Bar Droma: The Forgotten Warrior of the Bar Kochba Revolt

Did another, anonymous but courageous leader, known as "Bar Droma," operate alongside Ben Kusba? A linguistic research review and scholastic commentary reveal a new theory about the figures who operated underground and at the front

Among the figures of the Great Jewish Revolt and Shimon bar Kosba, an enigmatic and relatively unknown figure stands out by the name of Droma Bar, mentioned in the sources of the Sages but almost forgotten from historical memory. Was he an independent warrior who acted against the Romans? Did he serve as a local leader in the period between the leaderships? In the article before you, Yechiam Sorek presents an original historiosophical theory, based on an analysis of Hebrew and Greek names throughout Jewish history, and crosses them with midrashic and Talmudic sources - on the way to revealing the story of the forgotten hero.

Linguistic Theory: Hebrew Names Versus Greek Names

Before we delve into the intricacies of the rebellious figure of the days of Ben Kusba, I would like to present a self-contained, independent theory, the fruit of my research and intellectual, historiosophical courage, concerning all the movements of the Hebrew, Jewish rebellions against foreign rulers, with the nomenclature focused, you will be surprised to hear, on the names of the local rebels/leaders.

Well, before, much before, much before, to the days of the rebellion against the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple, that is, before the thirties of the second century BC, and I mean in my chronological ramblings right to the beginning of the Second Temple period, following the early return to Zion. And I say at the beginning of my remarks that the special theory that I will seek to present here concerns the linguistic aspect. That is – how were the leaders at that time called/designed, and I mean their Hebrew, pre-Hellenistic name. Well, under the leadership of the people, from the days of Joshua ben Jehozadak, Ezra the scribe and Nehemiah ben Hachaliah of the early days of the Second Temple and those who would come after them, the Hebrew language clearly dominated. This "deteriorated", became Hellenized during the Hellenistic era in Judah into the 1770s of the second century BCE, when the brother of Chunius III, the High Priest, who was Joshua/Jesus, took advantage of his absence and became High Priest in his place, taking the name Jason, after a famous Greek mythological hero.

He began to impose Hellenistic reform in Judea, and his successors, Menelaus and then Alcimus, inherited his leadership. Opposite them stood Mattathias son of Yochanan, the priest from the Jehoiarim guard, who took the name Hasmonaean, and led the Maccabean/Hasmonaean revolt against both the foreign and Jewish Hellenistic leadership, from 167 BCE. Mattathias' sons led the revolt against the Greeks and the Hellenistic rule since this year, and their names - Hebrew of course - are as follows: according to the order in the Book of Maccabees (XNUMX Maccabees XNUMX:XNUMX-XNUMX) - Yochanan, called Gadi (perhaps from the ancient tribe of Gad or "Gad" which is equivalent to luck); Shimon, called Tarsi (perhaps from Tarsus); Yehuda Maccabee, from the word Maccabeth - a kind of war hammer or hatchet, or perhaps an image of his military qualities, in the sense of a quick attack in the face of the enemy; Eleazar, called Horen, after the northern region; and Jonathan, called Haphush.

The Hasmonean Revolt and the Struggle for National Identity

After the fall of Judah at the Battle of Elasa in 160 BCE, his brother Jonathan inherited the leadership, followed by Shimon in 142 BCE, whose status was almost equivalent to that of a king, and he ruled until his assassination in 134 BCE. The Hasmonean rule from his son, John, onwards was saturated with cultural, social and of course political Hellenization, with the names of the Hasmonean leaders being split between a Hebrew name and a Hellenistic name, such as John Hyrcanus, Judah Aristobulus and Alexander Jannaeus, while their coins bore the Greek inscription – “Basileus”, meaning king in Greek. And so, the Hebrew, Israelitish character was erased, and its place was given to Hellenistic character, and so on during the reigns of his successors such as Solomon Alexandra, Judah Aristobulus II and his son John Antigonus. And after them – Herod, Mattathias Antigonus, Archelaus, Herod Antipas and Philip. And so it was that the Hellenization replaced Hebrew, Judaism throughout ancient history, until the outbreak of the Great Revolt against the Romans, which produced leaders such as Judah of Galilee, Hezekiah of Galilee, Joseph Ben Gurion, Hanan Ben Hanan, Joshua Ben Gamla, Shimon Bar Giora, Yochanan of Gush Halab, and the most famous of all – the commander of Masada, Elazar Ben Yair. Thus, Hebrew returned to control the Kibbutz.

