Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was a very colorful figure in Talmudic literature. He was not included, and not without reason, with the group of sages, members of the Sanhedrin, who after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD were privileged to lead community Jewish centers throughout the Judea province. He was the least rational of the bunch
Every year, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Rashbi, occupies a central place in Havit L135 BaOmer as the dominant figure in the revelry on Mount Meron. His character was linked to the myth of Ben Kusaba's rebellion and we will try here to present the outlines of his character and his worldview, which was perhaps, together with his teacher and rabbi Rabbi Akiva, one of the main reasons for the very beginning of the Lost Rebellion and the severe consequences that befell the Jewish public after the suppression of the rebellion in XNUMX CE.
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and in short the Rashbi was a very colorful figure in Talmudic literature. He was not included, and not without reason, with the group of sages, members of the Sanhedrin, who after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD were privileged to lead community Jewish centers throughout the province of Yehuda (Yudaiya) such as Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai, Rabbi Gamliel, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Akiva , Rabbi Hanina ben Theradion and others.
Rashbi was among those who found themselves in the "Kerem Dibna" along with a serious battery of Sanhedrin sages of high stature such as Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Yossi HaCohen, Rabbi Elazar Ben Aruch and more, all of whom have a pragmatic pro-Roman approach and are liberal in their worldview, all of them ... with the exception of Rashbi.
Rashbi was and is presented as an obsessive antagonist to the leadership of Rabbi Gamliel Dibna, who succeeded Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai in the leadership of the Rabbinic Center as president who enjoyed Roman support and at least not the oppression of the Roman government.
Rashbi saw Barban Gamaliel, the legitimate scion of the Jewish presidential family since the days of Hillel and Shammai, as an unworthy and even illegitimate figure for the presidency. So what was the reason for the Rashbi to stand up against the heir of the aforementioned legitimate presidential dynasty? Well, Rashbi saw him as a despicable accomplice of the Roman authorities. And the truth is that Rabban Gamaliel decided courageously and fearlessly and without bias to uproot the phenomena of anti-Roman rebellion and this due to the stinging blow that the Romans inflicted on the Jewish public and above all - due to the destruction of the Temple for everything that is hidden behind its physical disappearance and its theological and mental consequences, such as the multitude of cases The suicides among the despondent, including the feelings of isolation. And no less than that, he viewed with severity the aforementioned disaster that was caused, partly as a result of the fanatical and bloodthirsty rebellion against the Romans.
As a result, the leader, President Raban Gamaliel, was seen by Rashbi as a dangerous and disastrous figure for the Jewish public in the Land of Israel. So what did the aforementioned do about it? Decided to testify against the president of the Sanhedrin (Rabban Gamaliel) on a problematic issue, apparently marginal but which holds the seed of disaster. The reference to the subject of the question: Is evening prayer a permission or an obligation? Considering a question of principle and of great significance, this is how the subject of the Babylonian Talmud is treated as follows: "An act of one student (and this refers to the Rabbi, who was then - probably around 113-110 CE or years before - a young man for the days) who came before Rabbi Yehoshua (son of Hananiah) ) (President Raban Gamliel's well-known haplogta bar). He said to him (asked him): evening prayer, permission or obligation? He (Rabbi Yehoshua) said (answered): Permission. (Rashbi's opinion was not satisfied by Rabbi Yehoshua's response, knowing his position on the matter, and therefore:) He came before Rabbi Gamaliel (and) said to him (asked him): Is evening prayer permissible or obligatory? He said (answered) to him: Obligatory. He said to him (Rashabi turned to the president and was puzzled): And didn't Rabbi Yehoshua tell me permission..." (Talmud Babli Baruchot XNUMX p. XNUMX). The Rashbi thereby succeeded in deepening the root of the classic conflict between the President and Rabbi Yehoshua, when both of them were invalid in his extreme eyes as supporters of Roman rule, which subsequently led to the removal of Rabbi Gamaliel from the presidency temporarily, and which pointed to the extreme, somewhat degrading way of the Rashbi.
His extreme approach was strengthened by the Rashbi by the fact that he was a distinct student of Rabbi Akiva, the quasi-ideological leader of the revolt of Ben Kusba in the Romans (135-132 CE) on the one hand, and of the fanatical Rabbi Yehuda ben Baba on the other, who secretly "endorsed" him contrary to the decrees of the Romans against Samikat Sages, that is, appointed him a "scholar" in terms of a title with political and spiritual significance. The same Rabbi Yehuda, as well as Rabbi Akiva, was considered one of the "ten royal slayers", we had a zealous, somewhat messianic attitude, and supported a rebellious position against the Romans.
So let's take a look at a very interesting case related to the rebellion of Ben Khosva and Rashbi's position on it. The thread of the story, whether it happened or not, is woven like this on the eve of the outbreak of the rebellion, and this is how it appears in the Babylonian Talmud: "... when they sat together Rabbi Yehuda (Bar Ilai) and Rabbi Yossi (Ben Halfata, probably from the ancient Babylonian city of Allepo, Aleppo of Today in Syria) and Rabbi Shimon (Bar Yochai), Vitiv (and sat) Yehuda ben Grim Gbiihu (in front of them, beside them, and maybe behind them). Rabbi Yehuda opened and said (he said): How bad are the actions (activities) of this nation (meaning Rome)? (and immediately answered) - Buy (establish) markets, buy bridges, buy baths, Rabbi Yossi kept silent (apparently he was debating in between). Rashbi answered and said: Everything you buy, you will not buy except for your own needs. Buy markets for prostitutes to sit in, baths for Eden themselves, bridges to collect tolls from" (Shabbat Lage p. XNUMX).
