Bloodless “Atonement”: An Exegetical, Ritual, and Theological Analysis of Leviticus 5:11–13

According to Leviticus 5:11–13, semolina has the same ritual effect as blood. A thorough exegetical and ritual comparison between the חטאת of animals and the חטאת of semolina, or the מנחה-like חטאת, explains how this was possible. The results of this comparison are helpful in establishing the ritual effect of כפר as a process that defines the Priestly theology of the cult.


INTRODUCTION
The dependence on animal slaughtering and blood manipulation to explain the meaning of "atonement" ‫כפר(‬ piel) pervades the literature on Leviticus. 1 This is no modern phenomenon. From early Jewish interpretations 2 as well as medieval Christian theories, 3 "atonement" and blood seem to be inseparable. There is no doubt that one of the reasons for this history of interpretation is the application of Leviticus 17:11 as a kind of key for interpreting the meaning of the whole sacrificial system of Leviticus in general and "atonement" in particular. 4 1 I would like to thank Anthony Lipscomb and prof. Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman for reading and commenting on a previous version of this article. I am also grateful for the two anonymous readers, whose comments helped me improve my arguments significantly. I take full responsibility for any remained errors or weaknesses in this final version of the article. 2 Tannaitic literature stresses the relation between "atonement" and blood strongly. In Nedava 3:9-10, commenting on Lev 1:4, where ‫כפר‬ piel appears in Leviticus for the first time, it is said: "And it shall be acceptable on his behalf in expiation [for him]-with the atoning agent. What is the atoning agent? The blood, as it says 'because it is the blood that atones for the soul.' " For more examples and analysis of different texts in the Sipra, Mishnah and Talmud, see Shlomo Zuckier, "Manipulating Minhah: Rabbinic Restructuring of the Flour Offering" (paper presented at the Regional Seminar in Ancient Judaism, New York University, 2017). 3 Most famously, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who advocate the atonement theory of vicarious satisfaction, in which the sacrificial victim takes on the punishment of the guilty party. Of course, Anselm is dealing with the sacrifice of Jesus and the guilty of all humanity. See Christian A. Eberhart, "Introduction: Constituents and Critique of Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity," in Henrietta L. Wiley and Christian A. Eberhart (eds.), Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017), 12-13. 4 For example, the already cited Sipra Nedava 3:9-10. This is also apparent in modern commentaries. For example, R. Laird Harris uses I am only interested in deciding if the three ‫חטאת‬ offerings prescribed in vv. 6-13 are meant only for the four specific cases of 5:1-4 or also apply to the general ‫חטאת‬ offering of 4:27-35. 11 Jacob Milgrom, following traditional rabbinical interpretation, considers Leviticus 5:1-13 as a distinct sacrificial category called "graduated ‫".חטאת‬ 12 He lists five features that would separate the ‫חטאת‬ offering of chapter 4 from chapter 5: the discontinuity caused by the heading of 5:1 ‫כי(‬ ‫;)ונפׁש‬ the cases of vv. 1-4 are not violations of a prohibitive commandment (cf. 4:2, 13, 22, 27, 32); the requirement to make confession (5:5) and the feature of the offering as ‫אׁשם‬ (5:6, 7) are never used in chapter 4; the expression "any of these matters," in the plural (5:13; cf. 4b, 5a), can only relate to the cases of 5:1-4, as chapter 4 deals with one general case; and the offenses in 5:1-4 are never called "inadvertent" (root ‫,)ׁשגג‬ which is indispensable for the ‫חטאת‬ offering of chapter 4. 13 There is no doubt that the four cases specified in 5:1-4 are distinguished from the general case of chapter 4. However, they are better seen as specific offenses that still fall under the general offenses prescribed in chapter 4, 14 instead of a conditional appendix to the general law of the ‫חטאת‬ for common Israelites. 15 The heading of Leviticus 5:1 does not create a complete break with chapter 4, 16 but is necessary because of certain specific requirements concerning these four cases. The specific qualification for the cases in 5:1-4, which is indicated by the requirement for recognition of being guilty by confession, is established by 11 For discussions concerning the characteristics of the four cases in vv. 1-4, see Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, A Study of Ḥāṭāʾ and Ḥāṭṭāʾṯ in Leviticus 4-5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 10-14, 24-30; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 307, 314-15. 12 Jacob Milgrom, "The Graduated Ḥaṭṭāʾt of Leviticus 5:1-13," JAOS 103.1 (1983), 250. 13 Milgrom, "Graduated Ḥaṭṭāʾt," 249. 14 Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus (ApOTC, 3; Downers Grover, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 92, rightly affirms that the specification of ‫בשגגה‬ ‫חטאת‬ implies other cases of ‫חטאת‬ offering. When it comes to the composition of Leviticus 4-5, Feder has advanced a convincing argument that the cases in Lev 4:1-21 are secondary. For him, vv. 22-35 is the original formulation concerning the ‫חטאת‬ offering, and I argue that Lev 5:1-13 must be considered a part of this original formulation. See Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual, 38-43. 15 Contra Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 109-10. Although valid for some law cases, the notion of appendix can be misleading and defined according to the interpreter's hierarchical notions of the value of each law. For many, for example, vegetable offerings are less valuable than animal offerings, tending to create an hierarchy that results in the vegetable offerings been interpreted as appendices to the animal offerings. In his great effort, Alfred Marx shows how misleading such interpretation is. See Les offrandes végétales, specifically pp. 33, 47-48, 84, 133. 16 Greenberg does not even consider Lev 5:1 as a new heading. For him, the four cases of Lev 5:1-4 are special cases of the ‫חטאת‬ for common Israelites. See New Look at Atonement, 37. the expression ‫מאלה‬ ‫לאחת‬ ("in one of these," 5:4a, 5b). The requirement for confession (5:5) and the qualification of ‫אׁשם‬ 17 are necessary because these four cases are not "inadvertent." 18 Differently than what is suggested by Milgrom, the expression in 5:13 is not the same as in vv. 4b and 5a. In 5:13 we have ‫מאלה‬ ‫,מאחת‬ which explains the cases for which the three possible ‫חטאת‬ offerings in vv. 6-13 can be used. While the expression in vv. 4b and 5a ‫מאלה(‬ ‫)לאחת‬ has a clear partitive meaning (i.e. "in one of these things"), this is different in 5:13. The preposition ‫מן‬ before an indivisible element ‫,אחת(‬ "one") cannot be partitive. 19 Therefore, the expression means that one case stands for all other cases, or, as Kiuchi explains, the violation of one case would be the same as the violation of all cases. 20 I contend, then, that the expression in 5:13 means that to be guilty in one of the four specific cases of 5:1-4 is to be guilty of the general case that requires a ‫חטאת‬ offering. In this case, the expression in 5:5a ‫מאלה(‬ ‫)לאחת‬ means that to be guilty "in one of these," i.e., the four cases in 5:1-4, requires a confession.
Considering these arguments, what differentiates these four cases from the general case of 4:27-35 is the necessity of confessing, because they were not "inadvertent." After this specific requirement is fulfilled, these four cases require a common ‫חטאת‬ offering. 21 This is clear by the case presented in verse 2: touching something impure. This is a condition of impurity that can be simply dealt with by washing and the passing of time (Lev 12:24-28). The offense that necessitates the ‫חטאת‬ offering is most certainly not the impurity per se, but the negligence of the required washing procedure. For this reason that person has become guilty. 22 Therefore, the ‫חטאת‬ offering here does not deal 17 The translation of the term here varies among scholars. Milgrom (Leviticus 1-16, 339) suggests "he feels guilt"; Kiuchi (Leviticus, 215-16), suggests "he realizes his guilt"; Watts (Leviticus 1-10, 355) suggests "he became guilty." Another possibility is that it means "to suffer guilt's consequences," as argued by Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 39-41, and supported by Christophe Nihan, "The Templization of Israel in Leviticus," in Francis Landy, Leigh M. Trevaskis and Bryan D. Bibb (eds.), Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical and Ritual Studies in Leviticus (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 109. The most recent proposal comes from Greenberg (New Look at Atonement, 25), who suggests the translation "compelled by guilt," which is similar to Sklar's suggestion. In any case, therefore, there is no reason to consider Lev 5:1-13 as part of the ‫אׁשם‬  38, who argues that the reason the with impurity, but sin. The conclusion, then, is that the offering requirements that follow the confession, when the violation has become inadvertent, do not apply only to the four cases of 5:1-4, but to all cases of inadvertent violation for the common Israelite that is dealt with in 4:27-35. 23 The argument can be strengthened by other factors. First, the details of the ‫חטאת‬ offering in Leviticus 5:5-13 depend on information given in 4:27-35. 24 Second, in every prescription of the ‫חטאת‬ offering in Leviticus 4:1-5:13 (4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13) the ‫כפר‬ formula is exactly the same: ‫הכהן‬ ‫עליו‬ ‫.וכפר‬ 25 Third, according to the observation of James Watts, the prescription of v. 6 points to 4:32-35, forming an envelope around the digression created by the four specific cases of 5:1-4. 26 Fourth, although they do not appear as options in 4:27-35, the bird-‫חטאת‬ and the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offerings are presented as options for the parturient (Lev 12:8) and for the ‫המצרע‬ ("the one with skin disease," Lev 14:21-22). Hence, the forms of ‫חטאת‬ offerings prescribed in 5:6-13 are better understood as a continuation of the gradation of the offering according to the different status of the offerer, so that it applies to the ‫חטאת‬ offering of the common Israelite, with an adequacy according to economic conditions. 27

OPTION FOR THE POOREST OF THE POOR?
