1. No category

The Concept of Maʿal in the Bible and the Ancient near East
Author(s): Jacob Milgrom
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1976), pp. 236247
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/599826 .
Accessed: 15/11/2012 12:59
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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE CONCEPT OF MA'AL IN THE BIBLE AND THE ANCIEN'T NEAR EAST'
JACOB MILGROM
UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY
Biblical ma'al involves trespass either upon the sancta or name of God. The latter is
amply attested in oath violations. The former, however, is never defined or clearly illustrated. The Hittite text, "Instructions for Temple Officials" answers this need. It
further postulates that whenever the trespasser is apprehended by man, he alone suffers
death but when he is apprehended by the gods, i.e., by ordeal or oracle, his family dies
with him. Biblical law, however, operates on contrasting postulates: Sins against God
are punishable solely by God and collective punishment can be exacted solely by God.
1. Sin Against God. Altogether ma'al appears
44 times in Scripture. The common denominator
to all the occurrences is that ma'al constitutes
a sin against God.2 This restriction to the Deity
is projected by the complex wording of Num. 5:6.
'y? 'w '?h ky y'sw mkl ht't h'dm Im'l m'l bY
"when a man or woman commits any wrong
against man (thereby) commiting ma'al against
the Lord." This verse makes it clear that ma'al
against God must be distinguished from wrongs
(ht't) against man. The term ma'al, however, is
not defined here or in any other cultic-legal text.
The biblical narratives may prove more helpful
since they, at least, incorporate actual cases of
ma'al. These, it will be seen, fall into two major
categories: the trespass upon sancta and the violation of the covenant oath.
2. The First Category: Sancta Trespass. Cases
of ma'al trespass on Temple sancta are found only
in Chronicles. Uzziah is charged with ma'al for
offering incense inside the Temple (2 Chr. 26:1618). His offering is illicit in accordance with the
Priestly source, since both place and rite, i.e.,
entering the sanctuary and officiating there, are
forbidden to a non-priest.3 He is stricken with
leprosy on the spot. Ahaz is also indicted with
ma'al by Chronicles for tampering with the Temple
sancta (2 Chr. 28:19, 22-25, cf. 2 Kgs. 16:14-17)
and suspending their use (2 Chr. 29:19). Finally,
1 For convenience frequently cited works are abbreviated in the footnotes and are given in full at the end of
the article, note 76.
2 The alleged exception of the suspected adultress
(Num. 5:11ff) will require separate treatment.
3 See Milgrom,Studies, 38-43.
the Chronicler pinpoints ma'al as the cause for
Judah's downfall because "they contaminated the
house of the Lord which he had sanctified in
Jerusalem" (2 Chr. 36:14; italics mine).4
That these instances of trespass on Temple
sancta are limited to post-exilic Chronicles must
not be used as evidence for its late appearance
in Israel. Extra-biblical parallels, adduced below,
will demonstrate that the fear of trespass on
sancta was a formidable factor in molding the
thought and legislation of ancient man. Indeed,
early biblical tradition is preoccupied with the
dangers of illicit contact with sancta to the point
of obsession, e.g., the apodictic law: "the stranger
who encroaches shall be put to death" (Num.
1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7) and the Korah episode (Num.
chs. 16-18) which serves as a case study of this
principle.5
An early tradition tells of Achan's ma'al against
the herem of Jericho (Josh. 7:lff; 22:20; cf. 1
4 This notion stems from earliest times in the ancient
Near East. For example, in the Sumerian "The Curse of
Agade," ANET3 647-651, dated c. 2000 BCE,the gods
decree the destruction of Agade when its king, NaramSin, pillages Ekur, the temple of Enlil, 11. 59ff., 225f.;
cf. also notes 17, 20 below. For post-biblical times, cf.
the Psalms of Solomon which considers the greatest
sin of the priests and the temple officials-beyond their
avarice and immorality-as their pollution of the sancta
(1:8b; 2:1-4; 8:12-14) resulting in the profanation and
spoilation of the temple by Pompey. The defilement of
the temple by the Jerusalem priesthood is cited by the
Qumranites as a reason for their withdrawal (CD 6:1114; 20:22-24; cf. 3:19-4:4; Psalms of Solomon 17:15-17),
which they also label as ma'al (CD 8:46).
5 Studies, 16-33.
236
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILGROM: Ma'al in the Bible and Ancient Near East
Chr. 2:7). The taboo of herem is adduced in other
early narratives (e.g., Amalek: 1 Sam. 15:3ff; Ben
Hadad: 1 Kgs. 20:42) and laws (e.g., Lev. 27:21,
28f.; Num. 18:14; Deut. 7:25; Ezek. 44:29). As
construed by the Priestly Code, herem is the ultimate in dedication: it is "most sacred to the
Lord" in that it may never be redeemed (Lev. 27:
28),6 and if herem is imposed on man, there is no
alternative to his death (Lev. 27:29; cf. 1 Sam.
15:3, 33). Moreover, the case of Achan explicitly
teaches that appropriation of sancta for whatever
purpose constitutes ma'al. Note the verb lqh,
"appropriate" (Josh. 7:1, 11). Thus the principle
of intention apparently plays no part in ma'al.
It makes no difference if the herem taboo was
violated accidentally; it suffices that "herem is
in your midst, O Israel" (v. 13). V. lib is particularly instructive: gm Iqhw mn hhrm wgm gnbw
wgm khsw wgm smw bklyhm. "they have taken
from the herem, they have stolen, they have dissembled, and they here put it among their possessions." Here an attempt is made to distinguish
between different degrees of ma'al. gnbw, "stole,"
is deliberate; khsw, "dissemble," adds the crime
of denial; and smw bklyhm, "put among their
possessions," is the final act of expropriation.7
Iqh, the first verb in the series, then refers to the
literal act of taking possession even without intention. In this regard, the Bible is just as severe
as the Mari texts where taking (lequ) sancta was
as much a crime as stealing (saraqu) and expropriating (akalu) sancta (see ? 7). However, this
parallel holds true only for herem.8 In the Bible
ordinary sancta are governed by the principle of
intention (Lev. 5:14-16) and it constitutes a major
distinction between Israel and its environment.
In another early tradition, the Transjordanian
altar of the tribes of Gad and Reuben, the charge
of ma'al is explicitly levelled (Josh. 22:16, 22).
That the ma'al involves sancta is apparent not
only from the violation of the Priestly postulate
that the only authorized altar is in the Tabernacle
6
Technically, herem in P is not "most sacred" since
it is among the sancta from which the priest's family
may benefit (Num 18:11-19; contrast vv. 9f.); it is
only in respect to its irredeemability that it resembles
the "most sacred."
7 The fourfoldrepetition of the particlegm may indicate
legal distinctions.
8 Also, for the Ark and the inner sancta,
according to
P. see Studies, 20.
237
(vv. 19, 29; cf. Lev. 17:3-7)9 but from the comparison that the narrator makes with Achan who
trespassed (md'al ma'al) upon the herem of Jericho.
Thus the suspected ma'al of the Transjordanian
tribes and the actual ma'al of Achan constitute
historic examples of this first category of ma'al,
the trespass on sancta.
