the interpretation of the purification offering (חטאת) in the temple scroll (11qtemple) and...

The Interpretation of the Purification Offering (חטאת) in the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) andRabbinic LiteratureAuthor(s): Gary A. AndersonSource: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 111, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 17-35Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267507 .

Accessed: 26/02/2014 14:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:40:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267507?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


JBL 111/1 (1992) 17-35

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PURIFICATION OFFERING (nflfn) IN THE TEMPLE SCROLL (11QTEMPLE)

AND RABBINIC LITERATURE

GARY A. ANDERSON University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903

The laws pertaining to the MM, or "purification offering,'" in the

Temple Scroll are quite peculiar and show some striking divergences from the laws found in the biblical text. There are two important features in the Temple Scroll that require explanation, both noted by Y. Yadin in his editio princeps: First, during the seven days of ordination (Leviticus 8 = Exodus 29) the biblical text requires that the priests alone must bring a bull for a purification offering. In lHQTemple 15:15-16:1 both the priests and the congregation must

bring a bull. Second, each and every purification offering must have a cereal and drink offering accompanying it. In the Bible no purification offering requires these additional types? This can be seen in sacrificial requirements listed for the holiday of Sukkot (11QTemple 28:6-9).

For the translation "purification offering" instead of the more common "sin offering:' see

J. Milgrom, "Sin Offering or Purification Offering?" VT 21 (1971) 237-38. I would like to take this opportunity to thank E. Tov and M. Weinfeld, who hosted the Qumran study group at the Institute of Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University, for inviting me to deliver this paper in the summer of 1990. I benefited greatly from the discussion and comments it generated. I should also thank several others who helped shape my argument, including S. Fraade (who was

immensely helpful with the discussion of the material in the Sipre, especially by pointing me to the rarely printed yet learned commentary of David Pardo), M. Jaffee, I. Knohl, L. Schiffman, D. Schwartz, and E. Qimron.

2 See the extensive discussion of Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 1. 143-46. We might add here that there is some ambiguity regarding the sacrificial requirements of the "leper" enumerated in Leviticus 14. The text requires that the individual bring two lambs and three-tenths of a measure of grain for a cereal offering. One of the lambs is for a guilt offering; the other is for a burnt offering. Because of the close similarity of the guilt offering to the purification offering- a similarity noted by the biblical text itself (see Lev 14:13 and passim)-it is possible that the cereal offering in this case is to be offered with the purification offering. This is the understanding of m. Menah. 9:6; however, it is equally possible that this cereal offering is intended to go with the burnt offering alone and not with the purification offering (Lev 14:20, 31). This latter possibility would bring the ritual of the leper into conformity with the normative law for cereal offerings found in Num 15:3-10. One should note also that this text, even if it is understood as requiring a cereal offering for the purification rite, makes no mention of drink offerings.

17



18 Journal of Biblical Literature

Both of these novelties found in the Temple Scroll demand some sort of

explanation. As a general rule, one should assume that religious law at

Qumran is not derived by chance or happenstance; it has definite exegetical sources? What is required is an interpreter who can recover the exegetical process that led to the particular legal decision. In the following essay, we

hope to show the particular exegetical processes that the author of the

Temple Scroll followed on these two points and to compare these same

processes with those employed in the rabbinic literature of a slightly later

period. In so doing we hope to illuminate not only how the two groups construed the biblical text and fashioned it anew in such distinctive ways but also how the social setting of each interpretive group informed the entire exegetical process.

I

Before turning to the particular passages in the Bible that inform the decisions of the Temple Scroll, we should review first how the Torah has

organized its sacrificial material in general. In summary one can say that the Torah has both general rules for the performance of individual sacrifices and

particular applications for the individual sacrifices or sets of sacrifices. General rules for all of the sacrificial types are primarily found in one loca- tion, Leviticus 1-7. These rules provide a very basic description of how a

particular sacrificial procedure is to be performed. For example, the general rule for the burnt offering (Leviticus 1) tells us everything we need to know about how to administer the burnt offering. It tells us where to bring the animal, how to lay on hands, where to kill it, how to handle its blood, how to prepare the altar, and what to burn on the altar. In contrast to these general rules the Torah also contains laws that inform the reader what the sacrificial

procedures will accomplish. These laws, which we will call particular applications, are found after Lev 7:38 and are strewn over the rest of the Torah. Rather than dealing with single sacrificial types in isolation they illustrate how certain sacrifices or combinations of sacrifices might accom-

plish various ends. For example, one might note the law regarding the nazirite who is defiled by a corpse during his period of consecration:

On the eighth day [of his purification process] he shall bring two turtle- doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting, and the priest shall offer one for a purification offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body (Num 6:10-11)

In this text we are told what particular sacrifices are needed for the particular requirement of undoing the effects of corpse contamination in respect to the

3 See the work of L. Schiffman, especially Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (BJS 33; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983).



Anderson: Purification Offering in llQTemple 19

nazir. Whereas Leviticus 1-7 would have told us how to prepare and offer the burnt and purification offerings, from Leviticus 1-7 alone we would have no clue to how they might be used to purify the nazir.

As with other sacrifices in the Bible, the texts that treat the purification offering can be divided into the rubrics of general rules and particular applications. The purification offering, however, is unique in that the Bible contains two sets of general rules regarding its performance, Leviticus 1-4 and Num 15:22-31:

Leviticus Numbers 4:3-12 priest bull 4:13-21 congregation bull 15:22-26 congregation goat 4:22-26 prince goat 4:27-35 individual goat/lamb 15:27-31 individual goat

These two sets of general rules are framed in different ways. In Leviticus 4 the laws for those who must bring the purification offering are divided into four groups: the priest, the congregation, the prince, and the individual. In Num 15:22-31 only two groups are found: the congregation and the individual. More significantly, the type of offering that the congregation must bring is quite different. In Leviticus 4 the congregation is required to bring a bull for the purification offering, while in Numbers 15 the congregation must bring a bull for a burnt offering and a goat for a purification offering. Finally, while both Leviticus 4 and Numbers 15 state that the purification offering is for inadvertent sins, Numbers 15 provides additional stress for this point and also states that anyone who sins advertently is to be cut off from the community.

