וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר
KJ (King James translation): And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
BN: Then YHVH spoke to Mosheh, saying:
Does every chapter of Leviticus begin with this same clause?
22:2 DABER EL AHARON VE EL BANAV VE YINAZRU MI KADSHEY VENEY YISRA-EL VE LO YECHALELU ET SHEM KADSHI ASHER HEM MAKDISHIM LI ANI YHVH
דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they profane not my holy name in those things which they hallow unto me: I am the LORD.
BN: Speak to Aharon and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the Beney Yisra-El, which they hold sacred to me, so that they do not profane my holy name: I am YHVH.
YINAZRU: From the same root that gave us NEZER previously. The key word though is again KODESH, or here MAKDISHIM – properly it means "separate", through a separation of what is sacred and what is profane. So in a sense this is tautological.
However I also think the translation (mine included) is wrong (or perhaps the original Yehudit lacks clarity); this is not about the Kohanim separating themselves from the holy things, but the Kohanim separating the holy things, which therefore includes themselves, from the rest of the people. The next verse will endorse this interpretation.
However I also think the translation (mine included) is wrong (or perhaps the original Yehudit lacks clarity); this is not about the Kohanim separating themselves from the holy things, but the Kohanim separating the holy things, which therefore includes themselves, from the rest of the people. The next verse will endorse this interpretation.
22:3 EMOR AL'EHEM LE DOROTEYCHEM KOL ISH ASHER YIKRAV MI KOL ZAR'ACHEM EL HA KADASHIM ASHER YAKDIYSHU VENEY YISRA-EL LA YHVH VE TUM'ATO ALAV VE NICHRETAH HA NEPHESH HA HI MI LEPHANAI ANI YHVH
אֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקְרַב מִכָּל זַרְעֲכֶם אֶל הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יַקְדִּישׁוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַיהוָה וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִלְּפָנַי אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.
BN: Say to them: Any man born of your seed, throughout your generations, who approaches the holy things which the Beney Yisra-El hold sacred to YHVH, if he does so while he is unclean, that soul shall be cut off from before me: I am YHVH.
The confirmation of my reading of the previous verse: keep the Beney Yisra-El away from the sacred objects, which includes yourselves, unless you know they are ritually clean.
22:4 ISH ISH MI ZERA AHARON VE HU TSARU'A O ZAV BA KADASHIM LO YO'CHAL AD ASHER YIT'HAR VE HA NOG'E'A BE CHOL TAM'E NEPHESH O ISH ASHER TETS'E MIMENU SHICHVAT ZARA
אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא יֹאכַל עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּכָל טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע
KJ: What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath a running issue; he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any thing that is unclean by the dead, or a man whose seed goeth from him;
BN: Any man who is of the seed of Aharon, and is a leper, or has an issue, he shall not eat of the holy things until he is clean. And whoever touches anyone who has been rendered unclean by the dead, or who has had an emission of seed ...
ISH ISH: I have asked this before, without finding an answer, but this verse seems to hint at an answer; that KOL ISH means "every man"; but ISH ISH means "any man"; a nuance, a subtlety of distinction.
But then there is the oddity of the double-negative. ISH ISH... LO.
SHICHVAT ZARA: See my notes to Leviticus 15:16 ff. But this verse appears to add an extra clause to the ordinance, depending on how we understand "an emission of seed"; it would seem that, just as a woman is rendered unclean by menstruating, so a man is rendered unclean by ejaculating. Make love to your wife on Friday evening, as is expected, and you cannot go to shul on shobbas! Can that really be what this is saying? And even to touch that man, to shake his hand as a greeting, to tap him on the shoulder, to brush up against him in the crowd...
22:5 O ISH ASHER YIGA BE CHOL SHERETS ASHER YITMA LO O VE ADAM ASHER YITMA LO LE CHOL TUM'ATO
אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכָל שֶׁרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא לוֹ אוֹ בְאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא לוֹ לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ
KJ: Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath;
BN: Or one who touches any reptile that renders him unclean, or a man from whom he may be made unclean contagiously, regardless of what uncleanness he may have...
