JSJ 047 02 183-211 457 Orian PDF

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211 Journal for
the Study of
Judaism
brill.com/jsj
Josephus’s Seven Purities and the Mishnah’s

Ten Holinesses
Matan Orian
School of Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University
orianmat@post.tau.ac.il
Abstract
This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to
the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus’s Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the rele-
vant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other, in Mishnah Kelim 1:6-9,
titled (the) ten holinesses. After analyzing the guiding principles behind the seven puri-
ties, this paper will examine the two hierarchies against the background of the biblical
instructions for the exclusion of impure persons from the desert camp, and the inter-
pretation of these instructions according to Josephus, the Temple Scroll from Qumran,
and rabbinic literature. It will show that, while the seven purities is a cultic perception
coherent to the exclusion of different categories of people from the temple, the ten
holinesses follows different guiding principles.
Keywords
Mishnah – Kelim – holiness hierarchy – exclusion from Temple – halakah – Josephus –

Jewish War – ritual impurity
The Seven Purities
In the introduction to the Jewish War ( J.W. 1.26), Josephus promises to describe
the seven purities (αἱ ἑπτὰ ἁγνεῖαι), among other temple related matters, indi-
cating this was a well-known and fundamental religious concept of his time.
* I wish to thank Vered Noam, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, and Menahem Kahanah for reading earlier
drafts of this paper.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi 10.1163/15700631-12340457

184 orian
The ‫עזרה‬: sanctuary

court of Israel, court of the
priests and the altar Northern gates of the
‫עזרה‬
women’s court
chel =
balustrade
rampart
Temple Mount wall
The Jerusalem Herodian temple and its courts.
He keeps his promise in J.W. 5.193-199, 227-229, 236.1 Based on these sections we
can comprise a list of the seven purities. To help us follow the list more closely,
above is a photograph of the three-dimensional “Holy Land Hotel” model of
Jerusalem towards the end of the Second Temple period.2
1 The reason for the large interval between these three parts of the description of the seven
purities is that Josephus combined this description with his description of the temple
architecture, as well as with the description of the vestments of the high priest. Nonetheless,
this fact does not render Josephus’s description of the seven purities any less systematic.
2 Constructed in the 1960s under the guidance of Prof. M. Avi-Yonah and now in The Israel
Museum. By making use of this image for illustration purposes, I do not claim historical
accuracy for this specific model. Permission to print the photograph has been granted by the
photographer, Michael Jacobson, and by the rights owner, Holyland Tourism 1992 Ltd., via the
Image Licensing Manager at The Israel Museum.
Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

josephus ’ s seven purities and the mishnah ’ s ten holinesses 185
Josephus’s seven purities:
1. The city, where lepers and zavim may not enter.3

2. The (entire) temple (τὸ ἱερόν),4 where menstruating women may not
enter.
3. The balustrade, within which no foreigner may enter.
4. The women’s court.5
5. The court of Israel,6 where (lay) men, if not entirely pure, and even
priests, if still undergoing purification,7 may not enter, as well as pure
women (also in Ant. 15.419).
3 The transliteration zavim is preferred over a variety of English translations and transliterations
of γονόρροιοι, such as: gonorrheics / men and women suffering from a flux / a discharge /
an issue / a running issue / abnormal genital flow / gonorrhea / spermatorrhoea. See also
Josephus, Ant. 3.261—οἱ περὶ τὴν γονὴν ῥεόμενοι.
4 That is, the Temple Mount. On Josephus’s use of ἱερόν in the sense of “the Temple
Mount,” see Yaron Z. Eliav, God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 1-45, pace Yuval Shahar, “The Concept of
the Temple Mount in the Second Temple Period,” New Studies on Jerusalem 14 (2008): 203-9
[Hebrew], and Israel Shatzman’s essay “The Temple Mount, the Temple and the Sanctuary,”
in the latest Hebrew edition of Bellum Judaicum, trans. Lisa Ullman (Jerusalem: Carmel,
2009), appendix 8: 646-59, esp. 655-58 [Hebrew].
5 Josephus, here, as well as in Ant. 15.416-420 and Ag. Ap. 2.103-104, does not use the designations
“women’s court,” “court of Israel,” “court of the priests” but, rather, the second or third or
interior court. For the sake of convenience, I use the terms in the parallel list in m. Kelim
1:6-9.
6 m. Mid. 5:1, refers to the area starting at the court of Israel (Mid. 2:5-6) and inwards in a single
term—‫העזרה‬, divided into the court of Israel, called by this mishnah ‫מקום דרסת ישראל‬,
and the court of the priests (Mid. 2:6), called by this mishnah ‫מקום דרסת הכהנים‬. Josephus
calls the same area ἡ ἔνδον αὐλή (J.W. 5.227) and this is the only occurrence in all of Josephus’s
works, where αὐλή appears in relation to the Jerusalem temple. It thus seems that Josephus’s
αὐλή in J.W. 5.227 echoes the term ‫העזרה‬.
7 J.W. 5.227—ἀνδρῶν δ’ οἱ μὴ καθάπαν ἡγνευκότες . . . καὶ τῶν ἱερέων πάλιν οἱ καθαρεύοντες. The use
of the perfect versus the present tense, in light of the demand of complete purity from the
lay men, suggests that the priests in question are not yet entirely pure. However, this reading,
preferred by the LCL edition, follows the Latin translation of the text, whereas the Greek MSS
read μὴ before καθαρεύοντες, and that reading, preferred by L. Ullman (note 4 above), 468,
translates as “even priests, if impure.” This difference in meaning has no significance in our
context.

186 orian
6. The court of the priests,8 where priests may enter, regardless of

blemishes.
7. The altar and the sanctuary, where no priest with a blemish or one who
has drunk wine may ascend.9
8. The holy of holies, where only the high priest enters, once a year, on the
day of general fast (Day of Atonement).
As evident, Josephus names eight different restricted areas in his hierarchy

of the seven purities, culminating in the holy of holies. However, as suggested
by the parallel descriptions in Ant. 15.418 and Ag. Ap. 2.104, the women’s court
8 Separating the court of Israel from that of the priests ( J.W. 5.226, 228) was another low stone
balustrade or parapet (γείσιον), referred to by m. Mid. 2:6 as ‫ראשן פספסין‬, according to the
Kaufmann MS. The Parma MS also reads ‫ ראשן‬here, but the Firenze MS reads ‫ראשי‬. Literally,
this combination means ends of flagstones/strip of mosaics; see Uzi Leibner, “The 23rd
Day of Heshvan in Megillat Taʿanit,” Tarbiz 71 (2001-2002): 5-17, n. 36 [Hebrew]. The same
separation is mentioned in the description of bet ha-moqed (the House of the Hearth) which
was half on holy ground and half on common ground (m. Mid. 1:6), and in the description
of the separation in the upper chamber of the sanctuary itself, marking the border between
the holy and the holy of holies of the lower floor (m. Mid. 4:5). However, according to
R. Eliezer the son of Jacob (m. Mid. 2:6), an elevation separated the court of the priests from
that of Israel; and see in that context 2 Macc 10:26. Antiquities 8.95 attributes a separation
between priests and laity to King Solomon, while Josephus adds therein that the element of
separation was termed γείσιον in the local language, which he further compares to another
Greek word, θριγκός. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary, AB 41 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 393, suggests that γείσιον is a
transliteration of ‫חיץ‬. The suggestion of Abraham Schalit, Antiquity of the Jews in Hebrew,
3 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1944-1963), 2:129 n. 147, that the Hebrew origin was a
popular metathesis of ‫סיג‬, seems a bit remote. In addition, Ezekiel (42:7, 10) uses the Hebrew
word ‫ גדר‬for a similar separating element in his temple, which had an inner court (for priests)
and an outer court (for laity). In the Temple Scroll each of the three courts had a wall (‫)קיר‬.
For further speculations regarding the Hebrew term behind the relevant partition element,
see Charles Clermont-Ganneau, “Une stèle du temple de Jérusalem,” Comptes rendus des
séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 16 (1872): 170-96, at 188 n. 1. I therefore
do not understand how Stephen R. Llewelyn and Dionysia van Beek, “Reading the Temple
Warning as a Greek Visitor,” JSJ 42 (2011): 1-22, reached their statement (at n. 17) to the effect,
that: “There is no evidence for a physical separation between the court of Israel (lay males)
and the court of the priests.”
9 Compare these last two restrictions concerning the priests with Ant. 3.278-279, Ag. Ap. 1.199.