The problem of these two rules was dealt with in a rather ingenious fashion by the rabbis in m. Hor. 2:6:

A. In regard to those commandments in the Torah which require the penalty of extirpation when done advertently, but require a purification offering when done inadvertently the following gradient of offerings applies: the individual is to bring a lamb or goat; the prince is to bring a goat, the anointed priest and the court5 are to bring a bull. B. In the case of idolatry: the individual, the prince and the anointed priest are to bring a goat, while the court brings a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a purification offering.

This mishna has solved the problem of two general rules in the Bible by reinterpreting one of them as a special application.6 Unit A deals with the

* Modern scholarship has been sensitive to this problem. Note the discussion and the relevant bibliography in A. Toeg, "Numbers 15:22-31- Midrash Halakha" Tarbiz 43 (1974) 1-10 [Hebrew].

5 In rabbinic exegesis, the law for the congregation enumerated in Leviticus 4 is understood to refer to the court.

6 In the Sipre 111-12 the special sacrificial requirements for the congregation in Numbers 15 are said to deviate (ydsa') from the general rule (kelal) found in Leviticus 4.




general issue of those inadvertent sins which require the purification offering, while B deals with the particular category of idolatry. Moreover, A, the general rule, is based on Leviticus 4, whereas the particular application of B is based on Numbers 15. That this is so is made clear by the fact that A lists the exact same sacrificial requirements as those found in Leviticus 4, whereas B uses the requirements of Numbers 15.7 One should note that this exegetical decision is a very prominent feature in the mishnaic system of sacrificial atonement. It is not found in a just a few halakot. Indeed, the entire tractate of Horayot depends on this exegetical decision, as do whole sections of other tractates.8

This rabbinic text is instructive, because it shows us not only the specific results of rabbinic exegesis but also the more general exegetical problem that gave rise to the solution. This latter issue is important to underscore, for although not all interpreters in the Second Temple period would reach the same results as those of the rabbis, it is safe to assume that all interpreters were faced with a similar exegetical issue: what to do with two general laws for the purification offering that are contradictory. One of the general rules must be shifted into the category of specific application. No halakic system could allow two contradictory sets of general rules to stand.

Let us presume for the moment that the author of the Temple Scroll was bothered by the same problem: what to do with two contradictory laws for the purification offering. The pertinent text is llQTemple 15:15-16:1:

If the high priest is ready [to serve before the Lord who] has been ordained to wear the (priestly) garments in place of his father (this is the law): Let one bull be brought for the community and one for the priests. Let the bull of the priests be brought first. The elders of the priests shall lay their hands on its head and afterward the high priest and then all the (other) priests. They shall slay the bull ...

7 This point is obscured initially by the fact that both units A and B are framed in terms of the fourfold division of categories found in Leviticus 4. But a careful review of the sacrificial requirements of unit B will show that this mishna has used Numbers 15 as its base. Though it lists all four categories as found in Leviticus 4, the sacrificial requirements of the prince, priest, and individual are all the same, which is not the case in Leviticus 4. Thus, in purely formal terms, the fourfold division of Leviticus 4 has been telescoped to the twofold division of Numbers 15.

8 The logic of the mishnaic tractate, its supplementation in other tannaitic works (principally the Sipra), and its reshaping in the Babylonian Talmud are very perceptively traced in the introductory essay of M. Jaffee, The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation, 26, Tractate Horayot (BJS 90; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 8-45.




This text concerns the sacrifices that must be brought during the ordination

ceremony when a new high priest is to be installed. The laws for the ordination ceremony are found in Leviticus 8 in the Bible, and, as was noted above, the Bible requires only that the priests bring a bull as a purification offering. The Temple Scroll is quite novel in appending a law for the congregation as well. It would be very easy to account for this addition on the part of the

Temple Scroll if we presume that the Temple Scroll has understood Leviticus 8 to be an abbreviated text. In other words, the mention of the priests' obligation to bring a bull in Leviticus 8 was understood to trigger the inclusion of the obligation of the congregation as well. The fact that the Temple Scroll understands the congregation to be obligated to bring a bull on the day of ordination would suggest that the Temple Scroll has used Lev 4:3-21 as its source.

There are some features about the Qumran text that would support this

hypothesis. In at least two places, the pertinent materials from the Temple Scroll show dependence on Lev 4:3-21.9 Let us begin with lines 16-18: "Let one bull be brought for the community and one for the priests. Let the bull of the priests be brought first." This text highlights the fact that the commu-

nity must bring a bull on this occasion by placing the requirement at the very beginning of the list. Yet, lest the reader of this text mistake this cultic

prescription of what is to be brought for a description of how the rite is to be performed, the writer adds an important gloss: "He shall bring what per- tains to the priests first." This reference to order is most likely based on Lev 4:21, which compares the sacrificial procedure regarding the congregation's animal to that of "the former bull" (F7MI'- 0M), that is, the bull of priests (Lev 4:3-12). This datum, though significant, might be dismissed as co- incidental. Yet one should note that the case of the individual (vv. 27-31), though structurally similar to that of the prince (vv. 22-26), and following it in terms of order of presentation, never refers to the prince's animal as a former or first case. This textual detail indicates that the rites of the congregation and priest could function as a unit in ways that the rites for the individual and prince could not. The tannaim were also aware of this textual oddity and observed that the reference to the "former bull" of Lev 4:21 referred to those cases where both the priests and the congregation were offering animals at the same time.10

