Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakhai, who moved from Jerusalem to Livna and made major changes in religious practice after the Holocaust, is also responsible for the disappearance of the vocal music of the Temple, and the transition of only vocal music to the synagogues, with one exception - the shofar
In the previous chapters I asked to stand on the lines that distinguish the music of the temple, which were the main theme of my discussed work. Along with this music, during the Second Temple period, a music with its own special characteristics developed, although it purified its foundations from the music of the temple, which is the singing in the synagogue.
Synagogue music began its initial steps in the days of the Second Temple, but its main flowering - from the days of the Holocaust onwards - the days of the Mishna and the Talmud. It was then that its special patterns and foundations were established which served as a magnet even for later generations, and in fact to this day.
Let's not forget the basic fact that with the destruction of the house temple music disappeared and its place was taken to one degree or another by synagogue music.
The researchers of Jewish music naturally chose to steer their research ship through the safe and quiet waters of the Second Temple period, while the period of the Mishna and the Talmud was placed in the shade, and the period of transition between the two did not receive the required musical-historical study and research.
In the present chapter, I would like to highlight the following fact: during the period of the Mishna and the Talmud, the weight and importance of singing with the mouth increased over that of musical instruments, and this is contrary to what was customary during the Second Temple period, since in the previous era, playing in the temple occupied the central place, and the destruction of the temple created a kind of barrier, even if temporary, to music The temple, the instrumental. And the first to observe this was none other than Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai, hereafter Rebbez, the president of the Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Second Temple.
In 70 AD, Jerusalem fell and with it the sword of the second temple. The sacrifices stopped and with them the sounds of the temple music. The destruction that was almost complete, i.e. local, political, economic, social and spiritual, contained within it a threat to destroy the foundation of Judaism, not only in Judea but also in the Diaspora, since the Land of Israel in general and the Temple in particular, formed an important center for the extensive Jewish diaspora. And it should be noted, although there is certainly no confirmation of this beyond the stories of the Holocaust, that the pain of the Holocaust was so heavy and extensive that quite a few Jews risked their lives in its wake.
The star of Rivaz was on the way even before the destruction. This sage-leader was a disciple of the elder Hillel, as someone who was among the close associates of the president and was involved in public affairs, was known for teaching and fought for the Torah and its spread. However, it seems appropriate to emphasize another important matter in the personality of this leader that is important to the subject of our discussion. Rivaz was one of the leaders of the Pharisees, and some claim that he had a great influence regarding the change in the fundamental arrangement that took place in the Temple at the end of the Second Temple. And an integral part of this change was embedded in the transformations in the music of the temple, those that led to the flourishing of music and the consolidation of the position of the Levites-poets. Even his connections with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, a member of the family of poets, whose sources tell of his special approach to music. Even Rabbi Razi's proficiency in mathematics, philosophy (Kerbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah), or the "conversation/song of the angels" brings us closer to the assumption that Hela recognized the importance of music even from the Greek/Hellenistic foundations.
- Ribaz's contribution to prayer
Seeing that the fate of Jerusalem was destined to be determined for a tribe or for mercy, the Rabbiaz asked to hand himself over to the Romans who were besieging Jerusalem. Tradition says that in his meeting with Vespasian, the commander of the Roman army, before his death, the Rabbiaz asked him for permission to go to the birch, and in his words: "And I will teach it to my disciples , and I will establish a prayer in it and perform every mitzvah in it" (Avot Darbi Natan 6). In other words, he pleaded with the Roman commander to ease the conditions of his expected arrest and to his liking - to establish, strengthen and forge the Jewish prayer, and the foundation of this is anchored in the liturgy, in the music that had been immersed in it since the days of the Second Temple.
And more than that, many elements of the prayer were related to the very existence of the worship in the temple and with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, a real danger hovered over the very existence of the worship in the synagogue. And the tradition of the days of destruction that reflected the general outcry said: "From the day the Temple was destroyed, the prayer gates were locked... From the day the Temple was destroyed, the iron wall between Israel and their Father in Heaven was broken" (Talmud Babylon 32 p. 2).
