Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #Leviticus
Most recents (18)
#Leviticus 25:42
Israelite slavery (3)
Why can’t an indebted Israelite be treated like a slave? Because he’s already enslaved - not to another Israelite, or any other human, but to YHWH. A slave can’t have two masters, and YHWH has made his claim.
Israelite slavery (3)
Why can’t an indebted Israelite be treated like a slave? Because he’s already enslaved - not to another Israelite, or any other human, but to YHWH. A slave can’t have two masters, and YHWH has made his claim.
The basis of YHWH’s claim is simple: I took them out of Egypt, so they’re mine. They were slaves to Pharaoh, but YHWH redeemed them - in the technical sense of the word: he effectively purchased them, just with force rather than with money.
The logic here is clear: what makes Israel un-enslaveable is their having been redeemed from Egypt by YHWH. Everyone who didn’t go through that experience - everyone who isn’t Israel - isn’t subject to the same prohibition on being enslaved. (As will be clear momentarily.)
#Leviticus 25:8-12
The jubilee year
Every fifty years, we get the jubilee: not just a year of rest like the sabbatical (though that too), but a year of restoration: everyone returns to their lands and to their people. What a nice biblical idea! Except it isn’t (biblical).
The jubilee year
Every fifty years, we get the jubilee: not just a year of rest like the sabbatical (though that too), but a year of restoration: everyone returns to their lands and to their people. What a nice biblical idea! Except it isn’t (biblical).
The big announcement of the fiftieth year is the restoration, or dror (דרור). This word comes to Hebrew, and the Bible, from the Akkadian andurarum, which is the same basic concept, just at the whim of the king rather than set on the calendar.
Always good to have the reminder that so much of what is known as biblical law is in fact just borrowed ancient Near Eastern practice. (You may think that these are God’s laws, but if they are, God nicked them from Mesopotamia.)
#Leviticus 25:1-7
The sabbatical year
Six years you can plant and harvest as usual; in the seventh year, though, none of that - you can eat only what the land produces on its own, without your intervention.
That ought to work out just fine.
The sabbatical year
Six years you can plant and harvest as usual; in the seventh year, though, none of that - you can eat only what the land produces on its own, without your intervention.
That ought to work out just fine.
There’s an obvious utopian quality to this law - as it will essentially go on to explain a few verses later. It might have once been workable on a field-by-field level, but not nationally, which is what is clearly proposed here. This is the sabbath writ large.
Having moved through all the realms of the sacred, we’re now come to the biggest and last: the land itself. The sabbath is about sacred time; the sabbatical is about sacred land (in time). It’s also fundamentally about property, as will become increasingly clear.
#Leviticus 19:26-28
Sorcery (and why Jews wear beards and don’t get tattoos)
The thing about sorcery in the Bible is that it isn’t forbidden because it’s inherently evil. It isn’t forbidden because it’s “magic” (however defined). It’s forbidden because it works.
Sorcery (and why Jews wear beards and don’t get tattoos)
The thing about sorcery in the Bible is that it isn’t forbidden because it’s inherently evil. It isn’t forbidden because it’s “magic” (however defined). It’s forbidden because it works.
Sorcery (or divination, or augury, or whatever in this concept cluster) is problematic because it usurps YHWH’s power - and, particularly, the authority of the priests as the sole access to YHWH, and especially to oracular knowledge. Knowledge is power, don’t you know.
Sorcery is thus very much like child sacrifice - prohibited because of its efficaciousness, because it overrides or usurps divine authority, because it reveals alternative modes of manipulating power and knowledge. Such things are, as always, a threat to the powers that be.
#Leviticus 19:23-25
Forbidden fruit
Sorry - not as sexy as it sounds. Like, literal forbidden fruit: no fruit from trees less than four years old can be eaten. Fine agricultural practice I’m sure - more interesting is the word for “forbidden” here: elsewhere, “uncircumcised.”
