The Question of Indirect Touch 69 the following verse 2 that refers to Jerusalem’s disobedience to God. In neither of these cases does the root lag II imply physical dirtiness but denotes instead matters of guilt and sin, matters that are often regarded as ritual in the Hebrew Bible (11). Similarly, the Pual form occurs in Ezra 2,62 // Neh 7,64 and Mal 1,7, again with ritual connotations, as can be inferred from the fact that all the texts concern ritual matters and they all feature priests as the key players. Similarly, the Hithpael form in Dan 1,8 refers to Daniel’s refusal to “pollute” himself by eating of king Darius’ food, again a matter of ritual. In view of this, we can conclude that the word “defile” has definite ritual connotations. The only possible exception is Isa 63,3, part of the longer passage of Isa 63,1-6, that attests the Hiphil form (12). In this exegetically difficult passage, God is described (in the first person) as a killer who has “defiled” His clothes with the blood of His victims. This verse contains several parallels to Lam 4,14: the main characters in both cases are killers, and in both cases their clothes are described as “defiled”. Given these similarities, we have to determine whether the root lag II in Isa 63,3 and, as a result, also in Lam 4,14, defines a person whose clothes have simply become physically dirty, or whether these two verses speak about ritual defilement. In my view, the second interpretation is more likely for the following reasons: — Given the connotations of defilement, ritually and/ or figuratively, of the root lag II elsewhere, this is likely to be the case for the root also in Isa 63,3 and Lam 4,14. — It is probable that the particular choice of the root lag II in Isa 63,3 was guided by the use of the orthographically and phonetically identical root lag I in the following verse 4 (13). As such, the use of the root lag II in this context is not primarily due to semantic considerations. Accordingly, it would be incorrect to derive too much information about the meaning of the root from this specific instance. — Along the same lines, I suggest that had the author of Lam 4,14 intended to convey an impression of regular dirt, he would have used a less ritually loaded word. — Blood by itself can have a contaminating function, as is the case of blood lost through childbirth or menstruation (e.g. Lev 12,1-8; 15,19-23; 15,25-30). More pertinent for the present inquiry is the fact that bloodshed is deemed unclean: shedding (innocent) blood causes guilt (Deut 21,7b-8a - µd). In the particular cases of Isa 63,3 and Lam 4,14, this legislation is apt: both (11) The Hebrew Bible does not differentiate clearly between impurity and sin. Rather, as L.E. TOOMBS, “Clean and Unclean”, IDB I, 647, argues, moral and religious sin was seen as a form of inner uncleanness. E.g., the case of suspected adultery, a clear case of sin, was treated as a problem of uncleanness (Num 5,28). Furthermore, Isa 30,22; Ezek 24,13; 36,25; 37,23, show that pagan idols and cult practices associated with them rendered Israel unclean, and the ritual of the Day of Atonement removed simultaneously the accumulation of guilt (ˆw[) of both sin and uncleanness (Lev 16,16.30). (12) For the form, see GKC §53p, and J. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 56–66 (AB 19b; New York 2003) 246, n. j. (13) Cf. K. KOENEN, Ethik und Eschatologie im Tritojesajabuch. Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie (WMANT 62; Tübingen 1990) 78.