![]() |
Coins from the Bar Kochba era |
Introduction
This article – based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Amir Mashiach[1] − explores the emergence of the rabbinic class after the failed Jewish revolts against the Romans during the first two centuries CE. Up to that point, the rabbis did not feature in leadership positions. On assuming power immediately after the failed military campaigns and revolts, the rabbis (and the Babylonian rabbis particularly) began to intensely promote passivity as the hallmark of the Torah Jew. Too many Jews had been killed during the wars and the rabbis saw passivity as the only way forward for Jewish survival into the future.
The rise of the rabbinic class
The main body of rabbinic literature only emerged after the failed Jewish revolts against the Romans, with the redaction of the Mishna around 210 CE. There certainly were rabbis before, but their leadership role was insignificant compared to the Jewish political and military leadership. Sometimes the rabbis were treated with disdain, and in one instance, according to the Talmud Yerushalmi (Taanit 4:6), Bar Kochba is even said to have kicked R. Elazar Hamodai to death!
At that time there were three major Jewish revolts against the occupying Roman forces. The first was the Great Revolt (haMered haGadol) of 66-77 CE. During this revolt, the Temple was destroyed in the year 70 CE, and a mass suicide took place at Masada in 72 CE.
The second was the Revolt of the Diaspora (Mered haGaluyot, also known as the Kitos War after the Roman general, Lusius Quietus) between 115-117 CE. It began outside of the borders of Judea in the diaspora including places like Lybia and Cypress. This rebellion was extremely violent on the part of the Jews and was correspondingly brutally suppressed by the Romans. As a result, the great Jewish community of Alexandria was destroyed.
The third was the famous Bar Kochba Revolt of 132-135 CE which initially succeeded and resulted in an independent Jewish state for a short while until that too was destroyed. This defeat resulted in the almost total loss of Jewish settlement in the Holy Land. Ultimately, these three revolts brought about untold devastation, destruction and death to the Jews.
As mentioned, the rabbis had no significant leadership positions during these rebellions and during these times:
“Notably, the revolts were not managed or led by the rabbinical leadership. The rabbis were present in the background, but the revolts were commanded by the political-military leadership. Neither Josephus Flavius nor the rabbinical sources speak of the rabbis as occupying leadership positions. On the contrary, when referring to rabbinical involvement the attitude to them is no different than to the rest of the nation and they certainly do not receive any preferable treatment or respect” (Mashiach 2020:97).
This all changed dramatically after the military defeats when the rabbinic class suddenly rose to fill the leadership vacuum as significant numbers of Jewish politicians and generals had been killed.
There is, of course, the tradition that R. Akiva (50-135 CE) supported Bar Kochba and even regarded him to have been the Messiah (Yerushalmi, Taanit 84:68), but:
“[N]owhere do we find any reference of Bar Kochba to R. Akiba. No attitude of respect and sympathy for rabbis is evident in the rabbinical literature...” (Mashiach 2020:97).
It does not seem that the rabbis played significant leadership roles at all during this period. However, after the defeats, this all changed with the rabbis emerging as defacto leadership. One of the first things the rabbis did was to try and change the ethos of the Jewish people from aggressive fighters to passive and even subservient Torah scholars.
We shall now examine some examples of how the rabbis attempted to change the worldview of the Jew from offensive and daring as it was from biblical times until the repression of the Bar Kochba Revolt, to defensive if not outright passivity. To do so, the rabbis had to change the way Jews had previously read the Torah and offer an entirely different narrative to the plain meaning of many of the Torah’s texts and religious concepts:
David the warrior also becomes as “soft as a worm”
King David’s reign, which had previously been defined by real wars and conquests was now also described through the eyes of the Babylonian rabbis as being led by a David who was “as soft as a worm”, who studied Torah in the Beit Midrash:
כְּשֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה —
הָיָה מְעַדֵּן עַצְמוֹ כְּתוֹלַעַת, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה — הָיָה
מַקְשֶׁה עַצְמוֹ כְּעֵץ
“When [David] would sit and occupy himself with Torah, he would make himself soft as a worm, and when he would go out to war, he would make himself as hard as a tree” (b. Moed Katan 16b).
This source at least retains David as a warrior but it also introduces his softer side.
“Be as soft as a reed”
The rabbis further taught that instead of being warriors and
fighters one should always be as “soft as a reed”:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם רַךְ
כְּקָנֶה וְאַל יְהֵא קָשֶׁה כְּאֶרֶז
“The Sages taught: ‘A person should always be soft like a reed, and he should not be stiff like a cedar’” (b. Taanit 20a).
