Ritual Density in Qumran Practice: Ablutions in the Serekh
Ha-Yachad
Michael A. Daise, W.F. Albright Institute of
Archaeological Research/
College of William and Mary
Ritual
Density and Sectarian Texts
The
issue I will address in this paper is “ritual density” in Qumran sectarian
practice. “Ritual density” is a
term borrowed from Catharine Bell, Sinologist and theorist at Santa Clara University. Bell defines ritual density as “why
some societies or historical periods have more ritual than others”
(1997:173). But it connotes more. It is aware of a distinction that
exists between a group’s ritual activity and the other components in which its
life consists; and, on that awareness, represents the measure of one in
relation to the other at any given point in that group’s history. Ritual density, it can be said, is the
degree to which ritual plays a role in the life/piety of any given society;
otherwise put--the ratio of ritual to other aspects of life in the day-to-day
operations of a community. To be
sure, conclusions about such a ratio will much depend on how broadly or
narrowly one defines “ritual” over against “non-ritual” activity. But, leaving that ambiguity aside for
the moment, it is not overstated to say that the objective in view is worth
considering. To broach ritual
density is to seek the degree to which ritual played a role at any given
juncture in the all round life of a community; and this can only be of
benefit--to Qumran studies, as well as to many other fields.
Measuring
ritual density in sectarian practice faces a number of difficulties,
especially when one seeks to do it through that group’s texts. Not least of these, of course, is
hazarding reconstructions from the relatively meager amount of texts preserved
(or preserved intact enough to offer meaningful data). But other problems obtain, as well:
determining what amount of the rites prescribed in a document were actually
performed; judging whether a document (and its halakhah) was sectarian or
not--and, if so, whether it would have been currently in use, antiquated (thus
obsolete), eschatological (thus anticipated) or schematic (thus theoretical); tracing
halakhic changes through redactional strata; and, as Ithamar Gruenwald has
recently observed (2003:140-141), uncovering ritual details behind literary
glosses and commentary.
A
further problem--and the one I will engage here--is the reticence texts
sometimes have about ritual.
Halakhic documents, even the most forthcoming of them, often assume as
much as they state when prescribing rites; and so, where, in some cases, not
all the ritual stated was actually performed, in this case, not all the ritual
performed may have been stated.
Reasons could be several: an oral tradition working in tandem with the
written one; an “in-house” audience, expected to be familiar with fundamental
customs; genres, such as “rules,” which, by definition, are less exhaustive
compilations than they are suggestive digests. But the result is the same; namely, that even the
richest and best preserved of sectarian writings may rehearse less ritual in
their directives than was practiced by the sect.
A
way forward on this issue may be found by considering further the approach
Jacob Milgrom has taken to Leviticus (1991; 2000; 2001). Milgrom’s method has already been
applied to Qumran studies, as a way of understanding the way the sect read
Torah. Here I will press this further,
suggesting it can be applied to the way we read sectarian halakhah. In what follows, I will (1) articulate
the aspect of Milgrom’s approach that forms my point of departure, (2) apply
that aspect to one rite in one sectarian document (ablutions in the Serekh
Ha-Yachad) then (3) caveat both (the aspect and the application) with
counterexamples, along with an alternate application to the same issue
(ablutions) in the Serekh Ha-Yachad.
Jacob
Milgrom and Leviticus
For
Milgrom, Levitical ritual is gestured theology. The components and choreography of Levitical rites, he is
persuaded, do not so much effect otherworldly transactions as they do symbolize
tacit beliefs. “Theology is what
Leviticus is all about,” Milgrom writes in his Introduction to Volume 1:
It
pervades every chapter and almost every verse.
It
is not expressed in pronouncements but embedded in rituals.
Indeed,
every act, whether movement, manipulation, or gesticulation,
is
pregnant with meaning;
Then,
quoting Victor Turner:
“at
their deepest level rituals reveal values which are sociological facts.”
