The Priesthood as You Didn't Know It - XNUMX: The Manipulation of Ben Kusava - XNUMX

We would expect from someone who is credited with a stubborn and troublesome rebellion against the Romans, that this would be reflected in the literature of sages, and this one, for its reasons, is silent

A bronze Isar from the first year of the Bar Kochva rebellion, a palm tree and the inscription - Elazar HaCohen, some identify him as Elazar Modai, Bar Kochva's uncle
A bronze Isar from the first year of the Bar Kochva rebellion, a palm tree and the inscription - Elazar HaCohen, some identify him as Elazar Modai, Bar Kochva's uncle

The ending of the last episode contained a promise that the current episode will be the culmination of the entire series - the priesthood as you have never known it, and I intend to realize this as much as I can, but due to its relative length I will split it into two.

In the last chapter, we were presented with a significant problem in the history of the nation after the destruction - after the terrible blow of the loss of the temple, the gradual recovery that followed, the additional relief in the form of the Diaspora rebellion during the days of Emperor Trianus and the untimely death of President Raban Gamaliel, who was unwilling to put mature, experienced and therefore worthy successors under him, and on the other hand - Deidach is characterized by the period between the end of the last rebellion and the outbreak of the new rebellion (initiated by Ben Khosva) as a sign of recovery and rehabilitation under the direction of Emperor Hadrian.

The absence of a president from a traditional family caused a significant earthquake in the Jewish leadership, and the position of Rabbi Gamliel was fairly shaken due to struggles between him and a number of senior officials in the Sanhedrin. After his death, the Sanhedrin was led by pragmatic elements with a pro-Roman attitude with the intention of restoring the relationship between Rome and Judah, and we are talking about Rabbi Tarpon and Rabbi Yehoshua.

Moreover, in the era of the inter-rebellions there were those who toyed with the hope of renewing the building of the Temple like Rabbi Ishmael and others. Rabbi Yossi ben Dormskiit, a student of Rabbi Eliezer, requires the following statement on the biblical verse "This is to me and I will be with him": "I will make a beautiful temple before him" (Mechilta Darshabi). This hope that permeated hearts immediately after the destruction of the Second Temple and was well reflected in the regulations of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakhai, in the almost constant form of "Mishivena the Temple..." Creamed skin and sinews, so it seems, from our tragic destruction of the great and impressive synagogue in Alexandria following the events of the Diaspora revolt, its destruction, almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy, reminded everyone of the terrible curse that had been placed on the Jews of Egypt since the end of the First Temple the temple

Indeed, we saw the confirmation-confirmation of this in the Talmudic source cited in the previous chapter about the steps to build the temple at the initiative of Pappus and Lulianus - one of the leaders of the revolt in the Romans - at the end of the revolt in the Diaspora or a very short time after it.
This problematic text has an opposite interpretation and it is: the plan to build Ilia Capitolina in Jerusalem at the initiative of the emperor Hadrian, the successor of Trianus, which as is known led to the breaking out of the rebellion of Ben Khosva. And what was the point of it?

The text opens with a strange wording on its face: "In the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, a kingdom decreed that the Temple should be built" (Berishit Rabbah Sed, 8). And why strange? The phrase "judgment" connotatively refers to a negative teaching, and how does this align with the resurrection of the sword temple? Moreover, immediately afterwards the two central figures appear in the revolt of the Jews during the days of Trianus, that is, in the "polemus of Cetus" according to the Sage terminology, they are Pappus and Lulianus, who "sat ... trapezines (tables for exchanging money) from Acre to Antioch and were sufficient ( provide) for exiled pilgrims (for those who wish to visit the Yehuda province and Jerusalem in its center)" (ibid.).
It is therefore possible to offer three interpretations of the above text, the one discussed in the textual context in the previous chapter (the revolt of the Jews in the days of Trianus), and this in light of the characters that "star" in it (for only in their light can we place, more or less, the chronological core of the text), when all One comes up with another idea.

The first possibility - this is an attempt to restore the Temple as an integral part of the Jewish rebellion during the days of Trianus, in order to take advantage of the "mess" that prevailed in the Roman Empire in general and/or to sanctify the course of the rebellion and even lead to the accumulation of its supporters, and since the end of the course, if it took place at all, was Dramatic and difficult, the writer uses the wording of "royal order (Roman Empire)".