shared the relevant purity requirements of the court of Israel,10 and therefore
does not constitute an autonomous temple boundary.11
Clearly, not all of the seven purities are ritual impurities—or impurities
at all:12 take, for instance, the gender-based access distinction between Jewish
10 In Ag. Ap. 2.104, like J.W. 5.227, the requirement for full purification of Jewish men relates
to their entry into the court of Israel. However, in the same section, Josephus requires
complete purity (ab omni pollutione mundae) from the women who enter the women’s
court. In Ant. 15.418, Josephus says that into the women’s court “we used to come, pure,
with (our) wives” (παρῄειμεν ἁγνοὶ μετὰ γυναικῶν). Subsequently, when he mentions the
court of Israel (immediately afterwards), he does not refer to any purity requirements.
John M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 10—Against
Apion, ed. Steve Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 223 n. 368, suggested resolving this apparent
contradiction by claiming that the purity required from women in Ag. Ap. 2.104 and J.W.
5.227 is a comparative reference to their menstruating state (or after childbirth), which
prohibited them from entering the Temple Mount. However, it appears stretched that “ab
omni pollutione mundae” would refer solely to female impurities, especially as Josephus
mentions the similar demand of complete purity in relation to men, too. Furthermore,
according to this hypothesis, there was no area in the temple where complete purity
in general (i.e., apart from feminine impurities) was required from women, which is
improbable. Strictly speaking, Ag. Ap. 2.104 suggests another possibility—namely, that
there was a difference in the restriction of access for Jewish men and women in the same
defined state of impurity: i.e., that men who were not in a state of full ritual purity could
enter the women’s court, while women who were not completely pure could not do so.
However, this also appears improbable, and in any case contradicts Ant. 15.418. I therefore
prefer Richard Bauckham’s view, “Josephus’ Account of the Temple in Against Apion 2.102-
109,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem, ed. Louis H. Feldman and John R. Levison, AGJU 34
(Leiden: Brill, 1996), 327-47, at 333, who follows Ant. 15.418 in suggesting that men, if not
completely pure, were not allowed into the women’s court either.
11 As we shall see below, in rabbinic literature, the women’s court did not share the sanctity
of the ‫עזרה‬. If we wish to reconcile this with the fact that complete purity was required
from all those who entered there (see the previous note), then we must assume that—
although this was not part of the sacred temple grounds, since this was nevertheless the
farthest point that women could reach in the temple—the requirement for complete
purity was extended to this court.
12 Ritual impurities are the mundane, unavoidable, yet impermanent impurities—such as
those arising from various bodily discharges. The impurity is transmitted to others and
onto objects, but has a prescribed purification ritual for its removal. Usually, there is
no interdiction on becoming ritually impure (however, see the ban on corpse impurity
in relation to priests: Lev 21:1-4), and contracting these impurities is not wrong or
blameworthy in any sense (unlike failing to remove them). Ritual impurities are distinct
from the moral impurities that result from grave voluntary sins, but as both the seven
purities and the parallel list in the Mishnah concern ritual impurities alone, moral

188 orian
men and Jewish women. Hence, we can actually identify two sub-hierarchies
within the seven purities, each comprising four levels. The first hierarchy is
indeed related to ritual impurities, while the second hierarchy pertains to per-
sons who are completely pure, yet are nonetheless prohibited from proceeding
beyond their designated boundaries. Following are the two hierarchies:
1. Hierarchy of the impure:

Lepers and zavim—menstruating women—foreigners—men not entirely
pure.13
2. Hierarchy of the pure:

Israelite women—Israelite men—priests unfit for service—all except the high
priest.
From the fact that the first hierarchy relates to people who are ritually impure,
while the second concerns people who are ritually pure, it is clear that the two
cannot mix. Only where the first hierarchy ends does the second begin: their
point of contact is the wall of the ‫עזרה‬. This accords perfectly with the fact that,
in the Herodian Temple, which was Josephus’s frame of reference, the temple
proper (= the holy) began at the ‫עזרה‬.14 Hence, all ritual impurities stopped
short of the ‫עזרה‬.
impurities will be of no concern for us here. The use of “ritual” versus “moral” as the
titles for these two sets of biblical impurities follows Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin
in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 5-19, although the same
titles were suggested earlier, see, for example: Jacob Licht, The Rule Scroll, A Scroll from
the Wilderness of Judaea, 1QS-1QSa-1QSb: Text, Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute: 1965), 76 [Hebrew]. Previous common names in research for the relevant
dichotomy were “ethical” versus “Levitical”/ “cultical”; see the survey of research in Susan
Haber, “They Shall Purify Themselves”: Essays on Purity in Early Judaism (Atlanta: Society
of Biblical Literature, 2008), 9-29; Thomas Kazen, “Dirt and Disgust: Body and Morality
in Biblical Purity Laws,” in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible, ed. Baruch J.
Schwartz et al. (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 43-64, esp. 43-45; Hanan Birenboim, “Gentile
Impurity in Ancient Judaism,” Cathedra 139 (2011): 8-30, esp. 9-17 [Hebrew]
13 Yes, gentiles clearly belong to the ritual impurities hierarchy, pace Jonathan Klawans,
“Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,” AJSR 20 (1995): 285-312, and Christine
E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the
Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). However, this is not our
concern here.
14 J.W. 5.194: τὸ γὰρ δεύτερον ἱερὸν ἅγιον ἐκαλεῖτο.

To summarize: at the wall of the ‫ עזרה‬the final degree (Jewish men not
entirely pure) of the first hierarchy meets the first degree (Jewish women free
of any ritual impurity) of the second hierarchy, so that the total of relevant
boundaries is thus, indeed, seven.
Given that the first hierarchy is about ritual impurities, what is the nature
of the second hierarchy? At face value, it appears to resemble a hierarchy of
classes or castes.15 However, on closer examination, it raises the question of
how “priests unfit for service” could be categorized as a caste or a class. To what
class does one belong after drinking wine (Lev 10:9) and quit in sobriety?16 In
short, the second hierarchy cannot be an issue of social class, and certainly
is not one of degrees of profanation,17 for there is no such thing: i.e., there is
no difference between a pure Israelite man, a blemished priest, or a drunken
priest who trespass their respective boundaries, as all fall under the same gen-
eral rubric of profanation of sancta.
Evidently, it is not circles of protection of holiness from ritually contagious,
impure individuals that underlie this second hierarchy, but rather circles of
protection for individuals from the contagious and lethal holiness itself:
1. If the high priest is to enter the holy of holies not on the Day of Atonement,18
he will die (Lev 16:2, 13).
2. If any priest ascends the altar or enters the sanctuary not clothed in
his proper garments, or without washing his hands and feet, or with
15 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.”
16 Furthermore, a lay priest and a high priest are really not two distinct classes, for every
priest has the potential to become high priest, as evidenced by the lottery conducted by
the Zealots, according to Josephus (J.W. 4.147-149, 152-157; cf. also t. Yoma 1:6). It is true
that during the Persian, Ptolemaic, and part of the Seleucid periods, the high priesthood
was vested in a particular family, and after an interruption of two unrelated high priests,
Menelaus and Alcimus, this practice continued within a single family, albeit a different
one (i.e., the Hasmonean), until Herodian and Roman times, in which the high priesthood
was vested in a few specific families. On this account, Josephus criticizes the above-
mentioned lottery of the Zealots, calling it (154 and 157) τοῦ βεβαιοτέρου (ἔθους) κατάλυσις
and ἀσέβημα.
17 See Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 61, who speaks of a “continuum from profane to holy.”
18 The text speaks of Aaron himself and his son who will inherit him, Lev 16:32; compare
with 21:10.

