275) WHO OWNED THE EARLY KABBALAH?

Likkutim with references to Sefer haIyun and Shem Tov Ibn Gaon (see Appendix): 

- POLEMICS OF AN EARLY MYSTICAL POWER-STRUGGLE -

INTRODUCTION:

The Zohar was first published (in manuscript form) in around 1280. During that century and the next, there was much debate over who wrote it, who owned it and - more importantly - who owned the Kabbalistic tradition in general. 

The publication of the Zohar brought the issue of ownership of Kabbalah to a head because this was the beginning of a new literary (written) mystical tradition replacing a hitherto largely oral mystical tradition[1].

In this article, we will explore the question of who owned the authentic rights to Kabbalah. Was it those who wrote, read and studied its books - or those who transmitted and expounded it the form of an oral tradition?

I have drawn extensively from Professor Moshe Halbertal[2], a graduate of Har Etzion Yeshiva who later served, amongst other positions, as visiting professor at Yale and Harvard Universities. He is also the co-author of the Israeli Army Code of Ethics.

Considering the prime role the Zohar and Kabbalah were to play in future Judaism, it is interesting to see how ideas we usually take for granted as always being part of Jewish tradition, were fiercely debated at that time. 

What is refreshing about this account is that it is not historical speculation but, instead, a record of ‘eye witness’ writings of two contemporaneous Kabbalists from each of the two competing mystical schools at the time of the publication of the Zohar in the late 13^th- century. It is the story of the battle between the established older oral mystical tradition and the infancy and stirrings of a new competing written tradition.

THE CLASH OF THE LITERARY AND ORAL MYSTICAL TRADITIONS:

Moshe Halbertal presents the problem:

“The emergence of literary canon endows a tradition with authority and endurance, which is independent from the localized and bounded channels of oral transmission. Yet such transformation might undermine that same tradition it aimed at solidifying.”

MEIR IBN SAHULA VS SHEM TOV IBN GAON:

This tension resulted in a clash between the newer literary and older oral mystical traditions. The clash may be personified as a conflict between two exponents of these traditions, namely Meir Ibn Sahula (1255-1335) representing what was to become the new literary tradition, and Shem Tov Ibn Gaon (1283-1330) representing the older oral tradition.

PART 1:

MEIR IBN SAHULA:

WRITTEN TEXTS AND MEIR IBN SAHULA’S INDEPENDENT MYSTICAL STUDY:

Towards the latter part of the 13^th-century, the Spanish Kabbalist Meir Ibn Sahula wrote about how he had acquired all his mystical knowledge from books and not from an oral tradition. This was something rather unusual at that time.

Meir Ibn Sahula had written a commentary to an earlier Kabbalistic work, Sefer Yetzirah, and in it he writes:

"For several years already, I have been studying these things relating to all secrets, starting with the Sefer Habahir, which explains some matters, and the writings of Rabbi Asher who wrote the Perush Shlosh Esreh Middot and the Perush Hashevu'ah, and Rabbi Ezra , Rabbi Azariel and Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman [Nachmanides or Ramban][3], all of blessed memory . Also, I studied those chapters. And I acquired some of the commentary on Sefer Yetzirah attributed to Rabbi Moshe bar Nahman of blessed memory, but I was unable to acquire all of it."[4]

Evidently, Meir Ibn Sahula had access to a large body of written mystical literature and he was happy to consult it and learn from it. However, he was the exception rather than the rule, as most Kabbalists held to the very strict tradition of an oral mystical transmission. Mystical books (baring one or two exceptions) and certainly libraries were considered unauthentic and unauthorized for such an important tradition.

NACHMANIDES’ ORAL MYSTICAL TRADITION AND HIS OPPOSITION TO INDEPENDENT MYSTICAL INQUIRY:

A strong advocate of the oral transmission of mystical knowledge as the only way to study and understand these ideas was Nachmanides (1194-1270). Nachmanides is generally known as the father of Jewish mysticism and he promoted its transmission in a mostly oral form.

Nachmanides maintained that the mystical tradition was a closed system which had its origins at Sinai and the only way to safeguard its authenticity was, essentially, through oral transmission.[5]

Nachmanides’ commonly adopted position can be seen in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Torah:

"[C]oncerning any of the mystic hints which I write regarding the hidden matters of the Torah...I do hereby firmly make known to him [the reader] that my words will not be comprehended nor known at all by any reasoning or contemplation, excepting from the mouth of a wise Kabbalist speaking into the ear of an understanding recipient.

Reasoning about them is foolishness; any unrelated thought brings much damage and withholds the benefit... let them take moral instruction from the mouths of our holy Rabbis...[A]bout that which is hidden from you, do not ask."[6]

There was to be no innovation or space for any private access to this knowledge. It could not be acquired independently. It had to be given over only by the master who possessed and owned that knowledge.

MEIR IBN SAHULA AS INDEPENDENT MYSTICAL INQUIRER:

Accordingly, Meir Ibn Sahula can be considered a mystic rebel in that he went against the dictates of mainstream Kabbalists and promoted independent textual study of mystical literature.

