¹ J. Baumgarten, “Qumran Studies,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVII, 3, 249–257, states, “All in all it seems quite difficult to make out of the haburah anything more than a society for the strict observance of ritual cleanliness.” I have found no evidence to contradict Dr. Baumgarten's judgment. On the contrary, there is no indication that all Pharisees were members of a fellowship, although all members were Pharisees and accepted their views on Jewish law. There is, furthermore, no indication in the sources I have examined that the fellowship was an organized society at all, with officers or a formal governing body. A person became a member by stating his intention to keep the rules of the fellowship before three old members; he entered into the framework of obligations membership imposed. Membership thus entailed nothing more than a recognized status.

² Buechler's thesis (cf. Buechler, A., Der Galilaische Am Ha-Ares des Zweiten Jahrhunderts, Vienna, 1906)Google Scholar that the laws of ritual purity and strict tithing applied primarily to members of the priestly cast achieved some popularity among historians of this period. This thesis has been demolished by G. Allon in his essay, cited in detail below, “The Application of the Laws on Ritual Purity” (cf. Allon, G., Researches in the History of Israel, Tel Aviv, 1957, I, 148–177)Google Scholar. Buechler thought that the extension of these laws to the common people took place in the second century C. E.; because of the rabbis’ bitterness at the Hadrianic persecutions, they devised these laws to separate the Jewish people once for all from the gentile world. Allon discusses and refutes this thesis as well.

³ In Nabatea there was an institution which was apparently a religious fraternity; the members met in private chambers to dine, according to archaeological remains at Petra and elsewhere. The word in the Nabataean inscription is חבר; cf. Cantineau, J., Le Nabatéen, II, Lexique, p. 93 (Paris, 1932)Google Scholar: “ = les membres d'une confrérie religieuse.” For a discussion of the many parallels between the Pythagorean schools and the Palestinian sects, cf. Lévy, I., La Légende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine, Publications du Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, no. 250, Paris, 1927Google Scholar, Book IV; Pharisaic parallels, pp. 236–263; Essenic parallels, pp. 264–293. Lévy's theory, that the Pharisees were the Palestinian disciples of Alexandria's Hellenistic Judaism, deserves further consideration. Lévy states, “Le Pharisaisme qui, après l'extinction du Sadducéisme conservateur du vieil esprit biblique, fut le judaisme tout court, a concilié Moise et Pythagore, ou, si l'on veut, Platon.” (Lévy, op. cit., p. 342.)

⁴ For a comparison of the fellowship with the Qumran community, cf. especially S. Lieberman, “Discipline in the so-called Dead Sea Manual of Discipline,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXI, 4, 199–206. The forms of the two associations are analogous in many significant details, as Professor Lieberman demonstrates. For an extended interpretation of these parallels, cf. Rabin, C., Qumran Studies (Oxford, 1956), 1–21, and the comments of J. Baumgarten, op. cit. Cf. also my article, “Qumran and Jerusalem: Two Jewish Roads to Utopia,” Journal of Bible and Religion, XXVII, pp. 284 f.Google Scholar

⁵ The common people apparently recognized the biblical injunction to give heave-offering (cf. T B Sotah 48a), but were not careful to separate other offerings. Significantly, the laws concerning the Pharisaic fellowship were inserted in the tractate on “doubtful produce” , the doubt being whether produce has been fully and properly tithed. The observance of these laws involved separating first-tithe and heave-offering of the tithe, as well as second-tithe, to be eaten in Jerusalem, and poor-man's tithe (these last were given alternately, in the seven-year cycle, years one, two, four and five were for second-tithe, three and six for poorman's tithe). On the enactment of the laws of “doubtful produce” cf. Sotah 48a (Mishnah Maaser Sheni, 5:15); Albeck, C., Seder Zeraim (Tel Aviv, 1957), 69–70Google Scholar; and especially, Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1950), p. 143, note 28.Google Scholar

