Prophets in their day, on the one hand, arraigned the rich for their oppression of the poor; and, on the other hand, pilloried the nations that were guilty of inhumanity and breach of faith towards one another. Their sublime conception of international morality has found wonderful expression in the words of Judah the Pious, a medieval Jewish mystic, who said: ‘On the Judgment Day, the Holy One, blessed be He, will call the nations to account for every violation of the command “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” of which they have been guilty in their dealings with one another.’

 

Modernist Depreciation of Lev. XIX18, 34.
Though the Founder of Christianity quotes ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ as the old Biblical command of recognized central importance, many Christian theologians maintain that the Heb. Word for ‘neighbour’ (rea) in this verse refers only to the fellow-Israelite. Its morality therefore is only tribal.

 

But the translation of the Heb. Word rea by ‘fellow-Israelite’ is incorrect. One need not be a Hebrew scholar to convince oneself of the fact that rea means neighbour of whatever race or creed.
Thus in Exodus XI, 2—‘Let them ask every man of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, etc.’—the Heb. Word for neighbour cannot possibly mean ‘fellow-Israelite’, but distinctly refers to the Egyptians.

 

As in all the moral precepts of Scripture, the word neighbour in Lev. XIX, 18, is equivalent to ‘fellow-man’, and it includes in its range every human being by virtue of his humanity.

 

In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, the command of love of neighbour is in v. 34 of this same nineteenth chapter of Leviticus extended to include the homeless alien.
‘The stranger (ger) that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers (gerim) in the land of Egypt.’

 

But even this marvelous law, that is absolutely without parallel in any ancient or modern code of civil law, is cavilled at by modernist theologians and decried as ‘narrow’. The Heb. word ger, they hold, denotes only an alien who had become a fellow-worshipper of the God of Israel. This is contrary to fact. The Israelites in Egypt are in this very verse spoken of as gerim: but they did not as a body adopt the worship of Isis or Apis; they were hated, suspected and enslaved ‘strangers’.

 

It is evident, therefore, that Lev. XIX, 34 likewise refers to the friendless and homeless foreigner. He was throughout antiquity the victim of injustice and oppression, as were the Israelites in Egypt; in Israel alone he was not obliged to struggle for recognition as a human being. (See further on love of alien and of enemy, pp. 313 and 316.)

 

The ‘Negative’ Golden Rule. 
There is one other argument that is resorted to in order to prove that the true Golden Rule was first promulgated by Christianity. The greatest stress is laid on the fact that both Tobit and Hillel paraphrase Lev. XIX, 18 in a negative way—‘Whatever is hateful unto thee, do it not unto thy fellow.’

 

This is contrasted, and unfavourably so, with the positive paraphrase in the New Testament, ‘All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye unto them.’ It is claimed that the former is only negative morality; and that in its positive restatement alone, as formulated in the Gospels, is the Rule a great imperative of moral enthusiasm.

 

This argument is now seen to be illusory. ‘The delicate difference which has been thought to exist between the negative and positive form is due to modern reflection on the subject, and was quite unapparent to the men of antiquity’ (G. Kittel).

 

In the oldest Christian literature the two forms are recorded indiscriminately; and the negative Golden Rule occurs in the Western texts of Acts XV, 20, Romans XIII, 10, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and the Apostolical Constitutions. And positive forms of the Rule have had a place in Judaism. Thus Hillel says, ‘Love thy fellow-creatures’; and Eleazar ben Arach, ‘Let the honour of thy neighbour be as dear to thee as thine own.’ But the mere fact that Lev. XIX, 18 is positive, itself renders all talk of a negative Jewish morality in connection with the Golden Rule fatuous.

 

It is time that the attempt to rob Judaism of its title to having given the Golden Rule to humanity, as well as the dispute as to the superiority of the positive over the negative form, came to an end.
As thyself. ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’
Regard for self has its legitimate place in the life of man. Unlimited self-surrender is impossible; and a sound morality takes account of our own interests equally with those of others. In the luminous words of Hillel: ‘If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I?’

 

The Sifra, the oldest Rabbinic commentary on Leviticus, records the following: ‘Two men are in the desert with a little water in possession of one of them. If the one drinks it, he will reach civilization; but if the two of them share it, both will die. Ben Petura said, Let the two of them drink, though both will die.

 

Rabbi Akiba held that, in such a case, your own life has precedence over the life of your fellow-man.’ Rabbi Akiba could not agree that two should perish where death demands but one as its toll. And, indeed, if the Torah had meant that a man must love his neighbour to the extent of sacrificing his life for him in all circumstances, it would have said: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour more than thyself.’

 

There are those, both in ancient and in modern times, who do not agree with Rabbi Akiba, and who deem the view of Ben Petura the more altruistic, the more heroic. Such would have preferred that the words as thyself had not occurred in the Golden Rule. Others again preach the annihilation of self, or at any rate its total submergence, as the basic principle of human conduct.

 

New formulations of the whole duty of man have in consequence been proposed by various thinkers. We need examine but one of these formulations—Live for others. Were such a rule seriously translated into practice, it would lead to absurdity. For Live for others necessarily entails that others live for you. You are to attend to everybody else’s concerns, and everybody else is to attend to your concerns—except yourself. A moment’s examination of this or any other proposed substitute for ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself only brings out the more clearly the fundamental sanity of Judaism.

Additional Notes to Leviticus/Wayyiqrah – 1

[This is from:  Pentateuch & Haftarahs, reformatting and highlights added. Those who are clueless about certain ‘research’ conclusions that have been passed off as ‘reliable’ and ‘true’, debunking the historicity and authenticity of the books composing the Torah will find these “additional notes” surprising.  Those who are familiar with a hypothesis claiming that these first five books could be attributed to later authors or different authors, designating ‘P’ for ‘Pristley’, ‘E’ for ‘Elohist’, ‘Y’ or ‘J’ for Yahwist, etc. —- will find these notes illuminating, for the research done here debunks that hypothesis as well as other similar theories.–Admin1. ]

 

A. THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS
Its Antiquity and Mosaic Authorship
Both the antiquity and the Mosaic authorship of the Book of Leviticus are denied by Bible Critics.
  • They declare Leviticus to be part of that section of the Pentateuch which they call the ‘Priestly code’ and usually designate by the letter P.
  • This ‘Priestly code,’ or P, is supposed to include, besides Leviticus, some portions of Genesis and Exodus (especially the chapters on the Tabernacle) and twenty-eight chapters of Numbers.
  • They maintain that while some portions of P may be earlier than others, they were all edited, or written, by Ezra and his School and made an integral part of the Law of Moses in the year 444 before the Christian era, or very shortly thereafter.
It must be clearly understood that this idea of a ‘Priestly code’ and of its late origin is nothing more than pure hypothesis, and there is not a shred of evidence to show that it ever constituted a separate work.
In fact, the whole Documentary theory as propounded by Julius Wellhausen and his followers—i.e. that the Pentateuch consists of separate ‘documents’ of different date and authorship—rests on unproved assumptions.

 

It is easy to make any theory look plausible, if the facts are selected or trimmed judiciously; and Bible Critics are most judicious both in selecting the facts and in trimming them to suit their purpose. When the facts are against their theory, the facts are altered or pronounced to be a later gloss in the passage in which they occur, or the Critics declare the whole passage to be sheer forgery. Irreconcilable differences between the ‘documents’ are created, leading to a complete reversal of Israel’s story. And the principal support for such a topsy-turvy presentation of Bible history and religion is the alleged existence of these irreconcilable differences between the ‘documents’. It is all reasoning in a vicious circle.
  • Outstanding scholars, like Prof. Sayce, have from the first pronounced the Documentary theory of the Pentateuch to be a ‘baseless fabric of subjective imagination’.
  • Others have come to share his view, realizing more and more the insuperable objections to the theory of the late origin of the Levitical legislation.
  • The whole Critical theory is to-day being questioned on fundamental issue.
  • Nevertheless, the popularizers of theological literature ignore altogether the existence of any other opinion than that of the Critics, and they continue to write as if the lateness of Leviticus were indeed one of the ‘finalities of scholarship’.
  • That nothing could be further from the truth will be plain to any student who will take the trouble to consult the following books:—
    • J. Robertson, The Early Religion of Israel (William Blackwood)—the first critical investigation of the Wellhausen hypothesis in English;
    • James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament (James Nisbet)—gives a comprehensive survey of the weaknesses of the Critical position;
    • W. L. Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice (Eyre and Spottiswoode)—demolishes the foundation pillars of Wellhausen’s structure;
    • H. M. Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Critism (Elliot Stock)—is a lawyer’s examination of the Critical claims; and
    • D. Hoffmann, Die Wichtigsten Instanzen gegen die Graf-Wellhausensche Hypothese (Poppelauer, Berlin)—written over a generation ago, but still unanswered because unanswerable.
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE CRITICAL THEORY
Leviticus merely continues the story of the departure from Egypt and of the Children of Israel in the Wilderness.

 

The few incidents in Leviticus, as well as its legislation, point to a sojourn in the Desert of the Sinai Peninsula prior to the occupation of Canaan. A verse such as ‘After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do’ (XVIII, 3), is in itself decisive in favour of the Mosaic date.

 

In many passages of the Book, the going forth from Egypt, and the manifestation of God’s protecting power in the release, are spoken of as events of recent occurrence, fresh in the memory of those who had experienced the Divine mercy.
  • Israel is contemplated as living in tents, and the conditions of life which are presupposed are those of a camp (see on Lev. XVIII, 3).
  • The Sanctuary is depicted as a temporary structure of a portable nature, such as would be required while the people were wandering in the Wilderness.
  • Leviticus assumes the people to be within reach of the religious centre, and in a position to attend the Sanctuary during the pilgrimage Festivals:The ritual of Azazel on the Day of Atonement is patently archaic, and had to be modified to meet the conditions of later times.
    • in Ezra’s time, this was impossible, as the bulk of the people was in Babylon, and another portion drifted back to Egypt.
  • The priests are always denoted as ‘Aaron and his sons.’Similarly, the story of the blasphemer in Leviticus (XXIV, 10-12) is inexplicable on the Critical theory. A son of an Israelitish woman blasphemes, he is put in ward, but no one knows what punishment is to be meted out for that offence. Compare with this the story of Naboth and his judicial murder for alleged blasphemy in 1 Kings XXI, which chapter the Critics declare to be centuries older than Leviticus. When Jezebel, by means of perjured witnesses, convicts Naboth of that grave offence, there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of the judges and the people—as little as in Jezebel’s own mind—what his punishment is to be. Now, if we were to admit that the narrative of the blasphemer was indeed written, or even ‘edited’, for the benefit of the post-Exilic community, it is reasonable to assume that in those days there would be doubt as to the penalty for blasphemy?
    • Their initial consecration to the priestly office is described (Lev. VIII), to which ceremony ‘all the congregation’ was summoned (ibid. v. 3).
    • This is meaningless on the supposition of the late origin of the Book.
    • Furthermore, P. exalts the High Priest.
    • In Ezra’s age, the High Priests were not worthy of honour, and seem to have been among those that attempted to thwart the work of religious reformation.
  • The evidence of the language of Leviticus precludes a late date of composition.
    • Reihn, Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Hoffmann have demonstrated that it cannot truthfully be said to show traces of Exilic or post-Exilic times.
    • The technical terms of the sacrificial regulations point to hoary antiquity, and are linguistically derived from ancient Arabic and Minaean (Hommel).
    • There is in Leviticus an entire absence of neo-Babylonian or Persian loan-words that would reflect the age of the Exile.
    • Of course, the language, vocabulary, and style differ considerably from that of the historical parts of the Pentateuch. But this is due to the nature of the subjects treated in Leviticus:e.g., sacrifices, leprosy, land laws, as against stories of family life, national history, and moral admonition in the other books.
      • One hundred years ago, Macaulay drafted the Penal Code for India. In that work, his whole manner of writing—vocabulary, sentence-formation, and style—is different from that used by him in his History, Essays, Speeches, or Ballads. Yet, would anyone question Macaulay’s authorship of the Indian Code, or would anyone advance the hypothesis of the existence of five separate Macaulays—one each for the History, Essays, Speeches, Ballads, and Code—and living centuries apart form one another?
  • Bible Critics point to the Tochacha, the Admonition in Lev. XXVI, as proof that at any rate that chapter must have been written at a late date, because the punishments foreshadowed in that chapter (v. 14-45) were clearly realized in the time of the Babylonian Exile.
    • Those who do not eliminate the Divine from history or from human life regard the Tochacha as belonging to that unique mass of Bible predictions that have been fulfilled to the letter, and that are wholly inexplicable except on the Providential view of human history.
    • But even quite part from the predictive element in prophecy, there is no reason to doubt the Mosaic authorship of this chapter.
    • Hoffmann has drawn attention to a parallel of the Tochacha in the far older code of Hammurabi. One thousand years before Moses, that code concludes with the promise of blessings of the god Shamash for obedience to his law, and with a detailed account of the calamities that would overtake those who are faithless to them. Leviticus XXVI is thus merely another instance of the principle, which the Jewish exegetes of the Middle Ages translated to mean—Scripture chooses those forms of literary expression that would be most effective with the hearers to whom they are addressed.
  • One more striking circumstance.
    • The Ten Commandments are given on Mt. Sinai,
    • and the promulgation of the other laws takes place in the Wilderness and the plains of Moab.
    • How came they to be attributed to lands outside the Holy Land, territories that had no sacred associations for the men of Ezra’s age, or for that matter even for the heroes of the Patriarchal age? Surely such a strange, ‘inconvenient,’ unnatural tradition is not likely to have been invented, but is based on fact. And if so, the events associated with that tradition could only have taken place in Mosaic times.
IMPROBABILITY OF THE CRITICAL THEORY
It is evident that if the Critical account of the origin and promulgation of the so-called Priestly code is accepted, it is necessary to attribute deliberate fraud to Ezra. The Critics do not feel this moral difficulty, because the avowed object of many of the Critics has for a long time been to ‘deprive Israel of its halo’, and to degrade its saints and heroes. But even those who do not recoil from attributing fraud to the sacred writers should weigh the sheer improbability of the introduction of a new code in the manner put forward by the Critical theory.

