Dr. Yehiam Sorek
Direct link to this page: https://www.hayadan.org.il/soreq100605.html
Hard to believe, but a little less than two thousand years ago, a kind of putsch was carried out against the president of the Sanhedrin, Raban Gamaliel, when behind this dramatic move was a group of sages on the one hand and several tons of ideology on the other.
Rabbi Gamliel? Well, during the period of Roman rule in Judea, there was an interesting and complex governing framework among the Jewish community called the Sanhedrin, as a sort of epithet for a parallel institution in the Greek-Hellenistic city of Polis called "Sindarion". This is a body whose powers are judicial, executive and legislative, and which was sometimes headed by one person or a small team - a high priest and a "secular"-aristocratic representative. His powers were not clearly defined, and at least it is not known to us today, and their scope and weight resulted, one way or another, from the nature of the relationship with the Roman government on the one hand and as derived from the historical circumstances on the other.
Many years before the outbreak of the Great Revolt in the Romans and the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin was led by one family, the Gamaliel family, with its members, Rabbi Gamaliel and his son Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, being the last of the Jewish leadership on the eve of the destruction. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, the Pharisee leader during the rebellion in Jerusalem, oscillated between supporting the rebels and accepting the Roman occupation, and ended up, as it turns out, being dragged, "somewhat" forcibly, into the arms of the rebels.
After the end of the fighting and the end of the rebellion, the Romans searched and searched for the traces of the successor-Hinuka - Rabbi Gamaliel, in order to monitor the movements of his immediate environment and perhaps even hold him as a hostage, as a security measure against the danger of the renewal of the rebellion.
At the same time, the Romans are growing (or confirming the growth in retrospect) an alternative leadership to the traditional presidential family of Rabbi Gamaliel in the form of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai, when the story of his dramatic departure from Jerusalem (feigning to be dead, meeting with the Roman candidate for the emperorship, prophesying that the above will be dissolved and indeed this is what happened, in exactly the same way The mythological story of Joseph's departure from the siege ring around Yodaphat, and especially the prophecy of Ben-Mathathiu, its fulfillment and the corresponding Roman retribution. See my list on the "Hidan" website in relation to Yodaphat) turns out to be a cover-up story and a confession. The Romans needed a leader like him in order to create the atmosphere of industrial peace in Judah, to enable the general restoration of Judah and to control it.
Over time, probably during the reign of Vespasian's successor, aka Nerva Nerva), Rabbi Gamliel returned to lead the public in Judah, as an adult, as is accepted to a certain extent, as someone who is not portrayed as a rebel and took the presidential crown and thereby the leadership of the Sanhedrin.
Rabbi Gamaliel, perhaps due to his character, perhaps due to the euphoria of supporting the emperor, perhaps due to consideration and personal vindictiveness in the leadership that preceded him, and perhaps some kind of combination between all of these, behaved with a high hand and an ultra-assertive arm in his flock, including the members of the Sanhedrin.
As long as the presidency ruled in Judea during the establishment and existence of the Temple in Jerusalem, the members of the Sanhedrin were generally careful not to rebel against the president and his dynasty, except for the destruction of the house, the move to the new center in Yavneh, the interim period in which Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai led the autonomous ruling council and especially the hatotar of Rabbi Gamaliel (as he belonged to a family where the stain of rebellion stuck), all of these greatly weakened the presidential authority and created a convenient infrastructure for an attempt at rebellion against it.
A group of sages, members of the Sanhedrin, were simply "broken" by Rabbi Gamliel's leadership exercises, and when regulations and procedures dealing with the essential complexity of majority-minority relations in the condemned institution were discussed in the Sanhedrin, they unleashed the miracle of rebellion, their own velvet revolution.
We will go back and emphasize the following point again: until the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin drew most of its power from its gathering in Jerusalem, near the Temple (in the Gazit Chamber), and from the fact that its leaders and leaders were directly or indirectly connected to the Temple, and from this the leadership of the Sanhedrin exercised extreme authority over all members. After the destruction of the house, the picture changes almost from end to end: the relocation of the Sanhedrin center outside of Jerusalem largely eroded the sanctity of the leadership and raised from it extra-temple, secular elements, who with authority and authority increased power and publicity and "threatened" the sanctity of the presidency. Here is the background for the Velvet Revolution.
