Milgrom on Leviticus: AYB vs. Continental Commentary

Milgrom's AYB 3-volume commentary on Leviticus is absolutely excellent!  In all my commentaries on Leviticus, there is really nothing else that compares to the depth and breadth he has drawn out in this work on this Biblical book.  Since you have his Continental work, you will notice that he has structured the commentary with brief introductions to each section followed by "Selected Theme(s)" and "Selected Texts".  This is key because Continental is clearly 'limited' selections from a much deeper and broader work.

In his preface to his Continental commentary, Milgrom writes..."First, read the Selected Theme(s) to get an idea of some of the chapter’s important values. Then, read the translation with the help of the Selected Texts. Greater detail can be found in my three-volume comprehensive commentary published in the Anchor Bible series."

That said, it is really easy to get lost in the weeds of his AYB volumes.

Here is a comparison of his "Notes" for Leviticus 8:33 in both the Continental and AYB resources.

Continental Commentary (which you have already)...

[8:33*]

It is likely that Aaron and his sons did not budge from the sanctuary at all during the week of their consecration—perhaps not even to relieve themselves. There is a possibility that somewhere within the courtyard enclosure there was a space reserved for toilet facilities.

If the first-day rites were to be repeated each day, their purpose could well have been that of reinforcement. But the text is silent concerning purpose and confines itself to prohibitions: the consecrands are forbidden to leave the sanctuary for seven days on pain of death (v. 35*), We are dealing here with a rite of passage, such as the seven days after birth (circumcision on the eighth day marks the first day of the child’s life, Gen 17:12*), the seven days of marriage celebration (Gen 29:27*), and the seven days of mourning (Gen 50:10*). "All these are ‘passage times’ when a person moved from one house of life to another, dangerous occasions when demons were most active."²⁹ Thus the fact that Aaron and his sons are constrained to remain in the sanctuary for seven days can only mean that rites are being performed on them during this period by which they can pass from the house of commoners to the house of priests. They are consecrated as priests only at the end of the week, and during the liminal period they are highly vulnerable, not to demonic assault—the world of demons has been expunged from priestly notions—but to human sin and impurity. The peril that attends all liminal periods is attested in cultures throughout the world, discussion of which is reserved in Theme A. Here let it further be noted that the status of the ordination sacrifice is a perfect match for the consecrands. The sacrifice is itself transitional and anomalous. It ranks lower than the most holy offerings and higher than the lesser holy offering (7:38*), and shares the characteristics of both. So too with Aaron and his sons: they participate in the sacrificial services as offerers, not as priests; at the same time they are consecrated with holy oil. Theirs is a seven-day passage. It is inconceivable that after the first day they merely wait out the week at the tabernacle door. Each day’s rites will remove them farther from their former profane state and advance them to the ranks of the sacred, until they emerge as full-fledged priests.

AYB Commentary (Volume 1)...

