ymlv THE FIVE MAJOR SACRIFICES IN LEVITICUS 1-7

1. concluding sacrifice. Rendtorff argues that in lists of sacrifices ymlv always occurs last. Hartley suggests that this final position may be accounted for according to the purpose of the different sacrifices. “Only after the head of the family had made expiation for his own sins and for those of his family, rendering himself and his family acceptable to God, were they in a position to enjoy a festive meal before God. Therefore the theology of the sacrificial system tends to account for an offering of well-being almost always occurring last in the order of sacrifices.” 179 2. covenant sacrifice suggested by Schmid. This suggestion seems unlikely as ymlv was a voluntary offering; a sacrifice specifically designed to uphold the covenant surely would not have been left optional. 180 3. peace offering. This is the traditional translation via the Septuagint and Vulgate, as it is suggested that ymlv comes from the Hebrew lv, “be complete” which has the cognate olv, “peace”. This means more than the absence of war, but health, prosperity, wholeness and peace with God. 4. offering of well being. This renders the same idea as peace offering, but attempts to make it less ambiguous. 5. shared offering NEB, communion sacrifice JB, and fellowship offering NIV. These are useful translations, as all “focus on the fact that this sacrifice is shared by the presenter’s family, the officiating priest, and God.” 181 Levine, working from parallels with Ugaritic and Akkadian, suggests it originally meant “gift of greeting”, and that it was adopted for this sacrifice because “it expressed the fellowship experienced by the worshippers and priests in God’s presence, as they greeted the divine guest.” 182 The animal offered As in the case of hlu, cattle, sheep or goats can be offered as ymlv, but here there is no gender restriction. Most regard this regulation as more lax because it is a voluntary sacrifice. Milgrom, though, thinks the reason for lack of gender restriction 179 Hartley, Leviticus, p.39. 180 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.77. 181 Hartley, Leviticus, p.38. 182 Levine, Leviticus, p.15. is because its function is to allow the Israelites to eat meat see the argument below, p. 94. Unlike the hlu regulations, birds are not mentioned. Milgrom suggests that the parts that could have been burnt on the altar would be infinitesimal in size. 183 It is perhaps more likely that the birds would have been insufficient to provide a festive meal. The blood rite As in the case of hlu, the priest dashes the blood against all sides of the altar. This leads Harrison to say that there is “a strong substitutionary element” 184 in the ymlv. Although atonement is not specifically mentioned here, Wenham writes, “Atonement is not a prominent feature of the peace offering. But even this essentially joyful sacrifice includes a blood rite, a reminder that sinful man is always in need of the forgiveness of his sin.” 185 The parts of the animal burnt for Yahweh The parts burnt on the altar as a pleasing aroma to Yahweh are listed below. The significance of the parts is not spelt out, but word associations elsewhere in the Old Testament may offer some clues. Fat covering the entrails. Fat is synonymous with what is best in Gen 45:18 and Ps 81:16, and was seen as the source of an animal’s strength. Lev 3:16 emphasises that all the fat belongs to Yahweh. This fat of sacrificial animals, along with blood, may not be eaten by Israel Lev 7:20ff. 186 Two kidneys. The kidneys were the centre of emotions, so possibly they symbolise here “the dedication of the worshiper’s best and deepest emotions to God.” 187 Long lobe of liver. The liver symbolises emotions of deep joy and sorrow Lam 2:11; Ps 16:9. Hartley suggests that as this was used for divination by neighbouring peoples, it was burned here to erect a barrier to this practice in Israel. 188 However, this seems rather out of place with the symbolism suggested above, and as Milgrom 183 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.222. 184 Harrison, R.K., Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Leicester: IVP, 1980, p.57. 185 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.80. 186 Per Levine, Leviticus, p.45. 187 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81. 188 Hartley, Leviticus, p.40. says, if this had been the reason “then the rest of the liver—employed just as much as the long lobe in divination hepatoscopy —would have also been consigned to the altar.” 189 The priest’s share In Lev 7:29-33, portions of the ymlv are assigned to the priests: “He that offereth the sacrifice of his peace offerings unto the LORD shall bring his oblation unto the LORD of the sacrifice of his peace offerings. His own hands shall bring the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the LORD. And the priest shall burn the fat upon the altar: but the breast shall be Aaron ’s and his sons. And the right shoulder shall ye give unto the priest for an heave offering of the sacrifices of your peace offerings. He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right shoulder for his part.” 190 These traditional tra nslations of “wave offering” Hebrew hpwnt and “heave offering” Hebrew hmwrt are based on the rabbinic interpretation that they constitute two cultic motions performed with an offering, the hpwnt being a horizontal motion extending and bringing back, and the hmwrt being a vertical motion raising and lowering. 