In relation to this, we will not stop because the Sanhedrin discussed instructions and regulations concerning the position of the individual and the position of the many. The debates in the Sanhedrin were sometimes stormy and lively, and naturally there were differences of opinion, and sometimes very principled and of crucial importance, between the members of the house. Therefore, various regulations, in this case technical and procedural, were discussed in the Sanhedrin, which were intended to regulate the Shekala-Vatria and especially the way to formulate decisions and draft laws and regulations. The decision-making process in this institution was conducted like a democratic court: the decision was made according to the majority of the participants, and in each case the opinion of the individual, the opinion of the minority, was also recorded, and in the subtext (evidences XNUMX, XNUMX): "And why are the words of the individual among the majority recorded? That if a court sees the words of the individual and trusts him, no court can cancel the words of his fellow court until he is greater than him in wisdom and number." The Mishna found a fundamental need, under the special circumstances of "wisdom" (the size of the members) and "minyan" (the number of members), to strengthen on the one hand the democratic principle of "leaning from the many", and on the other hand the importance of the position of the individual, of the opinion of the minority. The Tosefta, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, is worded in this context as follows: "The words of the individual were not mentioned among the Rabbis, except that it would take an hour for them and they would rely on them" (Tosefta Aduyot, XNUMX, XNUMX). In other words, the position of the individual should not be erased or dissolved, and when it makes sense it will be brought back up again.
As mentioned, these regulations, which on the one hand strengthen the democratic process, and on the other hand give importance and respect to the individual, are clarified against the background of the president's ambition to impose his will and opinions on the general, as he relies on his presidential power and the backing given to him by the Roman government, and in light of quite a few testimonies scattered throughout the literature of the Prophet He had a lust for power, dominance and honor.
The opposition against him was led, it seems, by Rabbi Yehoshua ben-Hananya, and stemmed from mainly ideological and essential reasons and probably also personal ones. The first dispute between the two appears in the Mishnah, in the Rosh Hashanah tractate, and the main point is the acceptance of the testimony of the month. The number of days of the month, each month and month in the intra-annual layout (28, 29 or 30 days) was known on the basis of astronomical calculation. However, the leaders, the presidents of Israel, maintained a ritual of questioning pairs of witnesses, who were asked about the white figure they saw. This ritual equated to the presidential function changing importance and respect, and from this their supremacy was demonstrated in public. In one of the cases, Rabbi Yehoshua stung the president and his calculations, and in response the president imposes a physical sanction on him, a kind of zobor, and Rabbi Yehoshua was forced to fulfill it as written and instructed.
In the next case, taken from the treatise Bekorot in the Babylonian Talmud, the two protagonists of the above-mentioned episode are divided on a seemingly minor matter (between a priest of Heber and a priest of the Ha'aretz), but of political and even economic significance. When Rabbi Gamaliel the President learns about the divisive position of his sworn rival, Rabbi Yehoshua, he decides to launch a leadership exercise against him. And here, during the discussion in the Sanhedrin regarding the matter of a priest who is a member and a priest among the people of Ha'aretz, Rabbi Yehoshua assumes, it seems that Rabbi Gamaliel wants to clash with him, and therefore he expressed a position on the subject in question that is identical to the president's position, but the president did not relent, and in the position of all members of the public He declared that Rabbi Yehoshua's mouth and heart are not equal, since he expressed the opposite position on the matter discussed days before.
The president was not content with that and imposed a disciplinary punishment on Rabbi Yehoshua who "smelled" along the lines of: "Stand in the corner with your face to the trash can!" (Remember?!). This move first received "parliamentary" backing in the Sanhedrin, because the community of sages disapproved of the leader, the president, and this is how the Talmud testifies: "And there was Rabbi Gamaliel sitting and exhorting and Rabbi Yehoshua standing on his feet", which expresses the procedure of humiliation imposed by the president on the "rebel" the potential in it, in an examination so that they can see and be seen. The members of the Sanhedrin waited for a long time, pursed their lips and remained silent, until their patience ran out and they ordered one of the functionaries in the management of the Sanhedrin's discussions, the "interpreter" as the Talmud says, and commanded him to "Stand! and stood". That is, he stopped the debate to send clear hints to the president for having deviated from moral, social correctness.
The affair ends rather unexpectedly, without any explanation or continuation, and if it had not been discussed in another treatise, we would not know how the event ended. Well, in Tractate Baruchot in the Babylonian Talmud, the parasha comes up again, and this time in a different context, and this is how it says: "According to one student who came before Rabbi Yehoshua, he said to him (he asked him): Evening prayer, permission or obligation? He said to him: Permission. Came before Rabbi Gamliel, said to him (asked him): evening prayer, permission or obligation? He said (answered) to him: Obligatory."
At this stage we must understand that the president for various reasons, and not necessarily halachic-essential and historical-traditional ones, wanted to carry out a very thorough move in the field of prayer, as well as in the field of other matters, in order to establish, organize and above all consolidate according to one and the same pattern. And here, "popped" to him, from "somewhere", an oppositionist in the form of Rabbi Yehoshua, who "dared" to think differently. Is he allowed? permitted. But the president did not think so. More than that, it seems, although it is difficult to prove in this regard, that the president wanted to testify against Rabbi Yehoshua, to provoke him into an argument through an "innocent" question raised by that student, and finally to prove him and even humiliate him, saying to him: Now let's see who is the boss?