190 orian
disheveled hair, or after drinking wine, he will die (Exod 28:43, 30:19-21,
Lev 10:6, 9).19
3. The physical separation between priests and laity is biblical, but not
Pentateuchal. In the Pentateuch, the tabernacle had only one court-
yard and: “the layman was not barred from entering any part of the
courtyard.”20 This also holds true for the description of Solomon’s temple
in 1 Kings.21
19 No such explicit death threat appears regarding a blemished priest (Lev 21:17-23), but in
the seven purities the blemished priest is grouped together with the drunken priest, who is
subject to such a biblical death-threatening ordinance. See also Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus
1-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday,
1991), 753: “the disqualified priest assumes lay status with regard to the altar.” Indeed, in
Numbers, if anyone, except for priests, attempts to burn the incense, touch, or even view
the holy vessels (of the sanctuary), he will die; see Num 4:15, 19-20; 16:35; 17:5; 18:3 (but cf.
2 Chr 26:16-21; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7). It appears, however, that in Second Temple times the
ban on seeing the holy was interpreted as applying to the holy of holies alone, as the holy
vessels were displayed to the crowd on festivals and other special occasions, as well as on
coins, and even in graffiti in Jerusalem from Second Temple times. See Daniel R. Schwartz,
“Viewing the Holy Utensils (P. Ox. V, 840),” NTS 32 (1986): 153-59, who refers to m. Mid. 4:5,
Ant. 3.128, and P.Oxy. 840 (and we may add J.W. 2.321); Zohar Amar, “The Shewbread Table
on the coins of Mattathias Antigonus: A Reconstruction,” INJ 17 (2009-2010): 48-58, and
Isadore Goldstein and Jean-Philippe Fontanille, “The Small Denominations of Mattathias
Antigonus: Die Classification and Interpretations,” Israel Numismatic Research 8 (2013):
55-71, esp. 68, referring to b. ʿAbod. Zar. 43a, which rejects the reproduction of the
menorah in the temple, then speculating: “If the Talmudic proscription was commonly
observed already in the time of Antigonus . . . there may also have been an objection to
the depiction(s) of the menorah (and showbread table).” However, it is hard to accept that
both Antigonus and Bar-Kokhba, two champions of Jewish nationalism, would resort to an
act that would undermine their case from a “commonly observed” religious perspective.
On the Bar-Kokhba coins, see Dan Barag, “The Table of the Showbread and the Facade
of the Temple on Coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Hillel
Geva, ed., rep. and exp. ed. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 272-76. On the
Menorah and other cult vessels in the above mentioned Jerusalem graffiti, see Barag, “The
Temple Cult Objects Graffito from the Jewish Quarter Excavations at Jerusalem,” in Geva,
Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, 277-78.
20 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 148.
21 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

However, already under the reform by King Jehoash, who was crowned at the
age of seven by the priest Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11:3-17), the altar is inaccessible to
the laity (2 Kgs 12:10).22 Later, under King Manasseh, we read twice of “the
two courts of the house of the Lord” (2 Kgs 21:5, 23:12),23 and Ezekiel’s descrip-
tion of the First Temple similarly suggests that the temple had an inner court
(Ezek 8:16, 10:3) and an outer court (10:5).24 In early Second Temple times, as
reflected in 2 Chr 4:9, the relevant two courts are named “court of the priests,”
‫חצר הכהנים‬, and “the great court,” ‫העזרה הגדולה‬.
In addition to the above-mentioned development, it appears that exege-
sis can also find a death-threatening base in the Pentateuch, similar to those
explored above, for this relatively late biblical separation between laity and
priests.25
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.
22 Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 148.
23 This was explained by scholars as the result of modifications introduced between the
time of Ahaz and Menasseh, and later on abolished by Joshiah—Hurowitz, “YHWH’s
Exalted House,” 92 and Nadav Na’aman, “Sources and Composition in the History of
Solomon,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. Lowell K.
Handy (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 57-80, at 75: “In the Book of Kings the historian never ascribes
changes in the temple of Jerusalem to reformer kings. Rather, the kings who carried
out extensive reforms in the temple were Ahaz and Manasseh, the two major apostate
kings of Judah; and it is the righteous King Josiah who purged the temple and restored
everything to its original purity. In the Book of Kings this ‘original purity’ pertains to the
time of Solomon when the temple was built . . . Having the concept of continuity in mind,
no wonder that the historian (who apparently lived in the time of King Josiah) felt free to
depict the Solomonic temple according to the temple of his own time.”
24 However, this description suits Ezekiel’s plan for the future temple, where the Priests
officiate in an inner court, the outer court being reserved for the Levites and the people
(42:14; 44:10-19, 27; 46:1-3, 20). Compare with Jeremiah, who has two references (19:14; 26:2)
to “the court of the house of God,” that is, in the singular, and one (36:10) to “the upper
court,” although this appears to refer to the Upper New Gate; cf. Jer 20:2; 26:10; 37:13; 38:7;
2 Kgs 15:35; and Ezek 9:2. See also Hurowitz, “YHWH’s Exalted House,” 94. A clear plural
form (masculine) in relation to the courts of the temple appears in Pss 65:5 and 84:11 and
the feminine plural is to be found in Neh 8:16; Isa 62:9; and Pss 84:3; 92:14; 96:8; 100:4; 116:19;
135:2. Interestingly enough, on all three occasions where the MT reads ‫חצרי‬, the LXX
and the Aramaic translation have “my court” in the singular form: Isa 1:12, Zech 3:7, and
Neh 13:7.
25 Num 8:19, 17:28, and 18:22 suggest that anyone, save the Levites and priests, who will
approach the sanctuary, will die, but this was the fear of the people following the death

192 orian
4. No distinction was made in the Bible between lay Israelite men and
women and male youngsters up to the age of twenty, in relation to temple
access.26 However, such a distinction does not appear to be an innova-
tion of the Herodian Temple, since it is also shared by the Temple Scroll,27
where it relates to the ability to pay the half-Shekel dues, this being also a
protection from death at the hand of God (Exod 30:12, 15, 16), and relevant
to Jewish men (Exod 30:11-16; 1 Chr 27:23: m. Šeqal. 1:5) eligible to enter
the holy camp of war.28 In other words, a clear biblical sanctity-related
distinction exists between lay Israelite men from the age of twenty and
above, on the one hand, and women and male youngsters up to the age
of twenty on the other hand. In the Second Temple, as reflected in the
Temple Scroll, and evidently, in the existence of the women’s court in the
Herodian Temple, this sanctity distinction was given expression in terms
of temple access.
Aharon Shemesh has pointed out that in Qumran, the Pentateuchal ordi-
nance of ‫“ הזר הקרב יומת‬the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death,”
was expanded to cover any person, including any ritually impure person,
who trespasses his or her respective borderline in and around the temple.29
of Korach and his followers, later allayed; see Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: The Traditional
Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation / Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1990), 145, 424.
26 Deut 31:12; Josh 8:35; Ezra 10:1; Neh 12:43 (see also Neh 8:2-3; 10:29); 2 Chr 20:13. Notice also
that in both 2 Kgs 11:13-15 and 2 Chr 23:12-14, Jehoiada orders that Athaliah be removed
from the temple, yet not due to her presence there, but because of his wish not to kill (her)
within the temple. Moreover, under the reign of Athaliah, the infant Jehoash was hidden
by his aunt, Jehosheba, in the temple (together with his wet nurse, as it seems), for six
years (2 Kgs 11:2-3), until crowned in the temple at the age of seven, that is, while still a
child.
27 11QTa 39:4-11, 40:5-7. Pace Adolf Büchler, “The Fore-Court of Women and the Brass Gate
in the Temple of Jerusalem,” JQR 10 (1898): 678-718, who suggested that the court of the
women is a first-century CE innovation, although he wrote before the discovery of the
Temple Scroll, which also divides its temple into women’s court, the court of Israel, and
the priests’ court.
28 Num 1:3, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45; 14:29; 26:2, 4; 2 Chr 25:5; the War
Scroll, (1QM 7:3-4 + 4QMa 1-3:6, 4:2); and the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa 1:8-11). On
the special relation between the War Scroll and the Rule of the Congregation, see Brian
Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered, STDJ 76 (Leiden: Brill,
2009), 327-65.
29 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

Furthermore, Josephus refers to the warning inscription on the balustrade (J.W.

5.194), deterring gentiles from crossing it, as ὁ τῆς ἁγνείας νόμος, i.e., the law of
purity, rather than “the law of purity relating to gentiles,” or something of that
nature. This suggests that, according to Josephus too, there was only one law
relating to trespass in the temple. Indeed, based on its language, this warning
inscription was demonstrated as being based on ‫הזר הקרב יומת‬.30
In short, in the Bible ‫ הזר הקרב יומת‬protected the restricted access of the
Levites and the priests. That is to say, it related only to the second of the two
sub-hierarchies within the seven purities. However, during the late Second
Temple period, ‫ הזר הקרב יומת‬was also applied to the encroachment of impure
persons,31 thus being transposed into a shared sanction underlying the seven
purities in total, in both its sub-hierarchies: the former guarding against impu-
rity and the latter, providing protection from holiness.32 Although the second
of the two sub-hierarchies within the seven purities does not relate to ritual
purities, notwithstanding, the overall grouping is termed The seven purities. It
therefore appears that its second sub-hierarchy granted the seven purities its
sanction (‫(הזר הקרב יומת‬, while the first sub-hierarchy afforded it the title of
“purities.”
35:4-5); a non-verbal reference to ‫ הזר הקרב יומת‬and 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).
30 Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Exclusion from the Temple: Proselytes and Agrippa I,” JJS 33
(1982): 215-25, esp. 218-19; Peretz Segal, “The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the
Temple of Jerusalem,” IEJ 39 (1989): 79-84, esp. 80.
31 Leviticus suggests that, unlike ‫הזר הקרב יומת‬, the encroaching impure persons will die
by divine hand: Lev 15:31; cf. Lev 7:20-21; 22:3, determining extirpation of lineage for the
impure who eat from the sacrifices. True, at face value, ‫ הזר הקרב יומת‬itself undermines
the very concept of the lethal force of holiness. Therefore, it appears that the priestly
Pentateuchal source tried to “have it both ways”: to argue that only priests (and to a lesser
degree, Levites) are immune to the lethal force of holiness and, on the other hand, to
attribute concrete validity to the death threat attached to their special prerogative, i.e.,
human execution of the death penalty, the manner of death of Korach and his party
notwithstanding (see Num 16:31-35; 17:28; 18:22). In comparison, the death penalty for
priestly profanation of sancta remained in the hand of God. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16,
946; cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 424.
32 One can argue that a ritually pure non-Levite or non-priest who encroaches upon sancta
also poses a threat to the holiness, as do impure persons; however, while impurity is an
objective threat, the “threat” of a non-Levite or a non-priest entering a sacred area is a
subjective one.