Meir Ibn Sahula writes in stark contradistinction to Nachmanides:

"We must investigate the words according to our understanding, and walk in them in the paths walked by the prophets in their generation and in the generations before us, during the two hundred years of kabbalists to date, and they call the wisdom of the ten sefirot and some of the reasons for the commandments[,] Kabbalah."[7]

In another statement, Meir Ibn Sahula is even clearer:

"I did not receive this from tradition, but I say 'open my eyes that I may gaze on the wonders of your Law'."[8]

Halbertal describes Meir Ibn Sahula as undermining the authority of the earlier Kabbalists:

“The restriction of the scope of the tradition empowers the investigative position and his reliance on reasoning.”

AGE AND PROVENANCE OF KABBALAH:

This “restriction of scope” is fundamentally important because it now allows and admits the notion of innovation of mystical ideas – something abhorrent to the mainstream Kabbalists like Nachmanides who roots his mystical tradition in Sinai.

What is striking about the position taken by Meir Ibn Sahula is that he sees much of Kabbalah as having developed later, especially during the two hundred year period before him. This would be particularly significant because new mystical ideas such as the Ten Sefirot[9] as defined by the more recent written works, were to become a cornerstone and basic building block of much of future Jewish mysticism.

CHUG HAIYUN AND THEIR PSEUDEPIGRAPHA:

Besides the publication of the Zohar, there were numerous other mystical writings - some more accurate than others - that were also in circulation. The Spanish Kabbalists were particularly esoteric but one group from Castille was even more extreme. They were known as the Chug haIyun or Circle of In-Depth Contemplation. It is likely that Meir Ibn Sahula was part of this group.

They produced a vast mystical literature which was largely pseudepigraphical (i.e., written falsely in the name of other, earlier and better known authorities)[10].

Halbertal refers to their pseudepigraphical enterprises as “creative and daring.” They did not base their teachings on any oral tradition. Instead, took their authority from (according to Halbertal a mythical figure[11]) R. Chamai Gaon. They were intent on breaking the closed, secret and exclusive circle of traditional Kabbalists like Nachmanides. 

The writings of the Chug haIyun - together with other mystical writings which accumulated from various sectors of the Spanish mystical community - eventually culminated in the writing of the Zohar, which further broke the notion that Kabbalah was a closed system.

PART 2:

SHEM TOV IBN GAON:

SHEM TOV IBN GAON COMES TO THE DEFENCE OF NACHMANIDES:

At the other end of the spectrum - in light of the plethora of newly published mystical literature - another mystic, Shem Tov Ibn Gaon emerges as a defender of the more traditional system of oral transmission as propounded by Nachmanides. He attempts to reinstate the closed model of Kabbalah as an oral tradition only for the duly initiated.

Shem Tov Ibn Gaon was a student of Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo Ibn Aderet - also known as the Rabbi of Spain - El Rab d'España) who in turn was a student of Nachmanides.

Shem Tov Ibn Gaon writes about how, in his view, the oral mystical tradition goes back to Sinai:

“For no sage can know of them through his own sagacity, and no wise man may understand through his own wisdom, and no researcher through his research, and no expositor through his exposition; only the kabbalist may know, based on the Kabbalah that he received, passed down orally from one man to another, going back to the chain of the greats of the renowned generation, who received it from their masters, and the fathers of their fathers, going back to Moses...who received it as Law from Sinai.”[12]

Shem Tov Ibn Gaon then takes a swipe at the style of popular mystical writings that were beginning to emerge and he challenges their authenticity:

"[E]very man whom the spirit of God is within must take heed...lest he find books written with this wisdom...for perhaps the whole of what he received is but chapter headings; then he may come to study such books and fall in the deep pit as a result of the sweet words he finds there; for he may rejoice in them, or desire their secrets or the sweetness of the lofty language he finds there.

But perhaps their author has not received the Kabbalah properly, passed down orally from one to another; he may only have been intelligent or skilled in poetry or rhetoric... and have left the true path, as our Sages of blessed memory warned, 'in the measure of his sharpness, so is his error’.”[13]

Probably because of the timing of Shem Tov Ibn Gaon’s  writing so soon after the publication of the Zohar, Halbertal interprets his word as follows:

“It may very well be that Shem Τον Ibn Gaon was warning his readers against the Zohar, which is the epitome of the development of the Kabbalah as literature, as its marvelous literary qualities are powerfully seductive...

[The older and more traditional oral mystical systems][14] have no narrative frames or mythic characters, nor do they display complex weaves of midrashim and explanations, whereas in the Zohar we find these elements in abundance. The seductive appeal of the literary kabbalistic works threaten its status as a precise tradition handed down by Moses on Mount Sinai; it is this threat that Shem Tov struggled with.”

Halbertal points out that Nachmanides’ writings, in stark contradistinction to the style of the Zohar, are ‘devoid of any literary quality’. Nachmanides was not writing to entertain. Bear in mind that Nachmanides would have passed away (in 1270) about ten years before the Zohar was published (in 1280).

But Shem Tov Ibn Gaon hasn’t finished yet. Besides criticising the abundance of new mystical literature, he launches into what appears to be an attack against the Zohar seeming to accuse it of pseudepigrapha. This is one of the first contemporaneous criticisms of the Zohar which was to become the mainstay of Jewish mysticism:

"God forbid, for the earlier instructed ones and the bearers of tradition have already proclaimed against this, saying that the wise man should not read any book unless he knows the name of its author.”

