1 See, inter alios, L.H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code, BJS 33 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), and N. Jastram, „Hierarchy at Qumran,“ in M. Bernstein, et al., eds., Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of t→he International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 353–4; 360–63.

2 See M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect (Freiburg and Göttingen: 1986).

3 For discussion of the various forms and patterns of dualism at Qumran, see G. Frey, „Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library. Reflections on their Background and History,“ in: Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995, 275–336.

4 „The Origins of the Laws of Separatism: Qumran Literature and Rabbinic Halacha,“ RQ 18 (1997), 223–41.

5 The use of allusion to biblical passages based on partial quotations is amply attested at Qumran and in the Hebrew Bible. For the former, see, e.g., M. Kister, „On a New Fragment of the Damascus Covenant,“ JQR 84 (1994), 249; for the latter, B.D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66, The Contraversions Series (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998).

6 In addition, it is possible that the author of 1QS interpreted the particle „כול“ (attested also in LXX Exod 23:7) as inclusive of any form of contact with outsiders, even where such a relationship is purely pecuniary in nature, and has absolutely no personal/religious or judicial dimension. Of possible relevance to the present discussion is the formulation of Jubilees 41. Gen 38:12;20 identify Hirah as Judah's „רע“ a - i.e., friend, companion, and/or business associate -with whom Judah established contact following his separation from his brothers. By contrast, Jubilees makes only a passing anonymous allusion to him, and, following the vocalization of LXX's translators, refers to him as Judah's shepherd (ר[ו]עה). Now, there is no question that Jubilees' formulation is consistent with, and probably informed by, the author's desire need to minimize any suggestion of cordiality between Judah and foreigners. But, if it is the case that the term רע/רעה bears the meaning „partner, business associate,“ rather than simply „friend,“ then Jubilees' intentional avoidance of this term and adoption of LXX's vocalization would reflect, specifically, the view that business partnerships are to be avoided: a Gentile may be employed by a Jew (and, indeed, in Jubilees 41, he appears as a very „temporary“ sort of worker) but may not be a „partner“. Of course, given that we do not know how Jubilees would have interpreted the term „רע/רעה“ - nor do we know whether the author Jubilees was aware of the proto-masoretic reading - this point remains somewhat speculative.

7 The formulation, „פן) יטיאנו עוון אטמה)“ is clearly informed by the wording of Lev 22:16 (see J. Licht, The Rule Scroll [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965], 133 [Hebrew]). The word יטיאנו may be parsed as a transitive verb, whose subject is probably the wicked individual or, possibly, the upright individual who brings upon himself guilt through his association with the wicked individual. See, also, the comments of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, ad Lev 22:16, regarding the similarly uncertain syntax of that verse.

8 See, e.g., Exod 24:32–33; 34:14–16; Deut 7:3–4, 12:29–31; Ps 106:35.

9 The words „ורועה כסילים ירוע“ have been variously interpreted; see the commentaries. Unless otherwise indicated, biblical translations follow NJPS.

10 Compare CD 15:13, which implies that guilt incurred by an individual has, under certain circumstances, collective impact. A second possibility (hinted at by Licht, op. cit.) is that ישיאנו reflects the wording of Gen 3:13. If such is, in fact correct, it is possible that ישיאנו is based on the root, „n-š-',“ to „dupe, beguile, cause to err“. On this approach, it is quite clear that the issue concerns the upright being led astray by the wicked. Given the similarity to Lev 22:16, however, this approach appears unlikely. See below, regarding the evidence of ‘Abot R. Nat. A.

11 Moreover, it is possible that the upright partner will be witness to the commission of offenses on the part of his wicked associate. The nature of their relationship, however, would naturally make it most uncomfortable and even impracticable for the upright individual to „reprove“ (i.e., testify against) his partner. Now, since CD 9:6–8 states that one who does not reprove an offender (on the day on which the offense is committed) shares with the offender the guilt for commission of the offense, it follows that partnership with a wicked individual is bound to result in the upright associate bearing guilt on account of the former. See, further, Shemesh, „Rebuke, Warning and the Obligation to Testify - in the Judean Desert Writings and Rabbinic Halakha,“ Tarbiz 66 (1997), 152–4, and Jubilees 4:5.

