Dr. Yehiam blows the whistle/all because of the sibling rivalry?!?

Dr. Yechiam Sorek examines how true the saying is that the Temple was destroyed because of a fraternal feud, and comes to the conclusion that the conquest of Judah by the Romans is no different from their behavior towards other nations

When the opponents of disengagement ran their campaign, they put the apocalypse of a fratricidal war at the center of their arguments, as if in the pre-disengagement period and especially during it, a terrible rift would be created in Israeli society until there would be "each man's hand against his brother." Moreover, the mantra of the "Brothers", which the settlers used well to achieve their goals: "We are all brothers", "Brother will not drive out brother" and more.

These tried, to the best of their ability in "Kodesh", to also mobilize the history of the people of Israel, so that it would serve as an excellent advocate for the presentation of their claims. These presented the culmination of the disasters of the Jewish people - the destruction of the First Temple, the enslavement to Rome, the destruction of the Second Temple and the failure of Ben Kusva's rebellion, which are the well-known "classic" disasters - as a clear result of fraternal strife, of rifts and fissures in Jewish society, which deepened into a general infrastructure for defeat against all a traumatic event.

Any collection of historical material that is invalid in any case because no one event is similar to another, let alone material that is not the same, then the user of the material is cheating himself and his surroundings. Worse than that is the collection of historical material, whose connection to the matter being collected is far and away.

For this reason, I asked to set things straight, and to refer more deeply to one of them, the issue of Judah's enslavement to the Romans, for which even Josephus fell into the trap of stenciling and mythological pintosis: due to the feud between the brothers, Judah was enslaved to Rome.

Let's go ahead and say that there is nothing between the destruction of the First Temple and the effect of the "fraternal feud". In the course of Jewish history, in relation to tragic events, the principle of "fraternal strife" was sought for two purposes: one - to maintain the unity of the Jewish society in the face of difficult and oppressive times, as a warning: any internal quarrel and defiance against the policies of the community leadership, will lead to the destruction of the community; The second - to justify the tragic process of the destruction of the house and its dire consequences. Its destruction could have caused a deep crisis in the field of faith in God, because how God failed in his attempt to protect his holy house. The answer was: the terrible sin of brotherly strife, of man's war against his brother, such that the protective hand of God in his honor and himself was alienated. If so, in this way the faith was not harmed, God's power was not lost and His honor was not eroded, and every Jewish leadership, small or large, local or state, was strengthened, because "because of the quarrel of brothers the sword of the house".

When you examine, for example, the circumstances that led to the destruction of the First Temple, you clearly see how the kings of Judah, from Mezekiah and Josiah onwards, unsuccessfully and fantasized about rebellious moves against the Assyrian and then Babylonian rule, without any chance and with many risks of losing the campaign. These brought upon themselves and the flock of their shepherds, the people, innumerable disasters, the most difficult of which was the destruction of the house. It is true that these kings waged a struggle, and at times a stubborn and difficult one, against domestic opposition, however legitimate it may be, such as the position of the prophets, and that they were led by the prophet Isaiah, who advocated the principle of "back and don't do" when it comes to foreign policy. The kings did not heed their advice, which seemed very reasonable at the time, and paid a heavy price for their folly and failure. But from here until the placement of the accusation of the sibling rivalry is as far as east from west.

One of the classic cases in which he attributed the fault of the feud between the brothers was the process of Judah's enslavement to Rome. Even Yosef ben Mattheyo fell into the net of this mythological mantra, stating as follows: "This disaster was caused to Jerusalem by Hyrcanus and Aristobulus (the Hasmonean brothers) in their quarrel with each other, for we were deprived of our freedom and became subject to the Romans and were forced to return to the Syrians the land we had acquired with our arms after we took it from them" ( The Antiquities of the Jews hand, 77).