22:6 NEPHESH ASHER TIGA BO VE TAM'AH AD HA AREV VE LO YO'CHAL MIN HA KADASHIM KI IM RACHATS BESARO BA MAYIM
נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע בּוֹ וְטָמְאָה עַד הָעָרֶב וְלֹא יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי אִם רָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם
KJ: The soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water.
BN: The soul that touches any such shall be considered unclean until evening, and he shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water.
22:7 U VA HA SHEMESH VE TAHER VE ACHAR YO'CHAL MIN HA KADASHIM KI LACHMO HU
וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי לַחְמוֹ הוּא
KJ: And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.
BN: And when the sun goes down, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the holy things, because it is his bread.
Surely this translation (which is the standard translation) has it the wrong way around (and yes, I know TheBibleNet is ostensibly non-theological, but this is culturally interesting too): U VA HA SHEMESH means "when the sun comes up" and not "when the sun goes down"; the inference is that the sun brings healing and redemption, which is a direct challenge to the position in every other cult of the time, where the moon goddess is the healer. If the translation is correct, then the healing powers of the moon are being acknowledged over those of the sun, but I think this should be read as "when the sun comes up"; he is considered unclean until the evening, and that period of uncleanliness terminates at sunset; but this verse in fact delays granting him permission to eat until the following morning - there is a limbo period, so to speak, a purgatorial stage of darkness, between "death" and "resurrection". He was TAM'E until the evening; so he has to wait till the next morning to eat, even though he is now clean. Again the resonances of the Yevarechecha; but also hints of a Yisra-Eli equivalent of the Am Tuat.
22:8 NEVELAH U TEREPHAH LO YO'CHAL LETAM'AH VAH ANI YHVH
נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל לְטָמְאָה בָהּ אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD.
BN: He shall not eat anything that has died of natural causes, or been torn by wild animals, and defile himself thereby: I am YHVH.
VAH: Note the dagesh chazak in the final letter (Hey - הּ). Properly this should VA HA (בָהָהּ)
But this law applies to everyone already (Exodus 22:31, Leviticus 7:24).
22:9 VE SHAMRU ET MISHMARTI VE LO YIS'U ALAV CHET U METU VO KI YECHALELUHU ANI YHVH MEKADSHAM
וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא יִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם
KJ: They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it: I the LORD do sanctify them.
BN: They shall therefore follow my ordinances, lest they bear sin for it, and die because of it, for having profaned it: I am YHVH who sets them apart to be holy.
The differences between CHUKOTAI, MITSVOTAI, MISHMARTI, TSIVOTAI, and other variations on the nature of sin are discussed in detail in "Day of Atonement". There are equivalents for virtue, used both of Humankind and of YHVH; on this occasion MEKADSHAM, but there are others. Someone once described the Torah, indeed the whole Tanach, as "the autobiography of God"; nowhere more so than in these verses does YHVH so strongly assert himself as the central character in the book.
22:10 VE CHOL ZAR LO YO'CHAL KODESH TOSHAV KOHEN VE SACHIR LO YO'CHAL KODESH
וְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹשַׁב כֹּהֵן וְשָׂכִיר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ
KJ: There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
BN: No stranger shall eat any of the food consecrated as holy; the tenant of a Kohen, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy food.
ZAR: means "strange" or "foreign", so the logical first assumption is that the intention is not a "common man", but specifically somebody who is not of the tribe of the Beney Yisra-El. This will prove to be incorrect; and I will return to this.
What exactly is the "holy thing"? Anything sacrificed presumably. Or only the shewbread? See the next verse.
If the assumption is correct, then it contradicts Leviticus 19:34, which states clearly that HA GER must be treated equally with HA EZRACH? Or is there somehow yet another distinction being made, between the GER and the ZAR? The following verse does indeed make this distinction: a general stranger is a ZAR, but the stranger who has been "purchased" - an employee in your retail store, the woman who does your cleaning, the man who valets your car or your swimming pool - counts as part of your clan, and is therefore permitted to eat; and that in spite of the clear prohibition in this verse. Whereas the tourist from beyond the borders who has booked online to AirB&B in your apartment while you are on holiday elsewhere, may not go into your fridge or freezer or store-cupboards, but must self-provision.
