The use of the unusual verb מִדַּבֵּר, middabber in Numbers 7:89 suggests that YHWH does not speak to Moses in the literal and simple sense.

A burnt offering, must be whole (תמים), after which it is dismembered (נתוח) and offered to YHWH. In the wake of the loss of my parents, I have come to appreciate how this process mirrors the creation story and life.

Drawing on biblical and ancient Near Eastern evidence about the consequences of swearing falsely, I suggest a new understanding of the asham case (Lev 5:20-26) involving property violation and a subsequent false oath.

The transition from the chatat (חטאת) sin offering in Leviticus 4 to the asham (אשׁם) guilt offering in Leviticus 5 is sudden, even seeming to collapse them into one offering. The history of these offerings, when and why they were introduced into the Temple service, sheds light on the interpretation and structure of these chapters.

“And He called to Moses and YHWH spoke to him” וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר יְ־הוָה אֵלָיו —Leviticus 1:1. Why is YHWH, the subject of this verse, missing from the opening phrase, and appearing only after the second verb? Traditional and critical scholars struggle to explain this syntactic problem.

The Torah’s program to democratize knowledge and create an educated laity.

In the Priestly texts, observing the divine commandments became an end in itself while the unique meaning or purpose of the particular mitzvah took on less significance. Concomitantly, Priestly authors asserted the need for personal atonement through a chatat (sin offering) for even unintentionally violating God’s commandments.

Even those who categorically deny that God has form, is composed of matter, is visible, or is subject to the constraints of time and place, cannot seem to relinquish the notion that God speaks precisely as described in the Bible.

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.

Maimonides, in his Guide of the Perplexed, portrays sacrifices as a ruse to repudiate idolatrous practices prevalent at the time. In Mishneh Torah, however, Maimonides states that the messiah will rebuild the Temple and restore sacrifices just as they once were. How are Maimonides’ two works reconcilable?

How does the Hebrew verbal system work? Where does the vav, the Hebrew conjunction often translated as “and,” fit in?