It seems as if the alternative center for Jerusalem and the temple, first Yavneh and then Usha, that Shafram, Beit Shaarim and more controlled the Jewish public in a state-like manner
Dr. Yehiam Sorek
The source of textbooks, encyclopedic writings and even research books, even the serious ones, will reveal a distorted picture of the situation, although it is easy to "fall in love" with it. This shows the people of Israel after the destruction of the Second Temple and the destruction of the Temple, gathering around the center in Yavneh, under the leadership of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and continuing to function over a long period of time, with "years of experience" of rebellions, changing presidents, Roman rule, waves (Helm) accumulating behind that public D. in Hirik and H. O. in Shoruk) between crisis and recovery and more.
It seems as if the alternative center for Jerusalem and the temple, first Yavneh and then Usha, Shafram, Beit Shaarim and more "(refer to my previous article) controlled the Jewish public in a state-like manner, juridically-halachically, politically, socially, economically-fiscally and even culturally-religiously, and not ! So what did we have? The Jerusalem Harev Center, the Sanhedrai Center in Yavne and a large Jewish public that "simply" "voted with their feet".
To understand the background to this situation we must go back, to the beginning of the Second Temple, in order to open a window to the discussed problem. The days of the Second Temple begin when groups from Judean exiles arrive from Babylon/Persia, the most famous of which were those led by Ezra and Nehemiah. These came from a distant land and sought to impose, to rule their leadership over the Jews of Judah, which they did not know, and that some of them came from distant places and distant times, like the Samaritans. The problem of the leadership was thus created, which relied on the Persian bayonets and in this way controlled Judah. The scars have probably never healed.
With the fall of the Persian rule and the beginning of the Hellenistic rule, Judah was shaken between conflicting parties on the basis of political orientation (pro-Ptolemaic and pro-Seleucid), socio-economic and even socio-cultural. The Maccabean revolt shook all the systems in the country at that time quite a bit, and although the Hasmonean kingdom was established, at the bayonet of the Syrian kingdom, it is hard to assume that the period of its leadership was quiet and peaceful.
During the transition period between the first century BC, Rome takes over Judah and from then on Judah was placed under its supervision. The leadership in Judea, which included the senior priesthood and the aristocracy (except during the reign of Herod and his descendants), managed a system of more or less central control in Judea, thanks in no small part to the support of the Roman Empire.
The "business" begins to fall apart from the beginning of the first century CE onwards: the House of Herod loses its validity and Judea, starting from 6 CE, becomes a Roman province. It is indeed an integral part of the great Syrian province, but in any case it is defined as enslaved to Rome. "Fate" had its way and from these years the Roman Empire was actually ruled by an imperial dynasty, the Julio-Claudian, which excelled in its instability and the almost psychotic effects of its emperors, such as Nero and Caligula. The atmosphere in Judea is difficult in all respects - political, economic, social and cultural-religious - and this is also the period of the growth of Christianity, as another faith-based, messianic sect, confusing in times of trouble and distress.
This is also the period of the strengthening of the fanatical, messianic, delusional groups like the "Fourth Philosophy", which laid the foundation for the outbreak of the rebellion in the Romans.
In this atmosphere, therefore, the Jewish leadership found it very difficult to function, and it found itself, dragged against its will and good will, into a rebellion against the Romans.
The rebellion lasted for about six years and created an unprecedented economic, social and political crisis in Judea and the Galilee. The climax of the crisis was the destruction of the temple. We need to understand the magnitude of the importance of the temple's function in the lives of individuals and society in order to gauge the magnitude of the shock that befell society at the time of its destruction. The temple was the heart of society and its ultimate center. It served as a political, economic, social, and above all cultural-religious center. And its destruction was definitely a fatal blow to the individual and society. We need to understand that the temple occupied a central place in the life of the people, in terms of inclusive devotion. The work of the victims at its base and the phenomenon of the pilgrimage formed a magnificent and important aspect of its function. The sacrifices that were offered there: the public and individual sacrifices, served as a kind of binding contract between the people and their God, and when the sword of the temple was struck it seemed as if the sky was falling on the people's heads. It is important to understand that the public had difficulty understanding the very fall of the temple and its destruction, and asked itself: why and why did this happen. In the sources of the Sages, we are confronted, for the first time in Jewish history (if we exclude Job's defiance), in the face of a spiteful and taunting claim before God: Why did you do to us what you did?
It is worth understanding that the terrible blow felt by the public, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, because without a temple, there are no sacrifices, and without sacrifices there is no forgiveness of sins, and in a generation of believers this is definitely a mortal blow, almost terminal.
