489) Pharisees and Sadducees: The politics of Sages and Priests

Pesher Nachum from Qumran 13

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Eyal Regev[1] − examines the theological differences between the Sadducees (צָדוֹקִים - Tzadokim) and Pharisees (פְּרוּשִׁם - Perushim). It identifies the differences between the early class of Jewish priests, known as the Sadducees, and an emerging rabbinic class, known as the Pharisees. It focuses on the moment when rabbinic Judaism, as we understand it, became the more dominant force in the future development of Jewish history, as the nascent rabbinic sages (Pharisees) began to displace the established Temple priests (Sadducees). 

Historical background

The Romans conquered Judea in 63 BCE and, after the last Hasmonean king was executed, appointed their Jewish ally, Herod (of Edomite extraction) as king of Judea in 37 BCE. Herod ruled until he died in 4 BCE, and during his reign, the Jews experienced a degree of autonomy. 

After Herod’s death, the Romans began to persecute their Jewish population, and this inspired the Great Jewish Revolt (66-73 CE) which resulted negatively in the destruction of the Second Temple and of Jerusalem (70 CE) when hundreds of thousands of Jews were either killed or expelled. 

The theological struggle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees – the rabbinic sages and the priests – played out during the Perushim (140 BCE to 37 BCE) and Herodian (37 BCE - 73 CE) periods.^[2] 

Pharisees and Sadducees

During the Hasmonean and Herodian periods the Sadducees were the most dominant group. In the time of Jesus, it was the Sadducees who handed him over to the Romans. Ironically, although the Sadducees were the more dominant faction, very little is known about them. Regev has studied the Sadducees and particularly their law, or Halacha, and compares their law to the law of the Pharisees, the emerging rabbinic sages of the pre and early Mishnaic period.[3] 

The Mishna is perhaps the greatest repository of information about the Pharisees and Sadducees. However, Regev points out that with regard to the Pharisee-Sadducee political polemics, some of the Mishnaic (Pharisee) sources may be biased against their opponents, the Sadducees. Therefore, the Mishnaic evidence may not be an accurate reflection of the underlying tensions between the opposing parties for the following reasons: 

“First, the Rabbinic corpus was edited centuries after the destruction of the Temple, when the Pharisees and Sadducees ceased to exist; how, then, were the rabbis able to know what these groups thought and how they acted? Second, in many cases the Rabbinic accounts are tendentious, showing Pharisaic superiority and achievements” (Regev 2006:127). 

Facing this problem, Regev sets out to carefully select only the Mishnaic statements that did not ostensibly reflect a political debate or polemic with the Sadducees: 

“The key to this reevaluation lies in examining the Rabbinic descriptions without prejudice, searching for pieces of information that do not seem polemical and that do not seem to be a product of a later imagination” (Regev 2006:127). 

In other words, Regev was going to examine only the references to the Sadducees that seemed to be recorded incidentally and were not part of the political and struggle rhetoric. 

Ignoring polemical sources and using only theological sources

Regev ignores the confrontational debates between the Pharisees and Sadducees and focuses only on their recorded theological differences. What emerges from Regev’s approach is very interesting: 

“the rabbis were extremely consistent in portraying the Sadducees as holding stricter views than the rabbis themselves concerning Sabbath, ritual purity, the penal code, and as putting a much greater emphasis on the priests and their prominence in relation to the laity” (Regev 2006:127-8). 

Because this theme of Sadducee stringency runs throughout Mishnaic literature it must have been an accurate depiction because the sages would not have wanted to present themselves as less serious and more lenient about Halacha than their opponents: 

“it would have suggested that, in their leniency, the rabbis were less devoted to the Torah than the Sadducees. Their portrait of the Sadducean rigorous Halakhah does not emerge from a single text or editor, but encompasses the whole Rabbinic halakhic corpus” (Regev 2006:127-8). 

