The previous list "stuck" us on the question of renewing the temple and the thawing of the relationship between the presidency and the priesthood and the current one will examine the continuation of the conduct according to the policy and status of Rabbi Gamliel.

and how?
First - she manages the genealogy books of her families and especially of her shifts.
Second - it continues to follow the same customs that characterized it until the Holocaust, such as special consecration laws, holding hands in blessing, and more.
Third - she continues to forcefully demand the fulfillment of the Jewish society's obligations towards her, as if the temple had not been destroyed, and especially the collection of the donation. The donation, which according to the Bible has no rate or measure, is sacred and only pure priests and their household are allowed to eat it. However, in the Mishnah, the amount of the donation is listed, and it is divided in a match between Beit Shamai (which claims a relatively large amount) and Beit Hillel (which reduces the amount). The mishna also knows how to tell about priests who came to the granat and there the donation was set aside and distributed to them. The contribution was set aside from the dry grain, legumes and other fruits and also from the wine and oil.
Moreover, priests after the destruction continued to follow special consecration laws, continued to raise their hands in blessing, could collect a donation, challah, the firstborn of an animal and the redemption of the son, the beginning of the gas.
But... these did not take into account that in front of them stands a strong president with strong governmental partisanship who sees the priesthood and its wishes as a danger that threatens his position, and indeed while President Raban Gamaliel's power is growing he is getting into trouble with a group of Sanhedrin members on various issues, among them the status of the priesthood and the priests and for example the relationship between a priest and a priest with the land In this regard, the Babylonian Talmud expands the veil in Tractate Bekorot and develops the subject in the context of the endless debates, the subject of which are quite a few power struggles between the president and Rabbi Yehoshua. Well, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, there is a difference between a fellow priest and a priest with the land, while the president had the opposite position. When this position of Rabbi Yehoshua became known, Rabbi Gamliel decided to lay a trap for him and publicly humiliate him. This was forged in the Sanhedrin, as a Beit Midrash, when Rabbi Gamliel bothered to bring up the aforementioned controversial matter for discussion. Rabbi Yehoshua realized that he was standing on the brink of a trap and stated, similar to the president's position, that there is no difference between a priest who is a friend and a priest with the country. The president insisted and introduced Rabbi Yehoshua As a liar, he whitened his face in public and was even punished with humiliating corporal punishment - to stand while the other members sat in their seats.
This case was repeated and even more so in the controversy surrounding the question: Is evening prayer a permission or an obligation. Rabbi Gamliel intended to repeat his humiliating and punishing stance towards Rabbi Yehoshua, but this time the sages of the Sanhedrin stood on their feet, literally, and decided to rebel against the president and depose him.
Before we explain the matter of the rebellion, we should point out that the tensions between Rabbi Yehoshua and the president probably also reflected a political dimension. Rabbi Yehoshua had connections with the Roman authorities and in general he was considered an "ascholastica daurieta", that is, the philosopher of the Torah in the words of the Sages. In later sources Rabbi Yehoshua is mentioned as the one who socialized with the emperor Hadrian and even managed Rabbi Yehoshua's status and his connections with the authorities were appalling in the eyes of the president, who perhaps felt a little threatened by his "back", and therefore took advantage of every opportunity to come to terms with Oppositionist Rabbi Yehoshua.
And back to the confrontation. The members of the Sanhedrin decided to teach the president a lesson and kicked his status and position. In this regard, the various researchers disagree whether the president was removed from all his powers, and in any case, for a fixed period, or whether he lost only a part of his powers. Either way, the step taken was bold and unprecedented and the question that arose then was - who will stand in the place of the president. The first of the candidates was Rabbi Yehoshua, but his candidacy was disqualified because he was a "baal ma'ase", that is, a party to a conflict and argument, and the above step may be interpreted as a conspiracy on his face. Rabbi Akiva's column was also rejected and the third in line was Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria who was proposed because of his wisdom, wealth, His connections with the authorities and especially over his being a priest, and the whole affair, to mention, exploded because of the question involving the priesthood.
This earthquake - the ouster of a sitting president, considered an unprecedented event by any measure - certainly affected the Jewish diaspora, and indeed we hear of a certain attempt to develop some kind of infrastructure in the city of Rome by the leadership of the local Jewish community, led by Matthias, a Roman, to renew, no less, no more, the building The temple, and where? in the city of Rome. Knowing this, representatives from Judea were immediately sent to Rome, not by the president but at the initiative of the leadership of the members of the Sanhedrin, since Hela had been deposed in the meantime, and threatened the "Branesh", that he might find himself ostracized and banned altogether.
We do not know when the president returned to office. In any case, he died during the Jewish revolt against the Hellenistic and Roman world, which became known as the "diaspora revolt against the emperor Trianus" (117-114 CE). It was a rebellion that began almost simultaneously in Egypt and Kyrenia and spread a little westward, it was also conducted in Cyprus and Mesopotamia and perhaps also in Judea, where it was nicknamed the "Quitos polemic".