The great warrior Bnayahu ben Yehoyada becomes “Head of
the Sanhedrin”
Bnayahu ben Yehoyada was one of David’s heroes and later went on to be Solomon’s Captain of the Guard. Through the rabbis, he now becomes the Head of the Sanhedrin and there is a ‘rabbinical’ line of command:
וּ״בְנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע״ – זוֹ סַנְהֶדְרִין...וְאַחַר כָּךְ ״שַׂר
הַצָּבָא לַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹאָב״.
“Bnayahu ben Yehoyada corresponds to the Sanhedrin [which he headed]…” Upon being instructed by King David to go to war, the Sages first consulted with Ahithophel [David's advisor], then with the Sanhedrin, and then they would ask the Urim VeTummim; and only thereafter was the general of the king’s army, Yoav, given the command to ready the army for battle” (b. Sanhedrin 16b).
Accordingly, wars were never initiated by military leaders, instead, there was long process of religious protocol and a chain of rabbinic leadership that first had to authorise the battles.
‘Turning the other
cheek’
The rabbis also encouraged the people of their time to abandon any assertive or aggressive behaviour, even in the face of enemies:
אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אִם יָבוֹאוּ רְשָׁעִים עַל
אָדָם — יְנַעְנֵעַ לוֹ רֹאשׁוֹ
“Our Sages teach: ‘If wicked people come upon a person, he should bend his head before them’” (b. Yevamot 121a).
Mashiach describes these and other similar sources as follows:
“[T]he Sages converted the customary terms of heroism, liberty, and war, into new terms that object to offensive heroism. At the same time, the Sages made an effort to encourage patience and the ability to absorb insults. From now on there would be no more responses consisting of angry outbursts, these belonged to the previous ethos; now a different ethos was instated, one that called for a different type of heroism, the heroism of keeping silent” (Mashiach 2020:100).
The new model of a Gibbor (hero)
This Mishna in Avot reshapes the definition of
a heroic warrior fearless in battle, and teaches along these same reworked lines:
אֵיזֶהוּ גִבּוֹר, הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ
Who is mighty? One who subdues his evil inclination” (Mishan, Avot 4:1).
Mashiach explains:
“This is the new hero, one who is capable of subduing his inclination, not one who is capable of drawing his sword” (Mashiach 2020:100).
These interpretations of war and heroism as metaphors emphasising study, character development and passivity would have been out of place and probably incomprehensible just decades earlier during the Jewish revolts, let alone in times of biblical battle.
Reworking biblical war narratives
Even the classical biblical texts had to be reworked to fit the new worldview of passivity:
“[B]iblical war-related phrases also had to be converted by the Sages, through interpretation or exegesis, to fit the new ethos” (Mashiach 2020:100).
In the Torah, Jacob describes how he had waged war and conquered land from the Amorites:
אֲשֶׁ֤ר לָקַ֙חְתִּי֙ מִיַּ֣ד הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י בְּחַרְבִּ֖י וּבְקַשְׁתִּֽי
“…which I wrested from the Amorites with my sword and bow” (Genesis 48:20).
Wresting the land from the Amorites with what appear to be real weapons of war in a real battle is now dealt with in the Babylonian Talmud as follows:
וְכִי בְּחַרְבּוֹ וּבְקַשְׁתּוֹ לָקַח?! וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא בְקַשְׁתִּי אֶבְטָח, וְחַרְבִּי לֹא תוֹשִׁיעֵנִי״! אֶלָּא ״חַרְבִּי״ – זוֹ תְּפִלָּה, ״קַשְׁתִּי״ – זוֹ בַּקָּשָׁה
“But is it so that Jacob took the portion of land from the Amorites with his sword and with his bow? But isn’t it already stated in Psalms: ‘Through You do we push down our adversaries; through Your name do we trample those that rise against us. For I trust not in my bow, neither can my sword save me’ (Psalms 44:6–7)? Rather, what is the meaning of ‘with my sword’? This refers to prayer. What is the meaning of ‘with my bow’? This refers to petition” (b. Bava Batra 123a).
Based on a verse in Psalms, the rabbis reject the plain meaning of the biblical text as relating to a real battle with swords and bows. Now, in the new conceptualisation, the sword is no longer a sword and the bow is no longer a bow. There were no weapons in this battle. The stated weapons were but metaphors for prayer and supplication. Jacob did not fight – he prayed and thus received the land from his Amorite adversaries.