3. The Second Category: Oath Violation. The
second category of ma'al, oath violation, is integrally related to trespass upon sancta for the
violated sanctum is none other than the Deity
Himself. The Lord's name by which an oath is
taken is called a sanctum, gm qdg (e.g., Lev. 20:3;
Isa. 57:15; Ezek. 36:20-22; Amos 2:7; Ps. 111:9),
and the oath itself is called dbr qdg (Ps. 105:42,
cf. vv. 8f.) and is taken bqds (e.g., Amos 4:2:
Ps 60:8). In the cultic laws. as can be shown'0,
the oath violation is defined as "swearing falsely"
or "desecrating the name of God." In the nonlegal texts, which are examined here, it appears in
a variety of forms, all of which can be subsumed
under one rubric: the violation of the covenant
oath.
This notion of ma'al is already adumbrated in
the admonitions of Lev. 26 where the sin of
"violating the covenant" (v. 15) is also termed
m'lm 'sr m'lw by "the trespass they committed
against Me" (v. 40). That the violation of the
covenant oath constitutes trespass is painstakingly
underscored by Ezekiel: Zedekiah will be punished
9 Contrary to most scholars, this pericope does not
reflect the Deuteronomiccentralization of worship. Since
the latter takes effect only after the "allotted haven"
(Deut. 12:9) is secured, the period of Joshua's wars is
thereby excluded accordingto Deuternomy'sown criteria.
I have argued elsewhere, Studies, 66-72, that P projects
the continued use of the Tabernacleas a roving sanctuary
in the Promised Land, and Josh. 22 reflects that view.
Hence according to P multiple sanctuaries would never
be sanctioned (contra Kaufmann HIR I, 114-131; Eng.,
175-184; see now M. Haran, "The Idea of Centralization
of the Cult in the Priestly Apprehension," Beer-Sheva
1 [1973], 114-121). Similarly, Ezekiel's charge that the
bimot constitute ma'al (Ezek. 20:27-29) is founded on
this Priestly postulate. However, Kings which follows
Deuteronomichistoriographydoes not condemnthe bmd6t
until after the Jerusalem Temple is constructed and the
Deuteronomic desideratum of the "allotted haven" is
secured (1 Kgs. 8 8:5; cf. 3:3)
10 J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, (Leiden, 1976),
pp. 84ff.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238
Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976)
because wbzh 'lh Ihpr bryt "he spurned the oath
thereby violating the covenant" (Ezek. 17:18; cf.
vv. 13, 16, 19), a sin which the prophet explicitly
labels m'lw 'sr mel by "the trespass which he
committed against me" (v. 20).11 The Ezekiel
passage is most illuminating: the condemnation
of Zedekiah is based on the violation of the covenant with Nebuchadnezer not with God! Yet
since the one involves a solemn oath as much as
the other, its violation constitutes ma'al, i.e.,
a trespass against God.12
Since the swearing of fidelity is the root purpose
of the Lord's covenant it is hardly surprising that
the ma'al of oath violation usually turns out to
be idolatry (e.g., in general: 2 Chr. 12:2; 33:19;
Baal Peor: Num. 31:16; Ahaz's foreign cult: 2
Chr. 28:22f).13
11 That the curse/oath is the quintessential element of
the covenant is shown by passages in which 'lh and bryt
alternate (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 41; Num. 5:21). Note the rabbinic dictum: "Every 'Ih is an oath" (Sifra, Hoba, par.
8:1). True, there is no direct evidence that all oaths
were followed by a curse, even though this is what later
Judaism taught, cf. Sifre, Num 14; Philo, Laws IV, 34
(contra Belkin, Philo, 146; for a convincing evaluation
of the development, see Jackson, Theft, 218-223). Yet
divine punishment for non-fulfillment of oaths was implicit, if not actually verbalized, in a curse,e.g., Jer. 5:2f;
Zech. 5:4; Mal. 3:5 (on false oaths). Though the halacha
prescribes flagellation, there is ample witness to an ancient tradition that the penalty was death by God; cf.
TJ on Lev. 5:1; M Sanh. 4:5; Tosef Shebu.3:4;Tosef Sot.
7:2f.; Philo, Laws II, 26; CD 15:4. An application of the
macal of oath violation is found in Prov. 16:10f and Job
21:34, i.e., the king who commits ma'al with "hismouth"
by deviating from God's justice and the self-assumed
authority of Job's friends to speak for God's theodicy.
12 This view is also that of the Chronicler(2 Chr. 36:
13f.), of the Qumranites(e.g., 1 QH 4:34) and of the rabbis
(Sifra, Behukutai, 26:1; cf. Lev. R. 6:5). The full force
of Zedekiah'smaaalis felt in God's charge: "it is My oath
('ity) he has despised and My covenant (wbryty)he has
violated (v. 19; suggested by D. Halperin, my student).
Indeed, it now can be shown that the severe measures
taken by Nebuchadnezzar:razingJerusalem,slaughtering
Zedekiah's sons and nobles and blinding Zedekiah are
precisely stipulated by the curses of I Sefire A 35-40
and, hence, most likely formed part of the written treaty
between Nebuchadnezzarand Zedekiah;see F. E. Deist,
"The Punishment of Disobedient Zedekiah," JNSL 1
(1971), 71f.
13 Ahaz's additionaltrespass (wywsp Im'wlb Y) consists
4. The Common Denominator.
The two categories of ma'al are really one. Both trespasses are
against the Deity. Moreover, trespass upon sancta
is simultaneously trespass upon the covenant since
reverence for sancta is presumed in the covenant
relationship:14 In the incident of Achan's sacricase of sancta trespass-Israel
is also
lege-a
accused of covenant violation (Josh. 7:11, 15).
Further underscoring their affinity is that both
kinds of ma'al are termed "rebellious" (mrd)
against God: e.g., for sancta desecration: Josh.
22:16, 18, esp. 22; for oath violation: Ezek. 17:15).
Finally both ma'al categories share not only
the nature of the sin-involving
trespass upon the
Divine property or name-but
also call for a
similar retribution. Both trespasses provoke God's
consuming wrath on the family and community
of the sinner. The doctrine of corporate culpability
for sins against God not only informs the Priestly
Code but all of biblical literature. The tribes
under Joshua are alarmed lest the trespass of
Gad and Reuben bring down God's wrath on all
of Israel (Josh. 22:18, 31), specifically citing
Achan's trespass (v. 20)15 as a contemporary case
in point (cf. Josh. 7:lff). According to Chronicles,
Ahaz's trespass led to the political subjugation
of Judah (2 Chr. 28:19). That destruction and
exile on a national scale follow in the wake of
the ma'al of oath violation is clear from the
structure of the covenant itself (Lev. 26:14ff;
of his alleged worship of Damascene gods (v. 23), an
indictment absent in Kings. Conversely, the Chronicler
says nothing about Ahaz's architectural innovations in
the Temple (2 Kgs. 16: 10-14) to which, however, he may
allude in the earlier charge of ma'al (v. 19).
