The Question of Indirect Touch: Lam 4,14; Ezek 44,19 and Hag 2,12-13 This article aims to highlight the relevance of Lam 4,14 for interpreting Hag 2,12-13 with regard to the issue of the transference of a ritual state via indirect touch (1). Until now, Ezek 44,19 has been considered to offer the only parallel to Hag 2,12-13. In my view, however, Lam 4,14 provides not only an additional but also a closer parallel. There are significant similarities between these three texts. Throughout this article, we shall explore two particular areas of resemblance: transference of a ritual status via indirect touch, with clothes forming the medium for this transference, and the role of the priests as the chief agents in the transfer of status. I. Direct and indirect touch The three texts Hag 2,12-13, Ezek 44,19 and Lam 4,14 share the idea of transference of a ritual status via indirect touch. Furthermore, clothes are the medium of the transmission in every case. Through a close reading of the three texts, we shall discover that Hag 2,12-13 contradicts Ezek 44,19 but agrees with Lam 4,14. 1. Hag 2,12 and Ezek 44,19 Hag 2,12-13 depicts two scenarios. The first one (v. 12) involves a person who carries holy meat in his clothes, and whose clothes come into contact with bread, stew (dyzn), wine, oil or any other kind of food. With regard to this possibility, Haggai asks whether the clothes transmit holiness (çdqyh - Qal). This single question implies a two-step process: first, whether or not the holy meat transmits its status to the clothes, and second, whether or not the clothes transmit their (potential) status to the other food-stuff. The priests respond negatively. This response, however, is ambiguous in that we cannot, on the basis of Hag 2,12 alone, determine whether it refers to both or only to the second part of the process, i.e. whether or not the holy meat transmitted its status to the clothes. In order to reach a better understanding of the issue, we need to look beyond the book of Haggai to Lev 6,20. This verse states that sacrificial meat, i.e. meat that is has been sanctified and thus is holy, will render anyone who touches it holy (çdqy hrçbb [gy rça lk [çdqy - Qal]) (2). Thus, combining the two texts, we can conclude that it is the second step that malfunctions: holiness can render something else holy, but only via direct touch. Haggai’s second scenario involves another two-step process (v. 13). This (1) I am indebted to my colleague Dr. P.J. Williams who weeded out more than one linguistic infelicity. (2) Cf. J.G. BALDWIN, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (TOTC; Leicester 1972) 50.