Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21 Exegesis and Intertextuality as Reflected in the Ancient...

This article was downloaded by: [178.93.178.138]On: 01 March 2012, At: 00:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of the OldTestament: An InternationalJournal of Nordic TheologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy12,20-21: Exegesis andIntertextuality as Reflected in theAncient Textual Witnesses andSecond Temple SourcesDavid Rothstein aa Hatzav 14a, Bet Shemesh, Israel 99000

Available online: 11 Jan 2011

To cite this article: David Rothstein (2010): Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21:Exegesis and Intertextuality as Reflected in the Ancient Textual Witnesses and SecondTemple Sources, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal ofNordic Theology, 24:2, 193-207

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2010.527073

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018328.2010.527073

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising outof the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Vol. 24, No. 2, 193-207, 2010

10.1080/09018328.2010.527073

Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21 Exegesis and Intertextuality as Reflected in the An-cient Textual Witnesses and Second Temple Sources David Rothstein Hatzav 14a, Bet Shemesh, Israel 99000 Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: The relationship of deuteronomic legislation to other legal collections in the Hebrew Bible has long been the subject of scholarly at-tention. One of the areas benefiting from this intense activity concerns �� ltic ramifications of this stance. In particular, scholars have addressed the rela-tionship between Deuteronomy and earlier pentateuchal legal/cultic norms that inform the positions and formulations of Deuteronomy. The present essay addresses one such instance, viz., the laws of animal slaughter in Lev 17 and Deut 12�and, more specifically, the claim at Deut 12,20-21 that its laws conform to earlier pentateuchal legislation�as understood by the author of 11QTa and the scribes responsible for LXX (or its Vorlage), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and 4QLevd.

Lev 17 and Deut 12: The Masoretic Text The relationship between the laws of animal slaughter in Lev 17 and those of Deut 12 have long vexed students of the Hebrew Bible. Lev 17,3-4 states:1

(3)If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp or does so outside the camp, (4)and does not bring it to the Tent of �� r-nacle, blood-guilt shall be imputed to that ma� �

The simple meaning of this passage is that mundane slaughter of animals must take place in the tabernacle. A very different set of regulations is prom-ulgated by Deuteronomy. In mandating its principle of cult centralization,

1. Unless stated otherwise translation of biblical passages according to the masoretic version follows NJPS.

’© Taylor & Francis 2010

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

mailto:[email protected]

194 David Rothstein

Deut 12,20-21 permits mundane slaughter for those living at a distance from �� !" This passage reads:

(20)When the Lord enlarges your territory, as He has promised you, and �� #$ �� %��'�� %��" (21)If the place where the Lord has chosen to establish His name is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the Lord gives you, as I have instructed you* �� "! This troubling state of affairs did not go unnoticed among early rabbinic

tradents, who proffered two solutions. Rabbinic sources attribute to R. Akiba the view that the central point of the deuteronomic passage is that upon set-tlement in their land + �� 6��! �� + Israelites may consume the meat of domestic animals only if these have been slaughtered by �� ;�"�"� �<=>?@! �� <G>?K!M"2 Whatever the shortcomings of this approach, it succeeds in resolving the contradiction be-tween the two pericopae and, moreover, accounts for the fact that Lev 17:7 refers to the preceding ritual legislation as an eternal statute. By contrast, R. Ishmael is reported to have proffered the view that the legislation of Lev 17 �� $�� %ilderness trek, during which time all slaughtering, both sacral and mundane, was permitted only inside the taber-nacle; the laws set forth in Deut 12, however, govern the practice of animal �� %�� $�� "3 Each of these posi-tions, to be sure, is beset by various exegetical difficulties.4 Not surprisingly, modern scholarship has sought other explanations of the two pentateuchal sources and their respective stances. Fundamentally, the positions of modern scholars may be grouped into three camps. The first approach, adopted by

2. See Sipre Deut 75, b. Hul. 16b, and the sources cited in B.J. Schwartz, The Holi-ness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999), p. 66, n. 1 (Hebrew). On this view, animals that were slaughtered for mundane purposes during the wilderness trek could be slaughtered by means other than cutting of the throat. Because of the complexities surrounding the precise nature of the view attri-buted to R. Akiva in rabbinic sources, I have cited only those aspects essential for present purposes. I plan to address other aspects of this view elsewhere. 3. Ibid. [�� ! �� \" $�� Nahmanides ad Deut 12,20 (and below, n. 8); for more recent discussion of points bearing on the views of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael see D.Z. Hoffmann, Leviticus (translated from German; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1972), pp. 320-25 (He-��%M� `" `�� q{��'�| } ~�� Miqsat ��-Torah�! DSD 2 (1995), pp. 1-�� " �� $�� Camp: The Halakhic Background to Changes in the Septuagint Leviticus, with Ref-�� %� {�� ! JNSL 23 (1997), pp. 151-�� " �� Sanctity of Jerusalem in Rabbinic �� ! Tarbiz 67 (1997), pp. 5-�� ;��%M� �" �� q{�� #�� -Torah and Related Texts: ��%� �� ! Tarbiz 68 (1999), pp. 335-37 (Hebrew), and Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, pp. 65-70. 4. See the discussions of Hoffmann and Schwartz cited in the preceding note.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21 195

most scholars and exemplified by the recent work of B.J. Schwartz, maintains that the two pentateuchal sources prescribe fundamentally different, and mu-tually exclusive, legislation: Leviticus 17 proscribes all mundane slaughter, under all circumstances, whereas Deuteronomy permits such activity, with the proviso that it be performed at some distance from the chosen place.5 }�� "�" ��'�� law� �� 6�� and reformulation, of earlier legal material and lexemes in order to further its own program of cult centralization and the far-ranging reformulation of ritual practices entailed thereby. Specifically, the deuteronomic position involves a literary reworking of Exod 20,21; whereas this verse, like most pentateuchal �� ?��?�� ! �� %�� immolation,6 Deuteronomy 12 innovatively employs this same lexeme in connection with mundane slaughter.7