A second detail of the Temple Scroll also ties this text back to the model of Lev 4:3-21. In llQTemple 15:18 one reads that "the elders of the priests" must lay their hands on the animal. Everywhere in the Torah and the Temple Scroll the term "elder" refers to the secular tribal leaders. Never does it refer to members of the priesthood. The Temple Scroll employs this term in order to supply a replacement for the figure of Moses in Lev 4:3-12. Obviously

9 This point was also observed by Yadin (Temple Scroll 1. 95; 2. 66). 1o See the Sipra ad Lev 4:3.




Moses could not be present at the rite after his death, so a suitable replacement had to be made. But why was the anomalous term "elders of the priests" selected? Why not a certain division (mahalldqd) of the priests or some other term that was more germane to the ordering of the priesthood? It seems clear that the notion of the elders was borrowed from the laws for the congregation (Lev 4:15)11 The Temple Scroll must have reasoned that just as the elders of the congregation ('II •l "pT) represented the congregation in laying hands on the animal, so also the elders of the priests ( • ~in t pT) had to represent the rest of the priesthood. Only an exegete who understood Lev 4:3-12 and 13-21 as complementary texts could borrow back and forth from one pericope to the other.

We have shown that the Temple Scroll has shaped the laws for the ordination rite in Leviticus 8 by using the material found in Lev 4:3-21. Yet one would wish to know what motivated the author to do this. Why expand Leviticus 8 in this way? Was there something about Leviticus 4 that was difficult and could be clarified by such an interpretative move? The answer to the latter question is an unqualified yes.

A closer examination of Leviticus 4 and its relationship to the rest of the specific applications of the purification offering reveals a troubling asym- metry. Leviticus 4 requires that the priest and the congregation bring a bull, whereas the individual and the prince are to bring goats. Yet a glance at the specific applications of this rite found elsewhere in the Torah will reveal a glaring contradiction:

Special Applications of the Purification Offering 1. ordination of Aaron (Exodus 29 = Leviticus 8) priests bull 2. four special cases (Lev 5:1-6) individual goat

[Lev 5:7-13: if the individual cannot afford a she-goat then a bird] 3. eighth day-altar dedication (Leviticus 9) priests bull;

congregation goat 4. childbirth (Leviticus 12) individual bird 5. leprosy (Leviticus 14) individual lamb or bird 6. Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) priest bull;

congregation goat 7. nazir who touches something dead (Num 6:11) individual bird 8. nazir who finishes his vow (Num 6:14, 16) individual lamb 9. dedicatory offerings of the princes (Numbers 7) princes goat

10. ordination of Levites (Numbers 8) levitical priests bull

H1. feast days (Numbers 28-29) congregation goat

In the specific applications of the rite one notices that priests do bring bulls (nos. 1, 3, 6, 10), individuals do bring goats or lambs (2, 5, 8), and princes

" One must also reckon with the possibility that the term elders of the priests was an accepted technical term for a priestly group in this period (see m. Yoma 1:5).




bring goats (9). However, on no occasion does the congregation bring a bull; instead a goat is the general rule (3, 6, 11). The law for the congregation found in Leviticus 4 is quite extraordinary in its canonical setting: at the level of its surface structure it prescribes a general rule that is never carried out. Thus, the internal evidence of the Torah itself would lead one to suspect that Lev 4:13-21 could not be a general rule for the purification offering in regard to the congregation. The problem of the singularity of the general rule of the congregation in Leviticus 4 could be solved rather easily by reinterpreting it as a particular application of the purification rite.

We have concluded that the Temple Scroll understood the ritual of Lev 4:1-21 as a particular application of the purification offering because of the exegetical problem raised by the animal the congregation must bring in this text. Lev 4:13-21 requires the congregation to bring a bull, yet nowhere else in the Torah does the congregation bring a bull. This problem was very adroitly solved by positing that Lev 4:3-21 was a law that pertained to the rite of ordination alone. Yet one must wonder why the Temple Scroll picked this particular rite as the explanation of the function of Leviticus 4? Why not another moment in Israel's ritual life?

The solution to this problem most likely lies in a curious text that closes the entire sequence of rites found in Leviticus 1-7. We mentioned this verse earlier, and it is worth citing in full here:

This is the law of the burnt offering, of the cereal offering, of the purification offering, of the reparation offering, of the consecration (0•"SD0 ), and of the peace offerings. (Lev 7:37)

This verse summarizes what has just been itemized in detail over Lev 1:1-7:36. However, the careful reader will note that whereas one can find laws pertaining to the burnt, cereal, purification, reparation, and peace offerings within Leviticus 1-7, no mention of the consecration offering (DW15?•L)

can be found. To be sure there is a brief mention of how Aaron and his sons are to perform the cereal offering at the ordination rite, but no mention of how the animals in particular are to be treated. This textual anomaly prompted Anson Rainey to hypothesize that "a separate paragraph had existed in the original document from which this text has apparently been excerpted.' 2 Though this explanation is fine historically, it would not have entered the mind of an early exegete. For these individuals, the present form of the text must be understood without recourse to historical explanation. Thus, the tannaim understood the term as referring to the "full" (NZ) revelation of the rites for the burnt, cereal, purification, reparation, and peace offerings. The plain sense of the word, "consecration offering,' was avoided because Leviticus 1-7 provided no mention of this offering. It is not hard to conjecture that for another ancient reader this reference could refer to the implicit presence of

12 A. Rainey, "The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Rituals,' Bib 51 (1970) 489.




the 0'W• 10 rite in the preceding material.3 In this fashion, the tiny clue in Lev 7:37 must have pointed to the existence of an ordination rite hidden somewhere in Lev 1:1-7:36. Only with considerable exegetical skill could this rite be discovered.