A second possibility - Hadrian sought to restore the temple in Jerusalem also as an integral part of his restorative, constructive policy, after the destruction caused by the rebellions in his predecessor's days, in the days of Trianus (and not for nothing was he called the aedificator - the builder and the restorer), also because of his somewhat humane character and nature, also due to his familiarity with the The Jews being, before he was appointed proconsul in Syria, and the Midrashim about his philosophical conversations are published (he was Dilettante), or as Prof. Yaebetz calls him - "the wanderer", with one of the greatest of the Sanhedrin and even the replacement of President Raban Gamaliel after his death - Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah. And perhaps-perhaps the idea was here to renew the building of the Jewish temple as a tactical move after the Jewish rebellion against his predecessor, and let's not forget that one of Hadrian's first actions after his death was to execute Lucius Quaitus, the cruel commissioner of Judea at the end of the reign of Trianus, undoubtedly also as a tribute to the Jews

A third possibility - the well-known instruction of the emperor Hadrian, the successor of Trianus, to turn Jerusalem into the Ilia Capitolina, and thereby the sword site of the temple, a sort of "Grand Zero", into a polytheistic center, is the one that stands at the center of the above-mentioned midrashic text. We can untangle the threads of the event as follows: Hadrian plans to realize the architectural-ritual enterprise from the very beginning of the period of its consolidation - 119 CE - and not as is accepted by historical research, which places the beginning of Hadrian's enterprise in 130 CE, when the emperor passed through Judea and the Arabian province on his way to Egypt from Syria. At first, Hadrian's operation brought to Judah many professionals, from engineers to architects, who were entrusted with The establishment of the unprecedented structure, therefore, in light of the third interpretation (based on the midrashic text), was that A rumor spread that Darrian wanted to establish the Jewish Temple of the Sword, and when it became clear that "not according to her cry" a wave of frustration developed that almost led to a rebellion breaking out if it weren't for the moderate leadership of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah who took the rebellious spirit out of the balloon in the Rimon Valley by pouring out the famous Greek parable to the public About Harry who got a bone stuck in his throat and the Hashida pulled it out, and the analogy - we paid that we wanted to rebel and held back, and therefore we were not severely punished.

Any of the above possibilities, or a sort of partial combination of two of them, may lead us to the conclusion that in the period after the days of Emperor Trianus, winds of hope blew in Judea that the days of the crisis of the destruction had indeed passed and the time had come to renew the building of the temple, and perhaps even as a Athtala Dagaula.

To this atmosphere we will add the following variables: the decline in the status of the presidency in Judea and at least damage to its prestige, the untimely death of the president and the lack of a mature and acceptable successor, struggles between various factions and camps within the Sanhedrin, especially between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah the pragmatist and leader of the moves among the Roman government and Rabbi Akiva the militant and dogmatist .

These phenomena and moves led to the strengthening of the status of the priesthood such that he was careful to preserve the relationship scrolls of his families and marry only members of priesthood families. This class which lost its status and prestige after the destruction and even though the sages were careful about the honor of the families of the priesthood, the phenomenon of the Sanhedrat in the priesthood was destroyed. And here the preoccupation with the issue of the temple has, so it seems, returned the shine to the eyes of the priests, when they are expecting to return Atara to its former glory, meaning the construction of the temple, the renewal of work on it and its management by their families.

These circumstances were exploited, it seems, by fanatical, extremist elements, such as operated throughout the history of the Second Temple, and especially from the period of the Maccabean revolt and the Hasmonean kingdom, to raise the miracle of the revolt against the Romans and mobilize the priestly elements for this purpose. And again, let's not forget that after the destruction, the crown of leadership passed from the priesthood to the community of sages, the members of the Sanhedrin, with Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai of Bivna leading the charge, followed by Rabbi Gamliel Dibna. Also, no priests were found in the madrasah of these two presidents. There is no reason why the priesthood will only be happy to associate with anyone who guarantees it its previous position, and this will indeed be done.

Pay attention to the following phenomenon, which on the one hand reflects the previous image and on the other hand explains the background to the outbreak of Ben Kusava's rebellion: after the death of Rabbi Gamaliel, near the year 116 or 117, the Sanhedrin leadership in Yavneh - the mythical seat of the Presidency since the destruction of the Second Temple - almost completely disintegrated -Perhaps this was due to a Roman instruction to clip the wings of the mythological leadership. And so we find a line of sages, members of the Sanhedrin, each of whom builds a sort of court of his own, and rules his own territory. And for example - Rabbi Tarpon in Bivna, Rabbi Akiva in Lod, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria in Tzipori and more. This phenomenon invites friction between the various leaders and is fertile ground for the development of rebellious tendencies - to seize the reins of the leadership and in the process deal with the Roman rule.