This statement needs to viewed against the backdrop of the fact that although the Zohar was only published in 1280, it was claimed to have been written by R. Shimon Bar Yochai, a Tanna from the Mishnaic Period one thousand years earlier. It was claimed that some of Bar Yochai’s original manuscripts had recently been found and only published in 1280 for the first time. Others counterclaimed that the Zohar was a pseudepigraphic forgery written by Moshe de León (1240-1305).

Shem Tov Ibn Gaon continues:

“And this is just, for when he knows whom its author is, he will understand its path and intention, (transmitted) from one man to another until the members of his generation. Thus, he may know if its author was a legitimate authority, and from whom he received it and whether his wisdom is renowned."[15]

Later, Shem Tov Ibn Gaon continues to highlight the differences between his Nachmanidean school and the new and emerging literary Kabbalistic tradition:

"[The traditional mystical schools] were careful not to compose unattributed literature, writing only in their own names. Furthermore, they never explained anything based on their own knowledge, unless they made public to all readers how they arrived at such knowledge through their own reasoning. They publicized their names in their works so that all who come after them may know what guarded measure and in which paths light may be found."[16]

This was not the case with the new emerging written mystical schools which thrived on grand pseudepigraphical enterprises.

SOME WRITTEN WORKS ARE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE ORAL TRANSMISSION:

Shem Tov Ibn Gaon was now faced with a dilemma: He opposed the emergence of the Zohar and other new writings because they were not part of the oral mystical tradition, but there were some older literary works that predated his era and he felt that they were authentic. These works included the Sefer haBahir, Sefer Yetzirah and Sefer Shiur Komah.

His solution was simple. He included those written works within the corpus of the oral mystical tradition. But in order to qualify as an oral tradition, the three written works must be chanted “in a tune” and memorized.[17] This apparently transformed the written word into an oral tradition.

He had another dilemma: Even some of the mystical ideas of Nachmanides had been written down and some appear in Nachmanides’ various own commentaries.[18] Shem Tov Ibn Gaon explained that Nachmanides’ mystical writings were generally written in a hinted manner and were not explicit:

“[I]n each and every place [he] hinted at hidden things...based on what he had received. Nevertheless, he made his words very enigmatic...”[19]

Thus even the mystical writings of Nachmanides were to be considered essentially as part of an oral and not a written corpus.

PART 3:

THE INTENTIONAL DISORDER OF THE MYSTICAL ORAL TRADITION:

Halbertal explains that indeed Nachmanides and others did write very sparsely in a hinted and enigmatic style.  It seems that they did not do this just to qualify their writings as technically within the oral tradition but for another reason as well. That reason was to maintain control over the ideas.

Halbertal writes:

“[The] oral transmission is not the organized, systematic transmission of Torah secrets... it was also done through hints, and a little at a time. The student received the chapter headings and his masters examined how he developed and understood them on his own; only when he was found worthy did they expand the range of hints and transmit additional chapter headings, and so on. This method of transmission provides the masters with long-term control over the learning process, and enables the process to be halted at various points.”

MYSTICAL ELITISM:

Halbertal elaborates on the difficult conditions imposed on one who wanted to become a part of the oral mystical transmission:

“The transmission through hinting, which is gradually amplified in accordance with the student's own progress, reflects the circular nature of the condition...

The circular conditions of entry are the profoundest expression of the elitism of the esoteric. One may not join the esoteric circle, as it is based on a tautology—whoever knows the secret is worthy of receiving it. Esotericism thus entails a strong sense of privacy: 'only those who already understand me can understand me'.”

THE ABILITY TO KEEP SECRETS:

The would-be initiate into the world of the oral tradition of mysticism had to agree to keep his knowledge secret. Shem Tov Ibn Gaon describes this commitment as follows:

"When they transmitted (this knowledge) to me, they did so on condition that I would not transmit it to others except under three conditions, to any one who comes to receive the matters of the initiates: the first is that he be a Talmudic scholar, the second that he be forty years old or more, and the third that he be pious and humble in spirit."

THE POLITICS AND POWER-STRUGGLES OF THE ORAL MYSTICAL TRADITION:

Halbertal is quick to point out the human reality that is always present and the tendency for a power-struggle even (or particularly) within the mystical world:

“An additional restriction mentioned by Shem Tov — ‘that he be a Talmudic scholar’— was designed to create a situation in which the realm of closed knowledge would remain the sole property of the Torah scholars.

This restriction had institutional and social significance that far surpassed the question of the student's aptitude for receiving Torah secrets. Esoteric teachings might pose a threat to authority structures and halakhic frameworks, because they present themselves as the inner meaning of religion.

The attempt to restrict the Kabbalah to traditions transmitted amongst Torah scholars is a means of preventing its becoming a body of knowledge and authority that could compete with the halakhic world...

The rabbinical elite attempts to keep the esoteric tradition within its own domain, so that it will not become a competing institution of authority and inspiration.”

This may be another reason why the mystics of the oral tradition were not happy with the emergence of the new literary body of written Kabbalistic literature.

