Aharot Mot/Kedoshim Leviticus Chapters 16-20
LA JOLLA, California — The text deals with multiple topics: specified rituals for Aaron, notably about a sin offering. It involved a bull plus two he-goats, one for a sacrificial sin offering, the other to be loaded with community sins and sent off to the wilderness. This ceremony is identified with Yom Kippur.
Following this are the first three chapters of the Holiness Code, which runs through Chapter 17-26. (i) Chapter 17 references back to goats, i.e. a prohibition against previous sacrifices to goat-demons. (ii) Chapter 18 details prohibitions against incest, sex during menstruation, homosexuality, and bestiality. (iii) Chapter 19 deals with various specifics of Holiness behavior, e.g. leaving field gleanings for the poor and stranger; decency to one’s fellows; prohibition of species breeding/mixing of animals and plants; delay in enjoying fruit of a new tree; prohibition of harlotry and efforts at communication with ghosts; proper treatment of elders and strangers; and honesty in business. (iv) Chapter 20 proscribes child sacrifice; specifies punishments for dishonor to parents, adultery, incest, bestiality, sex during menstruation; and lastly warns against unclean animals and ghost-practices.
From such an array of topics, I have chosen three passages for exploratory comparison with ancient paganism.
I. Leviticus 16: 7-10, 17:7: “Aaron shall take the two he-goats…and…shall place lots upon the two…one marked for the Lord and the other marked for Azazel…the (one)….for the Lord…to offer as a sin offering, while the goat…for Azazel..to send it off to the wilderness…that they…offer sacrifices no more to the goat-demons…”
Per the internet, the first recorded instances of a ‘scapegoat’ were in the Hittite Empire of Anatolia-Syria of late third millennium BCE. Army commanders, in the face of a pestilence, prepare (a) healthy ram(s) (though sometimes a person)–tie a cord of wool, holding a ring and a chalcedony stone in necklace fashion, around each’s neck and horns. After offering such ram(s) to an unknown deity suspected of causing the plague, they escort the ram(s) to an open space. There, along with an attractive woman, they lay their hands on the rams, express their delivery to the deity for relief of the human suffering, then chase off the animals.
It is believed the Hebrew text was a derivation of this. A more brutal derivation was adopted by the Greeks, described by a sixth century BCE poet, of Anatolia. A person (expendable girl or an ugly male) was thrown down and whipped with fig batches and squalls– to achieve purity of the city. Such a human scapegoat was usually a person of low standing. Such ceremony was evidently loud and unharmonious. Finally the scapegoat was expelled from the city through stoning and pelting, though not killed.
The Mayans of Central America, in their version, had an annual ceremony, in which villagers made a clay model of the demon, placed it before an image of the deity. They then carried the model outside the village to ward off evil.
In Indonesia, scapegoats in the form of boats were used to rid communities of epidemic disease. The islanders loaded the boats with food and water, then set them adrift in the open sea, hoping that the evil spirits that brought the disease would sail away in them. [1}
As for goat demons, the Greeks favored goat images in general, e.g. a humanoid creature with various goat features, e.g. cloven hoofed goat’s hind legs, horns, and goatee-like beard. Pan was such a creature, with various forms, appearances, and myths of origin. Some Pans were benign, even pleasant, but some were angry, murderous, lecherous, i.e. demonic. Pan invented and played the pan-flute. He has been borrowed into numerous literary works, including the Peter Pan stories. [2]
II. Leviticus 19: 9-10 “When you reap the harvest of your land,…not reap…to the edges of your field…not pick your vineyards bare, or gather the fallen fruit…leave them for the poor and the stranger.”
An inspection of Hammurabi’s elaborate Code (c. 1754 BCE) shows no attention to charity of any kind, i.e. ignoring the poor. He was fair within each social class, though he did not find everyone within a class equal. However, he did provide for a minimum wage. As to fairness vs. cruelty, some punishments were fair and many were cruel. [3] [4]
As for the Greco-Romans, they also did not offer provisions to aid the poor. The well-to-do weren’t expected to support the poor. Their main idea of giving was focused on gaining honor, prestige, fame, and status, with the expectation of reciprocity, i.e. quid pro quo. Re: their religion, there was no Zeus or Jupiter for the poor. No organized charity developed in their societies. When, in times of need, corn was distributed, it was to all citizens, not specifically to the poor.
It can be said that the Hebrew idea of aid to the poor was an original in history! This idea was readily adopted by its daughter religion, Christianity. [5]
III. Leviticus 19:19 “You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; you shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material.”
The most visible and prevalent example of mixed species breeding* is that of a male donkey with a female horse, which produces a mule. Mules, though sterile**, are stronger and have greater endurance than horses.
This breeding and desirability has been well documented since ancient times, the earliest instances in today’s northeastern Turkey. In Egypt, it was practiced since before 3000 BCE. In both Northern and Southern Mesopotamia, third millennium BCE, mules were desired and drew a premium price.
There are many recorded instances of mules’ value and usage, particularly in the military. Hannibal used mules, as well as elephants, to cross the Alps. Mules were important in the development of the American West.
Ancient Hebrews apparently observed the law against the exercise of such mating of livestock. However, this did not prohibit them from importing and using mules. King David notably rode a mule. [6]
As for not mixing fabrics or seeds (sha’ atnez), famously Jews have observed the prohibition from making fabrics of a mix of wool (animal) and linen (plant). To this day, tallitot makers adhere to it. In today’s world of synthetic fibers, there is no apparent conflict.
As for restrictions on plants, the agriculture world today routinely produces hybrid vegetables and fruits, and even grafts branches/stocks of one (reasonably related) tree or vine onto another. I personally have seen a branch of pears growing on an apple tree!
*Other examples: A liger comes from a male lion and a female tiger. A yattle comes from a cow and a yak, a tigon from a female lion and male tiger. On the other hand, the Incas recognized that hybrids from a llama and an alpaca produced no advantages of either parent.
**Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62, which makes for a a mismatch in offspring. Rarely a mule has been fertile! Also there are uncommon instances of such animals mating spontaneously in the wild!
NOTES
[1] https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/classical-literature-mythology-and-folklore/folklore-and-mythology/scapegoat
[2] https://en.wikiipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)
[3] Source: gopher://gopher.vt.edu:10010/10/33 – Part of the source file for the Law code of Hammurabi: Author: Charles F. Horne, Ph.D. (1915)
[4] https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls =en&q=Did+Hamurrabi%27s+Code+provide+for+the+
poor%3`F&ie=UTF-B&oe=UTF-8/
[5] https://aeon.co/essays/the-poor-might-have-always-been-with-us-but-charity-has-not
[6] https://www.mulemuseum.org/history-of-the-mule.html
*
Irv Jacobs is a retired medical doctor who delights in Torah analysis. He often delivers a drosh at Congregation Beth El in La Jolla, and at his chavurah.