(1991:42;
quoting The Forest of Symbols [1967])
Further
for Milgrom, these symbolized beliefs are coherent. That is, the undergirding theological tenets, as well as the
rituals in which they are embedded, relate to one another with a certain
logical consistency. Less so for
rites of exchange: Milgrom concedes that “no single theory embraces the entire
complex of sacrifices”; and, though he claims to have deduced “comprehensive
rationales” for the well-being, purification and reparation offerings, he
admits that similar rationales for the burnt and cereal offerings “still elude
us” (1991:49-50). But, that
said, logical consistency is certainly the case, Milgrom believes, for purity
rites. He argues that the three
sources of Levitical impurity--the corpse/carcass, scale disease and genital
discharge--carry connotations that can be traced to a common denominator--death:
for corpse/carcass, that connection is self-evident; for scale disease, it
comes through its suggestion of approaching death; and for genital discharge,
through its implication of lost fecundity. Since death’s opposite is life, reasons Milgrom, the state
of holiness (which is the opposite of impurity) indicates the same. Purity rites, with their ebb and flow
between defilement and holiness, reflect a cogent theology of what constitutes
death, life and the passage from one to the other. As such, Milgrom concludes, purity rituals cohere with a certain
cogency into a single, homogeneous, symbolic system (1991:45-48).
I
cannot go so far as to embrace Milgrom’s idea that Leviticus is all about
theology. The view that rites
function as symbols for theological tenets reduces ritual to being the mere kinesthetic
servant to belief and, thereby, minimizes the role ritual plays as a religious
act vital in and of itself.
Gruenwald, similarly, observes that “from a theological point of view,
rituals play a subservient role in religion.” And though he, perhaps, runs farther in the other direction
than I am comfortable doing when he contends rituals are “an autonomous
expression of the human mind,” he conveys my own reservations about this part
of Milgrom’s thesis when he further declares, “in principle, rituals function beyond
and apart from theology and other ideational components and, at times,
in spite of them” (2003:143; italics his).
My
point of departure from Milgrom, rather, is a more marginal implication, drawn
from his assumption that Levitical rites cohere as a system. Since rites explicitly prescribed in
Leviticus relate to one another systemically, he reasons, the principles on
which they turn can be distilled from those passages and applied to less
forthcoming ones, so as to infer rites where they are otherwise unstated. A salient example--and the one most
cited--is the matter of ablutions and laundering for the menstruant in
Leviticus 15. In that chapter, one
or both of these rites are explicitly prescribed for purification from other
defilements: a man with a flow (15:13/both), a man with a seminal emission
(15:16/ablutions) and a woman who contacts semen in sexual relations
(15:18/ablutions). For the
menstruant, however, a seven-day passage of time is prescribed (15:19) but no
directive is given to wash, either her body or her clothes. A cursory reading of the text might
lead one to conclude that ablutions and laundering were, therefore, not
required for purification of a menstruant. But, according to Milgrom, an array of principles distilled
from other loci in Leviticus suggests, in fact, they were (1991:667-668,
746, 934-935):
(1)
Purification after eating the carcass of a clean animal at Lev 11:39-40 does
not explicitly prescribe ablutions (though it does require laundering); but
rubrics for that same impurity at Lev 17:15 (cf. 22:6) show explicitly that
ablutions were, in fact, required.
(2)
Regulations for corpse contamination (Num 19:14-19; cf. Lev 14:1-9; 15:13),
which similarly lasted seven days, require those days to culminate with
ablutions and laundering; if such was the case for them, so, deduces Milgrom,
“it must also be assumed for the menstruant” (1991:935).
(3)
Purification laws for carrying a carcass at Lev 11:25, 28, 40 similarly make no
mention of ablutions; they do, however, include a commensurate requirement for
laundering that can only imply washing of the body, as well--showing, again,
that ablutions are to be inferred when absent from the text.
