Berkowitz, Beth A., Interpretation in the Anthropocene: Reading the Animal Family Laws of the Pentateuch,” in: Mark W. Elliott; Raleigh C. Heth; Angela Zautcke (eds.), Studies in the History of Exegesis (History of Biblical Exegesis 2, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022), 39-51. Show MoreAbstract: B. focuses on the animal family laws in the Pentateuch (Exod 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21; Exod 22:29; Lev 22:27–28) and wants to find a somewhat more satisfying way to talk about these laws than the humanitarian rationale offers. B. begins with exegetical observations about Lev 22:27-28. Then she turns to ancient Jewish readings from Qumran (the Temple Scroll, 11QT col. 52); she demonstrates the Temple Scroll’s permutations and related issues in 4QMMT (B 30-33). Further technical questions are raised by the rabbis in Sifra, the legal midrash on Leviticus. Next, B. examines the reception and interpretation of the biblical passage in the Mishnah and beyond (m. Hullin 5:1-3; m. Bekhorot 7:7; Philo, On the virtues; Josephus, Antiquities 3:236-237). She concludes that the ancient texts discuss the sort of discursive formation the family is within these animal family laws. These laws of the Bible suggest to consider animal family bonds as belonging to the genealogy of the family and the politics and traumas associated with it. Lev

Goodfriend, Elaine Adler, Leviticus 22:24. A Prohibition of Gelding for the Land of Israel?, in: Gane, Roy E.; Taggar-Cohen, Ada (ed.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature. The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (Resources for Biblical Study 82), Atlanta 2015, 67–92.  Show MoreAbstract from OTA: The goal of G.’s work is to reevaluate the traditional interpretation of Lev 22:24b according to which the clause prohibits the gelding of domesticated animals in the Land of Israel. Most modern commentaries and translations view the words “and in your land you shall not do” in the clause as a reiteration of v. 24a, such that gelding is only prohibited for animals intended for the altar. This limitation allows for the use of oxen for plowing and traction, a remarkably utilitarian benefit for the ancient Israelite farmer, and indeed all premodern farmers. However, the weight of the evidence adduced by G. supports the traditional understanding of the verse, an understanding which would place the Israelite farmer at a disadvantage, given that on this understanding far fewer suitable animals would have been available for his use. Various strategies may have been utilized to deal with the problem posed by the prohibition as so understood, including a large-scale use of cows for traction, but also the importation of oxen. The restriction of Lev 22:24b would, for its part, have been motivated by the life-affirming ethos of Israel’s laws, an aspect of Scripture amply illuminated by the work of Jacob Milgrom. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]

Orian, Matan, Leviticus 22:25 and Sacrifices by Gentiles, in: Jewish Studies Quarterly31, 2024, 113–135.

Show MoreAbstract from OTA: Lev 22:25a appears to acknowledge the acceptance of sacrifices from foreigners, as long as the animals are not defective. Throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Jerusalem Temple accepted sacrifices from gentiles; rabbinic literature also reflects this practice, quoting Lev 22:25 in support. When insurgent priests repealed the practice in 66 CE, Josephus implies that priests who adhered to the ongoing practice cited Lev 22:25 in their defense. Centuries later, two alternative interpretations of the verse emerge in rabbinic and Karaite texts. The first reads it as proscribing any sacrifices by foreigners. The second reads it as warning Israelites not to offer blemished animals obtained from a foreigner. Attributing these interpretations to Qumranic texts or to the 66 CE insurgents is obviously anachronistic. Moreover, the latter probably did not focus on Lev 22:25, because another temple practice, the exclusion of gentiles, implied that gentile offerings should be rejected altogether.—TH*