33. You shall not go outside (lōʾ tēṣĕʾû). How inclusive is this prohibition? The rabbis would limit it to the time of the consecration service (Sipra, Milluʾim 42; cf. Ramban). The Karaites regard it as absolute, forbidding all exit except for bodily needs (Seper Hamibḥar; Keter Torah). That there is room for debate is apparent from the ambiguity that is inherent in the Hebrew. The commandment "you shall dwell in booths seven days" (23:42) does not mean that the entire week must be spent in booths. Nor does the statement "the Israelites bewailed Moses for thirty days" (Deut 34:8) imply that for one month the Israelites did not stop crying (Ḥazzequni). As will be shown below (and in Comment G), however, it is likely that Aaron and his sons did not budge from the sanctuary at all during the week of their consecration—perhaps not even to relieve themselves. The latter possibility would definitely be ruled out according to the view of Ezekiel that human feces are a source of defilement (Ezek 4:10–15)—a view shared by the sectaries of Qumran (11QT 46:13–16). By contrast, nowhere does P mention that human excrement defiles, a position emphatically endorsed by the rabbis, for example, "Rabbi Yose said: Is excrement (a source of) impurity? Why it is nothing but (a source of) purity" (y. Pesaḥ. 7:11; 35b). True, Deuteronomy’s law of the war camp states that "there shall be an area outside the camp where you shall relieve yourself.… Because the Lord your God moves about in your camp … let your camp be holy: let him not find anything unseemly among you and turn away from you" (Deut 23:13–14). Still, "anything unseemly" (ʿerwat dābār) is not the same as impurity (ṭumʾâ). Thus there is a possibility that somewhere within the courtyard enclosure there was a space reserved for toilet facilities. Two bits of evidence point in this direction. The first is the fact, already discussed, that the place in which the priests eat their prebends from the most holy offerings not only is designated as "the enclosure of the Tent of Meeting" but is further qualified as "in a holy place" (6:9, 19). The implication is clear that not everywhere inside the enclosure was considered holy, thus raising the possibility that a toilet area was included. More significant information is provided by a passage about the Herodian Temple, which speaks of lit tunnels underneath the Temple leading to an immersion pool and toilet (m. Tamid 1:1). Thus the priests were able to get to a toilet without exiting the Temple court. One well might ask why, indeed, it was necessary to construct a tunnel instead of allowing the priest the simple expedient of relieving himself somewhere off the Temple mount. Moreover, what was the procedure in the Temple before the tunnel was built? And what was the procedure at other sanctuaries—Shiloh, Bethel, Dan, and so on and the Tabernacle—where there were no natural springs underneath? Thus the possibility must be reckoned with that Aaron and his sons never left the sacred premises during the entire week of their consecration: they ate there, slept there, and relieved themselves there—a situation that is entirely congruous with the picture presented by liminal rites of passage attested in many cultures throughout the world; see below and Comment G.

not

. A prohibition introduced by lōʾ is stronger than one with ʾal, indicating long duration (Bright 1973: 192)—in this case, seven days.

seven days (šibʿat yāmîm)

. For the first time in this chapter we learn here that the priestly consecration is to last for seven days. There is only one good reason for the delay of this information. This chapter is modeled after Exod 29, which also mentions the seven-day duration of the consecration only at the end of the prescriptions for the service (29:30, 35–37; see Comment G below). The ritual significance of the number seven in Israel and the ancient Near East is discussed in the Note on 4:6 (see also Snaith 1947: 115–16). Of special interest is the dedication of Eninnu, the temple of Ningirsu, which also lasted seven days (Gudea II, 16–18; see Falkenstein and von Soden 1953: 137–82). But it is the initiation of Ezekiel’s altar that affords the nearest parallel. The text reads, "Every day, for seven days, you shall present a goat of purification offering, as well as a bull of the herd and a ram of the flock; they shall present unblemished ones. Seven days they shall purge the altar and purify it; thus they shall ordain it" (Ezek 43:25–26). There can be no question that Ezekiel’s demand that the new altar be purged with a purification offering each day for seven days is based on a passage contained in the account of the consecration of the Tabernacle and its priesthood: "You shall ordain them (Aaron and his sons) through seven days, and each day you sacrifice a bull of purification offering for purgation; you shall decontaminate the altar by performing purgation upon it, and you shall anoint it to consecrate it. Seven days you shall purge the altar and consecrate it" (Exod 29:35b–37a). Both rites are in accord in stating that the altar’s initiation lasts for seven days. They differ, however, in three significant details. First, Ezekiel’s altar is not consecrated because it is not anointed. But this is not surprising because after the destruction of the First Temple, the anointment oil was not reconstituted (see the Note on v 11). Then, the sacrificial animals differ. It can be shown, however, that this difference rests on two variant traditions concerning the purging of the altar on behalf of the community: Ezekiel relies on Num 15:22–26 and the Tabernacle account relies on Lev 4:13–21. More precisely, Ezekiel has fused the two traditions, for he calls for a purification bull (as Lev 4) for the first day (Ezek 43:21) and a purification goat (as Num 15) for the following seven days (details in chap. 4, Comment E). Finally, the length of the initiation, in fact, also differs: Ezekiel’s actually runs for eight days (details in chap. 4, Comment J). Yet this deviation is not traceable to a variant tradition concerning the number of days but is due to Ezekiel’s attempt both to conflate the two purification offering traditions (cited above) and to equate the altar initiation to his eight-day spring festival (Ezek 45:21–23; details in chap. 4, Comment E). The initiation of Solomon’s altar (ḥănukkat hammizbēaḥ) also lasted seven days (2 Chr 7:9; cf. 1 Kgs 8:65 LXX, 66), a clear attempt by the Chronicler to equate the Solomonic Temple with the Tabernacle (Japhet 1977: 69)—as demonstrated by his attribution of a theophany on the Solomonic altar (2 Chr 7:1a) similar to that on the Tabernacle altar (see the Note on 9:24).