Forbidden fruit
Sorry - not as sexy as it sounds. Like, literal forbidden fruit: no fruit from trees less than four years old can be eaten. Fine agricultural practice I’m sure - more interesting is the word for “forbidden” here: elsewhere, “uncircumcised.”
Same word used in both cases of literal circumcision (like Abraham in Gen 17) and some famous figurative language: Moses talking about his mouth, Jeremiah about people’s hearts and ears, etc.
I’m here to suggest that “uncircumcised” isn’t the base meaning of the word, but is a specialized (if common) application of a broader term meaning “covered, blocked.” Moses’s mouth, Jeremiah’s hearts and ears…and of course these premature fruit trees.
#Leviticus 19:20-22
Slavery and sex, in one law!
As you can imagine, it ain’t great. Usually, the punishment for adultery is death. But if the woman is a slave, well, then she’s not really a person, you see, and so the (free) man just has to pay - like he damaged property.
Slavery and sex, in one law!
As you can imagine, it ain’t great. Usually, the punishment for adultery is death. But if the woman is a slave, well, then she’s not really a person, you see, and so the (free) man just has to pay - like he damaged property.
But, but, slavery in the Bible was better than -
Shut it. This is some straight dehumanizing shit here, and defending it means you love this old-ass book more than you love your fellow humans, and you can call that whatever you like, but I call it deeply immoral.
Rant over.
Shut it. This is some straight dehumanizing shit here, and defending it means you love this old-ass book more than you love your fellow humans, and you can call that whatever you like, but I call it deeply immoral.
Rant over.
(This kind of shit - which I received just this morning, amazingly): 
#Leviticus 19:19
Forbidden mixtures
Goats and sheep, corn and peas, wool and cotton: whatever you do, don’t mix them together. After the most beloved law in the Bible comes this, one of the most often ignored, even disdained. But remember: they’re equally biblical.
Forbidden mixtures
Goats and sheep, corn and peas, wool and cotton: whatever you do, don’t mix them together. After the most beloved law in the Bible comes this, one of the most often ignored, even disdained. But remember: they’re equally biblical.
This law may be hard to understand on a practical level, but it’s pretty consistent with the overall priestly concern for categories and boundaries and definitions. Creation was an act of separation: don’t undo it by muddling everything back together.
This is of course especially important for animal breeding, since animal categories are crucial for both the sacrificial system and the kosher laws. When everything means something, then it’s important to know what everything is, categorically.
#Leviticus 19:9-18
Holiness laws, part 2
Here's a pretty terrific collection of ethical laws, in no obvious order, and many of them borrowed from other texts. It's like a greatest hits of ethical legal statements. And, oh yeah, it culminates with the golden rule.
Holiness laws, part 2
Here's a pretty terrific collection of ethical laws, in no obvious order, and many of them borrowed from other texts. It's like a greatest hits of ethical legal statements. And, oh yeah, it culminates with the golden rule.
It's probably worth saying that the golden rule is known as such only because of Jesus (or, for my Jews, Hillel). There's nothing in H, or anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, to denote it as any more special or important than any other law.
Is it more special? It's certainly broader, and in that sense more useful. But it doesn't override any others - or if it does, that's an interpretive choice, not one dictated by the Bible itself. In an alternate universe, another law could have become "the golden rule."
#Leviticus 19:3-8
Holiness laws, part 1
This collection starts with what looks like a nod to the Decalogue: honoring parents, sabbath, no idols. And it’s not impossible that that’s what this is, since one of the differences between H and P is that H knows and reacts to D.
Holiness laws, part 1
This collection starts with what looks like a nod to the Decalogue: honoring parents, sabbath, no idols. And it’s not impossible that that’s what this is, since one of the differences between H and P is that H knows and reacts to D.
But it isn’t the same. The part about parents is different: not honor, כבד, which I argued earlier was about caring for ancestral graves, but respect, ירא. This chapter comes between the sex laws, which seems relevant. Also in H we get the law against insulting parents, Lev 20:9.
