The NET Forum Off the Beaten Track: More topics, places to visit and things to see

"A City that Makes All Israel Friends"

Normative Communitas and the Struggle for Religious Legitimacy

in Pilgrimages to the Second Temple 

 

by Dr. Jackie Feldman

 

 

 

The biblical injunction states: "Three times yearly shall all your male issue by seen before the face of the Lord God at the place He shall choose" (Deut 16:16; Exod 22:17).

 

Pilgrimage to the Second Temple was one of the most widespread religiously motivated movements of people in antiquity[1]. In this article, I examine several aspects of pilgrimage to the Second Temple within a theoretical frame drawn from the contemporary anthropological study of pilgrimage. In doing so, I hope to place Second Temple pilgrimage in a comparative frame and open the way to further dialogue between the study of pilgrimage to the Second Temple and research on other pilgrimages.

 

1. Introduction

 

The Second Temple served as the center of Jewish religious authority and worship, of values and social practices. In the writings of Flavius Josephus (Antiquities III:179-183; V:458-459), the Temple was portrayed as a microcosm of the universe. The ritual activities of the Temple priests were seen as insuring the fertility of the land, divine forgiveness of sins, the very existence of heaven and earth (TSot 15:2). In the Temple, the new moon was announced, Torah scrolls checked and corrected, the lineages of priests throughout the world verified, and religious knowledge transmitted. The Temple and its pilgrims were the major source of Jerusalem's income, and the force shaping the social makeup of the surrounding countryside. Especially for the Jewish religious leadership and the residents of Jerusalem and Judea, the Temple was "the point of convergence of the lines of structure, both cosmic and social"[2].

 

By the late Second Temple Period, in the First Century C.E., however, the Jewish population had spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. While the Temple remained a cosmic center for Diaspora Jews, it was geographically and economically peripheral to most Jews' daily lives. For Philo of Alexandria, for example, pilgrimage to the Temple was not a regular calendrical event. Undoubtedly based on his own experience in Jerusalem (De Prov. II:64)[3], he writes that the pilgrim "leaves his homeland and his family and friends to sojourn in a strange country. Yet uncounted multitudes arrive, some by sea and some by land, from East and West and North and South on each holiday. The Temple serves them as a safe haven from the chaos and confusion of life. There they seek repose. ties of friendship are created between those who did not know each other before, and the sacrifices and libations are occasions of emotional exchange which provide the strongest certainty that all are of one mind" (Philo, De Spec Leg I, 68).

 

2. Structure and antistructure in the pilgrimage experience

 

The two aspects illustrated above - the cosmic centrality of the Second Temple and its distance from the daily lives of a large number of its pilgrims - correspond to the differing conceptualizations of the sacred center as expressed in the work of Mircea Eliade and Victor Turner.

 

Eliade understands each sacred center as a "center of the world": "the place where all essential modes of being came together; where communication among them is possible. where the most direct contact with the sacred is observed[4]". Many references in Scripture and in Second Temple writings attribute cosmological significance to the Temple and Jerusalem[5].  Indeed, Eliade refers to the Temple in Jerusalem as a prototype for the cosmic centrality of sacred places[6]. Such cosmic centers have a strong ordering power; they create webs of meaning that both reflect and shape the experience of those attracted to them[7]. They provide models for everyday conduct, while conferring legitimacy to the religious authorities associated with them.

 

Victor Turner, on the other hand, emphasized the geographical and social peripheriality of pilgrimage centers. Adapting theories on rites of passage developed by Van Gennep, Victor Turner suggested that the pilgrim leaves his home and his familiar surroundings to journey, often facing hardships and dangers, to a sacred periphery, a center out there, which transiently becomes the center for the individual. Turner maintained that pilgrimage is not primarily a reflection of social structure prevailing in everyday profane life, but most often its reversal, antistructure. At the center out there, the pilgrim experiences communitas, "the being no longer side by side, but with one another of a multitude of persons", "a moment in and out of time...which reveals, however fleetingly, some recognition (in symbol if not always in language) of a generalized social bond". Often, external signs, such as uniform clothing, fasting or common meals will represent and reinforce the leveling down of status signs that is the mark of communitas. The pilgrim returns home transformed, with a new status[8]. As radical communitas has the potential of dissolving borders, thus threatening social structures, religious authorities will often attempt to limit spontaneous outbreaks of communitas, by directing them into normative forms. These forms, however, are informed by the "free spirit" of communitas, and are not simply replications of social structure. Turner designated this condition by the name normative communitas, which he saw as an attenuation or degeneration of the original, spontaneous impulse that created the 'miraculous' sense of existential oneness.