There is no need to explain why the two options given in 5:7-13 are accommodations for poor offerers. However, I think it is necessary to challenge the interpretation that the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ (vv. 11-13) is the option for those who are even too poor to afford the bird-‫חטאת‬ offering. 28 legislator(s) make(s) this concession for intentional sins is that the offender is the only person who knows about the sinful act. 23 Because he recognizes the transition to a common ‫חטאת‬ after the confession, Milgrom also recognizes that after the confession, the four cases are dealt with as a case of inadvertent violation (Leviticus 1-16, 301-2). 24  Ezek 46:7). This is a slightly different expression than that found in v. 7, although the idiom is similar: "if his hand does not reach the amount of" ‫די(‬ ‫ידו‬ ‫תגיע‬ ‫,)ואם-לא‬ which is a hapax. The expression in v. 11 lacks the clear element about sufficiency ‫)די(‬ and uses the verb ‫,נׂשג‬ instead of ‫.נגע‬ Although the expression in v. 11 is clearly about financial sufficiency, 29 the question of how the financial value of one-tenth of semolina, roughly 2.3 liters or the amount of a day's bread consumption for one person, 30 is lower than two turtledoves ‫)תרים(‬ or two "small" pigeons ‫)בני-יונה(‬ is not so clear. Although the lower value of one-tenth of semolina is always assumed, it is never actually substantiated. The financial comparison between a couple of small birds, ‫,תרים(‬ "doves"; ‫בני-‬ ‫,יונה‬ "'small' pigeons"), with a grain product is truly impossible to do. 31 In considering this impossibility, it is easier to think from a different angle than financial value. The most important difference between the use of two small birds or semolina is a matter of availability. 32 Every ancient Israelite household had easy access to some portion of semolina, which is, of course, a basic ingredient in ancient Israelite diet, even if semolina is a finer final product than common flour for bread. The availability of ‫תור‬ and ‫בני-יונה‬ is more complicated to assess. What can be said is that in Iron Age II Israel, these small birds 33 were common, especially in the Judean hills, 34  Recently, Peter Altmann has advanced arguments against the domestication of these small birds in pre-Hellenistic Palestine (Banned Birds, 23-42). His general definition of "domestication," which works well for larger mammals, is too narrow for small species of birds. For example, he thinks the need to cage a bird is evidence for non-domestication (Banned Birds, 28). It would be going too far from the scope of this article to discuss these matters further. But I would like to point to two facts: ‫תור‬ and ‫יונה‬ played a role, even if small, in the domestic economy of ancient Israel in Iron Age II, as the archaeological evidence shows; and even if this species would be caught in the wild, it would stay in the household for a while, at least to be fattened, as was the case in Mesopotamia, before it would be used for cultic purposes (see Altmann, Banned Birds, 35). From this more modest assumption, Spiciarich's archaeological data are helpful. She reminds that these small birds represent the most common birds exploited in the region of Judah during the Iron Age I and II, especially because the Judean hills are ideal habitats for them ("Birds in Transition," 74). Her data show that, from the 19 archaeological sites considered in her study, remains of ‫תור‬ and ‫יונה‬ are most prevalent in areas near Jerusalem ("Birds in Transition," 70). She is clear that the data is not helpful to determine the domestication or not of these small birds in Iron Age II Israel ("Birds in Transition," 73). But she rightly comments that the scribes who were behind the composition of the Hebrew Bible were influenced by the ecology of their local environment ("Birds in Transition," 74). 36 See René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 68. When the Talmud explains these possibilities, it groups the two, saying: "A poor person brings a bird offering or even a meal offering" (b. Zebaḥim 45b:9). It is clear that it does not qualify the latter as even cheaper than the former. compatible substitute for the bigger animals as the two small birds are. 37 For the Priestly legislator, 38 to substitute the bigger animal with two small birds or semolina is equivalent, producing the same ritual results.

‫מנחה‬ AND ‫חטאת‬ OFFERINGS
Because I am calling the ritual in Leviticus 5:11-13 the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering, it is necessary to clarify these terms. I will provide some information about the ‫חטאת‬ and the ‫מנחה‬ offerings, and discuss their possible functions and meaning.

OFFERING
Among the many issues related to the ‫חטאת‬ offering, I am interested in how it was used for situations involving violations of YHWH's commandments and severe physical impurities, because this is essential to determine its function and meaning. The fact that a ‫חטאת‬ offering is required in cases of physical impurity of persons, such as the parturient (Lev 12:6) or the man with a "flux" ‫)זוב(‬ condition (15:15), raises questions about the relation between sin and impurity. 39 Milgrom's interpretation limits the function and meaning of the ‫חטאת‬ offering to matters of impurity related to the sanctuary and its sancta. Among his many arguments, he points to the fact that the ‫חטאת‬ offering is prescribed for persons and objects that cannot possibly have sinned. 40 The offenders are forgiven because of internal remorse, but they still need forgiveness because their violation contaminated the sanctuary. 41 In Milgrom's view, therefore, severe impurities and sinful behavior produce impurity that contaminates the sanctuary, which requires a process of purification effected by the rituals involved in the ‫חטאת‬ offering. There is a problem, however, when we come to Leviticus 4-5: impurity is never mentioned. A much better option is presented by Baruch Schwartz. 42 According to Schwartz, Leviticus 4-5 is 37 Cf. Marx, Les systèmes sacrificiels, 84. 38 Using the singular for convenience, as for sure more than one person could be involved in the composition of the Priestly legislation. 39 The concept of impurity ‫)טמא(‬ is also applied to moral behaviors (see Lev 18:24). For the differentiation between ritual and moral impu- dealing with sin. The association of the ‫חטאת‬ offering with cases of impurity and sin demonstrates that both have similar effects on the person and on the sanctuary. They are both a kind of miasma that penetrates the realm of the sacred, 43 and both create a negative condition in the person. 44 What both of these effects do is to create a breach between the divine presence and the sanctuary (where the divine presence dwells), and the person who suffers from an impure condition or commits a sin. Therefore, be it a case of impurity or sin, it is necessary to complete the ‫כפר‬ process, of which the ‫חטאת‬ offering is a part.
Even if impurity and sin are similar, Schwartz shows clearly that they receive different conceptualizations in the Priestly legislation. Concerning the necessity of the ‫חטאת‬ offering, in the case of impurity, the relevant terms are ‫חטא‬ and ‫טהר‬ ("purification"), while in the case of sin, the term is ‫סלח‬ ("forgiveness"). 45 It is also possible to see a similarity in how the ‫כפר‬ process occurs in both cases that necessitate the ‫חטאת‬ offering. First, in the cases of impurity, 46 the person only comes to provide the ‫חטאת‬ offering after it is declared that he or she is purified (e.g. Lev 15:13-15). If we apply this order of things to cases of sin, as Schwartz does, then the negative condition of the person is dealt with by means of the confession, repentance, and actions of remorse, and only after it the ‫חטאת‬ offering can function in the ‫כפר‬ process. 47 Building on Schwartz's arguments, I suggest that we have here two steps in the ‫כפר‬ process: the first concerns the purification and forgiveness of persons and the second concerns the purification of the sanctuary from the impurities and the sins of persons. 48 This second part of the ‫כפר‬ process, in cases of impurity, can also be called ‫,חטא‬ and in cases of sin, can also be called ‫עון‬ ‫נׂשא‬ ("bearing of sin," Lev 5:1). 49 If I am correct about this division in two steps for the ‫כפר‬ process, a very disputable issue becomes easier to solve. I am talking about the object of ‫כפר‬ piel. 50 The common discussion 43 Schwartz, "The Bearing of Sin," 6-7. 44  48 Schwartz himself uses this division, but in relation to Lev 16, where you have actions of remorse and the scapegoat ritual ("The Bearing of Sin," 16-17). Further, he continues using this notion of a divided process when interpreting the role of the two goats in Lev 16 ("The Bearing of Sin," 18). 49 Schwartz, "The Bearing of Sin," 21. 50 Theologically, the subject and object of ‫כפר‬ piel is highly important. In common evangelical perspectives of penal substitutive "atonement," for example, it is essential that God be the object and subject, as he is the one who effects "atonement" and the one for whom "atonement" is effected for. However, it is quite clear that God concerning the object of the verb ‫כפר‬ piel is the use of three prepositions that follow the verb, ‫,על‬ ‫בעד‬ and ‫,את‬ 51 and the use of ‫מן‬ after the combination ‫על‬ + ‫כפר‬ piel. 52 The basic issue is that while ‫את‬ + ‫כפר‬ piel is always followed by sancta (Lev 16:20, 33) and ‫בעד‬ + ‫כפר‬ piel is always followed by persons (Lev 9:7; 16:6, 11, 17, 24), ‫על‬ + ‫כפר‬ piel can be followed by sancta or persons. 53 In Leviticus 4-5, ‫בעד‬ + ‫כפר‬ piel is never used, and in the specific text of Leviticus 5:13, what we find is ‫על‬ + ‫כפר‬ piel ‫עליו(‬ ‫.)וכפר‬ Because the preposition ‫על‬ can be used in cases of sancta and persons, its use is not determinant for the object of the verb. The question is if it should be understood as a kind of direct object marker, a spatial preposition ("upon"), or as a preposition similar to ‫בעד‬ ("on behalf of")? In the first two options, the object would be clearly the offerer, while in the last one, although the offerer is the beneficiary, he or she does not need to be the object.