However, Sages, in the later generations, found some comfort in prayer despite the destruction. And it seems that between the two sources listed above there has been a certain change. It was during the presidency of Rabbi Gamliel (115-80 AD), when the public's regular prayers were held and arranged. However, the foundations of this rabbi's work began, as mentioned, in the days of Ribaz and on his initiative.
The Rabbis, who saw destruction as a danger even to the very continuity of public prayer, chose to strengthen it and establish it, and as he said about it: "And I established a prayer in it" (in the style of Avot Darbi Nathan VI) as an action whose importance was both above and beyond its time. We should therefore not be surprised that in later sources, the fourth and fifth centuries He compared the worship of the synagogue with the choir that was used in the temple. Even if we question the reliability and veracity of the tradition that told about the conversation that took place between Ribaz and Vespasian, we cannot avoid the conclusion that even if the said conversation had been written down, it would have been anchored and firmly rooted in the landscape of a certain reality. Namely, what did they think of him, of Rivaz, in the generations that came after him, and what importance did they attach to his activity, since it is about the very salvation of prayer and perhaps also about its initial and fundamental organization in the generation of destruction.
- The regulations of Ribaz
The Ribaz leadership made Yavne the center of the centers in the country at that time. And although this did not last long, it did issue important laws and regulations that pertain to our matter will be presented below:
A. blew the shofar
The mishna ruled that "on a Tov day of Rosh Hashanah, which began to fall on Shabbat, there would be blowing (with the shofar) in the Temple but not in the country (outside of the Birch). After the destruction of the Temple, the Rebbe established that there would be blowing in every place where there is a Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin or Tmitzita). Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabbi Z did not establish (the above except for) the Yavneh only. They (the members of the Sanhedrin) said to him: One (in) Yavneh and one (b) in every place where there is a court of law" (from Rosh Hashanah 1:XNUMX). That is, the opinion of the majority followed the Ribaz, which determined and preserved the centrality of Yavneh from later The destruction..
The Babylonian Talmud concluded this episode with a debate that raged between Rivaz and the Bnei Batira and in the end Rivaz won, when the act he performed was a precedent and became a practice, and in fact the center of Yavneh after the destruction, although the very fact that Rivaz went there raises many questions and difficulties, technical, Factuality and practicality.
The Bnei Batira belonged to a privileged family that was held for many years in the days of the Second Temple in respectable rights and positions in the Temple. And it seems that the aforementioned debate was founded on the background of the ancient conflict between the Pharisees, among whom Ribaz was one, and the Sadducees in the last decade of the Second Temple, such that, as mentioned, even included differences regarding the music of the temple.
Ribaz's precedent was of great importance because during the days of the Temple, it was necessary to blow the shofar during the sacrificial work. And Ribaz wanted to fortify and forge various customs despite the fact that the Temple was destroyed. And it should indeed be noted that the blowing of the shofar in the synagogue, during the days of the Second Temple, would purify its power and meaning (as a prayer) in relation to the blowing of the temple. And with the destruction there was a real danger that the shofar's voice would not be silenced. Hence the importance that was embedded in the precedent of Rivaz.
It seems that all the many testimonies that have been shelved and buried in the articles of Sages from the time of Ribaz onward about the Shofar, only strengthen Ribaz's enterprise. That is, an enterprise that folded in raising the horn of this instrument and making it the central accessory in the synagogue's ritualistic rituals. And the example of Ribaz's contribution" 7 It sinks into the Tosfeta, which the Babylonian Talmud connected with the works of Ribaz, and in his language: "The Talmuds blow (the shofar) on Shabbat." Neither the women nor the babies are prevented from fasting on Shabbat, and there is no need to say: On a good day" (Rosh Hashana 3, p. 1).
This regulation, possible and founded, was based on the destruction of the settlements following the great rebellion (73-66 CE) against the background of the fact that there were communities that did not make sure to blow the shofar. However, be that as it may, this regulation that was installed in the spirit of Ribaz's contribution broke a window for raising the horn of this instrument and served as a platform for Sages in the generations after the Holocaust to recognize the importance of the Shofar.