 

‘It is utterly out of the question, that a body of laws, never before heard of, could be imposed upon the people as though they had been given by Moses centuries before; and that they could have been accepted and obeyed by them, notwithstanding the fact that these laws imposed new and serious burdens, set aside established usages to which the people were devotedly attached, and conflicted with the interests of powerful classes of the people’ (W. H. Green).

 

Thus, on the theory of the Critics, tithes of corn, oil, and cattle for the support of the Levitical order had never before been heard of; yet the people submit to the new burdens without dissent.
  • The Book of Nehemiah shows that there was a strongly disaffected party and a religiously faithless party in Jerusalem; yet no one raises as doubt.
  • The Book of Deuteronomy was in the hands of at least the priests; yet even the hostile members of that body do not attempt to ward off the alleged new legislation by appealing to Deuteronomy XIII, 1, ‘All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.’
  • Even the Samaritans—then the bitterest enemies of Ezra and the Jews—are supposed to receive ‘Ezra’s Torah’ as the undoubted work of Moses, and seem to keep on changing and enlarging it, as the followers of Ezra—on the assumption of the Critics—keep on making new additions to it for at least a century after his death!
The improbability of Ezra attempting to pass off his work as the work of Moses, or of his succeeding in such a hypothetical attempt, will be considerably increased, when we realize the lack of agreement between the ‘Priestly code’ and the conditions that confronted Ezra and his generation.
  • P brings many things that could have been only of archeological interest. Its largest section deals with the portable Sanctuary in the Wilderness; but in Ezra’s time, the Tabernacle, the Ark, the Urim and Thummim had long ceased to exist.
  • The tithe-laws as given in P are intended for a large body of Levites and a small number of priests, in the proportion of ten Levites to one priest.
  • But the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah tell us that in the community under Ezra’s spiritual guidance there were, on the contrary, twelve priests to one Levite! And yet Ezra is alleged by the Critics to have spent fourteen years, from 458-444, in the adaptation of the older legal enactments to the conditions of the community in Palestine (Oxford Hexateuch, I, 137).
Even more strange, on the theory of the Critics, is the absence of all reference in the ‘Priestly code’ to the burning religious problems of the returned exiles, such as intermarriage. Ezra is crushed by grief and despair when he realizes the extent of the evil in the new community.
‘And when I heard this thing, I rent my garments and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down … I fell upon my knees and spread out my hands unto the Lord my God.’

 

He then set about the work of reformation; he called upon the nobles and people to put away their strange wives. They answer with a loud voice, ‘As thou hast said, so must we do’; and they enter upon the covenant, so fateful for the future of Israel and of monotheism. But to all this matter of intermarriage, which was of vital concern to Ezra and his School, there is not the slightest reference in the very legislation which, we are asked to believe, was produced for the salvaging of the community from the mortal danger of absorption among the heathens. No less than two chapters in the ‘Priestly code’ (Lev. XVIII and xx) are devoted to the subject of prohibited marriages; but not a word to the question which shook the post-Exilic community to its foundations. Surely an unaccountable omission—if the Critics are right.
There is, furthermore, no provision in P for the singers, porters, Nethinim, and Levites of Ezra’s day. ‘The musical services of the Temple are as much beyond its line of vision as the worship of the Synagogue.’ In view of the minute way in which Leviticus regulated worship for the Mosaic generation, it is conceivable that, if Leviticus were a product of Ezra’s age, there would be in it nothing directly bearing on the manner of contemporary worship?

 

THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
A favourite argument against the early date of Leviticus is the so-called argument from silence. It is somewhat as follows:
Throughout the period of the Judges and Kings, we find that the precepts of the Book of Leviticus were violated; hence, they could not then have existed. Furthermore, it is alleged that there is no explicit reference to them in the historical books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings—another supposed proof that they could not have been known.

 

As to the first consideration, even cases of flagrant violation do not disprove the existence of the law as laid down in Leviticus. Neither a Jewish law, nor any other law, necessarily presupposes universal compliance with its terms. All historical experience is against it.

 

It is unnecessary to point to modern laws of incontestable and universally acknowledged existence that are accompanied by open and organized violation. And the same is true of ancient laws, even of those believed to have Divine sanction.

 

Take the prohibition of image-worship in the Ten Commandments.
Canon Charles has aptly pointed out that for fifteen centuries the whole of Christendom disregarded it, and half of the Christian Church is still disregarding it.
If violation of a law were proof of its non-existence, then the Second Commandment has to this day not yet given!
In fact, the Critics themselves note that the existence and the disregard of a law-book may very well go together.
Deuteronomy became known—they hold—in the year 620, during the reign of King Josiah. It was observed during his lifetime; but immediately after his death, it was totally disregarded.
The attitude of the Critics is therefore as follows:—non-observance of the Law in the ages after Moses is proof absolute that no such Law was ever promulgated in the days of Moses; but non-observance of the Law after the death of Josiah does not prove the non-existence of the Law in Josiah’s time. In other words, ‘witnesses are reliable when they testify in favour of the Critics; but their veracity is promptly impeached, if their testimony is on the other side’ (Baxter).

 

As of for the second consideration,
viz, the silence of the Historical books, that is an even feebler support for the Critical position.
A few examples will illustrate its feebleness. Thus, none of the Prophets speaks of the Ten Commandments, and there are exceeding few references to Sabbath, New Moon, or circumcision outside the Pentateuch; and yet no responsible historian doubts the existence of these institutions in ancient Israel.
As for the Day of Atonement, the first clear and unmistakable mention of it after the Pentateuch is in Roman times by Josephus! Furthermore, all Critics admit that the Passover and the Feast of Weeks existed in Israel since the earliest days. The Feast of Weeks, however, is nowhere named in the Historical books of the Bible; and Passover only twice, and then only in connection with exceptional conditions. An examination of the passages in which Passover is alluded to (Josh. V and II Kings XXIII) shows conclusively that, but for these exceptional conditions, viz. that the Festival had for a long time fallen into neglect, there would have been no record of its celebration. Would, in that case, the silence of the Bible have been valid evidence that Passover was unknown until after the Exile?
Similarly, wherever that Sabbath is referred to outside the Pentateuch, it is nearly always in passages where the Israelites are rebuked for desecrating the holy day. Had the Sabbath been duly observed by the Israelites, none of the Prophets would have had occasion to mention it. The fact, then, that the Day of Atonement is never alluded to in the Historical books is really evidence in favour of its regular observance.

 

Critics dwell on the fact that the Day of Atonement is not mentioned in 1 Kings VIII, 65, which describes the celebration of the dedication of Solomon’s Temple. That celebration lasted a fortnight, during which period the tenth of the seventh month occurred, and there is no record that the festivities were suspended for that day. But neither is there in that chapter any indication that the popular rejoicings were moderated on the Sabbath day. Are we to argue that the Sabbath was unknown? We have here but another instance that, in regard to the feasts and fasts, Scripture does not record what is usual and normal, but only what is unusual and abnormal.
This also explains Nehemiah VIII. That chapter describes the unusual events in the seventh month of the year 444, among them the observance of the Feast of Tabernacles on the 15th, ‘for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so’ ( v. 17). It is silent in regard to the Day of Atonement, because evidently there had been no interruption in its observance, as it is quite unlikely that the priests ever allowed their supreme function in the Temple service on that day to fall into abeyance. The fast described in Nehemiah IX was not a substitute for the Day of Atonement. It was a special fast for special evils. It was a day of prayer and contrition, on which the people confessed the ‘iniquities of their fathers’ as well as their own. There is not the slightest analogy to the Day of Atonement. It was a fast supplementary to it, called forth by the uniqueness of the circumstances.

 

What we can deduce from the Biblical data is that past history is repeating itself at the present time.
Just as many modern Jews who neglect the Sabbath and Festivals adhere to Yom Kippur, so in the periods of religious decadence in the past, the Israelites seem to have hallowed the Day of Atonement while ignoring the other Festivals.

 

‘EVOLUTION’ IN SACRIFICE
‘Those who advocate revolutionary ideas, either in government, in scholarship, or in religion, must show good cause and their arguments must possess overwhelming force. The proof must be clear, strong, and conclusive, without a shadow of suspicion in its reality or its sufficiency.’ None can gainsay the reasonableness of this demand, put forward by an impartial judge of the Critical views, nor the lamentable failure of those views to meet this reasonable demand. ‘But,’ it is said, ‘these new views are in line with the principle of Evolution.

 

In ritual, as in every thing else, the more developed must be later than the less developed, out of which, on the principle of Evolution, it has gradually grown. As the Priestly code (Leviticus and Numbers) shows the most ramified sacrificial enactments, it must be the latest of all the documents of the Pentateuch.’ We are even told that there is a clear evolution from the simple to the complex in sacrifice, a straight line of development from the Prophetic document (JE) to Deuteronomy (D), from Deuteronomy (D) to Ezekiel, and from Ezekiel to the Priestly Code (P).