22:11 VE CHOHEN KI YIKNEH NEPHESH KINYAN KASPO HU YO'CHAL BO VIY'LID BEITO HEM YO'CHLU VE LACHMO
וְכֹהֵן כִּי יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ הוּא יֹאכַל בּוֹ וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ
KJ: But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
BN: But if a Kohen acquires that soul as property, purchasing that soul with money, then he may eat of it; and anyone who is born in his home, he may eat of his bread.
Meaning explicitly the shewbread, not just any meal. But also, now, including the previously prohibited servant, provided he is bought and not hired, or born in the "tribal home" ("house" infers a sedentary community and we are supposed to believe that these laws are being given to desert-dwellers).
22:12 U VAT KOHEN KI TIHEYEH LE ISH ZAR HI BI TERUMAT HA KADASHIM LO TO'CHEL
וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִוא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל
KJ: If the priest's daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.
BN: And if the daughter of a Kohen is married to a common man, she shall not partake of any food that is set apart as holy.
ZAR: I have translated this as "common man", partly because so many translations render it this way, partly to enable me to return to my incomplete comment on verse 10. "Common man" provides a perfect illustration of the way in which culture as well as language needs to be conveyed in the translation; or in this case of the way in which the receiving culture (English) has imposed its culture (class) on the original. Let me simply say that "common man" is a very badly inaccurate translation. The point here is that the girl has "married out".
Which leads us to reconsider the above from a different angle, though it will take us to the same conclusion: because the daughter of a Kohen surely cannot marry outside the tribe, and there was no process of conversion for the groom in those days; and anyway, even today, a Kohen cannot marry a convert; so the ZAR has to mean the hoi poloi among the Beney Yisra-El, and cannot mean a foreigner (which is what ZAR really does mean), that she has indeed married out (of the Levitical tribe), even while theoretically marrying in (within the Beney Yisra-El) - all of which, much to my regret, further reinforces the snobbery described earlier, and reinstates "common man" as a perfectly valid translation.
22:13 U VAT KOHEN KI TIHEYEH ALMANAH U GERUSHAH VE ZERA EYN LA VA SHAVAH EL BEIT AVIHA KI NE'UREYHA MI LECHEM AVIHA TO'CHEL VE CHAL ZAR LO YO'CHAL BO
וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ וְשָׁבָה אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל וְכָל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ
KJ: But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.
BN: But if the daughter of the Kohen is a widow, or divorced, and has no child, and has returned to her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's bread; but no common man shall eat thereof.
A generosity that Mohammed would have applauded - click here.
22:14 VE ISH KI YO'CHAL KODESH BI SHEGAGAH VE YASAPH CHAMISHIYTO ALAV VE NATAN LA KOHEN ET HA KODESH
וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְיָסַף חֲמִשִׁיתוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ
KJ: And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give it unto the priest with the holy thing.
BN: And if a man should eat some of the food set aside as holy by mistake, then he shall add a fifth to it, and give it to the Kohen [to replace] the holy thing.
How exactly do you carry this out? You sit down as a guest at the lunch-table with the Kohen and his family, and by mistake the hired servant brings out the plate with the sin-offering shoulders of lamb from yesterday's kurban (only the Kohen may eat it), rather than the previous day's leftover thanksgiving offering prime cuts of beef (anyone may eat it, provided they are clean, and inside the precinct of the courtyard, maximum two days), and you pile your plate and tuck in, with cole slaw, and fresh pitt abread, and... and then Mrs Kohen says "oi veys mir", because she has just realised the terrible error. The law requires you to give back what you took, plus a fifth. How? I have no answer to this conundrum.
22:15 VE LO YECHALELU ET KADSHEY BENEY YISRA-EL ET ASHER YARIYMU LA YHVH
וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַיהוָה
KJ: And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they offer unto the LORD;
BN: And they shall not profane the holy things of the Beney Yisra-El, which have been set apart for YHVH.