CONCLUSION:

History has shown that the future dominant school of Kabbalah was to emerge not from the mystics of the oral tradition but from the mystics of the new written school which included the Zohar.

In this sense, Halbertal concludes:

“Shem Τον Ibn Gaon presents us with a polemical picture, full and rare, of an esoteric tradition that has lost its power.”

Back to our original question: who owned the early Kabbalah - those who wrote it or those who orally taught it?

It seems that initially, it was the elitist mystics of the school of oral mystical tradition who owned the Kabbalah. But after the Zohar was published in 1280, the mystical tradition was democratized and opened up for anyone who knew how to read it. 

The new mystical writers now owned Kabbalah and the older oral school might have felt that the chain they believed went back to Sinai had been broken. They may also have lamented their loss of control over the mystical literature which now could easily fall into the hands of Kabbalists who could create an opposing stream to the Halachists.

ADDITIONAL READING:

[For an allied topic, see: Emek haMelech – The Battle for the Soul of the Ari Zal.]

[For more on the Kabbalistic notion of control over the teachings, see: Why Were the Teachings of Chasidei Ashkenaz so Elusive?]

[For more on the Shiur Komah, see: The Notion the G-d has a Body.]

[For more on who wrote the Zohar, see Mysteries behind the Origins of the Zohar.]

APPENDIX:

Notes on the picture.

Translation of the title page of Likutim by Rav Hai Gaon (Warsaw 1798 – First Edition Printed by the Magid of Koznitz) which included other works:

[Interesting and relevant names and ideas have been highlighted for further consideration:]

Likutim by Rabbi Hai Gaon, Kabbalistic matters and prayers, "Explanations on the 42 Letter Name, deep secrets, new and very wonderful things", with additional Kabbalistic compilations: Sha'ar HaShamayim by Rabbi Yosef Giktilia, Likutei Shem Tov, Ma'amar Ploni Almoni, on the 10 Sefirot and Names. Tefillat R' Ya'akov Yasgova [of Strzegowo], Sefer Ha'Iyun L'Rav Chamai Gaon, "Secrets by the Kabbalist Chacham Yosef Giktilia" on the mitzvoth, and "Booklet by Rabbi S.T. from the Rashba" explanations of Torah secrets by the Ramban. [Warsaw, 1798]. First edition.

Printed by the Magid Rabbi Yisrael of Koznitz(1737–1814), from manuscripts hidden in his possession, edited by his disciple and personal scribe Rabbi Gavriel of Warsaw. With the approbation of the Magid of Koznitz printed on the verso of the title page. He writes that the manuscript and its printing were performed by his instructions and that Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdychiv also agreed to print the book, "And with the permission of… Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Av Beit Din of Berdychiv".

---

[1] At the time of the publication of the Zohar there were some other written mystical works, such as the Sefer haBahir, Sefer Yetzirah and Shiur Komah. However, around the 13^th-century, mystical writing began to proliferate.

[2]Moshe Halbertal, From Oral Tradition to Literary Canon: Shem Tov Ibn Gaon and the Critique of Kabbalistic Literature.

[3] Parenthesis mine.

[4] MS Rome Angelica 1/145, p. 2b.

[5] Moshe Idel, "Nahmanides: Kabbalah, Halakha and Spiritual Leadership."

[6] Perush Haramban, I, pp . 7-8; Chavel, I, pp . 15-16.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 100b

[9] The notion that G-d’s emanation can be broken down into ten essential energies or attributes so as to achieve various spiritual and physical outcomes.

[10] It is interesting and telling that the definition of ‘pseudoepigrapha’ is “spurious or pseudonymous writings, especially Jewish writings.”

[11] Later, Halbertal refers to “the enigmatic image of Rabbi Hamai.” (Italics mine)

According to Jellinek Rabbi Chamai was from the school of R. Isaac the Blind. (See: Jellinek, Auswahl Kabbalistischer Mystik, pp. 8 et seq.) 

However. according to Shadal’s Vikuach: “I say that Rav Chamai did not exist and was never created, and no Sage whose name was such is found amongst the Geonim nor amongst the Rabbanan Savorai, and not even amongst the Sages of the Talmud. And I say that Rav Paltoi Gaon died 100 years before Rav Hai Gaon was born. And therefore I say that one should not rely much upon the testimony of the sages of kabbalah, for they are established liars.”

[12] Badei haAron, p. 27.

[13] Badei haAron, pp. 25-26.

[14] Parenthesis mine.

[15] Badei haAron, ibid.

[16] Badei haAron, p. 29.

[17] Badei haAron, p. 32.

[18] Such as Nachmanides’ commentary on the Book of Job and his commentary on Sefer Yetzirah.

[19] Badei haAron, p. 29.

274) WHY IS MASADA ABSENT FROM HALACHIC DISCUSSION?

INTRODUCTION:

Yosef ben Matityahu haCohen, or the Flavius Josephus[1] (38-100 CE), the Roman-Jewish historian born to a priestly father and a mother of royal Hasmonean lineage, is the only source for the story of Masada.

According to his account, after three years of living under siege, 960 Jews on top of the mountain of Masada committed mass suicide rather than submit to the inevitable horrors of the Roman victors.

