The Stone Tablets of Leviticus 19

Introduction

Previous Readings

In his introduction to Leviticus 19 Jacob Milgrom says: “The structure of chap. 19 usually suggested is that it comprises three sections that can be subdivided into sixteen units, each closed by "I YHWH".” According to this view the formula, “I YHWH” is used to define the structural units of the chapter. Following Wenham, Milgrom then subdivides these sixteen units into three blocks: religious duties, 1‑4; ethical duties, 5‑8; miscellaneous duties, 9‑16. He further notes that units 1‑4 end with “I YHWH,” while 5‑8 end with the longer form “I YHWH your God.” In other words, the units containing religious duties have a different closing formula than the units containing ethical duties. The miscellaneous units have a mixture of the two endings. The fact that the first eight units display a correlation between content and closing formula suggests that the pattern may be significant in the structure of the chapter. Milgrom, however, dismisses this possibility by adopting Schwartz's view that the formula does not mark the ends of all the units in Leviticus 19, concluding: "Thus the units in this chapter are to be decided strictly by their content." In this article, I will explore the alternative that Milgrom and Schwartz rejected, that the ending formula does in fact determine the units of the chapter.

I will present an integrated reading of nearly the whole of Leviticus 19 based on the formula divisions. As Douglas has pointed out, division by literary device is a priori preferable to division by fiat: "Everything depends on how clearly the units of structure are identified." One must make every attempt to understand the author’s devices before denying their significance. (I will demonstrate in the course of this paper that the literary complexity of the text indicates that we should consider it authored rather than edited or redacted.) Regarding content divisions, we might add from Douglas: "Semantic structures give a great deal of scope for arbitrary and subjective patternings… critics will not be convinced unless the alleged parallelism is supported by verbal evidence, such as marking the structural units by the exact repetitions which had led earlier students to suppose the editor was nodding." Chapter 19 is replete with such repetitions, for example “keep my Sabbaths” in vv. 3 and 30; “fear your God” vv. 14, 32; “You shall not do injustice in judgment” vv. 15, 35. The solution that I will present accounts for these repetitions, and others, as part of the plan of the chapter.

No reading of chapter 19 is complete without considering the significance of elements of the Decalogue that appear in this chapter. However, due to the length of this article, I have deferred the examination of the connection between Leviticus 19 and the Decalogue to a future article. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the structure I will present consists of ten units arranged in pairs across two “stone tablets”.

The Plan

I have divided the analysis into three sections. In the first section, I will demonstrate that the first eight units consist of two blocks of four units each, as indicated by Schwartz. I will add to his reading that the two blocks form inverted parallels. Each of the blocks contains a progression of ideas from unit to unit. In one block, the progression is from good to bad, while the progression in the other block is the opposite, from bad to good. In the second section, I will analyze the last seven units according to Milgrom’s division, which are six units according to my reading. I will demonstrate that the six units divide into two parallel blocks of three units each. Each block of three is closely connected to one of the blocks of four units by a set of linguistic hooks. When each of the three unit blocks is appended to its similar four-unit block, it continues the progression identified in the first section. I will conclude that the underlying structure of the chapter consists of two parallel seven-unit blocks that create inverse conceptual progressions.

A unit consisting of verses 19b-26, unit 9, separates the two linear divisions of the chapter, the first eight units and the last six. This anomalous unit will be the subject of a separate article.

The third section is devoted to a close reading of the two seven-unit blocks. This reading reveals an additional level of organization within the chapter, a level that cannot be seen until the two seven unit blocks are examined in parallel. I will show that the two parallel blocks are composed of five consecutive textual pairs.

Each of the five pairs exhibits both a structural parallel and a content parallel. The two parallels reinforce each other and create similar progressions from pair to pair. The structural parallels create a process of separation from pair to pair by progressing in stages from inseparable internal elements in pair A, to fully articulated and separated internal elements in pair E. The parallel conceptual progression flows from an inseparable link with God in pair A to a total separation from God in pair E.

Section One: The Structure of Units 1‑8

Table 1 The First Eight Units

I have arranged the first eight units in two columns. The first four units, [1‑4] appear in the left, L, column and the next four, [5‑8] in the right column, R. The four units on the left close with the formula “אני יהוה אלהיכם ”, and the four on the right close “אני יהוה ”. There is another formal element, not reported by Milgrom, which appears in the columns, in addition to the ending formulae. All of the units in column R begin with “לא ”. None of the units in column L begins with this word. Therefore, the units are locked into the columns both by their openings and by their closings.

I have made only one change to Milgrom’s divisions. I have placed v.19a, “את חקתי תשמרו ” at the end of unit [8] rather than at the beginning of unit [9]. This placement makes unit [8] the structural parallel of unit [4]. Both of these units now have two apparently independent pericopes, a and b. In both cases the second pericope appears to be out of place, since the content of each “b” element seems more appropriate to the opposite column. I will deal with this point at greater length later.

In the following discussion as well as in other sections of this analysis, the closing formula is not considered part of the unit proper, with the exception of unit [1]. Therefore, we can say, for example, that God does not appear in units [3] and [7]. I have given the columns the headings “usually suggested” according to Milgrom, “religious duties” on the left and “ethical duties” on the right. Even a cursory examination can reveal one of the reasons why Milgrom ultimately rejected these categories. The left column contains “איש אמו ואביו תיראו ”, and “לעני ולגר תעזב אתם ”. Both of these are more “ethical” than “religious”. In the right column, we find “וחללת את שם אלהיך ” and “ויראת מאלהיך ”. What makes these “ethical” rather than “religious”? Is there, then, any justification for classifying the two groups of four units by these, or any other, categories?