The second school of thought, reflected in the position of J. Aloni, has at-tempted to reconcile Lev 17 and Deut 12, albeit along lines very different from those proposed by rabbinic tradents. Specifically, Aloni argues that Lev 17,3-4, while preserving cultic norms common to the ancient Near East, re-flects a priestly concession to the deuteronomic position which, he presumes, had become normative. As part of his position, Aloni proffers the view that t�� camp (<K?�� ?�M! �� Lev 17,3 (and the same syn-tagm found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) refers specifically to the imme-diate vicinity of the wilderness camp; hence, Lev 17,3-4 proscribes mundane slaughter that takes place in the Israelite camp or its immediate vicinity, but not beyond + a position corresponding to the of Deut 12,20-21.8

5. Ibid., pp. 65-96. 6. �� '�� | �� sacrifice (�?��) on it your burnt offerings and your sacrifices of well-being, your sheep and your oxe��! 7. See Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 28-46. 8. See �� ~�� ~�� }�� '�� 17:3-��! Shnaton 7/8 (1984), pp. 21-49 (Hebrew), especially pp. 34-35; see, also, M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York/London: Columbia University, 1971), p. 140. A similar understanding is ad-'�� ' ��,3, though for somewhat different reasons; Nahmanides states that while Lev 17,4 proscribes, in theory, mundane slaughter outside the tabernacle, it does so because, in practice, no Israelite ever ven-tured far from the wilderness camp. J. Milgrom has similarly adopted the position that Lev 17 proscribes mundane slaughter only within the immediate vicinity of the (local) sanctuaries. Milgrom sees this position, which presumes the existence of local cultic sites, as resolving the practical need for mundane slaughter; see Leviticus 17-22, AB �} ;��% ��| �� M� �" �q��" ��" �� the position of LXX, et al., discussed below.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

David Rothstein 196

A third approach to the position of Lev 17,3-4 and its relationship is taken by B.A. Levine.9 Levine adopts the fundamental approach of R. Akiba to Lev 17, wherein vv. 3-4 address cultic slaughter only. In support of this approach he argues that the root �=?@! denotes (specifically) cultic immolation, a claim based on, inter alios, Lev 1,5.11; 4,4.15 and 14,13.10 Accordingly, Levine maintains that Deut 12 and Lev 17 are in fundamental agreement; neither proscribes mundane slaughter (while both require that cultic immolation take place only at the central shrine).11

One of the difficulties posed by Deut 12 and its relationship to other pen-tateuchal sources�in particular Lev 17�concerns the meaning of Deut 12,21. In justifying its novel dispensation permitting mundane slaughter in distant places, this verse proclaims that such ritual conduct is to be performed �as I have instructed you!" This formulation presents the interpreter with a serious challenge: to what (previous) legislation does this phrase refer? Rab-binic tradents interpreted this phrase as referring to the laws of ritual slaugh-ter; specifically, the phrase was interpreted to mean that, like sacral immola-tion, mundane immolation requires slaughtering at the throat.12 This view was subsequently adopted by many medieval Jewish exegetes, albeit occasionally with some modification.13 More recently, the rabbinic position has been adopted by J. Milgrom.14 This position, to be sure, is marked by a glaring difficulty, namely, the introduction of a feature (cultic immolation) extrane-ous to the subject matter of the verse under discussion.15 It is hardly surpris- 9. JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), pp. 112-13. 10. See ibid., p. 207, n. 10, where Levine also cites Lev 4,4.15 and 14,13. To be sure, this argument is less than persuasive. The passages cited by Levine merely indicate �� =?@! � �� " �� %�� the context of each of these verses clearly indicates that cultic slaughter is involved, it is hardly certain that the lexeme, itself, exclusively denotes slaughter for sacrificial purposes. Accordingly, the use of this root at Lev 17,3-4, wherein cultic context is not specified (in the masoretic version), may simply denote the act of cutting the an-�� "�"� �� " 11. Unfortunately, Levine does not make explicit his understanding of Deut 12 or the relationship between it and Lev 17,3-4. Quite aside from the redundancy created by 17,3-4 and 17,8-9, one would like to know how Levine understands the dispensation for distant places at Deut 12:20-21. After all, if Lev 17 contains no proscription of mundane immolation, Deut 12 then promotes a more restrictive program than Lev 17. This, however, begs the question as to what rationale informs such an innovation. This difficulty is not resolved by positing that Deut 12 is reformulating Exod 20,21, as argued by Levinson, since it is possible to explain this passage along the same lines, viz., as permitting mundane immolation. 12. See Sipre Deut 75. 13. See the commentary of Nahmanides, ad loc.; see, also, the comments of Rashi, Gersonides, and Jacob b. Asher. 14. �~�� [�� ! HUCA 47 (1976), pp. 2-3 15. As noted by Levinson, Deuteronomy, p. 42.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21

