Stringency in Qumran: A reassessment

Vered Noam*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations


The attribution of stringency to the Qumranites is prevalent in scholarly research. Indeed it is indisputable that the Sect generally adopts stringent positions, compared to rabbinic halakah. However, closer examination indicates that Qumranic law reflects simple, necessary inferences from Scripture itself, whereas the Tannaitic leniency represents a surprisingly revolutionary divergence from the plain meaning of Scripture. The paper surveys several cases in which the bold and exceptional nature of Tannaitic legislation cannot serve as a criterion for evaluating the stringency of Sectarian law. It goes on to review other instances, where the very same traditions formed the basis of Qumranic as well as rabbinic regulation, except that the latter restricted their scope. The third group of examples shows that it was precisely the unrefined, simple character of Qumranic law, in comparison with the conceptual sophistication of Tannaitic halakah, that occasionally led to the opposite result, in which the Tannaitic halakah was strict, and the Sectarian law lenient. In sum, the strictness of Qumranic law is not "objective" but relative. The understanding that sectarian law reflects a series of inductions not altogether removed from the simple sense of Scripture facilitates a more accurate appreciation of the depth of Tannaitic halakah's groundbreaking leniency.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)342-355
Number of pages14
JournalJournal for the Study of Judaism
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2009


  • Halakah
  • Legislation
  • Leniency
  • Qumran
  • Rabbis
  • Stringency


Dive into the research topics of 'Stringency in Qumran: A reassessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this