 

Turner's claim that communitas and antistructure are universal characteristics of pilgrimages has been criticized on empirical grounds, notably by Michael Sallnow. Sallnow[9] demonstrated that, pilgrimages could be marked by animosities and strong boundary-marking procedures between ethnic and geographical sub-groups of pilgrims. He suggested examining pilgrimage, not as a reversal of structure, but as a realm of competing discourses, where different groups of participants may possess different understandings of the same pilgrimage[10].

 

Erik Cohen suggested that Turner's search for universals in the pilgrimage experience, based on data from popular Catholic Marian shrines, led him to disregard other pilgrimage sites in which the principal religious and political centers are fused[11]. Such pilgrimage centers may not be "out there", but rather "centers of the world" (Eliade), centers that shape social and religious structures and values diffused throughout the broader society. Where the religious and the political domains coincide, Cohen suggests, we may expect greater control over pilgrim behavior on the part of central religious authorities, more formalized and decorous demeanor and fewer expressions of ludic or anti-structural behavior[12].

 

I suggest that these perspectives can provide new insights into certain practices of Second Temple pilgrimage and the conflicting forces that affect the pilgrim experience. I will begin with a short survey of the historical sources and background for Second Temple pilgrimage, and describe the extensive influence of the late Second Temple on the economy and society of Jerusalem and its surroundings. This will demonstrate how the centrality of the Temple was manifested in the social realm. I will then provide several illustrations to show how the masses of pilgrims on festivals expressed strong leveling forces that breached everyday barriers. The interplay of the various hierarchical and leveling forces result in what Turner calls normative communitas, regulated forms that nonetheless retain qualities of existential brotherhood and equality. Normative communitas is, however, a dynamic process, a function of competing discourses (see Sallnow, above, note 10), fostered by bearers of  competing theological  views and financial and political interests. In the examples I chose, I will show how popular communitas was encouraged by the Pharisees, often against the (predominantly Sadducee) priesthood, that sought to limit it.

 

3. Sources and historical background of Second Temple Pilgrimage
 

I have chosen to focus on the last century of the Second Temple (30 BCE-70CE). From this period, we have the writings of Josephus, and occasional references in the New Testament, the apocrypha and pseudopigrapha, Philo of Alexandria and the literature of Qumran. Archaeological excavations, especially those of the Southern Wall and the Jewish Quarter, have enriched our knowledge of the economic and social conditions of Jerusalem and its pilgrims. These sources, admittedly, do not provide a totally representative picture. They may reflect the partisan views or political purposes of their authors, and  they provide almost no experiential accounts of pilgrims coming from afar. From a slightly later period, we possess the traditions on pilgrimage, the Temple and purity laws, which were preserved in Tannaitic literature. While these sources were compiled after the destruction of the Temple and may reflect nostalgia for an experience past and gone, I hold that, where they are not obviously tinged by mythical perspectives, the Tannaitic descriptions of Second Temple pilgrimage do reflect realities of the period[13], especially as seen by the Rabbis' predecessors, the Pharisees. Indeed, the independent descriptions of the Temple in the New Testament and in Josephus, as well as archaeological discoveries, largely corroborate the  picture[14]. This wide variety of sources enables us to construct a fairly accurate portrait of the pilgrimage to the Temple and its effect on the population of Jerusalem.
 