The parameters of “freedom” and “liberty” change
Whereas, originally, notions like “independence,” “freedom,” and “liberty” were understood in a real military, political and national sense, the Babylonian rabbis began to redefine their meanings. Now these terms relating to autonomy and self-determination were wrested from their earlier pragmatic socio-political contexts and these ideals could only be attained through passive and personal Torah study:
שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בֶן חוֹרִין אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁעוֹסֵק בְּתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה
“There is no free man but one that occupies himself with the study of the Torah” (Mishna, Avot, 6:2).
Fighting, revolution and rebellion will not bring freedom or independence − only Torah study will. The wording is sharp and clear, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ, no freedom can result from battle!
The Festival of Chanukah changes
The festival of Chanukahꟷthe longest of all the Jewish
festivalsꟷhad
always been a festival commemorating victory and emphasising the importance of
Jewish offensiveness in the face of outside oppression. All other festivals
have Talmudic tractates dedicated to themꟷsuch as Sukkot, Yoma
(Yom Kippur), Shabbat, Megilla, Pesachimꟷbut
there is no tractate for Chanukah. In the tractate of Avoda Zara, in the Babylonian Talmud, Chanukah
is seen:
“as marking the transition between the gradually shortening winter days and the gradually lengthening summer days (Bavli, Avoda Zara 8a). Hence, Hanukkah is the festival of light, but not due to the candles that are lit rather due to the season of the year in which it is marked. The conclusion is that there is no connection between Hanukkah and the Hasmoneans” (Mashaich 2020:101).
In the tractate of Shabbat, in the Babylonian Talmud, the military victory was severely minimised and, instead, it became the miracle of one cruse of oil burning for eight days. And even that light was to be viewed passively and “we do not have permission to use it.’ The main reason for Chanukah was the miracle of the oilꟷnot the military victory:
נַעֲשָׂה בּוֹ נֵס וְהִדְלִיקוּ מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים. לְשָׁנָה
אַחֶרֶת קְבָעוּם וַעֲשָׂאוּם יָמִים טוֹבִים בְּהַלֵּל וְהוֹדָאָה.
“A miracle occurred and they lit from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving” (b. Shabbat 21b).
Mashiach makes the point that:
“There is no description of the battles, there is no description of the heroic death of the five brothers, the sons of Matityahu the Hasmonean headed by Judah the Maccabi, and there is no mention of establishing an independent state. With all respect to this impressive achievement, the Sages did not see fit to mention it even in passing. According to the Sages, the only achievement of the Hasmoneans worth mentioning is finding the cruse of oil” (Mashiach 2020:102).
The irony is that in the literature of the time, the military victory was indeed recorded, as we find in the books of the Hasmoneans as well as in Josephus. The miracle of the oil is not mentioned in the contemporary writings. Yet, in the Babylonian Talmudꟷredacted many centuries laterꟷthe miracle of oil became the dominant reason for the festival of Chanukah and has remained so to this day.
In the Talmud, the oil and the Menorah (Candelabrum)
are said to symbolise the light and wisdom of Torah:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּחְכִּים –
יַדְרִים, וְשֶׁיַּעֲשִׁיר – יַצְפִּין, וְסִימָנָיךְ: שֻׁלְחָן בַּצָּפוֹן
וּמְנוֹרָה בַּדָּרוֹם
“R. Yitzchak says: One who wishes to become wise should face south, and one who wishes to become wealthy should face north. And your sign for this is that in the Temple the Table, which symbolized blessing and abundance, was in the north, and the Candelabrum, which symbolized the light of wisdom, was in the south of the Sanctuary” (b. Bava Batra 25b).
The Hasmonean war was replaced by a passive resort to candles representing study, in keeping with the pattern and ethos of the Babylonian sages who were determined to direct attention away from revolution, war and political independence towards passivity. The political power of the rabbis lay not in promoting battlesꟷwhere they already knew from the Bar Kochba revolts that they could not leverage control and powerꟷbut rather in promoting passivity and study.
The prohibition against suicide as a means of defiance
Within the context of first and second-century Judaism in the Holy Land, the issue of mass suicide was an important means of defiance. It was used by the Jews during the revolts against the Romans in Gamla and Masada. They chose suicide over a life of slavery. The story is recorded in Josephus but, like Chanuka, the Babylonian Talmud is silent on these events.
“Make no mistake, the Sages’ silence does not imply criticism of the suicide act itself. There is an oft-heard claim that Masada is not mentioned in rabbinical literature because the Sages adamantly objected to suicide, so much so that they excluded the story of Masada’s heroes from their literary corpus … This is not true. The Sages had no problem with suicide in general. On the contrary, from their words it is clear that suicide has a role in Jewish life if it has religious underpinnings…” (Mashiach 2020: 104-5).
A mass suicide event is related in rabbinic literature and is even endorsed by the Babylonian Talmud. It is the story of four hundred boys and girls who were taken captive by boat and they chose to jump into the sea instead:
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת יְלָדִים וִילָדוֹת
שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ לְקָלוֹן, הִרְגִּישׁוּ בְּעַצְמָן לְמָה הֵן מִתְבַּקְּשִׁים,
אָמְרוּ: אִם אָנוּ טוֹבְעִין בַּיָּם – אָנוּ בָּאִין לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא
“There was an incident involving four hundred boys and girls who were taken as captives for the purpose of prostitution. These children sensed on their own what they were expected to do, and they said: If we commit suicide and drown in the sea, will we come to eternal life in the World-to-Come…” (b. Gittin 57b).
The same section of the Babylonian Talmud continues
with the incident regarding Channa and her seven sons: וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: זוֹ אִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעָה
בָּנֶיהָ
An idolatrous king tried to get Channa’s sons to worship idols. They all refused and were killed for disobeying the king. The mother then went up onto the roof and committed suicide:
אַף הִיא עָלְתָה לַגַּג וְנָפְלָה וּמֵתָה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה:
״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״
“She went up to the roof, fell, and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “A joyful mother of children” (Psalms 113:9)” (b. Gittin 57b).
This is another case where the sages condoned suicide and even had G-d condoning the incident as well. The reason why these cases are condoned but the Gamla and Masada cases are not even mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud is described as follows:
“If a person or a group of people commit suicide due to their religious faith or for concern that they will be required to perform acts that contradict Jewish law, then their suicide is legitimate and desirable. If their suicide has national or ideological underpinnings, however, as in the act performed by the inhabitants of Gamla and Masada, then the Sages do not see fit to even hint at these nationally oriented heroic acts” (Mashiach 2012:105).
The Three Oaths
In order to secure their hegemony and ensure that their political and military adversaries would not wrest control from the Babylonian rabbinical class, they built in a safety measure for the future. The Babylonian Talmud introduced the notion of the “Three Oaths.” R. Yosi ben Chanina interpreted three verses in the Song of Songs that speak of “adjuring the maidens of Jerusalem with oaths” (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4) as alluding to G-d not wanting the Jewish people to hasten the redemption. They must rather wait patiently and passively in exile for the messianic redemption to come to them. The three verses from Song of Songs follow:
הִשְׁבַּ֨עְתִּי אֶתְכֶ֜ם בְּנ֤וֹת
יְרוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ בִּצְבָא֔וֹת א֖וֹ בְּאַיְל֣וֹת הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה
אִם־תָּעִ֧ירוּ ׀ וְֽאִם־תְּע֥וֹרְר֛וּ אֶת־הָאַהֲבָ֖ה עַ֥ד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּֽץ
1) “I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, By gazelles or by hinds of the field: Do not wake or rouse Love until it please” (Song of Songs 2:7).
הִשְׁבַּ֨עְתִּי אֶתְכֶ֜ם
בְּנ֤וֹת יְרוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ בִּצְבָא֔וֹת א֖וֹ בְּאַיְל֣וֹת הַשָּׂדֶ֑ה
אִם־תָּעִ֧ירוּ ׀ וְֽאִם־תְּע֥וֹרְר֛וּ אֶת־הָאַהֲבָ֖ה עַ֥ד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּֽץ׃
2) “I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, By gazelles or by hinds of the field: Do not wake or rouse Love until it please” (Song of Songs 3:5).
הִשְׁבַּ֥עְתִּי אֶתְכֶ֖ם
בְּנ֣וֹת יְרוּשָׁלָ֑͏ִם מַה־תָּעִ֧ירוּ ׀ וּֽמַה־תְּעֹ֥רְר֛וּ אֶת־הָאַהֲבָ֖ה
עַ֥ד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּֽץ
3) “I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem: why wake or why rouse Love until it please” (Song of Songs 8:4).
