1 For the classic argument for as “purification offering,” see Milgrom, Jacob, “Sin-offering or Purification-offering?” VT 21 (1971) 237–39Google Scholar.

2 Sabina Wefing, “Beobachtungen zum Ritual mit der roten Kuh (Num 19:1–10a),” ZAW 93 (1981) 341–64, at 344.

3 Jacob Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num. XIX),” VT 31 (1981) 62–72.

4 So, for example, compare the different assessments given by Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad. Noth can speak of the material of Numbers 19 as having “to begin with … a quite factually magical character, [which] has been brought into at least an outward connection with the legitimate (Yahweh) cult” (Numbers: A Commentary [trans. James D. Martin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968] 141). For von Rad, on the other hand, these prescriptions are cryptic evidence of the hard fought battle against the cult of the dead: “All these very lifeless-looking ritual regulations do not in themselves retain any traces of the hard defensive warfare which Israel waged, aided by these very cultic prescriptions” (Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology [trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; New York: Harper, 1962–1965] 1:276).

5 George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903).

6 Ibid., 243.

7 Ibid., 48.

8 So Maccoby, Hyam: “These rites have an anomalous, primitive air about them” (Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism [Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999] 83)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, Eryl W.: “It is clear that an ancient rite has been appropriated by the Priestly school and reinterpreted in the spirit of a later age” (Numbers: Based on the Revised Standard Version [NCB Commentary; London: Marshall Pickering, 1995] 193)Google Scholar; Vaux, Roland de: “This rite certainly originated in pagan practices, and it must have been originally a magic rite” (Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961] 461–62)Google Scholar; Knierim, Rolf P. and Coats, George W.: “The ceremony must have had some lengthy history in itself, not simply have been the fruit of an artificial composition. The direction of the history may retreat to a stage of magic, removed from direct control of the priesthood” (Numbers [FOTL 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005] 223)Google Scholar. See also Noth’s comment in n. 4 above.

9 Toorn, Karel van der, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 22; Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1985) 37Google Scholar.

10 See also 1 Kgs 2:30.

11 Achenbach, Reinhard, “Verunreinigung durch die Berührung Toter. Zum Ursprung einer alt-israelitischen Vorstellung,” in Tod und Jenseits im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt. Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte (ed. Berlejung, Angelika and Janowski, Bernd; FAT 64; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 347–69Google Scholar.

12 Achenbach, Reinhard, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altoriental-ische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003)Google Scholar 505–8, 525–28.

13 Achenbach, “Verunreinigung,” 362.

14 For a critical engagement with Milgrom’s interpretation of Leviticus 11–15, see Nihan, Christophe, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (FAT II/25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 301–39Google Scholar.

15 Moshe Weinfeld, for example, seeks to establish that Deuteronomy is a document with a secular character; see esp. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 180–89, 225–32. He draws a stark contrast between “the author of the Priestly Code, to whom sacral-ritual matters are of primary importance” and “the author of Deuteronomy . . . who is free of such sacral conceptions or indifferent to them” (ibid., 232). The people’s holiness is maintained through obedience to the ethical precepts of the Deuteronomic law. Nevertheless, as John Rogerson and Philip Davies rightly observe, “we must not overlook the book’s persistent, if not boldly stated, stress on purity” (The Old Testament World [Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1989] 247). Or, as Norbert Lohfink puts it in his critique of Weinfeld’s thesis, “‘purity’ is the representation of ‘holiness’” (“The Destruction of the Seven Nations in Deuteronomy and the Mimetic Theory,” in Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 2 [1995] 103–17, at 105).

At some points Deuteronomy’s account of purity shares some common elements with Leviticus 11–15. Pure and impure animals are distinguished in Deut 14:3–21 (see Leviticus 11), and Deut 23:10–12 is often taken to be instructions about an emission of semen, even if some of the terminology differs from Leviticus 15. With respect to the former passage, though, it is not unusual to argue that the dietary regulations are an alien element introduced into the Deuteronomic law code from a priestly source. See, e.g., Andrew D. H. Mayes, “Deuteronomy 14 and the Deuteronomic World View,” in Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. Florentino García Martínez; VTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 116–81, esp. 181. At other points Deuteronomy departs from priestly notions, such as in its insistence that human feces threaten the holiness of the military camp (Deut 23:13–15).

