The Religion of Israel Before Sinai Continued)

8/3/2019 The Religion of Israel Before Sinai Continued)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-religion-of-israel-before-sinai-continued 1/32

Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

The Religion of Israel before Sinai (Continued)Author(s): M. H. SegalReviewed work(s):Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jan., 1963), pp. 226-256Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453748 .

Accessed: 16/11/2011 00:03

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].

University of Pennsylvania Press and Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania are

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453748?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1453748?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn



THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL BEFORE SINAI

BY M. H. SEGAL, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

(Continued from JQR July, I96I)

VIII. THE OFFERINGOFTHE FIRSTBORNAND THEPASCHALLAMB

THE BELIEF OF ISRAELin Egypt in the ancestral God was not

merely an abstract memory. It was a living faith which on

occasions found expression in the people's life. Just as the

patriarchs turned to God in prayer in times of need (Gen.

25, 2I; 32, IO-I3) so also their descendants in Egypt cried to

God for help in their distress (Deut. 26, 7; Ex. 2, 23; I4, IO;

also 5, I2; I8, 4). The universal practice in antiquity of

offering sacrifices to the Deity must have found its counter-

part also in early Israel. The patriarchs are reported to have

offered sacrifices (Gen. 8, 20; 22, I3; 46, I), and their descen-dants in Egypt must have done likewise (cf. Ex. IO, 25;

I8, I2; also 32, 6). The scene of such sacrificial worship was the

wilderness near Goshen, but not Goshen itself or Egypt for

fear of arousing the fanaticism of the Egyptians who worship-

ped the beasts used by the Israelites for sacrifices (Ex. 8, 22).

The demand of Moses from Pharaoh to let the people go to the

wilderness and hold a feast of sacrifices (Ex. 5, I3; IO, 9)

points to the existence of such a regular feast already beforethe days of Moses. As a pastoral people the Israelites may be

assumed to have been accustomed to offer as sacrifices the

firstborn of their cattle. It is possible that the practice existed

already in the patriarchal age, since Abel, the first shepherd,

is said to have sacrificed the firstlings of his flocks (Gen. 4, 4).

This sacrifice must have taken place in spring, the season of

the parturition of the flocks. It is noteworthy that the law in

the Pentateuch of the santification of the firstborn of man and

of beast is associated with the spring festival of the pas-



RELIGION OF ISRAEL-SEGAL 227

sover (Ex. I3, 2 I2-I5). It may be conjectured that this sancti-

fication was an old custom in Israel which received divinesanction at the time of the exodus. If so also the sanctification

of the firstborn of man was practised in early Israel, but

since human sacrifice was abhorrent to the nature of Israel

(cf. Gen. 22; Deut. I2, 30, etc.), and was only introduced as

an alien practice, in the degenerate days of the later Judean

monarchy (II Kings i6, 3; 2I, 6), it may be assumed that in

pre-Mosaic Israel the sacrifice of a lamb was substituted for

the firstling of an ass (the only unclean animal in the pos-session of early Israel) which was unfit for a sacrifice (Gen.

8, 20). Only the Pentateuchal law granted in the case of the

firstborn of man a wider method of substitution or redemption

(I3, I8 I5; Num. 3, I2-I3 4I 45-5I; 8, i8).

Thus in spring time the Israelites in Goshen may have be-

come accustomed to journey into the neighbouring wilderness

and celebrate the sacrifice of the firstborn of the beasts and of

the substitute for the firstborn of man, and this custom may

have become a regular annual feast which eventually gave rise

to the great biblical festival of the passover. For the sacrifice

of the paschal lamb is in its essence a substitute for the first-

born of man. Because the observance of the old feast in the

wilderness had been suspended through the enslavement of

the people into forced labor, Moses demanded from Pharaoh

to let the people go and hold the feast of sacrifice in thewilderness, lest they be punished by their God "with pesti-

lence" among the cattle for the neglect of the sacrifice of the

first born of the cattle, "or with the sword" among men for

the neglect of the sacrifice of the substitute for the firstborn

of man (Ex. 5, 3). Pharaoh's definite refusal of the demand

of Moses led to the great events of the night of the exodus.

The divine command transferred from the wilderness to the

homes of the Israelites in Egypt the sacrifice of the lamb as a

substitute for the first of man. At midnight the firstborn of

the Egyptians were struck down by the pestilence, but the

firstborn of the Israelites were saved by the token of the



?,28 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

sacrificial blood on the door of their homes. (Ex. I2). This

was followed in the same night by the departure of Israel

from Egypt and their liberation from the Egyptian enslave-

ment. Thus the new reformed paschal sacrifice became the

commemoration of the the exodus from Egypt in the festival

of the passover.

The divine sanction of the new sacrifice was accompanied

by a series of injunctions regulating the consumption of the

flesh of the sacrifice. These are sufficiently explained by the

requirements of the departure from Egypt which was to followin the same night. The participants in the sacrifice had to be

ready for the journey at quick notice. Hence the sacrifice

had to be roasted whole and not to be opened and boiled as

was the customs with other sacrifices (Ex. Lev. 8, 3I; Deut.

i6, 7; I Sam. 2, I3 I5), in order to save time in its preparation.

It had to be eaten with unleavened bread which is baked

quickly (Gen. I9, 3; I Sam. 28, 24). Those who consumed it

had to be prepared for the journey with their loins girded,

their shoes on their feet, their staffs in their hands, and eating

in haste (Ex. I2, 8-iI). But it must be remarked that some

of these details may already have been customary in the

primitive sacrifice in the wilderness. That also involved a

journey from Goshen. The exigencies of the wilderness only

permitted the roasting of the sacrificial flesh and the baking

of unleavened bread. (The latter was also customary in theregular sacrifices in the Tabernacle. Ex. 29, 2; Lev. 2, 4-5,

etc.). The bitter herbs to be eaten with the flesh and the un-

leavened breat may have served both in the paschal ceremony

as well as in the primitive sacrifice as merely a condiment to

facilitate the hasty eating. The fear of observation by the

Egyptians may have forced also the primitive ceremony in the

wilderness to be performed i-n the night. The nocturnal cha-

racter of the ceremony in the wilderness may have dictatedits timing in the middle of the month when the moon is at its

brightest. On the other hand, it is also possible that this

purely native Israelite ceremony had received in pre-Mosaic



RELIGION OF ISRAEL-SSEGAL 229

days certain syncretistic features of a Mesopotamian origin.

The timing of the sacrifice at the full moon of the springequinox may perhaps be a reminiscence of Mesopotamian

moon worship. It may also be conjectured that the name

(rin, passover) of the sacrifice at the exodus was already

attached to the primitive ceremony in the wilderness. Moses

is reported to have told the elders of Israel: "slay the pesalk"

(E. I2, 2I), as if the name was well known to his hearers. 18

Originally the name pesali may have signified "leaping, or

dancing", from the sacred dance around the altar whichaccompanied the sacrifice, just as the prophets of Baal

leaped and danced upon the altar at Carmel (I Kings I8, 26).

Originally the dancing was in honor of the moon god. A re-

miniscence of dancing in honor of the moon has survived to

this day in the leaping practised in the Jewish ceremony of

the "Sanctification of the Moon" which we will discuss in a

later section (Ch. XI). In the conversion of the sacrifice as a

memorial of the exodus the name pesah was reinterpreted as

signifying "passing over"', or sparing (Isa. 3I, 5), the houses

of the Israelites in Egypt in the plague of the firstborn (Ex.