Saul is also charged with the ma'al of idolatry by
the Chronicler(1 Chr. 10:13) but it is unsubstantiated;
the only specific fault he can pin on this most zealous
Yahwist is that he once consulted a ghost (cf. 1 Sam. 28).
The midrash, however, labels Saul's annihilation of the
Nobian priesthood (1 Sam. 22:18f.) as ma'al since it is
tantamount to sancta violation (Lev. R. 26:7).
That Moses and Aaron committed (self) idolatry at
Meribah(Num. 20:6-13), i.e., ma'al (Deut. 32:51) requires
separate treatment. It is germane here to note that according to P, Moses' ma'al did involve desanctification
(I' qdStm,Deut. 32:51; cf. Num. 20:12a; 27:14a [all P]).
14 Strikingly it is P alone that makes this
explicit,
cf. Lev. 19:30; 21:23; 26:2 and see Milgrom,Studies,23f.,
n. 78.
15 Ibid., 32, n. 119 and cf. Y. Kaufmann, The Book
of Joshua (Jerus. 1963), ad. loc. (Heb);
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILGROM:
Ma'al in the Bible and Ancient Near East
see explicitly
Neh. 1:5)16 Thus Ezekiel can pronounce
exile for the entire nation because
its
king violated his solemn oath (Ezek. 17:19-21).17
ma'al, then, means trespassing
upon the divine
realm either by poaching on his sancta or breaking
his covenant
oath; it is a lethal sin which can
destroy both the offender and his communty.
5. Confirmation
from the Ancient
Near East.
There can be no question that Israel derived its
notion of ma'al from its environment.
The literature of the ancient Near East is replete with
of divine punishment
in the wake of
examples
sancta or oath violation.18 A Hittite text actually
pinpoints both kinds of ma'al as responsible
for
the plague which has befallen the Hittite kingdom. The key passages follow:
I made the anger of the gods the subject of an oracle.
I learnt of two ancient tablets. The first tablet dealt
with the offerings to the river Miala. The old king had
regularly presented offerings to the river Mala. But
now a plague has been rampant in the Hatti land since
the days of my father, and we have never performed
the offerings to the river Mala.
The second tablet concerned Kurustama. When
the Hattian Storm-god had brought the people of
Kurustama to the country of Egypt and had made an
16 Nehemiah's
prayer (1:5-11) is rich in Deuteronomic
phraseology but commentators have overlooked that
ma'al as a cause for exile is found in the Torah only in
Lev. 26.
17 Many other passages predict destruction and/or exile
in the wake of ma'al, e.g., Ezek. 14:3; 15:8; 39:23; Dan.
9:7; 1 Chr. 9:1; 2 Chr. 12:2; 28:19.
18 For examples of sancta trespass among the Mesopotamians, see "The Curse of Agade," ANET3, 647-651
(note 4, above); "Prayer to Every God," 11. 19f., 25f.,
ANET, 391; Shurpu, II 5, 33f., 79, ed. E. Reiner, AfO,
Beiheft 11 (Graz, 1958), 13-15; and note 21, below; the
Hittites, see "The Instructions for Temple Officials,"
ANET, 207-211 and ?? 8ff., below.
For examples of oath violation among the Assyrians,
see E. F. Weidner, "Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris VI
von Assyrien mit Mati'ilu von Bet-Agusi," AfO 8 (1932),
27ff; R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, AfO, Beiheft
9 (1956), ? 11, Bab A-G 12-15; VTE 528-531, 419-430,
448-450; the Hittites, see "The Soldiers' Oath," cols.
2:37ff; 3:39ff; 4:5ff; ANET, 353f; the Arameans, see
Sefire I, A:21-24, 32-33; B:30; II, B:11; H. Bauer, "Ein
aramaischer Staatsvertrag aus dem 8. Jahrhundert v.
Chr. Die Inschrift der Stele von Sudschin," AfO 8 (1932),
27ff.
239
agreement concerning them with the Hattians so that
they were under oath to the Hattian Storm-godalthough the Hattians as well as the Egyptians were
under oath to the Hattian Storm-god, the Hattians
ignored their obligations; the Hattians promptly broke
the oath of the gods. My father sent foot soldiers
and charioteers who attacked the country of Amka,
The Hattian Storm-god, my
Egyptian territory ....
lord, by his decision even then let my father prevail;
he vanquished and smote the foot soldiers and charioteers of the country of Egypt. But when they brought
back to the Hatti land the prisoners which they had
taken a plague broke out among the prisoners and they
began to die. When they moved the prisoners to the
Hatti land, these prisoners carried the plague into the
Hatti land ... has this perhaps become the cause of
the anger of the Hattian Storm-god, my lord? And
(so) it was established.19
Thus the oracle reveals
a plague upon the Hittites
have violated their sancta
It can be no accident that
fall under the category of
that the gods have set
for two reasons: they
and their treaty oath.20
in the Bible both sins
ma'al.21
19 "The Plague
Prayers of Mursilis," ?? 4f., ANET, 395.
20 The correspondence of plague/famine as a consequence of treaty violation in Hatti and Israel (the Gibeonites) was first noted by A. Malamat, "Doctrines of
Causality in Historiography," VT 5 (1955), 1-12.
21 The parallel with sancta is not exact
since in the
Hittite text the sin is one of neglect whereas in the Bible
it consists of trespass. However, since the ma'al in both
cases is intentional, there is-at least in the Hittite mindno distinction between one who misappropriates sancta
or one who deprives it its proper rite.
That the gods will severly punish sancta
trespass is
evidenced from many ancient Near Eastern texts. For
example, Sennacherib's success in conquering Babylon is
attributed to the city's wicked deeds, among which
"they laid hands on the property of Esaggil, the temple
of the gods, and sold silver, gold and precious stones to
the land of Elam," R. Borger, op. cit. (note
78), 13.
Especially instructive is the tablet of Urukagina of
Lagash (no. 27, translated in S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians
[1963], 322f; idem, RA [1964], 149) which itemizes at
length the sancta trespasses of Lugalzaggesi ruler of
Umma and concludes: "It is not the sin of
Urukagina,
the king of Girsu. May Nidaba, the
(personal) godess
of Lugalzaggesi, the ensi of Umma, make him
(Lugalzaggesi) bear all (these) sins." The parallel with 2 Kgs.
18:22, 25 where the rabshakeh pinpoints Hezekiah's
sancta trespass as the cause of his doom cannot be missed.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240
Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976)
6. In Search of a Definition.
Turning to the
first category of ma'al it is now germane to ask:
what constitutes trespass upon sancta? In the
biblical codes it is never defined. Except for
the ban on substituting for dedicated animals
(Lev. 27:9ff) the only law that alludes to trespass
is "you must not work your firstling ox or shear
your firstling sheep" (Deut. 15:19).22 Even the
law of Lev. 5:14-16, which deals exclusively with
this subject, adds not a single word of clarification.23 This is not surprising. The Priestly Code,
as a rule, will resort to the widest possible generalization in order to cover every future contingency. Only where doubtful cases make the application of the law uncertain will it resort to
specification and precedent.24 Since the Bible refrains from defining the ma'al of sancta, other
aids must be sought. The most obvious are possible cognates in other Semitic tongues.
