1 Following the translation of J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Scriptores Aethiopici, vol. 88, (Louvain: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 1989), 222.

2 Jubilees 33:14 refers to the same principle, but its formulation is less clear.

3 Indeed, the same may hold true of all sins; see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 254–621, 980–2, idem, “The Changing Concept of Holiness in the Pentateuchal Codes with Emphasis on Leviticus 19,” in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, ed., J.F.A. Sawyer JSOTSup 227 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 65–75, R. Kugler, “Holiness, Purity, the Body, and Society: The Evidence for Theological Conflict in Leviticus,” JSOT 76 (1997), 3–27, and J. Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Laws in Leviticus 17–26 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Whatever the rationale behind the biblical laws, it is clear that the sect viewed them as reflecting the very real nature of evil and impurity (see below).

4 See Jubilees 33: 19–20. Note that Ethiopic “medr“ is problematic since it may mean either ”land“ or ”earth”. The former approach is preferred by R.H. Charles and Ch. Rabin, the latter by O. Wintermute, E. Litmann, and VanderKam (see Book of Jubilees, ad loc.). On the basis of the biblical sources (especially H), it would appear that the reference in Jubilees 33 is to pollution of the land in which the people of Israel reside, viz., Canaan. Indeed, the likelihood of this approach is buttressed by the importance which Jubilees attaches to the Land of Israel/Canaan, as expressed, inter alia, in its maximalist depiction of the land's borders (see J.M. Scott, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees [Leiden: Brill, 2005], 162–66, and 182–206). However, even if the intended referent is the “earth,” this does not change the fact that sin generates pollution, thereby endangering the community; see, the discussion below regarding Deut 19:19, and A. Shemesh, “The Holiness According to the Temple Scroll,” RQ 19 (1999), 369–82, and J.C. Poirier, “Purity Beyond the Temple in the Second Temple Era,” JBL 122 (2003), 247–65. (While Shemesh raises some important points bearing on the present study, I believe his analysis to be mistaken on several key points, as I hope to demonstrate in a forthcoming study; these do not, however, affect the essence of the present discussion [see below, n. 25].) Note, also, the view of J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, who argues that Jubilees maintains that the present Temple has been contaminated and, hence, the nature of the divine presence residing therein is limited to the divine name (as in the deuteronomic/deuteronomistic theology); the divine presence/glory will, in his view, reside only in the eschatological temple (see “Visions of the Temple in the Book of Jubilees,” in B. Ego, et al., eds., Gemeinde und Tempel/Community without Temple [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1999], 220–23). Whatever one makes of van Ruiten's argument, the contaminating nature of sin is clearly maintained by Jubilees (for all generations), as indicated most clearly by the book's application of Lev 20:1–5 to the offense of exogamy/miscegenation (see Jubilees 30). For discussion of the significance of the Israel's land as “sacred space” in Jubilees and the implications of its defilement, see Scott, On Earth as in Heaven, 182–6.

5 Jubilees' position may also be reflected in the book of Susanna (vv. 41–45), where, following her conviction on the basis of testimony given by two elders, Susannah is taken out for immediate execution (only to be saved by Daniel's legal acumen); in this instance, too, there is no explicit formulation of a legal principle requiring immediate punishment.

6 See Z. Weisman, People and King in Biblical Jurisdiction (Israel: HaKibbutz Hameuchad, 1991), 116 (Hebrew); see, also, P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and procedures in the Hebrew Bible, transl. M.J. Smith, JSOTSup 105 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 366–7, who notes the biblical concern with prompt and regular adjudication but argues that the biblical evidence suggests that most judicial activity took place in early morning.

7 See VanderKam, Book of Jubilees, 191–2, who translates “unexpectedly,” but adds the note, “or: suddenly”.

8 See 30:4.

9 For discussion of Jubilees 30, see C. Werman, “Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90 (1997), 1–22.

10 See below, n. 37 and n. 40.

11 While not specifying the time-frame for execution of offenders, another passage in Jubilees underscores the problematic nature of (excessive) delay, viz., that involving the heavenly imposed death of Cain. It is likely that the author of Jubilees felt that he had little choice but to accept the version of the biblical Vorlage; see, further, van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1–11 in the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 172–3. Van Ruiten also notes the possible role of Num 35:21, as well as Deut 7:10 (“who instantly requites with destruction those who reject Him – never slow with those who reject Him, but requiting them instantly”), in informing Jubilees' position. Although the latter verse refers to divine justice, rather than human, it is quite conceivable that the author Jubilees and members of the Qumran community equated the two. The latter source does not indicate same-day punishment. The latter, which does indicate immediate execution, may attest to a general principle, but it may also simply reflect the fact that a person acting in extra-judicial capacity does not have the luxury of waiting; hence, it is difficult to infer the immediacy principle on the basis of Num 35.