197

ing, then, that modern students of Deuteronomy have proffered other solu-tion/explanations of 12,21. �� '� �6�� $ ��'� ��m-�� ! �� referring to the legislation at Deut 12,15, which also permits mundane slaughter, though with no proviso concerning distance from the �� !"16 This position, too, entails numerous difficulties. Levinson has noted that it is unlikely that 12,21 would employ this phrase in connec-tion with a law set forth only a few verses earlier.17 Similarly, Levinson notes that the explanation proffered by these scholars, according to which this phrase refers to Deut 12,�� $ have commanded you (�>�>� M! �� '�� m��!�i.e., obligation to perform some ritual act�in mind; 12:15, however, contains only a dispensation, not a command.18 Moreover, Levinson notes that 12:15 ��'�� '" �� G¡�� K¢ �� #�� t-�� itive object of the verb �?�� #�� !"19 Accordingly, Le'�� $ ��'� �� ! �� e�� %�� of Exod 20,�� %�� (�?��) on it your burnt offerings and your offerings of well-being, your sheep �� 6��!" �� ?�� (root, zbhM�! used elsewhere in pentateuchal sources only in connection with sacrificial immolation, to denote mundane slaughter. �� '�� '��%� ��e-ronomy has specifically followed the wording of Exod 20,21 (while altering �� 6�� ?��!M �� wn reforma-tion of earlier cultic/legal practice. Accordingly, Levinson avers that the �� $ ��'� �� ! �� -��!* �� makes this claim despite the fact that, in reality, there is no precedent for its position.20

LXX, SP, 4QLevd, and 11QTa There is little doubt that Jews in Second Temple circles, like later rabbinic tradents, would have found the depiction of Deut 12,�� udo-��! unacceptable. This, of course, brings us back to the question: what did these circles believe to be the antecedent of Deut 12,21? To anticipate the discus- 16. Thus, e.g., A. Rofe has argued that Deut 12,20-21 constitutes a late addition, whose purpose is to harmonize the contradiction between Lev 17,3-4 and the legisla-tion of the (earlier) deuteronomic law at 12,15, which permits mundane immolation everywhere; see ��-Sepher Debarim (Jerusalem: Aqademon Press, 1975), pp. 20-21; see, also, M.A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 228 and 534. For a listing of scholars subscribing to this view, see Levinson, Deuteronomy, p. 41, n. 42. For discussion of 11QTa�� r-standing of Deut 12:15, see below. 17. See Deuteronomy, p. 41, and the references cited therein. 18. This difficulty was duly noted by many of those proposing Deut 12,15 as the an-tecedent of 12,21; see ibid. 19. Ibid., p. 42. 20. Deuteronomy, pp. 42-43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

David Rothstein 198

sion below, these circles understood the antecedent of Deut 12,21 to be the laws of immolation as formulated in the expanded version of LXX, SP, and 4QLevd to Lev 17,3-4 and 17,8-9.21 This passage (with expansion in bold print) reads:

�(3)If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or goat or sheep in the camp, or does so outside the camp, (4)and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting so as to sacrifice it as a burnt offering or shela-mim (לעשות אותו עולה או שלמים) to the Lord to be acceptable as a sweet-smelling savor� �� ""(8)Say to them further: If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them offers22 a burnt offering or a sacrifice, (9)and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer it to the Lord, that person �� !"

Although scholars have proffered various interpretations of this version,23 there is, unfortunately, no explicit evidence of the way in which Lev 17 (and its relationship to Deut 12) was understood in the circles responsible for the reading of LXX, SP, and 4QLevd. This notwithstanding, I submit that the starting point for resolution of this interpretive crux is the formulation of im-molation laws in 11QTa (52:13 - 53:6). The relevant parts of this passage read (with elements taken from Lev 17 appearing in bold print):24

(col. 52) 13. And you shall not slaughter a clean ox or sheep or goat (�£ �¢ <@ �¢ G�@) 14. in all your towns, near to my temple (within) a distance of a three-�� ¤��* �� 15. my temple you shall slaughter it, making it a burnt offering or a peace offering ( שלמים ��?לעשות אותו עולה או ),25 and you shall eat 16. and rejoice before me at the place that I shall choo{se} to put my �� (col. 53) 07. [ When I enlarge your territory,]

21. For fuller discussion of this issue and its implications for the laws of immolation in 11QTa, see my article, �� %� �� $olation and Second-Tithe in 11QTa: A \��! DSD 14 (2007), pp. 334-353. 22. �ªª �� «¬®¯®�! �"�"� �� %�� !* �~ �� '�� <@£>!" ��" �� elow. 23. These views are addressed below. 24. See Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), vol. 2, pp. 233-39. 25" �� %�� ?��! ;%�� ªª� �� "M �� °>��@! � �� * ��'�� e-�� ªª� �� "� �� ' 17 wi�� %�� 6�� ?��!* �� following note.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21

