The Mishmarot And The Priestly Courses

The Priestly Courses and the Calendar of Second Temple Judaism

The Mishmarot are the twenty-four priestly courses into which the Aaronide priesthood of ancient Israel was divided for the purpose of rotating the temple service, and the calendars and lists of the courses are among the most distinctive texts to survive from the Second Temple period. The system, as it was understood in the late Second Temple period and codified in the Mishnah, divided the sons of Aaron into twenty-four divisions, each of which served in the temple in Jerusalem for one week, twice a year, with the major festivals falling to the responsibility of whichever course happened to be on duty. The courses were reckoned in such a way that all twenty-four had served by the end of a single year, and the same course that had served the first week of one year would serve the first week of the next. The system is mentioned briefly in 1 Chronicles 24, where the chronicler divides the sons of Aaron into twenty-four divisions under the leadership of sixteen family heads, and the system is presupposed by the New Testament, which records that Zechariah the father of John the Baptist belonged to the course of Abijah, the eighth of the twenty-four.

The Mishmarot system is older than the Mishnah, and the oldest surviving texts that mention the courses are the priestly genealogies of the post-exilic period. The lists in 1 Chronicles 24 are widely understood to reflect the practice of the Second Temple period rather than the practice of the First Temple, and the chronicler himself is generally thought to have worked in the fourth century BCE. The system continued to function down to the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE, and the rabbinic sources of the Tannaim period preserve the names of the courses in the order in which they served. The Mishnah tractate Taanit records the order of the courses in its third chapter, and the Tosefta, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud all preserve versions of the same list.

The Mishmarot system was not, strictly speaking, a liturgical calendar. It was a service rotation, and it had implications for the lives of the priests and their families that went beyond the temple itself. A priest who was on duty in the temple for a particular week would travel to Jerusalem with his family, and the course would occupy a designated set of chambers in the temple precincts for the duration of the week. The priests on duty would conduct the daily sacrifice, the weekly Sabbath offering and the offerings of the festivals, and they would also be available for the various individual offerings that worshippers might bring during the week. The system was a major logistical undertaking, and the rotation had to be coordinated across the diaspora as well as in the land of Israel, since priests who lived in Babylon or in Egypt would still be expected to participate in the rotation when their course was on duty.

The Mishmarot system also had implications for the Jewish calendar, although the relationship between the priestly rotation and the religious calendar was indirect. The Jewish calendar of the Second Temple period was based on a lunar month of twenty-nine or thirty days, with the new month determined by observation. The priestly rotation was based on a solar reckoning of fifty-two weeks, and the two systems only aligned when the year happened to contain exactly fifty-two weeks, which it did about half the time. The remaining years required either an extra week of service by one of the courses or a special intercalation, and the Mishnah tractate Taanit describes a system of dechiyot, or postponements, by which the calendar was kept in alignment with the priestly rotation.

The Mishmarot system is also significant for what it tells us about the social structure of the priesthood in the Second Temple period. The twenty-four courses were not all of equal size, and the order in which they served was not entirely fixed. Some courses, like the course of Jehoiarib, the first of the twenty-four, were wealthier and more influential than others, and the chief priests of the late Second Temple period tended to come from a small number of prominent priestly families. The system also provided a mechanism for the recruitment of new priests, since a man who married a priest’s daughter could be enrolled in the course of his wife’s family. The Mishnah tractate Yevamot describes the rules for the recruitment of new priests in detail, and the rules are consistent with the existence of a hereditary caste system in which the boundaries of the priesthood were carefully policed.

The Mishmarot Scrolls from Qumran

The most important surviving texts that describe the Mishmarot system are the scrolls that were discovered in the caves above the northwest shore of the Dead Sea in the middle of the twentieth century. The Mishmarot scrolls are a group of fragments, found principally in Cave 4 at Qumran and in the caves of the Wadi Murabba’at further to the south, that describe the order of the priestly courses and their rotation through the temple year. The Mishmarot scrolls are not literary compositions in the usual sense, but they are documents of considerable importance for the history of the Jewish calendar and for the relationship between the Qumran community and the temple in Jerusalem.