For reasons that we are about to investigate, the heroic story of Masada is totally absent from any Halachic discussion or even reference by the Talmudic sages.

Why is this so? Many other historical events are mentioned in passing by the sages of the Talmud but the events of Masada in 73 CE, which would have placed it around the middle of the Mishnaic Period (0-200 CE), is conspicuously ignored.

Is it because the rabbis believed that the events never actually took place and that Masada is a historical fiction - or is there another reason?

For this article, I have again drawn extensively from the research of Rabbi Dr Amir Mashiach who teaches Jewish philosophy at Ariel University and at the Institute for Advanced Torah Studies at Bar-Ilan University.[2]

BACKGROUND:

During the first and second centuries CE there were three main Jewish revolutions directed against the Romans:

1. THE GREAT REVOLT:

The first uprising is known as the Great Revolt and took place between 66-73 CE. The Romans ruthlessly quelled that revolution and many Jews were killed. During the peak of the revolt, the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.

2. THE UPRISING OF THE DIASPORA:

Forty-two years later a second rebellion broke out which became known as the Uprising of the Diaspora (Mered haGaliyot) or the Kitos War of 115-117 CE. The Jews took advantage of the fact that most of the Roman armies were busy fighting another war at that time.[3] The Jews living in Cyrenaica (present-day Libya), Cyprus and Egypt attacked their local Roman garrisons and slaughtered them. This rebellion was eventually put down by Roman reinforcements under Lusius Quietus (Kitos). The Jewish community of Alexandria, the most prosperous of Diaspora communities, was utterly destroyed. This uprising was unusual as it took place outside of the borders of the Holy Land.

3. BAR COCHBA REVOLT:

Fifteen years after the Kitos War the Bar Cochba Revolt began. It took occurred between 132-135 CE. At first, it was successful and the Province of Judea achieved independence. But that glory did not last long before this revolution was also ruthlessly suppressed. The Romans clearly had had enough of seventy-odd years of Jewish rebellion and they butchered the Jews into humiliating submission. As a result of the violent Roman suppression of the Bar Cochba Revolt, only a small Jewish presence remained in Palestine.

MASADA 73 CE:

As mentioned, the events surrounding Masada took place in 73 CE during the first rebellion, the Great Revolt.

The Jewish rebels atop the natural mountain fortress of Masada who had been holding out against the Roman armies after a long and heroic struggle, were eventually about to be defeated. The Rebel leader, Eleazar ben Yair called upon his people to murder their own families and then finally commit suicide rather than be taken captive - as they all knew just what horrors awaited them.

Josephus records the tragic events as follows:

“They embraced their wives with great love and pressed their children to their hearts, kissing them for the last time with tears in their eyes, at the same time completing their design . . . and they all slaughtered their families . . . .

Thereupon they chose by lot ten of their number who would slaughter them all. And each one stretched out on the ground next to his killed wife and children, enfolding them in his arms and willingly stretching out his neck for the slaughter at the hands of the ten men who fulfilled this awful deed . . . .

So did they all die with faith.”[4]

WHO WERE THESE JEWISH REBELS?

According to some, the Jews at Masada were motivated by the Sikariyim (or Sicarii). They were a group of Jewish Zealots who were vehemently opposed to Roman domination of the Holy land and vowed to defend their land to the death. They were called Sikariyim because they carried sicae[5] or small daggers concealed in their cloaks. Theologically, they subscribed to the notion of absolute Divine Providence and therefore believed that they were on that mountain for a reason – and that reason was to die rather than be taken captive by the Romans.[6]

GAMLA 67 CE:

Josephus records[7] that Masada was not the only time that Jews committed mass suicide rather than surrender to the enemy. Just six years earlier, a similar event took place at Gamla. Gamla had a Jewish community of nine thousand Jews. The Romans attacked the town and killed four thousand Jewish inhabitants and the remaining five thousand chose to commit suicide by jumping off a high cliff.

YODFAT:

Furthermore, Josephus also records another case of suicide which he witnessed taking place at Yodfat.[8] Apparently, that was when Josephus, then also a Rebel leader, was captured by the Romans.

WHY WERE THESE CASES IGNORED BY THE RABBIS?

The question begs as to why all these cases of mass suicide were ignored by the rabbis? Again, these catastrophic events all took place during the Mishnaic Period and the sages would have been well aware of them.

MASADA - MYTH OR FACT?

It should be pointed out that some scholars refute the historicity of Masada and consider it to be a myth.

Professor Nachman Ben-Yehuda[9], for example, argues that Josephus’ account is inaccurate. He maintains that the siege only lasted a few months and not three years. His big question is where are the graves and the bodies?

According to archaeologist Yigael Yadin, a Roman military garrison remained in Masada for forty years after the Masada incident and they either burned the bodies or threw them down the mountain and they succumbed to the ravishes of heat, wild animals and time.

Another archaeologist, Zeev Meshel says:

“The fighting for Jerusalem in the course of the Great Revolt saw the death of tens of thousands of people. This took place three years prior to Masada, and there, too, the graves are missing. During the Bar Kokhba Rebellion, there were tens of thousands dead, but in connection with that, too, not a single skeleton was found. The Romans buried the dead, or else burned them.”

