An Elucidation of the Enigmatic Levad Mimkarav Al Ha-Avot (Deut. 18:8)

Background

Deuteronomy chapter 18 spells out some of the laws dealing with the support and privileges that are to be accorded to the tribe of Levi, and the priestly branch in particular, as compensation for the fact that they were not to be allocated any tribal land,¹ but would have to subsist on the largess of the other tribes whose religious needs they were called upon to service as part of a life of total dedication to the community.

While the priests were the primary custodians of the Sanctuary, with supervisory responsibility for the Temple rituals and sacrificial services, their fellow Levites formed the broader religious leadership, performing ancillary functions such as maintenance of the Temple fabric, singing Psalms during the sacrificial services, serving as guards and helping to marshal the vast number of pilgrims to the Temple, as well as serving as teachers and judges, and, in biblical times, maintaining the cities of refuge.² The priests were the ultimate religious authorities, however, as enunciated by the prophet Malachi, For lips of a priest guard knowledge, and men seek rulings from his mouth; For he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts (2:7).

It was the priestly branch of the tribe, presided over by the High Priest, that was invested with a uniquely holy status, one which the entirety of the nation was instructed to affirm: For they are holy to their God; and you must treat them as holy . . . they shall be holy to you, for I the Lord who sanctify you am holy (Lev. 21:7-8). The Chronicler went even further, describing the priestly fraternity as Kodesh Kodashim, “most holy” (I Chr. 23:13).

The difference in social status between the two branches of the Levitical tribe is reflected in the wide gap between their incomes. Thus, the prescribed tithes payable to the Levites bore no comparison with the generosity of the “twenty-four priestly gifts” that were bestowed upon the individual priests (see Deut. 18:3-5). In the later period of the Sadducean priesthood the latter’s prosperity indeed reached an unprecedented peak.

A Pentateuchal Source for Mishmarot?

Numbers 4:19 states that, The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, “let Aaron and his sons go in and assign each of them to his duties and his porterage.” This instruction later inspired the prophet Samuel and King David to allocate all the various religious and administrative offices among the branches of the Aaronite families (see I Chr. chs. 24-27), an allocation organised by means of the drawing of lots (see 25:8ff). Talmudic tradition views this as the source for the introduction of the twenty-four priestly mishmarot (duty rotas),³ though this is not explicitly referred to in the biblical source, and scholars view it as an institution of the Second Temple period.

The priests were divided into twenty-four rotas, with each rota serving for one week, twice a year, at the Temple. The remaining weeks were not allocated to the duty-rotas but were covered by the three pilgrim festivals, during which it was open season for all priests to attend and minister at the Temple (Deut. 18:6-7). The vast number of pilgrims who thronged the Temple and offered their sacrifices clearly necessitated such a corresponding influx of priests:

If a Levite would go, from any of the settlements throughout Israel where he has been residing, to the place that the Lord has chosen, he may do so whenever he pleases. He may serve in the name of the Lord his God like all his fellow Levites who are in attendance before the Lord. They shall receive equal shares of the dues without regard to personal gifts or patrimonies (Deut. 18:6-8).

The Talmud infers from the phrase, he may do so whenever he pleases, that any priest, notwithstanding that his mishmar rota may not fall at that time, is free to offer his own free-will sacrifices at the Temple.⁴ The continuation, He may serve in the name of the Lord his God like all his fellow Levites who are in attendance before the Lord, is interpreted to refer to the three pilgrim festivals when all priests may participate in order to offer the sacrifices on behalf of the vast influx of pilgrims.⁵ They shall receive equal shares of the dues implies that, just as they share the duties on festivals, so they may share in the food, such as the Shew Bread.⁶

The final phrase, without regard to personal gifts or patrimonies (levad mimkarav al ha-avot), is explained as serving to exclude any back-logged sacrifices that a mishmar might have accumulated before the festival. It teaches that fellow priests could not claim a share in such sacrifices.⁷