Rashbi's evil approach was therefore intended to discredit and destroy the name of the Roman Empire, and to completely invalidate the legitimacy of its rule, when, seemingly speaking the truth, but emphasizing only a small, somewhat minor part, which in the end is an effect, albeit a completely secondary one. Rome's urban enterprises throughout the empire were famous all over the world, and earned, according to local documents, a certificate of praise from the locals. And let's not forget that these actions raised the economy of Judah after the rebellion and in particular in those buildings that were damaged in the rebellion by the zealots.
Rashbi therefore came to slander the name of Rome in a rather despicable way in order to make souls for the anti-Roman rebellion. And this is not many years after the revolt of the Jewish diaspora during the days of Emperor Trianus and enough years after the great revolt and the severe blows that fell upon the Jewish public mainly with the destruction of the Second Temple.
This trend and similar ones were heard among the fanatical groups that operated during the Great Revolt and later when they infiltrated Jerusalem with a body before the Roman siege tightened around it and carried out monstrous acts in the city that would make every ear shudder and every eye shed a tear, such as horrific mass slaughters.
The above episode unfolds in the Babylonian Talmud as follows: Yehuda ben Grim rushed to report to the Romans about the aforementioned dramatic meeting and the opinions of the three. Sounds a bit outrageous considering the reporting party/whistleblower to the authorities. But May? Against that "informer" were the tragic testimonies that surrounded the Jewish disasters following the rebellions, which reflected the position of the majority of the sages of the Sanhedrin, and especially those who experienced and saw with their own eyes what the results of Ben Kusava's rebellion were, and his report sounds appropriate in all respects - in terms of "your destroyers and your destroyers have departed from you."
The results of the "whisper" were as follows: "They said: (perhaps a Sage, perhaps a rumor, and perhaps the judgment of the Roman commissioner) Yehuda Sha'ila (who shouted) will be exalted (will receive some kind of compensation, perhaps political, and perhaps praise for his personality), Yossi who remained silent, will reveal to the birds . Shimon Shagina will be killed. He ran out (went, escaped)".
There is no evidence whatsoever that Rabbi Yehuda's status was upgraded. Moreover, Rabbi Yossi's exile to Tzipori is also puzzling because Rabbi Yossi was a permanent resident of Tzipori and held a public, political and legal/halachic role there. His father, Yitzvain, was among the veteran settlers in Tzipori. In the Sage literature it is said that Rabbi Yossi was among the moderate and restrained elements after the rebellion of Ben Khosva, so his silence was understandable due to his personality, what's more, he was not interested in confronting his neighbor, Rashbi. The political/police role assigned to him by the Romans was also not understood except on the basis of his position towards the Romans and not in terms of a punishment or a coercive role such as "angria" or "liturgy" as appears in the literature of the Sages.
And Rashbi, what happened to him? He was heavily accused of sedition and at a time when Rome was very sensitive to this issue mainly due to the classical tensions between it and the emerging Mesopotamian kingdom, and therefore the Roman authorities asked for his soul, and we remember the trial of the Christian Jesus in the presence of the Roman commissioner Pontius Pilate who wanted to stick it to him, to Jesus The pacifist, guilty of sedition by calling him the "King of the Jews" (rex iudaiorum) to say: a rebel in the Roman Empire/Emperor - a move that is condemned by one, the despicable judgment of crucifixion to death.
Before we deal with determining the chronological date of that meeting between the three members of the aforementioned Sanhedrin in the presence of Yehuda ben Grim, and perhaps precisely to reach the same chronological line, we will continue with the description of the aforementioned fate of Rashbi after he was sentenced to death by the Roman authorities. Well, Rashbi, the "hero", went underground and escaped with his son Elazar Barbi Shimon to a cave, where they hid for a dozen years and constantly fed on the fruit of the carob tree and the Tamir spring quenched their thirst. And how reminiscent it is of the episode of Elijah's escape from the anger of Ahab and Jezebel to the cave in Horob (Harob!), perhaps to enhance the very act and actions of Rashbi and to sanctify him with the mantle of divine prophethood, and also the choice of the dozen years as a mythological eponymous number is not accidental.
And hence the date - at the end of the two hiding in the cave for 12 years, none other than Eliyahu the prophet arrived at the hiding place and announced to the Rashbi and his son that the Roman emperor (and probably referring to Hadrian, in whose days the revolt of Ben Khosva broke out: 135-132 AD) had died and his anti-Jewish decrees were automatically nullified , and therefore the two freedmen come out of their hiding place and return to their routine. It is also difficult here, by the way, not to recall the case of the appointment of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai to the Rish of Tibet in Yavneh and the mythological savior of Judaism during his dramatic meeting with the Roman emperor Vespasian (70/69 AD) when he prophesies to him about his emperorship upon the sudden death of his predecessor to the imperial throne. The connection between the above events, it seems, is not at all accidental.