We will advance chronologically to the end of the twenties of the second century AD, two or three years before the outbreak of the rebellion, and we will be exposed to a series of events that indicate a tense atmosphere of a pre-rebellion. These are reflected in the literature of the Sages, about groups of listists (a technical term that stands out in the writings of Yosef ben Mattathias and aimed at fanatics-rebels) and local-popular-family provocations, who took advantage of such and such acts of Romans to bring about the miracle of the rebellion. There is also evidence of The reinforcement of the Roman forces in the province of Judaea, probably on the basis of a pre-rebellion atmosphere.

And what about the reasons for the outbreak of the rebellion? The sources know how to tell about the first motive which is a Roman decree against the word. This is a problematic instruction, both with regard to the wording of Roman sources and even the literature of sages, both in contrast to the position and character of the emperor, and due to the uncertainty of whether this is an interpretation of the Roman commissioner and whether the decree only concerns those who practice witchcraft, or whether it concerns castration at all, and perhaps -Perhaps this is not a cause of the rebellion but rather the result of Roman punishment. Either way the rebellion broke out in some connection to this decree.
The second motive concerns the same Hadrian enterprise of establishing Jerusalem as Ilia Capitolina, and even though the non-Jewish sources differ, whether the Ilia Capitolina phenomenon is the cause of the rebellion or its result, the numismatic, mint find of Ilia Capitolina coins together with the collection of rebellion coins in Jerusalem, proves that indeed the city It was built, or at least planned to be built and in advanced stages of execution, before the outbreak of the rebellion.

It is common to see Ben Kosba as the sole, undisputed leader of the rebellion. Was it really so?
Well, the literature of the Sages connects the beginning of the outbreak of the rebellion with stories of a legendary nature about local leaders who attacked after provocations by Roman forces. Among them Ben Kuseva is not mentioned, but an anonymous pair of brothers, a group of revelers related to a casual family and a figure called "Bar Droma" (Ben HaDrom or Ben Ha'Romai), in whom the literature of the Sages ascribes acts of heroism and great physical strength (reminiscent not a little of the heroes of the rebellion the great Eliba Diosef ben Matatiyo).

Ben Kusava appears in the sources later, and he probably takes the leadership of the rebellion.

It is not in the interest of this list to go into the issue of the leadership of the rebellion separately from the priesthood, but that exemption for nothing is impossible (and I may have time to publish an article on this in the future). The character of Ben Khosva raises many questions, especially regarding the degree of support or reservations the members of the Sanhedrin showed towards him (more on that later), regarding his messiahship and his attitude towards his subordinates. In any case, and here I would like to emphasize an issue that was omitted from the research and the national historical memory (and it is very clear why), and that is - the absence of his military function. We would expect from someone who is credited with a stubborn and troublesome rebellion against the Romans, that this would be reflected in the literature of the Sages, and this one, for her reasons (and more on that later) is silent. Naha, but what about Ben Kusava's fees? Neither its kind nor its parts. Here we would really expect an abundance of information regarding his military management. And it turns out that there is not even the slightest hint that he wrote and signed all One by one, about military moves, military plans, combat instructions and more like that.

On the other hand, what do we find in his letters? Real estate management for anything and everything, such as selling a field, buying a field, selling agricultural products, crates and leases, and more of this kind. In other words, the fees show a "not-so-patriotic" picture of a prince or prince who owns estates who cares about the safety of his property, and that's fine. Finished, except that this character completely neutralizes the mythological image that stuck/was stuck to the condemned leader throughout history, and this for reasons of mobilization nationalist-nationalist, but it is not the interest of this list to present and develop.

Even from his coins there is not even a hint about the connection between Ben Kusva and military activity, and after all it is about a rebellion and not about diplomatic moves of one kind or another. Indeed, this is very puzzling, and perhaps indicates that in fact the dimensions of the rebellion, if there was one at all, were miniature, lest they amount to sporadic guerilla operations.

How, then, does Ben Kusva relate to the subject of the priesthood? We will discuss this in the next chapter.

The series of articles "The Priesthood You Didn't Know" by Dr. Yechiam Sorek

 

Comments

  1. All those interested in new ideas about the period of the Bar-Kochva rebellion are invited to review the book "The Man Behind L.G. Ba'omer", published by "Mandali Electronic Books". the hebrew