12 Following the translation of P.R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant, JSOTSupp 25 (Shefield: JSOT Press, 1983), 249. Note, also, the formulation of Pešer Habakkuk 8:10–13, which reads: עליו עוון אשמה…“ ויבנוד בחוקים בעבור חון וינזול ויקבוץ חון אנשי חמס אשר מרדו באל והון עמים לקח לוסיף“

13 See, inter alios, J.S. Kaminsky, „Joshua 7: A Reassessment of Israelite Conceptions of Corporate Punishment,“ in S.W. Holloway and L.K. Handy, eds., The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, JSOTSup 190 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 315–46; cf. R.E. Clements, „Achan's Sin: Warfare and Holiness,“ in D. Penchansky and P.L. Redditt, eds., Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 113–26. For broader treatment of the issue of collective responsibility see Kaminsky, Corporate Punishment in the Hebrew Bible, JSOT 196 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).

14 See, e.g., the commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra, ad loc.

15 See the commentary of Joseph Bekhor Shor, ad loc. See, also, Nahmanides, who, in addition to employing the term ḥerem, transposes the verse's clauses, resulting in the following rendering: „Move away from the tents of these wicked men lest you be wiped out for all their sins, and touch nothing that belongs to them“. On this reading the reason for not touching the possessions of the wicked is not explicitly stated. In any event, this verse comports nicely with 1QS's (implicit) exegesis of Exod 23:7, as explained above.

16 It is also of some interest that ‘Abot R. Nat. B 17 cites Num 16:26 (specifically, the words „Move away from the tents of these wicked men“) as a prooftext in support of the dictum that one must maintain distance from a wicked neighbor („ברח משכן רע“; cf. the wording in m. ‘Abot 1:7), a dictum which is juxtaposed with the proscription of partnerships with the wicked.

17 Note, further, that LXX Prov 14:9 states that the house/household of the wicked individual requires purification. This position may bear on the question of guilt/impurity generated by shared possession, as well. Of course, it is far from certain that the author of 1QS had this Vorlage, which is not preserved in the masoretic text, before him. I plan to examine notions of impurity in LXX Proverbs in a separate discussion

18 For further discussion of this passage, and its relationship to 1Kgs 22:49–50, see T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung; Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen überlieferung Israels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1972), 219, M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), p. 402–3, and I. Kalimi, The Book of Chronicles: Historical Writing and Literary Devices (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2000), 119–22 (Hebrew). Chronicles' reformulation of the Kgs passage is somewhat surprising, inasmuch as it results in Jehoshaphat violating the same principle twice. Indeed, given the explicit theological formulation in 2Chr 19:1–3, it would have been reasonable for Chronicles to cite 1Kgs 22 without alteration; an intelligent reader would have understood that Jehoshaphat's refusal to join Ahaziah was the result of the former's having internalized the message of 2Chr 19, according to which one must not support or display friendship towards the wicked. Of course, it may be the case that Chronicles was willing to engage in this bit of redundancy in order to drive home the need to disassociate from the wicked. Alternately, it is possible that there is no redundancy. The second episode may be intended to convey the view that any act of cooperation with the wicked, even one of a purely pecuniary nature and undertaken solely for the benefit of the righteous individual (i.e., Jehoshaphat), is also forbidden.

19 Note that the Hebrew phrase „הרשיע לעשות הוא“ is syntactically ambiguous and may also be understood as referring to Ahaziah. While there is no grammatical difficulty in such an interpretation, the translation employed herein is somewhat preferable inasmuch as Chronicles views all northern kings as wicked by virtue of their challenge to the Davidic throne; this renders superfluous the note (according to the alternative translation) that Ahaziah was very wicked. See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1977), 264–77 (Hebrew).

20 For observations relating to the root's use in matters of a maritime nature, see the sources cited in Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 402, n. 45, and Kalimi, Book of Chronicles, 274, n. 37. Note that similar semantic ranges are attested in other Semitic languages. Thus, the Qatabanian root f-ḥ-r (compare Akk. paḥāru, Ugar. pḥr) has the meaning „partnership,“ though not necessarily in connection with maritime ventures; see S.D. Ricks, Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian, Studia Pohl 14 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1989), 129.

