94 SEMIOTICS OF BIBLICAL ABOMINATION ee NATION 8S It would thus seem that even when the Temple was de- stroyed, the Temple's function remained as far as the Jews were concerned, and it organized, in “metaphorical” fashion—but ‘what does that mean?—a number of oppositions. I shall try to demonstrate that there is no opposition between material abom~ ipation and topo-logical (holy place of the Temple) or logical (holy Law) reference. The one and the other are two aspects, Taran and logical, of the imposition of a strategy of identity, which is, strictness, that of monotheism. The semes that « the process of separation (orality, death, incest) are the inseparable lining of its logical representation aiming to guar- antee the place and law of the One God. In other words, the lace and aw of the One do not exist without a series of separations that are oral, corporeal, or even more generally material, and in the last analysis relating to fusion with the mother. The pure! impure mechanism testifies to the harsh combat Judaism, in i it ’ntains himself d call metonymic, within which, if he maintains lf I raes taste ee aera ren Auras encrifot ot stems from it is perturbed, Sacrifice thus operates between o heterogeneous, incompatible, forever irreconcilable terms. me time as it posits it the semantic isotopy of each. Sacrifice Bsus a metaphor, The question bas bem tase a6 to which Sige ioctonrmin, taboo animctaphariercsice ngs considered, as sacrifice merely extends the logic of taboo Bi th Lari pereued the anteriorty of taboo over sa- ice fas been asserted, I seems to me more tenable to sy that ps colesins of religions tern, by sesing thoo, seek pr or at least subordinat Sod ine ones: Hibbed seocstaertca tea te ;rough sustained abomination, nattempt to throttle murder. i yhen to murderous acts—which become unnecessary wl tules of taboo are dsdosed and observed), With bi a abomination religion is probably wending its way towa Phors of the divine prohibition resuming archaic, material cas. foms, but are responses of symbolic Law, in the sphere of subjective economy and the genesis of speakin, As the introduction of the pure/impure ‘opposition coincides, as we have seen, burnt offerings, this sets up at once the Problem of the relations between taboo and sacrifice. It would seem as though God had penalized by means of the flood a breach of the order regulated by taboo. The burnt offering ser up by Noah must then reestablish the order disturbed by the breaking of taboo. Two complementary motions are shun involved. MAN/GOD DISTINCTION: A DIETARY DISTINCTION From its very beginning, the biblical text insists on maintai t Besdistance berveen tian and God by means of a dietary ferentiation. Thus the Lord (Genesis 3:22), after n ‘man is become as one of us, to know good and e s prevent this pretntons “scholar” fom also becoming in “mortal. He thus prohibits certain foods by banishing him a the garden of Eden, “lest he put forth his hand, and take also “from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” If a con _ kind of eating, that of the apple of knowledge, could i a re been held back from Adam, who was tempted by Eve, hers pots by te Serpent, another fod willbe absoluel banned, _ in order to forestall the chaos that would result from. he et "tification of man with the immortality of God. One should n 2 TABOO FORESTALLS SACRIFICE dug,t2b0° implied by the pure/impure distinction organizes differences, shaping and opening an articulation that we macy96 SEMIOTICS OF BIBLICAL ABOMINATION that it is a feminine and animal temptation that is concealed under the first dietary trespass; for we shall encounter the ref- erence to woman only fortuitously in the later abominations of the Levites. ‘Thus, as J. Soler points out," food effects an initial division between man and God; to God belong living beings (by wa of sacrifice), to man vegetable foods. For, “Thou shalt not kill. In order to understand, after that first dietary apportionment the introduction of meat diet, one must assume a cataclysm— for instance, a violation of divine rule and subsequent punish- indeed only after the Flood that authorization is granted ery moving thing that liveth” (Genesis 9:3). Far from. being a reward, such permission is accompanied by an ac- knowledgment of essential evil, and it includes a negative incriminating connotation with respect to man: “For the imag. ination of man’s heart is evil” (Genesis 8:21). As if there had been an acknowledgment of a bent toward murder essential to human beings and the authorization for a meat diet was the recognition of that ineradicable ‘death drive,” seen here under its most primordial or archaic aspect—devouring. And yet, the biblical concern’ with separating and ordering ‘encounters further on the supposedly previous distinction be- tween vegetable and animal. In the postdiluvian situation such a distinction is brought out again under the guise of the flesh/ blood opposition. On the one hand there is bloodless flesh (destined for man) and on the other, blood (destined for God). Blood, indicating the impure, takes on the “animal” seme o the previous opposition and inherits the propensity for murder of which man must cleanse himself. But blood, as a vital ele- the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat” (Genesis 9:4). Such is the Elohistic covenant agreed upon with Noah for the whole of mankind. The Yahwist, setting up the agreement between Moses and God, valid for a single nation, applies him SEMIOTICS OF BIBLICAL ABOMINATION 97 self to making that system of differences both more rigorous and mote precise. “I am the Lord your God, which have sep- arated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean . . .* (Leviticus 20:24~25). The dietary domain will then continue to be the privileged object of divine taboos, but it will be modified, amplified, and even scem to become identified with the most moral, if not the most abstract, statements of the Law. We shall attempt to trace that evolution in chapters 11 to 18 in Leviticus. LEVITICUS: A PURITY OF PLACE, A PURITY OF SPEECH Dietary instructions crop up after the burnt offering presented by Moses and Aaron to the Lord Yahweh (as they do after Noah's burnt offering to the Lord Elohim). Two officiants at the sacrifice, having “offered strange fire” to the Lord Yahweh, ecome “devoured” by the sacred fire (Leviticus, 10:1~2). At that moment, a communication from the Lord seems to indicate that the sacrifice “in itself” cannot assume the status of a divine covenant, unless that sacrifice is already inscribed it ic of the pure/impure distinction, which it would consolidate and enable one to hand down. Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, ‘when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall bea statute for ever throughout your generations: ‘And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; ‘And that ye may teach the Lord hath spoken i children of Israel all the statutes which them by the hand of Moses. (Leviticus The sacrifice has efficacy then only when manifesting a logic of separation, distinction, and difference that is governed by admissibility to the holy place, that is, the appointed place for encountering the sacred fire of the Lord Yahweh. A spatial reference is thus called forth, in a first stage, as, criterion of purity, provided that the blood of the expiational Boat not be brought in (Leviticus 10:18). But such prerequisites98 SEMIOTICS OF BIBLICAL ABOMINATION, for purity (holy space, no blood) seem to have been deemed insufficient, for the following chapter modifies them. The pure will no longer be what is restricted to a place but what accords with a speech; the impure will not only be a fascinating element (connoting murder and life: blood) but any infraction to a logical conformity. Thus, ‘And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which, ye shall eat amon, are on the earth. ‘Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that ye shall cat. less these shall ye not cat of them that chew the cud, or ide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the 4) And so forth. The list of the occasionally specious prohibitions that make divine word. Now such a logic is founded on the initial biblical postulate of the man/God difference, which is coextensive with the prohibition of murder. As J. Soler has shown,?? what is involved, as in Deuteronomy 14, isthe establishment of a logical {field preventing man from eating carnivorous animals. One needs or rapacious animals, and there is only one prescription for that: eating herbivorous, cud-che i 1g animals. There are ruminants hoofs, and they will be thrust aside. The pure will be that which conforms to an ished taxonomy; the impure, that which uns. tablishes intermixture and disorder. The example of fish, and insects, normally linked to one of three elements (sea, heaven, earth), is very significant from that point of view; the impure will be those that do not confine themselves to one element but point to admixture and confusion. Thus, what initially appeared to us as a basic opposition be- ‘tween man and God (vegetable/animal, flesh/blood) SEMIOTICS OF BIBLICAL ABOMINATION 99 ‘upon the initial cont plete system of logical oppositions. Differing from burnt of- ferings, this system of abomination presupposes it and guar- antees its efficacy. Semantically controlled, initially at least, by ‘the life/death dichotomy, it becomes in course of time a code of differences and observance of it. It goes without saying that the pragmatic value of those differences (the function of this or that animal in everyday life possibly affecting the pure/im- ppure designation), like their sexual connotations (I shall return to this point), does not detract from the remarkable fact of having 2 system of taboos constituted a design of “separation” and “individual integrity,” would be incomprehensible. FOOD AND THE FEMININE A brief and very important chapter of Leviticus, chapter 12, is inserted between those dietary prohibitions and the expansion of their logic to other domains of existence. Between the theme If she gives birth to a daughter, the girl “shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separatiot To purify herself, the mother must provide a burnt of- _ fering and a sin offering. Thus, on her part, there is impurity, _defilement, blood, and purifying sacrifice. On the other hand, if she gives birth to a male, “the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3). Circumcision would thus ‘sepa- Tate one from maternal, feminine impurity and defilement; stands instead of sacrifice, meaning not only that it replaces but is its equivalent—a sign of the alliance with God. Circum- cision can be said to find its place in the same series as food taboos; it indicates a separation and at the same time does away with the need for sacrifice, of which it nevertheless bears the