We will continue and look at the interesting case. Well, that student made it difficult for the president and said to him: "Didn't Rabbi Yehoshua tell me permission?". The president barely contained his anger and decided to attack Rabbi Yehoshua once more. And so, when they entered the Sanhedrin, the question of "evening prayer, permission or obligation" was put up for discussion, which seems to have been premeditated by the president. When the question was presented to the public, the president hastened to express his well-known position: "must", and among the members hess was thrown. No one disagreed with the president's words. The president insisted and asked to drag Rabbi Yehoshua into a confrontation, asking the public: "Is there anyone who disagrees with this?" And the response of Rabbi Yehoshua, who knew that the president was "riding his tail", was accordingly - a complete denial. But the president did not let go and reproved Rabbi Yehoshua in the phrase: "And it was not from your name that they told me permission." The president does not wait for Rabbi Yehoshua's answer-reaction and he punishes him a second time, stripping him of his public title "Rabbi" and thus turning to him and saying: "Yehoshua stand on your feet and they will bear witness to you... And there was Rabbi Gamaliel sitting and demanding and Rabbi Yehoshua standing on his feet." This time too, after a long time, the sages ordered, as a measure of protest, the interpreter to stop the discussion and indeed it was. But this time the members were not ready to move to the agenda. These strengthened their expected step by expressing a protest against the President's cumulative persecution of Rabbi Yehoshua and the lack of an appropriate response. And in an interesting wording, she enumerates one by one the incidents of improper behavior towards Rabbi Yehoshua and even admits that their patience has run out, in the form of: Until when we are swallowed up and shut up (in their language: "How long will we grow old and let down" - until how long will we grieve and go). And their immediate response: "A cell and its transgressions!" And in our language: "Let's move him!"
Shall we move him? This box is closed and is subject to several interpretations: we will transfer him (remove him) from his presidency altogether; We will move it (displace it) temporarily; We will transfer him (dismiss him) only from his position as head of the Yeshiva, while his other powers, the political and judicial-Sanhedrai role, will remain intact.
In any case, this is an unusual and drastic step, whether we accept the minimalist or the maximalist interpretation.
The rebel members immediately debated among themselves: who will we put under the president? Who is the candidate to be replaced? They put forward a number of proposals and examine each of them as follows: The first name that came up was Rabbi Yehoshua, but the proposal was rejected due to Rabbi Yehoshua's personal involvement in the whole affair, for which the president was impeached. The members of the Sanhedrin were therefore wary of any appearance of suspicion of harming the purity of morals and morals and therefore imposed upon themselves the judgment of refusal, although Rabbi Yehoshua's candidacy was certainly worthy and excellent. The next name that was thrown into the space of the hall was Rabbi Akiva, who was also rejected, due to the lack of a suitable genealogy, and in other words, there was a fear that the choice of Rabbi Akiva could cause difficulties among quite a few members of the house, and especially because of this Sanhedrin member's rigid stance towards the Roman government, Which is also appropriate for his hawkishness, his "right-wing" regarding the revolt against the Romans. The next name that was brought up, and received full support, was Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and why? Let us return to the Talmudic source and read in it as follows: "He is wise and he is rich". We will understand the component of wisdom, but what about wealth and presidential status? And the Talmud replies: "Let it be for the heart of Caesar." That is, with the help of his great wealth, he can soften Roman decrees and even bribe high-ranking officials. The truth is that not once in the sources of the Sages are we exposed to one statement or another that favors the right of leaders to have wealth, so that they can devote their full time to leadership and judgment, and not be preoccupied with problems of livelihood and existence in general.
Rabbi Elazar thanked his friends for the support he received from them, but he realized that the great honor and the weight of the position, and at least one that was given to him in a time of need - during the removal of the incumbent president - and asked to "sleep on it" (consult his household).
