Jonathan Klawans, “Moral and Ritual Purity,” in The Historical Jesus in Context, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John D. Crossan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 266-84, at 274, in reference to m. Kelim 1:6-8: “there are two kinds of exclusions, some based on levels of defilement, and others based on class.”

Jonathan Klawans, “Moral and Ritual Purity,” in The Historical Jesus in Context, ed. Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John D. Crossan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 266-84, at 274, in reference to m. Kelim 1:6-8: “there are two kinds of exclusions, some based on levels of defilement, and others based on class.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 148.

Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 148.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Yohanan Aharoni, “The Solomonic Temple, The Tabernacle and the Arad Sanctuary,” in Orient and Occident: Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty–fifth Birthday, ed. Harry A. Hoffner Jr. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 1-8; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: A Study of the Priestly Strata in the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 204 [Hebrew]; Victor A. Hurowitz, “YHWH’s Exalted House: Aspects of the design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 63-110, esp. 68, 92; Gershon Galil, “Solomon’s Temple: Fiction or Reality?” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, ed. Gershon Galil et al., aoat 392 (Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2012), 137-48.

See Yohanan Aharoni, “The Solomonic Temple, The Tabernacle and the Arad Sanctuary,” in Orient and Occident: Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty–fifth Birthday, ed. Harry A. Hoffner Jr. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 1-8; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: A Study of the Priestly Strata in the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 204 [Hebrew]; Victor A. Hurowitz, “YHWH’s Exalted House: Aspects of the design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 63-110, esp. 68, 92; Gershon Galil, “Solomon’s Temple: Fiction or Reality?” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, ed. Gershon Galil et al., aoat 392 (Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2012), 137-48.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 148.

Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 148.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Aharon Shemesh, “The Dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees on the Death Penalty,” Tarbiz 70 (2000): 17-33 [Hebrew], esp. 20-25. He relies on the Temple Scroll (11QTa 35:4-5); a non-verbal reference to הזר הקרב יומת and on 4Q266 (4QDa) 6 ii 9-10; as well as on the reference of the Temple Scroll to the chel around the temple (46:9-12). See also t. Kelim, B. Qam, 1:6—even the high priest, they (would) break his skull with clubs—and m. Sanh. 9:6, which is ambiguous, concerning who is in charge of killing an impure priest and a non-priest who served in the temple (see also t. Sanh. 14:16, Ker. 1:5, Zebaḥ. 12:17).

Aharon Shemesh, “The Dispute between the Pharisees and the Sadducees on the Death Penalty,” Tarbiz 70 (2000): 17-33 [Hebrew], esp. 20-25. He relies on the Temple Scroll (11QT^a 35:4-5); a non-verbal reference to הזר הקרב יומת and on 4Q266 (4QD^a) 6 ii 9-10; as well as on the reference of the Temple Scroll to the chel around the temple (46:9-12). See also t. Kelim, B. Qam, 1:6—even the high priest, they (would) break his skull with clubs—and m. Sanh. 9:6, which is ambiguous, concerning who is in charge of killing an impure priest and a non-priest who served in the temple (see also t. Sanh. 14:16, Ker. 1:5, Zebaḥ. 12:17).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Translation based on Richard S. Sarason, “The Significance of the Land of Israel in the Mishnah,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 109-36, at 112, and Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1933), 605. The numbering is mine.

Translation based on Richard S. Sarason, “The Significance of the Land of Israel in the Mishnah,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 109-36, at 112, and Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1933), 605. The numbering is mine.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Vered Noam, From Qumran to the Rabbinic Revolution: Concepts of Impurity (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010), 27-33 [Hebrew].

