The Question of Indirect Touch 71 As we can see, what we have here in Lam 4,14 is a situation akin to the scenario described in Hag 2,12-13: clothes have been made impure owing to contact with something impure – a corpse in the case of Hag 2,13 and blood guilt in the case of Lam 4,14. Moreover, both texts agree that impurity can be transmitted via indirect touch. As we shall see in greater detail shortly, this similarity has implications for the interpretation of Hag 2,12-13. II. Priests A precursory reading of the texts reveals that Hag 2,12-13, Ezek 44,19 and Lam 4,14 share a connection to priests. This connection is natural: the issues of purity and impurity are closely connected with the priestly office. Lev 22,15- 16, for example, states that the priests were responsible for teaching the laws of purity to the people as well as for ensuring that they were maintained. A closer reading of the three texts reveals a more nuanced picture. In this section, we shall explore the connection to priests as found in the three texts and their immediate contexts and conclude that they differ in their respective estimate of the priests: while Ezek 44,15-31 testifies to a favourable assessment of the priests, Lam 4,13-16 and Hag 2,10-14 disclose a more critical disposition towards them. 1. Priests in Hag 2,10-14 Hag 2,11-13 tells how Haggai posed two questions to the priests. We can relate to Haggai’s questions and the presence of priests in this text in one or two ways: — Haggai asked the priests in their role as experts on purity. As such, Haggai’s questions express his genuine search for enlightenment (15). — Haggai asked the priests in order to emphasize a certain fact in his own argumentation (16). As such, Haggai knew the answers to the questions beforehand. The second option is preferable for two reasons: From an exegetical point of view, the questions in Hag 2,12-13 are of such a simple character that any layperson would have been able to answer them correctly (17). Hence, it is unlikely that Hag 2,12-13 reflect a quest for knowledge. (15) E.g. T.T. PEROWNE, The Books of Haggai and Zechariah (CB; Cambridge 1908) 39-40, C. VON ORELLI, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (KKANT; München 1908) 171, W.A.M. BEUKEN, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8. Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie (SSN; Assen 1967) 65, H.W. WOLFF, Dodekaprofeton 6 Haggai (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986) 70, VERHOEF, Haggai, 116, H.G. REVENTLOW, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi (ATD; Göttingen 1993) 25, and E.M. MEYERS, “The use of Tora in Haggai 2:11 and the Role of the Prophet in the Restoration Community”, The word of the Lord shall go forth. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (ed. C.L. MEYERS – M.P. O’CONNOR) (Winona Lake, IN 1983) 69-75. (16) RUDOLPH, Haggai, 48-49, BALDWIN, Haggai, 50, P.L. REDDITT, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCBC; Grand Rapids 1995) 26, 27. See also KESSLER, Haggai, 213, who treats Haggai’s question as a “prophetic-symbolic action”, the goal of which is to “baffle the hearers and thereby stimulate their curiosity”. (17) E. SELLIN, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch (KAT 12; Leipzig 21930) 463. His suggested interpretation (that there was a difference in opinion between the priests and Haggai