Now, the latter inference presupposes the existence of the institution of mishmarot at the time of Moses. It is also based on an interpretation of mimkarav al ha-avot as “the negotiations (literally, ‘sales’) overseen by the fathers.” According to the Talmud, the latter term refers to the leaders of the duty-rotas in the period of Samuel and King David. It was they who are credited with having introduced the duty-rotas and allocated to the priests of each rota the specific two weeks of the year that they were on duty. The term mimkarav (“sales”) was understood as a synonym for the “negotiations” which would have taken place as a prelude to the individual mishmarot accepting their allocated weeks of the year.⁸

The problems of this interpretation seem insuperable. First, the anachronism of the Torah legislating – and in such a vague manner – for an institution that was not created until the period of King David. While there were certain Torah laws that would not come into force until the Israelites had entered the land, they were invariably prefaced by the clarification, ki tavo’u el ha-aretz, When you come into the land.⁹ Secondly, the use of the term mimkar (“sale”) to describe the mere organisation of duty-rotas; thirdly, the use of the preposition al with the noun mimkar (indeed, even with the verb m-kh-r itself!) is unattested. Fourthly, whereas Deuteronomy is characterised by its expansive literary style, the condensing of such a complicated situation into a mere four words would be both enigmatic and stylistically uncharacteristic. Finally, the attribution of the term avot (“fathers”) to the priestly leaders of the mishmarot would have been anomalous. As the very institution did not exist at the time of Moses, the term avot, to describe its initial administrators, would have been equally vague, if not incomprehensible, to his contemporary Israelites.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Talmudic interpretation was no more than an exercise of eisegesis, reading into the biblical passage, as well as into our problem-phrase, a reference to the later institution of Temple mishmarot. The objective of the sages was to bolster the status of the latter institution by investing it with Pentateuchal authority; and they were aided in this mission by the rendering of the authoritative Aramaic translation of the day, Targum Onkelos. Though its policy was to provide a literal, word-for-word rendering, on this occasion it offers an expansive rendering, embodying the Talmudic interpretation of the phrase levad mimkarav al ha-avot.¹⁰

It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the leading medieval commentators, especially those whose approach was to embrace the literal meaning of the text (peshat), such as Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, should have departed from that tortuous Talmudic interpretation.

The Interpretations of Rashbam and Ibn Ezra

Rashbam (1083-1174) states that its literal sense is akin to that of the phrase ish me’et makaro (II Kings 12:6), found in the identical context of the priestly receipt of donations to the Sanctuary. The individual donor is referred to there as makaro, “his acquaintance” or “benefactor,” a word repeated a few verses later in its plural form, makarekhem, “your acquaintances” (v. 8). These nominal forms are derived from the root n-kh-r, “to recognise,” “to be acquainted with.”

Hence Rashbam’s explanation of our problem-phrase is that it refers to the circumstance of someone who has a close “family acquaintance” (mimkarav al ha-avot), who is a priest, and whom he wishes to have offer a sacrifice on his behalf at the Temple. We appreciate why he would prefer a family member, in order that they may sit together and share in the eating of those parts that were not consumed on the altar. One might have thought that, during a period when it was not the turn of that priest’s mishmar to serve at the Temple, he might have no access to minister on behalf of his relative; therefore the Torah states that this situation is an exception to the general rule of chelek k’chelek yokhelu (ibid.), that the sacrificial meat is restricted to members of the current mishmar; and the two relatives may consequently enjoy a private repast of their own sacrificial meat.

Before consulting Ibn Ezra (1089-c.1167), we must remind ourselves that, although the tribe of Levi did not receive any tribal inheritance, its members were permitted to buy homes, fields, livestock or other objects. Some recorded examples of such purchases are the estate of Abiathar the priest at Anathoth (I Kings 2:26), and the priest/prophet Jeremiah, instructed by God to purchase his cousin’s land, also in Anathoth. The latter purchase was calculated to inject a measure of hope into his Judaean brethren that, notwithstanding the impending Babylonian invasion, they would return in the not-too-distant future, and houses, fields, and vineyards shall again be purchased in this land (Jer. 32:15).

