1 I wish to thank Professor Yaakov Sussmann and Professor Chaim Milikowsky for reading this paper before its being posted on the web and for their helpful comments. I would appreciate any further comments that readers may have before this paper is submitted for publication. I may be reached by email: taborj@mail.biu.ac.il.

Later rabbinic theology discussed the possibility that the priests were to be considered as agents of the Israelites in offering sacrifices, whether public sacrifices (cf. B. Yoma 19a) of sacrifices brought by individual Israelites (cf. B. Nedarim 36a). This would make the presence of Israelites unnecessary, at least technically, for the empowerer of the agent is actually considered as the one performing the act, even if he is not present. However, the only amoraic statement about this issue is that of R. Huna b. Joshua who stated that the priests are the agents of God (cf. both sources cited above, and elsewhere). It has been suggested that the idea that a spectator may be considered a participant is of Greek origin (see Susan Handelman, The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982, p. 34). Its modern parallel is found in the sports arena, where the presence of fans and their encouragement is understood to enable the players to function at their peak.

2 Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, Harper San Francisco, 1996, p. 152. For a discussion of this point see Hanan and Esther Eshel, "Ma'amadot bimgillath hamilhama", Hikrei Eretz: Studies in the History of the Land of Israel (ed. Y. Friedman, Z. Safrai and J. Schwartz), Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Press, 1997, pp. 223-234.

3 The term also appears in the description of Solomon's servants as seen by the Queen of Sheba "uma`amad 'avadav" (Kings I 10:5; Chronicles I 9:4) which is translated in the new JPS translation as "the service and attire of his attendants". The term appears once more in the bible in the in the sense of "stand" or "status" (Isaiah 22:19).

4 Michael Wise et al. (above n. ), loc. cit. A similar term, "statio", appears in Christian liturgy in the sense of specific fast days. It has been suggested that this shows the influence of the ma'amad as the people of the ma'amad were also required to fast. See Christine Mohrmann, "Statio", Vigiliae Christianae, 1953, pp. 221-245.

5 P.R. Davies, "1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran - Its Structure and History", Biblica et Orientalia, 32 (1977), pp. 26-28, 66.

6 The mishnah uses the term musaf for the second ma'amad while the parallel in the Tosefta (Ta'anit 3:1) uses the term "noon". I have argued that the second ma'amad of the day can have nothing to do with the additional sacrifice known as musaf as it is clear that there was generally no ma'amad at all on days on which there were additional sacrifices (see my article mentioned in the next note). Thus, we must assume that the tosefta has the original term and the term in the mishna has been changed to reflect the connection between the ma'amadot and the sacrifices. Cf. Shamma Friedman, "The Primacy of Tosefta to Mishnah in Synoptic Parallels", Introducing Tosefta: Textual, Intratextual and Intertextual Studies (ed. Harry Fox [leBeit Yoreh) and Tirzah Meacham [leBeit Yoreh), Ktav Publishing House, 1999, pp. 99-121.

7 Joseph Tabory, "The Liturgy of the Ma'amad" [Hebrew], From Qumran to Cairo (ed. Joseph Tabory), pp. 145-169.

8 Cf. H. & E. Eshel (above n. 1), p. 225, p. 232, n. 39.

9 This idea was originally suggested by S. Talmon, in his seminal article "The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel in the Light of the Qumran Literature", Qumran; sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor), Paris 1978, pp. 265-284 (expanded in: The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies, Jerusalem-Leiden 1989, 200-243). See also J.M. Baumgarten, "Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of the Dead Sea (Qumran) Scrolls", HTR, 46 (1953), pp. 141-159 (idem., Studies in Qumran Law, Leiden 1977, pp. 39-56); Lawrence H. Schiffman, "Prayer and Ritual", in: idem, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, JPS: Philadelphia and Jerusalem 1994, pp. 289-312.

10 This statement may be somewhat exaggerated. See above, n. .

11 See Y. Sussmann, "The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Talmudic Observations on Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT)", DJD, 10, pp. 179-200; idem, Tarbiz, 59 (1989-1`990), pp. 11-76.

12 Maimonides was apparently the first to give a comprehensive portrayal of the daily Temple sacrifices based on all talmudic sources. A detailed description which takes into consideration other sources also was given by Paul Billerbeck, "Ein Tempelgottesdient in Jesu Tagen", ZNW, 55 (1964), pp. 1-17. For a more concise description see Shmuel Safrai, ""Compendium. Safrai has published more detailed descriptions in Hebrew in a number of places.

