Dr. Yehiam Sorek/ new reflections on traitors and betrayal

One of the interesting episodes related to the siege of Jerusalem during the Great Revolt is the departure of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, literally "in the 90th minute", from besieged Jerusalem

One of the interesting episodes related to the siege of Jerusalem during the Great Revolt is the departure of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai, literally "in the 90th minute", from besieged Jerusalem, on the eve of its destruction and the foundation of the spiritual center in Yavneh, as a Sanhedrin passer as a primary substitute for Jerusalem. Quite a lot of ink has been spilled on this topic and on it, and even the writer of these lines is "sinful" about it, and "more" on the "Hidan" website ("Yodfat in front of Jerusalem, who is the oldest of whom", July 2003).

The reader is invited to open any history book to the people, an encyclopedia and in general to listen to the whispers of the public's heart, such that the Dinkota version of it is drawn from traditional and not-so-traditional sources, and while typing the code word "Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai" on the keyboard of the historical, public, national memory computer, Immediately the words will flash on the screen: hero, brave, determined, redeemer of Israel, righteous in his generation, keeper of the embers and other such superlative phrases.

On the other hand, clicking on the entry "Yosef ben Matthew" will immediately pop up the title "traitor" in letters of Kiddush Levane.

problem? True. The problem is aggravated and complicated in light of the fact that the issue of salvation on the one hand (Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakhai, Ribz hereinafter) and betrayal on the other hand (Yosef ben Matatiyo, hereinafter YBM) were set out in a similar framework (and I expanded on this in my above-mentioned list in "Hidan"), and in summary - Both were leaders, both acted during the rebellion, both faced a difficult reflection during a siege, both chose life, both decided to continue the embers, one in the field of writing and the other in the field of leadership of the Sanhedrin, both prophesied to Vespasian that he would be emperor and very soon, both won life and a certain glory.

But... Ribaz is seen as a hero, as a savior, while YBM - as a traitor. Let us further complicate the comparison between the two: it was Ribaz, and not YBM, who tried to ally with the Romans through bundled tolls tied with arrows, and even let them know what his wishes were, and this in the midst of the rebellion when Ribaz was seen as a public leader. That is to say, if we consider the actions of the two, it seems that Ribaz's behavior is more treacherous than YBM's.

So why did one betray and the other save anyway? And shall we not be satisfied with the simplistic and infantile statement along the lines of "the wonders of God's ways"? The answer lies in the bar-habilitation conducted by the scribes of the Sages for the Ribaz. YBM does not appear even with a slight, vague, microscopic allusion, in the literature of the Sages, neither he nor his actions, while the works of Ribaz are well commemorated in this literature, and thus Ribaz earned him to belong to the pantheon of respected public leaders in the province of Judah after the Holocaust . More than that, Ribaz carries on his back an equally treacherous scumbag, which is the attempt to undermine the feet of the traditional, incumbent presidency, which is the Raban Gamaliel dynasty. Sage literature condemned him for this due to his public work in Yavneh, but refrained from calling him a real president, and when the Roman authorities stopped persecuting Rabbi Gamliel, the latter inherited the position of Rabbiz in Yavneh, and Ribaz was forced to vacate his place, and not happily. Rabbah, and to dislodge to clear-arm.

Rivaz's treachery in actually leaving Jerusalem takes on interesting dimensions when comparing the literature of the Sages to the writings of the Hebrew Bible. In the light of what is known to us in the literature of the Sages, Ribaz had to pose as a dead man in order to leave, carried in a coffin, out of the besieged Jerusalem. And not this one, but also this one - he took advantage of his family ties with the leader of the murderous Sikris in Jerusalem, so that he would not stab his "body" when his disciples would take him outside the city in order to be "buried" there. Due to the phenomenon of fleeing the city (more on that later in the lecture), the fanatics on one side and the sycophants on the other would stab the corpses (and what if preserving the honor of the deceased?!), to make sure that the corpse is indeed a "strictly" corpse.

This phenomenon is explained against the background of two data that are intertwined: one - the difficult atmosphere that was created in Jerusalem from 67 AD, the second - the analysis of the difficult situation by some of the public leaders, who preferred to be wise and not unjust, realistic and not imaginary, and to try and establish some kind of public framework outside of Jerusalem In order to save what can be saved.

The revolt that broke out against the Romans in 66 swept away many good people, although in the end it was a tiny minority of the Jewish population. The rebellion was initiated by extremist elements, guided by the "stomach" and not the "head", and when it broke out, the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem decided to resort to the rule of "if you can't do it, join them", with the addition of "control the height of the flames". Indeed, the rebellion in Jerusalem was led and controlled precisely by a moderate leadership, and the extreme fanatics were suppressed from it. The intention of the leadership, when it realized how agitated the crowd in Jerusalem was, was to bring the situation to a general state of calm, and to try and reach a general understanding and agreement with the Romans. My hypothesis is that it was not for nothing that Yosef ben Matthew was sent to lead the rebellion in the Galilee, but for the previous reason, and when it became clear to that leadership that Hela was taking his position too seriously, they first showed an alienating attitude towards him and then a disapproving attitude and even more than that.

In any case, Jerusalem calmed down for about two or three years, until the zealots came into it, who, as we know, turned it into a murderous, bloody and simply screaming battle scene, between three or four groups, in terms of "gratuitous hatred", while the Romans wait outside the walls and let the zealous thugs do the work for them .