Regev, therefore, takes the rabbinic depictions of the Halachic and theological differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees as relatively reliable but is less trustworthy of the historicity of the disputes and polemics with the Sadducees (=  בָּיְיתוּסִים Boethusians)[4] where the Pharisees always emerge victorious. Adopting this methodology, Regev notices a theological pattern that begins to emerge regarding how each faction viewed Kedusha or holiness. As we shall see, Regev considers the Sadducees’ approach to holiness to be dynamic, whereas the Pharisees’ approach is static. This is an important distinction because the Pharisees and Sadducees conflicted with each other over which practices to introduce in the Temple service. 

We now turn to some case studies that highlight the distinctions between dynamic and static holiness. 

1) Shabbat

R. Shimon ben Gamliel had a Sadducean neighbour who refused to participate in his Eruv Chatzerot ceremony which would make it permissible to carry on the Sabbath in their shared alley or courtyard. This indicates that Sadducees were much stricter regarding Shabbat observances than their Pharisee neighbours (Mishna, Eruvin 6:2). 

2) Striking the willow on Hoshana Raba

In Temple times, large willows were brought in and leaned upon the altar. The Sadducees would not strike the willow on the festival of Hoshana Rabba (the last day of Sukkot) when it fell on Shabbat. In one case the Sadducees/Boethusians placed rocks over the willows in the Temple to prevent striking them on Shabbat. Here again, the Sadducees/Boethusians were stricter than the Pharisees regarding Shabbat observances (לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בַּיְיתּוֹסִין מוֹדִים שֶׁחִיבּוּט עֲרָבָה דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, b. Sukah 43b).

3) Harvesting the Omer

The Sadducees refused to harvest the Omer on the night after the first day of Pesach, because that day would sometimes fall out on Shabbat.^[5] They interpreted the biblical injunction to bring the Omer on “the morrow of the Shabbat” as Sunday, thus taking the biblical verse literally. This also led to the dispute regarding the date of Shavuot which is seven weeks after the harvest of the Omer. Here too, the Sadducees were stricter than the rabbinic Pharisees (Mishna, Menachot 10:3). 

4) Waging war on Shabbat

The Sadducees refused to fight even a defensive war on Shabbat. It seems that this may even have been the reason why the Temple was destroyed: 

“the fact that the Temple Mount was conquered on the Sabbath indicates that these [Sadducee] supporters did not fight at all on Sabbath” (Regev 2006:130).[6] 

The rabbinic Pharisees, on the other hand, were prepared to fight on Shabbat. 

5) Tevul Yom (טבול יום)

The Sadducees insisted that the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) may only be burned by a Kohen Gadol (High Priest) who is completely pure at sundown. This means that he immersed himself in a mikve (ritual bath) and then waited for the sun to set. 

The Pharisees, on the other hand, allowed the Kohen Gadol to burn the Parah Adumah whilst still in a state of incomplete purity, known as tevul yom. In other words, he had immersed himself in a mikve but the sun had not yet set. The reason for this leniency on the part of the Pharisees was that the ritual was performed, not in the precincts of the Temple, but opposite it, and therefore did not require complete purity (Mishna, Parah 3:7). 

6) Pouring liquids from a pure vessel into an impure vessel (נִּצּוֹק)

The Sadducees argued that pouring from a higher pure vessel to a lower impure vessel contaminated the higher pure vessel. The Sadducees believed that impurity could rise upwards against gravity. 

The Pharisees opposed that stringency and regarded the stream of the liquid to be pure, except for viscous liquids such as honey (Mishna, Yadayim 4:7). 

7) Financing the sacrifices

The Sadducees argued that the daily sacrifices should be paid for by certain individuals, probably the serving priests. The Pharisees, however, countered that the community at large should finance the sacrifices. This is why the Pharisees used the half shekel as a means of communal contribution. The Pharisees opted for a more democratic and participatory relationship to the sacrifices (Mishna, Shekalim 3:3). 