 

If there ever was an instance when the saying was true that ‘theories are vast soap-bubbles with which the grown-up children of Learning amuse themselves, while the ignorant public stand gazing on and dignify these vagaries by the name of Science’, that instance is Evolution in sacrifice.
  • In the first place, the straight line of evolution—JE, D, Ezekiel, and P—turns out to be anything but straight.
It is now generally admitted by the Critics that the ‘Priestly code’—or at any rate its most important constituent, the Holiness chapters—is far from being the latest of the series.
Instead of being the culmination of the chain, it is the source of Ezekiel. Ezekiel is saturated with the phraseology of Leviticus XVII-XXVI, and he takes for granted an acquaintance therewith on the part of his Babylonian hearers. But Leviticus is not only older than Ezekiel’s half-ideal and half-allegorical vision of the constitution of the New Jerusalem, it is older than Deuteronomy; for the law of leprosy in Lev. XIII is the basis of Deuteronomy XXIV, 8, and Deuteronomy XII presupposes Lev. XVII.
  • In the second place, the whole idea of evolution does not apply to a field of human history like the institution of sacrifice. In the realm of language, for example, it is not true to say that, on the one hand, the more simple the language, the more primitive it is; nor, on the other hand, the more complex it is, the later is its appearance in the life of any ethnic group. Thus, Anglo-Saxon, with its five cases and eight declensions of the noun, is immeasurably more complicated than its direct lineal descendant, modern English; even as Latin is far more complex than Italian. The same holds true in the development of ritual laws. Besides, the statement that Leviticus must be the latest sacrificial legislation, because its ritual laws are the most elaborate, is quite against the evidence of primitive cultures. ‘It does not appear that very simple systems of law and observance do belong to very primitive societies, but rather the contrary’ (Rawlingson).

The case of ‘evolution’ in Biblical sacrifice is furthermore based by its advocates on a series of dogmatic assumptions which are not only not borne out by the facts, but are in direct contradiction to the facts. Among those unwarranted assumptions are the following:

  • that in ancient Israel every slaughter for food was an act of sacrificial worship;
  • that originally there was unlimited freedom of altar-building;
  • that early sacrifices were all joyful feasts, with a total absence of any underlying reference to sin;
  • and that sin-and-guilt-offerings are late inventions, the fruit of the ‘monotonous seriousness’ of the so-called Priestly code.
Hoffmann, Wiener, and especially Baxter in his masterly Sanctuary and Sacrifice, have subjected these assumptions to an annihilating examination and shown their utter falsity.

 

As to sacrifice and slaughter being absolutely synonymous terms, Wiener refers to Exod. XXI, 37 (‘If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it’), and he asks, Does the Legislator contemplate the sacrifice of stolen animals and of places made holy as the result? To ask the question is to reveal the utter absurdity of the Critical contention on this point.

 

To proceed to the next assumption of the Critics. The statement that there was unrestricted altar-building, and consequent multiplicity of sanctuaries, in ancient Israel rest, upon a mistranslation of Exodus XX, 21; it does not mean ‘in every place’, but ‘in whatever place’ (Graetz). That is, in whatever place God would designate for worship—Shiloh, Gibeon, Jerusalem—an altar might be erected, and sacrificial worship would there be considered legitimate. Such permission of successive places of worship, till the building of the Central Sanctuary inJerusalem, is something quite different from a recognition of simultaneous sanctuaries in different places.

 

The charge that the strict regulations concerning the sacrificial cult killed all the spontaneous joy which characterized ancient Israelite worship, implies a partiality on the part of the Critics for the lawless license, foul sensuality, and unrestrained un-restrained jollity of the heathen merry-makings—half-sacrifices, half-picnics—that were not infrequent in times of national apostasy.
For nothing is further form the truth than to say that the Torah did, or does, kill joy. One commandment alone—that concerning Tabernacles, and found in the so-called Priestly code—would be sufficient to refute this.
‘And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook,and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days’ (Lev. XXIII, 40).
The very men whom the Critics would turn into the makers of the ‘Priestly code’ soothe the people when weeping over their sins on that historic New Year’s Day (Nehemiah VIII) with the words:
‘This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.’

 

Even more astounding is the statement, in effect, that the sense of sin was unknown in Israel before the days of Ezra! It is sufficient to point to the agonized cry in Micah VI, 6 and 7
‘Wherewith shall I come before the LORD …
Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’

 

Surely, if the semi-heathen worshipper of whom Micah speaks felt such a sense of guilt, the loyal Israelite did not have to wait for Ezra to invent sin-and-guilt-offerings to ease his soul. And were not penitential psalms written in Babylon some two thousand years before Ezra’s date? So far from sin-and-guilt- offerings being of quite late date, they are distinctly mentioned in pre-Exilic times (e.g. II Kings XII, 17); and, for that matter, are never mentioned in any post-Exilic Prophet.

 

There is no truth whatsoever in the statements that P assigns ‘an enormous importance’ to the sin offering, or that peace offerings were in post-Exilic times practically banished. In the most exhaustive sacrificial catalogue in the ‘Priestly Code’ (Numbers VII), the other sacrifices outnumber sin offerings in the proportion of seventeen to one!

 

Probably the strangest argument of all for the lateness of P is, that Ezekiel and his circle wrote down from memory the pre-existent Temple usage; for ‘so long as the cult lasted, no sacrificial code was needed’. This is contrary both to reason and historical analogy.
  • It is contrary to reason to maintain ‘that the laws of sacrificial worship were first written down, or even invented, during the Exile in Babylon, where there was no longer any sacrificial worship’ (Dillmann).
  • It is also contrary to historical analogy. Written regulations for the existing sacrificial cult existed in Egypt, Babylonia, and Phoenicia.
One concluding consideration.
The Critics themselves tell us that sacrifice was of old the natural and universal expression of religious homage; that religion without sacrificial cult was unthinkable throughout antiquity; and they admit that ‘heathen sacrificial worship was a constant menance to morals and monotheism’ (Wellhausen).
If, therefore, there was any Divine choice of Israel at all, is it not of all things the most natural that Israel’s manner of Divine Service should be freed from everything foul, cruel, immoral, and idolatrous? (Baxter).
But for such regulation at the hand of Moses, banishing everything debasing either to morals or monotheism from what is admitted by all to have been the universal expression of religious homage, his mission would assuredly have failed, and his work would have disappeared.

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 27: "As you the Kohen values it, so it will be."

.[Commentary  from our MUST READ/MUST BUY Pentateuch and Haftorah, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz.  Translation is EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses.—Admin1.]

 

REDEMPTION OF VOWS AND TITHES

The Book of Leviticus concludes, as it opened, with a chapter of Sanctuary-regulations—voluntary contributions to the upkeep of the Sanctuary, such offerings being a true expression of devotion to the House of God.

 
Leviticus/Wayyiqrah  27

2-8. VOWING AND VALUATION OF A PERSON

 

1 YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying:
2 Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: 
Any-man-when he would make a vow-offering 
in your assessed-equivalent of persons to YHVH,

clearly utter a vow. By setting a valuation upon himself or any of his family, the money being paid into the treasury of the Sanctuary.

3 your assessment shall be: 
(if) a male, from the age of twenty years up to the age of sixty years, 
your assessment shall be fifty silver shekels by the Holy-shrine shekel.
4 And if it is a female, your assessment shall be thirty shekels.

thirty shekels. The valuation seems to have been made on the basis of what might be called the market value of the individual’s labour.  A woman, not possessing the physical strength of a man, had a lower valuation set upon her.

5 If the age (is) from five years up to the age of twenty years, 
your assessment for a male is twenty shekels, and for a female, ten shekels.
6 If from the age of a month up to the age of five years, 
your assessment is for a male, five silver shekels, and for a female, your assessment, three silver shekels.

from a month old. No valuation is placed in regard to a child under a month old.  In Jewish law there are no mourning rites to be observed for a child who dies within a month of birth.

7 If from the age of sixty years and upward, 
if it is a male, your assessment shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female, ten shekels.
8 If he sinks down (in poverty), lower than the assessment,
he is to be stood before the priest, 
and the priest is to assess (the amount) for him,
according to what the hand of the one-making-the-vow can reach, the priest is to assess him.

according tot he means. ‘If he (the person making the vows) be too poor to pay for valuation, then he shall set him (the person vowed) before the priest, and the priest shall value him.’  The priest, in forming his estimate of what he could pay, must leave him sufficient means for his necessities (Talmud).

9-13 REDEMPTION OF AN ANIMAL

9 If it concerns an animal from which they bring-near a near-offering for YHVH,
all of what he gives from it to YHVH is to be a holy-portion.

if it be a beast. If a ‘clean’ animal, that and none other had to be presented.

shall be holy.  It became the property of the Sanctuary, and all profane use of it will be interdicted.

10 He is not to substitute for it and he is not to exchange it, good for ill or ill for good, 
if they exchange, yes, exchange animal for animal, 
it will be that it and its exchanged-one will be a holy-portion.

not alter it. Even for one of greater value, Alter is to replace one species by another, e.g. a bull for a sheep; change refers to different members of the same species.

11 If it (concerns) any tamei animal from which there may not be brought-near a near-offering for YHVH, 
the animal is to be stood before the priest,
12 and the priest is to make-assessment for it, between good and ill, 
according to your assessment by the priest, thus shall it be.

good or bad. i.e. whether it be of much value or little.

13 And if he (wants to) redeem, yes, redeem it,
he is to add its fifth-part to your assessment.

14-15.  REDEMPTION OF A HOUSE

14 Now a man-when he hallows his house as holy-property to YHVH,
 the priest is to assess it, between good and ill; 
 as the priest assesses it, thus shall (its cost) be-established.

sanctify. Dedicate.

15 And if the one-who-hallows-it would redeem his house, 
he is to add a fifth-part (to the) silver of your assessment, 
and it shall remain his.

redeem. As in v.13.  The law of XXV,29 applied to this case where the redeemer was not the owner.  If the house was in a walled city, it could be redeemed by the owner within a year; and if not redeemed, it remained for ever in the possession of the buyer.  In the case of a house situated in a village, the Jubilee-year brought its restitution to the owner.

16-25 REDEMPTION OF THE LAND

16 If from the field of his holding any-man hallows (part) to YHVH,
your assessment shall be according to its seed-requirement: 
the seed-requirement of a homer of barley, fifty silver shekels.

possession. An inherited field, as contrasted with a price of land which he had bought (v.22).

the sowing thereof. The value of the land was estimated by the quantity of seed required to sow it.  For each homer of seed used in sowing barley, the valuation was placed at fifty shekels for the whole period of 49 years.  A homer  was ten ephahs, and nearly six bushels in capacity.

17 If as of the year of Homebringing he hallows his field, as your assessment (its cost) will be-established.

from the year of jubilee.  From the conclusion of the year.

it shall stand. At the valuation of 50 shekels for each homer of seed.

18 but if it is after the Homebringing that he hallows his field, 
the priest is to reckon for him the silver according to the years left until the Year of Homebringing, and it is to be subtracted from your (first) assessment.

an abatement. A proportionate reduction in the price.

19 If he wants to redeem, yes, redeem the field, the one hallowing it,
he is to add a fifth-part of
the silver of your assessment of it, and (its cost) is to be-established for him.
20 But if he does not want to redeem the field,
or if he has sold the land to another man,
it cannot be redeemed again-

if he will not redeem. If the redeemer of the field is not the owner, the Sanctuary becomes the de jure owner of the field, which at the next Jubilee becomes the inalienable property of the Sanctuary.

21 the field shall be, when it goes-free in the Homebringing, a holy-portion for YHVH,
 like a field specially-devoted; 
 for the priest it shall be, for his holding.
22 And if his purchased field that is not a field of his holding (is what) he hallows to YHVH,

bought. Since he bought the field until the Jubilee only, it is clear that his gift tot he Sanctuary is only temporary.

23 the priest is to reckon for him the value of your assessment, until the Year of Homebringing, he is to give your assessment (in payment) at that time, 
as a holy-portion for YHVH.

in that day. The price had to be paid in one sum and in full-weight shekels.