We do not have conclusive evidence regarding the suicide of Jews as a result of the Holocaust, or at least attempts to commit suicide, but evidence from the sages exposes us to such thoughts, such as "Blessed is the man who was not born, or who was born and will die, and we the living, woe to us, who see In the distress of Zion... you farmers do not sow any more... and you bridegrooms do not come to your shelter... and you women do not pray for her to give birth... after this mother (Jerusalem and the Temple) is desolate and her sons have gone into captivity" (Baruch the Syrian, 6:15 ff.). In another place, the Tosefta testifies that "since the destruction of the Temple there were many Pharisees (ascetics) in Israel, and they did not eat meat and they did not drink wine" (Tosefta Sutta 11:XNUMX-XNUMX).
There is no doubt that the atmosphere in Judah after the destruction was extremely difficult, and although Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai established an alternative center for Jerusalem and the Temple in Yavneh, in the Beit HaVad (the sort of Sanhedrin), he could not concentrate to it the tremendous power that Jerusalem and the Sanhedrin had in the days of the Temple, although, as mentioned, this status loosened and gnawed during the decades leading up to the Great Rebellion. First - Yavne is not Jerusalem; Second - there is no temple in Yavne; Thirdly - Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai is not from the traditional-mythological dynasty of the presidency, but a kind of usurper; Fourth - the overall difficult situation that remained in Judah and the other centers of the rebellion after the destruction; Fifth - the Jews lost their legal status that characterized them until the rebellion and they became, as part of the Roman punishment, "deditikei", that is, subjects deprived of most rights; Sixth - the rebellion, despite its "big" programming, did not take place in the entire province and from that it automatically created, after its end, geographical "spots" of the supporters of the rebellion and its opponents; Seventh - the failure of the revolt created quite a few feelings of disappointment which were thrown at the door of the Jewish leadership, although it was really not their fault; Eighth - the disappointment created a psychological infrastructure of leaning on the Greco-Roman urban centers, where it is safer and where you can find refuge and refuge.
All these points add up to one, comprehensive conclusion - a crisis of leadership is emerging. In other words, despite the special work of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai in Yavneh, the Jewish leadership, which was already felt in the years preceding the Great Revolt, lost the leadership effect on the Jewish public in all parts of the province. Even when later Rabbi Gamaliel, from the traditional presidential dynasty, inherited the leadership in Yavneh, he had great difficulty manipulating the leadership system over the Jewish public in the country. Although a Sanhedrin was installed in Yavne and it dealt with important issues of the teaching of Halacha (legislation), discussion of various issues (academic), supreme judgment and enforcement (implementation), it is very difficult to assume that the Jewish public throughout the province actually bowed its head and behaved according to the instructions and norms that came out of Yavne.
From where do I come to such a conclusion, that there is quite a bit of "impertinent" rebelliousness with it in everything we know and it seems almost an axiomatic situation: throughout the period we witness severe disagreements between the Sanhedrin center in Yavne and quasi-parallel institutions that operated in the various Jewish communities throughout the province. These are mainly legal institutions. Sage literature knows how to tell about legal institutions and legal formations under the title of "laity courts". Who are those laymen? These are not qualified sages on behalf of the Sanhedrin, and who are those qualified sages? These are scholars who studied under the leadership and supervision of eminent members of the Sanhedrin. These were authorized over time to instruct, legislate, interpret and judge, and were supposed to faithfully represent the school of their teachers-mentors (the sages of the Sanhedrin) throughout the country.
What else? Wishful thinking on the one hand and reality on the other: the Jews in the various communities in Israel did not agree, and sometimes to put it mildly, to be ruled by Sanhedrin schools, which were usually more rigid and harsh.
As a result, community frameworks of uncertified sages, the laymen, were developed, which constituted an available, convenient, acceptable, more liberal local substitute instead of the neighboring sages, the branches of the center in Yavne. To what extent this phenomenon affected and bothered the members of the Sanhedrin, due to the element of control, will be testified by the following source: expert) from his home (from his pocket). Judge the law, acquit the debtor and oblige the entitled, defile the pure and purify the impure, what he has done is done, and he will pay from his house. And if he was an expert at the court (a qualified sage), he is exempt from paying" (Bekorot XNUMX:XNUMX). We have before us a source, one of many, that points to the root of the problem: the never-ending struggle between the phenomenon of local leadership and local jurisdiction, and the central jurisdiction, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, in order to impose its will, demanded that special statutory status be granted to its authorities. We meant: you were wrong, no big deal, you are exempt from covering the damage! You are not qualified, you must pay. It is clear that instructions of this kind were more of a wishful thinking than a binding instruction.
