Leviticus 21:1 – 24:23
21:1 VA YOMER YHVH EL MOSHEH EMOR EL HA KOHANIM BENEY AHARON VE AMARTA AL'EHEM LE NEPHESH LO YITAMA BE AMAV
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו
KJ (King James translation): And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:
BN (BibleNet translation): Then YHVH said to Mosheh: Speak to the Kohanim, the sons of Aharon, and say to them: No soul shall defile itself [for the dead] among his people.
VA YOMER: some verses start VA YOMER, others VA YEDABER - is this another way for us to recognise different sources, like J and E; different epochs perhaps? Or is the difference within the text itself, its precise meaning, rather than the voice of the writer? EMOR and HA KOHANIM that follows also reflects a different way of using language.
LE NEPHESH LO YITAMA BE AMAV: The Yehudit doesn’t exactly say what is in the translation. A NEPHESH is a soul, but generally of the alive sort, and nothing here, or in the following verses, suggests death specifically, let alone explicitly, which is why I have put the phrase, which is the traditional understanding, in square brackets.
Nor is any explanation given of what defiling yourself means, whether for the dead or otherwise. Are the Kohanim being told that they cannot defile themselves ever, for anything; or that they are responsible for making sure the people don't? Again, unclear. And if it is about the dead, can we assume it means that a Kohen cannot touch a dead body, or even perhaps be near one, without it rendering him impure; and that the following verses are making an exception for family bereavements? If so, we need to look again at the deaths of the other two "sons of Aharon", in Leviticus 10, which raised all manner of complexities about impurity.
According to Rashi, the opposite is actually the case: by saying "sons of Aharon", as well as the seemingly repetitive "ha Kohanim", it makes clear that none of Aharon's sons may come in contact with the dead, both those who are Kohanim, and those who, for reason of blemishes, are precluded; whereas daughters, being left unmentioned, may have contact, and they can therefore deal with any deaths in the family. Which the following verse then modifies.
Nor is any explanation given of what defiling yourself means, whether for the dead or otherwise. Are the Kohanim being told that they cannot defile themselves ever, for anything; or that they are responsible for making sure the people don't? Again, unclear. And if it is about the dead, can we assume it means that a Kohen cannot touch a dead body, or even perhaps be near one, without it rendering him impure; and that the following verses are making an exception for family bereavements? If so, we need to look again at the deaths of the other two "sons of Aharon", in Leviticus 10, which raised all manner of complexities about impurity.
According to Rashi, the opposite is actually the case: by saying "sons of Aharon", as well as the seemingly repetitive "ha Kohanim", it makes clear that none of Aharon's sons may come in contact with the dead, both those who are Kohanim, and those who, for reason of blemishes, are precluded; whereas daughters, being left unmentioned, may have contact, and they can therefore deal with any deaths in the family. Which the following verse then modifies.
21:2 KI IM LI SHE'ERO HA KAROV ELAV LE IMO U LE AVIV VE LIVNO U LE VITO U LE ACHIV
כִּי אִם לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו לְאִמּוֹ וּלְאָבִיו וְלִבְנוֹ וּלְבִתּוֹ וּלְאָחִיו
KJ: But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,
BN: Except for his kin, the ones who are close relatives: for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother.
To clarify my allusion, above: when Aharon's sons Avi-Hu and Nadav died, in Leviticus 10, Mosheh told Aharon quite explicitly - and rather uncompassionately too - not to cut his hair or put on sackcloth (verse 6), nor leave the Mishkan, nor... all the way to then telling him off for not carrying out his duties fully (verse 19). Is this law then a response to that: YHVH, or Mosheh, have recognised an error in the original constitution, or simply another case of bad man-management by the executive, and passed this amendment to repair the damage? Or was the reason for the deaths of the two boys sufficient even to have overriden this law, had it been in place at the time?
21:3 VE LA ACHOTO HA BETULAH HA KEROVAH ELAV ASHER LO HAYETAH LE ISH LAH YITAMA
וְלַאֲחֹתוֹ הַבְּתוּלָה הַקְּרוֹבָה אֵלָיו אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָיְתָה לְאִישׁ לָהּ יִטַּמָּא
KJ: And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.
BN: And for his virgin sister, who is a close relative and has no husband, for her he may defile himself.
BETULAH: Note that this is the word for "virgin". I mention it only because it will become important to Christians later on; see Isaiah 7:14, the one and only Biblical suggestion of virgin birth in the matter of the Messiah, and in fact it isn't, except by mis-translation: the word "betulah" is not used there, but rather "alma"(עַלְמָה), which is a very different concept.