From Lenicization to Hasmoneanism—and where did "Hebrew" come from?

Another logical and clear reversal was reflected in the Jewish revolts during the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, in Egypt, Cyrene, and Cyprus, when the names of the leaders of the revolt were completely Hellenized, such as Andreas, Lucius, Lumpsus, and Artemion. This is no wonder given their birth and presence in non-Jewish areas and their prolonged exposure to Hellenistic and Roman culture in their countries of origin, their homeland.

So, "What did we have?" A collection of names from the beginning of the Second Temple period until the eve of the Ben Kusaba revolt, that is, a period of over 600 years. From this collection, a common denominator can be drawn between the names, and that is - Hebrew names versus Greek, Hellenistic names. The Hebrew names were painted, it should be emphasized, in a distinctly anti-Hellenistic tone, to symbolize - it seems - the deep abyss that opened up in between, namely between Hebrew/Israeliteness and Greekness and Hellenism and certainly against paganism in general and Romanism in particular. It should be mentioned again that the Hebrew names of the leaders/rebels and the first kings of the Hasmonean house that preceded the Hellenistic names on the one hand and on the other, returned and "returned" to dominate the somewhat divided Jewish leadership of the days of the Great Revolt and its movements until the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of the Masada stronghold. And on the other hand – they returned to "control" the rebellious Jewish leadership of the days of the Roman Emperor Trajan in the Diaspora, when the leaders of the Jewish rebellion in the Diaspora were called by completely Hellenistic names.

In the sources of the Jewish revolt against Hadrian, the Roman emperor between 132 and 135 CE, the Hebrew names used to control the dome, such as Rabbi Akiva and the leader of the revolt, Shimon ben Kosba, while in the coinage, i.e. numismatic sources, he is called "Shimon bar Kosba." And in the Jerusalem Amoraic literature, he is referred to as "ben Kozbia" (Talmud Yerushalmi, Ma'aser Sheni, Chapter 6, XNUMX, page XNUMX) or in sources later to the aforementioned date, such as in the days of the writer Eusebius, who explicitly states the name of the leader of the revolt as "bar Kochba" (Ecclesiastical History, XNUMX:XNUMX). In other words, an original-literary-natural historical connection is drawn here between his quasi-geographical Hebrew name (false?) and his figure as the leader of the revolt, which draws an interesting line of similarity between the Hebrew-Jewish and numismatic sources.

So what have we had so far in terms of the connection between the Jewish rebellions, and of course those at the head of them? And the answer is – an interesting connection was created and maintained between the names of the leaders and their activities, in contrast – logically of course – to the connection immersed in the process of pronounced Latinization/Romanization.

Semitic Identity as Cultural Resistance: Hebrews Versus Romans

From here we will move on to the events, incidents, and matters involved in the rebellion – the Ben Kusba rebellion. All of them arise from the sources of the Sages, and despite the difficulties in presenting the necessary historical conclusions, we will try to dispel the fog surrounding them and reach personal conclusions on the subject, which this topic contains within itself.

It is worth noting that the following testimonies may belong to one stage or another in the rebellion – those that preceded the Ben Kusba rebellion, those that took place during it, and perhaps even at its conclusion. The lack of dating of the cases in the Sage literature, of course, makes it difficult to indicate appropriate and correct historical implications and conclusions in the historical fabric of this topic of our discussion.

We will be presented with several prominent figures, some hidden and some appearing by name or alias. The Ben Kusba Revolt broke out, as is known, in 132 CE and ended in 135 CE, when the Jewish leadership – the presidential leadership – attributed to the Hillel family, operated intermittently, as is known, until the days of the Ben Kusba Revolt. Is that right?

Well, it should be noted that between the years 117 CE and 135 CE, the Jewish leadership, the aforementioned official presidency, did not exist, and Jewish society was not governed by a single, well-known and accepted figure, but rather by a number of sage figures, such as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Tarfon, and others, each of whom had a greater influence, especially on those in their geographical environment. This situation reflected, during a period of crisis and distress, the rise of various leaders such as Bar Druma, who is the subject of our discussion, or Ben Kusba, alongside central figures in the Sanhedrin whose policies and laws were more sporadic.

I will present a number of examples, all taken from the literature of the Sages, both early and later, and these contain a hidden question, as a bridge between the above paragraphs and those that will appear immediately later in the lecture. Including the question: Where were those leaders of the Jewish communities presented above – both with regard to the Presidency and, presumably, local leadership?