191 Wenham states that “etymologically this is quite a natural way to explain these terms, but it fails to explain the difference between them. And in some cases it is hard to envisage any such motion being involved.” 192 He cites Levites Num 8:13ff and land Ezek 45:1 as examples of objects of hpwnt and hmwrt respectively which could not be waved or heaved. Milgrom notes that as far back as the LXX there was uncertainty as to their meaning and inconsistency in the translation of the two terms. 193 In a detailed attempt to discover their original signification, he starts by noting that hpwnt is done 189 Levine, Leviticus, p.208. 190 KJV. 191 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.461. 192 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.126. 193 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.461. almost always before the LORD, which refers to a cultic action within the sanctuary, while hmwrt is always to the LORD, and is not a ceremony at all. 194 In the case of hpwnt, he notes that the text lays emphasis on the need for the offerer to bring the portion with his own hands, which signifies that at that point, it still belongs to him Lev 7:29-30. 195 He argues that hpwnt is a “ritual of dedication that is performed in the sanctuary, with the result that the offering is removed from the domain of the owners and transferred to the domain of God.” 196 He argues against the traditional rabbinic interpretation of “waving”, by pointing out that the related verb [nh means “to raise”. 197 In sum, hpwnt is an actual or symbolic elevation rite, which sanctifies the profane, or makes it holy. 198 Milgrom demonstrates that most of the occasions of hpwnt in the Old Testament can be interpreted consistently with this thesis. For example the hpwnt service for the Levites separates them from the rest of Israel and transfers them to Yahweh’s domain, thus qualifying them for service at the Tent of Meeting Num 8:13-15. 199 From Lev 10:13-14, Milgrom makes a distinction between most offerings, which are from the start of the rite gifts belonging to Yahweh, and so do not undergo hpwnt, and on the other hand, the well-being offering, which even at the point of slaughter, belongs to the offerer. The meat is his to eat, and so hpwnt must be performed to transfer the portion for the priests to the domain of Yahweh. 200 According to Milgrom, hmwrt has a similar function to hpwnt, dedication to Yahweh. It differs, though, in that it is carried out outside the sanctuary and without a rite. 201 He brings the following evidence in support: 202 1. the preposition “to” Yahweh is used with hmwrt 2. the verb “to give” is used with hmwrt, but never with hpwnt 194 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 pp.462, 474. 195 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.463f. 196 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.464. 197 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.469f. 198 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp.470, 473. 199 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.464. 200 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.463. 201 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.475. 202 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.474. 3. the related verb rh means “to remove, set aside, give”. In the light of these factors, translators have now generally moved away from the traditional translations to: Hpwnt, TnWp : elevation offering Levine, Milgrom, Hartley, dedication Wenham. Hmwrt, TrWm : gift offering Levine, gift New Living Bible, Milgrom, contribution Wenham, Hartley. What the essential distinction is between the two terms remains controversial. G.R. Driver denied there was any real difference. 203 Milgrom, though, rejects the idea that they are interchangeable and states “TrWm is not a ritual ... its true sense is a dedication to God ... An offering requiring TnWp must undergo a previous stage of TrWm , that is to say, a separation from the profane to the sacred.” 204 It appears that Milgrom is not being totally consistent here, as that separation was exactly what he argued was the function of hpwnt: to remove the offering from the domain of the owner to that of God see above, p.92. There is a further problem for Milgrom’s theory, in that there are several examples of offerings being described by both terms, for example the right thigh of the well-being offering hmwrt in Lev 7:32 is also described as part of the hpwnt in Lev 10:15. Milgrom considers the latter text a late editing and elaborates a theory of historical development to account for a change in practice at the time of the Jerusalem temple due to the large number of priests. 205 However, this is a suggestion made to sustain Milgrom’s theory and Milgrom himself admits that “assured historical facts are lacking, and an y reconstruction can only be conjectural.” 206 It is more probable that the same offering is being described by two different words to reflect two different perspectives. Levine suggests that hmwrt means a levy, a gift to Yahweh who in turn allocates it to the priests. 207 He refers to Num 18:8 which reads, “Then the LORD said to Aaron, ‘I myself have put you in charge of the offerings presented hmwrt to 203 See Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.126. 204 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.476. 205 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp.479ff. 206 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.479. 207 Levine, Leviticus, p.43. me; all the holy offerings the Israelites give me I give to you and your sons as your portion and regular share. ’” It seems then that there is considerable overlap in the semantic domains of the two terms, as both imply sanctification of the offering. In addition, hmwrt emphasises that an offering was made to Yahweh before being allocated to priests, and hpwnt emphasises that an offering was made before Yahweh in the sanctuary. The purpose of the ymlv 1 It has been suggested that the purpose of ymlv is atonement for the slaughter of animals for food. Lev 17:3- 4 records Yahweh’s command: “If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man.” 208 Milgrom follows one ancient rabbinic interpretation that insists that this forbids any slaughter outside the tabernacle for any reason —including for food. So it is argued that the main function of the ymlv is to atone for this illegal killing of the animal itself Lev 17:11 and thus allow the possibility of meat for the table. As this would be a rare luxury, it would inevitably be a joyous celebration to share with family and friends. 209 There are two difficulties with this interpretation. Firstly, it implies that the manipulation of the blood of the animal atones for its death. But if blood symbolizes life given up in death as argued above, p.80, then Milgom’s position on the ymlv is reduced to the animal being killed to make atonement for the animal being illegally killed – which makes little sense. Secondly, Lev 17:3-4 prohibits slaughter away from the tabernacle, so slaughter at the tabernacle is implicitly legal. What need then is there to atone for the legal killing involved in the ymlv at the tabernacle? Levine takes the line of the other traditional interpretation, that slaughter in Lev 17:3-4 is used in its restricted sense, that is to slaughter a sacrifice, in line with the use of the verb in other ritual texts in the Pentateuch e.g. Exod 34:25. 210 The 208 JPS. 209 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.221. 210 Levine, Leviticus, p.112f. purpose of the prohibition is to avoid the people sacrificing to deities other than Yahweh away from the Tent of Meeting, such as the goat-idols mentioned a little later Lev 17:7. Slaughter for purposes of food could occur anywhere. This line of argument can be supported by observing firstly that Deut 12:15 allows the slaughter in any town of “as much meat as you want”, and secondly the requirement that the ymlv be without defect Lev 3:1,6 which suggests blemished animals must have been killed away from the tabernacle. 2 Another suggestion is that ymlv is essentially a fellowship meal. The burning of the fat and entrails is described as a hva jl for Yahweh Lev 3:11,16. hva probably means gift see above, pp.74; jl usually means bread or food. Hartley observes that the idea of a gift of food for Yahweh is at first sight startling, as there are no Old Testament. texts indicating that Yahweh is dependent on sacrifices for food. 211 Milgrom states that jl clearly “harks back to earliest times, when sacrifices were intended to feed the gods” 212 and terms it “a linguistic fossil”. 213 Levine offers a less literal interpretation of the phrase. While it preserves “the idiom common to ancient religions, it understands the process somewhat differently. God desires the sacrifices of His worshippers not because He requires sustenance but because He desires their devotion and their fellowship.” 214 This fits well with the description in Deuteronomy of a joyful feast in which the presence of Yahweh was especially near: 215 “Bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you” Deut 12:6-7. Wenham, commenting on this, writes, “The worshipper had made his vows to keep the covenant law, or to do something more specific e.g., to give Samuel back to the Lord, if the prayer was answered. The enjoyment of eating the meat was a 211 Hartley, Leviticus, p.41. 212 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.213. 213 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.213. 214 Levine, Leviticus, p.17. 215 Per Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81. physical reminder of all the blessings that attended the faithful observance of the covenant Lev 26:3ff; Deut 28:1ff.” 216 3 Smith argued from the fact that ymlv was eaten “before the LORD” that its purpose was to effect a mystical unity between the offerer and the deity. 217 But Milgrom rebuts this by pointing out that the sacrifice was eaten “before the LORD” and not “with the LORD”. 218 It appears then that the second suggestion, that ymlv is in essence a fellowship meal, celebrated by Yahweh’s people, in his presence, has most to commend it. Three different types of ymlv Three types of ymlv are distinguished in Lev 7: hdt jbz “praise” 7:12ff, rdn “vow” 7:16ff and hbdn “freewill” 7:16ff. 1 hdt jbz This is usually translated as “praise offering” or “thanksgiving offering”. Alone among the three types, an accompanying offering of cakes of bread is prescribed Lev 7:12-13. It is offere d to express one’s gratitude to God for “deliverance from danger or misfortune.” 219 Wenham, though, suggests “confession offering” as a translation as it was “appropriate in two quite different situations: when someone was seeking God’s deliverance, either from his enemies or from sickness. In such cases he might well feel the need to confess his sins, if he thought this was the reason for his present predicament Judg 20:26; 21:4; 2 Sam 24:25. Or he could offer the confession sacrifice after he had been delivered. In this case the confession would center on God’s mercy rather than on his own sinfulness.” 220 However, in the instances he cites of confession of sin, the hdt jbz is offered after the hlu. It could be argued that the confession of sin is tied more closely to the hlu which has atonement as its purpose, and the hdt jbz is giving thanks for the acceptance of the hlu, and for assurance of God’s fellowship within the difficulty. 216 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.81. 217 In Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.220. 218 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.221. 219 Levine, Leviticus, p.42 The rabbis derived from Ps 107 four occasions for this: safe return from a sea voyage or a desert journey, recovery from illness, and release from prison: Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.220. 220 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.78. 2 rdn Wenham writes, “In difficult circumstances, men of old often made a vow to the Lord that if he helped them, they would do something for God. When they fulfilled their vow, they were expected to bring a peace offering.” 221 For example, when barren, Hannah prayed for a child and vowed that if her prayer were answered she would dedicate the child to God. When the child was weaned, she brought cattle, flour and wine as a ymlv 1 Sam 1. 3 hbdn is described as the “spontaneous by-product of one’s happiness whatever its cause.” 222 Wenham distinguishes this from the previous two that were connected with petitionary prayer. hbdn came as a response to God’s unexpected and unasked for generosity. 223 Wesseley comments on the above three types of ymlv: “The common denominator of these motivations is rejoicing.” 224 Requirements for cultic purity for the fellowship meal 1. Generally the sacrificial beast had to be without defect Lev 3:1, but this requirement was relaxed in the case of the freewill offering Lev 22:23. 2. The meat had to be eaten within a certain time limit. This limit was tighter for the praise offering Lev 7:15f. 3. Any person who ate of the meat had to be ritually pure, or he would be “cut off from his people” Lev 7:20f. 4. Fat and blood should not be eaten Lev 7:20ff. Conclusion From the above we can see that the ymlv was usually an occasion for joy and fellowship involving the offerer, his family, the priest and Yahweh. It could be offered at any time and was especially appropriate at the high points of the nation’s life: sealing the covenant at Sinai, the installation of Ki ng Saul, David’s bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem, and the dedication of Solomon’s temple. 225 221 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.78. 222 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.219. 223 Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p.79. 224 Cited in Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p.218. 225 Hartley, Leviticus, p.38. Averbeck writes, “The point of eating was to enact the bond of relationship that had been established between God and his people. Whenever such an offering was presented, it re-enacted the same bond and could have the effect of calling the people to renewed covenant loyalty to Yahweh and one another.” 226 It also served as a means of support for the priests. The manipulation of blood, and the regulations for cultic purity reminded the partakers that they were sinners, requiring Yahweh’s merciful provision of the sacrifice to cleanse them to be fit to eat in the presence of a holy God. 226 Averbeck “Offerings and Sacrifices”, p.1001.

5.5 tafj

Figure 13: The tafj ritual Actor Action Worshipper Presents the animal at the entrance of the Tabernacle Worshipper Lays a hand on the head of the animal Worshipper Slaughters the animal The part the priest plays in tafj depends on the social status of the offerer see figure 15 below, p.101. The high priest or the whole community made what Hartley calls the greater offering; a tribal leader or a member of the community made the lesser offering. Figure 14: The priest’s actions in the greater and lesser tafj rituals The greater tafj The lesser tafj Takes blood inside inner sanctuary and sprinkles some of it seven times before the curtain Puts some on the horns of the altar of incense Puts some blood on the horns of the altar of burnt offering Pours out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering Pours out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering Removes the fat and burns it on the altar of burnt offering Removes the fat and burns it on the altar of burnt offering Takes the remains of the animal outside the camp and burns it Eats the remains of the animal in the sanctuary courtyard with any male from his family Lev 6:29 Translation Since tafj most commonly means “sin”, the traditional translation for this sacrifice, dating back to the LXX, has been “sin offering” or its equivalent. Most commentators have seen it as the principal expiatory offering. The purpose is stated by Keil as “putting an end to the separation between man and God that had been 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