(4)
And--perhaps most importantly--since ablutions or laundering were necessary for
the lesser issue of an impure vessel (Lev 11:32) and for the lesser impurity of
a seminal discharge (Lev 15:16; Harrington [1993:14] and Klawans [2003:20] add
contact with the bedding of a menstruant [Lev 15:21]), a minori ad maius
they had to have been considered necessary for the menstruant, as well.
As
mentioned in the introduction, this method is not new to Qumran studies. It was the thesis of Milgrom’s student,
Hannah K. Harrington, that the Qumran sect, itself, (as well as the Rabbis)
read Torah this way (1993:47-67, esp. 58-63). And, though I do not want to presume as direct an
influence by Milgrom as has been the case with Harrington, Martha Himmelfarb
has more recently worked out this same idea in further detail--particularly
with regard to 4QD (2001:13-29).
Here I am suggesting that, in the service of reconstructing ritual
density in sectarian practice, this method can yet be taken a step further. “Gap filling,” as it has been called
(see Harrington 1993:27, 27n75), can provide a template, not only for the way
the sectarians read Leviticus, but also for the way we read sectarian
texts. That is to say, on the
assumption that sectarian, no less than Levitical, rites cohered into a system,
we can employ the same technique for teasing out tacit rites in the Dead Sea
Scrolls themselves, as Milgrom and the writers of those Scrolls have done for
teasing out tacit rites in Leviticus.
Ablutions
in the Serekh Ha-Yachad: Two
Scenarios
As
an example of the yield this approach can have for ritual density, I will treat
a well-trodden area in Qumran studies: ritual immersion in the Serekh
Ha-Yachad (for this paper I only cite 1QS; translations are mine from
Martone 1995). On its face, the Serekh
Ha-Yachad gives ritual immersion scant attention. 1QS 5:13 forbids the men of wickedness (1QS 5:10) from
“enter(ing) the waters to touch the purity (tohorah) of the men of
holiness.” And 1QS 3:4-6 declares
that the person who refuses to enter the covenant (1QS 2:25-26) will not be
cleansed by “purification waters (mey niddah),” “seas and rivers“ or
“all the waters of ablution.”
(Purity language does figure elsewhere in the document [eg, 1QS
4:20-22;11:14-15; cf. 9:15]; but, if not altogether metaphorical,
eschatological or both, it offers relatively little about the rite of ablution
as it was then being practiced within the sect; and, so, it lies outside the
scope of interest here.) Much more
can be gleaned about ritual immersion, however, if certain systemic principles
couched in these passages are distilled, then applied, to related matters at
other places in the document. A
sufficient illustration can be made from the first passage, 1QS 5:13; and so,
this paper will limit itself to it.
One
way of proceeding is simply to “do the math”; that is, determine whether
ablutions relate to other rites in the passage in question, then infer those
ablutions, more or less mechanically, into other loci where the other
rites (to which they are related) obtain.
The datum at 1QS 5:13 makes such a connection between ablutions and tohorah. In the text it is stated negatively,
against anyone from “the men of wickedness”: “Let him not enter the waters to
touch the purity (tohorah) of the men of holiness.” But when recast into its positive
obverse, it betrays a rapport between ablutions and tohorah that was
likely systemic. That someone
outside the community was buffered from tohorah by being kept, first,
from ablutions, implies that ablutions likely brokered access to tohorah
as part of standard communal protocol--if not to safeguard the integrity of tohorah,
then to lift those who took the ablutions to a condition suitable to receive
it. With such a systemic
connection in hand, then, passages referencing access to tohorah
elsewhere in the Serekh Ha-Yachad become data for ablutions, as
well--even though the latter are not mentioned in them. Such passages can be read as assuming a
prior participation in ablutions, allowing ritual immersion to be inferred at
any or all of those junctures.
