The Question of Indirect Touch 65 time, however, we learn more. First, we learn that a person has become unclean owing to contact with a carcass. We therefore know that the ritual status has progressed from the carcass to the person touching it, and accordingly Haggai’s question concerns only the second step-whether or not this person can transfer his or her ritual status of impurity to the same items as the previous case (amfyh - Qal). The answer is positive. This second legislation is confirmed by several Pentateuchal texts. In particular, Lev 11 informs us that the dead bodies of certain animals can render a person or item unclean (amf) by touch (vv. 24-28 – see also Lev 5,2- 4; Num 5,2). Interestingly, Lev 11,28 decrees that the person who has come into contact with a dead animal must wash his clothes (wydgb sbky). This, in my opinion, suggests a situation similar to the one in Hag 2,13: clothes pick up the impurity of their wearer and they can transfer it further. To conclude, the two questions in Hag 2,12-13 concern, among other things, the ability of a certain ritual status to pass on its qualities (3). According to the priests’ ruling in this passage, impurity is stronger than holiness: holiness can only transfer its status via direct touch, while impurity can transfer its status also via indirect touch, in this particular case via clothes. Several scholars recognize the comparative value of Ezek 44,19 (cf. 42,13) to Hag 2,12-13 with regard to the concept of indirect transition of a ritual state (4). Ezek 44,19 commands the priests to remove the clothes they have worn during the temple service before entering into the outer courtyard lest the priests sanctify the people by letting their clothes accidentally touch them (µhydgbb µ[h ta wçdqy alw). There are similarities as well as differences between the two texts. Both texts deal with indirect touch, but they differ with regard to its effect: while Ezek 44,19 states that the clothes, having become sanctified through the temple ritual, have the power to transfer the ritual state of holiness to the people, Hag 2,12 explicitly states that they do not have that power. Are we then dealing with a contradiction? In order to determine this issue, we have to discuss two aspects of the texts. First, what, if any, is the significance of the fact that the two texts contain two different verbal forms of the root çdq? Second, are the two texts compatible, i.e. does Ezek 44,19 really deal with indirect touch? a) Grammatical Concerns Ezek 44,19 and Hag 2,12 differ with regard to the verbal conjugation of the root çdq used. Ezek 44,19 attests the Piel form with the active meaning “to sanctify”, while Hag 2,12, as well as Lev 6,20, uses the Qal form of the same root, which often denotes the stative meaning “to be consecrated”. (3) Normally, the binary opposites are pure/impure and profane/holy (cf. Lev 10,10; Ezek 22,26). Yet, sometimes these two sets overlap. Deut 14, for example, states that Israel is holy (v. 2) and should not eat any abominable things (v. 3) which are later described as impure (v. 10). (4) E.g. J. KOOLE, Haggai (CNT(K); Kampen 1967) 77, who argues that the ruined state of the temple and the supposed resulting freer usage of sacrificial meat account for the discrepancy, P.A. VERHOEF, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI 1987) 118, and J. KESSLER, The Book of Haggai. Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden 2002) 204, n. 52. None of these scholars explore the idea in any deeper sense.