Are Torah Rituals Just Literary Compositions? A Comparison with Namburbis

These are surveyed, e.g., in Olaf Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1998). It is necessary to distinguish three different terms when discussing ritual procedures recorded in the Torah and the ancient Near East: “prescriptive ritual texts,” “descriptive ritual texts,” and “cultic calendars.” All three can refer to sacrificial and related procedures, but in different ways. Prescriptive ritual texts instruct practitioners how to perform a specific rite. Descriptive ritual texts, however, are administrative in nature, recording the fact that a rite took place and frequently the expenses associated with it. For this distinction see, e.g., Baruch A. Levine and William W. Hallo, “Offerings to the Temple Gate at Ur,” HUCA 38 (1967): 17–58, here 17–18. In the Torah, descriptive ritual texts can be found in Exodus 35–39; Leviticus 8–9; and Numbers 7; see Baruch A. Levine, “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch,” JAOS 85.3 (1965): 307–318. Cultic calendars indicate when a rite was to take place and often the type of offering to be presented (e.g., Leviticus 23). Unlike prescriptive ritual texts, however, they do not contain instructions about how a rite is to be performed.

See, e.g., Yitzhaq Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning, WAWSup 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011).

Prescriptive rituals from Ugarit are collected in Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, SBLWAW 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 25–116.

Richard I. Caplice, The Akkadian Namburbu Texts: An Introduction, Sources from the Ancient Near East 1.1 (Malibu, CA: Undena Publications, 1974), 8. Despite their Sumerian title, namburbis were written for performance in Akkadian, an East Semitic language related to Hebrew, and they are well attested in Neo-Assyrian and Neo- and late-Babylonian archives. See Stefan M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältungen: Eine Untersuchung altorientalsichen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), BaF 18 (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1994), 159.

Mesopotamian omen literature is extensive and includes compilations of omens connected to the practice of haruspicy (the inspection of animal entrails) as well as collections in omen series such as Šumma alu (dealing with terrestrial phenomena), Šumma izbu (dealing with birth defects), and Šumma Anu Enlil (celestial phenomena). See Alan Lenzi, Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction, ANEM 3 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 36–37. Editor’s note: On divination practices, see Uri Gabbay, “The Practice of Divination in the Ancient Near East,” TheTorah (2016).

While rulers were especially interested in warding off evil presages, specific mention of the king occurs in relatively few examples. It appears, therefore, that namburbis were not intended just for royalty and could be used to ward off an impending evil for any individual affected by a bad omen and who could afford to pay for the rite (Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 13).

Caplice, Akkadian Namburbu Texts, 8.

Caplice, Akkadian Namburbu Texts, 14, Text 1: “Ritual for the evil of a snake.” Editor’s note: For a comparison of namburbis to Talmud rituals relating to encounters with snakes, see Mark Geller, “Namburbi and Talmud Rituals,” parts 1–4, The Melammu Project.

The prayers in these rites involved a quasi-legal rhetoric, as if the subject of the namburbi sought a higher court of appeal, presided over by the god of justice, Shamash, with the goal of reversing a previous decision against the person for whom the rite was being performed. The ritual could also invoke the incantation power of the gods Ea and Asalluhi (Stefan M. Maul, “How the Babylonians Protected Themselves against Calamities Announced by Omens,” in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, ed. Tzvi Abusch and Karel van der Toorn, Ancient Magic and Divination 1 [Groningen: Styx Publications, 1999], 123–129, here 124–125).

For more detailed descriptions, see Maul, “How the Babylonians Protected Themselves,” 125–129; and Caplice, Akkadian Namburbu Texts, 9–12.

Maul, “How the Babylonians Protected Themselves,” 129. Single tablets containing multiple namburbis addressing one or more omens have also been found (Caplice, Akkadian Namburbu Texts, 17).

See Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 163–166; and Caplice, Akkadian Namburbi Texts, 8.

Gaps in the abbreviated text have been reconstructed using the full version:

^{Sm. 340} [Its ritual]: you set out [an offering arrangement for] Ea and Ishtar. You sacrifice [a kid befo]re the Bowstar [i.e., Ishtar]. [You pou]r out [a censer of juniper and fine flour]. You express greeting to Marduk. You present to [Nin-ild]u [a bronze axe and a saw]. You recite before Ishtar [the incantation “You are merciful, ... you are life-g]iving.” You set out [... before Ea, Asalluhi] and Shamash. You sacrifice [... on] the river bank. (Caplice, Akkadian Namburbu Texts, 14–15, Text 3: “Ritual for the evil of a bow”)

See Erich Ebeling, “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Beschwörungsserie Namburbu,” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 49.3 (1955): 137–148 (at 137).

Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 30. The bit rimki ritual was intended to cleanse the king of the evil of a negative omen. The king, accompanied by a ritual specialist, would pass through a series of seven “houses” (or stations), at each stage performing ritual actions and reciting prayers and incantations. See Jørgen Laessøe, Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bīt rimki (Copenhagen, Ejnar Munksgaard, 1955); and Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part II: Commentary and Appendices (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 198–199.

Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 465. The substitute king ritual was performed to avert life-threatening omens. After (nominally) transferring the king’s throne and the trappings of his office to the surrogate for a period of time, the surrogate would be killed. See Jean Bottéro, “The Substitute King and His Fate,” in Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 138–155.

For biblical examples, see Exodus 29:4; Leviticus 11:25; 13:6; 15:16; 16:26–28; and Numbers 19:7–10. In the case of namburbis, the importance of ritual washing is underscored in Michaël Guichard and Lionel Marti, “Purity in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Paleo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Periods,” in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism, ed. Christian Frevel and Christophe Nihan (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 47–113, here 95–98.

Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1990), 254–258.

Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 142–143.

Maul, “How the Babylonians Protected Themselves,” 123–124.

Editor’s note: For a comparison of the rhetoric of Moses’ intercessory prayers to aspects of namburbi rituals, see Marian Broida, “Moses Apotropaic Intercession,” TheTorah (2017).

For another type of collection, see e.g. Leviticus 1–7, which is a compilation of ritual instructions (chs. 1–5) and administrative instructions (chs. 6–7), as noted, e.g., in Timothy M. Willis, Leviticus, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009), 1.

See Christian Frevel, “Practicing Rituals in a Textual World: Ritual and Innovation in the Book of Numbers,” in Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism, ed. Nathan MacDonald, BZAW 468 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 130–150 (esp. 146). As Frevel notes, elsewhere the minchah (grain offering) specifically requires pouring oil over the flour and placing frankincense upon it (Lev 2).

Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 350–351. Editor’s note: For evidence of additional editorial activity in the sotah ritual, see Idan Dershowitz, “The Guilt of the Slanderer and the Sotah: From Certainty to Uncertainty,” TheTorah (2015).

See, e.g., Frevel, “Practicing Rituals”; Nathan MacDonald, “Scribalism and Ritual Innovation,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 7 (2018): 415–429; and Jonathan Stökl, “Innovating Ordination,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 7 (2018): 483–499.

Frevel, “Practicing Rituals,” 150.

Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 31.

Thomas Heike, Levitikus: Erster Teilband: 1–15, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 294.

Jeffrey Tigay, “Why Are Laws for Priests Included in the Torah?” The Torah.com (2018).

Tigay, “Why Are Laws for Priests Included in the Torah?”