-
5. Halakhah from Qumran to the Mishnah: Concluding Remarks
- University of California Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
129 five Halakhah from Qumran to the Mishnah Concluding Remarks In his article mentioned at the outset of this book, “The History of Halakhah and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Jacob Sussman portrayed the Sadducee halakhah as stringent, as opposed to the Pharisaic halakhah, which he saw as tending to be more lenient. Sussman was following in the footsteps of Abraham Geiger, who similarly described the “old” halakhah as severe and inflexible, as opposed to the “new” rabbinic halakhah, which he, too, saw as more flexible and tending toward leniency. The only difference between the two is that in light of the findings of the scrolls and especially the halakhic content of Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah, Sussman applied these characteristics not only to the post-70 Rabbis, but also to the pre-70 Pharisees.1 Yaªakov Elman challenged Sussman’s assertion.2 He first cites at least one case in which the Temple Scroll has a more lenient stance than that of the Rabbis. While according to rabbinic halakhah, Numbers 19:18 is interpreted to include human bones from a live person as impure and defiling objects, the Temple Halakhah from Qumran to the Mishnah / 130 Scroll 50:5 limits impure bones to dead persons.3 More important is Elman’s general claim that it is exactly this assumption concerning the stringency of the Sadducees’ halakhah that led scholars to interpret many halakhic passages from the scrolls in accordance with it while they actually may easily be understood differently. Though Elman’s arguments are at times truly challenging and should warn us of superficial interpretations of Qumran legal rulings based solely on the assumption that they opposed rabbinic halakhah and should exhibit a stricter stance, in principle, Sussman is no doubt right. This is because the stringency of priestly halakhah is not merely a matter of statistics, but a state of mind. This is evident, as already noticed by Sussman himself (and mentioned above in chapter 3) from the sectarians’ explicit accusation of the Pharisees of choosing the easy way: “Its [interpretations] concern the Man of Lies who misdirected many with deceptive words, for they have chosen easy things (banaru bakalot) and did not listen to the Interpreter of Knowledge” (4QpPsa 1–2, 1:18–19 [4Q171]). Furthermore, it is for this very reason that they called the Pharisees “dorshe ha-nalkot.” As I noted above, this nickname is literally translated as “seekers of smooth things,” but the expression means, “those looking for easy interpretations.” It has been rightly suggested that this denomination is a word play on the Hebrew “dorshe halakhot” (exegetes of halakhah), which is how the Pharisees thought of themselves.4 Priestly halakhah’s tendency toward stringency is better understood in light of Sadducean religiosity as portrayed in the previous chapters, that is, as rooted in both their belief about the halakhah’s divine source and their absolute commitment to the written Torah. Lacking the confidence that the Pharisees enjoyed [44.220.245.254] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 03:35 GMT) Halakhah from Qumran to the Mishnah / 131 as a result of their adherence to their ancestors’ traditions, the sectarians lived in constant anxiety about whether they were fulfilling their religious commitments properly, which resulted in an ever-growing tendency toward strict halakhic norms. The sectarian rhetoric against the Pharisees is an expression of their psychological and theological frustration in the face of their rivals’ religious behavior. While they were investing so much energy in living an ascetic lifestyle in order to fulfill the commandments of the Torah properly, the Pharisees were conducting relatively easy and comfortable lives and still considered themselves to be righteous . Ridiculing an opponent using contemptuous language is the weapon of the weak. It is useful only for internal purposes, to strengthen the community’s members, but it is inefficient for winning a real battle. In practice, this tendency toward stringency influenced halakhah on two levels. Not only does priestly halakhah choose the extreme option for any given halakhic detail, but it also adds extra prohibitions and other legal details not mentioned in the Torah. One example of this kind, which has been discussed intensively in chapter 3 above, is the sectarian prohibition on uncle-niece marriage . Here is one more example, which will also serve to illuminate some other aspects of the halakhah of the Sadducees. The halakhah in the scrolls prescribes the death penalty for quite a few sinners, even though...