tafj THE FIVE MAJOR SACRIFICES IN LEVITICUS 1-7
created by sin ... ”
227
and by Levine as removing “the culpability borne by the offender.”
228
However, more recent commentators, such as Milgrom, Wenham and Hartley, agree that this is inadequate, and all prefer the rendering “purification
offering”. Their reasons can be summarised as follows:
1. The burnt, fellowship and reparation offerings in their different ways atoned for
sin, and so simply to translate tafj as “sin offering” obscures the precise
function of the sacrifice.
229
2. Morphologically, it corresponds not to the qal form of the verb afj “to sin”, but
to its piel form which mea ns “to cleanse, decontaminate”.
230
Further, the hithpael form of the verb means “to purify oneself”.
231
3. In various places where the offering is connected with purification e.g. Lev 12:8;
14:19, the rites are said to cleanse people from bodily pollutions.
232
4. Lev 15:31 states the purpose of tafj: “You must separate the children of Israel
from their uncleanness so that they do not die in their uncleanness by polluting my tabernacle which is among them.”
233
This, coinciding with the application of the blood to various parts of the tabernacle, demonstrates that the particular
emphasis of this offering is not so much the reconciliation of human beings with God, but on purifying Yahweh’s sanctuary from uncleanness.
The gradation of tafj offerings
The different rituals for the tafj set out in Lev 4 according to the social
status of the offerer correspond with the gradations of the Holiness Spectrum see p.66. This is summarised in the following table originally set out by Jenson,
234
but slightly modified. Jenson commen
ts that “the order in which the text describes the sacrifice gives formal expression to the grading ... The most serious faults are dealt
with first and require the strongest purification rituals.”
235
The table shows that the
227
Quoted in Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.93.
228
Levine, Leviticus, p.18.
229
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.88.
230
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.253.
231
Hartley, Leviticus, p.55.
232
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.94.
233
Translation by Wenham The Book of Leviticus.
234
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.172.
235
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.172.
strongest purification rituals require the most valuable sacrificial animal, the blood to be applied in the more holy place, and the prohibition of its use for food.
Figure 15:
Tafj prescribed for different offenders
Lev 4 Offender
Animal Place
Blood sprinkled
Blood applied
Food for
3-12 high priest
bull holy place
in front of veil
horns of incense
altar no one
13-21 congregation
bull holy place
in front of veil
horns of incense
altar no one
22-26 leader
goat tabernacle
court horns of
hlu altar priests
27-35 anyone
goat lamb tabernacle
court horns of
hlu altar priests
Occasions for offering tafj in Lev 4-5
Lev 4:2 speaks of the need for tafj in the case of inadvertent sins. In Num
15:22-31, an inadvertent sin is contrasted with one committed defiantly, with a high hand, when offender must be cut off from his people, with his guilt remaining on
him. Inadvertence can arise, according to Milgrom,
236
from one of two causes: 1
negligence, when the offender knows the law, but involuntarily breaks it, such as accidental homicide Num 35:22f.
2 ignorance, when he intends the act, but is unaware that it violates the law. This
could be due, according to Levine, either to ignorance of the law, or ignorance of the nature of the act, such as a person eating forbidden fat, while mistakenly
believing it to be ordinary fat.
237
Lev 5:1-4 also requires a tafj to be offered for certain sins of omission:
1 failure to give testimony in court;
2 someone touches an unclean thing and it is hidden from him;
236
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.228.
237
Levine, Leviticus, p.19.
3 someone touches human uncleanness and it is hidden from him, and he comes to
know it; and 4
someone makes a rash oath and it is hidden from him, and he comes to know it.
The condition attached to the last two cases “and it is hidden from him, and he comes to know it” has attracted various interpretations:
238
1. The offender acted accidentally
later forgot later remembered
2. The offender acted unconsciously
later discovered the fault 3.
The offender acted deliberately later forgot
later remembered
Hartley
239
concurs with Kiuchi
240
in favouring the first possibility. Against the second position, he argues that the verb “and it is hidden” is to be interpreted as
following on in sequence with the offender’s action—it is not simultaneous with it.
He favours the first position over the third, as the description of one who utters a rash oath indicates an action done consciously, but without premeditation.
Comparison of the greater and lesser tafj
The following four comparisons can be made between the greater and lesser tafj:
1 The greater ritual is unique among the sacrifices in Lev 1-7 in that it partly takes place inside the holy place, while the lesser takes place in the courtyard.
The reason for this is that pollution from sin committed by a high priest penetrates into the holy place itself, which then requires purification by the
tafj ritual.
241
In terms of the Holiness Spectrum, the holiness of the high priest corresponds with the most holy place in the tabernacle.
2 The greater involves sprinkling blood seven times before the curtain. The gesture of sprinkling, according to Kiuchi,
242
is like the more usual gesture of daubing blood in that it symbolises the purification of the sancta.
243
He argues too that sprinkling is the more potent of the two symbols, as it is connected
238
Outlined in Hartley, Leviticus, p.67.
239
Hartley, Leviticus, p.67.
240
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.28ff.
241
Hartley, Leviticus, p.60.
242
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.130.
243
Sancta are the furniture and the instruments consecrated for use in the tabernacle.
with the more holy objects and the more holy Day of Atonement. Seven times denotes completeness.
3 The greater involves daubing blood on the horns of the incense altar. Hartley likens this action to that of applying blood to Aaron’s ear, thumb and
toe during his ordination: daubing the extremity with blood cleanses the whole.
244
4 In the greater ritual, the remains of the animal are taken outside the camp to be burnt, compared with their consumption by the priests in the lesser.
The general verb “to burn” is used in connection with the disposal of the remains outside the camp, rather than the verb “to turn into smoke” used in Lev 4:10
in connection with the fat offered on the altar. This indicates to Hartley
245
that this part of the proceedings is not a ritual act directed towards Yahweh, but rather a
necessary disposal or “riddance”
246
of something that is holy. The priests are compensated for their services on behalf of the people by
being able to eat the meat of the lesser. Since the high priest is involved in the sin which requires the greater
tafj, neither he nor his household may benefit by eating the meat. The riddance then prevents any misuse of a holy animal.
247
The poor man’s tafj
Those individuals who could not afford to bring a lamb were to bring two doves or pigeons Lev 5:7. Failing even that, they could bring fine flour Lev 5:11.
This demonstrates that despite the prominent part in the rite of the manipulation of blood, it was not totally indispensable; it certainly points away from any
interpretation of the magical efficacy of the blood. Jenson comments, “The necessity
for even the poorest person to offer something took precedence over the symbolism.”
248
244
Hartley, Leviticus, p.60.
245
Hartley, Leviticus, p.61.
246
An anthropological term for such a procedure. Levine, Leviticus, p.18.
247
Hartley, Leviticus, p.61.
248
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.161.
Other occasions for offering tafj
tafj is prescribed for a variety of occasions and situations. A. Marx organises these into four categories
249
: 1.
Sins of inadvertence or a sin that becomes hidden in some way. 2.
Rite of reintegration to the community for those who have been unclean for an extended period, e.g. as a result of touching a corpse Num 19:11-22 or of
enduring sexual discharges Lev 15:13ff; 28ff. 3.
Rituals of consecration: the investiture of the Levites Num 8:5-26, the ordination of Aaron Exod 29:1-37, Lev 8:1-36 and the consecration of the altar
Exod 29:36f, or of the opposite, deconsecration in the case of the termination of the vow of a Nazirite Num 6:13-20.
4. Certain high days and festivals. The highest day of the calendar was the annual
Day of Atonement Lev 16, when the Israelites “abstained from all earthly pleasures ... to seek God solemnly for forgiveness of the
ir sins.”
250
The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies twice to sprinkle the blood of a
tafj, the first time for himself and his household and the second time for the Israelite
community.
Purpose of tafj
Marx has proposed that the common theme in all tafj is that it forms part of
a system of rites of passage that effects a transfer from one state to another. “The hub of the system is to be found in the jF`aT and the holocaust, the former sacrifice
being designed to operate the separation with the previous state, and the latter working the reintegration of the
‘sinner’ and the unclean, or the aggregation to a new, or renewed state.”
251
As part of his evidence he cites the need for two doves, one
tafj and one hlu, in the case of a poor man’s wrongdoing. He proposes that tafj be called the “sacrifice of separation”. The tafj also helps effect the changes
in the seasons, the annual regeneration of the territory, and the transfers to and fro between the sacred and profane.
249
Hartley, Leviticus, pp.55-57.
250
Hartley, Leviticus, p.243.
251
Quoted in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.289.
Milgrom is convincing in his rebuttal of Marx’s hypothesis:
252
There are clear cases where tafj operates independently of hlu e.g. Lev 4-6. The case of the two doves was a marginal case when the offerer was poor.
Philologically, rpk, the verb often associated with tafj, means “to purge”. Although tafj indeed forms part of the consecration ceremonies, evidence that
it can actually signify “consecration” is found wanting. During the consecration of the Levites, the
tafj waters were sprinkled on them “to purify them” Num 8:7. Similarly, in the consecration of the altar,
tafj is the first sacrifice offered and its object is to purify it Exod 29:36 in preparation for its role in other
sacrifices.
When it comes to the question as to what is purified, Milgrom is clear that the object of
tafj is limited to the sanctuary and its sancta, which are polluted in three stages:
253
1. Individual inadvertent misdemeanour or severe physical impurity pollutes the
courtyard, which is purified by the lesser tafj.
2. Inadvertent misdemeanours of the high priest or entire community pollute the
shrine, which is purified by the greater tafj.
3. Wanton, unrepented sin penetrates to the very throne of God. As the defiant
sinner is barred from bringing his tafj, the pollution wrought by his offence
must await the annual purgation of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement.
For Milgrom,
254
the offender himself is not purified by the tafj. He reasons
that the blood is always applied to the sanctuary and its contents, and never to the offerer. Rather, it is the ablution that purifies him
of physical impurity: “he shall launder his clothes [and] bathe in water” Lev 15:8 inter alia. As for the inadvertent
sinner, he is never called “impure”, and so does not need purification for himself.
The fact that his act is inadvertent and that he feels remorse is sufficient for him to be forgiven.
252
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.290f.
253
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.257.
254
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.254f.
Milgrom sees the role of the tafj solely in terms of purification of the
sanctuary and its contents. The purity of the sanctuary is restored after deliberate sin purged on the Day of Atonement, inadvertent sin, or some impurity lasting more
than a week has compromised it. As for the festival days, tafj is required “because
presumably the sanctuary is crowded with pilgrims and the consequent pollution of the altar is inevitable.”
255
Jenson, while welcoming Milgrom’s focus on purification and the
significance of grading, questions his conclusion that places are purified to the exclusion of people.
256
He suggests that there may have been practical reasons for the fact that blood was not applied to someone’s person, and points to several texts Lev
12:8; 14:19f; 16:19, 30; Num 8:6f, 15, 21 where the person is purified. For example, Lev 14:19, dealing with the final stage of the purification of a leper, reads: “The
priest is to perform the ritual of a purification offering and make expiation for the one being cleansed because of his uncleanness.”
257
Milgrom interprets “expiates for” as “expiates on behalf of”
258
and “his uncleanness” as that “which he inflicted on the sanctuary”
259
; but the latter, at least, seems somewhat forced. Kiuchi
260
suggests that the tafj can purify both the offerer and the sancta at
the same time. Whereas Milgrom assumes that the sanctuary becomes defiled at the moment a person becomes unclean, Kiuchi argues uncleanness of the sancta is only
envisaged when an unclean person stands before Yahweh at the entrance of the tent.
261
Thus “tafj blood indeed purifies the sancta, but not the sancta that have been defiled for a lengthy period.”
262
Kiuchi recognises that three passages Lev 15:31; 16:16; 16:19b do suggest long term “sancta pollution.”
263
The first, Lev 15:31, he suggests could be interpreted
255
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.292.
256
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.157.
257
Translated by Hartley, Leviticus, p.174.
258
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.255f.
259
Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.857f.
260
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.60f.
261
In Lev 14, the leper is declared clean at three stages: before he re-enters the camp, after seven days waiting, and finally after the
tafj ritual in the sanctuary v.20. Kiuchi, interprets the threefold declaration as meaning the leper has become clean enough for each particular stage. This is
consistent with the Holiness Spectrum see p.67 and with his argument that purification of people and place takes places through the
tafj.
262
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.61.
263
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.61.
as a warning that breaking or ignoring the rules on how to deal with uncleanness defiles the tabernacle
—rather than the uncleanness in itself being the immediate cause.
264
Lev 16:16, describing the Day of Atonement, reads, “In this way [the high priest] will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and
the rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness.” Later,
in 16:19b, the high priest is to sprinkle some of the blood on the horns of the altar “to cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.”
Jenson postulates that Milgrom may be right for general corporate contexts and Kiuchi right for individual impurity.
265
Whatever the exact timing may be, it is clear that the texts envisage that the
tafj purifies both the people and the sanctuary. On the need for the annual
tafj on the Day of Atonement on top of the ongoing sacrifices prescribed in Lev 4, Hartley comments: “Given the reality that
humans by nature sin continually, pollution of the sanctuary was unavoidable. Therefore it had to be cleansed yearly by these blood rites on these key sacred
objects in order that it might continue to function efficaciously as the place for the worship of Yahweh.”
266
One can see that there were certainly sins which would not be covered by the more regular
tafj: unwitting breach of uncleanness rules,
267
sins never coming to consciousness, and sins committed with a high hand for which the
offender himself could not bring an offering. However, one should not imagine that anyone was keeping a tally or making a strict division as to what was being covered
on the Day of Atonement for the language is very inclusive: “Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites” Lev 16:30.
Conclusion
The tafj is clearly purificatory in nature. It helps deal with the polluting
effects of both sin and physical impurities which affect people, and which are also communicated to the dwelling place of Yahweh. The purification ensures that when
the people come into the presence of their God, the holy and the unclean do not come
264
Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, p.61.
265
Jenson, Graded Holiness, p.157.
266
Hartley, Leviticus, p.244.
267
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.228.
in contact, a scenario which would result in death Lev 16:2. However, the tafj in
and of itself does not automatically convey purification; at least in the case of sin it follows confession of sin and penitence e.g. Lev 5:5; 16:29 on the part of the
offenders, and depends ultimately on the will of Yahweh who prescribed it.