Unfortunately, comparative philology is fruitless.
However, biblical Hebrew itself points to a posIt has already been noticed
sible etymology.
that ma'al both of sancta and oaths is termed
a "rebellion" against God. This has led Ibn
Ezra (comment on Lev. 5:15) to suggest that
since the nouns m'yl and bgd are synonyms for
However, the Sumeriantext goes a step further: one god
will punish his devotee for violating the sancta of another
god, a postulate that, of course, could not obtain in the
Bible.
22 This is paralleled in the Hittite "Instructions"by
the ban "to put under yoke" (II, 17) and constitutes a
precedent for the rabbinic criterion of nhnh, i.e., benefitting from sancta, cf. Bech. 25a (ber) and note 28 below.
An attempt at defining ma'al is evident in Deut. 26:13f.
which also has a parallel in the Hittite "Instructions,"
see note 58 below.
23 M. Hag. 1:8 lists ma'al among those laws "whichare
like mountains suspended by a hair, the (derived) laws
profuse but the text sparse."
24 This structural principle of the P Code requires
separatetreatment. Provisionally,the followingexamples
are offered: (1) the doubtful hatta't cases (Lev. 5:1-4);
(2) impure beasts that are borderlinecases (Lev. 11:5-7)
and impure birds for which no generalization can be
formed(Lev. 11:13-20;contrastD whichlists the permitted
birds despite the generalization,Deut. 14:4-6); the doubtful application of the law of blasphemy to the ger (Lev.
24:10-23); the unclear penalty for gathering wood on the
Sabbath (Num. 15: 32-36). The only exception to this
principle is the ma'al of Lev. 5:20-26 where specific cases
are cited (but not in its parallel, Num. 5:6-8).
"cloak, covering," their respective verbs may be
denominatives, originally meaning "cover one's
deed" or "act deceitfully." However, as suggestive
as this etymology is, it unfortunately cannot be
corroborated and, in particular, cannot shed light
on the restricted, technical use of ma'al in the
cultic laws.
Can rabbinic sources be of help ? Their earliest
statements are contemporaneous with the Second
Temple and since the cult is a most conservative
institution, many of its practices and terms recorded in rabbinic literature may hark back to
biblical times. However, the antiquity of a ritual
does not imply that it always carried the same
meaning. On the contrary, as seen from the history of all religions, the same cultic act often
undergoes reinterpretation in response to changing
spiritual needs. Moreover, many rabbinic rulings
were authored years and even centuries after
sacrificial worship had ceased and are products of
a hermeneutics that may not correspond with
reality. With these precautions in mind, the rabbinic material can be mined for precious ore.
One tannaitic source offers a striking definition:
'yn m'ylh25 '1' synwy, "ma'al means (that the
object undergoes) alteration."26 The alteration is
clearly of status. The sanctum has been desecrated;
it is now profane.27 Though the qualifications added by the Tannaim must be rejected,28 their
25 mcylh is the verbal noun coined
by the rabbis to
denote the act of ma'al.
26 Sifra, Hoba, par. 11:1.
27 dmgnh mqd? Ihwl, "(the
violation) alters (the object)
from sacredto profane,"R. Hillel, ad. loc. (cf. also Rabad,
ad. loc.); cf. ibid., par. 11:7; Meila 18a; Tosf. on Hag. lOb,
s.v. mgql and on Meila 18a, s.v. w'wmr. This definition
is advanced and underscoredby the Karaites: "ma'al is
a change in the sanctity of an object. . . (the violation)
has devalued it and disqualifiedit of its sanctity" (Keter
Torah on Lev. 5:14ff.).
28 In addition
to recognizing that ma'al (m'ylh in
their language) means the desecration of sancta, the
Tannaim are concernedwith defining the process. They
impose two conditions: (1) nhnh, i.e., the trespasser
derives benefit from the sanctum (see notes 22, 58 for
the Hittite parallel)and (2) pgm, he damagedthe sanctum
(if damageable,but on this criterionthere is no unanimity,
M. Meila 5:1; Tosef Meila 2:1; cf. Sifra, ad. loc., par. 11:
2f). For Maimonides,these two criteria alone, not gynwy,
define ma'al. However, for biblical ma'al it is enough
to appropriatea sanctum and the criteria of benefit and
damage are not determinants.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILGROM:
Macal
in the Bible and Ancient Near East
notion that ma'al means sancta desecration is
substantially correct, as will be shown below.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a high incidence
of the word ma'al and thereby warrant our attention. Of its 14 certain occurrences29 one clearly refers to sancta trespass30 and one to covenant
violation,31 but they are couched in general terms
and throw no light on our problem.32
7. ma'al at Mari? A more obvious resource for
gleaning information to elucidate biblical ma'al is
Presumed is that
ancient Israel's environment.
the ancient Near East was a cultural continuum
where forms and ideas were exchanged without
resistance unless they clashed with the value system of the borrowing culture. In the area of
cult, for example, Israel had no compunctions
about imitating forms of architecture and administration and even modes of worship because
their alien religious content could be replaced by
the norms and values of Israel's faith. Certainly
in the matter of ma'al, Israel shared a concern
with its neighbors, for all peoples believed that
tresspass upon sancta threatened the common
weal. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate
finding parallel laws, customs and concepts in
Israel's environment that deal with ma'al. We
begin with the Mari texts whose value for elucidating Israel's origins needs no apology.33 In
these texts the term asakkam akalum appears in
contexts related to violations of sancta and oaths.
Is it an antecedent of biblical ma'al?
29 lQpHab 1:6f; 1QS 9:4; 10:24f; CD 1:3; 7:1
[8:6?];
8:27f; 8:46; 9:16f; 10:8f; 1QM 3:8; 1QH 4:29f; 4:34; 11:
1Of; 17:12 [fragment 3:15?]; 4QpHos 1:9 (DJD IV, 31).
30 "At the time of Israel's ma'al they contaminated
the sanctuary" (CD 8:46). Its biblical antecedent is
clear, 2 Chr. 36:14.
31 "For I recall my wrongs and the ma'al of my fathers
when evildoers rose up against your covenant" (1QH
4:34). Again, the biblical antecedent is obvious, Lev. 26:
40; cf. v. 15. The association of ma'al with rebellion
(lQpHab 1:6f) is another biblical usage.
32 The metaphoric use of ma'al at Qumran should
serve as a brake in searching post-biblical Hebrew for
accurate reflections of biblical usage. Note in particular
the fusion of m'l and '?m into a construct denoting a
superlative, egregioussin (e.g., 1QS 9:4; 1QH 4:30; 11:11).
33 For the most recent survey and bibliography, see
A. Malamat, "Mari,"BA 34 (1971), 1-22.
241
The first to establish the connection was A.