The first testimony is taken from Midrash Icha Rabbah (14:132), and its subject is – “an act by the son of Rabbi Hanina ben Tardion, who joined the robbers (probably the rebels, which indicates the writer’s position towards the rebellion and its perpetrators), and exposed the traitor (published their name, location and plans) and killed him (the robbers – the rebels), and filled his mouth with dirt and bundles (as a ‘suitable educational punishment’).” As stated, the incident may date to somewhere between the year 135 CE and its course and/or conclusion in the year XNUMX CE.

The second testimony appears in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta'niyot, Chapter 4, page 69, page 1): "Two brothers were (active) in the village of Hariba (close to Modi'in, perhaps in connection with the location of the historical Maccabean revolt), and the Romans were killing them and killing them (the Romans attacked them, the rebels, and killed them), and they said (and it is said casually): "All is blind (the essence of the matter): I have planned to put a crown on their head (women, let's say, a crown on their head)." In other words, we have before us a picture of courageous guerrilla actions between brothers who were willing to keep a secret, and they were expected, or expected, to lead the local rebellion.

The last sentence is of great importance in the rebellious context, of course, and it is – the queen of the rebel pair – that connects to the religious-messianic thought of messianism in terms of the “kingdom of the Messiah” or “the beginning of redemption”, as a cosmic manifestation of the earthly rebellions, and perhaps beyond that – in terms of a connection between physical activity and the parallel one, which also reflects metaphysical activity, as we have said. And beyond the nearby source, we are required to parallel this section with the one that immediately follows it. And perhaps – perhaps the question of the aforementioned presidential leadership, namely the House of Hillel, the House of Gamliel – one that operated until those days – is embedded, hidden, and transformed here. Was it silenced? Was it hidden? And perhaps…?

The third testimony involves such phenomena – the initial organization of the rebellion, the initial preparations, keeping the plans secret and aspiring to leadership, perhaps even a kind of kingship. It can be extracted from the testimonies of the Sages, while setting aside legendary background phenomena. For example, it appears in Tractate Gittin of the Babylonian Talmud (leaf 57, page 1) about "Ashka Drispak Hariv Beitar" (Beitar, of course, Ben Kusba's last stronghold, and it was destroyed in the rebellion due to the captain of a wagon). "This is how they did it: When a male was born – they planted a cedar sapling in his honor. Yanukta (and when a female was born on this day) – Shteli Tornita (planted a pine sapling in her honor). And when they were married, they built their canopy from a combination of the branches of these trees). Yoma Had (one day) – she was a halfa barthia dekaiser (the daughter of Emperor Hadrian or the daughter of the Roman governor in Judea passed nearby). Atbar sheka drispak (the axle of her cart, carriage broke). Ketso ve ayilo la (the Romans hurried to cut down two trees in order to fix the broken axle). Atto aliyu – mahonu (the local Jews attacked them. They surrounded them and sought to be freed from them, from the Romans). They said to the emperor: Yehudai rebelled against you (the Jews rebelled against you). Ata "He came upon them (came upon them, attacked them)..."

That is, the exhaustion of the legendary, dubious-realistic story, in which the Jews were presented as aggressors in the eyes of the emperor, and therefore he "raised an army" and attacked them back. Whether there was or was not - it is not at all relevant. In other words, an outbreak of rebellion could have taken place, taken shape, only as a result of an atmosphere of tension that prevailed in the Land of Israel at the time. If we "replicate" similar events, we will understand the background against which the Jewish rebellion broke out. After all, it was not because of a Roman "clash" as mentioned above that the rebellion could have broken out, unless the atmosphere was so tense that any small ignition could have escalated into unprecedented proportions of fire. Likewise, it can be assumed that an atmosphere of anti-Roman tension, perhaps even initiated by fanatical groups, was one that was fueled by extreme conditions such as Rabbi Akiva and his ilk. And in such an atmosphere - the sparks of the rebellion could have ignited into a large, corrosive and destructive flame.

The Appearance of Bar Droma: Between Sage Sources and Legend

Such circumstances certainly gave rise – logically – to local leaders, those who quickly rose to lead the public, as mentioned, for better and/or worse.