  2. Is it possible to purchase the book on the subject of Dr. Yitzhak Eshel, if one has been published?

  3. The period of the Bar Kochba rebellion does not have an important historian, such as Yosef ben Matityahu. The writings of Josephus describe the Second Temple period in an amazing way. This despite the "censorship" of the emperors' family, the family of Flavius. But the rebellion of Bar Kochba, or Khosba happened in the years 132-135. Nevertheless, there are very important details that are known. And in your article you do not mention them. For example, the emperor Andrianus, whether under the influence of the Samaritans or not??? decided to establish Elia Capitolina on the Temple Mount. And this was the main reason for the rebellion. The moderation shown by the leaders of the Jews, during Andrianus's visit to Israel, resulted as part of the surprise tactic, which was largely successful. It must be remembered that in the first three years the Romans were defeated. Then the minister of the army, Julius Severius, was sent from his place in Brittany. with many legions and the best Roman forces. According to the Talmud, the results of the revolt were a disaster on a huge scale, and this event should be compared to the holocaust of European Jews in the 20th century. The almost complete extermination of the Jews "Province of Judea" (except for the Jews of the Galilee) Annexation to Syria is "Syria-Palestine"
    But Ben Kusiba should not be underestimated as a military leader. For even in the writings of the Romans it is evident that the war exacted a very heavy price from the legions - despite the overwhelming victory.

  4. To Dr. Yehiam Sorek. I don't know you personally, but I remember your short article in Haaretz a few years ago about the occupation of the land and Yehoshua ben Nun, I combined its main points in an article I prepared and which has not yet been published on the fascinating subject (see the opening of the article if it will be able to enter after my words).

    I enjoyed quickly reading some of your recent discussions today, about which I admit I had no idea and that is solely my fault. This is thanks to one of the surfers of the forum on antiques and ancient coins on the Koklet website, who is identified by us as Yohanan Hasendler. He directed the attention of our surfers to the science website and your articles. You are invited to look at our discussions and dozens of drafts for the article of my announcement about the important material that will probably be published early next year (note that they are not really up-to-date compared to what was planned after they were presented in the collection). All about a topic quite close to the topic to which you dedicated your last articles here:

    Shimon the President of Israel, known from the Dead Sea Epistles as Shimon bar Kuzba or Koziba, and known to us today much better by his name that preceded his becoming the President of Israel: Shimon ben Koziba (that is, from the city/village of Koziba, it is the Palestinian Koziba nowadays, between Ma'on and Herodion on the border of the desert).

    I cannot extend one comment on your words. They are especially important because of your reference to the Jewish sources (Sages). But for me it is about the other side of the coin: the collection of documents from the war archive of Shimon the President, which luckily survived in the thick of the elaborate concealment system of his mishnu for the organization and financing of the war, Hillel/Halil ben Gris of Meir Nehushtra, also known From some land lease contracts kept by wealthy land lessees or their heirs, in the desert refugee caves Yehuda (mainly in Wadi Morba'at, Nahal Tzalim and Nahal Heber). He appears in them as Hillel ben Gris from Meir Nachsh (in Aramaic) = city of copper.

    Therefore, I will allow myself only a few comments about your words:

    The Bar Kochba War (hereafter BK), was neither a rebellion nor a spontaneous one like its predecessors, and this is only one difference compared to its predecessor, which excelled in disputes and bloody rivalries until its last moments while the Temple was going up in flames. BK had strict, absolute and supremely orderly organization and control and iron discipline Only a few dared to think and violate. He pathologically avoids creating the possibility of internal disputes or fraternal wars.

    His name Bar Kusaba is only one of the versions (in Aramaic) from the Dead Sea documents. You mentioned that he also appears as such on his coins, which are all in Hebrew. This coin is not remembered in all the publications and in more than 100 series of the war coins that survived in the mint archive of the Gris family in the city of Nehushtra (researched by me at the same time as the archive documents). If it is found in them, it is of course an important innovation, at least for me, and it would be worthwhile to point out its source.

    Shimon's occupations were not mainly the leasing of lands that came under his control from the administration of the Roman emperor (not all of them!) but mainly in planning, organization, management and brave personal participation in his fighting in the war: since the preparations for it for two years (130-132 AD), in the liberation of Jerusalem by One of his two divisions at that time first on the eve of Rosh Hashanah in the year 132 and especially in the completion of his main task, because of which he was sent by the priests of the Zadok family in his city of Koziva to the Temple Mount (headed by Avraham ben Levi ben Zadok, the old high priest who died after the liberation of the Temple Mount in one year). There is much documentation of hundreds of documents on the continuation of the organization of the army and the administration in one year (including the construction of his country palace opposite the Temple Mount), the battles in the south against Roman reinforcements (of the XXII Legion?) in the beginning of the year two (in which he did not participate himself) and on and on, until his death In the year 136, he took care of many personal and public issues and took complete responsibility for all the inhabitants of Judah and the people of Israel. He took their daughter Samha Bat Hillel as his second wife At the beginning of the year three, as well as the families of many of his warriors and the other families from the villages of his people were recorded in the archive (more than 200 families), and mentions in the certificates more than 500 names of his soldiers and their families who are relevant to the war effort.