The author has used obvious and redundant rhetorical devices, the opening and closing formulae, in order to divide the first eight units into two groups of four, so we should make an effort to determine whether the distinction is meaningful. There is clearly a difference between the contents of the groups, even if not exactly according to the proposed dyad. Matters of ritual appear only in the left‑hand column. Antisocial behaviors appear only in the right‑hand column. Therefore, we can see that there is an apparent content distinction, parallel to the rhetorical distinctions, and that it does have some connection to the dyad “religious” and “ethical”. By looking more closely at the exceptions to these two classes of “duties”, we will be able to describe the distinction between the groups more clearly.

The two significant exceptions to the rule of “religious” in L are leaving the gleanings for the poor and reverence of parents. Both of these are limited private acts. Concerning the gleanings, the text says, “לעני ולגר תעזב אתם .” They are not given to the poor; they must be left for the poor to pick for themselves. The owner of the field is required to leave something in the field when he harvests. Therefore, there is no direct contact with an “other” besides parents in column L. This observation sharpens the distinction between the columns. After taking into account the apparent exceptions, we can modify the subject of column L to “private acts” as opposed to the civil concerns of R. This is reinforced by the exceptions in R.

There are references to God in three of the units of column R: [4], “ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר וחללת את שם אלהיך ”; [5], “ויראת מאלהיך ”; [8], “את חקתי תשמרו .” None of these mentions rituals or worship. They all relate to God as the ultimate guarantor of social order. So, despite the apparent exceptions, we can say that the columns do indeed differ from each other in content and demonstrate two opposite fields of experience, private and public. We will soon see that there are even more satisfying relationships to be found between the columns than just a simple classification of the laws contained in them.

The Right Column: Formal Progression

Schwartz has noted that there is a progression built into the units of the right‑hand column. He bases the progression on the use of relational terms such as; “עמיתו ”, “רעך ” and “אחיך ”. Each unit in column R contains such expressions.

Table 2. Relational Terms in Column R

The relational terms, as identified by Schwartz, appear in the above table, with one addition. I have added “שכיר ” from unit [6] because it too is a relational term. As a result, we can see that there is indeed a progression from unit [5] to [8]. Each successive unit adds a term and the order of the terms is maintained throughout the four units. In effect, the units of this block are numbered by the relational terms: the first, [5], has one; the second, [6], has two, etc. 

Conceptual Progression

Schwartz and Milgrom, who have noted this progression, have not been able to explain it as a significant element in the plan of Lev 19. We will see that the “missing link” is found when we observe a similar phenomenon in the first block of four units. Both blocks contain a progression from unit to unit. The importance of the progression of relational terms in the second block is that it provides a formal verification of the conceptual flow from [5] to [8].

The first unit, [5], warns against criminal behaviors “לא תגנבו ” and concludes with the desecration of God’s name. The fourth unit, [8], contains proactive relationships with another, reaching a peak with “ואהבת לרעך כמוך .” There is a transition from avoiding criminal antisocial behavior, to having positive relationships with others. The two intermediate units, [6] and [7], contain transitional stages. Unit [6] is similar to [5] in that it proscribes actions that can damage another. However, there is no explicit warning that these actions can lead to the desecration of God’s name, as in [5]. Unit [7] is the first in this column to require a positive act: “בצדק תשפט עמיתך .” Nonetheless, this act is limited to a judge. Only unit [8] contains a positive act demanded of every individual “ואהבת לרעך כמוך ”. There is a continuous gradient from the negative to the positive:

[5] avoid criminal behavior that can lead to desecrating God’s name

[6] avoid causing damage to others

[7] judge fairly

[8] be proactive: reprove, love

We can summarize this initial investigation of units 5‑8 as follows:

• Each has the same opening term and closing formula.
• They are numbered from one to four by an internal literary device: relational terms.
• The content is graded from antisocial acts to positive acts.

The Left Column

Let us look now at column L. Once we have noticed that there is a progression within column R, we are led to investigate whether there exists a similar phenomenon in L. Unit [1] begins with God’s desire for people to identify with Him and share His quality of holiness: “קדשים תהיו כי קדוש אני ”. This relationship is very similar to identifying with the “other” in [8], “ואהבת לרעך כמוך ”. In [1] the individual is commanded to be like another, God. In [8] he is told to consider that another is like him. While the perspective changes, the relationship, being like another, is consistent. The similarity is reinforced by a structural similarity between [1] and [8].

Both [1] and [8] differ from the other units structurally. In [1], the closing formula, “אני יהוה אלהיכם ”, is a necessary part of the content of the pericope, “כי קדוש אני יהוה אלהיכם ”. This is the reason to be holy. The words of the closing formula are part of the content of the unit. This is not true in any of the other units. In all of them, the closing formula is an appendix. This makes the first unit unique. Unit [8] is also unique. If the closing formula is an appendix, unit [8] has a “super appendix”, an addition after an addition, “את חקתי תשמרו ”. Properly speaking, unit [1] has no appendix, since the closing phrase is part of its content; while [8] has two appendices. In this way, the two units complement each other structurally in a manner similar to the complimentary relationships between man and God in [1], and between man and his fellow in [8]. In the course of this investigation, we will see that the intense use of formal structure to complement conceptual relationships is the hallmark of Leviticus 19.