21 See M.Z. Segal, ספר בן סירא לשלם (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1953), 281–82 (notes to 41:24 and 42:3), S. Lieberman, Leshonenu 32 (1968), 91, and E.Y. Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, eds. Z. Ben-Hayyim, et al. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), 357 (Hebrew section).

22 For a listing of Ahaziah's evil deeds, see 1Kgs 22:52–54.

23 The parallel passage at 2Kgs 22:49–50 states that Jehoshaphat turned down Ahaziah's offer to have his men join Jehoshaphat's servants, but offers no explanation for the latter's decision. While the motives behind this decision may have been purely political or economic in nature, it is also possible that the author of 1QS understood this passage as reflecting the obligation to remain apart form the wicked.

24 See, also, 2Chr 19:2, wherein Jehoshaphat is rebuked for having assisted Ahab in a joint military - rather than strictly monetary - venture against Aram. This verse, too, clearly articulates the attitude adopted by the sect and reflected at 1QS 5:15. Another aspect of this verse is addressed in the following section.

25 See Japhet, Ideology. Note, also the following comment of Simeon b. Sẹmah Duran, to m. ‘Abot, 1:7. In discussing ‘Abot R. Nat.'s reference to Jehoshaphat's conduct (discussed below), Duran remarks: במעשיהם וכאילו כל אשר הם עאשים הוא היה עושח מחזקת יריהם עונש כמעשיהם … והטעם בזה הוא שהתחברותו עם הטובים או עם הרעים חיא ובאבות הרבי נתנן אמרו כל חמורבק לרעים אע“פ שאינו עושה כמעשיהם נוטל („In ‘Abot R. Nat. it is stated: Anyone who clings to the wicked, even if he does not conduct himself like them is punished befitting their conduct…and the reason for this is that a person's association [lit., „his attachment, partnership“] with either the upright or wicked encourages/reinforces them in their conduct, to the end that whatever they do is viewed as if it were done by him“); see מגן אבות, (E.R. Zainy, ed.; Jerusalem: Erez Publications, 2000, 35–6).

26 ‘Abot R. Nat. A also cites 2Sam 13:3.

27 See, also, Duran's comment cited above, n. 23.

28 See, also, Midrash Tanḥuma, Ḥuqqat, 14. See, also, Duran, מגן אבות, who notes that m. ‘Abot and ‘Abot R. Nat. do not distinguish between monetary partnership and other forms of cooperation or friendship (וכלל בזה כל התחברות באן מעסק מטא ומתן בין בחברת אהבה). Significantly, Duran, who comments at length on m. Abot 1:7, makes no reference to a connection between this passage (and the related ones) and the laws governing Jewish-Gentile relations.

29 See the comments of R. Jonah Gerondi ad m. Abot 1: 7.

30 Note that another rabbinic source, b. Sanh. 63b (noted by Shemesh), attributes the proscription on partnerships with idolaters/Gentiles to the father of (the Babylonian amora) Samuel, who offers a rationale for this law differing from that found in 1QS: partnership with a Gentile may result in the latter's articulation of his deity's name as part of a „business oath,“ in violation of Exod 23:13. Any attempt to explain the sect's position on the basis of the view of Samuel's father entails an obvious difficulty. The legal rationale put forth by Samuel's father does not apply -within the rabbinic context - to partnership with a Jew who is „wicked“ with respect to one offense (or even several offenses) but observes other precepts properly.

31 Biblical law does not specifically address covenant making with the „Philistines“ or nations other than the autochthonous Canaanite nations; nevertheless, rabbinic circles understood the biblical proscription as applying to all idolatrous nations. It is virtually certain that this understanding was shared by the Qumran community, as indicated by Jubilees' denunciation (24:27–28) of Isaac's treaty with Abimelech; see below.

32 See, recently, B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, JSOTSup 211 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 204–9. See, also, G.P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi, Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series 52 (The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1994), 163–4 and 180–81, for the view that every covenant is, ultimately, a sort of extension of the „family“ tie.

33 Kelly, op. cit., 209.

34 See, also, Shemesh, „Origins,“ 237, n. 44. Jubilees deletes the biblical account of Abraham's covenant with Abimelekh (Gen 21:22–34), precisely because such conduct was deemed inconsistent with the book's depiction of Abraham.