16 Alternatively, it has been argued that the perceived source of pollution is the curse rather than the corpse; so Achenbach, “Verunreinigung,” 354. For the difficult see Veijola, Timo, “‘Fluch des Totengeistes ist der Aufgehängte’ (Dtn 21,23),” UF 32 (2000) 543–54Google Scholar. Veijola makes a convincing case that is a ghost.

17 See Hagedorn, Anselm C., “Deut 17,8–13. Procedure for Cases of Pollution?” ZAW 115 (2003) 538–56Google Scholar. Hagedorn also argues that the judgment between different kinds of “blow” () is best explained as cases of scale disease (see Leviticus 13–14; ibid., 547).

18 Timo Veijola and Jan Christian Gertz have argued, however, that this is a relatively late addition to the Deuteronomic law code; see Veijola, Timo, Das fünfte Buch Mose. Deuteronomium (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) 304Google Scholar; Gertz, Jan Christian, “Die Stellung des kleinen geschichtlichen Credos in der Redaktionsgeschichte von Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,” in Liebe und Gebot. Studien zum Deuteronomium (ed. Kratz, Reinhard G. and Spieckermann, Hermann; FRLANT 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 30–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 30–33.

19 For an analysis of the attempts to understand the rite and for the argument that it is a reenactment and elimination rite, see Wright, David P., “Deuteronomy 21:1–9 as a Rite of Elimination,” CBQ 49 (1987) 387–403Google Scholar. The rite has now received extensive treatment from Jan Dietrich in Kollektive Schuld und Haftung. Religions- und rechtsgeschichtliche Studien zum Sündenkuhritus des Deuteronomiums und zu verwandten Texten (Oriental Religion in Antiquity 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).

20 Although it is often suggested that Deut 21:1–9 concerns the purification of the land, this is not explicitly stated; see Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Meyers, Carol L. and O’Conner, M.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 399–414Google Scholar, at 408. As Eckart Otto points out, the idea of the purification of the land is present in the book of Deuteronomy at 21:22–23 and 24:1–4, but the ritual for the atonement of the unsolved murder is said to atone for the people (21:8) (“Soziale Verantwortung und Reinheit des Landes. Zur Redaktion der kasuistischen Rechtssätze in Deuteronomium 19–25,” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. Festschrift für Siegfried Hermann zum 65. Geburtstag [ed. Rüdiger Liwak and Siegfried Wagner; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991] 290–306). The suggestion that this ritual concerns the purification of the land is usually based on the requirement that the cow be slaughtered at an uncultivated location and the recognition that Deut 21:8, with its reference to the whole Israelite nation, could not have been part of the pre-Deuteronomic rite. Dietrich argues that the rite originally concerned a local community and questions whether a strong distinction between land and community is valid (Kollektive Schuld, esp. 223).

21 Andrew D. H. Mayes judges the whole of v. 8 to be Deuteronomistic (Deuteronomy [NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981] 297). Many interpreters, however, attribute v. 8b to the Deuteronomic version of the rite; so Wright, “Deuteronomy 21:1–9,” 392 n. 18; Otto, Eckart, Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999) 265Google Scholar; and Janowski, Bernd, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen. Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift (2d ed.; WMANT 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000) 164–66Google Scholar. Most recently, Dietrich has argued that only v. 8b is original (Kollektive Schuld, 84–86).

22 For Deut 21:1–9 not being a sacrifice for Deuteronomy, see Wright, “Deuteronomy 21:1–9,” and Dietrich, Kollektive Schuld, 41–44, 235–45.

23 Interpreters have frequently struggled to make sense of this tension. Thus, for example, Eryl Davies rejects Milgrom’s (and the text’s!) understanding of the red cow as a purification offering with the observation that “the fact that the animal was to be slaughtered outside the precincts of the sanctuary indicates that it could not have been regarded as a sacrifice to Yahweh” (Numbers, 197). This sense of difficulty has long been felt. It may already be present in the LXX where is translated with in Numbers 19 rather than

24 Contra the suggestion of Jacob Milgrom that “the need for continuous priestly supervision betrays the inherent danger that the ritual may slip back into its pagan moorings” (Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991] 273).