    The claim that he was one of the harassers of the land lessees is based on the random information from those few lease contracts from the Dead Sea (tens), but it is far from the correct situation. Among other things, those who were involved in leasing his lands and their own lands were his senior representatives, some of whom are mentioned in the Dead Sea certificates, including, as mentioned, Hillel ben Gris, who engaged in this in addition to his many other duties, being Shimon's assistant and the owner of the most important mint that produced for him shekels/rocks, zozes and copper coins during all 4 years of the war and also After his death (for example several series of silver and copper memorial medallions for the dead Shimon).

    The material is abundant and important like no other. I have been working on it in recent years after a request from the Antiquities Authority. You can read the first line of conclusions that emerged from it, as mentioned in what I also posted on our forum in Collect (under the name Abu Shams).

    Best regards,

    Dr. Yitzhak Eshel, archaeologist.
    These words are being sent again since I am not sure they were sent to the forum in the first attempt.

    In blood and fire - Joshua the conqueror

    "The new historians seek to sever the historical connection of the people of Israel to their country and use the Bible as a sword. What was not found (allegedly) in the excavations - did not exist. In their opinion, the people of Israel were a small tribe with a bigotry complex" (Yoram Kaniuk: "And everything was created with words", "7 Days" supplement, Yedioth, 23.11.2007/XNUMX/XNUMX).

    And adds in a similar context the historian Yehiam Sorek from Beit Berel: "Yehoshua waged, according to the Bible, fierce battles against the local residents: he expelled some of them, destroyed some of them and saved some of them. He waved the flag according to the verse: 'Every place on which you set foot, I have given it to you' (Joshua 2:6). In fact, he is the father of the settlers' ancestors ('For you will settle this people', Joshua 40: 24.1.06, by God's commandment) he mourned for Jericho, destroyed it and burned it to the ground, and so he did towards the fortress of Ai. Let there be no misunderstanding here - Joshua appears As the conqueror of Amoni, who returns his plundered property to the people, even though historically no Hebrews lived here, nor did the inhabitants of Ai exterminate him, and he looted their agricultural property and turned the Gibeonites into hewers of wood and water , also Lachish, also Gezer, both Dvir and Hebron (where they did not leave a single remnant One for healing, not an old man, not a woman, not a boy, not a baby girl). Finally, "Yoshua smote the whole land, the mountain and the Negev and the lowlands and all their kings, he did not leave a remnant" (Yoshua XNUMX:XNUMX, Ma'ariv, XNUMX).

    As mentioned, even the summary of the opinion of Dr. Shurk who searched for the biblical model for the religious concept of the Hebron settlers (who according to him are working according to the model of Joshua) and found it in the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and his warriors about 3000 years ago, did not cause him to doubt the historical foundation Inherent in the stories of Joshua's conquest, not so the version of archaeologists and historians Broshi and his friends of the view, who completely disagree on the reliability of the historical foundation in the biblical version of the "genocidal" conquest of Western Israel by Joshua:

    ..."Here is the place to warn all those who are sensitive who felt discomfort from the shameful actions of our ancestors: those shocking stories of the book of Joshua are nothing but a late invention. (Joshua and the Israelites) the conquerors of Canaan, did not commit genocide at all and did not beat people, women and children with the sword The cities were not destroyed, because the cities that were supposed to be destroyed like Jericho were not inhabited at all (at that time). We (the archaeologists) already know that the conquest of Israel was mainly peaceful (since) the mountain valley, from the Jezreel Valley to the Negev, was almost uninhabited during the (conquest, at the end of) the Late Bronze Age"...
    (Magan Brushi in the book review section, supplement to "Tarbut and Literature", "Haaretz", 4.11.2005).

  5. Hello, my name is Gal
    I am writing a research paper on the subject of Bar Kochba and comparing it to the Hatzel rebellion in the British.
    I would be happy to conduct a short interview with you on the subject.
    I would love to receive your contact information.

    Thank you

    wave

  6. Rabbi Akiva led the community in Bnei Brak after the ousting of the Rebbe of Yavneh, around the year 80. A few years later, Rabbi Akiva moved his center to Shefalat Lod.

  7. Doctor Whistles:
    There is a small mistake in your article - Rabbi Akiva was not in Lod but in Bnei Brak. "Tano Rabban: Tzedek Tzedek shall pursue, he followed the sages to the yeshiva: after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai to find strength, after Rabbi Yehoshua to Paki'in, after Rabbi Gamaliel Libna, after Rabbi Akiva to Bnei Brak, after Rabbi Matia to Rumi, etc." (Sanhedrin Lev)

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.