24 In the Year of Homebringing the field shall return to the one from whom it was purchased, 
the one whose holding of land it is.
25 All your assessments are to be according to the Holy-shrine shekel,
twenty grains being the (one) shekel.

26-27.  REDEMPTION OF A FIRSTLING

26 However, a firstborn that is assigned-as-firstborn to YHVH, among animals-
no man may hallow it; 
whether ox or sheep, it is YHVH’S.

to the LORD.  As a firstling, it ipso facto belonged to God. Therefore the owner cannot vow it again as a gift to the Sanctuary; it was not his to give away.

shall sanctify. i.e. devote, as a voluntary offering.

27 Now if (it is) of a tamei animal, he is to redeem it at your assessment,
adding its fifth-part to it, 
and if it is not redeemed, it is to be sold at your assessment.

an unclean beast. i.e. a dedicated clean animal that became blemished, in which case the proceeds of the sale were to be used for Temple repair (Rashi).

28-29.  LAW OF THE BAN

28 However, everything specially-devoted that a man devotes for YHVH from all that is his, whether of man or of beast or of field of his holding,
is not to be sold and not to be redeemed, 
everything specially-devoted-it is a holiest holy-portion for YHVH.

devoted thing. lit. ‘cut-off, excluded’, irrevocably given up.  There were three varieties of the ban, of differing degrees of stringency: the war ban, the justice ban, and the private ban.  This verse deals with the last-named.  The ‘devoting’ of anything to the Temple was a more solemn act than a mere presentation.  The human being, animal, or field became ‘most holy’, i.e. remained the inalienable property of the Sanctuary, and passed into the possession of the priests.

field of his possession. Only an inheritance could be ‘devoted’, not a purchased field, since the latter only belonged to the owner temporarily, and passed out of his possession in the Jubilee.  In the same manner, a Hebrew slave could not be ‘devoted’ because he regained his freedom in the seventh year.

sold. To another person.

redeemed. By the owner.

29 Anyone specially-devoted that has been devoted-to-destruction, among humans, is not to be ransomed;
 he is to be put-to-death, yes, death.

devoted. i.e., doomed.

of men. ‘The reference here is to the justice-ban; in other words, to the judicial sentence by the proper authorities on such malefactors as the idolater and the blasphemer’ (Kennedy).  The individual was not permitted to carry out such a ban.  Deut. XII,31 forbids human sacrifice, and the putting to death of a slave is forbidden in Exod. XXI,20.

30-33  REDEMPTION OF THE TITHE

30 And every tithe of the land, (whether) from the seed of the land or from the fruit of the tree:
for YHVH it is, a holy-portion for YHVH.

tithe of the land. The so-called ‘second tithe’, described in Deut XIV,22, was analogous to the firstling of sacrificial animals, and the same law of redemption applied.

is the LORD’S.  Tithes belong to God as the real owner of the land. They are a kind of rent paid by the people as His tenants. Being already God’s, they cannot be made the subject of vows (Dummelow).

31 If a man wants to redeem, yes, redeem (any) of his tithes, 
its fifth-part he is to add to it;
32 and every tithe of herd or flock, from all that passes under the (shepherd’s) rod, 
(each) tenth-one, is to be a holy-portion for YHVH.

tithe of the herd.  Every tenth animal born of the herd or flock had to be treated like the tenth of the produce of the field.  The animals were sacrificed and the flesh consumed in Jerusalem.

passeth under the rod.  The Mishnah thus describes the procedure:  The new-born animals were herded in a pen with one narrow exit, through which they could only pass in single file.  As they came out, each tenth animal was touched on the back with a rod coated with red paint, and in this manner distinguished for the tithe.

33 He is not to search between good and ill, he is not to make-exchange for it;
but if he makes-exchange, yes, exchange for it, 
then it and its exchange are a holy-portion, they cannot be redeemed.

he shall not inquire.  The owner could not select which animals should form part of the tithe.  If he substituted one of the designated animals for another, whether of better or inferior quality, he forfeited both.

34 These are the commandments
that YHVH commanded Moshe for the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai.

these are the commandments. This verse seems to be the subscription of the concluding chapter only.

The Massoretic Note states the number of verses in Leviticus to be 859; its Sedrahs (parshiyoth) 10; its Sedarim, smaller divisions according to the Triennial Cycle, 23; and its chapters 27.

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 26: "If you walk in My statutes . . ." vs. "If you reject My decrees . . . "

[Commentary  from Pentateuch & Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz; all other comments with no brackets is ours, indicated by S6K. Translation is EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses.—Admin1.]

 

CONCLUDING ADMONITION

The Book of Leviticus has its sacerdotal chapters, its ceremonial parts, its ethical section; and, in its concluding portion, it strikes the note of Prophetic admonition and warning.  This is not to be wondered at when we recall the fact that Moses is ‘the Father of the Prophets’.  The Jewish name for this chapter from v. 14-45 (as well as for the parallel section in Deut. XXVIII) is Tochacha, lit. ‘Warning’, ‘Admonition’.

 

After having declared the higher law and rooted all human duty, both to God and man, in the Holiness-ideal—‘Ye shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy’—the Lawgiver endeavours to enlist man’s natural fear and ope as allies of that sublime principle.  In startling and indeed terrifying form, he contrasts the blessings, in the event of faithfulness to God, with the dire calamities, if the people prove disloyal to Him.  This fundamental thought, viz. that God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked, is an essential doctrine of Judaism as of every higher religion.  They may differ as to the nature and form of Divine retribution, but the belief that right is rewarded and wrong punished is part of an ethical faith, a belief vindicated and confirmed by the experience of humanity.  ‘One lesson, and only one, history may be said to repeat with distinctness, that the world is built somehow on moral foundations; that in the long run it is well with the good; in the long run it is ill with the wicked’ (Froude).  But, while there is general agreement with this truth underlying the Admonition, there has always been discontent with the manner in which it is presented in this chapter.  ‘Why,’ it is asked, does Scripture enter into such dreadful details concerning the consequences of disobedience?’  

 

Two observations must be made in regard to this form of appeal.

  • The first is, that it is a language which the people to whom this homiletic discourse on the Wages of Disobedience was originally addressed, could clearly understand.  ‘A wealth of bliss may be depicted in two or three concise phrases, but to cause the primitive mind to realize the awful consequences of sin and transgression, the words of denunciation must come swift and powerful as hammer blows, and must picture to their last terrible results the dreadful devastation wrought by human perversity’ (Drachmann).
  • The second is that the Tochacha, though it may sound harsh, is true; and truth in its nakedness is not always pleasant.

The promises and, alas, also the warnings in this chapter have abundantly been borne out by Jewish history.  ‘As a survey of the worldly blessings and tribulations employed by God in His Education of Israel in Canaan, this chapter is fairly exhaustive, and is in line with what Prophecy proclaimed, and historical experience taught, in the course of the centuries’ (Dillmann).

 
Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 26

1 You are not to make for yourselves no-gods,
 a carved-image or a standing-pillar you are not to establish for yourselves, 
 a decorated stone you are not to place in your land, to prostrate yourselves to it,
 for I YHVH am your God!
2 My Sabbaths you are to keep, my Holy-shrine you are to hold-in-awe,
 I am YHVH!

3-13.  BLESSINGS IN THE WAKE OF OBEDIENCE

3 If by my laws you walk, and my commands you keep, and observe them,

if ye walk in My statutes.  Heb. Sifra translates: ‘Would that you walked in my statutes!’

4 then I will give-forth your rains in their set-time, 
so that the earth gives-forth its yield 
and the trees of the field give-forth their fruit.

rains. The rainfall is of supreme importance in the Holy Land.  If it fails, the result is famine.  Consequently, it comes first among the blessings.

5 Threshing will overtake vintage for you, and vintage will overtake sowing;
you shall eat your food to being-satisfied, and be settled in security in your land.

threshing. There will be so much corn to thresh, that the work will continue throughout the season until it is time to cut the vines.

safely. Without fear of famine.

6 I will give peace throughout the land, so that you will lie down with none to make you tremble,
I will cause-to-cease wild beasts from the land, and a sword shall not cross through your land.

I will give peace in the land.  Prosperity is valueless unless it can be enjoyed in tranquillity, without the dread of assault, robbery or devastation of war.

evil beasts.  In the time of warfare, when the land is desolated, wild beasts multiply.

sword. The symbol of an invading army.

6 I will give peace throughout the land, so that you will lie down with none to make you tremble,
I will cause-to-cease wild beasts from the land, and a sword shall not cross through your land.

ye shall chase.  Should they attempt to attack you.

7 You shall pursue your enemies, and they will fall before you to the sword;
8 five of you will pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you, a myriad pursue, 
your enemies falling before you to the sword.

five . . . hundred.  These are round numbers, not to be taken literally.  They express the idea that the Israelites, with God as their helper, will be able to overcome vastly superior forces; e.g. the victories of the Maccabees over armies of great numerical superiority.

9 I will turn-my-face toward you, making-you-fruitful and making-you-many, 
and I will establish my covenant with you.

respect unto you. lit. ‘turn unto you’; i.e. be gracious, favourably inclined towards you.

10 You will eat old-grain, the oldest-stored,
and the old for the new you will have to clear out.

the old. i.e. of the previous years.

11 I will place my Dwelling in your midst,
and I will not repel you.

My tabernacle. Better, My abiding presence; God will be manifestly with His people, as evidenced by their extraordinary happiness.

abhor you. Withdraw My favour so as to expose you to misfortune.

12 I will walk about in your midst, 
I will be for you as a God, and you yourselves will be for me as a people.

walk among you. A forcible image to describe how intimately God will associate with Israel.

13 I YHVH am your God 
who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
from your being serfs to them; 
I broke the bars of your yoke, enabling you to walk upright!

brought you forth.  That God is able to fulfill His promises is proved by His mighty acts in overthrowing the power of Egypt and setting Israel free.

bars.  With which the yoke was fastened to the animal’s back.

14-39.  THE WAGES OF DISOBEDIENCE

In dealing with the consequences of faithfulness, the Torah speaks in general terms; but in regard to the wages of disobedience, this Prophetical warning describes in much detail the penalties and horrors that would befall the sinful people  These are arranged in a series of five groups of increasing severity—sickness and defeat, famine, wild beasts, siege and exile.

14 But if you do not hearken to me, by not observing all these commandments,
15 if my laws you spurn, and my regulations you repel 
by not observing all my commandments, by your violating my covenant,
 

16-18. SICKNESS AND DEFEAT

16 I in turn will do this to you:
I will mete out to you 
shock, consumption, and fever, 
wearing out the eyes and exhausting the breath,
you will sow your seed for naught, for your enemies will eat it.

terror. i.e. terrible things, defined by what follows.  The diseases which are mentioned are such as would strike terror in the heart of a person afflicted with any of them.

consumption.  Any disease which causes a wasting of the body.

fever.  lit. ‘a burning’, internally.

sow your seed in vain. Toiling without enjoying the fruits of their labour is frequently given as a punishment for faithfulness.

17 And I will set my face against you, you will be hit-by-plague in the face of your enemies; those who hate you will have-dominion over you, 
you will flee, with no one pursuing you!

ye shall flee.  They will be so demoralized that panic will seize them without cause.

18 Now if, after all that, you do not hearken to me,
I will continue to discipline you, sevenfold,
for your sins-

seven times. A round number, meaning ‘very much more’.

19-22.  FAMINE AND WILD BEASTS

19 I will break your fierce pride! 
I will give your heavens to be like iron, and your earth like bronze,

pride of your power. The power which is the cause of your pride.  By ‘power’ is to be understood the feeling of independence that results from prosperity; Deut. VIII,11-18.

heaven as iron.  A cloudless heaven in the rainy season and an unproductive soil would quickly humble the pride of the people, and make them realize their helplessness.