199

1. [as I have promised you, and if the place which I shall choose to put my name there is too fa]r, �" ±�� $ %�� ! ��² you ±cr²ave to eat f±lesh, you may² eat ±as much² fle±sh as you desire,² 3. ±and you may² ki±ll² any of your flock and herd with which I have blessed 4. you. And you shall eat in your towns, the clean and the unclean among you alike (may eat), as though it were a gazelle 5. or a hart. Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water, and cover it �" %�� * �� As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the author of 11QTa interpreted

(52,13-16) both Lev 17,3-4 and Deut 12,6-14 as addressing the very same issue, viz., the proscription of both mundane and sacral slaughter within the vicinity of the Israelite camp (or, in the case of Deut 12, the vicinity of the �� !M"26 That �� t-�� ! �� |� �� }��27 namely, as �� 6��! '�� $�� 28 and not all areas outside the Israelite camp. Accordingly, 11QTa�� or understood Lev 17,3-4 and 17,8-9 as paralleling the overall structure of Deut 12,6-14 and 20-21. Thus, Lev 17,3-4�as attested in LXX, at al., and reflected in 11QTa�was understood as proscribing all animal slaughter, both sacral (i.e., burnt offerings and mandatory shelamim) and mundane (i.e., shelamim offered as a necessary condition for meat consumption), within the relative vicinity of the tabernacle; Lev 17,8-9, however, was interpreted as addressing, and proscrib-ing, sacral immolation anywhere outside the tabernacle. Taken together, vv. 3-4 and 8-9 thus convey the view that mundane slaughter may, indeed, be performed outside the relative proximity of the tabernacle, whereas cultic slaughter may not (as indicated by 11QTa 53,07-4). This is precisely the view put forth in Deut 12. Verses 6-14 of this chapter, like Lev 17,3-4, state that all forms of slaughter + sacral and mundane + must be offered at the chosen site.29 Deut 12,20-28, however, goes on to state that mundane slaughter may

26" �� '��% �� %� �� d-dressing the same issue is buttressed by the fact that 52,�� contains the formulation ��£ �¢ <@ �¢ G�@�! �� ' ��,4 ( G�@ �¢ �@´ �¢ �£), as well as the formulation of 52:15, which is clearly informed by LXX (et al.) ad Lev 17,q ;�� M" �� \�� %� �� $ola��!" 27. See the discussion above. 28. 11QTa defines this distance as a three-�� ¤�� ubiquitous testimony of the Hebrew Bible (and post-biblical sources); see Rothstein, �� #} ��-�� µ�� {�a: The Evidence of Biblical and Post-�� ! RB 114 (2007), pp. 32-51. 29. That is, the term zebahim in Deut 12 denotes both sacral shelamim offerings (e.g., todah ��M �� %�� %�� '�� within relative proximity of the holy shrine, wants to consume beef/mouton.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

200 David Rothstein

be performed at a (great) distance from the chosen place while reiterating that cultic immolation must always take place in the chosen place, thus paralleling Lev the stance of Lev 17,8-9.

}�� $ ��'� �� ! �� ,21, is intended t� ��! $�� not a de novo piece of legislation but, rather, is a reprise, and more explicit formulation, of the earlier norm preserved at Lev 17,1-9. Thus, the expanded version of Lev 17,3-4�i.e., the specification that all animal slaughter within the proximity of the camp is forbidden�when viewed in conjunction with Lev 17,8-9, is informed by the need to provide a passage whose structure parallels the basic framework of Deut 12,5-28 and, moreover, create an ex-�� $ ��'� �� ! �� ,21. This explanation allows for a simple, straightforward explana�� $ ��'� �� ! %�� '�� to the context of Deut 12,6-28 and/or having no explicit basis elsewhere in the biblical text (e.g., laws of ritual slaughter, etc., as in the view attributed to R. Akiva). �� '�� ! ;�� a-dents and scribes) posed by the claim at Lev 17,7 that the preceding regula-tions, including that proscribing mundane slaughter within the vicinity of the tabernacle, are eternal statutes; for, indeed, the restriction on such slaughter within some (undefined) radius of the sacred shrine remains in effect �� "30 Closer examination of the structure of the expanded version of LXX, et al., and the various explanations hitherto proffered by scholars, suggests that the scribes responsible for this Vorlage likely adopted the stance of 11QTa ex-plained herein (at least with regard to its basic features), as I shall presently explain.

Some scholars (e.g., Eshel and Schwartz31) have proffered the view that the expanded version of LXX, et al., accords with the view attributed to R. Ishmael. This approach too, however, is less than fully accurate. Specifically, it begs the question as to why the version mentions the burnt offering. In-deed, Schwartz acknowledges this difficulty, leading him to comment that 30. For discussion of the possible solutions to the difficulty posed by Lev 17,7 (as understood by R. Ishmael), see Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, p. 68, n. 5, wherein it is acknowledged that none of these is convincing. The significance of this phrase is also addressed by Eshel, who notes that this phrase is not attested in 4QLevd ;�q{��'d!M" �� ces the number of difficulties �� \" $�� position; it does not, however, resolve all of them, nor does �� '�� ;�� ªª� �� "M �� " $� any event, deletion of this phrase does not undermine the explanation proposed here-in. Indeed, the absence of this phrase may point to an earlier stage of the expansion, �� %�� %�� ! %�� * �� `�� q{��'d�! �� " �� " 31. �� q{��'d�! �� Holiness Legislation, p. 67, n. 4, respectively. This approach is also adopted by A. Yadin (Scripture and Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004], p. 156).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012