Tohorah,
of course, appears at two other places in the document: the initiation process
at column 6, where it is granted a candidate for membership after one year of
successful probation (1QS 6:16-21); and the penal code (1QS 6:24-7:25;
8:16-9:2). Several penalties
listed in that code proscribe tohorah from members under discipline over
periods of one (6:25; 7:2-3, 15-16, 18-19; possibly 6:27 [see Schiffman
1983:160, 177n38; following Brownlee 1951:28n59]) or two years (8:24-9:2): in
such cases, the access to tohorah that was suspended during these
periods would have been reinstated at their conclusion, presumably in a manner
similar to the way it was first granted in the initiation process. And so, the act of gaining access to tohorah,
which was spelled out in the initiation process at column 6, is further implied
in the penal process at columns 6-9.
If ablutions typically preceded such points of access, as 1QS 5:13
suggests, they can, thereby, be inferred to have been performed at all these
junctures, as well: on a candidate for membership after his first successful
year of probation; and on disciplined members, at various times when their one
or two year bans from tohorah would have been lifted. As such, a certain “density” in the
practice of ablutions begins to emerge from the Serekh Ha-Yachad that
was not apparent at first blush.
This
density increases when one considers the relationship tohorah likely
sustained to mashqeh. There
is some question as to what, precisely, is entailed in the sectarian use of the
term “tohorah.” When
juxtaposed to the term “mashqeh” (drink), however, it is at least clear
that any “food” aspect associated with tohorah refers only to dry
solids, while mashqeh designates liquids or perhaps (by extension)
moistened solids. Following Saul
Lieberman (1974:202-204 [original 1951]) and Jacob Licht (1965:297-302; cf.
also 296, 296n4), the two are best understood by rough analogy to ’oklin
and mashqin, respectively, in Tannaitic tradition. By virtue of never being defiled less
than the first remove from an ultimate source of impurity (t.TYom 1.6), mashqin
were deemed more threatening (to purity) if polluted and more capable of
polluting than ’oklin; and, as such, they were guarded more carefully
than ’oklin from contaminants and contaminators. So also for mashqeh in relation
to tohorah, as represented in the Serekh Ha-Yachad. As Licht pointed out: though Qumran
documents lack the nuance and complexity that characterizes Tannaitic
discussion on the issue, mashqeh was likely considered more threatening
if defiled and more apt to defile than tohorah (1965:299n12). And this most probably accounts for why
it was withheld from a candidate for membership until he completed his second
successful year of probation--one year after he had been granted access to (and
proven trustworthy with) tohorah.
In
the Serekh Ha-Yachad, the term mashqeh appears at the same two
places as does tohorah.
Once in the initiation process, where this time it is granted the
candidate after his second successful year of probation. And once (only) in the penal code. At 1QS 7:18-20 it was taken away from a
disciplined member for (at least) the second of a two year punishment; then (as
was the case with tohorah) it was reinstated in a manner similar to the
way it was first received in the initiation process. But further, as Schiffman has noted, since mashqeh
was guarded more carefully from impurity than tohorah, one might deduce
that the aforementioned one and two year bans on tohorah (1QS 6:25;
7:2-3, 15-16; 8:24-9:2), as well as the ban on tohorah for the first of
the two year discipline at 1QS 7:18-20, included mashqeh, also (Schiffman
1983:165-168; with the corrective note by Milikowsky 1986:247). Support for this comes from the end of
the initiation process at 1QS 6:21-22: though the successful candidate is
clearly given access to both tohorah and mashqeh by that point
(6:16-21), his final registration into the rule is described simply as being
“for tohorah”--a use of the term which doubtless includes both.