20 so that your power will be spent for naught; 
your land will not give-forth its yield,
the trees of the land will not give-forth their fruit.
21 Now if you walk with me (in) opposition, and do not consent to hearken to me, 
I will continue against you blows, sevenfold, according to your sins-

contrary unto Me. Heb., acting perversely, and willfully doing the opposite of what God wishes.  The Heb. means ‘accident’.  In defiant opposition to God, they would despise God’s laws, and act as if accident ruled the moral and spiritual universe (S.R. Hirsch).

plagues. Strokes, smitings.

22 I will send-loose against you the wild-beasts of the field, 
 so that they bereave you, 
 so that they (utterly) cut off your animals, 
 so that they make you few, and your roads become desolate.

23-26.  THE HORRORS OF SIEGE

23 Now if, after these-things, you do not accept-discipline from me, 
but (continue to) walk with me (in) opposition,

corrected unto Me. The purpose of God’s chastisements is the moral discipline of His people.

24 I will walk with you, I myself, with opposition; 
I will strike you, yes, I myself, sevenfold for your sins.
25 I will bring against you an avenging sword, taking-vengeance for the covenant.
Should you gather yourselves into your cities,
I will send-free pestilence in your midst,
and you will be given into the hand of your enemies.

vengeance of the covenant. i.e. retribution for disregarding My covenant with you.

within your cities. You will flee from the enemy and take refuge behind the fortifications of your cities, but even there punishments in the form of epidemics, will overtake you and weaken your powers of resistance.

26 When I break the “staff of bread” for you, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven; 
they will return your bread by weight,
and you will eat, but you will not be satisfied.

break your staff of bread. An expression denoting the cutting off of the food-supply.  Food being that upon which life is supported, it is symbolized as a staff; Isa. III,1.

ten women.  A round number.  Although each household has its own oven, ten families will require the use of only one oven.

by weight. Food is so scarce that it is doled out by measure.

27-39.  NATIONAL DESTRUCTION AND EXILE

27 And if after this you will not hearken to me, 
but (still) walk with me with opposition,
28 I will walk with you in the heat of opposition;
 I will discipline you, even I myself, sevenfold for your sins!

in fury. The continued stubbornness of the people will lead to direr and direr punishment.  The warnings now reach the climax of horror.

29 You will eat the flesh of your sons,
 the flesh of your daughters, you will eat!
30 I will destroy your high-places, I will cut down your cult-stands, 
I will place your corpses atop the corpses of your idol-clods; 
I will repel you.

high places.  Heb. bamoth; the altars on the hilltops, or mounds, built by the Canaanites and taken over by idolatrous Israelites.

sun-pillars. Or ‘images of the sun-god.’

cast your carcasses.  See II Kings XXIII,14,20, for a historical instance.

abhor you. In contrast to what was stated in v. 15.

31 I will make your cities a wasteland, 
I will make-desolate your holy-shrines, 
and I will not savor your soothing savors!

your sanctuaries.  God will not associate Himself with such a Temple; hence ‘your sanctuaries’, not ‘My sanctuary” as in v.2.  The plural may refer to the different divisions of the Sanctuary.

I will not smell.  Since the incense symbolized prayer, the phrase means ‘I will ignore your petitions.’  Sanctuary and sacrifice are valueless, if unaccompanied by moral obedience.

32 And I will make-desolate, I myself, the land, 
so that your enemies that settle in it will be appalled-at-the-desolation in it.

astonished.  Amazement will seize them at the appalling desolation, and they will perceive that it is due to superhuman agency.

33 And you I will scatter among the nations;
 I will unsheath the sword against you, 
so that your land becomes a desolation and your cities become a wasteland.

you will I scatter among the nations.  ‘There is a marvelous and grand display of the greatness of God in the fact that He holds out before the people whom He has just delivered from the hands of the heathen the prospect of being scattered again among the heathen, and that even before the land is taken by the Israelites, He predicts its return to desolation.  These could only be spoken of by One who has the future really before His mind, who can destroy His own work, yet attain His end, certain of victory notwithstanding all opposing difficulties’ (quoted in Keil-Delitzsch).

the sword after you. An expression for the hot pursuit of fugitives.  Malbim explains these words as an essential qualification of the first part of the verse, scatter among the nations.  ‘Israel’s dispersion is not a curse in itself: it is a means of fulfilling God’s purpose of spreading His word among the nations.  The tragedy lies in being scattered because of the sword.’

4 Then the land will find-acceptance regarding its Sabbaths, 
all the days of desolation-when you are in the land of your enemies- 
then the land will enjoy-cessation, and find-acceptance regarding its Sabbaths.

be paid her sabbaths. Better, satisfy its sabbaths: i.e.make compensation for the years of release which the Israelites did not observe according to the dictates of the Law (Leeser).  Driver explains that the Heb. word rendered ‘be paid’ is the technical term in connection with the settlement of an account.  When the people are exiled, the land, here personified, will receive payment of an overdue account in the long Sabbath-rest which it will then enjoy.

35 All the days of desolation it will enjoy-cessation,
 since it did not enjoy-cessation during its Sabbaths when you were settled on it.
36 Now those that remain among you-I will bring faintness into their hearts, in the lands of their enemies,
 they will be set-in-pursuit by the sound of a leaf blown-about, 
they will flee as if in flight from a sword and will fall, though there is no pursuer!

left of you. The two preceding verses are a parenthesis, describing the ‘rest’ which the land would have, when its inhabitants had been carried into captivity.  This verse resumes v. 33, and alludes to the fate, with its resulting cowardice and ‘spiritual slavery’, that would be in store for those who escaped.  ‘The author possessed the imagination of a poet as well as the eloquence of an orator (Kennedy).

37 They will stumble, each-man over his brother, as before the sword, though pursuer there is none. 
And you will not be able to stand-your-ground before your enemies;

stumble.  In their panic, caused by demoralization and not by a real enemy, they would forget the need for mutual help; and each would endeavour to escape, even at the cost of sacrificing his brother—true psychology of the Golus.

38 rather, you will perish among the nations-
 it will devour you, the land of your enemies.

[eat you up. For the image of a land consuming those who dwell in its soil, see Num. III,32.]

39 Those that remain among you will rot away in their iniquity, in the lands of their enemies,
 yes, because of the iniquities of their fathers, with them they shall rot away.

in their iniquity. From the consequences of their guilt, i.e. their punishment.  To this guilt (and punishment) their fathers have contributed.

with them. Refers to the fathers.  There will be an added agony to the wretched lot of sinful parents, that they will behold their children, who had followed their evil example, experiencing the hard fate which was so bitter to themselves.  This explanation is supposed by the Traditional accentuation of the words.

40-45.  REPENTANCE SHALL BRING RESTORATION

40 Now should they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, in their breaking-faith by which they broke-faith with me
 -yes, since they have walked with me in opposition,

confess.  God desireth not the death of the sinner; and, therefore, every threat of punishment for disobedience is followed by a promise of mercy.  If there is repentance and amendment, Divine discipline is for moral ends; and in truth the Exile proved a purifying furnace unto Israel.

treachery. Implying that faithlessness to the Covenant is a wrong committed directly against God.

41 yes, I myself will walk with them in opposition, 
and will bring them into the land of their enemies-
 if then their foreskinned heart should humble itself,
 if then they should find-acceptance regarding their iniquity,

I also will walk. Better, I also walk.  They will acknowledge that the calamities which had overtaken them were God’s method of humbling their arrogance.

uncircumcised.  Unconsecrated, unclean; closed to the Divine call or appeal.

be paid. Acknowledge that the punishment was deserved.

42 I will bear-in-mind my Yaakov covenant,
 and yes, my Yitzhak covenant, and yes, my
Avraham covenant 
I will bear-in-mind, and the land I will bear-in-mind.

Jacob . . . Isaac . . . Abraham. God is stirred to mercy by recalling the noble ancestors of Israel and the Covenant He entered into with each.  In retrospect, the last comes first to mind.

the land. Which was itself a symbol of the Covenant with the Patriarchs, and prominently figured in the promises which God had made to them.

43 -The land will have to be left-behind by them, attaining-acceptance through its Sabbaths by being-desolate-of them,
 and they will have to find-acceptance regarding their iniquity, 
because, because my regulations they spurned, and my laws they repelled.-

shall lie forsaken without them.  Because the Israelites had failed to observe the Sabbatical year, they had wronged the soil of the Holy Land, and that wrong had to be expiated before they could return and resettle there.

44 And yes, even then, when they are in the land of their enemies, 
I will not spurn them, I will not repel them, to finish them off, to abrogate my covenant with them, for I YHVH am their God!

yet for all that. The chapter ends characteristically on a note of hope.  God’s anger may be severe, but it is not everlasting.  He will grant His people every opportunity to renew the ancient Covenant.  Israel—‘a people who have been overthrown, crushed, scattered,; who have been ground, as it were, to very dust, and flung to the four winds of heaven; yet who, though thrones have fallen, and empires have perished, and creeds have changed, and living tongues have become dead, still exist with a vitality seemingly unimpaired’ (Henry George).

45 I will bear-in-mind to their (benefit) the covenant of the former-ones 
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt, before the eyes of the nations, 
to be for them a God, 
I am YHVH!

their ancestors. lit. ‘the first’ generations. It alludes not only to the Patriarchs, but to the founders of the Twelve Tribes and their descendants who left Egypt.

46 These are the laws, the regulations, and the instructions
 that YHVH gave between himself and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai, by the hand of Moshe.

these are the statutes.  This verse is the subscription not only to chaps. XVII-XXVI, but to the whole of Leviticus, the following chapter being an appendix to the Book.

 

 

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 25: "but in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of Sabbath-ceasing for the land, a Sabbath to YHVH: "

[The principle of ‘shabat” or “ceasing from doing what one normally does” has given its ‘name’ to the 7th day of the week, the Sabbath.
 
Now in this chapter, we learn that even inanimate objects such as land or the earth or the soil are to be given rest, or to cease from what it normally is used for by mankind.   There is wisdom in such practice and if farmers and agriculturists would learn from this ancient practice required of Israelites in connection with the Land, they too will be benefit from the blessings for obedience.  
 
The Creator of the heavens and the earth had to teach His people first and the nations through them that He has set laws of nature which, if humankind would only respect and work with instead of against, the continued renewal and replenishment of the freely given bounties of nature will feed growing populations of all of His creatures.  But alas, who knows? And if they do, who understands? And if they do, who obeys?  It is in the doing that the blessing automatically comes. Commentary is from Pentateuch and Haftorah’s, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz; translation is EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses.Admin1.

———————————————

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 25

The cycle of sacred seasons begun i XXIII is here continued, and the system of sabbaths—the Sabbath at the end of the week; Pentecost at the end of seven weeks; the Seventh month, as the sacred month studded with Festivals—is here completed by the Sabbatical year and by the Jubilee, which came after a ‘week’ of Sabbatical years.

 

During the Sabbath-year the land was to lie fallow (Exod. XXIII,10) and was to be ‘released’ from cultivation.  The land is not the absolute possession of man; it belongs to God, and is to be held in trust for His purposes.  The Sabbath-year does not seem to have been regularly observed in pre-exilic times, and, according to the Mishnah, the Sabbath-year was fully enforced only in Palestine.  A promise to observe it in the future formed part of the covenant on the Return from Babylon; Neh. X,32.  Alexander the Great remitted to the Jews the tribute in every seventh year ‘because then they did not sow their fields’ (Josephus).  Julius Caesar acted in the same manner.

 

Heathens did not trouble to understand the meaning of this unique law, which, among other things, saved the soil from the danger of exhaustion.  Thus, the Roman historian Tacitus attributes the Jews’ observance of it to indolence.

