민수기 19:9의 참고문헌

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Yakim, a man of Hadar, testified concerning a jar of ashes of a red heifer which was put over a creeping thing, that they were unclean. Whereas Rabbi Eliezer had pronounced them clean. Rabbi Papias testified concerning one who had vowed two naziriteships, that if he cut his hair after the first one on the thirtieth day, he could cut his hair after the second one on the sixtieth day; and if he cut his hair on the fifty-ninth day he has also fulfilled his duty, for the thirtieth day counts towards the required number.

Twelve points involving disputed interpretation of ritual and law were contested by the Sadducees who claimed that: 1) The date of the Feast of Weeks should always fall upon a Sunday. 2) The daily sacrifice is to be provided by the individual and not by the community. 3) Frankincense burned on the Day of Atonement should be kindled by the High Priest before entering the Holy of Holies. 4) The ashes of the Red Heifer sacrifice should be gathered by a man who underwent purification the same day according to Numbers 19, 9. 5) The Sadducees burned only a small share of their meal offerings and ate the rest. 6) The commandment “an eye for an eye” they interpreted literally, so that if one crippled another, he himself should be crippled in like manner. 7) In the case of a false witness whose evidence causes the defendant to be punished, the false witness was to receive the same punishment. If the judgment brought about a death sentence, the false witness was not to receive his punishment until after the defendant was executed. 8) The law that only male offspring were to share the inheritance of their father was interpreted to mean that, if the heir was an only son and he died leaving only daughters, then his sisters as well as his daughters shared the inheritance. 9) The Sadducees held that a man was responsible for damage done by his slave just as he was liable for damage done by his live stock since the slave, possessing intelligence, might have caused the damage on orders of his owner. 10) They held a utensil to be unclean if from it a liquid was poured into an unclean utensil, thus making the liquid unclean. 11) They literally adhered to the procedure prescribed for a childless widow whose dead husband’s brother refused to marry her, helding it necessary that she spit in his face while the Pharisees held that she only need spit on the ground before him. 12) They also held to the literal meaning of the injunction in Deut. 22, 17, regarding disputed virginity, while the Pharisees gave it a broader interpretation.