Based on these verses R. Yosi ben Chanina built an elaborate system of Three Oaths that he said were imposed upon the entire Jewish people, by G-d, to not attempt to rebel against the non-Jewish nations to try gain political independence by settling in the Land of Israel. R. Yehuda held a similar view and quoted from Jeremiah:
בָּבֶלָה יוּבָאוּ וְשָׁמָּה יִהְיוּ עַד יוֹם פׇּקְדִי אוֹתָם נְאֻם ה
“They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that I recall them, said the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:22) (b. Ketuvot 111a).
Similarly, according to R. Yosi ben Chanina:
לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר: שָׁלֹשׁ שְׁבוּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ לָמָּה? אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוֹמָה, וְאַחַת שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יִמְרְדוּ בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, וְאַחַת שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בָּהֶן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי
“for that which was taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said: Why are these three oaths (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4) needed? One, so that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, but little by little. And another one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the Jews that they should not rebel against the rule of the nations of the world. And the last one is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world that they should not subjugate the Jews excessively” (b. Ketuvot 111a).
Accordingly, there are two Oaths taken by the Jewish people and one Oath taken by the non-Jewish nations:
1) The
Jews must not go to Eretz Yisrael en masse.
2) The Jews must not rebel
against the non-Jewish nations.
3) The nations of the world must
not persecute Jews.
Conclusion
To be sure, there are also some extremely assertive and defiant statements recorded in the Babylonian Talmudꟷparticularly by R. Shimon bar Yochai:
“They are indeed in the minority but their voice is heard” (Mashiach 2020:106).
However, the examples we have examined represent the overwhelming trend of thought contained within the Babylonian Talmud. These case studies serve to underpin the extent the rabbis were prepared to go to change the offensive and autonomous attitude prevalent amongst the Jews in the period immediately preceding the emergence of the Talmudic era. Emerging from a time of unsuccessful Jewish revolts, wars and revolutions against the Romans and suffering terrible defeat, the rabbis redefined the previous virtues of liberty, heroism, war and independence. The Babylonian Talmud reshaped the story of Chanukah, forbade the Jews from going back to their land and prohibited them from rising against the nations of the world, relying on the gentile’s ‘oath’ not to harm Jews in exile.
The intention of the Babylonian rabbis, it seems, was primarily the preservation of Jewish lives, as they learned the lessons of failed aggression. However, one also cannot dismiss the fact that the rabbinic class was not dominant or even recognised during the previous periods of political activity and military battles. By changing the ethos and direction of the Jewish narrativeꟷas they successfully didꟷthey also ensured their rabbinic control and recognition, as the rabbinic class now rose to centre stage and positions of leadership authority.
This article is not intended to be a value judgement as to
which is the better methodology for the Jew to adopt − offensiveness or
subservience. It is simply a rabbinic literature study tracing how the Jew was moved
from the former to the latter during the early centuries of the first
millennium as the text of the Babylonian Talmud created the authoritative
rabbi and the passive Jew.
Further reading
[1]
Mashiach, A., 2020, ‘The Failure of the Major Revolts and its Impact on Jewish
Identity’, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, vol. 19,
issue 56,96-109.
You have the wrong perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe Hasmonean revolt was a miraculous but ultimately fleeting victory, given how the descendents almost immediately became Helllenized even more than the mityavnim who prompted the revolt.
After that, several vicious civil wars (the last of which brought the Roman occupation in its wake), and three very bloody failed revolts against Rome, perhaps the message Hashem intended was that it was time to approach golus and redemption differently.
There are always elites. Prior to the rabbis (aka chaza"l) it was almost exclusively hereditary. They introduced a measure of merit to the ability to rise up.
"The intention of the Babylonian rabbis, it seems, was primarily the preservation of Jewish lives, as they learned the lessons of failed aggression."
No. Preservation of Torah was the goal. If there are no Jews, there is no Torah.
With that style of exegesis adopted and carried forward by Rashi, Seforno and Netziv.
ReplyDeleteCan't remember where I saw/heard this, that the Zionists viewed themselves as restoring Judaism to its glory, with the intervening two millennia essentially a Jewish dark age.
As for his thesis, it seems to me that the facts can just as easily be read as Chazal making peace with the new Jewish reality, and providing the beaten down nation with encouraging new exegesis reflective of their situation, without ascribing to the rabbis a power grab or a new pacifist ideology.