Is freedom really lost and Judea handed over to Rome due to the feud between brothers? There is no doubt that in this case Yosef ben Matthiyahu judged the events and examined them from his "belly" and not from his head. is that so?! Well, it happened like this: in 76 BC, with the death of Alexander Yanai (due to drunkenness! Did you know?!), the greatest of the Hasmonean kings, after a shock of three years of fever and physical and mental exhaustion following the wars he waged, he was succeeded by his wife, Shlomzion Alexandra. On the eve of his death, Yanai asked her to reconcile with the Pharisees and bring them closer to her, perhaps because he assumed that depriving them in his days and the days before him was an act of folly, and perhaps because the unity of the people seemed extremely important to him. And perhaps following the rebellion that erupted against him after his defeat in the battle with the Nabatim in the Golan. And perhaps Yanai did not direct it at all on his deathbed, but a rumor was spread, perhaps from the royal house, in order to qualify the turn in domestic policy - the transfer of political weight from the aristocratic Sadducees to the popular Pharisees.

Linnaeus and Alexandra had two sons, Yohanan Hyrcanus II - the elder and Yehuda Aristobulus II, the younger. Alexandra functions as queen, while the office of the high priesthood, secondary to the monarchy, was transferred to her son Hyrcanus, both because this office was intended for males only, and because he was the eldest but weak in strength and weak in spirit, and could be manipulated by the Prussian leadership. The Pharisees, as mentioned, enjoyed a great deal of power, and influence over the royal house.

Her youngest son, Aristobulus was practically deprived of any heavy and defined state position, however he set out on his mother's commandment to fight in Damascus, but failed in his mission.

At the same time, Tigranes, king of Armenia, threatened Judah, but withdrew from it when he was besieged by Acre (Ptolemais) and even returned to his footsteps after Shlomzion had poured into his pocket many treasures and gifts. Yosef ben Matthiyahu notes that Shlomzion's move was made with the consent of Selini (Cleopatra), the queen of Egypt who also ruled over Syria at the time. (On Syria? And Judea as a whole? So where is the independence? The sovereignty? This is another heavy question)

With the death of Shlomzion, but she closed her eyes forever, Aristobulus at the head of his army battalions took over a number of settlement points, considering a show of force against his brother Hyrcanus, and when he learned that Hyrcanus had inherited the mother's kingdom, Aristobulus forbade him to fight and forced him to surrender and return to his home.

Antipater the Redeemer (father of Herod) entered the game of political confrontation and advised Hyrcanus to flee to the chagrin of the king of the Arabs, fearing that he would be eliminated by his brother. Haretat received, in exchange for the patronage that he spent on the Hyrcanus, a large area of ​​land and a dozen cities including Midaba, Lev, Arava, Egalat, pioneers of Moab and more, which at the time Alexander Yanai conquered from the Arabs. In return, Hareth went out to fight Aristobulus, pushed him to Jerusalem, bemoaned him, and was joined by the people and Hyrcanus, and only the priests remained with Aristobulus.

In a short time, the Romans take over Judea and turn it into an occupied region, annexed to Syria, to the Roman province. Is it any wonder that even Yosef ben Matthieu fell prey to the conception that the feud between the brothers led to the elimination of the Hasmonean kingdom?

Let's take a close look at what really happened?

After Rome successfully ends, after a series of rather painful failures, the Second Punic War against Hannibal of Carthage-Hadda (Carthage) in 202 BC and finally conquers Carthage in the Third Punic War in 146 BC, it is granted control over the western part of the Mediterranean basin and she begins to look towards the eastern part of this sea basin, a sea, which Rome named "mare nostrum" ("our sea"). As a matter of fact, while the Second Punic War was raging in the Italian boot (205 BC), Rome made an alliance with Philip V, King of Macedonia. It was, of course, an initial lever for the creation of the Roman Empire in the East. Philip showed a friendly attitude towards Hannibal and even entered into an alliance with the Seleucid-Syrian king, Antiochus III. This development caused concern in Rome for its own interests, and therefore Rome "jumped" on the "bargain", when the gates of Greece turned to it for help (probably Rome encouraged them to do so): to free them from Macedonia. Rome declares war on Macedonia (200 BC) and subdues it after four years. The Macedonian fleet was confiscated, a financial fine was imposed on Macedonia, the Greeks and the Greek cities in Asia Minor were given autonomy, but temporarily, and these would later be turned into Roman provinces.