25 E.g., Davies, Numbers, 198.

26 Milgrom, Jacob, Numbers = [Ba-Midbar]: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990) 159Google Scholar.

27 It should also be noted that, in contrast to the instructions for the purification offering, Eleazer “takes” () the blood and sprinkles it (Num 19:4). In the purification offering, the priest “takes” () some of the blood, “dips” () his finger in and sprinkles it, and then puts some on the altar and disposes of the rest at the foot of the altar (Lev 4:5–7). The instructions in Leviticus presuppose a vessel to carry the blood, which is not the case in Numbers; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 234. For a rabbinic discussion reflecting this, see Sipre on Num 19:4.

28 Deuteronomy 21, of course, does not specify how the heifer is to be disposed of.

29 Veijola understands Deut 12:27 to mean the blood was burned on the altar: “Die Brandopfer werden ganz, mit Fleisch und Blut, auf dem Altar verbrannt” (Das fünfte Buch Mose, 279). Samuel Rolles Driver, on the other hand, interprets the verse in light of Leviticus 1: “The flesh and the blood alike are to come upon the altar (strictly the blood of both these offerings was thrown in a volume () against the altar)” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895] 149). Veijola is probably correct, since the verse concludes that the blood from the other sacrifices is poured out at the base of the altar while the meat is consumed.

30 Milgrom, Numbers, 160. Other interpreters are content to gloss over the difficulty and to assume the Masoretic reading. See William K. Gilders, “Why Does Eleazar Sprinkle the Red Cow Blood? Making Sense of a Biblical Ritual,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6 (2006) 8 n. 16; Levine, Baruch A., Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 464Google Scholar.

31 Rendtorff, Rolf, Leviticus (BKAT 3/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2004) 61Google Scholar.

32 “Ein weiteres inhaltliches Argument betrifft den v. 9bβ (): Daß das vorliegende Ritual ein Sündenopfer sei, ist völlig aus der Luft gegriffen und hat im Text selbst keinen Anhalt, so daß dieser Versteil mit Sicherheit als sekundär abzutrennen ist” (Wefing, “Ritual mit der roten Kuh,” 354 [emphasis mine]).

33 Davies, Numbers, 199–200. See also NIV “for purification from sin.”

34 The term states nothing about the age of the animal. The traditional rendering “heifer” is already found in LXXLXX is probably influenced by the description of the animal as having never had a yoke set on it; so Wevers, John William, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 46; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars, 1998) 311Google Scholar. It is also possible, however, that LXX’s translation is influenced by the rite in Deuteronomy 21.

The color of the cow cannot be explained by appeal to literary precursors. The authors of Numbers 19 possibly have some symbolic significance in view, though this cannot be ascertained. The color of the earth or the color of blood have been suggested as explanations and either would be possible; see Budd, Philip J., Numbers (WBC 5; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1984) 212Google Scholar.

35 Note, however, that Num 15:24 has a different specification for the inadvertent sin of the community: a goat for a sin offering together with a bull for a burnt offering.

36 Davies, Numbers, 197.

37 For P^g and P^s see Exod 12:5; Lev 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6, 9; 4:3, 23, 28, 32; 5:15, 18; 6:6; 9:2; 14:10. In H and Numbers, see Lev 22:19, 21; 23:12, 18; Num 6:14; 28:3, 9, 11, 19, 31; 29:2, 8, 13, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 36.

38 A number of studies have convincingly demonstrated that the Holiness Code is familiar with the book of Deuteronomy, including Deuteronomistic materials. See, most recently, Christophe Nihan, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004) 81–122; Stackert, Jeffrey, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007)Google Scholar.