 

1 YHVH spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai, saying:

spoke unto Moses.  Better, had spoken unto Moses.  As these laws are intended to meet the social problems that would arise in the Israelitish Commonwealth, they bring the legal part of Leviticus to an appropriate conclusion.

2 Speak to the Children of Israel, and say to them: 
When you enter the land that I am giving you,
the land is to cease, a Sabbath-ceasing to YHVH.

the land keep a sabbath. The land is personified.  It should rest in the seventh year, as man rests on the seventh day.  The Israelite may not during that year till it himself or allow anyone to do so on his behalf.  ‘Just as the freedom of the individual was a fundamental principle of the Torah, so was the freedom of the land from the absolute ownership of man’ (F. Perles).

unto the LORD.  As the Sabbath was more than a cessation of labour, and was a day dedicated to God—similarly during the Sabbatical year, the soil was to be devoted to Him by being placed at the service of the poor and the animal creation (Exod. XXIII,10,11).  In Deut. XXXI,10, we learn that the seventh year was, furthermore, to be utilized for national educational ends, and special measures were to be taken to acquaint the men and the women, the children as well a the resident aliens, with the teachings and duties of the Torah.  Josephus rightly claims that while the best knowledge of olden times was usually treated as a secret doctrine, and confined to the few, it was the glory of Moses that he made it current coin.  “To place within the reach of the English worker, once in every seven years, a year’s course at a University in science and law and literature and theology, would be something like the modern equivalent for one of the advantages which the Sabbath-year offered to the ancient Hebrew’ (F. Verinder in My Neighbour’s Landmark, Short Studies in Bible Land Laws, 1911).

3 For six years you are to sow your field, 
for six years you are to prune your vineyard,
then you are to gather in its produce,
4 but in the seventh year 
there shall be a Sabbath of Sabbath-ceasing for the land,
a Sabbath to YHVH: 
your field you are not to sow, 
your vineyard you are not to prune,

in the seventh year.  In the seventh month of that year, after the gathering of the harvest, the year of rest began.

sabbath of solemn rest.  A Sabbath of the strictest kind.  The same phrase is used of the Day of Atonement (XXIII,32), as well as of the Sabbath Day (XXIII,3).

5 the aftergrowth of your harvest you are not to harvest, 
the grapes of your consecrated-vines you are not to amass; 
a Sabbath of Sabbath-ceasing shall there be for the land!

undressed vine.  The Heb. is the word for a Nazirite whose hair was to remain unshorn (Num. VI,5).  Like him, the vines were not to be trimmed during the Sabbatical year.  There was to be neither planting, pruning, nor gathering.

6 Now the Sabbath-yield of the land (is) for you, for eating,
for you, for your servant and for your handmaid, 
for your hired-hand and for your resident-settler who sojourn with you;

the sabbath-produce of the land.  A poetic term for the chance, spontaneous produce during the Sabbath-year.

for you.  The plural is used to comprehend all those that are to benefit by this provision.  The fruit and grain which grew of itself in the Sabbatical year might be plucked and eaten, but not stored.  Grain growing of itself—i.e. without regular ploughing and sowing—is not uncommon in Palestine.

hired servant. . . . settler.  Non-Israelites are included; see XIX,10.

7 and for your domestic-animal and the wild-beast that (are) in your land 
shall be all its produce, to eat.

cattle. Heb., domestic animals.  beasts.  Heb., free beasts of the field or forest; sometimes used in contrast to ‘evil beast’ (XXVI,6).  The Divine promise in this verse is in accordance with the uniformly tender regard for animals throughout Scripture.  They were part of God’s creation, and as such were comprehended in His pity and love; see the concluding verse of Jonah.  ‘A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast’ (Prov. XII,10).

8-55.  THE JUBILEE

In the fiftieth year, the Hebrew slaves with their families are emancipated, and property, except house property in a walled city, reverts to tis original owner.  The Jubilee institution was a marvelous safeguard against deadening poverty.  By it, houses and lands were kept from accumulating in the hands of the few, pauperism was prevented, and a race of independent freeholders assured.  It represented such a rare and striking introduction of morals into economics, that many have been inclined to question whether this wonderful institution was ever in actual force.  However, ‘nothing is more certain than that the Jubilee was once for centuries a reality in the national life of Israel (Ewald).  Ezekiel speaks of its non-observance as one of the signs that ‘the end is come’ upon the nation for its misdoings; and he mentions ‘the year of liberty’, when a gift of land must return to the original owner.  ‘It is impossible to think that, as has sometimes been supposed, the institution of the Jubilee is a mere paper-law; at least, as far as concerns the land (for the periodical redistribution of which there are analogies in other nations), it must date from ancient times in Israel’ (Driver).  According to the Talmud, the law of the Jubilee was observed as long as the entire territory of the Holy Land was inhabited by Israelites.  When a portion of the tribes went into exile, the law lapsed.

8 Now you are to number yourselves seven Sabbath-cycles of years
-seven years, seven times- 
so the time of the seven Sabbath-cycles of years will be for you (a total of) nine and forty years.
9 Then you are to give-forth (on the) shofar a blast,
in the seventh New-moon, on the tenth after the New-moon, on the Day of Atonement,
you are to give(-blast on the) shofar throughout all your land.

in the day of atonement.  Although the year commenced on the first of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah, it was not until the tenth of the month, Yom Kippur, that the proclamation of the Jubilee was made.  The Day of Atonement and the Jubilee had much in common.  The message of both was a ‘new birth’.  The Day of Atonement freed man from slavery to sin and enabled him to start life anew, at one with God and with his fellow men.  The Jubilee had for its aim the emancipation of the individual from the shackles of poverty, and the readjustment of the various strata in the commonwealth in accordance with social justice.  No more appropriate day, therefore, for inaugurating such a year of rectification—as well as to attune the hearts of all to the sacrifices demanded by such rectification—than the day of Atonement; and no more suitable signal to inaugurate it than the blowing of the Shofar.  Isa. LVIII, which forms the Haftorah for the Day of Atonement, seems to have been spoken on a Yom Kippur inaugurating a Jubilee year.

10 You are to hallow the year, the fiftieth year, 
proclaiming freedom throughout the land and to all its inhabitants;
it shall be Homebringing for you, 
you are to return, each-man to his holding, 
each-man to his clan you are to return.

the fiftieth year.  Some have held that the forty-ninth year itself was the Jubilee, as otherwise there would be two consecutive Shabbath years.  This opinion is not the traditional view, though it finds some support in Heb. idiom.

proclaim liberty. The emancipation of the slaves, and the release of landed property from mortgage.

all the inhabitants thereof.  Even to the man who had been sold into slavery and had refused to go out in the seventh year (Exod. XXI,5).

a jubilee. Or, ‘a year of jubilee’; the year is so named from the blast (Heb. yobel); lit. ‘a ram’s horn’) by which it was announced.

every man unto his possession. In this way the original equal division of the land was restored.  The permanent accumulation of land in the hands of a few was prevented, and those whom fault or misfortune had thrown into poverty were given a ‘second chance’.

According to Scripture ‘the earth is the LORD’s”; and all the land was, as it were, held from God on lease (v. 23).  The Israelite who voluntarily or through some compulsion sold his land to another, sold not the ownership of the land, but the remainder of the lease—till the next year of Jubilee, when all the leases fell in simultaneously.  The land then came back to his family, all contracts of sale to the contrary notwithstanding.  His children thus enjoyed the same advantage of a ‘fair start’ as their father had had before them (Verinder).  Heine rightly remarks that the Torah does not aim at eh impossible—the abolition of property,but at the moralization of property, striving to bring it into harmony with equity and the true law of Reason by means of the Jubilee-year.  This institution forms a most striking contrast to ‘prescription’ among the Romans, according to which the possessor of a piece of land could not, after the lapse of a certain period, be compelled to restore it to its real owner, so long as the latter was unable to show that he had during that period demanded restitution in due form.  Far other is the spirit that we find in the Law of Moses.  ‘It is not the protection of property, but the protection of humanity, that is the aim of the Mosaic Code.  Its Sabbath day and Sabbath year secure even to the lowliest, rest and leisure.  With the blast of the jubilee trumpets the slave goes free, and a redivision of the land secures again to the poorest his fair share in the bounty of the common Creator’ (Henry George).

11 It is Homebringing, the fiftieth year-it shall be for you, 
you are not to sow, 
you are not to harvest its aftergrowth, 
you are not to gather its consecrated-grapes,

ye shall not sow.  The Jubilee year shares the features of the Sabbatical year.’

12 for it is Homebringing, holy shall it be for you, 
(only) from the field may you eat its produce;

out of the field.  The Israelite may not store any of the produce, but whenever he requires corn or fruit, he may go out into the field and gather it.

13 in this Year of Homebringing you are to return, each-man to his holding.

unto his possession.  This repetition of v. 10 serves as an introduction to the exposition of the law of land-tenure.

14 Now when you sell property-for-sale to your fellow 
or purchase (it) from the hand of your fellow, 
do not maltreat any-man his brother!

ye shall not wrong. There is to be no rack-renting.

15 By the number of years after the Homebringing 
you are to purchase (it) from your fellow, 
by the number of years of produce (left) he is to sell it to you:

according to the number of years. What is really conveyed to the purchaser is not the land, but the number of harvests which the incoming tenant would enjoy.

16 according to the many years (left), you may charge-him-much for his purchase, 
according to the few years (left), you may charge-him-little for his purchase, 
since a (certain) number of harvests is what he is selling to you.

the number of the crops.  As the land itself belonged to God (v. 23), only the produce could be a matter of sale.

17 So you are not to maltreat any-man his fellow, 
rather, you are to hold your God in awe, 
for I YHVH am your God!

wrong. Overreach.   fear thy God.  This principle of a fair deal in the leasing of landed property was to be acted upon in all relations between man and man.  Hence the addition of ‘thou shalt fear thy God’.

18-23.  EXHORTATION

18 You are to observe my laws, 
my regulations you are to keep, and observe them, 
that you may be settled on the land in security,

dwell in safety. What follows must be understood of both the Sabbatical and Jubilee years.  If the enactments are conscientiously carried out, the people, far from suffering because of the ‘Sabbath’ allowed to the land, would dwell in safety; i.e., secure from the perils of drought and famine (XXVI,5).

19 that the land may give forth its fruit 
and that you may eat to being-satisfied, 
and be settled in security upon it.
20 Now if you should say (to yourselves):
What are we to eat in the seventh year? 
-(for) here, we may not sow, we may not gather our produce!
21 Then I will dispatch my blessing for you during the sixth year 
so that it yields produce for three years;

for the three years. The exceptional fertility in the sixth year might be compared with the double portion of manna which was to be gathered on the sixth day (Exod. XVI,22).

22 you may sow the eighth year(‘s yield), but you must eat of the old produce until the ninth year; 
until its produce comes in, you must eat what-is-old.

ninth year. Until the Feast of Tabernacles; for then the produce of the eighth year is gathered in and stored (Rashi).  ‘The experience of the present day in Syria shows that, after lying fallow for a year, a field requires several ploughings before it can be sown.  The consequence is that sowing cannot be begun till the following spring—the eighth year of v.22—and the crop is not available till late autumn, when the ninth year has begun’ (Kennedy).

23 But the land is not to be sold in-harness, for the land is mine; 
for you are sojourners and resident-settlers with me,

the land is Mine. This verse enunciates the basic principle upon which all these enactments rest.  ‘The earth is the LORD’s’ (Ps. XXIV,1), and His people hold their lands in fee from Him.  The ground itself, then, was not a proper object of sale, but only the result of man’s labour on the ground.