I2, I3 27). Therefore it is declared: "It is a passover unto

Yhwh" (Ex. I2, II), and not as the Mesopotamians in Israel

might have thought it to be a dancing unto Sin the moon

god. This new interpretation of the name pesah is parallel

to the new significance given in the Mosaic law to the primi-tive name shlapato-shlabatwhich we discussed above.

IX. OFFERINGS TO DEMONS

The wilderness near Goshen was the scene also of sacrifices

of a different character. Individual Israelites appear to have

been in the habit of going outside to the open spaces ('fields')

and offering sacrifices to the imaginary demonic spirits whichwere believed to inhabit the desert. We learn this from the

law in Leviticus which prohibits the slaughtering of animals

18 Cf. U. Cassuto, Commentary on Exodus, P. 179 f.



230 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

outside the Tabernacle in order that the Israelites "shall no

more offer their sacrifices unto the se'itrim after whom they

have gone awhoring" (Lev. I7, I-7). Se'irim, singular se'ir,

means hairy creatures, (Ge. 27, II 23), and is also the regular

name in Hebrew for he-goats. In the Book of Isaiah se'ir,

se'irim are mentioned among the wild creatures which inhabit

desolate places also inhabited by the female demon lilith. In

a description of the utter desolation of Babylon the prophet

says: "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there .... and

se'irim shall dance there" (Isa. I3, 2I). And again in thedescription of the desolate ruins of Edom the prophet says:

"And the wild beasts of the desert shall meet the howling

creatures, and the se'ir shall cry to his fellow; yea lilitl

shall rest there and find for herself a place of rest" (Isa. 34, I4).

In the law of Leviticus se'irim are thus demons of the wilder-

ness conceived in popular superstition as hairy beings or in the

shape of he-goats, something like the satyrs in Greek mytho-

logy or like the fauns in Roman mythology. To these demons

Israelites offered sacrifices evidently with the object of se-

curing their goodwill or of guarding against their enmity.

These demonic sacrifices are most probably identical with the

sacrifices to the shedim (demons or devils) which Israel is

accused of having offered in the Song of Moses: 19 "They

sacrifice to shedim, no-gods, divinities whom they know not,

new ones that have come newly up, whom their fathers fearednot" (Deut. 32, I7).

The prohibition in Leviticus i7 of secular slaughter in

order to wean the people from sacrificing to the se'irim

belongs to the Sinaitic legislation, and was promulgated after

the erection of the Tabernacle (Lev. 26, 46; 27, 34; I, I). It was

specially designed for life in the wilderness when the people

were concentrated in a camp (v. 3) in close proximity to the

Tabernacle and near the supposed haunts of the imaginary

19 So already Leviticus Rabba ch. 22:

On the Mosaic authorship of the Song cf. my

study in JQR, xlviii, p. 344 ff.




demons. The law was abrogated, granting full permission for

secular slaughter of animals for food, when Israel reached thecultivated land of Canaan and the people scattered over wide

areas, living at a distance from the sanctuaries (Deut.h 2, I5

20-2I) 20. From the expression, "no more" in the law of

(Leviticus I7, 3) it may be inferred (with Ibn Ezra) that the

practice of sacrificing to the seirim had existed in Israel

already before the exodus during their life in Goshen, while

the bitter denunciations of the sacrificial worship of demons

in the Song of Moses proves that the law in Leviticus re-mained of no effect and that the pagan practice continued

to the last days of Moses, at least among the lower classes of

the people.

This is not surprising. Demonolatry was universal in an-

cient times. It formed a large and vital element in Mesopo-

tamian religion and practice. A belief in the existence of

demons and in their power over the life of man must have

existed also in early Israel, if only as a part of its Mesopo-

tamian heritage. This is proved by the names of shedim and

lilith in the Hebrew Bible which are derived from Babylonian

speech. Nevertheless, the practice of sacrificing to the se'irim

and shedim did not come to Israel from Mesopotamia. The

Song of Moses describes it as an innovation unknown to

Israel's ancestors: "divinities whom they knew not, new ones

that came newly up, whom their fathers feared not." Theworship of these particular demons must have developed in

Goshen and may be ascribed to the dread inspired in the

superstitious by the neighboring desert, that "great and

terrible wilderness" that "waste howling desert" (Deut.

8, I5; 32, IO). For Israel was intrinsically a civilized people.

It originated and developed in association with the great

civilizations of Mesopotamia and Canaan and Egypt. The

Israelites hated and feared the desert, and during theirenforced sojourn in the wilderness they repeatedly broke out

in complaints and rebellion against Moses and Aron who had20 Cf. my Masoreth u)Biqqoreth, p. IO9.




led them there on the way to Canaan. To allay their fear they

sought while still in Goshen to gain by sacrifices the goodwillof the demonic rulers of the desert.

Finally, it may be observed that Israel in Goshen and

in the wilderness is not accused of offering worship to the

great gods of the nations in whose midst they had dwelt, to

Osiris or Isis of the Egyptians, or to Sin or Ishtar of the

Mesopotamians. Such worship would have been to Israel a

conscious betrayal of Yhwh the God of their fathers. They are

only charged in this law of Leviticus and in the Song of Moses

with the petty paganism of rendering worship to minor semi-

divine spirits, a practice which the ignorant Israelites in the

days of Moses, like their descendants in the days of Samuel

(I Sam. 7, 3-4), must have thought quite compatible with their

faith and loyalty to the God of their ancestors.

X. ICONOLATRY

Another practice sternly prohibited by the Mosaic law,

which seems to have existed among the Israelites in Egypt was

the symbolic representation of the Deity in a visible and

tangible form. The worship of the divine in a material form was

almost universal in all ages and is still practised by the ma-

jority of mankind, including even communions which claim a

faith in monotheism. We have no clear evidence of theattitude of the patriarchs to this practice. From the patri-

archal traditions in the Book of Genesis it appears (as ob-

served above Ch. III) that the patriarchs believed that on

occasions the divine assumed in its revelations a form visible

to man and behaving like man (Gen. i8, 2 ff. I9, I ff.; 32,

29 3I). But this does not prove that the patriarchs themselves

worshipped the Deity in some material representation in the

shape of a figure or image. The story of Jacob hiding (probably

by burial) under a terebinth at Shechem the foreign gods, i.e.

the images of the foreign gods, brought by his people from

Harran (Gen. 35, 6) cannot be adduced as evidence that Jacob




himself attached significance to images as representations

of the divine. The heathen images were to him instinct with

impurity from which his people had to separate and cleanse

themselves before their participation in the worship of his

God (vv. 2-3). But it may be conjectured that under the in-

fluence of those Mesopotamian immigrants with Jacob, his

descendants in Egypt had learnt to venerate the patriarchal

God in the form of an image.

This conjecture helps us to explain the strange behavior

of the people in the story of the golden calf. When Moses haddelayed his return from the mountain, the people suspected

that they had been deserted by their divinely inspired human

guide and their natural fear of the desert turned into a panic.