Malamat34 who saw that the imposition of the
asakkum of the god/king upon spoils of war (e.g.,
ARM 2 13:27-36; 5 72:12ff) resembled a similar
imposition of the herem (e.g., Deut. 13:27-36;
Josh. 6:17-19; 1 Sam 15:3; Mesha 14-17). Indeed,
the synonymous use of lequm, "to take," and
?ardqum, "to steal," for akalum 35can be adduced
to buttress the notion that the latter verb refers
to trespass. At the same time, Malamat is appropriately sensitive to the fundamental distinctions between Mari asakkum and biblical maeal,
to-wit: (1) In the Bible, the banned or consecrated
objects are the property of God not the king.
(2) The death penalty for violating the herem may
not be commuted as in Mari. (3) The herem
always remains the property of the sanctuary
(Lev. 27:28); it may be used by the priests (Num.
18:14; Ezek. 44:29) but not by the laity, even be
they soldiers, as in Mari (ARM 2 13:27-36; 5
72:17ff).
Recently M. Weinfeld has sought to extend the
range of asakkum to all sancta.36 He points to
the parallel between the oath taken by the asakkum
of the king (ARM 8 16:6'-8') and the biblical oath
formula nsb'/dbr bqds (Amos 4:2; Pss. 60:8 [=108:
8]; 89:36) and would even find the exact Hebrew
equivalent of asakkam akalum in 'kl qds (Lev. 22:
10, 14; Jer. 2:2).37 If Weinfeld is right, then the
respective terms would be identical: asakkum =
qds and akalum = m'l.
Though I initially came to the same conclusion,
I now find that I must reject it. The differences
between the terms render their equation unlikely,
as the following will demonstrate:
1. asakkum, to my knowledge, never stands for
the temple or its sancta, i.e, inherently sacred
objects in the order of biblical qd?. At best, it
34 "The Ban in Mari and the Bible," KJV, 149-158;
idem, Biblical Essays, Proceedings of the 9th Meeting
"Die Oud-Testam. Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika,"
(1966), pp. 40-49.
35 ARM 3 22:13-15; cf. CAD, s.v. asakku B
b, 2',
p. 327.
36 "The Royal and Sacred Aspects of the Tithe in the
Old Testament," Beer-Sheva1 (1973), 123, note 6 (Heb.).
37
That asakkum originally connoted a food is not only
attested by the verb akalum but by its sumerogramSAR
(MES)in ARM 2 11:29-31; cf. G. Boyer, ARM 8 p. 166ff.
Similarly, for the complementary(but not synonymous)
idiom ikkibamakalum, cf. T. Thureau Dangin, RA 38
(1941), 43; CAD, s.v. ikkibu, pp. 55f.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242
Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976)
resembles dedications, objects transferred to the
sacred from the profane.
2. In the Bible, only God takes an oath by his
qdS, never man, not even the king. Moreover,
bqdg in these divine oaths may simply refer to
the place of the oath, i.e., "in His (heavenly)
sanctuary" (e.g., Mic. 1:2f; Pss. 11:4; 150:1) and
have nothing to do with the abstraction "(God's)
sancta. "38
3. The idiom 'kl qds (Lev. 22:10, 14; Jer. 2:2)
must be rendered literally: the eating of sancta.
4. That qds, not to speak of herem, might be
distributed to officials and soldiers is totally alien
to Israelite notions of these concepts.
5. The asakkum-booty may have become taboo
not because of its allegedly inherent sanctity but
by virtue of a pre-existent law forbidding an officer to deprive a soldier of his share of the spoils
(e.g., CH 34). It also may be possible that an
oath to fulfill this law was taken by the officials
in advance of the campaign, and it is the sanctity
of the oath rather than of the spoils which would
have been violated.39
Indeed, it is in the area of oath violations that
the Mari parallels are on firmer ground. As noted
above, an oath can be taken by the king's asakkum. Moreover, the notion of adjuring can be
expressed by the idiom "placing the asakkum/
nigum of the king in the mouth of X."40 One is
tempted by the equation nisum (life) = asakkum41 to conclude that the asakkum of the god
In
(king) must be related to his life-essence.
Israel also God swears by His essence, nps (e.g.,
Amos 6:8; Jer. 51:14; Ps. 74:4), by His being,
bk, by (e.g., Gen. 22:16; Exod. 32:13; Isa. 45:23;
Jer. 22:5; 49:13) and by His life, hy42 (e.g., Num.
14:21, 28; Judg. 8:19; 1 Sam. 14:45). It is thus
likely that the asakkam akalum is related to the
ma'al of oath violation. Furthermore, if the qds
in divine oaths refers to God's holy essence43 (and
38 The possibility exists that
bqds means "by the
sanctuary," as it does in tannaitic times, cf. Tosef Ned.
1:3 and S. Lieberman, Greekin Jewish Palestine (New
York, 1965), 132ff.
39 as-ku-un-ma (ARMl 2, 13:32) may be read as a
pluperfect, as suggested to me by Prof. A. Shafer.
40 ARM 2 13:32f.; 55:36. The translation in CAD
asakku B 3', p. 327, is in need of correction.
41 Offered by G. Boyer, ARM 8 p. 175.
42 That hy is the singular of hyym, see M.
Greenberg,
"The Hebrew Oath Particle hay/he," JBL 76 (1957), 34-39.
43
God's oath is called dbrqdsw(Ps 106:42).
not the sanctuary, see above), then oaths in Mari
may represent a fusion of both sancta and divine
essence as is found in biblical ma'al. Nonetheless,
at this juncture, any conclusions-however
suggestive-are unwarranted. The comparison of biblical ma'al with Mari's asakkum is too tenuous.
8. The Hittite "Instructions
for Temple Officials." Since the quest for semantic equivalents
has proven inconsequential, it might be more fruitful to seek intercultural parallels in the realm of
institutions and ideas. Certainly, in view of the
universal concern to guard sancta against trespass,
a codex or descriptive list of sancta trespasses-if
it could be found-would have illuminating impact
on the
meaning
of ma'al.
Fortunately,
at our
disposal there are detailed provisions against sancta trespass in the Hittite "Instructions for Temple
Officials."44 The text has already proven its worth
in elucidating the division of guard duties between
the priests and Levites according to the Priestly
Code45 More relevant are its provisions dealing
with encroachment upon sancta which can be
shown to correspond with the biblical injunction
hzr hqrb ywmt.46 If this Hittite text elucidates
one aspect of trespass-keeping
the sancta out
of reach of the encroacher-it
is highly probable
that it will yield information in other areas of
trespass.
Even a cursory glance at the text in fact reveals
that its sole concern is with trespass upon sancta.
In addition to the subject of guarding the temple
against encroachment by the outsider,47 the remaining provisions of the Hittite "Instructions"
deal with the problem of trespass by those individuals most capable of it, the temple staff, specifically: the temple officials and their servants
inside its precincts (I, 46-66; II, 12-58) or the
44 The codes of the ancient Near East treat trespass
on sancta, e.g., CH 6, 8; M1AL1; LH 164f, but only
tangentially. Only the Hittite "Instructions," to my
knowledge, provides an exhaustive treatment. There are
two extant translations: E. H. Sturtevant and G. Bechtel,
A Hittite Chrestomathy (1935), 149-174 (hereafter HC)
and A. Geotze, "Instructions for Temple Officials," ANET2
(1955) 207-210.
