AN I MADVE R S I O N E S The Defilement and Desecration of the Temple in Ezekiel* The polarities of holy (çdq) and desecration (lwj), and pure (rwhf) and defilement (amf), are overarching themes in Ezekiel (1). Desecration signifies the contrast to holiness, infringing upon the sacred domain and divesting it of its holy status. Hence, whenever we find the concept of holiness mentioned in Ezekiel, we find as well the converse notion – the desecration of holiness, the violation of this status. Alongside this contrast we also find the contrast between pure and defilement, as Ezekiel criticizes the people for defiling that which was to remain pure (2). Although Ezekiel generally adheres to the biblical distinction between defilement (hamwf) — as of the people and the land — and desecration (lwlyj) — as of the Sabbath and of God’s name (3) — he is unique in ascribing to the Temple both concepts of defilement (hamwf) and desecration (lwlyj) (4). Previous studies on the connotations of the roots amf (defile) and llj (desecrate) treat them as interchangeable terms. This conclusion was reached mainly due to the problematic combination of these two expressions in the phrase yçdq μç amf “defile My holy name” (Ezek 43,7-8), a construction that appears only in Ezekiel. The ascription of “defilement” to the “holy” name appears paradoxical, as the “holy” is desecrated, not “defiled” (5). Thus, for example, Meir Paran concludes that “the roots llj/amf can be interchangeable, as one might deduce from a comparison between yçdq μç ta llj ˆ[ml (so as to desecrate my holy (*) The Anchor Bible edition was used for biblical citations, with the exception of Ezek 38-48, for which the NJPS edition was used. (1) We address here only the “moral” purity and impurity which appears throughout Ezekiel. Ezekiel makes reference to the “ritual” statuses of purity and impurity in only one context (44,25-26), amidst the discussion of the laws pertaining to the priests. (2) Desecration of the holy is generally accomplished, among other ways, by defiling it, though there can be something which is not holy but yet is pure. For more on the relationship between sacred/desecrated and pure/defiled, see J. MILGROM, “The Changing Concept of Holiness”, Reading Leviticus (ed. J.F.A. SAWYER) (JSOTSS 227; London 1996) 71-72; B. SCHWARTZ, Torat Ha-kedusha (Jerusalem 1999) 254. (3) The people and the land are always described in Ezekiel as “impure” (rwhf al), whereas the Sabbath and God’s name are always described as “desecrated” (llj), with the single exception of Ezek 43,7-8, in which the divine name is “defiled” (amf). (4) D.F. O’KENNEDY, “llh”, Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (ed. W.A. VAN GEMEREN) (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 145-150. (5) See, for example, J. MILGROM, “The Changing Concept of Holiness”, 65-83. On p. 65, Milgrom assumes that God is holy, and on p. 72 he notes that the holy cannot come into contact with the impure. This difficulty led J. GAMMIE, Holiness in Israel (Minneapolis, MN 1989) 55-56, as well as others, to view these verses as a later addition by Ezekiel’s followers.