13 The signal mentioned in the mishnah was a metallic sound, possibly musical (see Schwartz [below, n. ], p. 000, n. 000). A parallel to this is found in the book of Revelations (8:5): after the offering of the incense, the angel cast the censer to the earth "and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake". On the relationship between Revelations and the Jerusalem Temple ritual see Peter Wick, "There Was Silence in Heaven (Revelation 8:1)", JBL, 117 (1998), pp. 513-514. Amoraic sources, which seem to reflect a Second Temple tradition, refer to a human announcer, Gebini the Temple crier (Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 5:1, 48d; BT Yoma 20b; cf. Y. Schwartz, [below n. ], p. 254-255). Maimonides, in his commentary to the Mishna, explained that that the herald's cry was in the morning, just at the opening of the Temple. He found support for this position in the Mishna which reports that the removal of the ash from the altar was done in the morning at keriat hagever (Yoma 1:8). However, amoraim disagreed whether this phrase was to be translated "at the call of the crier" or "at cock crow" (BT Yoma 20b). Billerbeck and Safrai (above, n. 000) followed the explanation of Maimonides. However, there is no evidence that the Levites and Israelites gathered for the ritual this early. I have argued that the human crier and the metallic sound were used at different times to announce the same event: the beginning of the public part of the sacrificial ritual (see Tabory [above, n. ].

14 Cf. the statement in the War Scroll: "the chiefs of tribes and father of the congregation...taking their stand at the gates of the sanctuary...these shall take their stand at the burnt offerings and sacrifices" (1QM 2:3-5). Rashi wrote that the Israelites of the ma'amad also drew the water and hewed the wood required in the Temple (Rashi, B. Ta'anit, 26a, lemma korban musaf). There is no source for this in tannaitic or amoraic literature. Cf. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, Tosafot Yom Tov to Ta'anit 4:4, lemma korban musaf).

15 See Herbert Chanan Brichto, "On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement", HUCA, 47 (1976), pp. 19-55.

16 Cf. Yitzchak Ber, "The Sacrificial Rite in the Period of the Second Temple" [Hebrew], mehkarim u-masot betoldot 'am yisrael, Jerusalem: The Israeli Historical Society, 1986, pp. 399-457. This article appeared originally in Zion, 40 (1975), pp. 95-153. It is possible that the stress on the blood ritual should be limited to those sacrifices which are meant to serve as atonements. In later rabbinic theology, the daily sacrifices also served for atonement (Song of Songs Rabbah 1:9:6).

17 Moshe Weinfeld, "The Afternoon Prayer" [Hebrew], Gevuroth Haromah: Jewish Studies offered at the eightieth birthday of Rabbi Moses Cyrus Weiler (ed. Ze'ev Falk). Jerusalem: Mesharim Publishers, 1987, pp. 77-82.

18 Jacob Licht, A Commentary on the Book of Numbers [Hebrew], p. 96. Traditional commentators have argued this point. Rashi explained that the blessing of Aaron mentioned in Leviticus was the priestly blessing ordered in Numbers but Nachmanides disagreed, apparently because of the chronological problem. The biblical pattern of blessing after the conclusion of the ritual is followed in Ben Sira's description of the ritual conducted by the high priest Simon (50:18, ed. Segal, p. 342). However, Ben Sira is also ambiguous about the content of the blessing given at the end of the ritual (cf. the commentary of Segal, op. cit., p. 347-348).

19 See H.W. Hogg, "'Amen', Notes on its Significance and Use in Biblical and Post-Biblical Times", JQR OS, 9 (1897), pp. 1-23; S.T. Lachs, "Why Was the 'Amen' Response Interdicted in the Temple?", JSJ, 19 (1988), pp. 230-240.

20 The Mishnah states that the blessing was to be recited as "one blessing" in the Temple - as opposed to the medinah where it was to recited as "three blessings" (Tamid 7:2). The dichotomy of "Temple - medinah" is not always identical. For some purposes, "Temple" includes all of Jerusalem. For a discussion of this point see J. Tabory, Jewish Festivals in the Time of the Mishnah and Talmud, Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996, p. 183, n. 111. For other opinions on the identity of the "one blessing" see Reuven Hammer, "What Did They Bless? A Study of Mishnah Tamid 5.1", JQR, 81 (1991), pp. 305-324.

21 Medieval commentators assume that this blessing was not recited in the "official" manner by the priests but was rather meant to close the prayer with a blessing for peace (Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishna, Tamid 5:1; Peirush ha-Rosh, ad loc. cit.).

22 Maimonides assumed that this was the only time that the priestly blessing was recited in the Temple during the day. It was not repeated at the evening sacrifice. Cf. Responsa Radbaz, 5:238; R. Ya'qov Emden, Siddur ha-yabez, Jerusalem 1997, pp. 709-710. However, Maimonides also assumed that the blessing was recited after the flesh of the sacrifice had been placed upon the altar rather than before this (Mishne Torah, Hilkhot Temidin Umussafim 6:5). His commentators have pointed out that there is no rabbinic source for this. R. Moses of Coucy concedes that the mishnah implies that the blessing was recited before the flesh offering but he maintains that Maimonides is relying on the biblical pattern of Aaron, where the blessing follows the completion of the sacrifices. He mentions that there is also talmudic support for this opinion in tractate Yoma (Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot, positive commandment 190, Venice 1547, p. 218d) but I have not been able to find such support.

23 Bilha Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Poetry [Hebrew], Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1996, pp. 105-124. Cf. Daniel Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden: Brill, 1998, pp. 153-154.

24 On the reading of biblical passages about sacrifice as a substitute for sacrifice see Richard S. Sarason, "Religion and Worship: The Case of Judaism", Take Judaism, for Example; Studies toward the Comparison of Religions (ed. J. Neusner), Chicago 1983, p. 53. I think that the daily reading of the Shema was also based on this principle. Since one is to say words of Torah upon rising and before lying down in bed, the words selected are those which contain this commandment. The talmud explains that it was though fit to include the passage of Balaam in the Shema as it also talks about getting up and lying down. It is clear to me that the reason that four passages are included in the phylacteries is that the commandment of phylacteries is mentioned four times in the Torah. The mezuzah contains only two passages because its commandment is mentioned only in those two passages. See Joseph Tabory, "The Prayer Book (Siddur) as an Anthology of Judaism", Prooftexts, 17/2 (1997), p. 122; idem, "Mishlei Balaam u-Qeriat Shema", Daf Shevui, Bar Ilan, Parashat Balaq, 5759, pp. 1-4; Hammer (above, n. ), 305.

25< Later authorities wondered about this and decided that the passage about the Shabbat sacrifice was not read on Shabbat because it was too short by itself and it was too much trouble to take out a second Scroll to read it (R. Yosef Qaro, Shulchan Aruch, OH).

26 This may be the reason that the Levites sang a different Psalm each day of the week. This was apparently a change on the older tradition that the same Psalm was sung every day. The most extreme example of this is the passage in Qumran (11QPsa xxvii) which decress a different Psalm for every day of the year. Cf. Nitzan (above, n. ), pp. 219-220.

27 See Judah Goldin, "The Three Pillars of Simeon the Righteous", Studies in Midrash and Related Literature (ed. Barry L. Eichler and Jeffrey H. Tigay), Philadelphia: JPS, 1988, pp. 27-38.

28 Cf. the statement of R. Jacob b. Aha in the name of R. Assi: "Were it not for the Ma'amadoth heaven and earth could not endure, as it is said, And he said: O Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? Abraham said: Master of the Universe, should Israel sin before Thee wilt Thou do unto them [as Thou hast done] to the generation of the Flood and to the generation of the Dispersion? [God] replied to him: No. He then said to him: Master of the Universe, 'Let me know whereby I shall inherit it'. [God] answered: Take Me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old etc. Abraham then continued: Master of the Universe! This holds good whilst the Temple remains in being, but when the Temple will no longer be what will become of them? [God] replied: I have already long ago provided for them in the Torah the order of sacrifices and whenever they read it I will deem it as if they had offered them before me and I will grant them pardon for all their iniquities" (BT Ta'anit 27b; Megillah 31b). Notice that although this statement states that reading of the Torah is a replacement for sacrifices enabling the world to exist, it suggests that the passages read should be those which tell of the sacrifices. However, this passage begins with the ma'amadot, in which the passages about the creation were read and not the passages about the sacrifice. The end must be the Babylonian editing of this quote which originally ended with reading about the creation. Note also that this source assumes that the ma'amadot continued after the destruction of the Temple.

29 A parallel to this point is found in BT Megillah 29b, where there as a disagreement about the identity of the passage of the Torah which was to be read on the Shabbat of Shekalim. This shabbat served as the public announcement that the time had come to give the annual shekel donation to the Temple, a donation which was to be used to purchase the daily sacrifices offered in the Temple. Shmuel said that they should read the passage about the shekalim (Exodus 30) while Rav ruled that they should read Numbers 28, the passage which tells about the daily sacrifice, which was the purpose of the collection.

30 Cf. BT Megillah 21b which refers to the requirement of three readers on Mondays and Thursdays: "What do these three represent? -- R. Assi said: The Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa. Raba said: Priests, Levites, and lay Israelites." The statement of R. Assi is also used to justify the minimum requirement of three verses for each reading (BT Megillah 24a) and it makes more sense in that context. It may have originated there and been transferred as an explanation of the demand for three people.

31 The talmud (BT Ta'anit 27b) explains that the prohibition of fasting on Friday was meant to prevent interference with the preparations for the Sabbath. There are several reasons given there for the prohibition of fasting on Sunday (Cf. Sofrim 16:4, p. 300) but the most likely one is that it was felt that begining a fast after Sabbath would reflect on the Sabbath itself. Cf. Jeffrey H. Tigay, "Lifne hassabat and ahar hassabat = 'On the Day Before the Sabbath' and 'On the Day After the Sabbath" (Nehemiah xiii 19), VT, 28 (1978), pp. 362-363.

32 See: Esther Glickler Chazon, "Is Divrei Ha-me'orot a Sectarian Prayer?", The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport), Leiden-Jerusalem 1992, pp. 3-17; idem, "Prayers from Qumran: Methods and Issues", SBL 1993 Seminar Papers, Atlanta 1993, pp. 758-772; idem, "Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications", Dead Sea Discoveries, 1/3 (1994), 265-284; D. Falk (above, n. ), pp. 236-251.

33 It has been suggested that Second Temple sectarians forbade offering the tamid sacrifice on Sabbath.

34 The time of the regular evening sacrifice is well documented (Mishnah Pesahim 5:1): The animal was slaughtered at 8:30 and offered at 9:30 (in this scheme of counting the hours, 9:00 is halfway between noon and sunset; approximately 3:00 in the afternoon). In special circumstances the evening sacrifice could be offered earlier - but it was never offered later. The time of the morning sacrifice is problematic. On the one hand, there are well documented rabbinic sources which imply that the morning sacrifice was offered at daybreak. The mishnah states that the removal of the ash of the altar in preparation for the daily sacrifice began well before daybreak, implying that the slaughter of the animal took place just at dawn, before the sun had actually risen. According to the Mishnah, the activities involved in the evening sacrifice, from its slaughtering until they were ready to place the meat on the altar, took and hour. One would presume that these preparations took the same time in the morning which means that the offering of the meat could begin at sunrise, approximately 45 minutes after dawn. At the latest, the sacrifice would be offered no later than 1:00 (approx. 7:00 in the morning). R. Judah testified that once it happened that the sacrifice was delayed until the fourth hour of the day (M. Eduyoth, 6:1) and the implication is that this was unusually late. On the other hand, it is well known that people prayed at the time that the incense was being offered. This is well documented for the evening and there are a number of references to people praying at 9:00, which was approximately the moment of burning the incense, just before the meat was to be placed upon the altar (it is not clear whether the priestly blessing was recited then, as it was done in the morning). There is no direct evidence that people prayed at the time of the morning incense. However, since early Christians prayed at 3:00, noon, and 9:00, and since the 9:00 prayer coincided with the time of the incense, it is assumed that their 3:00 prayer coincided with the morning incense. Mark notes that Jesus was crucified at the third hour, presumable to stress that this was the hour of sacrifice (Mark 15:25; for the discrepancy between this and John 19:14 see Norman Walker, "The Reckoning of Hours in the Fourth Gospel", Novum Testamentum, 4 [1960], pp. 69-73). It should be noted that there was a break during the morning sacrifice, in which sh'ma was read with its attendant liturgy. This break seems to have begun before sunrise as a rabbinic tradition, preserved in both talmuds, reports that the time at which the priests recited the sh'ma was too early to fulfill the obligation properly (BT Yoma 37b // JT Berakhot 1:1, 3a). We have no idea how long this break lasted. It is possible that it extended until the third hour although then we would be left with the question of why didn't the priests postpone their sh'ma somewhat so that they could read it in proper time.

35 The main meal of the day for the Greeks, the deipnon, was eaten towards dusk or even after dark (Robert Flacière, La Vie quotidienne en Grece [Hebrew translation], Tel Aviv: Am ha-sefer, 1967, p. 128; L. A. Moritz, "Meals", The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford 1970, p. 658). In Imperial Rome, a main meal was eaten about eight or nine o' clock in the evening (three or four hours before sunset). See: Jerome Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, Peregrine 1967, p. 288; Moritz, loc. cit.; Blake Leyerly, "Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World", Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (ed. Paul F. Bradshaw and Lawrence A. Hoffman; Two Liturgical Tradition, vol. 5), Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999, p. 30. Rabbinic sources assume that people ate two meals a day. The mishnah mentions the poor mans' evening meal as a sign of sunset (Berakhot 1:1) while King Agrippas was used to eat at nine o' clock (BT Pesahim 107b). Cf. Samuel Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, Leipzig 1912, iii, pp. 26-40. There is no direct evidence of the time of the morning meal. However, the mishnah assumes that laborers would take a break from their work to eat. Evidence from this area in a much later period shows that people normally ate twice a day, a light meal taken approximately four hours after sunrise, and the evening meal (see S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, vol. iv, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983, p. 229). It has already been pointed out that the proportions of meat and the grain in the sacrifice reflect the proportions in which these elements were served in royal meals (Weinfeld [above n. ], p. 79).

36 Leslie C. Allen, World Biblical Commentary, volume 20 Psalms 51 - 100, Dallas, Texas: World Books, Publisher, 1990, p. 58.