So they demanded from Aaron to make them a divinely in-

spired figure to act as their guide which would be free of

human disabilities. They gave their gold to Aaron who

promptly produced for them a molten calf which the people

acclaimed as the inspired representation of the Deity that had

brought them up out of the land of Egypt. Aaron, too, evi-

dently saw in the calf a genuine representation of the Deity,

for he built an altar before it and proclaimed the morrow as a

feast unto Yhwh (Ex. 32, i-6). These singular doings are only

explicable on the assumption that the people had long been

used to images of the Deity, and that Aaron had learnt in

Egypt to fashion such images. Aaron appears here as anacknowledged religious leader, a position which he seems to

have held already before the appearance of Moses with his

message of liberation. Aaron was vouchsafed a divine com-

munication in Egypt. He was made an assistant to Moses,

and it was he who introduced Moses and his mission to the

elders of the people (Ex. 4, 27 14-i6 30). He is styled 'the

levite' (ibid. v. I4) which may be as elsewhere equivalent to

"the priest'. From I Sam. 2, 27 it may be inferred that al-ready in Egypt Aaron exercised certain priestly functions, 21

and this may have entitled him later to the appointment of

21 See my Commenztary onz he Books of Samuel (1956), p. 28.

I6




the priesthood in the Tabernacle of the wilderness. His actions

in the story of the golden calf may lead us to suppose that

Aaron had been active in Egypt in connection with the making

and worship of images.

This assumption that Israel in Egypt had been used to

the practice of making and worshipping images illuminates

the unusual detail with which the prohibition of this practice

is presented in the decalogue, and the severity of the penalties

extending to future generations which are attached to its

transgression (Ex. 20, 4-6; Deut. 5, 8-Io). It also illuminatesthe frequent repetition of this prohibition in other parts of the

Pentateuch, and the rigorous injunctions to destroy utterly

the images and the other material objects of heathen worship

in Canaan(Ex. 20, 23; 23, 24; 34, I7; Lev. I9, 4; 26, I; Deut.

4, I5-I9; 7, 25-26; I7, I5, etc.). It was a long-standing habit in

Israel which the Mosaic law sought to suppress and to eradi-

cate. Though to other ingrained habits in man's approach to

the divine the Mosaic law showed itself quite lenient. It sanc-

tioned the universal practice of bringing sacrifices to God

and legislated in detail the mode of their offering. But in

contrast to the heathen conception of sacrifices as the food

and drink of the deity the Mosaic law emphasizes repeatedly

that the sacrifices are merely "a sweet savor unto Yhwh"

(Lev. I, 9 I7, etc.). So already of the sacrifice of Noah after

the flood (Gen. 8,2I), in

striking contrastto the

picturein

the Babylonian epic where the famished gods crowd like flies

to pick up bits of the flesh of the sacrifice of which they have

been deprived during the flood. The Mosaic law conceded

also another custom prevailing in Mesopotamia and Egypt and

all over the world of erecting temples and furnishing them

as homes for their gods to dwell therein in their deified

images. The law granted the building of the tabernacle and

legislated its details. But the tabernacle was not the dwellingof God. It contained no representation of the Deity. Its most

sacred object, the ark, was primarily a receptacle for the

tables of the covenant, though as the footstool of the divine




throne represented by the empty space between the cherubim

(Psalms 99, 5; I32, 7; I Chron. 28, 2), the ark also symbolizedthe divine presence in Israel (Nu. IO, 33-36, etc.); but the most

boorish could not confuse a receptacle for tables of stone

with an image of the Deity. These concessions to the pre-

vailing conventions, far from compromising with the current

heathen conceptions, served on the contrary by their particu-

lar characteristics and differences to distinguish and to em-

phasize the spiritual character of the Mosaic God and to teach

the people to recognize it and to realize it.But no concession was possible in the matter of the images.

A material representation of God was both a lie and an offence

against His spirituality. Moreover iconolatry necessarily led

to idolatry. Any material symbol may also have been used

by the heathen to represent their gods. The calf made by

Aaron and later reproduced by Jeroboam was also the emblem

of Hadad in Syria and Mesopotamia. This was bound to lead

to a confusion of the God of Israel with the idols of the heathen

and to the worship of the idols by the side of God.

The suppression of this inveterate habit, brought to Israel

by the Mesopotamian immigrants with the patriarchs and

fostered through the ages by human weakness and foreign

influence, was only fully accomplished after the Babylonian

exile when the law of Moses became the ruling guide in the

daily life of the community and the individual.

XI. SABBATH AND NEW MOON

We have seen in an earlier section (Ch. V) that in all

probability it was Abraham who formulated the tradition on

which is based the story in the opening of the Book of Genesis

of the creation of the world in six days culminating in the

seventh day as a blessed and sanctified rest day for thedivine creator. It may therefore be assumed that Abraham

bequeathed to his descendants the conception of the seventh

day as a divine rest day and that this conception was known




among the Israelites in Egypt and had received among them

the name of Sabbath which does not occur in the story of the

creation and which (as we have seen above) is an adaptation

of the old Mesopotamian shappatu-shabbatu. Upon this con-

ception of the seventh day as the divine rest day at the

creation was later established in the decalogue the institution

of the weekly Sabbath as a sanctified rest day in Israel.

That the name Sabbath and its significance were known

to the Israelites already before the Sinaitic revelation appears

clearly from the wording of the injunction in the decalogue:

"Remember (Keep) the Sabbath day to sanctify it", "The

seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" (Ex. 20, 8

Io; Deut. 5, I2 14). This wording implies that already before

the exodus the Israelites had known the name and the meaning

of the Sabbath, but they did not remember to keep it holy,

except perhaps certain individuals. This is supported by the

story of the manna which proves the existence of a traditionthat already before the Israelites had reached Sinai the

seventh day was known among them as the Sabbath, a day

sanctified to rest.

But we also learn from the story of the manna that the

people found it hard to accustom themselves to abstain froni

all work regularly on one day in the week. This is also implied

in the story of the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath

day (Num. I5, 32-36) and by the charges of the prophet

Ezekiel against Israel of the profanation of the Sabbath in

the periodof the wildernessand afterwards(Ez. 20, I3, 2I 24).

It was because of the difficulty experienced by the common

people in the strict observance of the Sabbath that the in-

junction of the Sabbath (like the injunction against image) is

expressed in full detail in the decalogue and is so often repe-

ated with stringency in other parts of the Mosaic law (Ex.20, 8-II; 23, I2; Lev. I9, 2 30; 23, 3; Deut. 5, I2-I5). The

observance of the Sabbath is particularly enjoined in cases

when work may appear to be imperative, as in the season of

ploughing and harvesting; in the building of the holy taber-




nacle; used in the making of a fire which may be needed for

the warming of the human body and the preparation of food

(Ex. 34, 2I; 35, 2-3). Laxity in the strict observance of the

Sabbath seems to have continued long after the Mosaic age

down to the last days of the monarchy and as late as the

early period of the second Temple (Jer. I7, 2I-27; Isa. 56, 2

I3-I4 Neh. IO, 32; I3, I5-22). Nevertheless the Sabbath

(along with the New Moon) was generally observed as a

festive day of joy (Hosea 2, I3), when special additional

sacrifices in its honor were offered in the sanctuary (Num.28, 9-IO), when merchants closed their places of business and

people foregathered in the sanctuary or visited the prophet

for worship and religious instruction (Amos 8, 5; Isa. I, I3;

66, 23; II Kings 4, 23).