Even the Rabbi's regulation concerning the blowing of the shofar in connection with the sanctification of the month was firmly anchored in the totality of the contributions of this wise man, who was anxious for the existence of customs that if and when "the Temple is built, these things will return to their old times" (Tosefta Rosh Hashanah 3 (XNUMX) XNUMX) .
It seems that Rivaz made an important contribution to the shofar's position, to its respected position in the Jewish worship system. This contribution could be examined from several angles:
A- This vessel was an expression of a special biblical symbolism - the binding of Isaac. And the same test that Yahweh put Abraham through was probably seen in the thinking of the generation as parallel to the difficult test that befell the people in the form of the destruction of the house. And maybe the connection between the binding and the horns of the ram clinging to the thicket?!;
B - This is a natural instrument, the horn of the animal, unlike the stringed musical instruments that were common and used in the temple. And this is where the popularity of the instrument comes from;
3- If the Rebbez had sought to revive the singing instruments of the Levites, his act might have been seen and interpreted as abdication, as an attempt to forget the sanctity of a temple, and furthermore, the singing instruments of the Levites were not manifested except in the entire sacrificial work, and the temple was destroyed and with it the sacrificial work was nullified ;
D - Among the instruments of the temple, the Shofar occupied a secondary and marginal place, which to some extent facilitated its development and becoming the central musical instrument after the destruction.
However, it is worth noting that the shofar, as a trumpet, was not examined in the second temple as an instrument belonging to the pure musical family, in contrast to the violin or the harp for example. It is a tool whose function is to instruct various liturgical actions with its signs. And hence it will be difficult for us to define Ribaz's contribution in this matter as a pure musical contribution. However, even so, we are not prevented from assuming, in a general teaching, that it is indeed a specific musical contribution, one that was properly integrated with the diverse liturgical campaign of the synagogue.
B) booth
When the temple was erected, the priests would carry, after the dawn incense, their blessing in front of the people gathered in the courtyards of the temple. This blessing of the priests was said in a pleasant manner and this practice spread even outside the temple during the Second Temple period.
This blessing was recited by the priests on top of a pulpit, while they were barefoot. The Rabbi's regulation that forbade the priests to go up to the pulpit (in the synagogue) in their sandals. This is probably based on the fact that after the destruction the priests neglected this duty. . And this, in order to give the local worship common in Israel a special meaning. Moreover, this regulation of his, which was steeped in an important musical symbol, i.e. - the motivated blessing, sat well with the rest of his instructions that touched on the music of the synagogue after the destruction of the house.
c) The joy of the heart
Even in the instruction of the Rabbis, that the lolav should be taken for seven days, as was customary in the temple during the days of the Second Temple, there is a desire to fill the void created in public religious life with the destruction of the Temple.
Furthermore, the taking of the lolav was associated with "Hillel" and the public response. And the Jerusalem Talmud emphasized that behind the Ribaz regulation was the motif of bringing joy to the people of Israel, and singing is an inseparable part of the joy, as one of the late sages testified to the Ribaz, from the joy of taking the Lulav.
It is possible that in this rule the Rabbis intended to breathe a little spirit of joy, or encouragement, against the sadness and sorrow that fell upon the people of Israel in the generation of destruction. What's more, when it was founded on a practice that prevailed in the days of the Second Temple, as one of the elements that made up the mitzvot of the Sukkot holiday - the practice of taking The love that involved singing. And the Rabbi in his regulation invested more and more in the music, the singing, in the synagogue, as a kind of mirror and in accordance with the practice that prevailed at the time in the second temple.
d) Atonement
In his desire to encourage the bruised and crushed spirit of his contemporaries, and especially those who mourned the destruction of the house, Ribaz emphasized to them that just as the sacrifices were intended to atone for wrongdoing, so was the prayer from now on. Rhetorical: "And to atone for the children of Israel, this is the song. Where did the song come to be called atonement?..." (Talmud Yerushalmi Pesachim chapter 4.3, p. 3), does not come but to describe the efforts of the Holocaust generation to make it clear to the crowd that the abolition of the sacrifices did not completely condemn The possibility of atonement in other ways, the most important of which is prayer, and the basis of prayer - in poetry.