Vered Noam, From Qumran to the Rabbinic Revolution: Concepts of Impurity (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010), 27-33 [Hebrew].)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Already Hanoch Albeck, The Six Orders of the Mishnah, Volume 6: The Order of Purities, with New Commentary, Introductions, Additions, and Supplements (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1959), 508 [Hebrew], points out the correlation between the ten impurities of mishnah 5 and the ten holinesses. However, the ten holinesses, like mishnayot 1-4, also contains eleven degrees, but as can be seen (note 35 above), the degree of “between the vestibule and the altar” is disputed. This is not the only case in rabbinic literature, where a literary manipulation is fashioned in order to reach the number ten, following a previous list of ten elements; see b. Roš Haš. 31a-b, where two stations in the “wandering” of the Sanhedrin are repeated in order to reach ten stations altogether (pace the view of R. Eleazar who relies on scripture to argue for only six stations), as a parallel to the ten stations of the Shekinah. However, the relevant duplication is absent from considerable number of Babylonian Talmud manuscripts, such as ms London (bl), Munich (95), Oxford (Bodl. heb. d. 45), Cambridge (T-S F1) and New York (jts 108 and 1608), as well as the Pesaro print.

Already Hanoch Albeck, The Six Orders of the Mishnah, Volume 6: The Order of Purities, with New Commentary, Introductions, Additions, and Supplements (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1959), 508 [Hebrew], points out the correlation between the ten impurities of mishnah 5 and the ten holinesses. However, the ten holinesses, like mishnayot 1-4, also contains eleven degrees, but as can be seen (note 35 above), the degree of “between the vestibule and the altar” is disputed. This is not the only case in rabbinic literature, where a literary manipulation is fashioned in order to reach the number ten, following a previous list of ten elements; see b. Roš Haš. 31a-b, where two stations in the “wandering” of the Sanhedrin are repeated in order to reach ten stations altogether (pace the view of R. Eleazar who relies on scripture to argue for only six stations), as a parallel to the ten stations of the Shekinah. However, the relevant duplication is absent from considerable number of Babylonian Talmud manuscripts, such as ms London (bl), Munich (95), Oxford (Bodl. heb. d. 45), Cambridge (T-S F1) and New York (jts 108 and 1608), as well as the Pesaro print.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mayer E. Lichtenstein, “There are Ten Degrees of Holiness,” Mishlav 28 (1995): 31-37 [Hebew]. That the holiness of the Land of Israel is exceptional in the ten holinesses list was pointed out already by R. Hai Gaon and A. Kohut, Aruch Completum, 9 vols. (New York: Pardes, 1955), 6:235, as referred to by Albeck, The Six Orders, 508. See also Yitzhaq Feder, “The Wilderness Camp Paradigm in the Holiness Source and the Temple Scroll: From Purity Laws to Cult Politics,” jaj 5 (2014): 290-310 n. 48. In addition to the different nature of the holiness of the land of Israel and Jerusalem, compared with the rest of the ten holinesses, there are, of course, other aspects to the sanctity of the land of Israel and Jerusalem, not mentioned in the ten holinesses. However, as we are dealing here with concentric circles around the temple, any aspect of holiness in this list needs to relate to the temple; see Yaakov H. Charlap, The Land of Israel in Tannaitic and Amoraic Literature (Jerusalem: Yad HaRav Nissim, 2003), 8-10 [Hebrew]. Regarding the different aspects of the uniqueness of Jerusalem in rabbinic literature, see ʾAbot R. Nat. A 35, B 39 (Shechter, 104, 107); t. Neg. 6:2 (Zuckermandel, 625); b. B. Qam. 82b; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Beit Habechirah 7:14; and Samuel Bialoblocki, “Jerusalem in the Halakhah,” in Alei Ayin: The Salman Schocken Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1948-1952), 25-74 [Hebrew], esp. 47; Louis Finkelstein, “The Halakhoth Applied to Jerusalem,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, Hebrew Section (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950), 351-69; Alexander Guttmann, “Jerusalem in Tannaitic Law,” huca 40-41 (1969-1970): 251-75; Tuvia Kahana, “To the Understanding of the Jerusalem Stipulations Baraita,” Beit Mikra 21 (1976): 182-92 [Hebrew]. Concerning the area within the wall of Jerusalem, see the discussion in Hanan Birenboim, “Observance of the Laws of Bodily Purity in Jewish Society in the Land of Israel During the Second Temple Period” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006), 174-78.