194 orian
The Temple’s Hierarchy of Holiness According to Mishnah

Kelim 1:6-933
There are ten holinesses (i.e., ten degrees of holiness):
1. The land of Israel is holier than all lands. What is its holiness? That from
it they bring the omer, the first fruits and the two loaves, which they bring
not from all lands.
2. Walled cities are holier than it, for lepers are sent forth from their midst
and people may carry around a corpse in their midst wherever they like,
(but) once it has left, they may not bring it back in.34
3. Within the wall (of Jerusalem) is holier than they, for they may eat there
lesser holy things and the second tithe.
4. The Temple Mount is holier then it, for men and women suffering a flux,
menstruating women and women after childbirth may not enter therein.
5. The chel is holier than it, for gentiles and people who had contact with a
corpse may not enter therein.
6. The women’s court is holier than it, for the one who immersed that same
day and awaits sunset (to complete his/her purification, i.e., ‫ )טבול יום‬may
not enter therein and (those entering it) are not liable for a sin offering.
7. The court of Israel is holier than it, for the one who has not yet offered
his/her atonement sacrifice (‫ )מחוסר כפורים‬may not enter therein and
(those entering it) are liable for a sin offering.
8. The court of the priests is holier than it, for Israelites may not enter
therein, except for the laying on of hands (on their sacrifices), slaughter-
ing and waving (their cereal offerings).
9. Between the vestibule and the altar is holier than it, for (priests who
have) a blemish and whose hair is disheveled may not enter therein.
10. The sanctuary is holier than it, for no (priest) may enter therein with
hands and feet unwashed.
11. The holy of holies is holier than they, for none may enter therein, except
for the high priest on the Day of Atonement at the time of the rite. Rabbi
Jose said: “In five things is the space between the vestibule and the altar
equal to the sanctuary: for (priests) who have a blemish, or whose hair is
33 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.
34 For the juxtaposition of corpses and lepers, see Ant. 3.264.

disheveled or that have drunk wine, or who have hands or feet unwashed
may not enter therein, and (all priests) must keep distant from (the area)
between the vestibule and the altar at the time of burning the incense.”35
Despite not a few differences, to be addressed below, between this list and
Josephus’s seven purities,36 the resemblance between the two clearly indicates
an essential, joint, cultic perception.
35 As we have seen above, Josephus sees the altar and the sanctuary as an area of uniformed
holiness. As indicated by Joel 2:17 and Ezek 8:16, already in First Temple times the area
between the Vestibule and the altar was of special priestly significance. See also Jud
4:11, 1 Macc 7:36, 2 Macc 3:15. Concerning the perspective, “between the vestibule and
the altar,” rather than “between the altar and the vestibule,” as otherwise the view of
the list is towards the holy of holies and not from it towards the outside, see Moshe Bar-
Asher, “Traces of Biblical Language in the Mishnah,” in Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic
Literature in Memory of Tirza Lifshitz, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher et al. (Jerusalem: Bialik
Institute, 2005), 59-70 [Hebrew], esp. 64-65. t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:6 (Zuckermandel, 569)
sheds further light on the dispute concerning a possible additional degree of holiness
between the sanctuary and the open space in front of it.
36 For instance, unlike the Mishnah, Josephus does not mention explicitly a few specific
categories of impure persons:
A. Women after childbirth, also not mentioned by Josephus in the parallel description
in Ag. Ap. 2.103. Perhaps, since they were held back by the same boundary as menstruating
women (m. Kelim 1:8, Ant. 3.269), the latter was understood to include the former for
that purpose, although from the perspective of their respective purification laws (such
as the requirement to bring a sacrifice)—as Josephus well knew, Ag. Ap. 2.103, women
after childbirth are very different from menstruating women. According to Bauckham,
“Josephus’ Account of the Temple,” 331, the analogy between the two categories relies on the
use of niddah in Lev 12:2, 5. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 744, referring to Lev 12:2, elaborates:
“the force of the particle kĕ is to stress that the quality of the impurity and not just its
length is equivalent to that of the menstruant (see 15:19-24). The same holds true for the
equivalent expression in the case of the zābâ (15:25).”
B. People who had contact with a corpse, those who have not yet offered their
atonement sacrifice, and tevul yom. However, these all appear to fall under Josephus’s
category of “men not entirely pure.” Nevertheless, of the three, the omission of people
who had contact with a corpse is very puzzling: people who had contact with a corpse
constitutes a fundamental biblical category of impure persons, accordingly mentioned
by Josephus in his survey of the biblical laws of impurity in his later works, Ant. 3.261-264,
as well as in Ag. Ap. 2.198, the latter reference being more relevant to our case, because it
also deals with purifications prior to the offering of sacrifices and, as such, also treats the
subject of temple access (the entire section of Ag. Ap. 2.193-198 relates to sacrifices). I will
discuss this specific omission in further detail elsewhere. Notice, however, that people
who had contact with a corpse could enter the temple only after an initial ablution (note

196 orian
Reaching the Number Ten
Naturally, the most prominent difference between the texts of Josephus and the
Mishnah, explored above, is in the number of degrees: the seven purities versus
the ten holinesses. This suggests that the Mishnah added to, and expanded, the
cultic hierarchy upon which both it and Josephus rely.
The location of the ten holinesses in m. Kelim follows two previous lists of
ritual impurities. Viewing holiness as the polar opposite of impurity comes as
no surprise.37 However, impurities/purities is a better, perfect correspondence.
Therefore, in light of the fact that Josephus’s parallel is entitled the seven
purities, we should ask why the title of the Mishnah’s list employs the term
“holinesses,” rather than “purities.”
However, the dialogue of the ten holinesses with its preceding lists of impu-
rities does not stop here. The list in mishnah 5 contains ten degrees, while the
list in mishnayot 1-4 contains eleven,38 which may explain the Mishnah’s lit-
erary desire to declare that there are ten (although actually, possibly, eleven)
degrees of holiness, too.39
60 below): therefore, strictly speaking, in fact their purification had already begun, but
had not been completed.
C. Priests whose hair is disheveled or whose hands or feet are unwashed (in relation to
the altar and the sanctuary).
Furthermore, the Mishnah, unlike Josephus, mentions the laying on of hands (on
personal sacrifices), slaughtering, and waving as granting laity (but not women; m. Qidd.
1:8) entry into the Court of the Priests. Bauckham, “Josephus’ Account of the Temple,” 334,
points in that connection to Ant. 3.226, where Josephus agrees that the slaughtering of the
burnt-offering sacrifice is done by the individual who offers it.
37 Vered Noam, From Qumran to the Rabbinic Revolution: Concepts of Impurity (Jerusalem:
Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 2010), 27-33 [Hebrew].
38 On this particular list, see Jacob Neusner, “Form-Analysis and Source Criticism: The Case
of Mishnah Kelim 1:1-4,” in A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature
and its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East, ed. Robert H. Fischer (Chicago: Lutheran
School of Theology, 1977), 133-52.
39 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

We have just seen that Josephus’s seven purities actually comprises two dif-
ferent sub-hierarchies. Nonetheless, what is common to all of the seven purities
is that they represent restrictions of access on specific categories of people,
in relation to the temple. The Mishnah, on the other hand, in its aspiration
to reach the number ten, adds two degrees of holiness that concern neither
a specific category of people, nor an access restriction, namely: the “land of
Israel” and the area “within the wall of Jerusalem.” These two degrees relate to
objects, rather than to people, and express a positive perspective, rather than
a restrictive one. They relate to the temple, and that is why they appear here.
Taking this difference into account, we can now appreciate why attempts to
find a single guiding principle behind the ten holinesses have failed hitherto,40
and why the total list could not have been entitled the ten purities.
(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.
40 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.