And we will return to our topic: the determination of the date of the historical meeting between Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yossi and Rashbi, is significant in relation to the rebellion of Ben Khosva. In the aforementioned sources it is said that Rashbi and his son hid in a cave for 12 years. True or false, it is not relevant, although one should not rely a priori on an accumulated score of years in the Sage literature. What is more, it is appropriate to rely on the date of the death of the Roman emperor Hadrian, the maker of the well-known decrees. Hella "returned his soul to Jupiter" in 138 AD, and if we subtract 12 years from this date we arrive at 126 AD, 9 years to the number of years of Hadrian's imprisonment, and this is very appropriate for the character, character and policy of Hadrian, who was considered a "builder" emperor, an emperor A restorer, who did everything in his power to restore the Roman Empire after his predecessor in power, Emperor Trianus, whose wars and rebellions broke out during his time left ruin and destruction throughout the Roman Empire. And how appropriate it is for the issue of the confrontation/debate between Rabbi Yehuda who sided with the Roman construction and restoration policy versus the Rabbi who disapproved of it in the main.
The position of the president of the Sanhedrin, Raban Gamaliel, based on personal and political pragmatism on the one hand and fear that another revolt would lead to the destruction of the people of Judea on the other, was clear and decisive: to oppose messianic concepts, to fight against extremists and those with anti-Roman and pro-rebellious positions. Such an approach characterized the twenties of the second century CE, even though during this period no genealogical president served in Judah until the end of the rebellion of Ben Kusaba (135 CE). Such a position was held by the ideological "successors" of Rabbi Gamliel's house, such as Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai, Rabbi Tarpon, Rabbi Yossi, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, Rabbi Nehemiah, Rabbi Yossi ben Doramskiit, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nouri, and more. So it is clear that Rashbi's extreme views were the property of a negligible minority in the public.
In this context it is worth mentioning the tradition that identified Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi near the tomb of Rashbi meeting the biblical Elijah and clarifying with him the issue of the coming of the Messiah.
Moreover, we know, after bitter debates between historians, that the date of the establishment of Ilia Capitolina in Jerusalem as a lengthy construction process, was not in terms of the outcome of the rebellion but one of the reasons for its outbreak. Members of the Sanhedrin, when the Rashbi became aware of the clear anti-Roman attitude.
Also, the same debate of the 20s of the second century AD also involves tensions that emerged between the members of the Sanhedrin in connection with the death of Rabbi Gamaliel Dibna and the absence of a mature successor (Rashbag), and what was also reflected in the famous gathering in the Beit Rimon valley, when facing the parties who sided So in the rebellion among the Romans, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah stood as a solid rock and repelled the rebellious ideas with great success.
I cannot say with certainty whether it was possible to crown Rashbi as the spiritual, fanatical ideologue of the Ben Kusaba rebellion, but it is clear in the light of the above data that there was something among the main leaders, the fanatics, the Messianists, in favor of the outbreak of the rebellion, and this, will be noted and emphasized, without taking into account What is the price that the Jewish public in the Land of Israel, the one that licked its severe wounds after the Great Revolt and to a certain extent after the Diaspora Revolt in the days of Trianus, may well pay, as it was as it happened.
Rashbi poured water by his rabbi, Rabbi Akiva, who is considered the central spiritual ideologue of Ben Kusava's rebellion, and he, the only one, it will be noted, who recognized in Ben Kusava a messianic connection, saying: "Deen is (this is) Malka Mashia (King of the Messiah) )" (Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'aniyot, chapter XNUMX, p. XNUMX), and in front of the sages of the Sanhedrin who condemned Ben Kusaba, according to the Talmudic tradition (Talmud Babyloni, Sanhedrin, p. XNUMX), to death for having declared himself to be the Messiah's king and impersonating his image.
It is said about Rabbi Akiva that he had a dozen students from Tewelah to Antipers (probably Antipatris) and they all died "in one chapter" according to the language of the Gemara (Talmud Babli Yavmoth Sab p. XNUMX), and quite a few scholars and researchers of his have such a passage as the source of a great spoil as if Rabbi Akiva's students supported In the revolt of Ben Kusva they even joined him and as a result died in the war. And I have already commented several times in one of my articles about Ben Kusaba's rebellion in "Hidan", that they "forgot" to look at the entire Talmudic text and from it we learn that they died due to a severe plague that broke out in the area on the basis of contaminated food. In any case, their death by way of a plague seemed to be God's punishment ("gratuitous hatred"), as well as the legend that Ben Khosva was punished by God with a snake bite for the sin of hubris (excessive pride and defiance towards God).
Either way, plague or not, the text teaches/implies the position of almost all members of the Sanhedrin against the rebellion and the rebel. Which makes Rashbi and Rabbi Akiva redundant as a minority within a minority. And it is not for nothing that the Nimaretz Rashbi refused to be included as a member of the Sanhedrin.
Rashbi's extremism was also expressed in his negative, obsessive attitude towards the occupation of work in general, which could even slightly damage the occupation of the Torah. And so much so that he used magical power (a witch's eye poke) in order to bring about the burning of a number of Jews, who "for some reason" had abandoned their Torah. This attitude (relinquishing one's livelihood in favor of studying the Torah) aggravated the attitude towards him so much that he relented and stated, almost under duress, that "a great job is one that respects its owner" (Babylonian Talmud, Nedrim Mat p. XNUMX), in terms of a statement with a double meaning.
Rashbi is considered a somewhat dangerous figure, especially in a period when the relations between the Jews and the Romans softened to the extreme, especially in the leadership, and therefore he was pushed out of every political and social position. Of course, there were those who feared his magical power, sorcery and his ability to amplify his power and use it to achieve his goals. Beyond the death by fire of those who dismissed him from (full) practice of the Torah, he took into account/revenge on that Yehuda ben Grim who conveyed his anti-Roman positions to the Roman authorities by staring at him and turning into a wave of bones.
