WHO SEPARATED FROM WHOM AND WHY? A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT Summary The incomplete phrase ]‫ [פרשנו מרוב הע‬from 4QMMT is often read as ‫פרשנו מרוב העם‬. Translated as “we have separated ourselves from the multitude/majority of the people,” this line stands at the heart of many discussions concerning the composition of 4QMMT and is allegedly the Qumran community’s self-perception of their relationship with the other Jewish fractions, specifically referring to their schism with the rest of the nation. Based on a philological study of the components of this line I propose the following alternative reading: ‫[פרשנו מרוב הע]מים‬. I argue that considering the intertextual relationships between 4QMMT with the relevant passages from Deuteronomy and Ezra, and examining the uses of the root ‫ פרש‬in the relevant contexts in the Targumin and in rabbinic texts that this alternative reading should be the default one, or at least as plausible as the common one. Consequently, I examine how this reading should influence our understanding of the nature of 4QMMT. 1. Introduction: the Background for the Current Discussion S the publication of 4QMMT, its nature, specifically its genre and purpose, has been repeatedly disputed. A large part of the discussion stems from consideration of the relationship between the various parts of this document, which consist of the following three parts: (1) INCE (*) An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, November 2009. I wish to thank the audience of this lecture for their productive comments. I am also grateful to Moshe BarAsher, Katell Berthelot, John Collins, Devorah Dimant, Yair Furstenberg, Noah Hacham, Charlotte Hempel, Aaron Koller, Vered Noam, Michael Tzvi Novick, Nadav Sharon, and Michal Bar-Asher Siegal for reading and commenting on earlier versions of this paper. (1) This is the way in which it is presented in 4QMMT’s editio princeps: Elisha 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 229 9/09/11 08:15 230 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL Section A: the (Qumran) calendar Section B: halakhic section Section C: epilogue (the hortatory conclusion) Based on the content of section B it seems that this is a polemical composition, reflecting an argument between the Qumran community and an outside community, probably situated in Jerusalem, mostly concerning various halakhic issues. Some have even argued more specifically that this is a letter addressed by a leader within the Qumran community to the community around the Temple or even to the Wicked Priest within this community. (2) Others have argued that this is not a letter but rather an internal legal treatise, circulated within the community and not necessarily addressed to anyone outside the community. (3) As for the tone in which 4QMMT should be read, it has been repeatedly proposed that the incomplete phrase ]‫[פרשנו מרוב הע‬ (4Q398, frg. 14-21, 7) from this treatise, commonly read as ‫פרשנו מרוב‬ ‫ העם‬and translated as “we have separated ourselves from the multitude/majority of the people,” provides the background for this composition. (4) It is often viewed as expressing the self-perception of the Qumran community in regards to their relationship with the other Jewish factions, specifically referring to their schism from the rest of the nation. Accordingly, since this line stands between sections B and C, it has often been read as an indication that the reason for the establishment of the Qumran community was related to halakhic issues. As such, this line is definitely a sectarian expression, and, consequently, any theory concerning the purpose of 4QMMT should account for such a sectarian statement towards the end of this composition, right before the epilogue. The strength of the sectarian tone of this statement and the historical situation it represents have even affected the dating of the original composition. (5) Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Ma’aseh ha-Torah DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). (2) Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran”, in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem, IES, 1985), 400-407, inter alia. (3) Steven Fraade, “To Whom it May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addressee(s)”, RQ 19 (2000), 507-526, inter alia. (4) For a recent discussion on this line in this context and a summary of the scholarship concerning the nature of 4QMMT, see John J. Collins Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Grand Rapids, MichiganCambridge, U.K.: William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 2010, 19-22. (5) For a discussion about the time of the composition of 4QMMT see inter alia Florentino García Martínez, “4QMMT in a Qumran Context”, in Reading 4QMMT: 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 230 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 231 Momentarily putting aside the loaded meaning of this line for Qumran scholarship, in general, and for the study of 4QMMT, in particular, this paper will first examine how this line from 4QMMT should be interpreted using the standard philological tools. In fact, it should be emphasized, although it is often ignored, that the above reading is based on a restoration of what precedes and what follows these fragmented letters. (6) Thus, the main goal of the current paper is first and foremost to examine how this line should be restored. I shall argue that the way scholars have studied this line is itself misleading. Instead of first examining the exact meaning of this sentence independently, and then using it to understand the nature of the text, the reverse order has been taken. Thus, the way the entire composition was read influenced the restoration and the reading of this specific line. Based on various intertextual relationships, introduced in (§2.1), I will propose in (§2.1-4) an alternative reading for this line, examining each of its components in its context and in other texts. As expected in this kind of discussion, one cannot seek to definitively prove which of the readings, the common one or this paper’s alternative one, is the “right” one, as this is a matter of probability. NeverNew Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. J. Kampen and M. Bernstein; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 17, 27; Lawrence Schiffman, “The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts" in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. J. Kampen and M. Bernstein; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 97; Eyal Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 95, 133; For discussions that consider this line in this context see inter alia Hanan Eshel, “4QMMT and the History of the Hasmonean Period”, in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (ed. J. Kampen and M. Bernstein; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 59-60; idem, “The History of the Qumran Community and Historical Aspects of the Pesharim”, in The Qumran Scrolls and their World (ed. by M. Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press 2009), 187-198; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 49-61; Regev, Sectarianism in Qumran, 102; Bilhah Nitzan, “The Peshaim Scrolls from Qumran”, in The Qumran Scrolls and their World (ed. by M. Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press 2009), 230. (6) As emphasized recently by Charlotte Hempel, “The Context of 4QMMT and Comfortable Theories”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Texts and Context. Edited by C. Hempel, Leiden: Brill, 2010, 275-292. Considering this is a restoration, statements that use this line to states that Qumran literature “explicitly points to ‘our’ separation ‘from the multitude of the people’” (Jesper Høgenhaven, “Rhethorical Devices in 4QMMT”, DSD 11 [2003], 195, emphasis is mine) is striking. Or see, for example, Yaakov Sussmann, “The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea scrolls – Preliminary Observations on MiqÒat Ma‘ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT)”, Tarbi 59 (1989-1990), 38, who includes the final mem in the word ‫ העם‬as part of the actual text found in the fragment, and not within brackets as part of the restoration. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 231 9/09/11 08:15 232 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL theless, the third section of the paper is devoted to the motivations for each reading. In (§3.1) I will raise some problems with the more common reading that supports its rejection. In contrast, I will dedicate section (§3.2) to the strengths of the more common reading in comparison to what I consider the merits of my alternative reading. Only then in (§4) will the various arguments concerning the nature of the entire composition be discussed and, in fact, I will argue that the proposed reading is compatible with both of them, though it will still affect the tone of the composition as a whole. Before proceeding, a methodological note is due. Much of the philological discussion in this paper relies on the functions and uses of various expressions in the Aramaic translations of the Bible and on their uses in Mishnaic Hebrew. Admittedly, the relevant material is later than the time of the composition of 4QMMT. The assumption, however, of this paper is that, as long as it was not demonstrated to be wrong, the language of rabbinic literature can shed light on the language of Qumran. This is, of course, a rather common assumption in the literature. (7) As we will discuss below, it makes even more sense in the context of 4QMMT, whose linguistic affinity to Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew is remarkable. Thus, in reconstructing missing text, the principle by which we decide between alternatives, is to choose the one that will assume fewer changes either with regards to previous periods or to subsequent periods. In contrast, one needs positive reasons to assume a linguistic (and conceptual) development. 