198 orian
However, the Mishnah’s ten holinesses dialogue with the preceding lists of
impurities does not even stop at the aspiration to reach the number ten. In
order to grasp this further linkage, a preliminary discussion is warranted.
Exclusion from the Camp of Lepers, zavim, People Who Had

Contact With a Corpse, and Menstruating Women
Numbers 5:2-4 calls for the exclusion “from the camp” of every leper, zav, and
person who had contact with a corpse.41 Out of these three, the exclusion of
the leper from the camp is repeated in Num 12:14-15 and Lev 13:46; 14:3, 8, 40-53.
Zavim are discussed at length in the following chapter of Lev 15, alongside a
man who had nocturnal emission, a couple who had sexual intercourse, and
a menstruating woman; the discussion is sealed by a warning not to defile
the Tabernacle (v. 31).42 People who had contact with a corpse are discussed
at length, separately, in Num 19, including a similar warning not to defile the
Tabernacle (v. 13) and the temple (v. 20).43 However, while an additional epi-
sode in Num 31:13, 19, 24 supports the exclusion of people who had contact
with a corpse from the war camp, a different one, Num 9:6-8, where people
who had contact with a corpse approach Moses and Aaron apparently just
outside the Tabernacle, indicates that they are located inside the desert camp.
41 Although the three differ on some basic aspects. Hence, the impurity resulting from flux
and leprosy, unlike contact with a corpse, is not restricted in time, while the leper and zav
(Lev 14:10; 15:14, 29) once again, unlike the person who had contact with a corpse, offer
sacrifice on the eighth day to their purification. See Vered Noam, “Josephus and Early
Halakhah: The Exclusion of Impure Persons from Holy Precincts,” in ‘Go Out and Study the
Law’ ( Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel,
ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, JSJSup 148 (Leiden: Brill,
2012), 133-46, esp. 135-36.
42 Taken by Jacob Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978): 501-23, at 515, to
indicate that they all actually remain inside the camp.
43 According to Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” Num 19 suggests that the red heifer’s
ashes are brought from outside the camp, to be mixed with water, and sprinkled on the
person who had contact with a corpse within the camp, and that this chapter lacks the
explicit expression “and then he may return to the camp”; and that, furthermore, Num
19 was considered superior to Num 5, since it is said to be “a law for all time” ‫חקת עולם‬
(vv. 10, 21). Given, as we shall see, that Qumranic and Josephan views shared the leniency
towards a person who had contact with a corpse, allowing him inside the camp, it seems
clear that Milgrom’s view accords with the common interpretation of the relevant biblical
texts in Second Temple times; cf. Noam, “Josephus and Early Halakhah,” 137, 141.

In short, in the dichotomy of outside/inside the camp, but in any case out-
side the Tabernacle (= the temple), there appears to be no controversy regard-
ing the exclusion of the lepers from the camp. That, however, is not the case in
relation to the exclusion of people who had contact with a corpse and zavim.
In the Temple Scroll, lepers (see also 2 Kgs 7:3) together with zavim, men-
struating women, and women after childbirth (discussed in Lev 12, one chapter
prior to the discussion of the leper) are excluded from every city (representing
“the camp” for that matter), while people who had contact with a corpse, a man
who had a nocturnal emission, and a couple who have had sexual relations are
excluded only from the city of the temple (representing “the temple,” for that
purpose).44 In other words, in the dichotomy of inside/outside the camp, the
Temple Scroll grouped zavim together with the lepers (outside), rather than
with people who had contact with a corpse (inside). A similar treatment of
zavim—i.e., grouping them together with lepers—is evident from Josephus’s
seven purities, as well as from Ant. 3.261. In Ant. 3.261, however, contrary to
the Temple Scroll, menstruating women and people who had contact with a
corpse were, apparently, secluded within the city (representing “the camp” for
Josephus).45 Of course, as we have also seen in the seven purities, menstruating
44 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.
45 On this seclusion of the menstruate and the woman after childbirth, see the challenge of
E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990), 155-62, pace David
Nakman, “The Halakhah in the Writings of Josephus” (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University,
2004), 208, who referred to a practice among the Samaritans and the Jews of Ethiopia
that lasted until recent times, of excluding menstruating women. See also Yedidya
Dinary, “The Impurity Customs of the Menstruate Woman: Sources and Development,”
Tarbiz 49 (1980): 302-24 [Hebrew]; Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 763-65, 948-53; Hannah K.
Harrington, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity,” JSJ 26 (1995):
42-54, esp. 44-46. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 953, remarks that in ancient times women had
fewer childbearing years, during which they were frequently breastfeeding or pregnant,
resulting in the suppression of the menses. As suggested by Shaye J. D. Cohen, Why Aren’t
Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2005), 19, only in the first week after giving birth to a boy, or two weeks if
it is a girl, is the mother as impure as a menstruate.

200 orian
women and people who had contact with a corpse are within the city.46 It is
similarly worth referring to a Karaite view that interpreted the biblical camp as
referring to Jerusalem.47
The Seven Purities—Exclusion of Menstruating Women from the

Temple Mount
If “the camp” is Jerusalem, to follow Josephus (who refers to “the city”) and the
above-mentioned Karaite view, each category of ritually impure persons is to
be excluded from one of either the city or the ‫( עזרה‬as we pointed out earlier,
in the Herodian Temple, the temple proper began at the ‫)עזרה‬. However, as
we have also seen, there are four degrees in the ritual impurities sub-hierarchy
within the seven purities:
Lepers and zavim—menstruating women—foreigners—men not

entirely pure
Indeed, according to the seven purities lepers and zavim are excluded from the
city, while people who had contact with a corpse—assuming, as we should,
that they fall under the category of light ritual impurities, termed by Josephus
as “men not entirely pure”48—are excluded from the court of Israel. But what
of the two middle categories, that is to say: menstruating women and foreign-
ers? They are allowed within the city (“the camp”), but are excluded from areas
beyond the ‫עזרה‬. Since they are permitted within the city, it would appear that
their proper or original borderline was indeed the wall of the ‫עזרה‬, and that for
46 As analyzed by Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 952, priestly legislation on the menstruate (Lev
15:19-24) is lenient. In addition, Lev 12:4 (cf. Jub. 3:10, 13) says explicitly that a woman after
childbirth is not to come to the temple before her days of purification are over and, as we
have seen (see n. 36 above), it seems that Josephus considers women after childbirth to
be a sub-category of menstruates. So there is a biblical basis for the fact that, in the real
Jerusalem, menstruating women were “inside the camp.” However, the menstruate and
the woman after childbirth are also akin in Leviticus to the zava, since the duration of
the state of impurity is the main distinction between the three (cf. also in n. 36 above),
so there are also grounds for excluding menstruating women and women after birth from
“the camp,” together with the zava, in the utopian Temple Scroll 48:14-17.
47 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]
48 See n. 36 above.

some reason their exclusion “migrated” to a wider sphere. I intend to refer to

the different aspects of gentile impurity at another time. I shall therefore focus
here solely on the issue of the exclusion of menstruating women according to
the seven purities.
It would seem that the arrival of the women’s court provides the key. As we
have seen, the women’s court has no biblical basis: in the Bible, ritually pure
women and men entered the temple together (their shared court named the
great ‫ עזרה‬in 2 Chr 4:9).49 The temple wall thus served as the borderline, sep-
arating menstruating women from ritually pure women (Lev 12:4, assuming,
as Josephus seems to imply, that women after childbirth were a sub-category
of menstruating women). However, once ritually pure women were relegated
to the ex-‫עזרה‬, and hence ex-temple, women’s court, the distinction between
menstruating women and ritually pure women needed to be drawn at some
adjacent, broader, which is at the same time an accepted, that is, a biblical
sphere of sanctity, with some relevance to the temple.
The Temple Mount held its own sanctity, regardless of the temple itself and
the city of Jerusalem.50 This boundary of holiness, independent of the biblical
division of inside/outside the camp, was therefore “enlisted” for the exclusion
of menstruating women, taking “the temple” in that case as the entire temenos
of the temple. Of course, in order for the Temple Mount to be able to act as a
borderline of holiness, there needed to be some physical line of demarcation
for it, i.e., there had to be a discernable outer temple court—larger than, and
surrounding, the ‫( עזרה‬together with its ex-territory of the women’s court).51
49 See n. 26 above.

50 See n. 4 above.
51 Joseph Patrich and Marcus Edelcopp, “Four Stages in the Evolution of the Temple Mount,”
RB 120 (2013): 321-61, esp. 333, simply assume, without any evidence, that such a court
existed as early as the time of the high priest Simon the Just, at the end of the Ptolemaic
rule and the beginning of the Seleucid rule over Judaea. The early Hasmoneans fortified
the temple precinct (1 Macc 4:60, 10:11) but the exact partition of the temple into courts
is not detailed (see also 1 Macc 4:38, 9:54 and 2 Macc. 6:4). Pseudo-Aristeas 84 mentions
three courts of the temple but Pseudo-Hecataeus, on the other hand (Ag. Ap. 1.198), tells
of one. Furthermore, when Pompey conquered the temple in 63 BCE, we read of only
one wall that had to be breached (Ant. 14.69). However, when Sosius conquered the city
in 37 BCE, we read of an outer and inner temple (Ant. 14.477). If the Temple Mount had
an explicit physical meaning as early as the birth of the women’s court, this carries a
significant ramification regarding use of the Temple Mount, as a term, in the Second
Temple period; see the bibliography in n. 4 above.