The structural link and content similarity between [1] and [8] indicate that we could be looking at half of a chiasm between the two columns. This is verified in [4], “כי את קדש יהוה חלל ”, which parallels [5] “וחללת את שם אלהיך ”. The chiasm created by the first and last units in each column may indicate that opposite processes take place in the two columns. We have characterized the process in column R as graded from negative to positive. If the process in L is the opposite, it would be graded from positive to negative. This is verified by examining the contents of [1]‑[4].

Unit [1] begins with the entire community uniting through divine holiness. An isolated individual who is cut off for having desecrated the holy appears in the last unit, “ונכרתה... מעמיה ” [4]. In the middle are two stages of separation from “כל עדת בני ישראל ”: “איש אמו ואביו תיראו ” [2] and “ואלהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם ” [3]. The first level of division, into families, is positive. The second level, creating private gods, is negative. This creates a gradient from positive/group to negative/individual, in a manner similar but opposite to the gradient that we noted in column R. Thus the chiasm between columns L and R is reflected in opposite processes that take place in the columns; in L there is a negative process of separation or individualization and in R a positive process of drawing closer to humanity, socialization of the individual.

We can now begin to appreciate the literary skill of the author. While Schwartz had noted that column R contained a progression in the number of relational terms, he had no explanation for why this progression existed. We can now see how this progression is consistent with other observations we have made, especially the chiastic relationship with column L, which contains a process of separation or individualization. We noted that the contents of units [5]‑[8] indicated a positive process of drawing closer to others, socialization. These units, [5]‑[8], demonstrate the same process by increasing the number of relational terms from unit to unit. They become more “sociable”! If the correlation between the flow of content from unit to unit and the parallel increase in relational terms is intentional, we are looking at an extraordinarily sophisticated composition, a work of great artfulness and beauty.

The author has used literary devices, the closing formula reinforced by the openings, to differentiate between two equal blocks of text, each containing four units. By separating the blocks according to the formula and comparing them, the reader discovers that the two blocks are apparently inverted parallels. Therefore, any exegesis of Leviticus 19 as a literary document should explore these eight units as a highly contrived and well‑integrated structure.

Summary of Characteristics of Units 1‑8:

1. Formal
1. Units 1‑4 end with אני יהוה , while 5‑8 end with the longer form,  אני יהוה אלהיכם .
2. Units 5‑8 all begin with לא . None of units 1‑4 begin with לא .
2. Content

The content of units 1‑4 is generally characterized as “religious duties” and 5‑8 as “ethical duties”. Closer inspection has indicated that “private duties” and “social duties” may be more appropriate.

3. Developmental
   1. There is a progression from unit [5] to [8] based on the number of relational terms that appear in each unit, from one in [5] to four in [8].
   2. The formal progression of relational terms is mirrored in the contents of [5]‑[8], progress from anti‑social acts that can lead to defiling God’s name [5] to “ואהבת לרעך כמוך ” [8].
   3. Units 1‑4 are linked to 5‑8 by a chiasm.
   4. The contents of units 1‑4 create a progression that is the inverse of the flow from 5‑8. The processes can be characterized as “individualization” in L and “socialization” in R.
4. Combined content and developmental

The column characterized as “private duties” contains a process of “individualization.” The column characterized as “social duties” contains a process of “socialization.”

Section Two: Analysis of Units 10‑15

Table 3 Units 10-15

Unit [9], vv. 19b‑25, is a free‑standing unit which divides the rest of the chapter into two blocks, units [1]‑[8], and [10]‑[15]. I will refer to these two blocks as I and II. For the purpose of the current analysis, we can consider the function of [9] as a form of punctuation. I will examine the content of unit [9] in a separate article, treating it as the focal point of Leviticus. Blocks I and II have similar closings: in [8] “את חקתי תשמרו ” in [15] “ושמרתם את כל חקתי .” This may be the author’s way of hinting at the detailed parallelism which exists between the blocks. I will begin the presentation by noting that the last six units of the chapter, [10]-[15], divide into two sets of three units each and that they complete the two columns we identified in the previous section. After that I will detail the parallels between the blocks. I will show that each unit in II is closely tied to a unit in its own column of block I.

Continuing the Columns

As opposed to the first eight units, which are distinguished by categories of “duties”, it is “usually suggested”, according to Milgrom, that the remainder of the chapter contains “miscellaneous” laws. This description is inaccurate. The reason why others have reached the mistaken conclusion that there is no formal order in the remainder of the chapter is that it differs significantly from the first eight units. By means of the closing‑formula and opening word devices, the author made it relatively simple to see the division by “duties” in block I. The one‑to‑one correlation between content and opening/closing formulae does not hold in the remainder of the chapter. However, the clear identification of the first eight units as inverse parallels will enable us to sort out the organizing principles of the remaining “miscellaneous” units.

The last six units, vv. 26‑37, divide into two sets of three units each, according to the same content distinction observed between the two blocks of four, “religious” and “ethical”. They also follow the same order. The first three, [10]‑[12], contain "religious" duties, while the next three, [13]‑[15], are "ethical". At first glance, the two closing formulae do not follow any rule in this section. However, the "duties" categories make it possible to divide fourteen of the fifteen units of the chapter into two groups of seven each:

Table 4. Block II Continues the Columns of Block I

I have arranged all fourteen units in two columns, L and R. Unit 9, which I have left out, serves as a break between the first eight units and the last six. It can be seen that the “duties” categories of the first eight units hold for the last six too. These two large blocks, I and II, are further connected by their parallel endings: in [8] “את חקתי תשמרו ,” in [15] “ושמרתם את כל חקתי .”