The principal Mishmarot text is 4QMishmarot A, also known as 4Q325, which is a list of the twenty-four priestly courses arranged in the order in which they served. The list is fragmentary, and the surviving portions preserve the names of the courses in their canonical order. The list is consistent with the order preserved in the Mishnah tractate Taanit, and the order in 1 Chronicles 24, with minor variations that are characteristic of the Qumran scribal practice. The list was probably used by the Qumran community as a liturgical calendar, and the list is preserved in several copies that differ in small details, which suggests that the list was recopied and revised over a period of years.

The second principal Mishmarot text is 4QMishmarot B, also known as 4Q326, which is a calendar of the priestly courses for a six-year cycle. The six-year cycle is the same as the six-year cycle used in the book of Jubilees and in the Temple Scroll, and the calendar is consistent with the solar calendar of 364 days that was used by the Qumran community. The calendar lists the names of the priestly courses for each week of the cycle, and it also lists the festivals and the priestly families that would have been on duty when each festival fell. The calendar is one of the most important witnesses to the calendar practices of the Qumran community, and the calendar has been used by scholars to reconstruct the daily life of the community.

The third principal Mishmarot text is a collection of fragments that have been identified as belonging to a calendar of the priestly courses for the second temple. The fragments were found in the Wadi Murabba’at, and they are dated to the second century CE, which is after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE. The fragments are significant because they show that the Mishmarot system continued to be of interest to Jews in the post-destruction period, even though the system no longer had a temple to serve. The fragments also show that the Mishmarot system was being used for liturgical purposes outside the temple, and the fragments have been used by scholars to argue that the Mishmarot calendar was being used as a model for the Jewish liturgical calendar of the synagogue.

The Mishmarot scrolls from Qumran have been the subject of intense scholarly study since their discovery. The most comprehensive study of the Mishmarot scrolls is the work of Shemaryahu Talmon and his students, who have produced a series of articles and monographs on the calendar practices of the Qumran community. The work of Talmon has been extended by the more recent scholarship of Jonathan Ben-Dov and his students, who have used the Mishmarot scrolls to reconstruct the daily liturgical life of the Qumran community. The Mishmarot scrolls are also important for the study of the Hebrew calendar, and the scrolls have been used by scholars of the calendar to argue that the 364-day calendar was the calendar of the Qumran community and not, as some scholars had previously thought, a later invention.

The Mishmarot scrolls are also important for what they tell us about the relationship between the Qumran community and the temple in Jerusalem. The scrolls show that the Qumran community was familiar with the Mishmarot system, and the scrolls show that the community was interested in the calendar of the temple even though the community had separated from the temple. The scrolls also show that the community had its own calendar, which was based on a 364-day year and which differed from the lunar calendar of the temple. The difference between the two calendars is one of the principal reasons that scholars have argued that the Qumran community had separated from the temple in the first place.

The Sixteenth-Century Calendars and the Restoration of the Course System

The Mishmarot system continued to be of interest to Jewish scholars after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, and the system was preserved in a series of calendars and liturgical texts that were copied in the medieval period. The most important medieval Mishmarot texts are the calendars that were copied in the sixteenth century, when the system was revived in some Jewish communities as a model for the liturgical calendar. The revival of the Mishmarot system in the sixteenth century was part of a broader revival of interest in the temple service, and the revival was associated with a number of Jewish mystical and messianic movements that looked forward to the rebuilding of the temple.

The most important sixteenth-century Mishmarot text is the calendar that was copied in Safed in the sixteenth century by the circle of mystics around Isaac Luria. The Lurianic calendar preserves the order of the twenty-four priestly courses, and the calendar is used by the Lurianic kabbalists as a model for the liturgical calendar of the synagogue. The calendar is significant for the history of Jewish mysticism, and the calendar has been studied by scholars of kabbalah as a witness to the Lurianic conception of the temple service.

The second important sixteenth-century Mishmarot text is the calendar that was copied in Prague in the sixteenth century by the circle of scholars around the Maharal of Prague. The Maharal’s calendar preserves the order of the twenty-four courses, and the calendar is used by the Maharal and his students as a model for the social and political organization of the Jewish community. The calendar is significant for the history of Jewish political thought, and the calendar has been studied by scholars of Jewish political philosophy as a witness to the Maharal’s conception of the relationship between the priestly and the lay elements of the Jewish community.