While in the early Second Temple Period, the number of pilgrims to the Temple was small, in the Hasmonean Period (mid 2nd Century B.C.E. - mid -1st Century B.C.E.), larger areas came under domination of Jewish priest-kings, and conquered peoples (Edomites, Itureans, Galileans) were forcibly converted to Judaism. Moreover, Judaism became a major missionary religion throughout the Roman Empire. Starting 20 B.C.E., Herod rebuilt the Temple to accommodate throngs of pilgrims, increase the financial and political importance of Jerusalem, and, consequently, his own legitimacy, fortune and fame[15]. The pax romana and the improvement in road service, safety and transport, facilitated long-distance travel to the Temple on the part of Jews in far-away places. Unlike their surrounding cultures, diaspora Jews could sacrifice in one place only  - the Temple in Jerusalem[16]. In the Roman world, the insistence on pilgrimage to a single shrine was unique to Jerusalem[17]. Many Diaspora Jews who rarely visited the Temple, considered it a central symbol as well as a source of authority and pride[18].

 

4. The influence of the Second Temple on its surroundings

 

In Jerusalem, as in many pilgrimage centers, the holiness of the sanctuary was extended to the surroundings, and the temple city became a holy city. In addition, the presence of the sanctuary profoundly influences the economy and social makeup of the surrounding area[19].

 

Although scholars' estimates of their numbers vary[20], they clearly outnumbered the permanent residents of Jerusalem. The multitudes of pilgrims required water, food, sacrificial animals, pottery for cooking, fuel, lodging, proper sanitation, special clothing and much more.  The activities of the Temple and its pilgrims supported a wide range of occupations in Jerusalem, and purity and holiness regulations made their mark on the city. The relatively long stay of pilgrims in the city, and the diverse wares that many pilgrims brought with them, made Jerusalem, a city with little natural strategic importance, into an international marketplace. Magen Broshi[21] estimates the annual income of the Temple in Herod's day at ten percent of Herod's income from his entire kingdom. Much of this income found its way into the hands of several High Priestly families, who lived in Jerusalem in great luxury[22].

 

The catchment basin[23] of Jerusalem pilgrimage was exceedingly large, as many Jews, as well as Gentile God-fearers (phoboumenoi) or potential converts from across the Roman Empire and beyond made their way to the Temple[24]. Many settled or sojourned for an extended period of time in the city, as is attested to by the names and birthplaces on funerary inscriptions unearthed in excavations. Pilgrimage thus became a means of diffusing religious knowledge and orthodoxy from the spiritual center to the periphery[25]. Hence, the Temple became an arena where Jewish groups and leaders competed among pilgrims for spiritual authority in the wider Jewish world.

 

5. Structure and flow in Second Temple pilgrimage

 

Throughout the year, Temple priests could inscribe the ordering principles of their social structure on the space of the Temple[26] and on its sacrificial ritual. Furthermore, everyday economic relations were ordered by a hierarchical oligarchic society, in which (at least in Jerusalem) the priesthood enjoyed a privileged position. Pilgrimage festivals, on the other hand, were often the occasion for breach in the mundane order. I will illustrate this breach in three domains: 1. the economic obligations of Temple pilgrims, 2. popular participation in the Temple cult on festivals, and 3. purity regulations involving commensuality and bodily contact in and around the Temple. In the first case, the status differences marking rich and poor are attenuated and the contractual obligations of purely economic exchange are, in part, replaced by the less alienating ties of social exchange. In the latter two cases, the rigid lines of priestly structuring of the cosmos, as symbolized in the Temple and its cult, are blurred or obliterated by the irruption of communitas, and the undifferentiated flow of the mass pilgrim experience. In this state, there is a loss of self-consciousness that frequently leads people to ignore the markers between the permitted and the prohibited. In the latter two cases, I will also demonstrate how the fostering of normative communitas through pilgrimage legislation could serve a particular leadership group (in this case, the Pharisees) in their struggle for authority and legitimacy.

a. Communitas and the regulation of the economic obligations of pilgrims

 

Each pilgrim to the Second Temple was obliged to bring a sacrifice upon his arrival, although the monetary value of that sacrifice was not specified (MZeb 13:1). Uncontrolled, this could result in the conspicuous display of wealth by pilgrims and in the exclusion of poorer pilgrims from the festivities. Economic differences were, however, minimized through a series of regulations that are clear expressions of normative communitas.