24-28  REDEMPTION OF LAND

24 throughout all the land of your holdings, you are to allow for redemption of the land.
25 When your brother sinks down (in poverty) and has to sell (some of) his holding, 
his redeemer nearest-in-kin to him is to come 
and redeem the sold-property of his brother.

be waxen poor. Only dire poverty would induce an Israelite to part with his family heritage.  When Ahab asks Naboth to sell his vineyard, he answers the king, ‘The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee’ (I Kings XXI,3).

his kinsman.  Heb. goel, lit. ‘redeemer’; the technical term for him whose duty it was to avenge the person of his next-of-kin, or redeem his property that had been leased away.  See Jer. XXXII,8-12.

shall redeem.  The next-of-kin is not under compulsion to do this; it is a moral obligation upon him, if his circumstances permit, to see that the property reverts to the family at the earliest opportunity.  In that case, the purchaser cannot refuse to accept a just offer of repayment and return the land.

26 Now a man-if he has no redeemer, 
but his hand reaches (means) and finds enough to redeem with,

waxen rich . . . redeem it. ‘Becomes rich enough to buy it back himself’ (Moffatt).

27 he is to reckon the years since its sale,
returning the surplus to the man to whom he sold it,
and it is to return to his holding.

the overplus. The amount by which the purchase money of the field exceeded the value of the crops reaped by the purchaser.  In Rabbinic law, if the purchaser had resold the land to a second buyer, then the owner treats with the first purchaser, if he had sold it at a higher price than he paid; and with the second, if the price had been smaller.  The purpose of this regulation was to give the advantage to the original owner, and also to discourage speculation in land values.

28 But if his hand does not find enough (means) for returning it, 
what he sold is to remain in the hand of the one purchasing it, until the Year of Homebringing, it is to go-free in the Homebringing-year, and it is to return to his holding.

it shall go out. Into freedom.  According to the testimony of Josephus, there was due recognition of tenants’ improvements.  ‘When the Jubilee is come, he that sold the land, and he that bought it, meet together, and make an estimate, on the one hand, of the fruits gathered; and, on the other hand, of the expenses laid out upon it.  If the fruits gathered come to more than the expenses laid out, he that sold it takes the land again; but if the expenses prove more than the fruits, the present possessor receives of the former owner the difference that was wanting and leaves the land to him; and if the fruits received and the expenses laid out prove equal to one another, the present possessor relinquishes it to the former owner.’

29-34.  REDEMPTION OF HOUSES

29 A man-if he sells a residential house in a walled town,
its redemption-period (is) until the end of the year of its sale,
a year-of-days shall be its redemption-period.

a dwelling-house. A house in a walled-city could be disposed of in perpetuity; but the owner had the right of re-purchase during the first year of the sale.

30 If it is not redeemed before a whole year of it has been fulfilled,
the house that is in the town that has a wall shall be-established, in-harness, for him who purchases it, throughout his generations, 
it is not to go-free in the Homebringing-year.

a walled city.  The Written Text (Kethib) really is ‘unwalled city.’  The Rabbis explain this anomalous reading of the text to indicate that this law applies also to a city that was originally walled in, but is no longer so.

be made sure.  That is,  a house in the town could be sold ‘out and out’; but not houses in the open country; see next v.

31 But houses in villages that do not have a wall around them, 
 as open-fields of the land are they to be reckoned,
 there may be redemption for them, 
 and in the Homebringing-year they may go-free. 

reckoned with the fields. Being indispensable to the man who had to work the land.

32 Now (as for) the towns of the Levites, the houses in the towns of their holding- redemption-right for the ages is to belong to the Levites.

Levites.  While Aaron and his sons were chosen for the priestly office, the menial services at the Sanctuary and the Temple were assigned to the Levites—the rest of the tribe.  In the Wilderness, they bore the furniture of the Sanctuary during the wanderings.  At the Settlement in Canaan, the tribe of Levi received no definite domain, but scattered cities were assigned to them in territory belonging to other tribes.  In these cities (see Num. XXXV,2) the vendor has a perpetual right of redemption.

33 (That) which is redeemed from the Levites:
it is to go-free, the house sold in the town of their holding, in the Homebringing-year, 
for houses of Levitical towns, they are their holding amid the Children of Israel.

if a man purchase of the Levites. If one purchases a house in one of the Levitical cities, even if it be a walled city, the law of v. 30 does not apply; in the Jubilee, it reverts to the owner.

34 But pasture-land of the field (near) their towns is not to be sold,
for it is a holding for the ages for them.

35-38. PRACTICAL LOVE OF NEIGHBOUR

35 Now when your brother sinks down (in poverty)
and his hand falters beside you,
then shall you strengthen him 
as (though) a sojourner and resident-settler,
and he is to live beside you.

if thy brother be waxen poor.  He still remains thy brother, and is to be treated in a brotherly and considerate manner.  This is in strongest contrast to the treatment of the impoverished debtor in ancient Rome.  The creditor would imprison him in his own private dungeon, chain him to a block, sell him into slavery, or even put him to death.  If the debtor had several creditors, the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables ordained that they could hew him in pieces; and although one of them took a part of his body larger in proportion than his claim the other creditors had no redress!

uphold him. Or, ‘relieve him.’  Do not suffer him to come down into the depths of misery, for then it is difficult to raise him; but come to his support at the time when his means begin to fail (Rashi).

as a stranger and a settler shall he live.  Better, yea though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live (AV, ZunZ, Benisch—following Rashi and Ibn Ezra).  The great principle of ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ must be a reality in Israelite life.  The stranger and alien settler are explicitly included in the term thy brother, and are to be helped by timely loans, free of interest.

shall he live with thee.  These words can be understood quite literally:  it is the Israelite’s duty to see to it that his fellowman does not die of starvation.  It was centuries, millennias even, before the world outside Israel learned this elementary duty.  Constantine in 315 is the first European ruler to have effected poor relief legislation, only to be repealed by Justinian two centuries later.  It was not till the ays of Queen Elizabeth that poor relief came to be recognized as a duty of the State.  Other States followed England’s example in the 19th century.

36 Do not take from him biting-interest or profit, 
but hold your God in awe, 
so that your brother may live beside you!

interest.   This prohibition led to the establishment in every organized Jewish community of a Gemillus Chassodim Society, for advancing loans free of interest to the poor.

fear thy God. To take advantage of the dire need of the poor is contrary to all decent human feeling.

37 Your silver you are not to give him at interest, 
for profit you are not to give (him) your food;

victuals for increase.  Interest on foodstuffs, seeds, and the like, which was paid in kind.

38 I YHVH am your God 
who brought you out of the land of Egypt
to give you the land of Canaan, 
to be for you a God!

brought . . . Egypt. The Israelites, in their prosperity, were to remember the days when they were in bondage and needed the help that God had vouchsafed to them.  Let them follow the Divine example, and not imitate the callousness of their Egyptian masters, but deal with their fellowmen in a spirit of brotherhood and justice.

39-46  NO PERMANENT SERVITUDE FOR ANY ISRAELITE

When a man’s ill fortune forces him to sell himself into bondage, his Hebrew master had definite obligations towards one who is of the same flesh and blood as himself.  These regulations are unique in the respect for labour they inculcate and the manner in which the dignity of the labourer is safeguarded.

39 And when your brother sinks down (in poverty) beside you, and sells himself to you, 
you are not to make him serve the servitude of a serf;
40 as a hired-hand, as a resident-settler is he to be beside you, 
(only) until the Year of Homebringing is he to serve beside you.

as a hired servant. He was not to be given any menial or degrading work, but only agricultural tasks or skilled labour, such as would be performed by a free labourer who is hired for a season.

unto the year of jubilee.  This must be understood in connection with Exod. XXI,2 and Deut. XV,12, which ordain that the Hebrew who sells himself into slavery serves his master for six years and goes free in the seventh.  Should the Jubilee occur before his six years of service are over, the servant regains his personal freedom at the same time that his inheritance returns to him, in the year of Jubilee.

41 Then he is to go-free from beside you,
he and his children beside him;
he may return to his clan,
to the holding of his fathers he may return.

his children. Should the Hebrew be the father of a family when he sells himself into slavery, the master has to take the chidlren into his care and maintain them.

his own family. The Rabbis taught that the freed slave must be received with cordiality and friendliness by his relatives, and no slight shown to him because of his former servitude.

42 For my servants are they
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt,
they are not to be sold as the sale of serfs.

for they are My servants. An Israelite therefore can never be more than nominally a slave to any human master.

they shall not be sold as bondmen. lit. ‘they shall not be sold the sale of a slave’.  The Rabbis ruled that a Hebrew is not to be sold publicly in the slave-market, but the sale is to be privately arranged.

43 You are not to have-dominion over him with crushing-labor,
rather, you are to hold your God in awe!

with rigour. The same word is used to describe the hardship of Israel’s bondage in Egypt (Exod. I,13).  In Rabbinic law, the rules that should regulate the relationship between a master and his Hebrew slave are given in great detail, and are based on the principle that master and man are kinsmen; e.g. the slave must not be given inferior food or accommodation to that of the master.  Kindliness and chivalry are to characterize the bearing of the Israelite towards his less fortunate brother.

but shalt fear thy God. ‘Whenever the phrase is used it refers to matters that are part of heart-religion,’ (Sifra); i.e. part of natural piety and fundamental humanity in our dealings with our fellowmen.

44 Your servant and your maid that belong to you from the nations surrounding you, from them you may purchase serf and maid;
45 also from the sons of the residents who sojourn beside you, from them you may purchase (slaves), 
or from their clans that are beside you, that they beget in your land,
and they shall become your holdings.
46 You may keep-them-as-an-inheritance for your children after you,
for (them to) possess as holdings;
for the ages you may make them serve you.
But as for your brothers, the Children of Israel, each-man toward his brother, 
you are not to have-dominion over him with crushing-labor!

of them may ye take your bondmen. Better, you may hold them to service (Lesser); Heb. ‘You may hold them to service, but only to service, nothing more’ (Sifra).

XXV.46.  SLAVERY The system of slavery, which is tolerated by the Torah was fundamentally different from the cruel systems of the ancient world, and even of Western countries down to the middle of the last century.  The Code of Hammurabi has penalties only for the master who destroys the tooth or eye of another man’s slave.  It orders that a slave’s ear be cut off, if he desires freedom; while to harbour a runaway slave was considered a capital offence.  As to Greece, a slave was deemed ‘an animated tool’, and he could claim no more rights in his relationship to his master than a beast of burden.  Agricultural labourers were chained.  If at any time it was thought that there were too many slaves, they were exterminated, as wild beasts would be.  Athens was an important slave market, and the State profited from it by a tax on the sales.  So much for ‘the glory that was Greece’. The ‘grandeur that was Rome’ was even more detestable.  The slave was denied all human rights, and sentenced to horrible mutilation and even crucifixion at the whim of his master.  Sick slaves were exposed to die of starvation, and there was corporate responsibility for slaves:  “Tacitus records that as late as the Empire the 400 slaves of one household were all put to death because they had been under their master’s roof when he was murdered.  Worlds asunder from these inhumanities and barbarities was the treatment accorded to the Hebrew slave.  The position of Eliezer in Abraham’s household (Gen. XXIV) enables us to realize the nature of servitude in the ancient Hebrew home.  Kidnapping a man or selling him as a slave was a capital offence. Cruelty on the part of the master that resulted in injury to an organ of the body secured the slave’s freedom (Exod. XXI,26); and if a slave ran away he must not be surrendered to his master (Deut. XXIII,16).  A Fugitive Slave Law, such as existed in America, with the tracking of runaway slaves by bloodhounds would have been unthinkable to the Israelite of old. 47-55. ISRAELITES WHO ARE SLAVES OF ALIENS

47 Now if the hand of a resident sojourner reaches (means) beside you, 
and your brother sinks down (in poverty) beside him,
so that he sells himself to the resident sojourner beside you, or to an offshoot of the sojourner’s clan,

offshoot. Children of alien settlers would frequently join the Israelitish community; but the  case dealt with here is that of a Hebrew selling himself into the service of an alien who remained aloof from the community.