21:4 LO YITAMA BA'AL BE AMAV LE HECHALO
לֹא יִטַּמָּא בַּעַל בְּעַמָּיו לְהֵחַלּוֹ
KJ: But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.
BN: He shall not defile himself, being a leader of his people, to profane himself.
Again I am uncomfortable with the translation, which involves more words than are in the Yehudit, as if it's trying to flesh out an enigmatic phrase in order to find a meaning in it. Once again Rashi has an answer: he regards BA'AL as meaning "husband" (which is indeed one of its meanings), rather than "chief", and comes up with a somewhat complicated translation, which in English would be: "[But] a husband shall not defile himself for [a wife who causes] his desecration, [while she is] among his people." I have great respect for Rashi, but sadly this is meaningless in itself, likewise not what is written in the Yehudit, and anyway the previous verse has explicitly used ISH for "husband". Not that I can offer a better answer; and neither can Ellicott, Benson, Matthew Henry, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Matthew Poole, Gill ... all of whom you can follow at this link ... and at its end the hypothesis of the editors of the Cambridge Bible, that "The wording of the v. suggests a corruption in the text", which leads them to take the logical next step, and check the Septuagint. But the Septuagint has the same text, albeit in Greek - ou mianthesetai exapina en to lao autou eis bebelosin autou.
What other solution might we seek? And then we have it, and we understand where Rashi found it: go back to verse 2, the list of exceptions, the cases where the Beney Aharon, Kohen or otherwise, may defile themselves for their dead - the wife is not included! Verse 4 is a re-affirmation of that absence; and also a restatement that he must not defile himself. Whether because he is her husband, and/or because he is a chief among his people, he may not defile himself; period; and including having any contact with his wife's dead body.
As to there being a textual error, this may in fact be the case, but with HECHALO rather than with BA'AL. All translations render this as "profane himself", and Strong explains this as being the Hiphil form of CHALAL. But that is CHALAL with a Chet as its first letter, and only one LAMED, where surely this is... no, it only looks wrong. The initial Hey is the indicator of the Hiphil, the Chet is the start of the root, and that Lamed has a dot in it (dagesh chazak), indicating a double letter.
As to there being a textual error, this may in fact be the case, but with HECHALO rather than with BA'AL. All translations render this as "profane himself", and Strong explains this as being the Hiphil form of CHALAL. But that is CHALAL with a Chet as its first letter, and only one LAMED, where surely this is... no, it only looks wrong. The initial Hey is the indicator of the Hiphil, the Chet is the start of the root, and that Lamed has a dot in it (dagesh chazak), indicating a double letter.
21:5 LO YIKRECHU KARCHAH BE ROSHAM U PHE'AT ZEKANAM LO YEGAL'ECHU U VI VESARAM LO YISRETU SARATET
לֹא יקרחה (יִקְרְחוּ) קָרְחָה בְּרֹאשָׁם וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּבִבְשָׂרָם לֹא יִשְׂרְטוּ שָׂרָטֶת
KJ: They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
BN: They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corners of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
YIKRECHU KARCHAH: Why have the editors questioned this? In part because the previous verses have used the third person singular, so the change is very odd (or a hint of two texts being poorly interpolated or combined); in part because Deuteronomy 14:1 has the same instruction, in Mosheh's repetition at the end of the wilderness journey, but there it is in the second person plural: לֹא-תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם - LO TASIYMU KARCHAH BEYN EYNEYCHEM. For those not familiar with Yehudit, that first letter Tav on Tasiymu, combined with the final Vav (pronounced u in this case), indicates the second person plural, where the initial Yud on Yikrechu, combined with the same final Vav, indicates the third person plural. But why is this a problem for the editors? In this verse, YHVH is instructing Mosheh on what to instruct the Kohanim, so the 3rd person; in the other, Mosheh is speaking to them directly, so the second person. The 3rd person plural continues to be used in the verses that follow here. See also Leviticus 19:27/28, where the same instructions have already been given, and to everyone, not just the Kohanim.
What is worth questioning is: were these the specific acts which lead to defilement, or were they additional prohibitions? The practices described were common funeral practices in many cultures, including the Egyptian.