He also knew with the help of his magical power to exert various pressures on the Jewish public, in connection with the burial of his son Rabbi Elazar.
On the other hand, he managed to rescue a terrible demon (possessed) that attacked the daughter of the Roman emperor (perhaps Marcus Aurelius).
Some attribute to Rashbi the composition of "The Book of Zohar" and this despite the fact that this composition was written in Spain in the 14th/13th century by Moshe de Leon.
"The Book of the Zohar", somewhat kabbalistic-mystical-messianic, discusses matters of exile and redemption, heaven and hell, righteous and wicked, and the like. And it is full of elements of magic and matters of struggle between the forces of the Zohar and evil.
It may be that this book was written under the somewhat magical inspiration of Rashbi, and it may not be. The interesting thing is that it is not for nothing that Rashbi's name is associated with the "Sefer Zohar" in its contents and essence.
Rashbi was therefore seen by his generation and after him as a problematic and dangerous figure due to his extreme anti-Roman, pro-rebellion, anti-profitability and use of magical powers views, and it was not for nothing that Rashbi was "crowned" with the dubious title of "persona non gratta" "").
I am therefore puzzled, and perhaps not, in the social and ideological aspect, how Rashbi became the prominent, dominant figure, in all that is involved in the hilarity of LG BaOmer, when considering a very narrow bridge between the Great Revolt and Ben Kusva's rebellion, considering two foundational events in history with Israel in the ancient era, when both were fed by a dangerous messianic fanaticism and brought to the entire nation of Israel an almost fatal and terminal blow that if his successors had not been moderate and pragmatic I do not know where the ancient Jewish society could have evolved?
And perhaps, if I am not deluded and fail in my discernment, beyond the festivities of the XNUMXrd of Omer, when the mass bonfires are at their center, and I do not mean the neighborhood, social, or other bonfires, between which and the bonfires in Miron and similar ones, there is no connection to the memory of Ben Kusva's rebellion, I mean those that Mania and Bia are linked in the rebellious media during the days of Ben Kusva's rebellion (perhaps?), lies in them, in the celebratory bonfires, a kind of primordial, messianic revival of ancient pan-cultural pagan elements, of the worship of fire. And next to the bonfires, we should also note the throwing of candles and precious objects into the fire as well as the lighting of torches, with the quasi-ritual center created around the tomb attributed to the Rabbi in Meron.
.
51 תגובות
In my opinion, Bar Kochba/Kosba/Koziba was a thug and nothing more. The question of the caves at the time of the rebellion also arises whether the caves were before the rebellion and their time was still at the time of the great rebellion and Bar Kochba and his people used them or were they really dug before the rebellion of Bar Kochba which does not make sense.
In order to believe, people need traditions, something to hold on to, so they create traditions and here is the place to say that the bonfires and the bow and arrow originated in the 19th century - correct me if I'm wrong
In addition. The senior Jewish historians of the late 19th century, such as Gertz, Dinur, and others, definitely saw the Ben Kusava rebellion as ending the ancient era of the Land of Israel and the beginning of the exile, also in order to justify the very long exile, and some of them even chose to inflate this assumption out of a clear anti-Zionist motive, and as I have already mentioned In essence, the Land of Israel recovered and even produced unprecedented enterprises of its own, such as the signing of the Mishnah, the Talmud and the Midrashim
we
The inability of the Jews to defend themselves in the Holocaust was a direct result of the Bar Kochba Revolt, the last major military organization of the Jews 1800 years earlier.
Israel
The European holocaust was not a major factor.
Teodorino's Zionist Congress was the one that put things on the table.
The Holocaust in Europe, mainly
was the answer of
Hitler, may his name and memory perish,
For all the politics and policies of those who caused the downfall of Germany after World War 1.
Ben Khozba's rebellion - as a ghetto rebellion in Warsaw.
No need to philosophize.
You have to learn from the mistakes of others.
Thank you Dr. Sorek.
To the best of my recollection, Prof. Yehoshaphat Hakavi is the one who called the Bar Kochba uprising a holocaust, but I don't have enough details to hold a substantive polemic. I can only give my private and uneducated opinion if it interests anyone.
In a game of chess it doesn't matter how many pieces you lost, the only thing that matters is the final result, whether you won, lost or drew.
If we look at the history of the people of Israel as a chess player, then the holocaust of Europe, as terrible as it was, was short and was a major factor in the foundation of the Third Temple.
The results of the Bar Kochba rebellion, on the other hand, were terrible for the people in the short and long term. Besides the enormous loss of human life and property and the destruction of 1000 settlements, the people were condemned to almost 2000 years of exile, pogroms and suffering.
By way of comparison, Russia lost about 40 million people in World War II but emerged a victorious superpower. As far as Stalin and many in Russia itself, I believe the price was justified.
Conclusion: if you play chess and want to win, prefer a German against you and not a Russian..