Mayer E. Lichtenstein, “There are Ten Degrees of Holiness,” Mishlav 28 (1995): 31-37 [Hebew]. That the holiness of the Land of Israel is exceptional in the ten holinesses list was pointed out already by R. Hai Gaon and A. Kohut, Aruch Completum, 9 vols. (New York: Pardes, 1955), 6:235, as referred to by Albeck, The Six Orders, 508. See also Yitzhaq Feder, “The Wilderness Camp Paradigm in the Holiness Source and the Temple Scroll: From Purity Laws to Cult Politics,” jaj 5 (2014): 290-310 n. 48. In addition to the different nature of the holiness of the land of Israel and Jerusalem, compared with the rest of the ten holinesses, there are, of course, other aspects to the sanctity of the land of Israel and Jerusalem, not mentioned in the ten holinesses. However, as we are dealing here with concentric circles around the temple, any aspect of holiness in this list needs to relate to the temple; see Yaakov H. Charlap, The Land of Israel in Tannaitic and Amoraic Literature (Jerusalem: Yad HaRav Nissim, 2003), 8-10 [Hebrew]. Regarding the different aspects of the uniqueness of Jerusalem in rabbinic literature, see ʾAbot R. Nat. A 35, B 39 (Shechter, 104, 107); t. Neg. 6:2 (Zuckermandel, 625); b. B. Qam. 82b; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Beit Habechirah 7:14; and Samuel Bialoblocki, “Jerusalem in the Halakhah,” in Alei Ayin: The Salman Schocken Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1948-1952), 25-74 [Hebrew], esp. 47; Louis Finkelstein, “The Halakhoth Applied to Jerusalem,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, Hebrew Section (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950), 351-69; Alexander Guttmann, “Jerusalem in Tannaitic Law,” huca 40-41 (1969-1970): 251-75; Tuvia Kahana, “To the Understanding of the Jerusalem Stipulations Baraita,” Beit Mikra 21 (1976): 182-92 [Hebrew]. Concerning the area within the wall of Jerusalem, see the discussion in Hanan Birenboim, “Observance of the Laws of Bodily Purity in Jewish Society in the Land of Israel During the Second Temple Period” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006), 174-78.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Noam, “Josephus and Early Halakhah,” 137-39. As for Num 5 in relation to a person who had contact with a corpse, regarding the man who has a nocturnal emission, there is a specific biblical reference demanding his exclusion from the war camp: Deut 23:11. Hanan Birenboim, “Expelling the Unclean from the Cities of Israel and the Uncleanness of Lepers and Men with a Discharge, according to 4Q274 1 i,” dsd 19 (2012): 28-54, reads the Temple Scroll as isolating zavim within the city, but does not explain the discrepancy created in that case with Josephus J.W. 5.227 and Ant. 3.261-264, where they are excluded from the city.

Noam, “Josephus and Early Halakhah,” 137-39. As for Num 5 in relation to a person who had contact with a corpse, regarding the man who has a nocturnal emission, there is a specific biblical reference demanding his exclusion from the war camp: Deut 23:11. Hanan Birenboim, “Expelling the Unclean from the Cities of Israel and the Uncleanness of Lepers and Men with a Discharge, according to 4Q274 1 i,” dsd 19 (2012): 28-54, reads the Temple Scroll as isolating zavim within the city, but does not explain the discrepancy created in that case with Josephus J.W. 5.227 and Ant. 3.261-264, where they are excluded from the city.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Yoram Erder, The Karaite Mourners of Zion and the Qumran Scrolls: On the History of an Alternative to Rabbinic Judaism (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2004), 249-50, 260 [Hebrew]

Yoram Erder, The Karaite Mourners of Zion and the Qumran Scrolls: On the History of an Alternative to Rabbinic Judaism (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2004), 249-50, 260 [Hebrew])| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

As observed by David E. Aune, “Paul, Ritual Purity, and the Ritual Baths South of the Temple Mount (Acts 21:15-28),” in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. Peter Spitaler (Washington, dc: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011), 287-320, esp. 288; repr. in Aune, Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity, wunt 1.303 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 414-41.

