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?
OK, and what? Are you going to argue that men in Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24, and women in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 were assigned to an nonexistent service? These assigned to service at the tabernacle per Numbers 4/8 were men. In Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women assigned to service are described using the same verbiage. So women were assigned to some service similarly to men at the tabernacle. Tabernacle is a liturgical object. Women were assigned to assist in liturgy. That is the salient point.
Ex 38 and 1Sam 2 are not assignment, but action
In Numbers 4/8 men are assigned to action צבא and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are characterized as those performing the same action צבא. While we don't know what that action is, it is connected to the tabernacle per all four occurrences.
since the law specifically and explicitly denies the service of women in the Tabernacle and in the Temple
Let is see how it does that. Note that no one is claiming that women were priests, no one is claiming they entered the very tabernacle, and Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 show that they were at its door, and therefore inside the Temple. References from Jewish tradition, moreover, show what precisely these women were doing: weaving the veil, preparing incense etc. Somehow it did not occur to whoever was writing Mishna Shekalim, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 Baruch that he was describing a legal impossibility. So there. I believe the evidence in front of me, as a rational person. I understand that the implications from the evidence probably upset you, but I am appealing to your rational sense.
This idea of seclusion is imprinted in the Roman mind because of centuries of religious nobility.
Psychologize all you want, I read "κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων" and conclude that these were not merely virgins set apart by their virginity but κατάκλειστοι, locked away, virgins. Otherwise the inspired author would have simply said παρθένων.
As I suggested before, it was by no means an uncommon thing for a city to lock away their daughters
This is your speculation, not supported by the text in 2 Maccabees. On the other hand, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a) gives a rational reason for the institute of such virgins at all times: ordinary feminine work at the temple.
There is *no* reputable Jewish source which proclaims any sort of Hebrew 'vestal virgin'.
Are the asterisks around "no" make it a provable fact? We just went over such Jewish sources.
In pagan systems, their vestal virgins are famously defined.
So? Their role was different altogether.