II

If Leviticus 4 was understood as a special application of the purification rite by the author of the Temple Scroll, then, by a simple process of elimina- tion, one can presume that Num 15:22-31 must have been understood as the general rule. As we observed earlier there is a good reason in the Torah itself for understanding Num 15:22-31 this way: this text requires that the congregation bring a he-goat for the purification offering, and this is in complete accord with how the congregation actually behaves elsewhere in the Bible. But there is a problem with this reasoning with respect to the Temple Scroll. As mentioned earlier, the purification offering is always accompanied by cereal and drink offerings in the Temple Scroll. Since this is a regular procedure in the Temple Scroll one would assume that if Num 15:22-31 was the general rule for the purification offering then one should find evidence therein for accompanying cereal and drink offerings. It should be noted that the general law which requires that cereal and drink offerings must accompany burnt and peace offerings is found in an earlier portion of this chapter (Num 15:1-12); thus one would expect prima facie a similar ruling with respect to the purification offering.

Before addressing this problem, let us compare llQTemple 28:6-9 and its scriptural Vorlage, Num 29:20-22a.

11QTemple 28:6-9:

-I Y M [0] " D D ~ " D'" V"-0"[V] 7

71"YV51 viv=n71 v'5-0,5 9 On the third day: eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen lambs and a single goat from the herd for a purification offering, along with the cereal and drink offerings according to the law regarding the bulls, the rams, the lambs, and the goat.

13 One might object here that the term 0•N"ND

refers only to the consecration offering and not to the entire rite of which the purification offering was only a part; however, one must note that this observation is true only for Biblical Hebrew (or, better stated, for the lexical evidence at our disposal). In Mishnaic Hebrew the term did designate the entire rite. More importantly, the term functions exactly this way in the Temple Scroll as the heading of this entire section demonstrates (15:3).



Anderson: Purification Offering in 11QTemple 25

Num 29:20-22a:

On the third day: eleven bulls, two rams, fourteen lambs that are one year old and unblemished. Cereal and drink offerings shall accompany the bulls, rams, and lambs in proportion to their number in accordance with the law. And a single goat for a purification offering in addition to the Tamid and its cereal and drink offerings.

The text of the Temple Scroll follows the model of Num 29:20-22 very closely except for the law regarding the purification offering. The requirement for the purification offering has been shifted from the end of the law as it appears in Num 29:20-22 to the middle. By doing this the Temple Scroll has situated the purification offering among those offerings that require cereal and drink

offerings. But not only has the Temple Scroll realigned biblical phrases; it has also changed the diction in some significant ways. The Temple Scroll has also altered the biblical phrase 'IN M n -i111 to

M~•?MinN I1~ 7 YT •, and

the phrase =to 0 00m 5 0e rn1 piiM ~ I D ~,31

Din31 to =VZ0 03:31 On inMI. Normally the Temple Scroll does not alter biblical phrases to this degree unless it has a reason. In this particular case it cannot be accidental that both alterations adjust the text of Num 29:20-22a to the model found in Num 15:24.14 Indeed, it is very striking that the expression

: ==1~p• Oin3Il (Num 15:24) becomes a standard formula for the purification offering in the Temple Scroll.'" This formula can be discerned eight times in the Temple Scroll, and on each occasion its referent includes the purification offering.'6

Yet there still is an anomaly. The plain sense of Num 15:22-31 does not

require a cereal or drink offering for the purification offering. Though the formula for their inclusion is found in Num 15:24, almost all commentators

14 The text in Numbers 15:24 reads: nu1"3n i TnN -•"•1-1~l yrioovn it•• in: ~ . Both of the deviations found in the Temple Scroll match this text. The only other text that could have provided the model for the requirement of the single goat (ntni "nN

r Tt -1Y~1 would be the Hebrew Vorlage, that underlies the LXX, Syriac, and Samaritan versions of Num 29:21.

15 Of course, in Num 15:24b the suffixes are in the singular because the antecedent is

singular. But this should not obscure the point that Num 15:24 is one of only two texts in the Torah that frame the additional requirement of the cereal and drink offerings in this fashion. The other text that frames the law this way is Num 29:6, but the formula is used in this instance with regard to the tamid-offering of New Year's day and thus does not provide a conceptual parallel to the issue of the purification offering. Moreover, one should note that the Temple Scroll uses this formula in a uniform fashion to articulate laws for the purification offering, not the

tamid-offering. On this point, see n. 17. 16 See 15:3; 17:14; 18:5; 23:5; 25:6; 28:4-5, 8. Each of these texts uses this formula as a means

of articulating the requirements for the purification offering. The reference in 19:4 cannot be known with certainty.




are agreed that the formula refers to the requirements for the burnt offering, not the purification offering. Where does the Temple Scroll get the idea that the formula refers to the purification offering? In order to appreciate the exegesis of the Temple Scroll we need to look at the larger literary arrange- ment of Numbers 15.

This text begins with a section on the role of the cereal and drink offerings in the burnt or peace offering (Num 15:1-12). These offerings were treated individually in Leviticus 1-7, but prior to Numbers 15 no biblical text had required their combination in spite of the fact that many individual sacrifices specify these very combinations. In other words, Num 15:1-12 has the appearance of an addendum to the general rules of Leviticus 1-7, the level of generality now concerning how certain sacrifices are to be combined. One should take special care to note that Num 15:1-12 does not concern any specific application of these rites such as ordination, removal of impurity, or the like. Its general tenor is that of a generic law regarding the necessity of adding cereal and drink offerings to the burnt and peace offerings.