35 See G.J. Wenham, Genesis, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1994), vol. 2, 185–6.

36 See Jubilees 24: 24–27. Jubilees could have adopted LXX's reading, involving only one dig, and explicitly stated (in contrast to LXX) that it took place after the treaty ceremony. Why, then, did Jubilees posit that there were two digs? In light of this consideration, it is tempting to see Jubilees' version as a conflation of the masoretic text and LXX (see J.C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees, CBQ Monograph Series 18 [Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987], 69). Indeed, just such an approach is attested in Jubilees' listing of Jacob's descendants (ch. 44), which employs both the tradition of seventy sons, as in the masoretic text, along side of LXX's reading of seventy-five descendants. Closer inspection, however, suggests that Jubilees' position is not merely the result of conflating the readings of LXX and the masoretic text. For, it is insufficient to establish that there were two digs; Jubilees' evaluation of Isaac's conduct is reasonable only if it can be shown that the first (i.e., successful) dig took place before Isaac entered into a treaty with Abimelekh. Conflation of the two readings of Gen 26:32 does not permit this inference.

37 In addition, the idea that the sect equated business partnerships with the contracting of covenants proscribed by Deut 7:2 (and Exod 34:12) entails a further assumption. As indicated by their syntax (כרת + l), these verses actually proscribe covenants between a dominant Israel and a weaker Canaanite population, a fact expressed in Weinfeld's translation „grant them no terms“ (see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 365). These verses do not necessarily proscribe covenants of equal status, i.e., when Israel is not in a position to subdue and destroy the enemy population. 1QS's proscription of partnerships, however, applies to any partnership of „equal status“. Now, it is quite possible that the sect maintained that, in point of fact, Deut 7:2, and parallels, proscribe any sort of covenant between Israel and foreigners, thereby allowing for the legal leap that any sort of partnership is also forbidden. Indeed, Jubilees' criticism of Isaac's covenant with Abimelekh, in which Isaac found himself coerced, clearly suggests that Jubilees proscribes covenants under any and all conditions. However, even if this reflects the sect's legal reasoning, this does not alter the fact that the only explicit condemnation of commercial partnership in the Hebrew Bible – and, hence, the only source for equating business partnerships with political treaties – is 2Chr 20.

38 The masoretic text reads here „ובתקוממיך אתקוטט“; 11QPsa reads, „וממתקוממיכה“.

39 For the former view, see, e.g., the medieval commentary of Rashi (ad loc.); for the latter, see the Aramaic targum, ad loc.

40 See ibn Ezra, ad loc. For an entirely different approach, see M. Dahood, Psalms 1–50, AB 16 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 188, who views the term טנאתי as „a terminus technicus used in the formal repudiation of idolatry or charges of idolatry…“. In Dahood's view, the psalmist „takes pains to protest his innocence of the sin of worshipping or keeping idols in his possession“. See, further, Dahood's translation of this verse (ibid., p. 185). Note that Dahood adopts a similar approach to Ps 139:21, wherein he argues that אטנא is, again, a terminus technicus, and that the term בתקוממיך refers to „the false gods worshipped by ‘those who hate you’“ (Psalms 101–150, AB 17A [Garden City: Doubleday, 1970], 298).

41 Cf. the commentary of R. Joseph Nehemias, ad loc., who appears to understand the verse as (primarily) descriptive rather than prescriptive.

42 See the following note.

43 The use of the term אהב bearing covenantal connotations is well documented; see, inter alios, Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 178–9 and 312. However, this issue does not substantively affect the point under discussion. First, it is unclear whether the sect recognized such a semantic usage. More importantly, the existence of this semantic content does not mean that 2Chr 19:2 does not (also) indicate that one may not like love/like/befriend the wicked (ibid.). Indeed, the author of 1QS may well have noted that Chronicles never explicitly states that Jehoshaphat entered into a formal treaty with Ahab. On the other hand, if the sect members understood 2Chr 18:3 as implying a formal treaty, they may have understood Jehoshaphat's two sinful associations with the northern monarchy as conveying the view that formal covenants/treaties and mere „commercial partnerships“ are one and the same; see the discussion of Seder Eliyyahu Rabba in the preceding section.