The third important sixteenth-century Mishmarot text is the calendar that was copied in Italy in the sixteenth century by the circle of scholars around Azariah de’ Rossi. De’ Rossi’s calendar preserves the order of the twenty-four courses, and the calendar is used by De’ Rossi as a model for the reconstruction of the Second Temple calendar. The calendar is significant for the history of Jewish historical scholarship, and the calendar has been studied by scholars of Jewish historiography as a witness to De’ Rossi’s attempt to reconstruct the history of the Second Temple period from the surviving sources.

The sixteenth-century Mishmarot texts are also important for what they tell us about the reception of the Mishmarot system in the early modern period. The texts show that the system was still understood in the sixteenth century, and the texts show that the system was being applied to a variety of contemporary concerns, from liturgical practice to political philosophy to historical reconstruction. The texts are also important for the history of printing, since several of the calendars were printed in the sixteenth century and circulated widely in the Jewish communities of Europe and the Mediterranean.

The Mishmarot system has continued to be of interest to Jewish scholars in the modern period, and the system is still studied as a model for the liturgical calendar. The system has also been used by Jewish artists and craftsmen as a model for the design of synagogue furniture and liturgical objects, and the system has been used by Jewish educators as a model for teaching about the Second Temple period. The system is, in this sense, a living tradition that has been preserved for more than two thousand years and that continues to be relevant to the study of Jewish history and Jewish practice.

The Liturgical and Economic Life of the Courses

The Mishmarot system had a profound effect on the liturgical and economic life of the Jewish community in the Second Temple period. The twenty-four courses were not merely a service rotation; they were also a social institution that shaped the lives of the priests and their families in a variety of ways. The principal liturgical effect of the system was to ensure that the temple service was conducted continuously throughout the year, with each course taking its turn to perform the daily sacrifice. The principal economic effect of the system was to distribute the income from the temple service among the priestly families, since each course had the right to a share of the offerings that were brought during its week of service.

The liturgical life of the courses was complex and highly regulated. The daily sacrifice consisted of a burnt offering of a one-year-old lamb, accompanied by a meal offering of flour and oil and a drink offering of wine. The sacrifice was performed twice a day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, and the priest who performed the sacrifice had to be in a state of ritual purity. The priests who were on duty would also perform the Sabbath offering, which consisted of two lambs instead of one, and the festival offerings, which varied according to the festival. The priests who were on duty would also be available for the individual offerings that worshippers might bring, and the priests would share in the distribution of the meat of those offerings among the priests who had participated in the sacrifice.

The economic life of the courses was equally complex. The priests who were on duty received a share of the offerings, and the share was distributed according to a system that was carefully regulated by the temple authorities. The share was not a fixed percentage of the value of the offerings, but rather a complex distribution of the various kinds of offerings, with the priests receiving the meat, the hides and certain specified portions of the grain and wine offerings. The system of distribution was designed to ensure that all of the priests who had participated in the service received a share, and the system was carefully documented in the Mishnah and the Tosefta. The economic significance of the system for the priestly families was considerable, since the income from the temple service was a major source of support for the priestly caste.

The Mishmarot system also had an effect on the geography of the Jewish community. The priests who were on duty would travel to Jerusalem from their homes in the countryside and in the diaspora, and the priests would stay in the temple precincts or in the city during their week of service. The system required a network of roads and lodgings that could accommodate the priests and their families, and the system contributed to the development of the Jewish settlement in the land of Israel and in the diaspora. The system also required a system of communication that could coordinate the rotation of the courses, and the system relied on the messengers and the synagogues that were established throughout the Jewish world.

The Mishmarot system also had an effect on the social structure of the Jewish community. The priestly caste was a hereditary caste, and the children of priests were expected to marry within the caste and to perpetuate the priestly lineage. The system of recruitment of new priests that is described in the Mishnah tractate Yevamot was designed to maintain the boundaries of the caste, and the system was enforced by the temple authorities. The system was not always successful, and there were many cases of men who claimed priestly descent without being able to prove it, and there were many cases of priests who married outside the caste. The system was, however, a powerful force for the maintenance of the priestly caste, and the system was an important part of the social structure of the Jewish community in the Second Temple period.

The Mishmarot system also had an effect on the religious life of the Jewish community. The system provided a rhythm to the religious year that was independent of the festivals, and the system contributed to the sense of continuity and order that was characteristic of the Second Temple period. The system also provided a model for the organization of the synagogue service, and the system has been preserved in the synagogue liturgy to the present day. The reading of the Torah in the synagogue is still organized according to a weekly cycle, and the cycle is in some ways a continuation of the Mishmarot system, even though the synagogue has no temple service to perform.