In the passages just cited from the prophets the Sabbath is

coupled with another festival, the New Moon, which like the

Sabbath seems to have had its initial origin in the moon

worship of Mesopotamia. Like the Sabbath the New Moon

also was a festive day of joy which had its special additional

sacrifices (Num. 28, II-I5). On the New Moon also merchants

closed their business and people repaired to the sanctuary or

to the prophet. On the New Moon, King Saul ordered a

special repast for himself and his principal chiefs of which

only persons ritually pure could partake, evidently because

the meat consumed in the repast was of a sacrificial cha-racter (I Sam. 20, 26). From the fact that usually the New

Moon comes first in the twin expression 'New Moon and

Sabbath' it may be inferred that the New Moon was then

popularly considered as more important than the Sabbath.

And in fact, it was easier for the common people to keep as

sacred one day in the month than one day in every week. But

it is a striking fact that the Mosaic law ignores the sanctity

of the New Moon. It does indeed order additional sacrificesfor the New Moon and even richer ones than for the Sabbath

(Num. 28, II-I5; cf. Io, io), but it does not include the New

Moon in the list of its sacred days (Lev. 23, also Ex. 23; 34;




Deut. I6), and nowhere does it command to rest on the New

Moon or to celebrate it in any way except in the additionalsacrifices in the sanctuary, in order perhaps not to deprive

the altar and the priests of their due. This silence of the law in

respect to a festival so popular and wide-spread, celebrated,

it seems, even more strictly than the Sabbath, cannot be

accidental. It must be a deliberate act of omission for a set

purpose. The explanation of this omission appears to be that

the lawgiver disapproved of the celebration of the New Moon,

and would fain have suppressed it, or have confined it merely

to the altar. And in fact, in the time of the Second Temple

when the Jews lived strictly in accordance with the law of the

Pentateuch, the New Moon lost its sacred character and was

treated as an ordinary week day. It is also noteworthy that

in the literature of that period, the twin expression is no

longer 'New Moon and Sabbath' but ,,Sabbath and New Noon'

(Neh. IO, 34; I Chron. 23,3I;

II Chron.2,

3; so alreadyEz.

46, 3, but 45, I7 still "New Moon and Sabbath").

Clearly the New Moon was a popular institution not or-

dained by the law and not approved by the law, but the

law was powerless to abolish it. Again from the coupling

of the New Moon with the Sabbath, it is clear that like the

Sabbath, the New Moon is a native institution in Israel

brought by Israel into Canaan together with the Sabbath, and

was not (as maintained by modern critics) borrowed by Israelfrom the Canaanites. In fact, there is good reason to believe

that in the Israelite period, the worship of the moon declined

greatly among the Canaanites, hence the scarcity of place

names in Canaan with the component YeraJh(moon) in the

first millenium ante, as compared with the frequency of such

names in the second millenium. 22

We therefore conclude that the festival of the New Moon

was a popular institution in Israel older than the Mosaic law;

that like the Sabbath it was known to Israel in Egypt and was

22 So W. F. Albright, Archeology and the Religion of Israel (1946),

p. 83, cited in Encyclopedia Biblica (Hebrew), iii, s.v.




apparently more strictly observed than the Sabbath; that the

Mosaic law disapproved of it because of its patent heathenorigin in honor of the new moon, 23 and that it was introduced

into Israel in Egypt by their compatriots the Mesopotamian

immigrants who came to Canaan with the patriarchs from

Harran the great centre of the worship of the moon god.

Despite its heathen origin, the festival of the New Moon

had necessarily to adapt itself in the course of time to the

monotheistic faith and practice of Israel and become a festival

in honor of the God of Israel, but it was never radically con-

verted like the Sabbath into a spiritual symbol of Israel's

faith in Yhwh. It could never rid itself completely of certain

rites and practices reminiscent of its heathen origin. This is

also true of the relic of the celebration of the New Moon which

has survived among Jews to this very day. The celebration

is known as the 'sanctification of the moon', and is performed

in the open air in the evening in the early days of the lunarmonth when the moon shines brightly in the clear sky. The

ceremony is of course thoroughly Jewish in character. It opens

with a benediction borrowed from the Talmud 24 lauding God

as the creator of the luminaries of heaven who ordained the

monthly renewal of the moon. But the ceremony is accom-

panied by details which are foreign to the puritanical spirit

of Judaism. Thus it is laid down in an authoritative rabbinical

tractate 'Masseket Sopherim' (compiled in the early centuriesof the Middle Ages), ch. xx: "The blessing of the moon must

take place at the conclusion of the Sabbath 25 when one is in a

jolly mood and dressed in nice garments. The worshipper must

look steadily at the moon, join straight his two feet and

recite the Talmudic benediction .... he must say three

times 'a good sign, a good sign' . . . . he must perform three

dances in front of the moon .... greet his neighbor with the

23 A reference to the idolatrous worship of the moon is found inJob 3I, 26-7.

24 Babli San. 42a.25 A reminiscence of the old connection of the New Moon with the

Sabbath.



240 THE JEWISH QAURTERLY REVIEW

blessing 'peace be upon thee, peace be upon thee', and then

go home with a happy heart".Finally it may be added that the custom of abstention

from work on the day of the New Moon has been sedulously

preserved by religious Jewish women almost to our own day.

This custom of the women is recorded with approval in the

ancient Jerusalem Talmud. 26

XII. THE NEW YEAR AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT

In addition to the regular New Moon festival discussed

in the preceding section, the Israelite calendar has also a

special celebration of a particular New Moon which has its

parallel in the Mesopotamian culture. This is the festival

celebrated on the New Moon of the seventh lunar month

(Tishri) known in Judaism by the name of the New Year

(Rosh Hashanah). It has its counterpart in the festival of the

New Year (Resh Shatti) celebrated in various centres of

Mesopotamia long before the days of Abraham as the principal

feast of the year. Already the Sumerian king Gudea in the

first half of the third millenium speaks of the celebration of

the New Year in his city of Lagash. At Erech and at Ur, this

festival was observed twice a year, in the equinox of the

autumn and in the equinox of spring. Specially famous was

the splendid and elaborate celebrationof the New Year's

festival at Babylon which fell in spring and lasted from the

second to the eleventh day of Nisan. A fairly detailed de-

scription of the great Babylonian celebration has been pre-

served in a late copy of an undoubtedly early text 27 to which

we shall refer later in our discussion.