H, in other words, seems to mean here what everyone usually thinks the Decalogue means: respect your parents, during their lifetimes. H cares about this from various angles. And maybe(?) it signals a temporal shift coinciding with the fading of the ancestral cult. Maybe.
#Leviticus 18:24-30
Defiling the land
Some sins defile the sanctuary - the kinds of ritual sins we met in Lev 1-15, along with impurities - but some sins, like those in this chapter, defile the land itself. And while you can purify the sanctuary…not so much the land.
Defiling the land
Some sins defile the sanctuary - the kinds of ritual sins we met in Lev 1-15, along with impurities - but some sins, like those in this chapter, defile the land itself. And while you can purify the sanctuary…not so much the land.
There’s only one way for the land to be cleansed: the removal of the people whose behavior has defiled it. (And, crucially, defiled the people themselves, too - unlike what we saw in Lev 1-15.) That’s the land “spewing out” its inhabitants.
That’s what H says happened to the previous inhabitants, the Canaanites, who acted in all these abhorrent ways. (But we know that they actually didn’t, right? It’s just a nasty polemic.)
#Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination.
How should we understand this verse? What does it mean that the Bible seems to prohibit male homosexual intercourse?
Let me start simply: it says what it says. It does prohibit it.
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination.
How should we understand this verse? What does it mean that the Bible seems to prohibit male homosexual intercourse?
Let me start simply: it says what it says. It does prohibit it.
Do I like it? Of course not. But I don’t like plenty of what’s in the Bible. And neither do you - I don’t care what religion or tradition you claim. So we can begin there. Everyone picks and chooses, and everyone has always picked and chosen. Even in the Bible itself.
So holding this verse up and saying homosexuality is wrong is silly, unless you’re also in favor of slavery, or stoning disobedient children, or, I don’t know, keeping kosher. Especially, obviously, if you declare all the laws to have been voided by the coming of Jesus.
#Leviticus 16:20-22
The goat for Azazel
Did the biblical authors believe in the following: divine beings aside from YHWH? various demons and other supernatural beings? spaces not controlled by YHWH? dumping grounds for sins where they wouldn’t bother anyone?
Yes to all.
The goat for Azazel
Did the biblical authors believe in the following: divine beings aside from YHWH? various demons and other supernatural beings? spaces not controlled by YHWH? dumping grounds for sins where they wouldn’t bother anyone?
Yes to all.
When we get hung up on the identity of Azazel, we miss the point (in this case, what’s actually happening in the ritual). Was Azazel a goat demon? Maybe! Probably, even. Is the identity of Azazel important here? Not so much, actually.
The question should be: if Aaron has just purified the sanctuary with the purification offerings, even brought inside the inner sanctum, all the way to YHWH’s seat, then what sins are left for hm to be placing on this goat?
#Leviticus 16:18-19
Purifying the outer altar
Same blood from the same animals, the purification sacrifices. Just moving from the inner sanctum to the outer altar, because we all know you have to start sweeping from the inside and work your way out.
Purifying the outer altar
Same blood from the same animals, the purification sacrifices. Just moving from the inner sanctum to the outer altar, because we all know you have to start sweeping from the inside and work your way out.
Here again we get really clear useful language about what this sacrifice does, here and everywhere: it cleans and purifies the altar, and the sanctuary, from the impurities of Israel. In none of this is any person being purified, or cleaned, or even forgiven. It’s the sanctuary.
To this point, a good deal of this ritual is relatively familiar: that is, it’s closest in form to the sacrificial procedure we saw back in Leviticus 9, where the Tabernacle was inaugurated. This isn’t surprising: what’s happening here is what I’ve called a ritual reset.
#Leviticus 11:29-38
Impurity from mice (basically)
So there you are, about to make dinner, and you pull out your nice clay cooking pot, and horror! There’s a dead mouse inside! Truly, even today I’d have trouble ever using that pot again. Just chuck it and get a new one.
Impurity from mice (basically)
So there you are, about to make dinner, and you pull out your nice clay cooking pot, and horror! There’s a dead mouse inside! Truly, even today I’d have trouble ever using that pot again. Just chuck it and get a new one.