Israel Shalom. Thank you for your response and below is my response. I'm really sorry to disappoint you. First of all, there is nothing to compare, even in an allusion and in the air, the results of Ben Khosva's rebellion to the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe and in general by the Nazis and their helpers. Secondly, allow me to destroy an old myth that was expressed in the textbooks at the time, when the ancient period of the people of Israel ended with the end of the rebellion of Ben Khosva, and of course it is a false myth for which there are many reasons and it is as if it cancels out the history of the people in the Land of Israel at once, it is said during the days of Rabbi's presidency, during the Mishna period And the Talmud and even the genius of the Land of Israel and more of this kind. And perhaps in a somewhat sporting context when Jewish sports teams arose in Europe with a Zionist message that was fueled by Nordau's sweeping speech called "muscular Jewry" and in German muskuljudentum, and they bore the title of Bar Kochba such as "Bar Kochba Berlin" which was established immediately after the Second Zionist Congress in 1898. And yet, the first Maccabiah was held in 1932, approximately 1800 years after the Ben Kusva rebellion, as since the end of Jewishness in the Land of Israel and the beginning of exile... good night
Thank you Dr. Sorek.
The Holocaust of Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva brought upon the broken and crushed nation the long exile that ended to a large extent with the revival following the Nazi Holocaust.
Israel Shalom. Thank you for your response and below is my reference. First, Caligula is nothing but a military sandal. What is mentioned in sage sources as "nailed sandal". Secondly, the bringing of the military commander straight from the killing fields of Britain to Palestine is interestingly reminiscent of the appointment of Pompey at the time as the supreme administrator of Roman affairs in the East only to keep him away from Rome and face Julius Caesar. And if you want, make him a Hittite Oriya. The Roman fear was of a general awakening in the east of the empire as a result of a kind of rebellion in Israel and in the process to distance it from the Hadrian center. Although more than ten legions were registered, it was only skeletal frames, as the archaeological and numismatic sources in the alleged combat zones will testify to
The "northern plan" - the fortress of the Galilee - also had a practical reason besides the choice to fight and die instead of going like a sheep to the slaughter. It was intended to be a bone in the throat of the Germans who planned to advance north after the conquest of Egypt and Palestine.
The hatred for Rome made the Jews lose their minds. Not only the decrees of the religion but also the terrible cruelty of the "kingdom of evil" as the Sage said, on the corrupt and insane Caesarea (Nero, Caligula, Tiberius, all during the rebellions in Judea). The crucifixions, the gladiator games, the terrible death of Rabbi Akiva. Our generation, by comparison, is much more pragmatic and forgiving of the actions of the Nazis. Ili Paat - by.
Maybe the Arabs will be forgiving someday? 🙂
The elections before the leaders today are no different from the elections then. The decision to annex territories in the West Bank in a month can be revealed as a colossal error that will unite the Arabs and the nations of the world against us or as the historical correction of the distortions of the past. We will know this in retrospect, but today the country's leadership is in the same dilemma that faced Bar Kochba, Ben Gurion, Dayan and Eshkol, if not of the same magnitude.
"Caligula" is not just a shoe but a small shoe, hence the reference to the size of anonymous's shoes.
We - the Romans counted Judah and recruited their best generals to suppress the Bar Kochba rebellion, led by Julius Severus, their best general who was specially called from England.
There are many anonymous in the world.. 🙂
And on this occasion:
This time I agree with Dr.
The Romans did not count the Jews at all.
And the Jews "contained" themselves from the east to the west and from the north to the south.. even before the Roman conquest.
The Romans were about a dozen packs of jackals who saw a fresh corpse between two old and weak lions fighting among themselves...
That's my opinion at least.
Israel Shalom. Thank you for your response and before you I commented. The ancient revolts are not similar to the modern and pre-modern ones, such as individual reactions to the XNUMX-XNUMX decrees and their predecessors, and in particular to outbreaks of rebellions and various uprisings during the Holocaust, such as in the Warsaw ghetto or in the Treblinka extermination camp, when the Jewish community faced a clear and visible physical barrier. However, in the last two cases, one of the goals was to cause a great commotion, including the possibility of escaping into the forests. And on the other hand, I am not here to criticize the term "sheep to the slaughter" also for the above reason. By the way, are you familiar with the "Northern Plan" of Khalar, one of the Yishuv fighters, with which Field Marshal Rommel prepared to conquer Mandatory Palestine? Food for thought... my use of the paraphrase of "of your shoes" touched on the use of the Roman sandal and by the way a complete waste
Thank you Dr. Sorek.
I agree with you that the Bar Kochba rebellion was a colossal error by the people's leaders, even though the question is raised as to whether the submission to the Roman decrees, in particular the prohibition of circumcision and the transformation of Jerusalem into a pagan city, would have left the people as Jewish or would they have interfered with the gentiles like many other peoples who surrendered and assimilated. Many in that period, I believe, would have preferred to rebel even if the chance of being killed in the rebellion was enormous, like many in the history of the people who preferred to die for the sanctification of God through torture and not to convert their religion.
I also believe that a leader is tested first and foremost by the test of the decision and not by the test of the result which cannot be known in advance.
A question for the doctor - how does he know the shoe size of the anonymous commenter? 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97XpKj_u5co
Hello to the anonymous user. Thank you for your response and this is my response - first, the concept of independence in the early period is a historical projection from the 19th century, and in general not one of Ben Kusava's fragments, not even those of the Hazalites, talks about independence; Second, of your Caligula above your leg and also a heart between your eyes and a toothpick between your teeth. Rome was not primitive nor immoral, at least in the senses of the ancient world, and in any case did not fall short of those of the Jews, and take for example the ten commandments and the strict laws of the books of Exodus and Leviticus and even the behavior of the kings of Judah and Israel and certainly even the attitude towards Amalek and more of this kind.