202 orian
Rabbinic Three Camps Concept and the Exclusion of People Who

Had Contact With a Corpse in the Ten Holinesses
As we have said, in the dichotomy of outside/inside the camp, zavim needed

to be grouped either with people who had contact with a corpse, under the
lenient form of exclusion (i.e., within the camp), or with lepers, under the
more severe form of exclusion (i.e., outside the camp). However, in rabbinic lit-
erature “the camp” was transformed into three concentric camps:52 the “camp
of Israel” extending from the gate of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount gate; the
“camp of the Levites” from the gate of the Temple Mount to the gate of the ‫עזרה‬
(the Nicanor Gate); and the “camp of holy presence (shekinah)” overlaps with
the ‫עזרה‬, with the sanctuary within it.53
This trichotomy—having a middle camp, between the city (camp of Israel)
and the ‫( עזרה‬camp of holy presence), in the form of the Temple Mount
(camp of the Levites)—enabled the zava to occupy an intermediate position
between lepers and people who had contact with a corpse. Indeed, we can
checkmark the exclusion of lepers in m. Kelim from the city (m. Kelim 1:7), and
zavim from the Temple Mount (m. Kelim 1:8).54 However, based on the three
52 Based on the ‫משכן‬, the tabernacle, and the order of the encampment of the different
Israelite tribes around it (Num 1:50-53, 2:17) which is totally unrelated to the definition of
“camp” in the context of the exclusion of impure persons. See Noam, “Josephus and Early
Halakhah,” 141, and Noam, “Stringency in Qumran: A Reassessment,” JSJ 40 (2009): 342-
55, esp. 347. The temple plan in the Temple Scroll was also a replica of the encampment
of the Israelite tribes around the tabernacle. See Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 3 vols.
(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977-1983), 1:146 [Hebrew]; Francis Schmidt, How
the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism, trans. J. E. Crowley
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 182.
53 t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:12 (Zuckermandel, 570), Sifre on Num 1 (Horovitz, 2-4; Kahana, 3-8).
The Nicanor Gate was the Eastern gate of the court of Israel; see Joshua Schwartz, “Once
More on the Nicanor Gate,” HUCA 62 (1991): 245-83. This means that the women’s court
was outside the Camp of Holy Presence. Compare with Josephus; see n. 10 above. For the
rabbinic justification for this trichotomy, relying on the number of times that the word
“camp” appears in Num 5:2-3, or on the use of plural (their camps) in v. 3, or on the use
of “he shall dwell alone” in relation to the leper in Lev 13:41, see Sifre on Num 1, Sifre
Zutta 5:2 (Horovitz, 228) and b. Pesaḥ. 67a (Noam, From Qumran, 171-72), but see b. Zebaḥ.
116b-117a, which discusses the existence of three camps following a baraita stating that
there were only two camps in Shiloh.
54 Together with menstruating women and women after childbirth. Bauckham, “Josephus’
Account of the Temple,” 331, has noted that the Mishnah is consistent in its grouping
together of zavim, menstruating women, and women after childbirth, see: Pesaḥ. 9:4,

camps concept, people who had contact with a corpse (the last in the “trio” of
Num 5:2) should have been excluded from the ‫עזרה‬. Instead, m. Kelim 1:8
excludes people who had contact with a corpse from a wider sphere than the
‫עזרה‬: the balustrade. Geographically speaking (as in the model above), the bal-
ustrade is the next-in-line boundary after the Temple Mount wall, so the exclu-
sion of people who had contact with a corpse from the balustrade in m. Kelim
1:8 preserves a strict geographical sequence of exclusion:
Excluded: lepers zavim people who had contact with a corpse

From the: city Temple Mount balustrade
However, the cost of this geographical sequence is a mismatch with the rab-
binic three camps concept.55 In fact, according to the three camps concept,
any architectural element in between the above-mentioned boundaries of
the three camps is irrelevant in relation to the exclusion of impure persons.
Such are the chel and the women’s court, which are both inside the camp
of Levites.56 This is exactly what R. Simon says in the Tosefta’s parallel to
Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:4, Ker. 2:1, and Zabim 5:6. Noam, From Qumran, 170, 176, points out that this
grouping together is also evident in Qumran, as well as in other Tannaitic sources.
55 However, the Sifre Zutta 5:2 (Horovitz, 228), which gives his version of the ten holinesses,
treats it as harmoniously relying on the Three Camps concept. See Menahem I. Kahanah,
Sifre on Numbers: An Annotated Edition, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2011-2015), 2:16 n.
95 [Hebrew], where he points to the fact that, apart from the textual differences in the
version of the Sifre Zutta, such as Aramaics instead of gentiles, the Sifre Zutta apparently
drew on one source for the hierarchy of the ritually impure (which Kahanah, at 2:15,
suggests to be the ten holinesses list in m. Kelim, or a similar source), and another for the
hierarchy of the pure. This is very interesting, as it matches the distinction between the
two sub-hierarchies within the seven purities. In light of the Sifre Zutta version, which
comprises twelve or thirteen degrees, including some degrees of minor significance,
I doubt, but cannot reject the possibility that m. Kelim 1:6-9 actually trimmed the number
of degrees of holiness, in order to reach roughly the figure of ten.
56 The Three Camps concept would similarly have no place for the sub-division within the
camp of holy presence (the court of the priests—the area between the altar and the
vestibule—the sanctuary—the holy of holies). However, regardless of the disputed sanctity
status of the area between the altar and the vestibule (see n. 35 above), and unlike the chel
and the women’s court, the sub-division between the court of the priests, the sanctuary,
and the holy of holies has biblical roots. In addition, as we have seen from the fact that the
hierarchy of impurities ends at the wall of the ‫עזרה‬, the division within the camp of holy
presence is unconnected to the exclusion of impure persons, which is the focus of the Three
Camps concept.

204 orian
m. Kelim 1:6-9 (t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:8 [Zuckermandel, 569]; the translation and
text in brackets are my own):
‫ר' שמעון אומר החיל ועזרת נשים מעלה יתרה בבית העולמים והטמאין שנכנסו לשם‬
‫פטורין‬
R. Simon says: the rampart (chel) and the women’s court—an extra degree
(of holiness) in the house of eternities (the temple) and the impure who
entered there are not liable (for punishment).
Moreover, this appears to be corroborated by m. Kelim 1:8 itself, where he

(apparently a tevul yom but perhaps also a person who had contact with a
corpse) who enters the women’s court is not liable for a sin offering.
To sum up, m. Kelim assigns different categories of impure persons to two
sub-boundaries inside the camp of Levites, i.e., the balustrade/the chel and
the women’s court, thus maintaining a certain geographical sequence to the
exclusion of the different categories of impure person, but at the same time
contradicting the three camps concept—a contradiction which is evident from
the above-cited t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:8, as well as from m. Kelim 1:8 itself.
The Improbability of m. Kelim 1:8
Let us explore whether the suggestion in m. Kelim 1:8, whereby people who
had contact with a corpse stopped at the balustrade rather than at the ‫( עזרה‬as
it should, according to the three camps concept), is in harmony with other rab-
binic sources or with the New Testament Acts of the Apostles.
People who had contact with a corpse needed to be sprinkled with water
of lustration on the third and seventh day of their purification. Where was
that sprinkling to take place? According to several Tannaitic references, the
impure were gathered at the Eastern Gate (of the women’s court) or at the
Nicanor Gate—but, in any case, within the balustrade.57 Following Lev 14:11,
57 See m. Tamid 5:6 and m. Soṭah 1:5 (Kaufmann MS; translation based, with some
alterations, on Danby’s edition): ‫( וראש המעמד היה מעמיד טמאין בשערי המזרח‬cf. Sifre
on Num 9 [Horovitz, 15]: ‫“ )בשערי נקנור‬And the head of the maʿamad made the impure
to stand at the Eastern Gates; ‫מעלין אותה לשערי מזרח לשערי ניקנור ששם משקים את‬
‫“ הסוטות ומטהרין את היולדות ומטהרין את המצורעים‬They take her up to the Eastern
Gate, to the Nicanor Gates, where they give suspected adulteresses to drink [of the water