In conclusion, it was said that Ribaz made a considerable contribution, directly or indirectly, to raising the horn of the shofar as part of Jewish worship in the synagogue. Furthermore, his regulations and leadership regarding Jewish prayer caused, to a certain extent, firstly, its salvation after the destruction; secondly, to strengthen its centrality in the Jewish worship system in the synagogue. Indeed, thanks to his works and the works of his friends and students, and thanks to the various schools of thought that prevailed in the generations after him, we witness the traditions that filled their mouths with words of praise about poetry in the synagogue, and its religious-public power, to the point of seeing it in the worship itself. And it is interesting to note that a similar process took place In relation to the music of the Temple from the beginning of the Second Temple to the end of the Temple, as I tried to emphasize in the previous chapters.
- Looking back and forward
It seems that Ribaz's enterprise in the most comprehensive teaching is fundamentally close to the enterprise of Ezra and Nehemiah. In both cases Yehuda lost its political status. In both cases the society knew a settlement, economic and social collapse and in both cases the leaders realized that it was necessary to establish the new establishment in order to save the rest of the exodus , and this is about the pillars of the religion: Ezra and Nehemiah - in the form of the foundation of Jewish worship and its center in Jerusalem, in the Temple and Ribaz - in the way of strengthening the local worship in the synagogue as a symbol, as Aorim and Thummim for every site in the country. And it was so in terms of producing the best from the little, since Ezra and Nehemiah were allowed to define themselves only in Jerusalem and its surroundings, while the Rivaz - in Yavneh. All three, therefore, under the necessity of the circumstances, knew how to get the most out of the little and all three understood the enormous power inherent in music, the temple and the syngogic .
The same connecting link between the two aforementioned periods is similar, due to the necessity of the circumstances and the nature of things, it was also composed of musical layers and foundations, and folded, to the best of my knowledge and observation, in one of the main questions that arose from the words of the Sages, that is - "the main part of poetry", was it "in the mouth" " or "in a vessel" (Talmud Babli Sukkah, n. p. 2)?!
The Talmud decided decisively: "Ala Dcholi Alma, the main thing is singing in the mouth" (ibid., p. 1). The remains of the debate surrounding this parasha can and are found in significant formulaic changes. That is, in several sources we find that "priests and Levites and Israel and song hinder the sacrifice" ( Talmud Yerushalmi Pesachim chapter 4 3 p. c) while in others the wording under "song" was "song instruments".
Most of the halakhot that touched on the music of the Second Temple were more concerned with the musical instruments than with the vocal singing, and even especially praised the instrumental skill of the Levites-poets. The place of vocal music in the temple was undoubtedly respectable, but the general aura was more prominent and more sublime.
The "Levi cadets" who were not in the ranks of the Levites-the poets were associated with singing - in the mouth. "To give a pleasant taste" as one of the sources says (from the Year of Arakhin 6:XNUMX), but there was, without question, a ban on harps and violins, which, as we know, was in the possession of a craft - both art and craft, one that was reserved, in terms of taboo to the Levites.
On the other hand, from the destruction section (73 CE) onwards, one fact stood out from the sages: "The main thing is singing - in the mouth". the public and more.
Did reconciliation with the existing situation work here - the destruction of the temple and with it the decline of temple music, or was there a desire to distinguish the period of the Mishna and the Talmud from its predecessor - the era of the Second Temple?! And maybe there was some kind of awe to embrace the universal music, the temple something, the synagogue in general? One way or another, vocal music inherited the pre-eminent position of overall music, during the time of the Holocaust and beyond, and the RIBZ certainly had something to contribute regarding this issue.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