Linguistic Parallels between the Blocks

Once units 10‑15 have been added to our original columns, the connections become all the more visible. Every one of the six units in block II has a strong linguistic link to a unit in its own column in block I, as indicted in the following table.

Table 5. Linguistically Parallel Units

Linguistic Parallels in Column L

Units [10] and [4]

Unit [4] presents a special difficulty because it combines two totally unrelated laws, tithes and the two‑day limit for consuming the well‑being offering. The linguistic links between [4] and [10] provide verification that the two parts of [4] should indeed be viewed as a single unit. There are three linguistic links between them that do not appear anywhere else in the chapter. Both units refer to eating meat. "פאה" appears in both, referring to edges of the field in [4] and edges of the face in [10]. “נפש ” appears only in these two units in Lev 19.

Units [11] and [2]

Units [2] and [11] present one of the clearest examples of what Douglas has termed “exact repetitions which had led earlier students to suppose the editor was nodding”. Both include “את שבתתי תשמרו ”. Both also contain “תיראו ” as well as a reference to parents and children.

Units [12] and [3]

Both [3] and [12] begin “אל תפנו אל ” and refer to supernatural entities.

Linguistic Parallels in Column R

Units [13] and [6]

“ויראת מאלהיך ” closes both [13] and [6]. Both also refer to the proper treatment of others according to physical characteristics, including an interesting parallel between “מפני שיבה תקום ” and “ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל ”.

Units [14] and [8]

Here is a very striking near repetition, “ואהבת ל... כמוך ”. Unit [14] appears to be the logical completion of [8].

Units [15] and [7]

Units [15] and [7] have the same openings, “לא תעשו עול במשפט ”, and include צדק .

Coherent Columns

We had no problem demonstrating that the columns were coherent in block I because of the common openings and closings of the units within the column. However, when we added block II to the columns we could no longer depend on the evidence of the openings and closings since the formulae do not seem to continue in block II. Therefore, we had to resort to content similarities, the “duties”, even though this is a weaker form of evidence. However, once we considered the content similarities, and placed the units of block II in the columns defined by block I, we were rewarded with strong linguistic verification that the columns are indeed coherent. Every single unit in block II is firmly linked to a unit within its own column in block I, by a linguistic hook. Now that we have established that each set of seven units forms a coherent column, we can examine the evidence that that the two columns are meant to be seen as structurally identical. 

Identical Columns

The most obvious indication that the columns are structurally identical is that they both contain seven units. While this fact in itself is sufficient to define the columns as structurally identical, the author has reinforced it by marking the first and last units of each column as structurally parallel. Both of these parallels become apparent only after the text is arranged in the columns. The structural similarity of the first units of each column is a function of the linguistic parallels between bocks I and II. We have noted that each unit of block II is closely linked to a unit in its column. Since there are three units per column in block II and four units per column in block I, one unit in each column of block I lacks a linguistic link to a unit in its column of block II. In both column L and column R the “unlinked” unit is the first in the column, [1] and [5].

Table 6. Formal Parallels Between the Columns

Just as the first unit of each column is set-off by a rhetorical device, the lack of a linguistic link to block II, so too is the last unit of each column set-off. The device that is used to set-off units [12] and [15] is similar to the device that sets-off [1] and [5]. It too bridges blocks I and II. In fact, it can be seen as the inverse of the device used in [1] and [5]. Unlike other units in II, both [12] and [15] follow the rule of the opening term as well as the rule of the closing formulae of block I. All units in column R of block I begin with “לא ”, and end with “אני יהוה ” and so does unit [15]. No unit in column L of block I begin with “לא ”, and all end with “אני יהוה אלהיכם ”, as does unit [12]. Therefore, both [12] and [15] follow the rules of their columns as established in block I. These are the only units in block II that match the in‑column opening and closing formulae of block I. Lest there be any possibility that we miss the fact that units [12] and [15] are structurally parallel, there is yet another strong parallel between these units.

The third units in both columns of block II, [12] and [15], begin with exactly the same words as the parallel third units of block I and contain an additional parallel as well. In both units in L, [3] and [12], the objects of “אל תפנו אל ” are supernatural entities, thus strengthening the parallel. Both units of R, [7] and [15], begin “לא תעשו עול במשפט ” and also contain “צדק ”. None of the other parallels between the blocks includes the first words of units. So it would seem that the author has placed a special emphasis on the last unit in each column of block II, [12] and [15], by way of a seemingly redundant parallel between them.

The Inverted Parallels Continue

We have now collected ample evidence that Leviticus 19 contains two parallel strands, which are structurally equivalent, and that units [10]‑[15] are firmly connected to our original columns. We must still determine whether the progressions we observed within the columns continue with the additions from block II. We noted earlier that the “ethical duties”, R, reached a peak in block I with “ואהבת לרעך כמוך ”. The identification with the “other” expands in [14] to include the “גר ”, who is also to be loved “כמוך ”. This could indicate that the process in column R does continue into block II. In column L we saw a process of distancing from the holy. Units [10]‑[12] all include expressions of degenerate pagan practices. Therefore, the process of column L also seems to continue in block II. More specifically, we noted in [4] that anyone who eats a well‑being offering on the third day is to be cut off from his people. Corruption is a matter concerning individuals in that unit. However, in the continuation of L, in [11], we find “ולא תזנה הארץ ומלאה הארץ זמה ”. Corruption has become a national concern. So the degenerative processes of column L as well as the positive process of R continue with the addition of block II to the columns.