During the rebellion, as mentioned, Rabbi Gamliel died and was succeeded by Rabbi Tarpon who was a priest and was nicknamed "Rabbi of all Israel", or "Father of all Israel" (the title "Rabbi", it should be noted, was the title of the president).
In Egypt and Kyrenia, the rebellion took on very strong religious-ritual dimensions, when Hellenistic and Roman temples were destroyed and burned by the rebels. Was there any connection between the removal of the president from his term of office and ritualistic, and perhaps pre-temple, attempts that were linked to the rebellion (and let's not forget that behind the rebellion were fanatical, messianic elements who at the time fled from Judah during the rebellion the great), one cannot know for sure, although this is not far from a logical conclusion. In any case, it should be noted that the rebellion in Egypt ends with the tragic destruction of the synagogue in Alexandria, which resembled, of course, a temple, "like a large bassilki ... and seventy golden cathedrals there..." (Talmud Yerushalmi Sukkah, Chapter 5 Noah, p. 2) and from this, this event was to strengthen, theoretically only, the principle of the option of establishing the temple in Jerusalem for later.
During the rebellion, sage sources tell of two brothers, Pappus and Lulianus, who were captured in Laodicea (then Laodicea, today's Latakia) and killed by Trianus (probably on his orders). Sounds rebellious? Certainly, but on what background? The sources allude to and simulate the two To Daniel's legendary husbands.
To shed light on the parasha we look at another source - in Midrash Beresheet Rabbah and this is how it opens: "In the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, a royal decree was made that the Temple should be built." Mentioning the name of Rabbi Yehoshua brings us chronologically to the period of the rebellion, but what is the temple doing here and more with royal approval, that is, Rome? The continuation removes some shadows in this regard: "Peppus and Lulianus set up trapezines (money-changing booths) from Acre to Antiochia (Antioch) and were sufficient (supplied) for the exiled pilgrims." The two brothers therefore initiated a tremendous enterprise of pilgrimage and sending donations to the temple that was being built. So why were the brothers killed? We will continue and read.
Immediately afterwards, the source mentions the project of building the second temple by the captives of Zion following the declaration of Cyrus and how the Koths (Samaritans) tried to disrupt the building of the temple, and this in order to unite the two stories.
On the face of it, the interpretation of the complex event appears to be as follows: an unprecedented initiative was carried out, and perhaps against the background of attempts outside of Judah, to restore the temple, which was originally perceived as Roman approval (similar to the declaration of Cyrus), when behind the operation was probably President Raban Gamaliel, or perhaps his successor after the impeachment, the priest Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, who will be remembered in connection with the temple restoration plan by ben Khosva (Bar Kochva) years later. This move was undoubtedly seen as a rebellious step by the Romans, since its destruction symbolized Jupiter's victory over Jehovah. The Roman resistance caused bitter disappointment among the Jewish public, and as a result a physical attempt was made to initiate a revolt, and those who paid the price were, as mentioned above, Pappus and Lulianus.
The same source tells about the initiative as follows - "Huwen Kahaliya Mezmatin in Hada in Keata Davit Rimon. His purpose was as Biya Sharon Bekein. Baain to rebel against Malkhuta." That is, congregations gathered in the valley of Beit Rimon (probably between the valley and the lower Galilee), and when they arrived at the gates of Rome (with the prohibition to build the temple in their hands), the public burst into tears and asked to rebel against the kingdom (the Roman Empire). But the public was apparently attacked by sufficiency and controversy, and therefore the voice was heard: "Yeol Had bar-nesh hakim and sdach kibara. Saying: Yaeol Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, he is an escholastika dauriita." That would be - (he will be honored) (and) one wise person will come to calm the public down. And the voice was heard: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah will rise and come, because he is the philosopher of the Torah. Rabbi Yehoshua brought before the public the well-known Aesopian parable about the lion that ate prey and a bone stuck in his throat, and he could not swallow or vomit. A fowl with a long beak (say a stork or a crane) happened to be there and pulled the bone from the throat of the king of beasts. The chicken asked for the reward it deserved. And then the lion answered him: Go and tell everyone that you entered the lion's mouth safely and left it safely, and this is your true reward! "... This is how we judged" - concludes the source in the words of Rabbi Yehoshua - "that we entered this nation (Rome) in peace, and we left (it) in peace!" (Beresheet Rabba, Sed, 8). That is, you were on the verge of rebellion and you did not get involved in one more, destructive, catastrophic step, or perhaps - once you rebelled and were badly burned but we forgive you. Stop as long as possible!
So what did we have? An attempt to build the temple (perhaps at the initiative of Rabbi Gamaliel or the group that deposed him) and to provoke a great pilgrimage and an influx of funds to the expected temple, all during the diaspora revolt against Trianus. Rabbi Yehoshua, the oppositionist of the president, woke up, realized the dangers involved in revolting the Romans and calmed the public down.
Beyond the danger of the harsh reaction that was expected from the Romans, Rabbi Yehoshua here represents the new Pharisee position after the destruction - to compromise with the Romans on a pragmatic basis and not to sink into messianic dreams about the restoration of the temple and with it the renewal of the status of the priesthood, the junior and the senior together. This was an antagonistic position to extremist, somewhat delusional elements such as Rabbi Akiva. And why a new Pharisee position? Because until the destruction Phariseeism was portrayed as hawkish, anti-Roman. This position is also fueled by the continuation of the mythological conflict with the sect of the Sadducees, the priests, who never stopped dreaming of establishing the temple and restoring its glory, including - strengthening their position.
The last source discussed above, which is problematic by all accounts, will bring us to study the climax episode of the entire current series and it is - the plan to renew the temple and the priesthood as an integral part of the rebellion of Ben Khosva and more on that later.
The series of articles "The Priesthood You Didn't Know" by Dr. Yechiam Sorek
- Part I - the end of the First Temple and the exile in Babylon
- Part II - Return to Zion
- Part III - The Hellenistic period
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood in Marumiya
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood makes muscles
- Part XNUMX - Matthew turns over in his grave
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood begins to lose height
- Part VIII - The reign of Hyrcanus
- Part IX - Herod stirs up the priesthood
- Part XNUMX - The Priesthood and the Christian Jesus
- Part XNUMX - There is life after Herod
- Part XNUMX - The priesthood deals with clothes
- Part XNUMX - Bureau for Exposing Corruption
- Chapter 14 - The Priesthood in Mi Bemol
- Chapter XNUMX - The priesthood in the worship of the sun and the war cheer
- Chapter XNUMX - Going to fight the Romans
- Chapter XNUMX - The Great Rebellion and the Priesthood
- Chapter XNUMX - A total mess in Jerusalem
- Chapter XNUMX - to the places, the school, get out!
- Chapter XNUMX - One righteous man in Sodom
- Chapter XNUMX - What is in the scrolls?
- Chapter 22 - So where is the priesthood?
- Chapter 23 - Restoring Ataret to its old age
7 תגובות
Dear Friends
Historical studies do not have any messages, since every event, occurrence, circumstantial unfolding, etc., are ultimately unique to a certain period and a certain site. Historical studies seek to remove as many shadows as possible from completely or partially unknown historical event patterns.
I very much agree with the statement that history teaches that one should not learn from history and it is even dangerous to do so.
Also, even though thousands of years have passed since the events in question regarding the Second Temple period, we have remained almost as we were, for our multitude of virtues, our faults, our strengths and weaknesses, our tricks and tricks, or as the saying goes, a person is a person is a person.
In this series of articles on the High Priesthood, one can be extracted from one summary statement - even in the holy place (even though we have been accustomed and instilled that in the miraculous from you do not inquire), and perhaps especially in her, due to her leadership and connection to capital/government, terrible plagues were inflicted, and while she was a raider, seemingly only, Her crowns, media and ornaments, would be revealed in all her ugliness, and perhaps it is better to say - in all the naturalness of leadership.
Say - you reinvented the wheel! No and no - the relationship between capital and government passes through thousands of years of history, especially when it comes to religious-ritual leadership, since the sacred relationship gives, especially in the ancient era, perfect confidentiality to all those who do the craft, and to a certain extent even in our days.
The government may change a person's mind, especially when it comes to full religious leadership, since in the beginning man created God in his image and likeness.
I don't know what either.
But when it comes to the matters of the soul, intellectual materialists and spirit..they return to the same hysterical (historical) point when they step on their tails..
And yet there are teachings of warfare, priesthood and control taught to varying degrees.
Technology as a whole has made it possible for those public and personal aggressions to be upgraded to a global recycling bin..
The Jew at least tends to blame himself. More precisely, to lose himself to the point of unconsciousness:) What's wrong with Gentiles?
Dr. Sorek:
Out of all your many articles, is there some gist of a message you're trying to convey that we haven't understood?
I don't know what..but it seems to me that of all the information, what went wrong...I see more and more how the differences between then and now are just technology...
that really people are people and history always repeats itself (at least with the Jewish people) .. this is indeed a true thing...
in their opinion
The Pharisee position from the beginning was more liberal, more than the Sadducean position, but after the rebellion a more hawkish position took shape among the Pharisees. Ribaz was not smuggled out in order to make peace, but to surrender to the Romans on favorable terms.
His position was pragmatic, as were most presidents in the period after the Holocaust. These understood that any conflict with the Romans would grow another and possibly malignant scar on the body of Jewish society.
An interesting detail in this story, which shows that in this period, there was no deportation for the exile, as is customary in our culture. Rather, a parallel establishment of many Jewish communities in the diaspora (Alexandria, Cyprus, etc.) powerful enough to raise funds to build a new temple, and to rebel against Rome!! With a strong connection to Judaism and the Sandrine in Israel.. in which many converts (with Halenst names) and this many years after the Holocaust...
Very confused article
So what was the position of the Pharisee Nitzit or like the position of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakhai who was smuggled out of the siege in order to make peace?