Peace be upon Israel Shapira. Thank you for your response, and my response. Main., there are no "ifs" in history, because in this way we would challenge everything that happened in the recent past and certainly in the distant past. Secondly, the chance of success of Ben Khosva's rebellion against Rome's troops, especially at the peak of its power, is slim and zero beyond any imagination and in any proportion, and those who tried were kidnapped fairly and beyond all proportion. such as Gallia, Pannonia and others
Regarding what you brought from the GM that Rashbi set fire to with his eyes when he saw people who do not engage in Torah
I see that you forgot to mention the continuation of the gm created by Bat Kol saying you came to destroy my world go back to the cave and then he returned to the cave and came out of it a year later together with his son and his son burned every place and he brought the place back from the fire and also the Rabbi was busy settling the world and made sure to purify a place in Tiberias So that the priests would be comfortable walking and would not have to go around on foot
The things you wrote that supposedly the Rashbi destroyed the Jewish world is really inappropriate and untrue and God will protect such an expression and in particular you did not bring all the stories from the GAM for example that the Rashbi brought down rain by saying the verse Behold what is good and what is pleasant Shabbat brothers At the same time, a verse that talks about love and this distortion, as it were, that you present Rath Rashbi as an evil person has no place according to anything, and to put the Romans as righteous is really unfair and it's a shame that you didn't quote what Rashbi answered to the conditions that were with him and the deep meanings of these things
In the light of history, it can be said that Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kochva (Ben Khosva) were wrong and blamed the greatest holocaust in their history on the people of Israel, greater than the holocaust of the Nazis.
But this is wisdom in hindsight. A similar dilemma faced Ben-Gurion before the declaration of independence when Arab armies threatened to invade and destroy the settlement and before Dayan in 67 when the government decided to start the Six Day War. In both cases, a holocaust like the holocaust of destruction and exile could have moved the people, but in their case the bet succeeded and they became heroes. If the bet had failed they would have been denounced as messianic adventurers.
Ben-Gurion, who decided in favor of a state in 48, strongly opposed Dayan and his decision to go to war in 67. Dayan in turn collapsed in 73 and talked about the destruction of the Third Temple.
If the Great Revolt and Bar Kochba had succeeded in something that is not so imaginary, we would have glorified and glorified the Rashbi and Rabbi Akiva as the greatest of all generations. As in the corona crisis, only a few months ago there was talk of a global holocaust in which perhaps a third of humanity would be wiped out and today it is being talked about as a severe flu, the wisdom is in hindsight.
If anyone has any doubts, try to get a forecast of the state of the epidemic in a year from scientists and politicians. The number of opinions as the number of respondents.
I read the reflections of the aforementioned Dr. in this article,
The provocative definitions of the Rashbi's "dangerous attitude" "evil" etc. for holding the opinion that aspired to Jewish independence from the world and the crimes of the Romans in the Great Revolt, indicate the Dr.'s acceptance of the primitive and immoral Roman imperialism, only because it bothers him that hundreds of thousands of Jews feel A private need to go to his grave and pay respect to his teachings (and perhaps the Varsha ghetto uprising was also a dangerous and evil move according to the doctor, especially since the Jews had no chance to invest in escape moves)
And just to finish - it's a shame that you brought in the matter of Miron and the bonfires, it prevented you from standing in the position of being objective
In honor of Dr. Sorek,
a) Thank you for your answer, which unfortunately does not answer my question:
You wrote in your article that Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach was one of the sages of Yavneh, the sources I sent you clearly teach otherwise. A famous thing is that he lived at that time, if this was the intention of your words, it would be appropriate to phrase it in a way that does not confuse and mislead the readers.
b) Thank you for your comment regarding the need to be precise at the end of the Yod. I will try to adhere to this guidance and ask why you wrote in your article that Rabbi Yehuda ben Grim went immediately and told the Romans? I am attaching here the language of the Gemara from which it is proven that this is not the case:
... Yehuda ben Grim went and told their words, and they obeyed the king (Shabbat XNUMX/:). We will be precise at the end of Yod - as the commentators of the Talmud did here - and we will prove that Rabbi Yehuda ben Grim told his household, etc., and from that the words were heard by the king. And not as you wrote that out of an ideological motive he went to inform.
Thank you and good day
At the beginning of reading the article, as a secular person, I wanted to send it to the religious informants, but the one-sided extreme manner that the continuation of the article brought, contradicted any discussion of extremism, like a camel that can't see its hump
Hello to the housewife. thank you for your response. First - Ben Aruch as a student of Rivzah, who was at all in the generation "before Yavneh", and in fact every generation of the first Yavneh is considered in his chronology until the days of Rabbi Gamliel, who took the lead somewhere in the mid-nineties; Second - there are those who date the sages of the Yavneh generation to the days of Rabbi Yehuda, after Ben Kusaba's revolt or when the center migrated north to Usha, even though Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach was among the second generation of the Tanaim; Thirdly - it must be precise - a mistake was made and it is not a wonderful mistake, and we will be careful about it as the tip of Yod. In any case, thank you for your comment, which is completely different from most of the nagging critics. Good and pleasant day
In honor of Dr. Sorek,
I wanted to draw your attention to a wonderful mistake in your article:
Contrary to what you wrote about Rabbi Elazar ben Arach who was one of the sages of Yavneh. The sources of the Sages teach otherwise: see Ecclesiastes XNUMX:XNUMX, as well as Avot Darbi Natan Yad
In honor of Dr. Sorek,
I wanted to draw your attention to a wonderful mistake in your article:
Contrary to what you wrote about Rabbi Elazar ben Arach who was one of the sages of Yavneh. The sources of the Sages teach otherwise: see Ecclesiastes XNUMX:XNUMX, as well as Avot Darbi Natan Yad
Avi Blizovsky, it seems he has detailed what bothers him and why you insist on suspecting his credibility and tying things to him that he never said. I think there is a place for his opinion and there is also some truth in it.