“the impure” in question are understood to be those who have not yet offered
their atonement sacrifice.58 Nonetheless, if we trust m. Kelim 1:8, from among
all the impure persons who require a priest’s service as part of their purifica-
tion, people who had contact with a corpse would be exceptional, in that they
received the relevant service at the balustrade. Rabbinic literature remains
silent on any such rite at the balustrade, or regarding the priest whose duty it
was to sprinkle people who had contact with a corpse at the balustrade.59
Now notice the case of Paul in Acts 21:23-31. His term of purification was
for seven days, indicating he was a person who had contact with a corpse
(v. 27). Paul was accompanied by four Jewish-Christian Nazirites whose sac-
rifices he was asked to take upon himself, following the fulfillment of their
vows (vv. 23-24). After an initial ablution, Paul entered the temple to deliver
his relevant message regarding the four Nazirites (v. 26).60 Paul’s purification
not being complete, he could not have entered the court of Israel (according
to the seven purities) nor, apparently, the women’s court (according to other
of bitterness], and purify women after childbirth, and purify lepers.” See also m. Neg. 14:8,
t. Neg. 8:9, y. ʿErub. 5:1 (22c) but also b. Pesaḥ. 82a, where the impure in this case are
understood to be impure priests. On the mixture of the Nicanor Gate and the Eastern
Gate in rabbinic literature, see Schwartz, “Once More,” 255-63. Since the chamber of the
lepers was within the court of the women (m. Mid. 2:5), it seems that the Nicanor Gate is
the proper reading. Regarding the use of the plural, gates, see m. Mid. 2:6, suggesting that
the Nicanor Gate (unlike the Eastern Gate of the court of the women), has two side gates.
On the maʿamad see m. Taʿan. 4:2.
58 Notice that in m. Soṭah 1:5, people who had contact with a corpse are not mentioned,
while two categories of impure persons who bring sacrifice are. Therefore, Maimonides,
The Book of Temple Service: Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 6:5 [in English,
M. Lewittes, trans., The Code of Maimonides: Book Eight (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1957), 273], understood also m. Tamid 5:6 as referring to lepers who bring their sacrifice.
59 Notice t. Parah 3:14 (Zuckermandel, 633), where in accordance with Num 19:9, one third of
the ashes of the red cow was indeed placed in the chel (m. Parah 3:11), but it was not from
this part that people who had contact with a corpse were sprinkled!
60 On the “first day ablution,” see the Temple Scroll, 11QTa 49:16-17, 50:10-14; 1QM 14:2-3;
4Q274 1 i 9; and Jacob Milgrom, “First Day Ablutions in Qumran,” in The Madrid Qumran
Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21
March, 1991, ed. Julio T. Barrera and Luis V. Montaner, STDJ 11, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1992),
2:561-70; Eyal Regev, “Non-Priestly Purity and its Religious Aspects according to Historical
Sources and Archaeological Findings,” in Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus,
ed. Marcel J. H. M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, Jewish and Christian Perspectives
Series 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 223-44, esp. 227, 236; Noam, From Qumran, 168; Birenboim,
“Expelling the Unclean,” 44 n. 68.

206 orian
references in Josephus).61 However, it appears that although his purification

was incomplete Paul went past the balustrade, since, according to Acts 21:28,
he was accused of defiling the temple by bringing Greeks into it, i.e., evidently
beyond the balustrade, where gentiles otherwise halted.62
Rabbinic Hierarchy of Impurities
Compare now the list of the impurities of the living male in m. Kelim, 1:5
(ordered from the least impurity to the most severe):
1. The one who has not yet offered his/her atonement sacrifice
(‫)מחוסר כפורים‬
2. The one who immersed that same day and awaits sunset (‫)טבול יום‬
3. He who has had a nocturnal emission
4. He who has had intercourse with a menstruating woman (and becomes
impure on a similar level)
5. zav (two sub-categories)
6. A leper (two sub-categories)
7. A severed human organ (two sub-categories)
Since this list concerns the impurities associated with a live person, it has
no place for a person who had contact with a corpse.63 However, if we were
to insert a person who had contact with a corpse here, he would have been
ranked probably at no. 4, signifying that his impurity was less than that of a
man who has had intercourse with a menstruating woman, but possibly more
severe than that of a man who has had a nocturnal emission, and in any case
below tevul yom.64
61 See n. 10 above. Notice though that according to m. Mid. 2:5, the chamber of the Nazirites,
the proper place for Paul to deliver his message, was within the women’s court.
62 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.
63 Noam, From Qumran, 180.
64 This is exactly where he is placed by Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura ad loc, and see Jacob N.
Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishnah, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1957), 471, referring to the words of Rabbi Natan in t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:4

In view of the hierarchy of impurities, such as in this list in mishnah 5

(lepers—zavim—people who had contact with a corpse—tevul yom—‫מחוסר‬
‫)כפורים‬, the ten degrees of holiness in the following mishnayot 6-9 offered a geo-
graphical match consisting of different borderlines in the Herodian Temple:65
the city—the Temple Mount—the chel—the women’s court—the court of
Israel. The price paid for this perfect symmetry was a deviation from the real-
ity of the Second Temple, as well as from the rabbinic three camps concept.
Expressed differently, because the previous mishnah (no. 5) has just estab-
lished a hierarchy between the one who has not yet offered his/her atonement
sacrifice and tevul yom and because (as mentioned, based on other Tannaitic
sources) apparently people who had contact with a corpse would have been
placed below tevul yom in that hierarchy, the redactor of chapter 1 of m. Kelim
could not have “allowed” people who had contact with a corpse to reach the
same border as the tevul yom or as the one who has not yet offered his/her
atonement sacrifice.66 Since the temple contained architectural elements (the
balustrade and the women’s court) between the wall of the Temple Mount and
the ‫עזרה‬, coherence with mishnah 5 was achieved by barring a person who had
contact with a corpse at the balustrade; tevul yom at the women’s court; and
the one who has not yet offered his/her atonement sacrifice, at the court of
Israel, i.e., the wall of the ‫עזרה‬.67
(Zuckermandel, 569) as already suggesting that. See also m. Zabim 5:11, where he who has
had intercourse with a menstruating woman is considered to be impure at a more severe
level than a person who had contact with a corpse, and t. Ṭehar. 1:3 (Zuckermandel, 661),
which creates the hierarchy of: tevul yom—a person who had contact with a corpse—he
who has had intercourse with a menstruating woman. However, see also Noam, From
Qumran, 181-82, referring to the Sifre on Deuteronomy, Ki Teitzei, 255 (Finkelstein, 280-81)
and b. Pesaḥ. 67b-68a, suggesting that a man who had a nocturnal emission is equated
with a zav, and is hence considered impure to a more severe degree than a person who
had contact with a corpse.
65 Noam, From Qumran, 178 discusses the match only in relation to the ranking of the dead
and the people who had contact with a corpse, in all the lists within the first chapter of
m. Kelim.
66 Although, the ten holinesses does allow two or three categories of impure persons to
be grouped together at the same boundary, for instance: lepers together with the dead,
or zavim together with menstruating women and women after childbirth, or gentiles
together with people who had contact with a corpse.
67 The Babylonian Talmud noticed that there is a problem here only in reference to the tevul
yom: b. Pesaḥ. 92a, Hor. 5b, Zebaḥ. 32b, Yebam. 7b.

208 orian
Summary of the Discussion of the Ten Holinesses
The ten holinesses is in dialogue with the preceding mishnayot, as is evident

from its desire to reach the number ten,68 as well as in “shifting” categories of
impure persons from their boundary, according to Josephus, or even according
to other rabbinic sources:
1. The shifting of the exclusion of menstruating women to the Temple

