Chapter Ten

Place Stumbling Blocks Before the Blind

A Textual Stumbling Block

So far we have examined only the first eight of the texts fifteen pericopes. Understanding the structure of the remaining seven depends on having discovered the organizing principle of the first eight. The structure of the seven remaining pericopes is totally inaccessible until the first eight have been organized as two parallel blocks of text. I want to emphasize the importance of this point for two reasons. Firstly, this is further evidence of the use of literary complexity in order to create an esoteric text. The tables are totally invisible to the casual reader, let alone a public that only hears it read aloud once in seven years. Secondly, and even more problematic for the modern reader, it leads to the discovery of stumbling blocks placed before the “blind” reader, one not privy to the esoteric nature of the text. These stumbling blocks are the very same rules of organization that led to the discovery of the partial tablets we have been examining.

 In a very unsportsmanlike way, the text changes the rules in the middle of the game. The distinction between “I am the Lord” and “I am the Lord your God” is no longer significant in the second half of the chapter. It was useful only for a limited time, until the first eight pericopes were ordered in parallel blocks of four. It then became apparent that they were in fact organized according to more substantial, content related principles. Once this point is established, the distinction between the forms of closure is no longer significant and self-destructs. It plays no part in deciphering the structure of the seven remaining pericopes. The reader who tries to utilize it in the second half of the chapter finds that it has become a stumbling block to further progress. This is the point I am about to demonstrate. When I finish, we will have even clearer proof that we are dealing with an esoteric text.

The Format of the Last Seven Pericopes

We are heading into a fairly technical piece of analysis. I want to present an outline of how the rest of Lev. 19 connects with the first eight pericopes. This will enable us to begin speaking about the whole chapter without getting too bogged down in detail for now. Rather than drag you through a painfully detailed description of how I reached enlightenment, I will simply present the final arrangement of the chapter in the form of a table. Then I will explain why this format represents the way the parts of the chapter connect to each other. Before I show the whole text in its tabular form, I will present it schematically.

Table 13. Schematic View of Lev. 19 in Tabular Form

The last seven of our original 15 pericopes, 9-15 in the table, divide into three sets, one containing a single pericope, 9, and two sets containing three pericopes each, 10-12 and 13-15. The two sets of three pericopes continue the columns of the table established by the first eight. The remaining single pericope functions as punctuation, separating the upper four pericopes of each column from the lower three. Now that the tabular arrangement is clear, I am going to confuse things a bit by replacing the numbers, 1-15, of the pericopes with other designators. I know that this might seem gratuitous at first so let me explain why it is necessary.

General Principles of Tabular Texts

All of Leviticus, certain legal codes in Exodus and Deuteronomy, as well as the Mishnah, compose a literary genre. All of these ancient Hebrew religious/legal documents are non-linear and best viewed as tables. I have already published the Mishnah, which consists of over five hundred chapters, in tabular form. Each of the chapters is a separate table. This format expresses the conceptual relationships between the parts of the chapters. In order to understand this last point, and relate it to our text, let’s look at a simple table, one consisting of two rows and two columns.

The columns of the table are marked L and R. The rows are marked 1 and 2. We have already seen that the first eight pericopes divide into two parallel sets. We are about to see that the last six divide in a similar way. They divide according the same subject matter division we found in the first eight. The first three pericopes of the second group deal with religious matters and the next three with civil matters. Let’s just ignore pericope number 9 for the moment and place the first eight and the last six in our two-row table.

All of the pericopes in column L have something in common (religious laws) and so do all the pericopes in column R (civil laws). This is why the tabular presentation makes more “sense” than a linear reading. Now let us add the fact that each of the rows, just like the columns, also has a unique characteristic. That means that each one of the four separate boxes that make up the table is a unique compound composed of the characteristic of its column and the characteristic of its row. Let me try to clarify this last point by representing it symbolically.

 Each box is a unique combination of what characterizes its row (1 or 2) and what characterizes its column (L or R). It may be useful to think of the table in terms of Cartesian coordinates applied to conceptual space. Each individual point (box in the table) is defined as the intersection of two “lines” of thought, its row, and its column. This is the essential characteristic of the entire genre of tabular texts and the reason why I am about to change the way I represent the pericopes. From now on I will use only the tabular designators for the pericopes.

Since there is more than one pericope in each box of the table, the designator will have three elements. The first element, a number from 1-3 represents the row number. The second element is the column designator, L for left, M for middle, and R for right. The third designator is a letter from A-D indicating the ordered place of the pericope within its tabular box. For example, 3RB directs us to the second pericope (B) in the right-hand (R) column of row three (3). I will use this system for labeling all the tables of Leviticus in the second section of this book. Let’s now put pericope 9 back into our table as the middle row and see what our whole chapter looks like.

As I will explain in the next chapter, pericope 9 has three separate parts. They appear in the table as 2L, 2M, and 2R. In order to ease the transition from the linear designators (numbers 1-15) to the tabular designators, I will place the linear number in square brackets [1] next to the pericope in the tabular arrangement of the Lev. 19 that follows.  

Table 14. Leviticus 19 Arranged According to its structure

The text is presented above as a table composed of three rows marked 1-3. The first eight pericopes are in line 1. The columns are marked L and R for left and right and M for middle. The order of reading is the same as the normal order by verses beginning with 1L A-D and continuing with 1R A-D. Although line 2 is subdivided into three columns with three divisions, A-C, in each column, it is all just one pericope according to the rule of “I am the Lord” endings. The text indicates that we must read the three diverse subjects, forbidden mixtures, the engaged slave woman, and first fruits, as a single block since there is only one “I am the Lord.” The third row has three pericopes in each of its two columns. They do not follow the formal rule of line 1; each column contains elements ending both, “I am the Lord” and “I am the Lord your God”. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that pericopes 10-12, which are 3LA-C in the table, are a continuation of 1L, dealing with ritual. Similarly, pericopes 13-15, 3RA-C, continue the civil matters of 1R.