From the science website I expected a factual article that reviews the known history and what is written in the various sources and I will draw my political conclusions. I read a political opinion article in which the writer feeds us his opinions, for example attaching the title evil to the Rashbi's approach and not giving the reader the opportunity to determine the nature of the approach based on the facts. In short, an article that takes history and analyzes it to the writer's liking out of a desire to project onto the present and negate the approach of those with different political opinions today. And I am a secularist who opposes religious coercion.
It seems that what bothers you is precisely that Dr. Sorek knows the Talmud better than you.
Roy, you summed up the important difference between religion and science. In religion there is no disputing what the ancients said, that is, everyone bows before the giants, while science sits on the backs of giants and sees further.
Oh, the holy exemplary "innocence"!
I can't believe how much ignorance there is here, all the books of the Zohar were written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and he also appeared a lot in the Talmud, whoever wrote this article must look for a way to repent, you don't write such things about tzaddiks and certainly not ancient tzaddiks, it is known that there is a descent of the generations And no first-timers can disagree on terms and no last-timers can disagree on first-timers, unanimously from the last of the last of the last generation dare to open such filth and slime on one of the greatest of the terms? I am so sad that there is a platform for such an article on the site and unfortunately I have to stop going to this site because I have lost all confidence in the correctness of the articles on it
It is sad that there are such people who allow themselves to write such nonsense in the name of hatred for Judaism
My last entry to this site, a lot of mercy, at least the scientist will not show off his ignorance. I recommend the professor stop his philosophical studies, open a Gemara and study a little.
To Dr. Sorek:
You are the one who knows what Rashbi did
As a secularist, just reading the title disgusts me, it's none of your business. If there are people for whom this man is important, then respect their opinion. They respect him and do not harm you, meanwhile science and the "new and educated" culture does not bring the people to anything. At the age of 40, at best, people wake up and discover that they were slaves to a stupid culture and did not stop for a moment to notice their life and a spiritual dimension that may or may not exist. As a complete secularist I love this public and their full right to hold their view, it may be that they see a side that we fail to see. Congratulations to everyone who will get a correct opinion and a happy Lag B'Omer to everyone.
Greetings
I would like to know who gave you permission to express your personal opinion about a Jewish leader who was chosen by God, blessed be He Himself, to bring down to the people of Israel a Torah with an inner meaning full of the foundations of existence of the Jewish people... Who gives you permission to choose a title with an extreme left-wing meaning that penetrates to sow destruction in a line that lays the foundations of Judaism
Many heroes thought like you that they can seduce and compensate here however they want because that's how they feel...
Remember that Rabbi Shimon is very jealous of his name
Rabbi Shimon the righteous and his son Elazar gave their lives for us and for our future
And even more, may God be blessed for sending down such a high soul to the world so that the people of Israel would have the proper tools for their continued existence.. He will not allow anyone to speak of Rabbi Shimon with such contempt
You are dealing with fire here and remember
For every action there is a reaction
You don't deserve a response.
But I must protest in honor of Rashbi:
Dirt in your mouth for daring to speak like that about a person you don't even deserve to look at.
I hope that when you get what you deserve you will know that it is a punishment for your words,
The person who spoke like that about a scholar, and even more about a Rashbi, who came out clean, had not yet been born.
And as it is written in "Avot": Be careful with the embers that you do not burn them...
The only case, perhaps. Beyond the issue of the connections between Rabbi and Antoninus, which concerns Roman interference in leadership appointments, refers to a rather problematic case regarding Ribaz as the leader of the House of Council/perhaps the Sanhedrin in Yavne, and not beyond that in terms of accumulating leadership status, when the Romans, in accordance with the principle of divido et imperare, supported Ribaz In order to muffle and pacify/silence the traditional presidential dynasty that showed a clear anti-Roman position before and during the outbreak of the Great Rebellion. The approval of the appointment of Rabbi Gamliel who "went to take permission from the (Roman) hegemon in Syria" was also quite problematic in terms of indemnifying his position.
Judah's rabbis were rewarded by the Romans... completely unusual in theoretical and practical Roman policy throughout the Roman Empire and this. Perhaps, unlike the position of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi in his connections, if at all they were relevant and realistic, and this even if we arrive at the identity of that mysterious "Antoninus". Rabbi Yehuda's position was built during the Intergenum period between Rabbi Gamliel's tenure and that of Rashbag. He burst onto the scene thanks to his personality and support for his pragmatic position after the Ben Khosva rebellion
insolent.
The one who calls himself the minimum "scientist" is ... that he knew!
Research and learn and come back to us later to correct your opinion, which you write in firm and understated words.
Unfortunately there is no 'science' in this article.
There are many inaccuracies and blatant omissions of key sentences in some of the cited sources.
Introducing a personal interpretation (subjective and quite anthropocentric) to Rashbi's motives and his relationship to the other sages of Israel, turns things into nothing more than a cheap novel.