We have seen evidence that the two extended columns of seven units are:

1. internally coherent, according to the “duties”
2. structurally identical 
3. conceptually ordered, indicating processes
4. inversely parallel

In the next section, we will begin to see why the two columns have been constructed so carefully.

Section Three: The Pairs

Five Pairs

Perhaps the most interesting characteristic that we have noted in the columns is that they can be read as inversely parallel progressions, from good to bad in L, and bad to good in R. The next phenomenon that we will examine combines the two oppositely sensed columns to create a single unified composition. This new entity consists of a set of five pairs composed of parallel sections of the columns. The flow from pair to pair creates a third process, one that is independent of the two processes in the separate columns. In order to facilitate the discussion of the pairs, I will label them from A to E as follows:

Table 7. The Five Pair Structure

New Units, New Structure

Pair E needs some clarification, as well as a change in terminology. I will begin using the term “unit” to refer to one of the two members of a pair. This has no effect on pairs A-D because each member is identical with one of our original units. In pair E however, each member of the pair, the new “units”, contains three of our original units. While the double use of “unit” may cause some brief confusion, it goes with the territory. We are observing a transformation of the text as we decipher its structure. What began as fourteen units that formed two seven-unit inversely parallel structures, is about to morph into a ten-part structure consisting of five pairs. According to my reading, each set of three ostensible units in the fifth pair creates one true unit. We have seen that amongst the last six of our original units, only the last one in each column, [12] and [15], follows the rules of the first four units of its column for the opening word and closing formula. I have interpreted this fact to mean that the last three elements in each column, EL1‑3 and ER1‑3, are to be taken together as the structural equivalent of one single complex unit. I will clarify the reasons for this interpretation as well as its ramifications through the analysis of the overall structure of the five resultant pairs.  

Pair E: Three Independent Segments

The two units that compose each of the five pairs are structurally identical and no two pairs have the same structure. This point is clearest in the last two pairs. Both pairs E and D contain multiple parts. Each member of pair E contains three fully articulated parts. The divisions within these members are marked by what we might call “pseudo‑units”, the first two parts of each unit, [10] and [11] in EL, [13] and [14] in ER. We have seen that these false units do not follow the rules of their columns. They apparently have two structural functions. First, they guarantee that the parallel segments of the columns which we have marked EL and ER will be seen as structurally identical. Second, they create complex units, which clearly subdivide into three large components. This subdivision becomes significant as we observe the structures of the other pairs.

Pair D: Two Independent Segments

Pair D

The units of pair D each contain two well‑defined parts, (a) and (b). They differ in the manner in which these parts are defined. DL contains two independent subjects, the well‑being offering and gleanings. The components of DR are separated by the closing formula. Therefore, both DL and DR have two distinct components. I would like to limit the discussion at this point to purely formal matters. However, I can see that the argument for pair D needs some reinforcement and that it will force me to transcend the limits I have set. The problem is in the part of DR that comes after the closing formula, “את חקתי תשמרו ”. I gave some reasons earlier why this segment of verse 19 should be placed at the end of unit [8] rather than in the beginning of [9], vis‑à‑vis the chiasm within block I. I will add a reason now that stems from the comparison with DR.

The specific problem of the second component of DR is that it comes after the closing formula. We have no other example of such an addition in the first eight units. I believe that it is meant to be a textual representation of the common thread of DL. While I have stated that the well‑being offering and the gleanings are very different themes, closer inspection reveals a certain similarity. Both speak of leftovers. The leftover meat is forbidden. Some grain, on the other hand, must be leftover, not harvested. One is forbidden and one is required, but they are both leftovers. So is the second component of DL; it comes after the closing. The content of DL speaks of leftovers while the structure of DR creates a leftover! We will return to this point after looking at pair C.

Pair C: Two Content Related Segments

 Unlike E and D, the common structure in pair C is not obvious. It requires a close reading. Both units have a single broad subject, forbidden worship in CL and social justice in CR, but it is possible to see that both units divide in two. I have marked the components as a. and b. The distinction in CL is between worshiping commonly accepted gods (a) and creating your own images (b). In CR the distinction is between judges (a) and private individuals (b). In both CL and CR element (a) contains a public aspect of the subject, while element (b) contains a private aspect.

The Structural Order of Pairs C, D and E

 We can now understand yet another reason for the unusual construction of pair D. Pairs C and E are each constructed according to different principles. Pair D, which is located between them, incorporates aspects of both adjacent pairs. The units of E are structurally equivalent because they are similarly divided into three separate parts by the pseudo‑endings. The units of C are subdivided by parallel content divisions. Pair D is divided by a content division in LD and by a false ending in RD. Therefore, D is a structural middle between C and E.

