Afterword: the Temple in the Mishnah This Book Is Dedicated to a Study Of

Afterword: The Temple in the Mishnah

This book is dedicated to a study of the sotah ritual itself. As a postscript, I would like to consider it within the broader context of the Mishnah. What is the relation of our ritual to other Mishnaic ritual Narratives? Is it exceptional in its construction, and if so, why is it presented like an ordinary rabbinic practice? What made it possible to sever the sotah ritual from its original biblical context and to transform it into a locus of explor- ing the greater issues of gender and sexual morality? And finally, what does this move tell us about the Mishnah at large? Neither an analysis of the gestures of the ritual itself nor a study of the ritualistic framework within which they appear will yield answers to these questions. What is required is an analysis of the ritual’s textual setting—the Mishnah and its presentation of the Temple cult. In what follows, I consider the possible implications of my findings for our understanding of Mishnah Sotah in its broader context—ritual descriptions in the Mishnah, Mishnaic Temple laws in general, and ultimately the very nature of the Tannaitic house of study. These discussions do not offer concrete observations, but they point out the effect the current study might have on some broader questions in Mishnah scholarship, new ground that should be broken for future study of these topics. The Mishnah contains some forty descriptions of various rituals such as the offering of first fruits, the Passover Seder, fasts for rain or punishment by flagellation. These descriptions—whose distinctive narrative style dif- fers from the laws in the Mishnah—may occupy an entire tractate (Yoma, Tamid), a chapter (Pesahim 10, Negaim 14, Parah 3), a single mishnah or even a part of one (Bekhorot 9:7, Zevahim 5:3).1 Most descriptions pertain to the Temple and its cult, and only a small portion of them discusses rituals actually practiced in the second century CE.2 Mishnaic Temple rituals

1 For a list of ritual descriptions in the Mishnah, see Breuer, “Ritual Descriptions,” 302, n. 17, and the critique in Rosen-Zvi, Rite, 242–43, n. 1. 2 It is difficult to compile such a list, because there is no way of knowing whether some of the rituals (such as corporal punishments, see Berkowitz’s prudent discussion, Execu- tion, 12–17) were ever practiced and whether rituals that were definitely practiced (such as festival and purity rituals) followed the Mishnah’s descriptions. Out of some forty ritual descriptions in the Mishnah, three were definitely practiced: the Passover Seder (m. Pes. 10); fasts for rain (m. Taan. 2); halitzah (m. Yev. 12:6). Three more were probably practiced: civil proceedings (m. San. 3:6–7); flagellation (m. Mak. 3:12–14); and cattle tithe (m. Bek. 9:7). 240 afterword: the temple in the mishnah are usually treated as descriptions harking back to time of the Temple,3 while other, non-priestly rituals are considered Tannaitic innovations devised to adapt to post-Temple reality.4 Recent findings, however, sug- gest that this distinction is rather artificial. A Case in point is Mishnah Yoma. David Zvi Hoffmann5 and Jacob N. Epstein dated it to the Second Temple period. In the words of the lat- ter: “The order of the Yom Kippur service [in m. Yoma chap. 1–7] is early (additions from later Tannaim notwithstanding), since the high priest was taught the order of his duties according to this order [as per m. Yoma 1:3].”6 However, the Mishnah’s testimony, “And they would read to him the order of proceedings for the Day,” cannot possibly be considered as evidence supporting this early dating, since it refers to Leviticus 16, not to a (postulated) proto-Mishnaic narrative.7 Epstein appears to rely more on the tractate’s contents, than on any specific textual testimony, in his assertion that this is an “old Mishna.” The early dating of Mishnah Yoma is contradicted both by evidence supporting both a later dating and by clear traces of an ideological, rabbinic construction of the proceedings. Thus, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra8 made weighty claims against perceiv- ing the Mishnah as a reliable account of Temple worship. Certain details appearing in the Mishnah contradict other accounts contemporary with the Temple (i.e., Josephus, Philo, Qumranic literature). Some elements are clear anachronisms,9 while other details derive from Midrashic inferences and legal analogies. The Mishnaic narration of Temple liturgy appear to have been influenced also by post-Temple rabbinic prayer.10 In addition, most named sayings in Mishnah Sotah are attributed to Ushan sages,11

3 Chapter 6, section I above. 4 On the narration of the Seder in m. Pes. 10, see Safrai & Safrai, Haggada; Yuval, Two Nations; Friedman, First Pesach, 430–432; Hauptman, “Haggada.” On the fasts for rain in m. Taan. 2, see Levine, Fasts. 5 Hoffmann, Erste, 19–22. 6 Epstein, Prolegomena, 36. ”.was also used to denote Leviticus 16 סדר יומא See Hoffmann, Erste, 21: “the term 7 8 Stökl, Yom Kippur, 19–28. 9 Such as the court elders who adjure the high priest (m. Yoma 1:5) and the sages who instruct him (1:6), as well as explicit and implicit criticism of the priestly class. Rabbinic authority in the context of Temple and its cult figure in other places in the Mishnah as well (e.g., m. Shek. 1:3; Bek. 6:8). See Rosen-Zvi, “Blemishes,” 55. 10 See also Rosen-Zvi, “Liturgy.” Prayer constructed out of a series of benedictions is typical of post-destruction Tannaitic liturgy (the Shema and its surrounding benedictions; the eighteen benedictions of the Amida; the three benedictions after meal, etc.). Indeed, only the Mishnah attributes them to the Temple period. 11 R. Yehuda (1:1; 4:4, 6; 5:4; 6:1, 8); R. Meir (3:6, 7; 4:6); R. Yose (4:4, 6; 5:1; 6:3).