this reference is out of place and a sign of the secondary nature of this expan-sion.32 In fact, however, this very difficulty is an indicator that the expanded text does not accord (at least, not fully) with the view attributed to R. Ish-mael.33 Thus, the attempt to explain the expanded version of LXX, et al., as corresponding to either of the rabbinic positions is untenable.34 While it is possible that the scribes responsible for the reading of LXX, et al., were ei-ther unaware of the difficulty entailed by their reformulation or, simply, will-ing to pay the exegetical price entailed thereby, the explanation proffered herein is clearly simpler.35

A different approach has been proffered by J. Milgrom, who has argued that the secondary addition found in LXX, et al., to Lev 17,3, is intended to reconcile 17,3-4 with 17,8-9.36 �� ªª� �� "� ��t-ly maintain that mundane slaughter was never proscribed by Lev 17. This, however, begs the question as to whether LXX (et al.) understood Deut 12,20-21 as legislating a new geographic limitation imposed upon the earlier legislation of Lev 17 (along the lines of the position of 11QTa) or, rather, maintained the rabbinic position allowing mundane slaughter everywhere.37 Both positions are highly problematic. If the former possibility is, indeed, correct, it begs the question as to why Deuteronomy would impose a restric-tion of meat consumption upon the Israelites about to settle in their land when no such restriction obtained during the wilderness trek during which time all Israelites lived with a short distance of the tabernacle.38 The latter 32. Holiness Legislation, p. 67, n. 4. 33. Indeed, this very anomaly is pivotal to the correct understanding of 11QTa�� i-tion. Whereas A. Shemesh understood the presence of this lexeme at 11QTa 52:16 as indicating that the entire law permitting immolation beyond a three-�� ¤�� (52:13-16) addresses only sacral immolation (�} �ew Reading of Temple Scroll 52:13-��! �� Proceedings of the International Congress Fifty Years to the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000], pp. 402-6), this lexeme simply indicates that the passage in 11QTa addresses both mundane and sa-�� * �� %� �� $��!" 34. At the same time, the approach proffered herein is clearly closer to the view of R. Ishmael than to that attributed to R. Akiba. For a recent attempt to trace the relation-ship between the exegetical/midrashic methods of R. Ishmael and those of other �� {�� }" �� q{�� \�� $�� ! DSD 10 (2003), 130-49, and idem, Scripture and Logos, chapter 8. 35. µ" ��'�� 6�� ' ��,3-4 is similarly uncon-vincing; see Notes to the Greek Text of Leviticus, SBL Septuagint and Cognate Stu-dies 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 261-62. 36. See Leviticus 17-22, AB 3A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 1456, and sources cited therein. 37. See Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, pp. 67-68. 38. The much-debated matter of assigning chronological priority to either Deuteron-omy or the priestly sources (P/H) is moot, since the scribes responsible for the (sec-ondary) expansion in LXX, et al., undoubtedly ascribed both corpora to Mosaic provenance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

202 David Rothstein

possibility is no less troublesome. For, even the view attributed to R. Ishmael must come to terms with the geographical component stipulated by Deut 12,20-21. Indeed, it is the recognition of this vexing difficulty which brought Nahmanides to argue that, the straightforward meaning of this passage not-withstanding, Deut 12,20-21 stipulates (on the view of R. Ishmael) that the dispensation for mundane slaughter takes effect only following the dispersal of Israelites in their tribal allotments to points distant from the chosen place, but does not limit such slaughter to distant places, per se.39 Now, even on this explanation, the need for such legislation on the part of Deuteronomy makes sense only if one presumes, as did R. Ishmael, that Lev 17 contained some sort of proscription which was subsequently mitigated, or superceded, by Deut 12,20.

Similarly, had the reading of LXX, et al., been informed exclusively by the desire to establish the claim that Lev 17 addresses only sacral immolation, the expanded text could have been formulated in considerably simpler, and �� "�"� � """�¢ G@¢ =?@> ��?� <K?�� 'לה קרבן להקריב ?�¶ �¢�

¢� ·£�� <¢�¢>�<... !"40 Clearly, there is no reason to ascribe such an approach to the scribes responsible for LXX, et al., when the text of LXX, et al., to Lev 17 allows for a much simpler explanation and, moreover, is supported by the evidence of 11QTa. Finally, the possibility that the version of LXX, et al., to Lev 17 reflects the view attributed to R. Akiba�wherein the central innova-tion of Deut 12,21 is the imposition of a more specific means of ritual slaugh-ter�is even less plausible as a basis upon which to explain the version of LXX, et al.41 This position, after all, entails the introduction of a law not at-tested anywhere in the biblical text (i.e., slitting of the throat [i.e., trachea and esophagus])�and whose very existence among the scribes responsible for the expanded version of Lev 17,3-4 is dubious�in order to resolve the ap-parent redundancy of Deut 12.42 Thus, the attempt to explain the expanded