12 See, inter alios, Werman, “Jubilees 30,” C.E. Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999), 3–36, H.K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis, SBL Dissertation Series 143 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 47–110, J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University, 2000); cf. M. Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512,” DSD 8 (2001), 9–37, and C. Toews, “Moral Purification in 1QS,” BBR 13 (2003), 71–96. See, also, E. Regev, “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notions of Purity and Impurity in Qumran,” DSD 10 (2003), 243–278.

13 See A. Shemesh, “Expulsion and Exclusion in the Community and the Damascus Document,” DSD 9 (2002), 44–74.

14 Deut 21:22–23 and its reformulation in 11QT, including the means of execution prescribed, have been the subject of numerous studies. See M.O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 49 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990), 107–9.

15 Alternatively, and less likely, the phrase may be understood as forming the conclusion to v. 22. This yields the reading, “When a man commits a capital offense and is executed…on that very day”; i.e., the entire process, from offense to punishment, is to be carried out “on that very day”. On this explanation, it is the pollution generated by the crime (“moral impurity”) as well as the polluting power of the corpse which demands immediate attention. Cf. A.B. Ehrlich, Miqra Ki-Pheshuto, The Library of Biblical Studies (reprint; New York: Ktav 1969), 349.

16 For views on 11QT, especially the problematic formulation Deut 21:23a2, see Wise, op. cit. Whatever one's understanding of 11QT, there is no reason to suppose that the author did not view the presence of impurity/evil as a key issue. Indeed, other Second Temple authors (e.g., Philo) also see the issue of prolonged presence of impurity as a factor in this law. For a comparative review and analysis of 11QT and other post-biblical interpretations of this passage, see M. Halbertal, Interpretive Revolutions in the Making: Values as Interpretive Considerations in Midrashei Halakha (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1997), 159–67, esp. 162–3 (Hebrew). Significantly, rabbinic sources did not view defilement and pollution as the key issues (compare the discussion of rabbinic sources, below); even in the rabbinic extension of this verse, viz., the prohibition against delayed burials (הלנת המת), the central concern is “the honor due the deceased” (כבור המת), not pollution of the land/community. And, yet, rabbinic literature may preserve awareness and application of the concern over the presence of prolonged defilement. T. Neg. 6:2 (ed. Zuckermandel) states that no corpse may be kept in Jerusalem overnight: את המת אין מולינין (!) בה see, also, Abot R. Nat. A 35, and b. B. Qam. 82b. Note that commentators to b. have been troubled by the apparent redundancy of the law concerning Jerusalem in light of the general prohibition against postponed burials.

17 See, e.g., J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 307–18, and Philo's view that one who engages in intercourse bathe himself immediately thereafter. For an alternative approach, see H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 165–81. Whatever one makes of Maccoby's arguments, the issue is moot with regard to the Qumran community's position, concerning which there is little doubt. Note that rabbinic sources preserve the view that prompt purification from the impurity – at least in some cases, e.g., impurity of menstruation, corpse contamination – is mandatory (see, e.g., y. Nid. 2:4 [50a]; b. Yoma 8a, Nid. 30a; and the commentary of R. Elijah of Vilan [=Vilnius] to J. Karo's Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, 197:2). Now, it is true that these sources do not go so far as to claim that one who does not undergo ablutions is guilty of defiling the Israelite camp; still, it is possible that this rabbinic view reflects a “middle” position: it does not view impurity as being an active, “contaminating” force, but, at the same time, defilement must be removed at the soonest possible time.

18 See Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978), 512–18; idem, Leviticus 1–16, 948–76, especially 968–76; and E. Eshel, “4Q414 Fragment 2: Purification of a Contaminated Person,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, eds., M. Bernstein, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 3–10. Eshel plausibly explains the presence of a miqweh alongside a cemetery as reflecting the practice of ablution performed on the first day of corpse defilement.

19 It is likely that that the sect based its notion of prompt punishment on Deut 21:22–23.

20 See above.

21 Unless, of course, one adopts the view that the phrase “on that same day” in Deut 22:23 qualifies the entire procedure, from crime to execution.

22 See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 976–1004.

23 See Milgrom, “The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles,” in Temple Scroll Studies, ed. G.J. Brooke (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 165–80, and, idem, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L.H. Schiffman (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 171. Cf. the overreaching remarks of W. Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 109–23.

24 See, especially, Klawans, Impurity and Sin. Consider, for example, the law regarding “abnormalities” of the scalp and various instances of exorcism in the sect's writings; see, also, J. Licht, The Rule Scroll (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965 [2nd print. 1996]), 262; J.M. Baumgarten, “The 4QZadokite Fragment on Skin Disease,” JJS 41 (1990), 159, 162; E. Qimron, “Notes on the 4QZadokite Fragment on Skin Disease,” JJS 42 (1991), 256–9; J. Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues, 275–335; A. Lange, “Essene Positions on Magic and Divination,” ibid., 379–86.

25 See B. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Poetry (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1996), 196–9 (Hebrew). For an additional example of the defilement generated by moral impurity, see 11QT 51:14, which states that a magistrate who takes bribery brings “אשׁמה” upon the land and defiles the temple. For similar, but not identical, notions in rabbinic sources, see m. Abot 5:8 and the last section of the present paper.

26 See, also, Shemesh, “The Holiness,” and B.J. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells, 3–21 (especially 7–10).

27 For discussion of this point with regard to H, see Milgrom, “The Changing Concept of Holiness,” esp. 70–74.

28 See 1QS 8:21–9:2 and Shemesh, “Expulsion and Exclusion”; see, also, the discussion of G.A. Anderson, “The Interpretation of the Purification Offering (חטאת) in the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) and Rabbinic Literature,” JBL 111 (1992), 30–34. As an aside, it may be noted that the sect's understanding of Num 15:30 was proposed, albeit much later, by Maimonides (Guide to the Perplexed, 3:41).

29 See Deut 13:6; 17:7,12; 21:21; 22:21,22; 24:7.

30 See the discussion in S.D. Luzzatto's Commentary to the Pentateuch, ed. P. Schlesinger (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1971; reprint), ad Deut 19:19 (Hebrew), and below, n. 58. Note, also, the observation of W. Preiser that the use of sanctions in biblical law – and deuteronomic law, in particular – is informed by the desire for atonement or expiation rather than retribution; see “Vergeltung und Sühne im altisraelitischen Strafrect,” in Festschrift für E. Schmid, P. Bockelmann and W. Gallas, eds. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961), 7–38. The Qumran community would certainly have concurred with this position, with the understanding that the expiation (for both the offender and community) is achieved via sweeping away of the evil. Preiser also proffers the view that “[r” in these verses is to be rendered “guilt” rather than “evil,” a distinction would, in all likelihood, not have been recognized by the sect. See, further, D. Patrick, “The Rhetoric of Collective Responsibility in Deuteronomic Law,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, eds. D.P. Wright, et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 434; Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in the Priestly Literature”; and the following two notes.

31 Some scholars have advanced the possibility of Zoroastrian influence on the Qumran view of impurity; see, inter alios, S. Shaked, “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E.,” in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 308–25.

32 Note the formulation of Klawans, who states that the Qumran community maintained “a conception of defilement that is not unlike Zoroastrianism: what is evil is impure, what is impure is demonic…” (Impurity and Sin, 88).

33 On the specifically priestly (as opposed to levitical) provenance of Jubilees, see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 142.

34 Indeed, Deuteronomy contains other passages which reflect notions of defilement fundamentally similar to (though not necessarily identical with) those of the priestly sources; see, e.g., Milgrom, “The Alleged ‘Demythologization’ and ‘Secularization’ in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973), 156–61; see, also, A. Rofe, “The Breaking of the Heifer's Neck,” Tarbiz 31 (1962–62), 119–43 (Hebrew).

35 On the obligatory nature of testimony in criminal offenses (in general) in the Hebrew Bible and the harm to the social welfare from failure to testify regarding such offenses, see A. Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue (Oxford/New York: Clarendon/Schocken, 1970), 3–14, and M. Greenberg, “של החוק הפלילי המקראי הנחות יסוד,” in A. Shapira, ed., המקרא תורה נדרשת: חיבורים בשאלות־יסוד בעולמו של (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1984), 13–37 and, especially, 20–22. The harmful effects acknowledged by Phillips and Greenberg would undoubtedly have been endorsed by the members of the Qumran community as well as the author of Jubilees.

36 The opacity of this phrase notwithstanding, CD 9:22 makes it clear that the passage concerns testimony/reproof of any offense; see Schiffman, Law, Custom, and Messianism in the Dead Sea Sect, transl. T. Ilan (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1993), 189 and 193, and the following note.

37 See Shemesh, “Warning, Rebuke,” 150–4.

38 See Schiffman, Law, Custom and Messianism, 191–2 (Hebrew), for discussion of this point, and 189–94, for analysis of the entire passage.

39 Note that the neither CD nor other sources from Qumran explicitly state whether testimony deposed after the prescribed time-frame is actionable. The scroll's reticence notwithstanding, it is unlikely in the extreme that the sect would have rejected such testimony. This holds true not only for torts and the like – where the guilty party must make restitution even if this takes place after the same-day limit – but for “religious” offenses, as well, so that the source of evil/impurity is ultimately removed.

40 “Warning, Rebuke”; cf. Schiffman, Law, Custom and Messianism, 191–2.

41 For a less than convincing approach, see ibid., 191.

42 Note that Jubilees 4:5–6 reflects the view that testimony is mandatory, and that one who withholds testimony “is cursed just like he (who has committed the offense)”. While this passage does not specify a time-frame, I submit that it must be read in conjunction with Jubilees 33.

43 The clause “אם החריש לו מיום ליום ובחרן אפו דבר בו” ought be understood as follows. A person who withholds testimony against another individual beyond the prescribed time-frame of one day probably does so as the result of the friendship between the two (see, e.g., Philo, 2 Laws 26–28) or, possibly, indifference (see m. Sanh. 4:5); if he subsequently comes forth with his testimony, it is assumed to be the result of some dispute or ill-will that has developed between the two. Cf. Schiffman, Law, Custom, and Messianism, 189, n. 105. See, further, the following note.

44 If there is, in fact, a legal nexus between the two issues, it would appear to be as follows. The sect viewed all vows (except those absolutely necessary, e.g., for entering the community) as improper. Accordingly, a father/husband is encouraged to nullify his wife's/daughter's vow so as to remove the possibility of its non-fulfillment; his failure to do so thus implicates him in the non-fulfillment of the vow and the resulting ritual impurity. In the same way, one who fails to report an offense – thereby allowing the ritual impurity generated to go unattended and failing to correct the offender's ways – shares in the offender's guilt and the responsibility for impurity generated by him. Now, even if the nexus between vow nullification and testimony is granted, it would not alter the fact that the legal/ritual issue informing it remains the same, viz., the need to remove ritual impurity (or, perhaps, prevent its onset) within the shortest legally significant period (i.e., that same day). All this notwithstanding, a true legal/exegetical nexus between the issue of vow nullification and testimony is most unlikely, since it would entail the position that testimony rendered after the day on which the offense was committed would be invalid, as in the case of vow nullification. While the community's writings (CD 9:6–8) indicate that failure to testify on time constitutes a violation of Lev 19:19, there is no indication that “late” testimony is legally meaningless.

45 Following NJPS.

46 See LXX.

47 See, e.g., W. McKane, Jeremiah, ICC (London: T. & T. Clark, 1986), vol. 1, 508–9, and NJPS. See, also, Zeph 3:5, which contrasts divine conduct with that of Israel's prophets and priests: “But the Lord in her midst is righteous, He does no wrong; He issues judgment every morning (בבקר בבקר), as unfailing as the light”. Note also, the targumic rendering of this verse: “… הא כנהור צפרא … כן דיניה נפיק לאפרש לא מתעכב …”. Though dealing with divine justice, it suggests that daily – and early – adjudication is a sign of true justice.

48 Bovati cites Ps 73:14 – “ואהי נגוע כל היום ותוכחתי לבקרים” – as another non-legal passage which reflects the legal norm of daily adjudication (see further, Re-Establishing Justice, 367).

49 To be sure, it is unclear as to whether the verse means that unjustified delay or, rather, the rendering of unjust decisions unleashes the divine wrath. It is likely, though, that either one is sufficient cause for divine retribution or, rather, the rendering of unjust decisions or, possibly, both.

50 See Shemesh, “Rebuke,” 153–4.

51 See, inter alios, A. Kirshenbaum, “מקומה של הענישה במשפט העברי הפלילי: פרק בהשקפה הפינולוגית של חדל והראשונים,” עיוני משפט 12 (1987), 253–73 and, for a recent application of these views to the subject of the rebellious son (Deut 21:18–21), see, also, J. Fleishman, Parent and Child in Ancient Near East and the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 282–93 (Hebrew).

52 m. Sanh. 5:5.

53 The passage reads: אמר רב כהנא סנהדרין שריו כולה לחובה פוטרין אותו מאי טעמא כיון דגמירי הלנת הדין למעבד ליה זכותא והני תו לא חזו ליה זכותא; see the variants cited in N.N. Rabinowicz, דקדוקי סופרים, (Munich: 1868–97; reprint, New York: M.P. Press, 1976), ad loc., n. 100. Cf. the view of R. Meir Abulafia cited in Tosefot ha-RoSh, who took the talmudic formulation to mean that, inasmuch as there is evidently no hope of exonerating the accused – i.e., the accused is certainly guilty – the verdict is to be rendered immediately and the convicted offender taken forthwith to be executed. This interpretation appears to reflect awareness of the fact that execution of judgement should, in principle, be done with utmost alacrity; it is the concern with ensuring the accused offender the benefit of all reasonable doubt which makes delay of the verdict permissible. Of potential relevance to the present discussion is the reading preserved in some mss of b. Sanh., viz., “סנהדרין גדולה”; see Rabinowicz, דקדוקי סופרים. Some mss of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (Laws of the Sanhedrin 9:1) preserve this same reading; see, inter alia, the commentaries of J. Karo (Keseph Mishneh), and, especially, M.S. Ha-Cohen (Or Sameah), ad loc. This reading would, of course, considerably restrict the scope of the judicial conservatism in executions.

54 For another extreme example of the rabbis' attempt to limit the actualization of capital punishment, see m. Mak. 1:10.

55 See, e.g., the commentaries of Solomon b. Isaac (Rashi) and Maimonides ad loc.

56 See, inter alia, Tg. Ps.-J. ad Lev 24:12, Num 9:8; 15:34; 27:5, wherein the distinction is made between monetary cases, which must be decided in a prompt fashion, and capital offenses, which place a premium on caution and painstaking examination.

57 See, also, t. Sanh. 11:7 and L. Finkelstein's note to Sifre Deut, pisqa 91, l. 6.

58 It may be significant that it is none other than R. Judah – a tradent sharing many views with R. Eliezer (the Shammaite) and the Qumran community – who requires that the “rebellious elder” be executed immediately upon conviction.

59 See the comments of Rashi and R. Meir Abulafia (Yad RaMaH), ad loc. For another instance of the application of Hebrew “ענה” (pi'el) specifically in connection with unjustified delay (in granting assistance), see Mekh. R. Ishmael, Mishpatim, 18 (ad Exod 22:22).

60 Of course, this passage begs the question as to the meaning of ענוי הדין in connection with animals. It is possible that, as in other precepts, the obligation to perform the biblical imperative must be performed with alacrity, what the rabbis term “זריזין מקרימין למצןןת”; hence, since all doubt regarding the defendant's innocence has been removed, the obligation to execute him must not be postponed. This is most unlikely, however, since the two concepts are fundamentally different (see above). Alternatively, the concept of ענוי הדין may reflect the view that the “sweeping away of evil” – the biblical “ובערת הרע מקרבך” – must be attended to immediately, once the existence of such “evil,” i.e., commission of the offense, has been (judicially) established. This, too, however, is complicated by the observation (noted above) that the biblical locution refers to sweeping out the offense rather than the offender; but, this is clearly nonsensical when applied to (goring) animals. It is unclear whether this indicates that b. B. Qam. understands the “sweeping out the evil” as did Sifre Deut (pisqa 86; 151; 155; 187; 220; 240; 241; 272), Tg. Onq, and Tg. Ps.-J., which render this phrase by “עושי הרעות” and “עבד הביש” (i.e., “he who commits evil”), respectively; the matter requires further clarification.

61 See R. Margaliot, מרגליות הים (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1977), 148.

62 For discussion and critique of this dichotomy, see J.L. Rubenstein, “Nominalism and Realism in Qumran and Rabbinic Law: A Reassessment,” DSD 6 (1999), 157–83.

63 See Regev, “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community”. Still, the following caveat is apposite. Rabbinic sources do not explicitly address the need for immediate punishment of non-capital offenses, i.e., flogging. This reticence may, of course, be inconsequential; on the other hand, it may indicate that the rabbis differentiated between capital and non-capital offenses.

64 The issue of time-frame is partially addressed in the case of (the rabbinic understanding of) Lev 5:1, wherein the guilty party must bring a reparation offering only is he has responded falsely to another's adjuration; see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 293–4.