The festival of the New Year must have been well known to

the Mesopotamian immigrants who were associated with the

Ben6 Israel in Egypt, and through them the festival must havebeen known also to the Israelites themselves long before

26 Yer. Ta'anith i, 6.27 In Pritchard's Ancient Near-Eastern Texts, p. 33 I f



RELIGION OF ISRAEL-SEGAL 24I

Moses. Yet most surprisingly, the Mosaic law is completely

silent about the connection of the celebration of the seventhNew Moon with the New Year's festival. It is only in popular

tradition that the seventh New Moon is identified with the

New Year. The Mosaic law does indeed include the seventh

New Moon in its calendar of the sacred days of the year

(Lev. 23) and in its calendar of festal sacrifices (Num. 28-29),

but it is reticent about its character and about the purpose of

its celebration. The description of this day in those two

calendars is left vague and obscure. In Leviticus 23, 24 theday is described as "a rest, a memorial of blowing the trum-

pets (teru'ah), and in Numbers 29, I, it is said "a day of the

blowing the trumpets (Teru'ah) it shall be unto you", but

nothing is said in either passage about the significance or

purpose of this memorial and of this teru'ah. The expression

"a memorial of a teru'ah" may be interpreted as 'a memorial

by a teru'ah', or a teruah for the purpose of a memorial,

namely to bring Israel to the remembrance of God to grant

Israel divine favor; compare Numbers IO, IO: "And in the

day of your gladness and in your festivals ye shall blow with

trumpets .... and they may be to you for a memorial before

your God", viz. to accept favorably your sacrifices; and

again ibid. v. 9: "And if you go to war .... ye shall blow an

alarm with the trumpets and ye shall be remembered before

the Lord your God and ye shall be saved from your enemies."This may also be the meaning of the briefer expression "a day

of blowing the trumpets", namely to bring Israel into the

remembrance of God who may grant them His mercy. But in

any case, no explanation is given in the Mosaic law why Israel

need invoke the divine remembrance just in particular on the

seventh New Moon more than on any other New Moon of the

year.

The answer to this question is given by popular tradition

as preserved in Talmudic literature. The Mishnah says: "The

first day of Tishri (the seventh month) is the New Year in

respect of (the counting of) the years". This is based on the




belief that the creation of the world began on twenty-fifth

day of Elul (the sixth month) and was completed on the firstday of Tishri, 28 and then began regulartime and the chrono-

logy of years. And again: "On the New Year all who came

into the world pass before God in orderly numberation,"

namely for judgment and for fixing their fate in the coming

year (MishnahRosh Hashanah I, I-2). Finally the Talmud

commenting on Psalm 93 says: "'The Lord reigneth', that

meansthat when Godhad completedHis worksof creation, He

becameking over themr (B.RH 3ia). These three principles,the creation of the worldon the New Year, the manifestation

of God's kingship over the world on the New Year, and the

judgment of the world by God on the New Year form the

chief theme of the liturgy of the New Year's festival as still

solemnized year by year in the Jewish Synagogue.

The three principles follow logically one from the other.

The divine kingship could only become manifest when theworld had been created which forms His domain. And the

divine judgment follows from the divine kingship. For the

chief function of the king in Israel's ideology is to maintain

justice and righteousness. Thus the kingship of David is

describedin the words "And David executed judgment and

justice (or: righteousness)unto all his people" II Sam. 8, I5).

This is also the principal function attributed to the ideal

successor of David (Psalm 72, 2 4) and to the eschatologicalking in Zion (Is. II, 4).

Those three principles associated in the Synagoque with

the New Year are not the invention of a later Judaism. They

were already proclaimed together in a series of liturgical

psalmswhich forma distinct groupmarkedby a close affinity

of tone, of language and of thought. These are the joyous

and triumphant songs contained in Psalms 95-IOO, to which

belong also Psalm 93 and the first part of Psalm 94. The

28 Pesiqta d'R. Cahana (ed. Bober), I5ob; Pesiqta Rabbati (ed.

Friedmann), i86a.




constantly recurring thoughts in these beautiful songs are

God as creator, God as King, God as judge. Thus, "The Lordreigneth .... the world also is set firm that it cannot be

moved. Thy throne (probably: seat of judgment) is established

of old" (93, I-2); "lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth,

render a reward to the proud" (94, 2). "A great king (is God)

over all the gods"; "The sea is his and he made it, and his

hands formed the dry land"; "Before the Lord our maker"

(95, 3 5 6); "Say among the nations the Lord reigneth, the

world also is set firm that it cannot be moved, He shall judgepeoples with equity. Let the heavens rejoice .... before the

Lord for He cometh, for He cometh to judge the earth, He

shall judge the earth with righteousness and the peoples with

his faithfulness" (96, IO-I3); "The Lord reigneth .... righte-

ousness and judgment are the foundation of his throne";

"Zion heard and was glad, the daughters of Judah rejoiced

because of thy judgments, 0 Lord" (97, I 2 8); "He hath re-

vealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations"; "Make

a joyful blast before the king, the Lord. Let the sea roar ....

before the Lord, for He cometh to judge the earth, He will

judge the world with righteousness and the peoples with

equity" (98, 3 6-9); "The Lord reigneth, let the peoples

tremble"; "And the strength of the king loveth justice, thou

hast established equity, thou hast executed justice and righte-

ousness in Jacob" (99, I 3).

These psalms are of Judean origin. They speak of Zion

and of the daughters of Zion. They are also pre-exilic. They

invite the worshippers to the courts of God and bring with

them an offering, as one brought to a king on his appointment

(96, 8; cf. I Sam. IO, 27). The courts are of the First Temple,

as is clear from the epithet of God as "sitting on the cherubim"

and from the command to worship at His footstool whichmeans the ark (I Chron. 28, 2; 99, I 5). The Second Temple

had no cherubim and no ark. Further, phrases like "He is to be

revered above all gods", "thou art greatly exalted above all




gods", "worship Him all ye gods" (96, 4; 97, 7 9) stamp the

whole group as archaic.30

The fact that these three principles form the main theme

both of the psalmodic liturgy of the First Temple and of the

liturgy of the Synagogue for the New Year's festival cannot be

a matter of chance. The liturgy of the Synagogue, saturated

as it is with the thoughts and with the language of the Psalms,

is the direct descendant of the older liturgy of the Temple.

The identity of theme of these psalms with the New Year's

liturgy of the Synagogue proves therefore that these psalmsalso have the festival of the New Year as their subject.

There is also another feature which is shared by these

psalms and the Jewish liturgy of the New Year. This is the

blowing of the horn or the trumpet (nw1?A) which in the

Mosaic law (as we have seen) is the sole characteristic of

the celebration of the seventh New Moon. The blowing of the

horn is still a prominent and distinctive part of the celebra-

tion of the New Year in the Synagogue. But the tert'ah is

also a principal feature of worship in these psalms. "With

trumpets and the sound of the horn (shofar) make a joyful

noise (teru'ah) before the Lord" (98, 6). The noun teru'ah does

not indeed occur in these psalms, but the cognate verb is fre-

quently used in them to express an essential part of the

worship: r"In: (95, I 2); IVrl'? (98, 4 6: also ioo, i). So also in

another psalm which proclaims the kingship and probably alsothe judgment of God, Psalm 47, which in Jewish tradition is

also associated with the festival of the New Year, though it

does not speak of God as creator: "Make a teru'ah (15P1,)

unto God", "God hath ascended (the throne of judgment, v. 9)

with a teru'ah, the Lord with the sound of the horn (shofar)."

It must, however, be observed that there is a marked

difference in character between the teru'ah of the psalmist

and the blowing of the horn in the Synagogue. The teru'ahof the psalmist is a joyful greeting to the divine king coming to

30 Is. 52, io is borrowed from Psalms 98, 1-3, and not the reverse

as maintained by critics who consider these psalms as post-exilic.




judgment. The blowing of the shofar in the Synagogue is a

cry of supplication to the divine judge on His New Year'sday for mercy. The difference stems from the varying con-

ception of the nature and purpose of the judgment. In the

psalms, the judgment is a general trial of the earth and the

nations inhabiting it which is to bring salvation to Israel

"Zion heard and was glad, the daughters of Judah rejoiced

because of the judgments, 0 Lord" (97, 8); "He hath re-

membered His mercy and His faithfulness towards the house

of Israel, all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation ofour God" (98, 3). In the Synagogue the judgment is a trial of

individuals, including the Jewish worshipper. The fate of the

individual is to be fixed for the New Year, and the worshipper

prays the divine judge for mercy and forgiveness. The dif-

ference does not signify a different origin. It only marks a

later stage of development in keeping with the growing sense

of personal sin and failure which characterized later Judaism.