8) Burning the incense

The Sadducees maintained that on Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol must burn the incense in the heichal (court) before he enters the Holy of Holies. The Pharisees, on the other hand, allowed the Kohen Gadol to first enter the Holy of Holies and then burn the incense (Mishna, Yoma 5:1). 

9) A culture of non-trust

There certainly seems to have been a culture of non-trust between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. They did not even trust each other when it came to the order of sacrifices in the Temple, which was controlled predominantly by the Sadducees: 

“According to the Mishnaic aggadah, the high-priest (probably a Sadducee) had to take an oath before the elders that he would not alter the (probably Pharisaic) instructions in performing the sacrificial rituals” (Regev 2006:132). (Mishna, Yoma 1:2-5). 

10) Restricting the laity from Temple participation

The Sadducees excluded lay people from entering the priestly court and would not permit them to have any direct contact with the sacred. In contrast, the Pharisees included lay people and allowed them some participation in the affairs of the Temple. 

A case in point was the Simchat beit haShoeivah (the feast of the house of drawing water) where water was poured on the altar on the festival of Sukkot. The Sadducees opposed such a practice of opening up the Temple to the public, as it were. As a protest, a Sadducee/Boethusian priest poured water over his own feet rather than on the altar. The laity proceeded to stone him with etrogim (citrons) (Mishna, Sukka 4:9). 

11) An eye for an eye

According to Josephus, the Sadducees applied stricter punishments for infringements on civil law than the Pharisees.[7] Similarly, according to a commentary on Megilat Taanit,[8] the Sadducees demanded physical punishment for one who damaged another person. The Sadducees took the biblical notion of ‘an eye for an eye’ literally. The rabbinic Pharisees understood that biblical injunction to mean monetary compensation and not the actual and physical damage to the body. 

Common theme

The common theme in all these cases is that the Sadducees had a much more stringent approach to Halacha concerning Shabbat, the purity laws as well as civil laws. The Sadducees also stressed the aloofness and centrality of their belonging to the priestly class. They took the biblical words literally and rejected the emerging Rabbinic-Pharisee interpretations of the Torah. 

This brings us to the point where we must try to understand what world views and theologies might have informed these differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees. 

Dynamic holiness vs static holiness

The Sadducees were not prepared to accept any leniencies that would make Shabbat observance more comfortable and more acceptable to the masses. Shabbat was holy and if they had to be inconvenienced to experience that holiness, they considered that to be a virtue. The Pharisees, on the other hand, introduced innovations to make Shabbat observance more comfortable and practicable. 

The Sadducees thrived on their purity restrictions and would not compromise on the matter. The Pharisees were prepared to tolerate a degree of spiritual ‘pollution’ and ‘desecration’ in order to be more inclusive of ordinary people. The Sadducees, however, regarded the ordinary people as ‘foreigners’ (as per Numbers 3:10). 

The Pharisees, particularly as they developed into the rabbinic class, diminished the office of the priestly class. The authority began to rest, not in the priest, as it had in the past, but now in the hands of the rabbis. This was the beginning of the rabbinic and Mishnaic period. 

When it came to physical punishments: 

“[T]he Sadducees were stricter because they were more sensitive to the implication of the offence as a sin against God. Like all previous cases, these also concern the idea of holiness…all the controversies discussed above concern the behavioral approach to the holy” (Regev 2006:136). 

Regev explains that the Pharisees were also concerned about holiness, and they had no business to secularise that holiness. But the Pharisees’ conception of holiness was different from the way the Sadducees viewed holiness. 

“The difference related to the quality or substance of holiness” (Regev 2006:137). 

The Sadducees considered the sacred (or the Divine Presence) to be vulnerable. Holiness could be easily violated or desecrated and therefore required drastic and intense measures to be taken to protect and preserve it. If not dealt with appropriately, the holiness might even vanish. In this sense, holiness can be considered as dynamic as it is subject to change depending on how it is approached. 

