Daf Ditty Rosh Hashanah 30: Levitical Singers

Consecration of the Levites (detail), Jan Luyken, 1683. Rijksmuseum.nl

1
MISHNA: Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month throughout
the entire thirtieth day from the beginning of the month of Elul, before Rosh HaShana, and if
witnesses arrived from afar and testified that they had sighted the New Moon the previous night,
they would declare that day the Festival.

Once, the witnesses tarried coming until the hour was late, and the Levites erred with regard
to the song, i.e., the psalm that they were supposed to recite, as they did not know at the time

2
whether it was a Festival or an ordinary weekday. From that point on, the Sages instituted that
they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only until minḥa time. If
witnesses had not arrived by that hour, they would declare Elul a thirty-day month and calculate
the dates of the Festivals accordingly.

And if witnesses came from minḥa time onward, although the calculations for the dates of the
Festivals would begin from the following day, the people would nevertheless observe that day,
on which the witnesses arrived, as sacred, so that in future years they would not treat the entire
day as a weekday and engage in labor from the morning on the assumption that the witnesses will
arrive only after minḥa time. And they would also observe the following day as sacred. On the
second day, they observed Rosh HaShana in full, both by sacrificing its offerings as well as by
calculating the upcoming Festivals from that date.

3
After the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer any reason for this ordinance, Rabban
Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that they would once again accept testimony to determine the
start of the month the entire day.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What error did the Levites make with regard to the song they
were supposed to recite?

The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted that they did not recite any song at
all, as they did not know which psalm should be sung, the one for an ordinary weekday or the
special one for the Festival.

Rabbi Zeira said: Their mistake was that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday with
the daily afternoon offering.

After the witnesses testified, it became clear that they should have recited the psalm of the Festival.

4
RASHI

Steinzaltz

5
Summary

Introduction1
There are two more decrees mentioned in this mishnah, both which have to do with the testimony
concerning the new month.

Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during
the whole day.
Originally, it didn’t matter when during the day the witnesses came to testify that they had seen
the new moon their testimony was always accepted.

On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong
in the daily hymn.
The problem with accepting witnesses all day is that when witnesses successfully testify they turn
the current day into Rosh Hodesh, or in the case of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah. If they come late in the
day, it may be difficult to correctly observe the special Rosh Hodesh rituals because time is simply
running. The mishnah relates that this happened one time. The witnesses came late in the day and
the Levites in the Temple sang the wrong Psalm. The Levites would sing a Psalm while the Tamid
(Daily) sacrifice was being offered. There was a different song depending on whether it was a
regular day or whether it was Rosh Hodesh. In the morning they sang the regular Psalm for that
day, and then because the witnesses hadn’t yet come they sang the same Psalm for the afternoon
Tamid. When the witnesses came, it turned out that they never sang the correct Psalm.

They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the
afternoon [sacrifice].
They therefore decreed that the testimony of the witnesses would only be accepted until minhah
time, which was the time when they would offer the tamid sacrifice (see Pesahim 5:1).

If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy
and also the next day.
This section refers to Rosh Hashanah, which is not only Rosh Hodesh but also a sacred holiday.
On Rosh Hashanah they would observe the thirtieth day of the previous month as a holiday
meaning they wouldn’t work. If witnesses came before minhah, then that day would count as Rosh
Hashanah, and the next day would not be Rosh Hashanah. If they came later than minhah, then
that day would not have counted as Rosh Hashanah (even though they already refrained from

6
https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah.30b.5?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah.4.4&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanat
ion%20of%20Mishnah&lang3=en
work) and the following day will be observed as Rosh Hashanah. This is the origins of the custom
to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days.

After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that
testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole
day.
After the destruction of the Temple there was no longer needed to worry about the Levites singing
the wrong song. Therefore, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the rule to its original state, and
allowed the acceptance of testimony for the entire day.

Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai
decree, that no matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses
should have to go only to the place of the assembly.
According to Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha there was yet another decree made by Rabban Yohanan
ben Zakkai. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that when the witnesses came to testify all they
had to do was come to the place of assembly, which is where the court sat. They did not have to
chase after the head of the court if he was in another place. This decree seems to be another way
of saying that the authority of the court is determinative and not the individual authority of its
leader.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Blowing shofar with the court

The Mishna stated that after the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai
instituted that in the court in Yavneh (and other places), one must blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah
that falls on Shabbos. Rav Huna says that one may blow the shofar only with the court, i.e., in their
presence. Rava challenges Rav Huna from the Mishna which says that another way the permission
to blow shofar was more extensive in Yerushalayim than in Yavneh was that it applied to the
environs of Yerushalayim, indicating that there is another way it is more extensive. It cannot be
that individuals can blow, since Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said that when the chazan finished
blowing the shofar in Yavneh, no one could hear anything due to the loud sound of everyone's
individual blowing. Rather, it must be that in Yerushalayim one may blow anytime in the day, even
when the court is not in session, while in Yavneh, one may only blow while court is in session.
This implies that as long as the court is in session in Yavneh, one may blow, even outside their
presence.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Rosh_Hashanah_30.pdf

7
The Gemora deflects this by saying that the other way was that in Yerushalayim one may blow
anywhere, but in Yavneh one may only blow in the court's presence. Some teach Rav Huna's
statement on the requirement for each individual to blow shofar on the Yom Kippur of Yovel,

meaning that one may only blow while court is in session. Rava challenges Rav Huna from a braisa
which says that blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah and Yovel overrides Shabbos everywhere,
each man and his household. This cannot mean a man and his wife, since women are exempt from
blowing shofar, which is a time bound positive mitzvah. Rather, it must mean that each man blows
in his house, presumably whether or not the court is in session. The Gemora deflects this by saying
that it is limited to when the court is in session.

Rav Sheishes challenges Rav Huna from a braisa which says that the shofar blowing and brachos
of musaf are the same on Rosh Hashanah and Yovel, aside from two differences: 1. On Rosh
Hashanah that fell on Shabbos, only the court which would establish the new month would blow,
while on Yovel, other courts would also blow.

On Rosh Hashanah not all individuals must blow the shofar, while on Yovel they are. The Gemora
says that the second difference cannot mean that individuals didn't blow, as Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef
said that one couldn't hear himself from the sound of all the individuals blowing shofar in the court.
It must mean that they may only blow while the court is in session, implying that on Yovel, they
may blow even when the court isn't in session. The Gemora deflects this by saying that it means
that one may blow shofar outside of the presence of the court, but only while they are in session.
The Gemora supports Rav Huna from that which Rabbi Chiya bar Gamda said in the name of
Rabbi Yossi ben Shaul who cited Rebbi who said that one may only blow shofar on Yovel when
the court is in session.

The Gemora inquires whether the session is considered over once the members of the court have
started to get up and leave, but have not left. Is the session defined by functioning as a court, which
they are not, or technically sitting, which they are? The Gemora leaves this question unresolved.

Cities near Yerushalayim

The Mishna said that any city which could see and hear Yerushalayim, was close to it, and could
come, would blow the shofar. The Gemora explains that these requirements excluded the
following:

8
Remembrance to the Bais Hamikdash

The Mishna says that originally the lulav was taken one day everywhere and 7 days in the Bais
Hamikdash. When the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted that
it should be taken 7 days everywhere, as a remembrance to the Bais Hamikdash. He also instituted
that the new grain be prohibited the whole second day of Pesach, when the omer had been waved.
The Gemora asks: What is the source is for making remembrances for the Bais Hamikdash? The
Gemora answers that it is from the verse in which Hashem states, “I will provide health for you,
and I will heal you from your wounds, because they called you banished, [saying] 'She is Tzion,
nobody seeks her'”, implying that it is proper to seek Tzion by making remembrances to it. 4. New
grain The Gemora asks? Why did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai institute that one must wait for the
new grain until after the second day of Pesach since it should be permitted at the start of the day
when no omer is brought? The Gemora answers that we are concerned that if people eat at the start
of the day, they will continue to do so once the Bais Hamikdash is rebuilt, when they must wait
for the omer to be offered.

The Gemora challenges this, as once the Bais Hamikdash is functioning, they can assume the omer
is brought by midday, so the prohibition should have only been until midday. The Gemora deflects
this by saying that we are concerned that it will be built late in the first day or during the night of
the second day, delaying the omer until later in the day. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that
Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted this in line with Rabbi Yehudah's position that the verse
which prohibits the new grain until etzem hayom hazeh – the midst of this day means that it is
prohibited for the whole day.

The Gemora challenges this, as another Mishna cites Rabbi Yehudah stating his position as a
challenge to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai's prohibition, implying that it is a Rabbinic one, and not

9
Rabbi Yehuda's position. The Gemora deflects this by saying that Rabbi Yehudah misunderstood
Rabban Yochanan be Zakai's prohibition, and therefore mistakenly challenged him. Although the
Mishna says that he instituted the prohibition, it means that he taught and effectively instituted the
prohibition.

Testimony about the new moon

The Mishna says that originally they would receive witnesses testifying to the new moon of Rosh
Hashanah the whole day. One time, the witnesses delayed, and the levi'im therefore messed up the
song, since they assumed it was not Yom Tov. They therefore instituted that witnesses would only
be accepted until minchah time, and if none came by then, they would keep the remainder of the
first day and second day as Yom Tov, since the new month will begin on the second day. When
the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed, Rabban Yochanan be Zakai instituted that they could now
accept witnesses the whole day, since there was no more sacrifice and song to be concerned about.

What mistake happened with the song?

The Gemora asks what the levi'im did wrong with the song. In Bavel they explained that they didn't
say any song, while Rabbi Zaira says that they said the regular weekday song with the afternoon
tamid, instead of the Yom Tov song.

Rabbi Zaira told his son Ahavah to go out and teach them a braisa which supports his position. The
braisa says they instituted not to accept witnesses beyond minchah time, to ensure that there be
enough time to all the sacrifices with their libations and say the song without confusion, implying
that they confused which song to sing, but not whether to sing. The Gemora deflects this, since not
saying any song is itself a total confusion.

Rav Acha bar Huna challenges the position of Bavel from a braisa which details the songs that
were sung for the sacrifices on Rosh Hashanah. The morning sacrifice had no special song, but the
Mussaf's song was harninu leilokim – sing to Hashem, and the afternoon's sacrifice's song was kol
Hashem yachil midbar – the voice of Hashem will shake the desert. If Rosh Hashanah was on a
Thursday, whose normal song was harninu leilokim, they would sing the end of that chapter for
the morning sacrifice. If the witnesses came after the morning sacrifice, they would simply repeat
the song for the mussaf. This implies that when they weren't sure whether to sing the weekday or
Yom Tov song, they would say the weekday one, since the braisa says that they would end up
repeating the song, and not refrain from a song on the morning sacrifice.

The Gemora deflects this, as perhaps they would only say the normal song in this case, since it is
also the Yom Tov song. However, on any other day, if they weren't sure whether to say the weekday
song or the Yom Tov song for minchah, perhaps they wouldn't say anything, to avoid saying an
unrelated one.

10
SHIR SHEL YOM BY MINCHA

It is evident from the Gemora that the Leviim would sing a shirah by the korban tamid in the
afternoon as well. The Maharam Alshich is bothered as to why we do not recite a shir shel yom
nowadays by Minchah.

He answers that since it is ruled that if the Leviim did not sing the shirah in the afternoon, the
korban will become disqualified, they could not institute that we, who do not have the korban,
should recite the shir (however, in the morning, it is not essential).

The Magen Avrohom (132:14) offers two answers. Firstly, he cites Tosfos who rules that if the
libations of the afternoon were not brought until the evening, they could be offered the entire night,
however the shirah cannot be sung then, since they didn't sing at night. Since there would be times
in the Beis Hamikdosh that they did not sing the shirah in the afternoon (when the nesachim were
delayed until the evening), the Chachamim didn't institute that we should recite it by Minchah.
Secondly, he answers, that the halachah was that after the korban tamid was offered on the
mizbeach, they didn't sing the shirah. Shirah was only sung before the tamid was completed. The
Chachamim could not institute that we should recite the shir shel yom after Minchah since Minchah
is corresponding to the korban tamid and after the tamid, they could not sing shirah anymore.

The Chasam Sofer in Beitza (4b) answers that there are two reasons as to why we say the parshah
of korbanos and the avodos that were performed in the Beis Hamikdosh nowadays. Firstly, we
recite these parshiyos based on the verse which says that our lips are regarded as the offering of
the korbanos.

There is another reason as well. The reciting of these tefilos is indicating our desire and anxiousness
for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh in our time. In the morning, we do not have the second
explanation in mind. The halachah is that the mizbeach is only inaugurated with the offering of the
afternoon tamid. Even if the Beis Hamikdosh would be built today, we would not be able to offer
the morning tamid.

Our primary kavanah in the morning is that our tefilos should be accepted as if we were offering
the korbanos. In the afternoon, the primary kavanah we should have been to signify our desire to
see the Beis Hamikdosh built speedily and if the Beis Hamikdosh would be built at that moment
(which is what we should be thinking), there would not be a shirah sung, since the Beis Yosef (51)
rules that shirah will not be sung in the times of the third Beis Hamikdosh (except mizmor l'sodah).
It is for this reason that we do not recite the shir shel yom by Minchah for it will prevent us from
having our correct kavanos.

11
BUILDING THE GATES

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted that one is not permitted to eat from the new grain the
entire day of the sixteenth of Nissan. In the times of the Beis Hamikdosh, the new grain could only
be eaten after the omer offering was brought on the sixteenth of Nissan. Subsequent to the
destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh, one was biblically permitted to eat the new grain on the
sixteenth of Nissan in the morning.

Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai was concerned, however, that the Beis Hamikdosh may be built the
following year on the night of the sixteenth of Nissan and there would not be enough time to
prepare the omer offering. People might then say that the new grain will be permitted in the
morning just as it was the previous year. This assumption would be erroneous, because the previous
year there was no Beis Hamikdosh, thus there was no possibility of offering the omer, and for that
reason the new grain was permitted in the morning.

During the present year, however, there is a Beis Hamikdosh and one must wait for the offering of
the omer or one must wait until the end of the day. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai therefore
instituted that one was prohibited from eating the new grain the entire day of the sixteenth of
Nissan. Rashi wonders how the Beis Hamikdosh could be built on the night of the sixteenth of
Nissan, as the Gemora in Shevuos 15b states that the Beis Hamikdosh cannot be built at night.
Rashi answers that it is only regarding a Beis Hamikdosh built by humans that there is a restriction
of building it at night.

The third Beis Hamikdosh, however, will descend from Heaven miraculously, thus there are no
restrictions regarding the building of the third Beis Hamikdosh. The Maharil Diskin is troubled by
this answer, as the Jewish People have an obligation to build the Beis Hamikdosh, so why would
Hashem prevent us from performing this mitzvah?

The Maharil Diskin answers based on a Medrash in Eicha that states that when the Beis Hamikdosh
was destroyed, the gates of the Beis Hamikdosh sank into the ground and in the future, the Jewish
People will excavate the gates and affix them to the Beis Hamikdosh. The Gemora in Bava Basra
rules that one who secures the gates in an ownerless field is deemed to be the one who acquires the
field. Thus, we will fulfill the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdosh when we secure the gates
of the Beis Hamikdosh.

This can also be the explanation of the words that we recite in the Shemone Esrei of Mussaf on the
festivals, show us its rebuilding and gladden us in its perfection. The word for perfection is tikkuno,
which can allude to the securing of the Beis Hamikdosh gates.

REMEMBERING THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

12
The Mishnah relates that Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted a Mitzvah d'Rabanan to hold the
Arba'as ha'Minim on all seven days of Sukos outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara explains
that this enactment was made as a commemoration for the Beis ha'Mikdash ("Zecher la'Mikdash").
What is the source for the concept of making a Zecher la'Mikdash? The Gemara cites the verse,
"For I shall raise up (A'aleh) for you a cure, and from your wounds I will heal you -- the word of
Hash-m, for 'abandoned' did they call you: 'She is Tziyon -- no one remembers her'" (Yirmeyahu
30:17).

This verse, which teaches the concept of making a Zecher la'Mikdash, is cited only by the Gemara
here and nowhere else. This implies that the verse specifically relates to the Arba'as ha'Minim.
However, the verse makes no mention or hint of the Arba'as ha'Minim. In what way does the verse
allude to the Arba'as ha'Minim?

The word "A'aleh" ("I shall raise up") is comprised of the first letter of each of the Arba'as
ha'Minim: Esrog, Aravah, Lulav, Hadas. The Chachamim instituted that a Zecher la'Mikdash be
made with the Arba'as ha'Minim in order to remind us of that Hash-m will heal the wounds of
Tziyon -- "from your wounds I will heal you."