Most famously, Jacob Milgrom argues that in Leviticus 4-5, the object of ‫כפר‬ piel can only be sancta and not the offerer, because the ‫כפר‬ material (he specifies it as the blood of the ‫חטאת‬ offering) is never applied on the offerer. Nonetheless, he recognizes that persons can be the object of ‫כפר‬ piel when it is followed by the preposition ‫.על‬ 54 Some new studies, offered by Joshua Vis 55 and Roy Gane 56 challenge Milgrom's conclusion, and advance arguments in conclusion that the offerer is the object in Leviticus 4-5. 57 Both of them, however, concur that ‫כפר‬ is not the object of ‫כפר‬ piel in the Priestly view, something perceived as problematic for common Christian theologies of "atonement" since the 19th century (see Eberhart, "Introduction," 15). Also clear is that God is certainly not the subject of ‫כפר‬ piel, because only the priest is the subject ( ‫על‬ + piel, in Leviticus 4:35 and 5:13, should be rendered as "concerning" 58 or "because of." 59 In this case, the offerer is not the direct object of ‫כפר‬ piel ("to make 'atonement' concerning/ because of his or hers sins"), which is the case when we have ‫כפר‬ ‫על‬ + piel combined with ‫מן‬ ("to make 'atonement' of/ from his or hers sins," see Lev 4:26; 5:5, 10). 60 Vis and Gane, to adapt this nuance to their interpretation, consider the offerer as the object of ‫כפר‬ piel indirectly. In these cases, ‫כפר‬ is directed towards sancta, which then effects ‫כפר‬ on the offerer. 61 If the two steps in the ‫כפר‬ process are taken into consideration, this debate becomes less problematic. Sancta and offerer are affected by the ‫כפר‬ process, which can only be considered completed if both steps are concluded. Here, we must consider something that Milgrom 62 and Vis 63 take as essential, but from different perspectives: the relation between the sanctuary and Israel. A very good definition of this relation is presented by Christophe Nihan. For Nihan, the sanctuary plays a central role "within the community's constitution and self-representation." 64 Because the sanctuary reflects the community, it is not enough for the offerer to become pure or forgiven (the first step). This status must be reflected in the sanctuary, the dwelling place of the deity's presence, aligning the status of the offerer in relation to the deity in reference to the sanctuary (second step). Therefore, even after the first step of the ‫כפר‬ process is completed, the second step is still necessary. Here enters the ‫חטאת‬ offering, which has sancta as its object, so that it aligns the persons and 58 Gane, Cult and Character, 126. 59 Vis, "Purgation of Persons," 55. 60 A distinction Vis does not consider crucial ("Purgation of Persons," 56). 61 See Vis, "Purgation of Persons," 47, 49; Gane, Cult and Character, 129. Feder believes that sancta as the object of ‫כפר‬ piel is relatively late, while the notion of "personal" expiation is the earliest as seen in Lev 4 and 16 (Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual, 112-13). 62 For Milgrom, the sanctuary is a reflection of Israel's status before YHWH. The more impurities produced by Israel, the more contaminated the sanctuary becomes, and as Israel is purified, so it is the sanctuary. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 260; Jacob Milgrom, "Israel's Sanctuary: The Priestly 'Picture of Dorian Gray'," RB 83 (1976), 398. 63 As mentioned above, the "purgation" (Vis' choice of translation for ‫)כפר‬ of the sanctuary is capable of effect "purgation" on the offerer. Not only that, Vis contends that "people can only be clean when the sanctuary is clean" ("Purgation of Persons," 47). 64 Nihan, "Templization of Israel," 107 (cf. 96, 112, 126). I think Nihan's interpretation is mistaken in concluding that this specific role of the sanctuary is limited to blood manipulation of the ‫חטאת‬ offering in Lev 4 (especially pp. 125-26). For an overall critique of Nihan's approach, not necessarily of his interpretation of the relation between the sanctuary and Israel, see the cultic community with that of the sanctuary. Therefore, the status of the person and the community as purified and forgiven is not attained, unless the complete process is done. That is why Vis' and Gane's recognition of the meaning of ‫על‬ + ‫כפר‬ piel as "concerning" or "because of" is relevant. This is highly agreeable with Schwartz's interpretation of the ‫חטאת‬ offering in Leviticus 4-5. In a very clear way, Schwartz says that in the ‫חטאת‬ offering in Leviticus 4-5 sins of persons are removed from the sanctuary. 65 Given the close relation between sanctuary and cultic community, the ‫כפר‬ process can only be attained after both are aligned. That is why, when considering acts of remorse and the scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16, Schwartz affirms that none of the steps are superfluous, they are both needed. 66 According to my interpretation, the ‫חטאת‬ offering in Leviticus 4-5 is directed towards sancta and not the offerer, who has been forgiven by his or hers confession. 67 However, by "bearing the sin" of the offerer from the sanctuary, the ‫חטאת‬ offering aligns both, sanctuary and cultic community, which results in ‫כפר‬ piel. There is, however, another important function of the ‫חטאת‬ offering in relation to persons. In many cases, including those of Leviticus 5:1-4, there is no material evidence for the impure state or the sinful action. Therefore, the ‫חטאת‬ offering also functions to mark the previous state of the offerer. Not only that, it also functions to mark, rather than effect, 68 the new condition by promoting an encounter with the deity. 69 To mark a previous state of separation and the promotion of an encounter with the deity are both crucial functions of a ‫,מנחה‬ as we will see next. The concept of alignment becomes useful here, again. By aligning the state of offerer and sanctuary, the ‫חטאת‬ offering makes it possible for the sanctuary to become "the very place where relations between the community and its patron deity are established and renegotiated." 70 The most significant accomplishment of Schwartz's article, in my opinion, is his sensibility to relate bigger concepts with 65 Schwartz, "The Bearing of Sin," 16 (emphasis original). In this case, it is not necessary to distinguish between 4:26; 5:5, 10, where ‫מן‬ appears, and 4:35; 5:13, where it does not. In all cases, the object of ‫כפר‬ piel is sancta in relation to the offerer's offense. The presence or not of ‫מן‬ is only a problem when the offerer is considered the object of ‫כפר‬ piel. 66 Schwartz, "The Bearing of Sin," 19-20. The reflection between the sanctuary and the cultic community can be well perceived by the division of three ‫חטאת‬ offerings, which corresponds with three degrees of social status in the community. Also related to the degrees of social status in the community is the severity of the sin and impurity, which is then projected onto the three divisions of the sanctuary. The more severe, the more it penetrates into the sanctuary. See Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual, 98-99. 67 Or, in the case of impurities, it marks that he or she has been purified by washings and the passing of time. 68 See Janzen, Social Meanings of Sacrifice, 105. 69 Encounter with the deity will be argued for in Part 4 of this article. 70 Nihan, "Templization of Israel," 127. smaller ones. In the same way that "purification" and "bearing of sin" fall under the concept of ‫,כפר‬ 71 sin and impurity are both conditions that mark opposition to ‫קדׁש‬ ("holiness"). "Holiness" is broader than ethics, denoting a natural and cosmic identity of being divine, or related to the divine identity. In this case, the use of the ‫חטאת‬ offering to achieve ‫כפר‬ is a ritual recognition and overcoming of the separation between the divine realm and the human realm. From this perspective, for example, impurities that are not related to sin at all, such as the post-birth impurity and sexual-related impurities, together with the contaminated condition caused by sin, all point to conditions in which the distance between creation and deity became clearer. These conditions are mostly related to death and birth, 72 while sin is an obvious action against the deity's holiness. Therefore, the persons involved in these conditions need to go through the ‫כפר‬ process to approach the divine realm, and the ‫חטאת‬ offering serves to mark the distinction between what is divine and what is not, 73 at the same time that it creates the right environment for the encounter between the two.

THE ‫מנחה‬ OFFERING
The prescription of the offering in 5:11-12 mirrors that of the ‫מנחה‬ offering in 2:2-3 in practical and meaningful ways. A simple reading of these texts is enough to see the similarities, so I will just point to what I consider most important.
The term ‫מנחה‬ has a clear secular origin that points to a transaction of tribute from a lower status party to a higher status 71 Building upon Kiuchi's interpretation, Gilders affirms that ‫כפר‬ is a "hypernym" (Blood Ritual, 137); cf. Eberhart, "To Atone or Not To Atone," 226. Kiuchi, in fact, calls it a "supernym" of ‫,חטא‬ ‫,קדׁש‬ and , ‫טהר‬ meaning that ‫כפר‬ piel "expresses some act which enables progression from uncleanness to cleanness, from cleanness to holiness and from uncleanness to holiness" (The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987], 97-98). In light of the discussion I provided above, we must add to this list the "bearing of sin" ‫עון(‬ ‫.)נׂשא‬ For a more direct description of what I understand to be the meaning of the ‫כפר‬ process, see Part 4 of this article. 72 This is not to say that deity and creation are opposites, but they belong to different categories that need to be recognized. Cf one. 74 The transaction not only serves a financial role, but more importantly, it serves to mark status difference. Therefore, it gained a special function for cases in which the status difference was disrupted and caused the higher status party to feel dishonored by the lower status one. In these cases, the ‫מנחה‬ served as a kind of gift of reconciliation, not because of the financial value of the gift, but for the recognition of the right status difference between the parties. Therefore, it is a status marker in moments when the parties will meet, especially, although not exclusively, after a disruption of the status difference. An interesting case, although not completely "secular," 75 appears in the reencounter between Jacob and Esau, after their status difference was disrupted by Jacob, the younger brother, who had received from his father the benefits of Esau, the prior heir as the older brother. In their reencounter, Jacob offers Esau a ‫מנחה‬ ( ; 33:10). Interestingly, the text records that Jacob's intention with the offering of a ‫מנחה‬ is that he might ‫כפר‬ piel Esau. The final result of this process, according to Jacob's intentions, is that he would see Esau's face, so that Esau might "lift up mine [Jacob's] face." 76 Although there is much going on here, 77 it is clear that one of the clear results of Jacob's ‫מנחה‬ is to have a good encounter with his brother Esau, which must be related to the meaning of ‫כפר‬ piel.
The context of a good encounter, resulting in a good favor from the high status party, will be an important element in Part 4 of this article. The fact that this aspect of the ‫כפר‬ process is a highly neglected one, pushes me to expand the discussion on the function of the ‫מנחה‬ offering in this light. Alfred Marx, who advances the most detailed analysis of vegetable offerings in the Hebrew Bible in general and in the Priestly legislation in particular, establishes encounter, union, and "bonds of communion," 78 as the meaning and function of these vegetable offerings. 74 See Marx, Les offrandes végétales, 80, 131; cf. Marx, Les systèmes sacrificiels, 163. 75 See below, footnote 77. 76 Meaning that Esau would be in favor of Jacob or well-disposed toward him. When the encounter takes place, the language is clearer by the use of the root ‫רצה‬ (Gen 33:10). 77 In this whole narrative about Jacob's encounter with Esau, there is a playful association between encountering the estranged brother and encountering God. After this explicit mentioning of the encounter by use of expressions using the word "face" ‫,)פנה(‬ Jacob interprets his encounter and fight with "a man" ‫)איׁש(‬ as seeing God "face to face" (Gen 32:31[30]). In the conclusion of the narrative, Jacob relates seeing Esau's face to seeing God's face (Gen 33:10). See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC, 2; Dallas: Word, 1998), 292; Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 266. As Wenham rightly observes, in Gen 32, the language is quasi-sacral. The probable reason is this association between encountering Esau and encountering God. Therefore, we cannot really dismiss this narrative as merely "secular." 78 In French, "liens de communion." In the context, it seems like he is arguing from a covenantal perspective. He says that the ‫מנחה‬ offering "renforcera les liens de communion qui les unissent entre eux" According to Marx, this is accomplished in three phases: the first is the handing of the offering to the priest by the offerer; the second is the placement, by the priest, of the offering on the altar, which is consumed by the altar's fire; and the third is the consumption of part of the offering by the priest. 79 Marx's emphasis is on the consumption by the deity and the priest of the exact same product, which does not occur in the case of animal offerings. 80 Therefore, he affirms that the vegetable offerings are the synthesis and the climax of the whole sacrificial system by establishing the closest communion possible between humankind and the deity. 81 Although the priest is in a privileged position in this case, we cannot forget that he is a mediator and his experience of communion with the deity is only possible by means of the offerer's bringing of an offering. Their mutual dependence as mediators, according to Marx, makes it a shared experience between priest and offerer. 82 In light of the function of the ‫חטאת‬ offering to mark a previous state in which the offerer was in a condition of opposition to the divine "holiness," therefore, being farther from the divine presence than usual, 83 we can see how the ‫,מנחה‬ in its secular function as a gift to mark status difference, could be used in the same cultic function as that of the ‫חטאת‬ offering. Now, because there is more to the ‫חטאת‬ offering than this, especially when considering its function in the ‫כפר‬ process, it was necessary to add other cultic elements to the ‫מנ‬ ‫חה‬ offering, such as the burning on the altar, and other qualifying terms were added for a more specific meaning, such as ‫אזכרתה‬ ("token portion") and ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ ("most holy"). 84 In any case, the choice of the term by the Priestly legislator is significant to show that the ‫מנחה‬ offering is not a mere technical cultic practice, although it is this as well. More important, however, is that the term points to the purpose of the offering as a tribute to mark the recognition of (Les offrandes végétales, 141). 79 Marx, Les offrandes végétales, 73-75. 80 He does make a distinction between the ‫מנחה‬ offering in its three different states: semolina, bread, and roasted grains. It is true that the different states of the product make a difference, but not in the main purpose and function of the offering as Marx, sometimes, implies. See Marx, Les offrandes végétales, 83. 81 Ibid., 84. 82 See ibid., 82-83. 83 Concretely, the person in such condition would not be allowed in the sanctuary, where the presence of the deity dwells, so he or she would be physically separated from the divine presence. That is, for example, the language used by Dorothea Erbele-Küster when speaking about the parturient of Lev 12. She says that her condition of cultic impurity is "a time of separation from the sanctuary" (" 'She Shall Remain in (Accordance to) Her Blood-of-Purification'," 65). 84 The ‫מנחה‬ offering is much more important for P than it is recognized in the scholarship. Alfred Marx is, obviously, an exception. He is definitely right to say that the ‫מנחה‬ offering can play different ritual roles, and P defines that by the term it uses in association with it. See Marx, Les systèmes sacrificiels, 35. different status between two parties, 85 at the same time that promotes and reinforces the "bond of communion," creating an opportunity for a safe encounter between them; in the cultic context, between deity and offerer.
Besides the secular use of the term, which already is related to ‫כ‬ ‫פר‬ piel, as seen in the case of Jacob and Esau, the cultic use in 1 Samuel 3:14 shows clearly how the ‫מנחה‬ offering had the potential to effect ‫.כפר‬ There, it is affirmed that the ‫עון‬ ("iniquity") of Eli's family will not be ‫כפר‬ hithpael by any ‫זבח‬ ("sacrifice," lit. "slaughter") nor ‫.מנחה‬ 86 We can arrive at a similar conclusion for the Priestly legislation. Right at the beginning of the cultic legislation, we have the mentioning of ‫כפר‬ in Leviticus 1:4. It is true that this applies to the ‫עלה‬ offering, and then the verb will reappear only in Leviticus 4:20, which seems to indicated that it plays no part in the ‫מנחה‬ offering (Lev 2) and the ‫שלמים‬ offering (Lev 3). However, it is important to consider the rhetoric of the literary composition. James Watts concludes that "1:4 introduces the theme of kpr to characterize the purpose of bringing offerings in general." 87 Building on this insight from Watts, and my own analysis, I consider that the mentioning of ‫כפר‬ in 1:4 points to the final goal of the whole Priestly cultic system, as can be implied by P's naming of the altar as ‫העלה‬ ‫מיזבח‬ ("the altar of the ascension offering"). 88 Another matter to consider concerning the ‫כפר‬ function of the whole cultic system is the relation between the ‫עלה‬ offering and the ‫מנחה‬ offering, which can point us to the particular function of the latter. It is interesting to mention that just as the ‫מנחה‬ legislation in Leviticus 2 comes right after the legislation concerning the bird-‫עלה‬ (Lev 1:14-17), so too the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ comes after the legislation of the bird-‫חטא‬ ‫ת‬ . There is, therefore, a relation between the function of the ‫עלה‬ and that of the ‫.מנחה‬ Milgrom believes that such a relation is so intrinsic that the ‫מנחה‬ is actually the ‫עלה‬ option for the poor. 89 85 Cf. Watts, Leviticus 1-10, 302. Eberhart, rightly in my opinion, even qualifies the reason to mark this status difference by means of the concept of YHWH as the divine king. See Eberhart, "To Atone or Not To Atone," 216. 86 Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 197. 87 Watts, Leviticus 1-10, 326. Cf. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus, 138-39. 88 If my proposal that ‫כפר‬ is about a safe encounter with the deity, as I will argue in Part 4 of this article, then it makes sense that the verb does not appear in Lev 2 and 3. Greenberg argues: "However, the šəlāmîm and minḥâ offerings are prescribed for sharing a sacrifice with Yhwh and the priests and not for correcting a problem. Even though the šəlāmîm and minḥâ offerings connect the offerer to Yhwh, based on their usual use, it is conjectured that the Priestly legislators saw no need to include kipper in Lev 2 and 3" (New Look at Atonement, 48-49).
89 Leviticus 1-16, 196. Cf. Schwartz, "Leviticus," 208-9. I certainly disagree with the financial criteria, but this is a good example of how interpreters can still consider the ‫כפר‬ function of the ‫,מנחה‬ even when the verb is not used in Leviticus 2.