48 (even) after he has sold himself, redemption may be his;
 one of his brothers may redeem him,

may be redeemed. Fothwith.

may redeem him. For may substitute shallhere and in the next verse.

49 or his uncle or the son of his uncle may redeem him, 
or (some) kin of his flesh, from his clan, may redeem him,
or, should his hand reach (means), he may redeem-himself.

if he be waxen rich. lit. ‘if he attaineth to power’ (or ‘means’).

50 He is to reckon with his purchaser from the year that he was sold to him until the Year of Homebringing;
the silver from his sale shall be by the number of years- 
like the time-period of a hired-hand is he to be beside him.

unto the year of jubilee.  Hence it is to be deduced that, unlike the Hebrew slave who sells himself to a Hebrew master, his service does not automatically cease at the end of six years (Exod. XXI,2).  It is presupposed here that the man sold himself for an indefinite period, and unless redeemed would continue in bondage until the Jubilee.

a hired servant.   The calculation is to be based on the assumption that the total sum paid was for a definite number of years till the Jubilee.  This total sum is to be divided by the number of years, and it was to be considered that he had hired himself for the resulting amount per year (Rashi).

51 If there are still many years (left), 
according to them he is to return-payment for his redemption from the silver of his purchase;

yet many years.To the Jubilee, and the amount required for the redemption accordingly high.

52 and if few remain in years until the Year of Homebringing, 
he is to reckon it to him, 
according to its years he is to return-payment for his redemption.

servant. He was to be treated like a workman hired by the year who belonged to a higher grade of labour.

in thy sight.  If you see the alien master ill-treating him, you must intervene; but you have no right to enter his house to make investigation as to how he treats his slaves (Sifra).]

53 As a hired-hand, year by year, he is to be beside him,
he is not to have-dominion over him with crushing-labor before your eyes.
54 And if he has not been redeemed in (any of) these (ways),
he is to go-free in the Year of Homebringing, he and his children beside him.

by any of these means. Lit. ‘by those’ which may refer to the kinsmen mentioned in v.48, or to the method of regaining his freedom, described in v.50.

55 For it is to me that the Children of Israel are servants,
my servants are they, 
whom I brought out of the land of Egypt,
I am YHVH your God!

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 24: "One standard-of-judgment shall there be for you; as the sojourner, so shall the native be"

[Who is the “native-born” and who is the “sojourner”?

 

Since the Torah was given in the context of a Covenant between the people of Israel and YHWH, there should be no question that the “native-born” is the Israelite while the “sojourner” is the non-Israelite.  It was a mixed multitude of slaves who left Egypt and it was a mixed multitude who stood at the foot of the mountain of Sinai. Israel is the Covenant partner but among Israelites were non-Israelites.  

 

The Torah Giver made sure that the sojourner would not be treated any differently from the Israelite; the commandments give the “stranger among you” kind consideration, making sure they would not be mistreated nor become second class citizens among Israelites.  They were obliged to observe the same laws. Surprised?  Christians should be, since the teaching to them is that the law is passé and intended only for the Jews.

 

The running commentary is from our resource book:  Pentateuch and Haftorah, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz, C.H. Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire.  We have chosen to use it because much of its information is helpful in understanding words, phrases, verses and images; we are selective in what to include. Notice a discrepancy, however, in the translation used by P&H and EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses which is our version of choice for  this website;  despite the difference, the words and phrases are still identifiable.—Admin1.]

 

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 24

The Torah, before leaving the subject of the Sanctuary alludes to the constant duty of the priests to see that the lamp is kept perpetually alight and the shewbread regularly arranged.  These are outstanding obligations of the priesthood, which must not be relaxed even at the special seasons of the year, when the attention and energies of the Temple-servants were otherwise taxed to the full.

 

1 YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying:
2 Command the Children of Israel,
that they take you oil of olives, clear, beaten, for lighting,
to draw up lampwicks, regularly.
3 Outside the Curtain of the Testimony, in the Tent of Appointment, Aharon is to arrange it, 
from sunset to daybreak, before the presence of YHVH, regularly- 
a law for the ages, throughout your generations.

In Exod. the phrase ‘and his sons’ is added after ‘Aaron’.  In the first instance, the lamp is kindled by Aaron (Num. VIII,3).

4 On the pure lampstand he is to arrange the lampwicks, before the presence of YHVH, regularly.
pure . . .So called either because made of pure gold (Exod. XXV, 31) or because it was to be cleansed each time that the lamps are arranged upon it.  before the LORD — It must on no account be removed from the Sanctuary.

The menorah of 3 lamps on each side and a servant candle at the center is the one of the symbolic furniture in the Sanctuary, providing the only source of indoor lighting.  Menorah’s today are designed to hold candles but the Sanctuary menorah had cups designed to hold pure olive oil to fuel the wick.

5 You are to take flour and are to bake it (into) twelve loaves,
two tenth-measures shall be the one loaf;
6 you are to put them (into) two arranged-rows, six per row,
on the pure table, before the presence of YHVH.
7 And you are to place on (each) row clear frankincense, 
it shall be for the bread as a reminder-portion, a fire-offering to YHVH.
8 Sabbath day (by) Sabbath day he is to arrange it before the presence of YHVH, regularly, 
from the Children of Israel as a covenant for the ages.

memorial. The incense was put in two small golden cups, and one placed near each row of cakes.  It symbolized prayer, and thus gave expression to the petition that God continue to grant food to the people of His covenant (Koenig).

every sabbath day. The bread remained on the table for a week, and was renewed each Sabbath.

9 They are to be Aharon’s and his sons’, 
they are to eat them in a holy place,
for they are a holiest holy-portion for him, from the fire-offerings of YHVH-an allotment for the ages.

an everlasting covenant.  This phrase is applied to the Sabbath itself (Exod. XXXI, 16); and this weekly offering from the Children of Israel typified the regular renewal of the covenant between God and His people, of which the Sabbath was ‘a sign’.

10-23.  THE PENALTY OF BLASPHEMY

The sole aim of all that is enjoyed in the Book of Leviticus is to sanctify Israel, individually and collectively.  When, therefore, anyone presumes to desecrate the Divine Name, the penalty must be ruthless.

10 Now the son of an Israelite woman went out
-he was (also) the son of an Egyptian man-
amid the Children of Israel; 
and they scuffled in the camp, 
the son of the Israelite-woman and a (fully) Israelite man.

went out. Or, ‘had come forth’ from Egypt, among the children of Israel (Erlich).  The cause of the quarrel is not stated, because it is not of material importance.  Note that the blasphemer is not ‘an Israelite’ but the ‘son of the Israelitish woman’.  Only one of the mixed multitude (Exod. XII,38) could be guilty of so heinous an offence.

11 Now the son of the Israelite woman reviled the Name, and insulted (it),
so they brought him to Moshe
-now the name of his mother (was) Shelomit daughter of Divri, of the tribe of Dan-

lit., to indicate by name here with unholy contempt and dishonour.

the Name. The Divine Name of the four letters Y H W H, which is never pronounced, but read as Adonay.

his mother’s name.  Rashi remarks that his genealogy is recorded to impress upon the Israelite that a man’s life is not his own to do with as he pleased.  His disgrace is also that of his parents, of his tribe, of his people.

12 and they put him under guard, to clarify it for them by order of YHVH.

that it might be declared (to indicate for themselves).  The Torah had ordained, ‘Thou shalt not revile God’ (Exod. XXII,27); but no penalty had been mentioned in that connection.

13 And YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying:
14 Take-out the insulter, outside the camp,
 let all those who heard (the curse) lean their hands on his head 
 and let the entire community pelt him!

without the camp.  Where all executions took place, so as not to defile its holiness.

lay their hands.  They thereby signified that they were personally concerned in the offence, inasmuch as the blasphemous words had fallen upon their ears.  They were, therefore, discharging their duty by bringing the culprit to justice.

15 And to the Children of Israel you are to speak, saying:
Any-man, any-man that insults his god- 
he shall bear his sin!

and thou shalt speak. The incident became the opportunity of presenting to the Israelites a law on this and kindred offences.

16 But whoever reviles the name of YHVH 
is to be put-to-death, yes, death,
the entire community is to pelt, yes, pelt him; 
as the sojourner, so the native, 
when he reviles the Name, he is to be put-to-death!

the stranger.  Although he is not subject to the precepts of the Torah and is to be allowed a large degree of tolerance, he yet may not be permitted to desecrate the holiness of the camp.  If he does not wish to worship the God of Israel, he is not to be compelled to do so; but should he publicly revile the Holy Name, the offence is as serious with him as with the Israelite.

17 Now a man-when he strikes-down any human life, 
 he is to be put-to-death, yes, death!
18 One who strikes the life of an animal is to pay for it, life in place of life.

life for life. This phrase is a legal term equivalent to ‘fair compensation’; for it cannot mean that anyone who slew an animal should forfeit his own life in return!  In the same way, the phrase, ‘as he hath done, so shall it be done to him’ in v. 19, and ‘eye for eye’ and ‘tooth for tooth in v/ 20, are merely technical phrases for the demand that adequate and equitable compensation, after due and judicial appraisement of the injury inflicted, is to be paid for the injury.  There is in Jewish history no instance of the law of retaliation ever having been carried out literally—eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.  To the Talmudists the Biblical words eye for eye  had become a mere expression of the law of equality.  ‘None of the later (Rabbinic) law books even suggest retaliation as a proper remedy, the example of contemporary Europe and Asiatic systems of jurisprudence to the contrary notwithstanding’ (D.W. Amram).  The last clause reminds us of one of the paradoxes of history.

    • On the one hand, Judaism, the so-called religion of ‘strict justice’, rejected the literal application of the law of retaliation, and knew neither torture in legal procedure nor mutilation as a legal punishment.
    • In Christian lands, on the other hand, mutilation and torture are well-nigh the indispensable accompaniments of justice from the middle of the 13th century down to the end of the 18th, and in some countries to the middle of the19th century and beyond.
19 And a man-when he renders a defect in his fellow: 
as he has done, thus is to be done to him-
20 break in place of break, eye in place of eye, tooth in place of tooth; 
as he has rendered a defect in (another) human, thus is to be rendered in him.
21 Whoever strikes-down an animal is to pay for it,
but one who strikes-down a human is to be put-to-death.
22 One standard-of-judgment shall there be for you; 
as the sojourner, so shall the native be, 
for I, YHVH, am your God!

ye shall have one manner of law . . . homeborn.  One of the great texts of Scripture . . . Though in this connection the application of the law may be, so to speak, disadvantageous to the alien, the general principle of equality between alien and native is only strengthened thereby.  In no other code was there one and the same law for native-born and alien alike.  Even in Roman law, every alien was originally classed as an enemy, and therefore devoid of any rights.  Only gradually was the protection of the law in a limited degree extended to him.  It is not so very long ago that aliens in European states were incapable of owning landed property.  In many countries, the denial by the dominant race of civic and political rights to ‘aliens’, though these may have lived for generations in the land of their sojourn, is a matter of contemporary history.

for I am the LORD your God.   The reason given is noteworthy:  show equal justice to all men, for I am your God, the God of Israel, the Father of all mankind.  Once again, monotheism is the basis for the brotherhood of man (Hermann Cohen).

23 Thus spoke Moshe to the Children of Israel.
They took out the insulter, outside the camp 
and they pelted him with stones; 
so the Children of Israel did as YHVH had commanded Moshe.

stoned him. For a later historical application of the law of blasphemy, see the story of Naboth in I Kings XXI.