⁶ All men ought to remain ritually pure, according to rabbinic sources. Cf. Allon, op. cit., pp. 169–176. Ritual purity was a widespread obsession. Cf. inter alia, the following: Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, III, 205; Josephus, Contra Apion, 2:26; Antiquities III, xi, 3; cf. especially Brandt, W., Juedische Reinheitslehre und Ihre Beschreibung in den Evangelien (Giessen, 1910), pp. 1–55Google Scholar; and also Harrison, J., Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1903), pp. 24–29Google Scholar; M. Nilsson, History of Greek Religion (2nd ed., Oxford), pp. 84, 85, 218–220. Buechler states (in “Levitical Impurity of the Gentile in Palestine before the year 70,” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. XVII, 80–81), “They assumed that Levitical impurity of the gentile affected only the priest on duty [in the Temple] and the ordinary Jew only when he was ritually pure for a visit to the Temple and for participation in a sacrificial meal. The private associations between Jew and gentile were in no way restricted, and commercial and other relations were not affected by the Levitical purity ascribed to the gentile.” On p. 48 of the same article, Buechler asks, “Is there any, even the slightest indication in rabbinic literature that the touch of a gentile caused a defilement, and that such a defilement was taken into account by the strictest Jew not an Essene in Temple times?” One such indication at least will be found in Mishnah Avodah Zarah, 4:9:

The reason for the prohibition is obviously that the Jew will assist the gentile in the process by which grapes become susceptible to contamination and the gentile will forthwith — by touch — contaminate them! (Buechler would argue that this applies only to the priest, but no evidence supports this view.) Cf. also Tosefta Makshirin 3:7. Allon discusses this mishnah (op. cit., p. 161, note 59), and states that the sages regarded ritual purity as the obligation of every Jew; since many did not keep the laws of purity, the sages “found it necessary … to seek out the company [of observant men] and to set themselves apart by means of a formal act of undertaking, to fulfil meticulously these laws.” Cf. also TB Hullin 2: 6; and the dispute of the schools of Hillel and Shamai, TB Berakot 8:2, 3, in which all parties agree that it is forbidden to render foods unclean during a meal, disagreeing on the best means to prevent impurity.

⁷ Abraham ate his secular food in ritual purity, TB Baba Metsiah 87a; B'reshit Rabbah, ch. 44. For Saul, cf. Midrash Tehilim, ps. 7, ed. Buber, p. 32a; Pesikta de R. Kavana, ed. Buber, 78; Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 15, ed. Friedman, p. 68a. For a complete discussion of this question, cf. Buechler, op. cit., pp. 119–124, and Allon, op. cit., pp. 158–169, esp. p. 159, note 52.

⁸ Cf. for example the view of Philo, De Specialibus Legibus, III, 205.

⁹ Cf. Tosefta Demai 2:2–3:10, pass., and Lieberman, S., Tosefta Kipshutah (N. Y. 1955), ad loc. Specific citations follow.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The fellows cut across family lines, cf. Tos. Dem. 2:15, 16, 17, 3:5, 9.

¹¹ The distinction between member priests and Levites and others is implicit in Mishnah Demai 2:2, 3 and Tos. Demai 2:2, 3. There is no apparent economic distinction either; at least, according to Tos. Demai 2:19, a journeyman apprentice is a member and his craftsman-teacher is not (and vice versa); cf. also Tos. Demai 3:5, 3:9, 2:15.

¹² Seven kinds of Pharisee are listed in Sotah 22a (TP Sotah 5:7; cf. TP Berakot 9:7). Cf. also Tos. Demai 2:13, the opinion of Abba Shaul, and the parallel passage in Bekorot 30a; and Professor Lieberman's comment, op. cit., ad loc. Cf. also TP Demai 2:3 and Professor Lieberman's comment and emendation to the passage, Tarbiz, XX, 110–111: A sage in Babylon tells some women to be cautious in approaching him, for he is in the status of an outsider in relationship to ritual purities:

cf. also Finkelstein, L., Introduction to the Treatises Abot and Abot of Rabbi Nathan, New York, 1950, p. 243.Google Scholar

¹³ Tos. Demai 3:6, 3:9; TP Demai 2:2 inter alia.

¹⁴ TP Demai 2:3, This is a point often misunderstood in secondary works on this period.

¹⁵ Tos. Demai 2:3, Bekorot 30a. Cf. Lieberman, op. cit., p. 211, note 9. Cf. also Tos. Dem. 2:13, TP Dem. 2:3; Bekorot 30b on the formal undertaking. The undertaking is a kind of vow or oath, cf. Lieberman, op. cit., p. 217. For the possibility of accepting only the first obligation of membership, cf. Tos. Dem. 2:3, 5, 11.

¹⁶ Lieberman, op. cit., p. 216, para. 37.

¹⁷ Cf. also Rabin, op. cit., p. 12, note 7.