 

Any farmer living within a day's walk of Jerusalem was required to bring first-fruits of their vines (neta r'vai) in kind, rather than redeem them for monies to be spent in the city, so that he "distribute them to his neighbors, relatives and acquaintances and adorn the market with them" (TMa'aser Sheni 5:14). The abundance of fruit actually brought prices down on festivals, in spite of the heightened demand: "if it was expensive there, once (the pilgrims) entered, it was cheap" (Avot deRabbi Natan, Version B, Section 39). First-born animals were also to be brought to the city in kind, "so that much livestock be available for pilgrim (needs)" (PT Sheq 3:1. Ber 58a). Sacrifices were to be eaten within thirty-six hours. Consequently, there was an abundance of meat in the Temple courts and throughout the city, often more than could be consumed by the donors; this insured that the poor would have their bellies filled and would be invited to sup together with pilgrim groups (Philo. De Spec Leg II, 210-211).

 

Pilgrims were required to lodge in Jerusalem throughout the festival. Homeowners were prohibited from taking rental monies from pilgrims (TMa'aser Sheni 1:3; Abot deRabbi Natan, Version A, Section 35). The reason provided by the Tosefta for this decree is telling: "One does not rent out houses in Jerusalem. because they belong to the tribes" (TMa'aser Sheni 1:12)(alternatively: "because they are not theirs" (Megilla 26a)). The holiness of the city - that is, its belonging to the entire covenant people (or, alternatively, its consecration to God) - weakens the force of Jerusalemites' individual property rights. The ultimate Master of the house, God, demands that guests of His house take precedence. This weakening of property rights is a legal formulation of the conception of Jerusalem as teruma or as intertribal and thus, exterritorial, as outlined in the visionary sacred geography of Ezekiel, Chapters 45 and 48[27]. The result of such legislation is described by the Midrash as one of the ten 'miracles' of Jerusalem: "no one ever said to his friend, there is too little space for me to lodge in Jerusalem" (Abot deRabbi Natan, Version A, Section 35).  

 

On four years of each seven-year cycle, agriculturalists living in Israel were required to set aside a "second tithe" that could be used in Jerusalem for expenditures on food, drink and oil for anointing the body. In most cases, these monies were spent on pilgrimage festivals. The laws of second tithes specify: "Second tithe may not be sold, nor given as pledge, nor exchanged, nor used for reckoning weights. One may not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, 'Here is wine and give me oil (in exchange)', or 'here is oil, give me wine (in exchange)'. But one may say, 'here is wine for you, for I have no oil', 'Here is oil for you, for I have no wine'. But they give each other free gifts" (MMa'aser Sheni 1:1). The Tosefta adds: "Consequently, they exchange and yet do not exchange, and do each other favors" (TMa'aser Sheni 1:1-2). The Jerusalem Talmud comments on the law: "since he cannot legally enforce the transaction, it is not an exchange" (PT Ma'aser Sheni (1), 52c).

 

The distinction between permitted and prohibited exchanges of produce of this pilgrimage fund is an excellent example of the distinction between social and purely economic exchange as elaborated by Marcel Mauss (on the gift), Bronislaw Malinowski (on the kula ring) and Peter Blau[28]. As Blau explained, "social exchange. involves unspecified obligations, the fulfillment of which depends on trust because it cannot be enforced in the absence of a binding contract[29]. Only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligation, gratitude and trust; purely economic exchange does not[30]. The taboo on explicit bargaining in the case of gifts is designed to protect their significance as tokens of friendship, that is, as signs of altruistic attraction, from being obliterated by the inherent value of the objects themselves[31]". In their regulation of the use of pilgrim funds, the halakhic authorities sought to replace the rigid structure of the laws of the marketplace, and the consequent alienation of the produce from the person of the producer, with the free grace of gift-giving that is a mark of communitas[32]. Thus, the Mishna states: "One should not say to his friend: 'take these fruits up to Jerusalem for me to distribute'. Rather, he should say, 'let us take them up so that we may eat and drink of them in Jerusalem'. But they give each other free gifts" (MMa'aser Sheni 3:1). The Jerusalem Talmud's commentary on the second tithe law sums up this understanding, citing a popular saying that  refers to second tithe produce as 'manna': "just as manna is given in gift, so too, second tithe is given in gift" (PT Ma'aser Sheni 52c).  The laws governing Second Temple pilgrims' exchange encourage and exalt communality and are imbued with the spirit of communitas.