A similar allusion to the Arba'as ha'Minim can be found in another verse: "May my tongue stick to
my palate if I do not remember you, [O Zion,] if I do not raise up (A'aleh) Yerushalayim above my
foremost joy (Rosh Simchasi)" (Tehilim 137:6). This verse also hints to the concept of
remembering the Beis ha'Mikdash on Sukos through the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim. "Rosh
Simchasi" alludes to the time of Simchah -- Zeman Simchasenu, or Sukos -- during which the
celebrations of the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah occurred when the Beis ha'Mikdash stood. The
Chachamim instituted that a Zecher la'Mikdash should be made by holding the Arba'as ha'Minim -
- the Esrog, Aravah, Lulav, and Hadas, to which the word "A'aleh" alludes -- on all seven days of
Sukos.2

THE "KILKUL" WHICH OCCURRED WHEN THE

WITNESSES CAME LATE
The Mishnah relates that on one occasion witnesses did not arrive to testify about the new moon
until after the time of Minchah on Rosh Hashanah. As a result, the Leviyim did not recite the correct
Shir when the afternoon Korban Tamid was offered. Because of that "Kilkul" the Rabanan
instituted that Beis Din may never accept witnesses who come to testify about the new moon after
the time of Minchah.

2
See also "Peninim mi'Shulchan ha'Gra" by Rav Dov Eliach, Vayikra 23:40, who cites in the name of the Vilna Ga'on that the
Arba'as ha'Minim are alluded to in the verse "E'eleh v'Samar, Ochazah b'Sansinav..." (Shir ha'Shirim 7:9). Actually, the original
source for this allusion is the Zohar in Ra'aya Mehemna, end of Ki Setzei 283a, and Tikunei Zohar #13. We later found that Rav
Reuven Margoliyos, in Sha'arei Zohar and Nitzotzei Zohar, notes the allusion from the verse cited by the Gemara here.

13
Why does the Mishnah say that the "Kilkul" was that the Leviyim recited the wrong Shir? Since
the witnesses did not come until after the afternoon Korban Tamid was offered, there was a much
more serious "Kilkul": the Korban Musaf of Rosh Hashanah could not be offered. The afternoon
Korban Tamid must be the last Korban of the day (Pesachim 58b), and since they already brought
the Korban Tamid they could not bring the Korban Musaf. Consequently, not only did the late
arrival of the witnesses result in the wrong Shir being recited, but it resulted in the inability to offer
the entire Musaf offering of Rosh Hashanah. Why does the Mishnah not mention this "Kilkul"?
(TOSFOS DH Niskalkelu)

(a) TOSFOS answers that according to the opinion in the Gemara which maintains that the
"Kilkul" was that the Leviyim did not recite any Shir at all (and not that they recited the wrong
Shir), it is possible that what actually happened was that the witnesses did not come at all, and not
that they came late. The failure to offer the Korban Musaf was not a "Kilkul" because the day was
not established as Rosh Chodesh. However, the Leviyim did not recite the day's Shir out of doubt
whether the witnesses would arrive. Hence, the only "Kilkul" was that they did not recite the Shir.

(b) TOSFOS suggests that the opinion in the Gemara which maintains that the Leviyim recited
the wrong Shir for the Korban Tamid (and which maintains that witnesses did arrive to testify about
the new moon) must maintain that the Korban Musaf may be offered after the Korban Tamid.
Although no other Korban may be offered after the Tamid, a Korban Tzibur (such as the Korban
Musaf) is different; the Mitzvas Aseh of the Tzibur overrides the Mitzvas Aseh of Hashlamah (the
requirement that the Korban Tamid be the last Korban of the day).

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Kidush ha'Chodesh 3:5) explains that the "Kilkul" indeed was
that they did not offer the Korban Musaf. He makes no mention of the Shir.

How does the Rambam understand the Mishnah which clearly states that the Leviyim were
"Niskalkelu b'Shir"? Moreover, how does he explain the Gemara which discusses at length the
"Kilkul" of the Shir?3

Perhaps the Rambam understands that the Mishnah means that not only did the Kohanim err by not
offering the appropriate Korbanos, but even the Leviyim erred by not reciting the proper Shir. The
Mishnah is teaching the extent of the "Kilkul" -- that it affected even the Leviyim.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, following the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yochanan ben
Zakkai established Rabbinic ordinances whose purpose was to remember the Mikdash. The
Mishnah on our daf discusses how his rulings affected the holiday of Sukkot.

3
See LECHEM MISHNEH and other commentaries on the Rambam.
4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_roshhashanah2430/

14
The pasuk that commands us to take the arba minim on Sukkot (Vayikra 23:40) is enigmatic. It
describes the mitzvah as commanding us to take the four species on “the first day [of the holiday]”
and then continues that you should “rejoice before God for seven days.”

Which are we commanded to do – celebrate with the etrog and lulav for one day, or for seven?

The Mishnah teaches that originally the halakha was that the arba minim were taken one day in all
places (medina), and seven days in the Bet ha-Mikdash (“before God”). There is a difference of
opinion amongst the rishonim regarding the definition of mikdash in this case. Rashi,

the Ritva and others explain that any place outside of the Temple – including the Old City of
Jerusalem – is considered medina and the lulav is not taken there. The Rambam rules that the
holiness of the Temple extends to the entire city and therefore all of Jerusalem is considered
mikdash for this purpose.

The Jerusalem Talmud is clear on this point, in agreement with the Rambam. Thus it is possible
even today that there is a biblical obligation to take the arba minim when visiting the Old City of
Jerusalem.

This rule was changed with the destruction of the Temple. At that time Rabban Yochanan ben
Zakkai instituted a Rabbinic decree obligating the lulav and etrog to be taken for all seven days of
the holiday, zecher la-mikdash – as a remembrance of the Temple and its unique rule.

The Me’iri points out that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai did not actually establish the mitzvah for
all seven days as in the Temple, since at least one of the days will fall out on Shabbat, when,
nowadays, the lulav is not taken. Nevertheless the point is that the obligation, as it was practiced
in the Bet ha-Mikdash, is remembered.

Innovations of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai

Mark Kerzner writes:5

We mentioned yesterday how Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai outwitted the other Sages regarding the
shofar. The Talmud continues with his other innovations.

He established two new laws in order to remember Jerusalem, one about waving the lulav and the
other about eating new grain, where the possibility of the Temple being rebuilt any day or night
was expressed in practical laws. This is in the class of important teachings which are repeated in a
number of places in the Talmud.

5
https://talmudilluminated.com/rosh_hashanah/rosh_hashanah30.html

15
He also re-established accepting New Moon witnesses any time of the day. Initially, this is how
the law was, but in the time of the Temple they changed this, so that the order of the sacrifices
would not accidentally go awry. Now that there was no Temple any longer, this precaution was
not needed, and Rabbi Yochanan repealed the law. This, incidentally, agrees with the rule that even
if the original reason for the rule goes away, it still needs a Court to be repealed.

Sue Parker Gerson writes:6

On yesterday’s daf, a mishnah quoted the ruling of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai that the shofar
should be blown on Rosh Hashanah wherever there is a beit din , or religious court of law. The
Gemara then goes on to delineate several other rulings of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, including
this one:

At first, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple all seven days of Sukkot, and
in the rest of the country outside the Temple, it was taken only one day, on the first day of the
festival. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav
should be taken even in the rest of the country all seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.

In Temple times, the lulav and etrog were taken — i.e. shaken — only on the first day of Sukkot
everywhere outside Jerusalem. But after the Temple’s destruction, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai
ruled that they should be taken for the duration of the holiday in commemoration of how things
were done in the Temple, which continues to be our practice today.

Taking up the lulav on all seven days of Sukkot is one of several ways we commemorate the rituals
performed in the Temple. Others include the Tisha B’Av mourning rituals, Torah study and prayer
in place of Temple sacrifices, and more.

But on our daf, the Gemara asks a deeper question: Why should we take such pains to remember
the Temple? The answer might seem self-evident — after all, the Temple functioned as the center
of Jewish worship for centuries and Jews today still pray for its rebuilding. Of course we should
remember the Temple.

But as ever, the Gemara has something fascinating to teach in its explanation.

And from where do we derive that one performs actions in commemoration of the Temple? As
the verse states: “For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, said the
Lord; because they have called you an outcast: She is Zion, there is none who care for
her.” (Jeremiah 30:17) This verse teaches by inference that Jerusalem requires caring through
acts of commemoration.

6
Myjewishlearning.com

16
Quoting Jeremiah, the sages say we remember the Temple because Jerusalem itself needs us to care
about her. And the way we show care is through behavior that demonstrates we remember how
Jerusalem used to be.

The Talmud’s use of a verse from Jeremiah as a prooftext is telling. Jeremiah lived through the
destruction of the First Temple, and his image of Jerusalem is of a living, breathing entity. As it
says at the start of the Book of Lamentations, traditionally attributed to Jeremiah as well: “Alas!
Lonely sits the city once great with people! She that was great among nations is become like a
widow; the princess among states is become a thrall.”

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai too lived through the destruction of the Temple — the Second Temple,
600 years after Jeremiah. The Gemara was written hundreds of years after that. So how is it that
these rabbis living in the early Middle Ages had a concept of what it means to have had a Temple
so rich that they would insist on creating rituals to compensate for its absence?

Because Jewish leaders for hundreds of years before them had instilled the importance of the Temple
in such a way that the rabbis of the Gemara and beyond — even into our own time — could
understand and impart what the Temple represented, and what a loss its destruction meant.

Of course, we live in a time when Jerusalem (if not the Temple) has been rebuilt — it is once again
“a city great with people.” And yet, we still observe Tisha B’Av, we still study and pray instead of
offering Temple sacrifices, and we shake the lulav all seven days of Sukkot (except for Shabbat).

Remembering, according to the Talmud, isn’t just about words — it’s about action. And those
actions in memory of the Temple don’t just have the effect of personifying Jerusalem. They bring
Jerusalem, the Temple and Judaism itself alive for the next generation.

That’s what Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai — the man who created an academy at Yavneh to ensure
that Jewish learning would continue in the wake of the Temple — was going for. It’s now our job
to actively remember our history and teach it to the next generation. And for those of us who can
study Talmud not only in a book, but on a website or a podcast, it has never been more possible —
or more exciting — to do so.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Having informed us that Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted specific shofar and lulav rituals in
the post Churban era as a remembrance of the practices in the Beit HaMikdash (see Mishna Rosh
Hashanah 4:1 & 4:3), our daf (Rosh Hashanah 30a) asks for the biblical basis for establishing such
practices.

In response, the Gemara refers to Yirmiyahu 30:17 which states: ‘“I will surely raise up a cure for
you, and I will heal you of your wounds,” declares the Lord, “for they have called you an outcast,
saying: ‘‫ ציון היא דורש אין לה‬- This Zion, there is none to seek her out’’. On this, the Gemara then

7
www.rabijohnnysolomon.com

17
adds: ‫‘ – מכלל דבעיא דרישה‬from here we derive that we should seek [out Zion]’ which is understood
to mean that we should institute practices that express our yearning for the Beit HaMikdash.

Interestingly, the Ramchal quotes this teaching in his Mesillat Yesharim (Ch. 19), to which he then
writes: ‫‘ – הרי כאן שחיבים אנחנו בזה ואין לנו לפטר מפני מעוט כחנו‬this teaches us that we are obliged to
[pray and seek out other ways to maintain our connection with the Beit HaMikdash], and we should
not absolve ourselves from doing so due to our limited powers’.

What this means is that while the spiritual or geo-political climate of our generation may well make
us feel that the Churban occurred long ago, that the building of a Third Beit HaMikdash is beyond
our imagination, and that we neither have the power to return to the former or bring about the latter,
we should nevertheless pray and seek out other ways to maintain our connection with the Beit
HaMikdash. And why? Because, as the Ramchal then writes, ‫‘ – כי על כיוצא בזה שנינו‬for it is
concerning matters such as this that we have been taught’, ‫‘ – לא עליך המלאכה לגמר‬it is not incumbent
upon you to complete the task’, ‫‘ – ואי אתה בן חורין לבטל הימנה‬but neither are you free to stand aside
from it’.

Oftentimes there are hopes and dreams that seem so vast that we come to believe that we are
powerless to help bring them to realization. But what the prophet teaches, what Rav Yochanan ben
Zakkai channeled into the religious practices that he established, and what the Ramchal explains, is
that maintaining hope is a powerful thing, and that even if we cannot – on our own – bring about
the ultimate redemption, what we can do, and what we should do, is pray and perform deeds that
help us maintain our hope in the ultimate redemption.

Rav Asher Meir writes:8

Throughout the Mishna and Gemara, we find mention of the fact that the Levi'im used to

sing during the bringing of sacrifices, but from these sources we don't learn WHAT they sung.

From a famous mishna in our daf Rosh HaShana (30b) we learn that on holidays a song different

from the regular weekday song was said. The mishna describes a case when witnesses testified

about the new moon heralding Rosh HaShana so late that the wrong song had already been sung.

8
https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/prayer-and-blessings/simanim-133-134-shir-shel-yom

18
(This is what happened according to one opinion - another opinion maintains that because of the

confusion they sang no song, which also proves that the RH song is different).

The weekday psalms are enumerated in the mishna at the very end of Tamid (we have the

custom to recite this mishna on Shabbat and Yom Tov after musaf), but the holiday ones are not

mentioned.

The Magen Avraham 132:4 raises a variety of questions regarding the shir shel yom.

Among them:

1. Why don't we say "shir shel yom" at mincha? After all, the mincha prayer is parallel to the

afternoon tamid which had its own song. One answer is based on our custom to say the psalms

AFTER the prayer. Since no more sacrifices are brought, and no more songs are sung after the

afternoon tamid, there is no time to sing a song after mincha. And even though when we say the

shir shel yom in the morning it is already past the time for THAT shir, since the tamid has already

been brought (that is, we have already said the Amida), nevertheless SOME singing is still going

on in the Temple.

2. Why don't we say different psalms on holidays, as was done in the Temple? And why do

we say the daily psalm after musaf, when the musaf sacrifice had its own song? The Magen

Avraham explains that today saying these psalms is a mere commemoration. He points out that

even the psalms designated for the holidays in Sofrim (chapter 18) are not always those which

were said in the Temple.

We do see from this that the Sefaradi custom of saying shir shel yom before musaf bears a

closer relation to the Temple service. Ideally, we would say the musaf song after musaf as well.

Most congregations say the regular shir shel yom on holidays; a few congregation

(especially those who go by the customs of the Gra) say those mentioned in Sofrim.

19
 In most siddurim, the shir shel yom starts with an introductory phrase from the mishna in

Tamid: "The song which the Leviim used to sing in the Mikdash: On Tuesday [or whatever day it

is] they would say ..." We just pointed out that on Yom Tov the Leviim would NOT say the regular

Tuesday psalm, consequently, though it is technically correct to say that on Tuesdays they would

GENERALLY say "Mizmor leAsaf," saying this introduction on Yom Tov gives the false

impression that we are really saying the appropriate song for this day.

Rav Menachem Azaria (siman 25) suggests eliminating this introductory phrase altogether.

If the psalm we say is the one we would be saying in the Temple, so much the better; if it is

different, well there's nothing wrong with reciting psalms! At any rate we avoid giving a false

impression.

