omerin Temple times (before 70CE) did not occur without considerable
commotion; and further, that the Baytusim sometimes tried to influence the
rabbinic new moon procedure so as to make the rabbinic Pentecost fall on a
Sunday.^49 But although the disagreement between rabbis and Baytusim is
presented, therefore, as having social consequences, the extent to which
observance of different dates set the Baytusim apart from the rest of society—
and therefore possibly defined them as a sect—is not entirely clarified.^50 It
should be noted that their disagreement affected only the dates of two
interrelated festivals, but not necessarily the rest of the calendar. Although
the occurrence of theomerand the festival ofWeeks on a Sunday is also a
feature of the 364-day calendar, there is no indication in rabbinic sources or
elsewhere that this was the calendar of the Baytusim:^51 Sunday occurrence of
theomerwould have been equally possible in the framework of a lunar
calendar. Finally, it must be emphasized that the historical reliability of
these early third-century rabbinic accounts is questionable, especially as Bay-
tusim or Boethusians are not mentioned in Josephus or any otherfirst-century
source. Still, it remains of interest that these later sources assume calendar
dates to have been a bone of contention, in the Second Temple period,
between competing religious groups.
Calendar orthodoxy and heresy in rabbinic literatureAlthough, as we have now established, there is hardly any evidence in ancient
Jewish sources that diversity of calendars had the effect of dividing Jewish
society into separate sects or was associated in any way with Jewish sectarian-
ism, several ancient Jewish sources imply that only one calendar is‘correct’or
‘true’—a notion of calendar orthodoxy which stands out as unique, and
probably unparalleled, in the ancient world. Thus in the passage cited above,
Jubilees makes the point that only its calendar—the 364-day year—is legiti-
mate, whereas observance of a lunar calendar is wrong and even sinful. The
same idea is perhaps implicit in Qumran literature, which consistently uses the
364-day calendar and ignores altogether the lunar calendar for dating festivals,
(^49) Reaping of theomer:mMenah
:ot10: 3. New moon procedure:tRH1: 15 (ed. Lieberman
309), as interpreted further inpRH2: 1 (57d). These passages imply that the disagreement
between the Baytusim and‘the Sages’hinged on the interpretation of Lev. 23: 15–16, from where
theomerritual is derived (see Stern 2001: 18).
(^50) The schism of the Baytusim, together with that of the Sadducees, is accounted in the
various recensions ofAvot de-RabbiNathan(ed. Schechter, p. 26)—a somewhat later text—as
the result of a purely theological dispute regarding reward after life and in the next world; the
calendar is not mentioned at all in this source.
(^51) As Talmon assumes (loc. cit.). There are no grounds for identifying the Baytusim with the
Qumran community or for that matter with the Essenes.
Sectarianism andHeresy 377