39 “Eine literarische Abhängigkeit scheint zwischen Num 19,2 und 1 Sam 6,7 vorzuliegen, kaum jedoch zwischen Num 19,2 und Dtn 21,3b” (Dietrich, Kollektive Schuld, 238 n. 335; see also 79–80). The fact that we have an almost identical animal being described in Numbers 19 and Deuteronomy 21, but with significant terminological differences, could suggest that the author of Numbers 19 was influenced not by the text of Deuteronomy 21 but by the ritual described in Deuteronomy 21 or a ritual very like it. We cannot entirely exclude the possibility that the author so completely redescribed the ritual in Deuteronomy 21 that no verbal parallel can be found. Such cases of extensive rewriting can be found in the Temple Scroll from Qumran, which was likely written not much later than some of the latest texts in the Pentateuch such as Numbers 19. A remarkable example is 11QT XLIII, 12–17 where Deut 14:24–29 is reworded such that almost nothing remains of the original biblical phrasing and, as Stephen A. Kaufman observes, “The only truly biblical idiom in this entire text, is actually taken from a totally different, unrelated source (Exod 3:18)” (“The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HUCA 53 [1982] 29–43, at 38). This could provide a parallel to Numbers 19, which has similarities to Deuteronomy 21, but where the closest parallel—the description of the animal—is not to Deuteronomy 21, but to 1 Samuel 6.

40 The verb is employed (Num 19:16; Lev 11:31), and everyone that is within a tent with a human corpse or everything in an earthenware pot with a corpse is unclean ( [Num 19:14]; [Lev 11:33]).

41 Milgrom, “Paradox,” 63. Milgrom creates a false set of problems by trying to reconstruct how the rite might have been performed. As a result, he must posit the presence of someone to do the slaughtering of the cow before Eleazer and a priest to consecrate the blood. This creates a perplexing result since “neither the slaughterer of the cow, nor the priest who consecrated its blood is said to be unclean” (Leviticus 1–16, 274). Consequently Milgrom has to resolve the problem of why only some of the participants are defiled during the ritual. He concludes, “The difference is one of time: only those who make contact with the Red Cow after the consecration of its blood become impure. This proves that the blood consecration transforms the Red Cow into a a purification offering, for anyone handling the becomes impure” (ibid.). The problem only arises when it is assumed that there is an actual ritual behind Numbers 19 that the biblical text is seeking to describe, rather than a literary construction that brings together a variety of different texts. This is not to say, of course, that the attempt to practice the ritual did not result in a need to fill gaps or give rise to a number of puzzling questions. Already in 4QMMT there are additional participants in the rite (4Q394 3–7 I 16b–19a); see Werrett, Ian C., Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 72; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Milgrom’s problem and proposed solution is already evidenced in rabbinic discussions, but the artificiality is apparent, for in this understanding the purification offering only transmits impurity when it is outside the sacred precincts (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1053).

42 So, e.g., Gane, Roy, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005)Google Scholar; Wright, David P., The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1050.

43 Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 218 n.100; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1048–52.

44 This resolves a number of problems created by assuming the washings in Leviticus 16 are for purification. First, Milgrom wrestles with the absence of the clause “they shall be impure until evening,” which is found on other occasions of impurity (Leviticus 1–16, 1050–51). His explanation that the clause was unnecessary because there was no access to the sanctuary and no danger of the sacred offerings being consumed since Yom Kippur is a fast day is tortuous. Second, the difficulty of explaining the difference between the high priest and the other participants in the rite is removed. There is no need to argue that the sanctuary or the high priest himself has a level of sanctity that protects the high priest from pollution by the

45 Some, of course, might object that Deuteronomy 21 could describe an ancient, primitive ritual. If this chapter was a precursor to Numbers 19, then interpreters such as Gray are not mistaken in finding in Numbers 19 an ancient ritual in priestly dress. To this objection I make the following observations. First, the ritual of Numbers 19 is some distance from the pre-Deuteronomic rite of Deuteronomy 21. The oldest elements are the slaughter of an unworked heifer in the fields for blood pollution. However, that leaves a number of the elements that have been judged problematic in Numbers 19, such as Milgrom’s paradox and the identification of the red cow as a of more recent origin. Thus, while the red cow ritual has parentage, it is its own distinct rite. This rite is not conceivable prior to the bringing together of the priestly purity rituals and Deuteronomy 21. Secondly, it is possible that the pre-Deuteronomic rite in Deuteronomy 21 is ancient but, unfortunately, we simply cannot tell. While concerns about bloodguilt can be found in the second millennium B.C.E., they are still at home in the first millennium, most especially in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic tradition (see further below). For Deuteronomy, as Dietrich puts it, “es geht nicht um Primitives, sondern um Fundamentales” (Kollektive Schuld, 2; quoting Walter Burkert in reference to Greek sacrifice). Thirdly, what is ultimately at issue is what counts as explanation. It is my contention that insufficient attention has been paid to the exegetical instincts at work in Numbers 19, and that the categories of “primitive” and “archaic” do little more than explain away the anomalies of the ritual.

46 See Achenbach, “Verunreinigung.”

47 The significant differences between Numbers 19 and the impurity regulations of Leviticus 11–15 make untenable any suggestion that they were originally of one piece, or that the red cow ritual was originally part of Leviticus 11–15 and only subsequently relocated.

48 The need to continue integrating the red cow ritual and to clarify its prescriptions is clearly evidenced in the Second Temple period; see esp. Berlejung, Angelika, “Variabilität und Konstanz eines Reinigungsrituals nach der Berührung eines Toten in Num 19 und Qumran,” TZ 65 (2009) 289–331Google Scholar. Berlejung observes: “Die Verfasser der T[empel]R[olle] (und des Damaskus Dokuments) vereinheitlichten underschiedliche biblische Bestimmungen, die unmittelbar zum selben Themenbereich gehörten (Kontakt mit Menschenleichen) und/oder biblische Bestimmungen, die zwar nicht unmittelbar, jedoch nach Ansicht der Verfasser der TR durchaus zum selben Themenbereich zu zählen waren (Kontakt mit Tierkadavern, Reinigung bei Aussatz).…Dies deutet daraufhin, dass man in Qumran gezielt daran gearbeitet hat, Rituale zu transformieren, unterschiedliche Rituale aufeinander abzustimmen und ein kohärentes System von Riten zu erzeugen” (ibid., 322–23). Thus, attempts by Milgrom and others to reconstruct the original ritual and fill in gaps have limited value, for such attempts assume that the author is seeking (inadequately) to describe a known ritual. Nevertheless, they do have value for understanding the later reception of the scriptural text and the attempt to perform its instructions in the Second Temple period.

49 For a critique of this association and alternative approaches to the purity regulations, see esp. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 301–39.

50 Milgrom, Jacob, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly ‘Picture of Dorian Gray’,” RB 83 (1976) 390–99Google Scholar, at 392.

51 Ibid., “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 393.

52 Gane, Cult and Character, 144–62. Gane seeks to maintain much of Milgrom’s understanding of the purification of the sanctuary without his theory of aerial miasma. Instead, Gane argues that impurity is transferred through touch and that the sacrifice removes impurity from the offerers. In his view impurity is transferred to the sanctuary awaiting the final removal on Yom Kippur. Thus, for Gane the removal of impurity is a two-stage process.

53 Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 392–93.

54 Communication of impurity is not discussed in the case of the parturient (Lev 12:1–8) or the scale-diseased (Lev 13:1–46; 14:1–32). This is probably not because impurity was not transmitted; otherwise why was the scale-diseased placed outside the camp and required to cry out “unclean, unclean” (Lev 13:45–46)?

55 The instructions about the land would appear to be a redactional addition to the dietary laws, perhaps included in order to improve the connection between Leviticus 11 and 12–15 in the original priestly purity regulations.

56 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 875; see also Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 206–7.

57 For discussion, see Kaminsky, Joel S., Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 196; Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 96–113Google Scholar.

58 Following the usual practice in redaction-critical scholarship, the asterisk indicates a reconstructed earlier text that is not identical with the text of MT and may lack words or phrases that have been identified as glosses or redaction pluses.

59 “Hinzu kommt, daß insbesondere im Deuteronomium das Thema Totschlag als Bluttat (formuliert mit im Singular; vgl. Dtn 19,6.10.12f; 21,7–9; 27,25) und Blutschuld (formuliert mit im Plural; vgl. Dtn 19,10; 22,8, im Singular Dtn 17,8; 21,8b) von der Sache und auch vom Begriff her im Rechtskorpus eine wichtige Rolle spielt” (Dietrich, Kollektive Schuld, 197).

