Catriel is Called on the Carpet! … The "Qumranites" Taking Fruma from Flatbush's advice, we gave some background material on the Essenes. We noted that the exact relationship between the Essenes and the "Qumran-sectarians" was still not clear and that it is generally believed that they were co-extensive, but not identical. We wrote that the Qumran community seemed to have lived in ways and espoused doctrines atypical of what Josephus and Philo ascribe to the Essenes. Indeed, the scrolls in the Qumran library included many texts that depart from typically Essene thought patterns and are more congruent with the philosophies of other Jewish groups of the period. Nevertheless, Fruma was still not satisfied. "If that's the case, you should have made things clearer. If the Qumranites (sic) weren't Essenes, then what were they? What was their relationship to the Beit Hamikdash?" So at Fruma's request, we backtrack once again. Dr. Schiffman, Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at NYU, an expert in late antiquity Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the history of Halacha and rabbinic literature, postulates that the Qumran sect was a breakaway band of Sadducee separatists and not Essenes; they were totally unrelated groups. "The earliest members (of the Qumran community) must have been Sadducees unwilling to accept the status quo established in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt. The Maccabees, by replacing the Zadokite high priesthood with their own, reduced the Zadokites to a subsidiary position for as long as Hasmonaean rule lasted. Even after leaving Jerusalem, the Dead Sea sect continued to refer to its leaders as the 'Sons of Zadok'. These were indeed Sadducees who protested the imposition of Pharisaic views in the Temple under the Hasmonaean priests." Dr. Schiffman continues, "Sadducean priests were not uniform in their degree of Hellenization nor in all their beliefs. Josephus' descriptions concern only the somewhat Hellenized Sadducees of the Roman period. Moreover, I am not claiming that the Dead Sea sect as we know it is Sadducean, only that its origins and the roots of its halakhic tradition lie in the Sadducean Zadokite priesthood… Immediately following the (Maccabean) revolt, a crisis occurred in the Jewish priesthood that had a direct impact on the formation of the Qumran sect and its establishment in the Judean desert." The Kohanic house of Beit Tzadok had an awesome history that extended all the way back to Shlomo Hamelech. For some 850 years - aside from the forced hiatus between the destruction of Bayit Rishon and the consecration of Bayit Sheini - until the time of the Hasmonaean Revolt, Kohanim from Beit Tzadok served as Kohanim Gedolim in the Beit Hamikdash. Seduced by the glitter of the worldwide Greek civilization that arose after the appearance of Alexander in the East, it was recreant elements from venerable Beit Tzadok, who tolerated, and indeed initiated, the Hellenistic "reforms" that proved to have such a divisive effect on Judea. The poisonous brew of sordid Temple politics, lust for power, venality and a morbid craving to ape the mores of the ruling powers, made Judea particularly vulnerable to the deleterious Seleucid meddling in religious affairs that eventually provoked the Maccabean revolt. Chonio IV, the lawful heir of the legitimate Kohanim Gedolim, no doubt expected that the victorious Yehuda HaMaccabee would restore him to his ancestral position. After all, Yechezkel [44:15-31] had promised a brilliant future for Beit Tzadok, but his hopes were dashed when the Seleucids foisted Alcimus (Yakim) on the community after Yehuda's death. Moreover, Chonio irreparably weakened his case when he fled to Egypt and, with the permission of the Ptolemies, built a "rival" temple at Leontopolis. Even though he patterned his schismatic shrine after the Mikdash, by his rash act, he effectively destroyed any possibility of his ever returning to Jeru- salem. When the dust of the revolt had finally settled, Jonathan the Hasmonaean, not of the Zadokite line, but from the house of Hashmon, had been proclaimed Kohein Gadol. A new dynasty of Kohanim Gedolim had been born: the ancient House of Tzadok had been rudely shunted aside. Nevertheless, Dr. Schiffman asserts that even during that terrible time, there were "many Sadducean Priests who continued to be pious… maintaining the ancient traditions of the Temple in Jerusalem." However, now firmly ensconced in positions of power, the triumphant Chashmona'im and their entourage had little use for these random remnants of a bygone age. And for their part, unwilling to countenance the replacement of a legitimate Kohein Gadol from the House of Tzadok with a "parvenu" Hasmonaean, a small group of Sadducean priests, probably from the lower clergy who had remained devoted to the Torah, retired to the deserts of Qumran. The moderately Hellenized Kohanim of Beit Tzadok, who did not join the trek to Qumran, eventually became the nucleus of the Sadducee "state party" of the Hasmonaean regime. They played a major role in the consolidation and the strengthening of the emerging Hasmonaean state and the augmenting of the authority of the "upstart" Priest-King at its head. It is important to grasp that these faithful Kohanim of Beit Tzadok retreated to the desert to maintain the purity of Israel's priesthood as they understood it. At first, they tried to come to an accommodation with the Hasmonaean regime. The scroll called the "Halachic Letter", which perhaps records this attempt, is a document of major significance. Unquestionably, this scroll (and others), with historical evidence, depicts a worldview of a group of priests who coalesced because they passionately disagreed with those who, in their lights, had unjustly assumed control of the Mikdash about various points of Halacha. The letter was written during the early stages of the Dead Sea sectarian's development when these Sons of Zadok still hoped to return to Jerusalem and participate in a newly "purified" Temple Avoda. Almost 8.5m long, another major find, the "Temple Scroll" deals with the Mikdash (building and accoutrements) and the Avoda, especially Korbanot of Shabbat and Chagim. While most of the Halachot therein "depend, directly or indirectly" on the Torah, there are a number of interesting innovations. The priestly author emphasizes that only through Avoda may one obtain Holiness and perfection. He envisioned a society where the King of Israel administered secular affairs and the Kohanim provided - almost vicariously - for the spiritual needs of the people by the meticulous performance of the Avoda. The author of the Temple Scroll did not advocate a program for the messianic age; he advocated a program for an existing Temple. The contents of the Temple Scroll support the notion of a breakaway sect of Zadokite priests forming the nucleus of the "Qumranites". When the efforts of reconciliation failed, the sect began to look upon itself as the True Israel - "Sons of Light," scorning and condemning all others - "Sons of Darkness." Gradually, the embattled but faithful Kohanim of Beit Tzadok, who forsook the Mikdash for Qumran, began to develop the besieged mentality of those rejected and outcast from the mainstream. <to be cont.> Catriel's book in progress: The Temple of Jerusalem, A Pilgrim’s Perspective; A Guided Tour through the Temple and the Divine Service [The
Parshat T'tzaveh Homepage] |