We thus conclude that the group of Psalms 95-99 formed a

liturgy for the festival of the New Year as celebrated in the

First Temple of which the Synagogue ritual for that day is

the direct descendant. Both the psalmodic liturgy as well

as the Synagogue ritual are implicit in the Mosaic command

to celebrate the seventh New Moon by a teru'ah or by a

memorial of a teru'ah. Why then does not the Mosaic law

call the festival by its specific name, the festival of the NewYear, as known in the living tradition of the people? The

only feasible answer is that the law purposely refrained from

using this name because in the Mosaic age, this name still

had a strong pagan connotation. The New Year was known to

Israel in Egypt, and more especially to the descendants of the

Mesopotamian immigrants, as the great festival of paganism

with its heathen rites and ceremonies so utterly hateful to the

lawgiver. It may be conjectured that through the influence of atradition of Mesopotamia, where in some parts the New Year

was celebrated in autumn, the beginning of the year was

reckoned by Israel in Egypt from the New Moon of the seventh



246 THT J1EWISH QUARTERLY REVIEhW

month, the month of Tishri (which in Accadian has the meaning

of beginning), and that in accordance with the faith ofAbraham in God as the creator the New Moon of Tishri was

associated already by Israel in Egypt with the creation of the

world. The Mosaic law sanctioned briefly the popular cele-

bration of that special New Moon without calling it by the

then heathen name of New Year. But the religious genius of

the people gradually developed further the significance of the

day as the manifestation of the divine kingship and of divine

judgment, this latter idea stimulated perhaps (as we shall seelater) by Mesopotamian influence.

The assumption that the reckoning of the New Year from

Tishri was an established custom of Israel in Egypt offers

the only reasonable explanation of the anomaly that the

Jewish New Year began with the New Moon of the seventh

month and not with the New Moon of the first month. Ac-

cording to Exodus I2, 2 the month of the exodus (Nisan)

was ordained as the first of the months of the year. And indeed

all the lists of the festivals in the Pentateuch begin with the-

festival of Nisan, passover, thus in the list of the festvials

of pilgrimage to the sanctuary (Ex. 23, I5; 34, i8) Deut. i6, i),

in the list of sacred days (Lev. 23, 5), and in the list of festal

sacrifices (Num. 28, i6; cf. also Ez. 45, 2I). But the year never

began in Nisan, but in the first month of autumn. This isclear from the popular description of the Succoth festival as

being "at the going out (end) of the year", "at the going

round of the year" (Ex. 23, i6; 34, 22). Again the year of the

Jubilee begins with the seventh month near the time of the

Harvest and vintage of the aftermath and before the time of

sowing. And that was also the beginning of the year of re-

lease (Lev. 25, 9-II 4-5). The theory of the critics that the

institution of Nisan as the first of the months of the year

was equivalent to the institution of Nisan as the beginning

of the year, and that this was an innovation introduced by

the priestly exilic writer in imitation of the Babylonian New




Year's festival in Nisan is quite unacceptable. 31 A writer

in the Babylonian exile, and especially a priest, could notpossibly have put in the mouth of his God a command to

Moses and Aaron, to observe a custom borrowed from the

pagan festival of Merodach. Moreover the institution of the

years of Jubilee and release also belongs according to the

critics to the same document of P(in the form of the 'Book of

Holiness'), and they still begin in autumn. Again Ex. I2, 2

must be older than the exile, since the older documents (ac-

cording to the theory of the critics), E in Ex. 23, i6, J in Ex.34, 22, and D in Deut. i6, i, all begin their calendar of festivals

with the month of Nisan as commanded in Ex. I2, 2. The

truth is that already in Egypt the institution of the New Year

in autumn was so well established in Israel that at the time

of the exodus Nisan could only be made the first of the

months, but not the beginning of the year.

The New Year's festival on the first day of the seventh

month is followed in the Mosaic law by another festival on

the tenth day of the seventh month. Unlike the New Year's

festival, the other festival is given in the law its particular

name, the Day of Atonement, and its observance and purpose

are described clearly by the law (Lev. 23, 27-32; cf. Num.

29, IO). Moreover, the law devoted a special chapter to a de-

tailed description of the solemn ceremonies, to the strict ob-

servance and to the spiritual significance of the day. This isLeviticus i6 which in its place forms the concluding section of

the part of the Book of Leviticus which deals with the various

impurities, impurities of animals, impurities of the human

body, of human clothing and of the h,uman dwelling, and

their purification (Lev. II-I5). Chapter i6 concluding this

part of the book enjoins the purification on the Day of Atone-

ment of the sanctuary from the impurities which may have been

brought into it by the people and the purification of the peoplefrom the spiritual impurities of their sins. It is linked to the

previous chapters by the verse at the end of the preceding31 Wellhause, Pyolegomerta (i899), p. I07, and so all his foHowers.




chapter: "And ye shall separate the children of Israel from

their uncleanness that they die not in their uncleanness when

they defile my tabernacle that is among them" (Lev. I5, 3I).

The chapter describes firstly ritual of the purification by the

High Priest of the sanctuary from defilement introduced into

it by the people (i6, 3-I9); secondly the ritual of the trans-

ference by the confession of the High priest of the sins of the

people to the scapegoat, and the removal of the sins by the

banishment of the scapegoat into a "a land cut off from human

habitation" (or: from the providence of God, rri? rfl vv. 20-22),and thirdly the participation of the people in the task of puri-

fication and of atonement of their sins by the observance on

the day of a strict rest and a fast (vv. 29-34). Physical un-

cleanness passes naturally into spiritual impurity and both

are removed by the priestly ritual combined with the penance

of the people.

The ritual of the scapegoat sent "away to Azazel into the

wilderness" (v. io) has been a subject of much debate andspeculation among commentators. Modern critics, who assign

the chapter to a late priestly writer after Ezra, 32 consider

the ritual to be a survival of the worship of the demons.

Azazel is the prince of the se'irim which we discussed in a

previous section (Section IX). But it is incredible that such

a bold demonological sacrifice could have been introduced

into the worship of the second temple after Ezra. It is also

incredible that a priestly writer would have embodied in

the Book of Leviticus a divine command to offer a sacrifice

to a demon just immediately before the divine oracle in

chapter I7 denouncing sacrifices to the se'irim.

32 This view is based upon Nehemiah 9, I, where it is related that a

special fast and day of mourning was held on the twenty-fourth day of

the seventh month (cf. ibid. 7, 73). It is argued that if the tenth day

of that seventh month had been observed as the fast of the Day ofAtonement there would have been no need for holding a special fast

on the twenty-fourth day. But this argument is fallacious. The Day of

Atonement is not only a fast but also a holy festival on which mourning

in sackcloth with earth upon the head is strictly prohibited.