 

b.  b. Priestly cosmology and popular participation in the cult on pilgrimage

 

As William Scott Green formulated it, "from the priestly perspective, reality was reflected in, and holiness could only be achieved through, the ritual complex of the Temple cult"[33]. The priestly class envisioned the cosmos was that of  a well-regulated series of concentric circles surrounding the center of the world, the Holy of Holies. The space of the Temple precincts was governed by a strict hierarchy of sacrality of function and successively more severely restricted access. As one approached the center, the Holy of Holies, purity, lineage and bodily perfection requirements became more stringent, whereas the range of activities performed in each area became more sacred and more restricted (MKelim 1:6-9) [34]. The Holy of Holies could be entered only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, and only by the High Priest performing the service. Certain trespasses - Gentiles entering beyond the sorag barrier[35] into the Court of Women, impure priests serving in the Sanctuary (MSanh 9:6; TKelim, Baba Kamma 1:6; Antiquities XII, 145; XV:417-418),)  - were punishable by death.

 

The priestly cosmology was also reflected in cultic performance. In the First and early Second Temple, the offering of sacrificial animals, the sprinkling of blood and the offering of incense, performed by the priests inside the hekhal, which was off-limits to laymen, comprised almost the entirety of worship. In the Second Temple, music and prayer became an important part of the ritual[36], and much of the focus moved outside to the courtyard and the altar of sacrifice, where the people could see what was going on. Yet, even here, on normal occasions, non-priests were permitted only as far as the altar, where they handed their sacrificial animals over to the priests for the laying on of hands, slaughtering and offering. Popular participation, and the breach of these priestly regulations was most evident on the three pilgrimage festivals, Passover, the first-fruits procession (often on Shavuot) and Sukkot.

 

On the eve of the Passover, thousands of lambs were slaughtered in the Temple courtyards by their donors, and priests circulated among the crowds with vessels to collect the blood to be sprinkled on the altar. In Philo's words, "the entire congregation, young and old, slaughtered the Paschal lamb; for, on that day all were, so to speak, raised to the dignity of the priesthood[37]" (De Spec Leg II, 145).

 

The Feast of Shavuot was, for many pilgrims, the occasion to bring their first fruits to the Temple in a massive popular procession: "All the villages in the ma'amad congregate in the town of the ma'amad, but do not enter the houses. Those close by bring figs and grapes, while those far away bring dried figs and raisins. The ox goes before them, his horns gilded and an olive wreath on his head. The flute plays before them until they reach the Temple Mount. When they reach the Temple Mount, even King Agrippa takes the basket on his own shoulder and enters until he reaches the Courtyard. When they reach the courtyard, the Levites open in song." (MBikkurim 3:2-5).

 

The festive procession took place mainly outside the Temple area; the priests are notable by their absence, while the equality of worshippers is demonstrated by the report that even King Agrippa took the basket of first fruits on his own shoulder. This procession, which Philo calls the Basket Festival, bears many similarities with the pagan first-fruits processions to Eleusis[38]: slow marching, mass pilgrimage in groups representing villages and towns, accompaniment by song and musical instruments (especially flutes), festive reception at the gates by inhabitants of the Temple city, accompaniment of the first-fruits with animal sacrifices, and even the heading of the procession by a garlanded ox with gilded horns.