¹⁸ According to this interpretation of the several sources, wings, purities, liquids, and garments in Tos. Demai 2:11, 12, have specific meanings as detailed below. The following evidence supports this explanation:

Wings means “washing of hands” according to Professor Lieberman and earlier commentators. Cf. Lieberman, op. cit., pp. 215–216; Bekorot 30a and Rashi ad loc; the Aruk HaShalem, listing under Professor Lieberman explains this unusual usage by reference to Kelim 17:14, Tos. Kel. B. M. 7:5; TP Nazir 4:10 (TB Nazir 46b).

Purities comprehends both concern for the ritual purity of food that the initiate eats (i.e., that he will not prepare pure foodstuffs near an outsider), but also concern for preserving the purity of consecrated food. For a similar ambiguity, cf. Oholot 18:2, Bekorot 3:11, 3:2, 3:13. This latter connotation is preserved in TP Demai 2:2 by Rav Mana, who equates “purities” with “tithes.” Furthermore, Kossovsky, (Concordance to the Tosefta, Jerusalem, 1939)Google Scholar states that “purities” in the Tosefta connotes for the detailed meaning of “purities” in the TP passage cited, cf. Lieberman, op. cit., p. 215.

Liquids in Tractate Makshirin connotes “that which renders dry produce susceptible to become impure,” precisely the meaning assigned here. Cf. inter alia Makshirin 1:1, 6:4, and Albeck, , Seder Taharot (Tel Aviv, 1959), p. 411Google Scholar. The word as used in Leviticus 11:34 was interpreted by the rabbis to mean a liquid (one of seven) capable of rendering dry produce susceptible to impurity; hence liquids in Tos. Demai 2:11 connotes concern not to bring a liquid into contact with dry produce. Parallel usages are in Pesahim 17b, Terumot 11:2, etc. Liquids likewise implies, and as its primary meaning, concern to protect the purity of liquids.

Garments means, according to Rashi (Bekorot 30b-31a; cf. also Lieberman, op. cit., ad loc.) that the novice must learn to keep his garment in the state of purity appropriate to an associate. Cf. Mishnah Hagigah, ch. 2 at the end; for an instance of such concern, cf. Tos. Taharot 5:16. If the novice accepts the hospitality of an outsider, he will render his garment unclean by virtue of the uncleanness of the chairs; when the outsider is dressed in his own garments, he is a source of impurity, for his garments can render an object unclean when they are carried (cf. Hagigah 2:7). The general term garments in Tos. Demai 2:11 apparently connotes these two specific details. Cf. also Mishnah Taharot, 4:5.

For another explanation of the difference between the two definitions, cf. Finkelstein, L., The Pharisees (Philadelphia, 1938), II, p. 662.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Tos. Demai 2:3, Mishnah Demai 2:2. In the matter of tithes, the reliable person must not only keep the laws himself, but he must keep others from transgressing as well. In the second stage, the initiate must keep only his own food in a state of ritual purity. The novice, however, must be careful for others as well.

²⁰ Tos. Demai 2:2, following Professor Lieberman's emendation. Cf. Lieberman, op. cit., p. 210, notes 4 and 5.

²¹ On private conformity to the rule, cf. Lieberman, op. cit., p. 214. I only propose this interpretation as most sensible, for if the newcomer was immediately received into the final stage of membership in the order, how was he to carry out the complicated observance of ritual purity “as he goes along”? He could, on the other hand, certainly give the necessary tithes and heave-offerings without further instruction. Hence I propose that the initial reception was into the stage of reliability, and he was instructed, “as he goes along,” in the responsibilities of the initiate.

²² I have found no support for this hypothesis.

²³ Mishnah Demai 2:3.

²⁴ For evidence of this change in the nature of the fellowship, cf. Sotah 9:15; Tos. Shabbat 1:7; Bekorot 30b; Lieberman, op. cit., p. 216, para. 40, states, “According to the tradition of the Babylonian Talmud, Abba Shaul hands on an ancient law, but afterwards, when the Temple was destroyed, the standards of ritual purity (observed by the priests) were raised, so as not to place credence in any man, even a sage.” Professor Lieberman cites Maimonides, The Book of Cleanness, Laws of Midras and Moshav, ch. 10, para. 3. Cf. also Klausner, J., History of the Second Commonwealth (Tel Aviv, 1953), III, 119Google Scholar; and the extensive variations in the definition of the in Bekorot 47b.