The connection of Azazel with the se'irim was already

expressed in enigmatic language in the twelfth century by

the rationalist Ibn Ezra in his commentary to our passage,

and adopted a century later by the mystic commentator

Nachmanides (Ramban) who attributed it to the ancient

Rabbis. But this view is quite untenable. As Ibn Ezra himself

points out, the scapegoat is not treated in the text as a sa-

crifice. This is an important fact which has to be borne in mind

by the exegete. The text does not say that the scapegoat is to

be killed. It is to be sent away, or banished (nh', in the Pi'el),carrying away on its head the sins of Israel to a desert loca-

lity. It is to be let free in the open desert removing the sins

and their impurity far away from human habitation and from

the sight of God, even as the leper's live bird and in the live

bird, the ritual of the infected house, carry away the impurity

into the open field away from human habitation (Lev. I4, 7

53). Therefore the scapegoat cannot be a sacrifice to a demon,

as held by the critics, or even a gift to Satan (as maintained byNachmanides on the authority of a late pseudepigraphical

Midrash) in order to induce him to refrain from accusing

Israel before God on the Day of Atonement. 33

Azazel also engaged the attention of the Rabbis in the

Talmud. They explained Azazel as the name of a certain

locality, as if meaning a rough and difficult eminence. 3 This

interpretation is given in explanation of the statement in

Mishnah Yoma 6, 4 6 that the scapegoat was led away from

Jerusalem to a steep cliff (jpi) from the top of which it was

pushed down and dismembered. This is a Midrashic exegesis

to give Scriptural authority to the method adopted in the

second temple of disposing of the scapegoat. It was killed

apparently to prevent its returning alive with the load of

the sins on its head. But, as we have seen, this was not the

original intention of the text which meant the animal to roam

33 Pirqe d'R. Eliezer ch. 46.34 MTT1J,compound of Tfl),fierce, rough and strong. This interpre-

tation is reproduced in Targum Jonathan, Leviticus i6, io.

'7




about freely in the desert eventually to meet its naturaldeath.

Another more interesting explanation of Azazel is offeredin the same passage of the Talmud where we read: "Azazel

atones for the deeds of Uzza and Azel." This treats the name

7vgmas if spelt 7788, and as a compoundof nv and 778. On

this Rashi ad loc. 35commentsas follows:"Uzza and Azael are

demonic angels who came down to the earth in the days of

Naamah the sister of Tubal Cain (Gen. 4, 22). Of them it is

said that the sons of God saw the daughters of men (Gen. 6, 2),

that is to say (Azazel)atones for the sins of incest", viz. com-mitted in Israel similarto the sins of Uzza and Azael with the

daughtersof men. The story of these two fallen angels is given

in some detail in late Midrashiccompilations36 in which Uzza

is represented as having repented and been forgiven whereas

Azazel persisted in his iniquity. He is accused of having in-

vented colorful garments for women to tempt men to sin.

Another much older source for the story of Azazel (Azazel) isfound in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch.37 There Azael is num-

bered the tenth in the list of the fallen angels. Later in that

book he is calledAzazel and he is representedas having taught

men the making of weapons and of adornments and embel-

lishments for women to entice men. Then at the commandof

God Azazel was bound hand and foot by the angel Raphael

and thrown into darkness through an opening in the wilder-

ness of Dudael where he was coveredwith heavy sharprocksand imprisoned forever.

These myths are of course post-biblical and late, but they

may go back to an antique source.The story in Genesis6, I-4

is evidently fragmentary. It must have had a sequel relating

the penalties imposedupon the rebelliousangels. Oneof them

may have been the Azazel of the scapegoat.(Thespelling~Txrv

for an originalbXTTWay be merelya scribalchangeto hide the

35 Rashi's comment is derived from Deuteronomy Rabba ch. i i end.36 Yalqut Shim'oni, Genesis 44; Jellinek, Beth Hamidrash, iv, p.

127 ff.; Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim p. 249 f.

37 Charles, Pseudepigrapha, pp. I9I, 192, 193, 220,



RELIGION OF ISRAEL-SEGAL 25I

angelic origin of the demon). The sequel may have told how

Azazel was banished and imprisoned in a desert from which

there is no return. To such a desert must be sent the scape-

goat with the sins of Israel on its head. Azazel in our text may

thus signify (as the ancient Rabbis assumed) the name of a

locality named after the demon, the land and prison home of

Azazel, a figurative name of a desert from which there can be

no return, equivalent to the other unique and symbolic name

of that locality rrin r- (v. 22).

In the Mosaic law there is no explicit indication 38 of aconnection between the festival of the New Year and of the

Day of Atonement, but in popular tradition as preserved in

Talmudic literature and more especially in the liturgy of

the Synagogue, the two festivals are represented as parts of

one whole. In popular tradition, the first ten days of Tishri

form a special season of which the New Year is the beginning

and the Day of Atonement is the culminating conclusion. We

read in the Talmud 39 as follows: "Three books are opened on

New Year's day, one of the perfectly righteous, one of the

completely wicked, and one of the intermediate class; the

perfectly righteous are immediately inscribed and sealed unto

life; the completely wicked are immediately inscribed and

sealed unto death; the intermediate class are given a respite

for the ten days of repentance until the Day of Atonement; if

they repent they are inscribed unto life with the righteous; ifnot, they are inscribed unto death with the wicked." The pic-

ture of books being opened in the judgment of heaven is found

also in Daniel 7, IO: "The judgment was set, and the books

were opened". And the Mishnah speaks of the recording in the

books of heaven of the actions of man on earth: "All thy deeds

are written in the book", "The ledger lies open and the hand

38 But perhaps the particle IN (howbeit, or: verily) at the open-ing of the paragraph on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 23, 27, mayimply a connection of the two festivals: cf. the lengthy discussion ofthe particle in Ramban ad loc.

39 B. Rosh Hashona i6b; Yer ibid. i. 3 in a more original wording.

I7*




writes" (Aboth 2, I; 2, 20). This is an old conception. 40 The

prophets speak of the deeds of the righteous and of the wicked

being written before God (Mal. 3, i6; Isa. 65, 6; cf. Neh. I3,

I4). Even more ancient is the conception that the fate of man

upon earth is dependent upon the contents of books in heaven.

Already Moses prayed: "Blot me, I pray thee, out of the book

which thou hast written", to which God replied: "Whosoever

hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book" (Ex.

32, 32-33). This is the book of life (or: the living) spoken of by

the prophet and the psalmist and the seer (Isa. 4, 3; Psalms69, 29; Dan. I2, I).

The symbolism of the three books opened in heaven on the

New Year illustrates the profound spiritual and practical

significance with which in the course of generations the

religious genius of Israel invested the opening of the New

Year. The old doctrine of a judgment on the first day of

the year together with the Mosaic doctrine of an atonement

on the tenth day of the year and the prophetic doctrine ofrepentance, all combined in Judaism to dedicate the first

ten days of the year to a religious rehabilitation and to

a spiritual regeneration. For the few in number in the two

extremes of righteous and wicked, the judgment on the New

Year's day is decisive and final, but for the intermediate

class, which embraces the vast majority of mankind, the

grace of ten days is granted within which man is given the

opportunity of a spiritual recovery by means of a strenuous

personal effort so as to become worthy of being included

in the class of the righteous. The purification and atonement

on the tenth day are not accomplished by the ritual of the

priest unless the ritual is accompanied by a strict rest and

fasting by the people which form the culmination of a ten days

growing exercise in 'repentance and good deeds'.