The zealots, as we know, set up guards at the gates of Jerusalem to prevent the Jews from escaping the city and falling into the hands of the Romans. And why would those Jews do that? Did they support the rebellion in the first place? Well, the murderous atmosphere that the fanatics controlled in Jerusalem added to the hunger and thirst, the mental anguish, the expectation that Jerusalem would fall to the Romans anyway and the hard feeling that the revolt was unnecessary in the first place, those who made the Jews try and escape from Jerusalem to at least save their souls and the souls of their family members.

In this regard, Joseph ben Matthieu writes the following: "These things (the horrors in Jerusalem) were revealed to Vespasian from the mouths of the fugitives who fell to him. Although the rebels (the zealots) guarded all the entrances to Jerusalem (the gates) and killed all the people who approached them, nevertheless many managed to hide from them and escape to the Romans, and they spoke to the heart of the head of the (Roman) army to defend the city and save the rest of the people because Their love for the Romans (meaning the camp of peace and dialogue with the Romans) many were killed by the sword (by the fanatics) and the rest were found in terror of death. Vespasian took pity on them in their plight this time and drove his army to besiege Jerusalem ostensibly and in fact to rescue the inhabitants of the city from the siege (and this was actually Ribaz's intention, as appears from the Talmudic texts)..." (The Wars of the Jews, IV, VII, III).

So who is really a hero and who is really a traitor? After all, if Ribaz is considered a hero, a savior, then why were the escapees perceived as traitors?

A similar case appears immediately in the writings of Yosef ben Matthiyahu in connection with the city of Gedera in the former East Jordan. There the aristocracy sought to surrender to the Romans, both for reasons of principle (the pursuit of peace and considering the futility of the rebellion as well as for personal and economic reasons), and when this became known to the rebels, they rose up against them and slaughtered them and abused the body of one of the leaders, and immediately afterwards fled the city.

At a later stage, when Jerusalem faced the collapse of its systems and its destruction, Yosef ben Matthiyahu tried to appeal to the besiegers, including the zealots, to dissuade them from continuing the rebellion and to lay down their weapons, but in vain, and also ending his speech with the moving sentence: "And I too am right to die, if you take morals after my death ” (Wars XNUMX:XNUMX:XNUMX), did not make a strong impression on the zealots to say the least. And against them - "The townspeople woke up to fall to the Romans (surrender). These sold their possessions without money, and these sold their precious jewels and swallowed the gold coins, lest they be caught by the hands of robbers (referring to the zealots, whose only desire was to spoil those whose pennies were in their pockets), and after that they fled to the Romans, and when they took the gold from among them, money was found for them quite annoying. And Titus sent many free and gave each one to choose a place of residence as best in his eyes, and in this matter he further strengthened the Jews in the city (Jerusalem) in their desire to surrender, in order to escape from all their troubles, without becoming slaves to the Romans. However, my friends Yochanan (from Gush Halab) and Shimon (Bar Giora) guarded the exits (gates) of the city from these people, more than they took care to close its entrances to the Romans. And every man, on whom a shadow of suspicion clung, was immediately slaughtered by their hands" (Wars, XNUMX:XNUMX).

The text in question is remarkably consistent with the story of Ribaz's exodus from Jerusalem, in particular with regard to Titus' reactions: leaving the surrendered alive and responding to their requests to move. Even here, as a result of matching the stories between Josephus and the literature of the Sages, we are once again confronted with the question: who is a traitor and who is a hero?

Joseph later adds and narrates how urban leaders, including the high priests and many of the priestly family as well as benefactors of the people, managed to reconcile themselves and reach the Romans. The Romans convinced them to concentrate at this point in the city of Gofna, north of Jerusalem. There, as in Yavne, the Romans built a kind of large compound to house all those who surrendered and were not captured when their swords were redeemed with the blood of the Romans. This compound was a transit camp until the rebellion was over and then they could return to their homes and property in peace.

The rest of the residents, who did not succeed in escaping the city, turned to the rebels with cries of signs and heartfelt pleas to open the gates for them, but the fanatical rebels hardened their response and attacked the beggars with fury and slaughtered them on the spot. Some of the "traitors" fled to the temple courtyards, but the zealots chased them and beat them mercilessly even in the temple grounds. When Titus learned of this, he was deeply shocked and decided to address the rebels directly as he was amazed at how they had desecrated the temple with the blood of the murdered, their brothers.

So what did we have? According to the literature of the Sages - a man named Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who came out of Jerusalem, disguised as a dead man, promised Vespasian that he would be the emperor's and in return he won his life, thanks to the Livna movement (a sort of detention camp for those who surrendered) and the chance to heal the rifts of the deep crisis created by the Great Rebellion and almost start anew , from Genesis, to build the center of the people. He is considered and perceived in the collective memory of the people of Israel and his nation as a hero, as a savior as a savior.

And we had others like him among the leadership, benefactors of the people, aristocrats, officials from the families of the priesthood and "just" people, who wanted to escape from Jerusalem because they opposed the rebellion, because they ended the crazy civil war, because they realized that the rebellion was unnecessary, because they were defined as peace seekers and because they protected their bodies , their souls and property, and these were perceived in the collective memory of the people and the nation as treacherous accomplices, as egoistic types deserving of all condemnation and as social waste.

And if we know that Ribaz was sent to Birba against his will and all his heart's desire was to ease the conditions in his home? And if we know that many oppose him in his act?; And if we know that his act and his public initiative betrayed the patriarchal tradition of the presidency from one family origin (Beit Gamaliel)?; And if we know that the entire story of the prophecy to Vespasian was copied from the story of Joseph ben Mattathias in Yodafat? And if we know this, will we continue to admire him as a hero?

And if we know that there were many common denominators between the departure of Rabbi Z from Jerusalem and the departure of all those leaders, priests and others from Jerusalem, shall we call the latter by the name of collaborators?

The ways of history are indeed wonderful.