 

On the feast of Sukkot, the highlights of the celebration were the beating of the willow (M. Sukka 4:5 sqq.) and the night-long Feast of the Water-Drawing (simhat bet hasho'eva) (MSuk 5: 1 sqq.; TSuk 4: 1-9), celebrations without First Temple precedent, similar in form to contemporary pagan festivals[39]. During the beating of the willow, the people circumambulated the altar, striking it with their willow-branches, and entering a part of the courtyard normally off-limits to non-priests, in spite of Sadducee priests' objections[40] (TSuk 3:1). The Talmud quoted a popular saying: "whoever has not seen the Feast of the Water Drawing has never seen joy in his life" (MSuk 5:1). Rabbis juggled torches and performed acrobatics (MSuk 5:4; TSuk 4:4), as the Levites played their musical instruments and the congregation sang songs. Some Temple authorities felt obliged to separate the men from the women in the Temple courtyards, "lest it lead to light-headedness" (MSuk 5:4; TSuk  4:7; Suk 51b).The feast ended with the pouring of the water on the altar, an act pregnant with cosmic symbolism and sympathetic fertility magic[41].

 

The late Second Temple Period was marked by conflict between Pharisees and Saducees over questions of popular participation in the cult[42]. Thus, when the Sadducee High Priest made light of the popular custom by dribbling the water on his feet instead of pouring it on the altar, the infuriated crowd stoned him with their etrogim. The incident is cited by rabbinic sources as a case where the people supported the Pharisee views against the Sadducee ones (MSuk 4:9; TSuk 3:16). The people's objections undoubtedly stemmed from the magical rain-making significance attributed to the proper performance of the ritual. By promoting popular customs such as the water-libation during the mass pilgrimages, Pharisees could position themselves as champions of the people and create a new base for religious authority, although they possessed neither the privilege of Aaronic descent, nor Scriptural sanction of their authority. We know that, by the end of the Second Temple Period, Pharisees succeeded in imposing their laws in many areas (Antiquities XVIII:15), including the priestly ritual on the Day of Atonement service in the inner sanctum (MYoma 5:2; TYom Hakuppurim 1:8-9).

 

Another example concerns the display of the sacred vessels. On each of the festivals, the sacred vessels, the seven-branched candelabrum and the table with the shew-bread, normally kept inside the hekhal, (where they could only be seen by priests) were displayed to the public[43], to the dismay of the more conservative priests (M Hag 3:8; THag 3:35; Yoma 54a). The candelabrum itself was called by Sadducee priests "the light of the moon" (Tos. Hagiga 3:35), and the sight of these vessels was a high point of many pilgrims' quest[44]. 

c. Temple purity restrictions and communitas

 

Purity regulations and purification rites were the basis for much of the differential access to sacred space and the restrictions on performance of rituals. "Pollution", writes Mary Douglas, "is a type of danger which is not likely to occur except where the lines of structure, cosmic and social are clearly defined[45]". Although the Temple - centered regulations did not draw the dominant lines determining social stratification in everyday life, they did promote a vision of the universe in which the Priests were at the center and reinforced the status of the priests as sole mediators of the holy.

 

On pilgrimage festivals, purity regulations were modified to attenuate the differential status enjoyed by the priesthood. All, or almost all pilgrims underwent a seven-day purification period upon their arrival in Jerusalem. Philo writes, "But it is prohibited to enter the Sanctuary even for those entirely pure before seven days" (De Spec Leg III, 205). All pilgrims entering the Temple Mount were required to remove their clothes, immerse themselves in a ritual bath and, leaving their sandals, staffs and money-purse outside, enter the Temple in white garments. We find that in many pilgrimage festivals, such as the hajj to Mecca (as well as in rites of passage), the stripping off of daily clothing, purification rites and the donning of uniform pilgrims' garb[46] make pilgrims of different social classes more or less indistinguishable from one another. Here, they also resemble the white-clad, barefoot priests. All those entering the Court of Israel, adjacent to the altar of sacrifice, were required to immerse themselves, even the High Priest (MYoma 3:3; TYoma 1:15; MNeg 14:8; TNeg 8:9). As Safrai commented, "the Tannaitic Halakha thus made Israelites equal to Priests and saw their entry into the sanctuary as a kind of priestly worship[47]".