21:6 KEDOSHIM YIHEYU L'ELOHEYHEM VE LO YECHALELU SHEM ELOHEYHEM KI ET ISHEY YHVH LECHEM ELOHEYHEM HEM MAKRIYVIM VE HAYU KODESH
קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ שֵׁם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם כִּי אֶת אִשֵּׁי יְהוָה לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם הֵם מַקְרִיבִם וְהָיוּ קֹדֶשׁ
KJ: They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.
BN: They shall be holy to their god, and not profane the name of their god; for they offer the offerings of YHVH made by fire, the bread of their god; therefore they shall be holy.
So we can now say for certain that this is an instruction for the Kohanim to uphold themselves, and should be read as a reinforcement of Leviticus 19:27/28.
And is this also an explanation of the "strange fire" for which Avi-Hu and Nadav died in Leviticus 10?
21:7 ISHAH ZONAH VA CHALALAH LO YIKACHU VE ISHAH GERUSHAH ME ISHAH LO YIKACHU KI KADOSH HU L'ELOHAV
אִשָּׁה זֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה לֹא יִקָּחוּ וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ לֹא יִקָּחוּ כִּי קָדֹשׁ הוּא לֵאלֹהָיו
KJ: They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.
BN: They shall not take a woman who has served as a prostitute or a hierodule, or who has been profaned; neither shall they take a woman who has been divorced by her husband; for he is holy to his god.
Another oddity of the grammar, switching mid-sentence this time, back from the plural (YIKACHU) to the singular (HU) - see my notes to verse 5. The "he" at the end appears to refer to the husband who divorced her, but in fact refers to the Kohen.
ZONAH: Usually understood in today's world to mean a prostitute, but this is unlikely to have been the intention; the tribal structure (Levirate law etc), alongside the ability of men to take multiple wives and concubines, and the ceremonies of Asherah and Astarte and Shet and other fertility cults at the time, rendered prostitution in the form we know it highly unusual because essentially unnecessary. There is, however, a distinction in Yehudit between a zonah and a kadeshah, and we simply do not know what precisely that distinction was; in all probability a zonah was a woman who participated in the ceremonies on an occasional basis, because that was what you did at festival time, while a kadeshah was a formal member of the priestesshood, and this one of her duties. The text of this chapter makes no mention of kadeshot; nevertheless I have translated "zonah" here as both "prostitute" and "hierodule", because, in the matter of this law, neither would be permitted, the point being the woman's virginity, the loss of which defiles her as far as a Kohen is concerned, and no other factor.
CHALALAH: In what way is a woman profaned, other than whatever "harlotry" may mean? Can we understand it to mean the victim of rape (the point here being, again, her loss of virginity - see verse 13 - rather than any suggestion of collusion in the incident)?
Given that the laws have already made clear that no one should go near a zonah, why is this ordinance required? The key to both is the virginity of the woman, which is regarded as a state of sacredness (though why this is not also true of men is not something I have ever seen discussed among the theologians - of any religion! The answer, as always in Yisra-Eli culture, lies in the seed).
21:8 VE KIDASHTO KI ET LECHEM ELOHEYCHA HU MAKRIV KADOSH YIHEYEH LACH KI KADOSH ANI YHVH MEKADISHCHEM
וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ כִּי אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא מַקְרִיב קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם
KJ: Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God: he shall be holy unto thee: for I the LORD, which sanctify you, am holy.
BN: You shall therefore sanctify him; for he offers the bread of your god; he shall be holy to you; for I, YHVH, who sanctifies you, am holy.
How is this different from the second part of verse 7?
21:9 U VAT ISH KOHEN KI TECHEL LI ZENUT ET AVIHA HI MECHALELET BA ESH TISAREPH
וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן כִּי תֵחֵל לִזְנוֹת אֶת אָבִיהָ הִיא מְחַלֶּלֶת בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף
KJ: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
BN: And the daughter of any Kohen, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Harsh! And odd too, because burning with fire means a kurban, and this is specifically prohibited in Leviticus 1. I hate to ask this, but is she burned with fire while still alive. And if not, in what manner is she killed?
The practice of sati or suttee, for widows rather than daughters, is still practiced in India today.
samech break
21:10 VE HA KOHEN HA GADOL ME ACHIV ASHER YUTSAK AL ROSHO SHEMEN HA MISHCHAH U MIL'E ET YADO LILBOSH ET HA BEGADIM ET ROSHO LO YIPHRA U VEGADAV LO YIPHROM
וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וּמִלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לִלְבֹּשׁ אֶת הַבְּגָדִים אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם
KJ: And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;
BN: And the Kohen who is the most senior among his brethren, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured, and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, he shall not let the hair of his head go loose, nor tear his clothes.
KJ: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
This is not the first time reference has been made to the hair-style of the Kohen Gadol, and each time with a hint that it is permanently tied up in some manner; but no detail is given, other than the prohibitions. In the Sikh faith, men never cut their hair, but carry it wrapped in a patkah or turban; to take off the patkah would then leave it "loose" - is something of the same order intended for the Kohen Gadol? Not cutting the hair is also one of the requirements of the month-long period of Nazirut - for which, see the link.
21:11 VE AL KOL NAPHSHOT MET LO YAVO LE AVIV U LE IMO LO YITAMA
וְעַל כָּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא יִטַּמָּא
KJ: Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
BN: Nor shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother.
This in part answers the question about defilement raised at verse 1, though verse 7 does vary the matter. Did this law already apply to Aharon when his two sons were killed and Mosheh forbade him to mourn, in Leviticus 10? Or is it being instigated post-event, as a consequence of the way that was [very badly] handled?
What matters here is that, where a distinction has been made, above, between the Kohanim and the rest of the Beney Yisra-El, now a further distinction is being made between the Kohen Gadol and all other Kohanim - the chief must be, and must be seen to be, purer than anyone.
21:12 U MIN HA MIKDASH LO YETS'E VE LO YECHALEL ET MIKDASH ELOHAV KI NEZER SHEMEN MISHCHAT ELOHAV ALAV ANI YHVH
וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֵת מִקְדַּשׁ אֱלֹהָיו כִּי נֵזֶר שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.
BN: Nor shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his god; for the consecration of the anointing oil of his god is upon him: I am YHVH.
This too was among the instructions given to Aharon by Mosheh in Leviticus 10, which we regarded as very harsh at the time.
21:13 VE HU ISHAH VI VETULEYHA YIKACH
וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח
KJ: And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
BN: And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
VETULEYHA: See my note to verse 3, above
21:14 ALMANAH U GERUSHAH VA CHALALAH ZONAH ET ELEH LO YIKACH KI IM BETULAH ME AMAV YIKACH ISHAH
אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זֹנָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח כִּי אִם בְּתוּלָה מֵעַמָּיו יִקַּח אִשָּׁה
KJ: A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
BN: A widow, or one who is divorced, or a woman who has been profaned in any way, or a whore, or a hierodule, these he shall not take; but he shall he take for his wife a virgin from among his own people.
This limits his range of marriageable women to ones who are deemed pure, and more importantly, about whom no other man can pass comment based on experience, devaluing both her and her husband in the process; and, much more importantly, because the issue in these matters is always the principal issue: there can be no question who is the father of any child she then has. But as a priest of a fertility cult whose first commandment is to go forth and multiply, he is nonetheless required to marry - Egyptian priests, by contrast, were physically castrated, a practice continued metaphorically into Christianity.
21:15 VE LO YECHALEL ZAR'O BE AMAV KI ANI YHVH MEKADSHO
וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל זַרְעוֹ בְּעַמָּיו כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדְּשׁוֹ
KJ: Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.
BN: Nor shall he profane his seed among his people; for I am YHVH who has set him apart as holy.
Human beings are created equal in the sight of YHVH, but not in the sight of other human beings, and in the end it is the human beings who write the laws - as proven by this instruction, which establishes the tribe of Levi as a biological élite (the tribe, not just the Leviyim), who couldn't possibly make babies with commoners, whether fellow Beney Yisra-El or otherwise, but only with pure-blood virgins from the "right caste". The seed must be kept pure, as no doubt an Afrikaaner of the apartheid epoch might say, or Thomas Jefferson to his friends (though not his bed-companions!).
21:16 VA YEDABER YHVH EL MOSHEH LEMOR
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר
BN: Then YHVH spoke to Mosheh, saying:
For the blemishes in the verses that follow, see my notes to Leviticus 3:1.
21:17 DABER EL AHARON LEMOR ISH MI ZAR'ACHA LE DOROTAM ASHER YIHEYEH VO MUM LO YIKRAV LEHAKRIV LECHEM ELOHAV
דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אִישׁ מִזַּרְעֲךָ לְדֹרֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרַב לְהַקְרִיב לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו
KJ: Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
BN: Speak to Aharon, and tell him: Any man born of your seed, throughout their generations, who has a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his god.