2. An Alternative Reading 2.1 Intertextual Background The affinity between the language of 4QMMT and biblical texts is well known. Often the intertextual relation is explicit, as the author uses the citation formula ‫“ כתוב‬it is written.” (8) But, as Moshe Bernstein notes, (9) implicit references to the biblical text are at least as (7) For supports for this assumption see, for example, Moshe Bar-Asher, “The Language of Qumran: Between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew (a Study in Morphology)”, Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 2 (2004): 137-149. As for the comparison to the Targum, see also below, n. 16. (8) For an elaborate study on this type of connection, see George Brooke, “The Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT”, in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for the Qumran Studies, Published in Honor of Joseph M. Baumgarten. Edited by M. Bernsteine, G. M. Florentino and J. Kampen, Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1997, 67-88. (9) Moshe Bernstein, “The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in MMT”, in Kampen and Bernstein, Reading 4QMMT, 29-51. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 232 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 233 important. (10) It is in this context that I believe that some light can be shed on the discussed line from 4QMMT. (11) Carolyn Sharp and Christine Hayes argue that the sentence under discussion is part of the larger paragraph, (12) which deals with intermarriage, a repeated theme in 4QMMT. The major reason for such an interpretation is the striking similarity in vocabulary between the entire paragraph and Ezra 9-10, which concerns the issue of intermarriages with non-Jews: (1) [ ]‫החמ[ס והמעל‬ ֯ ‫ועל הנשי֯ ]ם‬ [‫אבד]ו מקצת‬ ֯ ‫בגלל[החמס והזנות‬ ֯ ]‫כי באלה‬ [‫מקומות ]ואף[ כתו]ב בספר מושה שלו[א תביׂא תועבה ֯א]ל ביתכה כי‬ [‫ש[פרשׁנו מרוׂב הע]ם ומכל טמאתם‬ ֯ ‫התועבה שנואה היֺֺאׂה] ואתם יודעים‬ [‫]ו[מׂהתערב בדברים האׂלה ומלבוא ע]מהם [לגׂב אלׂה ׂוׂאׂתם י]ודעים שלוא‬ [‫]י[מׂצא בידנו מעל ושקר ורעׂה כי על ]אלה א[נחנו נותנים א]ת לבנו ואף‬ 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. And concerning the wom[en ] and the disloyalty[ ] 5. for in these matters[ ] because of[ ]violence and fornication [many] 6. places have been ruined. [And further] it is writ[ten in the book of Moses:] you shall [no]t bring an abomination in[to your house for] 7. abomination is an odious thing.[ And you know that] we have segregated ourselves from the rest of the peop[le 8. [and] from mingling in these affairs, and from associating wi[th them ]in these things. And you k[now that there is not] 9. to be found in our actions disloyalty or deceit or evil, for concerning [these things ]we give [out heart, and even] (4Q398, frg. 14-21, Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, 58) (10) See also John J. Collins, “Sectarian Consciousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism, Edited by L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber, Leiden: Brill, 2007, 184, about the scriptures as the “common ground” between the author and the addressee(s), on which both parties base their beliefs. (11) See also Elisha Qimorn, “The Nature of the Reconstructed Composite Text of 4QMMT”, in Kampen and Bernstein, Reading 4QMMT, Qimron 1996: 9, who speaks about the “required extensive comparison with all the relevant parallels in the literature of early Judaism” for the restoration of the text; and more recently Ian Werrett, “The Reconstruction of 4QMMT: a Methodological Critique”, in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by. A. Klostergaard Petersen et al., Leiden: Brill, 2009, 205-216. (12) Carolyn Sharp, “Phinean Zeal and Rhetorical Strategy in 4QMMT”, RQ 18 (1997), 207-222; Christine Elizabeth Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 233 9/09/11 08:15 234 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL (2) ‫וככלות אלה נגשו אלי השרים לאמר לא נבדלו העם ישראל והכהנים‬ ‫והלוים מעמי הארצות כתעבתיהם לכנעני החתי הפרזי היבוסי העמני‬ ‫ כי נשאו מבנתיהם להם ולבניהם והתערבו זרע‬.‫ַהמאבי המצרי והאמרי‬ …‫ ויד השרים והסגנים היתה במעל הזה ראשונה‬.‫הקדש בעמי הארצות‬ After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, “The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the peoples of the land with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness” (Ezra 9: 1-2). (3) ‫ויקם עזרא הכהן ויאמר אלהם אתם מעלתם ותשיבו נשים נכריות להוסיף‬ .‫ ועתה תנו תודה ליהוה אלהי אבתיכם ועשו רצונו‬.‫על אשמת ישראל‬ .‫והבדלו מעמי הארץ ומן הנשים הנכריות‬ Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel’s guilt. Now make confession to Yahweh, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.” (Ezra 10: 10-11). The appearance of the words ‫ התערב‬,‫ יד‬,‫ מעל‬,‫ תועבה‬,‫( נשים‬13) in both texts supports Sharp’s and Hayes’ argument for a direct connection between the texts. (14) Sharp also notes the semantic similarity (13) The anonymous reader has rightly noted that the form ֯‫ הנשי‬could be read as leaders/princes, which of course changes significantly the reading of the passage. However, the intertextual relation with the text from Ezra relies on other facts as well, thus it also contributes to the reading of the form to be concerning women. (14) Sharp, “Phinean Zeal”, 212, n. 5 suggests that the expression ‫ומלבוא ע]מהם‬ ‫ [לגב אלה‬from the next line might be connected to a passage from the Mishnah in Yebam. 1: 4, where this expression appears as well: Although one School prohibits what the other School allows, and one School declares invalid what the other School declares eligible, those of the School of Shammai did not refrain from marrying the women of the School of Hillel, nor those from the School of Hillel from taking in marriage the women from the School of Shammai. In spite of all the disputes regarding cleanness and uncleanness in which one side declares clean what the other side declares unclean, they did not refrain from making use of whatever pertained to the others (‫אלו על גב‬ ‫ )אלו‬in matters connected with cleanness. As Sharp notes, the same expression appears, therefore, in a context that mentions 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 234 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 235 between the root ‫ פרש‬in 4QMMT and the root ‫ בדל‬in the Ezra text. Moreover, I would like to argue that the connection between these two roots is even stronger; while the root ‫ פרש‬is not used in Biblical Hebrew for the meaning of separation, it does regularly occur in the Aramaic translations as the equivalent of the Hebrew verb ‫בדל‬. (15) Particularly important for our context is the following example from Targum Onqelos: (4) ‫הבדלתי אתכם מן‬ ‫העמים‬ ‫ אפרשית יתכון מן‬I have set you apart ‫ אומיא‬from the nations (Lev 20: 24). But even more significant is the fact that this is the root that the Syriac translation, the Peshitta, uses whenever the root ‫ בדל‬occurs in Ezra: (5) ‫נבדלו העם‬-‫לא‬ ‫ישראל… מעמי‬ ‫הארצות‬ ‫והבדלו מעמי הארץ‬ ‫לא אתפרשו עמא‬ ‫דישראל…מן עממא‬ ‫דמדינתא‬ The people of Israel have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples (9: 1) ‫ אתפרשו מן עממא‬Separate yourselves ‫ דארעא‬from the peoples of the land (10: 11) Thus, 4QMMT employs here the verb ‫פרש‬, which appears regularly in the various Targumim as the Aramaic translations of the bibintermarriages between the schools (this argument was repeated by Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 88, 249, n.86). While this linguistic similarity is striking (and in fact noticed earlier by Sussmann, “History of Halakha”, 37) it is hardly convincing. In this Mishnah this expression does not appear to be directly connected to the issue of marriage but regarding to the laws of purity. Moreover, as Liebreman notes, the noun ‫ גב‬is often used in pronominal reciprocal expressions in Mishnaic Hebrew, hence its appearance in the context of intermarriage is obviously not surprising (Saul Liebermann, Tosefta ki-fshu†ah: a Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, part V order Moed [2nd edition], Jerusalem: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992, 950-951). (15) Menahem Kister, “Studies in 4Q MiqÒat Ma’ase Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar”, Tarbi 68 (1999), 357-358 notes the significance of Aramaic in the language of 4QMMT, and the fact that the majority of what Qimron (in Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, 96-99) counts as lexical items from Mishnaic Hebrew is in fact Aramaic vocabulary. In this category Kister explicitly mentions ‫פרש מן‬. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 235 9/09/11 08:15 236 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL lical verb ‫בדל‬. (16) Consequently, this is another clear parallel between 4QMMT and the passages from Ezra. Sharp, however, still reads the discussed 4QMMT line as a testimony of a separation from the rest of the people. In doing so, she limits her suggestion to the claim that the separation attested in the 4QMMT text had one reason: the phenomenon of mixed marriage. Accordingly, in order to follow Ezra’s call for separation from the other nations, the writers of 4QMMT separated themselves from other contemporary Jewish communities whose seed was no longer pure as a result of marriage with foreigners. While I agree that Ezra is a relevant parallel, first I should clarify, that in contrast to Sharp, I do not think that this paragraph deals exclusively with intermarriage. The paragraph includes also ‫ חמס‬and ‫שקר‬, and the object of the verb ‫ התערב‬is ‫“( בדברים האלה‬these things”), which seems to indicate that the separation from the other nations should not be restricted only to marital relations. (17) Second, I would like to propose a different reading in 4QMMT itself in light of this comparison. We should remember that the word ‫ העם‬in the text is only a restoration. (18) Based on Ezra’s mentioning of the separation from ‫עמי הארצות‬, “peoples of the lands,” as well as the continued theme of Israel as set apart from other nations in the biblical text (using the verb ‫ )בדל‬and within the Qumran corpus (as we shall see later), it seems to be more reasonable to restore the text with a plural form of the word people: ‫העמים‬. (19) (16) It is worth noting that several scholars already proposed that texts from Qumran reflect familiarities with traditions found in the Targumim. See, for example, Moshe Bar-Asher, “A Few Remarks on Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic in Qumran Hebrew”, Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, (eds., T. Muraoka Y and J. F. Elwolde, Leiden, Boston and Koln: Brill 2000), 15-19; Noah Hacham, “An Aramaic Translation of Isaiah in the Rule of the Community”, Leshonenu 67 (2005), 147-152 [Hebrew]. (17) Sharp has already been criticized for overstating her case, see Høgenhaven, “Rhethorical Devices”, 197-198, and Hampell, “The Context”. (18) As far as I know the only alternative restoration is Wacholder and Abegg’s proposal: [‫“ פרשנו מרוב הע]דה‬we have separated from the majority of the con[gregation]” (Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin G. Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls – The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave four, fascicle III, Washington D.C.: Biblical Archeology Society, 1995). For a possible motivation for this restoration and the reasons why I do not follow this suggestion, see below n. 42. (19) Charlotte Hempel has mentioned this option in a paper read at Yale University in November 2008, and I am grateful for her suggestions. She proposed this option as a speculation in order to emphasis that the form ‫ עם‬is a restoration. The current paper provides the necessary support for this hypothesis. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 236 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 237 Besides the text in Ezra and other biblical texts mentioned above, the use of the root ‫ פרש‬to express the separation from “the nations” is seen later in rabbinic literature, as the following example demonstrates: (6) ‫ פרושים מאומות העולם ומשיקוציהן‬.‫ קדושים ומקודשים‬.‫׳קדוש׳‬ ‘Holy’ – Holy and sacred. Separated from the nations of the world and from their abominations (Mekilta, Bachodesh b). Accordingly we can see this as another example in which the language of 4QMMT is closer to Mishnaic Hebrew, (20) as it employs here as well the verb ‫ פרש‬that is commonly used in Mishnaic Hebrew rather than the Biblical verb ‫בדל‬. Therefore, in light of this intertextual background, revealed from the comparison with the Hebrew Bible and, in particular, Ezra and rabbinic literature and their use of the same root ‫( פרש‬or its Biblical equivalent), leads to the conclusion that a valid possible restoration option for the 4QMMT line, as a complement to the root ‫פרש‬, should be ‫עמים‬. 2.2 The Expression ‫רוב העמים‬ In order to establish this reading of ‫ עמים‬it is necessary to revisit the preceding word ‫רוב‬. The appropriate meaning for this lemma in 4QMMT has been questioned in the past, as expressed in the two distinct translations of “the majority” or “the multitude.” (21) If we restore ‫ עמים‬after it, the latter (“the multitude”) is obviously a better fit. It should be noted that neither ‫ רוב העם‬nor ‫ רוב העמים‬are familiar expressions in any of the relevant corpora, therefore, both restorations require further explanation. (22) (20) For a detailed treatment of the language of 4QMMT see Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, 65-108, and Kister, “Studies in 4Q MiqÒat Ma’ase HaTorah”, 355-359. (21) Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, first translated ‫ רוב‬as “majority” and later in the “official” publication they used “multitude”. On the historical ramification of this change see Daniel R. Schwartz, “MMT, Josephus and the Pharisees”, in Kampen and Bernstein, Reading 4QMMT, 67-80. (22) Kister, “Studies in 4Q MiqÒat Ma’ase Ha-Torah”, 320, n. 9 proposes a parallel to this expression in the Damascus Document I, 21 ‫יב עם‬/‫וישישו לרו‬. He suggests reading what was formerly understood as ‫“ לריב‬to dispute” as ‫“ לרוב‬the multitude”. Accordingly, the preposition l- precedes the complementary of the verb ‫שוש‬. This however is never the case before nouns in Biblical Hebrew or in Qumran. In the entire biblical corpus the only possible prepositions before nominal phrases with this 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 237 9/09/11 08:15 238 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL The reconstruction of the expression “‫ ”רוב העמים‬can be supported by another inter-biblical connection. Also in chapter 9, Ezra refers to the source of the prohibition for intermarriage with nonJews: (7) For we have disregarded the commands you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: “The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices (‫ )בתועבתיהם‬they have filled it with their impurity (‫ )בטמאתם‬from one end to the other. Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance” (Ezra 9: 10-12). Most probably Ezra refers here to the verses in Deuteronomy 7:1-7: (23) (8) When Yahweh your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations… Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods… For you are a people holy to Yahweh, your God. Yahweh, your God, has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. Yahweh did not set root are either b- or ‘al: ‫“ שוש אשיש ביהוה‬delight greatly in Yahweh” (Isa. 61: 10); ‫“ כי ישוב יהוה לשוש עליך לטוב כּאשר שש על אבתיך‬The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers” (Deut. 30: 9). Only before an infinitive can l- appear, as is the case in Pss 19: 6: ‫“ ישיש כגבור לרוץ ארח‬like a champion rejoicing to run his course.” Therefore, from a linguistic point of view, the reading ‫“ לריב‬to dispute,” is still more likely. Sussmann, “History of Halakha,” 68, n. 220, suggests a parallel between ‫ רוב העם‬and its indefinite expression ‫רוב עם‬ found in numerous places in the rabbinic literature in the expression ‫ברוב עם הדרת מלך‬ “In the multitude of the people is the king’s glory” (inter alia Sifra, Nedava 9:1). It is unclear whether Sussmann considers this a real parallel, since obviously ‫ רוב עם‬has a significantly different meaning in these contexts, as ‫“ עם‬people,” can refer either to a “nation” or to “a group of men.” Thus, ‫ רוב עם‬in these contexts would be better translated as “a large crowd.” (23) Many have noticed this intertextual relationship. Inter alia, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 115116; Sara Japhet, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 145-150; Richard Bauch, “Intertextuality in the Persian Period,” in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period (ed. J. L. Berquist; Atlanta: Scholars, 2007), 33-35. (I thank Aaron Koller for these references). 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 238 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 239 his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples (‫לא מרבכם מכל‬ .‫)העמים חשק יהוה בכם ויבחר בכם כי אתם המעט מכל העמים‬ We should remember that at the end of this chapter appears the verse ‫ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך והיית חרם כמהו שקץ תשקצנו ותעב‬ ‫“ תתעבנו כי חרם הוא‬Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Utterly abhor and detest it, for it is set apart for destruction” (Deut 7:26), which is quoted explicitly in our discussed paragraph from 4QMMT (4Q398, frg. 14-21, lines 6-7). Again, in this paragraph from Deuteronomy, we encounter the idea that the separation from the other nations is a result of Israel’s chosenness and this, in turn, is related to the holiness of Israel (‫“ כי עם קדוש אתה ליהוה אלהיך‬For you are a people holy to Yahweh your God” [v. 6]). For our purposes the important sentence is: ‫לא מרבכם מכל‬ ‫“ העמים… אתם המעט מכל העמים‬Because you were more numerous than other peoples… for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deut, 7: 17). We see here the dual contrasts between ‫“ רוב‬multitude,” and ‫“ מעט‬few,” and between Israel and the Nations. Thus, if the verse states that Israel is not the multitude, since they are the few, a natural conclusion is that the nations are the multitude. Hence the expression ‫רוב העמים‬, “the multitude of the nations,” is a result of this equation and should not surprise us in this context. If we keep in mind these texts from Deuteronomy and Ezra, which stand as background to the passage in 4QMMT, it is not surprising that the expression “multitude of the nations” would be used to describe the group’s separation from the nations. (24) After suggesting that this sentence concerns the separation of Israel from the other nations, we turn to discuss the letters ‫[פרשנו‬ in the discussed line from 4QMMT. Since the editors were certain that the meaning of this form is “we have separated ourselves,” they concluded that relative pronoun must have preceded it. In light of the evidence brought so far we should consider other options as well. (24) It is worth noting that in the rabbinic prayer ‫“ על הניסים‬Concerning the Miracles,” praising the Hasmonean victory over the Greek empire, the defeat of the latter by the former is described as ‫“ רבים ביד מעטים טמאים ביד טהורים‬the many into the hands of few, the impure into the hands of the pure.” Regardless of the desire to describe the miraculous victory, it is very likely that the choice of these words is related to the above quoted verses from Deuteronomy, and the repeated theme of the Israelites as the “pure ones.” See also the next footnote. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 239 9/09/11 08:15 240 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL 2.3. ‫פרשנו‬ In order to understand how this verbal form should be read, we should first answer the question: who is performing the act of separation? On the one hand, the notion in texts such as Lev 24:20 is that it is God who sets Israel apart from the other nations: “I have set you apart (‫ )הבדלתי‬from the nations.” But, on the other hand, in Ezra it becomes clear that what was once a historical separation by God now requires an active separation by every individual. Similarly, in the Damascus Document we find the following line: (9) ,‫( כמשפטם ולא ישקץ איש את רוחו קדשיו‬25) ‫ולהבדל מכל הטמאות‬ …‫כאשר הבדיל אל להם‬ To keep apart from every uncleanness according to their regulations, without anyone defiling his holy spirit, according to what GOD kept them apart for them (CD-A VII, 3-4). According to this, both the historical separation by God’s choice and the daily acts of separation by the individual are necessary for the holy spirit of each individual. Thus, a-priori the 4QMMT text can be understood to deal with either a self-separation or God’s separation of Israel. It is interesting to compare this with 11QTa LI, 7-10: (10) ‫כי אני יהוה שוכן בתוך בני ישראל וקדשתמה והיו קדושים ולוא ישקצו‬ ‫את נפשותמה בכל אשר הבדלתי להמה לטמאה והיו קדושים‬ Because I, Yahweh, dwell among the children of Israel. And you shall sanctify them and they shall be holy. They shall not make their souls abominable with anything that I have separated for them as unclean and they should be holy. Here God is doing the separation, while it is the people’s obligation to be holy. These two aspects of separation are also found in later rabbinic literature. As demonstrated earlier (6), we encounter the notion that the holiness of Israel stems from the fact that they are ‫פרושים‬, “separated,” from the other nations. While it is not explicit in (6), however, (25) It is worth noting that the word ‫ תעבתיהם‬in Ezra 9:1 is translated in the Syriac as ‫טמאותהון‬. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 240 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 241 who is the agent of this separation, it is explicit in the following legal midrash: (11) .‫ פרושים היו‬.‘‫’קדושים תהיו‬ ‘You shall be holy’ – you should be separate (Sifra, Qedoshim 1:1). The similarity is, however, only with regards to the connection between holiness and separation. The adjective ‫ פרוש‬here is followed by an imperative form of the verb ‫הו״י‬, thus making it clear that it is a personal obligation to be separated, a self-separation. (26) It is interesting to note that ‫ שיקוציהן‬in the Mechilta (6) has the same root that we encounter in the Damascus Document (9) ‫ולא ישקץ‬ ‫ איש את רוחו קדשיו‬, and in both places there is a relationship with holiness. This vocabulary is reminiscent of the language of Deuteronomy 7 that we saw earlier. Regarding the restoration of the line in 4QMMT, if indeed this is a self-separation, a form such as ‫ פרשנו‬parasnû (“we have separated ourselves”) is possible, especially in light of the later Mishnaic Hebrew use of this root. (27) Considering, however, the forms in the Syriac translation of Ezra (5), which are in the T-stem, and the use of the N-stem with the Hebrew root ‫ בדל‬in the Damascus document (26) In comparison with Mekilta, Bachodesh b (source 6), it is interesting to note that while the two components of holiness and separation are here, the notion that this is a separation from the other nations is missing. While this could be simply a local omission, it seems to be intentional. First, in various places in the Sifra, God is also described as ‫“ פרוש‬a separated one.” See, Sifra, Qedoshim 9:9 and Shratsim 10:2. Obviously, God is not the one who is separated from the other nations. It is more likely that this represents a different notion of “being separated,” one that is more about abstinence, a self-separation from various actions. Second, the following paragraph in the same parasha supports the idea that we should consider an intentional modification in the Sifra: Rabbi La’azar son of Azarya says: “How do we know that someone should not say: ‘I do not want to wear mixed fibers, I do not want to eat pork, I do not want to have incestuous sexual relations;’ rather ‘I do want, but what can I do? For my father in heaven has made a decree for me.’” So it says: “and I have separated you from the peoples that you should be mine” [‫ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות‬ ‫ ]לי‬consequently one would keep himself apart from transgression [‫פורש מן‬ ‫ ]העבירה‬upon the rule of heaven (Sifra, Qedoshim, 9: 10). We still see that the notion of separation is textually affiliated with the verse that speaks of God’s separation of Israel from the other peoples, but the object from which Israel is “being separated” is no longer the nations, but rather the transgressions. Thus, in this text the separation shifted from the national realm, where God made his choice, to an individual obligation to be separated. (27) See below, n. 35. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 241 9/09/11 08:15 242 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL (‫)להבדל‬, we could also expect a reflexive form. In that case, a possible restoration is with an N-stem form with the addition of a nun ‫נפרשנו‬ niprasnû, similar to the expression found in Mishnaic Hebrew: (12) ‫ סוף בני אדם נפרשין ממך‬.‫אתה רציתה לפרוש עצמך מבני אדם‬ You wanted to separate yourself from men, in the end men will separate themselves from you (Mekilta, Shira 6). So far we have considered restorations that assume a self-separation. However, if indeed this line in 4QMMT speaks about the separation of Israel from the nations, we should explore the possibility that God is the agent of such a separation (see above 9-10). In that case, there are three other options for a restoration of this sentence: I. If God is the actor, we could expect a verb in the C-stem, as is in Onqelos’ translation to Lev 20: 24 (above, 4): ‫אפרשית‬ ‫יתכון מן אומיא‬, “I have set you apart from the nations.” Thus, we could restore a Heh before the form ‫ הפרשנו‬:‫פרשנו‬ hiprisanû, and to read the -‫ נו‬at the end of the form not as the personal conjugation, but as a pronominal direct object suffix, with the meaning of “he separated us.” The use of the root ‫ פרש‬in this stem is very common in Mishnaic Hebrew in the physical sense of setting apart. A potential problem for this suggestion is that we would expect a Yod to indicate the original long /i/ vowel. This is, however, not such a severe problem, since there are, notoriously, multiple examples of an original long /i/ not represented within Hebrew texts from Qumran, even in 4QMMT itself. (28) II. It is possible to propose a similar meaning with a D-stem form, reading it as ‫פ ְר ָשנוּ‬, ֵ persanû. In this case, a Yod is not expected (compare to ‫)קרבנו‬. The problem is that we do not have examples of this root in the D-stem in Hebrew with this meaning in early sources. It is possible, though, that there is an example in Aramaic with this meaning, as Targum Onqelos for Deut 32: 8 translates: ‫ בהפרידו בני אדם‬as ‫בפרשותיה בני‬ ‫אנשא‬, “when he divided all mankind.” We also encounter this meaning in the passive forms of the D-stem in later poetry, again in the context of the separation from the other nations: (28) Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, 66. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 242 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 243 (13) ‫וכתרומה מעיסה משבעים מפורשת‬ And set apart from seventy, (29) like the heave offering from dough (30) (Ahuvat No’ar, ba-Avot). While this may represent the use of this formula by earlier sources, it can also be merely a token of poetic innovation. III. It is also possible to keep the same meaning by restoring ‫הו‬-, and to read it as a 1st common plural form of the passive of the C-stem. Thus, it would read as ‫ הופרשנו‬huprasnû, “we were separated.” Such forms are attested only in a late Midrash and with a reflexive meaning, again in the context of the separation of Israel from the nations: (14) ‫כך ישראל אינן יכולין להדבק עם האומות אלא לעצמן הן מופרשים‬ Thus Israel cannot cling to the nations, but are set apart for themselves (Exod. Rab. 15: 52). And also in poetry: (15) ‫ יה נקד׳ש בקדושה‬,‫חדש ברית לאום בדולה ומופרשה‬ Renew the covenant with a people set off and apart, O God, sanctified in sanctity (YoÒrot for the beginning of the month in a week day). 