In another case, as a bridge to the previous testimony that discusses the rebellion of the two brothers from Kfar Haruv and their queen, we will immediately present an equally interesting passage, as follows: "Etrangul and etrangulta (because of a rooster and a hen) Harib Tor Malka (a settlement, perhaps a fortified one, by this name was destroyed – apparently on Mount Malka and its surroundings) Dahwa Nahigi (that is how they used to do it:) because they were the makers of khatna and kalta (when the bride and groom would come out of their room) the makers of kamiyehu rooster and etrangulta. That is to say – they bred and multiplied like these roosters. Yuma khad huwa ka khalif gunda droumi (one day an armed Roman company passed by her place). Klinhahu minyehu (they brought out the pair of roosters to meet them – or was it the Romans who sought to slaughter the pair of roosters, perhaps as a deliberate provocation, or simply to feed themselves?). They fell on their heads – their heads (The Jews and the entourage attacked them, attacked them. Perhaps to harm them or to make them flee so that the sacred ceremony, the wedding ceremony, would not be violated.) And they said to Caesar: "You Jews have rebelled against you (the Jews are raising the banner of rebellion against you, against the Roman people). I will come upon you (the Romans came upon them, attacked them - the rebels, or perhaps the Jewish villagers who were offended by this)."

We are faced with an event similar to the previous one, about which a twofold conclusion can be drawn: a spontaneous, somewhat emotional Jewish reaction, or perhaps it developed and grew into some kind of rebellious reaction – and they, perhaps, or intentionally, becamecasus belli (A cause for war) from the Roman side, in an atmosphere, as mentioned, that was tense. And as they say in our regions – even a world war begins with a minor bilateral attack.

However, in this section the Jewish response was different from that in the previous section. Therefore, we will continue and read and analyze (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 51): "There was one among the rebels, one by the name/nickname 'Hadromai', 'Son of the South', which may refer to a warrior with a strong face and spirit, the son of the stronghold 'Tur Malka', as my teacher and Rabbi Professor Yehoshua Efron, z"l, explains in his article 'The Bar Kochba War in the Light of Talmudic Tradition', in The Bar Kokhba Revolt – New Research, Yad Ben Zvi, Jerusalem, 82, p. XNUMX). According to him, the same ‘Bar Droma’ appeared in the Malka column, whose heroism and fate were depicted according to the portraits of Bar Kozva and the two fighting brothers – a couple of people from the village of Riva/Cherub, from the legends of the Land of Israel according to the Jerusalem Talmud and according to the work How sad!. And let us return to the Talmudic text (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 51) describing 'Bar Druma' as follows: 'Dador kipitz mila ve ktil bah' (who used to attack the Roman army quickly and unexpectedly and strike it from a distance of a Roman mile – an expression that appears frequently in the sources of the Sages, and its meaning – equivalent to a distance of about a kilometer and a half. To teach, of course, about the mobility of the rebels who were definitely ready and willing to fight the tail of the Roman armies). 'Shakeliya Caesar latagiya va utaviya aara' (the emperor/military commander of the Roman legion actually took his crown and laid it on the ground, as a kind of expression of surrender, such as the phenomenon of one of the gladiators surrendering in front of the spectators, led by the commissioner or emperor). "And the emperor said: Lord of the whole world (that is, to the God of Israel and perhaps even to the gods of the Romans): May it please you, do not hand over my kingdom and all of Rome to that man/rebel!" (I beg you, O God, do not hand over my rule and all of Rome to that man/rebel)."

Before us, perhaps, is a typical figure of local rebellion leaders, those who operated before the appearance of Ben Kusba and/or concurrently with it. Was the event described above typological? That is – a local organization for rebellion, one that took advantage of the aforementioned situation of the presence of the honorable Roman chariot in order to harm the Romans and exploit this situation to cause a minor rebellion, to gather forces – or were they prepared in advance and to continue with the rebellious mission. The name of the group leader, "Bar Droma", was perhaps a nickname – perhaps intentional – to prevent his identification, a kind of "some kind of bad guy", just perhaps like the leader of the rebellion "Ben Kusba"/"Ben Kusba", unlike, of course, characters who appeared in the literature of the Sages and who have a first name and a patronymic?!

More of the topic in Hayadan:

• From the end of the Great Rebellion to Ben Kusba's Rebellion (Bar Kochba): The Big Brother intervenes
• With God's help: what is the real name of the hero LJ B'Omer
• Collective Memory
• Research in ancient manuscripts using artificial intelligence
• The diversity of names in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah reveals social and cultural gaps