44 See, e.g., 1QS 1:2–3; 4Q166, 1:3–5; 4Q504 3:12–13.

45 Schechter's edition refers to the wicked as: המינין המשומדים המסורות. See n. 32, op. cit., for other readings.

46 In addition, it ought be noted that several rabbinic passages prescribe antipathy towards Jews who are „wicked“ with respect to even a single precept, a position very much reminiscent of the sect's stance; see, inter alia, b. Pes. 113b, Ta'an. 7b, and Abod. Zar. 26a. These passages, which make no reference to the matter of enmity towards Gentiles, would seem to indicate that the obligation to hate sinful Jews is not inherently an extension of the prescription to hate - or show no favor to - idolaters. (Note, however, that some medieval commentators argued that these passages reflect the implicit position that such offenders are, indeed, viewed as Gentiles; see, e.g., R. Eliezer of Metz, ספר היראים, #156.) Now, these positions are attributed to amoraic sages rather than tannaim, which may point to a later inner-rabbinic legal development. (But see the position attributed to R. Isaac in Mek. R. Ishmael, Masekhta de-kaspa, Mishpatim 20 [ad Exod 23:4].) Even so, this state of affairs strengthens the likelihood that the matter of enmity towards wayward Jews was not seen by the Qumran community as an application of the obligation to hate Gentiles.

47 See, in addition to the sources cited by Shemesh, b. Meg. 12a, First Targum to Esth 1:5 and Midr. Leqaḥ Tov 1:5.

48 See P. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1990), 168–7 and 230–4, for a discussion of these issues in rabbinic sources and the early Church. Note that the formulation of Jubilees 22:16 leaves it unclear as to whether Abraham is addressing only the matter of shared meals, or partaking of the food of Gentiles, as well.

49 „Origins,“ 240–42.

50 See note „a“ in NJPS ad loc.

51 See Y. Cohen, פרקים בתולדות תקופת התנאים (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1978), 59–61.

52 Peshitta reads „עם גברא רשיעא לא אתמלח עמהון“ i.e., „I do not eat salt with the wicked“. While the textual basis behind this rendering is unclear - it is possible that Peshitta's Vorlage (or translators) read „אמלח“ in place of „אלחם“ - the meaning appears to be that the psalmist refrains from sharing any meal or food with the wicked, even salt. (Note that Syriac אתמלח also bears the meaning „be a companion, intimate with“.) A variant reading in Peshitta is „אתמלך,“ i.e., „take counsel“.

53 See Midr. Shoḥer Tob 35/6; see, also, Qimhi, ad loc.

54 While the exegetical basis for targum's reference to „(singing at the) house of feasting“ is uncertain, two explanations may be proposed. First, since rabbinic law does not proscribe partaking of the food of the wicked, the author of the targum may have sought to limit the scope of this verse, thereby bringing it into harmony with normative practice, by claiming that it refers only to joining the wicked in their „ungodly“ conduct in the drinking halls or the like (see, e.g., First Targum to Esth 1:5 and above, n. 44). Alternatively, the targum may reflect a play on the word „במנעמיהם“. Since the Hebrew root נעם also bears the meaning „song“ (2Sam 23:1), the author of the targum took the biblical phrase as referring to dining at banquets of the wicked. In any event, the targum's rendering restricts the scope of the verse: rather than denouncing participation in any meal shared with the wicked the resulting rendering denounces participating in boisterous or party-like situations only.

55 See NJPS; cf. RSV, BHS4; see, also, Qimhi, ad loc.

56 See S.A. Reed, „The Role of Food as Related to Covenant in Qumran Literature,“ in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde, eds., Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2000), 129–64.

57 For discussion and examples, see Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 206–208. On a related note, it ought be recalled that in its version of the treaty between Isaac and Abimilekh, Jubilees 24 omits any reference to the meal prepared by Isaac in honor of Abimelekh and his men (Gen 26:30). This deletion probably reflects Jubilees' attempt to minimize the scope of Isaac's „acceptance“ of Abimelekh and his error in succumbing to the pressure applied by the Philistine ruler. Note that no such omission occurs in connection with the covenant between Jacob and Laban (Jubilees 29:7).

58 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 375.

59 In addition to the prohibition against gift-giving, rabbinic sources also proscribe the sale of any part of the Land of Israel, expressions of praise for, or assistance towards, either idolatry or idolaters; see, e.g., y. Abod. Zar. 1:8 (40a), b. Abod. Zar. 20a.