Because there is some debate as to whether the Masada event occurred as recorded by Josephus, it is possible that the reason why the rabbinic sages of the Talmud never dealt with Masada was because they believed that the story was a myth.

On the other hand, if we take the Masada story to be true, then we need to find out just why the sages refused to mention it.

THE STANDARD ANSWER:

The standard answer that is commonly given to our question as to why Masada, Gamla and Yodfat are absent from rabbinic literature is not that the sages believed that the events did not occur, but rather that they did not want to elevate suicide to a heroic Halachic status.

Accordingly, it is for this reason that no mention is made of Masada in neither the Talmud nor the many Midrashic sources nor any other of the vast Halachic and Aggadic literature spanning the next two thousand years!

ANOTHER ANSWER:

But there is another answer - probably a more accurate answer.

According to Dr Mashiach:

“It is evident from various rabbinic sources that in the wake of these bloody developments, the sages of the Talmud, who next seized the scepter of Jewish leadership, made a strategic choice in favor of changing the Jewish ethos from an offensive to a defensive one. They began to preach passivity and submission by pouring an interpretive meaning into various basic concepts, such as freedom, heroic achievement, and war...

The sages of the Mishnah experienced personally the oppression of the three rebellions; therefore it is understandable why they did it. For the Amoraim [the rabbis of the Gemara or Talmud 200 -500 CE][10], it is also understandable, since they lived under a foreign regime and did not wish to cause additional political turmoil.”

Interestingly, Dr Mashiach does point out that:

“True enough, some of the sages supported the rebellions, such as R. Aqiba or the sages belonging to the School of Shammai...but I am referring to the general mood prevalent in the texts of the Talmud and Midrash.”

[For the notion that R. Akiva even had an army, see here.]

A NEW RABBINIC ETHOS DEVELOPS IN BABYLONIA:

As a result of all the turmoil and three failed uprisings during the first century CE, the general ethos of rabbinic literature began to radically change to an overriding attitude of passivity. And, very importantly (although Dr Mashiach does not specifically touch on this issue here) as a result of many Jews now living in Babylonia where the Babylonian Talmud was formulated, they did not want the Babylonian authorities to view them as political activists. For this reason, the rabbis intentionally toned down their rhetoric.

The Babylonians were worried that the Jews might rise against them as they had against the Romans. This was especially the case since the Jews resided predominately in an area closer to Palestine, and the Babylonians feared that should the Romans attack Babylonia, the Babylonian Jews might side with their fellow Palestinian Jews.

As a consequence of a well-orchestrated campaign to emphasize a peaceful and passive approach, the Jews were able to live independently and happily in Babylonia for a long period of time. They were treated well by the Babylonian authorities who were happy with the arrangement, encouraged it,  and wished to perpetuate the status quo. So much so that eventually the Babylonian Talmud was able to even dominate the Palestinian Talmud. [See link on Revenge of Talmud Yerushalmi, later.]

HOW RABBINIC TERMS AND DEFINITIONS BEGIN TO CHANGE AFTER THE BAR COCHBA DEFEAT:

1. ‘FREEDOM’:

In the past, the term ‘freedom’ meant just that. Freedom meant living free from the mastery of another nation. Dr Mashiach refers to this as ‘legal freedom’:

“That is, a free person was one who had no master, ruler, or king. Legal freedom was the principal factor in stirring Jewish sentiment and in leading to Jewish uprisings in the various empires.”

However, now in Babylonia in a post-Bar Cochba world:

 “The sages of the Talmud injected a different meaning into the familiar concept [of freedom][11]...‘For there can be no free person except for him who engages in the study of Torah.’[12] No more need to revolt or to cast off the yoke of the enslaving oppressor: from now on, regardless of where he may be spatially located at any given moment, the Jew who studies Torah is thereby—and thereby alone—transformed into a free man.”

2. ‘MIGHT’:

The very important definition of ‘might’ was similarly changed to a more passive and submissive reading. In Biblical times - and even in the Babylonian sages' living memory from their own first-century Jewish history - ‘might’ meant physical and military force and power.

“But in the texts of the Talmud and Midrash, physical militaristic prowess turned into ability of a psychological-cognitive type: ‘Who is mighty? He who overcomes his inclination.’[13] No longer might in the heat of battle, might of a bodily kind in facing the enemy, but rather the might of a person coping with himself in the face of the prodding by his own inclination, which is his real enemy.

3. ‘WAR’:

As an immediate consequence of the new conceptual content associated with the notion of might, we see the transformation taking place in the notion of war....henceforth, in Talmudic literature, the concept of war takes also the meaning of ‘the war [for the sake] of Torah,’[14] that is to say, fighting it out in the house of Torah study concerning the import of Halakhic rulings, reasonable assumptions, or turning to the Heavens in prayer.[15]”

4. SUBMISSION:

Besides re-defining notions of war, power and freedom, the Babylonian sages also emphasized submission:

“[They] preached submission and maintaining a low posture: no longer a Jew upholding his dignity, but one who keeps his head down. ‘The sages said: If evildoers come upon one, he should nod to them with his head.’[16] Yet another piece of advice: ‘One should always be pliable as a reed, not hard as a cedar.’[17] The message is the same: a Jew should know how to bow his head, swallowing his self-respect, and becoming similar to a reed: ‘just as a reed that all the winds come and blow at, and it sways to and fro with them...’”