60 However, the idea is found in Ezekiel (9:7; 22:1–4; 39:11–16).

61 Milgrom is probably correct to discern in Lev 18:24–30 an earlier influence of the idea of the defiling power of bloodshed within the written priestly traditions. He writes, “H has taken the ubiquitous notion that homicide pollutes the land (e.g., Gen 4:10–12; Num 35:33–34; Deut 21:1–9) and applied it to other violations. The change is in keeping with H’s terminological characteristic to metaphorize. Thus, whereas homicide literally pollutes the area where the blood is spilled, in H, sexual violations metaphorically pollute the entire land” (Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000] 1579).

62 That bloodshed does not belong within the original priestly purity system is inadvertently admitted in Wright’s attempt to systematize the biblical understanding of impurity, in which he omits impurity resulting from homicide. Wright justifies the omission as follows: “The reason for this is the difference in loci of pollution, the treatment of the offender, the requirements for rectification of the impurity, and the language used to describe the impurity” (“Two Types of Impurity in the Priestly Writings of the Bible,” Koroth 9 [1988] 180–93, at 187).

63 Unfortunately, this distinction is not observed by Milgrom and his students. See, for example, Wright’s application of overhang to the scale-diseased: “The impurity of a house infected with æäraœat, since it is of the same type of impurity, offers an example from which to deduce some aspects of the infected person’s communicability. We can assume that just as an infected house pollutes for one day by overhang, an infected person who is in an enclosure pollutes other persons and things in the enclosure for one day. If people merely enter an enclosure where an infected person is, they need only to bathe and wait until evening. If they tarry there, for example by lying down or eating, they need to launder too” (Disposal of Impurity, 208–9; see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 962). This moves some distance from what is deducible from the text.

64 Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 946.

65 See, e.g., Hoffmann, David, Das Buch Leviticus (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905) 430Google Scholar.

66 Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 4.

67 Ibid., 9.

68 Ibid., 173. For Milgrom’s response to Maccoby’s theory, see “Impurity Is Miasma: A Response to Hyam Maccoby,” JBL 119 (2000) 729–33.

69 Bell, Catherine M., Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 210Google Scholar.

70 Ithamar Gruenwald’s focus on ritual as a sequential process of acts in his work Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Brill Reference Library of Judaism 10; Leiden: Brill, 2003) leaves no space, so far as I can see, for the invention of ritual. Gane’s impressive analysis of expiation in the Old Testament recognizes the difficulties in moving from ritual texts to ritual actions but still assumes that texts reflect actions, if inadequately (Cult and Character). On the other hand, the possibility of ritual innovation is beginning to be recognized. Gerald A. Klingbeil discusses it, albeit briefly, in his introduction to using ritual theory in biblical interpretation; see Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007) 144–45. More promising still is Bryan D. Bibb’s recent work, which uses insights from Roland Grimes on ritual innovation to understand the dynamic of ritual and narrative in Leviticus (Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 480; London: T&T Clark, 2009] esp. 49–51). The direction of Bibb’s thinking is clear, for he talks of rituals being “invented” in his discussion of Wright’s work on ritual in Ugaritic narratives, despite the fact that this is not how Wright himself construes the issue (ibid., 39); cf. Wright, David P., Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2001) 3–4Google Scholar.

71 See also Grimes, Ronald L., Reading, Writing, and Ritualizing: Ritual in Fictive, Liturgical, and Public Places (Washington, D.C.: Pastoral, 1993)Google Scholar esp. 1–22.

72 Bell, Ritual, 224–25.

73 Levinson, Bernard M., Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

74 Note the references to “Eleazer the priest” (vv. 3, 4), “the camp” (vv. 3, 7, 9), “the tabernacle” (v. 13), “the congregation of the Israelites” (v. 9), and “the tent” (vv. 14, 18 MT; contrast LXX and “the house” of Lev 14:33–53). The “waters of purification” are explicitly applied in the cleansing of the Israelite army after the defeat of Midian (Num 31:19–24).

75 On death in the book of Numbers, see Olson, Dennis T., The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJS 71; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985)Google Scholar; Leveen, Adriane, Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers (Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar. In its immediate context the red cow ritual is followed by a brief account of the death and burial of Miriam (Num 20:1) and the rebellion at Meribah where the people fear that they will all die (Num 20:2–13).