 

While many of the purity restrictions applied primarily in the Temple context, some were extended to everyday life. The haverim, a Pharisee elite, adopted Temple customs in everyday life. They ate their daily meals in closed circles of other haverim, in conditions of purity similar to those obtaining among Temple priests eating consecrated foods and avoided contact with amei ha'aretz (MDemai 2:2-3; TDemai 2:2-3), "the simple people of the rural and urban masses. who were more cavalier or selective in their observance of the commandments"[48]. On the pilgrimage festivals, however, the Pharisees suspended the purity restrictions of the haverim: "'Jerusalem built up, a city knit (hubra) together, (to which tribes would make pilgrimage)' - a city that makes all Israel haverim.the rabbis made the impurity of the am ha'aretz equivalent to purity" (BBes 11b; BNid 34a). The elevation of all amei ha'aretz to the status of haverim - members of the elite group, is what enables all pilgrims, haverim  and amei ha'aretz alike to become haverim - friends. The suspension of these purity restrictions, however, applied only on pilgrimage festivals. The resulting festival spirit is conveyed through the Midrash: "And the (nations of the world) find all of Israel in Jerusalem, all eating the same meal, all drinking the same drink, all praying to the same God. and they say, 'there can be nothing better than to attach oneself to this people'." (Sifrei Deut 354 (Horowitz ed., p. 416)).

 

6. Pilgrimage and religious legitimation

 

Pilgrimage offered an opportunity for the Temple priesthood to display their status as religious mediators, but they usually remained distant figures, isolated by lineage, purity restrictions (cf. MSanh 2:1), separate entrances to the sanctuary and an aristocratic self-conception as a tribe set apart. As the author of a contemporary pseudopigraphal book writes, "they with hand and mind will touch impure things. yet they will say, 'Do not touch me, lest you pollute me in the position I occupy'." (As. Mos. 7, 9-10). Furthermore, the High Priestly families' amassed riches, their alliances with wealthy lay families, their exemption from both State and Temple taxes (MSheq 1:3-4), their abuses of power (TMen, 13:21), their fraternal violence (Antiquities V: 180-181; X: 213)[49], occasionally leading to murders within the Temple precincts (MYoma 2:2; TYom Hakippurim 1:12), and their often pro-Roman sympathies, all engendered resentment on the part of many people, especially those in Jerusalem who came in more frequent contact with them. This resentment burst forth during the Great Revolt in the year 70 C.E. (Wars II:427; IV:414; VII:412ff.).

 

While the High Priests fortified their lofty position, the Pharisees employed the arena of pilgrimage to present their world-view and to gain the affection and respect of the people. They mingled among the masses on pilgrimage festivals, sharing their meals, teaching the Law and encouraging the people to participate more actively in Temple rites, moving the focus from the Holy of Holies to the more visible and accessible altar and courtyards. They went to the extent of juggling torches and performing acrobatics on the Feast of the Water-Drawing (TSukkah 4:2). Undoubtedly, the contacts made on pilgrimage would aid them as they went out to the provinces and the Diaspora to preach their message in synagogues. Furthermore, in addition to their participation in the Temple cult, the Pharisees promoted Torah study and observance of ethical and ritual laws in daily life as pillars of Judaism, alongside the sacrificial cult (MAbot 1:2)[50]. Towards the close of the Second Temple Period, they also began to practice certain secondary Temple rites in synagogues throughout the Jewish world: lighting an eternal flame, blowing the ram's horn, holding processions in the synagogue with the etrog and lulav, reading the Torah in public, reading the daily Psalm, and more[51]. These practices extended Temple sanctity to areas outside the holy city and, paved the way for the acceptance of the Pharisee's spiritual descendants, the Rabbis, as authoritative vehicles of holiness.

 

7. Conclusions

 

The examples I have provided illustrate how ritual barriers erected by the Temple priesthood, which confirmed the priests' superior position as sole mediators of the divine, were swept away or rendered more flexible by the flow of festival pilgrims, who sought to appear as equals "before the Lord". The interaction of priestly and popular forces, along with the encouragement of a popularizing class of intellectual Pharisees, resulted in the dynamic process of normative communitas. But because of the status of the Second Temple as center of the world, communitas itself could be employed by non-Priestly groups as a tool in their struggle for Temple-based legitimacy.