3 comments on “Naeh Contra Shukron and Reich on the ‘Jerusalem Purity Seal’

  1. Jim my friend

    You correctly mentioned that I suggested the very same interpratation on the day that the seal was announced. So Naeh’s suggestion is not at all new. But more than that, He even attributed some of my words to himself, such as: “the back of the bulla has two identations and no signs of a cord which sealed an object are visible” (and he is not an expert on bullae to see such a detail).
    So how are we call such attribution made by honest Prof. Shlomo Naeit ?

    Robert Deutsch

  2. It seems to me that there was a Temple process that we are not addressing.
    An individual was likely to make a voluntary or obligatory donation to the Temple but there certainly needed to be a competent Temple Authority whose role was to accept these contributions and determine if they were Tahor (pure) and therefore eligible for placement on the Altar. If an animal was deemed eligible for offering on the Altar, it most likely was segregated along with other eligible animals. Although animals were always Tahor while alive, they were subject to bearing blemishes which would restrict their eligibility for the Altar. Blemished animal whose blemishes were of a permanent nature could (in most cases) be sold by the Temple and the monies received used to buy sacrifices or other items needed by the Temple.This process of judging animal eligibility would have required a competent Authority and it stands to reason that when an individual needed an animal for a sacrifice, he went to this Authority to buy an eligible animal. It is quite likely that the seal under discussion was given to the buyer which he would then convey, together with the animal, to the Priests who actually were performing the sacrifices that particular week.
    Oil, flour and wine contributions, on the other hand, could be Tameh (impure) and a competent Temple Authority figure had to be responsible for vetting such items for eligibility. Ineligible items would presumably be sold and the monies received used by the Temple as necessary. Eligible items would be offered on the Altar.
    I think this seal could very well be the item that served as the certification that was used by the individual who was bringing the offering to show the Priest(s) that said offering was indeed Altar eligible.

  3. Pingback: Gunnar Lang tritt per 30. Juni 2012 im Amt des Reiatdorfes Büsingen am Hochrhy zurück – Als Nachfolger meldet sich der Preußengeneral von Flüe-Rimpler zu Wort | GFM RIMPLER III, Generalfeldmarschall Preußen

Comments are closed.