thanks for the citation-- i now recall george had written me about this months ago and i saw the passage but forgot about it until geoff brought it tou our attention again. I'm not sure of all the Yalkut's sources here but here is what we find:
yalkut Jeremiah preserves: some say their daughters married priests and their grandchildren offered sacrifices-- this doesnt make rechabites priests at all-- lineage follows males. but the same yalkut cites what we have now in mechilta jethro parsha 2: it once happened that one of the water drinkers (rechabites) offered a sacrifice and a voice came out of the holy and holies and said-- the one who accepted your sacrifice in the desert will accept this sacrifice now-- this also suggests they were not priests finally there is also a crypric comments that they entered the holy part of the temple-- and that permission was unconditional, unlike david's covenant that was conditional. However this is disputed-- and the claim is converts cant do that only their descendants through the female line can. again its not clear they acted as priests. to settle the issue the claim is made they served on the high court-- the sanhedrin.- the upshot seems to be that they were not priests although some think they could enter the sanctuary, others even think one did offer a sacrifice (in the desert they did apparently), the closest thing I find to being priests is the statement they had an eternal covenant which gave them certain temple rights. NOWHERE can I find they themselves were priests. Yalkut is suggestive as is another passage i mentioned earlier about them offering sacrifices when the messiah comes-- whatever that means-- but the text never just says they were priests-- no text clearly says it. I do not have the means to computer search it but if Yalkut is the best that exists then the peg is weak. what does eusebius mean-- likely a priestly descendant from some woman of the rechabite clan-- also nothing about them marrying high priests-- so eisenmans's note goes beyond the evidence-- although there is ambiguity and if you believed they were priests to begin with you might construe a passage ot two to intimate that-- But again: I doubt any passage wantes to make the male line real priests. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Herb Basser ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 2:37 PM Subject: RE: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Ian Hutchesson > Sent: 29 May 2002 06:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: orion-list Jeremiah's Eternal Priesthood, the Rechabim > > Ian writes: > On page 229 of JBJ Eisenman writes "We shall see below how the > Rabbinic tradition also connects these "Rechabites" [..] with the > High Priest or High Priest class..." Then on page 241 he writes "If > we keep in mind the Rabbinic notices above that "the sons" or > "daughters of the Rechabites" married those of the High Priest..." > The trouble is, looking "below" page 229 and "above" page 241, I > could find no Rabbinic tradition cited... > ***** > > On page 999 of JBJ, note 22, Eisenman writes: '....followed by the tradition > in the Yalkut on Jer.35.12, that the grandsons of the Rechabites served in > the Temple and their daughters married the sons of the Priests.' > > Perhaps someone would comment. > > Geoff > For private reply, e-mail to "Herb Basser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: "unsubscribe Orion." Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