This section is about the impurity caused by dead mice (and equivalent small animals). This isn’t about anything you’d eat - but nor is it really about some inherent ickiness to these animals (icky though you may find them).
These get a special section because they appear in a different area of life. No one has ever found a dead camel in their soup bowl. You don’t run across the horse that just happened to crawl into your oven and die there. Dead mice and lizards, though? All the damn time. Still!
#Leviticus 11:24-28
Impurity! (Part one of many)
The laws of Leviticus 11 aren’t only, or even mostly, about what you can eat. Here we turn our attention to what animals create impurity, and how to remove it. And understanding impurity is central to understanding P.
Impurity! (Part one of many)
The laws of Leviticus 11 aren’t only, or even mostly, about what you can eat. Here we turn our attention to what animals create impurity, and how to remove it. And understanding impurity is central to understanding P.
So let’s start with what creates it. In this case, it’s physically touching the carcasses of certain non-kosher animals. But it isn’t their non-kosher-ness that makes them transmit impurity, since kosher carcasses do too (see 11:39). We’re just starting with these.
The animals at stake here are the large land animals that aren’t kosher, but that an Israelite might be likely to touch the carcass of. That is, mostly, domestic animals: donkeys, camels, dogs, cats. Because they’re common, touching them while alive is totally fine.
#Leviticus 4:3-35
The “sin” offering. But we’re not calling it that.
We know the malady: unintentional sin. Now we get the treatment. It comes in four flavors, but the underlying procedure and concept is the same. And it’s absolutely crucial to understanding P’s system.
The “sin” offering. But we’re not calling it that.
We know the malady: unintentional sin. Now we get the treatment. It comes in four flavors, but the underlying procedure and concept is the same. And it’s absolutely crucial to understanding P’s system.
I’m going to start with flavor 4: the normal person who commits an unintentional sin. Since, after all, most of us are normal people. And so were most of the Israelites, too. (Kingdom of priests my ass.)
First things first, you have to know you screwed up. Did you unwittingly violate the sabbath? The moment that you realize what day it is, you’re obligated. Or the moment someone yells out the window “Dude, it’s Saturday!” That’s when you’re on the hook.
#Leviticus 4:2
Here's the introduction to the second major category of sacrifices in Leviticus (and P), and where P goes off into its own little priestly world. Welcome to the involuntary sacrifices. Here we get what you have to offer when you screw up unintentionally.
Here's the introduction to the second major category of sacrifices in Leviticus (and P), and where P goes off into its own little priestly world. Welcome to the involuntary sacrifices. Here we get what you have to offer when you screw up unintentionally.
"How do you screw up unintentionally," you might ask. Well, I'll tell you: when there's a divine commandment not to do something, and you do it without meaning to or without knowing that you did. So says Lev 4:2.
But, you say, give me an example so I know what you mean! Uh...
But, you say, give me an example so I know what you mean! Uh...
In pretty classic P style, we get here detailed instructions for a scenario that essentially doesn't exist in reality yet. Because while there have been lots of laws in E to this point, in P...not so much. YHWH hasn't actually given any prohibitions to violate yet.
#Leviticus 4:1
At this juncture, it’s worth stepping back a second and talking about the major groups of sacrifices in Leviticus, since we’re transitioning from one to the other here.
(There’s obviously nothing worth saying about this actual verse.)
At this juncture, it’s worth stepping back a second and talking about the major groups of sacrifices in Leviticus, since we’re transitioning from one to the other here.
(There’s obviously nothing worth saying about this actual verse.)
What we’re about to enter into are the sacrifices that are generally described as involuntary: they’re required in certain situations, and the text lays out what those situations are (at least in general terms and for the most part).
What we just read in Lev 1-3, then, is generally described as the voluntary offerings: ones you can bring whenever you like. And this is true! While the next ones tell us the conditions under which you must offer x, what we’ve read so far just says “if you want to offer x.”