For
the density of ritual immersions in the Serekh Ha-Yachad this graded
relationship between tohorah and mashqeh can signal one of two
things. First, it is possible that
immersion would have attended both, in their sequences. If ablutions preceded tohorah
(so as to guard its integrity or render its practitioners fit to receive it),
and, if mashqeh was deemed more apt to be defiled and to defile than was
tohorah, one might infer a minori ad maius that ablutions would
have come before mashqeh as much as they did before tohorah. Hence, besides occurring after access
was attained to tohorah as solid food (after the first successful year
of a candidate’s probation and after the first of the two year discipline at
1QS 7:18-20), ritual immersion would also have obtained after access to mashqeh:
at the second successful year of a candidate’s probation (1QS 6:18-21) and, for
members under the two-year discipline at 1QS 7:18-20, after the second year of
their separation from mashqeh.
(For the penalties in which tohorah and mashqeh were
simultaneously banned for one or two year periods, there seems no reason to
speculate that they ended with two immersions: one for re-access to each.)
But
second: the graded relationship between tohorah and mashqeh may
instead suggest that, for the initiation process and the two-year successive
ban from tohorah (first year) and mashqeh (second year) at 1QS
7:18-20, ablutions were taken only after both years had been completed--not
when tohorah was granted or reinstated after the first year of those
periods had passed. Since the
semantic range of tohorah can expand to embrace mashqeh--especially
when the term tohorah is not set over against mashqeh in the
text--such a range must also be allowed for the use of tohorah at 1QS
5:13. That is to say, the tohorah
which ablutions are said to precede at 1QS 5:13 may designate, not merely
solids (as it does in 1QS 6:16-17), but both solids and liquids, as it does in
1QS 6:25; 7:2-3, 15-16; 8:24-9:2; and 6:21-22. In such a case, ablutions would not attend the end of a
candidate’s first year of probation; nor would they be performed after the
first of the two year proscription listed at 1QS 7:18-20--at which points only
solid food was (re-)gained.
Rather, they would be done at the culmination of the initiation process,
as well as at the completion of the sentence prescribed at 1QS 7:18-20--when
access was (re-) granted to both solids and liquids. For the point at issue here, in both
this and the previous option enough ablutions are teased from their latency to
show that sectarian practice was likely far more “dense” with ritual immersion
than the Serekh Ha-Yachad gives to believe on its face.
Caveat:
Further on Interpreting Omissions
But
to these results, as well as the process by which they were reached, a caveat
must be issued. Inferences based
on assumptions about systems ought not be made as a matter of course. As much has been argued by Himmelfarb,
with respect to the example presented in Leviticus 15. Regarding that chapter Himmelfarb notes
that, if ablutions and laundering are absent for the menstruant (and woman with
an abnormal flow) because they were already stated earlier in the text for
other impurities, an anomaly appears later, regarding the requirement of
sacrifice for the woman with an abnormal flow. This regulation, too, had been explicitly stated earlier in
Leviticus 15, for a man with a flow (Lev 15:14-15); yet later in the chapter,
where one expects it to have been assumed (and therefore omitted), it is found
repeated for the woman with an abnormal flow (15:29-30)--in more or less the
same language (2001:15). The
implication is that, if a prescription is repeated where required (sacrifice
for the woman with an abnormal flow), it may have been omitted because it was
not so required (ablutions and laundering for the menstruant and woman with an
abnormal flow) and, thus, ought not be inferred at that juncture.
Supporting
and anticipating Himmelfarb is a passage in Sifra on Lev 11:39-40 (Shemini
Sherazim §4.7).
Harrington cited this passage as a Rabbinic foil for the Qumran sect’s
(more) stringent rules on carcass defilement (1993:96-97). But it also shows that halakhic texts
(or, at least, their interpretation) might just as well resist logical
inference as they do invite it. At
issue is whether someone who touches the carcass of a clean animal need
launder. The Levitical text
prescribes laundering explicitly for anyone who eats or carries such a carcass,
saying s/he will then be unclean till evening. But for the person who touches one, it only states the
latter; namely, that “the one who touches its carcass is impure until
evening.”