MUM: Alongside blood and seed, this is the other great Yisra-Eli atavism, a neurosis about blemishes; it goes with the leprosy laws, and the requirement for unblemished sacrifices: the search for perfection, undermined by warts.
21:18 KI CHOL ISH ASHER BO MUM LO YIKRAV ISH IVER O PIS'E'ACH O CHARUM O SARU'A
כִּי כָל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרָב אִישׁ עִוֵּר אוֹ פִסֵּחַ אוֹ חָרֻם אוֹ שָׂרוּעַ
KJ: For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
BN: For any man who has a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or one who is lame, or he who has any part that is maimed, or anything that is too long...
IVER: With a Vav (ו), not a Vet (ב), and therefore unconencted to the name "Hebrew".
PIS'E'ACH: A very important reference this, because the context renders the meaning unequivocal; and thereby challenges the doubters, or supports the supporters, of the conviction that Pesach, the Passover, was originally the "limping festival", the ritual immolation in spring of the corn god as part of the new year festivities. See my notes at Genesis 32, and also Genesis 41:46.
CHARUM: Yes, maimed, but how odd that this too is a word with deeper meanings that may just be coincidence. The CHEREM for example, the act of excommunicating blasphemers and apostates, of annihilating cities and peoples entirely. But also the CHARAM, Charam al-Sharif in the Arabic, the Temple Mount, the holiest site in the Jewish world. And Mount Chermon comes from the same root; but then so do fishermen's nets and the traps used by fowlers (Ezekiel 26:5, Habbakuk 1:16) and whatever "the blandishments of women" might be (Ecclesiastes 7:26) - presumably the traditional mysoganistic accusation of "traps and snares". There is a man named Charim in Ezra 2:32 and 10:31, who Nechem-Yah also mentions (Nehemiah 3:11), or more likely nicknamed, because it means "flat-nosed", and this may very well be the blemish intended by CHARUM here. And then there is the harem, where Sultans kept their wives and concubines...
Why so many different words from the same root? The root of the root at the source of the source appears to be the notion of something deliberately closed, which a net or trap or harem or the holy place in the Temple would need to be; from this comes the metaphorical "closing" which is both the "Ne'ilah" ceremony, when the gates of the Temple were closed during prayer services in order to intensify the solemnity within, and also the act of dedication or devotion, later described in Judaism as "building a fence around the Torah": closing it in as something to which its followers are dedicated and devoted. So me might say that a flat-nosed fisherman who follows Judaism with strict Keva is CHARUM, CHARIM and CHARAM.
SARU'A: translated as too long, but how is that defined; and which body part? A fingernail? The penis? Prehensile arms? Basketball players? Gesenius seems to think that the ear is intended. I have no idea why.
21:19 O ISH ASHER YIHEYEH VO SHEVER RAGEL O SHEVER YAD
אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ שֶׁבֶר רָגֶל אוֹ שֶׁבֶר יָד
KJ: Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
BN: Or a man who is broken-footed, or broken-handed.
What if it is a temporary break? Can he approach the altar when the plaster cast comes off? The answer is yes (how do I know that?).
21:20 O GIBEN O DAK O TEVALUL BE EYNO O GARAV O YALEPHET O MERO'ACH ASHECH
אוֹ גִבֵּן אוֹ דַק אוֹ תְּבַלֻּל בְּעֵינוֹ אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת אוֹ מְרוֹחַ אָשֶׁךְ
KJ: Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
BN: Or crook-backed, or with a skin disease, or with cataracts , or who is scabbed, or has scurvy, or whose stones have been crushed;
GIBEN: Probably the source of the English word "gibbous", it means "curved"; GAVNUNIM (גַּבְנֻ֫נִּ֥ים) is used in Psalm 68:16 for the curved summit of a mountain - which leads me to wonder if all those GEB names - Giv-On and Giv-Yah (Gibeah) etc were not connected back to the Egyptian god of that name after all, but merely geographical descriptions; or perhaps that was the source of Geb's name too, being that he was the mountain-god. That latter is anyway pure speculation; normally Giv-On and Giv'ah etc are assumed to connect with GEV'A (גבע) - "which has the sense of elevation" in Gesenius' dictionary.
