Josh Burns
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Werrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <g-megillot@McMaster.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Megillot] Essenes, Sadducees, and Joseph Baumgarten
Dear Stephen,
If we are talking about the literal use of the Hebrew word 'halakha' in the
scrolls ... then you and I have no argument. As far as I can tell there is no
concrete evidence in the scrolls to suggest that the authors employed the word
'halakha' in the rabbinic sense.
If, however, we are talking about using the term 'halakha' as a generic label to
describe the legal rulings and interpretive strategies present in the scrolls,
then I see no reason why we should not use it. As Philip Davies noted earlier,
there is very little difference between the techniques and presuppositions
employed by the authors of the scrolls and the rabbis in the formulation of
their respective legal positions. Certainly a word like 'legal' is less loaded
than 'halakha', with that I have no issue. But there is an added nuance to the
word 'halakha' involving the hermeneutical approach of the author that is
absent in a word like 'legal.'
There have been a great many books and articles written on the legal material in
the scrolls using the generic label 'halakha' with little or no confusion. One
that immediately jumps to mind is Schiffman's dissertation entitled: "The
Halakhah at Qumran." Baumgarten has used the word himself in the title of at
least two articles: "Halakhic Polemics in New Fragments from Qumran Cave 4."
and "A Qumran Text with Agrarian Halakhah." Rather than occasionally "using
the word in quotes and or with a demurrer about its use," as you suggest, the
word is used by these authors often and frequently without quotes. One of the
ways Baumgarten specifies that he is using the term generically is by
describing the legal material in the scrolls as "general 'halakhah'" (my
quotations), as he does in his introduction to the DD in the EDSS. In
"Halakhic Polemics in New Fragments from Qumran Cave 4," Baumgarten even goes
so far as to call the Damascus Document a "halakhic novella."
Concerning your final example:
"To take another example, Karaites did not accept Rabbinic halakha."
Saying that the Karaites did not accept Rabbinic 'halakha' does not mean that
they did not perform their own form of 'halakha'. On the contrary, they
applied the similar methods and techniques to the bilical material and came up
with different legal interpretations or 'halakha'. Although the rabbis coined
the term and came up with their own interpretations, that is not to say that
other groups didn't engage in the same sort of activity with different results.
Best, Ian
-- Ian Werrett PhD Candidate St Mary's College University of St Andrews
-----------------------------------------------------------------
University of St Andrews Webmail: http://webmail.st-andrews.ac.uk
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
_______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