60 Indeed, the rabbis allow giving gifts/charity and performing other meritorious deeds where such actions are (also) of benefit to Jews, for such acts do not constitute a „חנםמתנת“ and, hence, do not express „חן“ towards the Gentile/idolater.

61 Note that proscription of giving „gifts“ to foreigners is not stated in the same explicit terms in the sect's writings, a rather surprising datum and one which would seem to undermine Shemesh's position.

62 The rabbinic exegeses may be explained as either embellishments or contemporary applications of the biblical prohibition. From the standpoint of syntax, the rabbis understood the second half of 7:2 as addressing not a single case but, rather, distinct situations; see the commentary of N.Z.Y. Berlin, העמק דבר, ad loc.

63 See, inter alios, ibn Ezra and S.D. Luzzatto's Commentary to the Book of Jesaiah, (reprint; Tel Aviv: Dvir Press, 1970), ad loc, as well as J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 198, n. 6.

64 Thanksgiving Scroll, 134.

65 op. cit.

66 Some scholars understand the reference to „prop of water“ and „prop of food“ to be metaphors for the nation's leaders, such that the leaders mentioned in the following verses merely make 3:1 more explicit (see, e.g., Luzzatto, ad loc.). However, it is virtually certain that the author 1QS, like many later students of the Hebrew Bible, understood 3:1 to refer to actual food and drink.

67 see b. Abod. Zar. 20a and parallels

68 On one occasion from Pharaoh (12:10–13), and on another from Abimelekh (20:1–18). To be sure, Jubilees' reticence is undoubtedly due, at least in part, to other considerations, viz., avoidance of any allusion to the fact that Abraham lied concerning the true identity of Sarah (and, thereby, endangered his wife's purity) in order to save himself and of any possible inference that Abraham benefited from Sarah's abduction; but the net result of Jubilees' formulation is that, in contrast to Gen, Jubilees is silent on the matter of Abraham's having accepted gifts from Gentiles, precisely what one would expect of this composition. Another biblical passage which may bear on the present discussion is 2Kings 5:16. After being cured by Elisha of sra'at, Na'aman, commander of the Aramaean forces and „part-time“ idolater, acknowledges his debt to Elisha and offers him a gift. Despite Na'aman's repeated attempts to persuade Elisha to accept his offering, the latter steadfastly refuses. Unfortunately, in this instance, too, no explanation is given (or suggested) for Elisha's refusal. See the comment of Rashi, according to which Elisha was concerned that the gift may have been purchased by money tainted with idolatrous practices („עבודה זרהדמי“); cf. the commentary of Isaac Abravanel.

69 See, Rashi's comment ad Gen 14:23 (informed by Midr. Yelammedenu, Lekh Lekha 17): „For the Holy One, blessed be He, promised to make me wealthy“. Cf. the explanation found in Seder Eliyyahu Rabba (24), which ties Abram's refusal to accept the offer to the commandment concerning coveting (Exod 20:13 [masoretic text]), and the commentary of Bahya b. Asher, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1976), ad Gen 14:23, who maintains that Abraham's refusal to accept a gift was due to his noble nature. (Note that 2Sam 24:24[=1Chr 21:23–25] records a similar response on the part of David.)

70 Following the translation of J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Louvain: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 1989), Scriptores Aethiopici, vol. 88, 82–3.

71 Note, also, that in Jubilees Onan (= masoretic Aner), Eshkol and Mamre make a brief appearance at the end of the episode (13:29), but there is no reference to their being Abraham's „allies,“ a term whose form in Hebrew, בעלי ברית אברם (Gen 14:13), makes clear the covenant relationship or parity entailed by such an arrangement. Jubilees' reticence on the subject is fully consistent with the book's tendency to jettison any notion of treaties and parity with foreigners, the most blatant instance of which is found at 24:27–33; see the discussion above.

