372 Tova Ganzel idolatrous practices performed in the Temple, portrayed by Ezekiel as the pinnacle of “abomination”. Many studies have been devoted to establishing the precise meaning of “abomination” in the Bible (16). I submit that abomination, as employed by Ezekiel, serves as a broad, inclusive term used in reference to something repugnant and despicable in either the religious-cultic or social-moral sphere, and that any attempt to define this term simply distorts its meaning. The sins and immoral acts described as abominations in Ezekiel cannot be enumerated or defined with any degree of specificity, and thus this term must include a wide variety of sins (17). It not only encompasses the sins enumerated in all the Pentateuchal codes, but it also extends to the intolerable acts perpetrated by the people that eventually brought about the Temple’s destruction and the nation’s exile. Ezekiel 22 alone lists twelve sins under the rubric of “abominations”: hytwb[wt lk ta ht[dwhw (then declare to her all her abominations!) (18). Leviticus 24–30 instructs that abominations pollute the land and cause the people to be exiled, and to this Ezekiel adds that they defile the Temple. 2. Ezek 9,7 In chapter 9, Ezekiel points to a third factor that causes the Temple’s “defilement” (in addition to μy[wqyç and twb[wt), namely, murderous acts committed in the Temple courtyard: “And YHWH said to him…’slay and destroy old men, youths and maidens, little ones and women…and start from my sanctuary!’ So they started with the elders who were before the house. He said to them, ‘Defile (wamf) the house and fill its courts with corpses; go forth!’ So they went forth and killed in the city” (Ezek 9,4-7) (19). This passage describes the execution of people in the Temple courtyard, (16) See E. GERSTENBERGER, s.v. “to abhor”, TLOT III, 1428-1431; J. MILGROM, “Toeva”, Encyclopedia Biblica, VIII, 466-468 (Heb.); W.W. HALLO, “Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos”, JQR 76 (1985) 21-40; J. KLEIN – Y. SEFATI, “The Concept of ‘Abomination’ in Mesopotamian Literature and the Bible”, Beer-Sheva 3 (1988) 131-148 (esp. n. 60) (Heb.); and W.H. PICKETT, The Meaning and Function of ‘T’B/TO‘EVAH’ in the Hebrew Bible, Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1985, where Pickett summarizes the state of research until 1985 (esp. 1-49, 286-300). Two studies are devoted to consideration of this term: P. HUMBERT, “Le substantif to‘ˇb˝ et le verbe t‘b dans l’Ancien Testament”, ZAW 72 (1960) 227-231; and Pickett’s above-cited doctoral dissertation, 233-270. (17) In the other biblical books, it is possible to distinguish between the different contexts in which this term appears. Paran, Priestly Style, 346–347, differentiates between the Priestly Code (which he claims includes all the Priestly literature) and Deuteronomy, noting b[t’s limited framework in the Priestly Code as opposed to its more varied contexts in Deuteronomy. For a recent comparison of the use of hb[wt in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code, see E. REGEV, “Moshe Weinfeld Reconsidered: Towards the Typology of Holiness in the Priestly Schools and Deuteronomy”, Shnaton. An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 14 (2004) 51-74, esp. 62-63 (Heb.); and E. REGEV, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomic Static Holiness”, VT 51 (2001) 243-261, esp. 248- 250. (18) See PICKETT, ‘T’B/TO‘EVAH, 237, and his conclusions, 279-301. (19) Ezek 9,6-7 makes consistent use of the root llj: wljt yçdqmmw, wlyjyw, μyllj. Even if the damage caused to the Temple can be described as desecration, nonetheless, Ezekiel deliberately chose to use the combination wamf ta tybh (defiled the house).