Torah in the Mouth.pdf

Torah in the Mouth, Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE - 400 CE
Jaffee, Martin S., Samuel and Althea Stroum Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Washington
Print publication date: 2001, Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003
Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-514067-5, doi:10.1093/0195140672.001.0001
end p.32
And in a place of ten [wbmqwm ‘ rh], let there not lack a priestly man learned in the book of Hagi. According to his dictates [‘l
pyhw ]/ shall all be governed. 23
But if [w'm] he is not learned in all these, and a man of the Levites is learned/ in them, then the lot shall fall to all the members of
the Camp to conduct themselves according to his dictates.
We will discuss the reference to the book of Hagi momentarily. As for the rulings themselves, the first (CD 13:2–3) establishes that a
quorum of community members should be presided over by a teaching priest whose directives should be followed. The second (CD 13:3
–4) offers a contrast to its predecessor. Its introductory vav (“but”) works disjunctively to point out that, failing the absence of a learned
priest, a Levite or other person may determine matters involving the application of communal law. 24
Can CD 13:2–4 instruct us how to read 1QS 6:6–8? Perhaps so, since it appears that the two passages share a similar pattern: a general
rule followed by an addendum that addresses a situation uncovered by the original ruling. If so, the vav that introduces 1QS 6:7–8 should
be rendered disjunctively as “but.” On this reading, the rule indicates that the sessions presided over by the “expounder of the Torah” (1QS
6:6–7) are distinct from the study sessions of the “Many.” Accordingly, 1QS 6:6–7 offers the simple requirement that any representation of
the Community Council numbering ten have among it a learned person capable of instruction in authoritative texts. Let us, then, deal with
it on its own before moving on to its companion.
The ruling is not as clear as we might like regarding the content of textual study in the quorum it prescribes. The fundamental subject of
study is the “Torah.” Yet, as we have seen, the parallel at CD refers to the “book of Hagi.” The identity of this book is something of a
controversy in Qumran scholarship, 25 but we cannot pass judgment on this problem here. I observe only that even if we take 1QS's
“Torah” to be the unadorned scroll of the Mosaic Torah, the passage does not describe a simple recitation of the text. The verb, dwrš ,
suggests interpretive explication of some sort. 26 And, given the context of rules for collective gatherings in which this passage appears, it
seems clear that this interpretive explication is an act of instruction rather than a private activity of the expounder.
What remains unclear is the status of the expounder: on what authority does he teach? CD, of course, insists on his priestly status, even
though the continuation of that text allows for nonpriestly leadership. Moreover, the immediately preceding rule in 1QS 6:5–6 describes a
meal in which “the priest shall stretch forth his hand” to bless the bread and wine on behalf of the diners. But it is unlikely, in the present
context, that 1QS 6:6 carries forward this description of a priestly prerogative. Just two lines above this ruling is another:
And in every place in which there are ten men of the Community Council, let there not be lacking from among them a priestly man.
And each man shall sit before him in accord with his status. And thus shall they be asked for their counsel on any matter. (1QS
6:3–4)
Described here is a meeting of some sort of governing body in which a priest presides. The language of 1QS 6:6—“in a place where the
ten are”—refers back to 1QS 6:3–4, treating the meal rule of 1QS 6:5–6 as an interjection. The point is that when there are ten members of
the Council gathered, one of them (whether or not he is a
end p.33
priest) must engage the others in Torah study. This surely is the likely motive behind 1QS 6:6's reformulation of CD's “priestly man” ['yš
khn] as “a man expounding the Torah” ['yš dwrš btwrh ].
1QS 6:6–7, then, mandates an act of study when a small quorum of the communal leadership gathers together. An official gathering of ten
communal leaders constitutes a “community” in miniature, empowered to conduct its internal business on behalf of the “Many.” 27 The
ruling, however, provides no explicit reason why this deputation must engage in textual study by virtue of its having convened. 1QS 6:7–8
may provide an indirect explanation for this requirement. It clearly specifies that the community as a whole, the “Many,” is required to
engage in a perpetual ritualized engagement with authoritative texts. The study activity of the gathered Council, therefore, may be
conceived as a replication of that of the collective. Precisely as the Community Council convenes, constituting thereby a body distinct
from the community as a whole, it reconstitutes its connection to the whole by replicating its central ritual act of study. In short, the
Council must study precisely because it is a deputation of the Many, and the Many is itself a community of study.
We may now focus more fully on this communal act described at 1QS 6:7–8, since it is so fundamental to the ethos of the Tzadokite
community. The Many is required to establish a nightly study-watch throughout the year, comprised of three activities: reading, exposition,
and benediction. 28 Our first observation is that textual study is represented as a collective act incumbent upon the entire community. We
may assume that individuals could and did study texts on their own—certainly scribes would have done so in the course of their
production and transmission of texts. But this passage specifies that the community as a whole should ideally be devoted to continual
textual study over and above any private engagement with textual learning.
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2003 - 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details
see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/privacy_policy.html).
Subscriber: Columbia University; date: 20 September 2011