The structure of each sacrificial injunction is worth noting. The laws of these particular animal sacrifices and their accompanying cereal and drink offerings are outlined in the following manner: the animal in question is designated (sheep, ram, or bull), and then the cereal and drink offerings are listed without any break. Note, for example, the law for the bull:

... there shall be offered a meal offering along with the animal: three- tenths of a measure of choice flour with half a hin of oil mixed in; and as [a drink offering] you shall offer half a hin of wine - these being offerings by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord. (Num 15:9-10)

This contrasts sharply with the form in which the cereal and drink offerings are listed in Numbers 28-29. When the cereal and drink offerings are specified in these chapters, the cereal offerings for each animal are listed and then the drink offerings are prescribed. Note the law for the new moon:

On your new moons you shall present a burnt offering to the Lord: two bulls of the herd, one ram, and seven yearling lambs, without blemish. As meal offering for each bull: three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in. As meal offering for each ram.... As a meal offering for each lamb ... an offering by fire to the Lord. Their libations shall be: half a hin of wine for a bull, a third of a hin for a ram, and a quarter of a hin for a lamb. (Num 28:11-14)

It is certainly significant that in respect to the laws of the new moon the Temple Scroll (14:1-6) rewrites Num 28:11-15 so as to follow the format of Num 15:4-12. Indeed, every time the cereal and drink offerings are listed in the Temple Scroll with respect to the quantity of cereal and wine required, the literary form found in Num 15:4-12 takes pride of place.7

~7 See, e.g., 1lQTemple 14:1-6, 9-18; 18:5-6, 13-16; 19:15; 20:1-2. Also note the comments




In summary, one can say that Num 15:1-12 provided the literary model for the laws regarding the cereal and drink offerings for the author of the Temple Scroll. Even in those places where the Temple Scroll had available alternative expressions in Numbers 28-29, he chose to use the model found in Num 15:1-12.

With this literary structure in mind we are ready to look in some detail at Num 15:24b. As noted above, this text provided the literary formula used by the Temple Scroll to frame the requirements of the purification offering. Num 15:24 reads:

If the community should sin inadvertently, then all the community shall perform the sacrificial rites with respect to the bull, the burnt offering, to be a pleasing odor for the Lord, and its cereal and drink offerings according to the law, and one goat for a purification offering.

Translators universally have seen the cereal and drink offerings as being part of the burnt offering rite. This is clearly the plain sense of the verse. Yet this plain sense is not without its problems. For one, if the cereal and the drink offerings are meant to accompany the burnt offering, why do they come after the closing formula: "to be a pleasing odor for the Lord"? One would have expected a phrase like: '" .. the burnt offering and its cereal and drink offerings according to the law to be a pleasing odor for the Lord.' In Num 15:1-12 the laws for the cereal and drink offerings are brought to closure with this formula. Indeed, in most of the Torah this is exactly how this phrase is used.'8

of Yadin (Temple Scroll 2. 57), who also observed the formative role of Num 15:3ff. in the framing of these laws.

18 For texts wherein the formula functions to close a unit, see Gen 8:21; Exod 29:41; Lev 2:12; 3:16; 4:31; 8:21, 28; 17:6. One should also note that this technical phrase regarding the pleasing odor is a formal parallel to the closing formula of the purification rite we saw in Lev 4:20 ("the priest shall make atonement for them and they shall be forgiven"). This point has been well argued in a recent thesis (1988) by Israel Knohl at the Hebrew University under the direction of M. Greenberg, "The Conception of God and Cult in the Priestly Torah and in the Holiness School" [Hebrew], 149, cf. also 116, 122-24. Knohl characterized the notion of God's smelling the sacrifice as a popular formula of atonement, whereas the process of sprinkling blood was a technical formula of the priestly circle. Another aspect of Num 15:4-12 is worth highlighting. Each section of this text closes with the following phrase: "[it is] a pleasing odor to the Lord" (cf. vv. 7, 10). Indeed, in much of the P code this clause functions exactly this way: it is a closing formula that designates the end of the rite. One should note that in Numbers 28-29 we have the only exception to this rule. Here there are several cases where this formula is found in the middle of a law for sacrificial offerings (see 28:6, 27; 29:2, 6.). Yet it is perhaps significant that the author of the Temple Scroll never used this formula in his own composition in any way other than as a closing formula. This phrase ("a pleasing odor") occurs some seventeen times in the Temple Scroll, and in each case it functions as a closing formula. Note the following list of occur- rences in the Temple Scroll (some of them have been reconstructed by Yadin): 13:15; 14:6, 14, 16; 15:13; 16:10; 20:8; 22:04; 23:17; 24:6; 25:4, 6; 28:02, 2, 6; 29:011; 34:14.




Second, and equally problematic for the early interpreter, would be the phrase "and its cereal and drink offerings according to the law." If this phrase is to be read as part of the prescription for the burnt offering, then scripture seems redundant. Why would one need to be reminded that the burnt offer-

ing needed cereal and drink offerings when this was made quite clear just a few verses before (Num 15:9-10)? Though these types of redundancies do not bother the modern reader, the ancient reader often found them quite troubling. Human writers may needlessly slip and go over details twice, but not so for a divine author. Every detail of the sacred text was pulsing with

explicit and implicit meaning. The surface structure of the text, when repeti- tive, must mask more potent meanings underneath. The skilled interpreter would transform these apparent redundancies into absolutely essential pieces of information.

In the present text, the phrase "and its cereal and drink offerings accord-

ing to the law" is problematic in two regards: it appears redundant and occurs after a closing formula. But both of these problems can be easily solved with

just the slightest change in punctuation- no repointing, no shifting of clauses, just a slight modification in vocal stress. If one moves the principal disjunctive accent (which was not put in the text until the medieval period), the athnah, from nOVtZo to 7111, then the first part of the verse would read:

All the community shall perform the sacrificial rites with respect to the bull, the burnt offering, so as to be a pleasing odor for the Lord. And its cereal offering and drink offering according to the law and one he-goat for the purification offering.

Understood this way the closing formula ("i" 1"i•

r n5)rir ) is used in its

expected fashion: it closes the law regarding the burnt offering in a proper fashion. Moreover, the injunction regarding the cereal and drink offerings is no longer superfluous; it provides us with essential and new information. In this reading, the cereal and drink offerings are part of the ritual for the purification offering. The suffixes found on t~3 1"1IM do not refer to the antecedent rite of the burnt offering, but rather function proleptically and thus refer to the following purification offering. It is worth noting that in Mishnaic Hebrew the use of the proleptic suffix is quite regular. Thus it is very possible that the knowledge of this syntactical construction provided the necessary linguistic backdrop against which Num 15:24b could be read.19 This reading of 1 PL •I-•n , though odd in terms of the grammar of Biblical

19 Though one should be careful to note that the proleptic suffix normally appears imme-

diately before the noun to which it refers. Thus, in good mishnaic usage one would have

expected the form "w,"1

bm D ? 5 iinnm? or the like.