This prolongation of the Israelite New Year for ten days40 It is frequently referred to in Apocrythal literature and in the

NT., e.g. Ethiopic Enoch 47, 3; Jubilees 32, 30, 2; Apocalypse 20, 12,

et cet.




into the Day of Atonement has a parallel in Mesopotamian

culture. As mentioned above, the celebration of theBabylonian New Year which fell in spring also lasted ten days

from the second to the eleventh of Nisan. There are also

other more or less significantsimilarities between the Israelite

celebration of these festivals and the celebration of the older

and parallel festivals in Mesopotamia.At Nippur4l the gods

cast lots on the New Year to fix the fate of the world and its

creatures in the coming year. Similarly at Babylon during

the ten days celebrationof the New Year, Merodachpresided

over a council of the gods and fixed the fate of the year in

accordancewith the primeval tables of destiny which he had

captured from Kingu the vanquished leader of the hosts of

Chaos. The ancient text alluded to above 42 which describes

the elaborate ritual of the Babylonian New Year contains

also other noteworthy details which have a bearing upon the

study of the Mosaic ritual. Thus on the fourth day of Nisan,the chief officiating priest (uriqallu) reads in front of the

statue of Merodachin his temple the complete text of the

so-called 'Epic of Creation' (Enuma Elish) 43 which relates

how Merodachdefeated the forces of Tiamat under the leader-

ship of her husband Kingu, how Merodachwas made king of

the gods, how he created the orderly world with man in it.

From this, it may be inferred that the Babylonian New Year

was also associated with divine kingship and with the divinecreation of the world and of man. On the fifth day of Nisan,

the ritual of Kuppuru (nion) the purification from all defile-

ment of the temple of Merodachand of the adjoining santuary

of his son Nebo. For this purpose a slaughtering priest is

summoned who bringsa sheep and cuts off ist head and wipes

with it the temple, while the exorcist priest pronouncesin-

cantations against the demon, the enemy of Merodach, and

against all his sorceries. The exorcist and the slaughtererthen

41 Cf. Ch. F. Jean, Religion Sumerienne (1931), P. 170-I.

42 Apud Pritchard I.c.43 Ibid. p. 6o ff.




carry away the sheep and exorcist casts the sheep into the

river and the slaughterercasts the head into the river, andboth depart to a field where they remain unclean for seven

days. During the performanceof the ritual of the kuppuruthe

chief officiating priest is not permitted to remain within the

temple (and, it may be assumed,much less any other person).

This recalls the prohibitionof the presenceof any man in the

sanctuary on the Day of Atonement during the performance

of the ritualby the High Priest and the uncleannessof the man

who carriesaway the scapegoatand of those who burn the sinofferings (Lev. i6, I7 26 28).

These rather superficial similarities may be fortuitous,

stemming from a common civilization, without involving a

direct or indirect influence from the older on the younger

ritual. The fact that the Babylonian New Year was kept in

spring and the Israelite New Year in autumn shows that

Babylon did not influence the Mosaic festival. But this doesnot exclude the possibleinfiltration into the Mosaicfestival of

ideas derived from other Mesopotamiancentres. The custom

of beginningthe year in autumn could not have been original

in a pastoral people like Israel in Egypt. It must have been

borrowedfrom an agriculturalcivilization such as prevailed

inmost partsofMesopotamia.Thepurificationofthe sanctuary

at the beginningof the year, practised both in Babylon and in

Israel, may have been in vogue also in other centres ofMesopotamia. The determination of the fate of the world

on the New Year was ascribed to the gods also at Nippur

as well as at Babylon, and may have been a popular belief

also elsewhere in Mesopotamia. The ideas also of a divine

creation and a divine kingship were familiar conceptions in

ancient Mesopotamia.Thus it may be conjectured that the

principalbeliefs associated with these two festivals in Judaism

were alreadywell knownin ancient Israel in Egypt from their

Mesopotamian heritage.

But of far greater importance than the similarities are

the profound differences between the Israelite festivals and




the Mesopotamian festival of the New Year. The detailed des-

cription of the Babylonian celebration may be taken as moreor less typical of the New Year celebrations in other centres of

Mesopotamia. The Babylonian celebration is steeped comple-

tely in magic. It is based on the doctrine of an uninterrupted

continuation of the primeval war between the good of the gods

and the evil of the demons, waged on both sides with the

weapons of a deadly magic. In the primeval war the more

powerful magic of Merodach gave him the victory over the

hosts of Tiamat, but he was powerless to annihilate them. They

continue the struggle by introducing defilement into the

temple of Merodach king of the gods. The defilement is re-

moved on the New Year by a magic ritual and by powerful

incantations of an exorcist. In the Mosaic law the One God

is the sole ruler of all the forces in existence. The struggle

between good and evil centers solely in man. The defilement

of the sanctuary is caused by man and his sins, and the puri-

fication of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement can only be

completely effected by the accompanying purification of man

in which man himself must assist by his penance. The Mosaic

law does indeed also know of a demon, Azazel, but he is not

engaged in a struggle against God. He is only one of God's

ministering angels who like man fell to temptation and was

banished for his sins. At Nippur and at Babylon, the fate of

the world and of man is decided by the blind lot of the tablesof destiny which are older than the gods and to which the gods

themselves have to submit. In Israel, the fate of man and of the

world is decided by the righteous judgment of the Supreme

Judge in accordance with the deserts of man. If the Israelite

New Year and Day of Atonement do recall reminiscences of old

Mesopotamian material their lofty spirituality forms another

illustration, alongside of the Sabbath and circumcision and

the like, of the power of the Abrahamic faith to create out

of primitive dross noble religious institutions of supreme

value to mankind.

We have reached the end of our investigation. Our study




has demonstrated how misguided and misleading are the

attempts of modern biblical scholarship to trace the begin-nings of Israel and of Israel's religion to Arabian or to Ca-

naanite origins. Our study has shown that Israel originated in

Mesopotamia and that it preserved much of its Mesopotamian

heritage. To explain Israel's beginnings, Israel must be set

in a Mesopotamian background. But thus does not mean to say

that Israel's religion can be explained in Mesopotamian terms.

The reverse is true. Israel's God did not arise out of a Baby-

lonian pantheon, any more than out of an Egyptian or an

Arabian or a Canaanite pantheon. The God of Israel is alone,

"without beginning and without end", unexplainable in our

woefully inadequate human terms. It means to say that the

recognition of the One God by Abraham was a revolt against

Mesopotamian culture, the beginning of a revolution in the

long story of old Sumer and Accad, destined in the fullness of

time to bring about the downfall of the mighty system of theiridolatry. The downfall was slow in coming. The prophets in

the Neo-Babylonian age saw it coming in their vision of the

approaching fall of Babylon: "Bel is confounded, Merodach

is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images

are broken in pieces" (Jer. 50, 2); "Bel boweth down, Nebo

stoopeth .... they are a burden with the weary.... they

stoop, they bow down together" (Isa. 46, I-2). But their hope

was doomed to disappointment. Today polytheism and ido-

latry in various forms still hold sway in the world. But Israel's

faith and Israel's Bible also hold sway in the world. The

struggle will continue through the ages until at last Abraham's

faith is realized and "the Lord will be One and His name One".

Documents

The Religion of Israel Before Sinai Continued)