Lullabies

As an "obsessive" mythbuster, I tend to define "historical facts" (distorted of course) that have taken root among the public as "cribs"

One of these stories discusses the restoration of the people and society in Judah after the destruction of the Second Temple, referring to the Yavneh generation.
It is not my desire and intention to present the subject with an in-depth and reasoned view based on the analysis of the evidence, which would require several tens of thousands of printing marks, and we would all, as a result, be soaked in information and interpretation to a great extent, but lost-lacking the overall picture.

What does the classic "Cradle Story" say, which is so ticklish and swallowed like a plate of slippery honey down the greedy throat of the Jewish people for generations, from infancy to "tender" age? Well, he presents roughly the following picture: Jerusalem is facing ruin and destruction, and with it the people and society. A wise, pragmatic and courageous leader named Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai decides to take action: leave Jerusalem on the eve of its destruction and save the people and society by turning Yavne into a new center, a sort of alternative to Jerusalem. Many generations of students were educated on this story until it became a myth of special heroism in the face of the dire situation and a symbol of renewal and refreshment. Settlements in Israel were established to commemorate him, and the "deed of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai" became the mantra of a large camp in Israel, especially the religious, the religious, in terms of an act that was not only brave, but also sophisticated, as a representative of the forces of light against evil. The evil? Immediately and immediately visible!

Everything is fine and dandy if it weren't for these two facts: one - Yohanan ben Zakai is referred to as "Rabbi", which is a clear dynastic-presidential title, attributed to the Gamaliel family only, and this person did not belong to the presidential family at all, and in order to understand this very well we will compare a case in which Barnash crowns the himself to the king even though we do not belong to the royal family. The second - in this act, Rivaz rejected and pushed the incumbent presidency until that moment when he was forced to step down from the leadership under Roman pressure, so it seems. These two facts cast doubt on the legitimacy of the mentioned myth and are supposed to present his act as treacherous on the one hand and morally reprehensible on the other, but of course Let's not be satisfied with that.

First - the Jerusalem Rabbi was, apparently, a supporter of the rebellion against the Romans, as an integral part of the Pharisees' guiding line, although not as fanatical and decisive as the Presidency. Over time, Rabbi's views moderated and he decided to leave the besieged Jerusalem (if you will, to abandon its inhabitants) in the way of its skin (pretending to be dead and exploiting family connections with the Sikri fanatics so that they would not stab the "His body" at the exit of the city gates as a "murder confession") by completely surrendering to the Romans, when even earlier, he had sent the Romans information about his intentions in letters related to arrows shot from beyond the wall. No matter how we look at these events, it is difficult to present Ribaz in the public eye as a hero, as brave and as a planner to save the people and society. However, it is certainly possible to present him, and there is nothing wrong with that, rather, as someone who sought to escape a difficult fate.

Second - Yavneh was, like Gofna in northern Jerusalem, a large site that served as a camp for the detention of prisoners who chose to surrender to the Romans voluntarily, which makes Rivaz's request to save the people and society something secondary, occasional and not purposeful.

Thirdly - the requests that Ribaz makes before Vespasianus, or any Roman functionary, such as the right to hold worship on a personal level, and even on a limited group level, relate more to the basic wishes of each person before his arrest, and not to an attempt to wrest public privileges from the Romans, by cunning and fraud.

Fourthly - the move by Rivaz to establish in Yavne an alternative, temporary center for Jerusalem, appears on the face of it to be a revolutionary, unprecedented step, which has some form of rebellion against the dynastic establishment, i.e., in the current presidential house (although not in practice), it is the traditional Beit Gamaliel. It should be noted that the struggle between the fringes and the establishment is ancient, and there is even a great deal of naturalness in it. The confrontation, and sometimes difficult, between the prophet and the monarchy During the first house, it is famous and does not need proof. It was a struggle between unofficial forces and an established body, and if you want, although I am not so comfortable with this aspect, between an aristocratic element and a popular one. This struggle also finds its expression throughout the house period Second, we find it in the struggle between Ezra the scribe and the Jerusalemite and Ammonite aristocratic families The Greek families, the priests, and popular or quasi-popular elements, such as the government and the poet Shimon Ben Sira. We find it in the rebellion that Matthias and his sons tried to instigate, and it was directed not only against the Greeks, the Greeks and the Greeks, but also, and perhaps mainly, against the leadership in the Temple , the one that won Syrian-Seleucid backing, and once the Maccabean-Hasmoneans won the victory, they don't bother to reply You have crowned the old age, that is, to enthrone the traditional priestly family in Jerusalem, but they take the crown of leadership and start a new dynasty. We will find it, the struggle, in the rebellious attempts of the remnants of the Hasmonean house, not only against the Romans, but, perhaps mainly, against those who were "ruled" by the Romans, such as the family of Antipater the Edomite (the Jew-Magoyre at the time). We will find the struggle under the leadership of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth against the corrupt priesthood in Jerusalem and we will find the struggle under the banner of the rebels in the great rebellion also against the incumbent leadership, which even included the elimination of priests and the appointment of other, new priests, as the hearts of the fanatics. Rivaz is therefore, it seems, seeking to start a new leadership dynasty, perhaps even related to his family, and this can also be learned from the title of "Rabbi" with which he crowned himself, as mentioned a title that belongs only to the presidential family.

Fifthly - and following on from the previous important point - the Laws of the Rabbis seem, on the face of it, in any case, to seek to save the nation and society after the destruction, with their goals being twofold: on the one hand, to adapt the nation to the state of having no temple, and on the other hand, not to forget the memory of it, from the nation The temple, so that when the day comes, when the temple is built and established, it will have continuity, and at least in what is known as "the 'national' memory". Apparently, there is a very welcome trend of rescue and commemoration. However, a careful and careful examination of the laws of the Ribaz, puts his pure intentions and right into question, and presents him, as stated in the list of the article, as a charlatan and as an upgraded self-image. And what is the purpose of things? Rivaz seeks to revive customs, which were sacred and most courageously connected to the temple, and he transfers their implementation, which, in the days of the Second Temple, never wandered outside of Jerusalem, Livna. He upgrades Yavneh to the status of "a type of Jerusalem", and as a result upgrades its status to of a "sort of president", when the presidential palace exists, although it was persecuted at the time (immediately after the destruction) by the Romans, and expects to return and lead the post-apocalyptic society.

Sixth - Rivaz conducts status and prestige struggles against the families of the priesthood. It is true that, in the absence of a temple, there is no realized function of a temple priesthood, and therefore we should not be surprised that this status erodes over time, except in the immediate period after the destruction, when Rivaz is more than a hundred years old about his intention perpetuate the memory of the temple on the one hand, and on the other hand does not promote the status of the priesthood (probably for personal-political purposes) The matter has many question marks.

Seventh - another functionary, who in the course of time behaved in a manner similar to the conduct of the Reb'az, although he was not among the group of sages of the Sanhedrin, was Ben Kusba (Bar Kochba). Here, while initiating the rebellion and during which he crowns himself as president, he imprisons the presidency house in its stronghold in Beitar , and controls, among other things in the name of this house, over the environment.

It was convenient, therefore, for various reasons, religious and national-patriotic, to present Ribaz and his work as the towering hero of Jewish history. The picture of the situation that emerges from the books of the Sages does not serve this assumption and presents a portrait of a different leader.