4. NO MORE REVOLUTIONS:

The Babylonian Talmudic sages went even further and declared that G-d Himself had indeed forbidden rebellion against the nations of the world!

Dr Mashiach writes:

“The sages of the Talmud endorsed their preached message of passivity and submission with a pungent oath in which God makes His people pledge ‘not to rise up in rebellion against the nations of the world,’ an oath accompanied by a severe threat: ‘Said the Holy One, Blessed be He, If you abide by the oath, well and good, and if not, I will make your flesh permissible for all like the flesh of the deer and the hinds of the field.’[18]

In this way, God in His Glory Himself is ‘drafted’ by the sages of the Talmud in order to relieve of content any emotion bound up with the offensive ethos, replacing it with a defensive ethos instead.”

RABBINIC SILENCE ON MASADA, BUT NOT ON SUICIDE:

The sages dealt with every topic imaginable and it seems, therefore, very unusual for them to have been silent on a matter such as Masada. As you will recall from earlier, the standard answer is that they did not want to elevate suicide to a Halachic norm or value.

However, the fact is that the sages had no problem with suicide under certain conditions. Essentially those conditions involved suicide on religious grounds only – but not on political or nationalistic grounds.

There are a number of cases where the Talmud gives its full approval of suicide on religious grounds. Some examples follow:

Case 1:

“Four hundred boys and girls were taken captive for a disgraceful purpose. They sensed what was in store for them and said: If we were to drown in the sea, would we reach life in the world to come? The oldest among them expounded to them . . . 

[W]hen the young girls heard this, they all leapt and fell into the sea. The boys...too, leapt into the sea.

And of them does Scripture say, ‘For on Your account have we been driven toward death all day long, being considered as sheep for the slaughter’ (Psalms 44:23).”[19]

 Not only was the act of suicide sanctioned by the Talmud but a verse from Psalms is even brought as a support for this view.

Case 2:

Then there is the case of Hannah and her seven sons who are enticed to worship idols. The sons refuse and are executed one after the other.

 “[Hannah then] ascended the rooftop, fell, and died. A heavenly voice issued forth, saying, ‘The mother of sons rejoices’[Psalms 113:9].”[20]

Again, an act of suicide for religious and theological reasons is endorsed and even lauded by the sages, who bring another verse from Psalms as a support.

Case 3:

Rav Kahana sold baskets of woven palm leaves to women. Once he was seduced by a certain noblewoman. He told her to wait while he went to adorn himself. Meanwhile, he obviously felt guilty and he climbed on top of his roof and jumped off. The Talmud says that Elijah the Prophet had to come and save him from hitting the ground. Rav Kahana told Elijah that this was all as a result of him being so poor that he had to engage in a trade that brought him in contact with women. Elijah, says the Talmud, gave Rav Kahana a basket full of dinars to spare him from having to engage in such work in the future. [21]

This act of attempted suicide is acceptable because it too was for religious reasons.

Again, the sages of the Talmud acknowledge and recognize suicide only on theological grounds. But suicide based on ideological or nationalistic tendencies do not even get a mention. They did not want to create an ethos of rebellion or political defiance and they were not prepared to endorse political or nationalistic suicide under any circumstances whatsoever.

As Dr Mashiach puts it:

“This is an ethos destined to preserve the Jewish People in the diaspora, preventing the fostering of destructive notions of rebellion.”

MASADA SUDDENLY COMES ALIVE AFTER TWO THOUSAND YEARS:

After being neglected for two thousand years, the silence was finally broken in 1960 by soon to be Chief Rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren. At the time he was the Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defence Forces.

He published an article entitled “The Heroism of Masada in Light of the Primary Sources,”[22] and it set in motion a huge Halachic debate amongst certain rabbis regarding the role of suicide in combat. 

R. Goren begins his discourse with the question:

“The heroic and daring conduct of the fighters at Masada, who, upon seeing the imminent outcome of the war and the visionary forecast of destruction coming upon them, resolved to fall each by the hand of his fellow as free men rather than submit to enslavement by the enemy, leads to a grave Halakhic problem: was their conduct in accord with the Halakhah or not?”

KING SAUL AS HALACHIC PRECEDENT:

R. Goren uses the story of King Saul as the basis for his position on suicide in combat. Saul and his army were pursued by the Philistines. Many of them fell at Mount Gilboa. The enemy now had their sights on Saul and had already killed three of his sons. Eventually, they closed in on Saul and wounded him with arrows. He called on his armour-bearer and commanded him to kill him, lest the enemy abuse him. The armour-bearer refused and Saul took his own sword and fell on it. The Philistines found him and cut off his head and fastened his body to a wall.

R. Goren concluded that Saul’s act was in accordance with Halacha and that all the rabbinic sources, beginning with the Talmud and continuing with the post-Talmudic Tosafists, permit suicide in the face of inevitable and agonizing suffering.[23]

Similarly, at Masada, the men knew that they would be subjected to humiliating deaths and the women knew they would be forced into prostitution. Suicide was therefore justified by Halacha.