This was not the case with the Pharisees who regarded holiness as a spiritual constant not subject to change and not dependent upon the whims, intentions or actions of humans. There was no need to ‘protect’ holiness as it could not disappear. 

“[T]he Pharisees regarded holiness as relatively indifferent to desecration and were less interested in its protection from pollution and desecration…Hence holiness is static… and [its] desecration is only an unwelcome change of this status and not a real cosmic or natural event” (Regev 2006:137).[9] 

The move from transcendent holiness to simple obligation

Having stated the difference between each group's perception of holiness – be it dynamic or static − Regev goes one step further and touches upon the fundamental framing of the Temple sacrifices that were the ultimate point of spiritual connectivity for the Sadducees. The Sadducees ‘owned’ the sacrifices and held the keys for their mystical interpretations as well. However, Some of the rabbis had rather unflattering views on the significance of sacrifices and Temple rituals that were so essential for the Sadducees and other sectarians as well: 

“[F]or the Pharisees and rabbis, the priestly sacrificial system lacked the inner meaning, the complex symbolism, that other Jews found—not only the Sadducees but also the Qumran sectarians” (Regev 2006:137). 

The Pharisees tried to remove the transcendent, mystical elements and complex symbolism of not only the sacrifices, but of other religious practices as well. They suggested the notion of ‘mitzva’ or commandment simply for its own sake – without their cosmic omnisignificance. 

Wresting control from the Sadducees

The rabbis, in an attempt to limit the overwhelming control of the priests, permitted lay men and women and even the ritually impure to slaughter for the sacrifices: 

כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ, שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְשֵׁרָה בְּזָרִים, בְּנָשִׁים, וּבַעֲבָדִים, וּבִטְמֵאִים, אֲפִלּוּ בְקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ טְמֵאִים נוֹגְעִים בַּבָּשָׂר.

 “With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, as the slaughter of an offering is valid ab initio when performed even by non-priests, by women, by Canaanite slaves, and by ritually impure individuals. And this is the halakha even with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, provided that the ritually impure will not touch the flesh of the slaughtered animal, thereby rendering it impure” (Mishna Zevachim 3:1). 

This can be seen as an attempt to wrest control and hegemony away from the priests and democratise aspects of the Temple activity (and give more control to the Pharisees). This was the beginning of the rabbinic period, and they had to assert their authority over the previous priestly order. It would also have prepared the people for a religious life in exile without a Temple and an active priestly class. 

Prosaic response to the Red Heifer

In keeping with the Pharisees’ program to remove the priestly emphasis on the complex symbolism that only the priests were privy to, they introduced an opposite trend. No longer were all the rituals mystifying, transcendent and omnisignificant, but they were now presented as rather prosaic and mundane. The mitzvah became a chiyuv, or obligation that required simple fulfilment. No more, no less. In fact, sometimes the mitzvah was so mundane, it didn’t even have to make sense at all. 

The previously perceived mystical workings of the Parah Aduma (Red Heifer) under the Sadducees, for example, whose burned ashes could purify the impure, no longer carry any inner logic under the Pharisees. According to R. Yochanan ben Zakkai: 

“By your lives, I swear: the corpse [of the Red Heifer] does not have the power by itself, nor does the mixture of ash and water have the power by itself, to cleanse. The truth is that the purifying power of the Red Heifer is a decree of the Holy One. The Holy One said: ‘I have set it down as a statute, I have issued it as a decree…This is the statute of the Torah’ (Num. 19:1)” (Pesikta deRav Kahana, piska 4). 

After generations of priestly and Sadducean control over the transcendent and complex symbolism of Temple practices, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai does not even try to find an answer to the mystery of spiritual cleansing: 

“The importance of this provocative saying is that the greatest biblical cleansing ritual has no inner logic at all” (Regev 2006:139). 

This was a far cry from the earlier Sadducean era of transcendence and omnisignificance whose secret understanding thereof was the special proclivity of the priestly class. 