45 See Studies, 49-59 (= "The Shared Custody of the
Tabernacleand a Hittite Analogy," JAOS 90 [1970], 204209).
46 Ibid., 5-33.
47 II, 4-11; II, 80-III, 34 discussed in Studies
(see above,
n. 45).
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILGROM:
Ma'al in the Bible and Ancient Near East
farmers and herdsmen employed on the temple
fields (IV, lff).
Trespass by the inner temple personnel can take
place through the misappropriation or expropriation of sacrificial portions (1, 50-66) or animals
(II, 12-31) or of non-sacrificial sancta, i.e., garments
and metal tools (II, 23-58). Trespass occurs with
sacrificial portions when they are eaten, given
away or offered to the god piecemeal ("He who
divides it shall be killed," I, 59). Trespass is committed upon sacrificial animals if they are slaughtered, eaten, expropriated, put under yoke, sold
or exchanged ("if you appropriate for yourselves
either a fattened ox or a fattened sheep and substitute
a lean
one.
." II,
13f);
also
envisaged
is the possibility of collusion with the worshipper
(i.e., "make a deal with those who give," I, 4649). As for non-sacrificial sancta such as gold and
silver garments or bronze implements, the Hittite
"Instructions" stipulates that they must not be
expropriated, and if gold or silver bullion, they
may neither be possessed nor converted into ornaments for the wife and children (II, 33-39).48
Temple officials who receive these objects as gifts
from the palace must have the nature, weight and
date of the gift recorded and witnessed; the gift
itself may not be kept but must be sold in court
(II, 40-58). A final form of trespass, limited to
temple officials, is authorizing the celebration of
public or private rites at the wrong time (II,
60-79; cf. IV, 1-10, 34-39).49 The penalty for
all these felonies is death. If the trespasser is
apprehended, death is by man; if not, then by
the gods.50 However, if the execution is left to
the gods then the offender's household dies with
him (I, 64-66; II, 74-79).51
The outside personnel of the temple are its
farmers52 and herdsmen. The farmer's trespass
48
Cf. Letter to Jeremiah, 10.
49 There remains the category of the contamination
of sancta by the temple staff (III, 55-84), but it falls
under the purview of sacred (qdS)-impure(tm') relationships, and must await separate treatment.
50 This is the implication of I, 59, 65f; II, 25-31, 5558; see the table, below.
51 The slave, however, is an exception; in Hittite law,
his family may suffer his fate if he offends his master
(I, 21-38 and see Studies, 57-59).
52 Called "plowmen"in the text, but cf. the
colophon,
IV, 78.
243
consists in delaying the delivery of grain,53 resulting in an automatic fine of one ox and ten
sheep in addition to whatever the oracle stipulates
(IV, 3-11); in the theft of grain or the exchange
of fields, for which sin all the farmer's own grain
is impounded (IV, 12-24); or in the expropriation
of plow-oxen, either by eating or selling them
which, if apprehended, obligates the former to
replace the missing animals or if suspected, subjects the farmer to an ordeal whose conviction
means death (IV, 25-33).
The herdsman commits trespass by delaying
the delivery of a sacrificial animal,54 consuming or
to his superiors
selling it, giving it away-even
(IV, 34-43) or by exchanging it or substituting
it with an emaciated animal (IV, 56-68). If the
crime becomes known, the penalty is death; if
suspected, an ordeal is imposed whose conviction
means death for the offender and his family (IV,
56-77).55
9. The Hittite
Penalties
for Trespass.
The
Hittite "Instructions"
thus sheds abundant light
on the biblical categories of sancta trespass.
One
aspect of trespass, unauthorized
entry or encroachment corresponding
to biblical qrb, has already
been studied.56
The full Hittite
text, however,
As mentioned
gives the range of biblical ma'al.
53 ANET reads "animals" (IV, 2). However HC's
"first fruits" is preferable, see "Huelpi," JAOS 96.3
(1976); in press.
54 So ANET; HC reads "first-fruits." On the possibility
of reading "firstling," see "Huelpi."
55
True, the ordeal formula "do thou O god pursue
us together with our wives and children" (IV, 76), implies
that the penalty is executed by the deity not the court.
However, it is hard to believe that once the accused has
been convicted by oracle he was not executed judicially.
Note also the language of IV, 52-55 and especially the
Hittite text "Instructions for Palace Personnel to Insure
the King's Purity," ANET, 207 (the versification is that
of J. Friedrich, MAOG 4 (1928), 46-48) where the oath
also summons the gods to punish the guilty party (II,
29-III, 2) but where the actual execution is by man (III
7f, 19-20, 31, 35).
56 For which crime the Hittite keeper and official in
charge, as their biblical counterparts, the Levite and
priest, respectively, are responsible with their lives (Studies, 52f), with the distinction that in the Bible all the
sanctuary guards share in the culpability (ibid., 26-33)
and their death is by God not man (ibid., 22, note 76).
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
CD
nCD
CC 0
CD CD'
CD
0D CD-'
0
CD
a
CD
HIERARCHY
-
'
CD'4.I
-.CD
.~CD
~-
CD C
CD'CD-o
CD
'
A.
CD
~CcD -CD
~:D~cn
'CD
'1
C
'- CD
B.
'-4.
CD'-
'-4.
CD'CD
CD
CA
CD0
CD'','
cnCD
CD~ 0
CD CD
'1'.*
'CD
'1
CD4
CD
CDn
CRIMIN'AL
Death by gods (collective)
(1) unapprehended
(2) unapprehended
I, 34-38
I, 39-66
anyone
off icial
(3) unapprehended
Death by man (collective)
(1) convicted by ordeal
(2) convicted by ordeal
If, 59-79
off icial
IV, 47-55
IV, 56-77
herdsman
hierdsman
CD'
CD
c
C
0
(3) apprehended57
III, 44-54
anyone
~0CCD
C.
C,
0
TEXT
14'
4C
Death by man (criminal only)
(1) apprehended
(2) apprehended
I, 50-59
If, 9-12
II, 80-Ill, 20
CD4.
CD
.
CD
CD
CD Q
1,,
cn
CD
t
CD'
-CD
C
(3) apprehended
III, 74-84
(4) convicted by ordeal
(5) apprehended
(6) apprehended
IV, 25-33
IV, 34-46
IV, 56-68
CD
off ic ial
outsider (and
off icial/keeper
in charge)
temple servant
(and whoever
knows)
CD'
0
'1
CD'
< CD
CD
CD'
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
C"'
CD
0
0
CRIMFE
0
CD
CD
0
SENTENCE
CD
CD'
'4.
FOR SANCTA TRESPASS AMONG THE HITT
cD
I
CD
CDCD
OF PENALTIES
0
D.
Less than death (all apprehended).
III, 35-43
(1) repeats ritual at own cost
IV, 1-10
(2) fine (plus oracle's decision)
IV, 11-24
(3) confiscation of grain
IV, 25-33
(4) replaces item
f armer
herdsman
herdsman
layman
f armer
f armer
f armer
CD
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sins against gods
expropriates sacrif i
portion
changes time of rit
expropriates firstlin
expropriates sacrific
animal
destructive fire from
quenched hearth
divides sacrificial po
encroaches59
"~approachesgod's sa
cial loaves and lib
bowl in unclean c
tion"
expropriates plow-o
expropriates firstlin
expropriates sacrif
animal
quarrels, disrupts
delays f irst-f ruits60
expropriates f ields
expropriates plow-
MILGROM:
Ma'al in the Bible and Ancient Near East
above, this entails the misappropriation of sancta
by keeping, eating, using, selling, gifting, delaying
or exchanging the temple's animals, fields or grain,
by expropriating, altering or wearing the temple's
implements or garments, or by changing the time
fixed for rites. Additional information on biblical
ma'al can be derived from the range of penalties
preserved in the Hittite text. They are listed in
the following table in order of the severity.
The table shows that whereas temple officials
arepunished by the gods, their servants are punished by man. However, if an official is apprehended, e.g., dividing the gods' portion (Cl) or on
duty while encroachment takes place (C2), he is
executed judicially. The reason for this distinction
is obvious: the officials control the temple; they
can only be apprehended by their peers, an occurrence that rarely takes place.61 Their apprehension and punishment, then, is usually left to
the gods. In the Priestly Code of the Bible, a
different rule prevails. It affirms that sins against
God are punishable only by God and it makes no
difference whether the criminal is a cleric or a
layman, whether apprehended'or not.62 To be sure,
there is the ostensible exception of the lay encroacher who is put to death by the priestly and
Levitic guards but it can be shown that "the
right to kill with which the sanctuary guards are
empowered is not to be confused with the legal
61
Ostensibly, an exception is provided by the case
of the burning of the temple due to the neglect of the
official in charge to quench the altar hearth (B3). The
penalty is unusually severe; the death of the offender,
his household and all who were on duty in the temple
during the fire. The exception is explicable on the
groundsthat it is necessary to kill the entire temple staff
(who are indirectly culpable as accomplices) in order to
prevent the now homeless god from venting his wrath
on the nation.
The responsibility of the Hittite clergy as described
in the provision is strikingly similar to the responsibility
of the Israelite clergy as postulated by the Priestly Code.
Priests and Levites, as their Hittite counterparts, suffer
for the malfeasances of their individual members, however, with these significant differences: in Israel, the
execution of collective punishment is left to Godnot man
and the guards alone pay the penalty, not their families
(byt 'bykin Num. 18:1 only refers to the Kohathite males
who carried the sancta [Num. 4:1-20; 7:9], as demonstrated by the continguous word bnyk which expressly
exempts the priests' women and children).
62 Cf. Studies, 7, table B; 22, note
76; 26, table C; 56f.
245
category of capital punishment whereby death is
set as just payment
for the crime . . . the formula
hzr hqrb ywmt (is) an illusory exception to the
confirmed rule that God Himself exacts the death
penalty for cultic crime. In reality, it only reenforces the rule, since it states: unless the
encroacher is slain, the Deity is sure to exercise
His wrath."63
True, nowhere in the Bible is there a specific
rule that trespass upon sancta is punishable solely
by God, but it can be safely inferred from the
text.64 The Priestly account of Korah's rebellion
assumes that the encroaching layman is struck
down by divine wrath (Num. 17:28; 18:22; mwt
qal.)65 Num. 18:32 also stipulates that the Levite
must set aside a tithe of the tithe he receives
from the Israelite: "you must not desecrate (thllw)
the sacred portion (qdsy) of the Israelites lest you
die (tmwtw)," i.e., by God. Here then is a clear
reference in the law that the penalty for desecrating the sancta is death, but only the Deity
may exact it.
Though deliberate trespass upon sancta is not
explicitly handled in the biblical law codes, there
are cases of it in the narratives. The Priestly
source itself adduces the examples of Nadab and
Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2) and Korah and the elders
(Num. 16:16ff). For the sin of deliberate trespass,
the Chronicler attributes the leprosy of Uzziah
(2 Chr. 26:16-18) and the destruction of Judah
(2 Chr. 30:10). And for trespass upon herem-the
worst sacrilege of all-the wrath of God consumes
the entire nation (e.g., Achan, Josh. 7:lff; 22:20;
1 Chr. 2:7; Amalek, 1 Sam. 15:3ff; Ben Hadad,
1 Kgs. 20:42).66 The ma'al of oath violation has
63 Ibid., 21f.; cf. 22-27.
64 Contra Belkin,
Philo, 147.
65
According to P, previously all of Israel was jeopardizedby the encroacher(cf. Num. 17:28, 18:22); after
Korah's rebellion, the sacral guards take the brunt of
the divine wrath (Num. 18:lf, 23). See Studies, 1e-33.
66 That the death penalty for heremtrespass is executed
by man constitutes no exception, see below. The case
of the Israelite encroacherstruck down by the sanctuary
guards has already been explained, see just above.
There remain but two more ostensible exceptions; the
altar of the transjordanian tribes for whose supposed
ma'al the rest of the tribes threaten war (Josh. 22:12)
and the ma'al of Baal Peor for which crime the elders
are threatened with impalement and a ringleader,Zimri,
is killed by Phineas (Num. 25:1-9). Both cases,however,
are paradigmatic examples of the injunction hzr hqrb
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976)
246
already been discussed. In all these cases the
penalty is explicit: the trespasser is struck down
by God.67
A second lesson of the table is that the Hittite
gods punish not only the offender but also his
household.
The juridical authorities, however,
execute the criminal alone and will not include
ywmt. The culprit is executed by man to prevent God's
wrath from incinerating the nation.
(So explictly Josh.
22:18, 20, 31 and Num. 25:8b, 11, 13b, respectively. On
Phineas, see also Studies, 48f.).
67 That death by God follows a deliberate sin against
God is the view of many rabbis, see ARN, ch. 11; Sifra,
Hoba, par. 8:11ff; Lev. R. 5:5f; Num. R. 2:13; Pesikta
Rabati 11:45 and the opinion of R. Judah the Prince
in Tosef Zeb. 12:17; Tosef Ker. 1:6; Sanh. 83a (ber.) and
Pes. 33a (ber.) The majority of the rabbis opt for the
penalty of flogging (e.g., Tosef Ker. 1:6). True, M. Sanh.
9:6 states that zealots would strike down pilferers of
the qswh. However, the specification of this one temple
vessel to the exclusion of the others makes it plausible
(also the inference to "zealots") that this ruling was in-
tended to keep Sadducean priests from preventing the
water libation which they opposed as contrary to biblical
law, see Aruch Hashalem, s.v. qwsh; Heinemann, Bildung,
38f. Philo's assertion that zealots may strike down those
who commit sacrilege (Laws, I, 54-57; III, 94-101; Dec.
133) may have been influenced by foreign concepts
(Heinemann, ibid., versus Alon, Mehqarinm,I, 101, n. 57).
Alon also refers to Jub. 30:14f. as evidence that desecrators of the Temple and the Name were put to death
on the spot (ibid., 102f).
