Shifting from priestly to non-priestly legal authority: A comparison of the Damascus document and the Midrash Sifra

Dead Sea Discoveries

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 109-125

  Fraade, Steven D ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62549158102     PISSN: 09290761     EISSN: 15685179     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156851799X00153     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. I say "back" because the early years of study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and, before their discovery, of the Damascus Document, focused more on this aspect of the scrolls than was the case in the subsequent years. On the scholarly neglect of the legal texts of Qumran, see Y. Sussmann, "The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls - Preliminary Observations on Miqscombining dot belowat Ma'ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT)," Tarbiz 59 (1989-90) 11-12 (Heb.)
2. For the Qumran community as a studying community, and comparisons with early rabbinic Judaism, see S.D. Fraade, "Interpretive Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran," JJS 44 (1993) 46-69
3. On the need to attend to the pedagogical force and function of rabbinic literature, see S. Handelman, "The 'Torah' of Criticism and the Criticism of Torah: Recuperating the Pedagogical Moment," JR 74 (1994) 356-71
4. Ch. Rabin (ed.), The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958) 65 (where in a note to line 6, "Sifre" should be "Sifra")
5. Ch. Albeck, (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1958/9) 552 (additional note to m. Neg. 3:1)
6. L.H. Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 39-40 n. 111
7. idem, The Eschatological Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 27
8. See, for example, J.M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 44-45
9. However, there remains the possibility that "Levites" denotes a type of quasipriestly functionary, and not necessarily a hereditary line. On the Levites in late biblical and second temple sources, see below, nn. 23, 24
10. (but see the critiques of C. Hempel, "Who Rebukes in 4Q477?" RevQ 16 [1995] 655-56
11. S.A. Reed, "Genre, Setting and Title of 4Q477," JJS 47 [1996] 147-48)
12. F.M. Cross and E. Eshel, "Ostraca from Khirbet Qumrân," IEJ 47 (1997) 17-28
13. Here the reference is not, as previously, to a priest simply lacking in Torah learning or expertise, but to one who is mentally incompetent. See Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran, 39-40 n. 111
14. idem, "The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles," Temple Scroll Studies (ed. G.J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 176-78
15. idem, "The Shoulder for the Levites," Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 1.169-76; Yadin, ibid., 1.154-59
16. For the unwarranted view that the Temple Scroll was authored by Levites (sympathy need not denote identity), see H. Burgmann, "11QT: The Sadducean Torah," Temple Scroll Studies, 257-63
17. L.H. Schiffman, "Exclusion from the Sanctuary and the City of the Sanctuary in the Temple Scroll," HAR 9 (1985) 315, 318
18. On the Levites more generally, see B.A. Levine, "Levites," Encyclopedia of Religion 8 (1987) 523-32
19. For a critically aware but less cautious approach to this question, see A.I. Baumgarten, "Rabbinic Literature as a Source for the History of Jewish Sectarianism in the Second Temple Period," DSD 2 (1995) 14-57
20. Schiffman, The Eschatalogical Community, 37-52
21. For this function of the dialogical nature of early rabbinic midrash, in comparison to its antecedents, see S.D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, chap. 1
22. idem, "Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim," Oral Tradition (forthcoming). In contrast to early rabbinic Judaism, we find nothing resembling the master-disciple relationship at Qumran. Neophytes joined the community as a whole and advanced through its ranks, studying its texts and practicing its rules, under the instruction of its priestly and levitical teachers, but with no indication of individual master-disciple relations or circles
23. It is simplistic to assume that no sooner than the Temple was destroyed, the priesthood lost all its scripturally based and traditionally confirmed prerogatives and influence. Although the Temple with its sacrificial worship was the center of priestly authority and influence, the priests could claim leadership roles and legal authority independent of and outside the Temple. For further discussion and bibliography, see S.D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary, 73, 232 n. 20
24. More recently, see S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden: Brill, 1990) 58-109