Religions Reviewed

Eilberg-Schwartz’s article on “Creation and Classification” uses an anthropological line of reasoning in order to conclude that the animal proscriptions of Leviticus exhibit rigid taxonomy and a parallel structure to the creation account of Genesis 1, because the system is integral to a hereditary priesthood, where social status and the classification of animals are equally ‘given’ features of the creaturely world.[1] While this proposal goes some way towards the author’s goal of explaining a discontinuity between priestly and rabbinical models of purity, it is far from a full explanation of the contents of Leviticus 11. Eilberg-Schwartz claims that Genesis 1 provides the underlying rationale for the animals specified in Leviticus 11, but—to take an obvious example—Genesis 1 does not distinguish between doves and vultures; both are “winged fowl after their kind” in Genesis (1:21-22), although Leviticus instructs that vultures are “hold-detestable” (11:13).[2] In this explanation, however, Eilberg-Schwartz not only provides for an analogical connection between ritual status and social status in both the priestly and rabbinical systems, he also suggests that the priestly perspective implicated ontological status as well.[3]
            In a slightly more recent article, Eilberg-Schwartz added a dimension of rhetorical analysis to his method, in order to propose that the rich metaphorical valence of animals was of a piece with their classification in the purity codes of the Torah.[4] This thesis has the potential to trace the full range of distinctions in Leviticus 11, and it also succeeds in relating an animal rule in Leviticus 22:8 to the incest prohibitions in Leviticus 18:17 and 22:8.[5] It thus has the merit of providing a view of the purity code that sees it as an integrated whole, reflecting the ‘unity of the system’ stressed by Countryman.[6] Eilberg-Schwartz provides an excellent illustration tying ritual status to social status, in his passage on “Asses and Neighbors.”[7] Even with the addition of elements from “literary criticism,” this article remains in the anthropological camp, with references to Levi-Strauss and demonstrations from ethnography.[8]

Douglas’s more recent article hinges on the identification of the “ring” compositional structure in Leviticus.[9] The detection of this structure enables her to complement instructions in chapters 11-15 with explanations in the parallel chapters 21-22. Principally, she looks to the explanation of ‘blemish’ (Fox has ‘defect’), in order to determine the underlying rationale. She also invokes the metaphorical correspondence of priest, altar, offering, and food so that the general idea of “(too) long-limbed or stunted” (23:23) can be transferred among them.[10] According to the ring structure outlined by Douglas, the mid-turn chapter 19 and conclusion chapter 26 give the message of the entire book as justice and equity, and so the ideas of corporeal excess and lack become “The unfair loss on one hand, the unfair burden on the other.”[11] She concludes that the forbidden animals include those that signify both perpetrators and victims of predation, and that the proscriptions are in fact a “philosophical exercise” which fosters mercy and justice. While this putative consequence is certainly social, it does not create status boundaries in society. Instead, it seeks to ameliorate their harm to “the oppressed, the fatherless, the widow.” [12] Douglas’s allegorical reading pointedly avoids assigning ontological status to the animals, or to the humans to which she supposes that they correspond.

——————————————————————————–

[1] Eilberg-Schwartz, “Creation and Classification,” pp. 374-378.[2] Bible translations throughout the present paper are from Fox, Five Books of Moses.

[3] Eilberg-Schwartz, “Creation and Classification,” pp. 362, 364.

[4] Eilberg-Schwartz, “Animal Metaphors,” pp. 3-8.

[5] Eilberg-Schwartz, “Animal Metaphors,” pp. 11-16.

[6] Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex, pp. 42-44.

[7] Eilberg-Schwartz, “Animal Metaphors,” pp. 8-11.

[8] Eilberg-Schwartz, “Animal Metaphors,” pp. 1, 12-13, 20.

[9] Douglas, “Forbidden Animals,” pp. 8-11.

[10] Douglas, “Forbidden Animals,” pp. 18-19.

[11] Douglas, “Forbidden Animals,” pp. 20-21.

[12] Douglas, “Forbidden Animals,” p. 23.