Anderson: Purification Offering in 11QTemple 29

Hebrew, becomes more understandable in light of the Hebrew idiom of the Second Temple period.

Certainly the main problem with this suggestion is that the reading it

produces seems difficult and a bit forced. The traditional reading renders more faithfully the "plain sense" of this verse. Yet our proposed reading derives some significant support from tannaitic sources. In the Sipre, the tannaitic commentary on Numbers, one reads the following in regard to Num 15:24:

"1ow-1-10:=Vnz"m't•r • •N))n ?iRrn b • • ,n•iY5 :nmn rmwr "Its cereal and drink offerings:' [This is said in regard] to the burnt offering. Could it also refer to the purification offering? [No, for] scripture says, "according to the law" [meaning] according to the order of what was said.

This text-though it confirms the traditional understanding that the cereal and drink offerings pertain to the burnt offering ("according to the order of what was said") - raises the rhetorical possibility that one might infer that the cereal and drink offerings were mentioned in respect to the purification offering and not the burnt offering. The very raising of the question by the Sipre points to the exegetical problem we articulated above and shows that the solution chosen by the Temple Scroll was considered to be a real possibility by the tannaim.20 We might add that David Pardo, an eighteenth-century commentator (1718-1790) on the Sipre, added additional reasons why one might be confused about which sacrifice the cereal and drink offerings were to be linked with. He observed that in all cases in the Torah where one has an additional purification offering of a he-goat, it appears in a separate verse

(i.e., with a more clearly marked caesura). In this present situation, because of the unusual placement of the requirement for cereal and drink offerings, there is room for ambiguity. The force of the word "according to the law" is to

20 Moreover, one should also note the textual variant found in the British Museum manu- script of the Sipre (Horowitz, 5): "'Its cereal and drink offerings' [In regard] to the burnt offering. But how do we know that it also refers to the purification offering ( ?n•1 b R 5 ,n1b)?* Scripture says, 'according to the law' meaning according to the order of what was said":' This text argues for the same reading of Num 15:24 that we find in the Temple Scroll. On the principle of lectio dificilior one would be tempted to assume that it is original, but this would be ill- advised because then it would preserve a ruling that plainly contradicts a widely accepted halakic position. Rather, this text should be explained as an attempt to deal with the stilted rhetoric of the accepted text cited above. The explanation of the Sipre that the cereal and drink offerings do not also refer to the purification offering because of "the order (sider) of what was said" is ambiguous. Just what "order" is being referred to? If the reference is to the immediate context of the verse, the order of what was said could not prove anything regarding the number of sacrifices to which cereal and drink offerings are to be appended. Probably the best understanding of the term "order" is that of David Pardo. He claimed that this referred to the sacrificial requirements given in Num 15:3ff, that is, the rule (sider) for cereal and drink offerings enumerated there in regard to the burnt offering alone. This would be supported by Tg. Neof, which translated "according to the law" as "according to the order (sedar) of the law":'




guide the reader back to the beginning of Numbers 15, wherein only the burnt offering is said to have such additional rites.

The understanding of the Temple Scroll, that cereal and drink offerings are to accompany every purification offering, was based on a detailed exegesis of Num 15:24. It is not the case that the author of the Temple Scroll found these additional offerings present in just any text, but rather in a text that was construed as speaking generally about the manner in which the purification offering should be administered. Because Num 15:24 was understood to be a general rule, the principles derived from the exegesis of this verse could be applied in every other sacrificial context in the Bible. These other texts were understood to be abbreviated materials that were filled out on the basis of Num 15:24.'

III

There is another oddity in the narrative of Num 15:22-31 that we briefly mentioned but did not attend to. Num 15:22-31 differs from Leviticus 4 not only in regard to the sacrificial requirements for the congregation but also in its conception of just which types of sins could be atoned for by sacrificial action. This text singles out for special emphasis two facts: first, all sins committed inadvertently require sacrificial atonement; and, second, any sin that is committed advertently results in the banishment of the person in question. These two emphases are found both at the beginning and at the end of this literary unit and serve to bracket the discussion about sacrificial atonement in general. Let us begin with the first:

If you unwittingly fail to observe any one of the commandments which the Lord has declared to Moses-anything that the Lord has enjoined upon you through Moses-from the day that the Lord gave the commandment and on through the ages. ... (Num 15:22-23)22

21 This position is different from that taken by J. Milgrom ("The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles,:' in Temple Scroll Studies [ed. G. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989] 173). Milgrom argues that the Temple Scroll has generalized the role of cereal and drink offerings from the case of the leper in Leviticus 14 to the rest of the Torah. There are numerous problems here. First, we have no evidence that the Temple Scroll resolved the ambiguity of Leviticus 14 in such a way as to require a cereal offering for the leper's purification animal (see n. 2). Second, even if we presume that the Temple Scroll believed that Leviticus 14 required a cereal offering for the purification rite, there is still the problem of the drink offering. Leviticus 14 makes no mention of a drink offering and thus provides grounds for generalizing about the cereal offering alone. Finally, if Leviticus 14 is the model, it is odd that the Temple Scroll's diction for the actual requirement of cereal and drink offerings conforms to the usage of Num 15:24 and not to any particular verse in Leviticus 14.