Two questions need to be asked: Were all seven days similarly observed; and were all of the rites on the first day repeated for the remainder of the week? Noth (1965) suggests that the consecrating ceremonial took place only on the first day (regarding vv 33b–34 as a secondary interpolation), and for the rest of the week the consecrands were only prohibited from leaving the sanctuary. Interestingly, the Karaites entertained a similar view, holding that only the purification bull was offered up for seven days (Exod 29:36–37; Yefet ben Ali, cited by Seper Hamibḥar on v 34). A. Hurowitz agrees (1974: 90), citing the case of the healed mĕṣōrāʿ whose purificatory rite ostensibly takes place the first day, after which he enters the camp but remains outside his tent for seven days (14:4–8). But the analogy of the mĕṣōrāʿ is wholly inappropriate. He undergoes a graded purification involving rites for the first, seventh, and eighth days that can only be compared with other purificatory rites, and his purification has nothing in common with an entirely different and, indeed, opposing field of activity—consecration, the passage from the profane to the holy (the Karaite contention is rebutted in the Note to v 34). Rather, it is preferable to regard the expression rendered "ordain" (see below) as implying that all seven days were alike. All rites described in this chapter were repeated every day for the entire week. The text, however, does indicate some ambiguity concerning the ongoing anointing of the priests, especially of Aaron, on which see below.

If the first-day rites were to be repeated each day, their purpose could well have been that of reinforcement (Baentsch 1903). But the text is silent concerning purpose and concerns itself with prohibitions: the consecrands are forbidden to leave the sanctuary for seven days on pain of death (v 35). We are dealing here with a rite of passage, such as the seven days of birth (circumcision on the eighth day marks the first day of the child’s life (Gen 17:12), the seven days of marriage (Gen 29:27), and the seven days of mourning (Gen 50:10). "All these are ‘passage times’ when a person moved from one house of life to another, dangerous occasions when the demons were most active" (Snaith 1967 on 4:6). Thus the fact that Aaron and his sons are constrained to remain in the sanctuary for seven days can only mean that rites are being performed on them during this period by which they can pass from the house of commoners to the house of priests. They are consecrated as priests only at the end of the week, and during this liminal period they are highly vulnerable, not to demonic assault—the world of demons has been expunged from Priestly notions—but to human sin and impurity (see chap. 4, Comment C). The peril that attends all liminal periods is attested in cultures throughout the world, discussion of which is reserved for Comment G below. Here let it only be noted that the status of the ordination sacrifice is a perfect match for the status of the consecrands. The sacrifice is itself transitional and anomalous. It ranks lower than the most holy offerings and higher than the lesser holy offering (7:38), and shares the characteristics of both (details in the Note on v 22). So too with Aaron and his sons: they participate in the sacrificial services as offerers, not as priests; at the same time they are consecrated with holy oil. Theirs is a seven-day passage. It is inconceivable that after the first day they merely wait out the week at the Tabernacle door. Each day’s rites will remove them farther from their former profane state and advance them to the ranks of the sacred, until they emerge as full-fledged priests.