Rabbi Judah's definition is emended by Epstein, J. N., Introduction to Tannaitic Literature (Jerusalem — Tel Aviv, 1957) to read as presented here; cf. Rabin, op. cit., p. 12, note 9. Rabin's treatment of the rule of the novitiate varies considerably from the view presented here. Rabin, op. cit., 18–20.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. Bekorot 31a; Tos. Demai 2:9, and Lieberman, op. cit., ad loc. TP Demai 2:3; TB Avodah Zarah 7a, and the comment of the Tosafot there. I follow Professor Lieberman's comment, op. cit., p. 214, paras. 28–29.

²⁶ Tos. Demai 3:9; TB Bekorot 31a; TP Demai 2:3; Lieberman, op. cit., p. 224, paras. 15–17.

²⁷ Mishnah Gittin 5:9 (parallel in Shevi-it 5:9; TB Gittin 61a).

²⁸ Schuerer, E., History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1894), II, pp. 102Google Scholar, 106–107, 124. For other viewpoints on the halachah in general, cf. Herford, R., The Pharisees (London, 1924)Google Scholar; Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge, 1954)Google Scholar, Finkelstein, op. cit.; cf. also Tractate Avot, pass., and Psalm 19:7–14.

²⁹ Finkelstein, op. cit., I, 74–75, and the same author's article in the Harvard Theological Review, XXII, 209–210.

³⁰ This is not to imply that the Pharisaic viewpoint was extreme. On the contrary, the tendency was, on the whole, moderate, given the range of possibilities that presented themselves to the sages. Cf. for many examples, Tractate Kelim, pass., and the Code of Maimonides, Book of Cleanness (Book Ten), tr. Danby (Yale Judaica Series, Vol. VIII; N. H., 1954), particularly the preface of Professor Julian Obermann (pp. v-xiv), and the introduction by Canon Danby (pp. xxxiii-xlv); also the commentary Eliyahu Rabbah to the Sixth Division of the Mishnah by the Gaon Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, in Danby, , The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933), pp. 800–804Google Scholar; and cf. also the comment of Allon, op. cit., p. 176, who suggests that the following pattern is discernible in the disputes on ritual purity: the Sadducees demanded the strictest possible interpretation of the laws of ritual purity, but limited the application of these laws to the priests in the Temple itself; the Essenes likewise interpreted the laws very strictly, and applied them to every situation in daily life, but separated themselves into communes of observant men and women; among the Pharisees, the tendency to apply the laws of purity to daily life conflicted with the impulse to limit severely the laws of purity. Allon continues, “There were two basic principles guiding the Pharisees, one, to make the law congruent to the needs of the living, and the other, to extend the principle of sanctity to every man (not only the priests) and to every place (not only the Temple). The second principle obligated the sages to teach Israel to observe ritual purity, and to demand complete separation [from uncleanness]. However, life demanded the limitation of these laws, for it is not possible, or at least very inconvenient, to keep them. Therefore … the traditions, such as washing hands before a meal, which were not difficult to keep, or which were particularly crucial, such as the prohibitions concerning women in the menstrual period, were carried out.” For a discussion of the implications of the laws of purity in economic life, cf. Ginzberg, L., Jewish Law and Lore (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 79–84Google Scholar, 109, 113, 120–122; Zeitlin, S., History of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, Prolegomena (Philadelphia, 1933)Google Scholar. Professor Zeitlin discusses the modification of the laws of purity for the sake of convenience, and concludes, “The Pharisees from time to time modified the halakot in order to make the law accord with the requirements and demands of life.”

The entire question of the sociological application of the laws of ritual purity has by no means been exhausted. It would be worthwhile, for one thing, to know in detail and through a study of texts (contra Schuerer) what these laws actually meant in the daily life of the Palestinian Jew during the several major epochs of the halachah in the Second Commonwealth and afterward; and for another, what were the principles that governed the articulation and elaboration of the laws of purity.

³¹ This is merely a brief summary of certain social relationships affected by the fellowship and its rule. A complete survey would entail not only a study of the specific laws which deal with the relationship of member and outsider, but also a consideration of each of the laws of ritual purity and impurity.

³² Midras-uncleanness, Maddaf-uncleanness, etc. Cf. Toh. 8:2, and Maimonides, Book of Uncleanness, ad loc.

³³ Taharot 8:1, 2, 3.

³⁴ Ibid., 8:5.