In the end, Rabbi Elazar yielded to the persuasion of his colleagues and became the president of the Sanhedrin, and "that day they removed him to the guard of the gate and gave them permission for the students to enter, which was Rabbi Gamliel announcing and saying: 'Any student who is not already in it will not enter the Beit Midrash.'" This is a revolutionary, unprecedented move carried out by Rabbi Elazar, as president of the Sanhedrin. Hala reversed the order of Rabbi Gamliel (the ousted president) to prevent the entry of scholars (meaning members of the Sanhedrin) who disagree, or are willing to disagree with the president's opinion and position. This draconian instruction was washed under the title of "There is no such thing in it", meaning a demand for credibility and conceptual transparency, in other words: only those whose minds and hearts are equal, who have neither hypocrisy nor falsehood, will sit in the Sanhedrin. And in fact the ousted president operated an extremely tight filter, through which only Raban Gamaliel's potential supporters were invited to the Sanhedrin. The Talmud sails away immediately afterwards by citing an astronomical number, but its intention is to teach that the Sanhedrin institution has become the home of all those who wish to sit in it, debate and present positions that are free from fear of the authority and the patriarchal authority of the president. And this is how the Talmud puts it: "On that day a few pews will be added" - on that day, some pews were added in the Sanhedrin, and sages argue among themselves whether it is 400 or 700 pews. Even if one zero is deleted from each number, and even more, it is important to note the principle of the revolutionary move, which resulted in a revolutionary, fundamental result in the Sanhedrin. In other words, the rebellion of the sages against the president came to express not only their disgust and their disapproval of the president's excessive rule over them, and certainly not only their criticism of President Raben Gamliel's influence on Rabbi Yehoshua. to the lineage of a traditional presidency, and in the name of this "sacredness" is a move of terror against the members of the Sanhedrin. Moreover, the impeachment, even if it was only for an hour, symbolized the ambition of the Sanhedrin staff to signal that the members of the Sanhedrin also have reserved rights, and the Sanhedrin should serve as a platform for all.
The rebellious move of the members of the Sanhedrin did not end with mere impeachment. It symbolized a fatal blow to the dynastic institution of the Sanhedrin, and apparently - the institution in question was not restored until a late historical stage. Until the rebellion of Ben Khosba (Bar Kochba) broke out in 132 CE, it is not possible to point to a certain clear and well-known figure who sat on the throne of the presidency. At the outbreak of the rebellion, Rabbi Gamaliel's son, aka Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, was a young boy, who, apparently, was captured by Ben Kusava and became a hostage to the leader of the terrorist uprising. We find him functioning in Beit Ter, which was the center of activity of the leader of the rebellion. And who is the actual president? None other than the rebel Ben Khosva. His presidency is commemorated on the coins he issued, where he appears as "Shimon, Hansi (so the numismatic inscription) on Israel". Did he appoint Ben Kusva himself to the presidency since she was not acting as president of my dynasty at the time? Was his presidency an authoritarian function following the coup by members of the Sanhedrin against Rabbi Gamaliel? Did you function as the acting president and as the guardian of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel? Did he use the name of Hinoka, Rabbi Shimon, to perpetuate his rule? Is this a move stemming from the very rebelliousness of Ben Kusva? There is no definitive answer to that. But in any case, the revolutionary move of the members of the Sanhedrin towards the president did give its signals quite a few years later.
In the period after Ben Kusava's rebellion, almost the same picture that characterized the leadership after the death of Rabbi Gamaliel returns: there is no one successor, recognized, accepted and agreed upon by the sages, the members of the Sanhedrin, and we find groups of sages, operating after the revolt and seeking to restore the situation and preserve the bridge to the revival of the Jewish leadership .
Except for May, the atmosphere of the putsch they did to Rabbi Gamaliel was still playing in the air, and the beginning of the presidency of the successor, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, was marked by a "troika": the position of the president was eroded and three functionaries appear under one figure: president, head of the court and sage. The first was Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, since one does not break the tradition that has been sacred for generations (primo genitura) all at once, considering a president whose powers are curtailed; The second was Rabbi Natan and the third - Rabbi Meir. The sources interpret the following narrative infrastructures to present the unfolding of public prestige as follows: "When the president enters (the Sanhedrin) all the people (members of the Sanhedrin) stand and do not sit down, until he tells them to sit down! When the magistrate enters, they make him one row from here and one row from there, until he sits in his place. When a sage enters, one stands and one sits, until he sits in his place."
These very days, as mentioned after the rehabilitation of society at the end of the Ben Khosva rebellion, another attempt was made to impeach the president. This time Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were behind the experiment. Whether the reasons for the impeachment attempt were personal or principled and essential, there is no doubt that the two rebels drew strength from the same move that was used against the previous president, Raban Gamaliel. The attempt was doomed to failure and the president's move to impose sanctions against the rebels in his throne also failed. The sages of the Sanhedrin threatened a collective withdrawal from the central institution in which they served if the president did not desist from the punishment plan, and in the end he was exhausted and gave up. The result of the unfortunate incident, but obviously forced by reality, was a devaluation of the president's prestige and status on the one hand and an increase in the prestige and status of the Sanhedrin institution on the other hand.
There is no doubt that the two cases discussed here show the audacity of the members of the leadership institutions who did not let go and did not retreat from the sanctity of the position of the presidency and were even prepared to wave the threat of impeachment over his head.
A compilation of Dr. Yechiam Sorek's articles on the Hidan site
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~183447662~~~185&SiteName=hayadan