Prosaic origins of the sacrifices

R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s downplaying of the omnisignificance of the Red Heifer is topped by an even more mundane statement by R. Levi who appears to be anti-sacrificial: 

“Because the people of Israel were passionate followers after idolatry in Egypt and used to bring their sacrifices to the satyrs [a mythical male nature spirit]… and they used to offer their sacrifices in the forbidden high places…the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Let them offer their sacrifices to me at all times in the Tent of Meeting, and thus they will be separated from idolatry and be saved from punishment’” (Vayikra Rabba, 22.8).[10] 

R. Levi is of the view that the sacrificial practices were simply circumstantial and that: 

“the ideal and indigenous Judaism would have existed without any sacrifices” (Regev 2006:130). 

This idea was later famously developed further by Maimonides (Guide to the Perplexed, 3:32) who maintained that permission for sacrifices was granted, as a temporary dispensation, to a primitive people who wanted to sacrifice just like all the other cultures around them. The plan was that with time they would be weaned off the need to offer sacrifices. This is why, according to Maimonides, in the future when humankind has outgrown the need to sacrifice – in the Third Temple era − there would be no sacrifices. They would be abolished because of their essentially flawed tenuous spiritual origins. 

R. Levi, in Vayikra Rabba, was the first to have dealt a severe blow to the hitherto sacrosanct institution of the sacrifices − the spiritual trump card of the Sadducees. R. Levi epitomised the ideology emphasising the independence of the nascent rabbinic class rising out of the Pharisees, and rising up against the Sadducees, to emerge as the next dominant force within Judaism. The Sage will now take the place of the Priest in Judaism: 

Conclusion

The struggle between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was not just about politics because: 

“[b]ehind very specific halakhic controversies are hidden traces of competing cosmologies and cultural paradigms that lay at the base of the development of ancient Judaism” (Regev 2006:140). 

The contribution of the new rabbinic worldview is that forging a bond with G-d and observance of the mitzvot is not dependent upon a priestly class, but within the reach of every Jew (under the guidance of the rabbinic class). The Pharisaic-rabbinic social system is far more individualistic than the hierarchic and totalitarian structures of the Sadducees. 

Analysis

The move from Sadducean and priestly omnisignificance − where everything was clouded in mystery and complex symbolism − to Pharisean and rabbinic pragmatism, did not last long. Soon the pendulum swung right back in the opposite direction and the general rabbinic world (bar some notable exceptions like Maimonides) reverted to the old worldview of Sadduccean mystery and complex symbolism, only this time clothed in rabbinic, and no longer priestly, garb.

---

[1] Regev, E., 2006, ‘The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Sacred: Meaning and Ideology in the Halakhic Controversies between the Sadducees and Pharisees’, in Review of Rabbinic Judaism, vol. 9, no. 1, 126-140.

[2] The broader Hellenistic period was between 323 BCE and 30 BCE (sometimes extended to 330 CE) (https://www.britannica.com/event/Hellenistic-Age).

[3] The Mishnaic period was from 10-210CE.

[4] Although there are some differences between them, the Sadducees and Boethusians are often associated with each other.

[5] On the evening following the first day of Pesach, they would harvest barley near Jerusalem and grind it into fine flour to bring it as a mincha offering the next day. The problem was when that evening coincides with Shabbat. Some rabbis suggested limiting the amount harvested as well as the number of individuals involved in the process.

[6] Square brackets are mine. Regev, after consulting the Pesher Nahum from Qumran,13, identified these supporters with Manasseh, the Qumranic term for the Sadducees.

[7] Ant. 13:294.

[8] The ancient chronicle text of Megillat Taanit literally means "the Scroll of Fasting.” However it instead   prohibited fasting and promoted feasting. It was written to commemorate 35 victorious days on which to celebrate.

[9] Square brackets are mine.

[10] Square brackets are mine.