2.4 The Restoration of the Entire Line Now that we have established the content of this phrase we may briefly speculate what both preceded and followed this clause: [ [‫]ואף[ כתו]ב בספר מושה ולו[א תביא תועבה א]ל ביתכה כי‬ ‫נפ[פרשנו מרוב הע]מים‬/‫הו‬/‫הי‬ ] ‫התועבה שנואה היא‬ ‫]ו[מהתערב בדברים האלה ומלבוא ע] [לגב אלה‬ 6 7 8 The editors’ proposal to add ‫ואתם יודעים‬, “as you know,” before the verb is constructed both on the fact that this expression is repeated in this paragraph, and on the assumption that it would draw the attention of the addressees. This latter assumption is based on the impor(29) In poetry, seventy is a name-code for the nations, and this poetic line also uses the verb ‫ פרש‬in the C-stem, which is commonly used in the context of offering. (30) I wish to thank Michael Tzvi Novick for the English translation of the poetic verses. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 243 9/09/11 08:15 244 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL tance they give to the sentence that comes immediately after, one that they believe sets the tone for the entire treatise. While I cannot raise any linguistic argument against this proposal, in light of our reading we could, at least, propose another restoration: (16) ‫( מהתערב בדברים‬32) [‫( מרוב הע]מים והוזהרנו‬31) ‫והובדלנו והו[פרשנו‬ ‫האלה ומלבוא ע]מהם‬ And we were set off and apart from the multitude of the nations and we were prohibited from mingling with them. Clearly, this philological discussion is very significant for the meaning of this line within 4QMMT; it has the potential to affect the way in which the entire treatise should be read. Such possible ramifications will be discussed below (§4) after the discussion concerning the various restorations. 3. Evaluation of the Two Restorations 3.1 A Problem with the Common Reading The reading of the discussed line as ‫“ פרשנו מרוב העם‬we have separated ourselves from the multitude/majority of the people,” orig(31) The idea behind this restoration relies on Kister’s observation that the writer in various places kept the biblical word, but followed it with an explanation in the vulgar language. See Kister, “Studies in 4Q MiqÒat Ma’ase Ha-Torah”, 358. (For a different approach see Bernstein, “Employment,” 47). Following this strategy, we can suggest that before the late form ‫נפ[פרשנו‬/‫הו‬/‫ הי‬there was a verbal form of the older root ‫בדל‬. Thus, the restoration could be: ‫( והובדלנו והופרשנו‬or any other appropriate form according to the chosen restoration for the verbal form of the root ‫)פרש‬. Interestingly, a similar poetic technique was used in the poem mentioned above (15): ‫חדש ברית לאום‬ ‫[ בדולה ומופרשה‬for a discussion regarding the relationship between the biblical and the mishnaic verb in other Piyyutim see Menachem Shmeltzer, “Some Examples of Poetic Reformulations of Biblical and Midrashic Passages in Liturgy and Piyyut,” Porat Yosef: Studies Presented to Rabbi Dr. Joseph Safran (ed. B. Safran and E. Safran; Hoboken: Ktav, 1992), 219. I thank Michael Tzvi Novick for this reference.] (32) The fact that the first word in line 8 is ‫“ מהתערב‬from mingling,” and that it belongs to the same semantic field as separation (antinomy), it is reasonable to assume that the preposition m- before the infinitive came as a complement to a verb with the content of prohibition; this verb is probably from the root ‫ זהר‬which is the common root in 4QMMT for this meaning. On the use of the root ‫ ערב‬in the Damascus Document, see Elisha Qimron, “The Halacha of Damascus Covenant – An interpretation of ‘Al Yitqarev’”, Procedings of the Ninth Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem August 4-12, 1985 Division D volume 1 (1986), 9-15, esp. 12. Although Qimron does not discuss our text, he does comment on the connection to the text in Ezra, and proposes reading it in the Damascus Document with a sexual connotation. I thank Vered Noam for referring me to this paper. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 244 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 245 inates with the editors of the DJD who note: “Here we have the earliest attestation of the use of ‫ פרש‬for ‘depart, secede.’” (33) From a philological perspective, a claim for the first attestation of a specific use of a lexical item is suspect. One should carefully examine the possibility that the discussed lemma should still be understood in light of its previous functions. While, without a detailed study of the development of the root ‫( פרש‬34) we cannot be certain whether this root had the meaning of “seceding” at the time of the composition of 4QMMT, for our purposes it is sufficient to note that if indeed the verb ‫ פרש‬in this text describes a schism event we would have expected the complement ‫“ דרך‬path, way,” as is often found in parallel expressions in the Hebrew of Qumran. This is clear in the following example: (17) ‫להבדל מכול אנשי העול ההולכים בדרך הרשעה‬ … to be segregated from all the men of injustice who walk along the path of wickedness (1QS V, 10-11). Moreover, this assumption relies on similar expressions in rabbinic literature, using the verb ‫ פרש‬not as a separation of groups of people, but rather as a choice of a “way of life.” Thus we find that either one chooses to separate himself from a certain way of life or he separates in order to join another. (35) In rabbinic literature, at least in its earlier period, we seldom encounter examples where the object of the preposition (‫ מ)ן‬following the verb ‫ פרש‬refers to the group from which the separation took place. (36) Without ‫ דרך‬the verb either appears by itself (describing (33) Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, 58. (34) This is a study I will pursue in another context. (35) Thus, we encounter the following expressions: ‫פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל‬ “have separated themselves to follow in the ways of Israel,” and ‫עד שיפרשו ללכת‬ ‫“ בדרכי אבותן‬unless they separate themselves to go in the paths of their fathers” (Mishnah, Nid. 4: 2); ‫“ ופורשי מדרכי צבור‬Those who separated from the ways of the community” (Tosefta, Sanh. 13: 5); ‫“ מי שפירש מדרכי צבור‬Who separate themselves from the path of community” (Chaim Milikowsky, Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography, [Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1981], 229-231); …‫יחיד הפורש מהן‬ ‫“ פלוני זה פירש מדרכי צבור‬One of them separates himself from them…‘So-and-so who separated himself from the ways of the community’” (Babylonian Talmud, Ta¨an. 11a). (36) The only example is in ’Abot 2:4: ‫“ אל תיפרוש מן הציבור‬Separate not thyself from the community.” 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 245 9/09/11 08:15 246 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL the action), (37) or it describes a separation from something specific such as the Torah. (38) In light of this observation, it is less likely that without the complement ‫ דרך‬this verb describes an event of schism; second, it is better to consider the use of the verb ‫ פרש‬in this context, not in light of a the various examples in the rabbinic literature where this verb is used to reference schism (when it occurs with the complement ‫)דרך‬, but in the context of the biblical uses of the verb ‫בדל‬, as argued in (§2). 3.2. Reevaluating the Support for the Alternative Reading As discussed in the previous section it is likely that the connotation of the root ‫ פרש‬with the meaning of schism results from a certain context in which this root is used in later Mishnaic Hebrew. Furthermore, the assumption that the meaning of the epithet ‫פרושים‬, “Pharisees,” is equivalent to referring to them as “the Separatists” contributes to this understanding as well. However, as discussed at length in the footnote below, considering its grammatical form and the uses of (37) See, for example, ’Abot R. Nat. Version II, 10: They went and set themselves apart (‫ )ופרשו‬and two families emerged from them, the Sadducees and the Boethusians. See also Tosefta Meg. 3: 37 (Ms. Vienna): On this matter did R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: “A person has no right to excuse for a misdeed.” For from the answer which Aaron gave to Moses the heretics separated themselves (‫)פרשו‬. In the Babylonian Talmud Meg. 25b a similar line appears, and instead of ‫פרשו‬ there is either ‫“ פרקו‬they rebelled,” (Mss. Oxford and Parma) or ‫“ פקרו‬they became heretic” (Ms. Munich). The expression ‫ פקרו המינין‬is known in other rabbinic sources as it is found in both Talmuds and in other places as well (see Palestinian Talmud Berachot 9, 1 and Babylonian Talmud, Sanh. 38b). As for the version with ‫פרק‬, it is understood in light of the expression ‫“ פרק עול תורה‬cast of the yoke of the Torah,” i.e. rebelled, which is found in ’Abot 3, 5. Since the language of all versions can be understood based on other sources it is hard to determine which version is preferable regarding this line, the one in the Tosefta or the one in the Babylonian Talmud, and which one reflects a later change influenced by similar expressions. Similar to other instances of separation that we have seen, it is not readily apparent whether this Tosefta passage is indeed an example of schism between groups (as speculated by Saul Liebermann, “How much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” in Studies and Texts (ed. A. Alexander; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 140, or individuals. For a further discussion on this line in the Tosefta and other possible parallels, see Saul Liebermann, Tosefta 1992, 1218-1219. Therefore, this Tosefta makes for a problematic source when analyzing the uses of the verb ‫פרש‬. (38) Mishnah Îag. 1: 7; ’Abot R. Nat., Version I, 5; Mekilta, Pischa 5. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 246 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 247 this root elsewhere in the rabbinic literature, this epithet may have other interpretation as well. (39) (39) The forms ‫( פרושים‬p¢rusin) and parisin (reflected in its Greek form:    farisa⁄oi, and in the Syriac