R. Goren writes unequivocally:

 “[A]ccording to the Halakhah, they were commanded to die by their own hand.”

He continues to suggest practical imperatives for contemporary soldiers who know they will face torture or be forced to divulge military secrets:

“[I]t is even then permissible to die by one’s own hand rather than fall into the enemy’s hands, similar to what happened to King Saul and the people of Masada . . . . In all of the above cases, it is apparent that it is best to die by one’s own hand rather than command another Jew to kill one, but from the actions of the people of Masada and the case of King Saul and his armor bearer it becomes clear that there is no difference in this respect, and it is also permissible to ask others to kill one.”

DISSENTING VIEWS:

R. Goren ignited a huge Halachic debate on suicide in combat but not everyone agreed with him. Chief among the dissenting views is that of R. Moshe Tzvi Neriah. He studied Eleazar ben Yair’s last speech where, according to the rebel leader, anytime a Jew is subjected to foreign rule, one is obligated to take one’s life. R Neriah argues that this means that the entire nation of Israel should have committed suicide rather than subject themselves to Roman rule. This, obviously is an untenable position.

For this reason, he takes exception to R. Goren’s interpretation. He writes that the events at Masada which were carried out by the rebels were contrary to Halacha:

 “This is a mistaken and dangerous Halakhic ruling that should be warded off, for the Giver of the Torah has given us life.”

Notwithstanding the dissenting Halachic opinions, the Masada episode had finally arrived in rabbinical literature.

UNCOMMON SOURCES FOR R. GOREN’S POSITION:

R. Goren was not afraid to look outside of the Talmud for his sources on military matters because since the Bar Kochba Revolt there had been no Jewish army[24] and therefore the Talmud did not deal with such affairs. He boldly turned to works that are not usually source material for rabbinic scholars.

R. Goren writes that he consulted:

“[T]he Apocrypha [the vast body of ancient writings that were not officially canonized as part of the Tanach][25] dealing with wars of the Jews and the military of the Second Temple period, such as the Books of the Maccabees and the books of Joseph son of Matthias the Priest, known as Josephus Flavius—all these have the ability to instill in us the splendor of old through the ways of fighting and the strength, the organization, the undertakings, the problems, and the practices of Israel’s army in ancient times...”[26]

R. Goren had no difficulty in citing those unusual sources because he believed he knew the reason why the Talmud excluded the Masada story. It was because the Masada events spoke to suicide for ideological and nationalistic reasons. The Talmud only accepted it for religious and theological reasons. And the reason why they differentiated between the two was to create an exilic culture of Jewish passivity and political submission.

THE THUNDERING SILENCE CONTINUES:

But one group of rabbis was conspicuously absent from the 20^th-century debate spearheaded by R. Goren.

Dr Mashiach explains who these rabbis were:

“Rabbis associated with the ultraOrthodox, who maintain...the defensive ethos in the spirit of the Talmudic sages, were not privy to the discussion. Delving into the issue of suicide for ideological-national reasons was alien to them, just as Flavius or the rebels of Masada had been to the Talmudic sages earlier.”

Thus - in some circles - the two thousand year resounding silence on Masada continues to perpetuate itself. And for the same reasons: to maintain the ethos of submission and passivity.

[For more on this matter see: How Reality on the ground Informs Perceptions of Heaven.]

[For more on how the Babylonian Talmud rose in prominence over the Palestinian Talmud, see Revenge of the Talmud Yerushalmi.]

---

[1] Sometimes referred to as Josephus Flavius.

[2] Amir Mashiach, The Ethos of Masada in Halakhic Literature.

[3] Trajan’s Parthian War on the eastern border of the Roman Empire.

[4] Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, book 7, chap. 9

[5] Sica in the singular.

[6] Sidney Hoenig, “Historic Masada and the Halakha,” in Tradition 13, 2 (1972), pp. 100–115.

[7]  Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, book 4, chap. 1.

[8] Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, book 3, chap. 8.

[9] See Nachman Ben-Yehuda, The Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel (Madison, 1995) and idem., Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada (Amherst, 2002). 

[10] Parenthesis mine.

[11] Parenthesis mine.

[12] Avot 6:2,  שֶׁאֵין לְךָ בֶּן חוֹרִין, אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁעוֹסֵק בְּתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה

[13] Avot 4:1

[14] B. Meg. 15b; B. Hag. 14a; B. San. 42a; B. San. 93b.

[15] B. Bava Batra 123a.

[16] B. Yevamot 121a

[17] B. Taanit 20a.

[18] B. Ketuvot 111a.

[19] B. Gittin 57b.

[20] B. Gittin 57b.

[21] B. Kiddushin 40a.

[22] “Gevurat Metzadah le-or ha-Mekorot”, first published in Or haMizrach 1960.

[23] B. Pesachim 53b, and Ketuvot 33b.

[24] However, see The Amazing Story of the Jews of Arabia, and Shabbatai Tzvi in the Newspapers of his Day, and David Alro’i and the Night of the Flight.

[25] Parenthesis mine.

[26] Shlomo Goren, “Tzava u-milchamah le-or ha-halakhah” in Machanayim 87 (5725).