22:16 VE HISIY'U OTAM AVON ASHMAH BE ACHLAM ET KADSHEYHEM KI ANI YHVH MEKADSHAM
וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֹן אַשְׁמָה בְּאָכְלָם אֶת קָדְשֵׁיהֶם כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם
KJ: Or suffer them to bear the iniquity of trespass, when they eat their holy things: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
BN: Or cause them to commit a sin such as leads to guilt, by eating from the food that has been set apart as holy; for I am YHVH who sets them apart as holy.
I like this law: don't do it, and not only because it will cause someone else to sin, but because you will feel guilty about causing someone else to sin (and then they will feel guilty about unintentionally causing you to feel guilty about making them feel guilty about making you feel guilty....), and that too is a matter that will require purgation.
pey break
22:17 VA YEDABER YHVH EL MOSHEH LEMOR
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר
KJ: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
BN: Then YHVH spoke to Mosheh, saying:
22:18 DABER EL AHARON VE EL BANAV VE EL KOL BENEY YISRA-EL VE AMARTA AL'EHEM ISH ISH MI BEIT YISRA-EL U MIN HA GER BE YISRA-EL ASHER YAKRIV KARBANO LE CHOL NIDREYHEM U LE CHOL NIDVOTAM ASHER YAKRIYVU LA YHVH LE OLAH
דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְאֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן הַגֵּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ לְכָל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכָל נִדְבוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַיהוָה לְעֹלָה
KJ: Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering;
BN: Speak to Aharon, and to his sons, and to all the Beney Yisra-El, and say to them: Any man of the house of Yisra-El, or of the strangers in Yisra-El, who brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will-offerings, which are brought to YHVH for a burnt-offering...
GER: Why would a non-Yisra-Elite wish to make a sacrifice to the Yisra-Elite god? Perhaps en route to conversion? Unlikely - we know from the Ruth story that formal conversion did not happen in Biblical times, and, from the story of David obtaining Michal's bride-price in Gat (1 Samuel 18:24 ff), that circumcision was not of itself sufficient to count as conversion. But if the only way to kill meat for food in a society where Yisra-Eli law was supreme and universal, was to take it to the Kohen for slaughter... or if one were entertaining Beney Yisra-El in one's home, and wanted the meat to be kosher...
22:19 LI RETSONCHEM TAMIM ZACHAR BA BAKAR BA KESAVIM U VA IZIM
לִרְצֹנְכֶם תָּמִים זָכָר בַּבָּקָר בַּכְּשָׂבִים וּבָעִזִּים
KJ: Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats.
BN: So that you may be accepted, you shall offer a male without blemish, from the beef cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats.
LI RETSONCHEM: Or LIR'TSONCHEM? See verse 29.
KESAVIM: Yet again, that typographic error for KEVASIM.
BAKAR: A rarely used word. MIKNEH is normal. Does this suggest a text from a different date?
22:20 KOL ASHER BO MUM LO TAKRIYVU KI LO LE RATSON YIHEYEH LACHEM
כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ כִּי לֹא לְרָצוֹן יִהְיֶה לָכֶם
KJ: But whatsoever hath a blemish, that shall ye not offer: for it shall not be acceptable for you.
BN: But any that have a blemish, them you shall not bring; for it shall not be accepted from you.
KJ: When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; and from the eighth day and thenceforth it shall be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Note the subtle difference between my translation and the standard. And does this include a Mark of Kayin (see Genesis 4:5)? How does this work in relation to the branding of animals, whether to denote ownership or to signify that it has been selected as a sacrificial beast?
22:21 VE ISH KI YAKRIV ZEVACH SHELAMIM LA YHVH LEPHAL'E NEDER O LINDAVAH BA BAKAR O VA TSON TAMIM YIHEYEH LE RATSON KOL MUM LO YIHEYEH BO
וְאִישׁ כִּי יַקְרִיב זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָה לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה בַּבָּקָר אוֹ בַצֹּאן תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן כָּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ
KJ: And whosoever offereth a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish hisvow, or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.
BN: And any man who brings a sacrifice of peace-offerings to YHVH in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered, or for a freewill-offering, whether of the herd or of the flock, it must be perfect if it is to be accepted; there shall be no blemish on it.
This sounds at first like an alternate version of a text already given, and with grammatical variations that seem to confirm it, as well as the repetitions. In fact, it adds an additional element: the status, not of the beast, but of the stated vow to bring the beast. So we can say yet again, that if YHVH did indeed give the law to Mosheh on Mount Sinai, he must also have called him back on several occasions, and agreed amendments.
22:22 AVERET O SHAVUR O CHARUTS O YABELET O GARAV O YALEPHET LO TAKRIYVU ELEH LA YHVH VE ISHEH LO TITNU MEHEM AL HA MIZBE'ACH LA YHVH
עַוֶּרֶת אוֹ שָׁבוּר אוֹ חָרוּץ אוֹ יַבֶּלֶת אוֹ גָרָב אוֹ יַלֶּפֶת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֵלֶּה לַיהוָה וְאִשֶּׁה לֹא תִתְּנוּ מֵהֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַיהוָה
KJ: Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scurvy, or scabbed, ye shall not offer these unto the LORD, nor make an offering by fire of them upon the altar unto the LORD.
BN: Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wen, or scabbed, or scurvy, you shall not offer these to YHVH, nor offer them to YHVH by fire on the altar.
AVERET: A variation of Iver, which occurred in Leviticus 21:18; IVARON appears as a third variation in Deuteronomy 28:28 and Zechariah 12:4. Generally IVER is the adjective (blind) and AVERET and IVARON (עִוָּרוֹן) are the noun (blindness).
SHAVUR: literally "broken".
CHARUTS: A wen, apparently, is "a boil or other swelling or growth on the skin, especially a sebaceous cyst", which connects it with GAREV and YALEPHET later in this verse, both of which we have already encountered in Leviticus 21:20.
YABELET: A running sore, from the root YABAL = "to flow".
GARAV: see Leviticus 21:20.
YALEPHET: see Leviticus 21:20.
SHAVUR: literally "broken".
CHARUTS: A wen, apparently, is "a boil or other swelling or growth on the skin, especially a sebaceous cyst", which connects it with GAREV and YALEPHET later in this verse, both of which we have already encountered in Leviticus 21:20.
YABELET: A running sore, from the root YABAL = "to flow".
GARAV: see Leviticus 21:20.
YALEPHET: see Leviticus 21:20.
22:23 VE SHOR VA SEH SARU'A VE KALUT NEDAVAH TA'ASEH OTO U LE NEDER LO YERATSEH
וְשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה שָׂרוּעַ וְקָלוּט נְדָבָה תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתוֹ וּלְנֵדֶר לֹא יֵרָצֶה
KJ: Either a bullock or a lamb that hath any thing superfluous or lacking in his parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.
BN: Either a bullock or a lamb that has any part too long or too short, that you may offer for a freewill-offering; but for a vow it shall not be accepted.
A verse which helps us understand better the hierarchies of sacrifice. You can give the animal anyway, and feel good about it; and of course you can now eat it, because it's been kosherly shechitah'ed; but it won’t have any religious value beyond that. And this is necessary, because people need to eat, and animals have to be slaughtered for that to happen; deny the right of sacrifice at the altar and the farmer is going to slaughter the animal privately - and then who can say whether it was done cruelly or humanely, hygienically or otherwise?
22:24 U MA'UCH VE CHATUT VE NATUK VE CHARUT LO TAKRIYVU LA YHVH U VE ARTSECHEM LO TA'ASU
וּמָעוּךְ וְכָתוּת וְנָתוּק וְכָרוּת לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ לַיהוָה וּבְאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ
KJ: Ye shall not offer unto the LORD that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut; neither shall ye make any offering thereof in your land.
BN: You shall not offer to YHVH any animal whose stones are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut; nor shall you do thus when you come into the land.
MA'UCH: The root is MA'ACH = "to press"; it also yields the name MA'ACHAH, which is a village near Mount Chermon, and the name of several people - see my notes at the link.
CHATUT: Generally used for beating and hammering metal. Joel 4:10 for example, the famous line that no one ever knows where it comes from: "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears - כֹּתּוּ אִתֵּיכֶם לַחֲרָבוֹת... CHOTO ITEYCHEM LA CHAROVOT."
NATUK: Again a word normally associated a long way from the farm or the abattoir. Judges 20:32 finds the Beney-Yamin fighting at Ba'al Tamar, making the decision to draw the enemy away from the city - וּֽנְתַקְּנֻ֔הוּ - U NETAKNUHU. Joshua 8:16 has precisely the same context, with a variant usage - וַיִּנָּתְק֖וּ - VA YINATKU. We came across NETEK (נתק) in Leviticus 13:30 ff, where it was a "scall", some kind of scurf, presumably called this because it looks like the skin has been torn away or drawn away.
CHARUT: A word much seen, and much commented on, throughout these commentaries - in a slightly different form, but from the same root: NICHRETAH. To cut, or cut off. People, threads from garments, but also covenants - as in Genesis 15:18 " BA YOM HA HU KARAT (כרת) YHVH ET AV-RAM BRIT - in that day YHVH made a covenant with Av-Ram..."
Note that the blemishes that preclude an animal from being sacrificed are precisely the same as the blemishes that preclude a human from engaging in any part of ritual or ceremony. No distinctions.
22:25 U MI YAD BEN NECHAR LO TAKRIYVU ET LECHEM ELOHEYCHEM MI KOL ELEH KI MASHCHATAM BAHEM MUM BAM LO YERATSU LACHEM
וּמִיַּד בֶּן נֵכָר לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ אֶת לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל אֵלֶּה כִּי מָשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם לֹא יֵרָצוּ לָכֶם
KJ: Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the bread of your God of any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you.
BN (provisional): Nor through the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your god of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you.
So many translations: which one to choose? This one is from the Study Bible, and it is, shall we say, not a coherent sentence in English. New Living Translation has "and you must not accept such an animal from foreigners and then offer it as a sacrifice to your god. Such animals will not be accepted on your behalf, for they are mutilated or defective." Much better (I have made god lower case; it was upper case in the original; but see below).
BN (final): And if someone who is not of the Beney Yisra-El offers you an animal which is blemished in any of these ways, you are prohibited from bringing it as a sacrifice to your gods; it will not be accepted.
My one residual concern with this final "offering" is ELOHEYCHEM, which suggests a very much earlier version of the law, or a document belonging to a different people; how otherwise does it say ELOHEYCHEM - gods, plural - and not ELOHIM or YHVH?
pey break
22:26 VA YEDABER YHVH EL MOSHEH LEMOR
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר
KJ: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
BN: Then YHVH spoke to Mosheh, saying,
22:27 SHOR O CHESEV O EZ KI YIVALED VE HAYAH SHIV'AT YAMIM TACHAT IMO U MI YOM HA SHEMIYNI VE HAL'AH YERATSEH LE KARBAN ISHEH LA YHVH
שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה לְקָרְבַּן אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה
BN: When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is born, it shall spend seven days with its mother; but from the eighth day and afterwards it may be accepted as a fire-offering to YHVH.
Which law connects to the Brit Milah (Leviticus 12:2), and by the terms of deduction used elsewhere, tells us that the Brit Milah is therefore regarded not just as a rite and ceremony but actually as an act of sacrifice.
Why the eighth day? In Leviticus 12:2 it was because the mother had to remain separate for a full week before she was clean, but in fact, from the dozens of statements of the number seven, we know that it was a much deeper mythological-reason than that. Because there is the seven day cycle of Creation, after which there is the start of what we might call Being; as this applies to the making of the Universe, so it applies to everything within the Universe, human and animal. Does this make the occurrence of the Jubilee in the seventh year an inconsistency? No, because the jubilee is neither about Creation nor Being, but that intervening moment of Rest between the two.
22:28 VE SHOR O SEH OTO VE ET BENO LO TISHCHATU BE YOM ECHAD
וְשׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה אֹתוֹ וְאֶת-בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד
KJ: And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day.
BN: And whether it be a cow or a ewe, you shall not kill both the mother and the young on the same day.
Which law connects to not seething a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19 and Deuteronomy 14:21) and to not taking the mother-bird with the eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6), but also to the sexual prohibitions and the laws of blood – in all cases there is a recognition that all living creatures are sacred to YHVH, and must be treated with the same "humanity" as other of YHVH's creatures (there is an intrinsic conflict-contradiction in this of course, because the Ebola virus, and the malarial mosquito, and cancer cells, are all creatures of YHVH too, but no permission is required from the Almighty to render them obsolete).
22:29 VE CHI TIZBECHU TODAH LA YHVH LIRTSONCHEM TIZBACHU
וְכִי תִזְבְּחוּ זֶבַח תּוֹדָה לַיהוָה לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחוּ
KJ: And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the LORD, offer it at your own will.
BN: And when you make a sacrifice of thanksgiving to YHVH, you shall sacrifice it willingly that you may be accepted.
LIRTSONCHEM: the key word throughout these practices, RATSON, which suggests "willingness", the "voluntary" nature of the donation - just as the animal must go willingly to slaughter, so you must bring it willingly.
Presumably, as with prayer in the post-Temple world, there is an implicit danger that people will carry out laws because they always have done so, it's tradition, you're meant to, this is just how we do things, but without knowing why, let alone thinking about it while doing it. So the act becomes meaningless, a passive activity one might say. There is Keva, which is the lifestyle, the discipline, but there is also Kavanah, which derives from this: Kavanah means intention, and the intention is that sacrifices are done both with intention ("that you may be accepted") and with intensity, which is to say sincerity: that you mean it. Keva without kavanah is the equivalent of munafiqun in Islam. It is what Yesha-Yahu means when he says that "YHVH wants your obedience, not your sacrifices" (Isaiah 1:11 ff); and see also 1 Samuel 15:22.
Presumably, as with prayer in the post-Temple world, there is an implicit danger that people will carry out laws because they always have done so, it's tradition, you're meant to, this is just how we do things, but without knowing why, let alone thinking about it while doing it. So the act becomes meaningless, a passive activity one might say. There is Keva, which is the lifestyle, the discipline, but there is also Kavanah, which derives from this: Kavanah means intention, and the intention is that sacrifices are done both with intention ("that you may be accepted") and with intensity, which is to say sincerity: that you mean it. Keva without kavanah is the equivalent of munafiqun in Islam. It is what Yesha-Yahu means when he says that "YHVH wants your obedience, not your sacrifices" (Isaiah 1:11 ff); and see also 1 Samuel 15:22.
22:30 BA YOM HA HU YE'ACHEL LO TOTIYRU MIMENU AD BOKER ANI YHVH
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יֵאָכֵל לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the LORD.
BN: It must be eaten on the same day; you shall not leave any of it until the morning: I am YHVH.
22:31 U SHEMARTEM MITSVOTAI VA ASIYTEM OTAM ANI YHVH
וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם מִצְוֹתַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Therefore shall ye keep my commandments, and do them: I am the LORD.
BN: So you shall keep my commandments, and do them: I am YHVH.
This constant repetition of ANI YHVH reads like the initials we put on legal documents to confirm we have read them and approved them, or like a royal seal, confirming authorship. I sign my cheques and paintings in exactly the same way.
22:32 VE LO TECHALELU ET SHEM KADSHI VE NIKDASHTI BETOCH BENEY YISRA-EL ANI YHVH MEKADISHCHEM
וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם
KJ: Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you,
BN: And you shall not profane my holy name; but I will be treated as holy by the Beney Yisra-El: I am YHVH who treats you as holy,
22:33 HA MOTSI ET'CHEM ME ERETS MITSRAYIM LIHEYOT LACHEM LE ELOHIM ANI YHVH
הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: That brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD.
BN: Who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim, to be your god. I am YHVH.
No comments:
Post a Comment