DAK: "dwarf" is simply incorrect. The modern Ivrit word for dwarf is GAMAD (גמד), which has no Biblical precursor. DAK appears in Isaiah 29:5 as AVAK DAK = "fine dust", and 40:15 compares certain islands to certain "small things"; Exodus 16:14 speaks of a DAK MECHUSPAM (דַּק מְחֻסְפָּס) "a fine, scale-like thing", which is DAK KA KEPOR AL HA ARETS (דַּק כַּכְּפֹר עַל הָאָרֶץ) "fine as the hoar-frost on the ground" - this is the manna they will be eating from now on. And in Genesis 41:3, the cattle in Pharaoh's dream are described as RA'OT MAREH VE DAKOT BASAR (רעות מראה ודקות בשר) "ill-favoured and lean-fleshed". None of these suggest dwarfishness, though both anorexia and bulimia, as well as malnutrition and its consequences, would all fit.
TEVALUL: Stained and spotted are the choices of other translators; the very different translation here seems to be a read-back from an Aramaic Targum (translation) of the Book of Tov-Yah (Tobit or Tobias in most translations), where the slightly different root BALAL (בלל) = "to pour over" (e.g Numbers 7:13, but it is very common throughout the Tanach) is used to mean something like "bleary-eyed" - possibly a bad case of conjunctivitis or blepharitis, though more likely a cataract.
GARAV: One of King David's officers is named GAREV, in 2 Samuel 23:38, repeated in 1 Chronicles 11:40. It is also the name of one of the hills of Yeru-Shala'im, according to Jeremiah 31:39.
YALEPHET: Both GARAV and YALEPHET are understood to mean "scabby" or "scurvy"; the latter comes with an itch, so in all likelihood the former refers to warts or boils, where something is issuing through the pores and settling on the skin, the latter eczema or psoriasis, where the skin itself is the source of the blemish.
MERU'ACH ASHECH: Crushed or removed? Gall or testes? As this is the only use of the expression, we can only surmise; it is generally regarded as a medical condition, but it is also possible that a deliberately castrated eunuch is intended. Note that all the previous blemishes are merely aesthetic phobias in the mind of the deity, whereas the latter impinges on fertility.
This demand for perfection goes with the red heifer (Numbers 19). But are all these not also creatures of YHVH? Even if they are malformed or imperfect, they too reflect the image and the likeness of their maker (who therefore must have warts as well: thorns with his roses, so to speak: flaws in his immaculate creation: black holes in his cosmos). And we are supposed to treat all humanity as we would be treated ourselves - Leviticus 19:18.
Are these the same deformities that prohibit a Levite from serving in the priesthood? They have to apply there too, but my question is really: are these all of them, or are there more in the Levitical case?
21:21 KOL ISH ASHER BO MUM MI ZERA AHARON HA KOHEN LO YIGASH LEHAKRIV ET ISHEY YHVH MUM BO ET LECHEM ELOHAV LO YIGASH LEHAKRIV
כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן לֹא יִגַּשׁ לְהַקְרִיב אֶת אִשֵּׁי יְהוָה מוּם בּוֹ אֵת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו לֹא יִגַּשׁ לְהַקְרִיב
KJ: No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
BN: No man of the seed of Aharon the Kohen, who has a blemish, shall approach to offer the offerings of YHVH made by fire; he has a blemish; he shall not approach to offer the bread of his god.
21:22 LECHEM ELOHAV MI KADSHEY HA KEDASHIM U MIN HA KADASHIM YO'CHEL
לֶחֶם אֱלֹהָיו מִקָּדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים וּמִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים יֹאכֵל
KJ: He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
BN: He may eat the bread of his god, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
An important clarification; if he is of the priestly family, then he needs to eat at the priestly table. The blemish precludes his participation in the ceremony, not the supper.
21:23 ACH EL HA PAROCHET LO YAVO VE EL HA MIZBE'ACH LO YIGASH KI MUM BO VE LO YECHALEL ET MIKDASHAI KI ANI YHVH MEKADSHAM
אַךְ אֶל הַפָּרֹכֶת לֹא יָבֹא וְאֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יִגַּשׁ כִּי מוּם בּוֹ וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֶת מִקְדָּשַׁי כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם
KJ: Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
BN: Only he shall not enter as far as the veil, nor approach the altar, because he has a blemish; so that he does not profane my holy places; for I am YHVH who sets them apart as holy.
The text says "EL", meaning "to the parochet", but surely the point is that he can't go "beyond" the parochet into the holy of holies?
21:24 VA YEDABER MOSHEH EL AHARON VE EL BANAV VE EL KOL BENEY YISRA-EL
וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְאֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.
BN: So Mosheh spoke to Aharon, and to his sons, and to all the Beney Yisra-El.
No comments:
Post a Comment