Rabbi and Rebbetzin Wollenberg write:9

9
https://www.wfus.org.uk/post/davening-directed-shir-shel-yom

20
SHIR SHEL YOM
1. Shir Shel Yom (‫)ִשׁיר◌ ֶ ֶשׁל יבֿם‬,
ִ meaning “‘song’ [i.e. Psalm] of [the] day [of the
week]” consists of one psalm recited daily at the end of the Jewish morning prayer
services known as shacharit.
2. Each day of the week possesses a distinct psalm that is referred to by its Hebrew
name as the shir shel yom and each day’s shir shel yom is a different paragraph of
Psalms.[1]
3. Although fundamentally similar to the Levite’s song that was sung at the Holy
Temple in Jerusalem in ancient times, there are some differences between the two
ORIGINS
1. The last Mishna in Tamid (7:4) enumerates the psalms which the Levites would
recite each day in the Beit Ha-mikdash (Temple), after offering the tamid shel
shachar. The tamid was a lamb offered twice daily in the Temple (Bamidbar 28:4),
in the morning (shachar) and afternoon (bein ha-arbayim). The Gemara (Rosh Ha-
shana 31a) explains why each chapter was chosen to be recited on each specific
day.
2. Each day’s shir shel yom was chosen for its ties to that day’s significance in the
week of Creation, as explained by the beraisa that quotes Rabbi Yehuda in the name
of Rabbi Akiva in Gemora Rosh Hashana 31

3. On Sunday, LAdonai ha’aretz u’melo’ah (‫הוהיל ץראה האולמו‬, “For God is the land
and its fullness”) is recited, in reference to the first day of Creation, on which God
acquired the universe, bequeathed it to mankind and ruled over His world by
Himself.
4. On Monday, Gadol Adonai u’mehulal me’od (‫לודג הוהי ללהמו דאמ‬, “Great is God and
much praised”) is recited, in reference to the second day of Creation, on which He
separated the things that he made (the heavens from the earth) and reigned over
them.
5. On Tuesday, Elohim nitzav ba’adat El (‫םיהולא בצנ תדעב לא‬, “God stands in the divine
assembly”) is recited, in reference to the third day of Creation, on which He exposed
the land with His wisdom, thus preparing the world for His assembly.
6. On Wednesday, El nikamot Adonai (‫לא תומקנ הוהי‬, “Hashem is a God of
vengeance”) is recited, in reference to the fourth day of Creation, on which He
created the sun and the moon and how he will ultimately exact punishment from
those who worship them. Ends with Lechu Neranana – shabbos The Ari z”l
introduced the idea of adding the first three pesukim of Tehillim 95 in order not to
end the Shir shel yom with punishment “the L-rd our G-d will destroy them”. A
similar idea is seen at the end of Eicha, Lamentations. An additional reason comes
from Chassidic teachings. One needs to make spiritual and physical preparations
for Shabbos from Wednesday. For this reason, we add these three pesukim which
are said in the service of Kabbolas Shabbos

21
 7. On Thursday, Harninu leilohim uzeinu (‫ונינרה םיהולאל ונזוע‬, “Sing joyously to the
God of our might”) is recited, in reference to the fifth day of Creation, on which He
created the birds and the fish to give praise to his name.
8. On Friday, Adonai malach gei’ut laveish (‫הוהי ךלמ תואג שבל‬, “Hashem has reigned,
he had donned grandeur”) is recited, in reference to the sixth day of Creation, on
which He completed his work and reigned over his creations.
9. On the Sabbath, Mizmor shir leyom haShabbat (‫רומזמ ריש םויל תבשה‬, “A song, a
hymn for the Sabbath day”) is recited, in reference to the seventh day of Creation,
which is a day that is entirely Sabbath.
OTHER DAYS
1. On holidays, including Chol Hamoed and Rosh Chodesh, the Levites would replace
the regular song with one appropriate to the day. We add
2. The earliest record of specific psalms being identified with certain days may be
found in the Book of Tehillim itself, as 92:1 introduces the psalm as a “song for the
Sabbath day.”
3. Furthermore, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible by seventy-two
Jewish elders (Megilla9a-b), introduces certain psalms with the day upon which
they were recited by the Levites in the Beit Ha-mikdash.
4. While originally only the Levites sang Shir shel Yom as the korban tamid was
offered, Massekhet Soferim (18:2), after citing the source from Tamid, adds, “one
who mentions the verse in its proper time is considered as if he has built a new altar
and brought a sacrifice upon it.”
5. Furthermore, the Machzor Vitry (pg. 712) cites the Talmud Yerushalmi
(Ta’anit4:5), which questions whether Shir shel Yom may be recited “without
libations,” i.e., outside the sacrificial service, concluding that one may do so. We
preface each psalm as that which “the Levites used to say in the Beit Ha-mikdash.“
6. The Rambam, in his Nussach Ha-tefilla, found at the end of Sefer Ahava, writes
that SOME are accustomed to reciting Shir shel Yom. However, the Siddur of Rav
Amram Gaon simply instructs that one should recite Shir shel Yom.
7. There are different customs regarding the recitation of Shir shel Yom. According
to the Ashkenazic custom (Rema OC 123:2), Shir shel Yom is recited AFTER
Aleinu. According to the Sephardic custom, one recites Shir shel Yom immediately
following the Kaddish of “U-va le-Tziyyon,” and only afterwards does one recite
Aleinu.
8. As Shir shel Yom corresponds to the song recited with the tamid shel shachar, one
might question why we do not recite it at Mincha as well, as the tamid shel bein
haarbayim, which Mincha reflects, was offered in the afternoon. Indeed, the
Mishna (Rosh Ha-shana 4:4) implies that Shir shel Yom was recited at Mincha too!
9. The Mishna Berura (122:16) explains that in the Beit Ha-mikdash they often
omitted Shir shel Yom at Mincha, as the libations brought with the tamid shel bein
ha-arbayim often lasted until after dark. Alternatively, the Arukh Ha-shulchan
(123:2) Simply explains that as reciting the song of the day is merely a
“remembrance” of the practices in the Beit Hamikdash, one daily recitation suffices.

22
 10. On days upon which Tefillat Mussaf is recited, some communities recite Shir shel
Yom after Shacharit and before the Torah reading, while some recite it after Mussaf
(see Magen Avraham 122:4).
11. Interestingly, the Ramban (Shemot 20:7) posits that whenever one refers to a
weekday by its ordinal (e.g., referring to Tuesday as “the third day,” counting
toward Shabbat), he fulfils the Biblical commandment to remember the Sabbath.
Thus, we fulfil a mitzvah when we recite Shir shel Yom with the introduction
“Today is the _______ day of the week.”

Map of the territory of Benjamin. Note the area around the cities allotted to
the Levites, per Numbers 35:4–5

23
 Levites: A Transjordanian Tribe of Priests

Pre-exilic biblical texts describe Levites as landless priests who can serve in any holy site. The

origin of this status can be found in ancient times, when the tribe of Levi lost control of their

territory in the Transjordan, but remained in the vicinity serving in the Nebo temple, where their

ancestor Moses was buried.

Prof. Alexander Rofé writes:10

The Levites are a unique tribe.[1] In some texts, they are a natural unit of ‫“ ינב לארשי‬the children of
Israel.” Levi is the third son of Jacob/Israel;[2] he appears in Jacob’s final testament to his sons
(Gen 49) and in Moses’ final words to the Israelites (Deut 33). The Levites are also one of the
twelve tribes included in the ceremony of the blessing on the mountains of Gerizim and Ebal (Deut
27:11–13).[3]

At the same time, most biblical texts do not list Levi as one of the twelve tribes. Instead, these lists
reach the number twelve by excluding Levi and dividing the Joseph tribes into Ephraim and
Manasseh. Twice, when Moses takes a census of the people (Num 1–2, 26:1–51), he counts the
Levites separately from the other tribes (Num 3:14–39; 26:57–62), following YHWH’s explicit
command to Moses:

10
https://www.thetorah.com/article/levites-a-transjordanian-tribe-of-priests

24
Instead of the Levites inheriting land as a single tribal allotment, Numbers 35:1–8 requires the
Israelites to assign the Levites special cities of their own, inside their territories, and this is carried
out in the book of Joshua (ch. 21).[4]

Just Priestly Attendants?

In Numbers, the Levites are chosen to be attendants in the Tabernacle, assisting the Aaronide
priests.

Each group has its own responsibilities—the priesthood offers sacrifices, and the Levites carry the
Tabernacle and its accoutrements and guard it from outsiders; each also receives its own
maintenance gifts—the priests receive portions of the sacrifices (Exod 29:27–28; Lev 7:14, 32–
34, 10:14–15; Num 5:9, 18:8–20)[5] while the Levites receive the tithe (Num 18:21–24).[6]

This description is only found in the Priestly text of the Torah and late Second Temple texts (see
appendix), and contradicts virtually every other biblical text that speaks about Levites. For one,
several biblical texts speak about an entirely different class of people as temple attendants, the
Gibeonites (Josh 9:23, 27) and/or the Netinim (Ezra 8:20; Neh 11:21).[7] More significantly, other
accounts consistently describe the Levites as performing priestly functions.

25
Levites as Priests and Levitical Priests

The Deuteronomic law collection consistently refers to ‫“ ַהֹכֲּה ִנים ַהְל ִו ִיּם‬Levitical priests” or ‫ַה‬
‫“ ֹכֲּה ִ ִניםְבּ ֵֵני ֵל ִ ִוי‬priests, son of Levi.” For example:

Indeed, nowhere does Deuteronomy describe priests as ‫“ ְבּ ֵֵני ַא ֹ ֲהֹרן‬descendants of Aaron.”[8] In

Deuteronomy, any Levite can serve as a priest, as YHWH established at Horeb,[9] though not all
of them necessarily have a position at a worship site.

We find this view in other First Temple period sources. For instance, in the story of Micah’s idol,
the Danites meet ‫“ ַהַנַﬠר ַהֵלּ ִ ִוי‬the Levite lad” in the house of Micah (Judg 18:3), and when they ask
him what he is doing there:

‫ש‬

They then ask him to inquire of YHWH on their behalf, and later they steal all the cultic equipment

from Micah’s house and ask the Levite to come be the priest for their new city:

26
Thus, pre-exilic texts present the Levites as priests of YHWH who could potentially be hired
anywhere.[10]

Vulnerable Levites

A Levite who had not secured a position at a specific worship site, however, would have been
economically at risk. This explains why Deuteronomy includes Levites among the people to whom
Israelites must give charity:

A Levite with no land and no steady income of gifts from serving at an altar was vulnerable in the
same way as the widow or the stranger.[11]

In the hundreds of years that the Levites lived among the Israelites and served at local altars, they
did not all become part of established priestly houses, nor did they assimilate into the tribes where
they lived. How did the Levites reach their curious position in Israelite society: ideal priests who
lacked territory and were economically vulnerable?

The Levites and Their Territory

Originally, the Levites were a tribe with their own territory, part of the subgroup which included
the first four sons of Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah.[12] Julius Wellhausen argued that
these four tribes were an early unit, settled on the two sides of the Dead Sea.[13] We know that
Simeon and Judah settled to the west and Reuben to the east. Levi’s territory, I would argue, was
also in the east.

27
Moses, the great Levite ancestor figure, is buried in the Transjordanian mishor, in the region of
Mount Nebo (Deut 34). Just as Rachel’s tomb can be found in the territory of Benjamin (1 Sam
10:2), Joseph’s in the territory of Manasseh (Josh 24:32), and Joshua’s in the territory of Ephraim

(Josh 24:30), so too Moses’ tomb would have been located in the territory of Levi.[14]

The Levites Lose their Territory

If Levi once occupied the area around Nebo, by the time the first tribal divisions texts are written,
this was no longer the case.[15] In the earliest descriptions we have, Reuben occupies this territory
(Num 32:38).

While we have no text that describes a battle between Reuben and Levi, it is conspicuous that the
early, pre-Priestly account of Israelite rebellion against Moses’ authority features Reubenites as
the ring leaders: Datan and Abiram (Num 16).[16] This story may be based on a memory of an
ancient conflict between these tribes.[17] If so, from the perspective of land, the Reubenites won.

Soon after this, however, the Gadites expanded their territorial holdings and took the land from the
Reubenites.[18] This is reflected in the blessing of Gad at the end of Deuteronomy:

This poem, which should be dated to 9th century B.C.E., notes that Gad is now in control of the
area where Moses, “the lawgiver,” is buried.[19] Given that Levi’s territory passed first to Reuben
and then to Gad, what happened to the Levites themselves? The answer is connected to the status
of Nebo.

28
The Origin of this Levitical Status

The area of Nebo was not only the burial place of Moses, but, as we know from the Mesha
inscription, it housed a YHWH Temple. As the importance of this temple was likely tied up with
the identity if its patron saint, Moses, who was buried either in it or alongside it, the Levites were
able to remain in their territory not as sovereigns, but as priests serving the Nebo temple.

This is supported by the poem noted above, which appears to be a hieros logos or “sacred founding
legend” for the temple at Moses’ gravesite.[20] The section of the blessing Levi[21] explains why the
Levites were chosen as its priests:

According to this, the reward YHWH grants the Levites for the loyalty they showed at Masah
uMeribah[22] is that they should be given control of the holy objects, the Urim ve-Tummim, with
which the Levites will be able to communicate with YHWH and provide the people with oracles.
The text continues:

Here the text adds two further features of the Levites’ place in Israelite society: They teach
YHWH’s laws and they offer sacrifices. In short, the Levites are to act as Israel’s priests,
communicating God’s laws and oracles, and offering sacrifices on their behalf.[23]

29
Defenders of YHWH

An alternative version of the tradition reflected in this blessing appears as part of the Golden Calf
story in Exodus 32. When Moses comes down from the mountain, having learned of the sin of the
Golden Calf, he calls out to ask who is with him on the side of YHWH, ‫“ ַוֵיְָּאְספוּ ֵָאָליוָ◌ָכּל ְבּ ֵֵני ֵל ִ ִוי‬and
all the Levites gathered to him” (Exod 32:26) Moses then instructs them to strike down all the
sinners, and they do so, leaving 3,000 Israelites dead.

In this story, the Levites are granted their status as a gift from Moses after showing their loyalty to
YHWH in battle.

Descendants of Moses

Elsewhere, the connection of Levites to Moses is made genealogically. In the Micah story, the
priesthood in Dan is said to descend from Moses:

The Hebrew text as we have it now adds a nun into the name of Moses, turning it into Manasseh,
but the Masoretic scribes put this nun into superscript to inform the reader that it isn’t original.
Clearly, it was added to avoid stating explicitly that Jonathan, this Levite of questionable character,
was Moses’ grandson, but the attempt is half-hearted. The name of Jonathan’s father, Gershom,
makes the point clear. Moreover, this correction is absent in many LXX manuscripts, and it is
ignored in the Latin Vulgate.[24] While the story is meant to lampoon this worship site, it is clear

30
that part of Jonathan’s bona fides as a Levite is his descent from the greatest of all Levite ancestors,
Moses.

A Transjordanian Tribe

Over time, Levite becomes synonymous with priesthood. But serving in one temple was not enough
work for one tribe. Thus, after Levi lost control of their territory, many Levites began to wander
into the territory of other Israelite tribes.

With their reputations as the tribe of Moses, teachers of YHWH’s laws, and diviners of YHWH’s
plans, they were the perfect group to choose for service in local shrines. This is likely how Levites
ended up as far away as Dan, and probably other places as well. Nevertheless, unlike in Nebo and
the Transjordan, their natural home as priests, in Cisjordan, the Levites had to find places that
would take them in.

Their situation took a turn for the worse in the 9th century B.C.E. when King Mesha of Moab
conquered the Mishor and destroyed the YHWH Temple in Nebo. Mesha described this conquest
in his stele:

‫ ואהרג כלה‬,‫ ואהלך בללה ואלתחם בה מבקע השחרת עד הצהרם ואחזה‬.‫ויאמר לי כמש לך אחז את נבה על ישראל‬
.‫חקאו םשמ א]ת כ[יל הוה־י םהבחסאו ינפל שמכ‬. ‫תעבש ןפלא ןרבג ןרגו תרבגו רגות תמחרו יכ רתשעל שמכ התמרחה‬,

31
And Kemosh (=the Moabite god) said to me: “Go take Nebo from Israel!” And I went in the night
and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, and I took it and I killed everyone, seven
thousand men and boys and women and girls and servant girls, for I had put it to the ban for
AshtarKemosh. And I took the [ves]sels of YHWH from there and hauled them before the face of
Kemosh.
Having lost their main temple, a new wave of Levites probably entered the Cisjordanian territory
during this period, looking for holy sites where they could ply their trade. This wave may have
inspired the laws we eventually find in Deuteronomy requiring Israelites to take care of
unemployed Levites living in their territory.

In the early 8th century, Kings Joash and Jeroboam II of Israel recaptured the Mishor. In this period,
it seems to have again been part of Reuben and not Gad (and certainly not Levi).[25] We do not
know whether the temple was reestablished at this time, but even if it was, soon thereafter (734–
732 B.C.E.), King Tiglath-pilesar III of Assyria, conquered and destroyed Israelite Transjordan,
marking the permanent end of Israelite domination of this region.
Any surviving Levites would have fled to the Cisjordan at this point, and after the destruction of
the rest of Israel in 722 B.C.E., to Judah, joining their brother Levites either as priests in local
worship sites, controlled by other priestly families, or as landless objects of charity.

The Decline of the Levites

By the Second Temple period, the Priestly authors gave the Levites a role as attendants in the
Jerusalem Temple, and included a required Israelite tithe as their stipend; this was the final rung
on the centuries-long decline of this tribe.

In the pre-monarchic period, they were a landholding tribe, with an ancestor figure and a temple
of great importance. After that, they became a landless tribe but still with a temple, then a landless
and temple-less tribe, looking for work as local priests. This development put them in competition

32
with other Priestly families with different ancestors, such as the Aaronites and the Zadokites, so
the Levites were eventually forced to accept a status as priestly attendants.

And yet, when we read the blessing of Levi in Deuteronomy 33, we can hear the echoes of their
former greatness, when their loyalty to YHWH brought them into military conflict with their fellow
Israelites, and they were rewarded with YHWH’s priesthood in the Nebo temple, that was to stand
by the tomb of their ancestor Moses.

Appendix

Demotion of Levites

Scholars continue to debate how the Levites got demoted from priests to priestly attendants serving
under the Aaronide priesthood.[26]

Centralization

Julius Wellhausen argued that was a result of the centralization of worship.[27] At one point,
different families of Levitical priests served in different holy sites, but when Josiah centralized
worship, the only family that remained was the Aaronides of Jerusalem. As they refused to let any
other priestly family join their ranks, the now unemployed Levites from other worship sites needed
to strike a deal with the Jerusalem Temple, which they did by taking the lower role of attendants.