your ordination will require

. yĕmallēʾ ʾet-yedkem, literally, "he will fill your hands." This idiom occurs not only in P (Exod 28:41; 29:9, 29, 35; 32:29; Lev 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Num 3:3) but elsewhere in Scripture (Judg 17:5, 12; 1 Kgs 13:33; Ezek 43:26 LXX; 1 Chr 29:5; 2 Chr 13:9; 29:31, where it usually refers to persons being installed in priestly functions). Especially instructive is the case of Micah: "he had ordained (wayyĕmallēʾ ʾet-yad) one of his sons to be his priest.… Micah ordained (wayyĕmallēʾ … ʾet-yad) the Levite, and the young man became his priest and remained in Micah’s shrine" (Judg 17:5, 12). Once it is found in connection with the initiation of Ezekiel’s altar: ûmillĕʾû yādāw (ydw) ‘and dedicated it’ (Ezek 43:26b), but the LXX and Pesh. read yādām ‘them’ (lit., "their hand"), thus referring again to the consecration of the priests. It is, however, the exact cognate phrase in Akk., mullû qātam, literally, "fill the hands," that provides supportive evidence for this rendering, for instance, barûtu umallû qātāʾa ‘(Šamaš and Adad) have inducted me into the priesthood’ (Streck 1916: 254, 1.9); uddušu ešrēti umallû qātūa ‘(Marduk my lord) ordained me to renovate temples’ (Langdon 1912: 110, 3.30; 142, 2.10). Even the origin of this phrase may be discernible in the Akk., for example, ḥaṭṭa murtēʾāt nišē ana qātiya ú-me-el-lu-ú ‘they handed over to me the scepter which shepherds all peoples’ (KAH 2.84.8), referring to Adad-Nirari II (CAD, malû 9c, p. 187). Thus, into Adad-Nirari’s hands was placed the scepter of authority, a ceremonial by which he was inducted into the kingship. One should not, however, point to the use in Mari of the idiom ana mil kātišunu šumūdum ‘in order to increase their handful’ (ARM 2.13), in other words, to fill their hands with spoil (Noth 1967: 232 n. 9). This meaning may perhaps pertain to Exod 32:29 (Cody 1969: 153 n. 22) but not here (Rupprecht 1975). Both in the cited Akkadian and in biblical passages, adduced above, mullû qātam/millēʾ yad means "ordain, authorize (through a ceremony)."

It now needs to be asked: What is the ceremony to which this phrase refers? According to Tg. Onq., the phrase refers solely to the sacrificial service (cf. also Midr. ʾAg. to Exod 29:35), including most likely the purification and burnt offerings as well as the ordination offering (vv 14–28). Ezekiel, too, it should be remembered, identifies the purification and burnt offerings as the ordination agencies for the altar (Ezek 43:25–26). Nevertheless, the purification offering seems to have been excluded by the writer of Exod 29:35–36 (details in the Note on v 34). The rabbis adopt a broader definition. They extend this idiom to include the anointing of the priests. In other words, they claim that all rites performed on the first day were repeated each following day (Sipra, Milluʾim Ṣaw 14; Midr. Lev. Rab. 10:8). A number of objections to this view come to mind: (1) lĕmošḥâ bāhem ûlĕmallēʾ bām ʾet-yādām ‘to anoint them and ordain them’ (Exod 29:29b). Thus "ordain" does not include "anoint." (2) ûmillēʾtā yad-ʾahărōn wĕyad-bānāyw ‘You shall ordain Aaron and his sons’ (Exod 29:9b) heads up the sacrificial service (ibid., vv 10–26). Thus the prior anointing of Aaron (ibid., v 7) is excluded. (3) The purpose of the ordination (8:23) is lĕkappēr ʿălêkem ‘to make expiation for you’ (v 34b), a purpose fulfilled by the sacrifices (cf. Exod 29:33b), not the anointing. Still, the anointment by sprinkling (v 30) is clearly contingent on the sacrifices (the blood comes from the altar!) and cannot be separated from it. Moreover, the function of the priests’ daubing with the sacrificial blood is clearly for kippûr—expiation (see the Note on v 23). This leaves the dousing of Aaron’s head with the anointment oil (no. 2, above) as the only rite possibly excluded. But because millēʾ yād means "authorize, ordain," it is inconceivable that Aaron’s private anointing rite by which he qualifies as high priest is not also intended. This idiom would still exclude the anointing of the sanctuary, for in P it is always attested with a human object, namely, the priests. Only Ezekiel extends this phrase to include the altar (Ezek 43:25; but cf. the LXX, Pesh., cited above), a matter that will be explained in the Notes on v 34, below. Thus it can be assumed that all rites of the first day were repeated during the entire week of consecration, with the possible exception of the consecration of the sanctuary.

Two morphological observations concerning the idiom: though active in form it is rendered as a passive, a frequent occurrence in this chapter (vv 15a, 16a, 17a, 19a, 20a, 21a, 34a); and yād remains singular even when the subject is plural (Exod 29:29, 33, 35; Num 3:3; Ehrlich 1908–14).

As mentioned above the Anchor volumes are the standard reference for any scholar and Continental is sort of a summary. Milgrom's 3 volumes are a tour de force.