Somatic “defects” (mûmîm) and their opposite, bodily wholeness, have been of considerable interest to this investigation thus far. In chapter 1, I explored the relationship of physical “defects” and ugliness, on the one hand, and a lack of “defects” and beauty, on the other. The focus of chapter 2 is the disabling dimensions of corporeal “defects.” In this chapter, I investigate nonsomatic parallels to bodily wholeness and “defect.” I begin with two insightful claims of Mary Douglas: (1) that wholeness and completeness are paradigmatic in biblical thought and characteristic of the quality of holiness, and (2) that there is a symmetrical relationship between the “defects” of sacrificial animals and those of priests. For Douglas, that which is holy is whole and complete, and somatic perfection characterizes both the priests serving in the temple and the sacrifices brought to the deity: “The sanctity of cognitive boundaries is made known by valuing the integrity of the physical forms. The perfect physical specimens point to the perfectly bounded temple, altar, and sanctuary.” Douglas argued that “defective” sacrificial animals and priests are excluded from the cult because they lack the quality of wholeness required for admission. Although Douglas erred in some of her assumptions about the biblical cult as represented in the P and H materials of Leviticus (e.g., that bodily wholeness is required of all persons entering the sanctuary and of all sacrifices), the major elements of her thesis may be both supported and elaborated by turning to evidence she did not consider: nonbodily analogues to whole and “defective” sacrificial animals and priests.