The Halakhic Document: An Amicable Divorce?

 4QMMT is a short work of around 150 lines, that presents the halachic opinions of its author on roughly twenty matters such as ritual purity, the beginning of the Omer, the holiness of fruit in its fourth year and the suitability of various people to engage in temple ritual.  The selection is relevant as they are all matters that the later Rabbis would label as “Sadducean” without heed to any particular sociological or historical nuance between various groups.  The community in question that adhered rigorously to these precepts, accepted views that were more stringent than those evidently in practice in the time, and which limit participation the temple rite.  For example, they require sunset (and not merely ritual immersion) in order to participate in ritual of the Red Heifer; and which limit the participation of the blind and deaf in terms of coming into contact with ritual purity.  Where the pharisees trust the masses with regards to sacred food and offerings (and are considered haverim), the opinions presented here would restrict participation.

Whilst the selection is clearly demarcating boundaries, the style of presentation in this section of the laws themselves is not self-consciously polemical.   These are listed in a summary fashion (and in a style reminiscent of later halachic compendia); detailing their decisions and opinion on these Torah precepts succinctly and without the need for further argumentation.  This may indicate that the opinions are not novel in and of themselves, would be recognised by the addressee and thus, not in need of learned support.  Such statements are not concocted in order to oppose a particular group on theological, identity or other grounds, nor addressed to any ‘sons of darkness’.  Rather they are statements of long held views from tradition, and which may have been implemented in times past, and (moderately uncontroversially at this point?) acknowledged as one such strand of thought.

The polemics come in the following exhortatory section, where the contention is not necessarily in arguments on the content of the halacha per se but on the social effects of their ‘correct’ view, not being the one currently practiced in contemporary Jerusalem.  The polemics themselves – putting halachic misadventure in the context of Jewish history and G-d’s blessing and curses, and the worry that misstep would cause abominable practices – does not seem overly unusual or stronger than others who care about correct practices.  However, the authors of 4QMMT see this as a reason that “we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people [and from all their impurity] and from being involved with these matters and from participating with [them] in these things”.  Unlike Bet Shammai who despite taking stringent opinions managed to coexist with the more liberal positions of Bet Hillel (marrying each other, and relying on each other’s ritual food preparation); the authors of 4QMMT cannot abide the contradictory practices. 

Styled as a letter, ink has been spilled on who the relevant addressee may be.  One opinion would be that it is a pharisaic high priest in the Maccabean period – a “you” separated from the “us” of the author.  Possibly it is a sympathetic ear (a “you, unlike them”) that has remained part of the establishment.  In Fraade’s reading, it is possibly a neophyte or initiate into the community itself, where the text is intramural and educational on the key halachic pointers of the community.  Given the popularity within the community, and the vernacular language used, its intramural use is well taken.  Nevertheless, it is a stretch without further support to suggest as Fraade does, that it is not at least in the style of an address to an external party in a leadership position given that it is for the “welfare of your people”.

I’m not sure that there is any evidence that can decide on the addressee based on the slender evidence from the text, at least not without bringing to the text historical views (e.g. on identification of Essenes) as a given, that are themselves in dispute.  Nevertheless, given that the addressee is considered as having “wisdom and knowledge of the Torah”, it doesn’t seem a strong offensive polemic against the addressee (regardless of group they belong to).  Rather, it is a defensive polemic that, as above, is used to justify not their opinions themselves, but their separation from the community on account of those.