As observed by David E. Aune, “Paul, Ritual Purity, and the Ritual Baths South of the Temple Mount (Acts 21:15-28),” in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. Peter Spitaler (Washington, dc: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011), 287-320, esp. 288; repr. in Aune, Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity, wunt 1.303 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 414-41.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Noam, From Qumran, 180.

Noam, From Qumran, 180.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Walfish, “Conceptual Ramifications”; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Bodies and Temple: The List of Priestly Bodily Defects in Mishnah Bekhorot, Chapter 7,” Jewish Studies 43 (2005-2006): 49-87, esp. 78-79; Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, JSJSup 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 163 n. 50, 239-54; Rosen-Zvi, “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric: New Directions in Mishnah Research,” ajsr 32 (2008): 235-49, esp. 242-48. For a suggested polemic with other Jewish views of the temple as lying behind Middot, see Meir Bar-Ilan, “Are Tammid and Middoth Polemical Tractates?” Sidra 5 (1989): 27-40 [Hebrew].

Walfish, “Conceptual Ramifications”; Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Bodies and Temple: The List of Priestly Bodily Defects in Mishnah Bekhorot, Chapter 7,” Jewish Studies 43 (2005-2006): 49-87, esp. 78-79; Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, JSJSup 160 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 163 n. 50, 239-54; Rosen-Zvi, “Orality, Narrative, Rhetoric: New Directions in Mishnah Research,” ajsr 32 (2008): 235-49, esp. 242-48. For a suggested polemic with other Jewish views of the temple as lying behind Middot, see Meir Bar-Ilan, “Are Tammid and Middoth Polemical Tractates?” Sidra 5 (1989): 27-40 [Hebrew].)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Joshua Schwartz, “The Temple Cult Without the Sages: Prolegomena on the Description of the Second Temple Period Cult according to Sources of the Second Temple Period,” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 7-19, at 7: “The writings of Josephus reflect the reality of the Second Temple period, those of the rabbis, whether in Middot or in other rabbinic writings do not.” Nevertheless, and more surprisingly when we have a parallel description in Josephus for comparison, some still adopt the reliability of the description in the Mishnah as an axiom, e.g., Nakman, “The Halakhah in the Writings of Josephus,” 232: “the Mishnah is a book of halakhah, whereas Josephus gives a more general description, incidentally to the historical narrative.”

See Joshua Schwartz, “The Temple Cult Without the Sages: Prolegomena on the Description of the Second Temple Period Cult according to Sources of the Second Temple Period,” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 7-19, at 7: “The writings of Josephus reflect the reality of the Second Temple period, those of the rabbis, whether in Middot or in other rabbinic writings do not.” Nevertheless, and more surprisingly when we have a parallel description in Josephus for comparison, some still adopt the reliability of the description in the Mishnah as an axiom, e.g., Nakman, “The Halakhah in the Writings of Josephus,” 232: “the Mishnah is a book of halakhah, whereas Josephus gives a more general description, incidentally to the historical narrative.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Schwartz, “Once More,” 245.

Schwartz, “Once More,” 245.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Naftali S. Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 88: “When the Temple still existed, it is doubtful that a non-priestly and non-aristocratic group like the rabbis could have had any important role in the Temple. But when the Temple was gone, the rabbis could lay claim to it . . . They did so not merely by inserting their predecessors into a position of authority over Temple ritual . . . but also by constructing and mapping the Temple’s sacred space.”

Naftali S. Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 88: “When the Temple still existed, it is doubtful that a non-priestly and non-aristocratic group like the rabbis could have had any important role in the Temple. But when the Temple was gone, the rabbis could lay claim to it . . . They did so not merely by inserting their predecessors into a position of authority over Temple ritual . . . but also by constructing and mapping the Temple’s sacred space.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation