Research Example

The process of editing the Echoes Bible is a large undertaking not only because of the scope of the project, but because the connections between the texts are generally unstudied. This requires us to examine both Jewish and Christian sources independently.

While much of the massive body of Jewish commentary and halakhic literature is available online, the relative weighting between those sources makes a difference, and we find it helpful to have Hebrew-speaking advisors who can help us make calls on how to treat certain echoes in the commentary.

During the pairing of Leviticus and Romans, the High Priest’s role on the Day of Atonement paired with Paul’s writings in Romans 7 and showed potential to explain some of Paul’s most controversial statements in that chapter. During this process we asked Rabbi Chaim Eisen, our advisor on Jewish commentaries, to weigh in on the moments when the High Priest is present in the Holy of Holies.

One was a question of evaluating just how serious and precipitous the sources consider it when the life of the High Priest hangs in the balance before the ark and the mercy seat.

The issue raised is a fascinating one! Before I do, first, I feel compelled to note that, although I realize it is fairly standard and even ubiquitous, I find the very terminology “mercy seat” bizarre, since it has no provenance in the Bible as a way of referring to the holy ark or its cover! God is described repeatedly as “indwelling with” (lit. “sitting [on]”) the cherubs (of the ark cover) — see Samuel I 4:4 and II 6:2, Kings II 19:15, Isaiah 37:16, Psalms 80:2 and 99:1, and Chronicles I 13:6. I have no idea if the term “mercy seat” arose as referring to the ark, its cover, or anything physical at all. (Post-Biblical references to God, as it were, “sitting upon the throne of compassion” are transparently nonphysical metaphors.)

As for the substance of the inquiry, on the one hand, we read explicitly in Leviticus 16:2, “And the LORD said unto Moses: “Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the ark-cover which is upon the ark; that he not die.” Similarly, we read in Leviticus 16:13, “And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the ark-cover that is upon the testimony, that he not die.” By implication, any violation of the prescribed service carries the death penalty. Moreover, in the introduction to the passage, in Leviticus 16:1, we read, “And the LORD spoke unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the LORD, and died” — so a dire precedent has already been set in the matter!

As there is no indication that the court or the people are summoned to execute a high priest who violates the prescribed service, we appreciate that, as was the case with the sons of Aaron, the execution takes place (as expressed in our tradition) “in the hands of Heaven.” So, indeed, was the case with Aaron’s sons, regarding whom we read in Leviticus 10:1-2, “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And there went forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.” We might therefore feel inclined to assume that death “in the hands of Heaven” is always instantaneous — as it was also with Uzzah, in Samuel II 6:7.

However, upon further reflection, we appreciate that this is clearly not always the case. After all, God said to Adam, “Of every tree of the garden you mayest freely eat; but, of the tree of knowing good and evil, you shalt not eat of it; for in the day that you eat thereof you shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17). However, Adam still lived to the age of 930 (see Genesis 5:5)! We realize that God, in His infinite compassion, often dispenses a “suspended sentence”; even though its eventual execution may be inexorable, it is not immediate. In describing God’s patience with us, in waiting for us to repent of our wrongdoings, the Psalmist notes, in Psalms 90:4, “For a thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” God alone knows His calculus and His timetable!

So it may be with an unworthy high priest. If he is culpable, he will undoubtedly die — possibly instantaneously, as was the case with Aaron’s sons and with Uzzah, but possibly in God’s time, with no guarantee to us of instantaneous results! On the one hand, we have an ancient Talmudic tradition that the high priest would not pray too long while in the holy of holies, so those awaiting his return wouldn’t be frightened that he had died. Another Talmudic tradition even records a Saducee high priest dying inside the Temple and his brethren entering to extract the body. On the other hand, Talmudic tradition notes that the majority of unworthy high priests in the Second Temple period (when the post was often bought) didn’t survive one year, implying that they may have died under other circumstances, too.

Another was the claim that a rope was tied to the ankle of the High Priest, with bells, so that his body could be retrieved if he died in the Holy of Holies. We knew this was not sourced in Traditional Jewish Commentaries but wanted his opinion on its validity, and noted that we were leaning away from including this note, and mentioned that one of our reviewers even described the “rope” as a myth.

As for a rope or chain tied to the leg or foot of the high priest to facilitate extraction of his dead body, this is nowhere intimated in the Bible, the Talmud, or the Midrash. Indeed, the aforementioned Talmudic tradition that records a Saducee high priest dying inside the Temple and his brethren entering to extract the body indicates the opposite, since no rope or chain is mentioned as having been employed! As far as I am aware, the first indication of a rope or chain tied to the leg or foot of the high priest is in the Zohar, a classic Kabbalistic work. It is certainly not my place to impugn its validity, but given the preponderance of evidence from the Bible, the Talmud, and the Midrash, it is very difficult to regard this as something more authoritative and definitive than a highly speculative statement.

As a “bottom line,” I don’t know that I would describe the statement as a “myth,” especially since mythologies carry the connotation of explaining natural phenomena through an appeal to the paranormal, which is certainly not applicable in this context. I should also note, in all fairness, that I describe myself as a classicist, not a Kabbalist, and, were you to ask a Kabbalist, he might give you a different perspective than mine. Simultaneously, for all the reasons I detailed above, I reiterate that I am unable to consider this statement as something more authoritative and definitive than a highly speculative one. I hope this answer suffices.

This confirmed our resolve, and added the needed context of the decision.