historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

118 ADIEL SGHREMER
which had been noted in previous scholarly discussions, 41 indicates
not only that Scripture was not used as a ground for halakhic ruling
but also that once it came to be used for this purpose (much
later), it was used, at first, in a very simple and primitive manner. 42
As has been frequently observed, a similar tendency characterizes
the halakhic writings of the Qumran sect: although the use of Scripture
to justify halakha is evident, the conclusions drawn from the biblical
text can usually be regarded as a plain meaning of the verse. 43
A self-conscious explication of the manner in which the biblical text
was interpreted in halakhic contexts—halakhic midrash—is rarely to
be found. 44 This also indicates that the appeal to the written text of
the Torah was in its infancy at that time. Even what seemed to
many to be an example of highly developed halakhic midrash at
41 See Urbach, "The Drasha," 173 (= The World of the Sages, 57); Urbach, The
Halakhah, 96; Rosenthal, 448-55, esp. nn. 12-19, and the bibliography
cited there. The affinity with the literal meaning of Scripture is a feature that
characterizes, according to several scholars, the teachings of the School of Sharnmai.
See I. Knohl, "A Parasha Concerned with Accepting the Kingdom of Heaven,"
Tarbiz 53 (1983): 15 n. 19. The general resemblance between Shammaitic stands
and those of the 'ancient' (sectarian) halakha has been noted by many scholars too.
See Sussman, "History of Halakha," 72 n. 237, and the bibliography cited there.
42 See further below, p. 121.
43 See, for example, Kister, "Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah," 587: "The
Dead Sea sect interpreted the biblical text correctly . . . according to the plain meaning
of the verse"; 'Jubilees and the Qumran sect. . . adopt the approach implied
by the plain sense of the Torah" ("Some Aspects of Qumranic Halakhah," 580);
Qimron and Strugnell, DJD 10.133: "It seems that the sectarians strove to observe
the commandments in accordance with the literal sense of Scripture." Note, however,
that I did not say "the plain meaning," but only "a plain meaning." By doing
so, I wish to avoid the difficulty of having to determine a biblical text's original
meaning. I am trying to show that the reading of Scripture at Qumran (and in
other early sources) is confined to the relevant biblical text under discussion, contrary
to rabbinic midrash which, as is well known, brings all relevant verses into
the discussion. Cf. Fishbane, "Mikra at Qumran," 348-49.
44 See M. J. Bernstein, "Midrash Halakhah at Qumran? 11Q Temple 64:6-13 and
Deuteronomy 21:22-23," Gesher 7 (1979): 145—66; Bernstein, "Employment and
Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT," 34: "there is no comprehensive, or even
large-scale, treatment of legal exegetical methodology at Qumran"; A. Goldberg,
"The Early and Late Midrash," Tarbiz 50 (1981): 98-99 n. 16 (Hebrew); J. M.
Baumgarten, "Halivni's Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara" JQR 77 (1986): 62: "The use
of hermeneutic rules . . . was apparently confined to rabbinic tradition. Thus, the
efforts of some scholars to find illustrations of in Qumran exegesis have
not been successful"; L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 220: "Somewhat rare in the scrolls is a technique
of halakhic Midrash"; Fraade, "Midrash at Qumran," 59-79: "There is relatively
little legal midrash to be found at Qumran," 74; M. Kister, "A Common Heritage,"
105: "Most Qumranic interpretations of legal passages in the Pentateuch consist of
paraphrases."