The Torah Reveals Itself

This is the point on the hike when the leader says “everyone stop and drink some water.” We have gotten past the steepest part of the climb and can look down to appreciate the view from above. We can now appreciate the complex process of “revelation” within the text. Let’s review the steps. In order to emphasize just how many levels of order there are in the Torah, I’ll begin from the first division.

The Torah is divided into five books.

The five books focus on Leviticus

The book of Leviticus is divided into units, primarily according to divine speeches. Chapter 19, which consists of one whole speech, is in the center of Leviticus.

The chapter is formally subdivided into 15 parts by the closure phrase “I am the Lord”

The phrase has two variations.

The first eight pericopes divide into consecutive blocks of four according to the variants of the closure phrase.

When the two blocks are compared, it becomes apparent that they are not only formal units, but also content units.

The last six pericopes reveal themselves as two consecutive blocks of three according to the content rule of the first eight. They do not follow formal rule of the closure phrase.

One single pericope stands out as the fulcrum of the text.

The central pericope has its own complex structure based purely on content.

The rest of this chapter is devoted to a detailed explanation of step 8. The next chapter will discuss points 9 and 10. You might have noticed that I have begun using the term “revelation” as in “the text reveals itself.” This is not by chance nor for lack of a better term (although at my age it is not impossible that I have forgotten better words.) It is not possible to speak about any author’s intention, only about what he has actually written. The text speaks for itself. It would appear that the text we are reading has been constructed in such a way as to conceal its message while providing clues for the reader intent on hearing it. The imagery of locks and keys fits here. The inner text is within a series of locked doors. Each step of our analysis opened a door that revealed what lay within it. So far, each door has revealed another and provided a key to unlock it. This “revelation in stages” seems to be in the nature of the text itself and not in the analysis. The “revelation” of line 3 is the clearest example of this process.

In chapter 2 I discussed the way in which reading the Torah as a non-linear text makes additional meanings available. Row 3 is another example of this principle. When the material of this row is read as part of a continuum, a linear text, there is no basis to associate any of its parts with each other. There are no obvious subjects or legal categories that can explain this specific series of laws or lead to the principles of their organization. Only row 1 in our table can do that. Only after row 1 has been established as a conceptual unit, can row 3 reveal itself. I will begin discussing row 3 as a content unit in chapter 5. For now, I will limit the discussion to the formal connection between rows 1 and 3. In order to clarify the links between row 1 and row 3 I will present each column separately.

By looking at the tables, it is easy enough to see the similarity of content between rows 1 and 3. The parallel columns of each row have numerous linguistic links. Closer inspection discloses a striking fact. Each and every pericope in line 3 contains a linguistic link to a pericope in its own column in row 1. For example, 3LC begins “Do not turn to.” In the same column of row 1, 1LC begins “Do not turn to.” This is the literary device that guarantees the association of the two rows. Here are the six parallels.

Linguistic Parallels
Between the First and Third Rows of the Table

There are several parallels between these two pericopes. The most obvious is the repetition of “you shall keep my sabbaths.” Reverence for parents in 1L is replaced by reverence for the Lord’s sanctuary in 3L. The family framework of parents and child in 1L continues in 3L with “your daughter.”

The phrase “Do not turn to” opens both units. The objects in both are supernatural powers.

If there were even the slightest doubt that the peace offering and gleanings of 1L should be read as a single unit, a triple link to 3L serves to remove that doubt. Both pericopes discuss eating meat. Both have the Hebrew “Nefesh,” soul; “that person (nefesh) shall be cut off” in 1L and “on account of the dead (nefesh)” in 3L. The third parallel also involves a Hebrew term that is translated in two different senses, peah. It refers to the edges of the field in 1L, “you shall not reap your field to its very border,” and the edges of the head in 3L, “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.”

The fear of God is mentioned in both pericopes. The context is also similar, attitudes towards others with specific physical characteristics.

Although there are two different English words here, “injustice,” and “wrong,” the Hebrew is identical in both pericopes.

In both pericopes we are told to love another as ourselves. There is also the similarity between “the sons of your own people” and “the native among you.”

I have no doubt that some readers will say that it is hard to imagine that ancient readers and writers could have involved themselves with such tedious details. I believe that this conceptual difficulty is one of the factors that make esoteric writing possible. The very fact that a text is a laborious read restricts its audience to those who will invest the effort required to plummet its depths. Since I proposed reading Leviticus as an esoteric text, I am following what I consider to be the author’s trail of crumbs. The details of the way row 1 is reflected in row 3 will play a crucial role in deciphering the master plan of the chapter in a later stage of this analysis.

The evidence we have gathered so far connecting the two rows entitles us to make yet another connection, one that might otherwise seem dubious. In order to create the parallel, I have divided verse 19 and separated  “You shall keep my statutes” from the following pericope. Rather than reading it as an introduction to the laws against mixing varieties, I read it as the close of row 1. This creates a parallel with the closing line of row 3, “And you shall observe all my statutes and all my ordinances and do them.” A single Hebrew verb, shamor, has been rendered “keep” in verse 19 and “observe” in the parallel text in verse 37. In any case, it is quite clear that the parallel texts do indeed close their respective rows. This would seem to indicate that the ancient scholar who was responsible for dividing the text into the verses that we use, was either unaware of the esoteric text we have begun to decipher, or chose to make it all the less accessible.