Rome found a similar pretext in the matter of the Greek cities in Asia Minor (today's Turkey). These were conquered by Antiochus III and turned to Rome for help. Once again, Rome watched with concern the expansion of the Syrian kingdom of Antiochus and her heart was troubled by the fact that Hannibal, her greatest enemy of all time, found refuge in the court of Antiochus III.

The war against Antiochus lasted three years (189-192 BC) and ended in a Roman victory. In the treaty of surrender that Antiochus signed, he was forced to give up his rule in Asia Minor, pledged to pay the Romans a heavy financial fine and was forced to give up his fleet.

This victory created a new balance of power in the region. The three powerful kingdoms that had operated until now: Macedonia, Syria and Egypt, declined in strength and greatness. With the help of the Romans, small and weak "states" arose that saw Rome as the supreme ruler. One of them was Judah at the time! Yes-yes: the Maccabean-Hasmonean rebellion that broke out in 167 BC was very convenient for the Romans, in terms of sticking a pig in the belly of the Syrian-Seleucid kingdom, thus preparing the way for Rome to come to the East. In this context, it is possible to understand the "wonderful friendship" alliance that Rome made with Judah the Maccabee in 161 BC, in terms of an insurance certificate against the Syrians and creating a balance of power in the Middle East.

Rome crumbles the forces in the Near East and makes them dependent on her grace. At the same time, Rome begins to penetrate the East, helping, so to speak, the hands of the small "states" against the big ones, and in the end came back and took control of them and enslaved them.

We will mention the year 133 BC, when the kingdom of Pergamon became a Roman province called "Asia", as the beginning of a historical process during which Rome completed its takeover of the Near East and built for itself the largest empire in the history of the ancient world.

One of the local rulers in the Near East, Mithridates, King of Pontus in Asia Minor, gained power and threatened the Roman plans in the East. He made an alliance with the Parthians, the sworn enemies of Rome, and even invaded Greece.

Rome, whose interests in the East were harmed as a result of the strengthening of Mithridates, faced him with an experienced Roman general (74 BC), whom they defeated and pursued as far as Armenia. Mithridates was protected by Tigranes, king of Armenia, and Luculus, the same Roman general, waged a hard and prolonged war against both of them.

At the end of the battles, in 67 BC, another, equally celebrated and experienced Roman general, Gnaeus Pompeius, finishes the removal of the pirates' nests from the Mediterranean basin, and is appointed supreme commander of the Roman army in the East. Pompey defeated Mithridates and turned Pontus and Bithynia into Roman provinces, and also defeated the Parthians.

And what does this mean in terms of Rome and the East? Rome intends to take over the Near East - Syria (including Judah) and Egypt, and no power in the world will stop her from realizing her plans.

And what was happening at that time in Judah?

The two brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, argue with each other, and when Pompey's personal representative, Lyuda, arrives, they shower him with many gifts and huge sums of money so that he can choose which of them is entitled to rule.

The Ramat Darg delegation made its way to Damascus, where Pompey was sitting, to lay before him the claims of its members and their factors. Aristobulus' representative even sent Pompey a large gold vine - 500 square meters, with the inscription "From Alexander, King of the Jews". The "people's" representative, from the people, refused to Pompey to hand over the keys of leadership to one of the brothers, and demanded a position instead of a monarchy. Her intentions were completely clear, and even expressed her disgust with the Hasmonean rule.

The brothers whine before Pompey along the lines of: "Why do I deserve more?".

Hyrcanus claimed that he deserved the right to rule due to his birthright and due to the fact that his brother Aristobulus had been brutally removed from this position. Moreover, it more than implies that Aristobulus is violent and a powerful man and even engages in sea robbery (the intention was to shock Pompey who had set out shortly before on the mission of exterminating the nests of the pirates from the Mediterranean basin).

Aristobulus claimed, on the other hand, that Hyrcanus is not fit for kingship and does not deserve to rule at all - "He is inactive and therefore he arouses disrespect in the hearts of mankind" (Kdm. 44, XNUMX).

Pompey sent the representatives to their homes and informed them that he would give his decision after solving the problem of the Nabateans. The Romans therefore had important tasks on the security and economic level, and hence - geopolitical: to swallow up the Near East using the Islamic method, with Judah last in line, before Egypt, and meanwhile the Romans are using the method of "separate and rule", or "let the boys get up and play before us". That is, confrontation and tension between the two sides (and maybe even three) will only benefit them later.

