Yitzhaq Feder

The command to annihilate the native Canaanites—men, women, and children—calls into question the Bible’s moral authority. Although far from contemporary standards, when examined in its ancient context, it compels us to rethink the nature of morality.

The few examples of confessions in the Bible use only generic language about sin. In contrast, the post-biblical Yom Kippur liturgical confessions, written as long alphabetical lists, include detailed admissions about specific sins, many of which the petitioner likely never committed. This kind of confession goes back to the second millennium B.C.E. ancient Near Eastern texts for people suffering from illness.

Leviticus 18 and 20 condemn sexual sins using several harsh terms; toevah, zimmah, chesed, tevel. Do these terms have specific meanings and what do they tell us about the Torah’s reason for forbidding incest?

Already in the early 2nd millennium B.C.E., people knew that diseases were contagious, and fear of contagion plays a key role in the Torah’s laws regarding the skin ailment, tzaraʿat. What does this mean for understanding other kinds of tum’ah?

If a corpse is found in a field, and the killer is unknown, the enders of the closest city to break a heifer’s neck by a stream and declare that they did not spill “this blood” (Deuteronomy 21). How does this ritual of eglah arufah, “broken-necked heifer,” atone for Israel’s bloodguilt?

Despite its lengthy coverage of tzaraat, biblical “leprosy,” the Torah omits discussion of its cause, its infectiousness, and its treatment. Comparison to the Mesopotamian rituals pertaining to a strikingly similar disease, Saḫaršubbû, shows that these omissions were far from accidental.

Following the purification period after birth, a mother must bring a חטאת –“sin offering,” despite her having committed no obvious sin. This offers us a unique glimpse into the prehistory of the Israelite cult, when apotropaic rituals (used to protect against dangerous forces) like those in other ANE cultures, were the norm.

Is the book of Leviticus primitive? I believe so, though an analysis of the meaning of the word kipper suggests that these sacrificial laws may be more relevant than we often realize.

In the Bible, the term “Hebrew” is primarily used as a derogatory racial slur. Why then do even Israelites—as well as God—employ this term?

A rejoinder to Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber’s “The Purification of a Niddah: The Torah Requirement.”

The Torah first describes a world that is created to be vegetarian. It is only after the Flood that humans were allowed to eat meat. Leviticus restricts meat consumption to the sacrificial offerings only, whereas Deuteronomy permits even non-consecrated meat. How do we understand the tension between these approaches?