As many scholars have noted, this suggestion doesn’t fit the sources describing the early Second
Temple period. According to Ezra 2:36–39 (=Neh 7:39–42), 4,289 priests from four different
priestly families returned from exile, and three more families of “possible” priestly lineage on top
of these (Ezra 2:61–63 [=Neh 7:62–64]). In contrast, only 74 Levites returned (Ezra 2:40 [=Neh
7:43]). The huge number of priests in comparison with that of the Levites makes little sense if
Levites represented the priesthood of every holy place other than Jerusalem.

33
Moreover, the centralization of worship under Josiah took place only a few decades before the
exile, which is hardly enough time for the creation of solid boundaries between priestly families
and Levitical families. Finally, the description of the centralization process implies that only the
actual priests who served in high places would be disqualified from active service (2 Kgs 23:9);
the text says nothing about their descendants losing priestly status for all time.[28]

Israelite Versus Judahite

A different theory, put forward separately by Aelred Cody and Menahem Haran, is that Levites
were the priestly class of Israel in the north and kohanim (priests) were the priestly class of Judah
in the south.[29] According to this model, when Israel was destroyed by Assyria in 722 B.C.E.,
many Levites escaped south to Judah. They were not accepted into the ranks of the local priesthood,
so they accepted a lesser role.
Support for this view can be found in the list of Levitical cities (Josh 21:1–40; 1 Chron 6:39–66),
since the Aaronide priests received cities among the southern tribes of Judah, Simeon, and
Benjamin—i.e., the territory of the kingdom of Judah—while the rest of the Levites received cities
elsewhere, in the north and east. But these texts are very late and artificial; they assume the
perspective on priests and Levites found in the Priestly texts which, as already noted, contradict
the First Temple period material about Levites.

In fact, non-Priestly material suggests that Levites lived throughout Greater Israel, in the north and
the south. The priest who serves Micah is from Bethlehem (Judg 17:7), and is respected by the
coastal Danites (Judg 18:3–4), who bring him and his descendants to live in the far north (Judg
18:30). The Levite protagonist of the concubine in Gibeah story in Ephraimite, though he travels
back and forth to Judah (Judg 19:1). Moreover, according to Kings, the north made use of
nonLevitical priests (1 Kgs 12:31), such that it is hard to say that the northern kingdom was the
source of their status.

As for the Aaronides, nowhere in the Bible is Aaron tied to Jerusalem. Instead, Aaron is buried in
the Transjordan on Mount Hor (Num 21:22–29, 33:38) or Moserah (Deut 10:6),[30] and his son

34
Eleazar and his grandson Phinehas are buried in the Ephraimite Hills (Josh 24:33). Moreover, the
story of Aaron building the Golden Calf (Exod 32) is a polemic aimed at Jeroboam’s calves in Dan
and Bethel (1 Kgs 12:26–30).[31] And in war against Benjamin, Phinehas is serving as priest in
Bethel (Judg 20:26–28). Thus, if anything, the Aaronides are tied to the north, not the south.[32]

Footnotes

1. This article is an adaptation of Part Two of, Alexander Rofé, “‫שדקמ ובנ תלאשו אצומ םייולה‬, ‫[ ”תכרב השמ‬Moses’ Blessing,

the Sanctuary at Nebo, and the History of the Levites], in ‫םירקחמ ארקמב חרזמבו ןומדקה םישגומ לאומשל ׳א םטשנויל תאלמב ול‬

‫[ םיעבשהנש‬Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth

Birthday], ed. Yitschak Avishur and Joshua Blau (Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein’s Pub. House, 1978), 409–424; reprinted in

Alexander Rofé, ‫ קלח ןושאר רפויק ךשמה‬:‫[ אובמ רפסל םירבד‬Introduction to Deuteronomy: Part I and Further Chapters]

(Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988), 234–249. It was translated, edited, and adapted for TheTorah.com by the editors with the

author’s permission and input. For an adaption of Part One, see Alexander Rofé, “YHWH Is Enthroned at Gad’s Temple:

The Site of Moses’ Tomb,” TheTorah (2020).

2. Levi and his sons even appear in the list of the twelve children of Israel in Genesis 46:8–27, a text that looks much like a

list of tribal clans.

3. The name Levi is likely envisioned as one of the twelve names to be carved into the high priest’s ephod and breastplate

(Exod 28:9–11, 21; 39:6, 14). The text never says which twelve names, but as it mentions they should be carved ‫ְכּתבְֿלָֹדָתם‬

“according to their birth order,” this implies it means Israel’s literal sons and not the other conception of the twelve tribes,

which excludes Levi.

4. Indeed, in the long description of the division of the land in Joshua 13–19, each of the twelve tribes is given a plot, and

the Levites are not one of the twelve.

5. It seems like that they also receive the portion of the produce grown yearly that is donated to YHWH (Num 15:17–21).

Certainly, this is how the rabbis understood the passage, which is the origin of what they call terumah gedolah.

6. The Levites themselves must give a portion of this to the priests as a tithe from the tithe (Num 18:25–32). The rabbis call

this terumat maʿaser.

7. See discussion of this group in Menahem Haran, “‫ הירוטסיה לש ץוביק ינענכ הדוהיב‬:‫ידבעו המלש‬, ‫םיניתנה‬, ‫[ ”םינועבגה‬The

Gibeonites, the Nethinim, and the Servants of Solomon: The History of a Canaanite Enclave in Judah], in ‫הדוהי סוניכה‬

‫וירושלים‬: ‫[ יצראה רשע־םינשה דילתעי ץראה‬Judah and Jerusalem: The Twelfth Archaeological Convention] (Jerusalem:

Israel Exploration Society, 1957), 37–45.

35
 8. This was already noted in the early days of biblical source criticism in the 19th century.

9.

‫ֹא‬Ÿ ‫טַ◌ַﬠלֵ◌ֵכּן‬:‫ י‬.‫ח ָבּ ֵֵﬠת ִַהִהוא ִהְִבִדּיל ְי־ָהָוהֶ◌ֶאת ֵֶשֶׁבט ַהֵלּ ִ ִוי ָל ֵֵשׂאתֶ◌ֶאתֲ◌ֲארבֿן ְִבּ ִרית ְי־ָהָוה ַל ֹ ֲעֹמד ִלְפ ֵֵני ְי־ָהָוה ְלְָשׁ ְרתבֿ וְּלָב ֵֵר ְִבְּשׁמבַֿ◌ַﬠדַ◌ַהיּבֿם ֶַהֶזּה‬:‫םירבד י‬
‫ָהָיה‬

.‫ לבֿ‬¢‫ְלֵל ִ ִוי ֵֶחֶלק ְוַנֲָחָלהִ◌ִﬠם ֶָאָחיו ְי־ָהָוה הוּא ַנֲָחָלתבֿ ַכֲֶּאֶשׁר ִ ֶדֶּבּר ְי־ָהָוהֱ◌ֱאֶ¡ֶהי‬

Deut 10:8
At that time YHWH set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the Ark of the YHWH’s Covenant, to stand in attendance

upon YHWH, and to bless in His name, as is still the case. 10:9 That is why the Levites have received no hereditary portion

along with their kinsmen: YHWH is their portion, as YHWH your God spoke concerning them.

10. Editor’s note: See discussion in, Mark Leuchter, “Who Were the Levites?” TheTorah (2017); Baruch A. Levine, “The

Meaning of Degel and the Elusive History of the Levites,” TheTorah (2014).

11. This conception lies behind the threat YHWH makes against the family of Eli, after promising that he will choose someone

else to be the chief priest for Israel’s anointed king:

‫ול‬:‫לאומש א ב‬
‫ָ◌ָיבבֿא ְלִהְשַׁוֲֲֹחבֿת לבֿ ַלֲאגַבַֿרת ֶכֶּסף ְוִכ ַַכּר ֶָלֶחם ְוָא ַַמר ְסָפִֵח ִניָ◌ָנאֶ◌ֶאל ַאַחת ַהְֻכֻּהסּבֿת ֶ ֱל ֱֹאֹכל‬¢‫ְוָהָיהָ◌ָכּל ַהסָּבָֿתר ְבֵּב ְיְת‬
.‫ַַצּת ֶָלֶחם‬

1 Sam 2:36
And all the survivors of your house shall come and bow low to him for the sake of a money fee and a loaf of

bread, and shall say, “Please, assign me to one of the priestly functions, that I may have a morsel of bread to eat.”
According to this passage, a Levite without an assigned altar or worship site would find himself in penury.

12. The account of the birth of the sons of Jacob in Genesis 29:32–35 tells of the birth of her first four sons—Reuben, Simeon,

Levi, Judah—and then says that she stopped giving birth for a while. Later (Gen 30:17–21), after she trades mandrakes

for a night with Jacob, she conceives again, first Issachar then Zebulon (and afterwards Dinah, though she does not

become a tribe). This narrative distinction between the first four sons and the last two sons likely masks a historical

distinction, with the last two tribes joining the Leah group later in history. It also reflects a geographical distinction since

Issachar and Zebulon are in the northern valleys and the Galilee respectively.

13. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies,

introduction by W. Robertson Smith (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885), 121–157; trans. from, Prolegomena zur

Geschichte Israels (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883 [reprint of Geschichte Israels, 1878]), 144.

14. Another piece of supporting evidence for this comes from a comment in the book of Chronicles about Levites in the time

of David:

36
‫אל‬:‫וכ‬
ַ ְ ‫אל ַלֶחְברִבֿ ִני ֲחַשׁ ְ ָבָיהוּ ְוֶָאָחיו ְבּ ֵֵני ִַח ִיל ֶאֶלף וּ‬:‫ירבד םימיה א וכ‬
. ‫שַׁבעֵ◌ֵמאבֿתַ◌ַﬠל ְצֻּק ַַדּת ִיְשׂ ָ ֵרֵאל ֵמֵֶﬠֶבר ַלַיּ ְֵרֵדּן ַמְﬠָרָבה ְל ֹֹכל ְמֶלֶאֶכת ְי־ָהָוה ְוַל ֹ ֲעַֹבַדת ַהֶמֶּל‬

‫בל‬:‫וכ‬
‫ְוֶָאָחיו ְבּ ֵֵני ִַח ִיל‬ .‫שַׁנת ָהַא ְרִָבִּﬠים ְלְַמְלכוּת ִָדּ ִוידִ◌ ִנְדָרשׁוּ ַו ִיָּמֵּצא ָבֶהם ִגּבּבֵֿרי ַח ִיל ְבַּיְﬠֵזיר ִגְּלָﬠד‬
ַ ְ ‫ַלֶחְברִבֿ ִני ְי ִָרָיּה ָהֹרֹאשׁ ַלֶחְברִבֿ ִני ְלֹתְלָֹדָתיו ְ ָלָאבבֿת ִבּ‬

‫שַׁבע‬
ַ ְ ‫ַאְלִַצּ ִים וּ‬

. ‫ֵֵמאבֿת ָרֵאֵשׁי ָהָאבבֿת ַוַיְּפִקֵיֵדם ִָדּ ִויד ַהֶמֶּלַ◌ַﬠל ָהראוִֵּב ִני ְוַהָגּ ִִדי ַוֲח ִִצי ֵֶשֶׁבט ַהְמַנ ִִשּׁ◌י ְ ָלָכל ְדַַּברָ◌ ָ ֱהֱאִ¡ִהים וְּדַַבר ַהֶמֶּל‬

1 Chron 26:30
The Hebronites: Hashabiah and his brothers, capable men, 1700, supervising Israel on the west side of the

Jordan in all matters of YHWH and the service of the king. 26:31 The Hebronites: Jeriah, the chief of the Hebronites --

they were investigated in the fortieth year of David's reign by clans of all their lines, and men of substance were found

among them in Jazer-gilead. 26:32 His brothers, able men, 2700, chiefs of clans -- David put them in charge of the

Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh in all matters of God and matters of the king.
While this is admittedly from a Persian period text, the historical note here does not appear to be part of a rethinking of

the priest/Levite divide, but a random nugget likely taken from an older source. If so, then we hear that at least some

Levites are from the area of Jazer in the Transjordan.

15. That the Levites once had land but were scattered is also implied by the Jacob’s deathbed curse:

‫זָ◌ָארוּר‬:‫ טמ‬.‫ו ְבָֹּסָדםַ◌ַאל ָוֹֹבֹא ַנְִפִשׁי ִבְּקָהָלםַ◌ַאל ֵוֹ ַַחד ְכִֹּבִדיִ◌ִכּי ְבַָאָצּם ְָה ְרגוִּ◌ִאישׁ וִּב ְרָֹצָנם ְִﬠ ְרּרוּ שׁבֿר‬:‫ טמ‬.‫ה ְִשְׁמעבֿן ְוֵל ִ ִוי ִַאִחים ְכּ ֵֵלי ָחָמס ְמֵכֹרֵתֶיֶהם‬:‫תישארב טמ‬

.‫ַָאָצּםִ◌ִכּיָ◌ָﬠז ְוֶﬠְבָרָתםִ◌ִכּי ָקָשָׁתה ֲאַחְלּ ֵֵקם ְבַּי ֹ ֲעֹקב ַוֲאִפֵיֵצם ְבּ ִיְשׂ ֵָרֵאל‬

Gen 49:5 49:6

Simeon and Levi are a pair; Their weapons are tools of lawlessness. Let not my person be included in their

council, Let not my being be counted in their assembly. For when angry they slay men, And when pleased they maim

oxen. 49:7 Cursed be their anger so fierce, And their wrath so relentless. I will divide them in Jacob, Scatter them in

Israel.
Here the explanation for their landlessness, related in some way to the story of Dinah and Shechem in Genesis 34, is

negative, painting the Levites (and Simeonites) in a criminal light. Clearly, the texts that talk about Levi gaining the

priesthood take the opposite perspective on Levi’s military past, but at the same time, they are attempting to explain the

same phenomenon of Levitical landlessness.

16. While in the Torah as we have it now, their story is intertwined with that of the 250 Israelite leaders, plus Korah and the

Levites, source critics have long noted that these are two separate stories, and that the Datan and Abiram one is from a

non-Priestly source. Editor’s note: For a discussion of how the story divides up into sources/redactions, see TABS Editors,

“Korah, Datan and Abiram: A Case Study for the Methods of Academic Biblical Studies,” TheTorah (2014).

17. Editor’s note: For an argument that this dispute took place not in the wilderness but in the land itself, see David

Frankel, “Datan and Abiram: A Rebellion of the Shepherds in the Land of Israel,” TheTorah (2016).

37
18. Editor’s note: For another discussion of the shifting territory of Reuben and Gad, see Yigal Levin, “What Were Reuben

and Gad’s Territories in the Transjordan?” TheTorah (2017).

19. For the date of Deuteronomy 33, see Rofé, “YHWH is Enthroned at Gad’s Temple,” n. 20.

20. See my “YHWH Is Enthroned at Gad’s Temple.”

21. Editor’s note: For an argument that this part of the text is a later addition, see Andrew Tobolowsky, “Did Israel Always

Have Twelve Tribes,” TheTorah (2020). For an argument that the list of blessings was once separate from the framing,

see Tzemah Yoreh, “‘Moses Wrote Down This Song,’ Deuteronomy 31:22—Which Song?” TheTorah (2018).

22. Apparently, the poem has a different version of the story of Levi’s loyalty, since in Exodus 32, it occurs neat Mount

Horeb, not in Massah u-Meribah, which is where the water miracle takes place (Exod 17).

23. The blessing of Levi ends with the hope that their enemies will no longer be able to hurt them, implying that Levi has

suffered defeats in the past. This may be an oblique reference to their displacement by Reuben.

24. For a discussion of whether the change to Manasseh has any significance beyond just making the name not that of Moses,

see Steve Weitzman, “Reopening the Case of the Suspiciously Suspended Nun in Judges 18:30,” The Catholic Bible

Quarterly 61.3 (1999): 448–460.

25. Joshua 13:20, which likely describes the situation in this later period, lists Ashdot-hapisgah as part of Reuben.

26. Editor’s note: For some discussions of this question, see Mark Leuchter, “How All Kohanim Became Sons of Aaron,”

TheTorah (2019); David Frankel, “The Flowering Staff: Proof of Aaron’s or the Levites’

Election?,” TheTorah (2019); Ely Levine, “The Historical Circumstances that Inspired the Korah Narrative,” TheTorah

(2015); Adele Berlin, “The Levite Rebellion against the Priesthood: Why They Were

Demoted,” TheTorah (2013).

27. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 121–157.

28. For detailed criticism of Wellhausen’s idea, see Wolf W. Baudissin, Die Geschichte des alttesamentlichen Priesterthums

(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1889); Yehezekel Kaufmann, ‫[ תודלות הנומאה תילארשיה‬The History of Israelite Faith] (Tel Aviv: Bialik,

1937–1948), 1.160–184; Moshe Greenberg, “A New Approach to the History of the Israelite Priesthood,” Journal of the

American Oriental Society 70 (1950): 41–47.

29. Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, Analecta Biblica 35 (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1969), 158–166;

Menahem Haran, “‫[ ”םינהכה םייולהו‬The Priests and the Levites], in idem, ‫ םינויע םיירוטסיה‬:‫[ תופוקת תודסומו ארקמב‬Periods

and Institutions in the Bible: Historical Inquiries] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1972), 137–200; idem, “The Priesthood and the

Tribe of Levi” in Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult

Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985 [repr. of, Oxford:

Clarendon, 1978]), 58-111 (= ch. 4).

30. Editor’s note: For a discussion of this tradition, see Mark Leuchter and Zev Farber, “Pre-Biblical Aaron, Miriam, and

38
 Moses,” TheTorah (2020).

31. Editor’s note: See discussion in Frederick E. Greenspahn, “Reading the Golden Calves of Sinai and Northern Israel in

Context,” TheTorah (2015). For a different take on the relationship between the texts, see Nathan MacDonald, “The

Golden Calf: A Post-Exilic Message of Forgiveness,” TheTorah (2021).

32. As difficult as it is to find any territorial difference between Levites and priests in pre-Priestly sources, it is just as difficult

to find any different in their tasks. Max Weber (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionsoziologie, III Das Antike Judentum

[Tübingen: Mohr, 1923], 188–189) argued that they were in charge of promulgating ritual laws in contrast to the secular

statutes, yet it is hard to see how any of these things would distinguish them from priests. (See discussion in, Joachim

Begrich, “Die priesterliche Tora,” in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments, ed. Johannes Hempel, Friedrich

Stummer, and Paul Volz, BZAW 66 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1936), 63–88. Similarly, Gerhard von Rad (Studies in

Deuteronomy, Studies in Biblical Theology 9 [London: SCM Press, 1953], 11–16) argued that the Levites were popular

preachers in the periphery, and Benjamin Mazar (“‫[ ”ירע םייולה םינהכהו‬The Cities of the Levites and Priests], ‫הידפולקיצנא‬

‫[ תיארקמ‬Encyclopaedia Biblica] 4 ]Jerusalem: Bialik, 1971], 478–485), in contrast, that they were administrative

officials. Both of these positions rely on texts composed in the Second Temple period and cannot be taken as sources for

pre-exilic reality.

39
 Illustration of the allotment of land to the Levites (Numbers 35:4-5)

Levitical Singers in Rabbinic Sources: Echoes of an Ancient

Dispute11
Hallel Baitner12 writes1

11
https://brill.com/view/journals/jsj/52/2/article-p228_3.xml?ebody=full%20html-copy1
12
Baitner, H. (2020). Levitical Singers in Rabbinic Sources: Echoes of an Ancient Dispute, Journal for the Study of Judaism, 52(2),
228-256

40
Abstract

The Hebrew Bible reflects ambiguity concerning the historical existence of the Levites as a group
distinguished from the priesthood. Post-exilic and late Second Temple sources also present a
variety of voices concerning the extent to which Levites participated in the temple’s worship. This
article argues that, while rabbinic sources appear to portray a straightforward retrospective
description of the Levites as a group of temple-servants who are clearly subordinated to the priests
and responsible for temple singing, a closer reading reveals differences of opinion. Disagreements
concerning the exact place in the temple in which the Levites used to sing, reflect significantly
different views concerning the status of the Levites in the temple and the importance of their
singing. This rabbinic dispute echoes similar late Second Temple period controversies, and sources
from the two periods may shed light on each other.

Introduction1

“The obscure history of the Levites”—thus Baruch A. Levine entitled the short survey that appears
as an appendix to his commentary on Numbers 8.2 Indeed, the origin of the Levites, their definition
as a separate tribe, their relationship with the Aaronic priesthood, and their historical functions in
the temple are unclear. The literary sources—from the earliest biblical texts to the late Second
Temple and rabbinic depictions—give various and sometimes extremely different answers to these
historical questions. This article focuses on rabbinic depictions of the Levites as temple singers
and shows that these depictions are deeply related to the question of the historical Levites,
especially in the late Second Temple period, and may even shed new light on it.

1 The Levites in the Bible

Let us begin with a short survey of some main aspects of the problem.3 The Pentateuch includes
different and sometimes contradictory descriptions of the Levites. Deuteronomic sources and
priestly sources offer conflicting accounts of the relationship between Levites and priests. The
priestly sources, especially the book of Numbers, present a clear distinction between Levites and
priests and describe the Levites as subordinate temple functionaries. Two roles of the Levites are
delineated in Num 1:50–51; 3:5–10, and 18:2–3: They handle the tabernacle, meaning that they
dismantle the structure, transport its parts, and rebuild it elsewhere. They also guard the tabernacle

and its vessels from the unauthorized approach of Israelites. A third role, characterized as service
(using the Hebrew root ‫)רשׁת‬, is not completely clear. It is described alternatively as the service of
the tabernacle (Num 1:50), the service of the congregation (Num 16:9) or the service of the priests
(Num 18:2). Several verses emphasize that the Levites should not participate in sacrificial acts, for
instance: “But they must not approach either the utensils of the sanctuary or the altar, otherwise
both they and you will die” (Num 18:3).
The role of the Levites is described quite differently in Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomist does not
differentiate at all between priests and Levites, and repeatedly refers to the priests as “the Levitical
priests” (‫)םינהכה יולהם‬.4 Several Deuteronomic laws do mention Levites who live “in your towns”
(‫)ירעשבך‬, but scholars have shown that these Levites are actually priests who live far from the
central temple. The Deuteronomist recognizes the right of these Levites to go to “the place that the
Lord will choose” and to serve there as priests, even including consumption of sacrifices.5

41
The book of Ezekiel contains echoes of the two approaches. Chapter 44 arguably attempts to bridge
the gap between them, explaining that all of the Levites were originally considered priests, but
some were demoted because they sinned and worshiped idols. They can no longer sacrifice on the
altar, but only “be ministers in my sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the temple, and
serving in the temple; they shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and
they shall attend on them and serve them” (Ezek 44:11). Only one Levitical family, the sons of
Zadok, remained loyal to the worship of God, and they were therefore the only ones to retain the
right to serve as priests.6

Scholars have tried to reconstruct the historical processes that could have led to the disparities
between the sources, and they have arrived at differing, and occasionally opposite, conclusions.7
For the purposes of this article, it suffices to observe that, in the early biblical material, the status
of the Levites varies between that of complete identity with the priesthood and that of a secondary
group related to but clearly distinct from the priests.

2 The Levites in Second Temple Literature

Early Second Temple sources introduce two distinct roles for the Levites in the temple—singers
(‫ )יררושמם‬and gatekeepers (‫)ירעושם‬. Here as well, different sources tell different stories. The
approach of Chronicles is the clearest. The Chronicler narrates that David was the first to appoint
some of the Levites as singers, which he did while bringing the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem:
“David also commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their kindred as the singers to play on
musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise loud sounds of joy” (1 Chr 15:16).
After the ark was placed in Jerusalem, as part of his preparations for the construction of the temple,
David arranged the Levites in sections and gave a specific role to each section: “Twenty-four
thousands of these shall have charge of the work in the house of the Lord, six thousand shall be
officers and judges, four thousand gatekeepers, and four thousand shall offer praises to the Lord
with the instruments that I have made for praise” (1 Chr 23:4–5). The Levites assumed their duties
when Solomon built the temple (2 Chr 5:12). These events do not appear in the parallel descriptions
in the books of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, which do not mention a class of liturgical singers.8 It is
likely that the Chronicler derived these elements from temple worship current in his own times,
either from actual practices or from idealized notions of desirable practices.9

In contrast to the straightforward description of Chronicles, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah
present a more complicated picture. In some occurrences, the singers and the gatekeepers are
described as Levites, similarly to Chronicles (e.g., Neh 12:24–25). However, in other occurrences,
the gatekeepers and the singers, as groups, are listed besides the Levites, which gives the
impression that those groups are distinct from the Levites, or, at least, not completely included
among them (e.g., Ezra 7:24). This variation, as well as the uneven attitude towards the status of
the Levites reflected in Ezra and Nehemiah, were related by scholars to the complicated authorship
of these books. Once again, different and sometimes opposing suggestions have been raised.10
Despite the controversy, it seems that most scholars would agree that in Ezra and Nehemiah, like
in Chronicles, Levites and priests are described as distinct groups.11

42
Some later sources diverge from this view and revert to the Deuteronomistic model of Levites and
priests as one group. The earliest preserved Second Temple source that features this approach is
the prophecy of Malachi (2:1–9), who blames the priests for corrupting the covenant of Levi by
their sins.12 In the Aramaic Levi Document, which is mostly dated to the third century BCE,13 Levi
the son of Jacob is described as a priest who teaches the priestly and sacrificial laws to his sons.
Similar views can be found in Jubilees and in the Testament of Levi, both of which describe how
Levi, the son of Jacob, was sanctified and became a priest. According to these sources, all
descendants of Levi are considered priests.14 There is further evidence for the existence of this
view in the Greek name of the third book of the Septuagintal Pentateuch, Λευϊτικόν, which is first
mentioned by Philo.15 Since the Levites appear only twice in Leviticus, and never in the context of
the tabernacle worship, the Greek name can only make sense under the assumption that Levites are
priests. The rabbinic name of the book, ‫“(תרות ינהכם‬the law of the priests”) offers a clear contrast.16

There is no reference to the Levites as a group in the book of Sirach. It does mention a singing
after the high priest offers a sacrifice (Sir 50:18), but the identity of the singers is not stated.

Levites and priests are again described as distinct groups in Qumranic literature. They appear as
such in the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Document, and the War Scroll. The Temple Scroll
ascribes temple duties to the Levites, including the right to slaughter sacrifices (22:4, compare
Ezek 44:11). The Temple Scroll is unique in claiming that the Levites are also entitled to a receive
certain part—“the shoulder that remains from the leg”—from the shelamim, the peace offerings.17
However, although the notion that singing accompanies sacrifices is well attested in Qumranic
liturgical texts, we do not find any connection between Levites and singing in this corpus.18

One small Qumranic fragment (4Q423 5), despite the uncertainty of its reading, may indicate
tension between Levites and priests.19 Elisha Qimron20 reads the fragment, which belongs to the
text known as 4QInstruction, as follows:

The reading of the words ‫(טפשמ רוקח‬the judgment of Korah) is certain and affirmed by a fragment
of another copy of the text (4Q418a 3). Korah was a Levite who demanded participation in the
temple service and equality with priests, while challenging the leadership of Moses and Aaron.
The text probably mentions Korah’s “judgment” as a warning against a certain behavior. However,
the description of that behavior was not fully preserved. Line 1a may shed light on it, but its reading
is problematic.

This line was added on the blank upper margin of the column by two different scribes and it is very
difficult to read. Torleif Elgvin, who was the first to publish the text (DJD 34), followed the
suggestion of M.G. Abegg in reading the line as ‫(רמשהו הכל ןפ ישתב‬/‫יולל הכן )ושתב‬, and he translated:
“and take care lest you give back to Levi the Priest.” He understood these lines as a warning against
ungodly leaders.21

43
In a special monograph that aims to reexamine the readings of the fragments of 4QInstruction,
Eibert Tigchelaar commented on Elgvin’s reading: “The last three words are barely legible, and I
am not able to affirm the editor’s reading.”22 Qimron, who reads ‫ןפ ישתם‬instead of ‫ןפ שתי‬/‫וב‬,
translates the line as “do not appoint a Levite to be a priest.”

The text, according to Qimron’s reading, warns against Levites who wish to become priests, and
the mention of Korah may be better understood in this context.23 If Qimron is correct, then it is
possible that the author of this text, who probably lived in the second century BCE, may have been
bothered by possible extension of the Levitical duties in his days.
Philo usually describes the Levites as temple-servants (νεωκόροι). His most detailed account
appears in Spec. 1:156:

In this paragraph, Philo describes in detail the Levites’ roles as gatekeepers, guards and cleaning
workers. However, in none of his extant writings does Philo ever mention liturgical singing in the
temple or mention the Levites in that context.24

Josephus’ description of the Levites is complex.25 He has integrated many details from Chronicles
into his account of the events described in the books of Samuel and Kings. Levitical singers thus
show up in his account of David’s preparations for the building of the temple, as well as in the
ceremonies surrounding its establishment in the days of Solomon.26 Again following Chronicles,
Josephus also mentions Levites as singers in his account of the war of Jehoshaphat against Amon
and Moab,27 and similarly in his description of the Passover celebrated by Hezekiah.28 He also
describes, following the book of Ezra, the role of the Levites in the inauguration of the altar after
the return from exile.29 However, towards the end of the eleventh book of The Jewish Antiquities
and onwards, as soon as Josephus turns to describe post-biblical events, he barely mentions the
Levites (the two only exceptions will be discussed below), even though he continues to mention
the priests frequently. The Levites crop up in Josephus’ description of Onias’ temple in Egypt,
where priests and Levites are said to have been appointed, but without any further details.30 The
second reference, which appears near the end of the work, is more significant, because it includes
a description of Levitical singers.31 Josephus tells of an event that took place during the
procuratorship of Albinus (62–64 CE):

44
 JOSEPHUS, A.J. 20.216–218.

This short episode raises some difficulties. The main problem is that we do not know what the
precise roles of the Levites were before they made their request. As I said earlier, this ambiguity
is also caused by the fact that Josephus does not write anything on the Levitical roles in the last
nine books of The Jewish Antiquities. It is clear, though, that the Levites’ request aroused Josephus’
strong objection, as he describes it as a transgression against the laws of the fathers which was one
of the reasons for the destruction. We may assume that the objection of Josephus, as a priest,
probably reflects the priestly approach towards the Levites’ attempt of elevating their status in the
temple. Therefore, it may point to a tension between Levites and priests in the years before the
Jewish Revolt.33

Pointing out this tension would be sufficient for my later discussion on the rabbinic sources, but I
still want to suggest a reconstruction of the realia behind this difficult account of Josephus. It seems
that there were (at least) two groups of Levites in the temple: a group of singers and a group whose
members performed some kind of λειτουργία.34 The end of the passage indicates that the request
of the Levites was twofold. They asked for priestly robes for the Levitical singers, as well as
permission for the other Levitical group to learn the hymns.

The reason for the second request is not clear—what did the Levites hope to achieve by increasing
the number of Levites who know the hymns? It seems to me that this request will make more sense
if we assume that the group of the singers was made up of both Levites and non-Levites. Thus, the
request can be read as an attempt by the Levitical singers to increase their power within the group,
by allowing Levites (and only Levites) who were not members of the group to learn the hymns.
Such a move would have given priority to Levites who wanted to be singers, and would
consequently increase the relative portion of Levites in the group. It also might have strengthened
the affinity between the Levites and the temple singing.

Josephus treats the Levites’ requests as a terrible act contrary to the ancestral laws, a transgression
that merited punishment. However, Chronicles twice mentions Levitical singers wearing linen
vestments, most explicitly in the description of the establishment of Solomon’s temple in 2 Chr
5:12: “All the Levitical singers, … arrayed in fine linen (‫)ובץ‬, with cymbals, harps, and lyres, stood
east of the altar.”35 Josephus himself, while describing the preparations for the building of the First
Temple in A.J. 8.94, follows Chronicles and mentions linen robes (made of βυσσός) for both the
Levitical singers and the priests.36 Did the verses of Chronicles serve as a precedent for the Levites’
request from Agrippa II? Did those Levites try to recover the status of the Levites in accordance
with the depictions of Chronicles, i.e., exclusively Levitical singing and entitlement to wearing

45
priestly robes? Though Josephus does not explain the Levites’ reasoning, it seems to me that the
answer to these two questions is positive.

Finally, an unexpected reference to the Levitical singers appears in Plutarch’s description of the
temple during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), which is the only mention of Levites outside of
Jewish and Christian literature in this period.37 Scholars have compared Plutarch’s description to
a passage in Tacitus that mentions priests (and not Levites) who sing in the temple to the
accompaniment of musical instruments.38

This brief survey of Second Temple sources has aimed to provide some sense of the variety of
voices concerning the Levites and their role in the temple. Scholars have tried, in different ways,
to make sense of these different voices by suggesting historical developments during the period
that might motivate the differences. These scholars have primarily focused on the gap between the
Qumranic sources, which describe the Levites as a distinct group with certain duties, and
preQumranic sources such as Jubilees and the Aramaic Levi Document, which make no distinction
between Levites and priests.

George Brooke has claimed that towards the end of the first century BCE some Levites achieved
leadership positions in the Yaḥad congregation and, under their influence, new texts were
composed that granted higher status to the Levites.39

Robert Kugler argued that the lack of distinction between priests and Levites in certain
preQumranic texts reflects a critique against the priestly institutions in Jerusalem, similar to the
accusations of Malachi against the priests. This critique, claimed Kugler, underlies the creation of
the tradition about the elevation of Levi, the son of Jacob, to priesthood, and the description of all
of his offspring as the carriers of the real priestly essence. However, the priestly Qumranic authors,
according to Kugler, view themselves as entirely distinct from the priests in Jerusalem and hope to
replace those errant priests in due time. The image of the Levites reflected in their works is,
therefore, similar to the actual situation in Jerusalem during this period.40

Cana Werman has suggested the most radical solution to this problem, claiming that there never
was a separate Levitical class during the Second Temple period. The differences between the
sources reflect different ways to deal with this absence. Some did so by assimilating the Levites
into the priesthood, hence the sources that describe all of the offspring of Levi as priests. The
Qumranic authors also responded to the absence of the Levites, but rather than explaining it, they
wished to fix it by reconstructing the biblical priestly order with a class of Levites distinct from
the priests.

Werman also claimed that the Levitical singers who, according to Josephus, asked for permission
to wear priestly vestments, were actually descendants of Levites from the time of Ezra, who had
assimilated into the families of the singers and the gatekeepers that did not originally belong to the
tribe of Levi.41

I wish to reexamine these suggestions, offering evidence from rabbinic literature to shed new light
on this issue.

46
3 The Levites in Early Rabbinic Texts

Rabbinic literature presents the Levites as a distinct class positioned between the priests and the
Israelites, without questioning the existence of this class.42 Some sages, albeit not many, were
considered to be Levites,43 a strikingly unique claim when one considers earlier literary sources:
in the four hundred years between the beginning of the Hellenistic period and the destruction of
the Second Temple we know the name of only one Levite, that of Joseph Barnabas from Cyprus
(Acts 4:36).44

The epigraphical material attests to the same tendency. While the epigraphical material that
predates 70 CE does not contain even a single mention of Levites, three different people are
described as “the Levite” in Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions from late antique Palestinian
synagogues.45 The shift in literary and epigraphical sources may reflect a strengthening of Levitical
identity among Palestinian Jews in the first centuries after the destruction of the temple. While
most of the references to Levites in early rabbinic sources are related to the laws of tithes or to
marital laws in the context of genealogical classes, quite a few sources deal with the Levitical
duties in the temple.46 These sources assign two main duties to the Levites—singing and
guarding.47

The most thorough description of the Levites as temple guards appears in the beginning of tractate
Middot of the Mishnah. Unlike the parallel beginning of tractate Tamid, which refers only to
priests, m. Mid. 1:1 also mentions Levites:

Later in the same chapter, in the context of a detailed description regarding the procedure for
locking the fire chamber’s gate, the mishnah reads:

M. MID. 1:9

This depiction of a priest who locks the gate from inside while the Levite is outside is echoed in a
homily of Sifre to Numbers:

47
 SIFRE to Numbers 116

As Menahem Kahana noted, the midrash takes the phrase “in front of the tent of the covenant” to
mean that the priests should watch from within the courtyard, which is located before the tent.
Since the Levites are described as “attached to the priests,” it is deduced that they should watch
from outside of the courtyard.49 It is important to note that the Sifre considers the possibility that
both Levites and priests should watch from within, but rejects it.50
Both the Sifre and Mishnah Middot describe the Levites as watchers located outside of the
ʿazara(temple courtyard). A similar picture arises from several sources that map a correspondence
between the configuration of the Israelites’ camp in the wilderness, as described in the Bible, and
locations in Jerusalem and the temple. According to these sources, the “camp of the Levites,”
which surrounded the tabernacle in the wilderness, corresponds to the area between the Temple
Mount and the gate of Nicanor, which is the gate of the ʿazara.51

As Adolf Büchler has already shown,52 the tannaitic sources that deal with the watching place of
the Levites in the temple tend to exclude the Levites from the temple courtyard. This tendency
contrasts with Philo’s explicit statement that the Levites also watch “inside, in front of the
sanctuary.” Büchler claimed that a similar tendency is present and similarly uniform in rabbinic
discussions concerning the location of the Levitical singing in the temple. However, in the
following section, I will point out other voices among rabbinic sources with regard to the singing.

4 The Levitical Singers in Tannaitic Literature

Numerous rabbinic sources address the singing of the Levites. Some tannaitic homilies even
attempt to find a biblical basis for such singing.53 In m. Tamid 7:3

Ben Arza, who is also mentioned elsewhere in the Mishnah as the “officer in charge of the
cymbal,”54is said to signal the beginning of the singing immediately after the deputy high priest
waves flags to signal that the wine has been poured on the altar. During the pause between the
psalms, the priests blow the trumpets and the people bow. The following mishnah lists the daily

48
psalms sung by the Levites. In m. Roš Haš. 4:4, the Mishnah relates an incident in which the
witnesses who could testify to the appearance of the new moon did not arrive on time, and
consequently, the Levites went wrong or disgraced themselves (‫ )לקלקתנו‬in their singing. Although
the details of this event are unclear, the singing evidently went wrong because of confusion
concerning the additional sacrifice that must be brought at the start of the new month. The Tosefta
(t. Pesaḥ. 4:11) narrates that the Levites used to sing the Hallel (Pss 113–118) as they stood on the
dukan, the platform, while the people sacrificed their Passover sacrifices: “the Levites stand on
their platform (‫ )נכודן‬and complete the Hallel.” These descriptions suggest a close connection
between the singing of the Levites and sacrificial actions, and they indicate that the singing should
occur at the same time as the offering of the sacrifice or immediately after it.55 By depicting a close
relationship between the Levites and the sacrificial worship, these texts elevate the status of the
Levites and their importance in temple functions.
This is not, however, the only voice present in rabbinic sources. In what follows, I aim to show
that some rabbinic descriptions concerning the location of the Levitical singing betray a different
attitude towards the status of the Levites in the temple.

According to m. Tamid 7:3, it is necessary for Ben Arza to be able to see the deputy high priest
standing on the altar, so that he can observe the waving of the flag and signal the beginning of the
singing. Other rabbinic sources present flags (‫ )ירדוסן‬as a signal used in cases where the distance
in question is too large to allow for verbal communication.56 This does not, however, necessitate
that in our case the Levites were located at a distance from the altar, since it is possible to explain
the use of flags as motivated by a preference for quick and elegant signaling.

According to t. Pesaḥ. 4:11, the Levites stand on the dukan. What was this dukan and where was
it placed in the temple? The term dukan does not appear in Biblical Hebrew, and in early rabbinic
sources it appears only in the context of the Levitical singing in the temple. Later rabbinic sources
do use the term to refer to the place where the priests bless the people, both in the temple and in
the synagogue, but Yaakov Spiegel has shown that this usage appears only in the Babylonian
Talmud, and not in Palestinian sources.57 The term is usually understood to denote a platform that
is higher than its surroundings. However, this interpretation is based only on the contexts in which
the term appears, while the etymology of the word remains uncertain. The Aramaic Νew Jerusalem
text from Qumran features the plural form ‫ינכודא‬, probably in the sense of a square located in front
of a house or a gate.58 The same text also has the word ‫כדא‬, meaning “a chamber.”59 It is possible
only to conclude that the word dukan was an architectural term, already in the Second Temple
period, whose exact meaning is not clear.

The most detailed description of the dukan and its location is provided by m. ʿArak. 2:6:

According to this mishnah, a minor is not allowed to enter the courtyard except when the Levites
sing, at which point children (probably Levites) enter the courtyard to sing with the Levites. This
description assumes that the dukan was located inside of the courtyard. More specific information

49
can be gleaned from the tannaitic midrash Sifre Zuta to Numbers (SZN). Among a series of
homilies regarding the exclusion of impure individuals from the camp (Num 5), SZN brings a long
list of the “ten sanctities”—ten graduated circles of sanctity around the temple. Each circle
excludes a certain kind of impurity or class of people. A parallel list appears in m. Kelim 1:6–9,
and there are some significant differences between the two lists.60 I will focus on the descriptions
of the temple courts in both lists:

While SZN allows completely pure Israelites62 to enter the priestly court without any
restriction,63the mishnah stipulates that they may only enter so as to perform specific actions
necessary for the offering of their personal sacrifices. The Levites, according to SZN, rank higher
than the Israelites, and so they may stand on the dukan but cannot proceed farther. This description
indicates that the dukan was located in the inner section, i.e., the western part, of the priestly court.
According to the description of the courtyard found in several early rabbinic sources, this location
should be very close to the altar.64 This location accords well with the sources that describe the
singing of the Levites as closely related to the sacrifices offered on the altar. However, the dukan
and the Levites are absent from m. Kelim. Later on, I will suggest that this absence may be
significant.

An architectural description of the same area in the temple appears in m. Mid. 2:6:

According to the first anonymous speaker in this mishnah, the court of Israel was equal in size to
that of the priests, and a certain kind of mosaic floor decoration marked the boundary between the
two areas.65 However, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the second speaker in this mishnah, claims that
the border between the two courts was much more pronounced, and that the priestly court was two
and a half cubits higher than the court of the Israelites. The dukan, which included a staircase of
three steps, served as the border between the courts. The location of the dukan according to Rabbi
Eliezer ben Yaakov differs from that suggested by m. ʿArak. 2:6 and from that of SZN. While the

50
latter probably reflects the view that the dukan stood right next to the altar, at the western edge of
the priestly court, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov places it in the eastern part of the priestly court, near
the court of Israel. Since the breadth of the priestly court is only eleven cubits, this is not a
considerable distance. It does, however, reflect a meaningful difference concerning the status of
the Levites in the temple’s hierarchy. The architectural arrangement proposed by Rabbi Eliezer
ben Yaakov models a clear hierarchy, one that is reflected both in the physical height and in the
distance from the sanctuary. On the vertical plane, the priestly court is higher, the court of the
Israelites is lower, and the Levites sing on a dukan located in the space between the two. On the
horizontal plane, the priests are the nearest to the altar and sanctuary, the Israelites are the farthest,
and the Levites are in the middle.66

The dukan is never mentioned in Mishnah Middot aside from this statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben
Yaakov. The Levites, however, do appear elsewhere, in m. Mid. 2:5:

According to this mishnah, the Levites stood on the fifteen steps that led from the women’s court
to the court of the Israelites. The mishnah also relates the fifteen steps to the fifteen songs of ascents
in Pss 120–134. A very similar notion appears in m. Sukkah 5:4, amid a description of the water
libation celebration that took place during the festival of Sukkot:

Some Mishnah commentators, following Rashi in b. Sukkah 51b,67 claimed that the Levites used
to sing on the stairs only during this celebration of the water libation, and that they usually sang
on the dukan, near the altar. However, there is other possible evidence that the practice depicted in
m. Mid. 2:5 is not unique to the water libation celebration. First, the final sentence in m. Sukkah
5:4 (see above) is unnecessarily repetitive: “the Levites … stood upon the fifteen steps … upon
which the Levites stand.” This suggests that the final sentence was copied from m. Mid. 2:5, and
the description of the Levites on the steps did not originally relate to the celebration of the water
libation. Second, m. Mid. 2:5 relates the architecture of the western part of the women’s court to
the Levitical singing. This connection is evident in the comparison between the number of steps
and the ascent songs, as well as in the description of the chambers for the musical instruments that
opened onto the women’s court. It is a connection that makes more sense if the singing of the
Levites on the stairs was not limited to one annual event.

Further evidence may be deduced from the special vocabulary that the mishnah uses to describe
the instruments of the Levites: ‫תורוניכ םילבנ םיתליצמו לכו ילכ ישר‬. This combination of ‫(ורוניכת‬lyres),
‫(ילבנם‬harps), and especially ‫(יתליצמם‬cymbals) is typical of the biblical descriptions of Levitical
singing found in Ezra and Nehemiah, and especially in Chronicles. These books present singing as

51
a daily duty, and so it makes sense to understand Mishnah Middot in the context of daily singing,
and not only that of the water libation celebration. Explicit evidence for this reading is provided
by t. ʿArak. 2:2:

Although Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s statement in the Tosefta here resembles that which appears
in m. ʿArak. 2:6, there is a crucial difference: according to the version found in the Tosefta, the
Levitical singing is performed in the women’s court and not on the dukan inside the courtyard, as
in the Mishnah.

The biblical allusions to Ezra and Nehemiah, Chronicles, and the songs of ascent in Psalms, may
create the impression that the women’s court is the traditional place of the Levitical singing, and
that this tradition dates from the days of David. Despite the aura of antiquity and importance that
this impression lends to Levitical singing, one should not forget a small but highly significant
point—according to all rabbinic views, the women’s court and these fifteen steps are outside of
the holiest area of the temple. Some impure persons who are forbidden to enter the Israelites court
can enter the women’s court (m. Kelim 1:8; t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:8), and no sacrificial worship can
be performed in it. Placing the Levites in the women’s court effectively means placing them outside
of the temple.

5 Conclusion

We have analyzed three different opinions in early rabbinic sources concerning the location of the
Levitical singing: (1) on the dukan next to the altar, (2) on the dukan between the courts of the
priests and the Israelites, and (3) on the staircase in the women’s court. Traditional commentators
glossed over this diversity, taking the second location as the default position of the Levites and
interpreting all references to the dukan accordingly. They effectively eliminated the third opinion
by claiming that the singing in the women’s court occurred only at the celebration of the water
libation, while the daily singing was performed on the dukan. Büchler has tried to minimize the
diversity in a different manner, claiming that the dukan was the place where the officer of the
singing (Ben Arza)—and he alone—stood. From his position on the dukan, Ben Arza was able to
see the flag of the deputy and to signal to the Levites, who stood outside of the Nicanor gate, that
is, in the women’s court.69 Büchler did not discuss the different location of the dukan presented in
SZN, and he also made no mention of t. ʿArak. 2:2, which uses nearly the same words as m. ʿArak.
2:6, but places the Levites in the women’s court.

Identification of these three different descriptions opens up questions as to what motivates their
formulation, and whether and how they reflect a historical reality. Since non-rabbinic sources do
not discuss the exact location of the temple singing, we must evaluate the rabbinic references to
such a location based on internal evidence. It seems to me that the sources that mention the
dukanrepresent a Second Temple tradition. This term, as we saw above, was an architectural term
in usage in Second Temple period Aramaic, and it is attested in Rabbinic Hebrew only in temple

52
contexts, which suggests that rabbinic sources preserve a Second Temple tradition linking the
dukan to the liturgical singing. Almost all descriptions view the dukan as located inside the ʿazara.
Other sources that place the Levites inside the ʿazara, although they do not mention the dukan,
appear to reflect a similar view. To my mind, the other two descriptions do not reflect an ancient
tradition, but a later rabbinic tendency to portray the Levites as distant from the inner parts of the
temple.

R. Eliezer ben Yaakov describes the dukan as located farther to the east, although still in the border
between the courtyards. Thus, on the one hand he views it as inside the ʿazara, in accordance with
the description in m. ʿArak. 2:6, but on the other hand he distances the Levites from the priestly
court. The anonymous voice that appears in Mishnah Middot is even more radical. It does not
mention the dukan at all, and it places the Levites even farther away from the inner temple, locating
them in the staircase of the women’s court and therefore outside of the holy temple courtyard.
Furthermore, the description of the Levites on the steps in m. Mid. 2:5 appears just before R.
Eliezer ben Yaakov’s description of the dukan in m. Mid. 2:6. This sequence, along with the fact
that R. Eliezer b. Yaakov does not mention the Levites explicitly, suggests an attempt to blur the
function of the dukan. Indeed, R. Shemaiah of Soissons (France, eleventh century) presents in his
commentary to Mishnah Middot the dukan as the platform of the priests, rather than that of the
Levites. Against the general scholarly view that this detail in Mishnah Middot reflects a tradition
from the Second Temple period, I argue that the Mishnah instead presents a reworked description,
drawing on scriptures in a learned fashion to establish it as an older tradition.70

While the contradictions between the sources appear as a minute disagreement about the location
of the singing, they suggest a larger debate about the status of the Levites in the temple. The notion
that the dukan stood next to the altar reflects the view that the Levitical singing constitutes an
important part of the sacrificial worship. By placing the dukan between the court of the priests and
that of the Israelites and claiming that a physical separation divided the two courts, Rabbi Eliezer
ben Yaakov stresses the hierarchy between the different groups and portrays the Levites as
occupying a middle position within that hierarchy. The third opinion, which views the Levites as
located in the women’s court, in effect excludes them from any official duty in the temple service
proper. This third approach resembles the main rabbinic attitude towards the location where the
Levites stood guard, an approach that, in contrast to Philo’s view, excludes the Levites from
standing guard inside of the courtyard.

This implicit rabbinic debate about the status of the Levites may resemble similar debates attested
in Josephus’ story about the Levites in the times of Agrippa II, and perhaps in the obscure passage
in 4QInstruction. Both sources point to an attempt to elevate the Levitical status in the temple, as
well as strong resistance to this attempt.

The similarities, however, are limited. The rabbinic sources, despite their internal differences,
shared two basic assumptions: (1) that the Levites are a distinct social group, and (2) that the temple
singing is exclusively performed by the Levites. With the sole exception of Plutarch,71 no non-
rabbinic source reflects both of these assumptions together.

Thus, Josephus describes the elevation of the Levites as an innovative move, while in rabbinic
sources, according to my reading, the relatively late views have tried to downplay the role of the
Levites in the temple. The rabbinic portrayal of the Levites may reflect the influence of debates in

53
the Second Temple period and resistance to heightened Levitical status, yet the status that the
rabbinic texts unquestioningly ascribe to the Levites assumes what one might call a “Levitical
renaissance.” It is hard to discern the reasons for this “renaissance.” It may be related to the
influence of certain biblical descriptions, such as that of Chronicles, which impacted the
retrospective description of the temple and its worship by the rabbis. Alternatively, it might be an
expression of a larger trend of reinforcement of the Levitical identity in the post-70 CE Jewish
society, a trend that might also be attested, as mentioned earlier, in the epigraphical material from
late antique Palestinian synagogues. A contemporary social situation in which Levites were
recognized as a distinct group with some religious privileges may have been projected backwards
by the rabbis to the time of the temple.

The history and fate of the Levites are indeed obscure, particularly during the late Second Temple
period. The rabbinic literature is another link in this long and obscure chain. Werman has
convincingly argued that certain individuals were identified as Levites in the late Second Temple
period. Some of them were indeed singers or served as other temple functionaries, but it is unlikely
that there were temple duties performed exclusively by Levites.

There were also attempts, inspired by biblical precedents, to elevate the Levitical status in the
temple during the first century and probably earlier. These attempts produced strong resistance. In
this article I have shown that this debate underlies a rabbinic dispute about the location of the
Levitical singing in the temple. Yet even though they question the location and hence the exact
status of the Levites, the rabbis assume that the Levites were a distinct group with exclusive temple
duties. This assumption may reflect a shift in the status of the Levites after the destruction of the
temple.

Bibliography

• Altman, Peter. “What Do the ‘Levites in Your Gates’ Have to Do with the ‘Levitical Priests’? An Attempt at European-
North American Dialogue on the Levites in the Deuteronomic Law Corpus.” In Levites and Priests in Biblical History
and Tradition, ed. Mark Leuchterand Jeremy Michael Hutton (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, ), 135–154.

54
•
Baitner, Hallel. Studies in the Mishnah of Sifre Zuta and Its Integration into the Midrash, Dissertation (Department of
Talmud, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2017) [Hebrew].
• Beckwith, Roger T. “The Courses of the Levites and the Eccentric Psalms Scrolls from Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân
11 (1984), 499–524.
• Begg, Christopher T. “The Levites in Josephus.” Hebrew Union College Annual 75 (2004), 1–22.
• Benovitz, Moshe. “The Halil that Played before the Altar.” In Ke-Tavor Be-harim: Meḥqarim Ba-Torah Shebe-ʻal
Peh Mugashim Li-Profesor Yosef Tabori, ed. Arnon Atzmon and Zur Shafir (Alon Shevut: Tevunot, 2013), 21– 41
[Hebrew].
• Brooke, George J. “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.” In Mogilany 1989: Papers
on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Jean Carmignac, ed. Zdzisław
J. Kapera (Krakow: Enigma, 1991), 105–127.
• Büchler, Adolf. Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jerusalemischen Tempels(Wien: Hölder, 1895).
• Chyutin, Michael. The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Comprehensive Reconstruction(Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997).
• DiTommaso Lorenzo. The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text: Contents and Contexts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
• Dubrau, Alexander A. Der Midrasch Sifre Zuta: Textgeschichte und Exegese eines spätantiken Kommentars zum Buch
Numeri (Berlin: LIT, 2017).
• Dueck, Daniela. “The Feast of Tabernacles and the Cult of
Dionysus: A Cross-Cultural
Dialogue.” Zion 73 (2008), 119–138 [Hebrew].
• Emerton, J.A. “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy: An Examination of Dr. G. E. Wright’s Theory.” Vetus
Testamentum 12 (1962), 129–138.
• Epstein, Jacob N. Mavo Le-nusaḥ Ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 1948).
• Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).
• Finkelstein, Louis. Sifre ʿal Sefer Devarim: ʿim Ḥilufe Girsaʿot ve-Heʿarot (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary
of America, 1969).
• Fraade, Steven D. “Shifting from Priestly to Non-Priestly Legal Authority: A Comparison of the Damascus Document
and the Midrash Sifra.” Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999), 109–125.
• Gillingham, Susan. “The Levitical Singers and the Compilation of the Psalter.” In Trägerkreise in den Psalmen, ed.
Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Johannes Bremer, and Till Magnus Steiner (Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2016), 35– 59.
• Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena
and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978).
• Harlé, Paul, and Didier Pralon. La Bible d’Alexandrie, vol. 3 Le Lévitique (Paris: Cerf, 1988).
• Hidary, Richard. “Revisiting the Sabbath Laws in 4Q264a and Their Contribution to Early Halakha.” Dead Sea
Discoveries 22 (2015), 68–92.
• Horovitz, Hayim S. Sifre de-be Rav: ʿim Ḥilufe Girsaʿot ve-Heʿarot; Maḥberet 1. Sifre ʿal Sefer ba-Midbar ve-Sifre
Zuta (Leipzig: Fock, 1917).
• Hurvitz, Avi. “The Term ‘Lishkhot Sharim’ (Ezek 40:44) and Its Place in the Cultic Terminology of the Temple.”
Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986), 49–62.
• Hurvitz, Avi. A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple
Period (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
• Ilan, Tal. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, 4 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002-2012).
• Janzen, David. Chronicles and the Politics of Davidic Restoration: A Quiet Revolution (London: Bloomsbury, 2017).
• Japhet, Sara. Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Winona Lake: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2009).

55
•
• Kahana, Menahem. “The Halakhic Midrashim.." In The Literature of the Sages, vol. 2, ed. SafraiShmuel, Zeev Safrai,
Joshua Schwartzm and Peter J. Tomson Assen: Van Gorcum, 2006), 3–105.
• Kahana, Menahem. Sifre Ba-midbar: Mahadurah Mevoʼeret, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2011-2015).
• Knoppers, Gary N. “Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of the Israelite
Priesthood.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999), 49–72.
Kugel, James. “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings.” The Harvard Theological Review 86
(1993), 1–64.
• Kugler, Robert A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
• Kugler, Robert A. “The Priests of Qumran: The Evidence of References to Levi and Levites.” In The Provo
International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues,
ed. Donald Parryand Eugene Ulrich (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 465–479.
• Kugler, Robert A. “Levi, Levites.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols., ed. Katharine Doob
Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006), 3:642–643.
• Kugler, Robert A. “Priests and Levites.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols., ed. Katharine Doob
Sakenfeld (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006), 4:596–613.
• Levine, Baruch A. “Leviticus, Book of.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6
vols. (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:312.
• Levine, Baruch A. Numbers: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday,
19932000.
• Lieberman, Saul. Sifre Zuṭa (Midrashah Shel Lod) Talmudah Shel Qisarin (New York: Bet Ha-Midrash Le-Rabanim
Shebe-Ameriqah, 1968).
• Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta Ki-feshuṭah: Beʼur Arokh La-Tosefta, 10 vols. (New York: Mekhon Meʼir Leyb Rabinovits,
1995-1988).
• MacDonald Nathan. Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015).
• Mali, Hillel. Descriptions of the Temple in the Mishnah: History, Redaction and Meaning, Dissertation (Bar-Ilan
University, 2018) [Hebrew].
• Meyer, Rudolf. “Levitische Emanzipationsbestrebungen in nachexilischer Zeit.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 41
(1938), 721–728.
• Milgrom, Jacob. “Studies in the Temple Scroll.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978), 501–523
• Min, Kyung-Jin. The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah (London: T&T Clark, 2004).
• Mizrahi, Noam. “Priests of Qoreb: Linguistic Enigma and Social Code in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” In
Hebrew of the Late Second Temple Period, ed. Eibert Tigchelaar and Pierre
Van Hecke (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 37–64.
• Naveh, Joseph. ʿAl Pesefas va-Even: Ha-ketovot Ha-Aramiyot veha-ʿIvriyot Mi-bate-ha-keneset Haʿatiqim
(Jerusalem: Ha-ḥevrah La-ḥaqirat Erets-Yiśraʼel ve-ʿatiqoteha, 1978).
• Neusner, Jacob. The Tosefta (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002)
• Noam, Vered, and Elisha Qimron. “A Qumran Composition of Sabbath Laws and Its Contribution to the Study of
Early Halakah.” Dead Sea Discoveries 16 (2009), 55–96.
• O'Brien Julia M. Priest and Levite in Malachi (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).
• Qimron, Elisha. Ha-ḥiburim Ha-ʿIvriyim, Mahadurah Meshulevet, 3 vols. (Tel-
Aviv: n.p., 2020). https://zenodo.org/record/3737950#.XoXRs6gzaiM

56
 •
• Rosenthal, Eliezer S. “The Givʿat ha-Mivtar Inscription.” In P’raqim: Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish
Research of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, vol. 2, ed. Eliezer S.Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Schocken
Institute, 1969-1974), 335–373 [Hebrew].
• Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Ha-Ṭeqes She-lo Hayah: Miqdash, Midrash U-migdar Be-
Masekhet
Soṭah(Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008).
• Sarna, Nahum M. “Psalms, Book of.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, 16 vols. (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 13:1315–1317.
• Schwartz, Baruch J. “Review of Priest and Levite in Malachi, by Julia M. O’Brien.” AJS Review 18(1993), 288–291.
• Scott, James M. “Korah and Qumran.” In The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter
W. Flint, Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 182–202.
• Spiegel, Yaakov S. “Who Stood on the Platform and Who Went up to It?” Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic
Literature 14 (1998), 63–137 [Hebrew].
Stackert, Jeffrey. “The Cultic Status of the Levites in the Temple Scroll: Between History and Hermeneutics.”
In Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition, ed. Mark Leuchter and Jeremy
M. Hutton (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 199–214.
• Stern, Menahem. “Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and other Classes.” In The Jewish People in the First
Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2, ed.
Shmuel Safrai, Menahem Stern, David Flusser, and Willem C.van Unnik Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 561– 630.
• Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, 1974-1984).
• Strugnell, John, Daniel J. Harrington, and Torleif Elgvin. Qumran Cave 4. XXIV, Sapiential Texts. Part 2:
4QInstruction (Mûsār Lĕ Mēvîn): 4Q415ff.: With a Re-edition of 1Q26, DJD 34 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999).
• Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the
Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (Leiden: Brill, 2001).
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation
• Wacholder, Ben Zion. “David’s Eschatological Psalter 11Q Psalms.” Hebrew Union College Annual59 (1988), 23–
72.
• Werman, Cana. “Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period.” Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997), 211–225.
1
I wish to thank Prof. Martin Goodman, Prof. Menahem Kahana, Prof. Hindy Najman, and Prof. Ishay Rosen-Zvi, who have
commented on early versions of this article. The English translations of biblical passages in this article are from the NRSV, with
my emendations. Translations of the Tosefta are based on Neusner, Tosefta. Other rabbinic sources, unless otherwise indicated, are
from https://www.sefaria.org/, with my emendations. The translations of Philo and Josephus are based on the LCL editions.

2
Levine, Numbers, 279–90.

3
A comprehensive discussion on the Levites in the Hebrew Bible can be found in Haran, Temples, 57–131. For updated surveys of
both biblical and Second Temple sources, see Kugler, “Levi, Levites” and “Priests and Levites,” as well as Janzen, Politics, 95–
137. A detailed bibliography on the Levites in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple period literature appears in Stackert, “Cultic
Status,” 199–200 n. 1–2. For a concise survey of sources and bibliography on the Levites in literature of the Second Temple period,
see Fraade, “Shifting,” 116 n. 23.

4
See, for example, Deut 17:9.

57
 •
See Deut 18:6–8. Scholars have related the status of the Levites in Deuteronomy to the Deuteronomic idea of the centralization of
cultic worship, claiming that the prohibition against local altars caused the local priests to lose their jobs, hence these priests are
mentioned alongside poor people (see, for example, Deut 14:29). See, for instance, Emerton, “Priests and Levites.” For a more
recent account of this question, see Altman, “‘Levites in Your Gates.” The Rabbis offered a different interpretation of Deut 18:6–
8, claiming that these verses do not deal with an “actual Levite,” but rather with Levites who are eligible to serve, namely: priests.
See Sifre on Deuteronomy 168 (Finkelstein, Sifre, 216).

6
The bibliography on the issue of priests and Levites in Ezekiel is massive, and a full treatment of the topic is outside the scope of
this article. Julius Wellhausen and some of his successors posited that Ezek 44 expresses a transitional stage from the reality
described in Deuteronomy, in which all Levites are priests, to that of Numbers, in which the Levites have a secondary status. Later
studies, however, have argued that Ezekiel features a later revision of the priestly laws, and I follow this approach in presenting the
work as a response to P as well as D. For updated discussion and bibliography, see MacDonald, Priestly Rule, esp. 38–47.

7
The various suggestions are described by Haran, Temples, 71–83.

58
Unlike sources from the Second Temple period, which abound in descriptions of liturgical singing in the temple, sources from the
First Temple period barely mention such singing. An exception, perhaps the only exception, concerns the temple of Beit El: “Take
away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps” (Amos 5:21–23). Some earlier biblical scholars
concluded that liturgical singing was established in post-exilic times. This view became less common during the twentieth century,
as scholars pointed out the relationship between certain chapters in Psalms and liturgical texts from the ancient Near East. They
also noted that, in his annals, the Assyrian king Sennacherib mentions “male and female singers” whom he received from Hezekiah.
Such evidence suggests that liturgical singing already existed towards the end of the First Temple period. See Hurvitz, “Lishkhot
Sharim”; Sarna, “Psalms.”

9
Despite the quantity and variety of temple duties that the Chronicler ascribes to the Levites, quite a few verses emphasize the unique
duties of the Aaronic priesthood and describe the Levites as secondary temple servants. Scholars have tried to explain this tension
through historical reconstructions of the book’s development. Some of them claimed that the book originally presented a view
similar to that of Deuteronomy, where priests and Levites are equal, and statements about the secondary status of the Levites belong
to later additions. Other scholars, however, presented the reverse trajectory, claiming that the sections concerning the various temple
duties of the Levites are later additions to a text that originally posited the distinctiveness of the priestly class. See Knoppers,
“Levites in Chronicles”; Japhet, Ideology of Chronicles, 174–81.

10
Min, Levitical Authorship, 72–86, 116–40. Min primarily argues against H.G.M. Williamson’s claim for priestly authorship of the
later layers of the books.

11
The different descriptions of the Levites in the post-exilic books bear implications for a different question—the involvement of
Levites in the compilation of Psalms. Susan Gillingham recently argued that a class of Levitical singers were involved in the
compilation of Psalms. See Gillingham, “Levitical Singers.” Her claim is based, inter alia, on a certain reading of the depictions of
the Levitical singers in Chronicles and Ezra and Nehemiah, which does not fully consider the differences between the sources.
While the word “Levi” appears in Psalms only once (Ps 135:20: the “house of Levi,” besides the “house of Aaron” and the “house
of Israel”), certain collections of psalms are attributed to the sons of Korah (Pss 42, 44–49, 84, 85, 87, 88) and to Asaph (Pss 50,
73–83), without any additional information on their lineage. Such information does appear in Chronicles and in Ezra and Nehemiah,
but with discrepancies. The Asaphites, the sons of Asaph, are explicitly described as Levitical singers in Chronicles, while in Ezra
and Nehemiah they are described both as Levitical singers (Ezra 3:10; Neh 12:46) and as a group of singers distinct from the Levites
(Ezra 2:41; Neh 7:44). The sons of Korah are portrayed as a Levitical group only in Chronicles, usually as gatekeepers (1 Chr 9:19;
26:1, 19) and once as singers (2 Chr 20:19). These conflicting descriptions problematize the conclusions of Gillingham, which
depend, to my mind, on a harmonizing reading of the sources.

12
See O’, Priest and Levite. See also Baruch Schwartz’s review of this book (Schwartz, “O’Brien”).

13
On the dating of the Aramaic Levi Document, see Kugler, Patriarch to Priest, 131–35.

14
For a description of this tradition and its exegetical background, see Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation.” Kugel argued that this tradition was
based on an interpretation of Jacob’s vow after his dream in Beit-El. Since Jacob promised God: “of all that you give me I will
surely give one-tenth to you,” he needed to find a priest or a Levite to whom he could give the tithe. According to this tradition, his
son Levi was chosen for this role.

15
Philo, Plant. 26 (ἐν Λευιτικῇ βίβλῳ); Leg. 2:105 (ἐν Λευιτικῷ); Her. 251 (ἐν τῷ Λευιτικῷ).

16
Levine, “Leviticus, Book of”; Harlé and Parlon, Lévitique, 14.

17
On this perquisite and its possible exegetical background, see Milgrom, “Temple Scroll”; Stackert, “Cultic Status.”

18

59
In 4Q264a 1 2–4, according to the reading of Noam and Qimron, there is a law that refers to priests (!) and musical instruments
(‫)ילכ ישר‬. See Noam and Qimron, “Sabbath Laws,” esp. 72–80. At this point I do not agree with Richard Hidary’s critique of the
reading of Noam and Qimron, saying that the Levites and not the priests used to sing in the temple, because there is no evidence
for such a view in the Qumranic literature. See Hidary, “Revisiting,” esp. 71–72. Menahem Kahana has suggested that the Qumranic
phrase ‫(ינהכ רוקב‬the priests of qoreb), found in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, should be translated as “the priests of song”
based on the rabbinic meaning of the root. Noam Mizrahi rejected Kahana’s opinion and suggested another meaning for the phrase.
See Mizrahi, “Priests of Qoreb.” Kahana repeated his suggestion while responding to Mizrahi in: Kahana, Sifre, 4:869–70.
Beckwith, “Courses of Levites,” has tried to relate the number of psalms mentioned in “The David Composition” in the Qumranic
Psalms Scroll to an assumed cycle of twenty-four courses of Levitical singers (following Chronicles). This claim seems very
unlikely, however, for several reasons. See Wacholder, “David’s Eschatological Psalter,” 35 n. 50.

19
I wish to thank Prof. Menahem Kister for bringing this fragment and its readings to my attention.

20
Qimron, Ha-ḥiburim Ha-ʿIvriyim, 2:182.

21
Strugnell et al., Mûsār Lĕ Mēvîn, 505–33.

22
Tigchelaar, 4QInstruction, 143.

23
James M. Scott has suggested a different interpretation of the term “the judgment of Korah.” He claimed that this section of
4QInstruction warns against undermining the authority of the leaders, and that the reference to Korah hints at a certain event in the
development of the Yaḥad, when some members rejected the authority of the Teacher of Righteousness. Although his paper deals
mainly with 4Q423 5, Scott does not refer to the additional line in the upper part of the fragment. See Scott, “Korah and Qumran.”

24
For other descriptions of Levites as temple servants in Philo’s writings, see Mos. 1:316; 2:174; Fug. 93; Praem. 74. In the
lastmentioned text, Philo describes Korah and his supporters as “temple attendants, servitors of the sanctuary, appointed to the
office of gate-keepers (νεωκόροι καὶ ἱερόδουλοι τὴν πυλωρῶν τεταγµένοι τάξιν).” Philo never elsewhere uses the word ἱερόδουλοι
to describe the Levites. This Greek word appears several times in 1 Esdras, both as an appellation for the Levites (1 Esd 1:3) and
as a term that probably parallels the Hebrew word ‫(יניתנם‬compare 1 Esd 5:29 and Ezra 2:43). Adolf Büchler claimed that the
ἱερόδουλοι mentioned by Philo are in fact the Levitical singers that appear in Josephus’ writings (see below). See Büchler, Priester,
123–25. The claim is, however, unconvincing, and there is no point to glossing over the fact that Philo does not mention Levitical
singers.

25
For a full survey on the Levites in the writings of Josephus, see Begg, “Levites in Josephus.”

26
A.J. 7.305; 8.94, 176. Compare 1 Chr 25:1; 2 Chr 5:12–13.

27
A.J. 9.11–12. Cf. 2 Chr 20.

28
A.J. 9.269. Cf. 2 Chr 29:27.

29
A.J. 11.70, 80. Cf. Ezra 3:10–11.

30
A.J. 13.63, 73.

31

60
Temple singers in Jerusalem of the Hellenistic and Roman periods are mentioned in two other places in Josephus’ writings.
However, they are mentioned very briefly, and nothing is said about their lineage. In A.J. 12.142, Josephus quotes a letter of
Antiochus III, in which the king exempts the temple singers (ἱεροψάλται), among others, from paying the poll tax. In B.J.2.321, he
describes how “every priest and every servant of God … and also the cithara-players and the [choral] singers (ὑµνῳδοί) with their
instruments” went out of the temple to persuade the people to prevent the war with the Romans.
32
Louis Feldman, in the LCL edition, translates: “to learn the hymns by heart.” However, this meaning of the Greek verb ἐ κµανθάνω
is not found elsewhere in Josephus’ writings.

33
Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 61–62.

34
Meyer, “Levitische Emanzipationsbestrebungen,” 727

35
See also 1 Chr 15:27. The Hebrew word buṣ is the post-exilic equivalent for the classical biblical word šeš, which describes the sort
of textile that was used, according to Exod 28, for the making of priestly vestments. Both words are translated βυσσός in the
Septuagint. See Hurvitz, Lexicon, 48–51.

36
Büchler (Priester, 137) sees this case as an example of the “thoughtless” (gedankenlos) way in which Josephus has treated his
sources, since Josephus apparently failed to notice that the Levitical use of priestly vestments, which he describes here as a sin, is
a practice that he himself has attributed to David.

37
Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 4.6.2 (= Mor. 671D–672B). See Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1:557–62.

38
Tacitus, Hist. 5.5. See Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, 1:43. For a recent discussion of these two sources, as well as references to
earlier ones, see Dueck, “Feast of Tabernacles.”

39
Brooke, “Levi and Levites.”

40
Kugler, “Priests of Qumran.”

41
Werman, “Levi and Levites.”

42
E.g., m. Giṭ. 5:8; m. Hor. 3:8.

43
R. Yehoshua ben Ḥanania, a prominent tannaitic sage, is presented as a Levite and reported to have served in the temple in his
youth. See m. Maʿaś. Š. 5:9, which describes R. Yehoshua receiving the tithe as a Levite, and t. Sukk. 4:5 for his testimony regarding
the temple. R. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda is also portrayed as a Levite who served in the temple (see below, n. 47), and R. Eliezer ben
Yaakov relates that his uncle was a Levite who served as a guard in the temple (m. Midd. 1:2). In the amoraic period, although the
personal name “Levi” was quite common among the rabbis, R. Yehoshua ben Levi (third-century Palestine) is the only rabbi
explicitly identified as a Levite. See y. Maʿaś. Š. 5:5 (56b); y. Ber. 5:4 (9d) [= y. Giṭ. 5:9 (47b)]; b. Ḥul. 106b. See also Rosenthal,
“Inscription,” 365 n. 128.

44
Stern, “Aspects,” 599–600. Stern assumed that Jews with the name Levi were Levites, but this is questionable. See Ilan, Lexicon,
2:431–32.

45

61
The Galilean stonecutter Yosef ben Levi Halevi (the Levite) signed his name in the synagogues of Bar’am and Alma, one of the
donors of the synagogue in Hammat Gader is called Rav Tanḥum Halevi ben [Ḥ]alfa, and the name Yudan Halevi ben Simon
appears in the synagogue of Susya in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic (Yudan Livaya (the Levite) ben Simon). See Naveh, ʿAl Pesefas
va-Even, 19, 22, 57, 120, 121.

46
A unique characteristic of rabbinic terminology is worthy of comment in this context. Alongside the common attribution “Levi” (in
Hebrew: levi), the term “a son of Levi” (in Hebrew: ben levi) also appears frequently. This unique term is also found, albeit less
frequently, in the plural form: “sons of Levi” (bnei levi) besides “Levites” (leviyim). Although the plural bnei levi is a common
biblical term, the singular ben levi does not appear in the Bible or in Second Temple literature. I was not able to find a pattern that
would explain the distribution of the two terms in rabbinic literature, but I suggest a partial explanation that requires further research.
The term ben levi mainly appears in contexts that do not feature any mention of another class, whether priestly or Israelite. See, for
example, m. Ter. 4:2: “and he gave a seah to a Levite (‫ )ןבל ולי‬and a seah to a poor person.” Contrast m. Pe’ah 1:6: “A priest or
Levite (‫ )ןהכ וא ולי‬who purchase [grain of] a threshing floor, the tithes are theirs.”

47
A few sources also assign the duty of closing gates to the Levites. According to Sifre to Numbers 63 (Kahana, Sifre, 1:156), even
Levites older than fifty would lock the gates. See Kahana’s commentary on this text in Kahana, Sifre, 3:426–28. In a story that
appears in Sifre to Numbers 116 (Kahana, Sifre, 1b:336), R. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda is described as one of the gatekeepers (‫)ירעושם‬
while R. Yehushua ben Ḥanania is described as one of the singers (‫)יררושמם‬. The parallel story in b. ʿArak. 11b depicts R. Yehoshua
as wanting to help R. Yoḥanan in “closing the doors” (‫)תפגה ותלדת‬. The tosefta (t. Šeqal. 2:14) ascribes to R. Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda
the role of overseeing “locking the gates” (‫)תליענ ירעשם‬, contrary to the parallel mishnah (m. Šeqal. 5:1), where his name appears
as Ben Gibber (according to the vocalization of MS Kaufmann A 50). However, other early rabbinic sources assign the role of
closing the gates to the priests. See m. Mid. 1:9; Sifre Zuta to Numbers 18:8 (Horovitz, Sifre Zuta, 293); b. Yoma 18a; b. Sukkah
56b.

48
Kahana, Sifre, 1b:335.

49
Kahana, 4:871.

50
Sifre Zuta to Numbers 18:3 (Horovitz, Sifre Zuta, 291) reads: “‘They shall perform duties for you and for the whole tent’ ( ‫ורמשו‬
‫—)ךתרמשמ תרמשמו לכ האהל‬It teaches that the priests and the Levites watch in twenty-four places in the temple. The priests [watch]
in three [places], and the Levites [watch] in twenty-one.” This version, which was adopted by Ḥaim Saul Horowitz in his edition,
is based on the attestation of Midrash Hagadol. In this version, the midrash only juxtaposes the mishnaic law of m. Mid. 1:1 to the
verse. However, a different version of this derasha preserved in a quotation in Yalkut Shimoni reads as follows: “it teaches that the
priests eat in the place of the Levites (‫)םילכוא םוקמב יולהם‬, and in twenty-four places they watch in the temple. The priest [watch] in
three [places], and the Levites [watch] in twenty-one.” Horovitz understood the peculiar phrase “the priests eat in the place of the
Levites” as related to the consumption of sacrifices. Since the priests were only permitted to eat their special sacrifices inside the
temple courtyard, which is not “the place of the Levites,” this phrase makes no sense. For that reason, Horovitz rejected the version
of Yalkut Shimoni. I suggest that the verb ‫כאל‬should not be understood here in its usual sense (to eat, consume). A metaphorical
usage of the term appears in t. ʾOhal. 13:9: “There is no such thing as twenty-five [handbreadths] from which the ground does not
consume a handbreadth (‫)תלכוא פטח‬.” The verb ‫כאל‬means “diminish” in this text, and the Sifre Zuta as preserved in the Yalkut
Shimoni might reflect a similar usage: “the priests eat (i.e., diminish) the place of the Levites.” In other words, the priests also
watch in places that were originally under the watch of the Levites.

51
See t. Kelim B. Qam. 1:12: “And just as in the wilderness there were three camps, the camp of the indwelling Presence of God
(šekina), the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Israelites, thus there were [three camps] in Jerusalem. From the gate of
Jerusalem to the gate of the Temple Mount is the camp of Israel. From the gate of the Temple Mount to the gate of Nicanor is the
camp of the Levites. From the gate of Nicanor and inward is the camp of the šekina.” See also Sifre to Numbers 1 (Kahana, Sifre,
1:8).

52
Büchler, Priester, 132–36.

53
Noam and Qimron, “Sabbath Laws,” 77–78; Kahana, Sifre, 4:871–73.

62
54
m. Šeqal. 5:1. See also t. Šeqal. 2:14.

55
m. Pesaḥ. 5:7 also points to a close connection between the act of sacrifice and the singing of the Hallel. However, it does not say
who were the singers. See also Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-feshuṭah, 4:561–62.
56
m. Yoma 6:8; m. Sanh. 6:1; t. Sukkah 6:4.

57
Spiegel, “Platform.”

58
The scroll reads (5Q15 1 ii 13): ‫עשת רשעה ]אי ןוהכרוא ימאן[ימ כודנ]ו[ח]חשמו ת‬. DiTommaso’s translation reads: “then he measured the
edges of the platforms, their length cubits nineteen” (DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 49–50). DiTommaso drew his rendering from
J.T. Milik, who first published the main fragments of the text and translated the term as “platform.” Chyutin translates it as
“courtyards,” a more likely interpretation given the size of the area described (nineteen cubits). See Chyutin, New Jerusalem, 29–
30.

59
DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 49, 56. This word also appears in Tg. 1 Kgs 14:28, where the Hebrew phrase ‫את יצרהם‬is translated
as ‫אכוד יטהרדא‬. See also the Tg. 2 Chr 12:11: ‫אכוד ינוטהרדא‬.

60
For a full survey of the differences between the two lists, see Baitner, Sifre Zuta, 29–38.

61
Horovitz, Sifre Zuta, 228. My translation.

62
This is a unique use of the term ‫רועמיב משש‬in rabbinic literature. The sense of “completely pure” resembles the use of the phrase
‫תובירעהל משהש‬in 4QMMT. See Baitner, Sifre Zuta, 32.

63
Scholars have been bothered by this lenient approach of SZN and the discrepancy between SZN and the Mishnah, and they have
consequently attempted to correct the text. Since no complete manuscript of SZN has survived, most of its text has been
reconstructed based on medieval testimonia. For a full description of the textual evidence, see Kahana, “Halakhic Midrashim,” 91–
95. The reading “to the court of the priests” is based on quotations of this passage that appear in Yalkut Shimoni and Bamidbar
Rabba (see Horovitz, Sifre Zuṭa, 228). Nevertheless, Lieberman (Sifre Zuṭa, 18 n. 28) has explained this version as the product of
a scribal error, and suggested that the text originally read “to the court of the Israelites.” I cannot accept Dubrau’s preference for
the variant attested by Midrash Hagadol, since this version probably reflects an attempt to adapt SZN to agree with m. Kelim 1:8
and Maimonides (Hilchot Beit Habechira 7:19), who claims that the Israelites are allowed to enter the priestly courtyard only for
the performance of sacrificial acts. See Dubrau, Sifre Zuta, 246–47; 280–81.

64
m. ʿArak. 2:3–4 describes the playing of flutes near the altar during festivals. It is not clear who played the flutes: R. Meir claimed
that the players were the slaves of priests, R. Yose argued for high-class Israelites, and R. Ḥanania ben Antignas suggested Levites.
The Talmud (b. ʿArak. 11a) assumes that the flute playing accompanied the Levitical singing, and therefore deliberates as to whether
the “essence of the liturgy” (‫ )רקיע רישה‬is the performance by human voices (which would lead to the conclusion that the players
do not have to be Levites) or the instrumental playing (which would mean that the players must be Levites). If read in light of the
Talmud’s assumption, this mishnah offers further evidence that the Levitical singing was performed near the altar. See also
Benovitz, “Halil.”

65
This is probably the meaning of ‫ֶֹרֶשׁם =(רֶֹאֶשן‬, a sign, a mark). See Epstein, Mavo, 1235.

66

63
Hillel Mali (Temple in Mishnah, 95–97) has convincingly analyzed several tannaitic sources, including the one in question, in which
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov objects to unnecessary staying in the inner parts of the sanctuary. It may be true that his description of
the dukanaligns with this wider tendency, but it also situates the Levites in a middle position, as I argue.

67
This is also the interpretation offered by Maimonides, Hilchot Beit Habechira 6:6.

68
The Tosefta quotes Ezra 3:9 loosely so as to emphasize the place of the “sons” in the Levitical worship.
69
Büchler, Priester, 125–27.

70
For a similar description of Mishnah Middot, see Rosen-Zvi, Sotah, 164 n. 60. Both the view of the anonymous voice of Middot
and that of R. Eliezer ben Yaakov effectively reshape the architecture of the temple. R. Eliezer claims an otherwise unknown
architectural feature that divides the court of the priests from that of the Israelites, contrary to the description of “a row of mosaic
stones,” made by the anonymous voice in the same mishnah. Similarly, the anonymous voice of Middot describes the fifteen steps
and the chambers for the musical instruments as elements designed for the Levitical singing. I suggest that these examples bear
important methodological implications for interpreting rabbinic descriptions of temple architecture. Rather than taking these
descriptions as straightforward historical information, as is sometimes done, it can be productive to consider the ideological claims
that might underlie and motivate them. Dr. Yael Fisch and I will offer more examples in a forthcoming article.

71
See above n. 37.

64