Pair B: Fear as an Ambivalent Connection

  Pairs A and B are similar. The identification of both pairs depends on linguistic and syntactical parallels. The key element in B is the parallel use of the verb ירא . Both units contain two elements, marked (a) and (b), one of which contains ירא . In both units, the reader must make a jump in order to connect the two elements. The only connection supplied by the author is the ubiquitous “ו ”. It is commonly understood that the fear of God in BR is given as a reason not to take advantage of others. The text itself is more equivocal. It does not spell out the connection between fear of God and the actions prohibited in element (a). It is left to the reader to deduce the connection from the syntax. The same problem exits concerning the connection between fear/awe of parents and observing God’s Sabbath. The text can be interpreted, in parallel to BL, as implying that reverence for (Sabbath‑observing) parents, leads to observing the Sabbath. Thus, the units are a pair based on an ambivalent connection between ירא and the other element of the unit.

Pair A: Holy Reasons

The units of A consist of two inseparable segments. A key term links the segments within each unit. AL contains “קדש‏ ” in segments (a) and (b) while AR repeats “שקר ”. Both units also link their two segments through reasons dependent on God: “כי קדוש אני ”, “וחללת את שם אלהיך ”. The divine reasons make the links between the segments unequivocal, as opposed to the ambivalent causal link we found in the units of B.

The Structural Order of Pairs A, B and C

We can now understand the arrangement of the first three pairs. Pair B plays a role that is similar to the role played by D in the arrangement we saw of C‑E. Pair A is based on a causal relationship between two inseparable elements. Pair C, on the other hand, has no such relationship between its elements. Although the elements within the units of C do share a common subject, they are structurally independent. The units of B fall between the dependency of A and the independence of C. The ambivalence built into the units of B is evidently a necessary element in the organization of the pairs. It provides a step between A and C. The “ambivalence factor” in B also indicates that the demands of the non-linear reading may take precedence over the clarity of the linear reading. When reading the text linearly, the connection between respect for parents and observance of the Sabbath is obscured. It is purely a matter for speculation. The clarity of the linear reading suffers. Only when we read BL in parallel with BR, in a non-linear reading, can we see that the ambiguity is part of the plan.

The Progression of the Five Pairs

Let us examine now the order of the five pairs according to their structures. We have noted that there is a similarity between A and B based on the interconnection of the elements of each pair. Likewise, pairs D and E are similar, including well‑articulated independent subunits. Pair C forms a bridge between the first two and last two pairs. If we characterize the first two pairs as having syntactical links within their units and the last two as having independent elements, then C can be seen as a medium between them. C is like A and B in that the elements of each unit in C are linked to each other by their content. C is like D and E insofar as the separate elements within the units are formally unlinked.

We have now noted that pairs B, C and D have all been constructed in such a manner that they can be seen as structural middles: B between A and C; D between C and E; and C between A‑B and D‑E. This exposes the literary technique employed to create a sense of progression or process in the text. We can see the implied process in the following table.

Table 8. The Progression of the Pairs

  We can see in the above table that the pairs are ordered according to the complexity of their common structures. The units of pair A cannot be sub‑divided, while the units of E contain three formally separated elements. Pairs B‑D are three intermediate stages between the inseparable elements of A, and the fully separated elements of E. The process, which appears across the five pairs, can be described as “separation”.

Pairs C‑E display a formal order based on the number of separate subjects in each unit of the pairs. The units of pair C each have two separate elements, but in both cases the elements form a single subject. In D, the two elements of each unit are separate subjects. In E, each unit contains three independent elements. So units C‑E are ordered by the number of subjects in each unit, from one to three. This is similar to the internal numbering that we found in the first four units of column R. It also supports our decision to read each of the units of E as a single tri‑part unit rather than as three separate units.

From Structure to Meaning

We have now identified one of the literary devices that have been employed in the construction of the pairs, and its concomitant process. We have seen that each pair has its own internal structure. Taken together, the five structures create a process of “separation” as we progress from pair to pair. The separation that we have observed is purely structural; it is not connected to any specific content. Yet, it is unmistakably one of the more inclusive features of the text. The next literary device we will examine becomes apparent only after the discovery of the pairs. It verifies the importance of the pairs in defining the structure, as well as demonstrating the link between structure and meaning.

 The second literary device is based on references to God within the units. Each pair combines these references with other material in a distinctive way. This phenomenon is systematic and embedded in the five‑pair configuration. Just as each pair has its own unique structure, it also has its own unique set of references to God. In other words, God plays a different role in each pair. Again, we will see a process of separation appear from pair to pair as God’s role becomes less and less significant for the meaning of the pair. An understanding of the process described by God’s changing role will lead us to an understanding of the meaning of Lev 19 as a literary construct, as opposed to an agglomeration of laws. 

References to God

Near the beginning of this paper we noted that the author has used God’s appearances in the form “אני יהוה ” as a literary device to mark the ends of units. We will now examine a further systematic use of references to God. God is referred to within the units both directly, e.g. “you shall fear your God”, and indirectly, e.g. “You shall heed my statutes”. In the following discussion, I will include all of these references to God, both direct and indirect, within the general category of “God‑oriented” material. Elements of text that do not refer to God will be termed “not God‑oriented”. In the following table of the pairs, I have emphasized all of the God‑oriented material. For the sake of clarity, I have removed the closing formulae.

Table 9. God Oriented and not God Oriented Material in the Pairs

The Pattern of References to God

Taken together, the references to God create a pattern that indicates that they have been carefully arranged. The eight units that contain God‑oriented material are arranged symmetrically around two units that do not contain references to God. This symmetry is created by the absence of references to God in the central pair, C. Both units in each of the other four pairs do contain references to God. The fact that the only units lacking references to God are the two in C may indicate that the symmetrical arrangement around pair C is not arbitrary.