³⁵ Tos. Demai 2:16, 17 (parallel TB Avodah Zarah 39a; Tos. Avodah Zarah 3:9; Bekorot 30b. Cf. Lieberman, op. cit., ad loc.

³⁶ Tos. Demai 3:9; cf. TP Demai 2:2. For the expression “dwell with a serpent,” cf. TB Ketuvot 71a. For problems of an associate who worked as a house servant of an outsider, cf. Tos. Demai 3:6; TP Demai 2:2. The servant had to see to tithing the food, and if it was known that the waiter was a member, then the affiliated guests might assume that the food had been tithed. But it is most important to note that a member might in fact work for an outsider, and even serve food to his table.

³⁷ Mishnah Demai 6:8, 9.

³⁸ Tos. Demai 2:15, 3:5 (parallel TB Yevamot 114a). If the child ate unclean food at the relative's, he could render his own home unclean. Cf. Taharot 2:2.

³⁹ Tos. Demai 2:2, 3.

⁴⁰ Tos. Maaserot 3.13; Tos. Demai 4:29, 3:1, 2:2; 4:31, 32. Tos. Demai 4:27 (compare 2:2). Mishnah Taharot 7:4.

⁴¹ Tos. Demai 2:24; Maaserot 5:2; Mishnah Makshirin 6:3. Cf. also Tos. Demai 5:5; Mishnah Demai, 4:6. Compare, however, to note 14.

⁴² Tos. Demai 2:20, 2:21, 2:22; 3:2. Compare 4:26, 5:3; 8:1. Mishnah Demai 6:22; Tos. Demai 8:1.

⁴³ Tos. Demai 4:22, 28; Mishnah Taharot 7:5. Cf. also Ibid., 7:1, 2; 8:1, 2.

⁴⁴ Mishnah Demai 6:6; Tos. Demai 2:3 (Mishnah Demai 2:2). Cf. Tos. Demai 3:15. Other sources include the following: Tos. Demai 2:18–19, 3:5, 8, 9; Mishnah Demai 3:4, 6:1, 8. Cf. also Mishnah Terumot 3:4, Maaserot 3:13, 7:12.

⁴⁵ Bikkurim 3:12; Tos. Demai 3:1, 2, 3, 5; Mishnah Demai 2:2, 3; Tos. Terumot 7:4; TP Terumot 6:1; Mishnah Taharot 4:5.

⁴⁶ For other references, cf. the following, inter alia, in the TB: Berakot 36b, 40b; 47b; Shabbat 13a, 32a; Erubin 37a, b; Pesahim 4a, b; Yoma 8b; Moed Katan 22b, 26b-27a; Hagigah 18b, 22a, 23a, 24b, 25a, 26a; Kiddushin 33b; 56a, b; Sotah 49a, b; Sanhedrin 8b, 40a, 72b, 90b; Avodah Zarah 7a, b, 39a, 41b, 42a, 64b, 70b; Makkot 6b (parallel Sanhedrin 8b), 9b; Shevuot 16a; Niddah 6b, 15b, 33b; Kelim 9:2 (parallel Eduyot 1:14); Oholot 5:5 (cf. Hagigah 3:4, Parah 5:1); Makshirin 6:3; Zabim 3:2, Taharot 7:4.

On the question of whether the fellowship had some kind of communal meal, cf. Pesahim 113b, and the discussion of Rabin, op. cit., p. 32; Rabin cites Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:2, and the statement of Geiger, A. in “Sadducaer und Pharisaer” (Jud. Zeitschrift, 1868, p. 25). Rabin says, “Nothing in the context of Tosefta Demai suggests that the haburah held common meals, but we must remember that the word can also be employed in a general way for a group holding a common meal in connexion with some religious occasion. … With all due reserve I think that the new evidence of the scrolls gives grounds for reviving Geiger's theory that the common meals formed an essential part of haburah life and influence various features of Pharisee practice. …” The relationship of the fellowship to the is not yet clear; the discussed here may be simply one example of such societies or status-groups formed to carry out particular religious obligations.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Avot 1:15 I acknowledge with gratitude the valuable criticism of Dr. Abraham Goldberg of the Hebrew University and especially that of Dr. Haim Zalman Dimitrovsky of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Dr. Haim Rabin of the Hebrew University offered welcome advice. This paper was originally written for the seminar at Columbia University, in “Problems in Comparative Religion,” of Professor Horace Friess, and Professor Jacob Taubes, who originally suggested the study.