Since
carrying was deemed a lesser transmitter of impurity than touching, and since
carrying is, itself, said to defile clothing, one might reason that touching
defiled clothing, as well, and so, also, should be taken to require
laundering. This is, in fact,
considered in Sifra’s discussion:
And
is it not the case that, if “carrying,” (having) the lesser degree (of
impurity),
does
defile clothing,
“touching,”
(having) the greater (degree of impurity)--
is
it not the case that it (also) defiles clothing?
(Venice;
translation mine)
But
the current of Sifra’s argument runs the other way. It concludes that touching the carcass
of a clean animal does not, in fact, defile clothing. And, for its basis, it cites the absence of any
explicit rubric for it, over against the presence of such rubrics for those who
eat or carry the carcass of a clean animal. Quoting again:
But
it is not the case that the one who touches defiles clothing.
Therefore,
the text is (only),
“The
one who touches…is impure until evening” (Lev 11:39)
and
not, “the one who touches…defiles clothing.”
(translation
& emphases mine)
Neither
this nor Himmelfarb’s observation on Leviticus 15 contravene the idea that
purity laws (or other rites) relate as a system. Nor do they altogether forbid inferences into texts made on
that assumption. They do, however,
suggest that the systems in question may be more elusive than has been supposed
and, therefore, that the presence or absence of halakhic directives in a text
may be as deliberate at some points as it is inadvertent at others. Regarding Leviticus 15, Himmelfarb
writes, “The assumption that P’s laws form a system by no means explains all
aspects of their literary expression” (2001:15). While some silences may beg to be filled, others may be
meant as omissions. Consequently,
any systemic reading of halakhic texts ought not be done mechanically, but
circumspectly. An assumed system
back of halakhot is an exegetical criterion. And, like all exegetical criteria, it is used rightly when
integrated with other exegetical criteria and weighed against the text in each
individual case.
Revisiting
Ablutions in the Serekh Ha-Yachad:
A Third Scenario
For
ritual immersion in the Serekh Ha-Yachad, this caveat opens an option
beyond the two sketched above: that the tohorah which ablutions precede
at 1QS 5:13 is only dry solids and that the omission in the text of any
ablutions coming before mashqeh is deliberate.
Were
such ablutions punctiliar, as was supposed above, this alternative would be the
least plausible of the three. If a
single immersion accompanied the point at which tohorah as solid food
was accessed, and if a like event followed, wherein access was similarly gained
to mashqeh (such as was the case in the initiation process and the
penalty outlined at 1QS 7:18-20), one would be hard pressed to argue that
immersion would not have come at this second point of access, also. In such an instance, firmer ground
would be found in the scenario of Michael Newton (1985:21-30, 40-49), which
echoes the first scenario above and places an immersion at each event: access
to tohorah and access to mashqeh.
Were
those ablutions iterative, however, a conscious omission of their observance
before mashqeh makes perfect sense. If ablutions, once begun, were to be continued at regular
intervals from that moment onward, prescribing them explicitly as coming before
mashqeh would have been redundant.
Someone at that level of trustworthiness would have already been
observing them routinely.
Consequently, the absence of any prescription for immersion before mashqeh
may not be because it was assumed (and to be inferred), but because it was moot
(and therefore superfluous). In
such an arrangement, ablutions would have begun whenever tohorah was
first accessed (in the initiation process) or re-instituted (in the penal
process), then continued regularly in shorter (daily?) intervals throughout the
remainder of candidacy, reconciliation or--for that matter--membership. The design is not unlike Josephus’
description of the end of the first year of Essene initiation: the candidate,
at that juncture, “partakes of the cleaner waters unto purity” (War
2.138: Thackeray 1927; translation mine), a clause which likely refers to the
daily purification baths regularly taken (from that point on) before mid-day
and evening meals (War 2.129-132).