To the honorable Dr., I was not confused, you are the one who is wrong and misleading, Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai who supported the Romans in the debate with Rabbi Shimon was rewarded by them and appointed "the head of the conversation everywhere" while Rabbi Yehuda the President lived one generation later, you are welcome to look at the sources.
In your response you only prove that the entire article is riddled with errors and distortions that serve the wrong purpose of portraying a leading figure in Judaism in a negative light.
And of course you ignored the rest, in an attempt to show those who consecrated the supremacy of spirit over matter as extreme and unworthy
Wow, so much is not true in what is written here
I'm not sure where to start answering
An article of opinion (ancient) neto. We all have something to learn, no big deal
Peace be upon you. thank you for your response
I would be happy to confront the basis of your response if it were supported by historical facts and not mere slander. I assume yours as well as many of the reserve critics certainly have counterarguments. on the contrary. Show them and I will be happy to correct the distortion of the basis of my article.
To Ahad Ha'am, thank you for your response. First, you got a little confused between Rabbi Yehuda Bar Ilai and Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi. Second - the assumption that many support the Rashbi still does not point to the essence of his path and character, and perhaps ifka is being proven wrong. The path of the fanatics since...until...due to their extremism, they can only harm and not benefit the society that seeks to reflect maturity
In the Gemara: the president Rabbi Yehuda and his son Rabbi Shimon as a child tractate parentage XNUMX about the rabbi who tried to challenge the authority of the president and the honor of his house.
And the Rashbi students were told elsewhere that they were "contrants" and were forbidden to enter meetings under the responsibility of the president. The right of the Rashbi is preserved in many stories and even so it is said: "And she passed away like Rabbi Yossi". the practical. And the Rashbi: "We did not get to the bottom of his mind." That is, they respect his opinion, but the majority of the people have a different rule.
And again the question arises: if because of the rebellion we disappeared for 2000 years, why is Bar Kochba shown in a positive light. In the days of Jeremiah there are prophecies of rebuke about King Jehoiakim and later Zedekiah and a dispute between the pro-Babylonian and anti-Babylonian pro-Egyptian faction. Jeremiah the prophet is allowed to criticize an unnecessary rebellion. Even another person with a million differences from Jeremiah the prophet is allowed to criticize an unnecessary rebellion. Only without the provocative headlines. And if they had already started a rebellion, why after the death of Bar Kochba did the people of Yohanan of Gush Halab in Jerusalem burn the grain stores of Ella in front of the people of Elazar ben Yair. And why everyone who wanted to leave the city was stabbed. In other words, there is a desire to bring about an apocalypse.
How hypocritical to take the image of a spiritual giant, who was persecuted because he dared to speak the truth in the face of a tyrannical and murderous regime and chose to deal with it by investing everything in spiritual enlightenment and learning that opened up to the world the theory of Kabbalah that opens an interdimensional gateway between the spiritual world and our worlds, and try to present him as a dark fanatic.
An article full of misunderstandings and distortions (for example, Rabbi Shimon leads a compromising line in halacha against his friend and bar of his pallugata, Rabbi Yehuda who was elevated to greatness by the Romans) whose purpose is to present in a negative light such a positive and influential figure in Judaism, Rabbi Shimon's Torah and way only continues to grow long after her burial of the Roman Empire and will continue even long after disgruntled spreaders of lies like the author of the article will be forgotten and the rejoicing in Miron only symbolizes this
Nostradamus - we leftists, before we worry about the weak Muhammad, we are worried that greedy and pseudo-Jewish crooks sending 12 thousand kosher supervisors hundreds of rabbinic "judges" and tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox recipients of benefits who do not pay taxes - will continue to send a greedy hand to the state coffers.
You were right about one thing - we think that it is necessary to limit the abuse of the powerful against the weak. Democracy is not "the majority decides".
Is this a scientific site? I was very disappointed to find out that this is not a scientific article but a propaganda hash of their opinion.
Mila the writer, can't locate editors?
A legitimate article, although the title could have been refined so that it would not be a red sheet in front of a religious public.
Indeed, in my opinion from a reading, the majority of the people did not want a rebellion and were even more willing to surrender to Titus.
And the Sicris stabbed the high priest Caiaphas when he went out to discuss the agreement with Titus and Joseph son of Matthieu. And Rabbi Yohanan had to leave Jerusalem in a coffin.
The religious leadership for the most part opposed the rebellion. And the very Nitzi minority dragged the whole nation into the process. I also ask as a self-believer why we celebrate Bar Kochba if we went into exile for 2000 years for the rebellion. What is the reason for the party?
https://youtu.be/X5ifPdyiiwY
Thank you for your response, and I do not come now for reasons of aggressive defense to attack the very nickname Nostradamus. I tried to bring, and I am very serious about criticizing my articles in general, to stick to the substance of the matter and not to the matter of a body. And in general to coincide with the facts presented in the article, because the wrongdoer is wrong.
An inflammatory opinion piece. What the left will not do to tattoo Judaism. It is known that the socialists and communists are against religions (except for the fake "equality" religion), so why are the legends and adventures of Muhammad never publicized and criticized and scorned here and on other left-wing websites? Because according to the left, the strong (the Jews) are always to blame and in order to create "equality" the strong must be weakened and the weak must be strengthened (Muhammad). Because "equality" is a nice word for communism, which is the desired end result.