Ibn Ezra takes issue with Rashbam on the meaning of mimkarav, insisting that its root is not n-kh-r but m-kh-r, “to sell,” as in the phrase, v’khi timk’ru mimkar la’amitekha, when you sell property to your neighbour (Lev. 25:14). He consequently views our problem-phrase as referring to a situation wherein a priest has concluded “a sale” (mimkarav) of a house that he inherited “from his forebears” (al ha-avot). Now, the other priests might well wish to exclude this one from sharing the sacrificial portions, on the basis that, as a home-owner, he clearly had ample means of support without taking a share from his fellow priests. Hence the instruction, chelek k’chelek yokhelu – They shall receive equal shares of the dues, without regard to (levad mi) personal gifts or patrimonies (al ha-avot).

Our Suggested Interpretation

The struggle of the above sources to make sense of levad mimkarav al ha-avot prompted one commentator to describe it as “one of the hardest passages in the Torah to interpret.”¹¹ The suggestion we wish to offer takes account of the passage immediately following on from our problem-phrase:

For¹² you are coming to the land that the Lord your God is giving you; you shall not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. Let no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts (sho’el ov) or familiar spirits, or who inquires of the dead . . . (Dt. 18:9ff.)

We have referred to the difficulty of making sense of the two words, mimkarav and avot, in this context. The difficulty is removed, we suggest, by taking account of the fact that these words were originally handed down as part of a non-vocalised biblical text which frequently allowed for variant readings and interpretations. This situation is summed up by Gary A. Rendsburg, as follows: “The Masoretic Text dates to c.850 CE, and reflects the manner in which Biblical Hebrew was pronounced at that time. But how conservative, i.e. how ancient, was the reading tradition for the centuries before 850 CE? . . . No definitive conclusion can be reached.”¹³

It is not inconceivable that the early medieval Masoretes, responsible for the introduction of vocalisation, chose the reading mimkarav in order best to reflect the Talmudic interpretation and the association with the institution of the mishmarot. If we remove the barrier of vocalisation from our problem-phrase, a reading that is more contextually consistent is revealed.

As stated, the context of our problem-phrase is a concession to any priest to come and join with his brethren at the Sanctuary or Temple in offering a sacrifice and sharing in its meat. We suggest that levad mimkarav al ha-avot was originally intended to be read as, levad mimakarav¹⁴ al ha’ovot, excepting any that are identified (literally, “recognised”) as practitioners of sorcery.¹⁵ Although the singular form, ov, occurs, it is most frequently referred to by its plural, ovot,¹⁶ and is often linked to the term yid’oni, “familiar spirits,” conjured up as a result of the practice of necromancy. When used on its own, the term ov appears as a generic term for any practice associated with sorcery and black magic.

As to any objection that the four-letter word avot cannot possibly yield a reading ovot, given that the initial holam vowel (o) of the word ov is spelt plene, with the insertion of the mater lectionis letter vav – to the extent that its plural, ovot, would constitute a five-letter word – we would point out that the latter, plural form, is invariably spelt defectively in the Bible,¹⁷ and can therefore be read justifiably as ovot.

As to why, according to our suggestion, just sorcery should have been singled out for mention, given that it appears in the subsequent section, in a list that includes one who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one who casts spells and inquires of the dead, we would point to the lengthy and varied lists of heinous practices enumerated in Leviticus chapters 19 and 20. Sorcery is nevertheless accorded its own, separate prohibition in both of those lists (see 19:31; 20:6). It was also regarded as one of the most serious acts of treachery against God, to the extent that the Chronicler singles it out as one of the main contributory factors to the punishment of death imposed on Saul: Saul died for the trespass that he committed against the Lord; moreover, he had consulted a ghost to seek advice (v’gam lish’ol b’ov lidrosh) and did not seek advice of the Lord (I Chr. 10:13-14).

Why the sorcerer should have been specifically excluded in the context of the desire of a stranger to join the priests¹⁸ at the altar was because a pure and spiritually-focused state of mind was a prerequisite to the offering of sacrifices. As an expression of a wish and need to dialogue with God, no extraneous thoughts, and certainly no idolatrous intentions, could possibly have been allowed to interpose into the intimacy and sanctity of the ritual. It goes without saying that the sorcerer was the very antithesis of the priest, and his presence at the altar was a profanity of its sanctity and of the name of God. The sorcerer was an idolater, affirming a false and extraneous source of power.