22 The emphatic and inclusive nature of this text in Numbers can be set in perspective by noting the far more limited aims of Leviticus 4: "When a person unwittingly incurs guilt in

regard to any of the Lord's commandments about things not to be done ..." (Lev 4:1). Whereas




The second emphasis is found at the end of the unit in Numbers:

But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts defiantly (7T01 "•'~) reviles the Lord; that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off-he bears his guilt. (Num 15:30-31)

This is a remarkable ruling, for usually in the Torah the penalty of extirpation, an obviously severe legal measure, was used only for particular sins of a very egregious nature. For example, one thinks of the penalty for not

circumcising (Gen 17:14), improper observance of Passover (Exod 12:15; Num 9:13), or consuming sacred offerings in a state of uncleanness (Lev 7:20), to give just a selective list. What is striking about all these texts is that the threat of extirpation is wedded to particular cultic or ritual sins. In no case, apart from Num 15:22-31, can one find the penalty of extirpation applied to even a series of commandments, let alone the entirety of the commandments. Indeed, to do so is a very radical move, even a dangerous one. If one applied this law rigorously, it would lead to the extirpation of most of the community. All that would remain would be a small "righteous remnant:' For who is it that can claim never to have sinned advertently?

A. Toeg quite ingeniously argued on the basis of this very problem that the law in Num 15:22-31 was not truly halakic in a legal sense.3 In his opinion, Num 15:22-31 was an early piece of inner-biblical exegesis that in its original setting was meant to be heard in a homiletic vein. It was not to be understood as codified law. This text found its closest parallels not in the legal portions of the Torah but rather in the highly figurative and meta- phorical language of punishment found in prophetic rhetoric. His arguments have been supported and extended by M. Fishbane?4 This theory has a lot to recommend it on many different grounds, yet for the purposes of understanding early postbiblical exegesis it is of little use. The readers of Num 15:22-31 in the Second Temple period would have lost this original homiletic usage and heard the text as a clear legal ruling that needed to be heeded. The problem, of course, was how. Was the text to be applied rigorously to the entire Israelite community with the result that all advertent sinners were to be banished from the community?

We argued quite forcefully above that the movement within the Temple Scroll to understand Num 15:22-31 as a general rule regarding the purification offering was grounded in exegetical reasoning. Yet lest one mistake our intentions here, we by no means wish to present the results of the Temple

Leviticus 4 is interested in the failure to obey negative commandments ("things not to be done"), Numbers 15 makes clear that its law applies to all commandments, including both positive and negative commandments and commandments given at Sinai and afterward.

23 Toeg, "Numbers 15:22-31," 1-10. 24 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1985) 189-94.




Scroll as purely exegetical in nature, nor would we wish to suggest that their exegesis is the only legitimate way of appropriating the text in a canonical vein. Rather, concerns of sectarian self-definition also loomed large in the deliberations of the author of the Temple Scroll. There exists a curious homology between the results of the Temple Scroll's exegesis and the very heart of the Qumran community's sectarian self-definition. This homology can hardly be accidental2. The same factors that figured in the formation of the community's laws of entry and banishment also played a role in the exegesis of Leviticus 4 and Num 15:22-31. This can best be illustrated by quoting a segment of the community's statement of self-definition in 1QS 8:21-9:2:

[Regarding] everyone who enters the holy council by walking in integrity along the path which the Lord commanded, should any one of them disobey a matter of the Torah advertently (o "17n) or by deceit he shall be banned from the council of the community. He shall never return. Nor shall any man from the holy men become involved financially with him or his counsel in any matter. But if he should sin inadvertently then he shall be separated from the pure food and from consultation.... (The text continues to detail how various inadvertent sins will be rectified in the life of the community.)

This text states quite clearly what the results of advertent sins are. Moreover, the idiom of this text for advertent sin is a word-for-word repetition of Num 15:30 (1Y1' l1'M). As E. Qimron has shown, the halakic terminology at Qumran for inadvertent and advertent sin is heavily dependent on Numbers 15, in vivid contrast to rabbinic practice.6 Even more important is Qimron's demonstration of how significant this halakic category was for the sect. It is used to define the general procedures for entry and removal from the sect

(1QS 5:11-12; 8:17-18, 21-27; 9:1-2), specific penalties for individual cases of legal violations (CD 10:2-3; 4Q159 2-4), and the nature of Israel's sin in the biblical period and Israel's continuing state of apostasy in the present age?7

25 It will be clear from the following discussion that we do presume that the Temple Scroll is linked in some fashion to the Qumran community, though we wish to leave the nature of this

"linkage" open and subject to further research. We do not accept H. Stegemann's thesis of absolute discontinuity ("The Origins of the Temple Scroll" in Congress Volume: Jerusalem [VTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988] 235-56). On the close relationship of the Temple Scroll and the

soon-to-be-published "halakic letter,'

see L. Schiffman, "The Temple Scroll and the Systems of

Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period,' in Temple Scroll Studies, 239-56.

26 Prof. Qimron has graciously provided me with a typescript of a talk he gave at the World

Congress for Jewish Studies in Jerusalem (1989) titled "Concerning Inadvertent and Advertent Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Technical Vocabulary" [Hebrew].

27 This particular problem will require a careful study. For now one can note the following contours of the problem. The Torah has been given to Israel in two forms: that which has been revealed plainly (hannigl6t) and that which has been in a hidden fashion (hannistar6t). The hidden laws have only recently been discovered by the sect through the means of inspired exegesis (see Schiffman, Sectarian Law, 15). Israel is guilty of two types of sin: advertent sin with




The widespread use of the halakic terminology of Num 15:22-31 in the legal materials of the sect points to the central role of this text in the formation of the sect's self-identity. Indeed, it would not be unfair to say that Num 15:22-31 was conceived of as a general rule by the Qumran group in regard to the handling of apostate members. This treatment of Numbers 15 as a general rule for apostasy should not be isolated from its function as a general rule for the purification offering. Indeed, it provides further support for our thesis that the general rule for the purification offering is located in this

pericope as well. One's appreciation of the exegetical choices made at Qumran regarding