Aristobulus, by the way, did not understand the Roman hints and did not lay down his weapon and Pompey ordered to attack him. The military move was avoided, when Aristobulus accepted the "law of movement" and surrendered to Roman power.

In the meantime, as if in the theater of the absurd of Josephus, out of nowhere, a section is inserted in which Pompey is impressed by the fruits of the date palm and the sycamore - the finest of perfumes - grown in Jericho.

And unwittingly reveals the economic-profit intentions of the takeover of Judah. The Dead Sea area is considered an attraction that focused the attention of rulers and military commanders. The area is rich in healing items, perfumes and especially salting, which no ruler would give up (salary for soldiers, by the way, in certain circumstances was paid in lumps of salt, hence the word salary in English which means salary, and comes from salarium, from salt), least of all Pompey. The placement of the "strange" section fits well with the intentions of the Roman takeover.

And we will return to the more "serious" matter: Pompey was furious that Aristobulus was not keeping the promises he had made - ransom money and the laying down of a fighting hand. Aristobulus was arrested and imprisoned and Pompey prepared to break into Jerusalem. In the city the residents were divided between the supporters of Pompey and the opponents of the struggle in general and those leaning towards the rebel.

The Romans were deployed in the northern camp - Jerusalem's weak point, and even respected the Jewish Sabbath, as they avoided breaking into the city and did not even fire catapult stones into it.

After bursting into the city and subduing the resistance of Aristobulus's supporters, Pompey and his men did not touch the treasures of the temple, but even ordered the following day to purify the temple and resume the ritual work there.

The rebels were punished by beheading.

Jerusalem was given to the labor tax, the cities of the Syrian army that belonged to Judah at the time were torn apart, the Greek-Hellenistic polis cities were given independence again, including Jaffa and Caesarea.

"This disaster" - this is how YBM expresses it - "was caused to Jerusalem by Hyrcanus and Aristobulus in their quarrel with each other. For we were deprived of our freedom and became subject to the Romans and were forced to return to the Syrians the land we had acquired with our weapons, after we had taken it from them" (ibid., 77).

is that so?

Well, it's roughly like saying that Dimona's basketball team (and the Dimonas will forgive me) failed against the NBA champion, because in the ranks of the former there was disorder, internal fights in the style of a "fraternal war".

The example: to raise the flag of the "civil war", which led to the enslavement of Judah to Rome, is simply not serious and even insulting on the research, analytical level.

This method was known throughout ancient Jewish literature and was deepened and strengthened over the years, in order to serve one central purpose - to develop Jewish unity and solidify around the rabbinical, community leadership, and in a kind of aggressive marketing the following message was internalized among the Jews: If you do not depend on each other, you will depend on each other To this side!

So what really happened?

Rome conducted an imperial policy towards the Near East already in the first half of the second century BC. Its stated plans were to take over the entire Mediterranean basin in stages. This is how she behaved from the third century BC onwards, when no power or anything stood in her way. He carried out the takeover in military and/or cunning ways. When Pompey finishes the task of clearing the pyres' nests and is appointed the supreme administrator of Roman affairs in the East, it was clear that Rome intended to swallow the Syrian-Seleucid kingdom and then the Egyptian-Ptolemaic one. As soon as it turns Syria into a province, a thing fell through in the East - Judah also passes into its possession as part of the same "package deal".

And the Romans, like the Romans, are in no hurry to swallow the prey. Their method is known as sedendo romanus vincit = the Roman wins in his patience. They will take advantage of all kinds of internal struggles, intrigues, frictions on a personal background to capture the prey and silence them. So it was in Judah. Its fate was decided and sealed from the moment the Romans took over Syria. Only the date of the takeover remains, and it seems to be considered in light of the development of the relationship between those brothers, the sons of Alexander and Shlomzion. At the appointed time, Rome landed the blow of enslavement on Judah.

A compilation of Dr. Yechiam Sorek's articles on the Hidan site

https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~292289135~~~185&SiteName=hayadan