The Defilement and Desecration of the Temple in Ezekiel 371 The precise meaning of the term μyxwqyç has been discussed by several scholars, including Milgrom (11), who concluded that in P (Lev 11,10-42; 7,21) this term has a ritual meaning — forbidden foods; in H (Lev 11,44; 20,25) it has a metaphorical meaning of abhorrence and revulsion; and in Deut 7,26 and 29,16 it means idolatry (which is also, in his view, the meaning preserved in the Second Temple period) (12). Ezekiel, on eight occasions, employs this term in clear reference to idolatry (5,11; 7,20; 11,18.21; 20,7.8.30; 37,23), thus indicating that in Ezekiel, as in Deuteronomy, μyxwqyç serves to denote idolatry(13). Although in the Priestly Sources ≈qç does not have the capacity to “defile”, once it became a pejorative name for idolatry, which indeed causes “defilement,” this term can then be associated with defilement. “Abominations” constitute a second Temple-defiling factor for Ezekiel. The term hb[wt appears 117 times in the Bible, and 45 of these occurrences are found in Ezekiel (14). It is not surprising that Ezekiel, who, in conveying his message to the people, uses direct, crude means of expression in an attempt to alarm his audience, employs this term more frequently than any other prophet, as well as the unique constructions tw[r twb[wt (evil abominations; 6,11; 8, 9), twlwdg twb[wt (great abominations; 8, 13.15), and tw[r twb[wt (the images of their abominable things; 7,2). In particular, the construction μtwb[wt ymlx (images of their abominable things) is used nowhere else in the Bible (15). These distinctive phrases, which impress upon Ezekiel’s audience the radical nature of the acts they committed, appear mainly in the context of the length in chapter 8. These possibilities are grounded in the question of how impurity is passed on to the Temple in general, and in Ezekiel in particular. (11) J. MILGROM, “Two Priestly Terms ∏eqes and t˝mˇ’”, Tarbiz 60 (1991) 423–428 (Heb.); D.N. FREEDMAN – A.J. WELCH, “≈qç”, TDOT XV, 465-469. (12) MILGROM, “Priestly Terms”, 424, distinguishes between the terms ≈qç, ≈rç, and amf. The uniqueness of ≈qç is that although it is forbidden for consumption, it does not defile by contact. It itself is pure, and, furthermore, since it originates in the ocean waters are not susceptible to impurity, it does not transmit impurity. There is no punishment for the consumption of a ≈qç, whether intentional or accidental. Milgrom’s definition is consistent with the many instances of the root ≈qç in the Priestly literature, but Lev 20,25 indicates that μyxqç do, in fact, transmit impurity: “You shall not defile your throats (μkytçpn ta wxqçt alw) with a quadruped or bird or anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to treat as impure (amfl).” Ezekiel also treats the ≈qç as a conveyor of defilement: “They shall no more be polluted by their idols and by their loathsome things(μhyxwqyçbw μhylwlgb dw[ wamfy alw) and by all their transgressions” (37,23). (13) Idolatry can be understood broadly as by J. MILGROM, “The Nature and Extent of Idolatry in Seventh-Eighth Century Judah”, HUCA 69 (1998) 1-13. Milgrom counts eighty- two instances in which Ezekiel protests against idolatry among the Israelites (p. 1). The present discussion treats only those verses that reveal the nature of these practices, as opposed to general censure of idolatry. (14) I will not address the etymology of this term, which is a matter of scholarly debate. For a recent consideration, see B.J. SCHWARTZ, The Holiness Legislation (Jerusalem 1999) 219 (Heb.) and the notes there; H. -D. PREUSS, “[wthb”, TDOT XV, 591-602 and biblio- graphy, 591. (15) The word μlx appears twice more in Ezekiel, in both cases as part of a construction associated with harlotry: rkz ymlx (phallic images; 16,17) and μydçk ymlx (figures of Chaldeans; 23,14). In two other instances, Ezek 8,3 and 5, we find the term lms which appears a total of five times in Scripture (Deut 4,16; 2 Chr 33,7.15), in both cases as part of the construction hanqh lms. There seems to be no clear-cut distinction between the two terms; indeed, the LXX uses the same word — sthvlh [tou' ktwmevnou] — for both.