In
such a scenario, the density of ablutions would exceed that which was
calculated for the two models rehearsed above. Ritual immersions would not merely have been performed at
annual transitions in the initiation and penal processes (first scenario), nor
at the conclusion of those processes, when admittance was finally offered to mashqeh
along with tohorah (second scenario). Rather, ablutions would have been done routinely, perhaps
daily, from the point tohorah (as solid food) was first accessed (in
admission) or re-accessed (in discipline), through the remainder of probation
and on into membership. Even more
so than those two previous reconstructions, this last suggests that, latent in
the otherwise reticent Serekh Ha-Yachad is a sectarian practice rich and
replete with ritual ablutions.
Summary
Conclusion
The
problem of determining ritual density in Qumran sectarian practice can be
partly broached through a modified application of Jacob Milgrom’s approach to
Leviticus. Milgrom’s assumption
that rites are systemically related furnishes a framework in which rituals
explicitly stated in some passages can be used to deduce rituals only implied
in others. When applied to
ablutions in the Serekh Ha-Yachad, such an approach yields the prospect
that, though they are not mentioned as such in the document, immersions were
performed in the admission and penal processes: either intermittently at key
stages or once at their respective conclusions. Such an approach, however, ought be tempered by a tandem
awareness that ostensible anomalies in the text may, in fact, reflect rather
than eclipse the logic of such systems.
When reapplied to ablutions in the Serekh Ha-Yachad, this
tempered methodology suggests rather that, from the point at which tohorah
was first attained (in admission) or re-instated (in discipline), immersion
occurred routinely, at more frequent (perhaps daily) intervals in sectarian
life.
Such
an implicit concentration of ritual immersions in the Serekh Ha-Yachad
carries implications for measuring the ritual density of other rites, in this
and in other documents. If the
results for ritual immersion seen here are replicated with other rites in other
sectarian works, the proportion of ritual to other aspects of life in the
day-to-day operations of the Qumran sect may prove even more stunning than has
been surmised.
Works Cited
Bell,
C.
1997 Ritual:
Perspectives and Dimensions.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Brownlee,
W.H.
1951 The
Dead Sea Manual of Discipline.
BASOR Supplementary Series 10-12.
New
Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Gruenwald,
I.
2003 Rituals
and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel.
Brill Reference Library of
Judaism
10. Leiden: Brill.
Harrington,
H.K.
1993 The
Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis: Biblical Foundations.
SBLDS
143. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars
Press.
Himmelfarb,
M.
2001 Impurity
and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512. DSD
8:9-37.
Klawans,
J.
2003 Ritual
Purity, Moral Purity, and Sacrifice in Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus.
RelSRev
29/1:19-28.
Licht,
J.
1965 Megillat
ha-Serakhim (The Rule Scroll. A
Scroll from the Wilderness of
Judaea:
1QS, 1QSa, 1QSb): Text, Introduction and Commentary.
Jerusalem:
Bialik
Institute (Hebrew).
Lieberman,
S.
1974 The
Discipline in the So-called Dead Sea Manual of Discipline. Pages 200-207
in
Texts and Studies. New
York: Ktav. Originally published
in
JBL
71 (1951):199-206.
Martone,
C.
1995 La
“Regola della Comunita”: edizione critica. Quaderni di Henoch 8.
Torino:
S. Zamorani.
Milgrom,
J.
1991 Leviticus
1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3.
Garden
City, New York: Doubleday.
2000 Leviticus
17-22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB
3a. Garden
City, New York: Doubleday.
2001 Leviticus
23-27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
AB
3b. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday.
Milikowsky,
C.
1986 Law
at Qumran: A Critical Reaction to Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law
in
the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony, and the Penal Code.
RevQ 12:237-249.
Newton,
M.
1985 The
Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. SNTS
Monograph
Series 53. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schiffman,
L.H.
1983 Sectarian
Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code.
BJS
33. Chico, California: Scholars Press.
Thackeray,
H. St. J.
1927 The
Jewish War, Books I-III. Vol.
2 of Josephus. LCL. Cambridge,
Massachusetts/London:
William Heinemann, Ltd.