PART 3: THE ‫כפר‬ PROCESS IN THE ‫-מנחה‬LIKE ‫חטאת‬ OFFERING
As seen in the previous discussion, there are conceptual similarities between the functions and meaning of the ‫מנחה‬ and the ‫חטאת‬ offerings, as well as some ritual equivalence between the ‫מנחה‬ and ‫עלה‬ offerings, even if there are peculiarities to each of them. Here, I will present similarities between the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ and the ‫חטאת‬ of animals, this time more related to the rituals themselves and how the Priestly legislator defines them. Before doing so, I would like to present Milgrom's explanations for the use of semolina in the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫,חטאת‬ because he is the only scholar who actually tries to provide one. But, as I will show, there are deficiencies in his arguments. After that I will present some rabbinic options as a way to introduce my own approach. Milgrom provides two arguments, the first is that semolina was a purification material in ancient Mesopotamia, 90 and the second is that the legislator was not so sure what kind of impurities were produced by the cases of Leviticus 5:1-4, so they might not have sufficient force to pollute the sanctuary. 91 Although the first argument is not necessarily inadequate, it still focuses on the material itself as the means to cause the effects of the ritual, rather than paying attention to the ritual function of the offering itself. As I will show, the question is not the material used per se. Therefore, his first argument shows rather clearly what happens when one's interpretation of the ‫חטאת‬ offering is so dependent on a certain view of the material function of the blood, which is then transferred to another material, when other issues are more relevant to explain the function and meaning of the ritual. Concerning the second argument, it is very inadequate. If we can know something about the Priestly legislation is that it does not work with "maybes." In this case, Milgrom's explanation shows what happens when one's view of ‫כפר‬ is only limited to "purification" or "purgation," rather than considering a more complete process that encapsulates other functions and meanings that the ritual might have. 92 If we turn to the rabbinic literature, although there is some emphasis on blood, 93 it uses another approach which pays attention to the rituals themselves. In Sipra, for example, the ‫מנחה‬ offering is used as the model of secondary offerings, like frankincense and oil. The reasoning is as follows: Just like a flour offering, which comes as a [secondary] obligation along with the animal offering, can also be brought as a donation offering alone, so too frankincense, which 90 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 306. He is followed with less certainty by Schwartz, "Leviticus," 216. 91  Although the ‫מנחה‬ offering is also recognized as a primary offering, by using it as a model of secondary offerings, the Sipra downgrades it as a sub-offering, a mere accompaniment to a "real" animal offering, because the latter contains blood. 94 There is, therefore, an effort to consider the ritual itself, but the real criterion is the material used. Another example is the Mishnah. In this case, there is a real effort to consider the ritual itself. Shlomo Zuckier provides an important insight by putting Mishnah Zebaḥim side by side with Mishnah Menaḥot. 95 He observes that there is ritual equivalence between certain rites in animal and semolina offerings. Thus, slaughter is replaced by kemitzah, or grabbing a fistful of flour; catching the blood in the utensil is replaced by placing the flour in the utensil; instead of carrying the blood to the altar we find carrying flour to the altar; and throwing the blood on the altar is supplanted by burning the flour on the altar, and turning it to smoke. 96 These four ritual stages are equivalent in both offerings, the reason why they can both have the same ritual effect. I would like to suggest, however, that the fourth stage is more similar than it first seems. For offerings involving blood, this fourth stage is the "tossing upon" the altar (see, for example, Exod 29:16, 20, Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2; 8:19, 24; 9:12, 18). 97 Even if the verb indicating this action ‫)זרק(‬ is never used for offerings involving semolina in general, it is worth noticing a peculiar characteristic of it. 94 See Zuckier, "Manipulating Minhah." This same kind of reasoning also appears in recent modern evangelical theology. Consider, for example, this comment: "The burning of a memorial portion [Lev 5:12] gave the offering the status of a blood sacrifice, since the token was mixed with the other burnt sacrifices on the altar. There is thus no exception to the principle that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Heb 9:22). The flour served as a replacement for a blood sacrifice, thereby emphasizing the concept of vicarious or substitutionary offering, which is basic to Hebrew sacrificial thought" (R. K. Harrison, Leviticus, 70-71). In this interpretation, the only reason why the offering of Lev 5:11-13 is able to effect ‫כפר‬ is because one portion of it gets in contact with the blood of another (primary) animal offering. For a thorough refutation of the vegetable offerings as secondary, see Marx, Les offrandes végétales. 95  The action depicted by ‫זרק‬ in biblical Hebrew is, necessarily, done with powdery and liquid substances. 98 What is highlighted by the action is the fact that the substance spreads through the air onto a determined object. In the case of blood, the motion of taking it from a vessel 99 and actually tossing it, makes it spread all over the area around the altar and upon the altar itself. Now, in the case of offerings involving semolina, the movement of bringing it to be burned in a handful, also makes it spread all over the area around the altar and upon the altar itself. Therefore, although this fourth stage of the ritual is not exactly the same for blood offerings and offerings involving semolina, the outcome of the action is the same: the substance held by the priest is spread throughout the floor near the altar and the whole altar from top to bottom. 100 From this ritual analysis perspective, it is necessary to observe one important difference as well. While an animal offering has three portions-blood tossed upon the altar, the fat burned on the altar, and the meat-, the offering with semolina has only two portions-the handful burned on the altar and the remainder which is eaten by the priests. In this comparative scheme, the handful of semolina plays a dual role, being the equivalent to the blood and to the "fatty" portion burned on the altar. 101 Ritually, therefore, the offerings with semolina, be it a ‫מנחה‬ or a ‫-מנחה‬ like ‫,חטאת‬ can be effective for the ‫כפר‬ process, because it has the ritual equivalent to the blood and the fat of the animal: the handful portion. 102 In what follows, it will become clear that my approach is somewhat similar to that of the Mishnah, especially considering the handful portion as the equivalent of the "fatty" portion burned on the altar. I will, however, present my own ritual analysis, focusing specifically on the ‫חטאת‬ of animals in comparison with the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫.חטאת‬ 98 Meshel, "Form and Function of a Biblical Blood Ritual," 278, n. 8. 99 There is no mentioning of how the blood was collected and transported, but we must assume that there was some kind of container for that purpose. See Gilders, Blood Ritual, 113; Meshel, "Form and Function of a Biblical Blood Ritual," 278, n. 8. Interestingly, the probable object used for that was the ‫מזרק‬ (Exod 27:3; 38:3), which is mentioned in the context of collection and transportation of offerings involving semolina (Num 7:13, 19, 25, 61, 67, etc.). 100 In both cases, then, there is a chain of physical touch between the offerer and the altar, mediated by the priest. See Greenberg, New Look at Atonement, 33. 101 Zuckier, "Manipulating Minhah." 102 Zuckier, therefore, concludes as follows: "[According to the Mishnah] how can flour offerings atone, or generally be effective, if they lack blood? The answer is that they do have blood, in the form of the handful of the offering" (emphasis original).

TWO-FOLD DIVISION
The first ritual element that is essential in the Priestly cult system is the division of the offerings in portions. Among other factors, such as spatial differentiation and priestly handlings, priests are able to create more sacred substances by means of apportionment. 103 Apportionment, however, does not create completely separate portions; to the contrary, they maintain their identity unified even when divided. This ritual identity between the different portions of the same offering can be conceptualized by the pars pro toto principle.
In the pars pro toto principle, at least two portions of an offering is needed. In the case of the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ the division in two portions is quite clear. From one offering of 2.3 liters of semolina, the priest gets a handful portion that is called a ‫אזכרתה‬ ("token portion"). The token portion is carried and then burned on the altar and the remainder becomes an edible portion for the priest "like a ‫"מנחה‬ (Lev 5:13). Therefore, in 5:12-13 we are seeing an exact replication of the procedure in 2:2-3, with the difference that in the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering the addition of olive oil and frankincense is forbidden (5:11), marking it as a ‫חטאת‬ offering and not a ‫מנחה‬ offering. For many reasons, including the function and meaning of the ‫מנחה‬ offering, the term ‫אזכרתה‬ is seen as related to the covenant relationship. 104 I agree with that view, which points to the overall context of the offering as covenantal relationship between YHWH and Israel, which includes communion. However, this qualification is ritually necessary to make explicit the relation between the two portions: the one that goes to the altar is a token of the one that remains to be eaten by the priest. In the case of animal offerings, this is unnecessary, as each portion comes from the same animal, so that they have an essential unified character already. The exception, of course is the bird-‫חטאת‬ (Lev 5:7-10), that requires two animals, but in that case there is also an intriguing way to relate one portion to the other as I will show briefly.
In all forms of ‫חטאת‬ offering prescribed in Leviticus 4, the offering is divided in two portions: its blood, which is applied to sancta, and its "fatty" portion (4:8-9), which is burned on the altar. Everything else that is not the blood or the "fatty" portion (4:11-12, 21), that I can conveniently call the "meat" portion, could be considered a third division. This third portion, especially when it is eaten by the priest, has an important ritual function and meaning, but when it is burned outside the camp, its ritual function and meaning is limited to a disposal rite. 105 103 Kathryn McClymond, "Space and Sacrifice in Leviticus" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, November 2011), 11. 104 See Kiuchi, Leviticus, 68-70. 105 See Watts, Leviticus 1-10, 347. I am speaking only about the ‫חטאת‬ offering. The three-portion division is considered basic in the Mishnah, as I mentioned above, because it deals with the general cases of animal offerings, including the ‫עלה‬ offering. In this case, the "meat" portion, of course, is not a disposal rite, but is part of the essential The intrinsic relation between the portions of the offering is so important that we see a rhetoric trick in the case of the bird-‫חטאת‬ offering. The prescribed legislation is that one bird functions as a ‫חטאת‬ offering and the other functions as a ‫עלה‬ offering (5:7). What is interesting about this case is that two birds would make up for four portions, because blood manipulation is required for both birds (cf. Lev 1:15). But that would mean that we have two distinct offerings, each with a two-fold division, but the Priestly legislator carefully constructs the ritual to avoid this conclusion. The text actually makes it appears as if the bird-‫חטאת‬ offering has a two-fold division of portions. First, there is an explicit order not to divide the bird in two parts when breaking the neck (5:8). Second, it is expected that after the blood manipulation of the bird functioning as the ‫חטאת‬ offering, an order for the burning of the bird itself would come, but it does not. 106 Third, the text avoids mentioning the blood manipulation of the bird functioning as the ‫עלה‬ offering, by just saying that the process will be ‫כמׁשפט‬ ("according to the commandment," 5:10). So, what we have explicitly described is one portion of blood (5:9) and one portion burned on the altar (5:10), which functions as the "fatty" portion. 107 As we will see below, the two-fold division, in which the two portions are existentially related to each other is crucial. The prescription of the bird-‫חטאת‬ offering shows that the two-fold division is significant enough to make such a rhetoric effort to avoid conclusions that it would contain unrelated portions. The supplement of another bird, therefore, is ritually important, rather than just being a means to provide more material to be burned, as it is commonly interpreted. 108 It seems, then, that the two-fold division is ritually important for the ‫חטאת‬ offering, be it a ‫חטאת‬ of animals or a ‫חטאת‬ of semolina. There is, however, one difference between the two forms: the blood of the animal gets in contact with sancta, while the remainder of the semolina never does.

"MOST HOLY"
Another ritually important element that is shared by all the forms of the ‫חטאת‬ offering, independently of its use of animal or semolina, is its depiction as ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ ("most holy"). This designation appears in relation to sancta in process of sanctification (e.g., Exod 29:37; 30:10; 40:10), with the interesting quality that everything touched by something ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ becomes "holy" (e.g., Exod 30:29). The most numerous cases, however, are related to offerings that are property of the priests. Interestingly, the designation never appears in Leviticus 4-5, but it seems that burning rite (Lev 1:8-9). The case of the ‫ׁשלמים‬ offering is also different, because part of this third portion is eaten by the priest and by the offerer and his or her guests (Lev 7:14-15). 106 See Gilders, Blood Ritual, 127. 107 The term ‫עלה‬ itself is a reference to that which is burned and "ascends" as smoke. 108  . It can be said that it is the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ that mediates this later classification for these offerings. The priestly property is explicit in many of the cases cited, including the special case of ‫חרם‬ ("devoted things," Lev 27:28), but two other features should be considered. First, the designation is related to the eating of the offering by the priest (Lev 6:22[29]; 7:6; 10:12, 17; 24:9; Num 18:9-10; also in the case of the "showbread" in Lev 24:9) and where the eating takes place, i.e., the ‫קדׁש‬ ‫מקום‬ ("holy place," Lev 6:19[26]; 7:6; 24:9). Just as the transference of "holiness" when something touches sancta, when the offerings called ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ touch anything, it becomes "holy" (Lev 6:20[27]).