Another unifying characteristic of the references to God is the location of each reference within the individual unit. All of the God‑oriented material is found within units that also contain not-God‑oriented material. Moreover, except in DL(a), the God‑oriented material always follows a section that is not God‑oriented. This is indicated in the table above by the division into segments (a) and (b). Except for DL, the God‑oriented always appears in segment b. This arrangement could lead us to see the two types of material as unequal; one is primary and the other is secondary. The not God‑oriented appears in all ten units and appears first in seven of the eight mixed units, so it would seem to be the primary stratum. The God‑oriented, not appearing in all the units, and appearing second in seven of eight where it does appear, would seem to be a secondary stratum. 

These observations, taken together, are prima‑facie evidence that the references to God play a part in the overall plan according to which Lev 19 was constructed. We will verify this hypothesis by examining the God‑oriented material within each pair. We will see that there is a progression from pair to pair based on the nature of the connection between the God‑oriented and not God‑oriented material. From pair to pair, the connection between the two types of material becomes weaker and weaker, indicating a process of separation. I will refer to this process as the “divine process” in order to distinguish it from the “structural process”, which we have seen across the structures of the pairs.

 For the sake of this analysis, I have created the dyad “God‑oriented”, “not God‑oriented”. It should not be confused with Milgrom’s “religious” and “ethical” duties, which characterized the columns. We have already seen that there are references to God in “ethical” units such as “you shall fear your God” in BR. There is also a “religious” unit, CL, which does not mention God at all. Therefore, in my analysis I can say that CL is not “God‑oriented”, although it falls in the “religious duties” column.

Pair A: God and Meaning are Inseparable

The units of pair A consist of an opening clause that does not mention God, (a), and a closing clause, (b), that does. In our earlier analysis of pair A, we found that the two clauses in each unit are inseparable, since they are parts of a single idea. God is an essential part of each unit; removing Him would significantly change the meaning of what remains. God is the source of holiness in AL; dishonesty is to be avoided in AR because it can lead to the desecration of God’s name. Therefore, the segment in which God appears, (b) in each unit, is inseparable from the segment in which He does not appear, and God Himself is inseparable from the meaning of the pair. Now we will look at pair E, in which God’s appearances have so little to do with the surrounding text, that they seem virtually gratuitous.

Pair E: References to God are not Necessary

There are three references to God in pair E, in [11], [13] and [15]. The symmetrical distribution of these three subunits creates a mirror image of the subunits that do not mention God, [10], [12] and [14]. This symmetrical distribution is reinforced by the repetition of the verbs associated with God‑oriented commands in [11]: “שמר ”, appears in [15] and [11]; “ירא ” appears in [13] and [11]. Only these two verbs have the divinity or His “possessions” as their objects in all of E. There are other common strands running through the three subunits in which God is mentioned.

All three God‑related subunits have two distinct parts, marked (a) and (b). In all three, the first part, a, contains no mention of God; only the second part, (b), does, as in the units of A. Unlike pair A, in these three subunits there are no semantic links between the parts that refer to God and the parts that do not. Given that the parts referring to God are all at the ends of the units, they have the appearance of accretions to the text. However, since we have already seen signs that references to God are part of a larger plan, we should ask ourselves why they have been arranged in E to give an impression that they are either an afterthought or superfluous.

The answer to our question can be found by positing that the author wishes us to see God as, in some way, unnecessary, or disconnected. The fact that the God‑related material in pair E is unrelated to the not God‑related material is consistent with our reading of the structure of the pairs. In our analysis of the common structures of the pairs, we characterized pair E as having fully separated structural elements. Similarly, it contains independent semantic elements: the God‑related and the not God‑related elements. This stands in opposition to the place of God‑related material in the units of pair A, in which, as we saw, the God‑related is inseparable from the not God‑related. Just as the structures of the pairs indicated a process of separation, so too does the arrangement of God‑related material.

Two Strata

We earlier considered the possibility that the distribution of God‑oriented material throughout the five pairs might indicate a stratification in which the “not God‑oriented” is the primary stratum and the God‑oriented is the secondary stratum. What we have seen in pair E would seem to verify this notion. Only half of the six segments of E contain God‑oriented material. All of the three segments which contain God‑oriented material begin with the not God‑oriented. Most significantly, there is no apparent connection between the two types of material. So it would seem that we are justified in seeing the “not God” as the primary stratum. This distinction is important for understanding the function of the God‑related material and the process it creates. If the primary stratum is “not God”, then the secondary “God” stratum has been superimposed upon the “not God” in order to create a compound image. This textual overlay makes it possible to distinguish the changing role of the “God related” against the constant background of the “not God”. We will return to this discussion after examining God’s appearances in B and D.   

Pair D: References to God are Partially Superfluous

Pair D

DL(a) and DR(b) refer to God. DR(b), “את חקתי תשמרו ”, is apparently superfluous, because it comes after the closing formula, “אני יהוה ”. Therefore, half the references to God in pair D are effectively gratuitous, justifying its place between C and E.