Leviticus 4 and Num 15:22-31 can be sharpened by recalling the manner by which the tannaim and amoraim of rabbinic Judaism understood this particular problem. As noted above, the rabbis held that Num 15:22-31, with its

sharp and difficult ruling regarding the advertent sinner, was a special application of the purification rite. It applies only to the case of the idolator. This specification of Num 15:22-31 to the sin of idolatry was not derived in an arbitrary fashion. As Toeg has shown, it resulted from a sensitivity to the extreme and almost hyperbolic language of the text?8 The opening verse of this pericope was central to the rabbinic project: "If you unwittingly fail to observe all of the commandments (1=7#1 5) ~ ... (Num 15:22) And which

[single] commandment is considered to be equatable to 'all the commandments'? It is [the sin of] idolatry (b. Hor. 8b)." Or compare the following text from the Sipre:

You say the text refers to idolatry, but maybe it refers to [any]one of the commandments in the Torah. Scripture says: "If you unwittingly fail to observe all of the commandments...."' Scripture states "all of the commandments" so as to give instruction about a single commandment. Just as the one who transgresses all the commandments also breaks the yoke and violates the covenant, and brings dishonor to the Torah (D'0 M5~n1 l"lW3) so also the one who breaks one commandment breaks the yoke,

violates (10n) the covenant, and brings dishonor to the Torah. And which commandment is this? That of idolatry.

Similarly, the harsh language at the end of this pericope (Num 15:30-31) is also understood by many of the tannaim as referring to the sin of idolatry. Thus the phrase "he who sins advertently" (v. 30) is understood in the Sipre

respect to the plain commandments and inadvertent sin with respect to the hidden commandments. As Qimron has shown, the technical terms for the act of inadvertent sinning are: ta'a and ~iag (CD 3:4-7, 10-16), while those for advertent sinning are: biyad1 rama and birfrait lb. These terms are brought together in 1QS 5:10-12: "He shall bind himself to the covenant to separate himself from all the men of wickedness who walk in the paths of evil, for they are not reckoned in his covenant because they do not seek nor inquire into his laws so as to know the hidden teachings (hannistar6t) in which they erred (taJ') and thus incurred guilt; whereas the revealed teachings (hannigl6t) they violated advertently (beydd rdmii)'

28 Toeg, "Numbers 15:22-31:' 1-3, 19-20.




(112) to refer to one "who dishonors the Torah" (1"•1n

D1 C 1n:M5;n) like King Manasseh, the prototypic idolator. In addition, "He has despised the word of the Lord" (v. 31) is also understood by the Sipre to refer to idolatry: "For he has despised the first word which was said to Moses by God, 'I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me"

The decision by the rabbis to understand Num 15:22-31 as a special application of the purification rite was based on a sensitivity to the peculiar diction of the text. But limiting Num 15:22-31 to one particular sin achieved another goal, a goal that would have been difficult to appreciate without the comparative material from Qumran. As noted above, this biblical text provides a very sharp and difficult ruling regarding those who sin advertently. In no uncertain terms, this text demands that these individuals be banished from the community. By restricting this text to one particular offense, that of idolatry, the rabbis have defused an explosive issueP9 But even more than this, they have diffused it in the most potent way imaginable. For not only does the problem of extirpation become limited to a single class of human sin; it is limited to a class that was thought to be nonexistent in the rabbinic era! As E. Urbach has shown, there are numerous rabbinic texts which declare that idolatry is no longer a possible sin in the Second Temple period3o Moreover, this widespread rabbinic idea is foreshadowed in Jdt 8:18: "For there has not arisen in our generations, nor is there today, a tribe, a family, a clan, or a city that worships idols made by human hands, as there was once in olden times.'

The exegetical limitation of Num 15:22-31 sheds considerable light on the rabbinic concept of what constituted the community of Israel. By making this text a special ruling for the problem of idolatry the rabbinic system effec- tively eliminates, at least for this particular problem, the issue of defining community membership and apostasy in a sharply sectarian fashion.1 On the other hand, the movement in the Qumran community to understand Num 15:22-31 as a general rule for the community at large raises the specter of what to do with the majority of the community who occasionally lapse and sin "with a high hand." For the sectarian mentality that took shape at Qumran, these individuals constituted nothing other than a "false" or "fallen

Israel:' which stood in stark contrast to the righteous remnant of the sect.32

29 It should be noted that in the Sipre and other rabbinic sources one can find vv. 30-31 inter-

preted in regard to sins other than idolatry. But even those other sins which are enumerated still proceed from a desire to make the seemingly general ruling of vv. 30-31 specific.

30 E. Urbach, "The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the

Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts:' IEJ 9 (1959) 149-65. In particular, see b. Yoma 69b and Sanh. 64a.

31 See L. Schiffman, Who was a Jew? (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1985). 32 A further detail that will require substantial investigation is the laws for sacrifice found in

Jubilees. It is curious that this document, so evidently sectarian in many respects, requires that the purification offering also be accompanied by cereal and drink offerings (see, e.g., 7:3-6).




The concept of "the ban" was a live option for all, and a rather large section of the community's penal code was devoted to making the means of its

implementation clear.33

33 The perceptive reader will see clear and undeniable parallels to the phenomenon of the

"lapsed" in early Christianity. Again the issues of advertent and inadvertent sinning become

paramount for defining the nature of the church that claimed to be the new Israel. Perhaps it is not accidental that the fundamental textual source for this very issue in the early church is the letter to the Hebrews, a NT text that takes the OT sacrificial system with utmost seriousness. Indeed, the text that raises the issue does so in a manner that recalls the text of Num 15:30-31: "For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries" (Heb 10:26-27). As H. Attridge has noted, the language of sinning deliberately certainly comes from Num 15:30-31 (The Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989] 292).



the interpretation of the purification offering (חטאת) in the temple scroll (11qtemple) and...

Documents