I am sure the feature of these offerings as ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ serves to designate the priestly property 109 and where they were eaten, as to avoid the lay Israelites to incur in error of eating portions that do not belong to them. 110 But this designation is ritually important in cases of the ‫חטאת‬ offering.
Before arguing in this direction, it is necessary to describe Milgrom's application of the pars pro toto principle. According to Milgrom, the application of blood on sancta serves to absorb the impurity that was clung there. The pars pro toto process, then, explains that this impurity is also transferred to the rest of the animal that is burned outside the camp, as a rite of impurity elimination. 111 Once the impurity is eliminated, the pars pro toto principle works the other way as well, so that the blood that is still in contact with sancta becomes pure. 112 Although Milgrom explains that the view of impurity as a miasma that is attracted to the realm of the sacred was common among Israel and her neighbors, 113 he never explains explicitly, neither does the Priestly legislation, why blood is able to absorb impurity. 114 That is why Schwartz and Gilders propose that the blood, instead of absorbing the impurity and the sin, simply eliminates it. 115 Both of them, however, recognize that the burning of the rest of the animal outside the camp might play a role in the elimination process. 116 I contend that Milgrom is pointing in the right direction, but his proposal needs serious changes. 117 First, as I demonstrated above, the rest of the animal that is burned outside the camp is not part of the ‫כפר‬ process, so it is not one of the ritual portions. Therefore, as I will show in the next section, attention must be drawn to the burning of the "fatty" portion. Second, and related to our present topic, the relation between impurity and sin to what is "holy" deserves a better explanation.
Impurity and sin are not merely attracted to the sacred realm of the sanctuary and its sancta. I want to argue that impurity and sin are attracted to what is "holy." Milgrom, for example, compares the function of the ‫חטאת‬ offering with the function of the priest's ‫ציץ‬ (Lev 8:9), which is also called ‫הקדׁש‬ ‫נזר‬ ("holy diadem"). In his view, both of them attract the impurity, and I must add the sin here, from the sanctuary, so that they are absorbed by the priest, who eliminates them by the ingestion of the "meat" portion. 118 My argument, therefore, is that the designation of the offerings as ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ serves as a ritual explanation to indicate that impurity and sin would be attracted to them, and this does not depend on physical touch. 119

‫תאכל‬ ("CONSUMPTION")
Having established that the ‫חטאת‬ offering depends on a twofold division and the character of the offering as ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫,קדׁש‬ neither of which is exclusive features of the slaughtering of the animal and blood manipulation, we can pay attention to the third element that is essential for the ‫חטאת‬ offering: the burning on the altar.
Before turning to the burning on the altar in general, I want to argue that the handful portion of semolina in the ‫מנחה‬ offering is equivalent to the "fatty" portion of the ‫עלה‬ offering, and the same goes for the handful portion of semolina in the ‫-מנחה‬ like ‫חטאת‬ offering to the "fatty" portion of the ‫חטאת‬ offering. A simple argument is that this is the portion that is burned on the altar, so it has to reflect the portion that is burned on the 116 Schwartz, "The Bearing of Sin," 17, n. 55; Gilders, Blood Ritual, 130. 117 The misunderstanding of Milgrom's application of the pars pro toto principle is the reason why Greenberg's proposal of the meaning of atonement is deficient. He only considers Milgrom's application of the principle concerning the horn of the altar as representing the whole altar. See, New Look at Atonement, 29-34. He sees a close relationship between YHWH and the altar, but not between the sanctuary and the cultic community, which is essential to understand ‫כפר‬ as I will show. 118 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 624. 119 For many interpreters, physical touch is essential. For example, Eberhart, "To Atone or Not To Atone," 205; Gilders, Blood Ritual, 223, n. 107. altar in the ‫עלה‬ offering and the ‫חטאת‬ offering. 120 But I want to propose another comparison.
It is common to explain that the "fatty" portion is burned on the altar to the deity, because it was thought to be the best and more tasteful part of the animal. 121 This explanation, however, has the evidence against it. The fat described in Leviticus 3:3-4 or 4:8-9 is inedible, 122 and organs were included in this portion, specifically the "kidneys" ‫,כלית(‬ Lev 3:4; 4:9). The "fatty" portion is specifically called ‫,חלב‬ which is exclusively used for the suet, or the fat that covers the internal organs described in the texts. It is not the subcutaneous soft fat that covers the muscle. 123 Although limited to certain organs, it is clear that the ‫חלב‬ is picked up by its function of covering the entrails (Lev 3:3; 4:8), 124 which was thought to be the center of life and being.
I will take into consideration this covering or protective role of ‫חלב‬ in Part 4 of this article. For now, I want to point in a different direction. The use of the term ‫חלב‬ to characterize this portion might be related to its use in contexts that describe abundance, such as in Genesis 45:18, when Jacob's family is given a ‫ארץ‬ ‫טוב‬ ("good land"), to eat from the ‫הארץ‬ ‫חלב‬ ("fat of the land"). 125 When we turn to the ‫מנחה‬ and the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offerings, there is an odd emphasis on abundance by the use of the terms ‫,מ‬ ‫קמצו‬ ‫לוא‬ , ‫קמץ‬ (2:2; 5:12), even if the measure specified in 5:11 (2.3 liters) is quite small. My proposal, therefore, is that this emphasis on abundance is used to equate this portion, which is burned on the altar, with the "fatty" portion from the offerings that use animals. As I demonstrated above, Mishnah Menahot equates the handful portion with the blood of animal offerings by means of similar ritual order and actions. 126 As well noticed by Shlomo Zuckier, this handful portion, however, also plays the role of the "fatty" portion in this ritual analysis, and I 120 That is how Milgrom explains it in the case of the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 306. And that is also the logic behind the comparison between animal offerings and the semolina offering in the Mishnah, as I demonstrated above. 121 125 Milgrom is right to dismiss this text and this rendering as a justification to understand this portion of the sacrificial animal as the good part of the fat (see Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 210-11). He does not, however, considers the option of "abundance." 126 In the Mishnah, the relation between the handful portion and the blood is stronger than with the "fatty" portion, because it almost completely ignores the burning on the altar as an important element of the offerings in general. Zuckier affirms that "a quick survey of Mishnah Zebaḥim would show the prioritization of the blood manipulation of the offering, over and above the burning of the flesh. This is a departure of sorts from the biblical account, where the burning of flesh is of great importance" ("Manipulating Minhah"). strengthen this comparison by this rhetoric move that, in my view, conceptualizes this portion in a way that reflects that kind of "abundance" associated with the ‫חלב‬ in the ancient Israelite imagery.
As we saw in Milgrom's proposal of how the pars pro toto principle works, the burning on the altar plays no role, while the burning outside the camp is considered essential. This must be corrected. First, the burning on the altar and the burning outside the camp are referred to by different words. The latter takes the verb ‫שרף‬ (Lev 4:12, 21) and the former takes the hiphil of ‫קטר‬ (Lev 4:10, 19; 5:12). The latter is coupled with other important terms such as ‫אׁשה‬ ("fiery offerings") and ‫ניחח‬ ‫ריח‬ ("pleasing odor") (cf. Lev 2:2; 3:5; 4:31). 127 Second, the burning on the altar is a common feature of all forms of the ‫חטאת‬ offering. 128 Third, the indication that the offering resulted in ‫כפר‬ always follows the burning on the altar (4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:13), 129 indicating that burning outside the camp and, for that matter, the blood manipulation are not the determinant elements in the ‫כפר‬ process, but the burning on the altar is. 130 Not only that, what is burned is of great importance as well, and that is why the text seems to make an effort to relate the handful portion of semolina with an "abundant" portion that is equated with the "fatty" portion. 131 I contend that the burning on the altar marks one part of the encounter between YHWH and the offerer, which is the intended result of the ‫כפר‬ process and functions for all offerings in the Priestly sacrificial system. If, however, the focus is specifically the ‫חטאת‬ offering, and how it deals with sin and impurity, the burning on the altar marks their overcoming.
Part of the meaning of the burning on the altar is the divine "consumption" ‫)תאכל(‬ of this portion that carries the sin and the impurity that was previously clung on the sanctuary and its sancta. The term is used in two essential texts. At the conclusion of the cult preparation by Aaron and his sons, in Leviticus 9:24, the fire on the altar comes directly "from YHWH's presence" ‫יהוה(‬ ‫,)מלפני‬ and it "consumes" ‫)תאכל(‬ the ‫עלה‬ offering and the ‫החלבים‬ ("the fats"). The fire on the altar is a direct manifestation of YHWH, the reason why it cannot go out (Lev 6:5-6[12-13]). It is in this context that the term ‫תאכל‬ is also used to define what the fire on the altar does: it "consumes" (Lev. 6:3[10]). As a direct manifestation of YHWH, this means that YHWH himself "consumes" this portion, which carries sin and impurity in the case of the ‫חטאת‬ offering. Of course, for the Priestly legislator, the manifestation of YHWH's presence that lights the fire on the altar lies behind the meaning of all the sacrificial legislation that literarily, but not ritually, precedes the event of chapter 9.