72 See the commentary of N.Z.Y. Berlin, העמק דבר, ad Gen 14:23. In Berlin's view, Abraham believed that the other individuals who presented Abraham with gifts (Pharaoh and Abimelekh) were honored to have their gifts accepted by Abraham; by contrast, Abraham suspected that the king of Sodom would view his offer of the booty - were it to be accepted - as a magnanimous (and condescending) act towards Abraham. As an aside, the present discussion may impact upon/have consequences for the meaning of CD 12:7–8. This passage has been understood by some scholars, largely on the basis of literary context, as proscribing forceful appropriation of possessions (אל ישא מהונם) belonging to Gentiles, „בעבור אשר לא יגדפו“ „so that they not blaspheme“; see L. Schiffman, „Legislation Concerning Relations with non-Jews in the Zadokite Fragments and in the Tannaitic Literature,“ RQ 11 [1983].) While literary context certainly supports this interpretation, the understanding of 1QS proposed herein may lend some support to the view that accepting gifts (or charity, etc.) from Gentiles may result in the Gentile „blaspheming,“ in the sense that the Gentile who sees Jews accepting gifts or donations from foreigners might be led to believe in the impotence of Israel's god to provide for His devotees (see the literature cited, ibid.). For biblical attestations of the syntagm „לא + נשא“ (as in CD 12:7) bearing the meaning „receive, accept,“ see, e.g., 1Chr 21:24, (in which David refuses to accept Ornan's land free of charge) and Prov 6:35.

73 Note that this proscription, in all likelihood, applies only to gifts given voluntarily by foreigners who see themselves as being of equal stature. Thus, taxes which express the foreigner's subservience to the Israelite, as in the case of Esau's children subdued by Jacob's family (Jubilees 38:12–13; see Deut 10:11) - and, presumably, royal tributes presented to Israelite kings as expressive of their sovereign status (e.g., 1Kgs 10:10, Isa 60:6–7) - are not proscribed. This datum may strengthen the possibility (discussed above) that the reasons cited in 1QS 2:15–20 do not preclude the elementary concern that gifts may lead to warmer relations.

74 See Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, 198, 206, and M. Weinfeld, „פוליטית בישראל ובמזרח הקדום משמעה של ברית ידידות“ in Z. Talshir, et al. (eds.), Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible (Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Bialik Institute, 2001), 178–83.

75 On a related note, there is at least one respect in which rabbinic tradents, basing themselves on the biblical text, appear to have adopted a restrictive position not mandated by the sect's (extant) writings. Commenting on the formulation, „When you sell property to your neighbor (עמיתך) -i.e., fellow Israelite - or buy any from your neighbor (מיד עמיתך) …,“ (Lev 25:14), Sipra BeHar 3, states „אלא מיד עמיתך קונה לא תהיה קונה מנין כשתהא מוכר לא תהאה מובר אלא לעמיתך … ומנין כשהוא …“ („Whence is it derived that when one sells he should do so only to ‘your neighbor’ … and whence is it derived that when one buys he should do so only from „the hand of your neighbor“). Presumably, this passage does not proscribe commerce with Gentiles (see, e.g., Deut 14:21) but merely requires that Jews give priority to commercial relations with other Jews. Note, however, t. Ḥull. 2:20–21, which proscribes, inter alia, any form of commerce with „minim“. This probably constitutes a stringency beyond that applied to Jewish-Gentile relations, as indicated by other restrictions applied only to minim. Indeed, this passage is most instructive, for it suggests that the Qumran community, too, may have applied stricter measures (at least in some cases) to outside Jews than to Gentiles.

76 See, for example, R. Eliezer of Metz (ספר היראים), who avers that the rabbinic dictum „אף על פי שחטא ישראל הוא ישראל“ („an Israelite/Jew, even having sinned, remains an Israelite/Jew“ [b. Sanh. 44a]) applies exclusively to the legal force of marriages entered into by sinners. (For a review of the numerous, and diverse, post-talmudic positions on this issue, see I. Arieli, למשפט עינים [Israel: no date], vol. 2, comments to b. Sanh., 120–21.) This question is formulated on the assumption that the sect would have viewed the matter of betrothal in terms identical to those of rabbinic and post-talmudic circles.

77 Note that the very same question was debated by talmudic commentators and legal decisors in connection with the rabbinic statement that the Samaritans, though viewed as genuine Jews/ Israelites (גרי אמת), were subsequently „stripped“ of their Jewishness.

78 For discussion of the preceding, and other points, see Ariel, op. cit.

79 See, also, the discussion of J. Licht concerning the ambivalence concerning the sect's view of other Jews (The Rule Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1965], 75–6 [Hebrew]).