The Mishmarot in Modern Scholarship

The modern study of the Mishmarot system began in the nineteenth century, when scholars first began to pay serious attention to the priestly courses as a historical institution. The most important early work on the system was done by the German biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen and his students, who placed the system in the context of the broader history of the Israelite priesthood. Wellhausen’s work was followed by the more detailed studies of the early twentieth century, which benefited from the discovery of the Elephantine papyri and other documents that shed new light on the priestly institutions of the Persian and Hellenistic periods.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 transformed the study of the Mishmarot system, since the scrolls provided direct evidence for the calendar practices of the Second Temple period. The Mishmarot scrolls from Qumran were among the first scrolls to be studied in detail, and the scrolls have been the subject of a large number of articles and monographs. The scrolls have been used by scholars to reconstruct the daily life of the Qumran community, and the scrolls have been used to argue for the existence of a solar calendar of 364 days that was the calendar of the community.

The Mishmarot scrolls have also been important for the study of the Jewish calendar more generally. The scrolls have been used by scholars to argue that the 364-day calendar was the calendar of the Second Temple period, and the scrolls have been used to argue that the lunar calendar was a later development. The scrolls have also been used by scholars to argue that the Mishmarot system was not merely a service rotation but also a model for the liturgical calendar, and the scrolls have been used to argue that the synagogue liturgy of the post-destruction period was based on the Mishmarot system.

The most comprehensive modern study of the Mishmarot system is the work of Shemaryahu Talmon and his students, who have produced a series of articles and monographs on the calendar practices of the Qumran community. The work of Talmon has been extended by the more recent scholarship of Jonathan Ben-Dov and his students, who have used the Mishmarot scrolls to reconstruct the daily liturgical life of the Qumran community. The Mishmarot scrolls are also important for the study of the Hebrew calendar, and the scrolls have been used by scholars of the calendar to argue that the 364-day calendar was the calendar of the Qumran community and not, as some scholars had previously thought, a later invention.

The study of the Mishmarot system has also been important for the history of religion more broadly. The system is one of the earliest examples of a rotating service schedule in the ancient world, and the system has been compared with the rotating service schedules of the Babylonian temple cults and the Greek priestly colleges. The system has been used by scholars to argue that the Israelite priesthood was not unique in its institutional development, and the system has been used to argue that the Israelite priesthood was part of a broader ancient Near Eastern tradition of organized priesthood.

The Mishmarot system is, in sum, a major subject of study in its own right, and the system is also a window into the broader history of the Israelite priesthood, the Second Temple period, and the Jewish calendar. The study of the system has been transformed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the study of the system continues to be an active area of research. The Mishmarot scrolls from Qumran are among the most important witnesses to the system, and the scrolls have been used by scholars to reconstruct the daily life of the Second Temple period. The system is also a living tradition that has been preserved in the Jewish liturgical calendar to the present day, and the system continues to be relevant to the study of Jewish history and Jewish practice.

References

1. The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library – Israel Antiquities Authority, ongoing.
2. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls – Jonathan Ben-Dov, Routledge, 2013.
3. The World of the Qumran Community – Shemaryahu Talmon, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
4. Mishmarot Calendars from Qumran – Shemaryahu Talmon and Israel Ben-Dov, in Meghillot, 2001.
5. The Mishnah – Jacob Neusner, Yale University Press, 1988.
6. The Tosefta – Jacob Neusner, KTAV Publishing, 2002.
7. The Jerusalem Talmud – Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, De Gruyter, 2000.
8. Prolegomenon to the Mishnah – Jacob Neusner, Harvard University Press, 1970.
9. The Jews Under Roman Rule – Emil Schurer, T. and T. Clark, 1973.
10. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ – Emil Schurer, T. and T. Clark, 1973.
11. The Books of Chronicles – Sara Japhet, Oxford University Press, 1993.
12. Second Temple Studies – Philip R. Davies, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
13. Head of All Years – Shemaryahu Talmon, Brill, 2001.
14. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community – George J. Brooke, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
15. The Calendar of the Qumran Community – Joseph Fitzmyer, Harvard Semitic Monographs, 1975.