This begs the question: why not burn the whole offering, then? The question is reasonable, because if the ‫חטאת‬ offering attracts sin and impurity, why should another portion be left on the sanctuary? The answer touches an important ritual function and meaning. In Leviticus 4 the destination of the third portion of the ‫חטאת‬ offering is never mentioned, and the destination of the second portion of the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering is mentioned only after the ‫כפר‬ piel declaration is made (5:13). While this could indicate an irrelevant role of those portions in the ‫כפר‬ process, it seems like Leviticus 6 and 10 present the "consumption" of those portions by the priests as essential for the whole ritual.
In Leviticus 6:9[16], after the term "consumes" ‫)תאכל(‬ is used for what the altar's fire does to the ‫עלה‬ offering (6:3[10]), the same term describes what the priest does to the remainder portion of the ‫מנחה‬ offering. There is, thus, an important relation between the altar's fire and the priest. 132 Among the many interesting issues concerning Leviticus 10:12-20, 133 one thing is clear, the "consumption" of the edible parts of the ‫חטאת‬ offering is an obligation for the priest. The reason behind this obligation, according to this narrative, is that the "consumption" by the priest completes the ‫כפר‬ process. 134 This can be adduced from Leviticus 10:17. The "carrying away the sin of the community," as one aspect of the ‫כפר‬ process, is directly related to the "consumption" of this ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ portion. 135 Although the burning of the "meat" portion outside the camp has an important ritual function of disposal of sin and impurity, it seems like the "consumption" of this portion by the priest is not only a matter of disposal, but an integrated part of the ‫כפר‬ process, 132  even if its declaration in Leviticus 4-5 is unrelated to the "consumption" by the priest. 136 If the "consumption" of the offering by the altar's fire and the priest are related, then the latter is also concerned with the overcoming of sin and impurity. Both of them are more than elimination rites, hence I am calling it an "overcoming," otherwise they would be just like disposal rites by the burning outside the camp. As demonstrated above, the altar's fire is a manifestation of YHWH, so it does not merely eliminates sin and impurity, it overcomes them by the power of YHWH's glory ‫,)כבוד(‬ the manifestation of his holy presence. Once this is effected, by the pars pro toto principle, the portion left to be eaten by the priest and the blood that is still on sancta become not only "pure," but holy. 137 Part of the ‫כפר‬ process, as mentioned above, is to align the status of sanctuary and offerer. Here we see another element in this process: the alignment of the status of the priesthood with the sanctuary and the offerer. By "consuming" this holy portion, in a holy place, the ritual completes the alignment of all elements necessary in the cultic community of Israel to experience the encounter with the divine presence. Now we can answer the question: why not burn all the portions on the altar? Because the two-fold division, or three-fold in the case of ‫חטאת‬ offering of animals, is important to include the priests and the sanctuary in this process of alignment of status of the whole community of Israel with the divine presence among them in the sanctuary. 138 This overcoming of sin and impurity by YHWH's holy presence, although directly related to the sanctuary and the priesthood, also has serious implications for the offerer. As we have seen, the "purification" and "forgiveness" of the offerer is attained previously, but they also depend on the ‫חטאת‬ offering for an alignment of status between cultic community and sanctuary. Because the ‫חטאת‬ offering results in more than "purification" and "forgiveness," it results in ‫,כפר‬ something else is happening here. I will argue that the ‫כפר‬ process attained by the ‫חטאת‬ offering in general is comparable to the ‫כפר‬ process attained by the ‫עלה‬ offering, which can be defined as an encounter with the deity resulting in sanctification and divine favor. 139 Before moving on, I would like to present a clear version of the pars pro toto principle in light of my interpretation above. The presentation and preparation of this ‫קדׁשים‬ ‫קדׁש‬ offering in 136 Alfred Marx affirms: "En associant ainsi, dans les deux cas où il décrit le rituel des offrandes végétales, la combustion et la consommation de la matière sacrificielle par les prêtres, P indique clairement que ces deux rites ne sauraient être dissociés" (Les offrandes végétales, 75). 137 Cf. Gilders, Blood Ritual, 131. 138 The alignment of the sanctuary, however, does not depend on the consumption of the priest, because the two-fold division in the ‫,עלה‬ with the blood portion and all the rest, is enough for that purpose. 139 Gilders affirms: "Purity is a precondition for holiness . . . Holiness is added to purity through rites of consecration that establish a new identity for the person or object being consecrated" (Blood Ritual, 131). the sanctuary, 140 attracts the sin and the impurity that were clung there. The division of the offering in portions is ritually significant, so that the other portions left on sancta, or to be eaten by the priest, marks the means of holiness in the cultic community of Israel, and the role of the priest and the sanctuary in the ‫כפר‬ process. The "consumption" of the "fatty" portion by the altar's fire mark YHWH's direct holy presence overcoming sin and impurity, while the "consumption" by the priest of the remainder of the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering or of the "meat" portion of the ‫חטאת‬ offering of animals, and the permanence of the blood in the realm of the sanctuary, mark their alignment with the status of holiness derived from the divine glorious presence. 141

PART 4: THE PRIESTLY SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM AND "ATONEMENT"
If overcoming sin and impurity would be the sole function and meaning of the ‫חטאת‬ offering and the ‫כפר‬ process, this article could be considered concluded. However, as I pointed out already, there is more to this offering, because the offering is "consumed" by YHWH's glorious and holy presence as well as by the priest. I will argue that the ‫כפר‬ process includes an encounter with the deity, resulting in sanctification and divine favor. Although much of the discussion concerning the meaning of ‫כפר‬ piel relates to etymology and morphology, 142 I believe we are closer to its function and meaning when we analyse, as I did in this article, the rituals and how they work. As Milgrom shows, the function and meaning of ‫כפר‬ piel depends much on narrative and ritual context. 143 Besides possible meanings from different etymologies and morphologies, it is important to remember that ‫כפר‬ is a "hypernym" for specific terms such as ‫חטא‬ ("purify"), ‫טהר‬ ("cleanse"), ‫קדׁש‬ ("consecrate" or "sanctify"), ‫עון‬ ‫נׂשא‬ ("bearing of sin"), and ‫סלה‬ ("forgive"). 144 And it is not as if the ‫כפר‬ process "enables progression," as expressed by Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, 145 from one state to another; rather, it comprehends all of these progressions. Such a characteristic makes sense in light of the use of the term right at the beginning of the sacrificial 140 That the holiness of the offering is prior to its presentation, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 485-86. Cf. Trevaskis, Holiness, Ethics and Ritual,258. 141 Why, then, in some cases are the priests forbidden to "consume" the "meat" portion? Leviticus 6:23[30] explains that if the blood portion enters the "tent of meeting" ‫מועד(‬ ‫)אהל‬ the priests cannot consume the "meat" portion, it has to be disposed by fire. A reasonable explanation is that those sins and impurities are more serious, because they enter a holier part of the sanctuary. So, this prohibition also marks an hierarchy of holiness of the sanctuary itself, but also between YHWH, sanctuary and priests. Cf legislation in Leviticus 1:4, and it is in this context that I think we can find a good understanding of the term. The whole sacrificial system in Leviticus could be characterized by the legislator's favorite term for the offerings, ‫.קרבן‬ 146 The Priestly view of the cult is one of "drawing near" to YHWH. 147 It culminates at the sanctuary, but starts at the Israelite home and includes the whole process of pilgrimage. 148 Even better, the cultic legislation is one of the implications of having YHWH dwelling among Israel, 149 which includes the possibility of encounter with the divine presence and the dangers of this presence for humans. I contend that ‫,כפר‬ therefore, implies a process that guarantees a safe encounter between offerer and YHWH, as well as the result of this safe encounter. Of course this affirmation supposes that there is a relation of identification between the offerer and the offering, which is important to explain.
The domestication of animals, and all that it implies, is relevant here. 150 The physical-caring, feeding, protecting, guiding, selecting for breeding-and psychological-derived from the physical effort, but also by means of the emotional attachment that a small farmer might develop by living in close proximity with his or her animals, even under the same roof 151 -energy necessary for raising them is important for considering the offerer's experience in the cultic rituals. 152 When, therefore, the portion of the animal is "consumed" by the altar's fire as a manifestation of the divine presence, the offerer's life is being "consumed" as well; when the portion of the animal "ascends" in the form of smoke to the heavenly realm, 153 the offerer's life also "ascends" to the heavenly realm. And this, given the concrete and even material identification between the animal and the of-ferer, is no mere symbolism, it is an existential experience derived from an embodied and concrete reality. 154 In light of this identification, which also depends on the rite of the "hand placement" ‫יד(‬ ‫,)סמך‬ 155 the basic attitude of the offerer that leads to this experience of being in contact with the divine presence is self-surrender. 156 And the surrender of the offerer's life, by offering an animal that represents a great deal of his or her own 154 This is what anthropologist Nancy Jay calls "index." She applies Charles Peirce's classification of signs as symbol, icon, and index to the analysis of sacrificial systems. The representation of its object in each relation will be quite different, as it will be the meaning derived from them. Symbol is related to its object by convention; an icon exhibits its object; an index is in existential relation to its object. She says that "sacrificial victims may symbolize different things, but on the index level, eating a sacrificial victim creates an existential relation with the victim." See Nancy Jay, Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 6-7. The indexical signs here would be the animal representing the life energy of the offerer, and the whole sanctuary modeled as YHWH's house, the whole ritual as one of approaching the deity's indwelling, therefore, the divine presence, and more specifically the altar's fire as an index of the divine presence. 155 This rite, of course, is a matter of great debate in scholarship. It has been interpreted in five basic categories: devotion to the deity, transfer of sin, identification or substitution, designation, and attribution (see David Calabro, "A Reexamination of the Ancient Israelite Gesture of Hand Placement," in Henrietta L. Wiley and Christian A. Eberhart (eds.), Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017], 116-17). As Calabro argues, these categories are not mutually exclusive (120). His conclusion, however, is that the rite appoints the animal to a specific role or status (123-24). Although I think this is part of the performative element of the rite in its cultic context, I prefer to combine it with identification and attribution ("propriety"), because they are both relevant in the context of animal domestication. life-force, 157 results in the offerer's sanctification by the consumption of the offering by the altar's fire and the priest.