39. It is bears recalling (see above, n. 8) that Nahmanides, himself, comments that Lev 17,3-4 (as understood by R. Ishmael) was intended to apply only to the imme-diate vicinity of the Israelite camp, since there was no reason to suppose that an Israelite would find himself far removed from the wilderness encampment. (Note that Nahmanides does not anchor this explana�� ?� ��<K? �! as does Aloni.) Even so, Nahmanides is compelled to explain Deut 12,20-21 as an abrogation of Lev 17,3-q� �� \" $�� " 40. See Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 67. The difficulties of such a theoretical reading notwithstanding, it has the (relative) advantage of making clear that the '�� 6��'�� %�� * �� not reflected in the reading of LXX, et al. 41. Although Milgrom does not address the possible nexus between LXX and tannai-tic positions, his explanation of the reading of LXX, et al., reflects an approach to the contents of Lev 17 similar to that attributed to R. Akiba. 42. Moreover, this explanation of LXX, et al., is tenable only if one accepts Nahma-�� 6�� ,20-21. There is, however, no basis for attributing such an approach to LXX, et al., especially in light of the fact that Nahmanides, himself, ac-knowledges that his interpretation deviates from the simple meaning of these verses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012


version of LXX, et al., as corresponding to either of the rabbinic positions is untenable.43

In contrast to the foregoing approaches, the explicit evidence of 11QTa�� position accounts for all of the features of the expanded formulation of LXX, et al. Accordingly, as in the case of 11QTa, the scribes responsible for LXX, et al., understood Lev 17,3-4 as addressing all forms of animal slaughter, sa-cral and mundane, within the relative proximity of the chosen place, thereby paralleling the formulation of Deut 12,5-19. This approach, of course, ac-counts for the inclusion of the burnt offering in the expanded version of Lev 17,3-4. Thus, the approach of LXX, et al., differs from that attributed to R. Ishmael in that, contra R. Ishmael, there is no need to posit a shift from the norms obtaining during the wilderness trek (Lev 17) to those that obtain fol-��%�� $�� ssession of the land (Deut 12).44 }�� claim at Deut 12,21 that the legislation proclaimed therein was consistent with earlier norms is, in fact, fully accurate. Indeed, as noted above in con-nection with 11QTa, the position of LXX, et al., is entirely consonant with the claim at Lev 17,7 that this laws is an eternal statute.

The explanation proposed herein bears further elaboration. First, this un-derstanding of Deut 12,21 meets another important criterion set forth by Le-vinson. As noted, Lev�� '�� 6��

Note, further, that despite the prominence accorded R. Akiba and his exegetical/legal traditions by rabbinic and medieval Jewish circles, most medieval exegetes adopt, whether explicitly or implicitly, the approach attributed to R. Ishmael, a datum which �� \" }�� " 43. In addition, there may be another textual/lexemic nexus between Deut 12 and Lev 17 in the expanded version of LXX, et al. As noted above, LXX, et al., reflect the presence of the verb �� ;�� £¸@¸>¸ M! in the expansion to Lev 17:3-4 and at Lev 17,�* � �� 6� �� ' ��|� �� £¸�¸>¸ !" ��g-nificantly, Deut 12,27�in the masoretic version, as well as LXX and SP�employs �� '�� !* �� | �� ;�� ! ±�>@£�]) your burnt �� !" ��'�� '�� ! �� %�� '�� ¸�¸?¸ ! �� convey mundane immolation; ac-cordingly, it had to employ another verb to express the performance of cultic immo-lation (Deuteronomy, 38). Whatever one makes of this explanation of Deut 12,27, the version attested in LXX, et al., may be yet another indication of the influence of Deut 12 on (the expanded version of) Lev 17. At the same time, the appearance of the root � £¸�¸>¸ ! �� ,13-�q� �� %�� £¸@¸>¸ ! ��%�� passages (e.g., Num 15,3.8.14), renders this issue less than certain. (Note, however, �� '�� %�� ! �� ±?��²! �� irect ��¤�� '�� '�� £¸@¸>¸ !" �� 6�� <@¢! + %�� ¤�� ''" �� q� �� %�� ! �� ±��² �� ! + �� % �� '�� '�� ter [ �¸�¸?¸ ²!"M 44. To be sure, it is conceivable that such was also the view maintained by R. Ish-mael; the reticence of the relevant rabbinic sources on this point, however, suggests otherwise, as noted by Nahmanides.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

204 David Rothstein

$ ��'� �� ! ��ffered by scholars do not comport with the normal �� %�� ;�� $ ��'�M commanded/instructed ;��M!"45 It is signifi-�� $ ��'� �� ! �� pproach proffered herein, fully consonant with the wording of Lev 17. This is so be-cause Lev 17,2, which introduces the pericope on animal slaughter, states:

�� }�� $�� them: This is what the Lord has commanded ( G@¢ <� <¸ M�!46

�� 6�� <� ;�� M! �� the legislation of Lev 17 thus allows for a neat parallel with the claim of Deut 12,21 that the dispensation permitting mundane slaughter only in distant places had been previously commanded/instructed47�if, to be sure, only by implication.48 In sum, the expanded formulation of LXX, et al., while entail-ing a rather cumbersome formulation of the Leviticus perciope, results in a cogent reading of Deut 12,21 and reasonably successful harmonization of the two pentateuchal passages.49