Pair B: The Connection with God is Necessary by Implication

Pair B

In contrast with pair A, Pair B does not contain directly stated divine reasons. However, the juxtaposition of the God‑oriented and not God‑oriented may imply a causal connection. “ויראת מאלהיך ” in BR(b) is generally understood as the reason to obey the previous laws, although there is no linguistic connection to BR(a) that demands this understanding. Similarly, the fear/reverence of parents in BL may lead to Sabbath observance. However it is also possible to read, “איש אמו ואביו תיראו ” and “ואת שבתתי תשמרו ” as two independent clauses. We can conclude that the God‑oriented material in pair A is more closely connected to the not God‑oriented in A than the God‑oriented in B is to the not God in B. Therefore, pair B does belong between A and C. In the following table, I have added a new column summarizing the relevance of references to God in the pairs to the columns summarizing the structure of the pairs.

Table 10. The Divine Process

The Conceptual Process

We can now conclude that the structural process of separation that appears in the pairs has a semantic correlative associated with God. Just as the order of the five pairs indicates a progression from inseparable subunits to fully separated subunits, the references to God in the units lead to a parallel progression. From pair to pair God is less and less connected to the “not God”, until pair E, in which He is completely disconnected from the underlying not God‑oriented text.

In addition to identifying the rule for references to God in the units of Lev 19, we have also identified the underlying mechanism by means of which the author has implemented the rule. The mechanism is based on the stratification into a primary “not‑God” stratum and a secondary “God” stratum. The primary “not God” stratum is the equivalent of a fixed point against which the motion of the secondary “God” stratum can be measured. The “not God” has been organized in a manner that makes God’s changing roles visible.

The significance of the pairs

We have now completed the demonstration that Lev 19 contains five structural pairs. In order to grasp the full significance of what we have found, let us review the earlier steps of our analysis. The discovery of the pairs was predicated upon the previous discovery of the parallel columns. We found that the two columns are structurally identical and that each column has an independent theme, Milgrom’s “duties”. The contents of each column are ordered; column L is ordered from good to bad and column R from bad to good. Taken together, the columns create an inverted parallel. These characteristics of the columns demonstrated that Lev 19 is a complex literary creation and not simply a collection of laws.

Having determined that these two columns were parts of a literary composition, we faced the challenge of learning how to read that composition. The fact that the columns were structural parallels led us to examine them in parallel. We have seen that reading the columns in parallel leads to a redefining of the underlying structure. Now we can say that the structure consists of five well‑ordered pairs. Our situation has become a bit similar to that of the physicists examining the nature of light who must admit that it is apparently both a particle and wave energy. While this is intuitively impossible, it is the only way to explain the appearances. Our structure can be described both as two columns, which are inverted parallels, and as five ordered pairs. The “intuitively impossible”, or at least “unlikely”, element in our description is that the columns and pairs seem to reflect two independent principles of organization. It is as if the columns were organized as inverted parallels according to principles of good and evil and the “duties” by one hand, while the pairs were organized as direct parallels by rules of complexity and “God ‑ not God”, by another hand. The problem is that both the two‑column description and the five‑pair description contain exactly the same elements of text. The challenge of reading the composition has grown exponentially with the discovery of the pairs.

The Solution

The solution to our “particle/wave” conundrum is that the document containing the columns and pairs was planned as a true table. Each of the ten units represents the intersection of two lines of thought, the vertical and the horizontal. In order to understand this concept, we must make a small change in nomenclature. We will rename the pairs “rows”. We are looking at a literary table consisting of two columns and five rows.

Table 11

Each unit is a compound consisting of two components, which are represented by the two letters defining the unit. For example, unit AL contains the “A‑ness” of row (pair) A, i.e. “inseparable” and the “L‑ness” of column L, i.e. “religious”. Row A has a certain character or rule, and so does column L. Unit AL represents the intersection of these two lines of thought. This view implies that the author began with the framework defined by the concepts that give definition to the columns, L and R, and the rows, A‑E. Each unit was then constructed in such a manner as to reflect the two planning lines that intersect in it. The resultant composition can be described as “tabular” or “woven”.

The discovery of a table within Lev 19 may raise more questions than it answers. While we can now point to the plan that required the combination of diverse laws in the chapter, we must begin to deal with the meaning of the resultant composition. How are we to read a tabular composition? How does it compare with a linear text? Why did the author choose this format? Are there similar compositions within the Torah? If so, how widespread is the phenomenon? God willing, I will address these questions in future articles. I wish to thank Jacob Milgrom and Mary Douglas for their inspiring scholarship and endless patience in helping me through all the stages of preparing this article.

Summary

Schwartz and Milgrom divided the text of Lev. 19 into parts according to its content, rejecting the possibility that the phrase “I YHWH”, repeated 16 times in ch. 19, divided the text into literary units. This article explores the alternative that they rejected, that the formula does in fact indicate the internal divisions of the chapter. It has three sections. The first section compares the first four units and the next four, noting that the groups differ in opening and closing formulae. It is noted that the two groups are ordered inversely, the first from good to bad and the second from bad to good. The second section divides the last six units into two groups of three, and appends them to the original groups of four, creating two new groups of seven. The two groups of seven prove to be linguistically and conceptually consistent within themselves and structurally identical. The third section compares the two groups of seven and shows that they should be read as five consecutive pairs, arranged according to two parallel principles. One principle is based on the internal structure of each pair. The other is based on the use of God-related material within the pairs. In conclusion, it appears that the text was originally conceived as a table and subsequently deconstructed in the linear form that has reached us.