This, of course, might be true about the animal, but this article concerns an offering that does not include an animal. What, then?
We should consider that the type of identification between offerer and animal, based on how much the latter's life is dependent on the input of the former's life-force, finds some similarities in a vegetable offering as well. The vegetable materials used are not plants and fruits caught in the wild, but the products of human interference in nature, demanding expertise and work not only to grow them, but also to process them into edible items. 158 Therefore, in the vegetable offerings we also have a representation of the offerer's life-force offered up to YHWH. 159 A further argument can be used here if we return to the reason why the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering is permitted in the first place. As I argued above, it is an economic compromise for those who are too poor to offer a bigger animal, and who has no availability of two small birds. However, if I am right about the identification between offerer and animal, resulting in the meaning of self-surrender, then we have a very interesting case also for the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering. In the Babylonian Talmud, when the same question about the effective potential of the ‫מנחה‬ and the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offerings is raised, it mentions a solution given by Rabbi Yitzḥak. From the textual difference that occurs between Leviticus 1 and 2 concerning who brings the offering (in Lev 1 it is a ‫,אדם‬ and in Lev 2 it is a ‫,)נפׁש‬ Rabbi Yitzḥak infers: "Whose practice is it to bring a meal offering? It is that of a poor individual; and I will ascribe him credit as if he offered up his life ‫]נפׁש[‬ in front of Me" (b. Menaḥot 104b). Although the offering of an animal makes it clearer the existential identification between offerer and animal, here we learn that the offering of semolina, because it is from a poor person who gives all he or she has, is also able to point to the action of self-surrender that 157 This is very different from an argument based on Lev 17:11 and the association of blood with "life" ‫.)נפש(‬ For a convincing critique of the use of Lev 17:11 to explain the cultic use of blood to expiate/atone, see Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual,[196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207]. Feder attempts at a historical explanation for the meaning of ‫כפר‬ and concludes that it comes from matters related to the compensation and payment for bloodshed so as to avoid a negative process of retribution, be it by the deity or someone related to the victim, who would function as the blood avenger (Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual, 173-93). His case for this origin is quite compelling. But I contend that my interpretation of Lev 5:11-13 poses a serious question to how he applies this origin to P's meaning of ‫כפר‬ in a similar manner (see, for example, p. 196 and 206). Feder's focus on the restitutory act as a means to avoid adverse consequences is definitely correct, but the absence of any mentioning of the effects on the relationship between offender and the deity is faulty. 158 See Marx, Les offrandes végétales, 43-44. 159 Alfred Marx goes as far as to say that the vegetable offering is also alive, or at least that they have a life cycle (they are born, grow, and die). See Marx, Les systèmes sacrificiels, 76. will result in the encounter with the divine presence with important consequences for the offerer. Such conclusion does not depend on this rabbinic reasoning. Semolina truly represents the basic ingredient, although in a finer form, of ancient Israelite diet. To offer the basic element that nurtures and sustains ancient Israelites would function and mean the surrender of the offerer's life-force to YHWH.
The process of burning on the altar is especially telling about this encounter and why ‫כפר‬ is necessary. In this "consumption" of the altar's fire, the encounter is deadly. While many interpreters will consider this deadliness as a manifestation of divine wrath over human sinfulness, 160 I propose a different explanation. I agree with Mary Douglas that the priestly legislation is "a philosophy of the universe presented in archaic form." 161 In this philosophy of the universe the divine holy and glorious presence "consumes" everything and transforms it into something holy, so that it is transferred to the sacred realm. 162 This, of course, creates a problem and the Priestly philosophy of the universe creates a whole system of how divine holiness can be related to everything that is not holy. 163 Therefore, we arrive at concepts of gradation of holiness in the sanctuary and in creation as a whole, priestly mediation, and the counter gradation of impurity and sinfulness, etc.
In the burning of the altar's fire, therefore, the offerer enters in a safe encounter with YHWH by means of his or her offering, 164 but the result of this encounter is also an essential feature of the ‫כפר‬ process. Besides the features we saw concerning the ‫מנחה‬ offering of "bonds of communion," which is also true for the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering, we must stress the importance of how this is achieved by means of foodstuff. Especially relevant for the vegetable offerings is the fact that the vegetable products offered represent the most common and basic diet of ancient Israelites. As products of the promised land, given by YHWH as part of his covenant with Israel (Gen 17:8; Lev 14:33-34), they work as an index of Israel's life, provided by YHWH, in P's sacrificial system. 165 Because these products are also the result of the offerer's work, hence they are also an index of the offerer's life, surrendered to YHWH, as argued above. There is here, therefore, the reinforcement of a covenant or bond that requires mutual beneficial exchange. 166 The sacrificial system in general and the vegetable offerings in particular, including the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ offering, promote a cycle of life between the cultic community of Israel and YHWH. 167 Life is offered and consumed at the same time.
An important theological message of the burning of the "fatty" portion, or its equivalent of the handful portion of semolina, on the altar is that YHWH's glorious and holy presence that "consumes" this portion also consecrates the offering, or makes it holy. Milgrom describes this as the defeat of death (impurity) by life (holiness). 168 I highly agree with Milgrom, but would include sin in the realm of death, and I also see an implication for the status of the offerer. The offerer, who is identified with the offering, is also consecrated, or enters in a relation with YHWH that promotes sanctification, or life. 169 A safe encounter with the divine presence that results in holiness, or life, thus could be said to be the final result and purpose of the ‫כפר‬ process. The other effects, like "purgation," "purification," "forgiveness," "bearing of sin," are all steps leading to this culmination. Therefore, the ‫כפר‬ process, just like the term itself, which is a "hypernym," includes all the steps leading towards this safe encounter with the divine presence in which its life-giving power that makes everything holy-is not deadly. 170 Greenberg, 171 in his up-to-date monograph, arrives at a similar conclusion when he is trying to explain the possibility of the ‫כפר‬ process in Leviticus 5:11-13. He says: 167 See ibid. 168 Leviticus 1-16, 638. 169 Cf. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 139. This might explain many of the conceptualizations in the Priestly theology concerning the purity and impurity system, as well as the ‫כפר‬ process, because life and death become categories attach to that which will cause purity or impurity, and will be able to effect ‫כפר‬ piel. That is why Eberhart affirms: "Blood is then seen in analogy to body fluids such as sperm or mother's milk that appear to contain secret life power" ("To Atone or Not To Atone," 205). 170 The deadly encounter would be the result of an encounter without the right "covering," just as the suet that composes the "fatty" portion has a protective role for the internal organs that are offered. This is one reason, among others, for Douglas' preference for the rendering of ‫כפר‬ as "covering." See "Atonement in Leviticus," 128. 171 My proposal is similar to Greenberg's, but different in important matters. Based on his view that there is a close relationship between YHWH and the altar, he concludes that ‫כפר‬ points to a protective connection between offerer and YHWH, which has been broken, avoiding divine punishment (New Look at Atonement, 33-34). In my proposal, the danger of the encounter is not related to the sinfulness of the offerer or divine punishment, because on the personal level this has been dealt already by confession, remorse or the passing of time. I agree with Greenberg concerning the relational meaning of ‫,כפר‬ but his proposal is merely personal, excluding any relation between the meaning of ‫כפר‬ and the ritual effect on sancta. The evidence, however, shows that both elements are essential and interconnected. Hence, my proposal for the personal aspect of the ‫כפר‬ process depends on the mediation of the sanctuary, because it is intrinsically related to the divine presence and . . . the ḥaṭṭāʾt offering repairs the protective connection that was broken with Yhwh as a result of the sin of doing an act that Yhwh has prohibited. The unbroken chain of touch, resulting from the offerer bringing grain to the priest and the placement of the grain by the priest on the altar (5:11-12), yields the same result as a blood and flesh offering. Also, as observed in Exod 30:16, this grain offering creates a memorial (ʾazkārātâ, 5:12), reflecting a positive connection with Yhwh. 172 Given this function and meaning of the ‫כפר‬ process, I believe the best rendering of the term would be "atonement." This term is the only one that is able to mark an experience of encounter, of resuming the relationship between offerer and deity, bonding that which is separate, "at-one-ment." 173 For sure this term is loaded with many meanings that do not really correspond to the ritual function and meaning of ‫,כפר‬ due to a long theological history of misuse, but it is still worth adopting it, even if it is by means of a rhetorical device, similar to that used by the Priestly legislator when terming the offerings. 174 I would like to conclude with two observations. The first is that it is quite surprising that the ‫חטאת‬ offering, commonly viewed in more negative terms, 175 because it is related to sin and impurity, is also characterized by an opportunity of encounter with the divine presence. 176 But it seems like all offerings are intended to result in this encounter, this "at-one-ment," so that the offerer and cultic community, priesthood and sanctuary, are aligned with the divine presence among them, resulting in life. For some offerings, like the ‫חטאת‬ and the ‫,אׁשם‬ there are some other requisites and steps to go about for this encounter, but the end result for all offerings should be the encounter, communion bonding, and alignment with the glorious and holy divine presence as a means of life. Second, and related to this, is that the use of the ‫מנחה‬ offering for this exact purpose of encounter and alignment, just as the ‫עלה‬ offering, 177 shows an independence from animal slaughter and blood manipulation. And now I have articulated that the same can be said of the ‫-מנחה‬like ‫חטאת‬ as well.