The success of the local leadership, which was not qualified, usually caused reservations and indignation among the members of the center. The latter sometimes did not hesitate to blatantly lash out in the face of this phenomenon. In one of the testimonies, the members of the Sanhedrin interpret a passage from a number of things that were instructed: "You shall not recognize a face in judgment", that is - you shall not do what and where, but act according to the law of justice - and throw it at the local judges, saying specifically: "This (the face recognizer at the trial) is the one appointed to seat judges. Lest you say: 'So-and-so is handsome, let us sit down. A certain hero, Oshibano Dayan... A certain Hiliniston (well-versed in Greek culture, language and wisdom), Oshibano Dayan'. Found (as a result -) qualifies the debtor and obligates the entitled". In this text, unwittingly, the critics and objectors, the sages of the Sanhedrin, hit upon the idealization of the Hellenic culture and thereby the idealization of those who sit in the law according to the desire of the Greek heart. He could not take part, neither in the leadership of the city, the city of the polis, nor in its defense nor in filling important positions within it, such as sitting at the court, without a gymnasium education, which is actually athletic and philosophical, hence the expressions "handsome", "hero" and "hiliniston". These phrases were rather a certificate of praise and honor, and not a basis for condemnation, as the sages of the Sanhedrin want to highlight the negative meaning. As if the judge is handsome, strong and knowledgeable in Greek culture, he is qualified to judge, and not her. The above data was only a part, albeit an important one, in characterizing the character of the judge. In this case, we are talking about Jews from Greece, who were an attraction in terms of the attraction towards them of the Jews who lived in that particular city. The sages of the Sanhedrin waged a stubborn struggle against this and similar phenomena, a determined war of attrition, and "in war-as-war" the members of the Sanhedrin resorted to blatant aggression against them, of course also out of jealousy. That is, if these judges are characterized only by their strength, beauty and knowledge of Greek culture, then their judgment is not just and moral, and they justify the debtors and bind the entitled. Only this narrow-minded approach shows how anxious the center in Yavne was about the loss of its control over the Jews all over the province.
The center's loss of control over the various Jewish communities explains the phenomenon of a "traveling court", when the president, accompanied by the sages of the Sanhedrin, would occasionally visit settlements and communities throughout the country. This move was intended to establish control by demonstrating presence and involvement in legislative processes, such as saying "who's the boss here", and sometimes even attempts to oust local Jewish leaders, who were not appointed by the Sanhedrin, which did not go over so well and indicates a loss of control of the center over the Jews of the province.
In the days of Rabbi Gamaliel, a mini-rebellion is underway in Rome. Thodus, the head of the Jewish community in Rome, wanted to lead a kind of Passover sacrifice in Rome. When Rabbi Gamaliel learned of this, he dispatched one delegation of sages to him, and perhaps even two, and at most reprimanded him, but did not remove him from his position. The careful wording used by the President's representatives in front of Todos in Rome indicates a weakening of the President's power, along the lines of "Hold me!"
Moreover, the numerous conflicts that arose between him and a group of sages, members of the Sanhedrin, will testify to the erosion of President Raban Gamaliel's status. These finally took a disciplinary punishment against him and perhaps even removed him, albeit for only an hour, from all his positions, or only from some of them. A similar fate befell his son, his successor - Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel, when in his day the presidential leadership was split into three elements, which until then had been gathered under the presidential umbrella: political, legal and instructional leadership. Since then the president has held a political position and from a Sanhedrin point of view he was a symbolic leader, with "Av-Beit-Hadin" (judgment) and "Hakim" (law instruction) at his side.
Add to this the dramatic fact of the absence of a temple and sacrifices, and as a result - the absence of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the absence of exposure to the Jerusalem leadership of the Temple days; Add to this the fact of the accumulated punishments as a result of the Jewish rebellion, which deprived quite a bit of the strength of the presidential leadership; Add to this the "postcards" of the Sanhedrin, ten in number according to tradition; Add to this the strengthening of the Jewish center in Babylon from the beginning of the third century CE onwards; Add to this the process of the deterioration of the Roman Empire, which radiated on the leadership centers throughout the empire.
Well, in a situation like this, does anyone imagine that the Jewish population throughout the province will see itself as subordinate and forced to the presidency? To the Sanhedrin? Apparently not, and the evidence of local leadership, cut off from the center, is increasing in sage literature in the Yavne generation and even in the Usha generation.
It therefore seems that everything that was "sold" to us and is still being "sold", as if the presidential and Sanhedrin center controlled the Jewish communities in the province, let alone in the periphery, is not, so it seems, but a flower owl.
