המחלוקות על אכילת מנחת זבח השלמים ולחמי התודה על פי 'מגילת מקצת מעשי התורה', 'מגילת המקדש', והסכוליון למגילת תענית

Based on the proposed completion, 'minhat zevah ha-shelamim' in 4QMMT B:9, the author of the scroll apparently assumed that this cereal offering was eaten, contrary to Pharisaic halakhah and the position of the Temple Scroll. An opinion similar to that of 4QMMT, that this offering was eaten, is attributed to the Sadducees in the Scholion to Megillat Tacanit. The Sadducees apparently held this view because their interpretation of the biblical laws of the cereal offerings led them to distinguish between the cereal offering of the burnt offering, which is entirely burnt on the altar, and the cereal offering of the well-being sacrifice, of which, they maintained, the priests ate just as they ate of the flesh of the well-being sacrifices. This proposed completion of the law in 4QMMT raises a number of difficulties: first, it is contrary to the laws of cereal offerings set out in the Temple Scroll 20:7-13. A second difficulty ensues from the fact that the author of the scroll does not argue with the person to whom the scroll is addressed as to whether the cereal offering is in fact eaten, but assumes that the latter agrees with him that it is to be eaten, contrary to the Pharisaic view. Consequently, if this completion is accepted, the law in question would contradict the accepted assumption that 4QMMT disputes characteristic Pharisaic halakhot. We therefore suggest an alternative completion: 'todat zevah hahelamim' which resolves these difficulties; moreover, it indicates that 4QMMT is based on the laws of the cereal offering in the Temple Scroll and expands it to include the thanksgiving cakes which were offered together with the thanksgiving wellbeing sacrifices.