 pris (<paris)] are the passive participle forms of the root ‫ פרש‬in Hebrew and Aramaic respectively. (For an alternative view, see A. I., Baumgarten, “The Name of the Pharisees”, JBL 3 [1983]: 411-428). Based on the functions of such verbal adjectives in Mishnaic Hebrew in general (see Jashua Blau, “The Passive Participle in an Active Sense,” Leshonenu 18 [1952/3]: 67-81) and of the uses of this particular form in this literature (see Ellis Rivkin, “Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources,” HUCA 40–41 [1969-1970]: 205–49), we can think various explanations besides the common assumption that in its background stands an act of separation from other parts of the Jewish community. A-priori these forms can have one of three meanings, as was already proposed by scholars, and which can be strengthened by the uses of this adjective in other contexts in Mishnaic Hebrew: I. It can be used to denote the patient of the action. Thus, if we have the verb ‫ פרש‬in the C-stem (see, for example, [4] above) with the sense of “separating,” ‫פרוש‬ can denote the element that is being separated (compare to the verb ‫“ גלי‬reveal,” in the D-stem, and the verbal adjective ‫“ גלוי‬revealed,” the passive participle of the G-stem). This is, for example, what Lauterbach proposed: “The name, ‫פרושים‬, Separatists was given to them by the priestly party and was meant as a taunt, the expelled ones, or those who are different” (Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951],109). II. It can appear in a reflexive sense as “the one who separated himself” similar to ‫“ רחוץ‬washed (himself).” Medieval Jewish interpreters understood the epithet as the signifying a self-separation from certain things for religious reasons (for references to the Geonim and Maimonides, see Baumgarten, “The Name,” 412, n. 3; in modern scholarship it has been proposed by Samuel S. Cohon, “Pharisaism, A Definition,” in Joshua Bloch Memorial Volume, Studies in Booklore and History [ed. A. L. Marwick and I. S. Meyer; New York: The New York Public Library, 1960], 65-74). In fact, this fits the way the verbal adjective ‫ פרוש‬is often used in rabbinic literature. For example, this is the notion in the Sifra (mentioned above [6], and n. 26) and see also Tosefta, So†ah 15: 11. This is also related to the use of this root in Mishnaic Hebrew in the context of self-separation (abstinence) from certain objects and deeds. For example, the legal Midrashim make the connection between the roots ‫ נזר‬and ‫( פרש‬Sifra, Zavim 5: 3; Emor 4: 1; and Sifre Num. 23). Thus, it is possible that this epithet, in fact, aims to describe a way of life that seeks holiness through self-separation from certain actions. Given the remnant of this meaning in rabbinic texts (n. 26) as well as the context of the verb ‫ פרש‬in Aramaic (4)-(5), we can propose that this is also the intent of the line in 4QMMT, an ideological stand emphasizing the separation of Israel from the other nations (see also Ralph Marcus, “The Pharisees in Light of Modern Scholarship,” Journal of Religion 32 [1954]: 154, based on I Maccabees). If the Pharisees are indeed decedents of the anti-Hellenistic groups from the Hasmonean period, then we can easily speculate that such a group, which saw the war with the Greeks as a war between ‫“ טהורים‬the pure ones,” and ‫“ טמאים‬the impure ones,” (see above n. 24 about the prayer ‫על הניסים‬, “Concerning the Miracles”) would call themselves: ‫פרושים מאומות‬ ‫העולם ומשיקוציהן‬, “separated from the nations of the world and from their abominations” (23). This separation would, in turn, be for the purpose of ‫להבדל מכל הטמאות‬ ‫כמשפטם ולא ישקץ איש את רוחו קדשיו‬, “to keep apart from every uncleanness according 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 247 9/09/11 08:15 248 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL This brings us to the reasons for supporting the common reading and their strengths and weaknesses. We will first examine outside to their regulations, without anyone defiling his holy spirit.” Accordingly, ‫פרושים‬ should be viewed as an ideological name. III. In some verbs the passive participle reflects the result of the action described by the active verb. Thus, in the same way that ‫שתוי‬, “drunk,” is “someone who drank,” it would be the case that ‫ פרוש‬is “someone who separated.” This is the common understanding of ‫ פרושים‬as the “Separatists” and also what stands behind the reading of the discussed line in 4QMMT as a testimony of separation (inter alia Abraham Geiger, Judaism and its History: in Two Parts, [trans. C. Newburgh; New York: The Bloch Publishing, Co., 1911], 101-102; David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Vol 1 Qumran and Apocalysm, [trans. Y. Azzan; Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Company, 2007], 106-107). One source that further suggests that the verbal adjective ‫ פרוש‬means “separatists” is the Tosefta, mentioned above: ‫“ כולל של מינים בשל פרושין‬One can include (the benediction of the) heretics (minim) in the one of the separatists” (Ber. 3: 25); it is probably related to other sources mentioning those who “separated from the community” (see above examples 3-5). It is well known that this Tosefta is a problematic source, as it seems that the rabbis here pray against the ‫ פרושים‬while elsewhere it is clear that their self perception was that they were the “descendants” of the Second Temple’s ‫פרושים‬. It is tempting to accept Lieberman’s proposal that in this Tosefta we should vocalize the text as ‫רוֹשים‬ ִ ‫פ‬, ָ i.e. the nominal pattern qatol that is used often in Mishnaic Hebrew to express agent nouns. But, of course, we do not have evidence for this proposal. Finally it should be noted that while Baumgarten claims that “No ancient Jewish source ever offers an explicit explanation of the name of the Pharisees” (Baumgarten, “The Name,” 412), it is possible that, implicitly, there is one etiological story that does tell us about the way the rabbis understood the term. In a famous Talmudic story we hear about a dispute between the “sages of Israel,” who are also called ‫פרושים‬, and King Jannai, whose role as both king and high priest the sages challenged. At the end of the story we encounter the following line: [‫ ויבדלו חכמי ישר]אל‬,‫ויבקש הדבר ולא נמצא‬ ‫“ בזעם‬Accordingly, the charge was investigated, but not sustained, and the Sages of Israel separated themselves in anger” (Qidd. 66a). It is well known that some linguistic features of this text imitate a biblical style (Moses H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew [Oxford: Clarendon, 1927], 71; Chaim Rabin, “The Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 [ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958], 144-161), which might prove significant for our issue. It is reasonable to consider that this Talmudic story is an etiological story to explain how the sages of Israel became the Pharisees. Accordingly, this story reflects the way in which the rabbis, with their self-perception as the descendents of the Pharisees, understood the meaning of this epithet. This is the opposite technique to the one used in 4QMMT. In the Qumranic texts the biblical notion of separation was described with the root ‫ פרש‬instead of the biblical root ‫;בדל‬ but in the Talmudic story, according to this suggestion, the noun ‫ פרושים‬with the root ‫ פרש‬is explained with the biblical root ‫בדל‬. Since the N-stem of the biblical verb ‫בדל‬ indicates a self-separation, accordingly this might reflect their understanding of the verbal adjective ‫ פרושים‬as the ones who separated themselves from the king and his court. (Lauterbach Rabbinic Essays, 46, n. 21 already proposed seeing this story as an etiologic story based on the use of the root ‫ ;בדל‬however, he missed the significance of the fact that this text imitates the biblical style and the reflexive meaning of the verb in this context). 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 248 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 249 motivations, namely parallels from other Qumranic texts, suggesting similar content. Various scholars have noted the fact that in other places the sect’s own perception was that they “turned away” from the rest of the nation. Thus, we find twice in the Damascus Document the line: (40) (18) ‫לשבי ישראל סרו מדרך העם‬ To the converts of Israel, who returned away from the path of the people (CD-A VIII, 16; XIX, 29). Another possible parallel is also found 11QMelchizedeq II, 24: (19) ‫מקימ]י[ הברית הסרים מלכת ]בד[רך העם‬ Those who establish the covenant, those who avoid walking [on the pa] th of the people. Similar expressions are found also in 1QSa I, 3, and partially in 4QFlor II, 14. As for these parallels, it should be noted that while one might see a conceptual relationship between these passages and the 4QMMT text, on the linguistic level there are two issues with positing an intertextual relationship. First, it is striking how the literal metaphor here is still alive and the picture of turning from the path (‫ )דרך‬is always explicit. (41) It only emphasizes, once again, that if indeed the line in 4QMMT is meant to describe a metaphoric separation from the nation, we would have expected the complement ‫ דרך‬in one way or another, describing it as a separation from a way of life and not from people. Second, as far as I know, a link between the roots ‫ סור‬and ‫פרש‬ was not proposed in the literature. It could have been established based, once again, on a rabbinic text: (40) See inter alia Flusser, Judaism, 104-107; Kister, “Studies in 4Q MiqÒat Ma’ase Ha-Torah,” 320, n. 9; Adiel Schremer, “Seclusion and Exclusion: The Rhetoric of Separation in Qumran and Tannaitic Literature,” in Rabbinic Perspectives. Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. S. Fraade, A. Shemesh, and R. Clements; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 128-132. (41) See also 4QFlor:14-16, especially ‫ סרי מדרך‬and the reference to Isa. 8: 11: ‫“ ויסרני מלכת בדרך העם הזה‬He removed (root ‫ )סור‬me from the path of this people,” which is the origin of this expression. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 249 9/09/11 08:15 250 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL (20) ‫ הזהרו שמא יטעה אתכם יצר‬.‫ אמר להן‬.‫״ואכלת ושב]עת[׳ השמרו לכם״‬ ‫ שכיון שאדם פורש מדברי תורה ]הולך ומדבק‬.‫הרע ותפרשו מדברי תורה‬ ‫ שנ׳ ״סרו מהר״ … אלא כיון שפוסק מדברי תורה הולך ומידבק‬.[‫בע׳ז‬ .‫זרה‬-‫בעבו׳‬ “And thou shalt eat and be satisfied…Take heed to yourself.” He said to them: “Take care lest the Inclination to evil should lead you astray, and you separate yourself from the words of the Torah,” for when a person separates himself from the words of the Torah, he goes and clings to idolatry, as it is said: “They have turned aside quickly…” (Sifre Deut. 43). However, it is still difficult to establish a close relationship between these two roots similar to the one we saw between ‫ בדל‬and ‫פרש‬, which, as demonstrated in (§2), are diachronically closely related. Therefore, in this context some passages in 1QS, where the root ‫ בדל‬appears, are more suitable for the comparison: (21) ‫להבדל מעדת אנשי העול‬ They should keep apart from the congregation (42) of the men of injustice (V, 1-2). (22) ‫להבדל מכול אנשי העול ההולכים בדרך הרשעה‬ …to be segregated from all the men of injustice who walk along the path of wickedness (V, 10-11). (23) ‫יבדלו מתוך מושב הנשי )אנשי( העול ללכת למדבר לפנות שם את דרך‬ ‫הואהא‬ … they are to be segregated from within the dwelling of the men of sin to walk to the desert in order to open there his path (VIII, 13). (43) (42) This is probably what stands behind Wacholder and Abegg’s proposal to restore: ‫ [פרשנו מרוב הע]דה‬in Wacholder and Abegg, Preliminary Edition (see above n. 18). However, first, if the reference is indeed to the other part of the nation, then, as Kampen notes, in the next pargraph the addressee is referred to as ‫“ לך ולעמך‬to you and to your people” (4Q399, 3). See, John Kampen, “4QMMT and the New Testament”, in Kampen and Bernstein, Reading 4QMMT, 131-132, n. 1. Thus the use of ‫ עדה‬in the context of 4QMMT is less likely. Second, the expression ‫ רוב העדה‬should still be explained similarly to the way ‫ רוב העמים‬was motivated in (§2.2). (43) Sussmann, “History of Halakha”, 38-39. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 250 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 251 Yet again, in the second example, we encounter the notion of leaving a path, and in the third the people walk to the desert in order to join an alternative path. (44) While these sources definitively establish the Qumranic community’s self perception as a group that separated itself, this is not the issue under discussion. When we ask what should be the best restoration of the line in 4QMMT, it is not enough to restore ‫ העם‬and not ‫ העמים‬based on these examples. From a philological point of view, in a restoration that lacks the word ‫דרך‬, the expression ‫ רוב העם‬is no longer easily explained when compared to the above parallel examples. 4. The Restored Line in its Context As noted in the introduction, the approach taken in this paper is to begin with an examination of this sentence independently of the rest of 4QMMT, and only then to examine how it should affect our understanding of the nature of the text. However, it might be argued that from a linguistic point of view our restoration is inconsistent with the rest of 4QMMT, as for the interpretation of the meaning of the personal pronoun “we.” In order to be able to elaborate more on this issue, we should first clarify the function of this line in its context, according to the current restoration, repeated below: ‫והובדלנו והו[פרשנו מרוב הע]מים והוזהרנו[ מהתערב בדברים האלה‬ ‫ומלבוא ע]מהם‬ And we were set off and apart from the multitude of the nations and we were prohibited from mingling with them. 4.1 The Function of the Restored Line in the Larger Context If indeed this is the exact restoration, the discussed sentence in 4QMMT does not contain any historical testimony about the sect and its relationship with the other Jewish groups. Instead it merely provides a traditional classical biblical reasoning for the commandments and prohibitions mentioned in the paragraph, i.e. that these commandants should be followed due to Israel’s separation from the other nations. In other words, it signals a motivation always associated with (44) This is also the case in 1QS IX, 20-21. Regarding this line, see Devorah Dimant, “Not Exile in the Desert but Exile in Spirit: The Pesher of Isa. 40:3 in the Rule of the Community,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 2 (2004): 21-36, who reads this line not as an actual departure to the desert, but as a spiritual separation. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 251 9/09/11 08:15 252 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL the holiness of the Israelites. (45) Accordingly, this line is not about the history of the sect, but of the larger nation. If we examine the larger context of this line, this is not surprising at all, since it is agreed that in the next line (10) the author refers to the common history of the Jewish nation: (24) […‫ ]כתבנ[נו אליכה שתבין בספר מושה ]ו[בספר]י הנ[ביאים ובדוי]ד‬10 …‫ ]במעשי[ דור דור‬11 10 we have [written] that you must understand the book of Moses [and the book[s of the pr]ophets and Davi[d…] 11 [the annals of] each generation… (4Q398, frg. 14-21, 10) Accordingly, despite the traditional understanding that line 10 begins the retelling of the common history of the writer and the possible addressee, the narration of the common history actually begins in line 7 after mentioning the separation. (46) If, indeed, this line is treated as the beginning of an epilogue that concludes with the “common history” of the Jews (in the same way as the curses and the blessings mentioned in the rest of the text), we could paraphrase the function of this line as providing the following motivation: “We should all act righteously, since we are all unique as a result of God separating us from the nations.” However, if one insists that this line is not part of the epilogue, but rather still part of the previous lines (see above §2.1), with their reference to the ‫“ תועבה‬the abomination,” it can be paraphrased in the following way: “We [all] should be careful about these things as this is the reason why God originally separated us from the other nations.” According to this reading, the author here is simply rephrasing the reasoning already found in Deuteronomy for the prohibition of intermarriages. 4.2 Who Are the “We”? From the linguistic perspective the difference between the two readings is not only in regards to the meaning of the verb and to the content of its complement, but also its semantics; the semantic denotation of the 1st pl pronominal element (whether it be the verbal personal agreement or the direct object pronominal suffix) changes. (45) On the role of history in the 4QMMT’s text, and the language surrounding such contexts, see Steven Fraade, “To Whom”, 513. (46) Assuming, similarly to Bernstein, “Employment”, 47, that the epilogue begins here. See also Perez M. Fernandez, “4QMMT: A Redactional Study”, RQ 18 (1997): 194, n. 23. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 252 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 253 According to the traditional reading this is an exclusive use of the pronoun “we”-- we who separated, as opposed to “you” who did not; (47) while in the alternative reading, the “we” is inclusive -- we, i.e. the Israelites (including you), separated from all the other nations. When there is no formal distinction between the uses of the pronouns, (48) it is only the context (and prosody in speech) that provides the right interpretation. As is well known, the division between “we,” “yousg ,” “youpl,” and “they” is a central point in 4QMMT, (49) and has played a significant role in the characterization of the various parts of the document. In particular, the question of the extension of the denotation of the “we” is crucial for analyzing the tone of the letter. If it is an exclusive “we,” then most likely 4QMMT is indeed a polemical text, as most scholars read it. However, based on the fact that a number of copies of this text were found in Cave 4, Fraade proposes that this is not a polemical letter, but rather an internal text circulated within the community. (50) Accordingly, he reads the 1st pl pronoun inclusively. While it might seem that our understanding is consistent only with a reading of “we” inclusively, I would like to argue that this is not necessary at all. Without taking a stand in the larger debate, it is possible that even if this is indeed a polemical text, the writer shifts pragmatically between the inclusive and the exclusive denotation of the pronoun. Deciding whether the “we” in this treatise should be inclusive or exclusive is the wrong tactic, since such alternations are necessary in every language that does not have a formal distinction (47) As Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, 111 emphasized: “The ‘we’ group says ‘we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people’ (‫פרשנו מרוב‬ ‫ )העם‬on halakhic grounds.” (48) In linguistics this distinction is called “clusivity.” It is worth noting that some languages have two separated forms for these two functions. For example, this is the case in the Austronesian languages and the Dravidian languages. For a survey of languages see The World Atlas of Language Structures Online http://wals.info/ feature/39. (49) Fernandez, “Redactional”, 196, 199, 202-203, for example, takes the distribution of the pronouns as the criteria with which to distinguish between the various parts of the text. For a summary of the various opinions especially in the context of this line in 4QMMT, see Adele Reinhartz, “We, You, They: Boundary Language in 4QMMT and the New Testament Epistles”, in Text, Thought, and Practice in Qumran and Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, Jointly Sponsored by the Hebrew University Center for the Study of Christianity, 11-13 January, 2004 (ed. R. A. Clements and D. R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 89-105, esp. pp. 89-95 (I wish to thank Aaron Koller for this reference). (50) For a specific discussion on our line, see Fraade, “To Whom,” 512-513. For a recent consideration of Fraade’s proposal see John J. Collins, Beyond, 20-21. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 253 9/09/11 08:15 254 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL between the two functions. (51) Even if 4QMMT is indeed a polemical text, one can see that right after our section, at what is considered to be the end of the text, “we” is not exclusive. Thus in C, 20 we read: ‫“ …ואנחנו מכירים שבאו מקצת הברכות והקללות‬And we are aware that part of the blessing and the curses have occurred” (even if this is an “author’s ‘we’,” in which “we” is used instead of “you,” this is definitely not an exclusive “we”). Thus, we see variations between the functions of the pronouns within this text as well, suggesting that an inclusive reading is definitely possible. (52) Regarding the general tone of the letter, my observation about the discussed line is consistent with the two general approaches for this letter. If one reads this text as a non-polemical treatise my proposal is very natural. However, my proposed reading can also be consistent even with the reading of 4QMMT as a polemical letter. According to what is proposed in the previous sections, this line either gives the reason behind a specific prohibition or serves as the opening of the epilogue, alluding to the common history of the entire nation. 5. A Possible Support for the Reading ‫עם‬ Some of the early readers of this paper (mentioned in the opening footnote) suggested that indeed ‫ רוב העמים‬is better established based on the parallel with Deut. 7 (in light of the discussion in [§2.2]), but that ‫ רוב העם‬here is a word play: the expression ‫ רוב העם‬relies on a biblical text and shifts it to a narrower extension. But this proposal deserves consideration only if ‫ רוב העם‬had actually appeared in the text. (53) It is hard to speculate on a possible word play without the form attested. As long as we do not have such evidence, I believe that ‫ רוב העמים‬should still be considered the default reading. (51) Imagine a situation in which there are four brothers, two arguing against the other two. One can easily envision the following conversation: “we (=the two of us) think so and so and you (=the two of you) think otherwise. But if we (=all four of us) disagree, we (=all four of us) will go to court.” (52) Høgenhaven, “Rhethorical Devices,” 199 made a similar point about the restoration ‫ כתבנו‬suggested for C10: “[this] is not a summary or a detailed presentation of any particular views of the ‘we’-group, but a summary of the contents of the scriptures or the biblical history… However it is still an ‘exclusive we’ since there is a clear contrast presented in the form: ‫‘ כתב[נו אליכה‬we wrote to you.’” (53) I should note that a possible motivation for the singular form could be the fact that in 4Q396II-IV, 12, which is thought to be the passage before the discussed one, we see written ‫“ ועל הזונות הנעסה בתוך העם‬and concerning the fornications carried out in the midst of the people.” However, since this is a different paragraph, it is completely reasonable that this is not the same discussion, but that the writer changed the topic, shifting from ‫ עם‬to ‫עמים‬. 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 254 9/09/11 08:15 A PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF 4QMMT 255 However, if there is a word play occurring, ‫ רוב העם‬-‫רוב העמים‬, and 4QMTT represents a transformation of the Ezra text from a separation from the ‫“ עמים‬nations,” to a separation from the ‫“ עם‬a nation,” then this would be a precedent for an isolated phenomenon found in the rabbinic literature. While the epithet ‫ פרוש‬Pharisee, usually appears in a sectarian sense and in contrast to ‫ צדוקי‬Sadducee, in one place in the Mishnah, in Îag. 2: 7, it stands in opposition with the epithet ‫עם הארץ‬: (25) ‫בגדי עם הארץ מדרס לפרושים‬ The clothes of ¨am ha’areÒ are deemed as imbued with treading-contactuncleanness for the Pharisees. A similar contrast is found twice in the Tosefta (Sabb. 1: 15; Îag. 3: 35). ‫ עם הארץ‬literally means “the people of the land” but in this context it is the individual person who is unreliable with regards to observing the laws of purity. The language of contrasting between the ‫ פרוש‬and ‫ עם הארץ‬immediately reminds us of the verses in Ezra that we encountered above in (2): ‫לא נבדלו העם ישראל והכהנים והלוים מעמי הארצות‬ The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the peoples of the land. And, indeed, Cohon rightly notes that in this context the epithet Pharisee is taken from the biblical concept of separation from the “people of the land”, but transformed the meaning of the latter from referring to the gentiles to the unobservant people within their nation. (54) Thus, since we find this development in the later rabbinic literature, one could speculate that the text in 4QMMT is a precedent of this phenomenon. But, again, it is hard to speculate about such a development when it does not appear in the actual text. Moreover, the similarity is only morphological: the singular form ‫ עם‬as opposed to (54) Cohon, “Pharisaism,” 69. While Cohon believed that this explains the origin of the epithet Pharisee in general, this is of course not necessary, and may reflect only a later interpretation by some rabbis of this epithet. See above n. 39 for the possibility of various rabbinic traditions about the concept of separation. For an elaborated discussion about this development of the contrast between ‫ עם הארץ‬and those who observe the laws of purity in the rabbinic literature, see Yair Furstenberg, Eating in a State of Purity during the Tannaitic Period: Tractate Teharot and its Historical and Cultural Contexts (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2010). 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 255 9/09/11 08:15 256 ELITZUR A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL the plural form ‫עמים‬. The semantics, however, is completely different, since in the rabbinic expression the entire expression ‫עם הארץ‬, as a unit, is referring to an individual, but if ‫ עם‬is restored in 4QMMT its meaning is of a collective noun with the meaning of nation. 6. Summary I argue that in a situation when we have ]‫ [פרשנו מרוב הע‬the default restoration should be ‫ עמים‬and not ‫עם‬. The positive arguments for restoring ‫ עמים‬are the following: 1. Given the appearances of this root in the Targum together with the intertextual relationships with the relevant passages from Deuteronomy and Ezra that seem to play a significant role in this part of 4QMMT, the default restoration is the plural form. As we saw, exactly the same expression is found in various places in rabbinic literature and poetry. 2. The combination ‫ רוב העמים‬is more easily explained linguistically. The negative arguments for not restoring ‫עם‬: The line is missing ‫“ דרך‬path”. The concept of schism expressed with other verbs in Qumran and, specifically, with the root ‫ פרש‬in Rabbinic Hebrew to indicate a separation from a way of life, not from people, suggests that we should have expected to read ‫פרשנו מדרך רוב‬ ‫העם‬. Even if the proposal to use ‫ העמים‬is not the default restoration, it is at least as plausible as the restoration of ‫העם‬. In either case, one should still be cautious when relying on the reading of ‫פרשנו מרוב העם‬ in the determination of the tone of 4QMMT and in the recounting of the history of this period. Elitzur A. BAR-ASHER SIEGAL 94861_RevQum2011-2_04_CS5.indd 256 9/09/11 08:15