The dictionary meanings indeed embrace other settings, but the usage in Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24 describe a service of some kind at the tabernacle, so however you want to translate that, these two usages are liturgical and not, for example, military.
jump to a use of special circumstance
What special circumstance? In Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24 men are serving at the tabernacle and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are doing the same. Nothing special here: all these usages are similarly worded and describe some liturgical function (the tabernacle is a liturgical object).
Who would think of locking up their virgin daughters while a foreign military troop is inside the gates? How absurd is that reading? [...] Far better to assume cloistered nuns
Ah, good point. Indeed, if κατάκλειστοι were to mean "placed under lock so that they don't escape" then indeed that would make no sense. If however, they are cloistered, that is live separately because they want to, then it makes every sense that they flock to the priest in the moment of crisis or "throw themselves in the flames" as Pesikta Rabbati describes them. No one is saying that they were in every respect as Catholic nuns, just that they were separated from the other folk in the way allowing for the description κατάκλειστοι, and had access to the high priest.
their tradition, allows for no such thing
So these texts, a part of the Jewish tradition, are not allowed by the Jewish tradition? Huh?
No, Num 4/8 do not describe a service of some kind. They describe the assignment of those who will perform service, not the service itself. So your argument that this is liturgy, or liturgical in nature falls absolutely flat. It does describe the mustering of those who will perform, and hence the word is used properly in it's natural context, and it also explains why the word is used here and not in a context where liturgy is described specifically.
What special circumstance? In Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24 men are serving at the tabernacle and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are doing the same. Nothing special here: all these usages are similarly worded and describe some liturgical function (the tabernacle is a liturgical object).
Again, Num 4/8 does not describe men serving, but rather, their assignment toward that service... Ex 38 and 1Sam 2 are not assignment, but action, and the liturgical function you seem to desire is merely inferred in all cases. Your inference is only that - it is not explicitly described. And since the law specifically and explicitly denies the service of women in the Tabernacle and in the Temple, the explicit law should weigh more than your inference and discount it wholly (which it does indeed). Another interpretation is necessary.
Ah, good point. Indeed, if κατάκλειστοι were to mean "placed under lock so that they don't escape" then indeed that would make no sense. If however, they are cloistered, that is live separately because they want to, then it makes every sense that they flock to the priest in the moment of crisis or "throw themselves in the flames" as Pesikta Rabbati describes them. No one is saying that they were in every respect as Catholic nuns, just that they were separated from the other folk in the way allowing for the description κατάκλειστοι, and had access to the high priest.
In the first place, everyone had access to the high priest, unless he was serving in a function wherein he was consecrated. This idea of seclusion is imprinted in the Roman mind because of centuries of religious nobility. When a consecrated act was finished, the high priest was free to move about among the people.
The same goes for virgins - No special order is necessary to describe 'set apart' virgins, as ALL virgins are set apart by YHWH. It does the Hebrew people damage to impart heroism to this imaginary special sect, when it should be read as describing the whole of the people (ie: all young women) in the face of extreme desperation.
As far as cloistering, As I suggested before, it was by no means an uncommon thing for a city to lock away their daughters (which, one assumes was voluntary to some degree) when a foreign troop was inside the gate. That is not to say they were locked away indefinitely, but rather for the purpose of not tempting fate with rough soldiers in the streets. Daughters are a treasure to any man, and it is not hard to imagine that their protection would be an high priority in such a circumstance, whether by the device of each man, or by the community collectively. Such a circumstance is just as easy to deduce from the story as is some vestal order... And such a thing requires no invention.
So these texts, a part of the Jewish tradition, are not allowed by the Jewish tradition? Huh?
Your interpretation of these texts does not take into account the greater body thereof. It is what you impose that stands against, not the texts themselves. There is *no* reputable Jewish source which proclaims any sort of Hebrew 'vestal virgin'. In fact, the concept goes against not only their tradition, but also against the clear dictates of the Torah. So even if, by some chance, it is proven that there ever were such a thing, it would necessarily be formed in apostasy, and would not be something to emulate. It is most certainly not a part of their orthodoxy.
Which brings me to a question I had asked earlier that remains unanswered:
Lets look to the inverse evidence: In pagan systems, their vestal virgins are famously defined. One cannot long study the Greeks or Romans without finding volumes of evidences toward their existence (their actual virginity, be it as it may)... Not only by prescription and regulation within their religious activities and in their stories and myths, but even to the point of secular writings and poetry, and in murals, pictures, and decorations.
But here you would seem to impose such a thing in a system which lauds them not at all... where their very existence must be established in wispy and far-flung passages, if it is to be found in the least part, and that against the judgement of the very practitioners thereof (Judaism and it's traditions). How do you explain such a dichotomy?