However, such license is not
explicit (admitted by Alon, ibid., n. 60). Moreover,
even if granted it could be explained as an emergency
measure motivated by the Maccabean revolt which, as
Alon demonstrates,is the backgroundof Jubilees. Furthermore, by then, Temple authorities might have wished
to take advantage of the rule reigning in the Hellenistic
world that sacrilege was punishable by death (cf. Jos.
Ant. XVI, 6:1-7. For references to Greek and Roman
law on this matter, see Jackson, Theft, 168, nn. lf).
Indeed, they even might have applied the formula hzr
hqrb ywmt by equating trespass with encroachment,
thereby justifying slaying non-Jews who entered the
temple precincts.
Jackson, Theft, 164-167, following D. Daube, Studies
in Biblical Law (Cambridge, 1947), 201ff, infers from the
narratives on Jacob (Gen. 31:32) and Joseph (Gen. 44:
9f) that the death penalty was imposed for the theft of
sancta, He may be correct, but drawing legal ruling from
possible hyperbole in narrative speech is a precarious
enterprise.
his family unless he is convicted by the gods (by
ordeal or oracle). The very prologue to the "Instructions"
confirms
this:
"If . .. anyone
arouses
the anger of the god, does this god take revenge
on him alone? Does he not take revenge on his
wife, his children, his descendants, his slaves,
and slave-girls, his cattle (and) sheep together
with his crop and will utterly destroy him?"68
However, this rule is limited to the temple; it is
not applied to all elements of Hittite society: "if
a slave causes his master's anger, they will either
kill him or they will injure him at his nose, his
eyes (or) his ears; or (they will seize) him, his wife,
his children, his mother, his sister, his in-laws, his
kin whether it be a male slave or a slave girl,
they may (either) impose the extreme penalty, (or
they may do to him nothing at all. If ever he is
to die, he will not die alone; his kin will accompany
him."69 A similar postulate informs Israelite legislation, but it is applied consistently without class
distinctions. For both cleric and layman, master
or slave, the doctrine of collective culpability is
reserved exclusively to divine justice; it never
functions in the jurisprudence of man.70
Ostensibly, the case of Achan who is killed for
trespass together with his family contradicts this
principle, since this execution is performed by
man (Josh. 7:24f). However, the exception proves
illusory. Achan's guilt is discovered by lot, i.e.,
God himself designates the culprit and it is by his
expressed command that collective punishment is
carried out (ibid., v. 15).71 Ehrlich surmises cor68 I, 34-37; for specific trespassers, see I, 64-66; II,
74-79; IV, 34-55, 69-77.
69
I, 28-33. Cf. the retribution clauses in Hittite
treaties which make the whole family liable, V. Korosec,
Hethitische Staatsvertrage (Leipzig, 1931), 102ff. For a
similar explanation of the multiple restitution imposed
by the Gibeonites on Saul's sons, see A. Malamat, VT
5 (1955), 8ff.
70 Studies, 57-59. However, the Israelite king, no
differently than his Hittite prototype, does arrogate to
himself this divine prerogative. For example, Saul sentences to death not only the high priest Ahimelech but
his entire family (1 Sam. 22:16), and he executes not only
all the priests of Nob but "all the men and women,
children and babes in arms, oxen, asses and sheep"
(ibid., 19). According to the historical narratives, Amaziah is the first king to abandon this doctrine (2 Kgs. 14:6;
cf. Deut. 24:16).
71 Jackson, Theft, 61, 164f claims that the destruction
of Achan's household is not due to the principle of col-
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILGROM:
Ma'al in the Bible and Ancient Near East
he alone
rectly: "if Achan were apprehended...
would have been burned."72 Moreover, Achan's
case is supported by an exact Hittite precedent.
The temple herdsmen convicted by oracle, i.e.,
by the gods, are put to death together with their
families (Bi, 2).73 Thus both in HIatti and in
Israel, convictions by oracle are executed by the
court.74
10. Summary.
Every act of ma'al involves trespass upon the sancta or name of God, an act which
may cause the destruction of the community as
lective responsibility but to "the contagion that resulted
from coming into contact with heirem property"; see
also M1.Greenberg, "Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal
Law," KJV, 23f. HIowever, contagion is communicated
either by direct contact or by being under the same tent
(see Num. 19:14). Therefore, it cannot explain why
Achan's animals were destroyed or why Joshua's men
who confiscated the herem objects (Josh. 7:21-22) escaped
destruction. The Hittite texts and their biblical analogues
leave no doubt that wherever the deity is involved, collective responsibility is operative.
72 Hamiqra Kifshuto, 3 vols. (Berlin
1901), ad loc. (Heb.).
The Priestly Code, moreover, even restricts the divine
right of collective punishment to the clerical guards,
exempting their families, cf. note 61, above.
73 IV, 69-77 contains a curse that the god will "pursue
us together with our wives and children," but it must
be assumed that the court acted as the god's surroggate
in executing the sentence.
74 Another excellent precedent is cited in the Hittite
text "Instructions for Palace Personnel to Insure the
King's Purity," ANET, 207; whenever the suspect is
convicted by "the River" (ordeal), he and his family
are slain; cf. Studies, 58, note 217.
247
well as the offender. The trespass on "the Name"
is clear: it refers to oath violations and is amply
adduced. However, the nature of sancta trespass
in the Bible is neither defined nor clearly illustrated. The Hittite text, "Instructions for Temple
Officials," answers this need. It deals exclusively
with the subject of sancta trespass. Its motivating
principle can be extrapolated from its penalties:
when the trespasser is apprehended by man, he
alone suffers death but when he is convicted by
the gods, i.e., by ordeal/oracle, he is executed
together with his family. Israelite law, on the
other hand, operates on two constrasting postulates: (1) sins against God are not punishable by
man75 and (2) collective punishment is a divine
right which may not be usurped by man.76
75 The few ostensible exceptions can be explained, see
Studies, n. 214.
76 Works abbreviated in the footnotes:
ARMI = Archives royales de Mari (Paris, 1950ff), cited
by letter no.; - ANET = Ancient Near Eastern Texts,
ed. J. B. Pritchard (2nd edn. 1955; 3rd edn. 1969) Belkin; Philo = S. Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law
= Discoveiies in the
DJDIV
(Cambridge, 1940) -
Judean Desert I V, ed. J. A. Sanders(Oxford,1965)- Heinemann; Bildung = I. Heinemann, Philons griechische
und jiidische Bildung (1932) - HIR = Y. Kaufmann
HIistory of Israelite Religion (Heb.) 4 vols. (1938-1956),
abridged and translated by M. Greenberg, The Religion
of Israel (1960) -Jackson,
Theft = B. Jackson, Theft
in Early Jewish Law (Oxford, 1972) - KJV = Y.
Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. M. Haran (1960)Mehqarim = G. Alon, Studies in Jewish History (Heb.)
2 vols (1957, 1970) - NJPS = T'heTorah, A New Trans= J.
lation, (Jewish Publication Soc., 1962) -Studies
Studies
in
Levitical
1
Milgrom,
Terminology, (1970)-
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.209 on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:59:43 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions