
]151[
'רר ְ
ד'ו 'ח ָ
רְזֶ
א' ]3
הנממ קיסהל רשפאש תונקסמב ןדאו ,ק"הס ןושלל סחייתא הז רמאמב
,'רר ְ
ד'ו 'ח ָ
רְזֶ
א' ,םצע תומש ינשב ןדא ,רתוי קיודמ ןפואב 4.ורוביח דעומ לע
Cultures of Europe, Israel and North America (FAT 111), Tübingen 2016, pp.
913–941; C. Nihan, ‘Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation: A Plea for Nonlinear
Models’, ibid., pp. 1015–1039; A. Kopilovitz, ‘What Kind of Priestly Writings
Did Ezekiel Know’, ibid., pp. 1041–1054; M.A. Lyons, ‘How Have We Changed?
Older and Newer Arguments about the Relationship between Ezekiel and the
Holiness Code’, ibid., pp. 1055–1074; T. Ganzel and R. Levitt Kohn, ‘Ezekiel's
Prophetic Message in Light of Leviticus 26’, ibid., pp. 1075–1084; J. Joosten,
‘Covenant’, P. Barmash (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Law, Oxford
2019, pp. 7–18; R. Achenbach, ‘Priestly Law’, ibid., pp. 177–198; B. Kilchör,
‘Wellhausen's Five Pillars for the Priority of D over P/H: Can They Still Be
Maintained?’, M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change
in Pentateuchal Research (ZAR Beiheft 22), Wiesbaden 2019, pp. 101–113;
M. Zehnder, ‘Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28: Some Observations on Their
Relationship’, ibid., pp. 115–175; J. Rhyder, Centralizing the Cult : The Holiness
Legislation in Leviticus 17–26 (FAT 134), Tübingen 2019; K. Schmid, ‘How to
Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch’, R.J. Bautsch and M. Lakowski
(eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and
Establishing Epochs (FAT 101), Tübingen 2019, pp. 101–118
תודקמתה אלל ךא ,ק"הס ןושלל םג םיעגונ םהינוידו ,כ"ס לש ונושלב וקסע םירקוח המכ 4
,)ב"משת( זט לארשי ץרא ,'תינושלה הניחבה :ינהוכה רוקמה רקחל' ,ןיול א"ב :הב תדחוימ
,םינבמ ,ןושל ישומיש ,םימגד :הרותב ינהוכה ןונגסה יכרד ,ןראפ 'מ ;131–124 'מע
R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology ;ט"משת םילשורי
of Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSM 12), Missoula, Mo. 1976, pp. 85–122; A. Hurvitz,
A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of
Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CRB 20), Paris 1982; idem., ‘The
Language of the Priestly Source and Its Historical Setting – the Case for an Early
Date’, Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem,
August 16–21, 1981: Panel Sessions, Bible Studies and Hebrew Language,
Jerusalem 1983, pp. 83–94; B.A. Levine, ‘Late Language in the Priestly Source:
Some Literary and Historical Observations’, ibid., pp. 69–82; N. Mizrahi, ‘The
Numeral 11 and the Linguistic Dating of P’, J.C. Gertz et. al., The Formation of
the Pentateuch (above, n. 3), pp. 371–389; L. Petersson, ‘The Linguistic Prole
of the Priestly Narrative of the Pentateuch’, in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchor and
M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research, (above, n. 3),
ועיצה ,ובש םילימה רצואב דחוימבו ,ק"הס לש ונושלב םידקמתמה םינויד .pp. 243–264