Mount wall is shared by Josephus and the ten holinesses. As I suggested,
it resulted from the birth of the women’s court, indicating that this non-
biblical innovation is a relatively early Second Temple period novelty.69
2. In the ten holinesses, the shifting of zavim from the city wall to the Temple
Mount wall, is in accordance with the three camps concept, but contra-
dicts Josephus’s seven purities.
3. The shifting of people who had contact with a corpse to the balustrade, in
the ten holinesses, runs contrary to Josephus, Acts, as well as to the three
camps concept, altogether. In addition, it is hardly clear from Tannaitic
68 However, in the parallel list of degrees of holiness in Sifre Zutta 5:2 (Horovitz, 228), we
find additional degrees: the stand of the Levites on the border between the court of Israel
and the court of the priests (m. Mid. 2:6, ʿArak. 2:6), as well as the upper floor above the
holy of holies and the temple roof. It appears that an underlying principle of the Sifre
Zutta is: “where there is elevation, there is necessarily a higher degree of holiness.” This
principle had been previously observed by Abraham Walfish, “Conceptual Ramifications
of Tractates Tamid and Middot,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies 7 (1997): 79-92, esp.
89 [Hebrew]. See also R. Judah in t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:11. This runs against another rabbinic
tradition, that of the “burdensome stone” as the temple’s source of holiness (m. Yoma 5:2;
t. Yoma 2:14; b. Mak. 11a; b. Sukkah 53a pace m. Mid. 4:6), or m. Šeqal. 6:1-2 concerning the
buried ark—that is, the source of the holiness being below, rather than above. However,
as suggested by Eliav, God’s Mountain, 224-27, the “burdensome stone” tradition is a later
one, developed as a means to justify the sanctity of the Temple Mount without the temple.
Notice, in addition, the principle offered by Abba Saul (and rejected) in the Tosefta
(t. Šeqal. 1:7)—how often people enter the space in question. See also Saul Lieberman,
Siphre Zutta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1968), 18, 64. The addition of Trans-
Jordan in the Sifre Zutta (or Syria in the Tosefta; t. Šeqal. 1:5) also has a different rationale,
which should not concern us here; see Eyal Ben-Eliyahu, Between Borders: The Boundaries
of Eretz-Israel in the Consciousness of the Jewish People in the Time of the Second Temple
and in the Mishnah and Talmud Period (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 204-36 [Hebrew].
69 As we have seen (n. 27 above), this innovation is also reflected in the Temple Scroll. It may
also explain why, in the scroll, menstruating women and women after childbirth were
grouped together with lepers and zavim, and excluded from every city (representing “the
camp” for that matter), contrary to Lev 12:4.

sources that the sprinkling of people who had contact with a corpse took
place at the balustrade, as would be expected, if we follow m. Kelim 1:8.
Therefore, while Josephus (the seven purities) reflects a temple perception

coherent with the guiding principle of the exclusion of different categories of
people from the temple, the parallel list in the Mishnah (the ten holinesses) dis-
plays different guiding principles that are not consistent with the above, and
with the rabbinic three camps concept. Instead, what appears to be guiding the
ten holinesses, above all, is a desire to create a step-by-step, symmetrical hierar-
chy of ten temple lines of demarcation to match the number of items and the
hierarchy of impurities in the preceding mishnayot.
Conclusions
Contemporary research generally holds that the description of the temple and
its cult in the Mishnah does not necessarily aim at being realistic,70 as distinct
from the earlier description of Josephus in that respect.71 However, if it is not
realistic, what then is the subtext of the ten holinesses?
The second sub-hierarchy within the seven purities, i.e., the hierarchy of the
access restriction of the ritually pure, represents the priestly monopoly over
the cult of God. Yet rabbinic literature, the ten holinesses included, did not
disregard that biblically-based monopoly: therefore, at least in this case, it is
70 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].
71 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.”

210 orian
hard to trace an anti-priestly sentiment (assuming that the seven purities was
a priestly concept).72
Note also one scholar’s statement, referring precisely to the text in ques-
tion (m. Kelim 1:6-9): “For the Rabbis, there was no land more sacred than
the Temple Mount of Jerusalem, and no building holier than the Temple con-
structed there.”73 However, if the temple were so holy (actually, the holiest)
and so dear to the Rabbis, how it is possible that while, on the one hand, the
ten holinesses preserves a textual resemblance to what was, after all, according
to Josephus, a fundamental Second Temple cultic concept (the seven purities),
on the other hand it has no qualms about manipulating elements within it?
Recently, Naftali S. Cohn suggested that the Mishnah’s main goal in “taking
over” the temple space and cult is to bolster rabbinic authority in contempo-
rary Jewish society.74 However, if the three camps concept already represents a
rabbinic appropriation of the temple’s “rules of exclusion,” as appears to be the
case, why does the ten holinesses conflict with this concept?75
Perhaps, therefore, we should not look for any special reverence in the
Mishnah’s treatment of the Second Temple halakah concerning the exclu-
sion of different categories of people from the temple. Nor should we seek
any meta-ideology behind the ten holinesses, given that the focus in the
72 See Schwartz, Viewing the Holy Utensils, 155-56, concerning the reference of Josephus
and rabbinic literature to 1 Sam 6:19, mentioned in note 19 above: “While Josephus, the
priest, solved the Beth-Shemesh problem to his own satisfaction simply by pointing out
that those killed were not priests, rabbis felt the need to elaborate the moral sins of the
victims in order to rationalize and justify their death . . . As this conception implies a
priestly monopoly on access to holiness, it is not surprising that those who in general
opposed such a monopoly would oppose this aspect of it as well.” See also: Kahanah, Sifre
on Numbers, 4:885. However, see Hillel Newman, Proximity to Power and Jewish Sectarian
Groups of the Ancient Period, ed. Ruth Ludlam (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 79-80, for rabbinic
references which seem to acknowledge Sadducean control of the temple.
73 Schwartz, “Once More,” 245.
74 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.”
75 Indeed, see Cohn, The Memory of the Temple, 177 n. 26, indicating another aspect in which
m. Kelim 1:6-9 seems to contradict rabbinic ideology: “The map of the Temple in Mishnah
Middot contrasts sharply with a different map, of the ‘ten levels of sanctity,’ in Mishnah
Kelim 1:6-9. In Kelim, the place of the (judicial) court is absent, and the map culminates
with the Holy of Holies.” Other than this, Cohn does not discuss m. Kelim 1:6-9.

latter appears to be primarily technical in essence: namely, to create roughly

ten degrees (as in the preceding mishnayot 1-5) to correlate with the degrees
of impurities appearing in mishnah 5. This would also appear to indicate that
m. Kelim 1:6-9 was composed after mishnayot 1-5 were already in place.76
76 Of course, chapter 1 of m. Kelim opens not only Tractate Kelim, but the entire Seder of
Teharot, i.e., we may assume that the chapter was redacted later than the Seder itself, as a
kind of preface. Our conclusion does not necessarily deny the possibility that some or even
most of tractate Kelim is the work of R. Yosi, who is quoted at its end, too, and especially,
in our concern, the second half of the ten holinesses list (see n. 55 above). That the tractate
is the work of R. Yosi was argued by Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature, 127-28,
459-69; Epstein, Introduction to the Mishnaic Text, 2 vols., 3rd ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes,
2000), 2:739 [Hebrew]. See also the opinion of Zecharias Frankel, Darkei ha-Mishnah
(Leipzig: H. Hunger, 1859), 211, which Epstein brings, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature,
127, that the closure of m. Kelim actually suggests that R. Yosi commented on an already
existing tractate, meaning that it goes back to R. Yosi’s teacher R. Akiva.

JSJ 047 02 183-211 457 Orian PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JSJ 047 02 183-211 457 Orian PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211 Journal for

Josephus’s Seven Purities and the Mishnah’s

Mishnah – Kelim – holiness hierarchy – exclusion from Temple – halakah – Josephus –

The Seven Purities

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi 10.1163/15700631-12340457

The ‫עזרה‬: sanctuary

Temple Mount wall

The Jerusalem Herodian temple and its courts.

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Josephus’s seven purities:

1. The city, where lepers and zavim may not enter.3

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

6. The court of the priests,8 where priests may enter, regardless of

As evident, Josephus names eight different restricted areas in his hierarchy

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

1. Hierarchy of the impure:

2. Hierarchy of the pure:

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Furthermore, Josephus refers to the warning inscription on the balustrade (J.W.

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

The Temple’s Hierarchy of Holiness According to Mishnah

There are ten holinesses (i.e., ten degrees of holiness):

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Reaching the Number Ten

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Exclusion from the Camp of Lepers, zavim, People Who Had

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

The Seven Purities—Exclusion of Menstruating Women from the

Lepers and zavim—menstruating women—foreigners—men not

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

some reason their exclusion “migrated” to a wider sphere. I intend to refer to

49 See n. 26 above.

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Rabbinic Three Camps Concept and the Exclusion of People Who

As we have said, in the dichotomy of outside/inside the camp, zavim needed

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Excluded: lepers zavim people who had contact with a corpse

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Moreover, this appears to be corroborated by m. Kelim 1:8 itself, where he

The Improbability of m. Kelim 1:8

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

references in Josephus).61 However, it appears that although his purification

Rabbinic Hierarchy of Impurities

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

In view of the hierarchy of impurities, such as in this list in mishnah 5

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Summary of the Discussion of the Ten Holinesses

The ten holinesses is in dialogue with the preceding mishnayot, as is evident

1. The shifting of the exclusion of menstruating women to the Temple

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Therefore, while Josephus (the seven purities) reflects a temple perception

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

Journal for the Study of Judaism 47 (2016) 183-211

latter appears to be primarily technical in essence: namely, to create roughly

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi 10.1163/15700631-12340457

49 See n. 26 above.