Another noteworthy feature of this explanation concerns the precise loca-�� $ ��'� �� !" This phrase appears at the con-clusion of Deut 12,�� your cities ( ��´¢� �>G£@� M!" The location of this phrase within v. 21 thus cor-

45. �� '�� '�� rtainly apposite, it bears remarking that his own proposal would seem to vitiate the urgency of such an exegetical tool. That is, �� $ ��'� �� ! �� -citation, it is doubtful whether this feature has any relevance. This does not, of course, affect the nature of ��'�� %� �� ulation of Deut 12. 46. �� µ~� �� % �<� ! �� '�� ! �� % �� ! �� ,21. The thesis proffered in the present essay renders this distinction superfluous. 47. That is, Moses is told to inform the Israelites that they have been commanded/ instructed not to perform mundane slaughter within the vicinity of the camp. 48. �� }�� ! �� the immediate vicinity of the camp also, in principle, resolves the difficulty posed by t�� $ ��'� �� ! �� ,��" �� %�� }�� e-mains a speculative�if not unreasonable�one, the expanded text of LXX, et al., as understood by the author of 11QTa and explained herein, provides concrete evidence that such an understanding of Lev 17,3-4 was, indeed, maintained by Second Temple ��" �� %�� }�� oretic text and the explanation of LXX, et al. proffered herein lies in the fact that the latter has been has been explicitly formulated so as to yield a literary structure paralleling that of Deut 12. 49. By its very nature the process of harmonization tends to be less than fully satis-�� '�� ! �� " �� `. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis/Assen-Maastricht: Fortress Press/Van Gorcum, 1992), pp. 85-��* �� $" �� Chronicles wherein the attempt to harmonize has led to, or at least highlighted, a problematic formulation (The Book of Chronicles: Historical Writing and Literary Devices [Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2000], pp. 364-5 [Hebrew]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012


responds precisely to the stance of 11QTa. The author of 11QTa, who re-quired that meat obtained from mundane slaughter be consumed outside Jeru-salem,50 understood this formulation not merely as permitting consumption of ;��M �� ! �� such consumption take place only outside Jerusalem; hence, he would un-�� '� �� '�� ´¢�! �� !"51 Thus, the fact �� $ ��'� �� ! �� ,21a�i.e., be-�� %�� ! + is not fortuitous;52 it accurately reflects the fact that Lev 17 does not address the issue of where the meat of mundane slaughter may be consumed.53 A similar observation may be made in connection with Deut 12,15. �� $ ��'� �� ! �� '��" Now, this verse, which permits mundane slaughter but does not stipulate distance from the chosen place as a legal factor, was understood by 11QTa�� slaughter of blemished animals.54 Since this dispensation has no antecedent in pentateuchal sources,55 the absence of th� �� $ ��'� �� ! from 12,15 is readily understood. The evidence of 11QTa notwithstanding, it �� %�� %�� ´¢� �>G£@� ! %�� r-�� '�� ªª� �� "� �� shall (i.e., must) �� ! �� may �� ±��² �� !"56 Similarly, the exegesis of Deut 12,15 (and its relationship to Deut 12,20-21) on the part of �ªª�� Vorlage of LXX, et al., re-mains unknown.57

Finally, the evidence of another Second Temple source, 4QMMT, de-mands comment. This scroll differs from 11QTa in that it proscribes mundane

50. See 11QTa 52:19-21. 51. �� %� �� $��!" 52. �� '�� $ ��'� �� ! %�� pertain to the entirety of the verse + indeed, the entirety of 12,20-21. 53. 11QTa does not, of course, cite this phrase at 53,3-4, inasmuch as the scroll con-�� ! �� ;��M��! �� '�� al sources. 54. The author of 11QTa here anticipates the position of rabbinic tradents; see Sipre Deut 71, commentary of Gersonides to Deut 12,�� %� �� $��!" 55. To be sure, it is possible that Lev 17�on the majority view represented by Schwartz and Levinson�does not proscribe the (mundane) slaughter of blemished animals. While not implausible, this possibility is nowhere hinted at in Lev 17, nor in the cultic laws of Lev 22,21-24. 56. Cf. the remark by J. Wevers, that LXX to Deut 12,�� ;�¹º »º¼®!M �� '��'� �� may ��! ;Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995]). Even if correct, this may have no bearing on the understanding of the biblical formulation among other circles sharing this Vorlage. These issues, of course, do not affect the central issue under discussion. 57. Note that these issues obtain on the approaches of Milgrom, Eshel, et al., as well.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

206 David Rothstein

immolation only in Jerusalem and its immediate confines;58 even so, it re-flects the same understanding of the phrase �� $ ��'� �� !" This ��%�� q{�� clear. While the author of this scroll would appear to have maintained an ex-egetical approach similar to that reflected in 11QTa, it is hardly clear what Vorlage of Lev 17,3-4 its author had before him. His Vorlage may have been similar to that of LXX, et al.; at the same time, the author may have had be-fore him been the proto-masoretic text, which he (like Aloni) believed to be reconcilable with the masoretic version of Deut 17,3-4 and Deut 12,21.59

Conclusion The present study suggests that not only 11QTa (and 4QMMT), but LXX, SP, and 4QLevd, as well, viewed Deut 12,5-28 and Lev 17,1-9 as displaying fun-damentally similar structures; moreover, these ancient textual witnesses and compositions are all informed by the same exegetical consideration, viz., the �� $ ��'� �� ! �� 12,21.60 Now, the phenomenon of citation formularies that do not correspond to known earlier legislation is amply attested in the Hebrew Bible.61 Signifi-cantly, a well-attested feature of Second Temple compositions is the tendency �� ! �� "62 This tendency is most pronounced in the

58. See �� µ��!" 59. Alt��'�� 6�� q{�� 6�� ntary. To be sure, an important factor pertaining to the relationship between 11QTa, on the one hand, and that of LXX, et al., on the other, remains unknown, viz.: the ancient versions provide no way of de-termining what the scribes responsible for this Vorlage (or the copyists in each of the respective circles in which this reading was accepted) understood to constitute the distance impli�� ! �� ' ��,3 or the definition of distance intended by Deut 12,20-21. Specifically, did these scribes adopt the defini-tion of 11QTa, that of 4QMMT, or some other position? 60. $� \�� 6�� |��-21 (above, n. 16) as a harmonizing passage is correct, it follows that the reading of LXX, et al., as understood herein, is an attempt to harmonize this harmonizing (biblical) text with one of the very verses being har-monized by Deut 12,20-��" �� }�� approach the textual tradition of LXX, et al., is simply a continuation of the same process attested in the masoretic text wherein the priestly authors/redactors sought to bring Lev 17 into line with Deut 12. Indeed, this point begs the question as to whether the text of LXX ought be '��%�� ! �� ! �� revision. To be sure, lexical features of the expanded formulation indicate that it is of �� ;��-��!±½²M ��'�� ;�� %�� Holiness Legislation, 67, n. 4). This point notwithstanding, it does not preclude the possibility that a late priestly author/redactor added a passage, some of whose verses conformed more closely to biblical lexical usage than others. 61. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 109-12. 62. For a brief discussion of the (secondary) reading of SP and LXX to Lev 17,3, see Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation, p. 67, n. 4, and Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22, p. 1456.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012


07

SP,63 but is also attested, in various forms, in biblical scrolls from Qumran and extra-biblical works of the period (e.g., Jubilees).64 The harmonistic na-ture of the expanded version to Lev 17,3-4 preserved in these ancient wit-nesses is, therefore, yet another instance of the sensitivity of Second Temple scribes to inner-biblical references and the need to provide explicit referents for such intertextual markers.65 Finally, the present discussion underscores the web of (possible) interrelationships obtaining between various circles in Second Temple society and the challenge confronting scholars attempting to �� ! �6�� 6�� %�� to ancient Jewish circles.66 63. See Tov, Textual Criticism, pp. 85-89, and the following note. 64. For examples of this phenomenon in biblical scrolls from Qumran, see Tov, Tex-tual Criticism, pp. 85-89, 97-��" �� c-��! ;�� %�� M! �� {��* �� "�"� �� %�� festival in 4Q365, an addition informed by Neh 10,��" �� ¾"µ" �� {umran �� %�� %�� ! �� J.G. Campbell, et al., eds., New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8-10 September 2003 (London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005), pp. 26-42. Jubilees attests instances reflecting the same �6�� %�� $ �� ! ��u-lary. Thus, for example, Jubilees 34,1-9 is an attempt to locate the referent of Gen 48,22; see, inter alios, J. Heinemann, Aggadah and its Development (Jerusalem: Ke-ter, 1974), 150-55 (Hebrew). Such phenomena also attracted the attention of rabbinic tradents; see, e.g., Sipre Deut 75, Mekh. R. Ishmael, Bo, Pisha 12. 65. More specifically, this instance of harmonization is consonant with the tendency of LXX to harmonize aspects of the tabernacle cultus with those pertaining to the ��o�� ! � �� at, inter alia, LXX Exod 20,21 and 29,45.46; see, �"�"� �� ¿¬ À¼¬Á [¿¬Â ÃÄ¬Â ºÂ¿¬Â],! �� ªª ��' ��|�� ;�� % ��M� �� '�� '�� $� �� '�� `6�� Composition? A Response to John van Sete��! �� µ" �� "� In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (London: T. & T. Clark, ��qM� �� "�"\" ��%�� Å�� '�� p-�� ~��! �� µ" �� "� Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), pp. 385-400, (especially pp. 386-89 and pp. 392-95), respec-tively. 66. �� "�" �� | �� #�� Æ��! �� ¾"µ" �� " �� "� Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 33 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 277-97. For a rather different approach to identifying the provenance of �ªª ;�� M� �� µ" µ�� c�� ~�� ¾��! REJ 165 (2006), pp. 349-61. In an article in preparation I discuss some additional examples of cultic positions common to LXX and the Qumran community. A com-prehensive review of the relationship between LXX and the writings of the Qumran community�� '� �� '� ��! ��on cultic matters is a desideratum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

178.

93.1

78.1

38]

at 0

0:29

01

Mar

ch 2

012

Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21 Exegesis and Intertextuality as Reflected in the Ancient...

Documents

Transcript of Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21 Exegesis and Intertextuality as Reflected in the Ancient...